The Wasatch County Planning Commission voted 4-1 Thursday evening to continue considering a proposed ordinance and amendments on behalf of the citizens group Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies, a coalition with development concerns that came to light through the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints selecting a temple site in Heber City.
The Planning Commission is now asking the county attorney’s office to determine whether the ordinance should be considered or not, given that the group has an outstanding lawsuit against the county, and given that the Heber Valley Temple, slated to be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints near 1400 East Center St. in Heber City, would fall under multiple new requirements if the amendments were passed.
The proposed changes would categorize certain projects as localized impact projects and require applicants for these projects to complete additional steps for their applications to be considered. Among the proposed steps are official public impact discussions as well as applicants responding to all the public’s comments in writing.
County analysis
According to the amendment staff report presented to the commission by Wasatch County senior planner Austin Corry, general plan amendments, zoning map amendments, subdivisions, cannabis production/distribution facilities and conditional use applications would all be considered localized impact projects.
Exceptions to these rules were listed for conditional use permits given for utility uses and accessory buildings and “minor agricultural subdivisions.”
“Basically, any application that you as a planning commission see is included in there,” Austin Corry told the commission members, though a presenter with Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies later contested this.
Corry also explained that the proposed public impact discussions would require applicants to organize a public meeting, send everyone within a mile of their proposed project 21 days’ mailed notice of the event, record the proceedings and provide a public archive of the gathering.
County staff, Corry said, were concerned the meeting would legally be considered a public hearing and consequently run into issues with Utah’s state code, which dictates only one may be held for an application. With the responsibility falling to the applicant, his presentation also pointed towards concern that — if the meeting wasn’t held — staff was unsure who the community could go to if the applicant didn’t organize the required meeting.
“How does the county validate that it was actually done according to applicable law?” Corry asked the commission rhetorically.
Corry further explained that because the public impact discussion is required before an application can be considered, if the meeting legally is considered a public hearing, it would prevent a second public hearing from happening in planning commission meetings.
Still, he wasn’t sure if the meeting would meet the legal qualification and said the group proposing the amendments argued that it would not.
The proposals also suggested other requirements applicants would need to meet to receive a conditional use permit, necessitating a benefit analysis, prohibiting lighting structures over 45 feet, requiring a visual impact analysis for structures over 45 feet and requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to publicly release all communications they have with an applicant and give a determination letter regarding aviation safety impacts of structures over 45 feet.
The proposed LDS temple would rise to 196 feet and be illuminated.
The benefit analysis, Corry said, “has to show why the use requested will provide material benefit to the surrounding properties that such properties do not already enjoy.”
He referenced Utah’s state code to say that granting conditional use permits needs to be objective and is not meant to be a legislative function but rather a process determined by land use ordinances.
Addressing the amendments dictating FAA action, Corry stated in his presentation that the agency already gives the requested determination letters and “does not enforce local codes.”
The amendment would not have the effects the proposing group wanted, a slide on his presentation said, and he shared his concerns with a county statute requiring a federal administration to take on additional tasks.
“Staff is recommending that you forward this to the council with a recommendation for denial,” Corry said.
He listed 32 findings to support the decision.
Planning Commissioner Doug Grandquis was quick to voice his concerns about the proposed legislation, saying a public meeting could be held without a code requirement and the amendments would take power away from the planning commission.
“I’m sure that part of this reads that we’re a democracy, well, in reality we’re not we are a republic, you elect representatives and the panel here was appointed by those representatives and given certain powers,” he said. “This seems like what it wants to do is go around that process.”
Dark Skies addresses concerns
Alissa Haynes, a land use consultant and member of Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies, addressed the commission in support of the proposed legislation.
She referenced a recent county survey in which 55% of respondents selected “Control Growth/Congestion” in response to the question “What do you want the County to do to make the county a better place?”
“All of our decision-making authorities need to listen to our citizens,” she said. “People feel that they’re not being heard.”
The proposed amendments, she said, would help change that.
Clarifying that 12 types of conditional use permit applications would not be defined as localized impact projects, she said some information shared about the proposed amendments was inaccurate.
According to Haynes, the county has processed 491 development applications over the past three years. She said only about 130 of these would have been categorized as localized impact projects.
Among other disagreements with the county’s staff assessment, she argued that requiring conditional use permit applicants to show how their projects benefit the public is similar to current qualifications regarding space and design. She also said the proposed public impact discussions don’t need a designated body to hear appeals because no official decisions are to be made in the meetings.
She urged the commission to either recommend the passage of the amendments to the county council or to form a subcommittee to work to revise the suggested changes.
Disagreements
Grandquis said the proposed amendments struck him as “not in my backyard legislation,” and voiced his objection, questioning Haynes about the proposed legislative change.
After Haynes asked him to treat her with the respect he treats his male colleagues — a request public attendees supported her for making — tensions ran high.
“It seems like this is a fallback — which a lot of politics is these days — towards the idea of democracy and (New) England town halls where everybody participates and make a decision,” he said. “Those days are long gone.”
The room — which was largely full of Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies members — chuckled at the statement.
“I think we have a good interest here tonight,” Haynes said when Grandquis stated that he doesn’t see a lot of public interest in participating in local community decisions.
Grandquis went on to say he felt the proposed amendments were an attack against the planning commission, when the rapid development taking place in Wasatch County is largely in the hands of other elected or appointed decision-making groups.
Commission Member Mark Hendricks showed interest in continuing the process of considering and revising the changes.
“I’ve known this valley for decades,” he said. “We love this place, so I hope people don’t think, at least from my perspective, that somehow we’re not on the same team in terms of wanting to manage growth.”
He stated his appreciation for the community involvement but said that the commission needed to keep legal limitations to what they can dictate in mind.
“Is there anything in the county code that prevents somebody from organizing a public impact discussion?” he asked.
No, Haynes answered.
“The concern is that the developers coming into the community don’t understand the general plan and the policies and the heritage of our county,” she said. “That’s why it’s important to make that part of the process.”
Referencing his experience as a lawyer, Hendricks agreed with Corry’s analysis of several potential legal issues and thus would not recommend the amendments as they were submitted. That didn’t mean, he specified, he wouldn’t be supportive of some of the objectives.
Elephant in the room
Though both parties seemed to avoid any specific mention of the temple project at first, Hendricks somewhat referenced it when he stood up and made his way to a map of Wasatch County.
“If the church wanted to build a temple, where would it be?” he asked, trying to locate the project site. “You know where I’m going right?”
He discussed the efficacy of viewing the project from 2 miles away to complete a visual impact analysis.
When Hendricks asked how the proposed analysis would be different from what the county already requires, Haynes said most developments within the county don’t require such efforts.
The proposed legislation, Hendricks said, likely doesn’t “satisfy clarity.”
“We need more time,” he said. “I believe that things can be resolved.”
Commission Chair Charles Zuercher agreed there is likely a compromise to be reached, “but getting people to come out and make their wishes known is difficult.”
The temple became more prominent in the discussion when the conversation was opened to the public.
“I probably live closer to that building than anybody here,” Zuercher said. “And I’m torn. I’ll be honest with you.”
He said he felt sorry that some Wasatch County residents take an apathetic attitude to the community political process, but he hopes people understand the commission is doing its best.
The general manager of Red Ledges, John Johnson, said he felt much of Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies’ concerns could likely be addressed and alleviated if someone from the church would meet with concerned residents “and just sit down and talk.”
Though he said he saw a need for legislative change, he acknowledged that such amendments would take time.
“This is a more pressing issue, it’s timely and it’s dividing the community,” he said. “If somebody in here can be a peacemaker and just get three people from this group and three people from the church in a room and just have lunch and get it out, I’ll bet you you could find some resolution that would deflate this thing tremendously.”
His comments were met with applause from public attendees.
Hendricks, who identified himself as a member of the church, assured that “there will be engagement,” though he acknowledged he doesn’t know where or when.
“I’m not an official representative of the church at all,” he said. “But I’m very comfortable that the church has no interest in alienating its neighbors and people in its home state.”
After the public hearing was closed, Deputy County Attorney Jon Woodard offered some insight on the unique situation of the commission.
“This is an application done by a law firm” — Ray Quinney & Nebeker — “and it’s also done by a law firm that’s representing a group that’s currently litigating against the county,” he said. “I am concerned about the ability of the county to process an application under threat of litigation the way that this is.”
He further explained that even if some parts of the proposed amendments may be beneficial and supported by the council, he still supported a recommendation of denial given the circumstances.
“Trying to drive a regulation through litigation,” he explained, “I don’t think is a healthy way to come out with the right outcome for the county.”
Given the comments made about the temple, he said, it seemed the changes were “hyper focused on a particular project.”
Ultimately, the commission didn’t follow his advice in their decision.
Rather, Hendricks motioned to continue the consideration so the county attorney’s office can determine whether the planning commission should consider the amendment given the ongoing litigation.