Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 CorrespondenceFRANK M HOL,KENSMItM DAN G GRIFFIN KIRK RIDE R JAMES S CASEBOI t RONALD W GIBBS I AIr1Y i' NO.IINGE W(1H111 GARY( DOERI ING WIRY U SLATER • p( - irAote e YOUNGE & E1oCKI•:NsMITII PROF I- SSION A1. 1'111tPUNAI 1)N ATILHNIa'S AT LAW 21X11:RANI) AVI:. SIIIIF. 5(11) 1'1) I1()X 17E,s (,RANI). JUN(' I ION. E OLt)ItAIRI 8 11102 1 71,8 :111:1 242 21145 March 14, 1985 John L. Kemp, Esq. HARTERT, MINCER, WILSON, EVERSTINE AND KEMP P. O. Box 850 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 ybert Richardson, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Edward P. Sands, Esq. CARTER & SANDS, P.C. 201 Mountain Plaza 201 West Third Street Rifle, CO 81650 OF COUNSEL THOMAS K YOUN GE R77-_^EItf MAR 18 1985 G/;`?FIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ic;_u GO. PLANNER RE: Robert C. Schenck and Betty Lou Schenck vs. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, et al. - Civil Action No. 84 CV 176 Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to confirm the status of settlement negotiations as of this date. On March 7, 1985, I met with the Plaintiff and his attorney, and as a result of that conversation, I have drafted the enclosed Agreement for Settlement and for Order of Dismissal. Basically, the agreement is for payment to the Plaintiff of the sum of $2,883.30, dismissal of the subject lawsuit, and reapplication by the property owner for a special use permit for gravel operations. On March 11, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved this settlement proposal in concept, with two qualifications: 1. That if a new public hearing is to be held, the Board not be committed to a specific result prior to the public hearing; and, 2. The settlement proposal have the approval of the landowner Defendants, Richard E. and Atta Dee White. • • John L. Kemp, Esq. Edward P. Sands, Esq. Robert Richardson March 14, 1985 Page Two On March 12, 1985, I met with John Kemp, attorney for the Whites. The above settlement proposal was discussed, and Mr. White did not make a commitment either for or against the settlement proposal. Instead, Mr. White has proposed that he pay the Plaintiffs approximately $2,200.00 and that the Plaintiffs and Defendants White enter into an agreement in regards to the subject land -use permit. This agreement would be between Plaintiffs and Defendants White and would not involve the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, the present land -use resolution, 84-83, would remain in effect. This offer has been communicated to Plaintiffs' attorney, Ed Sands. It is my desire to fully explore settlement possibilities of the above -captioned case. I believe the proposal of Mr. White offers possibilities for settlement and will, therefore, not push White to respond to the above offer by Garfield County. Therefore, I would appreciate a response within twenty (20) days of today's date as to whether Plaintiffs and Defendants White have reached an agreement. Thank you for your continuing patience and consideration in this case. Very truly yours, YOUNGE & HOCKENSMITH Professional Corporation By EGR:sms Enclosure cc: Mr. Cory Beck Steven J. Zwick 1 Earl G. Rhodes • DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Civil Action No. 84 CV 176 AGREEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT AND FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL ROBERT C. SCHENCK and BETTY LOU SCHENCK, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO; LARRY VELASQUEZ, FLAVEN J. CERISE, and EUGENE "JIM" DRINKHOUSE, in their capacity as members of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado; EARL RHODES, in his capacity as County Attorney for Garfield County, Colorado; DENNIS STRANGER, in his capacity as Planning Director. for Garfield County, Colorado; BILL THOMPSON, in his capacity as Chief Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer for Garfield County, Colorado; ED FELD, in his capacity as Environmental Health Officer for Garfield County, Colorado; ART ABPLANALP, in his capacity as former County Attorney for Garfield County, Colorado; BUD MILNER, in his capacity as former. Chief Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer for Garfield County, Colorado; RAY 3ALDWIN, in his capacity as former Planner for. Garfield County, Colorado; and RICHARD E. WHITE, and ATTA DEE WHITE, Defendants. THIS AGREEMENT made this day of March, 1985, by and among the parties hereto, which parties,upon approval p by the District Court of this Agreement, state and agree as follows: WITNESS ETH WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are the owners of certain real property located in Garfield County, Colorado, which properly is more specifically described as .2 acres in the Morris Addition in the City of Rifle, State of Colorado; WHEREAS, the Defendant The Board of County Commission- ers of Garfield County, Colorado, is the duly authorized poli- tical body for Garfield County, which is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado; and in that capacity has adopted the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1973 as amended; WHEREAS, Defendant Richard E. White is the owner of certain real property located in Garfield County, Colorado, which property is described as part of the SANE1/4 and the NWQSE1/4 of Section 17, T 6 S, R 93 W, of the 6th Principal Meridian; • • WHEREAS, on or about February 9, 1981, a public hearing was held in front of the Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, for the issuance of a special use permit for natural resource extraction or processing on the real property owned by Defendant White; WHEREAS, at the end of said hearing, Defendant Commissioner Cerise made a motion for approval of the subject land use permit with conditions; WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the subject permit was defective from its inception, that Defendant White and his lessees have been allowed to operate said gravel pit in con- travention of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended, and other matters; WHEREAS, the parties are now desirous of resolving this matter without further litigation and have entered into this Agreement for the express purpose of the final resolution of this matter; and WHEREAS, the parties are desirous that said Agreement be in writing and approved by the District Court. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Upon receipt of express consent by Defendants White, which consent is hereby given, Defendant Board of County Commissioners hereby rescinds Resolution No. 84-83 (adopted April 30, 1984) and any authority granted to Defendants White under said Resolution is hereby declared to be null and void. The Garfield County Clerk & Recorder is hereby directed to record this Agreement in the minutes of the Board of County Comission- ers. 2. Until such time as a new Resolution is adopted by Defendant Board of County Comissioners, Defendants White or their lessees, shall have no authority to conduct activities on the subject property except those activities which are a use by right on the subject property in accordance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended, and except for the express authority of Defendants White or their lessees, to remove mate- rial from stockpiles presently existing on the subject property. 3. Defendants White and the Board of County Commissioners further agree that the application submitted by Defendant White on or about the day of _ _ , 1981 shall be considered the application for the land use hearing as provided for herein, and that no fee shall be charged for the processing of said application. • • 4. Plaintiffs shall be given written notice of the location, date and time of said land use hearing which noti- fication shall be sent by United States mail, first class, post- age prepaid, and which letter shall be sent not less than 15 days prior to the date of date said public hearing. 5. In addition to the above consideration, upon dis- missal of this action as provided for herein, the Garfield County Defendants hereby agree to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $2,883.30 as a full and final settlement of all claims set forth in the above captioned action. For and in consideration of said pay- ment, Plaintiffs will execute releases in favor of Defendants, Garfield County, which releases are separate agreements from this Agreement for Settlement and for Order of Dismissal. 6. The parties hereby recite that this Agreement is a settlement of a disputed claim and the Defendants by this Agree- ment do not admit the truth of the allegation contained in Plain- tiffs' Complaint nor does Plaintiff acknowledge that the extent of their damages is only the sum of $2,883.30. Said settlement is hereby declared to be in the best interests of the parties herein and in the public interest of Garfield County, Colorado. 7. This Agreement constitutes the complete understand- ing among the parties and no modification hereto shall be made unless with the same formality as the original Agreement and no representations of the parties are binding unless contained here- in. AGREED TO at the date set forth above at Glenwood Springs, Colorado. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO By Chairman ROBERT C,�SCHENCK BETTY LOU SCHENCK • • APPROVED: CARTER & SANDS, P.C. By Edward P. Sands YOUNGE & HOCKENSMITH, P.C. By Earl G. Rhodes HARTER, MINCER, WILSON, EVERSTINE AND KEMP By John Kemp ORDER 17ICHARD E. WHITE ATTA DEE WHITE THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the par- ties' Agreement for Settlement, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, doth hereby find and order: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties herein, and venue is proper in Garfield County, Colorado. 2. The proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. 3. The above Complaint is hereby dismissed with preju- dice, with each party to pay their own costs. DONE IN CHAMBERS this day of March, 1985. BY THE COURT: District Judge