Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves easements for two Green Mountain Falls lots after debate over planning commission role
Summary
After a lengthy discussion and failed attempt to table for additional planning commission review, trustees approved easement agreements for 6810 Park Avenue and 6795 Colorado Street; applicants warned delay would harm a pending closing.
The Green Mountain Falls Board of Trustees voted to approve two easement agreements for 6810 Park Avenue and 6795 Colorado Street following debate about whether the planning commission should weigh in on comprehensive-plan conformance. Staff presented the agreements and recommended approval as a means to resolve longstanding encroachments so the lots could be sold with clear title.
Planning commissioner Rocco Blasey urged the board during public comment to defer action and send the item back to the planning commission, saying the town code (section 7-102) envisions planning-commission involvement when feasible alternatives and comprehensive-plan conformance must be assessed. An applicant representative, Robin Myers, told the board any delay would “significantly harm” the applicants because of a pending closing. Staff member Julie said the town attorney advised the board has authority to execute the legal agreements and noted, “The standard compensation to the town for an easement is $10.”
Trustee Walker moved to defer the easement for planning commission comment; that motion failed on a roll call after extended discussion about procedure and statutory roles. Trustee Bell then moved to approve the easement agreements as presented; the motion was seconded and approved by the board. Staff said the executed easement documents must be signed by the applicants and the board before recording so the subdivision plat can be finalized and lots can be sold with clear title.
The decision closes the immediate application process for these two properties but prompted several trustees to request a future work session with legal staff and the planning commission to clarify when the planning commission should be engaged for similar land-use or agreement matters.
