The Board of Adjustment voted to uphold the Hunting Valley Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 2025‑21 for a lay‑down yard used by 1884 Land Company to support Rocky Mountain Power wildfire‑mitigation work.

Appellant Christopher Cross, a neighboring business owner, told the board the commission “did not correctly apply the land use code” and that staff relied on an incomplete and inaccurate record. “I believe the answer in both is no,” Cross said, urging the board to vacate the planning commission’s approval because the yard reportedly operated for more than a year without a permit and the commission approved a 16–17‑month temporary term exceeding the code’s usual 12‑month limit.

County staff and the board discussed how conditional use permits (CUPs) are governed by zone rules and state code, with staff noting it is typically difficult under state code to deny a CUP unless reasonable conditions cannot render the use compatible. Staff also said county code enforcement is largely reactive, with two officers responsible for bringing operators into compliance.

Victoria Garcia, representing the applicant, said the company acknowledged neighbor concerns and “took significant steps to mitigate” impacts after being notified a CUP was required, including turning off deterrent lighting, adding security cameras, reducing stockpiles, installing entrance barriers and increasing street sweeping. Garcia said the operator received a notice around Sept. 9 that a CUP was required after the operation exceeded the allowed operating period and that the company submitted an application promptly and was told it could continue operating until the decision was issued.

Board members also questioned whether the planning commission had adequate findings to justify a term longer than 12 months. Appellant counsel argued the record lacked the specific findings required to exceed the code’s usual duration; staff and the applicant said the commission adopted provisions tailored to the project. The BOA’s task was limited to whether the planning commission correctly applied the code and whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

After a brief closed‑session deliberation, the board returned to open session and a member moved to uphold the planning commission’s decision, stating the planning commission acted within its authority and the BOA does not have jurisdiction over code enforcement issues. The motion was seconded and passed on recorded voice votes: Miranda Espiritu — Aye; Marshall Gonagall — Aye; Lewis — Aye; Chair — Aye.

The board discussed scheduling of an appreciation dinner and planning meeting dates before adjourning.