The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Staff Report for Call-Up Request BOCC 07.11.2016Call-up to Board of County Commissioners, July 11, 2016 Exhibits — Trisch Road Split Exemption RSEA-03-16-8432 Exhibit Number Exhibit 1 Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments 2 Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended 4 Application 5 Director Decision and Exhibits A - U 6 Email dated May 19th from Lynn Richardson requesting Call-up 7 Staff Memo 8 5r.AfF Re ( TeoJ 9 REQUEST BOCC Reconsideration of Director Decision 7/11/16 Trisch Road Split Exemption KE STAFF MEMO Reconsider a Director Decision to conditionally approve a Road Split Exemption PROPERTY OWNER Donald J. Trisch REPRESENTATIVE Michael Sawyer, Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. LOCATION Approximately 7 miles south of CR 335 on CR 312 (Garfield Creek Road) PROPERTY INFORMATION: 280 -acres ACCESS County Road 312 EXISTING ZONING Rural DIRECTOR DECISION Conditional Approval 1. GENERAL INFORMATION On June 27, 2016 the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) set a public hearing for reconsideration of a Director Decision, issued on May 13, 2016, to conditionally approve a Road Split Exemption. An adjacent property owner has requested that the Board reconsider the decision as they question whether the required criteria for the road split exemption has been satisfied, Exhibit 6. The options available to the Board are to uphold the decision, overturn the decision or modify the decision based upon the same review criteria under which the original application was processed. The request is to divide 2.1 -acres from the 280 -acre site due to the location of the 2.1 -acres on the opposite side of Garfield Creek Road. The Applicant has stated that the 2.1 -acre parcel is separated from the remaining 278 -acres of the property thereby preventing joint use of the site. This was the basis of the analysis completed by Staff in the review of the application, Exhibit 5. I1. COMPLIANCE WITH ROAD SPLIT CRITERIA Section 5-202 of the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended contains the requirements a Public/County Road Split Exemption. The review criteria include: C. Review Criteria. Approval of a Public/County Road Split Exemption shall require a factual finding of the following: 1. The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed lots; 2. The proposed exemption lots have a sufficient legal and physical source of water pursuant to section 7-104, Source of Water. 3. The proposed exemption Tots have adequate sewage disposal system pursuant to section 7-105, Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. 1 BOCC Reconsideration of Director Decision 7/11/16 Trisch Road Split Exemption KE 4. The proposed exemption lots have legal and adequate access pursuant to section 7-107, Access and Roadways. 5. The Final Plat meets the requirements per section 5-402.F., Final Plat. The issue identified by the adjacent property owner pertains to Section 5-202 C. 1. and the 'prevention of joint use' criteria. FINDINGS Staff provides finding for a Board decision to uphold the Director Decision. Should the Board determine to modify or deny the decision the findings will need to be amended. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the review was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties had the opportunity to comment on the application. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Road Split Exemption located on the Trisch property located south of New Castle on CR 312 is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application demonstrated that the proposed Road Split Exemption is compliant with the requirements of the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended, specifically that the right- of-way prevents joint use of the parcel. 5. That the application is generally consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. IV. BOCC DELIBERATION AND DECISION Options for the Board include: 1. Uphold the Director Decision to conditionally approve the Road Split Exemption; 2. Modify the Director Decision; 3. Reverse the Director Decision and deny the application. 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. • My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. %� Mailed notice was completed on the day of ' J ( = , 2016. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] y', -rt A. c k (p np 11. Cr v�—t— ■ Please at-ach proof of certifiefd, return receipt requested mailed notice. 0 My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the day of , 2016. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. 0 My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the day of , 2016. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. CORRECTED PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that a call-up request has resulted in the scheduling of a public hearing to reconsider the Community Development Director decision to conditionally approve an application submitted by Donald J. Trisch to request Road Split Exemption on property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: E112 of the NE1'4 and NE1,4 of the SE114 in Section 31, and W12 of the NW1 4 and W1i2 of the SW U4 in Section 32, each in Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M., EXCLUDING therefrom an approximately 0.84 acre parcel known by Garfield County Assessor's Parcel Number 218331100009 and described as a tract of land situate in the NE1/4 NE1/4, Section 31 Township 6 South, Range 90 West, 6th P.M., lying Southerly of a County Road as constructed and in place, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of said road whence a stone properly marked for the E 1'4 corner of Section 30 in said Township and Range hears North 07°10'45" East 2692.71 feet; thence South 00°16'29" West 205.54 feet; thence North 88°44'59" West 177.41 feet; thence North 00°02'47" West 205.72 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of said road: thence South 88°42'03" East 178.56 feet along the Southerly right-of-way line of said road to the Point of Beginning. Practical Description: South of New Castle at 7225 County Road 312 Request: To allow a 2.13 -acre parcel to be divided from a 280 -acre site due to its location on the opposite side of CR 312 which prevents joint use of the site with the overall parcel. All persons affected by the proposal are invited to appear and state their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the land use request. This application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Administration Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County Administration Building, Suite 100, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Department of Community Development Garfield County D I3 ilJ ru 14) N D D D D _a D rR D P- D ._n D 1.11 rR D P - Lc) 0 1:0 RJ -0 ...n Lf-) N D D D 7015 0640 U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com BA Certified Mall Fee$ $340 rxtra Services & Fees (check box, 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) 0 Return Receipt (eteotronic) 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery o Adult Signature Required Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ n Cm. adds fee cra.tvia $ Fif Postage Total Postage and Fit 77 $ Sent To $0.47 rico, 16 postmariN , , Hem 2 0 2016 N D D 06/20/21'6 Lr) CDT11E- Skeet ant).tNo &WO' Uy, &tate, .21P+44 • - IPA PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information„ NE4CIA yCO 81647 Certified Mall Fee $ $3.30 site at www.usps.com'., Extra Services & Fees (check box. add 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ DI Return Receipt (electronic) o Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ Adult Signature Required ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery A -pry -4:- te) Postage $ $0 .47 Total Postage and Fees 06,70/201 ''''..., Sent To ...S.-10e-ctkR. ",...............__81. ,,,..0 "Street andApt. No., or 1507161ffo. --7ig2 C2, bty, 3late, Zil5+.0 0538 16 $3.77 .1 1 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-0047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com'. NE14WITLEt--.1'C 147 7. Certified Mall Fee $ $3.30 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Return Receipt (hardc0PY) $ o Return Receipt (electronic) $ o Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Adult Signature Required El Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.47 Total Postage and Fees $3.77 0538 16 N4strnark rv% v Here 06/20/2016 Sent To Street ancIA-PeTsk. City State, ZIP+46 02 312. *44 L 7 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02.000-S047 See Reverse for Instructions P- 173 D D D D r-1 D P - c0 rfl 0 - RI -0 -D 0640 0007 u1 r-9 1. •. . - , - CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.COrri* . NERLEWCB r.- IASTI ,,......„ , Certified Mall Fee $3.300538 16 Extra Services & Fees (thedc box, add fee o Return Receipt (hardcapy) $ 1 i . 1 -,S, O Return Receipt (electronic) ---$0 .00 0Certified Mail Restricted Defter,' t - :44 lift - •,. .. _ _ 0 Adutt Signature Required4. ' - *0.00 D Adult Signature Restricted Dellve Here Postage $0.47 $ 06/20 201 Total Postage and Fees $3.77 s Sent To (»>L -A1 , -T Street and Apt.Wo., orPi C,42. 4.2-.......8:15- bty, State, , ; 1 a i PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-0047 See Reverse for Instruction U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.coir". NEIVCABTLEt;CO 81647 '',', -, 7-i ..:,•.-'1.,, ', -, _ Certified Mail Fee $3.30v -4,..‘,A Cl 6 C ) 538 16 Extra Services & Fees (chedrbox, -3,, ^ : . 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) 1 ' , . 0 Return Receipt (electronic), cts,r1,Z.I.Postrnark 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery l - '''' . . D Adult Signature Required -- $0,09 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery' , , _ r \,..t) Her I Postage • $0.47 06/20/2016 Total Postage and Fees $3.77 . $ , Sent To Street and Apt. Ro.,W15ei TNii.- -.1.1.4711. Cify State, ZIP -i-40 ---1.....A. -Is., ..A -.........ms (-.1;° 5 oer 1 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSNI 7530-02-000-0047 See Reverse for Instruction U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.corn'. CARTERSVILLE: GA 301 er -------- - --i--------- .,\,-. 09-2,2 Certified Mail Fee - $6. eiU $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee CI Return Receipt (hardcoPY) $ _ El Return Receipt (electronic) $ $i 0 1 ['Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $O.0C 0 Adult Signature Required $SIM 0 - -,\,\‘ 11 ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage Total Postage and Fees $3.77 $0.47 06/20/ 6 Sent To D Street and Apt. Nt., or tay, State, z1i6 8 -.tv\t6.4 ri P r - - rZ U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT • Domestic Mail Only D rU _n • ._rn r - D tZ3 D _a D 1-9 ru ru D Er - For qry) t NEW CAaTt_E'' C0 81647,7\ ()edified Mail Fee $3.30 $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ,. 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ ..0 o Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ I ['Adult Signature Required $ 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.47 $ Total Postage and Tara.? $ 11.1 u-) N D D D Lfl Sent To Street and4pL No., 6-P City, State, ZIP+46 06/20/ G-104!ir 2 6 OP 0 ca• PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000 5747 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEI - Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at tnipiv.usps.none. t., Certified Mall Fee $3.30 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) El Retum Receipt (electronic) 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Mutt Signature Requked ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ ED D 0 ru —n tr) D D D Ls) D 1-4 N Postage Total Postage and Fees $3.77 $0.47 postmark Hems& et'‘ 06/20/2016 Street and Apt. No., orlseilleiWo. 7 'Oily State, 21P+4 L....7... - PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02.000-9047 rn u1 D m NEW CASTLE 1, CO 81647 ru Certified NI m $ I. . . ervice CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.conr'-. ROLVITE,'58366- Certified Mail Fee Extra Services & Fees (check box, 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) o Retum Receipt (electronic) -80.00 ID Certified Mail Restricted Delivery' :" .4€4.0.0 0 Adult Signature Reguln3d -487°6 - ['Adult Signature Restricted C. I ; $3.30 at,) Postage 0538 ra) Postmark Here Total Postage and Fees $6.47 $ 16 0/2Ct16 Sent To 044+,1 -6`treet andAiitickt, iiib Ttto.2( 54,, State, ZIP+4 N • PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530,02-000.9047 See Reverse for Instruction U.S. Postal Service"' CEBTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at ilytvw.usps.com-. SILT*Cjj52 Certified Mail Fee 83.30 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) 5 0 Retum Receipt (electronic) 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Adult Signature Required 12 Adult Signature Restricted Del Postage $ $0.47 Total Postage and Fees $3.77 $ • $'4D 0444— 0538 16 ''',Po*riailk Here „ I • , i 06/20/2016 Sent To t3 Li" 'Street and13oxWei2-- Ctty, State, ZIP+48 511_7- co Et cc,s2- PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions N D D rulb U640 u n 11 UJJ U139U Extra Services & Fees (check box, 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) D Retum Receipt (electronic) ['Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Adult Signature Required ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0538 Postmark He He Postage $ $0.47 Total Postage and Fees $3.77 $ Sent To iRva), Street and-XI:No., or City, &tate, 211444 0231 LEA- PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7033-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instruction U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com". X A pi CO 16$7,i.,;\ r 4q Certified Mail Fee $3.30 $ $0 )' Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fax a& o Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ El Retum Receipt (electronic) $ o Certified Mali Restricted Delivery $ D Adult Signature Required Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ 80.47 Total Postage and Fs $3.77 R (-4.1 3,7t. . rlct 06/20/2016 Sent To Street andApt b-ifyiNate:21A:4 • a foot ---7 PS Form 3800, April 2015 950 7530-02-000-00.37 See Reverse for Instruction D D ru _a Lt.) D D D D r - if) rR D r - U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For deliveg infOrm,ati9R,1. 014. vie • DENVER yr CO 80215 Certified Mail Fc $2 70 - Extra Services & Fees (check box, add lee ig o Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) o Certified Mall Restricted Delivery Adutt Signature Required 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $0.47 Total Postage and Fser$ 47 0538 16 06/20/2 16 ocD GO PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 "T - See Reverse for I r- Dr - 1 -U D D D 0 m 1-R nJ 1:1- 0007 5662 cz) D ul Sent To Street andApt. No., or P - U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com KERVIL' -7r7r29 5 Certified Mail Fee $3.30 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy)$ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ • tirri Aduft Signature Required $ D Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ • 08 Postage 1 • $0.47 $ g ,g ole Total Postage and Fees $3.77 City, State, ZIP+4 06/20/3.016 816 PS ForM 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domesqc Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.conf HOUSTON,TX "77046 Certified Mail ,-ee $3.30 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee o Return Receipt (hardcopy)$ o Return Piece tat (electronic) D Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ 0 Adult Signalise Required 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ 6 Postage $ $0.47 Total Postage and Fees $ $6.47 Lr) ra Sent To Cxy (...„( k,........:. 1=1 Wet-it:int f—t:No , or PO Box IVo I. N .e..4 t 0 61-4-rct.i c,,,, : te, IFi-40 1 77�, PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7930-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions Lea, 0 See Reverse for Instructions 0 3 C•3 w 0 -o 01 01 z O O :o} pesseappy elo!W O O O N7 3 ? (O .< O -0 ? .m. y a) m 0 0 0 m n. m co O Al 0 0 0 co ar)j N ff O. v m a a g 0m0 w • O a 0 3 O 3 ‘.< 0 w • m m lac.��rx��yc��r�rr. � • :kr•I�K67 9leoea wn}ea o!}sewod 0 03 Ol z 0 N }ea o!}sewop (0 01 8 (,) Ot 9 g N tn = 0 2 . n. - 01-11 N 8 0,w N J \/ N :o} pesseappy slow ' l Karp.Neu_H�aonl�om Michael J. Sawyer mj s,cLmountainlawfirm. com Sander N. Karp* James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller * Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Matthew L. Trinidad Patrick L. Barker Jon T. Hoistad Delphine F. Janey Of Counsel Richard I. Zuber** Anna S. Itenberg Greg S. Russi Hollie L. Wieland ** Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Glenwood Sprin, 201 14`h Street, Suite 200 P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 EXHIBIT t 4 Aspen Office*** 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Montrose Once *** 1544 Oxbow Drive, Suite 224 Montrose, CO 81402 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www.mountainlaw firm.com ***All correspondence should be sent to the Glenwood Springs office March 9, 2016 Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review for 7225 County Road 312, New Castle Community Development Department: Enclosed with this letter is an Application and supporting materials for a County Road Split Subdivision Exemption review pursuant to Garfield County Land Use and Development Code ("LUDC") Section 5-202. The property subject of the Application is located at 7225 County Road 312, New Castle, and is known by Garfield County Assessor's Parcel No. 2183-322-00-011 (the "Property"). Mr. Donald J. Trisch is the owner of the Property and applicant for the review. The Property, which is approximately 280 acres in size, is physically divided by County Road 312. The road divide isolates an approximately 2.13 acre portion of the Property northeasterly of County Road 312 from the Property's remainder. The isolation of the 2.13 acre parcel results in an inability to use that parcel jointly with the rest of the larger ranch. Approval of the requested subdivision exemption would result in two parcels compliant with LUDC parcel dimension requirements, as each resulting parcel will be greater than 2 acres. If legal division of the Property is approved by the County, Mr. Trisch intends to locate a single unit dwelling on the 2.13 parcel, which constitutes a use by right under the LUDC. A single unit dwelling exists on the remainder of the Property. In addition to the County's Application form, the following items required by LUDC Table 5-401 and Section 4-203 are included: 1. Garfield County Payment Agreement Form signed by Donald J. Trisch submitted pursuant to County requirements. Karp.Neu.H�aanikon W Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review for 7225 County Road 312, New Castle Page 2 2. Authorization for me, Michael J. Sawyer, Esq., to act on Mr. Trisch's behalf for all matters relating to the Application and review. The authorization letter is submitted pursuant to Section 4-203.B.1.a. 3. A title insurance commitment from Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. reflecting Mr. Trisch's ownership of the Property at Schedule A, Entry 3. This is the proof of ownership required by LUDC Section 4-203.B.2. 4. A map of real property located within a 200 -foot radius of the Property as shown in the Office of the County Clerk and Recorder, and a listing of the owners of record thereof inclusive of mailing addresses. This is submitted pursuant to LUDC Section 4-203.B .3.a. 5. A listing of the Property's mineral estate owners and lessees, if any, inclusive of mailing addresses. This is submitted pursuant to LUDC Section 4-203.B.3.b. 6. A statement contained in this letter and materials regarding water supply and distribution and wastewater management for the Property subsequent to division. This is submitted pursuant to LUDC Section 4-203.M and N. 7. A statement contained in this letter regarding access to the Property subsequent to land division. This is submitted pursuant to LUDC Table 5-401. 8. A vicinity map integrated with a proposed final plat of the land division. With regard to approval criteria contained in Section 5-202: A. The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed lots. The 2.13 acre portion of the Property located northeast of County Road 312 is physically and operationally separated from the remainder of the ranch. The primary use of the 2.13 acres has been to stack hay and as a boneyard for old equipment. The owner plans to relocate the hay stack and equipment storage area to a soon-to-be developed ranch compound on the main ranch parcel where those uses will be more easily managed. The remaining use of the 2.13 acre parcel is irrigation. However, irrigation of this portion of the ranch is difficult (getting water under the road). It requires crossing the county road frequently on four -wheelers when the water is running (creating a danger to ranch workers and on -coming traffic). Once the new ranch compound is developed, there will be little reason to use the 2.13 acre parcel. It likely will be dried up and no longer irrigated. The 2.13 acre parcel simply is not integrated into the main ranch due to its severance by the County Road. Karp.Neu.HanlATTORNEYom Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review for 7225 County Road 312, New Castle Page 3 B. and C. The proposed exemption lots have a sufficient legal and physical source of water pursuant to LUDC Section 7-104, Source of Water. The proposed exemption lots have adequate sewage disposal system pursuant to LUDC Section 7-105, Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. Applicant intends to provide a water supply to the 2.13 acre parcel through a new groundwater well located on the 2.13 acre parcel. Because a subdivision exemption is sought for the 2.13 acre parcel, if approved it will have a legal water supply with an in-house use exempt well permit. The improvements on the remainder of the ranch are already served by a groundwater well operating under lawns Division of Water Resources Permit No. 158787-A. This is a 35 acre except well permit which allowed for ordinary household purposes inside one 1 single family dwelling, the watering of domestic animals and the irrigation of not more than 43,500 square feet of home gardens and lawns. Because the remaining ranch parcel will continue to have more than 35 acres, this parcel will continue to qualify for a 35 acre exempt well permit legal water supply. Applicant intends to treat and manage wastewater on the 2.13 acre parcel via an ISDS system located on the 2.13 acre parcel. The improvement on the remainder of the ranch is served by an ISDS system permitted under Garfield County Department of Environment ISDS Permit No. 377. In a February 11, 2016 Pre -Application Conference with Senior Garfield County Planner David Pesnichak, Applicant's representative was advised that the County's assessment of physical water supply and wastewater management for the both the 2.13 acre parcel and the remaining ranch parcel can be made in two steps. The first step is assessment of: 1) the probability that a well drilled on the 2.13 acre parcel will provide an adequate physical water supply of water, as determined through an engineering report based on a review of nearby groundwater data, and 2) the probability that an ISDS system can be sited on the 2.13 acre parcel and adequately manage wastewater generated thereon, as determined through an engineering report based upon soil data and ISDS permits in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The second step would occur after an approval of the subdivision exemption (with conditions). Prior to recording the plat, the owner will need to drill a well on the 2.13 acre parcel and measure volume and quality of physical water supply to show it meets County water supply criteria. Also, the owner will need to conduct an assessment of the water quality and volume produced by the currently operating well and demonstrate it meets County water supply criteria.. Included with this application is a report by Zancanella and Associates Engineering Consultants addressing the first step items: probability of finding groundwater on the 2.13 acre parcel and ability to site an ISDS on the 2.13 acre parcel. Karp.Neu.HAaonion: W Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review for 7225 County Road 312, New Castle Page 4 D. The proposed exemption lots have legal and adequate access pursuant to section 7- 107, Access and Roadways. Access to the 2.13 acre parcel will be from County Road 312 via a new driveway constructed in accordance with Garfield County Road and Bridge Department requirements. Access to the remainder parcel will be made through existing access from County Road 312. E. The Final Plat meets the requirements per section 5-402.F., Final Plat. The plat was prepared using the guidelines in the Pre -application Conference Summary. If changes need to be made, we will accommodate the County's review. In addition to the three paper copies of the foregoing, a copy of this letter and those materials are included on the CD provided herewith. Very truly }ours, Mar09 16 12:16p Don & Mary Trisch Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com 8303363920 p.2 DIVISIONS OF LAND APPLICATION FORM TYPE OF SUBDIVISION/EXEMPTION ❑ Minor Subdivision 1 Major Subdivision 1 ❑ Sketch D Preliminary 0 Final I Conservation Subdivision ❑ Yield C7 Sketch ❑ Preliminary 0 Final o Time Extension O Preliminary Plan Amendment O Final Plat Amendment O Common Interest Community Subdivision Cl Public/County Road Split Exemption O Rural Land Development Exemption r INVOLVED PARTIES Owner/Applicant Name: Donald J. Trisch Phone: (-zc9 i ) 9 - 4'i q0Z Mailing Address: P.O. Box 290512 City: Kerrville state: TX Zip Code: 78028 E-mail: dtrisch@onquest.com Representative (Authorization Required) Name: Michael Sawyer, Esq. Mailing Address: PO Drawer 2030 City: Glenwood Springs E-mail: mjs@mountainlawfirm.com Phone: ( 970 ) 945-2261 State: CO zip Code: 81602 PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: County Road Split Exemption - 7225 County Road 312 Assessor's Parcel Number: 2 1 8 3 3 2 2- 0 0- 0 Physical/Street Address: 7225 County Road 312, New Castle Legal Description: See attached Exhibit A Zone District: RuralProperty Size (acres): 280 Mar 09 16 12:16p Don & Maly Trisch 8303363920 P.3 Project Description Existing Use: Majority of parcel is forested wish scrub oak, but a singe family residential home exists on the parcel within the southwesterly portion of the NW114 of the NW1/4 of Sec, 32, Twp, 6S, Range 90W. An approximately 2.13 acre portion of the parcel is physlcalty split i from the remainder by County Road 312 as constructed and in place. This portion of the parcel constitutes its northeastern corner. Proposed Use (From Use Table 3-403): Single Unit Dwelling Description of Project: Applicant proposes to divide the 2.13 acre portion of the parcel split from the remainder by County Road 312 pursuer t to the Public/County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review process described at Section 5-202 of the Garfield County Land Use and Develcpment Code of 2013, as amended It the land division is approver], mppncant or sUCA.CJ u'b, ,i.,re,- interds to construct a Single Unit Dwelling thereon. Proposed Development__ Land Use Type Area #t of Lots # of Units I Acreage I Parking Single Family 1 1 .04 acre f .01 acre Duplex 1 Multi -Family • Commercial Industrial ' Open Space f Other I 1 Total 1 1 .04 acro .01 acre REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements 0 The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: Waiver of Standards Q The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: 1 have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of P • • • Owner 1 OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date File Number: - - _ Fee Paid: $ Exhibit A 7225 County Road 312 County Road Split Exemption Application Form of Donald J. Trisch E1/2 of the NE1/4 and NE1/4 of the SE1/4 in Section 31, and W1/2 of the NW1/4 and W1/2 of the SW 1/4 in Section 32, each in Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6`h P.M., EXCLUDING therefrom an approximately 0.84 acre parcel known by Garfield County Assessor's Parcel Number 218331100009 and described as a tract of land situate in the NE1/4 NE1/4, Section 31 Township 6 South, Range 90 West, 6th P.M., lying Southerly of a County Road as constructed and in place, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of said road whence a stone properly marked for the E1/4 corner of Section 30 in said Township and Range bears North 07°10'45" East 2692.71 feet; thence South 00°16'29" West 205.54 feet; thence North 88°44'59" West 177.41 feet; thence North 00°02'47" West 205.72 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of said road; thence South 88°42'03" East 178.56 feet along the Southerly right-of-way line of said road to the Point of Beginning. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com PRE -APPLICATION WERENCE SUMMARY TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 218332200011 PROJECT: County Road Split Exemption OWNERS/APPLICANT: TRISCH, DONALD J REPRESENTATIVE: Karp Neu Hanlon, PC - Mike Sawyer PRACTICAL LOCATION: 7225 312 COUNTY RD, NEW CASTLE 81647 (280 acres) ZONING: Rural TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Review - Public/County Road Split Exemption DATE: February 11, 2016 I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Public/County Road Split Exemption on a 280 acre parcel located within the Rural zone district. The Applicant is proposing to split the northeast corner of the property from which is split by County Road 312. It is estimated that the size of the property to be split is approximately 2.4 acres. The Applicant will need to address the specific provisions of Section 5-202, including how the right-of-way prevents the joint use of affected proposed lots and how access, water and wastewater service will be provided to all parcels. A final plat will also need to be created pursuant to Section 5-402.F, Final Plat. It is understood that the unit would be served by an individual well and septic. The applicant will need to demonstrate adequate legal water (a well permit and augmentation plan, if applicable). A 4 - hour pump test and water quality test are required. In addition, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the soils are capable of handling a new On-site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). A new septic system would be required to obtain all necessary OWTS permits from Garfield County and would be required as a condition of approval. The applicant is encouraged to contact the Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. to obtain preliminary feedback on any necessary requirements for driveway permits to the new lot. The applicant must also show that all lots will have legal and adequate access per Section 7-107. The property is located within the Rural Zone District. In addition, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 Medium High Residential Density designation of 2 to 6 acres per dwelling unit. The Rural Zone district has a minimum lot size of 2 acres. II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS • Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 • Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended • Table 4-101- Common Review Procedures and Required Notice • Section 4-103 - Administrative Review • Table 5-103 — Procedures and Notice • Section 5-202 — Public/County Road Split Exemption • Table 5-401 — Submittal Requirements • Section 4-203(B), (C), (M), (N) — Submittal Requirements • Section 5-402(F), Final Plat and 5-402(1), Codes Covenants and Restrictions III. REVIEW PROCESS • The review process shall follow the steps as contained in Table 4-102 and Section 4-103, Administrative Review. IV. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Please refer directly to Table 5-401 for submittal information which are summarized below: ■ 4-203.B General Application Materials o Application form; o Agreement to pay form; a Project Description; o Deed and title commitment; o Statements of Authority (SOA) (Karp Neu Hanlon); o Letter of Authorization (providing authorization from property owners to the individual submitting the application); o Names and mailing addresses of mineral owners of subject parcel (See attached Memo); o Names and mailing addresses of owners of property within 200 feet of subject parcel; o Assessor map indicating the above properties ■ 4-203.0 Vicinity Map • 4-203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan Note: Provide evidence that all parcels will be served by a legal and adequate water supply. ■ 4-203.N Wastewater Management and System Plan Note: Provide evidence that all parcels will be served by an adequate wastewater system. • 5-402.F. Final Plat Note: Plat should be prepared by a licensed surveyor and should include all easements or other encumbrances on the property. A title commitment should be submitted to ensure this information is accurate. Any new easement as a result of the subdivision should be shown on the plat. 2 • Response to Review Criteria. In considering a Public/County Road Split Exemption application, the application shall demonstrate the following: 1. The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed Tots. 2. The proposed exemption Tots have a sufficient legal and physical source of water pursuant to section 7-104, Source of Water. 3. The proposed exemption Tots have adequate sewage disposal system pursuant to section 7-i05, Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. 4. The proposed exemption lots have legal and adequate access pursuant to section 7-i07, Access and Roadways. 5. The Final Plat meets the requirements per section 5-402.F., Final Plat. • Waiver requests —The Applicant may request waiver of certain submittal requirements upon demonstration that the waiver complies with Section 4-202. Submit three paper copies and one electronic version of the complete application. Additional copies will be requested upon determination of completeness. See the land use code for additional information on submittal requirements. IV. APPLICATION REVIEW a. Review by: b. Public Hearing: Staff for completeness recommendation and referral agencies for additional technical review X None (Director's Decision) _Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners _ Board of Adjustment Though no public hearing is required, the applicant is required to mailed notice at least 15 days prior to the date of the Director`s Decision to all Adjacent Property Owners with 200 feet and Mineral Owners of Interest. c. Referral Agencies: May include Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, Fire Protection District, Garfield County Designated Engineer (fee), Environmental Health, State of Colorado Division of Water Resources, Vegetation Manager, County Surveyor (fee), and others as may apply. Application Submittal 3 Hard Copies 1 Digital PDF Copy (on CO or USB stick) Both the paper and the digital copy should be split into individual sections. Please refer to the list included in your pre -application conference summary for the submittal requirements that are appropriate for your application: • General Application Materials • Vicinity Map • Site Plan • Grading and Drainage Plan • landscape Plan • Impact Analysis • Traffic Study ▪ Water Supply/Distribution Plan • Wastewater Management Plan • Article 7 Standards 3 V. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES a. Planning Review Fees: $ 300.00 (Check made out to Garfield County Treasurer) b. Referral Agency Fees: $ TBD — consulting engineer/civil engineer fees c. Total Deposit: $ 300.00 (additional hours are billed at $40.50 /hour) General Application Processing Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to referral agencies for comments. The case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review and makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Director of the Community Development Department. The Director's decision is subject to a 10 -day call-up period. The pre -application meeting summary is only valid for six (6) months from the date of the written summary. Disclaimer The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. Pre -application Summary Prepared bv: id Pesnichak, enior Pla ner 4 February 1112016 Date Mar09 16 12:16p Don & Mary Trisch 8303363920 p.1 Garfield County PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM GARFIELD COUNTY ("COUNTY") and Property Owner ("APPLICANT") Donald J. Trisch agree as follows: 1. The Applicant has submitted to the County an application for the followingProject: County Road Split Exemption Review - 7225 County Road 31 2. The Applicant understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 2014-60, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type application, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. The Applicant and the County agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. The Applicant agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the Project, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to the Applicant. The Applicant agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the County, when they are necessary, as costs are incurred. 4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional County staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. if actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, the Applicant shall pay additional billings to the County to reimburse the County for the processing of the Project. The Applicant acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the County of any Land Use Change or Division of Land. I hereby agree to pay all fees related to this application: Billing Contact Person: Donald J. Trisch Phone: (2B1 ) Billing Contact Address: P.0- Box 290512 City: Kerrville State: TX Zip Code: 78028 Billing Contact Email: dtrisch@onquest.com Printed Name of Person Authorized to Sign: Donald J. Trisch (Signature) (Date) Mar 09 16 12:17p Don & Mary Trisch 8303363920 p.5 AUTHORIZATION TO ACT I, Donald J. Trisch, hereby authorize Michael J. Sawyer, Fsq., of the law firm of Karp Neu Hanlon, Y.C., to act on my behalf for all matters relating to a County Road Split Exemption Review for the parcel 1 own at 7225 County Road 312, New Castle, CO 81647, such parcel also being known as Garfield County Assessor's Parcel Number 2183-322-00-011. This Authorization is dated effective as of March 'q 2016. Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. 127 E. 5th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone (970) 625-3300 / Fax (970) 625-3305 1322 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone (970) 945-4444 / Fax (970) 945-4449 Date: February 9, 2016 File No. 1601042-1 Property Address. 7725 County Road 312, New Castle Listing Agent Vicki Lee Green Realtors 930 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: LaPriel Email: lapriel@v1grealtors.com Buyer Ringer Revocable Living Trust and Sylvia M. Ringer and Matthew M. Ringer Email: ringer_m@yahoo.com; sylvski@yahoo.com Seller Donald J. Trisch PO Box 290512 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 Email: dtrisch@onquest.com Selling Agent Bullock & Hinkey Real Estate: 3110A Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Bill Bullock Email: h2olandman@gmail.com COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A File No. 1601042-1 1. Effective Date: January 29, 2016 at 7:59 AM 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA OWNER POLICY (ALTA 6-17-06) Proposed Insured: Ringer Revocable Living Trust and Sylvia M. Ringer and Matthew M. Ringer (b) ALTA LOAN POLICY (ALTA 6-17-06) $950,000.00 Proposed Insured: 3. The Estate or interest in the land described or referred to in the Commitment and covered herein is Fee Simple and is at the effective date hereof vested in: Donald J. Trisch 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado and described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" TITLE CHARGES Owner's Policy Standard Coverage Owner's Extended Coverage Tax Certificate COUNTERSIGNED: Pcitr%ckvP • f3 u,rwalb American Land Title Association Schedule A (Rev'd 6-06) $2,118.00 65.00 15.00 Authorized Officer or Agent Valid Only if Schedule B and Cover Are Attached Issuing Agent: Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. 127 East 5th Street Rifle, CO 81650 File No. 1601042-1 EXHIBIT "A" Parcel A: Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6th Principal Meridian Section 31: PANE'/4, NE'/4SE'/4 Section 32: W'/2 NW'/4, W'Y2SW'/4 EXCEPT a tract of land situate in the NE'/4NE'/4, Section 31 Township 6 South, Range 90 West, 6th P.M., lying Southerly of a County Road as constructed and in place, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of said road whence a stone properly marked for the E'/4 corner of Section 30 in said Township and Range bears North 07°10'45" East 2692.71 feet; thence South 00°16'29" West 205.54 feet; thence North 88°44'59" West 177.41 feet; thence North 00°02'47" West 205.72 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of said road; thence South 88°42'03" East 178.56 feet along the Southerly right-of-way line of said road to the Point of Beginning ALSO EXCEPT that portion of the above described parcel lying North and East of County Road No. 312 Parcel B: Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. Section 32: That portion of the W'/2NW'/4 lying North and East of County Road No. 312 to be determined by survey File No. 1601042-1 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 The Following are the requirements to be complied with prior to the issuance of said policy or policies. Any other instrument recorded subsequent to the date hereof may appear as an exception under Schedule B of the policy to be issued. Unless otherwise noted, all documents must be recorded to the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County in which said property is located. 1. Warranty deed from Donald J. Trisch vesting fee simple title in Ringer Revocable Living Trust and Sylvia M. Ringer and Matthew M. Ringer. 2. Deed of Trust from Ringer Revocable Living Trust and Sylvia M. Ringer and Matthew M. Ringer to the Public Trustee of Garfield County for the use of Donald J. Trisch. 3. Deleted. 4. Recordation of a Statement of Authority for Ringer Revocable Living Trust,evidencing the existence of the entity and authority of the person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity, and containing the other information required by CRS 38-30-172, evidencing the existence of said entity prior to its acquisition of title to the land herein. 5. The Company must be furnished a copy of (1) the Trust; (2) all amendments thereto; (3) evidence satisfactory to the Company that all actions relating to the sale and the execution and delivery of the deed as required under applicable law and the governing documents have been conducted, given or properly waived 6. Receipt of satisfactory Improvement Survey Plat certified to the Company (i) prepared from an on -the -ground inspection by a registered land surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado; (ii) currently dated, showing the location of the Property and all improvements, fences, easements, roads, rights-of-way and encroachments or other matters identified in Schedule B - Section 2 of this Commitment, to the extent such matters are capable of being shown, (iii) containing a legal description of the boundaries of the Property by metes and bounds or other appropriate legal description; and (iv) meeting the criteria of Colorado Revised Statute 38-51-102(9), as amended, for an Improvement Survey Plat. 7. Execution of a Final Affidavit and Agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materialmen's liens. NM 6 American Land Title Association Commitment Schedule B - Section 1 - Form 1004-5 DISCLOSURES Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Section 5, Paragraph F provides: "Whenever a title entity provides the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with the issuance of an owner's policy of title insurance, it shall update the title commitment from the date of issuance to be as reasonably close to the time of closing as permitted by the real estate records. Such update shall include all impairments of record at the time of closing or as dose thereto as permitted by the real estate records. The title insurance company shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the title commitment, for all undisclosed matters that appear of record prior to the time of closing." Provided Commonwealth Title Insurance Company of Garfield County, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. NOTE: Exception No. 4 of Schedule B - Section 2 of this Commitment may be deleted from the Owner's Policy to be issued hereunder upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this Commitment must be a single family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials may have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive appropriate affidavits indemnifying the Company against all unfiled mechanic's and materialmen's liens. D. Any deviation from conditions A through C above is subject to such additional requirements or information as the Company may deem necessary; or, at its option, the Company may refuse to delete the exception. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. C.R.S. §30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right, and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform. Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. If the transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with the disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. §39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding). Pursuant to C.R.S. §38-35-125(2), no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right. C.R.S. §39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee. Section 38-35-109 (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, requires that a notation of the purchasers legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the deed to be recorded. File No. 1601042-1 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the Public records. Note: This exception will be deleted on the final policy upon compliance with the requirements herein. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. Note: This exception will be deleted on the final policy upon compliance with the requirements herein. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts, which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. Note: This exception will be deleted on the final policy upon compliance with the requirements herein. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Note: Exception No. 4 will be deleted upon receipt of Final Affidavits and Agreements indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materialmen's liens. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. Note: Exception 5 will be deleted on the final policy if Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. closes the proposed transaction and records the applicable instruments of conveyance. 6. Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. Note: Exception 6 will read: "General taxes and assessments for the year 2015 and thereafter, not yet due and payable." on the final policy if Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. closes the proposed transaction. 7. Any lien or charge on account of the inclusion of subject property in an improvement district. 8. Any and all water rights, claims, or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted are shown by the public record. The following affect Parcel A: 9. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and a right of way for ditches or canals as constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 10, 2006 in Book 56 at Page 546 and October 3, 1939 in Book 194 at Page 584. The following affect Parcels A and B: 10. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and a right of way for ditches or canals as constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded March 3, 1923 in Book 73 at Page 144. 11. Terms, conditions, restrictions, right of way and all matters set forth and described in Surface Use, Access and Right -of -Way Agreement by and between Donald J. Trisch and Linda Lashley and Laramie Energy LLC recorded January 26, 2005 in Book 1658 at Page 345. 12. Right of way for County Road No. 312. 13. Terms and conditions of Oil and Gas Lease by and between Linda Lashley, aka Linda Lashley Trusch, aka Linda Trisch and Donald Junior Trisch, aka Donald Trisch, as Lessor and Williams Production RMT Company, as Lessee, recorded December 17, 2009 as Reception No. 779285 and correction recorded March 16, 2010 as Reception No. 783360 and any and all interests therein or assignments thereof. 14. Terms and conditions of Request for Materials and Cooperative Agreement for Damage Prevention Fencing recorded December 7, 2011 as Reception No. 811724. NOTE: EXCEPTION(S) 1,2,3 and 4 WILL NOT APPEAR IN THE OWNERS POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER. The Owner's Policy of Title Insurance committed for in this Commitment, if any, shall contain, in addition to the Items set forth in Schedule B - Section 2, the following items: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B - Section 1. (2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. (3) any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. NOTE: The policy (s) of insurance may contain a clause permitting arbitration of claims at the request of either the Insured or the Company. Upon request, the Company will provide a copy of this clause and the accompanying arbitration rules prior to the closing of the transaction. American Land Title Association Commitment Schedule B - Section 2 Form 1004-12 COMMONWEALTH TITLE COMPANY PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information - particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means. • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy. We currently maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. 3 • 0 N 00 • M O N O z 0 aCt a CACA 4=i CD '5 O U d .� .•1 ▪ Ct -d 0 Ct CD tin • � • o CD con z O Parcel No. N 0 U BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 218331100956 00 0 U 7518 COUNTY ROAD 312 HANKS, LESTER R & SARA LEE 218332200015 d' 00 0 U W z U 7192 COUNTY ROAD 312 HOSTETLER, FLOYD D & JENNIFER S 218330400055 00 O °• z Y ROAD 312 JENKINS, DANIEL W & LISA E 218331100009 PO BOX 65 JOHNSON, RODNEY W & CAROLE J 218332300077 00 V) VD • 00 00 0 0 ; WW W H H z¢z¢ ce ¢ 0 0 0 319 E MAIN STREET ORR, LACY & SMITH, HOWARD G 00 ri 00 00 7550 COUNTY ROAD 312 218332200082 7550 COUNTY ROAD 312 218332200083 oo O U z< 7398 COUNTY ROAD 312 00 O U W z¢ U 5118 COUNTY ROAD 311 RODREICK, PERRY DAN & MARY B 218329300050 N tri O U a c 795 COUNTY ROAD 326 SMITH, WILLIAM M & PATRICIA A 218332200078 251 EMMA ROAD 0 H O • U O w E, 0 STOTT, LONNIE R & STACEY L 218329300056 Listing and Mailing Addresses of Mineral Owners and Lessees Garfield County Parcel No. 218132200011 Location: E1/2NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4 in Section 31, and W1/2NW1/4, Sec. 32, Twp. 6 South, Rng. 90 West of the 6th P.M. Mineral Estate Owners: Mineral Estate Lessee: Donald J. Trisch P.O. Box 290512 Kerrville, TX 78028 None, due to expiration of Oil and Gas Lease between Donald J. Trisch and Linda L. Trisch and Williams Production RMT Company, dated December 1, 2009 resulting from non -production. Location: W 1/2SW 1/4, Sec. 32, Twp. 6 South, Rng. 90 West of the 6th P.M. Mineral Estate Owners: Mineral Estate Lessee: United States of America c/o Bureau of Land Management 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, CO 80215-7210 Oxy USA, Inc. (or Assignees) 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110 Houston, TX 77046-0521 Per BLM Oil and Gas Lease Serial No. 065513 P.O. Box 1908 1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z44(414ELL4 /1N1) 4S5Oa4TES, INC. 4ret ENGINEERING CONSULT4NT5' March 2, 2016 Michael J. Sawyer, Esq. Karp, Neu & Hanlon Via Email: mjs(a�mountainlawfirm.com RE: Trisch Road Split Exemption Dear Michael: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax At your request, Zancanella & Associates has investigated the Trisch Road Split Exemption. We have examined water wells near the proposed exemption location to determine the likelihood of drilling a successful well on the exemption. We have also studied the soils and waste disposal systems in the area for suitability for a new OWTS on the exemption property. Figure 1 shows the locations of six wells nearest the exemption location that were examined from records from the Colorado State Engineer's Office. All six wells were drilled into the Tertiary age Wasatch Formation and all six wells produce water in amounts between 2 gallons per minute (gpm) and 15 gpm. The wells ranged between 130 and 200 feet deep. Based on these findings, it is our opinion that it is likely that a successful water well could be drilled on the exemption property. Because the property is to be an exemption, the exempt domestic well permit that will be requested will be limited to 15 gpm and will be limited to in-house use only. The well will also be exempt from 600 foot spacing consideration as a 15 gpm well serving on single family residence. Figure 2 is a representation of the property underlain by the U. S. Department of Agriculture soils map for the area. The soil type represented by the number 68 is described as Vale Silt Loam, which should provide adequate drainage for a septic tank and leach field. Soil 65 is a Torrifluvents and is derived from alluvial material from Garfield Creek. The Torrifluvents will probably not have the necessary drainage characteristics for leach field construction. Figure 2 also shows that there is sufficient space on the property for the septic tank and leach field 100 foot setback from the well and 50 foot setback from Garfield Creek. We have been advised that the proposed house will probably have four bedrooms and three baths. This size house will require a minimum septic tank size of 1250 gallons and the leach field size will be approximately 1200 square feet. These findings are only preliminary. The actual siting and engineering for the septic tank and leach field will require onsite testing and more exact water usage information that is outside the scope of this report. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. 7f Z. egAACtii, loi Tn6fnrtZancanella, P, E. Bradley C P-ek, Geologist Attachments z:\2016 jobs\16500 trisch property\preliminary report.docx Zancanella & Associates, Inc. 2 NEARBY WATER WELLS 0 0 I0 co 1- 0 w O a w ltlld NOIldW3X3 NOISIAIOSf1S HOST U LP91.8 00'3119V9 M3N OYON N33110 0131I21tl0 SILL HOSIUL'f O1YNOO a ▪ cC j 144 cn N O N o co �c U W �qi O � O Vj O 0 N U cf)\ 2 O 4.1 3 rn ^I O �. cl - .03 T/) ▪ O :F4I ti 0 a a a 3g^ El 8 11 1s F32p e °at n 318351 4 Scale: 1"-2000' a� g €3R Bp 47� ki l� 5WC�a ig �� ca & as , ,11011 sE; 33 Iii li 3li g?i 3R a: g.1gS 3 9 4gi .1 i g I 5 II: 1 i piOg R3 to i 8' i s Ik e3 8g 9 g° al � a1,6 $ F �a Q 3 5 Pi ill 1- Ihil ��`l P301 'gg1 k 1 ii i 1 1 1 11 111 111111 15 1;1111 li! 1. 1 11 a W . 1� !1NEI 411 ION R9 3 i P 11 i �a 11 383 R �3 a�e 958 3 iaas� 3a� �� 9 � � k� � � `33 lb'ld NOIld113X3 NOISIAI09fS HOSILIl L491.8 03 '3L1SV3 M3N 0V011)133113 0131J11Y9 SZZL HOSI2 L'r OT/NOO A TRISCH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT M 0 N 0 • {e„4, 8.[nshaox E.5 M+ J Scale:1 "=100' c9 li / 3' // 1�, ,1 11 II VII yi I,+, � 1 \ � eg .,,,,i's,\ / , i/ j J Scale:1 "=100' c9 Karp.Neu_HpaQnIonw Michael J. Sawyer nysl@mountainlawlirm.com March 22, 2016 Sander N. Karp* James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller * Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Matthew L. Trinidad Patrick L. Barker Jon T. Hoistad Delphine F. Janey Of Counsel Richard I. Zuber** Anna S. Itenberg Greg S. Russi Hollie L. Wieland ** Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Glenwood Springs Office 201 14th Street, Suite 200 P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Aspen Office * * * 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Montrose Once *** 1544 Oxbow Drive, Suite 224 Montrose, CO 81402 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 vNWvs.mountainlawtirm.coni ***All correspondence should be sent to the Glenwood Springs office Re: Trisch Subdivision Exemption — File Number RSEA-03-16-8432 Dear Kathy: This letter provides supplemental information in response to your technical completeness review letter dated March 16. My responses are in the same order as your comments in that letter. 1. A 24"x36" copy of the plat is included for your review. 2. When preparing the Application, I obtained a title commitment for the parcel from which the Road Split Parcel will be created. A copy of the title commitment is included in the Application as the applicant's proof of ownership. For a portion of the subject Property (E1/2NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4 in Section 31, and W1/2NW1/4, Sec. 32, Twp. 6 South, Rng. 90 West of the 6th P.M.), the title commitment discloses that no reservation or conveyance of the mineral estate have occurred other than as an appurtenance to the fee owner. It also discloses that the minerals for this area were leased by Linda Trisch and Donald J. Trisch in 2009. Mr. Trisch confirmed that, due to the death of Linda Trisch, undivided title to the mineral estate for this portion of the Property is now vested in him pursuant to distribution of her interest from their mutual revocable living trust. We also conducted a search of the Garfield Clerk and Recorder records to verify that no Affidavit of Production has been recorded with respect to the 2009 Lease entering a secondary term. Further, we also checked with the County Assessor records and determined that no separate tax parcel exists for this portion of the Property's mineral estate. The title commitment also discloses a patent which reserves to the United States the mineral estate underlying the W1/2SW1/4, Sec. 32, Twp. 6 South, Rng. 90 West of the 6th P.M. Karp_Neu.H'anlORPIF�oAn: Page 2 Review of BLM oil and gas lease GIS information available via the Colorado BLM website (http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/geographical sc iences/gis/GeospatialData.ht ml), specifically the files available under Oil and Gas Leases, revealed that the minerals underlying this portion of the Property continue to be owned by the federal government and are leased pursuant to the federal oil and gas lease and by the lessee referenced in the Application. 3. An amended mailing list is submitted herewith. The amendment consists of the addition of Parcel No. 218332300958 to the list of parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management within 200 feet of the Property. That parcel was depicted on the map of real property located within 200 feet of the Property which was included in the Application. As to the Orr/Smith properties (Parcel Nos. 218330402001, 218330402002, 218330402003, 218330402004), we have reviewed and included as Exhbit A Garfield County Assessor information for these parcels reflecting that the mailing address of record for each parcel is 319 E. Main Street, Cartersville, GA 30120. No Basalt area addresses have been located for these parcels. If the Community Development Department is aware of a Basalt address, we are happy to send notice to that location as well. 4. With regard to the legal water supply, the applicant currently has a late registration, 35 -acre exempt well permit for the well that serves the existing house (Division of Water Resources Permit No. 158787-A.). That well, operating under that well permit, will continue to provide the legal water supply for the remainder parcel. For Road Split Parcel A (2.13 acre parcel), the applicant has applied to the Division of Water Resources for an exempt in-house use only well permit. A copy of this permit application, which is filed under Receipt No. 950477, is included as Exhibit B. As provided in Garfield County's land use code Section 5-202, "Pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-28- 101(10)(d), the BOCC has established Public/County Road Split Exemption as exempt from the definition of Subdivision but subject to Exemption Review." Under C.R.S. 37-92-602 (3)(b)(II)(A), "the only well on a residential site [created through a process exempt from the definition of subdivision], which well will be used solely for ordinary household purposes inside a single-family dwelling and will not be used for irrigation" is presumed not to cause injury to other water rights. As such, the Division of Water Resources will issue an exempt in-house use only well permit after the subdivision exemption plat is approved, or approved upon condition of well permit issuance, by the County. Because an in-house use only well permit is statutorily exempt from administration, it constitutes a legal water supply. The issuance of in-house use only well permits for parcels created through a subdivision exemption process is described in section 2 of Division of Water Resources Policy 2011-1, a copy of which is included as Exhibit C. While not legally required for subdivision exemptions, the Division of Water Resources encourages counties to refer subdivision exemption applications to ensure that well permitting formalities are complied with. See Division of Water Resources Memorandum dated March 11, 2011 and included as Exhibit D. Karp.Neu.Hanlon Page 3 5. We discussed on the telephone the question of how to label the subdivision exemption parcel and the remainder parcel. We will make changes to the plat after the County completes its review. Thank you for incorporating these supplemental materials, which are included along with a copy of this letter on the accompanying CD (exclusive of the proposed plat), into the Application. With this information, the Application should be ready for substantive review by the County. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, MJS:mjs cc by e-mail: Client Garfield County Assessor Data Site Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Suite 207, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 (P) 970.945.9134 1 (F) 970.945.3953 1 (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com Account Information Exhibit A Page 1 of 6 Account: R083265 Parcel: 218330402001 Owner Name: ORR, LACY & SMITH, HOWARD G Owner Address: 319 E MAIN STREET, CARTERSVILLE, GA, 30120 Property Address: 312 COUNTY RD, NEW CASTLE Legal: Quarter: SE Section: 30 Township: 6 Range: 90 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Lot: 1 Tax Area: 017 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Taxable Values History Year Land Actual Imp Actual Total Actual Land Assessed Imp Assessed Total Assessed 2015 5,800 198,970 204,770 1,680 15,840 17,520 2014 4,670 158,060 162,730 1,360 12,580 13,940 Property Details Model Attribute Name Attribute Value LAND 0 LAND 1 ABSTRACT_CODE IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. AREA_ACRES 10.41 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG ABSTRACT_CODE GRAZING LAND -AGRICULTURAL AREA_ACRES 4.68 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG Garfield County Assessor Data Site Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Suite 207, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 (P) 970.945.9134 1 (F) 970.945.3953 1 (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 Model Attribute Name Attribute Value RESI 0 XFOB 0 XFOB 1 XFOB 2 BUILDING TYPE FARM/RANCH UNITS 1 ABSTRACT_CODE FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS ACT_YEAR_BLT 1975 HEATEDAREA 1604 BASEMENTAREA 1110 FINBSMTAREA 0 BEDROOMS 3 ARCH STYLE 1-STRY/BSM BATHS 1.7 AREA_UNITS 2 ROOMS 6 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD, ALKALI, S. CANYON - FRAME WOOD FRAME AIRCOND NONE HEATING_FUEL GAS HEATING_TYPE FORCED AIR ROOF_COVER COMP SHNGL ROOF_STRUCTUR GABLE STORIES 1 BUILDING_NO 1 ABSTRACT_CODE FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS ACT_YEAR_BLT 1965 XFOB_CODE GARAGE 577-863 SF NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG AREA_UNITS 0 BUILDING_NO 1 ABSTRACT_CODE FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS ACT_YEAR_BLT 1965 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG XFOB_CODE BALCONY 101-250 SF AREA_UNITS 0 BUILDING_NO 1 ABSTRACT_CODE FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS ACT_YEAR_BLT 1965 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG XFOB_CODE OPEN PORCH 25-100 SF AREA_UNITS 0 Garfield County Assessor Data Site Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Suite 207, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 (P) 970.945.9134 1 (F) 970.945.3953 1 (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com Account Information Exhibit A Page 3 of 6 Account: R083266 Parcel: 218330402002 Owner Name: ORR, LACY & SMITH, HOWARD G Owner Address: 319 E MAIN STREET, CARTERSVILLE, GA, 30120 Property Address: 312 COUNTY RD, NEW CASTLE Legal: Quarter: SE Section: 30 Township: 6 Range: 90 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Lot: 2 Tax Area: 017 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Taxable Values History Year Land Actual Imp Actual Total Actual Land Assessed Imp Assessed Total Assessed 2015 2,370 39,700 42,070 680 3,160 3,840 2014 1,920 24,090 26,010 560 1,920 2,480 Garfield County Assessor Data Site Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Suite 207, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 (P) 970.945.9134 1 (F) 970.945.3953 1 (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com Property Details Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 Model Attribute Name Attribute Value LAND 0 LAND 1 REST 0 XFOB O ABSTRACT_CODE IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. AREA_ACRES 4.05 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG ABSTRACT_CODE GRAZING LAND -AGRICULTURAL AREA_ACRES 7.34 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG BUILDING TYPE FARM/RANCH UNITS 1 ABSTRACT_CODE FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS ACT_YEAR_BLT 1959 HEATEDAREA 672 FINBSMTAREA 0 BASEMENTAREA 0 ARCH_STYLE 1 1/2 STRY BEDROOMS 2 BATHS 1 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD, ALKALI, S. CANYON - ROOMS 5 AREA_UNITS 0 FRAME WOOD FRAME AIRCOND NONE HEATING_FUEL WOOD HEATING_TYPE WOOD STOVE ROOF COVER COMP SHNGL ROOF_STRUCTUR GABLE STORIES 1.5 ABSTRACT_CODE FARM/RANCH RESIDENCE -IMPS BUILDING_NO 2 ACT_YEAR_BLT 1959 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG XFOB_CODE ENC PORCH 101-250 SF AREA_UNITS 0 Garfield County Assessor Data Site Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Suite 207, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 (P) 970.945.9134 1 (F) 970.945.3953 (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com Account Information Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 Account: R083267 Parcel: 218330402003 Owner Name: ORR, LACY & SMITH, HOWARD G Owner Address: 319 E MAIN STREET, CARTERSVILLE, GA, 30120 Property Address: 312 COUNTY RD, NEW CASTLE Legal: Quarter: SE Section: 30 Township: 6 Range: 90 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Lot: 3 Tax Area: 017 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Taxable Values History Year Land Actual 2015 7,110 2014 5,720 Property Details Imp Actual Total Actual 7,110 5,720 Land Assessed 2,060 1,660 Imp Assessed Total Assessed 2,060 1,660 Model Attribute Name Attribute Value LAND 0 LAND 1 ABSTRACT_CODE IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. AREA_ACRES 12.9 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG ABSTRACT_CODE GRAZING LAND -AGRICULTURAL AREA_ACRES 2.27 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG Garfield County Assessor Data Site Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Suite 207, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601 (P) 970.945.9134 1 (F) 970.945.3953 1 (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com Account Information Exhibit A Page 6of6 Account: R083268 Parcel: 218330402004 Owner Name: ORR, LACY & SMITH, HOWARD G Owner Address: 319 E MAIN STREET, CARTERSVILLE, GA, 30120 Property Address: 312 COUNTY RD, NEW CASTLE Legal: Quarter: SE Section: 30 Township: 6 Range: 90 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Lot: 4 Tax Area: 017 Subdivision: ORR-SMITH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Taxable Values History Year Land Actual 2015 4,460 2014 3,600 Property Details Imp Actual Total Actual Land Assessed 4,460 1,290 3,600 1,050 Imp Assessed Total Assessed 1,290 1,050 Model Attribute Name Attribute Value LAND 0 LAND 1 ABSTRACT_CODE IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. AREA_ACRES 7.82 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG ABSTRACT_CODE GRAZING LAND -AGRICULTURAL AREA_ACRES 8.44 AREA_SQFT 0 NEIGHBORHOOD GARFIELD,ALKALI,S.CANYON - AG Karp_Neu_HAanlonw Patrick L. Barker plbriismountainlam, finn.corn March 22, 2016 Sent Via E-mail Only Sander N. Karp* James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller * Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Dwight Whitehead, Well Commissioner Colorado Division of Water Resources, Division 5 dwight.whitehead @state.co Matthew L. Trinidad Patrick L. Barker Jon T. Hoistad Delphine F. Janey Of Counsel Richard I. Zuber** Anna S. Itenberg Greg S. Russi Hollie L. Wieland ** Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Re: Water Well Permit Application of Donald Trisch Dear Dwight: Exhibit B Page 1 of 11 Glemvood Springs Office 201 14th Street, Suite 200 P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Aspen Office * * * 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Montrose Office *** 1544 Oxbow Drive, Suite 224 Montrose, CO 81402 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www. mo un to i n l aw firm. cam ***All correspondence should be .sent to the Glenwood Springs office Provided herewith is a Residential Water Well Permit Application (Form GWS -44) submitted on behalf of our client, Donald Trisch. As we discussed by telephone yesterday, Mr. Trisch is seeking a household use only exempt well permit for a 2.13 acre parcel that we anticipate will be created pursuant to Garfield County's road split subdivision exemption review process. That exemption process is authorized pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-28-101(10)(d), as provided in Section 5-202 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, a copy of which is attached. Upon creation, that parcel will be known as Exemption Parcel A of the Trisch Road Split Exemption. Mr. Trisch acknowledges that the Division of Water Resources cannot issue a well permit for Parcel A until Garfield County has at least conditionally approved the land division. As such, Mr. Trisch intends that the Application begin the permitting process, pending Garfield County's conditional approval. In support of item 5 of the Application, Mr. Trisch has supplied the proposed final plat for the Trisch Road Split Exemption. Once Garfield County conditionally approves a final plat and Garfield County's has adopted a resolution approving the division, Mr. Trisch will provide those items for your consideration. The deed supplied in support of item 5 is the deed for the parcel from which Exemption Parcel A will be created pursuant to the exemption process. The larger parcel is known by Garfield County Parcel Identification Number 2183-322-00-011. This parcel is referenced in the Application. As we discussed, there is a well located on the larger parcel which operates under late Exhibit B Page 2 of 11 Karp.Neu.HaaAnly©Anw Water Well Permit Application of Donald Trisch Page 2 registration Permit No. 158787-A. As a result of the land division, this existing well will operate on a parcel that is approximately 278 acres in size. Please note that Mr. Trisch has not included a proposed well location in the Application. Mr. Trisch requests that the well be approved for any point within Exemption Parcel A, and that precise location information be supplied pursuant to Rule 6.3.2 of the Water Well Construction Rules. I will contact you by phone to pay the $100 processing fee, and upon payment, to obtain the Application's receipt number. If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. fid,/zt Patrick L. Barker Exhibit B Page 3 of 11 DIVISION 2. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS. 5-201. OPERATION OF LAW. The BOCC acknowledges certain divisions of interests in land to which, by operation of law, the terms "Subdivision" and "subdivided land" do not apply. These divisions are exempt from County Subdivision and Exemption review. A. Split by Federal or State Right -of -Way Interest. Parcels split by a Federal or State right-of-way, for whatever purpose, in which the United States or the State of Colorado holds a fee or right-of-way interest, and railroad rights-of- way under the authority of the U.S. Surface Transportation Board or other responsible Federal agency which have not been abandoned. B. State Statutory Exemptions. Parcels created pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-28-101(10)(b) or (c)(I-X), including: 1. Divisions Creating 35 Acre Parcels. C.R.S. § 30-28-101(10)(b), provides an Exemption for any division of land that creates parcels, each of which comprises 35 or more acres of land and none of which is intended for use by multiples owners. 2. Other Statutorily -Excepted Divisions. The various C.R.S. § 30-28- 101(10)(c) Exemptions listed in subsections (I -X) of subsection (10)(c), and as such list may be amended, unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading Part 1 of the County Planning and Building Code Act, C.R.S. § 30-25-101, et seq., or the Subdivision regulations of this Code. C. Municipal Annexation. Parcel created as a remainder lot, located in unincorporated Garfield County, following annexation of a portion of the larger, pre-existing parcel into a municipality. 5-202. PUBLIC/COUNTY ROAD SPLIT EXEMPTION. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-28-101(10)(d), the BOCC has established Public/County Road Split Exemption as exempt from the definition of Subdivision but subject to Exemption Review. A. Overview. Any parcel of land split by a local or County road (i.e. neither Federal nor State), or public right-of-way included in the County highway system where the location of the public or County right-of-way prevents joint use of the proposed Tots. B. Review Process. A Public/County Road Split Exemption shall be reviewed in accordance with section 4- 103, Administrative Review, and consistent with Table 5-103. C. Review Criteria. Approval of a Public/County Road Split Exemption shall require a factual finding of the following: 1. The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed Tots; 2. The proposed exemption lots have a sufficient legal and physical source of water pursuant to section 7-104, Source of Water. GARFIELD COUNTY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE 5-4 Exhibit B Page 4 of 11 3. The proposed exemption lots have adequate sewage disposal system pursuant to section 7-105, Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. 4. The proposed exemption lots have legal and adequate access pursuant to section 7-107, Access and Roadways. 5. The Final Plat meets the requirements per section 5-402.F., Final Plat. 5-203. RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-28-101(10)(d), the BOCC has established Rural Land Development Exemption (RLDE) as exempt from the definition of Subdivision but subject to Exemption Review. A. Overview. The RLDE will be applied on a case-by-case basis to certain divisions of land that, in the sole opinion of the BOCC, advance the objectives of Garfield County regarding the preservation of rural lands as Agricultural Land and Open Space and maintain the greater portion of the property for agricultural purposes, natural resource utilization, Open Space, or other rural land uses. 1. The RLDE may be used to create a Cluster Subdivision Development on a parcel of land 70 acres or more in any unincorporated area of the County. 2. The RLDE shall be for Single -Family Dwelling use only. The density shall not exceed 1 lot per every 35 acres plus 1 lot per each 100 acres plus 1 additional lot. The maximum number of lots in a Rural Land Use Development Exemption is 42 lots plus the remainder parcel. 3. This Code does not preclude owners of adjacent properties from combining their properties for the purposes of forming a parcel eligible for division under the provisions of the RLDE option. 4. The requirements of Article 8, Affordable Housing, shall not apply to RLDEs. B. Review Process. Applications for a RLDE shall be processed in accordance with Table 5-103. C. Review Criteria. An application for a RLDE shall meet the following criteria: 1. The RLDE is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and complies with any applicable intergovernmental agreements. 2. The RLDE Tots have sufficient legal and physical source of water pursuant to section 7-104. 3. The RLDE lots have legal and adequate access pursuant to section 7-107, Access and Roadways. 4. The RLDE does not create hazards identified in section 7-108 and section 7-205 or exacerbate existing hazards. 5. The RLDE lots have an adequate water distribution system and wastewater disposal system pursuant to section 7-105. 6. Development and use of the remainder parcel shall be restricted to 1 dwelling unit plus an Accessory Structure for agricultural use. 7. Proposed division and development of the land minimizes the impacts of residential development on Agricultural Lands and agricultural operations, GARFIELD COUNTY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE 5-5 Exhibit B Page 5 of 11 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST,, Ste 821, DENVER, CO 80203 1arl 003) 8116-35aiF 1,3011 FiGt )2'U jm2,211e0: lej RESIDENTIAL Fk„,A m 11110). Watn'rinfl Water Well Permit Application ReYEVW 'brut 111$11UC1IOr19 prior 10 cornprotl fig form. Hand coin ptated lorms must be complolod I,i black or tug n Y 0 1. Applicant IriI'ormMior NWT Donald Trisch 120 Greystone Poe. S1/1* /0,,Y.Je Bourne rX 7800E) rto,1001,0, .v.9.0 cz:0,1 281-229-9492 citrischAoro,onst.com Offico Usk.. Only CANS 44 17f2012.1 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) low wed D Change source Oqurlur) Replace existing weiI 0 li..anatfeation (expried porruil) D Ore existing v.,i,311 0 R3oltop precip collectiol U Change �t i crease isi 0 (Am 3. Refer To (if applicbIe ' .0,4140C0.Ic0,4,z 00:00*0404rt:,00.0001,cf, 0 starne 00 S. Use 0100 (check applicable boxes) See ir,F=1,11diAet 10 deiermipe us ) wh.ch yeti May qualify • A O,d.'w,y 010US0101LI1.1:4: fl 0=0 sulimfamily dwelling tiro (Jufsitle uqe.) o 13 001111i11Y 11,01.311ie..1101.1 1150 III 1 1() 3 sieve-miThly NIr014 (1 eWetlingf, 11 110,1111 gerdi.,:reflamtinI1ion,ii,fit10 exceed one acre 04011 irirodted _ fiq (1 ID acre FTI Dm. ic apornzil watt 00110 - Inon•c•orrimeicol) 0 G I me:cinch, Yvateling (fin larrnt/a(1clWangetpasture) 7. Well Data (proposed) u0 pl0ox,11i1111.? 15 170 gpm feel 4016.-LtiI4 00I0.r01 1/3 A acre-fuel & Location Of Prop s d Well i1mportant1 See Instrtictions GallitlId 1 NW im c, vlo 44 NW tif6On I 0-6,11,11. 64 04 5. 1 R0b:,0, t r0 444 (4,44,4, 44:0.,4 Mei i .4 32 6 It ik 190 n kl Oh 0.00144 4100 is440i1"1,40:, iitt.tirveAlly '00 prcptAy 1.0041 criomi- 14 i— S r, fir.,011-- E. 1..7.W ro, 0000'611)0W 440Z41004 - 4r.kl,0 0,0 ,i0filmi,00:0-1 ',2mt ilit.1 -04010 0,....,0,1, feet Director) c,...eti .eurremi10.0,0X1 (Ii'0.0i4,-6.0--.V.:0144. J4'} r],t,,,,,,,(,..;, 44 401.to,.-, ,t. €0,010.t ' low , TBD COWIN Road '312, New Carillo, GO 816.17 041'4,0041 1,1 y 1 oi,nal0.J44 440 lil 14 Lure 17 4,01.4 1./ -stene 'ndr, au 1.59140, f-.14rVuing ntwo wust Io NA061 004 /Too ty. 0401.11,1V /WWI "HI CPS .Wq MOW) lb ,i.07 5. Parcel On Which Well Will Be Located {You most attach a currant dead for the subject pa(cel) A. You rnjsI check and comolele ono of the lollowincy D Subdivision Name I ol SW( • County exemption (attach copy /A county approwal olsuevey) Noe/ti Trisch Road Split Exemption Lot # A Parcel le -ss than 35 acres not tn a subdivision attach a :WA ri.la Tholes bounds dasuiption recorded error lo June 1, 1972, and current deed Mining c.laun (Mach copy of deed or survey) Naniettr. O tiara 40 acre parc,el as descrthed In Item 4 O Parcel of 35 or inure acres iaLIACYI r11CtC3 fi uoundsuasonmen or surrey, (attur:h ihereo, & im1414 description or sulyeY) kyh a,1 I 3,01111,0 Yr S 8. Water Supplier to Lin narcel wdran boil, itcanes Ola mita4 soi vire area?El YESKI f yes provide 111100 of supplier 9, Type Of Sewage System Nt Si!PIR: lank /absorption touch 400 CoittnI system 1.)islr.ci name _ Vat ill I 011.111D0 sev,,age to be hauled to 0 01.1,er (explair0 0. Proposed Well Driller License #(optiorlllI)- 11, Stun or Enter Nam of ApplIcant(s) or Authorized Agent T lc Making 01 false statorrinits IlOrOrir ooltStitules. periory In Ilvij Becon0 dcgre-e, which Is punishable -as a class .1 I015110(011/1111:11 pUf5U811110 C R.S 24 4- 104 (13)f al 1 have read lily 44 latam ants heroin. know 11140 cotitents inerVAridVail thiiP:)t7 anue lo ftrwrAl perooll44 ; _-011x.r.74-4?" vta,-,nv 44111,4 P —371,AIA /PIS r111'iveiif o 3/49e/teir ti,o4cmi 2,131 41,47,190‘ C. k44 II -is pstarp 121 +Ts n rat; 100 ttriy o314410'0 rate! 1 TEs1.1.1 4! E raw inu irourDwil Garcc Pirst 2183-322-06-011 Office Use Only 1'444‘0,01. 44 Virrerapr area tathr ‘N, 4000 ropil my, An ':P/$ 1.111 859328 02/17/2015 04:14:36 PM Page 1 of 3 Jean Alberico, Garfield County, Colorado Rec Fee: $21.00 Doc Fee: $0.00 eRecorded »ISTRLfiUTION DEEP .Effective Date: December 31, 2014 Exhibit B Page 6of11 Orairfors: Donald 1. Trisch, Co -Trustee of the Donald and Linda 13. Trust PO Box 290512 Kerrville, Kerr County, Texas 78028 Grantees: Consideration 3rently Todd Lashley, t: o- i'rustee of the Donald and Linda B. Trust 534 Upriver Road Fredericksburg, Gillespie County, Texas 78624 Donald J, Trisch, Individually, as his sok and separate property PO Box 290512 Kerrville, Kerr County, Texas 78028 Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement and Release entered into under Cause No. 9080, County Court, Gillespie County, Texas. Property (including any improvements): All of Grantors' right, title and interest in that certain tract or pared of land located In Garfield County, Colorado, known as the "High Wilderness Land & Cattle Company" and more particularly described as 'follaws.4 See Exhibit "A" Reservations from and Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty: All other visible easement, rights-of-way and prescriptive rights, whether of record or not. Grantors, for the consideration and subject to the reservations from the exceptions to conveyance and warranty, grant, transfer and convey to Grantee the property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any wise belonging, to have and hold it to Grantee, and Grantee's successors or assigns forever. Grantors bind Grantors and Grantors' successors and assigns, to warrant and forever defend all and singular the property to Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the sante or any part thereof, except as to the reservations from and exceptions to conveyance and warranty, when the claire is made by.,. through,. or utsder..Grantors,.bu:t.not otherwise, t'rs 'atr�t TION PAGF. 1211!#006V.1 1456uwar 859328 02/17/2015 04:14:36 PM Page 2 of 3 Jean Alberico, Garfield County, Colorado Rec Fee: $21.00 Doc Fee: $0.00 eRecorded GRANTORS: Exhibit B Page 7 of 11 • DONALD J. TRIS f --Trusts: of the Donald and Linda. Trst B l3RENTLYr 'ODD LASi•ILEY; Co -Trustee of the ? Donald and Linda Trust E3 THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF 6-a,:,4::; .§.. // 'This instrument %eras acknowledged before me on the. ; L..? y of 2015, by DONALD 3. '1 R1SC;1, in hitt capacity .as CoJrustee of the Donald and Linda `NA D: r. v�Wpa �raM A� tt ay�lW nw.M' q� u.. to:A iffy r 2@Z$ S .f - f ..9ar3S it Apw 26. 2016 • Notary Public in and for the State oil t' xas • THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF (J[LLESPIE § This instrument was acknowledged before me ort the j P day of> aF , 2015., BRENTLY TODD LASHLEY, in his Capacity a Co -Trustee of the Do.1„6a1-4L—Vat-'\ alal a.rt^. Linda T rtm l '. JENNIFER MY %WASSONEXP1AES Ockber18.2018 / ° r'r r x i�. i ary P • alis, in and for the State of Texas e After Recording Return To: Colin L Murchison Jackson Walker, LLP 777 Main Street, Suite 2104 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 p•Insrlsityst9N to EO 121190061/.1 f 45605/O00{i t Prepared in the Law Mee of Jackson Walker, LLP 777 Maio Street, Suite 2100 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 PACE: 2 859328 02/17/2015 04:14:36 PM Page 3 of 3 Jean Alberico, Garfield County, Colorado Rec Fee: $21.00 Doc Fee: $0.00 eRecorded Exhibit "A" Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6(h Principal Meridian Section 31: E %: NE'/., NE '% SE'/a Section 32: W 'A NW 'h, W '/: SW '/ Exhibit B Page 8of11 EXCEPT a tract of land situate in the NE Y NE'/., Sec. 31 Tp. 6S., R. 90 W., 6th P.M., lying Southerly of a County Road as constructed and in place, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of said road whence a stone properly marked for the E''/ corner of Sec. 30 in said Township and Range bears N. 07° 10' 45" E. 2692.71 feet; thence S. 00° 16' 29" W. 205.54 feet; thence N. 88° 44' 59" W. 177.41 feet; thence N. 00° 02' 47" W. 205.72 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of said road; thence S. 88° 42' 03" E. 178.56 feet along the Southerly right-of-way line of said road to the point of beginning, containing 0.84 acres, more or less. Subject property contains 280 acres, more or less. DISTRIBUTION DEED PAGE 3 12119006V.1 145605/00001 LOS00 '3LSY0 M3N MON )133N0 0131121tl0 SRL H0SIN1'f OT/NO0 '.)uIYaiuuasns ' xoog A 1Vld NO11,11,23X3 NOISVU09f1S HOSILLL L$91.9 00 '3113V0 M3N COON )I332I0 O13138V0 SZZL HOSRLL'f OTYNO0 E 3 C1 Cr) ' O 65 O � o N "1 O U 4-1ti (4 o U O (I) � � o W3 0s tS D4 Ci) IS 0 Ci rr O '~2 2 U a ti 3 .%✓ a:�s:�,�N e -T 7 CF'SLer 99 81Y..MN 1 I I � I � I i I l a 43 WTI O. a I OSLfr.Oos ,/ r cs Q z 5 k W M+ ppg E CJI' es :71$ 4e f c __.- / , / 1 1 ----- ‘i) I1 114I III I ,,,," 0" g L,`,x ��/ , 6 + 0 - 'c, �$`s '+/µsq 1 Scale:1 "=100' d 10 �g6E ii � e Exhibit B Page 11 of 11 From: Whitehead - DNR, Dwight To: Patrick L. Barker; Robin Mueller Subject: TRISCH, Water Well Permit Application, Receipt no. 9504077 Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:40:17 PM Patrick, We are in receipt of the Water Well Permit Application for Donald Trisch, County Road 312, New Castle CO, pending Trisch Exemption, Garfield County. The application will be entered and reviewed under Receipt no. 9504077. Additionally the $100 non-refundable filing fee will be billed to James Neu's credit card with the number ending in 5915. Please note billing is through our Denver Office and will have lag time. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards Dwight Whitehead Well Commissioner Division 5 Water Resources PO Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 COLORADO Department of Natural Resources P 970-945-5665 x5011 f 970-945-8741 dwight.whitehead@state.co.us 1 www,water.state.co.us Total Control Panel To: plba mountainlawtirm.com Remove this sender from my allow list From: dwight.whitehead@state.co.us You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Login Exhibit C Page 1 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY 2011-1 John W. Hickenlooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director/State Engineer CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF NEW DIVISIONS OF LAND BY SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, AND CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT WHEN CONSIDERING PROPOSALS FOR WATER SUPPLY FROM PROPOSED WELLS OR EXISTING WELLS Objective The objective of this policy is to give guidance for the evaluation of wells used as a water supply in a new subdivision, as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a) C.R.S. ("Subdivision"). This policy also revokes the following policies: • The January 3, 1985 policy whose subject was the "Combination of smaller parcels to qualify for "Domestic" use under CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)", • POLICY MEMORANDUM 93-5, dated February 14, 1994, that addresses the situation "In Over -Appropriated Basins — Expanding the use of a Pre May 8, 1972 well on an intact Pre -June 1, 19721 Lot of Less Than 35 acres — to Add a Water Supply for ONE Single Family Dwelling", • Policy 95-7, dated December 28, 1995, whose subject was "Subdivision Water Supply Pian Review", along with that policy's Descriptive Clarification A dated April 18, 2000, and • Continued revocation of the March 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM that had been previously revoked by Policy 95-7 In addition, this policy will clarify the State Engineer's position on the validity of an existing well located on a parcel of land when providing comments to county planning departments for subdivision exemptions or cluster developments that involve that parcel. Policy 1. Divisions of land by subdivision and the effect of 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) Effective immediately, any well, existing or proposed, that will be located in a Subdivision that results in the creation of one or more new parcels will be subject to an evaluation of whether the well will cause material injury. This evaluation for material injury does not When a lot is described as being "pre" or"post-June 1, 1972", that date is a reference to the effective date of SB72-35, that is, the date on which certain county requirements regarding subdivision water supplies became effective (30-28-133). Note that 30-28-133(1) allowed counties until September 1, 1972 to adopt and enforce such regulations. Therefore, in many counties, a parcel created after June 1, 1972 but before September 1, 1972 may qualify as a "pre -June 1, 1972 parcel" if the county adopted and enforced the regulations after the parcel's creation date but on or prior to September 1, 1972. If a county did not adopt and enforce regulations until after September 1, 1972, all parcels created after June 1, 1972 are "post -June 1, 1972" parcels. Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 http://water.state.co.us Policy 2011-1 Evaluation of Subdivisions and Subdivision Exemptions Exhibit C Page,age f extend to Subdivisions that the county requires of a landowner for the sole purpose of "legalizing" a parcel that has been in existence since June 1, 1972 nor does it apply to subdivisions for which the State Engineer has already provided comment to the county and the county has not requested new comment. If the well is in an over -appropriated basin and in a tributary source, or a not nontributary source in the Denver Basin, it shall be presumed to cause injury. In such a case, an assessment that the subdivision's proposed water supply will not cause material injury, can only be allowed if the proposed well is part of a court -approved augmentation plan and can be issued a well permit under such a plan. Note that, as stated in Policy 2003-2, the State Engineer will not approve substitute water supply plans for wells in new Subdivisions. 2. Existing well on divisions of land by subdivision exemption or creation of cluster development Through a separate memo, date March 11, 2011, the State Engineer has encouraged county planners to forward land use actions to the State Engineer's Office for comment in any case where the county is presented with a proposal to split a parcel of land when the parcel has an existing well or a permit issued for the construction of a well. In the event that the land division results in the well being located on a parcel that is smaller than the parcel that was considered when issuing the original well permit, the SEO will inform the county that, upon completion of the land use action, the existing well owner must re -permit the well consistent with the law as it applies to the size of the newly -created parcel on which it is located. Further, that requirement should be plainly visible on the plat such that the current owner and any prospective buyer will be aware of the requirement. Background 1. Divisions of land by subdivision and the effect of 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) The State Engineer's Office receives Subdivision water supply plans from county planning departments for review to provide "an opinion regarding material injury likely to occur to decreed water rights by virtue of diversion of water necessary or proposed to be used to supply the proposed Subdivision and adequacy of proposed water supply to meet requirements of the proposed Subdivision" as required under Section 30-28-136(h)(I), C.R.S. Often that review includes consideration of existing wells on the property and wells proposed to be permitted after the Subdivision is complete. Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(Il)(A) allows the permitting of wells for residential uses with a presumption of no material injury. Therefore, it would appear that a Subdivision's water supply could be provided by exempt wells issued pursuant to 37-92- 602(3)(b)(II)(A) based on a presumption that none of the wells would cause material injury. To prevent such an outcome, as a result of the General assembly enacting SB7 in 1975, 37-92- 602(3)(b)(III) states the following: "(111) If the (permit) application is for a well, as defined in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (b), which will be located in a subdivision, as defined in section 30-28-101(10), C.R.S. , and approved on or after June 1, 1972, pursuant to article 28 of title 30, C.R.S., for which the water supply plan has not been recommended for approval by the state engineer, the cumulative effect of all such wells in the subdivision shall be considered in determining material injury." Policy 2011-1 Evaluation of Subdivisions and Subdivision Exemptions Exhibit C Pagpage f The plain language of this provision in the statutes applies only to consideration of an "application" for a well, not consideration of an existing well. The plain language also requires consideration of the "cumulative effect of all such wells" when determining injury. These statements have led to questions of whether an existing well, for which no permit application is required, should also be subject to the cumulative effect consideration, regardless of when and how it was permitted. Also, use of the term "cumulative effect" raises the question of whether there is a certain number of wells, or a certain volume of depletion that results from the cumulative pumping of all wells that will cross a threshold and be considered injurious. The result of these questions has been difficult and often inconsistent analysis of water supply plans that propose the use of a limited number of new or existing wells. The Division of Water Resources' documentation on exempt well permitting suggests a straightforward implementation of 37-92-602(3)(b)(III). In 1972 HB -1042 created the statutory "presumption that there will not be material injury" from exempt wells that would be used "solely for ordinary household purposes inside a single-family dwelling" and for wells on "a tract of land of 35 acres or more." This allowance gave landowners the ability to use a well for a water supply for their residence without an analysis of injury that would otherwise have been required pursuant to 37-92-602(3)(b)(I) [at the time, this statute was 148-21-45(3)(b)(I)]. During the same year, SB -35 was enacted. This legislation required the State Engineer to give an opinion to county planning departments regarding water supplies for new Subdivisions, including Subdivisions that would use wells. Then, during 1975, SB -7 enacted the new provision found in 37-92-602(3)(b)(III). Given this sequence of new legislation, it is reasonable to conclude that the objective of 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) was to prevent continued, large-scale subdivision of land into numerous parcels, each of which would qualify for an exempt household use only well under the presumption of no injury. Since Colorado water law did not — and does not now — recognize a de minimis amount for the purposes of determining injury, it is reasonable to conclude that 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) would apply to the cumulative effect that occurred from one well as much as from 100 wells. From this, the intent of 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) is that post -SB -35 parcels, that is, those created after June 1, 1972 according to the provisions of 30-28-133, can obtain a water supply only from wells that do not cause injury; no presumption of no injury would apply. This disallows the use of a well that could otherwise have been permitted according to the presumption of no injury and it also requires that any new or existing well (including pre -May 8, 1972 wells) that would be used in the subdivision, be evaluated according to 37-92- 602(3)(b)(I) to determine whether that well will cause injury. Therefore, all wells proposed as the water supply in a Subdivision must be evaluated to determine whether they cause injury, without the allowance of the presumption of non -injury found in 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A). 2. Existing well on divisions of land by subdivision exemption or creation of cluster development Many counties routinely allow parcels of land to be divided under limited conditions with an exemption from the statutory subdivision process identified in 30-28-133 ("Subdivision Exemption"). A division of land by Subdivision Exemption that involves a parcel that is 35 acres or larger, when that parcel has an existing well permit whose issuance is premised on the parcel being 35 acres or larger, has potential to create a conflict between the continued legal operation of the existing well on one of the newly -created parcels and the evaluation of a new well permit for another of the newly -created parcels. Policy 2011-1 Evaluation of Subdivisions and Subdivision Exemptions Exhibit C Pag'agef54 A simple example is the scenario where a landowner owns a square 40 -acre parcel. According to 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), because the parcel is larger than 35 acres, the landowner may acquire a well permit ("Permit A") for use in up to three single-family dwellings, irrigation of one acre of lawn and garden, domestic animal watering, and pasture livestock watering. One requirement is that it be the only exempt well permit on the parcel. In granting such a permit, the State Engineer's Office ("SEO") will document that the 40 -acre parcel has been considered in issuing a well permit and that no other exempt well permit may be issued on that land, nor may that land be considered as the basis for the issuance of another exempt permit. If that same landowner splits that parcel through a Subdivision Exemption and the well is located on a newly -created parcel of smaller than 35 acres, it would a appear that the original basis for the issuance of Permit A is no longer valid due to the fact that the well is no longer located on a "parcel" of 35 acres. If that situation is not corrected, an application for an exempt well permit on another of the newly -created parcels ("Permit B"), would appear to invalidate one of the conditions for the issuance of Permit A, that is, the original well would no longer be the only well on the original 40 acres. Before the split. Permit A Area is shaded to document the encumbrance by Permit A After the split Permit A Permit B (in shaded area) If the land split takes place without reconciling the issue at that time, the unavoidable outcome in this scenario is that at a later date, the SEO must do one of the following: 1. Allow Permit A to stay in effect and deny Permit B, 2. Allow Permit A to 'stay in effect and issue Permit B, resulting in a violation of Permit A's conditions of approval, 3. Revoke Permit A and issue Permit B, resulting in a requirement that Permit A be reissued with its allowed uses being reduced to household purposes inside a single- family dwelling with no outside uses allowed. None of the alternatives is desirable from a legal or administrative perspective. This same scenario may also occur when the original parcel is smaller than 35 acres. Therefore, for a division of land that results in a well being located on a parcel that is smaller than the parcel that was considered when issuing the original well permit, the State Engineer's Office will recommend that the county require that, as a condition of approving the land division, the existing well owner re -permit the well consistent with current law as it applies to the newly - created parcel on which the well is located. This eliminates the possibility of sharing a tributary Policy 2011-1 • Evaluation of Subdivisions and Subdivision Exemptions Exhibit C Page 5 of 5 Page 5 well between newly -created parcels using an existing well's ability to serve more than one single family dwelling, since a new well permit on a parcel of less than 35 acres will be limited to inside uses only in just one single-family dwelling. Except as described herein, this policy may be modified or revoked only in writing by the State Engineer. Approved this /1- day of MA ick Wolfe, P.E. Director/State Engineer , 2011. Exhibit D Page 1 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES March 11, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO: ALL COUNTY LAND USE PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DICK WOLFE, STATE ENGINEER John W. Hickenlooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director/State Engineer SUBJECT: STATE ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR CERTAIN LAND USE ACTIONS Introduction On March 4, 2005, the State Engineer approved a memorandum to the Land Use Planning Directors for each county in the state. The memorandum addressed the State Engineer's responsibilities in providing "an opinion regarding material injury likely to occur to decreed water rights by virtue of diversion of water necessary or proposed to be used to supply the proposed subdivision and adequacy of proposed water supply to meet requirements of the proposed subdivision" as required under Section 30-28- 136(h)(I) C.R.S. The direction in that memorandum remains valid. The objective of this memorandum is to provide land use planning directors with additional important information in an attempt to reduce the incidence of well permitting conflicts that may result from land use actions that split parcels of land but do not involve the subdivision of land as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S. An action that results in the division of a parcel of land that is 35 acres or larger, when that parcel has an existing well permit whose issuance is premised on the parcel being 35 acres or larger, has potential to create a conflict between the continued legal operation of the existing well on one of the newly -created parcels and the ability to issue a new well permit for another of the newly -created parcels. This potential conflict also exists in the division of a parcel that is smaller than 35 acres. Recommendation Therefore, by this memo, we recommend that you forward land use actions to the SEO for comment in any case where you are presented with a proposal to split a parcel of land and the land has an existing well or a permit issued for the construction of a well. Background Consider the scenario where a landowner owns a square 40 -acre parcel. According to 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), because the parcel is 35 acres or larger the landowner may acquire a well permit ("Permit A") for use in up to three single-family dwellings, irrigation Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 http://water.state.co_us All County Land Use Planning Directors State Engineer's Recommendation for Certain Land Use Actions Exhibit D Paiggg3 2f 3 of one acre of lawn and garden, domestic animal watering, and pasture livestock watering. One limitation is that it be the only exempt well permit on the parcel. In granting such a permit, the State Engineer's Office ("SEO") will document that the 40 - acre parcel has once been considered in issuing a well permit and that no other exempt well permit may be issued on that land, nor may any part of that land be considered as the basis for the issuance of another exempt permit. If that same landowner splits that parcel through a process exempt from subdivision requirements and the well is located on a newly -created parcel of smaller than 35 acres, it would a appear that the original basis for the issuance of Permit A is no longer valid due to the fact that the well is no longer located on a "parcel" of 35 acres. If that situation is not corrected, an application for an exempt well permit on another of the newly -created parcel ("Permit B"), would appear to invalidate one of the conditions for the issuance of Permit A, that is, Permit A would no longer be the only well on the original 40 acres. Before the split. Permit A Area is shaded to document the encumbrance by Permit A After the split Permit A Permit B (in shaded area) If the land split takes place without reconciling the issue at that time, the unavoidable outcome in this scenario is that at a later date, the State Engineer's Office ("SEO") must' do one of the following: 1. Allow Permit A to stay in effect and deny Permit B, 2. Allow Permit A to stay in effect and issue Permit B, resulting in a violation of Permit A's conditions of approval, 3. Revoke Permit A and issue Permit B, resulting in a requirement that Permit A be reissued with its allowed uses being reduced to household purposes inside a single-family dwelling with no outside uses allowed. None of the alternatives is preferable from a legal or administrative perspective. This same scenario may also occur when the original parcel is smaller than 35 acres. Therefore, by this memo, we recommend that you forward land use actions to the SEO for comment in any case where you are presented with a proposal to split a parcel of land and the land has an existing well or a permit issued for the construction of a well. In the event that the land division results in the well being located on a parcel that is smaller than the parcel that was considered when issuing the original well permit, the SEO will inform the county that, upon completion of the land use action, the existing well owner must re -permit the well consistent with the law as it applies to the size of the newly -created parcel on which it is located. Further, that requirement should be plainly All County Land Use Planning Directors State Engineer's Recommendation for Certain Land Use Actions visible on the plat such that the current owner and any prospective buyer will be aware of the requirement. Exhibit D PaQege V 3 While the SEO has no statutory responsibility to review land use actions such as these that do not involve the subdivision of land as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), the benefit of minimizing conflicts in these situations merits the attention of the SEO staff. Therefore, the staff of the SEO will respond to such land use action referrals from the county within 21 days of their receipt. Garfield County May 13, 2016 Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 i Officc: 970-945-8212 Fax 970-384-3470 Michael Sawyer Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 mis@mountainlawfirm.com RE: Director's Decision Trisch Road Split Exemption Garfield County File Number Dear Mr. Sawyer; This letter is being provided to you as the authorized representative of Donald Trisch in regard to the General Administrative Review Application for a Road Split Exemption located at 7225 CR 312. The site is known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2183-322-00-011 and includes 280 -acres. The Director's Decision on the Application is based on the following findings and subject to the Applicant's representations and conditions of approval. Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review Land Use Change Permit. 2, That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 3. That the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. Conditions 1. That all representations of the Applicant contained in the Application materials shall be conditions of approval unless specifically amended or modified by the conditions contained herein. 2. The amended Road Split Exemption plat shall be subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney's Office and the County Surveyor. All requirements from the County Surveyor shall be met prior to submittal of the plat for final execution. All plat certificates and signature blocks, plat notes, and easements shall be subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office. 3. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant shall submit a valid well permit for the parcel, well pump tests and water quality analysis, all of which must demonstrate that a sufficient legal and physical water supply is available to serve the lot. 4. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit a map, inventory and weed management plan of Garfield County listed noxious weeds for the 280 - acre parcel. This plan shall address appropriate management strategies and be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. 5. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall amend the proposed Road Split Exemption Plat based upon the staff comment letter dated May 9, 2016, and attached as Exhibit P, which requires the following: a. Entitle the plat 'Trisch Road Split Exemption Plat"; b. Add a purpose statement to the plat; c. Two standard plat notes have been omitted from the notes - please add the following: 1 Domestic Dogs. Dogs kept on the property shall be in a fenced yard or on a leash to prevent harassment of wildlife. ii. Wildlife -Friendly Fencing. Fencing on the property shall comply with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife specifications for wildlife -friendly fencing. d. The vicinity map appears to show the northern property bounty as a straight line when in fact there is a .84 -acre parcel that is not a part of the subject property. This map should be corrected. e. On sheet 2 of the plat the .84 -acre parcel noted above appears to be included in the subject parcel, it should clearly be marked as not included in the plat by listing the legal information and ownership. 1. The intent of an exemption plat is solely to describe the parcel being created. Clearly the overall 280 -acre site is not a part of the plat as it has not been surveyed, therefore the future legal description of the remainder property will be the current description with the exception of the 2.1 -acre road split exemption parcel. The new legal description for the 2.1 -acre parcel will be the Trisch Road Split Exemption Parcel. 2 g. The above change to the legal descriptions will require amendments to the descriptions in, at minimum, the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, and perhaps others. To try to explain this in another manner — remove the Exemption Parcel B property description in the certificate of Dedication and Ownership — the plat is not creating a Parcel B, it is only creating a Road Split Parcel. h. The graphics on Page 2 should be amended so that the created 2.1 -acre parcel is the focus of the plat and the scale should allow details of the property to be shown including the irrigation ditch and creek. The overall parcel should be shown in detail so that it is clear where the 2.1 acre parcel is located within the overall property. i. Please locate a building envelope on the plat to assure that any home constructed on the site is compliant with separation and setback distances as indicated in the supplemental information submitted on May 3, 2016. 6. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall correct the plat by adding the location of Garfield Creek to the subject site. 7. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit recording fees and a mylar with the following signed certificates: a. Certificate of Dedication and Ownership (notarized); b. Any mortgagee, if applicable; c. Title Certificate; d. Treasurer's Certificate; e. Surveyor Certificate. 8. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall provide letters of acceptance from the Young and Hess ditch owners with regard to the proposed access and maintenance easement pursuant to Section 7-201 E.(5). of the LUDC. 9. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $200.00 made out to the Garfield County Treasurer to satisfy the fee in - lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot. 10. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat, the Applicant must demonstrate satisfaction of payment of one-half of the $2,771.48 Road Impact Fee. The remaining dollar amount for the fee will be due prior to issuance of a building permit for the site. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the site, a Driveway Permit shall be obtained from Garfield County Road & Bridge and any required improvements permit shall be completed. 3 This Director's Decision will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a period of 10 days so that they may determine whether or not to call up the application for further review. Once this time period has passed with no request for review or public hearing, and provided all relevant conditions of approval have been resolved the Land Use Change Permit will be issued. Please contact this department if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tamra Allen, AICP Acting Director of Community Development Department CC: Board of County Commissioners File 4 Director Decision, May 13, 2016 Exhibits — Trisch Exemption RSEA-03-16-8432 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) F Exhibit A Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments B Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended D Application E Staff Report F Email dated March 28, 2016 from Dan Goin, Road & Bridge G Email dated April 5, 2016 from Levi Atwater, Colorado Parks and Wildlife H Letter dated April 14, 2016 from Katherine and Gerald Richardson 1 Letter dated April 18, 2016 from Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue J Letter dated April 19, 2016 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management K Memo dated April 19, 2106 from Megan Sullivan, Division of Water Resources L Email dated April 22, 2016 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering M Email dated April 25, 2016 from Michael Erion, Water Resources Engineer N Supplemental information dated May 3, 2016 O Letter dated May 6, 2016 from Katherine Richardson P Plat comment Ietter from staff, dated May 9, 2016 Q Letter Dated May 9, 2016 from Lynn and Katherine Richardson R Email dated May 10, 2016 from Mike Sawyer S Road Impact Fee Calculations T Letter received May 12, 2016 from Brooke and Stace Stott U Email dated May 16, 2016 from Scott Aibner, County Surveyor PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACRES ZONING EXHIBIT Administrative Review -- Road Spilt Exemption Donald J. Trisch Michael Sawyer - Karp, Neu, Hanlon Approximately 7 miles south of CR 335 on CR 312 (Garfield Creek Road) Section 31 and 32, Township 6 South Range 90 West of the 6t" P.M. Overall parcel 280 -acres Proposed Road Split Parcel 2.1 -acres Rural I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Donald Trisch owns a 280 -acre parcel located 7 miles south of New Castle along Garfield Creek, as indicated in Figure 1, left. The owner requests a Road Split Exemption to allow for the creation of a 2.1- 1 acre parcel that exists on the opposite side of CR 312 from the remaining 278 -acre ranch. The application states that the road prevents joint use of the parcel in that "County Road 312 splits the Trisch ranch, L. severing off a 2.13 acre parcel that cannot be jointly used with the larger 278 acre parcel." This statement is supported by assertions that the 2.13 acre parcel is not irrigated and the water rights associated with the 278 -acre parcel cannot be applied Figure 1 Vicinity Map to the 2.1 -acre parcel. The Applicant states that in the past the parcel has yielded non -irrigated hay but that the site cannot be used for cattle operations due to the existence of the County Road and the lack of fencing on the 2.1 -acre site. If cattle were to utilize the 2.1 -acre site there are no water rights associated with the property 11P�4�� Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 even though the Young and Hess Ditch and Garfield Creek flow through the property. Supplement information provided, Exhibit N, states that "For at least 12 years, the 2.13 acre parcel has only been used for sacrifice purposes: cutting some interior quality hay, stacking yard for hay, and a place to park unutilized equipment." 'I1, DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 7 / 1 ` _ - ^ "- .,S+.on 1.1 Det r'h N ctb>t+ 29 A 32 A 31,4 n'1 a Ation on Cap LS Nn. 34572 in Place ' / i -- 41- --- -_•-'21::.--• --- LY A -.*.il .1' -'—Tab __-x •\ •Exemption Parcel A (-".131 Ae . J \ 5 \. Nru2 Oa `,\\ • �.^ ~--��q.. \5 J ]So us+. fb -'`\iy \ \\ ,...,,.... f, 5 V u.ut.s+......+ tad \ \ \\ s .\ ��% \iV\ \ 4, ‘ •\O rG 1. \ \ Figure 2 Proposed Road Split \ \,'\ `,\\\ Parcel �\ \\. necessary infrastructure and a single family home on the lot while meeting the minimum setback and separation distances required. Figure 3 indicates the buildable area of the site based upon location of the well and septic systems while maintaining the required separation from ditch and creek. The proposed exemption parcel is 2.13 - acres in size and in encumbered by an overhead electric line, the Young and Hess Ditch, and Garfield Creek. The ditch bifurcates the triangular shaped site east to west through the apparent center of the parcel and the overhead electric line is located near the center of the site running essentially north/south. As Figure 3 indicates the site's residential developable area is on the southwest side of the overhead electric line. The site is proposed to be served by well and septic, each of which require separation and setbacks from waterbodies as well as from each other. The Applicant has demonstrated that it is physically possible to fit all of the roc ISDS separation from the ditch Feet \ t_ I !- r ._ Erem P? Overhead electric line =f" D.vis C1-9' w ,-,,• 2'9'1' !3 3E454/Creek R0AD 25' front \ cethack \ • Young and Necc hitch �-\ PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPRINT 100'I505st_r3AcR ISDS Feld ,F�Ro,a WELL \ y 25'SEIEACAFROM tl�ICC \: C-..-. . COUNTY ROAD ROW 1G� -0(`A, 100' setback orr Potential huilrlino cit Ct(\�Ff+s ISDS from '\. F^�\ ` Well \ \ \ 5 5 r* 4 tv 9b.. 571535 SETBACK FROM GARFIELD CREEK F'rsait311.1ARY SPA C'IG A'.6 SETDA Ia —7 nrat,.t T +r 1" e.. '° t SR rx*p I tISCH SL430151SION EXEVPT1 -14 21Pa;'e Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 Figure 4 Garfield Creek Figure 3 Young and Hess Ditch Richardson Home Figure 5 Approximate building location SII. PUBLIC AND REFERRAL COMMENTS The Applicant has provided documentation that all required notice mailings have been completed in accordance with the LUDC. Public comments and referral agency comments were received and are attached as Exhibits as noted. The comments received are summarized below: Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 1. Garfield County Road & Bridge, Exhibit F: Dan Goin responded to the referral that the site will need to get a driveway permit and bring the driveway up to standards. 2. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Exhibit G: Levi Atwater responded that Garfield Creek is a very important drainage that winters a large amount of deer and elk, and is an area that has experienced a significant increase in development. Due to the proximity of the home to the road CPW has no significant concerns with the proposal. 3. Colorado River Fire Rescue, Exhibit I: Orrin Moon had no concerns. 4. Garfield County Vegetation Management, Exhibit J: Steve Anthony requests that the Applicant submit a map, inventory and weed management plan for Garfield County listed noxious weeds for the entire parcel. This plan shall address appropriate management strategies for noxious weeds. 5. Division of Water Resources, Exhibit K: Megan Sullivan noted that the proposed exemption is not defined as a subdivision by state statutes therefore the 2.1 -acre site may qualify for a well permit that is exempt for administration in Colorado's water rights priority system. Ms. Sullivan goes on to note that the area is overappropriated and therefore any use of the well will be for household only purposes associated with on single family dwelling unit. A statement is also made that they cannot guarantee the issuance of a well permit for this site. 6. Mountain Cross Engineering, Exhibit L: Chris Hale responded that the well quantity and quality tests are required and that a site layout is required to demonstrate adequacy of separation and setbacks. 7. Water Resource Engineer, Exhibit M: Michael Erion responded that if the County approves the exemption of the parcel that an exempt in-house use only well permit will be issued by the Division of Water Resources. Mr. Erion notes that information was included in the application that asserts a reasonable probability that a well with adequate water quantity and quality can be drilled on the site. 8. Public Comment Letters a. Lynn and Katherine Richardson, Exhibits H and Q — As adjacent owners to the subject site, the Richardson's are opposed to the creation of a homesite at this location as they state that the site has been operationally utilized with the overall site. The site is essential to the cattle ranch operations. The size of the parcel is also of concern due to the encumbrances on the site. In response to the Supplement Materials, Exhibit Q states that the site is not compliant with the Residential Low Density designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The maintenance easement and access provided for the Young and Hess Ditch may not be sufficient. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating that CR 312 prevents joint use of the parcel. b. Katherine Richardson, Exhibit O — Comments are related to the supplemental information provided by the Applicant and states that it does not appear that 41L Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 sufficient proof was included to demonstrate that the proposed site cannot be used jointly with the larger parcel. The application should be required to go through a full subdivision review rather than an exemption. c. Stacey and Brooke Stott, Exhibit T — Mr. and Mrs. Stott commented that they are the contract purchasers for the 2.1 -acre site. They had previously stated that they plan to construct a spec home on the parcel because as long-time residents to the area want to welcome others to enjoy the area. The letter also states that the site is not large enough to pasture cattle and that the lack of fencing on the site would cause a nuisance to have cattle cross the county road. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article 5 regarding Road Split Exemptions: 5-201. PUBLIC/COUNTY ROAD SPLIT EXEMPTION. Pursuant to C.R.S. §30-28-101(10)(d), the BOCC has established Public/County Road Split Exemption as exempt from the definition of Subdivision but subject to Exemption Review. Review Criteria. Approval of a Public/County Road Split Exemption shall require a factual finding of the following: 1. The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed lots; 2. Upon approval of the Road Split Exemption, the proposed exemption lot will have the ability to be issued a well permit for a sufficient legal supply. A recommended condition of approval is necessary regarding drilling and testing of the well prior to Board signature on the final plat, this is to assure an adequate physical source of water pursuant to section 7-104, Source of Water. 3. The proposed exemption lot has the ability to construct an adequate sewage disposal system pursuant to section 7-105, Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems. 4. The proposed Road Split Exemption lot will have legal and adequate access pursuant to section 7-107, Access and Roadways. 5. The Final Plat for the Road Split Exemption will meet the requirements of Section 5-402.F., Final Plat if recommended conditions of approval are adopted by the decision -maker. Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 STAFF CONCERNS 1. The County Road Split Exemption process requires that the Applicant demonstrate compliance with a criteria that the right-of-way prevents joint use of the affected, proposed lots. The Director has found that the ROW does appear to prevent joint use based upon the representations made by the Applicant in Supplemental Materials, Exhibit N. 2. The proposed ±2 -acre parcel is encumbered by an overhead electric line, the Young and Hess Ditch and by Garfield Creek, as discussed in this report. The Applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to construct a home, septic system and a well on the site within the allotted areas while maintaining the required separation of these uses. However the developable area is so constrained that Staff recommends that a Building Envelope be required on the plat to assure that no impact results to the irrigation ditch or Garfield Creek from installation of a septic system and well on the site. 3. The Road Split Exemption Plat does not currently meet the Garfield County requirements. Staff provided a letter regarding required changes on May 9, 2016, Exhibit P, and incorporates those plat changes as conditions of approval. ex= -1, 1`. L94TW 044A.a•. Mia. Subject Site 21,0Adliss. A•Penakft Not OS W�. Figure 6 Road Impact Fee Map 4. Road Impact Fees are required when a new parcel is created within certain districts of the County. The subject site is located within Road District 3 as indicated in Figure 6, left. The fee calculated for this site is $2,771.48, of which one-half is due at the time of plat recording, and the remainder is due at building permit. The formula and calculations are provided as Exhibit S. 5. Adjacent property owner Katherine Richardson has responded to the application, Exhibit 0, that the property has historically been jointly utilized thus the prevention of joint use has not been satisfied. 61" Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 6. Lynn and Katherine Richardson, adjacent property owners, responded in Exhibits H and 0 that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof with regard to the prevention of joint use of the site. They have concerns related to the access and maintenance for the Young and Hess Ditch, of which they are shareholders, and concems related to the size and numerous encumbrances on the 2.1 -acre parcel. They seek a full subdivision review of the proposal rather than an approval of the proposed exemption from subdivision regulations. 7. The Young and Hess Ditch is an unincorporated ditch company that appears to serve two water rights owners that may be affected by the proposed use of the subject site. The LUDC requires that an adequate easement be created to allow for ditch access and maintenance purposes and the Applicant has proposed to include a 25' easement along the ditch, based upon the agreement with Stacey Stott, one of the ditch users. This easement would be ten foot from the centerline on the south and west side and fifteen feet on the north and east side of the ditch. Lynn and Katherine Richardson, the other ditch owner, questions the size of the easement and cite volumes of legal statutes containing language regarding ditch owner rights to access ditches. Mr. Richardson states that the ditch company may become organized and, at that time, would discuss the necessary easement required for the ditch. Section 7-201 E., Ditches, requires that a maintenance easement be indicated on a final plat and that the Applicant provide a letter from the ditch owner accepting that the development proposal will have no impact on their ability to maintain the ditch. This has not been the case therefore compliance with the LUDC requires a condition of approval that the Applicant provide a letter of acceptance from the ditch owner with regard to the proposed access and maintenance easement. This may require amending the proposed easement and therefore the acceptance of an easement must occur prior to the BOCC signing the Road Split Exemption Plat. 8. A letter of support for the road split exemption was received from Brooke and Stacey Stott. VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS The following findings are provided in support of a decision approving the application: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review Land Use Change Permit. 2. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 3. That the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 'VilI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A Director decision to approve the Road Split Exemption should be subject to the following conditions of approval in order for the request to satisfy the above findings: 1. That all representations of the Applicant contained in the Application materials shall be conditions of approval unless specifically amended or modified by the conditions contained herein. 2. The amended Road Split Exemption plat shall be subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney's Office and the County Surveyor. All requirements from the County Surveyor shall be met prior to submittal of the plat for final execution. All plat certificates and signature blocks, plat notes, and easements shall be subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office. 3. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant shall submit a valid well-permit-ferthe'parcet, well pump tests and water quality analysis, all of which must demonstrate that a sufficient Ial and. physical water supply is available to serve the lot. 4 LOC 4. Prior to the Board of County Commissionersrsignature \on the Road 'Split WV Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit a map, inventory and weed management plan of Garfield County listed noxious weeds for the 280 -acre parcel. 1 This plan shall address appropriate management strategies and be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager. 5. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant shall amend the proposed Road Split Exemption Plat based upon the staff comment letter dated May 9, 2016, and attached as Exhibit P, which requires the following: a. Entitle the plat "Trisch Road Split Exemption Plat"; b. Add a purpose statement to the plat: c. Two standard plat notes have been omitted from the notes - please add the following: 1 Domestic Dogs. Dogs kept on the property shall be in a fenced yard or on a leash to prevent harassment of wildlife. ii. Wildlife -Friendly Fencing. Fencing on the property shall comply with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife specifications for wildlife -friendly fencing. d. The vicinity map appears to show the northern property bounty as a straight line when in fact there is a .84 -acre parcel that is not a part of the subject property. This map should be corrected. Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 e. On sheet 2 of the plat the .84 -acre parcel noted above appears to be included in the subject parcel, it should clearly be marked as not included in the plat by listing the legal information and ownership. f. The intent of an exemption plat is solely to describe the parcel being created. Clearly the overall 280 -acre site is not a part of the plat as it has not been surveyed, therefore the future legal description of the remainder property will be the current description with the exception of the 2.1 -acre road split exemption parcel. The new legal description for the 2.1 -acre parcel will Trisch Road Split Exemption Parcel. g. The above change to the legal descriptions will require amendments to the descriptions in, at minimum, the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, and perhaps others. To try to explain this in another manner — remove the Exemption Parcel 8 property description in the certificate of Dedication and Ownership - the plat is not creating a Parcel B, it is only creating a Road Split Parcel. h. The graphics on Page 2 should be amended so that the created 2.1 -acre parcel is the focus of the plat and the scale should allow details of the property to be shown including the irrigation ditch and creek. The overall parcel should be shown in detail so that it is clear where the 2.1 acre parcel is located within the overall property. i. Please locate a building envelope on the plat to assure that any home constructed on the site is compliant with separation and setback distances as indicated in the supplemental information submitted on May 3, 2016. 6. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant shall correct the plat by adding the location of Garfield Creek to the subject site. 7. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant shall submit recording fees and a mylar with the following signed certificates: 1 yS a. Certificate of Dedication and Ownership (notarized); b. Any mortgagee, if applicable; J7 c. Title Certificate; XAI‘l d. Treasurer's Certificate; s �� e. Surveyor Certificate. Gcie Gtr 8. Prior to the Board of County Commissio ers signature on the Road Exemption Plat the Applicant shall provide etters of accepta ce-fr e Young and Hess ditch owners- with regard to the proposed access and maintenance easement pursuant 6a Section 7-201 E.(5). of the LUDC. 9. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $200.00 made out to the Garfield County Treasurer to satisfy the fee in -lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot. 10. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption Plat the Applicant must demonstrate satisfaction of payment of one- half of the $2,771.48 Road Impact Fee. The remaining dollar amount for the fee will be due prior to issuance of a building permit for the site. 91� Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the site a Driveway Permit shall be obtained from Garfield County Road & Bridge and any required improvements permit shall be completed. loft' -mt50,1 -03- 16 - S4-32 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. ® My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. X Mailed notice was completed on the 29th day of March , 2016. X All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. X All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means (list] which were described in Applicant's March 22, 2016 response regarding technical completeness review. ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. ❑ My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the day of , 2016. * Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. ❑ My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the day of , 2016. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: P Grabe, tant to Michael Sawyer Signatu L]2. Date: 1q •11.0 I9 S Pa`.a' c.CrV'ICLt:..• CER r LFIED MAIL. RECEIP I' AAA., Only; No lktsu I , G', .., Y:a.r're.5. For din, pry !rfPgrenadn weir Growl Fsr O %Wm Redo tt-+� x , 0 F..2 ra so....,rr« 4 O f0 tT1 BUREAU dF1ZAN• 'D COLO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE o : 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD l` ' SILT, CO 81652 7011 350U 0002 6240 8683 • Complete Item 1.2, and 3. • Print your name end address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card 10 the back of the meaptece, or on the front If space P Mt3. 1. AAde Addima.d tec 38 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, CO 81652 21 /3016 111111111111111111111111111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5198 4781366 'tit? M tad l�bta,) Aeon p Add*s.e• C. 0.. ot t).n ry 3 31.1(. 0. it dewy adtre.. M..1 rum Um 1? 0 ttr. 11 YES, weer ddAaly address below p No 3. 81Mcel}ps ° NIA Swam nasi eq istve Flet lei Nair/ O UMW Mal e.mdsd owrery 0 Medan Newer Collect en uresis R.rea:hd C+w+y Ad FlostrIeled 01.0.17 2. Mtcte Number (NOW from 'Woo kW 7011 3500 0002 6240 8768 Q MO, Md Enema ° naae..a wr O llrehine Mel tiwbtl.d OF d isIasvt for tio O ConanesecinflorrIckd o U.S. Posta! Service, CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT (Domestic Lfal Only No Irsur;rnce Coverage P1UViIie(1) teflon visit our weball. ui+vlw (Pfl. runs., IAL USE • Complete Items 1.2. end 3. • Part your nems and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the maniacal. or on the front If space pare. 1, Mirk Addressed to: WILLIAM M & PATRICIA A SMITI1 Pa.v+.It 795 COUNTY ROAD 326 SILT, CO 81652 11.4 WILLI 795 CO SILT, CO 81 11111111111111111111111111111II11IVI II II 9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 26 2 serves NnJrr .. Irani sandier lobes a. ° 0 0 n 7011 3500 0002 6240 8683 erwtc. ripe Mug IStnellse CREW h Grind Ma n.edd.d oMrey CM.kt cnUbe/ Cade en Warr anC+Wd Daley aM n.aa:rdon+.y - ^ Ps Form 3811, Apra 2015 PSN 7$30-02-020 o Preliy 67=0 ° niplq idd YiF' 0 P.Ditlkrsd Yee RrYkfrd ▪ Aden Pialot kr laretanthe SOgnolun 0 am,d as idtir dream Oommde Sabin Itee+lat ,03 er N N r9 rR ru -0 0 io ±!t7 m ut 0 N U.S. Postal Servic CERTIFIED MAIL'.RECEIPT rancstrc Mad' Only PERRY DA. '«I & 5118 COUNTY ROAD NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9624 m N r9 +o^ ra N 0 0 117 0 0 m N rq 0 N U S. Postai Service - CERTIFIED MAIL°,RECEIPT Domestic A7.141 Only .cry Information. r DE1(V R P,Pai $3.45 rarca,srro.ar..p.a DAM. FIMIXONekepjf Qame+aMalta ar$ wW C]c er.awanAWA DMA rhesus $0 0538 low UNITED Styes BUREAU OF LAND V4 2850 YOUNGFIELD STREET LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7210 T 2t 4 SENDEIT cD4:PLErU r1t;i f c71Ct`I • Compkta Items'', 2, and 3. • Prim your name and address on the remorse ab that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the maflplece, or on the front if apace pent**, 7E- ri1:.': ' : 11,771 ()fl VI .': r70, o Nem 0 Addressee t Mtde Addressed am UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2850 YOUNGF1ELD STREET LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7210 11111111111 IIIIIII1111111IlII1IIIII1V 9590 9409 0751 5196 4884 18 e Raeerod bided Name) C. Dete al Wien ,%y (He,(4.4,..f U, 31'WdgC� D. Is art ary address Meant awn nem 17 ti Yes 11 YES, miler delivery address below: 0 No 3. Servke Type Obriars M* (.tm.d MOO O C ruled Wil aertrktad Dolhory 0 carol a, Darer 2. Mkk Number Moneta,Lwd novice kebp OC wen DYR..Nerd Meng 7015 1730 0002 1917 7953 A.4 eeb o nwrr moa [meas o n.oraaauu� o =enol Lai needed 17 arum meets tar o Sepses* Ccarbas cors 0swan fantbmtb, Remind Dammy P9 Form 3811, Ap412015 PSN 753o- oo-sas3 • Complete Items 1. 2, end 3. a Print your name end addeaa on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the maflpfece, or an the Mont if apace amnia. Dorman Return Rebate (;(1,.:7--11- IF 71ft'i tFl 'rt "):; I11. 1,f; byriededNrwy C. Dee of Delvery 1. MldtAddwed ke PERRY DAN & MARY B RODREICK 5118 COUNTY ROAD 311 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9624 IIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIHI1111111ItIIU 9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 59 D. b deFery adder clamant barn kern 17 jSL1M 11 YES, enter Marry address blow: 0 No fl j c4-4032-4.— ,e2, g/& c!7 3. Sw*.lyps oArea lareses Mk& tenser, 121Cervres Mose D Camra we 0 bows ca Deeny 2. fridge Number (7ladsfMkom *erste robed O CbYct en 1:411rrr7 7015 1730 0002 1517 7984 be Si P3 Form 3811, Apra 2015 PS•75304124034053 Domestic Return Receipt 1 U.S. Postal Service's liCERTIFIED MAILS RECEIPT pomas Gu' !Jdtl Only For aeuoc t .ntorcatIon. IS our vnv, BAALI $3.45 r� • LONNIE R C./0 LONNIE CODY STO 251 EMMA ROAD BASALT, CO 81621 1 21 016 U.S. Postal Service"..: CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT YTApnleFGc fdalr (3v�y GERALDtn & KATHERINE RICH ON 1.. 7398 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9633 • Complete Item 1.2. aped 3. a Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. w Attach thla card to the back of the manpleaa. cr on the front 1 ecucc its, 1 Article Addressed Om A, LONNIE R & STACEY L STOTT C/O LONNIE CODY STOIC 251 EMMA ROAD BASALT, CO 81621 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 35 O Apam D o44!esen pied0ewery C� `S-JSQ D. is &awry oad hem lea1r l7 Les OYES, ale,addre,a bddw: own 3. SeMc.lypt Adelkeeture ioviodrun baadrw7 G oosed Roerstad arae.ry 0 Gannet m pommy quip Prue, ed►W Md Veneered oNaar Prompt kr leouvrabs 0 Carman Savaryfaatrsd Dlwy c0e "w 2. ArtkL Mamba fllsextAraomsevle+LDe4 �.ry o&p1 fl dtnhmmn 7015 1730 0002 1917 7977 hail mamma onary namd.aa+r.y PS Fort 3811. AM 2015 PSN 7590-02.00 -9053 Demesne Roam Receipt SENDER. COMPLE TE rlfi;s1-CtIrttl • Complete Item 1.2. and 3. • Print your name and address an the reverse ea that wenn return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of tho m& Ipiece, or on tho front If space permits. X r'1 a R.ceNad by tRfired Nam y Aped O Ackl rr C. MeatDenray 1. Mld. Addressed to GERALD RICHARDSON & KATHERINE RICHARDSON 7398 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9633 11111 111111111111111111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5198 4788 42 D. la drl'+ay &Ween Maya horn Steal? t3 Yes K YE% enter d.Hyay.da0sa below 0 No 3. Sa k:01•9a 0 Ada Slam.. 0 Adye Valeta Roe1did Dewy a Nan d Met as.stba Orr.y o card en draw, Ammo Moet or Mom* sem ss,tdce aodp 0 a�edm aa.yr.atetrd Worry 7015 1730 0002 1917 7960 nemmaowwy oMonty n r:e 0 Minn WA Plannand OMan Ikeetav Idivernonse 0 Orgies CmMnnicm. 0SlgrdAte t Floblds0 Colony PS Form 3811, Apil 2016 PSN Th3040-000-e053 Comedic Ream.Ncalbl a a - .D .s a ru 0 0 a 0 0 m a M1 U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL N RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Defy, No lrserarce Coverage Provided) For de{very Informatto•, •r w.:: ro ut vn MEM 0538 Peso flesessemert Restreed That Poem. & Fee THE JOHN MARY GIBSON TRUST 7550 COUNTY ROAD 312 NLW CASTLE, CO 81647 0 0 e m a -n ru ru a 0 0 0 m re 0 M1 21 /29/2016 U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL;,:, RECEIPT (Domestic Meli Only; Na A,suranccCoverage P; avided) «For dellvory Infornmtfcn vrs4 ow webelte et vrWd usps.code, NEmatinkir cQ 8?617 SENDER, GO:.7PLETE THIS SEC:VON • Complete :tend 1.2„ and 3. s Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the maliplece, or on the front 11 space permits. 1. Article Attdracud to: Trr- TI IE JUIN K REED TRUST & MARYiC IBSON TRUST 7550 ClUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81 647 IEF ?I tllr i 0 Agent Adidreer e �j�! C. DW of Newry e;l3fiZ srr' 41111'.. 1IIUIFIII(VIIIIIIIIII1IIITHIN11111H 9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 11 D. Is da very address Mears *ern It YES, enter delivery strias kst US? 3. Banker 1ypa 0 MIA Skeels Nara semen PWkaaddr.y OOelleut Ude c«aem Naleetel O.M2 0 Whet eeCider, 2 Article M,reer Mender er Awn fames kW 0 CNetOM r ..y Remu ede ud Dr 7011 3500 0002 6240 8690 al Medd lig 13 Waite Ma berme 12ManedMee wddned 0 Fleet asset for o pm gratirrneteree eardemsen Raked Neer/ PS Form 3811, Aprt 2015 PSN 7'530 a-000-8033 SENfEl CU,".:ptErE Mr; SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2. end S. Print Mir nem address on the reverse • eo trot wo return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the melpkos, won the front W specs permits. 1. Antic Addressed to: MARY GIBSON & JOHN K REED 7550 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 taw MARY G 7550 CO NEW CASTL 11111111111011I1I1111111t1111111111 9590 9403 0751 5196 4950 30 Dw7reedd Ratan Retest Itt IYp ridden afferent r wits, o Ass apses. tervicereme ,iamiResectal Ddu LAO* Number (e7an4rlhen tern** D Caeavton O Wt ryl►aotr.a DMy 7011 3500 0002 6240 8706 inured M PS form 3811. Ape 2016 PBM uJ Z r 0 Aaerl1 C DamedOMrdy 4 2718 USPS Dwnanb Ream Racatpt N m n 7011 3500 0002 6240 U.S. Postal Service,:, CERTIFIED MAIL•.. RECEIPT (Donteshc Malt Only: No insurance Ca; cra,c Prnvtd,d, For de lvrry rLtarmeton I "ffl T' O 16 7J RAM Obsioreetteni nrttad (Eat«,.aard 1. FLOYD & 7192 COU NEW CASTLE, 9/2016 U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT {Dornastic Mail Only, fix Insurance Coucragc P- r. dcd) ellvery tr+ormetion vrott our s eDaite at SE. 0538 Man (Ealasemeri Ilssained Dem" SO DANIEL 7129 COUNTY RO NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9634 9/2016 ingowoommormossammannomillommiNINACISM 1. Med*Addwaadta FLOYD & JENNIFER HOSTETLER 7192 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 11111111IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111III 9590 9402 1329 5285 2820 58 0.b doter/ raft= YE$ arae • APR 22 Ql0,,ik 3. B.*.7yp. D ,1d *ma � ADItSpehas 0llrpfrrd tier. 0 AAA NpaaaaroattaadDAsy 0M ind lir nlel.d O C7ry .d MA Fhk Otid Whir/ 0 «tra%00Os ❑ Coded aaDaher/ Nothwals Oa+setn'• cdummt?MydDa►ngc.D,bpraaanore cLBnm, Yes DNo 2. miaow/lbw (8ara6wamr'mint trtrep 7011 3500 0002 6240 8744 a psttrdDal.wy rwaatled Only , P8 Fars 3811, July 2015 PSN 733x02.003-080 • Compete kerns 1, 2, and 8. • Print your matte and address on The reverse so that we can return the cord to you. ■ Attach Ws card to the bade of the legatees, or on the front If woo pt r ta- 0omaso Rasnr Rscdpt Coc;r ; t tC THIS ;a C7ro? Uri BLitt, A. Glows xD71►1 1. Mode Addnsed lot DAN W & LISA E JENKINS 7129 ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9634 11111111IIIIIII1I11IIUI11IIIIII I 11111 9590 9402 1329 5285 2620 65 2. Mai limbo. nfttrodar Anne 7011 3500 0002 6240 5. `tl _ .:�6 D. la diary Wilma *Want *amain l? Chu I YES, saw dewily Odium babas D No t^aA OApant C. Dab d1 DsWwy a 8wntoalyps 0 AaMtegtw,e O Caul=Drag n nv .s.p Oabg Naatlal Orrwy 8737 rnrrtimdar..y P8 Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7630.02-0004053 Domatb Ratrm Rw:atut SENJEft: CC1t.;PLETE'MIS S'C CT ION • Complete Rant 1, 2, and 9. ■ PrRrt your name end address on the reverse so that we can stun the and to you. ■ Mach the cad to the back of the nallpl ce, or on the fiord If epees permits. 1. Arno' Addim»d se: RODNEY W & CAROLE J JOHNSON PO BOX 65 ROLETTE, ND 58366 11191511911011911p19911,1111,1111!1 2. Areae Number Maier bornunto tans, 7011 3500 0002 6240 rt);.•Ptt rt .•r:;;'L 4:Ttf)N(7,•l T.l.fl tT A SpvWes ii 1 G oohs ofDethery ttel z., ale-_co�- 4.- ']� 0. b satin demes ham lee 1? L7 Yes e YES, ardor d.hwy address blow: 0 No 9 BArybsType 0 AA* Elcroturr ° Carried Mae trrut.°oe..y o Coed ehehwNcbd sh y 0 Card on oeF.y O Cera en0a,wy Poinded Debery 8720 Ma Resetted DONT 0 Wares Eynon o peal a l o=we Mel Reeet1.d ▪ hewn Ree.plkr Medsm 0 o oiecaismed,� Bn neeacled Dray PS Fam 3811, My 2015 PSN 7530.02-000.1053 SENDER. COMPLETE TffrS; Sit1;TlC) ti Dornostic Return Receipt • covets Rema 1.2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the muse so that we can return the Card to you. • Mich this earl to the tech of the mellpecs, or at the float k space permits. 1. Mho Addressed tee OXY USA, INC. (OR ASSIGNEES) BLM O&G LEASE SERIAL NO. 065513 5 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 110 HOUSTON, TX 77046.0521 11 r;iti 1111111111111111111111111111 0590 0403 0751 819E 4684 23 C. c;:•PCC. fF TkriS T C Tit):1 c;p t;u IVF Re Q Addressee "44e C. Oho 017 0.locheery 'dome crer rdemraem1? 01M K YES, Greerdshwy address below: 0 No s. fluvooNos 0 Oda sosoco irs occloo.d Deno, 0 Cursed Aer Auerttd Mew/ a Meet err Davy 2 Arose Wisner Minder ham ,onion tab4 O Fleretwt yRerebtedwuwy 7015 1730 0002 1917 794b w terwrwar.ey eaa 0Realty MaRama Ilepeoo =WW1 1nweleled 00 Rosen Remert fur Marchmsbe Marden ami ~ R«emdNem P9 Form 3811. April 2015 PEN T630.02-000-901 tkxneds Rsbrn ReMpt N r 7011 3500 0002 1,24 -13 0' 1L Er 7015 1730 00 U.S Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; N. bisumnCe Cnvcragr Pro.iderll For dednsty 4Norrrenor crit our wabane ,t www U120 For^.:r, rr. s 0538 Return I seoncwd lEsderremeni • RODN PO BOX 6 ROLETTE, N 21 29/2016 ON t.S. Postal Service'" :ERTIFIED MAIL(' RECEIPT Only - q,re.o�uv:rromsaiwr,rltu.• Vgrrbxer a: 0.,cr °PPS AL U .r,-- - $3.45 E O era tstostamt Powm....131 t. <y1 a t mr pc+urnmaORM, 0$4•1110,41..14W Ind I tai Iroae •• $0.49 0 M • /2016 OXY US/0181C (OR ASSIGNEES) BLM O&G LEASE SERIAL NO 065513 5 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 110 —" —�"' HOUSTON, TX 77046-0521 I t7E ;) fq,s.a,tirrs ✓ Complete Items 1, 2, end 3. le Pont your name and address on the mane so that we can return the cant to you. ■ Attach No card to the beck of the maEpleee, mon the hunt dyne permits. LACY ORR & HOWARD G SMITH 319 E MAIN STREET CARTERSVILLE, GA 30120 11191091M121111!1,11 a Apert A , C. Di d Delve y 12 �a 1` CI Nb 0. 11D3, alter 3. Sant O ARA a MA r Craft! Us% 0 GAM w o Pim -:� 7 C.ere• eYNrr rn..wa�.»4 ...�.« n ti•-+ 7011 3500 0002 6240 8713 PS Form 3811, July 2618 PSN 7S30-02.0069ec1 . «+w rlrak00 Rootlet, °ipirise Combative` oerga Ostomiloo R,1mr! 1)010,1 Owead@ Rem Receipt • Complete Nems 1, 2. end 3. PI Print your name end address on the mew so that we Pan return the cord to you. ■ Attach rho card to the back of the melpiece, a on the boot If Speak POMO& 1. Ankle Addeased lx LESTER R & SARA LEE HANKS 7518 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 NII�lIUI1tIIq�IIlI1I1(ilgllll�Ill(! 9590 9402 1329 5285 2620 41 2. Adele Number %ihreck earn send= NW 7011 3500 0002 6240 B. ascend by potted Mend Ser $f 1.f.r txMYdolgisry de ,oberdebwyy 3. BeNoelyps a Aeutsween Et a0° ovoid wee wrtMtedawey a C01.0 on Dahwy Caewa Farrar/eeMsry 8751 1101111,060pdW ow = PS Farm 3811, guy 2016 PSN 7530.02-000.eoe owl" Mend LIFIRMIcled nere.ratee SWithundima ay Donteleic Rehm Receipt ; 0002 6240 8713 0 0 1.11 and a„e,.ar• Fees LACY OR6. 11319 E MAIN STR ti CARTERSVILLE, GA U.S. Postal Service„ CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (OomesGc Mal! Only: llo 105orance Co r cr age Provided) Far dsllvary Information visit our wcbste a< wwwuspe.com. 0538 21 coded Fila Ileum IftmeOpt FEndomonet naesree! wen gotarsierasni 2016 7011 3500 0002 6240 8751 U.S. Postal Servicer, CERTIFIED MAIL.,. RECEIPT (Domestic Man Only; Nu Insurance Caverege Provided) F1) du!Ivo y lnformatton visit our webo'' r'!• •wwbaps.com, 61 �0't-Fl.r Gargled Fos Raton Paoo0t Fero {E.Maerrer2 Aoreadp (E nameMIld T.r""rF. na0 10 LESTER RtLS# RA 7518 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 2912016 Kathy A. Eastley From: Dan Goin Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:46 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request Kathy EXHIBIT I e At this time I don't see any concerns with this application if this passes then they will need to get a driveway permit for the house and bring the driveway up to standards. Dan Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge 0298 CR 333A, Rifle CO 81650 970-625-8601 From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 2:20 PM To: Dan Goin; Kelly Cave; Steve Anthony; Sullivan - DNR, Megan; Scott Hoyer (scott.hoyer@state.co.us); Orrin Moon; cjay@garfieldre2.org; Prow, Sharie - NRCS, Glenwood Springs, CO Subject: Garfield County Referral Request Greetings Everyone, The Garfield County Community Development Department has received a land use application for the proposed division of land of a 280 -acre acre parcel in a "Road Split Exemption" process. This process requests to create a —2.1 -acre parcel and the remainder parcel of 277.9 -acres due to the fact that the 2.1 acres is located on the opposite side of the County Road, thus preventing joint use of the parcel. The site is located at 7225 CR 312 south of the Town of New Castle. You are receiving this email because you are a referral agency that may have an interest in reviewing and commenting on the application. The County is requesting your comments no later than April 19th so that those comments can be considered by the decision makers on the application. The attached form provides you details on how to access the application on line. Please review those instructions and then email your comments to Kathy Eastley @ keastley@ garfield-countv.com Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about the requested review and locating the applications on the County system. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 1 Kathy A. Eastley EXHIBIT From: Atwater - DNR, Levi <levi.atwater@state.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:18 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: JT Romatzke - DNR Subject: Trisch Exemption - File Number: RSEA-03-16-8432 Kathy, I have reviewed this proposal to subdivide 2 acres off of the 280 acres parcel at 7225 CR 312. Garfield Creek is a very important drainage, wintering large numbers of deer and elk, and providing numerous hunters recreation opportunities throughout the fall. This drainage has experienced a significant increase in development in the Last decade, primarily due to oiCgas development. Due to the proximity to the county road the CPW has no significant concerns regarding this proposal. As with any development, CPW recommends that Landowners consult the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Levi Atwater DWM - Rifle South/GMU 42 CO LOR ADO Parks and Wt1dtite Cc,:.,atur;t n: c' t;atu��i R4:•au�cx•s C 970.985.5882 1 F 970.255.6111 711 Independent Ave., Grand Junction, CO., 81505 levi.atwater@state.co.us 1 www.cpw.state.co.us Turn in a Poacher 1.877.COLO.OGT EXHIBIT k r April 14th, 2016 Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption review for 7225 County Road 312, New Castle Ms. Eastley, We, Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson are not only Colorado natives of the area, but have lived on Garfield Creek at the current location for over thirty three years. In this time we have witnessed the workings of the 280 acre ranch in question. Prior to High Wilderness Land & Cattle Company's ownership the ranch was lived on and maintained by year round residents and full time cattle ranchers. During their family ownership, their cattle were able to access year round water via an under road passage located toward the southeast corner of the larger parcel. (Tt is possible to identify access today) By contrast, the current owners and now seller have only used the 280 acre -ranch for a hunting camp and vacations while leasing the production of hay. By deleting the small parcel from the larger, the split would deny access to Garfield Creek itself where year round water for livestock is available. And in allowing the split, the outcome of that decision would severely affect the larger parcel from ever being a sustainable ranch again. We do not believe this parcel to be `operationally separated' from the remainder of the ranch, and the `physical separation' existed long before Trisch's ownership, and 'Road Split Exemptions' usually occur when the land is being forced to be divided. We will continue to address this in our further arguments against the split as follows, but it should also be immediately pointed out that the Young and Hess ditch also runs through that property and its presence conflicts with the proposed site for sewage and well site. From the application we read: "The Property, which is approximately 280 acres in size, is physically divided by County Road 312. The road divide isolates an approximately 2.13 acre portion of the Property northeasterly of County Road 312 from the Property's remainder. The isolation of the 2.13 acre parcel results in an inability to use that parcel jointly with the rest of the larger ranch ". This statement doesn't stand scrutiny when considering the following statement, also from the application: "The primary use of the 2.13 acres has been to stack hay and as a boneyard for old equipment." This clearly states this land is currently in beneficial use as part of an agricultural operation and in a manner consistent with other Colorado farms. As described, the smaller parcel is being used for storage of agricultural products for consumption and sale and agricultural equipment that would be utilized in the operation of a "larger ranch". Not pointed out, however, is this parcel is not only used for the necessary storage of hay, but allows trucks and large trailers safe access to load hay, and more importantly is dry land farmed and produces healthy size bales. 1 As a note and by our own witnessing, we saw this parcel as being essential to a cattle ranch operation as stock corrals, holding pens, milk stanchion , squeeze shoot, and calving sheds have been sited there. Historically and as stated above, livestock gained access to drinking water (Garfield Creek) by passing under CR 312, or through gates on either side of the road. Livestock water, particularly in drier years, is non-existent on the larger parcel. It would seem to us poor judgment for the developers ofa 'new ranch compound" to relinquish the only access to year round livestock water (Garfield Creek) associated with the land. Reading further: "The owner plans to relocate the hay stack and equipment storage area to a soon-to-be developed ranch compound 011 the main ranch parcel where those uses will be more easily managed." We would suggest this is questionable logic in terms of developing a "new ranch compound". Such an operation would find great value in continuing to use this for a place to store equipment and the products of the farm operation, along with the current practice of cutting and baling the hay from that parcel. Or put to use as pasture, corrals, etc, without affecting the production on the larger parcel. We would also make the claim that the small parcel is not any Tess "easily managed "than any other part of the "larger ranch". Continuing in the application: , "... irrigation of this portion of the ranch is difficult (getting water under the road)." This statement can easily be shown as a falsehood. Any irrigation water on the 2 acres would have to come from the Young and Hess ditch, which does not pass under a road before reaching the 2 acres. However, the Parshall Flume used to monitor and control the ditch water right is located on this parcel (in the location of the proposed septic system). The Young and Hess ditch runs through the entirety of the parcel (an encumbrance to future residence not addressed in the application) and in fact does not run under a road until leaving the lot near the proposed northwest corner. At this point the ditch runs under CR 312 via a culvert maintained by Garfield County (and ubiquitous along Colorado county roads) for a short distance before running under the road again. We would point out that not only is this a contrived claim in this instance but many ranchers and fanners throughout Colorado routinely, and with little ill effect, deal with the difficulty of "getting water under the road". Reading further: "It requires crossing the county road frequently on four -wheelers when the water is running (creating a danger to ranch workers and on -coming traffic). Once the new ranch compound is developed, there will be little reason to use the 2.13 acre parcel. It likely will he dried up and no longer irrigated " This too needs rebuttal. The presumption that there exists a danger to ranch workers owing to frequent access for irrigation is patently false. There is very little land associated with this ranch under irrigation from the Young and Hess Ditch. This application also leads one to think the 2 2 acres is currently actively irrigated. It is not. Rather, any grass used for grazing or cut for hay on this small parcel is dry land farmed. The application goes on to say the land will be "dried up'. That would be by the owner's choice because the adjudicated water being delivered by the Young and Hess ditch will, by necessity, continue to flow to water right holders along the ditch. Reading further we encounter: "l he2.13 acre parcel simply i.s not integrated into the main ranch due to its severance by the County Road " We would point out this "severance" by CR 312 dividing these 2 acres rendering them "not integrated into the main ranch" isn't new. This existed long before the non-resident owner purchased the land several years ago. In fact, the Jacksons purchased this ranch in 1945 and the road was there before then. It can be easily determined that currently it is used for the production, storage, and loading of hay. The "...bone yard for old equipment does not exist or was long ago cleared away along with the old calving barns, corrals, and such. Historically this parcel has been beneficial to a cattle ranch as stated above and is currently shown to be an integral part of a "larger ranch". We would also state the claim of dangerous activities being necessary to benefit from the small parcel, i.e., "....on four -wheelers when the water is running (creating a danger to ranch workers and on -coming traffic" is ridiculous. We would cite the number of incidents of people being put in "danger" by riding four -wheelers owing to irrigation activities pales in comparison to the number of four -wheeler trips along the county road attributed to the current owner's use as a Colorado hunting camp for non-residents. This is a rural road, not I-70, and current law allows the use of ATV's. We would go on to suggest that if the owners feel they are placing "ranch workers" in danger by off- road vehicle travel, as they must drive farther south on CR 312 to gain access to the Rex Ditch and the Belodi Creek Ditch, and neither one being associated with the 2 acres, but both impacting the larger parcel and the source for "...water under the road) " their concerns could be more completely mitigated by requiring ranch workers to use motor vehicles with appropriate safety equipment. In light of the marginally qualifying size of this parcel (a small error in survey or calculation could render a 1.9 acre parcel into a 2.1 acre) and with the numerous encumbrances to constructing a residence on this agricultural land, i.e., CR 312, Garfield Creek, Young and Hess Ditch and appurtenances, Holy Cross power line ROW, along with the poorly reasoned affect on any future ranching operation by conceding the only access to year round water, this application would appear to be a developers attempt to skirt the standard subdivision process where these concerns would be addressed. And here we would point out there are several Tots currently offered for sale nearby, with driveways, wells, utilities, etc. in place if a developer desires to construct a speculative home for sale. 3 In summary, it certainly cannot be said this application factually describes any real burdens to the current use of the land, nor to any proposed "new ranch compound" that would be alleviated by development of a small residential property (the smallest land split in 50 years in this area). It is plainly seen the plans provided with the application do not accurately reflect the true nature of the parcel and needs to be amended and resubmitted to support proper review. With the burdens associated with developing this subdivision not addressed in this application we feel this exemption request should be denied and a more complete subdivision analysis be utilized. The standard process would allow the applicant to seek the split of the parcels while providing adequate review to ensure conformance with all County requirements. Very truly yours, 0 f) • Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson 7398 CR 312 New Castle, CO 81647 4 Colorado River Fire Rescue EXHIBIT 1 Kathy Eastley 108 8`h Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Trisch Exemption April 18, 2016 Kathy: This letter is to advise you that I have reviewed File Number: RSEA-03-16- 8432, Trisch Road Split Exemption located at 7225 CR 312. I have no requirements or concerns with this proposed property split and future single family dwelling on the 2.1 acres of land. This addition to the property will not add any impacts to CRFR or our response to that area. Thank you for allowing me to review this referral and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.. Thank You, Orrin D. Moon, Fire Marshal CRFR. April 19, 2016 I EXHIBIT Garfield County Kathy Eastley Garfield County Community Development Department RE: Trisch RSEA-03-16-8432 Dear Kathy, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit. Noxious Weeds Vegetation Management • Map, Inventory, and Plan Staff requests that the applicant submit a map, inventory, and weed management plan for all Garfield County listed noxious weed found on the entire parcel, The weed management plan shall address appropriate management strategies and a timeframe for treatment. Garfield County has a new weed list that was adopted in February of this year, that list is attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2000 Rule, CO 61650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Adopted by Board of County Commissioners — February Common name Absinth wormwood Black henbane Bouncing bet Bull thistle Canada thistle Chicory Chinese clematis Common burdock Common tansy Common teasel Corn chamomile Curly dock Cutleaf teasel Cypress spurge Dalmatian toadflax Dame's rocket Diffuse knapweed Hoary cress Houndstongue Jointed goatgrass Leafy spurge Mayweed chamomile Meadow knapweed Mediterranean sage Musk thistle Myrtle spurge Oxeye daisy Perennial pepperweed Plumeless thistle Poison hemlock Purple Ioosestrife Russian knapweed Russian -olive Saftcedar Saltcedar Scentless chamomile Scotch thistle Spotted knapweed Sulfur cinquefoil Yellow starthistle Yellow toadflax 16, 2016 Scientific Name Artentsia absinthium Hyoscyamus niger Saponaria officinalis Cirsium vulgare Cirsium arvense Cichorium intybtrs Clematis orientalis Arctlunt minus Tanacetunt vulgare Dipascus frrllonum Anthemis arvensis Rumex crispus Dipsacus lacinattts Euphorbia cyparissias Linaria dalmatica Hesperis matronalis Centaurea difftrsa Cardaria draba Cynoglossum offrcinale Aegilops cylindrica Euphorbia esula Anthemis cotula Centaurea pratensis Salvia aethopsis Carduus nutans Euphorbia myrsiniles Leucantheunt vulgare Lepidium latifolium Carduus acanthoides Conium; ntaculalunr Lythrunt salicaria Acroptilon repens Elaeagnus angustifolia Tamarix parviflora Tamarix ramosissima Tripleurospernum perforatunt Onopordum acanthiurrt Centaurea stoebe Potentilla recta Centaurea solstitalis Linaria vulgaris Colorado Desienation B B B 13 B C 13 C B B B Not listed B B B B B B B B B B A A B A 13 B B C A B B B B B B B B A B COLORAD .` Division of Wa' er Resources Department or Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Roam 821 Denver, CO 80203 MEMORANDUM Date: April 19, 2016 To: Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner, Garfield County Community Development From: Megan Sullivan, P.E., Water Resource Engineer Re: Trisch Exemption, File Number: RSEA-03-16-8432 EXHIBIT This office has reviewed the proposal to divide a parcel of 280 acres to create an approximately 2.1 acre parcel in a "Road Split Exemption" process. According to the submitted materials, the 280 acre parcel is divided by a county road with the proposed 2.1 acre parcel across the road from the main parcel of approximately 277.9 acres. The applicant proposes to build a single family dwelling on the 2.1 acre parcel which will be served by a new well and individual sewage disposal system (ISDS). The property is located within the Colorado River Basin at a location where the river is over -appropriated Since this project appears to not be a subdivision as defined in C.R S. 30-28-101(10), the 2.1 acre might qualify for a well permit that is exempt from administration in Colorado's water rights priority system. However, because the area is over -appropriated, the uses of the well under an exempt well permit would be limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling. No outside use of the well would be allowed, such as lawn and garden irrigation or large domestic animal watering. While we cannot guarantee the issuance of any well permit — an application must be submitted for evaluation — this office does not have an objection to this proposal if the applicant seeks an exempt well permit for household use only. If the applicant wishes to use a well on the 2.1 acre parcel for additional purposes beyond household use only, a non-exempt well permit operating pursuant to a Division 5 Water Court approved plan for augmentation must be obtained instead of an exempt well permit. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at 303 866 3581. 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www,water.state.co.us Kathy A. Eastley From: Chris Hale <chris@rnountaincross-eng.com> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:29 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley; 'Michael Erion' Subject: RE: Referral Request Kathy: The review of the application materials that were provided, generated the following comments: The plat does not address an easement for the existing irrigation ditch. To address an adequate physical water supply, well pump tests and water quality tests need to be provided. I will let Mr. Erion weigh in on a legal supply. The State Engineer's Office requires a plat note be included regarding the well (if it is permitted). The Applicant should provide a preliminary site layout/building envelope on the plat. OWTS have setbacks from waterbodies (Garfield Creek), irrigation ditches, and wells. The Applicant should verify that the proposed OWTS location can achieve these setback requirements. Feel free to call or email with questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 974.945.5558 Kathy A. Eastley From: Michael Erion <merion@resource-eng.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:28 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: Referral Request - 7225 CR 312 RoOad Split Exemption Kathy: EXHIBIT M Based on review of the application materials, Resource Engineering Inc. (RESOURCE) offers the following comments related to the potable wate4r supply from a proposed well on the 2.13 acre parcel. RESOURCE agrees that if the County approves the exemption, the State Division of Water Resources will issue an Exempt In -House Use Only well permit for the 2.13 acre parcel. Drilling and testing the well for adequate water quantity and quality should then occur prior to recording the final plat for the Road Split Exemption. In support of the application and to demonstrate there is a reasonable probability that an adequate water supply can be developed for the parcel, Zancanelia & Associates, Inc. (ZA) prepared a March 2, 2016 letter report providing data on the site geology and nearby wells. RESOURCE concurs with the ZA opinion that there is a reasonable probability that an well with adequate water quantity and quality can be drilled on the 2.13 acre parcel. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Regards, Michael Michael Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.tesou rce-enO.com Karp_Neu.HkanlYon W Michael J. Sawyer mjs0l'muunt4inlawfirm.com Sander N. Karp* James S. Neu Karl J. I lanlon Michael J. Sawyer James r. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller • Fellow of Me Gdkre of labor and Emplafineat Lawyer Matthew L. Trinidad Patrick L. Barker Jon T. I loistad Delphinc F. Janey Of Counsel Richard 1. Zuber** Anna S. Itcnbcrg Greg S. Russi lloltic L. Wieland •• Fellow of the American Academy of Motriawnial lawyer Glenwood Sort 201 14th Strc P. O. Drawer 2 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 EXHIBIT I Aspen Ofce••• 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Montrose Office ••• 1544 Oxbow Drive, Suite 224 Montrose, CO 81402 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www mountainl sw+Tirn,corn "•All uvrespandrnce skonld be sent bike filcawoml Springs office May 3, 2016 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 By Hand Delivery Re: Supplemental Information for Trisch Road Split Exemption, 7225 County Road 312 Dear Kathy: This letter is provided to respond to requests for additional information and comments made on the Trisch Road Split Subdivision Exemption Application. In particular, this letter responds to your email dated April 20, comments made by neighbors at the site visit, and items raised in the referral comments. I am providing one paper copy (including a full size copy of the plat) and one electronic copy of these materials. 1. The right of way prevents joint use of the 2.13 acre parcel with the remainder of the ranch. County Road 312 splits the Trisch ranch, severing off a 2.13 acre parcel that cannot be jointly used with the larger 278 acre parcel. The 2.13 acre parcel is not used in an integrated way with the remainder of the ranch. The 2.13 acre parcel is not irrigated pasture land and the water rights associated with the 278 acre parcel can not be applied to the 2.13 acre parcel) Occasionally non -irrigated hay is cut on the parcel. According to the ranch manager who has worked the property for 12 years, this hay is of low quality and cannot be mixed with the hay produced on the irrigated 278 acre parcel. Nor can the cattle operation on the 278 acre parcel effectively use the 2.13 acre parcel due to separation by the right of way. The 278 acre parcel is fenced allowing control of cattle and preventing them from straying onto the County Road. The 2.13 acre parcel is un -fenced. To get to 1 This is a correction to information in the original Application that indicated that ditch water from the 278 acre parcel could be used, with difficulty, on the 2.13 acre parcel. Karp.Neu.Hanlon Page 2 the 2.13 acre parcel, cattle would need to be let out onto the County Road without the ability to corral them on the other side. Once on the 2.13 acre parcel (assuming they would stay there without a fence), the cattle cannot be watered. The Trisch ranch water rights cannot be diverted on the 2.13 acre parcel. Trisch has no decreed rights out of Garfield Creek at this location for livestock watering. Further, to get the cattle to the creek requires crossing the Young & Hess Ditch (which runs across the 2.13 acre parcel between the County Road and Garfield Creek). Trisch does not own an interest in the Young & Hess Ditch and the cattle would have no legal right to drink from the ditch. Cattle can significantly damage an irrigation ditch if they are required to cross it to reach the creek. There is no practical cattle use for the 2.13 acre parcel. During the site visit, one neighbor who attended referred to the 2.13 acre parcel as the "sacrifice" portion of the Trisch ranch. This observation is correct. For at least 12 years, the 2.13 acre parcel has only been used for sacrifice purposes: cutting some inferior quality hay, stacking yard for hay, and a place to park unutilized equipment. As noted in the application, the hay stacking yard will likely be relocated in the near future to be better integrated with the main ranch. The 2.13 acre parcel cannot be effectively used together with the 278 acre main ranch. Creation of a 2.13 acre parcel at this location is consistent with the zoning minimum lot size, the comprehensive plan and several smaller parcels nearby (2183-304-00-055 - 1 acre, 2183-311-00-009 - 1 acre, 2183- 322-00-015 - 4 acres, 2183-293-00-050 - 4 acres, 2181-252-00-281 - 5 acres, 2183-322-00-072 - 5 acres, and 2183-293-00-049 - 6 acres). 11. Reasonable development of the 2.13 acre parcel can be accomplished within applicable setbacks. There are three land uses impacting the 2.13 acre parcel that require setbacks. These are: County Road 312 (25 foot setback for structures), the Young & Hess irrigation ditch (50 foot setback for septic) and Garfield Creek (50 setback for structures and septic). Further, the well requires a 100 foot setback from the septic. The site plan for the property has been updated to show each of these setbacks and the location of the overhead power line. As depicted, a home, the well and a septic system can be located on the property in conformance with all setback requirements and avoiding the overhead power line. During the site visit, neighbor Gerald Richardson indicated a concern about the proximity of a home to his property boundary. The site plan demonstrates that a home can be constructed on the opposite end of the 2.13 acre parcel (southeast) - creating substantial distance between the Richardson home and a home on the 2.13 acre parcel. III. The Young & Hess Ditch has been provided an easement across the 2.13 acre parcel. At the site visit, two users of the Young & Hess Ditch were present. Stacy Scott, an owner in the ditch, indicated that the ditch was generally maintained by driving a track hoe along the ditch and mucking it out. Stacy has indicated that a ditch easement 25 feet in width is sufficient to allow the ditch to be accessed and maintained. An easement for the ditch is included on the updated plat (10 feet from the centerline on the south and west side of the ditch and 15 feet on the north and east I:1Clicnts'+Trisch120160428 Supplemental Comments.docx Karp.Neu.H.nk Page 3 side of the ditch). This allows for operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the ditch as required by 7-201 E. 4 and 5. The headgate for the Young & Hess ditch is not on the Trisch property. Access to the headgate would be across the property where the headgate is located. The Young & Hess Ditch is an unincorporated ditch. According to Stacy Scott, the following are owners or users in the ditch: Stacy Scott, Gerald Richardson, and Lacy Orr. Mr. Scott is the ranch lessee of the Orr property. All of the ditch owners and users were provided notice as landowners within 200 feet of the Trisch property and have been afforded the right to comment on the Application. Ditch owners Stacy Scott and Gerald Richardson were present at the site visit. The applicant has adequately given notice to the ditch owners and provided a reasonable easement to allow for continued operation and maintenance of the ditch in satisfaction of 7-201 E. IV. The parcel boundary for Parcel A is limited to land contained within the legal description. Neighboring landowner John Reed attended the site visit. Mr. Reed expressed concern that the parcel boundary for Parcel A not include any land within his legal description. A boundary fence along the Trisch / Reed boundary historically was several feet into the Reed property. The surveyor has confirmed to Mr. Reed that the Parcel A boundary does not include any of his deeded land. If the subdivision exemption is approved, Trisch will give a quit claim deed to Mr. Reed for his parcel. V. Responses to referral comments. The comments of Michael Erion and the Division of Water Resources are consistent with the description of the legal water supply contained in the Application. After the subdivision exemption is granted, the Applicant will apply for an in-house exempt well permit. The Applicant understands that uses of water from the well will be limited as discussed in the letter from the Division of Water Resources. Further, Michael Erion's description of drilling a monitoring well and testing the supply is consistent with the discussion in the Application. The comments of Chris Hale have been incorporated. An easement for the Ditch has been added to the plat. There is currently no well permit for the 2.13 acre parcel. We are not familiar with a plat note required by the Division of Water Resources for existing wells. If that language is provided, we will add it for the well serving the 278 acre parcel. A revised site plan has been submitted showing that setbacks can be achieved. The referral letters from the Fire District, Colorado Parks & Widlife, and Road and Bridge indicate no concerns with the Application. I 'Clicnts'.Trisch\20160428 Supplemental Comments docx Karp.Neu.HAaonlyon: Page 4 The Trisch Road Split Subdivision Exemption meets the criteria of the County Code. The right of way prevents any useful joint use of the 2.13 acre parcel with the remainder of the ranch. As noted by the neighbor, this has been a sacrifice parcel. Granting the subdivision exemption will allow this parcel to be used for uses consistent with adjoining parcels in conformance with applicable zoning and the comprehensive plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. Michael J. Sawyer MJS: Enclosures cc: Client Zancanella & Associates 1'sCGcnls,Trisch\20160428 Supplemental Commenls.docx d'Pen 0067t\grYIO2\Z C Lt, w 2 0 0 4 ▪ 0 0 CL Lu ® 0 in u) L• T1 (1. < 0 O co • �• z :1� / ccc CLL U,U t M Ci 't p Ui b ¢N p'w6i 6 N �U1 0 0 0 c w ti0 I— - O V)w a� 1— co 0 0 C) J c� t 0 / C7 Li- U J / w W CC U 00 CO W • W O • 0 —o bLL 4 a) L 0 0 0 0 0 N 1- U W O a TRISCH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 0 w - x N 0 N 0 m Q oi— x U �.�as,alrogn, pu. all I W 31t9Y.7 MIN OfION X31a3QT31iM�O GQ2 KISRU f OM+OG C M 0 V u, N8 N 3 r O U o3 0. o�.0 Ua, 4 o U N y c coW wc, C v a Z ro `o opt,a.q ! !I' ; III1 ;iltl E—+ a, ,. i ►? 1 1 ii IIsi iip 3 ! 1 II,.I lola;, t' ! ! ails lil 1 .I 11 11 ii 1111101! !E a . Il to i 1�ij 11,1 I 11, II ! Il 11.111b11 1alll•a ! II1111 1loa I n i it ! It !3 i! I osli,,Itl i I 1 ill a� !I!I I ! II i s.p l l''!I; ! '; Ia, ! Igtl !; i 1St 11 it i 11 Ii i! !I I drill!!!H I !,I ! 1,i lF I 3�r ill 9 • TO lilt 1v7d NOI1dtI3X3 NOISLAIOWS H3SI111 U11$OO'9um0: MtYY OYOtl M3310 0111L43110IGt loaa.rawlroo e 21K eRf 'UIUU '! aittiOth I11"3 11" :mourn iA;1 f 1 zi r 1 , Ik\it A' I s 4 --------r I � A_` a 1.7 tg$ NY.[ .I.{.w♦ -2,m1- -1- ' i ‘. n Y 1 M 0 0 iry A • .1114410,011 "4► .�Z 1 •- 11 %1 'fV`4 - t I I' c / Ilii"t0 ! \`i j 1 -7- an jq! ,ter V/`'/' OV 1 0 0 iry A • .1114410,011 "4► .�Z 1 May 6`h• 2016 Garfield County Community Development Department Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 From: Katherine Richardson 7398 County Road 312 New Castle, CO 81647 EXHIBIT 1 0 Re: Supplemental Information for Trisch Road Split Exemption, 7225 County Road 312 Dear Ms. Eastley, As you are aware, I attended the site visit, held on April 20th, 2016 that concerned the Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review for 7225 County Road 312, New Castle. My husband and I were there to add our comments to help ascertain whether or not the ^'2 acre parcel did indeed fall under the County Road Split Subdivision Exemption as the applicant Donald Trisch and his lawyer Michael Sawyer would like us to believe. More importantly we were anxious to hear the comments that you as Senior Planner and the Assistant County Attorney, Kelly Cave, might offer. In the end, I believe I heard you address Mr. Sawyer stating he must still prove that this parcel cannot be used jointly with the larger parcel. Please correct me if I am wrong. Going on the assumption that I am correct, after reading Mr. Sawyer's May 3`d letter, I do not see where this additional information of proof is found. In fact, he seems to be reiterating the same points he made in the application, with the addition of personalizing his argument by involving comments made by us, and addressing remarks made by Mr. Stott as those of authority. In other words, he is making this personal.) for one am disturbed by this approach because in the end we, Richardson's and Stott's, will still be neighbors, and a great deal of rural living depends on getting along with your neighbors. But now we are here. I'm sure I am not the first to notice the elephant in the room. In staying with the subject of whether or not Trisch's application should be approved based on the County Road Split Subdivision Exemption, the obvious is being avoided. This exemption means not having to go through a proper application for sub dividing this property, and automatically gets a well permit. As pointed out in Mr. Sawyer's first letter and application dated March 9`h, 2016, sections B and C, 2`d paragraph, "...Because a subdivision exemption is sought for the 2.13 acre parcel, if approved it will have a legal water supply with an in-house use exempt well permit." And, stated in the letter from Megan Sullivan, Division of Water Resources, dated April 19, 2016, 2nd paragraph, "Since this project appears to not be a subdivision as Defined in C.R. 5. 30- 28-101(10), the 2.1 acre might qualify for a well permit that is exempt from administration in Colorado's water right priority system." This asset bypasses well permit application. I believe the seller is using the County Road Split Subdivision Exemption improperly. The —2 acres has proved to be agriculturally sound in production and storage of hay. The seller is selling, that means he's leaving and this is an easy way to make extra money. The intentions of Mr. Stott are to buy the property and build a spec home on a parcel that is inundated with encumbrances, and Garfield Creek splitting the property gives very little room for a domicile and all of its requirements. The house itself is doomed to sit close to County Road 312, and quoting from Megan Sullivan's April 19th, 2016 letter (Colorado Division of Water Resources), 2nd paragraph, "However, because the area is over -appropriated, the uses of the well under an exempt well permit would be limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling. No outside use of the well would be allowed, such as lawn and garden irrigation or large domestic animal watering."This is hardly a healthy picture of rural living, and I'm having trouble associating this with economic value for the county. However, if the two want to do business together, fine, but I urge the Garfield County Community Development Department to deny Mr. Trisch's request. As an adjacent landowner and ditch right holder, I believe the small parcel to have enough issues that it needs the appropriate scrutiny only a proper application for subdividing would provide. Most sincerely, Katherine A.L.Richardson -1-1-)„1/41 May 9, 2016 Michael Sawyer Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 mis@mountainlawfirm.com Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Office 970-945-8212 Fax 970-3R=11470 RE: Plat Comments Garfield County File Number RSEA-03-16-8432 Dear Mr, Sawyer; Garfield County has reviewed the proposed plat and has the following comments: 1. Entitle the plat'Trisch Road Split Exemption Plat"; 2. Add a purpose statement to the plat; 3. Two standard plat notes have been omitted from the notes - please add the following: Domestic Dogs. Dogs kept on the property shall be in a fenced yard or on a leash to prevent harassment of wildlife. Wildlife -Friendly Fencing. Fencing on the property shall comply with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife specifications for wildlife -friendly fencing. 4. The vicinity map appears to show the northern property bounty as a straight line when in fact there is a .84 -acres parcel that is not a part of the subject property. This map should be corrected. 5. On sheet 2 of the plat the .84 -acre parcel noted above appears to be included in the subject parcel, it should clearly be marked as not included in the plat by listing the legal information and ownership. 6. The intent of an exemption plat is solely to describe the parcel being created. Clearly the overall 280 -acre site is not a part of the plat as it has not been surveyed, therefore the future legal description of the remainder property will be the current description with the exception of the 2.1 -acre road split exemption parcel. The new legal description for the 2.1 -acre parcel will Trisch Road Split Exemption Parcel. 7. The above change to the legal descriptions will require amendments to the descriptions in, at minimum, the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, and perhaps others. To try to explain this in another manner — remove the Exemption Parcel B property description in the certificate of Dedication and Ownership — the plat is not creating a Parcel B, it is only creating a Road Split Parcel. 8. The graphics on Page 2 should be amended so that the created 2.1 -acre parcel is the focus of the plat and the scale should allow details of the property to be shown including the irrigation ditch and creek. The overall parcel should be shown in detail so that it is clear where the 2.1 acre parcel is located within the overall property. 9. Please locate a building envelope on the plat to assure that any home constructed on the site is compliant with separation and setback distances as indicated in the supplemental information submitted on May 3, 2016. These changes will be included as conditions of approval. Staff would appreciate the review of the revised plat prior to creation of the mylar so that we can assure that all necessary changes have been made. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Eastley, AICP CC: File Kelly Cave, Assistant County Attorney Kathy Eastley Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 May 9th, 2016 Ms. Eastley, We would tike to take this opportunity to offer comment on the Supplemental Information for Trisch Road Split Exemption, 7225 County Road 312 submitted by Michael J. Sawyer in behalf of Donald Trisch. We thank you for your consideration. Recapping; the applicants must demonstrate," that the right-of-way preventsjoint use of the affected, proposed lots." Their original argument was that the 2 acre parcel hasn't been irrigated due to the difficulty of "getting water under the road" and that the owner had been placing employees and the public at large in danger from use of "four wheelers" as they tried to achieve this. We learned from the application the timing of this inability to Jointly use the 2 acre parcel was coincident with placing the 280 acres for sale. We learned the inability to use the 2 acres would affect the owner(s) of a nebulous "new ranch compound". Which begs the question, how can Mr. Trisch be prevented from Joint use of the 2.13 acres If he is not in Joint tenancy? In review of the "supplemental information" we offer: "The 2.13 acre parcel is not Irrigated land and water rights associated with the 278 acre parcel cannot be applied to the 2.13 acre parcel". The water is not segregated by acres. It goes to the entirety of the land under the ditch and so if desired the water could be applied to currently irrigated land or land under development. We point out seventy five per cent of this ranch Is not Irrigated. • We go on to read "The 278 acre parcel is fenced allowing control of cattle and preventing them from straying onto the County Road. The 2.13 acre parcel is unfenced". Fence the 2.13 acres! Next we read, "...this hay Is of low quality and cannot be mixed with the hay produced on the irrigated 278 acre parcel." We live next to this property and have witnessed thls hay as being cut, baled, stacked, used and sold with alt other hay from the property. if there is inferior hay produced from this land it is most likely due to damage occurring during rain storms after the hay is cut and before it is baled. Reading further: "cattle would need to be let out onto the county road without the availability to corral them on the other side". The fence parallel to the road was taken down when the High Wildness Ranch group bought the 280 acres. Trisch and company have not shown an interest to cattle ranching, and the only cows that have occasioned that property are from a neighboring ranch. Obviously, there are agricultural supply dealers that sell fence posts, wire and portable corral panels. We could point out that the small triangular parcel has adjoining neighbors with fences on two sides. It is common that adjacent properties share boundary fence maintenance. in this case, contrary to claims, most of the fencing is complete. Continuing, "Once on the 2.13 acre parcel (assuming they would stay there without a fence) the cattle cannot be watered". The lack of fencing as an obstacle to a "large ranch operation" Is nonsense. And who could make such a statement about access to water by cattle? Reviewing livestock fencing and grazing laws to Colorado, the Taylor Grazing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and even the Endangered Species Act provides information about preservation of stream banks and indigenous wildlife in coordination with stock watering. Continuing; "During the site visit, one neighbor who attended referred to the 2.13 acre parcel as the "sacrlflce" portion of the Trlsch Ranch". In full disclosure It was Lynn Richardson that made that statement. A sacrifice lot is a place to hold livestock during times of tow forage availability, bad weather or for herd management activities like branding, castrating, birthing, etc. We offer live Stock Management In the Mountains found at http://www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/livestock.ndf and Managing Manure on Horse Farms: Exercise or Sacrifice Lots for Horses found http://nlaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/fs1190/managing-manure on-horse-farms.asp Next we find "Creation of a 2.13 acre parcel at this location is consistent with the zoning minimum size, the comprehensive plan and several smaller parcels nearby". Reviewing the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 we Interpret maps and plans for the Garfield Creek area zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Regarding a 2 acre size in particular we find: Change in Residential Development Densities Previously, there havo boon different categories for residential development densities between the Colorado River Valley and the Roaring Fork Valley. A significant portion of land within the Colorado River Valley had a designation of Outlying Residential" with a density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, while in the Roaring Fork Valley, the comparable category was "Residential Medium High" with a density range of 1 dwelling unit per 2 to <5 acres. In addition to the Inconsistency within the county, the 2 -acre lot designation In the Colorado River Valley presented a number of challenges: • They are too small to farm. They are difficult to maintain (mowing, irrigation) They typically do not get further subdivided - and therefore Inhibit further urban growth. • Because of the above, many communities have requested much less dense designations (1 du/10 and 20 acres) surrounding their municipal boundaries. • When spread over a large area, they do not actually preserve rural character. Also: Loss of Agricultural Lands and Rural Character - Land uses in the unincorporated areas have been converting agricultural property to suburban residential, with pockets of urban development The loss of rural character impacts one of the assets end appeal of Garfield County We find it difficult to accept the claim of "consistent with the zoning minimum lot size, the comprehensive plan and several parcel nearby...". None of the parcels offered as evidence of consistency to support a new lot were created Tess than 3 decades ago. One was land set aside for public schools under homestead laws ca. 1905. During the site visit Mr. Sawyer admonished "times are changing". Yes they are, and that is why the parcels he cited are poor examples of consistency with current course. Continuing we see "... a ditch easement 25 feet in width Is sufficient to allow the ditch to be accessed and maintained". We are dubious of the authority this statement lays claim too. Volumes of legal statutes contain language regarding "reasonable" access. We are prepared to participate with ditch users and other affected parties to prepare and file articles of incorporation which would result in a legal document containing definitions of easement width, maintenance cost recovery, officers, schedules etc. This would benefit future users of the Young and Hess Ditch. In summary, the evidence presented in the supplemental information to demonstrate the right of way prevents Joint use of affected proposed lots Is that the seller / owner has been unable to grow good hay on the parcels. We are told that if he had cows they wouldn't stay on one of the affected parcels due to the condition of fences. We were Informed if there were cows they would drink from an irrigation ditch or creek passing through the affected parcels and damage something. We feet this road split exemption request does not factually demonstrate a burden preventing Mr. Trlsch from joint use of the land. Noting here, upon completion of ongoing real estate transactions Mr. Trisch will be unaffected by either parcel. Referring to the Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan 2030, and with encumbrances on the 2 acres there could not be a better poster child for a parcel that Is: "too small to farm" and "is dlfflcult to maintain (mowing, irrigation)" We feel that the material presented to demonstrate the 2 acre parcel is unsuitable and inconsistent for joint use to a "new ranch compound" is unconvincing. We continue to think a more complete analysis be used to ascertain the subdivision Is consistent with County requirements, This facilitates proceeding with plans while ensuring it Is done in accordance with law and consistent with future planning. S ncerely, (t),P kt. Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson 4iby\ 7398 County Road 312 New Castle, CO 81647 May 9`4, 2016 Kathy A. Eastley From: Michael J. Sawyer <mjs@mountainlawfirm.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 12:15 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cr: Kelly Cave Subject RE: Trisch Application EXHIBIT Kathy, I do not think it is appropriate to respond point by point to the Richardsons' letter. I do want to note that it contains several legal and factual inaccuracies - in particular about water rights. Portions of the 280 acre parcel are irrigated with irrigation water rights. These water rights cannot be physically delivered to the 2 acre parcel (there are no ditches under the county road to deliver the water to that location). Mr. Trish owns no water rights decreed for use on the 2 acre parcel or for stockwatering out of Garfield Creek at that location. Even if the 2 acre parcel were fenced, there are no water rights decreed at that location for stock watering. The Richardsons' discussion of how they think the Trish water can be used is factually and legally wrong. With regard to the ditch easement, Mr. Scott is both an owner of the Young and Hess water right and the primary party who maintains the ditch. Mr. Scott was consulted about the width and configuration of the easement shown on the plat. Michacl Karp.Neu.H2Opp: Michael J. Sawyer 201 14th Street, Suite 200, P.O. Drawer 2030, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 T; 970.945.2261 x117/F: 970.945.7336 www.rnountalnlawfirm.com This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Trisch Road Impact Fee Calcuation Use Red /aspect Fte Cakdatien Worksheet - REBUILD TEST Note Pitiable Reds t; 1 Project 1 Application 'roach Road Splo Earn -Toon Traffic Study Art i As Mystified in Resolrtbn 98-28 Land Use (Numbs= orTolsl Doodling Liens, Indult* ADM) Dae Prepared .: i ,. _ . 2 Biro Road Cost T t w i <s.:_:, As Identified In Resokdlon 96.28 3 Rod Capacity in ADT ; t 7 As id.nd9ed In Resolution 98-28 4 Road Cao per ADT $226 40 Should .hatch Resokff , 98-23 5 ADT per Led Use Lased an ITE Manual 6 Rase Raid Impact Fee per Lad Use $2.166 64 TAX CREDITS 7 30% of Amyl RAS Pmpe y Tax per Lad the Rood and bridge MBI Levy for 2014 is 3S 3 Chary Discount Rae 5 00% AK* updated ar.eaf y by Treasurers Office 9 Road Design Life (Yeas) ; ri 10 Present Waith Factor °.+ County Workbook 11 Property Tas Credit 5305.25 Medtiply Ulna 7 by Une 10 12 UNADJUSTED ROAD IMPACT FEE $1.86L39 line 11 subtracted been line 6 84F1AT10N NJRJSTMEJR 1.3 Denver -Boulder CPI Year of Cast Estimate 1561 CPI for 1997 14 ?+,•gr e.9.,: f>f y'por p" tsvacilks? Goiy Estimated CPI tor 2014 15 inflation Factor 1.1824 lin. 34 divided by Urs 13 16 PAZ-CONSTRUCT10011NFLATION ADJUSTED IMPACT FEE 57.771.48 Multiply lis 12 by Lis 15 Note: Calculation not necessary 0 consuudicn cost smarm* is the same year as the fee is collected POST -CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT 17 Carty D4cesenl Rate 5.00% Rate updated annsa3y by Treasurers Office Now: If the road ewxsrudbn was financed. d.rhe the financed rata from the debt repayment schedule prepared for the financing and substitute the der id ate for the Discount Rate 18 Term (Years since the rod was constructed) 19 Compound Interest Mukluk*, From County WortbO01b Nota: In the ase of debt Droning, .Etter the imputed multiplier for the finance isunemer2 tie debt senior adsdede Prepared 20 POST,CONSTRUCOON ADJUSTED IMPACT F63 /WA Multiply lie 12 by lie 13,14/A B Une IS • 0 TOTAL FEE FOR TOTAL NUMBER OF DWRIDIG UNITS 52.77L48 Multiply lire 36 by Number of Dw.f ing Units 1/2 OF FEE TO BE PAID AT R36M PIAT t 51.315.74 Total Fee divided by2 IMPACT FEETO SE 03t1ECTED WRN EACH BUILDING PERMR 513E5..74 1/2 of Fee dldded by Number of Dwelling Units EXHIBIT 3 • 8. CR335 11 129Ac Tatat 6.999 Ac Private No fizz 1218 Pap 90 452HU90 i 3 t ; all 6 CR311 t 38367 Ac Ida! 17,784ACPriiate, NoHa2 346 Pop 90 153 HU 90 7 CR335 21;707 Ac 1141 7 305 Ac Private. No Haz 309 Pop 90 HU 90 EXHIBIT 1 1 - May May 9, 2016 Tamara Allen, Garfield County Community Development Director 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: RESA 03-16-8432 Dear Mrs. Allen, My husband, Stacey Stott, and 1 are wanting to purchase the 2 acre lot that is currently owned by Don Trish located approximately 7.5 miles up Garfield Creek Road, County Road 312. Stacey and his family have looked after the Trish parcel for 12+ years and it has never been used for cattle grazing or other agricultural uses other than storing a haystack. The parcel is not large enough to pasture cattle for a long period of time because it is less than 3 acres. It's not fenced properly to keep cattle in and it would be a nuisance to have cattle cross back and forth Garfield Creek Road if there is no fence. To our knowledge, the family prior to taking care of the parcel did not use the parcel for agricultural use either. Garfield Creek is a splendid place to live and we love the area and want to welcome others to enjoy the same area we have come to love. Neighbors are contesting the road split because it should stay agricultural, however this particular parcel has no benefit or usage for agricultural. The current state shows no fenced area for cattle and has been hayed for weed control. There is not enough hay produced for monetary gain. We hope you will consider our point of view as a realistic one and not on the notion as keeping it agricultural as the parcel has not intended, nor used as agriculture to this day. If you have any questions, we would be happily to attend a public meeting or council session for further discussion. Sincerely, Brooke and Stacey Stott 7342 County Road 312 New Castle, CO 81647 EXHIBIT Garfield County To: Michael Langhorne - Bookcliff Survey Services, Inc. From: Scott Aibner — Garfield County Surveyor Subject: Plat Review — Trisch Subdivision Exemption Date: 05/16/2016 SURVEYOR SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S Michael, Upon review of the Trisch Subdivision Exemption, 1 have no comments or corrections to be made prior to approval for survey content and form. Once all final comments from Community Development have been completed, the Mylar may be prepared for recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Community Development office with all private party signatures no later than Monday the week prior to the next commissioner meeting day in order to make that meeting. Sincerely, Scott Aibner Garfield County Surveyor cc Kathy Eastley — Community Development Department 1098 th Street .Suite 100B • Glenwood Springs, C081601 • (970)945-1377 • email:saibner`ti!garfield-county.com Kathy A. Eastley From: Richardson, Lynn <lynric@tristategt.org> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 7:48 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: 'Katherine Richardson' Subject: Trisch Road Split EXHIBIT Ms. Eastley, Katherine and I submitted online comment to the BOCC regarding the Trisch Application and offer it to you. 5/16/2016 Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Commissioner We are writing regarding the Trisch Road Split Exemption Application to express concerns. The approval criteria necessary to support the road split exemption subdivision process is it must be demonstrated that the right of way prevents joint use of the affected, proposed lots. The claim presented in the Application in support was that irrigation activities related to the 2 acres created a dangerous condition to on -coming traffic and ranch workers from use of four wheelers on county roads attempting to "get water under the road'. The Supplemental Information offered to elucidate the inability to jointly use the parcels states it is not the difficulty of getting irrigation water under the road that prohibits joint use, but rather the inability to use the parcel was due to the fact that the owner does not have water rights for the field and so it cannot be irrigated. The later statement is in direct contradiction to the earlier claim. The supplemental information also raised the topic of fences as a claim of burden to this ranch operation. From the Garfield County land use codes we see: C. Fences. The County is a Right to Farm County consistent with section 1-301. Fences shall be constructed to separate the development from adjoining Agricultural Lands or stock drives as required to protect Agricultural Lands by any new development and to separate new development from adjoining agricultural operations. All parts of the fencing including such items as gates, cattle guards, boards, posts, and wiring shall be maintained by the owner, HDA, or other responsible entity. We are unable to reconcile the claims in the application regarding fencing as an impediment to joint use as a ranch because requirements for fencing seem more onerous to a subdivision than a farm. In conclusion, we do not feel the evidence provided in the Application or the Supplemental Information related to the approval criteria truthfully demonstrates the county road right-of-way prevents joint use of the affected, proposed lots. We ask the Board of County Commissioners review and give serious consideration to claims made in the application and the suitability of this lot as a residential parcel consistent with law and future direction before final approval. Thank You for your time and consideration. Gerald Lynn and Katherine Richardson 1 h. •O 0 N M ,-- 0 73 N a c O_ . V1 • V N 0 Reconsider the Director's Donald J. Trisch APPLICANT: Michael Sawyer, Karp Neu Hanlon P.C. REPRESENTATIVE: Katherine and Lynn Richardson D J J 0 Approximately 7 miles south of New Castle on CR 312 LOCATION: 73 0 0 CY (1) 0 0 0 0 0 N ee 0 Proposed Well and Septic 0 D fY Z O F -- Q V O J Lu ce z 0 00Ix f.r) 0< Lt) 00 0C/) z 0 3 03 (1•1 J_ 0 D 03 1 Potential building site , — o con .ts ) ..z.) 4 .. o u u.. 4: • e> .4 / i C = ..d) '42 1 CL) ,1 A g z ,... 1 1 5 el (++ s <0 4. l• 0 +0. TRISCH sueDivisioN EXEMPTION V E5 1.1 The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed Tots; d^) a a) W D .142 V N O N 4- O Oj •N s O } } Q Q O • O S `"F O ft 0 47. s C 0 O O Eo - a) X = O • E 0) E •( ,O„ O O Q a 0_ N O c ^ L O N Q as a) E o' o a) • } a) W c Q •u O N "- o) � � O ul • 0 ^, L } O O 73 7 :`= a E N o a) O Q= > L 0) O N } Q 3 a Q C 0 o o -D a) -• oL -D • O O 0 LL N .1 D •N L a +- o c O 0 •O � u LL. a) a) . N O (Ni Ti O 0 '�1 Q N ` , N j C N Ig Q O a) a N N01 4,7) L o ›,u - Cn 0 O O a) L 0 E a) a) a) } O 0 a) .O o 3 N 0 W O- •v ami '' a) a) O f0 CT a) o c a a) V - o — s -a 0)} L O In 4-a) a) O _a 0 o t s '3 0 T p = a) Cr)O O iE a } — o > 2 E > a) L +S- 0 W Q Q C3 - Q o s O a) v)O -8 U x N • w 0 0 O 0 o Q 3 ce } Q r v)0 a) E aa) c a o a) o ce o 0 -0 a) -0 a a -0 a) `^ a) N 0 O O N , (1) O g O u O E L L < C O Q D Q IL 0 a) L a) N a) I— a H r H 4- d) s +- N > O i 0_ a 0 T a c O O '% } } i cV O N Q N a a) s ,O +- c OO N 0 M _o N N Z 0 0 O c O ‘,10 0_ O E V 73 x 111 e w O_ 4— �V 0 • —0 O in O l— ^oO V a 73 W L 1 0 N O D I- a Richardson sent an -� TD V £ i J 0 0 00 a) T V -o 0c i 0 N *+--- 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 . 0 � *s7. 0N ) _C I-1-1 a) 0 S i- va 4- 4) a 73 £ }) £ 73 s N i > 0 } -0 N J -C a) O O O 0 00 .3 Z m 0 0 -o 'L7 T a) Ce N Q) N _cc 0 _cD Q 0 4- , i T TW o E i i E •� ._ N } OD — �° 4-v) ).� O O D ) CD 4 -CT _Q LL N N i D 0 i E U) 0-'m, N O �.. 0_ Q) •v } 4- N L , • 0 T LJ 0_ ri "' 0 C O 4_ V v N — co CI 0 0 •3 Q) -0 W - O 0 a! Q O 6 t� .tn ec The Board has several options with regard to this request: Uphold the Director's Decision to conditionally approval the Road Split Exemption. Modify the Director's Decision. O 0 V Q 0_ 0 a) s T c a) 0 0 O u 0 Reverse the Director's e TRISCH ROAD SPLIT EXEMPTION l EXHIBIT '0 0 N _>- D Z O V W Ce CD I— V W 0 W 0 0 N M 0 4) a C 0 .N •0 4) 0 Reconsider the Director's Donald J. Trisch APPLICANT: Michael Sawyer, Karp Neu Hanlon P.C. REPRESENTATIVE: Katherine and Lynn Richardson eL D J J 0 Approximately 7 miles south of New Castle on CR 312 LOCATION: 0 0 ce N a) L 0 73 a) 0 0 N M Ce 0 Proposed Well and Septic Z O 1,- Q v O J 0 Oyi rg /J / / / \ \ x f • ( "s / // I I 1 l / �, //, 11 \.4 / i / 11 1 i r TRISCH suB0A8Om EXEMPTION 0 • 8 } N O o O L N D O u H 0 5 O) O +- = o +- 4a2 N O O `>!.—N N .o N O >O s 73 = p N } Q a= i o 0 i N 6 ( O a O N Q o 3 0 4- 0 O>. u cc u VO 4- O ;470 -O N N o f C OCD VI 0 D 0 u°° — 0 a N .2 .4=N 3 73 O -1-nW L W 0 N` NX}O O 0 ��'O N_NQ of�o s O O" N vi o O L 0 O= 0 N >` ° N 0 cj a=- 4- O — W Q O v " 0 m 111 s Q mN aN° 0 C D Q 2 N Q N +' Q o a o I 0 '3 O `J o Q o �'QL p— N 15 E ^' _ L Z d d) 4- Q 0— Q — 4) .3 'Z O O X 0 O)o _0 } a° p w 4- E° 3 0 0 0 E> 0 } O X N O 3 c 0 0 s Q 0 w 4E -FO s— o X Q 3 0 LU N D '4_ - 4- u L Q .4- Q Oa O o 0 EQ -0 0 oCD Ce ;NV N !L° a) 46 o w >. -0L-=J c =oO ao O ° o c 0 ce W a� o a>i s`~� e3 Q `n a v� y U L f- :1- O •° Eo } o �� "G \ 4- �^ N = 0 0 vs 't2 >` N .c t X O o "O o-0 a -a 0 O QQ N u c `� N ....1D 3 > — L -0 W -0 O } -0 Ci—.a 0o ° -.71)� a o 0 o w c 0 L a� 9 C3 0)g — 4- Q c O' Q} a 0 .� ° 0 ° -0 a) o a ° Q c o V O 'L 00 Q. D Q it u s Q N ��' = s � �., s p IN c c ' C'"} If) N } co O N o 2 Q N 0 O 3 s 0 c i- 73 N O O 47) N 0c 'O " N O N O = N a O v) a a . � O a) vOi N • X .4= • s w N O - s N s O - O c vi -• os N a T O +- -0 a) J s a) O O C.D -• 0 O 73 s =N O • � 0 _ �_ m O m 73 .Y > N N N = N s D 111::C O } 0 W 0 0 .E = i s .N ••0 O } O D(I) L O c O L - O E a) 0- *7-, a) O 0 a) .V c - `i- v; 2 N13 11.1 a .p o �` til N = O > CY V (N p co O N '� Q -0 W Z•46 o < r 6 C/) .`^ O 0 E a) X w V) 0 0 a) O c 4- 0 > -0(1) a = -0 0) Z N Ov O s O 0 .3 OO O ion N .N •N •! M 0 0 1.1 .1 O �n vi v^ m ^p p O i V V _1 a) a) v a) I..LJ CD 0 0 an Na) O O N s