What zoning code is used to issue permits in a PD after the PD has been established?

[cda]

Previous reply



don't agree that the city will prevail.

This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.

No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.

Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next el

 

[Jane]

Previous post



The Provo position is clear. The entire development is one lot for the purpose of zoning regulation. Anyone can have 100% parcel coverage until the entire development "lot" has 40% lot coverage. At such time as there is 40% development "lot" coverage nobody can build anything on individual parcels within the development "lot".

That seems odd to me. Essentially, lot coverage regulation doesn't kick in until someone demonstrates 40% lot coverage. I find it suspicious that the original developer left most of the land untouched.

In as much as the city can't find any paperwork on the development perhaps they should be asked to produce similar paperwork on other developments. Beyond that there must be written instructions for their position that predate the issuance of Flake's permit. They can't just say. "Well Jane, that's the way it is."

It seems to me that it would be a ridiculous situation to allow people to build until 40% of the original plat is covered and then say that no one else can build anything from that time forward. I have searched for other permits but it looks like everyone else built without permits so Provo City did not issue permits for anything else that was built.

That's why I feel there must me a rule that regulate building in these type of developments - otherwise it is mayhem.

 

[Jane]

Previous reply



don't agree that the city will prevail.

This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.

No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.

Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next el

Unfortunately, I am at my last shot at this...this will be my last chance to get a reconsideration without going up through the courts (I already spent a lot of money on the last appeal before the city changed the permit number making my suit against the city moot) and I am reaching my financial limits. That's why I'm looking for a rule that outlines how a PD is handled after the fact.

 

[cda]

Would this be on the right track?

All of Georgetown on the Park Amd. Phase I, according to the official plat thereof, on file in the office of the Utah County Recorder at Doc/Entry No. 36831-1984.
Including Parcel Numbers 40:103:0001 through 40:103:0017

That is the plat

it may not have the info you want

 

[cda]

Unfortunately, I am at my last shot at this...this will be my last chance to get a reconsideration without going up through the courts (I already spent a lot of money on the last appeal before the city changed the permit number making my suit against the city moot) and I am reaching my financial limits. That's why I'm looking for a rule that outlines how a PD is handled after the fact.

The Pd is the governing document

And normally forever

So what and how something is built,,, has to comply with the verbage in the field Pd.

Give it a few days to let others reply

 

[cda]

See if there is a

County recorder office

Do an open records request for any document for this development

 

[cda]

Utah County Recorder

www.utahcounty.gov

 

[Jane]

See if there is a

County recorder office

Do an open records request for any document for this development

I will do that - thanks

 

[ADAguy]

I am not sure that the city ever provided me with a copy of the original PD documents as they said they were "lost". I'm going to go through all the files again and see if I have anything that contains it. I wish I could access documents online but the city is not very organized.

If you have any ideas as to where to find it I would appreciate it.

City clerks office? City lost original document?

 

[Jane]

City clerks office? City lost original document?

Is there a general rule governing what happens if the documents are lost? Where would I find out what happens if the documents are lost? The city sent an email saying that R2 zoning prevailed but are now saying that it doesn't to defend the issuance of the permit.

 

[cda]

Is there a general rule governing what happens if the documents are lost? Where would I find out what happens if the documents are lost? The city sent an email saying that R2 zoning prevailed but are now saying that it doesn't to defend the issuance of the permit.

Do you know what year and possibly month, the PD was approved?

 

[cda]

not sure if this is what you need when you visit the county recorder

I this is the correct development:::


he Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Georgetown-onthe-Park Planned Development was recorded in the Utah County Recorder’s Office on July 27, 1983 as Entry No. 22315 in Book 2066, and beginning on page 339 (the “Original Declaration”). B.The Revised and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Georgetown-on-the-Parkwas recorded in the Utah County Recorder’s Office on December 13, 1984 as Entry No. 36832 in Book 2183 and beginning on page 704 (the “1984 Declaration”). C.The Supplemental Declaration to Revised and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Georgetown-on-the-Parkwas recorded in the Utah County Recorder’s Office on October 24, 1985 as Entry No. 31211 in Book 2256, and beginning on page 219. D.This Second Revised and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Georgetown on the Parkis adopted to: (1) clarify and define the rights of the Association and the Owners, in and to the Project, (2) conform to changes to the Utah Community Association Act and other Utah law, (3) provide for a general plan for managing the Project, and (4) infurtherance of the effort to efficiently and economically provide a quality living environment and protect and enhance the value of the Project. E.This Declaration, which (along with and subject to any future amendments) shall be the sole declaration for the Project and shall completely replace and supersede in all respects the 1984 Declaration, and all prior declarations and amendments thereto, (whether recorded or not, properly adopted or not, or referenced in this Declaration or not), prior to the date of the recording of this Declaration. F.This Declaration affects the real property situated in Utah County, Utah, described with particularity on Exhibit A, which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated in this Declaration by reference (the “Project”) and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest to the Project or any part thereof. G.The Bylaws of the Association attached hereto as Exhibit B supersede and replace any previous bylaws of the Association and any amendments thereto. H.Pursuant the amendment requirements contained in Article XIV, Section 2 of the 1984 Declaration, the undersigned hereby certifies that this Declaration and Bylaws were approved by Owners holding at least sixty-five (65%) of the total votes ofthe Association

http://georgetownhoa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Georgetown-on-the-Park-2018.pdf

 

[cda]

http://georgetownhoa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Georgetown-on-the-Park-2018.pdf

 

[cda]

31EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION

All of Georgetown on the Park Amd. Phase I, according to the official plat thereof, on file in the office of the Utah County Recorder at Doc/Entry No. 36831-1984. Including Parcel Numbers 40:103:0001 through 40:103:0017

All of Georgetown on the Park Phase II PUD Amended #2, according to the official plat thereof, on file in the office of the Utah County Recorder at Doc/Entry No. 24882-1984. Including Parcel Numbers 40:194:0001 through 40:194:0020 and 40:194:0500

 

[ADAguy]

Thank you for helping Jane with this.

 

[my250r11]

CDA gave some good advice. The only thing I might add is the PD agreement had to go thru USUALLY several meetings/hearings to get approved. City should have minutes of the meetings that you could go thru. Here the filed plat has the agreements filed with it or on it. Good luck!

 

[tmurray]

Where I am (I don't know if it is the same there), this would be an agreement bound to each parcel in the development and should be available for review at a land registry office. The municipality "should" have copies, access to the registered version or both, but may not have to provide this to you as it lies with the registry office.

Have you considered an open documents request for anything relating to the development of this land?

 

[VillageInspector]

I think you are getting confused with PUDs and subdivisions. You appear to live in a townhouse or attached housing development and not a single family home even if you have separate lots and that's where the confusion seems to be. You can't have it both ways. I live in a PUD and I marvel at folks who come from single family homes and don't seem to fully understand what they have truly purchased and what their rights are under local zoning.