Despite intense public opposition, county leaders approve rezone in Mountain Green

Mountain Green residents filled the County Commission Chambers on March 7 and March 21 to express their opposition to a proposed rezone of close to 45 acres west of the Old Highway Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road from agricultural to town center.

Between the two meetings, 23 residents spoke against the project (some spoke at both meetings) and just two people – the landowner and the developer – spoke in support of it. Most were concerned about the potential impacts on traffic, infrastructure and safety.

Some said approving the rezone would be premature. “Somebody’s thinking of putting the cart before the horse,” said Roger Price, a school bus driver, who indicated the school district would not have enough buses or space for extra buses for students from the future development, on March 21.

Morgan County is not prepared for the new growth, Carol Oldenburg said. “I think more growth in this region for the town center rezone is way before it is needed because we don’t have the new intersection [freeway interchange] … I think the canyon can’t hold all these people coming… I think putting more home sites, town home sites in before the interstate is finalized is way out of line.”

But Mark Nelson who owns the property being considered for rezone said that with infrastructure “it’s a case of the chicken or the egg.”

“It’s the money that development brings that provides funding for needed infrastructure,” he said.

Before hearing from the developer, Commission Chair Mike Newton had Planning Director Joshua Cook clarify the county commission’s legislative responsibility for those present. If the developer met certain requirements outlined in Utah law the commission had no choice but to approve the rezone, Cook said.

Some commissioners and members of the public asked that the developer submit a development agreement first and wait on the rezone but that would not be economically feasible, Thomas Hunt, the developer’s representative said. A development agreement typically takes six months of negotiation between the developer and the county, he said. “I wish it could happen now, but that’s hundreds of thousands of dollars spent before even knowing if a rezone is possible.”

The town center zoning being sought by the developer meets the future land use element of the general plan which indicated the area had been planned to be commercial, several commissioners said.

Hunt indicated that the developer plans to get a density of six units per acre approved for the site with commercial properties on the west end and town homes on the east. The development’s eastern boundary would be about a half mile from the proposed freeway interchange, Hunt said.

“I’ve always loved the area, the opportunity arose, and we thought it would be a nice development and something positive, honestly, for the community,” developer Brian Laws told the commission. “I know a lot of people that live up here that would like a place to go to the grocery store, go to a restaurant and frankly for a place for their kids to live.”

At both meetings, most of the commissioners spoke and remained consistent in their comments. Commissioner Matt Wilson remained opposed to the rezone throughout the two meetings. 

“I really don’t think it’s if we should grow our community — that’s not what I’ve heard,” he said. “What I’ve heard is the timing is poor — that’s my own feeling. I’m not against development; I’m not against this being a town center. I would just love to see that we can sustain what we’ve got going already.” 

Commissioner Blaine Fackrell said he was concerned that if the rezone were not approved, at some point the land could be developed for other uses such as a confined animal feeding operation or for gravel removal. 

“If we don’t do something, we could end up with something we don’t want,” he said. 

Fackrell told those in the audience that in order not to have higher taxes and to fund infrastructure difficult decisions would need to be made.

Commissioner Robert McConnell said that the county would be unlikely to ever have enough funding on its own and that without enough development, the county would not be able to fund the infrastructure improvements that residents are asking for. 

“I don’t know that waiting is at some point going to result in improvements in traffic,” he said.

He also indicated that to have the services residents would like to see, such as local restaurants, there would need to be a greater population base.

Commissioner Jared Anderson did not express his opinion either way at the March 7 meeting. On March 21 he participated electronically in the meeting and said he was concerned if they waited that future developers might seek higher densities.

 “We have a developer coming in and willing to work with the county on how this will look,” he said. “If we move forward with the future land use map as is where it’s just commercial, we do not have the ability to work with the developer. They come in and follow the existing codes and ordinances and do what they want to do. I would much rather have the ability to work with the developer moving forward on this parcel of land.”

At the March 7 meeting, Commission Chair Mike Newton spoke about the impact of commercial development on funding county and other services. Commercial development “takes the property tax burden off of residents and places it on business, business that typically don’t have children going to school and other needs,” he said. At the March 21 meeting he declined to make further comment.

After nearly two and a half hours of discussion by the public and the commission at the March 21 meeting, Wilson made a motion, (which ultimately failed because it could not get a second), to deny the rezone. Then McConnell made a motion to approve it which was supported by the three remaining commissioners; Wilson voted against.