Gravel company ordered to cease operations west of Sidney

Last week Cheyenne County District court ordered Pine Bluffs Gravel & Excavation to cease all gravel mining operations at property owned by Raymond and Teresa Kuehn on County Rd. 99 about seven miles west of Sidney.

The gravel firm and the county have been at odds for around a year now over the company’s work on agriculturally zoned land where it operates a gravel mine.

The case of Cheyenne County vs. Pine Bluffs Gravel & Excavating Inc. was tried on Jan. 16. The court issued its judgment on Feb. 28. In this civil case, Cheyenne County sought to stop the excavation of rock and gravel at the site in question.

Both parties in this case are also involved in a related case, which received a district court ruling last month. In that case, the mining company challenged a Cheyenne County Board of Adjustments finding. The court confirmed the board’s finding that the use of the Kuehn property for excavation of gravel was in violation of zoning law.

“In that case, the court found that the Board of Adjustment did not err in its determination that the continued use of the Kuehn property to operate a gravel pit did violate the applicable zoning ordinances,” court documents stated.

Pine Bluffs appealed this decision to a higher court. A ruling has not yet been made in the appeal.

Beginning in June 2012 Pine Bluffs Gravel began excavating, crushing and delivering rock under a contract for work on roads leading to property owned by the U.S. Air Force in Cheyenne County. After some discussion, the county agreed that this work did not require a conditional use permit because it was temporary and for public road improvements.

Work on these Air Force projects was completed in November 2012.

The company then submitted a conditional use permit for the property in January of last year for the proposed use of mining, washing, and storing dirt, sand, gravel and rock. The county commissioners denied the permit.

In March 2013 Pine Bluffs began washing and screening gravel for use in the Interstate 80 project between Kimball and Sidney. The company has a two year contract with the state to provide 250,000 tons of gravel for work on the highway through the 2014 construction season.

Shortly after these operations began, the Cheyenne County zoning administrator served the company with a cease and desist letter informing it that work at the pit was no longer considered a permitted use. Pine Bluffs appealed the zoning administrator’s decision to the Cheyenne County Board of Adjustments, which affirmed the actions of the zoning administrator.

Some additional evidence was presented in Cheyenne County’s civil case against the firm heard this January. It was confirmed that some sort of industrial activity is still taking place at the site. Heavy trucks carrying loads of material have been seen leaving the site.

It is unknown whether or not these trucks are owned and operated by Pine Bluffs Gravel or another firm. Another party, Chester Bross, has a lease agreement with the Kuehns to operate a concrete batch plant on the property, according to court documents.

Bross intends to use this plant for the Interstate 80 project which will continue this summer.

Two of the landowners with property near the site in question testified to troubles which the work caused, including noise, dust and increased traffic. The Cheyenne County Sheriff testified to ongoing complaints about the property, some of which were unfounded, a court document said.

At this point, the Cheyenne County Sheriff’s Office hasn’t issued any citations for work at the site. Although a cease and desist letter was sent to Pine Bluffs Gravel, one was not sent to Bross.

The gravel firm asserted that the court shouldn’t make and further orders in this case except to bring in Chester Bross because he is a necessary party in the matter due to his lease on the Kuehn land to operate a concrete batch plant.

The court questioned why Cheyenne County sought injunction against the property owners and Pine Bluffs Gravel and not Bross.

Although the court knows that a concrete batch plant is being operated by Bross on the property, the court doesn’t know if this is the only purpose for which his lease is being used and what, if any, will be the damages to Bross if an injunction is entered in this case. This is evidence that could have been submitted if Bross were made a party to this suit.

The court found that Bross is a necessary party and that he should be heard from in terms of any injunction. The court also found that it could place an injunction against the defendants in this case in the meantime so long as it was crafted to save the rights of Bross.

The defendants argued that there was no evidence that Pine Bluffs Gravel was mining or washing gravel on the property, so an injunction would be extreme and unnecessary. Cheyenne County countered that evidence of a prior violation of an ordinance is enough to warrant a permanent injunction to preemptively stop any further violations. The court is aware that Pine Bluffs Gravel plans to pick up its mining operations at the site some time this month.

In its ruling, the court entered a permanent injunction against Raymond and Teresa Kuehn, and Pine Bluffs Gravel & Excavation for the property in question on County Rd. 99. This injunction would stop all those named from going on the property, occupying or operating on the property for the purpose of sand, rock and gravel mining or any other industrial use related to sand or gravel pit operation.

The injunction would not pertain to the activity of Bross on the property, of which the court does not have enough information to make a determination.

In the matter of Pine Bluffs Gravel and Excavation vs. the Cheyenne County Board of Adjustments another judgment was made on Feb. 28.

Pine Bluffs sought a supersedeas bond which, if posted, would allow the firm to continue operations while the appeal is pending. The county objected to the setting of a supersedeas bond.

The court found that it had discretion in ordering a supersedeas bond. The court decided not to do so for several reasons. The plaintiff offered insufficient evidence regarding what amount and conditions would be necessary to protect both parties, court documents stated. Also, setting this bond and therefore allowing work to continue at the site would contradict the court’s earlier ruling.

The court affirmed the board’s decision that operations were in violation of zoning code, so if the court were to allow a supersedeas bond this would condone the continued violation of these codes, court documents stated.