OCR Text |
Show Concerned Citizens for a Clean Summit County Order Attorney To Seek Injunction Against Chevron (Ed note: The following article was submitted by Concerned Con-cerned Citizens for a Clean Summit County. It is published as a public service to the organization. or-ganization. The article as originally submitted did contain con-tain the affidavit of Don Pres-cott, Pres-cott, alternate member of the Park City Planning Commis sion. This affidavit appears in its entirety on Page 5 of this week's issue in an editorial and it is not republished twice due to limitations of space.) Concerned Citizens for a Clean Summit County (CCCSC) enthusiastically opened its regular reg-ular Wednesday night meeting on Nov. 8 with the exciting news that the UJ3. Circuit Court of Appeals at Washington, D.C. had upheld a previous Federal District Court decision that downgrading of clean air would not be tolerated even though the downgraded air complied (Continued on Page Six) that when desecrations of the law were built that they would be such eyesores that the townspeople towns-people would be up in arms and would hopefully thereafter volubly support and insist that the Planning Commission uphold up-hold the law and require Greater Great-er Park City in future to present pre-sent only building plans which would meet the standards and requirements of our ordinance, so that the Planning Commission Commis-sion would not in future be exposed ex-posed to coercive threats such as were made by Greater Park City Company representatives at the Oct. 26 meeting. Dated November 9, 1972. CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR A CLEAN SUMMIT COUNTY By Charles R. Lehmer Duly authorized member Citizens (Continued from Page One) with existing Environmental Protection Agency minimum air pollution standards. Unless an appeal is lodged from such decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals will be recognized as the existing exist-ing standard of law to be applied by courts considering pollution issues. With this stunning decision supporting them, CCCSC has instructed in-structed its legal counsel, Mr. Kurt Oberhansly, to institute a suit against Chevron Pipeline Co. to obtain an injunction against their proceeding with the building of the heating plant at Kimball Junction. The heating heat-ing plant, to be fired by crude , oil, will significantly downgrade the clean air of SummitCounty, although such deterioration is represented by Chevron as being within existing air pollution pollu-tion standards. The Committee then went to the matter of the Conditional Use Permit granted to Greater Park City Co. for the erection of 42 Homestake condominiums referred to around town as the "Montana banana cars, to be erected as a Planned Unit Development Dev-elopment on 4.5 acres of land between Park Avenue and Anderson Lumber. The members were unanimously un-animously against the ugly appearance ap-pearance of the modular prefabricated pre-fabricated units to be erected, a number of which have been shipped in from Montana and can be viewed on the east side of lower Park Avenue. The committee com-mittee agreed to take all means necessary to stop construction, as the Company is apparently oblivious to or unconcerned with the despoliation of Park City it is perpetrating. The Committee was disturbed also that Greater Park City Co. had turned a deaf ear to appeals for financial support of the Committee in its efforts to halt pollution of the clean air which is the lifeblood of the Company's investment and enterprises in Park City. The citizens were upset that their efforts to fight pollution are being defeated by the lack of ' foresight of the Company and of the City's governing bodies in permitting new buildings to go in a direction destined to destroy des-troy the unique charm and flavor of Park City. CCCSC voted to file an appeal to the Park City Council, asking the Council to invoke its power to overrule the Planning Commission's Com-mission's 2-1 decision granting the application to build the 42 units. The Committee viewed it , as significant that one member of the Planning Commission employed by the Company abstained ab-stained from coming to the meeting where the application was to be considered, that member mem-ber Jeanne Gee abstained from voting, and that Don Prescott, one of the two members voting to grant the application, did so only as a means of bringing forcibly to the community's attention at-tention the unfortunate direction in which the Company is pointing point-ing Park City by misrepresentations misrepresent-ations made to the Planning Commission in the past and by threats to move out into the county if the present application was not granted. Following is the appeal lodged by CCCSC, which contains the affidavit of Don Prescott that he cast his vote as a means of exhibiting ex-hibiting his disapproval of the project which he felt did not comply with the City's laws covering the project. " APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE PARK CITY COUNCIL OR BOARD OF REVIEW: Under and pursuant to Sec. 67-16-7 of the Zoning Code of Park City, Utah, the undersigned under-signed individual and for and on behalf of the CONCERNED CITIZENS CIT-IZENS FOR A CLEAN SUMMIT COUNTY hereby appeals the 2-1 decision of the Park City Planning Plan-ning Commission of Oct. 26, 1972, granting the Conditional Use Permit Application of Greater Park City Co. for 42 Homestake Condominiums on Highway 248 between Park Avenue Ave-nue and Anderson Lumber. At a regular meeting of the CCCSC duly held Nov. 8, 1972, said Committee unanimously voted to file and support an appeal from such decision and to inform the City Council, by such appeal, that CCCSC favors the City Council denying such application to thus forbid the erection of such condominiums, which are unsightly, unattractive unattrac-tive and not in keeping with the goals and policies of the Master Plan of Park City in preserving preserv-ing the mining flavor of Park City, as required by said Zoning Zon-ing Code law; that said laws may have unfortunately been breached in the past, but it is the sworn duty of the City Council Coun-cil to uphold its laws. The Planning Commission's 2-1 decision in approving said application is in error, in that the consensus of the Planning Commission and Mr.GeneCarr of APA at the previous Oct. 12, 1972, meeting which originally rejected the application for a number of reasons, was that the proposed buildings were unsightly un-sightly and did not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 67-17-4 (2) (a): "The architectural design de-sign of buildings and their relationship re-lationship on the site and to development abuttingthe boundaries bound-aries in terms of the determined character of the community and the historical tradition of the city that has been agreed upon to be preserved". Further, that the Planning Commission, in its 2-1 decision approving the application, which by two people only will bind the entire city, acted in violation of Sec. 67-16-6 of the Zoning Code by failing to impose conditions con-ditions to assure that the proposal: pro-posal: 67-16-6 (1) Complies with the approved character of the com- munity to be preserved, and (2) Is in harmony with and furthers the architectural and aesthetic qualities of the community com-munity to be achieved, and (3) By reason of its physical design partakes of the historical tradition of the City that has been agreed to be preserved. Appellants are reliably informed in-formed and therefor believe and allege that one of the two members mem-bers who cast a vote approving the granting of the application felt that the proposed buildings were definitely not in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic aes-thetic qualities of the community com-munity to be achieved and did not partake of the historical tradition of the city to be preserved, pre-served, as required by law, and said member did in fact cast his vote solely in the hope |