Material Processing. GarCo Attorney Don DeFord: "The BOA received competent evidence, including pictures of large natural resource piles on the property, demonstrating that the plaintiffs conducted material processing. Plaintiffs suggest no rational argument in the Record to support that the alleged agreement with the County allowed Material Processing"
- Lets first start with the Vezzoso's Official Response (Feb 5, 2007) and Power Point presentation. In the 19 page packet delved to the BOCC and the presentation given via Power Point it covered EXTENSIVELY the reason for the dirt in the Vezzoso's pasture was to reclaim their pasture where the ground water prevented and still partly prevents them from using it for grazing livestock.
In fact, it is mentioned first thing in the Vezzoso's response #1 and #1.e about grading without a permit, they explain their reason of what they were doing the grading for, which is specifically permitted under the Zoning Resolution of 1978 for A/A/RD rules under Section 3.02.01 (page 29) and also in the power point as well.
Even stranger, right now in the exact same area on the 100 near the Vezzoso's other people have been reported as processing materials and storing natural resources, aka a pile of dirt. Does everyone need a permit for a pile of dirt in the county or just Mr. Vezzoso?
 |
 |
 |
| Taken from the bike path from the 100 road outside of Carbondale. Sent in by an anonymous email to www.stopGARCOinjustice.com. This is a FinTec 542 track crusher changing the state of the materials. Do they have a material processing permit because they are changing the state by crushed rock? As this is the definition of material processing under the code (Section 2.02.31), we think they SHOULD have a permit. |
Taken from near the 100 road, large piles of dirt. This is the same type of dirt pile photographed in the "anonymous" against the Vezzoso's that prompted the actions of Garfield County. Do they have a special use permit or are they "violation" of storing natural resources? Since the code actually says:
natural resource; examples include petroleum refining, oil shale
crushing, retorting and refining, ore smelting, coal crushing and cleaning, saw mills, alfalfa
pellet mills, food canning or packing, creation of glass, ceramic or plastic materials, gravel
crushing, cement manufacture; concrete batch plants;
So we don't think they need a permit, but GarCo does. We wonder if they have one? We'll just have to find out. |
Taken from the bike path, a clear use of an extractor and what the county calls material processing and grading. The difference here, is that someone REALLY is crushing rock and processing materials, not screening top soil to reclaim their Ag pasture. Do they have a permit for processing natural materials and grading? Are they in "violation" of processing natural resources and grading without an SUP? Or do they need a material's handling permit? Or all three?
Since the code says:
including a transfer station for construction waste
including: wood, drywall, metals, paper, plastic and other types of construction materials
We don't think they need a material handling permit? Since they're not grading they shouldn't need a grading permit, right? As far as GarCo's concerned, ANY excavation needs a grading permit - even it's it's not actually grading. Be careful excavators, they can terrorize anyone they want. And seriously, you might be next. Let's stop this harassment, sign the petition today. |
Storage of Heavy Equipment. GarCo Attorney Don DeFord: "On May 30, 2007, after a hearing, the BOA denied the Plaintiffs' appeal. The BOA found the Plaintiffs in violation of all allegations stated in the Administrative Ruling and also found that the Plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence of a prior agreement between the BOCC and the Plaintiffs, upon which Plaintiffs could reasonably rely to carry out the prohibited uses."
- The county provided no statements, testimonies, or evidence that there wasn't an agreement.
- The county (below) argues that Mark Bean was the county representative and he stated there was an agreement (for 3 pieces of equipment as commuter vehicles) but his details conflicted the 5 people who the county was actually ruling against and trying to shut down their businesses.
- The Vezzoso's provided testimony from five people who were there and remembered exactly what happened, one of those is a now District Court Judge.
- The Vezzoso's submitted an official summons from November 28, 1990 that proved that the then BOCC acted officially.
GarCo Attorney Don DeFord: "Plaintiffs state that a dismissal of a 1991 Citation in the County Court resulted in "agreements" and "resolutions" by Garfield County to allow "an excavator to keep up to ten pieces of heavy equipment per five acres of property." Plaintiffs cite no reference to the Record supporting the statement that resolutions exist."
- This is picture perfect of what's been going on here. The county the entire time has ignored and refused what The Vezzoso's have said, on the record.
- They say that 5 people who were there, including a district court judge, aren't supporting statements?
- They say that the 3 neighbors who testified that they didn't like the operations in one way or another on the Vezzoso's property is their evidence of "rebutted testimony"
- They say that Mark Bean did actually make an agreement, but it was only 3 pieces of equipment as commuter vehicles. WHAT? They argue both that they didn't have enough supporting evidence that an agreement happened, and they also argue that Mark Bean made an agreement. Meanwhile, Mark Bean's comments were inconsistent and was never asked directly by the BOCC at either of their public meetings in the Vezzoso matter.
GarCo Attorney Don DeFord:"reviewing court `must uphold the decision of the governmental body, unless there is no competent evidence in the record to support it.' " ... "This Court may only reverse the BOA if the `ultimate decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority."
- stopGARCOinjustice.com couldn't agree more. This argument proves The Vezzoso's case that the BOCC ignored their 19 page BOCC packet and very detailed power point presentation.
- McCown called the material the Vezzoso's presented in the Feb 5. 2007 BOCC meeting presented, "overwhelming" and motioned that the Garfield County Attorney research and review the materials the Vezzosos' presented on Feb. 5, 2007.
- On the subsequent March, 2007 BOCC meeting, the County failed to answer the Vezzoso's response or power point presentation.
- The BOA's role was to review the BOCC and make sure their decision wasn't so devoid of evidentiary support or was acting arbitrarily.
GarCo Attorney Don DeFord: "The BOA heard extensive competent evidence to find that no agreement allowing the storage of heavy equipment resulted from the 1991 Dismissal."
- Now that's interesting, we've pointed it all out. Or maybe it is just that they don't consider a now District Court Judge's testimony competent? Or maybe it was the 4 other people who were actually there. You be the judge.
- The county also argues, in the same document, that Mark Bean stated there WAS an agreement.
- Judge Gannett was asked "... this is a statement by Mr. Zamora given on January 29th, 2007. And he states in the second sentence that, "At a court hearing on January 14, 1991, Garfield County officials interpreted the zoning code to permit the parking of up to 10 pieces of heavy equipment on 5 aces or more on A/A/R/D zoning district. Was that the number of pieces of equipment and the size of the property that was part of the agreement on that date?" (BOA Transcript P78 L14-23)
And Gannett replied, "Correct, it was." (BOA Transcript P78 L24)
- Gannett was then asked, "were you present when the county -- to see whether the county reached agreements with any of the other excavators?" (BOA Transcript P78 L25 & P79 L1-2)
Gannett replied, "I was." and later stated "I have no specific memory of the exact number of pieces of equipment or size of Mr. Vezzoso's property, but I do recall that there were other defendants who either fell into the category of Mr. Zamora or who did not. And that Mr. Vezzoso, my memory tells me, fell into the category of Mr. Zamora and was there then offered a similar deal by the county prosecutor." (BOA Transcript P79 L1-25, P80 L1-2)
GarCo Attorney Don DeFord: "Mr. Don DeFord, the Garfield County Attorney, testified that he could not recall such a 1991 agreement as the use was a non-permitted use, he would have advised Arbaney not to make such an agreement without authorization of the Board." DeFord also stated, "Mr. Mark Bean, Director of the Building and Planning Department in 1991, testified that the 1991 Dismissal was based upon a staff determination to treat Plaintiff's three pieces of equipment as commuter vehicles and no other agreement occurred."
- Now this is interesting. Because these arguments were actually written by Mr. Don DeFord himself. That seems like a conflict of interest to us.
- What's even more interesting is that Mark Bean testified that there was a deal, but remembers the deal differently than the people who it actually happened to (Joe Zamora, Bill Vezzoso, Bruce Hammer (who was there)) and now several others that have come forward on www.stopGARCOinjustice.com who also remember the 1991 agreement details. We find this very odd that the County Attorney is making these arguments and that the building and planning director from 1991 testified that there WAS an agreement, but his recollection of that agreement is different from Bill Vezzoso, Joe Zamora, Bruce Hammer, and Judge Gannet's recollection of the specific deal with Joe Zamora and a similar one was reached with Bill Vezzoso.
- This is the only evidence the county has provided, yet, his testimony itself contradicts the county's own statements. Mark Bean said there was a deal, but his recollection was that it was a "commuter" vehicles. If you look up his actual statements are not consistent. But Mr. Don DeFord is twisting the only thing he has to try and make his case.
- The pieces of heavy equipment would have been the same since they have they same sized property. It wasn't what you happen to have at the time of this agreement. The determination was made by the size of the property. Mr. Vezzoso's and Mr. Zamora both have 5 acres..
Contractor's Yard. GarCo Attorney Don DeFord: "The BOA heard competent evidence that the cumulative business operations of the Plaintiffs amount to a Contractor's yard, a use not allowed under the Zoning Resolution."
- The Vezzoso's do not have a contractor's yard, they were allowed by the county to store up to 10 pieces of heavy equipment in order to avoid a trial.
- The equipment on the Vezzoso's property that could even remotely be construed as used in a contractors yard, which isn't even defined in the code, is used for gardening, ranching, and farming all which are expressly allowed in section 2.03.01 as 'any property employed in the use of' gardening, ranching, and farming among others.
- This is another example of the county scraping together any thing to persecute Mr. Vezzoso. This is proof of harassment.
The Wall. "This competent evidence alone support by inference the BOA's determination that the Plaintiffs were not raising livestock on the Property for the primary purpose of making a profit and, therefore, the Property is not classified as agricultural. In addition, neighbors testified that the Plaintiffs failed to use the Property primarily for the production of produce or livestock for a profit.
- This issue has to do with a setback regulation under section 5.05.03(8) (9) which states:
(8) Accessory Structure in Required Yards: (Except as provided in Section 5.05.03(9), “Accessory Structures – Agricultural Property”, which applies to the A/I, A/R/RD, RL (Gentle Slopes / Valley Floor), and DWC zone districts), a fence, hedge or wall may be located in any required yard provided that no such installation shall exceed eight (8) feet in height in a required side yard or rear yard, nor shall any such structure exceed three (3) feet in height in any required front yard. (Amend.2004-02)
(9) Accessory Structures – Agricultural Property: a fence, hedge, or wall may be located in any required yard of the A/I, A/R/RD, RL (Gentle Slopes / Valley Floor), and DWC zone districts provided that no such installation shall exceed eight (8) feet in height and shall meet sight triangulation standards. A taller fence may be approved be the Board of County Commissioners by obtaining a Special Use Permit if shown to demonstrate that said structures comply with Section 5.03.028. For purposes of implementing this provision, the term “Agricultural Land” as set forth within C.R.S. § 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(IV). (Added 2004-02)
C.R.S. 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(IV)
(IV) A parcel of land, whether located in an incorporated or unincorporated area and regardless of the uses for which such land is zoned, used as a farm or ranch, as defined in subsections (3.5) and (13.5) of this section, if the owner of the land has a decreed right to appropriated water granted in accordance with article 92 of title 37, C.R.S., or a final permit to appropriated ground water granted in accordance with article 90 of title 37, C.R.S., for purposes other than residential purposes, and water appropriated under such right or permit shall be and is used for the production of agricultural or livestock products on such land;
-
C.R.S. § 39-1-102 Section (3.5)
(3.5) "Farm" means a parcel of land which is used to produce agricultural products that originate from the land's productivity for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit.
- The Vezzoso’s have provided evidence of this in the BOCC Feb 5 Meeting and BOA
hearing, Vezzoso Official Response as noted in the letter from Art Ackerman.
- The Vezzoso’s have used and continue to use their land to product agricultural products that originate from the land’s productivity for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit as supported by sales documents provide to the BOCC Feb 5, 2007.
- The primary purpose of 3/4's of the Vezzooso's property is for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit by allowing cattle to graze and then sell them, as the Vezzoso's have done this over the past decade. The other 1/4 of the Vezzoso's property is for their residence and heavy equipment storage that the county said they could do in 1991.
- C.R.S. § 39-1-102 Section (13.5)
(13.5) "Ranch" means a parcel of land which is used for grazing livestock for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit. For the purposes of this subsection (13.5), "livestock" means domestic animals which are used for food for human or animal consumption, breeding, draft, or profit.
- The Vezzoso’s have provided evidence that their pasture restoration plan was being complete for the restoration of the grass so that it could be used for agricultural purposes for their cattle for the purposes of making a profit as well as human consumption.
- The sole purpose of their cattle grazing the pastures is for purposes of “food for human or animal” consumption.
- The Vezzoso’s have used and continue to their land to breed livestock for profit.
- The Vezzoso’s have used and continue to use their land to raise livestock for the purpose of making profit and have done so over the past decade as pointed out in the Feb 5 BOCC meeting and BOA hearing.
The Vezzoso's over the past decade have used their land primarily on and off for the primary purposes of of obtaining a monetary profit. The Vezzoso's submitted sales and feed records during the BOCC power point presentation and had more, but the county chose to stay silent and steamroll over the Vezzoso's.
The county's arguments have always been that EVERYTHING in the code is about how you are taxed so that they're afforded more options, regardless of the actual law. In the BOA hearing the county debated that it was because of how the Vezzoso's were taxed. That has nothing to do with it. The real law is that our property is being used for the primary purpose of profit. Our pasture reclamation was presented to them and is for grazing cattle that we sell, which the only PURPOSE for doing that is profit. NOT the purpose of the entire property. GarCo for many years has used this law incorrectly, and it's now time they learn the real definition from The Vezzoso's law suit..
