Spoil to Soil, the composting facility in Browns Canyon, is suing Summit County for shutting down its business after county staff accused the facility of operating as a landfill.
The property owners, Jared and Kristen Clayton, and the management company for Spoil to Soil filed the lawsuit in Summit County’s Third District Court last week. The filing challenged the Summit County Council’s decision in October to suspend the property’s conditional use permit, which allowed the parcel to function as a recycling and composting business.
The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission revoked the property’s permits earlier this year based on a 55-page staff report detailing dozens of perceived violations.
For example, the conditional use 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. However, county planner Amir Caus said no trees have been planted, and investigators reportedly found trash and fecal matter in areas of the site designated for tree growth. Caus additionally pointed to issues involving unauthorized burns that spurred emergency responses from the South Summit Fire Protection District, as well as the facility’s encroachment on a neighboring property’s land.
The Claytons appealed the decision to the Summit County Council in October. Councilors ultimately chose the middle ground, opting to temporarily suspend the property’s conditional use permit instead of outright revoking it and giving the owners a six-month “cure period” to resolve the supposed violations.
The lawsuit filed last week claimed the county has prevented Spoil to Soil from fixing its problems by suspending its conditional use permits and issuing “contradictory” violation notices. Combined, the two measures “effectively (prevent) the very remediation the County purported to require,” the court document said.
The County Council in September asked county staff to prepare specific notices of violations with “appropriate cure periods” for discussion during the October meeting. The intent was to help councilors determine whether the permits should be revoked or if it would be possible for the business to rectify the situation.
“Instead of allowing meaningful notice and cure, the County closed the business and adopted (notices of violation) that were facially defective, internally inconsistent and in several respects beyond County authority,” the complaint said.
It alleged the process was “unlawful” and failed to give the property owners “basic procedural due process.” The lawsuit additionally said the county failed to follow its own code by closing the property during the appeals process rather than keeping it open until the proceedings had concluded.
“Despite taking final action on Oct. 15, 2025, (Summit County has) not issued any written decision or findings of fact explaining the basis for the suspension/closure or the 6-month cure requirements, leaving Petitioners without adequate notice of the ground for enforcement or a reviewable decision,” the complaint said.
The lawsuit did not mention the written 55-page staff report, which is publicly available on the Summit County website.
The property owners also accused the County Council and county staff of refusing to listen to their argument against the permit suspension, according to court documents.
“At both hearings, County Council members curtailed Petitioners’ presentations and arguments, cut off counsel mid-arguments and overtly expressed a desire to ‘be done,’ while allowing enforcement and planning staff to offer extensive narrative commentary,” the complaint said.
The lawsuit claimed Summit County also introduced new violations during county staff’s presentations, which prohibited the business from properly preparing its defense, as well as reducing the number of violations between hearings.
“The subsequent issuance of only 11 (notices of violation) confirms that the original presentation was false and prejudicial, depriving Petitioners of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and rendering the County’s action arbitrary and unlawful,” the document alleged.
The complaint concluded by asking Summit County Third District Judge Richard Mrazik to declare the county’s actions illegal, nullify the conditional use permit suspension, prevent county staff from continuing enforcement measures on the property, authorize the business to work on its remediation efforts and award attorney’s fees.
Summit County staff on Friday said they were aware of the filed lawsuit, but the county had not yet been served. They also declined to comment on the case as it involves pending litigation.