MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

September 27, 2005

 

            The regular meeting of the Larimer County Board of Adjustment was held in the County Board Hearing Room in the Larimer County Courthouse, Fort Collins, Colorado at 7:00 p.m., September 27, 2005.  Members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Evelyn King were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney David P. Ayraud.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of August 23, 2005 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0575  (Sugden Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kent & Pamela Sugden

Applicant:       Kent & Pamela Sugden

Property Description:

 

Lots 7 and 8, and that portion of Lot 9, POUDRE PARK SECOND ANNEX more particularly described as follows:

 

Beginning at the SE corner of Lot 7, thence South ten feet along the East line of Lot 9; thence West parallel to the line between Lot 7 and Lot 9 to the South line of Lot 8; thence in a northeasterly direction to the South line of Lot 7; thence East 25 feet to place of beginning; being a part of the E ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 8 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Kent and Pamela Sugden, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed replacement single-family dwelling to be located 50 feet from the centerline of Falls Creek, rather than the minimum requirement of 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is SE 02-08-71; 90 Falls Creek Drive, located south of Poudre Park in the Poudre Canyon.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.2 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.    Access:                                    Falls Creek Drive

 

5.         There is an existing residence and shed on the subject property.  The applicant proposes to demolish and remove the existing residence and replace it with a new residence.  The residence is located approximately 35 feet from Falls Creek.  The applicants have requested a variance to allow them to be located the proposed residence 50 feet from Falls Creek and 25 feet from the front property line rather than the required setback of 100 feet.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

  The steep topography to the rear of the lot and the lot’s irregular shape make it extremely difficult to place any type of suitable residence on the property. The proposed residence would be in a better location than the existing building because it is further from the creek and road. 

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant. The owners had no control of the extreme terrain or the lot configuration.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

There are many other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet setback requirements from Falls Creek.  Three were granted variances in the past three years, and others have been there for 40-50 years.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the replacement single-family dwelling.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicants shall apply for a building permit for the proposed building and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the permit.

 

2.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicants take affirmative action consistent with the approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Kent and Pamela Sugden not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berlund and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0576  (PFA Station 5 Setback Variance)

Owner:            Poudre Fire Authority

Applicant:       Poudre Fire Authority/Gary Nuckols

Property Description:

 

                        Lot 1, Replat of part of Tract B, Fairway Estates, Third Filing

 

            The Petition of Poudre Fire Authority, Gary Nuckols appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow the fire station building, after an addition, to be setback 15 feet from the front property line rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet in the FA-Farming zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is NW 1-6-69; 4615 Hogan Drive, located about ¼ mile east of College Ave., on the south side of Harmony Road.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.36 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Fire Station - addition

c.         Existing Zoning:             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming, Commercial (City)

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Fire Station

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Church, Commercial

g.         Access:                                    Hogan Drive

 

5.         Poudre Fire Authority has an existing fire station (No. 5) at the subject property.  The Authority proposes to expand the facility to accommodate a ladder truck and living quarters for the battalion chief.  The proposed addition for the living quarters would extend beyond the 25-foot front setback, resulting in front setback of 15 feet.  The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building, after addition, to be 15 feet from the front property line.

 

6.         The existing building is approximately 50 feet from the edge of the right-of-way for Harmony Road (State Highway 68), which is less than the required setback of 80 feet.  The existing building is nonconforming and the combined additions are more than 1000 square feet. Therefore, applicant must also obtain approval of an appeal for the expansion from the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant has submitted an appeal application, which is scheduled to be heard by the County Commissioners on October 3, 2005.

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The location and size of the existing building, the narrowness of the lot, and the existing building’s floor plan limit the areas available for the expansion to accommodate the garage expansion and living quarters additions.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

 

The special conditions outlined above are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Land Use Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

The strict enforcement of the code setback provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship by preventing the needed expansion of the fire station.  The addition will allow the Authority to respond more quickly and effectively to emergencies in the area.  The City of Fort Collins zoning setbacks are typically less than the County setbacks and this property will likely be annexed into the City in the coming years.

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed addition.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department. 

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.  The City of Fort Collins commented that it has no objections to the variance request.  Given that the property is within the Fort Collins GMA (Growth Management Area), the County has given substantial consideration to the City’s comments.

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Approval of this variance is conditioned on the Board of County Commissioners’ approval of the applicant’s appeal application.

 

2.         The applicant shall resolve expired permit number 97-F0445 within 60 days of variance approval.

 

3.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

4.         This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Poudre Fire Authority and Gary Nuckols not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0559  (Haines Setback Variance)

Owner:            Brandon Haines

Applicant:       Brandon Haines

Property Description:

 

Lot 98, Crystal Lakes Fifth Filing, being a portion of Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 North Range 74 West of the 6th P.M. according to the Plat filed for record October 14, 1971 in Book 1479 at Page 848, County of Larimer, Sate of Colorado.

 

Also known as:  7436 Ottawa Way, Red Feather Lakes, CO  80545

 

            The Petition of Brandon Haines, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition initially requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed cabin to be located 55 feet from the centerline of the North Fork Cache la Poudre River rather than the minimum requirement of 100 feet and to be 15 feet from the road easement, rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet in the O-Open zone.  The petition was subsequently amended to request a setback of 65 feet from the centerline of the North Fork Cache la Poudre River.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         There were persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is NE 12-10-74; 7436 N. Ottawa Way in Crystal Lakes area, about 1 mile southeast of Crystal Lakes Reservoir. (Lot 98, Crystal Lakes 5th Filing).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.7 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Dwelling

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Ottawa Way (North)

 

5.         The applicant owns Lot 98 of Crystal Lakes 5th Filing, which is currently vacant. Applicant proposes to construct a dwelling on the lot.  The North Fork of Cache la Poudre River runs along the south lot line and Ottawa Way borders the north lot line.  The topography of the lot is level, and has a number of evergreen trees.  The proposed location of the dwelling was initially proposed to be 55 feet from the center of the river and 15 feet from the edge of the road easement for Ottawa Way.  The proposed location was subsequently modified to be 65 feet from the center of the river.  The required setbacks are 100 feet from the river centerline and 25 feet from the edge of the road easement.

 

6.         The concerns associated with this variance request are the proximity of the building location to the river and the road, and the ability to accommodate a water source and septic system.  The lot is level and barely above the river elevation.  There was standing water on portions of the site when Planning Staff visited the site.  The water was near the road, and it was unclear what the source of the water was, but it appeared to come from overflow of the river from upstream, or high ground water. 

 

7.         The existing septic vault is very possibly in the right-of-way for Ottawa Way.  This would need to be verified prior to issuance of any building permit.  If it has to be moved onto the property, then the question remains of being able to satisfy the 50’ required setback for vaults from rivers and 10’ from property lines.

 

8.         The property has historically been used for seasonal recreation via an RV that was mobile and could easily be moved to avoid any natural hazards.  A permanent structure would not have this option.

 

9.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

              A.       There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The shape and shallowness of the property create special conditions that make it difficult for a proposed residential building to meet the setback requirements.  The required river and road setbacks overlap, leaving no area that could meet the requirements. 

 

              B.       The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The lot configuration existed prior to the current ownership; however the applicant purchased the property at the end of 2004, long after the setback requirements had been in effect.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the  Land Use Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

There are a few other buildings in the area that do not meet building setback requirements from the river.  Encroaching into the river setback is not a common right enjoyed by other buildings; encroaching into the road setback is less common.  Strict enforcement of the setback requirements would prevent the use of this lot for single family dwelling or cabin purposes.  Historically, the property has been used for temporary camping.

 

            D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the construction of the proposed dwelling.  The land could continue to be used for temporary camping without the variance.  Comments of concern and objection were received from a neighboring property owner. 

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

The elevation of the property is only 1-2 feet above the river elevation as observed at the end of May 2005 by Planning Department staff.  Structures on this lot have the potential to displace water onto neighboring properties, putting them at risk for flood damage.  This portion of the river has not been studied by FEMA and therefore has no floodplain regulations affecting it.

 

The applicant provided an engineering report (William Hansen, P.C.), subsequent to the original application, concluding that the existing stone revetment constructed on the North bank of normal high water.  Furthermore, if the cabin is constructed on piers recommended in the report, then the dwelling would allow passage of overflow high waters from the river and surface flow after rain to pass under the building and would allow the ground to dry out.  The report states that the cabin would remain “high and dry under all but catastrophic meteorlogic conditions.”

 

The existing road is only a one-lane road currently.  Should the road be widened in the future, the variance would allow the building to be very close to the traveled road and an adjacent airplane runway to the north.

           

            F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance subject to certain conditions would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.  With the conditions recommended by Staff, it is anticipated that adverse physical impacts to neighboring properties would be mitigated.

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Eric Berglund seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The cabin shall be built no closer than 65 feet from the centerline of the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River and 15 feet from the south edge of the right-of-way for Ottawa Way.

 

2.         The applicant shall obtain all required permits for the proposed cabin.

 

3.         The cabin shall be built on piers extending 2 feet to 4 feet above grade as recommended in the letter from Charles Robinson, P.E., dated August 16, 2005, and included in the variance file.

 

4.         The applicant shall remove the existing water cistern and sewage vault from the right-of-way for Ottawa Way and shall install a sealed vault within the property boundaries that conforms to the requirements of the Department of Health.

 

5.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment

 

6.         This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.        

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Brandon Haines not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0574  (Dehn Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kenneth Matzner and Sam Shoultz

Applicant:       Charles Dehn

Property Description:

 

Parcel 1:

Lot 1, Block 2, Laugh-A-Lot Subdivision, less the road right-of-way described in Book 1106, Page 71; Larimer County, Colorado

 

Parcel 2:

Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 2, Laugh-A-Lot, a subdivision of a portion of the SW ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 32, Township 9 North Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado

 

            The Petition of Charles Dehn, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described properties to allow two single family dwellings, each on a separate lot, to be located 58 feet the center of State Highway 14, rather than the minimum requirement of 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

 

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         There were persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is SE ¼ of 24-09-73; located about ½ mile west of Rustic, on north side of Highway 14 (Lots 1-5, Block 2).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant (both parcels)

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Colorado State Highway 14

 

5.         The property consists of 5 vacant lots in the Laugh-A-Lot Subdivision, which was platted in the early 1900’s.  The applicant intends to combine the five lots into two lots and construct a dwelling on each of the two lots.  The proposed dwellings would be located 58 feet from the center of State Highway 14, which has a required setback of 100 feet.  The applicant requests a variance from the 100-foot setback requirement from a State Highway.

 

6.         The proposed building locations are on ground that is elevated about 8 feet above the highway, which helps mitigate the potential of vehicles leaving the roadway and striking the buildings.  Also, the applicant intends to consolidate five lots into two lots thereby reducing the potential for five separate buildings to two.  This also alleviates the future need for more variances and allows each resultant lot to better accommodate septic systems and wells.

 

7.         CDOT prefers that no permanent structures be built within 75 feet of the center of the highway, to allow for predicted right-of-way needs.

 

8.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The steep topography to the rear of the lot makes it extremely difficult to satisfy the setback requirements.   

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant or owners.  The owners had no control of the extreme terrain or the lot configuration.  The lots were platted in the early 1900’s.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Land Use Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

There are other residences in the immediate vicinity that are set back a similar distance from the Highway.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed single-family dwellings.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

Comments in favor and against the proposed variance have been received and considered.  The Board finds that granting the variance will not adversely affect neighboring properties. 

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

9.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

 

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Charles Dehn not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2005.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________