HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102761.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
RE: VIOLATIONS OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE -ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTION
A public hearing was conducted on November 9, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway— EXCUSED until 10:40 a.m.
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long - EXCUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Tonya Disney
Deputy Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
Assistant County Attorney, Stephanie Arries
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Bethany Salzman
Planning Department representative, Peggy Gregory
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:
BCV#0900044-PACHECO: 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 stated this violation is for a
manufactured home on the property that was never permitted, Mr. Pacheco was advised that the
home was built before the year 1976; therefore, a building permit cannot be issued. She further
stated Mr. Pacheco notified the Department he would need additional time to remove the mobile
home from the property, and a permit was issued for temporary storage, which has since expired
with the mobile home still on the property. To bring the property into compliance, Mr. Pacheco shall
remove the mobile home, or obtain a demolition permit,which may be issued after receipt of a letter
of approval from the State, and then demolish the home. She indicated staff recommends the
matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office for immediate legal action, due to the fact that Mr.
Pacheco has had sufficient time to address the matter.
Flavio Pacheco, property owner, stated this property of eleven acres is the only option for his
family's residence. Mr. Pacheco stated he does not understand why he cannot obtain a permit for
the mobile home because of the age. Mr. Pacheco submitted pictures, Exhibits A, B, and C,
depicting derelict mobile homes within the town of Hudson. Mr. Pacheco stated he does not
understand why these mobile homes are allowed to remain and he is unable to keep his mobile
home on his property. Chair Rademacher explained the other mobile homes are within the Town of
Hudson; therefore, the County has no jurisdiction over the homes. He further stated that because
the mobile home was built before 1976, it is not allowed to be moved into Weld County from another
`` Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
CC Ca, November 9, 2010 2010-2761
(-4 -ii Page 1 PL0824
location and the violation exists because the home has not been permitted properly. Mr. Pacheco
stated the mobile home has been located on the property for over seven years, and indicated he will
pay the back taxes on the home, if necessary.
Ken Swanson, Building Official, stated mobile homes built before 1976 require a HUD sticker;
however, because of the age of the mobile home, HUD will not issue a sticker, therefore the mobile
home is not allowed in Weld County. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Swanson explained the
mobile home could have electrical problems and utilize outdated wiring, which is why they are not
allowed in the county without the proper permits.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer questioned how the violation was initiated and if staff has been able to
inspect the inside to determine if the mobile home is livable. Mr. Swanson confirmed staff has not
inspected the home, and the Department is following the County Code to make the determination.
Ms. Gregory concurred that the mobile home has not been inspected and the violation was initiated
by a citizen complaint because the mobile home was built before 1976 and was moved onto the
property without a permit. Mr. Pacheco stated that he does not believe the violation was initiated by
a citizen complaint; rather staff initiated a violation when he went to apply for an electrical permit.
He further stated that his neighbors are one-half mile away from his property and they would not
have made a complaint.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Gregory clarified the home is considered a double-wide
mobile home because of the age. Further responding to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Gregory
confirmed Mr. Pacheco visited the Department after receiving a violation letter and stated that he
intends to build a home on the property in the future. Commissioner Garcia questioned if the mobile
home could be considered temporary housing, and in response, Mr. Swanson stated the
Department does not have the ability to determine temporary housing. He explained if the mobile
home had been placed on the property prior to 1976, there would be no violation; however, since it
was brought onto the property after 1976, it requires a HUD sticker. Mr. Swanson stated that the
decision to allow the home to be utilized as temporary housing is made by the Board. In response to
Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Pacheco stated that a friend of his brought the home to the property and
parked it there seven years ago. Commissioner Garcia stated it is accepted that the mobile home
was brought in seven years ago, and the home was on the property before the Code was amended
regarding mobile homes built before 1976. Mr. Swanson reiterated the Code requires a HUD sticker
and HUD will not provide a sticker for any home built before 1976. Mr. Pacheco clarified the mobile
home is a 1967 model.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Pacheco stated that he would like to build a home on the
property in the next two or three years, which will give him time to save some money, since he just
finished paying off the property. He indicated he was recently laid off from his job of nineteen years,
because of the economy, and he needs time to save additional money and find employment.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Swanson suggested that a site visit be conducted to
verify the safety of the mobile home.
Floyd Barber stated that he has been in the mobile home business for approximately thirty-five years
and this double-wide mobile home looks very nice compared to other homes being lived in. Mr.
Barber confirmed that HUD does not issue HUD stickers for mobile homes built before 1976, mainly
due to the aluminum wiring previously used.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer recommended a continuance of the matter, or that the matter be referred
back to the Department to be remedied. Commissioner Garcia stated he initially would think to
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 2 PL0824
dismiss this case; however, a site inspection could not be conducted to make sure there are no
safety issues; therefore, he agrees referring the matter back to the Department is best.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer BCV#0900044 against Flavio and Graciela Pacheco back to
the Department of Planning Services with the instruction for staff to conduct a site inspection. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and it carried unanimously.
Chair Rademacher clarified for Mr. Pacheco that the Board was referring the matter back to the
Department so that a site inspection on the mobile home may be conducted to verify there are no
major safety issues; however, it should be understood the property is still in violation according to
the Weld County Code. He clarified the violation may be remedied by the construction of a new
residence or by upgrading to a newer mobile home; however, no matter what Mr. Pacheco decides
to do, he is not allowed to move the mobile home within Weld County and it will be required to be
demolished on the site.
BCV#1000048 -SULLIVAN: Commissioner Garcia moved to refer BCV#1000048 against Donald
Sullivan back to the Department of Planning Services. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, and it carried unanimously.
BCV#1000070 - PACKER: Ms. Gregory 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 violation is due to five tent-like structures located on the
property which were not properly permitted, and the property owner believes that these structures do
not need to be permitted; however, the Department believes permits are necessary. Ms. Gregory
indicated she spoke with Mr. Packer in July, 2010, and at that time, he stated that he was going to
reduce the size of the structures to less than 120 square feet each; however,to keep the structures
at that reduced size, it would need to be determined that they were accessories to the principle
building. Ms. Gregory stated she spoke to Mr. Packer again on October 4, 2010, and he stated that
he had not been able to reduce the size of the buildings. Ms. Gregory indicated it appears these
tent-like structures also exceed four percent of the overall footage of the property. Staff
recommends that this matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office for legal action.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Gregory stated this was originally a zoning violation that was
resolved by erecting the tent-like structures. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Gregory
stated the photos within the file clarified the beige structures are the tents that are being referred to
in this matter.
Glen Packer, property owner, stated that what he has on his property are temporary portable
shelters and he does not understand why building permits are needed because there is no
construction to inspect. Mr. Packer clarified there are five of these structures, they are 12-foot by
24-foot in size, and the total square footage is less than four percent of the overall property. In
response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Packer stated that the structures are used for storage of
personal belongings, and staff confirmed the property is zoned A (Agricultural).
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Swanson explained an Agricultural exempt building does not
require an inspection as long as it is placed on the site in compliance with the requirements of the
Weld County Code design criteria. Mr. Swanson clarified Agricultural exempt buildings may only be
used for farm implements, hay storage, and livestock, and the only two utilities which may be utilized
are electric and water for livestock watering and cleaning. Mr. Swanson stated this property is
located within a subdivision; therefore the structures do not qualify under the Agricultural building
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 3 PL0824
exemption. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Packer stated there is no electricity or
water being supplied to any of these structures; they are strictly for storage and nothing else.
Mr. Packer submitted pictures, marked Exhibits A through P, and in response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, he explained the tent-like structures are weaved canvas or plastic
material, like a regular tent or portable car port, they have aluminum beams for form and to attach to
the ground, and there is nothing structural about them. He further confirmed the structures are still
used for storage with his personal belongings which would require some other form of screening if
he left them outside. Mr. Packer confirmed there is no negative impact to the neighborhood by
placing these on his property and he feels unfairly targeted by the Department.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Swanson explained accessory structures must be less than
120 square feet, used for storage, and must be an accessory structure to the principle dwelling. He
stated these structures require a building permit and the cost of the permit is based on an evaluation
of the structure. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Swanson confirmed the structures are
allowed within the subdivision with the issuance of building permits.
Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Packer stated he cannot afford the building permits,since he
believes the cost to be approximately $6,000.00. Ms. Gregory clarified the approximate cost of a
permit for a detached garage,which these structures are comparable to, is approximately$200.00
to $250.00 each, without electricity, and the cost is determined upon the square footage of the
structure. Ms. Gregory explained the square footage of the structures may total more than four
percent of the property, which might prompt the number of structures to be decreased. Mr. Packer
explained four percent of his property is 1,730 square feet, and the total amount that the structures
equal is 1,440 square feet. Ms. Gregory stated, due to another out building on the property, the
square footage is limited to a total of 1,220 square feet, and the residence on the property is not
included in these totals.
Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Packer reiterated he feels this violation is not fair, and the
tent-like structures are portable storage units, not structures. Chair Rademacher clarified for
Mr. Packer that accessory structures must be permitted, including car ports and greenhouses, and
the Board is aware of other violations occurring within the Aristocrat Ranchettes subdivision.
Pamela Packer, property owner, clarified the violation was initiated four years ago when a storage
trailer on the property was moved, and staff did not make an indication at that time that the tent-like
structures required building permits. Ms. Packer stated she does not understand why four years
later permits are now required, and it will be hard to come up with the fees to keep them on the
property.
During further discussion,the Board agreed the best action was a referral of the matter,with a delay
of legal action, so that Mr. Packer has adequate time to decide whether he wants to remove the
structures from the property or to meet with staff to review his options of proceeding with building
permits.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer BCV #1000070 against Glenn and Pamela Packer to the
County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action until January 9, 2011, to allow
adequate time for the property owner to remove the tent-like structures from the property, or obtain
the necessary building permits. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and it
carried unanimously.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 4 PL0824
BCV#1000118-HASBROUCK: Ms. Gregory 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. The violation is due to an expired permit for an addition to the existing
dwelling, and Ms. Gregory stated she first notified the property owners the permit was due to expire
in March, 2010. Ms. Gregory further stated that she spoke with Mr. Hasbrouck, who believed
everything was complete; however, staff still needs a letter from the engineer regarding the
perimeter drain in order to finalize the inspection process. She stated Mr. Hasbrouck indicated he
intended to speak to the builder and get the necessary letter; therefore, an extension was granted.
Ms. Gregory stated the extension has since expired and no letter has been received from the
engineer; therefore, staff recommends the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office for
immediate legal action.
(Commissioner Conway is now present.)
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Gregory stated to bring the property into compliance;
Mr. Hasbrouck needs to obtain a new permit for the remaining inspections to be conducted which
includes review of the perimeter drain and final approval.
Ivan Hayes, Colorado Construction, builder, stated a bedroom was added in Mr. Hasbrouck's
basement and a perimeter drain was installed to avoid a drain being placed in the middle of the
bedroom. Mr. Hayes stated a majority of the other homes in the area do not require a perimeter
drain, and he confirmed the home was built in 1904. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Ms. Gregory confirmed this project is an addition to an existing dwelling and the inspection of the
perimeter drain will complete the process. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Gregory
stated Mr. Hasbrouck could have objected to the perimeter drain and another resolution could have
been sought; however, the work was completed and the permit expired. Ms. Gregory further stated
the inspector determined a perimeter drain was necessary, based on the Weld County Code, and
Mr. Hasbrouck was notified of the need for a letter from the engineer.
Jeff Hasbrouck, property owner, clarified that he did not realize he had the option of objecting to the
perimeter drain until the violation hearing was scheduled. Mr. Hasbrouck further stated that he
referred the matter to Mr. Hayes because he was the contractor in charge of the project.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hayes clarified a perimeter drain is utilized to prevent
flooding; however,this area has never flooded and he does not believe it is possible for water to rise
over four feet in this area. In response to Chair Rademacher Ms. Gregory clarified the property is
not in a floodplain area. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Swanson stated the code
requires the perimeter drain, and soils engineering can require perimeter drains, which are usually
inspected before they are back-filled. He clarified the drain may be inspected by the engineer of
record or by an inspector and it appears both parties missed an inspection at this property.
Mr. Swanson further stated the perimeter drain is an engineering requirement and he does not have
the ability to override the requirement. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Swanson stated
that if an engineer or builder provided evidence of why a perimeter drain is not necessary he could
override that portion of the code. Mr. Swanson further stated that he prefers for the evidence to be
provided by the engineer of record who creates the plans and decides whether to include the
perimeter drain. Mr. Hasbrouck confirmed 30 days is adequate time to obtain justification from the
engineer. Mr. Swanson stated that Mr. Hasbrouck needs to get a permit for the final inspection,
which will be an in-house inspection, and the engineer will need to sign off on everything which has
been completed.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 5 PL0824
Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Commissioner Conway indicated he will abstain during the vote since he did not hear all of the
testimony presented.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to refer BCV#1000118 against Jeffrey and Cynthia Hasbrouck to
the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action until December 9, 2010, to
allow adequate time for the property owner to obtain a new permit and have the final inspection
completed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it carried unanimously.
BCV#1000119 -WOODS: Commissioner Garcia moved to refer BCV#1000119 against William
and Tammy Woods back to the Department of Planning Services. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000098—UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD/LONG: 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.
Ms. Salzman stated that the property has experienced substantial progress and is coming into
compliance, and a house that was parked on the property, along with cars, sheds, playground
equipment, and numerous other items have since been removed. Ms. Salzman further stated a feed
and seed business, as well as some recycling uses are still occurring on the property, and the tenant
desires to begin an auto consignment business on the site. Ms. Salzman clarified the proposed
uses require a Use by Special Review (USR) permit, and she spoke with the tenant to discuss the
need for the permit. She recommended the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office,with
a delay of legal action for sixty days, to allow the tenant to apply for the USR permit.
Chair Rademacher and Commissioner Kirkmeyer both confirmed noticeable progress has occurred
at the property. In response to Chair Rademacher, Arnold Long, tenant, confirmed the process for
the USR permit has not commenced. He clarified he, and his son,Jeremy, lease approximately one
acre of the thirteen acres, and the house previously located on the property was not part of their
leased portion. He further clarified the house belonged to Gary DeJohn, who they contacted
numerous times to get the house removed. Mr. Long stated the lease on the property has been
valid for ten years and he has sold grain and feed from the site,which is referenced within the lease
with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), therefore, he was not aware the site was in violation. He
explained the dropping price of corn limits his income, so to supplement the loss, he decided to
operate a consignment side business. Mr. Long clarified he and his son are first responders to
natural disasters, therefore, they store the trucks and trailers for those uses on the site and he
believes the commercial vehicles should not be included within the violation. He explained staff is
requesting all operations on the site cease; however, this is his only source of income, and he is
requesting that the Board continue to allow the business on the site to sell grain and seed, so he
can earn the money necessary to obtain a USR permit. He indicated the seed and grain business
does not provide enough income; therefore, they need to look into other uses on the property as
supplemental income.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Long confirmed the grain and feed business operates from
the site, the commercial vehicles (for first response), one agriculture trailer, and a grain trailer are
also stored at the property.
Responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman stated the property sat vacant for many years and
the Non-Conforming Use rules indicate that if a property sits vacant for more than six months, the
property owner then must comply with current regulations. She clarified the sale of grain and or feed
from the site requires a USR permit, as does the storage of commercial vehicles on the site.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 6 PL0824
Commissioner Conway questioned whether Mr. Long will be able to raise the necessary capital in
order to apply for a USR permit, so that in addition to the feed and grain sales, he could pursue auto
sales and recycling. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Long stated that he was informed
the cost to obtain a USR permit could range between $10,000.00 and $50,000.00, which is a big
concern for them. Chair Rademacher stated the USR application fee is$2,500.00 and the plans for
the property will determine the other costs, if necessary.
Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services, stated he does not anticipate a project like this
costing up to $50,000.00, since the USR plat could be self-prepared, and if no other buildings are
added, the Department of Public Works could waive most of the drainage requirements which
eliminates engineering costs. Mr. Parko confirmed the application fee is$2,500.00 and there could
be additional costs; however, the costs will depend on what the plans are for the property.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Long stated he is entering his "slowest season" and he
requested a period of several months to save the necessary money. He expressed his main
concern is the cost they would be putting into the USR, and that they do not own the land, and
UPRR could potentially terminate the lease within the next year. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Parko clarified UPRR will be required to be involved in the USR application process; the lease
specifically states the tenants may work directly with the County. Mr. Long concurred that the lease
states the tenants are allowed to do what they need to do in order to comply with the County, and
Mr. Parko stated a copy of the lease should be sufficient if UPRR provides a letter indicating the
tenants have the ability to act on behalf of UPRR in regards to obtaining the USR application.
Mr. Long indicated they would like extra time to research other options, such as selling the building
and doing business from another property; however, he desires to be allowed to continue the feed
and grain business to generate income while reviewing the various decisions.
Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Chair Rademacher stated he does not have any concerns with allowing time for the tenants to
decide what they want to do, and he cautioned that an application for a USR permit does not come
with an automatic approval. Commissioner Conway questioned whether it is appropriate to continue
the matter, or referring the matter to the County Attorney's Office. He indicated the tenants have
some decisions to make and he would rather allow them adequate time to think about the USR
permit and get some questions answered rather than forcing them to make a decision they may later
regret.
Commissioner Garcia stated, as mentioned earlier, the Code indicates that even the sale of feed
requires a USR permit; therefore, a USR permit for any business activity is needed at this point. He
further stated the County Attorney's Office has been accommodating with other land owners when
the decision has been made to apply for a USR permit and the violation will be closed as long as
there is progress being made towards the USR permit. He suggested the tenants seek a lease
which is more than one year in length if it is decided to stay at this location, and he believes sixty
days may not be sufficient to make the necessary decisions or receive a response back from UPRR.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Long confirmed the lease with UPRR ends in
August, 2011, and the lease was paid in advance and is non-refundable.
After further discussion,the Board agreed that 180 days is sufficient for the tenants as long as they
are making attempts to obtain a USR permit. Commissioner Conway confirmed he agrees with 180
days due to the fact that the tenants need to decide whether to extend the lease and to earn the
necessary funds to start the application process for a USR permit. He commended the tenants for
making progress on the site which indicates they truly want to correct this situation.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 7 PL0824
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV#1000098 against Union Pacific Railroad and Jeremy
Long to the County Attorney for legal action,with the instruction to delay action until May 9, 2011,to
allow adequate time for the tenants to contact the property owner for permission to proceed with the
USR permit application process. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and it
carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000002 -MAJORS: 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. This case was previously presented to the Board August 10, 2010 at which
time the case was referred back to Staff to assist Mr. Engelman in applying for a Site Plan Review
permit. Ms. Salzman further stated Staff conducted meetings with Mr. Engelman and offered to
assist with producing the site map; however, Mr. Engelman has failed to initiate the process. She
clarified the adjacent parcel is under the same ownership, but is not included within the violation;
however, due to the small lot sizes and the uncertainty of how the lot was created, staff has
recommended the two lots be combined and a SPR be submitted, covering both lots. Ms. Salzman
further stated that this violation was initiated when a building permit was initially obtained to replace
a gas line, which led to meter repair, furnace replacement, electrical repair, and eventually the
replacement of a circuit breaker box. She clarified, due to the multiple types of occupancy and the
undetermined rate of vacancy over the years, a SPR permit is required. Ms. Salzman presented
photographs from the August hearing and recent photos depicting a new U-Haul business has been
added to the site, along with associated storage. She indicated staff has met with Mr. Engelman on
at least three separate occasions and has had numerous rounds of correspondence with
Mr. Engelman since the beginning of the year, and the initial pre-application meeting was held in
February, 2010. She recommended the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office, with a
delay of legal action for 30 days, in order to give Mr. Engelman adequate time to compose a SPR
application. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman concurred with a delay of action for 60
days; however, staff would like the process to start as soon as possible.
Jeff Engelman, representative for Dale Majors, apologized for having to come back a second time,
and clarified he was not aware of any time requirements in taking care of the violation, because
neither the resolution nor the conversation at the meetings with Staff mentioned a deadline.
Mr. Engelman stated that he has not felt an urgency to move forward with getting the application
process started, because he does not agree that the property is in violation, since the property has
been managed the same for decades as an auto repair shop, and the family has also used it as a
storage facility over the years as well. Mr. Engelman indicated staff believes there has been a
Change of Use and he disagrees; however,when he asked staff for proof of the Change of Use, he
was told he needed to provide proof that no Change in Use occurred. Mr. Engelman stated there
was discussion at one point of changing part of one of the buildings into several storage areas;
however, looking at the guidelines, he does not believe he should be required to apply for an SPR
permit. Some demographic research showing that there are seven storage facilities within one mile,
fifteen storage facilities within two miles, and twenty storage units within a three mile radius,
Mr. Engelman stated he realized, after completing research, that it does not make sense for him to
turn the buildings into additional storage units and he reiterated his concern regarding the need for a
SPR permit. He further stated his concern with going forward with the SPR application without
being sure of the future uses of the property. He stated the rental income on the property will dictate
a slow implementation of the plan to keep costs feasible. Mr. Engelman requested the Board
consider an application fee reduction, a fee waiver, or elimination of the SPR requirement.
Chair Rademacher stated that the SPR is needed because of the Change of Use which has actually
happened several times over the years on the property. He explained a property owner must obtain
a SPR when the uses on the property change. Mr. Parko stated the fee for this site property will be
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 8 PL0824
$2,800.00, which is based on the number of buildings on the property, and the square footage. He
clarified anything less than 10,000 square feet is a fee of $2,400.00, and the range of 10,000 to
20,000 square feet is a fee of$2,800.00. He stated that this site is approximately 12,000 square
feet, and the site plan review process is an administrative task conducted by staff, and depending
on referrals, the process could be completed in less than six months. Chair Rademacher stated
Mr. Engelman should be able to gather the$2,800.00 through the rental income for the SPR permit.
Commissioner Garcia questioned whether a property owner may file an appeal with the Board of
Adjustment and in response Mr. Parko confirmed it is an option; however, there is a fee associated
with the appeal. Commissioner Garcia suggested Mr. Engelman pursue the route of filing an appeal
since he disagrees about the need for a SPR permit.
Mr. Parko stated the businesses on the site have been operating since 1954 and what has
happened up to the year 1986 is not part of the issue at this time; staff must review what has
happened with the site since 1986, when the SPR regulations came into effect. Mr. Parko clarified
when staff first met with Mr. Engelman, the option of a Non-Conforming Use was discussed which
would require Mr. Engelman to provide staff with evidence of the uses for the property, such as utility
bills, lease agreements, etcetera, from 1986 to current. He stated if Mr. Engelman could prove that
the business has been the same the entire time, staff could establish a Non-Conforming Use;
however, the meetings between staff and Mr. Engelman have mentioned the possibility of additional
businesses which makes it useless to go forward with establishing the Non-Conforming Use
because modifications could not be made. Mr. Parko further stated the best solution is the approval
of a SPR permit so that other business ventures can be added. He clarified the SPR is not required
to be amended when the businesses change. Mr. Parko stated that staff is firm in the decision that
a SPR is required because of the change of uses which have occurred and Mr. Engelman is eligible
to appeal to the Board of Adjustment; however, if the Board of Adjustment agrees with staffs
interpretation, Mr. Engelman will be out the $500.00 which could have been applied to the SPR
permit fee.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms.Arries clarified Mr. Engelman does not feel there has
been a change of use and staff does, so in this case Mr. Engelman may petition the Board of
Adjustment,which will determine which party is correct and could possibly overrule staff's decision.
She further stated that the Board of Adjustment would look at the established use since 1986 when
the SPR rules were enacted and if the site obtains a Non-Conforming Use, Mr. Engelman will be
required to prove the use has not changed since 1954.
Mr. Engelman stated he cannot dictate what kind of business his tenants run and the U-Haul
business is new in the complex; however it is run by the tenants and not him directly, and the
businesses meet the intent of the C-3(Commercial)Zone District. Chair Rademacher stated there
are changes in use all the time; however, when things such as electrical, heating, or drainage are
added to a property, a change of use has occurred. Mr. Parko stated the reason the SPR is being
required in this instance is because this property has not acquired a SPR permit since 1986 and the
mere fact that any business that would come onto the property after 1986 would trigger the need for
a SPR. In response to Mr. Engelman, Mr. Parko confirmed a SPR permit is required with any
business, even in the C-3 (Commercial)Zone District. Mr. Parko acknowledged Mr. Engelman has
stated that he has always operated a storage facility business; however, the Cool Customs and
Repair is an auto repair shop and triggers the need for the SPR. Mr. Engelman clarified the building
was originally built and used as a service station; therefore, he does not understand what the
change in use is. Commissioner Conway questioned whether any business in operation on the site
before 1986 would be "grandfathered" in if there has been no change in use, and Mr. Parko
concurred. Mr. Parko further stated that once the SPR is in place, the building code requirements
are met, and if the type of business use does not change, no further action needs to be taken.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 9 PL0824
In response to Mr. Engelman, Commissioner Garcia explained if the requirement of a SPR permit is
disputed with the Board of Adjustment, the decision may be over-turned; however, if the decision is
over-turned by the Board of Adjustment, the types of businesses that Mr. Engelman could potentially
have on site could be limited. Commissioner Garcia further stated a SPR permit will keep the
possibilities open for future tenants and businesses.
Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
The Board concurred that it is in the best interest of Mr. Engelman to proceed with the SPR to keep
the options open for the future of the business. Commissioner Conway indicated the matter has
already been referred back to Planning once and there was no progress made.
Commissioner Garcia suggested the matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office with delay of
legal action for 90 days, with the understanding that Mr. Engelman must begin an appeal to the
Board of Adjustment, or complete the application for a SPR.
Commissioner Garcia moved to refer ZCV#1000002 against Dale and Evelyn Majors to the County
Attorney for legal action,with the instruction to delay action until February 9,2011,to allow adequate
time for the property owner to file an appeal with the Board of Adjustment, or complete the
application process for the SPR permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
and it carried unanimously.
ZCV#1000110-HERNANDEZ: 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. To bring the property into compliance, the non-commercial junkyard
consisting of derelict vehicles, wood, iron, metal, buckets, and miscellaneous debris shall be
removed or screened from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Staff is recommending this
matter be referred to the County Attorney's Office for immediate legal action.
Commissioner Garcia stated a note in the file, dated September 8, 2010, indicates Mr. Hernandez
told staff that thirty days would be a sufficient amount of time to have the property cleaned up and he
questioned whether progress has been made on the site. Ms. Salzman stated some work has been
completed, and in response to Commissioner Conway, she confirmed there has been no
communication since the September 8, 2010 date. Ms. Salzman further stated that the adjacent
property, also owned by Mr. Hernandez, was previously in violation; however, it has since been
cleaned up and the violation case was closed.
Rose Hernandez, daughter of John Hernandez, property owner, stated in August, 2010, her
residence was foreclosed on and her parents were gracious enough to allow her to move in with
them. Ms. Hernandez stated she has worked as an automotive technician for over twenty years,
and most of the cars on the property are her collection of classic cars which came from her business
in Loveland that she had to close. Ms. Hernandez further stated that she now works in the City of
Fort Collins, at Advanced Energy, and with the traveling back and forth, and the stress that she is
under, she has not had adequate time to remove or screen the items stored outside on her parents'
property.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Hernandez stated ninety days would be a sufficient
amount of time to clean the property, as long as the weather cooperates. She further stated that
she is trying to downsize her belongings and she is trying to find another place to live; however, she
will take care of the violation with her parents first and then move forward. Commissioner Conway
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 10 PL0824
cautioned Ms. Hernandez if she moves her items to another location, she might possibly create
another violation; therefore, it will be beneficial to downsize or clean up what is located on her
parent's property before she moves. Ms. Hernandez stated she intends to use one of the vehicles
as storage for her automotive tools so she may travel with the tools, and they are not out sitting in
the elements. She confirmed she does have a lot of belongings which need to be sorted and
possibly thrown out; however, she needs more time to do so. Chair Rademacher provided the
opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
John Hernandez, property owner, stated that he and his wife have lived on the property for fifteen
years, without any complaints, and he did not realize helping his daughter would create a violation
situation. He indicated the situation was supposed to be temporary and he would like to get the
matter resolved as soon as possible, In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Salzman clarified
the noncommercial junkyard is allowed in the 1A (Agricultural) Zone District; however, the items
must be screened from all adjacent properties or public right-of-ways. She further clarified if the
vehicles contain current registrations they are allowed to be outside of the screened area, provided
they are operational. Ms. Salzman stated the violation was initiated as a result of a public complaint
and during her initial inspection she noted the adjacent property was in the same condition;
therefore, a violation was initiated and it has since been closed.
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV#1000110 against John and Ruth Hernandez to the
County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to delay action until February 9, 2011, to allow
adequate time for the restoration of the property to its original condition, or to complete the
necessary screening on the site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and it carried
unanimously.
ZCV #1000134 - ALLES REVOCABLE TRUST/HERBAL WELLNESS, LLC: 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
property is in violation due to more than thirty plants being grown as a Use by Right in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman stated that the violation
was initiated by a complaint and the electrical system has been blown several times, therefore, the
electric company reported the issue to the Planning Department because of safety issues.
Ruth Barber, Owner, Herbal Wellness, stated that when they first started looking for a grow area for
their business, they had heard that Weld County would be entering into a moratorium, therefore,
they contacted the County Attorney's Office and spoke with Bruce Barker about whether or not it
was possible to continue growing operations at the property owned by Harry Alles. Ms. Barber
further stated she spoke to Mr. Barker and staff at the Department and it was confirmed that if the
growing operation had commenced before the moratorium, it was possible to continue at the
location since it is located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. She indicated she also spoke with
Marion Mallard, property trustee, about the continuation of the business and Ms. Mallard agreed that
the arrangement would continue to be acceptable. Ms. Barber explained they serve over 500
patients, and at the time she spoke with Mr. Barker, she was not told a Non-Conforming Use permit
was necessary.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Salzman stated the violation was initiated from the complaint
indicating there are approximately 600 plants on the site; however, a visit to the property yesterday
confirmed there were a total of 60 plants on the site. She indicated the tenants confirmed the site
averages between 60 to 350 plants at any given time.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 11 PL0824
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker stated that the violation is based upon the excessive
number of plants on the site and the lack of a Non-Conforming User(NCU) permit. He indicated he
has spoken to many people about the NCU permit issue and does not recall this exact conversation;
however, growing locations operating prior to June 1, 2010, were required to apply for the NCU
permit which must have been approved before the moratorium took effect on July 1, 2010. He
clarified since the NCU permit is no longer available for these operations, Ms. Salzman has correctly
indicated a primary caregiver may grow within the A (Agricultural) Zone District; however, a
caregiver may only grow a total of six plants for up to five patients as indicated by state statute.
Chair Rademacher clarified the NCU permit allows a period of one year for established operations to
continue growing; however, in June, 2011, Weld County will not issue a local license, therefore,
operations must cease at that time.
Ms. Barber clarified the lease with the Alles' is dated before June 1, 2010, and all grow locations for
commercial use had to complete the state application process before August 1, 2010, and pay the
required fee of$1,500.00. Ms. Barber confirmed this location has a valid state license and the NCU
permit may have been over-looked during the application process. She explained they would not
have gone through the process and paid the application fee to the State if they were not serious
about this operation. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Barber stated that the lease was
signed May 1, 2010, and they have been in operation on the site since that date,all other paperwork
with the State and the City of Fort Collins,for the dispensary, is in order as well. Chair Rademacher
stated he believes as long as the proper paperwork can be presented that the business was in
operation prior to June 1, 2010 and is verified by staff the issue is solved; however, he believes
there is still an issue of how many plants are allowed on the site. Mr. Barker clarified Ms. Barber
believes they should be able to apply for the NCU permit because of the fact the site was in
operation before June 1, 2010. He further clarified a NCU permit allows the number of plants to be
unlimited, which follows state statute, and is separate from caregiver status, which only allows six
plants each for up to five patients. He stated since a NCU permit was not approved for the site,the
property must then follow the limitations for caregiver status. Ms. Barber apologized for not
understanding that the NCU form needed to be submitted by June 1, 2010 and the form may have
been made a requirement after her talks with Mr. Barker, because at that time a lot of codes and
statutes were being changed.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Parko stated the Department stopped accepting NCU permit
applications on June 30, 2010, and during that time frame only four of the fifteen applications were
approved. He further stated that he is concerned what will happen to the permits which were
denied, and questioned if the property owners will be able to come back and reapply if this property
is allowed to. Commissioner Conway clarified the criteria stated the operation had to be in existence
before June 1, 2010, and the other permits were denied because they were not in operation before
that date. Mr. Barker stated he believes Mr. Parko's concern is that there was a set deadline to
provide the NCU application before July 1, 2010; however, this operator is indicating that they did
not know they had to get the application in by a certain time, and other operators have came to
Planning and indicated the same. Mr. Barker explained the NCU permit is only good for a period of
one year;therefore, if the Board allows an application to be submitted, it will be back-dated and still
expire July 1, 2011. Mr. Parko expressed his concern regarding other operators requesting
allowance to submit a NCU permit application now, and Chair Rademacher stated it has been made
clear through other resolutions that there will be no local permits issued at the county level after July
1, 2011, and the currently approved operators will have to shut down their operations at that time.
Mr. Alles, questioned the burden being placed on him to continually research the changing
regulations, and he believes proper contact was made for the required licensing. He indicated his
concern regarding the new rules if proper communication is not provided. Chair Rademacher
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 12 PL0824
acknowledged this issue is hard to follow because regulations do keep changing,creating a moving
target.
Following discussion between Commissioner Conway and Ms. Barber, Mr. Barker stated he was
working with Planning on a daily basis and referred applicants to speak with Mr. Parko about the
NCU permit application process. Mr. Barker further stated the Nonconforming Use is a complicated
process and they may have discussed the grandfathering concept in the conversations; however,
they were working through ideas at the time on how to get that done. Mr. Barker clarified it appears
the tenants made an honest mistake and he recommended the Board allow the tenant the
opportunity to apply for the NCU permit since he believes the tenants would have applied for the
permit if they had known about the requirement.
Mr. Parko stated something Staff has struggled with is applicants needing to prove existence prior to
June 1, 2010, with lease agreements and other documentation because some lease agreements
were hastily created, which makes it very difficult to determine the true dates. Mr. Parko further
stated staff was able to confirm grow sites had been in existence when a sheriff had visited sites
and reported back to Planning with the amount of plants. Chair Rademacher questioned how long it
will take for approval once the application for a NCU permit is submitted to Staff, and Mr. Parko
confirmed it will only take a couple of days once they receiv the application. Chair Rademacher
provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Ms. Barber confirmed they will not have any problems proving they were in existence prior to the
June 1, 2010 date and will provide paid electric and tax bills. She further stated a member of the
Drug Task Force inspected the grow site and counted the plants and reviewed all the patient files
which dated back to December, 2009,when operations began at the site. Floyd Barber, stated that
it has been an honest mistake, and they would have submitted the application had they known about
it. He stated they are willing to start the paper work today in order to get into compliance, if allowed.
Ms. Alles confirmed she was contacted on September 15, 2010 by the Drug Task Force and was
asked if she knew there was marijuana on the property, and she provided all the information for the
grower to be contacted, if needed. Ms. Alles stated that she had never heard back from anyone;
however,the Task Force did contact her son and stated that the inspection went well. Ms. Salzman
stated that she contacted the Weld County Drug Task Force to make an inspection of the site;
however, she was later advised by the Sheriff's Office that they do not regulate issues concerning
medical marijuana.
Mr. Barker clarified without the NCU permit the ongoing use of the property is a violation.
Ms. Salzman stated the maximum amount of plants to be grown on the site must be included within
the application materials.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the tenants spoke with Mr. Barker and they may not have
understood the NCU requirement and if the Board does decide to allow the tenants to apply for the
NCU permit, approval of the permit is not guaranteed.
After further conversation between the Board and Staff, it was determined a work session should be
scheduled to discuss concerns that may surface in the next few months regarding this matter.
Ms. Barber clarified the state wide-moratorium went into effect on August 1, 2010, and operators
who did not submit their paperwork to the state and pay the necessary fees must cease operations
until July 1, 2011, when the legislation is expected to change. She further stated that as of
August 1, 2010, in order to have a grow location, an operator also must have a dispensary license,
because grow sites are not allowed separately.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 13 PL0824
In response to Mr. Alles, Chair Rademacher stated that the County is not stopping people from
growing marijuana for their personal use or for caregivers for their patients,the position the County
is taking is to limit the large grow operations. Mr. Alles confirmed he is a registered caregiver and
the limit on how many patients a caregiver can have is detrimental to those people who cannot grow
their own medicine. He further stated that because he can only have five patients must he
determine which patients to serve, and the other patients are then at a disadvantage.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the topic of marijuana growing has been a highly publicized topic;
however, as a land owner, it is the responsibility of Mr. Alles to know what uses are allowed on his
property. She confirmed the County had meetings with Planning that the public was invited to,along
with three work sessions for the Ordinance changes which were open to the public, and concerns or
comments should have been addressed at that time.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to refer ZCV#1000134 against Alles Revocable Trust do Marion
Mallard and Herbal Wellness, LLC, to the County Attorney for legal action, with the instruction to
delay action until December 9, 2010, to allow adequate time for Herbal Wellness, LLC,to apply for a
Nonconforming Use permit through the Department of Planning Services. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Conway. Commissioner Garcia stated that he is still concerned
regarding the potential precedent this case will set and he is not comfortable with the decision.
Upon request for a roll call vote, the motion carried three to one, with Commissioner Garcia
opposed.
ZCV#1000094 -TAUFER: 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 this property is in violation because of a grow operation on the
property, with circumstances similar to the matter just considered.
Mark Young, Attorney, represented Kirsten Taufer, property owner, and stated this situation is
similar to the previous case. He explained Ms. Taufer has a grow operation on her property and,the
complicated part of her situation is that she was pregnant and delivered her child in early July,2010,
and missed the deadline to submit an application for the NCU permit through the County. He
confirmed Ms. Taufer does have all the proper paperwork filed through the state and she
understands that she will most likely not be able to continue operations after July 1, 2011.
Chair Rademacher asked if evidence could be provided that the operation commenced before
June 1, 2010. Mr. Young clarified there has been contact with the Drug Enforcement Task Force
before that date, and a Deputy Sheriff came to the site and saw the medical marijuana and asked
for the patient card which Ms. Taufer was able to provide. He further stated Ms. Taufer has the
state documentation and the state has certified the business was in operation prior to June 30,
2010. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr.Young clarified the State permit will not be issued until
July 1, 2011; however, Ms. Taufer has the proof that she paid the permit fees. Chair Rademacher
provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Ms. Salzman clarified this violation is a little different from the last violation because Ms.Taufer has
not claimed to have spoken with either staff or the County Attorney's Office; however, the violation
was initiated through a call from the Sheriffs Office indicating there were growing operations on the
site before June, 2010. Mr.Young stated that it was purely inadvertent that Ms.Taufer was not able
to make the application deadline, and she would not have gone through the state application
process if she had understood she could not gain County approval. He further stated that the site
was not caught with an illegal operation, as Ms. Taufer was able to provide the Sheriffs Office with
documentation that the site contained a legitimate grow operation.
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 14 PL0824
Commissioner Conway moved to refer ZCV#1000094 against Kirsten Taufer to the County Attorney
for legal action, with the instruction to delay action until December 9, 2010, to allow adequate time
for Ms. Taufer to apply for a Non-Conforming Use permit from the Department of Planning Services.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer. Commissioner Garcia stated in the last
violation they had the limitation that there were discussions with the County Attorney's Office, with
some confusion; however, in this matter, the Board does not have that proof.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated that she is going to vote in favor of the motion because, as she
stated in the last violation, the Board must look at each case individually. She further stated if staff
wants to discuss the issue in a work session, it can be arranged. Upon request for a roll call vote,
the motion passed three to one, with Commissioner Garcia opposed.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 12:20 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 9th day of November, 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1, WELD COUNTY COLORADO
ATTEST: i1 � ev + r'•C ' �J
� � O � � u.la adem cher Chair
Weld County Clerk to the = - Chi' LLB
/
1 . ' 4/'-arbara Kirkmeye , Pro-Tem
BY:, , h 2: ' t.��1Vhs�..�
Dep Clerk t. t,e Board ���
/ Sean P. Conw
AP�P,ROVED ASlTO RM:
jwf / Wil 'am -. Garc
ytounty Attorney EXCUSED
/ David E. Long
CD#2010-11
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
November 9, 2010 2010-2761
Page 15 PL0824
Hello