Canyon-road plan called threat to laws

A proposed road to a planned housing development in Big Cottonwood Canyon would not only carve through the scenery, but would amount to "wholesale destruction" of Salt Lake County's hillside protection ordinances, an attorney for Save Our Canyons argued Tuesday before the Utah Court of Appeals.

The environmental advocacy group contends the county's ordinances regarding canyon preservation are too weak and has called on county officials to revise the language, particularly since the majority of undeveloped foothill and canyon land is within Salt Lake County's jurisdiction.

The dispute stems from a planned access road to a proposed housing development by Wasatch Pacific Inc. and Terry Diehl. Richard Burbidge, attorney for the developer, said the issue began shortly after 9/11, when Salt Lake City protested the use of a utility road above the city's water treatment plant. Burbidge said the city cited security concerns, which forced the developer to find an alternative route.

Wasatch Pacific applied with Salt Lake County for another road. However, the road violated county ordinances by exceeding the slope and length requirements. Burbidge said the developer applied for a variance with the county's board of adjustment, which granted the variance in February 2003 by a 3-2 vote.

But Joseph Tesch, attorney for Save Our Canyons, questioned what good are ordinances if they can be swept aside by granting exceptions?

"It was the wholesale destruction of the ordinance in my view," Tesch told appeals court justices.

Tesch said a ruling in this matter in favor of Salt Lake County and Wasatch Pacific could set a dangerous precedent that could open the door to uncontrolled canyon and foothill development.

Burbidge countered that the law gives the county board of adjustment every right to grant a variance. In this case, he called the road a "compromise" to a situation that would have left the land undevelopable.

Justices questioned why the board wouldn't have the authority to grant such a variance, and they also questioned that other than economic hardship, what other reason the developer had to oppose changing the variance? Justice James Davis said under law, economic hardship alone is not enough to defend a land development decision.

Pointing to a lower court decision, Burbidge said a district court judge has already ruled in favor of the developer and the county's decision.

Justices said they will issue a written ruling in the coming weeks.