HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportBOCC 8/6/01
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: An exemption from the rules of subdivision.
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Norman Hunt
ATTORNEY: John W. Savage, P.C.
LOCATION: 5597 County Road 233, northwest of Silt,
Colorado. A tract of land situated in a portion
of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 92
West of the 6th P.M.
SITE DATA: 77 +/- Acres
WATER: 2 new shared wells, and an existing well
SEWER: ISDS
ACCESS: Direct access to County Roads 233 and 260
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in the "Outlying
Residential" area which has a suggested maximum density of 1 unit per 2 acres.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description and Development Proposal: This property is surrounded by County
Roads 233 and 260 on three (3) sides. The 77 acre fairly level site is currently
irrigated and used for hay production and as pasture land. A single family house and
associated outbuildings currently occupy the southern end of the site. A 100' wide
drainage easement bisects the lot in a north/south direction while a 125' wide power
easement bisects the lot diagonally. Another 30' wide power line easement bisects
the lot in an east/west direction, as does the Silt Pump Canal right-of-way. The plan
is to divide the property, roughly along all these easements, into five (5) single
family residential lots ranging in size from eleven (11) to twenty-four (24) acres.
Page 1 of 8
B. Applicability: Section 8:10 allows the Board of County Commissioners the
discretionary power to exempt a division of land from the definition of subdivision
and, thereby, from the procedure in Sections 3:00, 4:00 and 5:00, provided the Board
determines that such exemption will not impair or defeat the stated purpose of the
Subdivision Regulations nor be detrimental to the general public welfare.
III. REFERRALS
The application was referred to the following review agencies for comments:
A. Burning Mountain Fire Protection District: See letter, page 9
B. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department:
C. Garfield County Engineer:
D. Bureau of Reclamation:
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision Regulations. Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states
that, "The Board shall not grant an exemption unless the division proposed for
exemption has satisfied the following criteria:
A. No more than a total of four (4) lots, parcels, interests or dwelling units will
be createdfrom any parcel, as that parcel was described in the records of the
Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1, 1973. In order
to qualms for exemption, the parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973, must
have been larger than thirty five (35) acres in size at that time and not part
of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by exemption
that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal Highway, County road
or railroad), preventing joint use of the proposed tracts and the division
occurs along the public right-of-way, such parcels thereby created may, in
the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been created by
exemption with regard tot he four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit
limitation otherwise applicable. For the purposes of definition, all tracts of
land thirty five (35) acres or greater in size, created after January 1, 1973,
will count as parcels of land created by exemption since January 1, 1973."
After careful examination of the application, staff believes it is very clear that the
property does not qualify for more than one (1) split (as long as it occurs along the
Silt Pump Canal right of way) by exemption. The applicant had been notified of the
,r staff's position, and explanation of said position, early on in the process. However,
leerthe applicant has requested to proceed with the application, regardless of the staff
I position, with the belief that the property does indeed qualify for five (5) exemption
0 ea lots. The explanation of the staff position is as follows:
Ptt •Vk
ON Page 2 of 8
1. Spaulding owned the entire 120 acre parent parcel from 1965 until 1977, at
which time he conveyed 80 acres to Hunt. This was the first of five splits
that have occurred between 1/1/73 and the present date from the 120 acre
parent parcel. The split occurred along County Road 260. The applicant
may be under the impression that since the County Road, which is public by
prescriptive use only, bisected the parent parcel, that each portion to the east
and west of the road can be split into four lots. This is a misunderstanding
of the regulations. The regulations allow for four (4) lots to be created, with
one additional lot for each instance where a County road or other public right
of way prevents joint use of the property. Thus, no more than six (6) lots
may ultimately be created from the original 120 acres in this specific
instance. See explanation #2 below.
2. According to section 8:52, the four (4) lot limitation may be exceeded each
time a split occurs along a public right-of-way. The parent parcel was split
by County Road 260, and by the Silt Pump Canal. As a result, the parent
parcel has the potential to ultimately be split into six (6) exemption lots. It
has been split into five (5) lots to date, as described in explanation #3 below.
3. In 1999, Spaulding split his 40 acre property into 4 parcels by exemption
(resolution 99-030). Spaulding's 40 acres was a part of the 120 acres that
existed in a single piece of property on or before January 1973. Thus, to
date it appears that five parcels have been created from the parent parcel.
4. Since the Hunt property is bisected by the Silt Pump Canal right of way*, it
would appear that one more exemption lot may be created, so long as the
split occurs along the right of way. The result would be one (1) 23.80 acre
lot to the south of the Silt Pump Canal, and one (1) 53.20 acre lot north of the
Silt Pump Canal.
* Please note that the Silt Pump Canal right of way is a perpetual easement.
It exists for a specific purpose, for the pump canal only. It is not a fee title.
Continuous title exists underneath the pump canal. However, since it is a
right of way, by County regulations, an additional split may occur along it.
B. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal does not appear to be inconsistent with the comp
plan.
C. Zoning Regulations: The proposal does not appear to be inconsistent with the Zoning
Regulations. If the request is approved, all Zoning Regulations must be met
including, but not limited to, required setbacks.
D. Legal and Physical Access: Section 8:52 C states:
Page 3 of 8
All lots created will have legal access to a public right-of-way and any necessary
access easements have been obtained, or are in the process of being obtained;
The application does not propose specific points of access. One can assume that in
addition to the existing driveway, four (4) new driveways will be constructed along
County Road 260 to serve the proposed lots. Approved driveway permits must be
obtained from the Road and Bridge Department for any new accesses onto a County
Road.
E. Water: Section 8:52 D of the Subdivision Regulations states the following:
The Board shall not grant an exemption unless the division proposed for exemption
has satisfied the following criteria: Provision has been made for an adequate source
of water in terms of both the legal and physical quality, quantity and dependability,
and a suitable type of sewage disposal to serve each proposed lot;
The application contains copies of two exempt well permits (#231229 and 231230).
These permits allow for domestic use within three single family dwellings, the
watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on a farm or ranch and the
irrigation of not more than one acre of home lawn and gardens. Each well is the only
permitted well in a 36 acre legally described area. Based on this information, the
legal water rights appear adequate.
The application contains a map showing the locations of adjacent wells. This map
indicates that the existing house is served by well permit #156816. Mr. Hunt
explained (during a telephone conversation on 7/24/01) that this well will continue
to served the existing house, and that the well does not occupy any portion of the 36
acres that are included in the legal descriptions for the other two wells. Mr. Hunt
further explained that the two (2) new wells will be shared by the four (4) other the
lots. The necessary access easements for the potable water distribution system are
not indicated on the plat. This information must be included in any final documents.
The application does not contain a copy of a well sharing agreement.
The application contains evidence that wells in the area produce from five (5) to
fifteen (15) gallons per minute (g.p.m.). Evidence of the adequacy of the water
quality of nearby wells has not been submitted.
Staff believes the physical water supply may be adequate for the proposed use as
long as prior to the signing of a plat, all physical water supplies demonstrate the
following (section 8:42 D):
1. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the
characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level;
Page 4 of 8
3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in
gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge;
4. A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should
be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots;
5. An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit,
using 100 gallons of water per person, per day;
6. If the well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses
all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of
the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how
assessments will be made for these costs;
7. The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet
State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates.
F. Sewer: An Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) currently serves the existing
house. The same is proposed for the new lots. Based on the soils information
submitted, it appears that slow percolation rates may be encountered (esp. on lots 3
and 4). The ISDSs may need to be engineered.
G. Soils: Three (3) predominant soil types occupy the subject property: Heldt Clay
Loam, 6-12% slope (#30), Potts Loam, 1-3% slope (#54), and Potts Loam, 3-6%
slope (#56). In addition, the drainage area in the middle of the site is occupied by
the Ildefonso Stony Loam, 25-45% slope (#34) and the extreme northwest portion
of lot 4 is occupied by the Olney Loam, 6-12% slope (#51). No development is
proposed within the drainage easement, which appears to occupy the Ildefonso Stony
Loam (#34). The Olney loam (#51) appears to be developable given it's inherent
constraints (such as steep slopes and low strength) are mitigated.
The Heldt Clay Loam (#30) appears to mainly occupy lots 3 and 4. It is a deep, well -
drained, moderately sloping to rolling soil found on alluvial fans and sides of valleys.
Permeability is slow, and available water capacity is moderate. This soil is limited
by slope, slow permeability, high clay content, and shrink -swell potential. Dwellings
and roads can be designed to compensate for the low -strength and shrink -swell
potential. Septic tank absorption fields are severely limited by slow permeability.
The Potts loams (#54 and 56), which mainly occupy lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, are deep,
well -drained, nearly level to moderately sloping soils found on mesas, benches and
sides of valleys. Permeability is moderate while available water capacity is high.
The native vegetation is mainly wheatgrass, needleandthread, and sagebrush,
pinyon, and juniper. Community development is limited by low strength and shrink -
swell potential. Dwellings and roads can be designed to overcome these limitations.
H. Drainage: The application shows a drainage easement in the center of the site. It is
unclear whether this is an existing or proposed easement, and who is the owner os
Page 5 of 8
V. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
said easment. None of the existing buildings appear to lie within any major
drainages. Any new buildings should avoid areas of natural drainage. Natural
drainages should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Fire Protection: The application lies within the Burning Mountain Fire District
(BMFPD). BMFPD has stated the proposal, "should cause no special problems", in
their letter dated 3/12/01. The BMFPD has stated that they will provide fire
protection to the properties.
J. Mineral Rights: The application does not discuss ownership of the mineral rights.
Since potential for mineral exploration may exist, a disclosure to all potential lot
owners must be included in the covenants or agreements, plat notes, and at the
time of closing.
Utilities and Easements: All easements, existing and proposed, must be shown on the
plat.
L. School Impact Fees: Prior to the approval of the final plat, the applicant will be
required to pay the applicable school site acquisition fee, as adopted by the County,
for each newly created lot (approximately $800.00, subject to change).
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption has been
determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. As proposed, the application does not comply with section 8:52 A of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations. However, the application may be found to be
consistent with section 8:00 (inclusive) of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations subject to the conditions listed in the staff recommendation below.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for exemption, with the following conditions:
Page 6 of 8
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval;
2. A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted indicating a single property split into two lots.
The split shall occur along the Silt Pump Canal right of way. The plat shall include the
legal description of the property, dimension and area of the proposed lots, minimum 25 ft.
wide access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage,
irrigation, access or utilities;
That the applicant shall have 120 days (until 12/4/01) to present a plat to the Commissioners
for signature from the date of conditional approval of the exemption;
4. That the applicant shall submit the applicable School Site Acquisition Fees for the creation
of the exemption parcels prior to approval of the exemption plat;
5. That the 1978 Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the Colorado Department of Health
standards shall be complied with.
6. A disclosure to all potential lot owners regarding the potential for mineral exploration and
recovery must be included in the covenants, plat notes, and at the time of closing.
7. Prior to approval of the exemption plat, the applicant shall submit evidence of the following:
1. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the
characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level;
3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in
gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge;
4. A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should
be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots;
5. An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit,
using 100 gallons of water per person, per day;
6. If the well is to be shared, a legal, well sharing declaration which discusses
all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the
system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how
assessments will be made for these costs;
7. The water quality be tested by an independent testing laboratory and meet
State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates.
8. Permit(s) will be obtained from the Road and Bridge Department for all new accesses onto
any County Road.
9. That the following plat notes shall appear on the Final Exemption Plat:
Page 7 of 8
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owners property boundaries."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One
(1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be
allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances".
"All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will
be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be
made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries".
"No further divisions by exemption from the rules of Subdivision will be allowed."
"Any new buildings shall avoid areas of natural drainage. Natural drainages shall be
preserved to the maximum extent possible."
"Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of
Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a
County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to
encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads,
livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying
or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one
or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural
operations."
"All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance
with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintainingproperty. Residents and landowners
are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsiilities and act as good neighbors and
citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to
Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension
Office in Garfield County."
Page 8 of 8
Burning Mountains
Fire Protection District
Box 2
Sitt, ,Co 81-052
March 12, 20W
SUBJECT: Hun Exemption
To Whom it May Concern:
I�araran & Virginia: Hurn at W 1/2of the SW 1 /4
This is to inform you that the property -owned byalQradQ is within the Burning Section 35,.` 5S, R92W, of the fi P. M. Com,
Mountains Fire Protection District and we provide fire protection to same. The four lots -should
cause no special problems for fire protection.
Thank You;
Donald L. Zord i, eif
• 1
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning Department
May 29, 2001
Mr. John Savage, P.C.
Attorney At Law
P.O. Box 1926
Rifle, CO 81650-1926
Dear John:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter of 5/8/01 regarding the Hunt application
for an exemption. The Hunt file and your letter have been examined by the Planning Staff.
Based on the information provided, it appears that the Hunts may qualify for one exemption
lot. This is based on the following:
1. Spaulding owned the entire 120 acre parent parcel until 1977, at which time he conveyed
80 acres to Hunt. While this split is separated by the road, it does not qualify for any
additional splits since it was the first of five splits out of the 120 acre parent parcel.
2. Spaulding then split his 40 acre property into 4 parcels in 1999 by resolution 99-030.
Spaulding's 40 acres was a part of the 120 acres that existed in a single piece of property
on or before January 1973. Thus, it appears that five parcels have been created from the
parent parcel to date.
3. Since the property is also split by the Silt Pump Canal, it would appear that one more
exemption lot may be created, so long as the split occurs along the right of way, and no
fee title exists for the right of way. However, if the right of way has been deeded, the
southerly portion already exists as it's own separate parcel, making exemption an
unnecessary process.
Please do not hesitate to contact me in the event you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kit Lyon
Senior Planner
cc: Norman and Virginia Hunt
Tel: 945-8212 / 625-0916 1441/ E. P Street , Suite 208
81650
Rifle, CO
•
JOHN W. SAVAGE, P.C.
Attorney at Law
May 8, 2001
Ms. Kit Lyon, Senior Planner
Garfield County Build. & Plan. Dept.
109 8th St., Ste. 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
201 Railroad Ave.
P.O. Box 1926
Rifle, CO 81650-1926
970-625-1470; fax: 625-0803
email: SavageJW@rof.net
Re: Exemption Application of Norman and Virginia Hunt
Dear Kit:
•
RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2001'
Mr. and Ms. Hunt have asked that I review the record title of their property and
respond to your letter of 4/6/2001. I have examined Abstract No. 2174 and Supplement,
certified to 4/5/65 and updates from Commonwealth Title Co. to date, together with the
Antlers Orchard Plat (Document No. 37488), current Assessor's plats and the Garfield County
Road Map and find the following:
Garfield County Subdivision Regulation 8:52A. requires the following findings to
support an application from Garfield County Subdivision Regulations:
8:52 The Board shall not grant an exemption unless the division proposed for exemption has satisfied the following
criteria: A. No more than a total offour (4) lots, parcels, interests or dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as
that parcel was described in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1, 1973. In
order to qualifyfor exemption, the parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973, must have been larger than thirty five (35)
acres in size at that time and not part ofa recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by exemption that is
split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal Highway, County road or railroad), preventing joint use of the proposed
tracts and the division occurs along the public right-of-way, such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion of the
Board, not be considered to have been created by exemption with regard tot he four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling
unit limitation otherwise applicable. For the purposes of definition, all tract ofland thirty five (35) acres or greater in
size, created after January 1, 1973, will count as parcels ofland created by exemption since January I, 1973.
1. The Hunt property that is the subject of this application, consists of the W1/2 of the
SW1/4 of Sec. 35, T. 5 S., R. 92 W. of the 6th P.M. (Tracts A-1 and A-2), excepting the east 3
acres of the SE1/4SW1/4SW1/4 of Sec. 34 (Tract B) (sometimes erroneously described as
Tract 58 of the Antlers Orchard Plat "AOD") and except a metes and bounds parcel in the
southeast corner of the Hunt Property (Tract C).
2. The Hunt Property, in common with several others in this area are sometimes
erroneously described as AOD lots (in the Hunt Property case: Lots 39, 40, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57
and W. 7/10ths of Lot 58). This description first appeared in a Deed from Miami Corp to
Phillip Becker dated 11/20/1929. Inspection of the recorded Antlers Orchard Plat (Doc. No.
37488), excerpt copy attached, shows that the Hunt Property is not in fact part of the AOD
Plat (Lots 39-42, not shown on the attached excerpt, are actually the NW1/4SW1/4 of Sec. 33,
and Lots 55-58 are the SW1/4SW1/4 of Sec. 34. There appears to have been at least two
versions of the Antlers Orchard Plat in existence in the mid to late 20's, one of which was
1/
• •
Letter, John Savage to Kit Lyon
5/8/01; Page 2 of 3
recorded. It is clear however that the Hunt Property was not subdivided by the recorded AOD
Plat.
3. The Hunt Property was originally patented as the W1/2 of the SWI/4 of Sec. 35
and E1/2 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 34. The patented 160 acres was soon split by County Road 260.
I cannot determine from the real estate records when CR 260 came into existence, but separate
title chains to properties to the north and east of the Hunt Property would indicate_a public
jght of wa,y through the area very early, perhaps even at the time of patent issuance.
4. The Hunt Property, in addition to being a separate parcel by County Road right of
way separation, was also separated in 1929 when the Sec. 34 portion of the Patent was deeded
out and the Hunt Property deeded to Phillip Becker by the Miami Corp. By mesne
conveyances, the property was acquired by Levi and Anna Brown, and deeded to Albert and
Lula Turner in 1946. The Brown to Turner deed included several unconnected parcels, in
addition to the Hunt Property.
5. Larry Spaulding and Norma Spaulding (Norma died in 1967 and title ultimately
was acquired by Larry Spaulding in his own name) acquired the Hunt Property, along with the
NE1/4SE1/4 of Sec. 34, separated from the Hunt Property by CR 260, in 1965 and conveyed
the separate parcel (W/12SW1/4 of Sec. 35) to the Hunts in 1977. The Hunts have owned the
property, since then. In 1996 the Hunts deeded the Property to themselves in two parcels. It is
my opinion that these deeds do not in fact create two separate parcels since there was no
change in ownership.
6. There are two parcels taken out of the W1/2SW1/4 of Sec. 35 owned by Hunts,
both of which occurred prior to January 1, 1973. In 1909 the East 3 acres of the
SE1/4SW1/4SW1/4 was conveyed to King by document no. 156917 (no copy available, but
other documents in chain refer to the exception) and in 1946 a metes and bounds parcel was
deeded out to Cochran.
7. In 1967, the Silt Pump Canal of the Silt Project 80' right of way was created across
the southerly portion of the Hunt Property. In past Exemption Applications, this right of way
has been recognized as creating a separate parcel (see C.R. Commercial Properties Exemption
Plat enclosed, wherein four lots were allowed, apparently due to the Silt Pump Canal Right of
Way, out of a parcel created in 1979).
CONCLUSION: The Hunt Property consists of two parcels (the Hunt Sketch Plan
will be amended to show the southerly parcel created by the Silt Pump Canal right of way and
the four proposed lots on the northerly portion of the property):
South Parcel: That portion of the W1/2SW1/4 Sec. 35 south of the Silt Pump Canal
right of way;
North Parcel: That portion of the W 1/2SW 1/4 of Sec. 35 north of the Silt Pump Canal
right of way, which the Hunts propose to split into four lots as an exemption from subdivision
requirements.
•
Letter, John Savage to Kit Lyon
5/8/01; Page3 of 3
The W1/2SW1/4 of Sec. 35 became a separate parcel with the creation of CR 260,
probably prior to 1900. This 80 acres has also had a separate chain of title since 1929,
although at times since that severance, co -owned with other separate parcels.
Based on the foregoing, it appears that the Hunt Property, located north of the Silt
Pump Canal right of way, qualifies under Garfield County Subdivision Regulation Sec.
8:52A. for division into four lots.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
1111,
Savag
ncl.
xc: Norman nt w/encl.
/3
•
ATTACHMENTS TO JOHN W. SAVAGE LETTER TO KIT LYON
RE HUNT EXEMPTION
I. A. Excerpt from Assessor's Map showing Hunt Parcel
I. B. Excerpt from Assessor's Map showing Hunt Parcels
II. Excerpt from County Road Map showing Hunt Parcel and county roads
III. Excerpt from Antlers Orchard Plat, Doc. No. 37488
IV. Patent
V. Deed Stevenson to Curtin w/ King 3 acres exception
VI. Deed Deering Harvester to Johnston (multiple parcels)
VII. Deed Johnston To Miami Corp.
VIII. Deed (1926) Miami Corp to Becker (Hunt Property separate, first description as
AOD lots)
IX. Deed (1938) Miami Corp to Becker (Sec. 34 AOD lots)
X. Deed Brown to Cochran (metes and bounds parcel in southeast corner)
Deed Brown to Turner (Sec. 34 and Sec. 35 separate parcels, along with others)
XI. Deed Turner to Spaulding (NESE Sec. 34 and WSW Sec. 35)
XII. A. Silt Pump Canal Right of Way Grant
B. Assessor Map Excerpt re C.R. Commercial Prop. Exemption
C. C.R. Commercial Prop. Exemption Plat
XIII. Naoma Spaulding Death Certificate
XIV. Spaulding Deed to Hunt (WSW Sec. 34, same as deeded to Becker, see VIII above)
XV. Hunt to Hunt Quit Claim Deeds