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.

The post Summit County Council poised to revoke Spoil to Soil’s permit pending legal advice appeared first on Park Record.

Spoil to Soil will not be allowed to operate its Brown Canyons composting and recycling facility until its conflict with the Summit County government is resolved in Third District Court following a judge’s ruling this week.

The business filed a lawsuit against the county in April, alleging the government erred in suspending the conditional use permit that allows Spoil to Soil’s operations in Browns Canyon. The complaint accused county officials of engaging in a “procedural ambush” without proper notice informing the landowners of violations or providing enough time to fix the perceived issues.

Spoil to Soil requested a temporary restraining order shortly after filing the lawsuit, which could have potentially allowed the business to operate without its conditional use permit until a court decision is reached. The company’s attorneys argued the Summit County Council’s actions shuttered legal business operations. They claimed it was likely Spoil to Soil would prevail in the lawsuit because the county “failed to provide meaningful notice” of violations in accordance with state and local laws.

The motion also alleged Spoil to Soil is suffering “irreparable harm” because of the closure.

“Petitioners have been unable to operate, generate revenue, maintain customer relationships or complete remediation activities required by the (notices of violation),” the document said. “Petitioners have repeatedly explained that the continued shutdown is causing significant business disruption and preventing them from generating the income needed to continue site improvements.”

However, Summit County attorneys argued that Spoil to Soil is misrepresenting the proceedings that led to the permit’s revocation. They said the landowners are portraying the shutdown as a “‘procedural ambush’ while seeking to reopen a site that the Utah Department of Environmental Quality has confirmed operates without any valid commercial composting permit,” according to court documents.

The county government also pointed out that the County Council has not yet decided on Spoil to Soil’s appeal. Instead, they said the action closing the recycling facility in October was an “intermediate” step to allow the business to fix the alleged violations.

“(Spoil to Soil) accepted the six-month cure path in October 2025, voluntarily ceased operations the same day the council acted and waited until the cure deadline expired to seek emergency relief: conduct that defeats any claim of irreparable urgency,” said Summit County’s response. “The specific harms they identify … are economic injuries they themselves seek to recover as money damages.”

Third District Judge Richard Mrazik ultimately sided with the county government, ruling that Spoil to Soil did not show “substantial likelihood” that it would win the lawsuit. He also stated he was “not persuaded (Spoil to Soil) will suffer irreparable harm” if operations remain restricted and denied granting the recycling facility a temporary order.

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 company appealed the decision to the County Council, and councilors subsequently offered the business six months to fix any outstanding violations. However, Spoil to Soil told councilors at a later meeting that they couldn’t remove trash and other issues if they weren’t allowed to operate machinery on the property.

The six months ended on April 15, the same day Spoil to Soil filed its lawsuit against the county government.

The post Judge rules Spoil to Soil can’t operate Browns Canyon facility until lawsuit is resolved appeared first on Park Record.

A construction company is suing the operators of Spoil to Soil for reportedly failing to pay invoices for contracted work on multiple projects.

The legal action coincides with a monthslong conflict between the Summit County government and the operators, as well as Spoil to Soil’s property owners, over a list of alleged violations at the composting and recycling facility.

Max P. Construction filed the lawsuit against Mimbach Co. in Summit County’s Third District Court last week. Jared and Kristen Clayton own the Spoil to Soil property, but Mimbach Co. serves as its supervisors, overseeing the land, its operations and employees.

The complaint claimed the construction company agreed to provide trucks and other vehicles needed to haul materials to and from work sites for a fee, with Mimbach Co. enlisting the business for its services at least 11 times throughout 2024.

Specifically, Mimbach Co. has an outstanding debt of $22,059, including interest, according to court documents. The lawsuit claimed the unpaid invoices represent a breach of contract and good faith, as well as “unjust enrichment” because Mimbach Co. seemingly benefited from the construction work.

The complaint requested Third District Judge Richard Mrazik award the construction company the full $22,059 in damages, as well as attorney fees. Mimbach Co. has not yet responded to the lawsuit in court, and there were no hearings scheduled as of Wednesday morning.

Mimbach Co. is also listed as a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the Summit County government earlier this month that called out a perceived “pattern of escalating procedural irregularities” in the county’s approach to rectifying alleged violations on the Spoil to Soil property in Browns Canyon.

The complaint acknowledged the County Council offered Spoil to Soil a six-month period to fix outstanding issues. However, it also said the county simultaneously issued notices of violation “that made compliance impossible.”

The lawsuit called the County Council’s methodology a “procedural ambush” and claimed the disciplinary action was “driven by hundreds of complaints from a business competitor.” It further alleged 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.” The recycling facility’s attorneys also said the County Council had seemingly “recharacterized” allowed uses on the property, even though the uses in question were previously discussed and authorized when the company acquired its conditional use permit.

“The county treats (Spoil to Soil) materially differently from similarly situated neighbors in the same AG-80 zone,” the lawsuit said. “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 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.”

Spoil to Soil is seeking a reversal of the County Council’s decision, as well as monetary damages and attorney fees. The lawsuit also asked Mrazik to issue a temporary order allowing Spoil to Soil to continue its operations under the existing conditional use permit.

County attorneys are expected to file a response to the temporary order request by the end of the day on Monday based on an extension Mrazik granted earlier this week.

The post Spoil to Soil operators sued by construction company amid conflict with county government appeared first on Park Record.

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.

The post Spoil to Soil files new lawsuit against Summit County appeared first on Park Record.

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.

The post Judge dismisses Spoil to Soil’s lawsuit against Summit County appeared first on Park Record.

Spoil to Soil has fewer than 50 days to remove trash and other unauthorized materials from its property before the Summit County government shuts down the business entirely.

The recycling facility in Browns Canyon had its conditional use permit revoked last year after county staff submitted a 55-page report to the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission detailing dozens of alleged violations.

Jared Clayton, who owns the property with his wife, Kristen, appealed the decision and brought the case before the Summit County Council in September. County councilors appeared concerned with the violations, but they settled on offering the company a six-month window to fix the issues and apply for an amended permit.

However, county staff told councilors on Wednesday that they still had not received an application for the amended permit, which would likely take more than six weeks to work through. The deadline for Spoil to Soil to clean up the property is April 15.

Scott Buchanan, a code enforcement officer, said he visited Spoil to Soil twice in December to check on its progress. The first inspection was on Dec. 11, and Buchanan said most unauthorized items, including chunks of asphalt and animal carcasses, were removed from the property, but he still observed wooden pallets and “non-green waste material,” or trash, on the land.

The second inspection was on Dec. 18. Buchanan said the wooden pallets had been removed at that point, but the trash was still present and visible in the windrows, which are long piles of dirt used to facilitate composting and the creation of mulch.

Kyle Reeder, the Claytons’ attorney, said the garbage was still there because revoking the conditional use permit prohibited the company from processing the soil. He requested Spoil to Soil be given permission to use one of its machines to make removing the trash easier.

He also asked to be allowed to sell the mulch to help clear the land and earn revenue.

County planner Amir Caus said he didn’t necessarily oppose Reeder’s suggestion, but he was concerned the operation could “expand into something more than just removing it.”

“From our perspective, in order for them to sell mulch, they need to have a valid conditional use permit, which was required as part of the business license to sell in the first place,” Buchanan added. “That’s the reason why we said if you took in materials that are under the (conditional use permit), you can’t operate as a business and sell it during this period of time.”

County councilors asked if Spoil to Soil had reached out to county staff to resolve the issue. Reeder said the company had requested assistance multiple times, but Buchanan said there were only two conversations prior to the December inspections, both of which centered on selling boulders, rocks and other materials from the property.

Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas said there are also other issues with the land that need to be resolved before the April 15 deadline aside, including obtaining the proper permitting, adjusting hours of operation and widening Lower Bowl Road.

County Councilor Chris Robinson pointed out that even if the violations are resolved in the next 50 days, Spoil to Soil still hasn’t applied for its amended conditional use permit. Clayton asked if it would be possible to reinstate the original conditional use permit instead, but the County Council seemed hesitant to take that route.

“When it came to our level, we purposefully delayed taking action until we believed we had given proper notice of violation, and there was a course of conduct that led us to take the decision and the steps we did,” Robinson said.

He also mentioned a lawsuit that Spoil to Soil filed in Summit County’s Third District Court in November, which challenged the County Council’s decision to suspend the conditional use permit. Robinson indicated he was uncomfortable discussing an issue actively working its way through the courts and that if county staff and Spoil to Soil are able to work together, he would expect the company to drop the complaint.

“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 Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong preferred to wait and see how the cleanup efforts on the property play out before making any adjustments to the violations process or the business’s conditional use permits, with which the rest of the County Council appeared to agree.

“I’m going to be gentle about this, but there’s been a course of conduct that has not been what I would regard as honest and transparent on the property to now in terms of some of the materials that have been taken in and some of the business that has been conducted,” Armstrong said.

The County Council ultimately didn’t take action on the violations other than giving Spoil to Soil permission to operate machinery to remove trash from the windrows.

The post Spoil to Soil has fewer than 50 days to remove trash from property to stay in business appeared first on Park Record.

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.

The post Spoil to Soil sues Summit County over suspended permit, closure of business appeared first on Park Record.