© 2026 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 Park City & Heber Valley, Utah
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Will Summit County change the rules for Basin development?

Silver Creek Estates is one of the northernmost neighborhoods of the Snyderville Basin, located above Interstate 80.
Jody Anagnos
/
Service Area 3
The Snyderville Basin is seen from within Silver Creek Estates to the north of Interstate 80.

Planners are discussing a short, but significant, policy buried in the Snyderville Basin General Plan.

There’s a common thread in debates over controversial development approvals in the Snyderville Basin in recent years, including 12 townhomes in Pinebrook, the Dakota Pacific project and Lincoln Station Apartments.

They all survived policy 2.3 in the Snyderville Basin General Plan.

County leaders have wielded policy 2.3 to limit growth. It’s part of the reason a Kimball Junction Harmons doesn’t exist and, according to senior planner Ray Milliner, housing has mostly stayed out of the county’s Quinn’s Junction commercial zone.

Policy 2.3 was drafted in 2015 simply to say: “Do not approve any new entitlements beyond those permitted by the Development Code until such time that existing entitlements are significantly exhausted.”

“When this was written, this was right when the Silver Creek Village was coming online. Nothing had been reviewed and built at Silver Creek Village. The Canyons was feeling a lot of pressure. The Whole Foods development was coming online, and so we were getting all of these applications for big projects,” Milliner told Basin planning commissioners Feb. 10.

The Summit County Council added an exception when it adopted 2.3, allowing the approval of new development rights if there is a compelling public interest.

Even as early as 2021, planning officials were talking about whether 2.3 was working. The current Snyderville Basin Planning Commission renewed that conversation Feb. 10.

“Do we want to modify it? Do we want to leave it as is? Strike it out?” Milliner said. “Maybe you don't, but eventually somebody's going to — it'll go back to where we were talking about earlier. If we just keep saying no to everything, then eventually the Legislature takes over.”

Since 2015, lawmakers have passed laws allowing developers to overcome local vetos like policy 2.3 by, for example, incorporating their own towns. State officials say the goal is to drive down housing prices by increasing supply.

During the discussion, Commissioner Tyann Mooney opined that 2.3 isn’t very strong anyway since various developments have found ways around it.

“If we take it out, the Legislature might not be so hateful toward us,” she said. “They look at it that we don't want people coming here — that we just want to keep this all to ourselves.”

Commissioner Makena Hawley was interested in redirecting the policy to protect open space while welcoming infill.

“We want to strengthen our existing communities and infrastructure and make our resources go further, and also just stop touching everything else,” Hawley said.

The entire Snyderville Basin General Plan, and its eastside counterpart, are being rewritten right now.

The county’s two planning commissions are expected to have regular discussions with staff members before deciding on revisions to submit to the Summit County Council for a vote, potentially this year.