Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission forwards positive recommendation for six-lot Promontory subdivision after neighbor protest
Summary
The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the county manager for a six-lot reconfiguration in Promontory; a nearby lot owner objected that the change makes the area denser than expected. Staff said the proposal reassigns density from a larger parcel pool within Promontory.
The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the county manager for the Promontory Mountain Crest subdivision, a six-lot reconfiguration on roughly 10 acres in the Northgate area of Promontory.
Staff told the commission the application revises a previously reviewed two-lot plan into six smaller, clustered lots so houses will hide most cuts and fills. "This is a designated area for development," the staff presenter said, and recommended approval "as outlined in the staff report." The presenter also noted the recommendation would be forwarded to the county manager.
A nearby lot owner, Adele Bressler, spoke during the public hearing and identified herself as a professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University and a property owner adjacent to Mountain Crest Road. "I was just disappointed because... we were looking for something that wouldn't be dense," Bressler said. "This is much denser than what the entire area looks like." She asked the commission to consider how increased density affects neighbors''planning and expectations.
Matthew Idema, the applicant's land development director, introduced himself and offered to answer questions but otherwise deferred to staff. Commissioners also asked staff operational questions: one commissioner asked about employee housing permits related to the broader Promontory development, and staff said roughly 37''40 employee housing units are in for building permits and awaiting review by the building department.
After discussion, Commissioner S2 moved to forward a positive recommendation; the motion was seconded by S3 and commissioners signaled their support. The formal recommendation will be considered by the county manager as the next step.
The commission's action was procedural (a recommendation to the county manager); no final land-use approval was made at the meeting. The county manager and county staff will handle subsequent review and any required final approvals or conditions.
