HomeMy WebLinkAbout790747.tiff t \\' OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
��"`� DFf PAR {MEN CF CLERK TO BOARD
s '!
C PHONE (303) 3564000 EXT 223
O P.O. BOX 459
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
September 13, 1979
Charles Ryberg
17843 Weld County Road #6
Brighton, CO
RE: Transcript
Board of County Commissioners
August 22, 1979
Dear Mr. Ryberg:
The transcription of the August 22, 1979, Board of County Commissioners
meeting excerpt you requested regarding your commercial house moving operation
is now complete. We have tried numerous times to reach you by phone to advise
you of it's completion and the related charges, but to no avail.
Upon receipt of this letter, please remit $34.30 to the Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners, P. 0. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632,
and advise this office as to where to mail said document or if you plan
to pick it up. A statement is also enclosed itemizing the charges, for
your records.
Sincerely,
WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
AND CLERK TO THE BOARD
(�j! ✓✓�ti�7 72At 2/(6(gn)
Mary Ann Feuerstein, Clerk
BY: ii ( r //IV/.
Keitha White
Deputy County Clerk
KW:bf
790747
Enc.
clew.
OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
f
DEPARTMENT OF CLERK TO BOARD
C. PHONE 1303) 356-4000 EXT.
P.O BOO 459X 459
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
September 10, 1979
Excerpt from Hearings
Board of County Commissioners
August 22, 1979
Tape #79-94
The Charles Ryberg Violation #93 regarding commercial house
moving operation.
The transcript of said Board meeting, per the request of
Mr. Ryberg is attached herewith. The state of fees for the
transcription is as follows:
Base Charge $ 5. 00
14 pages at $1. 95 per page 27 . 30
$32. 30
Postage and Handling 2 . 00
TOTAL DUE $34. 30
EXCERPT FROM BOARD MEETING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
AUGUST 22, 1979
TIME: APPROXIMATELY 10: 00 A.M.
TAPE #79-94
CATHY CARTER: The Charles Ryberg Violation #63 regarding
commercial house moving operation in the agricultural zone district,
is located on a part of section SE4 of Section 24, T1N, R66W of the
6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The property is located one mile
north of Lochbuie. The zoning violation is a commercial house
moving operation in the Agricultural Zone District which is in
violation of Section 3 . 3 .B of the Weld County Zoning Resolution.
When Chuck Cunliffe, Assistant Administrator, issued a violation
notice on Charles Ryberg' s parcel of land in April of 1977, the
normal procedure was initiated to apply for a change of zone from
A-Agricultural to C-Commercial. Application for change of zone was
received in September of 1978 . On February 21, 1979 , the Board of
County Commissioners denied the application for change of zone. On
March 30, 1979, and again on April 13 , 1979 , Tom Bonn, Zoning
Administrator, sent letters to Mr. Charles Ryberg with copies to his
attorney, Mr. Joe Hellewell. Copies of these two letters are attached
for your reference. On March 2, 1979, June 1, 1979, and again on July 5 ,
1979, regular inspections were made on this parcel. These reports
show that very little, if any, progress has been made towards elimin-
ating the commercial house moving operation. On June 7, 1979, I
sent a letter to Mr. Ryberg giving him until June 17 , 1979, in which
to communicate with me his intent. To date, I have not received
a reply to that letter. On July 17, 1979, a certified letter was
sent to Mr. Ryberg notifying him that the matter was to be set
before the Board of County Commissioners. On the July 25th hearing
date, the matter had to be cancelled because Mr. Ryberg felt he had
not received proper notification. Therefore, I reset the matter
for today' s date and copies of those letters are in the packet for
your reference. Certified letters have been sent to his attorney
-1-
also to notify them of this hearing, every possible option has been
extended to Mr. Ryberg by the Department of Planning Services and
the Board of County Commissioners, all of which are not permitted
or have been denied, and therefore, the recommendation that the
Planning Services Department must make to the Board of County
Commissioners is to proceed with legal action against Charles Ryberg
in this matter. And I do not know, I have not heard whether Mr.
Ryberg or his attorney intended to be present today.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there, is Mr. Ryberg
COMMISSIONER ROE: Mr. Ryberg is here.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are you Mr. Ryberg?
CHARLES RYBERG: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Would you state your name and stand up
there at the mic and if you have any comments to make at this time.
CHARLES RYBERG: Yes, sir , I dos My name is Charles Ryberg
and yes, I have a few comments to make. Ah, you know what, you are
all aware of you know my commercial zoning was denied, which you
gave a valid reason for that there no qualms or anything about that.
And as it was stated in the hearing, I have done everything that
I have been asked to do, with exception of the one thing, is get
up and leave my property which I don' t feel that I should, and I
would like to read from the transcript of the hearing, a statement
made by Mr. Honn at the hearing, you know when we had the commercial
zoning turned down. It says, well, okay, we will work with the
property owner to try to resolve the matter and if there is no
resolution in a reasonable time, we will bring the matter to you
as a zoning violation. All right, Mr. Honn stated that he would
work with me in this matter. This, the letter that he has sent to
me saying that the Special Use Permit would not apply in my case
were not his idea they were my idea that I approached and ask him
if these would work. He has never once come up with any solution
other than to get off my property which I don' t really feel like
-2-
that I 'm in a zoning violation. I, I had a . . . I went to Ft. Lupton
once and Commissioner Roe was sick, unable to make it and talked
with Commissioner Steinmark there and at that time she said told
me that she would talk to Mr. Honn about the same question that
I was asking and I 'm still if, if I feel like at this point that
if there' s a need for a zone change or something like that I still
do not understand why a, special use permit would not apply in this
particular case. And ah, I 'd had asked my attorney since the last
hearing to apply for a special use permit which he did not do and
I might add I no longer have him as an attorney. I have engaged a
different attorney as of yesterday and he wasn' t able to make it
here today.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does the Planning Department have any
comments to in regards to this, Mr. Honn?
TOM HONN: I think Mr. Ryberg' s comments are very accurate
and I believe at the Board' s hearing, as was stated by Mr. Ryberg, the
Board was interested in seeing if there was some resolution that
could be taken, and after the hearings. Mr. Ryberg did contact me
and made several suggestions that we did look at. Also in the
interim time, while those things were being looked at, ah, I did
have a work session with the Board. I don't have a record of the
date with me, I think we could find that out, where it was dis-
cussed where we felt the limitations existed in the zoning resolutions,
what we felt our options were or were not was bascially at this
point. We didn' t feel there were any other positive options in
terms of this particular property as uses, or any categories in
the zoning resolution that the use could be permitted in. And then
I did follow the inquiries that were made with letters to Mr. Ryberg
and I tried to identify those things as much as possible in
writing and I noticed in or recall that Mr. Ryberg asked in the
one letter specifically for more clarification and I sent an
-3-
additional letter to try to address the issues a little bit more.
Basically what our determination was is that the type of use that
he has is clearly something that requires a commercial zoning
district to operate in. It was suggested by Mr. Ryberg that there
might be the possibility of a use that could take place as a
Special Use Permit in the agricultural zone district. However, based
on the valuation of the definitions of the both conditional and
special use permits as they are in the zoning resolution,based upon
looking at other uses that exist as special use permits, the nature
of Mr. Ryberg' s use compared to those uses, it was felt that they were
not similar enough in nature that they could be felt; that Mr.
Rybergs use could be felt to be applied for as a Special Use Permit.
That was an opinion that was made by me as a result of the reviews
that were made and the information we have available.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. Ryberg
CHARLES RYBERG: I 'd just like to bring up one point in like
Mr. Honn says he refers to his list of illustrations in the zoning
laws, but also at the bottom after it gives list it says that these
are to be used as illustrations, but not necessarily limited to
these particular items and every time I have spoke to the gentleman
he won' t refer back and say it' s not listed, we can't do it and
I felt all the time that since it says that, that they're merely
illustrates and not to be limited to such as I failed to understand
why the Planning Staff still feels that if yothe not listed on that
particular list then you're out in the cold.
TOM HONN: I don' t believe that the response was made in
that fashion, I think it was indicated it' s clear it' s not a use
that in the list, but at the same time it' s not a use that is
similar to any of those uses listed. I think our office recognizes
very clearly that any of the lists in any of the zoning districts,
or uses that are identified as Special uses, are not conclusive in
and of the list -that they are only representative and other uses
which may be similar to those are also going to be part of that list.
-4-
There ' s not a way possible to identify every possible use that
could go under that list and by relying on definitions and
relying on those uses that are there, you can try to identify
what may be appropriate to exist or occur in that given district or
have had the ability to apply for a permit if it' s going to be
similar to one of those uses, not necessarily does it have to be
listed.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do you have a comment?
CHARLES RYBERG: Yes, sir, I just have, I have one other
thing I just wanted to mention. Is they keys referring to this as
a commercial operation? All I am actually doing is keeping my
equipment there, I don't do my work there. My work is at another
locations and ah, I don' t really understand why they consider it
a commercial situation where I 'm even at there to begin with.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to ask Cathy a
question: Are there still houses being moved, stored there? That' s
some of the complaints indicated when we heard this before.
CATHY CARTER: The commercial house moving equipment is still
being stored there. Ah, my last inspection did not see houses there
as a small office building that had been moved from one part of
the property to another part. When I ah called the house, the phone
is answered as R & R House movers, formally Ernie Ryberg House movers.
So the business of house moving still exists on the parcel.
CHARLES RYBERG: I might like to make one clarification about
these buildings, that are referred, now this building she talked
about is, I had a permit to put that on my place and it was to be
left there permanently and it is. I just put it on a different
spot on the ground where I just felt it would be more advantageous to me
and the only other building that was ever there was only one and it
was gone before we even had the hearing last time, last time it
was gone since last November.
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: In other words yothe trying to tell us
that you have only one residence - one house there?
CHARLES RYBERG: Well, the house I live in has been there
for a number of years.
-5-
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Yea, I know though, but you don' t have
any others?
CHARLES RYBERG: No, there has never been a house as such.
There was a building I bought out there that I was going, I had
originally in my mind to convert into a shop. It was an old store
building, but then when everything didn' t look so good after I had
the meeting with the, oh what' s the Board you go to before I come
to this one?
TOM HONN: Planning Commission
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Planning Commission
CHARLES RYBERG. Yea, when it don't go too well there then I
decided well, I 'd, I had a gentlemen wanted the building, so I just
decided I didn' t know what to do because I didn't know if I was
going to wind up having to leave property I didn' t see any use to
have a shop building there that I couldn' t no longer use and so
I just sold it.
TOM HONN: The use of the property is not storage of
buildings being moved. The use of the property itself is, it is
the office and more specifically, more importantly, it is the location
where the vehicles and equipment that are utilized in house moving
business are stored, kept, maintained on the property. That,
itself is what is deemed to be commercial.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Has this been listed as an eye sore by
the neighbors, is this the reason, is this where the complaint came
from?
TOM HONN: The complaint itself was initially generated,
I believe,by an inspector or a person of the zoning office who was
in the general area doing a field inspection on something else,
noticed it, and then requested that a zoning inspector take a look
at the property and make a determination, that' s where the case
began previously.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, I have not been by the, the pro-
perty nor have I seen therefore. I have not seen it, but
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Did you bring some pictures?
-6-
CATHY CARTER: I have some pictures.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do you have some pictures?
CHARLES RYBERG: I 'd like to make one objection to these
pictures before they are shown because she came down and took
pictures of stuff that I told her that I was gonna remove from the
property and I do not think it' s fair for him to be showing these
pictures at this time, they were taken right after that last
hearing and her objection was when she made the appointment to me
was to come down and take pictures of what was going to be on it
property if a special use permit were to be applied for and when she
came she said I ' ll just take pictures of what' s not going to be here
and I have an objection to the pictures at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: You have observed the pictures of the
CHARLES RYBERG: Well, yes, I was with the lady when she
was out there taking the pictures.
CATHY CARTER: Would you like to see the pictures?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Is all the stuff all moved that' s in
the pictures?
CHARLES RYBERG: Part of it, stuff is and part of the stuff
isn' t, because that was supposed to be part of the condition was
that they would let me apply for a Special Use Permit.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I think I 've seen most of those pictures
before.
CHARLES RYBERG: Um uh
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: In the last hearing you did
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: But you say you have cleared up the
property considerable since these pictures have been taken.
CHARLES RYBERG: Yes, I have, and I might add too that
when I spoke to Mr. Honn on the 25th of July he said that they would
have someone come out prior to this hearing here and make another
inspection and no one called us .
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: No one has been there. Have you been
there Cathy?
-7-
CHARLES RYBERG: Well, if they have I wouldn' t know .
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: When was the last time you were on
the property?
CATHY CARTER: Mr. Ryberg is, is right that it was
agreed that I would meet with him and with his permission, walk
the property but I have not done that because at, I have been on
vacation and there has not been an opportunity since then to do
it. He is correct, my last inspection and it reflects in my
summary that very little if any progress has been made toward
eliminating the commercial house moving operation. My last inspec-
tion reflects that house moving equipment is still present on the
property and that has not changed.
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I 'd like to know what you intent
is, I mean, ah, are you going to run a business of moving houses or
CHARLES RYBERG: What I would like to know, what the
County' s intent is Ma'am. I 'm not trying to be rude or anything
I don' t think I 'm doing anything wrong and I don' t want to wind up
in 2 or 3 years in Court with the County, Ma' am. All I want to do
is try and make a living which is I 'm sure that' s what everybody' s
you know, everybody else in the whole wide world is doing and all
I, all I have done is tried to do what they ask me to do and I 'd
like to have permission to go ahead and file for a Special Use Permit.
RUSSELL ANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the requests on the
Special Use Permit was denied by the staff and according to the
zoning resolution, if Mr. Ryberg wishes to appeal their decision
the appeal would go to the Board of Adjustment and that would be
the administrative appeal.
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Yea.
COMMISSIONER ROE: If the appeal would go to the Board
of Adjustment, what would the findings of the Board of Adjustment--
Would it be that yes, he could in fact apply for a Special Use
Permit or yes, they would grant the Special Use Permit?
CHARLES RYBERG: No the fact would be , ah, whether or not
ah.
RUSSELL ANSON: His decision, Board of Adjustment' s
-8-
decision would be that yes, he could apply for a Special Use Permit)
that there is a category that his use would fit into.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: In other words then they could come to
the Board of County Commissioners. I think what Mr. Roe is
referring to is that in most cases the Board of Adjustment deter-
mination is final and therefore does not come before the County
Commissioners.
RUSSELL ANSON: Yes, their decision will be final as to
whether or not there is a category under Special Use Permit in
which this use would fall into and therefore whether or not, Mr.
Ryberg could apply for a Special Use Permit.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: And if they approve it, then they could
RUSSELL ANSON: Then it would come back to the Board of
County Commissioners for either approval or denial of the Special
Use Permit if it did fall into a category.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: It seems to me that as I remember
the Change of Zone testimony, the neighbors were opposed to the
Change of Zone, not so much as to Mr. Ryberg' s personal use of the
property but what would happen in the future if the property were
to be resold or, and since there was no guarantee or we, you know)
could not guarantee what in fact would be placed in that they did
oppose the zoning change. Subsequent to that we have talked about
the Special Use Permit ,and I must admit I have the same problems
as the staff, it just doesn' t seem to me to relate enough to any one of
those categories listed to be able to make the decision that it
would fall within the Special Use Permit hearing. If he does have
the appeals process to the Board of Adjustments for their determination
as to whether or not he does fit into one of those categories, perhaps
that' s the route that Mr. Ryberg should take and we should take
the violation to see if he wishes to take that route.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I agree with you, Commissioner Steinmark,
I feel that' s probably the reason that the Board of County Commissioners
denied the Change of Zone because of, ah, would a Special Use Permit
then Mr. Honn, would that be with the applicant and if the
applicant should move off the property the Special Use Permit would
then go with the land as a commercial zone would?
-9-
TOM HONN: No, a Special Use Permit still is a permit that
is issued to the land.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: To the land
TOM HONN: Under whatever given conditions„ you knowwthat
it maybe allowed to operate.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: A new owner then, coming in there for
a different use, that Special Use Permit would not be applicable.
TOM HONN: Well, if a different land owner came in with
a similar use and occupied the property under those previous condi-
tions then a Special Use Permit is still valid. That Special
Use Permit does not necessarily permit another use on the property
that might be a Special Use Permit also. It would require a
separate Special Use Permit for the different activity but the use
permit as long as that kind of operation continues under whatever
standards may be authorized, if that Special Use Permit is approved
it can continue regardless of ownership.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: What you're saying then, if he sold his
business to somebody else who is continuing the house moving that
Special Use Permit would stay with the new owner then.
TOM HONN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: But if the new owner came in
TOM HONN: Stay with the land
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: To build a hog operation, that that
would not fit.
TOM HONN: That would be a different category and it
would require a separate Special Use Permit for that specific use.
COMMISSIONER ROE: All of the zoning in the area is
agricultural, correct?
TOM HONN: Yes.
CHARLES RYBERG: No.
COMMISSIONER ROE : Where is the closest non-agricultural?
CHARLES RYBERG: One mile, there ' s commercial property
one mile, and then a mile and half as the crow flies there ' s
industrial zoning to the southwest of my property.
-10-
COMMISSIONER ROE: What property would that be?
CHARLES RYBERG: John Meads
COMMISSIONER ROE: What?
CHARLES RYBERG: John Meads - Zoned industrial and
then on Road #37 & Road 8 you have repair shop.
COMMISSIONER ROE: The repair shop is a non-conforming
use though isn' t it?
TOM HONN: There is one that I believe it' s probably
at least a mile away and I believe the zoning sometime back in
the sixties. There a small parcel that was zoned for a repair shop.
I believe that may be the one.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay, then if Mr. Ryberg does have an
avenue to go through the Board of Adjustment, is it necessary for
us to make a motion to that effect or just suggest to him that
he go to the Board of Adjustment?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well, I think the tabling suggestion
is good, would June care to make her suggestion as a motion? I
think that would probably be the
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Okay, I would move
TOM HONN: If I made a request I would, I would hope that
you could define a time limit that if Mr. Ryberg wants to determine
that he does want to appeal this decision of the staff regarding
Special Use Permit to the Board of Adjustment, that perhaps you 'd
want to set a time limit that so long as he applies before such and
such a time you know, your tabling action would stay as a tabling
action, if you don' t set a time limit then you may table this for
perpetuity, I suppose.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I 'd agree to that
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Let' s see if
CHARLES RYBERG: May I ask one question ?
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Yes, Mr. Ryberg
CHARLES RYBERG: Do you - is it the proper procedure to
say you know if you were to do that to go straight to the Board of
-11-
Adjustment now or would it not be the proper procedure to apply for
it and have them turn it down or not accept it first and then go
before the Board of Adjustment? Because all you have done is sent
me a letter saying it' s his determination that would not fit. It
was never, I don' t know if that' s ah, actually means that ah
unacceptable or just exactly.
RUSSELL ANSON: I think that' s the way the zoning resolution
reads—that if it is a determination of a administrative officer of
the Planning and Zoning Department that you are appealing and if
that is evidence of his determination then you can appeal that.
CHARLES RYBERG: Ah, that' s what I don' t know. Then I
was curious too, how come one person has the right to determine
what is acceptable and not acceptable for the entire County?
RUSSELL ANSON: Well, this isn' t going to be the , his
decision isn' t. That' s why there is an opportunity for appeal.
CHARLES RYBERG: I see
RUSSELL ANSON: Cause you can appeal that decision
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Umh, if we just table to the
start of an application process, I would think two weeks to meet
with your new lawyer and determine whether or not you' re going to go
through that process, two weeks sounds reasonable to me. I don' t -
CHARLES RYBERG: It should be I spoke to him yesterday
and he just couldn' t come this morning. Well, we will talk to him.
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do you feel that, that adequate, Mr.
Honn?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: To start the application ,not you know
TOM HONN: Yea, well, I feel there ' s probably several
things that need to be considered. I think Mr. Ryberg probably needs
to meet with his attorney and I think they need to evaluate where
they are and then they need to make a reasonable determination if
wish to go ahead to the Board of Adjustment or not, Okay and I
-12-
think you know what you might want to do is then is request of
Mr. Ryberg to notify you within the particular period of time
that he has made a decision, the either apply and you know should
apply within the specified period of time or is not going to
apply and then you may pick back up on, on this particular case and
make a decision.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: If in fact, he does apply, we may want
to table it until we have a decision. Also I mean, that can be
decided later Okay is that what we are saying?
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The tabling action should be until the
Board of Adjustment has met on the subject.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: If
COMMISSIONER ROE: Well, Okay
TOM HONN: Typically in the past any affirmative action
by this Board would have been held typically in a variance until
some other land use permit has been answered either yes or no.
All right.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Yea, that' s what I 've been asking.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Well, then I 'm going to move that
we table the matter for thirty days and request that within that time
that Mr. Ryberg contact us as to his intentions of filing with the
Board of Adjustment.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Second
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Motion by June Steinmark seconded by
Bill Kirby to table any action on this zoning violation by Charles
Ryberg for 30 days. Is there any decision on the motion? All in
favor say yea.
COMMISSIONERS : Yea
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Opposed nay, so carried. Thank you
CHARLES RYBERG: Now do I apply back to the Commissioners
directly as to what' s going on?
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: You can do that through to the Planning
Department.
CHARLES RYBERG: All right, fine, thank you ladies and
gentlemen.
-13-
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay number 8 is a building code
violation for David Knaus, Permit 10047 .
-14-
Hello