HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020766.tiff "`nP l C I Nf)
PETITION
We, the undersigned residents of Weld County, hereby petition Weld County to deny the
permit for a landscape materials facility located 'A mile east of County Road 35 on
County Road 12, as requested by Bob Oman of Select Materials.
Select Materials is currently permitted to haul sand out of the location but not to bring
anything in. They are requesting a change of use that would allow them to make the
current location their headquarters for a major landscape materials facility. This
proposed use could affect the safety and welfare of the businesses and residences in the
area by substantially increasing the heavy truck traffic on the local roads and result in
accelerated deterioration of roads and the possibility of increased accidents. Additional
impacts will include an increase in air pollution with dust and flies, and noise pollution.
There are already several industrial businesses located within the area. B.O.S.S. Compost
is a composting facility located on the southwest corner of County Roads 35 and 12. The
northwest corner holds a semi-truck maintenance facility, Stealth Trucking. Just north of
the intersection is C&J Towing, complete with an outdoor storage facility. All of these
businesses create heavy truck traffic on County Road 35. The intersection of County
Road 35 with Highway 52 is already challenged with the amount of traffic from existing
businesses and homes. It will be further challenged as the 52 homes in Buffalo Ridge
Estates are completed and occupied. Improvements are desired at this intersection to
provide the necessary safety and another business with heavy truck traffic as proposed
would create additional problems.
We wish to preserve the current Agricultural zoning that the County has approved for this
area and maintain the peacefulness that this zoning offers. The operation that Select
Materials is proposing would have adverse impacts to the safety and welfare of our
community as well as depreciate the value of our homes. Therefore, we petition that the
County deny the permit for Select Materials.
This petition will be sent to:
Weld County Commissioners
915 Tenth St.
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632 O`pti'
Weld County Planning Commission (\e��
1555 N. 17t Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631 \aG ,)( . y-
nay
EXHIBIT
2002-0766
_ .er 1717! (-t/men Cr. Ff I v,iJc W 90621
I ,, e7 / /7/ /1)1i/0 d>,e, at/I0 do
L . lute LAA-44
OL'"\-ki 'PO ,c, x\33-3 (---;..\Loy-, 4t \\ CD b li
LA
'f 4a-t felDI ,
� U
r
r-. PETITION
We, the undersigned residents of Weld County, hereby petition Weld County to deny the
permit for a landscape materials facility located Vsi mile east of County Road 35 on
County Road 12, as requested by Bob Oman of Select Materials.
Select Materials is currently permitted to haul sand out of the location but not to bring
anything in. They are requesting a change of use that would allow them to make the
current location their headquarters for a major landscape materials facility. This
proposed use could affect the safety and welfare of the businesses and residences in the
area by substantially increasing the heavy truck traffic on the local roads and result in
accelerated deterioration of roads and the possibility of increased accidents. Additional
impacts will include an increase in air pollution with dust and flies, and noise pollution.
There are already several industrial businesses located within the area. B.O.S.S. Compost
is a composting facility located on the southwest corner of County Roads 35 and 12. The
northwest corner holds a semi-truck maintenance facility, Stealth Trucking. Just north of
the intersection is C&J Towing, complete with an outdoor storage facility. All of these
businesses create heavy truck traffic on County Road 35. The intersection of County
Road 35 with Highway 52 is already challenged with the amount of traffic from existing
businesses and homes. It will be further challenged as the 52 homes in Buffalo Ridge
Estates are completed and occupied. Improvements are desired at this intersection to
provide the necessary safety and another business with heavy truck traffic as proposed
would create additional problems.
We wish to preserve the current Agricultural zoning that the County has approved for this
area and maintain the peacefulness that this zoning offers. The operation that Select
Materials is proposing would have adverse impacts to the safety and welfare of our
community as well as depreciate the value of our homes. Therefore, we petition that the
County deny the permit for Select Materials.
This petition will be sent to:
Weld County Commissioners
915 Tenth St.
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Weld County Planning Commission
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
/� �/ / 3R3 a's7/gZ>3
Y4'/ /��� CC)(Ae�� 7/
a57 73
jO3isz Zap 42r(t13154
(724o ,�1.t ,f, (J Sob)"
r
111203 cock R. Lv CQ 1
1 env. .- fl " cam 177-Th EAGLE_ 5A F i s LVQTc' bcLZ, 1
:147 /)7 deiiz /, /7&± ie�4 ' f��' /
15 '-1345 Elitpbeeh &L , gl
p7 - ‘ ' i<-u< de Si., ,tiro U
111 1 /(�`f t?/ co jaco3
/l Z'�J/py' , 19-0% '-13�I5 Et, acLbc-(i-1 Sr t3r%gn6->e3, s're
cv
<6 /. [l / ,v / 75W ati43 in? i?.4To.1 ��c
-PLA 4 6itacirisA rl -0Co fo(0c3
I ay) ThA 936 fu ///4774 Sr betl.kroA 'aUos
1AMc5 WIi4y 17C.3C A+ lrIE 5 /3:_;An rtAic �v
/t - -%- L-ek.it. /74-4 tk , .11 & L d ld
p ei/ 1 / ,/
wan c, .cg1 � Buz
r;4d 117 AI /n D.S . /7,2 6 ' ;7'/6 R./,Z 7:777Z-;,e. b O!0 2
rN 77o5 >/ / 72_6z (dote /a ( / ZrzeryCO cicnEi Z-/
r
- - n. .-.
i-, 02,-)- S 7 a3
ft'n-"-_'- `11--- --a.-ti- `f($D %ten-- 5r. cftci.5- SIts.ftst)
3øi1 -0µ17
r1tita._ tnci.. 172.7o EA-,
- et. 7t y, d�Jb 1.i
���, >% 49.--- /7/7/ Weld L'i/G ,9Z1t Psi-6353
V/ / FLto,2 d2
� //�� 3o3-8s7-
iurec� / u7G%- . o / /.3—D �uv erL U/9/
%) C �� a /7i SO ` .-6 iiii afterd►. m r9/
r
PETITION
We, the undersigned residents of Weld County, hereby petition Weld County to deny the
permit for a landscape materials facility located 1/4 mile east of County Road 35 on
County Road 12, as requested by Bob Oman of Select Materials.
Select Materials is currently permitted to haul sand out of the location but not to bring
anything in. They are requesting a change of use that would allow them to make the
current location their headquarters for a major landscape materials facility. This
proposed use could affect the safety and welfare of the businesses and residences in the
area by substantially increasing the heavy truck traffic on the local roads and result in
accelerated deterioration of roads and the possibility of increased accidents. Additional
impacts will include an increase in air pollution with dust and flies, and noise pollution.
There are already several industrial businesses located within the area. B.O.S.S. Compost
is a composting facility located on the southwest corner of County Roads 35 and 12. The
northwest corner holds a semi-truck maintenance facility, Stealth Trucking. Just north of
the intersection is C&J Towing, complete with an outdoor storage facility. All of these
businesses create heavy truck traffic on County Road 35. The intersection of County
Road 35 with Highway 52 is already challenged with the amount of traffic from existing
businesses and homes. It will be further challenged as the 52 homes in Buffalo Ridge
Estates are completed and occupied. Improvements are desired at this intersection to
provide the necessary safety and another business with heavy truck traffic as proposed
would create additional problems.
We wish to preserve the current Agricultural zoning that the County has approved for this
area and maintain the peacefulness that this zoning offers. The operation that Select
Materials is proposing would have adverse impacts to the safety and welfare of our
community as well as depreciate the value of our homes. Therefore, we petition that the
County deny the permit for Select Materials.
This petition will be sent to:
Weld County Commissioners
915 Tenth St.
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Weld County Planning Commission
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
•
i\\c bc-e :(i`n7 %273 Falcon Or 3«3 - 857-0 z /
CAJH rip 303- UPS-0(0 /(;)
h ie lti , 5 62 -2;-7-94"?'
C'4 L 1De 6/L/il/6 Y 7 3 FAtc.c .0 De. } 0i2. 1
13. 3 2 �,ptr9s A2 sei; ,-0,57-1225)
441;c l&LL /-�', L I,S' I/1V0 gtl et,i (?3 9t t-ko6
Feb 18 02 12: 08p TODP.-NHODGES DESIGN LLC 158188059 p. 1
DISTRICT COURT,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO
Court Address: 901 Ninth Avenue
Greeley,CO 80631
. P.O. Box 2038
Greeley, CO 80632
Plaintiff(s): Timothy Norman Trostel
Mary Teresa Trostel •
Defendant(s): Arthur H. Suppi
David L. Suppi
Teddy R.Mcirvin
Darlene C. Mclrvin
Martin J.Freedman
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company
United Power, Inc.,1/k/a Union Rural
Electric Association, Inc.
Robert D.Oman
The Board of County Commission-
ers of the County of Weld,State of
Colorado
All unknown persons who claim any
interest in the subject matter of this
action
COURT USE ONLY
Judge: Robert A. Behrman Case No. 2000 CV 47
Senior Judge
Judge's
Address: Post Office Box 427 Div.: 1 Ctrm.
Greeley, CO 80632-0427
Phone Number: (970) 352-3061
FAX Number: None
E-mail: .. JudgeRAB@aol.com
Atty. Reg.# 3613
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
This is an action to quiet title to certain property in Weld county, Colorado. That
property is described as follows:
UXHISIT
on,
Feb 18 02 12: 08p T0Dy-9410DGES DESIGN LLC 1561$2,88059 p. 2
THAT PART OFTHE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,RANGE 66 WEST OFTHE 6TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER SAID SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER;THENCE NOO°2525"E ALONG THE
WEST LINE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER
SECTION 1 A DISTANCE OF 33.86 FEET TO A POINT ON AN EXISTING
FENCELINE;THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCELINE THE
FOLLOWING(10)COURSES AND DISTANCES:N89°38'53"E, 178.38 FEET;
389°52'53"E, 203.14 FEET; S89°53'38"E, 187.90 FEET; S89°32'18"E, 179.09
FEET; N89°57'42"E, 144.91 FEET; S89°55'21"E, 80.73 FEET; S89°50'48"E,
105.81 FEET; S89°35'56"E, 107.43 FEET; N68°17'23°E, 125.51 FEET;
N68°17'23"E, 6.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER SAID SECTION 1;THENCE S00°33'43'W
ALONG THE EAST LINE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER SAID SECTION 1 A DISTANCE OF 82.33 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER
SAID SECTION 1;THENCE N89°55'41"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE SAID
SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER SAID SECTION 1 A
DISTANCE OF 1309.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Trial was held on November 5, 2001. The trial was limited to the claims of the
plaintiffs as they relate to the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Robert D.
Oman. There is little disagreement as to the underlying facts of the case, although the
legal effects of those facts is hotly disputed.
Since December 7, 1977, the plaintiffs have been the record owners of a parcel
of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12,
Township 1 North , Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Weld County,
Colorado. Defendant Robert D. Oman is the current record owner of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 1 North , Range 66 West of
the 6th Principal Meridian in the same county. The plaintiffs' property is directly south
of defendant Oman's property.
Defendant Arthur H. Suppi is a former owner of the Oman property and is the
immediate predecessor in title to Robert D. Oman. Suppi's interest in the property, in
one form or another, appears to date from October 13, 1976. He now is the
beneficiary of a deed of trust covering the Oman property.
The section line between Sections 1 and 12 of Section 1 North, Range 66 West
separates the properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Oman. By resolution of the
�-. 2
' Feb 18 02 12: 08p T0DP�H0DGES DESIGN LLC 1561$ 88059 p. 3
•
•
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County dated October 12, 1889, that section
line and other section and township lines in the county, were "declared to be the
center of public highways or County roads," and those roads were "declared to be
roads 60 feet wide, being 30 feet on each side of said section and township lines."
The sixty-foot strip between the properties of the parties has been designated
County Road 12; however, it was never opened or improved as a road. The county
has never taken action to formally abandon the 60 foot strip as a road. On January 7.
2000, the defendant Board of County Commissioners granted to defendant Oman a
"Nonexclusive License Agreement for the Upgrade and Maintenance of Weld County
Right-of-Way" permitting Oman to upgrade and maintain a portion of the county right-
of-way between the parties' properties.
A part of the area between the parties' properties, toward its easterly end, is
occupied by the canal and canal road of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation
Company ("FRICO") which is not a party to this action. The canal and canal road cut
across the south-east corner of defendant Oman's property.
At some time more than twenty years ago, a predecessor of Oman constructed
a fence which is slightly more than 30 feet north of the true section line between
sections 1 and 12. The fence runs roughly parallel to the true section line about 33
feet north of the true section line until near the eastern end of the boundary at which
point it turns in a north easterly direction along edge of the FRICO canal and canal
road. The exact location of the fence is described In the legal description set forth
above.
By their complaint plaintiffs seek to quiet title to the entire property between the
true section line between the true section line between Sections 1 and 12 and the
fence. This area includes the north half of the county road. It also includes portions of
the right-of-way for the FRICO ditch, although FRICO is not a party to this action. In the
legal description admitted in evidence the plaintiffs acknowledge that the property is
subject to road and ditch rights-of-way. The area involved totals 1.10 acres more or
less.
For more than twenty years it has been the practice of the plaintiffs to use the
area up to the fence as if it were their own property. Items of farm machinery and other
personal property were stored there, crops were occasionally planted there and
livestock belonging to the plaintiffs grazed there. Defendant Oman and his
predecessors in title made no objection to such use by plaintiffs. On one or more
occasions Oman offered to pay plaintiffs to remove the items stored in the area south
3
' Feb 18 02 12: 09p T0DP,,H0DGES DESIGN LLC 156188059 p. 4
•
•
of the fence.
Plaintiffs were well aware of the existence of the county-road right-of-way on the
north part of their property, but believed that, because of the presence of the FRICO
canal at the east end, the road would never be opened. They believed that they would
have perpetual use of the area involved; however, they took no action to seek formal
abandonment of the road by the county authorities.
Plaintiffs base theft claims on two statutes, C.R.S.§38-44-109, and C.R.S. §38-
41-101. The applicability of these two statutes to the fact situation involved here will
be discussed separately; however, first the status of the county road must be
considered.
STATUS OF COUNTY ROAD 12.
As pointed out above, County Road 12 has not been opened or improved as a
road. The status of such a road has been considered by our Supreme Court in Uhl v.
McEndaffer, 123 Cola 69, 225 P.2d 839 (1950). That case concerned the identical
dedication which is Involved here. The case arose on appeal from a judgment of the
former County Court of this county. Our Supreme Court said:
Counsel for plaintiff, defendant in error, insists that the primary
question here is whether or not the resolution of the board of county
commissioners ordering certain section lines to be the center of public
highways is sufficient to create a public highway or road without either
a user or the construction of such road. The validity of the dedication
is admitted. In fact this resolution may be deemed to be stronger and
more far-reaching than a bare dedication, as the term is ordinarily
accepted. It provides that the section line is declared to be the center
of public highways or county roads, which roads are declared to be
roads sixty feet wide, being thirty feet on each side of said section and
township line and, in the words of the statute, delegating such
authority to the board of county commissioners, it is said, "The road so
laid out shall be a public highway." '35 C.S.A., c. 143, § 44. (Italics
ours.) In view of this declaration, it must be said that the lands here
involved, being thirty feet on each side of the section line, compose a
public highway and remains as such until vacated or abandoned by
some appropriate action of the board of county commissioners. The
purpose of the declaration was to provide the right of lawful access to
adjacent property. The very purpose of the act would be thwarted if it
r- 4
' Feb 18 02 12: 09p T0Dy- k10DGES DESIGN LLC issisapeoss p. 5
•
was held that unless some physical action on the part of the county
authorities in developing or improving the work was performed, in
time, nonuse could be said to be a vacation or abandonment. The
lines of the roadway are prescribed and await the use thereof by one
or more,and that, until such time as statutory provisions for vacating
the dedication have been complied with.
Our Supreme Court further stated:
The owners or purchasers of land lying within the district
described in the resolution of the board of county commissioners here
in evidence, knowing that the section lines, as such, are burdened
with a dedication of a highway thirty feet on each side, then the use
thereof by such owners or purchasers of the land on either side of the
section line is subject to the existing right of use by those within the
area entitled to ingress and egress to an open highway, and if there is
no such use required, the owners, having knowledge of such burden,
should take the necessary statutory steps to have the highway
vacated if they purpose to claim the land as their own.
This doctrine has recently been reaffirmed by our Court of Appeals in a
somewhat parallel situation. The court said:
Absent effective vacation, the roadways remain dedicated to
the public. See Uhl v. McEndaffer, 123 Cob. 69, 225 P.2d 839 (1950).
Martini v. Smith, 18 P.3d 776 (Cob. App. 2000).
This court is somewhat unclear as to the precise position of the plaintiffs
regarding County Road 12. They have stipulated that the decision in this case will not
affect any interest of the county and the legal description in evidence acknowledges
county rights-of-way. Nevertheless, the testimony of plaintiff Timothy Norman Trostel
seemed to indicate a view that plaintiffs had acquired permanent exclusive rights over
the county road.
The court finds that there is no evidence that plaintiffs have taken "the
necessary statutory steps to have the highway vacated," and consequently County
Road 12 at all relevant times has been, and continues to be, a valid public highway.
'—' 5
' Feb 18 02 12: 09p T0DjY�H0DGES DESIGN LLC 156188059 p. 6
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM UNDER C.R.S.§38-44-109.
C.R.S.§38-44-109 provides as follows:
38-44-109. Corners and boundaries established. The
corners and boundaries finally established by the court in such
proceedings, or an appeal therefrom, shall be binding upon all the
parties, their heirs and assigns, as the corners and boundaries which
have been lost, destroyed, or in dispute: but it it is found that the
boundaries and corners alleged.to have been recognized and
acquiesced in for twenty years have been so recognized and
acquiesced in, such recognized boundaries and corners shall be
permanently established.
In discussing the application of this statute our Supreme Court has said:
As a general proposition of law, it is true that there must be
mutuality in the fixing of a boundary in order for acquiescence to be
found.
Hartley v. Roybal, 160 Cob. 80, 414 P.2d 114 (1966).
Plaintiffs contend that the parties have recognized the fence line as the
boundary between their respective properties for more than the statutory period. The
preponderance of the evidence does not support that view.
As pointed out above, the exact position of plaintiffs as to County Road 12 is
unclear. It is evident that the plaintiffs have made use of the land as their own at least
until the point where the fence veers to the northeast following the FRICO ditch and
ditch road. Use of the property in the latter area by plaintiffs is not shown. It is unclear
to the court if the plaintiffs believed (1) that the fence line marked the section line
between sections 1 and 12, or (2) that the fence marked the north boundary of County
Road 12, and that because it was impractical to open that road they would have
permanent use of the area up to the fence. The court thinks that the second alternative
is the more likely.
The court finds that defendants Arthur H. Suppi and Robert D. Oman believed
that the fence separated their property from County Road 12 and the FRICO ditch and
ditch road. They did not recognize it as the boundary between their property and the
property of plaintiffs. The builder of the fence apparently recognized that there was no
6
' Feb 18 02 12: 09p T0Dy-.fI0DGES DESIGN LLC 15618059 p. 7
•
•
right to place a fence so as be an obstruction to the county road. Uhl v. McEndaffer,
supra. The court bases this finding on the testimony of defendants Arthur H. Suppi
and Robert D. Oman and believes it is supported by the apparently obvious jog in the
fence line to follow the boundary of the FRICO instillations. The fence is a barrier fence
rather than a boundary fence.
The court's finding that defendants Arthur H. Suppi and Robert D. Oman did not
consider the fence to be the boundary between their property and that of the plaintiffs
leads to the conclusion that the requisite acquiescence is absent. Accordingly
plaintiffs' claims under C.R.S.§3B-44-109 must be denied.
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM UNDER C.R.S.§38-41-101.
C.R.S.§38.41-101 provides as follows:
38-41-101. Limitation of eighteen years
( 1) No person shall commence or maintain an action for the
recovery of the title or possession or to enforce or establish any right
or interest of or to real property or make an entry thereon unless
commenced within eighteen years after the right to bring such action
or make such entry has first accrued or within eighteen years after he
or those from, by, or under whom he claims have been seized or
possessed of the premises. Eighteen years adverse possession of
any land shall be conclusive evidence of absolute ownership.
(2) The limitation provided for in subsection ( 1) of this
section shall not apply against the state, county, city and county, city,
irrigation district, public, municipal, or quasi-municipal corporation, or
any department or agency thereof. No possession by any person, firm,
or corporation, no matter how long continued, of any land, water,
water right, easement, or other property whatsoever dedicated to or
owned by the state of Colorado, or any county, city and county, city,
irrigation district, public, municipal, or quasi-municipal corporation, or
any department or agency thereof shall ever ripen into any title,
interest, or right against the state of Colorado, or such county, city and
county, city, public, municipal, or quasi-municipal corporation,
irrigation district, or any department or agency thereof.
Our Court of Appeals has defined the elements which must be proven to
�^ 7
Feb 18 02 12: 10p T0Dp1H0DGES DESIGN LLC 1561$-8805S p. 8
•
/1
acquire title under this statute. The Court of Appeals said:
To acquire land by adverse possession, one must prove
possession of the disputed parcel for the statutory period of 18 years
and that this possession was hostile, adverse, actual, under a claim of
right, exclusive, and uninterrupted.
Board of County Commissioners of Cheyenne County, Colorado, v.
Ritchey, 888 P.2d 298 (Colo. App.1994 )
Likewise our Supreme Court has said
One claiming title by adverse possession must prove that his
possession of the disputed parcel was actual, adverse, hostile, under
claim of right, exclusive and uninterrupted for the statutory period.
Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989)
Although the evidence in the case may be sufficient to prove that plaintiffs'
possession was hostile, adverse, and uninterrupted, the principal question which
arises is, "Was it actual and exclusive?"
This aspect of the case is governed by two decisions of our appellate courts,
Webber v, Wannemaker, 39 Colo. 425, 89 P. 780 (1907) and Palmer Ranch, Ltd. v.
Suwansawasdi, 920 P.2d 870 (Cob. App.1996).
In the Webber case a claim of title by adverse possession was denied by our
Supreme Court, which used the following language:
The evidence shows that the twenty-five acres in controversy
were fenced, in the first instance, in common with fifty-five acres of
other land belonging to persons other than the plaintiff or her grantors;
that thereafter the fence was taken away. This is not evidence in
support of adverse possession. It is not actual and exclusive
possession, but a possession in conjunction with other land owners
and it falls far short of that kind of adverse possession which deprives
the true owner of his title.
The Palmer Ranch, Ltd. case the Court of Appeals recognized the controlling
authority of the Webber case, but distinguished it on the following grounds:
,r-. 8
• Feb 18 02 12: 1Op TOD,a,HODGES DESIGN LLC 15618'88059 p. 5
r
In contrast, here, it is uncontradicted that Palmer Ranch
claimed and exercised actual and exclusive possession for
approximately thirty-five years to all land within the perimeter fence
that it had maintained. Because one cannot claim adverse possession
to public land, Palmer Ranch has not and cannot assert a fee simple
interest in the BLM land.
Nevertheless, the undisputed testimony was that, by virtue of its
grazing lease with BLM, Palmer Ranch has enjoyed exclusive
possession of the BLM property within the perimeter fence since
1956, interrupted only by sporadic entries by hunters. [Emphasis
supplied.]
In the present case the plaintiff cannot assert the claim to exclusive possession
relied on in the Palmer Ranch, Ltd. case. It has no grant of exclusivity from the county
regarding County Road 12, nor, as far as the evidence shows, has it any such grant
from FRICO.
Accordingly this court concludes that this case is governed by the Webber case
and that plaintiffs' claim for title by adverse possession cannot be sustained.
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE.
Plaintiffs appear to assert that regardless of the validity of their claims to County
Road 12 and their failure to assert claims against FRICO, their claims against
defendants for a strip about three feet wide just north of the true boundary of County
Road 12 should be separately recognized. This court disagrees.
The evidence produced by plaintiffs in support of their claims was based on
their use and occupancy of the entire area set forth in the description above. It did not
detail separate and specific use of the three-foot strip north of County Road 12, and
indeed from the pictures submitted in evidence it is not evident that plaintiffs' use
extended right up to the fence.
The only purpose for recognition of the three-foot strip as a separate entity
would be to deprive defendant Robert D. Oman and his successors of access to
County Road 12. This may be plaintiffs' purpose.1
1 There was some indication at trial of demands by plaintiffs for substantial sums for granting such access
to defendant Oman.
^ 9
Feb 18 02 12: 11p T0D➢-.40DGES DESIGN LLC 158188059 p. 10
Origin of this dispute appears to be a possible slight mistake as to the location
of the north boundary of County Road 12. To paraphrase Uhf v. McEndaffer, supra, if
plaintiffs' claim were granted under such ambiguous circumstances, the very purpose
of the act which authorized creation of County Road 12 would be thwarted.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the court as follows:
1. Judgment shall enter that plaintiffs Timothy Norman Trostel and Mary Teresa
Trostel have no right, title or interest in and to the following described property in Weld
County, Colorado, to-wit:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,RANGE 66 WEST OFTHE 6TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER SAID SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER;THENCE N00°25'25"E ALONG THE
WEST LINE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER
SECTION 1 A DISTANCE OF 33.86 FEET TO A POINT ON AN EXISTING
FENCELINE;THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCELINE THE
FOLLOWING(10)COURSES AND DISTANCES:N89°38'53"E; 178.38 FEET;
S89°52'53"E, 203.14 FEET; S69°53'38"E, 187.90 FEET; S89°32'18"E, 179.09
FEET; N89°57'42"E, 144.91 FEET; S89°55'21"E, 80.73 FEET; 589°50'48"E,
105.81 FEET; S89°35'56"E, 107.43 FEET; N68°17'23"E, 125.51 FEET;
N68°17'23"E,6.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER SAID SECTION 1;THENCE S0o°33'43'W
ALONG THE EAST LINE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER SAID SECTION 1 A DISTANCE OF 82.33 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER
SAID SECTION 1;THENCE N89°55'41'W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE SAID
SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER SAID SECTION 1 A
DISTANCE OF 1309.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
2. Nothing herein shall be deemed to deprive plaintiffs Timothy Norman Trostel
and Mary Teresa Trostel of any right they may have as members of the public and as
adjoining landowners to make use of County Road 12.
3. Defendants Arthur H. Suppi and Robert D. Oman shall have judgment
ea. 10
Feb 18 02 12: llp TOD�HODGES DESIGN LLC 15618'88059 p. 11
against plaintiffs Timothy Norman Trostel and Mary Teresa Trostel for their costs.
4. All parties are granted thirty days from the date of this order for the filing of
post-trial motions and bills of costs.
5. The originals of any such motions or bills of costs shall be filed in the usual
manner with the clerk of this court and a copy of each shall be mailed to the
undersigned judge at the judge's address as shown in the caption. The originals filed
with the clerk shall be endorsed with a certificate showing such mailing.
Dated December 17, 2001
NT^n.•
BY THECOPTh.
Robert A.'Behrman
Senior Judge
On December 17, 2001, copies of the foregoing Memorandum of Decision and Order
were mailed to:
Kimberly A. Allegretti, Esq.
Wood, Ris& Hames, P.C.
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80203
Joseph Adams Cope, Esq.
Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C.
4750 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80305-5575
Don J. Hoff, Esq.
1025 9th Avenue, Suite 309
Greeley, CO 80631
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
915 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 1948
Greeley, CO 80632
r 11
access to WCR 12
-1''',2'::•-,',/,,,
Ali YYy x '« 6 s5.
t.
y
a ,a C ' x i$ya+;' -1: 'ia ';' j2a f� 1st a r « d 14 i it u < i r'.
wig ? dw! z,a .-t 3 ,, ki i ' t ' ('; Mw� a 'h+ ' r%.,..
' 4:
Sli pp
.: .._ _"1t3\`.i::f1u ---- lFa.F J•NF Cy' ` �'...P 'u 'T34
..-430,?; w _. - g _
.
_
- -
'
17Wr 'L
(e F'tl.x �.. r
EXHIBIT
Fe
i/ 1 1(
J
2000 aerial
,_ hy`
r ...
ii ti`[y P A _A9�^�
144
k-
fi `I M ,g,
.. lY�61. tx�
Ez :?.•' ;'!1;',' - ♦ Y qua • ' 4
-;...ii.,.-
. r ,,,11:14r1';..
��'•,1,t
yy�.y as^i� h �N + '�N ki'^' 0.
^Y11'"!T,;”:1 'g A I •
t 4
"fir' I 'k . .f t ' ' '`' +.
I!^ ice . >>f
a 44'..44.4;10,44
.. »wrrc ' +ab
i
XH\8\T
he
X991 aerial
'ase
1� '�F t 'r.
3 • S' / j p ,,]Y. � A
2E �A•.
i v. 11JJ
.y r. _ ,, �h34U41:
1 "'... li.
•
2
• s".b�49
t .A. w W••'1 YY%MY@1v whM1'.�µy-yam _
4,
i •' :' n:
''.",4,•.:-• ''-4, 1• 4-''' yy.+4�: .. . •. t6
>� d
:1,34,g�` dk h�6 rq � na b 5L
l,p .Y A,21 kFtkq S' + 'S" ',N.. ." w
i' h t x wWy ' k f rcaatiF; Y9 y,�, 11.it's
!ta s' e j* l t
You � � T S � � '„0(...;';
A t ✓C: 'k1s
t i yy
:r Fz ry>_Bpi
n Syr ,'�.
k1Nz �+f 'F#*
}
.
Mid Buffalo Ridge looking North
�s:Lxi 1 '<:::::'''r •r "�-,its,} %A, 'nk N�%wv th3� t
r;t -• "pp}}tytn ` sl�KrvY ss e sy- us iy tIAr Y 1.14' 4.,,{t,, Y- x} M �t dr , �,
�W 7t '1� *�,''+'� � �A 9
4ht # {tN�15tM� �` #. �l'P fat ��n e' f{,7.R � J ,� y c
e a `• S tk 1 n 't6 Lg ,�i DVF La(( Yi 't t56 , �'�S'5. -4 .Ct P�' 1'� `tH' ,5 ,< !
n r Di'' ('t N r' z,� P h � 3g A,n(E,u,k t �t s k s ja' k �'t � - ��t `� r-4 � ", Jzi . ' � ry`
sW a , .R L 'i'' S k' jl 'N a ,4 a`4f .i
u i t L r c R,ry L}. a �,^r a i s 7 ''t r x ,�4 k t xM+
h 5 1 `�" sh n l zee., a, at $'Ff� f
t
a .
z -t 'l t o 1 r SI 4 2 p r h{ t-r3 L ?*i r +�
a e'"' � y I ,e : h d L Lf s,�L r � tY t ' 1'i# � a. f fK ��h-
'y$f d2y.i _ w .. c4 x a
F. i4u .� M, vl'.e�VR M ..13 .x r..n.- �. ay.j . . „4„.. ,.,
_
z "Y
NW/C of Buffalo Ridge looking NW
x �...L - r rlrAnmesNµkF x.r-.Rpt5 _ n_..xv "
—fin lilti t kp' S ** t i�9,+iww •N ` ti y , 4m tr.e
* ' «
k .nhy��
V��y� .M t• � ' -3-t"- F�' X b>n �' � 4 i44 ��i ? 4.
t w,» 5 R L'�Ly'4 ' 7,-'-',,;:',...5 ,3,,,,,74::1,2-:
''' , ra ," ‘'` .t h
�ae�, �' * y �' # t N '��J1$. C a xrsr 0 ♦ '. '� 3p ��,.
% yt .:+,..4r4:,.--.., ti ..041;,,:- '�M� .� 'wf hw' 3'4� !
tit :,..‘,„I-...4: ,. a. �, v !'�,psw r x j
- „y T* ° 4 a o My �✓5. t"tea!' :',3g:.(151,"'„',55,`,'„ Y �j- ;y mar axt�*�.
4!'t �,"u�mm4 {a`i h , 4hfi- I- ." •".", a '.-kw•_ w_«•,�Y ,` ..n.,
NW/C of Buffalo Ridge looking NE
F 1 S,�� • 7§
�, a
' fife . "'i (� ,' "4 � t ,
y� a fns y
r�s., i s t p x: s Y�< y1ti } s�a�` sa a1 'r�� ts�` � }� k�'ai�� �3� 4'f t� '�4+4a..� ,MS
t a m I N
s � e 3k �rt Ks ^�4es
,.
YL�
.r-
{
r � 1
�,
n•ry rr `
w� .*yew... ,. _.
Looking west from site
-si fi e " t. kyfur -•C "� b' II , e s ' t�j 2 ( r `afnL�$e.'1 ; "''''f4:•,-
f 17 4�'Y '*f4'1i:4f * Fm
G a "^ ,� . t . ,rzu4`,'ul ,2tC ki iAi tp, ac.,.....,,,,,,,,t,i u4,,4 ,.; i '�
x3 r 'i'11,1f h j,
An>avy wr i^s a tl °7j ) j Hk 4xAKt
2 �7 k al rt ,qy i, ' 1fIY`., t , h@ {ni '4 ns but :
7 SE : t } ▪}pq•f ' 4 PV f r' 9 F b M T
i reR W s� k44 F �t 4'a ' • \i„,47,41.,,,,,,...7,7
, r u3r { a , 4 r
d4� --, „e ii.. ¢ a ' C ai tgi ₹'�s'lais.,�a 5 1jv , �A _ ` Mf,t .JF" 'G w`m,f" y, r �
nt
5k"'s pp',-;''''',..:„..7,7 s ,.; KK f ,N 4 $� ad ' aZk f�" ,xtl"r+ '7�'f gt'"f �„ a yre r g ' �;
,. yr �` tf W� NiS f ('' d . i -' � n o yT7N.":+tre w ?-4;1''
p w'r '�i] , t N 4 +�
� ,-,.,,4,i,,,,,:,,;:,µ �y+ �p n (. ry }'
2',..“,.3ik [ ,4+ -", s , r `�P r 0;(42 Y1i- N P. 47^'( a� ",;;ilii��,`i(, P ;"u
t , , *�, 1, ix i v,N₹ S 1 it; p k
?,:t04,',.,„;‘,-,-,t14141:?,..,,
s. vx r !`� > a mn_'▪ f`�7r y'$ff N�N`y'�'�! a,}, f4�Y 4 iiy a "t ° e .�� [y�+ -
440
� v e� t �.C u P� mtt t�•� ttl i ! ",S t t 4� �Y� .ae.W R t� � t A
q {a t • Kk f i 7�y x 1 +
°'�wmr ^. ,r_et < ",;\ a f>:^� � i�da y �t � 2 St r rfi n 1
�t ti v h' .t ,
� tl.��yk a e ai !1 r , %v • A.04-4,C,4 51FA.,frb#S � �f'Y ,S
raf � s ,� M a .I � 11 E roN �� t �.
`1� � �. , '} 9,¢;H� & N}< a �,N,vtF .. .t a 'rf✓ice it i �y i; 4Cr ?P �'� q��; $ 1 ' t�,≥f
c4.,-.',7 e� h"< t � f r L -t,,t f3F' ,04„ 1`w r t tl gypp..� �{Y. t
��' � '�'� f` -,:„*.4,,,, } t•o '� � ',$t ,Ia'�ur � r 1 at i �`l�fi� ,n+Y '
S a„,.4 �t - I 1.. x y` .. ..4;7,,,..,;',,,,,7„t� a dki 'tt' ', iYn, r it ,„ti �-..t9¢, ',,,.-'k iH�iS, a'.
Cz 4 #
" w s S d§ r, Se Atr-,%7477777.m �V ,a air i^'Svpa �. �b� .., h.y el
#@F S A i v �Ls�: � k a r �',At � y l r �k
��' �} tF N Ra v�tlt'm e3� 3�S5' �� �$j Q `I>}+a °'� s� a� � i tr9 ,.
h
.i.7•7•;•••-4.• �� �v 8 �y � ilE� F [. � l A �` j � C h � � ' +� � ,#1 n� ij-
� >h0 lJ o i 6 u!4 1a f rntl 41: I w : IF
Mid WCR 12 looking east
if
I '?
r
rLT •
I
{
Looking east from site
�� e 4 k + ,_+ �'"N a,;," 3K�,J� ^1f 1 n h` y .
n o I .t.ti .-1,,:.;::'',.:141'
Lfirt �'^' 1
t' 7eJ `,1 Y _ a
1 t F �� '3fti Tt 1 {h rh Y . „
q3M S, x ls.,t $ f,'Z t4Y lii:I h�l �.
�° 'gT ��p f�"1�',�x{TN��r a���`�3�" rnt 'tifv�S�`S'4 �t�?t.4L'Hff F� lY��M1,�i""k"4G. 1 '� },5�1 `" +'9 h
�,-. '! Y K' • ) 2}�M1 s u ° ,ni Y.},N : ���x Y}a f ' i !'}}� �k v t ^l'i?�
.,"TR"^v.t ,. a F' 'Ci 5;f t ' �fY kk�43It {F li i t� 0kWa, j ! LY (.2 alt Y! I l Y'}�l 4liA N1 9 Y3`St li.r' + J.Y
�l'`d�' �xwflw+ � xt„3 �t*Y�&�Y � 'n'I,.�y�H�9„t �"�n�.j��� ��?irl�("� ° �y,�-r �^�',+t'�*�q�$ itr.�vz`CI yura"�u. ya�n."al ..
�` , Ore: ' f r ' C X1,15414 au"� }t r,9 ikKi 41:41$4} 3 a x4A Xi 4 tt'r I t '
42'.. ', y *fit �M � �`' 'M-L rvs.d of i t -.tip f r�. F, ! �'��m# c z° x, I
'.:4',11,4 �^� ��'3�1 psi c3,}x,t �I� � AYR t s � f t
}p t0f" Ah`` c �' x A., E , #t'4+�t 1 +� RI ,, n.1ui i,C..,,11r t � t la ki r ^ x
} '� ~zr - r ,nlre a+k $ Y(,�'icig,,,l� wrn'�Iil., i,,i :oi :ruri „ .�Oy f,fr , s`ll l tl� e r
*,. v t s st ', w 4u' 1"`Fsk ? '14(44:U'Ut'e'4,1M } d�„ ,T. i ii f}, [i i . �y : y. tE b Lv .- x
rk ,} 1 d '3.'t i r d+`u r r1 s s�
d � ����' 5 �.+ ,' �,�ti '�"S Ar` 1�� t ₹�'r�aa ��I� e, r "�� +r:� , av P s �!'tal .`r�§� �` �r��
W�owp t �5$ ( '�` ., xa ik-'2 .R n Y5 '". er t icy,'; clf fik,;.4 r y„G pb r a I t t t n 1 In 1 >Y
�.p ¢ sik 1 f, s-'"�}4 f-1 :t� Il,mt tic:, (4oe r3o v�yt i`n tY Vt�"kl i r �k v 4'ir 1 i W
u [ � a 1 I`1. I u < � A� i i t R
ri M1 q"k1Y Y 'i,, „L4{ +}'Kt 9 1 + f ri ; btn9t�iF i "'f A� yf�1 e 'iri,,w
y,,9 "^' !I °Y614741 '� 1&W�m I r 7 t '#" +' 3 x 11 !..
t + u ,° rl ,e m , j4 t atIgit:h r �' 641`:0 ja '`k �a'`ia �i Lr^& i1 n r+ n A <l °v''� .�a
n 9 k`-”,r-
r--.1) p -.O1. ua4. G1 �." �',}Y x,f x . a^a*t #�q �.
ra >• { ,4ti 3' it m Yk �, ., , h'. "a� "-,4, 4,,,,1 u l A'f;'t 7 t '` { I 4-- I ry - 3 � ;
5�J a ar�af ens elAig #'d M i,a-i aa4t lbk �i.:t,5 'r a 51 t r ,-' Yr G{ ,,ap,w,, ':z e y
rl c ,r'+� J'e] "'4''2� , 1 }(Srtr rryoa4w ,7, r me a.v; a pr y�t44.,
ry E .y is y #. -.It.
4� 4 pr . 40 t i ,x k"„4₹ > 4,� r9k xe.+S 4„ R "tk.„.,;11 r �' I
y # Attitlitri sf Hi t a i„,:it A&. ( ' t: f I f'{ ,,..444„.„,,..:4.4,440„.„, 5aY a n
Y A Y( 1 qi ,yatf d tw ,:it
)7 tr 'iY of i 1 J {"I I Ir Plk7r t.. n �I
; � a 'i n z ,F$a(ityi( z "jl s k Pit 5Xt' s Z� >.7r aft 7 5rl.W rll a.-1,n, 1 v
*��ax. o � =p �` '�'i �±�� .,�§i°",rr° '" SY�a ( ` e1+ si a � a t y ��jtf' ` ` t� r
ap! . n r an n`n't;. ! 'm'" 14 4 h f E~R m a `r ri - h r { tr,I_
w"i J+tr i } N 1c-MI� w' 5 .j ry I 4�po- 1 k r3a h' i`t' <%.kil'
� x 7x� e gi�91n e{ gf+rJ R`�lif �aa�,y-Iu ar ,wzAx Ittt +g1f4 'it y c f
'G�. vx+ "y , , 'k 4A 14t, tr�[,I1 e x 6}I I �&- I 4 q.:,:°Y 3 `1^IJ 4 t sr s r� r ° `s
v " a t &26.,�t{ r+ i! '+vP. l r . ' ^ .,'""P� 1 , vm.;>jk,':141;:12 aY> `�°t� �".*�x'+rr`x.Via..7
SW/C of Site looking East
-.- Mkt, '
_ r
taiDit
fir► <.,�.�.. _
SW/C of Site looking Northeast
,fig✓'%NE..1•
*ter ia pa.
uto-OwnerS Papa 1
INSURANCE COMPANY 55040 (11/87).
6101 ANACAPRI BLVD. , LANSING, MI 48917-3999 Issued 02-15-2001
TAILORED PROTECTION POLICY DECLARATIONS
r AGENCY WATERFIELD INSURANCE AGENCY
32-0008-00 UNIT IN
Renewal Effective 04-28-2001
INSURED BOB OMAN 86 POLICY NUMBER 004632-y5302078-01
DBA SELECT MATERIALS
ADDRESS PO BOX 280 •
Company POLICY TERM
FORT Bill 12:01 a.m. 12:01 a.m.
LUPTON, CO 80621-0280
04-28-2001to 04-28-2002
In consideration of payment of the premium shown below,
attachments to your policy. If' , this policy is repeal, consult attach this
Declarations and attach
You have any questions, pleas consult with your agent.
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE
LIMITS OF INSURANCE
General Aggregate Limit
(Other Than Products-Completed Operations) $2,000,000
Personal Products-Completions ed Limit 2,000,000
Each Occurrence Limit
Fire Damage Limit
100,000 Any One Fire
1,000,000
Medical Expense Limit 1,000,000
10,000 Any One Person
"General Aggregate Limit" shown above, is reinstated once per policy period at no
additional charge, in accordance with form 55050.
AUDIT TYPE: Annual Audit
FORMS THAT APPLY TO LIABILITY: 55118 (08-91) 55146 (07-96) 55091 (01-89)
IL0021 (11-85) 55029 (07-87) CG0001 (11-88) IL0017 (11-85) 55050 (07-87)
55064 (07-87) CL175 (02-86) 55137 (06-92) CG2147 (09-89) 59319 (04-99)
/-' 55183 (11-95) 55202 (05-00)
LOCATION OF PREMISES YOU OWN, RENT OR OCCUPY
LOC 001 BLDG 001 111610 Weld County Rd 14 1/2
Fort Lupton, CO 80650
TERRITORY: 002 COUNTY: Weld
Classification Premium
Subline Basis Rates
CODE 00501 Premium
Commercial General Liability Prem/Op Prem
Plus Endorsement Included Pram/Op Inc Inc
At 7G Of The Premises Inc
Operation Premium
CODE 12683
Gross
Fertilizer Dealers And Distributors Prem/Op1,3 Each 1000
00,000
Prod/Comp Op 1,300,000 1.327 $1,725.00
CODE 49950
Additional Interests
Lessor Of Leased Equipment .
/Park Western Leasing Prem/Op 10,000 .433
$4.00
Cit Group/Equipment
Pram/Op 10,000
g .433 $4.00
• EXHIBIT
iiiiL
'
luto-Ouvners Page 2 55040 (11/8
Issued 02-15-
INSURANCE COMPANY TAILORED PROTECTION POLICY DECLARAT)
6101 ANACAPRI BLVD. , LANSING, MI 48917-3999
Renewal Effective 04-28-2
AGENCY WATERFIELD INSURANCE AGENCY IN
32-0008-00 UNIT 86 POLICY NUMBER 004632-4530207E
INSURED BOB OMAN
DBA SELECT MATERIALS
ADDRESS PO BOX 280 Company POLICY TERM
Bill 12:01 a.m. 12:01 a.m.
FORT LUPTON, CO 80621-0280 04-28-2001to 04-28-2002
In consideration of payment of the premium shown below, this policy is renewed. Please attach this
Declarations and attachments to your policy. If you have any questions, please consult with your agent.
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE
Assoc Financial Corp Prem/Op 10,000 .433
LOCATION 001 PREMIUM 52,7
LOCATION OF PREMISES YOU OWN, RENT OR OCCUPY
LOC 002 BLDG 001 Wheeler Lake
Platteville, CO 80621
TERRITORY: 002 COUNTY: Weld
Premium
Classification
Subline Basis Rates PremiL
CODE 49451 Acres Each 1
Vacant Land Prem/Op 10 .901 ;
Including Products And/Or
Completed Operations
(For-Profit)
LOCATION 002 PREMIUM
•
LOCATION OF PREMISES YOU OWN, RENT OR OCCUPY
LOC 003 BLDG 001 17269 Weld County Rd *12
Fort Lupton, CO 80650
TERRITORY: 001 COUNTY: Weld
Premium
Classification
Subline Basis Rates Premiu
CODE 49451 Acres Each 1
Vacant Land Pram/Op 40 .901 S3
Including Products And/Or
Completed Operations
(For-Profit)
LOCATION 003 PREMIUM $:
Hello