Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 CorrespondenceGARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWtrOO SPRtNGS, trOLORAOO Ell6Ol 20I4 BLAKE AVENUE PHtrNE 945-A212 June 2.1981 James and Veda Waters Box 1741 Glenwood Springs, C0 81601 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Waters: 0n June 1., 1981, the Garfield County Board of Conrnis- sioners deemed the Spring Valley area as "premature for further subdivision". By passing this resolution, the Garfield County Corrnissioners have shown their concern for the developnent occuring in Spring Va1'ley without the benefit of adequate ser- vi ces . You may choose to proceed with your exemption application; however, I must advise you that the Conrmissioners may 'look un- favorably upon your request at this time. I won't schedule your hearing with the Conrnissioners untiI further direction from you. Please contact me immediately in regard to your application. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Terry L. Bowman Assistant Planner TLB/1 d ,rr 1(1t\ n Scrrnxx & I{pnst ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1OO. VILLAGE PLAZA GLENWO()D SPRINGII, CoL()RAD() A1601 l{ay 22, 1981JOHN R. SCHENK DAN KERST WILLTAM J. DEWINTER III Thank (3O3l 945-2447 Art AbPIanalP CountY ALtorneY Garfield CountY Courthouse P.O. Box 640 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81602 Re: waters' Petition for subdivision Exemption Dear Art: I visited with you a few days ago about the possibility of exempting from =rldi.ri=iott the creation of three parcels from a ten acre tract in sprj-ng valley. I have discussed your comments with the i{atetsr owners of the subject property' 6rr" to their concern that giving only one child rights in one of the subdivided parcers might cause controversy amonq the siblings when they get older] they have elected to petition the commissioners on the basis tfrat the third parcel will be conveyed to a trust for the benefit of all three children' I appreciate your concern regarding lle.potential for a judicial pli,titi"" (lfrus subverting the subdivision process) but believe that this concern can be aleviated by an appropriate timitation in the trust agreement, combined with a deed restriction, which would prohibit partition and require that at such time as the beneflciaries are to receive distribution of the trust assets, the parcel held in trust must be sold as a complete parcel and may not be subject to judicial or voluntary partition. My review of the Iaw applicable to partitioi-r iuggests that this type of limitation in the trust instrument and in the deed has been universally enforced' I would appreciate your comments in this regard' The waters have proceeded to file the petition-in the form enclosed, but ,olta b" happy to consider any adjustments which you deem necessary to pr-oiect the County's concerns in this regard. you for your attention LTXhrs matter' 1 /vours very trulY, i 1 \ naN KERSr Farrar i'i---- cc: Davis Waters