HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100267 HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2010-03
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT#1717 FOR A KENNEL (UP TO SEVEN [7] DOGS, THREE [3] CATS, AND [3]
BIRDS) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - SANDRA RAKOWSKI
A public hearing was conducted on February 17, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long - EXCUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Michelle Martin
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
Public Works representative, Heidi Hansen
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated January 11, 2010, and duly published
January 14, 2010, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the
request of Sandra Rakowski for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review
Permit #1717 for a Kennel (up to seven [7] dogs, three [3] cats, and [3] birds) in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Chair Rademacher advised the applicant, Sandra Rakowski, that she has the option of
continuing the matter to a date when the full Board will be present. However, if she decides to
proceed today, the matter will require three affirmative votes, or in the case of a tie vote,
Commissioner Long will review the record and make the determining vote. Ms. Rakowski
indicated she would like to proceed today.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal
and entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as
written. She stated the site is located north of County Road 18 and 1,100 feet east of County
Road 23. She indicated the surrounding properties are agricultural in nature, with several
single-family residences in close proximity. She indicated there are two gravel operations
located to the east of the site, and she reviewed the uses of the USR permits within the
surrounding area. She confirmed the site is located within the three-mile referral area for the
City of Fort Lupton; however, the City did not provide a referral response. She indicated the
property is currently in violation of the Weld County Code, due to the excess number of
household pets, and the violation will be closed if this USR permit is approved. If the USR
permit is denied, the violation case will be forwarded to the County Attorney, with a delay of
legal action for 30 days. She clarified the file contains three letters of opposition from
surrounding property owners, and nine letters of support from friends and family of the
applicant. Ms. Martin displayed photographs of the site and surrounding area, and in response
2010-0267
PL2041
('C '. /L /9W /it �3/O 5/t o
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SANDRA RAKOWSKI (USR #1717)
PAGE 2
to Chair Rademacher, she confirmed the residence directly east of the applicant's property does
contain a privacy fence; however, it is not of extended length. Responding to Commissioner
Garcia, Ms. Martin confirmed the applicant's property is 3.25 acres in size, and there are three
horses kept on the property as well. She clarified the Weld County Code allows for up to four
animal units per acre, for animals considered to be livestock, within the A (Agricultural) Zone
District. She further clarified the applicant applied for this USR permit because the
domestic/household animals exceed the limits set forth in the Code. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Martin clarified cats are classified as a household pet, with a maximum of four
per household, and a property owner is allowed to have up to 30 birds, as long as the
appropriate breeder's license is obtained. She further clarified the Code does not specify an
allowable number of birds within a residence if the property owner does not have a license. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Martin indicated the violation process was initiated by
a complaint, and the applicant's residence is in very close proximity to the residence to the east.
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works, stated County Road 18 is classified as a collector
road, requiring 80 feet of right-of-way at full buildout, and the road currently contains 60 feet of
right-of-way. She indicated the most recent traffic count indicates approximately 1,612 vehicles
utilize the road on a daily basis, and the applicant will continue to use the existing paved access
to the residence. She clarified the kennel will only be utilized by the applicant; therefore, a
water quality feature was not required for the site, and the property is not located within a
floodplain.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated water is provided to the site
from an individual well, and as long as the applicant does not have customers or employees at
the site, the well permit is adequate. She indicated the residence contains a permitted septic
system, and a review of the system will not be required since there will be no additional flow or
use of the system. She confirmed the applicant did submit the required Waste Handling Plan;
however, a Dust Abatement Plan will not be required. She indicated the noise at the site is
restricted to the levels allowed within the Residential Zone District.
Ms. Rakowski clarified she does not have any plans to operate a commercial kennel, rather, she
is applying for the permit so that she is allowed to keep the five dogs she currently has. She
confirmed the only people living in the residence are her fiancé and herself. In response to
Chair Rademacher, Ms. Rakowski reiterated that she currently only has five dogs; however, in
order to be able to keep all of the dogs, staff advised her to apply for a kennel license since the
total number of dogs allowed by right is four (4). She confirmed the dogs do not cause
problems and several relatives have written letters for the record indicating that the dogs are not
vicious or bothersome. She reiterated she has no intention of starting a kennel operation or
business. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Rakowski indicated the application
materials request a total of seven (7) dogs so that she won't be found out of compliance if family
members bring their dogs and come over to visit. Further responding to Commissioner Garcia,
Ms. Rakowski confirmed she does not expect to expand the number of animals in the future,
and there cannot be a future litter of any breed because all of her pets have been fixed.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the file contains letters from surrounding property owners who
indicate that there are problems with the dogs barking. Ms. Rakowski clarified all of the dogs
2010-0267
PL2041
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SANDRA RAKOWSKI (USR #1717)
PAGE 3
now have bark collars, to discourage barking, and the dogs wear the collars anytime she is not
at home. She indicated the dogs do listen and obey when she quiets them, and do not
incessantly bark. She confirmed the dogs bark when people come to the property, to let her
know someone else is present; however, the dogs are never threatening to company coming to
her residence. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Rakowski indicated the breed of her
dogs are golden retriever, cocker spaniel, and beagle.
Tom Bornhoft, surrounding property owner, confirmed he owns the residence directly adjacent
to the applicant's residence, and only a driveway separates the two properties. He indicated the
applicant's dogs are inside her residence a majority of the time; however, when the dogs are
outside in the yard, they bark. He indicated there are times when the dogs bark incessantly,
and it is not possible for him to be able to work in his yard since the dogs jump anxiously at the
fence. He stated he tried to visit with a neighbor in his yard; however, the applicant's dogs were
acting obnoxious, and it was impossible to hold a conversation. He reiterated the barking of the
dogs is his main complaint, and he desires to get along with his neighbors; however, he cannot
deal with the constant barking from the dogs. He clarified he also owns a dog, and his dog does
bark when people pull into his property, and he understands that is the nature of a dog. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Bornhoft indicated he was not able to be present at
the Planning Commission hearing because he was out of town at that time. He expressed his
belief that the applicant should adhere to the guideline of only having four dogs within the
residence, and not obtain a permit for the operation of a kennel so that additional dogs are
allowed on the site. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Bornhoft confirmed he has
engaged in several conversations with the applicant regarding the dogs, and the barking
situation has subsided a bit since that time. He clarified he was not the property owner who
lodged the complaint which initiated the violation process for the applicant. He expressed his
frustration regarding a previous situation in which his property contained too many cattle and he
had to get rid of some to come into compliance for his property. He indicated he is providing
testimony at today's hearing because it's only fair for the applicant to follow the same rules.
Dean Sandstead, surrounding property owner, indicated his property is located to the south of
the applicant's residence, and he confirmed the dogs tend to bark on frequent occasion. He
clarified he is not able to hear as much of the barking as Mr. Bornhoft does, since his residence
is farther away, but the barking is very noticeable at Mr. Bornhoft's residence. He indicated he
was informed by the applicant on February 3, 2010, that a kennel operation would not be buildt
on the site; rather, the applicant was seeking permission to be able to keep her five dogs. He
stated he reviewed the application materials on the website, and decided it appeared as if the
applicant was indeed applying for a kennel, therefore, he is confused. He further stated the
applicant provided testimony today that she only intends to have five dogs on the property;
however, the five dogs already on the site are the source of the barking problems. In response
to Mr. Sandstead, Mr. Barker clarified dogs are exempted from the noise ordinance within the
A (Agricultural) Zone District. Commissioner Conway clarified Ms. Rakowski has completed the
application materials for a kennel; however, she will only be allowed to have seven dogs on-site
at any given time. He further clarified Ms. Rakowski has confirmed that she will not add any
dogs to her current number. Mr. Sandstead indicated he believes the applicant should be
restricted to four dogs, as the Code states, especially since the barking dogs are causing a
2010-0267
PL2041
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SANDRA RAKOWSKI (USR #1717)
PAGE 4
nuisance. Commissioner Conway expressed his appreciation to Mr. Sandstead for his
comments.
Rudy Camarillo, co-applicant, confirmed he lives in the residence with Ms. Rakowski, and he
clarified the distance between the two residences is a total of 80 feet. He reiterated there are
five dogs which live within the residence, and the allowance of seven dogs within the permit will
allow for friends and family to visit the site with up to two additional dogs, without violating the
permit. He clarified, due to the size of the property, it would be allowed for the property to
contain up to thirteen (13) large animals, such as cattle and livestock; however, there are only
three horses on the site. He reiterated the number of dogs living on the site full-time will not
increase, and Ms. Rakowski would like to be able to keep all of her animals and not be out of
compliance with the Code. Mr. Camarillo indicated he knows the dogs occasionally bark, and
there have been several occasions in which the dogs have alerted him as to when people were
present on the neighbor's property, which he believes is a good thing. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Camarillo confirmed the dogs are mostly kept inside; however, there is a dog
door for access to outside which is utilized by the dogs during the nighttime hours. He indicated
the dogs do not bark during nighttime hours unless they hear something suspicious happening.
He stated the dogs have the ability to be either inside or outside during the day, and the
property does contain a privacy fence; however, the screening on the site will be improved in
the near future. He further stated the bark collars have recently been put into use, and he is
committed to making sure the dogs do no cause a major nuisance for the neighbors. In
response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Light confirmed the noise standards are addressed
within Development Standard #9, and the level of 55 decibels is comparable to light auto traffic,
or the sound of an air conditioning unit at a distance of 20 feet. Further responding to
Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Light confirmed if a neighbor relays a noise complaint to the
Department, a staff member will visit the site to take a decibel reading and investigate the
complaint. Mr. Camarillo clarified the Code indicates the noise must be continuing for a period
of fifteen (15) minutes or more, not intermittently.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Rakowski indicated she has reviewed, and concurs with,
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as presented.
Commissioner Garcia expressed his appreciation to Mr. Camarillo for his clarification of the
allowed animal units for the property. He stated these two residences, in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District, are in very close proximity, which produces the chance for disputes. He further
stated it is unfortunate that the extra calves owned by Mr. Bornhoft could not remain on his
property. He indicated the noise level is restricted to the levels allowed within the Residential
Zone District, which is a tolerable restriction, due to the proximity of the two residences. He
stated it is unfortunate that Ms. Rakowski had to complete the entire USR application process to
be allowed to keep one extra dog on her property; however, staff is required to apply the rules
contained within the Weld County Code in a responsible manner.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she understands that Mr. Sandstead would prefer for the
applicant to only keep four dogs; however, instances like this are why a permit process was
created, to allow certain exceptions while the property owner remains in compliance. She
confirmed the applicant is now subject to additional conditions and standards because she
2010-0267
PL2041
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SANDRA RAKOWSKI (USR #1717)
PAGE 5
chose to be able to keep an extra dog. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she lives within a
rural area with kennels in close proximity, and she understands that the noise from barking dogs
is incredibly annoying. She stated the use of the bark collars on the dogs is a good idea, and
she urged Ms. Rakoswki to continue to work with her neighbors to resolve any other concerns.
Commissioner Conway indicated he concurs with Commissioners Garcia and Kirkmeyer, and he
fully understands the annoyance of barking dogs. He confirmed the applicant has undergone
an expensive and time-consuming application process, allowed within the Code, and the
applicant is following the steps she was instructed in order to remedy the violation. He
requested that the neighbors work together by being considerate of each other, and working to
curb the barking.
Chair Rademacher indicated Ms. Rakowski must really love her dogs to undergo this application
process to be able to keep one extra dog in her residence, and he commended her for her
dedication and passion. He clarified he lives on a farm and has two dogs, blue heelers, and he
understands the annoyance of dogs barking because one of his dogs barks incessantly. He
indicated he supports the application.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the request of Sandra Rakowski for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1717 for a Kennel (up to seven [7] dogs,
three [3] cats, and [3] birds) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the recommendations
of Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards as entered into the record. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and it carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the
hearing was completed at 11:05 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 22nd day of February, 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: . ' v ., - "t ,�; NCvV <, .1 G/
1861 �� 4 � elas 'ademac� er, C. 'air
Weld County Clerk to the Boll J �� '
fk. $ K I. �. w .
\ r k v:' <rrbara Kirkmeyer, P o-Ter;
Depot Clerk to the Board _c___ " �1
Sean ' . (--)--
William F. Garcia
EXCUSED
David E. Long
2010-0267
PL2041
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR #1717 - SANDRA RAKOWSKI
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 2/2/2010)
D. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
E. Mark M. Letter of Support, dated 01/31/10
F. Robert P. Letter of Support, dated 01/28/10
G. Brian Traffis Letter of Support, dated 02/10/10
H. Gilbert Camarillo Letter of Support, dated 02/04/10
I. Charles Camarillo Letter of Support, dated 02/09/10
J. Nancy Letter of Support, dated 02/05/10
K. Otto Wilkinson Letter of Support, dated 02/10/10
L. Ruth R. Letter of Support, dated 02/01/10
M. Alex Baskett Letter of Support, dated 02/12/10
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
,N) V
O
v v
• J
-> / \`V
C:V
t
-
� -�
1• -1:1--Z
\'J
G �
1 \�
O 1�
O a
0
ce N N L ._____
W 0' y. _� `O
0 j U; U w . 1
Z Q' N T \J
W -a N o
G
IL R
Z IL 2 `,
Ui 0 N N v -.._' ] /-`
a y t
< >- o ce z 'y
n CU < a • _ \
CO d
Y £
ea
O :`,
O A E
J C a r.
O y ,J
V, I L _ .� ��
J
¢ C 3 -4. y� .../,i
W 0
1 ::.., ,-)F
a c
y # d
Z_ W yL O I - _�,
Hello