The city of Sedona has been in a bit of a holding pattern for several months regarding a lawsuit filed against it over the approval of a proposed community water tank.

But that may soon change.

The lawsuit centers around a decision by the city to allow a 1.5-million-gallon water tank to be built in a residential area near the intersection of State Route 179 and Mallard Drive. 

Vincent McGeary, an attorney who lives on Cathedral Rock Trail, filed a complaint for special action in March of last year with the Coconino County Superior Court.

The court has now set a briefing schedule for the case. According to City Attorney Robert Pickels, McGeary had until Tuesday, Dec. 30, to file his opening brief. The city then has 45 days to file its response brief. Following that, McGeary has the opportunity to file a reply brief within 20 days of the city’s response filing.

“McGeary has requested oral argument,” Pickels said late last week. “It’s up to the judge to decide whether or not to grant it. In many cases, the court will simply review the briefs and then rule without oral argument. It’s usually based on how complicated the issues are, and if the judge feels the need to have things explained before making a decision.”

An email to McGeary seeking comment was not returned.

By the 4-1 vote, the Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit request from Arizona Water Company in October 2018. An appeal can be made in writing within 15 days of the commission’s decision, which McGeary did. 

Last January, Sedona City Council heard an appeal regarding the construc­tion of the water tank. By a unanimous vote, council voted to uphold Planning and Zoning’s decision, thus denying McGeary’s appeal. 

In his filing, McGeary states he will be impacted by the construction of the industrial facility, including but not limited to increased traffic, noise and dust caused by excavation and construc­tion activities. In addition, he feels he will be impacted due to the elimination of residential lots in the district in which the property is located and in the form of diminution in property value during the construction and thereafter. 

He also alleges that city staff were biased in terms of their desire to see a water tank built in that area. 

“Prior to Arizona Water Company’s purchase of the property, the city desired the construction of a water storage and treatment facility on or near the property,” he states in his court filing. “On information and belief, prior to AWC’s purchase of the property, the Director and Department [Community Development] knew of AWC’s plan to purchase the property for the purpose of building the plant. The department communicated to AWC its support of AWC’s plan to purchase the property and construct the plant, and aided and abetted the AWC in its effort to secure the CUP.” 

He wrote that the council and commission failed to make the required findings before denying the appeal and granting the CUP, as required by city code. 

“The council acted arbi­trarily and capriciously in approving the actions of the commission despite the commission’s failure to make findings required by LDC,” McGeary wrote. 

Last May, Pickels said the complaint alleges that the city failed to make requisite findings of fact in arriving at its decision to approve the permit for the water tank. Also, the complaint alleges city staff acted as an advocate for Arizona Water Company in presenting the application to the commission and council. 

“The city has denied that those allegations are true,” he said. 

Pickels has said both the commission and the council were presented with a comprehensive evalua­tion of the application and the staff opinion regarding the requisite findings of fact. Both took action to approve the application after having reviewed the infor­mation presented by staff and stating that the applica­tion was deemed to be in compliance. 

“The standard on review will be whether the commis­sion or council based their decision on something less than credible evidence,” he said.