The owners at Powder Mountain filed a petition in 2006 with the Weber County Planning Dept. for a rezone with the purpose of creating a larger ski resort area initially including 3,700 total units (938 in Cache County) and two 18 hole golf courses on their property. The existing zoning for that area would allow them to build about 1500 buildings on the Weber County side but would not allow the two 18 hole golf courses and other construction options. (The latest development plan from the Powder Mountain owners has increased these numbers to approximately 10,000 units.)
The scope and size of the proposed “Super Resort” as initially described by the Powder Mountain project manager during the OVPC hearings, would bring 10,000 to 12,000 additional skiers to the resort on busy weekends.
At the first hearing on the petition before the Ogden Valley Planning Commission (OVPC) in August 2007, the Powder Mountain project manager stated that there would be no second road access to the resort area from Cache County. The only access would be through Ogden Valley and the single existing Powder Mountain Road. This immediately set off alarm bells with the Ogden Valley Planning Commission and Ogden Valley residents.
The existing single road to Powder Mountain is a difficult and dangerous road at best. It has several grades that exceed 13% and has had numerous serious accidents in recent years, including a number of fatalities. According to UDOT there is virtually no room to improve or widen this road and nothing can be done to lessen the grades, which are hazardous for drivers any time of the year. Corey Pope, the UDOT area manager, stated to the OVPC that if UDOT were asked to build that road today, UDOT would not build it in its current location.
A Traffic Study was commissioned by the Powder Mountain Ownership and presented to the OVPC. Using the traffic study’s own numbers, it was determined that traffic to the area could increase by as much as 8 to 10 times the current load. Since the physical location of the resort is at the end of Powder Mountain Road, which originates in Ogden Valley, all traffic for the resort will have to pass through Ogden Valley, including those residents or visitors that will be housed on the Cache County side of the resort. Again using the developer’s figures, a calculation of delay time of six and one-half minutes per car at one critical intersection was projected, and all other affected intersections would degrade to “F” level on UDOT’s scale.
Perhaps the Planning Commission’s single largest concern about Powder Mountain Road involved disaster planning. In the event of a forest fire or earthquake in the vicinity of the resort, for example, Powder Mountain Road (if it were passable at all) would simply be inadequate to handle the immediate mass rush of resident and rescue and emergency vehicles to and from the top of the mountain, where the resort and all of its facilities would be located. For that and many other reasons, the OVPC conditioned its approval of a rezone on construction of a second year-round access road to the resort.
It became apparent to all concerned that full approval of the rezone request would exceed the carrying capacity numbers in the entire Ogden Valley General Plan with this single development if approved as submitted. In addition, the water required for two 18 hole golf courses at over 7,000 feet would exacerbate the water resource problems in the area. It is a fair assumption that the resort owners would at some point want to have snow making capability to protect their massive investment in the ski resort. There is no snow making equipment currently at the Powder Mountain ski area. This would further strain the water resources in the Ogden Valley area. (The source for the water for the resort would be the aquifer under Pineveiw Reservoir. This aquifer is now the main source for the City of Ogden’s culinary water
Finally; several questions on wildlife corridors, along with sewer and runoff problems came to the forefront during the Powder Mountain hearings on the rezone before the OVPC.
In December 2007, after numerous meetings to provide the Powder Mountain petitioner the opportunity to address the many questions regarding their petition, the OVPC passed a rezone recommendation to the Weber County Commission with 19 conditions that Powder Mountain would have to fulfill in order to obtain scaled-down approval of their rezone request. Of these conditions for approval, the second road access and the reduction to about 1500 units were the most objectionable to Powder Mountain.
The reaction from Powder Mountain was to file a petition to incorporate the area under a new bill, HB466 passed in March 2007. This ill advised and onerous bill has since been replaced with HB164 in 2008, but the changes were not retroactive regarding Powder Mountain due to intensive lobbying in the legislature. The result was the improvements in HB164 did not apply to the Powder Mountain petition.
The most egregious result of HB466 is that it allowed the developer to include (via Gerrymandering) in the proposed Town at least 100 homeowners, against their will, without those homeowners having any vote for or against incorporation. It further allows the developer to select the names for town council and for mayor, with no vote for the involuntary residents. Thus, the largest property owner controls all the votes for critical decision making in the new town for at least 2 to 3 years due to the size of their property holdings. The Powder Mountain petition map was gerrymandered to include selected homeowners in the Eden area so the petitioners could fulfill the 100 resident requirement, yet these 100 involuntary Townspeople have no rights to vote on the incorporation issue or for their future town council, mayor, or planning commission. Only the petitioners do. The purpose of the incorporation clearly was to escape the planning commission restrictions that were recommended by the OVPC as conditions to approve the requested rezone.
The citizens of Ogden Valley and Weber County have sent the state legislature a petition of almost 600 signatures in opposition to this incorporation.
The homeowners impacted by this possible incorporation have asked the Weber County Commissioners to deny the incorporation based on their loss of due process and equal protection of the law, rights guaranteed by both the U.S. and Utah Constitutions. Recent developments have been a lawsuit by the Powder Mountain owners filed against Weber County. The Weber County Commissioners showed courage in not selecting the Mayor and council from the list of people the Powder Mountain owners submitted. They felt this list did not include a cross section of affected homeowners as candidates for town council and Mayor. In a decision last week, the Judge ruled in favor of Powder Mountain. He said that he knew his ruling would be appealed by Weber County anyway.
It is obvious that HB466 (2007) was a flawed bill from the start. The Utah State legislature recognized this point, and passed HB164 in 2008 to repeal the provisions of HB466 and provide voting rights to affected residents regarding incorporation and the right to choose their own town council and mayor as opposed to the largest property owner making those decisions.
As we continue to pursue this issue, we are told that both the Weber County Commissioners and the Lt. Governor provide only ancillary review functions in this incorporation process. The citizens of Ogden Valley are asking who is responsible to oversee and deny this petition if the discredited law (HB466) that spawned the petition contains an unconstitutional element?
It is important that we know who is charged with protecting our rights in the State Of Utah when they are threatened. We look to the Lt. Governor and/or the Attorney General of the State to provide leadership and direction to the Weber County Commission on this question. An advisory opinion spelling out whether the Powder Mountain petition must be granted, can be granted, or must be denied as violative of the conscripted citizens’ constitutional rights would settle the issue and likely avoid costly and protracted litigation.
Larry Zini
Sharon Zini
