Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Recorded Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berthoud farmer tells commissioners removal of recorded-exemption splits has strained retirement plans
Summary
A Berthoud-area farmer urged commissioners to restore the county’s recorded-exemption (RE) lot-split option, saying the 2020 change has left him unable to create small lots he relied on for retirement income; commissioners advised he continue working with planning staff and described the remaining options under current rules.
Anthony Sanchez of Berthoud told the Weld County Board of Commissioners during public comment that changes to the county’s recorded-exemption (RE) process have harmed his family farm’s financial plans and left him unable to split two 2.5-acre lots he had expected to create.
Sanchez said he and his wife have used the recorded-exemption process for about 30 years to subdivide small parcels from a larger farm to produce retirement income. He said his last RE split was in February 2020 and that county staff later told him recorded exemptions were no longer available. Sanchez said he has spent about $80,000 on irrigation infrastructure and that the remaining five-acre parcel is too small to farm profitably.
"I’m 78 years old and I love farming, but the handwriting’s on the wall that I’m not going to be able to do this forever, and my wife and I need the retirement income," Sanchez said.
Commissioner Kevin Ross responded that the board changed the recorded-exemption process in 2020 because the practice was creating de facto small subdivisions and the county wanted better planning outcomes. Ross said the current options are: create 35-acre (or 40-acre) parcels under state processes or use the family-farm division, which typically requires a 10-acre Lot A with the remainder on Lot B. Ross encouraged Sanchez to continue working with planning staff, including Angela Snyder, who he said had worked with Sanchez previously.
Sanchez said those options do not meet his needs and that the family-farm division would not provide the smaller lot sizes he had relied on. Commissioners suggested planning staff continue to explore site-specific options, such as locating a small subdivision on a different parcel if allowable.
No action was taken on the floor; the item was recorded as public comment and commissioners advised further engagement with the planning division.
