Members of the Washington County Quorum Court appear conflicted about whether the elected body ought to be a strong voice in determining what kinds of business ventures and land uses happen in the county's rural areas.
Conditional-use permits are a key tool the county employs to influence what activities landowners engage in outside cities. Some say that's none of the government's business, but they usually stop saying that when a neighbor proposes land use that would seriously impact an area's living conditions. Think red dirt pits or rock quarries, or an event venue that would increase car traffic and noise, or a shooting range.
Land outside of Washington County's cities is zoned for agricultural or single-family residential use. Anything else requires a conditional-use permit. The permit is the only governmental recourse surrounding property owners have when a neighbor develops a land use to which they object.
When people living near a proposed objectionable land use are upset, their recourse is their elected representatives on the Quorum Court. Lately, though, the Quorum Court's decisions in controversial land-use proposals haven't survived court challenges.
"Why do we keep losing these?" Justice of the Peace Eva Madison asked at the last Quorum Court meeting. "What are we doing wrong? ... It's a little disheartening when 15 members of a legislative body study something and take action and then a single member of the judiciary is just wiping out our legislative decision."
Harvey Bowman, another justice of the peace, seemed as concerned.
""We haven't had a case yet that we voted one way or the other where we didn't get sued and lost," Bowman said.
At the June 20 Quorum Court meeting, members learned County Attorney Brian Lester's legal arguments in court did not hold up in defending the Quorum Court's rejection of a conditional-use permit for a controversial business proposed by landowner Patrick Tobin. The landowner appealed the denial to circuit court. The evidence offered -- or lack of it -- led the judge to rule the case didn't even merit a trial. The judge ruled the Quorum Court had failed to "meet proof with proof" and ordered it to issue the permit.
In an earlier lost case, a judge ruled "there is no question the Quorum Court has the authority to grant or deny petitioner's requested [permit]. The Quorum Court cannot exercise this authority in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner. The decision of the Quorum Court must be supported by substantial evidence."
In that case, the county's legal representation did not provide Quorum Court members' justifications for their decision to the judge. In both cases, what the Quorum Court is failing to do is present substantial evidence supporting its decisions in court.
On June 20, Quorum Court members were offered an emergency ordinance to grant the permit to Tobin as ordered by the court. The assumption seemed to be that the Quorum Court should just acquiesce to judicial rulings. The better answer is to make changes so future decisions are based in substantial evidence and clearly communicate that to a judge if an appeal is filed. The county's effort so far has seemed weak and half-hearted.
Every county's Quorum Court has a role to play when constituents have legitimate concerns over land use. That Washington County isn't making a strong case for its decisions should be a concern for anyone who believes in that role. I'm not sure County Judge Joseph Wood's administration believes in that role at all, and it may not be interested in defending a strong Quorum Court that might reject a local business.
From time to time, Quorum Court members do not appear to see themselves as a strong and independent branch of county government, but that's what citizens need. As a result of priority, policy or perhaps personalities, the Quorum Court's authority isn't foremost on the minds of the county judge and his attorney, who has never behaved as a legal counsel with the best interests of the Quorum Court at heart.
The Quorum Court, to successfully defend its authority in land-use disputes, might consider getting counsel from a different attorney, one who can provide a robust defense in court and wisely guide the Quorum Court so that its decisions have a stronger likelihood to survive a court challenge.
Commentary on 06/30/2019