Alpaca boarders fight county codes

By JoAn Bjarko
North Forty News

How do you spell alpaca? H-o-r-s-e, if more than four are being boarded on a farm.

Bellvue alpaca breeders Ron and Denise Haines, owners of Daybreak Criations Alpacas, have found themselves in the unwanted position of testing the county's land use code on boarding the wooly animals.

Owners of one of the largest alpaca breeding operations in northern Colorado, the Haines own about 40 acres along North County Road 29C near Ted's Place, and their alpaca herd ranges from nearly 100 to 130. Some of the alpacas are boarders, waiting for their owners to establish their own farms and take them home.

Like nearly all code enforcement cases in the county, when someone complained about increased traffic, Daybreak Criations fell under scrutiny of the planning department. Because the county land use code makes no mention of alpacas, the county planning director, Larry Timm, has to interpret how the code applies when a citizen complains.

The Haines have stopped small-livestock equipment sales at their Bellvue farm to comply with the code, but boarding is part of the ebb and flow of the alpaca business. When told an alpaca-boarding business has to follow the same rules as a horse-boarding stable, they decided to appeal the interpretation to the three elected county commissioners. A hearing is set for May 7 at 3 p.m.

"They've swept the whole livestock industry into one sentence," said Ron Haines.

The sentence in question defines a boarding stable, which needs county approval, as "a facility for the care and feeding of more than four horses for a fee."

After consulting with the county attorney and county commissioners, Timm concluded "it is appropriate to analogize an alpaca to a horse and allow the property owners to apply for a special review to allow them to use their property to board other persons' alpacas for a fee."

"This interpretation isn't focused on us, it's focused at the livestock industry," Haines said. "The county could have said, 'They aren't boarding horses,' and that would have been the end of it."

Perhaps the interpretation would not be so controversial if the cost for a special review hearing were not so expensive. To start, application fees are $2,300. Haines noted that an applicant also has to pay thousands of dollars for traffic and other studies to support the request. "You could bet the minimum would be 10 grand," he said. "It's not something a small business like this would be able to manage."

An application for special review also does not guarantee success. Following a public hearing, county commissioners could deny the request.

In comparison, the Haines have paid $200 to appeal the planning director's interpretation.

To support their appeal to be separated from the boarding-stable rules, the Haines have retained Cheyenne attorney Ethelyn Boak, who is the president of Alpaca Breeders Alliance of Northern Colorado.

Boak referred to the county's decision as a "tortured interpretation."

"The Haines began their business with the understanding that it would not be a violation of the land use code to board alpacas," she wrote in the appeal. "They were entitled to rely on the plain meaning of the language of the code, and no lawyer would have told them otherwise."

Boak said there are major differences between boarding horses and boarding alpacas. Horses are recreational, and their owners typically visit once or twice a day to ride, groom or take their horses off the property, while a typical alpaca owner who boards visits once or twice a year, she noted.

She also cited codes from other counties and research studies that support the conclusion that alpacas have less impact than horses on land and groundwater.

"The Haines contacted over 2,600 members of the alpaca industry nationwide, and none of them have been required to obtain a stable variance," Boak wrote. "Moveover, it is nearly universal in the industry to board alpacas for a fee."

Last spring, county commissioners attempted to overhaul the county's livestock regulations, but hundreds of citizens opposed them. Had the proposed rules been adopted, the Haines would find themselves in much easier circumstances. All livestock boarders would have been required to file for a minor special review, a less expensive and less rigorous process.

A year ago, the various livestock owner organizations offered to work with the county commissioners on regulations that made sense for each industry. "They've not followed up since the livestock hearings," Haines said. "Our whole organization would work with them, but they have to ask."