There are a couple of political storms raging in east Weber County, each of which we've mentioned briefly within the past week. We referred to the Ogden Valley Property Tax Revolt in our WCF article on Sunday, and to the Powder Mountain rezoning proposal in yesterday's WCF article.
The Salt Lake Tribune has an article today updating the latter story, wherein Kristen Moulton reports that the rezoning proposal, which was tabled by the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission on Tuesday, is set for further discussion this evening. We incorporate Ms. Moulton's pertinent paragraphs below:
OGDEN - Powder Mountain's new owners, who want to transform it into a world-class resort, will have to wait a few more weeks to learn if planning commissioners will back their effort to rezone 4,400 mountaintop acres.While this is a story that hasn't been discussed in any great depth on Weber County Forum, we are certain that at least a few of our readers may have some sympathy with our neighbors to the east, who are seemingly having this project shoved down their throats. Moreover, we're sure that at least some of our readers, who ski and snowboard at the currently user friendly Powder Mountain Area, will believe they have a stake in this matter.
After more than four hours of testimony - most of it from Ogden Valley residents opposed to the rezoning - the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission tabled the proposal Tuesday night.
The panel will reconsider it today. ...
Opponents of the rezoning raised a host of issues, including the steep grade of Powder Mountain's only paved access road and whether Ogden Valley wants a mountaintop golf-and-ski community that could affect watersheds, wildlife habitat and traffic congestion.
For more information on the key issues, we provide a link to a great east county blog, Ogden Valley Utah Forum, where interested readers can find detailed information about the issues in dispute.
As a convenience to interested readers we also link here the full text of the subject re-zoning proposal.
And for those readers who may have reticence about meddling in the affairs of our neighboring communities, we'll note that it's a little late for that, inasmuch as one of our own "development at all costs" Ogden characters has already been meddling full steam, through the merciless use of his infamous multi-colored/multi-fonted email spam, to tip the balance of political power in favor of the resort developers.
Tonight's planning commission session is scheduled for 5:00 p.m. in the Weber County Commission Chambers, 2380 Washington Blvd., Ogden. We hope some of our interested readers will plan to attend. And for those WCForum denizens who may be unable to be there, we provide an email link to Scott Mendoza of the Weber County planning staff: smendoza@co.weber.ut.us
Update 11/30/07 7:55 a.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner has a story about the results of last night's Ogden Valley Planning Commission meeting, in which Marshall Thompson reports that the commissioners have laid out a list of conditions precedent to the grant on commission approval. Among these would be the construction by the developer of a second access road. There appear to be two options which have been considered by the developer, either of which could be a deal-breaker. A road to the east of the development (which is apparently subject to an existing right of way) would cross an existing conservation easement, which would invite litigation from adjoining property owners. A road to the north into Cache County has been all but ruled out by Cache County officials, due to strong opposition from Cache County citizens.
A second reported condition, a required "buffer zone" between resort residential properties and the resort boundary (adjacent to state wildlife and federal lands) may raise a conflict of interest with one of the commissioners, Jamie Lythgoe, a grand-daughter of the original grantor (the Cobabe family), who retains a property interest in a 215 acre parcel which is apparently situated within the buffer zone. Although Ms. Lythgoe evidently went to significant lengths to ensure that no conflict of interest existed with respect to the resort property, the existence of her interest in the buffer zone property again raises the question of whether Ms. Lythgoe should be recused from the planning process with respect to this proposed development.
The matter has been reportedly continued for further hearing on December 10; and the commission will consider additional citizen input up to 10:00 a.m. next Tuesday.
