Commissioners continue Van Pelt PUD amendment after code‑compliance concerns; executive session held

The Adams County Board of County Commissioners continued a contested major amendment to the Van Pelt planned unit development (PUD) after lengthy public staff presentations, testimony from code‑compliance officers, and questions from commissioners about on‑site violations and long delays.

Bridal Mayer of Community and Economic Development introduced the matter as case PUD 2023‑2, a major amendment to Lot 1 of the Van Pelt PUD at 4300 Hudson Road to add outdoor storage (up to 15 acres), warehouse/distribution, heavy equipment operations, a driving school and small‑scale solar among the requested uses. Staff found the amendment met county PUD criteria and recommended approval with two conditions, but told commissioners the site has an outstanding history of code violations and had received multiple continuances during the entitlement process. Planning Commission had recommended denial 6‑1 after concerns about unresolved violations.

Code Compliance Supervisor Gail Moon and Code Compliance Officer David Halbert reported a mix of improvements and outstanding problems following inspections. Halbert said he observed progress but still saw unlicensed vehicles and other materials visible from the right of way; Moon said some violations had been cleared (including removal of animals and eviction of certain tenants) and that county staff have been working with the property owner and attorney to get additional violations removed. Moon said some violations would be resolved if the PUD amendment were approved because certain uses (for example, a trucking school) would become allowed under the amended PUD; other violations (for example, unlicensed/inoperable vehicles or unauthorized auto repair) would remain violations and must be remediated regardless of approval.

The applicant’s representative, David Foster, and property owner Devinder Sandhu said they had pursued legal evictions and removed some tenants; Foster argued much of the aerial imagery shown to commissioners was old and that the owner now had possession and was actively removing remaining materials. The applicant also said the proposed amendment seeks to align uses across the two lots and to regularize existing tenants who could be lawfully allowed under the revised PUD.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on enforcement mechanisms and how approvals would be applied. Staff emphasized that any new or existing use that relies on the amended PUD must still submit a formal change‑of‑use/site plan permit for engineering review, drainage, paving and screening and that code compliance would continue to inspect and enforce outstanding violations.

During the hearing commissioners asked for legal advice on enforcement options and another executive session was held under Colorado Revised Statute 24‑6‑402(4)(b) (legal advice). When the board returned to public session, the applicant and staff said they would negotiate precise PUD‑plat condition language. County attorneys and the applicant requested time to draft specific condition language; commissioners directed staff to work with the applicant to produce proposed plat notes and conditions (one explicitly suggested condition would limit outdoor storage to operational/registered vehicles and exclude inoperable or unlicensed vehicles) and to return the case for decision on August 12, 2025.

The board’s motion to continue the case to a date‑certain of Aug. 12, 2025 passed 5‑0. Commissioners and staff also requested a code‑compliance status update at that later hearing so the board can assess whether outstanding violations have been remedied.