Spoil to Soil, the Browns Canyon composting and recycling facility, had its lawsuit against Summit County dismissed last week after the organization’s attorneys failed to follow court procedures on time.
Court documents indicate Summit County Third District Judge Richard Mrazik ordered the proceedings be dismissed because Spoil to Soil did not serve the county within 120 days of filing its complaint.
Kyle Reeder, Spoil to Soil’s attorney, said the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be filed again.
“Our team is still attempting to work through the underlying issues with Summit County, but we retain all rights to an appeal and other legal remedies,” Reeder said. “We have no further comment at this time while those discussions are ongoing.”
A spokesperson for Summit County also declined to comment on the lawsuit’s dismissal.
Jared and Kristen Clayton, who own the property, and the facility’s management company filed the complaint in November. The filing challenged the 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 last year based on a 55-page staff report detailing dozens of perceived violations.
The business was first pitched to commissioners and county staff as a tree farm. However, county planner Amir Caus said no trees had 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 District, as well as the facility’s alleged encroachment on a neighboring property’s land.
The Claytons appealed the decision to the 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 in November claimed the county was preventing Spoil to Soil from fixing its problems by suspending its conditional use permits and issuing “contradictory” violation notices.
“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 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.
The property owners also accused the County Council and county staff of refusing to listen to their argument against the permit suspension.
“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 County Council last discussed the Spoil to Soil violations in early March, and Reeder said his clients would prefer to work directly with the county to resolve the conflict instead of relying on the lawsuit.
“We had to reserve our rights, but our intention was to always work with the staff,” Reeder said. “We’ve been talking with them, trying to work through it without having to go a litigation route. We don’t want to go the litigation route. We want to just work with staff and reopen.”
County Councilor Chris Robinson at the time indicated he was uncomfortable discussing an issue actively working its way through the courts and that if county staff and Spoil to Soil were able to work together, he expected the company to drop the complaint.
Spoil to Soil has until April 15 to fix any outstanding violations on the property.