OCR Text |
Show CASTLE VALLEY TIMES COMMUNITY to house. Extra houses can depressing neighbor‘s property values. One person’s freedon can be another’s oppression. Exceptions can lead to break down of basic laws. Gwen Martineau: favors proposal. Health deteriorating. Additions to house wouldn’t work. Too many laws are smothering us. Surveys have been slanted. Needs second house for relatives to take care of them. Dave Erley: Bought into 1 dwelling per lot. People can add to existing house. Amendment doesn’t limit number of dwellings. Maybe compro— mise with removable dwelings. LIVELY TIMES - JULY 15, 1998 - 7 MEETINGS Fritz Bachman: opposes amend. If he wanted to live in high density area he would have bought land in Spanish Valley. Rebecca Martin: more than one dwelling per lot is defacto subdivision. Won’t be able to prevent property from being sold with 2nd dwellings. Darr shouldn’t vote because of blatant conflict of interest Called for Darr’s resignation because of Darr’s violation with 2nd dwelling. Jake Burnett: asked for resignation of Darr Hatch because of second dwelling violation. Julianne Smith: Amendment too unclear. Could lead to major problems. Alan Williams: shouldn’t restrict amemdment and do research to find a people from taking care of elderly. Surveys were biased. Wants temporary dwelling allowed for elderly. Supports what Darr and Gloria doing. Manufact- compromise. Robert Ryan seconded. Robert told how his family (mother and brothers) are sharing a house in Denver. Out of necessity they made it ured housing could be removed. work in emergency situation, without Town Council Delberation: Dave Wagstaff moved to reject the anything on earth, it can’t be built, developed, improved, because it’s a flood erosion area for the upper valley. It's totally worthless. I suggested buying 3 acres of it. Town wouldn’t sell greenbelt to me. I applied for a building permit before I brought the second dwelling on my lot. I was advised I could put a legal structure on there like I was doing. Don’t tell me I’m bad just because the Town won’t issue me a permit. House won’t be lived in. It’s none of you peoples business. It’s between me and the Town. It’s none of your business and keep your nose out of other persons problems. Dave Wagstaff: Dan, the longer I sit here the more I take extreme exception to your assumptions. A number of them are way incorrect. While I'm sympathetic to that, it doesn’t address the real issues, that if we allow more second dwelling. John Groo: legally, very difficult to to wide open. Supports more research. than one dwelling per lot we’re going to increase the density in Castle Valley beyond limits that any of us can Darr Hatch: I’m amazed that Town envision. Dave called the question. No close door once opened, if more than one dwelling allowed per lot. Recent has restrictions on multiple dwellings, but allows 15 barns and have 30 water study indicates less water than already allocated. Individual rights can conflict with community rights. animals and sheds. You’re putting the Mayor Keeler read letters: John and Marie Andrews: favored allowing guest houses, but only with restrictions and better enforcement. Cecelia Peterson: supports Darr taking care of parents in 2nd dwelling. Susan Ulery, Mitchell May and Jayne Dillon: strongly oppose allow- another house on my lot, my neighbors land will increase in value, not decrease. If 76% don’t want to allow second dwellings, 25% already have second dwellings. Let it alone without restrictions. When it was let alone, there was no impact on the valley. Darr said that there are about ing 2nd dwellings. Allowing 2nd 20% second dwellings already[?]. No impact at all. Five acres still required if you have 1 house, 2 houses, or 10 houses on your lot. Can’t predict future. Past indicates this Town is Egmont Honer: supports allowing houses will eventually lead to greatly increased density in the valley. Request for Darr not to vote on issue. Todd Pfeifer: neighbor to Darr. Strongly opposes allowing more dwellings per lot and asks the Town to have Darr’s second dwelling removed. Jean Wilson: don’t change one dwelling per lot. We’re lucky to live on 5 acre lots. People don’t realize how lucky we are. Karen Nelson: chose to live here because of 5 acre, one dwelling per lot. Supports density limit. Would be hard to regulate 2nd dwelling after elderly parents were gone. breaking the law. Proposed amendment value of a horse or a dog above the value of a human being. If I put going to stay very small for a long, long period of time. There’s a need for an amendment to allow for second dwellings. No impact from second dwellings if nobody knows where they are. Valley will stay the same if second dwellings allowed. I can’t find one single logical reason or a good honest second. Bruce Keeler. Town attorney said that this amendment would open the way to subdivision of our 5 acre lots. Eventually 2 dwellings on a lot will be defacto subdividing. My research showed that in resort communities like Moab, if there weren’t stringent restrictions, they ended up with very small lots and very high density which none of us here are looking for, even those who support having something extra for their family. Bruce said that the transfer of the greenbelt lots was done in a messy way, but that conditions were imposed that said the lots were not to be sold among other things. Town can’t sell greenbelt lots. [Much more discussion about POA/Town process regarding transfer of greenbelt lots]. Bmce called the question. Dave seconded. Vote on motion to reject amendment and refer back to Planning Commission for more research. Bruce, ing. I own 7 acres, not a phony 3.5 acres. The Town has some land Robert and Dave voting aye. Darr voting naye. ’ Meeting adjourned. [It’s extremely difficult tofairly repres- [greenbelt] that is totally worthless to ent such a long, heated discussion.] negative impact from a second dwell- |