HomeMy WebLinkAbout971726.tifffro 1%i
COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO)
ss
COUNTY OF WELD )
I, Donald D. Warden, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the
County of Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the attached transcript is a true
and correct copy of an excerpt of the regular meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, held on June 4, 1997, concerning the Request fora Zoning Permit for a
Mobile Home (#20559).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
County at Greeley, Colorado, this 31st day of July, 1997.
,0,4,a71
CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY:
t.
EP TY LERK T• TH
971726
l�< /010$
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXCERPT OF MEETING CONDUCTED JUNE 4, 1997
RE: ZONING PERMIT FOR MOBILE HOME (ZPMH) #2059 - RAFF
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
GEORGE E. BAXTER, CHAIR
CONSTANCE L. HARBERT, PRO-TEM
BARBARA J. KIRKMEYER
W.H. WEBSTER
EXCUSED COMMISSIONER:
DALE K. HALL
OTHER COUNTY STAFF PRESENT:
BRUCE T. BARKER, COUNTY ATTORNEY
KERRI KEITHLEY, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
ED STONER, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
ALSO PRESENT:
DR. NANCY RAFF, APPLICANT
DONNA HANES
SUZANNE CORE, HANES ATTORNEY
ROBERT CARR
1 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEDINGS
2
3 MS. KEITHLEY: Kerri Keithley, Department of Planning
4 Services. This is a request today from Nancy Raff, the applicant,
5 and Elaine Binder, the owner of a parcel on Lot B of RE #712. They
6 are requesting to have a mobile home to be used as a principal
7 dwelling at the site. The parcel size is approximately 139 acres,
8 or actually 138 acres. And it is part of a Recorded Exemption.
9 The applicant has submitted, prior to this hearing, a petition of
10 signatures containing 50 percent of the surrounding property owners
11 within 500 feet. Today I did receive at the start of the hearing
12 two additional signatures for this request which does actually make
13 the signature petition list go to 80 percent. On the site
14 currently, the mobile home does sit on the property. It is being
15 inhabited by the applicant. Also on the site is a stick -built
16 house, it's an old farmhouse that does look like that it had
17 recently been lived in. There is also a shed -like structure, which
18 actually does appear to have been lived in, as well. On the site,
19 well this shed actually does present a health problem and it is
20 abatable. We do have Conditions of Approval to cover the shed
21 structure and the house, the stick -built house. There is also, on
22 the north portion of the property, a non-commercial junkyard. We
2
23 also have included in your packet Conditions of Approval to address
24 the removal of the junkyard. Other structures on the property are
25 corrals and many agriculturally exempt buildings. The Department
26 of Planning Services does recommend approval of this request with
27 the Conditions of Approval and developments, or just the Conditions
28 of Approval attached in your packet. We do feel that this request
29 is in compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the Weld
30 County Comprehensive Plan. The applicant does plan on turning this
31 existing stick -built house into storage, a storage facility, and to
32 remove the shed -like structure. The applicant is here today to
33 address any questions that you may have. At this time I can also
34 answer any questions.
35 CHAIR BAXTER: Does the Board have any questions of Staff?
36 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It might be even more appropriate for
37 the Health Department to answer it, but I was noticing the referral
38 from the Health Department that they were encouraging that the
39 applicant designate an appropriate area for a replacement septic
40 system, and I didn't notice that on any approval condition.
41 MS. KEITHLEY: Normally, what we get from the Health
42 Department is on lot acre sizes that are actually around 2 acres
43 that they request that, due to the build -out of the lot, that the
44 applicant go ahead and place a designated area in the event that
3
45 the septic system fails. However on this parcel of 138 acres, we
46 felt that there was adequate room for a replacement area, and
47 that's something that we would encourage; however, as we do not
48 actually record a plat in this we did not feel it appropriate for
49 them to designate on the map the area.
50 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Thanks.
51 CHAIR BAXTER: Any questions? I have a question of Ed, I
52 guess. I haven't had a chance to read the, are you comfortable
53 with what's down as far as abating the house and taking care of the
54 building or the shed of the house, the things like that that you'll
55
MR. STONER: Ed Stoner, Department of Planning Services.
56 Yeah, Kerri and I have both discussed this. We both went to the
57 site at the same time and the Department is real comfortable with
58 the stipulations and the Conditions of Approval.
59 CHAIR BAXTER: Okay. I guess if there's no other questions
60 right now, would the applicant or their representative please come
61 to the mike and give your name and address for the record and
62 whatever comments you might have.
63 DR. RAFF: My name is Dr. Nancy Raff and my husband is Sean
64 Raff. The address is 17171 Weld County Road 22 in Fort Lupton, zip
65 code 80621. And we are asking for approval of the zoning permit
66 for the mobile home. It is our intention, when I originally spoke
4
67 with Kerri in the Planning Department a couple of months ago, it
68 was under her advisement that we zone this as a permanent residence
69 due to the fact that we are going to be getting the dairy operation
70 going and it would take considerable time and expense to get that
71 operation running and so we decided to zone it as a permanent
72 residence although we do have plans to build a new home; whether it
73 be a stick -built or brick home, whatever it might be, but a
74 permanent home, on the existing property and then we wouldn't have
75 a need for the mobile home. But we wouldn't be able to do that
76 within the 18 months time frame which is what you would have to
77 comply with, I guess, for a temporary permit for the mobile home.
78 So we are applying for a permanent residence for the zoning for
79 that. Any questions?
80 CHAIR BAXTER: I had a question, just as a clarification. The
81 problem with, obviously you tried to get 70 percent of the
82 surrounding land owners to sign; and you only had 50, apparently
83 with the 2 you've got you have more than that now. Is the problem
84 getting a hold of them or was there opposition or what?
85 DR. RAFF: We originally had the 70 percent, we didn't realize
86 we left off one name. When I went to the administration office,
87 they didn't tell me I forgot that name. So we went back and we got
88 that signature that was Mr. Miller. Mr. Silva was approached by a
5
89 neighbor, Donna Hanes, who convinced him the night before this was
90 to go before the Planning Board and be approved, to recant his
91 signature. He later realized that she had mis-informed him of the
92 circumstances and he wished to re -submit his signature for approval
93 at that time.
94
95 CHAIR BAXTER: I was just curious more than anything. You had
96 a question?
97 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, there are seven Conditions of
98 Approval here. Did you have any comment or concern about any of
99 those, or would you accept those?
100 DR. RAFF: We intend to comply with whatever the Planning
101 Commission, the inspectors, recommend for health and safety
102 concerns, so whatever they recommend we intend to comply with.
103 CHAIR BAXTER: You have read these?
104 DR. RAFF: Yes we have a copy.
105 CHAIR BAXTER: Other questions? If not, thank you. Is there
106 anyone in the audience who would like to speak either for or
107 against this? If you would come to the microphone please. Give
' 108 your name and address for the record, if you would.
109 MS. HANES: Donna Hanes, 17151 Weld County Road 22. I'm
110 the property owner immediately next door to the dairy farm. I have
6
111 Mr. Silva's recanting that permission to going along with the
112 change of the use permit. I'd like the Board to consider that
113 being the property owner next door that there is an existing farm
114 house on the property that has been in existence for over 90 years
115 and I feel that turning this structure into a storage facility
116 would depreciate the value of not only my property, but the farm
117 property itself. And I'd like to point out that I've had an
118 appraisal done on my property and it was the appraiser's
119 recommendation that's on the second page that if this stick
120 building next door is turned into a storage facility and the mobile
121 home is allowed to become the principal dwelling, that it would
122 decrease the property value not only of that property but my
123 property also.
124 CHAIR BAXTER: Did you have something else?
125 MS. HANES: Yes. I also have a real estate broker from the
126 Brighton area who is familiar with the property and he feels the
127 same way that if the stick building is allowed to be turned into a
128 storage facility, that again, it would decrease the value of my
129 property and the farm itself. And I'd like to point out to the
130 Board that this farm house has been in use for over 90 years. It's
131 been used up until two months prior to the time this mobile home
132 was brought onto the property. And I see no reason to discontinue
133 the use of it as a rental property. The applicants are renters and
134 not the owner of the property. Where I am the owner of the
135 property next door.
136 CHAIR BAXTER: How long have you lived in the area?
137 MS. HANES: Three and a half years.
138 CHAIR BAXTER: Three and a half years?
139 MS. HANES: Yes.
140 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Do you farm?
141
142 MS. HANES: Used to, but not now. My acreage is only one
143 acre. If I had more acreage I'd love to do it, but I just do my
144 own vegetable garden. But I grew up on a dairy farm so I love the
145 farm community.
146 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Kerri would you put the neighborhood
147 map up again and let us see where Ms. Hanes lives?
148 MS. KEITHLEY: I believe the property that Donna is referring
149 to is this right here.
150 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Kerri, where does this other map fit
151 into there? Where is the mobile home and the present home on the
152 property?
153 MS. KEITHLEY: Okay, the mobile home actually would be located
154 approximately right in here. The stick -built house is pretty
8
155 fairly close to Donna's house.
156 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Thank you.
157 CHAIR BAXTER: The other lot immediately above it is another
158 house then, or just another lot?
159 MS. HANES: I have a photograph if it would help. It's the
160 one I passed around just now but it's kind of hard because it's
161 been Xeroxed.
162 MS. KEITHLEY: Actually there is another house on the Lot A,or
163 actually the SE lot; it was a subdivision exemption lot.
164 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: So there's two lots there besides the
165 dairy farm. There's two separate lots there besides the dairy
166 farm.
167 MS. KEITHLEY: Yes, exactly.
168 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay, but the stick -built house
169 that's on the property now, that's the old farm house that's 90
170 years old, is the one that our inspector, you've inspected it and
171 said basically it's uninhabitable?
172 MR. STONER: Ed Stoner, Department of Planning. It's the
173 shed directly north of the stick -built house that's abatable, that
174 needs to be torn down.
175 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And it's uninhabitable and it needs
176 to be cleaned out. And the stick -built house is okay?
9
177 MR. STONER: The stick -built house could be habited.
178 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But you're going to use it for
179 storage?
180 MR. STONER: That is correct. That's my understanding, yes.
181 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: And the stick -built house would be,
182 is it inhabitable the way it is right now or would it have to be
183 remodeled or
184 MR. STONER: It would need some cosmetic work done on it,
185 some cleaning, possibly new carpet, that kind of stuff, but it
186 would be habitable as it exists now. Please understand Weld
187 County's standard for habitable is you know, quite low, so
188
189 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It doesn't have anything to do with
190 the aesthetics of the building. So, you see this picture here? Is
191 that the picture of the shed?
192 MR. STONER: The one on the bottom left hand side, the one
193 with the stairs?
194 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That's the one that going to become
195 the storage area?
196 MR. STONER: No, that's the one that's going to be torn
197 down.
198 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Torn down. Okay, and then here's
10
199 another one. Can you tell me what all the pictures are in here?
200 MR. BARKER: The applicant has provided the originals of
201 these pictures and they're going around.
202 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: But there's nothing on them as to
203 what they are.
204 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Starting on that one I gave you which
205 is the long one here for the Board, in the top left hand corner,
206 could you just work your way around and tell me what all those are
207 pictures of?
208 MS. KEITHLEY: The top left hand corner appears to be the
209 mobile home that's on the site. Going to the right it appears that
210 that's the shed that would be torn down. Directly from the bottom
211 of that looks like the access road. Next to that is, looks like
212 the stick -built house. And then the large picture at the very
213 bottom, I believe that's Donna Hanes' house.
214 MS. HANES: Right. But the purpose of these pictures and
215 the bottom picture I wanted to show you that the stick -built house,
216 the farm house, is compatible with the neighborhood, with how my
217 house appears, with how the house appears across the street. At
218 the upper left is a picture of the mobile home that was brought in.
219 It's a single -wide mobile. It's an older year and it's not a newer
220 mobile home. The upper right picture is the illegal garage of the
11
221 apartment that's been rented out the last three and a half years.
222 Then down below it is the entrance. I just want to show how close
223 the house was to my property. And then to the left of it is the
224 house itself. And over the past three and a half years there's
225 been a problem where the lawn and that has not been maintained, nor
226 has the house been maintained. But my house is not even as old as
227 this house and I have been able to keep the lawn mowed and have it
228 painted and done maintenance to it, to where I just feel this house
229 all it needs is to have maintenance done to it. There are some
230 pictures going around showing even today when the applicants have
231 mowed in the area but they've neglected to mow around the house.
232 MR. BARKER: For the record, the grouping of pictures that
233 were referred to have been marked as Exhibit "F".
234 CHAIR BAXTER: So your opposition basically is not to the
235 dairy? You haven't, you don't have a problem with the dairy, you
236 just don't, you're not in favor of the mobile home.
237 MS. HANES: Correct. I prefer not to have the mobile home
238 there. I'd like to keep the status quo and have the house remain
239 as the principal dwelling.
240 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, your, Ms. Hanes? Your
241 appraiser's opinion is only about a paragraph long here and
242 actually it's one sentence. And I guess I don't have any
12
243 understanding as to what is the basis of his opinion.
244 MS. HANES: It's the appraiser's opinion that utilizing the
245 mobile home as the main residence and using the stick -built home as
246 a storage building would decrease the particular property value and
247 may decrease the property values within the general market area.
248 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And again, that's just his opinion.
249 I guess I'd like to understand what is the basis of his opinion.
250 Does he have data or something to support that or does he have
251 appraisals that he's done in the past versus ones now?
252 MS. HANES: Yes. My property
253 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So he's appraised the particular
254 property with the mobile home on it before?
255 MS. HANES: My property had been appraised before and there
256 was a double -wide on the property next door. And now it seems like
257 we've gone, that the County's made them pull the double -wide out
258 because it wasn't permitted and now they've put in a single -wide.
259 And the, I had the appraisal done on my property two years ago by
260 the same appraiser and the appraiser and Mr. Firello, they're both
261 of the opinion that if you have a property, that putting a mobile
262 home on it will decrease the value rather than increase it if you
263 have a stick -built house there. And a stick -built house has more
264 square footage to it, and has more market appeal. I have no
13
265 problem with a temporary use being allowed, but a problem that I do
266 have where the mobile home is located, it is over my well water
267 easement where it's currently located.
268 CHAIR BAXTER: Well water easement, you mean line from your
269 well?
270 MS. HANES: Yes sir.
271 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: You mean your well is on somebody
272 else's property?
273 MS. HANES: It's on this particular property.
274 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Do you have a legal easement in
275 there?
276 MS. HANES: I have a
277 MS. CORE: Ladies and gentlemen, if I could address that. I am
278 Hanes' attorney. I want to say that she carries me everywhere, but
279 actually I came this morning in case this came up and the
280 Commissioners were interested in hearing anything about it.
281 Unfortunately, there has been litigation going on for several years
282 now which involves
283 CHAIR BAXTER: Excuse me, did you give your name for the
284 record, please?
285 MS. CORE: I'm sorry. Suzanne Core. I'm an attorney from
286
Brighton. There's been litigation that has been going on for
14
287 several years. There is one trial scheduled right now for August
288 and possibly another one that will be coming up that involves
289 things that have happened as a result of Ms. Hanes' purchase of her
290 particular property. There was a deeded easement to her property.
291 A couple of the sheds that Kerri was pointing out are on that
292 easement. That's one of the problems. And the off -site well is
293 the other problem. It unfortunately, apparently inadvertently or
294 negligently, was not conveyed to Ms. Hanes when she bought the
295 house. So there is an Improvement Location Certificate that was
296 given to her that shows the off -site well and shows the line from
297 the well to her house and then the well house is also off -site. And
298 the off -site well, well site and easement to the well and well
299 house were supposed to be conveyed. They were not conveyed. That
300 is the subject of ongoing litigation. If there are any questions
301 about that, I'd be happy to answer them, but basically that's
302 what's going on and it looks like we're going to have to dig up all
303 of the lines. One of the issues was that there is an emergency
304 well use permit and the prior renters in the double -wide mobile
305 home apparently backhoed their line and tapped into Ms. Hanes'
306 line. So one of the things that's going to have to be done is that
307 all of that line is going to have to be dug up to find out where
308 the taps are. And if they're still working. And unfortunately,
15
309 the single -wide is sitting on them, or on a portion of them. So we
310 have a bit of a problem with that, although I think that it's
311 probably possible to backhoe, but it's probably going to be around
312 their deck.
313 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: When is the court date?
314 MS. CORE: The court date now is mid -August for the easement
315 case. The well case is not set for trial yet.
316 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And is the single -wide sitting in the
317 same place where the double -wide was?
318 MS. CORE: I think so, yes.
319 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Or fairly close?
320 MS. CORE: Yes, I think it is.
321 MS. HANES: That's what the hooked the line up for the
322 double -wide.
323 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And you think you have an easement
324 but it was never conveyed?
325 MS. CORE: Correct. Well, she was supposed to get, she thought
326 she was buying the off -site well with the easement, but it was not
327 conveyed.
328 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The easement wasn't conveyed, or the
329 off -site well wasn't conveyed?
330 MS. CORE: All of it. None of it.
16
331 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And none of it is in your title or
332 your deed or anything?
333 MS. CORE: Correct, correct. And at this point nobody wants to
334 correct that easily.
335 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Do you have it in a contract
336 someplace?
337 MS. CORE: No. Well, it mentions the off -site well, it doesn't
338 convey it. But it's not in the closing documents anywhere. So
339 she's been using it along with, there's a house here and there's a
340 house here. And both of those homes were using that off -site well.
341 There were two wells on the original dairy property, one of them
342 about here, one of them about here. And this one was going to
343 service these two. The well house and the well are here, and so
344 there was a line and an easement and then apparently the original
345 mobile home back in here when the cut off this. This is surmise at
346 this point. Since then, the home in back has dug its separate well
347 and is not using this anymore. So right now, as far as we know, it
348 should be servicing just this place. But because of various water
349 problems, examining the line and such, we have a concern that there
: 350 is still another water line going to some other facility. The
351 stick -built house, obviously not the double -wide, and I'm sure not
352 the single -wide, maybe the stick -built house.
17
353 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: It seems to me it would be cheaper
354 for Ms. Hanes to drill a well than go through court and all that.
355 MS. CORE: We have discussed that. It's about $18,000 to dig
356 a well.
357 CHAIR BAXTER: My question, I guess, to our legal counsel is,
358 what kind of a problem does that create for us to approve anything
359 in something that's under litigation, or if it's under the area
360 MR. BARKER: I guess the real question is on the easement
361 itself, on the area where the pipe would be, normally when you have
362 an easement of that type you also have that goes along with that
363 easement the capability or responsibility, I guess, of leaving an
364 area open such that it can be maintained. And that's probably
365 where the surface question comes up, is where in proximity is the
366 area over the line with respect to where the mobile home will be.
367 And is that going to cause a problem as to exactly, you know, can
368 they dig the line and actually maintain the line without actually
369 having to disturb the location of the mobile home.
370 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: So we ought to be more concerned
371 about the placement of the mobile home than we would whether we
372 zone it or not.
373
374 MR. BARKER: Well, that's one issue.
18
375 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I don't see where it is an issue for
376 the Board. I mean she doesn't have a legal easement, it's not in
377 her title, anything. I mean that's an issue that they'll have to
378 decide in court and you know I think we just have to look what's
379 before us today. And right now what's before us is, there is no
380 easement and the well has not been conveyed, either. If they get
381 in court and they find out that they are going to have to move
382 their mobile home and dig it up, then that's their own personal
383 business and they'll have to deal with that themselves. But right
384 now that's not our issue. We don't have that before us.
385 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: They have water. I mean the well's
386 on their property.
387 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: There is no easement for us to be
388 looking at.
389 MR. BARKER: Correct. I guess the main issue that I see is
390 that that's as to the location of the building versus the location
391 of the easement. And I understand your idea that it's not really
392 ripe yet. I mean, it hasn't, if the easement has not been conveyed
393 and it will never be conveyed, if that's the conclusion of the
394 court, and at that point it's a moot issue. There's no issue at
395 all. And you're right, in terms of that the action to move the
396 mobile home would not actually occur until such time as there is an
19
397 order that the easement is, or a judgment, that the easement is in
398 effect and they have to have access to that. But I guess what I'm
399 trying to say is when you go back and you actually find out if
400 indeed there was one there, that really is the only issue. And I
401 think at this point in time if there's no issue as to, or the issue
402 that's on -going is whether they actually own it, and probably it's
403 the type of thing where the owners are going to have to understand
404 that they may have an order to them that they are going to have to
405 deal with that in the future. But that's not something that I
406 think that you have to deal with at the present time.
407 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It may be an expense they have to
408 undergo. It may not be. I mean I don't know, but that really
409 isn't our issue.
410 CHAIR BAXTER: Did you have a question?
411 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: I guess as far as looking at the
412 pictures, I would, well I'll save that for later.
413 CHAIR BAXTER: Do we have questions of the applicant? I mean
414 not the applicant, I'm sorry. We'll get to the applicant in a
415 minute. Ms. Hanes, are there any other questions of her? Do you
416 have anything else to bring?
417 MS. HANES: No.
418 CHAIR BAXTER: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
20
419 audience who would like to address this. If you would give your
420 name and address for the record please.
421 MR. CARR: Good morning. I'm Robert Carr. 17069 Weld County
422 Road 22. My property is adjacent to not only the property in
423 question, but Ms. Hanes' property. I own the 16 -acre parcel which
424 is bounded by the Speer Canal on this side and what would be Road
425 31 on this side. My wife and I came to the area about three years
426 ago and we purchased the land and built a new stick -built house on
427 this 16 -acre property. And that house is situated just about here.
428 I mention that because you might feel that if anyone in the area
429 might have an objection to moving a mobile home into the area, my
430 wife and I might have the most strong objection. However, we do
431 not have an objection to the inclusion of this mobile home in the
432 community, primarily because it would be a major upgrade to the
433 community. The mobile home in question as I have seen it, I don't
434 know whether it's a brand new home or not, but it certainly looks
435 like a new home. It's well -maintained, it's well -kept. The house
436 would be situated in such an area, or the mobile home would be
437 situated in such an area that it is essentially screened not only
438 from the highway but from our property; it's also essentially
439 screened from Ms. Hanes' property and Mr. Hagen's property, not
440 only by trees but by outbuildings and a privacy fence on Ms. Hanes'
21
441 property which is not very well -maintained. But that's neither
442 here nor there. There are other mobile homes in the area. There is
.443 a mobile home immediately across the highway from my property.
444 There are additional mobile homes both to the east and the west of
445 this general location. So it's not like moving a mobile home into
446 an area where there have never been any more or whether there are
447 not existing mobile homes. Even though the Raffs have not gotten
448 permission to go ahead and put this home in there, they have
449 already made considerable aesthetic upgrades to the property.
450 They've cleaned up the area. They've started tree, brush removal.
451 Their plans, if they carry them out, to dismantle some of the
452 existing buildings and probably eventually what's called the "old
453 house" or the stick -built house, the 90 -year old one, would be a
454 significant upgrade. That house, even though it has been used as
455 rental property for the last few years, at least in my opinion and
456 in the opinion of others who have knowledge of the area, is
457 uninhabitable. And I don't think anybody in their right mind would
458 want to spend the time, effort and money to make that house
459 habitable and put in a reasonable shape that would benefit the
460 area, anybody want to live in or would even consider living in that
461 thing. As I said, the Raffs have already done substantial clean-up
462 on this property. An issue you raised, a question about the so -
22
463 called waffling of Mr. Silva. You wondered why that might have
464 happened. And I would simply mention that there were some
465 misrepresentations made to him that caused him to change his mind.
466 Once he had time to converse with some of the neighbors and find
467 out what actually went on, he came back and signed that petition in
468 favor of the Raffs. The water well and line issue to me is a moot
469 issue. To start with, that was a shared well, and since that time
470 the well, the other participant in that well sharing, Mr. Hagens,
471 has relinquished his claim to that well so there's no longer a
472 shared well situation. He has drilled his own well and carried that
473 forward. The Raffs have disconnected from anything that there was
474 on that well. They have accessed an additional well on the property
475 and brought that in, so actually that well business is a moot
476 point. Ms. Hanes has sole use of that well and I think it's a moot
477 issue as far as the Board is concerned. I'm speaking in favor of
478 the Raffs because of my own particular, my wife's and my own
479 particular interest in that area and that is the upgrade of the
480 property. We feel that that property has gone downhill for a number
481 of years. The Raffs seem to be responsible people, they're
482 interested in keeping their property up and if they do in fact
483 carry forth with their plans, all of us in the neighborhood are
484 going to be winners. Thank you for your time.
23
485 CHAIR BAXTER: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone
486 else in the audience who would like to speak either for or against
487 this? If not, would, Oh, I need to close public testimony. No one
488 else? Well, you get a chance to respond. Anyone in the public?
489 I'll close public testimony then. If the applicant would come back
490 to the microphone please.
491 DR. RAFF: Thank you, Bob, for your comments. Again, Nancy
492 Raff, 17171 Weld County Road 22, Fort Lupton. Again I believe it
493 is a moot point regarding the well situation. Pending litigation,
494 that will all be decided what turns out with her easement. We have
495 backhoed a new well line to the existing well to the farm which is
496 a few feet further south and east on the property, next to the
497 outbuildings and the dairy barn. So we've been aware of Ms. Hanes'
498 concerns regarding her well and the double -wide prior last year who
499 had tapped into her well. That's not even an issue because we have
500 dug a new line to the proper well. Previously, the double -wide had
501 been permitted as an accessory. The owners, I suppose had lived in
502 the old yellow house, the 90 -year old home, and they used the
503 double -wide for their hired help. We are wishing to turn that from
504 an accessory into a permanent type of zoning permit simply because,
505 18 months is just not enough time for us to build a new home. And
506 that is our intention. The 90 -year old home is in poor condition.
24
507 There is extensive water damage to the walls throughout the house.
508 The roof obviously has caused that problem. The foundation is
509 cracking and falling apart underneath the house. I'm not sure what
510 extensive investigation they did of the home, but we feel that it
511 would cost too much money to maintain that house versus building a
512 new one eventually. Our intention was to remove the home or to tear
513 down the old home just to get it off the place, but we figured it
514 would be easier for now just to use it as storage because of all
515 the other permits for tearing down the home and burning it or
516 whatever we would have to do according to the health standards,
517 whatever they recommend. So that's why we're going to be using it
518 as storage temporarily. Until we can figure out how to remove the
519 house. Sorry for all the confusion. We're just trying to get the
520 dairy operation going and running and for now we feel that the
521 single -wide home, which is a custom-built mobile home, it has wood
522 siding and a permanent roof, a shingled roof, so it is a
523 presentable mobile home. It isn't one of the older tin models that
524 I wouldn't want to live in anyway. So, we're just trying to fix up
525 the place and run it as a dairy and then eventually build our own
526 home. So that's our intention and if you have any other questions.
527 CHAIR BAXTER: I guess you answered a couple of questions that
528 I had and that was your intent in long run was to tear the old
25
529 house down. At some point in time you intend to tear the old house
530 down.
531 DR. RAFF: We really have no use for it. But there's too much
532 to fix up on the place already with trying to get the barns running
533 for the dairy farm and getting the fences up and painted and make
534 the place look presentable that we just don't have time to do
535 everything at once.
536 CHAIR BAXTER: I didn't ask this before, you will be living in
537 the mobile home and running the dairy from there.
538 DR. RAFF: Correct. Right, right.
539 CHAIR BAXTER: Other questions? I don't know if there's
540 anything else to get answered.
541 DR. RAFF: Thank you.
542 CHAIR BAXTER: Thank you.
543 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we
544 approve the ZPMH #2059. I think from testimony it is compatible
545 with the surrounding area, that the applicants do plan to use it as
546 their permanent dwelling, and there is water and sewer available,
547 and therefore I think that as long as the applicants are willing to
548 go along with the conditions of approval, this would probably be an
549 improvement.
550 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: Second the motion.
26
551 CHAIR BAXTER: Okay. The motion by Connie, seconded by Bill
552 to approve. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That is with the conditions?
553
554
555
556
557 adjourn the regular Board meeting.
558
559
CHAIR BAXTER: Yes. She mentioned the conditions, yes.
Discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed?
carried. Thank you. There being no further
27
The motion is
business, we'll
Hello