Summit County Accuses Hideout Of "Sinister" Behavior As It Heads Back To Court
Summit County is bringing the Town of Hideout back to court, saying that town officials are violating a court order. On Monday, Summit County filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause asking why the court shouldn’t find the Wasatch County town in contempt of court for continuing its efforts to annex property from another county.
Even after 4th District Court Judge Jennifer Brown issued an injunction September 3rd, prohibiting Hideout from pursuing any annexation of property located in Summit County, the Hideout Town Council a week later voted to proceed with a new annexation of 350 acres of property in Summit County. Under the new annexation resolution, Hideout removed several hundred acres of property that was under protection of a development agreement with Park City.
Now, Summit County is arguing that the new annexation plan is virtually the same, only with a bit less land. Because of that, Summit County attorneys say Hideout, in concert with developer Nate Brockbank, is violating the court’s preliminary injunction.
In its injunction, the court granted Summit County’s motion that Hideout be prohibited from taking any action which would result in the annexation of property in Summit County.
Hideout is arguing that it should be allowed to proceed with the new annexation boundaries since it has vacated the original annexation resolution. But by doing so, Summit County says Hideout has changed the status quo, which violates the court’s order.
The county alleges that Hideout’s replacement of the original annexation resolution served a more "sinister" purpose: to hide the fact that Hideout was only pretending to settle with Summit County - as a way to distract the County- as it continued its pursuit of annexation.
Summit County’s new motion says these purportedly new annexation documents are simply repackaged versions of the former resolution and annexation agreements and are “just wolves in sheep’s’ clothing.”
Hideout’s recent moves, the motion says, are clearly designed to frustrate the court’s preliminary injunction and to proceed under what is essentially the plan that rolled out in the July pre-annexation agreement.
Hideout’s rebranded agreement, says Summit County, just set the table to quote, “ unilaterally shoehorn a massive commercial development into a hotly contested corner of Summit County.”
The county also writes that Hideout isn’t alone in this mischief and developer Nate Brockbank is also engaged in a course of conduct to improve Hideout’s position in violation of the court’s temporary restraining order.
A hearing to argue the order to show cause hasn’t yet been scheduled. Hideout Mayor Phil Rubin told KPCW that they are not making any comments during the pendency of the litigation.