PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF MONTROSE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DATE: March 2, 2015

Transcription

1 The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session held at the County Administrative Office Board Room at 9:00am. Those present: David White, Chairman; Glen Davis, Vice-Chairman; Ronald Henderson, Commissioner; Carolyn Clawson, Deputy County Attorney; Ken Norris, County Manager; Marie Simons, Deputy Clerk to the Board. A. WELCOME 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: Ronald Henderson, District 1 Present Glen Davis, District 2 Present David White, District 3 Present 4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: This was the time for members of the public to present issues of concern or interest to the Board. Dennis Schultz, a Montrose County citizen, informed the Board that he had recently discovered the impact the internet had on businesses because he currently had a patented video on the market that had received 50,000 viewings. During that period, Mr. Schultz asserted he also learned he was unfairly in competition with several other businesses for event centers. He explained that ranches in the community advertised their property on the internet as event centers but they did not pay taxes, meet fire codes, have approved parking, and had not obtained liquor licenses; therefore, he requested that the County shut down those businesses. As an example, Mr. Schultz reported that while he was recently working at the Wild Bunch Ranch, two Sheriff Deputies responded to a complaint at 10:00pm regarding excessive noise. The Sheriff Deputies terminated the wedding party on the basis the outdoor party was being held at a private residence. Mr. Schultz asserted these special events were happening throughout the County and should be stopped. He noted that the County required special use permits for special events; however, he acknowledged he would gladly pay for a special use permit for doing business correctly in the County. He suggested that the County issue special use permits to nonprofit organizations only and subsequently allow the public vote on all special use permits to for-profit businesses. This would eliminate any unfair competition and future lawsuits. At Commissioner White s inquiry, Mr. Schultz responded that he had not spoken with Planning & Development Director Steve White regarding the matter. Commissioner White suggested that Mr. Schultz do so because Planning & Development Director White was aware of the issue. Mr. Schultz noted that the four ranches he worked at that hosted special wedding parties This document was approved on April 6, Page 98

2 admitted they were aware that hosting wedding parties was illegal, but that as long as there were no complaints they would continue to host the weddings. Many of the bed & breakfast establishments in Montrose were losing wedding business because ranches in the valley were taking that business away. He pointed out that this issue was costing the County a great deal of money. Commissioner Henderson suggested that Mr. Schultz come to his office to discuss the matter. Michael Scott Dosch, Montrose County Housing Authority Executive Director, thanked Commissioners White, Davis, and Henderson and County Manager Ken Norris for attending the event 1 in Naturita on Saturday, February 7, Mr. Dosch updated the Commissioners regarding the proposal Reed Mitchell and Associates made on February 7, 2015 for a senior housing project in the west end of the County. Mr. Mitchell requested that the Montrose Housing Authority sponsor a reissue and readjustment of the 2013 Demographic and Research Study for the west end of the County; this report would be conducted by the Highland Group located in Boulder, Colorado. Mr. Dosch explained that the Highland Group was a highly respected research group in rural senior housing matters. The cost for redoing the study would be approximately $3500. Mr. Dosch reported that the Montrose Housing Authority decided to defer a decision on the project and that on March 3, 2015, he and Housing Authority s board chairperson, Carol Wicburg, would compose a letter to Reed and Associates with the request to confirm and clarify their proposal s business plan and vision. Although Montrose Housing Authority was not against another study regarding senior housing of the west end of the County, they needed more details of the proposal before they could make a decision on the matter. At Commissioner Davis request, Mr. Dosch affirmed that he would submit a copy of the letter to Reed Mitchell to the Commissioners. B. COUNTY MANAGER, Ken Norris, consideration for removal or change in any items on this Agenda: County Manager Ken Norris requested that Item G (Executive Session) be removed from the Agenda. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner White noted that the reason for removing the item was that County Attorney Teresa Williams was ill and out of the office. 1 Mr. Reed Mitchell of Naturita hosted an open invitation public meeting at the Rimrock Hotel (at 3:00pm) to present his concept for an assisted living senior housing project in Nucla. All three Commissioners, County Manager Ken Norris, local west end mayors, the Montrose Housing Authority team and approximately 40 local citizens participated. Michael Scott Dosch, Executive Director of the Montrose County Housing Authority, conducted the Question & Answer follow-up discussion. The group took a site tour of the old elementary school buildings and grounds in Nucla. The meeting and tour generated lively discussion regarding the range of needs, current and future senior housing demand, and best options for solutions. Michael Dosch, Montrose Housing Authority Executive Director, submitted the above information to clarify the purpose of the event. This document was approved on April 6, Page 99

3 C. CONSENT AGENDA: All matters under the consent agenda are considered routine by the Board of County Commissioners and are enacted with a single vote. There was no separate discussion of these items. If discussion was deemed necessary, that item would have been removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately: 1. Request for approval of General Fund and Special Fund Expenditures: NONE 2. Approval of Minutes: 01/20/2015, 01/27/2015 Special and 02/02/2015: 3. MONTROSE REGIONAL AIRPORT, authorization for the Chairman s signature on the Hangar Ground Lease with St. Mary s Hospital & Medical Center, Inc., effective 03/15/2015, as reviewed by Counsel; this agreement represented budgeted annual revenue in the amount of $18, in support of Strategic Plan Priority #1 Managed Growth and Economic Development: 4. MONTROSE REGIONAL AIRPORT, authorization for the Chairman s signature on the Hangar Ground Lease with San Sophia Aviation, LLC, effective 03/02/2015, as reviewed by Counsel; this agreement represented budgeted annual revenue in the amount of $2, in support of Strategic Plan Priority #1 Managed Growth and Economic Development: COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. D. GENERAL BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: FINANCE/OD/HR, Greg Jennings/Corrinne Shearer, per the requirement of the Community Development Block Grant (Hope West Hospice), a post award hearing shall be held allowing citizens to review and comment on the grantee s performance in carrying out the project. The hearing was posted and citizens were notified in accordance with applicable Statutes: Commissioner White opened the public hearing. Nancy Hoganson of Hope West Hospice asserted that the County supported the Community Development Block Grant for $400,000 that was used for constructing the new Hope West Hospice building. Construction of the building had taken longer than anticipated, but Ms. Hoganson reported that completion of the building should take place the latter part of March Hope West Hospice would move into the building in early April The building would help Hope West Hospice provide more services to Montrose County. Commissioner Davis thanked Ms. Hoganson. This document was approved on April 6, Page 100

4 Commissioner White closed the public hearing. No Board action was necessary. PROCEEDINGS OF THE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENED AS THE MONTROSE COUNTY LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY: 2. CLERK AND RECORDER, Tressa Guynes, for consideration and approval for the Transfer of Ownership of the 3.2% Beer License from William Newberry dba Newberry s Store & Cabins to Juanita Newberry, dba Newberry s Store. All appropriate documents, reviews, inspection, background check and fees have been submitted pursuant to CRS concerning Transfer of Ownership and Temporary Permits: Clerk & Recorder Tressa Guynes informed the Board that Juanita and Don Newberry were present to represent Newberry s Store. Chief Deputy Clerk Sandy Nelson reported the following. All paperwork was in order for the transfer of ownership of the 3.2% beer license. Donald Newberry and James Newberry owned Newberry Store and Juanita Newberry leased Newberry s Store. The premises lease was valid from February 1, 2015 through February 1, Evidence submitted by the applicant showed that Donald Newberry and James Newberry were entitled to possession of the property. Juanita Newberry, spouse of William Newberry (deceased), had signed the Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance form as the new applicant. The Individual History Record was complete and acceptable. Fingerprints were obtained for FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and rechecked because the fingerprint card (previously submitted) could not be used. The County Sheriff affirmed there were no complaints the previous year regarding the sale of beer at Newberry s Store. A diagram of the Newberry s Store premises had been provided to the Commissioners in their Agenda packet of information. A public hearing regarding the transfer of ownership was not required and was waived by the County Attorney and Commissioners. This document was approved on April 6, Page 101

5 Clerk & Recorder Tressa Guynes and Chief Deputy Clerk Sandy Nelson conducted the Inspection Report on February 26, Newberry s Store passed the inspection. There were no other liquor licenses or schools within a one-mile radius of Newberry s Store. The applicant was familiar with and had copies of the Colorado liquor and beer code. The applicant requested that a Temporary Permit be issued to continue business. This item was to be considered by the Board in Item D3 of the Agenda. Commissioner Davis explained that the reason for the transfer of ownership was that Newberry s Store owner Bill Newberry had died. Commissioner Davis expressed his condolences to the family and noted that he knew Mr. Newberry for forty years and he thanked the Newberry family for the contributions they had made to the Cimarron community. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE 3.2% BEER LICENSE FROM WILLIAM NEWBERRY DBA NEWBERRY'S STORE & CABINS TO JUANITA NEWBERRY, DBA NEWBERRY'S STORE. ALL APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS, REVIEWS, INSPECTION, BACKGROUND CHECK AND FEES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO CRS CONCERNING TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND TEMPORARY PERMITS. COMMISSIONER DAVIS SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CLERK AND RECORDER, Tressa Guynes, for consideration and approval for a Temporary Permit to continue business in the transfer of William Newberry dba Newberry s Store & Cabins to Juanita Newberry, dba Newberry s Store: Clerk & Recorder Tressa Guynes reported that the beer license renewal would take place on March 8, 2015; therefore, to avoid expiration, a Temporary Permit was necessary to continue business during the transfer of ownership. Deputy County Attorney Carolyn Clawson explained that a Temporary Permit could be granted for 120 days, with the possibility of a 60-day extension for good caution. At Commissioner White s inquiry, it was confirmed that Juanita Newberry requested a 120-day Temporary Permit. COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVED TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY PERMIT FOR 120 DAYS TO CONTINUE BUSINESS IN THE TRANSFER OF WILLIAM NEWBERRY DBA NEWBERRY'S STORE & CABINS TO JUANITA NEWBERRY, DBA NEWBERRY'S STORE. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION: This document was approved on April 6, Page 102

6 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE F. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: OLD BUSINESS PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the Montrose County Rubbish and Junk Ordinance (Ordinance No ) Proposal: Exhibit: To adopt an Ordinance to regulate rubbish and junk within Montrose County to preserve and improve the health, safety, and welfare of Montrose County citizens. Rubbish and Junk Ordinance Commissioner White opened the public hearing. DESCRIPTION: This public hearing was for the second reading of the Ordinance. The Montrose County Rubbish and Junk Ordinance required two readings by the BOCC. The first reading was addressed at the January 20, 2015 BOCC meeting, and the second reading at the March 2, 2015 BOCC meeting. Montrose County received numerous complaints from citizens regarding properties that have accumulated large amounts of junk and trash because there have been no County codes to address junk and trash. To help address this issue, the County proposed an ordinance to provide for and compel the removal of rubbish, including trash, junk, and garbage. The Ordinance included definitions and remedies to address violations of the regulations. These regulations only apply to properties located in unincorporated Montrose County that are zoned General Residential and are less than one acre and properties zoned Multiple Family Residential. RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Planning and Development Department supported the proposed ordinance to the Montrose County Rubbish and Junk Ordinance based on the following: This document was approved on April 6, Page 103

7 Discussion PROCEEDINGS OF THE a. The Ordinance will help preserve and improve the health, safety, and welfare of Montrose County citizens b. Implementation is simplified because the Ordinance will focus on smaller sized residential properties. c. The Ordinance provides a clear process to address violations. Planning & Development Director Steve White explained that several citizens submitted letters listing concerns about a few aspects of the ordinance as follows. That the County would become involved in enforcing compost piles. Most composting took place in people s back yards, which the County would not enforce because it would be behind a fence where it could not be seen. Compost materials comprised of manure, fruits, and vegetables in the front yard that might start smelling could be a violation of the code if it remained there for some time without composting. If the compost material were being composted in a compost pile as part of their yard or garden, the County would not be concerned. Investigations of these issues were complaint-driven. Language in Section 8.1 of the ordinance should be changed. The suggestion was made to replace the word sooner with later. Because the County Attorney s office drafted the ordinance, Planning & Development Director White asked Deputy County Attorney Carolyn Clawson to review that item and make a recommendation how to proceed. After she reviewed Section 8.1 of the ordinance, Deputy County Attorney Clawson explained that the language of that portion of the ordinance conveyed the necessity for the owner to be notified at least seven days prior to the hearing. She acknowledged the language was somewhat confusing and recommended the language be modified to state the owner is to be notified at least seven days prior to (or in advance of) the hearing. This document was approved on April 6, Page 104

8 The County would only enforce the Junk Ordinance on properties up to one acre in size. The reason that the ordinance allowed County Junk Ordinance enforcement on properties up to one acre only was that the majority of property zoned General Residential in Montrose County would most likely be in the west end of Montrose County. (There were also a few General Residential properties in east Montrose County under one acre in size.) Many property owners of three and four acre properties (especially in the west end of the County) continued to farm their land as well as keep livestock on the land. Therefore, the County did not want to begin enforcing the ordinance on a farmer that utilized farm equipment, kept livestock, and used his land, which was a grandfathered right in a residential district. The Junk Ordinance focused only on properties one acre in size or less because the impact was greater due to the closer proximity to other properties. It was possible the County would address junk on larger properties in the future. The Junk Ordinance should include the entire County. Including the entire County in the ordinance was more than the County could manage at this time because it did not have enough staff for enforcement. Planning & Development Director White suggested that the Junk Ordinance be reviewed in a year to determine whether any changes were necessary. Although some people thought the ordinance should encompass larger properties and enforcement of the ordinance on small properties was selective enforcement, Planning & Development Staff believed the property size should remain at one acre or less. This was not selective enforcement because the County had outlined exactly how they would enforce the ordinance; picking and choosing what properties needed enforcement would be selective enforcement. Planning & Development Director White noted private property rights were always a concern; however, Montrose County was a community that honored the rights of property owners. On the other hand, the County also honored the rights of property owners adjacent to someone who might not be maintaining their land properly. He pointed out that the Junk Ordinance allowed for an appeal process to the Commissioners or an appeals officer; therefore, a decision to enforce the ordinance would not be up to one person. There was a delicate balance when enforcing the ordinance to assure that both sides of the issue was protected. The following citizens spoke to the Board regarding the proposed Junk Ordinance. Answers by County staff to some of the concerns are indicated in bold italics. Nancy Medlock, a Montrose County resident, explained that the reason for the Junk Ordinance that protected properties in residential areas was that messy properties affected the entire County because they reduced property values and property tax revenue to the County. She noted that although she wished that larger properties could be included in the Junk Ordinance, she wanted agricultural property protected against any type of interference because it was a necessary part of the County s economy and daily life. Ms. Medlock noted that it was not right that one messy property in her neighborhood (Aspen This document was approved on April 6, Page 105

9 Cove Subdivision) negatively affected forty-one other properties and caused of the sale of one property to take four years. The manure and burning of electric wiring on the messy property were a health hazard to the children in the neighborhood. Charles McMurdy, a Montrose County resident, pointed out that the drop in property values was due to the economy, not messy properties. He noted that most of the properties impacted by the Junk Ordinance were small and would be in a subdivision that should have a homeowners association with covenants that contend with messy properties. The lack of covenants in the subdivision (Aspen Cove) was most likely the reason people purchased lots there. Mr. McMurdy asserted the County should not be involved in the enforcement of a junk ordinance and should not tell its citizens how to manage their lives. It was his opinion that junk was defined as something that could not be used by anyone for any purpose. Old machinery or equipment did not fall under that definition because it could be restored to working order or the parts utilized. He noted that the newspaper stated that people have rights; however, it was his opinion that people have a right to respect other people s privacy and if something offends someone, they had the right not to look at it. Mr. McMurdy informed those present that approximately twenty years ago, the Montrose County Commissioners considered creating a junk ordinance; however, after 1,000 citizens signed a petition that expressed opposition to the junk ordinance, the Commissioners decided against pursuing the creation of a junk ordinance. Mr. McMurdy expressed his displeasure that one County taxpayer could dictate how others in the County could use their property. He also noted that the ordinance stated it would improve the health, safety, and welfare of Montrose County citizens; however, it was his opinion that this statement was only to sugar coat what they wanted to do. Mr. McMurdy declared that for fifty-three years he had lived on property that contained junk and that his health had not been harmed. He expressed opposition to more regulation imposed by government entities. Planning & Development Director White acknowledged that the Commissioners could decide against implementing a junk ordinance; however, enough County residents had expressed concern and support for an ordinance that it was his belief it was the right action for the County to take. Although Montrose County was conservative and tried to protect property rights, balance was necessary so that all property owners rights were protected. He reiterated his earlier suggestion that the Commissioners should review and receive public comment regarding the ordinance in one year to assure the ordinance was being enforced correctly. Ileen Sue Fakiri, a Montrose County resident, informed the Board that she was a retired paralegal and business consultant, a native of Montrose County, and that her family had lived for fifty years on a parcel of land less than one-acre in size in unincorporated Montrose County. She reported that she commented on the proposed Junk Ordinance at the February 17, 2015 BOCC meeting and had hand- This document was approved on April 6, Page 106

10 delivered written comments on February 19, 2015 that contained recommendations for improving the Junk Ordinance to the Planning & Development Department. Ms. Fakiri read Section 3.1 of the proposed Junk Ordinance as follows. Ms. Fakiri pointed out that the regulations for properties less than one acre meant that properties one acre or more in size would be unregulated; junk problems in the County were not limited to small properties and larger properties exempt from a countywide problem. Planning & Development Director White explained that the Commissioners (and County citizens) had the authority to determine the lot size. In the past, the County removed some regulations because they were not acceptable. It was his belief, however, that because this was the County s first attempt at a junk ordinance, the smaller sized lot was the place to start. The small Planning & Development staff would not be able to enforce adequately small and large properties throughout the County. The ordinance pertained only to General Residential properties and he asserted that perhaps the County Attorney should review the issue to determine whether the ordinance encouraged selective enforcement. Ms. Fakiri then read Section 6 of the proposed ordinance as follows. Ms. Fakiri expressed opposition to Section 6 by pointing out that the County would be acting unfairly to accept verbal complaints from some people and not from others. She argued that all complaints should be submitted in writing. In addition, the name of the person complaining against a property owner should be made known to that property owner. Planning & Development Director White acknowledged that he would not oppose removal of the language in Section 6 ( the County may, at its discretion, investigate verbal complaints. ). He agreed that the complaint should be in writing because a written This document was approved on April 6, Page 107

11 complaint meant there would be no selective enforcement and that the County would have a tracking mechanism. He acknowledged that many people were concerned there would be retaliation concerning a complaint; however, it was his opinion the best approach would be for the neighbor with the complaint to approach the offending neighbor before filing a formal complaint with the County. Ms. Fakiri expressed appreciation for Planning & Development Director White s assertion that composting in the back yard would not be regulated. Marv Ballantyne, a Montrose County resident, commented that some of the wording of the ordinance needed to be less specific while other wording needed to be more specific. He noted that the County seemed to be advocating selective enforcement when it allowed composting in the back yard and not the front yard. He inquired whether composting in the side yard and odors from the back yard would be allowed. He agreed with Ms. Fakiri s comments regarding complaints that are submitted to the County and he conveyed confusion as to the language in Section 6 (see above) of the ordinance and how it would be enforced. Planning & Development Director White explained that the Violations portion of the ordinance did not refer to rubbish as being in the front or back yard; therefore, the smell of manure or dead animals could be enforceable under the rubbish regulation. If the property owner believes there is no smell, they can appeal the enforcement to the Commissioners. Depending on the circumstances, it was possible the Health Department would need to become involved to determine whether there were any health concerns. Conversely, junk (physical products such as cars, appliances, litter) needed to be relegated to the back yard where it could not be seen. Mr. Ballantyne then quoted from Section 8 of the ordinance as follows (see highlighted portion). He pointed out that this requirement was the opposite of what the US Constitution guarantees because the ordinance makes the presumption of guilt before a determination was made. Mr. Ballantyne suggested that this clause be removed from the ordinance. Dennis Washington, a Montrose County resident, informed the Board that he lived next to the property owner with the messy property (in the Aspen Cove subdivision) that had been the subject of discussion This document was approved on April 6, Page 108

12 earlier in the meeting. The property had been in that condition since the property owner had moved there and the property owner had several altercations with his neighbors regarding the mess on the property. Although the condition of the property did not bother Mr. Washington, he recognized property values surrounding the messy property had gone down as a result. Mr. Washington asserted that he was opposed to the ordinance but that he researched Colorado statutes concerning the ordinance and had learned that the County was following Colorado statutes by implementing the ordinance. He noted that many properties contained machinery and equipment that showed no regular progress and he inquired whether there were permits (or some other process) that allowed the property owner to continue work on the equipment. Mr. Washington pointed out that many people might begin to do many of the activities prohibited in the ordinance in their back yard at night to avoid noncompliance with the ordinance. Planning & Development Director White explained that vehicles/equipment being worked on in the front yard for one week would be treated differently than a vehicle that had been in the front yard for three months. If that much time was needed to work on the vehicle/equipment, the vehicle/equipment should then be relocated to the back yard, a garage, or carport. An unlicensed vehicle was proof it was not able to be on the road; therefore, the vehicle should be removed to a place where it could not be seen. After Planning & Development Director White responded to the above concerns and comments, he asserted that this Junk Ordinance would be a training ground for the County on how to approach enforcement. He expressed confidence in how the ordinance was written by asserting that it gave him the opportunity to work through and solve problems with property owners. Sandra Tyler, a Montrose County resident, quoted from Stephen Covey s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People 2, Seek first to understand, then to be understood. She pointed out that the County was following this criteria because they were first considering both sides of the issue (Be Proactive), asking for input (Synergize), and the County was following Habit 2 (Begin With the End in Mind) by considering both sides of the issue. When over forty complaints were received regarding one person s junk, that property owner needed to take heed and learn how to make their property look better. Ms. Tyler 2 Stephen Covey s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People Habit 1: Be Proactive Habit 2: Begin with the end in mind Habit 3: Put 1 st things 1 st Habit 4: Think win-win Habit 5: Seek first to understand, then to be understood Habit 6: Synergize Habit 7: Sharpen the saw This document was approved on April 6, Page 109

13 reported that City of Montrose Public Works Director John Harris informed her that spring cleanup would be free of charge this year because money that had been saved in the City s recycling program. Ms. Tyler pointed out that Habit 4 (Think win-win) might be applicable in this situation and she suggested that perhaps the individual with the messy property could be encouraged to haul their junk to the spring cleanup event. Commissioner White closed the public hearing. Commissioner Davis asserted that he believed in property rights; however, he pointed out that the ordinance was considered carefully and was not based upon property values. Passing a junk ordinance was an issue of public health. Collecting vehicles on a ten-acre property that is neatly kept was not a public health issue; however, collecting vehicles on a twenty or thirty-acre property to utilize and sell parts would be classified under different State and County regulations. Commissioner Davis explained that compost piles decompose due to heat. Spreading junk across the yard and calling it compost would not be classified as compost because compost needs to be piled up. He pointed out that no matter how the ordinance was written, there would be people opposed to some aspect of the ordinance. The County would continue to protect property rights and attempt to protect the health of the County. A great deal of common sense would be required to determine what was junk and what was not; however, any items placed in the front or back yard that attracted varmints or something that might lead to a disease would be addressed by the County. It was Commissioner Davis opinion that it was not necessary to rewrite the ordinance. Commissioner Henderson pointed out that a mechanism was already in place to address possible health issues. He agreed that the County should only accept written complaints and he asked Planning & Development Director White to outline the enforcement process. Planning & Development Director White outlined the enforcement process as follows. Upon receipt of a written complaint, the enforcement officer (Planning & Development Director White) would verify that the complaint was valid by visiting the property and taking photos. Written notice would be sent to the property owner and would most likely be sent via Certified Mail. Once the property owner received the letter, it was the property owner s responsibility to respond to staff to indicate how and when they planned to resolve the issue. o The enforcement officer would monitor whether the property owner had resolved the problem. If the property owner did not resolve the problem, the enforcement officer or the County Attorney s office would send a second notice to the property owner. This document was approved on April 6, Page 110

14 o After the County Attorney sent the second notification, they would begin formal action to address the issue, according to the process outlined in the code. Formal action could entail removal of the junk; the property owner would then be charged the cost for that action. If the property owner refused to pay the charge, the County would have the right to put a lien on the property. Planning & Development Director White acknowledged that removal of the junk was an extreme option; however, most cases would most likely be resolved through communication between the enforcement officer and the property owner. Once people understood that the County was required to enforce the Junk Ordinance, they would comply. Planning & Development Director White pointed out that resolving junk issues that involved widows was difficult and that it might be necessary for civic organizations (e.g. church groups) to become involved in cleaning up the property. Commissioner Henderson noted that homeowners associations had covenants and regulations that needed compliance and he inquired how issues would be resolved when a homeowners association was involved. Planning & Development Director White explained that the County did not require subdivisions to have homeowners associations and that the County would proceed to investigate a complaint according to its regulations whether or not a homeowners association was involved. If the rules of a homeowners association were more stringent, the County would only be allowed to enforce the regulations of the Junk Ordinance. Commissioner Henderson agreed that a review of the Junk Ordinance after one year was necessary. Planning & Development Director White asserted that the Commissioners could make this requirement part of their motion for approval. Deputy County Attorney Carolyn Clawson recommended that an additional section be added to the ordinance that stated, The ordinance may be modified in the future by resolution by a majority vote of the County Commissioners. Planning & Development Director White noted that this item would be Section 17 of the ordinance and that Section 18 would state, This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its publication. He pointed out that if approved, the ordinance would be effective that day, March 2, 2015, because the first reading took place on January 20, Commissioner Henderson requested there be language in the ordinance that would specify when the Board of Health or the Board of County Commissioners would preside over a situation. Planning & Development Director White suggested that the item be continued to the March 16, 2015 BOCC meeting to assure the correct language was added to the ordinance. Deputy County Attorney Clawson agreed. Planning & Development Director White explained that the Board of Health would preside over health violations such as smelly rubbish. Commissioner Henderson pointed out that health and safety concerns were more onerous than visual This document was approved on April 6, Page 111

15 violations; therefore, separation of the different issues would be helpful. Planning & Development Director White expressed his desire to meet with the County Attorneys to verify whether they agreed that this type of language was enforceable by the Junk Ordinance. Commissioner White suggested there be a separate ordinance for public health. Planning & Development Director White disagreed with the suggestion and pointed out that whether it be the BOH or BOCC, all complaints/appeals would be reviewed by the same people because they would determine whether the impact was visual or odor. Commissioner White noted that the Commissioners were already given that latitude in the ordinance and he quoted the following from Page 1 of the proposed Junk Ordinance. Deputy County Attorney Clawson agreed that the item should be continued until the next BOCC meeting. Commissioners White and Henderson recognized there were several issues that needed to be addressed before the Junk Ordinance could be approved. Planning & Development Director White agreed and pointed out that the public hearing could be reopened to allow further public comment. At Deputy County Attorney Clawson s inquiry, Commissioner White acknowledged that he had already closed the public hearing; therefore, another public hearing would be necessary. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE RUBBISH AND JUNK WITHIN MONTROSE COUNTY TO PRESERVE AND IMPROVE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF MONTROSE COUNTY CITIZENS TO THE MARCH 16, 2015 BOCC REGULAR MEETING. COMMISSIONER DAVIS SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: NONE G. EXECUTIVE SESSION: EXECUTIVE SESSION: OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, request for an Executive Session pursuant to CRS (4)(b) for advice of legal counsel concerning Montrose Emergency Telephone Service Authority: This item was removed from the Agenda. This document was approved on April 6, Page 112

16 With no further business coming before the Board, the Board of County Commissioners adjourned at 10:20am. ATTEST: Tressa W. Guynes, Clerk & Recorder By: Marie Simons, Deputy Clerk to the Board David S. White, Chairman Glen Davis, Vice Chairman Ronald D. Henderson, Commissioner This document was approved on April 6, Page 113