I don't get it.

quote:

**** The County of Ford admits that the application (all three of them) was not signed prior to the public notice hearing in the Globe on November 4th, 2006.

**** The County of Ford admits that the application WAS BACKDATED by Mark Shirwise, the Zoning Administrator from November 9th to November 3rd, 2006 to try to make it look like the application was signed on the correct day.

**** The County of Ford admits that the application fee was not paid until November 9th, 2006.

Zoning Regulations state that the application has to be signed and the application fee has to be paid prior to the Public Hearing Notice in the Official County Newspaper.

Jack Shultz, attorney, was able to unquestionably prove that there was no “Development Plan” submitted with the application and what was finally submitted on November 20, 2006 was not a Development Plan. He said: “You can't just take a bunch of papers, staple them together and put 'Site Development Plan' on it,". "

end of quote.

I am stunned also. I guess there is no need for anyone to be a good citizen and take part in the legal mess in Ford County. What is the use?


Ignoring protocol in Wright ethanol plant cited; plaintiffs stunned by decision

By Tim Vandenack

The Hutchinson News

tvandenack@hutchnews.com

DODGE CITY - A judge here rejected a lawsuit on Friday that accused Ford County officials of ignoring proper protocol in granting a green light to developers of a proposed ethanol plant.


That has one Ford County commissioner speaking of a "new chapter" in area economic development and project developers eager to carry on with their plans.

"We always did what the county instructed us to do," said Gary Harshberger, president of Boot Hill Biofuels, which plans to build a 110 million gallon per year ethanol plant east of Wright. "Plans are going forward and they've never really stopped."

The plaintiffs, landowners around the planned plant site, seemed stunned at Friday's outcome and were still mulling their options. "We'll just have to talk it over," said Rodney Helfrich, one of nine who took part in the suit.

Helfrich and the others filed suit last January in Ford County District Court against the Ford County Commission, asking that the body's Dec. 18 decision granting Boot Hill a conditional-use permit to build be voided.

But in rebuffing the suit, Magistrate Judge Daniel Love turned back the plaintiffs' contention that Boot Hill's permit application was lacking and that the requisite paperwork wasn't filed with the county in a timely fashion. He said certain elements of zoning rules that govern conditional-use permit applications and development plans are "directory only" and not, as plaintiffs had maintained, mandatory.

Moreover, he said county officials followed proper procedure in handling Boot Hill's application and affirmed the Dec. 18 decision. Critics of the process "were afforded adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard," Love wrote, alluding to their numerous appearances before county officials.

Kim Goodnight, chairman of the Ford County Commission, expressed delight at the ruling and the prospects offered by a new industry, ethanol, entering the county.

"I'm real excited this is behind us and we're able to move forward," he said. "I think it's a new chapter in Ford County's history."

Boot Hill's plans, one of two ethanol plant proposals in Ford County, call for a start to construction on Aug. 1. The $185 million plant would employ 45 to 50 people and have an annual payroll of around $2 million.

Some of the plaintiffs in the suit have expressed opposition to Boot Hill's plans because of the water the ethanol facility would use and the truck traffic it would generate, among other things. But those issues didn't figure in the lawsuit.