Summit County Manager Bob Jasper is trying to create a process which would allow him to determine whether a business being proposed in Boyer building A (at
Summit County Manager Bob Jasper is trying to create a process which would allow him to determine whether a business being proposed in Boyer building A (at the corner of S.R. 224 and Olympic Parkway) fits within the confines of the Boyer Tech Park development agreement. (Christopher Reeves/Park Record)

Summit County has recently called into question whether the businesses in building A of the Boyer Tech Park, located at the corner of State Road 224 and Olympic Parkway, are actually allowed in the Boyer development agreement.

County Manager Bob Jasper is trying to put in place a process which would clarify whether a proposed business for the Tech Park is an allowed use. Jasper said there have been talks over this concern for the past several months, prompted by Boyer Company President and CEO, Jake Boyer.

"[Jake's] concern is that [Boyer] did not know what they could do with the property in terms of uses," Jasper said at Wednesday's County Council meeting.

Summit County resident Christian Hague had earlier raised the issue that All Seasons Resorts should not be an allowed use within Boyer building A and Jasper later told The Park Record that the county needs to look closer at what uses are permitted.

The county is proposing to create an "administrative amendment" to the Boyer development agreement which would allow for a use determination process prior to the creation of any project plan.

Community Development Director Pat Putt said the current system for approving a business starts with the developer submitting plans to a design and review committee, which later gives a sketch plan to the county before going to the planning commission for a review of the final site plan and a public hearing.

"The dilemma over the last year has been, prior to moving forward and developing the plan, there's no built-in process that will allow for the master developer, Boyer, to say, 'We have a potential user here -- is this [business] an allowed use?" Putt said.

Putt added that oftentimes when a requested use is questioned the project is reviewed by the design and review committee, only to find out from planning staff that the use is inappropriate.

Should Jasper's administrative addendum be added to the Boyer development agreement, appeals could be made to the County Council by individuals displeased with his decision, even the master developer.

Putt said that Jasper's classification of a whether or not a proposed business fits within the development agreement does not represent "approval" of a project but is merely a clarification that a use does or does not fit.

"We're trying to develop a predictable and transparent step in the process earlier that is accountable to the planning commission, the public and the [County] Council," Putt said.

Council Chair Chris Robinson proposed that it should mandatory that the master developer ask the county whether or not a potential business is allowed by the development agreement, rather than making it optional.

It is Putt's hope that, in the event of a tenant change in Boyer building A, all necessary parties are informed of the new planned business. Jasper said he would like to begin working with the Clerk's Office to determine which businesses need business licenses.

Jasper's administrative addendum will be put before the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission during its April 22 meeting and will include public input. The agenda for that meeting has not been made yet but will be available at summitcounty.org.