Lacy challenges Riverland concrete batching operation

Files formal appeal of Planning Commission approval

A concrete batching operation in Riverland has come under fire once more. The Gunnison County Planning Commission approved John Nichols’ operation in November. But rancher Bill Lacy has already filed an appeal asking that the ruling be overturned by the county commissioners or, at the very least, conditions be applied to the decision.

Lacy originally opposed the operation at a joint public hearing held by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on November 5. He and rancher John Rozman had both participated in a land exchange that gave Nichols access to the property, and both insisted they had no idea he intended to use it as a mobile batch plant.
“He said that this would be used, because of the road there, for his leach field and sewer system. And I guess I should have put that down [in writing],” Rozman said at the time.
Following the Planning Commission’s November 14 approval, Lacy’s attorney, Marcus Lock of Wilderson, Lock & Hill, filed an appeal on November 30. On December 4, the Board of County Commissioners approved a variance of Riverland covenants to allow for outdoor storage as part of the batch plant operation’s approval.
Lock did not attend the December 4 discussion because he said he did not know about it.
In the formal appeal, Lock argued that Nichols’ application should have been reviewed as a Minor Impact Project as opposed to a partially exempt land use change. He also challenged the variance from the Riverland covenants, asking that the Planning Commission decision be reversed, and if that were not possible, that outdoor storage be denied. A third alternative asked for a more thorough plan to screen the operation from view.
On Tuesday, December 18, Lock also urged the commissioners to schedule a new public hearing as part of the appeal process. He said the issue of outside storage was snuck through the process, and individuals concerned with that outside storage had not been given a chance to weigh in on the matter.
“In 2008, Riverland came to you and sought to amend covenants to allow outside storage on certain lots, [the lot in question],” Lock said. “There was significant opposition to this idea.”
He pointed out that the Gunnison County Beautification of Scenic Corridors was among those staunchly opposed to allowing outdoor storage. “Those folks who were opposed in 2008… don’t even seem to be aware of the proposed language change approval,” Lock said. “I want to at least let those folks be aware of what’s going on and have an opportunity to talk to [the commissioners].”
The commissioners are not required to hold a public hearing but can opt to do so if they feel new evidence will be introduced that was not available in the past or would significantly influence their decisions.
In response to Lock’s comments, Commissioner Hap Channell took issue with the process followed to allow outdoor storage on the lot and wondered if a public hearing would help address those questions. But neither Commissioners Paula Swenson nor Phil Chamberland agreed.
“I want to get back to do we feel there’s going to be new information presented to us to reopen a public hearing or do we understand the issues as they have been outlined to us already?” Swenson said, pointing out that they had transcripts, recordings of public meetings and documentation submitted by attorneys.
“I was at the public hearing and heard Mr. Rozman and Mr. Lacy as well as the attorneys speak,” Chamberland added. “I know what the issues are from their perspective. I don’t know that different issues are being presented with more testimony.
“What I need to [do], not necessarily from a public hearing standpoint but a process standpoint, is to get a better feel for the validity to some of what Mr. Lock is bringing up about process and [decide] whether a different process should have been used because of the covenant changing.”
Swenson agreed. “I do still have some questions and need to go back to the recordings and listen for myself to what was said… I would like to set a date for this but not open it up to new testimony because there is ample testimony on record.”
As the outgoing commissioner, Channell deferred to Chamberland and Swenson. The appeal will be formally considered by the Board of County Commissioners, including incoming Commissioner Jonathan Houck, on January 22.