HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061153.tiff CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE (970) 336-7215, Ext. 4225
FAX: (970) 352-0242
D' P. O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
C.
COLORADO
April 13, 2006
James and Cheri Scott
35236 Cornerstone Way
Windsor, Colorado 80550
Dear James and Cheri Scott:
Your application for Amended Planned Unit Development Final Plan, AMPF #354, to subdivide
Lot 7 of Shiloh Estates into four lots, has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County
Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is
shown as part of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you to
indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office. Regular
hearing procedures will then be followed.
In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by May 26, 2006. If we are
not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered closed.
Sincerely,
Esther E. Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Uwe, / , do hereby request the Board of County
Com loners to consider h above mentioned application.
= EXHIBIT
2006-1153
fnmcF # 91
U.S.Postal Service '
pERTIFlED MAIL RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provide
ru
co I
co
IL Postage $
o ----- r7 1
,
Certified Fee 'I I'
Postmark
trl Return Receipt Fee Here
ru (Endorsement Required)
CI Restricted Delivery Fee
O (Endorsement Required) _@@_--
Q Total Postage&Fees $
114
uT R@pcipient's Name (Please Print Clearly)(To be completed by mailer)
4.4:
"I"h 'r L_/ r I L�
Street,Apt.No.;or PO Box No.
]C -}-
N City,State,ZIP+0
C uas,', C2 CS5O
SEN�E•: C eM•LETS THIS SECTI eN
COMPLE IC iHt, Sr:-LION(it DL UVE'Y
• Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sig,p —/ ❑ A ant
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. / ' g
• Print your name and address on the reverse X ,pr , ❑Addressee
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Nam- C. Date of Delivery
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, • ,.- •
I �-
or on the front if space permits. •
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes
1. Article Addressed to: if YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No
cm
L-01C 5 W id (irik t " 1:.:\ti
7)727(6 C d r nerst6 Yt1. �Qut 3. Service Type
r 6ef 5C $J Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
L try) U 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail 0 G.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label) 10L-C+ 05,do LC Z.5 C14(12-
PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540
April 24, 2006
Weld County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case# AmPF-354 (Applicant James & Cheri Scott)
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing this letter today to express our strong support of the above reference case;
the proposed replatting and subdividing of Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD. A hearing is
scheduled to review this matter on May 10th at 10:00am, which we plan on attending in
person. We just wanted you to have all perspectives in advance in order to expedite a
decision.
My husband and I have been the original homeowners of Lot 14 in Shiloh for the past 9+
years now. We chose Shiloh for the open/rural aspect. We also felt the area was quite
desirable (small neighborhood, single dead-end street, restrictive covenants, etc), and
would not only be a nice place to raise a family but would be a good investment. Based
on a recent market analysis, our property value has greatly increased! And yes, it's been a
wonderful place to raise a family!
We have no concerns that anything significant will change if the subdivision of Lot 7 is
approved. In fact, we feel there will be great benefits. By adding three more homes (Lot 7
was originally approved for one residence), the HOA will receive additional revenues
(thus lower current dues) and additional water rights (this is a HUGE value to all
homeowners!). Plus, based on recent research, we strongly feel property values would
increase (most new homes meeting our architectural requirements would sell in the
$800K-$1M range). With additional houses also comes the possibility of new friendships
with new neighbors, etc. We truly believe these benefits far outweigh any negatives.
We worry far less about the process of adding four beautiful new homes to our
neighborhood than we do about the high density commercial and residential development
that the Town of Windsor and Severance has approved in our surrounding areas. It is this
increased traffic, noise and pollution that threaten our way of life in Shiloh, not the
proposed subdivision of Lot 7.
Emotional aspects to the matter aside, there are more "legal" reasons why we would ask
you to approve this proposal:
1) Contrary to some homeowners interpretation, the Shiloh Estates PUD covenants
clearly state that subdivision is allowed (Section 3.32), pending approval from the Board
of Directors. We are not held to only 14 lots.
EXHIBIT
F
R,nPF #3,5y
2) Based on the above, the Board of Directors approved Mr. Scott's proposal for
subdivision in Sept. 2005. My husband was a member of the Board at the time and was
intimately involved in the total process (note, he is still on the Board today). He feels
strongly that the decision of the Board was handled with the utmost integrity and within
the limits of the bylaws/covenants. All homeowners were given ample opportunity to
comment(even halt the process) prior to the vote/approval. To question the decision of
the Board some four months later and request a revote is a clear violation of the
democratic process we operate under.Not to mention it would be detrimental to the HOA
moving forward. So, in our opinion, due diligence was served. The vote that was taken
(and subsequent approval given)was valid and should be upheld.
3)We view this proposal as beneficial and compatible with the neighborhood. The
proposed four homes divided on the 17 acres will be consistent with the existing land use
model. Sufficient open space will continue to exist. Additionally, as defined in the
covenants, The Architectural Review Board will ensure further compatibility with the
current neighborhood design.
In summary,we are extremely supportive of Mr. Scott's proposal to subdivide his Lot 7.
We feel the development of Lot 7 by Mr. Scott into four lots prevents any future attempts
to develop this area, which could have adverse effects on the neighborhood and our
quality of life. Change is inevitable, and we'd rather exercise a bit of control over the
change now when possible. Ultimately though, the process by which the Board/HOA
approached and approved the subdivision was sound and should stand.
We thank you for your time and consideration in the matter. We respectfully request that
you consider our points of view and some of the indisputable facts in this case and
approve the proposal.
Best Regards,
162,4f- V.O\
Debbie Vischer Detlef Vischer
Lot 14 Shiloh Estates
35070 Cornerstone Way
Windsor, CO 80550
970/231-3226
Cc: James& Cheri Scott
l May 1, 2006
County Commissioners of Weld County
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Docket Number 2006-29; Case Number AmPF-354; James and Cheri Scott
I received a letter notifying me that the above referenced proposal to replat and subdivide Lot 7
in Shiloh Estates PUD Zone District will be reviewed by the County Commissioners on May 10,
2006. I am strongly opposed to this proposal for multiple reasons.
We purchased our property—Lot 6 of Shiloh Estates, directly south of Lot 7—with the
understanding that Lot 7 was platted as a single lot with only one house permitted. The
uniqueness of a smaller, non-urban development with a single cul-de-sac road was the primary
reason we selected Shiloh Estates. If Lot 7 is subdivided as proposed, our accustomed lifestyle
will suffer dramatically. Our overall development would be increased by 21%; our semi-rural
setting will be compromised as our current northern "open space" views will be replaced by 4
homes, potentially multiple out-buildings and increased traffic, pollution and noise.
Additionally, the covenants covering the Shiloh Estates PUD that we agreed to comply with and
under which we designed and developed our home state that one home will be built on Lot 7
and that no lots can be subdivided without changing the covenants. Moreover, the Shiloh
homeowners consistently refer to these covenants to guide and inform all community decisions.
Using our covenants is a communal precedent, particularly when making decisions that affect
the greater good. Subdividing Lot 7 is a direct contradiction of our established PUD covenants.
With the proposed development of Lot 7 not only would we lose a significant portion of our
serene surroundings, but also house and property value. We've had two independent realtors
appraise our property with and without the proposed development. (Copies of this
documentation were included in the letter sent to the Planning Department.) After reviewing the
property as it currently exists as well as the proposed re-platting and subdivision, they stated
that with the loss of our view and the increased noise and traffic resulting from the four
proposed homes on Lot 7 that we could expect a drop of$15,000 to $20,000 (today's dollars) in
value. None of the developer's proposed improvements, including additional shares of water,
will compensate this loss.
Finally, when we were asked by the developer to review and support the Lot 7 proposal, we
were given misleading and incomplete information. There was nothing written for us to
consider, we were not told about any zoning and planning requirements or the developer's
application for Lot 7's annexation by the Town of Windsor, or that the covenants would be
rewritten and submitted as part of the application to the Planning Department without the
approval of the homeowners. Furthermore, we were told that the development of Lot 7 was
inevitable and that if the current owner didn't develop it someone else would. It was only after I
began my own investigation of Planning and Zoning Codes that I realized that we were asked to
make decisions based on data biased toward the development of Lot 7 rather than data that
was comprehensive and accurate.
In summary, my reasons for not supporting this proposal include the following:
Mena
7Otefr` SOY
• On purchasing our property, we were told that Lot 7 would have one home. Our purchase
was decided by the small, unique, quiet and relatively isolated design of Shiloh Estates as it
presently stands.
• The Shiloh Estates PUD covenants state unequivocally that Lot 7 is a single lot with one
home. They also state that Shiloh Estates is comprised of 14 lots; the proposed subdivision
would result in 17 lots. Performing our due diligence at the time we purchased our property,
we reviewed the plat map on file with the County: it showed 14 platted lots, not 17.
• We would suffer significant property value loss, as well as a compromised lifestyle.
Presently, our views to the north (overlooking Lot 7) afford us quiet pastures and fields,
another chief reason we purchased our land and built our home. Under the auspices of our
covenants, our home was built with the understanding that only one home would exist to our
north and was thus positioned to maximize these northern views.
• The homeowners were given misleading and inaccurate information when asked to endorse
the development of Lot 7.
While I recognize that development land in our area is at a premium making Lot 7 a very
valuable piece of real estate, a principal reason that this land is so valuable is because it offers
a sense of open space and a rural "feeling". However, subdividing Lot 7 would lessen the
overall community's appeal and value. Additionally, I am concerned that if Lot 7 is approved for
subdivision Lot 8 might be next. Furthermore, several other land parcels in the vicinity are
available for purchase; and are open to developments that would not compromise the lifestyles
or land values of surrounding property owners.
With the rapid growth along the entire Front Range, I am very concerned about the diminishing
open space and the loss of a very desirable lifestyle. We have worked diligently to align our
building decisions with sustaining the land and maintaining a way of life that is quickly becoming
obsolete. I believe that the best response to the proposal would be to keep Lot 7 as a single lot
with one home. The developers and owners (James and Cheri Scott) could be advised to
purchase other land that would welcome their development efforts. Additionally, they can be
reminded that they will still earn a considerable yield by building a single home on Lot 7. With
such a solution, the developers/owners can still turn a profit and our community can remain
semi-rural, open, and true to its original development goals
In closing, I urge you to uphold the decision to deny this proposal made by both the
Planning Department and Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration.
Judith A. Whichard, Ph.D.
35245 Cornerstone Way (Lot 6 Shiloh Estates PUD)
Windsor, CO 80550
(970) 686-5917
Carol Harding
Prom: judywineinger@frii.com
lent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:52 AM
fo: charding@co.weld.co.us.
Subject: Case Number AmPF- 354 Proposed Development of Lot 7
First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Judy Wineinger and I along with my
husband and 2 young daughters live at 35126 Cornerstone Way (lot 13 within Shiloh
Estates) . We moved in last August thinking that we were moving into a fully developed
neighborhood. We knew there was a possibility of one more home being constructed on lot 7
but hoped that it might not happen in the near future. We have two small children who are
just learning to ride their bikes. We have no sidewalks in the neighborhood and have to
use the road to ride. The thought of having construction vehicles for 4 homes just
terrifies me to death.
I am strongly opposed to the multi-home development of Lot 7 within Shiloh Estates and
urge you to deny this proposal.
I believe there are six primary reasons this Amended PUD should be
denied:
1) Breach of condition under which all homeowners within Shiloh Estates originally
purchased Lots 1-6 and 9-14 from Jim Scott
2) Covenants have NOT been changed nor even proposed for change with the current
homeowners; therefore currently not allowing Lot 7 to be anything other than 1 house
3) False information provided and discussed by Jim Scott during original verbal
discussion with homeowners
4 ) Inconsistent land use with surrounding area. . . .the 12 lots to the south are all
approximately 4 acres, Lot 7 and 8 are platted today as 17 acres and our neighbors to the
north sit on 160 acres. This is an ideal transition of urban to rural.
,) Loss of Lifestyle: We wanted a semi rural setting when we bought into this development
just a year ago and the addition of four new homes plus four new outbuildings starts to
encroach on our lifestyle that we paid dearly for.
6) Lack of compatibility with existing land use and County Regulations for a Non-Urban
developments: Shiloh estates is already a non-conforming non-urban PUD because it has over
9 homes. Why would the county want to further compound this issue by allowing more homes
into this development?
I strongly request that this Amended PUD be denied and that Lot 7 remain platted as 1
house.
Sincerely,
Judy Wineinger, Abby Wineinger , Megan Wineinger
EXHIBIT
1
O JT *33Y
Page 1 of 2
Carol Harding
From: Wineinger, Matthew [Matthew.Wineinger@5wiftbrands.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Carol Harding; charding@co.weld.co.us.
Subject: Case Number AmPF -354 Proposed Development of Lot 7 within Shiloh Estates
First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Matt Wineinger and I along with my wife and 2 young daughters
live at 35126 Cornerstone Way (lot 13 within Shiloh Estates). We moved to this property from Kansas right at a
year ago and chose to do so because the development was completely built other than Lot 7 which was
represented as 1 house. We double checked this by reading the covenants and found that Lot 7 could only be
1 house as well. Since this time, Jim Scott has misrepresented to the homeowners their lack of ability to control
what happens to Lot 7. I also believe he has mis-led the Planning Board and is trying to do the same thing with
the County Commissioners now. Case in point: Mr. Scott represented that the Covenants of the community had
been changed; when there has never been any covenants change discussions written or verbal with the
homeowners. Yet he submitted a document to the county that has never been reviewed with the homeowners. He
also represented to the homeowners that if he did not develop Lot 7 as a multi-home lot someone else could.
Again, giving no credit to the homeowners ability to control their own destiny.
Therefore, I believe there are six primary reasons this Amended PUD should be denied:
1) Breach of condition under which all homeowners within Shiloh Estates originally purchased Lots 1-6
and 9-14 from Jim Scott
2) Covenants have NOT been changed nor even proposed for change with the current homeowners;
therefore currently not allowing Lot 7 to be anything other than 1 house
3) False information provided and discussed by Jim Scott during original verbal discussion with
homeowners
4) Inconsistent land use with surrounding area....the 12 lots to the south are all approximately 4 acres, Lot
7 and 8 are platted today as 17 acres and our neighbors to the north sit on 160 acres. This is an ideal
transition of urban to rural.
5) Loss of Lifestyle: We wanted a semi rural setting when we bought into this development just a year ago
and the addition of four new homes plus four new outbuildings starts to encroach on our lifestyle that we
paid dearly for.
6) Lack of compatibility with existing land use and County Regulations for a Non-Urban developments:
Shiloh estates is already a non-conforming non-urban PUD because it has over 9 homes. Why would the
county want to further compound this issue by allowing more homes into this development?
I strongly request that this Amended PUD be denied and that Lot 7 remain platted as 1 house.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matthew Wineinger
SVP/General Manager Retail Channel
Swift and Company
(O) 970.506.7841
(C) 970.539.2345
1770 Promontory Circle
Greeley, CO 80634
Matthew.VVineinger@Swiftbrands.com
Important Notice: EXHIBIT
4ozerx
r
5/2/2006 'ssy "
Page 2 of 2
The contents of this electronic message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee
and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the addressee, you are
notified that any transmission, distribution, downloading, printing or photocopying of the
contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender by return e-mail immediately and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments.
Thank you.
5/2/2006
May 2, 2006
County Commissioners of Weld County
915 10`h Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Docket Number 2006-29; Case Number AmPF-354; James and Cheri Scott
We recently received a letter notifying us that the above referenced proposal to replat
and subdivide Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD Zone District will be reviewed by the County
Commissioners on May 10, 2006. I am strongly opposed to this proposal for several
reasons. They are as follows:
1. At the present time Shiloh Estates fit very well into the surrounding land uses; a
cluster development to the West, smaller lots with some open space to the south with
some agricultural land to the south, agricultural land to the east with some small
acreages with homes, and agricultural land and horse farm to the north. The lots in
Shiloh Estates are -2-5 acres except for the 2 lots on the forth side of the PUD, both of
which are -17 acres. This fits very nicely with the surrounding land uses. The
subdivision of Lot 7 into four lots would be much more abrupt and less compatible.
2. The homwowners of Shiloh Estates purchased our properties with the
understanding that Lot 7 was platted as a single lot with only one house permitted. Our
lot just south of Lot 7 was purchased with that understanding also. The convenants and
the plat of the PUD also establish this fact. The uniqueness of a smaller, non-urban
development with a single cul-de-sac road was the primary reason we selected Shiloh
Estates. If Lot 7 is subdivided as proposed, our accustomed lifestyle will suffer
dramatically. Our overall development would be increased by 21%; our semi-rural
setting will be compromised as our current northern "open space" views will be replaced
by 4 homes, potentially multiple out-buildings and increased traffic, pollution, erosion
and noise.
3. The covenants covering the Shiloh Estates PUD that we agreed to comply with and
under which we designed and developed our home state that one home will be built on
Lot 7 and that no lots can be subdivided without changing the covenants. The PUD plat
on file with the county also show Lot 7 as one lot for one home. Moreover, the Shiloh
homeowners consistently refer to these covenants to guide and inform all community
decisions. Using our covenants is a communal precedent, particularly when making
decisions that affect the greater good. Subdividing Lot 7 is a direct contradiction of our
established PUD covenants.
EXHIBIT
4. When we were asked by the developer to review and support the Lot 7 proposal, we
were given misleading and incomplete information. There was nothing written for us to
consider, we were not told about any zoning and planning requirements or the
developer's application for Lot 7's annexation by the Town of Windsor, or that the
covenants would be rewritten and submitted as part of the application to the Planning
Department without the approval of the homeowners. We would not even have known
about the proposed covenant changes if we had not seen them in the Application
request. The Scotts have not told us of that nor shown them to us. In the detail the
Scotts proposed in the Application I doubt they would be passed by the Association.
Furthermore, we were told that the development of Lot 7 was inevitable and that if the
current owner didn't develop it someone else would. It was only after we began my own
investigation of Planning and Zoning Codes that I realized that we were asked to make
decisions based on data biased toward the development of Lot 7 rather than data that
was comprehensive and accurate.
5. With the proposed development of Lot 7 not only would we lose a significant portion
of our serene surroundings, but also house and property value. We've had two
independent realtors appraise our property with and without the proposed development.
(Copies of this documentation were included in the letter sent to the Planning
Department.) After reviewing the property as it currently exists as well as the proposed
re-platting and subdivision, they stated that with the loss of our view and the increased
noise and traffic resulting from the four proposed homes on Lot 7 that we could expect a
drop of$15,000 to $20,000 (today's dollars) in value. None of the developer's proposed
improvements, including additional shares of water, will compensate this loss.
In summary, my reasons for opposing this proposal include the following:
• Lot 7, as one —17 acre lot, fits better with surrounding land uses than it would as four
—4 acre lots.
• On purchasing our property, we were told, covenants say and plat shows that Lot 7
would be 17 acres and have one home.
• The Shiloh Estates PUD covenants state unequivocally that Lot 7 is a single lot with
one home. They also state that Shiloh Estates is comprised of 14 lots; the proposed
subdivision would result in 17 lots.
• We would suffer significant property value loss, as well as a compromised lifestyle.
Presently, our views to the north (overlooking Lot 7) afford us quiet pastures and
fields, another chief reason we purchased our land and built our home.
• The homeowners were given misleading and inaccurate information when asked to
endorse the development of Lot 7.
Development land in our area is at a premium making and Lot 7 a very valuable piece of
real estate, a principal reason that this land is so valuable is because it offers a sense of
open space and a rural "feeling". However, subdividing Lot 7 would lessen the overall
community's appeal and value. Additionally, if Lot 7 is approved for subdivision Lot 8,
which is also —17 acres and owned by the Scotts, might be next.
With the rapid growth along the entire Front Range, I am very concerned about the
diminishing open space and the loss of a very desirable lifestyle. We have worked
diligently to align our building and living decisions with sustaining the land and
maintaining a way of life that is quickly becoming obsolete. I believe that the best
response to the proposal would be to keep Lot 7 as a single lot with one home.
In closing, I urge you to uphold the decision to deny this proposal made by both
the Planning Department and Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your
consideration.
Phillip L. Dittberner, Ph.D
35245 Cornerstone Way (Lot 6 Shiloh Estates PUD)
Windsor, CO 80550
(970) 686-5917
r
r-.
4/28/2006
Weld County Commissioners,
Attn: Ester Gesick
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
CASE NUMBER: AmPF-354
APPLICANT: James and Cheri Scott
REQUEST: Amended PUD final plan to subdivide Lot 7, Shiloh Estates into four lots, three
additional lots.
Weld County Commissioners,
As a home owner in Shiloh Estates for the past nine years, I would like express my support of the
request by James and Cheri Scott. James Scott as the developer of Shiloh Estates and the general
contractor and builder of most of the homes in the subdivision has developed a top notch development
that all of us as home owners are very proud. There are currently 14 lots that range in size from about 2
acres up to 5 acres with the exception of Lots 7 and 8 which are each 17 acres. All of the homes are of
exceptional and comparable quality with appraised values over $400,000 each.
James and Cheri Scott desire to add three additional lots to Lot 7. We as home owners received a
letter in July, 2005 asking for our opinion on this proposal. I responded with total support. As James has
always built quality homes, with will designed roads, irrigations systems, and open space, I felt very
comfortable with the decision. Three additional houses would fit nicely with the present design and
layout of the association. The new homes would actually average more acreage per home than the
average of the 14 homes today. I was glad to hear that James Scott would do the development rather than
the potential risk or concern of a lesser quality home and out buildings being built by another builder or
even the potential of more than four homes being built on lot 7. This would complete all of the lots in the
subdivision in a manner that is consistent with the present homes and put finality to any further
development in the association. I truly feel that this is the best approach to protect the home values to all
home owners. The addition of four quality homes would help hold if not improve the value of the
subdivision.
There has been concern by some homeowners about open space. James has previously dedicated a
16 acre parcel of open space in another development directly attached to the west side of Shiloh Estates.
Therefore Shiloh has a 16 acre open buffer to the west. In addition there are numerous bike and walking
trails as well as a roping arena for recreational activities. We are very fortunate in Shiloh estates to have
abundant room for animals and children to ride bikes and play. The new proposal is only 17 houses on a
total of 75 acres. That is a lot of open space.
An HOA meeting was held August 2005, which I did not attend. But in discussions with
homeowners who did attend, I was told that most homeowners were in favor of the proposal. At some
point in this time period, the homeowners received a letter from the Scotts requesting a vote on the
subdivision. I voted for the subdividing. It is my understanding that all but one homeowner voted in
favor of the proposal. There was no doubt in my mind that I was voting. There was no doubt in my
mind that I was voting on three additional lots for lot 7. It was shortly after this vote that the HOA board
sent a letter to the Scotts indicating that they had approval for the four lot subdivision.
IIEXHIBIT
K
AmoF -b35re
Apparently at a later date, some of the homeowners questioned their original decision. We as
homeowners met again in January for further discussions, in which I felt the general consensus was to
allow the Scott's to move forward. I feel that the Scotts had properly informed all home owners
adequately of their intentions. I feel that they had sent out a formal vote, which was approved. They also
had a letter from the HOA on approval. They have now spent significant money for the development of
the project. I feel the HOA should honor the commitment that was made. I truly feel the proposal will
solidify the quality and value of our homes for future years. In addition, I feel that the covenants of
Shiloh Estates allow for the subdivision of lot 7 with approval of the HOA board. If one refers to section
3.32 of the covenants that all homeowners have signed, there is a provision for the subdivision of lots.
I understand their will be a small traffic inconvenience as these homes are being built. But as one
of the original home builders, I was not inconvenienced in the past by the construction of a home or two
during the year. I can't see this as being anything different that what I have experienced in the past. We
are located on a cul-de-sac road, therefore very fortunate for our families in having very limited traffic. I
really can't see how three additional homes will change or impact the neighborhood, life styles, traffic, or
standard of living in any negative manner.
Sin 4
as#,_
Arlen Anderson
AJvn A,ler
3s/99 Conies- Say
tem eliv. , Co
8o ss0
May 1, 2006
TO: Weld County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10`h Street, Third Floor
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Docket#2006-29
Case Number: Am PF-354
Applicant: James and Cheri Scott
In reference to the above mentioned case, I am writing this letter as one of seven
concerned homeowners who are strongly opposed to the re-platting and subdividing of
lot 7 in Shiloh Estates. The reasons for which I oppose this development are the same
reasons in which the Planning Commission denied it, in addition to others that I will
explain below. I thank you in advance for the opportunity to state my opinions about this
proposed development and hope that you understand my concern about the loss of a
lifestyle that has existed in Shiloh Estates for nearly 12 years.
First and foremost, I would like to remind you that the Weld County Department of
Planning Services denied approval of this development (March 7, 2006) and is
recommending that you deny it as well. Their reasons have largely to do with land use
issues, and more specifically with the fact that this amended PUD is already a non-
conforming development and increasing the number of lots/homes further increases its
non-conformity. In other words, the applicant is proposing an urban scale development in
a non-urban area. In addition, this development is not in an urban growth area and as such
will not receive urban municipalities. This is in direct contradiction to the County's
efficiency of land use whereby urban scale development is to be directed towards sites
where urban infrastructure is available.
Secondly, this proposed amended PUD is incompatible with existing land use in Shiloh
Estates. There is currently an ideal transition from semi-rural living to rural living in this
community. At present, Shiloh Estates has 14 lots, two of which are the Scott's. The 12
southern lots are all approximately 4 acres each with lots 7 and 8 (which are owned by
the Scotts) creating the northern border of the development, at 17 acres each. Further
north the lot sizes increase to 160 acres. Should this amended PUD be approved, there is
certainly precedent set for lot 8 to be further subdivided. This is not only a radical
alteration of the original plat of Shiloh Estates but is a contradiction of the covenants
governing Shiloh Estates.
EXHIBIT
it #354
I believe it is important to note that any changes made to the covenants of Shiloh Estates
must be reviewed and approved by the Homeowners of this development. Thus far, the
current homeowners have not received anything verbally or in writing that would indicate
that the covenants have either been changed or approved. This is true even though Mr.
Scott submitted amended covenants with his application to subdivide the property. While
I understand that debating covenants is a civil issue, I believe that we, as a community,
have allowed those covenants to guide us in our decision-making processes over the
years. The covenants governing Shiloh Estates state that one home will be built on lot 7.
Under Colorado Law, the covenants restricting the size of a lot are considered to run with
the land. Following that line of thought, subdividing lot 7 would be a direct contradiction
of our established PUD covenants.
Thirdly, I have a genuine concern over "the lack of open space" that has been provided in
this amended PUD. Out of a total of 75 acres that exist in Shiloh Estates, only 2.65 acres
are currently designated as open space and this area is dedicated 100% to a riding arena.
Under current PUD guidelines this amended PUD needs to conform to the more current
"open space" regulations requiring 15% of a PUD to be dedicated to open space.
In order to meet these regulations, the Scotts would need to offer 8.6 acres of the 17 acres
within lot 7. This would leave approximately 8.4 acres on which to build homes.
Finally, as a homeowner I have done my due diligence in purchasing my home by
researching the original plat map of Shiloh Estates nearly 12 years ago. I received
written information that the platting of lot 7 consisted of a single lot with only one house
_
permitted. While I heard on March 7, 2006 at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting that Mr. Scott currently has no intention of subdividing lot 8, there is nothing to
prevent him from doing so in the future should he or any other homeowner decide to do
so. The fact that he has already deviated from his original plan speaks volumes regarding
his disregard for the character of this neighborhood and points to a breach of the
conditions under which we purchased our lots. The lack of sufficient information on
which to base our decisions regarding approval of this development have only led to
resentment and division within our community. Please note the last attached page to this
letter that I have included for your reference.
It is for the above reasons that I ask that you support the Weld County Department of
Planning Services recommendation to deny the proposed replatting and subdividing of
Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD.
Thank you for your consideration,
William Ken ison
35198 Corn rstone Way
(Lot 12, Shiloh Estates Subdivision)
Windsor, CO 80550
(970)-686-9077
May 1 , 2006
To: Weld County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street, Third Floor
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Docket # 2006-29
Case Number Am PF-354
Applicant: James and Cheri Scott
I have received a letter from your department regarding the proposal by James and
Cheri Scott to replat and subdivide Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD Zone District.
Obviously, this is not the first notification I have had regarding this issue. I am
writing this letter to inform you that I continue to be strongly opposed to this
proposal for the following reasons:
1 . Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates
2. An unfavorable recommendation by the Weld County Planning
Commission
3. Compatibility with existing land use
4. Negative impact of increased density
5. Loss of Lifestyle
While the issues surrounding each of these topics is a matter of public record, I
would like to briefly expand on these topics to better explain my position.
Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates:
The covenants governing Shiloh Estates state that one home will be built on lot 7.
To date, the Homeowners are unaware of any changes to the covenants that may
have been made regarding this particular issue. Under Colorado Law, the
Declaration for a planned community is governed by both common law and
Colorado statutes. Covenants restricting the size of a lot are considered to run with
the land. In this particular case, Article 1 of the Declaration specifies that lot 7
shall remain 17 acres. While covenants may be a civil issue, I believe it is important
for you to know that as a Homeowner's Association, we have allowed these
covenants to guide and inform all community decisions. Subdividing lot 7 would be
a direct contradiction of our established PUD covenants.
An unfavorable recommendation by the Weld County Planning Commission:
As I'm sure that you are well aware by now, this proposal has been denied by the
Weld County Planning Commission due to the fact that it does not meet any of the
following elements of Chapters 22 or 24: Sections 22-2-110.6 (UGB. Goal 21, 22-
2-190.C.1 (R. Policy 3.1), 22-2-210.C (PUD.Goal 3), 24-1-30 H, 24-1-40. Nor
does this proposal conform to Section 27-7-40.D.2.b. In short, this development is
EiEXHIBIT II
1)1
An, PFD 9
not in an urban growth area and will not be served by any urban municipalities any
time in the near future according to the Town of Windsor and Weld County. It is
the intent of the County to direct urban scale development towards sites where
urban infrastructure is available. Because this development is not located in an
urban growth area and will not be serviced by urban infrastructure, it is not deemed
an efficient use of land. More importantly, "the applicant is proposing urban scale
development in a non-urban area." The Board of County Commissioners in
Ordinance 2002-1, dated March 15, 2001 states that "non-urban scale
development is nine lots or fewer." Shiloh Estates is already a non-conforming
development, and increasing the number of lots further exceeds the definition of
non-urban scale development contained in Section 24-1-40.
Compatibility with existing land use:
Currently, Shiloh Estates has 14 lots. The 12 southern lots are all approximately 4
acres each with lots 7 and 8 (creating the northern border of the development)
being approximately 17 acres each. To the north of the development the lots even
get larger up to approximately 160 acres. This gradual enlargement of lot size from
south to north creates an ideal transition from semi-rural living to rural living. I
would like to point out that prior to the March 7 Planning Commission Hearing, the
seven dissenting homeowners went to James and Cheri Scott and offered a
compromise of two homes versus four on lot 7. We had hoped that 2 homes would
be a reasonable compromise as it would have been more consistent with the way
the development is currently laid out, but we were denied. Had we known that lot
7 would be modified perhaps our decisions to purchase our lots would have been
different. There is an even greater concern, and we believe justifiably so, that if lot
7 is allowed to subdivide to four lots there will have been a precedent set for lot 8
to be subdivided as well. Subsequently, we could go from a 14 lot development to
upwards of a 20 lot development, radically altering the original appeal of the smaller
development.
Negative Impact of Increased Density:
The addition of four homes on lot 7 would result in a 21 % increase in density to the
community. Even more troubling than this is "the lack of open space" that has
been cast aside in this PUD. The Planning Commission has indicated that this
amended PUD needs to conform to the current "open space" regulations requiring
15% of a PUD to be dedicated to open space. We currently have only 2.65 acres
designated as open space which is 100% dedicated to the riding arena. This is
great space and is well maintained by the community but does not allow for other
sports and activities for the more than 15 children and their parents living in Shiloh.
In the "Specific Development Guide" Section 27-6-80 Component Five- Common
open space usage speaks to the requirements of open space for PUDs. Please note
that the total Shiloh Estates PUD acreage is approximately 75 acres. Although the
proposal states that a 'recreational easement has been delineated within this
proposal and is consistent with existing easements", the architectural renderings of
the proposed lot 7 presented to the homeowners and submitted to the Planning
Department do not contain designated "open space". Furthermore, the recreational
"easements" are bordered by a large irrigation ditch (approximately 10'deep
and 12' across); hardly appropriate for children's recreation. For this proposal to
have 15% "open space" within Shiloh Estates, or 11 .25 acres, the Scotts would
need to offer 8.6 acres of the 17 acres within lot 7. This would leave
approximately 8.4 acres on which to build homes. This need for open space within
Shiloh was considered when the seven dissenting homeowners offered our
compromise of two homes on lot 7.
Loss of lifestyle:
I believe that our on-going committed interest in attending the hearings speaks
volume for our concern about the loss of a lifestyle that has guided our decision to
live in Shiloh Estates. As our surrounding areas continue to be developed and rural
and agricultural land is swallowed up by high-density residential areas, there is
perhaps an even greater need to preserve our way of life. Growth may be inevitable,
but I do believe that with that comes a responsibility to maintain a proper balance
between development and open space.
I'd like to say that it has never been our contention as a community to create
divisiveness amongst ourselves. Instead, it has always been our intention to
protect a way of life that we believe has existed in our neighborhood. Thank you
for this opportunity to present my opposition to this proposal. I believe that you
will make the right decision on behalf of the seven of 13 homeowners who are
against this amended PUD.
Th you
for your consideration,
De Kennison
35198 Cornersto a Way
(Lot 12, Shiloh Estates Subdivision)
Windsor, CO 80550
(970)686-9077
Page 1 of 1
Carol Harding
From: Eric Kesler[erickesler@earthlink.net] .
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:42 PM
To: Carol Harding
Subject: AMPF#354
To Weld County Commissioners,
RE: Docket#2006-29
Case#AmPF#354 James and Cheri Scott
We are responding to the letter we received from your department regarding the public hearing of the case
above. Please reference again our letter dated February 15, 2006 to Brad Mueller, Planner. We are STRONGLY
OPPOSED to the subdivision of Lot 7, Shiloh Estates into 4 lots. In addition to the points made in our last letter
we would like to add several reasons for our opposition.
o This is an urban scale plan in a non-urban development as highlighted by Mr Mueller at the March 7
hearing. Shiloh Estates already exceeds the nine lot non-urban plan and increasing this further
jeopardizes our rural way of life.
o There is no additional open space planned for and this does not meet the 15% requirement for open
space. All homeowners in Shiloh Estates use and maintain the open space we currently have and
this adds to the appeal of our community.
o One lot and one house is compatible with the adjoining lot to the East. The lot to the East is owned
by the Scotts, is approximately 17 acres with one home on it. Leaving Lot 7 as one lot with a single
family home on it would be more compatible land use.
o Shiloh Estates is a covenant controlled community and Mr Scott has presented no amendments to
the covenants to the Shiloh Estates Board of Directors or homeowners for contingent approval.
We respectfully ask that the Board of County Commissioners follow the recommendation of the Weld County
Planning Board and deny the replatting and subdivision of Lot 7.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Eric B and Beth R Kesler
35298 Cornerstone Way
(Lot 10, Shiloh Estates Subdivision)
Windsor, CO 80550
--- Eric Kesler
---erickesler@earthlink.net
11. EXHIBIT
I Ai
4nrn/i=#39/
5/3/2006
Page 1 of 1
Carol Harding
From: Eric Kesler[erickesler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:56 PM To: Carol Harding
Subject: AMPF#354
Dear County Commissioners,
RE: Docket #2006-29
AMPF#354 Mr and Mrs Scott
I do not want Lot 7 to be subdivided into 4 lots. I live directly south of where the construction of the homes would
be. There will be more traffic and it will be noisy. My friends and I enjoy playing at the pond and that is right next
to Lot 7. I am an animal lover. I have many pets and I like catching tadpoles at the pond. I am worried about
pollution. I like to bike, roller blade and skateboard on the road with my brother and friends. With the extra houses
and more traffic it will not be safe for me to be on the road. Please do not allow Mr Scott to build 4 houses on Lot
7.
Sincerely,
John Kesler, 13 years old
35298 Cornerstone Way
(Lot 10, Shiloh Estates Subdivision)
Windsor, CO 80550
--- Eric Kesler
--- erickesler@earthlink,net
EXHIBIT
El 0
A ANPF#35 se
5/3/2006
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO
80632
Dear County Commissioners,
I am writing in support of case number AmPF-354.
In August, 2005 the homeowners of the Shiloh Estates subdivision were invited to an
informational meeting regarding a proposal to subdivide lot 7 by Jim and Cheri Scott. The
proposal was put forward and a question and answer session followed. Following a two
week period, a ballot along with the original memo was given to every household in the
Shiloh Estates Homeowners Association. The results of the vote was better than 2/3
majority in favor of the subdivision. The process that was followed was legitimate and the
vote taken and the approval given by the Board were valid. The covenants of Shiloh
Estates allow for the subdivision of Lot 7 with approval of the Homeowners Association
Board. At no time did we feel that we weren't informed or that any of our rights had been
violated or infringed upon.
Our decision to support this project was based upon adequate information presented by the
Scott's. We felt this proposal was beneficial and compatible with the neighborhood. There
were long term benefits with the additional shares of water and more homeowners to share
the cost of the association. The subdivision would fit nicely with the existing land use in
Shiloh Estates.
We feel additional neighbors will not impact Shiloh in any negative way. It will not change
our lifestyle or lessen the overall community's appeal and value. If anything, the newer
homes, plus the shares of water will increase our property value. The new lots being
developed will each consist of four acres. Shiloh will still sustain a rural setting with more
than enough open space.
Yes, there will be somewhat of an increase in traffic, but we don't feel it will be significant.
Our entire community is very diligent of the posted speed limits in order to protect our
children and animals. Everyone has acreage and access to open areas and a trail system
allowing ample space for recreational activities. As we were the second home established
in Shiloh Estates, we experienced little inconvenience with the construction traffic as the
subdivision continued to develop and grow.
In summary, we support the development of Lot 7 by the Scott's and the additional benefits
it will bring to Shiloh Estates.
Sincerely,
t
Dave Smart
Lynda Smart 2 EXHIBIT
)14'F tr 391
To: Weld County Commissioners Page 1 of 2
Carol Harding
From: Sharon Veillon [sharon@alexas-angels.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 2:53 PM
To: Carol Harding
Subject: Protest Letter for docket#2006-29
To: Weld County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
9'5 10th Street, Third Floor
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Docket #2006-29
Case Number AmPF-354
Applicant: James and Cheri Scott
I would like to again state how adamantly opposed I am to the proposal by James and Cheri
Scott to replat & subdivide Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates Zone District. I submitted an initial letter to
the Weld Co. Dept. of Planning Services on February 23,2006. At that time I stated several
reasons why I thought the subdivision of Lot 7 was unacceptable to me as a homeowner within
500 feet of this lot. I am still deeply committed to my original thoughts on this matter as well as
several new concerns that have come to light since my initial letter.
James Scott, in my view, has breached a contractual agreement that he & I entered into when
I bought my lot across the street from Lot 7. At no time did I expect him to break his word that
no house would be built on this lot for 20 years, and at that time, only 1 house would be built. I
am truly grieved that the peaceful environment in which I now reside will be replaced by trucks,
hammering, etc. because Mr. Scott has decided to make more money by subdividing this lot. I
have abided by the covenants & the contract I signed but he obviously has no intention of
doing so if this plan is approved.
The value of the houses surrounding the lot in question will be devalued because of the loss of
view & serenity. My appraiser estimated my house would have a negative impact of at least
$20,000.00. I am not the only home that would be adversely affected by this drastic change in
our community. At least 2 other homes in close proximity to mine will also be impacted. None
of this has been taken into consideration as Mr. Scott continues to push through this initiative.
The sense of community has been jettisoned by the pursuit of money. This obviously is of
great concern to the homeowners being negatively impacted.
The covenants governing Shiloh Estates do not allow for the subdivision of Lot 7. Mr. Scott
has chosen to ignore the covenants & has actually submitted changes to these covenants
without prior knowledge or approval by the homeowners. I am greatly dismayed by this course
of action & view it as an affront to all the homeowners who have trusted the process that Mr.
Scott himself implemented when drawing up the said covenants. This entire endeavor has
been well thought out by Mr. Scott & we as opposing homeowners have everything to lose.
I would like to respectfully remind the County Commissioners that this proposal was denied by
the Planning Commission due to inconsistent compliance with existing policy. The a..licant is
= EXHIBIT
5/4/2006
PF-tny
To: Weld County Commissioners Page 2 of 2
proposing urban scale development in a non-urban area. It is also not compatible with land
use now in place for Shiloh Estates and the areas surrounding Shiloh. We, as concerned
homeowners feel that by dividing Lot 7 there will be precedence for Mr. Scott to subdivide his
other lot. The applicant has stated that this is not his intent but we have seen that other
promises have been broken.
I realize that this is a fast changing world but the rights of 7 families who oppose this
application should not be negated by financial gain for Mr. Scott. We will not only lose
financially but our entire way of life will be threatened. I appeal to this board not to let this
happen. Quality of life should be just as important as business transacted for financial gain.
We are greatly saddened that our community is divided over this issue & that our sense of
cohesiveness is gone. We ask that we not lose even more if this issue is approved.
Thank you,
Sharon Veillon
35284 Cornerstone Way
(Lot 11 — Shiloh Estates)
Windsor, CO 80550
(970)674-1596
5/4/2006
May 2, 2006
TO: Weld County Commissioners
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10`h Street, Third Floor
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Docket#2006-29
Case Number: Am PF-354
Applicant: James and Cheri Scott
This letter is in regards to the applicants James and Cheri Scott re-platting and
subdividing Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates. We are strongly opposed to this request that is being
presented to you. Not only did your Planning Commission vote against this request on
May 7, 2006 but the majority of the homeowners in Shiloh Estates are against it and
bordering land owners that are not in Shiloh Estates are also against it.
James and Cheri Scott are not in compliance with Section 27-7-40.D of the Weld County
Code in certain elements. We are not in the Town of Windsor's Urban Growth Boundary
Area; the urban services do not exist in or near our location. They also do not comply
with Section 22-2-190.C1, or 22-2-210.c, or 24-1-40. In regards to Section 24-1-30 H the
Non-Urban scale development states Nine Lots or Fewer. We have 14 lots in Shiloh
Estates. We have and are bound to PUD Covenants that were approved in 1994; we
purchased our homes and signed these covenants when we closed on our homes. The
covenants states 14 lots through out the entire package of covenants, time and time again
it is stated. It also states that NO Lot shall be subdivided or utilized for more than one
detached single family dwelling.
Our covenants were never voted on to change or increase the number of lots. The
majority of the home owners will not approve any changes that reflect the re-platting or
subdividing of any lots. If our covenants are private, and the County cannot enforce the
covenants then why do the notes state prior to recording the PUD final plat that James
Scott has to submit draft covenants to accommodate changes proposed by this PUD
amendment. The majority of the homeowners will also not agree to an annexation with
the Town of Windsor.
It seems to me that this entire request from Jim and Cheri Scott was not done in regards
to the best land use, but for the most capital gain for James and Cheri Scott.
= EXHIBIT
/WE#359
We would like to thank you for allowing us to voice our opinions and ask that you follow
the Weld County Department of Planning Services recommendation to deny the proposed
re-platting and subdividing of Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD.
Sincerely,
Larry & Anne Duran
35107 Cornerstone Way
Windsor, CO 80550
(970) 686-2186
Page 1 of 1
Carol Harding
r
From: SDIofCO@aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 5:01 PM
To: Carol Harding
Cc: wichard@thinairnet.com
Subject: Docket#:2006-29 James&Cheri Scott
Attn: Board of County Commisioners
Weld County, Colorado
Gentleman:
We are owners of Lot 1 Shiloh Estates and are vitally interested in the Scott's application to expand our
subdivision.
We are opposed to increasing the lots without first getting approval of the homeowners to change the
Covenants, Which we think govern the subdivision.
When all of the homeowners purchased their property they were given a copy of these covenants and told that
this was the protection and guide lines that governed the subdivision.
We find in the Scott's application that they are proposing amendments to the covenants that have never been
seen buy the homeowners until we read the application.
Your Planning And Zoning Board has recommended that the application be denied and as homeowner in
Shiloh Estates we hope you will respect that recommendation and deny this request and let the addition
continue to be governed by our covenants.
David & Susan Beard
Owners of Lot 1 Shiloh Estates,Weld County,Colorado
[ V. EXHIBIT
S
AmPF#39,
5/8/2006
May 5, 2006
County Commissioners of Weld County
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Docket#2006-29; Case Number AmPF-354; James and Cheri Scott
Because the southern boundary of our property-8612 WCR 74, Windsor 80550—abuts the
property under review, we received a notice regarding the proposed changes in the above
referenced case number. We would like to take this opportunity to register our strong
opposition to the proposed replat and subdivision of Lot 7, Shiloh Estates PUD Zone District.
One of our considerations in moving to this area was to procure and sustain a certain lifestyle.
Not only did we want room to build a country home and horse facility, but also we wanted to
enjoy a more rural setting with restricted land development. Since we've purchased the property,
our eastern boundaries have been compromised by the scheduled construction for WCR 19
between Highway 392 and WCR 74. The proposed subdividing of Shiloh Estates PUD Lot 7
would further jeopardize our way of life.
When we purchased our property, we were told that both Lots 7 and 8 (the lot immediately to the
east of Lot 7 also abutting our southern boundary) in the Shiloh Estates PUD were platted as two
lots with only one house per lot permitted. This information influenced the purchasing and
subsequent planning of our land. Currently, some of our horses are pastured on land that adjoins
Lot 7; and our home's vistas include the open space afforded by Lot 7. If Lot 7 is subdivided
and approved for four lots and homes, we would lose some of our open view as well as the
security our horses enjoy by not being encircled by houses and people.
We strongly ask you to deny the request to re-zone Lot 7. Not only are other land parcels still
available for purchase and open to developments that would not compromise the lifestyles or
land values of surrounding property owners; but also we feel the county has a responsibility to its
citizens to uphold the integrity of its planning and zoning without caveat.
Sincerely yours,
David& Elizabeth Schump
8612 Weld CR 74
Windsor, CO 80550
(970) 674-3026
E4 EXHIBIT
AmPF &V
May 7, 2006
Weld County Commissioners
Attn: Esther Gesick
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case# AmPF-354 (Applicant James& Cheri Scott)
Dear Commissioners:
We, Jim and Julie Campain, are writing in support of James and Cheri
Scott's application to amend Shiloh Estates PUD and subdivide Lot 7. I
(Julie) served as President of the Shiloh HOA during the time the Scott's
first presented their proposal. As President of the HOA, I felt that the
Scott's request for the homeowners to consider allowing Lot 7 to be subdivided was provided for within
our covenants (with approval from the Architectural Review Board and Directors of the HOA) and
strongly feel that proper procedure was followed. Early in the process, a written opinion poll was sent to
all homeowners with only one negative response returned. The Scotts then sent
a letter to all homeowners informing them of an informational meeting where
questions and concerns were addressed. After this, a written ballot was
sent to all homeowners asking them to vote on this proposal. The proposal
passed with a greater than 2/3 majority vote. There was an approximate two month span between the
opinion poll, the meeting, and the formal vote and I, as President of the HOA, did
not receive communication from anyone questioning anything about the process of this proposal. Nor
did I directly receive a request for more information on the development itself or the process of approval
from any homeowner. The homeowners were given ample time and information to make an informed
vote (or to express doubt about the approval process), and it is therefore not appropriate to question it
now so many months later.
It has been stated that the Scott's provided erroneous information at
the meeting held in their home. I attended that meeting. At this time, concerns were expressed by several
of the homeowners, as was to be expected,but they were addressed by Mr. Scott in what I feel was at
least an honest manner. Everyone present was encouraged to express their opinion and after all
discussion was finished,Mr. Scott did inform those present that the next step he would take would be to
ask for a vote from the entire Shiloh Estates HOA. At this time, there were only a few Shiloh
homeowners that seemed to be opposed to the development and, from what I can remember, they did not
object to a vote being taken.
We have enjoyed having Lot 7 vacant and are sorry to see that come to
an end. However, we knew that at some point at least one house would be built there. As
we thought about what would be appropriate use of the acreage, we were
( 1 EXHIBIT
OFF#359
comfortable with four homes consistent in size and quality with our home. At least, we would have the
assurance that higher density(and lower quality) homes would not be built on that site in the future.
Shiloh is a well-planned community, giving us confidence that Lot 7 will be equally well planned. Jim
has given considerable thought to visual open space as this directly
affects him as well as other homeowners. We are concerned this may not be a
priority for the new owner if this lot is sold. In addition, he has promised the Shiloh Estates HOA that a
continuous path will be built around the four new lots, with easements allowing for common use by all
residents. The proposed homes have been placed in building envelopes which will ensure no more
subdividing takes place. We feel four homes fit well with Shiloh Estates.
We do not feel that the addition of four high quality homes will adversely affect
the homeowners of Shiloh Estates. Property values may increase with the
addition of newer homes of like or increased value. Shiloh Estates
homeowners will also have additional water shares, adding value to each
homeowner as well as making Shiloh Estates a very desirable place to live.
Sincerely,
La, c,v
r �O
Ja es J. and Julie A. Campain
May 4, 2006
Weld County Commissioners
Attn.: Esther Gesick
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case # AmPF-354
Dear Commissioners:
We, Jim and Cheri Scott, are writing to you concerning Case Number AmPf-354 which is
our request to amend a PUD and subdivide Lot 7. We would like to speak to the letter
written by Judy Whichard which was included in the Planning Commission minutes. Mrs.
Whichard listed five primary reasons for opposing the subdivision of Lot 7;all five of
which we strongly disagree. Listed below are the five reasons stated by Mrs. Whichard
followed by our comments.
1. "Breach of the conditions under which we purchased our lot:" Every homeowner
in Shiloh Estates read and signed the covenants which govern Shiloh HOA. These
covenants state that at the time they were written Shiloh Estates was comprised of
14 lots; it is not a statement limiting Shiloh Estates to 14 lots. Section 3.32 of
these covenants state: "NO SUBDIVISION. No lot shall be subdivided or utilized
for more than one detached single dwelling(with associated outbuildings and
structures) WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL of the architectural review
board" (HOA board). This statement allows for subdivision as long as there is
approval by the HOA board. We felt it was important to involve all homeowners,
not just the HOA board, in this decision so we sent an opinion poll to all
homeowners, followed by an informational meeting, followed by a formal vote by
all homeowners. The process could have been stopped or delayed at any time if a
request had been made. There was nothing of this sort done and both the opinion
poll and the formal vote were overwhelmingly positive. The HOA board gave its'
formal approval for the subdivision of Lot 7 based on the results of this vote. We
feel it undermines the authority of the HOA board to ask it to reconsider a
decision several months after the decision was made.
2. "Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates:"This is addressed
above. We do not feel the covenants were violated in any way. We consulted with
a lawyer before we proceeded with the formation of any plan for subdividing Lot
7 as we did not want to pursue anything outside of the legal parameters of Shiloh
Estates covenants.We were assured by our lawyer that the subdivision of Lot 7
was provided for within the covenants.
3. "Negative impact of increased density." We have spoken with real estate brokers
and mortgage brokers concerning the financial impact four additional homes
would have. They have strongly stated that the financial impact would be positive.
The only way homes would have a negative impact is if they were of lesser size
and quality than the surrounding homes. Real estate brokers state that the addition
of four beautiful, well-kept homes in our neighborhood would only serve to
EXHIBIT
V
PmPF#35
increase the overall appeal of the community. Our home is probably the most
directly affected by subdividing Lot 7 as the majority of our living space has
views looking directly onto Lot 7. Jim placed the four homes in building
envelopes in order to insure visual open space for us and the neighbors closest to
Lot 7. Each home on Lot 7 would sit on approximately 4 acres. Eleven of the
existing homes in Shiloh Estates sit on less than four acres so the density on Lot 7
will be less than the majority of lots in existing Shiloh Estates. No lot in Shiloh is
less than 2.2 acres. Because of this we feel that is more than adequate open space
and space for children to play without using the road as a play area. We feel a
road is never a safe place for children to be playing no matter how few or many
cars may be on it. Dave Smart, who was the first homeowner in Shiloh Estates,
has stated that he did not experience any negative effects or inconvenience during
the 10-12 years of construction during which all 12 other homes were built. He
said he did not experience even so much as a broken windshield. Based on his
firsthand experience with the construction of 12 homes in Shiloh under the
supervision of Jim, we find it far reaching to think that building four homes will
have much of an adverse effect or that the "construction traffic"would be
"horrendous".
4. "Loss of lifestyle:"As stated above we, as well as all of the homeowners who are
in favor of the subdividing Lot 7, do not feel that the addition of four homes over
several years will cause much effect on anyone's lifestyle. These homes were
placed in building envelopes to insure visual open space for the neighbors most
directly effected by them. One of the reasons we decided to build rather than sell
Lot 7 was so that we could exercise some control over the amount, size and
quality of what was built. Jim has spent approximately 15 years planning,
building, maintaining and living in Shiloh Estates and it is a community we are
very proud of. We want to insure the quality of lifestyle for our neighbors and
ourselves and insure that what is built fits in with the existing subdivision.
5. "Compatibility with existing land use:" We believe four homes each on
approximately four acres fits exactly with the existing land use. None of the
surrounding subdivisions, which came into existence after Shiloh Estates, offer
this amount of open space. Placing the four homes in building envelopes makes it
impossible for any further building to be done on Lot 7. Four lots on seventeen
acres is considered very low density which is extremely difficult to find and lends
itself to a much lower profit margin than many builders are willing to accept. We
are concerned with what will be built on Lot 7 if it is sold. We also believe that
most people buying a seventeen acre piece of land will not put one moderate size
home on it. We are concerned that even if one home is placed on it that it will be a
very large home with outbuildings and these will not be placed with our visual
open space in mind.
Mrs. Whichard stated three facts that we also disagree with.
1. "54% of the families in the subdivision have gone on record as strongly opposing
the proposed development:"The subdivision has always voted on proposals by
giving each lot owner two votes. By this method of voting the subdivision is split
50/50 at this time.
2. "100% of the lot owners in closest proximity to the proposed development,
including the owners of the property abutting the northern boundary who are not
part of Shiloh Estates are strongly opposed to the proposed development:"Moriah
Estates abuts lot 7 to the west. Jim recently attended an HOA meeting of Moriah
Estates and received no negative feedback on the proposed development. We have
not received any negative feedback from the lot owner to the north. We are the
lot in closest proximity to lot 7, adjoining it to the east, and we are certainly for
the proposed development.
3. "Those most strongly opposed to the development of Lot 7 have proposed
numerous compromises to the developer. Each of these has been turned down
although each proposed more than one home on Lot 7 in an attempt to consider
the financial implications to the developer:" The first formal attempt to
compromise was made by us in a letter to the opposing homeowners. We offered
to enter into arbitration and proposed to postpone bringing the proposal to the
county until after the results of the arbitration. If the arbitration results were
opposed to the proposal we agreed to stop our pursuit of subdividing Lot 7. This
was discussed at a homeowners meeting and at least half of the homeowners felt
this was a fair proposition. The opposing homeowners would not agree to it.
Some of the opposing homeowners proposed that we put two homes on Lot 7 and
proposed that we not provide the water we had promised to provide all Shiloh
Estates homeowners. Proposing that we not provide the promised water was their
offer to compensate us financially for not building four lots. We could not
consider this proposal as we had given our word to all the homeowners that we
would provide additional water. Many of the homeowners feel strongly that this
additional water greatly increases the value of their property. We have no desire
to make profit at other's expense.
In summary, we believe that not only was due process followed but that Shiloh Estates
homeowners were given the utmost consideration in being able to speak into whether Lot
7 was subdivided. We did not consider it proper for the homeowners to oppose the
proposal after we had been given approval by the HOA Board to proceed with the
subdivision of Lot 7. We believe the subdivision of Lot 7 fits perfectly with existing
Shiloh Estates and is actually lower density with more open space than existing Shiloh
and surrounding developments. It also acts as protection from the possibility of higher
density development or development not in line with existing Shiloh Estates if this
property is sold. We believe property values and the attractiveness of our community will
increase with the addition of four beautiful homes on large acreages. We strongly believe
that Shiloh homeowners will suffer few if any adverse effects during or after the
subdivision process.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter.
Sincerely, 44 ^
James and Cheri Scott
[4. EXHIBIT
V./
RrnPF435y
)- 1a
Z CC
c
To 5 u
LL O z ¢
iti
c p ¢ O E i V ._ w 0
E C Eva = o - y
J LO n
�N -J 100 .
rc 0 —
L---_ 2
(��
/ I
-
i /
� .
I
in
It
co
�._ ' i t
- �`` ' - `a�-� ou ' 1 I ac � N N
J E E _.V, ,t N -0
��
/ $ \III 2a I d a
l CC
3c E m / W N c
�� arto
� � s� i--- E 3 v
1 _ =—
9I •,
�� of o1 o aL o ski
:1 a i14;I
), W4 2 reof _� E /) a$ Isip "+ N F- ≤
co— ew
Nm .\ J< .J J�J lII
€rc l y//' E
c
lII 7 „kl�� 12
N
II— r
T_
I H — t I m `i.
CT I , - o
— � i f
it g.
c �� g " i _ � f 'ad
0
m .Y
V n
a
E
c re i
yN
re 9 �'� i'l g / a H /I�T ',I i ; ic 1 �I II bm a� l^ 1
�7
i :1 is
s iI . om . a . . , . ! !
E; 14 NNW Anima oiaM it Eg
a3 ! 7 i—
I wr, •aw.Y. NIP •OOi.40N
• 1 .� 1b .n•MI
I Li ill 1 II
t Y li tiE
• 1
Y_ i
ii. 4 'N&. I li 1 i
•
l ;lit
s
} $ E x, �Ia=.
O Flit \/
t
) i I � .�: c !
//�� eI i may, 4 E
l". . sI ii
Q g I - = Y 1
to9 6 7 in" am 80.014L.. y.
s ' I
II a ti >j ? Y ^x I
S
a i % $ d s's.. °j
= i \ 4 11
.. f
® i » �@f(t4 «._ a..eu3.“'� .�d'�...a3� £.ai'�*A ;ate ,.., ii; {
-t 6 ii)
g 4T •x
CO
8 ,- ,.:. _.tea,an-2::::\. . .. ..:s. -N^
i
$ I
° 1
.Ix
J at
� `Y 'N , , !
i I•
1� �-a'-- 1
i I li
I 'Ir— j • ,1
at 1
c- —, — -
Y.
ii ." ... 14P°N 4unoJ PNM . I t
,_1 ,rur w aa,11o.ax �j
. 2 . . i. i „_____
4st A�.
-� c S 4,',
f • � fij i
i + ;u `
CL O '. - i $1
,> t
L I
• 3 i. • ' ;....) •LiJ o ;[ 11..
i
N eL.....:1 . {
I' 2 1 - I 3
+ ' a R } .n'�w m a .'o Aravc'
{
'
I'.i s ; 7j 1
. s n fe
I
ii
II 4 " * i I . 4 ,,lt Zsr
I . % .• --\>
it i ^/
4 /
•r t I / H4 `I_� $_ ��!) / :: 1
if
i 6 ii;1 .ii
*lit ; i 1
II 1 t iii �° e
Aevu-'�a'rr
.wo*A... \--....,......./—.Silir. '4,
' /
1 .L�, x\ ,'
•
41 .1 _ Ai. . ,.,
.....
,/.
. •
• : ..
. ,,,_ _,
_ __ , .._
.„... . .,„,,_ . . .. . ............. ,....______......_ 7. -8--,be"'—^1
r eG_
J i !1 . tr''+' :IV—,
•;LW %OD'\ . . I - 6(/
ii
I. J/) t
e" Y
t
..
f -- _— _ _.-.._— D.68,110. $ _,
� � i If �.
� e e EL PM( aMonn•.x S-
S.
s3 e 'jT7T ' ±
.'{
g n
i, : +_ `# is
i
Y Y_
t i If .
411 I
AP r
1.
g Ili
_ . h s`` ' l
d/� t 8 t " e a -p t.\ ..„),Y— O • - iZ 7I. i.
i ... i i I
I' ;� ��� 1
Ct a • f e
(f) • I
_ 1
• M
r S e = 8 1 +; 1i , q �Is� j 1
6 •t S ��II i ! 9 - t t : i
_ r e e Yg.1 2a > ,� et
S $ Y C
It e. Z: e
1
�t
: 9I
a E t
e s ,
: t
a f Y J.illir 7 !
.Ire.a
4_ c ! n ,,
,_ p
, i,„,
ilt1,
IrT le :::i '41 -1 ; CAI r'' .:2.l e,w � G7 La m Q O ✓J ?4' J
3 ill:1 -
4 a
At
' 'c o ^ 0., o , mc � r
I.
p O O N K, O t
• V-
I h M M h r 1
O O M M t•1 M •+1 Nl I c.l N M t+l Nl
V;
J h
t V
, IIIIIIIN lit
f .. r " "
g �' ti �.. _
..
D., , ...„..____
_.
, ,
. . „
w.) ,. ., . .
�, r. „ , ,
it
, *Set
r,.D ...,
r t.
;� C+ N ST•` EWAy •
Y^ ?
r ` r
C.ir h
4
,
I
It eA1• NMI STA..CT
IP
j. :'
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS April 24, 2006. THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED
ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, Brad Mueller , HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY
THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR AMPF-354, AN APPLICATION
FOR A REPLAT AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, SHILOH ESTATES, INTO FOUR LOTS
(THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS) LOCATED IN THE SHILOH ESTATES PUD ZONE DISTRICT..
/14 tie 6.4-a/`
Sinnatiirp of Pcrcnn Pnctinn Sinn
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WELD )
In
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this t7 day of ; , , 200
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
I Mr n.
WENDINLOES
4--ii NOTARY^DOCK
fJc4.
tary Publc STATE OF COLORADO
My Commission Expires: 4 0108
I x
10a - A
iy y ( «e I-, 2 t- d` _ .F
iy 4." ,4 N 1 '.d - 1 = a r 3 sSm r .t
aJ ; �4° • rfiPr� '1 a d "Rh
,t , x } � `.jy'
1 d' 4 a .41.1/4,t.
� t y, t j a r x14 G 1rz i- H*. +
''p is
v a i R t i .:4.= $' A^ # 6 ',
{� n
l 1 r; �s
,A 3 t •ate €i s . In P,
i A , d ,� �i •.t f - .r 4 ir* xN it
-V
y l
1�1R' � Y r e
p
pis
`*�4.- s � h r"� 4y3 "'- � "-;' sA` 1 qf� at �ft
A r . 1 i� - , 4 y, '4 4 .w'
*d raf' ='=-4ar Y >( ' • i� Na § t 1�i
l r , 94 Att ,,,A, i `h w' 4: jF s stl i
9 tc 1 .a4lF C � '
# .o">yt } d r �' III >i y = ;ii --
p
F
n ,A ti
a •;,yam 4', r 41 ``i.
� « ` „ :1, •,., l ; R
. t � C ,kr � �rt w �if.rro2J '1't 'k
'6 ° #NY C,. '`.r#
t#4 tl1' f s. � { t + :.V '4';',. r,R..
�¢ + _ f.
it
{; i. �' A 2 a ' 21 if o, r"� (1 � i`7-t"X��X' p Qr#`Y+_.
4` Y ',
P 4 '� ,b _ 1 .oil a s " t. ii 7 u Is-w,•
Af
4 =-,,r ,-, ' r RF qt �i '1 S'i r
lt_ ti A
e w _
to, c W ✓a'r k f g e "— .. .« A
Y, 4 - r„ , 4 4S w „4 ".
p.v k I R /- fi 4 4 f�.s ^tttTTT ..
a. - _
R
Qry' • s
ry =a 0Riv: p �r
ti+..
Rv M
%iy}•'1 ;� pert.= . ti� ,.-It:�� 4 q
iii
,I
k y k wN Rr 4
4R dr y 1 d y.
114
4r.r t p,' s,
i''f' •.
pr
5 4d a'• „ e .A .�1 ' Rb
R h K i
. t x,_
1st oil
' n M ..,1 . }4 ?1,
f. # ay wit a .a °t. t" TA.-
.
-
y♦. s ' Y{p • ' t 1 V r • F" .r
T#K li •••I 1• i c. a i a rte, n, x dim x ;Ari
, 4
@ h
i ,,••t 7y 4 fi'w:Vii'..` a.'
",' • y '• i ••,--,•:-}-----,•‘ a g4';.-
c w ; .
i 1 ', I .
K1. e
" / +i t i & 9
E ry y Y M .
h 1 .•:..- w Y i Au p 1 R, f.
" Vv, i '• - 'V S k
, k 1 S 49,41 '01" ; 1 �i `F.i • • M ..w
}vy. 1' t `3 _
# 1+y 3 , !` t. . .c, v 141ee�l � •. a. r e S ' 9 ''
4 1," h - ' ? ill`,D 4 ' t p c
x
_ ai , x s -`.5..
'.' Y + a #'' A %nit' j� Yy. 3o Yt,4 YkR • q q 2•a� � :in
, ' '' j ;,.:
t ,u`s r i� 'f lie`-[ , y" � :�...It w' a!ara2s ` G
s toles, ili.lei.:1; till;a y r ail: �'a y �f. *{ I T T per'` * r
pp * 'Y } r Its ...'
, t a s w�
�,' , ,s,„
,
`' w " a - h _ Yk . tee.
to b
1y `k M Je ' ex *..'� + $31l r F.
A.' - , d �.
Y • ' fit. x :p. n. ,r
s 4 rt• i 1
7ix
€i 2 N ANY' , `? .} s' • i �'4.'€,'. %s * t stint" r ' e� } ,^ �Y M 44 it'
'p "' '' r
t al. It
sr ,x} 't
a5+ ^4 'My". . 'P2',•x h p _ x Ia. x . '184
�'
p k1 s � to - s k3. • H •
i "
.O
'• ' . 'd
-�
* 4 �^ 1 i °
4 , e.,44.4,
sb' �, ; , irt
..'A 1i
, `'
�t'r, ..
k
t
ri
0 ,
y r
n
*I
i4. ke
•
494 C;
H to
, r is i [ F ✓. x a ae
aC, It.',I l't, timpe i f »�.
4�.#v � �� t�'� s' ,a ,'a �. t
,. f
5
iii 8 4 `
4r•
. f A)
[ a , y ♦ ar.
'aA W t f r t „
iX 9'4 4"y µf ' ! I.
t _-:,,,,,`,..a
4
k x y 1
l£
M E,. ,
, :,,,,_
.,
, __? ! . .t.ri„, .it
la s
fi � h A I - 75P
4.
r q7 ♦ r.^t,viy elf a
u
AF, 1' w
h
a it
j
M1
• i '"
E `4' -- r ,Y
c
W+l tt f '- 4 _ YF
May 10, 2006
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case#AmPF-354 (Applicant James& Cheri Scott)
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to speak regarding the case here today. My
name is Debbie Vischer, and I am a homeowner of Lot 14 in Shiloh Estates. I happen to
represent the "other" 50%of owners within the Shiloh Estates HOA who strongly
support the proposal to subdivide Lot 7. As Ms. Whichard did, I will speak on their
behalf today and will provide signed copies of these statements upon my conclusion.
Many of the homeowners I represent today, including myself, have sent in letters of
support. I hope these have been received and read prior to this hearing. As with many
things in life,there are two sides to every issue. It is unfortunate it has to be this way, in
this case. Like Ms. Whichard, we are very passionate in our opinions relating to this case.
ALL the homeowners I represent today are original homeowners in Shiloh Estates. Many
v of us were in the first handful of homes that were built over some 9+ years ago. The land
Shiloh is comprised of was land that the Scott's purchased 15 years ago with the dream of
building homes for themselves and their parents. Not only a place where they could raise
their family, but also a place where others could share in that dream. This was a labor of
love. It is the primary reason we ALL chose to live here. The Scott's are a pillar of the
neighborhood and have done much to help create an environment we all appreciate.
The Scott's original intent for Lot 7 (and reason for the 17 acre design) was to build a
comparable home to theirs for their parents upon their retirement, to where they could
farm and raise animals. This dream has unfortunately changed and they now wish to
make consistent use of the land by subdividing it into a total of four four-acre lots. I want
to note that Mr. Scott is not just a land developer. He is a homeowner and neighbor in
Shiloh. His proposal has as much impact on him and his family as the rest of us. To
ensure they understood the possible impact on the neighborhood, last year the Scott's
surveyed all homeowners to get their thoughts on this proposal. All but one said they
were supportive. So, the Scott's moved forward and put it to an official vote. The results
of the vote was a better than 2/3 majority in favor of the subdivision. Based on this and
the fact that our covenants allow for subdivision,the HOA Board of Directors notified
the Scott's in writing that they had approval to move forward. I have brought copies with
me of all the related materials if you wish to review them. All homeowners were given
ample opportunity to comment, even halt the process, prior to the vote/approval. To
question the decision of the Board some four months later and request a revote is a clear
violation of the democratic process we operate under.Not to mention it would be
detrimental to the HOA moving forward. Bottom line, I'm sure you will agree that
Q(1'�BI'F
Pagel
covenant issues are not a matter for the County Commissioners—it is something that we
will need to manage independently. I just wanted you to have the benefit of the
background as Ms. Whichard's group feels this is one of the reasons the proposal should
be denied. Three of the homeowners I represent comprised the Board of Directors at the
time. And they feel strongly that the vote that was taken was valid and their decision
should be upheld.
The real issue at hand today is whether the proposed subdivision plan meets the
requirements of the Weld County Code. That is ultimately your job to decide today. We
would respectfully like to offer our perspective as assistance.
Concerns about open space: Lot 7 has been vacant and used primarily for agricultural
purposes since its inception. It is my belief that many people, especially those that live
adjacent to it, have come to see this lot as "open space"and hence their reasons for not
wanting to see it developed. The new proposal would amend the Shiloh P.U.D. to a total
of 17 homes on 75 acres, with dedicated open space increased to 9%. In our minds,this
degree of density more than satisfies the intent of open space requirements for a urban
scale P.U.D.
Concerns about density: The proposal is to subdivide Lot 7 into four four-acre lots. It's
interesting to note that eleven of the existing homes in Shiloh are comprised of less than
four acres(actually an average of 3.14 acres), so the density of the subdivided lot will be
less than the current majority of lots. It seems there will continue to be a feeling of buffer
zones throughout the community. Again,this seems to fit within the requirements for a
urban scale P.U.D.
Concerns about land use: We believe four homes on four-acre lots fits exactly with the
current land use model and would be very compatible with the current neighborhood
design.None of the surrounding P.U.D.s offer this amount of open space and low density.
Also important to note is that Mr. Scott has created building envelopes for each of the
four lots. This was done to control the positioning of homes, so that views and privacy
could be maintained as best as possible. Adjacent homeowners did have input and
influence over this process. The current designation of Lot 7 has no envelope defined.
Our decision to support this project was based on adequate information presented by the
Scott's. We feel this proposal, if approved, will have long-term benefits via the additional
water shares the Scott's are including, more homeowners to share the costs of the
association, and ultimately increased property values. We feel that neither the building
process nor additional homes will negatively impact Shiloh. In no way will it alter our
lifestyle and it will not degrade the safety of our pets and children. Regardless,we will
need to continue to act as responsible homeowners,parents,and pet owners. Yes,there
will be a slight increase in traffic,but we do not feel it will be significant. Again, all of us
original homeowners in support of this proposal lived through many years of construction
and development of Shiloh. My lot is situated at the entrance to the community, and I
personally lived through two complete adjacent home builds and three further down the
street. I do not recall any disturbance, disruption,or threat to my safety or lifestyle.None
Page 2
of us in support of this expect anything to be different than what we've experienced in the
past. As an extra precaution, Mr. Scott will work closely with the contactors to ensure
minimal inconvenience and disruption to the neighborhood. He has even offered
alternatives to minimize construction traffic.
To summarize, we strongly support this proposal because we believe that:
1) the Shiloh covenants allow for subdivision(section 3.32)
2) a valid vote was taken and subsequent approval by the Board of Directors was
given
3) the proposal is compatible with the current land use model
4) the proposal is beneficial, and has many long-term benefits
We feel the ruling by the Planning Commission was influenced more by the emotions
than by county regulations, facts and common sense land use decisions. We have faith
that you,as County Commissioners,will see the differences, and respond favorably.
Again,on behalf of half the homeowners in Shiloh HOA I represent today, we thank you
for your time in listening to our position,and we respectfully request you consider our
perspective and ultimately approve the proposal.
Regards, 1 L7 C
Debbie&Detlef Vischer, Lot 14Eif ` ty o.urn )',`�—�
Patty&Tom Tousignant, Lot 2,, __ �` _
Lynda& Dave Smart, Lot 4 trillia M• dm 'St≥
Vickie&Arlen Anderson, Lot 5 AI— Anikrt; £At- i e a -mil
Julie &Jim Campain, Lot l CID r
Cheri &Jim Scott, Lot 7 & 8 /412).,Lit FAdr4
Page 3
Hello