Larimer County Offices, Courts, District Attorney, Landfill, Household Hazardous Waste, and Recycle Center are all closed on Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 2015.
County Offices are also closed on Friday, November 27 while the Courts, District Attorney, Landfill, Household Hazardous Waste, and Recycle Center are open. Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 24, 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., May 24, 2005. Members Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, and Vincent Costanzi were present. Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2005 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.
File No: #05-BOA0556 (Hembree Lot Size Variance)
Owner: William Horrix
Applicant: Stephanie Hembree
Lot 23, South Moffett Park Subdivision
The Petition of William Horrix, requesting a variance was presented to the Board. The Petition requested a lot size variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing, nonconforming subdivision lot of 4.5 acres to be further reduced in size to 4.13 acres, rather than the minimum requirement of 10 acres 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:
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 30-6-70; 4709 Otero Ave., located about 3 miles south of Masonville, just east of CR 25E..
4. Site data is as follows:
a. Land Area: 9.16 acres total (2 lots - 4.6 and 4.4 acres)
b. Proposed Use: Single Family Residential
c. Existing Zoning O-Open
d. Surrounding Zoning: O-Open, FA-1 Farming
e. Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
f. Surrounding Land Uses: Residential, Agricultural
g. Access: Otero Avenue
5. The owners of lots 22 and 23, South Moffet Park desire to adjust the boundary line between their lots. The applicant, Stephanie Hembree, owns lot 22 and wants to acquire a portion (.34 acres) of lot 23, owned by William Horrix. At some point in the past, a fence was built between the two lots; however it was not built along the lot line. For years, as ownerships changed, the fence line was considered the lot line. This situation has clouded the titles of both properties. Through the Amended Plat, Lot 22 would increase in size from 4.6 acres to 5 acres; Lot 23 would be reduced from 4.4 acres to 4.1 acres. Because Lot 23 would be reduced further in size, and is in a zoning district that has a 10 acre minimum lot size, a variance from the minimum lot size is required.
6. The historic use and expectation of the property lines would be clarified with the help of granting this variance. The owners could then amend the subdivision plat and legally adjust the boundary line. Smaller lot sizes exist in the immediate area; granting this variance would result an insignificant change while still maintaining a lot size that is one of the larger ones in the subdivision. The Development Services Team has no issues or concerns with the variance proposal.
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 shared boundary line between Lots 22 and 23 has been obscured over the years because of a fence that was thought to be the lot line. This has resulted in clouded titles for both of the lots and complications in selling the properties.
B. The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.
The special conditions were not caused by any action or inaction by the owners. The fence has been in place for many years and property owners through the years have interpreted this to be the lot line.
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.
The strict enforcement of the provision of the code would deprive the owner of a similar right enjoyed by a couple of other properties in the vicinity which do not meet the lot size requirement. This same subdivision has platted lots that are smaller than the lot size requested for Lot 23. The expectation that the established fence line was the property line has been held for many years. The hardship that strict enforcement of the lot size provision would cause is unnecessary in this case.
D. Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.
Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow the owners to continue the process of officially adjusting the boundary line. They will continue to utilize the properties as separate parcels and in the arrangement that has historically been done.
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 concerns have been received.
F. Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the Master Plan.
By granting the variance, the owners will then be able to proceed through a process to amend the subdivision plat and adjust the separating lot line. This will result in an appropriate outcome that considered the health, safety, and welfare of the owners and surrounding properties.
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.
Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following 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 she hereby is granted her variance as requested subject to the following conditions:
1. 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner, Stephanie Hembree, not act upon the lot size variance granted herein by obtaining approval of the lot line adjustment through the Amended Plat in conformance 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 Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the lot size variance was granted subject to conditions.
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 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