Report: Cashwell Re-Zoning Hearing, Oct. 27, 2011
by Orin Safier
On Oct. 27 the Sandoval Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) held the second part of the hearing on the latest application for Cashwell Re-Zoning for Cluster Housing. No final decision was made, and this matter is scheduled to be taken up next at the Dec. 8 PZC meeting.
I will first report the end result of this meeting, then briefly report some of what led up to it. This result was announced by Chairman Arango, who said that he had reached these conclusions due mainly to a previous conversation with the County Attorney and Michael Springfield, Director of the Development Department. Here are the main points Arango laid out:
1) All that the County Commission is deciding, if it gives approval to the application, is that the applicants (Cashwell and associates) have permission to do cluster housing on the property, not what the full details would be of what is built there. Therefore the applicants do not have to produce a full subdivision plat at this time. This goes against the recommendation previously made by the County Staff (that is, the Development Department) in its Staff Report that this platting would be required for the application to proceed further. The applicants did promise at this meeting that subdivision platting, dividing the property into building lots, would eventually be done – though they made no promises about whether that would be done any time in the foreseeable future.
2) The applicants would also not be required at this time to prove 100 year water supply. (This had also been recommended in the County Staff Report.) Arango said that a study by Shoemaker and Associates, produced in 2008 when Cashwell submitted the first application, was adequate to address the water issues as regards the re-zoning application. (That study, though, did not go into detail about water availability, and in fact expressed skepticism about the availability of water of adequate quantity and quality at the Cashwell property.)
3) The applicants’ attorney had argued that Section 19F of the Zoning Ordinances, Zone Map Amendment Guidelines, do not apply to the present application. Arango said that the County disagrees, and that the applicants need to address these issues before the application can proceed. Specifically, the applicant needs to provide more information about:
a. Accessibility – The application states that there is a “working agreement” with adjacent property owners to the north of the Cashwell property as to building a road off of Overlook Road, accessing the ridge top. However George Hidy, past president of the Overlook Homeowners Assoc., testified that no such agreement existed, at least not with the HOA or the developer Bob Poling, who owns an easement where that new road would go. Applicants’ attorney had raised questions during the hearing as to whether Poling’s easement could block construction of a county road there, and even whether Poling was current on property taxes for his easements. Arango said that applicants must provide either proof of access to build a road off Overlook road, or show how to build alternative roads to the ridge coming off Hwy. 165, or show that applicants have entered into good faith negotiations with Poling to get access through the easement. Emergency services, that is the Fire Department, must also weigh in on whether the road plans meet standards.
b. Liquid Waste – Though Arango maintained that the applicants need do nothing more to address water facilities, they do need to specify more adequately liquid waste facilities. Ken DeHoff, who lives on Pine Court on the west end of the ridge, had presented detailed objections to the vague liquid waste plan in the application, and Arango indicated that the applicants need to address these objections in more detail.
c. General Compatibility – Provision 19(F)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance requires: “The general compatibility of the proposed amendment with actual or prospective permissive zoning use of adjacent properties” Arango said that this was inadequately addressed in the application. Specifically, the question of how plans to build on the ridge-top would affect visibility, both from Hwy. 165 (south) and Overlook (north), must be addressed. The applicants should produce pictures showing how this might look from these different perspectives. The implication is that this should be compatible with other building in the area.
d. Lots – Though Arango said that the applicants would not be required to do a subdivision platting at this time, they must make clear how the property would divide into “lots”. The application mentions mainly “building envelopes” rather than lots, so it was unclear even the general nature of later subdivision. Arango said that County Staff would be preparing a letter to the applicants specifying what is needed to make clear the nature of the lots. This would then also make clear how much of the development as planned would be “common open space”.
e. Open Space – In addition to the concern about the amount of open space after lots are specified, Arango raised the concern of Ken DeHoff regarding placement of liquid waste facilities on the “common open space”. DeHoff raised the issue as to whether, if such facilities were located there, that would conform with the definition of “common open space” in the Zoning Ordinances. Whether or not that designated area would be used for waste treatment needs to be spelled out by the applicants. In addition, the use of the open space as a “wildlife corridor” needs to be clarified. Gerald Barkdoll pointed out in his comments that it makes no sense to have a wildlife corridor where there is no connection to other open spaces. Arango indicated that the applicants need to more adequately address their claim that this cluster housing development helps preserve wildlife corridors.
f. In the Zoning Ordinance Section 10(D)(3)(c)(2) for Cluster Housing, it specifies that: “Common Open Space may form one or more areas within the development, provided that at least one area is at least 60% of the total Common Open Space.” Arango said that once the lot areas are calculated, and excluding such features as driveways that cannot be part of open space, it must show that this 60% requirement is met.
g. Number of Houses on Ridge-Top – During the hearing the applicants had indicated that they are flexible on the maximum number of houses that could be built on the ridge top. Arango said that they need to specify this in the application. Applicants should produce a new plan map, showing the actual number of ridge-top houses planned, and also the cluster housing in general throughout the property.
h. Setbacks – Arango pointed out that there is nothing in the application about setbacks from property lines, and between structures, which overrides what is in the Zoning Ordinance for Rural Residential/Agricultural Zoning: “All residential and residential-related buildings and structures shall be located with a front setback of no less than twenty (20) feet, side setbacks of no less than ten (10) feet and rear setback of no less than ten (10) feet” If applicants wish different setbacks, they need to revise their application.
In general, Arango said that in order for the hearings to proceed the applicant must address these issues, mainly involving section 19(F). Then the applicants would also have to revisit the section 10 provisions regarding Special Use Cluster Housing.
Because responding to these requests from the Chair would require considerable work, the applicants said that they may have to seek a continuance of the proceedings beyond the Dec. 8 date.
At the beginning of the meeting Commissioner Bob Cote recused himself from participation on the Cashwell application, due to a business relation with Mr. Seavey, who represents the Cashwell applicants.
There is more to report about the citizens’ testimony, but I will save that for another forum entry. The above gives the gist of the Chair’s instructions to the applicant.