Montezuma County approves three Rolling Hills Estate subdivision amendments to formalize road and access strips

Montezuma County commissioners on Sept. 16 approved three related subdivision amendments for portions of the Rolling Hills Estate subdivision that change shared easements into 60-foot parcels of real property, extend Road H-0.6 eastward and divide a 31.11-acre tract into three lots.

The actions, submitted by 8 42 Holdings LLC (agents Sean and Cassie Rooks) and the Hurst Family Revocable Trust, were described at a public hearing as intended to provide each lot with its own 60-foot access strip to Road H-0.6 rather than relying on easements. Planning staff said all three applications meet the subdivision covenants' 9-acre minimum lot size requirement.

Planning department staff summarized the package and described the three parts: 1) conveyance between Lots 2A East/West and 2B East/West to provide 60-foot real-property access to Road H-0.6; 2) conveyance between Lots 4A and 4B to provide similar access for those parcels; and 3) subdivision of Lot 4A into three parcels, each larger than the 9-acre covenant minimum and each shown to have access to the extended H-0.6.

Public commenters raised concerns about adjacent driveways, the effect of the H-0.6 extension on the cul-de-sac used for school buses and emergency vehicles, and future traffic if the 160-acre parcel beyond the proposed extension were developed. Leslie Lewis, who said she lives adjacent to the proposed new driveway, read a letter from her attorney and said the planned access “creates two driveways immediately adjacent to each other” and that the drawing did not clearly show where accesses would begin and end. Greg Bridal said he had heard the owner may subdivide the 160-acre parcel in the future and that “that will dump a tremendous amount of traffic on H-0.6 going through a residential area.”

Applicant Sean Rooks addressed several concerns, saying the H-0.6 continuation “is going to be done and paid by us” and that he owns land on both sides of the extension. Rooks said he did not have immediate plans to develop the 160 acres and that the road extension was intended to avoid future easement disputes.

Staff noted the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval, subject to two conditions: a dedicated easement for the waterline and access from Lot 4A to Lot 4B, and recognition of an existing access for WAPA (the power-line access) on the northeast corner of Lot 2A East. Montezuma Water Company was referenced as the utility that will provide the waterline and taps.

After public comment, a commissioner moved to approve the three applications as noticed. The motion carried with the vote recorded as unanimous approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

The county clerk's published notice for the hearing listed the properties involved and the hearing location and date in Cortez. The commissioners closed the public hearing following the vote.

The action record in county minutes shows the board approved the three subdivision amendments as submitted and recorded the Planning and Zoning recommendation and the two conditions regarding the waterline easement and the WAPA access.

The approvals formalize access and change easements to parcels of real property; they do not by themselves authorize further subdivision beyond what was posted and reviewed by Planning and Zoning. Any future proposals affecting the 160-acre parcel would require separate review and permitting.

A copy of the attorney letter submitted as public comment was included in the record.