HomeMy WebLinkAbout851241.tiff li G MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN
OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
Ti4: DEPARTMENT OF CLERK TO BOARD
4225
PHONE (3031 356-4000 EXT.748E
WIIDc P,O. BOX 459
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO ) RE: Pages 1 - 7 of Transcript of
ss excerpt from Board Meeting,
COUNTY OF WELD ) Zoning Violation - Charles
Monpas
I, Mary Ann Feuerstein, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of
Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Transcript is truly transcribed from Tapes #85-51
and #85-52 from the Board Meeting conducted June 26 , 1985 , said
tapes being in my office.
0.
iN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed the seal of said County, at Greeley, Colorado, this
22nd day of November, 1985.
L /{ '
COUNTY 4JERK
r t" 4
}��\�, � � Deputy County Clerk
SEAL
851241
EXCERPT FROM BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 26 , 1985
TAPE #85-51 & #85-52
ZONING VIOLATION - CHARLES MONPAS
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
JACQUELINE JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
GENE BRANTNER, PRO-TEM
C.W. KIRBY
GORDON LACY
FRANK YAMAGUCHI
ALSO PRESENT:
LEE D. MORRISON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
KEITH SCHUETT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE
CHARLES MONPAS, APPEARING PRO SE
MR. SCHUETT: The next is violation Number 669 :85 : 16 , Charles
and Lois Monpas, Post Office Box 13 , Hereford, Colorado. The
legal description is part of the N1, Section 34 , Township 12
North, Range 62 of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Location
is Town of Hereford. On 5/8/85 , violation notice was issued for
having a mobile home without proper permits. On 5/9/85 , Mr.
Monpas visited the Planning Office to inquire about the violation.
On 5/30/85 , received a letter from Mr. Monpas explained the
history of the mobile home on the property. On 6/10/85 ,
reinspected the property and found the mobile home still in
violation. On 6/11/85 , notice of hearing was sent to Mr. and Mrs.
Monpas. On 6/21/85 , received a letter from Mr. Monpas giving
reasons why he is not assuming responsibility for the violation.
Based on the case summary information, the mobile home located in
the Agricultural Zone District is a violation of 31 .2. 16 and 43 of
the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The Department of Planning
Services staff recommends the Board authorize the County Attorney
to proceed with legal action against Mr. and Mrs. Monpas, any
other persons occupying the property, any persons claiming an
interest in the property, and any persons acting in active concert
with them to remedy the violation of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Monpas is here.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Mr. Monpas , come forward please.
MR. MONPAS: My name is Chuck Monpas.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Is it spelled incorrectly or just
pronounced incorrectly here?
MR. MONPAS: It' s a French pronounciation. The n and the s
are silent.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Waited almost as long as it takes to get
from Hereford to here, didn't you?
MR. MONPAS: M-O hyphen P-A, right.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Mr. Monpas , would you like to make any
comments to the Board?
1
MR. MONPAS : No, I 'd like to have any questions from the
Board. I ' ll try and answer them.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Are there questions the Board would like
to ask?
COMMISSIONER LACY: I don ' t have any questions for Chuck, I
guess my; I 'm going to go back with what he quoted in this. I 'm
looking at Zoning Ordinance 43 . 1 . 1 , for the attorney. Let' s dig
that out. In this, I gather you' re saying you did not locate or
relocate and if its not, that it' s not a. . .
MR. MONPAS : After the effective date of Zoning Ordinance
43. 1. 1 .
MR. MORRISON: That provision has to do with when the
Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance apply; however, prior
to the Ordinance, very similar provisions were contained in the
Resolution, including similar requirements, so it would have been
a violation under the Resolution. I think the intent of that
Section is to determine when you use the provisions of the
Ordinance, when you start using the provisions of the Ordinance,
but given the dates given in the information an indication that it
would have been in violation under the Resolution. Do you agree
with that, Mr. Schuett?
MR. SCHUETT: Yes.
MR. MORRISON: The other thing is you also have to refer to
the enforcement provisions at the back, and those discuss not only
putting it there or relocating it there, but also using,
maintaining, occupying, and just about ever other word that you
could think of that involves the existence of it and, under that
circumstance, the violation, I think, still exists and it exists
on a day-to-day basis, so that there is a violation every day that
mobile home does sit there without the permits.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You said there' s been a mobile home
there since 1962?
MR. MONPAS: Yes sir.
2
COMMISSIONER LACY: I have a real problem. I 'd like to make
a motion to expedite and see what you guys think of it. Let' s
just go on with this, we're running. . .I would like to move that
the applicant apply for the necessary permits, and that because of
circumstances in buying this with no location or relocation that
there be no charge for these permits.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Second. Is that agreeable to you?
COMMISSIONER LACY: Then we ' re going to take it out of
violation, is what I 'm saying, and if I went out and bought
something like this six years ago, and I 'm coming six years later
or whatever the time is, and now I 'm in violation and so on and
this has been sitting there. I would have a real problem with
having to pay for permits for something that was done at that
time. I 'm more concerned. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I would concur with that, and take
that a little bit further. If there has been a mobile home since
1962 , if I have that 1962 mobile home sitting there and that is
grandfathered in, and now I want to improve that site, I want to
improve my habitat, improve the neighborhood, and buy a new mobile
home, then I am. . .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Let me second the motion then let' s
discuss that.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I seconded that.
MR. MORRISON: That doesn 't deal with the issue. What about
the building permit?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: You still should have the building
permit.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, I would agree to that, but not
the zoning.
MR. MONPAS: Well now, what kind of statute of limitations we
got on Zoning Ordinances?
MR. MORRISON: We don 't have a statute of limitations when
it' s a civil action and it' s an ongoing violation. I admire your
3
research, but the section that you cite, I think, applies only to
a criminal type of penalty. That is a. . .
MR. MONPAS: Do you know that for sure?
MR. MORRISON: Well, let me tell you that that' s my opinion,
that is the opinion I will give to this Board and that is what I
would assert if I went to court in a civil action. If you and/or
your attorney present something to the courts that they disagree
with, the courts agrees with and contrary to my position, fine,
but right now all the Board has to go with is my opinion. My
opinion is that only applies to a criminal type penalty, and that
the statute you cite does discuss penalties , and a civil action
where there is an injunction is not a penalty proceeding.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Without getting too deep in the legal
technicalities, I really do have a problem in change of ownership,
and I have on several other things, you' ll recall , as far as the
traceability of our procedure. How does anyone going in buying a
home or anything else, know whether an electrical improvement has
inspection, you know, after a year or two? It' s not a recorded
matter, there is no reasonable way to expect that buyer to know
what has happened. This is an example of the same thing. I'm not
sure we have addressed that very well, and we may be legally able
to enforce it, but we do have a real problem as far as something
being equitable in that matter. How far back do you go if we
proceed? The buyer has every right to an assumption that the
proper things have been done. Maybe we almost have a
responsibility we missed there, but in the long run. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Since ' 79 , you would assume things
were taken care of, in that time period.
MR. MONPAS: Well, I would sure think so.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Chuck, Gene asked you a question. Do you
have any problem with applying for this as the motion that I made
for it to get this out of violation because it will stay in
violation unless we go through applying for the permits without a
cost to you, do you have a problem with that?
4
MR. MONPAS: Yes, I do. Because I didn 't assume that
responsibility when I bought the place.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Then I have a problem, because what we're
doing is taking you off the hook on something that we can't
control as far as violation is concerned. You are in violation,
whether you knew that when that happened or not. Do you
understand what I 'm saying?
MR. MONPAS: Oh, I understand what you' re saying.
COMMISSIONER LACY: All right. I feel that we' re trying to
help you take care of this particular situation. It means filing
the papers and so on, but and there is no cost to this situation.
If cannot accept that in that respect, then we will have to take
other action. I 'm trying to get this thing expedited and get it
out of the way and get you out of violation.
MR. MONPAS: I understand what you are trying to do for me.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Can I ask another question? It
states in here, without proper permits. Now, are we looking at a
zoning permit for mobile homes , are we looking at building
permits? What are we looking for?
MR. SCHUETT: All that we are looking at here is zoning.
That is the only thing that I have brought up is the zoning. The
mobile home would require to obtain the building permit for the
mobile home also.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well , I 'm not convinced. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: The building permit' s fine but the
other. . .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I 'm not convinced he needs a zoning
permit. If ' 62 is the correct date, that. . .
MR. SCHUETT: Wait a minute, reference to a letter of May 27,
1985 , states that the mobile home that is presently sitting there
was moved on on May 10 , 1979.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: In replacement of another mobile
home.
5
MR. SCHUETT: In replacement of another mobile home. At that
point in time, the grandfather clause no longer exists because it
is a new trailer being placed on the property.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: You cannot exchange even the zoning
portion?
MR. SCHUETT: No.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well, I 've got a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I don't agree with that.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: We may have that rule, but we sure
screwed up if we did.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You' re penalizing a person through
trying to improve his way of life and everything else.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Building permit, I can agree on. I
think we 've got a real problem. Again, (inaudible) if that' s the
case.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Still have a motion.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well , are you talking about both?
COMMISSIONER LACY: I'm talking about the necessary permits
for the mobile home. If it' s zoning and building permit, and that
this be expedited that we get this taken care, that there be no
charge to get this straightened out.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well, I was going to withdraw my
second. Because finding out, I am in agreement with you. I 'm not
sure he is in violation of zoning. I would agree he is in
violation of the building permit. I hope that he would go in and
have that inspected to make sure for his own safety that it is
done properly. We're waving the fees for that within this motion.
But I 'm not sure he needs a zoning permit. And so I would
withdraw my second if that is what you' re intending.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Mr. Morrison, you gave us an opinion that
he does need a zoning permit?
MR. MORRISON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Whether you' re in agreement with the
Ordinance or not, it' s the opinion and it needs to be put in.
6
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: If Gene wants to withdraw his second, I
would still second.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Madam Chairman, thank you for
pointing out the legalities of this and you are correct, even
though I 'm in disagreement with the Ordinance. The Ordinance is
there and that is the way it is, so I will maintain my second.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: All right, let' s see if we can remember.
The motion is to require the property owner to seek the proper
permits, both the zoning and then as part of that, will be
required a building permit, and to waive the fees for that. The
motion was made by Gordon, seconded by Gene. Is there discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Whereupon Commissioners Brantner, Kirby, Lacy and Yamaguchi
voted aye.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Opposed? Aye. And I 'm voting in
opposition largely in response to your comments that that was not
satisfactory, so the motion is carried. Do you have a question?
MR. SCHUETT: I 'm questioning time frame.
COMMISSIONER LACY: That' s right. Not in the. . .
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Didn' t have it in the motion.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: It isn' t in the motion.
MR. MORRISON: Well you could make second motions.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Well, I ' ll do a second motion and give
the applicant thirty days to apply.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Motion is to allow thirty days. Is there
a second?
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I ' ll second. Is there discussion on the
motion? All in favor say aye.
Whereupon Commissioners Brantner, Lacy, Yamaguchi and
Chairman Johnson voted aye.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: No.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Motion is carried.
7
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Madam Chairman, I have a further motion.
I move that we instruct staff to examine this Ordinance and bring
forth an Ordinance allowing grandfathered uses to not have to have
an additional Change of Zone for this same basic use.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Motion by Bill and seconded by Gene, let
me make sure I understand it, is to instruct staff to prepare a
revision to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to grandfathered uses
of mobile homes.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: And the intent is to not require a new
zoning permit when a new mobile home is placed on a grandfathered
piece of property.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Now, yes that is it. I do have a
question for legal staff. Lee, if you do have a mobile home
zoning permit, that does not go with a specific mobile home?
That' s it.
MR. MORRISON: That' s my understanding.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: You would not have to have a new mobile
home zoning permit to change mobile homes, would you?
MR. MORRISON: Right.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: So to me, this is consistent.
MR. MORRISON: It is consistent with that. It' s inconsistent
with structures where, if you have to say repair more than fifty
percent of a frame built structure, then that' s considered to
require a Change of Zone or some other permit. And you would lose
your grandfathering. So, if you had a stick built building and it
burned down completely, you would have to have appropriate zoning
if you were to replace it.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Madam Chairman, I would like to change
my motion to exclude the mobile home portion and just leave it
with the grandfather.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, the motion then is to. . .
8
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Is that agreeable with the second?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I guess I didn 't understand the
change. We are going. . .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: To leave the mobile home part out of the
motion and make that for all grandfathered uses.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: The motion is to. . .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: We' re not deciding on the. . .
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Right, the motion is to instruct the. . .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: We' re just asking that it be presented
and brought to a meeting.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Not only just a new structure
replacing, but also say movement. If you have a, as I understand
it now, if you have the 1962 mobile home and you want to move from
here to here. Now you have made a change and. . .
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I know you would want this on record and
as a motion. I don't know that we have to decide exactly. . .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Total concept.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: No, I don't want the details decided
this morning, but I do think there is inequity also in some other
grandfathered uses, if a person loses a building in losing their
zoning. I really don't, and I have trouble with that. It' s the
same issue, as our attorney just brought out.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Lee, is the motion clearly enough stated.
MR. MORRISON: Yes, the staff will prepare some alternatives
to the current grandfather provisions in terms of replacement.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Is there further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Or altering.
MR. MONPAS : Well, if I might interject something here. I
think you oughta change your definition of what a mobile home is.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: We've been through a lot of that. Let' s
don't confuse our issue.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Question.
9
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: If there is no further discussion, all in
favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Whereupon all Commissioners voted aye.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Opposed? Motion is carried.
10
Hello