HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.15.1992(l a
1
t
BOCC 6/15t92
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:An exemption from the definition of
subdivision
APPLICANT:Cleyo and Rosie Ferrin
LOCATION:A parcel of land situated in Lots 3
and 4 of Section 18, T5S, R90W of
the 6th P.M. and the NEy* SEYr of
Section 13, T5S, R9lW of the 6th
P.M.; located off C.R. 241 (East Elk
Creek) north of New Castle.
SITE DATA:The site consists of 14.21acres.
SEWER:I.S.D.S.
WATER:Well
ACCESS:Private easement
EXISTING AND ADJACENT ZONING:fuR/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District E - Rural Areas with severe-moderate
environmental constraints as designated on the Garf-reld County Comprehensive Plan
Management Districts map.
[. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A.Site Descrintion: The subject property is at the end of an access road which runs
southward from C.R. 241. There are approximately fourteen parcels and ten
(10) residences served by the roadway.
The subject property extends westward and down hill from the access road. The
New Harris Ditch forms the eastern property line. Themajority of the property
is pasture land fringed by pinon-juniper. Improvements on the property include
two (2) single family residences.
Project Descrintion: The applicant is requesting an exemption from the
definition of subdivision to allow the 14.21 acre parcel to be split into three (3)
parcels of 5, 5 and 4.21 acres in size. The purpose of the request is to create a
separate parcel for each of the two residences and a third saleable parcel.
B
I
et
C.Background: The applicant has had an interest in the subject property since
1972. At that time, the applicant had the subject property under contract and
prepared separate surveys for each parcel. No deeds or other document creating
separate ownership interest were ever recorded. The applicants did not officially
take ownership of the property until sometime after January 1,1973.
The southernmost residence on the subject property was constructed in 1983,
without the benefit of building or septic permits. The applicants were contacted
by the Codes Enforcement staffand notihed of the violation of these codes. The
current application is an attempt to remedy these violations.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Section 8: l0 (Applicability) states that the Board has discretionary authority to
except a division ofland from the defirnition of subdivision. Following a review
of the facts of each application. the Board may approve conditionally or deny
an exemption request. The Board may not grant an exemption unless the
applicant can demonstrate compliance with zoning, legal access, adequate water
and sewer, state environmental health standards, necessary road and drainage
improvements, hre protection, adequate easements and school impact fees.
The subject property has been in its current configuration since prior to January
1,1973. Based on Section 8, the subject property would qualify potentially for
up to four (4) parcels. The applicant has argued that the proposed three (3)
parcels werecreated prior to January 1,1973, and thereflore an exemption is not
required to create the parcels. However, based on evidence submitted to staff,
these parcels were not legally created prior to January 1,1973.
As previously stated, one of the residences, and its wastewater system, was
constructed without the benefit of building or I.S.D.S. permits. Staff has
conducted no inspections or has any evidence as to the standards or methods of
construction employed in the residence or wastewater system. These buildings
are being occupied illegally.
Because A"/R/RD zoning permits only one (l) single family residence per parcel,
the applicants have to create separate parcels for these two homes.
In their application, the applicants have indicated that access to the proposed
parcels is obtained via the existing road. There is no information regarding the
road easement and its ability to be expanded.
The two existing residences are served by a single well. This is a "household use
only well" approved lor one (1) single family residence only. The expansion of
use was not approved by the Division of Water Resources.
In a letter from Dwight Whitehead, the Division of Water Resources has
indicated a well permit may not be available for the proposed 4.2 acre parcel.
An additional household use only permit may be available for one of the five
acre parcels if "a one time only exemption" is approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
I
2
3
4
5
6
2
-a
oot
ry
I Theproposal is in general compliance with the Garflreld County Comprehensive
Plan and the Garf,reld County Zorung Regulations.
The proposed land use would be consistent and compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses.
Ifthe noted access concerns can be adequately addressed, the proposal is in best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare
of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Due to the number of unanswered questions surrounding this application, staff
recommends that this matter be continued until the following issues can be addressed
in greater detail:
The applicant shall demonstrate that the access easement can be expanded to
accommodate the additional lots.
2. That a building permit and I.S.D.S. permit could be issued for the "cabin."
3. That a legal and physical water supply for each parcel can be obtained.
The unpermitted "cabin" shall be vacated until approval for occupancy is
granted by the Building Department and the property is in compliance with
zoning regulations.
2.
3
I
4.
3
oI
i,
l!,
l, .l
irl.
li
i1
I
'1,
ri r
I
t{
@
a)
.a
t)
l
ol
a,
t
a
lo
d
lrl
U't;
Gt.
U'
ral
F
ro
I
ro
AI
C\I
@
!
a
I
'I
I
P
II
I
0
@
il
a
C
o
^1
-)
\-