Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationGARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.aarffield-countv.com Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant. Q..LCI,/ S eet Address / General Location of Property:( (0'4K k- L 2_(nUvoL_Ratkcji N& C0 81 6C` j Legal Description of Parent Property: S .2S W 1 1-1 z -c- 8; r 7sS R-19 W d l 1 Pin / ✓ Size of Property (in acres) as of January 1, 1973: c20 Current Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres): 14 A-- Co Q Y Number of Tracts / Lots Created Including remainder of Parent Property: 2 - • Proposed size of Tracts / Lots to be Created Including remainder of Parent Property: o Lot #: l containing (P acres o Lot #: 2- containing l tk acres o Lot #: containing acres o Lot #: containing acres o Lot #: containing acres Property's Zone District: /� i c �,tf ea4-41-4%---t.tr-Vaut.j " IS.f C'- Y Name of Property Owner (Applicant):nieukciLki- C �i� • Address $ 0 to ' C- R 124 Telephone: 00 q 45 � 3 f ri 33k Zip Code:5311(0o FAX:y �"'t e--- City:( r to c9 i 5r T State: Co ame of Owner's R r4 f .� ddress:Cn ��`-' I 2 resentative, if any (Planner Attorne • • City: x,-'71-E%yLt,� 0 -e -el rJ Doc. No.: 5 State: O (410A1 1 • - Telephone:1 9 y s O 31 Zip Code: ( O J FAX: Sall(' STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: TC Date: • • II. EXEMPTION APPLICABILITY Pursuant to section 8:50 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners has the discretionary power to exempt a division of land from the definition of subdivision and, thereby, from the procedure in these Regulations, provided the Board of County Commissioners determines that such exemption will not impair or defeat the stated purpose of the Subdivision Regulations nor be detrimental to the general public welfare. The Board has determined that leases, easements and other similar interests in Garfield County owned property, land for oil and gas facilities, and an accessory dwelling unit or two family dwelling that are subject to leasehold interest only and complying with the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, are exempt from these regulations. A. No more than a total of four (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 qualify for exemption, the parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973, must have been 35 acres or greater in size at the time and not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, an arcarcel to be divided by exemption that is split b a •ublic ri.ht-of-wa State ore� deral hi•hwa Count • •r railroad), preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and the divisions ccurs along the public riq - oc`wa�y, such parce s ere y create may, at the discretion of the Board, not be_ co� nsicer-d to have been created b exemption with rear• • . - t.1Rz • •- - nterest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable_ For the purposes of definition, all tracts of land 35 acres or greater in size, created after January 1, 1973 will count as parcels of land created by exemption since January 1, 1973. B. All Garfield County zoning requirements will be met. C. 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. D. Provision has been made for an adequate source of water in terms of the legal and physical quality, quantity and dependability, and a suitable type of sewage disposal to serve each proposed lot. Proof of a legai supply shall be an approved substitute water supply plan contract; augmentation plan; an approved well permit; legally adjudicated domestic water source or a contract for a ermanent legal supply of domestic water to Le ha~ ire— m an outside site for a cistern. Proof of the physical supply from a well for the public meeting, may be documentation from the Division of Water Resources that demonstrates hat there are wells within a 1/4 mile of the site producing at least five (5) gallons/minute. Prior to the signing of a plat, ail physical water supplies using a well shall demonstrate 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 draw down and recharge; 3 • • 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 or 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 agreement 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 is tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. For water supplies based on the use of cistern, the tank shall be a minimum of 1000 gallons. E. Method of sewage disposal, and a letter of approval of the fire protection plan from the appropriate fire district. F. All State and local environmental health and safety requirements have been met or are in the process of being met. G. Provision has been made for any required road or storm drainage improvements. H. Fire protection has been approved by the appropriate fire district. I. Any necessary drainage, irrigation or utility easements have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained. J. Ali applicable taxes and special assessments have been paid. III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS (The following steps outline how the Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision application review process works in Garfield County.) 1. Submit 2 copies of this completed application form (pages 1-6) including all submittal requirements and the base fee to the Garfield County Planning Department. It will be received and given to a Staff Planner who will review the application for technical completeness within 15 working days. The Planning Department may request an extension of time from the Board of County Commissioners for such review not to exceed an additional fifteen (15) working days. 2. Once the application is deemed technically complete, the Staff Planner will send you a letter indicating the application is complete in addition to requesting additional copies of the application to be provided to the Board of County Commissioners for their review in preparation for the public hearing. 3. Staff will also send you a "Public Notice Form(s)" indicating the time and date of your hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to the public hearing, Staff will provide you with a Staff Memorandum regarding your requested Exemption application. (If 4 • • Staff determines you application to be deficient, a letter will be sent to you indicating that additional information is needed to deem your application complete.) 4. It is solely the Applicant's responsibility to ensure proper noticing occurs regarding the petition for an Exemption for the public hearing. If proper notice has not occurred, the public hearing will not occur. Notice requirements are as follows: a. Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the subject lot, a description of the proposed Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision and nature of the hearing, and the date, time and place for the hearing shall be given once in a newspaper of general circulation in that portion of the County in which the subject property is located at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of such hearing, and proof of publication shall be presented at hearing by the applicant. b. Notice by mail, containing information as described under paragraph (1) above, shall be mailed to all owners of record as shown in the County Assessor's Office of lots within two hundred feet (200') of the subject lot and to all owners of mineral interest in the subject property at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to such hearing time by certified return receipt mail, and receipts shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant. c. The site shall be posted such that the notice is clearly and conspicuously visible from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department. The posting must take place at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the hearing date and is the sole responsibility of the applicant to post the notice, and ensure that it remains posted until and during the date of the hearing. 5. The Applicant is required to appear before the Board of County Commissioners at the time and date of the public hearing at which time the Board will consider the request for Exemption for the subject property. In addition, the Applicant shall provide proof at the hearing that proper notice was provided. 6. At or within fifteen (15) days of the meeting, the Board shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the exemption request. The reasons for denial, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth in the minutes of the meeting or in a written Resolution. An applicant denied exemption may follow the subdivision procedure in these Regulations. 7. Once the Board makes a decision regarding the request for an Exemption, Staff will provide the Applicant with a letter affirming the action taken by the Board with a list of conditions, if any, to be completed by the applicant. 8. A plat of an approved or conditionally approved exemption shall be presented to the Board for signature within 120 days of approval. The plat shall include a legal description of the exempted property, and Exemption Certificate, the County Surveyor's Certificate and a statement, if four (4) lots, parcels, or interest have been created on the parcel, that "NOTE: No further divisions by exemption from definition will be allowed." The plat shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder no later than thirty (30) days after the Chairman's signature. The Chairrnan of the Board of County Commissioners shall not sign 5 • • a plat of a conditionally approved exemption until all conditions of approval have been complied with. 9. The Applicant shall be required to submit a paper copy of the plat and proof that all the conditions of approval have been met to the Building and Planning Department at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the expiration of the 120 -day deadline required for signing the plat by the Board. This is to ensure timely Staff review of the materials submitted as well as proper scheduling the plat to be signed by the board. 10.Once all of the conditions, if any, have been satisfied, an Exemption Plat shall be presented to the Board for signature within 120 days of approval. The plat shall include a legal description of the exempted property, and Exemption Certificate, the County Surveyor's Certificate and a statement, if four (4) lots, parcels, or interest have been created on the parcel, that "NOTE: No further divisions by exemption from definition will be allowed." The plat shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder no later than thirty (30) days after the Chairman's signature. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners shall not sign a plat of a conditionally approved exemption until all conditions of approval have been complied with. 1 ja-asGe rea-Nhe statements above and have provided the required attached information /which is c• ilect and accurate to th- best of my knowledge. Iv (Sig atu - of applicant/owner Last Revised: 11/15/2002 6 Date 3 z • • e- , 0 BoX 9/4 rEic) ( colo. "A& CC) • We. ISEQ__. 3(0 Borl R -F 6 -TA -Fe Co I (e6 � )� , 16 80 I iDe 41cEs OSgr1 lie.A6L0000 SZti,)6s Co ?fo) I C R5 — 17- 10 64 pR)t.)4 i6 /ar A ()&I t, LE5 TitA 10' c \PATER- 15 Cx) ritv t.),; re D C rivti iliVi)fr OF WATOP- eiRolvat) Cp5 4,0111101 IATC DietE-1443-E-14-Ari f44(Atli I ciii-ti4).__tria 31), LT -L-1 -- • Domeyric. on) 4.4ico 61(aocit) eeleAned 1,4 1(0w fattletk - „To --1/44' cy. _ vfoil bt" . it -20 1tVN 10' 6 iVe, )tt.V iko 71 - , Qi 4c, 4.) — BA? is ivy 5- / 1/40: 4-7 offtc boa -it'', I -Oe 405 1 JvVe ,f ff_k_TPg_PiN Bowe- Atkoe-10 putu (5att pARkqghpil) —11-0-011--ZeavrLy -rhil __hfr4. _heEkLus Te._ 5eavi: -rt.to J & M PUMP COMPANY 0241 COUNTY ROAD 167 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 (303) 945-6159 May 16, 2000 Jim Mahan 0648 Co Rd 126 Glen. Spgs. Co. 81601 RE: Spring water test Attn: Jim, After reviewing the spring water supply for your domestic use, the following results were obtained: Water Flow: 15 GPM Storage: 5000 Gallon Fiberglass Tank I feel this water supply and storage are adequate for three single family dwellings with usage of 350 gallons per day per household. If you have any questions, please call Rick, 945-6159. Thank You. J & M -Pump Co. Vae-Z7 / 44 Richard A. Holub Lic. No. 1196 • • GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT FORM (Shall be suri d with application) GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) (hereinafter APPLICANT) agree as follows: I . APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY art application for ( M P fl Oq (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. 4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, APPLICANT shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. APPLICANT acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision plan. APP ANT Sign, ure Date:' Print Name Mailing Address: Page 4 CLEC 0 9 2003 13iJ1L+�:,ti; Mahan Water Requirements Exchange Schedule Temporary Exchange Plan Month • • Exhibit A Household Household Irrigation Irrigation Monthly Monthly Lagged Monthly Lagged Diversions Diversion Diversion (2) Efficiency (3) Diversion Depletions (4) Depletions (5) (1) gal/day ac-ft/month ac-ft/month ac -ft Totals ac -ft ac -ft ac -ft January 1050 0.100 0.10 0.15 0.15 February 1050 0.090 0.09 0.2 0.20 March 1050 0.100 0.10 0.19 0.19 April 1050 0.097 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.2 0.20 May 1050 0.100 0.22 0.31 0.41 0.25 0.26 June 1050 0.097 0.37 0.53 0.63 0.4 0.41 July 1050 0.100 0.50 0.71 0.81 0.54 0.55 August 1050 0.100 0.41 0.58 0.68 0.55 0.56 September 1050 0.097 0.20 0.29 0.38 0.5 0.51 October 1050 0.100 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.33 0.34 November 1050 0.097 0.10 0.24 0.24 December 1050 0.100 0.10 0.18 0.18 Annual 1.176 1.79 3.73 3.73 3.80 Notes 1) Assumes 3.5 people per dwelling at 100 gal/day - Services 3 Dwellings 2) Assumes 1 acre of lawn and garden and using a Modified Blaney-Criddle analysis use 1.8 ac -ft of irrigation per acre per year 3) Assumes a 70 percent irrigation efficiency 3) Lagged depletions calculated using the 10 -yr Glover Model 4) Transit losses are assumed to be 2 percent per mile Flannery Reservoir is approximately 1 mile from depletions 3.80 ac -ft • Current January 2003 APPLICATION TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 109 West Fourth Street, P. O. Box 1478, Rifle, Colorado 81650 • Contract #FM040115MP(a; Map #FM36 Date Activated 1/15/04 Telephone and Fax: (970) 625-5461 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: NM -(:)._\10. n' C O Q e Mailing address: e r L L,coo 11nr15 1 Telephone: 9 - C 1 9 (cl �1' - 5 1 Authorized agent: V2-1.6 b er`+ V`YZ(7� 2. COURT CASE #'s: Decree Case No. Augmentation Plan Case No. 3. USE OF WATER RESIDENTIAL (check applicable boxes) Ordinary household use Number of dwellings: Subdivision: No. constructed units: . No. vacant lots:qr U Home garden/lawn irrigation of (v ("'0 0 sq. ft. Method of irrigation: 0 flood Ni sprinkler ❑ drip 0 other 0 Non-commercial animal watering of -E) —animals [I Fire Protection Well Sharing Agreement for multiple owner wens must be submitted If greater than three owners, application must be made under a homeowners association. ❑ COMMERCIAL (check applicable boxes) Number of units: Total sq. ft. of commercial units: Description of use: ❑ INDUSTRIAL Description of use: Evaporation: Maximum water surface to be exposed: Description of any use, other than evaporation, and method of diversion, rate of diversion, and annual amount of diversion of any water withdrawn from the pond: 0 MUNICIPAL Description of use: 4. SOURCE OF WATER j Structure: LLQ 1/ W (1 Structure Name: BOE u ry e S Source: ❑Surface ❑Storage Ground water Current Permit # a 3 9 'Vi 5 (if applicable) 0 Direct Pumping: Tributary: Location: 5. LOCATION OF STRUCTURE / 0.rA-rekt -5LCt(Y County Quarter/quarter 9 -1s 9/0 Section Township Range Meridian Distance of well from section lines ` 1L 5 m 5 AJT Quarter Principal '8 1 5 / rrn LAJ Elevation: p Well location address: O O U c ---,t Fn c,,kx>ock �(�rr'ric1 s (Attach additional pages for multiple structures) 6. LAND ON WHICH WATER WILL BE USED (Legal description may be provided as an attachment.) wya�w'AI KAE9 -c -ts C�fis� W t --' P- N\ - Number of acres in tract: , a Inclusion into the District, at Applicant's expense, may be required 7. TYPE OF SEWAGE SYSTEM $,,Septic tank/absorption leach field ❑Central system ❑Other District name: 8. VOLUME OF LEASED WATER NEEDED IN ACRE FEET: (minimum of 1 acre foot) Provide engineering data to support volume of water requested Commercial, municipal, and industrial users must provide diversion and consumptive data on a monthly basis. A totalizing flow meter with remote readout is required to be installed and usage reported to West Divide. Applicant expressly acknowledges it has had the opportunity to review t 1's form Water Allotment Contrad and agrees this applicatio uant and subj 1 o thterms and conditions contained Ate' i t Signature Applicant Signature Application Date: water use estimates-Fourmile-10-28-03 • O Cn A Co N --a o 0 m Co Cn O E c 7 d o 3 3'< O v (0 7 7 0 w 7 avc0' ..0 3 ccm_v Q v m och< o w _ w (D (D N (D c -o m 7 m 0 0 3 -I, m o. n. m a m CD m CO Q *7 7. w v CO (D (0 co = g 7 w $ c n 0 DCO (D o <3 0 (D c (3i) i m N 00700 o 0 < 0 0 3 3 w 55 33 7 7 7 + + m 2. * 0 o m 3 CO ua 7 7 (o n n °1 m v + N N 3 +3 C) 0 0 0 0 • 0 0) 3 3 D D D 7 7 0) CO w PW C) W GO w w • ppZpw c--c--n c. mOomcccl,'O>m> C) -i 13 G) r Z .{ 73 73 CO Z r -- 0000000000000, C3 woOOO000OOOOO Ca O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C3 C), N N N N N N N N N N N N co CO UD CO cD w CO c0 CO cD O UD' 1 ' / \'-1 In House Diversion In House per Unit C.U. per (AF) Unit (AF) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn00000000000CD. O A A A A A A A A A A A A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation Diversion (ft) CAo 0- 0)0)00 v- CO owwCoOcncn O O O O O O O •, Irrigation C.U. (ft) (D O N N A A W O OD Co cn co cn co co o o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In House Diversion (AF) CD C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �C"C CO (O(O o(DCo(0Cco 0000ppoppOOoo In House C.U. (AF) �l000000000000 000aaaaaaPPOo Irrigation Diversion (AF) ca loo-a4aconm00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Livestock Irrigation Diversion & C.U. (AF) C.U. (AF) tJ1000000000000 -l00-, CO ACA-4cn-x00CD' OOO0000pCCCCDC 0o00000000000 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -..909p.99999.9p o N Ico COD 0 CO A V V 0) 0(0 COO(OD O. 0) o O O O o O O O O o O O O Total C.U. (AF) A IO O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn-..�CoCnCOCoCo V Nom.--.. v 7.1 co O %O'S =sso1 gsueij v m r- 5 n D Z m w 17 Al O 23 CSD a Z D O m o 0 m m D r r m -I c 0Qz 0 m -1 W 0 co co 0 O O Contract Amount w/ transit Loss = laal aloe 917.0 m U) 0 m O5 cm FriD m H gm D 27 m n �O C m m M < =iD Z 2, n m Cn 0 Gn Z3 H JR OAD 126 'PRINGS, CO 81601 - NUMBER 239415 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 9 Township 7 S Range 89 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 3115 Ft. from South Section Line 2873 Ft. from West Section Line UTM COORDINATES 945-0319 CONSTRUCT A WELL Northing: Fasting: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. The well shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with variance no. 2002-22A, REVISED 2002-22D, granted by the Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors on March 25, 2002. This well is recorded and permit approved in accordance with CRS 37-92-602(5) for historic use as indicated herein and described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(b), being a well producing 15 GPM and used for ordinary household purposes inside 2 (two) single family dwelling(s), fire protection, the watering of domestic animals and poultry, and the irrigation of not more than 1 (one) acre of home gardens and lawns. Additionally this well is located on a residential site of 20 acre(s) described as the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Twp. 7 South, Rng. 89 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County. Further identified as 0648 County Road 126, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. This well is identified as the Davies Well decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. W-2572. Water from the well was first used beneficially for the above described purpose on December 31, 1941. NOTICE: This permit has been approved for the location and historic use as noted above. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.) o 414/ s�p0.Z APPROVED DMW ,Receipt No. 9500977 el_ ,,,.,,, —7 %,, %tom State Engineer APR 0 5 20a') B /" DATE ISSUED By DATE Ar APR -02-2002 13 38 DI U _ WATER RESOURCES • 303 866 3589 P.01/01 STATE OF COLORADO BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PUMP INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 http://www.water.state.co.usiboc Mr. James P. Mahan, Jr. 0648 CR 126 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Request for Variance, Infiltration Gallery Well, Southwest Y. of the Northeast %, Section 9, Township 7S, Range 89W, 61' PM, Garfield County Request No. 2002-22A , REVISED 2002-22D March 25, 2002 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director, DNR Hal D. Simpson P.E. Secretary Dear Mr_ Mahan: Thank you for the Request for Variance received March 4, 2002 regarding the subject well. Your request has been reviewed for the Board of Examiner of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors. The request is specifically for a variance from Rule 10.4.12. After review, the Board has approved the request with the following conditions: 1. The infiltration gallery is constructed in accordance with the plan submitted and revisions required by the conditions of the approval. 2. It is our understanding that all surface casing will be protected inside a well house. This is an acceptable method of protection. 3. The ground surface must be properly graded to provide positive drainage away from the well head. 4_ The well shall be located at least 50 feet from any septic tank or sewer line and at least 100 feet from any leach field as required by Rule 10.2.2. Construction of the well closer than the minimum distances specified herein will void all provisions of this variance. 5. The well must be constructed in compliance with the disinfection standards provided in Rule 15. 6. An annual water quality test is recommended. Approval of this request does not relieve the owner of potential responsibility or liability in the event contamination of the water source results from construction, nor does the grantor assume any responsibility or liability should contamination occur. Owners are also advised that Rule 6.6 of the Revised Rules and Regulations require that the construction comply with any federal, state, county, municipal or local govemment laws, regulations or codes that are more stringent than these Rules or contain standards not covered by these Rules. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, dgeD.VanSke Chief, Geotechnical Services cc: Steve Pope, Division 5 GDV/gla:s:bordexam/variance02/2002-22D REVISED.doc BRAD AUSTIN, Denver, JANET BELLIS, Boulder, H. RAY NEWMYER, Mosca; GLENN CLEMENT. Greeley TOTAL P.01 West Divide Water Conservar• District-Foormile Creek 109 West Fourth Street P. 0. Box 203 Rifle. 00 81650 (970) 625-5461 BLL TO Mahan Properties 0648 County Road 126 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ANN(. INVOICE FOR 2004 DATE 12/11/2003 On any shared well non-payment of any portion of the fees due deems the whole contract cancelled. ACRE FEET RATE AUG PLAN CONTRACT # MAP ID # FM040122MP(a) 1 DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT Administration fee. , 250.00 250.00 Recording fee 10.00 10.00 Augmentation Water Contract 1 155.00 155.00 Augmentation Plan/per acre foot/one time charge 165.00 165.00 West Divide Water Conservancy Distr1Ct PO. Box 1478 Rifle, CO 816504418 (--. - , -f-) C 5- c:2_,- t -P' -:;• ' 6 Total s580.00 On any shared well non-payment of any portion of the fees due deems the whole contract cancelled. 71/est Divide Water Conservancy District-fourmile Creek 109 West Fourth Street P. 0. Box 203 Rifle. CO 81650 (970) 625-5461 BILL TO ••••••••••••••••, Mahan Properties 0648 County Road 126 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 L • ANNUAL INVOICE FOR 2004 INVOICE 12/11/2003 145 CONTRACT # MAP ID # ACRE FEET RATE FM040122MP(a) AUG. PL.AN DEsoRPiroN Administration fee Recording fee Augmentation Water Contract Augmentation Nam/per acre foot/one time charge West Divide Water Conservancy District P.D. Box 1478 Rifle, CO 81650-1478 11 C QTY RATE Total AMOUNT 250.00 10.00 155.00 165.00 250.00 10.00 155.00 165.00 $580.00 On any shared well non-payment of any portion of the fees clue deems the whole contract cancelled, IIll 111111111111111111111111111 llhII 607030 07/15/2002 03:24P B1369 P6. M ALSDORF 1 of 2 R 'x.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 4 STA 7 E OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield • At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 20th day of May, 2002 , there were present: John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Larry McCown , Commissioner Walt Stowe , Commissioner Don DeFord , County Attorney Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Board Ed Green , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2 0 0 2 - 71 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR JAMES MAHAN. WHEREAS, James Mahan petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for an exemption from the definition of the terms "subdivision" and "subdivided land" under C.R.S. 1973, 30-28- 101 (10) (a) -(d), as amended, and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984, Section 8:00 through 8:60 and for the division of an approximately 20.00 acre tract as described in Book 698, Page 787, as filed in the Offices of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado, into two (2) tracts of approximately 6.0 and 14.0 acres each WHEREAS, the Petitioners have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the proposed division falls within the criteria established in Section 8:53 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended, pursuant to the purposes of Part 1, Article 28, Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned meeting, has made the following determination of fact: 1. Proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. 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 hearing. 1 111111 11111 111111 11111 111111 11111 1111011111 11111 607030 07/15/2002 03:24P B1369 P M ALSDORF 2 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO • 3. The parcel to be divided by exemption is split by a public right-of-way that does not prevent joint use of the proposed tracts. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the division of the above described property as proposed is hereby denied due to fact that the proposed split by a public right-of-way does not prevent joint use of the proposed tracts. Dated this 15th day of July , 2002 ATTEST: !�1 vote: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Res ution w adopted by tic following John Martin , Nay , Aye , Aye Larry McCown Walt Stowe STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of July, A.D. 2002 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners * COURT USE ONLY * District Court, Garfield County, State of Colorado Court Address: 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81611 Plaintiffs: MAHAN PROPERTIES, a Colorado Partnership, v. Defendants: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. Date: 10/22/02 Proceeding: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Presiding Judge: Thomas W. Ossola Case Number: 02CV212 Div.:A Ctrm: Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss The Court, being fully advised on the premises, hereby finds and orders: 1. James P. Mahan, Jr., filed a Petition for a subdivision exemption on land owned by Mahan Properties Partnership, a partnership formed for estate planning purposes with his wife, Roberta Mahan. The Petition was denied and Mahan Properties filed this Rule 106 Petition for Judicial Review and Declaratory Judgment. 2. Garfield County BOCC (hereinafter "BOCC") moves for dismissal because Mahan Properties has never been before the BOCC. BOCC also states that Mahan Properties lacks standing, is not the real party in interest, has failed to join parties necessary for Rule 106 claim, failed to name an indispensable party, (the applicant, James P. Mahan), Tacks standing to request declaratory judgment, and that the necessary parties for declaratory judgment action are not before the court. 3. The Petitioner responds that BOCC never requested proof of ownership during the application process and that James Mahan, as a general partner, has the authority to act on behalf of the partnership. Petitioner states that as general partner, the partnership was the applicant since the application was submitted on behalf of the partnership and has standing as the real party in interest. Petitioner responds that joinder of adjacent property owners is not required, but that even if required, the remedy is not dismissal but an order to join them, if a decision in this case would affect their interests. Petitioner states that the adjacent property owners are not indispensable parties and therefore Petitioner did not fail to name indispensable parties. Petitioner responds to BOCC's argument that it has no standing to request a declaratory judgment by stating that it meets the requirements under Rule 19 and 57 and therefore has standing. Petitioner states that since the Petitioner and the applicant are one and the same and that therefore the proper and necessary parties are before the Court for a determination of whether declaratory relief should be granted. 4. BOCC replies that Petitioner has the burden to show that it is the real party in interest and it failed because the attachments cannot speak to the ownership of the property or the identity of the applicant. BOCC states that it cannot respond to Applicant's Motion for Certification of Record because there is no record of proceedings in Petitioner's name. BOCC replies that Rule 19 and 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties since the Applicant is an indispensable party, without which the Court cannot proceed in reviewing land use decisions. BOCC states that the property owners of the original Davis tract, who although they have no legal interest in the subject real estate, have an interest in whether the BOCC's regulatory "extra" exemption violates the BOCC's delegated powers. BOCC replies that the Petitioner requesting Rule 106 review has not been injured and therefore lacks standing. 5. The record in this case shows that James Mahan, Jr., with no particular designation, was the applicant in the Petition for Exemption. In page 1 of the Petition, the applicant states "County Road 126 split my property into a 6 acre tract and a 14 acre tract." In . Stratman v. Dietrich, 765 P.2d 603 (Colo. App. 1988) cert. den. Dec. 19, 1988, the Court of Appeals stated: A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co- owners a business for profit. Section 7-60-106(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3A). See Yoder v. Hooper, 695 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App.1984). No express agreement is necessary; rather, a partnership may be formed by the conduct of the parties. Yoder v. Hooper, supra. Here, the record reflects that while Stratman and Nelson had no formal or written partnership agreement, they repeatedly held themselves out as partners to the sellers, and conducted the real estate transaction as partners. 2 765 P.2d at 605 (emphasis supplied). In Stratman, the Court held that one partner was entitled to pursue the action on behalf of the partnership. In this case, although a partnership exists, Mahan did not hold himself out as a partner in Mahan Properties but as an individual owner. Although a general partner may act and bind the partnership, the application for exemption in this case was filed by James Mahan as an individual, not as a general partner. See also Erickson v. Oberlohr, 749 P.2d 996, 999 (Colo. App. 1987) (Partner who, acting as trustee for partnership, purchased duplex unit for benefit of partnership and subsequently conveyed unit to partnership, was "real party in interest," and thus could bring action against builder vendor for breach of expressed and implied warranties and for fraud.) (emphasis supplied). 6. In Brown v. Board of County Com'rs of Arapahoe County, 720 P.2d 579 (Colo. App. 1985), the Colorado Court of Appeals precluded a record owner who had sold the property from pursuing a Rule 106 review stating: Standing for district court review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) is determined from the allegations contained in the complaint. Cloverleaf Kennel Club, Inc. v. Colorado Racing Commission, 620 P.2d 1051 (Colo.1980). Brown's status as a party before the board of county commissioners may be relevant to the issue of standing, but it is not controlling. When standing is in issue, the broad question is whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has stated a claim for relief which should be entertained in the context of a trial on the merits. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 570 P.2d 535 (1977). The plaintiff must show injury in fact to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, supra. The trial court ruled that Brown was a stranger to the title at the time the application for rezoning was submitted. The court also ruled correctly that the ACZR required the true owner of the property, and not merely the current record holder, to make the application for rezoning. Therefore, because Brown was a stranger to the title, she had no legally protected right to initiate a zoning change. 720 P.2d at 582. Similarly, in this case, James Mahan had no legally protected right to initiate a zoning change. 7. Mahan argues that the Brown case is inapplicable because Brown had no property interest in the property and that James Mahan was acting as a general partner. The argument flies against the clear statements of the application as indicated above. By acting as an individual and describing the land as "my property" the applicant was acting as an individual landowner, not as a general partner acting for the partnership. 8. Brown also states: 3 • • Brown next contends that the trial court erred in not granting leave under C.R.C.P. 106(b) to add Isla Del Rey, Ltd. as a party plaintiff, and that the court erred in denying its motion to intervene. We disagree. Isla Del Rey, Ltd. cannot be a proper party in this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) proceeding since it was not a party before the inferior tribunal. Board of Adjustment v. Kuehn, 132 Colo. 348, 290 P.2d 1114 (1955). Isla Del Rey, Ltd. is not without a remedy, however, because it is free to submit an application for rezoning in its own name under the ACZR. 720 P.2d at 583. Since Mahan Properties is the owner of the land, the only remedy is dismissal because Mahan Properties was not a party before the County Commissioners. Mahan Properties is similarly free to submit an application for exemption in its own name. 9. Because the case must be dismissed, the other grounds for the motion are not considered. ,'f;11. S: •Coc'a,.;e1. Vii.clay •f. IT THEREFORE ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. : .ied to . <�^ BY THE COURT: 7. Thomas W. Ossola District Court Judge 4 District Court, Garfield County, Colorado Court Address: Garfield County Courthouse 109 8t' Street, Suite 104 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-5075 970-945-8756(fax) Petitioner: MAHAN PROPERTIES, a Colorado Partnership vs. Defendant(s): BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Attorney: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax #: Atty Reg #: Carolyn M. Dahlgren Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-9150 970-384-5005 16938 'IL IN COMI3INEd COURT GARFIELD CC'UNI7Y, 00 JUL 2 5 2002 .u. COURT USE ONLYA Case No . 02 CV 212 Division: A MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEF COMES NOW the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado ("BOCC"), by and through counsel, Carolyn M. Dahlgren, Deputy County Attorney, and Catalina Cruz, Assistant County Attorney, and herein moves this Court to Dismiss Petitioner's (sic, "Plaintiff's")Complaint for Judicial Review and/or Declaratory Relief in accordance with C.R.C.P. Rules 12(b), Rule 17, Rule 19 and Rule 57 and states as follows: Factual Allegations 1. An application for exemption from subdivision from this Plaintiff, Mahan Properties, a Colorado Partnership, has never been before the Defendant, BOCC. (See Affidavit of Mark Bean attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 2. No land use proceeding of any kind has been brought before the BOCC by Plaintiff Mahan Properties, a Colorado Partnership. (See Affidavit of Mark Bean attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). \My Files\Liti\Mahan 1 • 3. The only land use application before the BOCC in 2002 that is also referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint is that of an individual, James P. Mahan, Jr., not this specific Plaintiff.(See Affidavit of Mark Bean attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). Rule 106 Claim The Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Request 106 Review 4. The BOCC incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above. 5. Plaintiff lacks standing under Rule 106(a)(4) regarding the decision made under Section 8 of the BOCC's Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984, as amended ("Subdivision Regulations"), under Colorado case law requiring inquiry into two considerations: whether the complaining party has alleged actual injury from the challenged action and whether injury is to a legally protected or cognizable interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 570 P.2d 535 (Colo. 1977). The Colorado Supreme Court held in the 1980 case, Cloverleaf Kennel Club, Inc. V. Colorado Racing Commission, 620 P.2d 1051 (Colo. 1980), that standing is determined from the allegations of the Complaint and that the "broad question" for a court is whether the plaintiff has stated a claim for relief which should be entertained in the context of a trial on the merits. Cloverleaf, at 1056, citing Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo 163, 570 P. 2d 535 (1977). 6. In the instant case, the complaining party cannot allege injury, much less a claim for relief, as no proceedings concerning Plaintiff have ever been before the BOCC. In Brown v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, 720 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1985) the Court of Appeals determined that the grantee of property did not have standing to seek District Court review of a denial of a re -zoning application when the application had been submitted by grantor after grantor had conveyed the property. 7. Here, Plaintiff did not request an exemption from the definition of subdivision for the subject property, did not notice a public meeting or hearing, and did not appear before the BOCC. Plaintiff has not been a party to the BOCC's quasi-judicial process and therefore, may not ask for District Court review of that process. Brown at 583. Pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations, Section 8, the "applicant" is presumed to be the owner of the real property at issue and the Plaintiff herein is not the individual who applied for subdivision exemption before the BOCC. The Brown court held that the legislative intent of the regulation which was before the court was to "require the full \My Files\Liti\Mahan 2 • • disclosure of the true owner or owners of the land in the application." Brown at 582. 8. The Plaintiff is not without remedy, however. It is free to submit an application for exemption in its own name, assuming compliance, otherwise, with Section 8 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Plaintiff is Not the Real Party in Interest 9. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above. 10. C.R.C.P. Rule 17 requires that every action be prosecuted by the real party in interest. The real party in interest is that person who, by virtue of substantive law, has the right to invoke the aid of the court in order to vindicate the legal interest in question. Dallas Creek Water Co. V. Huey, 933 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1997). The burden is on the Plaintiff, an entity which has never appeared before the BOCC, to show that it is the real party in interest. National Advertising Co. V. Sayers, 356 P.2d 483 (Colo. 1960). 11. The function of the real party in interest rule is to ensure a proper res judicata effect by protecting the defendant against a subsequent suit by the person who is actually entitled to recover. Ajay Sports, Inc. V. Casazza, 1 p.3d 267 (Colo. App. 2000) citing 4 S.. Hyatt & S. Hess, Colorado Civil Rules Annotated §17.1 at 267. 12. In the instant case, there has never been a proceeding before the BOCC regarding this Plaintiff, thus this Plaintiff does not have the right to invoke the aid of this Court and subject the Defendant BOCC to a second potential suit by the applicant who has appeared requesting a land use decision regarding the subject property. The Plaintiff Has Failed to Join Party(ies) Necessary to a 106 Claim 13. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above. 14. It is clear from the pleadings that at least one, and perhaps more, necessary parties to this action have not been named by Plaintiff. Absent adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the subject property, those who must be noticed under Section 8:31 of the Subdivision Regulations, may be persons who should be joined as necessary parties under C. R. C. P. 19 (a) or who are \My Files\Liti\Mahan 3 • • at least subject to joinder under Rule 20. In Thorne v. Board of County •Commissioners, 638 P 2d 69 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court found that owners of property interests in land contained within the boundaries of a special use permit, who were not holders of permits, though not indispensable, were "arguably" necessary parties. Thorne, at 73. 15. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 19, the Plaintiff must join all necessary parties so that relief can be afforded to those parties. The absence of necessary parties from this case may impair the Court's ability to do justice. Persons having an interest in property that is the subject matter of an action will normally be considered to be persons to be joined if feasible. Erger v. District Court, 599 P.2d 91.7 (Colo. 1979). In fact, without joinder of at least one person with an interest in the property requested to be divided by exemption from the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant before the BOCC, the Court does not have access to a BOCC record for review. Plaintiff has Failed to Name An Indispensable Party 16. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above. 17. Colorado Courts have held that the applicant in land use decisions is an indispensable party in Rule 106 actions. In BOCC v. Carter, 564 P.2d 421 (Colo.1977) the Supreme Court held: "The person whose rezoning application is challenged is an indispensable party to that proceeding..", citing Westlund v. Carter, 565 P.2d 920 (1977) and Hidden Lake Development Co. V. District Court, 515 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1973). In Hidden Lake, the Supreme Court held that an applicant whose request for rezoning was granted by the Adams County Board of County Commissioners was an indispensable party to the 106 judicial proceeding challenging the Board's action. Hidden Lake at 635, citing Woodco v. Lindahl, 380 P.2d 234 (1963). 18. In Neighbors for a Better Approach v. NEPA, 770 P. 2d 1390 (Colo. App. 1989) the Court of Appeals upheld the trial Court's exercise of discretion in allowing joinder of municipal land use applicants found by the Court to be indispensable to the action. In Neighbors the Court referenced Thorne v. BOCC, 638 P.2d 69 (Colo 1981), a case involving a special use permit in which the Court opined: "In proceedings to review an administrative decision granting a rezoning, zoning variance, or special use permit, the applicant must also be joined within the thirty -day time limit." Id. at 71, citing Norby v. City of Boulder, 577 P.2d 277 (Colo. 1978), Hidden Lake and Hennigh v. \My Files\Liti\Mahan 4 • • Board of County Commissioners, 450 P.2d 73 (1969) and Neighbors, at 1391. 19. The land use proceeding in the instant case is one requesting exemption from subdivision. As with zoning and special use requests, the applicant for the land use action must be before the reviewing Court. If the Plaintiff in this case is attempting to challenge a decision made by the BOCC regarding an application for subdivision exemption made by James P. Mahan, Jr., individually, then the Plaintiff must name Mr. James P. Mahan, Jr. 20. In Norby v. City of Boulder, 577 P.2d 277 (Colo. 1978), a case decided under the earlier version of Rule 106(b)1, the Supreme Court upheld the lower Court's dismissal of the Complaint where the applicant in the underlying municipal land use proceeding was not joined by the 106 Plaintiff, both Courts finding the applicant to be an "indispensable" Rule 19 party. Norby, at 280, citing Hidden Lake (See, Paragraph 17, above)and Henniqh v. Board of County Commissioners, 450 P.2d 73 (1969),a case involving a special review use. 21. A judgement which adversely affects an indispensable party who is not joined is void. Hidden Lake at 635. A failure to join an indispensable party is an egregious defect and the courts may dismiss such actions on their own motions. Hidden Lake at 635, citing Hennigh v. Board of County Commissioners, 450 P.2d 73 (1969) and Marsh v. Warren, 248 P.2d 825 (1952). 22. The Complaint before the Court does not include the applicant in the underlying BOCC land use proceeding as a party plaintiff, as required by Colorado case law, and the Court must require Plaintiff to join indispensable parties, or the Court must dismiss the Complaint because the named Plaintiff has failed to join such parties. Declaratory Judgment Request The Plaintiff Lacks Standing 1 "The law in this area has been changed by amendment of C.R.C.P. 106, effective July 1, 1981. C.R.C.P. 106(b) now provides in pertinent part: A timely petition or writ may be amended at any time with leave of the court, for good cause shown, to add, dismiss or substitute parties and such amendment shall relate back to the date of filing of the original petition or writ." FN6 Tri- State Generation and Transmission Company v. City of Thornton, 647 P.2d 670 (Colo. 1982). The issues of timeliness and "good cause shown" are not presently before the Court. \My Files\Liti\Mahan 5 • • 23. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above. 24. The analysis for resolving standing questions for Plaintiff's Rule 57 claim, facially challenging the constitutionality' of the legislative action of the BOCC in promulgating Section 8 of the Subdivision Regulations, is the same as that developed by Colorado courts for use in Rule 106 claims, specifically: "[W]hether the plaintiff has alleged an injury in fact and, if so, whether the injury is to a legally protected or cognizable interest." Board of County Commissioners, La Plata County v. Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc. , 830 P2d 1045 (1992), at 1052, citing Wimberly v. Ettenberg, Cloverleaf Kennel Club and others. 25. Taking the facts as pled by Plaintiff and assuming that the property split in question is that requested in the application for exemption described in. Paragraph 3, above, Plaintiff cannot meet the threshold test as to either "injury in fact" or "legally protected or cognizable interest" and therefore his Declaratory Judgment request must be dismissed by the Court. 26. Plaintiff refers to various splits of land in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, starting with the 1973 split of the 240 acre "Davies" parcel into six parcels, each greater than 35 acres, and ending with the 20 acre parcel in question. This parcel isone of 3 created from the 40 acre "Carnes" property, which was one of the "original" six splits. (See Appendix B, Carnes Resolution, and the deed referred to in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.)3 27. Section 8:52 of the BOCC's Subdivision Regulations does not, as Plaintiff claims in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint ,"... attempt to regulate the subdivision of land of parcels greater than 35 acres. . . " (Emphasis added.) Rather, Section 8:52, part of the complete Section 8:00 of the Subdivision Regulations attached as Appendix A to the Complaint, provides a definition section to the BOCC's regulatory subdivision exemption vehicle. By promulgating Section 8, the BOCC properly exercised its statutory authority to exempt from the statutory definitions of "subdivision" and "subdivided land", and thus from the BOCC' s subdivision process, ". . . any division of land if the board of county commissioners determines that such division is not within 2 Plaintiff's claim may actually be that the BOCC has exceeded its statutorily delegated power rather than acted outside of a constitutional grant of power. 3 Plaintiff does not directly state that the parcel in question is 20 acres in size. The documents referred to lead to a description of the acreage. \My Files\Liti\Mahan 6 • • the purposes of this part 1." (Emphasis added.) Section 30-28- 101(10)(d), C. R. S., as amended. 28. Section 8:00 of the Subdivision Regulations deals with county -level exemption from subdivision. The state level statutory "35 acre exemption" of "any division of land which creates parcels of land each of which comprises thirty-five or more acres of land and none of which is intended for use by multiple owners.", Section 30-28-101 (10) (b), C. R. S., as amended, is not in any way affected by Section 8:00 of the Subdivision Regulations. The BOCC has not attempted to alter that exemption definition or the statutory definition of subdivision. 29. The BOCC's Subdivision Regulations contain the state statutory exemption definition in Section 8:52 solely for the purpose of clarifying that any prior split by statutory exemption, of a property for which regulatory exemption is requested, will be counted as one of the 4 splits allowed under county -level regulatory exemption from the subdivision process. The BOCC has not attempted by regulation to ignore the 30-28-101(10) (b) statutory exemption. Rather, the BOCC has provided an additional way for certain properties to be exempted from subdivision. The BOCC has created a second kind of exemption, one allowing a second category of tracts of land to escape full subdivision regulation. 30. Unlike the Pitkin County Commissioners in Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County v. Pennobscot, Inc., 642 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1982), the BOCC made no attempt to regulate the original split of the 240 acre "Davies" tract into six (6) tracts, each resulting tract containing 35 or more acres. (See Paragraph 16(C) of Complaint.) Pitkin County, on the other hand, tried to enjoin the sale of one of the resulting six (6) tracts, greater than 35 acres, created from the split of the 228 acre McCary property by arguing that the original split should have been created in accordance with Pitkin County's subdivision regulations. Pennobscot, at 915-917 and Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County v. Pennobscot, Inc., 662 P.2d 1091 (Colo. 1983), at 1091. 31. Following the "Davies parcel" §30-28-101(10)(b) statutory exemption, the BOCC, within the discretion allowed to county Boards by §30-28-101(10(d)of the state statute, allowed a regulatory exemption from the subdivision process of at least two of the resulting six (6) parcels, the "Williams Exemption" and "Carnes Exemption", described by Plaintiff in Paragraphs 16(I) and 19 of the Complaint. 32. The split now desired by Plaintiff of the property in question, a 20 Acre parcel created in the "Carnes Exemption", no \My Files\Liti\Mahan 7 • • longer meets the state statutory exemption definition: "any division of land which creates parcels of land each of which comprises thirty-five or more acres of land and none of which is intended for use by multiple owners." Therefore, in accordance with state statute, the parcel is subject to subdivision regulation by the BOCC. 33. Further the split now desired by Plaintiff does not meet the BOCC`s wider definition of land which may be considered for discretionary exemption from the subdivision process. Plaintiff cannot, and does not in his Complaint, demonstrate that the parcel in question (Tract 3 of the Carnes Exemption) ". . . existed, as described on January 1, 1973, or the parcel, as it exists presently, is one (1) of not more than three (3) parcels created from a larger parcel, as it existed on January 1, 1973. . ." Section 8:42 H., page 4 of Appendix A to the Complaint. 34. The BOCC is not disallowing subdivision of the parcel in question. There has been no showing that this Plaintiff has been adversely affected in its ability to divide the property. Further, the land can be subdivided consistent with State statute and the BOCC's Subdivision Regulations. There is, therefore, no"injury in fact." The property split desired simply does not come within the threshold definitions of a property split which may be exempted from the subdivision process. Plaintiff has no interest "cognizable" by statute or regulation. Brown, at 582. Approval of a request for exemption is discretionary on the part of the BOCC, Section 30-28-101 (10) (d) , C. R. S., as amended, Sections 8:10, 8:51, 8:52, 8:60 Subdivision Regulations, and Plaintiff cannot show that the division of land which he desires meets either the statutory or the regulatory exemption definition. The Necessary Parties to a Declaratory Judgment Action Are Not Before the Court 35. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above. 36. In accordance with Rule 57 (j), a declaratory judgment action must be formally presented by making the proper persons parties thereto. Inter -Church Temperance Movement of Colorado v. Baker, 297 P.2d 273 (Colo. 1956). Plaintiff must name " all of the persons as parties who have a right to defend the action, or who are interested therein, or who will be affected by the making of a declaration of rights." Inter -Church at 277. (Citing 1 Anderson, Declaratory Judgments, p. 338, §175.) The Court must acquire jurisdiction over all parties whose rights are to be determined or whose interests are affected. Inter -Church at 279. \My Files\Liti\Mahan 8 • • 37. Consequently, Plaintiff must name, at a minimum, the applicant in the underlying land use proceeding, and the analysis presented above in Paragraphs 13 throughl5 applies. Arguably, Plaintiff, or the Court sua sponte, must join all applicants with pending requests for "Section 8" exemption from the BOCC's subdivision process and all property owners who derived title from the initial "Davies" split described in the Complaint. Such persons are clearly persons with an interest in the outcome of Plaintiff's request for a declaration. City and County of Denver v. City of Arvada, 556 P.2d 76 (1976), at 78. WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests this Court to dismiss the Complaint for lack of standing and because the Plaintiff is not a real party in interest, has failed to join necessary part(ies), and has failed to name an indispensable party. The Defendant additionally requests the Court to award costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in the defense of this action and grant such other relief as the Court deems proper. DATED this 25th day of July 2002. Respectfully submitted, Carol • Bahl. - #16938 C a Cruz, #23x57 Ga d Cou ty A torney's Office 108 East 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Certificate of Mailing The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEF was placed in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on thiscday of July 2002 addressed as follows: Charles H. Willman Charles H. Willman, P.C. 811 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 \My Files\Liti\Mahan 9 District Court, Garfield County, Colorado Court Address: Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 104 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-5075 970-945-8756(fax) Petitioner: MAHAN PROPERTIES, a Colorado Partnership vs. Defendant(s): BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Attorney: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax #: Atty Reg Carolyn M. Dahlgren Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-9150 970-384-5005 : 16938 FILED IN COMBINED COURT GARFIELD COUNTY, CO JUL 2 5 2002 CLERK LCOURT USE ONLY Case No.02 CV 212 Division: A AFFIDAVIT OF MARK BEAN STATE OF COLORADO ss COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, MARK BEAN, Garfield County Building and Planning Director, hereby certify the following: 1. I have reviewed my entire file and to the best of my knowledge there have been no petitions regarding subdivision exemptions filed by the Petitioner, Mahan Properties, a Colorado Partnership. 2. To the best of my knowledge there have been no Notices for subdivision exemption made solely by the Petitioner, Mahan Properties, a Colorado Partnership. 3. To the best of my knowledge there is no correspondence in our files from the Petitioner, Mahan Properties, a Colorado Partnership. 1 EXHIBIT A • • 4. To the best of my knowledge there have been no public meetings before the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") regarding a subdivision exemption matter on behalf of the Petitioner, Mahan Properties, a Colorado Partnership. 5. To the best of my knowledge, an application for property described as W 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 9, Township 7 South Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., was submitted by an individual, James P. Mahan, Jr. and was considered by the BOCC during April 2002. DATED this Zh day of , 2002. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT —72" MARK DEAN SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24 * day of 2002, by MARK BEAN, Garfield County Building and Planning Direc'or. WITNESS my hand and official seal.. MY COMMISSION D(P(RES My commission expir NOTARY PUBLIC Address 2 District Court, Garfield County, Colorado Court Address: Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 104 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-5075 970-945-8756(fax) Plaintiff: MAHAN PROPERTIES, a Colorado Partnership vs. Defendant(s): BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Attorney: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax #: Atty Reg #: Carolyn M. Dahlgren Deputy Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-9150 970-384-5005 16238 �. "1 IN COMBINED COURT GARFIELD COUNTY, CO SEP 1 3 2002 ACOURT USE ONLY♦ Case No.02 CV 212 Division: A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado ("BOCC"), by and through counsel, Carolyn M. Dahlgren, Deputy Garfield County Attorney, and Catalina Cruz, Assistant Garfield County Attorney, and herein replies to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as follows: REPLY TO FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND REAL PARTY IN INTEREST RESPONSES 1. Plaintiff's burden to show that it is the real party in interest under C.R.C.P., Rule 17 has not been met. Appendix A to Mr. Willman's Affidavit, identified as a copy of Plaintiff's Petition for Exemption, shows on its face that the applicant, "Petitioner" for exemption, is "James P. Mahan, Jr.". The document • • attached as Appendix B and alleged by Mr. Willman to be Exhibit "0" at an April 8, 2002, hearing before the BOCC (paragraph 7, p.2, Affidavit of Charles H. Willman) was signed by James P. Mahan, Jr. on behalf of Mahan Properties on December 20, 1999. This document in and of itself cannot speak to the ownership of the property or the identity of the applicant for exemption in the Spring of 2002. 2. Although the BOCC has an obligation to review an application for technical compliance, it cannot be deemed to be aware of information not disclosed in an application. Nor can the BOCC be deemed to be aware of information disclosed by an applicant at an earlier hearing on a different application, as urged by Plaintiff in the Affidavit of James P. Mahan, Jr. regarding a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Plaintiff attempts to excuse the apparently inaccurate representation on the Petition for Exemption by stating that the applicant was proceeding pro se. Whether pro se or represented by counsel, an applicant for an exemption request is charged with knowledge of the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984, as amended ("Regulations") and, therefore, has the responsibility to present "a letter from the property owners if other than the applicant." §8:42(A), Regulations. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for non- compliance. Barber v. Marjon Corp., 791 P.2d. 1192 (Colo. App. 1987), cert. denied; See Kirkendoll v. People, 331 P.2d. 809 (1958), for the applicability of this maxim to pro se litigants. GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 2 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • • Furthermore, this regulatory language, which appears in Section 8 of the Regulations, is reprinted as paragraph "C" on p.l of the Petition for Exemption which appears as Exhibit A to Mr. Willman's Affidavit. 4. Thus, the type of information being presented to the Court by way of Affidavit, should have been presented to the BOCC at or before the date of hearing so that the BOCC could have made inquiry regarding the authority of the applicant to act on behalf of the partnership and the business and/or family purposes regarding development of the subject property. 5. Plaintiff's rendition of the facts by Complaint and Affidavit does not remove the BOCC's practical problem. It cannot respond to Plaintiff's Motion and Order for Certification of Record because there is no record of proceedings in Plaintiff's name. REPLY TO NECESSARY/INDISPENSABLE PARTIES RESPONSES: 106 IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 6. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is the proper C.R.C.P. Rule 19 and Rule 12(b) (6) vehicle for asserting the failure to join necessary and indispensable parties. Sheila K. Hyatt and Stephen A. Hess (4 Colo. Practice Series Civil Rules Annotated, 3d. edition), §12.4, at 137; Debra Knapp, (11 Colo. Practice Civil Procedure Forms and Commentary), §§12.32, 12.33, at 291-4. 7. Colorado case law is clear that the applicant is an indispensable party, without which the Court cannot proceed, in judicial proceedings to review a governmental land use decision. Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County v. Carter, 564 P.2d. GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 3 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • • 421, at 421 (Colo. 1997); Neighbors for a Better Approach v. NEPA, 770 P.2d. 1390 at 1391(Colo. App. 1989); Thorne v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Fremont, 638 P.2d. 69, at 71(Colo. 1981); Norby v. City of Boulder, 577 P. 2d 277 at 279 (Colo. 1978); Hidden Lake Development Co. v. District Court, 515 P.2d 632 at 635 (Colo. 1973). The Complaint as currently filed, however, does not name "James P. Mahan, Jr." in his individual or partnership capacity. 8. Specifically as to Plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment, the Complaint does not name other similarly situated property owners (at a minimum, owners of all of the parcels created on the original Davies tract identified in the Complaint), who, though they have no legal interest in the subject real estate, do have an interest in the matter for judgment, i.e. whether or not the BOCC's regulatory "extra" exemption, as defined in Section 8:52 of the Regulations is unconstitutional as a violation of the BOCC's statutorily delegated power. REPLY TO STANDING RESPONSES: RULE 106 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 9. The general law in Colorado on standing does not rigidly distinguish between standing and merits questions. Cloverleaf Kennel Club, Inc. v. Colorado Racing Commission, 620 P.2d. 1051 at 1055, 1056 (Colo. 1980). As stated in Wimberly v. Ettenberq, 570 P.2d 535 at 539(Colo. 1977): "When standing is in issue, the broad question is whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief which should be entertained in the context of a trial on the GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 4 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • • merits. If a person suffers no injury in fact, or suffers injury in fact, but not from the violation of a legal right, no relief can be afforded, and the case should be dismissed for lack of standing." 10. Here, the Plaintiff requesting Rule 106 review has not been injured. As shown by the application attached to the Affidavit of Charles H. Willman, Mahan Properties has not been before the BOCC. Brown v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, 720 P.2d. 579 at 582 (Colo. App. 1985). Even if Plaintiff and James P. Mahan, Jr. are, to use Plaintiff's term, "one and the same", two options exist: (1) apply for an exemption from subdivision under the Regulations in the partnership name; or (2) present the BOCC with a subdivision proposal in the name of whatever individual(s) or entity(ies) are in present ownership of the subject property. 11. As to the declaratory judgment request, there is no showing of "injury in fact to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions". Wimberly at 539; Cloverleaf at 1058; Brown v. BOCC Arapahoe, 720 P.2d. 579 at 582 (Colo. App. 1985). As argued in paragraphs 23-34 of Defendant's Motion for Dismissal of Complaint for Judicial Review and/or Declaratory Relief, the facts presented in the Complaint, and now by Affidavit, do not show that the subject real estate fits the threshold definitions of either: (1) the statutory 10(b) exemption applicable to "a division of land which creates parcels GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 5 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • • of land each of which comprise thirty five (35) or more acres of land and none of which is intended for use by multiple owners." §30-28-101(10)(b), C.R.S. as amended; or (2) the county level exemption based on the statutory subsection 10(d)delegation power to local governments to grant other types of the exemptions. 12. §30-28-101(10) (b), of the County Planning and Building Codes statute does not create a blanket state level exemption from county regulation for any and all parcels of land thirty five (35) acres or larger in size, rather the exemption from local regulation is for "any division of land which creates" thirty five (35) or larger parcels. See discussion of facts, basic to the two Pennobscot cases: Pennobscot, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, 642 P.2d. 915 at 916, 917(Colo.1982); Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County v. Pennobscot, Inc., 662 P.2d. 1091 at 1092(Colo. 1983). 13. §30-28-101(10)(d), C.R.S., as amended, does not create a second statutory right for an applicant in a proceeding before the BOCC, rather it grants the BOCC discretion to create additional exemptions from the definition of subdivision, upon the BOCC's determination that such exemptions are not within the purposes of the statute and the local regulations promulgated pursuant to that statute. 14. The BOCC has so promulgated and has determined, as stated in Section 8:52 of the Regulations, that an earlier state level statutorily exempted parcel will be counted in determining the four of GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • • (4) county level "exemption lots" which may be created without full subdivision review. On its face, the State statute does not prohibit the BOCC's use of the State's definition of an exemption to determine parcels eligible for county level exemption. 15. In exercising its X30 -28-101(10)(d) C.R.S., as amended, delegated discretion, the BOCC further determined that under a certain set of facts identified in Section 8:52(A) of the Regulations', more than the usual four "exemption lots" may be allowed by the County exemption process. 16. Section 8:32 of the Regulations states: "An applicant denied exemption shall follow the subdivision procedures in these Regulations." The option exists to go through full sketch plan, preliminary plan and final plat, review, as laid out in State statute and the Regulations. On the facts presented to the Court by Plaintiff, no statutory or regulatory right to an exemption from the subdivision process exists. The Complaint must be dismissed due to lack of injury to cognizable interest. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests: 1. Dismissal of the Rule 106 claim for lack of standing, finding that "Mahan Properties" is not the same legal person as 1 "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 to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable." GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • "James P. Mahan, Jr." and, thus, the proper party is not before the Court and was not before the BOCC; or in the alternative, 2. Retention of the Rule 106 claim based on a finding that "Mahan Properties" is the same legal person as "James P. Mahan, Jr." and enter an Order requiring Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to (1) include the general partners as party Plaintiffs , and (2) allege facts establishing the existence of the general partnership and the identity of the partners at the time of application for the exemption from subdivision in the Spring of 2002, in order to allow a proper certification of the record of proceedings before the BOCC; and 3. Dismissal of the Rule 57 Declaratory Judgment request for lack of standing, finding that there is no actual injury to a legally cognizable right. DATED this A, d of September, 2002. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, CARO - M. DAHLG 6938 Cw ALINA RUZ, 57 Garfi - ounty = ■orney's Office 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 (970) 945-9150 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 8 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE • • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS was placer} the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on this,` day of September, 2002, addressed as follows: Charles H. Willman, Esq. 811 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 GARCO DISTRICT COURT: Case No. 02CV212 n REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE 9 • lafgq/ ecA6te a.y !'kqJ_ a.3,(rx-12._ QCn-6ictug- G a4eic. l .e tozrAti r ute. ms`s 6 46 e �- l\ile,z,t) ''ala — -- id 4 /-7 1,1/44 eite&ife a-& �l.Ld %.cGaui?� 1� itt e J-4-14-4 Lit trAA- d teic) �o 774e-yda,e,c40.s erne_. Wce i Lo 41.6te. /9 Web/ one &aceta Ala TL- Zfe. Gam - ,2 nn .. c L12_4 kceds o A31 -AL 4-711441 it/eAt4 / • el it.eif_A•i_s- JJL-y' et -44-e f s 6- c,eQ /Z2 ;_a -^/s /I -o T-- Qtte 74) ���.i (72}c iTxj? ii.e c Z _2r4,1clet -f- en-tie it of 5. den iv -4d -Xid- ------ . , ___ 'tam � // ,Ac 44 /k c- w ..(�tiP er_e( , 1 ' /I .. l L /y:ie& — QJi► D 5& di-- Gtr mit - - — • • 4-debat_4-40( 4 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Garfield County Planning Department comments: Monday, April 3, 1989 10:00 Request for Subdivision Exemption located approximately 4.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs off C. R. 126; Applicant: Jim Mahan 10:15 Public Hearing: Request of Special Use Permit located approximately 1 mile west of Garfield/Eagle County line off of Sweetwater Road; Applicants: Joseph & Veronica Sauter and James & Rose Meckley 11:00 Public Hearing: Request for Special Use Permit located approximately 3 miles north of Highway 82 at the Catherine's Store intersection off County Rd. 100; Applicants: Roger & Amelia Eshelman REQUEST: BOCC 4/3/89 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision APPLICANT: James Mahan LOCATION: W 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 9, T7S, R89W; located approximately 4 1/2 miles south of Glenwood Springs off County Rd. 126. SITE DATA: The site consists of a 20 acre tract WATER: Existing domestic well SEWER: Existing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ACCESS: County Road 126 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District B, Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas 1/2 to 1 mile radius, Moderate Environmental Constraints, as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map. This designation is based on proximity to both the Sunlight View Subdivision and Oak Meadows Subdivision. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site has moderate slopes with a variety of native vegetation, lawns and gardens. The site is located in a rural area with surrounding land uses primarily low density residential. (/Improvements on t site i clude two dwellic units, a barn an several accessor build'n•s.( County Road 126 runs through the property. • B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide the property into two tracts approximately 14 acres and 6 acres in size. Each tract will have an existing dwelling unit and improvements. C. History: The Mahan parcel was„areat`ed by the Carnes Subdivis. 4.Fxemration, aQproved in March, 197%. County records i d'cate that the Ma •. - was part of propert owned t. Day es fame 1n 19 nd that- as „r.nv as 2 •if ferent tracts haves bPQn create. Qut of the original Davies property. 4 III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. The number of lots created since 1973 out of the original tract exceeds the four allowed by exemption in Section 8.52 (A) of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 1 The current request based on the division of the tract b a • : •d , which "in the • cre ion of the Board" may be considered exempt from the four lot limitation. Page TWO 2. Sections 8.10, 8.52 and 8.60 of the Subdivision Regulations outline the applicability standards and additional consideration for a Subdivision Exemption request. (See page 7' ) As noted in these sections, compliance with standard review criteria does not ensure approval, and the Board may consider issues including compatibility with surrounding land uses and the benefit to the general public welfare. Where more detailed or formal review is deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant retains the option of making application through the full Subdivision Review Process. 3. Verbal comments from a neighboring property owner have indicated that Mahan property is subject to covenants that prohibit further subdivision. Documentation of the covenants or written comments have not been submitted. The County Attorney's office has advised that the County does not enforce private covenants between property owners. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has reviewed Mr. Mahan's water rights and have indicated that his well is approved to serve up to three dwelling units. Soil Conservation Service information on the site indicates that the site is poorly suited for homesite development due to shrink/swell soils and steepness of slope. Both existing dwelling units maintain the required setbacks off the County Rd., while some of the sheds and accessory buildings are non -conforming in regard to front yard setback. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 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. (I) That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION 6PPROV�AL, subject to the determination by the Bow of Count Commis—sioner a e exem•tio, s allowed based •• div'sion of the property by a pus is ri•1 -• -wa and that t e enforcement of priva e covenants on the site is a private matter e ween proper y owner along with the following conditions: 1. That the following plat notes be included on the recorded Exemption Plat: a) No further divisions by exemption from the definition of subdivision will be allowed. b) Each lot may be subject to engineered foundations and septic systems. Page Three 2. That easements be included on the exemption plat for access and maintenance of the shared well. 3. That the applicant establish a homeowners association, covenants, or other acceptable legal means for administering the use of the shared well. That the division of property shall occur along the public right-of-way, in,accordance with Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 5. That a letter from the Glenwood District be submitted addressing Springs Rural Fire Protection fire protection for the site. 6. That the creation ofponeanew lotnt bmit $200 in School Impact fees for the 7. That all representations of the a application or stated at the meetinglbefore thecant,hBoardr1of1Counthe ty Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. �0JUcl 01.5(dw --fE �. 4)0+3 �41 N6it5 e 16-01() ?LAT AI 411 411 8:10 APPLICABILI The Board of County Commissioners has the discretionary power to exempt a division of land from the definition of subdivision and, thereby, from the procedure in these Regulations, 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. The Board shall make exemption decisions in accordance with the requirements of these regulations. Following a review of the individual facts of each application, in light of the requirements of these Regulations,,,the Board may approve, conditionally approve or deny an exemption request. 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 of four (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, and is not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, an .arcel to b- .'v'.e. . exemption that is split .y a pu. is riQht_of w_� (S .tom. or Federal highway, County road or railroad) or natural feature, preventing join u e e proposed tracts, and the division occurs along theublic right -of -wax or natural feature, such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable; B. All Garfield County zoning requirements will be met; C. 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; D. 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; E. All state and local environmental health and safety requirements have been met or are in the process of being met; F. Provision has been made for any required road or storm drainage improvements; G. Fire protection has been approved by the appropriate fire district; H. - Any necessary drainage, irrigation or utility easements have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained; and I. School fees, taxes and special assessments have been paid. 8:60 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS In the evaluation of each petition for exemption, and in addition to the review criteria in Section 8:52, the Board should consider the following: A. General conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan; B. Compatibility of the proposed exemption with existing land uses in the surrounding area; C. Recommendations of any municipality within two (2) miles of the proposed exemption, or within three (3) miles, if the municipality has a major street plan; D. Recommendations of any state or local agency or organization whose opinion the Board determines is necessary or appropriate; E. Suitability of soil, water, vegetation, geologic and topographic characteristics of the land for the type of division proposed; F. Number of lots and/or multiple -dwelling units created by the proposed exemption; G. Provision for open space within the proposed exemption; and 11. Proposed density and provisions for adequate off-street parking. 9--� • • April, 1989 - Page 349 0 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO April 3, 1989 The covenants and chain of title were discussed and the exhibits presented by Mr. Leavenworth showed that Mr. Whipple's deed did not have the restrictions on it but there was no one present on the property to witness what was being done. Commissioner Arbaney asked if it was not a common practice in the past for thq. county to allow exemption where a count road divides •ro•ert and Be state 1 .rovi.e• they meet all other requirements. Don reiterated that th oard s1uld not be concerned with covenants unl s�they reflect on the appropriate use of the property. / After considerable further discussion regarding the impact on the neighbors if V/ exemptions continued, Commissioner Arbaney made a motion that the Board approve the subdivision exemption request of Jim Mahan located approximately 4.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs off County Road 126 with the recommendations as set forth in the staff comments dated April 3, 1989. Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried with a vote of 2 to 1 - Commissioners Mackley and Arbaney voting, "Aye" and Chairman Smith voting, "Nay". PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE WEST OF GARFIELD/EAGLE COUNTY LINE OFF OF SWEETWATER ROAD; APPLICANTS, JOSEPH & VERONICA SAUTER AND JAMES & ROSE MECKLEY. Sworn in was Joseph G. Sauter, Jr., 1509 Sweetwater Road, Gypsum, CO 81637; James L. Meckley, same address; and Mark Bean, Director of Building, Planning and Sanitation, 109 8th St., Glenwood Springs. Don DeFord discussed the public notices with Mr. Sauter and the Board found them to be adequate. Mark presented the application as Exhibit "A"; Exhibit "B", proof of publication; Exhibit "C", mail receipts; Exhibit "D", staff comments. Exhibit "A" through "D" were accepted into the record. Mark reviewed the staff comments and there being no comments from any citizens, Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the Public Hearing be closed. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the Special Use Permit for Joseph G. Sauter, Jr. and James Meckley be approved with the conditions of approval as set forth in the staff comments dated April 3, 1989 with the added language that the activity be initiated and application be made for the Special Use Permit within 120 days of the signing of the resolution and Special Use Permit. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion; carried. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 82 AT THE CATHERINE'S STORE INTERSECTION OFF COUNTY ROAD 100, APPLICANT ROGER & AMELIA ESHELMAN Sworn in were Roger & Amelia Eshelman; Dan Kerst, Attorney for the applicants; and Mark Bean, Director of Building, Planning and Sanitation. Sherri Caloia, Assistant County Attorney, discussed the public notices with the applicants and the Board found them to be adequate. Mark presented Exhibit "A" as the application; Exhibit "B", proof of publication; Exhibit "C", mail receipts; Exhibit "D", staff comments. Exhibits "A" through "D" were admitted into evidence. Mark reviewed the staff comments and discussed concerns he had with information in a letter from Mr. David T. Whidden, Jr. regarding the remodeling or changing the configuration of a manufactured home from what it was when it was manufactured. County policy is that a manufactured home should not be modified outside of the factory and Mark asked for direction from the Board on this issue. Another concern was the well permit which was for a single family dwelling and the guest house will be supplied by a storage tank. The concern of the Division of Water Resources was if the tank will be filled from the well illegally. Dan Kerst stated that the current well will be used for the mobile home and when the primary residence is completed and the mobile home becomes a guest house, the guest house will be served by an underground storage tank which will be filled by off -property water until the well permit is upgraded. He stated that the roof issue can be satisfied by the applicant's compliance with the snow -load requirements and building codes. Mr. Eshelman stated the manufactured home to be moved onto the property, if permitted, has a pitched roof in compliance with county standards. He described the foundation and skirting for the mobile home and the piering of the overhang of the roof will be subject to the building inspector's approval. 1111111�I111111111111 • 1 111111 11111 illlll 111 11111111 1111 o„CR ORAS M ALSDORF TERMINATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS • &„ 4-1144t da� WHEREAS. certain protective covenants and deed restrictions were recorded in Book 477 at Page 469 with the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, and WHEREAS, the majority of tract owners desire to terminate the protective covenants and deed restrictions, all as allowed for pursuant to that certain document above referenced, more specifically Book 477 at Page 469, subparagraph (h). NOW. THEREFORE, notice is hereby given by a majority of the tract owners that the protective covenants and deed restrictions are terminated by virtue of the majority of the tract owners determining that the covenants and restrictions set forth under the protective covenants and deed restrictions recorded in Book 477 at Page 469, herein above referenced, should be fully terminated. It is the intention of the undersigned that the protective covenants and deed restrictions above mentioned terminate and that there be no automatic extension as otherwise provided for under the protective covenants and deed restrictions. The protective covenants and deed restrictions are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. A property description is attached as Exhibit B. DATED LC 171 Ng° STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ) ss. if Ke eth J. Gr; 0479 C.R. 12: Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ¶ 1 day of December, 1999 by Kenneth J.Greene. Witness my hand and officel seal. toty coinmjssion expires: S �•' jjj ct ' U • Si /l.. Notary Public • 1 11E11 11111 111111 111 11111111 1111 IIIIII 111 11111 III 2Sof04 R220.0090 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY99 10:0 81165 P647 CO DATED: Jc /(2. 6/eici STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD • MAHAN PROPERTIES 648 C.R. 126 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ^-142 Subscribed and sworn to before me this �D� day of December, 1999 by Qrri.P$ .r►iaVt Jh- Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: g/lS/D3 Notary Public 111111 Il2/281111111111111111111 11111111,1 1111 1111 556987 1999 18:00A 81156 P648 n ALSDORF 3 of 4 R 20.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO • EXHIBIT A 'PROTECT= COV MTS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS BUllR47 / Pack,469 a. Resubdivision. to tract of land may be resubdivided into smaller tracts of land. b. No tract of land may be used for any purpose other than mingle family reaidential uses. c. No =bile hoarse or trailers °hell be used at any time in any manner on said tracts of land. d. Any reeidanco constructed on subject property shall be at least 1200 square feat in area. Area shall be measured on tha first floor of the outside foundation, exclusive of porches. garages and car ports. • a. No livestock, poultry or goats shall be kept, other than.trlo-horse or cow .per five acres. Any such livestock must be kept and maintained au as not to become a public nuisance. Any property owner keeping dogs as pate must aecurely pen or restrain by a leash said animal so that it may not roam throughout the area et will. f. The owner of any tract shall complete construction of any structure erected on that tract within one year of commencement of construction.- g. txistiag foliage shall be preserved on each lot as nearly as possible. • Foliage and vegetation shall be removed only to the extent necessary to construct dwellinye, driveways. sidewalks and sewage and utility facilities. h Thasa covenants and restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties and ell persona claiming under them until January 1, 2000. At that time, said covenants shall be'auto- eatieally extended for successive 10 year periods unless otherwise changed by vote of tho then majority of tract owners. i. If any tractaovner or persons acting for them should violate or attempt to violate any of tha covenants herein state oritersonat shell be lawful for adjoining tract owners or any p Thereby affected to prosecute any suit in law or in equity to re- . 'strain and enjoin the violation of said covenants and to recover damages for auch violations` and•to recover all conte and attorney tees necessary so enforce the provisions of rheas covenants. 111111111111111111 III 11111111 1111 111 f 11111111111111 556907 12/20/1999 10:00A 81165 P649 M ALSDORF 4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT B PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ORDER NO: 91019018 A Parcel of land situated in the S1/2E1/2SW1/4NE1/4, also in the W1/2N1/2E1/2NW1/4SE1/4 Section 9, Township 7 Snuth, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Said S1/251/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9, a rebar and cap L.S. 112083; thence S. 89 degrees 42'37" E. alongthe northerly line of said S1/281/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9, 197.89 feet to a point on the easterly right of way of County Road No. 126; thence along said County Road right of way the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1.) 123.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 394.32 feet, a delta of 18 degrees 00'42", the chord of which -bears 3. 00 degrees 55'36" W. 123.45 feet; 2.) thence S. 09 degrees 55'57' W. 35.26 feet; 3.) thence 101.85 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 50.26 feet, a delta of 116 degrees 06'54", the chore of which bears s. 48 degrees 07'30" S. 85.30 feet; 4.) thence N. 73 degrees 49.03' E. 182.40 feet; 5.) thence 78.66 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 113.92 feet, a delta of 39 degrees 33'33', the chord of which bears N. 54 degrees 02'17" E. 77.10 feet; 6.) thence N. 34 degrees 15'31" E. 84.22 feet; 7.) thence 67.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1745 feet, a delta of 21 degrees 29'45', the chard of vh3ch bears N. 45 degrees 00'23" S. 56.93 feet to a point on the northerly line of said S1/2E1/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9; thence along said northerly line S. 89 degrees 42'37" E. 68.99 feet to the Northeast Corner of.said S1/281/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9; thence S. 00 degrees 44'59' E. along the easterly line of said s1/2E1/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9, 655.98 feet; thence N. 89 degrees 39'06" W. 326.53 feet to a point on the westerly line of the E1/251/2E1/2SW1/4SE1/4 of said Section 9; thence S. 00 degrees 49'14" E. 70.00 feet to a point on the easterly line of the W1/2N1/2E1/2Nw1/45E1/4 of said Section 9; thence N. 89 degrees 39'06" W. 326.44 feet to the westerly line of said w1/2N1/2E1/2NW1/4SE1/4 Section 9; thence N. 00 degrees 53'29' W. along said westerly line 35.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of said S1/2E1/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9; thence N. 00 degrees 53'29' w. along the westerly line of said S2/2E1/2SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9, 690.36 feet to the point of beginning. • J1,m) 9l 0 3 kr11-) a. oho OA.e- eucd-- � lotec2) ,amuA, Gtr J() 1u.144.d1/4.. ox. -v cam, ,; vim- J1-flit/cc— Cv-eZ ale., 3 Ce&rx4. ayde, 574) tuna .Me. dete, ,uxvz— ye � ,�On CfnAeiu cin 3 a- 2t- A-tzd_ �.rLvcuw ,ArE, ¥?O VEMEN T • 00 Q Z OP/ V/ 2 3 a OVERHEAD 1 W 2 w LL 8 0 U Recorded at -JO -- o'clock __.,rd M. _AUG 1219Th 80u6477 PAGE3-72 Reception ivo..-.tea..{:,882. Elia Stephens. Recorder ROAD EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS ROAD EASEMENT AGREEMENT made and entered into this 7'4'. '�' day of -3_ -;19 sY 75, between EUGENE M. SPEAR and GLAPHY A. SPEAR, hereinafter referred to as "Spears," and WILLIAM H. NELSON, of Grand Junction, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "Nelson." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Spears are the owners of the following describcii property, situate in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado: Lots 4 and 6, Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M.; Also that part of the NW* 5E4, Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., lying South and Southeast of a line extended from a point 100 feet South of the Northeast corner of said NW; SE;, South- westerly to a point 100 feet North of the Southwest corner of said NW'SE;, Section, Township and Range aforesaid; Also, Lots 2, 3, 5, and 7 in 'Section 9; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 in Section 10; Lots 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in Section 15; and Lots 1 and 2 and the S1 NE; and NW's SES in Section 16, all in Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., together with the Hardwick Ditch, other- wise known as the R. L. Hardwick Ditch and the First Enlargement thereof, and their water rights taking water from Hardwick Gulch or Overland Gulch, The Doose Ditch and First Enlargement thereof, and their water rights, taking water from Four Mile Creek, the Cooley Ditch and its water rights, taking water from Four Mile Creek, and any and all other ditch and water rights be- longing to, used upon or in connection with the lands above described; which they acquired pursuant to Warranty Deed recorded November 10, 1965 in Book 371 at Page 72 of the Garfield County, Colorado records; and WHEREAS, Nelson is the owner of the following described property, situate in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado: Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, 6th P.M.: Lot 1 and that part of the NW -SE;, together with all mineral rights and all im- provements now situated on the property; Together with all water, water rights, ditch and ditch rights, spring and pipeline rights, appurtenant to the above described property; EXCEPTING therefrom a tr' ` of land conveyed to Herman Doose by Quit Cla Deed dated January 23, 1946 and recorded in office of Clerk and Re - 'corder of Garfield County, Colorado as Document No. 156638 in Book 217 at Page 235 thereof, de- scribed as follows, to wit: Lots 4 and 6, Sec- tion 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, 6th P.M., and that part of the NASE4, Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, 6th P.M., lying South and Southeast of a line extended from a point 100 feet South of the Northeast corner of said NWQSEl, Southwesterly to a point 100 feet North of the Southwest corner of said NWoSEn, said Section 9, containing 27.38 acres, more or less; which he acquired pursuant to Warranty Deed recorded May 21, 1974 in Book 459 at Page 348 of the Garfield County, Colorado records; and WHEREAS, there has existed for many years a road across the portions of the Spears property and portions of the Nelson property, and the parties desire to memorialize their understand- ing that each has a right to traverse the lands of the other and to use such road as herein provided; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants herein contained, it is agreed: 1. The parties jointly declare that the existing road way, sixty (60) feet in width, thirty (30) feet on each side of the 'centerline of the existing :road, shall be deemed to be a road for access to the above described property and the here- after described property, such road commencing at the Garfield County Road No. 117 near the West boundary of Lot 1, Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., then commencing as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, through Lot 1, Section 10, across Lot 1, Sec- tion 9, across Lot 2, Section 9, and into the SWQ NE;, Section 9, all in Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. 2. Spears shall have the right to traverse those por- tions of such road from the commencement thereof at Garfield County Road No. 117 for the entire length of such road, progress- ing Westerly until such road leaves Lot 1, Section 9, aforesaid, -2- -£ - MOS'I3M 'H WVI`I'IIM 2IFi3dS "V HdV'IO / •uaggt1M OAOCIP 4s.T3 zraA pup Aop aqg 3o 00 quauiaaaby {� paquoaxa aAPq ogoaaq sat;z0d aqg 'dOnIaHM SS3NLIM NI •oa.azaq sat4.Pd aqg 3o subtssp pue .aossa33ns 'santgequasazdaz 'saTaq aqg uodn butputq aq puo 3o 4t3 --ouaq aq; o; asnut Tiegs ;uauiaasby 4uauias03 peog stgy •9 •suoszad seq;o ;o zone; ut pa4srTgegsa uaaq azo;o;azaq m.ey poo= tons 3o sasn gotgM o; 4oadsaz g4TM zo szatgo Sq pauMo spun aqg sassaAesg pros gons qoq; qua;xa aqg oq ssaggo Sq pauMo A;zadosd bututoCpe o; ssaooe aq o; pamaap aq TTogs pros gong 'iougan,I •sauTT so autT A;TTP;n 'ssao3e uets;sapad pup seTn0tgaA 'uotgogtutT 3o Aem Aq qou 4nq 'butpnTout sasodznd Tie pup Sue 1o3 pros gons asn 04 g115tz aqg anrq iiegs Agrod gong •g •Agaadosd s,uosTat SS033P 009330 30 4gbtz soq s.oadS g3ttp ssozoo pool ATuo aqg st uosiaN Aq pauMo puPT 000130 peas pagtzosap anoge aq; 'SiaszaA -uo 'pup 'Agzadoid ,Steads rtes 900130 UOSTON Aq pauMo ssa339 3o Tgbtz ATuo aqg st ptesaao3o saeadg Aq pauMo A4sadosd aqg 000130 pros pagTaosap anogo pies gpgq sabpaTMou{3p uosiaN '6 •srrads Aq pauMo ;au spu0T zaggo ga.TM sat;abo4 'pTesazo3P '6 uata3aS 'Z ;0'I pup 'ptPsazo39 'OT u0t4309 '1 40'I 000139 but -`010A913 pu.P LTT •03 pooj A;un0D PiaT3IP9 ;e 3oazagq 4uaata3uauuo3 ;up 51013 pros goes asn Og 414bT1 9114 anPt ITegs uosiaN £ •6 uoTgoaS ptps 3o Z qui ogut sassed puo VLE 3SVd LLti'YnOCI BJUi( ged before me this and Glaphy A. Spear. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing instrument was acknow day of 1.544.y, 1975, by Eugene M. Spe My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal. f. r ), •. P 13\ , u:I4 OF C�' �J STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF MESA The foregoing instrument was ackno day of July, 1975, by William H. N 1 My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal. -4- N ry Public edged before me this son. • NOV 1919 Recorded at M., . Reception No. TRADE NAME AFFIDAVIT STATE (W COLORADO 1 ss. *collo( 1- Garf ield James P. Mahan Jr. Name1 per.,m iIini Mititri11 Gar f *County ot Brox 817 plf,E75R of the in the State of Colorado. being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says that Mahan Properties _ Recorder. Trade is the name under which a business or trade is being carried on at _Colorado 81601 in the Count‘ of Garfield P.O. Box 2743, Glenwood Springs and Stag of Colorado. The lull tirst names and surnames and addresses of all persons who are represented by the said trade name are as follows: Nanic James P. •1,ahan, Jr. Rohe rt- a i'tz Mahan P.O. Box 2743 i Address _G_L>nwond Springs, CO 81601 P.O_ 43 Glenwood Springs The affiant is one of the persons l titiopenialtr" carrying on said tinsin trad tri--&ir the above name. ' Japes P. Subscribed and sworn to before me. this 29th dav of October My commission expires August 15. 1995 Witness my hand and official seal. "If in benver. insert --City and.- _ ivijicatte NOTE Any person. partnership or other husiness organization doing husiness in this State under any name other than the personal name of its owner or-owrierniay record with the C'otinty Clerk and Recorder tt the County in which the business or trade is carried on and in which any real property owned -by the person, partnership or other business organization is located an Affidavit setting forth the full first names and surnames of all parties representing such person. partnership or other business organization. Any charge in the parties so represented, whether of withdrawal. addition. or otherwise. shall moire that an Affidavit he filed for record. For information on additional tiling requirements. contact the Department of Revenue. 19 91 Diane Withers Nemo Publit No. ns. v.945. TRADE NAME AFFIDAVIT Bradknd Publixhinv 5825 W sth Ave Lultewood, CO 811214 3'3) 2334000 tit 0S0E0 T1 19 1911128 250 MILD, ALSDORF, COUNTY CLERK QUIT CLAIM DEED BOOK 817 PA+cf'759 $ C James P. Mahan, Jr., whose address is P.O. Box 2743, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, for the consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable corsidenttion, in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to Mahan Properties, whose address is P.G. Box 2743, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, the following real property in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: All of Grantor's interest, being an undivided 1/2 interest, in and to the following real property: S V2SW 14 and NW 14 SW'4 , Section 8, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. containing 120 acres more or less; together with all mineral rights, if any, in, on and under said property; together wi:h the joint use of the Grantor's right of access from County Road 117; and together with all of Grantor's interest in the water rights appurtenant to the above described property including the Grantor's interest in the Flannery Ditch out of Three Mile Creek, priority No. 136B, with all its appurtenances. r� :signed this 39 day of %�` , 1991. Jams P. Mahan, Jr. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss: COUNTY OF GARFIET_n The foregoing quit claim deed was acknowledged before me this 29 day of October , 1991, by James P. Mahan, Jr.. WITNESS my hand and official seal My commission expires: August 15, 1995. Notary Public - Diane Withers November O'cL /",M, NOV 19 1991 Mn 0 ALSOORF• COUNTY CLERK . Bnntc 81.7 fir,E'7FP NNb11991 State Doo. Fee QUIT CLAIM DEED James P. Mahan, Jr., Roberta Katz Mahan, and Jeffrey R. Fitzsimmons, for the consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sell and quitclaim to Mahan Properties, a partnership, whose address is P.O. Box 2743, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, the following real property in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: W1/2SW'4NE14, Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6:h PM, also known as 4779 117 Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601; and together with all water rights and ditch rights appurtenant tr the above described property including rights in the Davies Well as described in Deed recorded as Reception No. 375244 in Book 696 at Page 788 of the Garfield County, Colorado records, with all its appurtenances. Signed this 07 day of -7)// , 1991. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD James --p. Mahan, 3f. Katz M an v ) ss: R. Fi simmons The foregoing quit claim deed was acknowledged before me this , 1991, by James P. Mahan, Jr. and Roberta Katz Mahan. WITNESS my hand and official seal My commission expires: N; suNr.:r'` .l: Mv Commission Expires: August 15, 1995. 1 day of N tart' is• D ane Withers - Noeary Public ogr STATE OF f� 1%f ) COUNTY OFXWOft• • mnnx Si? ter,E'7F1. %oregoing quit claim deed was acknowledged before me this , 1991 by Jeffrey R. Fitzsimmons. i, day of Public • Recorded at • o':•loek M 2..).4 - �. Reception No.__L L -4- li THIS DEED, Made this day of -Cer/ems 19 79 thence S. 04°26'08" W. 114.43 feet; thence S. 24 55 17°03'25" W. 109.01 feet; thence S. 19°43'43" W. 60.28 feet; thence S. 03°51'55" W. 92.47 feet; thence S. 30°58'20" E. 57.72 feet; thence S. 46°37'22" E. 38.99 feet to a point of termination, said point bearing N. 89°39'06" W. 608.67 feet to the Northwest corner of the NW' of the SES of said Section 9. between NARY D. CHRISTENSEN of the County of Colorado, of the first part, and GEORGE S. WHIPPLE whose legal address is 3335 Garfield Road '13, Carbondale, CO 81623 535 i2 -- Recorder. of the County of Garfield and state of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said part y the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable considerations DOLLARS, to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents do es remise. release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, his heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part haS in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County j of Garfield and State of Colorado, to wit: A 24 foot roadway easement for access to grantees real property described in deed recorded as Reception No. 286097 in Book 510 at Page 961 of the Garfield County Records, which easement is situate along and 12 feet on either side of the following (described course: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the NWS of the SES of Section 9, Township oolsrido7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfield County, thence N. 46°01'35" E. 889.49 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said point on the centerline of existing County Road No. 126; thence S. 03°18'19" E. 115.98 feet; ° '44" W. 68.31 feet; thence S. sies i w*mwm& . TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all VI. estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part Y of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the first part ha S hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. -."1 J" ':' //i ,Y ! C1. [SEAL] Mary hristensen Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of STATE OF COLORADO, ss. County of Garfield The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c�C' day of , 1979 .by* Mary D. Christensen My commission expires ,19 . Witness my d and official seal. [SEAL] [SEAL) _.[SEALI J �t18�y i1 • otto•J•ubtic .•' • • •1 '33.- 4. i • Recorded at c�(. �' o'clock ..r• �I..,... Reception No..-. BEN E. CARNES and VELVA V. CARNES, husband and wife, whose address i= Grand Junction Count;.',, Mesa . State of Colorado for the conderation ;- ---Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration-- doilar,,.in hand paid, hereby sells) aqui n ey-(s) t, I3A Recorder. JIMMY M. SILLS and LETHA SUE SILLS, as joint tenants, whose address is County of Garfield and State of Colorado the following real property in the County of Garfield , and State of Colorado, to wit: W1/2SW;NE; of Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 -:West of the 6th P.M., Together with all water and water rights thereto appertaining, including the Davies Spring and pipeline; RESERVING, HOWEVER, unto Grantors, their successors and assigns: (1) Utility easement 10. feet in width, the centerline of which shall be an east -west line divirlina the above described property into two equal tracts; (2) Road easement 24 feet in width along the --east boundary of said:property; (3) Existing road easement 60 feet in width, the centerline of which is shown on the attached Exhibit "A"; AND SUBJECT TO: (1) Protective covenants and deed restrictions as contained in Exhibit "B" attached hereto; (2) First Deed of Trust for the use and benefit of Charles G. Davies, et al., en- cumbering the above described property and other property, in the original principal sum of $225,000.00, dated May:20, 1974 and re- corded May 21, 1974in Book 459 at Page 356 of the Garfield County, Colorado records, which Grantors agree to pay, and further agree that on or before payment in full by Grantees of the pur- chase price hereunder, such Deed, of Trust to Davies, et al., will be reieased and discharged as to the lands conveyed to Grantees hereunder; (3) Reservations in the patent of the United States of America; (4) 1976 taxes payable in 1977 and all subsequent taxes and special assessments; (5) Prior mineral reservations of record. Grantors warrant title to the above described property except as set forth above. Signed this 4th day of !larph , 1976 / Ben E. Carnes STATE OF COLORADO; County of Mesa G 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged iiefore n,u ?his day of March ,1976.by Ben E. Carnes and Velva husband and wife. My commission expires ; 2- / J Witness my hand and official seal. .. G.��-1 Y_.!_• mss, Velva V. Carnes Carnes, k. : 7 '.7. *.;;.•'*; -- — . 0 / i., • I ; • -• • ; '1.. 6 i. •-- ....i ''' • s. 1 — '' f:-.', - ; ' • i', --;• _.' \,.. - - • - ---- t <-•• •••.: ••-) $ .E.: _ — .1. .•,. ) ,.., --- ‘..1 --- •-----, . C' e:','-',), • - ',...,,,, • -483 ,p,4-22 -•:•;, 0 • ; L., •4;7--,..,; ,,-,_ i ....; 6. •_, ......._ . , ...?. ' ‘1 .t•-•-; A'C i 1 . '.0 -./. a= •• . ',-j. '. 1- ...A....-,......---.7-. i AA, , A.... • ..... a." 1 .;.. 0 i -..' (.._,.., — i -c C••:.% .• i . • • ' • . • % l ;7.) • • • •`": :: • • •• a r ••••'"• . . . . . •• • i { ...••• •:-• ."' Z C...; 1 1: 'Z',.. , ••• -•• .... • S V 00- 46.°V."-::. , ..... ••-. ...- > "..------ , ...„„„..••••' .---- „.,..- ...„,,•-- ; 07 '•-•-. '.:.• :- 1,.. .......-____, ... l .:: :••: ,."... , ../ . - ,-, -'; ,..;..-, • ,, ;..... .....‹,..4., •• •-,...,, -, -,. :•../ ...., i • •••• i ::, c.....-:-.. - -• S',.. 1..', / • • • • 7 , 1. ' 1 CO3 1 C.C. .;;.•2• 1..s3 Fr/ — ; \ 1 i ....: , ..-;•". L-% ' • ..., G ""'"' •'"""•— 11111111101r • 1 V61 N c*, s .-?.... .- , • _ „ 4 4-, :•) W `•-•' • ' • • cHi3 • k No tract of s:▪ -:.aller tracts of -..r.ract of land 2.nr o':.'ner than -family rasidential r,obile homes or trail,r,re. ssLa1 1..s.z.a. at ;-..ny ti7.7.e in n.r.v 11-.anner on said tracts 4- resic:ence construct;.'.. on se-...._;ect proi7,erty shall be at least 1,200 sqUare teat in arca. Area snall meas.ered on the first floor of tne -n.e:indation, exclusive of :porches, ..7jarees and ear ports. 5.'NO .1iVaStOCk,::30-,11--_•C,::: other than • horse or cow r..ar livc;stock must be T..,:ept as "ne-on-to n.c.isance. Any ....propertv-owner...,...eepincj.nos...as•-:,,ets_mest.securely pen or 'so „thatIZ mav not roan ..throthout zhe.area.etii e'LL'h,o:; own.er of any t1-7a,ot... constraction of any •••o'oruc:u.c.t..2 one year of commence-. of cnoto.:uo:tloni, • - • • • ••-• • • • - - • - •• • • • • t, - on as 2o1..-Lac,jo ane••veotat-Lon sholl. be re.T.oved. only to '-'Veways, sid - - vac7e ancl ell persons c.._:- -= 1, .20(-;0. •-At time,• said covennnts ▪ be•o'uto:7.1at:Lcaee rer .successv ton -year the than. majority of • • • : • ▪ : - : • : • : . • • : . , . . . . . , . : . ••IT.,.aty fa -Lc' nhoul:d •••••••,.." be law-f..c: anv Ot1-LL.: • Of r_)--..-.:eots eo suit in la, . . . . . . . . • . . sale. ••ene... reccvz- and to recc.vr.,17 .„ei2essery •to enforce the provisic,:-.-_; of th.ase covenants. • Y'.• • • 0114111 to: (.ndo1e shit-sod/cued ,I arched M..401.l etas Instrvm.n, Pr.OJr.d by: Ploovry Aoon131,1 Pirc.i Ntnt!latlon (F014I /Iumbutsl: 11642 a.OYt T1.1 ua. J.C. ,,.OVS.20 . Clara aJ c corona at / a •• rl.•!:t i\(''�. !.SAG. :eztion f:a. _ ') r l •1 ::_ ...v %,:OO1 F RECORC LO CAA Fla.:: OU,11TY. C%Lorta iidi.: L_c. i ea fr•c'! •.t`rt r..s u.4 ,oa •IC.o.a a.re This Warranty Dccd Mod.- ate 22 ,1,.,• November William B. Kahan, 901 Boylston at.Leesburg, Fla. 32748 rttvei•u,iter r all.,! Ir,r ormulOr, les ,lames I-. Mahan, Jr. n•husr r+•,sturlt. r •.It,l..%s i. 477 9 rr.11.,1 11•. grant,•.•: .... . 1. . .. .. _. r ._ _ .. �Fiw a..•.. L.J ,. .._...... ..., �.._.� ... ...w. ..-, ,,. ...•-•••••. ..••1 .w ...►�..-.... itntsseth: 7TI•nl 11..• ne,.ni•,r. 1g, n.,,i •.. .. •.... 1,, ..i tree• f11.n .,l 3 10.00 1 std .,,l,.•. rulanr.lr I•un,IrlrrntionJ. mri,.l .rin•rrnl •. I,en.l,v ne•L 'foists -et. I.. -r.1.., a•nnt,. rlronto,.... ,ALA. 01.•.10_ fr• A.1,e1. tr1M1.1. rnn,•PYJ noel cooliemI 1411144. the trrnnlrr. nrl Ilgel I'••rinn' 1.4,..1 ,itnnle In �. n. '1168 117 Road, Glenwood brrings, Co. 81601 CY.,n1Y.31 tJf7�C e STATE OF COLD J4. 0 One Half (i).interest in T%131 7 South, Range 89 est Section 8: SiSW1, NWi-S d; Containing 120 acres more of less, together with all seller's minera; rights, of any, in ana to said lard, and together with joint use of sellers right of access from County road 117., One Half (_) of interest in the Flannery Ditch out • of 3—lkile Creek, lrlority No. 1368. togetherwillt all lh• tenements. /trrec{ilamenls and opyltrtenances Ih.r•lo belonging or in any• wise appertnining• To }laue and to }told, the sam, :;, 71nd :1.. pranloe herelsy.covenants tariffs said rpra/n,r. ilial lit. glanlo. Is 106401(7,eilJ;d e1 el sid aLg, d 1.t foe ,i1mpl.; alai ate crania., 11a, good ,ighia.d lowf.,l moth...41Y 1. ,ell anti 40'1..71!.!, land; 11141 the a gr.tlue .IM.11y fell, warrants the till. to sold rota ono: Will .i./end the +ant, Ogainsl Illi 4Wf,d ClalmJ Of GU persons Whomloeeer; and that said Land u 1,e1 of all ,neumh.0'.e.3. .,rept furs .(eruinq subsequent 10 1)re,ml„r. 31. 10 i 1st -Witness 1flhtrcof, i1„ J.id gevnlor hos ,i,,n.d and „algid the,. ',rm.., the day and Year tint ahovl vr.Ili.n. ,. .d or 1 delit•e.ed itt our e'en(' S STATE or .: ( • coeNTY OF L' .0 .!titer du1, a..Qwia<d in the So.. ai. id and in she Cou...y LN..) 1 LLi a 'y .Lild hq.V • I 11EAEltr CERT:FY that an 1h:� daj,-b<fore me, an • eloreuid_ to tate aekno- n. ledsenu ••• parlonally aro.urd to ,..t toossn ,a Ito It. .person a;.-urihod in and ..to derated Int Iarrtoioy instrument sod s.-lare a,. I,.., eJ nuugd the um<. W1T\ESS rote head and that.,! vat :n ,he c....... end r. S..< 4e alorrta:d OM1 xkno•rkerrd dar al . -� ate,=."-. r.�"«����•�-: f �.;�: �, • • 13613 ‘V,ARRA4TY DEED THISDEED.” 9tt day to October 086E1$.ER L. CLAYCCMB and LINDA L. C AYC0m8 oI .pee • Cda . d; Cdl..ado. intim, and Garfield JAMES P. MAHAN, RCBERTA KATZ MAHAN, and JEFFREY R. FITZSIMMCNS as Joint Tenants 6001k 606 p:Cz7S OCA0 9 o I_2E Stave Doc: Era s -ne.c �etnl addn„„ 4779 117 Road Glenwood Springs, CC 8:6G1 o; the County ul Garfield arta S . o of Cnbradu. finny : wITSESSETH. That ane grantor foe and„ n cumidernam d; rM..n•di' other rood and valuable consideration and TEN Dou..kRs. rte .sce.p, and wil4.rne. o; waren ,. nenc0, taro ul. ha.* youth. bv7amed. rJJ 2n4 b. Inca present, dies gram. bargain. cone7 and eennnn, arra the grantee. his herrn ar.d y,yn, r.ncner. Al :he real property 327.•nner with rmpnuwmcnl,. r1 any. ...tate. l.tng and tome In the CduM• of Garfield 3.J St;:e dl Cdsdndo de,[nbed L Wlltw._ Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. Section 9: WiSW1NE1 County of Garfield State of Colorado a, known by +meet and number 3L 4779 117 Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TOGETHER with LI and singular the hereditaments 3rd agqurtenances Memo belonging. or in anywise appertaining. and the reversion and msnions. rtmaiMcr and nmainden. rms. issues and penins thereof. 41%.1 all the ant. right. IMI3. ;memo. claim and demand wootaoe-er of the *ante, either in W Or cgois7. of in and Pa Rea lbo.e b. -pined remand'. with the hentaliiaments amt appurx.cmce3. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD Re said premise abo-o bargained amt O. -tented. wink Inc appurtenances. sine the grew.. his heirs and assigns •; brewer. And du gr,nret. for himself. his nein. and personal rept unuei. 1. .4,cs dmunam. gam. botg(o . aro agree co and ...M Rye ga-aruee. ►is ►.in and `. assigns. cut at the nine of the equaling tad dcli.e -y et( these peesems. pec is vol seised of the premises abu.e coa.oyed. has good- sore. penect. absdum and indefeasible agate of mnhatanes. ut ls.e. in fee 3istrpk. and has geed right. full Feria and Le -431 3U1,0nr7 W Tram. Raf=3(0• sell and comae, dm same in stunner and Soma as ala.esoid. and that the tame arc fro. and clear nom all fornner and whet rants. baptists. sales. Ilan. mam anut a rad. i encumbrances and nevrioiowa o(-luec.er tied or nature see.,. camp easements, restrictions, reservations, and rights of way, all of record, and real property taxes for the year 1986, ii not yet due or payable. The gnmoe shall and will WARRANT ANO FOREVER DEPEND Inc a0o-e.bvga:ned poetises in the quiet and pocrable pmtsetsion of the grantee. his Acis and wires. against all and curry person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any pan .hereat The singular asnooer shill include the 1,lunl. the plurd the sistg.Jar, and the ase of any gender shall bo applicsbk to all genders. lig W fry, WHEREOF, this *rami he accused this deed de Use dare act forth about. .g Elmer L. Claycomb "�!!! Linda L. Clayc b STATE Of COLORADO County of Garfield 1u. The keeping nunutecm an, actnowledgcd before me in Inc Coan.7 of Garfield .Slate °( cweraae. dni, 9th u, of October .19 86 .b. Elmer L. Claycomb and Linda L. my e,.r .i».a•I-eap..�a ' . August 10 . w 89 µ;In.,, m- nano .w d(1KIL .e4. t r • EXHIBIT A 'If in De0.e,. oaum -GUy anal `ray 7J:A. R... 7.04. ,a s?ry n•.•.n. t-,n_.......r a.rru w...a .-a r.� ., l.a .+ ._•.......a w-.: ._,ah:n.•+e ••N .. 4,7 • sea. v •..• ,w :•,;:..1:4":01, .: '. �..,.:.1 ,I7vr �'a•: t• -s- .N..•) 15128 THIS OEEC. APP 0 rvARRA,"TY DEED 4z w••••`•...• J,.,,r Apr.: '988 .bc1ccn C.E. AX;HE'..:M CO.. and E.R. A.r,HE_ti CC. 0.. • C,,,,n•, dr Cat `_ . a ! d ..d S.,. of cv.. .1. grantor. and wILLIA29 B. MA:J.AN GAR.`IEiD APR 0 0 1423 Stats D«. Fou -n,n. kph aldrcfl n 901 Boylston Leesburg, Florida 22745 Flor>,da of me Grant. .: .,. s.Sen:, .r GvlfG cc: w IT.YESSE':H. -nut 111. ynnrorSOr Ind rn cwr,lcrn.w.r rr.<.,....,,s E:yht f -Five Thousand and No/ 100 1rK re00141 anJ futAcesey at ,.0;011 n noeb7 oCS.na-IN;cd. has 'slated. 1ar•pa.nr0.+.1 1 and tins. -J. 1,1 0. rhea prele"O ,lora /ran, tf'Ytarn. roll, can,+•r ane coon nn..nw 10,0 framer. he nein +c1 ni/est iumer. 11111. real se.pcn• iosrher ..rn rmorvemrm a. ,f ,n.. 1.0.01.0. I.mf 107 be in, 1n tnc Can,. 01 Garfield .rad Sore .,r Ca1„ra-+„ Jc,nbea as k.no-, TGNNSi-IP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF 6T'( P.M. SECTION 8, 5 1/2 5u 1/4, NN 1/4 SW 1/4 COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO Together with all of Seller's interest in the Flannery Ditch out of 3 -Mile Creek, Priority No. 1360; and together with joint use of Seller's right of access from County Road 117. as tcno-n b. sures and ,.umber aa: Vacant Land TOGETHER ,ria all and singular tit hereditament, and appurcnances t0., ,o belonging. or in >n.• -ase ap esakstng. and are ,e.en,oe and men0an0. ncma,nder and re.raainorn, mats. ;awes and preri4 we.0-4. sod all Inc ,011110. nglo. tick. in•t+c>a. claim sod 4cmar.a 'n.•aocw of the grantor. either is ser. or equity. of is and to the shoot ball lined p,emists...un mr hend,U,000u a•d apentneems. TO HAVE AN TO HOLD the sail premises oho.e buiin.es ant desalbed. with the aov,nenanco. unto the gram.. his kin a•d ul:las forever. And the grantor hat himself. his heirs, sod personal rtpresenai.et. sees co.en0, grace. berg in, and agree is and -:m tura (twee. his heirs and assigns. mar at the urea of 1110 esseal;ng and 40110 r7 of these prestos. N o -.tt seised of are perm sea 3001 conveyed. has goad. w•e. perfect. Ossetia.. and indefensible ooa of inheritance. iso tea is k. simple. sod has good right. NO so-cr and la,-(ul aumontc grant. Bergs0. mA and convey the same is manner and toren as aforesaid. Sod tax the same an Gee 114 clear hem all foo co and other granas. b./0.00. Wes. I:ern. uses. auasma'U. • encumbrances and neurktiwa of 1-hue.v kind or nature foe... camp, easements, restrictions, reservations and rights of way, all of record, and real property taxes for the year 1988, not yet due or payable and Deed of Trust recorded lurch 8, 1979 in Book S24 at Page 325 as Reception No. 292492. The pasha shall and will WARRANT ANO FOREVER DEFEND 7.e .b00e-har 4 aired premises in the quiet vas poeoWk poaxs3io0 d the gnere'0. his heirs and assigns. spies/ all and every person u person/ la -fully dainties We Mk 0, an 7 pan oareal This sinful. mush. Nall include the plural. tic poral the singular. and the use df 3sf gender shall be applicable et all genders. IN W ITN ESS wH E REO F• ow grwor Asa .a...4 min ossa as lea dor xis ken uv.. 8.5c G.E. C.E. CO.(ydc.S.R. HELM CO. • by : Com[ t„ Evelyn Axtheld STATE OF COLORADO Cwayo( Garfield I It. Th. forego:0g Tent .,.. acknc-ledged bele.e en Otis 4 a.� da7 of April .1998 . br Evelyn R. Axchelm for C.E. Axthelm Co. and E.R. Axchelm Co. Fir cel L. 1 ref' (I1-aG (-t.aClL. U 471.±,'1,,) 1L' . 19 V I . uronel, Ty hand and official aca1. •ac•F co W•. 7-4a EXHIBIT B 1.0 ti-r-.w'.L.-..r+ a..,a..e n...n....1,4)..«.A-... w... ..COw 11._ 1Mh 770+`•' It 4 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE "DATE ENGINEER, COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES OWNED S COPY 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Shenian St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 LR • WELL PERMIT NUMBER 239415 DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD JAMES P MAHAN JR 0648 COUNTY ROAD 126 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601- (970) 945-0319 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 9 Township 7 S Range 89 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 3115 Ft. from South 2873 Ft. from West UTM COORDINATES Northing: Section Line Section Line Easting: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) The well shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with variance no. 2002-22A, REVISED 2002-22D, granted by the Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors on March 25, 2002. 4) This well is recorded and permit approved in accordance with CRS 37-92-602(5) for historic use as indicated herein and described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(b), being a well producing 15 GPM and used for ordinary household purposes inside 2 (two) single family dwelling(s), fire protection, the watering of domestic animals and poultry, and the irrigation of not more than 1 (one) acre of home gardens and lawns. Additionally this well is located on a residential site of 20 acre(s) described as the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Twp. 7 South, Rng. 89 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County. Further identified as 0648 County Road 126, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. This well is identified as the Davies Well decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. W-2572. 5) Water from the well was first used beneficially for the above described purpose on December 31, 1941. NOTICE: This permit has been approved for the location and historic use as noted above. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.) 0 4`/os/aoZ APPROVED DMW IA 21.. \Receipt No. 9500977 DATE ISSUEDAPR 0 5 2002 EXPIRATION DATE State Engineer ByAtt rE8-29-2002 15:11 uq,rR REwuRc gra .4o* 303886 3589 02 04 STATE OFCOLORDO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Dvbtirn of Water Rt*,urtrs Deprprertt Of Natural Resourrem 137 3 Sherman Street Room 818 Drover, Colorado 6)20:! Phone (303i 866-3587 FAX (103) 666.3589 ww++.weati wte.co.us February 28, 2002 Mr. James Mahan Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Temporary Exchange Plan for the Davies Well on Black Diamond Mine Creek SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9, T7S, R89W, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 38, Garfield County air ern. Cir Crag E. Wak p, E,ecuove Director Mai 0. Simpuxt. i.E. State Engineer Dear Mr, Mahan: We have completed review of your request for a ten......11291ifY excheogivain. The request is to exchange water from Flannery Reservoir via the Flannery Siphon, for diversions front your well, the Davies Weil decreed in W-2572 of 1976. Flannery Reservoir is on Three Mile Creek a tributary of the Roaring Fork River. The Davies Well diverts groundwater tributary to Black Diamond Mine Creek, a tributary of Four Mile Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River. 4 ----Flannery w3a otetteirrin 8 CW269. The use of the reservoir In the Four Mile Drainage was limited in 99CW141. This amended use included it at on, and augmentation on the subject 20 -acre parcel. Flannery Reservoir has adequate storage reserves 'or this plan. 4Davies Well is an =emitted wall of 3 foot de In W-2572 the Davies is decreedVS an absolute right for domestic use i u ng up to 1 acre of Irrigation with a 1941 appropriation date. The decree recognized the right meets the criteria of an A exempt domestic well pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(1)(b) and 37-92-602(4). JlnlliiegentJy 0610100 this ri • ht has been us = to serve • • . = lfi . s. The addition of a third dwelling enlarges e pre - y -, 1972 uses and i erefore, all the uses of the well must be replaced. 0A5t 4 -The property is approximately 20 acres, less than 35 acres to obtain a new rtst At. (4►1c4 FAS exempt well permit for 3 single-family dwellings. The new uses are for 3 single-family dwellings, irrigation of up to 1 acres of pasture. Total annual diversions are estimated at btf �v 3.73 acre-feet IX I*t f llaIIM -iOR 900 4' Aele5 lb/h g NIS • The well Is not In the alluvium and Is located more than 100 feet from Black Diamond Mine Creek. Due to downstream Irrigation, domestic, and hydropower rights the well is subject to a year-round call. . releases of Flannery Reservoir vi She •. hon can = = red to • • Int of Inju or • ownstreem ca - s without In ` d otr er w users. The uses o e water are • esc n Exhibit A (a = c • otal annual diversions -from the well are lagged and an estimated transit losses of 2%, which can be changed based on actual conditions of the stream are also included in Exhibit A. I hereby approve the proposed exchange pian In accordance with Section 37.80- 120, CRS subject to the following conditions: 1. If written objections to the following conditions are not received by this office and the Division Engineer within 20 days of the receipt of this approval, it will be assumed that c5 yr- iz .103 c$) 6s0 4,64-r�l� j iii$ 441-'1 "It mss, 101 Dept i+� OMR rS Cast eo b� 411+ ` F(c s*cTCAD of pall Y FEB --2 15:11 irLATER RESOURCES Ito 4040 303 866 3589 P. 02,04 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division or Wetter Resources Department n1 Newts( Resources 1313 Sherman Street. Room 618 °row Colorado 410103 ' tone (303? 866-3581 FAX (303! 866.3589 viwvv.wieter.Q.te.ec, of Mr. James Mahan Glenwood Springs, CO 81801 Re: Temporary Exchange Pian for the Davies Well on Black Diamond Mine Creek SW1/4NE1/4 Section 9, 17S, R89W, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 38, Garfield County Dear Mr. Mahan: We have completed review of your request for a ItmeeremiegbeowLea. The request is to exchange water from Flannery Reservoir via the Flannery Siphon, for diversions from your well, the Davies Weil decreed in W-2572 of 1976. Flannery Reservoir is on Three Mile Creek a tributary of the Roaring Fork River, The Davies Well diverts groundwater tributary to Black Diamond Mine Creek, a tributary of Four Mile Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River. February 28, 2002 WAIMMIA Silt Osiers Covens), Crag L welch*, Exeoitive Director +tat D. Sim. RE. State MO/1w anneryReservoir wa rn CW269. The use of the reservoir in the Four Mile Drainage was limited in 99CW141. This amended use included, irri alio++, and augmente_Ion on the subject 20 -acre parcel. Flannery Reservoir has a actuate storage reserves for this plan. - ---� Davi.- _ I an • • „t'1 =• . • f• •t de• In W-2572 the Davies is decreed wi an absolute right for domestic use inclu• ng up to 1 acre of Irrigation with a 1941 appropriation date. The decree recognized the right meets the criteria of an exempt domestic well pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(1)(b) and 37-92-602(4). J.lntil recent sof, y ng this right has been used to serve twIli s. The addition of a third dwelling enlar es 5 tip tie pre- y8, 1972 uses an terefore, all the uses of the well must be replaced. The property is approximately 20 acnes. less than 35 acres to obtain a new 141 r"1 �` exempt well permit for 3 single-family dwellings. The new uses are for 3 single--famiiyE�'#� rm dwellings, irrigation of u to 1 alrx s of pasture. Total annual diversions are estimated at bete) tWL 3.73 acre-feet f'� *441 'po + Acite5 1.1N . The well is not In the alluvium and is located more than 100 feet from Black Diamond Mine Creek. Due to downstream irrigation, domestic, and hydropower rights the well is subject to a year-round can. releases of Flannery Reservoir vi hon can red to •-• Int of inJu, or ownstreem ca • n = s without In je t w users. The uses o e water are • esc •'""-; n Exhibit A (a = c • . otai annual diversions rom the well are lagged and an estimated transit losses of 2%, which can be changed based on actual conditions of the stream are also included in Exhibit A. I hereby approve the proposed exchange plan in accordance with Section 37-80.- 120, CRS subject to the following conditions: 1. If written objections to the following conditions are not received by this office and the Division Engineer within 20 days of the receipt of this approval, it will be assumed that ->fi• cgs 31. ?R. • ! Q3 t %) 68) 4flet*P4 -Thi is ?JD tf A well LE 7 A) . P to' Ip1/Ay Aly la)ATrR is coo ea be REr Flow so T€so of poi?. Form No. OFFICE OF THEE/ATE ENGINEER GWS -25 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 APPLICANT WNER'S COPY LR WELL PERMIT NUMBER 239415 DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD JAMES P MAHAN JR 0648 COUNTY ROAD 126 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601- (970) 945-0319 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 9 Township 7 S Range 89 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 3115 Ft. from South Section Line 2873 Ft. from West Section Line UTM COORDINATES Northing: Easting: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) The well shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with variance no. 2002-22A, REVISED 2002-22D, granted by the Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors on March 25, 2002. 4) This well is recorded and permit approved in accordance with CRS 37-92-602(5) for historic use as indicated herein and described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(b), being a well producing 15 GPM and used for ordinary household purposes inside 2 (two) single family dwelling(s), fire protection, the watering of domestic animals and poultry, and the irrigation of not more than 1 (one) acre of home gardens and lawns. Additionally this well is located on a residential site of 20 acre(s) described as the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Twp. 7 South, Rng. 89 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County. Further identified as 0648 County Road 126, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. This well is identified as the Davies Well decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. W-2572. 5) Water from the well was first used beneficially for the above described purpose on December 31, 1941. NOTICE: This permit has been approved for the location and historic use as noted above. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of issuance, pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.) o /0 l e)(7.2., APPROVED DMW State Engineer 'MpR 0 5 2002 By Receipt No. 9500977 DATE ISSUED EXPIRATION DATE APR -02-2002 13:38 110 WATER RESOURCES 4111 303 866 3589 P.01/01 STATE OF COLORADO BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PUMP INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Deaver, CO 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 http://www.water.state.co.usThoc Mr. James P. Mahan, Jr. 0648 CR 126 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 25, 2002 Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director, DNR Hal D. Simpson. P.E. Secretary RE: Request for Variance, Infiltration Gallery Well, Southwest "1/4 of the Northeast '/<, Section 9, Township 7S, Range 89W, 6`" PM, Garfield County Request No. 2002-22A , REVISED 2002-22D Dear Mr. Mahan: Thank you for the Request for Variance received March 4, 2002 regarding the subject well. Your request has been reviewed for the Board of Examiner of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors. The request is specifically for a variance from Rule 10.4.12. After review, the Board has approved the request with the following conditions: 1. The infiltration gallery is constructed in accordance with the plan submitted and revisions required by the conditions of the approval_ 2. It is our understanding that all surface casing will be protected inside a well house. This is an acceptable method of protection. 3. The ground surface must be properly graded to provide positive drainage away from the well head. 4. The well shall be located at least 50 feet from any septic tank or sewer line and at least 100 feet from any leach field as required by Rule 10.2.2. Construction of the well closer than the minimum distances specified herein will void all provisions of this variance. 5. The well must be constructed in compliance with the disinfection standards provided in Rule 15. 6. An annual water quality test is recommended. Approval of this request does not relieve the owner of potential responsibility or liability in the event contamination of the water source results from construction, nor does the grantor assume any responsibility or liability should contamination occur. Owners are also advised that Rule 6.6 of the Revised Rules and Regulations require that the construction comply with any federal, state, county, municipal or local government laws, regulations or codes that are more stringent than these Rules or contain standards not covered by these Rules. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, George D. VanSlyke Chief, Geotechnical Services cc: Steve Pope, Division 5 GDV/gla:s:bordexam/variance02/2002-22D REVISED.doc BRAD AUSTIN, Denver, JANET BELLIS, Boulder, H. RAY NEWMYER, Mosca, GLENN CLEMENT. Greeley TOTAL P.01 80 'd • F:XIIIIZIT •'A•' to between Eugene H. Ne) on. tu+:! 477 rd 376 N a1ZS c3 1„•. 1374.3le.- nC rr 0 0 r z8E Q 4• n 1+ N 131.M Gi it 354.zb' MA 1L y t C) rs J ...Ad F.ass_melil•r.rnc-\t rlrltrtl �'./ M. Srlre�And Cla L7 C F'hy L. Spear and t9i 1 j j;r_, I>74- -r• 4 a• 1+ 30. 17ei Li f r C) to Q' Y 14 t/• t o1 13' a 13 76.92 . o ur U l.7 n 1+ NINES tD Ate.. 13r9.46' 4' CD CO sr. '0 Lti 'GREEN c- � Ca lJ : n 1TE 011 u 1 ��t 4�'� r i a 3.3 9 x. 2 4 .� �' 1.4 ..!_%).,___ I22�4' -' 11Pfi.g1' ;»—r 36.54' r 0 to N'» .43 7' " 339,41'1 ICT2.3 W_ NI 1 c - �'/ Up L'1 to v' (.41 I or e. u' — to 1• n O _7- 1t 1Crr, 2.. 332• z9.1, :".% v n '4 til 45, r'. I 9 -i r'a 7 e 4 �' ELM 4.50.. 4 s- r. 1.351.99" .,-7Yfif.•rb 079,3'--�3,47:1� /3B4 -sr' • i %I C /, I- 7 '� e • N. �\^ �' 4./ r • `•. - �j�C.`d9E't 8O 00-SO-icuw 1 4*4LEJSj-tMRI6 47)(0000 NGS G 8(bo l Demi s ,N66 of31 %!„Ac.� -_mita° 1' ,4 we - j �'1 woQ p_ I�JG s Co 8I6.0 1 s�{ R (o 5rerh coo sod "f3Q j3464,14 poittooQ M UNe _Ed 14auclooD QcNG S G 8lbo 1 " 6oK 41( glia 1'vRE () ® L44/0P MRNAGE AF.� 5062! O 5. wy b 2.Lt ivoo 0 64.04 Ael El rota 3to 5 s gr of Yad _-_�r/'3 g S-eAL oCE PA. 4.801 CMZ 6,73 co 8«�z m2•C� etika'l -f7^,4--A-7 z07)11,45 441 -lie a - ?-tte,1 nox_ s 4A.„16 • tl8? 23iku= plii-goNo SNC .40 (NGS Co 8(6401 Demis tNs Dg`I 7 c� J 4 iA use RA aiJwoo fl- spre14-4s Co 8160 C1150 1$44,cie poo. O l� cue - &lesio000-_ 2cNG G &bo �o 6" /'i ( psi&o 2— 1 SvR&.v _or LSP MF t ivAGEu ' I 5o 62 e. S_. _,iw 6 Z� MOtO000 toGS 8( O! 7&ipPiA 3 Io De 5,6 (1046 PA. Ib 801 C6Z e r ea) 6.fev,) ?o. ^- . `i � locc Lv, co 6*(2-- 3 6,_6(0 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sirs; bEPARI° 8 May 2000 The purpose of this letter is to verify that the property at 0648 County Road 126 (Black Diamond Road), owned by Mr. Jim Mahan, is under the protection of the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District. Our current District boundaries cover County Road 117 (Four Mile Road) to the area above Ski Sunlight, Four Mile Park, as well as the areas surrounding 117 Rd. This includes Black Diamond Mine Road. From his address above, Mr. Mahan is able to see our Station #4, located at 4654 117 Rd. This letter is again, to verify that the address above hes within our coverage area. This letter is not to be considered in any way as an approval for any building and/or development plans that may be in the process of consideration by the Planning and Building Department of Garfield County. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 945-4942. Thank you. Sincerely, Carl L. Smith, Acting Battalion Chief Glenwood Springs Fire Department cc: Jim Mahan 806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 60 1 970/945-4942 FAX 970/945-6040 01-97-04 10:48 GLENWOOD FIRE DEPT ad.11••••• • oolOOD Spit, ON* SSV": 1D=970 945 6506 P01/01 • frr pAR-c Garfield County Planning Department 108 lith Street. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 January 6, 2004 Dear Sirs. The purpose of this letter i to verify that the property at 0648 County Road :26 (Black Diamond Mine Road), owned by Mahan Properties is located in the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District and the Glenwood Springs Fire Department provides fire protection for that area. "This letter is not to be considered in any way as an approval for arty building and /or development plans that may be in the process of consideration by the Garfield County Planning and Building Department. If you have any questions, please contact me at (970) 384-6433. Sincerely, Ronald L. Biggers Fire Protection Analyst Glenwood Springs Fire Department ••••••••••••••00.011011%..11101111•11111.••1•111111111MY 1 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 • • SEP 2 1 2000 July 11, 2000 Mr. Jim Mahan P.O. Box 1821 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: Percolation Test Results Mahan Residence Black Diamond Mine Ranch 0648 County Road 126 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Job No. GS -3045 As requested we have performed percolation testing in client located and prepared test pits at the subject site. Excavations were made with a backhoe to approximately 2.5 to 4 feet below existing ground surfaces in the area of the previously installed percolation field. Test holes 4 to 6 inches in diameter were hand excavated an additional 12 inches. The test results are attached. Based on the results a design percolation rate of 50 minutes per inch would normally be recommended. If you have questions, please call. Very truly yours, CTL/THO i ;V , INC. JM:cd (3 copies sent) CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE ■ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 ■ (970) 945-2809 SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 7/05/00 TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 9:OOam PERCOLATION TEST DATE: 7/07/00 WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS YES X NO PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE NUMBER DEPTH (INCHES) TIME AT START OF INTERVAL TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) DEPTH TO WATER CHANGE IN WATER DEPTH (INCHES) PERCOLA- TION RATE (MIN/INCH) START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) P-1 9 9:10 60 3.25 3.75 0.5 120 10:10 60 3.75 4.5 0.75 80 11:10 60 4.5 5.25 0.75 80 12:10 P-2 8.75 9:10 60 3.25 5.25 2.0 30 10:10 30 5.25 6.25 1.0 30 10:40 30 3.0 4.0 1.0 30 11:10 30 4.0 5.0 1.0 30 11:40 30 5.0 6.0 1.0 30 12:10 P-3 9 9:10 60 3.75 7.5 3.75 16 10:10 30 3.25 5.25 2.0 15 10:40 30 3.0 5.0 2.0 15 11:10 30 5.0 6.75 1.75 17 11:40 30 3.25 5.25 2.0 15 12:10 P-4 9.5 9:10 60 2.75 3.75 1.0 60 10:10 60 3.75 4.75 1.0 60 11:10 60 4.75 5.75 1.0 60 12:10 Job No. GS -3045 Fig. 1 • • July 11, 2000 Mr. Jim Mahan P.O. Box 1821 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: Percolation Test Results Mahan Residence Black Diamond Mine Ranch 0648 County Road 126 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Job No. GS -3045 As requested we have performed percolation testing in client located and prepared test pits at the subject site. Excavations were made with a backhoe to approximately 2.5 to 4 feet below existing ground surfaces in the area of the previously installed percolation field. Test holes 4 to 6 inches in diameter were hand excavated an additional 12 inches. The test results are attached. Based on the results a design percolation rate of 50 minutes per inch would normally be recommended. If you have questions, please call. Very truly you CTL/T • P: ' , INC. ech ing, P.E. nch Man er -43�: :cd (3 copies sent) CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (970) 945-2809 • SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 7/05/00 TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 9:OOam PERCOLATION TEST DATE: 7/07/00 WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS YES X NO PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE NUMBER DEPTH (INCHES) TIME AT START OF INTERVAL TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) DEPTH TO WATER CHANGE IN WATER DEPTH (INCHES) PERCOLA- TION RATE (MIN/INCH) START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) P-1 9 9:10 60 3.25 3.75 0.5 120 10:10 60 3.75 4.5 0.75 80 11:10 60 4.5 5.25 0.75 80 12:10 P-2 8.75 9:10 60 3.25 5.25 2.0 30 10:10 30 5.25 6.25 1.0 30 10:40 30 3.0 4.0 1.0 30 11:10 30 4.0 5.0 1.0 30 11:40 30 5.0 6.0 1.0 30 12:10 P-3 9 9:10 60 3.75 7.5 3.75 16 10:10 30 3.25 5.25 2.0 15 10:40 30 3.0 5.0 2.0 15 11:10 30 5.0 6.75 1.75 17 11:40 30 3.25 5.25 2.0 15 12:10 P-4 9.5 9:10 60 2.75 3.75 1.0 60 10:10 60 3.75 4.75 1.0 60 11:10 60 4.75 5.75 1.0 60 12:10 Job No. GS -3045 Fig. 1 4,_ cD2o AC 2, SHEET NO. 19 SOIL SURVEY OF ASPEN -GYPSUM AREA, COLORADO, PARTS OF EAGLE, GARFIELD, AND PITKIN COUNTIES (CATTLE CREEK QUADRANGLE) 50 Soil Survey is 18 to 20 inches, the average annual air temperature is 37 to 39 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 50 to 70 days. Typically, the surface layer is light brownish gray silty clay loam about 6 inches thick. The next layer is clay about 9 inches thick. The substratum is clay about 18 inches thick over shale. The depth to calcareous shale ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The soil is calcareous throughout. Included in this unit are small areas of Forsey, Cochetopa, Antrobus, Anvik, Skylick, and Sligting soils. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is slow in the lyers soil. Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate to severe on the steeper slopes. This unit is used as rangeland, watershed, or wildlife habitat. The potential plant community is mainly Thurber fescue, Idaho fescue, and needlegrasses. Other plants that characterize this site are slender wheatgrass, nodding brome, and silver sagebrush. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 2,500 pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, silver sagebrush and Kentucky bluegrass increase in abundance. This unit is poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the shrink -swell potential and the slope. This map unit is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigated. It is in the Subalpine Loam range site. 63—Jerry loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on alluvial fans and hills. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and shale. Elevation is 7,500 to 9,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is 18 to 20 inches, the average annual air temperature is 37 to 40 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 70 to 80 days. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown 4j/ loam about 11 inches thick. The subsoil is channery .. clay loam about 23 inches thick. The substratum to a Included in this unit are small areas of Showalter, Morval, Cochetopa, Tridell, and Fughes soils. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderate in the Jerry soil. Available water capacity also is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. This unit is used as rangeland. The potential plant community is mainly mountain brome, elk sedge, mountain snowberry, Gambel oak, and Saskatoon serviceberry. Other plants that characterize this site are slender wheatgrass, needlegrasses, and western wheatgrass. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 2,000 pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, rabbitbrush, Kentucky bluegrass Canada thistle, and downy bromegrass increase in abundance. This unit is poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the shrink -swell potential and the slope. This map unit is in capability subclass Vle, nonirrigated. It is in the Brushy Loam range site. 64—Jerry loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes. This deep well drained soil is on alluvial fans and hills. It formed it alluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and shale. Elevation is 7,500 to 9,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is 18 to 20 inches, the average annual air temperature is 37 to 40 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 70 to 80 days. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown loam about 11 inches thick. The subsoil is channery clay loam about 23 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is very channery clay loam. Included in this unit are small areas of Showalter, Morval, Cochetopa, Tridell, and Fughes soils. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderate in the Jerry soil. Available water capacity also is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is very rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. This unit is used as rangeland. The potential plant community is mainly mountain brome, elk sedge, mountain snowberry, Gambel oak, and Saskatoon serviceberry. Other plants that characterize this site are slender wheatgrass, needlegrass, and western wheatgrass. The average annual production of air-dry vegetation is about 2,000 pounds per acre. If the range condition deteriorates, rabbitbrush, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada thistle, and downy bromegrass increase in abundance. This unit is poorly suited to homesite development. The main limitations are the shrink -swell potential and the slope. This map unit is in capability subclass Vile, nonirrigated. It is in the Brushy Loam range site. 65—Jerry-Millerlake loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes. This map unit is on alluvial fans and valley side slopes. Elevation is 7,500 to 9,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is 18 to 20 inches, the average annual air temperature is 37 to 40 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is 75 to 85 days. This unit is about 50 percent Jerry soil and 40 percent Millerlake soil. • TOW'SHIP 7 SOUTH RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MI GARFIELD COUNTY 045 19.85_2_ 18.82 1 (- IIIIIMEOMMIlr 'OC 66907 I lOLre• i a 17.14' f . I L ,__— 2" ,s2 1-73:21 I ``. SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT NO., 3 SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT NO I 2 SEE SUPPLEMENTAL. PLA NO 1 1 ` 11 C ted CIO 66907 U. Lse ,..1 i_'J NO. 1 4 ------J ,,.......1.••••0•1111101M yyYIII�'4 ' \'Rer X04. SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT NO 2 10 05010009 0/C A// �. —1 Min 1 . SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLP NO 3 12 WC /ti+ -4 a577 SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT NO 2 9 0X50714 yr 8• Dom' 660/00 i . WC .906 / ? 5)' 1 10.14 4 /05.M1S Al/ w,^ � SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PU No 3 13 ern= T • 229-88 SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT NO 2 15 14 �• 17 COC44109 No alto V° I . I i,,_ • • Q/C662! ly7AY/N _..! I 1, 176 ,._16 I 579 /r/6 0/C I ' COC 44059 NrtmUSFS Ne alto /900 O/C 1400 0 054109 Recon US Rola 4//n_ Cordons R4�Wy1 Ne mi. LW - . C°440so 41 t 1— — — 1 00066666 I 06 —_ Lse — J SEE SUPPL EMI NTAL ^LAT SEE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT NO 4 22 NO a ' 23 /,./ 0 /I?!668 0/C L 24 I /967 21- 20 L._. �0844099 NaN.UflS WP N.Me 301 • 896 /561 0/C • T 2501 �t'ru1 • , throe VC Mie 25 05-91-00 0/C Amt Res I I COC 4401 NO w/nrFl lip/g5 r✓o r. --`—ter I 1 I Ii= — CYK66667I I IW' Ls4 II L,29. — .. i 1 — _JCOr -- 11""------7f--------f i 11 00066687 ` II OC Ls. + L._. L 2€3%r • 4.e11 M t7F= 4.t MMe .— ---i• / 1 4,/Ne sol 6P, _ . /11 4 21.60 5 17.60 •- _I_, 27�• 1 38.11 — 9EL SUPPLLLkNTAL PLAT NO 4 26 V ----- COrd4., /491 o/c /569 I II 03066606 • 06 Ls* •1 11---- --- ----- -- -- ` i n ..� - - 1 _3 51,90 1 , r.ar 5/ 64 32.09 r, r n "1 r I a I 1 - TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH RANGE 89 WEST OF THE Susi P ,vn x/191, e.1 60 c0C 9 16 4562 fV NW (CENTER AAftUNTAINl' i V co ra • r�. • e • • 6020 no c. 4562!VNW (CENTER MOUNTAIN)] of a, •la. • • ] N THE DISTRICT COURT IN ANI) FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO CASE No. w- 2572 IN THE MATTER 0F 'I'III': APPLICATION F01( WATER RIG11'I'S OF FOUR MIL';; C ; '?I: CO1': 1'•NY IN TIIE ROARING FORK "RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES TRIBUTARIES INVOLVED: FOUR MIL CREEK G.' 'C IELD T j•I COUNTY i' ILE_ 1.N INATU, Divisi ' r;u. .. s /`,T G O RULING OI'v'I'IIt REFEREE A131 t;I_,UTE DECREE FOR UNDERGRDUNU WATER RIGIITS And the Referee having made the investigations required by Article 92 of Chanter 37, C.R.S. 1973, does hereby make the following ruling, to -wit: This application was referred to the Water Referee of Water Division No. 5 on the 3rd day of January , 197 5 Four Mile Creek Company; c/o Michael D. White; 1. Name of Anplicant Address 1100 University Building; Denver, Colorado. 2. The name of the structure is Davies '. 1e11. 3. The Legal description of the structure is: located in the Si' NE:'4 of Section 9, T. 7 S., R. `39 6th P.M. 7t a point whence the (Jest Ouarter Corner Section 9 bears S. 80°37'35" W. 2912.20 feet.. The well t.I of 4. The depth of the well is 3 feet. 5. The date of the initiation of the appropriation is is of the said 1941. 6. The amount of water claimed is 0.033 cubic foot per second of time. 7. The use of the water is domestic and in•m and garden irrigation, of not riore than 1 acre. 8. The State Engineer's number is none. 9. The priority date is December 31, 1941. 10.The date of the application was December 30, 1974. It is the ruling of the Referee that the statements in the application are true and that the above described water right is approved. The above described underground water right meets the criteria for an exempt domestic well pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-602(1)(b) and 37-92-602(0, so long as it is used for the purposes set forth herein__ It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall become - ef'fecti.ve upon filing with the Water Clerk, subject to Judicial review as ,provided by law. Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, /Z day o f __s%4,J.A. !/ 197 Colorado, this flat eferee ['o protost was filed is) 1!*; m.• -• Waw' Division No. 5 The foregoing ruling is ont'fi.rc'ed State o1' Colorado and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this court. Dated: .sfe,Y -(-;/;i?! 14 Water Judgo / ,7,3F/ 0 0 -, • j 374.313. zu"E W 0 .t o .c c.1• 1 3 i3 1- • t e . • I) 0 J 0) n a x. e lf/✓448/ 7 Al • • • IJt _r tV . A. 0 --a tit �C�. . J ! n • u 1+ za9.�•a. f 1381. -3 120E�3dJ.�9' -1. q.2ie.0 1. _134=1 _3 1a' Tri 23' o, w . 339.51' J072.91' • _ I ,4.2.L3� '�i I0 0 1 11.11, '% ' •PVL • -/•"' 1974.80 -A '''� W r . t,rt . :� , � ' S W 4- .A A ' n n at z 14• 0+ c I to. N o i 13" °' . 3 t W Al a�R16 N �a- -41 m o U1 tP til G3 40' w n ,r t 2.23 1332.29 >•- S oo x.8 01 «E i o7 9.' 3� -•l 13 76.9 R0.4 F.,.,n e "r 30 F 1.100 Ul/I/TSI, eh 1 o r .1'1,x- -4 0 cv 1` Ron p 60 Fr,t4.,;Der Noo c'.wof. S'1 w 8 ' N in• 304 6c:4 ,384.SSr .400... smart•. (J 0 �A.0.< 7- n 13613 Recorded at Reception No. QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this 9th day of October , 19 86 , between ELMER L. CLAYCOMB and LINDA L. CLAYCOMB of the *County of Garfield and State of Colorado, grantor(s), and JAMES P. MAHAN, ROBERTA KATZ MAHAN and JEFFREY R. FITZSIMMONS whose legal address is 4779 117 Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 of the County of Garfield BOOK 696 PAGE7SS � r0 9©M6 State Dcc. Fey and State of Colorado, grantee(s), WITNESSETH, That the grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of other good and valuable consideration and TEN DOLLARS the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ha Ve remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents do remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the grantee(s), thei r heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the grantor(s) ha ve in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Garfield and State of Colorado, described as follows: The Davies Well located in the SWgNE4 of Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., at a point whence the West Quarter Corner of said Section 9 bears South 80°37'35" West 2912.28 feet; claiming 0.033 cubic feet per second of time for domestic lawn and garden irrigation of not more than one acre as approved by Ruling of Water Referee on January 12, 1976 and by the Water Judge on April 26, 1976. also known by street and number as: 4779 117 Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the grantor(s), either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the grantee(s), thei r heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The grantor(s) have executed this deed on the date set forth above. Elmer L. Claycomb by STATE OF COLORADO, (47/e/i0.722,,220 Linda L. Claycomb ss. County of Garfield 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of October , 19 86 , Elmer L. Claycomb and Linda L. Claycomb. MVly.ebjt?niis. ipn s.ges. August 16 , 1989 . Witness my hand and official seal. L> . ('` .ti. r t I �� t) J *If in Dehvar, insert"City and." Notary Public tt No. 933. Rev. 3-85. QUIT CLAIM DEED Bradford Publishing, 5825 W. 6th Ave., Lakewood, CO 80214 — (303) 233-6900 3-85 0 IN 'I'I11. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OP COLORADO CASE N0. W- 2572 TN THE lA'1"VER OP TIII'' APPLICATION ) POR WATER RIGHTS 0F ) FOUR. 1'IL:? C;17.. COilW,NY ) RULING 0F"T1IL REFEREE IN T111', ROARING G _'OERK "RIVER ) OR ITS TRIBUTARIES ) ABT:.:LUTE DECREE FOR TRIBUTARIES S INVOLVED: ) UNDERGTOUNDWATER RIGIETS I: \VE1.'F1,t Divisi:in No. slr,-rE or FOUR 1'1IL CREEK IN GA FII Li) COUNTY And the Referee having made the investigations reauired by Article 92 of Chanter 37, C.R.S. 1973, does hereby snake the following ruling, to -wit: This application was referred to the Water Referee of ;later Division No. 5 on the 3rd day of Janu;l.ry , 197 5 • 1. Name of Anplicant Four Mile Creek Company; c/o Michael D. White; Address 1100 University Building; Denver, Colorado. 2. The name of the structure is Davies Well. 3. The Legal description of the structure is: The well is located in the SNE of Section 9, T. 7 S., R. ":9 W. of the 6th P.V. at a point whence the '.fest Quarter Corner of said Section 9 bears S. 30°37'35" W. 2912.26 feet.. 4. The depth of the well is 3 feet. 5. The date of the initiation of the appropriation is 1941. 6. The amount of water claimed is 0.033 cubic foot per second of time. 7. The use of the water is domestic and lawn and garden irrigation, of not more than 1 ac'i.e. 8. The State Engineer's number is none. 9. The priority date is December 31,• 1941. 10.The date of the application was December 10, 1974. It is the ruling of the Referee that the statements in the application are true and that the above described water right is approved. The above described underground water right meets the criteria for an exempt domestic well pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-602(1)(b) and 37-92-602(4)1 , so longs as it is used for the purposes set forth herein. It is accordingly ORDERED that this ruling shall become effective -upon filing with the Water Clerk, subject to Judicial review as ,provided by law. Done at the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this day o f!4J L.9� ----' 197 414— Isla t ..d e f'e r'e e Po protc51 was filed in t7; r.:-71tc-• Wa ' Division No. 5 The forer,oing rulin,=' is (- fi.rmed State of Colorado and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this court. Dated: y%(.S,Y,`'(/ 2.6.;/,/77 Water Judgo I/40 '/ 0 )1 •i:Xf1IDIT "R" to ko,�d F.nnf:mc!!l H. Nel"7.. �../- - melt art trd .1 �_ "between Eugene M. SNsar nn:] Claph)• T.. spoor �hcl tlillir,.� son. • .------- r�'+,x.477 x!'376 Iv 0s. .S r3W J374.3E.• u - "'' .{, v' 0 C {` (.7 41. o . h rf 1334.31 C P 197 tr. 2. 7' FLM 1'. 1 7,74, 3E�' to n u. 4+ - rro1-13• IQ,� 13767.92' 35+-sCe' IL tj -r- 41r_ h MA NINES + t0ke. 13r9.46' N1 4 tieb tO cO n; ▪ a 5. n o Ca �• , . •: LP rr .1. \ t, ,4. u u RECN Cr � i A a It Ica Legaigag ip c. el. voo.44 $4 w 10 1.3 81.9 9' •J Li, r• 14 !376.9+ 45, r 14 1 B 7 ? 4 :' Y/":: OI •I J 1381. �;a `_dJ.39 x.24 Ate_ I ��129.:4 -iA i ePA.- - »_x_36.54' r N .' . 3 7�w 1339,4t.' 7.(1) nv t m (. v (. ►41-.7_5 80-d 117 4. 1'x 32, 291 I -4 ' 9 1, ., •ten '� 5 01' eL-M 4 2- r. w V 74- t ♦1 o79, 93 4, n It !3e•4 57' J •\ 1 w r ;- �\\ s\` • V9E':80 00-50-1CPW i 2e:47 97029 Acirma -: cokys.T, .../AT** cr`/R70N�, Opt,p,V„pp GV= NO. ff Cs/1.41. STATE Et,:o_ .1 v WAI 2Ik a. •l. STIPULATION Of NE7I1.1adir E I LL I E G BURC1-F I IIIP IN WITNESS hereof the parties have executed this Stipulation on the dates shown. BJLL E G. BURCHFIELD Billie G. Burchfieid #19325 Date Attorney for Brigham, ?rwl(s), Jessap(s), Sunlight Inn, Prut(s), Turner and Bruhn 102 Grand Ave., Ste 305, Glecrwood Springs, CO 81601 P. O. Box 475, Parachute, CO 81635 Telephone: (970) 9454318 Fax: (970) 945-8957 Telephone: (970) 285-7990 Fax (970) 285-9104 Ray Walker, Respondent .3125 They 13 Rite, CO 81650 Tom: (970) 625-3260 Date James P. Mahan, Jr., Respondeat Date P. O. Box 1821 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81602 Fax No: (970) 945-4235 7n ' A tl : R M . V. UP 2Y �y PAGE 10 z Edward R #26134 Date Denise est,1,24534 Assistant Attorneys General Attorney for the State Engineer Natural Resources and Environment See. 1525 Sherman Street, 5*Floor Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 866.5065 Fax: (303) 866 - el. 1:Or.-u P.C. � i •ri S d, N0. 23380 Date Attorney s e Desk Price 818 Cob .• • Ave., P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Spring,', CO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-6546 FAX: (970) 945-8902 William B. Mahan, Respondent Date Individual}y and as Pru. of Sunlight Water Co. 901 Boylston, Leesburg, Fl. 32748 Fax No. (352) 787-8753 Page 6 of 7 T69 998 ]�: Yep -;1:6.11-40 "OGG .gip,}Q"OGG 03 S0 00 DISTRICT COURT, WATER. DIvIIIION 3, COLORADO CASE NO. 99 CW 141. !TATE ENo. . d v. VAMP!. a. ITIPULATION.01121112MT T COLOIA & HOUPT P.C. //ds7,2•271._ A C 0.11947 Dat Attorney fo ` aye Faas • 1204 Grand Aves u.c Glenwood:Springs, Co. 81601 Telephone., (970) 945-6067 Fax No. (9.70) 945-.6292 SCHEN, KERST 8t DiWINTER, P.C. Dan Kcrst, No. 6387 AttocTicy rot Junes and L of .% Spry 302 84 Street Glenwood Springs, CO x1601 Te1ephornc: (970) 945-2447 Thomas L. Adldson, No.19316 Data Attorney for Virginia Stanton 502 Main Street, Suite 201 Carbondale, Co. $1623 Telephone: (970)963-3900 Fax No. (970) 963-3131 Page 7 of 7 r •