© 2021 KPCW

KPCW
Spencer F. Eccles Broadcast Center
PO Box 1372 | 460 Swede Alley
Park City | UT | 84060
Office: (435) 649-9004 | Studio: (435) 655-8255

Music & Artist Inquiries: music@kpcw.org
News Tips & Press Releases: news@kpcw.org
Volunteer Opportunities
General Inquiries: info@kpcw.org
Listen Like a Local
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Available On Air Stations
Local Journalism When It Matters Most. Donate Now.
Local News

Summit County Files New Motion Against Hideout Annexation Effort

hideout_town_hall.jpg
Hideout Town
/

In a new motion filed last weekend, Summit County asked Heber’s Fourth District Court to strike down the Wasatch County town of Hideout’s annexation into Summit.

 

The annexation is scheduled to go to a Hideout citizen’s referendum on June 22.

 

Summit County is asking a Fourth District judge to hold an expedited hearing before the vote, and to rule that Hideout’s annexation is invalid.

 

At a special meeting held on Oct. 16 last year, the Hideout Council approved the annexation of 350 acres east of Park City and voted to enter into a master development agreement with developer Nate Brockbank for a large mixed-use development called “Silver Meadows.”

 

In November, Summit County filed suit against the annexation. As part of that lawsuit, the county filed a new motion electronically this Saturday, the 17th.

 

The motion repeated many of the allegations the county has made previously about Hideout.

 

The document said Hideout was incorporated into Wasatch County in 2008 but has never had adequate city revenue and services. Allegedly, Brockbank proposed to the town that they could solve their problem by annexing into Summit County near Richardson Flat and creating a high-density, mixed-use development.

 

Summit County said that during the 2020 Utah Legislature’s session, Brockbank put forward a “bait and switch” change to a pending bill, House Bill 359, that was approved by lawmakers. The revised bill allowed Hideout to annex into Summit County without the county’s consent, did not require a petition, and allowed the town to “cherry-stem” an annexation to non-contiguous properties.

 

Hideout’s first attempt at an annexation last summer ran into a lawsuit from Summit County, which resulted in preliminary injunctions against the effort.

 

The county said that Hideout was unrepentant, and rebooted another proposed annexation starting in early September, this one reduced in size.

 

The bill that enabled Hideout’s annexation was neutralized in a summer special session, but the repeal didn’t take effect until Oct. 20.

 

A few days before that, on Oct. 16, Hideout’s Town Council approved the annexation and zoning in the form of a master development agreement.

 

However, the county alleges the town didn’t complete the required annexation process before the legislation supporting it expired on Oct. 20. 

 

The county argues the annexation ordinance wasn’t posted in a newspaper of general circulation within Hideout. It was posted in three locations within the town, but not until Oct. 26. And the date of the certificate of annexation was Oct. 28.

 

The county filing says it is entitled to control and guide growth within its boundaries—including the Richardson Flat area, it says, which is zoned for limited residential development—in part because it is bordered by an EPA Superfund site.

Related Content