HomeMy WebLinkAbout780032.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: DENIAL OF RE-HEARING CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE FOR CHARLES
HOBDAY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 13th day of Sept-
ember, 1978 at 2 :00 o' clock p.m. for the purpose of hearing the
petition of Charles Hobday, 6900 Weld County Road 39 , Ft. Lupton,
Colorado 80621 , requesting a change of zone from A-Agricultural
District to B-Business District for a certain parcel of land, and
WHEREAS , at said hearing, the Board of County Commissioners
heard the testimony and statements of those present on behalf of
the petitioner and studied the recommendations of the Weld County
Planning Commission for denial of the proposed change of zone , and
WHEREAS, the petition for said change of zone for Charles
Hobday was denied by the Board of County Commissioners , due to
the petitioner not meeting his burden of proof in fulfilling the
requirements of the Weld County Zoning Resolution for a change
of zone, and
WHEREAS, Charles Hobday, through his attorney, Richard M.
Huckeby, has requested a re-hearing on this matter for reasons
stated in a letter dated September 16, 1978, said letter being
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and
WHEREAS, it is felt by the Board that said reasons propounded
by Mr. Hobday in his request for a re-hearing do not warrant a
re-hearing for he has not shown that:
1. There has been a substantial change in
conditions between the time of the hearing
and the time of request for re-hearing; or
2 . That substantial new evidence exists and
such evidence was not available at the
time of the original hearing; or
3. That there was a material error made by
the Board at the original hearing; or
4 . Any other reason that would warrant a
re-hearing.
780032
uf7+f �c �
• 2/ 7.
PLUoka
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Comm-
issioners of Weld County, Colorado that the request of Charles
Hobday for a re-hearing for a change of zone from A-Agricultural
District to B-Business District be, and hereby is , denied.
The above and foregoing Resolution was , on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 2nd day of
October, A.D. , 1978.
/ � / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: t (; '' 1 `` L'tWELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld County Clerk and Recorder (No)
and Clerk to the B ar� i
1\4Y KL,1ADeputy County Clerk �� s, x 1.
ep Y o �k ) I
APPROVED AS TQ .FORM:
County Attorney
Date Presented: October 4 , 1978
Ali
LAW OFFICE S E P 2 7 1978
RICHARD M. HUCKEBY
GREELEY. COLo.
CO2
September 26, 1978 1123 DELAWARE STREET - DENVER. COLORADO 80204
(303) 629-0600
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado
Re: Docket No. 78-55; Application of Charles Hobday
Dear Members of the Board:
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County held a hearing
on this matter on September 13, 1978 , at which time the appli-
cation was denied by a vote of 3 to 2 . On behalf of Mr. Hobday,
it is respectfully requested that the Board grant a rehearing in
this matter for the following reasons:
1. That despite the recommendations of the Planning Commis-
sion, the long history of this matter shows that the applicant
has continually been promised rezoning and that building permits
have been issued on that basis.
2. Applicant has substantially changed his position in re-
liance on these assurances and the denial of the application to
rezone will work irreparable harm and injury to applicant.
3. The existing zoning permits use as a movie studio and
that in order to avoid and prevent future disagreement as to the
activities which are permitted under such use, rezoning should be
granted.
4 . It is felt that the Commission may not have had the benefit
of detailed explanations as to all the pertinent factors in this
matter such as the land' s peculiar dimensions, the impracticability
of the use of the land for agricultural purposes, and the fact that
location of the proposed use is best suited in its present location
and not near some inhabited area.
It is respectfully requested that the Commission reconsider its
ruling herein, and grant a rehearing.
Ve ry truly yocnL
Richard M. Huckeby
RMH/g
Hello