The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission revoked conditional use permits for a recycling facility in Browns Canyon after the enterprise was accused of operating as an illegal landfill.
Planning commissioners granted a conditional use permit to the 44-acre property last fall, greenlighting the landowners’ proposal to install a tree farm and recycling facility on Lower Bowl Road. The neighboring landowner has since repeatedly complained about the property, leading the county to initiate an investigation into its operations earlier this year.
Officials then discovered the owners violated numerous stipulations outlined in the approval, according to a 55-page staff report submitted to the Planning Commission.
For example, the permit prohibited anyone from dumping, delivering or storing snow on the land. But commissioners saw a photo of a truck supposedly delivering snow to the property as recently as March.
The property was also pitched as a tree farm, but county planner Amir Caus said no trees have been planted despite commissioners issuing a conditional use permit allowing wholesale tree farm operations in October.
Caus also showed commissioners aerial views of the property, including one photo with 14 highlighted violations.
“What we’re afraid of is that this has become an open-air landfill,” Caus said. “Dirt is being taken in, all kinds of other materials, including asphalt and concrete that they have buried, and there is garbage on the neighbor’s property.”
County officials also discovered fecal matter on the property, Caus said.
The property violated other county ordinances unrelated to the permit as well, including the operation of a nightly rental without a business license.
“The applicant has confirmed through and through that they’re either unwilling or incapable of adhering to the conditional use permit and the conditions within that, so our recommendation is that there are reasonable grounds for revocation,” Caus said.
The county notified the landowners of its intent to potentially revoke the conditional use permit earlier this month. However, the landowners told commissioners during the hearing last week that they didn’t think the county had properly noticed the meeting.
Instead, they asked the Planning Commission to delay a final decision on the revocation to allow enough time to rectify the violations on the property and prove compliance with county code.
The landowners also alleged the complaints are coming from a neighbor who is a competitor in the industry and may be “misconstruing” information.
Planning commissioners repeatedly asked the landowners if they could speak to the violations outlined in the staff report.
But Jared Clayton, who owns the property with his wife, Kristen, said he was unaware of any illegal dumping on the land. He also said he was working to switch operators of the facility because of the county’s concerns, but the Planning Commission pointed out his suggested operator — Wind River Excavation — does not engage in tree farming.
Planning Commissioner Bill Wilde said he personally visited the property the same week as the meeting, and an employee told him they would take “anything” he brought as long as he paid the fees.
“I challenge you to go there. The smell is just like driving through the Wanship landfill,” Wilde said. “You look at what landfills have to go through daily, recordings with the county. It’s just unbelievable what they have to go through to operate a landfill. This isn’t doing that.”
Wilde added he was concerned about the property when the conditional use permit was issued last year, and he told his fellow commissioners he was ready to revoke the permit based solely on the information and photos included in the staff report.
“Anybody can say that they didn’t know this was going on and that they’re trying to work with the county. It’s irrelevant, in my opinion,” Wilde said. “It’s amazing to me that the applicant brings a lawyer to argue notice. The issue is, is there an issue there? That’s not even arguable. It’s beyond an issue. It should be shut down tomorrow.”
Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan clarified the revocation process does not necessarily include a chance for the landowners to rectify any violations. Specifically, she said the permit already detailed the requirements a property owner needs to follow, and failing to comply with the conditional use permit is enough to repeal it.
“The site doesn’t remotely look like what was approved. That’s the issue that we have over here,” Caus added. “Typically, notices of violation are for something small. … This is so far beyond a notice of violation that we had to take this action.”
Commissioners additionally questioned the Claytons on their truthfulness throughout the hearing, inquiring about their ability to turn a blind eye to the alleged violations, considering they own the property and the application is in their name.
Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson also expressed his frustration with the landowners, saying he thought it was outlandish for them to ask for more time to investigate since the issues have been ongoing for months and amount to a “laundry list with 55 pages of violations.”
The Claytons agreed there was an enormous list of allegations and said they wanted an opportunity to digest it all. Still, Peterson was not convinced.
“My response is you’ve had 10 months to digest it. You’ve had 10 months with this property,” Peterson said.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to revoke the conditional use permit. The landowners can appeal the decision to the Summit County Council within 10 days of the decision, but they did not indicate during the meeting whether they intended to pursue an appeal.