The Summit County Council appears poised to revoke the permit allowing Spoil to Soil to operate a recycling facility and tree farm in Browns Canyon, but a final decision has been delayed for at least three weeks after the county’s legal counsel suggested meeting in a closed session.
The County Council in October ruled the business had six months to fix violations that county staff reported on the site. Councilors last heard an update on the process in February, with a final decision scheduled for May. However, the vote on whether to permanently revoke the property’s conditional use permit was delayed until this month due to an ongoing lawsuit Spoil to Soil filed against the county in Third District Court.
Amir Caus, a county planner, on Wednesday said there had not been “any substantial changes to the property” since February and provided councilors with a staff report recommending they revoke the conditional use permit.
But Spoil to Soil’s attorney, Kyle Reeder, argued that the county improperly alerted the business to the alleged violations, most of which he claimed had either been fixed or were in the process of being resolved. He said remaining issues on the site shouldn’t be grounds for revoking the permit because of the improper noticing system, adding that financial struggles are also making it difficult to clean the property.
“At this point, it’s a cost issue,” Reeder said. “They’ve been shut down since October. They don’t have the machine anymore or the funding to go through the compost without being able to sell the compost itself.”
The County Council questioned Reeder about Spoil to Soil’s inability to acquire a permit from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality authorizing the property to operate as a composting site. Reeder, who provided councilors with copies of letters from the state agency, said the delay was the result of staffing changes and that Spoil to Soil shouldn’t be penalized for the state’s actions.
“This is outside the control of my client,” he said. “This is something that’s a process with the state. As long as the state takes, that’s how long the state takes.”
However, County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong pointed out that the letters said Spoil to Soil was consistently failing to provide the necessary documentation.
“This thing gets weirder and weirder and weirder,” Armstrong said. “I’ve read the DEQ letters. The DEQ letters say that they’ve repeatedly asked you for information, and you have repeatedly provided incomplete information. That doesn’t sound like an application in good faith. … Convince me that you’re trying to do the right thing here.”
The staff report also listed engineering problems on the property, including a discrepancy between the approved site plan and the company’s current operations, but Reeder argued that the stop work order in October prevented Spoil to Soil from finishing construction on key aspects of the project.
“A lot of these … engineering issues can be cured by allowing the continued building of the (tree farm) platforms,” he said. “That’s where a lot of the issues arise is from an uncompleted and unfinished project.”
The conditional use permit required Spoil to Soil to widen portions of Lower Bowl Road to accommodate commercial traffic, which had not been completed when county staff last inspected the property in April. However, Reeder said a neighboring property owner had widened the road over the summer, which satisfies the conditions outlined in the permit and nullifies the alleged violation.
“In our view, this is a moot point,” Reeder said. “The road has been widened. If the county believes that there needs to be something else done with the road, we ask to have discussions and figure out what they need.”
But Caus said the road had not been widened to the county’s knowledge, and engineering staff confirmed no permits had been requested or granted authorizing an expansion of the road.
Reeder called a revocation of the property’s conditional use permit a “disproportionate remedy.” He suggested keeping composting and recycling operations suspended until the Department of Environmental Quality issues a permit while still allowing the company to open the tree farm and finish construction work.
“The reason it’s out of compliance with code is because we stopped construction mid process and that if we were to continue to be allowed to build out the tree platforms, that wouldn’t be an issue,” Reeder said. “But it’s out of compliance because they showed up to do an inspection on a half-completed project, and we were told to stop the project.”
The County Council overwhelmingly disagreed with Reeder’s assertions that Spoil to Soil had engaged in the process “in good faith,” with County Council Chair Canice Harte saying the company’s arguments showed “a consistent pattern of blaming other people for (its) inaction.”
“We thought we gave you an exorbitantly long amount of time to get yourself in compliance, so I think what you’re saying is you chose not to get into compliance for financial reasons, which is part of doing business,” Harte said. “Everything is always someone else’s fault, so let’s skip past that because that’s not going to help us.”
Armstrong said he was concerned about what would happen to the property if the County Council were to revoke the permit because the lack of a binding reclamation agreement, which governs how commercial or industrial land will be restored, is one of the company’s alleged violations.
“If we revoke this permit and do a reset, there’s an unlicensed landfill, as far as I can tell, on that property,” Armstrong said. “If we revoke the (conditional use permit), how do we ensure that the material that’s illegally there is removed?”
Chief Civil Deputy David Thomas suggested the County Council meet in a closed session on Sept. 16 to discuss potential paths forward, especially legal options relating to the reclamation of the land. Councilors plan to hold another meeting and announce a verdict the following week on Sept. 23.
The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission revoked Spoil to Soil’s conditional use permit last year after county officials presented a 55-page report detailing dozens of reported violations on the property, including unauthorized trash and animal carcasses.
The business appealed the decision to the County Council, which led to councilors’ offer to give Spoil to Soil six months to fix outstanding violations. The deadline was on April 15, the same day Spoil to Soil filed a lawsuit against the county government.