HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031692 Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
JUN 1 0 2003 B.
William and Jennifer Casey RECEIVED
5137 County Road 38
Platteville, Colorado 80651
(970) 535-9290
June 9, 2003
Weld County, Colorado
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Public Hearing, Minor Subdivision Change
Case No. MZ-1017
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter serves to respond to a Notice of Public Hearing, dated May 2, 2003, issued by
the Weld County Department of Planning Services with respect to the aforementioned
minor subdivision proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding
this proposal and would like to voice our opposition to the subdivision plan. We own
property immediately adjacent to the property for which this request has been submitted.
Accordingly, we have a vested interest in this action and feel strongly that the proposal
should be rejected by the county.
Our concerns stem from a number of factors, many of which affect not only our home, but
that of our neighbors as well. The residences surrounding the proposed plan are situated
on a four-mile stretch of Weld County Road 38, located between County Road 13 and
Interstate 25. This span of road is not paved and consists entirely of surface gravel.
During the summer and fall months, the dust created by vehicle traffic is overwhelming.
In spring and winter months, the road deteriorates quickly following heavy rains and
snow.
Since we have occupied our home, the frequency with which the county has been required
to grade and maintain the road has increased significantly. Assuredly, the number of
vehicles and pieces of farm equipment that travel the road contribute to these conditions.
Under the proposed minor subdivision change, nine additional homes will be added to this
road. At a time when the average American family owns a minimum of two vehicles, this
subdivision plan would grossly increase the traffic flow on County Road 38, contributing
more dust and a greater need for road maintenance.
There is also the concern of property depreciation. The proposal suggests a change in
zone from agricultural to estate for nine lots. However, there is no indication as to the
proposed size of each lot, nor does the plan describe with any degree of specificity the
minimum construction requirements for the proposed homes. A brief tour of surrounding
EXHIBIT
2003-1692
residences clearly demonstrates the pride in which homeowners have taken in their
respective residences and surrounding property. For many neighbors, their homes
represent a lifetime of hard work and expense. With no assurances that the proposed plan
will place limitations on housing structures, we are left to speculate as to whether our
property values will decrease, or be adversely affected.
Moreover, without knowing the specified size of each lot, there is no way to know
whether the subdivision will be a covenanted community and thus, whether there will be
any restrictions on the type of homes built (i.e. trailer, modular, or single-family
residences), the number of animals and/or livestock permitted on each lot, or the type of
landscaping required for each home. All of these variables affect the value of neighboring
residences and pose serious concerns for this community.
The average home in this area is situated on at least five acres of agricultural land, with a
vast majority of the homes being on ten or more acres. Without exception, most
individuals in this community purchased acreage and built houses to escape urban sprawl.
We value the peace and solitude that country living offers and specifically chose this area
in order to avoid suburban encroachment. Much like our neighbors, we have begun
developing the land surrounding our home and intend to use it for agricultural purposes.
A community of the size identified in the subdivision plan impinges upon our ability to use
the land for the purpose in which we purchased it. The issue of irrigation, use of
pesticides and our basic ability to farm the land as we intended will be greatly
compromised by having a developed community that borders our property.
Although we are unable to attend the Public Hearing in this matter, we know that many of
our neighbors have voiced opposition to this proposal and anticipate attending the
meeting. We support their views in this regard and respectfully request that the Planning
Commission reject this proposal. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to be heard and
request that we be kept apprised of any future public meetings regarding this subdivision
plan.
Sincerely,
aTS
Jennifer d William sAisey
2
David and Gaynelle Pietrangelo
5309 WCR 38
Platteville,Colorado 80651
(970)535-4842
Weld County,Colorado
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley,Colorado 80631
Re: Public Hearing,Minor Subdivision Change
Case No. MZ-1017
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter serves to respond to a Notice of Public Hearing issued by the Weld County Department of
Planning Services regarding the proposed minor sub-division proposal. Thank you for your time and
consideration as you formulate your decision. My wife and I own 13.5 acres that we purchased from Mr.
Stamp in 1999. The Planning Commission's decision will directly affect our quality of life in many aspects.
We have a great deal invested in our home and property,and we are strongly opposed to the subdivision
proposition.
Let us start by describing the reasons behind the acquisition of our property. My wife and I agreed to buy
the land with the intention of building our dream home. Part of our plan was to have income from the
property as well. This extra acreage is used to grow alfalfa and grass for hay. We receive approximately
$12,000 to$13,000 per year,which is crucial to our current status as retired individuals. We purchase an
additional three acres so we could be high enough to have the glorious view of the mountains. This view is
uninterrupted and gives us great pleasure and pride to reside in our location. Mr. Stamp had verbally told us
he had no intention of developing the remaining land before our purchase. Although Mr. Stamp has the
right to change his mind,we would not have bought the property if we had known his future plans for the
land.
The next issue we shall address are the major negative effects that the impending development will cause.
If there are more houses in close proximity,our ability to apply crucial pesticides to the crop will be
compromised. The company who applies the chemicals will no longer do so due to the substantial risk to
their pilots as well as to the surrounding houses. It would not be cost effective to change our methods of
pest-control. A community of the size planned in the subdivision proposal would greatly impinge upon our
original agricultural use for the land surrounding our house,as well as our neighbors to the West.
Weld County Road 38 is a dirt road. At this point in time,the traffic is low to moderate. The dust that this
traffic creates is a burden and a problem for many of the residents,however it is a burden we have willing
accepted with a grain of sand. Mr. Stamp's plan is to propose nine lots for construction. Imagine the
increase in traffic flow and cost to the county for maintaining the road surface. Additionally,we have no
way of knowing the type of home that will be constructed. The average home is situated on several acres of
land,many of us purchasing our plots to escape the crowded conditions that one faces living to the west of
1-25. Our home is of high quality construction,beautifully maintained,and a pleasure to behold. We
could only hope that a similar quality of construction be required if this must be passed.
We recently tried to sell our home because of the impending development of the land around us. The house
was on the market for 11 months. Several families were interested in buying,however,once we notified
them of the proposed subdivision,they withdrew interest. Many would live here for the solitude and quiet
lifestyle this location offers. Our family has lived in Weld County since 1972. We have been greatly
involved in many aspects of county life. We owned and operated a successful restaurant(Peter Angelo's)
on highway 66 for several years and we have participated in all the elections held in our county. Our
concerns and opinions should matter,as we have always lived by the law and regulations Weld County
requires from its residents.
We hope you will give serious consideration to preventing this proposal for the subdivision. However,if
this proposal must be granted,we are willing to discuss any alternative proposals. Open space placement is
one option. Perhaps the land lying just to the west of us be designated open space. At hand are many
questions that must be answered before granting this subdivision. Will there be any type of covenant
protection? Will I still have uninterrupted irrigation access?Will the road leading to our house be paved to
alleviate the added dust and pollution of construction traffic? My wife and grandson are Asthmatic,the
added dust will put their health at risk. Will there be added police patrols to stop speeding automobiles?
The questions go on and on. We hope you will address these and many more at the meeting regarding this
matter.
One final note,thank you for your time and efforts. We feel that the Weld County Commission has made
educated,logical choices in the past,we hope that tradition continues. It is source of pride for us to say we
reside in this county.
Sin ly,( / CA-7
and G elle Pietrangelo
r
$
�fiv\ RI --5c57
"P° Y 300
G_ 3
C
v
0 Ix
,z PI ‘17,
J—igc/
VI
\/ Ji,
li
,Jot4 e
/
Iv
` 1
V � � \
Ai
\' .----..... ` 'I
Hello