HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073231.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: RESCIND RESOLUTION #2007-2034, DATED JULY 16, 2007, AND AUTHORIZE
ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDING KNOWN AS THE RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 33039 COUNTY ROAD 39,LUCERNE,COLORADO,TITLED
TO RICHARD J. GERSTENBERGER
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2007, by Resolution #2007-2034, the Board approved the
Authorization for Abatement of Dangerous Building known as the residential structure located at
33039 County Road 29, Lucerne, Colorado, titled to Richard J. Gerstenberger, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to rescind Resolution#2007-2034,
dated July 16, 2007, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Building Inspection informed the Board that Richard J.
Gerstenberger has a building on his property, located at 33039 County Road 39, Lucerne,
Colorado, and such building is considered to be dangerous to persons under Section 302 of the
1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by Chapter 29 of the
Weld County Code, and
WHEREAS, said property is described as 33039 County Road 39, Lucerne, Colorado
80646; being further described as part of Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 1, Town of North Greeley, aka
Town of Lucerne, County of Weld, State of Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners was informed that the following actions
had been taken to notify the owner and others who may have an interest in the property that there
are violations of the Weld County Code and that there is a dangerous condition on the property:
Richard J. Gerstenberger:
- August 31, 2006, letter sent to Mr. Gerstenberger at P.O. Box 49, Lucerne, CO
80646-0049 (not returned), by Ann Siron, Department of Planning Services
- September 7, 2007, letter sent to Mr. Gerstenberger at P.O. Box 49, Lucerne, CO
80646-0049 (not returned), by Ann Siron, Department of Planning Services
- September 26, 2007, certified letter sent to Mr. Gerstenberger at P.O. Box 49,
Lucerne, CO 80646-0049(letter signed for and accepted October 10,2006), by Ann
Siron, Department of Planning Services
- November 14, 2006, Mr. Gerstenberger attended a zoning violations hearing at
which the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County determined that legal
action should be brought; Mr. Gerstenberger announced that he no longer owned
the house and that the bank had taken it
- November 29,2006, Notice and Order sent Certified, Mr.Gerstenberger did not sign
for mailing
December 27, 2006, new Order sent, as there was a new lien holder.
Mr. Gerstenberger signed for mailing on January 16, 2007
- May 17, 2007, letter sent to Mr. Gerstenberger at P.O. Box 235, Ault, CO 80610
(not returned), by County Attorney's Office
2007-3231
CIO . PL f 0-A Olet1� PL0343
RE: RESCIND RESOLUTION #2007-2034 AND AUTHORIZE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS
BUILDING TITLED TO RICHARD J. GERSTENBERGER
PAGE 2
Ruby Linblad, Tax Lien Certificate Holder
- Week of May 21, 2007, telephone call to Ms. Linblad regardung property situation,
she was to call County Attorney's Office in two weeks - did not call again
- June 11, 2007, telephone call to Ms. Linblad by County Attorney's Office - left
message, call not returned
- June 12, 2007, letter sent to Ms. Linblad at 13313 State Highway 392, Greeley, CO
80631 (not returned) - she did not call in response
June 27, 2007, telephone call to Ms. Linblad by County Attorney's Office - left
message, call not returned
Litton Loan Services,Property Preservation Department(mortgage company contact)
- December 20, 2006, telephone call to Ameriquest, who informed Roger Vigil,
Department of Building Inspection, that the loan had been sold to Litton Loan
Services
December 23, 2006, call to Litton Loan Services to confirm sale by Roger Vigil,
Department of Building Inspection; Mr. Vigil also informed Litton of the dangerous
building on the property
- December 27, 2006, copy of letter addressed to Mr. Gerstenberger was sent to
Litton Loan Services
- May 15, 2007, letter sent to Litton Loan Services at 4828 Central Drive, Houston,
TX 77081 (not returned) - no response
- Castle, Meinhold & Stawiarski, LLC, Attorneys who filed a Notice of Election and
Demand for Sale by Public Trustee 4-1-04 and later filed a Withdrawal of Notice of
Sale by Public Trustee 6-24-04
- Call to firm requesting information on Mortgage holder and reason for Withdrawal
of Notice - call not returned
WHEREAS, the Board considered the report regarding the amount of asbestos present in
said building, as set forth in the attached Report prepared by RHL Engineering, Inc., attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the record and hearing the statements and the
recommendation of the staff, the Board deemed it advisable to authorize the Department of
Planning Services to proceed with the abatement of the building by ordering that said building be
made safe by fencing and boarding the building and by removal of the debris and junk, as more
particularly described in the letter from Agritack dated May 14, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit B,
and
WHEREAS, staff has obtained a bid by an individual to accomplish the project, and has
received assurances that the project will be completed on August 1, 2007, and
2007-3231
PL0343
RE: RESCIND RESOLUTION #2007-2034 AND AUTHORIZE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS
BUILDING TITLED TO RICHARD J. GERSTENBERGER
PAGE 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Department of Planning Services be, and hereby is, authorized to:
(1)proceed with the abatement of the building by fencing around and boarding the building
at the above location, and
(2) proceed with the removal of the junk and debris from the property;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
will conduct a public hearing to determine whether the final costs of such abatement work and the
cost of the asbestos report should become a lien on the subject real property, pursuant to
Section 29-2-60.M of the Weld County Code (adding Section 801.2.1 to the Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition). Said hearing will be scheduled after sufficient
Notice has been provided.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board that Resolution #2007-2034, dated July 16,
2007, be, and hereby is, rescinded.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 15th day of October, A.D., 2007.
�---- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3
7, ° e,,y� 't Af, WE COUNTY, COLORADO
/� pry ,f Fz
ATTEST: �(� �! et
�` iicjr? vid E. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to theC2 -
BY:
��O-� William J ro-Tem
44,1+
Cthe Boar
Wi 'am F. Garcia
AP V AST > ( .
Robert D. Masden
s
orney ,,,fit -
Dougla Rademache
Date of signature: if Islo 7
2007-3231
PL0343
• • EXHIBIT
A
ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT
Residential Structure
33039 WCR 39
Lucerne, CO
PREPARED FOR
Agritrack, Inc.
27451 WCR 388
Kersey, CO 80644
AND
Weld County Government
Building Department
918 10t'' Street
Greeley, CO 80631
PREPARED BY
RLH Engineering, Inc.
541 East Garden Drive, Unit S
Windsor, Colorado 80550
2007-3231
2007-2034
• •
April 13, 2007
Mr. David Droegemueller
Agritrack, Inc.
•
27451 WCR 388
Kersey, CO 80644
SUBJECT: Asbestos Survey Report for 33039 WCR 39, Lucerne, CO
RLH Engineering Project Number 07013
Dear Mr. Droegemueller,
This letter, with attachments, is our report to you for the building survey referenced above. It is
our understanding that Weld County has seized and condemned this structure, and it is their
intent to demolish the structure. The intent of this report is to comply with current regulations
requiring asbestos inspection prior to building renovation or demolition.
This report includes:
1. A summary of the survey work, regulatory information, general building information,
conclusions and recommendations, and budgetary abatement estimate.
2. Survey information for the building, including:
- Homogeneous materials report
- Sample report
- Laboratory reports
- Site Photographs
- Variance Request Checklist
3. State certifications and AHERA accreditations of personnel performing this survey.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to serve you. Please let us know if we can assist you
further.
Sincerely,
RLH Engineering, Inc.
Jeff Kirtley
Project Manager
Cc: Roger Vigil —Weld County
r •
SURVEY INFORMATION
The inspection process is initiated by performing a walkthrough of the building,
identifying suspect asbestos containing materials (ACM) and assessing their condition.
Suspect materials must be sampled to determine whether or not asbestos is present.
Once these suspect materials are identified, the required number of samples per
material as defined by regulations can be determined and collected. If suspect materials
are not sampled, they must be assumed to contain asbestos.
Sampling for this project was performed using non-destructive methods whenever
possible. This means that samples were taken in small amounts and in inconspicuous
locations to prevent damage to the building finishes to the greatest extent possible.
Accessible locations were inspected and sampled throughout, but materials were not
significantly demolished to gain access to locations which would otherwise be
inaccessible.
All bulk samples collected by RLH Engineering were analyzed by Reservoirs
Environmental, Inc., Denver, Colorado.
Survey drawings were assembled by transferring information from RLH Engineering field
inspection drawings to the AutoCAD LT system in our office. The drawings are used to
show suspect materials, sampling locations, and ACM locations in the building. The
homogeneous materials report identifies suspect materials within the area, samples
collected for each suspect material, quantities of suspect materials, and whether or not
the material is asbestos containing.
REGULATORY INFORMATION
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) sets forth state-of-the-art
requirements for proper building inspections. AHERA requirements initially applied to K-
12 schools only, but have been extended by other state and federal regulations to
include all public and commercial buildings as a requirement prior to renovation or
demolition. The AHERA standards were used in the inspection process for this survey.
AHERA requires that a certain number of samples be taken for any suspect material to
prove that asbestos is not present. One positive sample for a homogeneous material is
sufficient to prove the presence of asbestos, but all samples of the set must be negative
to prove non-ACM.
Asbestos containing material (ACM) is legally defined as a material having an asbestos
content greater than one percent in a bulk sample analyzed by polarized light
microscopy (PLM). Samples reported as trace asbestos have less than one percent
asbestos content. However, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 8, Part B - Emission Standards
for Asbestos requires that samples of friable materials (see definition below) estimated
to be one percent asbestos or less, but greater than zero percent (including "trace"), be
re-analyzed using a point counting technique with PLM. If a result obtained by point
counting is different than that obtained by the initial PLM estimation, the point count
result must be used.
2
• •
AHERA and CDPHE define friable as material that, when dry, may be crumbled,
pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. This includes previously non-friable
materials after such material becomes damaged to the extent that when dry it may be
crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.
FACILITY INFORMATION
The facility surveyed is a residential structure located at 35039 WCR 39, Lucerne, CO.
The facility is a two-bedroom, single story, wood-framed structure on CMU foundation.
The exterior is composed of a lightweight concrete/stucco finish, with cement board
siding on the gable ends of the roof structure. All roofing materials have been stripped
off of the structure, with only sub-roof planking remaining. The interior is finished with
various plaster and drywall finishes on the walls and ceilings, and flooring finishes
include exposed hardwood flooring, sheet vinyl flooring, and carpet. Due to the
condition of the roof, a considerable amount of moisture has damaged the wall and
ceiling finishes. The structure is generally in poor condition, and Weld County has
deemed the structure unsafe to occupy.
Photographs of the interior and exterior of the structure are included with this report.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The building inspection conducted by RLH Engineering resulted in the identification of
asbestos containing plaster and drywall within the structure, and asbestos cement siding
(transite) on the exterior of the structure. Below is a summary of these materials, an
assessment of their condition, and our recommendations.
ACM Plaster — Rough textured plaster located on the walls in the west bedroom of
the structure contains 2-3% chrysotile asbestos. The material is considered friable.
Due to the condition of the roof, this material is in poor condition. This material is
required to be removed from the structure and properly disposed of prior to
demolition.
ACM Drywall — Textured drywall, located on all ceilings within the structure, and on
walls in the living room, east bedroom, bathroom, and back porch, contain 2-3%
chrysotile asbestos. The material is considered friable. Due to the condition of the
roof, this material is in poor condition. This material is required to be removed from
the structure and properly disposed of prior to demolition. An original non-ACM
plaster was identified underneath these drywall finishes. However, due to the
condition of this plaster and the ACM drywall, the non-ACM plaster should be
considered asbestos contaminated and should also be properly removed and
disposed of prior to demolition.
ACM Transite Siding — Asbestos cement board siding (transite), located on the
exterior gable ends of the roof, is 15% chrysotile asbestos. Pieces of transite are
also visible in the soil behind the structure, apparently left behind from when the back
portion of the stucture was removed. This material is non-friable. However, the
material is considerably damaged and is required to be removed from the structure
and properly disposed of prior to demolition.
3
S •
Due to the condition and quantity of asbestos containing materials described above, a
major asbestos spill should be declared (greater than 160 SF of friable ACM, as defined
by CDPHE Reg. No. 8 for Asbestos), and entry into the structure should be prohibited
until the major asbestos spill cleanup can be properly performed by a CDPHE certified
General Abatement Contractor (GAC). It is recommended that all remaining furnishings
in the structure be decontaminated prior to disposal, or disposed of as asbestos-
contaminated waste. Furthermore, all wall and ceiling finishes should be removed and
disposed of as asbestos containing waste materials.
In addition, recent changes to CDPHE's Solid Waste Unit regulations for asbestos
contaminated soil cause concern due to the transite and plaster debris found in the soil
outside of the structure. The CDPHE Solid Waste regulations for asbestos
contaminated soil stipulate that soil with any amount of asbestos (including trace, or
greater than 0% but less than 1%) be disposed of as asbestos-contaminated waste. It is
recommended that all transite, plaster, and drywall debris around the structure be
removed and disposed of as part of the pre-abatement demolition. In addition, the
exterior lightweight concrete/stucco finish on the structure contains a trace amount (less
than 1%) of asbestos. This material does not need to be removed and disposed of prior
to demolition. However, due to the CDPHE Solid Waste rule for asbestos contaminated
soil, it is strongly recommended that all exterior stucco debris be removed from the site
before closing the demolition project.
Considering the condition of the structure itself, the condition of the asbestos containing
materials inside the structure, evidence of ACM debris in the soil outside of the structure,
and post-demolition concerns regarding trace asbestos debris in soil, the Owner may
want to consider an alternate approach to abatement and demolition at this site. For
structurally unsound facilities, CDPHE Regulation No. 8 will allow a variance to demolish
and dispose of the entire structure as ACM waste. A checklist that is utilized by CDPHE
for approving this variance is included for your review. The variance request involves
employing some special practices and procedures for demolition and disposal, but in this
instance, this may be an advantageous approach for the following reasons:
Structure condition — Due to the deteriorated condition of the structure, it may be
unsafe for asbestos abatement workers to prepare the structure for conventional
abatement. To do so would require that all penetrations be sealed with duct tape
and polyethylene sheeting. Work to attach poly sheeting to the roof could put
workers in danger of falling through to the floor below. In addition, the back
portion of the structure has been removed, exposing interior wall finishes. A
considerable labor effort will be required to construct an abatement enclosure
outside of the existing structure to include these materials in the removal area. A
combined abatement/demolition approach would avoid the concern for
abatement personnel working inside of or on top of the structure.
Materials condition — Due to the deteriorated condition of the asbestos containing
materials inside the structure, a considerable amount of labor will be required to
remove and decontaminate or dispose of remaining furnishings inside the
structure. A combined abatement/demolition approach would eliminate the need
to handle this debris by hand, and would the debris would be removed
mechanically and disposed of dud ng demolition with the rest of the structure.
4
Contaminated soils condition — Prior to closing the demolition process, it is
recommended that all visible building debris be removed from the site, to avoid
potential asbestos debris contamination of the site soil. Conducting a combined
abatement/demolition approach would ensure that properly trained asbestos
worker and inspector personnel would be responsible for visually inspecting the
site after demolition and removing all building debris.
ABATEMENT BUDGETARY ESTIMATE
As further information to the two abatement scenarios detailed earlier in this report, we
have assembled the following budgetary estimates for each of the options:
Option 1 - Conventional Abatement and Demolition
This approach would involve developing bid documents to solicit bids from at
least three General Abatement Contractors to provide asbestos abatement. The
abatement work would involve shoring and stabilization of the structure to make
safe for work, constructing an enclosure for asbestos removal, asbestos removal
and disposal. Visual inspection and air clearance would be required to complete
the abatement project. In addition, the work would include a brief remobilization
of the abatement contractor after demolition is complete, to remove any further
asbestos debris or trace-asbestos debris left in the soil.
Asbestos Survey $ 1,400 (RLH)
Asbestos Abatement $19,800 (Abatement Contractor)
Abatement Consulting $ 2,635 (RLH)
Demolition` $ 6,000* (Demolition Contractor)
Project Total $29,835
*As previously solicited by Weld County from Agritrack, Inc.
Option 2— Simultaneous Abatement/Demolition of Unsound Structure
This approach would involve developing bid documents to solicit bids from at
least three General Abatement Contractors with demolition capabilities, for a
simultaneous abatement and demolition operation. The work would involve a
consultant's assistance in developing a variance request to CDPHE, which is
required to do this work using this approach. The work would involve removal
and disposal of the entire structure as asbestos waste, following the provisions
set forth in the variance granted by CDPHE. The work will likely require on site
air monitoring and visual inspection by a certified air monitoring
specialist/asbestos inspector.
Asbestos Survey $ 1,400 (RLH)
Abatement/Demolition Consulting $ 5,300 (RLH)
Abatement/Demolition $19,300 (Abate/Demo Contractor)
Project Total $ 26,000
5
r •
As an additional budget consideration, regardless of which option is chosen, it is
recommended that the project avoid being scheduled in May-June. During this time of
year, the cost of asbestos abatement typically increases, as a number of K-12 and
university projects tap asbestos labor resources. In the meantime, it is recommended
that the Owner secure the site and disallow entry into the structure, Asbestos warning
signs should be posted at entrances to further discourage entry into the structure.
6
• •
SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLE DATA
This section of this report is included to describe a sampling anomaly that occurred
when conducting bulk sampling at the project site. Five samples of the exterior plaster
(PL 3) were collected, based upon an estimated quantity of this material at 1,100 SF.
Sample analysis indicates that the material contains a 'trace' amount of asbestos, and
point counting confirmed that this 'trace' layer is less than 1% asbestos and not
considered ACM.
However, sample analysis of PL 3-2 also indicated an inclusion of a white fibrous plaster
material that was determined to be 3.5% asbestos. After reviewing the sample report
and inquiring about this material with the laboratory analyst, it is apparent that this
material was not ingrained in within the matrix of the PL 3-2 sample. Rather, it was a
separate piece of material that was in same sample bag as PL 3-2.
This material could have already been inside the bag when sample PL 2-3 was placed,
or the material could have been transferred from an unclean sampling tool that used to
collect sample PL 2-3. In either case, it is apparent that the 3.5% asbestos plaster
material in sample PI 3-2 is not consistent with the actual asbestos content of plaster
PL 3, and the 3.5% asbestos plaster is contamination from another material source.
In order to verify this condition, four additional PL 3 samples of were collected, to make a
total of nine samples (as recommended by the EPA). Sample analysis indicates that the
four additional samples contain a 'trace' amount of asbestos, and point counting
confirmed that this 'trace' layer is less than 1% asbestos and not considered ACM.
Based upon the information above, RLH Engineering has determined that the result of
PL 3-2 was anomalous, and that exterior plaster PL 3 should be considered a non-ACM
material, since analysis of all other samples indicates the material contains less than 1%
asbestos.
7
AGRI-TRACK/WELD COUNTY - 33039 WCR 39
Homogeneous Materials - Floors
Code Material Sample Number Quantity ACM?
1 carpet NON-SUSPECT - - NO
2 wood NON-SUSPECT - - NO
3 green pebble patter sheet vinyl SVF1-1, SVF1-2, NO
flooring SVF1-3
4 white/tan with brown lines SVF2-1, SVF2-2, 144 SF NO
sheet vinyl flooring SVF2-3
5 green square pattern sheet SVF3-1, SVF3-2, 144 SF NO
vinyl flooring SVF3-3
6 tan sheet vinyl flooring SVF4-1, SVF4-2, 144 SF NO
SVF4-3
7 white/gold sheet vinyl flooring SVF5-1,SVF5-2, 120 SF NO
SVF5-3
8 grey sheet vinyl flooring SVF6-1, SVF6-2, 120 SF NO
SVF6-3
AGRI-TRACK/WELD COUNTY - 33039 WCR 39
Homogeneous Materials - Ceilings & Walls
Code Material Sample Number Quantity ACM?
A wood NON-SUSPECT — — NO
B brick NON-SUSPECT - - NO
C concrete NON-SUSPECT - - NO
D ridge pattern textured drywall CDW1-1, CDW1-2, 768 SF YES
CDW1-3
E swirl textured drywall CDW2-1, CDW2-2, 284 SF YES
CDW2-3
F rough textured plaster PL1-1, PL1-2, 352 SF YES
PL1-3
G smooth plaster PL2-1, PL2-2, 2,150 SF NO
PL2-3, PL2-4,PL2-5
H rough exterior plaster PL3-1, PL3-2, PL3-3, 1,100 SF YES
PL3-4, PL3-5
I transite siding TR1-1, TR1-2 100 SF YES
J 1/2 circle swirl drywall CDW3-1, CDW3-2, 120 SF YES
CDW3-3
K light texture drywall CDW4-1, CDW4-2, 144 SF YES
CDW4-3
AGRI-TRACK/WELD COUNTY - 33039 WCR 39
Homogeneous Materials - TSI & Miscellaneous
Material Sample Number Quantity ACM?
NONE
• •
Sample Report RLH Engineering,Inc.
Agri-TrackNyeld County Protect Number 07013
33039 WCR 39 Mar-07
Page One
Sample ID Number Material Location Results of Laboratory
Analysis by Polarized Light
Microscopy
07013-0309-PL1-1 rough textured plaster back bedroom wall 2%chrysotile
07013-0309-PL1-2 rough textured plaster back bedroom wall 3%chrysotile
07013-0309-PL1-3 rough textured plaster back bedroom wall 2%chrysotile
07013-0309-PL2-1 smooth plaster front bedroom ceiling, ND
back bedroom ceiling
07013-0309-PL2-2 smooth plaster hying room ceiling ND
07013-0309-PL2-3 smooth plaster kitchen ceiling ND
07013-0309-PL2-4 smooth plaster kitchen ceiling ND
07013-0309-PL2-5 smooth plaster back bedroom ceiling ND
07013-0309-PL3-1 rough exterior plaster front east end,northeast trace chrysolite
point count<0.25%
07013-0309-PL3-2 rough exterior plaster northwest,north wall 5%chrysolite*
trace chrysotile
point count 3.5%'
<0.25%
07013-0309-PL3-3 rough exterior plaster kitchen exterior west wall trace chrysolite
point count:<0.25%
07013-0309-PL3-4 rough exterior plaster southwest,west wall trace chrysotile
point count:<0.25%
07013-0309-PL3-5 rough exterior plaster middle south wall trace chrysotile
point count:<0.25%
07013-0329-PL3-6 rough exterior plaster northwest,north wall trace chrysolite
point count<0.25%
07013-0329-PL3-7 rough exterior plaster kitchen exteror west wall trace chrysotile
point count:<0.25%
07013-0329-PL3-8 rough exterior plaster northwest.north wall trace chrysotile
point count:<0.25%
07013-0329-PL3-9 rough exterior plaster middle south wall trace chrysolite
point count-<0.25%
07013-0309-CDW1-1 ridge pattern texture hying room walls 2%chrysotile
drywall
07013-0309-CDW1-2 ridge pattern texture living room walls 3%chrysotile
drywall
07013-0309-WW1-3 ridge pattern texture front bedroom walls 3%chrysolite
drywall
07013-0309-CDW2-1 swirl texture drywall living room ceiling 3%chrysolite
07013-0309-CDW2-2 swirl texture drywall living room ceiling 3%chrysotile
07013-0309-CDW2-3 swirl texture drywall front bedroom ceiling 3%chrysotile
07013-0309-CDW3-1 1/2 circle swirl drywall back bedroom ceiling 3%chrysotile
07013-0309-CDW3-2 1/2 circle swirl drywall back bedroom ceiling 3%chrysotile
'Refer to report regarding sampling anomoly Identified in this sample
•
Sample Report RLH Engineering,Inc.
Agri-Track/Weld County Project Number 07013
33039 WCR 39 Mar-07
Page Two
Sample ID Number Material Location Results of Laboratory
Analysis by Polarized Light
Microscopy
07013-0309-CDW3-3 1/2 circle swirl drywall back bedroom ceiling 3%chrysotile
07013-0309-CDW4-1 light texture drywall kitchen ceiling 3%chrysolite
07013-0309-CDW4-2 light texture drywall kitchen ceiling 3%chrysolite
07013-0309-CDW4-3 light texture drywall kitchen ceiling 3%chrysotile
07013-0309-TR1-1 Iransite siding front gable end 15%chrysotile
07013-0309-TR1-2 Iransite siding front gable end not analyzed
07013-0309-SVFi-1 green pebble pattern front bedroom ND
sheet vinyl flooring
07013-0309-SVF1-2 green pebble pattern front bedroom ND
sheet vinyl flooring
07013-0309-SVFi-3 green pebble pattern front bedroom ND
sheet vinyl flooring
07013-0309-SVF2-1 white/tan with brown line kitchen ND
sheet vinyl flooring
07013-0309-SVF2-2 white/tan with brown line kitchen ND
sheet vinyl flooring
07013-0309-SVF2-3 white/tan with brown line kitchen ND
sheet vinyl flooring
07013-0309-SVF3-1 green square kitchen ND
pattern sheet vinyl
flooring
07013-0309-SVF3-2 green square kitchen ND
pattern sheet vinyl
flooring
07013-0309-SVF3-3 green square kitchen ND
pattern sheet vinyl
flooring
07013-0309-SVF4-1 Ian sheet vinyl flooring kitchen ND
07013-0309-SVF4-2 tan sheet vinyl flooring kitchen ND
07013-0309-SVF4-3 tan sheet vinyl floonng kitchen ND
07013-0309-SVF5-1 white/gold sheet vinyl flooring back bedroom NO
07013-0309-SVFS-2 white/gold sheet vinyl floonng back bedroom ND
07013-0309-SVF5-3 white/gold sheet vinyl flooring back bedroom ND
07013-0309-SVF6-1 grey sheet vinyl back bedroom ND
flooring
07013-0309-SVF6-2 grey sheet vinyl back bedroom ND
flooring
07013-0309-SVF6-3 grey sheet vinyl back bedroom ND
flooring
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
33039 WCR 39
RLH Project Number 07013
e E
..--^ `.wit.
�, I rt.- e ti +
kau ° k
ypt ,I F SG' rig i�
a, �` -+ L,'
�i
i=�' t C 2 �� ,{x _
u,..40,1244;,,p,:,hw hux t Y' r X -4, r.;,,,'
{ 4 it l P4 ry 1..:
r ',r a ' tea ! ax'. .
w -
• .:r �s7 hixz
1. Front of structure. ACM transite siding visible on gable end of house and
porch.
4. ilkiirotycartOll'A
[{,
, r
v
.. t
V 2. Back of structure. ACM plaster and drywall exposed after previous owner
removed porch and bathroom.
•
•
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
33039 WCR 39
RLH Project Number 07013
i.
• ,44 A-.
wam aaaa �_ tiwi4 .+uan e.«.rn.*a'isxutr r:
f "gip° I yt
r:;„.: ..' $d{yi4a'r'MAk "'t7 j" Y` � �4'Airg Y L1 R�k I el
nithel
3. Roof condition, N o roofing remains, exposing interior finishes to moisture
and weather.
a' " � ' w r ra
Ili 3XfPo-d�iatf E`'
,:{ it 4 �1 e 'h ' .g
d
�t '.
4,411:!:,.....1.1 a 4is) i x .
r'4? I asa. ` w F r ;4w F r 9: } 3
b
5 may}^ i
a; .
a' 1�
4. Interior of house, east bedroom. Wall and •ceiling plaster and drywall are
ACM and in poor condition.
•
•
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
33039 W" 39
RLH Project Number 07013
italli :: v t�ec. F l-9 t i,I
y
Foy. �. ,
� :mpy t , ter .
P ' .i r `fia a' �'r4. "
s
�
vy zd ,t. � —
5. Living roam ceiling. Poor condition, due to water in filtration.
° 9ca tea'�M = F .4:
w r t fNit.
,+ ,y n{
6. Kitchen ceiling, damaged by water infiltration
•
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
33039 WCR 39
RLH Project Number 07013
i 5 % ? •
ii
ri
''' ., ,,,3 vt.. '' ate,'' ;C w fit -,
a rM
1 'Y rn.
''';1/441,14;.„17-11 ,j}..§cwt§ 4 •C- i §
FGB. Ay bm' 4.�, R₹'4
7. ACM plaster debris and other ACM contaminated furnishings.
k 'ri' • Gv-� t { y �� srR
:re,.. , k h 1. i s
::j,P 41",3' t
,„!
«Wlell ,. qt,y �a. .
i i
AAx y .ley �,'"xt i t
C'� ,.,. ..444 ° ,� i ,� .
8. ACM drywall debris in living room.
•
•
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
33039 WCR 39
RLH Project Number 07013
t ` ..
,µ F
wee
•AS:,er..
w t 4t
'-- lit" Ri ,Rnp .—..-.4t:.:. ts. .. t' s
9. ACM plaster debris, drywall debris, and contaminated furnishings in west
bedroom.
i ro `
ry
'3' � % Xry2'u.:P e
lie h M:P.Ini X�,t+a� � :' ti
itF#' l ju'�.$f'�
..T'`m3t .`v
J �
it.,
"L
10. ACM transite siding debris, on ground east of house.
NI • • EXHIBIT
27451 W.C.R.388
��,, Y itr pcky ' . Kersey,CO.80844
May 14,2007
Mr.Roger Vigil:
After conducting a walk through of the property located at 33039 W.C.R.39,
Lucerne,CO.we have arrived at a price for the clearing of the surrounding property
and the securing of the condemned house.Some interior trees will need to be
removed to accomplish the work described.
Debris surrounding the structure: Removal of all debris,sheds,select trees if
needed.Site prep and backfill where needed for fencing. $2,000.00.
Boarding windows and doorways: Industry standard 7/16 Wafer Board. Materials
and labor. $500.00.
Fencing and Installation:Commercial grade Schedule 40,6'chain link fence with
triple strand barbed wired top.$2,880.00.
Total Cost$5.380.00.
We have determined that this is the most cost efficient route in ensuring the
publics safety.This plan will contain the existing hazardous environment and create a
more aesthetically pleasing view to the prospective homeowners of the surrounding
properties. We feel this is a necessary consideration when aspiring to an amiable
relationship between Weld County and those select citizens of Lucerne.Thank you for
your consideration,we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Dave Droegemueer
Agrkrack, Inc.
Hello