The 3rd District Court dispute over redeveloping Deer Valley Resort’s original base village had its first hearing Monday, and which played out as a battle over a road. That’s Deer Valley Drive, the loop around Deer Valley’s parking lot.
Park City gave up the public right-of-way last year, so the resort has room for a new ski beach and village. In exchange, Deer Valley would invest in transportation and affordable housing.
Area homeowner associations opposing redevelopment sued the city in January. Deer Valley joined the lawsuit to help defend its agreement with the city.
Resort attorneys' first move was to ask 3rd District Judge Richard Mrazik to toss out the lawsuit.
At the Dec. 2 hearing, he threw out half of it.
HOAs for the American Flag, Hidden Meadows, Pinnacle, The Oaks at Deer Valley and Morning Star Estates neighborhoods had two main arguments: one, that Park City didn’t follow Utah law when it gave up Deer Valley Drive, and two, that city councilmembers didn’t follow the state constitution.
Statutory argument denied
Mrazik said the residents can’t allege Park City broke the law, because they don’t meet the law’s definition of “adversely affected parties.”
That's because the HOAs might be affected to a greater degree than other Parkites, but the law says the HOAs have to be harmed in a completely different way to challenge a decision.
Deer Valley attorney Benjamin Welch said that’s exactly how the separation of powers is supposed to work.
“[The Utah legislature says] only in very narrow circumstances are we going to let people who might disagree with that — disagree with the legislative process, and, by extension, with their elected officials — be able to come into court and say, ‘We still think that this is unfair,’” he said during oral arguments Dec. 2.
But the HOAs still have another path to challenging Snow Park redevelopment: the state constitution, which gives Utahns a right to due process.
Constitutionality argument remains
HOA attorney Eric Lee claims Park City councilmembers Max Doilney and Ryan Dickey made up their mind beforehand and “improperly” influenced the rest of the council to unanimously give up Deer Valley Drive.
“They are not permitted behind closed doors or otherwise, frankly, to reach a decision on this independent of the evidence, and we think that's what happened here,” Lee told the judge.
Doilney and Dickey have denied the allegations.
Mrazik said, because it’s early in the case and the parties are only haggling about whether HOAs are allowed to sue, the law requires him to give the homeowners the benefit of the doubt. So now attorneys on both sides will be arguing about whether the city followed due process.
“I think it would be a problem if they held a public hearing that was pro forma said, ‘We're vacating the public street,’ lowered the gavel and walked out — and didn't make a finding regarding both good cause and whether the public interest will be materially, or a person, will be materially injured,” Mrazik said, posing a hypothetical.
But a letter of intent signed by Deer Valley and the city did outline what they consider the “good cause.”
The HOAs still contend the council did not take into account their material injury. Their interpretation of “material” harm includes potential future traffic in their neighborhoods from base village redevelopment.
For now, attorneys for Park City Municipal are claiming a partial victory.
“We are pleased that the judge dismissed [the HOAs’] statutory claims with prejudice at this early stage in the case," city spokesperson Clayton Scrivner said in a statement Dec. 3. "Yesterday’s hearing raised questions that were not briefed or before the court and we are evaluating next steps.”
Attorneys for the HOAs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The next hearing in the case hasn’t been scheduled.
