PERMFILE105571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. By a preponderance of evidence, at trial, this Court found that a violation of a Gilpin County Zoning Resolution occurred on Defendant's property, and imposed upon the Defendants a $250.00 fine for each of two separate violations. 3. On August 25, 2003, pursuant to a Motion for Assessment of Per Diem Penalties filed by Plaintiff, this Court, in addition to the fine, ordered that per diem penalties of $50.00 per violation be imposed. Said ruling was made under §30-28-124.5(4), C.R.S. which provides that a per diem penalty shall be imposed by the Court upon Motion filed by the County, accompanied by proof that the zoning violation has not been cured, removed or corrected. 4. Defendants paid the fine imposed by the Court, but have not paid the per diem penalties which were ordered on August 25, 2003. See August 25, 2003 Motion and Order, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. On October 26, 2004 this Court assessed per diem penalties in the amount of $42,200.00 Said amount represented the daily $100.00 fine for 422 day, beginning August 25, 2003 and ending October 22, 2004, the date in which Plaintiff filed its first Motion for Entry of Judgment for Per Diem Penalties Pursuant to C.R.S. §30-28-124.5(4). The Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On June 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed an additional Motion for Entry of Judgment for Per Diem Penalties Pursuant to C.R.S. §30-28-124.5(4) wherein it sought the entry ofjudgment of $22,800.00 for the period beginning October 22, 2004 and ending June 6, 2005, or $100.00 per day for 228 days. The Court has not yet ruled on this Motion. If the Court grants this second Motion a total of $65,000 worth ofper diem penalties will be entered against Defendants for the period commencing August 25, 2003 and ending June 6, 2005. The instant Motion seeks to update that figure and bring current the assessment and entry of judgment of per diem penalties from June 6, 2005 to October 19, 2005. 6. As of the filing of the instant Motion, the zoning violations have not been cured, removed or corrected as substantiated by the Affidavit of Raymond Rears, Gilpin County Community Planning Specialist. See Affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 7. By filing the instant Motion for Entry of Judgment for Per Diem Penalties, Plaintiff in no way waives its right to pursue additional and ongoing penalties as provided for by statute. Tltis Motion is intended to quantify and reduce to judgment the per diem penalties incurred to the date of filing of this Mo[ion, and does not preclude additional collection and entry of judgment(s) as violations of the Zoning Resolutions accrue. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enterjudgment with respect to per diem penalties commencing June 7, 200, and continuing until October 19, 2005. As of the date of the attached Affidavit, the per diem penalties for the subject period total $14,400.00 or $100.00 per day for 144 davs.