Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners review draft nuisance/rubbish ordinance, warn of enforcement and budget gaps
Summary
Commissioners reviewed an informational draft of a county nuisance/rubbish ordinance (a 'full scale' version modeled on another county), raising repeated concerns about enforcement wording, agricultural exemptions, timeline language in the ordinance, lack of code‑enforcement staff and related budget impacts, and the need to treat enforcement timeframes as administrative policy rather than ordinance language.
Planning staff presented an informational draft of a county nuisance/rubbish ordinance (described at the meeting as a "full scale" draft modeled on Mesa County) and asked commissioners for input prior to a Board of County Commissioners workshop. Staff emphasized the document was provided for information and not being formally considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at that meeting.
Commissioners repeatedly flagged enforcement and drafting issues. One commissioner (speaker 6) criticized a delivery provision in section 4.3 that read "shall be provided or mailed," saying "I think that's either or doesn't work for me. It should be provided and mailed," and recommending registered mail for better proof of service. Another commissioner cautioned against including specific enforcement timelines in an ordinance, arguing that time frames are better handled in internal policy so they can be adjusted without amending the ordinance. Several commissioners said the county currently lacks code enforcement capacity and budget to implement aggressive enforcement—"We don't have this department. We don't have this money," planning staff said—so they discussed options including using city enforcement or sharing enforcement resources under intergovernmental agreement.
The panel also discussed substantive scope items: whether agricultural land should be exempt from the ordinance (some commissioners opposed broad exemptions that could allow long‑term accumulations of junk), how to treat piles of branches and large burn piles that create fire risk, and whether manure accumulation language would unintentionally exempt common agricultural practices. Commissioners suggested targeted wording changes and clarifications and proposed that staff collect more legal and operational detail for the BOCC workshop. Staff said the document will appear on the BOCC workshop agenda the following Monday for further discussion.
No formal commission action was taken; commissioners asked staff to refine language, confirm enforcement options and costs, and return with additional information.
