| OCR Text |
Show lor the common good. We hope that in future matters if members of governing bodies and commissions do not honestly feel they can support a proposal, they will so state and if necessary give their reasons regardless of threats or pressures. To do anything else just doesn't seem right. RJ). McC. Maybe It's All for Common Good; Maybe It's an Incredible Action It seems nothing worthwhile ever gets accomplished without effort. During the past several years Park City has been growing at a rapid rate. Thousands, if not millions, of dollars have been spent in promoting the venerable old mining area into a tourist mecca based on skiing, but even now as a year round fun spot. To meet the stresses and strains caused by large building projects, remodeling of existing structures, annexations of new lands for development, etc. calls for intelligent, logical, sound decisions not only by the developers but even more so by the duly elected and appointed representatives of the general public who pay the taxes, hold the jobs, own the businesses and have a real stake in how the town shapes up. Oct. 26, 1972 found members of Greater Park City Co. seeking seek-ing a Conditional Use Permit from the Park City Planning Commission Com-mission for construction of a Homestake Condominium project to be located on a 4.5 acre tract along Highway 248 between Park Avenue and Anderson Lumber Co. The Planning Commission members at the meeting voted two to one to approve the applications of Greater Park City. According to the City Code a fourteen day appeal period does exist between the time a Conditional Use Permit is authorized auth-orized by the Planning Commission for an appeal of the Commission's Com-mission's decision. In the case of the Homestake project such an appeal has been made for and on behalf of the Concerned Citizens for a Clean Summit County. The appeal is signed by Charles R. Lehmer, Leh-mer, a duly authorized member of the Concerned Citizens group. So far, so good. Attached to the appeal is an affidavit signed by Don Pres-cott. Pres-cott. Mr. Prescott is an alternate member of the Park City Planning Plan-ning Commission. At the Oct. 26, 1972 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Prescott was one of the two who voted "yes" on issuing a "Conditional "Con-ditional Use Permit" to Greater Park City Co. for the construction construc-tion of the Homestake Condoniinums. Nov. 9, 1972, Mr. Prescott signed an affidavit in the presence of notary public Mary Condas Lehmer stating: AFFIDAVIT STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DON PRESCOTT, being first sworn, says that I am a member of the Planning Commission of Park City who voted at the Oct. 26, 1972, meeting to grant the application of Greater Park City Co. for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 42 Homestake Condominiums on Highway 248. That I did not feel that the granting of said application satisfied the requirement of Sec. 67-16-5 (2) of the Zoning Code: "That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case and the conditions imposed, be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons nor injurious to property or improvements in the community", since I had grave doubts that the granting of this application might seriously impair the rights of owners of other building lots in Park City to build in the future, in view of the present overloading problem of the city's sewer treatment plant and possible future water shortage. I likewise felt that the buildings were not compatible with the requirements of our law; that they were definitely not compatible with the character of the community we are attempting to and are required to preserve. I cast my vote approving the application solely to awake the community to the unfortunate and detrimental direction we are permitting the City to take by apathetically condoning the erection of such unattractive and uncongenial buildings. DON PRESCOTT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of Nov. 1972. Mary Condas Lehmer NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) exp. 122872. To awaken the community to an unfortunate and detrimental direction; to try and defeat apathy; to prevent the construction of unattractive and uncongenial buildings are fine and good objectives. ob-jectives. We cannot agree with Mr. Prescott on how he set about to accomplish his objective. It is our opinion that for a duly appointed ap-pointed member of a branch of city government, or government govern-ment at any level for that matter, to sit in open session and cast a "yes" vote solely to seek to bring about the defeat of the very proposal voted for is an incredible act. A "no" vote with the reasons fully stated for casting that "no" vote would have meaning and purpose. To vote "yes" and then to sign an affidavit stating that even at the time the vote was cast that grave reservations existed for approval and to further stipulate that at the time a feeling existed that the buildings proposed were not compatible with the requirements of the law; that they were definitely not compatible with the character of the community, we are to and are required to preserve in the mind of the person casting the vote is almost unbelieveable. "We don't know all the answers, but we can try to be kind," this famous statement once made in an editorial might well be applied to the present situation. We trust in some mysterious way Mr. Prescott was working |
