The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.04.19856ott - z /+/as-;fr/,'' -il;',;, Ex|'l* t*Ailr/ / ' APt/oa/tan " 8 - Proof n"/" Lt^'z'/"'/ t, t. - ,4cy''rn*rce o'p/s -a/4a"-r/ /a-'doz-tnza b 0- hF-, f ' .r el,, 4- ;rL- . /L- S/aff(ommznz9 - / / L.l.r Toz,, , / /l*' A'+/" 'y'ob{!, t, ,"'"-:: - -.1 tz/o/a4- llcrto- (*. Envt' ilzllA- '*/'''/8k pe/t/,on - ,/zof as r -J/- - l-/,nlat/ r)L7,1j,j" r, 1,f"11" 5 o ",,1 .' /:/',t/;mr:ii/n/'r/;u(""fii t; r,".1; ;i ; _r ri*i ern*, r,,l,r/; lhl/lr ?tt*dy - 7zz-'rt -/ n rTez /'//)L/ /// 5di.* lr on - r/z^t/6 REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONTNG: Evlb// D Bocc 2/4/Bs PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF CO}IIIqENTS Special Use permit for a resort. Don l,larshall A parcel of land located inportions of the SE L/4 Section 7and SE L/4 SE L/4 Sectlon L2, T5S, R90W, more practically described asa parcel located 3 miles north of New Castle off of County Road 24L. A 2.0 acre parcel to be utilized asa recreation resort. fndividual well fndividual sewers A/R/RD A/R/RD I. RELATTONSHIP TO THE COIVTPREHENSIVE PLAN astle Urban Area of Influence.In general, there should be no significant, impacts to the Neh, Castlearea. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: A.site Description: The parcel is in the East Elk creek drainagewith East EIK creek traversing the western ooundary of theproperty. The property is well vegetated with large cotton$roodand willow trees along the creei< wrth an open meadow to the eastof the creek. The terrain is varied with the majority of theproperty sit,ting on a small bench above the creek with a steepembankment going up to the road. Project Description: rt is proposed to place one rodge (ownersns, two additional cabins or dining facilityon a 2.0 acre parcel of land. Each of the cabins would be onebedroom cabins as would the lodge. Four of the cabins and rodgewould be on the east side of the creek, wlth the dining faciliiyor two additional cabins on the west side of the creekThe house, cabins and dining facirit,y wourd be served by a wellapproved in an augumentation plan (No.B2Cw52). The house, cabinsand dining facility would be served oy individual se$rage disposalsystems. The dining facility could seat up to 30 people, basedon the augmentation plan.Histgry- The two (2) acre parcel was created by exemption byResolution No. 84-206, in september of 1984. There rr,as an eigtrt(8) acre parcel created at the same time. B. -3 - A. B. C. IIT.IVTAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A resort is a Special Use permit in t,he A/R/RD zoneThe following is the definition of a resort: Resort: Dude ranch or guest ranch; hunting or fishing camp,cross-country or trair sriing rodge (any of which snarl notexceed twelve (Lz) dwelling units or forty-eight (49) beds orvisitor capacity), land used for the purpose of recreation, whichprovldes lodging, recreational activities, dinlng facilities,commissary and other needs operated on the site for guests ormemhrers. The proposal meets the general parameters set forth in the ZoningResolution. I. The Town of New Castle Planning Commission recommended theapplication be denied for the following reasons:a. The additional traffic load on the East Elk creekRd. (C.R. 24L) .b. Possible pollution of the New castre water system bythe proposed individual sehrage disposal systems and theproposed horse shed.c. The proposed density is too high.d. That a commercial development of this sort, isincompatibre with the surrounding agricurturar area.(see lerterg pages ll+ l7 ) Staff Comments:ffiyEnvironmenta1Hea1thofficereviewedtheproposedresort. _ (see memo , page__/3*4) Basicalry, the maximumnumber of units recommendEE would be three cabins and thelodge (ownerrs residence) on the z.o acre parcer. Thisassumes that the cabins have rimited plumbing, no garbagedisposar, dishwasher, washing machine, hot tuo or otnerheavy water usage fixture. 2- The proposed cabins are to be located near the creek, within30 feet of the high water marl(. While this meets the oasicreguirements of the Zoning Resolution regarding setbacks, itdoes not guarantee that the units will be locaied outside ofthe East E1k 100 year floodplain. presentry, the countydoes not have floodplain information available for thisarea. prior to the issuance of any special use permits, the100 year ftood elevation snould be established by aregistered professional engineer and the proposed new unitslocated accordingly. 3. Alr of the proposed cabins should be located on the eastside of the creek. The portion of the parcel c)n the westside is too small to accommodate two cabins and a septicsystem. 4 - East Elk creek is an access point to the F.rat Topswilderness and recreation area. Additionally, tire parcel tothe north has the Camp Christian facilities. Agency Comments: -T 4. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGSr' That the public hearing before the Board of county commissionerswas extensive and complete, that all pertinent tacts, matters andissues h'ere submitted and that arl inlerested parties were heardat the meeting. 2' That the proper publication and public notice tor the publichearing was provided as reguired by law. 3' That the proposed special use conforms to sectlon 5.03 of theGarfield County Zoning Resolution concerning the approval ordisapproval of a petition for a special use. 4. That the proposed 1and usepermitted land uses in allof approval are met. y111 be compatibte with existing anrtdirections provided certain conditions 5- That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposeduse permit is in the best interest of tne health, safety,convenieng., orderr pfosp€rity and werfare of the citizensGarfield County. V. RECOII{IUENDATION on December L2, 1984, the Planning commission recommended approval ofa resort with an o$rners residence and three cabins provided thefollowing conditions are met: r. That prior to the issuance of the speciar use permit, theSPpricant have a registered professional .n!ir,"", establish ther00 year floodplain elevation for the property. Further, thatthe cabins will be located at least one toot above the L00 yearflood elevation and that a copy of the ,.poit and maps besubmitted to the Department oi-oeveropme.rl. 2' That the three cabins have rimited plumbing facilities. No cabinwilr have a garbage disposal, disnwlsher. i."ning machine, hottub or other heavy watei usage fixture oi device. 3' That atl st'ructures be located on the east sicle of East ElrCreek. That the applicant submit a report, prepared by a gualifiedprofessional sanitarian or eguivaleni piotessionar, annuarly, asto the operation and maint,enance of the individual sewagedisposal system, to the planning Department. Special morals, of -5" €xhb* ETOWN OF NEW CASTLE BOX t 66 NEW CASTLE, COLORAOO 8t647 TELEPHONE: 984-231 I October 1!, I9B4 Mr. Mark L. Bean Senior Planner Department of Development 109 Bth Street, Suite 306Glenwood Springs, Co1o. g1601 Dear Mark! .. rn regard to the Don Marshalr special IIse permit application fora resort you recentry submitted to 1.he New castle llanningCommissi-on for review, it is the recommend.ation of the planningCommission to deny the permit. The Tovm Board accepted. therecommendation and moved that the application be d.enied. The consid.eration for d.eniar- was that the East Er_k creek Roadcourd not accomod-ate the additionar traffic. There wasconsiderable concern over the septic system rocatlons and theeffect it wour-d have on the New castre ,atur-suppry. Also thelocation of the horse shed-s could aleo be d.etrimentar to thequallty of water. Th? density of the plan was too high for thearea of property envolved. Another consideration was that sincethis would be a cornmerciar deveropment, it wour_d be unacceptablein the agricultural area that 1s now there. These are the concerns of the Town of New castle and r,m surethey w111 be considered .uri-ng your review of this project. Sincerely, .':-- I z./ ))t72-:);f-.-//4-/,/1L,Z--, -_,^/./'121 '7--- Stan Fulbright,Town ministratorP. 0. Box t66 New CastLe, Colorad,o Bt€J+? SF/mat cc: Garfield County Commissloners a-Zf /c Mary Anne /r^yto" / Planning and Zoning Chairman December 10, I9A4 Mark L. Bean Garfield" County Department of Development 109 8th Street, Sulte 106 Glenwood. Springs, Co1o. 81501 &lrlrl tr ,r Dear Mark, At a special meeting the New castr-e planning and. zontng commissionreviewed. the modified. request for the resort by Don Marsha1l. Therevised. plan alleviated prior concerns as to density and traffic,but the members are stirl opposed. d.ue to the location above theNew castle water lntake. Evidentally tn r)JZ and l)16 flash fl_ood.soccurred, in that area causing consid-erable problems. kesently there are approximately 40 families living above the Ner^r castle water intake and the town is consid.ering a moratoriumon building in that area in order to protect the water rights ofNew Castle. We hope these comments will be taken into consid.eration, but real-lzethat prior to the j-ssuance of the speclal use permit, a 1oo yearfloodplain study is to be done for the property. Sincerely,. /," "/, r\. ." // /. ' --z'c/ L L - Stan Fulbright, City Manager \ GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVTRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUtLOtNG: g4S-B2lz 14EIT,IORANDUIVT &/t6r/ 4 10: FROtvl: DAIE: RE: lilark Bean, Senior planner Ed Eeld, Ervirorunental Healtlr Officer# October 31, 1984 Don lr,Iarshall Reguest In regard to ttre above referencedr please consider the followingconcerning the intent of the respective regulations as they relate toirdividual sewage disposal- systems and the puoric healttr. -section 5.04.03 of ttre Garfield county Zoning Resorutionreguires a minimr:m of two acres for an r.s.D.s and a privatewell or one acre with a central water supply. -section 3.2r of the Garfierd county rndividuar sewage Disposalsystems ReEulation regurres a public hearing conducieo by theBoard of Health for a density of rpre trran iwo dwelring uritsper acre. Presently, Ivlr. Marshall desires to place his home and three other cabinson the east side of East E.LK Creek which divides the two acre parcel. Thewest side of the parcel is proposed to acconmodate two additional cabinsor possibly a restaurant for tfre guest rancn patrons. Ebr hrastelraterpurposes, I consider the proposed "cabi.ns" dwelling unrts as rrcdernplurbing fixtures (i.e. toilets, sinks, tubs, garbage disposals,dishwashers, washing machines) are planned in each unlt -for possibleyear-round use. From a wastewater disposal standpoint, ttre six dwellingunits or "cabins" proposed on thrs tr^ro acre par-e1 are eguivalent to sixtwo bedroom single family chellings. without arguing one regulation agatnst the other, please consider theintent is to prevent the proliferation of nseptic systems,, in agiven area and the subseguent increased potential ror cro,;o or surfrcewater contamination. The County has always exercised extra precaution in regard to areas wherepublic water supply "intakes" are lrcated in relation to upstream ,,septic system'r installations. Such is the case in this area as- the Town of NIer^,castlers public water supply ,ri_ntake,, is rrcated downstream of theproposed guest ranch. GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE I 09 8TH STREET. SUITE 306 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 Mr' Ivlarshall understands this situation and has been very cooperatlve inlocating the leach field for his house well 1n excess of the reguiredminimum fifty feet from a stream or water course. r understand l'1r. ltarsharrrs desire to have a fulr convenrence guest ranchbut the fact remains rhe h,asrehr,arer ftor,y can be ;;r;il;;;-d,lr.i"r"nr ro asubdivision's flow rates rau:er than the ,,traditi.onar,, seasonaL guestranch with rimited fixtures. (i.e. Bridges or corter Lake Guest Ranches). Eor this reason, r would adv:Lse the Plannrng Division and coumissron toconcentrate their attentionr lD genera.l, io the increasing densitiesbordering East ELk creek ancl, rn tnis particurar case, Mr. Marsharl_'sproposal. r would reconrnend the cabins tre limited in nr.unber to the equivalentwastewater frow from two, three bedroom hofltes provided water is supplredtrom an approved central source. please refer to the folrowingcalculations: -tvlaximum Daily FIowffioroneo-ffi 3 x 2 Bdrms x 2 people/bdrm x 751.5 max. daily flow factor. hornes=lr350 GpD gpd/person 675 gpdrzhome Luxury Resort hrith Futl Plurming L25 @D/person x 3.5 peoplel:abin x 1.5 max.daily flow facrors 656.25 cpDlqab:Ut and Ttvoeedroom_lgusg wirn full plurnrffidffi-T-/5-qpdr/per son i r . S *"*i;r*';;il;' f to,factor)=450 GpD + 656.251!l0(r.25 cpp. Resort wi th I.imi tari pt,r-r.i* 506 PD/Person x 3.5 people/calcin x 1.5 max.daily flow factor = 262.5 GpI/Unit xLCabins=787.5 Gpo and two oeoroom trotlse wrth ffiprunolng @ffi zs GpDlperson x 1.5max. daily flow factor)= 450 GpD + 7g7.5- = L237.5 cpD. shourd these reconrnendations be incorporated into a conditionar approvalfor a special use permit for l4r. ltarshallrs guest ranch then r believe wehave kept with tne rntent of tne regulations by reducing hraste$rater tror^rsto a reasonable and acceptable level. *I\OIE: Limited plunbing - I.ro garbage crisposal, dishwasher, washing machine,hot tub or other heavy hrater usale frxture or oevrce. Janua of East Elk Creek, doPermit for cabins and ory 29, 1?95 Eyl,l,/ // hereby state our recreati_onal use. We, the undersigned residentsobjections to the Special Use We recommend that thea strictly residential Recreation limiLedskiing, etc. limi-ted and deeded land. 3. This Special Use permir commercial use in a now 4. The road on East Elk Creekto accommodate commercial would establish a precedent forstrictly residential area. will have to be reconstructedtraffic. t.triking, snowmobiling, cross countryas property is surrounded by private 2. construction of sanitation facirities on a limited pieceof ground, 2 acresr r{irr contribute to the contaminationof the stream,- possibly affecting the drinking water ofall residents below this property. control of thesesanitation facilities wirr por" ; problem for the county. Zoning Board act andr agri-cu ltur a I to preserve East Elk Creek area.AS 't)/l F"l ( Ur-l**&,)zzzil u ,: fr.*/- e,(cfrl*t".) afa*4r'q- K/c.L 6,,,**C',S.nruU{np tetu<-a*q h*C,t---r-->bi vi&/**-(, A,*L ru;* D8a ,% ffi, November 14, 7gB4 €x/r6,/ Z 11s85$ c0, tLAfIlffi I Department of Deve'l opment: I am a property owner in the vicinity of proposed Don Marshall RecreationalDevelopment on East Elk Creek. I understind that'Mr. Marshall-has applied for aSpec'ia1 Use Permit to enable him to proceed with his deveiofiment on h-is A/R/RDzoned property. My wife and I want io make clear to the oeiiiriment or nevetop-ment and the County Commissioners that we are 100% opposed to ir.lis oeveiofi.;iand do not feel this use is in the best intereit or fhe [.opi. affected or theproperties involved. I am also speak'ing on behalf oi il'E-i[g[ i. Rank.ins, whoare the owners of.the property located idjacent to Mr. Marshill,s property onthe north, and adjacent tb oui property oi the south. Mr. Marshall is proposing h'is development on a 2 acre parcel that was re-cently created by exemption in September igg+. I understand that by the oldrules regarding county development it was not necessary to notify adjacentproperty owners of an exempted parce'l being formed. Vi:t jt wouli se6m to methat the ?pprovers,of this exemption, knowing that its propoi.J rse was to becommercial' would have felt it necessary to Fequire Mr.'Naiifriif to notify,at-1east, the adiacent.property. owners -of tfris exemption and its proposed use.I-feel county representatives ihould do their-best Lo repieieni-the interest ofall.taxpayers'in the.county, particulary ones who could be vulnerable if notnotified of changes in boundai^y and posiiute ui" ot propeity close to them. At any rate the question now is Mr. Marshall's development on a 2 acresite. -My wife and I feel that the commercial use is inconlir"nt with therest of the area. When using Camp Christian as an example, these facts apply: Garfield County Department of Development County Court House Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 1. The majority of users of camp christian are childrensuperv'ised by adults and aduits on religious retreats. 2. There is not an extreme burden on county Road 241 because Camp Christian uses busses for transporiation. 3. The recorded use of camp christian is for 3-4 monthsduring the summer. 4. The commercial definition of Camp Christian isquest'ionable since it is a religious operation mutual 1y owned by a number of churches' in the Grand Junction area. Garfield County Department of Development November 14, 1985 It seems to me that the_operation of camp chr.ist.ian is verypredictabl e and control I ed when related to Mr. trlarshal I 'sproposed, but not well defined, use of his development. . The density of Mr. Marshall's development application is much higher thanwhat is cumently the norm on parce'ls thaf are in'the area. Th.is effect isthreaten'ing for the f ol l owing reasons: 1. The people that live'in the area live there to enjoy thenatural beauty of-the surroundings, and the naturil-beautyof its privacy. A recreational development is not con-gruent w'ith the desires of surrounding"property owners. 2. New Castle has committed themselves as a town to protectionof their water source, East Elk Creek. There musi be care-ful consideration of septic systems along East Elk Creek.Looking at the recent annexation of the [astle ValleyDevelopment into the town of New casile, New casile mustinsure for the future, enough potentialiy prre water, tohandl.e it's approved possib'le population increase. Itwourd be a shame if some of this septic system,,room" were taken up by a commercial venture, and down the roadit was discovered that there could be no more septicsystems along East Erk creek, making it difficurt orimpossible for a property owner to Suird a private residence because there could be no more sept.ic systempermits. It seems to me the uses that are tongru-entshould be given first consideration, not uses ihat re-quire a Special Use permit because they are .incongruent. 3. The appearance of Mr. Marshails deveropment, due toits density and its proximity to the coirnty ioad, willnot be congruent with the current ratio of- structuresand open space in the area. We do not feel County Road 241 should be burdened with traffic createdby a commercial venture. The traffic due to residents of the East Elk Creekarea and outside recreational users seems to be in accordance with the conditionof County Road 241. Thg approved access from the Marshall pioperty to CountyRoad 241 is steep and blind and could prove to be a problem'when downh1ll wjntertraffic_approaches tle driveway and anbther vehicl" ls ioming ort from thett4ql,.r,l]'l property. This could be ampl if ied if one, the driv6rs are not famil iarwith the circumstance and there is more than average trairic-(io and from aresidence) due to the commercial nature of the Narihalt oevelopment. Ja Garfield County Department of Development November 14, 1985 There is not, in my opinion a great option of public access into thewilderness area from the Marshall Development. I look at the def.initionof Resort - as by Garfield County - and bo not see great access or accom-modation for any of the mentioned uses. We feel Mr- Marshal I fortunate to own two beaut'iful parcel s on EastElk creek. He has the possibility and shoutd be timited [o i-ninZno eacre bui'lding site and a A/R/RD 2 acre building site. ns neighboringproperty owners we do not feel a Special Use Permit should be granted toMr. Marshall for his Marshall Recreation Development proposai.- Rentalcabins and a restaurant are not congruent with i<eeping New castle'swater shed pure or the desires of oiher property owneis in the immed-iatearea. 0'Lbary Roadle, Colo 'f,"'" i;1 hael 524 nf, (i lll' lu ch, Si-H illl,t/t/tt'lu M'ich 2645 New ael 24 Cas 1t 140/paw E*hil'l t County Comm'i ss'i oners Garf ie'ld County Gl enwood Springs Col orado 81601 Dear Sirs: January 31, 1985 GARFIELD ,;:ru C(). PLANTIER I am writing on behalf of myself, my family, the Hugh E. Rankin Family,and other neighbors on East Elk Creek wh-o opposL tfre Don Marshall ResortSpecia'l Use Appl ication. . As presented in *y first letter addressed to the Garfield County planning and Zoning Commission dated November 14, 1984 myself and family and ihe Hugh " E. Rankin Family are absolutely opposed to the -Don Marshall Development. In add'ition to my f irst letter, I would I ike to add: The in'itial verbal approval given Chester and Anne Barry that enabled themto create the ten acre parcel without going through subdivision procedure wasg'iven them by the County Comm'ission anO Oaitield dounty planning and ZoningDepartment because the 10 acres was to be used for agricultural"(pastJie) fiurposegl ly: Th"is property was sold to Jan Fuller and Al D6rtinger rt',o in turn soldthe ten acres to Don Marshall. Over the last four years lfis property has gonefrom a parcel created for agricultural use only to a ten acre buiiOanie sit6,then to a subdivi,sion exempted 2_acre parcel ana g acre parcel, to now a posiibleB acre parcel and a 2 acre parce'l with'a special use appiicaiion that will turnits use into a commercial venture. There was no publ ic'notice given until thespecial use permit came up. Why was no publ ic notice given when"the ten acreswas exempted from subdivision requfrements? Why was no publ ic notice given whenthe ten acres was exempted from dubdivision requtrements and divided into an Bacre parce'l and a 2 acre parcel? It seems to nie very unfajr that all of thiswent on without any. of the neighboring property owneis be'ing notified or publ icnotices regarding these changes being-postbd. Is this stanlard procedure? It's a shame to have to tel'l your neighbor (Arthur Hoops js Don Marshall,sneighbor to the south, w'ithin 100 feet of lhe proposed deveiopment) tnat you arebuilding a house when you are actually buildin! the first structure of a "proposed devel.opment_that w'ill drastically effect your neighbors property values. 'As Mr. Marshal I has done wi th hi s n-eighbor Ai^thur Hoops. It seems this whole situation is such a surprise to other property ownersin the area because of the way Don Marshall has been able to snbak'things throughwithout having to let-effected people know. I question the lega'lity of the prolcess that has taken place in creating the original ten acre paicel, and the ' County Commissioners January 31, 1985 Page Two changes it decide on has had a use, this has gone through to reacha special use permit for a questionable history from exempted from subdivi sion this point that we commercial ventureits beginning as 10 requ i rements. ane at a meeting to on two acres that acres for agricultural e,orado 81647 M0/paw RECEIVED JAN S 1 1985 G,rti?Fifi_fi COUTTY COIIEIS$IOflERS Board of County Commissioners 109 Bth Srreer Suire 301 Glenwood Springs, CoJo. g1601 Sirs: Iamwrl.tingl.nreSponseEoapub1icnoticeregardingam.lfliHk.approva1requeStuyfu-ir,"-ioacreparce1of1and in question is 2.3 miles up East E1k creek, county Road 241 and adjoinsmy property. The request involves devel0pment of a resort on a 2 acreparcel that was recently created ty .*"rpiion, My parents, c.L. and Anne Barry, sold this 10 acre parcel to Jan Furlerand A1 Dirtinger for pasture ftr the coupreos "a3acent property 5s6years ago. At thrs time a werl permrt was allowed onry foi a io .""usectlon of land. slnce purehasr'nB this ProperLy'Don Marshall has received. speclal consldera-tion ln ber'ng given both i r"it_permit and a permiE to buttd a famtlyresidence. The present proposal for commercia: d.evelopment of thissmal1 parcel of.land is nothing ress than as.onishing and is far afieldfrorn the guidelines for the growth of this area. tnColorado Revised Statutes\t, Vol" L2, p, 666 in the section unden-planningarrd Zonlrlg staEe'sr N A landowner need noE be perrnttted to make the mostpnofitab'le' use of hi's land.tl Every request shoufd receive equa1 consid-eration and lf the ownerts profit i" to be the prevailing concern inthls partlcular case' then conslstency demands ah.a oro"r\s profit shoul-ddeEermine the use of all land in the has.t E1k creek area. The area wt11be devastated, Mr. Marshall!s proposed development represenEs oversutrl1zation of anextremely srnall parcel of land, denslty. that is incongruenE w{th controlledgrowth Ln thls area' and furth.t ".pr"i"rra* "*ireme abuse of the origina1purpose of the land to the point of heing ,"p""io.r*. The impact on theenEtre are.ar and on uy.property, in partilularn r^.s direct and deErtmental . The suggestton that thfs' resort would provlde puhllc acees.s Lo a wil-dernessarea is unreasonable when yrcu look at ihe topogrrpty of the rand. Theone consideration which recommends this pru3LcI is Mr. Marshallrs profit. rn the interest of admlnistering a consistent, fair poJlcy which proEectsthis area please deny this ""q.rI"t for a special use permit. 2445 Counry Road 241 New castle, coJo. 87647Jan.30,1985 €vhh/ L Stncerely, 4U)-l*,-U""A^- r -r9-4J-,t_d_/ agVU*U Phyrlis L. Chgrrrdt.rvrrrs ''fiffimF \N[ ,u| t- tB 1 r roQ(-\' l.,u" /o We, the undersigned residents of East EIk Creek, doobjections to the special use permit for cabins and January 29, f985 hereby state ourrecreational use. 1. Recreation limited - hiking, sno!finobi1ing, cross counEryskiing, etc. rimited as property is surrounded by privateand deeded land. 2' Construction of sanitation facilities on a limited pieceof ground, z acres, will contribute to the contaminationof the stream: possibly affecting the drinking water ofa1l residents berow this property. control of thesesanitation facilities will pose a problem for the county. 3' This Special Use Permit would establish a precedent forcommercial use in a now strictly residential area. 4' The road on East Elk Creek will have to be reconstructedto acconnnodate commercial traffic. we recommend that the Zoning Board act to preserve East Elk creek asa strictly residential and agricultural area. Q**//{ZLAtu &,oZ*Zn "$)'4'*-