Planning commission denies Fox Run North Lot 1 building-pad amendment after neighbors’ objections

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission on Tuesday denied an application to amend the building pad at Fox Run North Lot 1, following extended public comment from adjacent property owners who said the revised site would still intrude on their view corridors.

Planner (name not provided) said the applicant sought to expand a building pad to construct an accessory building and presented two alternative locations after an earlier denial. The Fox Run Homeowners Association, the planner said, voted in favor of both options and the applicant returned with the location the HOA had supported. Staff recommended approval of the revised site with the findings and conditions in its report.

Against the proposal, Danielle Mondake Judd, a joint owner of the adjacent Lot FRN 2, said she and her husband had submitted written comments and told the commission they opposed the amendment because “it is still in our viewshed” and the structure could be as tall as 37 feet, a size they said they had not seen confirmed. Her husband, Curtis Judd, told commissioners the recorded building-pad limits were intended to protect open space and views and that the proposed location would block the long-distance views toward Park City peaks from their home.

Mark Curl, who identified himself as president of the Fox Run HOA, urged the commission to consider the HOA process and said both options had passed at the HOA meeting. He disputed a separate letter described as erroneous in parts and argued the Andersons had followed HOA procedure. Bud Crowther, a past HOA president, and other neighbors testified in support of the Andersons, saying accessory structures and outbuildings have been built in the neighborhood and that the applicant complied with HOA review.

Applicants Troy and Robbie Anderson told the commission they had tried to work with neighbors, moved the proposed pad to reduce visual impacts and do not yet have a final barn design; Robbie said the likely height would be 32 feet and that they would comply with county rules if given permission.

Commissioners debated the merits of honoring recorded building pads versus property owners’ ability to place accessory buildings, discussed evidence that several existing homes and outbuildings in the subdivision sit outside their original pads, and raised process and notice questions about the alternate ("pink") location. Ultimately a commissioner moved to deny the plat amendment; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission did not record a roll-call tally in the public record.

The commission closed the hearing and moved on to other business. The denial means the applicant may return with a different proposal properly noticed and supported by record evidence, or pursue other remedies allowed by county code.