County resists reining in alpaca boarding operations
By Dan MacArthur
North Forty News
Horses remain the only animals subject to boarding stable standards following
rejection of a proposal to include alpacas and all other livestock.
The unanimous ruling by the Larimer County Commissioners resulted from
an appeal by Bellvue alpaca breeders and boarders Ronald and Denise Haines,
who challenged Planning Director Larry Timm's interpretation of the county
land-use code.
Employing his discretionary authority to interpret the code, Timm proposed
expanding the definition of "livestock" to include alpacas. That would
have made raising alpacas a use-by-right on farms of three acres or more.
But at the same time, Timm determined that any boarding facility for alpacas--or other types of livestock--would then fall under the county codes
defining a boarding stable as "a facility for the care and feeding of more
than four horses for a fee."
In defining alpacas as livestock similar to horses, Timm contended the
Haineses' operation would be subject to regulations limiting the location
of boarding stables. It also would require a costly special review before
they could be approved. The application fee for such a review is $2,300
and the Haineses estimated the entire process could cost at least $10,000
for all the studies required to gain approval.
In response to the objections, at the May 7 hearing Timm proposed a compromise
that would raise the threshold under which the boarding stable regulations
would apply. He suggested applying the animal unit equivalent basis developed
by the Colorado State University-Larimer County Extension Office.
Under those AUE guidelines, one horse was determined to have the same effect
as eight alpacas. Consequently, by adopting those standards, Timm said
as many as 32 alpacas could be maintained on a property before it came
under the codes applying to a boarding stable.
Because the AUE standards were based only on the respective animals' grazing
impact, without taking into consideration the additional traffic and other
impacts implicit in a boarding situation, Timm suggested they be implemented
on a temporary basis until the county's livestock regulations were more
thoroughly reviewed and refined.
Proposed livestock limits based on the AUE standards were rejected in March
2006 following overwhelming public outcry by hundreds attending a public
hearing to consider adoption of the controversial measure.
The turnout was not so overwhelming this time, but a pack of alpaca breeders
and investors from across the region were no more enthusiastic about resurrecting
such a proposal now, even provisionally.
They insisted that boarding is essential to the lucrative trade in alpacas
producing tax benefits and fleece. In many cases, critics said traffic
to their farms is limited because buyers often never even see or take possession
of their investments. In other cases, they maintained that boarding often
is necessary until buyers can construct facilities to house their alpacas.
Berthoud alpaca breeder Debbie Leighton said two of her three boarders
are in Vermont and Ohio and have not inspected their investments for two
and three years, respectively.
"This would effectively put us out of business," said Longmont alpaca breeder
Tom Griswold.
But Cheryl Robinson, neighbor to the Haineses, insisted that "boarding
alpacas shouldn't be handled differently than horses," or any other animal.
"I think we're getting away a little bit from what the county allows in
open zoning," she said.
Commissioner Kathay Rennels was most adamant in opposing the proposed compromise,
saying the county had an obligation to support a vigorous alpaca industry.
She contended that the proposal would sneak in the animal unit equivalent
standards under the table. "We're trying to adopt something that doesn't
have public review," said Rennels.
"I think that would be the wrong thing to do," she continued. "This is
a grazing equivalency. This isn't a boarding equivalency."
|
