Jefferson County board tables revocation of conditional use permit, will consider special-exception application in June

The Jefferson County board voted to table consideration of a request to revoke a conditional use permit and said it will take up related matters at its June meeting after officials said the revocation had not been properly noticed.

The action came during a hearing on a pending special-exception application for the same property. An applicant who identified himself during the meeting urged the board to decide the special-exception request rather than delay, saying a revocation “is gonna put me out of business.” The applicant also said he has filed litigation and has a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled on May 20 related to a separate dispute with the county water department.

County counsel and board members said the two items — a petition to revoke the conditional use permit and the newly filed special-exception application — are separate but overlapping. “The county can’t make inconsistent findings on those two issues,” counsel said, arguing the board should avoid making determinations on the revocation until public-notice requirements are met and the matters can be considered without producing conflicting findings.

Board members said the conditional use permit remains in effect while the revocation request is pending and that revocation was not listed on the agenda because sufficient public notice had not been provided. One board member moved to table the revocation until June; the motion received a second from Jim Kloeffer and the board voted in favor.

Board counsel explained that although the special-exception application and the conditional use revocation concern the same property and similar uses, they are distinct proceedings governed by the county’s development rules and the applicable state statute. Counsel said the board has authority to table matters and that doing so preserves procedural fairness and avoids potentially inconsistent findings.

The applicant said witnesses had attended the meeting and that postponing consideration would impose a hardship on those who prepared testimony. He also said recordings from a prior meeting were made available by a third party and that some earlier public statements about the property’s fire safety were false.

After the motion to table, the board had no further business and adjourned.

The transcript indicates the board deferred final action on the revocation and will re-open the matter at its June meeting; it does not show any final decision on the special-exception application.