Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valley County approves settlement that dismisses Riverfork Ranch judicial petition; applicant objects
Summary
Valley County commissioners approved a settlement agreement and release that will dismiss a petition for judicial review related to Riverfork Ranch (CUP 24-02); the applicant's attorney said the agreement adds terms not in the permit and plans to challenge those terms in court.
Valley County Commissioners on Sept. 11 voted to approve a settlement agreement and release that dismisses a pending petition for judicial review related to Riverfork Ranch (CUP 24-02).
County counsel presented the agreement as a partial settlement between the petitioners and the county; the settlement would dismiss the petition with prejudice. County counsel told the board the agreement would remove certain interveners’ conditions and require the petitioners’ concerns be heard at a regularly scheduled board meeting.
Amy Hall, attorney for the applicant, spoke remotely and said the applicant objects to the agreement as written. Hall said the settlement “does touch on his due process rights and does actually add things that are not in the development agreement or the conditional use permit” and that the applicant intends to contest incorporation of the settlement’s terms in court if necessary. Hall said she did not believe the settlement would necessarily make the petition for judicial review go away and urged that the objections be addressed before a judge.
County counsel (Mister Oakey) told the board that the settlement would result in the petition’s dismissal with prejudice from the county’s perspective, but that unresolved issues likely remain and could be addressed through appellate procedures and filings before Judge Scott.
On a motion and second, the board voted in favor of approving the settlement agreement and release. A commissioner asked for and received authority for the chair to sign on that commissioner’s behalf. The board noted the agreement was presented after attempts at a global settlement among all parties failed and that this action was a last opportunity to resolve matters before the next briefing schedule deadlines in court.
Next steps: The settlement will be filed as directed by counsel. County counsel and the board acknowledged outstanding issues may proceed in court; the county will remain a party to further proceedings as needed per the settlement terms and appellate rules.
