Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's a planning commission meeting, Thursday, March 26, 2026. And we'd like to welcome all of you that are here. It's nice to see some faces out there. I've asked member McMillan to offer the prayer and then afterwards if you'd all stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance. Our father to grateful that we can gather together today as a county planning commission and those in attendance. We're ask heavenly father to have a spirit to be with us. Help us to work through these items and work together civily and come to agreement. We say these things in the humbling name of the son Jesus Christ. Amen.

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I have a motion to approve the agenda. I have a motion by member Maloney and a second by member Taylor. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Declarations of any conflict of interest with tonight's agenda. I'll just say I don't have a conflict of interest, but our water rights flow through Wasach Peak's development. So, now is a time for public comment. Um, we have four administrative items. The one legislative item has been removed from the agenda. So, if you have anything you'd like to address on tonight's agenda or any other comments you'd like to make to the planning commission, now is the time to come forward. Would request that you limit your comments to three minutes and please state your name for the record.

Uh my name is Randy Sessions. I have a document that I'll read from and I'm going to request that this document be cons uh be part of the minutes of this meeting tonight. Uh it's dated March 26, 2026 planning commission. The very first thing the pioneers did upon arrival in the Salt Lake Valley was divert water and start irrigating. Many water rights were recorded prior to Utah even becoming a state. We own one of those early rights as do many others here in Morgan County. Water rights are so important that the state legislature over the years has passed numerous laws to protect and guarantee continued access to and the use of those perfected water rights. The general population has no concept of water usage or rights other than it comes out of the tap. The status of the Great Salt Lake has amplified the interest in the use of water and water rights. Irrigation ditches per state code are considered critical water infrastructure. Therefore, care needs to be taken to protect the ditches when development occurs on top of them. These irrigation ditches need to be identified on plats and protected. They are not drainage easements for the development. An irrigation ditch is used to convey an adjudicated water right. Period. It should not be used as a collector system for storm water from the development. In my view, an irrigation ditch is used to enhance and is taken care of by the owner of the water right. Our water rights originate and flow through WPR. There have been attempts to impede our access and have created barriers that have delayed the use of our water right. During the construction in phase six, our ditch was damaged and obstructed. Their storm water ranoff has also ended up in our ditches as well as sediment filling them. During the approval process of phase six, I came to the

county and spoke of my concerns about developing on top of our ditch. At that time, I made a simple request and as an added protection to have our ditch labeled as such on the plat. However, my request was dismissed. So, why am I here? My request is that in future developments through Morgan County that care is taken by the planning commission and county commission, excuse me, the planning commission, county commission to protect and preserve the right of these ditches. They need to be identified appropriately as ditches and not as drainage easements on plats and construction drawings. My hope is to perhaps spare other water right holders from frustration and damage caused by development that we've had to heal deal with these past few years. Randy Sessions. Um, thank you for allowing me the time to to speak. My name is John Paige. Regarding the Hera uh subdivision request, the Rose property was court ordered to be specifically divided in compliance with current zoning regulations. This zoning is basically one main house and the remaining property designated agricultural with at least 200 ft of frontage of each property. My only concern is the undisclosed mention of building a future additional dwelling unit on this application. This application does not detail what the additional dwelling is. I do support the application for a model of a conventional home and the supporting infrastructure. However, I would be opposed to building an additional home on the property with its own separate septic system and water supply, which the current zoning would not allow. The zoning protects agriculture and open spaces. It protects against creating a

highdensity housing prospect or situation. This is especially important in regard to health and safety issues that are even more concerning if housing density and development would exceed exceed beyond the current zoning ordinances. All the existing home and properties on Richville Lane are in compliance with current zoning. There are no additional Richville Water Company shares available for purchase and there is no public sewer system in Richville. All water would have to be derived from wells and each house would have to have a separate a private separate septic system. An overabundance of these systems would have the potential to contaminate or exhaust our current aquifer water supply and create shortages or health concerns for existing residents. Numerous EPA environmental studies confirm that high densities of private septic systems in limited areas can severely threaten aquifer water supplies causing contamination through pathogens, nitrates, and emerging pollutants like PFAS. These systems often exceed the soil's capacity to treat a fluent. This area in particular only is only between Highway 66 and South Morgan Valley Drive, which currently includes about 24 potential homes. The potential number of private septic systems, if each sub subdivided lot had one system, would be, according to studies, an acceptable risk. However, allowing additional dwellings within subdivided lots could increase risk to a dangerous level. Permitting a change to allow addition or multiple housing within a divided property would establish an unfair unfortunate unfortunate precedent that

says zoning is simply an obstacle to overcome for people who want to purchase property with the intent to develop or subdivide it beyond the scope of what zoning would otherwise allow. Approving additional conventional houses or habitat dwellings would effectively weaken zoning ordinances and could possibly allow these nine parcels and previously subdivided parcels to result in numerous housing in direct conflict with existing zoning in the Richville area development plan and expotentially increase health and safety issues. Beyond these zoning concerns, again, there are the health and safety issues that are very concerning. If housing destiny and development would exceed beyond current zoning ordinances without an improved public sanitation system infrastructure in place, this could easily result in an increased number of private sewer systems which could have the potential to contaminate residents water supply. I would humbly request this commission to restrict to a single home and property use and restrict and resist approving this lot having additional housing that could potentially create health and safety hardships for exe existing residents. Thank you.

My name is Shelley Paige and I am married to John Paige who just spoke and we own the 5.41 acres across the street from the lot. And I'd like to say that we are excited about the Herarities moving in across the street from us. And you know, we built in 1999 along our road and it was all farm ground, but every person that's built there, it's one well and one septic system. And I've been doing some research about um you know how they re you're recommended to have usually 1.75 acres, you know, and distance between so that you can have distance between your septic system and your well. And I know that um but and then also I've read that you're supposed to limit the number of systems like in a one square mile, but I don't so I have a question for our planner. um when when a parcel comes up and you have the 1.75 acres that's required for you to have get the

you're should be addressing the planning commission. I'm sorry. Thank you. I just heard Josh. I know we we all know him. I will. He's he's listening. It's okay. Thanks, Josh. I just didn't know. Yeah.

But anyway, no ill feelings, no nothing towards anybody. I'm just telling you that we live in an area, as John said, where there's no sewer. There's no water to hook up to. There are only wells and septic systems. Um, and I was I called the Weber Weaver Morgan Health Department to ask them if they knew what kind of soil we have out there because different soils affect how systems drain. And you know, it's really complicated. They're going to call me back tomorrow. But um so my concern is the statement, the attorney guidance statement that says the sole issue in land use administration is whether the application complies with county ordinances. If it does, it must be approved. So then that brings up to me, you have an area of land that has no sewer, no no water to hook up to. Is it treated the same way as as another similar acreage area that has sewer and water? Do we have does the non sewer and water hookup area have to support those same those same ordinances? because we can expect a lot from our land but it can only give so much. It can only filter so much waste. It can you know and we have a higher water table when we have water. So and then at the Anyway, so that's my question. If it passes the 1.75 acre, then does it automatically pass no matter how many other 1.75 acre parcels are nearby or in like a one square mile area. And

it says in here on page two that Utah code annotated the Utah Supreme Court has indicated that a significant threat to the public welfare should be considered compelling. If a proposal will met zoning requirements at the time of application but seriously threatens public health, safety or welfare, the interest of the public should not be thwarted. So, I just want to tell you I'm very thankful for you and I'm thankful for the time that you spend. I know it's not easy and um I hope that you'll take into considerations like areas like ours and um we moved into an area like that and we followed the rules and things have been fine. Our wills have been fine. So I hope something good can happen. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay, we'll move on.

Okay, our first administrative item is the Hereda small subdivision preliminary and final plat.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening to the planning commission. Before I jump into my presentation, I'd like to uh call out our new senior planner, Kent Paige. Uh almost completing his first week with us, but I will be joining in future meetings. Um also, I'd like to give uh just a little bit of education on on the administrative items for tonight uh for the benefit of the planning commission and the public. Madam Chair, there are two items that the planning commission has land use authority to approve. That's uh that that represents the m the minority of applications that come through. If it's a larger subdivision, it goes to the planning commission who provides a recommendation to the county commission. But on two items, the Heretta small subdivision and the WPR phase 4.1 upper town home small subdivision. Uh those will be approved by the planning commission tonight. The others will be recommendations. So just wanted to give some detail there. Just a little bit further education. in this application is a small subdivision of 10 lots or less. That means that and for this and the other application that preliminary and final applications, final plat applications are combined. Um but that does not mean that the documents preliminary and final plats are combined. We look at those distinctively in our review. So I just wanted to provide a couple of disclaimers for tonight. So, Madam Chair, um it item number six is the Huretta small subdivision preliminary and final plot. It's file number 25.023. The applicant is in the audience tonight, Madame Chair, being Travis Heretta. Uh the location of the project is approximately 344 West Richville Lane and is identified by the parcel number and serial number in your meeting packet tonight. The current zoning is a split designation of rural residential uh an

RR1 zone and the agriculture zone which is abbreviated A20. The current acreage is 3.83 acres and the request for tonight madam chair is approval of preliminary and final plats of a one lot small subdivision. staff having conducted a review and the reviewing staff consisting of several departments namely the county engineer, the county surveyor, the county recorder, the Morgan County Fire Department and planning staff all having reviewed this application finds that it meets the uh code requirements for approval tonight. Uh the application meets the minimum frontage, meets the minimum size requirement, and uh meets all of the preliminary and final plot standards. Um and having been reviewed, uh staff recommends approval of this application to the commission tonight. And just looking over my notes, um staff and I staff consisting of Josh, Kent, and I are happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any questions for staff? If I might take a moment to address some of the comments that were brought up in public comment.

Um, county staff does not set the 1.75 acre requirement. That's more uh Weber Weber Morgan Health Department. We Morgan Health Department uh is requiring 1.75 instead of 1 acre because of the percolation rates in our in our county. Uh that doesn't mean some properties might be allowed to go lower. Um but we've been working health department in the recent past has required the 1.75. That's not a county requirement. Our requirement is 1 acre uh which uh th this is uh in relation to uh the extra dwelling units on properties. Every residential property owner in this county can apply for an accessory dwelling unit. Uh the county commission approved internal accessory dwelling units um one or two years before I got here and then they expanded that to allow for detached accessory dwelling units uh 2 and a half years ago I believe. Uh so if uh a property owner wanted an accessory dwelling unit uh it would not it would not create a new subdivision they would be allowed to build that accessory dwelling unit on their property. In order to do that, they would have to go back to Weaver Morgan Health Department if it's well in septic and get a new approval letter uh and expand enlarge or add another leechfield septic system for the new new dwelling unit. Uh they'd also be looking at the the well as well to make sure it would accommodate the second uh the accessory dwelling unit. Uh with that said, uh the Herrettas have gone through Weber Health Department. We received the approval letter from that. It took them quite a while actually to get that which was uh one of the holdups of the subdivision.

Thank you. Questions well protection on it's got set back has everything on it. The only thing I see missing are the full utility easements. It's there in the front, but not in the back and one side. That would probably need to be identified on the the plat. If if you want to add that as a stipulation of approval, we can have that added before it's recorded. Okay. Is that a standard that we just missed?

Yeah, the engineer reviewed it, staff reviewed it. Um, we still have time to add those on before records, so it's a good catch. We may want to address the code. I don't know if those easements are necessary anymore like they used to be in subdivisions. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Do you have anything to say or to add? Unless anyone have a question for the applicant. Josh, do you remember what the perk rate is out there? No.

Get into perk rates. I'm not an engineer. I'm just seeing some of the soils on the side of it. Looks like it actually should work fine. But I was just wondering what the Yeah, the only thing I look for is the letter from Wever Health Department and I read through it to make sure their test well provides the water required at the rate that's required per day, which is 800 gallons per day. And um that they've approved the septic Thank you. So, if there's no more questions, I'm ready for a motion and I'd like to have those utilities. Oh, sure. Travis, would you like to come forward?

What is the secondary? I'm just curious. What's that? What's the secondary you're looking at currently? Um I have not specified any secondary simply the single lot subdivision application that we've submitted. Okay. All right. Thank you. Other questions? Yeah, I am ready for the motion to add utility easements.

Madam chair, I move we approve the that a small subdivision's prelim preliminary and final plat application number 25.023 23 allowing for a one lot subdivision located approximately 344 West Richville Lane in uninc incorporated Morgan County. Based on the findings with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 26 of 2026 and with the following conditions that we have the easements, utility easements listed on the map. Is that correct? on the plat on the plat on the plat. Okay, I have a motion by member Wilson. Second

and a second by member King. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Unanimous. Um before Jeremy starts, uh I'll speak to the WPR uh comments that were made at first. Uh the meeting that Mr. Sessions mentions I did call those ditches uh storm water. Uh after the meeting I spoke to uh commissioner uh chair sessions uh who clarified that they were drainage. After that I had a conversation with WPR and they agreed to list the list them as uh irrigation ditches.

Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. Item number seven on the agenda is the Wasatch Peaks Ranch phase 4A.1 upper town homes residential site plan application number 25.054. The approximate location of the property being 5233 West Wasach Peaks Ranch or Wasach Peaks Road and the applicant being of course the Wasatch Peaks Ranch LLC team. The current zoning is a resort special district with an applicable development agreement. The acreage is 3.07 acres. The request for tonight, Madame Chair, is for site plan approval of the Wasatch Peaks Ranch phase 4A.1 upper town homes residential site plan to allow for the construction of six town homes.

Madam Chair, the site plan application is one of planning staff's most involved applications. There's a long list of checklists. It asks for engineered plans and asks for several plans as addendums to the to the main site plan. Uh including a landscaping plan, all of this having been reviewed, a photometrics plan to assess compliance with the county's dark sky ordinance, uh building materials which in this case, madam chair, are regulated by the development agreements. Uh there are also elevations submitted, uh utility plans, etc. Parking is also considered in this case. It is three separate driveways that tee into separate units. Um the planning for the review staff for such a for a site plan application includes the county engineer and uh for for review of the engineered plans as well as providing a drainage report. the Morgan County Fire Department and the planning staff. All who having reviewed this

site plan application, Madam Chair, recommend approval to this body tonight and planning staff is happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is in the audience tonight. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff on the site plan? Um, Chair Sessions, I just want to remind everybody in our old bylaws, it does state under conflict of interest um that there may be a conflict of interest if there are personal, familial or financial ties between a planning commission member and a proponent or opponent of any item of business. And in that case, um, the planning commission member shall not participate in the discussion or vote. So just to clarify

further clarification I think it's we're talking about phase six which is later in the meeting. Is that not correct? So just outside of the discussion for 4 4 A.1. Okay. So any any questions for staff? The only thing is it's four driveways, right? Oh, you might Okay. Yes, four. Thank you. Correct. Okay. See, any questions for the applicant on the site plan?

I I do have a question with um building materials and WOOI um fire. The fire marshall approves it at this phase. Correct. the fire marshall um has weighed in. Um the approval has been given. Uh also the materials are not um they're not from our code. They come directly out of the development agreement and these follow those. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Then I am ready for a motion. I I can do it. Says I says uh I move we recommend approval to the county commission of the WPR phrase 4A.1 upper town homes residential site plan application number 25.0. 54 line proposed multif family development of six town home units within three separate buildings located at approximately 5233 West Wasach Peaks Road in unincorporated Morgan County based on findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 26.

Okay. I have a motion by member Wilson. Second. A second by member Maloney. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Unanimous. Number agenda item number eight. Thank you, Madam Chair. Small preliminary and final plat.

Apologies. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um item number eight is the WPR phase 4.1 upper town homes small subdivision preliminary and final plot. That's application number 25.055. 055. The applicant again being the Wasatch Peaks Ranch LLC. The project location similarly at 5233 West Wasach Peaks Road identified by the parcel number and serial number in your meeting packet tonight with the current zoning again being resort special district with a an applicable development agreement with the acreage being 3.07 acres. Again, the request is for site plan approval. That's not correct. is for preliminary and final plat approval of six town homes units within three separate buildings. So, madame chairs, uh just some detail from staff that we planning staff will generally require that specifically preliminary plat applications and site plan applications run together. The only difference here is that it's adding on the final flat due to its small size uh of the lots or the smaller amount of lots. the reviewing staff, Madam Chair, consisting of the county engineer, county recorder, the county surveyor, fire department, and planning staff. All having reviewed this, recommend approval to this body tonight. Um, with the proceeding application having gone over most of the details, I'll yield the rest of my time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Any questions for staff? I have a question about why we're doing it this way. It's kind of makes no sense because the code requires it with the site plan and then the site plan's a recommendation for approval. So, they've got another meeting to go to uh for the site plan. That is correct. Yeah. And then our preliminary plat and final apply approval is is is final tonight where it's conditioned on the the county commission's approval of the site plan.

Well, they're all administrative and as long as they check all the boxes, they can't be denied. And as far as we've reviewed and looked at it, both the site plan meets our code as well as the subdivision. So, for tonight, the plat can be approved. Um, but the site plan is going to have to go to county commission. Am I only the only one that thinks it's a complete waste of time to have that additional meeting? Nope. Okay. It's different applications that look at different

So, I checklist and requirements. I talked to the county commission three years ago uh right after I started about uh site plans because site plan talks about the land use authority having approval to approve it basically having the the authority to approve it and I was told at that point that the land use authority in relation to site plans is the county commission. I can just imagine what what would happen if if they walk away from this meeting with a an approved preliminary plat, an approved final plat, and then they go to the county commission and they say, "Well, we got a problem with this type of thing."

I would hope they wouldn't do that. I would hope not either, but then why even have the meeting? Well, the plat does a few things differently. Uh, a few things that the site plan doesn't do. It allows them to divide. It doesn't necessarily allow them to put the the town homes there until they get that approved. So, this allows them to divide and record. I I get it. This just seems out of whack. Seems crazy. Yeah. Can you put that on your list? Um, if I'm directed to do so. Take that up after the meeting. At the end of the meeting.

Yep. No more questions for staff or the applicant. Okay, ready for a motion? I move we recommend approval to the county commission the WPR phase 6 C and 6D preliminary plat. Oh, sorry, wrong one. page 38. Thank you. It's blurry on my computer. Sorry. I'm trying to You just want me to do it?

Yeah, go for it. All right. I move I move we approve the WPR phase 4A.1 upper town home small subdivision preliminary and final plat application number 25.055 055 allowing for six town home units within three separate buildings located at approximately 5233 West Wasatch Peaks Road based on the findings with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 26th, 2026. Have a motion by member King. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by member Wilson. Any more discussion? All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The motion carries. Unanimous. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh item number nine on the agenda tonight is the Wasach Peaks Ranch subdivision phase 6C and 6D preliminary plat modification. File number 25.051. The applicant again being the Wasach Peaks Ranch LLC. The location again being approximately 5233 West Was Peace Road and is identified by the parcel numbers and serial numbers in your meeting packet tonight with the resort special district with an applicable development agreement consisting the requirements for governing of the development of the of the development with the acreage being approximately 276.60 acres combined. The request for for tonight is for a preliminary plat approval of an 18 lot subdivision divided into two more phases namely 6 C and 60D. When the when plat 6 went uh came before the county commission and received approval, a phases A and B had complete definition in the boundaries of the phases, the lots contained therein um utilities and everything everything defined for those subdivisions. But but C phase C in phase six was left undefined. So the boundaries of the subdivision of the phase uh were were were drawn but none of the lots in that subdivision were drawn. This request is to define phase C and

also to add in and provide complete definition for phase 6D. The lot sizes range madam chair from approximately 0.74 acres. there being uh half dozen smaller lots uh going up to 7.23 acres uh the majority being larger lots within these two phases. Madam Chair, the planning staff having reviewed this application and the planning staff have consisting of the county engineer, the county surveyor, the county recorder, and the Morgan County Fire Department, all having provided reviews uh and and providing uh approvals and their reviews recommend approval to the to the planning commission tonight. The applicant is in the audience, Madam Chair, and staff is happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions for staff? I'm just going to edit that last little bit. Uh preliminary plat is not required to be uh reviewed by the surveyor or the uh recorder. So, this was reviewed by staff, engineer, and um the fire department. Thank you. I don't see any questions. Any questions for the applicant?

I don't have any. Seeing none, I'm ready for a motion.

I'll make a motion. I move we recommend approval of the county commission the WPR phase 6C and 6D preliminary plat modification application number 25.051 allowing for an 18 lot subdivision of land located at approximately 5233 West Peaks Road in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 26, 2026. Have a motion by member Taylor, a second. A second by member Wilson. Do we want to add the condition of the ditches?

This does not affect. Okay. Fate, if you could go back to the map. Our ditch went through the phase a the blue one. There's a line that goes down the middle. So there's no other ditches, public ditches affected. No. No. And it it it goes along the side of D. So no. Okay. Ditch was in phase one and that that's done. That's being it already has final being constructed.

But that would show up in a in a final plat recommendation or would that be in a preliminary plat and final plat recommendation? What? For ditches? Yeah, I guess a question for Josh. Um, I'd have to look through our code to see uh what it says about irrigation ditches. Um, I will make sure if our code says irrigation ditches have to be labeled on the plat, I will make sure that they're labeled in the future. I don't think it needs a stipulation now. Okay. So, I have the motion by member Taylor and I have the second by member Wilson. So, any more discussion? All in favor?

Any opposed? The motion carries unanimous. Now, we're on to business and staff questions. Did you want to make your motion for staff to review? Um, yeah. I Do you have your list, Josh? Did not bring it tonight. Can we Can we talk about that at the next meeting?

Maybe. Yeah, maybe have it as an agenda item that we can discuss. So, the list that I have has already been prioritized by by county commission. Um, it would just be an update from you. Yeah. An update of of the list. Uh, okay. Yep. Sure.

That would be great. Uh, I I don't know how to how to make that motion. It would have to do with land use authority and and making the things that uh like the site plan that should I I guess the approval of site plans for um be in alignment with the approval authority for um final plat. land use authority for preliminary plat would match the land use authority for final plat.

Um if if I might interject I I don't know if planning commission directing me to change the land use authority would be the right route. What I would suggest is talking to the county commission because I've already been directed that the land use authority for that is the county commission. So if if you want to change who the land use authority is, I would talk to the county commission, get them to buy off on it, and then direct staff to change who the land use authority is or to redefine land use authority in general. I I mean, I would support it because I think some of these administrative things should either be planning commission or staff approved. Yes. Um

that's how it's been done nearly everywhere else I've been agree. for a site plan to go to county commission. That's that's a lot of meetings that generally shouldn't be needed. So, I support it. Maybe at the next meeting where Matt Wilson and Mike Newton will be here, uh, how about we discuss it then? Perfect. Would that be all right? Great. Okay. Thank you. Do you have any business? staff have any business for the planning commission? Um, not not tonight. You could just give us free reign to fix

because it'd be so much simpler if I could go in and just fix it now. And at the last county commission meeting, Mike Newton did tell me to make note of all the stupid things in our code and to bring those forward. So, I was kind of given cart blanch approval to do that, but Janet will be busy. Yeah. Rewriting code did it. She just said she wanted it. Okay. See, no more business. Approval of the minutes. So move approval of March 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Motion by member King to approve the minutes.

Second. Second by member Maloney. All in favor? I. The motion carries unanimous. Motion to some moved.