Park County Government - A different way of governing

mtntrekker wrote:
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.

why would county owed land be subject to the covenants of an HOA?

I recall reading somewhere that the ballfields were specifically excluded from HOA oversight. Anyone?

My understanding is that when Burland Meadows' HOA and development was created, the developer set aside land for a school. At some point, the property was foreclosed or something to the county.

Then, somewhere along the line, a request was made for ball fields. The agreement with that HOA was that there could be two ball fields, with maintenance of the entire area the responsibility of PCLL, not just the ball fields and parking lot. PCLL was required maintain split rail fences to retain the rural mountain look. So, the fences are also the responsibility of PCLL.

This was also true for the Equestrian Center. The fences on the Equestrian side are supposed to be maintained by the Equestrian Board. Although the fencing at the bottom of our property is not actually ON our property, we take care of it ourselves, at our cost.

Please note that this is my understanding. I do not have all the documentation to back it up. I was told this by people who have lived here for years and were around when this happened. So, take it any way you want.

Thanks for the insight

Thank you Nmysys for the info I appreciate it.

From the Parkco Assessors Office - the following are exempt properties belonging to Parkco. However in all the research I and others have done there isn't any paperwork or wording indicating that Burland Meadows subdivision meant for these to be anything other than part of their subdivision, even though given to Parkco as part of their agreement for the subdivision and since the covenants provide that it must be for residential use, these properties do not meet the criteria and are in violation, according to the court rulings that have been made. There is no ambiguity in the covenants. Looks like Burland Meadows residents should step up and make the BOCC comply. And I don't find in any court rulings that a BOCC can change the lots in a recognized subdivision to commercial or anything else w/o complying with the covenants and getting a vote of all the Burland Meadows residents. Good luck with that. Could someone take this back to Burland Meadows as I am not a resident of this subdivision.

Tax Area Schedule Number Property Type
0005 40595 Exempt
________________________________________
Owner Name and Address
PARK COUNTY
PO BOX 1373
FAIRPLAY, CO 80440-1373
Legal Description
T07 R72 S22 NW4
BURLAND MEADOWS
FILING 1 OUTLOT C
B0366 P0050 DNS98
ALSO ADDRESSED AS
326 BLACKBIRD DRIVE
Physical Address
1667 CO RD 72


Tax Area Schedule Number Property Type
0005 40612 Exempt
________________________________________
Owner Name and Address
PARK COUNTY
PO BOX 1373
FAIRPLAY, CO 80440-1373
Legal Description
T07 R72 S22 SW4
BURLAND MEADOWS
FILING 1 LOT 17 NEW

Physical Address
1674 CO RD 72 BAILEY

Tax Area Schedule Number Property Type
0005 40593 Exempt
________________________________________
Owner Name and Address
PARK COUNTY
PO BOX 1373
FAIRPLAY, CO 80440-1373
Legal Description
T07 R72 S22 NW4
BURLAND MEADOWS
FILING 1 OUTLOT A
B0366 P050
Physical Address
163 BLUEBIRD DR BAILEY

Nmysys wrote: 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.

Thank you for the update Nmysys.

Now to add another wrinkle based on what i just posted above as it relates to Burland Meadows. Is it at all possible wherever the BOCC is planning on building the Comm Center that is part of a subdivision? Or is it commercial property already designated as such? Does anyone know?

I will move this to the other thread.

MamaRama wrote: Welcome to PARK COUNTY. (warning) CORRUPTION IN PROGRESS!!!!!! Need that on a bumper sticker..... Kinda like the BOCC pushing the COMM. CENTER in HUH?

isn't that the truth.

When Woodside filed its suit the BOCC and Planning Commission had already approved Magness. So if I were Burland Meadows HOA and residents I would give BOCC the opportunity to correct their error. They own the lots but they are not exempt from the covenants. If BOCC and county attorney can't understand you might want to contact an attorney like the one who handled the Woodside case. BOCC is well aware that if covenants specify for residential use only they can't arbitrarily change it to commercial or recreational or anything else. But please do your homework and check the Burland Meadows HOA minutes and records. BOCC got by once and wasn't held liable in the Woodside case but they have reason to know now and while they are indemnified from some stuff - malfeasance isn't included.

I would really like to see the taxpayers not to have to foot the bill for more stupidity from the BOCC. And just so you know I garnered a lot of this information from the person I am staying with. She told me where to find the Woodside vs. Magness and Parkco BOCC and other info to research. Please keep us informed on what you find. Thank you.

P.S. You might also want to give notice to Dave Wissell, as pres of Land & Water Trust Fund Board as I doubt they want to be dumping money into anything that is illegal use and abuse by the BOCC and PCLL. PCLL will have to reassess when funding isn't available. Maybe the state land or a portion of the 15 acres from the I Love U Foundation would be more appropriate?

I guess the park has got to go too, and the equestrian center, and the road and bridge yard as well......

Totally guessing here, but I'm thinking that government owned properties are somehow excluded from local HOA control. I'm all ears if someone knows differently....