Council stays Planning Commission revocation of recycling facility; orders staff to prepare detailed notice of violations

The Summit County Council on Sept. 24 temporarily stayed a Planning Commission decision that had revoked a conditional use permit (CUP) for a green‑waste recycling facility and nursery at 7550 West Lower Bowl Road and ordered county staff to prepare a detailed notice of violations with specific cure periods. The council set a reconvening of the appeal for Oct. 15.

The item arose after months of code enforcement activity and a Planning Commission revocation following complaints and multi‑department inspections. County staff (Amir, senior planner) told the Council that code enforcement and inspections had documented multiple conditions that conflicted with the CUP and the council‑approved site plan. Staff cited windrows placed beyond approved locations, soil piles and material stored outside the permitted footprint, unpermitted contractor‑yard operations, instances of burning that required fire‑district attention and other conditions. The county’s presentations summarized site visits and reviewed the CUP conditions the Planning Commission had imposed when it approved the recycling and nursery uses the prior October.

Appellants and their counsel argued the Planning Commission moved to revoke without adequate written notice of specific violations and without providing a cure period. Appellant counsel Kyle Reeder said the operator and landowner had not received a clear written notice of the alleged violations that would allow a reasonable opportunity to fix them; counsel asked that the matter be remanded to the Planning Commission so staff would issue a notice of violation and give the operator and landowner an opportunity to cure. Appellants also described steps they said had been taken, including a state‑level remediation exchange in which the state thanked the operator for timely cleanup after a state inspection and the landowner’s attempt to transfer operations to Wind River Contracting (a third‑party operator). The appellants said much of the material on site was part of an active composting and screening process and that some items photographed by complainants were compostable or were being processed and would be sorted out and removed.

Legal counsel for the county disputed that the CUP revocation process is governed by the county’s administrative NOV (notice of violation) appeal procedures; county counsel Helen Straun said the code gives the land‑use authority (the Planning Commission) the power to revoke and requires “reasonable notice” of revocation proceedings, which staff said was provided. Staff also provided a timeline showing repeated enforcement presence at the property and a record of inspections.

After discussion, Council Member Roger moved, and Council Member Kenneth seconded, a motion to stay the Planning Commission’s revocation and to direct staff to produce a particularized notice of violations that references the CUP conditions and identifies exact deviations or violations. The council specified that staff should return on Oct. 15 with the proposed notice and that the council would set cure periods then; the motion passed on a 3–2 vote. Council records show that the motion to stay passed with three affirmative votes and two opposed votes (councilors recorded “nay”).

Ending: The revocation remains stayed. Staff will prepare a detailed, particularized notice of violations and present the notice and proposed cure periods to the Council at a reconvened appeal hearing on Oct. 15; the revocation will be reconsidered only if cure attempts are not documented or are unsuccessful.