Summit County Council Addressing South Point Housing Obligation
As part of their regular agenda on Wednesday, the Summit County Council will be looking at how the Promontory development will satisfy its employee housing obligation.
The council, meeting in the Coalville Courthouse will consider the item as part of the their 5:00 pm agenda.
Under the Promontory Development Agreement of 2001, the project was called upon to do 37 households of employee housing. County Manager Tom Fisher said that comes to a little over 80 beds or bedrooms.
“It’s an obligation that the County Council and the Eastern Planning Commission met about a few months ago to give some direction to then the South Point applicant--of course, they’ve withdrawn their application since then--about having a housing plan for projects that are moving forward in the Promontory development agreement in the South Point development agreement.”
He said two employee units have been created by Promontory near their equestrian facility.
Representatives of Promontory have said that the housing obligation falls on what is now a separate project at South Point—though South Point currently has withdrawn its application.
We asked Fisher for his take on that.
“It really is an obligation to the overall Promontory development agreement, which South Point is part of. So, it’s a subset of that. This is a long-term obligation and its over two-decades old at this point. I think since affordable housing and workforce housing are part of the council’s strategic priorities; they’d like to see a definitive plan of when those are going to come about.”
He said the council’s decision could impact a meeting he has on Thursday morning. The county manager is holding a public hearing on Phase 3 of the Nicklaus Clubhouse at Promontory.
We also asked him if the council could withhold permits if they turn down the housing plan.
“Although the language in the development agreement probably isn’t as precise as we’d like. We have similar situation in the past that we could relate it to. Like the Canyons, where there have been obligations in those development agreements that at a point were not met and at that point the county said we’re not going to process applications until some of those are met. I’m not saying that would happen in this case, but we do have the ability within this development agreement to do that.”