HYDE PARK—Only one person was in attendance at the Hyde Park Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Wednesday night. Steve Alexander waited until the end of the meeting to voice his concern about damages done to his property by Gary Andersen Construction during the formation of a new subdivision.
“I’m going to have to figure out how to repair my road and my sprinkler system that was torn out,” Alexander said.
Gary Andersen Construction’s building permit was withheld so that the company could resolve open space issues and other matters concerning the city. Alexander said he was under the impression that the permit was withheld so that Andersen could work out the issues with him and Kirt Sadler, another Hyde Park resident affected by the construction of the subdivision.
Reed Elder, a member of the commission, responded to Alexander’s concerns stating that it was a civil issue, rather than a city issue. “What he did to wrong you isn’t a city issue. The city has no power to do anything,” Elder said.
Councilman Mark Hurd and City Treasurer Susan Balls have both attended past meetings regarding the Gary Andersen subdivision issue. They agreed with Elder’s comment that the building permit was in fact withheld due to city issues with the subdivision, rather than issues with Alexander and Sadler.
“It seems like it’s business in Hyde Park as usual,” Alexander said. “A monkey could come in with a development and they’d approve it to get impact fees.”
Elder stated earlier in the meeting that funds derived from impact fees were a very important part of residential growth, describing them as “the biggest boom.”
Mayor Bryan Cox said that Alexander initially came to the city council in April of last year and told them about the dispute. In May, Cox recommended to the council that they hold all development until open space issues were resolved, adding that a dispute between property owners is a civil issue and that the city should stay out of it. According to Cox, Hyde Park city’s attorney sent Alexander’s attorney a letter in July informing them that the development had met all city requirements and that the property could be developed.
“I haven’t spoken to Steve since he came to the city council in April,” Cox said. “The bottom line is that this issue is between property owners, not the city.”