HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021593.tiff BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCERPT OF REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 29, 2001
RE: CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADE AND
MAINTENANCE OF A PORTION OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 39 AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN
THOSE PRESENT
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
M. J. GEILE, CHAIR
GLENN VAAD, PRO-TEM
WILLIAM H. JERKE
DAVID E. LONG
ROBERT D. MASDEN - TARDY
OTHERS PRESENT:
ESTHER E. GESICK, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
BRUCE BARKER, COUNTY ATTORNEY
FRANK HEMPEN, JR., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
BRIAN WALTERS, APPLICANT
BOB BURROWS, REPRESENTING MR. & MRS. POLAND
1
2002-1593
E` a Coo /
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIR GEILE: Next item on the agenda is "Consider nonexclusive
3 license agreement for upgrade and maintenance of a portion of Weld County Road 39 and
4 authorize Chair to sign - Jocelyn Walters."
5 UNKNOWN: Do I come up there now?
6 FRANK HEMPEN, JR.: I just have a few comments I wanted to make.
7 CHAIR GEILE: If we could let Mr. Hempen make his comments and then
8 you can come forward with anything you'd like.
9 MR. HEMPEN: It's my recollection that this Board has not had the
10 opportunity to view a Nonexclusive License Agreement to date, and I just wanted to go over a
11 little bit about what they are. And, if I'm mistaken, I can cut to the chase. A Nonexclusive
12 License Agreement, the County often grants Nonexclusive License Agreements to property
13 owners who want to use our right-of-way, our unimproved right-of-way, for access to properties
14 which otherwise don't have direct access to a public road. As you may recall, we have rights-of-
15 way easements, anyway, along most section line roads. And, today,people seem to be coming in
16 and buying property which does not necessarily have direct access or doesn't necessarily fit the
17 access from a public road for a particular house, so we are often asked to grant Nonexclusive
18 License Agreements. And that's what we're considering this morning. This one is for Walters to
19 use a part of Weld County 39, for about a half a mile south of Weld County Road 22. In this
20 particular area we do have 30 feet of right-of-way which goes along the western section line, or
21 actually it's in section 18, adjacent to 17. We grant these Nonexclusive License Agreements so
2
1 that individuals can use that right-of-way for their own purposes, but the terms of the agreement
2 clearly make it, make them responsible for upgrading the road or maintaining it for their special
3 purposes, it does not make it a public road, per se. That's wrong?
4 BRUCE BARKER: Yes. That's why it's called a Nonexclusive License
5 Agreement, it is a public roadway, and in fact, the license agreement talks about that, that it
6 doesn't allow them to put up gates or fence it off.
7 MR. HEMPEN: Okay. Well, everyone has a right to use public road
8 right-of-way. Okay. We do not maintain it as a public road. Again, this, I'd already outlined the
9 location and I think Donald pointed it out to you on the map. These are relatively routine and, in
10 this particular instance, anyway, we can see no reason not to grant it and would recommend such.
11 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,just questions for
12 Frank, or perhaps for Bruce. Ah, how does this work down the line? We're in the right-of-way,
13 should we need to do work in there and there have been improvements made, we still have our
14 easement and yet, perhaps there were some improvements made, tell me functionally, practically,
15 how these things get worked out, then, down the line, if there are problems.
16 MR. HEMPEN: Well, from an improvement standpoint, it would be very
17 atypical to have improvements made at any level, which would be acceptable for a public road
18 stand. If we have to make improvements, if there is something there that is usable, we will
19 incorporate those, if not, we'll go to our normal standards. So, I guess the answer to your
20 question is that it is, you know, it's a case-by-case situation. We still have the right to use that
21 for an upgraded road right, or infrastructure improvement.
22 COMMISSIONER JERKE: To explore it further, I guess my question is,
3
I what if the applicant has done something that would be in that area that would be contrary to our
2 ability to go ahead and use that for the easement purposes that should come up down the road - -
3 not tomorrow, but maybe fifty years from now?
4 UNKNOWN: Like build a structure or something?
5 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Obviously, a structure there, they've done
6 something there, they've planted trees there, close, that would cause problems for visibility. I
7 don't know what might happen, but
8 MR. HEMPEN: Sure. I think that we still have the first right to use the
9 right-of-way. And if they build an obstruction, a building, a shed or whatever, we will obviously
10 work with them, or someone will work with them. And, but we still have the first right to use
11 that road for transportation purposes. Ah, you know, those are custom decisions that have to be
12 made at the time that we're considering them. You know, and there is policy issues there
13 regarding well, they built trees and they have established trees there, do we need to reimburse
14 them for that. Arguably, we don't, often we do negotiate with people about those things in trying
15 to be reasonable local government.
16 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Is that part of the agreement, typically, that
17 we go ahead and compensate people once we've given them the right to go ahead and do
18 something? If something should come up that we have to compensate them later? That's
19 MR. HEMPEN: No. As I said, as I tried to explain earlier. We have the
20 first right to use that roadway regardless of any public improve, or private improvements, and
21 what I was, my point was that at times, depending on what those are, each of these is custom.
22 We may decide as a policy, you know, the County may decide from a policy standpoint to make
4
1 some compensation. But we don't have to. We have first right to that right-of-way for
2 transportation purposes.
3 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Then, Bruce, are we any more liable than
4 before should obstructions be placed there, for example. That are technically in our right-of-way,
5 still?
6 MR. BARKER: Well, there's two protections. First, is through the
7 Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which dangerous conditions on public road rights-of-way
8 haven't been waived as they have been through municipalities (inaudible) state. Secondly, the
9 license agreement includes indemnification provision such that the licensee is responsible for
10 indemnifying and defending the County government if there are any expenses or liabilities that
11 the County suffers. So those would be the two protections. On thing, in paragraph two of the
12 license agreement, it does state that the ah, like the upgrade and maintenance, it's in such a
13 manner as is reasonably prescribed by the first party, meaning Weld County. It's something I
14 think is probably incumbent upon the Public Works Department to determine if the licensee is
15 out there putting things into the road right-of-way, that they think they can do by virtue of this
16 license agreement that is not in keeping with the right-of-way that we'll need to get on them
17 about that so to speak. So that's a requirement. I think the other thing is that ah, if you look
18 through, ah, the rest of that paragraph two and then into paragraph three, it really talks about the
19 keeping of the road right-of-way and using it as a roadway. So, any structures, it doesn't allow
20 structures, it also does not allow for the payment of public funds for anything that they do within
21 the right-of-way. And that's in paragraph three. So anything that they do is without cost to the
22 County Government, and paragraph one is basically makes it so that it can be revoked at any time
5
1 by the Board, with a ninety-day notice. Talking about that revocation. So it, it's something that,
2 I think we've realized that there is, it does help in determining their responsibility, number one,
3 in terms of maintenance, and number two it brings to their attention that they don't have the right
4 to close it off to the public. And I think, number three, it has in the past, in certain
5 circumstances, assisted adjacent landowners, neighbors, to come to some agreement on joint
6 maintenance of a road right-of-way that they're all using. So there is some benefit to that extent.
7 CHAIR GEILE: Commissioner Vaad?
8 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yes, my question is, I can't tell, and I tried to
9 read over it, what is the piece of property? I see the Fayrene Meyers, et al, and then Walters
10 written in underneath, so, what piece of property do the Walters have that they are trying to
11 access with this?
12 MR. HEMPEN: I believe they own the tract which is noted up there on
13 our old map as "Meyers' Tract".
14 COMMISSIONER VAAD: So it's that,
15 MR. HEMPEN: Everything but that northeast corner of that quarter.
16 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay, and so then, in that northeast corner,
17 this right-of-way goes, what would appear here, across someone else's property, but it's our
18 right-of-way.
19 MR. HEMPEN: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And, are they aware of this?
21 MR. HEMPEN: Yes. They may be here today to speak to the issue.
22 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay, and are there any other owners
6
1 MR. HEMPEN: Their name is
2 COMMISSIONER VAAD: that this right-of-way traverses their property.
3 MR. HEMPEN: I do not believe so. Not under consideration today for
4 this Nonexclusive License Agreement. Does it go further south?
5 CHAIR GEILE: If we could go ahead and move ahead. Is Mr. Walters
6 here to address the Board this morning? If you could, Mr. Walters, come to the podium, give
7 your name and address for the record, and then any comments you'd like to make.
8 BRIAN WALTERS: My name is Brian Walters, I'm co-partners, or co-
9 owners in this quarter section of 18 there. Ah, basically what we did. My wife and I started a
10 new home, or tried to build a new house out there. And, ah, we went to the Planning Department
11 the County Planning Department and we spoke with a Mr. Ben Patton. And we wanted to bring
12 the road in off of 22 anywhere else except for crossing Poland's property there, but, as far as
13 what the Planning Department had told us at the time that we tried to do this, is they said, or he
14 said that he wanted our road, or our driveway to come down the County easement there, because
15 of the fact that(inaudible)but there are several driveways right there on 22 going to the north.
16 And he said something about maybe traffic congestion, turning off on our road or something, I
17 don't know. But, basically, we went by what Mr. Ben Patton said in your Planning Department.
18 We visited with both neighbors on both sides, ah, Mr. and Mrs. Poland, who are here, and the
19 Sarchet, who own that (inaudible) Ranch or whatever, that one. (Inaudible), co-owners there.
20 Mother and father died and left it to the three kids. Fred is the main person that takes care of the
21 property, as far as that goes. And what we had told the other, or told both of them, is that Weld
22 County Planning Department wanted us to put our driveway in that easement. At that time we
7
1 visited with them, they didn't have any problems, any issues. There was an old fence line there,
2 sand had blown over the fence, and (inaudible) pretty much for the most part and between
3 (inaudible). But, and I told them that I would be willing to take that sand, because it's more of a
4 problem than anything else, and take that sand, that old fence line out of there and put it in, ah the
5 Polands have some big holes that Weld County came in and made some reclaiming of some
6 ground or something, that the original owner of that ten acres or whatever had sold to the County,
7 from my understanding. I don't know (inaudible), all I know is there is huge holes out there.
8 And I expressed to them that I would be willing to take that whole fence line out of there, all that
9 excess dirt and put it in those holes if it was okay with them. And tried not to get the County
10 involved with our road, because I know the County has all kinds of requirements of how big the
11 road has to be and deal also, compaction tests and stuff like that, and it was just going to be my
12 wife and I driving down it, for the most part, or people coming to visit with us. Both neighbors
13 agreed. Both neighbors said that that would be fine, that if I was willing to do that work and cut
14 that fence line out of there and put that dirt in those holes to help fill up those holes, that that
15 wouldn't be a problem and it wouldn't be an issue. And at that time, we understood that the
16 County had thirty feet on both sides of the property line. So usually, the County, from my
17 understanding, has sixty feet to put in a road or maintain a road or what have you from the center
18 and property line. And what I had shared with both parties is that I was going to take the middle,
19 right down the property line and go about 12 feet, and come down the middle of the property
20 line. At that time, once the Sarchet, Fred's brother or something, came to the County and was
21 checking into it. And he realized that the County did not have the easement on that property
22 because of some Homestead Act or something, I don't know. I think it's taken care of or
8
1 whatever. But when they came and shared that information with us, I said well, that's fine, they
2 still have this thirty feet easement, it's on my property, or my plot land, it's on the book, plot
3 land, so if you put in as minimal of rows that we could to get a car by, I think it's like twelve feet,
4 and stayed a foot off the property, the Sarchet wouldn't have a problem with twelve feet, and we
5 eased off the dirt to start filling up the holes, the massive holes. And then at that time, the
6 Polands were a little upset that we were completely on their property. I had gone to them, visited
7 with them several times, and tried to work out a deal with them, or tried to make things right.
8 (Inaudible). I told them that I would take dirt out of my property to keep helping them to fill up
9 their property. To fill these massive holes. And they seemed to agree with that. They seemed to
10 be okay with that. I won't be able to do that or get started on that until this Spring, because of
11 my job,we're kind of busy this winter. But I can still work with that during the Spring.
12 I believe Mr. Don Carroll was supposed to go out and take pictures of the
13 road, of the holes, of all that stuff that is in issue here. Well then it came down to an issue of
14 why the Polands were afraid that they were going to be liable if somebody was to come down our
15 road, go over to their property and wreck their car in these massive holes or whatever, and I
16 don't, that's possible, I don't know. But, the, so I sent my wife, who is not here, Jocelyn is her
17 name, to talk to Mr. Bruce Barker, which I am assuming is this gentleman here, to talk about
18 liability. From what I understand their conversation, the liability factor is, is that everybody is
19 liable. The County's liable, I'm liable, the Poland's are liable. I realize that that's a huge
20 liability, but it's a huge liability on all of us. But I'm still willing to work with the Polands to try
21 to get (inaudible). The reason I'm here is the Polands have an issue with this right-of-way. Since
22 then they have put up a fence and blocked me off of that, which is fine,but, I put a substantial
9
1 amount of money in this process already, as far as putting in this road. It's ah, I put in road base,
2 fresh asphalt to try to maintain and hold the gravel, and no problems up until this point. And this
3 process started clear back in July. As, so basically, my wife and I don't have any problems with
4 putting a road anywhere else down 22, but we would have just like to know that we could have
5 done that before this time, when we could have messed with this (inaudible) in our driveway as
6 of yet. (Inaudible) If we would have know we could have put it somewhere else, we sure would
7 have. We don't want to handle the Poland's property in any way, or taking anything away from
8 them, but now we have invested this money. A substantial amount of money for myself and my
9 wife, to put this road in, so that's what at issue now, is the right-of-way, who has the right-of-
10 way, who is liable, so on and so forth. How are you going, what is the aspect of trying to trade
11 ground with the Polands, this (inaudible.) I own all the way around them, except for that east
12 side, I was going to trade them that thirty feet, which if the County decided they would come in, I
13 would lose, but I would trade them that thirty feet to the east of them with thirty-one and one-half
14 feet to the south of them, to give them, to leave them their same total number of square feet, their
15 same total number of acres. Ah, that seemed reasonable to them, and we tried to work out that
16 deal, they had to make some contacts on their own to find out if it could be done, because they
17 still owe to the bank on their property, to see if the bank would acknowledge that kind of a
18 transaction or whatever, so ah, we've been trying to work with them and trying to work it out,
19 and now we're in front of you guys. So, basically, that's it.
20 CHAIR GEILE: Any questions of Mr. Walters? I just had one. Would
21 you explain the ownership of this? Polands would be the ten acres up on the north, the northeast
22 corner?
10
1 MR. WALTERS: Correct.
2 CHAIR GEILE: And how many acres do you own? Could you explain
3 that again? It's a corner of a section, go ahead.
4 MR. WALTERS: More-or-less, 150 acre site, (inaudible).
5 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, and you do own the property?
6 MR. WALTERS: Ah, my father-in-law and mother-in-law, my wife and I
7 own the property.
8 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, but you do have ownership of it, is the question?
9 MR. WALTERS: Correct.
10 CHAIR GEILE: All right. Commissioner Jerke.
11 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the 150
12 acres, you have the better part of a half of mile of frontage on 22? Is a paved road, and the hole
13 problem starts because you couldn't get permission to have an access coming off of 22 to be able
14 to access your property?
15 MR. WALTERS: Well, but,
16 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Is that it in a nutshell?
17 MR. WALTERS: Pretty much, that's it in a nutshell. When we went to
18 the County Planning Department and asked them where are we supposed to have our driveway
19 come into our house, Mr. Patton at that time said that there was too many, there's too many
20 accesses already established going to the north, and that (inaudible) Subdivision, is that there are
21 supposed to be two north cul-de-sacs going up there right next to the Polands,just to the west of
22 the Polands, there is supposed to be two more accesses, where it says the gentleman that farms
11
1 that little acreage now, has tried to get that access to come around. (Inaudible) as far as what is
2 on the old books, the old papers, is that there's probably at least seven or eight accesses granted
3 through there in that mile going to the north. And only one granted going to the south as far as I
4 (inaudible) the Poland's driveway. So, that's where it all, it all started there.
5 CHAIR GEILE: Any other questions of Mr. Walters? I wonder if we
6 could go ahead and we, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this, if so, would
7 you please come forth and give your name and address, please.
8 BOB BURROWS: I'm Bob Burrows and I'm here on behalf of the
9 Polands (inaudible), too.
10 CHAIR GEILE: Could you give your address, too, please, sir.
11 MR. BURROWS: Oh, Ault, Colorado, 115 2nd Avenue, Ault, Colorado.
12 CHAIR GEILE: Thank you.
13 [CLERK'S NOTE - COMMISSIONER MASDEN IS NOW IN
14 ATTENDANCE]
15 MR. BURROWS: They did have the agreement and I'm just (inaudible).
16 So I'm not, I haven't had an opportunity to research or determine whether or not the County has
17 only, (inaudible) on one side of the section of the line or on both sides of the section line. There
18 was an agreement at issue, that the(inaudible) 15 feet on either side of the section line. They,
19 everybody agreed to that but, apparently, the owners on the other side, rightly or wrongly, said
20 the County didn't have an easement on that side. (Inaudible) Haven't had an opportunity to
21 investigate that. I guess the problem is, and I'm sure the County is going to have more and more
22 of this, it looks like one landowner has to give up the easement, and they recognize that the
12
1 County has the easement through. The County doesn't want to build a road through there. If the
2 County wanted to cut the road through there, and make it an acceptable County road, I'm sure
3 there would be no objections or anything like that. They just felt that the County should treat the
4 landowners on either side of the section equally if that were (inaudible)possible.
5 The other issue would be whether this is another access to a public road, or
6 the only access to a public road. (Inaudible) the parties with 150 acres do have, at issue on
7 accesses to the County road. (Inaudible) Commissioners said no we're not going to grant any
8 more accesses to the County road. I understood, as stated correctly, that there is only one access
9 to the south on this (inaudible) road 22. At this point in time, I don't now how many miles, two
10 accesses, ah, County road. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, (inaudible) County roads have a
11 lot more than two accesses. As I said, I just was contacted about this on Friday and contacted
12 Lee Morrison who was kind enough to send me a copy of the proposed lease and kind of the
13 County's position, I really haven't had a chance to (inaudible) and see if there is some other
14 alternatives. Apparently this has been going on for some time, and the parties have reached
15 agreements and for one reason or another they have not come into fruition due to others there and
16 problems between (inaudible), I'm not sure. I would recommend, or request, that this be put over
17 a few weeks for I've not had an opportunity to investigate to see if there are some other
18 opportunities as opposed to (inaudible). That's all.
19 CHAIR GEILE: Are there any questions? If not, thank you very much.
20 Would Mr. Walters please come back to the podium. You heard the, and I assume that was
21 counsel, ah, Mr. and Mrs. Poland's counsel. You heard his request to put it over for a week?
22 MR. WALTERS: Yeah, that's fine with me, I don't have issues with the
13
1 whole thing at all.
2 CHAIR GEILE: So that you can, ah, an attempt, I think, to resolve the
3 issues that you might have. I assume what the request would be intended to do.
4 MR. BURROWS: That's correct.
5 MR. WALTERS: Yes, I don't have any qualms, issue with that at all. I
6 haven't had an issue with anything, as far as it goes,
7 CHAIR GEILE: Okay.
8 MR. WALTERS: I can ( inaudible) move my road as well, if(inaudible)
9 we've already done this work and I'm not planning (inaudible). So,
10 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Vaad?
11 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Mr. Walters, Mr. Burrows asserted that there
12 are other accesses to your property. Do you agree with that?
13 MR. WALTERS: Well, there is a gas well access that the gas company
14 has put in.
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Could you point that out, or
16 MR. WALTERS: (Inaudible) It's on this property line right here, towards
17 that flat corner.
18 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay, and then, do you have any
19 improvements on that 150 acres right now?
20 MR. WALTERS: Yes, I have my house,
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: The house that you're building. Are you
22 living in it?
14
1 MR. WALTERS: Not yet, not yet.
2 COMMISSIONER VAAD: With, what difficulty does the fence across
3 the road that you've constructed pose?
4 MR. WALTERS: The fence across
5 COMMISSIONER VAAD: You said that the, that the Polands have
6 fenced the road off?
7 MR. WALTERS: As far as right now it doesn't pose anything because I
8 can still (inaudible)
9 CHAIR GEILE: Thank you, Mr. Walters. Any other comments from
10 staff? Do you see any problem if we were to continue this for a week?
11 MR. BARKER: Mr. Chairman, two points. Number one, when I spoke
12 with Mrs. Walters with regards to the liability issue, the question that she was raising was the,I
13 guess the liability that is, the concern of liability of adjacent landowners. And, I what we referred
14 to, or what we talked about was that anyone that comes off of a road right-of-way, there is always
15 liability that could happen to anyone who is an adjacent property owner of property which is right
16 next to a road right-of-way. I think that was the context that we were talking about. With respect
17 to the maintenance of the right-of-way itself, again, the County has governmental immunity, the
18 maintenance is the part that the liability attaches to. So if the maintenance is negligent, that is
19 what the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act provides the County with immunity for: I think
20 any private party that is maintaining the roadway, pursuant to a License Agreement by the
21 County, could stand behind that immunity also. However, it does not protect intentional acts,
22 and that is something that everyone has got liability for if there is an intentional act. That's why
15
1 we have the indemnification paragraph in there, to provide that additional protection. So, that's
2 the first thing.
3 The second thing was that when Ms. Walters was in my office, we went
4 down to the Clerk to the Board's office and there's a book there that provides the description of
5 (inaudible) rights-of-way pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution of 1889. It
6 was the acceptance of the dedication by the U.S. Government. What we found was that that
7 book showed only a thirty foot right-of-way pursuant to that Resolution of 1889, in the section in,
8 (inaudible) here. On the other side of the line it did not show a right-of-way there. So, what we
9 found is that that book, whoever put it together, and whenever they did it, they did a good job on
10 it, and it does provide pretty accurate information on that.
1 I CHAIR GEILE: Commissioner Vaad?
12 COMMISSIONER VAAD: If I can direct a question to counsel, then,
13 would the appropriate action just to withdraw the request right now, or do we need to take that,
14 pass a motion to continue this for a week.
15 MR. BARKER: You might want to continue it, and then if the applicant
16 for this, the (inaudible) licensee decides to withdraw it, they can let us know and we can bring
17 that up, that they've asked to withdraw it the next time it comes up. And then occur, they may
18 want to go ahead, so I would propose the Board go ahead and continue it for a week, let them
19 discuss it.
20 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, Commissioner Vaad?
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: If that's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I would
22 move to continue the decision on this application until February 5th or whatever it is, at the 9:00
16
1 o'clock Commission meeting.
2 CHAIR GEILE: It has been moved to continue to February 5th, is there a
3 second to that?
4 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Second.
5 CHAIR GEILE: Second by Commissioner Jerke. Is there any further
6 discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye.
7 COMMISSIONERS JERKE, LONG, MASDEN, AND VAAD: Aye.
8 CHAIR GEILE: Opposed the same. Motion carried unanimously.
9
10
11
12
13
17
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I, CAROL A. HARDING, Deputy Clerk to the Board of County
3 Commissioners and a Notary Public of the State of Colorado, appointed and commissioned by
4 the Secretary of State, do hereby certify that the foregoing was transcribed from the taped
5 recording of the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on January 29, 2001,
6 which was recorded at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado,
7 by Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board; and that the foregoing is an accurate transcript of
8 the proceedings at that time.
9 I further certify that I am not related to any party herein or their counsel,
10 and that I am employed as Office Manager Coordinator in the office of the Weld County Clerk to
11 the Board.
12
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
14 Notarial Seal this 7th day of June, 2002.
IS
16 /�x
17 pRY.PVe CAROL A. HARDIN--
18 ,�.0 �iO Deputy Clerk to the Board and Notary Pu lic
19
20 My minittArnapere4Ju 8, 2006
21 HARDING
cote
My Camases Expinx Ass j ZOOS
18
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCERPT OF REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 11, 2001
RE: CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADE AND
MAINTENANCE OF A PORTION OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 39 AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN
THOSE PRESENT
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
M. J. GEILE, CHAIR
GLENN VAAD, PRO-TEM
WILLIAM H. JERKE
DAVID E. LONG
ROBERT D. MASDEN - EXCUSED
OTHERS PRESENT:
ESTHER E. GESICK, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
BRUCE BARKER, COUNTY ATTORNEY
FRANK HEMPEN, JR., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
BRIAN WALTERS, APPLICANT
BOB BURROWS, REPRESENTING MR. &MRS. POLAND
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 CHAIR GEILE: The next item on the agenda is, "Consider Nonexclusive
4 License Agreement for Upgrade and Maintenance of a Portion of Weld County Road 39, Jocelyn
5 Walters." Don, Frank, who is going to present this?
6 MR. BARKER: I might ask that actually both of these, items four and five
7 be brought up together, they deal with the same road right-of-way.
8 CHAIR GEILE: So, number five would be, "A Petition to Vacate a 660-
9 foot portion of Weld County Road 39 between Weld County Road 20 and 22." Frank, or Don,
10 who's going to?
11 UNKNOWN: You want to start us out, because you know the history.
12 MR. BARKER: Yeah, I'll continue on. You may recall that in January of
13 this year you were asked to grant a License Agreement to the Walters for the use of a portion of
14 39 and this is just south of Weld County Road 22. At that time, I believe that all of the parties
15 who are here today were also at that meeting, and there was some discussion as to working on a
16 solution to that, I think it was continued for a week, we received word back from Jocelyn Walters
17 that they were asking to withdraw the License,Nonexclusive License Agreement request at that
18 time, because they did think that there was a possibility of working on a solution to their access.
19 Since that time, there has not been any further movement on the Agreement, so they have
2
1 brought back the request for the Nonexclusive License Agreement for that stretch, and it's about
2 a 660-foot portion of the roadway that they are asking for that license agreement. At the same
3 time, the Polands came in and they have asked that a vacation occur of the same portion. The
4 part that is a road right-of-way is actually on the west side of the line. We've checked to see and
5 this is a road right-of-way pursuant to that Resolution of 1889, and I believe that is in essence
6 what the Polands are asking to be vacated. And I think that the parties can sort of fill the Board
7 in as to the reasons why the Walters, who would like to use this road right-of-way, and then the
8 Polands are represented today by Ms. Radakovich, and she will provide some information, also.
9 We do have an E-Mail that she supplied to us late yesterday, and I have given a copy of that to
10 the Walters.
11 CHAIR GEILE: Before we proceed with testimony, I wonder, Don, if you
12 could go through this and show us what all we are talking about in four, in five, and it looks like
13 just the one line you have designated on your overhead.
14 DON CARROLL: Good morning, Don Carroll, Weld County Public
15 Works. This is Weld County Road 22, your east/west road here, where Weld County Road 39
16 would be where I am showing the red line, right there, that's a section line there where the
17 Walters are requesting a nonexclusive to access down that section line, down to their home that
18 they are building towards the end of the property there. Ah, they do have to cross the Poland
19 property, adjacent to the right-of-way to get into, to get to their facility-there. Weld County Road
20 22 is designated as a collected status road, out there. There are multiple accesses from 37 to 39
21 there, there is a smaller subdivision to the north there, there's probably somewhere between 20
22 access points on there, this is one of the reasons why we were working with them to access down
3
1 the section line to cut down on the access points and ah, access there at an intersection.
2 UNKNOWN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if I,just a little bit more for
3 clarification.
4 CHAIR GEILE: Frank, for the record would you give your
5 FRANK HEMPEN, JR.: I'm sorry, I'm Frank Hempen with the
6 Department of Public Works. The vacation under consideration is clearly, is shown by the red
7 segment. I believe the Nonexclusive License Agreement actually goes further south, I believe the
8 house is located further south of this location, so, again, the red line represents only the vacation.
9 The Nonexclusive License Agreement would continue further south along the 39 right-of-way
10 CHAIR GEILE: Commissioner Vaad.
11 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Don, where, tell me again where are the 15 to
12 20 accesses?
13 MR. CARROLL: They are located between Weld County Road 37 and
14 39, most of them are on the north side of the road, in that segment, that mile segment, there.
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And are there, how many accesses,
16 approximately, on the south side from 37 to 39?
17 MR. CARROLL: I would guess probably five or six.
18 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And is there an access on the north directly
19 opposite the area that we're looking at?
20 MR. CARROLL: Yes, there is. It's a gravel maintained County road
21 going directly north of the intersection.
22 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Oh, it continues to the north.
4
1 MR. CARROLL: Yes, it continues on north.
2 MR. HEMPEN: And that is a public road.
3 MR. CARROLL: A public road, yes.
4 CHAIR GEILE: Are there any further questions? Board to staff right
5 now? If not, I would ask, is there a representative from either Jocelyn Walters or a representative
6 of Jocelyn Walters in attendance today that would wish to come forth and address the Board
7 concerning the License Agreement of Weld County Road 39? If you'd please give your name
8 and address for the record, please.
9 BRIAN WALTERS: I'm Brian Walters, I live at 18978 Weld County
10 Road 22. Basically what they're saying is true, I mean, as far as they know. Except for on their
11 ' map that the red line was the whole easement, we only owned the 160 acres surrounding
12 (inaudible) you see now that (inaudible) 13 over there. As far as the property line is. Basically,
13 what it came down to is before we started on a house, my wife went to the County Planning
14 Department, the County Planning Department had stated at that time that they did not wish any
15 more accesses be granted along 22, that there was this public right-of-way on the mile line or
16 section line there, that is indicated in red. At that point we discussed with the Polands and the
17 neighbors to the south, or to the east of us who would be zero-fifteen, that, their name is Fred
18 Sarchet, they own the 80 acres more or less to the east side of us, the whole half mile and we had
19 told them what the County told us. The County Planning Department at that time had said that
20 there was 30 feet on both sides of the property line. So I went to the Polands and I went to the
21 Sarchets and then, and told them what the County had told me, and I had indicated to them that
22 basically my road, I just wanted it wide enough for two cars to be able to pass on another, like if
5
my wife was leaving and somebody was coming up. They would be able to pass each other
2 safely. At that time we were under the assumption that there was 30 feet on both sides, so what I
3 had proposed to do as far as the Sarchets and the Polands, is that we would put the road on the
4 section line. At which time Fred's brother one of the partners of the three acres in question, had
5 gone to the County to do some research and had found out that they, or their family has owned
6 that 80 acres since this 1889 Act and that there is only 30 feet to the west side. So at which time,
7 and I will admit, without Polands acknowledgment of it, I had put in my road, 12 feet more or
8 less from the said property line to the west. Not taking up all 30 feet like the E-Mail states. And,
9 I did not remove any section pins like the E-Mail states. The one section pin is in the middle of
10 County Road 22, which I'd have to tear up your County road and I'd be in big trouble. The other
11 County, or the other section line pin is to the back side of our property, which we had had
12 surveyed and it is located back there at this point. And their E-Mail stated that we took off 30
13 feet, that we knocked off the property or the section line pins to put our road in. And that we
14 took up the whole easement, which we didn't. So, basically, what Don Carroll has just stated, we
15 were just going by what we were told, and we've been trying to work a deal with the Polands to
16 work out something from the Polands because we feel that we have taken some ground from
17 them, which everyone that we've spoken with, Don Carroll and Bruce Barker, has stated that is a
18 public right-of-way. That (inaudible)runs between. If we have damaged the right-of-way in any
19 way, the only ones that can come after us, or we'd be liable to, is to the County. That's all.
20 CHAIR GEILE: I'd like to make sure, if I might, Commissioners,just to
21 make sure I understand it. O-14 is, who owns that?
22 MR. WALTERS: The Polands.
6
1 CHAIR GEILE: That's the Polands. Okay, where is your house located,
2 again? Could you point that out to us? And I guess the other, the first question is, is your house
3 completed?
4 MR. WALTERS: Yes, (inaudible)
5 CHAIR GEILE: Would you show us again where the house is?
6 MR. WALTERS: Roughly, more or less right here.
7 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, and how long have you owned that property?
8 MR. WALTERS: We recently just purchased that property, maybe 23/4
9 years ago.
10 CHAIR GEILE: Two years, and you own all of the property in O-13 other
11 than O-14?
12 MR. WALTERS: That is correct.
13 CHAIR GEILE: Ah, and then I did have a question of Planning staff. Is
14 O-14 a Recorded Exemption?
15 SHERI LOCKMAN: Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services
16 and I really don't know, I was not prepared for this today, and
17 CHAIR GEILE: Well, the reason I was asking was if O-14 was approved,
18 there would have had to been,part of that hearing or the consideration would have had to be an
19 access to O-14.
20 MS. LOCKMAN: (Inaudible)
21 MR. BARKER: I think you can ask the Polands, they would be able to
22 answer whether it
7
1 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, we will, but I just want to make sure all the. And
2 then the
3 MR. WALTERS: I can kind of answer that question, if I can.
4 CHAIR GEILE: Sure, you can say anything you'd like.
5 MR. WALTERS: Ah, basically that was a Recorded Exemption off the
6 whole 160 acres in question, there. It was, ah, I believe the Polands bought it in '92, I believe a
7 gentleman by the name Maynard Nicholls had purchased that eight years prior or ten years prior
8 to that, so '82. Ah, the people that we had bought the quarter from, their names (inaudible).
9 CHAIR GEILE: What do you do with the rest of that? You have your
10 house on it, what do you do with the rest of the property, are you farming it, or what do you do?
I 1 MR. WALTERS: Yes, it's a, it is a, well, we haven't been farming it since
12 we started our house, which we started on our house this last June, that's been taking up a lot of
13 my time. But,
14 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, what is that, is that an irrigation ditch that goes
15 through the middle of that?
16 MR. WALTERS: Well, it's not really an irrigation ditch. Another thing
17 that they will bring up earlier, or later on, or show you the video tape of the water, is the neighbor
18 just to the, it would be the west of us, by the name of Bob Warner, there is some live water that is
19 supposed to run across this property, there is some swells going down, there is, I mean,
20 unfortunately, it all drains towards the Polands property. To which the Polands have some very
21 large and massive holes. The (inaudible)put in there, I believe, (inaudible)Nicholls put some
22 holes in there for gravel or mining or(inaudible) or something, I don't know what. But anyway,
8
1 the flooding that they are going to talk about, there is some, so it all drains to that side, it kinda of
2 drains towards the north and the east side, going towards the Polands. There is a live stream,
3 most of(inaudible) some times a flood or a sprinkler irrigated, and at the time of that flooding,
4 Bob Warner had built a retention pond up on his property. And, ah, two years ago? Roughly two
5 years ago, 22 had washed out, and what had happened is, we have had several amounts of rain,
6 and Bob Warner's little pond that he had built, his little dyke, gave way, flooded their property, if
7 we'd have known at the time, it also flooded down towards the Polands. And it washed out this
8 (inaudible)thirty feet, and washed out 22. So that it had taken out, but yes, there is some, it's not
9 really a live water at any particular time, there's just some ditches that were formed there from
10 water erosion over time.
11 CHAIR GEILE: I just wanted to make sure I understood the layout of this.
12 Are any questions of the Board? For Mr. Walters? Counsel.
13 MR. BARKER: Maybe what I'd, I guess just get Mr. Walters official
14 position regarding the vacation. I mean, I think obviously, he's opposed to that, but just for the
15 record.
16 CHAIR GEILE: Did you hear counsel's questions, Mr. Walters?
17 MR. WALTERS: Ah, that's a tough question, because basically I put a lot
18 of time and money into my driveway on this said right-of-way. Basically, all I would ask into
19 consideration is that if you were to, if you guys were to vote and to say you were going to give up
20 the right-of-way on that 660 feet, I would ask that you give up the right-of-way on the west of it,
21 which is on my property as well, because you would not have ability to access it without even
22 going through Polands or coming over to the east side. If that makes sense.
9
1 CHAIR GEILE: Well, we probably could if we did that, how would you
2 get to your property?
3 MR. WALTERS: Well, I would have to go to the County and get a new
4 address reissued, I'd have to go to your Public Works and Planning Department
5 CHAIR GEILE: I mean, how would you get access to your house?
6 MR. WALTERS: Well, that's, that I don't know yet. I would have to get
7 it okayed through the Planning Department to have another access of road 22 somewhere.
8 (Inaudible)
9 CHAIR GEILE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walters. Since we're considering
10 both four and five together, I will ask if there is, if Dwaine Poland or a representative from
11 Dwaine Poland is here to address the Board this morning? If you'd please come forth and give
12 your name and address for the record.
13 KAREN RADAKOVICH: Yes, good morning. My name is Karen
14 Radakovich, spelled R A D A K O V I- C -H. 4750 Table Mountain Drive, Boulder,
15 Colorado, here in behalf of the Polands today. I'm going to have Dwaine speak first, and then I
16 will follow up after that. I do have just one questions, maybe for Planning or for Mr. Walters, if
17 he knows, as is this a road here? Does anyone know? If this is a county road?
18 UNKNOWN: I don't believe so.
19 MS. RADAKOVICH: We know that 22 is the one on the top section, but
20 I don't know if this was also reserved, for example, as the public easement in 1889.
21 CHAIR GEILE: Isn't that a gravel road, Don?
22 MS. RADAKOVICH: It looks like it is 18.
10
1 (INAUDIBLE)
2 MR. HEMPEN: It would be the half-section line, Frank Hempen with
3 Public Works. It would be the half-section line, I don't believe there's road right, normally there
4 is not road right-of-way on the half-section line, it is clearly not opened.
5 MS. RADAKOVICH: Okay, thank you. All right, I'm going to turn it
6 over onto Dwaine and then I would like the opportunity to return.
7 CHAIR GEILE: Okay. If you would please give your name and address
8 for the record, Sir.
9 DWAINE POLAND: Ah, my name is Dwaine Poland, I live at 18938
10 Weld County Road 22, Fort Lupton, Colorado. I think what we need to do here, is try and prove
11 where this road has been built on here, it's built on blow sand, and I will show you a tape later of
12 what happens to that. It has happened in past years. It's dangerous. Along the side of that is the
13 pits that I understand the County does (inaudible)the clay that was in there for road work.
14 Maynard Nicholls had given the County permission to do so. All that sand was pushed over, it is
15 under this road. Now, I worked road construction a lot in my younger years and the compaction
16 on there is nil. And when blow sand, sand that just blows by the wind and all the sediments and
17 everything that's in there is gone. It's just little tiny pieces of rock. When that gets enough
18 pressure behind it and wet, it busts out. On this tape that I will show, I was on that dyke before
19 this happened. And like to never got off of it. I was running for everything I had. It busted in
20 three places. That's one reason why I would like to vacate it. Ah, another is Mr. Walters does
21 have access to his house which would set right back here, and it's closer than if he were to come
22 through here on the west side and straight back to his house. Rather than to go over here and put
11
1 it where this is (inaudible). Also, there is a lot of water that goes down there, it isn't just one
2 year, it's every year that these ponds fill up. They're about 125-foot long by 25-foot deep. The
3 way it was after it washed out, the level let the water out. And I believe that was probably '97,
4 '98 when I checked this (inaudible). Since that time, we haven't had no problems because the
5 road or the bank that was there had washed out a big place, and the water would just go to a
6 certain level and just kind of go on out of here. When that water breaks it goes down and takes
7 out 22, talking to some of the neighbors that was there many years now, it has done it before. It
8 did it in 1998 I think it was. It's done it several times. It's not good to replace the road, it would
9 take an awful lot of engineering and a lot of money to fix it up to where it would be safe. Like I
10 said, Brian has access, he is using it today, he's been using it all along, to the west of us there is
11 one, two, three, there is actually three from Road 37 on the south side, there is three driveways
12 in, Mr., or Brian has a half a mile where that he, he had one road (inaudible) he could have put
13 whatever he wanted to. One, two, three, there is three or four driveways on the north side of that,
14 but he has plenty of room in there. There's no reason to have this road anymore. The danger
15 part of it, the liability part of it, my belief is he just wants it there.
16 As far as working with Brian, he's correct when he asked us and about 15
17 people I said I'll tell you what I'll do, Brian. He did do one thing wrong. He said I will fill your
18 pits if you will give me the 15 feet and I'll get 15 feet from Sarchets. I said Brian, that's good.
19 Well, nothing come about. I go to work in the dark and I don't get home until dark, or after dark.
20 So one night I got home early and I told the wife, let's walk over and look at the road. Well,
21 there and its all on us, everything, so, it took me a few days to get ahold of Brian, and I asked
22 Brian what's going on here? You brought the whole road on us. Well, yeah, Fred wouldn't let
12
1 me have that. And I said, well let's go to the County, then. Let's stop this and get this done
2 legally. We don't want the County involved in this. And I said, well you've got to stop and get
3 off of it. Well he didn't. Then he come back and he says I will give you 30 feet, or thirty some
4 feet, thirty-two, thirty-three, on the south side of your property, plus fill the pits, (inaudible) 30
5 feet to be took off the east side, the easement. I said okay, Brian, we got the paperwork, give it to
6 Brian, told him to take it to your lawyer and get that taken care of, then we'll take it to our
7 lawyer, you have 45 days to do this in. 42 - 43 days went by, I called him up and I said Brian,
8 how we doing on the land swap? Well I'm not going to do that. And I didn't get into why he
9 wasn't going to do it, I just said you've got three more days, after that, that's the end of it, and we
10 are not going to submit any more paperwork and make a fool out of ourself at the bank and all
11 this again. So, as far as working with Brian, there is no way to work with Brian. But he does
12 have access anywhere in the half mile there, which is where the road should have went. He had
13 no paperwork, nothing, he just, he come in and just did it. Even though, when he first started we
14 asked him to go to the County, lets do it legal. And Brian, you can say that I did say that.
15 CHAIR GEILE: Sir, Mr. Poland, you need to address your comments to
16 the Board.
17 MR. POLAND: Well, I did say that. Because I wanted it done legal and I
18 did not want to stop him from going back there. I had no desire. We done everything we could
19 possibly do to work with (inaudible). And yet, it's not working. That's why I would like to
20 vacate it. The danger, the liability, it's not safe, it's not a good place for the road, it's never been
21 developed, there's nothing in it.
22 CHAIR GEILE: Just one question, Mr. Poland, could you point out where
13
I that holding pond is again that
2 MR. POLAND: Oh, the pond?
3 CHAIR GEILE: Yeah, that broke.
4 MR. POLAND: Well, I'm not sure of the exact, but it's just not too far off
5 of 22. Maybe, oh, 150 feet. Maybe a little more.
6 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, thank you, Sir. Are there any questions?
7 Commissioner Long.
8 COMMISSIONER LONG: Could you point, what you use for an access.
9 Is it right there off
10 MR. POLAND: What I use for an access? Ah,
11 COMMISSIONER LONG: Yeah,just what your access is.
12 MR. POLAND: Well, its off of 22 there.
13 COMMISSIONER LONG: Right where the, is that on there, that dark
14 spot?
15 MR. POLAND: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER LONG: And so it's right there?
17 MR. POLAND: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER LONG: Okay.
19 MR. POLAND: But he has access on the, they could put a road which
20 would be straight back to his house and would be closer this way than coming this way, he has to
21 come down here and then go back here. Another thing, this road isn't going to support oil field
22 traffic. Now I drive a truck. And I'm out there all the time. One truck that's loaded goes over
14
1 that and it's going to crumble. (inaudible) I'm going to be (inaudible).
2 CHAIR GEILE: Does the Board have any other questions of Mr. Poland?
3 Does that conclude your comments, Mr. Poland?
4 MR. POLAND: Ah, basically, on that part of it, yes.
5 CHAIR GEILE: Okay. Is there anything else you wish to present to the
6 Board this morning?
7 MR. POLAND: I would like to show this tape that,
8 UNKNOWN: I would like to say something.
9 CHAIR GEILE: If you do you have, if you would, you need to come to
10 the podium and give your name and address for the record.
11 CHARLOTTE POLAND: It's only three minutes long, its not a
12 (inaudible). But I would like
13 CHAIR GEILE: You need to give your
14 MS. POLAND: I'm Charlotte Poland, 18938 Weld County Road 22, Fort
15 Lupton. And, where Brian said that he did not take out any property markers, he came to us and
16 told us, I took out the big fence post that was at the back of your property. He said it was in my
17 way. That is a legal description on our property deed. That that is our former property marker.
18 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, are there any questions the Board might have of
19 this woman? Thank you. Counsel, you had a comment you wanted to make?
20 MR. BARKER: The comment is that if you want to show the tape, we're
21 going to have to bring the tape machine down, Ms. Radakovich had asked, good, I thought I'd
22 asked but I couldn't remember, so.
15
1 CHAIR GEILE: It will take just a minute to set it up, does the Board want
2 to see the tape? Okay, for the record, we did.
3 (PAUSE)
4 MR. POLAND: Okay, that's looking south, the water was clear up to
5 above the horses, there, you can see that. This is after it broke. The water comes in down here
6 and goes in this corner. There is the property line right there, I've got some (inaudible). This is
7 the second pond. (Inaudible) The water was clear up here, had it not broke it would have took
8 out everything. (Inaudible) This is where the road is built, right on top of this. That's where
9 road 22 washed out. There's the property marker, right here, (inaudible) all the water comes
10 from this whole valley(inaudible) this farm. Now that's the road, where he's got the road now,
11 it's all under water and his bank is still there to catch the water and funnel it down. That's one
12 place where it broke out, it broke out in three places on this flooding. There's three places that
13 went, (inaudible). There's where it went out. That's the break. There's the other side of it right
14 there. And it broke out right close, well it was in this corner up here, right there. It went out
15 here. That's the property marker, this is where all the water comes into here. And had it not
16 broke we would have been flooded in the house. Where all that water is standing is where his
17 road is right now. This is his place. The road is built right on top of it. Now, this is after it
18 (inaudible). Before that there was twice that much water in here. That's, that was, I think the
19 one to the furthest south broke first, then this big one, and I was right over here when this went,
20 and I took off running, and then it went again behind me, right there. I was right in here. Then I
21 went back to the house and got the video camera and come out and taped this. (Inaudible).
22 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, are there any questions of the board concerning the
16
1 video tape? Commissioner Jerke.
2 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Mr. Poland, what percentage of the road that
3 Mr. Walters is using would potentially be under water,just as a wild guess that you would make?
4 MR. POLAND: For safety? He's built the road up higher than what the
5 ground was since this. Ah, I would assume that the south end of it is going to be under water,
6 because the bank is there to funnel, everything from the valley if you could picture it, comes to
7 this point. That needs to be a live stream or surface water, and from what I'm understanding
8 from years back and it all comes, that is the lay of the land, everything comes to that point. It has
9 to be built. The only way(inaudible) not have any problem with it, and every year these farms
10 fill up and hold water. But, the water can only go so high and then it runs out. (Inaudible)
11 CHAIR GEILE: Thank you. Commissioner Long.
12 COMMISSIONER LONG: Just a point of clarification for me, I guess.
13 So what you're saying, kind of in a summary, is that the presence of that road presents a barrier
14 to water going across
15 MR. POLAND: Exactly.
16 COMMISSIONER LONG: and contains it for you and what you said, I
17 think twice, was that if, had that road not broken out, that your home would have been under
18 water, so it was kind of a
19 MR. POLAND: That was it exactly. Right now if we were to get a heavy
20 rain,
21 COMMISSIONER LONG: You're saying it is kind of a safety issue?
22 MR. POLAND: It is, (inaudible) And also, it washes out in the, near
17
1 Fred, which he doesn't like either. The way it was before after it washed, it was low enough that
2 the water would just come up and go over and didn't do anything. It never raised up out of the
3 ponds. Or out of the holes. It stayed down. Now it's going to. It's going to create pressure, the
4 sand is going to get wet, and it's going to go. It's very simple.
5 COMMISSIONER LONG: Thank you.
6 CHAIR GEILE: Any other questions of Mr. Poland? Thank you, sir.
7 Counsel are you going to come back? I'd like to perhaps establish some order in these
8 proceedings this morning, so, if you can conclude your comments. Then the way we are going to
9 proceed this morning is, I will allow the Walters to come back and present any comments they
10 have, you can come back and present any closing comments you have, we will close any
11 comments, which means once we close it there will be no additional remarks allowed, and then
12 we will bring it back to the Board for determination. So I just needed to establish that so
13 everybody understands the way we're going to conduct this hearing this morning. So,
14 MS. RADAKOVICH: Would you like me to proceed now, then?
15 CHAIR GEILE: If you have any additional comments on this initial
16 presentation.
17 MS. RADAKOVICH. Basically I just have kind of a summation.
18 CHAIR GEILE: Sure, that's fine, and then we'll allow the Walters to
19 come back and then you will be allowed to come back and present closing comments you have.
20 MS. RADAKOVICH: Okay, thank you very much. I guess I'll address
21 the vacation hearing first, because I believe if that goes our way then I think the other matters
22 would be moot. Again, we respectfully request that Road 39, and only just that very small
18
1 portion of it along my client's property, between section line 20 and 22, be vacated. Ah, in
2 summary, first of all, there is no need for a road in that location. The County has never built one,
3 never intended to make any use of that so far as we know. Obviously, at the time the section
4 lines were laid out there wasn't any topographical studies that would show whether or not those
5 section lines were actually appropriate for roads. And, that we (inaudible) not appropriate for a
6 road. hi addition, the property to the east of the section line, Mr. Sarchets's property, is exempt
7 from the 1889 ordinance because (inaudible) was taken out of the public domain prior to that
8 time. So, we don't think the County could ever build a County road there, because there is only
9 thirty feet, all on my client's side. They don't have sixty feet if they would ever need to build a
10 real County road there, and for that reason we also request that they vacate. Again, there are no
11 land-locked parcels that would be created by this. Ah, Mr. Walters has legal, historical, and
12 actual access from County Road 22 which is at the north. Ah, we believe that there are only three
13 accesses on the south side of road 22, not five or six and certainly not the twenty that go to the
14 north side off of 22, and so we don't believe that 22 would be burdened by one more access, and
15 in fact, there already is an access there that is being used. Ah, I guess, perhaps the most
16 important reason to have the road vacated is that it is not dangerous, ah, it is not safe. It is not
17 safe both for my clients property rights and its not safe for people who may be driving on the
18 road and I think that the tape shows that very clearly. Ah, in order to fulfill statutory guidelines, I
19 would just say briefly that there is no part of this road that a city or town or(inaudible) as well,
20 it's not part of a subdivision, and I know that the statute requires notice and also access to other
21 public roads in order to approve a vacation, and I believe that both those have been accomplished
22 so far.
19
This very briefly to address the request for the license. I actually
2 questioned, and I have done some legal research on this and cannot find the answer one way or
3 the other, whether the County has the right to grant a license to a private citizen to maintain a
4 public road. And I would suggest that that not be allowed, particularly where the landowner of
5 the underlying ground is objecting. People might say that the Polands took their property subject
6 to this public easement, and I guess my response to that would be that they may have taken their
7 property subject to the knowledge that there may be a County-constructed, County-maintained
8 road along that easement, but not that it ever be considered appropriate for a private driveway,
9 privately built by someone, ah, who we don't believe has done the proper engineering and the
10 proper surveying in order to do that. My review of the minutes of the previous meeting at which
11 the license came up indicated that Mr. Hempen, I believe, is that correct? Ah, said that they that
12 the County normally grandfathered (inaudible) whether that's appropriate or not, for people who
13 do not otherwise have access. And we respectfully submit that that is not the case here. And
14 therefore the County should not grant this access.
15 Finally, it appears to be a tardy for the Walters to now come in and ask for
16 this license, they have already done the damage, the road is already there. And, we believe that
17 granting this license now would sanction that sort of behavior. And, that we would request the
18 Commission deny the (inaudible). Thank you.
19 CHAIR GEILE: Are there any questions? Counsel, if you'd come back?
20 Commissioner Vaad, you do have a question?
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: You were specific in saying that you were
22 asking for the vacation of only the 660 feet, do you have an objection to granting the vacation to
20
1 the souther end of the Walters property?
2 MS. RADAKOVICH: I don't believe we have any objection to that.
3 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay, and then, it isn't clear to me, and I
4 don't know whether counsel is the one to ask, whether, you mentioned historical, present and
5 historical access and Mr. Poland mentioned that to, but is there or is there not an access to the
6 northern County Road 22 on the north end of the Walters property? And is it a licensed or
7 permitted access? Field access or something?
8 DON CARROLL: Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works. As I recall
9 visiting the site on the very west property line of O-13 there is an access there, it goes to a
10 wellhead or tank, I believe it's a wellhead. As you move east to the Poland, at the Poland
11 property I believe there is an access that goes to the Poland property, moving further east at the
12 section line there is an access there, so that's three. I'm not sure if on the west side of Poland
13 property if they've left in an access there, when I was there it looked like they were doing a water
14 line or something in there. But there is three from the west property line to the section line.
15 CHAIR GEILE: Are there any other questions of counsel?
16 MS. RADAKOVICH: I believe that Mr. (inaudible)
17 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, thank you, counsel, and as I said, I'm going to
18 bring the Walters back and then you'll have a chance to present your closing comments. Mr.
19 Walter would you please come back to the podium? And are there any other, additional
20 comments you would like to make concerning the testimony from the Polands and their attorney.
21 MR. WALTERS: First of all I'd like to apologize for this turning into a
22 Court session. But basically, there is a access to the west side off of 22 that goes to a wellhead
21
1 which is in the middle of my property.
2 CHAIR GEILE: Could you point that out?
3 MR. WALTERS: The wellhead, or the road?
4 CHAIR GEILE: The road, and the wellhead
5 MR. WALTERS: Okay. More or less here in this 15 is a wellhead, and
6 then there's a road that the oil company had established going back towards (inaudible) property
7 line and then going back towards 22.
8 CHAIR GEILE: Thank you, sir.
9 MR. WALTERS: But, as far as I know and I understand, that that was
10 never granted for you, the County. Oil company just established it, there's no culvert, they just
11 drove off the road and started coming in there and nobody ever said nothing to them as far as
12 that, whether that access is granted by the County or licensed through the County, or what have
13 you. There's no recollection to my knowledge that they have done so. Second of all, the, ah,
14 when I first visited with the Polands about this, that the County establishes the right-of-way for
15 my wife and Ito use for our driveway, there is (inaudible), like Mr. Poland said there is a lot of
16 blow sand out there. I mean, and it had blown over the fence line that was originally there from
17 the people who owned it beforehand, or Fred Sarchets's (inaudible) and blowing back and forth, I
18 think had an opportunity to collect dirt from the farming going on continuously around it. At the
19 time I had talked to Fred and the Polands, I visited with Fred and the Polands, that I would take
20 the dirt that had mounted up and take all the dirt along that whole half-mile section, and fill up
21 their holes. The original deal was that I would take that dirt and help them clean up those holes
22 as much as that dirt would allow. (Inaudible), and Mr. Poland is correct there, it's blow sand. It
22
1 is 100 percent blow sand. (Inaudible) I don't know, but basically, it took me three months to
2 build this road on this right-of-way. I hauled in over 200 Tons of just pit run, they call it pit run,
3 to sink down into this blow sand to try to establish what I've put in there, ah, crushed concrete
4 and crushed asphalt road, which again, (inaudible) twelve feet wide off the property line.
5 (Inaudible) I took out the fence line that was there with no objections from
6 either party, from the Sarchets, from myself, or from the Polands, at that time. Because they
7 were just happy that they were going to get their holes filled. At that time, I had offered to also
8 help them fill in their holes, but come this Spring, not anytime sooner because we were very
9 busy. I'm in the construction business and we have an excavation company, basically putting
10 these road for our livelihood. And, ah, at that time, even my father had talked to Mr. Poland and
11 had said that we would also bring in another machine later this Spring that would move more of
12 that dirt that they've fought to fill up those holes. Now, what they have said as far as the road
13 being on top of that mound that gave way, there's no way I could have done it. Every bit of road
14 I've cut made the level ground from their property to the Sarchets property, I mean, it's as level
15 as it gets. If that water was to rise to the height that that blew out again, it would go over my
16 road and take out my road that I established on the County's right-of-way. It doesn't sit higher, if
17 it sits higher, it sits maybe six inches higher due to the pit run and crushed asphalt. As far as that
18 goes, we had also talked several times with the Polands about trying to divert the water because
19 there is, again, with the fence line that was established there, there's kind of a natural creek going
20 through there and kind of a berm on to the west, or to the south side of the property, which would
21 be right here. There's kind of a natural berm there, and we had talked about trying to put a
22 culvert in across that, going over to Fred Sarchets property. But the ground is so flat and level
23
1 there that we couldn't put a culvert in without digging a whole lot of Fred Sarchets property, and
2 taken it out of there to establish any kind of water flow away from there. Basically, to me, I used,
3 I went through all the right connections to get the right-of-way or the use of the right-of-way.
4 Whether there's paperwork or not, I don't know. I went to the Planning Department, talked to
5 Ben Patton at that time, and Ben Patton (inaudible) Planning Department had suggested that I use
6 that right-of-way and said that would be the best access for my road. I went to the Polands, the
7 Sarchets, everyone agreed until they did research and Fred found out that he's on that property, or
8 his brother had found out that they'd own that property, or it's been I their family name since
9 before this 1889 act. At which time I only used, I filled the same said fifteen feet that I had told
10 them (inaudible) in the first place. Ah, for three months that I built the road I haven't heard
11 anything from them. I didn't hear a word from them until after it was done, and then they put up
12 a fence to block me off of it, at which time my wife came and visited Don Carroll and Bruce
13 Barker at that time. At that time,back in January, they had just established this to the best of my
14 knowledge, they had just established this License Agreement or whatever, which basically states
15 that for the County right-of-way, for me to use that, I will maintain it and not hold the County
16 responsible to maintain said right-of-way. So in other words, I'm not going to have you guys
17 come in and spend the money to put in a road or whatever to lead up to one house, that I would
18 build (inaudible) road, I'll put it in there, I'll maintain it, and not bother the county in any event.
19 Ah, the reason I told the Polands to leave, we wanted to leave the County out of it is because if
20 I'd gone in (inaudible) there's a matter that we could have settled out there. And at that time, we
21 had it settled. Fifteen feet from the property line in, it's all clear right-of-way. I took all the dirt
22 out of that road that utilizes the best of its ability into their pond that they have. After some time,
24
1 I don't know what happened but three months later, anger, upset, the deal was no good. So at
2 that time, they also brought up the point that I said I would swap them ground. Well that thirty
3 feet that is a public right-of-way, I had said well, okay, (inaudible) I'll give you thirty feet behind
4 your house to swap out for that thirty feet to the east of their house. To me, it was no big deal.
5 To the other partners in this land which is my father-in-law, my mother-in-law, and my wife, they
6 didn't see why we should give any parcel of our land that the County already owns, and it's a
7 right-of-way. So I was trying to work a deal with them in order to do a deal with the Polands to
8 which I couldn't get the three parties on my side, which is true, I didn't get the three parties on
9 my side to concur with what I wanted to do. At same time, three days before it was due, the
10 Polands had called me up and said well you only have forty-five days to get this established.
11 Well forty-five days isn't a long time when you're trying to build a house, hold a job, and still
12 deal with the neighbors in trying to get a deal worked out with Jeremy. But if you guys decide to
13 give up the right-of-way on the Polands land, I would just ask that you give up the right-of-way
14 on my land as well, but I would also ask, I don't know whether you guys can do it, is to give me
15 enough to re-establish a new address with the County, to establish a new access to my property
16 on the west side, or whatever, with the County, to make it legal that my driveway is fine,
17 (inaudible).
18 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, Mr. Walters, are there any questions that the Board
19 might have of Mr. Walters? Commissioner Long.
20 COMMISSIONER LONG: Can you just kind of point out, there's
21 reference to another access that you do use on occasion.
22 MR. WALTERS: Well, it was that same oil well access.
25
1 COMMISSIONER LONG: Oh, clear over there.
2 MR. WALTERS: Right. Basically it was what, before I, (inaudible) I was
3 working on this road here, the right-of-way road, I had to get concrete trucks and stuff to get in
4 there and pour my foundation, cause I was under a time crunch. So basically, from the oil well
5 road, I cut a trail to my, from the oil head up to my house, for construction to keep in process
6 while I was working on my road, or the road on the right-of-way, Ms. (inaudible) gets upset when
7 I say my road. So the road on the right-of-way. At said time, after that, we utilized that road
8 until the Polands shut us off from it. Fenced it off. And then I still need to get to my house, so I
9 would use that (inaudible) in. But as far as any kind of danger or whatever, now that instead of
10 where that washed out and only eight feet, all the dirt I have taken out of there has made it about
11 thirty feet wide into their, going over into their ponds. So now it is thirty feet that would have to
12 wash out, not to mention the pit run which I had also had concrete trucks and other trucks driving
13 down the road which Mr. Poland had stated he's a truck driver and the truck which, and driving
14 down the road there's been A dumps, (inaudible) side dumps, concrete trucks, driving down my
15 road without any problem. Sorry, (inaudible). Yes, sir.
16 CHAIR GEILE: Are there any other questions? I just had one. If, have
17 you filled, you say you have not filled in those holes as you describe them?
18 MR. WALTERS: No, I have, well I cut the ground level and filled in
19 those holes that washed out. Oh, no, not their big ponds, they still have two big ponds left that
20 need to be filled.
21 CHAIR GEILE: Okay,but, was that part of your agreement originally,
22 that you would fill those?
26
1 MR. WALTERS: That I would use the dirt that was there to help them fill
2 those holes.
3 CHAIR GEILE: But if this is, if we were to proceed, and not vacate, or I
4 mean to vacate this right-of-way, would you have any obligation to continue to fill those holes
5 we were talking about?
6 MR. WALTERS: I would help them. I mean, I'm not going to do it all
7 myself, cause their, the rest of the dirt they need to fill up those holes, if they don't have enough
8 on their property to fill those holes up, and I can dig some ponds on my property, help fill those
9 up, but we need a substantial amount of dirt to try to fill those ponds up. I mean, (inaudible)
10 huge financial responsibility for me to just say I would do that. I will help them. They had
11 talked to the neighbor across the street who is building a, like seven houses or something, and he
12 had stated to them that they could have any excess dirt left over to fill up those holes. I'm
13 willing to help them fill up the holes. Use some of my machines to help them fill up the holes,
14 but if, I don't feel I need the burden, the whole financial responsibility to fill up their holes. But,
15 not on my property and we worked out a deal and the deal has been (inaudible).
16 CHAIR GEILE: Are there any other questions of the Board? Any other
17 comments? Mr. Walters so those are kind of your comments coming back, and then I will ask
18 them to come back and we'll bring it back and we'll make a determination. But, thank you very
19 much, I know the roads haven't been very good today, and it's had to be hard to come up. So,
20 MR. WALTERS: I feel sorry for the Board, we've got (inaudible).
21 CHAIR GEILE: So, counsel, would you care to come back, or whoever is
22 going to come back representing the Polands. If that's Mr. Poland, if you would, and please, well
27
let me just say for the record, Mr. Poland is going to address the Board.
2 MR. POLAND: My name is Dwaine Poland. On the road, the road is
3 more than twelve foot wide, which I think Brian has been working with there. Also, the only
4 portion, the cost of it, he didn't put 200 Tons in this 660 feet, he has to come down on here and
5 then back over to his house. That's where the most of it went. Secondly, these cement trucks
6 and stuff went on Fred Sarchets's property, which Fred kind of got ornery and blocked it off after
7 a while, the tracks are still there today, they did not go across that road. They went around the
8 road to the east, is how the cement trucks went. The gravel trucks would come in and dump, but
9 there is still blow sand underneath that, and that will (inaudible). Now, he's been using this other
10 access and most everybody that goes to his house has used it. From when he started his house,
11 because the other one, the easement was not accessible. But prior to that they would go on
12 Fred's and go around where it goes along the pond, there where the road is today. He would go
13 around that on Fred's, until Fred shut it off. And told him to stay off of it. There is a very good
14 road and they do use the other access more than they use the one that we are arguing about now.
15 They use it every day. And have every since they started building the house back there. And
16 there's no reason that he couldn't be there where the other access is. It's just that he wants it
17 where they've got it now, which is dangerous. And as far as dealing with Brian, there's no way
18 to deal with Brian. He'll tell you one thing and he does another. He knew he had forty-five days
19 to get that paperwork in, the wife had told him. Forty some days he never made a call to me to
20 tell me what was going on about it, nothing. And finally, I called him and asked him, Brian what
21 are we doing? And I think over this before. And he didn't elaborate as to why he didn't want to
22 do it,but he did say I am not going to do that. That should be enough on that.
28
1 Now, the holes were cut by the County. I don't know what year, I could
2 probably find out. The County had Maynard Nicholls sign a statement that they could take the
3 clay, (inaudible) found out, they could take the clay out for the roads and what I was told is he
4 would not have to pay taxes on that particular ten acres. I have no idea if that's right or wrong. I
5 do know the County did this. I don't know, I think there was another company in on it, I'm not
6 sure, I can't say. But I know the County is the ones that dug these holes.
7 CHAIR GEILE: Okay. Are there any other remarks, Mr. Poland?
8 MR. POLAND: That covers it.
9 CHAIR GEILE: Okay, thank you. I will go ahead and close the
10 comments on number four and five, which one is to vacate and the other one is to not vacate, is
11 to create a new road right-of-way. And I just wanted to thank both parties for, ah, and counsel
12 for the way you represented yourself before us today, cause it certainly is a very difficult matter
13 on both of your parts. But we needed to bring this back to the Board, and we had hoped last time
14 that we'd heard it that there would be resolution. Now we need to bring it back to ours, ah, us,
15 and make a determination and it's one of these deals that fifty percent are going to be happy and
16 fifty percent are not going to be happy. But, we will bring this back to the Board now and make
17 a determination and a decision this morning. So if we could bring it back to the Board. Counsel,
18 did you have anything you wanted to add in reference to any comments.
19 MR. BARKER: Yes, a couple of things. There may be some
20 misconceptions as to what exactly the Nonexclusive License Agreement does. I would agree
21 with Ms. Radakovich, if in fact the Board of County Commissioners was licensing a private party
22 to do, to basically take the public road right-of-way and chop it off and cut it off with no access
29
1 by the public. That's not what is happening here, this is a Nonexclusive License Agreement, in
2 fact one of the conditions is that it does not grant the right to gate or fence the right-of-way for
3 private use, that it is intended to provide access to private property. In essence what's being
4 licensed is the ability by an individual, private property owner, to go ahead and upgrade and
5 maintain the right-of-way. However, in exchange for that, and they're to do it to a certain
6 standard, which is a graded and drained all-weather road, in exchange for that, then the licensee
7 is required to indemnify the County for any damages that may occur to the County by virtue of
8 the maintenance that's being done by that individual. So, in my opinion, the County has full
9 right to go ahead and do this, mainly because of the nonexclusive nature of it. So that's my
10 opinion there.
11 The other thing is that the notice that was done for this was according to
12 the petition that came in. When I say for this, it was the vacation. The notice was sent out saying
13 that what was being requested was that the thirty, excuse me, the 660 feet in length was what was
14 being requested as being vacation. To go ahead and extend that down to the half section line
15 would not be something that would be covered by that notice. And so I have a concern over that,
16 in that the notice did not cover anything more than the 660 feet that was being requested.
17 CHAIR GEILE: Commissioner Vaad.
18 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I'll certainly bow to the direction of the Chair,
19 but I do have a, something in mind to deal with this, and is it you preference to deal with item
20 four first and then five, or vice versa? If you could give me direction there.
21 CHAIR GEILE: I would, let's deal with, let's deal with four first. I think,
22 let's just deal with the order that we have them presented to us.
30
1 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And then if I may ask counsel, cause I do
2 have direction that I would like to give staff, if the rest of the Board that it goes beyond the issue
3 of number four, so is that appropriate in the motion, or in explanation after the motion.
4 MR. BARKER: Yeah, I think an explanation. You can give direction to
5 staff at any time, and in you explanation would be proper.
6 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay, then Mr. Chairman, I would move in
7 the business of number four and that's the consideration of the Nonexclusive License Agreement,
8 to deny that agreement, that license agreement. And then I have further comment.
9 CHAIR GEILE: Have a motion made by Commissioner Vaad.
10 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I'll second that.
11 CHAIR GEILE: Seconded by Commissioner Jerke. To deny the
12 application presented by Mr. Walters or by the Walters to, ah, for Nonexclusive License
13 Agreement for upgrade and maintenance of a portion of Weld County Road 39. Is there any
14 further discussion? Commissioner Vaad.
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My reasoning
16 here is in blending these two items, item number four and number five together, I believe this is
17 the way to work this out, because we've heard an expression from Mr. Walters that if we were to
18 vacate in the issue of number five, that we consider the vacation across his property, of Weld
19 County Road 39, also. And counsel has said we can't do that without notice. So the direction
20 would be to work with the Walters to establish a permanent access to his property and all that
21 requires, which would go, would be a new address, put it in, and I'm not sure what the land use
22 implications are where you put that, but I'm sure that will have to be discussed, then for the
31
1 proper notice for the vacation of the remainder of road 39 from the southern end of Walters
2 property to the southern end of the Poland property. And so, I think I heard expressions that
3 that's what they would like to do should they not get that, ah, get that license agreement, so that's
4 the reason for my motion to deny that license agreement and direction to staff.
5 CHAIR GEILE: Is there any other further comment? By the Board?
6 Esther, would you do roll call, please.
7 CLERK: Rob Masden
8 (COMMISSIONER MASDEN NOT PRESENT)
9 CLERK: Dave Long
10 COMMISSIONER LONG: Aye.
11 CLERK: Bill Jerke
12 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Aye
13 CLERK: Glenn Vaad
14 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Aye
15 CLERK: Mike Geile
16 CHAIR GEILE: Aye. Let the record show that the motion carried. Next
17 item would be petition to vacate a 660 foot portion of Weld County Road 39 between Weld
18 County Roads 20 and 22.
19 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIR GEILE: Commissioner Vaad.
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I would move for the vacation of the 660-foot
22 portion of Weld County Road 39 as described and requested by Dwaine Poland.
32
1 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Second.
2 CHAIR GEILE: It's been moved by Commissioner Vaad, seconded by
3 Commissioner Jerke to vacate the, to approve number five, which is vacation of 660-foot portion
4 of Weld County Road between 39 and Weld County Roads 20 and 22. Is there any further
5 comments or discussion? Commissioner Vaad.
6 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Just a comment. I guess, to both applicants in
7 both cases. I hope this the start to getting some of this resolved. I know it doesn't solve all o the
8 problems, there may be a dam there now which is outside of the reconciling, or my effort to
9 reconcile these, but at least it gives Mr. and Mrs. Walters an access to their property, they will be
10 legally permitted and you will have some confidence that you'll always have that. And who
11 knows what else we're going to dig up in these other accesses that are there. It reduces to some
12 extent the potential for flooding of the Polands property, I guess the next flood will tell what will
13 happen there. But anyway, my effort is to bring some resolution to this and hopefully for better
14 relationships.
15 CHAIR GEILE: Commissioner Jerke.
16 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be voting
17 for this, but I'm only going to vote for it with the assurance from both Public Works and
18 Planning that they work with the Walters to get them a new access, a new legal access, on
19 County Road 22, they've got nearly a half a mile and it's one of those things that they have got to
20 get an access on their property, and I don't care what the other side of County Road 22, I don't
21 care if there's a hundred accesses, you can't own nearly a half a mile of property and not have an
22 access to it. And so, am I seeing that in the affirmative, that you guys can work with them on
33
1 this?
2 (UNKNOWN): Sure.
3 (UNKNOWN): Of course.
4 MR. HEMPEN: Frank Hempen, Public Works. Of course.
5 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you.
6 CHAIR GEILE: And I'd like to just add one comment. I'd also like, well,
7 before we vote on it, would be Commissioner Vaad, you're thought, too, would be to bring the
8 rest of that easement back to us for, with the notice and everything that needs to establish a
9 resolution whereby we could vacate the rest of that right-of-way.
10 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Urn-huh.
11 CHAIR GEILE: So that would come back to this Board in the form of a
12 resolution to accomplish that. The only other question I had would be these holes that we dug.
13 To take the clay out. I would like to have a little more information about that, too. There were
14 some comments and accu, well there were some statements made about we won't tax you and
15 things like that, so I would like to get some information about what those holes were dug for.
16 What kind of agreements were made with the property owners when that was accomplished, and
17 I think, in my mind, anyway, that would clarify all the, or would conclude all the questions that
18 came up in these proceedings today. Commissioner Long.
19 COMMISSIONER LONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm not sure,
20 but I have a concern that giving up, vacating this right-of-way might hurt the County in the
21 future, at some point, since we're going to designate another access point for the Walters, I
22 wonder if we can just keep that ownership for the County for future use for whatever land use
34
1 changes might occur there down the line. And have that availability there, but denying I guess, I
2 don't know if this is proper, but denying that access to the Walters since they are going to have
3 another one that's going to be properly legal, ah, at that point now.
4 COMMISSIONER JERKE: One of the long-term problems on it, I guess,
5 is the Sarchets property to the east, cause it's pre-1889 and apparently, we never will have access
6 to that unless we went into condemnation, so there'd only be thirty feet, or forty feet if we
7 deemed it to be arterial or whatever. Ah, so we would not ever have enough room on the west
8 unless we were to condemn on some side.
9 MR. BARKER: (Inaudible.) Purchase it, we could purchase it.
10 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Purchase it outright, yeah.
11 COMMISSIONER LONG: Okay, that's fine.
12 CHAIR GEILE: If not, Esther, would you do a roll call on the motion and
13 the second, please.
14 CLERK: Rob Masden
15 (COMMISSIONER MASDEN NOT PRESENT)
16 CLERK: Dave Long
17 COMMISSIONER LONG: Aye.
18 CLERK: Bill Jerke
19 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Aye
20 CLERK: Glenn Vaad
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Aye
22 CLERK: Mike Geile
35
CHAIR GEILE: Aye. Let the record show that the motion carried
2 unanimously. Again, thank you all for coming in, cause I know the roads and the power, and
3 everything else has caused a lot f dilemmas to everyone, but thank you for coming in this
4 morning so that we could hopefully cause resolution to this. Thank you.
36
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I, CAROL A. HARDING, Deputy Clerk to the Board of County
3 Commissioners and a Notary Public of the State of Colorado, appointed and commissioned by
4 the Secretary of State, do hereby certify that the foregoing was transcribed from the taped
5 recording of the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on April 11, 2001,
6 which was recorded at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10ih Street, Greeley, Colorado,
7 by Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board; and that the foregoing is an accurate transcript of
8 the proceedings at that time.
9 I further certify that I am not related to any party herein or their counsel,
10 and that I am employed as Office Manager Coordinator in the office of the Weld County Clerk to
11 the Board.
12
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
14 Notarial Seal this 7th day of June, 2002.
15
17 .r: • P CAROL A. HARDING--
18 Deputy Clerk to the Board and Notary Public
19 I CAROL A. E t
HIcrli G
20 My Co ion xpires J 2006
o
21 y`�••.••• ▪ '
My Commission Expires Juno 8,2006
37
Hello