A packed public hearing in Kamas became a forceful defense of rural Utah, as Summit County residents pushed back against a Browns Canyon proposal that, as reported by The Park Record, could allow up to 3,000 residential units.
What happened?
At the center of the hearing was the proposed Lost Creek Community Zone, a zoning change from Ivory Development meant to open the door to a major new neighborhood in Browns Canyon. After a roomful of residents spoke against it, the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the County Council reject the proposal.
Representing the developer, attorney Wade Budge said the company had been open about what it wants to do and cast the proposal as part of an effort to address Summit County's affordability problems. Ivory Development, a division of Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, also said this zoning step alone would not permit construction because rezoning and a development agreement would still be required later.
Many speakers said that case for affordability did not persuade them. Mitch Dumke, who spoke at the hearing, said he had "'strong concerns' about developers' 'exploitation of the words affordable housing.'"
He added, "Show some real numbers. … Make this accessible to the people who need it the most."
Commissioners, too, questioned the size of what was being proposed. Commissioner David Darcey said, "This is so overwhelmingly large that I am not at all in favor of this zone."
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
Why does it matter?
For opponents, the scale alone represented a dramatic break from the way Browns Canyon is used today. Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes described it as a "5,000% increase in density without a 5,000% increase in public value," reflecting concerns that the burdens would fall on the public while the benefits would flow to a private developer.
Water was another major point of concern. Rancher Nathan Ivie, who said he has worked in Browns Canyon for nearly 50 years, warned, according to The Park Record, that heavy development could affect water access.
"I find it ironic that they're calling it Lost Creek because when you tap that aquifer, that's what's going to happen," Ivie said. "You're going to lose the creek."
Residents also pointed to fire danger and the limits of local services. Ivie said the area is already an "extreme fire risk," while other speakers warned that emergency response, sewer capacity, and utilities could be pushed well beyond what fits a rural community.
What's being done?
The immediate outcome was a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission against creating the new zone.
The Summit County Council still has the final say and will consider county staff, the developer, and the commission's negative recommendation.
Former Eastern Summit County Planning Commission member Jill Jones, as quoted by The Park Record, pointed to the cost of utility expansion. She said even a modest pump-station project in a place with existing infrastructure can still run about $6 million.
"They may not be affordable once they get everything done," Jones said.
Some opponents framed the dispute as part of a familiar pattern.
"This is deja vu all over again," Oakley resident Jerry Heck said.
Darcey added, "When I think of 'rural,' I think of Browns Canyon. It is the poster child for 'rural.'"
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
