Forum Posts

paulsweitzer
Dec 15, 2020
In Questions for the County
Elyse Casselberry commented in a public meeting about two weeks ago that the zoning map on the County website has not been updated to reflect changes. County Commissioners and administration are required to solicit public comments, and they did--but they did not update the zoning map, so they have not complied with the requirement. Show citizens the current zoning map before asking for comments.
0
0
4
paulsweitzer
Dec 15, 2020
In Questions for the County
I submitted comments below explaining that the proposed zoning skips over land close to the municipal boundary--resulting in checkerboard zoning, but in the Dec 14 work-session, I heard no conversation or comments regarding my comments. County Commissioners and planning administration complied with the letter of the law to ask for public comments--but they do not consider or discuss the comments in their land-use work-session (which lasted less than one hour, so how much time was dedicated to the over 30 comments that citizens submitted?). It seems appropriate for commissioners or administration to respond to comments and requests so citizens understand the county decisions regarding them. --------------- December 11, 2020 By email Delta County Commissioners Please amend the zoning of the parcel circled in orange east of Sweitzer Lake to Ag-5. I recognize that Ag-35 affords the broadest ag use, but I do not want a LAFO or a slaughterhouse. Neither do my neighbors: church, school, state park, and over 100 large-lot residential. I accept the less-broad ag accommodations in Ag-5. That will also make my neighbors happy. Compatibility. Ag-5 is the most appropriate zone for this land and other land like it that is: · very close to a municipality—less than one mile, hence subject to the IGA with City of Delta · with little or no irrigation water · where little or no farmland would be taken out of cultivation · close to a Highway #50—and access to it · close to the arterial 1900 Road—and access to it · adjacent to a school · surrounded by Ag-5 and Ag-20 large-lot-residential neighbors 90% of the parcels on this map are large-lot residential, because of proximity to City of Delta--even those zoned Ag-20, where owners rent their available farmland for less than the cost of irrigation water. Over 80% of the land in my parcel and many of the parcels around it have no irrigation water (marked with red X), so ag is not sustainable. There are 100 parcels within ½ mile zoned as A-5 Adjacent to the east, the large parcels of Tunget totaling 90 acres are zoned Ag-5. They are twice as far from the Delta municipal boundary as my parcel (5000 feet vs. 9600 feet). Another 50 parcels farther east of Tunget that are zoned Ag-5 (as much as 4 times as far from the municipal boundary , 18,000 feet. Zoning should not skip over my parcel that is closer to the City Delta, and which is subject to its IGA. The zoning of the church and school to the southwest as Ag-35 should not influence zoning of my parcel. They are Ag-35 by default, as the land-use code says--but they have no ag. (Central Latin America Church, 62 acres; Technical School of Rockies, 80 acres.) It seems all parcels on this map should be Ag-5. 90% are already large-lot residential. Some are bona fide subdivisions, so zoning should encourage compatible large-lot residential uses around them—rather than Ag-35 uses. Of the 48 parcels zoned Ag-20 on this map, 43 will not be allowed to divide! Cannot get two parcels from anything less than 40 acres. Zoning should permit greater density so near a municipality. My earlier request for Ag-5 or Ag-20 when the planner said there was were no roads in the area. This parcel has adequate legal access from three sources: 1. from Colorado Highway #50 with a 60-foot-wide road easement with an additional 15-foot utility easement through the Technical College of the Rockies (recorded deed #678023), and 2. from E Road west of the arterial 1900 Road 3. from E Road near the entrance to Sweitzer Lake In addition, the land-use code spells out requirements for owners to install roads and utilities in Ag-5 just as for Ag-35, regardless current roads. Zoning this parcel as Ag-5 does not diminish the requirements, so lack roads is no reason to require Ag-35 zoning. If the explanations in this letter are not enough to justify zoning this parcel Ag-5, then Ag-20 would be more appropriate than Ag-35, because this parcel is closer to the municipal boundary than adjacent parcels that that are Ag-5, and because of compatibility with zoning of other parcels in the area. Respectfully, Paul Sweitzer
checkerboard zoning content media
0
0
5
paulsweitzer
More actions