Planning commission revokes Mimbaugh property’s recycling and nursery greenhouse conditional use permits

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission on Aug. 21 revoked the conditional use permits that authorized a class‑2 recycling operation and a nursery/greenhouse use at a property previously approved in 2024.

Planning staff, presented by Amir (last name not specified in the record), summarized a months‑long enforcement history and a multi‑departmental inspection documenting substantial departures from the approved site plan and conditions of approval. Staff reported repeatedly observed windrows, large unpermitted piles of fill and asphalt, unpermitted trailers, burning of construction waste, evidence of non‑green waste materials (plastic and mixed construction debris) on the property, and operations beyond the approved footprint. Staff recommended revocation of the class‑2 recycling and nursery greenhouse uses and explained the county’s revocation code standard (section 11‑6‑11 of the Eastern Summit County Development Code).

Legal counsel Helen (last name not specified) told the commission the county had provided notice to the landowner by email (Aug. 1) and certified mail and that staff posted the staff report on Aug. 15. Helen said state statute (17‑27a‑202) requires notice for land use hearings and that the county had provided reasonable notice; she advised the commission that revocation by the Planning Commission would be a final action subject to appeal.

Attorney Kyle Reeder, representing the landowners, argued the owners had insufficient notice and inadequate time to respond to the detailed staff report; he also said the owners had attempted to remove the prior operator and to assign operations to Wind River Excavations. The property owners, Jared and Kristin Clayton, and their representative described a compressed timeline for responding, said they had taken corrective actions after receiving initial emails in early August, and asked the commission to continue the item to allow time to assemble evidence of remediation.

Staff evidence and county concerns: Amir presented drone images, photographs and videos taken during inspections and described multiple conditions of approval that staff found violated, including the prohibition on accepting asphalt/construction debris, hours‑of‑operation limitations, lack of a reclamation plan and bond, failure to obtain required South Summit Fire approval for ingress/egress, evidence of burning and disposal that exceeded permitted green‑waste materials, and possible off‑site encroachments. Scott Buchanan, the county’s code enforcement officer, confirmed a late‑June burn incident documented by the South Summit Fire Department and said the property contained mixed debris and large asphalt pieces; staff cited multiple departments’ observations.

Commission discussion: Several commissioners said they had inspected the site and described it as an unregulated dump rather than an operation consistent with the approved CUP. Commissioners questioned whether tabling the item would change the underlying condition of the property and cited prior opportunities to comply. Several commissioners said they were prepared to revoke the permits to allow the owner to remedy the property and then reapply. Other commissioners and the legal advisor noted that an appeal to the county council remains available to the applicants.

Vote and outcome: A commissioner moved to revoke the two conditional use permits according to the findings and conclusions in the staff report; the commission seconded the motion and voted unanimously to revoke. The chair declared the revocation carried.

Next steps and enforcement: Legal counsel and staff explained that the applicants have appellate rights to the county council and that if the commission’s decision is appealed the council will receive the administrative record. Staff said code enforcement would continue inspections and could pursue notices of violation, citations, orders of abatement or other remedies; staff also noted the absence of a reclamation plan and bond increases enforcement complexity and potential county cost.

What remains uncertain: The landowners and their counsel disputed the sufficiency of notice and said some violations had been remedied or could be remedied quickly; they also said Wind River Excavations had been proposed as a new operator and asserted steps had been taken to change operations. Staff maintained the violations documented in the record supported revocation. The commission’s revocation is effective on the record and may be appealed by the applicants to the county council.