Supervisors deny Martinez Lake resident’s request

Hearing drew neighbors in support, against lot-split case

Lamenting that the issue had divided a close-knit community, the Yuma County Board of Supervisors denied requests by a Martinez Lake resident that would have allowed her to split a 1.5-acre parcel into two lots.

The board on Sept. 5 held a hearing on the requests and ultimately sided with staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which had recommended denial based on concerns with setting a precedent that might lead to a drastic increase in the density of the area.

The county received letters from neighbors both in favor and against the requests, and at the hearing, neighbors again expressed both support and opposition.

Judy M. Knowlton, a resident of the North Shore area, requested a change in the land use designation for the property located 12266 N. Eagle Road. She would like to change a 0.46-acre portion of a parcel 1.46 acres in size from Rural Density Residential to Suburban Density Residential.

She also wanted to rezone the portion of the parcel from Low Density Residential-40,000 square feet minimum to Low Density Residential-15,000 square feet minimum.

Staff recommended that the commission deny the requests because it would be inconsistent with existing zoning and land use development patterns for the area. Also, the amendment would not improve the general plan and would solely for the good or benefit of this particular owner, as stated Javier Barraza, a county senior planner.

In addition, staff expressed concerns that it could trigger similar requests, resulting in a “negative impact to the character of the area by increasing the residential density, creating additional vehicular traffic, and increasing the demand for water and sewage disposal services.”

The area has 51 properties, with 39 properties potentially able to request rezoning to accommodate a split of two or more new parcels. Further splits could potentially create 90 new parcels for a total of 129 new parcels in the area.

Knowlton said she intended to keep living in her house and build another house on the new parcel. She noted that this would only increase the density by one more house and would not greatly impact the neighborhood.

At the hearing, Knowlton noted that since the death of her husband she was having a hard time taking care of the land. She rebutted many of the concerns at the hearing and claimed that many of the opposition letters were written by the same person due to a personal vendetta.

To counter concerns with traffic and density, she pointed out that some neighbors rented out their properties nightly to large groups and some had several homes on the same property.

“Rumors are that I am endangering the whole structure of the

North Shore for my own financial gain,” she said. “Shame on you because anyone that knows me knows that I give very generously to my community by donating not only money but my time to the various nonprofits organizations and river and road cleanups.”

Some neighbors opposed to Knowlton’s requests cited a negative impact to the community, environment and wildlife, with many noting that if the board granted an exception to one property owner, then everyone else would want an exception as well.

One man in support said that the Knowlton family had done a lot for the community through the years, including cleaning up the Colorado River. “She’s not building a subdivision. She’s not building the Taj Mahal,” he said, adding that she’s only trying to keep her home and can’t afford to stay there without splitting the lot.

Another woman asked the supervisors to refund the $1,500 fee paid by Knowlton if the board denied her requests.

One woman said the decision had to be “based on laws and fact, not hardships.” Another person said that while they empathize with Knowlton, this was not an emotional issue, but rather a zoning issue. He noted that it would be a “slippery slope” once they allowed it. He then offered to help her clean up her property at no charge.

Supervisor Darren Simmons asked about the legal ramifications of setting a precedent. Deputy County Attorney Bill Kerekes said it would expose the county to a lawsuit if the board approved this case and denied future cases.

He pointed out that it wasn’t just his opinion; several county attorneys had discussed the issue at length and agreed that setting a precedent would be a problem.

Chairman Tony Reyes said that he used to believe there was no such thing as a precedent because every case is different and had to be considered independently. But, he explained, the law has changed and if in the future a landowner also wants to split his lot for monetary gain and the board denies it, he could claim that the county is causing his land to lose value. Legislation now allows landowners to sue the government if they feel that a decision made by the governing body negatively impacts their land value.

Reyes acknowledged the “human” factor in this case and said he feels bad saying no to someone who is trying to follow the process and do it the right way.

Supervisor Russell McCloud also acknowledged the emotional issue and said that without the precedent issue, he would have been in favor. He explained that he would vote against Knowlton based on the advice of the attorney.

The board voted 3-2 to deny the requests, with Reyes and Simmons voting in support of Knowlton.

To Knowlton, Reyes said, “I’m really sorry. I wish we could have found a way to alleviate the concerns of everybody. I wished our attorney had said there’s no such thing as a precedent in zoning cases.”

Simmons explained that he had told Knowlton that she had a good chance based on the result of a similar case in 2010. “I told her I could support it, and I’m not going against my word as far as telling her that I would support it,” Simmons said.

Simmons asked staff whether the county could reimburse her money. Planning Director Maggie replied that the request would have to come before the board as a separate item and it would be up to the supervisors.

She explained that fees are not paid with a guarantee that the case will be approved. The funds are used to cover the expenses of processing the case, which includes sending out notifications and publishing notices in the newspaper.

Reyes and Simmons encouraged Knowlton to come back with a request asking for her money back. Reyes told her she had a “very good chance” of getting it.

The supervisors also urged the neighbors to put their differences aside and come together again as the close-knit community they have always been.

“I’m going to beg all of you, put it aside. Don’t start a war out there,” McCloud said.

“Don’t ruin what you’ve got. Don’t let this take away from what you have out there,” Simmons said.