HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101820.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
RE: VIOLATIONS OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE -ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTION
A public hearing was conducted on August 10, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem — EXCUSED UNTIL 10:35 a.m.
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
Assistant County Attorney, Stephanie Arries
Planning Department representative, Bethany Salzman
Planning Department representative, Peggy Gregory
Planning Department representative, Wendi Inloes
Planning Department representative, Tom Parko
Building Official, Ken Swanson
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that a public hearing was conducted to consider whether to authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with legal action against the individuals named for violations of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance. Cases were heard as follows:
ZCV#0900341 -STROH: Bethany Salzman, Department of Planning Services, presented the case
report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of
the Weld County Code, as detailed in staffs case summary. She stated the site is approximately
80 acres in size, and this violation case was initially presented in February, 2010, and continued to
today's hearing date to allow the property owner adequate time to find a new operator for the dairy
on the site. She clarified this violation was initiated due to the remodeling of the mobile homes on
the property, without the necessary permits, including electrical wiring, installation of heating
sources, and structural work. She indicated the principle dwelling on the site was constructed in the
year 1900, the first mobile home was permitted on the site in 1978, the second mobile home was
permitted in 1979, and the third mobile home was permitted in 1981. She clarified all of the mobile
homes were permitted as Accessory to the Farm units, and at the time of their installation, an active
dairy was located on the site; however, the dairy has not been in operation for quite some time. She
further clarified there have been other operators who have utilized the dairy and the mobile homes
on the property, for short periods of time; however, each lease agreement requires new zoning
permits for the mobile homes. She explained it is staffs understanding that the units are currently
being utilized as rentals, and the property owner has indicated he is actively seeking a dairy operator
for the site; however, staff does not support the use of the mobile homes as rentals during the
interim time. Ms. Salzman reviewed several section references regarding the use of mobile homes,
and she confirmed the Zoning Permit for a Mobile Home(ZPMH) is not transferrable,therefore,the
units should be removed from the site once the use on the site ceases. She confirmed the
Department recommends the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office, with a delay of
action for 60 days to allow time for the property owner to secure the necessary demolition permits
for the mobile homes. She clarified the mobile homes are not eligible to be moved or converted to
�� 1Q�A(��r p
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
CV 13.1 August 10, 2010 2010-1820
�' Page 1 PL0824
another use on the property, due to the age of the mobile home units. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Salzman clarified none of these mobile homes qualify as a second dwelling for
the property, since the Weld County Code requires that the second residence be a stick-built or
manufactured residence. She confirmed additional mobile homes on a property are only allowed in
cases of medical hardship or as an Accessory to the Farm.
Lester Stroh, property owner, explained he has been trying to do the right thing,and is actively trying
to lease or sell his property; however, several potential purchasers have had trouble obtaining
adequate financing to purchase the property or get a business running at the site. Responding to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Stroh confirmed everything on the property is still in working order, including
the milking parlor, and the mobile homes are inhabitable and are in fairly decent shape. He further
confirmed staff completed a site inspection yesterday and was able to see each of the units on the
property. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Stroh indicated he did not obtain building
permits before completing work on the most recent mobile home; however, he was not aware a
permit was needed. He confirmed he has provided maintenance on each of the mobile homes as it
has become necessary.
Matthew Crowther, Attorney, represented Mr. Stroh, and explained all three mobile homes were
installed on the property before the Weld County Code was adopted. He reiterated the dates each
of the mobile homes were originally permitted, and he reviewed Section 23-4-130 of the Weld
County Code, regarding permit requirements for mobile homes. He explained, since the permits
were issued prior to the date of August 25, 1981, and the mobile homes were located on the
property prior to this date, the mobile homes are essentially"grandfathered,"and are not subject to
previous requirements cited by the Department. He clarified Mr. Stroh has actively sought to come
into compliance by attempting to find a lessee or purchaser of the property, and his chance of
finding a new operator will be dramatically decreased if he is required to remove the mobile homes
on the property. He further clarified Mr. Stroh does not have the financial capability to comply with
the requirements set forth by the Department regarding demolition of the mobile homes. Mr.
Crowther referenced the Weld County Code and confirmed agricultural practices are valuable
resources to be protected, and he requested that the Board realize the impacts their directed action
will have on Mr. Stroh. He clarified Mr. Stroh operated a successful dairy operation on this property
for many years until personal health problems prevented the continued operations. He explained
Mr. Stroh contributed to agricultural practices for many years within Weld County, and if he is forced
to remove the mobile homes on the property, it will frustrate the ability to put the property back into
productive use, which further frustrates the intent of the Weld County Code.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Stroh confirmed a large portion of the property is currently
leased as farm ground, with corn being actively grown on the property. He clarified he previously
had a gentleman living in one on the mobile homes, who helped with maintenance around the
property; however, he has since moved out. He further clarified another gentleman is currently
working for him, performing maintenance work, and he would like to let the gentleman live in one of
the mobile homes; however, he has not allowed him to move in, pending a decision at today's
hearing. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Stroh confirmed he does not personally
reside on the property, and the man currently employed does help with farming activities, as well as
maintenance of the property. Following discussion between Chair Rademacher and Ms. Salzman,
Stephanie Arries, Assistant County Attorney, explained Mr. Stroh does not qualify for a permit for a
medical hardship, nor is he seeking that type of permit. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Stroh confirmed he is not currently utilizing the mobile homes as rentals; however, he would
most likely charge a small amount of rent,to help cover utilities, if his employee is allowed to reside
in one of the mobile homes in the future.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 2 PL0824
Chair Rademacher explained the Board needs to consider that this facility is still operational, and
there is a chance that a new operator could begin operations at the site. He confirmed he
understands that it is hard for business owners and potential purchasers to obtain the necessary
financing right now,due to the current economic hardships with agricultural practices. He confirmed
the new Leprino factory will be opening within Weld County in the near future, and he is optimistic
that Mr. Stroh will be able to either sell or rent his facility, since it is already functional.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Stroh reiterated all of the mobile homes are currently
empty, which concerns him, because there is no one living on the property to take care of it and he
recently had over $7,000.00 worth of tools stolen from the property. Further responding to
Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Crowther confirmed it is his opinion that because the mobile homes were
in place prior to August 25, 1981, as described within Section 23-4-130, that the mobile homes are
grandfathered, and are not subject to current regulations. Further responding to Commissioner
Garcia, Ms. Arries clarified it is her opinion that the Non-Conforming Use ceased to be applicable
when the use of the property as a dairy facility ceased. Commissioner Conway clarified he is not
sure that the use of the property has changed, since the property owner is actively seeking to sell or
lease the property, and all of the equipment is still located on the site. He confirmed there is still an
operational dairy on the property, along with the associated Accessory to the Farm mobile homes.
Chair Rademacher clarified if the mobile homes are being rented, it constitutes a change in the use
of the property. Ms. Arries confirmed at one point the mobile homes were being utilized for rental
income, therefore, the use of the property changed at that point in time.
In response to Mr. Crowther, Mr. Stroh clarified the gentleman who previously lived in one of the
mobile homes and tended to the property did pay him a small amount for rent; however, the other
two mobile homes have not been rented. He explained one of the mobile homes was uninhabitable,
which was why he did the work to fix it up, and the other mobile home has been vacant for a long
time. Mr. Crowther explained the only person who has lived in the mobile home was doing work on
the farm at the same time, therefore, it was not technically used as a rental. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mr. Stroh confirmed the property is currently listed with a Realtor, and he
appreciates that the Board previously granted him a continuance of the matter so that he could
pursue the sale of the property. Mr. Crowther clarified there has not been any evidence provided
which indicates the use of the property has changed,and in response,Chair Rademacher confirmed
once the dairy ceased to operate,the use of the property changed. Mr. Crowther indicated the only
person who has lived on the property since the dairy ceased operations was the man employed by
Mr. Stroh to help with the maintenance of the property.
In response to Chair Rademacher,Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, confirmed one
mobile home is allowed on a property as a Use by Right, and any additional number of mobile
homes must be approved by the Board through the issuance of the necessary permits. She further
confirmed there have been other dairies within the surrounding area who have been required to
remove mobile homes from the property because the number of employees at the business has
decreased. She clarified the Code indicates it is necessary for Mr. Stroh to re-justify all three of the
mobile homes; however, he does not appear to have the proper justification to keep all three mobile
homes located on the property. She further clarified upon sale or lease of the property, the new
operator will be required to apply for the necessary permits. She explained the matter has
previously been continued for a period of six months; however, the situation remains the same,
being that Mr. Stroh has three mobile homes located on his property, and they are not properly
permitted. (Commissioner Kirkmeyer is now present)
Ms. Inloes continued to explain that Mr. Stroh has been trying to remodel one of the mobile homes
to make it inhabitable; however, it may not even be possible to secure the proper permits to bring
the mobile home into compliance. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ken Swanson, Department of
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 3 PL0824
Building Inspections, stated the routine maintenance of the mobile homes is allowed without specific
permits; however, any additions or structural modifications will require a review by a structural
engineer, and the mobile homes would then be required to be brought into compliance with the
current Code provisions. He clarified he is not saying that it cannot be done by this property owner;
however, Mr. Stroh really needs to determine if obtaining the required permits are feasible for his
situation. He confirmed he does not want to see Mr. Stroh put a large sum of money into
improvements he will not be able to get use out of. Chair Rademacher concurred and indicated he
prefers to see a new operator come in and begin dairy operations on the site again. Commissioner
Conway also concurred and indicated the Board has been notified that the new Leprino plant will be
operational sometime in the year 2011, and he believes there will soon be interest in this property
due to the opening of the new facility. No public testimony was provided concerning this matter.
Chair Rademacher indicated he understands the dilemma which Mr. Stroh is faced with, and if this
matter is continued again,there should be a stipulation that the mobile homes may not be utilized for
rental purposes while Mr. Stroh is attempting to sell the property, or until the necessary Accessory to
the Farm permits are secured. He stated Mr. Stroh should check with the Building Official to confirm
whether the intended remodel of the mobile home is feasible. Mr. Crowther clarified Mr. Stroh now
understands that routine maintenance on the mobile homes is allowed, and he will contact the
Department if there are to be any significant modifications.
Chair Rademacher reiterated it is his preference for a new operator to take over the dairy facility,
and he is willing to extend additional time to Mr. Stroh for the sale of his property; however, the
mobile homes may not be rented out during the interim time. He confirmed it is possible that one of
the homes may be utilized by the current employee; however, the other two homes will need to
remain vacant, and may not be utilized for storage purposes, and Ms. Salzman concurred.
Commissioner Conway confirmed he desires to see agricultural practices preserved within Weld
County, and he understands that Mr. Stroh is making a good-faith effort to find a new operator for
the site. He explained Mr. Stroh would most likely be operating the facility himself if he did not have
health concerns, and his Attorney has made some compelling statements today. He clarified the
property is currently listed, the mobile homes are not occupied, and it is very possible that a new
operator could soon take over the facility. He further clarified it is justifiable to allow the mobile
homes to remain on the property if it can be demonstrated that the property is being adequately
maintained; however, the property owner needs to understand that none of the mobile homes may
be rented out, nor may any modifications be made without the proper permits. Commissioner
Garcia agreed with Commissioner Conway and indicated he is willing to extend additional time
because there will be interest in the dairy in the near future; however, it may also be appropriate to
dismiss the matter. Commissioner Conway explained he is not convinced of whether the property
has experienced a change in use, and he is concerned that if the matter is dismissed,the possibility
exists that the mobile homes could be rented out. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Ms. Salzman confirmed the violation was initiated due to the remodeling work which had occurred
without the proper permits; however, staff did learn that the units were previously being utilized as
rentals.
Commissioner Conway indicated Mr. Stroh needs adequate time to continue marketing the property,
especially because there have been several interested parties who have experienced financial
restrictions. He confirmed the new Leprino facility will generate additional interest in the property
within the upcoming year, and he appreciates that Mr. Stroh is not currently renting the units. He
indicated additional time will allow Mr. Stroh enough time to see the property successfully pass on,
and he understands the challenges associated with trying to sell this property are not at the fault of
Mr. Stroh. He confirmed dismissal of the matter will give the wrong impression,and if the property is
allowed to be marketed as a dairy, with the various improvements, the new operator can then
determine how many accessory units will be necessary. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 4 PL0824
Ms. Salzman confirmed ZPMH permits must be renewed on an annual basis, and these specific
permits have not been renewed for a period of four years, since the dairy ceased operations.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer concurred with the request to allow the mobile homes on the property for a
specified amount of time, so long as they are not rented. She clarified the only reason the homes
were allowed in the first place was because there was a determined need for housing for people
employed by the dairy, and since the operations have since ceased, it is hard for the property to
justify the need for the mobile homes. She indicated, out of compassion and due to the current
economic conditions, she is willing to allow the property additional time to get the property
transferred to a new operator, and if he is not able to do so, then the mobile homes need to be
removed from the site. Commissioner Long concurred and indicated a period of one year should be
adequate
Commissioner Long moved to continue ZCV#0900341 until August 9, 2011,with the condition that
none of the mobile homes on the site be utilized as rental property during that time. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Conway, who clarified to Mr. Stroh that the necessary permit for an
Accessory to the Farm must be obtained before any employees desiring to live within the mobile
home may move in. Mr. Crowther confirmed it is his understanding that a permit will be required if
Section 23-4-130 applies; however, he reminded the Board that his argument indicates that the
mobile homes should be considered as grandfathered, therefore, the Code reference does not
apply. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Inloes confirmed the permit must be renewed on an
annual basis by justifying the need for an Accessory to the Farm. She clarified the operator must
provide some type of certification, normally a W-2 or other payroll form.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the use of these mobile homes is not grandfathered, as alleged,
since the accessory units must be re-justified on a yearly basis. She confirmed accessory uses are
not permanent uses, and any persons living within the mobile homes must be able to prove they are
employed, or at least engaged in the functions of the farm. Mr. Crowther stated the date of
August 25, 1981, is consistently referenced throughout the Code, and he maintains that the
argument that the property is grandfathered is still valid; however, he believes Mr. Stroh would like
an additional twelve months to be able to sell or lease the property, if that is the extent of the remedy
available to him. Chair Rademacher clarified Mr. Stroh may obtain an Accessory to the Farm permit
for one of the trailers if he is able to prove the occupant will be working on the farm. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer clarified Chapter 23,Article III, Division III,should be reviewed by the property owner, as it
contains additional requirements regarding mobile homes. Commissioner Conway clarified,
because the matter is proposed to be continued for a period of one year, the property owner has the
right to make a valid challenge at some point in the future, regarding the grandfathering of the
mobile homes. He confirmed Mr. Stroh will be allowed an additional year to successfully sell or rent
his property; however, it has been made clear on the record that Mr. Stroh is not allowed to rent the
mobile homes. He further confirmed the new operator of the dairy will then be required to obtain
new permits for the mobile homes. Commissioner Garcia indicated the Board previously continued
the matter in February, 2010, for the purpose of supporting agricultural business within Weld
County, and the Board is willing to continue the matter for another year. He clarified another option
to be considered is ordering immediate legal action by the County Attorney, at which time Mr.
Crowther could proceed with his argument within the Courts; however,that is not his intention of this
matter. Mr. Crowther concurred that the best interests of Mr. Stroh are served by the remedy
proposed of a one-year continuance of the matter. He clarified he does not agree with the
requirements regarding renewal of the mobile home permits; however, he does not want Mr. Stroh to
sacrifice his ability to sell the property. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 5 PL0824
ZCV#1000053 - LEMAY: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to
the case file,this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staffs case summary. She stated the site is located within the Aristocrat Ranchettes Subdivision,
and to bring the property into compliance,the components of the non-commercial junkyard shall be
removed or screened, and the existing screening materials need to be replaced with consistent
material, or removed completely. She confirmed Victoria LeMay, property owner, applied for a
building permit in May, 2010, to remove an existing mobile home on the site and replace it with a
new double-wide mobile home; however, it appears that Ms. LeMay is now intending to keep both
mobile homes on the site, possibly utilizing one for storage purposes. Ms. Salzman displayed
photographs of the site,depicting the materials stored on the site and the dilapidated screening, and
confirmed Ms. LeMay has been informed that the use of the haphazard screening materials is not an
adequate correction of the violation. She clarified the front of the property still looks the same and
fencing was installed along the eastern edge of the property; however, it is already buckling and may
not stand for long. Ms. Salzman explained the issue regarding the lack of water within the
Subdivision, and due to this issue, Ms. LeMay has indicated she will apply for a Cistern permit as the
water supply for the new mobile home. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman confirmed
there are currently three mobile homes located on the site, the new double-wide, a single-wide
which is requested to be permitted through a medical hardship, and another single-wide which is
utilized for storage purposes. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman confirmed
she is unsure of the total number of derelict vehicles on the site, and the violation process was
initiated when Ms. LeMay applied for the permit to bring the additional double-wide onto the
property. She further confirmed Ms. LeMay indicated she would clean up the property when she
was initially notified of the violation, and it appears a front-end loader was brought to the site to push
most of the materials on the site to one side.
Ms. LeMay confirmed she is currently in the process of getting the vehicles on the site hauled off,
most of the vehicles are not actually derelict, and she is not operating a junkyard from her property.
She further confirmed she has applied for a medical hardship permit and a double-wide mobile
home was previously attached to the single-wide mobile home; however,the previous double-wide
had to be torn down because there were wiring problems. She confirmed the previous double-wide
was removed from the property and a new double-wide Clayton home was purchased to replace it.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. LeMay confirmed she has experienced numerous issues
with the existing fencing on the site, as it tends to blow over on frequent occasion, and there have
been times were people have pulled it down. She explained she has repaired and replaced the
fence many times, and she doesn't know what else to do, unless she installs a concrete fence.
Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman confirmed staff is recommending immediate
legal action because this is a repeat violation.
Ms. LeMay explained her sons are trying to repair the truck which is located at the front of the
property; however, they work full-time and have not had the time to complete the repairs. She
further explained she is the caregiver for her ex-husband, who is on dialysis for kidney failure and
has trouble walking and breathing, and he was hospitalized seven times within the past year. In
response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. LeMay indicated she is still working to obtain a Cistern permit,
and she is trying to determine the correct size of cistern to be installed and the costs associated with
the installation of the cistern. She further indicated her son will be able to help with most of the
necessary plumbing and pumping work, and she understands all of the installation work will require
an inspection by the Department of Public Health and Environment.
Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. LeMay indicated she has been through the court
process for violations on her property; however,the matter was previously dropped. She stated she
is not sure if she will be able to get rid of all of the junk cars; however, she is currently working on
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 6 PL0824
getting all of the scrap metal removed from the property. She clarified her sons are helping her, and
they both work full-time and are only able to help her on the weekends, therefore, she will need
approximately six months to get the property cleaned up. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Ms. LeMay confirmed she has contacted several salvage companies; however, none of them will
come to her property and help haul the parts off the site. Ms. Salzman clarified she has contact
information for a company that will help with the removal of the parts, and she will provide the
information to Ms. LeMay. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. LeMay clarified she is not
open to allowing someone to remove items from her property if they will be keeping the items, and it
is her intention to get the materials hauled off of the site to be stored somewhere else.
Chair Rademacher explained Ms. LeMay has the option of removing all of the junk materials from
her property, or screening the site from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way; however, it
appears the existing screening on the site will need a lot of attention, and it may not feasible for
Ms. LeMay to install a quality fence. He further explained that random pieces of plywood may not be
installed as a screening method. Commissioner Kirkmeyer concurred that the existing fencing on
the site is not appropriate, since it does not meet the definition within the Code, and the fence does
not appear to be working, therefore, Ms. LeMay needs to figure out a more appropriate screening
method on the property. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. LeMay indicated she has
over 20 vehicles on the property, and most of the vehicles are registered to her son, who resides
with her; however, only five or six of the vehicles are currently licensed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
explained property owners are not allowed to store junk vehicles on their properties,and it creates a
big mess that impacts the surrounding property owners. She further explained Ms. LeMay does not
have any guarantee that a Cistern permit will be granted by the Department, and the utilization of
three residences on one property is not allowed.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Denise Carter, Department of Public Health and
Environment, stated she spoke with a representative from the Aristrocrat Ranchettes Water Project,
who provided a copy of the Bylaws, which indicate there may only be one water tap and one mobile
home, per property. She indicated it was confirmed that another water tap will not be granted on the
property, and the Department will follow the Board's direction regarding the medical hardship and
the issuance of a Cistern permit. She clarified the representative indicated the water usage on the
property has more than doubled since the new double-wide was installed on the site, and the
representatives expressed concerns regarding the property owner crossing connections, meaning
the new home may have already connected to the existing water tap on the site. Ms. Carter clarified
she mapped the proper buffer of 100 feet from any pollutant source on the property, and the septic
system of the surrounding property owner is within the 100 foot buffer,therefore,the Cistern permit
will most likely be denied. She confirmed Ms. LeMay will have the option of appealing the denial
and request a variance of a 50-foot buffer. She explained there is also a well located on the
property; however, a well permit was never obtained. She reiterated her investigation concerning
the Cistern permit is not complete; however, she does not see that viability of obtaining a Cistern
permit for the site. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter clarified if the Cistern is approved,
Ms. LeMay will be required to provide receipts from the water company who fills the cistern.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Carter confirmed there are two septic systems located
on this property, which is a 0.99 acre lot. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman
confirmed the Department has been dealing with violations on this property since at least the year
2000. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Salzman clarified the previous court case was
in relation to a business which was being operated from the property, as well as for the
accumulation of junk on the property, and the court determined that substantial progress had been
made, therefore, the matter was dismissed. She further clarified, since that time, the screening on
the site has become dilapidated and needs to be held to a higher standard since it is a repeat
violation issue. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman indicated it is hard to
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 7 PL0824
determine if additional materials have been brought to the site since the court case has been
dismissed. Ms. Carter confirmed Aristocrat Ranchettes owns all of the water rights on the property;
therefore, the property owner cannot apply for a well permit.
Ms. LeMay clarified the well is actually located on a separate property, and eight property owners
collectively own the water well. She confirmed the use of the well water ceased in 1980, when the
well dried up, and she obtained an approved water tap for her property. She further confirmed she
intends to apply for the 50-foot variance, as she was not aware her neighbor's septic system was in
close proximity. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter indicated the length of time for
approval of the Cistern permit will depend upon the information supplied. She confirmed she was
previously waiting for a response on the issuance of the Medical Hardship permit; however, if
Ms. LeMay intends to apply for the 50-foot variance, she will be required to re-apply since the first
variance request was rescinded. She explained the process has a normal turn-around time of
seven days, and if the request is denied, the matter must then be placed on the agenda for the
Board of Public Health to consider within ten days. She further explained if the request is denied by
the Board of Public Health,the Board of Commissioners will then review the request. In response to
Chair Rademacher, Ms. LeMay indicated she is also experiencing a problem with weeds on the
property, and she is not sure how to get the weeds adequately cut. She confirmed she is trying to
get her property cleaned up, and she is trying to figure out how to build a fence that will not blow
over all the time.
Commissioner Garcia expressed his concern that this is a repeat violation matter, and that
Ms. LeMay previously indicated that she is not willing to remove all of the derelict vehicles from the
property. He clarified, regardless of the outstanding water issues with the property, the Board
should move forward with immediate legal action since it appears the property owner is not willing to
completely clean up the property. Commissioner Conway clarified staff has contact information for
someone who will help remove the debris; however, he understands that Ms. LeMay is experiencing
financial and medical hardships. Ms. Salzman clarified the gentleman she will refer to Ms. LeMay
will remove scrap metal and other parts from the property, free of charge; however, he will not
provide additional compensation for the scrap parts and he does not remove trash from the property.
She further clarified it will be at the prerogative of Ms. LeMay whether she makes contact with this
gentleman, and Commissioner Conway confirmed he is pleased that Ms. LeMay does have an
option for help available to her.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer ZCV#1000053 against Victoria Lemay to the County Attorney
for immediate legal action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway, and it carried
unanimously.
VI #0600041 - LEMAY: Peggy Gregory, Department of Planning Services, presented the case
report for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of
the Weld County Code, as detailed in staffs case summary. She explained Ms. LeMay originally
intended to place a new mobile home on the property, remove the mobile home which was
previously the principle dwelling, and clean up the property so that the additional mobile home could
be removed. She further explained a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued in May, 2010,
for the new mobile home, and Ms. LeMay was informed the permit would be valid until the previous
mobile home was removed, through the proper demolition permit, and a permanent Certificate of
Occupancy could be issued. She confirmed Ms. LeMay's application is currently still pending, as
some of the necessary information has not been provided, and in the meantime, Ms. LeMay has
indicated she would like to apply for a medical hardship. She clarified Ms. LeMay intends to remain
residing within the single-wide on the site, and the rest of her family will live in the new double-wide
on the site; however, the temporary Certificate of Occupancy has since expired for the double-wide.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 8 PL0824
She indicated staff cannot move forward with issuing a permit for a medical hardship until the issues
regarding the use of a cistern are resolved; however,a new temporary Certificate of Occupancy may
be issued for a period of 90 days, and if it is determined that the single-wide is allowed to remain on
the property, a permanent Certificate of Occupancy may be issued. She stated the mobile home will
have to be removed from the site if the applicant's request is ultimately denied.
Ms. LeMay clarified she will not be the person living in the single-wide mobile home, rather, it will be
her ex-husband, and she will remain within the double-wide with the rest of her family. Responding
to Commissioner Conway, Ms. LeMay reiterated her ex-husband is in renal failure and has a heart
condition, and the single-wide mobile home provides easier accessibility for him. Further
responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Gregory indicated the single-wide will be required to be
handicap accessible, which has not been verified by staff. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Ms. Gregory confirmed an inspection of the double-wide was completed before the temporary
Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. LeMay
confirmed her ex-husband is not a property owner and they have been divorced since 1984;
however, he has been living on the property with her since the year 2000. She further confirmed her
son and his family also live with her, and all of them have moved out of the single-wide, into the new
double-wide; however, her ex-husband would now like to be able to live in the single-wide since the
new double-wide is hard for him to navigate. She explained she was told the new double-wide
would be handicap accessible when she purchased it; however, it is not. At the request of the
Board, Mr. Swanson explained handicap accessibility is not required to be addressed within a
single-family residence, since it is a private residence, and ramps are allowed to be added for easier
accessibility. He confirmed this site is experiencing many outstanding issues regarding obtaining
water service, and the property owner is now modifying her intent for the single-wide mobile home.
He clarified the single-wide was originally intended to be removed from the site and replaced with
the new double-wide; however, Ms. LeMay now wants to keep both of the homes on the site.
Ms. LeMay clarified the single-wide already contains an access ramp and the shower is handicap
accessible,which is why her ex-husband would like to keep it as his dwelling. Mr. Swanson clarified
if the property is not able to obtain an approved water source for the second mobile home, it will not
be allowed to be occupied since a residence is not livable without a water supply. Ms. LeMay
confirmed a septic system has already been installed for the second residence.
Chair Rademacher indicated a delay of action regarding this matter will not be beneficial, and it is
not likely that Ms. LeMay will be able to obtain a Cistern permit. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated
she does not concur with the approval of a medical hardship, due to the lack of the applicant's
progress on the site, and she is ready for immediate action to be ordered.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to refer VI#0600041 against Victoria Lemay to the County Attorney
for immediate legal action. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it carried
unanimously.
ZCV#1000077-WATREN: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to
the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staffs case summary. She stated the site is comprised of two parcels, one being five acres in size,
and the other being 3.77 acres in size. She confirmed she recently spoke with Eugene Watren, and
he is aware of today's hearing; however, he left a telephone message that indicated he would not be
present today and that he intended to remove the necessary items from his property. She clarified
Mr. Watren attended a pre-application meeting, regarding the issuance of a USR permit; however,
there are significant issues regarding the floodplain on the property, and Mr. Watren will not be
operating from the property until the necessary studies are completed. She stated staff
recommends the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office, with a delay of action for
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 9 PL0824
30 days,to allow adequate time for items associated with Watren Construction to be removed from
the site. She clarified the items stored on the site include concrete forms, trucks,trailers, and other
construction materials.
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV #1000077 against Eugene Watren to the County
Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until September 10,
2010, to allow adequate time for the materials relating to the construction business to be removed
from the site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000002-MAJORS FAMILY TRUST/ENGELMAN: Ms. Salzman presented the case report
for the record and pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the
Weld County Code, as detailed in staff's case summary. She stated the site is 0.34 acres in size,
and this property owner also owns the adjacent parcel; however, it is not included within this
violation. She indicated the property owner applied for a building permit for the replacement and
repair of a gas line, and at that time it was discovered that the site did not have a Site Plan Review
(SPR) or Non-Conforming Use (NCU) permit, therefore, a violation was initiated. Ms. Salzman
displayed photographs of the site,depicting that business is operating on the site, and indicating the
two properties are very closely intertwined. She explained the property might be eligible for a NCU
permit; however,the property was vacant for a considerable amount of time, and representative Jeff
Engelman, a member of the Trust, could not provide evidence that the site has been in use back to
the year 1988. She further explained it was determined by staff that a SPR permit was required for
the site, and a meeting was conducted to explain the process to obtain this permit. She indicated
staff recommends the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office,with a delay of action for 60
days,to allow adequate time for the property owner to compile the necessary information to obtain a
NCU permit, or to submit an application for a SPR permit.
Mr. Engelman confirmed he represents the Dale Majors Corporation, of which he is the Chief
Officer, and in response to Chair Rademacher, he confirmed he should be able to handle most of
the requirements for a SPR permit himself; however, he will have difficulty providing the proper costs
and fees associated with applying for the permit. He confirmed the location of this property is very
convenient; however, his business is barely able to make a profit. He explained he would like to
eventually enhance the property so that it can produce an additional amount of income; however, he
cannot afford the necessary changes, and he is requesting that staff come to an agreement
regarding the issuance of a NCU permit, or that the Board waive the application fees for the SPR
permit. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the Board cannot consider the request to waive
application fees during a violation hearing. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms.Salzman
explained the fees collected will depend upon the size of the buildings utilized on the site; however,
the fee is typically within the ballpark of $2,500.00. Mr. Engelman confirmed the paperwork he
previously received from staff indicated a fee of$2,800.00.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Engelman confirmed the facility is currently being
leased, and is currently being utilized for storage. He indicated his plan is to generate additional
rentals, so that the business will earn more money, and then he will be able to afford upgrades to
the property. No public testimony was provided concerning this matter.
Commissioner Conway suggested the matter be referred back to the Department of Planning
Services, since the representative is truly trying to work with staff, and he is trying to improve his
property, even in light of his fiscal constraints. In response to Chair Rademacher, Tom Parko,
Department of Planning Services, confirmed the Department is happy to continue working with
Mr. Engelman, and indicated it may be possible to pursue a NCU for the site if Mr. Engelman is able
to prove that the same use of the site is moving forward. Mr. Engelman confirmed an NCU permit
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 10 PL0824
will be a good alternative for now; however, he understands that most likely he will be required to
obtain an SPR permit. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified when it becomes necessary for a SPR
permit to be issued, the applicant may then request a reduction of fees at that time.
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV#1000002 against Majors Family Trust/Engelman back
to the Department of Planning Services. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000040 — BEST/TERRAZAS: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and
pursuant to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as
detailed in staffs case summary. She stated the site is approximately 3.48 acres in size, and to
bring the property into compliance, the landscaping and snow removal business shall be removed
from the site, or a USR application shall be submitted to the Department. She confirmed the
property owner did conduct a Pre-Application meeting in May, 2010, and this violation was initiated
by a complaint received from a surrounding property owner. She indicated staff is recommending
that the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office for immediate legal action, and she
displayed photographs of the site, which were taken from the highway. In response to
Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Salzman confirmed the Department has not had contact from the
property owner since the Pre-Application meeting.
Ed Terrazas, property owner, confirmed he utilizes six trucks for a small landscape company, and in
the winter months, he also provides snow removal service. He indicated the Department would not
tell him who the complainant was, and after he attended the Pre-Application meeting, he began the
tasks necessary to apply for a USR permit. He clarified he went to his neighbors with a proposed
letter of agreement regarding the shared driveway, and it was made clear to him at that time that
one of his neighbors does not believe he should be able to allow the trucks associated with the
business to utilize the driveway, which is a shared easement between three property owners. He
further clarified the other property owners did not have any issues with the access, and the property
owner with concerns indicated she needed to talk to her realtor and attorney before she could
provide an answer and indicated she expected to be compensated in some way for her approval. In
response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Terrazas indicated he would like his comments regarding the
background of this case to be included in the record, and as of August 4, 2010, he has rented
another property for his business, and all of the equipment has been removed from this site. He
confirmed he does not know how much longer it will take for him to complete the USR process, as it
is currently his busiest part of the season, and he has not had a large amount of time to devote to
the necessary paperwork. He clarified he understands he will need to obtain several items, such as
maps, etcetera, to be included with the application materials, and he is still figuring out all the
information he needs to provide. He confirmed he would like to be able to run his business from his
property after he is approved for a USR permit; however, in the meantime, none of the employees
will be coming to the site anymore. Commissioner Conway commented that if the employees and
equipment are no longer on the site, then the violation does not exist, and Commissioner Kirkmeyer
suggested that the matter be dismissed. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Commissioner
Kirkmeyer since the property owner has removed the aspects of the business from the site, the
existing violation has been solved, and the property owner appears to understand he will be able to
move his business back to the property if he is able to obtain a USR permit. Mr. Terrazas
questioned whether he is still able to park his personal company truck and trailer on the site
overnight, and Ms. Salzman confirmed one truck and trailer is allowed as a Use by Right.
Vivian Best, property owner, requested clarification of how she should proceed with the issues
regarding the access to the site since staff indicated she had to ensure she had the ability to utilize
the easement before an application for a USR permit could be filed. She clarified it is apparent her
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 11 PL0824
neighbors are acting in a vindictive manner regarding this issue. In response to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Ms. Best confirmed the driveway is a private access, shared by three separate
properties, and the recorded plat indicates each of the property owners shall split the costs of
maintaining the driveway. Following discussion among the Board, Ms. Arries confirmed the use of
the driveway depends on whether the agreement between the property owners contains any specific
limitations. Chair Rademacher indicated if the agreement specifically prohibits the use of the access
for commercial activity, then Mr. Terrazas may not be able to run his business from this site.
Commissioner Garcia moved to dismiss ZCV #1000040 against Vivian Best/Edward Terrazas,
contingent upon an additional inspection to be completed by the Department of Planning Services,
verifying the vehicles and equipment have been removed from the site. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Conway, and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000037-MEINING: Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV#1000037 against Meining
back to the Department of Planning Services. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long,
and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000063-ESTRADA: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to
the case file,this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed in
staffs case summary. She stated the site is approximately 4.7 acres in size, and the violation was
initiated due to a referral from the Sheriffs Office. She clarified upon investigation of a theft at the
property, it was discovered that the site was being utilized as a scrap yard for vehicle parts, and this
site has been in violation at least twice within the past ten years for commercial operations occurring
on the site. She displayed photographs which depict business is occurring on the site, and she
confirmed the property owner did replace some of the fencing; however, the installation of snow
fencing is not an appropriate method of screening. She indicated there are some personal items
stored on the site which need to be placed behind the fencing, and the row of cars depicted within
the front of the property are apparently all vehicles owned by family members. She stated the
Department recommends the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office, if the business is
not removed from the site, since the operation of the business requires a USR permit.
Antonio Estrada, property owner, confirmed he has been in violation before,for other reasons, and
he has been using this property as a storage area for materials he brought over from another
property. He clarified that he was renting the property last year, with tires and rims being sorted on
the property, and some of his friends committed theft. He indicated he was not able to recover
some of the items, and he did not make a report regarding the theft. He explained he has been
working on cleaning up the property, and has continued to store spare parts within piles on the
property. He stated another friend stole from his property again, and this time he reported the theft,
which is when the Sheriff's Office visited the site. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Estrada
confirmed he makes his living by selling the scrap metal parts on the site. He further responded he
most likely is not willing to go through the process to obtain a USR permit, as his wife would prefer
for all of the metal parts to just be removed from the property. Chair Rademacher explained to
Mr. Estrada that he has the option of applying for a USR permit, so that he can legitimize the
business on the site, or, he will be required to remove all of the parts. Mr. Estrada confirmed he
understands his options, and he intends to continue cleaning up the property within the next two
months. He further confirmed he intends to clean up the property himself and that he cannot utilize
snow fencing as a screening material.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer ZCV #1000063 against Antonio Estrada to the County
Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until October 10,
2010, to allow adequate time for the property owner to remove all scrap metal and business
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 12 PL0824
operations from the property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway, and it carried
unanimously.
ZCV#1000064-MARQUEZ: Ms. Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant
to the case file, this property is in violation of various sections of the Weld County Code, as detailed
in staffs case summary. She stated the site is 3.81 acres in size, and to bring the property into
compliance, the wood piles, trash, and miscellaneous furniture needs to be removed from the site.
She confirmed this property has received numerous complaints from a surrounding municipality, and
staff recommends the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office, with a delay of action for
30 days.
Jose Marquez, property owner, clarified he should be able to have the property completely cleaned
up within the next month. No public testimony was provided regarding this matter.
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV#1000064 against Jose and Eva Marquez to the County
Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until September 10,
2010, to allow adequate time for the miscellaneous debris items on the site to be removed. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 16th day of August, 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, • ORADO
ATTEST: �
ou•la. Radema er, •hair
Weld County Clerk to the ' .car "N
P Sara Kirkmeyer Pro-Tem
BY: thf Sn cw �"� e_-�/
Deputy Clerk to the Boar• ' ` y,-
Sean .
APPRO D
%�- i ' m F. arcia
Cr
County Attorney / c-6 r�
David E. Long L/
CD#2010-08
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
August 10, 2010 2010-1820
Page 13 PL0824
Hello