Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Family Farm Division topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners refer family‑farm division back to planning after debate over 10‑acre rule
Summary
An applicant seeking to split a parcel into a 12‑acre lot A and a 40‑acre lot B asked to retain buildings on the smaller parcel; planning staff recommended denial because the 12‑acre lot exceeds the 10‑acre maximum allowed under county code. The board referred the application back to staff for further review and coordination with the applicant.
GREELEY — The Weld County Board of County Commissioners on April 14 referred a family‑farm division application (FFG‑20448) back to Planning Services after discussion about whether the county could approve a lot larger than the 10‑acre maximum for a family‑farm division.
Planning staff recommended denial because the applicant proposed a 12‑acre Lot A, exceeding the 10‑acre maximum cited in staff analysis. The applicant, James Younger, told commissioners he has had two strokes and cannot maintain multiple farm buildings; he asked to separate the buildings onto a smaller parcel to sell or transfer them to a renter who has farmed the property for the last decade.
Commissioners asked planning staff and county counsel whether the board has authority to waive the 10‑acre threshold. County counsel and planning staff said the county’s current code does not explicitly grant the board a blanket waiver authority for that standard, and that historically staff has brought similar requests to the board when exceptions were sought. Commissioners debated alternatives including confirming net‑versus‑gross acreage calculations and whether a recorded lot‑line adjustment could resolve the issue.
After discussion Commissioner Scott James moved — and Commissioner Kevin Ross seconded — to refer the application back to staff so the applicant and planning staff could investigate whether net acreage, right‑of‑way calculations or minor adjustments could bring the proposal into compliance or otherwise identify a lawful path forward. The board voted to refer the matter; no denial or approval of the family‑farm division was recorded at the meeting.
Planning staff told the board they would work with the applicant and return with options and clarified that a denial on the record would bar reapplication for a specified period under the code; the referral preserves the applicant’s ability to seek adjustments.
