In a case that may be linked to Mesa County Attorney Todd Starr’s sudden, mysterious resignation September 20, 2026, on October 20, 2026 District Court Judge Bryan Flynn ruled against what he called an “inexplicable” attempt by the Board of Mesa County Commissioners (BOCC) to shutter an event venue on Little Park Road. The County tried to impose requirements on the venue that don’t appear anywhere in the Land Development Code or in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) unanimously granted to the landowners by the BOCC on May 27, 2025.
This case involves the Mesa View Venue, the same event center where Republican CD-3 House Rep. Jeff Hurd recently scheduled a premature, self-congratulatory “victory reception” on October 5, only to suddenly move the party to his campaign office in town shortly after announcing it.
Here is what we know from Judge Brian Flynn’s October 20, 2026 court ruling (pdf) denying the County’s request to shut down the Mesa View Venue:
In October, 2024 Charles Hoge, Scott Norton and Cheryl Norton wanted to buy a 35 acre parcel on upper Little Park Road in Glade Park in hopes of using it as an event venue. Before purchasing the property, they consulted the Mesa County Planning Department about their plans. The Planning Department told them they would need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and that the process to obtain one takes about 12 weeks.
Confident that they could use the property as intended, Hoge and the Nortons proceeded to purchase the property for $1.25 million and then applied for the CUP. Nearby neighbors caught wind of the new owners’ plan and unanimously opposed the CUP application, telling the County they had moved to the Little Park Road area to be far away from commerce, traffic and commotion. They expressed deep concerns about the venue’s potential impact on the roads, wildlife, noise and their quality of life.
On April 17, 2025, by a unanimous 4-0 vote, the Mesa County Planning Commission recommended the BOCC deny the landowners’ request for a CUP.
Despite the Planning Commission’s recommendation against it, the County Commissioners went ahead at their public meeting on May 27, 2025 and approved the CUP, subjecting the owners to the following eight operating conditions:
“1. Bathroom trailers with hand washing stations shall be provided for each event and shall be cleaned and maintained between events.
2. 42 events per year will be allowed (per Applicant Cheryl Norton’s revised proposal)
3. Events will end no later than 10 p.m.
4. The noise limits of C.R.S. 25-12-103 shall be adhered to.
5. Parking areas will be watered down as needed to mitigate impacts of dust.
6. Amplified music will only be allowed within the 60’ X 80’ event venue barn.
7. All outdoor light sources mounted on poles, buildings, or trees to illuminate streets, sidewalks, parking lots, or other outdoor areas between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. shall use full cutoff light fixtures.
8. Vegetation in the right-of-way will be trimmed or removed to meet sight distance requirements.”
Notably, nowhere in this list does is there a requirement for the owners to provide a site plan for the proposed venue.
On December 15, 2025, Mesa County Attorney Todd Starr wrote a letter to the landowners stating that the CUP the Commissioners had approved at the May 27 public meeting for their venue was “still pending” “due to a lack of associated site plan proposal.” The property owners responded by pointing out that the CUP did not require a site plan.
On December 24, 2025, the County served the Nortons and Hoge with a cease-and-desist letter claiming they had violated International Business Code (“IBC’) Rule 111.1, “Change of Occupancy,” for failing to secure a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Venue.
Todd Starr admits he “screwed up.”
On December 29, 2025, the County held a meeting with the Nortons, Todd Starr, Assistant County Attorney Patrick Barker and County staff to discuss the alleged violations and how the venue might resume operations.
Starr gave Cheryl Norton permission to audio-record the meeting, which is how the details came to light.
At the meeting, Starr admitted to the Nortons that he had “screwed up” by omitting the site plan approval condition in the resolution presented to the BOCC. Starr then asked if the When the Nortons declined, Starr grew angry, accused them of “taking advantage of the County,” and stated his intention to “shut down” their Venue.
Following that meeting — and without the Commissioners’ authorization, according to the Court, Starr “inexplicably filed this action” on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, asking the Court for an immediate temporary restraining order to shut down the business due to “exigent circumstances.”
On May 13, 2026, a property inspection was completed, and the County issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) after having initially denied one “for reasons that are unknown to the Court.”
Just over a month later, on June 15, 2026, the Court denied Starr’s motion for an immediate, temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing for October 12-14, 2026 to evaluate the County’s claims.
Following that hearing, on October 20, 2026, Judge Flynn issued his ruling, finding that the County had waived its right to require site plan approval.
Although the venue owners ultimately submitted a site plan to appease the County even though it wasn’t legally required, Mesa County Commissioners then argued — “without any legal support” —t hat the approved site plan “does not count” and demanded the landowners go through a completely separate review process.
In his October 20 ruling, Judge Flynn held that the County failed to prove “irreparable harm” or meet its burden for a restraining order. Furthermore, the Court noted that neither the Land Development Code nor the Commissioners’ original CUP resolution required the defendants to undergo a site plan approval process.
So for now, the venue stays in business.
This situation is in stark contrast with how the Commissioners handled a strikingly similar situation in 2017:
In 2017, then-Mesa County Commissioners Rose Pugliese, Scott McInnis, and John Justman publicly admonished Collbran landowner Colby Olford for violating the law by hosting commercial events for years on his 29-acre property on Kimball Creek Road without permits. Operating since 2013 despite constant neighbor complaints about noise and other disruptions, Olford ignored multiple warning letters from the County Attorney’s office. Yet, despite explicitly acknowledging that Olford had intentionally flouted the law for years, all three Commissioners officially granted Olford a conditional use permit (pdf) effectively wiping out his past violations by legalizing them retroactively.
Vastly different treatment for different residents of Mesa County.
So much for equal justice under the law. How you get treated by the County appears to depend entirely on who you know, or who complains to the commissioners. What is clear is that in Mesa County, some people hold far more weight with local officials than others. If the county likes you, they’ll wave their magic wand and legalize your infractions; if they don’t, they’ll weaponize the apparatus of government to penalize you and make your life difficult.