The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication-Permitl Garfield County No. Building & Sanitation Department 108 8th Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Office 945-8212 Inspection Line 384-5003 Job Address: 0735 Heather lane, GWS 10779 Locality: Christeleit Subdivision, Lot 5/ 2187-301-03-005 ------------------------~--------------------------- Use of Building: conver s/f dwelling into a two family dwelling unit Owner: Fleetwood, Jennifer & Paul Contractor: Owner -------------------------------------------------- Amount of Permit: $1,889.17 __ ___;__...;_ ______ _ Date: septic $50.00 Total $1,939.17 Clerk: _]:!I£....:(:.........;_{1Q-b'LJd..:...___ ___ GARFI ELD COUNTY BUI LD I NG PERMIT APPLICAT I ON 108 8 '" Street , Suite 401, Glenwo od Springs, CO 816 01 Phon e~0 -945-8212 I Fll.ll:: 9 70-384-3470 1 I nspe ction Lin e: 9 7 0 -3 8 4-5003 5 l 01r~ Parcel/Schedule No:~ t t--r ~ 0 l-a; -OO 2 3 4 5 (i 7 ~ 9 10 1 I Permit No: Garage: Block No : Address af'lVOu c O 07 · 5 On-Site Sewage Disposal WkPh : -"7/~po q 7::> ·-s '/'-(-0 (PI Ph: Li e. No . Ph : Li e. No . He igh t: No . of Floo rs: .;:t_ Q S t le Plan Adj u sted Va luallons: S 12 Special Condtllons: }.1 ~ ~{) S s Lt., p !rpp (J () V (. q a.ov~ rz ... 3 .. 01 NOTICE A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PERM IT I S REQUI RED AND MUST B E ISSUED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO. TH.IS PERMIT BECO MES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCT ION AUTHORIZED I S NOT COMMENCED WITHLN 180 DAYS . OR. IF CONSTRUCTION OR W ORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAM IN ED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW Til E SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISI ONS OF LAW S GOVERNING TH I S TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLETED \VITHIN WHETHER SPECIFI ED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERM IT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL TiiE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTiiER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTION. B· t ~ o DATE Plan C heck Fee: Permit Fee: 7 y L-j "t:Z. l \~"1 qs- Total Fee: \ ~~~ 11 Dated Pe r mlt Issued: OCC Gro Canst. Type : Zon i ng~.~ S L\F I ([. ~ S e tbacks: d-.oc~-1 o Manu. Ho m e: A GREEMENT PE RMISSION IS I IEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLI CANT AS OWNER. CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AS DETAILE D ON PLAN S AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUIL DING DEPARTM ENT. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSSUANCE OF THIS PE RMIT, THE SIGNER. HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN LN 30.28.20 I CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTI-IER AGREES TI·!AT IF" THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPILED \Vflrl IN THE LCOATION. ERECTION. CONSTRUCTION . AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRI BED STRUCTURE. THE PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM T H E COUNTY AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT SHAJ,L BECOME NULL AND VOID. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMT BASED UPON PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA Sr!ALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL F'ROM THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE CORRECT ION OF E RRORS IN SAID PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FRO M PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN VIOLATION OF T HS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANC E OR REGULATION OF THIS J URISDICTION. THE REVIEW O F SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFI CATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED T H EREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIABLITIES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS. OMISSIONS OR DISCREPENCI ES. THE RESPONSI B I LI 1Y FOR T HESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECI FICLALLY \VITH T H E ARTICTECT. DESIGNER. BUILDER. AND OWNER. COMMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSERVATNE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS LNTEREST. :IF I HEREBY A CKNOWLEDGE TI-JAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT ABOVE (I NITIAL): ~ - c1J-~ (( d-i o/ d-!(o 7 f ~c.((, 3c, BP t~-g-~ -.--, ~ \~Q.1--i-~($~~~J~~~) The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection: 1. A final Electrical In specti o n from the Colorado State Electrical In spector; 2. Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Bui lding Department posted where readi ly visible from access road; 3. A finished roof, a lockable h ouse, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows install ed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent kitchen floor coverings, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove a nd refrigerator, all necessary plumbing; 4. All bathrooms mu st be complete, wi th washbow l, tub or sho wer, toilet stool, hot and cold running water, non-absorbent floors and walls finished and a privacy d oor; 5. All steps o utside or in side over three (3) steps mu st have handrails, guard rails on balcon ies or decks over 30" hi g h constructed to a ll ffiC and IR C requirements; 6. Outside grading done to where water will detour away fro m the building; 7 . Exceptions to the o uts id e steps, decks and grad in g may be made upon th e demonstration of extenuating circumstances , i.e. weather, but a Certifi cate of Occupancy will not be issued unti l all th e required items are completed a nd a final in spectio n made; 8 . A fi nal inspection s ig n off by the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for driveway installation , where appl icabl e; as well as any final sign off by the Fire District, an d/or State Agencies whe re appli cable. 9. If you will be conn ectin g to a publi c water and /or sewer sys tem, proof of the tap fees have been paid and the conn ecti o ns inspected by the service provider prior to issuance of a C.O. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. ****A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY TAKE UP TO 5 BUSINESS DAYS TO BE PROCESSED AND IS SUED. ****CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O .) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GRO UNDS FOR VACATING PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET. I unde rstand and agree to abide b y the above cond iti o ns for occupa 1~d the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for th e dwelling under bui lding permit # __ ._U=~~.....__-t-- S' 13 , lT] Signature Date B pappi i cati onocto ber2006 VALUATION FEE DETERMINATION Applicant Address Date Fleetwood Subdivision \):7~3s:~H~~~~'<~u~=:..~t>.~~::::::;6o~;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::= Lot/Block 12/6/2007 Contractor ~~~~------------------- Finished (Livable Area): Main Upper Lower Other Total Basement: Unfinished Square Feet Valuation Conversion of Unfinished to Finished Total Valuation Garage: Valuation Crawl Space Valuation Decks/ Patios Valuation Covered Open Type of Construction: Occupancy: Valuation Total Valuation 607 sf 607 sf sf sf X $74.68 1214 sf sf X $41.00 sf X $33.68 840 sf X $18.00 1710 sf X $9.00 sf X $24.00 476 sf X $12.00 Commercial sf X sf X sf X sf X sf X sf X Christeliet ViewC 5 Owner 90,661.52 0 .00 15,120.00 15,390.00 5,712.00 0.00 126,883.52 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING 970-945-8212 MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS For SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION Including NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS And MOVED BUILDINGS ln order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite the issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. When reviewing a plan and it's discovered that required information has not been provided by the applicant, this will result in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor shall be required to provide this information before the plan review can proceed. Other plans that are in line for review may be given attention before the new information may be reviewed after it has been provided to the Building Department. Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. Also, please consider using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for construction of your project. Any project with more than ten (10) occupants requires the plans to be sealed by a Colorado Registered Design Professional. To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building, plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following checklist prior to and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the completed checklist at time of application for a permit. Plans to be included for a Building Permit, must be on drafting paper at least 18"x24" and drawn to scale. Plans must include a floor plan, a concrete footing and foundation plan, elevations all sides with decks, balcony, steps, hand rails and guard rails, windows and doors, including the finish grade line and original grade. A section showing in detail, from the bottom of the footing to the top ofthe ioof, including re-bar, anchor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and spacing, insulation, sheeting, house-rap, (which is required), siding or any approved building material. Engineered foundations may be required. A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor framing plan, a roof framing plan, roof must be designed to withstand a 40 pound per square foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation, a 90 M.P.H. wind speed, wind exposure B or C, and a 36 inch frost depth. All sheets to be identified by number and indexed. All of the above requirements must be met or your plans will be returned. All plans submitted must be incompliance with the 2003 IRC. 1. Is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure or addition and distances to the property lines from each comer of the proposed structure( s) prepared by a licensed surveyor and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the drawing? Properties with slopes of 30% or greater must be shown on the site plan. (NOTE Section: 1 06.2) Any site plan for the placement of any portion of a structure within 50 ft. of a property line and not within a previously surveyed building envelope on a subdivision final plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor and have the surveyor's signature and professional stamp on the drawing. Any strucrure to be built within a building envelope of a lot shown on a recorded subdivision plat shall include a copy of the building envelope as it is shown on the final plat with the proposed structure located within the envelope. Yes -JF 2. Does the site plan also include any other buildings on the property, setback easements and utility easements 0 Please refer to Section 5.05.03 in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution if the property you are applying for a building permit on is located on a comer lot. Special setbacks do apply. Yes JF 3. Does the site plan include when applicable the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) and the distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent properties), streams or water courses? Yes JF 4. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing the property? 2 Yes JF 5. Are you aware that prior to submittal of a building permit application you are required to show proof of a driveway access permit or obtain a statement from the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department stating one is not necessary? You can contact the Road & Bridge Department at 625-8601. Yes ,TF 6. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all reinforcing steel in accordance with the IRC or per stamped engineered design? Yes CJF 7. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the clearances required between wood and earth? Yes v (Z 8. Do the plans indicate the size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and soffits? Yes ,) f 9. Do the plans include design loads as required by Garfield County for roof snow loads, (a minimum of 40 pounds per square foot up to & including 7,000 feet above sea level), floor loads and wind loads? Yes ....If 10. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and roof construction? Yes ;::TE 11. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses? Yes Jf 12. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection of all columns and beams? Yes ....\ f- 13. Does the elevation plan indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the undisturbed grade to the midpoint between the ridge and eave of a gable or shed roof or the top of a flat roof? (Building height measurement usually not to exceed 25 feet) Yes J ( · 14. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including 3 make and model and Colorado Phase II certifications or phase II EPA certification? Yes N o--'-J""''-F._·-:c--,--.,---: 15. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply with the IRC? Yes No____,O'--'--F_· ___ _ 16. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows from sleeping rooms and/or basements comply with the requirements of the IRC? Yes N o--'J"'---'-E-_· __ _ 17. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? Yes No_JF""'-'----- 18. Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors, glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normally used as a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures and specify safety glazing for these areas? YeQE No_· ____ _ 19. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated o~jhe plan? Yes ~~ No ------ 20. Do you understand that if you are building on a parcel of land created by the exemption process or the subdivision process, are building plans in compliance with all plat notes and/or covenants? Yes1IF No _____ _ 21. Do you understand that if you belong to a Homeowners Association (HOA), it is your responsibility to obtain written permission from the association, if required by that association, prior to submitting an application for a building permit? The building permit application will be accepted without it, but you run the risk ofthe HOA bringing action to enforce the covenants, which can result in revocation of permit issued. Additionally, your Plan Review fee is not refundable if the plans have been reviewed by the Building Department prior to any action by the HOA that requires either revocation or substantial modification of the plans. Yes JF No _____ _ 22. Will this be the only residential structure on the parcel? Yes ·::::tf' No Ifno-Explain: ______ _ 23. Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application? Yes']£ 4 24. Do you understand that the minimum dimension a home can be on a lot is 20ft. wide and 20ft. long? Yes JY No ____ _ 25. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code requirements? Yes Jf' No ____ _ 26. Do your plans comply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your properties zone district? Yes \JF: No _____ _ 27. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield County Building Department? Yes JF No ____ _ 28. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior to the application of these changes? Yes erE-No ____ _ 29. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you at the time of application submittal and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any "Road Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick up your building permit? Yes ::rF No ____ _ 30. Are you aware that you must call in for au inspection by 3:30 the business day before the requested inspection in order to receive it the following business day? Inspections will be made from 7:30a.m. to 3:30p.m. Monday through Friday. Inspections are to be called in to 384-5003. Yes QF No ____ ---'- 31. Are you aware that requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible will result in a $50.00 re-inspection fee? Yes UP No ----- 32. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the IRC including approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy of the building? Yes JF No ___ ~-- 5 33. Are you aware that the Permit Application must be signed by the Owner or a written authority being given for an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply with the IRC7 Yes ~~~ No __________ _ 34. Do you understand that you will be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed Electrician and Plumber to perform installations and hookups, unless you as the homeowner are performing the work? The license number of the person performing the work will be required at time of applicable inspection. Yes ;:n:: No _______ _ 35. Are you aware, that on the front of the Building Permit Application you will need to fill in the Parcel/Schedule Number for the lot you are applying for this permit on prior to submittal of a building permit application? Your attention in this is appreciated. YesJF-. No -------- 36. Do you know that the local fire district may require you to submit plans for their review of fire safety issues? Yes ,)E No (please check with the building department about fuis requirement) 37. Do you understand that if you are planning on doing any excavating or grading to the property prior to issuance of a building permit that you will be required to obtain a grading permit? YesJ£- 38. Are you aware that if you will be connecting to a public water and/or sewer system, that the tap fees have to be paid and the connections inspected by the service provider prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy? Yes ::::rf· I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions to the /~~st of my ability. ~ _________ll11 w , --=t~£ R otz; mt)d __,B'----· =13"----· -"'-D __J''---------- . gnature ofjOwner Date Phone: Of L/6 · ]/ (pD (days); SCl.WU....... (evenings) Project Name: fl-ecl1<..::>C> ;:> Q !UE.St r.> ~.::; .Jc..E Notes: If you have answered "No" on any of the questions, you may be required to provide this 6 information at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. Delays in issuing the permit are to be expected. W ark may not proceed without the issuance of a permit. If it is determined by the Building Official that additional information is necessary to review the application and plans to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, the application may be placed behind more recent applications for building permits in the review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the application rotates again to first position for review, delay in issuance of the permit or delay in proceeding with construction. Bpminreq November2006 7 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Codes: 2003 IRC, ffiC, IFGC, IMC, IPC, Setbacks: Check subdivisions and zone district for setback requirements. Snowload (measured at the roof): 40PSF up to 7000ft. elevation. 50PSF 700 I to 8000ft. 7 5PSF 800 I to 9000ft. I OOPSF 900 I to I OOOOft. Seismic design category: B Weathering probability for concrete: Severe Termite infestation probability: None to slight Wind speed: 90mph Decay probability: None to slight Wind Exposure: B or C (see section R301.2.1.4) Frost Depth: 36in. to 8000ft. elevation. 42in. 8001 and above. Winter Design Temperature: Minus 2 to 7000ft.; minus 16 over 7000ft. elevation. Air Freezing Index: 2500deg F-days to 7000ft.; over 7000ft. to be determined by Building Official. Ice shield under-layment required. Mean Annual temp.: Variable Insulation: Maximum glazing U factor: 0.50 Minimum R-Values: • Ceilings/roofs R values are: R-30 stick built structures. R-38 log construction and steel rafter construction. • Walls R values areR-19 wood frame; R-19 cavity R-3 sheathing steel studs. • Floors R-values are R-19. • Basement wall R-values areR-10 beiow grade, R-19 above grade. • Slab perimeter R-value and depth is R- 10/36in. • Crawl space wall R-values are R-10 below grade and R -19 above grade If floors over crawl spaces are not insulated, the crawl space walls must be insulated. Basement wall must be insulated to frost depth. Common walls garage to house must have R-19 insulation. Common ceiling/floor garage to house must have R-19. Take precautions to protect plumbing in these areas. PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST Date ___ ft ....... -_~-"---G_')___.._ __ Building ~ngineered Foundation / Driveway-Permit ~ .. c; ~ Planning/Zoning _Jroperty Line Setbacks _____0"oft Stream Setback s /surveyed Site Plan 4 Flood Plain _,_/~tic Permit and Setbacks~ ;;~~ilding Height L Grade!Topography 30 % ~nin g Sign-off ~tach Residential Plan Review List L Minimum Application Que stionnaire ~ubdivision Plat Notes ~Fire Department Review V Valuation Determination/Fees L Road Impact Fees ~A/DRC Approval $ade!Topography 40% /Plannin g Iss ue s SlAP lfppllav~ --t,..L'subdivision Plat Notes \../"'Red Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker ,..,~ 1--u C U'f:\-+-~ s'b-,.....,) w~ s ""'p 11-~p fh,. Attach Conditions rwoul s...., / Application Signed _LPlan Reviewer To Sign Application -V---Parcel/Schedule No. ~40# Snowload Letter-Manf. Hm s. ~So il s Repmt GENERAL NOTES: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Coloradof 81601 Phone (970) 945-8212 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT PROPERTY Permit 4 ~9 7 Assessor's Parcel No. This does not constitute a building or use permit. Owner's Name \-\ ft \ W\.LU I \(-n ~ \ ~e~r~se ~~~~e~ () l~ ~ b f( ~ \ ~\ F r l If\-(J \.D ~one Qlt 6-l \~C) System L ocation ffi"-3~ H £:( \ \\f\ F f '{) 1fH~:-~( ~ W S, Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No.(' ID l \;:Je t 2 \-\ S l) be}. L ( )\-ro I 0 \ o-t--:so \-0---:5-0()~ SYSTEM DESIGN j()CJ(J~ ~~ /)7CJ _____ Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) ______ Other _____ Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or o ther) ____ _ Required Absorption Area -See Attached Special Setback Requireme nts : Date _____________ Inspec tor --------------------------- FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation System Installer .J-.C 91J .dAr¥ Septic ~nk Capacity~,~~~-~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name __ <..::::":::.:.C~ . ....,I:!!-=----~f:'-'~~~-:t/t..,;k~'~.s:;a~v~:J~J::l.._~Cez,:c_~~OL:.:~~-'--.l.t.k~,C/~£:..~----~--- 1/ Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface -~-F~~--------------------------- Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name --"~"'7¥~"",-:""l"'l<-c:o.~.e.z"""'?~·'i"1'------------------ Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements~'------------------ Other t{/11 Date _-=J _-"'d-'-'g.""---. 0---=8=-·----Inspector --jJ7?4~4'?/'~.:::zt RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE *CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter 25, Article 10 C.R.S . 1973, Revised 1984 . 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con· nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Any person who constructs , alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine-6 months in jail or both). White· APPLICANT Yellow-DEPARTMENT \ INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION oWNER f?n_cd an cl :Rnn 1 Fev-F l -ee to.J oo d ADDRESS 0 l oS 1-f -<?Qt VLQl/ /.--h PHON ~(O · G?'-/-5 ()3?;{p CONTRACTOR Dll.ffie_L ADDRESS ______________________________ __ PHONE ----- PERMIT REQUEST FOR ( ) NEW INSTALLATION (X) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, l ocation of potable water wells , soi l percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4). LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: Near what City ofTown G-lenwood Gpr-u'l g s Size of Lot 5 Lj I C\(Y'"f S WASTES TYPE: ()() DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE ________________ ___ Number of Bedrooms N umber of Person s ------------------------------ ( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (X ) WELL If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: ( ) Dishwasher ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM:_N.L...!...!....,A..__ ______________ ___ Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? ___,!_'N=c"-~------------ A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances: Leach Field to Well: 100 feet Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet Septic System (septic tank & disposal field) to Property Lines: 10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEW AGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: D~th~fi~tGroundW~~T~~--------------------------------------------~ Percent Ground Slope----------------------------------------------------~ 2 TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED : (/\) SEPTIC TANK ( ) VAULTPRIVY ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET( FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE US E ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE .;:J OTHER-DESCRIBE i nlcnhon 1-o u.~c t-AX't ~h,;1 3 IE'Cl ch -fu.,ld 1 ctc and 1 nsta./1 on t0 (.l...) l ar~w +o.n b ( ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) WASTEWATER POND (~ OTHER-DESCRIBE ____ ·~--~_I S_'-_I -~_116-·~------------------------------------ WILL EFFLUENT B E DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS O F THE STATE?___._,[\}....;::..0 __ __ PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS : (To be c o mpleted by Regi stered Professional Engineer, ifthe Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes _____ per inch in hole No .1 Minutes ______ per inch in hole No . 3 Minutes ______ per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes ______ per inch in hole No . _ Name, address and telephone ofRPE who made soil absorption tests:-------------- Name, address and telephone ofRPE responsible for design of th e system: _________ _ Applicant acknowledges tha t the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local d epartment o f health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification o r misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law . Date rtf · I 0 · 0 l 3 Parcel Detail Page I of 4 Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Asscssorf[r~~\surer PropenySenrc:h I ~_ssessor SubseL~n' I AssessoLS!lies Search Clerk.i:k.Recor<:lerReception.Se<lrcb Basic Building Cl:li!racteristics I Tax Information Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail I Photographs I TaxArea II Account Number II Parcel Number II Mill Levy I I oo5 II R050249 II 218730103005 II 54.949 I Owner Name and Mailing Address jFLEETWOOD, PAUL & JENNIFER I j735 HEATHER LANE I jGLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 I Legal Description jSECT,TWN,RNG:30-6-88 jsUB:CHRISTELEIT VIEW SUBDIVISION jLOT:5 PRE:R050232 BK: 1724 PG:97 jRECPT:681729 BK:1681 PG:229 jRECPT:672731 BK:1564 PG:547 jRECPT:647332 BK:l501 PG:364 jRECPT:633273 BK:l501 PG:363 jRECPT:633272 BK:1357 PG:509 jRECPT:604073 BK: 1124 PG:621 jRECPT:543843 BK:0955 PG:0280 jBK:0667 PG:0134 I Location Physical Address: jj735 HEATHER LN CARBONDALE! Subdivision: llcHRISTELEIT VIEW I http://www .garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp?ParcelNumber=218730 I 03005 12111/2007 Parcel Detail Page 2 of 4 IISUBDIVISION I Land Acres: 115.412 I Land Sq Ft: llo Section II Township II Range I 30 II 6 II 88 I Property Tax Valuation Information II Actual Value II Assessed Value I I Land: II 160,oooll 12,7401 I Improvements: II 291,26011 23,1801 I Total: II 451,26011 35,9201 Sale Date: 114/21/2005 Sale Price: 11442,000 Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 11 I Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind lo I Buildings: Residential Building Occurrence 1 Characteristics TOTAL HEATED AREA: 112,311 ABSTRACT CODE·IISINGLE FAM.RES- . IMPROVEMTS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: 112-STORY EXTERIOR WALL: llwo SIDING ROOF COVER: IIPREFAB MET ROOF STRUCTURE: IIGABLE INTERIOR WALL: IIDECORA TIVE INTERIOR WALL: IIDRYWALL FLOOR: IIHARD TILE FLOOR: IICARPET I HEATING FUEL: IlGAS I HEATING TYPE: IIHT WTR RAD I STORIES: llsTORIES 2.0 II http://www. garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp ?ParcelN umber=218 7301 03005 12/11/2007 Parcel Detail BATHS: I 2.5 ROOMS: 17 UNITS: II BEDROOMS: 13 YEAR BUILT: 111996 I Tax Information Tax Year Transaction Type Amount I 2006 Tax Payment: Second Half ($983.86)1 2006 Tax Payment: First Half ($983.86)1 2006 Tax Amount $1,967.721 2005 Tax Payment: Second Half ($988.62)1 2005 Tax Payment: First Half ($988.62)1 2005 Tax Amount $1,977.241 2004 Tax Payment: Second Half ($1 ,031.06)1 2004 Tax Payment: First Half ($1,031.06)1 2004 I Tax Amount $2,062.121 2003 Tax Payment: Second Half ($899.89)1 2003 Tax Payment: First Half ($899.89)1 2003 Tax Amount I $1,799.781 2002 Tax Payment: Second Half II ($832.68)1 2002 I Tax Payment: First Half ($832.68)1 2002 I Tax Amount $1,665.361 2001 Tax Payment: Second Half ($836.66)1 2001 Tax Payment: First Half I ($836.66)1 2001 Tax Amount $1,673.321 2000 Tax Payment: Second Half ($868.17)1 2000 I Tax Payment: First Half ($868.17)1 2000 Tax Amount $1,736.341 1999 Tax Payment: Second Half II ($864.91)1 1999 Tax Payment: First Half II ($864.91)1 1999 Tax Amount II $1,729.821 Top of Page AssessorDat:l\JasG S<;archOptions I Treasurer Database Sean;:h Qp.tions C:::Lerlc&_Re.c:oLde!·Q;l!all<lseSe.<lrcb Qption.s http://www .garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp ?Parce1Number=218730 I 03005 Page 3 of 4 12/11/2007 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address; FILED Document iD 0 Garfield County District Court 9th I 09 Eighth Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado iling Date: Jun 2 2010 4:56PM MDT Telephone: (970) 945-5075 iling ID: 31428472 ~eview Clerk~ N/A Plaintiffs: KATHY CANTRUP, DIETER CANTRUP, and CHRISTELEIT VIEWS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ACOURT USE ONLY A Defendants: PAUL FLEETWOOD and JENNIFER FLEETWOOD Case Number: 08CV357 Div: A FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION This matter was tried to the Court on April 13 and 14, and May 5, 2009. Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. and John F. Neiley appeared with, and as counsel for, Plaintiffs Kathy Cantmp and Dieter Cantmp (collectively, "the Cantmps") and Plaintiff Christeleit Views Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. ("the HOA" or "the Association''). Timothy E. Whitsitt appeared with, and as counsel for, Defendants Paul Fleetwood and Jennifer Fleetwood (collectively, "the Fleetwoods"). After reviewing the pleadings and other contents of the Court's file and considering the testimony and exhibits submitted at the trial and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and reaches, from its analysis, the following conclusions of law. Findings of Fact 1. The Association is a Colorado non-profit corporation organized pursuant to the Covenants of Protective Covenants for Christeleit Views Subdivision ("Subdivision") recorded on July 20, 1994 at Reception Number 466038 in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder ("Covenants"). The Subdivision is comprised of seven single-family lots. 2. The HOA's responsibilities include the roadways and water supply for the lots in the Subdivision. Water supply has been an ongoing problem since the Subdivision was established. Two wells had failed, and at one time, water had to be hauled in. The supply from the third well made that unnecessary, but it was tenuous enough that usage had to be closely monitored. Continuous use of water overnight by one lot owner could, for example, result in water shortages for the other owners until storage could be restored. The Fleetwoods were aware of the limits and inadequacies of the water system, as evidenced by a July 13, 2009 e-mail that Paul DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 · Cantrup, et aUF/eetwood, e/ a/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION Fleetwood wrote other owners complaining about the "antiquated, non serviceable system." The Court finds that all members of the Association, including the Fleetwoods, were keenly aware of the fact that there were practical limits to the number of families who could be served by the water system. 3. The Cantrups are owners of Lot 6 in the Subdivision. They had built a single-family residence on the Lot, though they had furnished a portion of their detached garage area for residential purposes. That area was occupied by a relative of the Cantrups for as much as four years. When Association representatives learned of it, they, with the cooperation of the Cantrups, promptly acted to terminate the occupancy. 4. The Fleetwoods purchased Lot 5 in the Subdivision on April 21, 2005. At that time, their Lot had been developed with one single-family residential dwelling. 5. Per Section 12.0, the Covenants were intended to run with the land. They touched and concerned both Lots 5 and 6, and both the Cantrups and the Fleetwoods received constructive notice of the existence of the Covenants when they purchased their respective lots. 6. One of the purposes of the Association is to "perform such architectural control, review and planning duties and to enforce protective covenants, limitations, and restrictions governing the use and occupancy of lands, and the construction and alteration of structures and impr<!vements upon the land." Covenants at Section 2.1.A. 7. However, that responsibility of the Association has been effectively delegated to a committee of the Association, the Architectural Control Committee ("ACC" or "the Committee"), which has been explicitly given "the responsibility and authority to review, study, make recommendations and suggestions for changes· to, and approve or reject proposed improvements" within the Subdivision. [emphasis supplied] Section 7.2. 8. Section 7.4 of the Covenants sets forth in detail the procedures to be followed by any owner desiring to construct any improvements on any lot within the Subdivision. More specifically, it states: Approval of Plans. No building, landscaping, parking or vehicular driveway, fence, wall or other improvement shall be constructed, erected, altered or added to, on any lot until building plans and site plans and specifications showing color, location, materials, landscaping and such other information rei ating to such improvements as the ACC may reasonably require shall have been submitted to and swproved Ill' the ACC in writing, The owner shall not forward any notice of approval of such plans to a planning, zoning or building department of Garfield County until such time 2 DISTRICT COURT; GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et ai./F/eetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION as the ACC has completed its final review and approval of such plans. [emphasis supplied] 9. Section 7.5 of the Covenants states: Criteria. In approving such plans and specifications, the ACC shall consider: 7.5.1 The suitability of the improvements and materials which are to be constructed on the site considering the location; 7.5.2 The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; 7.5.3 The quality of the materials to utilized in any proposed improvements; 7.5.4 The effect of any proposed improvement on the viewplane of any adjacent or neighboring property; 7.5.5 The soil review of the site upon which any building is to be constructed and the. results of soil tests for the particular site; 7.5.6 A drainage plan for the particular site and the effect of such drainage plan upon the overall subdivision drainage plan; and 7.5.7 The landscaping plan for the particular site which shall include designated parking and drive areas. 10. At the time the Fleetwoods purchased their property, and at all times relevant hereto, the Covenants contained Section 8.1, which states that uses of property in the Subdivision are limit~;d as follows: No more than one (1) single family dwelling shall be erected upon any lot. A total of three (3) detached outbuildings used as a non-dwelling garage, stable, barn, tool or storage shed or buildings necessary for the sheltering and keeping of animals are permitted if approved by the ACC. As the Court more fully describes above, it finds that these sections of the Covenants are clear and unambiguous and that they can be readily interpreted and understood without any special training or knowledge. II. The Covenants, at Section 13.0, allow the HOA, as successor to the original Owner, and any lot owner to institute proceedings, "including a demand for injunctive relief to prevent or remedy the threatened or existing violation of [the] covenants and for damages", Section 13.1.2, 3 ··-· DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et a/.! Fleetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT · INJUNCTION and in any such proceedings for enforcement of the Covenants, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation, including reasonable costs of expert witness fees. Section 13.1.3. 12. Over the years since the Covenants were recorded, the Association was briefly dissolved as a result of a failure to comply with the administrative requirements of the Secretary of State, but it was quickly reinstated. The Association has consistently required that those matters described in Section 7.4 of the Covenants be reviewed by the ACC, though once the Subdivision was essentially built out, the Committee had little to do and had not been particularly active when the Fleetwoods purchased their property. In fact, when they arrived, at least one of the members of the Committee had sold his lot and moved away, and he had not been replaced. As part of the ACC's review, it has the discretion to determine what information it reasonably requires to complete its review of a particular project. Section 7.4. As required by Section 7.4, the Committee's decisions have consistently been in writing. 13. The testimony at trial establishes that the Fleetwoods also had actual notice of the Covenants at the time that they purchased their lot on April21, 2005. They read the Covenants prior to purchasing the property, because they intended to construct an addition on the existing residence so that Jennifer Fleetwood's mother could come live on their property. 14. [n the late spring or early summer of 2007, the Fleetwoods made telephone calls to several owners in the subdivision to invite them to review a preliminary set of plans they had drawn up for the proposed addition. The Cantrups reviewed the plans and stated that they objected to the proposed addition, because it would block their views of Mount Sopris. No other owners reviewed the plans at that time. 15. In July 2007, the Fleetwoods revised the plans, altering the design and size of the proposed addition. The final plans were dated July 19, 2007. The final plans did not change the location of the addition or diminish the obstruction of the Cantrups' views of Mount Sopris. 16. On or about July 25, 2007, the Fleetwoods obtained a loan commitment for a construction loan to build the addition. 17. On August 10, 2007, they executed the documentation for a construction loan in the amount of$332,000. 18. On August 13, 2007, the Fleetwoods submitted an application to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department for a building permit to add a three-car garage, kitchen, living area, bedroom and two bathrooms to the existing residence on their property. The stated purpose for the proposed addition was for an additional dwelling unit for Jennifer Fleetwood's mother. The Garfield County Building Permit application form that was signed and initialed by Jennifer Fleetwood contained an advisement that, if required by the HOA, it was the applicant's responsibility to obtain written approval from the HOA prior to submitting an application for a 4 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et ai.IF/eetwood, eta/. ···-. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION building permit. The form further stated that if written approval was not obtained, "you run the risk of the HOA bringing action to enforce the covenants." . 19. In connection with the permit submittal, the Fleetwoods were advised by the Building and Planoing Department that they would also need to submit a request for a Special Use Permit ("SUP") to convert the existing residence into a two-family dwelling. 20. On August 22, 2007, the Fleetwoods submitted the application for the SUP. 21. At the time of signing the construction loan application, applying for the building permit, and submitting for the SUP, they had not obtained any approval for their proposed addition from the HOA or the ACC. 22. At about the time of, or shortly after, the Fleetwoods' filings with the County, owners of lots within the subdivision began to learn of them. On August 26, 2007, two sets of those owners, the Carlsons and the Mechlings, sent a letter to the Fleetwoods and the Garfield County Building Department -apparently on the letterhead of the ACC -advising them that as of that date, the Fleetwoods had not submitted plans or specifications for the proposed addition for review by the ACC. While there is some question as to whether the signers of the letter were, at that time, authorized to act on behalf of the ACC as a whole or the Association, the letter did serve to remind the Fleetwoods to review Sections 7.4 and 7.5 of the Covenants for a description of the necessary submittal requirements for ACC review. In other words, the signers did not state a position in support of or opposition to the Fleetwoods' plans for their residence, but the letter·did specifically notifY them that they must submit to the ACC process described in the Covenants. The letter ended with a warning: "Any attempt to circumvent this requirement will be treated harshly and all legal avenues available to us will be used and enforced." 23. The Fleetwoods acknowledge having received that letter shortly after it was sent. The Court finds that, at least from that point on, they were on notice that, regardless of County approvals, if they proceeded with their construction plans without frrst complying with the Covenant's requirements for ACC approval, they did so at their peril. 24. Shortly after receiving that letter, Jennifer Fleetwood went to the Mechling home to deliver a set of plans to Kim Mechling, who had been one of the signers of the letter and was believed to be a member of the ACC. Ms. Mechling was unavailable, and her husband, Ned, was preoccupied with other activities and declined to accept the plans from Ms. Fleetwood. 25. On August 29, 2007, the Carlsons sent a handwritten letter to the Fleetwoods. It again reminded them that "your plans, site plans, location, etc. must first be approved by our ACC board." It also advised them that the Covenants restricted the uses of the lots in the subdivision to one single-family residence and that the proposed addition was not consistent with this restriction. It went on to say that the plans had been reviewed at the Carlson's house, and "I woul~ not approve your plans for a duplex." The letter told the Fleetwoods that the addition 5 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup, et al.!Fleetwood. et a/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION adversely affected the Cantrups' viewplain. It ended with, "please see 13.1 on [sic] covenants", which is a reference to the enforcement provisions of the Covenants, including the ability to seek injunctive relief to remedy threatened or existing violation of the Covenants and for damages (Section 13.1.2) and the ability to seek attorney's fees and costs (Section 13.1.3). 26. On August 29, 2007, upon receiving an e-mail from Lanny Carlson notifiying owners of an HOA meeting at the Carlson residence on September 6, 2007 to discuss situations involving covenants and enforcement of regulations, Ms. Fleetwood essentially advised members of the HOA that she would be attending the meeting and suggested that the homeowners vote in the ACC. She expressed frustration about her and her husband's inability to get feedback from the other lot owners, addressed some of the concerns rinsed about their planned addition to their residence, and invited neighbors to simply call or knock on their door to discuss it further. Conspicuously, the e-mail from Ms. Fleetwood does not say that she intended to ask, at the meeting, that the homeowners approve that addition. In other words, the Court finds, that the most convincing evidence demonstrates that to the extent that there was an agenda for that homeowners' meeting, it can find no credible evidence indicating that the Fleetwoods' addition plans were on that agenda, but credible evidence does indicate that, thanks to Ms. Fleetwood's e- mail, those attending the meeting expected to discuss possible re-constitution of the ACC. 27. At the time that Ms. Fleetwood suggested that the HOA decide the make-up of the ACC, the only issue within the Subdivision that was then ripe for consideration by the ACC was the Fleetwoods' proposed addition. ln other words, the only plausible reason to appoint new members to the Committee at that time was to review the Fleetwoods' addition. 28. The meeting of the Association was held at the Carlson's residence on September 6, 2007. Six of the seven lots in the Subdivision were represented, plus some owners of a neighboring association. In keeping with the informal practices of the HOA and despite Ms. Fleetwood's request, no minutes of the meeting were taken by any officer of the Association. As a result, there is no "official" record of what transpired, and the parties dispute what occurred and the import of that meeting. The Court's findings with respect to that meeting represent the best and most convincing of the disputed, and sometimes contradictory, evidence presented at the trial. ' 29. Pertinent to the subject of this suit, at the meeting, the Association members informally designated a new ACC. The make-up of the Committee, as re-constituted, is a little unclear. There is no doubt that two of the three appointees were: Susan Carlson; and Kevin McDevitt (who was not present, so his appointment was subject to his later confirmation that he would serve). The third member appears to have been Kim Mechling, though it is possible that she was an alternate who was called upon to act when the actual third member -either Jennifer Fleetwood or Dieter Cantrup -had a conflict of interest, and could not participate. (Several days after that meeting, Mr. McDevitt agreed to serve on the ACC.) Therefore, it would not have been possible for this new ACC to act on the Fleetwoods' plans on September 6, 2007, even if all 6 DISTRICT COURT, GARI'IELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et a/./ Fleetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION required documentation had been properly presented to them on that day, because at least some, if not most, of its members had just been appointed and one had not yet agreed to serve. . 30. The Covenants do not appear to give the HOA or the ACC the authority to grant a variance from the "one single family residence per lot" requirement of Section 8. I. The only way to accomplish that would have been to amend the Covenants, as provided in Section 14.0. There is no evidence to suggest that modification of the Covenants to either eliminate that requirement or to specially exempt the Fleetwoods from it was ever placed upon the agenda for September 6, 2007 meeting, was raised during the discussion at that meeting, or was approved at that meeting. 31. It is undisputed that the Fleetwoods did not bring a set of plans to the meeting but thata set of plans was there. Prior to the meeting, some owners (e.g., the Cantrups, the Carl sons) had seen one version or another of the plans, but it is undisputed that the other HOA members had not reviewed the plans in any detail. The Fleetwoods admit that the plans at the meeting that day did not include all of the information and details required by the Covenants. Significant additional information was missing, including color specifications, a materials list, soils and drainage reports, and a landscaping plan. 32. The parties disagree about whether the Fleetwoods' plans were approved at the meeting. The Fleetwoods contend that their plans were approved by the HOA and that, as a result, they did not need any further ACC approval oftheir addition. The HOA and the Cantrups deny that the plans were approved at the meeting. They contend that the discussion of the proposed addition was not a detailed review of the plans but merely a conceptual approval for the Fleetwoods to move forward with the ACC review process. The HOA and Cantrups assert that the purpose of the meeting was to appoint the ACC so it could conduct the detailed plan review required by the Covenants. 3 3. Despite the faet that the matter had not been noticed for consideration at the September 6, 2007 meeting, Ms. Fleetwood raised at that meeting the subject of their planned addition to their residence. In the ensuing discussion, general support was expressed for idea of the Fleetwoods adding a place for Ms. Fleetwood's mother to live, but details were not discussed. From some owners-including most vocally, Dieter Cantrup, but also from others, as well -concerns were raised about the specifics of what the owners understood to be their plans, including the fact that the addition would add a two-story residence connected to the main house by garages, which new residence would obscure the Cantrups' view of Mt. Sopris from their residence. It is clear that the discussion was general and that the Fleetwoods' plans were not, at that meeting, reviewed and approved as required by the Covenants. At the conclusion of the discussion, Ms. Fleetwood either called for a vote of support/opposition or she polled the members. Only Mr. Cantrup unequivocally said that he did not support what the Fleetwoods had presented general! y at that meeting. 7 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et ai.IF/eetwood, e/ a/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION 34. The import of that discussion and vote or poll is disputed, but the Court finds that the most credible interpretation comes from two owners of lots in an adjoining development, both of whom were present at the meeting but neither of whom is directly or indirectly affected by the outcome of this litigation. Jeff Steck testified that he did not remember that a decision was made about the Fleetwoods' plans and that the tenor of the meeting was that it was a big enough issue that another meeting would be required. Jeff Tuttle stated that, conceptually, everyone was generally okay with Ms. Fleetwood having a place for her mother, but he did not get the feeling that it was final sign-off on their plans. The Covenants require written approval by the ACC, and not verbal approval by the HOA members at large, and no written approval, by the HOA or the ACC, resulted from that meeting. The Court, therefore, finds that the Fleetwoods' belief that, at the September 6, 2007 HOA meeting, the plans had been approved as required by the Covepants was mistaken and was not reasonable. 35. In late November 2007, the HOA members received notice of the upcoming Board of County Commissioners hearing on the Fleetwoods' pending SUP application. In response to the notice of the hearing, the Fleetwoods and various members of the HOA exchanged numerous e- mails concerning the fact that Fleetwoods had not received ACC approval for the proposed addition. These e-mails also addressed the HOA' s concerns about water usage in the subdivision and the impact the addition would have on the Subdivision's water supply. The tenor of these communications was that the Fleetwoods asserted they had obtained the required approvals from the ACC while the HOA members asserted that approval had not been granted. None of the communications to the Fleetwoods were the product of official action taken by the HOA or the ACC. However, even if the Fleetwoods believed that they had received consent from all of the lot owners except the Cantrups to proceed with construction of the addition at the September 6, 2007 meeting, these communications put the Fleetwoods on further notice that several individual HOA and ACC members took the position that the Fleetwood plans had not been approved. 36. On December 3, 2007, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") conducted a hearing on the Fleetwoods' application for an SUP for a two-family dwelling on their property. At that hearing, representatives and members of the HOA, including Kim Mechling who was the then-current president of the HOA and an appointed member of the ACC; and the Cantrups testified that the Fleetwoods had not obtained the required approvals from the ACC, that the proposed two-family dwelling was prohibited by the Covenants, and that several members of the HOA opposed the SUP. The Planning Director advised the BOCC that the County did not enforce private Covenants. After hearing the testimony, the BOCC granted the Fleetwoods' request for. the SUP, permitting use of their property for a "two-family dwelling". The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' testimony at the hearing provided further notice to the Fleetwoods of the Plaintiffs' contention that their plans had not been approved by the HOA ortheACC. · 37. Within days of obtaining the SUP in mid-December 2007, the Fleetwoods obtained their building permit and began construction of the addition. Prior to this construction work, they had only been performing interior remodeling work on their residence and had not started 8 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 C antrup, et aiJF/eetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION any construction work on the addition. The process of the Fleetwoods of laying the groundwork for the addition by seeking county approval and obtaining financing for the remodeling work and for the construction project as a whole had been initiated in July 2007, i.e., prior to the September 6, 2007 meeting where the Fleetwoods claim they obtained their approval from the HOA, and therefore, those actions were not undertaken in reliance upon that approval. 38. Even if, as the Fleetwoods assert, the HOA and ACC took no formal action between the September 6, 2007 meeting and the December 3, 2007 BOCC meeting regarding the Fleetwoods' contention that the Association had approved their addition, Section 13.1 of the Covenants allows that, in addition to the HOA, "any owner of real property in the subdivision" m:ay seek' to enforce the Covenants, including the requirement for seeking ACC approval for changes to improvements within the Subdivision. As noted above, the Fleetwoods had been reminded by the Carlsons, even prior to the September meeting, that an enforcement action was possible. If successful, it could result injunctive relief to remedy an existing violation of the Covenants (Section 13, 1.2) and could result in their being assessed the attorney's fees incurred by the prevailing party or parties (Section 13.1.3). 39. No later than the December 3, 2007 BOCC hearing, if not before, the Fleetwoods were fully aware that members of the HOA and the ACC who, as the Fleetwoods tell it, had approved the plans at the September 6, 2007 HOA meeting were telling them that no such approval had been given for the addition, and their e-mails indicated that they felt that their assets were being jeopardized by the Fleetwoods' plans. The Cantrups, of course, had made their opposition known at that meeting. But see also, for example, the November 27, 2009 e-mail from Kim Mechling, the then-former president of the Association, to other owners, including the Fleetwoods, which urged the Fleetwoods to submit their plans to the ACC and went on to say, "I have made our intentions completely clear and have stressed that we are making a business decision to protect our assets at this time." See also the brief e-mail from Lanny and Susie Carlson to the Fleetwoods, on November 28, 2007, which expressed concerns about the impact that the Fleetwoods' plans would have on water availability and concluded with the statement: "We will protect our assets." According to a document prepared by Ms. Fleetwood and recorded by her on November 26, 2007, the Mechlings and the Carlsons were two of those who had voted in favor of the Fleetwoods' addition plans at the September, 2007 meeting; by the time of the County Commissioners' meeting, those neighbors were not only clearly opposed, they were also talking about the need to protect their assets. To the extent the Fleetwoods claim to have relied on any HOA approval from the September meeting and official inaction by the Association thereafter as proof that they had satisfied the requirements of the Covenants, the Court fmds that such reliance was unreasonable. Based upon what their neighbors were telling them and County officials, they should reasonably have expected that either the Association, land owners, or both would seek to block their efforts. Therefore, the Court finds that the Fleetwoods pursued the cons~ction of the addition with the knowledge that a court could potentially order that the addition be torn down at a later date. Ms. Fleetwood testified that she was aware of this risk when she and her husband elected to proceed with the construction. 9 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et al./F/eetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION 40. The County issued the written SUP on December 16, 2007. The Cantrups filed their lawsuit against the Fleetwoods on December 18, 2007. The Fleetwoods were served with the Summons and Complaint on January 3, 2008. Despite having been served, the Fleetwoods continued the construction work. The HOA joined the lawsuit in February 2008, and the matter was set for a hearing on the preliminary injunction for March 7, 2008. The Fleetwoods requested a continuance of the hearing, and their motion was granted. The hearing was rescheduled for May 2, 2008. The County Court issued its preliminary injunction and findings on May 22, 2008, prohibiting further construction or occupancy of the addition. From the date of being served with the complaint in January through the issuance of the preliminary injunction in May, the Fleetwoods continued work on the addition. By the time the injunction was issued, the addition was virtually complete. · · · · · 41. In response to the terms of the preliminary injunction, the Fleetwoods submitted their plans to the ACC for review on May 22, 2008. The Fleetwoods requested that Dieter Cantrup not act as ACC member in the plan review, and the ACC agreed. He did not serve on the Committee for that plan review. At a June II, 2008, HOA meeting, the ACC solicited comments from the HOA members regarding the Fleetwoods' subnuttal. The ACC members then met on June 17, 2008 to review the Fleetwoods' submittal. Because the exterior portion of the addition was complete, the ACC elected to waive several of the items described as submittal requirements in the Covenants. 42. On June 18, 2008 the ACC delivered its written decision to the Fleetwoods. That decision approved their realignment of the driveway and parking area. It also determined that the garage portion of the addition could remain as built on the property, finding that its impacts upon the Cantrups' views were moderate. It directed that the two·story residential portion of the addition be removed, because it did not meet the requirements of the Covenants. The ACC found that the residential portion significantly obstructed the Cantrups' views of Mount Sopris. Section 7.5.4 of the Covenants gives the ACC the discretion to consider the effect of the addition on the viewplain of any adjacent or neighboring property. The ACC also found that the two· family dwelling status of the addition violated Section 8.1, which restricts the type of structures in the Subdivision to single-family dwellings. The ACC stated that the possibility of the additlonal unit being rented to a second family and the potential demands on the Subdivision's limited water supply required disapproval of the second dwelling unit. Finally, the ACC decided that the overall appearance of the structure as a duplex with a separate dwelling unit attached by a garage with two separate entrances was not consistent with Sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 which pertain to the suitability of the addition in relation to adjacent and neighboring improvements. 43. The Court finds that the ACC's decision was thoughtful, well·supported and balanced. It was reasonable and made in good faith and was not arbitrary or capricious. Its findings were tied to policies set forth in the Covenants. It did not give either the Fleetwoods or the Cantrups everything that either had sought. The Fleetwoods have refused to comply with the ACC demand to remove the additional dwelling unit portion of the addition. 10 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et al/F/eetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION 44. Section 7.5.4 of the Covenants directs that the ACC, in approving plans and specifications, consider "the effect of any proposed improvement on the viewplain of any adjacent or neighboring property." Taking into account the objective of the Covenants to, among other things, protect property values of those owning property in the Subdivision (see second paragraph on first page of the Covenants) and the plain English meaning of the Section, the Court finds that the provision is not impennissibly vague and may be reasonably applied by the ACC as one factor in its considerations whenever views of adjacent landowners, like the Cantrups, could be significantly compromised by proposed improvements, such as the Fleetwoods were proposing, to the point that property values were diminished. · 45. The Court finds that the evidence establishes that the Fleetwoods' addition does significantly obstruct the Cantrups' views of Mount Sopris. Although there are other mountain views from the Cantrup property, the Court finds that Mount Sopris views are particularly significant and valuable attributes of the Cantrup property. The Court further finds that the protection of Mount Sopris views is within the discretion of the ACC. Although the Covenants do not expressly reference Mount Sopris when they vest the ACC with authority to consider viewplains, the Court finds that it was the ACC's practice to consider Mount Sopris views when it reviewed other owners' plans and that other owners were required to modify their plans, sometimes at substantial expense, to protect those views prior to obtaining approval. The evidence supports the Plaintiffs' contention that, in this instance, the Fleetwood's lot was, at about five acres, large enough accommodate the Fleetwoods' intentions while minimizing adverse impacts upon the viewplains of their neighboring landowners. The Court, therefore, finds that it was a reasonable exercise of discretion to consider the impact on the Cantrups' Mount Sopris views when the ACC reviewed the Fleetwoods' addition. 46. Section 8.1 of the Covenants states that " ... no more than one (I) single family dwelling shall be erected upon any lot" and Section LS defines "single family residence" to mean a residential dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one family. Considering the Covenants as a whole, including the reference to applicable zoning, coupled with a common sense of what constitutes a single family residence, the Court finds that the Fleetwoods had notice that they were proposing to exceed the requirements of that Section, and ACC was able to understand the import of that term in its decision. 47. The Court finds that the Fleetwoods' addition is a two-family dwelling in violation of the Covenants which permit only single-family dwellings. The SUP issued by the County clearly identifies the addition as a second single-family residence on the Fleetwood's lot. The testimony at trial established that other owners had requested approvals for an accessory or secondary dwelling unit, even of a temporary nature, and had been denied. When it was learned that the Cantrups had a kitchen in their garage, the Association concluded that that essentially made the Cantrups' residence a two-family residence, and it directed that the kitchen be removed. It was. As noted above, the ACC did not have the authority to exempt the Cantrup property from the "one single family residence per lot" requirement. Therefore, the Court finds that the ACC had to reject the Fleetwoods' addition on the grounds that it would have caused a II DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et a/JF/eetwood, eta/. F1NDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCfiON violation of that requirement. The ACC's concerns about the possible impacts on the Subdivision's water supply were also legitimate and supported by the evidence, particularly since the Subdivision is now on its third well, and the Fleetwoods themselves had stated concerns about the adequacy of the water system. It was, therefore, a proper and reasonable action by the ACC to consider the two-family nature. of the addition when it reviewed the Fleetwood's addition. 48. Finally, the Court finds that the appearance of the structure is not consistent with the appearance of other residences in the Subdivision. The fact that the residential unit is separated from the main residence by a garage and has its own separate entrance makes the overall structure look like a duplex rather than a single-family dwelling. The Covenants give the ACC the discretion to consider the nature of the addition in comparison to other structures in the development. It was, therefore, also proper for the ACC to consider the structure's overall appearance when it reviewed the Fleetwoods' application. Analysis of the Facts and Conclusions of Law Plaintiffs' Claims The Fleetwoods desired to improve the dwelling on their lot to include residence for Ms. Fleetwood's mother. According to the plans and photographs of the nearly completed structure which were admitted into evidence, it was to be separated from, but connected to, the Fleetwood's ranch-style home by an enlarged garage area. This "mother-in-law" unit was designed to be autonomous from the main residence. It had its own outside entrance, kitchen, and living and sleeping areas, and it appears that the occupant would not have had to use any facilities in the main residence. Unlike the main residence, it was two-stories high and positioned so as to almost completely obscure the views of Mount Sopris from the home of their adjacent lot owners, the Cantrups. This planned improvement to the Fleetwood residence comes within the ambit of Section 7.0 of the Covenants which requires that before any improvement in the Subdivision may be constructed or added to, the building plans, site plans and specifications must first be submitted to the ACC, and approved in writing. It is, if not undisputed at least proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that, before breaking ground on this addition, the Fleetwoods had actual and constructive notice of the existence and applicability of the Covenants to their planned addition, including the requirement of prior ACC approval. It is also undisputed that they never submitted building plans, site plans, and specifications for their project to the ACC and that they materially completed construction of the addition without first obtaining that ACC approval. The Fleetwoods maintain that they were authorized to go ahead with their plans after they were discussed and approved at a September 6, 2007 meeting of the Association. What occurred at that meeting is not reflected in any official minutes. The HOA and the Cantrups contend that, at most, only conceptual approval was given by the Association to the Fleetwoods at that time. 12 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup, et ai.!Fleetwood, et a/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION Ms. Fleetwood had requested that vacancies on the ACC be filled, and were in fact filled, at that same meeting. Those vacancies had existed for many months, and the only plausible reason to fill them at that time would have been so that the Committee could review the Fleetwoods' planned addition. Yet, as a result of that meeting, the Fleetwoods take the position that, as a result of that meeting of the Association, ACC approval was not necessary. Much of the evidence in the trial addressed, from various perspectives, what transpired at that HOA meeting. Based upon the most credible of the sometimes inconsistent evidence which was presented, including reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and the demeanor of the witnesses, the Court fmds and concludes that, prior to their construction of the addition, the Fleetwoods were aware of the requirement for ACC review and knew that many, if not most, of their neighbors had, from time to time, gone through the formal process of submission of plans to the Committee and securing approval, often after a period of making changes to address concerns raised by the ACC. They should also have appreciated that the Covenants did not allow either the Association or Committee to permit a two-family dwelling on their lot. Nevertheless, inexplicably, the Fleetwoods chose to view it .as largely a formality that could be satisfied by making their building plans available to other lot owners. They were more focused upon obtaining county approval and getting financing lined up than they were in getting approval of the Committee. While they had been able to talk to the Cantrups about their plans - and in the process, learned of their objections to obstruction of their views -they had been unable to get much feedback from the other lot owners. To overcome that lack of input, Ms. Fleetwood asked that the ACC's membership be filled, with the most likely expectation that it could then review their plans. Indeed, at that meeting, steps were taken to fill vacant spots on the Committee. However, when at the meeting, the Fleetwoods' general description of their intentions for the improvements and the reasons for them had been explained, and favorably received by most in attendance, they appear to have decided that they had received the equivalent of ACC approval and that formal submission to the ACC was no longer necessary. This Court has found that, in fact, the HOA had not formally approved the Fleetwoods' addition plans at that meeting. At most, the favorable sentiment received at that meeting was intended to have been a conceptual "green light" for them to proceed to submit their plans and other required documentation to the newly-reconstituted ACC. The Covenants charge the Association with certain responsibilities to perform architectural control and planning duties (Section 2.1(A)), but only in a general sense. Reading the Covenants as a whole, the actual work involved in carrying out those responsibilities has been delegated to the Committee, whose job it is to actually collect the required submittals, review, discuss, and analyze the materials, and render a written decision that applies the criteria delineated in Section 7.5. LookouT MounTain Paradise Hills Homeowners' Ass'n v. Viewpoinr AssociaTes, 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993) ("Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.") This delegation does not leave any room for any lot owner to reasonably 13 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup, et ai./Fleetwood, et a/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION ... infer that approval by the HOA is an acceptable alternative to ACC approval. See, for example, Section 7 .4, which states that plans and specifications for improvements "shall have been submitted to and approved by the ACC in writing." [emphasis supplied] Compliance by the Fleetwoods with the requirement that the ACC review proposed improvements to a lot in the Subdivision is mandatory. Howells v. Johnson, 676 P.2d 1240, 1242 (Colo. App. 1983) ("If restrictive covenants specifically set forth the manner or procedure for effective transferor delegation of authority to approve or disapprove plans, then such procedure must be complied with for effective approval or disapproval of plans to follow.") Since the Fleetwoods did not obtain written ACC approval before they began construction of the subject improvement, they violated the Covenants. As noted above, the Fleetwoods did eventually submit their plans and other documentation for the addition to the ACC. By then, the addition had been substantially completed. The Committee rendered a written decision, dated June 18, 2008, which permitted certain aspects of the addition but did not approve others. This Court has determined that that written decision was reasonable and made in good faith and was not arbitrary or capricious. Cf., Rhue v. Cheyenne Homes, Inc., 168 Colo. 6, 449 P.2d 361 (1969). Therefore, to the extent that, after ihat decision, the addition was not approved by the ACC, the Covenants allow the HOA and any lot owners to seek injunctive relief to require it be removed or abated. However, the Court may grant such injunctive relief only if it is warranted under the facts presented and applicable law. The Association and the Cantrups are seeking a permanent injunction to prohibit the use of the Fleetwood's property for a two-family dwelling and to compel the removal of the two-story dwelling unit portion of the addition in compliance with the ACC decision of June 18, 2008. They are not requesting the removal of the Fleetwoods' new garage. To obtain a permanent injunction, the party seeking the injunction must show that (1) a danger of real, immediate, and irreparable injury exists that may be prevented by injunctive relief, (2) no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law is available, (3) an injunction will not disserve the public interest, and ( 4) the public interest favors the injunction. Rocky Mountain Animal Defense v. Colorado Division of Wildlife, 100 P.3d 508 (Colo.App. 2004). An applicant for permanent injunctive relief must show actual success on the merits. Langlois v. Board of County Com'rs of County of El Paso, 78 PJd 1154 (Colo.App. 2003). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have succeeded on the merits and are entitled to the requested permanent injunction. ' There is a danger of real, immediate and irreparable harm if the Fleetwoods' two-story second dwelling unit is allowed to remain on their lot. If the Association does not insist that the Fleetwoods remove a change to an improvement which I) significantly blocks the view of an adjoining property owner and 2) creates a second, autonomous dwelling upon a single lot, it will 14 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup, et a/./Fieetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION be virtually impossible, as a practical matter, for the HOA to prevent other owners from violating with impunity the "viewplain protection" and "single-family residence" provisions of the Covenants. The added residential units would pose a significant threat to the Subdivision's limited water supply. Although it is possible that additional water could be obtained by drilling another well or expanding the size of the water system's storage capacity, those remedies are at best uncertain and could pose a significant financial burden on homeowners in the Subdivision . . The loss of the Cantrups' Mount Sopris view is also a significant harm. The testimony of the witnesses and the photographs of the property demonstrate that the Cantrups' view has been substantially obstructed. Although there has been no precise quantification of the value of the Mount Sopris view, the best and most persuasive of the expert witnesses demonstrate that a view of Mount Sopris adds an increment of value to a lot and the loss or impairment of such view can reduce the value of a lot. · There is no adequate remedy at law that would make the Plaintiffs' whole. Injunctive relief is a particularly appropriate remedy where monetary damages cannot substitute for the loss or harm incurred. Here, a legal damages remedy would not restore the Cantrups' view, so equitable relief is appropriate. Similarly, a damages award would not serve to secure a more reliable water supply for the Subdivision. The only adequate remedy is to enjoin the addition. Public interest supports enforcing the Covenants by granting the injunctive relief. One of the incentives for purchasers to acquire lots in planned subdivisions like this one is that any construction by any owner will not impair the values of the neighboring properties and that a general plan of construction can be accomplished and maintained. Rhue, supra. Enforcing the Covenants as written will mean that owners and prospective lot purchasers can rely on them. In addition to the foregoing, the Covenants, at Section 13.1.2, specifically authorized, as one of the ground rules for the Subdivision, that injunctive relief against any owner violating the Covenants was a possibility. The Fleetwoods, when they decided to proceed with the construction of the improvements without first obtaining explicit approval by the ACC, knew or should reasonably have known that a court might find that their doing so was in violation of the Covenants and order that some or all of those improvements be removed at their expense and that they be required to pay the attorney's fees and costs, as well as the expenses of the expert witness of anyone authorized by the Covenants to enforce them. This is a risk that they elected to take, and this Court cannot relieve them of the foreseeable consequences of that decision. Defendants' Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims Administrative Dissolution of the Homeowner's Association The Fleetwoods have asserted that the administrative dissolution of the HOA by the Colorado Secretary of State for failure to file its annual report deprived the Association of the ability to enforce its Covenants. The HOA corrected this on August 30, 2007, i.e., prior to the 15 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantr1fp,el a/JF/eetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION September 6, 2007 meeting. From that point forward, it was reinstated and was in good standing with the Colorado Secretary of State, as it has remained since. A mere administrative dissolution does not invalidate recorded covenants or preclude an association from enforcing covenants. Ski Time Square Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Ski Time Square Enterprises, 119 P.3d 588 (Colo. App. 2005). Moreover, even if the administrative dissolution did impair the HOA's ability to enforce the Covenants, the Cantrups had an independent right as owners in the Subdivision to enforce compliance with the Covenants. The Court fmds that the administrative dissolution did not impair the Plaintiffs' ability to enforce the Covenants. Effect of Improvement on Viewplain of Adjacent or Neighboring Property The Fleetwoods maintain that the only reference in the Covenants to protection of views is too vague to be enforced. Section 7.5.4 states that the ACC must consider "the effect of any proposed improvement on the viewplain of any adjacent or neighboring property". They argue that no specific views are identified as deserving of protection and that there are no limitations on the Committee's exercise of its discretion in this regard. Nevertheless, this provision recognizes that the scenic setting of the Subdivision -generally, and not just a particular view - as an important amenity for each lot to be preserved to the m~imum extent reasonably possible. The view to be preserved will be different, depending upon the configuration of an existing residence and the proposed plans for an improvement which might block the views from the existing residence. Under the circumstances, this Covenant was drafted as specifically as it could be to accomplish its general objective of preserving the views of each lot owner. Certainly, that interpretation is supported by the evidence as to how the ACC had acted in the past to protect views. The Court does not conclude that the Covenant protecting viewplains is impermissibly vague. Requirement of No More than One Single Family Residence for Each Lot They also question the enforceability of the "single family residence" provisions of the Covenants. Section 8.1 states that "no more than one (I) single family dwelling shall be erected upon any lot", and Section l.5 defines "single family residence" as "a residential dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one family". Before continuing, the Court must address Section 5.0 of the Covenants, which provides, in part: "These aforementioned (Garfield County Subdivision and Zoning Regulations] shall govern the allowable use of the lot and designate any and all restrictions of the land." Taken alone, this provision would arguably prohibit the Association from taking any position contrary to any land use decision involving the property made by the County. However, when read in conjunction with Section 7.4 of the Covenants, it becomes clear that the Covenants contemplate that the necessary ACC approval must occur prior to any consideration of the improvements by the County authorities and that that approval may not approve a use which the County regulations themselves would prohibit. That did not occur here, and although the County 16 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et al/Fieetwood, et al. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION ultimately ended up approving a use for the Fleetwood property which the ACC did not, there is no assertion by any party that the action taken by the Committee contravened County zoning and subdivision regulations as they existed at the time the Fleetwoods were required to have sought ACC approval. · Courts must "follow the dictates of plain English" when interpreting a restrictive covenant. DoubleD Manor, Inc. v. Evergreen Meadows Homeowners' Ass'n, 773 P.2d 1046, I 048 (Colo. 1989). When the language of a covenant is clear, courts must enforce it as written. Rossman v. Seasons at Tiara Rado Associates, 943 P.2d 34 (Colo.App.1996). The Covenants provide, at Section 8.1, that "no more than one (1) single family dwelling shall be erected upon any lot." This language is clear and unambiguous. The function of the dwelling must be such that it can only support one family. The converse of that is that if a building is configured in a way that could simultaneously accommodate two or more family groups, with each able to function independently of the other, then that building is not a single family residence. To the extent that any construction of this provision is required, the Court looks to the Covenants as a whole, keeping in mind their underlying purpose. Buick v. Highland Meadow Estates at Castle Peak Ranch, Inc., 21 P.3d 860 (Colo. 2001). Based upon the Court's reading of the Covenants as a whole, which is corroborated by its consideration of the extrinsic evidence presented at the trial, the reason for this restriction is, in part, aesthetic, but it is primarily intended to limit demands upon the infrastructure in the Subdivision, particularly the water supply. The Subdivision water system has a limited capacity, which it frequently over-taxed, and as a general matter, two families would use more water than one, thus decreasing the pressure and water availability in the rest of the system and increasing the risk of a failure of the system, to the detriment of all of the lot owners. The Fleetwoods asked the County for, and obtained, an SUP for a two-family dwelling. The resulting improvements constructed by the Fleetwoods included a two-story residence which included a kitchen, living area, bedroom, and two bathrooms. It was separated from the Fleetwood's residence by the three-car garage and had its own outside entrance. It was built with the expectation that Ms. Fleetwood's mother could live autonomously from the Fleetwoods but would be close at hand so that they could easily look after her and interact with her. Accordingly to testimony of Fred Jarmin, the Garfield County Planning Director, in applying the County policies in place at the time, the existence of a kitchen and separate entrance in the addition were key factors in his conclusion that the Fleetwoods were seeking to build a two- family dwelling. The County's eventual requirement of a deed restriction upon the sale of the new unit does not affect this Court's determination, in part because that would still allow any owner of the Fleetwood lot to lease the new residence. The Covenants do not allow an exemption from the 17 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV3 57 Cantrup,et ai.!Fieetwood, eta/. ·· .. -· FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION single-family requirement where there is such a deed restriction, most likely because the damage sought to be avoided by the requirement (e.g., impact on Subdivision water system, ~testhetic concerns) are not diminished by insisting that the main residence and the new residence remain under corrunon ownership. The Covenant's prohibition against more than one single family residence on a lot was clear and put the Fleetwoods on notice that the two-story addition which they intended to construct violated that prohibition. As the chronology contained in the fmdings shows, at the time they approached the other lot owners with their plans at the September 6, 2009 meeting of the homeowners, the Fleetwoods knew that at least the County considered that their proposal created a second single family residence on their lot. Finally, the evidence indicates that, before they broke ground on the addition, in proceedings before the County and otherwise, their neighbors told them that they were violating that requirement of the Covenants. The Court concludes that the Fleetwoods knew, or should reasonably have known, that what they proposed to do violated that provision of the Covenants, but they deliberately elected to build it anyway. Violation of Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) The Fleetwoods contend that, pursuant to C.R.S: 38-33.3-116(1), the Christeleit Views Subdivision is subject to the provisions of the CCIOA, and as such, was required to have adopted responsible governance policies. Since the HOA has not adopted such policies, they contend that the Association is precluded from maintaining this action against them. (They do not appear to assert that the Cantrups are so precluded.) That statute provides that a planned community created after July I, 1992, but before July I, 1998, that has "no more than ten units and is not subject to any development rights or if a planned community provides, in its declaration, that the annual average common expense liability of each unit restricted to residential purposes, exclusive of optional user fees and any insurance premiums, may not exceed three hundred dollars" [emphasis supplied], then the community only needs to comply with three sections ofCCIOA. Section 38-33.3-116(1). Those sections relate to compliance with separate titles and taxation (Section I 05), local ordinances and building codes (Section I 06), and eminent domain (Section I 07), None of these sections applies to H~A governance or dispute resolution procedures. The HOA here is a planned community that was created in July, 1994. It consists of seven lots which have been fully developed. The Covenants did not reserve any development rights. While the adjacent Christeleit Subdivision has five additional lots and has, from time to time, shared meetings with this Association to deal with certain shared capital improvements, they are separated entities, created by separate documents and at different times, and serving separate developments. 18 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et al.!Fleetwood, et al. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION The Fleetwoods acknowledge that the Covenants, at Section 2.2, provide that fees, exclusive of optional user fees, are limited to $300, but they maintain that the Association has charged members twice that amount. The Court concludes that the use of the word "or" in the portion of the statute quoted above demonstrates the legislature's creation of two alternative avenues for a planned community created between July I, 1992 and July I , 1998 to be exempted from application of those provisions of the CCIOA upon which the Defendants rely. The first avenue, i.e., that the community contains no more than ten units and is not subject to development rights, qualifies the Association here for exemption from the CCIOA. Since that is sufficient to exempt this HOA, the Court need not consider whether the second avenue cited by the Fleetwoods, dealing with the average annual common expense liability of each unit, applies. The Court concludes as a matter oflaw that the Christeleit Views Subdivision falls within the exemption to CCIOA and that it is not subject to the CCIOA's provisions regarding dispute resolution and governance procedures. Equitable Estoppel The Fleetwoods claim that, even if the Association did not actually approve their plans at the September 6, 2007 meeting, the HOA is estopped to deny that such approval occurred, because the Fleetwood's reasonably believed that the approval had been granted at that time, and they had relied to their detriment on that reasonable belief. The elements of the equitable doctrine of estoppel as it relates to the right to enforce a covenant are full knowledge of the facts, unreasonable delay in the assertion of available remedy, and intervening reliance by and prejudice to another. Barker v. Jeremiasen, 676 P.2d 1259 (Colo. App. 1984). The doctrine requires that the property owner reasonably rely to his detriment on the actions or representations of the architectural control committee or association [emphasis supplied]. First Hyland Greens Ass'n v. Griffith, 618 P.2d 745 (Colo. App. 1980). As stated above, this Court has found and concluded that, even if the Fleetwoods believed that they had received some sort of approval of their plans at that meeting, such reliance was unreasonable for at least three reasons. First, following the meeting, they knew that they had not complied with the mandatory approval process set forth in the Covenants. That process required them to have submitted documentation beyond just their building plans, contemplated that the evaluation of their plans was required to be by the ACC, not the HOA, and culminated in a written decision by the Committee. None of that had occurred. Secondly, even if the HOA could have considered the Fleetwoods' request, it entailed the creation of a separate, autonomous living space, and the Covenants make no provision for the HOA (or the ACC, for that matter) to allow a variance from the requirement of Section 8.1 that there . be only one single-family residence per lot. It would have been unreasonable for the 19 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et al./Fieetwood, eta/. ---· FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION Fleetwoods to have expected that the Association took action that it had no authority to take under the Covenants in effect at the time. Third, not long after the other lot owners in the Association learned that the Fleetwoods believed that they had received all the Subdivision approval that they needed and that they were seeking county approval for a two-family SUP, even neighbors whom the Fleetwoods had thought approved their plans at the September 6, 2007 meeting informally made it clear to the Fleetwoods that they had not authorized them to bypass the ACC process. This message was again delivered to the Fleetwoods loud and clear at the December 3, 2007 BOCC meeting when many lot owners appeared or wrote statements criticizing their plans. Even as late as that meeting, the Fleetwoods had certainly spent time and effort in seeking approval of their plans. Efforts to line up loans and preliminary inquiries with the County Planning Department occurred even before the September 6, 2007 meeting and were not, therefore, in reliance upon what occurred at that meeting. The only substantial, detrimental reliance by the Fleetwoods on what they believe was decided at that HOA meeting occurred when they finally began construction after receiving the. SUP and other County approvals. By then, the Court concludes that they were relying primarily upon the approval they had received from the County, and they were, in essence, gambling that the other lot owners and Association would not make good on the repeated promises to take them to court if they persisted. For these reasons, the Court finds that the HOA is not estopped from pursuing its claims. However, even if the Association were estopped, the Court observes that the Fleetwoods do not appear to assert that the other Plaintiffs, the Cantrups, are also estopped for the same reason. However, even if that argument was made, this Court can fmd no basis for it.· It is unaware of any evidence indicating that either of the Cantrups ever supported the plaos or acknowledged that the vote at the September 6, 2007 meeting finally approved the Fleetwoods plans without the necessity of further review by the ACC. Therefore, the Court finds that the Cantrups are also not estopped from pursuing the same claims. Breach of Fiduciary Duty The Fleetwoods claim that, in exercising its powers pursuant to the Covenants, the Association and its Committee must exercise fiduciary responsibility to all of the lot owners, including them. They believe that that fiduciary duty has been breached by the actions of the HOA and ACC in dealing not only with them but also others whom they maintain were similarly situated. A homeowners' association must use its authority to enforce protective covenants in good faith and in a reasonable manner. Wilson v. Goldman, 699 P.2d 420, 424 (Colo.App. J 985). It has a fiduciary duty to homeowners to enforce restrictive covenants. "This duty has been imposed in recognition of the power held by homeowner[s'] associations, the quasi-governmental functions they serve, and the impact on value and enjoyment that can result from the failure to 20 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,ei a//Fleetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION enforce covenants." Colo. Homes, Ltd v. Loerch-Wilson, 43 P.3d 718, 722 (Colo.App.2001). A decision by an architectural control committee approving or disapproving plans "must be reasonable and made in good faith and must not be arbitrary or capricious." Rywalt v. Writer Corp., 34 Colo.App. 334, 526 P.2d 316 (1974). To establish a claim against an architectural control committee, the claimant has the burden of proving that the committee's approval or denial was made unreasonably or in bad faith. Woodward v. Board of Directors of Tamarron Ass'n of Condominium Owners, Inc., 155 P.3d 621 (Colo. App. 2007). In this case, the ACC based its June 18, 2008 decision regarding the Fleetwoods' plans upon the plain language of the Covenants. The Court has already determined that the Covenants were not ambiguous and restricted the Fleetwoods' property to one single-family dwelling. It cannot, therefore, be an abuse of discretion to enforce that unambiguous provision. It. has also found that the addition substantially blocked the Cantrups' view of Mount Sopris. The Covenants allow the ACC to consider the effects of the addition on adjacent viewplains. As noted in its findings below, the Fleetwoods' lot is large enough, at over five acres, that had the ACC been consulted prior to construction, there is reason to believe that an alternative plan could have been developed which would not have so substantially obscured the viewplains of the Cantrups or any other lot owners. The ACC had also required other owners to make plan amendments, sometimes at great expense to the owner, to protect other neighbors' views of Mount Sopris. Based on the plain language of the Covenants, the ACC decision to reqnire remo':'al of the two-story residential addition was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Either on the basis of estoppel or breach of fiduciary duty, the Fleetwoods also claim that they were treated differently than the Cantrups who had used their garage for residential occupancy in violation of the Covenants. The Fleetwoods maintain the HOA breached its fiduciary duty because it failed to enforce the Covenants equally against the Cantrups. The evidence shows that the Association did take a stand against the Cantrup's auxiliary residential use, just as it is doing with the Fleetwoods here. While the use of a portion of the Cantrup garage as a residence was much less elaborate than the Fleetwood's two-story addition, it was also a violation of the Covenants. Upon learning of it, the ACC issued a notice of violation to the Cantrups for the use of their detached garage for residential purposes. The Cantrups have complied with the HOA's request to terminate the residential use. The Court concludes that the HOA acted reasonably and consistently in connection with the Cantrups' Covenant violation and its demands on the Fleetwoods. Therefore, the Fleetwoods have not demonstrated that the HOA breached any fiduciary duty to the Defendants as a matter oflaw. The Fleetwoods argue that Dan Lott, an owner of Lot 7, testified that, in 2006, he had obtained approval of a sketch by giving it to the then-president of the Association, Kim Mechling. The circumstances surrounding that approval were not developed on the record, and this Court is unable to ascertain whether, at that time, Ms. Mechling was also on the ACC and whether, in approving that request, a quorum of two members of the ACC had met to consider it. 21 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et ai.IF/eetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION However, the Fleetwood's own rendition of it was that the required approval was for something relatively minor, i.e., an addition to an outbuilding. Assuming for the sake of argument that Ms. Mechling was, at that time, on the ACC, she would have had the authority to accept Mr. Lott's sketch, and as noted above, the Covenants allowed the Committee the discretion to determine how much information it required to review it. In addition, there was evidence that the approval which Mr. Lott received was in writing. Mr. Lott also testified that, in about 2000, he had sought approval for a workshop but had been required by the ACC to lower its elevation in order to protect views. The Court concludes that the treatment accorded Mr. Lott in 2006 is not necessarily inconsistent with the streamlined procedure employed in the past by the ACC in the processing of small requests, and the fact that he has previously been required to accommodate the viewplains of neighbors .:.. as the ACC has done with the Fleetwoods here -is not indication of his receiving favomble consideration not accorded the Fleetwoods. The Fleetwoods have not established that the conduct of the HOA or the ACC has been in violation of their fiduciary duties to them. Counterclaims Implicit in this Court's ruling as to the Plaintiffs' Claims is that the Defendants have not prevailed on their Counterclaims. Accordingly, they are not entitled to any damages. Judgment, including Permanent Injunction For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that Judgment shall hereby enter in favor of the Plaintiffs, Kathy Cantrup and Dieter Cantrup and the Christeleit Views Subdivision Homeowners' Association, and against the Defendants, Paul Fleetwood and Jennifer Fleetwood, on all claims of the Plaintiff and denying all affirmative defenses and counterclaims of the Defendants. IT FURTHER ORDERS that the Defendants, Paul Fleetwood and Jennifer Fleetwood, their attorneys, officers, agents, servants, employees, and any and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, including their contractors and subcontractors are hereby permanently enjoined, as follows: 1. They shall not occupy any portion of the residential addition to the Fleetwood Property, Lot 5, Christeleit Views Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado for residential or any other purposes. This permanent injunction shall not apply to the three-car garage portion of the addition, which may remain in its current location and be used for customary garage purposes ancillary to the residential uses for the original residential structure. 2. They shall not request, process or obtain any temporary certificate of occupancy or permanent certificate of occupancy from Garfield County for the residential portion of the addition to the Fleetwood Property, Lot 5, Christeleit Views Subdivision, Garfield County, 22 DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 08CV357 Cantrup,et al.!Fieetwood, eta/. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT, INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION Colorado. This injunction shall not apply to final certificate of occupancy related to the three-car garage portion of the addition. 3. The Defendants shall comply with the June 18, 2008 decision of the Christeleit Views Subdivision Architectural Control Conunittee and to immediately begin demolition and removal of the two-story residential component of the addition. Defendants shall, within 30 days of this order, make any necessary application to the Garfield County Building Department to obtain any necessary demolition permits to begin the work and provide copies of such permits to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Within 10 business days of obtaining the permits, Defendants shall begin the demolition work and shall prosecute the work diligently and without interruption until the structure had been removed and the property returned as nearly as possible to its original, pre-construction condition. All demolition work to remove the addition shall be completed within 120 days of the date this order is entered, unless extended by order of this Court upon a showing of good cause. 4. The Defendants shall take whatever steps are required by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department to vacate the Special Use Permit for the property and shall promptly file in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder a Notice of such vacation of the SUP. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that, in accordance with Section 13.1.3 of the Covenants, the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this action and are hereby awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including the reasonable costs of any expert witness fees they incurred in this matter. Counsel for the Plaintiffs are directed to submit their Motion for Fees, affidavit of attorneys' fees and bill of costs within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Judgment. Any response and reply to that motion shall be filed in accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, Section 1-22. DONE this 31st day of May, 2010. BY THE COURT: District Judge 23 E-FILED JUN o 2 2010 DATE,__,_ _____ _ COUNTY OF. GARFIELD • BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945 -8212 Job located at 0 73s-ff~ k , 7 Permit No. /07? C( I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: )(call for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be pa i d prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspecti on at 970-384-5 00 3. Date J ... /S:o'i 20 ?---c:S;:::...-- Buildin;lnspector --~~ Phone (970) 945-8212 COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at Q 7'3~ .k&,~6 . PermitN0.~/0~2~2~7----------------------------- I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed : )(call for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are her eby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering . When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970 -384-5003. Date r-1 y~ 11 8' 20 --=,....---- Building Inspector ~-'21L...__ __ Phone (970) 945-8212 . COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at ~D_,_Z-=:3.-='5_1/e-'---'-'~..::...........'---=--'---~~~=----- Permit No. _ _._!t_...,o'--'1-'----'--7_9~_ _________ _ 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid ior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003 . Date 1-t'Z-. 20 C$ Building lnspector~711.p-4..L Phone (970) 945-8212 ~ ~-~~-<0'6 ~ Js6D· 1(~~\Y\2f ~c=-t--~ COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT cORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone(970)945~212 Job located at az:ss= ~ h PermitNo.~/=0~7~/+9---------------------------- I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: .a(call for Re-lnspection }4 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970 -384 -5003 . Date tf-26 -08' 20 ~"""'7""'.....,.....--- Building Inspector ~ ~'::>.Jf£+-- Phone (970) 945-8212 . 1 COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone~70)945~212 Job located at 073S:JY~h.,. Permit No. /t:J n9 ------~------------------------------- I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: 0 Call for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspectlon You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003 . Date ,£;2 -o?S 20 =---=-- Building In spector ~~~f---- Phone (970) 945-8212 .. ~ Assessor's Parcel No. ~ \o1-30 l-D"5-00S Date \~-\}·0 t BUILDING PERMIT p ARD Job Address Dl~CS brut~r1,)J\-(1W~ (C?'Ot\i\ele\ t-5~ 'otl , Lot~) Owner flet:±W~C£:1 , 1etJH\\~EC ~ \>Q.u}Address 01-~S \')8;\\:\tlff U\-~:;?e # C\4~-1\bC Contractor OW 'flp C Address Phone # ___ _ ~~tbacks : Front Rear RH LH Zoning ___ _ L(!)V\U('ft ""'IT-C).U)elli V'Q \Vl\t> (). £\ w./J'p mlO'ts ~ W¥ '1b.?--6 .s c_s Soils Test Weatherproofing _________ _ Footing 1~-f.S' en'\ !J\Ftf. ok Mechanical __________ _ Foundation I-&; -o~;'!Jn1?L Electrical Rough (State) _______ _ Grout Electrical Final (State) _______ _ Underground Plumbing .. Final /Checklist Completed? __ _ Rough Plumbing tf-!~-og!Jr{\/J-0:tJ9' '7'7 1~ Certificate Occupancy# ______ _ Framing -["~1-.a.~~ ~~ Date -r~...........,~------ l nsulation 2-f..Oi"/fld.}S --"Yf764>p;/L Septic System # ,.....4-r--~~-=-q.!:..._""f~=------- Roofing . • ~ -aS Date -~.J.IL>.d-"3;-'---o-=-3="-------- Drywall 5'·7-CJB'~~~ GM}, ~ Final _________ _ Gas Piping lf-t?~ Other------------- NOTES No 'Fi~ d14-'flL ~U~S . SP'L -[~tSfi?ack)Z·lJ-()~_ Rft-~tt.J~~ ~iA«o/M.-~ 2rfrlpwi-U-t~ Jio ~ ';:F~razQt~S. 1-J. ~ EXTERIOR Address No.---------------- Drainage---------------- Decks-support & clearance to wood -------- Decks-stairs & rails -------------- Exterior locks ----~---------- Flashing around doors & windows _______ _ Insect screens--------------- INTERIOR GARAGE Fire wall separation-------------- Service doors-1%" min.------------ Door (20 min.) w/auto closer· Hi!" min. _____ _ Mach. equip. 18" above floor _________ _ No opening Into sleeping area _________ _ BASEMENT ·CRAWL AREA Access _________________ __ Insulation ----------------- Headroom/Stairs ______________ _ Ventilation ---------------- FINAL CHECKLIST MECHANICAL ROOM Boller _____________ _ Hot water ___________ _ F.A. gas/oil ___________ _ Floor drain ____________ _ Clearance ____________ _ Air con. system __________ _ Hot water heater ---------- Combustion air __________ _ Gas piping, valves _________ _ LPG Drain ------------- FIREPLACE/STOVE Clearance to -combustibles ______ _ Termination of chimney _______ _ Combustion air __________ _ Hearth (12" or 20" on sides) _____ _ Glass doors ___________ _ Certified by: __________ _ REMARKS STAIRWAYS Headroom (6'6") ----------- Railing & guardrails ------------ Width _____________ _ Rise & run-------------- KITCHEN Clearance above grill---------- Exhaust fan-------------- Broiler exhaust (1 hr. chase)-------- BEDROOMS Egress ______________________________ _ Smoke detector------------- BATHROOMS Exhaust fan-------------- Shatterproof glass ___________ _ OTHER