Applicant urges appeal authority to reverse county code-enforcement determination on Powder Mountain West access

Blake Hoffmeister, appearing for the DHN Family Trust, argued at a Weber County administrative hearing that a written determination from the county’s principal code-enforcement officer declining to enforce parts of the 2015 zoning development agreement (ZDA) is an appealable land-use decision and must be reviewed by the appeal authority.

Hoffmeister said the trust is an “adversely affected party” under state law and that staff’s effort to treat a written determination as an informal email would allow the county to avoid judicial review simply by communicating conclusions by email. “If this office does not assert subject matter jurisdiction today, it would mean that county staff could completely insulate itself from any enforcement failures … simply by typing it into an email,” he told the hearing officer, Matt Wilson.

Hoffmeister urged the appeal authority to apply the statutes he cited, including provisions requiring de novo review of factual matters and construction according to the plain language of land-use regulations. He said the ZDA is a public land-use regulation that runs with the land and is not a private contract and described what he called a de facto privatization of resort infrastructure: lifts and amenities that he said were approved to be integrated with surrounding property are being placed behind a membership model that excludes legacy property owners.

Hoffmeister also raised fiscal and property impacts, saying his neighborhood has borne costs (including water and sewer rates tied to tax-increment financing) and that, based on his public-records request, “nearly $6 million has been routed back to the developer.” He said those financial flows and the loss of promised access have reduced surrounding lot values and that the remedy is reversal of the enforcement determination and remand with explicit direction that the planning division enforce the ZDA’s integration and access provisions.

County counsel and staff disputed the jurisdictional premise. Courtland Ericson and a staff presenter identified in the record as Corin argued the principal code-enforcement officer is not a “land-use authority” under the statutory definitions and that the exchange in question amounted to inaction or an informal statement rather than an appealable administrative decision. Staff cited case law (recorded in the hearing as Fuja v. Woodland Hills) to support a view that some non-enforcement communications are not subject to the land-use appeals process and noted other statutory remedies may exist for alleged failures to enforce.

Hearing officer Matt Wilson asked questions of both sides, noted he would examine all submitted materials (including additional documents the applicant said had been provided), and said he would not issue an immediate ruling but would prepare a written decision. Wilson told parties he hoped to issue a written decision within seven days and that he would serve it to all parties; he did not resolve jurisdiction on the record.

What happens next: Wilson will issue a written decision that will state whether the authority accepts jurisdiction and, if so, whether the enforcement determination will be reversed and remanded. The decision will trigger any statutory appeal periods that apply.