Pueblo County commissioners have accepted a special-use permit from a Canon City paving company to build a gravel pit near Avondale at Badger Hills.

Commissioner Terry Hart voted against the proposal, while Commissioners Garrison Ortiz and Chris Wiseman voted to accept it.

The decision comes after more than two years of litigation. Fremont Paving and Redi-Mix applied for the application in 2016 to build a new gravel pit, but the Canon City company has seen stiff pushback from residents who live near the proposed site. The site would be 1,517 acres, though only 307 acres would be used for the operation.

Nancy Pritekel, the landowner where the proposed gravel pit would operate, said she was relieved to see that the dying wish of her late husband, Joe Pritekel, had come true.

“We bought this land because we knew that gravel was on it. It was important to us to get this done,” Pritekel said.

“I just hope that this county can get things together and not let all the neighbors say, ‘Not in my backyard.' I don’t want them to dictate to what happens in the community. We need progression.”

In 1965, the Pritekels bought a portion of the land where a proposed gravel pit would be located. To her, it’s part of a property right that has never been realized until now.

Pritekel and John Ary, owner of Fremont Paving and Redi-Mix, embraced in the hallway just outside the commissioners’ chambers after the decision was rendered.

Ary declined to comment.

“Congratulations,” he said to Pritekel. Then, he and several others backing the proposal left the building.

On Dec. 5, 2016, Ary applied for a special-use permit to build a new gravel pit.

Critics of the project — many of them outspoken at hearings — left the chambers even before the commissioners court voted.

Wendi Kern, one of the most vocal of the opposition, told The Pueblo Chieftain after Thursday's vote that the commissioners seemed indifferent to health and environmental concerns presented to them.

"The county didn't hear us. They were worried about four landowners. They didn't care about the other 150 homeowners or landowners out there at all," Kern said.

She praised Hart for his decision.

"He had backing for his reason to vote against the application. He pulled out facts that were given to the county. This all went on deaf ears," she said.

"We had to take a very close look at what had been submitted to us and compare that to the regulations and statutes that we are operating under, and then compare that to the testimony we received,” Hart said.

Hart said his decision came down to who had the burden of proof.

“To me, whenever we are talking about health, safety and welfare issues and a land-use application is being proposed, the applicant has the burden of proving to me and us that all of the requirements of the law and regulation have been met to the greatest extent possible,” Hart said.

“I have to say that after looking at it from that perspective, even though a lot of work has been done, I haven’t come to that conclusion. I think there is still a good deal of concern that I have with the testimony we heard and the evidence that we received.”

Hart said his biggest concern was the preservation of the agricultural interests in the county, along with dust control and the impact it might have on crops.

Hart also said he has concerns about the impact of property values, restoration activity and drainage. Hart said the company’s hauling route worries him because it travels along 36th Lane near three schools in the area.

Both Ortiz and Wiseman agreed to endorse the application, but only if regulations recommended by county staff are enforced.

“I believe (with) preserving agriculture that you should protect private property rights. I also believe that you need to protect the right of the state and the State Land Board to use this land the way that it has been stated in statute,” Wiseman said.

Wiseman said concerns about schools along the hauling route remains "an issue that has to be resolved for me.”

“I still believe that the government has the ability to regulate these sorts of activities,” Wiseman added. “Our work is not done. We will have to be ever-vigilant in watching the process and what takes place out there and working with the state to make sure they come in in a way that they should.”

One of the conditions is to limit hauling along 36th Lane to certain hours during school days. That would apply to any company hauling material that originated from the new pit.

Wiseman said aggregate material is a commodity in Pueblo County.

“As I looked at this, I had great concerns about the operation. I think I can work with the state to make sure that those concerns are mitigated.”

Ortiz said the decision has weighed heavily on the entire board.

“We’ve all done our very best to be thorough with the robust amount of testimony and documentation that has come through,” Ortiz said. “In the end, I just cannot find solid fact based upon the criteria that we have to deny this.

"If I thought for one second that the project in its current form would inhibit anyone’s ability to farm their own land or cause someone to contract serious health ailments, I would deny this in a heartbeat.”

The evidence did not present a clear, persuasive correlation, he said.

“Much rather by conjecture and emotion,” Ortiz said.

Ortiz said changes to the application by the paving company were worth noting.

“When I saw the decision by the planning commission was overwhelmingly to rule in favor of this, I now see ... why they ruled this way and why a large portion the previous opposition chose not to testify this week against this (permit) in its current form,” Ortiz said.

The commissioners modified some of the 22 staff conditions attached to the application before the final vote was tallied. Most of the revisions were presented by Hart.

“When we act in this quasi-judicial role and we rule based on a fine list of criteria, it does not always give us the latitude and the land-use portion of our job to always vote the way we feel or like or want," Ortiz said. "But it does require us to be fair and to be objective. That is the primary reason for my vote on this matter today."

TIMELINE:

The battle over a special-use permit that would allow the construction of a gravel pit east of Pueblo near Avondale has gone through several hurdles since the application was filed in 2016:

The project was first introduced in 1999 and was rejected in 2001 by the Pueblo County planning commission.In 2012, a modified proposal was introduced and rejected.On Dec. 5, 2016, Fremont Paving and Redi-Mix applied for a special use permit to build a new gravel pit, but the Canon City company saw pushback from residents who live near the proposed site and others in the area.On April 24, 2017, the Pueblo County Planning Commission approved the permit by a vote of 5-1. The fight over a proposed gravel pit at Badger Hills between Avondale Boulevard and 40th Lane seemed to have come to an end that night, but those in opposition filed an appeal on May. On June 14, the commissioners agreed to hear the case.On June 16, 2017, Fremont Paving sued the commissioners, alleging the board improperly granted an appeal of the decision from the county’s planning commission, which approved the permit.On Jan. 19, 2017, Judge Allison Ernst dismissed the complaint at the county’s request.On Aug. 11, 2017, John P. Ary, owner of Fremont Paving, filed a complaint against critics Wendi Kern and Suzanne Morgan for alleged false statements made against the company at public meetings. The suit claimed defamation by the two women. It was later dismissed.On Dec. 20, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against the paving company, and the decision over the permit went back to the commissioners court.

amestas@chieftain.com

Twitter: @mestas3517