OCR Text |
Show Basin plan approved, though I still beset by arguments by Rick Brough The Summit County Commission approved a Master Plan for the Snyderville Basin on Wednesday, March 13. But questions and objections were voiced right up to the moment of approval of the plan and its new permit system. Commissioners Cliff Blonquist and Tom Flinders voted to approve the plan, subject to the county attorney reviewing an allegedly ambiguous Section, 1.3, which explains how the Master Plan relates to the old development code. (The older regulations still apply to the county areas outside the Snyderville Basin. ) The commissioners also read in seven amendments to the final draft of the Basin Plan. Commissioner Stan Leavitt was absent. i ,Most discussion centered around Repeal section 1.3 which said that, upon the passage of the Basin Plan, f other county regulations, including the old development code, were repealed "to the extent of their inconsistency with this Code". Attorney Steve Clyde said the old code should be flatly repealed. Otherwise, he said, there will be many instances where builders will argue their projects can fall under part of the old code. "You'll end up with lawsuits about whether a provision is inconsistent, " he said. If the county discovers it wants to retain an ordinance from the old code, he said, it can be added to the Basin Plan. The old code could only apply, he said, to projects that are not yet complete, but were approved by the county under the old ordinances. This process, known as "grandfathering," "grand-fathering," was the subject of another criticism. The Repeal ordinances says a previously-approved previously-approved project has two choices. It can be built under the old code ("grandfathered") or , developers could choose to build it under the new permit system. However, the project must exclusively follow one code or the other. ParkWest developer Jack Roberts said it was wrong he had to choose between one code or the other. "I would like to go with the permit system, but I don't want to abandon what I've been building for the last eight years." In response, County Planning Director Jerry Smith said "a nightmare" would result if developers deve-lopers built parts of their projects by the old code and part by the new Basin Plan. Other discussion concerned these sections of the Basin permit system: A section of the plan concerning variances to the code stated, "The Board of Adjustment shall not grant a variance in any case where the property can be developed for a use not requiring a variance...." Jack Roberts and attorney Dennis 'Astill said this would prevent a developer from ever getting a . variance. Roberts said, "There's always another use for the property (without a variance)." The language was deleted. The Basin Plan requires a builder to hold meetings with neighboring residents and owners near his proposed project. Astill said the idea is not objectionable, but the plan "requires compatibility" and delays the approval process. The provision was not changed. Planner Smith said, "If we eliminate input, where are we?" The Plan stipulates a commercial commer-cial or industrial site can cover up to 65 percent of its land area. By following a set of Relative policies (encouraged, but not required rules) the developer can gain points which will allow him up to 85 percent of coverage. Bruce Erickson, an engineer with J.J. Johnson firm, suggested the coverage, without points, should be raised to 70 percent. Jack Roberts also supported a base coverage above 65 percent. This provision was not changed, however. At this writing, the only loose thread in the Basin Plan is the ambiguous Repeal provision. Planning Plan-ning Director Smith said his department and the county attorney were working on the ordinance. It is also being reviewed against state law. |