| OCR Text |
Show DECISIVE TIMES - SEPTEMBER 1993 - 11 penalized, since they chose—for financial or whatever reasons—not to buy more than one lot, in full expectation that they would not be allowed to build more than one dwelling. How— even - Would the clustering come by virtue of sharing a common septic system, with resultant overload, or could this be prevented to preserve our aquifer? [Geologic studies confirm that increas— ing our septic loads will damage on already compromised aquifer. See Don Mabey’s article in the June ’93 Times— second lot in perpetuity? It would seem it would have to be written in as a deed restriction. Is this legally enforceable? Who would enforce it 30 or 40 years down the road? - What if the prospective builders owned three lots? or four? Would they be allowed to have three or four dwellings on one lot? - What if the builders owned two or more discontiguous lots? Might building permission in this instance result in lot hoarding in less desirable areas, to be used in exchange for high Ed.] density building in more desirable - What kind of setback, screening, areas? . access, or other restrictions might need to be required to prevent undue impacts to neighbors? Two dwellings next door where before there was only one is a Other possible modifications include variances to allow housing for elderly or disabled relatives, hired significant increase in traffic, noise, smoke, dust, etc. Could such restric- we can see no way in which these can be made to work without ultimately threatening the integrity of the ordi- tions effectively mitigate impacts to neighbors, so that they get what they came here for, i.e., the experience of a community of one dwelling per five acres? Could the cluster variance be allowed only if it were with the permission of all adjacent neighbors? Would you want to be put in the position of having to say yes or no to your neighbor to protect your own interests? - What would be the mechanism for enforcing the building ban on the hands or servants, or children. So far nance. - What is a valid excuse for granting such a variance? Elderly relatives? Poor children? What about the desire to make easy money by renting an apartment to mountain bikers? Most individual requests seem so innocent, yet their effect is the same—to increase density. - What will be the enforcement mechanisms for these exceptions? Promises (in the face of some people’s already-stated intent to subvert the purposes of the ordinance)? Requirements for periodic renewal of permits? How will the town authorities know the dwellings are being used for the purposes intended? What will happen when a person is allowed to build an apartment (say, for an elderly relative), spends tens of thousands of dollars on the improvements, and x years down the road the elderly relative dies or moves? Will the town authorities then have the courage, enforcement mecha- nism, or political will (or even legal authority) to prevent occupation of this unit by nonconforming users, or to require the owner to then tear down this significant improvement? - In general, zoning variances spell the death of zoning. They invite preferen— tial treatment and subversion of the intent of the zoning. We must be ever-vigilant of not turning Castle Valley into “the place we left behind”—a crowded place of pollution and squalor, except with pretty red rocks in the background. In our very attempts to share this magic valley with others we may contribute to the destruction of what we came here for. We must accept that there are costs to maintaining a good place to live, that such places are in short supply, and that there is not room for everyone in Paradise. We suspect the unpleasant reality is that to preserve this place of which Community Forum «X» «x» * * * there is no equal, we must be prepared to accept the possibility that our children might not be able to afford to buy their own home and stay here when Castle Valley, like all of Grand County, is in a time of growth and change. Elections are approaching and meetings are full of debate and decisions. There is talk of working on the Master Plan. The Castle Valley Times sees a need for a thoughtful column on issues facing our community. We would like to see this new column thought of as a community forum—a place where our readers can share ideas on issues here in the valley. The purpose would be to identify what those issues are and to list the facts and the possible consequences. Regardless of the direction the Valley chooses, decisions will be made. We feel that they first need to be thoroughly thought out and discussed. CV Times would like to see the community explore the possi- grown, or that if they can, they might bilities. To begin, we hope that you will participate in our column by submitting your ideas on what issues CV is facing. In future issues of We also suspect that these will be the Times, we will announce the topic and hope that you will contribute your thoughts and concerns about each issue. Whether or not this Community Forum column exists will be up to you. Send your ideas to Editor Cris Coffey, CVSR 2607, Moab UT 84532, or drop them into our suggestion box at the gate. Let’s explore the issues and discover the solutions. not be able to live right next door, or that they might have to live in our own home with us and all our bad habits as a cost for living here. We must face the possibility that we might have to leave this place in our old age if we are disabled and need caretakers (just as we might have to leave if we grow ill and need hospital services nearby), and that perhaps we can’t have live-in servants, unless they live in our home with us. worthwhile tradeoffs for the chance to live in a good place while we can, and for the rare chance to be able to pass on a good place to our children in 30 or 40 years when we are gone. Sincerely, Randy and Kaaron Jorgen |
