2006-12-01_REVISION - M1983102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12/05/2006 17:26 19707253303 GRAND COUNTY ZONING pA~ 04 FAIRFIELD AND WORDS, ~,C, ATTORiJEY9 AND COUNS$LORS AT LAW Board of Grand County Commissioners December 1.2bD6 Page 2 The notice is flawed For a couple of reasons: (I) the Notice fails tq identify that property outside Tracts 5 and ^ is part of the application, to amend the special use permit; and (2) the application. filed on September 11, 2006, did not include the easternn haif of Tract 6, yet the Notice includes all of Tracts 5 and 6. The Notice fails to inform the public adequately of. the scope of the application. According to the Certificate Of Recatnmendation from the Grand County >aepartment of planning and Zoning to the Planning Cotrornission, dated October 10, 2006, the application includes a 3.27-acre parcel in addition to Tiraets 5 and 6. An excerpt from page 2 of the October t 0, 2006 Certificate of, Recommendation states: Tf,e Amendment proposes to add a 19.12-acre area owned by Thompson Properties to the existing SO.S~acre gravel pit. The 19,12 acres includes an annexation of 3.27 acres where topsoil has been stored outside the or]ginal permit boundary, in order for this topsoil to berncluded in calculations for reclamation, it must be stored within the permit boundary, Tlie application-states, in footnote 1 ofMs. Noriyuld's September 11 letter, that the eastern half of Tract 6 "is not being included in this or the ivlining permit application .. , ," Tracts 5 and b ate each 10.acre tracts, Excluding the eastern one-haif of Tract 6 leaves approximately 15 acres. Thus, only fzfteen acres from Trouts 5 and 6 ate included io the proposed amendment, trot twenty. as stated in the Public Notice. Moreover, it is clear that the 3.27 acres described above are not located in Tracts 5 and 6. Tate ilansens believe the topsoil storage area is soutttwost of dte existing pit. The Public Notice does not say anything about adding the 3.27-acre topsail storage area beyond the boundaries of Tracts S and 6 to the special use permit. As a result, the public was not adequately informed of the scope of the application, and notice must be corrected and republished before testimony and action on this matter may be taken by the 13oard of County Commissioners. II. Applicant does not, under any circumstances, have a right to a special use permit, As the Board }stows, certain uses are allowed in the Forestry- and Open 7.on® District as a matter ofright- Single family residences are uses by right in the F&O district Grand County Toning Regulations 1j 6.i(1} (2006}. Schools are alsro permuted uses by right in an f&O district. id., ¶ 6. i(2). Clravel mining is not a use by right, It is a use permitted by special review under Section XI ofthe Zoning Regulations, because it is a use that "in certain circumstances, could be igjurious to the health, safety or welfare of inhabitants of Grand County," and therefore may be pcrrnitted or denied at the discretion of the Sosrd. Id.,'~ 11.1, See Hillside Communtry Church, S.B. C: v. Olson, SB P.3d 1421, 1028-29 (Colo. 2402) (special use permits are discretionary).