Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik said a new law cannot be applied to the area in Kimball Junction where developer Dakota Pacific Real Estate wants to build a mixed-use community.
Summit County won on a technicality, but for Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson, that’s still a win.
“The Summit County community deserves this victory in this ruling,” Olson said. “Dakota Pacific's tactics to override local land use authority and our community's right to local self government have failed.”
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth said, although the bill didn’t meet the threshold issue of applying to the land, their team will focus on the rest of the case, which isn’t over.
“We’re very much a believer in what we've been pursuing for over four years,” he said outside the courtroom. “This is going to be a transformational world class development, and a critical part of Summit County.”
State legislators intended the law, Senate Bill 84, to allow Dakota Pacific’s development, even though Summit County said it goes around local zoning and land use authority.
The narrow issue before the court Thursday was whether S.B. 84 applies to Kimball Junction as intended. It’s just one of the county’s eight main arguments it made in the lawsuit, filed in March.
Legislators wanted S.B. 84 to say Summit County must allow a developer with a pending land use application, Dakota Pacific, to build on land within ⅓ mile of a so-called public transit hub.
“The curious thing about this case is the parties don't disagree with one another on what the legislature intended,” Dakota Pacific attorney Carolyn LeDuc said.
But whether it actually does allow the development means looking at what Utah law says “public transit hub” and “land use application” mean.
Mrazik said the Kimball Junction Transit Center fits the legal definition of a public transit hub. But then he said Dakota Pacific’s request to the county did not fit the definition of a land use application that would trigger S.B. 84.
Stanworth said he understood why the judge had to rule the way he did but knows there’s more still to be decided.
“The broader case is still very much where the focus should be not on the technicalities of definitions,” Stanworth said.
But, since the law doesn’t apply, other issues in the case might settle quickly.
“Most of this case gets really simple,” Summit County’s attorney Mitch Stevens said, “if not just moot.”
For example, Stevens said if S.B. 84 doesn’t apply to Kimball Junction, then the county’s claim that it’s unconstitutional in this particular situation doesn’t matter.
But the case is by no means over because the developer and the state of Utah both have a chance to address the seven other claims.
Dakota Pacific can appeal Thursday’s ruling. Stanworth says his team will meet with their lawyers to decide what to do next.
