Quorum Court denies Gully Ranch conditional use permit after divided vote
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Washington County Quorum Court voted to deny the conditional use permit for the Gully Ranch project after debate over compatibility and public comment; the motion passed in a recorded roll call (about 10–5). The decision drew warnings it could be appealed to circuit court.
The Washington County Quorum Court voted to pass an ordinance denying a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Gully Ranch project after a divided deliberation and public comment.
Counsel read the ordinance as "an ordinance denying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the Planning Board of Adjustments for the Gully Ranch project." Justice Ricker moved to advance the ordinance through readings and then moved to pass; Justice Lyons seconded.
Supporters of denial focused on compatibility concerns. "I do not believe it will be compatible with the area," Justice Lyons said, explaining why he supported the denial. Justice Rivera Lopez similarly said he did not believe the project met all seven criteria the court is to consider and described the project as injurious to neighboring property enjoyment.
Other members defended the project. One justice (speaker 9) said the CUP came with "such high praise and recommendations" from state and local agencies and described the proposal as a retreat center with community benefits. That justice said, "I voted in favor of giving him this CUP ... I still think that they need to move forward with the project and I hope they do some way or another." Justice Ricker and others called for a consistent approach to the court’s definition of "compatibility."
Public commenters also weighed in. Sherry Maine and resident Jacob White urged the court to consider safety and neighbor concerns; White noted the applicant had already filed an appeal in circuit court.
Mister Allen conducted a roll call. The court recorded roughly ten "yes" votes and five "no" votes and announced, "Item number 9 passes." Several justices acknowledged the action could be litigated further; Justice Rio Stafford said, "This is almost certainly gonna end up in court." The denial therefore may prompt further legal action by the applicant.
The ordinance denies the CUP by formal action of the quorum court; the planning board had earlier recommended approval, according to the record read into the meeting.