2016 Buchanan SG41-A Project Review Approval COMPLAINT
Jan 14, 2016 12:47:14 GMT -7
Admin likes this
Post by debbieb on Jan 14, 2016 12:47:14 GMT -7
1/13/2016
FORMAL COMPLAINT - SG41-A Project Approved with Incomplete Plans, not IAW Master Plan
This is a formal complaint with the GLA and their approval January 11th of a Project Plan application that was incomplete, confusing, and not IAW the Master Plan. See the attachment for details.
A first look at Mr. Buchanan’s 2nd Project Application for SG41-A (submitted sometime in December or January?) was afforded to landowners (including myself) on January 11th 2016 at the GLA Board Meeting, where a few hard copies were available for viewing in the blue binders.
This project was approved despite recommendations from both Project Review chairmen to delay and resolve 1) staking/setback issues and 2) non-compliance with Master Plan.
A call with Barbara Woodbury, Park County Environmental Health, today provided clarity on why this application has 2 sets of drawings; one with a permitted 1500-gallon septic tank and another with 2 unpermitted 1000-gallon septic tanks. The applicant has submitted for a DEQ re-write, which is in process and not yet approved.
She also informed me that SG41-A has a shared well agreement with SG41-E, which is in question given the new proposed well location. This needs to be resolved as well.
Finally, the application clearly shows the Accessory Building will be built before the residence/cabin. This is not in accordance with the Master Plan for a residential community.
Debbie Blais SG 40-C
From: Deb B.
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:31 AM
To: info@glamontana.org
Subject: RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT - SG41-A Project Approved with Incomplete Plans, not IAW Master Plan
When I emailed this yesterday, I forgot the majority (10?) of the Board Members are unable to receive and open attachments sent to the info@glamontana.org account. In the interest of all Board Members being able to receive and read the text of this complaint, I’m resubmitting it with the text embedded in the email:
GLA Complaint: Buchanan SG41-A Project approved by GLA Board with Incomplete Plans, and not IAW GLA Master Plan
Covenants:
Section 6.01.a – The plans are incomplete, are in violation of or are not in accordance with these covenants, the Master Plan, or any rule or regulation adopted in accordance therewith;
History of the Problem:
A first look at Mr. Buchanan’s 2nd Project Application for SG41-A (submitted sometime in December or January?) was afforded to landowners (including myself) on January 11th 2016 at the GLA Board Meeting, where a few hard copies were available for viewing in the blue binders. No landowner input was allowed during the Project Review portion of the meeting, while this Project Application was discussed and approved, due to the GLA’s new Meeting Decorum policy and procedures. There had been no open Project Review Committee Meeting noticed to the landowners prior to the Board meeting to discuss the Buchanan project and allow landowner input. The GLA Board moved and voted to approve this Project Application with no possibility for landowner input and despite 1) a recommendation by Gerald Dubiel, Project Review Chairman, to table it until February 2016, when the applicant could complete proper staking, thereby allowing Project Review Committee verification of proper setbacks; and 2) a recommendation by Kevin Newby, Project Review Co-Chair, for attorney advice on allowing an Accessory building to be built when there is no residence/dwelling on the parcel (please see Master Plan text on the residential nature of our community and also the Master Plan definition of an Accessory Building which states: “The design standard of an Accessory Building must be comparable to the main structure.”)
I took my first detailed look at the Buchanan application on Tuesday, Jan 12th and noticed several items of concern. A follow up phone call today, January 13, with Barbara Woodbury, Park County Environmental Health, provided additional information that indicates the application submitted is incomplete as follows:
1. Per page 1 of his application, applicant has not read his subdivision covenants and does not know if his project is in compliance with them. He has not presented his project to his subdivision board or representative. Barbara Woodbury informed me SG41-A has a shared well agreement with SG41-E that is binding.
2. Per page 1 of his application, the proposed structures and improvements, such as driveway, well and drain field do not follow the original placements approved by the county and DEQ.
3. Mr. Buchanan’s application contains conflicting maps. The Septic Permit 15-077 dated October 20, 2015 is for a 1500-gallon septic system located as shown on the DEQ approved map (2 pages), page 1 dated 2002 and page 2 dated 10/11/2015. This map shows a single septic system located in the center of the parcel (north to south) near the SG41-B property line. This approved diagram shows the well location northeast of the shop, where it could be shared with SG41-E.
4. Mr. Buchanan has submitted an application for a DEQ re-write that is currently in review process, not yet approved, for a revision as shown on the 3rd diagram in Mr. Buchanan’s application. This diagram and revision proposes 2 separate septic systems, each w/1000 gallon tanks; Septic System A located at the northwest corner of the parcel near the shop, and Septic B located at the southwest corner of the parcel near the cabin. If this 3rd diagram is his intent, it will require a new Septic Permit; not yet issued.
5. The revised application also re-locates the well to the southwest of the shop, closer to the middle of the parcel and further away from SG41-E. Ms. Woodbury informed me that the existing Shared Well agreement with SG41-E either needs revision and agreement by both landowners in the subdivision for the new location, or the shared well agreement may be terminated by both parties prior to moving the well on SG 41-A. This has not been resolved to her knowledge.
This project application was ramrodded through the GLA approval process prematurely and against 2 Project Review Committee chairmen recommendations. The approval was given on an application with conflicting and confusing information and drawings:
• An approved permit for a DEQ approved septic location that he doesn’t plan to use?
• Drawings and diagrams that he does plan to use (?), but which have no Septic permit and require a DEQ rewrite.
• Shared well issues with SG 41-E landowner that, by his own admission, have not been discussed, reviewed nor resolved.
ANOTHER CONCERN: Was each member of the GLA Board who voted on the project application given access to a copy of it in time to review the application themselves before voting on it?
What to Do?
Reverse the GLA approval of this application until such time as:
• The applicant has obtained and reviewed any subdivision covenants, and presented his project to the subdivision board/representative.
• The project has been discussed with SG41-E landowner and a new well location is known and agreed upon with that owner.
• The DEQ rewrite process has completed and any new DEQ site layouts and Septic Permits resulting from that are issued and included in the application.
• The application contains a single set of drawings for the actual intended site layout.
• A Septic Permit is obtained and submitted for the intended site layout.
• The project and lot corners are properly staked and the Project Review Committee has verified ALL setbacks.
• The cabin’s begin date and completion date are scheduled before the Accessory building shop’s begin date, to allow the GLA to uphold the residential nature of our community, IAW the Master Plan.
• The entire GLA Board has access to a complete project application and has time to review it well in advance of a Board vote. The GLA Board votes on the complete application and approves it if it is in accordance with the Master Plan and Covenants.
FORMAL COMPLAINT - SG41-A Project Approved with Incomplete Plans, not IAW Master Plan
This is a formal complaint with the GLA and their approval January 11th of a Project Plan application that was incomplete, confusing, and not IAW the Master Plan. See the attachment for details.
A first look at Mr. Buchanan’s 2nd Project Application for SG41-A (submitted sometime in December or January?) was afforded to landowners (including myself) on January 11th 2016 at the GLA Board Meeting, where a few hard copies were available for viewing in the blue binders.
This project was approved despite recommendations from both Project Review chairmen to delay and resolve 1) staking/setback issues and 2) non-compliance with Master Plan.
A call with Barbara Woodbury, Park County Environmental Health, today provided clarity on why this application has 2 sets of drawings; one with a permitted 1500-gallon septic tank and another with 2 unpermitted 1000-gallon septic tanks. The applicant has submitted for a DEQ re-write, which is in process and not yet approved.
She also informed me that SG41-A has a shared well agreement with SG41-E, which is in question given the new proposed well location. This needs to be resolved as well.
Finally, the application clearly shows the Accessory Building will be built before the residence/cabin. This is not in accordance with the Master Plan for a residential community.
Debbie Blais SG 40-C
From: Deb B.
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:31 AM
To: info@glamontana.org
Subject: RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT - SG41-A Project Approved with Incomplete Plans, not IAW Master Plan
When I emailed this yesterday, I forgot the majority (10?) of the Board Members are unable to receive and open attachments sent to the info@glamontana.org account. In the interest of all Board Members being able to receive and read the text of this complaint, I’m resubmitting it with the text embedded in the email:
GLA Complaint: Buchanan SG41-A Project approved by GLA Board with Incomplete Plans, and not IAW GLA Master Plan
Covenants:
Section 6.01.a – The plans are incomplete, are in violation of or are not in accordance with these covenants, the Master Plan, or any rule or regulation adopted in accordance therewith;
History of the Problem:
A first look at Mr. Buchanan’s 2nd Project Application for SG41-A (submitted sometime in December or January?) was afforded to landowners (including myself) on January 11th 2016 at the GLA Board Meeting, where a few hard copies were available for viewing in the blue binders. No landowner input was allowed during the Project Review portion of the meeting, while this Project Application was discussed and approved, due to the GLA’s new Meeting Decorum policy and procedures. There had been no open Project Review Committee Meeting noticed to the landowners prior to the Board meeting to discuss the Buchanan project and allow landowner input. The GLA Board moved and voted to approve this Project Application with no possibility for landowner input and despite 1) a recommendation by Gerald Dubiel, Project Review Chairman, to table it until February 2016, when the applicant could complete proper staking, thereby allowing Project Review Committee verification of proper setbacks; and 2) a recommendation by Kevin Newby, Project Review Co-Chair, for attorney advice on allowing an Accessory building to be built when there is no residence/dwelling on the parcel (please see Master Plan text on the residential nature of our community and also the Master Plan definition of an Accessory Building which states: “The design standard of an Accessory Building must be comparable to the main structure.”)
I took my first detailed look at the Buchanan application on Tuesday, Jan 12th and noticed several items of concern. A follow up phone call today, January 13, with Barbara Woodbury, Park County Environmental Health, provided additional information that indicates the application submitted is incomplete as follows:
1. Per page 1 of his application, applicant has not read his subdivision covenants and does not know if his project is in compliance with them. He has not presented his project to his subdivision board or representative. Barbara Woodbury informed me SG41-A has a shared well agreement with SG41-E that is binding.
2. Per page 1 of his application, the proposed structures and improvements, such as driveway, well and drain field do not follow the original placements approved by the county and DEQ.
3. Mr. Buchanan’s application contains conflicting maps. The Septic Permit 15-077 dated October 20, 2015 is for a 1500-gallon septic system located as shown on the DEQ approved map (2 pages), page 1 dated 2002 and page 2 dated 10/11/2015. This map shows a single septic system located in the center of the parcel (north to south) near the SG41-B property line. This approved diagram shows the well location northeast of the shop, where it could be shared with SG41-E.
4. Mr. Buchanan has submitted an application for a DEQ re-write that is currently in review process, not yet approved, for a revision as shown on the 3rd diagram in Mr. Buchanan’s application. This diagram and revision proposes 2 separate septic systems, each w/1000 gallon tanks; Septic System A located at the northwest corner of the parcel near the shop, and Septic B located at the southwest corner of the parcel near the cabin. If this 3rd diagram is his intent, it will require a new Septic Permit; not yet issued.
5. The revised application also re-locates the well to the southwest of the shop, closer to the middle of the parcel and further away from SG41-E. Ms. Woodbury informed me that the existing Shared Well agreement with SG41-E either needs revision and agreement by both landowners in the subdivision for the new location, or the shared well agreement may be terminated by both parties prior to moving the well on SG 41-A. This has not been resolved to her knowledge.
This project application was ramrodded through the GLA approval process prematurely and against 2 Project Review Committee chairmen recommendations. The approval was given on an application with conflicting and confusing information and drawings:
• An approved permit for a DEQ approved septic location that he doesn’t plan to use?
• Drawings and diagrams that he does plan to use (?), but which have no Septic permit and require a DEQ rewrite.
• Shared well issues with SG 41-E landowner that, by his own admission, have not been discussed, reviewed nor resolved.
ANOTHER CONCERN: Was each member of the GLA Board who voted on the project application given access to a copy of it in time to review the application themselves before voting on it?
What to Do?
Reverse the GLA approval of this application until such time as:
• The applicant has obtained and reviewed any subdivision covenants, and presented his project to the subdivision board/representative.
• The project has been discussed with SG41-E landowner and a new well location is known and agreed upon with that owner.
• The DEQ rewrite process has completed and any new DEQ site layouts and Septic Permits resulting from that are issued and included in the application.
• The application contains a single set of drawings for the actual intended site layout.
• A Septic Permit is obtained and submitted for the intended site layout.
• The project and lot corners are properly staked and the Project Review Committee has verified ALL setbacks.
• The cabin’s begin date and completion date are scheduled before the Accessory building shop’s begin date, to allow the GLA to uphold the residential nature of our community, IAW the Master Plan.
• The entire GLA Board has access to a complete project application and has time to review it well in advance of a Board vote. The GLA Board votes on the complete application and approves it if it is in accordance with the Master Plan and Covenants.
