Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Minutes from BOA Meeting 05.20.2002.pdfGarfield County Board of Adjustment Minutes from Meeting of May 20, 2002 BOA Members Present Staff Present Pete Cabrinha Leo Jammaron Steve Boat Tom Morton Mark Bean, B&P Director Steve Hackett, Code Enforcement Don Deford, County Atty. Carolyn Dahlgren, Assist Cty Atty Roll call was taken and the following members are absent: Brad Jordan and Harold Raymond. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the October 22, 2001 BOA Meeting. Steve Boat made a motion to accept minutes as presented and Leo Jammaron seconded the motion. All approved unanimously. All BOA members present tonight are appointed as regular voting members. The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request is for an Administrative Appeal of an interpretation of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution concerned with the uses allowed in the Commercial/Limited Zone District. The applicant is Terry Kirk and the location is 455 Main Street in Silt. Mark Bean is the staff planner. This is a public meeting so there is no noticing requirement. The appellant is contesting a determination by Steve Hackett, Garfield County Code Enforcement, that a proposed mixing of small amounts of up to two cubic yards of preprocessed materials in the trailer mounted units on the property and then allowing a customer to haul the material to the site for use, is not allowed in the C/L zone district as a use by right. All uses allowed in the Commercial/Limited Zone District are included on pages 2-4 in the staff report. It is staff's position that the mixing of concrete materials on site, regardless of the amount of material, would be classified as "processing of natural resources". Processing of natural resources is a use allowed by Special Use in some of the other zone districts in the County Zoning Resolution. Processing is defined under Industrial Operations Classification uses in Section 2.02.31(2), as follows: Processing, "to subject to some special process or treatment, as in the course of manufacture"; change in the physical state or chemical composition of matter; the second step in utilization of a natural resource; examples include petroleum refining, oil shale crushing, retorting and refining, ore smelting, coal crushing and 1 cleaning, saw mills, alfalfa pellet mill s, food canning or packing, creation of glass, ceramic or plastic materials, gravel crushing, cement manufacturer; concrete batch plants". Included in this definition are the examples of cement manufacture, concrete batch plants . The appellant could just as easily rent the mixers and sell the client the material in bags for transport to the site. The C/L zone district is a commercial retail/wholesale/service area, not an area intended to allow for industrial uses, even by a Special Use Permit. Staff recommends denial of the proposed requested appeal, based on argument that allowing the mixing of mate1ials in small or large amounts on a s ite, constitutes a processing operation that is not allowed in the Commercial/Limited zone dis trict in any form . Pete Cabrinha asked Mark if noise requirement would apply. Mark said yes that noise would have to s tay within the property. Moved to applicant for presentation next. Present for the applicant are Dan LeMoine, Attorney representing Mr. Kirk and owner Terry Kirk. They are requesting a reverse to Steve Hackett's interpretation of the code. Mr. Kirk rents trai ler mounted mixers and material. Look at u ses: rental and retail of building material, "use by right" should include concrete mix. In the C/L zone district commercial establishments are permitted. Included uses were read into the record. They believe that Mr. Hackett errored in classifying his decis ion. Think what they do doesn't fit into the processing category. Can't mix concrete on property because this constitutes processing in the counties opinion. Dominant feature of operation is sale of building mate1ial and rental of machines. This is not gravel crushing. This is not a cement manufacturer. Thinks there is a big difference between concrete batch plant and mixer being turned on. A lot of users in the County are users of small quantity and this provides them an alternative. Applicant r espectfully requests that the BOA reverse Mr. Hackett's decision. Steve Boat asked applicant how thi s differs from a batch p l ant because you are delivering a product. Mr. Kirk responded, first of all the size of the operation. A batch plant is all measured out and disbursed from plant (loading facility) mix ing done by truck. Steve says he doesn't see the difference. Dan LeMoine made some add itional comments. Mr. Kirk s tated that all material is put together somewhere else they store and mix. This is not a batch plant it is a mixer. Dan said even though things can do the same type of work, they all can't be called the same function. Can't get stuck on "concrete batch plant". Have to look at other uses. 2 Applicant is trying to keep a quality product. An individual can take a mixer to their property with the raw material. Mr. Kirk said it doesn't make sense why they can't do this when others can. (I.e. at construction site) Can rent the mixers and sell the product. Pete Cabrinha said the result is a product called concrete. He see's them both as the same. This will fall under the same kind of process. Don't see the difference. Both move concrete off the lot. Mr. Kirk says his is different. They have a forklift not a batch plant. Can sell building material and ready mix. Steve Boat says he needs a definition of quantity. Doesn't want to make a decision on number. Terry said they are asking for two. Tom Morton asked what exactly the Counties objection is. Mark said where do we stop it. Don't feel this is fabrication. They are processing; read the definition. Agree you can sell and rent. Consumer's responsibility to control the quality. In retail commercial area, not able to control unless you do the processing itself. Mark doesn't disagree. Steve Hackett spoke related to Mr. LeMoine's definition concerning change in composition of matter. Mark says this is unique to that activity. You are selling a processed product. Tom asked ifthe county can limit the scope of the process. Don Deford said BOCC can make that decision. Mark said you are processing natural resources on the property. Terry Kirk said everything has been processed elsewhere. Leo Jammaron stated if you back under a shoot then you are a batch plant and ifit is bagged then you are not. Tom stated this would be better on the roads related to weight restrictions. Tom asked about the cost. Terry said there is about a $140.00 savings .. Steve Boat said prices range about $85.00 a yard. Pete asked what would force a text amendment. Don responded. Pete asked if they would have to deny to force a text amendment. Method needs to be cleared up. There is a definite need for what you've got. Dan LeMoine thanked the Board for their time and asked them to reverse decision of staff. 3 Tom Morton made a motion to grant approval of applicant's request. Pete stated we can't do that. Pete said this need s to go to the BOCC and they need to make the change. Mark said ap plicant can make application for that. Tom feels that government gets in the way. Steve Boat said shouldn't the rules apply to everyone. Tom says we need a mechanism to make the se things happen easier. Steve Boat stated that the rules as wlitten states this is not pennitted. If it is that good of an idea , then the BOCC wou ld probably approve. Steve Boat made a motion to d en y to overturn Mr. Hacke tt's d ec is io n and Pete Gabrinha seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion did not can-y. Vote was 2Y and 2N. (All 4 have to agree) If BOA members can't agree then: 1) deci sio n to got to BOCC; 2) decisions are appeal able to district court. Tom Morton made a motion to change interpretation so they can sell (overturn Steve's decision to deny) and Leo Jammaron seco nded the motion. No four concurring vo tes so denial stands as stated by Steve Hackett. 4 '