Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,.. <br />,/- <br /> <br />With reference to the location of sewer unless there is some reason given by <br />the proper author'ities, whether or not a central water system is planned or <br />individual wells, it is assumed that there would be septic tanks. However, <br />it may be that it will be ncecssary to show possible locations for utilities <br />along street or lot lines. This will not be presently determined. <br /> <br />13. Soil percolation tests made by Davis Engineering. Each individual septic <br />tank system would have to be judged on merits, but reference to map shows that <br />the 13 lots are rather homogeneous in type and are separated rather well from other <br />sub-division units mentioned above. These other subdivisions all have wells and <br />septic tank installation and we do not see that there would be much difference. <br /> <br />14. The location map drawn to scale is attached hereto. <br /> <br />15. There is attached to this statement a coPy of the recorded deed and a copy <br />of the recorded water decree. <br /> <br />16. A statement as to the ability of sub-dividers to handle the proposed <br />development is attached hereto. <br /> <br />17. Since this is a residential area, We will 'have restrictions as to the use <br />of the property which in general will consist of restrictions against any kind <br />of use other than one-family residential, restrictions against recreational or <br />mobile type home s, requirements re lative to garbage and trash, possible m1.nlmum <br />requirements as to size of dwellings, restrictions against too many and what kind <br />of pets can be on the lots. We doubt that th~re will be any attempt to impose <br />restrictions of any kind on type or architecture or set back requirements. There <br />will be something set up as to additional type of building On lots for use as <br />garage or storage. Either a copy of proposed restrictions will be provided at <br />meeting of Planning Commission or later given before the County Commissioners. <br /> <br /> <br />18. We are of the opinion that possibility of a flood can be assumed since this <br />is close to the Rio Grande River. It may be that the matter of placement of <br />improvements on the property will take care of that matter. Reference to the <br />map supplied so far by Davis Engineering shows from contour lines that large por- <br />tions of each lot as proposed is above the River. With respect to this matter <br />it can be pointed out that the other two subdivisions are closer to the River in <br />various parts of the subdivision and seem to have suffered no dmnage when there <br />has been high water. <br /> <br /> <br />19. It is our understanding that Rio Grande County has heretofore in other appli- <br />cations of a like nature and in somewhat similar area waived any proof of hazard <br />geologic areas, reports from a professional geologist or any matter relative to <br />the geology of the region. <br /> <br />20, We understand that the County has waived any requirements as to nuclear <br />matters. <br /> <br />22. With respect to wildfire hazard, all of the South Fork area is more or less <br />in a wildfire hazard prone area altho we cannot present proof of any wildfire in <br />the last 50 years in the area. The subdivision is in the confines of the Del <br />Norte Fire Protection District which has a volunteer department of about 20 mem- <br />bers and a fire house with equipment about a mile from ,the proposed subdivision. <br /> <br />-2- <br />