HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033412.tiff Imo° ,
District
District Court, Weld County, Colorado
P.O. Box 2038
901 9th Ave
Greeley, CO 80632 �n
l
Plaintiff:
Ronald Warner
COURT USE ONLY
v.
Case Number: a3 e ✓/46 3
Defendants :
Board of County Commissioners Div.: 5 Ctrm.:
Weld County, Colorado
Party Without Attorney:
Name: Ronald Warner
Address: 4227 N. 119th St.
Lafayette, CO 80026
Phone: 303-828-0306
COMPLAINT
Ronald Warner, acting on his own behalf, citing Rule 106 (a)(4) of the Colorado Rules of
Civil Procedure,prays for fair and just relief This complaint stems from the minutes of
the Weld County Board of Commissioners meetings on October 20, 2003, October 22,
2003, and November 5, 2003. Regarding Recorded Exemption#3648, and Subdivision
Exemption's(Lot line adjustment's), #1000, #1001, #1002, and#1003.
It is believed that the County Commissioners "exceeded it's jurisdiction or abused it's
discretion, and their is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law:"
"based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer." Ronald
Warner prays for the district court to grant the Recorded exemption and sub-division
exemption's based upon the property owners rights and the statements to follow.
1. At issue was access to the property- Title work was presented for evidence that
showed there is up to 150 ft. of ingress, egress, and regress rights on Weld County Rd. 8
assigned to Ronald Warner by Union Pacific Railroad in a deed signed on the 8 th of
August 1907, and recorded in book 266 page 279. Also, referring to the minutes of Oct.
20th. 2003, Mr. Don Carroll of Weld County Dept. of Transportation stated"there is
currently one access from Weld CR 8", Weld County attorney Barker stated"Dacono is
required to give reasonable access to property". Also it has been stated that accessing 5
�Gm/J7 Ntirt";0r/ct/S• 11 Pte_. 2003-3412
properties with one entrance is unsafe. It is common knowledge that there are numerous
Weld County developments known to the Board that have 5 or more homes serviced by
one entrance all throughout the county. Also the proposed developments in the Dacono
area are using only two accesses, on average, for hundreds of homes.
2. Regarding the Subdivision Exemptions (Lot Line adjustments), they are not affected
by the Dacono I.G.A. and would not hinder or frustrate anything with the planning or the
urbanization of the city of Dacono, there are already four build able acreage sites.
Referring to the minutes of Oct.20,2003, Ms. Lockman of Weld Co. Planning stated "the
current layout of the four parcels are linear, and the proposal is to widen and shorten each
lot", this is the purpose of the SE rule for lot line adjustments. Weld Co. Attorney Barker
stated"the definition of the term "development" in the I.G.A. does not include
Subdivision Exemptions; therefore, the agreement does not cover them." Also Attorney
Barker stated"since the Subdivision Exemptions are only doing lot line adjustments with
this proposal, they would be eligible for further division in the future." Also Attorney
Barker stated "Mr. Warner's development rights are the same as those held by any other
property owner to construct a residence, as well as any use allowed by right. The only
limitations may be building code setback requirements."
3. Regarding the Recorded Exemption, properties of 2.5 acres or larger are not regulated
by the Dacono I.G.A.. According to the Weld County attorney's office and the
department of Planning, since the title work date of the properties,(pre 1972),they
qualify for a recorded exemption, . Also, all of the guidelines required by the Department
of planning in Weld County have been met. The Weld County properties to the east of
said parcels were all created by recorded exemptions, as stated by Ms. Lockman., also
more recently in 2002 a three lot recorded exemption to the west of said property was
recorded. This property used a 150ft. Union Pacific Railroad right of way as lot C. All
recorded exemptions should be treated in the same fair and reasonable manner, and not be
held to different standards. Attorney Barker stated"annexation is mentioned for Recorded
Exemptions; however,the Board of County Commissioners can approve them without
considering annexation."
4. Also at issue was that the property line adjustments and one recorded exemption would
"frustrate or hinder"development in section 13 for the city of Dacono. This statement is
incorrect for the following reasons. It has been stated over and over again in the minutes
that there are four legal parcels by all of the Commissioners, Dept. of Planning of Weld
Co., Karen Cumbo representing the city of Dacono, and the County Attorney Mr. Barker.
So, how would doing simple lot line adjustments hinder or frustrate anything, as there are
already four build able sites. The surrounding development plans, or annexation
proposals, are not hindered in any way by the "use by right" of these properties, as stated
by Bernie Laas, planner for the property to the north of these parcels. It has already been
shown and put into evidence that there is water service,power, and the right to septic
systems,by code, to service these properties. There also is the ability as shown,to have
fire hydrant service to every house from Central Weld water, and as required by the St.
Vrain fire department. It has also been shown that the services provided to these
properties will not tax any services of the city of Dacono. It also has been stated to the
Commissioners the willingness to provide a"Trail easement"through one of these
properties running east-west, for a fair and equitable exchange. It also has been stated that
there is a willingness to work with the city of Dacono for any utility easement
underground that it may need to run east-west. It has been shown and stated that there is a
willingness to "reasonably satisfy"any issue the "one" additional RE would create for the
city of Dacono.
5. Regarding the trail issue, in the minutes of October 20th, 2003, Ms. Lockman stated
"this is not part of the Legacy Trail Project", and in the same minutes Ms. Cumbo stated
"the trail running through S.E. #1000 is on the plan and is part of the Legacy Project".
These properties should only be held to the same standards as any other private property
owner who is asked to run a regional trail system through their property.
Entered by
Ronald Warner
Hello