PARK CITY, Utah — In a decisive move to resolve a protracted legal battle, the Park City Council convened on Thursday and voted to approve a consent agreement with Pesky Porcupine LLC, a company owned by tech executive and Utah billionaire Matthew Prince. This agreement aims to facilitate the construction of a single-family home at 220 King Road while also seeking to resolve three pending court cases associated with the project. The decision follows years of litigation and public controversy surrounding the proposed development, which has drawn vocal opposition from neighboring property owners Eric Hermann and Susan Fredston-Hermann. The consent agreement is designed to effectively settle ongoing lawsuits between Park City Municipal and Pesky Porcupine LLC, while also addressing the concerns raised by the Hermanns, who have been opposed to the project from the outset. Their legal counsel expressed concerns that the agreement was premature and could undermine the integrity of the upcoming court hearing scheduled for January 29. Despite these objections, council members and city attorneys argued that delaying the vote would not contribute to a resolution and could instead prolong the conflict. City attorneys emphasized that the agreement reinstates earlier approvals granted by the Planning Commission and Planning Director while introducing additional mitigation measures. These measures include expanded landscaping and requirements for architectural adjustments such as changes to roof overhangs and window treatments aimed at ensuring compliance with the community’s historic district guidelines. The agreement also obligates Pesky Porcupine LLC to cover future legal expenses incurred by the city in connection with the project. Councilmember Bill Ciraco acknowledged the lengthy duration of the litigation, which has spanned over three years, and expressed the need for a resolution to prevent further deterioration of community relations. "This has been going on for three or four years, and it is ugly — and it’s going to get uglier if we can’t resolve it," Ciraco stated. He underscored the importance of bringing the community together rather than allowing the dispute to fester. City outside counsel Mitch Stevens also reassured the council that waiting for the court’s decision would only address one of the three lawsuits and would not encompass the broader issues at stake. The consent agreement, if accepted by the parties involved, could lead to the dismissal of the pending lawsuits, thereby circumventing a judicial ruling on whether earlier approvals met the requirements of city code. This outcome would represent a significant shift in how land-use disputes are managed in Park City and aligns with the recently passed Senate Bill 262, which empowers municipalities to resolve land-use conflicts while court cases are ongoing. While supporters of the law argue that it offers a practical solution to reduce prolonged litigation, critics warn that it may curtail the judicial system's role in settling land-use appeals. The Hermanns have consistently voiced their opposition to the project, contending that the matter should be adjudicated by an impartial court rather than through a council-sanctioned settlement. In a letter submitted ahead of the council meeting, their attorneys argued that approving the agreement before the January 29 hearing would compromise procedural fairness and could lead to further legal complications. "The agreement will not bring finality — it would only multiply the litigation," the letter stated, highlighting the concerns of third-party property owners who may feel adversely affected by the development. During the public comment portion of the meeting, Matthew Prince addressed the council, affirming his commitment to the community and underscoring his contributions to local causes, including affordable housing initiatives and educational support. "We have made significant investments in the community, giving to the causes that we think are important," Prince remarked. His statement aimed to reshape the narrative around his development project from one of conflict to one of community engagement and investment. Despite the opposition from the Hermanns, several council members expressed frustration over the drawn-out nature of the dispute, which they described as increasingly divisive. Ciraco urged all parties to focus on community investment rather than conflict, signaling a desire for collaborative progress. "Instead of investing in fighting each other, think about investing in the community and helping bring us together," he stated. Following the council's approval of the consent agreement, the next steps involve both the city and Pesky Porcupine LLC seeking the dismissal of the pending lawsuits. This agreement paves the way for the company to apply for a building permit, contingent upon compliance with the adjusted conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. However, the scheduled court hearing on January 29 remains on the calendar unless the involved parties opt to dismiss the case before that date. The outcome of this legal saga will be closely watched by residents and stakeholders in Park City, as it could set a significant precedent for future land-use disputes in the area.