Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.01 CorrespondenceCALOIA & HOUPT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1204 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 SHERRY A. CALOIA JEFFERSON V. HOUPT BARI3ARA P. KOZELKA MARK E. HAMILTON Dwight Whitehead, Water Commissioner Water Division No. 5 P. 0. Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Office of the State Engineer 818 Centennial Bldg. 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Re: Stroock Well No. 1 Dear Dwight: April 14, 1999 RECEIVEGAOR.1 4 i� P:. TELEPHONE: (970) 945-6067 FACSIMILE: (970) 945-6292 E-mail: caloia&houpt@sopris.net It is our understanding that a well permit has been or may be filed shortly for a structure known as Stroock Well. No. 1 decreed in Case No. W-346 (location in the NW1/4 SW1/4, Section 22, T7S, R88W, 6th P.M. The well is located on my client's property and my client and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Veit, are the owners of an interest in the well (except for the first 5 g.p.m.). The Veits are concerned about a recent application to the County by Rick and Florence Broadhurst for a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit, which identifies the Stroock Well No. 1 as the source for water. The Stroock Well No. 1 was adjudicated by decree dated 11/22/72 in Case No. W-346. It was adjudicated for 0.022 c.f.s. for domestic, irrigation and stockwatering purposes. This is an exempt structure. The additional use sought for the well is for the additional unit. I understand that a BWCD contract was obtained for the additional usage. Any new permit issued will: (1) destroy the exempt status; (2) result in increased usage of the structure to the detriment of my client; (3) violate the 600' spacing issues. In addition, there are easement issues that have not been resolved and no yield information is available to support any claim for increased yield Sincerely, CALOIA & HOUPT, P.C. lerry A. C via SAC:nll cc: Richard Veit Robert Noone, Esq. (counsel for Broadhursts) Garfield County Planning Department V EIT-Whitehead-lir-1 -13' CALOIA & HOUPT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1204 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 SHERRY A. CALOIA JEFFERSON V. HOUPT BARBARA P. KOZELKA MARK E. HAMILTON John Barbee, Senior Planner Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 April 14, 1999 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-6067 FACSIMILE: (970) 945-6292 E-mail: caloia&houpt@sopris.net Re: Application for ADU By Broadhurst Dear John: I represent Richard Veit. He has asked me to represent him to oppose the application for Mr. Broadhurst for an Additional Dwelling Unit. I enclose herewith a letter I sent to the Division of Water Resources regarding the additional well permit to be applied for the Stroock Well No. 1. Mr. and Mrs. Veit own an interest in and to the Stroock Well No. 1. Mr. Broadhurst has the right to use 5 gallons per minute for domestic purposes. It is my understanding that he uses such for his house. Any additional well permit granted for this well would be problematic. If another well permit is issued for this well, it will adversely affect the exempt status of this well. Additionally, absent agreement from the other well owner, it is not within the purview of any co -tenant in a well to seek to expand his use in the well. This is especially true without a showing that his use can be expanded legally and physically without adversely affecting the interests of the other co- tenants. Mr. Broadhurt has not shown this nor has he contacted Mr. and Mrs. Veit regarding this expansion of use. Additionally the covenants on this property, attached hereto, restrict additional dwellings to guest houses only. Guest houses have a particular meaning. An ADU allows for rental on a permanent basis. A guest house is temporary residence for relatives or guests by its very definition. An ADU is not an allowed use pursuant to the restrictive covenants and my clients do object to any ADU being placed on the property in violation of this covenant. Please call with any questions. Very truly yours, CAL A & HOUPT, P.C. Sherry jCaloia SAC:nil Enclosure cc: Richard Veit k VETT-Barbee-Ltr-1 (47„, THIS DEED, mn :his 16th day of May 197 between DANIEL W. t .00CR of tie County of Garfield and .ate of Colorado, of the first part, and LESLIE R. ROBERTS and JAMS L. RoMERTS, of Garfield County, Colorado, of the second part: WITNESSE'19t, that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of tho sum of Ton Dollars and other valuable considerations, to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bar- gained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, all the following described lots or parcels of land situate, lying and being in the Court,' of Garfield and State of Colorado, to -wit: A tract of land situated in the 51Vy, Section 22, T. 7 S., R. 08 W. of the 6th Principal Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a I,-oi.nt on the Northerly line of said SWy whence the West 'x corner of said Section 22 bears 0. 80'45'30" W. 1135.90 feet; thence 5. 04'52'21" W. 630.23 feet; thence 5.417°43'40" E. 690.00 feet: thence N. 04°52'21" F. 642..67 feet to a point: on the Northerly rine of said 5W$; thence N. 00"45'30'• W. 690.60 feoL along the llort.horly line of nairl 517', to thin point of beginning, containing 10.07 acres, more or less. Together with the first 5 gallons of water per minute of time produced from a domestic water well situate on ��• property retained by Grantor and contiguous to the above described parcel of laud, together with an easement and right-of-way for carriage of such water through a 3/4 inch pipe. The above described property, hereinafter referred to as Tract, is conveyed subject to the following covenants and restrictions, to -wit: 1. The Tract shall he oiled fori_,„eitidssmsti=qk nrposes only and there shall not be erected thj-rf on more than/ ne detached single family dwelling $tld guest house; together with a garage For not morn than tw vehicles,y 2. no portion of the Tract shall be conveyed u: .11 reduce any part to less than 10 acres in size. 3. No structure shall be erected on the Tract nearer than 100 feet to any boundary, except boundaries on public domain. 4. No trees, bushes, brush, grass, or other ground cover and natural foliage and vegetation in existence on the Tract on date hereof shall bo unwontonly cut, removed, or otherwine mock, 44-5 P I D GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department May 24, 1999 Robert M. Noone P.O. Box 39 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Broadhurst Special Use Permit Application Dear Bob, At their May 3, 1999, regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners moved to APPROVE the Broaduhurst SUP with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. That the applicant provide an augmentation plan and approved expansion of use for the existing well including placement of a flow restriction device on the well head. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and all development shall comply with the application and site plan as submitted. Sincer John Bar.ee, Senior Planner Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Page 1ot1 From: Heartoday@aol.com <Heartoday@aol.com> To: Aboti@sopris.net <Aboti@sopris.net> Date: Sunday, May 02, 1999 2:07 PM Subject: Honoring a Commitment TO: The Garfield County Commissioners FROM: Marion P. Downs It is my understanding that an attempt is being made to circumvent the Covenant of Red Hill that my family and I signed and committed ourselves to when we bought our property from Dan Stroock in 1971: namely, at attempt to build two dwellings on one 10 -acre plot when the Covenant stipulates one dwelling and a guest house. Because I myself have made a sacrifice to honor this very stipulation, I feel that I am obligated to protest any violation of the Covenant in this regard. Some ten years ago I desired to build another house for myself on the 10 acres that is owned by myself and my daughter, Sara Voorhees. The object was to relieve my daughter and her growing family so they would have more space in the present dwelling that we have on our acreage. However, I was reminded at that time that the Covenant, which I had signed in good faith, allowed only one dwelling and a guest house on the ten acres. The term"guest house" does not by any stretch of the imagination, mean a "dwelling", and I conceded that fact. I have always tried to be honorable in my relations with others, so felt that I would break a trust if I were to refuse to honor the faith that others had placed in me. I therefore withdrew my plans to build another home on our property, whatever a burden it placed on my daughter's family. In view of this fact, I feel that I am in a position to ask that others honor the Covenant as I have done, and I appeal to you also to honor that position. Sincerely, Marion P. Downs 735 Grape St. Denver, CO 80220 Co-owner, 0970 107 Rd. 5/3/99 Page 1 of 2 From: jody pike <jodypikeaway@yahoo.com> To: aboti@sopris.net <aboti@sopris.net> Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 5:26 PM Subject: property covenants To: Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado Re: Covenants on Strook property Dear Sirs: It has been brought to our attention that a petition is being put before you which is asking you to make exception to the covenants established by Daniel Strook regarding structures on his property. We are concerned that the breaking of the covenants is an illegal act. A further concern is that once a precedent has been made, other exceptions might be allowed. When we bought our property nearly 30 years ago, we agreed to and accepted fully the restrictions and guidelines of the covenants. These included the building of one main building and one auxiliary guest house on each 10 acre parcel. To build two separate homes is not in the spirit of the covenants, which were specifically created to limit the number of homeowners on that environmentally threatened parcel of land. The spirit of the covenants also provided that the homeowners agree on possible future changes. Please know that we are not in favor of breaking the covenants or providing for precedents which might allow for division of 10 acre parcels as originally created. We will be happy to discuss this further, or if we could be of any help, please contact us by phone or fax at: 949-661-8578 (phone) or 949-487-6768. Our e-mail is jodypikeaway@yahoo.com. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jack and Jody Pike 5/3/99