Weber v. Garfield County Board of Commissioners

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Weber v. Garfield County Board of Commissioners

Additional Case Names

9:30am

Case Number
S-20-0650
Call Date
May 25, 2021
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Garfield
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-20-0650 Will Weber and Vernyce Weber (Appellants) v. Garfield County Board of Commissioners (Appellees)

Garfield County District Court, Hon. Mark D. Kozisek

Attorneys: Stephen D. Mossman & Jacob C. Garbison (Mattson Ricketts Law Firm, for Appellants) --- Brandy R. Johnson (Governmental Law, LLC, for Appellee)

Civil: Zoning regulations; Conditional use permit

Proceedings below: Following a bench trial on stipulated evidence, the district court found the Garfield County Board of Commissioners acted improperly in imposing conditions on Appellants’ conditional use permit and thus the injunctive relief requested by Appellants was unnecessary.  The district court found the Garfield County Zoning Administrator lacked authority to issue a binding decision on Appellants’ use of their property.

Issues on Appeal: Whether the district court erred in 1) finding that the Garfield County Zoning Administrator lacked authority to issue a binding determination of the one-time animal capacity for a lawful nonconforming intensive feeding use on the Appellants’ property at issue; 2) not finding that the Garfield County Zoning Administrator entered a final order, decision, or determination recognizing the one-time animal unit capacity of the Appellants’ intensive animal feeding use at 7,400; 3) by not finding that the final order, decision, or determination entered by the Garfield County Zoning Administrator recognizing the one-time animal unit capacity of the Appellants’ intensive animal feeding use at 7,400 was never appealed; 4) by not finding that the final order, decision, or determination entered by the Garfield County Zoning Administrator recognizing the one-time animal unit capacity of the Appellants’ intensive animal feeding use at 7,400 was binding on the County; and 5) by not finding that the one-time animal unit capacity of the intensive animal feeding use on the Appellants’ property is 7,400.

Schedule Code
SC