A composting and recycling facility in Browns Canyon has filed a second lawsuit against Summit County just weeks after a judge dismissed the company’s first case for failing to serve the government on time.
Spoil to Soil submitted its new complaint in Third District Court last week, calling out a perceived “pattern of escalating procedural irregularities” in the county’s approach to rectifying alleged violations on the property.
The document acknowledged that the Summit County Council offered Spoil to Soil a six-month period to fix outstanding issues on the site. However, the complaint said the county simultaneously issued notices of violations “that made compliance impossible.”
“This was not the result of a fair enforcement process; it was a ‘procedural ambush’ characterized by shifting theories and a ‘moving target’ compliance regime,” the lawsuit said. “Driven by hundreds of complaints from a business competitor, county staff systematically ignored (Spoil to Soil’s) specific code citations and legal authority, choosing instead to convert a disagreement over the interpretation of the (conditional use permit) into a punitive enforcement action.”
The complaint claimed the county failed to follow due process procedures because staff initiated proceedings “based on vague ‘potential violations.’” The document said reports were not provided to Spoil to Soil in advance despite staff presenting a list of 50 alleged violations “days before critical hearings,” with the “vast majority” of violations being “abandoned immediately after the hearing.”
Spoil to Soil additionally said the county had “recharacterized” allowed uses on the property to prevent soil processing, even though the County Council had specifically authorized “the mixing of soil and compost and dumping of fill dirt” in its approval of the conditional use permit in 2024.
“The county treats (Spoil to Soil) materially differently from similarly situated neighbors in the same AG-80 zone,” the lawsuit alleged. “While neighbors … are permitted to engage in soil processing and green waste handling — often under more lenient operating hours and snow-storage rules — (Spoil to Soil has) been shut down for the exact same conduct.”
The complaint also decried the County Council’s decision to order remediation efforts on the property while prohibiting Spoil to Soil from operating, saying the company needs to earn money to fix the issues.
“Despite (Spoil to Soil’s) consistent good faith efforts to coordinate with county and state regulators — including voluntarily removing materials and addressing every concern raised by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality — the county has refused to honor the mandatory stay provisions of Summit County Code or issue written findings of fact,” the document said. “(Spoil to Soil faces) the permanent loss of their business during their critical spring season based on an arbitrary process that has never afforded them the fundamental procedural protections required by Utah law.”
Kyle Reeder, Spoil to Soil’s attorney, argued in court documents that county staff had expressed “general concerns” about the property but did not provide a “clear, written list” of specific violations. Instead, Spoil to Soil leadership learned the details of the supposed violations during an Eastern Summit County Planning Commission meeting last summer, in which commissioners discussed whether to revoke the permit.
“(The staff report) does not provide a reasoned analysis tying specific conduct to specific conditions,” the complaint said. “Instead, it relies on generalized references to complaints, observations and perceived site conditions without explaining how those observations constitute violations of the (conditional use permit’s) express terms. The failure to connect facts to enforceable standards renders the report insufficient to support revocation.”
The lawsuit criticized a packet of information detailing 50 different notices of violation shown to the County Council as part of the hearing process. The complaint said Spoil to Soil’s owners attended a County Council meeting in October to discuss the violations, but county staff the next day issued a “dramatically reduced” set of only 11 violations.
“The county provided no explanation for the elimination of thirty-nine previously asserted violations,” the document said. “Even after the reduction, the (notices) fail to identify specific ordinance provisions allegedly violated. Instead, they generically reference the entire Summit County Code or external staff reports, leaving (Spoil to Soil) unable to determine what legal standards apply or what conduct must be cured. This lack of specificity creates an impermissible moving target for compliance.”
The complaint further claimed Summit County targeted Spoil to Soil by initiating a multi-department investigation and engaging in “arbitrary and selective enforcement.”
“The county’s actions have also interfered with (Spoil to Soil’s) business relationships and customer goodwill, including communications and enforcement actions that signal (Spoil to Soil) cannot lawfully operate,” the lawsuit said. “Loss of goodwill and customer relationships constitutes irreparable harm not fully compensable through monetary damages.”
The document concluded by requesting Judge Richard Mrazik reverse the County Council’s decision and award damages, as well as attorney’s fees. It also asked the judge to issue a temporary order allowing Spoil to Soil to continue its operations under the existing conditional use permit.
The County Council previously gave Spoil to Soil until April 15 to fix any outstanding issues on the property. However, county officials on Tuesday confirmed the recycling facility did not file for any conditional use permit amendments by the deadline and has also failed to acquire the necessary permits from the state, to the county’s knowledge.
County officials declined to comment on the latest lawsuit, citing pending litigation.