HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000588.tiff ti,,
FILED IN
DISTRICT COURC
wRLp . COl4
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO , -o cooa B 00
Case No. 99 CV 572, Division I
A .. m
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
MILLER FEED LOTS, INC, and T.J. Valencia, d/b/a LA SALLE TROUT FARM,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and WILLIAM J. SCHNEIDER
and CHERYL A. SCHNEIDER,
Defendants.
In this C.R.C.P. 104(a)(4) action, Plaintiffs, Miller Feed Lots and T.J.
Valencia, seek review of the Weld County Board of Commissioners' ("the
Board") decision to approve the Schneiders' applications for Subdivisioniand
Recorded Exemptions. They further seek relief in the form of a declaratory
judgment, pursuant to C.R.CP.57 and C.R.S.§13 51-1-01, that-the Board
unconstitutionally delegated its authority to the Department of Planning Services
("the Department"). The pertinent facts are as follows.
The Schneiders own two parcels of land, approximately nineteen acres in
total, west of La Salle. One parcel originally consisted of eighteen acres; the
other, less than one acre. The Schneiders applied for a Subdivision Exemption
and Recorded Exemption with the Planning Services Department ("the
Department") to reconfigure their property. The Subdivision Exemption, which
the Department approved, expanded one parcel to consist of a 2.5- acre lot.
The Recorded Exemption divided the other parcel into two lots. However, when
the Schneiders were unable to obtain the required access to one of the two lots
on the latter parcel, a condition of exemption approval, the Department referred
the matter to the Board.
The Board expressed concerns about the Department's approval of the
exemptions but, nevertheless, unanimously waived the access condition and
refused to review the Department's decisions. As a result, the Schneiders could
build one or two more residences on their property.
Plaintiffs, adjacent landowners, subsequently filed suit, expressing
concerns about the incompatibility of the proposed additional residences with
U3Iotoldor.YJ 2000-0588
their business operations. The Court now dismisses the complaint because the
Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this suit.
The question of standing involves a consideration of whether a plaintiff
has asserted a legal basis on which a claim for relief can be predicated. County
Com'rs v. Bowen/Edwards Assoc., 830 P.2d 1045, 1052 (Colo. 1992). The
answer to the standing issue requires an analysis of whether the plaintiff has
alleged an injury in fact and, if so, whether the injury is to a legally protected or
cognizable interest. Id. "These two considerations provide the framework for
determining whether the asserted legal basis for a claim—whether constitutional,
statutory, or otherwise—can properly be understood as granting [the plaintiff] a
right to judicial relief." td. (quoting O'Bryant v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 778 P.2d
648, 652 (Cob. 1989).
The injury-in-fact element of standing is established when the allegations
of the complaint, along with any other evidence submitted on the issue of
standing, establishes that the regulatory scheme threatens to cause injury to the
plaintiffs present or imminent activities. Id. Once the plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged or demonstrated an injury in fact, it then must be determined whether the
injury is to a legally protected interest—that is whether the plaintiffs interest
emanates from a constitutional, statutory, or judicially created rule of law that
entitles the plaintiff to some from of judicial relief.
II.
The evidence presented thus far is that the Schneider property is located
immediately west and north of Plaintiffs' feedlot and trout farm, respectively.
Miller feedlot has been operating since 1965 and has received only two
complaints regarding odor or dust during this time, despite the existence of at
least twenty-six single family homes within three-quarters of a mile of the feedlot,
with two homes immediately west of the cattle pens. Mr. Miller alleges to have
overheard real estate agents tell potential Schneider lot buyers that his feedlot
would close in a year's time.
The evidence also shows that Mr. Valencia's trout farm has existed since
1956 and that it coexists with two residences on the property. Weld County
would require the Schneiders to evaporative their wastewater and not percolate
it though the ground. No evidence exists that any residents would actually use
insecticides, herbicides or fungicides detrimental to the ditch water.
Based on this evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' concerns are too
speculative to constitute injury in fact. It is not clear that the addition of single-
family homes would result in an increased number of nuisance complaints
2
against the feedlot. Nor is the Court convinced that the new residences will
galvanize other neighbors to protest the feedlot and force its closure. Similarly,
since the septic systems entail evaporation and Mr. Valencia has not alleged this
method ineffective, pollution of nearby water appears remote. Likewise,
pesticide, herbicides or fungicides use on those lots, in general, remains
uncertain.
THEREFORE,
Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendants is DISMISSED.
DATED: FEB 2 B 2000
illiam L. West
District Court Judge
3
Hello