OCR Text |
Show Building Above 5250 Relative to building above the 5250' level, you are entitled en-titled to know the following if you don't already. ABOUT 80 or 90 percent of the foothills east of Bountiful are Forest Service lands. No development is likely thereon. The fringe acreage between the 5250' level and the Forest Lands is privately owned. The Fifth Bill of Rights of our Constitution reads: "...NOR SHALL private property be taken for public use without just compensation." compensa-tion." There are four alternative alterna-tive actions which might be taken.: (1) Prohibit building, regardless of the Constitution, Constitu-tion, (2) Exercise eminent dor ain, condemn the property, have it fairly and objectively appraised, float a bond to have the City of Bountiful purchase it, and increase the taxes of Bountiful Boun-tiful citizens very considerably considera-bly to retire the bond. This would provide "just compensation." compen-sation." (3) DE-ANNEX THE private properties, and let the developers forage for their own services, not entitling themselves to Bountiful Police, fire, water, sewer, etc. (4) Enact a Mountain Lands Zoning Ordinance that would allow reasonable but restrictive restric-tive development. To prohibit building, without just compensation, is to despotically steal it. To unreasonably restrict or delay building is just another way of depriving citizens of their property rights. THE WILLINGNESS of the majority of our citizens to have their taxes increased enough to purchase the property, in the present high taxes climate, is unthinkable. To de-annex is very costly to the developers and would still not likely prohibit liberal building under county ordinances, or-dinances, which would therefore still frustrate the so called environmentalists. TO ENACT a City Zoning Ordinance that would be reasonably restrictive, and have developments enthusiastically blend into foothills decor would be cons-- cons-- titutional and in my opinion, under the circumstances, would be the best alternative. Summit Park in Parleys Canyon is a case in point. It is beautiful. For the past two years, every facet of foothills development has been discussed dis-cussed and rediscussed by the Bountiful City Staff and Council, including geology, water run-off storm and regular sewer adequacy, roads, police, fire, garbage, gas, snow removal, power, and extra costs which these city services would entail for the areas, and Maple Hills have expressed a willingness to meet in ratio any special tax assessments necessitated by their development and use of the services. ON SEPT. 3, 1975, Councilman Council-man Dean Stahle discussed in detail a list of iums which "pertained mostly to what would be necessary to preserve and enhance the natural na-tural beauty of the areas, and provide better control of growth, etc." Following Councilman Stahle's items, at that same council meeting, I made a motion "THAT AN ordinance be prepared by Layne Forbes, city attorney, and be presented present-ed to the Planning Commission Commis-sion for consideration, which would allow construction of some homes east of Bonneville Drive and would privide, preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the areas -and provide for controlled orderly growth." The motion was seconded by Councilman Stahle, but the motion was defeated by Councilwoman Southwick, and Councilmen Perkins and Toiman. There are honest differences of opinion on the council. Those opposing, if I read them correctly, want to have no ordinance prepared until there are guidelines arising out of a City Master Plan and Mountain Land Study. A MASTER plan is merely ' a set of recommendations predicated on facts. Master Plans do not have a corner on facts, nor do studies. There is nothing sacred' about a Master Plan, no mater how much it costs. There is no substitute for sound judgement, Master Plans and Studies to the contrary con-trary not withstanding. Sound judgement will consider all the facts, but may not accept Master Plan and Study recommendations. IN MY opinion, there will be no essential facts arise out of either Master Plans or Mountain Studies regarding development above the 5,250' level that have not already been discussed, and some of them many times. In my opinion: Maple Hills was premature when in the Sept. 3 Council Meeting they tried to interject a council approval to allow them to proceed immediately to. do. some developing before ah appropriate ordinance was prepared. THE THREE negative voting vot-ing council members were very unwise in not allowing the city attorney to proceed to draft an appropriate Mountain Moun-tain Lands Zonging Ordinance; Or-dinance; Maple Hills under the circumstances were not premature in bringing a writ of mandamus suit against the city due to the council's procrastination in directing that an appropriate ordinance be prepared. Had the city council approved my motion, a zoning ordinance could have been prepared that would have contained every reasonable restriction that any subsequent sub-sequent ordinance will contain, con-tain, but in addition, seeing the ordinance preparation machinery in motion, Maple Hills would not have found it necessary to sue the city to protect their Constitutional rights, and the Bonneville Drive entrance to the golf course through Maple Hills definitely would have been completed before the shut, down of the asphalt plants. THE LITIGATION on dela; means that revenues from the golf course next spring may not be what they could have been, had there not been a negative vote of the council on my motion. Maple Hills have demonstrated unusual willingness to cooperate with the city council and staff. The council, on the other hand, in my opinion, under the claok of ferreting out more facts, has acted both unethically and unconstitutionally. I doubt sincerely that my Master Plan or Study will produce more essential facts than could have been ascertained ascer-tained by Attorney Forbes, our Bountiful City Staff, and other experts whose opinons they could have solicited. Councilman Sterling E. Beesley |