Planning & Zoning
Commission

Duchesne County
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting

The following document has been re-formatted from the original for Internet accessibility.  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, in their original format, are available through the Office of the Planning & Community Development Department.

County Administrative Offices
Duchesne, Utah
June 1, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.

In Attendance were:

Leon Sweat, Planning Commission Chairman
Michael Barneck, Planning Commission
Dean Brough, Planning Commission
Thomas Rather, Planning Commission
Chris Peatross, Planning Commission - Excused
Shelly Fabrizio, Planning Commission
Larain Mobley, Planning Commission
Mike Hyde, Community Development Administrator
Laraine Dickinson, Planning Secretary
Roland Uresk, County Attorney

Visitors:	Agenda Item:
Darrin Brown	All
Guy Thayne	Extraction of Earth Products
Taylor Thayne	Extraction of Earth Products
L. Clifton Read Jr.	Extraction of Earth Products
John Davis	Extraction of Earth Products
Shauna Kerr	Extraction of Earth Products
Robert Pritt	Extraction of Earth Products
Chris Lang & Suzanne Sullivan	Extraction of Earth Products
Clark Cordner	Extraction of Earth Products
Heide Gobbels-Singer	Extraction of Earth Products
Roy & Kay Wager	Extraction of Earth Products
Ray & Jean Browning	Extraction of Earth Products
James Murphy	Extraction of Earth Products
Steve Bayer	Extraction of Earth Products
Diana Stevens	Extraction of Earth Products
John Lawrence	Extraction of Earth Products
Barbara Knudson	Extraction of Earth Products
Kim & Terry Kelsch	Extraction of Earth Products
Warren & Maureen Johnson	Extraction of Earth Products
Jim & Norma Fosgate	Extraction of Earth Products
Bill Walsh & Shirley Weathers	Extraction of Earth Products
Elva Zaragoza	Extraction of Earth Products
Lezlie Fosgate	Extraction of Earth Products
Jon Blanchard	Extraction of Earth Products
R. K. Bennett	Extraction of Earth Products
Tony Lewis	Extraction of Earth Products
Bob Pinder	Extraction of Earth Products
Barbara Cupps	Extraction of Earth Products
Pamela Park	Extraction of Earth Products
Sandra Ferguson	Extraction of Earth Products
Jerry Allred	Subdivision & Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Bob West	Subdivision & Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Chairman Sweat called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M.

Conditional Use Permit:
Guy Thayne, requesting a Conditional Use Permit for extraction of earth products and rock crushing. Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 3 South, Range 1 West, USM, located approximately 3 miles southeast of Myton.

Chairman Sweat opened the hearing and asked for the applicant to speak.

Mr. Thayne referred to the recommendations for approval and questioned #5 regarding using a plan review from Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. Mr. Thayne stated that he had received a letter from them stating that they didn’t need to be involved with this, so why do we need this in our recommendation of approval. Mr. Hyde stated the staff recommendation includes 5 conditions for approval with the 5th condition stating, “Applicant agrees to reclaim the site at the conclusion of mining operations in a manner acceptable to Duchesne County, using a plan reviewed by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining”. Mr. Thayne is correct that the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining doesn’t require a permit for this operation, however a reclamation plan is required by our ordinance. I’m not a geologist and have no experience with reclamation plans so the condition requires that the applicant submit that type of plan then, I would submit it to Division of Oil, Gas and Mining because I wanted to rely on their expertise before we approve.

Mr. Thayne stated that he didn’t have a problem with reclaiming the property but wondered why he needs to put up a bond for $1,000.00 per acre when in fact the property itself isn’t worth that much. Chairman Sweat stated to his understanding it’s not the value of the property that determines it but the value that it would take to bring the property back to what it was in the beginning. Mr. Hyde stated in the county’s ordinance it requires $1,000.00 per acre whereas the State requires $5,000.00 for the first acre and $3,000.00 for each additional acre so the county is low in requirement. Mr. Hyde stated one way to keep the cost for bonding down would be to mine 5 acres then reclaim that and move onto the next 5 acres and so on. Mr. Thayne asked then don’t I have to come in and redo this process each time. Mr. Hyde stated he would not because he had asked to mine 50 acres. Bonding is required only for the acreage that is being disturbed. Mr. Thayne stated John Uresk has mined this area before so it’s not a new disturbance.

Mr. Hyde stated in the staff report it is indicated that Mr. Thayne owns 157.62 acres southeast of Myton. His proposal is to mine only 50 acres of that and at this time no rock crushing is proposed. He has not ruled out crushing in the future but if rock crushing does occur then it needs to be ¼ mile from the nearest resident. Maps had been provided to show where the property is located and where the mining will occur, the site sits on top of a hill above the valley floor. Mr. Thayne indicated that dust control will be provided by tanker trucks, using water from the Myton Townsite Canal (the applicants indicate that they own 101 water shares in this canal, which runs west to east along the north side of the property).

Mr. Hyde stated only one party had called regarding this. They are from Kentucky and own the quarter section just south of the proposed site and they didn’t seem to have a problem with this as long as there wasn’t a real steep cut between the property lines. According to Mr. Thayne this would not be the case.

Mr. Hyde recommended approval of this application subject to the 5 conditions listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Rather asked; Mr. Thayne if he can pull water out of the ditch anytime he needs to for dust control? Mr. Thayne stated there is water in the ditch from the 1st of April until the end of October and then they keep a stream running through the winter so there shouldn’t be a problem. Chairman Sweat asked if the canal goes dry do you have an alternative source for water? Mr. Thayne stated the canal never goes dry it has water in it year round, it runs right back into the river.

Chairman Sweat asked if there were any questions or comments.

Taylor Thayne, a brother stated that he would be working with Mr. Thayne and stated it’s an excellent place for a crusher and there’s some excellent rock there that someone needs to use. Taylor Thayne stated he would be furnishing the equipment for this project and he doesn’t see that there will be a problem with any of the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Rather stated he knows that Mr. Thayne owns a company where they do excavating so he does have the equipment.

As there was no additional testimony, Chairman Sweat closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Barneck motioned the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by Guy Thayne, subject to the following conditions:

1.	Applicant shall take action as deemed necessary by the County, if complaints are received, to prevent dust from becoming a nuisance. Applicant shall suppress dust on 1000 West as needed to minimize impacts on the John Uresk property.
2.	Applicant shall submit evidence of water shares in the Myton Township Canal adequate to provide for dust control.
3.	Applicant shall remove dirt/mud tracked onto paved county roads as required by the County Road Department.
4.	Applicant shall maintain a reclamation bond in effect during the course of the operations. The bond shall name the County as a beneficiary to the level of at least $1,000.00 per acre disturbed.
5.	Applicant agrees to reclaim the site at the conclusion of mining operations in a manner acceptable to Duchesne County, using a plan reviewed by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining.

Commissioner Rather seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

L. Clifton Read, Jr., is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for extraction of earth products and rock crushing. Township 4 South, Range 7 West USM. Located near the intersection of the Sam’s Wash and Strawberry River Roads on lands owned by Wilcox Investment Company.

Chairman Sweat opened the public haring and called for the staff report.

Mr. Hyde stated in the agenda you will see I have prepared findings to allow the Commission to either approve or to deny this request. You also have the applicant’s letters and maps of the area including communications with the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining because they will be involved with this operation. We have a County Road approach permit that will access through the site to the Sam’s Wash Road. A copy of the lease from the property owner to Mr. Read is included also a brochure from the Edge Retreat which is located east of the proposed mining operation.

Mr. Hyde stated the applicant is proposing to mine approximately 70 acres however the legal description that we notified property owners is about 240 acres. Some of this acreage is for a road to be constructed from Sam’s Wash Road to the top of the hill and other land for some buffers. We understand that this new road would be constructed regardless of whether or not this permit is approved to provide access to the top of the hill for livestock use. The applicant has indicated that there would be predominately mining of veneer rock and landscaping rock and there would be tests on some of the rock to determine if any is suitable for highway chip seal projects and in that case a crusher would be brought in and there would be more truck traffic if a highway chipping contact were obtained. The regular operation would be one truck per day, five days a week. Our understanding from the applicant is they will start at the top and pull over the rock canyon wall onto the property unlike the project up stream where they are working from the bottom and moving up.

Mr. Hyde passed around color photos showing the surrounding area including views from the Edge Retreat.

Mr. Hyde stated looking at the Conditional Use criteria the first one is whether or not this will be unduly detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Mr. Hyde stated that in his recommendations that this request from Mr. Read be denied in this first set of findings I have indicated that there are several reasons why this facility would be detrimental to this area. The proposed facility is located less than ½ mile west of The Edge Retreat, which accommodates weddings, reunions, corporate retreats and other events and they have been marketed as having a peaceful setting, so this would be disturbed by noise from equipment, dust and degrading of scenic views. It will cause additional heavy truck traffic on County Roads that are graveled. In some places the roads are not wide enough for 2-way traffic. Criteria two of the County’s General Plan states the County does support extractive use industries such as mining, but also in the Plan it supports recreational facilities so the County supports both. It is understood that the viability of The Edge Retreat has been compromised by the existing mining operation up the canyon ½ mile and the proposed operation will be closer and so the impact will be much greater. The 3rd criteria states, that the site is large enough to accommodate the use without any detrimental impact to adjoining or surrounding properties. Although the site is 240 acres with only 70 acres being mined we feel that the noise echoing off the canyon walls, potential dust problems and heavy truck traffic would have a detrimental impact to the surrounding area not only to the Edge Retreat but also the property owners in Cedar Mountain #2 which is located just north of the Edge Retreat.

Mr. Hyde stated in Section 17.52.052 listing the special minimum conditions for extraction of earth products. In the findings for a dust-free environment Mr. Hyde stated the applicants indicated dust control, would be provided by a 4,500-gallon tanker truck filled with water using a Strawberry River water right. If this permit is granted then a proof of water rights would need to be submitted to the county prior to mining operations. Another condition would be that a bond be posted prior to the commencement of mining operations on the site. The Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) will require permits and a bond if the county approval is received. DOGM requires a bond of $5,000.00 for the first acre and $3,000.00 per subsequent acre (which is more than the county’s $1,000.00 per acre requirement) and the county could be named on this bond as well.

Mr. Hyde stated reconditioning or reclamation of the property is required. The State will require a reconditioning plan from the applicants before mining begins. To my understanding the applicants plan to mine 2 to 3 acres at a time then recondition and move to the next 2 to 3 acres. So the county would join up with DOGM and use the same reclamation plan that they approve from the applicants for our use as well.

Mr. Hyde stated rock crushing at this time is undecided and depending on whether or not the rock being tested is hard enough for highway chip seal projects. It is understood that the applicant had a geologist take a look at the site and they are confident that it may qualify. Both DOGM and the county road department feel that the rock in this area is not suitable for chip seal projects and so this would mean less truck traffic in the area.

Mr. Hyde recommended that the Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit requested by Mr. L. Clifton Read Jr.

Mr. Hyde stated the other set of findings could be adopted if the Planning Commission feels after hearing comments, that the request is worthy of approval. This set of findings indicate that the operation is ¼ mile from the nearest residents, that dust control can be provided but we would require seven conditions which would be:

1.	Applicant shall take action as deemed necessary by the County, if complaints are received, to prevent dust from becoming a nuisance.
2.	Applicant shall maintain a reclamation bond in effect during the course of the operations. The bond shall be in a form and amount approved by the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining and shall name Duchesne County as one of the bondholders.
3.	Applicant agrees to reclaim the site in a manner acceptable to Duchesne County and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining.
4.	Applicant shall provide proof of Strawberry River water rights for water to be used in dust suppression prior to commencement of mining operations.
5.	The acreage to be disturbed by this mining operation shall not exceed 70 acres.
6.	Applicant shall coordinate with the Duchesne County Road Department to provide public protection (including fencing, traffic control and other measures deemed necessary) when working on or near the cliff walls.
7.	Applicant shall provide proof of public liability insurance, with Duchesne County named as an additional insured, to remain in force during the course of the mining operations. Chairman Sweat established a time limit for testimony and called for the applicant to speak.

John Davis (Pruitt-Gushee) legal representative for Mr. Read states that he thinks the proposed operation does meet the criteria and doesn’t think that it would be detrimental to the area. Mr. Davis states there would be no scenic disruption from the Edge property, Mr. Read’s operation is going to be taking place entirely in a wash 30 to 50 vertical feet below the Edge and also remember the operation is ¼ mile away. Noise is always an issue but they will be using modern day equipment. No blasting will take place, equipment being used will be a rubber tire loader and then 2 to 3 hours per day a track-hoe will be used to move the rock back. There will only be one truck per day with loaded material so there shouldn’t be an impact on the county road. In regards to dust they will have a 4,500-gallon water truck with sprayers on the front and back also there would be about 5 employees (2 operators and 3 laborers). Mr. Davis emphasized that most of this work would be handwork after the rock is removed such as sorting by size and separating the good from the bad. The traffic will be minimal and in the recommendation for approval the County Road Department stated the roads could accommodate the traffic from this operation. And as to the County Plan, it does encourage this sort of operation. Mr. Davis stated he couldn’t see that it would have any more or an impact than the operation that is already in the area and in fact because of the location there will be less of a visible impact.

Mr. Read stated this sort of rock is sought after for architectural stone. Iit horizontally fractures which makes it easy to mine and easier to sort and size. A Conditional Use Permit is needed so that you can extract so we are unable to test the rock first. Mr. Read along with Mr. Hyde met with the owners of the Edge Retreat so that Mr. Read could show them where the proposed operation would be and explain what it would consist of. The proposed quarry would be up in the wash and there needs to be an access road and even if the permit is denied we will still build the road so that we have access to the upper part of the property from Sam’s Wash road. We have purchased the encroachment permit from Duchesne County, the road has been surveyed and it will be approximately a 5% grade. Mr. Read stated there will be 5 to 6 people on the site at all times with only one truck leaving the site per day and flags, equipment, signs etc. would be left on the site. The site itself would only be visible by airplane. Mining would not go down to the county road and flag people would be out and signs put out so there wouldn’t be a chance of rocks falling onto passing vehicles etc. Mr. Read stated they have the applications from DOGM for the bonding and they are ready to be filled out.

Commissioner Rather asked why Mr. Read leased this piece of property because there is a lot of property just as good or better to do this and it better fits the over all plan of our county. Mr. Read stated that he did lease this property because primarily the rock you have in this particular area has the best rock for architectural rock.

Chairman Sweat stated he had 3 questions: 1.) What would be your hours of operation? Mr. Read stated it would be weekdays only, 8-hour shifts (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Chairman Sweat: 2.) What size of truck will you be using? Will it be dump trucks, flatbed etc. Mr. Read stated it would be a flatbed. Chairman Sweat: 3.) Is the Strawberry River Road going to be your primary use? Mr. Read stated that it would.

Commissioner Fabrizio asked if they had approval from the road department as to whether or not the roads would accommodate the traffic. Mr. Read stated in the findings to approve it states that all the roads can accommodate additional truck traffic in the opinion of the County Road Department. Mr. Hyde stated a letter from the road department had not been received prior to this meeting but the road department had indicated these roads do have heavy trucks traveling on them now such as farm equipment, logging trucks, trailers, etc. They also stated that the roads are not in the best of condition but that they should be able to handle the added traffic.

Chairman Sweat called for testimony from those opposed.

Shauna Kerr, Attorney representing the Edge Retreat and surrounding property owners. It’s always hard when you have to balance uses. This is an agricultural zone and according to your code in this zone is where you balance the agricultural uses against the expanding recreational uses. Your code has a very clear vision as to what you want to see there and I don’t see that expansion of quarries and rock mining are what you had in mind, so I am here to express some of the feelings of my clients. My clients, feelings are that they don’t think enough conditions can be put on this to keep the impact down. The impact already is detrimental to the area with the existing mining going on in the canyon now. Mr. Read stated that they would be mining from the backside and who is to say that when his crews are not on duty and the way Mother Nature works, the rock ledges could come down and cause serious damage or injuries.

Ms. Kerr stated she didn’t think it prudent for the County to defer to the State’s bond you have the provisions in your code to post your own bond, that provision in addition to the State’s bond why not back them all up if you are going to have them. There may be an event where you will want to call your bond and the State is not inclined to do so.
Ms. Kerr stated in regards to traffic Mr. Read stated that there would be only one truck per day so when you add this up that is 365-days minus the weekends in which he said they would not be working, but you put this in retrospect with the wear and tear and the weight of vehicles is it really necessary to add that additional maintenance responsibility onto your County taxpayers. And in regards to taxes as per Mr. Read this material is going to be exported out of the County to other places such as Heber City or Park City so the County is not going to reap any of the benefits from this mining operation as per sales taxes.

Commissioner Rather asked if there were pictures of the cliff walls and Ms. Kerr stated they did have pictures available.

Chairman Sweat asked for others in opposition to come forward.

Robert Pritt stated he purchased property off of Sam’s Wash Road and he bought there for the quiet and serenity. He has had many comments from visitors to his place about the quiet and peacefulness of the area. And if this project is permitted to take place then all of this will be gone. The Sam’s Wash road is a dirt road it is not graveled and if the applicant uses a water truck then it will just make mud and will be impassable even more so than it already is. I didn’t hear of one condition made that the road would be maintained, so just one heavy truck will be one truck to many.

Chris Lang stated that he is the Co-Owner of The Edge Retreat and passed around some photos of the area and brochures of the Edge Retreat. Mr. Lang stated his main concerns were this lease agreement between Mr. Pinder and Mr. Read is a 26-year possible lease. Mr. Lang stated Mr. Read said that the quarry would entail 70-acres and Mr. Lang stated that he has yet to see a 70-acre canyon in the area.

Mr. Lang stated he called UDOT to inquire about the chipping project, which happened on Highway 40 last summer and turns out that it was 8,000 cubic yards, which turned out to be 800 trucks because every truck holds 10 cubic yards. When you do this you have a crushing operation and you need to be crushing 24 hours a day. Suzanne and myself have taken 10 years to develop The Edge Retreat and it is our livelihood so this project would just kill us.

Suzanne Sullivan stated she is a Co-owner of the Edge Retreat. Ms. Sullivan stated she moved here 10 years ago and it was the beauty of the canyon and the serenity that made me move out here. I didn’t come out here with the intention of building this retreat but it helped me so I decided that it could help other people. What I am trying to convey is my heart felt love for this canyon. I have had a thousand people come to the Edge for one reason and it’s not just the Edge it’s the canyon. In the last 2 ½ -years I have had to live with the other rock quarry down the road and it hurts us, emotionally first and foremost because they rake those rock walls down and our place sets on the edge of the cliff line and you hear every bit of that operation. So I am begging the commission to deny this request because otherwise this will destroy the beauty of the canyon more than it has already with the present operation.

Other citizens who voiced their opinions such as Warren Johnson, John Lawrence, Jim Fosgate, Leslie Amos, Barbara Knudson, Destiny Knudson, Clark Gardner, Diane Stevens, Steve Bayer, Heide Gobbels-Singer, Barbara Cupps, John Blanchard, Shirley Weathers, Kay Wager, and Bill Walsh, all had similar views as to why they didn’t want this to be approved. Their concerns were with the noise factor, safety issues, road conditions and maintenance, etc. They all felt that they had brought property in this area for the peace and quiet and were very much opposed to having another rock quarry approved in this area and if this purposed quarry were approved then what is going to stop others from coming in and pretty soon the whole canyon would be nothing more than one unlimited rock quarry from the start of the Strawberry River road all the way down to the Camelot Resort. Some property owners are permanent residents and some are just part-time residents but everyone is very much opposed and thought that this was agricultural-recreational area. Mr. Pritt asked what kind of impact will this have on the wildlife in the area and I would think that a study should be done before this proposed operation is approved. Chairman Sweat stated he felt that everyone’s feelings toward the proposed rock quarry is basically the same so if anyone has something different to add let’s continue on with the meeting.

Ms. Gobbels-Singer asked whether or not Strawberry River Road ran through any Indian properties and if so would they need to have permission from the Indians before the trucks would be able to travel through. Mr. Uresk stated there is no Indian ground in this area and the road is a Class B County road.

Chairman Sweat called for rebuttal.

Mr. Davis stated there has been a lot of heart felt comments here tonight. I just have a few comments to address:

1.	We need to remember that this is private property and it can be used in a lawful manner.
2.	Environmental impact statements and wildlife concerns are important but environmental impacts are some things that are included in your consideration and in their reclamation plan it will account for that and will cover those issues.
3.	I feel that Mr. Read is paying for the sins of his predecessor or the other operation and I thing this is an entirely different kind of operation.

Mr. Davis stated he would like you to consider adopting findings to approve this request by Mr. Read.

Ms. Kerr stated in response to the last comment in regards to private property rights, yes there are private property rights and every individual that has spoken here tonight has their own private property rights. This is not a right by matter of your code this is a conditional use which means by it’s very nature that it means it isn’t a property right, it in fact can only work if there are adequate conditions to mitigate the impact.

Commissioner Barneck stated he didn’t realize that there was a problem with the existing rock mining operation and if there was why the commission hadn’t been notified. Ms. Sullivan stated because the operation is being run by County Commissioner Peatross’s son we didn’t feel that they had any recourse.

Commissioner Brough asked who is the property owner and where does the property owner reside? Mr. Davis stated Wilcox Investment Inc. and one of the principal owners is Robert Pinder who resides in Park City. I’m not sure who the other owners are. Commissioner Brough asked Mr. Read then you’re just leasing the land to extract the rock? Mr. Read stated he was.

Commissioner Brough stated from what I’ve heard here I don’t see that the County is going to gain anything from this and the property owners are going to lose just as well. And we need to take into consideration that the rock is going to be exported and so neither the County or the property owners will benefit from this operation. So I have some concerns with this.

Commissioner Mobley stated she has been to both the Retreat and Camelot and have enjoyed the serenity that I have felt there. I have spent considerable time looking at the rock walls and would hate to see the scenic view destroyed.

Commissioner Fabrizio stated she thought what somebody wants to do with their own property is fine provided that it doesn’t interfere with existing things that are going on in the area and it seems to me that this would interfere with existing property owners.

Commissioner Barneck stated I don’t feel that the County ever benefits from a Conditional Use Permit. And if you think about it all the wealth comes from the earth so I don’t think extracting this rock is a good argument, but I do feel that it will be detrimental to the neighbors. So if I were to make a motion right now I would vote to put it off until we could look at the situation.

Mr. Read stated it sound to me like there is a lot of questions unanswered and I’m willing to propose that you do table this and have the commission come out as a group and look at how and what is going to happen and then make a rational and logical decision.

Commissioner Rather stated it’s been interesting to hear all the views and I can see why Mr. Hyde has prepared two sets of findings. One side where there is small business that wants to come in and mine rock and we see this throughout our county with oil and gas mining. On the other hand we have this other report that encourages recreational areas so I feel that Mr. Read could find other areas that would be more suitable. I have been down the Strawberry River and appreciate the serenity and beauty but I also have issues with the roads and their present condition and the condition in the future.

Commissioner Fabrizio motioned to adopt the findings to deny the request for Conditional Use Permit by Mr. Read. Commissioner Rather seconded the motion and it was 5 votes to deny and 1 vote abstaining (Commissioner Barneck).

Chairman Sweat called for a 5 minutes recess.

New Business:
Review draft amendments to Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances

Mr. Hyde stated the commission had a work session during the May 4th meeting to look at the proposed amendments to the subdivision and zoning ordinances. As indicated the amendments to these codes deal with Senate Bill 60 that passed last legislative session. We have also in the zoning ordinance incorporated flood plain management standards. Also, in the subdivision ordinance we talked about paving standards in the ½ and 1-acre range. We have opened this up to the public for comments and the commission needs to decide when to present this to the County Commission either as is or with recommended changes. Mr. Hyde stated that since the last work session the commission expressed their feelings about some of the provisions such as the livestock provision (that I have taken out) also provisions for home occupations that maybe were a bit to stringent. So, I’ve made changes there to make it more stringent in the high density areas and less stringent in lower density areas where there won’t be as many neighbors.

Jerry Allred stated he had a couple of questions. One is regarding the number of lots in a minor subdivision. Mr. Hyde stated that currently a minor subdivision is a one lot spilt but what we’re proposing here is that you can divide up to 4 parcels of land. Mr. Allred said is that the State has the requirements that anything that is 10 or more lots have a public offering statement and so my question would be. Why would 9 lots be less desirable than 4 if the same conditions were met, why not use the same number as the State? Mr. Barneck stated then you are recommending 9 or fewer instead of 4 or fewer? Mr. Allred stated I’m just saying this is keeping in line with the State and if we have the same requirements, which is you still have an existing county road and recorded survey, water source and electrical we still have to have the departments sign-off on these anyway.

Mr. Uresk stated the one thing that really bothers me is in all the times that we use the 1-year or 1 split per year not being required to go through the subdivision process. Jerry stated actually we are going through administrative approval even now on 1-lot splits. Mr. Uresk stated I would like to get rid of that and Jerry stated if you go up to 9-lots that would do that. Mr. Uresk stated that plan where you can split off one section per year without going through the subdivision process seems to be more complicated and burdensome and we lose a bit of control there so the only reason for the exemption was that a couple could split out for a child to build a house on.

Mr. Allred stated he also had some concerns with paving of subdivisions. Mr. Hyde stated what we’re proposing here is if the subdivision is in the R-½ or the R-1 zone then we would require the roads in the subdivision to be paved to the county standard (24-feet wide, with 3-foot shoulder on each side), but if the subdivision is within the annexation policy area of a city (Roosevelt only city with an annexation policy right now) we would require the streets be developed to the applicable city standards verses the county standards. Commissioner Brough asked; what is the annexation policy like in Roosevelt City and how wide is it and how far reaching? Mr. Hyde stated they have a map on their wall that shows this. It doesn’t go out into Hancock Cove for example because they feel that they don’t have the ability to serve that area with sewers and don’t intent to annex out there. I’m not sure of how far it goes out on South State. Mr. Allred stated a normal city lot is about 100-feet frontage and in Roosevelt City their minimum street size is 56-feet and the maximum is 66-feet. They do go to 100-feet but that is for a collector, that’s right-of-way, which is 34-feet of paving, curb and gutter on both sides and a 5-foot sidewalk on both sides but what you want to remember is when you require this in a rural setting which is the county, it’s easier to pay for curb and gutter and sidewalk for 100-feet than it is for a 1-acre parcel which is going to have frontage of 208-feet or more on an average, that’s double the cost for a county subdivision as opposed to a city subdivision. Commissioner Brough stated he thought that the developer should be required to pave a new subdivision but that it would be going to the extreme to have them put in curb and gutter because you may have a subdivision that will never be annexed into the city and so I think that is asking a little to much. Mr. Hyde stated the real question here is do you require the improvements up front so they’re in place when it’s annexed or do you require a lesser standard initially and then when it’s annexed then you have to try and deal with bringing it to city standards. Chairman Sweat asked is there a difference in tax revenues in the County versus the city because if you make it attractive for the city to annex do we lose taxation money from it by having it annexed into the city? It was agreed that the taxation money was paid to the county whether you lived in the city or county. Mr. Hyde stated that as of yet he hadn’t received anything from Roosevelt City saying whether they thought this would be a good thing or not. Commissioner Barneck stated since Roosevelt City is the only one with an annexation policy, then maybe we need to wait and receive something from them.

Bob West stated this is going to be burdensome to small developers due to the fact of the cost alone. For instance it would up the cost of a lot by $9,500.00 to $10,000.00 each and a lot of people in this area are unable to afford this increase.

Commissioner Barneck stated maybe a Special Service District should be established in new subdivisions to handle the cost of having the roads paved so that the developers don’t have to cover the cost solely. Mr. Uresk stated Special Improvement Districts can be established for particular projects. All the commission was in agreement that the County shouldn’t have to foot the bill for roads to be paved in the future, because now developers build roads to county qualification but they are not paved and later on the County ends up having to pave them.

Mr. West stated in the Zoning Ordinances he thought they need to add Accessory Dwellings; such as a second dwelling on the property for a guesthouse because more and more people want to do this. Also thought they needed to include Small Air Strip for those who have small planes and if they have enough ground then they put an airstrip on their property for their own personal use.

The Planning Commission decided to hold off on their recommendations with changes to the County Commissioners until they could go over the changes again at the next meeting that will be July 13th.

Commissioner Rather motioned to recess until the next meeting. Commissioner Brough seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Minutes:
Approval of May 4, 2005 minutes

Commissioner Barneck motioned to approve the minutes with corrections. Commissioner Brough seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Commission Comments and Staff Reports:
Mr. Hyde stated the July meeting would be moved from the 6th to 13th because he would be out of town.

Mr. Hyde informed the Commission that Six Lakes has a new easement through the Evans property and with this new access the County Commission approved their conditional use permit. The County Commission also approved the Berry Petroleum conditional use permit.

Adjournment:
Commissioner Brough motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Barneck seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.