Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Agricultural Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Garfield County commissioners hear Yard family nuisance complaint; building inspector, sheriff to follow up
Summary
The Yard family told commissioners that late-night concrete work and heavy truck traffic at a neighboring property has created a persistent nuisance. Commissioners said the sheriff and building inspector have been involved and asked staff to study how agricultural exemptions apply and to refine county ordinance language.
The Yard family appeared during public comment to press the Garfield County Commission over heavy night-time work they say turned their neighborhood into a construction site.
"04:00 Friday afternoon, cement trucks started rolling in. I lost count Saturday afternoon of at least 20 of these cement trucks," said a Yard family member (Speaker 6), describing sustained activity through late Saturday and renewed lighting that made the property "lit up like a football field." The family urged the commission to sharpen county rules so agricultural exemptions cannot be used to shield large-scale commercial operations.
Chair (Speaker 1) acknowledged the disturbance and described the situation as a nuisance. The chair said law enforcement and county inspection staff had engaged: "According to the sheriff, they have agreed this is over," the chair said, and the county building inspector has visited the site. The chair added that the building inspector told the property owner that if a structure has water, power or other signs of commercial activity, "he's gonna shut it down. Because it's not a legal building." (Speaker 1).
Commissioners advised staff to review the state agricultural-exemption rules that limit county authority. "There is a husbandry law...we have to be careful with that because a county cannot—if they pass a state law, it pretty much trumps our county ordinance," the chair said. Commissioners asked staff to research the specific statute and report back and to refine local ordinance language to better define what equipment and activity qualify for agricultural use.
Speaker 6 asked for clearer enforcement options and for an ordinance that distinguishes ordinary farm operations from commercial mechanics or other non-agricultural activities. The speaker warned that, if unaddressed, similar operations could spread: "If this activity is going to start here, pretty soon it'll be over in your neighborhood." (Chair, Speaker 1, paraphrasing the neighborhood impact.)
County staff and the commission did not announce a formal enforcement action during the meeting. Commissioners said the sheriff's office had been involved, the building inspector had performed an initial review, and staff would follow up with a legal and ordinance review. The commission requested updates once the building-inspection findings and any related legal analysis are available.
The meeting record shows the commission added the Yard family item to the end of the agenda under a chairman's privilege and discussed follow-up steps but did not vote on new enforcement measures during this session. The next procedural step is staff research and an inspection-based determination of whether the site exceeds agricultural exemption limits.
