The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About670001.tiff784 Lu 17 1976 0 ri 0 Rec. No. 1'7.0,&17.4 Mu,y Ann Feuerstein, Records, RESOLUTION 2-! WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property was zoned on November 10, 1965 from "A" Agriculture to MH Mobile Home Zone on the condition that said area develop within twelve (12) months from date of the resolution or the property would revert to an A Agriculture Zone, and, WHEREAS, the Weld County Planning Commission has recommended that the herein described property belonging to N. J. McConohay be re -zoned as the provisions of the zoning resolution have not been fulfilled, and, WHEREAS, pursuant to notice published February 24 and March 17, 1967 and public hearing was held on March 29, 1967 at 2:00 o'clock P.M. in the office of the Weld County Commissioners, Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado, and, WHEREAS, the Weld County Commissioners listened to evidence presented by Mr. N. J. McConohay, Frank Boxberger, Ronald Heitman and George Mosier, and, WHEREAS, after careful study of the record and the testimony presented at the hearing on March 29, 1967, the County Commissioners of Weld County have reached a decision. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Commissioners of Weld County find that the petitioner, N. J. McConohay has not met the conditions necessary to retain the zoning as set forth in the Resolution signed and passed November 10, 1965, to -wit: That construction has not been under way during the twelve month period from November 10, 1965 to November 10, 1966; that the area known as the South 40 acres of the West Half (Wi) of the East Half (E') of Section 34, Township Two North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado is hereby zoned "A" Agriculture Zone; and that this -1- PL0119 670001 AO4* 784 1'7CE174, c7 -a resolution shall be a nun pro tunc entry as of April 5, 1967. Dated this 12th day of July, 1967. Attest: THE OF BY; RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS E ,COUNTY, COLORADO Clerk Wf the Board Approved: County Attorney TO: Weld County Commissioners FROM: Weld County Planning Commission SUBJECT: McConohay Rezoning Request On July 12, 1965, the Weld County Planning Commission recommended to theWeld County Commis- sioners that Mr. McConohay's rquest to rezone 160 acres from an "A" Classification to an "MH" Classification be denied. At the public hearing before the County Commissioners the basis for recommending denial was not clarified and, consequently, was referred back to the Planning Commission for review. In reviewing the request for the rezoning, the Planning Commission was guided by the fol- lowing County regulations: The Zoning Resolution, the Subdivision Regulations and the Mo- bile Home and Mobile Home Park Regulations. Section 3.6-A of the Zoning Resolution specifies that a Mobile Home Subdivision shall meet the Standards of the Mobile Home Regulations of Weld County regarding "water supply, sewer- age disposal, refuse disposal, electricity, fuel and alterations and additions." Futher- more, that if the lots are to be sold as in a subdivision, all of the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of Weld County shall be met. In the opinion of the Planning Com- mission, no proof was offered which would assure the County that either the Mobile Home Regulations or the Subdivision Regulations could be met. No preliminary plat was offered is evidence as to how or that the area could be subdivided. No provision for drainage or flooding. The applicant failed to furnish evidence as required in Sections VII, VIII, IX, X and XI of the Mobile Home Regulations as to the availability, quality and method of supply of: 1. Water; 2. Sewage disposal; 3. Refuse disposal; 4. Electricity; and 5. Fuel. To consider rezoning this area for residential purposes without assurance that the water sup- ply and sewage disposal will be adequately taken care of is contrary to the purpose of zon- ing. Because of the many unknown factors in the application that are of vital importance of protecting the health, safety and property values of Weld County citizens, the Planning Commission recommended denial. After reconsideration Ronald Heitman made a resolution that Mr. McConohay's Request for Change of Zone be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners, not to ex- ceed 10 acres, subject to the applicant being able to furnish the information as specified in the various County regulations and some form of guarantee through prior construction or the posting of a security bond or certified check that the necessary improvements will be installed, and that the change of zone will be contingent upon proof that construction is under way within 12 months from the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and if said construction is not underway, the zoning will revert back to "P" Agricultural District. Further than Mr. McConohay shall obtain the approval of the State Health Depart- ment on any water and sanitation facilities to be installed. The motion was seconded by John Watson. Roll call vote taken. For Passage: John Watson, Ronald Heitman, Price Hopkins and George Mosier. Against Passage: None The Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified copy of this Resolu- tion be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for fur- ther proceedings. NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE ZONING LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CONDITIONAL ZONING OF "MH" MOBILE HOME, IN THE FORT LUPTON AREA AS GRANTED TO N. J. MC CONAHAY OF WHEATRIDGE, COLORADO, BE CHANGED BACK TO "A" AGRICULTURE, SAID AREA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: West Half (Wk) of the East Half (E2) of Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE WELD COUNTY COURT HOUSE, GREELEY, COLORADO ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1967 AT 2:00 O'CLOCK P. M. DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1967. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO by: ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD Published in the Greeley Booster Feb 24th and March 17th, 1967 NOTICE PURSUANT 70 THE ZONING LAMB OF THE STATE OF COIDDASO, THE MILD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RCOMMENDS THAT THI CONDITIONAL ZONING OF "NI" MOBIL' HON IN 711E PORT LUPTON ARIA AS GRANTED TO N. J. MC COISAY OF MMSATRIIGE, COLORADO, II CHANGED DACE TO 'A" AGRICULTURE, SAID ARRA MORN PARTICULARLY DISCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, best Half (4) of the last Half (Ij) of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 Nest of the 6th P. M. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL R HELD IN THE OFFICE OF THL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONIRS IN THE WELD COUNTY COURT NOUSI, GRIMILY, COLORADO ON MIONISDAY, MARCH 29th 1967 AT 2400 O'CLOCK P. M. DATED THIS 21ST FSRUARY 1967. THE BOARD OF COUNTY WMMISbIONMR$ WILD COUNTY, COLORADO BY, ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK AND RMCORDIR AND CLERK TO THE BOARD Published The Greeley Booster February 24th and March 17th 1967 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30 Co C N v 4ri 00 SENT TO 7 p 1�.r �., /-(1, (.f iei e , POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND N0. .7f2 /- —A /1-1(% /2eti,, Al -n ffi /1-1?/,em" j P, 0., STATE, AND ZIP CODE Y EXTRA S VICES FOR ADDITIONAL Return Reeelot Shows to whom Shows to whom, and date date, and where delivered delivered ❑ 100 fee ❑ 35¢ fee FEES Deliver to Addressee Only ❑ 50¢ fee POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— See other side) Mar. 1966 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30¢ SENT TO `> 42/`' (4m4.AC?y POSTMARK OR DATE STREE AND N0. O -s'97, -5 - ,14;Lc-•:/ c X' P. 0., STATE, AND ZIP CODE / / I ,1.d. i 2-1—oe7t.�l.! EXTRA SERVICES OR ADDITIONAL Retom R•MIPI Shows to whom Shows to whom, and date date, and where delivered delivered ❑ 10¢ fee ❑ 350 fee FEES Deliver to Addressee Only . 50¢ fee POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— See other side) Mar. 1966 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL NOTICE' Pursuant, to the Zoning I tws. of the't tats of Colorado, the Weld ldlttitl -Manning Commission- rec- c,nintemis fhat'''i the conditional .Liming of,"MH°.Mobile Home in the Foci Lupton :Area as granted to N. 7 \1cCenahay of Wheatridge. Col at, l be changed hdgk to A Agriculture; said area more par- ticularly described as follows: NeatHalf` (\vi)"of -the East Waif E$)'of Section. 34. Town- ship 2 NorYth, Range W West of the nth 11 M, A pub i e hearing will be held in the cffiee. of The Board of Ctoninty Commissioners. Weld County Court libuse Greeley, Colorado on Wednr filar -March 2111h- 1967 at 00 o Jock P. M Dated this 21st day, of February, 14u7. THE BOARD BOARD OP COUNTY. COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK And RECORDER And CLERK- TO THE BOARD Wished in The Greeley Bog �, rtiuy =-t,,' 19117 and ALs1Wf' BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO March 29, 1967 N. J. McCONAHAY CHANGE OF ZONE APPEARANCES: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Marshall H. Anderson, Chairman Harold W. Anderson Edward L. Dunbar PLAINTIFF N. J. McConahay Kenneth Colwell, Attorney Representing Plaintiff Frank Boxberger, Planner for Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk Engineers WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Ronald Heitman, Chairman George Mosier, Member Chairman Anderson: At this time we will call the hearing to order. We will hear from Mr. Colwell who represents Mr. McConahay Mr. Colwell: That is correct Mr. Anderson. My name is Kenneth Colwell I am an attorney authorized to practice in the State of Colorado and I represent Mr. McConahay at this hearing. I am sure you gentlemen are aware of at least certain of the proceedings that occured in the past concerning the land that we are discussing here this afternoon and I think I will briefly go back a little so we all apparently understand what has happened in the past. The initial rezoning took place November 10, 1965, by the then Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, rezoning 40 acres of land in the West Half of the East Half of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West. Now this particular resolution did contain five conditions of rezoning that is what they are called in the resolution. The only important one.I think, as far as the Commissioners are concerned is the paragraph five which recites words of this nature, " a change of zone is contingent upon proof that construction is under way within 12 months from the date of this resolution, and if construction is not under way in said length of time, the zoning shall revert to "A" - Agriculture zone". Now this is the original zoning resolution of November 10, 1965. Now subsequently on December 5, 1966, a hearing was held before the Weld County Planning Commission I believe to the best of my knowledge that the Planning Commission and Mr. McConahay and,I assume2Nr`. Telep his then attorney appeared. Who instituted this hearing I am unaware of just what the reason for the hearing was,apparently it was the result of the paragraph five about construction within 12 months. At that hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the County Commissioners that the zone revert to an "A" Agriculture zone. That change was ordered by the County Commissioners on December 14, 1966, that was the County Commissioners Edward Dunbar, Marshall Anderson and Elmer Shultz. Subsequently to that date and trying to comply with what we felt were the proper proceedural course to follow we filed with you, the County Commissioners, a Notice of Appeal directed basically to what we thought would be a Board of Adjustment Now the Board of Adjustment according to my understanding of the law, of course Mr. Richardson can correct me if he disagrees with my thought, is the action of December 5, 1966, should be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Now that is the reason that it was directed this way and not directed directly to the Board of County Commissioners, as you gentlemen now sit. In this Notice of Appeal we felt that if the action taken in December was not in agreement with our thinking that we had to process this Appeal to bring these matters to the attention of the Board of Adjustment. It is my understanding that the County Commissioners now do have a Board of Adjustment but you gentlemen at the present time are sitting here as the Board of County Commissioners not as a Board of Adjustment. In this Notice of Appeal we wanted it directed to whomever is to review this action. There are two or three items basically we would like to question, first of all whether the original resolution could be conditional for a period of 12 months. That is the November 1965 zoning resolution. Assuming that it is reasonable we would also like to submit to you gentlemen that the conditions have been substantially complied with, therefore, the zoning should remain the "ME" rather than revert to the "A" agriculture zone. Thirdly that the rezoning that was entered hereDecember 5, 1966, that there was no authority for this type of rezoning by either the Planning Commission recommendation or by the Board. Now I think it might be wise for all of us to kind of agree on what we are doing here today. My understanding according to the notice that was published by the Board is that this hearing today is concerning the changing back to "A" Agriculture from the "MH" Mobile Homes. If this is true I am assuming that as far as you are concerned the change here of December 6th actually has not taken place. Is this right as far as you fellows are concerned? We should know where we all stand as far as the type of hearing we are having; or what you gentlemen want to hear lets put it that way. Mr. Dunbar: At that time this was the Planning Commissions hearing, is this right? Mr. Colwell: Well it was a Planning Commission hearing but the County Commissioners took action on it. Mr. Dunbar: Yes, and I think we are in violation this is why we Mr. Colwell: Well that is what I Mr. Dunbar: and advertise a hearing, am I right? r. Colwell: Well I think we agree or at least I agree because I think that action of December 5th was not correct lets put it that way. I am assuMing basically today we are having,I am assumingla full scale hearing on the notice as to whether this land should go back to an "A" Agricultural or remain as orginally zoned "MH" Mobile Home. Now is that the way you gentlemen understand it I don't want to confuse you anymore than I have to. Mr. Dunbar; It has been published and advertised and we wondered where at that time another hearing and advertising was necessary? But we were informed from legal sources it was so,thereforesthis hearing here. Is this right? Mr. Richardson: Yes, in other words you are back to whether or not the November lath resolution sub -paragraph five, whether or not we will apply that and revert it back to "A" or whether we will leave it "MH". You have had your hearing before the Planning Commission on this and now this is your hearing for the County Commissioners. Mx. Dunbar: The Planning Commission subsequentially or you appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Colwell: We have never been to a Board of Adjustment. There are two things I would like to mention, for the record we would like to make it official that we do not agree that the conditional zoning in the original ordinance is valid. I am not going to continue that any further today I would just like to make this a point of record. I do not agree that this property could be conditionally zoned to start with, but they may or may not be important. Secondly I assume that the Board of County Commissioners has received some type of recommendation from the Planning Commission to change this back, I assume this has happened. 3 Mr. Dunbar: Yes this is true, upon written recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Colwell: Well we won't take any position as to whether this is good, bad or indifferent as long as it has been recommended that the zoning be reverted to the "A" Agriculture zone. Are you gentlemen ready to hear some testimony? We would like to call the engineer firm that is involved in this, Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk through Mr. Frank Boxberger. Mr. Colwell: Would you state your name and address? A. Frank Boxberger, 2029 Fifteenth Avenue Court. Q. By whom are you employed? A. I am employed by Nelson, Haley Patterson and Quirk and I am a Planner for their firm What type of work do you do for them? Planning. You are an engineer? Q. A. Q• A. Nc I am not an engineer, I am a planner. Q• Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk - what type of business do they principally engage in? A. Engineering - consulting engineering. Q. Have you been involved with the area known as the West half of the east half of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. Weld County, Colorado. A. Yes. Q. Would you tell the Board what you have worked on and what you have been engaged to work on by them and the progress you have made if any. A. Yes, first of all in November of 1965 John McConahay had asked us to prepare a zoning and preliminary sketch for this Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter Section 34 to receive zaing for mobile home - for a mobile home area. This is the sketch that was used for the zoning change which showed the topographic features plus an idea what could be possibly could be done in the area for mobile homes. This occured in 1965. The zoning request had been approved as 4 Mr. Colwell stated subject to these things that he has stated here. Then in November 1966 - November 8th to be exact John McConahay came into our office and acquired our firm to proceed with a preliminary plat of the area, which involved an outer boundary survey, a topographic survey of the area and to prepare a preliminary plat and to attend the Planning Commission with the adequate preliminary plat and so on. This is the topographic and the outer boundary survey of the area. This is the preliminary plat of the area. The preliminary plat was laid out with lots large enough to - 13,000 square feet was the minimum square footage for septic tanks and leach fields. So this was the basic criterion for the planning of this particular subdivision. It was decided that the lots would be sold rather than rented and this is the reasoning for the large lots - 13,000 square feet. The preliminary plat does meet all the County regulations for street widths and size of lots, location map and everything else that is required by the County Planning Commission. This is the work the firm of Nelson, Haley Patterson and Quirk have done at this time. Q. Were charges made to Mr. McConahay for this work? A. Yes. Q. What were those charges? A. The charges for the outer boundary survey. and John McConahay had paid us this bill November 8th, the outer boundary survey was $600.00, the topographic survey $200.00, the preliminary plat $180.00 and to attend one County Planning Commission meeting $20.00 a total of $1,000.00 and it was paid in full November 8th 1966. Q. Prior to that time was there a charge made for the A. Yes that was in November 1965 and I don't remember the exact amount. I don't have that bill with me but I think it was close to $200.00. Q• Now Mr. Boxberger have you had occasion in your duties for Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk to deal with other mobile hcme parks of a similar nature? A. Yes very many. Q. In your opinion is Mr. McConahay proceeding with reasonable. diligence? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Are there engineering duties that your firm might be called upon that if this were to proceed further to "MH" mobile home zone? A. Yes, if John would acquire our services we would proceed with a filing plat and the curb and gutter desin 1 whatever else would be involved completing the necessary facilities whether it would be sewer, water, curb and gutter, filing plat anything that would be needed. Q. At the present time or as of today is there any work in progress? A. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Colwell: I think that is all we have Torn, do you have any questions? Mr. Richardson; The Board might have. Chairman Anderson: I have one question now will this be engineered according to the plans or it it going to be like the one north of there? Are the road streets and drainage - are we going to have a bunch of sand dunes like we have in the other one, or are you going to go ahead and oil these streets and put in curb and gutter? Mr. Boxberger: These are things you will have to ask John Mc Conahay, we as an engineering firm can only stake and design whether it is built to those plans would depend upon the developer. Our services are only to design and maybe possibly be a resident engineer and see that they are built correctly. But the developer would have to acquire our services to design and stake and so on. I feel this is a question John McConahay would have to answer. 6 Mr. Anderson: I will direct the question to him. Mr. Colwell: If it is alright with you Mr. Anderson we will put him on here in a minute and then we will go through the whole thing with him. I think it will be a little easier maybe. Chairman Anderson: Alright. Mr. Dunbar: Was there a question about the legality of the covenants whether they actually —these are the same as covenants aren't they? iur. Colwell: You are refering to the paragraph five. Mr. Dunbar: Yes, building covenants - contingent - this zoning is contingent upon the covenants - performance. Mr. Colwell: Well I think -I think —I understand what you are driving at, Mr. Dunbar, is whether there has been a performance by Mr. McConahay within the year as far as the zoning resolution. Mr. Dunbar: You questioned whether it was legal to put these conditions of zoning in. Mr. Colwell: Oh yes - we did Mr. Dunbar: But actucally these conditions or covenants are common. Mr. Colwell: Well there are probably many restrictions and requirements on each type of zoning that have to be complied with, now we don't argue with that at all we are merely arguing, and were not arguing/we are mentioning it before this commission for the record that we are not convinced that the original resolution could provide what we call conditional zoning or a limited zoning as to a period of time certain elements might have to take place. In other words we might not concede that you could zone any area for six months or a year or year and a half and have it revert back to the original zoning, if nothing else had taken place. We don't concede that this could be done. We are not going to argue that with you today because we think what we are presenting here today is what we are here for - but it is basically for you gentlemen to determine as far as the resolution of November 1965 whether there has been substantial compliance. That is the way we much rather dispose of this if 7 we can but I think Mr. McConahay has to be protected to the extent that we do mention this matter of a one year period, that is the only reason we have mentioned it. Do any of you have any more questions of Mr. Boxberger? Mr. Richardson: On this preliminary sketch Mr. Boxberger when did you prepare that in November? Was it November 10th or Mr. Boxberger: It was prepared prior to November 10th the date of the Planning Commission was November 10th. Mr. Richardson: The date of the meeting of the County Commissioners was November 10th. Mr. Boxberger: This was prepared prior to the Planning Commission date in November now I don't know date that was the only thing I can go by is the date on the plat and the date on there is November, the work had proceeded before November in order to have the information to the Planning Commission in time for their meeting. Mr. McConahay: May I say a word - you know I called you on the phone and I said for you to proceed with that and I would be up some of these days to give you some money. I don't know if you recall that or not and then I think it was on the 8th when I gave you the check. Mr. Boxberger: I know we had it prepared in time to meet the deadline for the Planning Commission meeting so this would mean probably it could - that the work could have started in October Mr. Richardson: Exhibit number one was prepared prior to November 10 1965, now then your subsequent exhibits two and three those were prepared just prior to November 8, 1966 is that correct? Mr. Boxberger: I think the work started November 8th, not prior to that date. Mr. Richardson: I see your work started November 8th Mr. Boxberger: The day that John McConahay came into our office which was November 8th. but anyway the plans were prepared for the November meeting. Mr. Richardson: What I am getting at and I think you can see is that it was approximately 8 a year from the time the first instrument was drawn until the second instruments were drawn exhibit two and three by your office. Mr. Colwell: I might ask you one question in this regard, Mr. Boxberger, at 1 the time you talked to Mr. McConahay November of 1966 did you know the exact amount of what you bill would be? Mr. Boxberger: November 196_ - yes, we did. Mr. Colwell: You knew exactly what that bill would be so he could have paid you prior to the completion of the work. Mr. Boxberger: He paid us the day we discussed the cost - the day he came into our office November 8. We sat down and discussed each of these items, the costs and he wrote out a check. Mr. Colwell: Thats fine that is what I want to know. Anything further Commissioners: No Mr. Colwell: Would it be alright with you gentlemen if we excuse Mr. Boxberger so he may return to his regular employment. I don't know if any of you gentlemen want to look at these now or whether you prefer to look at them later I assume you or the Planning Commission may have been furnished these before, but we will have them here for your examination. Mr. McConahay why don't you sit at the end of the table where we could probably hear you a little better. Mr. Colwell: Would you state your name and where you live please? Mr. McConahay: John McConahay 4963 Harlan, Wheatridge. Q. Are you the owner of the West Half of the East Half of Section 34 Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th p. M. Weld County, Colorado. A. Yes sir. Q. In the past you appeared before the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, requesting a change of zoning from an "A" Agriculture to a "MH" zone is that correct? A. Yes sir. 9 Q. Do you recall on about November 10, 1965 that this property or part thereof was rezoned. A. Yes sir. Q. To the best of your knowledge it was rezoned to an "MR" mobile home area. A. Yes sir. Q. Now this was a 40 acres portion of this land that you own is that true? A. Yes sir. Q. You are also aware that in this resolution of November 10, 1965 there were certain conditions specified in the resolution A. Right. Q. Now one of these conditions number five had to do with construction underway within 12 months of the date of the resolution. You were also aware of this condition? A. Yes Sir. Q. Mr. McConahay after the Commissioners originally rezoned this from "A" Agricultural did you undertake any type of construction on this property? A. Well I drilled a well I think it was September, I had roads cut and the west side of the road was quite sandy, I know we had to do a lot of packing to get it tied down. Although I d/d not pay the engineers until October - he was a little mixed up I think - they were really working on this - working it out of course I changed a few times and I think from the maps that I gave you you can see I tried to figure out the proper kind of a mobile home to build. I had water tested and drilled a well and made arrangements for $3,000.00 worth of septic tanks, I paid a $1,000.00 down on them so I could get a better price. Mr. Colwell matksd exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9 Q. Mr. McConahay did you make any arrangements concerning the drilling of this well prior to December or November 10, 1966. 10 Q. A. Oh yes I really - I forget when the well was drilled but I talked about it a month before. The drillers were busy I sort of - it was pretty dry you know they were drilling other wells. After I made arrangements it was three or four weeks before they could drill the well. Around three weeks anyway. Q. Mr. McConahay I hand you what is marked Exhibit 6 and 9, now these - this check and this receipt do they reflect costs concerning the drilling of the well and insulation of a pump thereon? A. Yes sir, thats right, this receipt is for a pump, pipe and things we planned. How much was that receipt for? A. $600.00 Q. What was the check for? A. $794.00. Q. What was that for? A. That was drilling a well. Q. Now this well is located where? A. About sixty feet out of the forty acres - off of the forty acres that are actually zoned. Q. In reference to the plat we have introduced here would it be to the north of the area of trees which appear on the plat? A. Yes Q. Would you just put a pencil mark on there approximately where it is. A. I would say it would be about in here. Q. That would be 60 feet north of the A. I might say the reason we put that there is - there is a little park there that we want to preserve. So we put the well right close there. Q. Did you make any efforts to have this well tested by the Weld County Health Department or the State Department of Public Health? 11 A. I had it tested by the State Health Department and I had a very well known - I can't think of his name - test the well or the water for whatever was in it. But that wasn't done in Weld County I had that done down in I hand you what is exhibit 10 and 11 and ask you to tell the Commissioners what those are. A. This one 10 is a bacteriologic test that the state made Q. How does the result appear on the front of it? A. Safe - good water, that is what they wrote down. Q• Q. S - a - f -e A. Safe, yes sir Q• What is the other one? A. I can't read it but according to him I had a talk with him after Q• he tested it and it was very good water. Did you have to pay for this anylysis of water? A. Yes sir, I did I think it was $35.00. Q• The dates on these show —if they showed October 1st and 19th 1966 respectively would you think that was true? A. Yes sir Q. Now would you explain the type of sewage disposal facilities that are necessary in this type of area. A. Well according to Jack Schwab, he says he works very close with Weld County, he puts lots of systems in and the type that I was buying from him was what Weld County or most any county would expect to put in. Q. Did prior to November 10th did you make any concrete arrangements with Jack Schwab for construction or ordering septic tanks. A. Yes I did, I ordered I forget how many systems but it was $3,000.00 worth and I paid him a thousand dollars which the check will show. Q. I hand you plaintiff's exhibit seven which is - does that represent the payment to Mr. Schwab of $1,000.00. A. Yes sir it does and you will notice on there it says balance $2,000.00. four systems I have on this Q. What is th4 date on that? 12 A. .at is the date of that is June a 17th of 1966. Q• You have received delivery of any septic systems? A. No, I haven't received delivery on account of this rezoning. I might say the reason I didn't go along I changed systems again. I wrote to different people and those maps I showed you a while ago and of course different people have different ideas on how to build parks so I changed a little bit in June and I didn't get back in there again til later in the fall. Now Mr. McConahay, at the time of your original hearings with the Planning Commission and the Commissioners, what type of development did you propose concerning streets, water systems and septic tanks and so forth? A. Whatever the book calls for we plan on - we didn't plan on paving the whole thing at one time but as we put in the mobile homes we planned on meeting with whatever they the zoning board laid down for us. Have you or have you not done a small amount of grading and cutting of the roads prior to November 10th of 1966? A. About five hundred with the trash and stuff this was dead wood and stuff things that I picked up around there and I haven't got it all done yet. The road grading and everything about $550.00 worth. Q. Would receipts number or exhibits 8 and or just number 8 reflect payment of one of them. A. Yes sir. Q. How much is that for? A. That is $300.00. Q. Now, Mr. McConahay, have ycu contacted any of the utility companies or any companies cf that nature concerning furnishings other services that might be required in this area if you were to proceed with the development. Q. Q. A. Well we were ready to go with the public service and I told them I would be up and bring them some money on a certain day 1 Q. Q. that of course this zoning changed. I have had a talk or two with them since but nothing has been done. We have to have the power brought in for a little ways there. Did you advise the Commissioners here of approximately of when you talked to the service company - was this who you talked to the Public Service Company. A. Yes the Public Service. Well I talked to them several times but I have only talked to them once since the rezoning. Q, Prior to November 10th of 1966 could you give the Commissioners some idea of when you talked to them. A. Well we had some - several talks we were arguing about the price in fact, we talked with Mr. Larson and Mr. Hart and another one and we were dickering on price. We had several meetings. Mr. Dunbar: I have one question you have a receipt on this road improvement here do you have the check? Mr. McConahay: No I don't have that check, I set the checks aside in order to save this and some of those - all the checks I don't have. I don't know I suppose I can find it or could go back to the bank I guess. But I put them somewhere and this morning I couldn't find them. Q. What type of of expense are we talking about with the Public Service Company? A. About twenty - they were or wanted $3,400 or something they are down to twenty-eight or twenty-nine hundred now. Now this is to do what? To what extent? A. To run lines in to the well and from that on. Q. This was not to include complete electrical service to all of the platted areas within your plat are they? A. No Q. This was to bring the lines in to the mobile home area? A. To bring them in and hook up the well I think five more hook-ups. 14 Q. Now have you talked to anyone at all about installation of water systems? A. Oh yes, Jack Schwab is - thats part of his business you know. Q. Would this development require this type of work? A. I didn't get that? Q. Would your development down here require the installation of water lines? A. Oh yes. Q. You are planning on installing water lines? A. Yes sir. Q. If the area was to remain as a "MH" area what do you reasonably anticipate the development possibilities here in the next six months? A. Well I have had a lot of calls, I think that probably within the next six months about thirty mobile homes will be in there. Maybe more I believe at least that much. Mr. Dunbar: This thirteen thousand square feet that area there - how many square feet is there in a an acre? r. Colwell: Forty four thousand. Mr. Dunbar: So actually it would be about one-third of an acre. Mr. McConahay: That is close to it yes sir. Mr. Colwell: Now just so the Commission will understand Mr. McConahay if you were in a position to dispose of twenty-five locations would these locations be in a contiguous area or would they be spread all over the plat that you A. Well they or we would try to put them in one little location on account of water and various things to eliminate a certain amount of cost. Just to scatter them over the forty acres we would try to keep them close together. Q. What type of a road improvement is contemplated in this area? A. Well we have to put in a good road frankly I haven't gotten into that. Q. You must have some idea of what you would put in? 15 A. I think the rules are you have to put in black top or something I don't know in that order isn't it? Well I assume let me ask you one more question. You have no objection in complying with the requirements as issued by the Planning Commission or the bounty Commissioners as to mobile home parks or mobile homes, do you? A. No I don't. Q. You are aware of some of there requirements I am sure? A. Yes sir. Q. One last question Mr. McConahay have you engaged in any minor advertising adventures as to this property prior to November 10, 1966? A. Yes I spent a couple hundred dollars in advertising. Q. Where was this advertised? A. Well I advertised in the Post and the News and I was really advertising for capital and things like that either that or somebody to assist you in the expense. Because 1966 was a rather close year as far as money was concerned. Have you errected any signs on the property? Q. Q,. A. Yes there is a sign on the property. Q. Just exactly how many miles is this property located from Fort Lupton? A. I think the map says two but it is probably two and and a half miles. Q. In what direction from Fort Lupton? A. Straight east. Q. East A. Straight east on Ninth Avenue. Q. Now Mr. McConahay, you have appeared either before the Commissioners or the Planning Commission within the last couple of year on numerous occasions is there anything else that you think these gentlemen should know or be interested in. A. Well they probably know a lot or a whole lot more than I could tell them, but it depends upon what subject we are talking about 16 Q. uWe are talking about your property that is presently zoned an "MI-i" zone, which at the hearing is to be rezoned "A" Agriculture. A. I will say this that I was advised by a lot of people - well in fact one is a very good constitutional lawyer. Mr. Colwell: Lets don't get in to that. A. Well I asked, now do you think, he read that Mr. Colwell: That isn't what I want - I assume that you are requesting the Commissioners here to continue the zoning as an "MH" zoning, is that true? A. That is exactly what I would like for them to do so I can get out of this mar - because I have a lot of money invested. I want to try and get it sold to someone. Q. And are you in a position to proceed if it were to remain "MH"? A. Yes I am, I have three sources at this time that I can proceed. Mr. Colwell: Do you Commissioners have any questions? Chairman Anderson: Yes I have one, now on this water as I understand it you used Adams County for your testing facilities. You haven't checked with the Weld County Health Department? Mr. McConahay: No I didn't but I checked with - as you see on the receipt it was the health department of the State of Colorado. Chairman Anderson: Don't you think you would have been more in order to check with the Weld County Health Department? Mr. McConahay: Well I tell you it probably would, Mr. Anderson, I didn't even give it a thought. I just - it was handy there in Denver and I just didn't bother up here and I really didn't give it thought. Chairman Anderson: You know we have a County septic tank ruling in this County. County septic tank permits, inspections and requirements that you have to meet. Mr. McConahay: Well this Jack Schwab - I think he lives in Weld and I was kind of relying on him because he claims that he knew your rules and regulations regarding septic tanks. Chairman Anderson: How big is this well? 17 Mr. Colwell: I thinKon the back of that sheet there it gives you the depth of it, but I don't know if it gives the capacity. Mr. McConahay: It figures somewhere around about 600 - it isn't a very big well about 600 gallons. The way we have to figure it with a tank why it would supply oh I think about forty trailers. We would have to drill another well sooner or later. Probably deeper. Chairman Anderson: Well are we looking at the same situation that we have a mile north of there? Mr. McConahay: No sir, you're not, of course I know what you are thinking. You fellows have practically crucified me several times for that, I don't blame you in a way. But as Christ said the poor will always be with you I've got a few of them down there but I realize to make a successful trailer park you've got to - well there is a lot of things you can't do, that has been done there I realize that. Chairman Anderson: Are you going to make an attempt to do anything about that? Mr. McConahay: Well, I am doing something now I am changing it slowly it is being changed. Chairman Anderson: Well I happen to be the Commissioner in that district and that area has caused us nothing but trouble. Are we looking at the same kind of situation on this proposition as we are looking at on the other one. Mr. McConahay: No sir we are not. Chairman Anderson: What assurance do we have that we are not going to get it? Mr. McConahay: Well you have a lot of rules and regulations that have to be followed with these mobile homes. Chairman Anderson: Well you know you tried to - well I don't know if it is you or who but someone has tried to get those streets accepted by the County. There are ten or twelve miles in there to be accepted. Mr. McConahay: No, it hasn't been me because I realize you couldn't afford to take them. I haven't asked you to. 18 Chairman Anderson: There are people in the area who have. Mr. McConahay: A lot of times the people in the area really don't understand what they are up against. You know if the Weld County comes in there and keeps the roads like they think they are going to charge taxes - then the people down there are going to change their mind. Now there are just a lot of people paying for the land now in a few years they will be more able to pay some more taxes to keep the roads up. Chairman Anderson: Well you don't know how gallons a minute that well will take care of? Mr. McConahay: About six hundred gallons an hour. Now we figured - I forget hew big a storage tank oh why it would take care of at least forty. Chairman Anderson: That takes care of all the question I have, do you have any that you would like to ask? Mr. Dunbar: Under your mobile home laws it doesn't allow junk yards does it? Mr. McConahay: No Mr. Dunbar: But you have some over in that other area. Mr. McConahay: Well Mr. Dunbar: We went down and took pictures of it. Mr. McConahay: I'll tell you if you will bare with me - things like that happen now for instance I had a fellow go out there and I wondered and I often wonder if he was all there - now that is really a fact. He asked me if he could work or, two or three cars, he said I don't live out here but I would like to have two or three cars to work on. I said well if you want to have one or two or three or something like that and you know over night that fellow drug in about sixteen or eighteen cars. Now all I could do is get rid of them and I hired a fellow to move them out course he moved the best ones and left the others. Now I am in the process of getting rid of those. I have notified the fellow that he has to get rid of the cars, I'm working on it. But I find it awful hard - people if they have a piece of ground move stuff in and of course that 19 is very bad on me. You know I wouldn't do such a thing as that because many of person I took out to show the land to they see that junk yard,you call it there, which you named it right, they aren't going to buy the land there. NIr. Dunbar: You realize too that your past performance isn't helping you. This puts a big question in a persons mind. We certainly - we are all for improvement - don't get us wrong on this score here. Certainly we would like to see land improvement. Another question you have a check for six hundred dollars is this just a payment or what? Mr. McConahay: I will tell you how that happened _I gave him a check for that and I took that check back and never did but the check for that was actually never cashed, to come to think about it - because this thing came up I didn't want any pump out there and he was very willing to forget it. That should really be - that is something I have got to pay him as soon as I get started. Mr. Dunbar: At this point most of your business has been in the form and in the channel of engineering and planning - file of plat and such as this. Mr. McConahay: Right. Mr. Dunbar: Notphysical Mr. McConahay: Well no, Mr. Dunbar, frankly I have done just exactly what I felt I needed to do. I didn't do a lot over - it says construction has to be started so I started construction and I figured Mr. Dunbar: We realize these things are preliminary to your actual physical platting. Mr. McConahay: My contention was you drill a well you are constructing something and if you build some roads you are doing some construction. All those things cost. Mr. Dunbar: Of course there are no roads there? 20 McConahay: Well there is a road. Mr. Dunbar: This is questionable it isn't in agreement. McConahay: Well I have never been stuck in the road, now Mr. Mosier, well we won't bring him in - he was afraid to drive up there. I think he got a little to far east. But there is nothing out there so good but what I was trying to do like anything you have to do quite a bit of crawling before you walk. So I did just exactly what provisions that I thought would satisfy the commission I didn't do any more. As far as another - you see lots of times- you know its like the fellow you get out in the prairie and a bull chases him, he went up a tree, now the fellow says what would you do if the tree hadn't of been there, he said well it had to be there. And of course I have this eight hundred acres and I had to do something with it I couldn't even pay taxes on the wheat. So I sold land and I put covenants in there but you know that is the hardest thing in the world to enforce. You threaten those people to sue them and everything else and they just say I own the land. What are you going to do? Mr. Dunbar: You are in reference to the other - you had covenants based on the mobile home Mr. McConahay: I had enough covenants in there they couldn't do anything. Mr. Dunbar: So the question comes down to enforcing the covenants? Mr. McConahay: Yes. And of course I don't want junk yards anymore than you fellows do. I hate them worse than you boys do as far as that is concerned. Because they really ruin you - my sales have been down something awful. phairman Anderson: Is this well on this forty acres? Mr. Colwell: No.. Mr. McConahay: No sir, it is about sixty feet off of it. Mr. Colwell: I might call to the Boards attention in one of your conditions in the original resolution that required to prove by the state health department I think that is probably the reason why this water test was not made through the Weld County Health Department. 21 Chairman Anderson: The only reason I asked the question is we have several - two trailer courts that are red tagged I am not sure that Mr. Colwell: I am sure that Mr. McConahay would if it satisfied you gentlemen more would be happy to have Mr. Paul run a test on the water if you think the other was not satisfactory. Chairman Anderson: I think it is part of Weld County's business and I won't accept Adams County's test. It is Glenn Paul's business and I think he should be the one to do it. Mr. Colwell; Well of course that i9 fine we have no objection to that although we did comply with the way they (the original board) said to do. Chairman Anderson: It is the same way on the septic tanks, we have septic tanks on Aristocratte Acres that are wide open. Mr. Richardson: I have one question and maybe two, Mr. McConahay, but in the previous testimony when this request was made before this very body here and I quote your former attorney, " as was mentioned in the petition and all he is asking for here is a conditional set up so that he can comply because Weld County right today has regulations he has to conform with for water, he has to conform with the sewage, he has to conform with the - with everything. If he is granted a provisional grant or provisional zoning and if you give him the accepted period that is prevelant in the area - even as Greeley uses it - like two years - say you have this much time to do this, and this, then come forth with your plat - come forth with whatever you have - you are going to have to conform absolutely with the regulations. This book here is the bible, (zoning book).". Then there is one other passage here - in other words what I am getting at in order to get the zoning your attorney was suggesting to this very Board that they give you conditional zoning. Another passage, " As I mentioned it can be absolutely controlled if he doesn't have water, sanitation, the sewage that sort of thing he is out of business and it is that simple and the rezoning reverts back to agricultural so who is harmed here?" Now my point 22 is simply this,McConahay, is this - isn't it true in your petition when you were here before this body a year ago or a little over a year ago, you did ask for and did accept provisional zoning. This was your very attorney, r. McConahay: Well I don't remember what you said but naturally if I am going to have a mobile home - I realize I have to comply with the rules and regulations I understand that. Mr. Richardson: Well and didn't you understand at the time that if certain conditions were not met that it could revert back to agriculture, this doesn't come as a surprise. Mr. McConahay: No I don't understand it that way because when this came out this last what ever you call it here. I just read it over and I thought that is this resolution. I figured I had a year to get it started and so I was just rocking along. Of course there are a lot of things you can do I found out in a mobile home. You may have money lined up to do a lot of things and before you hardly get started why they change their mind, which I have had that happen. Mr. Richardson: That is the only question I have. Chairman Anderson: Now as I understand it once you sell this land you lose control of that area - is that right? Mr. McConahay: Well not according to your books no, you mean the land on this mobile home Chairman Anderson: It was stated here a while ago that you were going to sell these lots off, your not going to run a mobile home park. Mr. McConahay: I will sell them with covenants like anything else - I'd have to comply with mobile home ruling. So that these people understand and in the contract I deal with they agree to comply. Otherwise if they didn't we would have another junk yard. 23 Chairman Anderson: Well that is exactly what we are setting up here, with this deal, with a rental thing where you have full control, then you have some controls. Mr. McConahay: No, you see what I want to do Mr. Anderson, I want covenants or anything you can suggest or your lawyer write in there I don't want this thing to go out of my hands, or in somebodys hands and they say well I own the land you go to the dickens. Chairman Anderson: Well that is what you said you were going to do a while ago. Mr. McConahay: Ya, well I said I was going to sell it but there is a way of selling it with covenants, in a contract where they have to comply thats my idea. Chairman Anderson: You just got through saying you had covenants over on Aristocratte Acres and you couldn't control them. Mr. McConahay: Well that is a little different zoning too, Mr. Anderson, than thats a quite a bit different zoning/we are talking about today. Mr. Dunbar: Of course on the subject of covenants you can never have as many covenants as you want, then it comes down to the people who are enforcing the covenants, is this right? Mr. McConahay: That is true Mr. Dunbar: Actually if they violate the covenants then it is up to certain individuals to enforce the covenants whether it be - maybe the covenant says you shall not have livestock on your property - alright they go in and actually put in a hog pen. Alright he has violated the covenant - we know he is violating the covenant but who is going to put up the money to bring legal action. The neighbors around here because they don't want the odor or is it the person who originally who put the covenants in the deed or to these buyers. This is the thing it boils down to and I am sure these covenants 24 have been violated. It boils down to this - how do you get them to comply with the covenants? Who polices it and who enforces it? This is the problem, this is the way it boils down. Mr. McConahay: Of course, Mr. Dunbar, if you have one third of an acre it isn't like - you see I had some eight acres tracts down there four acres and that gives them a lot of you know they can't - I never up to now tried to enforce the covenants too much. Oh I have in the last six or eight months but most of them are complying they are beginning to. I think that within six months we will have those cars off of their and it will look better And in years Arictocratte Ranchettes will Mr. Dunbar: You understand the position of the Board, we could care less whether you improve this other forty acres —it is not this. It is this previous experience. We are basing our decisions and this is the base of a lot of our problems. But the thing of it is I know Mr. Anderson has taken a lot derrogatory comments and problems as result of this down there. It is pretty hard for road conditions, upgrading of the roads, drainage, maintenance and everything else. Its not a matter of - we have no pleasure in denying a person something like this - it is certainly —as County Commissioners like to have all the valuation we can get. So we feel it is our position to protect these property owners. Mr. McConahay: If you have in your contract those covenants and then you have your rules and regulations why it is my contention that your people will pretty well have to comply with them. Mr. Dunbar: The only thing is like a said a little while ago Mr. McConahay: Well as long as you Mr. Dunbar: When they break a covenant whose responsibility is it to enforce this covenant? Mr. McConahay: Well as far as that is concerned a covenant you know that even if the people that own it - the land - they have a right to enforce it too. 25 Mr. Dunbar: Certainly but they don't want to put up the money to do it. I know in Alles Acres they have had the same problem. Mr. McConahay: I know this is the problem. Mr. Dunbar: Who brings these is the property owners, is it joint deeds or is it the neighbors or is it the one who originally sold the property. Mr. McConahay: It should be my job to police it - of course - I anyway I don't know I am like everybody some of these times I might not be here. But it should be my job to see to it because it is to my interest. Now I have had a lesson over in that other thing because I have lost thousands of dollars of sales on account of that junk yard. There is a spot over there that Mr. Anderson spoke of. Mr. Dunbar; Of course we all understand it is promotional and which is alright too. We can see no problem there either. Mr. McConahay: Well Aristocratte Ranchettes is kind of an odd thing I will agree, of course, by the same token instead of getting four hundred dollars or three hundred an twenty dollars a year out of that section I think I get four or five times out of that in taxes which helps some. And that piece of ground that I am zoning is a sand hill and isn't much good to raise anything on to speak of and it would probably be better with a development on it with the County in the long run. We are going to run into problems I realize that there is going to be problems because you sell people and they junk it up and thats when you've got to get in there. Of course I let them take the advantage of me or the head start down there on Aristocratte Ranchettes. I've got a man in with me and that is Mr. Hasting here he has started about five of them and we had a talk about that coming up here. He says you just simply have to bare on them from the very beginning and not let them start this junk business because if you do one gets it and the next one tries to go just a little bit farther. And you know and I know that will ruin anything 26 Now I zoned this with the intentions, and I think the Board kind of granted this - that if we needed more ground we could keep on going so it is to my interest to make it good. Mr. Dunbar; I think you originally asked for 160 acres? Mr. McConahay: Thats right. Mr. Dunbar: And we cut it to 40 acres to see how it worked out. Mr. McConahay: Well if it doesn't work out I know I will get more zoning and that is what I am after. You can rest assured that I will do my level best to keep everything according Hoyle. It is to my interest. Mr. Colwell: One last question Mr. McConahay you haven't actually sold any of these platted lots to any third parties have you? Mr. McConahay: No. Mr. Colwell: I am sure the Board would like to know that if you have. Any other questions gentlemen? Chairman Anderson: Do you have any comments Mr. Mosier? George Mosier: I am George Mosier of Greeley, Colorado, a member of the Weld County Planning Commission. On the 3rd day of June 1965, Mr. McConahay petitioned the Weld County Planning Commission for a change of zone from "A" to "MH" of the West half of the East half of Section 34, Township 2, north Range 66 West of the 6th P. M. The reasons for the request was to construct a mobile home park. The reasons for this are on the attached sheet due to limited space on this form. We don't necessarily have to go into the reasons stated on all of this. A mobile home park is a place where you rent sites to transcient mobile homes. A mobile home park is not a subdivision where you sell the lots. A hearing was set up by the Weld County Planning Commission on the 27 12th day of July 1965 at 3;30 P. M. in the District Court Hearing Room fourth floor of the Court House. It was duly advertised in the Booster which is the legal paper. At the conclusion of that hearing we will not go into all the whereas' here but, "Now therefore be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the petition of Mr. McConahay for the change of zone from "A" to mobile home park to mobile home zone in the Fort Lupton area be and is hereby denied for the reason that Mr. McConahay failed to show the original zoning was faulty or that the changing conditions of the area now justified a new classification of the land use." This is dated the 12th day of July 1965. Mr. Colwell: Mr. Commissioner I don't want to interrupt Mr. Mosier but I just wonder if there is any need to go back to all this previous action time prior to the/original zoning ordinance. Chairman Anderson: I think it should be made a part of the record. Mr. Colwell: I assume you have all these instruments of record anyway. Mr. Mosier; The Commissioners had their hearing on September 1, 1965, and through different things - at the bottom - "Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, that the request for the change of zone of Mr. McConahay for "MH" mobile homes zone in the Fort Lupton area be referred to the Planning Commission of Weld County for further study and recommendation." That was dated the 15th day of September 1965. After the review of the Planning Commission, and is it necessary to to into all the things we have here? Chairman Anderson: No. Mr. Mosier: After reconsideration Ronald Heitman made the resolution that Mr. McConahays request for change of zone be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners not to exceed ten acres subject to the applicant being able to furnish the information as specified in the various 28 county regulations and for some form of guarantee through prior construction or the posting of suriety bond or the certified check that the necessary improvements will be installed. That the change of zone be contingent upon the proof that the construction is underway within twelve months from the date of approval of the Board of County Commissioners. If said construction is not underway the zoning will revert back to "A" Agriculture. Further that Mr. McConahay shall obtain the approval of the State Health Department on any water and sanitation facilities to be installed. It was unanimously passed by the Planning Commission. Those same qualifications not qualifications but restrictions were in the Commissioners resolution dated the 10th day of November 1965. On the 17th prior to the writing of this letter I with the instructions of Mr. Ronald Heitman, Chairman of the Planning Commission took a trip down to see how much work had been done on these premises. The road on the east side was so sandy that I was afraid to even tackle it. The road on the west side was not much better. So rather than taking a chance on being stuck I came on back to Greeley. Mrs. Hill, our secretary, on November 17th wrote to Mr. McConahay in regard to the request for the change of zone from "A" to "WiH" for the area known as the West half of the east half of Section 34, Range 66 Weld County, Colorado, may I quote, be conditional for the resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado dated the 10th day of November, " the change of zone is contingent upon the proof that construction is underway within twelve months from the date of this resolution and if construction is not underway in the said length of time the zoning shall revert to "A" Agriculture zone". The hearing was set up on the 5th day of December by the Planning Commission. On the date that I went down to view this property I met NHPQ engineers at the northwest corner of this section, running a survey to outline the property. That was on either the 16th or 17th of November that they were 29 starting to run the survey on this property. At our hearing there were checks presented which doesn't mean anything. I can write a check to someone for some job that I had done someplace else. There was no proof as far as the Planning Commission was concerned that this stuff was taken care of. There was no proof from the health department that there had ever been a perculation test run in this area. There was never a permit taken out for a septic tank with the Weld County Health Department. After our hearing Mr. Marshall Anderson and I took a trip down there and we could not find septic tanks, we couldn't find a well, we couldn't find anything except where someone had taken a dozer and drug it backwards to mark out a little lane in the weeds, sagebrush and pronounced this a road. So with those findings and that nothing had been done the Planning Commission recommended to the County Commissioners that the hearing on the fifth, that this be reverted back to an Agriculture zone. Because the conditions had not been complied with. I believe that is all unless there are some other questions. Chairman Anderson: Do you have anything you would like to say Mr. Heitman? Mr. Colwell: I would like to have some questions here if I may? Chairman Anderson: Alright. Q. Mr. Mosier what action has been taken by Mr. McConahay on the property that has made it less desirable today than at the time of the original recommendation to be zoned "MH" mobile? A. Would you rephrase that question again? Q. How is the property worse off today than at the time it was zoned "MH" let me put it this way. A. There isn't. there's been no change Q. There has been no change to the detriment of it, has it? 31 A. We were very reluctant to rezone it "MH" at the time. Q. I think this is som:what immaterial, Mr. Mosier A. And to answer your question through the period of the year the ground had not improved any for "MH" and it was zoned YMH" conditionally. That it would Q. N w, Mr. Mosier, you say that the expenditure of $1,200.00 for engineering didn't improve this situation? A. I question that, yes. Q. Alright would you say the expenditure of six or seven hundred dollars to drill a well would not improve the situation? A. The well isn't big enough to put on Q. Now, Mr. Mosier, that isn't what I asked you. A. No it would not suffice the rezoning. Q• Now this is your opinion? You don't know anything about this well its capacity or anything else do you? A. I have heard the testimony here Q, Yes, but it has been drilled within the area. A. Ten gallons per minutes isn't a well. Q. That may be true in you opinion, this may not be a well. But there has been a well drilled there at some cost has there nbt? A. I don't know, I have never seen the well. Mr. Anderson and I couldn't find the well. Q. I: may be there though? Yet you heard testimony from Mr. Boxberger and Mr. McConahay that it is there you might accept that? A. I heard the testimony yes. Q• Now with the present situation down there, Mr. Mosier, there would be no need at this time to have septic tanks sitting in the ground would there? A. No, but you would need a perculation test. 32 Q. I understand this Mr. Mosier, but is there any reason you would anticipate finding septic tanks installed down there at this particular time? A. Not necessarily. Q. I would like to ask you this, at the time this was rezoned was it your opinion that there would be 50, 100, 150 units withing there in a period of a year? A. No. Q - Did you anticipate it might require sometime to get this thing going especially with the economic conditions in the County were not unusually good - did you think that there was some possibility that it might not be a completely operating unit within the period of a year. A. I thought of that. Q. Do you think a year's time is a reasonable time to put in the improvements which you have indicated here that apparently that you feel are reasonable. A. That is the feeling of the Planning Commission - yes. Q. What improvements do you feel should be made within a period of a year? A. Your asking that personally? Q• Yes. A. If your going into operation he has to have roads, he has to have a sewage system and all of that before he can go into business. Q. Have you any assurance that these things will not be done before he goes into business? A. Yes, because the year was up. Q• Disregarding the one year limitation, Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. McConahay woun't comply with your regulations of this type of park area that it won't be done with the conformity with the rules that exist? A. The evidence brought out here that he has not in the past. Q- Refering to another area 33 A. Right. Q. There is nothing of this that has occured in relationship to the area which we are talking about here the West half of the east half of Section 34? A. There is nothing done there. Q. Well you say that the expenditure of $1,200.00 for engineering and an expenditure of $1,000.10 for an order for septic tanks and an expenditure $700.00 for that is true Now, Mr. Mosier, is there any homes or trailers or anything at all on this property at the present time? A. As of November 17th, no, there was a farmstead that had fallen down. Q. That had been there for sometime? A. It hasn't been used for quite sometime. Q. The land is basically in the same condition it was at the time of the rezoning. A. To my knowledge, yes. Q. A. Q• There has been no action taken by Mr. McConahay that would prove to the detriment of this land for the propesed use has there? Would you rephrase that again? Has Mr. McConahay taken any action that would indicate that the proposed use would be hurt in other words? A. No. Q. Has there been any action taken at all that would not be eventually lead into this type of development that it was rezoned for? A. There was no action taken, that we could see, no physical evidence. Q, If there was a well that would be physical evidence? 34 A. Yes. And if he spent $1,200.00 for engineering that would be physical evidence? Mr. Mosier I might ask you this question and it is probably a very foolish question to ask - what was the Planning Commissions feeling as this twelve month period of time? What was the idea behind this? Were you wanting this whole area developed immediately? A. No, absolutely no, that was not the feeling, of the Planning Commission. Q. Wouldn't it be preferable from your viewpoint to have this more or less staggered over a period of time and taken slowly and easily? A. The Planning Commission was very definite on that, Mr. McConahay, asked for 160 acres to be rezoned. We cut it down to ten acres, which would be a workable thing. One hundred and sixty acres into a mobile home court couldn't possibly be worked up without a tremendous amount of investment. We trimmed that to ten acres and that we felt there should be something done on that ten acres within the twelve months. If not the zoning was to be reverted the area was to be rezoned. Well I understand what you did, Mr. Mosier, I am just trying to understand why you definitely didn't want to take 160 acres and I assume the reason was - you didn't want 160 acres here suddenlcy blossoming out with all different types of units and no development and no control or anything else. So you reduced the size of the unit but then you say in twelve months period of time you want certain things done, why it would take two, three or four years to accomplish the same things to meet with your approval. I don't quite understand what the feeling was you or the Planning Commission at that time? A. One of them would be the roads, we have had a very bad experience Q• 35 with Mr. McConahay on Aristocratte Ranchettes, the roads and the drainage and the sanitation facilities are very very bad in that area. . So in order to protect the area south of there the Planning Commission went on record as saying - when these conditions are met we will continue the zoning or we will establish the zoning if not we will revert it. Q. Regardless of the economic feasibility as far as development the year period was established from that viewpoint. A. Mr. McConahay has come in on Aristocratte Ranchettes and it had to be done yesterday. Q. Of course we are not talking about Aristocratte Ranchettes A. Mr. Colwell, you are speaking about one thing, you are trying to put the Planning Commission on the spot. On past experience why these things weren't done and he wanted it in a hurry. So if he wanted it in such a hurry a years time wasn't to much for it. Q. Now, Mr. Mosier, you misunderstand me actually what we are talking about here is rezoning from this place back to agriculture. Now the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners orginally set up this condition. Well this condition was set up to protect you and the Board of Commissioners from an unplanned or unsupervised development. All I am trying to bring to your attention is the fact that a year went by and there has been some work done and there hasn't been anything detrimental occur on this particular piece of property. Would you agree to that? A. There has been nothing as far as the Planning Commission is concerned no physical thing has been done on it. Q, Well I think it has been presented that some things have been done on it, but as far as being detrimental to this area, this particular piece we are talking about nothing has happened has it? In other - 36 all I am trying to say is, the area that was rezoned "MN" is presently acceptable physically appearance as it was at the time of rezoning, it it not? A. Probably so. Q. Maybe a little more so if some of this had been done, if there has been anything done isn't it a little better off is it not? A. Probably. Q. Probably - that is all I have. Mr. Dunbar: One more question on this Aristocratte Ranchettes these are individual well? Mr. McConahay: Yes sir. Mr. Dunbar: They have their individual wells. N1r. McConahay: Yes sir. Mr. Dunbar: One more question on this one here - how much money the total do you consider you have expended - actually paid out - not receipts - but paid out. Mr. McConahay: If I figured the advertising Mr. Dunbar: We have exhibits here to show most of it, now Mr. McConahay: Well lets see I spent - I had a lot of equipment out there roads and cleaning up and things, well one thousand - twelve hundred. I guess I have spent four or five thousand dollars. Of course nothing has been delivered on the septic tanks, but I gave a thousand dollars merely to get a little better price. Of course that involves three thousand. Now the engineers I have paid them about twelve hundred but it is going to cost me several more thousand dollars to get all this done but there is first things first and you know like septic tanks there is not use - I could have septic tanks sitting there but there no good until I get them ready. Mr. Dunbar: Do you anticipate any problem on this Aristocratte Ranchettes from the standpoint of water contamination of the septic tanks and so on leach 37 lines. A. No I don't because those are bigger, now nobody, very few people bought an acre tract most of them have two or four and so on and it is very good soil for that I understand. I don't anticipate any trouble. Now of course water trouble, we know we have water problems all over the country. Fort Lupton has nitrates in their water down there but they don't know what to do about it. And we do have water trouble all over the United States right today. We had it back in Missouri they are using nitrates to fertilize the soil and it is getting in the water. There is water trouble various places but I suppose those conditions are met someway, I don't know just how. But I do anticipate that Aristocratte Ranchettes being much better I'm working on it. Mr. Dunbar: In other words you will have a simple water system. Mr. McConahay; No I am talking about - Aristocratte is the first Mr. Dunbar: Yes but on this other. Mr. McConahay: Well that has got to be - there is only one way to do that and that is to start slow - drill a well, now Mr. Mosier said you ca❑ only get ten gallons an hour - thats more like 50 Mr. Mosier. Its a nice little well thats what they tell me. It will take care of a lot of people and there is only one way to do one of those things - I have been through this thing before and I am pretty well versed on it and I am the one who is really on the spot with it. Because you get these places - somebody starts a junkyard on you your in trouble. I know it better than anybody. There is only one way to do it with this and that is to start off slow and I mean get a little area and do it just exactly right and it keeps spreading out. If it takes another well in six or eight months we are prepared to drill. Chairman Anderson: While we are on the subject you made the statement, "I talked with my banker and you know you need financing on this, that financing is better on a lease so it would probably be leased. I have talked with different ones it seems to be better to lease because it is easier to 38 lease because it is easier to control and keep things the way you want them.: Mr. McConahay: Yes I have talked to the bankers and I have talked to with a lot of people Chairman Anderson: Are you thinking about keeping this in a unit or are you going to divide it out? Mr. McConahay: Well Mr. Dunbar: Are you going to rent the spaces or sell the spaces? Mr. McConahay: Well the latest thing of course I have talked to people in California and Ohio and everywhere else about this thing of course you get different views and I think the last map was drawn up in such a way they would be sold in larger spaces. Chairman Anderson: Mr. Heitman would you like to state your views? Mr. Heitman: Ronald Heitman, Route 2, Fort Lupton, Colorado, presently Chairman for the Weld County Planning Commission. Mr. Mosier, I think, gave most of the details. I would like as Chairman to go on record at this hearing and I am also here in a twofold reason I live in the area and feel that I can speak fluently with some knowledge workings of the area itself. Mr. McConahay according to all documents and all records and all testimony which he gave both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners originally stated that he was wanting to develop a leased area. As he has said numerous times he has changed his mind and had changed his pattern of development a number of times and I think the crux of this hearing is whether this should be reverted back to "A" from "MH". As Mr. Mosier stated the Planning Commission feels that there has not been sufficient physcial evidence on the property to warrant a continuing contingent zoning of "MH". I don't think we are denying Mr. McConahay the right to develop a mobile home but I think rather we are protecting the citizens of the County that when he is ready and has 39 fully made up his mind as to what route he does want to go, then he can apply for a rezoning to "ME" again and then go on. I think it is just this simple according to the recommendations that bottles far as contingents on it both he and his attorney have agreed to as read from previous testimony. These have not been fullfilled and there is not evidence the parcel that is in question hasn't been detrimented for development but it certainly in its present bare existance would to any zoning official would certainly be agriculture rather than "MH". As a resident of the area of which I would like to speak on behalf of — I want Mr. McConahay to remember as a Planning Commission member I made the origianl motion which granted this zoning and I am in favor and would certainly help see that development is in this because any development is better than nothing. But at the present time even the surrounding people and the neighbors have not seen physical evidence to warrant a mobile home. Mr. Colwell: I would like to ask a couple of questions, how much development in dollars and cents do you think should be made this first year? Mr. Heitman; Is this personal ? Mr. Colwell: You are appearing here in both capacities. Mr. Heitman: I am not as concerned in dollars and cents as I am with physical evidence and there is no physical evidence to my knowledge on this property at this time. Mr. Colwell: Have you been down there? Mr. Heitman: Yes sir Mr. Colwell: Where the well was? Mr. Heitman: I did not see where the well was and it is stated that the well is not on the property. Mr. Colwell: What difference does that make if it serves the property? 40 Mr. Heitman: We don't know that it will serve the property? Mr. Colwell; What else would it serve? Is there anything else down there? Mr. Heitman; It is on the part that is zoned "A'" at this time. Mr. Colwell: I assume that it is - I assume it is on the agricultural portion bat is that any reason fox you to assume that it wonr',t be used for the mobile home? Mr. Heitman: Appearance are that it is but still as technical as it might be it is still not on the property. Mr. Colwell: What difference is that going to be? that is not an answer that is a point - you could have a street light down there and it is across the street but if it benefits the property what difference does it make? Mr. Heitman: It could very well and as little as I know about wells I can tell about the well according to the testimony that was given both here and at the Planning Commission will not provide for forty homes. I have a well myself with larger capacity and it won't Mr. Colwell: But if there is any well thatproduces any water that could be used on here it would be of some benefit would it not? Mr. Heitman: Yes it would be limited. Mr. Colwell: May be small or it may be large, I don't think we need to be concerned with that at the moment. I think you have already indicated that as far as the property itself is concereed it has not been harmed from the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners position has it - the land has not during this period of time been harmed with the proposed use? Mr. Heitman: No. but neither has it been developed for this use either. As physical evidence it is agricultural rather than mobile home at the present time. 41 Chairman Anderson: Do you have any more questions Mr. Dunbar: Is there any specific reason why the well was put on the other plot? other than Mr. McConahay: Yes sir, there is Mr. Dunbar: Is it a reason of convenience? Mr. McConahay: No sir, Mr. Dunbar, there was another well there, this is rather far fetched - of course we had a witch out there and there is another well there and he figured these two veins crossed and we got fairly close to this other well. That was one reason and the other one was there is a bunch of trees there that this fellow from Chicago was in looking it over and he figured it would be nice to have this park - development you know for various things, and we put the well in the park which is close to the ground. We didn't think it would make any difference. The reason one was the park and the other we wanted to stay close to this vein or this other well. The other well was in bad shape, the casing was decayed and we figured we could not restore it. Chairman Anderson: Are there any more questions? At this time we will call this hearing to a close and will take it under advisement. Deputy County Clerk 42 Hello