HomeMy WebLinkAbout780393.tiff IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Civil Action No. 30261
Division IV
LEE WEICK and JOYCE WEICK, )
Plaintiffs , )
vs . )
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF )
COLORADO; and THE COUNTY OF WELD, )
STATE OF COLORADO, )
Defendants . )
State of Colorado )
ss.
County of Weld
I, Jeannette Ordway, Deputy County Clerk and Acting Clerk
to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the attached record contains the following:
a. Complete transcript of the hearing held on November 1 ,
1978, before the Weld County Commissioners relating to
Docket No. 78-66;
b. Copies of all correspondence and/or memoranda received
by the Weld County Planning Department from any person
relating to Docket No. 78-66;
c. Copies of all submissions made to the County of Weld
by the applicant relating to Docket No . 78-66 ;
d. Copies of the comments of the Weld County Planning
Department and/or Planning Staff presented to both
the Weld County Planning Commission and to the Weld
County Commissioners relating to Docket No . 78-66 ;
and,
7x0393
IPLoaU)
e. Copy of the final resolution adopted by the Weld County
Commissioners on November 1 , 1978 , denying the Change
of Zone from A-Agricultural District to E-Estate Dis-
trict for Lee Weick, et al.
DATED this 10th day-of May, 1979 .
( / l 9
Jeannette Ordway'
4 . "4.4 `C- Deputy County Clerk and; Acting
''
C.) 1 ts+' _, Clerk to the Board of/ County
• cl ' Vii.i't Commissioners of Weld County ,
t' -•y- (`/ Colorado
1 BEFORE THE UE.1.D COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2
{ ' GREELEY, COLORADO
3 • Docket No. 78-66
4
5 LEE WIECK, et al )
6623 Redwing Place )
• 6 Longmont, Colorado 80501)
? Applicant) TRANSCRIPT
)
8 )
HEARING BEFORE THE WELD )
9 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO )
• CONSIDER Change of Zone )
10 from A-Agricultural to ) •
E-Estate District ) •
11
12 Hearing commenced at_the hour of 9 : 00 a.m. , Wednesd
November. 1st, 1978, before the Weld County Commissioners and
13 was recorded via tape recorder.
• .
• 14
Glk 15
16 APPEARANCES .
17 FREDERICK L. GINSBERG, Attorney at Law, Suite 840,
3600 South Yosemite Street, Denver, Colorado 80231, appearing
18 on behalf of the Applicant.
19 MELVIN DINNER, ESQ. , Dinner & Hellerich, Suite 630,
Greeley National Plaza, Greeley, Colorado 80631.
20 R. RUSSELL ANSON, Assistant County Attorney, County
21 of Weld, State of Colorado.
•
22 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :
Ed Dunbar, Chairman
21 Leonard Roe
Norman Carlson
24 June Steinmark
erVictor Jacobucci
2s
MABEL BROYLES
• CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
2 SA .South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
T—_- w 43? 1,111!„
2
1 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Now 9 o' clock, I mean 2 o' clock
2 on November the 1st and we will call this meeting to order.
3 Will you call the roll, please.
4 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : Norman Carlson. "- . .
t 5 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Here.
6 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS: Victor Jacobucci.
7 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI : Here.
8 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS: Leonard Roe.
9 COMMISSIONER ROE: Here .
10 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : June Steinmark.
11 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Here.
12 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : Chairman Ed Dunbar.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Here. Let the record show there
14 is a quorum present. This is Docket No. 78-66, Change of Zone, '
15 A-Agricultural to E-Estate District, Lee Wieck, et al of
16 Longmont, Colorado. Would you make the record, please.
17 MR. ANSON: Okay, Docket No. 78-66, an application o
18 Lee Wieck for a change of zone from A-Agricultural to .
19 E-Estate District on a tract of land in SE' of Section 5 ,
20 Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County,
21 Colorado. Notice of this hearing was published on September 2 ,
22 1978 and October 19 , 1978 in the Johnstown Breeze .
23 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, would you read the
24 recommendation, Tom.
25 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: These comments
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Coloradu
(O9-I130
3
were dated September 5 , 1"78, Case No. Z-303 :78: 7 , Applicatio
2 of Lee Wieck, et al. It was moved by Percy Hiatt the
3 following resolution be introduced for pa .s.; _. I • 1 ;1
• 4 County Planning Commission: "Be it resolved by the Weld
5 County Planning Commission the application for rezoning from
6 A-Agricultural. District_ to E-Estate District covering the
7 following described property in Weld County, Colorado, '
•
8 previously recognized by .the County 'Attorney containing
9 57 .710 acres more or less belrecommended unfavorably to the
10 Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons :
• II 1. The proposal is not in conformance with the Weld
12 County Comprehensive Plan which sets forth that new residents 1
13 developments should be located adjacent to the existing
s . :
14 municipalities and should be served by municipal services .
• 15 2. The proposal is not in conformance with the Weld
16 County Comprehensive Plan in that the Plan sets forth that ne
17 residential' developments which are not closely connected to a
18 served by municipal utilities and services shall be discourage .
19 3 . The proposal is not in conformance with the Weld
20 County Comprehensive Plan in that the development is to be
21 located on prime agricultural land. This is basically in con lict
22 with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan in that the Plan sets
23 forth a basic premise that prime agricultural lands should
24 be preserved for agricultural use.
25 4. The Planning Commission is in disagreement with the
MABEL BROYLES . .
CER HFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659-1130
4
1 evaluation set forth by thi Department of Planning
2 Services staff in that the Planning Commission does not feel
3 that changing conditions in the area nr,w jus : llr a new zoning
4 classification on the property involved.'.
5 This motion was seconded by Irma White. Vote for
• 6 passage was Chuck Carlson, Percy Hiatt, Jerry Kiefer,
7 Frank Suckle, Bette Kountz, Irma White. Abstaining were
B Fred Otis and James Gilbert.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: First off, is there any particular
10 reason why Mr. Otis and Mr. Gilbert abstained? It wasn' t
ll because they weren't here on previous hearings .
12 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE : I believe that
S13 I don' t have the dates down, but I believe that this matter
14 was considered once before by the Planning Commission, which
15 I do not believe that those two gentlemen were there. As
16 well, I think this is one of the first meetings they attended •
17 and perhaps, between those two factors , they felt that they
18 should abstain.
19 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay. Would the Applicant wish ,
20 to he heard for testimony?
21 MR. GINSBERG: Yes , Mr, Chairman. Excuse me. For
22 the record, my name is Frederick L. Ginsberg , Attorney at
23 Law, and I am here on behalf of the Applicant in this matter .
24 I would have a request, Mr. Chairman, which I think would help
25 expedite this a little bit. Could the comments and recommenda-
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
)' t0
S
1 Lions of the Planning Staff.' be read into the record. I think
2 these are helpful because the Planning Staff in this instance
3 did recommend favorably for approval of this zoning and I
4 would like to make those comments available for yourselves
5 and also for the record, so I wonder if this could be done. '
6 as the first part of our case.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Any problem, Mr. Anson?
8 MR, ANSON: I have no problem with that.
9 COMMISSIONER STEINMARY.: I guess I have a problem i
10 the fact that those recommendations were not adopted by the
11 Planning Commission and are not in their recommendations
12 and, therefore, really have no bearing. It' s the Planning,
. I
13 Commission, which is the recommending and advisory body to
•.
14 the Board, not the Planning staff,
15 �.
MR, GINSBERG: Well, Mrs . Steinmark, I agree. This
16
is true in the sense that the Planning Commission is giving
17 these comments for the sole purpose of acquainting itself wit
18 whatever the application might be, the nature of the applica-
19 'L
tion. However, the Planning part that exists for the County
20 per se and not just for the Planning Commission; and if the
21 objection is as to reading them into the record, then all we
22 would do is simply read them into the record ourselves and ma e
23 them a part of the record, which we would have the right to
24 do . I think the point here is that there are certain matters
25 which the Planning staff has raised and brought to the
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
65' -ll 3fl
1 attention of the County, t'tich are very pertinent to this cas .
gir 2 Now, I don' t know whether the Commissioners have had an
3 opportunity to, you know, read those or not, but I do know th t !
4 we certainly would like these comments to be available and
5 made a part of the record. They are not lengthy per se and
6 for that reason I would request permission to have them read
7 into the record.
8 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: We have, to my knowledge--
9 do not have those included, and I guess then I would ask you
to where is-
11 MR, ANSON:, ' Yes , I ,thought they were included in
12 the record. Are they not in this record, is that correct, To ?
13 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: You say you do have a record of
14 them? i.
15 MR: GINSBERG: Well, they were made a part of the
16 record of the Planning Commission hearing to the best of my
17 knowledge, but I don' t believe that these same comments have
13 been presented to this Board of Commissioners ; and I believe
19 they are pertinent and, therefore, could be helpful to all •
20 of us.
21 MMR, ANSON: I don' t see them in the record,
22 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: We do not have them,
23 pmt, ANSON: It was mentioned they wouldn' t be
24 relevant: The only thing relevant would be what is actually
err
25 in the record here, plus what was the recommendations of the
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659 1130 ,�..__
1 Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners .
2 MR. GINSBERG: Well, Counsel, I am not sure I am
3 following what you are saying. You're saying--
4 MR. ANSON: It's not part of the official record.
5 MR. GINSBERG: And that' s what I am asking is that
6 they be read into the record as the first part of our case.
7 Since this does not do anything but provide information on th
8 subject matter as presented by the County' s own staff and I
9 think we are entitled certainly to have this made a part of •
•
10 the record because, after all, the staff exists for the
11 benefit of the County per se, not just for the Planning
12 Commission.
13 MR. ANSON: The staff, I believe, is for the Planni
14 Commission and then the staff makes a recommendation to the
15 Planning Commission. After a decision is made by the Plannin
16 Commission, the decision of the Planning Commission is forwar ed
17 to the Board of County` Commissioners as a recommendation of
18 the Planning Commission, And at that point, the recommendati s
19 of the Planning staff really aren' t relevant. The only thing
20 that ' s relevant are the recommendations of the Planning
21 Commission.
22 MR. GINSBERG: Well, then, our alternative here
23 would be to put someone on in the nature of, say, our enginee
24 and simply have him read those into the record. I am trying
er
25 to save time. I mean we have a right to get them into the
i,. MABEL BROYLES
CER7lE IED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659-11 10
8
1 record, because in case o1 a rule certiorari, we would
2 certainly want those--a certiorari , we would certainly want
3 those available for review by the Court, in any case.
1
4 MR. ANSON: But then they would only be relevant
5 as far as the review by the Planning Commission itself in a
6 sense that the decision of the Planning Commission was actual
7 adverse to your decision, then they are no longer relevant to
8 this body.
9 MR. GINSBERG: Well, okay, I don' t want to belabor
10 this . So, what you are saying is you are willing to permit
11 them to be read into the record by the representative from
12 the Planning staff or you are willing to allow them to become
13 part of the record. Now, that's what I--
• 14 MR. ANSON: They aren' t officially part of the recor
15 as it stands right now.
16 1 MR. GINSBERG: They. are official.
17 M.R. ANSON: They are not.
18 MR. GINSBERG: They aren' t.
19 MR. ANSON: For the record for the County Commissio rs ,
20 they are not part of the record.
21 MR. GINSBERG: And this is the thing that has me
22 concerned. This is , I think, a staff deficiency in this
23 regard. Those comments by the County' s employees , the County' s
24 Planning staff, recommend for approval and they recommend for
er
25 approval for various reasons . Now, it seems to me that
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
. 258 South 12th — l4righton. Colorado
n 9.1130
U
inasmuch as the real legir:lative body that will make the
2 decision is the one that we are here before today, that those
3 comments are certainly pertinent and retc 'ra,4t a.. . :.;,.rl ;;e hay
4 a right to at least have the Commissioners look at the
5 information in it. That' s all we are asking. We are not •
6 asking them to namely base their decision on that information ut
7 simply that we think we have a right to ask that these '
8 Commissioners are familiar with comments of the County per se.
9 After all, the, County Planning staff is the only body or offic
• 10 of whatever you call it, administrative body, in the County
11 that is responsible for gathering up all this information in
12 presenting cases ; and I think that there is a deficiency
• 13 when those informative bits` '.of - information, be they for us
14 or against us, are lacking from the record, because if they
15 are not a part of the record then there is no need for .them in
16 the first instance. Then the Planning Commission should not h ve
17 a right to use them one way or the other. This certainly
18 deregates the rights of either the Applicant and/or the
19 Opponents in the case where maybe they are against the •
20 Opponent. It takes away. It should be a part of the record.
21 And I think we are entitled to have them made part of the
22 record and reviewed by the commissioners . Now, if we can' t
23 do it based on our request that the gentleman here from the .
24 Planning staff do so, then we can do it through our own-- We
25 can ask for a copy and have them read into the record under--
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado•
/50 1140
10
1 you know, through our own 'ritness . I think not to have them
2 part of the record is a bad deficiency, and I would
3 respectfully request the right to put them into the record an
4 to make them available to the commissioners .
5 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Do you have a copy of the record,
6 Mr. Ginsberg, in your own file?
7 MR. GINSBERG: No, I do not. I was not given a cop
S of those, nor did we receive a copy, or at least I didn' t, a
9 copy of the, Planning Commission' s final determination. I •
10 was here when it was done, you know, physically present, but
11 the written document was not given to us . So the only record
12 we know of would be what was put on tape at that time. I
13 believe the whole proceeding should have been taped. Now,
• 14 whether it all got on tape, I don' t know, but I think that I
Is do not have a copy of it. I was never given a copy of it.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Any additional comment?
17 MR. ANSON: Okay. One thing is that they should ha e
18 been in the record to begin with. It was actually--the recor
19 starts at the Planning Commission level with the staff commen s
20 to the Planning Commission.
21 MR. GINSBERG: Right.
22 MR. ANSON: It should have been in the record at
23 that time. It should not have been removed from the record
24 and why it was--is not in the record now, I don' t understand.
ty
25 But apparently, there were comments that were submitted, is
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
(t r.l l t o
1 that correct?
2 MR. GINSBERG: Yes, they were. They were read to t e
3 Planning Commission, and those comments are very appropriate
we
4 in this instance.
COMMISSIONER ROE: Mr. Honn, do you have those comet nts?
6 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Yes , I do have
7 the comments that the staff presented in our file copy.
8 COMMISSIONER ROE: I do believe that since staff ha
9 no recommending authority to the Board of Commissioners on th t
10 issue of zoning, only to the Planning Commission and the
11 Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Board of
12 Commissioners , that they really are irrelevant . I guess I
13 don' t have any problem if Mr. Ginsberg feels they should be
14 part of the record--of making it part of the record. I do
is believe they are irrelevant to our decision.
16 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Mr. Anson, is this--would this be a
17 legal aspect? I mean from a legal standpoint, is it--
18 MR. ANSON: Okay, first of all, it should have been
• 19 a part of the record from the beginning. So they should
20 actually--if they were removed, they should have been placed
21 the record and they aren' t in the record right now. So the
22 comments should actually be with the record. There is only
23 one record that goes from the Planning Commission to the
24 Board of County Commissioners and nothing should be removed
It25 from that record. And why there isn' t any comments in there
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED 51IORTITAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
659 1130
12
1 now, I don' t understand; bait if that was a part of the origin 1 ,
2 record, then they should still be there now. As far as your
I •
3 decision is concerned, it' s based upon re'.: t.Le
a Planning Commission and any evidence that is received through
this particular hearing. Now, as far as the Proponents
6 for this--on this hearing, they can propose their evidence;
7 and if they feel that any evidence that goes on their side th
8 want to speak of, then they have a right to speak of that
9 evidence. Well, it' s up to you whether or not you consider
10 that evidence relevant to your decision.
11 COMMISSIONER ROE: I agree with that. I would move
12 that we allow Mr. Honn to read. the Planning staff recommenda-
13• tions into the record.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Do we have a second? Do you have
15 a copy?
16 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I' ll second.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: It has been moved by Leonard Roe,
18 seconded by June Steinmark to allow the County staff to read
19 the Planning staff recommendation into the record. All in
S .. 20 favor, say aye.
21 (Ayes are voiced.)
22 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Opposed? Motion carries . Okay,
23 Tom.
24 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Okay.
25
Mr. Chairman, these were comments by staff to the Planning
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
6S9-1130
13
1 Commission hearing regarding Case Z-303 :78: 7, in the name of
2 Lee Wieck, et al. It' s a change of zone from A to E . It's
3 part of the Southeast Quarter, Section 5 , Township 1 North,
•
4 Range 68 West. It' s approximately a mile and a half east and
5 one and a half north--miles north of Erie.
6 The Department of Planning Services staff
recommendsthat this request be approved for
7 the following reasons :
8 1. It is the opinion of the Department of '
Planning Services Staff that the applicant
9 has complied with Section 5 ,3 of the Weld
County Zoning Resolution which states :
10 i "Request for rezoning of tracts within
•
Weld County should be supported by detailed
11 and substantial evidence that such rezoning
is necessary. Recent findings and oral
12 statements by petitioners should show very
clearly that either the original zoning
13 was faulty or that changing conditions in
• the area now justify a new classification.
14 Without the presentation of such supporting
documentation, the County Planning Commission
15 should not recommend a change of zoning. It
16 It is the opinion of the Department. of
Planning Services Staff that the applicant
17 has demonstrated the changing conditions in
the area now justify a new zoning classifica-
Is tion. This is based upon:
19 A. One changing condition is that the
Town of Erie adopted a Comprehensive
20 Plan in March, 1973 , which designated
• the area in question as future suburban
21 residential development. This
rezoning request is consistent with
22 the designated land use of the Erie
Comprehensive Plan.
23 B. Another changing condition is that
final platting of the adjacent land to
24
C the south, known as Parkland Estates ,
25 was approved in September, 1977., for
residential development.
•
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Rnehrno. Colorado
14
1 2. It is the minion of the Department of
Planning Serviccs Staff that the request is
2 consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan. One of the policies of' the Weld
3 County Comprehensive Plan app11 rs: to
residential type development is :
4
"Proposals for new residential development
5 ' adjoining existing municipalities shall be '
encouraged so long as they conform to the
6 desires of the town as expressed in their ,
comprehensive, plans ."
7
The request conforms with the desires of the
8 Town of Erie as expressed in their
comprehensive plan. The property in question
• 9 - lies within the Erie Comprehensive Plan area.
The Erie Planning Commission has indicated
• to they have no objections to this request.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, any questions? Comments?
•
12 Mr. Ginsberg?
• 13 MR. GINSBERG: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 I would like to call the engineer that did the plan in the
1s application basically on behalf of the Applicant, if I might.
16 Now, I don' t know, will you want to put this gentleman under
17 oath or not?
18 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: No, this isn't a court of law.
19 This is a commissioner' s hearing.
20 BILL SHEEDER,
21 called as a witness herein, testified as follows :
22 EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. GINSBERG:
/► 24 Q Now, I would like you to explain to the Commissioner '
25 if you would, please, what you learned when you first made
CERTIFIED SFIORIHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
659-1130
15
1
inquiry as to this particular piece of land and its relevancy
2
to the town of Erie and the zoning maps--or, excuse me, Com-
a prehensive Plan for the town of Erie.
A Okay-- •
ply, .
I '
5
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Would you give your name, sir.
1
6 A My name is Bill Sheeder, Rocky Mountain Consultants,
7 647 17th Avenue, Longmont, Colorado. To answer Mr. Ginsberg's I
8 question, I would like to refer to the map, if I may, or
rp; 9
preliminary plat . To begin with--
1.0 M'R. ANSON: Is there a copy of that in the record?
11 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes .
12 MR. ANSON: Okay, you have a map available.
• 13 A In :the very beginning of the Wieck' s request that w •
14 do a subdivision plat for them on the subject property, we sa
15 down with the Wiecks and informed them of what procedures
16 were necessary to do a subdivision plat. Neither of them had
17 done a subdivision plat in Boulder County nor Weld County.
18 The first thing we informed them was to find out if,' indeed,
19 the property was in a planning area and if so, they should •
20 talk to the town of Erie and get their opinion on a sketch
21 plan that we started and prepared along with them. This was
22 done along with several meetings with the Weld County Planning
23 Department and also the Weld County Engineering Department.
24 Once we had committed a sketch plan to the Planning Departmen ,
25 we received a referral back from that department indicating
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado •
"II II
16
1 several requirements and c1'anges that would be required upon
2 submitting the preliminary plat and also the request for
3 rezoning. This was done, and we did then submit our applica-
•
4 Lions for rezoning and the preliminary plat. Also, in the
' 'I 5 process the plat--or the preliminary plan--was shown and take
6 to the Weld County Utilities Commission and it was demonstrat d
7 to those people that it can be served by potable water.
8 Septic systems were allowed in the area according to a soil
9 engineer's report that was also supplied. Power, gas and als
10 telephone service could also be served. These were demon-
n strated and we had a positive recommendation from the Weld
12 County Utilities Commission. Do you have any further questio s?
13 I would be glad to answer.
41V
14 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Any questions of the Board? Any
15 discussion? Okay, thank you.
16 A (Witness) Thank you.
17 MR. GINSBERG: I would like to ask Mr. Wieck a coup
18 of questions, if I might, please.
•
19 LEE WIECK,
20 called as a witness herein, testified as follows :
21 EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. GINSBERG:
23 Q Would you identify yourself for the record, please?
24 A This is Lee Wieck, Longmont, Colorado.
25 Q Mr. Wieck, would you tell the Commissioners what yo
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND RIiPORTER
258 South 12th — Brigluon• Colorado
"" II IU
1
learned at the time you ml'de inquiry about this land from the
2
r , town of Erie?
A The town of Erie--I went to several of their. board
4 meetings and found out the particulars about it. I asked for :ty
5 their County Comprehensive Plan and at that time the e
6 secretary said that they had one plan left, that several had ,
•
• 7 borrowed and then misplaced them, and so on. We took that
8 particular plan and it did fit into their Comprehensive Plan.
9 And at that time, then, we decided to further purchase the
10 ground and to continue with the purchasing and the further
11 development of the ground at that point. •
12 Q Sir, have you since _made inquiry to see if there
111 13 has been changes in the Erie Comprehensive Plan?
14 A Yes , we have. We checked that further and they have
• 15 not made any plans in changing-- (End of tape.)
16 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: You may proceed.
17 Q Let me rephrase my question so that we don' t upset.
18 My question was : Have you since checked to see if ever there .
19 was any changes made from that time--which was what?--
• 20 approximately six months ago?
21 A Six to eight months ago.
22. Q From that time to now, have you checked to see if
23 there has been any change in the Erie Comprehensive Plan,
24 which would have made this different than what you found to be
1'
25 the case when you initiated it?
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND RLPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, CoIor,.In
6S9-I1S11
A Approximately trio months ago we had checked back an
2 they still have not made any comments or further--or any plan
3 of further putting this in front of a group to develop them
4 to work with a future Comprehensive Plan, So they are.•still
going on their old Comprehensive Plan, which we had a copy an
6 we went by when we were doing our planning for this parttcula
7 layout that you have now.
8 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: What water is available there?
9 Where do you get your water?
10 A We will have Left Hand water.: , It circles around,
11 completely makes a loop around that property and runs on
12 County Road 5 and on that south county road also.
13 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: How about sanitation, what do you
• 14 have?
15 A ' Sanitation, according' to the perk tests done by
16 Empire Laboratories of Loveland--and that is in the engineeri
17 report--the perk tests showed according to that soil, that it
18 will handle complete septic systems with no difficulties
19 at all.
20 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI: If you were to measure
21 utilities in numbers what would you say--and I 'm referring •
22 to water taps.
23 A Water taps , approximately 30 to 35.
24 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: What provisions are the
25 municipal services for the fire protection?
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
•
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659. 11111
9
1 A I believe we ha. ' that in the Comprehensive Plan,
2 and my engineer will probably have to answer that question
3 for you, ma'am. If I may, it' s the Longmont Fire Protection
4 District.
5 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, any other questions?
6 A There is a fire hydrant right there at the corner
7 of the property at the present time, too.
8 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI : Is that on the southeast
9 corner of that section?
10 '• A Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, thank you.
12 MR. GINSBERG: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief
13 in my remarks . What we have is a parcel of land which is
0
14 lodged literally between two other parcels of land that are
15 already residential. We have also a situation where the land
16 is being at--or we are asking to be able to put the land to
17 the very use which the Weld County Comprehensive Plan suggests
18 that it should be used as , namely residential or density
19 residential, if you will. The Weld County Plan provides that
20 in the instance where land is located, say, close to an
21 existing town or city that the Comprehensive Plan, if there
22 be one of that town and city, should be relied upon. And in
23 this case we have the town of Erie which has a comprehensive
24 plan, which clearly denotes this land for usage as residentia ,
f25 so that the Applicants are here requesting approval for zonin
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTIIAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659 1130
LJ
1 which complies with the a7 eady existing plan or rule or law,
2 if you will, of the County . The Commissioners are, therefore,
3 confronted with the question of w1i t11t'r '.c ;,:,,, • Lctoldng
• a and comply with the existing County Plan and the existing to
of Erie Plan, vis-a-vis both of them being what we call maste •
6 plans , master .zoning plans , or to deny it and in essence reje t .
• 7 both plans . •
t•
8 We think that the case that we have established,
9 taking into light the comments that are part of the record of
to the Planning staff, clearly reflects that if one looks at it
11 from a change--that there are changing conditions . The
12 changing conditions simply is that this land between what has ust
13 been newly zoned as residential and that which lies to the no th
• • 14 of it which has been in existence for a while as residential,
• 15 namely the Carmacar subdivision, and I believe your map
•
• 16 reflects this . We have water in the Left Hand District , Then
17 is fire protection available from the fire protection district.
18 The perk tests show that sewage, vis-a-vis septic systems , ca
19 readily be accommodated. And, in fact, you might recall sees
20 in the newspapers in the last month or so--that is the local
21 newspapers--a very serious concern on the part of the people
22 in the Erie school area that they are seeing a drop in student
23 'and if they don' t get these students back up, they will lose
24 federal funds . So here again, the development of this
C25 residential area assists in that regard. It assists by
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 11th — Brighton. Colorado
(SI.II SO
21
1 producing some additional students for a district which has b en
r2 losing students ; and, therefore, may help to allay the proble
3 of loss of federal funds for the schools . L tu., nt• pruL•. l,ly--
a CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Was that federal funds or state
5 funds?
6 MR. GINSBERG: I believe they were federal funds ,
7 sir. Now, I could be wrong but I believe they are also
8 reflected as federal fund laws . They have sort of a formula
9 that works out there--and I am not sure how it works--but som ow
10 or another it starts with the feds and filters down► through
the states. But these articles are available for review.
12 The point is that you have here all the ingredients that the
13 county and the state legislatures both--being you, the county,
14 and the state legislature--can set forth in statutory form an
' , 15 in master plan form as being required for the zoning that we
• , 16 are here today requesting you to approve. We think, therefore,
17 that the case is classical for approval and we think we have
18 established that the Wiecks in reliance on the Plan, which was
19 adopted by this county, which was adopted by the town of
2O Erie, elected to proceed with this property in the first
21 instance. It was a public notice, if you will , and they relie
22 on that public notice and I think we are not asking to do
23 anything different than what is already recommended for doing.
24 The findings of the Planning Commission seem to say some thing
25 to the contrary. One of them was that it doesn' t comply--that
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
9 1110
22
is this request, with the Comprehensive Plan--when, in fact, it
IP 2
does comply. There was some serious concern about utilities
3
being supplied when in fact there ate utilities there . The
4 +
town of Erie, unless it brought out the Left Hand District , ,
5 could never supply water to this property, because the water
6 district has been there and even if the town of Erie brought
its water lines up, it would have to buy them out to be able
8 to supply water to this property at some future date, So we
9 are bound again by what's already there, but there is water
10 available. And sewer, that's another thing. If the town of
11 Erie ever annexed this piece of property, then it would have a
12 right to compel people to hook-up their sewer lines . But this
13• is a long way off. This probably lies approximately one and
14 a half miles , as they say, as the crow flies , from the town of
15 Erie. So I think we have all the ingredients and I think that
16 we really have nothing which can be treated as an adverse
17 situation here for the granting of this rezoning. I will be
18 happy to answer any questions you might have at this time or on
19 rebuttal as the case may be,
20
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes, I guess one question. . The
21
term "adjacent to an existing municipality" was mentioned; do
22
you suggest that is adjacent to Erie?
23
MR. GINSBERG: The term "adjacent" in the dictionary
fr 24 definition as we all know it, means right next to; but as one
2s
looks at some of the court cases--and I think the County
• MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 1$8 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
r,"o_II ill
23
1 Attorney would be willing •:o agree on this point--our courts
look at the word "adjacent" as meaning not only next to but
3 in close proximity with, because when you ure talking; nbout
4 land and cities and development and people, you can't always .
5 just take an exact ,word , out of the dictionary. It goes beyon
•
6 just being next to.' And even if you assumed that it was not
7 precisely adjacent to the town of Erie, your Comprehensive
B Plan would still apply. Your rules and regulations still
9 apply that this is , in essence, a residential land; and it has
10 to have certain services , and it' s got those services . So, I
11 don't think it's--I understand what you're getting at, but I
12 don' t think that it's going to play a part really in your
13 decision here, And I think as county commissioners you
•
14 recognize and have recognized in the past that you have, to
15 sort of interface these things and I think that's what you ha e
. 16 got here. It's very likely that a town ,a mile and a half awa
' 17 from a given development is someday going to annex that
18 development, A mile and a half in terms of annexation, as we
19 have all seen, is not a big distance. It's a small distance.
20 COMMISSIONER STIENMARK: Mr. Ginsberg, is it not
21 true that this area lies within the Erie Sanitation--Water
22 and Sanitation District and, ' therefore, the provision of
23 service would be through that district and its 201 facilities
24 planning?
C25 MR. GINSBERG: The area may or may not lie within t e
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
1,59.1130
24
1
Erie Sanitation District, qrs. Steinmark. However, the Erie
2
Sanitation District as of this point has not driven any lines
3 or taken any lines outside of its immediate town of Erie; and ;.
4 at that point, if they did, they could compel these people to
5 hook up to it. Absolutely.
6 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I am not asking that these
7 people be compelled to hook up to anything. It seems to me t at
8 it is within the 201 facilities planning area of the Erie
9 Water and Sanitation District-- •
10 MR. GINSBERG: It may be.
11 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: --and they in fact are req ired
12 by law to make provisions in planning to provide services
13 within that geographic area.
•
14 MR, GINSBERG: Now, who is required by law? I am
15 losing you for a second.
16 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Erie Water and. Sanitation
17 District. •
18 MR. GINSBERG: That they are required by law?
19 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Yes .
20 MR, GINSBERG: Yes , they are required by law; but,
21 you know, how do you get someone to bring something with no
22 money? They have no money.
23 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: This is not even in--
24 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: My question is--
25 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: This is not in the--
- MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
•
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colon&o
•
.—....—. �.:_.__ , ---- —• - ---o.,.__. 659-11 10
1
COMMISSIONER S'FCNMARK: Isn' t it?
2 MR. GINSBERG: I thought the line was the north sid
3 of Parkland, if I am not mistaken.
4 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: No, it doesn't even come,
5 close. It goes south of Erie about three-fourths of a mile
6 and carries in--is that a 160 acres or is that more than that
7 south of Erie? But it's a mile from Parkland Estates .
8 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, I think
9 you may be talking about two different things. I believe
10 I may have a copy of that 201 plan that I can bring down of
11 the Erie Water and Sani District. I think the overall
12 boundaries established by the 201 do take this property in. I
® 13 am not positive , but I believe that to be the case.
14
COMMISSIONER CARLSON: That may be true, but--
• 15 MR. GINSBERG: The existing limits of the current
• 16 water and sani district boundary do not--and I think Mr. Ginsb rg's
17 comments, I believe are probably accurate--I don' t believe
18 they even go beyond the existing city limits .
19 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yes , they--well, that is
20 annexed there south--unintelligible--
;
21 SPEAKER: The total 201 planning area, I believe ,
22 may encompass this property.. I believe that is probably
23 correct .
24 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: My question was based on •
25
the fact a previous hearing in which the sanitation district
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTIIAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — (hightail. Colorado
26
1
stated that this was Erie, at least Parkland was in their
ft 2
201 facilities area, which they are required to plan water ant
3 sanitation distribution within the geor,rapUt J
4 though their district boundaries may be different, their ' '
5 planning area is within the 201.
6 SPEAKER: I believe this particular property that
7 is at question today is, perhaps the north limit and even the
8 east limit of that 201 boundary area. So I believe it's .
9 fairly compatible with 'the 'city of Erie's total future land
1O use or 'comprehensive plan or service area or whatever they
11 define it in their plan that was adopted. I can go up and
12 get that if you are interestedain looking at it.
13
• MR. GINSBERG: Well, I think, Mrs .' Steinmark, if you
14 are correct it is within the 201 planning area that the
15 district must first annex lands in before its 201 plans are
16 even eligible for federal grant. In fact, that is--it must
17 be the case; The property must be subject to the tax before
18 201 funds will be available . Now, it depends whether it 's
19 an FHA or VA designation they are seeking to start with, , But
20 by law they cannot tax, excuse me--they cannot request 201
21 funds unless the lands for which they are seeking the funds
22 are within the boundaries of the district as established by
23 the state, municipal or local area for taxing purposes . And
24 as this land lies outside the boundaries of the actual district--
t
25 the sewer district--it cannot, therefore, be taxed for the
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. ColorJklo
27
1 sewer district and theref- e , even though it may be in the
2 plan, it cannot--or the property itself cannot be given any
3 benefit from 201 funds until once it is brought into the actu 1
; •' 4 physical, legal, if you will, entity, known as the district.
5 So we are not really, you know, it' s not really applicable
6 in this instance.
7
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Well, you are telling me
then that this land lies without--outside an urban service
9 district in the providing of water and sewer.
10
SPEAKER: That is true.
11
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, were you done?
12
MR. GINSBERG: Yes , -i have no further direct--or no
13
• further testimony to put on at this point, but rather we will
14 rebut if it's necessary based on what the Opponents would say.
15
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: May we hear from the Opponents?
16 MR. DINNER: Yes , Mr: Dunbar. Mr. Chairman and oth
17 members of the Board of County Commissioners , my name is
18 Melvin Dinner. I am an attorney at law with offices at
19 630 Greeley. National Plaza, Greeley, Colorado and I am appears g
20 here today on behalf of a series of protestants who oppose
21 the change--or the request of change of zone from A-Agricultur 1
22 to E-Estate. For the purpose of the record and for your
23 purpose, may I indicate to you that I am here representing
C24 Mr. and Mrs . Kenneth Koch, who reside at 5665 Weld County
25 Road 3, Erie, Colorado 80516. Mr. and Mrs . Koch for your
•
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South I2th — IS„�;hton. Colorado
40
1 benefit, so that you may b ,tter orient where they reside , lie
2 in an area of 560 acres which is adjacent to the,� premises whi h
3 exist here, which consists of a total of 57 .710 . They lie to
4 the west of this ro osed p p project. I also represent, in
5 addition to Mr. and Mrs . Koch, a mutual ditch company called
6 Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company. Of course, it's
7 very interesting that Mr. Ginsberg nor Mr. Wieck nor
8 Mr. Sheeder, in fact nobody, has even mentioned or remotely
9 suggested to you the fact that there is an irrigation ditch
to adjacent to this property the full length of the entire
11 property of this, proposed subdivision development. And I call
12 your attention to the preliminary plat for this subdivision
® 13 which has been submitted to you and along it ' s entire north
14 boundary and on its west boundary, along the entire length of
15 this subdivision, exists what is described on this map
16 erroniously--unintelligible--which appears to be Rocky Mountai
17 Consultants , Inc. , what is described as the Laner Cottonwood
18 Ditch. This is not the Laner Cottonwood Ditch. This is the
19 Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company ditch and has
20 always been their ditch. It would be helpful if engineering
21 companies would correctly describe the ditch systems here in
22 Weld County. They don' t even know what' s going on down here.
23 That' s part of the problem which has always existed is that
24 these people come in from out of town, try and tell the local
25 people here what's good for them and what they should be doing.
MABEL BROYLES
•
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND RI`.PURI ER
• 258 South 12th — lit il;ham, Colorado
659 'I111
67
1 But contrary to the known r'acts. that isn' t the Laner Cottonwood
2 Ditch. Let me start off by saying that over half of the •
3 existing lots in this proposed subdivision are affected by
4 this ditch system, which is adjacent to it Needless to say,
5 the importance of an adjacent ditch system is one of importan e
• 6 and extreme relevance to this situation, because it affects
7 directly every single projected potential owner if this chang
8 of zone were allowed. It also affects the entire agriculture
9 makeup of this county. I think it's essential to start off b
10 saying that once again we find ourselves with this confronta-
11 tion between the so-called land developers--call them land
12 speculators, call them fast buck artists , call them whatever
13 you wish--who wish to come in and change our A-Agricultural
1.4 lands , which are not "adjacent" to existing municipalities, to
• 15 subdivision areas . And what we find is that this is the direc
16 conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Master Plan as no
17 prepared and which presently exists . And I must frankly say
18 that I am in dispute with Mr. Ginsberg in virtually every ,-
19 single comment which he has made to you, and I am prepared to
20 rebut them as not being accurate, and as not being correct.
•
21 And I will take the time: to do so. Let me point out to you
22 that I am fully in accord with the position taken by the Weld
23 County Planning Commission, who on two separate occasions has
24 rejected the change of zone from A-Agricultural to E-Estate.
AW
25 On two occasions, once in July of 1978 and once again in •
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHOR II IAN') REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
o S .11 i u
30
• 1 September of 1978 this mater was thoroughly presented to the
OP 2 Board--that is to the Planning Commission group--and on each
3 occasion it was unanimously rejected and the recommendation w s
• 4 made to the Board of County Commissioners in each instance •
5 that this change of zone not- be allowed, not be granted. s
6 Now, let's take a look at what the known and what the existin
7 facts are and what our situation is . Certainly you are famil ar
8 with the provisions of the Weld County Master Comprehensive
9 Plan; and the provisions of the Weld County Master Comprehen-
10 sive Plan do not provide for this ground as R-Residential as
11 Mr. Ginsberg would have you believe. But quite to the
12 contrary. Our Master Plan provides at the present time throu
13 its zoning that this is A-Agricultural. And what it also
•
14 provides, through our Weld County Master Plan, is that any
•
• 1s so-called extension or so-called creation of new subdivision
16 areas are supposed to occur adjacent to--and when I say
17 adjacent to, I mean next to existing municipalities, of which
18 there are 28 in this particular county, in Weld County--and
19 what we find is that the Weld County Master Plan, the officia
20 subdivision regulations and the official zoning resolutions
21 provide that if this were to occur then, that this particular
22 subdivision should be located next to and be capable of being
23 annexed into the town of Erie, but not a distance of two mile
24 or possibly even further away. And I call your attention
Asr-
. 25 again to the map which has been prepared, and it clearly
MABEL BROYLES
I CERTIFIED SFIORnIAND REPORTER
25R South 12th — Brighton, Colorado •
31 •
1 {
indicates it isn' t a mile away. Here 's a half mile here and
P 2
here's a full mile here and here's another half mile at that
3
point, just to get to the closest boundarie3 hula unu edge to
4
•
the next. Now, there isn't even any reasonable assumption. or .„ .
s
reasonable possibility - that this ground is now capable of •
6 being annexed to the town of Erie and there is no project
•
7 in mind by which this vast amount of acreage which lies betwe
8 would even potentially be •
P y possible for annexation purposes .
9 It is quite apparent that we start off with the idea in the •
10 Master Plan with the -content that we are trying to
y g preserve
1i and protect agricultural lands in this county. Needless. to
12
say, I am proud of what we have been able to create in this
• 13 county in terms of what is probably the leading agricultural
14 county in the United States: And I am' prepared to say, I
15 don't think we have to take a back seat to anyone, whether it• 16 comes to crops, or whether it comes to livestock. I think we
' 17 are able to. hold our own; and I think, if you want to use the ,
18 expression, we're number one, I certainly think that's the
19 case. And what happens is that we find these land developers
20 coming in, such as Mr. Wieck here, attempting to develop a
21 so-called subdivision to provide bedroom housing for the Denve
22 Metropolitan community and destroy our prime agricultural lan ,
23 And I do want to discuss that specific phase because one of t
24 referral letters that was submitted to you by the Boulder
er !
25 County Soil Conservation District which classifies this
mnue: c ,.av�es
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
6S9 1130
1
property as prime agricultural land. Now, what do we find?
2
We, therefore, get this conflict between the deterioration
3
and the change of A-Agricultural land to L-Lviaie ue
4 -.
residential areas , which is exactly. contrary to what our cone pt .
5 s• .
. is by the Master Plan. We are allowing this source of
6 conflict to exist to create the dangerous,: if you wish,
7 instrumentality by which these ditch systems are endangered
B in terms of providing water for agricultural use, and gprovidi
9 a danger to neighborhood children who reside in these sub-
10 division areas ,
I1
Now, we have one other thing that has not been
12 mentioned. Mr. Ginsberg says everything has been done that w s
13 supposed to be done. That is hardly the case. The Weld Coun
14 Comprehensive Master Plan spells out that where new develop •
-
15 ments desire to locate in rural areas such as this which are t
16 adjacent to existing municipalities they will be required to
17
• justify their development with detailed plans accompanied by
18 economic impact statements and environmental impact statements .
19 And I ask you please check the record, because you will find
20 that by checking the record there were no economic impact
21 statements . There are no environmental impact statements . As
22 a matter of fact, it even requires that these be prepared by
23 recognized experts showing all of the details of how the
24 proposed development would affect not only the local area,
r• 25 such as the town of Erie, but the County's economic base,
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
25R South 11th -- Ik ip6run, Colorado
a'•'I II 40
33
1 the tax revenues and coste of public services such as schools ,
2 utilities , road and health services and the immediate and
3 long-term impact on the existing environment. And tam
4 prepared .to say that none' of that appears in the record, nor was t:;
5 it ever submitted by Mr. Ginsberg or his clients . Let' s take a
6 look at some of these other items .
7 The adverse affect upon existing ditch systems . Weld '•;t..
•
8 County Subdivision Regulations, Section 812 and Section 6-2-(i)
9 in effect require that an acceptable agreement be made by •
10 subdivision developers with these existing ditch companies .
11 I can assure you in this case that the subdivision developers ,
12 here have made no attempt to contact the Erie Coal Creek Ditch
13 and Reservoir Company system with regards to working out any '
14 of these so-called details . If this is allowed, we will
15 once again diminish the agricultural and economic base. If
16 we go and allow this , we create again one of these situations
17 where we have a negative tax base created for the county.
19 Now, what do I mean by this negative tax base? I discussed
19 this to you in other hearings, such as the Parkland hearing.
20 This type of subdivision development envisions only a •
21 subdivision development of residential housing, roughly 33
22 additional single type family houses along with the two lots ,
23 which are now in existence which have some improvements ,
24 apparently, upon them. This would have to be considered as a
25 medium type or a medium density type of subdivision since the
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTFIAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — ISr'gluon, Colorado
—__ •. __ __61`2 t _ — �. ��.. .
34 4
1 Erie, according to the mar, would cover approximately 44 plus
P 2 acres for these 33 sites . And by the time we find that the
3 County has to supply the services--which arr= r i ; cd ,i;,r1 whi h
• 4 the County has no choice but to provide if this area is allow d':
5 to come in as a subdivision--the tax dollars arising from the
6 property would be less, it would clearly appear from the cost
7 of services to be rendered to these sites ; Now, I think this
8 is most interesting when we talk about the town of Eiie
9 interesting itself in this project. And I dare the people to
10 tell me what the town of Erie is going to have to do with this H.
11 project because the town of Erie isn't supplying any water.
12 The town of Erie isn' t supplying any sanitation services thro h
13 a sewer system. The town of Erie is not supplying any police •
14 protection services . The town of Erie isn' t providing any fir
15 protection services. The town of Erie isn' t providing any
16 electrical services . The town of Erie isn' t providing any
17 telephonic services . I don' t know what kind of utility
18 services at all are being supplied by the town of Erie, if
19 there are any. As a matter of fact, it is my position based
20 upon the comments and material presented by the Applicant
21 that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which is being
22 supplied by the town of Erie to this so-called projected
23 subdivision. And quite to the contrary it would be desirable
24 to have this subdivision for the town of Erie, so that their
25 merchants might in turn have the possibility to collect a
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 126 — Brighton. Colorado
659 II III
35
1 few dollars from those people who are outlying there, but
2 there is nothing to be provided by the town of Erie to this
3 so-called subdivision. And quite as we know to the contrary,
4 these people in this subdivision are going to be requiring
that outside sources, not the town of Erie, provide every
6 single item that we are talking about, which includes not the
7 town of Erie ' s services in many instances , but your services
8 through the Board of County Commissioners . The roads are goi
9 to have to be maintained .by you people, not the town of Erie.
10 This is the requirement they are setting up and you are going
11 to have to be involved with the roads within the area and wit
12 the adjacent roads in terms of maintenance and control. And '
• 13 this is a cost factor that you have to consider, not these
14 particular residents .
15
Let's talk for a moment about the water that they
16
are so keen about having available. Mr. Ginsberg tells you th t
17
the Left Hand Water has a right to service this area. Well,
18 I know nothing about where the Left Hand would have a right to
19 service this area. They may be capable of servicing this
•
20 area, but I don' t think that they have any right to service
21 this , if these people desired and were capable of actually
22 annexing into the town of Erie. And let me explain why. The
23 Left Hand is a private entity. That's all it is . It is not a
24• district. It is not a part of the Erie Water and Sanitation
C 25
District, and all they are simply saying is that this particul r
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — [$ighmn. Colorado
,, .. !59.1130
36
company has some water supply and ap
parently Y FI Y there may be the
2 potential;--and I don' t even know if it is--of their supplying
1 in
g
3 some domestic water supply capability to the area involved.
4 Now, let ' s talk about a couple of other factors . e
5 is the health and safety :factors . And as I indicated to you,
6 the entire perimeter of this ground is adjacent to the Erie
7 Coal Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company system, a ditch which s
8 fairly extensive in terms of width and fairly extensive in t s
9 of a water supply which goes into the system. And nothing at
to all has been provided, and no concern has even been made to
11 check with the water company here to determine what if
12 anything would be required. And we think if nothing more,
13 this alone would be purpose for rejection of their so-called
i
14 change of zone.
15 A couple of other things require that I take some ti e
16 and give them to you. The material that was submitted to the
17 staff as an example, and I call your attention to the referral
1g letter of May 8, 1978 submitted by the Boulder Valley Soil
19 Conservation District, Jack Wheeler, who is president of that
20 District. And Mr. Wheeler in that letter refers to the fact
21 that this particular ground is prime agricultural land with
22 deep, well draining soils formed in alluvium and that the
23 irrigation capability of the agricultural lands , that is of
24 the irrigated lands , has a rating of Class 2, and that the dr
25 land agricultural capability has a rating of Class 3 . I'_ also
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
2SS Son,h 12th — Brighton. Colorado
6$9-11111
si
1 call to your attention a t: ?£erral letter submitted by Virgini
fr2 R. Thurman as Secretary for the Citizens ' Committee for Plann d
3 Community Development. Now, where is this particular area
4 located? It is sandwiched in directly between two other sub-
5 divisions, one which is Parkland Estates and one which is
6 Carmacar. We. note there is an air strip adjacent to this
7 ground. It means that airplanes are going to be flying
8 directly overhead, directly over the existing structures whic
9 they are asking that they have a right to construct on these
10 35 lots , so you're going to have airplaces zooming right over
1] this area, coming out of this air strip going right across 35 •
12 lots .
13 ' Let' s talk about the problem of pollution. What do
•
14 the Weld County Health Department say? In a letter of
15 June 5, 1978, they said that there are now in excess of 165
•
16 vehicles per day passing in that one particular area next to
17 this, that if this subdivision is allowed, it will add anothe
18 154 vehicles per day, almost doubling the amount of traffic
19 volume which would occur, which creates the fugitive dust
20 problem that we are talking about, which is pretty rampant an
21 a serious concern at the present time and a concern to you in
22 terms of the county road system.
23 Let' s look next at the report submitted June 2, 197
24 by the Weld County Engineering Department, a memo from I
25 Rodney H. Hutchinson, who indicates that there is no informa-
MABEL BROYLES
• CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
6S'1 (I ill
38
1 tion concerning water cou-• 1es , culverts or retention areas
er 2 supplied as required by Weld County Subdivision Requirements ,
3 Section 5-1- (B) , Sub . 3 . It is quite apparent that thc8c
4 people would simply like to say because Parkland was granted
5 by you that you should now grant adjacent areas into subdivis on
6 development as well. And as Mrs . Koch says what they are . .
7 wanting to do is to hopscotch around the county in the
8 southwestern part 'of the county and add in all of these
9 so-called bedroom subdivision communities . And I can assure
10 you that this is not desired by the neighboring residents . I h
11 think the Weld County Planning Commission has spoken loudly
12 and clearly on two separate occasions in both July and
13 in September of 1978 rejecting this matter and that they have
•
14 clearly indicated that this is neither feasible and that it
15 should be rejected. And it was rejected in a unanimous.
16 decision on both occasions.
17 Now, so that there isn' t any question, I am going
18 to take a moment to go over what Mr. Ginsberg said, that this
19 should be used as residential. It should not be used as
20 residential. It is now zoned A-Agricultural and that is
21 what the County Plan envisioned. He said the land was
22 adjacent. I don' t care what definition he tries to give you,
23 the land is not adjacent to the town of Erie. It may be with n
24 the proximity and if you call three miles proximity, yes, it'
f'. 25 within that area, but it is not adjacent to the town of Erie.
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 2SS South 12th — II,' htou. Colorado
659-11 3(1
39
1 He said that if you don' t 1 you
pprove this , are rejecting tho a "` -
4 2 plans . That is not correct. It may very well be that the to
3 of Erie had no objection to this particular proposed subdivis on, ,
4 but it is entirely in conflict with the Weld County Master
5 Comprehensive Plan. He said there are changing conditions .
6 That is not true. The Weld County Planning Commission has,,sa d , ..
7 to you there are not changing conditions and they have not an ,
a do not exist and that is one of the reasons why they have
9 rejected the plan.
to He talked about the water with Left Hand as if to
11 indicate that was a part of a district that has the right to
12 service that area. That is not correct. And I call your
13 attention to the letter which was submitted as a part of this
411,
14 material, and you will note that the letter which you receive
15 in April 21st, 1978 is simply a letter submitted to you by th
16 Left Hand Water Supply Company out of Niwatt. It doesn' t ref •
17 to the service area or a service district. It doesn't refer
18 to the fact that they have prior rights or preferential rights .
19 to the particular area involved.
20 I believe that covers the things that Mr. Ginsberg
21 covered in his comments . And as I indicated, I think this
22 clearly rebuts each one of them and clearly indicates that
23 there is no other basis but to reject this plan and to turn
24 it down not simply by a rejection but to do so unanimously so
25 that these people understand once and for all that we are tryi g
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton.. Colorado
E StI_II SII
40
to preserve agricultural interests in this county.
2 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: (Unintelligible)--in
g )--in case anyone
3 has questions?
4 MR. DINNER: Yes ,. I will be glad to answer them.
5 MR. ANSON: Mel, do you wish to introduce that as a
6 exhibit?
7 MR. DINNER: What ' s that?
8 MR. ANSON: Do you wish to introduce that map as an
9 exhibit? You've been talking about that map and I don' t
10 believe--I don' t have it a part of this •record.
11 MR. DINNER: I believe it is a part of this record.
12 MR. ANSON: Is that in here? I don' t see it.
• 13 MR. GINSBERG: I think the map is included just
14 to assist in terms of trying to visualize what this possible
15 land is. going . to look like. It is part of the record in the
16 subdivision request not--unintelligible--
17 MR. DINNER: I have no objection to its introductio
18 as such.
19 COMMISSIONER ROE: If we do not have this particula
20 map in the record, we probably should submit it.
21 MR. ANSON: It should be, yes .
22 MR. DINNER: I would assume that the Applicants hav
23 other copies . This was the only copy and this was submitted-
24 MR. GINSBERG: We have no objection to it ,being mad
25 part of the record.
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
,._.__ _, ___ ... G34-1L1__
1
MR. DINNER: Do you have an extra copy?
2
COMMISSIONER STPIIdMARK: Well, we have copies .
3
MR. GINSBERG: They have copies .
4
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: We have the same-
5
MR, GINSBERG: So it's already in the record, then.
6
• MR. DINNER: Were there any other questions?
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes, what were you in reference to
s when you made reference to the negative tax base?
MR. DINNER: The negative tax base that I referred
to to is the fact that the only taxes which you will receive are
11 those which will arise--assuming if we were to follow this
12 through and they should grant-it, the projected subdivision
• 13 development--will be those taxes arising in the county from th
14 eventual construction of the residences upon this
P particular
15 site. So the county would receive them because they are lying
16 out in the county rather than in the town of Erie. And you in
17 turn would be required to have to extend on behalf of the
18 county with regards to raods , police protection, and other
19 factors , which is a cost factor. And I am saying this would
20 no doubt exceed the tax amount of dollars that you would recei e
21 from this proposed subdivision. And, therefore, would be a
22 negative tax base, because this is not tied to any industrial
23 development or any commercial development, et cetera. And
24 you're going to be required through schools and other sources r - 25 to extend funds for the education of these children et cetera,
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
nu Mill
42
1 for the development of ro:lds , the maintenance of roads , for
2
police protection from the County Sheriff's office, et cetera.
3 And what we are saying is that the cost incurred in that
a particular instance would be greater than the tax dollars that4' y
5
you would receive from the property.
6 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Is that a gravel road?
7 MR. DINNER: Those are gravel roads , at least to th
8 best of my knowledge. And I 'm sure--Mrs. Koch can correct me
9 if there are--she confirms that all these are gravel roads,
10 which is another reason why I referred earlier to the fugitiv
i I'
11 dust problems that exist in the area.
12
•
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okny, are there any other question ?
13
• Okay, that will be all for now, Melvin. Any more--anyone
14 else that would like to speak in opposition to this request?
• 15 Rebuttal?
16
MR. GINSBERG: I think I ought to clarify one point
17 that was raised about two hearings before the Planning •
18 Commission. The reason we asked and received permission to ha e ,
19 a second hearing was because in the first hearing, although
20 there was a denial, there were no reasons for the denial made;
21 and so we asked for a second hearing. And in the second
22 hearing there were reasons for denial made.
23 The second point I should like to point out, is
24 Mr. Dinner has made--or attempted to make--a point of the fact
25 that there is a three mile distance between this land and Erie
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659-1110
43
1 I have to disagree; and I think that we will put a little
2
testimony on to indicate to you that the distance is roughly
3 one and a half miles on a crow fly basis if
you will, ,
The ditch question. This ditch is' not on any land
5 involved in this subdivision. ' This ditch is in Carmacar.
6 The Applicants have no interest in the ditch. They have
granted no easement for the ditch. And they said they have
8 nothing to do with the ditch, with one exception: their land
9 abuts the ditch. Now, the name of the ditch, interestingly
10 enough, is recognized on USGS as that shown on the preliminar
' 11 plat. And, in fact, the legal description to this property
12 going back to whatever, when Idle first grant wan made to the
• 13 railroad, reflects as late as 1973 that this ditch is referre
14 to as , the Laner Cottonwood Ditch. So, regardless of, what we
15 call it, we have to accept the fact there is a ditch which
16 is abutting this land. And so what? It's no different
17 than the same problems that you have whenever you develop a
18 piece of land that is adjacent to a ditch. Wherever you've h d
19 farming in Colorado, it's been primarily for many, many years
20 an agricultural state; and whenever there has been developmen ,
21 there has always been this problem of ditches . And so we
22 apologize if the ditch has been called something other than
23 what Mr. Dinner believes it should he called. If it turns ou ,
24 it should be called what Mr. Dinner says it should be called,fir 25 we will be more than happy to make that change in the plan.
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Itrighron. t''dnndo
6 5 9-I 1 10
Mr. Dinner argrA that he wanted to preserve the
el 2 agricultural status of this county. It's interesting to note
3 that this is the only county, not only in this state but in th
majority of the United States , and this is normally--now, I 'm
not trying Y g to testify per se, but I am taking this out of you
6 Comprehensive Plan and also from some other information, whic
7 is available. I think if you checked with the U. S . Departme t ' ,
8 of Agriculture, you will find that they will confirm that thi
9 county is one of the few counties and the only county in the
10 state which is actually increased, increased percentagewise
11 against total county land the number of farm acres available •
12 since roughly this poll began_to be available in the late
13 1940s . And this , of course, is confirmed in your own
•
14 Comprehensive Plan where the increase has been positive, that
15 is that the proportionate of total land acres in farms , that s
16 the percent is increasing in this county, not going down. So
17 I don' t think that the problem of losing your agricultural
18 status is really a very poignant or pronounced one , especiall
19 since you are increasing.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: I have a question.
21 MR. GINSBERG: Yes .
22 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: By increasing the agricultural la d,
23 how do you increase agricultural land when there is just so--
24 X number of acres in a county--
25 MR. .GINSBERG: , Okay, I ' ll explain that .
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
6S9-II3B
45
1
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: --unless you are plowing up your
2
pasture land--
3
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Like prairie.
4
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: --and making it into farmland.
1.
t 5
MR. GINSBERG: That' s precisely what ' s happened,
6 That is precisely y and if you will check with the U. S .
7 Department of Agriculture,g you will find that your increase
8 has continued. It dropped off in ' 70 through ' 72 and then ,
9 has started back up again. In 1969, 95.2 percent of the land
10 in this county, of the total land, was being farmed. That
11
percentage has gone up. So you are succeeding in accomplishi
12 what you felt you wanted to accomplish when you adopted this
• 13 Comprehensive Plan.
14 Land developers and bedroom housing. There has not
15 been any evidence presented by the Opponents to substantiate
16 the fact that Carmacar, or I believe Parkland, on the other
17 side of the street is a bedroom community. It's easy to say o
18 to call them, and I am sorry that Mrs . Koch was unable to pres nt
19 any evidence; but there is no evidence before you that it is a
20 bedroom community, either one of them. I think the definition
21 of bedroom community is where you live in the country and work
22 in die r at; :!- 1:!.n-e Crese5lte
,.^ sic',. e-riae^ce, only they
23 have made the statement.
24
CWe concur with the Boulder County Conservation
zs District that the land in this area is most readily available
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South I -- Rrighron. Colorado
46
I' 1 for farmproductivity or i productivity, you,ricultural roductivit if wi 1.
fihk 2 However, in this case we are dealing with 50 acres plus or mi us
3 and unless someone has developed a tremendous yield for 50
4 acres ,' I think that the yield is probably very small And
5 that can' t be expanded. That is to say that the land is sort
6 of landlocked. between the road and a subdivision on the north.
7 • Now, Mr. Dinner has made some note of the water, th
8 Left Hand water. If the research that I have done serves me
9 correct, I believe the Opponent in this matter, namely
10 Mr, and Mrs . Koch is serviced by that district. Correct me
11 if I am wrong, Mrs . Koch. So the very people who are quiryin
12 whether or not Left Hand can serve this particular piece of 1 d
13 are this day serviced by Left Hand. They don' t get their wate
in from wells, but rather from Left Hand who may ultimately get
is their water from wells, I don' t know.
16 Negative tax base, again we have a statement made
17 that it will produce a negative tax base. The burden ,is on
18 Mr. Dinner to prove that. And, in fact, the burden is not on
19 us , having checked your regulations , et cetera, to prove that •
20 we won' t produce a negative tax base. Interestingly enough,
21 if one accepts the information and observations made in the to al
22 papers about the problems the school districts are having, the
23 the inculcation or the, inclusion of this subdivision: and its
24 ability to produce some additional children will help, rather
'25 than hinder. In fact, it runs contra to the argument, because
•
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
6191I30
41
1 if the school district is losing kids and it ' s losing revenue ,
2 then you do have a negative tax base. And, in fact, if you
3 can help allay that by producing some more housing in an area
a and giving children the school district, you assist rather
5 than hurt the district and that seems based on what the
6 local papers have said to be the case in this instance.
7 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I think we find sometimes ,
s Mr. Ginsberg, that what is recorded in the paper is not alway
9 whatris actually meant.
l0 MR. GINSBERG: Yes , I would agree with you.
•
11 COIWIISSIONER STEINMARK: Unless you have that news-
12 paper article, I think I would like to-
13• MR, GINSBERG: I am sorry, I do not have it. I
14 would be more than happy to get it and make it available for
ti... 15 you.
16 And finally, I think there is the point raised abou
17 the detriment that this area is going to have if it's allowed
I
18 to proceed. The argument , I believe Mr. Dinner has raised,
19 is one of do we keep ourselves agricultural or do we go ahead
20 and become less agricultural and more residential? But I
21 think by virtue of the statistics available from the
22 U. S. Department of Agriculture and also your own statistics
23 and your own Comprehensive Plan, the argument is overcome, th t
24 we are not seriously detracting by providing roughly 33
25 additional housing sites from what is substantially and
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
' 258 South 11th — Brighton. Colorado
48
1
continues to grow as an at°,I•iculturally inclined or productive
2
county in this state of--in the state. Any other questions?
3 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Yes , go ahead.
4 i.;
CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: How' many houses have been constru ted
5 in the Parkland Estates ,, by the way?
6 MR. GINSBERG: Okay, as of last week I understand
7 that the subdivision has now got six permits that have either
8 been pulled or are in the process of being pulled. And in
9 January--what has happened is certain people have sold their
10 houses first. In other words , it seems that everyone is buil ing
11 in there in the group, and this again has been conveyed to me
12 by the board of directors at Parkland; but before the :people
13 build, what they have been doing is selling their house first
14 and getting their equity in essence so that they can proceed
1s to build their house in Parkland. And there are a bunch more
16 people who have their houses listed who will then, once '
17 they sell them, and build their houses in Parkland. •
18 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: The Weld County Health Department r.
19 states that--it' s says "recent traffic count data from
20 County Road 5 indicates high traffic volume. These vehicles
21 counts are in excess of 165 vehicles per day as specified
22 in Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulation No . 1 concerning
23 fugitive dust emission. Dust from this road has caused
24 much citizen complaint from those residents of Carmacar
�. : 25
Subdivision. Speed control of 35 mph has had little or no
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
6 s,i !Ito
4
•
effect in alleviating this condition. Over the five-day pert d
ark 2 ending June 5, including weekends and traffic volume on Road
3 was 468 vehicles per day north of the subdivision and 229
4 vehicles per day south of the subdivision." This is , placing
•
5 some pretty heavy traffic--garbled--
6 MR. ,GINSBERG: I think--
7 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: --rural road would be carrying th t I
8 kind of traffic. •
9 MR. GINSBERG: Yes , no questions . However, I belie
10 your records will reflect that this county has adopted funds
11 oil Road No. 5 in order to alleviate this problem. Secondly,
12 it is true that whenever you have development, you are going,
13 increase the traffic. Nobody can argue with that. But in
14 this particular instance the county already saw fit to allow
15 this area to be residential in nature. This was not somethin
16 new to the area, The first was Carmacar, even before Parklan .
17 So apparently, the county has in its own mind determined that
18 this area can be residential in nature . And we are not askin
19 for anything which contradicts that which you have already do e.
20 We are not coming out here and saying, "Hey, we should be
21 number one or even number two. " Now, I grant you that Parkla d
22 has been a sore point with a lot of people, but it's there .
23 It's a reality. So here, we've got a piece of land wedged in
24 between it. You know, how do you make it go away? The land
Amor
25 has got to be used for something. We can and will produce in
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• • 258 South 12th — Brighton. (.olorjdo
50
1 the second testimony as tc whether or not 50-some acres was
2
economically feasible when it was farmed. Those of you who
C
3 sit on this board know--and the testimony will further suppor
4 the fact--that 50-some acres simply is not feasible for
5 agricultural purposes . So I want for the record to establish: . ;:.
6 one, through the engineer, the distance that this land lies
7 from Erie; and two, to establish from another gentleman in th
8 audience what was the result of attempted agricultural opera-
9 tions on the , 50 acres to, put those two matters to rest. ' Firs ,
10 let me ask the engineer if he would assess the distance that
11 this property lies from 'the town of Erie. v.
} "
12 BILL SIZEEDER, !. .
13 j
called as a witness herein, testified as follows :
14 A On the map of record--excuse me, my name is Bill
15 Sheeder again. On the map of record, in the vicinity map jus I
16 scaling off by section would be about a half a mile, a mile,
17 about approximately two miles along the roadway.
18 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Now, is that on the section line r
19 as the crow. flies?
20 A Yes , along the section line. It would be shorter t e .
21 way the crow flies .
22 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Now, getting back to the water,
23 now they already have water rights on this land; how much wat r
24 rights do they have? And the water rights are out of Left ,cr 25 Hand Water, is that right?
MABEL BROYLES
,!! �' ; CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
238 Srnnh Ilth — Brighton. Colorado
i} I )�tp
r
1 MR. GINSBERG: The water rights are out of Left Han
2 water?
3 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes.
.
• COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: No. •
5 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: There are water rights available
6 for this land? •
7 MR. GINSBERG: Yes , there are. The water rights , y s .
,
8 The part of the water rights that were with this land were
9 sold off long before my clients even bought it. They have no
10 sold off any water rights . They own water rights with this 1 d.
11 Yes , that is correct. So that they have the ability to trade
12 water to the district to assist in that regard. Yes , they do
13 have that ability. Now, I should like to ask two gentlemen
•
14 in the audience and perhaps this gentleman here to identify
15 what his experience was in attempting to farm 50-some acres of
16 land. Would you step forward, identify yourself and tell
17 the Commissioners--
18 DONALD E. SMITH,
19 called as a witness herein, testified as follows :
20 A My name is Donald E. Smith. I am one of the former
21 owners of this land in question today. Originally, we bought
22 this piece of land to raise rabbits on and then because of the
23 amount of time and work that was involved in it, we gave up
24 on this . But shortly after we had purchased this land, we wer
AM-
IL 25 at our neighbor' s , Ken Koch' s and there was some other
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Ih ighton, Colorado
659-1110
32
1 1;u
neighbors in there and the statement was made and everybodyIrk
2
affirmed that this statement was correct, that we surely didn' t
3 buy thatpiece of land togrow anything Y �, o.: LCtiHiiLa'. it was
4 simply a bunch of buffalo warlers and a bunch of shale land
s
and it wasn't good to raise any crops on; and since then
6 we found that to be true. We haven' t been able to even make ' I
7 our expenses on the crops that we have taken off of there.
s Q And over what have of period
years you tried that?
9 A Five years .
10 MR. GINSBERG: I think he supports what those of yo
11 who are in the farming business know that when you've got a
12 small tract of land like that,_-it's awfully difficult to make
13• anything off of it . You've got to have a lot more than that
14 unless you're :talking about just enough to sustain your own
1s family, then, you got a shot at it. Are there any other
16 questions?
17 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR : Did Mr. Smith have additional
18 land that he was farming along with this?
19 MR. SMITH: No.
20 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I would like to go back
21 to the ditch. You say even though the ditch is on the sub-
22 division plan, it is not part of the area being considered,
23 is that correct? They just abut?
24 MR. GINSBERG: That is correct. Yes , ma'am.
25 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Then, in fact, the ditch
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 758 South 12th — 1Stighton. Colorado
h59 II IV
company will be financiallr responsible for protecting the
2 health of the people whose lots--and safety of the people who e
3 lots back up or the use, continued use of their ditch. .
4 MR. GINSBERG: No, I think the answer to that is Ju t
5 as it was in Parkland, that the ditch can be fenced and it ca
6 be made a requirement of any platting that might succeed, in
7 assuming this zoning is granted. I think you have a fair rig t '
8 to ask a developer when he abuts a ditch to fence his part of
9 the ditch. Why it was not.,done with Carmacar, I don't know, u
10 know, it's hard to tell.
11 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: , Yes , I don' t know the
12 background-- _
13 MR. GINSBERG: But in this instance, I think when
0
14 you get to the platting stage, if in fact this zoning is
15 granted, you have an absolute right to ask the party who's
16 changing that use or making use of, you know, land that abuts
17 it, to fence that ditch.
18
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Tom, is that part of the
19 subdivision or part of the zoning, the fencing of a ditch?
20 The agreement with a ditch company, is that g p y, part of rezoning
21 or part of a subdivision?
22 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Okay, that.
23 requirement is found in the Weld County Subdivision Regula-
24 tions .
fir
25
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Is Carmacar agricultural?
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12Th — &ighton, Colorado
( S i-I1 UI
54
• 1
Is it still zoned agriculii 'iral?
elk 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE : Yes , it is .
• 3 That subdivision was zoned in the late--or pintred in the lat
4 60s . It was also prior to the current subdivision regulation
s that we have now that were adopted in August of '72,
6 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Is it agricultural under '
7 nonconforming use or--
s PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE : It's--well, no,
9 at the time the subdivision was platted, the minimum lot size
10 in the agricultural district was 40,000 square feet and the
11 lots created to the best of my knowledge are consistent with
12 that, if not larger. And then-in--since 1973, when the '
• 13 minimum lot size in the agricultural district was changed, wh ch
14 would specifically require a division of property into parcel
15 sizes such as being requested here to have a change of zone
16 to be consistent with the lot size requirementsof the zoning
• 17 resolution, '
i
18 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: The first zoning of Weld
19 County land was in the early 60s . This was created after tha
20 point, am I correct?
21 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: There were
22 zonings that took place in the 60s after, I believe, it was
23 1961, when the Planning Commission was first formulated and
24 the zoning resolution was adopted, yes . This particular
Cr
25 subdivision came along apparently sometime after that,
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th - 14tighron, Colorado
r,to Il lu
J6
1 referencing Carmacar. But the date and time that it was plat ed,
ffr 2 there was not a requirement that it have to necessarily have
3 change of zone to a residential classificut.i.;:11 t ,,,:l .;L4ru , it
4 did not and still is zoned agricultural. ; •
E n w
5 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Can someone tell me if the
6 Longmont Fire .Protection District is a volunteer district or
7 not?
• 8 SPEAKER: Volunteer.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Mrs. Koch, would you like to subm t
to
some testimony.
11 --Unintelligible--
' 12 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Would you come up to the
13 microphone?
14 SHIRLEY KOCH,
15 called as a witness herein, testified as follows :
16 A My name is Shirley Koch and, of course, I am one of
17 the here today representing not only myself but the ditch
18 company. What I wanted to refer to was the fact that this
19 place the Wiecks have bought was at one time part of a piece
20 of ground that Mr. Hansen owned. Mr. Hansen owned it in
21 entirety, Then Mr. Jones bought it. When Mr. Jones bought
22 it, he divided it into two pieces , one which he sold to the
23 Carmacar people and the other one which eventually went to
24 Mr. Smith and Mr. Conklin. And at the time of doing that, he iffrV 25 created a line, a property line to divide the land that he so d,
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
6S9-I110
J/
which was particularly areificial. Now, this line that he put
2 to divide the two pieces of ground was just to the south side
, 3 of the Erie Coal Creek Pitch . And what he u ! ' , i:r 111 ;,, t_y
4 line dividing the two places is in some instances only two
s or three feet on the south side of the ditch. And basically
1 6 the ditch still holds usage right-of-ways on the Smith and
7 Conklin properties , because actually that two or three feet
B isn' t enough to get our equipment or whatnot through. And
9 that was what I was wanting to try to explain, that although
10 our ditch is not actually on their ground, what happened was
%. ; . 11 that when this artificial line was drawn, it was drawn in a
12 very bad place. And as a result, why it is going to ,cause
13 problems as far as the ditch compa-y is concerned, and the re t
14 of it.
is The other one thing I would like to say, too, this
16 problem of dust--and I know a lot of people don't like to
17 admit it--is bad and all through the day you can see the dust
18 rising from our roads out there. And then since Parkland has
19 been using their air strip, when the airplanes take off and .
• 20 land, it is nothing but just pure dust, I mean, coming up
21 from that. And to me, Carmacar is not a municipality. It's
22 not--it's an incorporated living area. Parkland is the same
23 thing and to create another, what do you want to say,
24 unincorporated living area, it's just going to cause the coup y
25 problems. It's going to cause everybody problems . And that'
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
659-1110
58
1 all I wish to say.
2 CHAIPNAN DUNBAR: Mr. Ginsberg.
3 MR. GINSBERG: I have checked with my client,
4 referenced Mrs. Koch's comments about the ditch, and . they hav
5 agreed that if there is a
g problem in creating some additional
6 width so that the machinery that's needed to clean out the di ch,
•
7 at the time of platting, we will adjust to make additional
8 width available along that ditch so that we don' t have that
9 problem, because what Mrs. Koch says is absolutely right. . Whe e
10 you have a ditch that you can' t get your machinery in there t
11 clean it. We went through this with Parkland and it isn't
12 going to work, So my clients Agreed that if they have to
13 adjust this plat to reflect some additional lands to get
•
14 through the machinery for the ditch maintenance, this is
15 acceptable to them.
16 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI : Could I ask Mrs . Koch what
17 is the largest amount of water in second feet that would be
18 carried through this ditch and how many acres does this ditch
19 now irrigate? It has to go across Road 5 before it delivers
20 any water to a farm, right?
21 --Unintelligible--
22 1IRS . KOCH: As I was--to the best of my knowledge,
23 there is approximately 20-some shareholders in the Erie
24 Coal Creek Ditch System. There is approximately, I would say,
25 half of them that would be below that area. Now, up to the
Mrl.LLL b;1'1' 111
CERTIFIED SHORTIIAND REPOR[ER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
.._.._.-..._ _._.. _._._ .. .__
5
1 prior time our ditch .is built, I mean the culvert and when it
2 was built, carried' 50 second feet of water. Now, as you know,
3 as it goes to the lower end of the ditch, it, of course,
4 naturally gets smaller, but the one thing--the one problem we -4,
5 have right now--and we don' t know with these , areas of
6 drainage that .are coming in from Parkland--once that is develo ed .
7 it will add water to the ditch at drainage times and of course
8 if this is allowed, this would create a heavier problem as
9 far as drainage is concerned to the ditch; and whether our ditc
; 10 is capable of handling the extra drainage given to us along
11 with the water that we put through that ditch, I am not sure
12 at all that it is .
13 COMMISSIONER JACOI3UCCI : Do you know how much water
. 14 or 'kw many acres are farmed on the east side of Road 5,
15 because there aren't any acres farmed in Carmacar, so you don'
deliver anything out of that?
17 MRS . KOCH: No, we used to deliver there--no, we
18 don' t deliver. Now, I will say this , we do deliver five share
19 in Carmacar itself, because those people, there were five
20 original purchasers in Carmacar that did receive one share of
21 ditch company stock and so Carmacar does receive five shares o
22 Erie Coal Creek water and they do receive some minor
23 Cottonwood water, which we are a carrier of in that Carmacar
24 subdivision. Then, also, most of the ground that is irrigated
r
a 25 by the Erie Coal Creek Ditch lies to the north side of
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12111 — Brighton. Colorado
6S0-1170
60
1 Highway 52, which would ir'aude Dave Oscarson, Josephine Miles--
2 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI: That wouldn' t be under thi
3 ditch, though?
4
MRS. KOCH: Yes, it would be . Yes , yes , it is
s under the Erie Coal Creek ditch. And I would say there would
6 be roughly a section and a half to two sections of ground on
7 the north side of Highway 52 that is irrigated by the Erie
8 Coal Creek Ditch.
9 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI: Or as it's named here the
10 Laner Cottonwood--
11 MRS. KOCH: Well, actually what it amounts to--and
12 this is a very technical problem in the area--the Laner Cotto -
13 e wood Ditch comes down to an area in Boulder County known as
14 Brownsville. Through Brownsville and that area is what is
15 called the Wise Lateral, The Wise Lateral extends for about
16 two miles and then they have what they call the Cottonwood
17 Extension. Now, this was an old name for it. It takes the
18 water to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. Now, my husband and
19 myself, we ;own 25 shares of Erie Coal Creek. We also own
20 190 of Laner Cottonwood. The Erie Coal Creek ditch acts as a
21 carrier for our 190 shares of Laner Cottonwood water. Now, w at
22 we are in the process of doing at this time, the Erie Coal
23 Creek Ditch Company is in negotiations with the Wise family
ef 24 and we are in the process of making the Wise Lateral a part o
25 the Erie Coal Creek Ditch Company. When this is completed, t e
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 218 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
-__.._119-I131.._._ ____.__—_._ _. .__.—_ .-- - — _.._.
61
1 Erie Coal Creek Ditch will extend into Boulder County and carry
2 water from there clear down to, like I say, south of Highway 52. ,,
3 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI: But this . ,11nt 1 )•1111 call
' for the time being since it is named that now--the Laner Cotto - i,
if
wood does run--
6 MRS. KOCH: . That's erronious, . though. It is not th
7 Laner Cottonwood, it is Erie. Coal Creek. It's an incorporate
COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI: Okay, but I am just asking
k
' 9 if you will go with the designated name here, all I want to
10 know is this ditch that is called the Laner Cottonwood, does
11 it run to Highway 52 and irrigate land beyond Highway 52? •
12 MRS . KOCH: Yes . I would say close to two sections,
13 not hardly. •
14 MR. GINSBERG: Mr. Chairman--
./
10 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes .
16 MR. GINSBERG: -if I may make a couple of comments.
17 This particular hearing has to do with rezoning and all this
18 information about water rights are not really that relevant
19 about rezoning. There is only a couple of things that are
•
20 relevant to rezoning as covered by the zoning resolutions ;
21 and the two items are whether or not the original zoning was
22 faulty and whether or not the changing conditions in the area
• 23 really justify rezoning. is
24 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay. Thank you.
. , 25 MRS. KOCH: Is that all, then?
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• - 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
n 11 )0
62
i MR. DINNER: Geuelemen, may I make one additional
q2 comment because I think it ' s essential--
3 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Why don't you get on the micro-
4 phone.
5 MR, DINNER: I have a comment that I feel is essential
• I
6 because this is the letter from Mr. Wieck himself, which was
7 submitted to Mr. Tom Honn as zoning administrator and I would
like to read from that item of correspondence with regards
9 to answers to required questions for rezoning Wieck's
to subdivision. "Dear Mr. Honn." Item one and I quote, "1) We
ii felt it is undesirable to continue the agricultural use of
12 this property, principally because ,in the last three years
13 the alfalfa hay crop productivity has declined as follows :
14 1975 - 160 tons ; 1976 - 120 tons.; 1977 - 70 tons ." What's quite
is apparent is that they have got a lousy farmer, it seems. to
16 me. The productivity is there and has always been there.
17 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, did you have your hand up I
18 again?
19 SPEAKER: No.
20 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Oh, okay, just waving, then.
21 Any other testimony? Discussion among the Commissioners?
22 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI : Mr. Chairman, I sit here
23 and I am kind of caught between, I guess, not a dilemma
24 exactly--and I guess it is . I know Mr. Smith. I have known
25 him for I guess approximately since 1972 . His nephew is my
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colorado
6 SO II tO
63
y'
1
son-in-law. I would lik- to say that I don' t think that woul
r •
2 influence in any way my decision to vote . If the rest of the
3 Board feels I should be disqualified , I- .:&) 1 d' ., i ii m;,Jt:l
4 I didn' t know what to do and I guess I felt I better bring it
i •
5 before the Board, because I wouldn' t want it to become known
6 without my saying anything about it.
7 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, could I make just a comme t
B on that, please.
9 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes .
10 MR. SMITH: I see Victor Jacobucci probably two to
11 three times a year and it's usually at meetings like this or
12 REA or Farmers Ditch and my influence upon Victor Jacobucci
13 is really great. I called him in July and told him because
IP . ..
14 he, as I understand it, is the Road Commissioner, and that's
15 who I called. And I said that his grader was doing a lousy
16 job and would he please get that guy to at least put down his
17 blade and not scrape it but really grade it. And then in
18 August I called him and said, "Hey, 5 Road, the money has.
19 been appropriated, when do we get some oil on that 5 Road?"
20 Well, you know, so to see how much my influence on Victor
I '
21 Jacobucci, 5 Road hasn' t been touched yet and they are still
22 grading the roads just like they used to and that 's just abou
23 the extent of my seeing Victor Jacobucci.
24 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Vic. .
I r
25 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI: I refer to the coordinativ
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Colorado
64
1 roads and--
2 SPEAKER: Ah, forget it.
3 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: In ' 78 Victor wasn' t the coordina or
4 of the Road and Bridge Department. In '77 , he was , however.
5 IMR. SMITH: Well, see, that' s how far behind they a
6 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: I have no problems .
7 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: He was Road Commissioner in •
• 8 only '74 and ' 75. In '76, we took that away from him with the
9 County Home Rule .
10 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Anyone wish to comment concerning
11 Mr. Jacobucci' s relationship with Mr. Smith?
12 COMMISSIONER ROE: Well, as I have said in all matte s,
• 13 I think it' s the decision the commissioner must make. I don't
14 think the Board has the right nor--
IS CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: We don' t know exactly how he feels .
16 COMMISSIONER ROE: I don' t want to impose my will on
17 another commissioner. I think the decision has to be his .
18 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I ' ll agree . I think that's
•
19 Vic' s prerogative, whether he wants to stick his neck out or
20 not.
21
MR, GINSBERG: I assume you don' t have any financial
22
interest or anything like this?
23
COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI : No, I have no financial
24 interest in any of Mr. Smith' s property,
y, nor does he have in p
25 any of mine. I admit, as Mr. Smith said, I know him somewhat
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 Sowh 12Th — Brighton, Colorado
h59LII111
65
1 as a casual acquaintance. We do visit three or four times a
2 year.
3 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Mr. Chalrnn , , , ; ize thaL
fY 4 this is not an economical unit as far as the farm is concerne ' '
5 and we have no provisions for declaring open space such as
6 Boulder County does in paying the farmer. for his development
7 rights and et cetera. I am of the impression that this shoul
. B remain as agricultural land and I would so move that we deny
9 the change of zone from A-Agricultural to E-Estate.
to COMMISSIONER ROE: I ' ll second it.
leL
11 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Mr. Chairman, well, go ahea .
12 COMMISSIONER ROE: I do not believe--I am not convi ed
13 that this is not in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. The
14 Comprehensive Plan, as I understand it, would deem this a
15 violation and I concur with the Planning Commission's concept
16 of the Comprehensive Plan.. .
17 iCHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay.
18 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: ' I don't know whether you
19 want me to make a statement when„I vote or not because I--
20 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Discussion should be related
21 to the motion.
22 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Okay. I disagree in the
23 fact that I think that the Soil Conservation Service, which
24 is our expert opinion on the type of land, says that it is
25 prime agricultural land. No proof has been presented that thi
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
158 Smith ILh — Brighton. Colorado
r,1'r.11tu
66
1 land cannot be farmed at this time . In fact, evidence is
2 given that in fact they are growing that a crop on particular
3 land at this time. So it seems to me that thr, ,yiug
4 condition requirement has not been met. Plus , I don't believ
5 that the Applicant has even presented any information that th '
6 original zoning was faulty.
• 7 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, moved by Norman Carlson and
8 seconded by Leonard Roe to deny the change of zone from
9 A-Agricultural to E-Estate District for Lee Wieck, et al of
10 Longmont, Colorado. Would you poll the Commission, please. •
11 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : Norman Carlson.
12 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yes .
13 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : Victor Jacobucci.
14 COMMISSIONER JACOBUCCI : No, and I would like to sa
15 why I am voting no. I think it is too small of a piece of
16 property to adequately farm and realize any kind of income of
17 of it. We know that it has been divided in years back. Mayb
• 18 it was a mistake and that we cannot say. That took place
{
19 before our time . But to have 44 acres, approximately 44 acres
20 sitting there between Carmacar and Parkland, I think you are
21 going to have a hard time finding anybody to come and farm
22 that 44 acres . And I think it ' s unreasonable to try and farm
23 and make a living off of 44 acres such as that. I don' t agre
24 that it is prime agricultural land. Its water source was
25 Farmers Reservoir, which lake is Marshall Lake and it delivers
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
258 South 12th — Brighton. Coloralo
4<<I.II tU
UI
1 anywhere from 5 percent a -ear to--this year, it had a
2 wonderful delivery, around 60 percent. So you get six feet o
3 water for every share that you hold and if you only get
a 5 percent, you get a half a foot for every share and you cann t�
` ``+ 5 irrigate this farm, this 44 acres , on a mediocre year with
6 that kind of water. And I will again say, I vote no.
7 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Okay, you voted no. Continue.
' , 8 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : Leonard Roe .
9 COMMISSIONER ROE: Well--yes .
;, . 10 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: He already voted. Go ahead, cont ue,
• `� , 11
CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS : June Steinmark..
12 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Yes . •
13 CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS: Chairman, Ed Dunbar.
14 CHAIRMAN DUNBAR: Yes . Let the record show it is
15 denied on a one to four vote. And my reason for voting yes
16 to deny is based on the fact that you are getting a very, ver
17 heavy concentration of people in that immediate vicinity and
18 I think this will eventually cause a lot of problems . Is
19 there. any other comment? ,
20 MR. GINSBERG: We will ask that a record be
21 provided within a reasonable time. I don' t know what' s reaso able
22 because obviously we have a dispute here which we will have
23 to allow the courts to resolve. We think the testimony has
24 shown that it cannot be used for agricultural purposes and ye egib 25 you want to let it remain that way, so a man has a right to
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
• 258 South 12th — Brighton, Colororin
t9-II fn
68
•
I use it for something. Of c:')urse, that being the case we have
2 got a dispute on our hands. I would, therefore, ask the
3 Commissioners, excuse me, the Chairman, if we might settle
4 a number of days in which a record can be satisfactorily pre- -
5 pared so that we can have it available to submit it.
6 CHAIRMAN DJJNBAR: What kind of time frame do we
7 have on that?
8 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: It seems to me we have just
9 adopted a new administrative code concerning the transcription,
10 and I think if you would talk to the Clerk to the Board that
li she can help you through that problem.
12 MR. GINSBERG: Okay, swell. Thank you.
I:I (The foregoing concludes the hearing. )
r
14
15 The foregoing proceedings were recorded via a
16 tape recorder and were transcribed by me to the best of
17 my ability.
18
19 c
20 •
21
22
23
24
25
MABEL BROYLES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
2S8 Cnur6 Il'h — Rriphrm. (:rbnadli.
Hello