Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
The lawsuit filed by a property owner against the county and a local business remains active and has seen movement in recent weeks.
Planning Attorney Scott Shirley, who is representing the county on the matter, met in executive session with the commissioners last week. Executive sessions are closed to the public and members of the media.
The session was likely prompted by recent activity in the lawsuit file, most noticeably notices of acceptance of services and wavier processes filed on Jan. 10 and 11.
The two notices, filed respectively by Shirley and plaintiff's Attorney Kelly O'Keefe, in layman's terms appear to speak to a stipulated 90-day postponement of action on the case “in order to provide an opportunity to pursue settlement negotiations.” Shirley met with the commissioners in an executive session on Thursday evening, Feb. 21.
The 65-page complaint – filed by property owner Marcia Elder against Jefferson County, Morris Petroleum, Inc., and Morris Propane, LLC last September – involves an alleged error by the former planning official in approving a non-residential minor development. The official's error, the lawsuit alleges, was further compounded by the Planning Commission's affirmation of the official's decision at a subsequent hearing.
The complaint states that the
See LAWSUIT page 3
former planning official erred when he approved the placement of a liquified petroleum gas bulk storage and distribution facility (LP facility) on a property just off U.S. 19 North that is designated mixed-use business/residential (MUBR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Elder, who owns a property adjacent the LP facility, argues in the suit that the development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and that it adversely affects her and others of the neighboring property owners.
The complaint further argues that the county violated the plaintiff's right to due process by failing to notify her and the other affected landowners of the proposal and conduct the required public hearings.
It asks the court to declare the development order issued by the planning official as inconsistent with the comp plan and rescind the order, as well as award the plaintiff's court costs.
The LP facility, which consists of an 18,000-gallon bulk storage tank and several other smaller tanks, became operational in February 2017 without the benefit of a development application, according to the complaint.
It holds that the business didn't submit a proper development permit application for the facility until a little more than a year after it existence, and the latter application was for the addition of two 30,000 gallon bulk storage tanks plus an unnamed number of smaller tanks.
The complaint argues that allowing the LP facility to continue and expand is not only illegal and incompatible with the surrounding land uses, but it poses safety risks to the adjoining properties, reduces their values, and degrades the area's aesthetics, among other negatives.
The plaintiff claims that upon first learning of the development in January 2018, she contacted the planning official and received assurance from him that the facility had not yet been approved and that public hearings would be held prior to any approval.
But in May, according to the complaint, the plaintiff learned that the planning official had approved the project on April 18 without benefit of public hearing, at which point she appealed the decision to the Planning Commission.
In response to the plaintiff's appeal, the Planning Commission held a quasi-judicial hearing on Aug. 9 to determine the project's fate and heard lengthy testimony from all sides. Following which hearing the Planning Commission upheld the planning official's decision by a 6-2 vote, prompting the filing of the complaint.