HomeMy WebLinkAbout991470.tiff BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCERPT OF MEETING CONDUCTED MARCH 17, 1999
RE: CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #2425 AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
#757 - WILSON; CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION#2426 - WILSON;
CONSIDER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR ACCESSORY TO FARM -
WILSON
APPEARANC ES
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
DALE K. HALL, CHAIR
BARBARA J. KIRKMEYER, PRO-TEM - EXCUSED
GEORGE E. BAXTER
M. J. GEILE
GLENN VAAD
OTHER COUNTY STAFF:
LEE MORRISON, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
SCOTT BALLSTADT, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
SHARYN FRAZER, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
DON CARROLL, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APPLICANT:
ELIZABETH WILSON
RICHARD WILSON
1
991470
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4 CHAIR HALL: I'll reconvene the regular Board of County
5 Commissioners Meeting and we're under the Planning portion, Consider Recorded Exemption
6 #2425, and I need to let the applicants know, I assume these are all for the same applicant.
7
8 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Correct.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: I need to let the applicant know that we do not have a full
11 board present at this point in time and there is an opportunity, if you'd like, to ask for a
12 continuance until it is a full board or, in the event that there is a two/two tie, the fifth
13 Commissioner would hear the recording of this hearing and make a decision at that point. But I
14 do need to know if you're interested in continuing this today, to hear this today, or continue it to
15 a different date. Lee.
16
17 LEE MORRISON: The other issue is, you may want to call all, find out if
18 Mr. Ballstadt supports this, call RE 2425, 2426, SE 757, and
2
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: and the Certificate of Compliance for Accessory
2 to Farm, they're all the same applicant and can be heard simultaneously.
3
4 LEE MORRISON: The same record. You all, of course, have to make
5 separate decisions on those, but the record probably ought to be open for all of those.
6
7 CHAIR HALL: Okay, we'll then open also the record for Recorded
8 Exemption 2426, Subdivision Exemption #757, and Item four which is Certificate of Compliance
9 for Accessory to Farm. Now, if the applicants could answer the question as to whether or not
10 you wish to have this heard today or continue to a different date.
11
12 RICHARD WILSON: Today's fine.
13
14 CHAIR HALL: And if you could state your name.
15
16 RICHARD WILSON: Richard Wilson, 6767 Weld County Road 19. If
17 we could just continue today that would be fine.
18
19 CHAIR HALL: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Ballstadt.
20
21 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Good morning, Scott Ballstadt, Department of
22 Planning Services. The cases before you are for consideration of Recorded Exemptions, RE
3
1 2425, 2426, Subdivision Exemption 757, and Certificate of Compliance for Accessory to Farm.
2 The property is located west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 19, and approximately 180
3 feet south of Weld County Road 16 and approximately 180 feet east of Weld County Road 17.
4 The 180 feet is a strip of land owned by Public Service Company, so that's what's separating
5 them from those county roads. The parcels of land in question are designated as prime, prime
6 irrigated, and other land by the USDA. The parcel isn't located in the Tri-Area IGA, Ordinance
7 201, area. That's a mile to the, on the next section line. Currently the deed of the property is part
8 of the north half of Section 33, Township 2, Range 67 north of the 6'h P.M. The applicant has
9 submitted a Deed for right-of-way along the Frico Ditch, and it has been determined that the 40
10 acres to the south of the ditch is a separate legal parcel. It's kind of dark, but you can see that the
11 ditch runs along the darkened portion and it's approximately 40, 41 acres to the south of the ditch
12 that has been determined as a legal, separate parcel, also owned by the Wilsons and that the
13 balance is approximately 188 acres. Currently on the property exists ZPAD 67, MHP 498, and
14 two other stick-built homes constructed prior to zoning. This next map is a closeup of this area
15 right here where all the existing structures, or existing homes are. This is Weld County Road 19
16 which actually runs north and south; however, these four structures, the two NCU's, the MHP,
17 and the ZPAD, are all located on the property north of the Frico Ditch. The other two of the, on
18 this map to the left, are in the southern 40 acres south of the Frico Ditch. The stick-built, which
19 is a solid line, is currently being placed, it's a move-in house, it's currently being placed on block
20 foundations. The dashed proposed Certificate of Compliance is one of the applications that was
21 submitted as part of this request. So this is a blowup of that improvement area on (inaudible)
22 Weld County Road 19. Richard and Elizabeth Wilson requested the aforementioned
4
1 applications. The Department of Planning Services has received two surrounding property owner
2 letters in opposition, one referral in opposition from the City of Dacono. The only other referrals
3 with comments, the Health Department and Public Works Department, are addressed in the
4 potential Conditions of Approval. Staff is requesting, actually before I do that, also presented to
5 me this morning before the hearing, was a letter that the Wilsons provided that is essentially
6 tracks the, a lot of the surrounding property owners. I can submit that as an Exhibit. Staff is
7 requesting that the Board of County Commissioners review these applications due to staff
8 concerns pertaining to their configuration and concerns expressed by the City of Dacono, as well
9 as the surrounding property owners.
10 The application is as follows: Recorded Exemption 2425 is being
11 proposed in conjunction with SE 757. So in the overall property map, the subject property is the
12 88 acres that can, they have one parcel they're allowed because they're both more than minimum
13 lot size to create the deed, or the eastern and western portions. This application is on the subject
14 eastern 88 acres with the application. The applicant spoke to the Planning staff prior to
15 submitting the applications and the application was submitted proposing to create Lot A, and I
16 can show you, going back to the close up,just north from the eastern half The application
17 proposes, this is a simplified drawing of that application, that Lot A would include the MHP and
18 the ZPAD, which are both Accessory to Farm permitted right now, and the two older structures
19 which were prior to zoning would be located on the Subdivision Exemption parcel. The
20 applicant has indicated that the Accessory Dwelling of Lot A would be justified as the occupants
21 will be employed as, at a proposed greenhouse which will also be located on Lot A. So, the two
22 houses, the applicant is proposing to justify the Accessory to Farm because they will be, the
5
1 occupants of one of these structures will be working principally at the greenhouse. 'Ile
2 application materials also propose that the two older homes be located on the empty lot, leaving
3 Lot B a vacant building site.
4
5 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Can I interrupt just for a minute, because
6 this is getting a little tough to follow. A, then, would not have a Principal Dwelling?
7
8 SCOTT BALLSTADT: One of the two,
9
10 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: One would become a Principal Dwelling.
11
12 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Right,
13
14 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Okay,
15
16 SCOTT BALLSTADT: and one would be justified as an Accessory to
17 Farm. When staff met with the applicant prior to submitting the applications, staff had directed
18 that the Zoning Ordinance allows for one home per legal parcel, with allowances for Accessory
19 Uses, with Accessory Dwellings, such as the Accessory to Farm. However, staff had directed
20 that rather than allow these two, if the one is justified for the greenhouse, however, the
21 Subdivision Exemption, when used in conjunction with a Recorded Exemption, is intended to
22 separate improvements. And if you have two sets of improvements which were prior to zoning,
6
1 the Subdivision Exemption is basically a cleanup process which, while you are proposing a
2 Recorded Exemption, you could separate those two older homes onto their own parcels and
3 basically clean that up so that they wouldn't be non-conforming. So what staff was essentially
4 proposing, was that Lot A contain a Principal Dwelling and Accessory to Farm,justified by the
5 greenhouse, and that the SE parcel be used for its intention to separate one of the older homes
6 and then the remaining older home would be the principal residence on Lot B. Therefore, not
7 creating any new building sites, but cleaning out, so that each home is justified in accordance
8 with the Zoning Ordinance. So, the issue with the RE/SE combination that the Board needs to
9 look at is the applicants will show you why they, because of tight quarters and other existing
10 conditions at the site, (inaudible) feel that ah, separating the two older homes would not be a
11 feasible separation.
12 Okay, I'm trying to go step by step so that this is all clear., because there
13 are several applications here. The City of Dacono indicated that this Recorded Exemption 2425
14 doesn't comply with their Comprehensive Plan; however, they didn't go any further with any,
15 that's justification that
16
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Before you take that off,
18
19 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Sure.
20
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Let's get to B again.
22
7
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Okay.
2
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I see a proposed structure, I want to make
4 sure that I understand what all those, I see three units there
5
6 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Okay,
7
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE: on Lot B, and I wonder how they got there.
9
10 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Okay. The Frico Ditch, going back to the original
11 property
12
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay, so the ditch will add
14
15 SCOTT BALLSTADT: This is the Frico Ditch, and there are four existing
16 residences currently on the site that are on this 80-acre parcel. The drawing which I have shown,
17 is showing these two proposed, that are, this is actually south of the Frico Ditch.
18
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Not on,
20
21 SCOTT BALLSTADT: So, these are not located on B, they are actually
22 located on this lot south of the ditch.
8
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay, I'm with you now.
2
3 SCOTT BALLSTADT: So there are four homes that are actually on the
4 subject, and that are those four red there. RE 2426, going back to the overall property picture,
5 ah, RE 2426 is an application on the western 100 acres and proposes to create a 20-acre Lot A
6 and an 80-acre Lot B. The only concerns that staff has with this is the cumulative effect of
7 several recorded exemptions adjacent to each other could be interpreted as an evasion of
8 subdivision regulations; however, staff has been working with the Wilsons to try and address
9 these issues and the applicant has indicated that they plan to submit a Minor Subdivision
10 application on Lot A, the 20-acre parcel,just off the intersection of 17 and 16. The City of
11 Dacono also indicated that RE 2426 does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan.
12 The Certificate of Compliance for the Accessory to Farm is the fourth
13 application that the office received at the same time as the two Recorded Exemptions and
14 Subdivision Exemption. Once the Department of Planning Services and the Attorney's office
15 were able to establish that this is a deeded right-of-way and that this is a separate parcel, the
16 applicant proceeded to obtain building permits and move the stick-built, move-in home, ah,
17 started work on the foundation. The Certificate of Compliance application proposes an
18 Accessory to Farm mobile home to be placed on this parcel with approximately, ah, they may he
19 able to indicate if this is the correct position, but I think this is the correct position. The 41-acre
20 parcel is currently grass, it does not contain any livestock and, due to the low intensity of the
21 farming operation on the 41-acre parcel, staff has concerns that an Accessory to Farm Mobile
22 Home may not be justified in accordance with Section 43.2.3.1.1 which states, "The mobile
9
1 home will be occupied by persons principally employed at or engaged in the operation of the use
2 where the mobile home is located," as well as "The mobile home occupant(s) is principally
3 employed at or engaged in the farming operation on the subject property." So, staffs concerns
4 with the Certificate of Compliance is once the Frico Ditch deeded right-of-way was determined
5 that this 40 acres was a separate legal parcel, they, the applicant has moved the Principal
6 Dwelling on site; however, staff has concerns that 41 acres may or may not justify an Accessory
7 Mobile Home if the farming on the 41 acres does not appear to be that intense, no livestock or
8 production.
9
10 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Scott, excuse me, was it a determination that
11 the Frico Ditch was a deeded right-of-way, is that what established the 41 acres as a separate
12 parcel?
13
14 1.
15 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Correct. It's a fee split along the ditch. Staff, not
16 for consideration today this doesn't have a number assigned to it yet, but I
17 did want to bring it to the Commissioner's attention that Ms. Wilson also
18 faxed a new application for a Recorded Exemption on the 41 acres south
19 of the Frico Ditch to the Department last Thursday, on the 11"'. That
20 application has not yet been assigned a case number or sent to referral
21 agencies; however, the reason for the, the Wilsons have stated that the
22 reason for the Recorded Exemption on the 41 acres is to obtain financing
10
1 for one of the two structures that they, either the accessory or the Recorded
2 Exemption parts of the dwelling. The proposed Recorded Exemption that
3 they submitted last week, the proposal is to divide the 40-acre parcel south
4 of the ditch into two parcels, a 30-acre Lot B and a 10-acre Lot A, which
5 would separate these two dwellings on Lot A and leave a vacant building
6 site as Lot B. Which further, I guess, in light of the new application, and
7 that also further makes this a 10-acre Lot A, which would have an
8 Accessory to Farm on it, which further makes it harder to justify an
9 Accessory to Farm. The reason for the proposed RE, the most recent RE,
10 is for financing purposes as the bank will not accept the subdivision
11 section for financing purposes. A letter from the bank that was submitted
12 with the application indicates that the bank sells their mortgages on the
13 secondary market and so they, their investors are on the East Coast and
14 require a separate deed, or a deed for separate record, or recorded in the
15 Clerk and Recorder's office for a separate parcel. So they would not
16 accept the Subdivision Exemption. I did contact Mr. Wahlborg at the
17 bank, who wrote the letter, on Tuesday, and he verified that the bank sells
18 its mortgages on the secondary market. However, they, although they
19 cannot utilize an SE for financing purposes, he pointed out that this does
20 not mean that it cannot be done with other banks which retain their
21 mortgages. And I guess, through my experiences with the department, we
22 do have several Subdivision Exemption financing applications come
11
1 through the office. There are banks out there that will take on that
2 application, it's a matter of finding the correct bank.
3
4 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Just for your information, I'm doing that
5 exact same thing myself at the present time, so I know it can be done.
6
7 SCOTT BALLSTADT: I guess that's the brief, that's as brief as it can be,
8 and overview of all the applications. The Department of Planning Services staff recommends
9 that the Board of County Commissioners consider the applications to determine if the standards
10 of Section 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance have been met and adhere to the goals
11 and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
12
13 CHAIR HALL: Is that your way of saying you don't have a
14 recommendation?
15
16 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Well, you come to each, separating of each
17 section I do indicate staffs feelings as far as the configuration as the concerned RE (inaudible)
18 and staff has a concern about the density of the residential use that would be created by
19 approving all of the applications; however, if there is justification for the Accessory Dwellings,
20 Accessory to Farms,Farm Dwellings that could negate those concerns.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: Questions for staff?
12
1 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Well I've got one, because of what's in our
2 packet. And I think maybe we can ask the applicant, too, but I mean we've got at least two, if not
3 three, separate possibilities that have been put up here and we have another one in our packet that
4 shows a different configuration. So these,
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Which packet are you looking at there?
7
8 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Ah, the first, it should be the first, 2425.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: Okay, thank you.
11
12 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: There's a fold-out one here about two-
13 thirds of the way through that shows a different configuration. Is it, I was just wondering what
14 that was?
15
16 SCOTT BAILSTADT: Actually, that configuration is, reflects the basic, I
17 tried to simplify it with this
18
19 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Okay, so it's basically the same as that,
20 okay.
21
22 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Right. That's the application, or the applicant's
13
1 proposal that you have in your packet fold-out map, and it reflects having both the MI-IP and
2 ZPAD on Lot A and the two older structures on the SE lot, and Lot B being vacant.
3
4 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Okay, essentially the same as that one,
5 okay.
6
7 CHAIR HALL: We have three packets here, are they all basically the
8 same, or
9
10 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Since they, all of the applications were, are being
11 heard simultaneously, there is a lot of duplicate information; however, they applications
12 themselves are what is the difference between the packets. All correspondence between staff and
13 the applicant is inc:.uded in all three.
14
15 CHAIR HALL: Other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant
16 please come forward, state you name and address for the record, and any comments you'd like to
17 make.
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: Good morning, I'm Elizabeth Wilson
20
21 CHAIR HALL: I can't even hear you, so you might have to, thank you.
22
14
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: My name is Elizabeth Wilson, we're the owners
2 of the property in question, I live at 6767 Weld County Road 19, which is one of the it's the
3 ZPAD 67 of this (inaudible) 6767 Weld County Road 19, which is the legal description. We are
4 applying today for the Recorded Exemptions and Subdivision Exemptions. We tried to do
5 everything together because we felt that way we could present the total picture of everything
6 we're trying to do. I think I may have been a little simpler if we would have done it separately,
7 but we'll try to explain everything that we're trying to do. The reason that we're asking for the
8 Recorded Exemption and the Subdivision Exemption along the red part here, which we have a
9 picture of, is so that our kids who live there now can afford to buy their own house and
10 (inaudible) part of the farm. That will take care of, we have one daughter who is there, that
11 wants, that's why we're asking for the Recorded Exemption on the 41-acre parcel south, that
12 house is under construction, she's the one who wants to run the horse boarding operation. She's
13 prepared to speak a little bit later about the details of that, but it would be using the rest of the
14 pasture and also the existing corrals and,horse facilities that we have on the other farm, so
15 essentially leasing -:hem, but they would be living on this, the 10-acre parcel and they would be
16 operating a business there. Our property has had a Special Use Permit before for business,
17 (inaudible) the location shouldn't be a problem for that, either.
18 The proposed RE 2425 and 757, this is a little bit clearer picture of it,
19 `cause actually what everything would consist of. We have about a half section, and then the two
20 parcels, the RE 2425 would take the two houses that were built in the 1920's, along with all the
21 existing improvements which are a big shop and a barn, and then granaries, ah, corrals. Nothing
22 that's built with these two houses was ever intended for those two houses to be separated. They
15
1 share a water tap, their septic systems overlap which (inaudible) boundaries in any way try to
2 reconfigure the lot. There's only 35 feet from the house to the door of the shop, which wouldn't
3 allow enough room for any kind of turn into this particular property on its own, plus still
4 allowing access to the shop and the way that the planning picture demonstrated
5
6 UNKNOWN: This is the configuration of the gas lines, the colTals, the
7 water line and septic systems and the electric, you see how they are all intertwined because this
8 place has been there since 1920 and the two houses essentially, I mean, this is the improvements,
9 this
10
11 CHAIR HALL: Did we get your name on the record, too?
12
13 RICHARD WILSON: Earlier, I could restate it if you'd like.
14
15 LEE MORRISON: If you would also restate what you just said onto the
16 record that would be, Scott, do we have a copy of this first one they put up?
17
18 SCOTT BALLSTADT: No, we'd have to.
19
20 LEE MORRISON: All right. That's going to be Exhibit B, the one you
21 have on the board, and Exhibit C is the utilities and I'll ask you to take that off the pad so we can
22 have that for evidence when we're done here.
16
1 RICHARD WILSON: Okay.
2
3 LEE MORRISON: And that'll be Exhibit C. You can explain on the tape
4 what you just told the board.
5
6 RICHARD WILSON: My name is Richard Wilson, I live at 6767 Weld
7 County Road 19.
8
9 LEE MORRISON: And you've explained Exhibit C was a diagram of the
10 utilities of the two existing houses on SE 757, is that correct?
11
12 RICHARD WILSON: Yes, this very clearly states why it is so difficult to
13 separate the two houses on different parcels. The other thing is that the smaller house is only like
14 660 square feet, I mean, its just like a cottage. It's one bedroom and extremely small and unique.
15 A (inaudible) some lot. The other thing is its septic system actually goes over, crossing over
16 (inaudible) the west here, its septic system goes over to the next house, so you can't have any
17 kind of yard at all. Its utilities wouldn't be on its own parcel.
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: This is Planning's picture, that Planning shows
20 what they had originally proposed. They wanted to put this little house on its own parcel. With
21 the measurements don't really allow for enough room that it has to be on its own parcel and that
22 wouldn't allow us to divide off the house over here that we would like to be able to have our son
17
1 buy it. This picture, (inaudible) This area right here from this house to this barn is only 35 feet
2 and this is the flower shop, so there wouldn't be any way I could get equipment and things
3 through the yard and into here, and the septic system for this house is out in this yard and out in
4 this area here. All of the overhead and underground water and electric and gas lines run, they
5 come into the property here on the original map, this little cottage has, shares a water tap, the
6 septic systems overlap, the electric lines, as illustrated on this picture, crisscross. The
7 underground waters that come out to the cattle pens and then over past this metal building,
8 there's another, there's four shops over here that aren't shown on this picture, but the poultry
9 houses are here, and it has water, all of which runs from here underground (inaudible). The
10 houses were never intended to be divided and (inaudible) the little 600 square foot cottage that
11 could be on its own parcel.
12
13 CHAIR HALL: I need you to help me out, here.
14
15 ELIZABETH WILSON: Okay.
16
17 CHAIR HALL: With the utility issues can, do you have, on that, and I
18 think that's what, Exhibit C? Do you have any lines as to what you're proposing the RE and the
19 SE being
20
21 ELIZABETH WILSON: This is all just on our proposed SE 757. This is
22 the original houses with all the original improvements, the grainary, the barns, the shop, there's
18
1 really no practical way to
2
3 CHAIR HALL: So that's what's on the
4
5 RICHARD WILSON: Yeah, the SE
6
7 ELIZABETH WILSON: The SE or the
8
9 CHAIR HALL: That would be just the SE part of that overhead.
10
11 ELIZABETH WILSON: Right. Since this is a little bit different than you
12 know, usually just having one house per parcel, because this little (inaudible) is still there, that's
13 why we need to bring this to you because you have the ability to make exception for a reasonable
14 cause and Planning suggested that we just try to show you what those reasonable causes were.
15 The two houses are in good condition and are being used but they share everything and it would
16 be totally unfeasible to try to split them. And there's really no good reason to do that. The lot
17 lines are a lot cleaner and more reasonable also, if we leave them where they are.
18
19 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: I need to ask a question relating to what
20 you said earlier. Now, you were talking about your daughter, I believe it was, living in the other
21 side of the ditch, ar d that she would use these pens and all that.
22
19
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yes, some of them. We have cattle in some of
2 them also, but she would be, if she will, they built a new horse shed and shelter just west of that
3 metal building. The metal building probably, the picture of it should be split because sonic of
4 that is, ah, horse shelter in there. And their new barn, we didn't list this picture also, right here,
5 and then there's a culvert across the ditch so that it would be accessible back and forth
6
7 RICHARD WILSON: (Inaudible)
8
9 ELIZABETH WILSON: We also have it, ah, you know,plans to put up a
10 barn, nobody is living in the houses yet, so there isn't really any activity on the parcel, that's true,
11 but we need to have the people there to take care of the business before we can bring them on
12 board. It's probably going to be six months before the house is completed and the Accessory
13 Dwelling is usually something that's just been in-house in Planning and it usually only takes two
14 weeks to get. At the time we applied, we had an opportunity to buy a really nice mobile for a
15 very good, bargain price, that actually has gone by, but I know that there's always been things
16 like that to come up, and our other daughter wants to live here also and help with the horse
17 boarding operation. Both of the girls have a lot of experience with horses, that's their area of
18 interest and expertise, and it will allow us to deed parcels to our kids so that they can continue in
19 the family farming operation.
20 The financing, as far as the bank is concerned, we talked to another bank,
21 and maybe we could get the name of your bank after if you've got somebody that does this and is
22 amenable to it, but the other place that we talked to said that it is possible to get this financing,
20
but it makes the rates way higher, which means that he'd want me to qualify for the purchase
2 price if that makes the payment so much higher. So that's why we needed to get conventional
3 financing. (inaudible) We don't have any possibility on a house right now, either, because all
4 that's going to take a lot of money, but we would like to put the existing houses on their own
5 parcels. The special reason why Lot A, which is 2425, Recorded Exemption, is a good idea,
6 (inaudible) right now it's a zoning and planning Accessory Dwelling, 67, it's a stick-built house
7 but its always gone as temporary dwelling, and that would stabilize that parcel, it would make it
8 on its own right and it would make it not something that's subject to be torn down at some future
9 date. We wouldn't have to, it would be-its own house on its own parcel. And all of this is
10 provided for in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
11 We worked with Planning and we tried to make sure that we were following along and three
12 years ago we tried to get an Accessory Dwelling. The house is now being put on the south side
13 of the ditch. We applied for an Accessory Dwelling that, when it was denied, and in the ensuing
14 time we went to try to work something out so that we could put the house down and this was
15 what we finally worked out with Planning so that this was their suggestions to us.
16 I have some other issues, the density isn't going to change. All these
17 houses are already there. So, the only thing that isn't there that we are just proposing is a parcel
18 of Mobile Home, Accessory Dwelling, on that south parcel. The other buildings are out there.
19 There are two NCL's and the (inaudible). The NCU's have been here since the 1920's, the MI-IP
20 has been here since 1970. ZPAD 67 has been there since 1996, we got a CO for that in '97 and
21 then the south parcel, we just moved the stick-built move-in house and it's under construction
22 right now. So those things are already there. We're not asking for any more houses, we're not
21
1 asking to justify any more people, we're not asking to justify anything, we're just drawing
2 outlines for the houses that are already there in a reasonable manner and a way that we can get
3 financing so that, um, we want it so we can finish the house that's already on there.
4 Scott had mentioned that the City of Dacono said that we were not within
5 their Comprehensive Plan, they are quite a ways from us, as you can see on the map there, so I
6 called them and I talked with Pat Locker who is the secretary who took notes at the meeting
7 when they reviewed our application. She said they were absolutely no problem with anything
8 that we're doing, they have no interest in what we're doing, she said they only checked that box
9 because we fall outside their area of interest. We're actually quite a ways from them. We're
10 only a half mile from Frederick, and they had no problem with it. We are closer to Firetone, they
11 have no problem with it. Dacono has no interest (inaudible). She didn't know why they didn't
12 just check the box that said we have no conflict. So, I wrote Ira Renner, the Chairman, a letter,
13 and asked that he please correct(inaudible) . The proposed RE 2426 which is the one on the
14 west side was a suggestion that we got from Planning also, because the 20 acres squares off the
15 outside of a pivot, sprinkler, (inaudible) outside of where that pivot was able to irrigate at
16 anytime. And Planning suggested that would be a really good place for a Minor Subdivision.
17 Since we still have several children that won't have any parcel even if we do this, the kids that
18 growing up, we thought if we did the Minor Subdivision, that would allow us to do five, four-
19 acre parcels and give each one of them a place where they could have a house and it would be in
20 accordance with the plans of the county or with their guidelines for the Minor Subdivision that
21 are, actually the Minor Subdivision Permit would be a future hearing, at this point all we are
22 asking for is to divide it off, the 20 acres off of the existing 80-acre parcel. That's all we're
22
asking for right now.
2 When it is available, Central Weld Water is available to everything that
3 we're doing, the septics, I talked to Environmental Health and the soil that we have is fine,just
4 any septic screening future development that would be a concern. It's a slightly elevated site up
5 here, it blows out easily, it's real sandy, and actually grass would stabilize it and be a better
6 (inaudible) for the land which is what we(inaudible). As for the Minor Subdivision, on that also
7 Dacono had no concerns. Except(inaudible).
8 We have asked a Recorded Exemption on the parcel south of the ditch.
9 That parcel was created in 1913 by a Court case, that's when the(inaudible) ditch got that
10 right-of-way cleared. It's never been acted upon but it has been real since that time. That was
11 determined by the County Attorney's Office. The house that we moved over there was the
12 subject of the April 30'h hearing that you guys have denied, which resulted in an Accessory
13 Dwelling to the Farm, that request was denied. Since that time we have resolved the issue of
14 where to place the house, permits have been issued by Weld County, and is under construction.
15 Our daughter, (inaudible) who would like to purchase that parcel to operate the horse-boarding
16 operation. They have prequalified to purchase a house, but the parcel needs to be connected to
17 the west for them to get the financing that we've been able to find. Two letters from banks are
18 enclosed, I don't know if you got a copy of the second one. (Inaudible) The bank (inaudible).
19 We originally applied for the Certificate of Compliance as a mobile home on January 21', but
20 that mobile home is no longer available, but we would still like to have the option of looking for
21 a temporary Accessory Dwelling, then our other daughter could live there and help her sister
22 operate the horse-boarding operation. We're attempting to work within the frame of the Weld
23
1 County Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to divide out the parcels where each, so
2 our children can purchase them and that would continue the farming tradition and increase the
3 stability in the area. It allows them to own their own homes and have that sense of ownership
4 and still be closer to town and farm. We've had to diversify and we've created a lot of our
5 agricultural (inaudible) because of the issue (inaudible). We got all kinds of(inaudible)
6 equipment and (inaudible), so the horse-boarding would be something that we feel like it's real
7 feasible right now because there are so many subdivisions going in near by us, where people
8 can't have horses, but there's a lot of people there that would like (inaudible) like to have a horse
9 and be able to ride it. And be able to board it. So, that's something that we feel like would be a
10 service to the community. (Inaudible)
11 On Lot A, the reason that we wanted to justify a mobile home which has
12 been there since 1930 is a greenhouse that we purchased two years ago, we just now have, we are
13 able to put it now because the house that we moved over to that parcel was situated in a place
14 where we needed to have that house moved before we put the greenhouse up where we're going
15 to put it now. So we do have the greenhouse with all the equipment.
16
17 UNKNOWN: (Inaudible)
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: Planning Department's letter also mentioned
20 concerns of surrounding neighbors. We contacted the neighbors that we had, um, that, and,
21 either, um, those opposed (inaudible) usually are done in-house by the Planning Department and
22 don't require Comm issioner's hearing, (inaudible). Planning gave us a copy of a letter from Tom
24
1 and Diana Spurling, and one for, Joyce and Bud Hunziker and their two daughters and sons-in-
2 law. When we spoke with Hunzikers and showed them what we had actually applied for, they
3 wrote a new letter in support of our project. (Inaudible) their two daughters. We spoke to Zane
4 and Patty Nelson, that's the daughter and son-in-law, they didn't even realize that they were
5 signors on the letter and they have no trouble with the proposal. Joyce said that she had been
6 given a lot of false information by Diane Spurling, she was extremely apologetic for not checking
7 out the facts before (inaudible) what was really going on. She was so sorry she had mailed the
8 original letter. When I asked her about a(inaudible) she told me she mentioned in her (letter, she
9 said she had never even seen any weeds, that Diane just wanted her to say that, too. I think that
10 we did have some weeds that blew off the one patch of grass when we had the hundred-mile an
11 hour wind in February that we weren't expecting. (Inaudible) they live just to the northwest, and,
12 uh, their daughter and son-in-law (inaudible) and their other daughter and son-in-law live to the
13 north and closer to the west.
14 (Inaudible) contains other areas we would like to address. First, the
15 proposal presented here today has nothing to do with ZPAD 79, issues surrounding that
16 application have either been resolved or are getting recorded and signed. We are applying for
17 Recorded Exemptions and Subdivision Exemption for (inaudible), as provided for in Weld
18 County Zoning Ordinance and the Department of Planning. The Spurlings letter contains many
19 misrepresentations and some outright lies, they were able to sabotage our efforts to place an
20 additional Accessory Dwelling on that(inaudible) thus preventing us from having (inaudible)
21 official cooperation. The result of legal action by the County Commissioners prevented us from
22 accessing our (inaudible) and building our operation for two years. Now the Spurlings are
25
1 complaining that the health and septic (inaudible) when people are here (inaudible) activities are
2 still in the planning stages. This is nonsense, the only additional houses built are (inaudible)
3 right across the street from them, not ready for occupancy. They are well aware that there are a
4 lot of agricultural activities that are already taking place and (inaudible) planning stages. Their
5 allegation that all that has materialized is houses, boys and auto repair activities coming and
6 going all night long., is false. The derogatory, hateful tone of their letter, which borders on
7 hysterical, reflects a serious misunderstanding of what we are trying to accomplish. We are not
8 asking for more people or more houses, we are redrawing lot lines around existing dwellings as
9 provided for in planning and zoning regulations. Their allegation that the houses are not suited
10 for (inaudible). Their characterization of the mobile home as a dilapidated trailer is inaccurate.
11 (Inaudible) a picture of the trailer here, as is the idea that we are trying to make a permanent
12 dwelling, we are not. We are not making all five houses under separate title, (inaudible). We ask
13 that they refrain from spreading any more slanderous statements about us to the neighbors.
14 Several of the suggested that we sue the Spurlings for defamation of character (inaudible) but
15 they honestly have clone(inaudible). (Inaudible) and they retrieve grain from it. We (inaudible)
16 Rosenoff. He is our neighbor to the (inaudible). He has lived and farmed on that property
17 southwest for over 50 years. He's written a letter on our behalf, he also prepared a map showing
I8 how (inaudible) within the last 25 years on the parcels (inaudible).He wasn't feeling strong
19 enough to attend today, he has blood pressure problems and this would really bother him, but he
20 was one of the people that helped the Weld County Home Rule Charter, he's been involved with
21 the Farm Bureau and with all kinds and farming and agriculture-like (inaudible) for the last 50
22 years. I would like 1:o introduce his letter into the record on our behalf We also have letters
26
1 from (inaudible) Scott Hamilton, (inaudible) 26 years and (inaudible) Spurlings (inaudible) based
2 on the issues only. Planning had sent us a letter that said that they have failed (inaudible)
3 approval, and approve our proposals as we discussed with certain Conditions which we don't
4 find a problem with the Conditions that are listed here. We found that in talking to our neighbors
5 the ones that live around us, they were real supportive and encouraging with our project, and they
6 felt that they had seen a lot of improvement since the 23 years before when it was rented, and
7 they were really encouraging and told us to carry on. ( inaudible) any questions.
8
9 CHAIR HALL: I have one questions, you're suggesting, or you're having
10 a greenhouse placed on, is that all on Lot A?
11
12 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yes.
13
14 CHAIR HALL: How big of a greenhouse is that?
15
16 ELIZABETH WILSON: It's 40 by 80.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: And what do you anticipate doing with that greenhouse?
19
20 ELIZABETH WILSON: We already (inaudible) with a couple of
21 (inaudible) so we can raise herbs, that was what we originally wanted to do when we went out
22 here. That is what we were originally going to set the greenhouse to do. So we will he supplying
27
1 herbs and we also have chickens that we're raising,just(inaudible) the standing. We are raising
2 them just free range chickens so we don't feed them anything chemical, we have a(inaudible) a
3 health concern (inaudible). So we are trying, a little more towards organic things, or at least
4 natural raised beef and chickens and we have the greenhouse registered to (inaudible) and is
5 being provided for farmers market and health food stores.
6
7 CHAIR HALL: Does the, is a greenhouse of that size and that activity, a
8 Use by Right?
9
10 SCOTT BALLSTADT: It would be considered a Use by Right, meaning,
11 of course, that they are not selling from the site and if they meet the definition, that could be
12 considered a Use by Right.
13
14 CHAIR HALL: George.
15
16 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: My question is, the whole parcel, I think it
17 is Exhibit C here, how much of that are you farming or going to farm?
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: All of it.
20
21 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: You're farming all of it now, what dryland,
22 irrigated, what?
28
1 RICHARD WILSON: A lot of it, I'll take this. Most of its, this is our
2 property. We also farm this. We don't own it so it's not drawn into our lot lines. This is
3 basically dryland farming up in here, and this is basically irrigated. Here's the ditch that comes
4 right around here and basically everything from here down is irrigatable except for, you know,
5 where the houses and the corrals and barns and that sort of thing are. This is pasture over here,
6 which is awkward to irrigate, we've had a hard time getting enough water this year, who knows
7 or how much we (inaudible). But right now we can irrigate what we can. At this point it's
8 anybody's guess how much we can get. Everything 1 can (inaudible) I will from here down, and
9 all this is basically cryland farm over there.
10
11 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: What kind of crops are you growing?
12
13 RICHARD WILSON: We've got, well I put it in winter wheat down here,
14 because I didn't know if we were going to get any (inaudible) water, you know, if I can irrigate it
15 I'm going to, and if not then it will just have to go dry. This is alfalfa, about a 50-acre patch of
16 alfalfa right in here, and (inaudible) pastures out here to irrigate, and the rest is basically dryland.
17
18 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: It was mentioned earlier, the 20 acres being
19 outside of a sprinkler, so you're thinking about a sprinkler?
20
21 RICHARD WILSON: The sprinkler is right here, we have never used the
22 sprinkler. But this was a corner of the sprinkler which didn't, it was situated right here., and this
29
1 has always been a tamer of the sprinkler up in this area right here. And this is extremely sandy
2 and hard to get a crop, we thought we was real lucky last year, it didn't blow out. It has many
3 times in the past, it's (inaudible) at best, it's going to make maybe 20 bushel wheat through the
4 year, so it's really not a good piece of ground and we, it would square up our property if we could
5 take this chunk off the end and that(inaudible).
6
7 COMMISSONER BAXTER: So there's not water available for the
8 sprinkler? Or you've just chosen not to use it?
9
10 RICHARD WILSON: We haven't had enough available. We had last, 1
11 actually got the sprinkler worked on, but I've yet to use it because we haven't gotten enough
12 water (inaudible) the water district board. We've got applications in, to rent water from three
13 different cities, (inaudible) who knows how much will be available this year? We won't know
14 until
15
16 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Okay, so you don't own water. you would
17 have to rent water.
18
19 RICHARD WILSON: Right. We have one share, currently, and that's
20 about(inaudible). Last year we rented 60, ah we rented 60 shares last year, this year I don't
21 know how much we can, (inaudible).
22
30
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: The houses are there already, and we're just
2 trying to put them on their own little parcels so that we can get financing for the house and
3 parcels. Because, more and more, we're finding that the banks won't, ah, they don't want to
4 mess with anything outside of their little parameters, and in order to get conventional financing at
5 the best rate, which is the only thing our kids are going to be able to qualify for, they need to
6 have them on separate parcels. That frees up the rest (inaudible) the area so that we're not trying
7 to tie everything up in, and if our daughter wanted to buy her own parcel, we can release the deed
8 that we have on the entire parcel and have (inaudible). This has been a tough time to get started
9 on a farm, (inaudible) historic 20 or 30 year lows and we have been trying to work with, we're
10 trying to find a market with the (inaudible) with the things that we believe are of that, things that
11 are coming into more popularity. We've had big response with the eggs and chickens and
12 everything that's not being raised with chemicals. We'd like a chance to just do what we need to
13 do to get the financing that we need, our financial future (inaudible) depends pretty much on
14 what you gentlemen decided.
15
16 LEE MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, can I ask some procedural questions?
17
18 CHAIR HALL: Sure.
19
20 LEE MORRISON: Well,just one. Exhibit E contains the three letters that
21 you referred to,just for the record. Now, Exhibit G, Mr. Wilson, you indicated that the panel on
22 the right hand side, second from the bottom, is the pieces for the greenhouse. Did you intend to
31
1 submit the rest of those photos for the record?
2
3 RICHARD WILSON: The rest of the pieces?
4
5 LEE MORRISON: No, the rest of the photos.
6
7 RICHARD WILSON: Just as a general way to show that we're doing
8 something, I mean, the implication is, the implication is from our neighbors that we're not doing
9 anything, I think this shows that we've done an awful lot of improvement and cleanup. When we
10 bought the farm it had been rented for 22 years, and we've, (inaudible) that stuff I think it shows
11 good faith and I think it shows we need the people that we need in order to run the operation the
12 way that we see fit.
13
14 ELIZABETH WILSON: This way it takes away the necessity for any
15 policing activity if it has it on their own parcel, it's an orderly development, it's within the
16 guidelines that are provided for in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Zoning Ordinance, that's
17 all we're asking for.
18
19 SCOTT BALLSTADT: If I may make just a couple of clarifying
20 statements as well. One of the items that has been discussed that I didn't discuss was the issue of
21 horse boarding, which wasn't included in the applications. Horse boarding, or animal boarding is
22 allowed by right in the Ag Zone, as long as you don't exceed the animal units per acre or the trips
32
1 per day that is specified in 31.2.20. However, if other activities above and beyond boarding are
2 included in that, it would require a Use by Special Review as an Ag Service Establishment. So. 1
3 just wanted to clarify that we hadn't really addressed the horse-boarding issue with the applicant.
4 That's something.
5
6 COMMISSONER BAXTER: That goes to one thing I asked and that
7 was, if it came to that, if the property involved would have to include, I mean we're talking about
8 this process on two separate parcels. And that would preclude doing a Special Use Permit if it's
9 on two separate parcels?
10
11 ELIZABETH WILSON: You can lease it around, too, can't you, or you
12 can be using other property other than what you actually own in order to run an operation?
13
14 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Generally, if we were doing, I guess it all, what I
15 was bringing up is we haven't addressed the horse-boarding issue in depth. Normally, we would
16 see a Use by Special Review Permit come in on the same, on one proprty, whether or not the
17 overseer of that Use by Special Review Permit lives on the proprty or not, that's up to 'whether or
18 not it's included in the application. So I guess I just wanted to bring that up, that it hadn't been
19 addressed as of yet, and I don't know the details of the operation yet.
20
21 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I realize I'm getting into something that's
22 entirely separate.
33
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Right.
2
3 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Maybe, down the road, but I guess we're
4 looking at so many things here, and we're trying to look at how it all fits together, and I just kind
5 of asking some questions.
6
7 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yeah. We did know that all you can do without
8 a Special Use Permit is board horses and that is all we were intending to do at this time.
9
10 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The other clarification that I wanted to make was
11 also when I referred to a concern about the density of the approval of all these applications, it
12 wasn't to imply that, I realize that the ZPAD and the MHP and the two NCU's and the move in.
13 stick-built structure are currently there. It was just that the, staffs concern was that basically
14 using the Subdivision Exemption to include two houses creates a separate building site on Lot 13,
15 as well and as the newest Recorded Exemption which was faxed last week. If it includes two
16 houses on Lot A, then you're creating another building site, so there is potential for more density,
17 I guess is what staff's concern was. I believe that the layout questions and the small lot for the
18 older home are valid concerns, but I think they are also concerns that could probably be tied up
19 with easement agreements between the property owners to make sure that they are allowed to
20 maintain their septic system and water lines and things such as that. I think, those were my
21 clarifying statements.
22
34
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: How many septic systems are on this property
2 currently?
3
4 ELIZABETH WILSON: Each house has it's own.
5
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Each house has it's own, including if you were
7 to go to Lot A?
8
9 ELIZABETH WILSON: Lot A has two, one for the ZPAD 67 and one for
10 the MHP. That MHP's been there since 1970 and it's got its own. The ZPAD 67 has its own.
11
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE: And the same thing would apply to the
13 proposed
14
15 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) the other ones on, yeah, the
16 proposed, we've already got a permit it's not in yet, the one on the south parcel. But it has a
17 permit and we've actually had two septic systems tested there, so we've got, each one of these
18 has its own separate. We talked to Environmental Health and that's (inaudible). The problem is,
19 the two NCU's are really very close together and the overlap of the septics isn't really our only
20 concern, but the underground water that runs back and comes back over (inaudible) building,
21 back by the granary to the to the poultry building, it runs underground from the NCU on the west,
22 back behind and underneath and that's where the automatic waterers are. Everything, there's no
35
1 way to access the south parcel, by going around the back where that is, and the little house on its
2 own parcel is, ah, there is a 600 square foot house and it would be on a lot that is probably less
3 than an acre, l don't think we'd be able to maintain a one-acre parcel for that house out of the
4 ground that's there.
5
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Just two other questions. We looked at the
7 one, down Weld County Road on the (inaudible) goes the parcel that comes out there, that's not
8 on here, how many acres is that? That small parcel?
9
10 ELIZABETH WILSON: I'm sorry, on Lot A? Lot A
11
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE: No. (Inaudible) down at the NCU
13
14 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) on 6 to 7 acres and also Lot A would
15 be on 6 to 7 acres.
16
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE: And the other question I had is, who owns the
18 electrical system? Do you own the electrical system throughout this area? Is it customer owned,
19 or utility owned?
20
21 ELIZABETH WILSON: We're on Union Power.
22
36
l RICHARD WILSON: A lot of those facilities, most of those facilities
2 shown on illustration here are ours.
3 •
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay, so really, you meter, in essence, Weld
5 County Road 19 or someplace and then you run your system, same way with gas?
6
7 RICHARD WILSON: Ah, there's one meter here, and there's another
8 one over here. And one right here for the electric. And the gas, we get gas off of the gas well
9 and that's shown by these lines here, yeah.
10
11 ELIZABETH WILSON: But the propane is
12
13 RICHARD WILSON: The propane is all connected into the (inaudible)
14 gas line right here so there is a central feeding source from.
15
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Then on water, do you have a separate tap for
17 each unit?
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: No, that's the other concern. The two NCU's
20 share a water tap, the two house that proposed to be put on the Subdivision Exemption share a
21 water tap. The house, ZPAD 67 and that MHP that would be together on Lot A, they also share a
22 water tap. So this really seemed like the most logical reasonable way to group them, put them on
37
1 their own parcel and all of the existing improvements, the barn and the buildings, and the
2 granary, the feed bunks, everything, was designed to all be together and that little house is
3 (inaudible) it's not separated at all. (Inaudible) propane, electric, everything, (inaudible) with the
4 other house.
5
6 SCOTT BALLSTADT: One more. I guess, one of staffs concerns is also
7 that if it was, if the NCU, the smaller house, was not established on its own separate lot, we
8 would have to establish it as a NonConforming Use and assign it a number and, therefore, if it
9 burned down or something else happened to the house, it wouldn't be allowed to be
10 reconstructed as a NonConforming Use. So, that was just one of the reasons for that. And the
11 Wilson's know that. and they understand that.
12
13 CHAIR HALL: You're talking about the two NCU's that are indicated on
14 this overhead in the SE square.
15
16 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Correct. If the SE created a lot with both of the
17 NCU's as they are stated there, one would become the principal dwelling on the lot, and the other
18 would be a NonConforming Structure.
19
20 CHAIR HALL: What are they considered right now?
21
22 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Right now they were both constructed prior to
38
1 zoning, and, I they've never been established, neither one has been established as the principal
2 dwelling on the property, but one would be the principal dwelling.
3
4 CHAIR HALL: Have any of these houses been established as a principal
5 dwelling?
6
7 SCOTT BALLSTADT: No. The two, one, it's assumed that one of the
8 two older houses is the principal dwelling, but neither has been established as an NCU or
9 vice-versa. All that has been established are the other two are both Accessory to the Farm
10 Dwellings.
11
12 CHAIR HALL: The other two is what?
13
14 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The other two on Lot A. The ZPAD and the
15 MHP
16 CHAIR HALL: The ZPAD and MHP are both Accessories to the Farm?
17 Where's the principal dwelling?
18
19 SCOTT BALLSTADT: It would be one of the NCU's. Right now those
20 lots don't exist. It's four homes
21
22 CHAIR HALL: I understand that.
39
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: So one of the two older structures would be
2 considered the principal dwelling. One of the, the other of the two older homes would be a
3 NonConforming Structure and the two others have been permitted as Accessory to the Farm.
4
5 ELIZABETH WILSON: One thing, is the ZPAD 67 is a stick-built house
6 on (inaudible). Right now it's only considered a temporary accessory dwelling. This would give
7 it the principal dwelling status because they no longer allow stick-built accessory dwellings. So,
8 that would clean that up, too, and make it more in conformity with the intent of the zoning
9 ordinances.
10
11 CHAIR HALL: Glenn, did you have a question?
12
13 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Well,just on the issue of the two NCU's and
14 neither of them being the specific principal dwelling. So, if either of them burned down, then
15 whatever is left is all that can be
16
17 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible)
18
19 SCOTT BALLSTADT: You're saying if this was approved this way? Or
20 as it is now?
21
22 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yeah, if it's without splitting it oft, then one
40
1 of them is a NonCcnforming, but not specifically, which one?
2
3 SCOTT BALLSTADT: We would have to establish that when the, we
4 would have to establish one, and typically what we do is establish a NonConforming Use File
5 with some sort of evidence that the structure was existing prior to the regulations being in effect.
6 However, neither of those has been established yet, previously or to this time. We'd have to
7 establish one of them as a NonConforming Use.
8
9 COMMISSIONER VAAD: How is that done? Who makes the choice?
10
11 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Basically, we have the applicant send a letter and
12 any evidence or photos or tax records or anything that they have showing that it was constructed
13 prior, and then we also gather information from the Assessor's Office to see how far back those
14 structures were when they were constructed. And then we just document what the
15 NonConforming Use is or the NonConforming structure into a file, assign it a number. and then
16 that use is essentially grandfathered and, but it wouldn't be allowed to expand beyond a certain
17 point. There are certain modifications that could be made, but as far as the building footprint
18 and, a NonConforming Use is typically allowed to remain because it was legally established prior
19 to the ordinance being in effect.
20
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Well, that is the reason why I asked the
22 question] thought one of the exhibits showed that's broken out, and yet when I saw that up there
41
1 and saw(inaudible) then I assume that these two buildings down here are the two units that we
2 are talking about, which would be the NonConforming Use?
3
4 RICHARD WILSON: Yes, that's correct. That shows you how close
5 together they are. And that also shows very clearly how close it is from this shop right here to
6 this small house. If this had it's own lot, if you drew it half way in the driveway, it'd be
7 impossible to turn into this structure here without getting on this person's property, should it be
8 separated at some point in time.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: Other questions? Do you have any other testimony for
11 your, for the application? From the applicant?
12
13 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) like to see how the rest of the
14 hearing goes from here, you know, hopefully, we've addressed the issues that
15
16 CHAIR HALL: Well, I do have one other question. As far as the
17 Certificate of Compliance fbr Accessory to Farm, which is on the 41 acres,
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yes.
20
21 CHAIR HALL: to the south. You're suggesting the justification for that
22 would be
42
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: Horse boarding.
2
3 CHAIR HALL: horse boarding, and where would that be located?
4
5 ELIZABETH WILSON: Well, that would be, yeah, we, it's actually on
6 that parcel, that's all pasture. So the horses would be on that pasture and they would also have
7 access to our(inaudible) the shelters that we built over where the cattle pens are and that's this
8 (inaudible). Up against that there's a new (inaudible) sharing facility. `Cause they would be
9 using that, (inaudible) also would be using some of the adjoining parcel.
10
11 CHAIR HALL: That's fine, you can keep, stay back there, that's fine, we
12 can see it from here. Okay, thank you. I will open it up to further testimony. if there is anyone in
13 the audience wishing to speak on this issue, if they'd come to the microphone and state their
14 name and address for the record. Scott, maybe you could move that back away from the podium.
15
16 DIANA SPURLING: Diana Spurling, 6648 Weld County Road 19.
17 Could you put that Exhibit B back? We live directly across the road, Road 19, is probably the
18 reason I have more complaints than any of the other neighbors. I'd like to show here our
19 location. This road here is actually the ditch road, right here. There's an oil well right behind the
20 house, that house is placed directly across from us. And I guess, if paybacks are hell, we got
21 ours. One of the reasons I've complained so much about the traffic and people is because when
22 they come out of the south driveway, our house is lower than their property. At night every light
43
1 that swings out of there lights up our bedrooms, wakes us up. They gear up, they gear down in
2 front of our house. That's why the majority of my complaints are the traffic and the people.
3 There are so many things that I want to address here, and I'm as confused as you are. I think it's
4 safe to say that the issue here is about houses and people. It's not about farming. It's about
5 financing houses. Mrs. Wilson told me statement-wise she wanted to project a total picture of
6 what they are trying to do. My questions are addressed in the letter. If I haven't seen any
7 changes from 1996 in what they were trying to do, and I don't think they have come very far in
8 their farming. But, once again, my husband and I are forced here to talk about more houses and
9 more people. I've addressed the weed (inaudible) right here. We live west of the property, the
10 wind comes from the west. The thistle that I was referring to are the ones that grow in their front
11 yard, they're the little purple flowers. Now that I've got that out of the way, I'll try to compose
12 myself. I had several things I wanted to address here. In our letter to the Commissioners, I asked
13 that you review the testimony of April 30, 1997, because I don't think much of their plans have
14 changed since then. Other than the need for more people. As I stated in our letter, we're not
15 opposed to their ag ideas, but we don't see any progress of them and, once again, there are more
16 people. She said we're not talking about more people, but we have a house across the road from
17 us that is (inaudible)that will have more people, we have a proposed trailer, that's going to have
18 more people. On the north she wants a building site in the future, that's more people. ah, I want
19 to clarify, Im not complaining just on general basis. I worked at Tri-Area Planning, which is
20 Dacono, Frederick, and Firestone, for eight years. I've always been concerned about planning
21 and developing in oar area. I thought there was a reply from Frederick in your packet for denial.
22 I had spoken to the Frederick Mayor who is on the Planning Commission, and he had told me
44
1 that they had turned in one for denial. I've also spoken to member of the Planning Commission
2 after the hearing and they said that they were very concerned about what's going out there, and
3 that they had turned in a denial. I'm not familiar with the lady that she spoke to in Da.cono,
4 she's not part of the Planning Commission. I also have some photographs that I'd like to turn in.
5 Some of them were taken just using a film and camera, I have asked planning repeatedly about
6 their auto activities over there. The picture is taken off the road here, are autos that are for sale
7 which, over the course of three years at various times, there's autos there. There is not: autos I'm
8 familiar with. We have people stopping during the day, looking at autos. People stopping in the
9 evening looking at autos, and then there's some photographs on the back that I'll explain. I've
10 also expressed a concern about the number of people on the property and coming and going. For
11 the past three years., we've had numerous young men moving in at various times. The latest
12 arrivals were the first of February. They placed one person in the trailer, one person in the house
13 closest to it, and they put two barking dogs (inaudible) nearest us. And she want, she refers to
14 me as the hysterical neighbor, perhaps I am.
15 I also wanted to address, I don't know if you're considering the legal lot. I
16 understand perfectly what the legal lot is and how it was established. I did have concerns about
17 if they received permission from the oil company for using the rural or Frico Ditch for
18 (inaudible) it. I wondered if they have permission to use the culvert back and forth, with the
19 horse operation between two separate properties. I don't know if they've been notified, I thought
20 there was a letter from Frico in the file stating that they wanted the area cleaned up. I don't know
21 if that's been done yet, or if they have reached an agreement on that. It was my understanding
22 from working with Planning and working with the Comprehensive Plans and the agreement with
45
1 the County, that subdivisions were not the ones that were supposed to be done by the towns.
2 And if you wanted to subdivide, you were supposed to petition the towns for annexation. And I
3 think if they are going to proceed with this type of subdividing, perhaps they should seek
4 annexation from Frederick. I also have questions, well, for the amount of people that are up
5 there and the farming activity, we've waited three years. They haven't proceeded as planned, and
6 I'm wondering how many more people and how much longer before they proceed. I realize that
7 this farm is quite a mess, well I don't mean mess, but I mean from 1924 it hasn't been properly
8 handled, either by the County to divide all this up. There is a real problem here that needs to be
9 addressed. But perhaps we should look at it in a different way. If it goes undivided and kept in a
10 legal 80-acre parcela, it would still retain the integrity of a farm, which it was meant to be, in my
I 1 understanding. By dividing it up we do have a subdivision. Also, about 90 percent of the people
12 on this farm are not there during the day. They are at night. It's ah, I'd also like to mention that
13 repeatedly we've heard about houses for the family, the family, the family. I noticed in flipping
14 through the paperwork, the trailer house was signed Dowd, D-O-W-D, the little house is Dowd,
15 D-O-W-D. We get mail all the time for 6707 for Chris A. Rogers, I don't know who he is but
16 we've received mail for over three years for him. The mailman misdelivers it. And, the reason
17 I'm, maybe I am overly critical of this farm, but you know, I guess I should back up.
18 We have lived, this, our farm has been a family farm since 1958. My
19 husband and I have farmed since 1977 on our property. The second farm that I know best, next
20 to ours, would be the property across the road. We've watched it 22 seasons. We've known the
21 man who farmed it. We know what goes on season after season and how it should be. I guess
22 that's all I have to say. Were there any questions?
46
1 COMMISSONER BAXTER: You did answer one of the questions I
2 think, partially, that.I was going to ask and that's how long you've been there. You've been there
3 22 years?
4
5 DIANA SPURLING: That we have farmed, 22 years.
6
7 COMMISSONER BAXTER: But the house, you've lived in. that you
8 were talking about, how long have you been there?
9
10 DIANA SPURLING: 22 years. The house itself was built in 1958, but
11 we've lived there for 22 years. And, we've worked long and hard and we're getting up in the
12 years, and we planr.ed on staying there, but I think with this type of development it's
13 questionable whether we will.
14
15 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I guess the only reason I asked that, one
16 reason at least was, your perception of what was said earlier about cleaning the place up. What's
17 your perception of how it is? Is it better than it was? Or is it worse?
18
19 DIANA SPURLING: Before the Wilson's moved in there were five
20 people on the property. The farmer himself was, it was an absentee owner. The farmer that
21 farmed it didn't actually live there, but his sons did. No, with all the people and the activity, as
22 far as we're concerned, it's not farm-orientated, the majority of it, and no, for us, it's a lot worse.
• 47
•
1 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Well, I was, I understand that from what
2 you were saying. I was kind of interested in the look of it. And I guess you've answered that.
3 The other question, how far is it from is it Frederick it's the closest to, or Firestone?
4
5 DIANA SPURLING: Frederick's boundary actually goes just to the other
6 side of Road 17. They'd be on the west side of their property is where the boundary is located.
7 Their Urban Growth Area is right on 17, which is
8
9 COMMISSONER BAXTER: That's the Urban Growth Boundary. How
10 far is it from the City limits right now?
11
12 DIANA SPURLING: From the City limits it'd be another half-mile.
13 (Inaudible)
14
15 COMMISSONER BAXTER: That might be helpful.
16
17 DIANA SPURLING: There, you see Frederick is right between 17 and
18 15.
19
20 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Yes, ma'm.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: And where was the Urban Growth Boundary located?
48
l Do we know where the Urban Growth Boundary for Frederick is?
2
3 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The IGA boundary is along Weld County Road
4 17. It's outside of that area.
5
6 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Which I guess just presents the same
7 problem that we've had all along, that we've asked cities to only include an area that they think
8 they will reasonably develop in. If they go out so far and something lies outside of it, then you
9 know, it presents a different problem.
10
11 DIANA SPURLING: Except through annexation. You know, most
12 people if they want a subdivision, they want to annex to ah, the closest town, wouldn't they?
13
14 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Well, they would, but I'm saying that in the
15 agreements we've had, we're trying to make reasonable boundaries where they might annex.
16 And they have set ones like that, that we don't, that they even would ever annex out there, is my
17 problem.
18
19 DIANA SPURLING: That's true.
20
21 CHAIR HALL: Question? Glenn.
22
49
1 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Scott, Ms. Sterling, Spurling, excuse me,
2 referred to her impression there was a letter requesting or calling for a denial from Frederick?
3 Did you find any such
4
5 SCOTT BALLSTADT: I don't recall ever receiving anything from
6 Frederick, the only letter I received was from Dacono and that was
7
8 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Did you get anything from Firestone?
9
10 SCOTT BALLSTADT: No.
12 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay. Thank you.
13
14 SCOTT BALLSTADT: They were sent referrals, though.
15
16 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions for Ms. Spurling?
17
18 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Just a very quick statement. I, because
19 you brought it up, obviously the house that is going in on the south side of the ditch, we have
20 absolutely no control over because it's a separate legal parcel, that's not part of the issue today.
21
22 DIANA SPURLING: I know about that, I
50
1
2 COMMISSONER BAXTER: It's whether another one goes in, too.
3
4 DIANA SPURLING: (Inaudible) worry about that house going in, I
5 realize the first time I (inaudible) it wasn't in the lot, I was aware of that. Two or three years
6 before, that house 1 have never said one word about that house being there. I do think that we've
7 had problems in the past and put it directly across the road from us, I mean, it's going to be more
8 light, it's more dust. more activity, this a large, new house that you could put perhaps two
9 families in it. There will probably be dogs, there will be kids, out in a rural area and a farming
10 community you just don't expect your neighbor to build across the road from you. You know,
11 but
12
13 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I understand, I understand your concern,
14 but see our only real input is whether another structure goes beside it. So.
15
16 DIANA SPURLING: Right, I understand that.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anyone
19 else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter?
20
21
22 KATE CARY: Good morning, my name is Kate Cary, I live at 7772
51
1 Weld County Road 16. Our property is on the west side of the Wilson's property. We're, this
2 corner is 16 and 17, going to the west. Between the Wilson's and the Frederick Town limits. I
3 guess I'm here, I have some concerns about helping to what we don't (inaudible) we don't have
4 the same concerns t-at Mrs. Spurling. We don't, with the traffic and dust, but, I am concerned
5 that this farm is moving from two building lots to seven, is what they're asking for. And that's a
6 lot of growth in that area. And to do it outside of the subdivision venue, it seems to me we're
7 losing some control over what they do do in simple (inaudible). In being able to meet the
8 appropriate comments to them about how they do things, so it is orderly and appropriate for the
9 area. That's one of my, I guess the major concern is that I feel that they are skirting around some
10 things to get the family farm. I have to say as a neighbor who grew up driving through the area,
11 there, aside from two wheat crops having gone in the last three years, I don't see any farming
12 activity. I don't think I've honestly seen one head of cow, any chicken, but I have, you don't see
13 any of this stuff when you're driving through, and it seems like they already have five houses out
14 there. There are a lot of people living there. You know, at any time you'll see 30 cars parked in
15 those driveways. There are already a lot of people living there for the very minimal farming
16 activity that: is going on. One person, one family could certainly farm with the activity that we
17 have seen. There has been some cleanup, down here, George, here, asked how things may have
18 changed over the last three years that they have been there and I do see some new wood in the
19 corrals, but I think there is a deterioration in, you know, people, cars, parked cars sitting there,
20 and the deterioration I think seems to outweigh any minimal improvements they have made. And
21 there is just, in talking (inaudible) you're now talking about horse hoarding. There have been a
22 lot of promises, but I don't think that I've seen a contract (inaudible) an elk herd. They haven't
52
presented any substantial or substantive.movement towards actually getting those, and
2 (inaudible). All their kids are employed off the farm and just need a place to live. Well, I have
3 five kids, and I can understand some people want to have their family living close, but] don't
4 think that it's in Weld County's best interest to split up prime farmland in, to provide homes for
5 all these children.
6 They keep creating new building lines with some of their lot lines that,
7 right now we have five houses and then if they, with some of the lot lines they have drawn they
8 could have another building lot with another Accessory, I guess, I'm not convinced as a neighbor
9 that there is enough activity going on to justify what they have there now. And I don't know if
10 that makes any of that out of compliance, I suppose that's a Planning issue. If people, if they're
11 supposed to be showing that there is work going on at the farm, I guess I take issue with that,
12 because I feel like there are a lot of times in the area where you feel a lot of activity and this is
13 not one. And I will throw that out to you.
14 They kept referring to the farming tradition and the family farm, they've
15 only been there three years and this is not farming, it's more of a commune sort of a housing
16 development. And I guess that I would ask that you, what they want to do should be looked at
17 from a development point of view, a subdivision point of view and not be granted in a way that
18 they're trying to prevent (inaudible). They have other avenues available to them.
19
20 CHAIR HALL: Questions?
21
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, could you
53
1 put back that one exhibit and show, you made a statement going from two to, I think it was
2 seven. Just to make sure that we're on the same, the same table. Could you show us what you're
3 referring to?
4
5 KATE CARY: What I'm counting? Okay.
6
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: If you wouldn't mind.
8
9 KATE CARY: (Inaudible) Okay, this, ah 2425, the area 2425 and the SE
10 they already have a building lot south of the ditch and the rest of the farm is one lot, so I think
11 that is two legal parcels. Right now, they have what's south of Frico and what's north. So
12 there's the two that I'm counting. They're trying now to split those, I see the SE becomes one,
13 the A becomes one, the B becomes onc, so there is now one south of the ditch plus three more,
14 there's four. On the west side they have the Lot A which would be number five, the Lot B which
15 would be number six, and then this application that was turned in just last week, they want to just
16 split that south piece from one into two. So that would add into that. And I don't know if I was
17 really clear in (inaudible). So, the south becomes two, and I'm counting five on the north, two
18 there on the west part, and three over here in the east. So you're going from two legal parcels to
19 seven. And that seems like an enormous amount of growth and cutting up of prime farmland
20 without checkoff through a subdivision.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: Go ahead.
54
1 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Ms. Cary, on that map or the other one,
2 whichever you want, could you show me where you saw 30 cars?
3
4 KATE CARY: Yes, that would be around and in this area, here, around
5 their houses. And just driving down the road. It's incredible, around each house there will be
6 four or five cars and then parked out in the back there is, you know, you couldn't count the
7 (inaudible). Certainly you'd see at least 10 or 15 cars parked out towards the back, four or five
8 up around each house, and at any given time. That was not at one particular time, that really is
9 continuous.
10
11 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you.
12
13 CHAIR HALL: Other questions? Thank you very much. Anyone else in
14 the audience wishing to speak?
15
16 DIANA EVANS: My name is Diana Evans and I (inaudible). I really
17 don't have any comments, I think Kate Cary brought it out very well. I just concur with the
18 (inaudible). I have concerns (inaudible) that small of a parcel, (inaudible).
19
20 CHAIR HALL: Questions? Thank you. Anyone else in the audience
21 wishing to speak? Seeing no one else, I will close public testimony. Would the applicant like to
22 come to the microphone and make any followup statements to the public testimony.
55
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: We'd like to address the concerns that the
2 neighbors brought up. As far as the Cary's are concerned, we will addressing any (inaudible) you
3 know, people in each house and people have one or two cars apiece, it adds up to a big bunch of
4 cars.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Ms. Wilson, you need to address your comments to the
7 Board.
8
9 ELIZABETH WILSON: Okay, all right. We just, you know.there are
10 several people in each house, each house has several cars, anything that is unsightly has been
11 relegated to the back of the property and there is a fence that should screen that from the casual
12 observer driving by. And we'll certainly be aware of that. But the cars and people are not really
13 the issues that we're, and we're not trying to justify anything, in terms of having more people
14 there. We're just trying to meet the Subdivision and Recorded Exemption provisions that are in
15 the ordinance for people that want to (inaudible) a small parcel off of a big farm. We tried to
16 (inaudible) to make sure we kept all the prime farmland out of the development area, we haven't,
17 we haven't changed anything with that. Both of these parcels that the Recorded Exemption and
18 Subdivision Exemption the land up in the west corner is land that couldn't even hit (inaudible).
19 The land down where the houses are (inaudible) applied for any new building permits in a place
20 where there has been land. The reason that we put the house where we did, we really had no
21 choice. We: wanted to put it in as a temporary dwelling north of the accessory dwelling that's on
22 there. That wasn't possible because of the court case they had there. would be because of being a
56
1 deny that came from our hearing two years ago. We (inaudible) to move that house in, we talked
2 to our house mover we originally had, septic tests done further back on the lot, the house was too
3 big and too heavy to move. The house mover would need a designer and we are still in the
4 process of getting it moved even now. And I think that the place we put it, we might end up with
5 water problems there, too, but that wasn't in any way an attempt to make their life miserable, that
6 was the only place that we could put the house. The house mover, with the soft ground and the
7 weight of that house, that really (inaudible). And that and the septic would work were the
8 reasons we chose to put the house there, it wasn't in any way (inaudible) living where we wanted
9 to put it but it was the only place that we could put it.
10 (Inaudible) letters that are from Scott Hamilton and Fred Hamilton, they
11 are the people that farmed it, the people that farmed it, our property for the 23 years before we
12 bought it. They have some serious concerns about what the Spurlings relations were and they
13 said that they should not be allowed to influence us because their concerns for the neighborhood
14 have been a whole lot more for their peace than for the good of the (inaudible). Ms. Spurling
15 mentioned that she was on Tri-Area Planning Commission, that's true, and when we first went to
16 the Tri-Area Planning Commission two years ago, she used that forum to keep us from
17 (inaudible) activity. She, I believe, abused her office and then came up here and spoke. A lot of
18 the things that she said weren't true and we weren't prepared for them and now it's just[ not going
19 to be all right to say whatever you want to say and have it go unrebutted. We're not there to
20 bother you, we're sorry that you feel the way that you do. There are not, seven people on
21 (inaudible) asked wno Chris Rogers was, he is our godson, he lives in the first house. He's lived
22 there the entire three years, that's true. The people that are living there now, Dowd's, our
57
1 daughter and her husband, and his parents are the two people that are occupying the other houses.
2 And then our two sons and we live in the fourth house. Ah, (inaudible) yeah, there's a permit.
3 There are probably fewer people there because a lot of the kids have grown up and moved away.
4 (Inaudible) asked who that might be, she's the secretary that takes notes
5 for the Planning Commission, that's the person that they gave me when I contacted Dacono and
6 asked them what the problem was, how we might fall outside the Comprehensive Plan. She said
7 that she was present at the meeting and that there were no concerns mentioned, that the only
8 reason that they checked the box it said that we were in compliance is because we fall outside
9 their area of concern. So we weren't in their plans, but we weren't in compliance with their plan.
10 They had no issues with us at all. Firestone/Frederick, I called them and they said usually they
11 just send a checklist and it says on the checklist that if they don't send back a response that
12 means they have no problems with it, (inaudible) interpreted as a positive response. (Inaudible)
13 All right. We, ah, about it but we might want to annex into Frederick. We don't have any
14 interest in annexing into a town. We would like to keep all of the things that we're doing as
15 agricultural, even if the possibility of(inaudible) that northwest corner, it's still a half mile away
16 from Frederick's boundary. And we would be looking Estate Zoning, which means that people
17 can have one or twc animals, one animal per acre or two animals per acre, whatever it is for
18 agricultural type place where people can have a horse, but it's still in agriculture. Inside the city
19 limits, that's not possible to have any horses or farm animals.
20 We do have an elk herd. It's still boarded over by Road 17, and that is
21 because of the fences, (inaudible) expensive. The fences are, they have to be eight feet high and
22 double, and they, until we get everything settled to make sure that we have the parcels and the
58
1 people (inaudible) to do what we need to do. We had felt maybe the cost was exorbitant, we
2 weren't able to put .hat much money into something that may or may not work out. We still need
3 to have the people that we need there to watch them because they are domestic and are tame,
4 they're not scared, but they are skittish and they're real expensive and we need to have the people
5 there. This is the same testimony that we gave two years ago and we do still have the elk herd
6 and it is boarded at the elk farm on 17. Uhm, that is still a possibility. In the meantime we have
7 gotten into cattle. I think a lot of the things that you can't see for the farming operation take
8 place back behind the yard, where the building and the fences are. And it's not possible to see
9 everything from the road. The chickens, the poultry house, and the cattle and everything is back
10 behind where it isn't necessarily viewable to someone casually driving by. And that might be
11 why people haven't observed us being (inaudible) animals. But we are. As far as using any kind
12 of ah, we do have three horses now that we have, they have a(inaudible) that we can build on by
13 law. All we're asking for is that a Recorded Exemption for each one of those parcels. The
14 Subdivision Exemption is something that the Zoning Ordinance has provided for the provisional
15 existing buildings and that's what we're trying to do, is use what's available by ordinance.
16 Usually this is an in-house process, it just goes through Planning, it's not usually necessary to
17 have this big function and appear before the Commissioners, but because of the different
18 (inaudible) I think teat became necessary today.
19
20 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Just to clarify something. It wasn't
21 mentioned earlier, and I assumed that it had to be if it was applied for, under two Recorded
22 Exemptions, the big parcel has been split in two parcels, then?
59
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: Actually, we had talked to Planning about that,
2 we, it's in the process, but we, it's all (inaudible) surveyors and he has not gotten back to us the
3 exact lot lines and the understanding is that the two parcels will each be over 80 acres and that
4 was really the only criteria that,
5
6 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Yes. So there's, yeah. It's available to
7 have two lots over 80, so it can be divided into two. And that was the intent.
8
9 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yes, right. That's, and that was what we were
10 starting with, and that was the understanding in the first place. The pictures, you know, I realize
11 that not everything is wonderful and in Fred Hamilton's letter he refers to the Spurlings could do
12 some work on their own place. I feel like we're out there to (inaudible) maybe we're not trained
13 to be critical of what other people are doing, and there are things that could be done like
14 (inaudible) and so forth that could be taken care of on other people's property. And, the other
15 suggestion that I have, is if anybody has concern, we would be more than happy to talk to them
16 about anything that s going on. We don't need to do everything through the Commissioner's
17 Office, we'd be happy to talk to you if you just want to give us a call. But, our barking dogs are
18 something that's just staying there for about two more weeks. They'll be gone.
19
20 CHAIR HALL: Do you have any other comments?
21
22 LEE MORRISON: The photos have been marked Exhibit K. Can you
60
1 explain those?
2
3 RICHARD WILSON: Yeah. If you'd like to look at these pictures, the
4 upper pictures show the Spurling's property, there's a collapsed building here. (Inaudible) Mr.
5 Hamilton's letter. Also you might want to take note of the two lower pictures. They complained
6 about weeds on our place, if you look at the collective picture, the place on the left that's green.
7 that's our property and the picture on the right is the property to the right, is the Spurling's
8 property. I'm not saying we don't have some weeds, we do. I'm trying to take care of them as
9 best we can, but it's no worse than anyplace else around. And that's been confirmed by the other
10 letters in support from our other neighbors (inaudible) Mr. Rosenoff, which directly respond to
11 the whole south section of our place and he's been for (inaudible). It just says (inaudible) As
12 does Fred Hamilton, who farmed it plus we've for 26 years. I think we've got a problem with a
13 neighbor rather a facility.
14
15 CHAIR HALL: Questions for the applicant? I have a couple of clarifying
16 questions and it's 2426, which would be the proposed RE in the western part; there's currently no
17 building of any kind there?
18
19 ELIZABETH WILSON: Correct. No.
20
21 CHAIR HALL: And your purpose for recording an exemption to that is
22 what?
61
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: Well because we want to make sure that we
2 presented everything together to show that we're not trying to go around any subdivision
3 ordinances. Our plans from the very beginning were to be real clear about exempting what we
4 could do and trying to do it. Planning suggested to us that we get that Recorded Exemption as a
5 separate parcel, they said that would be a prime candidate for a good place to put a Minor
6 Subdivision based their guidelines and their criteria. They suggested that two years ago; they
7 suggested it again this time. That's the reason that we asked for that Recorded Exemption.
8 Because we're not trying to go around, we're not trying to break up the farm. We're keeping the
9 two 80 plus acre parcels together in the farm. That's why we took the little corners off the
10 outside the houses that we are asking for exemptions for right now are not prime and they already
11 there anyway, so (inaudible) County Attorney.
12
13 CHAIR HALL: The two Lot B's are not together, they arc contiguous to
14 each other., correct? They're not one parcel.
15
16 ELIZABETH WILSON: The two Lot B's?
17
18 CHAIR HALL: Yes, that you discussed, that you described.
19
20 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yes. That's correct.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: So they are really not, they're really not together, they're
62
1 contiguous to each other.
2
3 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) Right. (Inaudible)
4
5 CHAIR HALL: But my question was really, what is your purpose for
6 Lot B and Lot A in, on 2426?
7
8 ELIZABETH WILSON: Okay. That, we would like to have that smaller
9 Recorded Exemption on, which we're eligible for if the property is split into two parcels. We are
10 eligible to have that Recorded Exemption on that parcel.
11
12 CHAIR HALL: For what purpose?
13
14 ELIZABETH WILSON: So that we can apply for the rezoning and put in
15 a Minor Subdivision there, putting the four five-acre or five four-acre parcels of Estate Zoning to,
16 ah, anybody else that wanted to.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: And then what purpose would you have for Lot B?
19
20 ELIZABETH WILSON: We're just farming it.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: And for 2425, what, Lot B doesn't have a building on it?
63
1 Is that right?
2
3 ELIZABETH WILSON: No. That's right. And we're just farming it. In
4 the future at some point, depending on whether we get the Certificate of Compliance, we will
5 need one house, one way or the other. But that's basically all we need at this point.
6
7 CHAIR HALL: So you would have the potential desire at some point to
8 put a building on there, to put a residence on that?
9
10 ELIZABETH WILSON: Well, for ourselves. If we, if we, if one of our
11 kids was in the house that we're in, which is the temporary accessory dwelling, in fact some of
12 the neighbors has (inaudible) that house, we're just trying to establish the whole (inaudible) and
13 get everything out in (inaudible). At some point, maybe, you know if we ever get that much
14 money ahead we would like to put a house for ourselves someplace on the property, but we're,
15 we don't have any immediate plans to do that because we're, we're not in a financial position to
16 do that at this point.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: Was there any conversation to you to, instead of using
19 the Subdivision Exemption for the two NonConforming Use lots, to use that as a Recorded
20 Exemption. Lot A and then the remaining portion of it would be Lot B, which would be the
21 ZPAD and the MPI-I?
22
64
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: Well, because we wanted to have the separate
2 parcels to try to access that northwest corner. That's where we wanted it to, it's kind of not
3 positive as to the line right now, anyway, and that would be a good location (inaudible) around
4 and that would be a good place to put the smaller parcels. Over time.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: That's really not my question, though. I mean
7
8 ELIZABETH WILSON: No, that wasn't one of our,
9
10 CHAIR HALL: The consideration would be instead of using Lot A as a
11 separate parcel for the Recorded Exemption, using the, what you have described as this SE Lot as
12 Lot A,
13
14 ELIZABETH WILSON: We were
15
16 CHAIR HALL: And then have the improvements be in Lot B.
17
18 ELIZABETH WILSON: But we would like to have the two separate A
19 and B parcels. So that we have the option of doing something else with them at some time.
20
21 CHAIR HALL: You mean building another building on it?
22
65
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) Yes. Uhm, the map that Mr.
2 Rosenoff drew, shows that all of the houses that they have been, they have that divided off in the
3 last few years. And there, there(inaudible) farms around us. People have had, on Road 16 the,
4 all of those have had, this is in keeping with what's happening in our neighborhood. But all the
5 houses along Road 16 on the north side are houses that are on several acres. That's what is
6 shown on. The center point of this compass is right at our property, and you'll see that the first
7 line to the north of 1:here is Road 16, and then across on the north side, those are all houses that
8 have been added onto, smaller parcels just like what we're asking to do here, too. Yeah. This is
9 a two-mile radius and there have been 39 instances of this type of division. It's provided for in
10 the ordinance and it's provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. And we're trying to keep the
11 agriculture focus and that's why we picked out the places we picked out around (inaudible) .
12
13 CHAIR HALL: Other questions?
14 •
15 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I guess I'm going to have to ask this
16 question because it's you sort of led into there, but we haven't really asked it. You said earlier
17 that partially what you had in mind was having parcels available for all your children at some
18 point in time. And :I guess my question is now, with what you've got, you've got one that can be
19 going in south of the ditch, there's one. You've got two NonConforming Use houses,
20
21 ELIZABETH WILSON: The smallest one is only 600 square feet.
22
•
66
1 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I understand that, I understand that. I know
2 it's a small house, but there's two houses there, there's two more that, if 2425 went through you
3 would have a separate and one would become ZPAD or whichever one would become primary
4 house, an accessory on that. If that's allowed to be Lot A, then you've got one more there, north
5 on the B, someplace. Then you have you've divided it, which you can do, the 80-acre parcels to
6 the west, you've got a Use by Right to build one there, at least, that you can do without us doing
7 anything. So that gives you that number of houses, I guess I'm just curious how many houses
8 you need for all the family?
9
10 ELIZABETH WILSON: Well, we really weren't planning on putting
11 houses on the big parcels, other than some day, you know like you said, some day we might want
12 to put a house in for us someplace, you know on a big parcel.
13
14 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Well, I understand that, but I'm saying like
15
16 ELIZABETH WILSON: All of this, oh, you mean like
17
18 COMMISSONER BAXTER: the part that you were going to divide off in
19 2426,
20
21 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) That would be all right, if
22 (inaudible) that big of a parcel. 160 acres plus.
67
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Now, the Recorded Exemption in conjunction
2 with the Subdivision Exemption, Section 11.14.2, says that "A Subdivision Exemption may be
3 utilized to request separation of additional existing residential improvements"from either of the
4 two habitable Recorded Exemption parcels, so if you don't have any improvements on the parcel,
5 you couldn't do the SE in conjunction with the Recorded Exemption.
6
7 ELIZABETH WILSON: Okay, but we're, so what we're doing is what
8 we talked over when we came in and this is how we laid it all out.
9
10 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The application materials came in somewhat
11 different from what Planning had, particularly the configuration of the SE parcel.
12
13 ELIZABETH WILSON: (Inaudible) underground things and the
14 overhead things, tie those houses together.
15
16 SCOTT' BALLSTADT: Correct, I understood your reasoning for not
17 wanting to split the two, it's just that the SE process in conjunction with an RE, is to separate off
18 existing improvements and to clean it up and if we don't separate the two nonconforming houses,
19 it's not really serving the purpose of the SE in conjunction with the Recorded Exemption.
20 Because then we'd still have a NonConforming Structure.
21
22 ELIZABETH WILSON: I would like to mention that the house on the
68
1 corner, katy-corner from us, does have the two houses on six acres. So we know that this smaller
2 (inaudible) type houses are often allowed. Because of the way the houses were built back in the
3 20's and how things were built joined together. And that does exist in the neighborhood.
4
5 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Well, it seems like at least a part of the
6 consideration is obviously you, as you stated, is to get them financed. Now, as Commissioner
7 Hall has already stated, you could have taken the Nonconforming Uses and put them in, or made
8 them Lot A, and the other all in Lot B, that would have divided them off and made a small parcel
9 for financing. It doesn't give you the same opportunity to build more houses. But it, I guess, the
10 trouble I'm having a little bit is still, how many houses. if you justify them a certain way, how
11 many it takes.
12
13 ELIZABETH WILSON: The total that we've put on this, we can put, we
14 could put one new additional house, anyway, if we get everything approved, we could put a total
15 of three more additional houses that are beside what we're asking for on the 240 acres. So, it's
16 not a real dense thing, anyway, and as we, if we put a house on a big parcel, that's not going to
17 work for what we need to do with the kids because the problem is that they need to have a house
18 on a small parcel, t:gat's why we talked to Planning and we talked about putting, getting rezoned
19 for a Minor Subdivision on the northwest corner, but that would provide both parcels at that time
20 and it would be an orderly development, be within the guidelines, and it would keep the bulk of
21 the farm intact. We have six kids and a godson. So that's why either with three parcels being
22 deeded off now (inaudible) that's one thing, but we've got the rest of them are coming up that
69
1 would be part of things.
2
3 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Then I assume that two of your children are
4 living in the two NonConforming Use houses, the old houses?
5
6 ELIZABETH WILSON: We're living in one of them.
7
8 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Oh, you're living in one. Your children are
9 living in one,
10
11 ELIZABETH WILSON: Right, and my daughters in-laws are living in
12 one house.
13
14 COMMISSONER BAXTER: And the two houses then north, the ZPAD
15 and the other are two of your children?
16
17 ELIZABETH WILSON: And my daughter is living (inaudible) houses.
18
19 COMMISSONER BAXTER: A different daughter would live in the
20 house below the ditch?
21
22 ELIZABETH WILSON: Actually, the daughter that is in the 600 square
70
1 foot house with her husband and baby is the one who wants to move into the new house that's
2 being built (inaudible). And believes that living in a one-bedroom house with a two-year old is
3 (inaudible) her commitment to the farm and that's why she's waiting to (inaudible) the new
4 house be finished. Her sister would be moving up there. We have a single son that would be
5 living in there. (Inaudible)
6
7 CHAIR HALL: Did you say that you were, if I remember right,
8 somewhere down the road here we talked, you talked about the SE being where you wanted that
9 separated off, but is it to be put in someone else's name?
10
11 ELIZABETH WILSON: Ah, our one son has expressed an interest in
12 buying, and I'm not sure if he would, if he would qualify to buy that house with that many
13 improvements on it, it might be the buildings (inaudible) and we would be(inaudible) the other
14 one. And then, in which case, we would get the lot to build another house. At this point we're
15 just trying to get him onto the smaller parcels and see what financing is available.
16
17 CHAIR HALL: Maybe, Mr. Morrison, you can answer this, or 'Scott, but,
18 does an RE separate land off so that it can be purchased and sold by others?
19
20 ELIZABETH WILSON: Yes. Yes.
21
22 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Yes.
71
1 ELIZABETH WILSON: It makes a separate parcel.
2
3 CHAIR HALL: No, I mean the SE.
4
5 COMMISSONER BAXTER: You said RE.
6
7 CHAIR HALL: I'm sorry, the SE, the Subdivision Exemption?
8
9 SCOTT BALLSTADT: When the SE is used in conjunction with the
10 Recorded Exemption, it's creating a separate legal parcel.
11
12 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. I will
13 open it up to the Board for discussion.
14
15 ELIZABETH WILSON: Excuse me. Our daughter, (inaudible) prepared
16 something for you. (Inaudible)
17
18 CHAIR HALL: Well, technically, I, that's why I asked you when you
19 were up here first, is to describe whether or not there was anyone else in your party that wanted
20 to speak.
21
22 ELIZABETH WILSON: Okay, I'm sorry.
72
1 CHAIR HALL: You know, the public testimony has been closed, so we
2 would really be out of line as far as that goes.
3
4 ELIZABETH WILSON: Okay, sorry about that.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Okay. Glenn.
7
8 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Directed to Scott (inaudible) help on zoning
9 ordinances and violations of zoning ordinances. That's what my question is about, and having to
10 do with the 30 cars. And the cars that were, the term was unsightly, or something, placed in the
11 back. What's the requirement under zoning ordinances about how many cars, out of sight or
12 before we get into this non-commercial junk yard.
13
14 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Well, generally the cars are allowed if they've
15 got, if they're licensed and have current tags on them and if they don't have tags then they may
16 be considered a derelict vehicle. When I was at the site in January. we counted 15 cars around
17 each of the home sites and they all appeared to be in running, operable condition with current
18 tags. I guess I didn't personally see the other cars that were to the back of the property, so l guess
19 I couldn't really respond to those, but in order to be a derelict vehicle and contribute to a
20 non-commercial junkyard they'd have to be in not running condition or without current tags.
21
22 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Just as a follow up to that, have we had a
73
1 complaint filed with the Planning Department for this property? I mean in junction to the cars
2 and the junk?
3
4 SHARYN FRAZER: Good afternoon. Sharyn Frazer, Weld County
5 Planning. There have been a couple of calls that have come in regarding vehicles being sold
6 from the property. As everyone knows, a couple of cars a year being sold from a private owner
7 isn't a violation of any type of an ordinance if we couldn't justify that there is some type of
8 commercial operation that was, you know, was six and seven and ten and ever how many a year
9 being sold, then at that point we would follow up on it. The derelict vehicles that were located
10 on the property were adequately screened from view and Scott was right, 12 to 15 were in the
11 farm area, all had correct tags on them. So there were no violations.
12
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The ditch company was notified, and there
14 was no response back from the ditch company as far as
15
16 SCOTT BALLSTADT: We did receive a response from Manuel
17 Montoya, the General Manager, and his comment was, "We require that the ditch right-of-way be
18 clear of any encroachments and that the boundary between the landowner and the ditch be
19 defined." And, so, nothing has taken place since receiving that referral other than if the
20 Recorded Exemption were approved, Condition 4.d does ask for evidence of the applicant's
21 attempt to meet all of the ditch company's requirements. So.
22
74
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The other question has to do with access.
2 With the one to the south, I think. The new, the new mobile home that will be put in there. Is
3 there a problem with access?
4
5 SCOTT BALLSTADT: I didn't see any problem while I was out there, I
6 don't know if Don, are you familiar with any problems?
7
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE: 1 think we've got the standard, you know,
9 right-of-way and all that, but
10
11 DON CARROLL: Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works. I don't
12 really have the case in front of me right now, but in looking at the drawing there, if the additional
13 mobile home was granted to the site, we would ask for a shared access. Also, on the access
14 point, I was looking at the overhead, if the access is the same as the ditch rider's road, we usually
15 have a standard that we ask that the applicant get written permission from the ditch company to
16 utilize their road. I:`they are not granted that, then we try to work with them on another access.
17
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Would that be part of what we request in 4.d
19 that you were describing?
20 •
21 SCOTT BALLSTADT: If the ditch road is indeed owned by Frico, that
22 would be something that would have to be resolved, although the ditch company didn't indicate
75
1 one way or the other in their referral response whether or not they have an issue with it.
2
3 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I guess I have a comment to make, for
4 better or worse. This, obviously, is looking at together, but there is, what, at least three separate
5 parts, four separate parts, maybe when you figure the farm, accessory to farm that we were just
6 referring to and the mobile home. And we can approve, I understand, either part or all of it or
7 none of it. And I, with the total picture, I'm having a real problem with another accessory to
8 farm. I'll tell you right now, with, I mean they can put the house south, but the part of adding
9 another accessory to farm to help with the farm operation of this size when there are other houses
10 available that can be used for that, I really have trouble with that. Because, and I'll just say up
11 front, is I'm not going to vote for that. If it comes up, because I think we have enough available
12 to take care of the farm. And so, that issue is to me, is a separate issue.
13
14 CHAIR HALL: •Well, we will need to have four separate motions, so. If
15 you have no other comments or questions, I guess we can start working on them from one
16 through four. Scott., do you have any
17
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr. Chairman, as we're talking about them.
19 if we could put them up, so we're talking
20
21 SCOTT BALLSTADT: That's what I was going to suggest. If I could
22 possibly just go down my list again and show you exactly what the parcels proposed.
76
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: That would be helpful.
2
3 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The first application to be addressed is Recorded
4 Exemption 2425 in conjunction with SE #757, which is on the eastern portion. It does not
5 include the property south of the Frico ditch and the approximate line for Lot B would be down
6 the center of the property. And P-tail portion as proposed by the applicant, proposal's the SE lot
7 to include both of the older structures and Lot A to include the MHP and ZPAD, and Lot B to
8 remain vacant. What staff had proposed was that one of the older structures be the main, be the
9 principal dwelling on Lot B, the other older structure to be the principal dwelling on the SE Lot,
10 and let Lot A include the MHP and ZPAD, which the applicant has indicated that one of those
11 would be justified by being accessory to the greenhouse use, which is proposed. That's the
12 RE/SE combination.
13
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: This is 2425?
15
16 SCOTT BALLSTADT: 2425 and SE 757.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: .So are both of those in conjunction, or are there two
19 separate motions? Can you have one or the other? Or both, or none?
20
21 LEE MORRISON: I think the RE/SE combination, I think you need to
22 act together on,
77
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Right.
2
3 LEE MORRISON: Because the SE by itself can't create a separate legal
4 lot, it only works in conjunction, so those two should be considered in one motion.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Thank you.
7
8 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Scott, would you put back up the other
9 overhead. If we act according to this, which is the applicant's request, right?
10
11 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Urn-hum.
12
13 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And, reflecting back on the NonConforming
14 Uses, one of those, then, that's where the discussion came of one of those buildings would have
15 to be designated, then, as the
16
17 SCOTT BALLSTADT: As the NonConforming Use.
18
19 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And should anything happen to it later, it
20 cannot be rebuilt?
21
22 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Correct.
78
1 LEE MORRISON: Well, not anything.
2
3 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Well, I mean
4
5 LEE MORRISON: In excess of 50 percent, if it's over 50 percent
6 destroyed.
7
8 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I guess I have to have a procedural
9 question asked of our attorney, also. This is the proposal the way they're proposing it.
10
11 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Correct.
12
13 COMMISSONER BAXTER: This is what we're acting on.
14
15 LEE MORRISON: Right.
16
17 COMMISSONER BAXTER: The one you're proposing is really not on
18 the table.
19
20 LEE MORRISON: Right.
21
22 SCOTT BALLSTADT: It's the one that I just
79
1 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I know, but I mean it's
2
3 LEE MORRISON: You can't act to approve something they didn't
4 request.
5
6 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Okay. Planning would like to have seen
7 it, I understand that, but it's really not part of what's here today.
8
9 LEE MORRISON: It may not have gotten to you had that been what was
10 submitted. But, no., procedurally the only way to get to that point would be either to have the
11 applicant withdraw their current proposal or you deny it, they would ask for a substantial change
12 and the opportunity to refile under the different configuration. So that's the only way it could get
13 to that planning staff preferred configuration.
14
15 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Okay. All right, I understand that, I just, I
16 know it's somewhat confusing. I will interject that), you know, common sense in my mind,
17 they're tied together, it's a bad deal, but I can't see separating those two old NonConforming
18 Uses. They're just tied together. So I wouldn't have been for that, anyway, but I guess it's a
19 moot point right now.
20
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: But the NonConforming Uses were
22 established through previous zoning, or prior to zoning, excuse me. Yes, I think we have to
80
1 recognize.
2
3 LEE MORRISON: Prior to zoning, correct
4
5 SCOTT BALLSTADT: However, the Recorded Exemption in conjunction
6 with the Subdivision Exemption, that's Section 11.14.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance, is really
7 not intended to create separate building sites, it's intended to separate those pre-existing
8 structures and to kind of clean up what happened prior to zoning. It's the intent of that Section.
9
10 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So really what we're doing is B becomes the
11 large parcel, A becomes the small parcel. On the small parcel we had one unit that's going to
12 have an accessory that's already that way, is that correct?
13
14 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Correct.
15
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So the question we would have, then is does
17 that accessory unit, is that in fact a true accessory unit or do we have, maybe this is to counsel.
18 Do we have to consider A the way it is? Or can we consider the accessory unit?
19
20 LEE MORRISON: The accessory unit's not an issue today.
21
22 COMMISSONER BAXTER: The other accessory was.
81
•
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The applicant would have to justify that one of
2 the two is an accessory to farm,
3
4 LEE MORRISON: Once, if it the (inaudible) is approved, they have an
5 on-going obligatio:i to prove the accessory use that's the zoning ordinance, but it isn't really the
6 issue for you to determine.
7
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE: It's not an issue as far as this hearing?
9
10 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Yeah, that's why I was dividing them,
11 because the other accessory is a new one, and that one, I do think is an issue. But this is kind of
12 there.
13
14 LEE MORRISON: Right. That's correct.
15
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to put forth
17 the motion on 2425
18
19 CHAIR HALL: In conjunction with SE 757? As counsel stated we need to
20 put those together.
21
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Correct. And I'm just like George, I have a
82
1 hard time, but on the other hand, the NonConforming Uses were there prior to zoning, so I would
2 make a motion that we approve 2425.
3
4 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Second.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: I have a motion to approve 2425 and by Mike, and a
7 second by Glenn, so you're not including 757?
8
9 COMMISSIONER VAAD: It was my understanding that it was with the
10 second.
11
12 CHAIR HALL: Is that going to create a major problem, I think it does,
13 but
14
15 COMMISSONER BAXTER: It takes two motions
16
17 LEE MORRISON: I would, you remap that, this doesn't have
18
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Unless you're telling us, counselor that that
20 exists by itself right now. But it can. Unless you're telling us it exists on its own merits right
21 now.
22
83
1 CHAIR HALL: You mean the SE?
2
3 SCOTT BALLSTADT: SE 757 can't be approved without RE 2425.
4
5 LEE MORRISON: I guess you could do it in two separate, I guess you
6 could do RE 2425 and then consider the SE, but you can't consider the SE if you deny 2425.
7
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay. All right, but let's say, as an example
9 that we did not approve SE 747
10
11 CHAIR HALL: 2425, oh, you mean the SE?
12
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yes. Let's say that we did not approve the
14 SE part of it, what would happen?
15
16 LEE MORRISON: I think you create a procedural problem because the
17 application is a combination and that's how it was submitted and the justification was with the
18 SE, so that's, it would be preferable to consider 2425 and 757 in one motion. Because it goes
19 back to what the applicant is asking for and acting on what the applicant is asking for. And
20 ruling on that. And I really think the two are so entwined that to act on 2425 separate from 757
21 really doesn't give a fair hearing to the applicant's request.
22
84
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Then let me, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would
2 amend the motion, if Commissioner Vaad is in agreement, then I would amend my motion to
3 included 2425 and 757. The reason for that is we have two NonConforming Uses and the two do
4 tie together.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: I have an amended motion. is that, does the second agree
7 to that?
8
9 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yes. And if I may, Mr. Chairman,
10
11 CHAIR HALL: Discussion on the motion.
12
13 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you. I'd like to hear more on your
14 comment about we're creating a problem. I don't understand it, so.
15
16 CHAIR HALL: Well, the problem is not having them both together
17 would be if the other one didn't make it then that would be a problem.
18
19 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay. So your comment addressed if we
20 should have taken them separate we would have created a problem? Or if we take them together
21 it creates a problem?
22
85
CHAIR HALL: By taking the two separately would create a problem if
2 they both were not handled the same, with the same vote.
3
4 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you for that clarification. And, if I
5 can further my comments. Looking over the Conditions of Approval, which I may have missed
6 it, but I assume the applicant's agree to the Conditions of Approval? I think there are protections
7 in there that we ask anyone to submit to when they ask for whether it's a USR or Recorded
8 Exemption or Subdivision, it's ah, which I think is appropriate.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: Further discussion, I will offer my own, you know when
11 we have a Subdivision process, I believe that the purpose there is for efficient and orderly
12 development. The reason for a Recorded Exemption is not to get around the Subdivision
13 process, but to work on isolated areas that are working independently of others and are not
14 specifically trying to evade the Subdivision Ordinance. I guess I have a problem with 2425, if
15 you reduce that down to a six to seven acre lot, I'm not sure there is justification to have the
16 MHP as an accessory to farm because, if I read the ordinance correctly, the accessory to farm
17 needs to be, is justified because of the, let's see, where was it that we had that? Will be place, it
18 has to be done on the parcel that it's currently on. That the mobile home is located. And in this
19 case, you know, you're talking now, I don't see a purpose or an accessory to farm use on six to
20 seven acres. I understand that there are additional land contiguous to that, but if were separating
21 these off as separate, individual parcels, they're individually able to then be sold off to other
22 parties, whether they are contiguous to each other or not. So we're basically creating, in my
86
mind, a little bit more of a nightmare. I also would suggest that, in 11-8-10 of the Subdivision
2 Ordinance, it does request or require that the Recorded Exemption is not evading the Statement
3 of Purpose, which is 1.3, and if you take these separately then maybe that might be one issue, but
4 we are taking them as a group and have been considering them as a group. We have heard a
5 Minor Subdivision request, or talk of a Minor Subdivision after this, we have heard of another
6 Recorded Exemption that's coming into it contiguous to this, it just seems like we are
7 subdividing, we are not exempting things from the Subdivision Ordinance. It is my opinion that
8 the, this is a subdivision and it should be handled through the Subdivision Ordinance, not
9 through the Recorded Exemption process, I think it clearly evades the intent of the Subdivision
10 Ordinance and evades the purpose for having a Recorded Exemption there in the first place, so I
11 will vote no on the motion. Discussion?
12
13 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Just a couple of comments. I have some
14 problems with this, obviously, and ah, but I guess in my own mind if it isn't done, we had
15 pictures, we've had testimony that there was a greenhouse going in on what would be Lot A, and
16 that would in some way justify an accessory to farm on that, but, again, they have to prove that.
17 That's a temporary use, they would have to prove that use or that mobile home would have to go
18 away. So that, and that makes me a little more comfortable with that. And I guess, it's hard to
19 divide off, but a subdivision, or a Recorded Exemption on the south parcel that's talked about
20 would still have to oe approved in another separate action. It might not be approved, the Minor
21 Subdivision and the other RE, if it was granted, still has to be approved in a separate action,
22 there's other times to take care of that. So in my mind what would, in essence, be doing is we're
87
1 dividing off a bad situation here. Again, I'm not naive enough to realize that we couldn't have
2 left it together in some way come back and say that none of it justified and make a whole lot of it
3 go away, but we've got a ZPAD that's a house that's on the property that can't really go away.
4 So, I guess I've been struggling to find some way, and this is one way at least to clear that up and
5 to, so at least that makes that a separate parcel with a house, stick-built house, that becomes a
6 primary use,justifies that, maybe not justifies, but I mean, it handles it. And the SE is a bad
7 situation because it, I realize we're evading, or kind of bending our own rules in a way when we
8 put two houses in one when we could have taken it out, but, they just seem so inseparable, I
9 mean, they're just together, they almost, no matter what happens, they should just stay on the
10 same lot, they're just joined together. So, I don't know, I guess I'm saying all that to say it looks
11 like we might of made the best of a bad situation, we might have been able to do it better, but 1
12 believe in this case I'm willing to vote for the motion.
13
14 CHAIR HALL: The only further discussion, then, I would suggest to you
15 is that this does create another building lot and there are, as stated by the applicant, the, there is a
16 desire to build another residence and I would still further suggest to you that we are evading the
17 Subdivision Ordinance by allowing that to happen, and I understand your concerns about
18 separating these things off, but I don't think we are making a bad situation better, I think we are
19 making a bad situation worse by allowing additional lots to be built on versus fixing what's
20 already there.
21
22 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I understand we're adding one extra lot to
88
1 build on, yes, 1 do.
2
3 CHAIR HALL: Further discussion?
4
5 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yeah, I just had one to clarify, that we're
6 talking about two homes on the SE there as NonConforming Use. We didn't create that, that was
7 created significantly, or a long time ago. The other thing is the accessory to farm. They're going
8 to continue to justify that that in fact, does, that that use is accessory to farm. If it's not, then of
9 course, they'll be some other thing that we'll probably be dealing with before this Commission.
10 But because of the two NonConforming Use homes, I agree with Commissioner Baxter that
11 we've got a bad situation and I think in order to resolve it we're going to have to approve B and
12 A, or, excuse me, the Recorded Exemption together with the SE. And that's the reason why I
13 made the motion.
14
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: If I might,just to make sure I'm clear when
16 we talked about one additional lot, that's the place where a house could be built on what's listed
17 here as 88 acres? Correct?
18
19 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Lot B, yes.
20
21 CHAIR HALL: You know, I understand and I acknowledge the fact that
22 there are some, you know, there are four houses on this parcel, and there probably should be
89
l something to work from that, but I don't think adding one more building lot helps. 11:hink hurts.
2 I think it reduces the neighborhood and it's not orderly and doesn't integrate what's going on
3 around there, it just adds to the problem. Further discussion? May I have roll call, please.
4
5 CLERK: George Baxter.
6
7 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Aye.
8
9 CLERK: Mike Geile.
10
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yes.
12
13 CLERK: Glenn Vaad.
14
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yes.
16
17 CLERK: Commissioner Kirkmeyer, absent. Dale Hall
18
19 CHAIR HALL: No. I will entertain, then Recorded Exemption #2426.
20
21 SCOTT BALLSTADT: 2426 is on the western 100 acres, proposes to
22 create a 20-acre Lo:A in the northwest corner of the site, and the remainder would be the 80-acre
90
1 Lot B.
2
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Go through that one more time. Make sure I
4 understand this one, I've had a little trouble all through the hearing, understanding this one.
5
6 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Recorded Exemption 2426 is to be, is proposed
7 on the western 100 acres; proposing 20-acre Lot A and 80-acre Lot B. The 20 acres is the parcel
8 that, or is the area that the applicant has indicated a Minor Subdivision application would be
9 brought forth, and also, this is the 80-acre parcel is served by center pivot, or at least it has the
10 potential to be served by center pivot, the applicant has indicated that it isn't currently, but the
11 center pivot doesn't go onto Lot A. And there are (inaudible) structures on the 100 acres.
12
13 CHAIR HALL: Questions.
14
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Scott, I have a map in front of me that says
16 that, before this action that's 110-acre lot.
17
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: That's right.
19
20 SCOTT BALLSTADT: That map, that acreage was an estimate that was
21 written on that map prior to the applications coming in.
22
91
1 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay.
2
3 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The applications indicate the 20 acre.
4
5 CHAIR HALL: Thank you, Scott. Entertain a motion.
6
7 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I, I feel like this is a
8 separate two, I mean, it's talked about together, but I, it seems to me like this, in conjunction with
9 the other, I'll agree, goes more toward evading and maybe others would agree that this is more in
10 line with the rules, but I'm going to make a motion that we deny RE 2426.
11
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr. Chairman, I'll second that motion.
13
14 CHAIR HALL: Motion by George, Second by Mike to deny Recorded
15 Exemption #2426. Discussion on the motion? I will only incorporate my earlier comments and I
16 still believe that this would be a situation where we are evading the Subdivision Ordinance intent
17 of, and doesn't, and evades the Statement of Purpose in 1.3 for orderly and efficient
18 development. Further comment?
19
20 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yeah. I will support the motion also, I think
21 creating five additional four acre lots or four additional five acre lots, whichever happens to be is
22 in fact doing what you've just said. So I will support the motion to deny.
92
1 CHAIR HALL: Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion say
2 aye,
3
4 COMMISSIONERS BAXTER, GEILE, HALL, AND VAAD: Aye.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Opposed? Motion carries. RE 2426 is denied. I will
7 then take information on the Certificate of Compliance for the Accessory to Farm issue. And
8 will accept a motion unless you have questions.
9
10 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I guess Scott didn't have anything on that,
11 extra.
12
13 SCOTT BALLSTADT: For clarification, this map that I've been using,
14 actually nroth is to the top of the screen,just so when you're looking at that, the 41-acre parcel
15 that's being considered for the Certificate of Compliance for the Accessory Dwelling is the 41
16 acres south of the Frico Ditch. So it's south of the ditch and was included, it's currently the solid
17 line is the stick-built move in structure that's being placed on a permanent foundation right now.
18 The proposed Certificate of Compliance for Accessory Mobile Home is the dashed.
19
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I think really what we're deciding here is if
21 there's been enough evidence presented to this Commission to justify an Accessory to Farm Use.
22 That would, in essence, be put in that home or that facility, is that correct?
93
1 CHAIR HALL: The second home.
2
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The second home, the one that's kind of
4 dotted in there? •
5
6 SCOTT BALLSTADT: Yes.
7
8 CHAIR HALL: I would only offer as comment prior to a motion is that,
9 as indicated by Planning staff that the, you know, Section 43-2-3-1 1.1 does state that the mobile
10 home should be occupied by persons principally employed by or engaged in the operation of the
11 use where the mobile home is located. And I'm questioning that, the comments in the testimony
12 was that the operation would also be part of the one across the ditch, which is a separate legal lot.
13 Again, my comments earlier, if we separate these off they could be sold to another party, that
14 wouldn't be in my mind a justification for having an Accessory to Farm, furthermore, 1 don't
15 think that there is anything there that needs an Accessory to Farm on that 41 acres. It's currently
16 in grassland and it's grass and it's, it doesn't take too much to do, take care of grass. And I guess
17 if there's something that is happening that makes that more appropriate, then that's another issue,
18 but I'm not sure that's there already. Do you have a comment?
19
20 LEE MORRISON: Well, I wanted to clarify that, unlike the other things
21 that you've dealt with, this is an issue that one, if you decide it, it still gets reviewed in a year, is
22 that correct?
•
94
1 SCOTT BALLSTADT: The Accessory to Farm, if it's approved, they
2 would have to, they would be required to submit justification each year.
3
4 LEE MORRISON: Each year. And the reverse of that, if conditions
5 change, they could re-request that if something, if you were to deny it. In other words, there's
6 not a finality to your decision today as there is in the other cases. Whether you approve or deny,
7 conditions could change and proof would have, could or would have to be submitted to reconfirm
8 the need for the Accessory to Farm Use.
9
10 COMMISSONER BAXTER: That's just what I was going to say,
11 because I made my statement earlier. 1, they represent horse boarding, if horse boarding happens
12 later, they can come in and get, and justify it, but I see no justification now.
13
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I agree with Commissioner Baxter, I'm going
15 to vote
16
17 CHAIR HALL: .1 don't have a motion, yet.
18
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Well, sure.
20
21 CHAIR HALL: I have to have a motion.
22
95
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I will make the motion that the Compliance
2 for Accessory to Farm, what do we describe this on?
3
4 SCOTT BALLSTADT: On the 41 acres.
5
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE: On the 41 acres, would that be sufficient, be
7 denied. Based upon the fact that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented to this Commission
8 justifying that.
9
10 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Second.
11
12 CHAIR HALL: Motion by Mike, second by George to deny the Certificate
13 of Compliance for Accessory to Farm. Discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion say
14 aye.
15
16 COMMISSIONERS BAXTER, GEILE, HALL, AND VAAD: Aye.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: Opposed? Motion carries. Having no other business for
19 the regular Board of County Commissioners, we are adjourned.
20
21 •
22
96
1 CERTIFICATE
2 1, 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 March 17, 1999,
6 which was recorded at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley. Colorado,
7 by Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board; and that the foregoing is an accurate transcript of
8 the proceedings at :hat time.
9
10 I further certify that I am not related to any party herein or their counsel,
11 and that 1 am employed as Office Manager in the office of the Weld County Clerk to the Board.
12
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
14 Notarial Seal this 17th day of May, 1999.
15
16
17 CAROL A. HARDING
18 Deputy Clerk to the Board and Notary Public
19
20 My Commission Expires June 8, 2002
21
97
Hello