HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043098.tiff /ariHs MEMORANDUM
' TO: Clerk to the Board 10/14/04
COLORADO' FROM: Chris Gathman - Planner II
SUBJECT: USR-1484 Conditions prior to scheduling Board of
Commissioners hearing
The applicants have satisfied all conditions for this case prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners Hearing. This case is therefore ready to be scheduled for a hearing.
SERVICE TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
6
2004-3098 USZ #1i/
CHRYSTEN S. HINZE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
THE GREELEY BUILDING
710 ELEVENTH AVENUE,SUITE L-60
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
TELEPHONE:(970)351-7485
TELEFAX:(970)351-7486
E-MAIL: chryslaw@frii.com
October 11, 2004
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
ATTN: Chris Gathman
Re: Use by Special Review Application (USR-1484) Being a
Request for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for
a sandblasting business in the Ag Zone District. (Lot A of RE 1285, Pt.
S1/2 W1/4 of Section 31, T4N, R68W of the 6m P.M., Weld County,
Colorado, also known as 18012 WCR 1, P.O. Box 1455, Berthoud, CO
80513.)
Dear Mr. Gathman:
This letter is to certify that the applicant has duly and adequately
attempted to locate and notify in writing the mineral owners and lessees who may
have interests in mineral rights associated with the subject property, and that the
applicant has adequately attempted to mitigate the concerns, if any, of said
mineral owners and lessees in reference to the above-referenced application.
Sincerely,
Chryst S. Hinze
Cc: James Stepanek
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING
CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS November 1, 2004. THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED
ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, Chris Gathman, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN
WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR USR-1484 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT.
exp : oiceo
gq ! p f t
5
.. r e'vr-ti. 11
firi, +li T �k~C � �y pe
,�, n� a t 4th.i l;i�. r t a t rnp
a
b 1114O
`:"I 8
%.4the it., , .
- . .1.461,0„01,....4a i fist:23/41;i:tif,...i,Dt.,,:y.tiaff‘ ''
. , itt itGdivs 'g ,
x t r t.ty...11.01,,,i:iiy:vi.va:vit,,,p,,,:p....,0t � H A t
Ott. ,ztiges totj,yti iMi�iy{p}Ly�'�4P 1...
ffid r i
ittrtiet41.•:,141t,`4%,1$41.1ILIS
1 44, r '
r • r '
risni tit r r
r4 I'
r
2 r r.
•
r hl rs
1St lb tan/
i'.
�1e/ziJrcl ; /)
f)<ielrt
•
x �tW kk
1
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1484 (Stepanek Site Development Plan and Special Review for Use
for Sandblasting)
This letter is submitted to state that we, the undersigned, have no
objection to Mr. James Stepanek's application for a Use by Special Review
permit for doing sandblasting work on his property and support his ability to use
his property for this purpose. We do not believe that the proposed use adversely
impacts or interferes with the enjoyment of our own property.
Sincerely,
1,7
Name: -o\-\ "-C:) (:" r ( c\1(' r (,
Address: \tl 5 ym'l U v1-)ck
Date: ' \ I E.II1 (''1
rY �'�yy�'Y d 'aavv9 A
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17"'Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1484 (Stepanek Site Development Plan and Special Review for Use
for Sandblasting)
This letter is submitted to state that we, the undersigned, have no
objection to Mr. James Stepanek's application for a Use by Special Review
permit for doing sandblasting work on his property and support his ability to use
his property for this purpose. We do not believe that the proposed use adversely
impacts or interferes with the enjoyment of our own property.
Sincerely,
•
Name: Leis of % beC
Address:
to Cv 3
Date: /o
;xd t iEi
impawe
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1484 (Stepanek Site Development Plan and Special Review for Use
for Sandblasting)
This letter is submitted to state that we, the undersigned, have no
objection to Mr. James Stepanek's application for a Use by Special Review
permit for doing sandblasting work on his property and support his ability to use
his property for this purpose. We do not believe that the proposed use adversely
impacts or interferes with the enjoyment of our own property.
Sincerely,
Name: Mar LyNt,
Address: 1 0 o A c , c----y
Date: 11- - o�F
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1484 (Stepanek Site Development Plan and Special Review for Use
for Sandblasting)
This letter is submitted to state that we, the undersigned, have no
objection to Mr. James Stepanek's application for a Use by Special Review
permit for doing sandblasting work on his property and support his ability to use
his property for this purpose. We do not believe that the proposed use adversely
impacts or interferes with the enjoyment of our own property.
L 4c irnown ,i-/;rho 676(
fnarseoe Sincerely, A/,' r Crrna/b/i✓9`, , -�-
dAano t c4 rfr.
VS- ' s�- �
Name: /LvstaY S. Sty"
Address: /1192_ t/,ft t
a 1 _r0' () ;r.S7
Date: got -so, 2O0
3 ✓4 yep..
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1484 (Stepanek Site Development Ran and Special Review for Use
for Sandblasting)
This letter is submitted to state that we, the undersigned, have no
objection to Mr. James Stepanek's application for a Use by Special Review
permit for doing sandblasting work on his property and support his ability to use
his property for this purpose. We do not believe that the proposed use adversely
impacts or interferes with the enjoyment of our own property.
Sincerely,
Nit/
Name: 67/e
Address:,-2._tO q S'o (°C ,kk
R th,O O O /n
Date: 3i- y
EJU4IBtt
gar
i fir.;
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1484 (Stepanek Site Development Plan and Special Review for Use
for Sandblasting)
This letter is submitted to state that we, the undersigned, have no
objection to Mr. James Stepanek's application for a Use by Special Review
permit for doing sandblasting work on his property and support his ability to use
his property for this purpose. We do not believe that the proposed use adversely
impacts or interferes with the enjoyment of our own property.
Sincerely,
Name: \C\VSkt.:4 3I rY \rcr .
Address:a opct C P =) )-
i-5c�1h�,�t is 0r-ji 3
Date: [t--i
. . s ,
^
y\ \ } al y
r
%
<
� « �
. \ . y . .
- »> - : . \ \ .
»
§\< «
ft
\
. . . . .
K �! .! *
.
•
��� :" ,•' t t. qtr' . ,-�"" �., r �,
d 4(4.` r"14,.....,t:":4,47..."0:.t.6 _ ,
r
' r-,C, e.,
1
S
.�J
' t .
r.ti r ,1
jyy
' ' Jr IA . ':Ft p $
`� M ♦ 7 jA
'4tt 51
Va.
iF
t,.F�{Ji s.,,D
4
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens,Governor opco�
Douglas H. Benevento,Executive Director ,�� s
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado NQi -o
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Services Division *
*
Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. µ*1876'
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928
TDD Line(303)691-7700 (303)692-3090 Colorado Department
Located in Glendale,Colorado of Public Health
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment
STATUS: APEN EXEMPT
PERMIT EXEMPT
October 8, 2004
Mr. James Stepanek
P.O. Box 1455
Berthoud, CO 80513
Re: Permit Application No. 04WE1127
Dear James:
The Air Pollution Control Division (the Division) reviewed your emission permit application for the
following source located at 18012 WCR#1, Berthoud, Weld County, Colorado:
Dry sandblasting equipment with a design rate of 300 pounds blast media per
hour. This operation is partially enclosed in an old barn.
The Division determined uncontrolled actual emissions of criteria pollutants from the above source are
less than two tons per year and this source does not emit reportable quantities of non-criteria reportable
pollutants (NCRP). Therefore, the emission point referenced above is exempt from the requirement to
file an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) to report emissions (Reference: Regulation No. 3, Part A,
Section II.D.1.a). In addition, this source is exempt from permit requirements (Reference: Regulation
No. 3, Part B, Section II.D.1.a).
This exemption from APEN emission reporting and permit requirements is issued in reliance upon the
accuracy and completeness of the information supplied by the applicant and is conditioned upon
construction, installation, and operation in accordance with this information. Specifically, this exemption
is granted provided the following information is accurate and complete:
1. Emissions of criteria pollutants from the source listed above will not exceed 2.0 tons per year on
an uncontrolled basis and there are no reportable emissions of NCRPs. Actual uncontrolled
emissions, as calculated in the Division's preliminary analysis, are 0.27 tons per year of
particulate matter and 0.13 tons per year PMtd (particulate matter < 10 pm). This is based on
the requested usage rate of 10 tons blast media per year.
AIRS ID: 123/5058/001 Page 1 of 2
James Stepanek
Permit Application No. 04WE1127 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
APEN Exempt/Permit Exempt Air Pollution Control Division
2. To demonstrate qualification for this exemption, annual records of the actual blast media usage
rate shall be maintained by the operator and be made available to the Division for inspection
upon request.
For guidance, the Division determined at a blast media usage rate of 74 tons per year, uncontrolled
emissions of particulate matter from this emission point would equal two tons per year on an
uncontrolled basis. At this level of operations, emission reporting via an APEN submittal is required.
Please note, although exempt emission points do not need air emission permits, they still are required
to meet all applicable standards and regulations of the Air Quality Control Commission. This includes,
but is not limited to; visible emissions shall not exceed 20% opacity.
Any change with respect to the original submittal that would result in the addition of or an increase in
emissions above an applicable APEN reporting or permitting threshold, automatically nullifies this
exemption. Before actually making such a change, you must apply to the Division for a new exemption
based on the anticipated change. If the Division denies the new exemption, you will have to obtain a
permit before implementing the change.
Thank you for your permit application. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call me
directly at 303-692-3216.
Sincerely,
áflplane
Permit Engineer
Stationary Sources Program
Air Pollution Control Division
cc: Weld County Health Department
AIRS ID: 123/5058/001 Page 2 of 2
Nancy Frase, President Dean&Nadine whiney
15665 E.County tine Road
Frase Consulting Group Inc. Larry&Gwen NixMhW
12450 N.County Line Road
PO Box 200055
Evans Colorado Judy Newton& Cale
18016 Weld County Road 1
970-506-4174 / 303-956-0578 Elsie wino
2309 5.County Line Road I
Jerry&Sherd Schneider
Consultant hired to represent 1432N.U5 Hwy 287
interests of Berthoud neighbors Reyes Brehm&Juli o Roadd
2537 Brehm
Primary request: 1 home within 200 feet (north)
-
Deny based upon incompatibility animals, organic garden
1 home within 400 feet (east)
- noise -animals
- hazardous dust
-appearance
pro perty value 10 more homes within 1,500 feet
If denial is not appropriate: Air Pollution Emission
Notice (A.P.E.N.) and
Include strict conditions Emissions Permit
in approval
application
+ECfY:q 1{ iH atea ..45a `'� S4.
Dust abatement plan to Handling waste/trash
Weld County and hazardous materials
Add:Approval by Ladner County Call attention to the control of
and Boulder County noxious weeds
Fugitive dust and Toilet and handwashing
particulate emissions facilities in accordance
with county code
Add: No fugitive dust allowed to
leave property Currently, only facilities are in the
occupied rental house
Hours of operation
limited to 8am-5pm,
Mon-Fri No additional employees
Weekends and evenings SPeCily" Renter assisting for pay
are best time for residential or no pay constitutes another
quiet time employee
2
Storage totally within July 12th, 2004 e-mail from Phil
Brewer to Charlotte Davis:
enclosed building
"His building is a ramshackle
Storage of sand and trash in structure without doors and tightly
sealed windows . . . the building has
older barn will allow blowing not been significantly repaired for its
whole life."
August 1B^, 2004 e-mail from
Operation totally within Laflmer County Heath and
enclosed building Environment about this case:
"We . . . have had to deal with 3-4
Older barn is not "enclosed" sand blasting operations over the
years . . . and have spent hundreds
of hours answering complaints . . ."
Larimer County's e-mail continued: Latimer County's e-mail
"I would suggest that anything short continued:
of a completely enclosed
operation . . . including compressors "Once the silicosis issue is raised
. . . and then an air pollution control it will not go away with anything
device on the building . . . would be less than 0 visible emissions."
unacceptable to the neighbors."
3
Noise level control per Larimer County's e-mail continued:
C.R.S. 25-12-103
"Actually, the particulate emissions is
the easy part. The unique, high-
Enforce state law, not follow pitched noise that sand blasting can
Planning Commission's produce is difficult to mitigate."
recommendation
Weld County personnel Lorimer County's e-mail continued:
granted access
"I would also suggest a
`probationary' period so compliance
Add: Probationary period or can be demonstrated in the field and
periodic/unannounced not just on paper."
inspections
April 2M; 1998 letter from James Minutes from the October 14hh, 2003
Stepanek to Weld County: Zoning Violations Hearing with
County Commissioners:
" . . . I don't have a sandblast "Mr. Stepanek stated that the few
business here." items he brings home to work on are
now done inside a structure."
4
July 13th, 2004 e-mail From Phil Primary request:
Brewer to Charlotte Davis:
"Supposedly James only does small
Deny based upon incompatibility
amounts of sand blasting at the - noise
site -- according to him. However, - hazardous dust
the volume of sand . . . suggests - appearance
something other than `hobby'
volumes and `sample' blasting." Property value
5
Page 2 of 3
Sounds like you were on site. If so, did you see employees working there? Do you know if bathrooms where
0, available in the shop? It is not a hobby-the application states hours of operation as 8 to 5.
Do you have the complaints? I'd like to have a copy for my file. Sounds like he has unhappy neighbors he will
have a hard time getting the USR approved not good to have angry neighbors they will vent all the
frustrations at the hearings.
Any thing else that I may need to know? Thanks for your input. Char
From: Phillip Brewer
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:48 PM
To: Charlotte Davis
Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building?
I have received two complaints about sand blasting at this address in the past year. The complainants live next
door north of his property. They are complaining about silica dust blowing off site onto their property.
His building is a ramshackle structure without doors and tightly sealed windows. The building is only wood boards
that appear to have been placed in the structure of the building decades ago and the building has not been
significantly repaired for its whole life. The concrete floor is grossly fractured and shifted. The open east end of
the building is the source of the silica sand/paint/metal that collects outside on the soil that is peppered with
naturally established weeds. The sand/blasted material has collected in a plume-like (fan)shape. There is no
effort to control the distribution of the sand after blasting. There are no baghouses, cyclones, filters or other
efforts to collect airborne dust.
I have an idea that his blasting is of"hobby"volume and not that of a full time blasting business. Nonetheless,
whether it is a hobby or business, he is not to let the stuff pass off site and contaminate the area.
I talked with him about the issue two weeks ago and said to him that he is not allowed to let the dust blow off his
property onto the properties of others. I commented that he needed to control the air suspended particulates, and
that he may need to consider enclosing the building with tight doors and windows.
What is it that you are doing with Mr. Stepanek?
From: Charlotte Davis
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:31 PM
To: Phillip Brewer
Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building?
The address is 18012 WCR 1, Berthoud the applicant is James Stepanek. Char
From: Phillip Brewer
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:21 PM
To: Charlotte Davis
Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building?
Char: They need to apply and then have the CDPHE-APCD determine if it is APEN and Permit exempt. May I
ask who/where this is?
Thanks PhilB
07/13/2004
EXHIBIT
Chris Gathman
From: Charlotte Davis S�-�--
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 8:33 AM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: FW: Stepanek Sandblasting
Spehanek
mdblasting.doc(23
Chris, Here is the Larimer Co. correspondence Char
Original Message
From: Pam Smith
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:42 AM
To: Charlotte Davis
Subject: FW: Stepanek Sandblasting
Original Message
From: Doug Ryan [mailto:dryan®larimer.org]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:34 AM
To: Pam Smith; Trevor Jiricek
Cc: Doug Bjorlo; Jerry Blehm
Subject: Stepanek Sandblasting
Pam and Trevor,
Our Larimer Co. Commissioners office received a message from consultant Nancy Frase about
the Stepanek sandblasting operation in Weld County.
The attached word document contains her message. We need to get back to her, and thought
it would be helpful to touch base with you first. It sounds like this is an ongoing land
use/air quality issue that your office has been involved with.
Since the complaint to our office includes some Larimer Co residents, I did ask around to
see if anyone had information. We don't, but Jerry Blehm provided this advice to me based
on his experience with sandblasting complaints:
Doug,
I'm not aware of this specific operation but I do have some comments .
We/Larimer County H & E has had to deal with 3-4 sand blasting operations over the years
and they have each and everyone been a huge issue regarding neighborhood complaints. We
have spent hundreds of hours answering complaints and trying to work with operators. I
would suggest that anything short of a completely enclosed operation, including sand,
pots, compressors, everything and then a air pollution control device on the building that
would guarantee no off property transport, would be unacceptable to the neighbors . Once
the silicosis issue is raised it will not go away with anything less than 0 visible
emissions . They will say they can control the dust with water but they will not use it
when they sand blast iron and most steel because it causes it to rust very fast. They will
say they will use certain kinds of safe (artificial) sand, the neighbors will not believe
it.
The emissions will not only be sand particles but particles of the object being cleaned.
can be paint, lead, hydrocarbons, aluminum, asbestos, etc.
Actually the particulate emissions are the easy part. The unique, high pitched noise that
sand blasting can produce is difficult to mitigate.
Just putting it inside a building may not reduce the levels to acceptable standards.
1
I would suggest an enclosed operation with appropriate dust and noise control. If the
operation is to be approved I would also suggest a "probationary" period so compliance can
be demonstrated in the field and not just on paper.
Jerry
ANy advise or background info would be appreciated. This issue is probably well in hand,
and we want to make sure any involvement on our part is helpful.
Doug Ryan
Larimer Co Department of Health and Environment
(970) 498-6777
ryandl@co.larimer.co.us
2
V.‘•: V •vv n CLv ILM&Nl\I(J 001
JAMES STEPANEK
18012 W.C.R.#1
Berthoud,Co 80513
Telephone 970.532-0570
WELD COUNTY
DEPT OF PLANNING
1400 N, 17 TH AVE
GREELEY,CO
80631
April 20th 1998
Dear Sharyn Frazer
is addressing the noncompliance complaint from March 12th 98.
There is no individuals living in a trailer on the property and I dont have a sandblast
business here.
Please dont hesitate to call if I have not answered all questions.
Sincerely
James Stepanek
VI 9800049
W'tiald County than ai,; Dewi.
APR 2 3 1993
Bethany salzman :31AU68U1 in- rage
VI#0200517-STEPAN EK: Ms.Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant
to the case file, this property is in violation of Sections 23-3.20, 23-3-30, 23-3-30.D. 23-3-40,
23-3-40.O, and 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code. To bring the property into compliance, a
Home Occupation, or a Use by Special Review application must be submitted.
James Stepanek,property owner,stated that the zoning changed after he bought the property.
There was a problem in the past with the Department of Public Health and Environment when work
was brought to the site. Mr. Stepanek stated the few items he brings home to work on are now
done inside a structure. There are no signs or advertising, and the hours of operations are
between 8:00 and 5:00. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Salzman stated the Home
Occupation permit is$50.00 and the Use by Special Review is much more. The reason the Home
Occupation is questionable is the fact that some work is done at the site. Responding to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Stepancek stated there is very little work brought home, maybe once a
month.
Ms. Salzman stated that with either the Home Occupation or the Use by Special Review,they will
have an Inspector check the building and Phil Brewer of the Department of Public Health and
Environment will check for air quality control and if a state permit is needed. Responding to
Commissioner Vaad, Ms. Salzman stated that she has discussed the option of not bringing any
work to the site; however, Mr.Stepanek stated financially he could not refuse work.
Commissioner Vaad moved to refer VI#0200517 against James Stepanek to the County Attorney
for legal action,with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until January 13, 2004, to
allow adequate time for the Use by Special Review application to be submitted, or move the
business. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Geile,and it carried unanimously.
VI#0300090-EARLY: Ms.Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to the
case file, this property is in violation of Sections 23-3-150, 23-3-150.8, and 23-3-150.O of the
Weld County Code. To bring the property into compliance,the noncommercial junkyard must be
restored,removed or screened from all adjacent properties and public rights-of-ways.
Neither the property owner nor a representative was present, and there was no public testimony
given.
Ms. Salzman stated the certified mail receipt from the first mailing was returned stating Mr. Early
may have moved to Wyoming, and the property is in the process of being sold.
Commissioner Geile moved to refer VI#0300090 against Ross Early to the County Attorney for
legal action, with the instruction to delay action upon such referral until November 18, 2003, to
allow adequate time for the property to sell. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerke,
and it carried unanimously.
VI#0300101 -SAI A7AR:Ms.Salzman presented the case report for the record and pursuant to
the case file,this property is in violation of Sections 23-3-110,23-3-110.8,23.3-110.O,23-3-110.D,
23-3-160,and 23-3-160.H of the Weld County Code. To bring the property into compliance the
number of animals must be reduced,or a Nonconforming Use application must be completed. Also
Hearing Certification, Zoning Violations
October 14,2003 2003-2872
Page 2 PL0824
"
Page 1 of 3
Charlotte Davis
From: Charlotte Davis
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:43 AM
To: Phillip Brewer
Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building?
Phil, Thanks for the info. He will have a condition requiring him to either get the proper permits from the APCD or
provide evidence from APCD that it isn't required. He will also have restrictions on waste and noise among many
others things. If he gets approval for this use he won't have a choice to not be"inclined"to follow the
requirements. We will have the "teeth"to make him comply or his permit will be revoked.
Would you like me to cc you my comments to Planning?
Again, thanks for your help on this. Char
From: Phillip Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:55 AM
To: Charlotte Davis
Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building?
Char: I doubt that any employees are at the site. There are no bathrooms in the shop, but there is a habitable
house on the property that probably has a bathroom.
The neighbors who have complained are the ones bordering his property on the north. The neighbor on the east
has not complained, but when I talked with him his response was interesting. He responded that he ignores the
sand blasting and did not want to complain about it as he moved to the rural area so he could do things that he
can't do in town. He does not want to do anything that will restrict the activities of someone else.
I have actually visited the 18012 WCR 1 property three times in the past year. Two times no one was there.
However, I made an appointment with James and met him there the second time and discussed the issue. I
talked with James on the phone a couple of weeks ago after I visited the property and observed what I have
included in these messages to you.
I should have used the word "hobby" in quote marks. I mean "hobby"to mean "volume" and not avocation.
Supposedly James only does small amounts of sand blasting at the site--according to him. However, the volume
of sand that has spread over the east area of the building and outside suggests something other than "hobby"
volumes and "sample" (James'term)blasting.
My impression is that he has no interest nor inclination to do anything to control the silica dust emanating from
his sandblasting operations that are conducted in support of his "professional" business.
I would highly suggest that James be given a strict requirement for applying for an APEN with the CDPHE-APCD.
He can contact the Small Business Assistance Program, 303-692-3175.
J. Phillip
From: Charlotte Davis
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:09 PM
„_,To: Phillip Brewer
Subject: RE: Sandblasting inside building?
It is a Use by Special Review(USR) sent over from planning. More than likely it was investigated by the Zoning
Compliance officer (Bethany Salzman)
07/13/2004
Hello