Park County Government - A different way of governing

Hey - I just made an observation.

There's that nastiness factor again.

Beeks wrote:

things are not getting better and people in Park County don't have the money for more taxes

Who said anything about more taxes? Certainly not PCLL....

In 2007 the US Court of Appeals in the Woodside vs. Magness and Parkco BOCC, the court found that residential lots may only be used for residences. By PCLL perpetuating a fraud upon the BOCC and the BOCC being complicit by not checking what they well know is an issue because they were named in the previous lawsuit means that it will cost the taxpayers money to go in and get the BOCC and PCLL to do their jobs. When BOCC legal funds are depleted they will more than likely raise more funds from taxes which is where they got them in the first place.

Rather than taking water and increasing noise in the surrounding Burland community, is it possible for PCLL to consider the new 15 acre area that was donated to the I love you guys Foundation? I don't know all the long term ramifications, just asking.

Yes, what a great idea! A Rec Center for the Taxpayers & their children to enjoy. Wouldn't it be wonderful to put all that money for an uneeded 8,500sq ft building to good use & do something positive for the Taxpayers.

My hopes are still high to bring this Com Center to a vote. I thank all of the Folks who have gotten involved putting forth all their efforts.

In 2007 the US Court of Appeals in the Woodside vs. Magness and Parkco BOCC, the court found that residential lots may only be used for residences.

Are you referring to the Colorado Court of Appeals case? Had zero to do with limiting residential lots to residential use, it was entirely about road easements and due process. Has PCLL "perpetuated a fraud"? Hardly. You make not like their plans or how they've gone about trying to get their way, but fraud is a stretch.....

Doesn't Burland already have a Rec Center of sorts over on Sleepy Hollow?

BTW Sundance an 8 page Registered Letter has been sent to the Commissioners along with all the signatures that were gathered on the petition. If they do not respond as requested the Federal Law Suit will be filed.

noneya BIZ wrote: Doesn't Burland already have a Rec Center of sorts over on Sleepy Hollow?

No. Are you referring to the volleyball court? That is private.

Beeks wrote:

In 2007 the US Court of Appeals in the Woodside vs. Magness and Parkco BOCC, the court found that residential lots may only be used for residences.

Are you referring to the Colorado Court of Appeals case? Had zero to do with limiting residential lots to residential use, it was entirely about road easements and due process. Has PCLL "perpetuated a fraud"? Hardly. You make not like their plans or how they've gone about trying to get their way, but fraud is a stretch.....

Yes you are right it was Colorado Court of Appeals case. It was about road easements however directly from the decision:

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.

Burland's covenants are unambiguous and specifically speaks to all lots being used for "residential use only". It is/was incumbent upon PCLL to know what the lot is/was all about. And since it appears they had knowledge and did not disclose then fraud would absolutely be a factor.