Park City leaders on Thursday discussed the concept of some sort of moratorium on development, but they did not signal with any certainty whether they will move forward with what would be a dramatic step amid broad worries in the community about growth.
It seemed unlikely prior to the meeting that Mayor Nann Worel and the Park City Council on Thursday would be prepared to craft the details of a moratorium or, alternatively, affirm an unwillingness to continue to consider one. The elected officials instead listened to a presentation by staffers and asked questions. It appears the elected officials will continue to address the issue at future meetings, but a timeline is not clear.
The talks about a development moratorium are underway with concerns mounting in the community about growth and traffic. They have been some of the overriding issues in Park City for decades, but there have seemed to be renewed concerns recently amid widespread worries about development, congestion and affordability.
City Hall staffers have explained that a moratorium could be instituted in an effort to address an emergency situation or if there is some other type of compelling reason. Officials would need to successfully argue that is the case in Park City for a moratorium to survive a legal challenge.
Some of the discussion on Thursday centered on the reasoning that could underpin a moratorium. Mark Harrington, the senior attorney at City Hall, cautioned that a moratorium would need to be designed to solve an issue rather than be used in a bid to “slow down.” Planning Director Gretchen Milliken described scenarios that could be seen as emergency situations, mentioning the presence of unstable soils or an issue with the availability of water.
The elected officials also were told a moratorium would cover new development applications while those already in the process would not be halted. A moratorium, as an example, would not stop the ongoing talks about a major development proposal at the base of Park City Mountain Resort. A moratorium could not extend beyond six months.
Milliken, meanwhile, predicted there could be a backlog of development-related applications once a moratorium would be lifted. Officials could be “completely overwhelmed” at that point, she said, indicating staffers would be strained if that were to occur.
The elected officials made limited comments about the prospects of pursuing a moratorium, but it was not apparent whether there was a clear majority in favor or in opposition to the enactment of one.
City Councilor Max Doilney made some of the most direct comments of the discussion, saying he does not see the current situation in Park City meeting the standard needed to approve a moratorium.
“We’re not there right now,” he said.
Ryan Dickey, another member of the City Council, expressed that there is a need to understand the goals should a moratorium be pursued. In an interview afterward, Dickey said he is undecided about a stoppage. He said officials would need to “clearly lay out the objective for a moratorium.” City Councilor Tana Toly wanted City Hall to contact other jurisdictions in the area that have implemented moratoriums as part of the research.
There would likely be supporters and opponents if City Hall pursues a moratorium. The supporters could argue that time is needed for the municipal government to revisit the overarching topic of growth while the opponents may worry about the impact on property rights.
The planning director in a report that was drafted prior to the meeting on Thursday outlined that a moratorium would “not necessarily stop development, nor the processing of complete land use development applications.” Milliken also said in the report development proposals under review before a moratorium is enacted would continue to be processed.