The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About981697.tiff o 4c', OFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PHONE (970) 356-4000, EXT 4200 FAX: (970) 352-0242 WII'D915 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 758 C• GREELEY, CO 80632 COLORADO August 31, 1998 Darrell Schoenig 6166 Red Ridge Trail Bellvue, CO 80512-5684 RE: Your Letter of August 22, 1998 Dear Mr. Schoenig: Your letter, which was received by me on August 24, 1998, states various concerns and complaints regarding how your applications for two recorded exemptions, RE-2259 and RE-2260, were handled by the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Enclosed with your letter are a copy of a letter dated July 22, 1998, addressed to you from Ben Patton, Planner, and an e-mail communication addressed to you from Mr. Patton, dated August 14, 1998. Enclosed is a copy of a document entitled "Applications for Land Use Matters for Property Previously Denied." The document is from Weld County's Administration Manual. It provides the procedures for processing a request to the Board of County Commissioners for a determination as to whether a "substantial change in facts and circumstances" has occurred relative to a land use application. Mr. Patton's communications to you refers to this procedure. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, of the Department of Planning Services. I have asked her to address your concerns and complaints regarding the handling of your applications for recorded exemptions. I respectfully recommend that if you should have any questions regarding the enclosed, or if you wish to discuss your concerns and complaints further, that you contact Ms. Mika at(970)353-6100, extension 3520, or Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney, at(970)356-4000, extension 4390 Sincerely, BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Constance L. Harbert, Chair CLH:BTB/db:Let/Schoeni g pc: Monica Daniels-Mika Bruce Barker gC -), 981697 LL `cC) TNty ADMINISTRATIVE-MANUAL. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Applications for Land-Use Matters for Property Previously Denied Latest Revision Date: May 6, 1996 1. Except in those cases to which the requirements of Paragraph 1.A below apply, neither an applicant nor his successors in interest in property for which a land-use application was denied within the preceding five (5) years may submit a land-use application or request a rehearing on a previously submitted application for any portion of the property contained in the original application unless the Board of County Commissioners has determined that, based upon a showing by the applicant, there has been a substantial change in the fads and circumstances regarding the application or that there is newly discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original application. A. Upon approval of Ordinance 173-C, the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, which became effective December 5, 1995, neither an applicant nor his successors in interest in property for which a Recorded Exemption application was denied within the preceding ten (10) years may submit a Recorded Exemption application or request a rehearing on a previously submitted application for any portion of the property contained in the original application unless the Board of County Commissioners has determined that, based upon a showing by the applicant, there has been a substantial change in the facts and circumstances regarding the application or that there is newly discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original application. 2. "Substantial change in facts and circumstances" shall mean a substantial change in the land-use application, in the surrounding land-uses or in applicable provisions of the law. 3, A petition requesting rehearing on an application or permission to file another application for property previously denied a land-use permit shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for processing. The Department shall schedule a substantial change hearing before the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners. Land-use applications originally heard by only the Board of County Commissioners shall be scheduled before the board only. The Planning Commission shall consider the rehearing petition only if it considered the original land-use application. It shall review the petition and any supporting information. The Planning Commission shall consider whether the applicant has demonstrated that a substantial change in the facts or circumstances have occurred subsequent to the board's decision or that there was newly discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original application. The Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation of its findings to the Board of County Commissioners. 4. Legal notice of a substantial change hearing shall be published according to the method of publication for the original hearing. If originally heard before the Planning Commission, the Department of Planning Services shall be responsible for publication. If originally heard before the Board of County Commissioners, the Clerk to the Board shall be responsible for publication. 69 qt,f( 11> 1 L WE ICUITT ' ADMINI;STjTI 'MANUAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Applications for Land-Use Matters for Property Previously Denied Latest Revision Date: May 6, 1996 5. Notice of the substantial change hearing and the public hearing date shall be provided to owners of property located within five hundred (500) feet of the parcel under consideration and owners and lessees of the mineral estate on or under the parcel under consideration. The notification shall be mailed, first class, not less than ten (10) days before the scheduled public hearing. Similar notice shall also be provided any agency, body, or group who received a referral request from the Department of Planning services on the original application. Notice will not be sent to property owners concerning land use matters, such as recorded exemptions, which were not sent when the original case was heard. 6. The Board of County Commissioners shall hold a substantial change hearing after the legal notice and notices to property owner, mineral owners and lessees, and referral agencies identified in 4 and 5 have been completed. The legal notice and notification shall be done at least ten (10) days prior to the board's hearing. 7. The Board of County Commissioners may grant such a petition when it determines that the applicant has demonstrated that a substantial change in the facts or circumstances have occurred subsequent to the board's decision or that there was newly discovered evidence not available to the applicant at the time the board considered the application. The board may deny the petition solely upon the contents of the petition or when deemed advisable by the board that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a substantial change in the facts or circumstances have occurred subsequent to the board's decision or that there was newly discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original application. The board shall consider the applicants rehearing petition, the Planning Commission's recommendation, oral testimony at the public hearings, written related information, and any other relevant material in making its decision. 8. When the Board of County Commissioners grants a rehearing petition, the applicant may file a new application with the Department of Planning Services. The application shall be processed in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance or Weld County Subdivision Regulations. 9. No petition for rehearing may be granted where the decision of the Board of County Commissioners on a land-use application has been appealed or contested in any court of law, during the pendency of the court action. 70 August 22, 1998 6166 Red Ridge Trail Bellvue, CO 80512-5684 Constance L. Harbert, Chair Board of County Commissioners Weld County,Colorado 1400 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Harbert: This letter concerns my applications for recorded exemptions,RE2259 and RE2260, which were denied by the BCC on July 27, 1998. I feel that my applications and subsequent denials were handled in a very unfair manner by the Dept. of Planning Services. Here is the sequence of events, and my reasons for crying foul: On 4/29/98 I brought my completed applications to the office and met with Todd. He reviewed the applications in detail,and made no mention of any concerns, other than the possible requirement for a wider road. In fact, he stated that my applications were among the best he had ever seen,and thought there should be no problem with them. I informed him that my intention was to sell all parcels. Since I had not yet obtained my certificate of conveyances,he could not accept my applications. I returned on 5/15/98 with the certificates, and met briefly with Julie. She did mention a concern about the number of applications in that area,but offered no suggestions on how I might modify my applications to make them more desirable, nor was any mention made that I might be "circumventing the subdivision process" since I was requesting RE's on two adjacent parcels. She said "we'll see what happens". During the ensuing nearly two months, I received no communication from the Department, no expression of concerns, no suggestions for modification nothing. On 7/9/98 I called Ben Patton, the planner handling my applications, asking about the status. He returned my call on 7/10/98, and said "I have bad news and good news,Darrell. We are recommending denial of your requests. However, in the past two weeks we have recommended denial on two others in that area, and both were approved anyway by the BCC. I "fully anticipate" that yours will also be approved by the BCC." He briefly 9gj&9 7 explained the reasons for the their recommended denial, foremost of which was "we want to use you as an example to the BCC that we believe there are too many of these in that area." He suggested that my applications would most likely be approved by the BCC "with conditions". I asked what those conditions might be,and he suggested that the BCC might only allow a 3 lot exemption,giving me the impression that such modifications could be enacted at the hearing. No alternative courses of action were suggested; he was pretty confident that my applications would be approved by the BCC. On Friday afternoon, 7/24/98, I received the attached letter from Mr. Patton. Note on page 2 the recommendation from staff that I "re-evaluate" my proposal. This was the fiat communication I received indicating that I should possibly alter my proposal. It is Friday afternoon, and the hearing is Monday morning, 9:00am. How could I possibly react in that time frame? I have since met with Mr. Patton, asking that I be given an opportunity to appeal. He was very apologetic for the way my case was handled, and showed me a page of revised procedures staff has adopted to prevent the unfair practices I was the victim of. He stated that it has been many, many years since an RE was rejected, and the sloppy handling of my case was the result of inexperience by staff in such a rejection. He said that there was no appeal process available,but that perhaps I could request a "substantial change" hearing with the BCC. I am willing to modify my application to 3 lots, with the easterly two lots accessing WCR 15, then onto the improved section of WCR 102 (to alleviate the Board's concern about access by services). I urged that I felt I should be given this opportunity without additional fees,and in a shortened time frame, given the poor manner in which my case was handled. He was sympathetic, and said he would present it to staff Attached is the email I received back from him. In essence, I am being asked to spend nearly$1200 to reapply, with staff not considering it a "substantial change". I called Mr Patton following receipt of this email, and he conveyed that staff would be pretty negative to my amended proposal, making it a very risky option for me to pursue. In summary, I feel that I have been wronged by the Planning Department in the following ways: * No indication of any concerns in my first meeting with Todd, where my application was complete except for the certificates of conveyances. * Minor expression of concern when submitting my applications to Julie, with no alternatives being offered. * No communication whatsoever in the ensuing 2 months; then the surprise call that the Department was recommending denial. * Strong encouragement from Mr. Patton that my applications were likely to be approved by the BCC, with no offer that I amend before the hearing. * Indication that the Board could amend my application at the hearing to a 3 lot RE, as part of the attached conditions. * Receipt of the letter informing me of my options to amend coming only a few business hours before the hearing. Please know that I am not out to "hang"Mr. Patton. He has been very congenial in the process, and has treated me respectfully. But his inexperience, along with perhaps others on staff, has left me with little alternative to recoup my investment. Had my case been handled properly, I would have been happy to address Planning's concerns early in the process, and work towards an agreeable compromise. I am requesting that the Board reconsider my case, and allow me to submit a revised application without the undue burden of additional fees. cerely, Naly Darrell Schoenig • 12=-44 Rri -T-1 b/ f 498' reice—rws DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WUD PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3559 FAX (970)352-6312 WELD COON REELEVE OFFICES Y 0N.n�AVENUE COLORADO COLORADO 80631 July 22, 1998 Darrell Schoenig 6166 Red Ridge Trail Bellevue, Colorado 80512 Subject: North' of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, Township 9 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. Mr. Schoenig, On May 15 of this year the Weld County Department of Planning Services received applications for two recorded exemptions(RE's 2259 and 2260)on your property. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the status of these requests, as well as to provide you information regarding staff's concerns for these applications. Upon completion of a preliminary administrative review of your applications (processed concurrently), staff became concerned with the proximity of your proposed lots to those of several other similar-sized lots in the area. In particular, numerous other recorded exemption applications have either been approved or are in the review process in the sections immediately surrounding Section 19. If approved, these recorded exemptions would create at least 20 lots in an area not exceeding three square miles. The Department of Planning Services staff believes the density of lots created as a result of two contiguous recorded exemptions such as this will demonstrate an evasion of the Subdivision Ordinance, as well as compromise the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Staffs specific concerns regarding this type, density, and location of development are as follows: 1. The number of lots potentially created by your recorded exemptions,when combined with the other development applications in the immediate vicinity, will create an urban-scale development, as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance. Urban-scale development (that exceeding 5-lots) necessitates a connection to a public water system. In this case, no public water system is currently available to serve the area. 2. In addition to the lack of public water, higher density development challenges the ability of other service providers to meet the needs of those in the area. In particular, fire protection, schools,and the county sheriff would have to increase or provide for the capacity of those in the area. QIIil? 7 )Darrell Schoenigi • Page 2 3. Both county roads serving your site (WGR 102 and WGR 13) are unimproved and have no county dedication. The impact of the increased volume of traffic on these roads would have to be mitigated. 4. The West Greeley Soil Conservation District has several concerns regarding the impact of development on the geologic and soil composition of this area including: residential development on "rolling to rough" terrain, septic system and well installation on smaller parcels, and the assurance that the "highest and best" agricultural-related use of land in this area of the county will be employed. Given the obvious concerns of Planning staff, Public Works,and various referral agencies who have commented on your applications, staff strongly encourages you to re-evaluate your proposal. Despite this request, it Is of primary concern to staff that we, as a public entity,do not withhold your right to profit from the sale of your land. There are several options available to you if you do wish to alter your proposal: 1. Revise the size and configuration of your request. Specifically, instead of two separate two-lot RE applications on your property, you may request a three-lot RE on the entire parcel. The two smaller lots potentially created as a result of this application wold be much smaller than the existing request(2.5-5.0 acres vs. 34.9 acres). The reduced size of these lets would allow for preservation of a larger lot(at least 120 acres) that would remain in agricultural uses. In addition, the proximity of these lots to existing roads would allow for more practical shared access to the residences on those lots. 2. A Minor Subdivision application may be submitted. A Minor Subdivision is a development of three to five separate lots between 2.5 and 20 acres(Estate Zone). This application involves a three-step process, and is more time-consuming than a recorded exemption. In addition,a Minor Subdivision requires the development of a public water system to serve the development. 3. A PUD application may be submitted. This procedure allows the developer to be more creative in lot design and size. However, a PUD application is also more lengthy than a recorded exemption, and requires the approval of an 80-acre"outlot" as an exception to the public water requirement. Both Minor Subdivision and PUD processes include public hearings where surrounding property owners will be allowed to speak for or against your proposal. Despite the apparent limitations of your application, staff is willing to work with you to help submit a request that is beneficial to you and also serves the best interests of the county. Please be aware that staffs request for your re-evaluation of this application is voluntary. You may proceed with these recorded exemptions despite staffs potential recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners. It is possible that the Board will approve your applications, with attached conditions. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding your situation. Sincerely, 47191/411 Ben Patton Planner q3/<a5 .7 Juno email printed Sat, 15 Aug 1998 08:03:11 ,page 1 From: BEN PATTON<BEPATTONcco.weld.co.us> Return-path: <BEPATTON©co.weld.co.us> To;dasc hoenigilkuno.c o n Date:Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:43:32-0800 Subject options for RE-denial Message-ID: <55d400db.066Cco.weld.co.us> X-Status:Read X-Miler.Novel GroupWise 4.1 Darrell,I discussed your situation at our staff meeting yesterday. As promised I played the role of advocate for your cause. tasked staff if two conditions could be followed in your defense: 1) That a three-lot RE-wlh the thongs in road improvements to the easterly side of the site,(inducing the water situation)could be proposed in place of the previous 2-ot RE,and 2) That you could have a form to discuss the proposed changes without the burden of a new application process and fee. The unanimous derision of staff was that to proceed in this fashion was not an option. Once the original application was denied by the Board, that application was find. Them exists no proc eduns with the county to amend an RE once It has been denied. The appropriate process is as follows: You will need to submit a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting a"substantial change"hearing(this letter will go through me). This application costs$200. At Me hearing you will be allowed to explain your proposed revised RE application,with an emphasis being on the change from the original request. The initial reaction of staff to my interpretation of your revision was that this would not constitute a substantial change. If the BCC approves this request you will be allowed to propose a new RE. As I mentioned on Tuesday,if this did come to pass I would do everything in my power to expedite your revised application as quicldy as possible. However, you would be required to Mow the regular RE application process, including paying the fee referral response time. There was no disagreement among our senior planners end planning director with this matter. After the proper procedure was explained to me I asked staff if there was any possibility of negligence on our part. Given your dissatisfaction with the county's handling of your case I though this was an especially pertinent question. Staff, being very familiar with this case,relocated that,while the process for RE denials has been streamlined,the process that I followed clad conform to county policy. liaised your concern that if you had been given proper notification you would have changed your proposal. Staffs response was unified:By your own admission on record, staff advised you of concerns at the time of submittal, however,you those to pay me fees and proceed anyway. I sympathize with your situation, Mr. Schoenig. I believe you have worked in good faith with the county. To repeat,you have the option to present your proposed"champs"in front of the Board. If approved, you may proceed with another RE application,which I will make every effort 9gi&9 7 Julio e-mail printed Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:03:11 ,page 2 to process rapidly. Please call or e-mail me when and If you would Ike to discuss your situation further. Sincerely, Ben Patton e-Lrio97 Hello