HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250371.tiffHearing Certification
Docket No. 2025-14.B
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County, Colorado
Show Cause hearing, PCSC25-0003, to show whether good cause exists for
revocation of Zoning Permit — Class I Home Occupation, ZPHO24-0005, for a home
office for a flooring business in the R-1 (Low -Density Residential) Zone District —
Abbey Van Horn
A public hearing was conducted on March 26, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., with the following
present:
Commissioner Perry L. Buck, Chair
Commissioner Scott K. James, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Jason S. Maxey
Commissioner Lynette Peppler
Commissioner Kevin D. Ross
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jess Reid
Deputy County Attorney, Karin McDougal
Department of Planning Services Representative, Maxwell Nader
Assistant County Attorney, Matthew Conroy
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a Notice dated March 13, 2025, and duly published
March 15, 2025, in the Greeley Tribune, a public hearing was conducted to determine
whether good cause exists for the revocation of Zoning Permit — Class I Home
Occupation, ZPHO24-0005, for a home office for a flooring business in the
R-1 (Low -Density Residential) Zone District, held by Abbey Van Horn. Karin McDougal,
Deputy County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Maxwell Nader, Department of Planning Services, stated a Probable Cause hearing
took place on January 29, 2025, provided the general location of the site and displayed a
map of the property, as well as a map of other businesses in the area.
IR Matthew Conroy, Assistant County Attorney, provided the three (3) classifications of,
and difference between, home business permits, as outlined in Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. He identified the permits as Home Occupation - Class I (allowed in R-1
Zone District), Home Occupation — Class II (not allowed in R-1 Zone District), and Home
Business (allowed as a Use by Special Review [USR] permit in R-1 Zone District if the
use complies with the general intent of the zone district). He stated the subject business,
as it is on the property currently, is more closely aligned with a Home Occupation —
cc % PL. (DE/M1J /DA fkR) 2025-0371
°5/iy/2S PL2950
Hearing Certification (PCSC25-0003) — Abbey Van Horn
Page 2
Class II, or a Home Business permit. He cited Code Section 23-3-110.B.4 (Commercial
Vehicles) and relayed parking areas, excluding commercial vehicles, are allowed as an
accessory use in the R-1 Zone District and there is no provision for parking of commercial
vehicles in the R-1 Zone District without a USR permit. He provided the Code definition
of Commercial Vehicles, indicated there are two (2) vans used for the subject business,
and displayed images of vans coming and going from the subject property. He explained
the logos on the vans were partially covered, stated the Board needs to decide if the
vehicles are considered commercial, and described the difference between the Class I
and Class II allowance of outside (not living at the subject property) employees.
IE Mr. Nader stated staff went out to the site on March 11, 2025, and didn't see any
commercial business related activities at that time. He displayed several photos submitted
by a surrounding property owner (SPO), which showed several vehicles entering and
exiting the property, including a white vehicle, a logoed van, a covered (logo) van, an
employee dumping items from a van into the dumpster, a van backed up to the
outbuilding, and an on -site dumpster being dumped. He relayed, as far as potential
outside employees, the people in the photos may be a friend or family member of
Ms. Van Horn and there is no evidence they are occupying the outbuilding for long
periods of time. He noted staff is not aware of any nuisance conditions, as trash is stored
in a dumpster, traffic does not appear to be excessive, any storage appears to be entirely
in the accessory building, and noted screening was added when the permittee moved into
the property.
Mr. Conroy summarized staffs position, stating they do not believe there are nuisance
conditions, although they believe there are outside employees and commercial vehicles.
He explained the Board needs to decide if there is evidence of the parking of commercial
vehicles, outside employees conducting business operations, and/or that there are
nuisance conditions coming from the operation of the business. He outlined multiple
potential actions the Board could pursue, including staffs recommendation that the Board
require a USR permit, which could take up to six (6) months to complete.
Ei David Eisenbraun, Director of the Department of Planning Services, spoke of Weld
County being pro -business and using a commonsense approach to achieve compliance
with the Weld County Code.
In response to Commissioner Ross, Mr. Nader confirmed there are no pictures of
people working in the accessory building or onsite for an extended period of time, rather,
there are only pictures of them loading/unloading the vans. Responding to
Commissioner James, Mr. Nader explained how a USR permit would work in the R-1
Zone District, and confirmed for Commissioner Maxey there are no deliveries of
commercial materials to the site. There was discussion regarding the Code definition of
2025-0371
PL2950
Hearing Certification (PCSC25-0003) — Abbey Van Horn
Page 3
Commercial Vehicle and Commissioner Ross stated he did not see evidence of a
business being operated onsite, other than the parking of vehicles.
? In response to Commissioner Ross, Mr. Conroy reiterated that staff believes they are
commercial vehicles and responding to Chair Buck, Mr. Nader reiterated the permittee
installed a fence, for added privacy, when she moved in. There was additional discussion
regarding a commercial vehicle versus a passenger vehicle, and in response to
Commissioner Ross, Mr. Nader stated there were not Department of Transportation
(DOT) numbers on the side of vans and there was no Homeowners' Association (HOA)
to prohibit logoed vehicles. Commissioner Peppler asserted a semi -truck can be used as
a personal vehicle.
Deborah Ytterberg, Johnson and Ytterberg, P.C. and Abbey Van Horn, permittee,
displayed a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B) and provided timeline information of the
subject property and details of the subject business, Meyer Skidmore and Co.
Ms. Ytterberg stated there are four (4) employees, including Ms. Van Horn, and three (3)
of them live at the subject property. She relayed one (1) of the vans is driven by
Ms. Van Horn's partner, who lives at the property, and asserted the previously displayed
white vehicle is driven by the permittee's sister, who also lives at the subject property, as
evidenced by an image of the sister's voter registration, which listed the subject property
as her address. She explained the other van is kept at the home of an outside employee,
who no longer comes to the site on a daily basis, and cited Code Section 23-1-90, which
lists examples of Class I Home Occupations, including a home office with no customers.
She asserted the Code reference for a Home Occupation - Class I is silent on whether a
single commercial vehicle can be parked there, but noted that the van on the site is being
driven by a resident of the subject property. She reiterated there is no HOA, displayed
images of other logoed vehicles in the neighborhood, stated there are no negative
impacts to the SPOs, noted the fence is a 13 -foot privacy fence, which screens the subject
property, and the on -site activities are only visible from the neighbor's second story next
door. In response to Commissioner Maxey, Ms. Ytterberg confirmed that at the time of
the Probable Cause hearing there were two (2) vans coming to the site, but now there is
only one (1), which is driven by an occupant of the subject property.
Sean Stewart, Lyons Gaddis Attorneys and Counselors, represented Doug Bailey,
Chuck and Betty Bailey, and MaryRose Cullen, SPOs. He displayed a PowerPoint
presentation (Exhibit A), stated Meyer Skidmore and Co. used to operate out of a
showroom/warehouse in Longmont, Colorado, and relayed their website shows they have
eight (8) employees. He cited Code Section 23-4-990.D.4 (criteria of approval for a zoning
permit for a Home Occupation). Commissioner Maxey questioned the legitimacy of a
photo, as there was no time stamp or indication it was a photo of the subject property
and/or alleged onsite activities. In response to Commissioner James, Mr. Stewart
asserted the dumping of materials was commercial in nature because trash trucks were
coming and going twice weekly. He referenced Operational Requirements listed under
2025-0371
PL2950
Hearing Certification (PCSC25-0003) — Abbey Van Horn
Page 4
Sections 23-4-990.B.6.a and 23-4-990.F and relayed the white vehicle (now identified as
a resident of the subject property) comes and goes at the same times daily and does not
stay overnight. He displayed pictures, dated after the Probable Cause hearing, of two (2)
vans being on the site on the same day and the outside employee gathering materials
from the outbuilding, leaving the site, and dumping a carpet roll into the dumpster. He
noted there was a petition opposing the business, with 26 signatures, representing 29
homes and indicated he believed the USR permit would be a good option. Lastly, he
mentioned six (6) other homeowners, whose businesses did not create as negative of an
impact to the SPOs, have had to move out of neighborhood.
In response to Commissioner James, Mr. Stewart described the operations taking
place on the site as the loading/unloading of vehicles, and cited as evidence the photos
that were submitted, the testimony given by SPOs, and the bi-weekly dumping.
Commissioner Ross relayed the business's previous location is not a part of their
consideration for the potential violation of the Home Occupation - Class I permit and
responding to Commissioner James, Mr. Nader confirmed a dumpster is allowed in the
R-1 Zone District and there is no definition of commercial dumping in the Code.
Michael O'Brien, SPO, stated he wants to enjoy his neighborhood, and the subject
site is across the street from his house. He relayed the Meyer Skidmore and Co. website
indicates they are a commercial business, and he expressed concern about potentially
flammable materials being stored onsite.
El Maria O'Brien, SPO, stated she wanted her R-1 zoned neighborhood to be residential
and asserted that because of Ms. Van Horn's business, it is not.
El Stephanie Houston, SPO, echoed the comments of Ms. O'Brien.
Holly Monarski, SPO, stated that when she was looking to buy her property, she was
informed that any business had to be Class I business, and she expressed concern with
the trash and toxins from the used flooring waste.
Cheryl Paxson, SPO, stated Elmore Road is a dead-end road, so there is only one (1)
way in and out.
El Lynn Dananay, SPO, stated she had lived on Elmore Road for 40 years and
expressed her quality of life had diminished, due to the business.
El Ms. Van Horn stated there are no toxic chemicals onsite and in response to
Commissioner Ross, confirmed she is not running a commercial refuse business.
2025-0371
PL2950
Hearing Certification (PCSC25-0003) — Abbey Van Horn
Page 5
El In response to Commissioner James, Mr. Nader stated "nuisance conditions" are not
defined in Code, but cited Section 23-4-990.D.4, which outlines potential negative
impacts.
Commissioner Ross stated he did not believe the vans fell within the definition of
commercial vehicles, relayed there had been an effort made by permittee to cover the
logos, and reiterated there is no HOA that prohibits logoed vehicles. He stated all of the
vehicles that are currently on the site are driven by people who live there, there is no
refuse business, the size of the dumpster is allowed in the R-1 Zone District and there is
no on -site construction, manufacturing, power equipment, or showroom.
In the matter of Show Cause hearing, PCSC25-0003, Commissioner Ross moved to
dismiss the Show Cause hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner James,
Chair Buck stated the business address is a P.O. box, therefore, there are no customers
coming to the site and Commissioner James noted all flooring installation is being done
offsite. Commissioner Maxey stated in January there was probable cause that there were
conditions that warranted a Show Cause hearing, but those conditions no longer exist.
The motion carried unanimously, and the hearing was completed at 10:35 a.m.
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, approved the above
and foregoing Hearing Certification, on motion duly made and seconded, by the following
vote on the 9th day of April, A.D., 2025:
Perry L. Buck, Chair: Aye
Scott K. James, Pro -Tern: Aye
Jason S. Maxey: Aye
Lynette Peppier: Aye
Kevin D. Ross: Aye
Attest:
Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board
2025-0371
PL2950
ATTENDANCE LIST
3/2(0 X25
NAME - PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS (CITY, STATE ZIP)
EMAIL
COUNTY OF
RESIDENCE
SPEAKING
(Y!N)?
7e -c1•`", `51-.43./,
�
CY omp.. , e.,.. -.4.s-
-@l !i cow,
ye t
d�
Y
�,. air
jw,,Arse, 0,6.9,1
r
S ti ka
13scc CI,N,, -R4k
iNAASIDACA5ct • S $144'1c,
, o4,67t
\i
-\-oti ri n Arc k
l c"/ h ome- 2 -(-HIP
✓► \ol tj sic, w�,rk, (.
c.v.,M
k _ 0brz e. DSr w�
13S%U Elm, ?�
(SS0 IitAi 61461/roi.,
Mar), (c►,stii r
32oo SM,uu, a(
n,141scnyov'®loyvic.n,+rs.n. Co
L.rM�v
Y
17i400 MRS; AO
0oU. Ma,.ftve?ii,wr.Ltsik4Lg
SY.Cvr•,\
etitiet/y.gakcSov‘
1277 Glw«a24
lcwi.fc aa� cam,
v-
`�
Poi,. l A4 C, 1
113 14,,, Ry L.IJ 3oi-�N3iC,tt,N
ct...5. ba;) a S�.,,,; ,5,. c o.
(A)&._o
Lyn ha.11 an
137 YhDYL,
,r f- of
o s7
Y �'
_
rJP-1L
`...ti
i� c2 ecd► -�� C 1-
a 0,v1 I bale.#741,cc- c-..
3rorM },.1,1
jl
1 `
J \ kg01 o c`�,w r i
�
Sc� Ah i-J ( ato
, Icy Za
nl
5-u scat, P A(
� _
5 3 3 /'r x n K 1' ne
rivuonn�
•Nooyo,V\ �A-t
$ Go/(I iv ,42
�oo�
{ .- vq @C�' �aW► con
3).1,04411,4
.
�wo����CO
J J
Hello