The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Code Violation.pdfGARFIELD COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Code Violation Report Form Property Owner where violation exists: Bernard Long 8153 County Road 312 New Castle, CO 81647 Location of Violation: Same Description of Violation: Report of two family dwelling without special use permit. Reporting Party: David Mead from phone conversation with Mr. Long's son. Mr. Steve Hackett Garfield County Compliance Officer 108 8th Street, Second Floor Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Delivered via e-mail to: stevehackett@garfield-county.com and VIA Hand Delivery Re: Bernard and Martha Long Notice of Zoning Compliance Issue Dear Steve, Thank you for your cooperation to date in extending our reply period for the above-referenced Notice. · As I believe my clients, Bernard and Martha Long, have discussed with you, there appear to be some factual and interpretive disagreements with respect to the residential dwelling unit situate at 8153 312 County Road, New Castle, Colorado and the current permitted or prohibited use(s) thereof. For purposes of clarification, I submit the following information from my clients: 1. A Certificate of Occupancy for the primary residence on the subject Lot3 of the Long Subdivision was granted, including a "finished"· space, walk-out basement, by the · Garfield County Building Department (C:O. No. 3784) on January 10, 2000. Was there a kitchen when the CO was issued? 2. Subsequently, Mr. and Mrs. Long applied for and received County approval, pursuant to a Special Use Permitting process, fer a modular accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on Lot 3 evidenced by C.O. No. 4979 dated November 1, 2004. This has nothing to do with the illegal dwelling. 3. The ADU, technically, may not have required the separate application and processing of a Special Use Permit under Garfield County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. The ADU may have been a permitted using under applicable zoning. Such Special Use Permitting process creating the additional burden, necessarily· or unnecessarily, for a judicial water augmentation plan which was approved by the Division 5 Water Court Referee and Water Court Judge by Decree dated July 29, 2002. Not sure where he is coming from to say no SUP necessary. I don't think he understands our regulations. 4. Lot 3 of the Long Subdivision properly accommodates, in terms of zoning compliance and domestic and irrigation water rights, two (2) single-family dwelling units, to wit: (i) the primary residence; and (ii) the ADU. 5. At some point in time, the primary residence's "finished" basement area was outfitted with a sink and kitchenette area. This appears to be the presumptive or interpretive basis for your Office's concerns that a per se violation of the zoning regulations may have occurred and that an "apartment" or "two-family" dwelling unit" has been established (it is my understanding that the UBC's definition of a "kitchen" is the basis for such presumption -I do. not find any statutory or County regulation authority in this regard). Where is the authority to build a kitchenette without a building permit to begin with? My client respectfully disagrees with the Building Department's interpretation of both the factual and the technical circumstances giving rise to the Notice. In support of the Long's 2/4/2005 position on this issue, I submit the following infonnation for your consideration: 1. No legal or factual "further'' or "additional" subdivision of either Lot 3 or the primary residence has occurred. Not sure what this has to do with the two-family dwelling._ 2. No "lock off" separating the main floor of the building from the finished basement exists or will be pennitted by the owners to exist in the future. Does it have the potential to be a lock off? It sounds like it. While their intent may not be to have a lock out, there is no way to guareentee that it will stay that way. 3. No separate utility meters have been installed separating occupancy and use of the finished basement space from the main floor of the primary residence. They could be installed. 4. No persons, other than four ( 4) or five (5) immediate family members have previously, or currently reside or occupy the primary single-family dwelling unit on Lot 3. Pursuant to Section 2.02.24, only a single "family" occupies the residence. If they live together, they should be sharing the same kitcheri and meals together. 5. No lease granting third-party, non-owner possessory interest in any part of the primary residence exists, has been offered or otherwise is understood. Who's to say they could not do that at a future date? It is just a matter of creating the paperwork to do it. 6. The Longs receive no rental or leasehold income from any person having resided or currently residing in the primary building. Same issue as #5. 7. The Longs do not desire or intend to (i) re-subdivide or condominiumize the building; (ii) grant any non-immediate family member any possessory leasehold interest or rights in the building; or (iii) otherwise create any indicia of the use of the building for "apartment" purposes. They do not have to subdivide to create a second leasehold interest. 8. The existence of a second "kitchenette" in the finished basement is merely an accommodation for the Long's daughter who requires certain supervision by her family due to a chronic illness. This does not justify a separate living unit. They could all live in the same house, without having a second kitchen. They don't seem to have denied that the Long's kids are living independently of the family in upper dwelling and dealing with the chronic illness issue on an as needed basis. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that you withdraw the above-referenced Notice of Compliance Violation in writing. While I acknowledge that Colorado may provide for a rebuttable presumption that two (2) "kitchens" in a building is indicia of the creation of a "two-family" or "multi- family" dwelling arrangement; such is simply not the case under the facts presented. My clients are prepared, upon your request, to submit and affidavit verifying the factual matters set forth herein in support of your Office's withdrawal of the subject interpretation and Notice of Potential Code Compliance issues. As always, thank you for your cooperation and your consideration of our position in this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or response to the within request. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. 2/4/2005 class=Section2> Cc: Bernard and Martha Long TIB/cjh 2/4/2005 By: -----;Thn;::o~m~as:::-TJ.1H~a=rte;-:--:;rt~~~~~ February 7, 2005 M:r.ThomasJ.Hartert Balcomb & Green, P. C. P. 0. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Bernard and Martha Long Dear MI. Hartert, Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT Code Compliance Office stevehackett@garfield-county.co I have your letter of February 2, 2005 concerning a two family dwelling on the Longs' property. Their house was permitted and issued a Certificate of Occupancy as a single family dwelling. By admission of family members to our building staff, it has become apparent that the dwelling has been converted into a two family dwelling. It is a violation of our zoning regulations to create a two family dwelling as well as to ad a kitchen unless the proper permits have been issued. Our customary criteria for that determination is that the habitable space includes a separate kitchen, that it has independent ingress and egress and that it could be used for a family living independently of any other family. I am not able to withdraw the notice of violation and request that the Longs obtain a Special Use Permit for a two family dwelling or remove the second kitchen. Yours truly, Steve Hackett Compliance Officer 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470