Reverse the Buchanan SG41-A Project approval

This is a Formal Request on 1/12/2016 to reverse the Buchanan SG41-A Project approval granted on 1/11/2016.

Administrator's Note: Debbie Blais requested that we post this open letter to the GLA Board on the Forum


GLA Board Members,

I hereby formally request and petition the GLA Board that the Buchanan SG 41-A Project approval, voted on and granted in last night’s January 11, 2016 Board Meeting be reversed. The approval was 10 For; 0 Against; 1 Abstention, 1 Absence as follows:

FOR: Charlotte Mizzi, Charlene Murphy, Gerald Dubiel, Dennis Riley, Dan Kehoe, Ross Brunson, Rudy Parker, Ed Dubrowski, Newman Brozovsky, Mark Seaver

ABSTENTION: Kevin Newby

ABSENT: Paul Rantallo

The basis/reasons for this request for Reversal and, instead, Project dis-approval are:

1. The 2nd Buchanan SG41-A project application for both a residence/dwelling and a shop structure was first made available to landowners for review at the January Board Member 7 pm. January 11th, 2016.

2. There was no Project Review Committee meeting noticed nor held for landowner discussion and input on this project that will affect several nearby landowners (as what President Charlotte Mizzi required for landowner discussion and input on new Project Application Instructions before being distributed for 30-day landowner input).

3. Any and all attempted landowner input during the discussion of this project by the Board Members and prior to their vote on it was purposefully, intentionally and successfully gagged by President Charlotte Mizzi and her gavel. This included an attempt by Project Review Committee Member Sally Muto to speak before the vote (Sally is a landowner; not a Board Member). All landowners in attendance were instructed by Mizzi to wait for the closing landowner comment period at the end of the meeting (after the vote) to speak, providing no opportunity to influence the vote.

4. Items 1-3 resulted in the Board voting to approve this project with absolutely NO possibility nor any opportunity for any landowner input on this project. The Board acted and voted in a vacuum w/complete disregard for other landowners present at the meeting and their concerns.

5. After a 2nd site inspection on January 9th 2016 (Dubiel, Newby and Dubrowski), the Project Review Committee (Gerald Dubiel) recommended tabling this project until February 2016 Board meeting, as there were missing stakes, and due to that, the proper setbacks could not be determined prior to this January 11th 2016 Board Meeting. Charlotte Mizzi attended yet a 3rd spur-of-the-moment, ad-hoc site inspection with Gerald Dubiel on Monday January 11th just hours before the Board Meeting, after which she advocated approval of the project plan before the proper staking (granted as a condition for approval) because “the ground is frozen and the owner is unable to stake”. What is the procedure for GLA follow-up on setbacks once the approval condition to stake is completed by Mr. Buchanan?

6. The Project Review Committee (Kevin Newby) recommended delaying approval until an opinion could be obtained from the attorney regarding the allowance of a shop accessory building to be constructed prior to the residence/dwelling. The 2nd application under consideration in this Board Meeting documents the shop begin date as Spring 2016 with time to complete 3 months; and documents the residence/dwelling begin date as Summer 2016 with time to complete of 1 year.

7. Charlene Murphy responded to Mr. Newby’s concern by stating that the GLA has previously approved multiple other projects in which an accessory building (> 500 sq ft) was constructed prior to a residence/home, and that “we can’t stop now”! I request from Charlene Murphy the specification of those instances where this has occurred previously? The only other instance I am aware of is with Aza Ziegler’s parcel SG41-B, which Charlotte Mizzi confessed “is a problem” (another example of GLA allowing an accessory building and lumberyard to be built for commercial use on a parcel with no residence/dwelling). I find fault with the GLA logic that once a mistake is made by the GLA that the GLA must continue on in making the same mistake over and over again – even in the face of recognition of the mistake and request by Mr. Newby to investigate and protect the GLA from the liability of making the same mistake again.

8. Despite and in dis-agreement with recommendations 5 and 6 by Gerald Dubiel and Kevin Newby, a motion to approve this project was made by Charlene Murphy. Charlotte Mizzi seconded the motion.

9. After receiving first access and look at the 2nd application from Mr. Buchanan last night at 7 pm in the Board Meeting, and further reviewing it this morning, I noticed the following discrepancies – all of which are cause for disapproval of this project:

a. The 2nd SG41-A application for Preliminary Project Approval for a cabin and a shop submitted after the Dec 7th Board Meeting was pre-dated 11/27/15 – the same date as the 1st SG41-A application for just a shop was submitted. This is incorrect, causes confusion and makes it difficult to distinguish and track the 1st application actually submitted on 11/27/15 for a structure w/no residence from the 2nd application submitted sometime in December for a residence/dwelling with a structure.

b. There is a single Form C referring to a Park County DEQ site layout map dated 2002 and a Septic Permit dated 20 Oct 2015. Both of these refer to a single septic system with a 1500-gallon tank. That Park County DEQ site layout shows the septic system roughly in the middle of the lot (North to South), near the property line w/SG41-B. However, Mr. Buchanan’s own site plan drawing shows 2 septic systems, A and B, A with a 1000-gallon tank at the north end of his lot where he plans to build the shop and B with another 1000-gallon tank near the south end of his lot where he plans to build the cabin. This does not agree either in number of septic systems (1 vs 2), site location, nor in tank size with the DEQ site layout map and permit issued by Park County. What is the process for resolving these discrepancies now that the GLA has approved this project? Are 2 septic systems allowed on one 3.3 acre parcel as Mr. Buchanan documented?

c. The DEQ approved in 2002 shows a well location at the southeast corner of the lot. This well location looks too close to allow the planned Septic System B near the southwest corner of the lot. What is the setback of Septic System B from the well, and is the 100’ easement for the well shown on the DEQ site layout maintained? (It doesn’t look like there is room for both on the DEQ drawing).

d. The prior owner drilled a well in a different location (northeast corner), but it was dry. Until such time as an actual well location is determined, it is not known if Septic System A or B may be positioned as shown in Mr. Buchanan’s drawings. When will a usable well be drilled and location determined?

e. The residence is scheduled for completion Summer 2017. An accessory building (workshop) to the residence will be constructed prior to the residence in Spring 2016. The GLA has no assurance and no means of enforcing the construction of the residence following the construction of a workshop. Mr. Buchanan’s first stated purpose for the workshop (during the first site inspection early Dec 2015) was to build custom cabinetry and his first application had no plans (no Form A) to build a residence/dwelling at all. Mr. Buchanan may begin engaging in this “cottage industry” w/o the presence of a home in our RESIDENTIAL community; not conforming to the definition of “cottage industry” which is conducted from your HOME. He may be commuting to work in South Glastonbury from his home in Pray, MT. A situation that may go on indefinitely. If the GLA were to support, maintain and uphold the RESIDENTIAL nature of our community, by enforcing an accessory building be an accessory to a residence, we would not allow these situations and not have this problem!

f. As Glastonbury is intended to be a RESIDENTIAL community, and as accessory buildings are intended to be an accessory to the main structure (residence), there is no way to assess the misuse of a parcel (which the GLA is repeatedly condoning within a 2 year time period) that allows an “accessory” building to be constructed prior to the residence/dwelling. So, if an accessory building goes in on SG41-A, as in the case of SG41-B, prior to a dwelling, both of these parcels will continue to be assessed as vacant land for an indefinite amount of time – until a residence/dwelling is constructed - despite their development and use for business purposes. This is a situation that was never foreseen nor provided for by our Governing Docs; a situation that occurs only when the RESIDENTIAL nature of our community is not properly upheld and maintained by the GLA Board.