HomeMy WebLinkAbout940949.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
D C!ou; TY
r lam, - T fl fl
IT! n"; I ? "`1 8: '6
1 of
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. 94CV9 , Division IV CLERK
TO THE E9f :D
ORDER
LARRY ABBOTT, SUSAN HALKIN, PAUL HALKIN, CONRAD HOPP, MARVIN
HOPPER, SHARON HOPPER, ROBERT KONKLE, VIVIEN KONKLE, STANLEY OLSON,
and AL ROBERTS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO; and THE VILLA
AT GREELEY, INC. ,
Defendants.
THIS COURT, having reviewed the record and considered
the arguments of Counsel herein, DOTH FIND AND ORDER as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action and personal jurisdiction of the parties.
2 . The Plaintiffs demonstrated they possessed a legally
protected interest and therefore have standing to bring this case.
3 . The Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County (hereinafter, "County Board") on December 8, 1993 did
approve the Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Plan, 1st Filing, Ft. Junction PUD upon the
application of the Defendant, The Villa at Greeley (hereinafter,
"PUD Plan Approval") .
4 . A Rule 106(a) (4) , C.R.C.P. , complaint was timely filed
by the Plaintiffs on January 7 , 1994.
5 . The Record was filed with the Court on February 18 ,
1994.
Li r / 940949
O(0/16/0 PLOICXD
6 . The Court finds for the Defendants and against the
Plaintiffs specifically as follows:
a. The Defendant County Board did not abuse its
discretion in finding that the standards of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance 89-Z, Section 28. 14 had been complied with when issuing
the PUD Plan Approval. There was far more than some competent
evidence in the Record supporting the County Board's decision to
approve the PUD Plan and the Plaintiffs did not sustain their
burden of proving the invalidity of the County Board's decision.
b. The Defendant County Board did not exceed its
jurisdiction in issuing the PUD Plan Approval. The decision of the
County Board involved interpretation of its own Zoning Ordinance
and Resolution of March 8, 1989 approving the underlying PUD Zone
District. The Court specifically finds that the use The Villa at
Greeley proposed for the PUD Plan area was a use that conforms to
the PUD Zone District in which it is to be located. The PUD Zone
District allows for C-1, C-2, C-3 , C-4 commercial uses and I-1
industrial uses and there was a reasonable basis for the County
Defendants' interpretation of local law.
c. The principal issue in this case is the propriety of
the board concluding that a "preparole facility or program" is
representative of the class "hospitals, nursing homes, and mental
or physical rehabilitation centers" . Under the evidence presented,
the Board could conclude that the proposed facility has more of the
attributes of a mental rehabilitation center than a prison; that
restraint of the occupants is incidental to the main purpose and
objective of their stay at the facility.
d. Deference is to be given to the board's action in
interpreting zoning ordinances.
e. The Board did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse
its discretion when it concluded that the facility in question was
representative of the class "hospitals, nursing homes,and mental or
physicial rehabilitation center" .
f. In any event, the procedure followed in this case
was substantially similar to the procedure required on an amendment
of a PUD or a zone. The public was duly apprised of the time,
place, and subject matter of the proceeding.
Based upon the above and foregoing, this Court upholds the
decision of the Board of County Commissioners to grant the PUD Plan
Approval, dismisses the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice, and
awards costs to the Defendants.
DATED this /3 day of June, 1994.
BY THE COURT:
D' tric J %ge John J. Al ; •ff
Hello