In a relatively short period of time during its Tuesday morning, Jan. 4 session, the Chaffee Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) dealt with a shortlist of business items and answered pointed questions about progress on the county’s sustainability plan and the county’s road maintenance policies.
As expected, it approved both resolutions establishing moratoriums on both retail and medical marijuana establishments in unincorporated Chaffee County until Dec.31, 2023.
The BoCC renewed the county’s ambulance licenses for Chaffee Emergency Medical Services. The county has five ambulance permits and the renewal is done annually following all state-mandated equipment updates.
The BoCC followed that with the ratification of Chaffee Resolution 2022- 05, which extends the local disaster emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic, and it approved its 2022 open meeting schedule. Commissioner Keith Baker pointed out that several counties that had allowed their local disaster emergency declarations to lapse, thinking the pandemic over, have since put them back into place.
The Morrison Minor subdivision final plat was approved as Res. 2022-04.
Sue Greiner, commenting during the general public comment segment, asked the BoCC to clarify when the county would get on with development of a county sustainability plan. In Oct. Beth Helmke facilitated an organizational session for about 50 interested residents and businesses, which resulted in a development model.
“A sustainability plan is supposed to be written into the comp plan,” said Greiner. “Last year there was an effort by a pile of volunteers to start that process … My questions are, why haven’t we heard anything more and when are we going to get this underway?
“Both the Sustainability plan and the strategic plan I consider to be interrelated and I think my colleagues do too,” said BoCC Chairman Greg Felt.” As we got late into the year with the holidays and the things we were wrapping up for the year, we put it on hold, and had capacity issues too. Just yesterday we said we need to get back to this.”
“I want to work on this plan, I’m a champion of the whole concept of planning – in my career, planning is a worthwhile endeavor,” said Baker. “Sustainability plans are targeted to long-term and resiliency plans are for recovery … we want to get going on this.”
Both heritage water subdivision exemption public hearings were again continued:
- The Tomkins Heritage Water subdivision exemption application is continued to Jan. 11 to allow time for road and sewer access to Poncha Springs to be clarified and to confirm if there is a desire for more density on the parcel.
- The McFarland Heritage Water Subdivision exemption (which would divide an existing parcel into two parcels; one five-acre parcel is the heritage water subdivision protecting the existing well, another larger, 35-acre parcel that could be further subdivided in the future) was continued to Jan. 18, but for a far more contentious reason.
The applicant, Tom McFarland, again objected to a county draft resolution requiring him to participate in a road agreement for Maud Lane (his parcel is located at 22865 Maud Lane), a private road that is not maintained by the county. McFarland said he refused to cooperate with the Home Owners Association (HOA) that covers most of the other houses on the lane. The county had suggested a cost-sharing percentage, that didn’t require him to join the HOA, just contributing to the road, and he responded that this was unreasonable.
The entrance to Maud Lane clearly marks it as a private road. AVV file photo.
“We got a letter on Dec. 22 from [the HOA]. They said the county should be taking care of the maintenance of the roads,” said County Attorney Daniel Tom. “So we offered a formula for how to share the HOA cost – and they responded that the county should do the road up to their driveways, and we said the HOA should share out the cost and the HOA should collect the fund support. That would start at the beginning of any future construction [on the new lot] – it would not affect the original heritage water lot.”
McFarland responded saying, “it’s an unreasonable requirement for you to tell me to make an agreement with a bunch of unreasonable people. The only agreement I was able to reach was that we all agree that the county ought to maintain that road.” He continued, faulting the county, saying, You’ve already wasted a lot of time…Just once in a while send a snowplow up there, or once in a while grade the road! I’m not going to be roped into dealing with a bunch of lunatics – and they don’t have one idea on how to maintain the road.”
“I don’t know what that costs you, but it doesn’t cost you almost anything extra…you guys are in every other road that goes off Rodeo road, so why shouldn’t this be done now?” He brought up fairness and an incident more than a year earlier when another homeowner along Maud Lane had yelled at a family member and his young grand-niece that ‘Tom McFarland doesn’t pay for this road so he can’t use it.’ “I can’t be backed into a position where I am forced to work with these folks who are crazy.”
He went on to blame the county for attempting to assess a road share saying, “They conned the county road and bridge guy into taking down the county road signs on the road … I’m not going to agree to it … I am just dumbfounded that this is still an issue. You started out trying to make me pay a road share for my house … and it’s no longer an issue to force me to buy a road share for an existing house. I can’t ever come to an agreement with these people – it’s not right to step in there now after I bought the house based on the assurances that this road was paid for by these people….and now you’re trying to make me pay.”
” If I can ever restore some semblance of normalcy I’ll do what I’ve always done, I’d voluntarily pay a road share… I’d done that up until the last year when they did such a terrible job on the road. I sent you pictures – if next year they get the road fixed … I will. I’ve tried to be a good neighbor and you’re stymying me from doing what I want to do with my land.”
Maud Lane is a public right-of-way, but it is also a private road, like many other service roads in the county on which rural driveways connect to access county roads.
“I understand Mr. McFarland’s concern, but this is not a unique use – it is a subdivision of land, the prior lot did not have to pay, but given that subdividing a parcel to preserve a heritage water exemption is a service, then that allows us to apply the rules,” said Tom.
“I’m already agreed to pay them $1 for that parcel pus any other amount that I think is fair and they won’t agree to it,” McFarland responded.
Felt responded that one way the county has dealt with a controversy like this in the past when homeowners won’t work together is set a flat fee, not a percentage.
Editor’s Note: Based on a 1991 County Ordinance, and as a rural county with a limited budget, Chaffee County has a maintenance cap on miles of maintained county roads. As it has grown, all new roads serving that growth have been private roads, with the homeowners or businesses along those roads privately maintaining the road. There are examples all over the county of privately-maintained roads in subdivisions, that are not plowed (winter or summer) by the county; and are instead maintained by the property owners who use the road. Maud Lane appears to be maintained at least as well, and better than most other private roads in the county.
Recent Comments