The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991229.tiff a *II, CIpp DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540 FAX(970)352-6312 WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE VI I C GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO February 24, 1999 Board of County Commissioners Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 806.31 Subject: Recorded Exemptions #RE-2425, RE-2426, SE-757 and COC for Accessory to Farm Dear Commissioners: Richard and Elizabeth Wilson have requested the aforementioned applications located in Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. The subject parcels are located west of and adjecent to WCR 19; approximately 180 feet south of WCR 16 and approximately 180 feet east of WCR 17. The parcels of land in question are designated as prime, prime if irrigated and other land by the USDA. Staff is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners review these applications due to staff concerns, past history which includes the Board of County Commissioners' denial of ZPAD-79 and concerns expressed by the City of Dacono as well as surrounding property owners. 1. RE-2425 iin conjunction with SE-757 the City of Dacono indicated in a referral response received February 10, 1999 that RE- 2425 does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan. Staff has the following concerns pertaining to RE-2425 and SE-757: A. The applicant discussed this application for recorded exemption in conjunction with a subdivision exemption on the eastern 88 acre parcel with the Department of Planning staff prior to submitting these applications, however, the application materials do not reflect staffs recommended configuration. RE-2425 in conjunction with SE-757 proposes to create Lot A which would include ZPAD-67 and MHP-498. The applicant has indicated that the accessory dwelling on Lot A will be justified as the occupants will be employed at a proposed greenhouse on Lot A. The application materials also propose that the two older homes be located on the SE lot, leaving Lot B as a vacant building site. Staff had directed the applicant to separate the two older hcmes, one being on the SE lot and the other being located on Lot B (please see letter dated December 1, 1998 from Scott Ballstadt, Planner). This would essentially address the issue of multiple houses on one lot and would not create a new building site. Should the applicant amend the application materials to reconfigure the SE lot, staff would recommend approval with the attached conditions. 991229 rRE wA5 /3c'757 RE-2425, RE-2426, SE-757 and COC for Accessory to Farm Page 2 2. RE-2426 The City of Dacono indicated in a referral response received February 10, 1999 that RE- 2426 does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan. Staff has the following concerns pertaining to RE-2426: A. Thls recorded exemption application on the western 100 acres proposes to create a 2.0 acre Lot A in the northwest portion of the site, approximately 180 feet from the intersection of WCRs 16 and 17. Staff has concerns that the potential cumulative number of residences created, if all of these applications are approved, would total eight without utilizing the PUD process. Section 2.21 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance and Section 10.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance de:rine Urban Scale Development as "developments exceeding five (5) lots...". A.Goal 7 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan strives to "Protect agricultural land from encroachment by those urban uses which hinder the operational efficiency and productivity of the agricultural uses." However, the applicants have indicated that they plan to submit a minor subdivision on the 20 acre parcel if RE-2426 is approved. 3. Certificate of Compliance for Accessory to the Farm A. Based upon information supplied by the applicant, the Department of Planning Services and County Attorneys Office determined in October that the approximate 41 acre parcel located south of the FRICO ditch is a separate, legal parcel (please see letter dated October 6, 1998). The applicant then proceeded to obtain building permits and moved a stick-built structure onto the parcel. The Certificate of Compliance proposes an Accessory to the Farm mobile home to be placed on this parcel as well. The 41 acre parcel is currently in grass and does not contain livestock. Due to the low intensity of the farming operation on the 41 acre parcel, staff has concerns that an Accessory to the Farm mobile home may not be justified in accordance with Section 43.2.3.1.1 which states, "The MOBILE HOME will be occupied by persons principally employed at or engaged in the operation of the USE where the MOBILE HOME is located..." as well as "...the mobile home occupant(s) is principally employed at or engaged in the farming operation on the subject property." The Department of Planning Services' staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider the application and determine if the standards of Section 11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance have been met and adhere to the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully submitted,tt Scott Ballstadt Planner cc: Richard and Elizabeth Wilson Monica Daniels-Mika, Planning Director Weld County Attorneys c:\apps\re\wilson W�`PC DEPARTMENT ERVICES RECORDED EXEMPTION COLORADO Applicant: Richard & Elizabeth Wilson Case Number: RE-2425 Legal Description: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO. Parcel Identification Number: 1311 33 000036 Lot C Size: n/a Lot B Size: 74 +/-acres Lot A Size: 7+/-acres Water Source: Central Weld County Water District Sewer Source: Septic System Approved with Conditions This Recorded Exemption is approved with the following conditions: 1. A Weld County septic permit is required for any proposed home. The septic system shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal System (I.S.D.S.) regulations. 2. WCR 19 is designated on the Transportation Plan Map as a collector status road which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way. 3. The applicant shall utilize the existing access to this parcel as no additional accesses shall be granted. (Lots A & SE Lot) Utilize the existing agricultural, oil and gas, and ditch roads that are necessary for your agricultural operation. No additional accesses shall be granted. (Lot B) 4. Prior to recording the plat: A. The applicant shall submit a deed which has been recorded with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder for the subject. 88 acres to the Department of Planning Services. B. A total of 40 feet of right-of-way reservation from the centerline of Weld County Road 19 for future expansion of Weld County Road 19 shall be delineated on the plat. C. A 30-foot wide joint access easement extending across Lot A from Weld County Road 19, for the benefit of Lots A, B and the SE Lot, shall be clearly shown on the plat. The joint access easement shall be dedicated for the use as shown utilizing the language set forth in Section 11.7.1.12.5 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. D. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the FRICO Ditch has been contacted and attempts have been made to meet the ditch company requirements. E. The following notes shall be placed on the plat: 1) All proposed or existing structures will or do meet the minimum setback and offset requirements for the zone district in which the property is located. Pursuant to the definition of SETBACK in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance(Ordinance 89, as amended), the required setback is measured from the future right-of-way line. RE-2425 Wilson Page 2 2) Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits. 3) SE-757 was approved in conjunction with this recorded exemption for the purpose of dividing off a second set of existing improvements from the parcel. 4) The Board of County Commissioners support this recorded exemption application, however, subsequent recorded exemption applications on adjacent properties will raise the issue of compliance with the intent of the Recorded Exemption process. Approval of this recorded exemption does not guarantee approval of future applications on adjacent properties. 5) Prior to the release of building permits on Lot A or B, the applicant will be required to submit a recorded deed describing the lot upon which the building permit is requested with the building permit application. The legal description on such deed shall include the lot and recorded exemption number. 6) Pursuant to Ordinance 169A, if noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. 7) In accordance with Section 43.2.3.4 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, all zoning permits for mobile homes as accessory farm uses are temporary and are subject to review annually on the anniversary of the original permit's issuance. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services verifying that the occupant of the mobile home for temporary accessory farm use is principally employed at or engaged in the farming operation on the subject property, in acccrdance with Section 43.2.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The evidence shall consist of tax records, employment agreements or other documentation as determined suitable by the Department of Planning Services. Failure to submit the required documentation may result in cessation of the allowance of the mobile home for temporary accessory farm use. 5. The applicant shall submit a mylar plat to the Department of Planning Services to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 11.7 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. The plat shall be submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of approval by the Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fees rett--;\, \ Wi`PC DEPARTMENT SERVICES EXEMPTION TION SUBDIVISION COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Applicant: Richard and Elizabeth Wilson Case Number: SE-757 Request: Subdivision Exemption in conjunction with RE-2425 Legal Description: Fart of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W Parcel Number: 1311 33 000036 Criteria Checklist Meets Criteria Yes No NA X In those instances when used pursuant to Section 11.14.2 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, the request is the best alternative to dispose of existing improvements in conjunction with the companion Recorded Exemption. Approved With Conditions The Subdivision Exemp:ion is approved in accordance with information submitted in the application and the policies of the county. The Board of County Commissioners have determined through its review that the standards of Section 11.17 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance have been met 1. A Weld County septic permit is required for any proposed home. The septic system shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal System (I.S.D.S.) regulations. 2. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall: A. The following notes shall be placed on the plat: 1) All proposed or existing structures will or do meet the minimum setback and offset requirements for the zone district in which the property is located. 2) Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits. 3) RE-2425 was approved in conjunction with this subdivision exemption for the purpose of dividing off a second set of existing improvements from the parcel. 3 The applicant shall submit a mylar plat to the Department of Planning Services to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 11.15.9 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. The plat shall be submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of approval by the Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fees. • i mooltiar rftlft DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 'D PHONE (97C) 353-6100, EXT.3559 WI FAX (970) 352-6312 C:. WELD COUNTY ADM114 om OFFICES 00 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO February 24, 1999 Richard & Elizabeth Wilson 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Recorded Exemptions#RE-2425, RE-2426, SE-757 and COC for Accessory to Farm being located in part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wilson: This letter is to inform you that the recorded exemption application referenced above has been reviewed by the Department of Planning Services and staff recomends that these applications be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. This application is scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, March 17, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. The Board of County Commissioners meet at the Centennial Center located at 915 10th Street, on the first floor. Enclosed please find a copy of the staff recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Also enclosed is a copy of potential conditions of approval should the request be approved. Please call me if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, o allstadt Planner pc: Recorded Exemptions #RE-2425, RE-2426, SE-757 files 990527 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 • J\ Phone(970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540 i‘&tt lliDe Fax(970) 352-6312 COLORADO February 2, 1999 Richard and Elizabeth Wilson 6707 WCR 19 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Subject: RE-2425 - Part of the N2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wilson: Your recorded exemption application is being processed. If it is determined that the application meets the approval criteria of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, you will be notified that the recorded exemption is approved. If the staff determines that the application does not meet the approval criteria, you will be notified and asked to appear before the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing. You will be informed of the hearing date prior to the hearing. The Board of County Commissioners will then consider your application and make a final decision on the recorded exemption. It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive • planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Dacono, Firestone, and Frederick Planning Commission for their review and comments. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at the Dacono, Firestone, and Frederick Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions the Commission members may have with respect to your application. Please call City of Dacono at 303-833-2317; Town of Firestone at 303-833-3291; and Town of Frederick at 303-833-2388, for further details regarding the date, time, and place of these meetings. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me. Sincerely, Scott Ballstadt Planner rs -0;;Nrip DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES ' PHONE (97D) 353-6100, EXT.3559 FAX (970) 352-6312 C�. WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO January 22, 1999 Elizabeth Wilson • 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Ms. Wilson: The Department of Planning Services has received your applications for two Recorded Exemptions (RE), Subdivision Exemption (SE) and Certificate of Compliance for an Accessory to the Farm mobile home. I have not yet assigned a case number to your cases as I am giving you the opportunity to revise your Recorded Exemption in conjunction with Subdivision application so that the SE parcel and Lot B of the RE each include a stick-built home as a principal dwelling. I have discussed this at length with you, documenting such in my letter of December 1, 1998 (please see attached). I am giving you this opportunity to revise the application as staff will have strong concerns with the application as proposed which may result in a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. Section 31.2.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance allows for one (1) single family dwelling unit per legal lot as a use by right. Additionally, adequate documentation that the occupant of the mobile home will be principally employed on the farm was not submitted with the Certificate of Compliance. The Weld County Zoning Ordinance requires documentation which substantiates the use of accessory farm dwellings as follows: 43.2.3.1.1 The MOBILE HOME will be occupied by persons principally employed at or engaged in the operation of the USE where the MOBILE HOME is located. ACCESSORY farm USE of the mobile home shall be established and revalidated on an annual basis as follows: Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant or property owner by the first of each year for review and acceptance by the Department of Planning Services verifying that the mobile home occupant(s) is principally employed at or engaged in the farming operation on the subject property. The evidence shall consist of tax records, employment agreements or other documentation as determined suitable by the Department of Planning Services. Failure to submit the required documentation may result in cessation of the allowance of the MOBILE HOME for TEMPORARY ACCESSORY Farm USE. Elizabeth Wilson Page 2 Please notify me of your intention to either revise the current application or proceed as proposed. If I do not hear from you by February 5, 1999 I will proceed as you have currently proposed, which may result in denial of the application. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, fih Scott Ballstadt Planner cc: property research file Monica Daniels-Mika, Director Bruce Barker, Attorney end: letter dated December 1, 1999 rs DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES IPHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3559 Wi FAX (970) 352-6312 C: WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO December 15, 1598 Elizabeth Wilson 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Ms. Wilson: This letter is intended to follow up our phone conversations of December 8 and 15, 1998. The Weld County Zoring Ordinance requires documentation which substantiates the use of accessory farm dwellings as follows: 43.2.3.1.1 The MOBILE HOME will be occupied by persons principally employed at or engaged in the operation of the USE where the MOBILE HOME is located. ACCESSORY farm USE of the mobile home shall be established and revalidated on an annual basis as follows: Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant or property owner by the first of each year for review and acceptance by the Department of Planning Services verifying that the mobile home occupant(s) is principally employed at or engaged in the farming operation on the subject property. The evidence shall consist of tax records, employment agreements or other documentation as determined suitable by the Department of Planning Services. Failure to submit the required documentation may result in cessation of the allowance of the MOBILE HOME for TEMPORARY ACCESSORY Farm USE. There are currently four residences on the property including a principal residence, a non- conforming dwell ng and accessory structures permitted through MHP-498 and ZPAD-67. My previous letter of December 1, 1998, mistakenly indicated that one of the existing structures was permitted by ZPAD-79, when in fact ZPAD-79 was actually denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Since MHP-498 and ZPAD-67 were approved for accessory farm uses, staff requests that you submit evidence in accordance with Section 43.2.3.1 1 to substantiate these uses by Thursday, December 31, 1998. If you are unable to submit such evidence, the recorded exemption and subdivision applications which you had been contemplating may provide you with an alternative. Elizabeth Wilson Page 2 Also, I have been unable to locate evidence that a Non-Conforming Use (NCU) file has been established for the non-conforming structure. Please provide evidence to the Department which documents a construction date so that I may establish an NCU file for this structure. The Weld County Assessor's office may be of assistance to you,in obtaining such evidence. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Ballstadt Planner II cc: property research file Monica Daniels-Mika, Director Bruce Barker, Attorney . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3559 FAX (970) 352-6312 C: WELD COUNTY L ADMINISTRATIVE 000LORADO VENUE GREEEY COLORADO December 1, 1998 Elizabeth Wilson 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Ms. Wilson: This letter is intended to follow up our conversation of Wednesday, November 25, 1998. I discussed your proposed recorded exemption and subdivision exemption configuration with staff and it was confirmed that only one residence would be allowed on the SE lot as I informed you during our conversation There are currently four residences on the property including a principal residence and accessory structures permitted through MHP-498, ZPAD-67 and.Z7Q-&. The configuration which you propose indicates that the principal dwelling and accessory mobile home will be located on Lot A, the two older stick-built homes will be located on the SE parcel and Lot B will be vacant. Section 31.2.1 allows for one (1) single family dwelling unit per legal lot as a use by right, therefore staff has determined that the SE parcel shall contain one of the older stick-built homes and the other shall be located on Lot B as the principal dwelling. You have indicated that you will submit the appropriate documentation to justify the accessory mobile home on Lot A in accordance with Section 43 2 3 1 1 Please adjust your recorded exemption and subdivision applications accordingly prior to submittal. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, \j Scott Ballstadt Planner II cc: property research file S 465 *II(OJA'tt[NM asincJAOrJVOl.0 J �, a. a , l'I n, Ol Iasi. w , itr j •a pin? \ a .• I. _ - _ 0 9 4R il ws: . A emu, x; f Z y i irdilidltio;....n41, c c I ug'," ! , ro Q Bl 0V02J J.innoo TWAn ` r pp 1 r> CT‘aI� al 1,=,;lj . .7 A _ 1/4‘noloillitl ecis a H c) t, O4 K-- 0 //� � te VII rd — P , ", ..r. o, No Ply G w LL 0V0iI A1fY100 0TdM Certified Mail # Z III 357 351 6767 WCR 19 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 December 3I, 1998 Scott Ballstadt, Planner II Weld Co!.Inl`v Planning Dept. Weld County Planning Department 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley,Colorado 80631 JAN 1 3 1999 y ..v d t ya _YE I V E D Dear Mr. Ballstadt: We received your letter concerning the documentation for our accessory dwellings. I am enclosing the requested documentation, under protest, first because you are well aware from our conversations and from previously existing documentation,that the people living here are primarily engaged in this farming operation. Secondly, because it was only "required" after our telephone conversation when 1 told you that the Recorded Exemption and Subdivision Exemption proposals, as you stated Planning would like to see them, are of absolutely no advantage to us. Finally, the documentation for accessory dwellings has never been "required" from this farm before, since 1980,and is not required currently from all other farmers who have accessory dwellings on their properties. This fact was verified in a telephone conversation with Bruce Barker on December 16, 1998, shortly after your letter arrived. You told me also in the telephone conversation referenced in your letter that Planning would have"concerns" if we applied for a Recorded exemption on the 40+ acre parcel created by the irrigation ditch, which has been in existence since 1915, but which Planning only recently acknowledged. These "concerns" would be that we are trying to circumvent the Subdivision regulations, even though Planning knows that is not the case. The first two houses have been here over 50 years. In 1980, the mobile home accessory dwelling was added. Since then, only one house has been added to each of two parcels which total 240 Acres! Planning has further assurance that we are not trying to circumvent the subdivision requirements, since a minor subdivision on the proposed recorded exemption parcel was one option we discussed,but which Planning did not approve. Last year's planner, Todd Hodges, suggested that we put in a minor subdivision on this site. Planning objected to an additional accessory dwelling at that time, even though stick built accessory dwellings were then allowed by the Ordinance. A similar stick built accessory,Z-PAD 69,had in fact been approved the previous year by the Planning Department, under the same Ordinance. In 1995, when we first contacted them,the Planning Department told us to apply for each accessory dwelling separately, then in 1996, when we applied for the second,asked why we hadn't applied for both together. Every Z-PAD prior to ours had been approved, with very little documentation required, including multiple stick built and mobile combinations(see Z-PAD 77, spring of 1997). Every other farmer got what they said they needed, without having to prove anything, even in large multiples(see Z-PADS for Philip Anschutz at Equus and for National Hog Farms) Accessory dwellings on farms have ALWAYS been approved,based on the farmers' assessments of their needs. If you would like further documentation, see George Baxter's comments on the transcript of the April 30, 1997 hearing before the Weld County Commissioners regarding Z-PAD- 79. in addition, you and 1 have discussed the possibility of a minor subdivision in the northwest corner of our property-an option you said Planning staff tentatively approves. This again illustrates Planning's awareness that we are not attempting to circumvent any regulation, but rather trying to find a way to accomplish our farm's goals that is agreeable to the current group of planners. Since the Ordinance is written with the intention of allowing people these exemption uses of their property, we believe Planning should attempt to assist people to use the process as written, rather than looking for some interpretation that precludes it. That individual interpretation and assignment of intent leads to inconsistency and unfairness and makes the process burdensome and oppressive. That is not the intent of the Ordinance. Attempting to force us into a land division which will increase our taxes, give us awkward parcels, leave us with an older, 660 square foot dwelling as the main house on the 80+ Acre main parcel,and not give us even one additional building site is an abuse of the process Planning is supposed to be consistently and fairly implementing in Weld County. Our intent is now, and has always been, to provide suitable housing on this family farm for our young adult children, who want to continue the agricultural business we have started, arid to raise their families in the country. We have made numerous, varied and ongoing attempts to work with Weld County to that end. We have had numerous letters and calls to Planning and other Weld County government offices go ignored and unanswered. We have been subjected to confusing and conflicting suggestions from different planners. We have been subjected to public humiliation, harassed by unfounded "complaints"investigations, and have been prohibited from a right and reasonable use of our property that was legal and allowed under the ordinances all along, all under color of law. Planning's arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the process of implementing it has further resulted in a substantial loss of opportunity and income for us. We were hindered from getting our agricultural business up and running as we had planned,because sonic of the people who are crucial to the operation were prevented from living on site. We have had a groundless, time-consuming,expensive —both to us and the taxpayers of Weld County— lawsuit filed against us and then dismissed by Weld County, even though we had changed nothing. We were prevented from accessing our own assets for necessary capital expenditures by the accompanying lispendens. Weld County needs to realize the impact of its decisions on citizens,, and to be held accountable for the damage whimsical and inconsistent interpretation and application of the written regulations causes. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance claim to support agriculture, but in practice, agriculture is discouraged, and expensive, tax revenue producing development projects are promoted instead. The ordinances should be plainly written,easily understood, consistently applied,and staff should work WITH the citizen who is trying to use his property in a right and reasonable manner, rather that looking for a"concern" that is not part of the ordinance. Our Recorded Exemption and Subdivision Exemption proposals use existing improvements and divide the land in a reasonable and orderly fashion,within the intent of existing criteria. The proposed subdivision exemption keeps the original two homes on one parcel,and keeps the existing agricultural improvements-barn, shop,corrals, granary, etc.-intact. Your proposal would be difficult to implement within the setbacks, without forfeiting usable existing structures. Your letter states that there is no"NCU" file for the second house,which was built long before there was a Planning Department. Since it is not on record as a non-conforming use, and since , according to the Zoning Ordinance created about 1972, each house must be on its own parcel. then it must already be on its own separate parcel,just like the 40 acres south of the ditch. That 40 Acres has also been a separate parcel since long before the Planning Department existed, even though the parcel was only recently acknowledged by the department Putting it on its own parcel would certainly solve the problem of whether the second house should go on the Subdivision Exemption or on the main parcel. We will be glad to have the parcel surveyed and duly recorded, as we are now doing with the land south of the ditch. There are numerous public records available to you if you wish to research a construction date for the second house. It certainly precedes the Planning Department. Please provide us with your statutory and regulatory authority for asking us to provide "evidence". The apparently questionable state of record keeping in Weld County,and the planners' confusion over what has already occurred, as evidenced by your earlier letter, is not for the citizens to rectify, but rather something that should be dealt with within the Planning Department. We have made repeated and ongoing good faith efforts over the last three years to accomplish a reasonable goal-provide suitable housing for workers on this farm-while working within the guidelines and intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. We intend to continue toward our goal,and we need clear, concise, consistent direction concerning what avenues are open to us and what the requirements are for each one,something which we have not been given to date. Expecting citizens to apply for projects that fall within the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance only to be turned down on a capricious and arbitrary interpretation of the ordinances and their "intent" is a flagrant violation of our rights to substantive and procedural due process. We have already documented a litany of offenses against our civil rights during the course of doing business with Weld County government, and we intend to pursue whatever legal means arc available to us to protect and defend ourselves and our property. Sincerely, ' cc: Bruce Barker Monica Daniels-Mika AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Weld 1, James Enos Dowd, being of lawful age and being first duly sworn, state as follows: 1 That I am principally engaged in the family fanning operation at this location. 2.. That I live at 6747 WCR 19, Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621. _9_6tadg _ 114C-t Subscribed and sworn to me this a►9 _day of December, 1998. My commission expires: /O—( 9- 9O Public AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss County of Weld 1, Elizabeth Wilson, being of lawful age and being first duly sworn, state as follows. 1. That I am principally engaged in the family farming operation at this location. 2. That 1 live at 6767 WCR 19, Fort Lupton, Colorado, 80621. Subscribed and sworn to me this / day of December, 1998. My commission expires: ) 0 l Ct -a0 09\ o Public Certified Mail t! Ill 357 351 6767 WCR 19 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 December31, 1998 Scott Ballstadt, Planner 11 Weld County Planning Dept. Weld County Planning Department 1400 N. 17th Avenue JAN 0 4 1999 Greeley, Colorado 80631 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Ballstadt: We received your letter concerning the documentation for our accessory dwellings. I am enclosing the requested documentation, under protest, first because you are well aware from our conversations and from previously existing documentation, that the people living here are primarily engaged in this fanning operation. Secondly, because it was only "required"after our telephone conversation when I told you that the Recorded Exemption and Subdivision Exemption proposals, as you stated Planning would like to see them, are of absolutely no advantage to us. Finally, the documentation for accessory dwellings has never been "required" from this farm before, since 1980, and is not required currently from all other farmers who have accessory dwellings on their properties. This fact was verified in a telephone conversation with Bruce Barker on December 16, 1998, shortly after your letter arrived. You told me also in the telephone conversation referenced in your letter that Planning would have "concerns" if we applied for a Recorded exemption on the 40+ acre parcel created by the irrigation ditch, which has been in existence since 1915, but which Planning only recently acknowledged. These "concerns" would be that we are trying to circumvent the Subdivision regulations, even though Planning knows that is not the case. The first two houses have been here over 50 years. In 1980, the mobile home accessory dwelling was added. Since then, only one house has been added to each of two parcels which total 240 Acres! Planning has further assurance that we are not trying to circumvent the subdivision requirements, since a minor subdivision on the proposed recorded exemption parcel was one option we discussed, but which Planning did not approve. Last year's planner, Todd Hodges, suggested that we put in a minor subdivision on this site. Planning objected to an additional accessory dwelling at that time, even though stick built accessory dwellings were then allowed by the Ordinance. A similar stick built accessory, Z-PAD 69, had in fact been approved the previous year by the Planning Department, under the same Ordinance. In 1995, when we first contacted them, the Planning Department told us to apply for each accessory dwelling separately., then in 1996, when we applied for the second, asked why we hadn't applied for both together. Every Z-PAD prior 1:o ours had been approved, with very little documentation required., N including multiple stick built and mobile combinations (see Z-PAD 77, spring of 1997). Every other farmer got what they said they needed, without having to prove anything, even in large • multiples (see Z-PADS for Philip Anschutz at Equus and for National Hog Farms). Accessory dwellings on farms. have ALWAYS been approved, based on the farmers' assessments of their needs. If you would like further documentation, see George Baxter's comments on the transcript of the April 30, 1997 hearing before the Weld County Commissioners regarding Z-PAD- 79. In addition, you and I have discussed the possibility of a minor subdivision in the northwest corner of our property-an option you said Planning staff tentatively approves. This again illustrates Planning's awareness that we are not attempting to circumvent any regulation, but rather trying to find a way to accomplish our farm's goals that is agreeable to the current group of planners. Since the Ordinance is written with the intention of allowing people these exemption uses of their property, we believe Planning should attempt to assist people to use the process as written, rather than looking for some interpretation that precludes it. That individual interpretation and assignment of intent leads to inconsistency and unfairness and makes the process burdensome and oppressive. That is not the intent of the Ordinance. Attempting to force us into a land division which will increase our taxes, give us awkward parcels, leave us with an older, 660 square foot dwelling as the main house on the 80+ Acre main parcel, and not give us even one additional building site is an abuse of the process Planning is supposed to be consistently and fairly implementing in Weld County. Our intent is now, and has always been, to provide suitable housing on this family farm for our young adult children, who want to continue the agricultural business we have started, and to raise their families in the country. We have made numerous, varied and ongoing attempts to work with Weld County to that end. We have had numerous letters and calls to Planning and other Weld County government offices go ignored and unanswered. We have been subjected to confusing and conflicting suggestions from different planners. We have been subjected to public humiliation, harassed by unfounded "complaints" investigations, and have been prohibited from a right and reasonable use of our property that was legal and allowed under the ordinances all along, all under color of law. Planning's arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the process of implementing it has further resulted in a substantial loss of opportunity and income for us. We were hindered from getting our agricultural business up and running as we had planned, because some of the people who are crucial to the operation were prevented from living on site. We have had a groundless, time-consuming, expensive --both to us and the taxpayers of Weld County-- lawsuit filed against us and then dismissed by Weld County, even though we had changed nothing. We were prevented from accessing our own assets for necessary capital expenditures by the accompanying lis pendens. Weld County needs to realize the impact of its decisions on citizens, and to be held accountable for the damage whimsical and inconsistent interpretation and application of the written regulations causes. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance claim to support agriculture, but in practice, agriculture is discouraged, and expensive, tax revenue producing development projects are promoted instead. The ordinances should be plainly written, easily understood, consistently applied, and staff should work WITH the citizen who is trying to use his property in a right and reasonable manner, rather that looking for a "concern" that is not part of the ordinance. Our Recorded Exemption and Subdivision Exemption ptoposals use existing improvements and divide the land in a reasonable and orderly fashion, within the intent of existing criteria. The proposed subdivision exemption keeps the original two homes on one parcel, and keeps the existing agricultural improvements-barn, shop, corrals, granary, etc.-intact. Your proposal would be difficult to implement within the setbacks, without forfeiting usable existing structures. Your letter states that there is no "NCU" file for the second house, which was built long before there was a Planning Department. Since it is not on record as a non-conforming use, and since , according to the Zoning Ordinance created about 1972, each house must be on its own parcel, then it must already be on its own separate parcel,just like the 40 acres south of the dutch. That 40 Acres has also been a separate parcel since long before the Planning Department existed, even though the parcel was only recently acknowledged by the department. Putting it on its own parcel would certainly solve the problem of whether the second house should go on the Subdivision Exemption or on the main parcel. We will be glad to have the parcel surveyed and duly recorded, as eve are now doing with the land south of the ditch. There are numerous public records available to you if you wish to research a construction date for the second house. It certainly precedes the Planning Department. Please provide us with your statutory and regulatory authority for asking us to provide "evidence". The apparently questionable state of record keeping in Weld County, and the planners' confusion over what has already occurred, as evidenced by your earlier letter, is not for the citizens to rectify, but rather something that should be dealt with within the Planning Department. We have made repeated and ongoing good faith efforts over the last three years to accomplish a reasonable goal-provide suitable housing for workers on this farm-while working within the guidelines and intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. We intend to continue toward our goal,and we need clear, concise, consistent direction concerning what avenues are open to us and what the requirements are for each one, something which we have not been given to date. Expecting citizens to apply for projects that fall within the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance only to be turned down on a capricious and arbitrary interpretation of the ordinances and their "intent" is a flagrant violation of our rights to substantive and procedural due process. We have already documented a litany of offenses against our civil rights during the course of doing business with Weld County government, and we intend to pursue whatever legal means are available to us to protect and defend ourselves and our property. Sincerely, a cc: Bruce Barker Monica Daniels-Mika AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) ss County of Weld ) 1, James Enos Dowd, being of lawful age and being first duly sworn, state as follows: 1. That I am principally engaged in the family farming operation at this location. 2.. That I live at 6747 WCR 19, Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621. i) Subscribed and sworn to me this a,q day of December, 1998. My commission expires: /U"i 7 -a0 Qa rYGt . �-4691--cc Public AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss County of Weld I, Elizabeth Wilson, being of lawful age and being first duly sworn, state as follows: 1. That I am principally engaged in the family farming operation at this location. 2. That I live at 6767 WCR 19, Fort Lupton, Colorado, 80621. Subscribed and sworn to me this 9 day of December, 1998. My commission expires: 10 - I ct -30 C ota Public pi‘t)t DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT 3559 igimpFAX (970) 352-6312 C.. WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 14100 N 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO October 6, 1998 Elizabeth Wilson 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Ms. Wilson: Thank you for fax received 9/29/98 pertaining to the FRICO ditch. Staff has reviewed the information you have provided with the County Attorney's office. Based on this information it appears that the court ordered a condemnation for the Bull Canal right-of-way and staff has determined that this created two separate legal parcels. Please call me if you have any questions Sincerely, Scott Ballstadt C '1 tp -L Planner II /�(� cc: property research file I in��J 1` 7 (2-file c � AA RL Ce -> \03 J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES ' PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3559 1111 C FAX (970) 352-6312� WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO October 5, 1998 Elizabeth Wilson 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Ms. Wilson: Thank you for fax received 9/29/98. When we originally spoke about your subdivision options, you indicated that you were interested in a minor subdivision on the far west edge of your property and a recorded exemption in conjunction with a subdivision exemption to separate existing improvements on the east side of your property. Your fax now indicates an additional minor subdivision as well as a recorded exemption in conjunction with a subdivision exemption all on the eastern edge of your property. Staff would consider such a proposal an attempt to evade the Subdivision Ordinance. The Weld County Subdivision Ordinance defines urban and non-urban scale development as follows: Non-Urban Scale Development - Developments comprising of five or less residential lots, located in a non-urban area as defined by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, riot adjacent to other PUD's, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors. Non-Urban Scale Development on public water and septic systems shall have a minimum lot size of one (1) acre and an overall density of two and one-half (2-1/2) acres per septic system. Non-Urban Scale Development proposing individual, private wells and septic systems shall have a minimum lot size of two and one-half (2-1/2) acres per lot. Urban Scale Development - Developments exceeding 5 lots and/or located in close proximity to existing PUD's, subdivisions, municipal boundaries, or urban growth corridors and boundaries. �J All urban scale developments shall pave the internal road systems of the development. The minor subdivision process can be used to propose five lots. The additional adjacent recorded exemption and subdivision exemption lots which you are proposing would be considered towards the total lots created, exceeding the five lot maximum. This would necessitate an urban scale PUD proposal and would require urban services to be provided. Additionally, staff cannot recommend approval of an urban scale PUD outside of an urban growth boundary area or an area where urban infrastructure is available. You may, however, propose a five-lot minor subdivision and incorporate the existing structures into the such subdivision. • 6"; Elizabeth Wilson Page 2 I have forwarded your documentation from FRICO to the County Attorney's office for assistance in determining whether or not this constitutes a fee split. I will contact you as soon as I receive a response. Please call me if you have any questions. ; erely, Scott Ballstadt Planner II cc: Monica Daniels-Mika, Planning Director property research file _______ ._. .-r-ot F1L %o- S'—et) 77-- 15,-LJ>AJT eimenkloSisomi -- �,a1 jilt" 1 1 vc- i 303 &4�_J7° 7 /,*/-' i 1 � 'ate t N /tea I /a f +5e C :- _ . . _ rr - --._..._ ___ -_ _ _ _ _ f ter i6 F i II. Si-d \ ' d • 1111 ' ` •llil11ll - II1 . i , , . 1; 11 :ili i ; HIM 11 ; 11 III Iii . Ir + , f`t I i WWII I • 1 I ii I ' I ` 1111 111ii1)tk'If" I lli 1 ^ i 1l ' ' I I � II II 1 ir1114 1 � `I ' ri • I II f { I: IIIii . illjiII i I ii ! ill r r1 ` , , Ill � i � l � ill. � i � ' ' 1 ' 11• 111 Iri iIsIIbwyi � 1ii ! itiI IIi • , t 11 II : . i 1 1 it I 1 ' II 11111 ! 11 ( 1 ' 1 ' "' " • i + 1 ' • III : lllI . �-c i I I ! i i r --" c C r C-INLC J i • � , - D G' 2 5$. C` s... E0 '4 • LL098% 'ON XU3 00Iti.A WV DD:00<•-•nHd 88-02-00V 09/29/98 14:48 TX/RX NO.2614 P.001 . J /LJ/ ' ,Q ♦J. 4b JOJUJJOi, WILL CULM:KY Ku- HAGF_ N7 R THE FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY 60 South 27th Ara•!riohta .CO 80601 tetaphmW 30311.6ffi•7373•MX 303-694077 C O TELECOPICR TRANSMISSION FAX 1303) 659-6077 TO. 54 201". 4,) -- FROM' �icR i a o ` se. A/a., ,33-eay- to7 DATEt .44.20/Qr DOCUMENT SENT TO FAX NUMBER. 73 3- 0701 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE : ,3 PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT' NO YES It any problems occur with reception or not all pages in this transmission are received, please call ( 303) 659-7373 and ask for �4�Yi-4•L�y COMMENTS' (� 4 Ad.�! f- !!r+ J.22(_•-• A� •-.264 4; -fsa n :J 1InOCCO VWJ nntua IlI an.an Awl aa-n?-mu 09/29/98 14:48 TX/RX N0.2614 P.002 WILL/ I.UUNI KY KUb' PAtiE U3 ( L ) KNOT ALL MEN BY TENSE PRESENTS, That for and in consideration of the payment to ma of the sum of rive Hundred Ninety-three Dollars and Twenty-seven Cents r$698.E7), the receipt whereof is hereby ao)mowledged, ' I, L. K. MUN+PORD do hereby release and dieoharge THE rinwaR3 RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY and AIZIld SHAW, as Reoeiver of Sala Co�pa Y: row any awned)all claims and (� I,� dedhanda of every kin taoe r�"eadtparlioa nier�]y to i VPAvls�'l' `Yb any claims or demands arising out of or in any way in- • oident to that osrtain condemnation snit in the District Court of Weld County, Colorado, entitled "The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company v. L. A. Mulford," No. 2664, end I do hereby aoknowledge settlement and. satisfaction in full of said condemnation suit and of any °lairs or demands which I may have or assert, or ever have had or asserted relating to any alleged un- lawful °coupanoy or p ion of the premises involved in said condemnation suit by the said The Farmers Reser- voir and Irrigation Company or its Reoeiver at any time . IN WITNESS WHIIEOP, 2 have hereunto set my hand and seal this 16th day of Pebruary . 1917. alb (=AL) iv 1 A I)mum nu WH4 Mlua uu Cb.on nut oR_flJ_Mu 09/29/98 14 :48 TX/RX NO.2614 P.003 �ykx 7 v( e' v awlekl i .M "4. M 4 fyS4' 4 Y -st .. hn ;' c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (970)353-6100, 0(T.3559 Wil I g(r . FAX (970) 352-6312 ' WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES �. N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY'Y', COLORADO 80631 COLORADO August 7, 1998 Elizabeth Wilson 6767 WCR 19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Part of the N1/2 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th PM Dear Ms. Wilson: This letter is intended to follow up on our conversation of August 6, 1998. Enclosed please find copies of the Recorded Exemption and Subdivision Exemption procedural guides which outline the appropriate County processes. If you are able to locate a deed for the FRICO ditch right-of-way, I would be glad to take it to a staff meeting to determine whether or not that portion of your property is a separate, legal parcel. You should be aware that by sending you these documents the Department of Planning Services is not guaranteeing approval of these applications. Once you have completed the application materials, including required attachments, I will review them to verify that:they are in order. Please call me if you have any questions. + SAO Sincerely, Via • SesWcaZ4ilar--' t Scott Ballstadt • ti Planner II . cc: property research file 4 V From: SCOTT BALLSTADT To: CENTDOMAIN.CENTPOST(LMORRISON) Date: 10/6/98 6 : 58am Subject: Liz Wilson -Reply -Reply thanks - i agree >>> LEE MORRISON 10/05/98 04 :54pm >>> I reviewed the receipt from FRICO and it is sketchy but it does appear to indicate that the court ordered a condemnation for the Bull Canal right of way and the money was paid by the ditch company and, therefore two lots were created Lee >>> SCOTT BALLSTADT 10/04/98 04:29pm >v> i am putting a fax from ms wilson in the mail for monday - the fax is from FRICO and ms wilson wants staff to consider this a fee split - it is not a recorded document but it appears as if the ditch company condemned the property in 1917 - i told ms wilson i would get back to her C ALL Nis , kN)!LS ON) — v "PP-e-fito>1 FIELD CHECK inspection date: I /,z� I q9 CASE NUMBER: p /S� 75.7 , APPLICANT: W uLO1.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: r12 33'z '4A1 0E41 LOCATION: of and adjacent to Weld County Road G9 4' 4,6114 c d' 1&4\ To W ' -iL≤ Zoning Land Use N A (Agricultural) N � ; IDQ.\<1.kL E A (Agricultural) E Av S A (Agricultural) S A 5 W A (Agricultural) W A£ COMMENTS: H CX16(INlC Nt C5 R"\-1 et A( A BU)c47 CS--04-V71-AJY Scott Ballstadt, Planner II k-kOUl 6(uSN1 ( OI\G �'likiQ .`GP/k(ZArs [S 4D CI-C.4 Hello