HomeMy WebLinkAbout972422.tiffSTATE OF COLORADO)
ss
COUNTY OF WELD )
I, Donald D. Warden, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the
County of Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the attached transcript is a true
and correct transcription of the October 14, 1997, violation hearings of the Board of County
Commissioners. Said transcript is an excerpt of the violation hearing, listed as VI#9600316,
Richard and Elizabeth Wilson.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
County at Greeley, Colorado, this 18th day of November, 1997.
Donald D.
Clerk to the Board
BY:
imberlee Schuett
Deputy Clerk to the Board
)0CLO76
972422
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCERPT OF VIOLATION HEARING CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 14, 1997
RE: VIOLATION CASE #0096316 - RICHARD AND ELIZABETH WILSON
TAPE #97-26
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
GEORGE E. BAXTER, CHAIR
CONSTANCE L. HARBERT, PRO-TEM
DALE K. HALL
BARBARA J. KIRKMEYER
W.H. WEBSTER
ALSO PRESENT:
BRUCE T. BARKER, COUNTY ATTORNEY
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BRUCE BARKER: Mr. Chairman, the next case is VI -96316 for
Richard and Elizabeth Wilson. Point that neither Mr. or Mrs. Wilson are here. I think this,
you may want to go ahead and consider this case today. This case originally came up in July
of this year and I believe it was July 8th was the violation hearing that it came up on. And
at that time the Wilsons' attorney Tom Hellerich could not be here. As a result he and I had
agreed to ask the Board for me to go ahead and ask the Board to refer it immediately, so that
we could begin discussions with the Wilsons, with the Department of Planning Services,
such that we could see if we could come to some agreement as to how they are going to
proceed with the zoning violation. In particular, to go ahead and see what they are going to
do with the building. Either drop it down and then use it as a storage facility or provide
some other mechanism for getting in compliance either through recorded exemptions or
however. We did the Board did go ahead and refer it to the County Attorney's Office saying
for me to go ahead and begin legal action immediately. We contacted Mr. Hellerich, set
up a meeting for July, and I think it was around July 17th was when we had our meeting. We
discussed a variety of different alternatives. In a letter that I sent back to Mr. Hellerich,
dated July 24, I outlined a variety of different things that they were going to provide, staff
was going to take a look at. They were then going to get back with us on the way they
wanted to proceed. And we did receive a letter. There was an extension of time in there too.
We did have a little bit of a mix up on getting our information out to them and then getting
it back. So we did give them a little bit of extra time. But in a letter, and I can't recall when
it came in, but we did receive from Mrs. Wilson saying that basically she didn't plan on
doing anything with the house that is on the girders mainly because she doesn't think that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
that's a violation of the zoning ordinance with a house as a structure sitting on girders on the
property, number one. And number two, they do have a pending civil action against the
Board of County Commissioners, it's called a Rule 106 action, in which they are challenging
the boards decision on ZPAD#79 which you considered back in April of this year. So with
all of that, taking that into consideration, I recommended to the Department of Planning
Services that they notice the Wilsons back in so that they could come back before you for
two reasons. One would be so that they would have their opportunity to speak before you
as to their understanding of the zoning violation itself. And then secondly, if they wanted
to bring up anything else. Mrs. Wilson had complained during our process that she had not
gotten the opportunity to speak before you today or, at the time on July 8th. So we've given
them that opportunity. They haven't appeared. And I think that there are some individuals,
some neighbors, who may want to speak to the issue. And I don't see anything wrong with
allowing them to go ahead and address you. I'd like to, Mrs. Wilson sent a letter yesterday
to the Board of County Commissioners and I'd like to address two things. One is this is not
an adjudicatory type hearing. So as a result, it really is a time in which the zoning violator,
or alleged violator, has the opportunity to come before you to discuss the violation itself. It's
almost like a meeting to discuss those violations. So as a result, we don't see it as a
adjudicatory type hearing that would need to come within the notice requirements of our
adjudicatory rules set up in the manual. However, Julie did notice them in with twenty days
notice. Second thing is that you are not an agency pursuant to the Administrative Procedures
Act through the state code and as a result you don't need to give thirty days notice that she
had mentioned out of Section 24, I believe it is 24-4-105. So with that, I think Julie and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Todd might be able to speak to the zoning violation itself. We've sort of gone around and
around on this and we've come to the conclusion that they are temporarily storing a structure
on girders on the property and that's in use by right or a use that is allowed as an accessory
use in (A) Agriculture Zone District.
COMMISSIONER HALL : Well, I think you need to make record of
whether or not the Wilsons are here and they want to speak. And then I think we've already
gone through this once already in July and I don't know what else we need to do today.
CHAIR BAXTER: I guess my question is we, we're here specifically
on the violation of the house on girders. That's solely what this is.
BRUCE BARKER: That's correct.
CHAIR BAXTER: Which is I mean this issue, I guess it was their,
it was the issue at the other time but that's not what we were discussing it was at that point
in time every thing was hinging on whether they, I mean the former action, former decision
we made was on a ZPAD.
BRUCE BARKER: You did the ZPAD back in April when it came
up before you. In July.
CHAIR BAXTER: Oh okay, in the July issue then.
COMMISSIONER HALL: We had another hearing in July.
BRUCE BARKER: In July we were really considering, and we
discussed this with the Wilsons about their intent to use it as a residential structure. And we
were proceeding along trying to work with them on alternatives that they could use that
structure as a residential structure. We've also, through a letter that Monica sent to them,
1 mentioned that they also have the option of dropping the structure and then using it as a
2 storage facility or storage structure. To do that and actually I think that is an accessory use
3 in the accessory to farm. And it could be hooked up to electrical but it couldn't be hooked
4 up to plumbing. I'm getting good at this. But anyway.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Don't try it at home though.
6 CHAIR BAXTER: Well, your objection is?
7 COMMISSIONER HALL: I'm not objecting to anything. I'm just
8 saying we ought to make for the record whether or not the Wilsons are here and if they want
9 to speak. But then the rest of it, I think is, we've gone over this point before.
10 CHAIR BAXTER: You don't feel we need anything from the
11 Planning Department is what you're saying? Ok. I think we understand the violation so I
12 don't think we do either. Ok, why don't we. Is someone here representing the Wilsons then?
13 Would you like to come up to the microphone? Well, I guess if we don't have. I guess this
14 was the opportunity given to talk about the violation itself and if we don't have any response,
15 why.
16 BRUCE BARKER: Okay, you gave them the opportunity, sent it by
17 notice. You have already referred it to the County Attorney's Office for legal action and I'm
18 ready to go.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, we're done. We don't need
20 to do anything else. We don't need to refer it to you again.
21 BRUCE BARKER: No need to refer it again.
22 CHAIR BAXTER: We don't need to redo it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
case?
correct?
we are doing.
BRUCE BARKER: Nope.
CHAIR BAXTER: Still referred okay, proceed then. What's the next
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: There isn't any action required,
CHAIR BAXTER: No, I don't think so. That's my impression.
COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Good, I move to continue to do what
6
Hello