HomeMy WebLinkAbout991512.tiff 99CV572
TRANSCRIPT
MAY 10 , 1999
RE 2430 - WILLIAM SCHNEIDER
991512
BEFORE THE BCARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCERPT OF MEETING CONDUCTED MAY 10, 1999
RE: CONSIDER REVIEW OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RECORDED EXEMPTION #2430 - SCHNEIDER
APPEARANC ES
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
DALE K. HALL, CHAIR
BARBARA J. KIRKMEYER, PRO-TEM
GEORGE E. BAXTER
M J. GEILE
GLENN VAAD
OTHER COUNTY STAFF:
BRUCE BARKER, COUNTY ATTORNEY
JULIE CHESTER, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
MONICA MIKA-DANIELS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES
APPLICANT:
WILLIAM (JACK) SCHNEIDER
ALSO PRESENT:
JACQUELINE JOHNSON, ATTORNEY FOR JAMES MILLER
JAMES MILLER
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4 CHAIR HALL: Under Planning, Item #1 is Consider Recorded Exemption
5 #2430.
6
7 JULIE CHESTER: Good morning, Julie Chester, Department of Planning
8 Services. This request for Recorded Exemption, RE2430, is located in part of the SE1/4 of
9 Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.. in Weld County, Colorado. It's
10 west of and adjacent to Weld County Road 35 and approximately half a mile up from Weld
11 County Road 394. LaSalle is to the east, approximately (inaudible) miles. Basically,just to give
12 you a little bit of background, staff did approve this Recorded Exemption on March 25, 1999.
13 There were Conditions of Approval that staff put on this, put on the Recorded Exemption.
14 Basically, originally, the applicant requested a shared access and a road that would follow along
15 the Union Ditch and staff decided there was an existing road down along the railroad. down here,
16 with a crossing that this lot over here could access. Unfortunately, that was a Condition of
17 Approval and the applicant has not been able to meet that Condition. The property is owned by
18 another landowner, and he could not get it approved by that landowner to cross his property. So
19 he is requesting to use the 30-foot access that was originally applied for. Also,just to kind of let
20 you know what's happened here, the little triangle, or rectangled piece was one acre, which is
21 kind of along the railroad right-of-way. Right here. This is west and, ah, a one-acre parcel which
22 the staff deemed a Subdivision Exemption was changed to equal two and one-half to three acres.
2
1 It now looks like this. But without the Recorded Exemption, Mr. Schneider does have two lots,
2 the SE lot and the other parcel. So that the Recorded Exemption actually, you see, is creating Lot
3 A and Lot B, this is Lot A and this is Lot B, and all that we're asking today is that you look at
4 that Condition of Approval that has to do with the 30-foot road. Mr. Schneider, also, what I
5 handed out to you is the agreement that he has come to with the Union Ditch Company, and he
6 has met all his other Conditions of Approval except for just this one. So, I guess, I could just
7 open it up for questions at this time.
8
9 CHAIR HALL: And again, the road easement is being proposed
p p ed for that
10 little, there's a little dashed line, or dotted line, in there, is that where it is?
11
12 JULIE CHESTER: It's what he actually proposed to begin with. To
13 share this access right here off of Weld County Road 35, have a vertical access down along the
14 ditch back to his other property. That's what was originally proposed. Actually, Public Works
15 approved that, and that's what he's asking for again. The reason for the staff was that'the road
16 would not fit through this piece right here, and Mr. Schneider has given a letter from Jay Freese
17 who went out and surveyed it, and it. there is a letter in your packet that states that a road will lit
18 through there and have plenty of room for a 30-foot road.
19
20 CHAIR HALL: And what you passed out before the, or at the beginning
21 of the hearing, was an agreement with the Union Ditch?
22
3
1 JULIE CHESTER: Yes.
2
3 CHAIR HALL: To allow that to happen?
4
5 JULIE CHESTER: Yes.
6
7 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Is the
8 applicant present? If they'd like to come to the microphone and state your name and address for
9 the record, and any comments you'd like to make.
10
11 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: My name is Jack Schneider, it's also William
12 Schneider but, I think Julie has actually stated everything of the process that we've gone through.
13 I think, it would, attempted to access the lot as historically was always done, the back lot,
14 through the neighbor's property, but I was unable to get that permission, he says a letter is
15 coming from his attorney, but I've been waiting for about three weeks to get that and still have
16 not received anythi.lg. So, I think, as far as I'm concerned I'd better access and have control of
17 my own property, anyway, so, I'd prefer we go ahead and put that road through and I think it
18 makes a lot more sense to be able to (inaudible)property.
19
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make sure what
21 we're hearing today. Are we hearing the Recorded Exemption or are we hearing the
22 modification to the Recorded Exemption? What are we hearing today?
4
1 BRUCE BARKER: You're hearing the request on the modification of the
2 Condition of the Recorded Exemption.
3
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay. Mr. Schneider, #4 in the agreement that
5 you have with the ditch company, it says, "In an effort to maintain the integrity." and I just, if I
6 could maybe get a (inaudible) is, there, a point of clarification as thr as what you mean by the
7 integrity of the lard? Have you talked about this roadway, "In an effort to maintain the
8 agricultural integrity of the land, the landowner further agrees to put a deed restriction on this
9 land, that states there will be no further subdividing of this land into smaller parcels unless
10 annexed into a municipality." Could you give me some understanding of what that means?
11
12 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: The lot sizes on this are two and one-half acres
13 for the Lot A and the SE, and the larger lot would be about 14 acres. And, ah, I don't have any
14 irrigation water with this property. So, rather than to, you know, have this in five years, ten years
15 1 guess it is now, to, ah, be eligible for another subdivision. I would think that, ah, these lots as
16 they are, are sufficient for, well the time being until the, ah, you know, the city comes out to this
17 point and annexes and then, you know, I think that maybe you could, further subdivide it, but
18 right now to maintain this on agriculture. It is (inaudible) we can put pasture there and maintain
19 that but we can't ar.y real intensive agriculture.
20
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The reason I asked the question is because,
22 and I would have to refer this to our counsel, I assume this agreement, if you were to sell the
5
1 property, Mr. Schneider, this agreement would transfer with the land.
2
3 BRUCE BARKER: I think it would.
4
5 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So it would have to be, have to be disclosed to
6 any future purchaser that this agreement is in effect and does have that particular limitation on it?
7
8 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: That's correct. It would have to be, that's how,
9 pass it on down.
10
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Could be in perpetuity, Jack.
12
13 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: It could be. But if, that's okay, I think, you
14 know,
15
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Just wanted to make sure you were okay.
17
18 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: I understand that and I think it's okay, you
19 know, these parcels are, I think of sufficient size to be able to have a home and some pasture
20 ground and
21
22 BRUCE BARKER: Paragraph 6 of this agreement says that it's binding
6
1 upon the parties and their respective heirs and assigns, I suppose that's going to be the, ah, Mr.
2 Schneider and his heirs and assigns. The thing is, if he sells off the properties, the deed
3 restriction, apparently, pursuant to paragraph 4 would be, the restriction that would be, I guess,
4 enforceable by the heirs or assigns at a later date. So I think the way it was intended to work
5 From what I can read here.
6
7 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: Intended to work., by itself, (inaudible) it goes
8 with the land and h, the assigns, whoever I assign the property to.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: So the question before us is the, looking at Condition
11 #2B? Is that correct?
12
13 JULIE CHESTER: Yes, that's correct. Ah, what we would. what we're
14 requesting be taken out is where it says, "Lot B shall obtain it's own access south of the Union
15 Pacific Railroad right-of-way and not utilize the joint access across Lot A." What we're
16 requesting is that the first sentence says, "A 30-foot wide joint access easement extending across
17 SE-758 from Weld County Road 335, for the benefit of both Lots A and B."
18
19 CHAIR HALL: Questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
20 This is a public hearing, is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this matter?
21
22 JACQUELINE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, Jacqueline Johnson, 822 7'h
7
1 Street, Greeley, Cclorado. We are here to speak to you about this application and road. You've
2 indicated that it is just this one issue about the road, we do have additional information we think
3 is important. As you know, your process of having staff approval precludes any interested people
4 who wish to have input into this from doing so. And so we (inaudible) ask your forbearance this
5 morning to give us an opportunity to speak to you about the difficulties that Mr. Miller faces with
6 this land, as well as the questions we have about the consistency of this approval with what this
7 Commissiion and what Planning staff has done in the past. Based upon my experience both as a
8 Commissioner and in representing applicants before the Planning staff, it is my understanding
9 that in general, the Planning staff and Commissioners do not look with favor upon long access
10 roads, (inaudible) roads, if you will. They do not look with favor upon property is of this size
11 without having irrigation water, in addition, that they do not look upon, with favor upon property
12 that has foreseeable problems. Ah, difficulties. The difficulties with this property, in addition to
13 the two that I have mentioned, include that it is bordered on one side a ditch and on the other by a
14 railroad track and immediately to the east is a large feedlot, which Mr. Miller is going to address
15 to you. Additionally, and I'm going to provide to you copies of the district water is not going to
16 be available, readily available on this land. We have a letter here from the Central Weld County
17 Water District indicating that a new pipeline, a new 80-inch pipeline, three miles, would be
18 required before this piece of property can be served, and I think it's unlikely that there will be any
19 water on this property unless Mr. Schneider is able to provide that, because their policy of the
20 district, as you'll see in here, is that the new growth pays for the development. I would like to
21 hand that out to you today with a map. Mr. Barker, i'll give you the original. I'm going to let
22 Mr. Miller speak to you about the problems with the feedlot and the affect on his agricultural
8
1 operation. I do urge you to consider all the difficulties that this particular property is facing.
2 What we came, what we started with, was a single building site and now, if you approve this,
3 created three building sites, and ah, if I recall, your Minor Subdivision is somewhere in that
4 process, ah. It just doesn't make sense, we've (inaudible) and asked to present this bit of, this
5 particular plan to the Planning staff, as I said you don't get a chance, because it just is not in
6 compliance with all of the principles that you apparently have adopted and followed over the
7 years. So,with that, I will ask Mr. Miller to talk to you about the effect of this on his particular
8 operation and his particular concerns. And then either will be happy to answer questions.
9
10 JAMES MILLER: Thank you very much. Good morning. I apologize
11
12 CHAIR HALL: I need to have you give a name and address fix the
13 record, please.
14
15 JAMES MILLER: James D. Miller, 23402 Weld County Road 35.
16
17 CHAIR HALL: Thank you very much.
18
19 JAMES MILLER: Thank you. I apologize for reading my comments, but
20 I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to express our deep concerns about the future of our
21 business. We're in the cattle feeding business and have been in this location of 23360 Weld
22 County Road, since 1965. If you don't mind me pointing, I'll show you where the feedlot is
9
1 located. The feedlot property owns this right across the road, the main feedlot takes in this
2 section right here. We feed approximately 50,000 cattle a year. We feel like we are good
3 caretakers and work hard to be good citizens in the LaSalle area. We have approximately 40
4 employees and purchase approximately $12 million worth of feed a year from the area. We try
5 very hard to keep a clean feed yard and we've had two complaints over the past thirty plus years.
6 I feel that there are a number of reasons why we've had two complaints, but a couple of those are
7 being threatened al this point. One is our immediate neighbors have always farmed. That's
8 being questioned. We have had an honest relationship with all our immediate neighbors. We
9 feel like that could be threatened. With this, Mr. Schneider's development moving in
10 immediately across the road from our feedlot, I can see all this changing. I can see the eventual
11 closing of not only a business, but it's been my way of raising my families and 40 employees
12 families. (Inaudible) provided a market for area farmers for corn, their hay, their wheat, the corn
13 silage, and many other products. (Inaudible) we have purchased more than $12 million worth of
14 feed from local farmers. Now, I'm fully aware that Weld County is becoming urbanized, but,
15 businesses such as ours will be eventually squeezed out. But with all the less productive land
16 that lays close to a town or close to other subdivisions, it just ain't being fair to allow such a
17 development to be built on such good farming land next to a large feedlot. Now, Mr. Schneider
18 will tell you that the land is not very productive. Well, I'm here to tell you it's very high
19 producing ground. [ can produce the records of it's productivity if you'd care to see them. Last
20 year alone, it produced over three ton acre of alfalfa, hay, per acre. For whatever reason, Mr.
21 Schneider did not purchase any irrigation water when he purchased the property. I know that on
22 this very, very, sandy soil, in our area without irrigation water there is no way to control the weed
10
1 growth or, in a yea:or two, it will be blowing sand. I have lived with sandy soil for 35 years and
2 I can tell you that without irrigation water, it's a desert of blowing sand. I don't understand why
3 he did not purchase water with the property, and I don't understand how the Planning
4 Commissioners allowed him to develop a piece of property without irrigation water, but Mr.
5 Schneider will tell you that they've purchased tap water from Central Weld County Water
6 District, I'm here to tell you that, and you know, no one can afford to irrigate with expensive tap
7 water. He has no other water on the land and I think the land needs to go back to agriculture.
8 I think that I spoke to all the neighbors. I've talked with close to everyone
9 in the area, and not found one that feels this project is good for our area. The one immediately
10 north of Mr. Schneider's property, LaSalle Trout Farm, which has been in business over 40 years.
11 They are very opposed to the project because the various problems that a development like this
12 can cause in a year-round stream in their trout production. To the south, the higher productive
13 farms which is so opposed to the project they will not grant Mr. Schneider easement to get access
14 to the back part of his property. To the west is also a high productive farmland that is owned by
15 a family that I've talked with, they're totally opposed to the project. We're on the east side of
16 Mr. Schneider's project and I've already explained our concerns about the project. As it was
17 stated earlier, the Union Pacific Railroad runs directly on the south side. I would suggest to you
18 that, I don't know this to be true, but I would suggest that probably no one from the Planning
19 Commission has ever gone over the property and talked to anyone in the area to see what the
20 problems are with this development at this time. Let me close with a short story from something
21 else this project really concerns me, about this project. When one particular client of the property
22 came out as a prospective buyer, I stopped and visited with this, with them. Some of the things
11
1 they told me really bothered me. Such as, number one, they were told that the feedlot was going
2 to close within the next year. And number two, if it didn't close, there were enough neighbors
3 that would join hi m in getting it closed. I'm not saying for one minute that Mr. Schneider said
4 either of these things, `cause I don't know Mr. Schneider, but the prospective buyers need to
5 know that the feedlot has no intention of closing either now or in the foreseeable future. In
6 closing I feel that it is very unfair to allow good, high productive farmland to be built with homes
7 and eventually closing the market for many farms in the area. Thank you very much and I'd be
8 glad to answer any questions.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: Any questions?
11
12 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I do have, I was interested in. I know
13 there's what, a trout farm north
14
15 JAMES MILLER: Yes.
16
17 COMMISSONER BAXTER: North of your feedlot.
18
19 JAMES MILLER: That's correct.
20
21 COMMISSONER BAXTER: What other houses are along that road?
22
12
1 JAMES MILLER: Down on the Godfrey Bottom, down road 35. below,
2 excuse me for pointing. But, along down through here there are about four or five homes that
3 have gone, ah, two or three that have gone in in recent years, but most of them have been there
4 for a long time. The trout farm property, the trout stream runs right along here. The trout farm is
5 located right here, and then our property runs here.
6
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I had one question,just to understand the
8 letter from the Central Weld Water District. It says water service to the applicant's property is
9 not available, the Hydraulic Model indicates that approximately three to four miles of 8-inch
10 water line would have to be built. How do you get water to your property now?
11
12 JAMES MILLER: Well, I think the problem is, we are short of water, we
13 also run west with our tap water. We use the Central Weld County Water District tap, but in the
14 summertime we're short of water. That's the problem. It's going to need to be expanded. If we
15 would expand, but we had no intention to expand it.
16
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So Central Weld's problem is, is it's ability to
18 deliver water or is i1 a distribution problem, or volume problem or?
19
20 JAMES MILLER: I think a volume problem. It's my understanding,
21 they've said we're going to need to put in a larger line into the area.
22
13
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: And that's what they mean by this eight-inch
2 water line?
3
4 JAMES MILLER: I would guess, I'm not sure. I just know that we're
5 short of water at some times in the summer, and we've asked for it to be, we didn't feel like we
6 were short enough that we couldn't run our well (inaudible), but we would like to have Central
7 Weld County Water all the time, but we do kick our wells on in the summer.
8
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Approximately how far are you from
10 LaSalle, the Town of LaSalle?
11
12 JAMES MILLER: As the crow flies, we are about one and one-half miles
13 to the edge of the feedlot, two miles to the, ah Road 35.
14
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And have you ever had anyone
16 complain about your feedlot?
17
18 JAMES MILLER: Yes, we have had some, I don't want to deny that, it's
19 not been a lot. We've been (inaudible) We have a good sprinkling system, we've worked hard,
20 but I can tell you, Ms. Kirkmeyer, that after eight inches of rain and a breeze coming out of the
21 east, Mr. Schneider's property is not going to smell too good. He'll tell you that, well, Mr. Miller
22 lives right there by il_ I built my home back in the 1960's when the lot first started, `cause I was
14
1 (inaudible) cattle clay and night and that's where I wanted to live. There's no other homes in, the
2 only other home that's close to it, right across the road, is this, that's the motor home that
3 (inaudible) property that we put in there.
4
5 COMMISSONER BAXTER: And your home is right on the property,
6 between the road and this main feedlot, is that right?
7
8 JAMES MILLER: That's correct.
9
10 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I have been there, about ten years ago I
11 hauled wheat into there. Into your lot.
12
13 JAMES MILLER: Yep.
14
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Bruce, I have a question for you. We
16 are only looking at changing a Condition, the staff's already approved it, so is it possible or not
17 possible for the Board to change the approval?
18
19 BRUCE BARKER: I don't think it's possible. There's no procedure set
20 forth in the Ordinance for either an appeal or a change of the decision that's made by the
21 Planning Department with respect to the approval. Section 11.5.1 provides for the Board to hold
22 a public hearing to consider the Recorded Exemption application and take final action if the
15
1 planner has determined that the applicant, or application, has not met the standards of 1 1.4.2.1
2 through 11.4.2.6. I believe that Julie has made the determination previously that all of those
3 Conditions were met. So really the only issue before you today is the Condition that she had
4 placed on the Recorded Exemption as approved, and the request fibr the modification of that.
5
6 COMMISSONER BAXTER: I need to aslc a question to do with that.
7 Now, Plturing staff made their determination that it met the Conditions and you had a Condition
8 that it had to have water. Now, what you received was some type of letter or something that said
9 there was adequate water, I wonder how that fits with the letter from Central Weld that we've
10 received?
11
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We have one Condition that's H.4,
13 just a sec, we're looking at it.
14
15 JULIE CHESTER: And in the letter that Mr. Schneider provided it does
16 say that he has a year from the date of the letter to have a contract with Central Weld, and I'm not
17 sure if he's able to get a well on the property, but he may be able to get a well, also.
18
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But building permits won't be released
20 until he has evidence to the Department of Planning Services that it's sufficient quantity, quality,
21 and dependability?
22
•
16
1 JULIE CHESTER: That's right.
2
3 CHAIR HALL: Wait just a, we're not really yet for you to rebut here.
4
5 JULIE CHESTER: I was going to say ah, we do put that as a note on
6 Sierra so that the front staff knows when a building permit comes in that they need to have proof
7 of water, but that's just a standard procedure anyway, in our department. They have to have
8 proof of water.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Miller, he's
11 standing there very patiently.
12
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I just had one other question. Maybe its, are
14 you, I would assume that this has the Right-to-Farm provision included in it?
15
16 JULIE CHESTER: Yes, we did put that on there. Mainly because we did
17 receive a letter from Jackie Johnson with the concerns about the feedlot being across the street
18 and, normally we do Recorded Exemptions that are adjacent to intensive agricultural uses, this is
19 pretty common to have the Right-to-Farm Covenant put on the plat, so that anybody coming in
20 that would purchase either, any of the lots would know what the Right-to-Farm Covenant does
21 say.
22
17
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: My question is, are you aware that the right-
2 to-farm provision is included within this?
3
4 JAMES MILLER: I'm aware, but also know that(inaudible) I just know
5 that it's (inaudible). It just don't seem fair. I know what's going to happen, the first people may
6 not sue us, the second people may not, but it could happen.
7
8 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions for Mr. Miller? Thank you very
9 much. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter? Seeing no one else, I will
10 close public testimony.
11
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I have a question for Monica, if I, I
13 mean for Julie, if I may. It's for Julie. Monica was just sitting there. Ah, basically, this started
14 off about a 20 plus or minus acres and now- it's into three lots. How did the Subdivision
15 Exemption get in there?
16
17 JULIE CHESTER: Well, the little rectangular piece was already there.
18 That's a parcel that was created and sold to Great Western Sugar and Mr. Schneider might be
19 able to discuss it a little further, but that is a one-acre parcel that was already there. That's a legal
20 lot. And so, what he did was, he just changed the configuration of that lot by the Subdivision
21 Exemption. So there already are two lots there. So that, he's not creating three lots, he's only
22 creating one more lot.
18
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay, all right. The little rectangular
2 piece is, which piece are you talking about, could you go up and point to me again, which piece
3 you're talking about? It started out being the Subdivision Exemption and why?
4
5 JULIE CHESTER: This little rectangular piece right here was a one-acre
6 parcel. And there's no way that he could have put a house on there or anything, but it is a legal,
7 buildable parcel, in Weld County, because of when it was created. Prior to 1972. But because he
8 couldn't meet setbacks, all he did was he requested to change the configuration of the lot through
9 a Subdivision Exemption so that the lot was right here.
10
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And so, in essence, though, he took a
12 lot that wasn't buildable and created a buildable lot with it?
13
14 JULIE CHESTER: That's correct.
15
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And now we're doing a Recorded
17 Exemption, Lots A and B, so we'll have three buildable lots?
18
19 JULIE CHESTER: That's correct. He had a buildable lot before, but he
20 couldn't have met the setback requirements.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: I do apologize, Mr. Schneider, I didn't give you the
19
1 opportunity to rebut anything that was brought up during public testimony, so I'll let you do that
2 right now, then we may have other questions for you.
3
4 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: I don't know, (inaudible) a letter came from the
5 water district. I did, one of the first things I did was I went to Central Weld, paid $60, they did a
6 Hydraulic (inaudible) and provided a letter. What has changed between now and then, I don't
7 know. The other ..hing, the ah, there was never, ever an option to purchase irrigation water. The
8 neighbor to the south controls the wells, there has been an agreement to rent water from him,
9 we'll continue that as long as, you know, work together. Unfortunately, the neighbor to the south
10 is under the influence of Mr. Miller. I don't want to bring all this up, but, he's the reason that the
11 neighbor to the smith is reluctant to given me an easement. And so, anyways, I guess I
12 understand where Mr. Miller is coming from, he would like to protect his business and, you
13 know, but I guess, I think his main concern maybe, his house is directly to the east of this
14 property. And it's not the feedlot he's concerned about, it's more his house. For whatever
15 reason, you know, ;_, you know, we talked earlier, there was never any statement, never. I grew
16 up on an irrigated farm west of Greeley, dairy farm, and I'm not going to put any farmer out of
17 business. The farmers work together with me. I've worked together with all the farmers on the
18 ditch, and worked good and hard with them to make sure, you know, what I was doing and what
19 the farmers were planning to accomplish was what (inaudible). They can continue, as a matter of
20 fact, we improved their situation, they have no access to that ditch, that part of the ditch, they do
21 now. I've been able to work out things, you know, that's where I'm coming from. I'm coming
22 from an agricultural background and I appreciate, ah, Mr. Miller did call me when I first bought
20
1 the property and said well, anything you do there, watch out, you know, (inaudible) And he was
2 honest, and he challenged me and I don't, you know, understand exactly why, but you know, I
3 think we can be better neighbors than that. That's my rebuttal.
4
5 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Just to clarify something. The land that
6 was being farmed, :he whole parcel, was watered with water that was rented from the field to the,
7 farmer to the south?
8
9 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: Yes, he has wells.
10
11 COMMISSONER BAXTER: That's what it was being farmed with?
12
13 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: Yes.
14
15 COMMISSONER BAXTER: It never had any other water? That was it?
16
17 WILLIAM SCLINEIDER: That was that.
18
19 COMMISSONER BAXTER: And you don't, haven't spoken to that
20 farmer, you don't know whether any of that rented water is going to be available for this land if
21 it's needed?
22
21
1 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: It had been in the past and I think as long as I
2 can keep my relationship with that farmer to the south it will be available yet, but it's not
3 guaranteed, so I can't guarantee that. But I think, you know, we've got a good working
4 relationship with him so long as it's (inaudible).
5
6 CHAIR HALL: You have read the letter dated May 7th to Jackie Johnson
7 from Central Weld?
8
9 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: I just received that this morning.
10
11 CHAIR HALL: Do you have any comments on it at all?
12
13 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: I have no idea the origination of this and why, I
14 mean, I have a letter, I guess in my packet where it started from. From my understanding, there
15 is a six-inch line in that road already. I don't understand, (inaudible). I think we might need an
16 eight-inch line somewhere in the area, but I don't, there's a huge line just on the other side of this
17 (inaudible) cuts down to serve Monfort's, so I just, (inaudible) planned ahead for this area. I
18 don't know why (inaudible). I think they did one study and then, they told me yes, they done a
19 hydraulic study on this and yes, there is enough capacity. And I have a right with this letter to
20 purchase those taps up to one year from the issuance of the letter, so I guess they had (inaudible).
21
22 CHAIR HALL: Well, the only question I would have with that statement
22
1 is, it says the taps will be presented provided all requirements of Central Weld are satisfied. Do
2 you know what those requirements are ?
3
4 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: Yes.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Did they give you anything in writing to say what those
7 requirements are?
8
9 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: The requirements are that it's within the, ah,
10 water they use to (inaudible). So it's got to be within the area that the (inaudible) the
11 conservancy district services. And this-is.
12
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: There's a statement in this letter, if I could
14 carry on with the questioning, the engineering company that indicates measured improvements
15 must be completed in the area prior to issuing additional taps. Prior to issuing additional taps. I
16 guess, that almost tells me that there's been a moratorium declared in the area until the
17 distribution facilities can be upgraded to deliver additional water. 'Cause evidently there's a
18 problem of volume, probably.
19
20 WILLIAM SCHNEIDER: Well, all I can tell you is, cause I haven't had a
21 chance to react to this, and find out where this was issued, but they did issue one, I think they
22 would have to stand behind it, saying that they did a study, I actually had to pay money for the
23
1 study, (inaudible) issue it. And they had engineers look at it and say yes, there's enough capacity
2 at this stage, (inaudible) to issue these taps.
3
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I mean, I think we could
5 probably sit here aid argue about the water issue and I'm not sure that the letter says that the.
6 they didn't say that they would issue a tap, they said it can be made available. But, ah, I guess
7 I'm just going to try to bring us back on point here. You know, first of all I would just say that
8 I'm not sure that I would have approved this Recorded Exemption had it come in front of the
9 Board without heating all of the facts, I mean,I don't know if I would have approved it or not
10 approved it. I think Mr. Miller has brought up some very good points that he's concerned about
11 his operation and the more homes that move in around 4n operation, whether it be a feedlot or a
12 dairy operation or whatever, the more chances for problems, and I would agree with that
13 statement. But, frankly, there's nothing I can really do about either approving or not approving
14 the Recorded Exemption, we're here to look at Condition 2.B, and whether or not you can meet it
15 now. Or if we can change it so that you can meet it. And it's an access portion of the road. It
16 looks like it's to a point where he can get access to his property. I mean, it bothers me that you
17 basically, we have a 20-acre lot that gordivided into three buildable sites, but, what are we going
18 to do about it? So it's whether or not the Board wants to approve the change to the condition.
19
20 CHAIR HALL: I guess, you know, the question I would have for staff
21 and probably for Mr. Barker, is if the comments you made earlier about reviewing this as far as
22 the Ordinance is allowing, is that you made the comment that as long as Planning staff felt that
24
1 all conditions could be approved or could be met. And I guess I wonder how that works in there
2 with the question that was brought up today as far as whether there is adequate water supply or of
3 sufficient quality and quantity and dependability. If that changes your thoughts on whether this
4 Board has anything to review or not.
5
6 BRUCE BARKER: . It doesn't. And the reason why is that provision
7 four, the public hearing as to the issuance of the Recorded Exemption, or just granting that
8 Recorded. Exemption only comes about if a Planner has made a determination that those criteria
9 that are set forth in the Ordinance are not enough. It's my understanding that that's been done.
10
11 CHAIR HALL: And what would happen if this were approved and one of
12 those Conditions were not met?
13
14 BRUCE BARKER: Well, that's when you need to go through the
15 Conditions themselves. For example, with the water. If that was not met, that would be
16 Condition H.4. which talks about building permits. Building permits would not be available.
17
18 CHAIR HALL: But it would be a buildable lot without the available
19 building permits.
20
21 BRUCE BARKER: That's correct.
22
25
1 CHAIR HALL: Which seems kind of ironic.
2
3 BRUCE BARKER: That's the issue that we've done quite a bit of
4 discussion on, relative to the availability of water. And I think that the conclusion was that
5 letting the applicant, the ability to secure the water and then have building permits, I mean a
6 restriction being on the building permits phase, satisfies that condition in itself, satisfies the
7 Condition, ah requirement that adequate water be provided, or be available, let's put it that way,
8 available for the Recorded Exemption lots.
9
10 CHAIR HALL: (Inaudible) prior to Recording the plat, adequate water is
11 evidenced?
12
13 BRUCE BARKER: We do because of the fact that the condition, I guess,
14 or requirement is that there be adequate water available. But the issuance of building permits
15 seem to be the tie that was available for putting the condition on there. And the condition in and
16 of itself, the approval with the condition, has been determined to meet the requirements of that
17 section. Of having adequate water available.
18
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Except for, following up on
20 Commissioner Hall's questioning, I thought we had changed this. Where instead of putting as a
21 note on the plat that we did put it in as prior to recording the plat. Because I think I've brought
22 up this concern at least two or three times that we're sitting here dividing up property and we're
26
1 not even assured that they have water. In the other instances it was a well and they didn't even
2 have permits from the engineer, the State Engineer, to get it, to get their well yet. So, if we put it
3 prior to recording the plat, then the property doesn't get divided unless they get the water.
4
5 BRUCE BARKER: And they won't. The information that we received
6 from the Division of Water Resources was that they would not approve the wells unless the
7 Recorded Exemption was approved. So, it's like a Catch-22. That the department and the
8 applicants were getting into where we wouldn't, nothing was happening. And so, the idea was to
9 go ahead and make it such that the requirement came into effect at the building permit stage, and
10 then that, then, gave it to the Division of Water Resources. They, then, were able to issue the
11 well permits. And that's when we were able to go ahead and move forward with those.
12
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But what, still, the issue that now you
14 have a piece of property that's divided and may not be able to get water? And, we talked about
15 this before, and we always left it at prior to, put it on a note on the plat? I mean, I don't know
16 why we can't say as a Condition of Approval it's prior to recording the plat. And they can take
17 that in and show the Recorded Exemption's approved, with conditions. One of them is to get
18 water.
19
20 BRUCE BARKER: We talked to the Division of Water Resources about
21 that and they would not accept that. I think, Monica can probably fill you in a little bit more on
22 details of that, but I know that was a, we did have extensive discussions with the Division about
27
1 that very point.
2
3 COMMISSONER BAXTER: But in that case it was a well, which is a
4 different situation than this. Division of Water Resources don't have anything to do with this.
5
6 CHAIR HALL: Monica, would you like to shed some light?
7
8 MONICA MIKA: Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services.
9 Commissioner Kircmeyer, you're right that that was our preferred route, that saying prior to
10 recording the plat we wanted the Division of Water Resources to sign off on these and they
11 absolutely would not do it. They said that it was in their opinion kind of a waste of time to
12 review cases that weren't approved and they only wanted to look at them after they received
13 county approval. And so that's where we kind of went back to our default option of saying that
14 we have control over the building permits. And it's not our preferred route, and it does make it
15 very difficult because we are at some point creating a lot that may or may not have water,
16 depending if the Division of Water Resources actually follows through. And we've talked to
17 them at least annually about would they please change that, and that's their position statewide.
18
19 CHAIR HALL: I can't understand that, because it is approved, it has
20 been approved by the county.
21
22 MONICA MIKA: Right, but
28
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well can, maybe the way you get
2 around it is, instead of putting it under prior to recording the plat, I still think you need to leave it
3 on as a note on the plat, but there's another Condition that states that if they don't get water, then
4 the property isn't divided.
5
6 BRUCE BARKER: If the plat is recorded, the property is then divided.
7 And that's the problem. I mean, it's either, if you want to put it on at the phase where its on the
8 actual approval, yol can do the approval and then the recording, and it's the recording that is the
9 mechanism for the division of the property. It's actually twofold. It's the approval, then the
10 recording, but the recording is the final action. For the purposes of dividing it. After the plat is
11 recorded then the lots can be deeded off. And, yeah. I understand your position, and that's. as
12 Monica says, that's the preferred route to go, but we couldn't get the Division of Water
13 Resources to budge and then your question, Commissioner Hall, with respect to the fact that this
14 is not one for which there's a plan for having wells, to be consistent with all the other Recorded
15 Exemptions that the department approves on a weekly basis, they put the same Condition in.
16 And a lot of those are for wells and a lot of those are for water that's going to be a tap.
17
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay, but, so in this case, though,
19 that Condition H.4 could be moved up to be a new T, or could be moved up to be it's own H, and
20 numbered I after that, and then it would be prior to recording the plat they'd have to show the
21 evidence of the water. `Cause this isn't a well, so this isn't even going to go through the
22 Division of Water Resources. I understand about your consistency issue, but, this is a different
29
1 case. And, frankly.. I think we should be scheduling a meeting with whoever it is in the Division
2 of Water Resources and get them straightened out. That's ridiculous. I don't like sitting here
3 separating property when there is no assurance of water.
4
5 BRUCE BARKER: The Condition that's, ah, you know, all I can say is
6 the Condition that's before you today is the Condition regarding the easement. And I don't
7 believe that the appeal was, if it is considered to be an appeal, that it's, ah, was the issue is not
8 H.4, 2.H.4.
9
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I understand that, but if the Board
11 doesn't agree to change B, then the Recorded Exemption can't go forward, either.
12
13 BRUCE BARKER: That's correct.
14
15 CHAIR HALL: But it would, it would be a tad bit unfair to change, to
16 work on B with H.4 in mind, I think. But, moving right along, let's see what we can do here. I
17 guess the question before us is the amended portion of 2.B. Since our attorney has indicated that
18 we don't have the ability to renumber Conditions, is that your position, Mr. Barker?
19
20 BRUCE BARKER: That's correct.
21
22 CHAIR HALL: So the question before us is to amend Condition of
30
1 Approval #2.B. Any other questions, comments, statements, motions? Yes, we need to move
2 on.
3
4 COMMISSONER BAXTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, even with the
5 concerns that have been expressed, and there are some, when we look at, actually, at B here and,
6 ah, 1 didn't really get anything from the staff or from our attorney that showed a problem with
7 that access, so, I guess I will go ahead and throw it out and motion, ah, move that we do approve
8 amended B that allows the access through the other property and back to Lot B.
9
10 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I will second.
11
12 CHAIR HALL: Motion by George, second by Glenn to approve the
13 amended language for Condition of Approval 2.B. Do I have any discussion on the motion?
14 Mike.
15
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I don't have any discussion, I did have
17 something that after we're through with this I did want to mention to the applicant.
18
19 CHAIR HALL: If it's not part of the hearing, you could do that after the
20 hearing.
21
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I guess I'd just like to mention it to the
31
1 Board, that I don't know whose going to be, this is a concern I've had of, let's just (inaudible)
2 generically, the real estate community in Weld County, and I think we need to figure out a way to
3 get more of a cooperative spirit in the real estate community to make sure, and maybe even go
4 beyond that with the Colorado State Real Estate Commission, that they get some help in making
5 sure that when we have projects such as this that are approved, that the listing agent or the
6 functioning agent, real estate agent, makes sure that in the real estate transaction or working with
7 any buyers, that it's fully disclosed that the right-to-farm provision of any agreement we have is
8 fully disclosed to the purchaser. And I think that almost needs to be within the real estate
9 contract, in other words, under the additional provisions of the real estate contract, that we see
10 here as #7, write the farm covenant, would be included within the purchase, within the contract
11 to purchase real estate. And I know that we're going past this, to be making a decision on it but I
12 would like to, even though I can't ask the applicant right now, I would assume the applicant will
13 include this in any real estate transactions that come up, and also to ask the County Attorney to
14 do some research and see if we can't be more aggressive, using the word aggressive again,
15 Commissioner,
16
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That's okay.
18
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Be more aggressive with the local real estate
20 board, Board of Realtors, as well as maybe the real estate commission, to see if we can't get
21 some teeth into this, because this seems to be the main issue we're facing day in and day out,
22 with these approvals.
32
1 CHAIR HALL: Further discussion?
2
3 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yeah. Just to explain my second on this, is,
4 as Bruce has pointed out, our decision is based on the changing of this one Condition, that's how
5 the access is created here. It's troubling to me that five and a half months after the first letter
6 from Central Weld, we get another letter that seems to interdict, not seems to interdict, it seems
7 to counter the first letter about whether or not they can provide water. The concern. then, that we
8 preserve Mr. Schneider's right to harvest from his property however he sees that he could do that
9 to his benefit. I see that the problem with the granting of the Recorded Exemption outside of our
10 considering that, but previous commissions have made the decision that that was an efficient way
11 to run it. So, that's what I'm supporting, strictly on the basis that staff has recommended that we
12 change the Condition for the access of the (inaudible).
13
14 CHAIR HALL: Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion. say
15 aye.
16
17 COMMISSIONERS BAXTER, GEILE, KIRKMEYER, AND VAAD:
18 Aye.
19
20 CHAIR HALL: Opposed? Having no other business before us, we are
21 adjourned,.
22
33
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I, CAROL A. HARDING, Deputy Clerk to the Board of County
3 Commissioners and a Notary Public of the State of Colorado, appointed and commissioned by
4 the Secretary of State, do hereby certify-that the foregoing was transcribed from the taped
5 recording of the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on May 10, 1999, which
6 was recorded at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10'" Street, Greeley, Colorado, by
7 Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board; and that the foregoing is an accurate transcript of the
8 proceedings at that time.
9
10 I further certify that I am not related to any party herein or their counsel,
11 and that I am employed as Office Manager in the office of the Weld County Clerk to the Board.
12
Pa,,;f.pv
13 'ft errti,GX ESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
et 10
14 Notarial ea(tl M , �f J ne, 1999.
i� J
15 yeti, e�
t �
16 OF COW' iY��/C ( �d oP
17 AlyComminfon Expires June 8 2002 CAROL A. HARI3F
18 Deputy Clerk to the Board and Notary Public
19
20 My Commission Expires June 8, 2002
21
•
34
Hello