The Summit County Council appears poised to revoke the permit allowing Spoil to Soil to operate a recycling facility and tree farm in Browns Canyon, but a final decision has been delayed for at least three weeks after the county’s legal counsel suggested meeting in a closed session.

The County Council in October ruled the business had six months to fix violations that county staff reported on the site. Councilors last heard an update on the process in February, with a final decision scheduled for May. However, the vote on whether to permanently revoke the property’s conditional use permit was delayed until this month due to an ongoing lawsuit Spoil to Soil filed against the county in Third District Court.

Amir Caus, a county planner, on Wednesday said there had not been “any substantial changes to the property” since February and provided councilors with a staff report recommending they revoke the conditional use permit.

But Spoil to Soil’s attorney, Kyle Reeder, argued that the county improperly alerted the business to the alleged violations, most of which he claimed had either been fixed or were in the process of being resolved. He said remaining issues on the site shouldn’t be grounds for revoking the permit because of the improper noticing system, adding that financial struggles are also making it difficult to clean the property.

“At this point, it’s a cost issue,” Reeder said. “They’ve been shut down since October. They don’t have the machine anymore or the funding to go through the compost without being able to sell the compost itself.”

The County Council questioned Reeder about Spoil to Soil’s inability to acquire a permit from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality authorizing the property to operate as a composting site. Reeder, who provided councilors with copies of letters from the state agency, said the delay was the result of staffing changes and that Spoil to Soil shouldn’t be penalized for the state’s actions.

“This is outside the control of my client,” he said. “This is something that’s a process with the state. As long as the state takes, that’s how long the state takes.”

However, County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong pointed out that the letters said Spoil to Soil was consistently failing to provide the necessary documentation.

“This thing gets weirder and weirder and weirder,” Armstrong said. “I’ve read the DEQ letters. The DEQ letters say that they’ve repeatedly asked you for information, and you have repeatedly provided incomplete information. That doesn’t sound like an application in good faith. … Convince me that you’re trying to do the right thing here.”

The staff report also listed engineering problems on the property, including a discrepancy between the approved site plan and the company’s current operations, but Reeder argued that the stop work order in October prevented Spoil to Soil from finishing construction on key aspects of the project.

“A lot of these … engineering issues can be cured by allowing the continued building of the (tree farm) platforms,” he said. “That’s where a lot of the issues arise is from an uncompleted and unfinished project.”

The conditional use permit required Spoil to Soil to widen portions of Lower Bowl Road to accommodate commercial traffic, which had not been completed when county staff last inspected the property in April. However, Reeder said a neighboring property owner had widened the road over the summer, which satisfies the conditions outlined in the permit and nullifies the alleged violation.

“In our view, this is a moot point,” Reeder said. “The road has been widened. If the county believes that there needs to be something else done with the road, we ask to have discussions and figure out what they need.”

But Caus said the road had not been widened to the county’s knowledge, and engineering staff confirmed no permits had been requested or granted authorizing an expansion of the road.

Reeder called a revocation of the property’s conditional use permit a “disproportionate remedy.” He suggested keeping composting and recycling operations suspended until the Department of Environmental Quality issues a permit while still allowing the company to open the tree farm and finish construction work.

“The reason it’s out of compliance with code is because we stopped construction mid process and that if we were to continue to be allowed to build out the tree platforms, that wouldn’t be an issue,” Reeder said. “But it’s out of compliance because they showed up to do an inspection on a half-completed project, and we were told to stop the project.”

The County Council overwhelmingly disagreed with Reeder’s assertions that Spoil to Soil had engaged in the process “in good faith,” with County Council Chair Canice Harte saying the company’s arguments showed “a consistent pattern of blaming other people for (its) inaction.”

“We thought we gave you an exorbitantly long amount of time to get yourself in compliance, so I think what you’re saying is you chose not to get into compliance for financial reasons, which is part of doing business,” Harte said. “Everything is always someone else’s fault, so let’s skip past that because that’s not going to help us.”

Armstrong said he was concerned about what would happen to the property if the County Council were to revoke the permit because the lack of a binding reclamation agreement, which governs how commercial or industrial land will be restored, is one of the company’s alleged violations.

“If we revoke this permit and do a reset, there’s an unlicensed landfill, as far as I can tell, on that property,” Armstrong said. “If we revoke the (conditional use permit), how do we ensure that the material that’s illegally there is removed?”

Chief Civil Deputy David Thomas suggested the County Council meet in a closed session on Sept. 16 to discuss potential paths forward, especially legal options relating to the reclamation of the land. Councilors plan to hold another meeting and announce a verdict the following week on Sept. 23.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission revoked Spoil to Soil’s conditional use permit last year after county officials presented a 55-page report detailing dozens of reported violations on the property, including unauthorized trash and animal carcasses.

The business appealed the decision to the County Council, which led to councilors’ offer to give Spoil to Soil six months to fix outstanding violations. The deadline was on April 15, the same day Spoil to Soil filed a lawsuit against the county government.

The post Summit County Council poised to revoke Spoil to Soil’s permit pending legal advice appeared first on Park Record.

A crowd of Summit County residents crammed into a Kamas conference room Thursday night to object to the proposed Lost Creek Community Zone, which Ivory Development designed to facilitate the company’s plans to build up to 3,000 residential units in Browns Canyon.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, has been working with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission to draft the code change. The public hearing this week was the first chance to comment on the proposal, and more than 30 residents approached the podium to decry the urbanization of one of Summit County’s historically rural communities.

Wade Budge, a land use and real estate attorney representing the developer, emphasized that the creation of the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in the company’s process. Ivory Development would still need to submit a rezone request and draft a development agreement with the county before the project could begin construction.

However, Budge said Ivory Development has also been “transparent” in its plans for the area, including projections that the Lost Creek neighborhood would eventually incorporate into a municipality. He said the company is attempting to tackle the county’s affordability crisis by offering workforce housing in addition to a range of market rate units.

But Summit County residents disagreed that the proposed zone and development would help locals, pointing to the high price of Ivory Homes projects in surrounding communities such as Park City Heights and Francis Commons.

Mitch Dumke, a resident who spoke during the public hearing, said a quick online search showed homes in Park City Heights listed for more than $2 million, adding that he had “strong concerns” about developers’ “exploitation of the words ‘affordable housing.’”

“Just because they did something somewhere else does not mean they should do it here,” Dumke said. “Show some real numbers. … Make this accessible to the people who need it the most.”

Dumke also told the Ivory Development team that its willingness to work with county officials “feels disingenuous” because the company applied for, and was rejected from, forming a preliminary municipality before engaging in the local process. Other community members mentioned the preliminary municipality bid, too, and expressed fears that Ivory Homes would petition the state Legislature for help if the county rejected the proposal.

“This is deja vu all over again,” said Oakley resident Jerry Heck. “This sounds like Dakota Pacific.”

One speaker called zoning “a pact between the county and its residents” and asked the Planning Commission to stop considering the creation of new zones or rezone requests whenever a developer wants to build a project that doesn’t fit within the county’s established land uses.

“We rely on you guys to protect us and not cut (Browns Canyon) down to subdivision size,” resident Vince Rogers told the Planning Commission. “That’s not fair to us.”

Rogers said the agricultural zoning in Browns Canyon, which he referred to as “a paradise,” has protected the area from development and overcrowding for decades. He said it’s unacceptable for “political influence or maybe money” to drive the future of the county’s rural spaces, comparing the move to changing the rules of a game in the middle of a match.

MacKenzie Pino, who also spoke during the public hearing, refuted Ivory Development’s comments that Browns Canyon is already “on the edge of growth.” She said the “growth” developers refer to is in Wasatch County and is caused by Deer Valley Resort’s recent expansion. She questioned whether Summit County should be responsible for providing workforce housing for its neighbors instead of focusing on sustainable solutions at the local level.

In addition to protecting the rural character of Browns Canyon, residents were concerned about the reality of the proposal, especially the construction of infrastructure necessary to support a 3,000-home neighborhood.

Jill Jones, who served on the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission, said the board during her tenure encouraged developers to build closer to cities and towns because of how difficult it is to install new utilities.

Jones said she works in the sewer systems industry and that her company is building a small pump station in an area with existing infrastructure. However, the project still costs approximately $6 million, and she asked how developers plan to offset the price tag of new infrastructure systems while providing subsidized housing.

“They may not be affordable once they get everything done,” Jones said.

Ranchers in particular were concerned about the development’s potential impact on water access. Nathan Ivie, who has been ranching in Browns Canyon for almost 50 years, said his property changed dramatically when Promontory was built, with multiple springs drying up, forcing him to shift how he runs his operation.

“I find it ironic that they’re calling it Lost Creek because when you tap that aquifer, that’s what’s going to happen,” Ivie said. “You’re going to lose the creek.”

Ivie said a high-density development in Browns Canyon is also dangerous because of fire risk. He said he’s evacuated livestock from his ranch twice because of wildfires on the property, and he asked how Ivory Development plans to keep residents safe when the closest fire station is 10 to 20 minutes away.

“This puts 3,000 homes in a place that is known to be an extreme fire risk with no response,” Ivie said. “This is a significant drain on natural resources, and it is not the right location.”

Other residents said they were concerned about public safety, too, with multiple community members hypothesizing that the county would end up spending so much money increasing fire department and Sheriff’s Office staffing that it would negate any financial gains from the introduction of new taxpayers.

Each speaker encouraged the Planning Commission to vote against the proposed zone, appealing to the commissioners’ love of rural space and their own experiences living on the East Side.

“It’s a land and money grab,” David Bobrowsky told the Planning Commission. “Just refuse the whole process. Otherwise, this is just going to go all through Summit County, and then we’re going to look back at these meetings and say, ‘It was the county’s fault. They got what they deserved, and now we’re going to pay for it.’”

After the public hearing, Planning Commissioner David Darcey said he was “struggling” with the proposal. He told the Ivory Development team that “it doesn’t feel like the developer or the owner of the property is willing to give on anything at this point.”

“This is so overwhelmingly large that I am not at all in favor of this zone,” Darcey said. “When I think of ‘rural,’ I think of Browns Canyon. It is the poster child for ‘rural.’”

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes echoed Darcey’s sentiments, saying the proposal is for a “5,000% increase in density without a 5,000% increase in public value.” Planning Commissioner Paul Weller also questioned whether the workforce housing would attract commuters working in Summit County.

“Why are we providing a workforce for Wasatch County?” Weller asked. “Eastern Summit County does not need to provide their housing.”

Seth Bowen, another planning commissioner, said he was moved by how passionate residents were and that he believed the county has already established “rules and laws with zoning” that should be followed.

“Land use regulations do change, and I do respect that, and I respect that reflects property rights as well, but this brand new (zoning) tool, that’s where I’m very hesitant,” agreed Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson. “It’s a significant change for me to wrap my head around.”

The Planning Commission briefly considered tabling a vote on the Lost Creek Community Zone until its next meeting to draft an updated staff report for the County Council. However, Hayes and Darcey said they were eager to “cut bait,” and Bowen ultimately made a motion to forward a negative recommendation to the County Council.

Bowen’s motion passed unanimously, with each commissioner opposing the creation of the Lost Creek Community Zone.

The County Council will make a final decision on whether to create the zone based on information from the developer, county staff and the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation.

The post ‘Land and money grab’: Lost Creek Community Zone receives negative recommendation after dozens of residents oppose development appeared first on Park Record.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission is evaluating whether to include in an updated General Plan guidelines governing the placement of large-scale data centers, with planning commissioners acknowledging the Wasatch Back has similar economic and environmental features as Box Elder County.

Kevin O’Leary, a celebrity investor known for his appearances on “Shark Tank,” proposed a 40,000-acre data center project in Box Elder County earlier this year, drawing national attention and sparking protests as residents voiced concerns about the state’s ongoing drought and increased power demand. The Military Installation Development Authority backed the proposal, which was ultimately reduced to 20,000 feet.

Planning Commissioner David Darcey has repeatedly told other county officials that the Wasatch Back has comparable conditions to Box Elder County, especially because a gas pipeline runs through the area. The pipeline would provide the necessary infrastructure for a data center, according to Darcey, who previously worked in strategy and market intelligence for an energy company.

County planner Ray Milliner told planning commissioners earlier this month that he had added guidelines regarding data centers to the latest Eastern Summit County General Plan draft. The advisory policy discourages “large-scale industrial or utility-intensive land uses in areas identified for open space preservation” and agriculture.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission has been working on updating the General Plan for more than a year, and the County Council is expected to review and possibly approve the document by the end of 2026. It is generally considered an advisory plan to guide future land use, but it also provides a framework for the County Council to adjust the county code when necessary.

Darcey attended a Utah Association of Counties conference on data center regulations last month and said he was surprised by how many counties seemed to want data centers. However, Milliner said that willingness could be a benefit because companies would likely want to build in a data center-friendly area rather than forcing a project through Summit County.

“(That) would probably deter a lot of people, but you never know,” Milliner said.

The Planning Commission has been reviewing sections of the General Plan twice a month to offer suggestions and potential changes to planning department staff. The General Plan — and any data center regulations — would only affect the East Side, as the Snyderville Basin is governed by a separate plan specific to the western part of Summit County.

County officials have previously said they expect the Planning Commission and County Council to finalize the General Plan by the end of the year.

The post Summit County might regulate large-scale data centers on the East Side appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County residents will need to wait until next month to comment on Ivory Development’s proposed rezone of Browns Canyon, which could allow up to 3,000 homes to be constructed in the historically rural area.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission verbally directed county staff to schedule a public hearing for this Thursday, but county planner Mustapha Osman confirmed the discussion has been postponed.

The Planning Commission typically meets twice a month, with one meeting in Kamas and the second in Coalville. Osman said commissioners decided to wait until August, which is when the next Kamas meeting is scheduled, because Browns Canyon residents live closer to Kamas than Coalville.

The exact date and time of the hearing have not yet been announced.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, has been working with the Planning Commission to draft the Lost Creek Community Zone. However, commissioners have repeatedly expressed concerns about the scope of the project. They’ve noted the lack of infrastructure in Browns Canyon, plus water needs and traffic impacts the development would likely have on the area.

The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing the proposed zone and forwarding a recommendation to the Summit County Council, which will then issue a final decision on whether the zone will become a permanent fixture in the county code.

Creating the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in Ivory Development’s process, though. If the County Council were to approve the zone, the housing company would still need to negotiate with the Planning Commission and County Council for a second time to draft and finalize a development agreement.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission will still discuss proposed amendments to the area’s future land use map this week, but there will not be an opportunity for public comment.

The post Public hearing on Browns Canyon development pushed to next month appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County residents will have an opportunity next week to comment on future growth in Browns Canyon as part of a public hearing regarding Ivory Development’s proposed Lost Creek Community Zone.

The hearing will be on Thursday, July 16, at the County Courthouse in Coalville, with the exact time to be announced later.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, has been working with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission to draft the Lost Creek Community Zone, which could potentially allow the company to build up to 3,000 homes in Browns Canyon.

However, commissioners have repeatedly expressed concerns about the scope of the project. They’ve noted the lack of infrastructure in Browns Canyon, plus water needs and traffic impacts the development would likely have on the traditionally rural area.

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes previously said she’s also worried about the project creating a landscape of urban sprawl in Browns Canyon, telling Ivory Development representatives that she visited Terraine, one of the company’s neighborhoods in West Jordan, and left feeling unimpressed.

“It didn’t feel like community,” Hayes said. “It felt like a model home, mish-mashed suburban sprawl, at least in that town center. I think to be successful here, that town center needs to have more of the rural character, the rural appeal. It wasn’t what I was expecting based on what you described, and maybe I wasn’t experiencing it the right way, but I didn’t feel a sense of community.”

The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing the proposed zone and forwarding a recommendation to the Summit County Council, which will then issue a final decision on whether the zone will become a permanent fixture in the county code.

Creating the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in Ivory Development’s process, though. If the County Council were to approve the zone, the housing company would still need to negotiate with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission and County Council for a second time to draft and finalize a development agreement.

Planning commissioners met with Ivory Development representatives last week to discuss the finer details of the zone’s text, although they still mentioned outstanding concerns regarding water, traffic and infrastructure. However, the meeting was mostly procedural, with commissioners and Ivory Development representatives revising grammatical and linguistic choices in the drafted document.

But the Planning Commission also scheduled a public hearing on the Lost Creek Community Zone to allow residents to weigh in on whether the zone and large-scale developments should be allowed in Browns Canyon. The Planning Commission is tentatively expecting to vote on its recommendation to the County Council at the same meeting, but the decision could be delayed.

The post County to hold public hearing on Browns Canyon development next week appeared first on Park Record.

Eastern Summit County officials are debating a proposal to create a new community zone in Browns Canyon that could open the door to a large Ivory Homes development, but critics also fear the designation could serve as a template for high density projects in rural areas of the county.

Representatives from Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based home-building company, met with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission for a work session on Thursday to dissect the draft of the Lost Creek Community Zone. Developers are asking the county to add the zone to its code as a planning tool that could allow for mixed-use development in what is currently an agricultural zone. 

Officials did not spend time debating building heights or lot sizes because they must first establish the legal framework that would allow development beyond one unit per 80 acres. Planning commissioners need to adopt the new zone in the county code, which would define the language enabling development in the Browns Canyon area. Then, Ivory Homes could formally apply to build in the zone.

Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson also stressed that, at this stage, the Planning Commission is just being asked to approve the process, not a specific project. The developer would later submit a community plan and development agreement with its rezone request, which planning commissioners would also review, if the zone is adopted.

However, the Planning Commission was concerned that the zone might set a “precedent” other developers would try to replicate elsewhere in the county. Commissioners were worried that approving a custom zone for Lost Creek could lead to proposals for other places like Rockport or Hoytsville.

“If we approve a special process for development, other people are going to want to come in and get their special process for development as well,” Peterson said. “(Ivory Homes) defined that it can only be this area, but that doesn’t mean somebody else can’t come in and write the exact same statute, but put it in different property and use this blueprint.”

Civil Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan advised the Planning Commission that the Summit County Council has broad legislative discretion and can review case by case. Officials could also decide on “closing the door” later if growth gets out of hand. 

A map presented showed a large potential area for the Lost Creek Community Zone that exceeds the acreage Ivory Development plans to build up to 3,000 homes on 407 net acres. It stretches roughly 1 mile in each direction beyond the gross 600-acre site and encompasses multiple landowners and existing agriculture-zoned parcels.

Planning Commissioner Dave Darcey said the sheer size of the proposed zone makes him nervous and that many residents purchased land zoned as AG-80, expecting one unit per 80 acres rather than high-density development. 

Commissioners also debated parcel sizes, how to create meaningful open space in the area and the risk of sprawl. The developer agreed to bring back an alternative map, to add a contiguity requirement so that landowners wanting to join the zone must be connected to existing areas and to consider a higher minimum acreage.

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes was also critical of references to the Park City Heights and Francis Commons projects, saying they look too suburban for Eastern Summit County’s rural setting. Hayes wanted clear definitions of community character and more detail about how the mix of housing — attainable and market-rate — would actually support the local workforce and not just meet the 10% affordable housing requirement.

Other discussions involved banning golf courses and water-intensive amenities, codifying low-water landscaping and ensuring there’s enough acreage to support real rural uses. Infrastructure, traffic and phasing are also key areas that need to be addressed. Commissioners said they would be hesitant to approve anything without all the details.

While the developers advocated for project that would build a community, commissioners saw the zone as potential for opening a Pandora’s Box on rural Summit County.

Ivory Development said it would tighten its draft, bring alternative maps and add detailed language to the next Planning Commission meeting, slated for July 2. A public hearing where residents can share their opinions is tentatively scheduled for July 16.

Then, the Planning Commission will have to decide to forward a negative or positive recommendation on the zone to the County Council.

Ivory Development attempted to create a new town in the same area earlier this year by filing to incorporate as a preliminary municipality with the the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office. However, the proposal was rejected because the limit on the number of applications for preliminary municipalities had already been reached. Planning commissioners agreed to work with the development firm on its project if it follows the local process.

The post Proposed Lost Creek Community Zone highlights growth fears in eastern Summit County appeared first on Park Record.

Oakley residents are concerned about a proposal for a commercial horse stable, riding arena and event center on Boulderville Road, but the couple spearheading the project have said the facility will only be open to a select team of young riders, not the general public.

“We are looking to build a private barn and riding facility for a small group of riders, primarily kids, who have trained together for years,” Kim Raduenz told the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission last week. “We have been bounced around from barn to barn over the years as different leases change or different facilities close, and we’re building this so that we have the stability that we need to operate as a team.”

Raduenz proposed the facility along with her husband, Tim, and their 12-year-old daughter, Parker, who is a rider on the team in question. However, the property on Boulderville Road is zoned for agricultural and residential use, leading to the family’s request for a conditional use permit to authorize commercial operations on the property.

A county staff report on the proposal indicated the family wants to build a 24,000-square-foot indoor riding arena and a 6,900-square-foot stable, which would have approximately 1,000 square feet designated as a living area for a future farmhand. Another 2,400-square-foot building would be used for equipment storage, with a second 1,600-square-foot auxiliary building reserved for hay storage.

“This is a private facility. This will focus on riding, riding lessons and horse care,” Raduenz said. “This is about creating a safe space for the kids to grow and learn and ride. … For most kids, this is their primary activity and their primary community. This is where they spend their time. This is where they set goals. This is where they build their confidence.”

Raduenz said the family does not intend to host weddings, receptions, family reunions or other large events at the event center. Instead, she said events would be invite-only and limited to activities related to riding, such as horse clinics or small shows.

Planning Commissioner David Darcey asked Raduenz about the scope of the facility’s customer base, saying he was worried about noise and traffic disrupting nearby neighbors. But Raduenz said the family’s application listed a maximum of 25 riders per day, with only 12 “visitors,” who will most likely be the parents of riders taking lessons.

“I can tell you that, operationally, we’ve all been riding together for three-plus years, and that amount of people is rare, if ever,” Raduenz added. “We’re just trying to give ourselves the ability to play finely by the rules and not dip our toe outside of anything.”

Raduenz said the process of filing an application with the county was difficult because the facility the family wants to build occupies an in-between space in the county’s code. It doesn’t qualify as a private use because money will exchange hands to pay for boarding fees, but it also doesn’t qualify as an agricultural property because it won’t be producing food.

Amir Caus, a county planner, said a conditional use permit with commercial operations on the property was the most efficient solution for the Planning Department as a result.

Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson expressed frustration with the Summit County Code and asked county staff if it would be possible to explore amendments to govern riding facilities. He said he wanted to support riding because of its cultural significance and history along the Wasatch Back, but he said the commercial designation didn’t feel like the right fit, especially because the permit would be tied to the land, not the Raduenz family.

“It’s what happens with the property afterward, once it’s been approved for commercial use, and the next attempt at commercial use is not just a riding team, it’s somebody actually running a rodeo grounds next to these properties,” Peterson said. “I feel like that’s the fear that’s being expressed.”

Neighboring property owners had similar anxieties about the project during a public hearing, telling the Planning Commission that they believed the training facility would change the character of the agricultural community.

“This would bring a huge reduction in the peaceful enjoyment and quality of life for nearby residents,” said Tina Lazenby, who lives to the west of the property. “This area was established as an agricultural and low-density community, not a commercial entertainment corridor. Approving this commercial event center would set a very concerning precedent and erode the neighborhood’s rural character. It would also undermine the intended purpose of agricultural zoning.”

Shawn Horman, who also lives in the neighborhood, said the Raduenz family had been proactive in contacting nearby property owners about their proposal, but he said what was told to neighbors is different from the application presented to the Planning Commission. Horman said neighbors were told the family would build a residence, a stable for 10 to 12 horses and an indoor riding arena with shelters.

“There’s a lot of mentioning of intention, and that’s great, but if there’s a conditional use permit given, intentions can change over time,” Horman said. “This is what they originally told us. Now, it’s something different, so it’s hard to picture that it won’t change, even though they say their intentions are certain.”

Neighbors generally expressed concerns about noise and traffic, with multiple speakers pointing out the increase in cars and the potential for parents and spectators to park on the side of the road. They also said they were nervous the noise generated by events and group activities would negatively affect livestock on smaller properties nearby.

But Augusta Clark, the horse trainer in charge of the program, reiterated that the team does not want to host rodeos or public events. She called Raduenz “the greatest rule follower” and said the commercial designation is to make sure the facility can legally charge families for boarding their horses on the property.

“It is a commercial property in the sense that we are teaching lessons there,” Clark said. “If we were to not make it commercial, then you would err on the side of, ‘Well, is this even legal to teach lessons there?’”

Clark also emphasized the importance of having an indoor riding arena available to her students so they can still train in the winter, saying most of her riders are trying to “get to the top of the sport,” which means they need consistent access to a physical space.

“We are genuinely, from the bottom of our hearts, trying to build something that is beautiful, aesthetic to the environment, sensitive to the environment, but more than anything, sensitive to those who live on the street because I, too, have been in the position where what I thought I was moving into changed,” Clark said.

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes pointed out that most speakers’ concerns were tied to the event center, and she asked if the Raduenz family would be comfortable removing the event center from the conditional use permit. If so, the family could still receive a permit for the stables and riding arena for students to train.

“The events were never intended at all to cause an issue, and we want to be good neighbors,” Raduenz responded. “Let’s just get rid of it, and if we want an event, we’ll come back for a (special event) permit. … It’s the least important thing to us of this entire thing.”

Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan recommended revisiting the application in two weeks to remove any language regarding the event center from the conditional use permit and facility’s operating plan to ensure the two are in alignment.

The Planning Commission will discuss the proposal — and hold an additional public hearing — on May 21 at the County Courthouse in Coalville.

The post Residents concerned about size, traffic impacts of proposed riding arena on Boulderville Road appeared first on Park Record.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission says three factors will make or break Ivory Home’s proposed project in Browns Canyon: traffic, water and infrastructure.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based company, has been working with the county government to potentially create the Lost Creek Community Zone, a new zone in the county code that would allow Ivory Development to build up to 3,000 homes in Browns Canyon.

Creating the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in the process. If the zone is approved, Ivory Development would still need to go through negotiations with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission and Summit County Council to draft a master planned development agreement.

Ivory Development and the Planning Commission met in a work session on Thursday to discuss the development team’s vision for the Browns Canyon community and to answer lingering questions about the project.

It was the second time the proposal had gone before commissioners, who have said they’re willing to work with Ivory Development as long as the company keeps its commitment to following the local process instead of approaching the state Legislature for approval.

The development team presented revised portions of the code amendment based on the commissioners’ feedback during last month’s meeting, including a change in which parcels are eligible for the Lost Creek Community Zone.

Planning commissioners previously expressed concerns about a stipulation in the proposed amendment that would have allowed any property owner within 1 mile of Lost Creek to apply for the new zone. They said they were nervous that other developers would take advantage of the zoning ordinance to create a much larger residential or commercial project than the current Ivory Development proposal.

As a result, the development team proposed earmarking particular parcels as eligible for the Lost Creek Community Zone. The change would limit inclusion in the zone to a handful of properties around the two pieces of land Ivory Development owns, preventing developers from attempting to use the zone along other parts of the creek.

The updated amendment also includes a stipulation that any developer proposing to rezone properties to the Lost Creek Community Zone, including Ivory Development, must provide an infrastructure analysis and phasing plan to the county. The two plans are intended to ensure developers are unable to disrupt the infrastructure services, especially sewage and water, that would be installed as part of Ivory Development’s project.

The creek itself would serve as a starting point for the neighborhood’s preserved open space, with developers describing the creek as a green belt where a neighborhood center would be built. Density would be highest in the community’s center, and the lowest density would be slated for the development’s outskirts.

Ivory Development representatives said there would be a few larger lots for estate homes in the lower-density areas, but most of the project would involve mixed housing types, like apartments, townhomes and small cottages. They emphasized that open space preservation, affordable housing and a “well-planned community” would provide benefits to Summit County residents.

However, planning commissioners said they didn’t like having open space in the middle of the community and would prefer to see it on the edges of the properties to avoid creating a “suburban” feel. They told developers the project would need to reflect the rural values and character of the East Side to garner any support from the community.

“I would ask that you just take a little bit of a deeper view as to how you could make something like this a little more authentic to this community,” said Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes.

Alex Peterson, chair of the Planning Commission, expressed concerns that Ivory Development would build the estate homes first, leaving the affordable housing units to help Summit County residents for last. But the development team said they expected the opposite would be true, explaining that the affordable housing units and apartments would likely be built before the estate homes because they provide more revenue to the developers.

The developers would need to use those funds upfront to help cover the costs of installing infrastructure in Browns Canyon, they said. The team also assured the Planning Commission their goal is to create homes for primary residents, not second homeowners or tourists.

Planning Commissioner Paul Weller raised traffic concerns.

He estimated the development would add another 4,000 cars to Browns Canyon Road, with the assumption that each residential home would have, on average, 1.5 cars. He said the local community was not likely to back the project without a viable traffic solution, which may be difficult to find considering the limited access points on the main road.

Weller also echoed worries that the current proposal is only the first step in a massive project and questioned whether Ivory Development would want to extend the neighborhood into other eligible parcels at a future date.

“Summit County becomes the runway in order for you to take off into a city,” he said.

The development team acknowledged that they want Lost Creek to eventually be incorporated into a municipality for tax purposes, but they said the municipality and the county would both benefit from the tax base. They said incorporation would allow the community to be self-sustaining.

However, Hayes said she visited Terraine, one of Ivory Development’s projects in West Jordan, after developers suggested a visit to one of their already established communities. She said she left feeling unimpressed.

“It didn’t feel like community,” Hayes said. “It felt like a model home, mish-mashed suburban sprawl, at least in that town center. I think to be successful here, that town center needs to have more of the rural character, the rural appeal. It wasn’t what I was expecting based on what you described, and maybe I wasn’t experiencing it the right way, but I didn’t feel a sense of community.”

The Planning Commission briefly touched on water rights, too, with developers saying they’ll have their own water source for the development. Planning Commissioner David Darcey said he also wanted to double-check that the numbers Ivory Development provided are correct and viable in terms of supporting the needs of up to 3,000 residential units and commercial businesses.

Planning commissioners did not take any action on the Lost Creek Community Zone on Thursday, but they agreed to sit down with developers for a second work session soon to discuss the details of the development’s proposed density, infrastructure and water access.

The post Traffic, infrastructure top list of concerns for Brown Canyons development appeared first on Park Record.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission is open to working with Ivory Development to build up to 3,000 homes in the Browns Canyon area, but only if the development team sticks to the local process instead of pursuing other avenues.

Ivory Development previously applied for a preliminary municipality in the same area, which the company is referring to as Lost Creek. However, the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office rejected the application because of statutory limitations on the number of preliminary municipalities that can be proposed within one calendar year.

But Ivory Development President Chris Gamvroulas repeatedly said the company preferred to work with local officials and that the application was only a safeguard in case proceedings with the county weren’t moving along at a “timely and predictable” pace.

The real estate company debuted its Lost Creek project at the local level last week, appearing before the Planning Commission to discuss a proposed addition to the Summit County Code — the Lost Creek Community Zone.

The Lost Creek Community Zone would be a new zone for the county, specifically designed to accommodate Ivory Development’s project in Browns Canyon. Codifying the zone would be the first step in making Lost Creek a reality, followed by a second round of negotiations with the Planning Commission and Summit County Council to approve a master planned development agreement.

Developers last week told planning commissioners that the Lost Creek community is intended to serve workforce housing and primary residents, not families looking to purchase a second home to take advantage of the Wasatch Back’s ski resorts. They compared Lost Creek to Park City Heights, another Ivory Development project in Summit County, and said residential buildings will be “clustered” together to avoid sprawl and preserve nearby open space.

Ivory Development representatives said the area is a good option for development because of its proximity to Park City and the need for affordable housing on the East Side. They said the natural topography of the property, which covers approximately 407 acres, will make it easier to “nestle” the community into the valley to limit visual impacts while still having the neighborhood accessible because of its proximity to Browns Canyon Road.

In addition to residential homes, developers proposed commercial areas within Lost Creek and the establishment of “civic spaces” that could be used as town halls, parks, schools or other necessary facilities in the future.

Gamvroulas said the company hopes to build Lost Creek so that residents can have their needs met without driving to Park City, which is why commercial spaces and grocery stores are included as potential uses within the proposed zone.

If the County Council were to approve the Lost Creek Community Zone, other developers could potentially use it for their properties. However, the zone is geographically tied to Lost Creek, which means a developer couldn’t implement it in another area of the county.

Planning Commissioner David Darcey asked Gamvroulas about Ivory Development’s plans for short-term rentals within the Lost Creek development, pointing out that the preliminary municipality application filed with the state specifically mentioned planned short-term rental units on one side of Browns Canyon.

But Gamvroulas said the short-term rental proposal was only included in the preliminary municipality application to meet the state’s revenue requirements to be considered a viable township. He said Ivory Development is no longer focused on short-term rentals in the Lost Creek community and is instead opting to gear it entirely toward primary residents because there are no financial requirements associated with the county’s development process.

Planning commissioners said they weren’t opposed to working with Ivory Development on the project, but they repeatedly emphasized the importance of community engagement. Multiple commissioners said they were only in favor of exploring the proposal if Ivory Development continued to discuss it “in good faith” with community members and local officials.

Commissioners also mentioned the state Legislature a handful of times, telling Ivory Development that they would prefer the team follow Summit County’s process instead of approaching state lawmakers.

The Planning Commission directed county staff to continue working with Ivory Development on its application with the county, asking planners to focus on phasing so commissioners can have an idea of how many homes would be built and at what pace.

The Lost Creek Community Zone will go before the Planning Commission at least one more time for a public hearing before being forwarded to the County Council. The public hearing had not been scheduled as of Tuesday morning.

The post East Side planning commissioners consider working with Browns Canyon developer, if it follows the local process appeared first on Park Record.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission revoked conditional use permits for a recycling facility in Browns Canyon after the enterprise was accused of operating as an illegal landfill.

Planning commissioners granted a conditional use permit to the 44-acre property last fall, greenlighting the landowners’ proposal to install a tree farm and recycling facility on Lower Bowl Road. The neighboring landowner has since repeatedly complained about the property, leading the county to initiate an investigation into its operations earlier this year.

Officials then discovered the owners violated numerous stipulations outlined in the approval, according to a 55-page staff report submitted to the Planning Commission.

For example, the permit prohibited anyone from dumping, delivering or storing snow on the land. But commissioners saw a photo of a truck supposedly delivering snow to the property as recently as March. 

The property was also pitched as a tree farm, but county planner Amir Caus said no trees have been planted despite commissioners issuing a conditional use permit allowing wholesale tree farm operations in October.

Caus also showed commissioners aerial views of the property, including one photo with 14 highlighted violations.

“What we’re afraid of is that this has become an open-air landfill,” Caus said. “Dirt is being taken in, all kinds of other materials, including asphalt and concrete that they have buried, and there is garbage on the neighbor’s property.”

County officials also discovered fecal matter on the property, Caus said.

The property violated other county ordinances unrelated to the permit as well, including the operation of a nightly rental without a business license.

“The applicant has confirmed through and through that they’re either unwilling or incapable of adhering to the conditional use permit and the conditions within that, so our recommendation is that there are reasonable grounds for revocation,” Caus said.

The county notified the landowners of its intent to potentially revoke the conditional use permit earlier this month. However, the landowners told commissioners during the hearing last week that they didn’t think the county had properly noticed the meeting.

Instead, they asked the Planning Commission to delay a final decision on the revocation to allow enough time to rectify the violations on the property and prove compliance with county code.

The landowners also alleged the complaints are coming from a neighbor who is a competitor in the industry and may be “misconstruing” information.

Planning commissioners repeatedly asked the landowners if they could speak to the violations outlined in the staff report.

But Jared Clayton, who owns the property with his wife, Kristen, said he was unaware of any illegal dumping on the land. He also said he was working to switch operators of the facility because of the county’s concerns, but the Planning Commission pointed out his suggested operator — Wind River Excavation — does not engage in tree farming.

Planning Commissioner Bill Wilde said he personally visited the property the same week as the meeting, and an employee told him they would take “anything” he brought as long as he paid the fees.

“I challenge you to go there. The smell is just like driving through the Wanship landfill,” Wilde said. “You look at what landfills have to go through daily, recordings with the county. It’s just unbelievable what they have to go through to operate a landfill. This isn’t doing that.”

Wilde added he was concerned about the property when the conditional use permit was issued last year, and he told his fellow commissioners he was ready to revoke the permit based solely on the information and photos included in the staff report.

“Anybody can say that they didn’t know this was going on and that they’re trying to work with the county. It’s irrelevant, in my opinion,” Wilde said. “It’s amazing to me that the applicant brings a lawyer to argue notice. The issue is, is there an issue there? That’s not even arguable. It’s beyond an issue. It should be shut down tomorrow.”

Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan clarified the revocation process does not necessarily include a chance for the landowners to rectify any violations. Specifically, she said the permit already detailed the requirements a property owner needs to follow, and failing to comply with the conditional use permit is enough to repeal it.

“The site doesn’t remotely look like what was approved. That’s the issue that we have over here,” Caus added. “Typically, notices of violation are for something small. … This is so far beyond a notice of violation that we had to take this action.”

Commissioners additionally questioned the Claytons on their truthfulness throughout the hearing, inquiring about their ability to turn a blind eye to the alleged violations, considering they own the property and the application is in their name.

Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson also expressed his frustration with the landowners, saying he thought it was outlandish for them to ask for more time to investigate since the issues have been ongoing for months and amount to a “laundry list with 55 pages of violations.”

The Claytons agreed there was an enormous list of allegations and said they wanted an opportunity to digest it all. Still, Peterson was not convinced.

“My response is you’ve had 10 months to digest it. You’ve had 10 months with this property,” Peterson said.

The Planning Commission unanimously voted to revoke the conditional use permit. The landowners can appeal the decision to the Summit County Council within 10 days of the decision, but they did not indicate during the meeting whether they intended to pursue an appeal.

The post Planning Commission revokes recycling facility’s permit after staff report details alleged landfill operations appeared first on Park Record.