Montezuma County tables Mahaffey setback variance to verify site layout and safety

The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 10 tabled a setback-variance application from a local property owner so staff and the applicant could verify site dimensions and explore a safer driveway layout.

Planning staff introduced the application as a request by the property owner, identified in the record as Mr. Mahaffey, to construct a shop on a small triangular lot at County Road M and Highway 491 with a proposed 5-foot setback where the land use code requires 30 feet. Planning staff described the lot
shape and explained existing utilities and leach fields limit where a driveway and building can be placed.

The board questioned whether the applicant had explored buying adjacent land to meet setbacks. Commissioners repeatedly urged the applicant to exhaust alternatives before granting a variance; as one commissioner put it, purchasing adjacent property "would make better sense to comply with the land use code, and then that way no variances ever have to be given." Mr. Mahaffey said he had not asked the neighbor, citing utility and leach-line locations as constraints.

Planning staff and commissioners examined the site plan and noted an irrigation ditch and tree line along the north fence. They discussed reducing the shop footprint from 40x40 to 30x40 and moving the driveway into a circular configuration to the south side of the shop, which staff said "would be safer coming off the road" and could reduce the number of required variances. Speaker 9 also read the recently adopted variance criteria that the board must apply, including exceptional physical circumstances and that hardships not be self-imposed.

Mr. Mahaffey agreed to re-lay the building footprint and driveway and to allow staff or commissioners to verify pins and distances. After the proffer, Unidentified Speaker 3 moved to table the variance to the next weekly meeting at 9:00 a.m. to permit the site re-layout and field verification; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

The board asked staff to confirm pin-to-pin measurements before taking further action, saying that if the applicant could demonstrate a 25-foot setback on the south side after re-layout, a single variance might be acceptable. The variance hearing was continued to the board meeting scheduled for the following week at 9:00 a.m.

The transcript records expressions of concern about public safety at the existing driveway location and multiple requests to verify the property lines and exact dimensions before the board considers any variance approval.