Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We didn't tell Commissioner Warner, but last one here has to give the pledge of allegiance. Call the meeting in That's loud today. I think we're all late now.

Call the Twile County Planning Commission to order. We're uh it's um April 1st, 2026. We're at 47 South Main Street in the council chambers on the third floor. Um we will begin with Commissioner Warner leaning us in the pledge of allegiance. 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. Thank you. Um, we'll start with roll call. Commissioner St.

Commissioner Backstrom here. Commissioner Christensen present. Commissioner Dao here. Commissioner Mitchell here. And Commissioner Warner here. And Commissioner Scott. Um, we have anyone unite. Hey, we have a full board. This is full commission. This is nice. We will um move to agenda item three. Is there any questions, comments, or corrections for meeting minutes from February 18th? Hearing none, I'll take a motion. Madam Chairman, I move that we approve meeting uh the meeting minutes from February 18th, 2026.

I'll second. Uh we have a motion by Commissioner Dao, second by Commissioner Beckrom. All in favor say I. I.

Okay. Now the turn the time over to Millie to um item four, subdivisions 2025-183. Thank you, commissioners. Um so uh subdivision 25 2025-183 um Charles Aurelo with Zenus Partners is requesting a preliminary plat approval um for the uh three lot GSL industrial and Sunstone IFD interstate business park subdivision. Um these parcels were established by meets and bounds descriptions and were not created through an approved subdivision process. So, in order to be buildable lots, um, they're seeking the subdivision process.

So, just sorry, they did it kind of backwards. Kind of backwards. Yeah. But, okay, we're correcting that. Okay.

Um, so the um uh all uh the application aligns um pretty well with the general plan. Um it's just off of Burmeister and I 80. So um uh that area in the general plan is uh outlined as manufacturing. Um so uh the zone is MG. So it's it's intended for the uh the uses align pretty well with um what the general plan is outlining. Uh and so they've uh gone through the process. They've gone through all of the approvals. All of the agencies have approved um for them to move on to the final um final subdivision process. So now right now we're just asking for the um the preliminary to be approved. Um so uh planning staff recommends uh that the planning commission make a motion to approve the preliminary plat application. and the applicant is um here if you have some questions for them.

Okay. Um does it say how many lots there are? Yeah, so there's three lots um two official lots and then one parcel. Um in that parcel, they're just planning for it to be open space for the time being. Um, is it going to be dedicated open space or for the time being eventually they'll develop? Um, I'm not sure.

Okay, lastly, I have one question regarding the Department of Health and it's more administrative in nature. I noticed they put NA on everything and then referred to another document. How does that document actually tie to this and does it form part of this package and document referring to as a larger water system? I think yeah so the water system is the septic system I'm sorry the sewer system. Yeah, it's all approved by the state. So when we have state approval the health department doesn't need to approve on it. Okay.

And that and they just put the NAS in there. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions or comments for staff? Does the applicant want to come up and address us? Are you the applicant? Uh, I represent the applicant. Okay.

Uh, my name is Melanie Pollson. I'm the district general manager for the Tilla Valley Public Infrastructure District. Um, so yes, we are going for two lots. There's one for Sunstone IFD. It is on the east side. Um it's 15.13 acres that will house our wastewater uh treatment system for the project. And then lot 2011 is 25 acres and that will be for a client. Parcel A is just open space um include wetlands. Okay. Will that be dedicated open space or with plans to eventually develop it?

Um, as far as I know, it's just dedicated open space for right now. So, the wetlands have been delineated when we saw the overall reason and they have been set aside through a port an inland port. Okay. Instrument um to not be developed. Okay. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Um, at this time I'll open public hearing. If you have a question or comment or sorry, if you have a comment, please come forward, state your name, and write it on the clipboard. Um, we will limit any public comments to two minutes. Let's see both these work.

Hello. Press the button. Make sure it's green. Oh, this green. This one's green. Hello. Can hear me close enough. Anyways, um I'm also a developer on Higgley Road and across the Burmeister there and we're happy to um develop and bring a lot of Sorry, can you state your name?

Oh, sorry. Michael Jury. Um and I I own the 61 acres in the center of the Interstate Business Park and then also a bunch of property across the way west. Um, what I wanted to do is uh when they acquired the property that's uh north of Higgley and east of Burmeister last summer, they made a representation to Trish that they would uh make the county road improvements on Higgley Road. And I have a property on Higgley Road. We're also doing uh have one across on the west side where we're doing the 84 foot wide easements making it all professional truck routes everywhere. Uh Interstate Business Park has three uh entrances up and down Higgley Road. They claim they're not going to use it, but it's it would it's good for that whole area, commercial and industrial. have truck routes up down Burmeister Higgley all the way across and uh it I talked to Rocky Mountain Power. We're the ones that helped bring in the power line for the cannabis plant. They're not willing to move those power poles. So, it would require all of us to add 51 ft north to the existing 33 and then we'd have the 84 foot and then we could all make that road professional and it would be a beautiful thing for them. I I don't see them opposing it. Um it makes it better for everybody and it's part of the master plan to my knowledge. Um Jake on a call with my property a couple weeks ago claimed that they they probably just forgot, but um that is a requirement that we think would be good. I think Michelle had mentioned to me that uh she also would like to see um the 84 foot wide easement on Higgley and then it would continue

through Mermister onto my property. So, I'm here to support their subdivision contingent upon going back a little bit of cleanup. They may say, "Hey, it's not the parcel," but it's all it's all the Interstate business park and we're trying to scoot things along. So, I'm trying to do a lot of meetings and and uh talk to their agent and whatnot to try and get all this together sooner than later. It's a lot of work to get that easement up and down, but between Interstate Business Park, me, uh, Wholesome, the cannabis operation, Utah, uh, they're willing to comply. Thank you.

Anyone on line, Michelle? Just Mr. D. You're good. You don't get too vulging up on you. Seeing no further comments, I will close public hearing. Any questions or comments?

I do. U I have a question for staff. Um I I distinctly remember the last time Mr. Drew was a uh before the commission concerning his property. It was talked about widening that road and giving it a wider easement. Um I'm wondering what the staff's thoughts are concerning this uh particular request. So it won't be an easement. It will be dedicated right ofway and as they subdivide property along Higgley Road, they will be required to dedicate and improve the frontage of that property. Okay. This parcel before you tonight does not touch Higgley.

Okay. Okay. So, uh this the owners of this of these parcels will not have uh any responsibility as far as um improving Higgley Road then. Correct. As was stated. Okay. Those parcels have access to Sunstone Drive, which is accessed right off of Burmeister. Yes, ma'am. GSL Drive or GSL Drive, sorry. Okay. They've built three internal roads that the P owns. Oh, that's right. That's what is accessing these parcels or these lots. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. You're welcome.

Michelle, I had a question on that. I thought the last time we discussed this the county did not have ownership of Higgley or one half of it. The majority of the roads in the county the county does not have ownership of. That's why as development comes along those prescriptive roads we require it to be dedicated. Okay. They'll be responsible for. Yes, sir. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other comments or questions? Can I have a motion?

Andy St. I move that we approve the major subdivision preliminary plant application for G gsl industrial and sunstone IFD state business park subdivision application number 2025-183 based upon the findings and subject to conditions listed by the planning staff. Very good. I have a motion. Can I have a second? Have a motion by Commissioner Stz and a second by Commissioner Christensen. We will do a roll call. Commissioner Warner, how do you vote? In favor. Commissioner Mitchell, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Dao? Yes. Commissioner Begstrom?

Yes. Commissioner Scott, I vote yes. Commissioner Christensen, yes. and Commissioner Stepp. Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you. Next item of business is um conditional use permit for CUP ADU 2025-128. Millie. Thank you, commissioners. Um, so this next item, um, is, uh, Ryan and Stacy Stevens are requesting an approval for an accessory dwelling unit that will be detached, um, to create a mother-in-law dwelling for their aging parents. Um, the subject property um, is located uh, north of Pine Canyon Road um, with primary access uh, provided via Churchwood Drive um, into Lincoln Lane. Um the property is zoned RR5 uh rural residential 5acre minimum. Um and adjacent uh and nearby zoning districts um include MU40 multiple use 40acre minimum uh CG commercial general uh MG manufacturing general. Uh the applicant has submitted all required documentation. Um um as described in the application uh uh comments and requested revisions were um addressed and all uh applicable agencies have um approved um have given their approvals. Uh so uh planning staff uh recommends that the Tela County Planning Commission uh make a motion to grant um the conditional use permit for the accessory dwelling detached um subject to the following conditions. Uh the applicant uh complies with the requirements outlined in table uh 15-5-3.3

um item D uh 1-6 uh that the planning staff um record the required notice in uh table 15-5-3.3B16 upon approval and that three the lower level as described in the site plan uh in the site plans provided that the storage and mechanical area shall stay unfinished space and shelve not be used as a living space. Thank you. Any questions or comments for Millie? This is the last you will see.

I was going to ask what is the county's stance on ADUs? We're all for it. Just kidding. Big F. Thank you. And this is in an area of Pine Canyon that they are on a well. So that's why you don't see Lincoln Culinary approval. Richard, did you have a question? Uh, I'm going to I'll forward my question. Okay. Thanks. Anyone else?

At this time, I'll open public hearing. If you have a question or comment, please come forward and state your name and write it on the clipboard. Close public hearing. Still no no no comment. Uh really everything's compliant with what you're saying for ADUs. This is no challenges that you saw and with the criteria you're stating.

Yeah. um with the se like the sewage septic um they do have to go through the health department to um see if they comply with um what the septic can capacity can hold and so they were um the health department did do a feasibility study and it did pass. I was going to say I thought I saw Yeah, Mr. Taylor Palmer had passed off. He said that size of the house was one two rooms and a problem. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion?

Okay. I move that we approve the conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit detached application number 25-128 based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed by the planning staff. Thank you. I'll second it. Thank you. We have a mo a favor a motion to approve the ADU2025-128. We will do a roll call. Commissioner Stats, yes. Commissioner Dao, yes. Commissioner Mitchell, yes. Commissioner Warner, yes. Commissioner Scott, I vote yes. Commissioner Beckrom, yes. And Commissioner Christensen,

yes. Thank you. We will now move to uh reszone 2026 6-026. Um madam chair at this time I need to recuse myself. Thank you. Thank you madam chair on this one I had this is the conversation I had had with a friend. Okay. Um do you want him to disclose it now or when we do the Okay.

Okay. a friend of mine, Joe Johnson, Mayor of Stockton. U this is one that I didn't realize that we were talking outside of public setting. Um he did not do anything to form my opinion. He uh did not have any details or any criteria that would have been brought forward to us. So, but I could either recuse myself from this or participate. Um, I think as long as you have shared what you discussed, you're free to sit up here that that will be your choice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Millie. Thank you, commissioners.

Um, so reszone 016 Chris Thompson. Chris Thompson along with other property owners are requesting a reszone uh for their properties from MU40 multiple use 40 acre minimum to A5 agricultural 5acre minimum. Uh so here you see um outlined in red uh excluding South Rim um but outlined in red in the MU40. That's um the zone that we're talking about today. Um and it it's just off of SR36. Uh the subject site consists of 23 parcels and is primarily situated along the west side of Utah State Route 36. Um the area is commonly referred to uh Rush Lake and it contains a series of wetlands associated with natural drainage um patterns uh within the site. Uh surrounding zoning districts include um MU40 multiple use 40acre minimum to the south, MD manufacturing distribution to the west along with the Rush Valley municipal boundary. Um MG manufacturing general uh to the east and RRS rural residential sorry RR5 uh rural residential 5 acre minimum RR10 rural residential 10acre minimum A20 agricultural 20 acre minimum as well as the Stockton municipal boundary to the north. So the um the area proposed for reszone um it uh they prov the applicant provided um a geological geologic uh I'm going to butcher this um recon reconessence uh study um and it notes the presence of small springs um and natural drainage features

on the site and it classes classifies the area as a zone D indicating uh potential for flood hazards. Um based on these environmental characteristics, uh the study states that uh portions of the subject property may not be considered uh considered uh may be considered developable. Um the applicant submitted um uh this geologic reconnaissance reconnaissance report um uh in to replace the geologic uh geotechnical report um usually required for a reszone. Uh we spoke with the county engineer and he agreed to um accept this report in place of the geotechnical report um with the condition that uh when these properties are ready to subdivide um that they would provide a geotechnical report at subdivision. Um uh so um to further uh sorry I'm to further oh my gosh I'm blanking on the road on the name. Um to further the report um a uh site visit to the proposed reszone area that was conducted on February 24th, 2026. Um, planning staff observed several existing structures for which appropriate building permits could not be verified at the time. Um, it should be noted that an agricultural exempt building designation allows for structures to be exempt from obtaining building permits under um the relevant Utah state code sections 15A-1-202 15A-1-204. However, this exemption does not relieve the property owner from compliance with

applicable zoning ordinances. Um uh the required form I meant to attach to staff report but I can provide um after uh and this is um with any a exempt building. This is something that the property owners have to sign um in order to receive receive exemption. Um, furthermore, the applicant submitted uh website information from the state of Utah division of water rights um website identifying um open water appropriation uh in rather than uh providing the confirmed water rights as requested by staff. And so they just submitted that in place of um and according to the state u water rights may be available in the area at an estimated requirement for approximately 4 acre feet per platted uh lot. Uh there is a limit on how many acre feet are available and the developer may need to provide additional water rights if the state will not allocate all of the required water shares for future projects. Um it is important to note um that this can change at any point in time. Uh so planning staff recommends that the Tula County Planning Commission review and analyze the information provided in the staff report um to ensure the proposed reason request is comprehensive and consistent with the existing land uses available um infrastructure and the Tula County general plan update uh 2022 prior to making a recommendation to the Tilla County Council. Um, planning staff further recommends that the planning commission note that the applicant will still need to address the following outstanding items. Application item N, a description of the availability of culinary and irrigation water. And, uh, two, an updated application item E to include all existing structures and

buildings found based upon planning site planning staff site visit um, on February 25th, 2026. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Given the location of these properties in the actual Rush Lake area, will these homes be insurable? There's already several homes there. also what would the impact of the uh septic systems it is septic in these locations right?

Yes. Okay. Will the impact of the septic systems be on the water wells water table lake. So um with with those two questions um it we would need the geotechnical report. So that's kind of what helps us determine the feasibility. Um but whereas it wasn't provided at this point in time, um we just have the geo the geologic

reconnaissance study to refer to. Um and it only gives um uhformational background on the historical context of the site, but not necessarily what um the current um stats are um for the ground there. At this point, Michelle,

Commissioner Warner, we currently have one home that was recently constructed. Uh, the one furthest into the lake actually belongs to Commissioner Dao. He did have to go through a flood plane permit application. He had to elevate at 9 ft and he did have to work with the health department on the septic. So they did go through quite extensive feasibility soil reports and whatnot in order to do that. So we would anticipate any building permit in this area would go through the same process process. At this point we're doing a reszone, right? Yes. We would request that information in the case in the next step which would be a subdivision

at the subdivision. The geotech report would need to be provided along with water right information. Okay. Thank you, Millie. At this time, I'll open public hearing. If you have a question or sorry, no questions. If you have a comment, please step forward, state your name, and write it on the clipboard. Sorry, two minute limit. I'm Chris Thompson and currently I do have a home there. I do have a septic tank there. I do I do live there and everything's legal whatever I have per permitted so and I I put this letter together deer county commissioner planning department I am writing to clarify the intent purpose behind our request to reszone our property from MU40 to 5acre designation the sole purpose of our request is to resolve existing non-conforming lot issues our property is as it currently stands under MU40 zoning does not align with the practical reality of how the land has been historically used and divided. This has created complic complications in compliance, financing and long-term land management. We want to be very clear this is not an attempt to subdivide in increased density or intensified development. rather that it is an effort to bring the property into legal conforming with conformity with county

standards by aligning the zoning designation with the existing lot configuration by adjusting the zoning to 5 acre parcels. We are seeking to number one bring the property to in into compliance with current regulations. Number two eliminate non-conforming status issues. Number three, provide clarity and stability for future ownership and use. Number four, ensure responsible and consistent land management moving forward. This request is about correcting an existing situation, not creating a new one. We believe the change supports the county's goals or of orderly development, transparity, transparency, and long-term planning. We respectfully asked for your consideration and support in approving the this reszone so that we can resolve any long-standing compliance issues in in a straightforward and responsible manner. And thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Like you timed it.

No, when you start talking, we'll let you write your name first. I won't take that 30 seconds from you. Um, my name is Jared Ryal. I'm a lifetime resident of Stockton. I have me and my family have bought an adjoining piece that's excluded from the the sub or the subdividing or the the zoning change plans. Um historically it was part of the original Young Ranch which most of these properties were belonged to. Um that yeah it was cut off and sold off to another family member years before any of any of the current owners any or had any involvement with any anything. Um my first question is is this zoning change going to affect my taxes? Um, my second question is why is the reszone from an MU40 down to a 5 acre parcel where they're not planning on doing a lot of subdividing, but somebody is otherwise they would have uh wanted their zoning to land more along their lines of their agricultural open space lifestyle plan, which is I think the reason they probably all moved out there. Um my third question would be I know there there were you know there were uh some things some there's a lot of occupied houses out there that I don't believe the county has issued occupancy for which um would fall that's you know would make more than one occupant occupied house on a 40acre parcel which it's zoned for. So, those are the questions I have. Um, mostly about my taxes because people are going to do what they want to do with their with their ground. And also, if Oh, fourth question. Um, I've lived there my

whole life in Stockton in the valley. Um, if you look at a map, a satellite image from 1983 to probably at least 19 or probably 99 or 2000, the majority of the property they're wanting a zone change on has been underwater. And uh, before the floods of 83 that filled up the lake bottom, the ground was wide open and pretty like it was before. But sorry Jared, I'm gonna have to cut you off. Thanks.

Thank you. Good point. Thank you. Hi, I'm Steve Griffith. I work with some of these folks um throughout the years. Just want to address a couple of things in context. These properties were sold as legal non-conforming lots. So these folks go in there and they do everything by the book that they're supposed to do and they can't get a power drop to their well. They're on 20 acres or whatever they're on, but because they're less than the 40 acre zone, they can't get it. So even if they just wanted to drill a well and and run some 10 acres of hay, they can't do it because they have to get a permit to do so. So, it's my understanding this whole thing is to bring it into that conforming zone so that they can just continue to do what they've they've been doing. They've been prohibited from doing certain things because of the zone. I don't think there's any desire from any of them to subdivide and and do all of those things. These legal non-conforming lots that they were were purchased were were done way before even the highway was in. So they have those different parcels that were subjugated to those rightways and those easements which made them smaller. So if if they've got a 38 acre piece and they want to just hook to the power pole and run their well or their barn lights, they they can't do that because they don't own enough land to meet the requirements of the zoning. That's what's prompted this entire RR or I'm sorry it's not a RR it's a A5 which

is an agricultural use. So I just wanted to provide a little historical context that's driving this request. Thanks. Thank you.

His time starts now.

10 98 $5 bill underneath the clip. Okay. Ding. Never been so rushed in my life. Okay. So, um the whole point of me being up here is just for some clarification. Um the first one is with the staff's presentation um concerning water rights. They referred to us as developers. They said when the developer um the developer will have to provide the water rights. We're not developers. I mean, I can only speak for myself as to what my intentions are, but I'm not a developer. I'm a rancher. Um, the second clarification is for Mr. Ryelch. I happen to have the lowest developed property down there, and in order to do so, the county required an elevation survey. Uh, when I did my elevation survey, um, it happened, it turned out that the location in my, uh, where my home sits is the same location as the Hogan's hay barn. And in 1983, the Hogan Hay barn did not go underwater. And so it was close, but it did not go underwater. And so, um, that's the reason why we're one of the reasons why we were able to move forward. Um, and then I think that if we were, uh, if we had false mis misinterpretations about what we our plans were, we would have asked for our R5, not A5. Um, this process has been a nightmare and I don't think any of us desire to do it again and so we would have done it right the first time. Um, and so like I said, that's why we chose A5 agricultural 5. Uh, everyone that lives down there, that's what we do. Uh, some part-time, some full-time, but we are um we just want to keep it rural down there in agriculture and this is a way to do it. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jake McCarthy. I'm one of the property owners down there. Um, I had to write this out. I'm not very good at public speaking, so bear with me. Uh, first and foremost, thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration in this request. The purpose of this reszone application is not to subdivide or increase density, but rather to uh bring existing longestablished partials into compliance with current county ordinances. adjusting zoning from ME40 to A5 would simply align the zoning with the re reality that's on the ground. Supporting uh responsible land use while preserving the character of the area. This issue affects more than just my property. It impacts my family, our ranching operation, and several neighboring partial owners who are facing similar limitations. Many of these partials have existed in their current configuration for years, some over a decade, yet are now considered non-conforming under current zoning. At present, I am unable to utilize my state allocated water for agriculture purposes due to the denial of an electric service. Without power, I cannot meet the most basic requirements necessary to sustain livestock or make product use of the land. The this restriction effectively prevents me from using and maintaining my property my property as intended. My goal is straightforward to build one home for my family on my 20 acre parcel and responsibly use the land for agrica agriculture purposes. This request does not seek to intensify development but rather to correct mismatch zoning and partial configurations. It would also restore fairness and consistency for property owners who have previously reser re received approvals for structures, utilities, and now are unable to make reasonable improvements. Additionally, I would like to respectfully clarify that while the reszone has been associated

with the Rush Lake boundary, several of these are not in that boundary. Thank you. And uh thanks again for your time and everyone who worked on this. Thank you. online.

At this time, we'll close public hearing. Thank you for your comments. Any questions or comments from the commissioners just to keep in mind this is just a resone. This is not the subdivision stage. Unfortunately, we don't get to control taxes because if that was the case, mine wouldn't have tripled in the last 5 years.

Um, I think we see this quite a bit, don't we, Rishelle? Especially when it starts out as a family and then you divide and divide and divide. So, it just in my mind it appears to be just fixing some wrongs. We've done it through several communities throughout. I know we spent a lot of time doing it in Pine Canyon in the time I've been on the board. So, um that's just my thoughts. Any other comments or questions at this time? I will entertain a motion steps. I will make a motion. Let's let these people get on with their lives. Uh I move that we make a favorable res uh favorable recommendation to Tula County Council uh for application number 202616 submitted by Chris Thompson to reszone the subject properties for MU4.

Excuse me. Is that 2026? 2026-016. um submitted by Chris Thompson to reszone the subject properties from MU40 use 40 uh acre minimum to an A5 agriculture 5 acre minimum based upon the findings and subject to the conditions listed by the planning staff. Thank you. Second.

Thanks for clarifying. Mine says 026. That's that's okay Millie. We got it fixed. We have a We have a favorable recommendation from Commissioner Sts and a second from Commissioner Warner. We will do a roll call. Commissioner Beckrom. Yes. How do you vote? Commissioner Christensen? Yes. Commissioner Mitchell? I'm gonna have to abstain because of the disclosure I made earlier. Thank you very much. Commissioner Scott, I vote yes. Commissioner Warner, I second. Did I vote yes? You would be surprised. Commissioner Stz, how do you vote? Yes.

Thank you. Motion carries. We will make that recommendation. Thank you for your time. At this time, I adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thoughts get roasted? Yeah.