Silverthorne sued over Lowe’s approval

Along with a lawsuit over procedural issues, the Lowe's proposal in Silverthorne is also facing unanswered questions from state geologists, who recommended against approving the development until the questions are answered. This photo shows a soil profile at the site, which could be prone to landslides.

Town erred by classifying Lowe’s as a hardware store, lawsuit claims

By Bob Berwyn

SUMMIT COUNTY — Silverthorne is facing a lawsuit over its decision to classify Lowe’s as a hardware store even though only about five percent of the company’s sales come from the hardware category. The complaint was filed in district court Thursday, said attorney Rob Waterman, who is representing four Silverthorne-area residents who believe the development will affect use and enjoyment of their property.

Waterman said the town abused its discretion by randomly choosing the hardware category, which confers a use-by-right in the town’s light industrial zone. Under a different category — lumber and building supplies, for example, the development rights are conditional, meaning the town can require more concessions from a developer, which would have given the town a stronger bargaining position in its negotiations with Lowe’s.

Waterman said town officials were not happy about the lawsuit, but probably knew it was coming. Waterman, who resigned his position as president of the Summit Chamber of Commerce before filing the suit, spoke at the Sept. 8 hearing on the development application and outlined the same legal points that are raised in the formal legal complaint.

The lawsuit argues that the initial failure by Silverthorne to make an accurate classification nullifies the town’s subsequent decisions on the application.

“The lawsuit is basically asking the judge to tell Silverthorne, ‘Hey, you have to go back and do a classification based on facts,’” Waterman said.

As evidence, Waterman submitted the company’s SEC filings, in which Lowe’s classifies itself as a lumber and building supply retailer – not as a hardware store.

Along with the lawsuit, there are also questions about the geology of the site. A late-August comment letter from the Colorado Geological Survey recommends against approval of the store pending resolution of some of the questions about the stability of the hillside and the engineering and design for a planned retaining wall.

This story will be updated.

About these ads

One Response

  1. well well well

    welcome to summit county a place where the rich will sue to get their way

    just like the no tresspassing signs I ran into the other night while out in the woods

    I have mine, you can’t have yours. The future is here and it’s time for people like me to be forced out. You people make me sick.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,964 other followers

%d bloggers like this: