Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve one abatement refund, deny other tax abatement petitions after access and easement review
Summary
At the Dec. 16 meeting the board approved an assessor-recommended refund of $505.65 per year for the Dewey Mining claim (case 2578) after finding no practical access, and denied a group of other abatement petitions after staff produced subdivision surveys showing 30-foot private roadway easements. Commissioners discussed practical access standards and the requirement to obtain building permits to change classification.
Clear Creek County commissioners considered several property-tax abatement petitions at the Dec. 16 meeting. The assessor recommended a refund for case No. 2578 (Antis Canfield; the Dewey Mining claim) because the parcel lacks practical access; the assessor requested a refund of $505.65 per year and the board approved the assessor’s recommendation by motion and voice vote.
The board then considered several related abatement petitions (cases 2598, 2599, 25101, 25102, 25103 and 25104). The assessor provided subdivision surveys showing a 30‑foot private roadway and utility easement reserved for property owners (parcels A–G), and staff argued that recorded legal access existed despite the absence of a formal constructed road in places. Petitioner Chip Webster argued that although an easement exists on paper, the lack of an actual road rendered access impractical and that, in his view, abatement was warranted. County officials described past board-of-equalization practice: evidence that an owner cannot obtain a building permit because of access constraints can support practical-no-access findings. After questions and deliberation the board accepted the assessor’s position and moved to deny the request for abatement on the group of parcels.
Motion and outcomes • Case 2578 (Antis Canfield / Dewey Mining claim): motion to approve assessor’s recommendation to refund taxes in the amount of $505.65 per year — motion passed. • Cases 2598, 2599, 25101–25104: motion to accept the assessor’s recommendation to deny the petitioners’ requests for abatement or refund based on recorded easements and survey evidence — motion passed.
Quotes "Although there's an easement, there's no road … to put a road in there is more expensive than the value of the parcel," Chip Webster (petitioner) argued in favor of reconsideration for some parcels; assessors and commissioners reviewed survey evidence and concluded legal access exists on record.
Ending The board's abatement decisions will be incorporated into the assessor’s records; staff noted that if owners later apply for and are denied a driveway or building permit, that may be a basis for reconsideration of practical access in the future.
