Conducted by
The Land Use Coalition
Boulder, Colorado
Fall 1999

The Land Use Coalition (TLUC) of Boulder, Colorado conducted a survey regarding the Site Plan Review (SPR) process. The goal was to assess the positive and negative aspects of the SPR process, and its impact on individuals involved in building a home in Boulder County. This report provides a summary of the findings of the survey. The Land Use Coalition is solely responsible for the survey and the contents of this report/

This survey was initiated to gather more information about people’s experiences with the SPR process. Many documented and undocumented stories have been told about abuses of the system by the County Land Use Department (LUD) and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), but rather than rely on rumor and hearsay, TLUC decided to collect data to support or refute the stories and to document the situation statistically. We also believe the stories should be told in the words of those who have gone through the process.

The survey was constructed by a professional in the field of polling who developed the questions specifically to avoid unintended biases and leading inquiries. About half the questions were modeled on a survey done by the LUD in 1966. Questions from the 1996 LUD survey were reworded to remove bias, but retain the intent. The survey was sent to approximately 1000 people who have been or are going through the SPR process. Of the 1000 questionnaires sent out, 163 surveys were returned, approximately 16% of those contacted. The survey that was used to collect the data for this report is provided as an attachment.

The survey questions explored many aspects of the SPR process from the time required to accomplish it, to the cost that SPR added to the construction bill, to the personal interactions and experiences of the applicants as they went through SPR. Some of the questions sought numerical or definitive measures such as cost or time, while others asked for the respondents personal, subjective, and qualitative assessment of SPR impacts or processes. The survey also provided several opportunities for the respondent to provide written comments regarding specific issues. The results you see in this report include statistical analysis of definitive measures, qualitative analysis of respondent's subjective answers, and actual quotes from many of the respondents written comments.

The Land Use Coalition alone is responsible for compiling the information contained in this report. The report has been reviewed by an independent specialist in creating and conducting surveys. It is the hope of TLUC that these results will serve to enlighten the public and the County government as to problems with the SPR process, and that the results will establish a starting point for a review and revamping of the SPR process.

[Top]

When the SPR process was created in 1993, the County Commissioners and the LUD assured the public that the process would entail no more than $1,000 in added cost, and take no more than two months. Since that time, the LUD has also claimed that the SPR process is generally well received by the applicants, and that few applicants have negative experiences with the process. The results of this survey DO NOT SUPPORT THOSE CONCLUSIONS.

In general, the SPR process takes months and sometimes over a year to complete, adds many thousands of dollars to the cost of building a home, is complex to understand and comply with, requires the involvement of several paid professionals, and is highly subject to confrontation and anger. Of the 163 respondents to the survey, 104 people were moved to make additional comments. 93 of those people who made additional comments said negative things about the SPR process and the interactions with the LUD and BOCC. It is clear that, as an "applicant friendly" process, SPR is a failure and needs to be fixed!

[Top]

The following sections present the results for the specific questions or survey topics included in the questionnaire. In some cases survey results are consolidated in the analysis for ease of presentation and brevity. In general, the results are presented in the order in of the questions in the survey.

Question 3 of the survey asked about the time required to prepare for SPR. All but 16 of the respondents entered the number of hours spent preparing the applications. About half (50.4%)of those who applied for SPR on new residences spent 30 or more hours preparing the SPR application. The Land Use Department continues to say that such time and effort is not needed for Site Plan Review. However, in actuality, if some applicants don’t put an extensive amount of time, effort and money into Site Plan Review, they seriously risk not getting approval.

Calendar time required - In building a home, the hours spent on the application are not as critical to the homeowner as the calendar time required to complete the SPR process. Major delays cost money and can totally disrupt the construction schedule. Question 6 of the survey addresses the question of calendar time required to finish the SPR process. About 20% (31) of the respondents took between six months and a year to navigate through SPR, and 8% (12) took over one year. Those whose SPRs went more quickly were likely to be those most willing to accept LUD conditions and also did not have neighbors that objected to their project.

[Top]

In going through SPR, it is especially disconcerting to the applicant to be shuffled from one LUD person to another. Of the total number of SPR cases reported, 88% talked with 2 or more planners during their SPR process. Many respondents complained about the slow response time from the LUD. This lack of coordination in LUD probably contributed to the extra time required to process applications.

[Top]

A startling result of the TLUC survey was the number of applicants who abandon their construction project. Question 5 of the survey revealed that approximately 29% have not built their homes for various reasons, including construction delays, and moving away because of the process. These numbers collected in the TLUC survey are actually low compared to the LUD data that tallied all SPRs that resulted in building permits. Of the 1600 applications that were filed, more than 37% never resulted in a building permit, which means the projects were abandoned for some reason or construction has not yet started. The LUD total as of December 1999 is 1000 permits out of approximately 1600 filed - or, only two-thirds of SPRs actually resulted in building permits.

Several of the site plan reviews were withdrawn before completion by the applicant because of too many unacceptable conditions or they just gave up. One withdrew an application because the LUD demanded that another property be brought up to code before the SPR application would even be accepted. (The other property would also have to go through SPR.) Several mentioned their site plan reviews had been tabled indefinitely, which can be considered denial. The County does not have the ultimate power to say a person cannot build. Instead they have made the process difficult and expensive. When an SPR is tabled that usually means that the applicant is not willing to give up but cannot accept the conditions imposed on the project.

Several people mentioned that they built less than what they wanted because of SPR conditions. One said they built a larger house because the process was too onerous to justify building the small house they originally planned.

[Top]

Several questions were asked about interactions the respondents had with the LUD staff. Most of these questions were very similar to the ones asked on the LUD survey done in 1996. The responses are comparable and show little change in how the County is working with applicants. Also, the comments given about problems with the process in the 1996 LUD survey are very similar to comments given in 1999.

According to these numbers, slightly more than half the people who have been through SPR are satisfied with the LUD interactions. State another way, nearly 40% of the applicants were dissatisfied with the process. The LUD is making a poor showing in its relationships with citizens who are attempting, in good faith, to deal with the SPR process. In addition, it is obvious the LUD has not improved the situation as a result of their own survey done in 1996. One bright spot is the satisfaction with the handouts from the LUD, where marked improvement is noted. Comments made in the 1999 survey reveal a high level of anger from the respondents toward individuals in the LUD and with the SPR process. It appears that the helpfulness of the LUD staff has actually declined in the 3 years since the original survey. The following table summarizes the results of questions 9-14 on the TLUC survey, and compares results with the LUD survey of 1996.

The table below was constructed by combining the answer categories. The categories about satisfaction are: very, somewhat, only a little, not at all, and don’t know. The "don’t knows" were not included. If the person answered "very" or "somewhat", they are considered satisfied with their interactions with the LUD. If the person answered "only a little" or "not at all", they were considered dissatisfied. The response categories from the 1996 LUD survey are similar. Two of the questions asked in the TLUC survey were not asked in the 1996 LUD survey.

Some of the respondents to this question said the process was fine and anyone who had trouble with it were probably not being courteous to LUD staff. Others say they were extremely courteous to the staff and were still treated rudely. Note these comments:

"A person going through SPR must work with the County, not against. When treated respectfully, the county does a superior job. Perhaps the approach you present hinders your success."

"My wife and I treated the land-use staff/building division with the utmost courtesy. We did not receive the same - to put it mildly! It started with a terrorizing conversation with subordinates in transportation to "making" our lives as unbearable during the building projects."

Questions 17-21 dealt with design changes required by the LUD. About half (45%) of the respondents to these questions were required to change their design because of staff recommendations. Over 75% of those changes were required for new residences. In total, 31% of all SPR applicants were required to change the design more than once.

Suggestions about changes were offered by LUD to 59% of those responding. Several comments were made about LUD staff refusing to tell applicants what would be acceptable. When suggestions were made by the LUD staff the following resulted:

65% thought the suggestions were only slightly or not at all helpful.

22% thought the suggestions were somewhat helpful, and

11% thought the suggestions were very helpful.

When asked about the helpfulness of recommendations and conditions:

40% said they were not at all helpful and

26% said they were only slightly helpful.

One person commented that the LUD staff made "demands", not "suggestions". Many people who made comments mentioned the arrogance, rudeness, and lack of professionalism of the LUD staff. Some mentioned names of individuals (which have been deleted from the actual comments).

There was a high degree of dissatisfaction with the arbitrariness of the SPR process and decisions. Additionally, the respondents often mentioned uncertainty of LUD staff as to specific requirements and policies. The LUD would benefit in the public view by hiring people who are better qualified for these positions even if they have to pay higher salaries. If interns or inexperienced people are hired as planners, they should be working only with an experienced mentor until they learn how to do their jobs.

Limiting house size is one of the County’s big issues at the present time. One respondent stated that they were going to build a small cabin but because of the difficulties of the process, they decided they had better build something more substantial to make the effort worthwhile. Because of the process, a large house was built rather than a small one. One person commented that their house was less safe because of how the County required them to build it.

[Top]

Questions 22-27 dealt with the hearing process. Public hearings are a touchy issue and very intimidating to many applicants. Not only must the applicants face the commissioners who sit in judgment on a high seat, but vitriolic neighbors have the opportunity to speak up against a project and say whatever they please whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, the present Commissioners seem to favor neighbor complaints over a property owner’s well considered plans, even when the property owner has gone to great time and expense to present environmentally friendly plans. Some reworked plans numerous times and came full circle when LUD approved the original plans.

Of the people who answered the survey:

30% had public hearings before the Commissioners.

81% of those having public hearings were for new residences.

62% of all applicants had more than one hearing.

11% of the hearings were requested by the applicant.

(Note: In 1996, 33% of the people answering the LUD survey had public hearings.)

For 44% of the people who went to hearings, the hearing made their project worse and a hearing always makes projects much more expensive. 14% said the hearings made the project better and 20% said the hearings made their project some better and some worse.

Neighbor input was a sore point with many applicants. Only 4% thought neighbor input made their relationships with their neighbors better while 42% thought their neighbor relationships were made worse.

[Top]

Questions 28-29 dealt with legal actions resulting from SPR applications. Only 3 of the applicants who answered this survey said they had filed lawsuits against the County. However, 28% said they had consulted an attorney and considered filing lawsuits. Those who did consult an attorney learned that it would be very expensive to fight the County legally and they went no further because they did not want to spend their money that way. The primary reasons given for contacting an attorney:

• They wanted to file a lawsuit, but decided it was too expensive.
• They felt their rights were violated.
• A lawsuit would be too difficult and they were not likely to win.
• They felt poor decisions were made by LUD on their projects.

When it comes to legal action, the County is not so timid, and 12 people who answered this survey said the County had taken some legal action against them. Reasons for actions were primarily stop work orders. In one case the applicant was threatened with a lawsuit if he/she did not agree to the LUD's conditions. In another case, the County was proven wrong before legal action was taken by the County against the applicant.

Thus, between applicant legal actions and County litigations, 9% or nearly 1 in 11 of the respondents experienced lawsuits as a result of the SPR process.

[Top]

In addition to the time required, many applicants incurred extra costs to successfully maneuver through the SPR process. Questions 30-32 dealt with the extra costs of the SPR process. These additional costs were spent on engineers, surveyors, landscape architects, building architects, lawyers, and other professionals. Other professionals hired included lighting experts, civil engineers, wildfire consultants, environmental specialists, planning engineers, structural engineers, soil engineers, traffic engineers, and several other types.

Some of these professionals are required for responsible building in difficult terrain. A lawyer is not needed during the process of designing and building a house. The only function of the lawyer in the site plan review process is to protect the owner’s right to build a house. The large percentage of people who consulted or retained lawyers supports the conclusion that the process contains serious defects.

Extra costs incurred from Site Plan Review ranged from zero to $150,000. Some did not enter any number for extra costs, even when they checked that the did hire professionals. Some noted they didn’t remember how much was spent. Some said they did not spend any additional for professionals to complete SPR because they did all the work themselves.

The averages for these responses include those who entered zero spent, but do not include those who did not answer. The percentages in the graph are based on only those who entered an amount, including those who entered $0.

The few that responded that they spent over $100,000 actually spent that much on Site Plan Review before a building permit was granted - and in one case a building permit was never granted. The high amounts were spent because the applicant revised the plan numerous times and hired all the types of consultants plus lawyers. Reasons for revising plans numerous times were because of fierce neighbor objections and unwillingness of LUD and BOCC to accept plans prepared by the professionals.

In the table below, the maximum, median, and average fees paid according to the 1996 LUD survey are compared to the fees paid by those answering the TLUC survey. The figures in the table and the graph are based on the 141 people who responded to the question.

 

	TLUC 1999	LUD 1996	Difference
Maximum	$150,000	$22,000	$128,000
Median	$2,500	$1,000	$1,500
Average	$8,710	$2,586	$6,124

Three respondents entered very high costs to the question about additional professional fees paid. We double checked with the respondents to make sure they indeed spent these amounts just to go through Site Plan Review and before the building permit was granted. They verified that they did spend these amounts. This is a very powerful statement that something is seriously wrong with the SPR process.

The average extra cost of paying professionals to complete SPR in 1999 is about 3.4 times the average cost of the process in 1996. The median cost has more than doubled. The 1996 LUD survey asked for all costs attributable to the process. The TLUC survey separated costs for fees paid to the LUD from additional fees paid to any professionals required to get through the process. The TLUC numbers do not include fees paid to LUD. Even discounting fees paid to LUD, the cost to complete SPR is high.

The increases in extra fees are dramatic and illustrate better than any other result of this survey how difficult the process has become in only 3 years. The LUD is fond of saying that SPR only has to cost $1000. This number probably comes from the median cost revealed in the LUD 1996 survey. It does not reflect the higher average cost - which is skewed somewhat by a few people who pay very high amounts to complete the SPR process. The LUD would be more factual to state clearly that at this time, half the people who go through SPR can expect to pay up to $2,500. Applicants also need to know that if there is any contention at all about their project, they can expect the costs to soar.

Extra fees are not separated by type of construction because some of the respondents had more than one type of SPR application and included fees for both.

As a result of the County’s apparent no-building policies (i.e. make the process so onerous that people will just give up), some of the people who have tried to build have left the area. Some were able to sell their property, and some were not. At least one had to declare bankruptcy because the County-designed house was so expensive they had no money left to complete the project. Also, neighbor animosity had built to fever pitch and the owners feared for their safety. They had already experienced many instances of trespass and vandalism. The comments provide several instances of extreme reactions by neighbors that caused extra expense for projects as well as threatening situations imposed on the property owners.

[Top]

Of the 163 people who responded to the TLUC survey, 104 were moved to write additional comments. Several people sent letters as long as several pages describing their problems with LUD and the process. This is an indication that there are strong feelings about the SPR process and most of it is negative. Of the 104 who wrote additional comments the following resulted:

• 9 (9%) had only positive things to say,

• 11 (10%) made mixed negative and positive comments,

• 82 (79%) made only negative comments, and

• 2 (2%) made comments that were not related to the SPR process.

In 1996 LUD sent a survey to people who had been through the SPR process and 85 people responded. Many of the questions in the Coalition survey parallel the 1996 LUD survey. The 1996 survey documents 29 people who submitted additional comments. The ratios were strongly negative with 83% offering negative comments.

The LUD tells potential applicants that most people have no problem with SPR. However, based on the TLUC survey, many people who have a problem with the process do not express their feelings to the LUD. It is clear that applicants would appreciate being told at the beginning it is going to be a long, difficult, expensive process. People are as angry about the subterfuge and hidden no-build agenda as they are about having to go through a difficult process.

It isn’t just that LUD puts strange and arbitrary interpretations on the code or favors neighbor’s complaints over owner’s rights - that is bad enough - but they mislead owners so they believe the process is going to work for them, when it is stacked against owners (mentioned in several comments). The deception is the worst and casts a bad light on the County government.

One effect of the County heavy handed land use policies is to discourage many people from building a new house, addition or any other structure (which seems to be a desired result). A longer term effect is that those who do not have the emotional or financial resources to fight the County are more likely to sell their property to someone who is willing to battle for their basic rights to build as they desire. The County backs off when someone is demanding of their rights or has the money and willingness to sue when the County puts absurd requirements on a project. In this respect, the policies are counter productive. Instead of encouraging the modest builder, the "don’t build" policies only result in discord, larger homes, and less environmentally friendly building.

[Top]

It is clear, based on the results of this survey, that the SPR process is an onerous, difficult, time consuming and expensive process that creates discord between the applicants, the Land Use Department, the County Commissioners, and the applicant’s neighbors. Though portrayed as a "user friendly" process, in fact it is complex, confusing and adds months and many thousands of dollars to the construction process. The SPR process is rife with subjectivity and the LUD staff is apparently not helping many applicants to arrive at workable solutions. And finally, the SPR process causes a large percentage of applicants to actually abandon their dream of building a home. The obvious conclusion is the SPR process needs to be revamped to better serve the citizens of Boulder County.

[Top]

Over 100 people (nearly two-thirds of respondents) took extra time to write additional comments. The numbers generated from answers to the questions reveal only part of the story. Those who were moved to write additional comments present a more intense picture. Some who rated the process fairly well made additional comments that were harsh and negative.

To better understand what these people are saying, the comments are categorized by main themes. The main points in each theme group are summarized and listed in order of the number of times mentioned. Several of the points in each major theme group repeat, such as dishonesty of LUD staff, expense of the process, and unreasonable conditions.

When a planner was mentioned by name, the name is omitted. Several people were moved to send long (1-3 page) letters with detailed explanations of their experiences. Only a portion of their comments are presented here. If a comment includes any information that can readily identify the project or the person who made it, that information is deleted. TLUC made a commitment to the people who answered the survey that their input would not be connected with them. Several people commented that they hoped their comments would not come back to haunt them. Several said they waited until they received their Certificate of Occupancy (CO) before they were willing to complete the survey because of fears of retaliation from the County. Judging from comments made, fears of retaliation from the County are justified.

Interactions with People

• About LUD staff
• Rude, arrogant
• Unprofessional, inexperienced, incompetent
• Placed obstacles
• Abused their power
• Discouraging
• Dishonest
• Other
• Neighbors caused problems
• Interactions caused the process to be painful or stressful for applicant
• Expensive

Site Plan Review Process

• Arbitrary and inconsistent decisions
• Unreasonable aesthetic conditions
• Unreasonable conditions, double standard
• Slow, arduous
• Dishonest and devious (staff)
• Expense
• House location unreasonable
• Neighbors caused problems
• Unprofessional (staff)
• Too much power (staff)
• LUD lost the application file
• House size

Impact of SPR on Design and Plan

• Unreasonable aesthetic conditions
• Arbitrary
• Neighbors
• Location
• Expensive
• Size
• Slow, arduous

Extra Expense Caused by SPR

• Slow, arduous
• Extra professional help caused extra expense
• Quality not improved by extra expense
• Fire requirements
• Unnecessary conditions
• Arbitrary decisions

[Top]

The people interactions are between applicants, neighbors, the Land Use Department, and the Board of County Commissioners motivated several comments, both positive and negative. Positive comments included:

• Planners were helpful.
• They were very dear and helpful.
• A person going through SPR must work with the County, not against. When treated respectfully, the county does a superior job. Perhaps the approach you present hinders your success.
• By using local contractor, interface with County helped and they did necessary legwork and seemed to know how to communicate with County - and how to deal with helpful and unhelpful county personnel.
• The County Land Use office was OK to work with. I like the County government.
• I think SPR works fine. If you have an attitude problem you will struggle. Work with the County and they are reasonable.

Following are some of the negative comments made about interactions with people:

• We were threatened with legal action, we were told we would be evicted. We fought for over a year and a half with planning and building. (This was about removing 2 trees.)
• County Commissioners are arrogant and out of control. Land Use Dept. answers only to BOCC. No respect for taxpaying land owners. Process is fully flawed. BOCC Chairman as open space director should not be making decisions regarding building permits. Rural residents have NO representation.
• Boulder Co. is not a republic, but is Ron Stewart’s monarchy!
• Commissioner Mendez was condescending and rude.
• Commissioners had lots to say - particularly one, but none had ever been to the site.
• The process is subjective at best. Success in obtaining approval rests with the planner that one happens to get. It seems that some planners’ ultimate objective is to please Ron Stewart.
• The process is an additional tax that only creates resentment between property owners and Boulder County.
• Boulder County feeling is that this is their farm and they only are letting me live here for a little while.
• County really approaches this area like they own all the land! It’s like a peasant asking King James for permission to build a hovel on the King’s land! They assume so many rights i.e. - they want to control height - location - landscape - even color of the houses and buildings on private property - I don’t remember voting to give them those rights. Private property means private property!
• Open space staff were dishonest. The Commissioners were clueless. We could have had a safer house without the process (in regards to fire).
• Have never been so rudely, offhandedly treated by anyone in my life, including the military. Their attitude was highly offensive and designed to discourage me. If I ever go back in, it will be with an experienced lawyer and a tape/video recorder.
• I felt persecuted by the people who are supposed to be public servants. They did nothing but cause me grief, waste years of my time and cost me a significant amount of money.
• I The Land Use Department did everything they could to discourage application. They were seemingly resentful of any mountain building and did what they could to place additional obstacles. They are the building "gestapo".
• I can only characterize the attitude of Land Use personnel as arrogant and outright discourteous.
• As public servants they are extremely arrogant and aloof. They have cast themselves as an opponent to landowners and against property rights. But what can you expect with commissioners who play the same role.
• Not only are Commissioners and Land Use Department staff rude & unprofessional, I have never before encountered such unskilled & inexperienced government workers pretending to be experts. During simple requests to obtain rationale behind conditions of approval, I was twice told, "Take it, leave it, or sue us." I received four different definitions of "area above grade" from three different "planners", none of which are accurate. Repeatedly excluded from meetings held between Commissioners and staff regarding my S.P.R. (anybody ever hear of Sunshine Laws?).
• Every planner I dealt with was very arrogant!
• These people at Land Use have a culture of arrogance and punishment which is modeled by the head of the department.
• Staff badgered and rejected original project because "They didn’t like it". It was purely their opinion!
• The initial interview was with a very young inexperienced male. My wife and I were very attentive. We worked our butts off for an entire weekend to do 3 permits (2 requiring SPR application). Upon presentation they basically told me we had about half what we needed. This REALLY PEE’D me off. Most problems could have been avoided if he had done his job right! Or they simplify the crap they asked for! Beyond this - it went OK!
• During the years that I lived in Boulder I have watched this process create a divisiveness in Boulder County between neighbors. When we built our first house - all the neighbors came out in a barn raising supportive way for any new neighbor. Now some come out to public meetings in opposition. We left Boulder to a large degree due to the process and power it has given hate and activist groups in Boulder.
• This was one of the most painful processes we have ever been subjected to and definitely made the building of our home less joyful, more expensive and less suitable for our purposes. We will support any candidate running against an incumbent county commissioner.
• This experience could not have been any worse!!
• Seems like we could never get a straight answer from Boulder - conflicting answers were given when we had questions - making the application process difficult.
• Neighbors were attempting to scare us away so that their counter-offer on property would be accepted. Their action was a misuse of county resources and a waste of time. This should have been discovered by Land Use prior to Commissioner’s hearings.
• It’s not the SPR, it’s the power that is given to the neighbors to influence the Commissioners and Land Use staff. There should be some distance, i.e. 500 ft. Anyone further from the structure should not participate in the hearings. We don’t agree with someone over a mile away complaining about what someone else is doing with their land.
• I believe if the County would hire competent employees who had even a little knowledge of their "job" it would greatly help this process.
• He (a planner) indicated that he felt that the County should do a better job of working with people.
• We were very unhappy with our session with the planning committee. They are masters of the art of "double speak"!
• They make the process very stressful. I refused to pay them off. They are not good to work with.
• Sometimes were arrogant.
• From the beginning of our dream, to the end, Boulder County was frustrating and confusing. It began with difficult to finding a contractor that would deal with Boulder County.
• My wife and I treated the land-use staff/building division with the utmost courtesy. We did not receive the same - to put it mildly! It started with a terrorizing conversation with subordinates in transportation to "making" our lives as unbearable during the building projects.
• My biggest complaint about SPR was (planner). He was arrogant, close-minded and clearly in a power trip. God, to think I help pay his salary.
• I question the technical expertise of the staff who made the site visit and the staff recommendation for placing the house.
• There are not enough words to tell you how frustrated my wife and I were with Boulder County.
• I found the staff to be useless bureaucrats. Decisions about my review were being upheld by a student intern who had no authority to revise any of the conditions. They were totally inconsiderate of my time and kept telling me to make another appointment to come back and talk to someone else, while every appointment meant my having to take time off from work. Then they had the audacity to inform me that the decision about my barn colors wouldn’t change, no matter how many appointments I made.
• Get the idiots in the Planning Department out of the process. Way too subjective. No one is treated equally. Personnel in the Planning Department have enough trouble reading plans plus topos which they require, but cannot comprehend.
• Building a new home is stressful enough but this county makes it as difficult and expensive as possible. This was the most difficult process I have ever had to go through largely because of Boulder County.
• The planners I have dealt with are unable to comprehend how arrogant they are. I don’t like their attitude.
• Neighbors complain after a project is finished. However, they do not take the time to communicate with Boulder County during the SPR period. Perhaps Boulder County should include a drawing or rendering of the project when communicating with neighbors about a new project. My wife and I are tired of folks "… crying over spilled milk".
• It was a homeowner in the subdivision across the street from our farm, who is also a builder in (subdivision) (and other subdivisions). He was angry about having to comply with covenants and wanted someone else to suffer, too. He can’t even see our farm from his house. Since when are there covenants on farms, anyway?
• The Site Review process and other required processes are designed with a builder in mind and do not reflect the needs and information that a home owner-builder would need. The general feeling that I received from the County and fire districts was that I would NOT be building this as an owner and should sub the entire project out - when can a person NOT build his own house? Please do not release my name or address to ANY County agency! I am sorry that I did not return this before now but I wanted to receive my C.O. before any more problems arose.
• Staff acted like "they had the power" so stay in line.
• A vote by people who live outside of any city would never have elected the three who serve us now. Power is a hard thing to live with.
• In regard to projects it is clear that county (now?) has the intention to allow one request, kept on adding requests, I suspect, hoping that we would drop it. Their rejection was without any logical foundation and offered no place for appeal beside a legal action against them.
• Employ experienced staff with field experience to complement their education.

Dealing with the SPR process went fine for some people, but a large number who made extra comments on the survey had a difficult time with it for various reasons. The following are all the positive comments made:

• Went great.
• Fire plan reasonable and roof. Color of house approval a bit much but can live with! Down lighting good idea.
• I agree with the intent of the County to control overdevelopment in the mountains. I am building a house of reasonable size (2400 sq. ft), treating it with a finish to make it nearly invisible, and placing it on the site deep in the trees. I have NO problem with the County and my experience with this process was very favorable.
• Generally - I think site plan review is a great idea.
• This process was beneficial to us in another site review because of irrigation rights.
• Color of house approval a bit much but can live with! Down lighting good idea. 500 gal. Cistern too small, should be 1500 gal. + dry hydrant.

• I think it is a good idea for people to revegetate - repair scars - control drainage.
• I think the site plan review process is necessary to protect the area from dangerous development plans (dangerous in terms of fire, water use, traffic, etc.).
• The site plan review process is acceptable to me if the issuance of a building permit is automatic at the conclusion of site plan. However, I have not yet been issued a building permit.
• … I applaud the new efforts at controlling building in Boulder County.

Following are some of the negative comments made about the SPR process:

• I feel Boulder County has far too much power in determining what we can do with our personal property! I built a barn and you would think I was building a controversial project in the middle of downtown Boulder. I liken it to pre-WWII Nazi Germany! I fear reprisals because I’m a contractor in Boulder County. If any of this information comes back to haunt me, I will seek legal action. Building is my livelihood.
• The SPR is unnecessary and is just another political roadblock to the construction process.
• The Commissioner’s requirements were completely arbitrary and capricious, and had no relationship either to what the Land Use Staff recommended, what neighbors wanted, or what I wanted. The landowner, who owned the lot for years, was also angry and frustrated.
• The conditions were asinine - it was barn with no plumbing, no electricity, no HVAC. Conditions were: 1) exterior lighting not to glare into road. 2) new separate septic system required. 3) Revegetate (my yard) with native grass.
• Too much importance on planting new weeds - mine (old) came up fine but I still have to spend 100’s of $ to plant new ones. In one of their handouts it says (we like the idea of Colorado looking like Colorado with a unique regional horticulture which sets us apart from other parts of the country). "BULL" I could take them to Spain or Japan and they couldn’t tell the difference. Their lighting plan? 40 watts - I can’t see 4 feet out my door. They need to look at some other lights around the county!
• We completely followed every rule & regulation. They have the ability to make their own rules as they see fit. I really feel this was not a fair process whatever side you were on.
• How "free" of a country do we have, when Boulder County can tell you your house can be one of three colors? It is also absurd that the County can determine where your house and driveway are located on your own property that you purchased!
• Even after approval by the Historical review board, the BC Commissioners rejected our height limitation variance request, causing re-engineering of our design. The site plan review process was requested out of order, after our house move permit but prior to the addition permit. It was a very bad experience.
• I would have liked to have tested the Planning Department in court. All properties surrounding mine were built upon. Their ruling was capricious, and I suspect, would never have held up.
• It took me 2 years to build a barn on our farm, thanks to Land Use. The L.U. Staff did not inform me about the color requirements - and I don’t see how color pertains to use anyway, especially on a farm. I was never informed that one of the neighbors sent in a negative letter, and why the neighbors should have the right to comment on a barn on a farm is beyond me.
• Upon (planner)’s first site inspection we were also informed that we could not put any more fencing on our 36 Ac. After appealing this we were allowed to fence in a smaller section and reduce the height of the fence to make it "wildlife friendly". Now wildlife comes and goes, so do our dogs. The safety of deer was more important than our livestock and pets.
• I found the site plan review completely confusing. I am not a builder, and did not have any help to prepare the form. At the time we didn’t have a builder or I would have let him go through this AWFUL process.
• Calling the Denver Archeological Assoc. and getting them to send a letter seemed unnecessary.
• We were surprised to find that after submitting 6 sets of plans for our garage to the land use committee that they were not shared with the building permit people within the same office. The permit time could be greatly reduced if both departments reviewed the plans simultaneously. Boulder County’s no building policy was successful in our case. We finally just gave up.
• SPR can assist do-it-yourself homeowners think hard about their project - its only benefit - but unfortunately the code of SPR is too subjective & gives the county planners at L.U. (planner 1’s, who are wet behind the ears) way too much control in projects they have no business controlling. The uniform building code under a building permit can do much more without SPR. SPR is a cloaked open space program.
• The committee must have thought that this was just another house being built. We have no neighbors in the close vicinity. I don’t believe the committee even looked on a map to see where we are. If they would have they wouldn’t have put a condition on the site plan review for outdoor lighting. Also, if they had researched this subdivision, they would have found that we are not a housing development. I understand Boulder County being anti growth, we weren’t building a big subdivision, just getting rid of a run down farm house on our own property and putting up a new house. For the time it took you to review this site plan, you should have been able to see all of the above.
• When I received the Site Plan Review back, I needed to have our builder read it to me. (At this point we did have a builder) Mainly because I couldn’t read between the lines very well. Basically it stated that it would be approved IF we changed this and changed that. One of those things was the outdoor lighting. I really have trouble understanding this outdoor lighting situation. In housing developments everywhere the same lights I picked out are being used. I could see if flood lights were being used, but they aren’t. Besides that, we are on a farm for which some outdoor flood lights are needed.
• I have a friend that is going through the same process. I pity them. Their farm house is also run down and needing replaced. Homes like these cost almost more to fix than to tear down and rebuild. I don’t believe it is any particular type of home that needs to be saved for historical value. Their family inherited this home. They have lived here all their lives and want to stay. The situation being, this old farm house is too small for their family. I think it’s ridiculous the trouble they are going through when it is their own property. They just want to improve it for themselves. If they were to sell it to a builder, you can bet that builder would find a way to get rid of that house and build another or possibly even subdivide.
• Most of the people that work for the county are just there to put in their time, get their benefits and collect on their pension. They really don’t want to confront the people that answer these surveys.
• The questions were not designed for the average person, meaning not very explanatory in laymen’s terms. Once I thought I was finished, I turned the review in to see if I had all the necessary forms in order, the gentlemen told me that I didn’t need to make all those copies. The seven packets that needed to be passed to all the reviewers didn’t need the same detail as the one that went to the head of the committee. Well if I would have known this, I wouldn’t have spent over $65.00 on blue print copies and other copies. I did call once to ask a question, and received NO help.
• I think that the rules are either too harsh or too inflexible. Especially, I think the 500 cu. yd. rule is too inflexible given the huge range of projects and terrain in Boulder County.
• My husband and I feel that the site plan review (in our case) was a justification of paying someone’s salary. To be told that our pale yellow country house needed to be dark was ridiculous. Furthermore, we had to hire a surveyor for $1000 to prove to the county surveyor that his equipment was malfunctioning in a distance from blind spot to driveway. They wanted us to change our address & driveway because they claimed we were short certain footage, which we weren’t. We won on all counts. The whole thing was BULL.
• Requiring an exact paint specification was absurd. Interpreting every room with a closet as a bedroom was absurd (as basis for septic tank size). Prohibiting a shower in art studio over garage was absurd.
• With all the new construction in Boulder, the County site review system operates with a double standard.
• We were totally shocked when we learned that in order to establish even the initial permit process we had to PROVE that the land we bought so long ago was legally permissible to build on - many hours had to be taken from work on weekend time, through the process - it was humiliating because getting information was so difficult and they wanted so many copies of everything, etc. I couldn’t believe it when they finally said we could move to the actual building phase.
• 1) review requirements should be different from mountains to plains. 2) if have letter of credit for landscape then CO should be issued immediately and not hold up builders financing. 3) fire protection should be designed for amount paid, not by sq. ft.
• Hire more planners. Increase speed of site review and building permit reviews!
• I have two neighbors. Each is building a house. Both were granted permits. Neighbor A paid $2000 for fire protection while neighbor B paid nothing. "A" must improve the road while "B" has no requirement. "A" could be helped in the event of a fire, "B" would burn out of control unless I plow the road all the way back to his house. "A" has running water, heat, septic while "B" has one big room with none of the above. What kind of double standards do you use in your department? (referring to Land Use Department)
• As a owner builder I feel that in general the site plan review process is a frustrating, time consuming exercise that has little effect on the type of buildings that are built and their location.
• Application of all Land Use conditions consistently with all submissions vs. discretionary as I have personally experienced in my subdivision. Streamline the application/ approval process.
• Eliminate involvement in HOA (homeowner association) controlled issues.
• Boulder County makes it very difficult to do what we want. The County gets involved down to outside lighting and how many trees are cut down (for fire) and planted (for landscaping). I know people who have moved away because of Boulder County Land Use Codes. It’s not fair to only have a certain type of people living here.
• Limiting wattage of bulbs is OK - Selection of lights should be up to the individual. Color choice should be up to the individual. House location should not be assigned. Cu. yardage for limited impact should be increased to 1500.
• We think neighbors should have only a very limited input if any at all.
• Rather than preserve the community, the SPR process has created an atmosphere where my future neighbors have become whining, sneaking children, completely divided. SPR has ruined existing and future friendships between neighbors and ruined any sense of community.
• However, just because I rated them well, don’t get the feeling I like the process. I don’t. Furthermore, I believe choice of siding + color is an individual choice and none of your business. I also think it slows the building process down too much and infringes on individual rights.
• I met all zoning conditions and qualifications. In truth, they legally could not reject original project. A completely arbitrary decision.
• A slow and arduous process - I know this is the intention (slow growth) - but efficiency shouldn’t be the issue.
• I do believe the current SPR process goes too far when they "recommend" roof and siding colors and revegetation seeds.
• I felt the whole site review process was designed to intimidate and impede the process of building in Boulder County. Further site review situations affecting my personal residence are disappointing at the very least. Last year site reviewer & staff decided to "cluster" my neighbor’s project near my property. My rural feeling has changed to a point of unacceptable and we are considering moving because of this. I’m mad about it all. We have people making decisions that affect rural living, yet none of them live in the country. They don’t get it.
• The site plan review process currently in place is a living nightmare, riddled with inconsistencies.
• Throughout this early part of the site review process, nobody seemed to know how to deal with our issues. Our file was passed around and lost more than one time.
• Points of contention included a last minute notice that our roof color was unacceptable and an on-site inspection by (planner) in which we were told we had completed all requirements (except planting grass seed) only to find out when (planner) came to inspect our grass seed, we had more things to do.
• County held up my building permit because I hadn’t included a color chip - of our house -
• The Site Plan Review is arbitrary - inconsistent and so unfair to property owners that want to build on their own property!
• Most major elements of our site plan review were approved with no change by the Land Use Dept. They were initially unreasonable about our exterior lighting plan and our revegetation plan -- we enlisted the help of experts on each and negotiated a successful outcome with staff in the end.
• It appears that staff would ask one question, when answer was given, review would go to bottom of pile. Weeks later, another question would be asked and the process starts over again. It would be nice if all (or most) questions could be asked at one time.
• We were stymied constantly, and we were trying to build on 40 uncovenanted acres on a spot previously approved. Even after location was approved, the size of the house was … in question.
• I had quite a bit of trouble with the site plan review process. First, no one in the office could tell me whether or not I needed to go through the process.
• Property in question was sold and we no longer live in Boulder County. Reason for selling was unacceptable site plan review. Reason for moving was partly due to site plan review.
• Problems developed when we tried to situate the house on the lot with the "given" setbacks and irrigation rules in place. It is my opinion there is very little appreciation for our investment in our property from the County or some of the "longtime" residents.

• The SPR is NOT uniformly applied. Every person involved has a different opinion.
• The requirements are illogical and the persons involved do not have the common sense or authority to grant exceptions.
• The site plan review process sucks. We were refused a temp CO because we refused to cut down 2 trees that were approved initially and then we were told they would have to be cut down by 3 separate fire mitigation inspectors.
• I felt the process was extremely difficult and unreasonable. I felt that I spent a lot of extra time and money that would not have been necessary. I felt that I was fighting to build and that the site review process was trying to prevent building. Certainly I did not feel they were trying to help.
• The process takes too long, too much paperwork, and too much bureaucracy just to build a garage in the middle of your own property with no infringement on neighboring owners.
• Why is siding, roof materials, colors, etc. part of approval when all can be changed at will post-construction - including good/bad architecture?!
• They asked for silly studies (i.e. flood plan) when we live at the very top of a mountain

Impacts on the project design and plans included problems with unnecessary changes, excessive regulations, and neighbor input. The following are all the positive comments made:

• I guess I can rationalize reasons why there needs to be some control over growth in environmentally sensitive areas, such as mountainous Boulder County. I also do not want to see rows of houses, shopping centers, neon lights, etc. A good, comprehensive land use plan must be adhered to by developers, zoning Dept. & politicians alike.
• I think the site plan review process is necessary to protect the area from dangerous development plans (dangerous in terms of fire, water use, traffic, etc.).

Following are some of the negative comments made about the impact of SPR on the design and plan:

• The regulations are the problem. For a simple residential building on a flat lot with a public road on one side, this simple project was way overanalyzed. The amount of regulation is disproportionate, arbitrary, time consuming and expensive, to mitigate. The benefits, to anyone, are non-existent. In fact, economies of scale result in even larger mountain residences with greater impact, not less.
• Planting of 5 trees to "reduce the visual impact" on a hillside that has never grown trees and will take decades to get tall enough is absurd.
• I hate the way the Commissioners dictate site location, size and driveway locations. What legal authority do they have to do this? None. They do it on the basis that few can afford to sue the County.
• I still haven’t figured out why I had to submit an emergency fire access plan for an all-steel barn, that no one lives in, not even livestock.
• They were initially unreasonable about our exterior lighting plan and our revegetation plan -- we enlisted the help of experts on each and negotiated a successful outcome with staff in the end.
• What is the point of requiring colors and light fixture submittals when you can’t control any of this once the structure is built? What gives your department the right to limit a house to 2500 sq. ft. above grade on a 2 acre lot, particularly when neighbors are 4000+ sq. ft? You’re over-reaching.
• Staff interpretation of some regulations was opinion. I.e. color of house - only dark! Green or brown was acceptable.
• Government does not have the right to enforce this vision of style and taste on my home. What type of roof? What color house? What type of trees. How should they be planted?
• I found Land Use’s color conditions to be frivolous and arbitrary. I pointed out dozens of other farm buildings in my immediate area with the same color roof as I chose, but it didn’t matter. I researched other site plans with the same color roof and found several approved examples, some of which were "historically correct", others that "fit with the neighboring buildings," but it didn’t matter. A few months before, the same building from the same vendor with the same color roof was approved less than a mile from our farm, but my barn was not. Why the same roof color was historically correct for someone else’s farm, but not mine, or why the same roof color fit with other neighboring farms, but not mine, was never explained to me. Land Use simply declared it "inappropriate".
• It’s inappropriate to have to have County or neighbors’ approval to place a building or determine the size of the building. The owner should have the right to make those decisions. County approval should be restricted to open space, development of farm land and such.
• I would like to see others - (my neighbors) put in the 1800 gal. Cistern for fire prevention, especially if the home changes hands or it is remodeled in any way (with a required permit).
• I had one further problem in that the building inspector conditioned my permit on me installing a fire sprinkler system, even though I was clearly exempt from that restriction because my house pre-existed it and the addition was not substantial enough to qualify for it. After further ado on the part of myself and my architect, I managed to straighten it out.

[Top]

The SPR process caused excess expense for many of the people who answered the survey. Expenses included costs to hire experts, lawyers, and specialists to successfully complete the process. In addition, extra costs were incurred because of unnecessary requirements on the project. Most mentioned extra cost was for sprinkler systems within the house and the requirement to install cisterns. No positive comments were made - probably no one thinks it is good to spend more than necessary on a building.

Following are some of the negative comments made about the extra expense required by the SPR process:

• This process took over a year and cost many thousands of dollars.
• We have a site review but lost our buyers who (wisely) asked that we pay for the site review process.
• It in no way has improved the quality of building in Boulder County and it has just made housing expensive and served to reduce the lower income segment of the population.
• The entire process is counter-productive to its stated goal - growth control. This is because people of modest means can’t afford to build a modest home due to SPR. So they sell to a rich person who pays an architect, lawyer, and contractor to get a large house through SPR. So instead of getting a 1400 sq. ft. house, we get an 8000 sq. ft. house on the same land.
• The site plan review was very devious & subjective. The County could care less if their requirements add 10s of thousands of dollars to my project for extremely limited benefits. Also, they "conditionally approved" my project when in actual fact the conditions they imposed prohibited my building the house I actually proposed. They approved building a completely different project, even denying my re-use of an existing foundation.
• Also, the requirement for an escrow held for non-completion of landscaping in the off-season is offensive to our clients. - The power of the land use department is extraordinary. Their regulations have added at least $10,000 to the cost of a home since 1990.
• I had purchased a barn kit with factory finished steel siding and roof, and it’s not possible to simply pick another color, like paint chips, without great additional expense, because the materials are not painted. I ended up losing the $7200 deposit when I had to cancel the order for that barn.
• The site review process was reasonable albeit slow and expensive. I agree with most of your policies. The building permit office was a real pain in the butt.
• The Site Plan Review required on our project was unnecessary and resulted in no significant changes. However, it did increase our costs of development, delayed the project by two+ months, caused us added interest expense on a home equity loan. Moreover, I believe the 500 sq. foot footprint criterion raises serious issues of actual intent on the part of county government. In our case, we had already sought to minimize the impact of the process and project by building below ground level, going one story above grade, and spending extra dollars on an architect to design a low impact addition. I still resent this process. Sound, and fury, and arrogance signifying nothing to paraphrase Faulkner.
• Requirements and time delays are hideously expensive and will not change the outcome one bit!
• I hope to never build another building in Boulder County - wastes money!
• The fire code enforcement was costly, pointless and unfair.
• I didn’t get a permit for 13 months. I had planned on building last fall. Consequently, I believe a year’s living expenses ($30K) have to be accounted to processing with the Land Use Department. Remaining in my subdivision home has cost me at least $37,000 + the mental anguish.

LUC Home Page