Robert
Another question for you.
In chapter 28 of the Lehi resort community code, page 28-4 section 28.060 - Development Approvals and Permits in A.1 there is a sentence that is causing me some confusion. It states that the Chief Building Official and the Public Works Director have the authority to sign on behalf of the City Council "if they are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final document (s).
Is there any kind of document you could send me that states that the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director have been given this authority and have the right to sign on behalf of the City Council and then provide me with examples where this has been the case. I would like to see the document authorizes them to sign on behalf of the City Council.
Secondly, in that same section it states, "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL be divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a PLAT." I have contacted the Utah Recorders office and the Family Search subdivision is recorded as a PLAT, not by metes and bounds as outlined in the resort code. I would like an explanation as to why the code as written above was not followed.
I will be sharing your response to the hundreds of those Lehi residents who are outraged by the proposed destruction of the Thanksgiving Point driving range to put up two massive office buildings.
Thank you
Bill Conley
Here is Robert's response
Bill,
Section 28.080A1 does not use the word “if.” It uses the word “are.” This is a very important legal distinction. I have directly copied the language below. You are, of course, welcome to verify this for yourself.
The Preliminary and Final Plans shall be submitted and reviewed simultaneously, and the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director are designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council, to approve and sign the final Document(s)
On the issue of metes and bounds, you are correct as to the language. However, you misunderstand the difference between a metes and bounds document and a plat document. A plat document is completed to a higher standard than a metes and bounds document. So when a developer offers a plat document rather than a metes and bounds document, the city is happy to accept a plat.
Based on this information, the city is maintaining its position that the developer for this project has followed all applicable requirements.
Regards,
My response back to Robert
Robert
Thanks for the point of clarification. It seems as though words matter or you would not have pointed out a specific word. If words matter, than so do the words metes and bounds. You seem to believe the term plat is superior to the term metes and bounds and therefore the city will accept a plat over a metes and bound description. If words matter than the city MUST follow what is written and what is written is not plat, but metes and bounds language. You, I and no one else gets to determine that a plat is superior to metes and bounds. If you are going to suggest the word "are" is relevant, well then, so are the words, "metes and bounds". You can't simply pick and choose what you will and will not enforce.
You seem to suggest that a plat is superior to the term metes and bounds. Maybe you could show me anywhere within Lehi City code that the term plat is superior to the term metes and bounds and that the City as an official statement accepts a plat description in place of a metes and bounds description, please provide me the relevant code or statute that specifies this.
This must be corrected at the county, you can't just be happy to accept a plat description in place of a metes and bounds, the code specifies a metes and bounds description and specifically states it cannot be a plat. "The lots in a minor subdivision WILL BE divided by a metes and bounds document rather than a plat." What is so difficult to understand about this language. You don't get to choose or be happy, you must follow the code as it is written. You commented on the relevance of a single word "are", now you must follow the code, there is nothing to misinterpret, language as written MUST be followed.
I requested that you provide me with a document that was prepared by the mayor or city council granting the Public Works Director and Chief Building Official with the authority to sign legal documents on behalf of the legislative body (city council). The code says "The Chief Building Official and Public Works Director "are" designated by the City Council as the officers having authority, on behalf of the City Council to approve and sign the final documents." I would like to see any documents created by either the City Council or may granting them this authority. I would like to know if there are no such documents. I would also like to know if there is anywhere else in any Chapter within the City Code that grants the authority for the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director to sign minor lot subdivisions on behalf of the City Council or is the only place this shows up in the City code?
Lastly, could you testify that there will not be any requirement for the construction of any public improvement or the dedication of any public right away. The language in the code specifically states the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director can sign as having authority, if the subdivision includes less than ten lots and the subdivision does not require the construction of any public improvements or the dedication of any public right of way. Are you or anyone at the city willing to sign a document clearly stating that there is and will never be any requirement for the construction of any public improvement?
Did you know Todd Munger NEVER attended a reported or recorded meeting to discuss the Family Search subdivision, yet he put his signature on the documents recorded by the county. How did the city allow Todd Munger to sign off on a subdivision that he was never at a meeting to discuss? All I can say is WOW. There was no City Council or Planning Commission discussion and one of the two people who signed off on the subdivision was never even in a recorded meeting (there was only one) to discuss the proposed subdivision. Who told him to sign the document and who gave him the information about the new subdivision. I can't imagine Mr. Munger signed something he knew nothing about, maybe he did, although that would be incredibly irresponsible of him.
Please fix the situation at the County. According to Chapter 28, this cannot be recorded as a plat, it MUST be recorded as metes and bounds.
Bill Conley
And finally, it seems as though Robert has had enough and does not want to engage in meaningful dialog, provide me the answers and documents I am looking for. By the way, Robert in no way provided me with answers to my questions. Take a look at my question and Robert's response and you let me know if he answered each and every one of my questions. It baffles me that city administrators who work for me and the other residents of Lehi, refuse to engage in a meaningful dialog.
Bill,
I have provided you an answer to your questions. I am sorry you are not satisfied, but I will not be engaging in any additional arguments. If you have legal concerns you are welcome to contact city attorney Ryan Wood. You may also contact city administrator Jason Walker or any of your elected officials. This will be the last communication you receive from me.
Regards,
No comments:
Post a Comment