A series of emails I sent to Robert Ranc who works for the City of Lehi
From: William Conley [mailto:billhytek@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:59 PM
To: Robert Ranc; Jason Walker
Subject: RE: Chapter 28 resort community code
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:59 PM
To: Robert Ranc; Jason Walker
Subject: RE: Chapter 28 resort community code
Thanks for the point of clarification. It seems as though words matter or you would not have pointed out a specific word. If words matter, than so do the words metes and bounds. You seem to believe the term plat is superior to the term metes and bounds and therefore the city will accept a plat over a metes and bound description. If words matter than the city MUST follow what is written and what is written is not plat, but metes and bounds language. You, I and no one else gets to determine that a plat is superior to metes and bounds. If you are going to suggest the word "are" is relevant, well then, so are the words, "metes and bounds". You can't simply pick and choose what you will and will not enforce.
You seem to suggest that a plat is superior to the term metes and bounds. Maybe you could show me anywhere within Lehi City code that the term plat is superior to the term metes and bounds and that the City as an official statement accepts a plat description in place of a metes and bounds description, please provide me the relevant code or statute that specifies this.
This must be corrected at the county, you can't just be happy to accept a plat description in place of a metes and bounds, the code specifies a metes and bounds description and specifically states it cannot be a plat. "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL BE divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a plat." What is so difficult to understand about this language. You don't get to choose or be happy, you must follow the code as it is written. You commented on the relevance of a single word "are", now you must follow the code, there is nothing to misinterpret, language as written MUST be followed.
I requested that you provide me with a document that was prepared by the mayor or city council granting the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official with the authority to sign legal documents on behalf of the legislative body (city council). The code says "The Chief Building Official and Public Works Director "are" designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council to approve and sign the final documents." I would like to see any documents created by either the City Council or may granting them this authority. I would like to know if there are no such documents. I would also like to know if there is anywhere else in any Chapter within the City Code that grants the authority for the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director to sign minor lot subdivisions on behalf of the City Council or is the only place this shows up in the City code?
Lastly, could you testify that there will not be any requirement for the construction of any public improvement or the dedication of any public right away. The language in the code specifically states the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director can sign as having authority, if the subdivision includes less than ten lots and the subdivision does not require the construction of any public improvements or the dedication of any public right of way. Are you or anyone at the city willing to sign a document clearly stating that there is and will never be any requirement for the construction of any public improvement?
Did you know Todd Munger NEVER attended a reported or recorded meeting to discuss the Family Search subdivision, yet he put his signature on the documents recorded by the county. How did the city allow Todd Munger to sign off on a subdivision that he was never at a meeting to discuss? All I can say is WOW. There was no City Council or Planning Commission discussion and one of the two people who signed off on the subdivision was never even in a recorded meeting (there was only one) to discuss the proposed subdivision. Who told him to sign the document and who gave him the information about the new subdivision. I can't imagine Mr. Munger signed something he knew nothing about, maybe he did, although that would be incredibly irresponsible of him.
Please fix the situation at the County. According to Chapter 28, this cannot be recorded as a plat, it MUST be recorded as metes and bounds.
Bill Conley
From: William Conley [mailto:billhytek@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:02 PM
To: Robert Ranc; Ryan Wood
Subject: Chapter 28 resort community code
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:02 PM
To: Robert Ranc; Ryan Wood
Subject: Chapter 28 resort community code
Robert
Another question for you.
In chapter 28 of the Lehi resort community code, page 28-4 section 28.060 - Development Approvals and Permits in A.1 there is a sentence that is causing me some confusion. It states that the Chief Building Official and the Public Works Director have the authority to sign on behalf of the City Council "if they are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final document (s).
Is there any kind of document you could send me that states that the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director have been given this authority and have the right to sign on behalf of the City Council and then provide me with examples where this has been the case. I would like to see the document authorizes them to sign on behalf of the City Council.
Secondly, in that same section it states, "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL be divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a PLAT." I have contacted the Utah Recorders office and the Family Search subdivision is recorded as a PLAT, not by metes and bounds as outlined in the resort code. I would like an explanation as to why the code as written above was not followed.
I will be sharing your response to the hundreds of those Lehi residents who are outraged by the proposed destruction of the Thanksgiving Point driving range to put up two massive office buildings.
Thank you
Bill Conley
Another question for you.
In chapter 28 of the Lehi resort community code, page 28-4 section 28.060 - Development Approvals and Permits in A.1 there is a sentence that is causing me some confusion. It states that the Chief Building Official and the Public Works Director have the authority to sign on behalf of the City Council "if they are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final document (s).
Is there any kind of document you could send me that states that the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director have been given this authority and have the right to sign on behalf of the City Council and then provide me with examples where this has been the case. I would like to see the document authorizes them to sign on behalf of the City Council.
Secondly, in that same section it states, "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL be divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a PLAT." I have contacted the Utah Recorders office and the Family Search subdivision is recorded as a PLAT, not by metes and bounds as outlined in the resort code. I would like an explanation as to why the code as written above was not followed.
I will be sharing your response to the hundreds of those Lehi residents who are outraged by the proposed destruction of the Thanksgiving Point driving range to put up two massive office buildings.
Thank you
Bill Conley
To:
Robert Ranc
<rranc@lehi-ut.gov>;
jwalker@lehi-ut.gov;
...
Wed 8/19/2015 1:15 PM
Robert
Thank you for pointing that out, it is an important distinction. This is ONLY relevant for Chapter 28 or are the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director designated as having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign final documents elsewhere? If so, where and I requested some type of document identifying them as having been given authority, does one exist? Or is it ONLY in the language you referenced?
The designation of a plat versus metes and bounds needs to be corrected at the County! The code says metes and bounds, not plat.
As for other enforcement examples.
Check out Chapter 2.14, Campaign Finance Disclosure REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES, 2.14.030 "Each candidate for elective offices shall file with the city recorder, dated, signed and sworn financial reports which comply with this chapter. The reports required by this chapter shall be filed at least 14 days before BOTH THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS..."
This was not adhered to and nobody seems to care! This was handed out by either the city attorney, mayor or city recorder at a meet the mayor night, this MUST be adhered to, otherwise, why hand it out? Not everyone handed their financial disclosures in on time. Marilyn even sent out an email requesting we hand out disclosures in by July 28th, 5 pm, 14 days prior to the primary. If we were not required to hand one in at all, why did she send out the email. I still contend, Kim Holmes is disqualified from running in the November ballot and I have contacted the Lieutenants Governor's office for a ruling. However, I think the city of Lehi needs to step up and adhere to the code as it is written! I know mistakes were made and I want them corrected.
Chapter 28 Resort Community Zone
Several enforcement issues and problems that nobody seems to care about and are not enforced by current city government. I will point out a couple relevant sections and words within these sections.
Section 28.010
C. "Outside the state"
D. "While protecting the health, safety and long term welfare of the community." This phrase is used by multiple departments, BUT NEVER SUBSTANTIATED! In the future, I request that that those who use these words, substantial their position in writing. Words are just words and mean nothing if there is nothing backing them. This phrase is never questioned and should be.
F. "dedicating land or utilizing certain space within the Resort Community Zone at no cost to the city." This certainly has not happened. When is the city going to start enforcing their own code?
Section 07.050 Public support REQUIREMENTS
A-D, not happening! When is this going to be enforced?
These are but a few of the codes that I believe enforcement by the city is lacking and there is no consequence to those breaking or enforcing the code.
Thanks
Bill Conley
Thank you for pointing that out, it is an important distinction. This is ONLY relevant for Chapter 28 or are the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director designated as having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign final documents elsewhere? If so, where and I requested some type of document identifying them as having been given authority, does one exist? Or is it ONLY in the language you referenced?
The designation of a plat versus metes and bounds needs to be corrected at the County! The code says metes and bounds, not plat.
As for other enforcement examples.
Check out Chapter 2.14, Campaign Finance Disclosure REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES, 2.14.030 "Each candidate for elective offices shall file with the city recorder, dated, signed and sworn financial reports which comply with this chapter. The reports required by this chapter shall be filed at least 14 days before BOTH THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS..."
This was not adhered to and nobody seems to care! This was handed out by either the city attorney, mayor or city recorder at a meet the mayor night, this MUST be adhered to, otherwise, why hand it out? Not everyone handed their financial disclosures in on time. Marilyn even sent out an email requesting we hand out disclosures in by July 28th, 5 pm, 14 days prior to the primary. If we were not required to hand one in at all, why did she send out the email. I still contend, Kim Holmes is disqualified from running in the November ballot and I have contacted the Lieutenants Governor's office for a ruling. However, I think the city of Lehi needs to step up and adhere to the code as it is written! I know mistakes were made and I want them corrected.
Chapter 28 Resort Community Zone
Several enforcement issues and problems that nobody seems to care about and are not enforced by current city government. I will point out a couple relevant sections and words within these sections.
Section 28.010
C. "Outside the state"
D. "While protecting the health, safety and long term welfare of the community." This phrase is used by multiple departments, BUT NEVER SUBSTANTIATED! In the future, I request that that those who use these words, substantial their position in writing. Words are just words and mean nothing if there is nothing backing them. This phrase is never questioned and should be.
F. "dedicating land or utilizing certain space within the Resort Community Zone at no cost to the city." This certainly has not happened. When is the city going to start enforcing their own code?
Section 07.050 Public support REQUIREMENTS
A-D, not happening! When is this going to be enforced?
These are but a few of the codes that I believe enforcement by the city is lacking and there is no consequence to those breaking or enforcing the code.
Thanks
Bill Conley
Robert Ranc <rranc@lehi-ut.gov>;
...
Wed 8/19/2015 12:15 PM
Robert
Can you verify Todd
Munger signature on the Family Search plat? I would like to see a copy of his
signature.
Secondly, it does not
matter that the city believes a plat is more comprehensive than meets and
bounds, the code clearly states, the recording documents are to be meters and
bounds, NOT A PLAT!
I have found numerous
examples where the city us not following its own code, this is just one very
clear example. This needs to be corrected. The city can't pick and choose which
of its codes it enforces, they must live to the letter of the law as they, the
city has defined it. Read Chapter 28 of the resort community code, there are
numerous examples where the city is not enforced the code as it is written.
Can't pick and choose.
Bill Conley
This is a letter sent to DRC
To:
wberry@lehi-ut.gov;
lbarnes@lehi-ut.gov;
kevans@lehi-ut.gov;
bthomas@lehi-ut.gov;
mhowell@lehi-ut.gov;
tmunger@lehi-ut.gov;
cbarratt@lehi-ut.gov;
...
Tue 8/18/2015 7:42 AM
Hello Gentlemen,
As you are well aware, many residents that live near the
Thanksgiving Point golf course oppose the controversial plans of the
LDS Church/VCBO Architecture to demolish the driving range and
replace it with a massive office building. As a member of the Development
Review Committee, you are each instrumental in providing critical information
to the Planning Commission. Therefore, I am requesting that each of
you reveal your personal relationship with the LDS Church so that there are no
questions regarding potential conflict of interest. Specifically, are you
a member of the LDS Church, do you attend services on a regular basis,
and do you hold a current temple recommend. Revealing this
information is actually a requirement in the Ethics section of the Utah
League of Cities and Towns, Powers and Duties Handbook (pages 43-47). It
states:
1) There is a disclosure requirement of the ethics law as well. Two types of disclosure may be required - written and oral. An officer or employee is required to make a disclosure in writing and file it with the mayor.
2) This written statement must be sworn and include certain minimal information about the conflict of interest.
3) The second required disclosure is oral and must be made in an open meeting to the members of the body of which he is a member immediately before the discussion about the topic involved in the conflict of interest. An appointed officer who is not a member of a public body or municipal employee must also disclose the information required to his or her immediate supervisor.
1) There is a disclosure requirement of the ethics law as well. Two types of disclosure may be required - written and oral. An officer or employee is required to make a disclosure in writing and file it with the mayor.
2) This written statement must be sworn and include certain minimal information about the conflict of interest.
3) The second required disclosure is oral and must be made in an open meeting to the members of the body of which he is a member immediately before the discussion about the topic involved in the conflict of interest. An appointed officer who is not a member of a public body or municipal employee must also disclose the information required to his or her immediate supervisor.
If you have already filed a written statement with the
mayor, as is required by point number one, I am requesting a copy.
Second, I also request that any/all discussions you have
regarding the proposed development by the LDS Church/VCBO Architecture
be revealed publicly prior to each meeting in the interest of total
transparency and openness, which is required by point number 3 above.
I look forward to a speedy reply so I can share it with our highly interested community of homeowners and citizens and the media, which is covering this story closely.
Thank you,
Bill Conley
I look forward to a speedy reply so I can share it with our highly interested community of homeowners and citizens and the media, which is covering this story closely.
Thank you,
Bill Conley
Lehi Resident
801 867 7227
Here are a couple of other questions I have for the City Manager, Attorney, City Council and Mayor.
Chapter 28.
Section 07.050 Public support REQUIREMENTS
Read this section very carefully, note the word SHALL THEREFORE. This has not happened and is required, what is the CITY doing about this, why aren't they or why haven't they demanded this from the resort community land owners? I suggest no further development take place until section 07.050 is in compliance. In my opinion, the CITY has overlooked this issue of the code. If you are going to overlook this issue of the code, is it possible you can overlook other issues of the code or not enforce other issues in the code or ignore them or look at them in a matter that is consistent with the outcome you desire?
Section 28.010
C. Capture previously unreachable tax revenue by providing and incentive and attraction for business owners and retail operators FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE to locate in the new destination community of Lehi City. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't FamilySearch a Utah based company. Please know that if you don't enforce the entire Chapter 28 code document, you may not be able to enforce any of it. You can't pick and choose what you want. The code is the code, you MUST follow it to the letter of the law (code).
D. "maintaining a HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP, AND WHILE PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND LONG TERM WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY." There are so many issues surrounding this that an entire book could be written and probably will when it comes to discovery and depositions. Everyone who lives, works, plays and visits the Thanksgiving Point area knows of the concerns of health, safety and welfare. If you allow this to go forward, you cannot in good conscious say that there is not a single health, safety or welfare concern and you are put on notice that the first time any child is injured in any way, the city may be held liable. I as a taxpayer do not want the City on the hook for potential lawsuits and payouts because someone decided they wanted two large office buildings on a DRIVING RANGE. Watch out for this provision, this will probably come back to haunt the City.
E. ENHANCE LOCAL PROPERTY VALUES. I would like to remind you that in order for you to ignore this provision of the code, the residents of all the neighborhoods will want some type of written legal assurance that our property values WILL INCREASE. If are property values decrease, what is our remedy with the City, are you on the hook? I will suggest everyone get an appraisal of their property and hold that for future use. The property value of one home that went through a sale just last week was DECREASED because of the pending concept plan put forth by the Church. The purchaser used the proposed concept plan as leverage to lower their original offer. Here we see evidence that property values may and more than likely decrease in value, not increase as specified in the code. You can't just ignore this, this MUST be visited in your meetings, discussed and you MUST make a determination that the property values will be enhanced. Are you willing to guarantee that by your vote? Who do we hold liable and accountable for the decrease in property values? Please be prepared to explain your position in writing and justify your position that our property values will be enhanced. To date, just with the discussion of the concept plans, property values went down!
F. Support public service entities such as the Police and Fire Department by DEDICATING land or utilizing certain space within the Resort Community Zone at no cost to the City. Has this happened, is there a plan for this to happen, when will this happen and how, by whom. This to my knowledge has not happened and until it does, I recommend you not allow any further development until the resort community is brought into compliance. You can't simply ignore the provisions of the code you do not like and enforce other provisions that are in your best interest. The code is written to protect the developer as well as the citizens of Lehi, one is not exclusive of the other. Who enforces the code and why haven't they enforced these provisions? I believe building and development of the entire resort community be curtailed until the code is enforced to the letter of the law.
When did the city council adopt/approve the Resort Community designation in the Thanksgiving Point area. Please provide me with specific dates of review, public notice, hearing, planning commission review, hearing, City council review, hearing.
Section 28.030 section B
I would like to know the current mix of non resort commercial, business part and resort residential use (exactly) today and with projects that anywhere in the works. Lets make sure we have not exceeded any of the limitations as they are set forth. We need and want to know the exact acreage of the current mix and the exact acreage with ALL development plans currently under construction as well as those that are in some sort the development process. This is a critical calculation and one that must be made before any further development happens in the resort community.
Thank you, that is it for now. Please be reminded, you can't pick and choose areas of the code to enforce and not enforce others. The City is obligated and liable to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and adhere to the code as it is written. I will be sending you further review of the code and show you where the city may be out of line.
Bill Conley
801 867 7227
From: billhytek@hotmail.com
To: rranc@lehi-ut.gov
Subject: RE: Legislative Body Question
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:05:23 -0600
RobertTo: rranc@lehi-ut.gov
Subject: RE: Legislative Body Question
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:05:23 -0600
Here are a couple of other questions I have for the City Manager, Attorney, City Council and Mayor.
Chapter 28.
Section 07.050 Public support REQUIREMENTS
Read this section very carefully, note the word SHALL THEREFORE. This has not happened and is required, what is the CITY doing about this, why aren't they or why haven't they demanded this from the resort community land owners? I suggest no further development take place until section 07.050 is in compliance. In my opinion, the CITY has overlooked this issue of the code. If you are going to overlook this issue of the code, is it possible you can overlook other issues of the code or not enforce other issues in the code or ignore them or look at them in a matter that is consistent with the outcome you desire?
Section 28.010
C. Capture previously unreachable tax revenue by providing and incentive and attraction for business owners and retail operators FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE to locate in the new destination community of Lehi City. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't FamilySearch a Utah based company. Please know that if you don't enforce the entire Chapter 28 code document, you may not be able to enforce any of it. You can't pick and choose what you want. The code is the code, you MUST follow it to the letter of the law (code).
D. "maintaining a HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP, AND WHILE PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND LONG TERM WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY." There are so many issues surrounding this that an entire book could be written and probably will when it comes to discovery and depositions. Everyone who lives, works, plays and visits the Thanksgiving Point area knows of the concerns of health, safety and welfare. If you allow this to go forward, you cannot in good conscious say that there is not a single health, safety or welfare concern and you are put on notice that the first time any child is injured in any way, the city may be held liable. I as a taxpayer do not want the City on the hook for potential lawsuits and payouts because someone decided they wanted two large office buildings on a DRIVING RANGE. Watch out for this provision, this will probably come back to haunt the City.
E. ENHANCE LOCAL PROPERTY VALUES. I would like to remind you that in order for you to ignore this provision of the code, the residents of all the neighborhoods will want some type of written legal assurance that our property values WILL INCREASE. If are property values decrease, what is our remedy with the City, are you on the hook? I will suggest everyone get an appraisal of their property and hold that for future use. The property value of one home that went through a sale just last week was DECREASED because of the pending concept plan put forth by the Church. The purchaser used the proposed concept plan as leverage to lower their original offer. Here we see evidence that property values may and more than likely decrease in value, not increase as specified in the code. You can't just ignore this, this MUST be visited in your meetings, discussed and you MUST make a determination that the property values will be enhanced. Are you willing to guarantee that by your vote? Who do we hold liable and accountable for the decrease in property values? Please be prepared to explain your position in writing and justify your position that our property values will be enhanced. To date, just with the discussion of the concept plans, property values went down!
F. Support public service entities such as the Police and Fire Department by DEDICATING land or utilizing certain space within the Resort Community Zone at no cost to the City. Has this happened, is there a plan for this to happen, when will this happen and how, by whom. This to my knowledge has not happened and until it does, I recommend you not allow any further development until the resort community is brought into compliance. You can't simply ignore the provisions of the code you do not like and enforce other provisions that are in your best interest. The code is written to protect the developer as well as the citizens of Lehi, one is not exclusive of the other. Who enforces the code and why haven't they enforced these provisions? I believe building and development of the entire resort community be curtailed until the code is enforced to the letter of the law.
When did the city council adopt/approve the Resort Community designation in the Thanksgiving Point area. Please provide me with specific dates of review, public notice, hearing, planning commission review, hearing, City council review, hearing.
Section 28.030 section B
I would like to know the current mix of non resort commercial, business part and resort residential use (exactly) today and with projects that anywhere in the works. Lets make sure we have not exceeded any of the limitations as they are set forth. We need and want to know the exact acreage of the current mix and the exact acreage with ALL development plans currently under construction as well as those that are in some sort the development process. This is a critical calculation and one that must be made before any further development happens in the resort community.
Thank you, that is it for now. Please be reminded, you can't pick and choose areas of the code to enforce and not enforce others. The City is obligated and liable to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and adhere to the code as it is written. I will be sending you further review of the code and show you where the city may be out of line.
Bill Conley
To:
janyshq@gmail.com;
rmarshall@brinksgilson.com;
Paige
<paige@paigeforlehi.com>;
steveroll7@gmail.com;
mdbarnes@earthlink.net;
jaredpeterson20@gmail.com;
mwhemmert@gmail.com;
...
Mon 7/27/2015 8:03 AM
Here is a recent letter I sent to the Mayor. I believe you
should receive a copy as well.
Date July 24, 2015
To: Mayor Bert Wilson
From: Bill Conley
Subject: Thanksgiving Point Driving Range/Sale of property to
the LDS Church/Concept plan proposed by the LDS Church.
I was able to attend the meeting put on by the LDS Church
representatives for only a brief time before I needed to leave and attend a
precinct meeting for the candidates running for Lehi City Council. I heard you
say, as well as the LDS Church that as long as the project meets all the code
the law dictates you approve the project, this is an incorrect statement made
by you, the Church and others who have been interviewed by the press. (It
should be noted the LDS Church representatives also mentioned they would seek
every single variance they could on the project, they would need a lot.)
I have had an opportunity to read two different handbooks.
The first is titled, “Handbook for Planning Commissioners and
Land Use Authorities”.
The second is “Utah League of Cities and Towns, Powers and
Duties, a handbook for Utah Municipal Officials”.
Both were put out by the Utah League of Cities and Towns.
As you are abundantly aware, there are many Lehi residents who
oppose (thousands) the development of the Thanksgiving Driving Range by
the LDS Church.
Reading through the two publications, I would like to point out
just a couple of items I read that might be a factor in a decision to approve or
disapprove of the LDS Church decision to build 2 x 120,000 square feet office
buildings on the driving range site.
This is by no means a comprehensive list of thoughts I and many
others have. It is meant to bring your attention to what is written and hopefully
will shed some light on the duty and responsibility of those serving the City
when it comes to making a decision.
First let me begin by saying that you may deny an
application by a developer “If certain SPECIAL CONDITIONS
exist. The special conditions are that the city or town on the
record finds that a COMPELLING, COUNTERVAILING PUBLIC INTEREST would be
jeopardized by approving the application.”
So, just because the law states, “that any applicant is entitled
to approval of his application if it “CONFORMS”, to the local
ordinance”. Does not mean you have to approve the application. There
is another option that is NEVER mentioned to the public or the
press. Yes, State law dictates you approve an application if it
conforms, but it gives those serving the City latitude to deny the
application if there is a finding that a compelling, countervailing
public interest would be jeopardized by approving the application.
I hope in the future City officials and those serving the City
will also state on the record that they CAN deny a application if
compelling, countervailing public interest would be in jeopardy.
I believe the public is being misled by believing the City
has no other alternative but to accept an application (by law) if it meets the City
code criteria. This is simply not true and wrong to publically state this is
the ONLY alternative the City has at its disposal.
The developer is also being misled if they believe that all they
have to do is meet the code criteria as set forth in the City code and may be
able to use this in a potential lawsuit against the city if they hear City
officials on the record state ONLY the alternative that the law requires them
to approve an application if it meets all the City zoning rules and regulations.
Please, on the record, clearly state, there may be a reason to
deny an application as I have outlined above.
I have spoken with a City Council member and Planning Commission
member who both recalled an incident where an application was denied because on
the record it was determined a COMPELLING, COUNTERVAILING PUBLIC INTEREST would
be jeopardized by approving the application. This has happened and
will continue to happen. Not all developments serve the public
interest and the city has a tool to deny an application even if it meets all
code requirements. City officials MUST state
this if they are to make a public comment such was done last night. Let’s not
set the City up for a lawsuit argument on behalf of a litigant who will use
this against the City if their application is denied.
I would like to site two (there are dozens) of what might be
considered compelling, countervailing public interest.
First is traffic. It is a well-known that there are
numerous problems in and around Lehi regarding traffic and it is well-known
that the Thanksgiving Point area is already reaching its maximum capacity. I
believe a proper study of the traffic congestion in and around the Thanksgiving
Point area, Hwy 92 and SR2100 and I15 will show that Lehi is already in the
danger zone when it comes to traffic congestion. This is before we add
additional dozen or more office buildings and add 10's of thousands of new
employees and cars on the already overburdened roads.
Secondly, the health, safety and welfare of Lehi citizens will,
and in my estimation, are already be put in jeopardy as more and more
commercial developments take place in and around the Thanksgiving Point area,
SR2100 and on Hwy 92 headed east towards Micron.
There has been considerable notice given to the City regarding
the safely of the children who attend North Point Elementary. As you
continue to approve project after project in the Thanksgiving Point area and
traffic along residential neighborhoods, the safety of the children must be taken
into consideration. It won’t be long before a child gets hit by a
car rushing down Garden Drive which becomes N 2350 W which connects with W 2150
N and ultimately N 2300 W. There are dozens of homes that line
Garden Drive, N 2350 W and W 2150 N. There is not one
parent that thinks this intersection as it sits today is safe. By
adding, potentially an additional several thousands of cars a day driving these
residential neighborhoods, you increase the chance that a child will be struck
by a car and end up dead.
This area is already a safety concern. Adding more traffic will
only exacerbate the problem.
The second point I would like to bring your attention to is the
language used in the manual put out by the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the
section titled, Basic Legal Issues for Land Use Control. Paragraph one begins,
“The purposes of this chapter are to provide for the HEALTH, SAFETY (there is
that word again) and WELFARE” of its citizens. I know you are keenly
aware of this terminology. A book could be written on this
subject. I believe the City may be subject to a lawsuit by those who
believe the City ignores this provision in the handbook. I don’t think I have
to remind you, but I will, the citizens of Lehi are concerned with safety in
regards to the ever increasing traffic. Air, noise and light
pollution is a health concern and the welfare of many of the citizens of Lehi
will be impacted by certain developments that allowed to be built.
I will end this letter here. I just wanted to mainly point out two
things. First you can deny an application if the record finds that a
compelling countervailing public interest would be jeopardized and secondly,
one of your main responsibilities is to protect the safety, health and welfare
of the citizens of Lehi, not corporate profits dollars. Please do not
allow corporate profit dollars over the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Lehi.
Thank you
Bill Conley
To:
Robert Ranc
<rranc@lehi-ut.gov>;
...
Thu 7/23/2015 2:45 PM
Robert
One last note today. I have spoke to a number of those in the various HOA's around the Thanksgiving Point area and we are going to want a written letter created and signed by at least the City Attorney and possibly the City Council, Planning Commission, City Planners, Public Works and Chief Engineer that clearly states that after exhaustive review by literally every aspect of City government, we promise the Citizens of Lehi that we have cleared the LDS Church project for approval and we guarantee you that your health, safety and long term welfare are deemed safe. Before this project begins or you give approval, make sure we know you can prove to us by a written letter by the Attorney for the City, that you can guarantee the Citizens of Lehi are protected. We look after you to protect our interest, do not take this responsibility lightly, I would hate the see the city in a lawsuit over the death of a child that could have been prevented.
Bill Conley
One last note today. I have spoke to a number of those in the various HOA's around the Thanksgiving Point area and we are going to want a written letter created and signed by at least the City Attorney and possibly the City Council, Planning Commission, City Planners, Public Works and Chief Engineer that clearly states that after exhaustive review by literally every aspect of City government, we promise the Citizens of Lehi that we have cleared the LDS Church project for approval and we guarantee you that your health, safety and long term welfare are deemed safe. Before this project begins or you give approval, make sure we know you can prove to us by a written letter by the Attorney for the City, that you can guarantee the Citizens of Lehi are protected. We look after you to protect our interest, do not take this responsibility lightly, I would hate the see the city in a lawsuit over the death of a child that could have been prevented.
Bill Conley
To:
Robert Ranc
<rranc@lehi-ut.gov>;
Cc:
Bert Wilson
<bwilson@lehi-ut.gov>;
Chris Condie
<ccondie@lehi-ut.gov>;
phancock@lehi-ut.gov;
Mark Johnson <mjohnson@lehi-ut.gov>;
Johnny Revill
<jrevill1023@gmail.com>;
Mike Southwick
<msouthwick@lehi-ut.gov>;
...
Wed 7/22/2015 3:24 PM
Gentlemen
The language outlined below is to my knowledge correct. Let me bring your attention to some other wording in the same section.
A1. Minor subdivisions. Subdivision review and approval MAY be granted by the Chief Building Officer and Public Works Director. Key word here is MAY, it does not say shall or should but MAY. I think many in the community are going to want to know your reasoning for not looking at this highly sensitive and potentially dangerous subdivision approval. Just because the code uses the word MAY, does not mean, should or shall. I think you have seen the backlash this project has caused all over the State and before it is done, nationwide. Maybe in the future a more careful review of projects MAY be in order.
Section 1B states, The subdivision does not require the construction of any public improvements or the dedication of any public right away. At this point, the issue of public improvements has been mentioned a number of times, even by Kim. This is not a hard fact at this point. There MAY be public improvements that need to be made so therefore, since it is not an actual fact, this should have been reviewed by other parties.
B2. Site plans with a total valuation, including building and all associated improvements greater than $10,000,000 SHALL follow the City's standard procedures for review and approval of the site plan including approval by the Planning Commission, following a review of the DRC. To my knowledge the Planning Commission knew nothing of this project until July 9th.
C. When was the submittal given to the city, on what date? I would like to see a copy of the submittal and the associated date it was submitted.
There are so many additional questions and concerns I have. I will address these in time.
Bill Conley
The language outlined below is to my knowledge correct. Let me bring your attention to some other wording in the same section.
A1. Minor subdivisions. Subdivision review and approval MAY be granted by the Chief Building Officer and Public Works Director. Key word here is MAY, it does not say shall or should but MAY. I think many in the community are going to want to know your reasoning for not looking at this highly sensitive and potentially dangerous subdivision approval. Just because the code uses the word MAY, does not mean, should or shall. I think you have seen the backlash this project has caused all over the State and before it is done, nationwide. Maybe in the future a more careful review of projects MAY be in order.
Section 1B states, The subdivision does not require the construction of any public improvements or the dedication of any public right away. At this point, the issue of public improvements has been mentioned a number of times, even by Kim. This is not a hard fact at this point. There MAY be public improvements that need to be made so therefore, since it is not an actual fact, this should have been reviewed by other parties.
B2. Site plans with a total valuation, including building and all associated improvements greater than $10,000,000 SHALL follow the City's standard procedures for review and approval of the site plan including approval by the Planning Commission, following a review of the DRC. To my knowledge the Planning Commission knew nothing of this project until July 9th.
C. When was the submittal given to the city, on what date? I would like to see a copy of the submittal and the associated date it was submitted.
There are so many additional questions and concerns I have. I will address these in time.
Bill Conley
Email to Paul Handcock, City Councilman
To:
phancock@lehi-ut.gov;
...
Wed 7/22/2015 7:07 AM
Paul
Thank you
I believe the legislative body (city council) approves new subdivisions, I have witnessed this myself at several city council meetings. THIS IS A NEW SUBDIVISION, within the resort community, would you care to venture a guess as to why this NEW SUBDISION was never discussed or approved by the legislative body (city council) at the City of Lehi? Secondly, why the public works official and chief buildings official signed the recorded deed on behalf of the legislative body? Is this standard? Are they the ones who always sign off for the city of Lehi in these regards? As the legislative body representatives?
These are fairly simple questions.
Thanks once again for a quick response.
I have read the Utah League of Cities and Towns manual (a number of times) and I believe the City is exposed to a lawsuit as it relates to the Family Search Subdivision. Fast tracking this is only going to get the City in trouble and I don't think the City wants that kind of attention, especially when it involves the Church attempting to fast track a development. Lets make sure the City is NOT exposed.
Bill
Thank you
I believe the legislative body (city council) approves new subdivisions, I have witnessed this myself at several city council meetings. THIS IS A NEW SUBDIVISION, within the resort community, would you care to venture a guess as to why this NEW SUBDISION was never discussed or approved by the legislative body (city council) at the City of Lehi? Secondly, why the public works official and chief buildings official signed the recorded deed on behalf of the legislative body? Is this standard? Are they the ones who always sign off for the city of Lehi in these regards? As the legislative body representatives?
These are fairly simple questions.
Thanks once again for a quick response.
I have read the Utah League of Cities and Towns manual (a number of times) and I believe the City is exposed to a lawsuit as it relates to the Family Search Subdivision. Fast tracking this is only going to get the City in trouble and I don't think the City wants that kind of attention, especially when it involves the Church attempting to fast track a development. Lets make sure the City is NOT exposed.
Bill
From: William Conley <billhytek@hotmail.com>
Date: 07/22/2015 8:49 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Chris Condie <ccondie@lehi-ut.gov>, Paul Hancock <phancock@lehi-ut.gov>, Mark Johnson <mjohnson@lehi-ut.gov>, Bert Wilson <BWilson@lehi-ut.gov>, Mike Southwick <msouthwick@lehi-ut.gov>, Johnny Revill <jrevill@lehi-ut.gov>
Subject: Legislative body
Date: 07/22/2015 8:49 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Chris Condie <ccondie@lehi-ut.gov>, Paul Hancock <phancock@lehi-ut.gov>, Mark Johnson <mjohnson@lehi-ut.gov>, Bert Wilson <BWilson@lehi-ut.gov>, Mike Southwick <msouthwick@lehi-ut.gov>, Johnny Revill <jrevill@lehi-ut.gov>
Subject: Legislative body
Gentlemen
Who comprises the legislative body for the City of Lehi? Are the public works and chief bldg. official considered part of the legislative body?
In review of the Family Search Commercial Subdivision, the recorded deed with the County indicates that the chief bldg. official and public works official signed off as the representatives as the Legislative body.
It appears this matter may never have come before the City Council (The legislative body in the City of Lehi).
Should this matter have come before the legislative body? This is a new subdivision within the resort community zone.
Do you know when the new subdivision was sold or given to the LDS Church? Part of the law requires that a new subdivision CANNOT be sold until it is recorded by the County. Was this new subdivision sold prior to it being recorded at the County?
Carefully reviewing numerous sections of the "Utah League of Cities and Towns, Powers and Duties" and the subdivision plat recorded by Utah County, I believe and I may be incorrect that their may be several discrepancies as it relates to the Family Search Subdivision.
Can you carefully read the Utah League of Cities and Towns Powers and Duties manual and provide me and the residents of numerous HOA's that in fact an assurance that there were NO discrepancies as it relates to the Family Search Commercial Subdivision. I believe I have found several, but I would like your written opinion in regards to this matter.
I believe this new subdivision is being fast tracked by the developer and I would highly suggest that the City consider tabling any further review of proposed development until the legal staff at the city can provide the residents of Lehi with assurance in a written letter stating that the city will able to withstand any legal challenges as it relates to the Family Search Commercial subdivision.
Thank you
Bill Conley
Who comprises the legislative body for the City of Lehi? Are the public works and chief bldg. official considered part of the legislative body?
In review of the Family Search Commercial Subdivision, the recorded deed with the County indicates that the chief bldg. official and public works official signed off as the representatives as the Legislative body.
It appears this matter may never have come before the City Council (The legislative body in the City of Lehi).
Should this matter have come before the legislative body? This is a new subdivision within the resort community zone.
Do you know when the new subdivision was sold or given to the LDS Church? Part of the law requires that a new subdivision CANNOT be sold until it is recorded by the County. Was this new subdivision sold prior to it being recorded at the County?
Carefully reviewing numerous sections of the "Utah League of Cities and Towns, Powers and Duties" and the subdivision plat recorded by Utah County, I believe and I may be incorrect that their may be several discrepancies as it relates to the Family Search Subdivision.
Can you carefully read the Utah League of Cities and Towns Powers and Duties manual and provide me and the residents of numerous HOA's that in fact an assurance that there were NO discrepancies as it relates to the Family Search Commercial Subdivision. I believe I have found several, but I would like your written opinion in regards to this matter.
I believe this new subdivision is being fast tracked by the developer and I would highly suggest that the City consider tabling any further review of proposed development until the legal staff at the city can provide the residents of Lehi with assurance in a written letter stating that the city will able to withstand any legal challenges as it relates to the Family Search Commercial subdivision.
Thank you
Bill Conley
No comments:
Post a Comment