HomeMy WebLinkAbout972851.tiff*4;
IlliC.
COLORADO
MEMORANDUM
To: File April 14, 1997
From: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Dept. of Planning Services
Subject: Horton Cattle Company, the NE4 of Section 18, T3N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
The Board of County Commissioners conducted a work session on March 12, 1997, to consider further expansion
of the Horton Cattle Feedlots. The applicant specifically requested that the Board make a determination as to
whether or not the southeast quarter of Section 18, was originally included in SUP -112. After listening to
evidence presented by staff, the Board of County Commissioners concurred that any further expansion into the
southeast quarter of Section 18, in fact, necessitates the need to amend the existing permit.
Additionally, the concern as to whether or not the applicant had the right to use the historic placement of 4,000
head in the southeast quarter of Section 18, came into question. Also, during the work session it was determined
that on two occasions the Department of Planning Services visited the site, specifically the southeast quarter of
the section and noted feed lot activity and did not pursue with a violation. The first occasion was a field check
conducted by Keith Schuett, Current Planner, on September 27, 1985, and the second occasion was another field
check conducted by Keith on October 12, 1993. Additionally, the applicant applied for a zoning permit for an
accessory use as an office and Chuck Cunliffe, Director of Planning Services, issued a zoning permit when, in fact,
the permit did delineate that the entire site (320 acres) as actually being included in SUP -112.
Because the applicant has throughout time relied upon the Department of Planning Services for information and
repeatedly informed the Department of Planning Services that the southeast quarter of Section 18 housed 4,000
head. We believe, at this point, based on supplied information which was revealed by Lee Morrison, that the
Department of Planning Services is estopped from taking any further action on the 4,000 head located in the
southeast quarter. Therefore, based on detrimental reliance from the Department of Planning Services to the
applicant the 4,000 head use which currently exists in the southeast quarter will continue to exist until such time
that the use ceases activity.
horton.sef
SERVICE, TEAMWORK, INTEGRITY, QUALITY
WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES/BUILDING INSPECTION
CITIZEN INQUIRY FORM
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE, GREELEY, CO 80631
PHONE: (970) 353-6100 EXT. 3540 FAX: (970) 352-6312
/TELEPHONE ❑ OFFICE FIRST INQUIRY'? YES ❑ NO DATE:
NAME: ( nom' /�Y� L ��L PHONE:
ADDRESS:
TYPE OF INQUIRY:
❑ MH7D ] MINOR SUB SKETCH PLAN
l ] MINOR SUB FINAL PLAT
C 1 ZONING
L , ADDRESSING
❑ BUILDING PERMIT
❑ ,� SETBACKS/OFFSETS
❑ I" HOME OCCUPATION
,
❑ ' _) ;/ L `--VIOLATION
❑ i r1 # 1 ( -"- OTHER
Cl/ F / 1-- '.)` 1
PER L i 1 t. ),- =--
❑ Ke } V/ 2) ` ❑ Todd Hodges
❑ Ch I ' / ❑ Roger Vigil
❑ Da' l \IL _ r : -� ' ❑ Will Birchfield
ITEMS
s
,ate is L_'
te-Z-LQi-' /12 7
,5- L_,f-2 -
eVitt_akr2L 77z7)( _ t., C l ���' _� � _ .tom
vrt.Kq
Time Spent I t)1'v C. 1)
E, Ca LY
Staff Member's Initials
citizen
From: BRUCE BARKER
To: LMORRISON, NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST.MMIKA, NORTHDOMAI...
Date: 3/22/97 10:43am
Subject: Horton Cattle Companies Feedot
Query: Was it proper to have the BOCC consider the need for Horton to get Amended USR?
Zoning Ordinance, Section 61.1, says: "The Board of Adjustment has the power to hear and decide appeals from
decisions concerning zoning issues made by any official employed by the Board of County Commissioners in the
administration or enforcement of this Ordinance."
The original decision made by Shani and Monica was that Horton needed an amendment to his USR, based upon
his proposal for the new feedlot area. Was this not a decision by officials employed by the BOCC concerning zoning
issues in their administration or enforcement of the Ordinance? Seems so to me. I think it needed to go to BOA.
Thorny problems for BOCC when it decides on this issue (as was done):
TP#1) Smells and feels like a public hearing -- the "opposition gent" who showed up treated it like so, especially
when he ran out to get his "more evidence" fax! When we changed the work session time to morning, he and Horton
were grumbling about the BOCC "moving the 'hearing' up without notice." If the BOCC voted the other way, don't
you think the "opposition gent" would have felt shafted, in that he had not gotten the opportunity to present his "full
case"?
TP#2) The BOCC is damned if they do and damned if they don't -- In this case, Horton was probably OK with the
amendment decision. But if in the next one the party at issue is not so agreeable, is not the BOCC put in a difficult
situation by this decision making process? Isn't it better to put the onus on the BOA to make that decision?
What do you think? Am I all washed up, or what? (No comments which may be unacceptible for the E -Mail police,
please.)
Bruce.
CC: GBAXTER, BKIRKMEYER, DHALL
From: VICKY SPRAGUE
To: SEASTIN
N
Date: 3/18/97 11.43am
Subject: HORTON WORK SESSION
JUST A REMINDER TO PLEASE SEND ME A COPY OF THE FRANKLIN FAX REC'D DURING HORTON W/S
3/5 THANKS. BY THE WAY, YOU DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING THE INFO UNDER DURESS!
Hello