Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
PARK CITY — Summit County has filed a lawsuit against Dakota Pacific Real Estate, the state of Utah and others, alleging "unconstitutional legislative cronyism" after the Utah Legislature passed a controversial bill that could change housing development plans at Kimball Junction.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in 3rd District Court, also lists Park City Junction and 50 John Does as defendants.
Summit County officials accused the Utah Legislature of doing a "favor" for the housing developer and taking away local control when it passed SB84.
"This horrible assault on local communities' rights of self-determination is a blemish upon fair, open and transparent government," Summit County Council Chairman Roger Armstrong said. "The Utah Legislature should be ashamed."
But Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, the bill's House sponsor, accused Summit County of being in "violation of state law" for not adopting a housing and transit reinvestment zone at Kimball Junction.
SB84 was passed during Utah's 2023 legislative session and allows Dakota Pacific — the owner of the Park City Tech Center at Kimball Junction — to sidestep Summit County's land use process to approve an amendment to an already existing development agreement and build a high-density, mixed-use project with mostly market-rate housing on the property.
The lawsuit seeks to affirm previously agreed upon development restrictions and asks for consequential and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The suit also seeks an injunction preventing any development or use of the Tech Center that is inconsistent with the original development agreement, and an injunction barring the enforcement of SB84 as it relates to the Tech Center.
"Summit County is entitled to declaratory judgment that (SB84) is unconstitutional as applied to (Dakota Pacific) and the Tech Center," the lawsuit states.
The proposed project includes 727 residential units. Of that, 490 would be market rate units and 237 would be income deed restricted, according to Summit County documents, the Deseret News reported.
But when Dakota Pacific purchased the 59 acres in question, it knew the land was subject to an agreement that limits density and prevents market-ratemarket-rateza residential units, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims Dakota Pacific determined it would be more profitable to develop a high-density, mixed-use project focused primarily on market-rate residential units. Accordingly, its lobbyists "pushed through targeted legislation without any public hearings to maximize (Dakota Pacific's) profits and effectively gut Summit County's ability to restrict appropriate development under both the development agreement and the county's local authority."
The lawsuit adds: "To hide their plunder of the Summit County community and the local zoning process, (Dakota Pacific) and its lobbyists tried to present their cronyism as a triumph for affordable housing."
The Utah Department of Workforce Services did issue Summit County a notice of compliance on Nov. 30 for its moderate-income housing plan. However, the county also faced a Dec. 31 deadline to submit a separate proposal to create a housing and transit reinvestment zone. While the county did not submit a proposal, it did include in its moderate-income housing plan that the county was willing to consider creating a housing and transit reinvestment zone as a strategy.
"Although Summit County did not submit a proposal to create an HTRZ, Summit County is nevertheless in full compliance with state law," Armstrong argued.
In a prepared statement, Dakota Pacific lauded the legislation, calling it a solution to the state's unaffordability issues.
"Utah's housing affordability crisis is a statewide issue, and we applaud legislative efforts that help make housing more accessible to a broad spectrum of renters and buyers," the Dakota Pacific statement said. It went on to argue most Summit County workers "have no choice but to commute from outside the county, exacerbating traffic congestion in Snyderville Basin, because housing opportunities in Summit County are out of reach or simply nonexistent."
The company said its proposed development will "add much-needed rental and owner-occupied housing units, including a significant number of lower-income units to help more of Utah's workers improve their quality of life by bringing them closer to where they work."
"Growth will not stop," Dakota Pacific continued, "and the crisis will only compound unless all municipalities step up and play a part."
Dakota Pacific's statement did not address Summit County's allegations that legislation was done as a "favor" for the company.
