Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board refers long‑running junk‑property case near Mesa Ave. and Ranch Drive to county attorney after resident complaint

2691716 · February 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident email flagged a property at 9474 E. Ranch Drive as a fire and health hazard; planning staff showed photos and the board voted to refer two hearing‑officer cases for abatement to the county attorney after repeated noncompliance.

The Yuma County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 19 to refer two hearing‑officer cases (HO230058 and HO220131) involving the same property at the northwest corner of Mesa Avenue and Ranch Drive to the county attorney for abatement, after staff presented photos showing persistent junk, inoperable vehicles and brush.

County staff read an email from Susan Wright describing the property at 9474 East Ranch Drive: "It is a fire hazard. It is a health hazard," Wright wrote, listing multiple inoperable vehicles, a gutted RV trailer, piles of wood and household trash and concluding, “We ask you to please do something about this and make our neighborhood safe.” Desiree read the email into the record during the call to the public.

Carlos Gonzales, senior deputy zoning inspector, showed photographs taken Jan. 6 and said the property had been through the zoning hearing process twice and the owner had failed to correct violations or attend hearings. Gonzales told the board he observed additional accumulations during a recent inspection and recommended referral for abatement.

Supervisors discussed the length of the enforcement timeline and the county’s abatement process. Planning staff and a supervisor noted the case had been in the hearing officer process twice—effectively more than a year—and suggested the board consider whether the county’s policy should allow referral to the county attorney after a single failed hearing rather than waiting for repeat violations.

The motion to refer the cases to the county attorney passed with no recorded opposition. After the vote, supervisors asked staff to return with a proposed policy change to shorten the timeline for cases that do not comply with hearing‑officer orders.

No abatement work was performed at the meeting; referral means the county attorney’s office will decide whether to initiate court abatement proceedings.