Attention homeowners in Burland Meadows, Burland Ranchettes

Attention homeowners in Burland Meadows, Burland Ranchettes and any other platted subdivisions.

In reviewing some information regarding PCLL and Burland Meadows, I came across an article in the Flume regarding the equestrian center dated 3-25-2011

Rezoning of four lots in Burland Meadows

A proposed rezoning of four equestrian park lots in Burland Meadows subdivision in Bailey prompted discussion of the history of those lots 17, 18, 19 and 20.

In 1989, Park County acquired those lots by the county complex with one purpose in mind, to build an arena for 4-H and all equestrians in the area. The complex was built through volunteer labor and donation by local businesses. The park has been open to the public and all equestrian groups free of charge. In 1997 the county commissioners appointed a county board to manage the property.

John Woodward, president of the Burland Equestrian Park board, requested the county commissioners specify in the rezoning of those four lots that any future use not consistent with equestrian activities be first approved by the Burland Equestrian Park board.

The commissioners approved the rezoning of those four lots from residential (R) to conservation recreation (CR), considered appropriate for a county- owned lot.

In addition, the board felt it appropriate to delete all permitted activities other than equestrian to ensure the continuation of that property in its current usage.

It appears the Parkco BOCC hass exceeded their authority in creating new lot 17 since Burland Meadows is a platted subdivision with covenants that run with the land.

From a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling regarding Woodside HOA vs. Magness and Park County BOCC

Interpretation of a restrictive covenant is a question of law that requires de novo review. Rossman v. Seasons at Tiara Rado Assocs., 943 P.2d 34, 36 (Colo. App. 1996). When interpreting such covenant, courts must “follow the dictates of plain English.” Double D Manor, Inc. v. Evergreen Meadows Homeowners’ Ass’n, 773 P.2d 1046, 1048 (Colo. 1989). Courts will enforce a covenant as written that is clear on its face. Rossman, supra, 943 P.2d at 36.

Here, the trial court determined that construction of the public road violated the Woodside Park covenant that “All Lots shall be known and described as residential Lots and shall be used solely for residential purposes.” We discern no ambiguity in this covenant.

When a subdivision covenants are unambiguous, another entity cannot come in with a rezoning change. Other rulings have indicated that the use must be as specified in the covenants – in this instance for residential use only. Even though the BOCC bought with the intent of using the property for equestrian purposes, it appears to violate the covenants that run with the land.

The reason I include Burland Ranchettes is because when perusing the assessors link I found an address 0 CO RD 72 where they used a Burland Ranchettes lot to create a road. It appears to be in violation of Burland Ranchettes covenants that run with the land. It appears there are also some other violations directly related to the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling.

In the same Flume article, it appear that the Four Mile Fishing Club subdivision may be able to argue that Parkco BOCC overstep its bounds when granting a manufacturing use in the subdivision if they have covenants that run with the land.

In view of the 2007 Colorado Court of Appeals ruling there will be subdivisions that are being rezoned in violation of unambiguous covenants running with the land. It is incumbent upon the homeowners in that area to rectify the problem. Or you will have problems like the ParkCO BOCC now rezoning the property from residential to conservation recreational. In some covenants, depending on how they read, it makes no difference whether there is an HOA currently in effect.

Please seriously consider contacting a real estate attorney who is familiar with covenants running with the land and have him/her review and get the ParkCo BOCC to stop overreaching.

I am not a resident of either Burland Meadows or Burland Ranchettes to have standing to address covenant violations so that is left to the homeowners of those subdivisions. As a resident of the area I do have standing to argue the rezoning but I am out of the country much of the time. I can write a letter to the PCBOCC outlining my arguments if that would help.

P.S. I am not an attorney nor does this constitute legal advice. That is why I am recommending you get an attorney if you are part of a platted subdivision. It looks like many subdivisions are being affected by the Co Court of Appeals ruling and errors made should be rectified.

The BOCC appears to be changing the zoning for the land used for the equestrian complex to limit it to only being used for equestrian i.e. not ball fields.

I don't see the issue in limiting the use of this land to being an equestrian complex. Can you help me understand?