County Offices, Courts, and the Landfill will all be closed on Monday, May 30, 2016 for the Memorial Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present. Also present were: Clint Jones, Traci Shambo, and Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Rob Helmick and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance, and explained that the following item was on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested to do so by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. PFSJ APPEAL, FILE #12-G0240: This is a request for an appeal to allow a Boundary Line Adjustment to create a nonconformity by moving a boundary line closer to an existing building than the required setback allows.
The request would allow the recordation of a Boundary Line Adjustment between four properties that does not meet all of the review criteria for such an application. Boundary Line Adjustments are administrative applications reviewed and approved by the Planning Director without consideration by the Board of County Commissioners; however, to approve an administrative application, the review criteria and all other pertinent code requirements must be complied with.
In this instance, the PFSJ Boundary Line Adjustment will correct faulty deeded descriptions resulting from inaccurate interpretations of survey monuments that have occurred over time, subsequent to the original deeds establishing property boundaries. The 2012 adjusted property boundaries for each of the four properties will be as originally deeded. The corrected situation will resolve several instances where buildings and fences are located on the wrong properties. However, in one instance, an existing garage will become non-conforming with respect to setbacks, which causes the proposed boundary line change to be in direct conflict with one of the review criteria. Because the intent is to return the property boundaries to their original location, the Development Services Team believes that this discrepancy should be allowed, and furthermore, the property owners are aware of this situation and understand the non-conforming status of the structure in question.
With the exception of this one factor, the Boundary Line Adjustment is consistent with all requirements for approval of such an application.
When considering whether to approve an appeal which deviates from standards or requirements of this Code, the County Commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the following factors. The Commissioners will consider each of the following factors and make findings pertaining to each one, which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal:
A. Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.
B. Approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.
C. Approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary.
D. Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.
E. Approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.
All other concerns related to the boundary line adjustment and uses in the area will be managed through the Boundary Line Adjustment process. There are no other comments related to the appeal.
The Development Services Team finds that approval of the request:
· does not subvert the purpose of the boundary line adjustment criteria,
· will not be detrimental to health safety or property values,
· is the minimum action necessary
· will not result in increased costs to the general public, and
· is consistent with the intent and purpose of the code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the PFSJ Appeal, file #12-G0240, subject to the following condition:
1. The final plat for the PFSJ Boundary Line Adjustment, file # 12-S3107, shall meet all applicable requirements and be recorded per the standard County process.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve consent agenda, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
2 . KOTRIS PUBLIC SITE PLAN, FILE #12-PSP0033: This Public Site Plan application is a request to allow a proposed detached accessory living area of 800-square-feet. The request is presented to the Board of County Commissioners based on unresolved neighbor comments and concerns.
The subject property is 7-acres in size and located on S. County Road 29, north and east of Carter Lake. The area is rural and agricultural with larger lots, agricultural uses, and single-family homes. The subject property contains a 2,226-square-foot “L shaped” house as the primary single family residence, a 30-foot by 38-foot (1,140-square-foot) garage used for storage, and a 10-foot by 90-foot (900-square-foot) loafing shed used for storage. The square footage of the proposed accessory living area is 800-square-foot.
The applicant submitted an application for Public Site Plan Review on April 17, 2012, which met the criteria to be reviewed administratively, meaning it required no appeals to standards of Section4.3.10.H of the Land Use Code, the technical criteria for a detached accessory living area.
During the process, comments about the application were received from neighbors. The applicant responded to comments and all comments were presented to the Planning Director for review and decision. The Planning Director found that the comments illustrated unresolved issues and decided the application should be heard by the Board of County Commissioners.
Neighbors and review agencies were notified of this request and the following information was received: One neighbor is in support of the project. Two neighbors commented that an accessory living area is not supported by property covenants. Some neighbors were concerned about architectural controls, specifically the look and quality of the structure and how to verify that the use will only be for family and guests, not rented. Additionally, one neighbor was concerned about property values, privacy, the effect of the use and structure on neighborhood character, and the impacts from the use and structure on views enjoyed by other properties. Review agencies had no major concerns or comments.
The applicant has responded to all comments received. The applicant indicated that several neighbors have no objections to the project and are in support of the proposal, while other neighbors were unreachable/unresponsive to messages or other attempts. The response to comments indicates that:
· The use and structure do not violate covenants
· Property values will not go down
· Other properties in the area have similar structures or uses and the addition of this structure will not reduce or change the character of the area
· The location of the structure will be such that it will be shielded by other buildings on the property and views from adjacent properties will not be impacted
· The house will be of good quality and architecture style consistent with the area
The response also includes two photos of the property, one prior to the Kotris/Lund ownership and one after. The “before” photo shows a great deal of debris and junk cars that were left on the property at the time of purchase, and the “after” photo shows that many of the cars and general debris have been cleared.
The Development Services Team finds that the request meets the technical requirements of Section 4.3.10.H as listed above, however; the comments received indicate there could be some impacts to the neighborhood. Staff recommends conditional approval of the Kotris Public Site Plan pending a discussion of all concerns at a public hearing with the County Commissioners.
The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Kotris Public Site Plan Review, file #12-PSP0033, subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval shall automatically expire in two years if the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development construction permit are not issued.
2. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Kotris Public Site Plan Review, file #12-PSP0033, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Kotris Public Site Plan.
3. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approvals, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Public Site Plan, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to the applicant to appear and show cause why the Public Site Plan approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Public Site Plan. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Public Site Plan approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. The county may conduct periodic inspections of the property and reviews of the status of the Public Site Plan as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Public Site Plan approval.
4. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property. Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Public Site Plan approval.
5. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building and/or septic permits for the Accessory Living Area. All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use.
6. The habitable space of the accessory living area shall be limited to 800-square-feet.
7. The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road.
8. The accessory living area is to be used solely for owners and guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.
9. The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to the applicant and Stefan Kotris addressed the Board. Mr. Kotris stated that the proposed accessory dwelling was permissible by the county’s land use code and the covenants governing the property. Mr. Kotris explained the precautionary steps taken to ensure minimal impact to surrounding land owners, including the design and placement of the structure.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment and Frank Cada, Paul Bennett, Kirsten Bennett, and Karen Korobow-Main, surrounding land owners, addressed the Board in opposition to the application. Those opposed the application stated that, in an effort to thwart increases in population density, the covenants did not allow accessory dwellings such as the one proposed by Mr. Kotris.
After some discussion with staff regarding accessory dwellings, Commissioner Johnson explained that covenants are privately enforced and, therefore, not applicable to the Board’s decision. He explained that the Board must judge applications according to the guidelines set forth in the land use code, which supports the proposed use; therefore, he supported the application. Chair Gaiter and Commissioner Donnelly agreed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Kotris Public Site Plan to allow an 800-square-foot detached accessory living area to be placed on the property, subject to the conditions, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. EATON CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT, FILE #10-S2973: This is a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat of a Conservation Development to subdivide 67.86-acres into five single-family residential lots and a residual lot with a building envelope.
This application was scheduled for hearing with the Larimer County Planning Commission on May 16, 2012. Although originally on the consent agenda, the Larimer County Planning Commission moved this item to the discussion agenda, when two neighbors indicated they wished to discuss and comment on the proposal. Those two neighbors raised issues with respect to lighting and road impacts as well the impact of additional development in the area.
The Larimer County Planning Commission discussed the application and indicated concerns with exterior lighting and access to both the new lots and to Residual Lot B. The issues with lighting were addressed by including in the covenants the residential lighting guidelines suggested by the Larimer County Land Use Code and to ask the applicant to address the possible access with the adjoining property to the east at Final Plat. The Larimer County Planning Commission conditions of approval reflect their concerns regarding these issues, specifically conditions 6 and 9.
The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommend approval of the Eaton Conservation Development, file #10-S2973, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Eaton Conservation Development, file #10-S2973, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and the applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Eaton Conservation Development.
2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Poudre School District school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication). The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
3. Residential fire sprinkler systems will be required in all new residential structures.
4. All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site-specific soils investigation. The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3-feet from the seasonal high water table. Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.
5. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots. The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30-days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
6. The applicant shall pursue an alternate Eaton Lane location to connect with the existing easement between Residual Lot A and Lot 5 or in the alternative; the eastern 60-feet of Outlot A shall be dedicated as right-of-way for future roadway use, as described in the memo from the Engineering Department, dated March 23, 2012.
7. The existing access to the property to the east shall be dedicated as future 60-foot right-of-way.
8. The existing well on site, permit #249209, shall be plugged and abandoned or be addressed prior to the recording of the Final Plat to the satisfaction of the State Engineers Office.
9. The applicant should consider inclusion of lighting restrictions consistent with Section 8.15.6 of the Land Use Code in the covenants.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment and Jerry Robinson, Engineer from Stewart and Associates, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Robinson stated that the land owners are complying with all county and state regulations, including the installation of utilities.
Karen Morgan, nearby land owner, addressed the Board in opposition to the application due to the increase in population density that will result from the development.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the Eaton Conservation Development Preliminary Plat, file #10-S2973, subject to the conditions outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. ANDERSON VIOLATION CODE COMPLIANCE, FILE #10-CC0198: This is an alleged violation of operating a plumbing business (“Andy’s Plumbing”) and other businesses on site, in violation of the conditions of approval for a Special Exception (150-77).
This property is located on the south side of Highway 402, about one mile east of U.S. Highway 287 and three miles west of Interstate 25. It is southeast of the City of Loveland and outside of the city’s growth management area. The property has split zoning with the front 300-feet (approximate) zoned B-Business and the remainder zoned FA-Farming. Surrounding uses include residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial.
In June, 2010, Code Compliance staff received a complaint from a neighbor that old cars and trucks, two trailers, a semi-trailer, old signs, tires, and other junk/debris were being stored by Mr. Anderson outside on his property. In subsequent conversations, the complainant also stated there were multiple businesses on the site, buildings constructed without permits, and concerns over the maintenance of the septic vault by the business.
Site visits, conversations with the property owner, and research into the parcel indicated the outdoor storage of junk and debris, old vehicles, and equipment related to the business were out of compliance with the county’s Land Use Code.
In 1977, the Larimer County Board of Adjustment granted a Special Exception (150-77) to Le Roy Anderson for a plumbing shop on this location. The Board minutes note that in 1972, a Special Exception had been granted to an upholstery shop in the same location, while one had been denied for automobile repair in 1975. An application for Rezoning to C-Commercial was denied in November, 1976. The Board granted the Special Exception for a plumbing shop on the grounds that “existing and proposed use are similar in that they are permitted in the same zoning district, C-Commercial.” There were two conditions of approval: “(1) all outside storage be screened from view” and “(2) the special exception use applied to a depth of 230-feet from the centerline of the adjoining public road.”
In the opinion of Code Compliance staff, the outdoor storage is not screened from view, but is clearly visible both from neighboring properties and the state highway. Additionally, the business use on the property covers more than the first 230-feet from the centerline of the adjoining road. Currently there is significantly expanded outdoor storage of vehicles, semi-trailers, boats, equipment, junk, and debris, by both the current tenant (KD Repair) and the owner.
County Assessor Records list two buildings having been constructed in 1972, a 1440-square-foot service garage and a 1536-square-foot farm utility building. Review of aerial photos show a garage between these two buildings constructed sometime in the mid-1980s. We cannot locate a permit of record for this garage.
There were two prior code compliance cases for similar uses:
· 01-ZV0021 – operating a “junkyard” and outdoor storage in violation of the Special Exception. File closed 6/5/2001; and
· 01-ZV0195 – use of parcel for a pallet business is not permitted. Pallets and semi-trailer must be removed. File closed 11/27/2001.
Staff findings are as follows:
· The property is zoned B-Business and FA-Farming.
· Trade uses are not listed uses in these zoning districts.
· The plumbing business (and small engine repair business) are allowed under Special Exception 150-77, which requires outdoor storage be screened from view.
· Outdoor storage is not screened from view.
· The garage constructed in the mid-1980s requires a county building permit and inspection approvals. If any non-exempt alteration work has occurred in the front building, that also requires a county building permit and inspection approvals.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners set a deadline for the property owner to bring the property into compliance with county regulations and authorize legal action if the deadline set by the Commissioners is not met.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to the applicant and LeRoy Anderson addressed the Board to request that he be given additional time to improve the condition of his property. Mr. Anderson explained that the tenant, an engine repair shop, has relocated and he is in the process of trying to improve the property.
Ted Rozkuska addressed the Board in favor of staff’s recommendation. Mr. Rozkuska provided a lengthy, detailed historic explanation of the property and past and present land use code violations.
Mr. Anderson readdressed the Board and stated that he would be willing to screen the junk and debris on the property while he tries to sell/repurpose plumbing supplies he has collected on the property during his career.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners set a deadline of ninety (90) days for the property owner to bring the property into compliance with County regulations and authorize legal action if the property is not brought into compliance by the deadline. Compliance would entail opaque screening of outdoor storage, for the first 230-feet from the centerline of Highway 402 (utilizing wood or chain-link fencing with slats), removing any junk and debris from the property, and obtaining building permits for the middle garage and any alteration work requiring a permit in the other buildings.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business the hearing adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners met a 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffmann, County Manager. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Diane Tokarz, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Sheriff Justin Smith, and Undersheriff Bill Nelson; Lorenda Volker, John Gamlin, and Bridget Paris; George Haas, and Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gaiter opened up the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. UPDATE BRIEFING ON HIGH PARK FIRE: Rocky Mountain Area Type 1 Incident Management Team Deputy Incident Commander Pete Blume, and Colorado State Forester David Farmer pro vided an in-depth update for the Board regarding the High Park Fire. Discussion ensued.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Shirley Pfankuch addressed the Board regarding the fire ban as their community in Crystal Lakes operates a clean-up site for beetle kill trees. Ms. Pfankuch requested the ability to continue operations as technically what they do is considered a “contained” fire.
Pete Sakala, Aron Calkins, and Steve Bradley addressed the Board, requesting the ability to offers fireworks sales in Larimer County, noting that if sales are shut down in the county then citizens will simply go to Loveland and Wyoming to purchase their fireworks.
Fire Chief’s Bob Hansen, Tom DeMint, Carl Sully, and Merlin Green all expressed opposition to the sale and use of fireworks in Larimer County. They stated it is important to send a strong message to the community that it is far too dangerous to use fireworks at this point in time. Undersheriff Nelson agreed and stated that the Sheriff’s Department also supports a full open fire and fireworks ban at this time. The Board asked for all parties to work on revising the language in the fire ban and bring it back for discussion before the end of the meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 11, 2012:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week June 11, 2012.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 25, 2012: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as follows:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the Larimer County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are denied: Darral Anderson, Michael Bezenar, Claudia Cuevas, Marvin Martin, McBeth Family Revocable Trust, and Casey Miller.
06192012A001 REGIONAL LAND CONSERVATION, STEWARDSHIP AND RECREATION STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AECOM
06192012A002 AIA DOCUMENT G701-2001 CHANGE ORDER NO. 13 TO AUGUST 29, 2011 CONTRACT FOR SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION EXPANSION PROJECT
06192012R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE OLSEN FEE APPEAL
06192012D002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVNG THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2 IN NEWT PLD AND FEE APPEAL
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor license was approved and issued: Supermarket Liquors – Retail Liquor Store – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. HIGH PARK FIRE ISSUES: Ms. Hoffmann presented a handout, which outlined the issues and recovery operations for the High Park Fire; she reviewed this in detail with the Board.
7. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Ms. Tokarz presented the following recommendations for Boards and Commissions:
Board of Adjustment: Mike Handley, appointed to fill an unexpired term July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2014. Tom Peterson, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015. Alan Cram, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.
Environmental Advisory Board: Cassie Archuleta, and Kiley McGowen, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015. Joseph Wilson, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.
Workforce Investment Board: Robin Fallon, and Tracy Oldemeyer, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015. Nancy Patton and Deborah appointed to fill unexpired terms beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2014; Joshua Birks, Bradley Buum, Betsey Hale, Heather Lelchook, Richard Martinez, Tracy Mead, Jim Neubecker, and Ed Rutherford, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments and reappointments to Boards and Commissions, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: There were no worksession items to discuss.
9. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.
At this time Sheriff Smith joined the meeting and Undersheriff Nelson presented the changes to the fire ban. Discussion ensued and the Board agreed with the recommended changes to the resolution, which now includes a ban open fires and on the sale and use of fireworks all across Larimer County.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revised resolution banning open fires and the sale and use of fireworks in Larimer County.
Motion carried 3-0.
06192012R004 RESOLUTION DECLARING FIRE RESTRICTIONS IN LARIMER COUNTY
Chair Gaiter also recommended sending a letter to the Loveland City Council requesting that they too, enact a ban on the sale of fireworks within the Loveland city limits. The Board supported this recommendation.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: Ms. Haag and Mr. Brad March, attorney for the Town of Wellington, presented a resolution approving tax waivers for property in the Town of Wellington and requested approval on the same. Commissioner Johnson stated that he does not believe the county has any liability in this matter, and some discussion ensued.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution regarding tax waivers for property in the Town of Wellington, as presented.
Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Johnson dissenting.
06192012R003 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING TAX WAIVERS FOR PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO
There being no further business, the Board recessed at 11:45 a.m.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. to consider Petitions for Abatement. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Davin Stephens, Assessor’s Office; Altin Papa, and Jackie Ray Shinogle, Petitioners; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PETITION FOR ABATEMENT, ALTIN PAPA, PARCEL NO. 02310-00-004: Mr. Stephens described the property and the comparables used to arrive at the indicated value of $59,387. Mr. Stephens noted that the property sold within the time frame and that the petitioner purchased two parcels, totaling 80-acres, for $110,000 and that the property in question was the parcel that contained a cabin on it.
Mr. Papa stated that the cabin has no water, no septic, no out-house, and is not a “residence” as he would consider it a farm utility building at best.
The Board explained that the total purchase price was $110,000, which they could use as the sale and set the new value to $110,000; however, the Assessor is reducing it due to the comparables used and the agricultural designation on the property.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement on Parcel Number 02310-00-004, and retain the value of $59,387, for tax year 2011, as recommended by the County Assessor.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. PETITION FOR ABATEMENT, JACKIE RAY SHINOGLE, PARCEL NO. 09240-00-064: Mr. Stephens described the property and the comparables used to arrive at the indicated value of $231,732. Mr. Stephens noted that the property had been reduced to $169,000 in the 2009 reappraisal year; however, he cannot provide details as to why it dropped over $70,000 in value in one year.
Mr. Shinogle stated that he was protesting the new value, as he felt that when the property dropped in 2009, it was because the sluggish economy finally caught up with property values. He stated that it has now increased 25% percent, and he does not feel that the market supports that type of increase.
Discussion ensued and the Board stated the possibility that the appraisal model the Assessor’s Office used gave an incorrect value in 2009. Commissioner Johnson stated that the comparables support the $230,000 value; however, Chair Gaiter and Commissioner Donnelly were inclined to support a lower amount due to the conflicting reappraisal values.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners partially approve the Petition for Abatement on Parcel Number 09240-00-064, and set the new value at $209,000 for tax year 2011.
Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Johnson dissenting.
The hearing adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
LEW GAITER III, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk