We need to vote on the officers. Yeah, so why don't we call the meeting to order and do the roll call and then the first thing we can do is officers. Okay, I'd like to call the February 18th, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting to order. First order is to what are officers? I make a motion to approve the slate of officers that would include Stuart Nyholm as a president. Tom Green as vice president and force Hancock as secretary. Or is it chair? Okay, roll call in the chair and vice chair. Okay, so I would amend that to be chair and vice chair. Call second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. that's what I was figuring. So Mr. Stamfield. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Hancock. Yes. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Nihon. Yes. It's chair that board has been, that slate has been approved. Okay. Can we have approval of the agenda today. Mr. Nheim, I will make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll second. I'll second. Oh, I beat you. Gender has been approved in second. Roll call. Mr. Nihom. Yay. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Hancock is yay. Mr. Standfield. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Grandquist. They're alternate. So. Yep. Owen and Chris will not be voting. Thank you. Rookie mistake. No problem. Can we do the pletional legions? We don't have a flag but we can certainly cite it. Exactly. Yep. Okay. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God Indivisible with liberty and justice with liberty and justice for all and can I have approval of the minutes? I make a motion to prove the minutes. I make the motion approve minutes. Of our last meeting. That's like a dead motion. Minutes have been approved in second. Roll call. Mr. Neihon. Yay. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Hancock is yay. Mr. Stampield. Yes. Mr. Hancock is yay. Mr. Stampield. Yes. And Mr. Bush. Yes. You're going to have the turn for very good verification of jurisdiction. Good evening Board of Adjustment. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed portions of the case files on today's agenda. It finds that all notice requirements have been satisfied and jurisdiction is properly before this board. One thing to note today's first case, the dodero variance, the application mailing labels were missing from your packet, but the county attorney's office has confirmed that the notices were sent out in that case and jurisdiction is proper. So I just wanted to make that for the record. DoTERRAL? Is the applicant here? Mr. DoTERRAL, do you want to unmute? Yes, I'm here. Okay. Can you state your name and your address, please? Kyle Doterro, 989 East 159th Place, Brighton 80602. I would ask now for the staff's presentation. That's me and I have the presentation ready to go. Okay, this is Demo. You want to start. Okay, can everybody hear me and see my screen, all right? Yes. Okay. So it's the Thomas. Okay, it's the right one. Yep. Okay, perfect. Good evening. My name is Thomas Dimpurio. And tonight I'm presenting the Dodero Variants. It's case number VSP 2020-0019. And the requests are located at 9889 East 159th place. So there are two requests with this variance application. The first is a variance to allow the lot coverage of 16.4% where a maximum of 12.5% is allowed for an accessory structure. And to allow the accessory structure to be built five feet from the side property line, where a minimum of 10 feet is required. So here is a bird's eye view of the general surroundings of the subject property. We can see its location a little bit to the south of the intersection with state highway 7 and El Myra Street. We can see Havana Street off to the east and further east off screen is the city of Brighton. This is a closer look at the subject property. It is a corner lot at the intersection of east 159th place and Elmyra street and it is currently developed with a single family home. The current zoning on the subject property as well as the surrounding residential properties is A1 or agricultural one and the property to the north is zoned C3 or commercial 3 and is being currently utilized for commercial purposes. The future land use designation of the subject property as well as the surrounding properties is urban residential and the purpose of this future land use designation is to provide for residential uses at a density of one or more dwelling units per acre. This is a conceptual site plan of the subject property. We can see the location of the principal dwelling kind of in the center of this property. I mentioned earlier that it's zoned A1, which does have a minimum lot size of two and a half acres. And this property is just over half an acre in size. So it is legal non-conforming. It was platted in, I believe, 1965 with the house being constructed in 1973. So there's really not a lot of building area for accessory structures on this property due to its size and the placement of the principal structure. So you can see the proposed accessory dwelling on the west side of the property in between the home and the neighboring property line. It is proposed to be 25 by 40 feet or 1000 square feet in the area and proposed to be set back five feet from that western property line. development standards and regulations restrict lots in the A1 zone district to a maximum structure coverage of 12.5% of the law area for lots served by public water and sewer. This property is within the Highland Acres Water and Sanitation District and is served by public water and sewer. Additionally, the minimum side setback for accessory structures in the zone district shall be 10 feet or one foot per two feet of building height, whichever is greater. That second requirement kicks in once a building exceeds 20 feet in height and as the proposed structure in this request does not exceed 20 feet in height, that first requirement applies of 10 feet. So the criteria for approving a variance are that there's a physical hardship specific to the lot, that there's a deprivation of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the zone district, that it does not grant a special privilege to the applicant, that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the regulations that the circumstances that exist were not created by the applicant. That is harmonious with the purpose of the regulations that there's no detriment to the public good and that it doesn't extend a nonconforming use. So here is a view of the general neighborhood. This is looking to the east from East 159th place. The subject property is off camera to the left of this image. And that roadway that can be seen crossing horizontally here is the Elmira Street right of way. And this is taken from the same location looking to the west, and we can see the applicant's driveway and fence area off to the right hand side of this image. This is taken from East 159th place looking north into the subject property at the approximate location of the proposed structure. There is an existing shed there right now that will need to be removed for this structure to be placed there. And here's another look from a little bit further to the west along 159th place from the approximate location of the property line between the subject property and the neighboring property to the west. Again looking towards the approximate location of the proposed detached structure. And for a little bit more neighborhood context, this is an aerial view of the Highland acres subdivision. We can see many of the properties in the subdivision are developed with accessory structures of a similar size to the one that's proposed with this request. In addition to those existing accessory structures, there are five variances approved in this neighborhood related to accessory structures or detached garages. These were all approved within the last 20 years with the most recent one being approved in 2017. And as we can see on the key on the left hand side of the image, these variances relate to either a setback variance, a lot coverage variance, or in the case of two of the approved variances, both a lot coverage and a setback variance, much like the requests before you tonight. During the referral period, we sent notices out to all property owners and occupants within 750 feet of the subject property. We sent 62 notices out and received zero comments in response from the public. We also sent it out to various referral agencies, including C.Try County Health, United Power, and Excel Energy, none of which had any concerns with the final site plan provided by the applicant. And when analyzing the requests with our criteria for approving a variance, it does meet all eight criteria. There are special circumstances that exist that are specific to this lot. I mentioned that it is a legal nonconforming lot. The half acre lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of two and a half acres. As such, the maximum structure coverage percentages are meant for lots that are five times the size of the subject property and it doesn't leave much of a building area for the applicant. As such, there is a deprivation of rights commonly enjoyed by others, not just in the A1 zone district at large, but also within the Highland Acres subdivision as many of the neighboring properties are developed with similar structures. It does not grant a special privilege to the applicant. The property cannot be reasonably developed in conformance with our regulations. As I mentioned earlier, the structure coverage requirements are really meant for a larger properties within the zone district. The circumstances were not created by the applicant. The subdivision was platted in the mid 60s and the applicant had no role in the creation of the lot or in the placement of the home on the lot. It is harmonious with the purpose of the regulations, which do allow for accessory structures. There's no detriment to the public good, although this property is a corner lot. The accessory structure is proposed to be on the opposite side of the property from the intersection and such would pose no danger to any pedestrian's motorists or anybody traversing that intersection. And it doesn't extend a nonconforming use. As such, staff recommends approval of VSP 2020-000019, the Dodero variants, with eight findings of fact and three notes. And in between your receipt of the staff report and tonight's hearing we did add a third note of approval whereas in the staff report it is forwarded with two notes to the applicant. So the recommended notes are that the variance will expire one year from tonight's hearing February 18th, 2022, unless a building permit is obtained. If a building permit is not obtained within the one year, a new variance shall be required. That all applicable building fire, zoning, engineering, and health codes shall be adhered to with this request. And then for further clarification, we wanted to make it known to the applicant that structures placed less than five feet from one another shall meet all building code requirements for fireproofing. We just want to provide a little bit more specifics with that note. And this concludes staff presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Darrell. Does the applicant have any questions? No, none that come to mind right now. Is there more that you want to add in any way to the presentation? No, not at the moment. Okay. Does the board have any questions either of the applicant or of Mr. D'Ampire? Mr. Chair, I've got some questions for Mr. DeAmpireo. Please. In the board packet that we received it notes here the maximum structure coverage is 10 percent, but the presentation tonight is 12.5. Yes, so I made an error when drafting the staff report. I was under the impression that the property was served by only public water and not public sewer as well. Okay. I have confirmed with the application materials originally submitted by the applicant that provide proof of water and sewer service as well as my own research with the Highland Acres, Water and Sanitation District. Okay. So that does kick it up to the 12.5. Exactly, yes. Gotcha. And then while I was trying to understand the application, I believe in the A1 zoning district, the largest per code, the largest single family single story home you can have is 1200 square feet, but we've got a 1700 square foot home on the properties. Is that correct? I don't believe that we have a maximum floor area for homes within the zone district. I do believe that there might be a minimum and it might be 1200 square feet for those homes, but many homes in the A1's own district exceed 1,200 square feet. Okay, okay. I think it's probably more that I read it wrong as a maximum, not a minimum. And so then this coverage would take us to 16.4%. 16.4, that's correct. 16.4, okay. Thank you, 0.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% Thank you, Mr. Dean Peer, I think that answers my questions. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions. Please. Thank you. First, the shed will have to be removed, not moved to another place. That's clear? Yes. Okay. And then when you showed that site picture in the beginning of your presentation, Mr. Dimpero, it looked like there was a structure in the northwest corner of this property. That is correct. It does appear that there is another accessory structure in the Northwest corner. We did look at the previous aerials. I believe the current owner purchased his property sometime in 2018 and as of 2016 both of those accessory structures were on the lot so they were not placed there by the current applicant. But then if I refer you to the United Power Letter that would be in violation of their easement that they have in the back of the property because I think that's why this was revised to the where I'm like the fifth or third proposed location for this structure. I think he was originally going to put it in the back and United Power was against that but I think he was originally going to put it in the back and United Power was against that, but that would be a non conforming that would be in the easement. You are correct in that. Yes, there is a 10 foot wide easement along that Northern property line and the original proposed location of the structure was partially within that easement as well as over an underground power line, which is why the applicant has revised the site plan to. So I figured why he moved it. Yes, of course. Exactly. He said, I'm okay with the new location, but I would say that that current structure right now is non-conforming and he would probably have to do something about it if United Power ever rose us. Yes. I, of rejection to that. Exactly. Yes. I will also mention to you that the 16.4% lot coverage that if this case were to be approved, would be granted to the applicant does include the square footage of that shed on the northwestern corner. And so that is included in the 16.4%. It wasn't omitted. That's all I have. Are there other questions? Either the Apple or Mr. New York. Mr. Chair, this is for us. I've got one more for Mr. Dean Cheerio. The other homes, I think there were five I counted on your exhibit that are in excess. Those were approved by Board of Adjustments? Yes, so there are many properties in this subdivision that exceed the lot coverage requirements, but these five shown with the colorful stars are ones that have received approved variances from the Adams County Board of Adjustment between the year 2000 and today's date. And as I mentioned, the most recent prior to today was in 2017. Can we go back to that original side you were showing me just for a second? second. There you go. That's the one. Thank you. I'm good. Further questions? Discussion by the board? Hearing none, I ask for a motion. Look, comment. You and I see if you can see it. Here in the I asked for a motion. Look comment. You and I see if there's anyone here. We have any public comment. I have not received any request for public comments. We have any public comment? I have not received any request for public comments. Mr. Chair and I Don't see anyone here. I believe the other person on this call is for the next Case I'm mistaken. All right. Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion on case VSP 2020 dash 0019. I make a motion to approve the variance with eight findings of fact and three notes. Do I hear a second? I'll second but I think it's seven findings of fact, isn't it? It is eight. Eight. It is eight. Okay. I'll correct that too. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. We're approval. Ask a second to approval. Ask for a roll call. Certainly, Mr. Chair, Mr. Bush. Aye, vote yes. Mr. Stamfield. Yes. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Hancock is yes and Mr. Neihol. Yes. Motion passes, five zero. Nyholm. Yes. Motion passes 5 0 5 0. Mr. Terrell, congratulations. Your application has been approved. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Okay, the next case is VSP 2020 0022. All right. Can everybody see my presentation? All right. Can everybody see my presentation? Perfect. All right. Well, my name is Maggie Barenger. And I'm the case manager for Arbor Valley Nursery case. And this case number is VSP 2020-0022. And the subject parcel is located at 7401 Washington Street. So this request is for a special use permit to allow a temporary wholesale nursery that would include the sales and purchasing of plants and plant maintenance and upkeep. So the applicant is requesting approval for five years and the nursery would be open from March to October of each year. So here's an aerial view of the site. You can see it's located at the corner of Washington Street and East 47th Avenue and you can see where the site is located in proximity to I-25 and 270. located in proximity to I-25 and 270. Here's a close-up view of the site. There are two ditches located in close proximity of this property. The Colorado A or Cultural canals located next to the Western property line, but has not appeared to be directly located on the property. And the lower clear creek canal ditch is located in the middle of the subject property. And you can see that on the property and the lower clear creek nail ditch is located in the middle of the subject property and you can see that on the aerial. And then you can all see where east 74th is located in Washington Street and that this parcel is currently undeveloped. And that to the south and west and east there are some other commercial and industrial type used properties surrounding this property. So this property is zone industrial one. In the I1 zone district, nurseries are permitted used by right. But this is, they're requesting a temporary nursery. So that's why they're pursuing the special use permit. And you can see to the east is C5 zoning and into the south and the west is I1 and then there's some A1 zoning at the top of this site or south of the parcel. use on this property is mixed use employment. The purpose of the mixed use employment future land use is to accommodate a range of employment uses with a mix of supporting uses to serve employment needs. In addition mixed use employment areas are designated in locations that have transportation access and visibility but are not suitable for residential development. These uses may include offices, light manufacturing, distribution, indoor warehousing, or clean industry. These are the criteria of approval for a special use permit. The first criteria is that it's consistent with the purpose of the regulations that it complies with the requirements of the regulations, that it's compatible to the surrounding area that all offsite impacts are addressed, that the site is suitable for the special use, that the site has adequate provisions with included within the site plan and that there's availability for utilities, services, and infrastructure. So this is the site plan that was provided by the applicant. As you can see, so on the site plan, the on the southeast side of the property, there would be 100 square foot building to be used as small office space. And then on the north east side of the property, there would be a parking area that will include 15 parking spaces, one handicap space, and that there will be a chain link fence surrounding this property with three strands of barbed wire. And then on the more western side of the property, there will be These are some images provided by the applicant and their application. You can kind of see on that top picture what the hoop houses would look like. And then the office shed, that's an example of what it may look like. And then the five pictures below are examples of other nurseries that they own in other locations. And this may look similar to this location. Here's an image looking directly on the site. You can see that the chain link fence with the barked wires on the site and it is an undeveloped piece of land. And then this is looking north down Washington Street. And then this is looking across Washington Street at the Auto Nation Collision Center commercially used property across the street. are commercially used property across the street. In summary, this request is consistent with the purpose of the regulations. It complies with the requirements of the regulations. It is compatible to surrounding area. There are other commercial uses surrounding this property. They have addressed all off-site impacts. The site's suitable for the special use. They have adequate provisions for the site plan and there is availability of utility services and infrastructure for the site. During the referral period 100 notices were sent and one comment was received. The comment received was in support of this request and the properties were property owners and occupants than 750 feet notified. So the Adams County Belman Services Engineering Department commented on this request and they're common stated that there are no engineering objections to allowing the use under a special use permit for three years specified. If the special use permit is beyond three years, the applicant will be required to install public improvements. So that was the comment from our development services engineers. Staff is recommending approval of the special use permit VSP 2020 0 0 0 22 with seven findings of fact for conditions and one note. So the first condition would be that special use permit is approved for only three years and shall expire February 18th 2024. The second condition is that if a proof for a period greater than three years, the applicant shall design and construct required public improvements adjacent to the property, including curb gutter and sidewalk. These improvements shall be in place prior to the start of the fourth year. An engineering plan will have to be submitted to the county to review the approval prior to construction. That last sentence is a little bit different than in the staff report. In the staff report, we stated these requirements shall be in place prior to the start of the fourth year. But we changed that to these improvements, just a better depict what we're looking for the condition to be. And then the third condition will be that we receive a letter from the lower clear creek canal ditch company indicating consent of the project shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. As about four o'clock today, I did receive that letter and this condition is that if approved the applicant will really will need to receive a building permit for the construction of the proposed structures on the property. And then the last condition would be that a garbage area is screened with a six foot minimum screen fence. Thank you. I'm sorry. One more. This is the recommended note to the applicant is that all applicable building zoning a health health, fire, engineering, and code requirements shall be adhered to this request. And that will include my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Mrs. Barry. Do I like to backtrack? I goofed. I like to apologize to the applicant. I have just Trevor on the application. Is there last name? No, actually we're using a teammates flat top so Trevor is his name. I'm Jim Browning, this is Brandon Harris, and we represent Arbor Valley Nursery. Okay, do you want to state their address? Our address is 18539. West Weld County Road 4 in Brighton, Colorado. Okay, have you received a copy of the staff report and does it appear to be complete? Yes, the one thing that we were missing from the completion was the letter from the ditch company, which we provided later earlier this afternoon. Do you have anything else to add to Miss Baringer's presentation? That Miss Baringer and us we have been working pretty close together so publicly thank you and we just look forward to providing plants to the market. I know that you've lost a lot of nurseries recently and we look forward to temporarily being able to provide some service. Thank you again my apologies for the oversight. Does a board have any questions of either Miss Beringer or the applicant? Miss Veringer, I do. You, okay, I'm sorry, I jumped in first. Go ahead. Go ahead, Tom. Miss Veringer, this can only be approved one time, correct? So you can't come back and get another special use permit because that would basically hit you to the four year, correct? So this is just a one time thing that can only be here for three years with this structure. correct. So this is just a one-time thing that can only be here for three years with this structure. So if they were to, if this were to expire, they could come back and request another special use permit, I believe, and then, but this one would, could, would only be approved for either the three years that we recommend or the five years that the applicant is requesting. Okay. Thank you for that. My question was virtually the same thing. I know in the past we have had requests for a second use permit on the same property. And that looked like what we're going to have to do here. We're going to prove it for three years, and then he's going to have to reapply, correct? If when the three years comes to an end, he'll have to either reapply for another special use permit, which would come back to this board, or he would have to bring the site to current standard. But now to clarify that you'd have to make the request before the three years was up wouldn't he? Because once it hits the fourth year, he can't have those structures on the property then, could he? Yes, but the second condition here does state if approved for a period greater than three years, the applicant shall design construct required improvement. So, but he could apply another time after this. But it have to be before the date the fourth year starts, the improvements should have to be in place. Yep. Yes. Mr. Chair, they asked some questions if the use of the others. The application that was sent to us, Ms. Barenger, calls this a temporary seasonal operation that operates from March to October. What happens in October? I would like to ask, have the applicant answer that what their plan is in October. Absolutely. The nursery operations work in spring through the end of fall. We pull back in October. So in October, we would pull our plants and materials from that and would not be operating during the winter time. There has been some discussion and ideas banter to bound is bringing for allowing for a Christmas tree lot, but that would be a secondary permit that would need to be approved by the county. That is not our intent. So do the three hoop buildings come down every year, Ben? The hoop houses are in our current discussion with engineering and plans are not actually going to go up. So we've just you know we've just recently decided the hoop houses are not going to go up. And this mayor may have been on property will be 120 square foot. and then we'll have to go through it. The only structure on property will be 120 square foot. I'll call the shed office, but that will be only structure on property. Right. Maybe for the applicant. Does the applicant or does Arbor Valley own the property? We are leasing the property. Leasing the property. Okay. And Miss Berenger, this is an allowed use in the I1. Yep, this is a permitted use by right in the I1. So to do that, they would do a change in use permit, which would require that the whole site is brought up to our current development standards, but because this is a temporary in nature, they wanted to, they chose to request the special use permit, rather than going through the change in use permit process. So the special use permit allows the applicant not to have to make improvements to the site to bring it up to current regulation or code? That's correct. And then I would like any questions about the improvements can be directed to Matt Emmons, the engineer. If Mr. Emmons is available, I'd like to know what improvements are not being made via this process. Hello board members. This is Matt Emmons with Community Economic Development Engineering Section. The division, that's what we call it, the word engineers. So the improvements that we required for this site would be curb gutter and sidewalk along 74th Avenue. If we were doing any type of development, any commercially used on this property, even residential use, we would require that improvement to be made. The roadway improvements to 74th. Because this was temporary in nature, we didn't want to have them necessarily going to do improvements that would have to be changed later for some other type of development that goes in there So we went with that's why we want the special use to for a limited period of time to allow them to use the property But without having to do all those cost improvements That may you know have to get changed later on The property of this fully developed on a more permanent level So those are civil improvements mr. Emmons maybe Ms. Berger, you could comment if this was a permanent use, there would also be design standards that the applicant would have to apply at landscaping, open space, things like that, correct? Yeah, so the applicant shows some buffering landscaping that they wanna do for this temporary use. But a nursery use is under the agricultural use category in the Adams County Development Standards. And when you go to landscaping section, it actually states that agricultural uses are exempt from landscaping. So if this from planning, if this were to be a change in use permit, for a nursery landscaping could exempt, and then it would be the parking or planning, and then meeting all those dimensional will step back requirements. So those are just a few of the planning requirements that we would look at. But other site design standards would be applicable, but the landscaping actually could be exempt. Okay. Okay. I had a question for the applicant. Gentlemen, what's going to be the source of your water? We'll use the coag ditch. We have water shares for coag. Okay, that was a critical question. All right, great. Thank you. Absolutely. Other questions, comments? One more, Mr. Nighholm, for the applicant. You're a wholesale nursery, so you're not generating any sales tax, are you? we do pay sales tax. Absolutely. Okay. I have one other question. Sorry. I see. Forrest has got his hand up too. I don't know if he still has another one. That was that was passed up. I don't know how to take it down. I'm just standing here in the arm. It's it's under the reactions. It's under the arms. By arms falling asleep. Miss Barenjure, is there anything in our approval if we approve this tonight that would stop them from putting those hoop houses up? I know they're saying that they're not planning on doing it now, but again, if we approve it, they could go forward with the hoop houses, if they so desire. Yep, they'll need to get building permits for the hoop houses, but if they would, they're on their side plan. So if they would like to get the hoop houses, apply for permits for those, they still could. Let's take the apple, it has a comment. I just wanted to, you know, comment, and this is following up with Matt Emmons, the only variance that we're seeking on this particular piece is the curbside and gutter piece. All setbacks, other permits, fire codes, hoop houses, ditches, utilities, all of those things are going to be maintained through their normal individual permitting process. And we will hit code on each and every one of the things that we are going through there. Everything from the need, if applicable for soils and water, et cetera, we've maintained, we've been sure to maintain and working with the county for about two years now to make sure all of those other criteria were met. We've had our engineering making adjustments in setbacks and variance, things like that, to make sure that all of should this once, someday, potentially be permanent, we don't have to read the sign the wheel. So the only real variance here is going to be as Mr. Emons was talking about. It's that curbside and gutter and improvements to 74th. But we still have full intentions to work with the county to hit all the other permit requirements. Should any other buildings go up in there? Other comments? Thank you for that. Again, I was just I was just clarifying that you despite what you said you still could go forward with the who buzzes were really only approving the special use permit tonight. That's that's the only thing on the table for us. Correct. Should we request the permits? It's it's an option. It does increase some other requirements on us that we would, we just don't feel like doing that are necessary within the temporary. So we're downgrading the system to really be a temporary system here in the short term. system to really be a temporary system here in the short term. I'd like to kind of I'm trying to understand. Well, I think maybe this can be a discussion for the board for the applicant explain to me again on the sales tax and the revenue that's generated there. You're a wholesale nursery. So a landscaper comes in and buys this plant. He doesn't pay tax to you. That gets charged to the project, correct? No. No, only if we deliver it. Only if you deliver it. So any sale that goes through that location is providing sales tax to Adams County. providing sales tax to Adams County. Currently, we support those projects through deliveries, which means that we have extra trucks on the roads and some other things. As an organization, not to say that we're tree huggers, but fundamentally, we appreciate trees. We're supposed to be in the green industry. So pulling trucks off the road is an important aspect. You know, we provide more than 40,000 trees to the urban canopy along the front range. And by providing trees in this particular location, it allows our customers to just come in, pick up a few smaller trucks, and that way it pulls our delivery vehicles off the road. Should we be delivering them? We do have, it's the area in which it was delivered to receives the sales tax. However, as long as they're coming to this convenience location, picking them up, the Adams County receives every dime of the sales tax. Can I come by a tree from you as a member of the public? We prefer not to, but we're not mean, and we won't turn you away if you know what you're looking for. I like to think of nursery as being tree huggers. So it's consistent with my name. I like trees too. Yeah. Okay. Further questions? Christy, do we have anybody on the, the switch, whether do we have anything on the public hearing? Anybody on the phone? the, uh, Mr. Chair, I do not see anyone besides, uh, the applicant as members of the public, and I do not believe Ms. Retta has received any request for comment. Okay. Um, discussion by the board? Yes, Mr. Nighholm, I'd like to express some concerns that I've got. I think this is a very clever approach to not putting in public infrastructure to a road by making this a temporary use. Yes, it's seasonal, it's plants. But I think being in a loud use, I'll say I'm personally on the fence. I'm glad that the county is getting something to people from Adams County are getting something in the form of some tax revenue on this one. But I do feel like for the next possible five years there's going to be some traffic and volume on public right of way that's not fully improved because we're proving a temporary permit. I'm a little bit on the fence on this one. Mr. Hancock, if if you look at your EPA standards, they have to have a method of putting large rock between a half inches across at their entrance so that they knock off all of the mud and stuff off the trucks going out. They can't just say we're entering here. They have to have an approved, and that goes through the EPA. Yeah, that's standard stormwater permitting right there for vehicle tracking. I get that, but the road is only half complete per what's available on Google Earth. We've got nice public sidewalk, we've got curb and gutter on the south side, and this asphalt just falls onto a dirt shoulder on the north side, and we as a board are granting that for the next five years as my standing three years pardon me the application notes five from the packet. Simply by making it a temporary use as opposed to they could go in and make this permanent use and that would obligate them to improving public right away. So I'm just voicing my hesitancy on this one. It's a clever approach to getting to use this land without spending a good chunk of change and I think we should acknowledge that. But we had no comments. Side of the curb. But we had no comments from the building to the south or the structures that are that are on the other side of the street of 74th. Did we? That was the comment was from a neighboring property owner, but it was not that, it was not that neighboring property owner. I believe they were actually south east, a couple properties, but it was not anybody direct vicinity. And they were in support, actually, that the one comment that we did receive. That's a good point, Mr. Green. I'm just, I'm again, for discussion purposes, just kinda verbalizing this, I guess, maybe vocalizing it so I can hear myself say it. Mr. Chair, I think the only improvements that you're gonna see there is the, their curb and gutter and sidewalk. Other than that, that's not going to really impede development in the area. What is it going to damage the road? That's a question on the floor. Now, Mr. Green, you made a point though during the presentation, though, that the applicant could go out and put up the hoop houses regardless of this. Correct. Yes, they, well, they'd have to go through the building permits and everything. Building right. Yep. But Mr. Chair, I don't know if I'm jumping ahead of here or not, but I guess I would recommend a three year special use permit for in case number VSP 2020 0,00022 for Arbor Valley Nursery with seven findings of facts, four conditions and one no. Second. We have that Mr. Stamfield. Yes. Let me backtrack. Have we had is the discussion closed? We had enough discussion on this motion. I'm no objection to Mr. Green's motion. No, I'm fine. Motion has been made in second. Roll call. Roll call, Mr. Green. Aye. Mr. Stamfield. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Hancock is a nay and Mr. Nighthome. Motion passes with a vote of three two. Okay. Congratulations to the applicant. You've successfully completed the process. Well, thank you. We appreciate it. And just as a point of reference, one of the reasons that it's temporary is we don't own the land and the owner does not want us to have long-term presence on property. Great, so according to Miss Barenjers presentation that permit will expire on February 18th, 2024. And we don't have any further business for you tonight, Mr. Chair. That being ordered, we close the meeting. Great.