MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, September 6, 2010

 

County offices were closed on Monday, September 6, 2010, in observance of the Labor Day Holiday.

 

 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2010

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Pro Tem Donnelly presided, and Commissioner Gaiter was present. Also present were:  Donna Hart, Diane Tokarz, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Cliff Davidson, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Division; Mark Peterson, and Martina Wilkinson, Engineering Department; Gary Buffington, Department of Natural Resources; David Ayraud, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no one present for public comment.

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 30, 2010: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 30, 2010, as presented.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2010:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.     CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:

 

09072010A001           DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 5017 – HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 2010 SUNRISE DAY USE AREA BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GERRARD EXCAVATING INC.

 

09072010A002           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

 

09072010A003           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND LYONS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

 

09072010A004           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS

 

09072010A005           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1

 

09072010A006           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND THE TOWN OF WINDSOR

 

09072010A007           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT R-3

 

09072010A008           AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTION SERVICE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, AND THE CITY OF LOVELAND

 

09072010A009           FIRST ADDENDUM TO STREETS OVERSIZING AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 7, 2006 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF LOVELAND

 

09072010R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OTTE APPEAL

 

09072010R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 OF THE GARDELS MLD AND THE OFF, LLC BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT

 

09072010R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOSSIL POINT EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE

 

09072010R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOVELAND GAS LINE 1041 PERMIT

 

09072010R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CSU SOLAR EXPANSION 1041 PERMIT

 

09072010R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PARRISH RANCH ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT TIME EXTENSION

 

09072010R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MAREZ SUBDIVISION TIME EXTENSION

 

09072010R008           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 4 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 32, AND LOTS 3 AND 5 IN BLOCK 33 OF HIAWATHA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

 

09072010R009           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF ABRAMS LAKE MLD

 

09072010R010           SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE PETITION OF ELOY CASTILLON AND CASTILLON, LLC (GREEN RELEAF)

 

09072010R011           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

09072010R012           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE DEEP WATER METRO DISTRICT

 

09072010R013           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COAL CREEK BRIDGE FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW

 

09072010R014           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PARK EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING

 

09072010R015           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN RIVIERA ESTATES SUBDIVISION

 

 

09072010R016           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOVELAND TALL PINES REZONING

 

09072010R017           SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF JOE AND JUDITH CLINGAN (PET ANIMAL FACILITY)

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Department of Human Services Payments for July 2010; Temporary Reinstatement of Board of Adjustment Members Evelyn King, Greg Christensen, Eric Berglund, and Matt Strauch, for the purpose of approving minutes; effective September 8 2010, and expiring September 8, 2010. 

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  Hideout Patio Bar and Grill – Tavern – Fort Collins; Archers Poudre River Resort – 3.2% - Bellvue; Poudre Spirits and Wine – Retail Warehouse Storage Permit – Bellvue.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.    METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) INFORMATIONAL UPDATE:  Mr. Davidson reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with the Board, which highlighted the activities that the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization has been involved in.  These activities include:  transportation planning and funding, reviewing and monitoring air quality and ozone levels, monitoring community transportation patterns, daily traffic volumes and travel times, road surface conditions, business commute and shopping traffic norms, etc.  The Board thanked Mr. Davidson for his presentation and hard work on behalf of the MPO.

 

6.   APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD:  Ms. Tokarz presented the following recommendations and requested approval on the same:

 

Community Corrections Advisory Board:   Luke Hecker - appointed to fill the unexpired term of Amanda Nagl, beginning September 7, 2010 and expiring June 30, 2011.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment to the Community Corrections Advisory Board, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

7.  COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  There were no worksession items to discuss. 

 

8.   COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:   The Board discussed their activities at events during the past week.

 

9.  LEGAL MATTERS:   Mr. Ayraud requested that the Board go into Executive Session for legal advice to discuss negotiations related to Red Mountain Open Space, and a personnel issue. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on special legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The Board came out of Executive Session and explained that the Wellington Fire Protection District has requested the Natural Resources department to make Payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) for the Red Mountain Open Space.    The board decided that it would not be appropriate to set a precedence to pay PILT on county owned property.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on special legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 10:45 a.m.

 

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Pro Tem Donnelly presided and Commissioner Gaiter was present. Also present were:  Toby Stauffer, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Tracy Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Pro Tem Donnelly opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Land Use Code and County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  

 

Chair Pro Tem Donnelly explained that items 1 – 3 are on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.  Mr. Lafferty also noted that staff and the applicant are in agreement concerning item number 5, and requested that it be moved to the consent agenda as well.  Chair Pro Tem Donnelly confirmed that nobody in attendance wished to discuss items 1, 2, 3, and 5 on today’s agenda:

 

1.   CRYSTAL LAKES 12TH FILING LOTS 2 & 4 LOT CONSOLIDATION/EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #10-S2978:   This is a request  to combine two adjacent lots, Lots 2 & 4 of Crystal Lakes 12th Filing into one lot and vacate a 20’ utility easement along the common lot line of the two lots.

 

There have been no objections on this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Services Team; The Larimer County Addressing Section; The Larimer County Code Compliance Section.  The Larimer County Assessor’s office has provided the new legal description for the consolidated lot.

 

The proposed Crystal Lakes 12th Filing, Lots 2 & 4, Lot Consolidation and 20’ Utility Easement Vacation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots and no other services will be affected.  The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 12th Filing, Lots 2 & 4, Lot Consolidation and 20’ Utility Easement Vacation, File # 10-S2978 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by March 7, 2011 or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

3.   The vacation of the utility easement and the reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded.

 

2. CUSHMAN’S LAKEVIEW 2ND FILING LOTS 18, 19, & 20 AMENDED PLAT FILE #10-S2979:  This is a request to amend the plat of to amend the plat of Lots 18, 19 and 20 of the Cushman’s Lakeview Subdivision 2nd Filing.  Approval of the amended plat will correct a building violation, whereby a carport / deck extends over a property line.  The subject property is located on the west side of Ann Street, and also on the west side of Horsetooth Reservoir.  As a point of clarification, Lot 19 and Lot 20 are described as Lot 19/20 because these two properties have been combined for tax purposes in the Assessor’s records.  For all other purposes they are two separate, legal lots.

 

The Development Services Team has no concerns or issues regarding this request.  The referral agencies contacted, including the Spring Canyon Water and Sewer District and the Poudre Fire Authority, did not object to approval of this request.  The Development Services Team recommends approval of this request.

 

Staff concludes this project satisfies the requirements for an Amended Plat.  Adjustment of the property line between Lot 18 and Lot 19/20 will correct a building violation.  Both property owners support the redrawn property line.  No additional lots are being created, nor will approval of the request result in any other conflict with set backs, etc.  Based on this assessment, Staff supports approval of the Amended Plat for the Cushman’s Lakeview Subdivision 2nd Filing Lot 18, Lot 19 and Lot 20.

 

The Development Services Team finds:

 

A.  This amended plat will not create any additional lots.

B.  The resultant lots meet the requirements for lot sizes, etc, and no non-conforming lots are created by this action.

C.  The amended plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing structures.

D.  The amended plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or

      rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area.

E.   Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 18 and Lot 19/20 in the Cushman’s Lakeview Subdivision 2nd Filing (File #10-S2979) by Findings and Resolution, subject to the following condition:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by March 31, 2011 or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. All other previous conditions of approval for the Cushman’s Lakeview Subdivision 2nd Filing, not altered by these conditions of approval, remain in effect for Lot 18 and Lot 19/20.

 

3.  HESSDORFER-PHILLIPS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION, FILE #06-S2610:  The Hessdorfer-Phillips Subdivision received Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 15.86 acres into 2 lots for single-family residential uses.  The subject property is located west of the Town of Berthoud on the north side of State Highway 56, off Sunbird Lane.  The development would be served by the Little Thompson Water District and use on-site septic systems.  There is an existing single-family home on the site.  On 02-18-2009 the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the Preliminary Plat, and the Board of County Commissioners granted approval for the project on 03-16-2009.

 

Approval of the Final Plat for this project has not been realized largely due to economic conditions.  On June 30, 2010, the applicants contacted Planning Staff to request a withdrawal of the Final Plat and to extend approval of the Preliminary Plat.  If the extension of the Preliminary Plat is granted, the Final Plat application will be withdrawn and resubmitted within a prescribed time (2 years) for re-evaluation.

 

Staff recognizes the current difficulties resulting form the economic environment.  The property owner has committed time and resources to this development request, which provides justification for approval of the extension.  Staff further acknowledges that the current Final Plat materials have been through review.  Accordingly the follow-up application within two years should not warrant a full review or full payment of the application fee.  Staff supports a reduction to ˝ the application fee for the re-submittal of the Final Plat.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of a two year extension of the Preliminary Plat, and a request to pay ˝ the Final Plat submittal fee for the Hessdorfer-Philips Subdivision as described in File #06-S2610.  The above shall be subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions outlined in the Findings and Resolution approving the Hessdorfer-Philips Subdivision Preliminary Plat signed on April 14, 2009 and recorded at Reception No. 2009-0023277 shall continue to apply.

 

2.   The Final Plat for the Hessdorfer-Philips Subdivision shall be submitted no later that September 30, 2012 or this Preliminary Plat time extension approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing.

 

3.   At the time of final plat submittal the applicant shall pay an application fee of ˝ the amount of the Final Plat fee in place at the time the application is made.

 

5.  SPRING GREEN PLANNED LAND DEVELOPMENT & PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION, FILE #03-S2210:  On June 27, 2005 the Board of County Commissioners approved the rezoning and preliminary plat for the Spring Green Planned Land Division, and in May of 2006 the applicant submitted a final plat application for the development. 

 

One component of the overall development proposal was that the lower reaches of the property, near the Poudre River, would be mined for gravel prior to the recordation of the plat.  Upon the completion and reclamation of the gravel extraction the plat would be recorded and the disturbed areas of the site would be sold and remaining undeveloped portions of the project would be developed consistent with the approved development application.  However, during the review process the economy slumped and neither the gravel extraction nor the final plat review of the planned land division application has been completed.

 

According to the Land Use Code once a preliminary plat application is approved the applicant has one year to submit a final plat, which the applicant did.  Upon receipt of a final plat application the applicant has one year to complete the review and record the development.  In the past, the one year for final plat review time frame has been administratively extended for those developments making progress towards completion of the application; such was the case with this application until the economy slumped. 

 

Since then the gravel extraction at the site has slowed significantly and the applicant has not been able to finalize and record the plat.  A significant amount of work has been applied to this development application and to abandon it at this point would be wasteful.  As such the applicant has been approached on how to proceed without loosing the current entitlements.  After discussing the situation with the applicant, it was decided that the applicant would withdraw the current final plat application and request a two year extension to the preliminary plat as a way to preserve entitlements already acquired during the preliminary plat process.  Also agreed was the understanding that a re-submittal of the final plat would be based upon standards of development in place when the application was approved and half of the original final plat application fee.

 

The applicant has agreed to this remedy and as such the Development Services Team is recommending that the Spring Green preliminary plat be extended until September 2012, and the re-submittal of the final plat will include half the submittal fees and be based upon standards at the time of the original approval. 

 

Finally, should further extensions be applied for after the September 1, 2012 expiration date, the standards for future evaluations may be subject to change.  However, these issues will be addressed only if that situation arises.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the two year time extension of the preliminary plat for the Spring Green Planned Land Division, File# 03-S2210 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   Submittal of the final plat shall be not later than September 1, 2012.

2.   The final plat application fee shall ˝ of the application fee, when submitted

3.   The standards for review of the final plat application shall be the same as those in effect when the preliminary plat was originally approved.

4.   All conditions of approval for the Spring Green PD and PLD found in Finding and Resolution # 2005-0093774 shall continue to apply.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as amended and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

4.   GRANT FAMILY FARM APPEAL, FILE #10-G0199:   This is a request for an appeal to Section 4.3.10.A.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to consider allowing a small scale bird/fowl processing facility at Grants Family Farm.  The farm is situated along the southern side of County Road 72, between County Roads 15 and 17. 

 

Section 4.3.10.A. of the Larimer County Land Use Code provides use descriptions for a number of accessory agricultural uses.  Specifically, Section 4.3.10.A.3 provides for value added agricultural processing which use description is:

 

3. Value added agricultural processing: the processing and/or packaging of agricultural products, excluding the processing of fish, meat or game. Examples include but are not limited to: the making of alfalfa pellets, herbal products, food products, wreaths, woolen products, cheese, and candles. Value added processing may include the sales of value added agricultural products produced on the site.

 

As evident in the above description, the processing of fish, meat or game are specifically excluded, and thus are not allowed. The Development Services Team believes that such uses were excluded because of the nature of the waste streams associated with these uses, as well as the fact that most of these types of operations are primary uses and of a scale that would warrant a more substantial evaluation.  However, in this instance the scale of the processing  use will be clearly accessory to the overall operations of the farm, and as will be demonstrated later in this report will conform to all the use criteria for a value added agricultural processing facility.

 

If approved as proposed, a 24 foot by 50 foot (1200 sq. ft.) building for processing birds would be added to the property, the specific location of these facilities is in the northwest reaches of the property near the existing operational facilities for the farm. According to the applicant’s project description, attached, the proposed facility will be located approximately 300 feet from nearest County Road (17) and 1000 feet from the existing residence adjacent to the farm southern property line.  Theses distances exceed the 100 foot separation requirement for all value added agriculture processing facilities.

 

By way of background, Grant Family Farms has been in Larimer County for nearly 40 years. The business model focuses on organically grown products and livestock. Additionally, this operation caters to the local markets by focusing their sales to local restaurants and retail operations as well as by a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) use.  The CSA allows local residents to purchase ownership shares in the products produced by this farming operation, which farm to user operation increases the economic viability of farming.  Recently one of the local retail customers of the Grant family Farms produce indicated a desire to purchase some of their organically raised chickens and fowl, but the purchaser had specific requirements regarding what they were to purchase.  First they indicated that the processing facility for the product would have to comply with all USDA requirements, but then backed their expectations up with a requirement on the humane treatment of the animals all the way through the and including the final processing.  As such the potential purchaser did not approve the use of the existing commercial processing facility in a neighboring county because it failed to meet their standards for humane treatment.  Therefore, Grant Family Farms is seeking to have their own processing facility so that they can meet the expectations of their customers.  If this appeal is approved, the facility will be accessory in nature (3-4% of the overall operations).

 

3. Value added agricultural processing: the processing and/or packaging of agricultural products, excluding the processing of fish, meat or game. Examples include but are not limited to: the making of alfalfa pellets, herbal products, food products, wreaths, woolen products, cheese, and candles. Value added processing may include the sales of value added agricultural products produced on the site.

a. A farm, sod farm, nursery, tree farm (not including a sawmill) or greenhouse may include Value Added Agricultural Processing as an accessory agricultural use.

b. Value Added Agricultural Processing and sales of value added agricultural products produced on the site must meet the following criteria:

1.     The agricultural processing or sales facility must be clearly incidental to and supportive of the dominant agricultural use of the site.

2.     The agricultural processing and sales facility must be operated by the owner or lessee of the agricultural use.

3.     Any processing operation will be located at least 100 feet from property lines unless a greater setback is required by another section of this code.

4.     The processing and/or sales facility, any outdoor storage in connection with the facility, and on-site parking will be effectively screened from existing dwellings within 500 feet.

5.     The hours of operation are limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm.

6.     Noise, fumes, dust, odors, vibration or light generated as a result of the agricultural processing or sales will, at the property line, be below the volume, frequency, or intensity such that they do not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort or outdoor recreation of an individual of ordinary sensitivity and habits.

7.     The facility or operation will serve to preserve or enhance the rural character of the neighborhood or vicinity.

8.     The agricultural processing or sales facility will not significantly change the character of the neighborhood.

9.     The processing facility will not be classified as a hazardous waste generator under state or federal regulations.

10.   Sales of products in addition to those grown or processed on the site will be limited to those clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to those farm products or as declared and approved as a part of the Minor Special Review or Special Review process.

c. Value added agricultural processing is allowed by right if:

1.     100% (by volume) of raw materials to be processed are raised or grown on the site; and

2.     The total processing and/or sales facility is 1200 sq. ft. or less in gross floor area; and

3.     Traffic generation from the value added processing and/or sale of value added processing products is less than 20 vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries.

 

Given the above description and the information outlined in the applicants project description is clear that if this appeal is approved all requirements will be achieved.   The Development Services Team also believes that if the appeal is approved that activities surrounding the farming and processing operations will appear to be the same as they currently are with the existing operation.  This is most evident in that deliveries to retail establishments and restaurants that already occur will not change, but will rather include additional products in the delivery vehicles.

 

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM FINDINGS:

 

A.  The Development Services Team finds that approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.

B.  The Development Services Team finds that approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.

C.  The Development Services Team finds that approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary.

D.  The Development Services Team finds that approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.

E.   The Development Services Team finds that approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Grant Family Farms Appeal, File# 10-G0199, to Section 4.3.10.A.3 of the Land Use Code to allow a value added agricultural processing facility for birds/fowl  as an accessory function to the existing farming operations.

 

Mr. Lafferty briefly described the application, as outlined above, and reaffirmed staff’s position of recommending approval on this appeal.

 

Sari Schauer, representing Grant Family Farm, reviewed a power point presentation with the Board, which outlined the history of Grant Family Farm, and the benchmarking used to compare their operations against other facilities in the industry.  She stated that they are proud to be designated Certified Organic, and wish to carry this certification forward into the bird/fowl processing facility.

 

Chair Pro Tem Donnelly opened up the hearing for public comment and Dell Black, Mr. Obermeyer, and Hill Grimmett, all spoke in favor of granting the appeal. 

 

Commissioner Gaiter noted that he had received at least one e-mail requesting that the Board refer this item to Special Review; however, he believes that the Grant Family Farm operation contributes significantly to the community and is in favor of grating the appeal.  Chair Pro Tem Donnelly agreed, noting that the scale and intent of the operation is in line with the Land Use Code, as it relates to a value added agriculture facility.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Family Farms Appeal, File# 10-G0199, to Section 4.3.10.A.3 of the Land Use Code to allow a value added agricultural processing facility for birds/fowl  as an accessory function to the existing farming operations.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   TOM DONNELLY, CHAIR PRO TEM

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk