MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Pro-Tem Johnson presided and Commissioner Donnelly was present. Also present were: Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Valley Planning Department; Karlin Goggin, Candace Phippen, and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
Mr. Lafferty informed the Board that item #3, “Woodman/Wells Fargo Cost Assessment,” would be removed from today’s agenda as all outstanding debts had been paid.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners remove the Woodman/Wells Fargo Cost Assessment from the agenda.
Motion carried 2-0.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson explained that the following item is on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. PTARMIGAN RUN ASSISTED LIVING SPECIAL REVIEW TIME EXTENSION, FILE #08-Z-1684: This is a request for an extension of time allowed for compliance with the conditions of approval, for the Ptarmigan Run Assisted Living Facility Special Review, approved on February 2, 2009. Following the original approval in February 2009, the applicants sold the facility without advising the new owner of the conditions of approval for the use. Therefore, the current owner, and applicant, seeks approval for additional time to improve the existing facility at its current capacity before making any new improvements for the expansion.
Staff recommended an approval of a one-year extension from the date of the Board of County Commissioners public hearing, making September 21, 2010, the deadline to meet all conditions of the original approval.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Ptarmigan Run Assisted Living Facility Special Review, file #08-Z1684, making September 21, 2010, the deadline to meet all conditions of the original approval.
Motion carried 2-0.
2. YMCA SIGNAGE MASTER PLAN: This is a request for approval of a Signage Master Plan as an addendum to the YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan. The application includes appeals to Sections 10.2.B and 10.5.L of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
In March 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved the YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan, intended to outline the development of the YMCA campus.
This request is for approval of appeals to Section 10.2.B and 10.5.L of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as outlined below:
1. Section 10.2.B states, “signs may not be placed on or over public roads or rights-of-way, or in road or access easements, except for utility warning signs.” The existing YMCA entrance sign is located within the public right-of-way, and the owner desires to replace this sign with a new sign in the same location to maximize visibility and to avoid constrictions associated with the bridge and pond. Larimer County Engineering and Planning are both supportive of this request.
During the 2007 review of the Master Plan, one of the comments expressed by residents along the Spur 66 corridor was in regards to excessive lighting of the existing sign; therefore, the applicant proposes to use internal illumination in order to minimize “light spillage.”
2. Section 10.5 outlines a series of signs that are not subject to sign permits, including sub-section L, which states “on-site traffic directional signs may not exceed four-square-feet per face or ten-feet in height.” The applicant has requested an appeal to this section to allow larger traffic directional signs.
Staff recommends approval of the requested YMCA Sign Plan and associated waivers subject to the following conditions:
1. No sign permits shall be required for regulatory signage, informational signage, or interpretive signage; however, plans shall be submitted to the Estes Park Community Development to ensure consistency with the approved master plan and compliance with sight visibility requirements set forth in Appendix D.IV of the Estes Valley Development Code.
2. Approval of this plan does not affect any requirements for building permits.
3. All signage shall be of a themed image with a consistent style, color, and material, coordinating with other site materials.
4. The Larimer County Surveyor shall verify that the nearest edge of the entry sign is at least 40-feet from the centerline of Tunnel Road.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the “YMCA Signage Master Plan” and appeals to Larimer County Land Use Code section 10.2.B and 10.5.L, subject to the conditions listed above.
Motion carried 2-0.
4. SPARKLING SPRINGS ROAD ADDRESS APPEAL: As part of the Rural Addressing Improvement Project, staff determined the stretch of road used to access multiple properties off of County Road 41 and Rist Canyon Road met the requirement for road naming as outlined in the land use code. On April 28, 2009, property owners along this access were sent letters requesting road name suggestions. During this time, property owners Ralph Niemann, Jeff Anderson, and John Anderson, responded with the suggestion of Tip Top Road and Tip Top Ranch Road. Both suggestions were reviewed and accepted as a compliant road names.
Betty Coats submitted the road name of Sparkling Springs Lane. This road name was also found to be an acceptable and compliant road name. Included with her suggestion, Ms. Coats requested that the road not be named Tip Top Road and Tip Top Ranch Road as she did not feel it was acceptable to name a road after a family business.
After researching Ms. Coats’ claim, staff determined that neither Tip Top Road nor Tip Top Ranch Road met the restrictions set forth in the land use code, which states, a road shall not be given a corporate trade name, unless such naming occurs coincidentally.
With all other suggestions being unacceptable, the name Sparkling Springs Lane was chosen and applied to this stretch of road and property owners received notification regarding the selection of this road name.
The appellants are seeking to overturn this decision and name the road after the ranch/business. The appeal is based upon a few key factors:
1. The applicant claims Sparkling Springs Lane is a city/urban road name and is not applicable to the road’s mountainous location.
2. The road name was submitted by an owner that does not live in the area.
3. The applicant feels the name Tip Top Road depicts the area better than Sparkling Springs Lane.
4. Voting was 3-1 in favor of renaming the road Tip Top Road.
5. The appellants do not feel that naming the road after their ranch business is unfair.
Much of the area surrounding the road is owned by the appellants and operated as a ranch. Initially, staff would have likely selected Tip Top Ranch Road and not questioned the name; however, because a property owner brought this conflict to staff’s attention it had to be reviewed and researched according to County Code. As stated earlier, using the County Code Section 10-175 as the guiding premise, county staff selected Sparkling Springs Lane.
Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request to change the name from Sparkling Springs Lane to Tip Top Ranch Road due to the following:
1. The name Sparkling Springs Lane is resolution compliant.
2. The appellants state the road name selected was submitted by an owner that does not live in the area; however, county code does not regulate naming suggestions based on occupancy, but rather by ownership.
3. The road names Tip Top or Tip Top Ranch Rd are compelling and likeable; however, they are not compliant for this particular road.
4. In accordance with the county code, the property owners affected by this road naming process were duly notified and provided opportunity to name the road.
5. In accordance with the county code, the County Addressing Coordinator selected the road name based on restrictions set forth in the code.
6. The name Sparkling Springs is not an urban or city name as springs are typically found in mountainous regions.
7. If the Board approves this appeal, work to readdress properties is “out of scope” work in the consultant’s contract and not budgeted within the project. Staff followed the county code and any change to this road would be considered out of scope work by the consultant and additional fees would be charged to make any change. All re-work will be charged to the property owners or authorized for payment by and from the County Commissioners. The cost estimate to rename the road in question is $300.
8. Per the county code, the County Addressing Coordinator’s decision shall be upheld by the Commissioners unless it is shown by a preponderance of evidence that the decision is inconsistent with, or does not promote the intent and purpose of the county code.
9. Had their been no objection to the use of a business/corporate name, staff would likely have contributed the similarity in names to being coincidental and upheld the majority vote; however, staff can not find in favor of using either Tip Top Road or Tip Top Ranch Road knowing there is a business in the vicinity with the same name.
10. Approving this appeal and changing the decision to select a non-compliant road name may increase the number road name appeals and amplify tense situations between homeowners.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to the applicants. Jeff Anderson and Terry Anderson addressed the Board and stated that they own most of the property along the road and maintain the road year round. Both stated that the name Tip Top Road was a suggestion because it is located on the tip top of the mountain, not because the name closely matches the name of their guest ranch; although, Jeff Anderson admitted that the proposed name would make it easier for guests to locate the ranch.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Billie Lou Stenzel and Betty Coats addressed the Board in opposition to the appeal. Both stated that the proposed name would imply Tip Top Ranch was the only property located on the road and would provide free advertising for the guest ranch. Ms. Stenzel explained that her family owned property on the road for the longest span of time.
Ralph and Lois Neimann addressed the Board and explained that while they had voted in favor of Tip Top Road, they were not partial to either name.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson closed public comment and stated that while he does not believe the provisions set forth in the Road Naming Resolution should be ignored, he did feel that Tip Top Road was dissimilar enough to the business name and described the location of the area.
Commissioner Donnelly also stated he was not opposed to using the name Tip Top Road as it was descriptive of the location.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to replace the name Sparkling Springs Lane with Tip Top Road.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. KINGS CANYON ROAD ADDRESS APPEAL: As part of the Rural Addressing Improvement Project, staff determined the stretch of road used to access multiple properties off of Highway 14 met the requirement for road naming as outlined in the land use code. On April 28, 2009, property owners along this access were sent letters requesting road name suggestions.
Property owners were given 45-days to respond to naming request and during this time, property owners Gregg Corum, Jeff Corum, Kari Abele, and Ray Osgood, suggested the name Kings Canyon Road. The road name was reviewed and was accepted as a compliant suggestion.
One day before the deadline, Mr. Lemberg requested additional time to submit a road name as he was opposed to the use of Kings Canyon Road. Mr. Lemberg stated the road name was not geographically related to the area, provided a petition in opposition to the name Kings Canyon Road, and requested the road be named Boyd Creek Drive.
The county code states the road name shall be that selected by majority of property owners and in this case, the voting was 4-3 in favor of Kings Canyon Road; therefore, the name Kings Canyon Road was selected.
After road names were finalized in this area and letters were mailed to inform residents of the name selected, an email was received from another property owner. The email, dated June 29, 2009, requested the road be named Boyd Creek Drive. With that email, the voting was 4-4; however, the deadline had clearly passed and road names had been selected.
Mr. Lemberg is appealing the name Kings Canyon Road based upon the following rationales:
1. The applicant claims the use of Kings is elitist, domineering, and patriarchal.
2. The applicant feels the name of Boyd Creek Drive provides a more geographic description of the road’s location.
3. The road naming process was not fair.
4. Those in favor of Boyd Creek Drive have strongly held positions while the appellant claims only one of the four for Kings Canyon Road has a strong position for the name Kings Canyon Road. The appellant claims Jeff Corum, Gregg Corum, and Ray Osgood do not care what the road is named.
Mr. Lemberg stated that all property owners had not been given the same opportunity to name the road as vacant land owners were not solicited for suggestions. It is county policy not to include vacant land owners in the road naming procedure as there are too many variables with respect to where access into vacant land may occur. Also, vacant land does not hold an official site location address as these are assigned in association with building permits for addressable structures.
Staff’s recommended denial of the request to change the name from Kings Canyon Road to Boyd Creek Drive based on the following:
1. The name Kings Canyon Road is resolution compliant.
2. In accordance with the county code, the property owners affected by this road naming process were duly notified and provided opportunity to name the road.
3. In accordance with the county code, the County Addressing Coordinator selected the road name based upon majority vote at the time of the deadline
4. Road naming was finalized on June 17, 2009, which showed a vote of 4-3 in favor of Kings Canyon Road. Twelve days later, a property owner submitted vote for the other name. This vote was clearly submitted after the deadline and should not be counted.
5. If the County Commissioners approve this appeal, work to readdress properties is “out of scope” work in the consultant’s contract and not budgeted within the project. Staff followed the county code and any change to this road would be considered out of scope work by the consultant and additional fees would be charged to make any change. All re-work will be charged which will be either to the property owners or authorized for payment by and from the County Commissioners. The cost estimate of out of scope work in this case is $500.
6. Per the county code, the County Addressing Coordinator’s decision shall be upheld by the Commissioners unless it is shown by a preponderance of evidence that the decision is inconsistent with or does not promote the intent and purpose of the county code.
7. Property owners in favor of Kings Canyon Road have questioned the validity of this appeal as the process established was adhered to by owners and the county deemed the road name to be Kings Canyon Road.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to the applicant and Alexander “Sandy” Lemberg addressed the Board. Mr. Lemberg stated that he has lived in the area for 30-years and the only historic name he has heard for the area is Boyd Gulch; however, because neighbors did not like the sound of Boyd Gulch, he suggested the road be named Boyd Creek. Mr. Lemberg presented a statement from the Fire Chief in the area who requested the road be named Boyd Creek Road as the fire department already knows and refers to the area as Boyd Gulch.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Kari Abele addressed the Board in opposition to the appeal. Ms. Abele stated that while Boyd Gulch is a geographic region, she was unable to verify the name or its origination. Ms. Abele stated that the name Boyd Creek Road is too similar to Boyd Lake Road and would cause confusion about its location.
David Miller addressed the Board in support of the appeal. Mr. Miller suggested that if the Board was not inclined to support the appeal, they should provide residents an opportunity to reach a consensus.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson closed public comment.
Commissioner Donnelly stated that while he was not opposed to the name Boyd Creek Road, he felt that the residents had voted and it was his responsibility to allow the vote to stand.
Chair Pro-Tem Johnson agreed with Commissioner Donnelly that a vote had occurred in accordance with the county’s code and a clear winner had been named. He also stated that while he would happily grant and extension to the residents, he did not feel that a consensus was likely.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to replace the road name of Kings Canyon Road with Boyd Creek Drive.
Motion carried 2-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager and Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Laurel Kubin and Wendy Woerner, Extension Office; Eric Fried, Russ Legg, and Candace Phippen, Planning Department; Major Justin Smith and Tony Simons, Sheriff’s Office; Jeannine Haag and William Ressue, Assistant County Attorneys; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Barber and Nicole Dyck addressed the Board in regards to the zoning violation hearing held on August 24, 2009. At that hearing, the Barbers were found to be in violation of Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.3.10(E) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, by virtue of outside storage of junk, debris, and unlicensed/inoperable vehicles not owned by the occupants of the property.
Ms. Barber questioned the Board about staff’s election not to enforce Land Use Code violations equally across the county. Specifically, Ms. Barber questioned why county staff has been willing to issue a building permit to Kenley and Leisa Carson after they built their shed within a right-of-way and easement.
Ms. Barber stated that the Carson’s “agricultural shed” is actually a four car garage with plumbing and electricity and when the Barbers wanted to build a similar structure, they were required to conduct expensive studies before receiving a building permit. Also, when the Barbers attempted to apply a new exterior to one of the trailers on their property, Mr. Carson reported them to the county for not applying for a permit prior to commencing work; however, when Mr. Carson resided his house, he did not apply for a permit and was not punished by the county.
Ms. Barber requested the Board look into these allegations and hold the Carsons to the same standards as the rest of the county, instead of approving their actions after the fact. Finally, Ms. Barber presented the Board with a petition, signed by 95% of the residents in their neighborhood, demanding the Carson’s shed be removed from the right-of-way as it is impeding two-way-traffic on Vivian Drive.
Chair Rennels asked Ms. Phippen why the county had not enforced Land Use Code violations related to the Carson’s shed. Ms. Phippen stated they had acted on the advice of the County Attorney.
Chair Rennels assured Ms. Barber that the Board would look into the violation and hold the Carsons to the same standard as the rest of the county.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2009:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 14, 2009.
Motion carried 2-0, Chair Rennels abstained due to her absence the previous week.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2009: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
09222009A001 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) FEDERAL FUNDING – LARIMER COUNTY DREAM BUILDERS
09222009A002 SIGNAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NETWORK PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, AND SIGNAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NETWORK, INC.
09222009A003 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COOPERATIVE MATCH PROJECT #530851-002 CARTER LAKE FOREST MANAGEMENT
09222009A004 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COOPERATIVE MATCH PROJECT #530854-004 DEVIL’S BACKBONE OPEN SPACE 82-ACRES PRESCRIBED BURN
09222009A005 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COOPERATIVE MATCH PROJECT #530854-003 HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE FOREST MANAGEMENT
09222009A006 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
09222009A007 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH THE LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND THE LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH
09222009A008 AGREEMENT CONCERNING BUILDING & FENCES IN PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LARIMER COUNTY ROADS 15, 79, AND 17, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WAYNE ROTH, AND MIRIAM ANNE ROTH
09222009A009 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RESIDUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE OWL PRAIRIE ESTATES RURAL LAND PLAN 07-S2742 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WAYNE ROTH, AND MIRIAM ANNE ROTH
09222009A010 RATE NOTIFICATION LETTER ROUTING #10-IKA-4006 CHANGING ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH ROUTING #10-IKA-00065 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES – DIVISION OF YOUTH CORRECTIONS, DECREASING THE CONTRACT’S UNIT RATES FOR SERVICES
09222009R001 RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR OWL PRARIE ESTATES RURAL LAND PLAN 07-S2742
09222009R002 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REFEREES TO CONDUCT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION HEARINGS ON BEHALF OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
MISCELLANEOUS: Amendment #1 to the Larimer County Contributory Retirement Plan; Final Plat for Owl Prairie Estates RLUP 07-S2742 (formerly know as Roth II Rural Land Plan); Federal Bridge Grant Application; and Letter of Support for the CWPP Implementation Grant Application.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were issued and approved: Wolverine Farm Publishing – Special Event 6% – Fort Collins
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2010 OPERATING PLAN: Ken Larson and Lee Lasson of the Estes Park Local Marketing District addressed the Board and requested approval of the district’s 2010 Operating Plan.
After a brief overview of the plan, the Board voiced their support for the district in hope of a successful future.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Estes Park Local Marketing District 2010 Operating Plan.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. FAMILY DAY – A DAY TO EAT DINNER WITH YOUR CHILDREN PROCLAMATION: Chair Rennels presented the Family Day Proclamation, noting that Family Day is designed to keep children from using drugs by creating and foster a close relationship between children and their parents.
Commissioner Johnson read the proclamation aloud and encouraged all county residents to eat dinner with their children.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim September 28, 2009, as “Family Day – A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children.”
Motion carried 3-0.
7. 4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM UPDATE: Ms. Kubin and Ms. Woerner addressed the Board to provide an update on Ms. Woerner’s activities with the Larimer County 4-H program. Over the last year, Ms. Woerner has implemented: 1.) the Mobile Experiential Learning Laboratory, which is a multi-county effort resulting in a mobile, standardized education program of 13-modules and is mandatory for all 4-H participants; 2.) Youth Livestock Field Day, a free event with training sessions covering livestock ethics, animal health, showmanship, and live animal demonstrations, etcetera; and 3.) drafted a booklet entitled The Terrific Trek: The Journey of my FIRST Year in 4-H, designed to increase the retention of first year members.
The Board thanked Ms. Woerner for the update and commended her on her many accomplishments.
8. UPDATE ON COMMUNITY WILDFIRES PREVENTION PROJECTS STIMULUS DOLLARS: Major Smith and Mr. Simons addressed the Board to inform them of the collaborative effort between Larimer, Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Boulder Counties and the City of Boulder to complete a grant application for stimulus money from the Colorado Forest Service.
If the application is approved, Larimer County could receive $400,000 to fund seven temporary fire fighter positions. Individuals hired for the seven positions would concentrate on reducing fire potential throughout the county by thinning and removing fire fuels, such as dead trees.
Chair Rennels asked Mr. Simons if there were any consequences to accepting the funds if approved. Mr. Simons stated that he was not aware of any consequences but would inform the Board once more information became available.
9. COUNTY ROAD ADDRESSING SOLUTION: Mr. Legg, Ms. Goggin, and Major Smith requested approval to proceed with the addressing project, with the exception of North County Road 27 and West County Road 44H. Staff and the Rist Canyon Fire Department anticipate troubles with both North County Road 27 and West County Road 44H, which are planned to be addressing at public hearing.
Representatives for the Larimer Emergency Telephone Agency, Rist Canyon Fire Department, Larimer County staff, and other public safety agencies have agreed that this is the most appropriate manner to keep the project on schedule.
10. REVISED BOARD ENDS/OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS: Mr. Lancaster presented the finalized draft of the seven major objective/ends statements designed to provide a foundation for the county’s policy governance structure and budgeting. Mr. Lancaster explained that the alterations he made were slight and initiated to better describe each area.
The Board reviewed each of the changes, agreed that the statements were easier to understand, and instructed Mr. Lancaster to proceed with implementing the seven objective/ends statements.
11. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster called the Board’s attention to properties that lie between Fort Collins and Timnath but were not included in either municipality’s growth management areas. He explained that these properties are in danger of becoming enclaves, surrounded by the city but under the county’s jurisdiction. And although the county would like to avoid the creation of enclaves at all costs, it cannot force the City of Fort Collins or the Town of Timnath to include the properties in their future annexation plans.
Mr. Lancaster suggested that staff from Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, and the Town of Timnath meet to try and resolve this matter before the Board’s next meeting regarding the Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement.
The Board agreed that this would be the best way to proceed.
12. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board reviewed their activities and events during the previous week.
13. LEGAL MATTERS: Ms. Haag and Ms. Phippen requested direction from the Board regarding individuals with a history of reporting Land Use Code violations. These reports are usually regarding minimal violations and impede the efforts of staff to complete and investigate other Land Use Code items. Ms. Phippen explained that while it is rare, there are individuals who repeatedly contact staff with multiple complaints, which are often against the same property owner.
Chair Rennels stated that while these complaints cause an additional burden on staffs and tax dollars, she does feel that every complaint should be addressed.
Commissioner Johnson agreed and suggested that such complaints be addressed by staff and the Board during the weekly Land Use Hearings. He also requested staff indicate to the Board which violations were reported by a habitual complainant.
Staff was directed to proceed with habitual complainants by scheduling hearings and allowing both sides to be addressed by the Board.
Mr. Ressue requested the Board go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice, pursuant to 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to for conferences with an attorney, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 2-0.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. with no further action taken.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk