Guymon code enforcement staff and a property representative agreed on a compliance-extension plan after staff said accumulated trash on a trailer at a private property remained unresolved.

The discussion, recorded during a code-enforcement hearing, centered on whether the owner could remove the trailer and its contents within a short extension or needed the 30-day extension staff had offered earlier. Code enforcement staff said they had posted a hearing notice and had discussed options with the owner on Jan. 2; the owner’s representative said most of the material was on the trailer and that a recent cold front delayed plans to move it.

Code enforcement staff described the staff offer and the next steps: an option to extend the compliance period for 30 days, or a shorter, one-week or 10-day window to finish removal. A property representative said the plan was to move the trailer to the paved driveway, secure it with a lock and the property gate, and then unload and remove the trash. The representative said the owner’s brother does not yet live at the house because it “burned down” about a year earlier, and the representative asked for extra days given weather and the owner’s travel.

Staff told the representative they could sign an extension and, if the trailer and materials were secured and the violation remedied on inspection, the case would be closed. Staff said they would both sign the written agreement and could provide a copy either by hand or by mail. The parties discussed a 30-day option, a one-week offer from staff, and the representative asked for “10 days” to be sure.

No formal vote was recorded in the transcript; the record shows staff and the property representative agreeing to sign an extension document and arranging how the signed copy would be delivered.

The hearing record notes prior procedural dates: a hearing was scheduled for Dec. 10 and was posted in the newspaper on Dec. 28, and staff said they had spoken with the owner on Jan. 2. Staff also described limits on enforcement remedies for the property’s surfacing (stating an abatement could not be done for an "improved surface").