HomeMy WebLinkAbout840948.tiff BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DOCKET NO. 84-61
EXCERPT FROM TAPES NO. 84-89 & 84-90
IN RE: APPLICATION OF MELVIN JOHNSON AND CHARLOTTE WATKINS
FOR
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - GREYHOUND KENNEL
OCTOBER 3 , 1984
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
NORMAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN - EXCUSED
JACQUELINE JOHNSON, PRO TEM
GENE R. BRANTNER
CLUCK CARLSON - EXCUSED
JOHN T. MARTIN
ALSO PRESENT:
APPLICANT, CHARLOTTE WATKINS
LEE D. MORRISON, ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
BRUCE T. BARKER, ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
ROD ALLISON, CURRENT PLANNER, REPRESENTING THE WELD
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
MARY REIFF, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
6 40 94 8
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I will call the meeting to order.
The clerk will call the roll.
(Let the record show that Mary Reiff, Deputy Clerk to the
Board , called the roll and Commissioners Norman Carlson and
Chuck Carlson were excused from this hearing. )
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I would begin the meeting today by
indicating to all of the people who are here for a hearing that
there are only three Commissioners present and that it requires
a vote, a majority vote of the Board for approval for any of
these applications, so if any of you feel that you would prefer
to wait, in other words we all have to vote in favor today for
you to be approved. If any of you feel that you would care to
postpone or continue your hearing we will be more than willing
to do that for you, and I think we ' ll just , do we ususally do
that on a case by case as we come up, or can we give them the
chance now? Maybe we ought to give you the chance now so you
don ' t have to sit through
LEE MORRISON: Well . I think that ' s probably better
because there are some people that are here for some of the
later cases .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Is there anyone here who is
an applicant for any of the cases who would prefer to continue
their hearing until such time as there is a full Board present?
Okay, in that case we will continue.
* * * * * * * *
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Last item on the agenda is Docket
No. 84-61 , Bruce.
BRUCE BARKER: Docket No. 84-61 , the applicant' s name is
Melvin Johnson and Charlotte Watkins . The address is 905 South
Denver, Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 . This request is a Use by
Special Review for Greyhound Kennel. The legal description is
part of the NWQ SE; , Section 2 , Township 1 North, Range 66 West
of the 6th Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Thank you. Rod, the recommendation
of the Planning Commission.
ROD ALLISON: It was moved by Lydia Dunbar that the
following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld
County Planning Commission: Be it resolved by the Weld County
Planning Commission that an application for Use by Special
Review Permit for a Greyhound Kennel be recommended favorably to
the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1 )
The submitted materials are in compliance with the application
requirements of Section 24 . 7 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance. 2) It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that
the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24 . 3 . 1 et seq.
of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies
in that the use does not infringe on the continued agricultural
use in the vicinity or County. The proposal does not appear to
have any adverse impacts on the agricultural interests of the
County or the environment. The proposal is consistent with the
intent of the Agricultural Zone District and is provided for as
a Use by Special Review. The activities proposed will be
compatible with existing agricultural uses , as well as with the
future projected development in the immediate area. Future uses
are intended to remain agricultural in nature. The intended
proposal will not have any significant traffic or noise impacts .
The proposal was reviewed by the City of Ft. Lupton and was to
be in compliance with their Comprehensive Plan. No overlay
districts affect the site. Use by Special Review Operation and
Design Standards provide adequate protection of the health,
safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and the County. The
Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional
upon the following: 1) The attached Standards for Use by
Special Review be adopted and placed on the Use by Special
Review plat prior to recording; 2) The prescribed Use by Special
Review activity shall not ocbur nor shall any building or
electrical permits be issued on the subject property until the
Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department
of Planning Services Office and the plat has been recorded in
the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder; 3) Prior to
recording the Use by Special Review plat the applicant shall
obtain an Access Permit from the Colorado Division of Highways;
4) An additional twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be
reserved south of State Highway 52 as requested by State Highway
Department. The total right-of-way south of the center line of
State Highway 52 shall be seventy-five feet and shall be shown
as such on the mylar plat, prior to recording said plat; 5)
Prior to the recording the Use by Special Review plat , the
applicant shall submit a letter from the Division of Water
Resources indicating that a well permit has been re-issued for
the subject site. There are nine Operation Standards associated
with Use by Special Review, Case No. 645 : 84 : 41 . The motion was
seconded by Louis Rademacher and the vote for passage was
unanimous and the representatives and the applicant: are here if
the Board has any questions of them or the staff.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Any questions for Rod?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I don' t have a clear map to
indicate exactly where it is . Rod, could you maybe come up and
point it out to me, please.
ROD ALLISON: I ' ll get you one here.
BRUCE BARKER: I 've got a map.
ROD ALLISON: (Inaudible)
BRUCE BARKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Where is it at on here?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Two miles east of Fort Lupton on
Highway 52 , Gene.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Where ' s he at on here?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Two miles east of Fort Lupton on
Highway 52 , Gene.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Is that right, right by the that
brick house (inaudible) west of the (inaudible) up on the hill
there?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: It' s not marked on here either.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Two miles east.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Where there is Road 35 and there is a
brick house sitting there
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: One and a half miles east right on,
would that be that line right there?
ROD ALLISON: Gene, why don ' t you use the vicinity map here
(inaudible) .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: See those roads aren ' t marked on
this map, maybe , they are too , excuse me. Okay west of 35 .
ROD ALLISON: Yea, here ' s Highway 52 and here ' s 35 , so
(inaudible) .
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: (Inaudible) house sits right there ,
that' s where (inaudible) use to live.
ROD ALLISON: Okay.
COMMISIONER MARTIN: He ' s the chicken rancher.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: That must be a
ROD ALLISON: (Inaudible) miles west of 35 , here is 52 .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah, I know where it is. Okay,
will the applicants come forward please and introduce
themselves.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: My name is Charlotte Watkins.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, Charlotte, do you have
anything ycu' d like to add to the comments that were made by
Rod?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Just on - I wanted to mentioned that I
have met with the Highway Division and I have applied for that
access permit. There is an access there now. They said it
would take approximately two to three weeks to receive the new
permit and I also have met with Roy Bell at the Soil
Conservation and he has drawn up plans . Him and I went over
them together and I have plans as far as what we can do to
prevent erosion and noise barriers and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Would the members of the Board want
to ask any questions of the applicant? No questions?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do you have your well permit?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : That is in the process , I don' t have it
as of yet. There was a domestic well and we had to reapply for
a
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Commercial?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Commercial .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Was that, well I haven' t gotten to
it I know, well I 'm here now it says that there can only be 82 ,
does that change?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Okay, that was changed from a letter
from the State Racing Commission from Art Doll . The letter was
dated August 29 .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, I have no problem with that.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : He changed it.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Any other questions? Are there
people in the audience who wish to comment on this application?
If so would you come forward to this microphone , identify
yourself and make your comments.
SHARON McADAMS : My name is Sharon McAdams. I have the
adjoining property next to the property that is in question. I
just received this last week. It was a certified letter. Up
until then I had no knowledge that anyone was trying to put a
dog kennel next to my property. When we purchased our property
we purchased for agricultural area and we have some chickens and
I 'm trying to raise a family out there. We have a turkey farm
on one side of us, I really don' t want a dog kennel on the other
side. You know, the turkey farm is quite noisy as it is . Now
our property is , we ' re on Road 12 . My address is 16749 Weld
County Road 12 , which is right next to the ten acres which
they' re requesting for a dog kennel . I also brought the
surrounding neighbors that are adjoining the same property and
they all have the same grievance, so you might want to hear each
one of them.
ROD ALLISON: Excuse me, what was your name again?
SHARON McADAMS : Sharon McAdams .
ROD ALLISON: Okay. According to the mailing list a notice
was sent to 11101 Dahflia Way in Thornton.
SHARON McADAMS: Okay, we live at 16749 Weld County Road
12 , which is right next to the property you ' re talking about and
we 've lived there for over a year.
ROD ALLISON: This. . .
SHARON McADAMS: That may be why we received the registered
letter late, but we did receive it.
ROD ALLISON: Okay, I just wanted to clear that up.
SHARON McADAMS: But that is the only notification we 've
received on this.
ROD ALLISON: That is what is of record at the Assessor ' s
Office and that ' s how come the notice was sent.
SHARON McADAMS : That may be where they send our tax papers
and why they didn ' t, because that was our previous address , but
we have lived and resided at this home for a year now.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: We don' t post USR' s?
ROD ALLISON: Yes , we do post a sign for Use by Special
Reviews and we also advertise them in the County' s newspaper of
record.
SHARON McADAMS : Excuse me; I do have one other comment. I
noticed on this piece of paper I received that they published
this in the LaSalle paper. I would think if this was regarding
Fort Lupton, it would've been published in the Fort Lupton paper
so that the people in the area would've known about it,.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is
MARY REIFF: A courtesy publicantion was done in the Fort
Lupton paper.
SHARON McADAMS : It was done in the Fort Lupton paper also?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It was published there as well ?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: And it was posted?
SHARON McADAMS: It just states on here that it was
published in the LaSalle Leader.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The property was posted as well.
There was a sign on the property.
SHARON McADAMS: But, see, the difference with this is that
it shows applicant as Marvin Johnson and Charlotte Watkins ,
which this description of this property, this property belongs
to a Bosk, their last name is B 0 S K, and as to my knowledge
they are the people that we are having to dispute with right now
over well rights because they are using an existing well on my
property for their domestic use that they can' t show belongs to
them and we' re in a court battle with them now trying to get
legal description of who this well belongs to and who it doesn ' t
belong to and they are the people that own that piece of
property and I don ' t know where they are splitting out the ten
acres and putting these people as applicants unless they ' re
selling it which you know we have no knowledge of that, but I
don' t, there is no water rights to them as of yet . They are
using our well until this comes to court.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, Rod did you have
ROD ALLISON: (Inaudible) . Okay. The application for the
Use by Special Review was made in the name of Melvin Johnson and
Charlotte Watkins and they do have a contract on this piece of
ground which was already split out through a Recorded Exemption
and the people that still own the property are the Basks as
indicated by Mrs. McAdams , but an applicant can proceed as an
authorized agent of the land owner with the Use by Special
Review.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And the Use by Special Review will
only be effective if in fact they can demonstrate that they have
adequate water, is that correct?
ROD ALLISON: That ' s correct. That ' s , and we have that
standard set up for that purpose .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, McAdams , in relationship to
this application, is located where? Where is your property
located, again? On this map maybe you can show me , they have
different names.
SHARON McADAMS : Sure. (Inaudible) .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This is the application.
SHARON McADAMS: My copy of it.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You have 20 of this.
SHARON McADAMS: I have 40 .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Oh, 40 of this .
SHARON McADAI'IS: Now this is 40 acres here, okay, and this
is the ten acres that they' re talking about. The people that
own this house here, they are here, the people that has this,
they are here , the people that have this , they are here.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay.
J. J. JONES: I 'm J. J. Jones . Mr. Bosk bought (inaudible)
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So he , okay he, okay.
SHARON McADAMS : So he is here also.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, so for the record, this
property would be to the south and a little bit to the east of
the ten acres that is in question.
SHARON McADAMS: No, my property' s south, would directly
south because I have that 40 acres directly below that entire 40
acres above.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay.
SHARON McADAMS: You've got it?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: All right, would you give us your
name please.
J. J. JONES : My name is J. J. Jones. Okay, I own
adjoining property.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And that would be to the west?
J. J. JONES : Be to the west.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now do you have 30 acres then.
J. J. JONES : Well , as it stands right now, I sold 40 acres
to Mr. Bosk. I 'm holding the contract. Mr. Bosk sold. the 11
acres without my permission and right now it ' s between the
lawyers and Mr. Bosk is (inaudible) , I 'm going to foreclose on
that entire piece of property or get final payment or what.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now wait a minute. You sold 40
acres to?
J. J. JONES: Mr. Bosk.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Who' s selling. . .
J. J. JONES: Mr. Bosk is not listed on that.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: ten to the applicants?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: And he , okay
ROD ALLISON: Bosk is listed as the property owner of
record. These people that are the applicants have a contract to
purchase the area that was exempted out through a Recorded
Exemption process , if this permit is approved.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But if , who is the recorded owner
of the other property then? Bosk?
J. J. JONES: As it stands , I sold the property to Bosk and
hold the contract on it, so at this point until he finishes
paying me off, I own that property, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So, I guess there would be some
question whether you are the legal owner of the adjoining
property then.
J. J. JONES: There might be some legal question to that
point.
BRUCE BARKER: Mr. Jones, as far as the legal ownership, do
you have an installment contract or is it an actual contract of
sale in which you want a set closing date?
J. J. JONES: We 've got a set closing date when final
payment is clue. I 've got a contract where he' s making payments .
BRUCE BARKER: Okay. So he has been making payments?
J. J. JONES : He has been making payments.
SHARON McADAMS: J. J. , you might mention that stated in
your contract that you can' t sell any part of that property
until you are paid off.
J. J. JONES: Well, it doesn' t state exactly that. It
states that he can' t sell any property unless , without my
permission and he sold a piece of that 11 acres without my
permission, and I 'm in the process of having my lawyer contact
him because , he can sell it , yes , but now I must contact him and
state that I want full payment.
BRUCE BARKER: Usually with an installment contract the
title vests in the person who is the seller and the person who
is the buyer makes certain payments but, up until the time that
the installment contract, when it' s finally paid off , then title
is then transferred. So I think that the title is probably
still in use.
J. J. JONES: Actually it would still be in my name.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So this guy' s not going to get a
clear title unless you release it and you have to have full
payment for the whole parcel? Everything? or just that portion?
J. J. JONES: No, for the full 40 acres. As I see it.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Does he have , if he is not an
adjoining land owner and everything else, can he give testimony
and objection to this?
BRUCE BARKER: I guess, you know only the adjoining land
owners are really entitled to give testimony and as far as , I
guess I 'm not totally clear that you still have the title , I
guess , in that property. If you really own that full amount of
property adjacent to this property in question.
J . J. JONES : As I understand my contract I own the
property until it' s paid for.
ROD ALLISON : I want to point out that anybody could come
up here and give testimony. It' s just a matter of the Board
having to weigh that evidence as is appropriate .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Sure . That' s right. Sure we would
hear from, okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Are you living, you' re not living
there now?
J. J. JONES : I 'm not living there. No.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay . So, the basis of your
objection is that this is land under contract to be sold that
you haven' t given permission to be sold.
J. J. JONES: That I , no. My objection is that
intentionally I still, if nothing else , I still own the 30 acres
that Bosk, I don ' t know, it' s up to the courts and lawyers and
stuff , but potentially, I still own and can repossess that 30
acres possibly and if I do say, possibly do repossess that 30
acres I believe the dog kennels next door would be a devaluation
of my property.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But I don' t think they can develop
that until they get clear title and you ' re not going to give
clear title unless you' re fully paid.
J. J. JONES : That' s right.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So I don ' t think there can be a dog
kennel unless you were satisfied.
J. J. JONES: No I wouldn' t, I don ' t know how thew pulled
it off. I just found out here and come buzzing out here. I
just found out a week ago and came up and got in contact with a
lawyer today and he ' s checking it out for me.
BRUCE BARKER: Is the dog kennel, would that be located on
the property which you are selling to Mr. Bosk?
J. J. JONES: Mr. Bosk? Yes, it would be.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The Board have any other questions
for Mr. Jones? Thank you.
J. J. JONES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Are there other people who wish to
testify in this?
SHARON McADAMS : Maam, I ' d like to say something else too.
When I purchased my property, there was a dog kennel on the
property. It had a special permit on it and when we purchased
the property we took that totally out because we didn' t want
that in the area. I thought if on record it showed that there
had been a special permit ordered in that area before , that that
might weigh something on your, your ideas of allowing it to be
out there again. I just wanted to let you know that it is not
in enforcement, it would not be put back in enforcement for such
use.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Thank you.
WILLIAM HAKE: Yes , my name is William Hake and I married
Betty Caldwell . Betty owned the 40 acres on County Highway 52
and 35 .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: What was the last name again
please?
WILLIAM HAKE: Hake. H A K E. I believe the property is
in Caldwell right now.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, so you' re immediately east.
WILLIAM HAKE: Hake. H A K E. Betty and I , I married
Betty.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: We have a Hoke.
WILLIAM HAKE: H A K E is the way it is spelled.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Is there a Hoke then east of you?
WILLIAM HAKE: No. Here ' s the letter that was sent
certified.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: You own that whole corner up there?
WILLIAM HAKE: Yes sir.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: From 35 over to this
UNKNOWN: Sir, I think they 've got a copy of record .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Sir, would you mind looking, we ' re
talking about this quarter right here. The Caldwell and this is
Hoke . Is that correct?
WILLIAM HAKE : That' s supposed to be Hake.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Hake . Okay so it' s these two.
WILLIAM HAKE : It' s these two, but we don' t vote.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, you married Caldwell and now
you ' re , okay.
WILLIAM HAKE : Okay, I married Betty, so the whole 40
(inaudible) .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. What is this in reference
to?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is the certified letter that
was sent to, evidently, an incorrect address.
WILLIAM HAKE: Betty and I have been living in California
and we just moved back into the property.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So you' re , I guess you ' re saying
then you just received this then.
WILLIAM HAKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. Now (inaudible) .
WILLIAM HAKE: And the first time we heard anything about
the property they came down and they were checking
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Would you turn to the microphone , we
like to get people on the record.
WILLIAM HAKE: They were doing a land sampling, they were
sampling the land.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Who is they?
WILLIAM HAKE: I believe it was the State , because they
came by and asked us if they could take samples off the property
and at that time he told us that they were considering of
putting a dog kennels up there on that acreage right next to
ours where they had just cut the road in. So we said , well we
don ' t really care to have a dog kennels there because we bought
it so we could, you know, have a horse and maybe have a few
chickens and plant a garden and right now we are turning the
land over and planting it every year. We ' re having it done ,
we ' re not doing ourselves. So we don' t really feel that we
would care to have a dog kennel right next to our property. The
noise , dog kennels do get pretty messy at times.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, you are aware that this is
strictly a greyhound facility
WILLIAM HAKE: Yes sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: and that still doesn ' t make any
difference?
WILLIAM HAKE : That don' t make any difference.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Any other questions for Mr. Hake?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So you' re saying that you didn ' t
receive this letter until the 26th of last month and so you
weren' t even here then or aware that this was going on to make a
presentation to the Planning Commission?
WILLIAM HAKE: No.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Are letters not sent to the
Planning, for the Planning Commission hearing?
ROD ALLISON: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Are letters sent for the Planning
Commission hearing?
ROD ALLISON: Yes , they are. I ' ll check it.
MARY REIFF: They send post cards.
ROD ALLISON: Oh, well , we send notice. It' s in a form of
a post card.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Notice? Okay.
ROD ALLISON: Thank you Mary.
JIM VAWTER: I 'm Jim Vawter and I own the property
immediately west adjoining this , well it doesn ' t actually touch
the ten acres , but it touches the 40 acres that this ten acres
is on. I don' t have any plans to build on it, so the dogs
wouldn ' t bother me right at the present, but that' s not to say,
that there won' t be the family may wish to build there sometime.
But also, I would like to point out that this is right along 52
and Fort Lupton is growing that direction, there ' s a Junior
College out there within, I would preseume a mile and a half or
two miles , cf the proposed kennel. I expect to see subdivision
out there in the future and I 'm not at all desirous to have a
dog kennel right next to my property there.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Are there questions for Mr.
Vawter? All right, thank you, oh excuse me .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I just have one comment. We did
send Fort Lupton, is this in their Comprehensive Plan?
ROD ALLISON: This location?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes .
ROD ALLISON: I ' ll double check.
JIM VAV]TER: Incidentally, I did receive a post card , and I
was here at the Planning Committee , but I was the only one so
apparently some of these other people didn' t get those cards .
ROD ALLISON: They sent back a referral to the Planning
Staff on July 31st of ' 84 and they indicate that it does comply
with the Comprehensive Plan. This letter was signed by a Robert
Cromb.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Did you have any more questions for
Mr. Vawter?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: No:
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: All right.
WANDA KEETON: My name is Wanda Keeton, we live at 16076
Highway 52 . We purchased four acres and a house from Mr. Vawter
almost three years ago. We didn' t receive a notice of this. I
called about four or five neighbors down the road, none of them
has never heard about it. So I came with Mr. Vawter and their
statement was , they' d better be getting something, letting them
know what ' s being passed on 52 . Now what am I Mr. Vawter , about
how far am I . I ' d be west, right?
MR. VAWTER: You would be west, half a mile , approximately.
WANDA KEETON: Okay.
coMMISS:oNER JOHNSON: And you didn ' t notice that the
property was posted with a sign?
WANDA KEETON: No.
BRUCE BARKER: Madam.
UNKNOWN,: There ' s a For Sale sign on the property.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: The posted sign' s right next to it.
BRUCE BARKER: Madam Chairman, would you like me to
elaborate on the notice provisions for the USR?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Why don' t you do that Bruce .
BRUCE BARKER: Okay, the provisions are found in the Weld
County Zoning Ordinance and that is, I think that is Ordinance
number 89 was the original document and then amended after that.
The specific provisions are found in sections 24 . 2 et seq. , and
specifically the one is 24 . 2 . 2 . 2 and that says that the duties
of the Department of Planning Services is to give notice of the
application for a Special Review Permit and the public hearing
date. To those persons listed in the application is owners of
property located within five hundred feet of the parcel under
consideration. Such notification shall be mailed first class
not less than ten days before the scheduled public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But, which public hearing, the
Commission?
BRUCE BARKER: Okay. That ' s for both.
ROD ALLISON: That' s for both.
BRUCE BARKER: Both the Planning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners . So that, the limit is basically the
five hundred feet surrounding the parcel in question. Also
there is a, of course the sign must be posted at least ten days
before the hearing date, and that goes for both the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners Hearings . And
in the last requirement is the publication, that must be made at
least ten days before the date of those hearings .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, Keeton, was that correct?
WANDA KEETON: Yes .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Are you, now Vawter is on the
mailing list, but I don ' t see a Keeton, now are you within five
hundred feet?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: She said she didn' t receive a
notice.
WANDA KEETON: No.
UNKNOWN: That would be under Ray Keeton.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: On the map could you show what
portion that they bought. Here ' s your piece.
UNKNOWN: Okay, she' s here.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Right in here. Okay so she ' s
UNKNOWN: She would be (inaudible) .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay so she is not within five
hundred feet and that' s probably, okay, that' s why she wouldn' t
of been noticed.
UNKNOWN: No , she wouldn ' t be.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: As I read this Ordinance , it also
indicates that really that' s not a statutory requirement, so
much as a courtesy to the surrounding people . Nevertheless , I
think it is the view of this Board that we do solicit input from
neighbors when we consider a Use by Special Review, so, you
know, I don' t think that we ' re guilty perhaps here , but we
certainly want the input. Okay. Let ' s try and limit our
testimony tc new information or amend to what' s already been
given so that we can move along quickly. If you have additional
information that ' s fine and we welcome it, but otherwise if you
just agree with what' s been said say so.
KEN NEFF: I represent Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
and my name is Ken Neff. I 'm a right-of-way agent.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Ken Nap?
KEN NEFF: Neff. N E F F.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Neff.
KEN NEFF: And all I 'm here for is to let you people know
that we do have a natural gas pipe line, 91 . 5 rods , starting
from the well in the southeast corner up along the corridor
along the property line to the northeast corner and then
approximately 30 rods going east and west and exit the property
at that point. I , we sent a map to Mr. Maverl and we 've never
received anv results back and we just wanted to let our position
be known, that we do have a gas well in there or a gas line
that' s hooking up that well.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: It ' s indicated on a plat map.
KEN NEFF: Okay, well we didn' t receive
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: The gas well and the pipe and the
easement in fact.
KEN NEFF: Well we didn ' t receive any maps or anything back.
so we just wanted to state our position that we are there and we
do protect our pipe line 25 feet each side of the line which is
50 foot right-of-way. We do not allow any structures built
above it, although they can run dogs over it if that ' s their
wish.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I don ' t have a copy of the plat but,
there aren ' t any structures indicated over that pipe line are
there?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: No.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, we did receive that
information and I don' t know that we. . .
KEN NEFF: Our pipe line runs adjacent to that service
road. See we didn ' t receive those maps back so all we ' re doing
is just letting it be known that part or the record, that we are
there.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Thank you.
SHARON McADAMS : He ' s hard of hearing, I just want to let
you know in case you didn ' t.
GEORGE SPILMAN: My name is George Spilman and I , my place
is , corners that one at the southeast corner.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: That' s Spilman?
GEORGE SPILMAN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Thank you.
GEORGE SPILMAN: I have to run chickens out in order to get
the grasshoppers. And dogs and chickens don ' t mix very good,
you know. And either I run chickens out or the grasshoppers eat
my trees. If you want, that draw' s kind of got a plague, and
that seems to be grasshoppers , and now if a dog gets out I 've
either got to take the chances on getting paid for the chickens
or shoot a thousand dollar dog, you know. I 'd rather somebody ' d
have chickens would move in there.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, thank you, thank you, anything
else you'd like to add?
GEORGE SPILMAN: No.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, thank you very much. Are
there other people who wish to speak with regard to this
application? Would you like to respond?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Yes, I would.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: All right.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Okay, first off, the dogs are kenneled
24 hours a day. The fencing around the kennel area is six foot
picket fence, slatted picket, so there' s no gaps in between.
The dogs are turned out four times a day for approximately 15 to
30 minutes each time . The dogs are muzzled at all times except
when they are in the kennel building and the only time the
muzzles come off is when you feed them and they are fed
individually inside of the building, in separate crates . As far
as the noise, it would really be minimal because of the time
that the dogs would be outside, you know, there again it would
only be four times a day and I did mention earlier that I talked
to the Soil Conservation about putting up wind breaks , as well
as noise barriers , on all sides of the property except the
property facing the highway. Also the kennels , the whole kennel
area will be behind , there ' s a crest of the hill about in the
middle of the property from the Highway, and all the kennel
buildings and everything will be behind that crest of the hill,
so it is not visible from the Highway. And as far as the
cleanliness, we have to go according to State regulations set
down by the State Racing Commission. We have a book full of
rules and regulations that we have to go according to. They do
come out and do spot inspections two or three times a year.
They just come out and want to inspect your building and if it
doesn ' t, you know, pass their inspection they can shut you
down. So, you know, we ' re looking at County Zoning and
Ordinances and that sort of thing as well as with the State
Racing Commission. When the dogs are turned out four times a
day we immediately go out afterwards and clean up the kennel
area. There is , you know, only, just the small kennel area
where they are let out to run out to exercise for that short
time . We do clean that out every time the dogs have been out
there. The waste goes into a pail that has a plastic liner.
The plastic liner is closed at the end of the day and put in a
dumpster, which a dumpster company usually comes once a week and
empties the dumpster also . I think that basically covers , you
know, most of the people ' s complaints from what I 've heard.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Do either of you have questions?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: We don' t have the stipulation in
here if there is any change of ownership or change of whatever
this is , or is this
ROD ALLISON: No , we don' t have it in there. Do you want
it in there?
BRUCE BARKER: Rod, I would suggest that the Boardconsider
making that a condition as far as the exact ownership that the
applicant would, I guess , have ownership as a condition.
ROD ALLISON: I guess , they fulfilled the Use by Special
Review Application submittal requirements as they' re written in
the Ordinance and if , I 'm not an attorney personnel , but it' s my
contention that if there is a problem with ownership that it
should be decided outside of this hearing. It' s , you know, they
submitted a warranty deed for the property and they 've also
submitted a contract for sale and they 've complied with the
application requirements just like anybody else for a Use by
Special Review and I don ' t know if we need to go any further
than that, unless , you know, you want to do something different.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: If we add that requirement however,
that Gene mentioned, that
ROD ALLISON: Which , the one about the permit. .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: being only for those owners .
ROD ALLISON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Namely, Miss Watkins.
ROD ALLISON: Right.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Then we kind of confine it to that,
don ' t we? I mean. . .
ROD ALLISON: Yes , once
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: if that question were decided
negatively for example, the Use by Special Review would not be
available to any one else who might choose to buy that property,
it would be only to these people, if in fact that the issue of
who owns the land is determined and they can, they do in fact
own it.
ROD ALLISON: Exactly, or if they set up on the property
and then a few years later decide to move.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Then the Use doesn ' t stay with the
land, it goes at the time that they sell that land.
ROD ALLISON: Right.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I think that ' s a good idea in this
case, Gene . I would agree with you. I think it ' s a good idea
in almost every case. I have a question about the Planning
Commission Hearing. Since you indicated there was no objection ,
were there objections at the Planning Commission hearing, Rod?
ROD ALLISON: I ' ll double check here. I think for the
record, I did make a mistake. There were objections. I just
didn ' t it have written down. There was one objector.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: There was one objection?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Mr. Vawter, the one that doesn ' t,
adjoin the land.
ROD ALLISON: Okay. I didn ' t have it written down on the
Planning Commission or the staff comments or resolution, so I
just assumed and probably shouldn' t of.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: With regard to the comments that
Miss Watkins made regarding the picket fence and the wind breaks
and the noise barriers and so forth , is that addressed some-
where in our Operation Standards, because I don' t have the
application materials or maybe I do, but I don' t, is there some-
place that indicates that that' s all required? Sometimes those
are detailed in an Operation Standard, very specifically .
ROD ALLISON: I ' ll check.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: There is a drawing here that says
there will be a six foot picket fence.
ROD ALLISON: (inaudible)
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Just , it ' s in with that one.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah, where does it say that there
will be a picket fence?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah, I don ' t see anything in our
Operational Standard , we usually do that , of the hedges , the
fence , the whole thing.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : It should be in the large plat that we
had drawn up.
ROD ALLISON: Well , I 'm making up, it doesn' t appear to be
in the application materials other than just on this map, so
I ' ll get specific with the standards on that.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: See , that ' s one of the State
Regulations , is that they do have to be six foot fence .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That is part of the Racing
Commission?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : From the Racing Commission.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: This is where we always get into
trouble because these are governed by two sets of standards ,
ours and theirs , and I think that is always a problem. for us .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, now you' re saying on a turn
out pens , that' s just strictly where the dogs will run „ are you
planning on any other fencing, hedges or?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Well there is, (inaudible) okay , on
this one
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That ' s what we ' re looking at.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Okay, the turn out pens , where you just
turn them out four times a day for the (inaudible) , okay and
then for instance , now, I usually walk my dogs , especially my
racers once a day, the day before they race and so this exercise
area down below there would be for that use, but you don ' t leave
them out that long because you don ' t want them to use too much
of their energy or you don ' t want them to lose a lot of weight ,
because they all have set weights when they race also and so
that ' s , you know, just so they can get out and sprint a little
bit. And that would all be six foot fencing also as required by
the State.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now this will be for breeding dogs
also then?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Well it' s mostly for racing dogs, but
we ourselves, we won ' t open up breeding operation, we won ' t have
puppies and stuff for other people, we may breed once a year for
ourselves , but it would only be once or twice a year at the
most. It will not be a breeding operation, no, it' s more or
less a racing and training operation of greyhounds.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, now you say training. I
don' t know anything about training greyhounds , but I know they
run in a circle and I don' t think they run. . .
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Well , when you start training them you
take them to the track, you have to take them to training tracks
which there is one up in Greeley and one in Commerce City and
then you take them to the regular race track, they have special
schooling days so you can train your dogs.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So what training would you do here
then?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Just to, well , it ' s more or less just
for exercise right now, you know, Melvin isn ' t going to put in
any kind of training track or anything because the area wouldn ' t
be large enough. People always take them to a training track in
order to get them to go around the track, but he does work with
them, you know, prior to taking them to the track.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: And, now these won ' t be necessarily
Mr. Johnson ' s dogs , or yours , or whatever , you will kennel for
other people as well .
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : We lease , well , let me explain the way
it works cause it' s not really, it' s not a regular kennel
operation. We lease about 75 to 80 percent of our dogs and. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You lease out or you lease them?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : We lease from people. And when the
dogs are running, the money that that they make , we pay the
owner a commission from the money that the dog makes when it is
running. The owners rarely come out to the site , out to the
kennel operation. We usually are in contact with them by mail
or by phone , you know, they don ' t come out there every day and
check on their dogs . We feed them, we, you know, we run the
whole operation , you ' re not going to have all these owners out
there because we can lease from sometimes 20 , 25 people at one
time.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay now, you have facilities for a
hundred dogs and we have three or four kennels in Colorado and
there ' s kennels in other states. Do you take these dogs , do we
run just one kennel and then they ' re here or do you run. . .
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Okay. Colorado runs year round here.
At Clover Leaf, which is Loveland, they do not have kennel
facilities for the greyhound men to bring their dogs down, and
in Commerce City they don' t have facilities for the people to
keep their dogs there, that ' s why we picked Fort Lupton as a
central location. Now when they run at Interstate out at Byers ,
they do have kennel facilities where the dog men can move their
families and their dogs right out to those facilities , live
right at the track because it ' s outside of Byers . The same also
pertains to Pueblo, when they run down there, and Colorado
Springs . We do run out of state also. We have a kennel here,
in Colorado, and we also have one in South Dakota. So, rarely
will there be a hundred dogs kenneled here. The time there will
be one hundred is , if ever, will be when we ' re setting up to go
to an out-of-state facility, such as Sadreck. We have 45 dogs
up there right now. Right now, here, I only have 15 , here in
Colorado, and, you know, this is why we ' re looking to get this
built, so we can become a little bigger than we are now and
hopefully house most of our own instead of having to lease as
many as we do, because you cut 35 percent off of your earnings
automatically, that ' s what the owners get and so it makes the
difference.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, so this is, you ' re dealing
with very expensive animals evidently then.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Yes , you are.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. Now it says house plans to
be drawn up later. Are you going to live there or is someone
going to live there immediately?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Yes we are, no not immediately. Right
now where we kennel at, we' re sixteen miles from the kennel one
way and he goes over there two to three , four times a day. With
this site, we would be about three miles from the kennel and we
would still go out there , you know, every day, two, three , four
times and what have you. We do plan to put a house on the crest
of the hill , but not at this exact date, you know, until,
there ' s no well or anything out there right now.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Of course you' ll have to have water
for the dogs , but
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: Just bare land, right.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: What about security at night or
anything? People just don ' t bother?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Well , there again in the regulations,
they have to be locked up and everything, your kennels have to
be locked up and. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You feel secure that there ' s nobody
there 24 hours?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Pretty much , yeah.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Do you have anything else you 'd like
to add Charlotte, to the testimony? John do you have any
questions?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : No.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well , I 'm a little troubled with the
opposition. I , everybody says we don' t want dogs , but I haven ' t
heard any, I don' t know whether they think it ' s going to
devaluate their property or whether they think the dogs are
going to be noisy or smelly or unsightly or what , I ' ve just
heard them say that, I heard George say that he thought it would
interfere with his chicken operation, but these dogs are penned
up, I don' t believe that could happen. I wonder what, you know,
just to say we don ' t want dogs , that ' s not a very much of a
reason, there has got to be some real concrete reason why we
don' t want this to happen.
SHARON McADAMS : May I say something to that?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I ' d like to hear the real reason.
SHARON McADAMS : They say they' re going to have the dogs
muzzled any time they' re outside of their cages, but they ' re not
going to be muzzled any time that they' re inside those pens, and
you can' t tell me we won' t be able to hear them. We have a
turkey farm directly across the street from us and even though
it' s as far away as it is , I mean, it ' s over a hill , at night
and in the mornings you can hear those turkeys as if they were
right in your living room. You know, if we 've got that on one
side of us , we don' t want to hear dogs on the other side of us.
Another thing we had a dog kennel on our property and George can
tell you, and so can the rest of the neighbors , that those dogs
got loose. Now whether they ' re supposed to be locked up or
whether they aren ' t, they got loose and, you know, they get out
there and kill our chickens and if you had the grasshoppers we
had, just like George said, you've got to have chickens , or you
don' t even have a lawn.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Is the dogs noisy? Is a greyhound
noisy?
SHARON McADAMS : They howl like coyotes .
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: If , for, okay I mentioned before,
they ' ll be turned out four times a day, for 15 minutes to a half
an hour. Now when those dogs are outside , they don ' t run around
barking and screaming, they ' re not your typical dog, you know,
they ' re racing dogs , they don' t sit outside and bark the whole
time they' re outside.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Do they howl? Do they, what do they
do?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Well if a siren goes off, sure they ' re
going to howl like any dog does , but are we going to hear sirens
clear out that far from town?
SHARON McADAMS : Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: What about the building, the kennel
building itself , do the racing commission rules require some
kind of sound proofing and how significant?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Well , it' ll have to be good enough, you
know, it' ll be insulated and everything because we ' ll have to
heat it and air condition it like we do at the kennel that we ' re
at now and, you know, like I said those dogs are muzzled all of
the time except when you feed them and you put their pan of feed
in the crate, they ' re all crated individually, there ' s latches ,
there' s hooks on the crates , they all go in a separate one , each
one to a separate crate and they are fed individually like that,
and then when you take the pan back out, you muzzle them
instantly acrain.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: They' re muzzled in the building
itself as well as outside .
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : They' re muzzled all the time except
when they eat.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: They can' t howl with a muzzle on?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : They, yes , they can.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, that was my question.
J. J. JONES: Can I make a comment please.
BRUCE BARKER: Excuse me , can you please state your name
again for the record.
J. J. JONES: J. J. Jones . Originally when I got that
property, the Byers brothers were on the same back piece as what
she had, they had greyhound racing dogs. The dogs, you ' re going
to hear them bark, there ain ' t no two ways about it. Muzzle or
not, and they done the same situation of putting them out in
runs . The six foot fence makes no difference , Byers brothers
only had a four foot fence, the dogs did not go over. You
better think about. . .
CHARLOTTE WATKINS: They can jump four foot fences.
J. J. JONES : They can , they dug under every time they got
out, you better start dropping a three foot retaining wall in
the same soil.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Oh, we' re aware of all that , we 've been
in, Melvin has been in this business for approximately 20 years ,
so he knows what he ' s doing. The State Racing Commission would
of never wrote the letter of approval if he had not , you know,
if he had not been in the racing itself, because they know who
he is and they know that he has been in it for several years and
he knows the regulations and they set down several regulations
that we have to follow.
J. J. JONES: Okay, I did make the comment, devaluation of
the property. As I 'm not living there I didn' t figure , I figure
on selling the property if by chance I get it back, so there ' s
devaluation there , but you' re talking a hundred dogs. I don' t
care what you say, there ' s going to a lot of barking that ' s
going to be going on. Thank you.
JIM VAWTER: I guess I didn ' t say that I was afraid it
would devaluate the property, I thought that would be
understood.
BRUCE BARKER: Excuse me , could you please state your name
again.
JIM VAWTER: I 'm Jim Vawter. My main objection, I don' t
live there either. I 'm not going to hear them where I am. Some
of my family might want to build there some day, but my big
objection is it will devaluate the property, all the realtors
that I 've talked to out there say it will.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I have a question for Sharon
McAdams . I still got some concerns. I guess I didn ' t fully
understand when you received your notice.
SHARON McADAMS : Okay, I received my notice two weeks ago.
It was sent , evidently it was sent, as he said , to our old
address which was a year ago and then it came, I guess because
it had to go there first before it came , forwarded to Fort
Lupton and got to me and my daughter signed for it and I would
say, I could probably tell you the date that she signed for it ,
you could check on it and see , because they were certified.
That' s the only notice I received on it.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Would that of been before the
Planning Commission hearing.
SHARON McADAMS : No , it was not. That had already happened
because I checked with Susan who had called me from out of state
because I had told her dad what I had received and she had in
turn received the same thing and that had already happened .
ROD ALLISON: Okay, they' re listed as a , on the mailing
list and notice was sent out, in requirement, according to
Ordinance, was fulfilled and the notice was obtained from the
Assessor ' s records and there ' s a lag in time of updating those
records and that' s why this problem occurred.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I think maybe for the benefit of the
people who are here , we need to, and maybe even for ourselves ,
review what the findings are that we have to make again , because
I always find it helpful to go back to that and I 've got them
here , if it ' s all right with the Board I 'd like to just review
those as , John, I know you know them and. . .
ROD ALLISON: You told us not to give you, not to give you
those. . .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Well I always ask for it.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I do.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: We have to find the following
things : That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the
district in which the use is located; in other words that it ' s
consistent with Agricultural Zoning. Is that correct, Rod?
ROD ALLISON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That the we have, that the uses
would have to be compatible with the existing surrounding land
uses, and as I understand it you are all agricultural dwellers,
your homes are here, you' re not really farming the land, but
you' re. . .
SHARON McADAMS : Yes , yes it is all in farming.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It is all in farming.
SHARON McADAMS : Yes , we have the same guy that does all of
our property that, in fact he just got through planting it in
wheat this last month, but we all have it in farm land.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Additionally, we have to find
that the uses would be compatible with future development, which
I think is the purpose of the referral to Fort Lupton , who would
have that in their Comprehensive Plan as to how the,/ plan to
develop in the future.
ROD ALLISON: In addition to the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan future land use map.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. That it complies , well let ' s
see , we don " t have an overlay district here so I guess we don ' t
need to worry about that. That if it' s proposed to be located
in an A District that the applicant has demonstrated a diligent
effort has been made to conserve productive agricultural land,
and finally , that there ' s adequate provision for the protection
of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants . I just
bring those to your attention because those are the facts that
we have to deal with as we. . .
SHARON McADAMS : I might bring up the point that we have
all surrounding neighbors here at this hearing objecting to this
ten acres of property versus the numerous of acres that are
surrounding it that are objecting to this being put there and
you might take that in consideration to the fact that we just
don' t want the noise out there and the depreciation , along with
the trouble we ' re going to have to have with those dogs when
they get loose and somebody ' s going to shoot them and then
there' s going to be law suits and your going to have a lot of
problems with them. And another thing, you've got people out
there, who' s going to say that you' ve got all these people
objecting to that , you 've got a lot of teenagers out there that
are running around doing crazy things , there ' s no one
supervising these dogs . What happens if somebody goes over
there and lets them out? Just for fun , for kicks and giggles .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I think that ' s testimony that we
need to hear, thank you. John , did you get your question
answered?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Pretty well.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. Board members have any other?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Can I see a book?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You must of misunderstood, Rod ,
because I use that as a guide, I think that' s very. . .
ROD ALLISON: Yeah, if you follow it.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah, that ' s what I mean.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Change of Zone though, that ' s
different.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well this is USR, okay.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Are you ready for a motion?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: If you are.
ROD ALLISON: One other point, I 've, those, the standards
that you wanted us to consider, the additional standards . I 've
got those written up. Do you want those now or not? The
standard that relates to ownership, if the owners were to sell
the property the USR would terminate automatically, and the
other standard was to clarify the fence .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well , since there ' s only three of
us here, I know how I 'm going to vote . By reading down what we
have to look at and what our decision is made upon , what
criteria.
ROD ALLISON: Oh, okay, well I just asked because
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah, I appreciate that. So, since
there ' s three of us and I know how I 'm going to vote on this,
Madam Chairman, I want, I will answer your question when I make
my motion, and the motion is for denial based upon what we have
to use as guidelines . Is the proposal consistent with the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan , it, our Comprehensive Plan in that
area, do we even go out that far?
ROD ALLISON: Yes we do, it' s intended to remain
agricultural in nature.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: All right. Is the proposal
consistent with the intent of the district which the use is
located? I don ' t think that it meets that criteria. either.
That the uses would be permitted would be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses , I think that we have heard
testimony today from each land owner that is within 500 feet ,
there was no support at all. Each person or each landowner was
opposed to this , so I think that it is not compatible . Would it
be compatible with future development of the surrounding area
permitted by the existing zone? The existing zone is
Agriculture , but future development, I think it was pointed out,
it is east of Fort Lupton only a mile and a half , I think that
we will see eventually some development going that way, so it is
not, in my opinion, compatible with uses which will be
compatible with future development. The proposed located in Ag
District. I 'm not sure that that is compatible with that, it ' s
only ten acres and I 'm not sure that that would be applicable
for the use of agricultural land. Is there adequate provision
for the protection and health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood? I would feel confident that it
would be built adequately for safety. These are expensive dogs,
they would be very well taken care of with cleanliness „ health,
my only concern is noise. These dogs bark, all dogs bark and I
certainly wouldn' t want a bunch of dogs , a hundred dogs barking
next to me, so I guess the welfare of the inhabitants of the
neighborhood would be affected.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, there ' s been a motion to deny
the Use by Special Review. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I ' ll second the motion. My feeling
is that usually a greyhound operation is a pretty good
operation. I think it' s a more desirable kind of a dog kennel
to have ir any neighborhood as far as that ' s concerned. I ,
reluctantly, am going to support the motion because we had all
the neighbors there. I 'm not too sure I would want to live
quite that close , it ' s a narrow strip of land, it ' s not a very
big piece of ground. I know they don ' t have to have a lot of
ground to kennel greyhounds , but I think they should have a
little more space between people and I think there are areas
where they could find more ground to do it and I think that
you're going to have neighborhood problems from day one . I just
don ' t feel like that ' s the right place to put it.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay, there ' s a motion by Gene and
seconded by John to deny this Use by Special Review. Is there
further discussion? All right, all in favor of the motion
signify by saying Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Opposed? Aye. The motion fails.
ROD ALLISON: Fails . So now you' ll have to have a motion
for approval..
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And that' s going to fail too.
ROD ALLISON: Then the application fails.
BRUCE BARKER: The application will fail if there ' s no
motion is accepted.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: All right. I 'm going to explain my
vote. I don' t know where you'd put a facility like this if you
don' t put it in an Agricultural District. Obviously you can ' t
put it in a Commercial District or an Industrial District. I
have heard you gentlemen so many times talk about property' s
owner right to do what he wants to with the land as long as he
doesn ' t harm his neighbors and I feel that these kinds of
operations are well regulated and that the provisions that we
include as well as the provisions that the Racing Commission
provides for, would provide for compatibility and safety and
protection of the health, safety and welfare. I ' ll move for
approval with the addition of the standards that Rod has
written, particularly, and maybe you' d better read them into the
record Rod if you would.
ROD ALLISON: Okay, number 10 would be: The applicant
shall enclose the kennel turn out pens , dog run and exercise
area with a six foot unit of metal fence?
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Well , we were going to use a picket
fence, solid picket fence.
ROD ALLISON: Okay, six foot solid picket fence.
CHARLOTTE WATKINS : Or they can also be chained by the
fence , but that ' s all open, that ' s why we were looking at the
solid picket, because you wouldn' t have as much erosion and. . .
ROD ALLISON: It would be, a dog would have an easier time
climbing the picket fence , I mean the chain link fence than a
picket fence , it' s a straight board, so we would go with a solid
picket fence. Number 11 : The Use by Special Review Permit
shall automatically expire in the event the applicants , Melvin
Johnson and/or Charlotte Watkins sell the property or cease to
own the surface area for the Use by Special Review Permit.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Would you restate the motion?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay , the motion was for approval
with the addition of the Operation Standards that Rod read into
the record, namely the inclusion of a fence and the fact that
the Use by Special Review goes to these owners only and if they
cease to own the land then the Use by Special Review ceases to
exist. I think that provides a real good protection for the
neighborhood , and I 'm not insensitive to the neighbors concerns ,
but I really think that there ' s no place for these if we don ' t
allow them in this type of zoning.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well I guess I ' ll second it to get
it on the floor so I can make some discussion, but I ' ll agree
with John, there is , there ' s definitely a need for these, the
greyhounds are probably one of the neatest and well kept kennels
because of the expense of the dogs and everything else, but it ' s
just not for this particular neighborhood, we have heard from
every surrounding owner, and it' s noise. I don' t think that it
is conducive to the future development, as I stated earlier, but
it is, you' re right, Jackie , I believe that every person should
have the right to use his land as he sees fit as long as he
doesn ' t injure his neighbor and I think in this case it would.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Well I had a little problem with it
because I know that some people out there have horses and I know
horses are usually a little more smelly then these dogs are
going to be. I know there ' s other activity in the neighborhood
that I think are just as obnoxious, if I could use the term, as
dogs would be. I don' t have any problem with the dogs , except
we got all the neighbors opposed it. We didn ' t have a single
one that supported it and even with these standards , if the
neighbors would, felt like they could live with it , with these
standards , I ' d be glad to support it. We ' re talking about a
strip of ground that ' s not very big, it' s not very wide and
there ' s a house on each side of it where people live , or
reasonably close. If these folks that oppose it felt
comfortable with these kind of standards , then I think I could
support it and I 'm trying to be, I hate to turn anything down,
to tell the truth , but I still feel like these people have some
rights out there.
BRUCE BARKER: Madam Chairman, as far as the motion to
approve and then a second to the motion, I haven' t read the full
Roberts Rules of Order, but I think the person who does second
the motion, I 'm not sure about this , but he or she may have to
vote in the affirmative , I don' t know.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I think not, Bruce.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I don' t think so.
BRUCE BARKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I would question that, I think we ' ve
had at least, and I haven' t read the rules either lately , but I
believe you can second a motion and still not vote in favor of
it.
BRUCE BARKER: Rod brought that up and I thought we 'd
better ask.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Well , John, I think you've got a
good point and you know it ' s a real hard balance, it ' s always a
hard balance. I guess , you know, I can see both sides of this
issue real clearly and. . .
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Right across the road we have this,
the Weld County Disposal , we have . . .
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I don ' t know if the applicants are
the. . .
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: We had a sheep operation just on the
north side of it at one time and it could be another one . I
don ' t think the dogs are any worse then these other things,
frankly, but these neighbors have to live with it.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I don' t see any of the neighbors
showing an indication that these additional standards would
change their opposition. Is there any one who feels that way?
I think that was John' s question. All right, are we ready for a
vote on the motion then? All in favor say Aye. Aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: No.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: No.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: All right, the motion fails and the
application then is , therefore, denied. Thank you and thank you
all for your testimony. Is there further business to come
before the Board?
BRUCE BARKER: No maam. I don' t think there is.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Meeting is adjourned.
Hello