HomeMy WebLinkAbout992950.tiff From: jmfolsom <jmfolsom@ecentral.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 11/18/99 6:53pm
Subject: open space sales tax
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct., Longmont CO 80504 303 833 2992
November 18, 1999
Weld County Board of Commissioners
P O Box 1758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Weld sales tax to preserve farmland and open space
Dear Commissioners:
Below is a copy of a letter to the editor of the Greeley Tribune in
response to an editorial in that newspaper that was critical of the idea
of there being imposed an increase in the sales taxes for the purpose of
funding acquisition of open space and preserving farmland in the County.
We understand that the Commissioners have had discussions relating to
such a tax. We would appreciate your considering the arguments for the
tax put forward in the letter:
*The recent tribune opinion headlined *Farmland tax not necessary* would
have been more informative if it had mentioned what methods might be
implemented to control the disappearance of farmland in Weld County.
Instead of stating that *Another tax is not the only answer*, it would
have been instructive to have presented what some of the other answers
are. The only idea presented in the editorial was to enlist town and
city governments in controlling growth. Considering their growth
control track record it would be like putting the fox in the chicken
coop to preserve the chickens. A perception of the Tribune*s negativism
toward retention of farms or creation of open space is reinforced by its
statement that *Such a diversity of opinion within the county will
likely doom any such proposal -*.
Now let*s take a look at saving farmland and providing open space from
the perspective of the glass being half full and see how we can fill it
to overflowing.
A sales tax for providing funding for conservation easements and open
space is being successfully used in Larimer, Boulder and Jefferson
Counties among others. In Boulder and Larimer the tax amounts to only
1/4 of one cent on each dollar spent. The recent Tribune article
expressed concern for the effects on a farmer having to *shell out* $125
sales tax on a $50,000 piece of equipment are insignificant compared to
the effects he experiences from changes in commodity prices or a hale
storm. If his finances were so precarious he probably would not be able
to finance purchase of the combine. So much for scare tactics.
The article to be constructive could have mentioned that the sales tax
could be structured to include benefits to farmers and small towns out
on the plains by providing for funding for infrastructure, new
businesses, roads, community centers and facilities, and matching funds
J4,
(7 992950
I�I j3
for state and federal grants to help with the needs of their areas, as
well for conservation easements.
The tax could be restricted to only those areas that are under
development pressures!
The tax could exempt the equipment on which it is going be such an
economic burden. Farm equipment is already exempt from state sales tax
and in effect from municipal sales tax since farms typically are outside
city limits.
Passage of such a tax if properly structured would be supported by a
large proportion of Greeley population which only narrowly defeated
recent votes for open space. Together with the support of citizens in
the county under development pressures, this could produce the necessary
majority for passage. Even the commissioners might be induced to give
their support if they sensed a winner.
This sales tax idea is working in other counties and can work for
everyone"s benefit present and future in Weld. We only have to be
positive and imaginative to structure it so it will accomplish that goal
for the benefit of us all.*
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens
John S. Folsom
saletax3.doc
From: jmfolsom <jmfolsom@ecentral.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 12/8/99 4:26am
Subject: Board of Adjustment
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct., Longmont CO 80504
December 7, 1999 .7
Weld Board of County Commissioners '-4
P O Box 1758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Decisions of Board of Adjustment:
Dear Commissioners:
It has come to our attention that the Board of Adjustment has granted a
variance for a sign at the Centennial Bank at Del Camino in spite of the
Dept. of Planning Services recommendation for denial. A variance was
approved even though regulations in County ordinances specifically
prohibiting the design of the sign that had been proposed and now is
erected, as follows:
From the Zoning ordinance:
61 The decision of the Board of Adjustment does not conform with: *The
powers of the Board of Adjustment shall be exercised in harmony with the
intent of the COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE Plan, the intent of the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance, and the public interest.
61.3.2 *Nor may relief be granted when the result of granting the
requested relief is detrimental to the public good or when the relief is
contrary to the purpose and intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.*
From the Mud Plan Ordinance:
2.8.4.1 states: *All signs in development complexes shall be designed
and constructed of materials which harmonize with the architecture of
the site on which the sign is located.* Inspection of the sign and site
will make it apparent that this requirement is not met by the sign. [See
also PUD Ordinance: 6.3.6.5.4].
2.8.4.1 The sign approved on appeal does not conform to any standards
submitted to the County as part of the project application process.
2.8.4.3 The sign does not have the required surrounding landscaping. See
also 6.3.6.5.4.6 of the PUD Ordinance.
If the Final Development Plan did not address approval of the sign it
was faulted and incomplete since 2.8.4[1] states: *Final development
plans shall not be approved until the sign standards have been approved
by the Board and planning staff*. Such being the case, the Final
development plan should be reconsidered and sign approval should revert
to Planning staff and the Board and therefor not be appealable to the
BOA. Permitted sign design would have to be accepted as a condition of
approval by the developer [and as a consequence by lot purchasers]. The
same argument applies to 6.3.6 - PUD Change of Zone, Development Guide
Requirements, Proposed Signage.
From the Zoning Ordinance:
�U /I A9
There is no question about the sign directly illuminated - despite the
prohibition of 42.1.2 that: * Lighting of signs shall be by indirect
illumination only*. [See 42.3 for C and I district cross reference.]
There were previous to this BOA decision already four other signs at the
site. 42.1.1 states: *one identification sign per principal USE ...*. An
additional sign should not have been permitted as per this section nor
under 42.3.3.1 which relating to signs states: Maximum number per
LOT...two [2]*.
This sign is less than 500 feet from existing signs despite 42.3.2.5
stating: Minimum spacing between signs...500 [500] feet*.
42.4.1.1 states: *Mechanical or electric appurtenances which are
obviously designed just to compel attention* are prohibited. The moving
lighted display on the sign is electric; an appurtenance is defined
[Webster] as: *that which belongs to something else, the moving lighting
is incontestably a part of the sign and the movement and changing of the
display serves no other purpose than to compel attention to an
advertising rather than an identification use. See also 2.8.2[5][C].
See also 6.3.6.6.3 of the PUD Ordinance.
A description of the sign does not appear in the Site Plan Review plan.
The following is taken from the minutes of the Weld County Board of
Adjustment meeting of 10/28/99: The assistant county attorney stated
that the BOA decision should be decide on the correctness of the
Planning Department*s definition of the two ordinances, which woud
appear to mean under the controlling sections 42.4.1.1[Z] and 2.8.2[5C]
of the ordinances. We feel that there are many other ordinance sections
that should have been considered, as here stated, on which to make a
determination on the appeal.
From the PUD Ordinance:
6.3.6.5.1 This type of sign should have been specifically submitted
under this paragraph requiring a statement of*proposed signage* as part
of the site plan.
Based on the above arguments it is apparent the BOA decision for the
appellant ignored many definitive, clear, objective, incontestable
restrictions imposed on signs by the Zoning, PUD and MUD Ordinances
which were not subject to interpretation.
Finally, the approval of a variance permitting such a sign sets a
precedent that may have to followed in subsequent sign applications.
Such approval brings into question the strength of intent of the County
to enforce its ordinances.
In an area already with an overwhelming profusion of signs, this one
will only further compel attention and confuse and distract drivers
from safe operation of their vehicles.
Clearly, there are questions whether the Board of Adjustment has
performed its duties in conformance with various governing ordinances as
stated above in approving the variance and its jurisdiction of appeal in
considering this case.
The point of this letter, whether or not you agree with the arguments
put forth as to the correctness or jurisdiction of the BOA in this
matter, is that the decisions of the BOA are not subject to review or
appeal except in the courts. In all other matters handled by County
departments and commissions their acts are subject to review by the
Board of County Commissioners. We would suggest that the Board consider
this unique lack of review requirements and its possible consequences,
and consider implementing a procedure to insure that any ill considered
decisions of the BOA may be countermanded by the Board if in its
judgment they so be.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens
John S. Folsom bdadjust.doc
7-
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
52 Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
December 7, 1999
Randy Bangert, City& County Editor
Greeely Tribune
Dear Randy:
This letter is in response to the rather idyllic Greeley Tribune "tribuneopinion" article
"Setting aside land benefits all". Amen to this goal. The example cited in the editorial was
that of the generous donation of a conservation easement to the county on less than 12
acres of land [not to detract from this largess, the donor has also obtained county
permission to develop lots and for mining to the east of this land]. This represents one
method of preserving undeveloped land Weld County areas experiencing urban growth.
However, it is doubtful that donations of conservation easements are going to be very
significant in obtaining the amount of land necessary to preserve some of the heritage,
character and quality of life of this part of the County. Even with the tax breaks that the
grantor receives as a consequence of such donations. Even with another bill in the
legilature this session that will offer additional credits. Even with the, at this time vague,
proposals by the Governor for another "Smart Growth" program involving some land
preservation inducements.
What is needed is compensation to the grantor of conservation easements or sellers of land
for open space that will reflect the value of withdrawing the land from development. Most
land owners, typically farmers, are not in a financial position to "give" land for
preservation or are philosophically inclined to do so. One method of providing sufficient
funds to acquire easements or open space land is through a minimal regional sales tax or
Countywide sales tax that would provide benefits for all parts of the County whether
experiencing urbanization pressures or not. This is a method successfully employed in
many regional counties and municpalities. Even the little town of Frederick has voted for
an open space sales tax.
The Greeley Tribune, in its editiorial "Farmland tax not necessary" is opposing such a tax
[see letter attached]. It is to be hoped that now that the Tribune is coming out for
preservation of open space it will reconsider its previous stand on a regional sales tax. Be
aware that the County does have an Open Space plan which was developed at
considerable cost. Unfortunately, county government has not found the politcial will to
enact it into an ordinance.
Very truly yours,
John S. Folsom
�. c ' GC
eidtafriitn4, LA_
irj-Yto - /3- 99
Hello