Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A ruling issued May 9 by District Court Magistrate Amanda Hunter enjoins Alison Brown from using any improved structures or facilities at her home on 11600 Antelope Road “to provide service, housing or safekeeping to any animal or equipment that is used in conjunction with guiding services, specifically such guiding services that involve Dr. Brown’s riding out or hunting with foxhounds on public lands with any other individuals who are not effecting substantial control over the foxhounds.”

The ruling is in effect “until such time as Brown has received a permit from Chaffee County to operate her outfitting facility … unless modified or removed by further court action.”

The decision represents one portion of the Chaffee County Commissioners proposed order imposing injunction and penalties filed on April 19.

In an April 30 ruling, Hunter had earlier denied the Board of Commissioners’ instant motion for permanent injunction and penalties based on their claim that Brown is operating an outfitting facility.

Hunter allowed an enjoined motion between Chaffee County and Brown’s neighbors Chris Vely and Laura Barton over the county’s kennel definition. The county’s proposed permanent injunction was filed together with an outside attorney, William Tuthill III of Arvada.

The county’s proposed injunction and penalties had sought to prevent Brown from maintaining any outfitting facilities on her property, as well as on a separate parcel she owns at 11555 Antelope Road, without obtaining a permit. It also sought to prevent her from serving as a Master of Foxhounds for outings involving any third parties using “any dogs, horses or equipment kept on her property … not utilize her property as a staging point for expeditions … not train or allow dogs on her property to be used for expeditions or outings … not allow horses or dogs to trespass onto … non-public easements.”

The county’s proposed order would have allowed them to enter the property to inspect the grounds for compliance, impose an initial fine and assign a financial penalty of $100 per day for each day it deemed her non-compliant, and to proceed with contempt proceedings.

The proposed injunction did not define outfitting facilities, nor did it differentiate outings for family and friends from commercial activities.

Hunter’s ruling acknowledged “the county’s definition of outfitting facilities may sweep in conduct that is as benign as a grandfather taking his grandson out for a horseback ride, but, again the constitutionality of the regulation has not been raised by the defendant.”

Brown does not dispute the county kennel definition, which the county adopted in November 2017.

“I will, of course, comply with what the court has ordered and have always intended to apply for a kennel permit,” said Brown.

Regarding the outfitting definition, Brown said, “I will submit an application for an outfitting facility limited impact review. I hope that this means that the county will at long last allow me to live in my house. It has been very stressful being homeless since before Christmas.”

Brown said that she will complete the outfitting application for the use of her stable of horses for fox hunting. Ironically, keeping horses is an otherwise permitted use in her zone area.

Several days before the hearing on the instant motion seeking a permanent injunction, the county filed a brief arguing that the Board of Adjustment had already determined that Brown was operating an outfitting facility, so the issue wasn’t subject to collateral challenge. Hunter denied it.

“There had been no showing that the Board of Adjustment considered whether the zoning regulation had been properly adopted,” wrote Hunter. “Thus, the claims between the two proceedings (the motion for permanent injunction and a joinder motion for summary judgment) are not the same.”

In an April 30 ruling that allowed the county’s requests for kennel definitions to be enjoined with those of Brown’s neighbors Vely and Barton, Hunter wrote, “To enjoin a zoning violation, a county must prove both the adoption and violation of a particular regulation.” Board of County Com’rs v. Rohrbach, 226 P.3d 1184, 1186 (Colo. App 2009) … “To be clear, the Court does not view as part of its analysis a determination of whether the Board of Adjustment abused its discretion in determining that Dr. Brown was operating an outfitting facility. Further, no argument regarding the constitutionality of the zoning regulation has been raised by Defendant.”