HomeMy WebLinkAbout921242.tiff TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RE: AN APPEAL ON APPLICATION FOR RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 1397
Dear Commissioners: August 7, 1992
We wish to petition the Board of Weld County Commissioners for re-
consideration on Recorded Exemption No. 1397. In order to establish the
basis for this request, we ask that you please consider the following
chain of events. We apologize for the length of this letter and thank
you in advance for your courtesy in reading it in its entirety.
In September, 1991, we met with Keith Schuett of the Planning Dept.
and, in January, 1992, we met with Chuck Cunliffe. Our purpose was to
investigate the possibility of another recorded exemption on our land.
Both men were discouraging and each did mention the possibility although
neither elaborated on the ramifications of a subdivision as an alterna-
tive to the recorded exemption.
In our meeting with Mr. Cunliffe, we did tell him that we weren't
interested in creating a subdivision, only in dividing one lot into two.
Visions of a subdivision bring to mind multi-dollars in public sewer
lines, paved and curbed streets, one or two acre lots creating another
town out in the country, which we did not want nor could we afford. We
left Mr. Cunliffe's office with the impression that we had a choice of
filing for a recorded exemption or a subdivision. Why wasn't a minor
subdivision mentioned or explained?
Please understand that we were novices. We approached the Planning
Dept. totally lacking in knowledge of unwritten policies, relying heavily
on help from the Planners, and assuming that we could work with them
without the necessity of an attorney.
According to the information provided by the Planning Dept. the
stated intent of the recorded exemption process for the agricultural zone
and all written information including a five year waiting period between
divisions would indicate that this was the appropriate application to
file. Until Mrs. Harbert mentioned it after the hearing, we were unaware
that the original 80 acre parcel at the time of inception of the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan in 1973 is considered.
While considering the options, we called the Planning Dept. a few
days later for more information on a subdivision. Even though several
attempts were made, we never did get an answer as to the cost of the
filing fee. The Planner referred us to a recorded exemption. She said
that provision of public water and sewer is a requirement for a subdivi-
sion, and specifically, that septic tank/leech systems were not allowed.
Again, no mention of a minor subdivision was made.
Since we could not possibly have borne the expense of public sewer
hookups, a subdivision became an impossibility; therefore, basing our
decision on incorrect information, we delivered the recorded exemption
application to the Planning Office, leaving it with Lanell Swanson.
Subsequently, Ms. Swanson was assigned the work on our application.
Other than the above mentioned phone call, we did not confer with Ms.
Swanson. Under the misconception that a hearing with the Planning Com-
mission would be scheduled, we waited to be contacted with a date. We
_����`''p��{)did finally call and inquire, only to find that there would be none.
1 ' 9Li242
CC Pi. 4
Pg. 2
During our meeting with Mr. Cunliffe, mentioned previously, the
vague phrase "normal concerns" was mentioned several times without much
elaboration on what they were. In order to make an informed decision,
we needed to know what was involved in normal concerns. Mr. Cunliffe's
answer was to invest our $750 like everyone else and wait for a recom-
mendation, then address the concerns. What wisdom is there in making an
investment without information on which to base a sound decision?
Shortly afterward, we also met with Mr. Webster - not with the pur-
pose of a straw poll in mind - but in hopes that he could shed some light
on anything specific that might be detrimental to the approval of the
application. We did mistakenly assume that we could confer with our
elected officials without creating a problem with the Planning Dept.
After the hearing, we were informed that one of the determining
"concerns" was the additional access onto the road. Why wasn't this
brought to our attention when we tried in vain to get specifics? It is
easily solved by changing the proposed lot to include our already exist-
ing drive as common access, had we known.
We are not angry with the Planning Department because the Board of
Commissioners voted denial; however, we are rightly upset with the lack
of consideration, cooperation, and especially the lack of correct and
adequate information. As we were not able to properly prepare due to the
lack of it, how could we supply the Board with a well-prepared applica-
tion on which to base their decision?
We respectfully petition the Board of County Commissioners to grant
a rehearing on an amended application considering the following:
1. The revision of the proposed lot to include the already existing
drive as common access. Copy attached.
2. The letter from a majority of our neighbors that do not oppose
another house in the neighborhood. Copy attached.
3. A copy attached of a sketch showing development on the original 80
acre parcel, not including other properties near it.
4. The increase in traffic referred to by Mr. Boulter at the hearing
is likely due to increased drilling operations along Road 44 the past
year, as there have been no new homes in the entire area the past five
years to cause it.
5. The accident referred to again by Mr. Boulter, occurred in early
morning hours during minimum traffic and involved two intoxicated people
from outside the immediate area in one car - speeding. Their bodies
were not discovered for several hours. This is hardly indicative that
the accident was traffic related or that Road 44 is any more dangerous
than any other paved county road.
We also wish to reiterate that all of the written requirements are
met on our application and emphasize the following:
1. This is and will continue to be NON-productive agricultural land.
2. Very adequate water and services are already in place. A copy is
attached of an extension of the availability of a CWCWD water tap.
3. County Road 44 is a paved road and already well-maintained.
Pg. 3
4. Our proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the
area is zoned agricultural and already consists of several homes on
small acreages making another home on a tract very compatible with the
surrounding land use. It is consistent with efficient and orderly
growth. We invite you to visit the area yourselves.
5. As long as the recorded exemption process is a provision of the
Comprehensive Plan; when a NON-productive rural area with adequate water
and services already in place meets all the written requirements; and
the purpose is to divide one lot into two, divisions must be allowed.
• We maintain the Planning Department's responsibility for preventing
us from presenting the best possible proposal due to the lack of necessary
information. If not for that lack, we wouldn't need to consider filing
for a substantial change hearing; nor bear the added expense of an at-
torney; nor pay an additional fee. We could have accepted the decision
of the board without reservation.
We maintain that we should not be penalized further for the Planners'
negligence; therefore, we respectfully petition the Board to waive any
additional fees for an amended application, or to consider transferring
the fee paid to the minor subdivision fee if that is deemed necessary.
We have contemplated what action if any we should pursue, and remain
convicted that we must address this, and we must do so directly to the
Board. While our request is highly irregular and not according to policy,
we are confident that it is within the authority of the Board and rely on
your just treatment of it.
When we purchased this land six years ago with the division already
an accomplished fact, we had no intention of seeking another division.
It is due to financial need and our land being our only asset that we have
reversed our position on this. In the process we have come to realize
the negative impact the Planning Dept. has on county development.
If anything should be an issue in the upcoming election campaigns
discouragement of development; excessive control of privately owned land;
and the poor relationship between the Planners and the residents of Weld
County should be brought to the forefront. Others have related similar
experiences.
If the new airport is to have a positive impact on Weld County,
growth, including NON-productive rural areas, must be allowed. Instead
of a primary task of discouraging development, the Planners should pur-
pose to assist residents in the positive development of our county.
Surely residents should be able to work with and rely on the integrity
of the Planners.
Thank you for your courtesy in reading this, and for your just
consideration of this appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Merle D. & Karla L. Grieser
4 encs.
cc: Chuck Cunliffe and others.
14 (;51. /7" - - -'+
W. C . R. Jig /✓trvkow-9- 6-
A — /I'— air, 1
3 Lai, \\\\\*
\v v yy yy\ 'A v�fwc.:Aex v6 ,. vAV '� 4-70'.cx'/�/ avrnVnf
I4 \\,,,,
A -� v V v ( 4,ego:,.�churc)
V A'. A\ Can-3 f:.,.
k-�o'lEhY,yv f p0S� , \\ Vvy `°���t.) EQ6e.inF'//! r N
•\ ` \
A • Ike r C
,s� I proms-se`s'- v\ \ Ores �;\ e5�..
d
\\ . \ y \,, Ccx)=(:^,3) li
I i�> vy yv vv\ y vy .v:, � f
\ \
Jot I 1
ftratil pia i #
nco I \o aI4-401rrit. y1 h I (�,5i �) ( o
I ‘1
k6 I 1
� I
� I
; VIS I Naar
K
IKAI
an,.et
I • L
(VOA /a/f) M1 /JErifyi,J/d6 o'-
SU7GE /yea / / : ill /( jcgcret6
* survey -pin I I ��if
_, y
o
s-,
i N
66 i
5' 89 ,2O..c. ------ ----
D COUNTY
COMMISSIO!ERS
1:192 FE9 28 P:1 2: 2.1
TO: BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RE: APPLICATION FOR RECORDED EXEMPTION BY MEg17[;{ AR3,A GRIESER,
NO. 1397 , LOCATED AT 20390 WELD COUNTY ROAD 44, LASALLE, CO.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, LIVING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ABOVE PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE GRIESERS, HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE DIVISION OF THEIR
LAND AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER HOUSE IN OUR AREA. WE RECOMMEND
THAT PPROVAL OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR RECORDED EXEMPTION BE GIVEN.
•
',
r �����
Q octiA,c,.01
c_C. /Z,gza2
AL", ,0
� r
: 20222
DIVISIONS ON THE ORIGINAL 80 ACRE PARCEL AT THE INCEPTION OF -THE WELD
COUNTY .COMPREHENSIVE .PLAN: .
1974 - Division of 20 acres by Wayne Colin Kelley & Bonnie Kelley
into 2.3 acre parcel and 17.65 acre parcel.
1985 - Division of 60 acres by Merle D. Grieser & Karla L. Grieser
into 39.98 acre parcel and 20.00 acre parcel.
CO,Pee 4(4‘
/7467. 't eA.
.7);14'34,1 ..70visi en
tedaeshisines •
firsaVe
reagiion
krite —.hams
�-
i
*1
4
aWe
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
July 8, 1992
Merle D. & Karla L. Grieser
20390 Weld Co. Rd. 44
LaSalle, CO 80645
RE: Water Service
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Grieser:
This letter is in response to your request for the availability of additional water service for the
following described property:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Water service is presently available to the above described property by tap number 1227 located
on Weld County Road 44 between Weld County Road 41 & 43. Additional water service can
be made available to these properties provided all requirements of the District are satisfied.
Central Weld County Water District requires that contracts be consummated within one (1) year
from the date of this letter or this letter shall become null and void unless extended in writing
by the District.
Very truly yours,
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
�y��
W. Zadel
General Manager
JWZ/jma
....... .. .
Legal Description for Greiser Property:
PARCEL 2:
Lot B of Recorded Exemption No. 1055-21-2-RE 789, recorded September 18, 1985 in Book
1084 as Reception No. 2025286, being more particularly described as follows:
The VA of the NW I4 of Section 21, Township 4 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
EXCEPT that part conveyed by Deed recorded August 18, 1972 in Book 674 as Reception No.
1595886, being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the North Quarter corner of said Section 21, thence also the North line of said
Section 21 West 658.17 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing also said
North line West 637.69 feet to the Easterly Right-of-Way Line of that certain parcel of land
described in Deed to Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company in Deed recorded under
Reception No. 167616 records of said County; thence along said Easterly Right-of-Way line
S9°24'00"W, 139.02 feet more or less to the West line of the El of the NW1k of said Section
21; thence along said West line S0°55'50"W, 1185.33 feet to the South line of the Nth of the
VA of the NW 1/ of said Section 21; thence along said South line S89°56'48"E, 658.12 feet to
a line which bears N0°55'58"E, and passes through the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence
along said line N0°55'58"E, 1323.02 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Hello