Neighbors who call themselves the View Crew are waging a battle over renovations on the property of Park City Planning Commission Chair Sarah Hall.

They allege in a lawsuit that work being done on the 7-acre site at 2750 Meadow Creek Drive owned by Hall and her husband, Gerry Hall, violates the city’s land management and building codes. Park City officials are not enforcing those laws and the municipality refused to hear an appeal of a decision denying a request for a stop work order, the suit claims.

The neighbors are seeking review of the city’s land use decision involving the property or in the alternative, enforcement of municipal ordinances.

---

---

“The city has failed to properly interpret, administer and enforce the Land Management code on many, many occasions,” said D. Robert Theobald, a land use researcher whose home is next to the property.

The city disputes that allegation.

---

---

“Park City Municipal is confident we followed our processes and procedures in this matter,” Clayton Scrivner, the Park City communications manager, said.

The suit — which names as defendants Park City Municipal Corporation and Crescent Vertical LLC, which is owned by the Halls — also claims the company failed to get required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do work in wetlands on the property, including drilling a well. 

“By refusing to enforce its own laws and ordinances applicable to the well drilling, Park City has abdicated its duties,” the suit alleges.

In a separate review, the Army Corps of Engineers sent Sarah Hall a certified letter in the summer saying the agency is looking into “potential unauthorized activity” concerning landscaping and work involving what appears to be a drill rig. The Clean Water Act requires a Department of the Army permit before the discharge of dredged or fill materials in United States waters, except where specifically exempted.

Gerry Hall said he and his wife, who is not commenting on the case, are cooperating with the Army Corps and their goal is to be good stewards for the land. The ongoing dispute with the neighbors has been frustrating, he added.

“We feel that their conclusions and allegations are incorrect,” Hall said. “They’re asking for the code to be applied in a way that it has never been applied to other homes in Park City.”

In addition, Hall said, the fight has been a waste of resources. 

“There are a lot of other things that this is distracting city staffers time from, things that have a bigger impact than one single family home,” he said.

In an April letter, Gretchen Milliken, then the city’s planning director, told Theobald he did not have the right to appeal the Halls’ building permit to the Board of Adjustment and “regardless, any appeal is untimely.”

“Your ‘Complaint’ was a request that the City look into concerns and take action,” Milliken said. “The City did this in multiple ways including meeting with you multiple times; reviewing the issues; working with the permitee to ensure compliance; and following up with you.”

The Halls bought the property three years ago, and Crescent Vertical engaged an architect to design the remodel, hired a contractor and applied to Park City for a building permit. The permit for the project, which has a valuation of about $1.26 million, was approved and issued on Oct. 27, 2021, and construction began a few days later, according to court documents. A revised plan was approved Dec. 7, 2022.

On Dec. 9, 2022, Theobald and three other neighbors submitted a written complaint to Park City’s compliance department saying they had informally communicated their concerns about the project, but the construction and apparent violations “are unresolved and continuing.”

Park City officials decided the complaint was not sufficient to trigger an administrative appeal and that it was submitted 17 months too late. Theobald said he was unable to appeal to the Board of Adjustment because the city did not provide a written decision for him to appeal.

For 14 months, all the documentation showed a pool, Theobald said, and he questioned why the city did not require a conditional use permit. He noted the Halls’ permit had been amended and argues that should have triggered a new 10-day period to appeal.

“The citizenry has to have some confidence to rely on the decisions that the City Council makes and the City Council relies on what the Planning Commission recommends and the Planning Commission relies on what the planning staff does in their research to make decisions,” Theobald said. “And when you have a break, an obvious break in that chain of confidence, your whole city is not equipped to address issues coming down the line and if they’re ignored, we’re all in trouble.”

Sarah Hall has suggested during Planning Commission meetings in 2022 that the city code be changed to drop the requirement that property owners get a conditional use permit to build a pool, according to meeting minutes. That advocacy has raised neighbors’ concerns about a conflict of interest.

Park City Attorney Margaret Plane said in a March 15 email to members of the City Council and Planning Commission that Hall’s building permit was properly issued and “the Commissioner did not need to disclose the permit during the Planning Commission’s discussion of a legislative recommendation.”

Theobald filed the lawsuit on May 12 in Utah’s Third District Court and was the sole plaintiff at the time. Park City Municipal and Crescent Vertical were named as defendants and the suit was amended on Nov. 1 to add six more neighbors as plaintiffs.

The suit includes allegations that the Halls constructed a pool without getting a conditional use permit; renovated a home that exceeded the maximum allowed square footage; failed to prepare a Sensitive Lands Overlay analysis and a wetlands analysis on the property; moved and altered the vegetation in a wetlands area and in a wildlife corridor; and planted trees outside certain boundaries that blocked views.

Gerry Hall countered that the remodel made the house’s footprint 200 square feet smaller.

“The thought that this scope of a project would create this much of an issue is mind blowing to us because, again, the remodel actually made it smaller,” he said.

He also said the renovation did not include a pool and showed a photo of an indoor hot tub that was installed. The initial designer had put a big block over the entire room with the word “pool” as a placeholder on the plan until a separate contractor could submit a detailed hot tub plan, according to Hall.

He said a conditional use permit was not required for an indoor hot tub in 2021 unless they were associated with a homeowner or condominium association so a new building permit was not needed.

Hall said he is not insensitive to neighbors’ concerns about trees impacting their views, “but they have to also let us exercise our property rights.” Almost all the trees on the property, including a row of aspens that were planted in 2005, were put in by previous owners, he said.

The suit asks for a court order revoking the building permit, allowing Theobald to appeal the denial of the Dec. 9 complaint, issuing a stop work order pending Crescent Vertical’s submission of a “lawful application” for a building permit and requiring the removal of any construction that causes the home to exceed the maximum square footage.

Crescent Vertical has filed a motion, which Park City Municipal joined, asking that the suit be dismissed as untimely because appeals must be made within 10 days of any final action or notice of the land use decision.

The motion, which does not address the merits of the case, notes Theobald did not serve Park City and Crescent Vertical with the lawsuit until August and September, respectively, and by that time, the remodeling was substantially complete.