Call it a tale of two projects.
Both vastly different. Each proposed for separate sides of the county. But sharing one unique quality—county officials support them even though they appear to be the opposite of what the county’s general plan suggests is foregone policy. Officials at a number of communities inside the county are none too pleased about it, either.
Start with Fillmore.
City officials are trying to keep up with what is set to be rapid development, both commercial and residential, that will grow the city exponentially potentially.
Two developers in particular, Mike Peterson and Mark Stevenson, are ready to cash in on the opportunities that abound—they are the businessmen developing the three R’s, The Reserve, The Retreat and The Ridges subdivisions. The two are also planning to develop 57 acres outside city limits, calling it The Ranches—15 lots of two- to eight-acre parcels each for supposedly off-grid living. A commercial business is also envisioned for the site—a self-reliance center with space for fairs and farmer’s markets and classes and other grandiose ideas that sound great but may or may not ever happen.
Peterson pitched the proposal to a welcoming county commission on Nov. 22 though a zoning change for the development had been earlier rejected by planning commissioners, who cited myriad issues, including a lack of water, for recommending against residential zoning.
Even city officials, who have weathered some pretty broad attacks from members of the public over their support for the three R’s, initially seemed to be less than enthusiastic for The Ranches.
Namely, this is because the property itself can’t be easily annexed into the city without creating an island, or more optimistically, a peninsula connected by the slightest of threads. It isn’t even on the city’s current expansion map. Also, it’s located not far from industrial zoned property.
Oh well.
Located a mile from the new Love’s truck stop, The Ranches would be without water and sewer service— hence the “off-grid” branding—unless an awful lot of money were spent extending services to the development. One official, off the cuff, likened that to a Sisyphean task considering there are people living mere feet from city limits who can’t get such services. Nonetheless, a discussion item on the city’s Dec. 6 agenda shows that despite the “off-grid” vision, Peterson wishes to discuss extending water service a mile outside the city to the 57-acre development.
County commissioners, ignoring planning commission concerns, seemed to acknowledge they were entertaining something perhaps that doesn’t really fit into the county’s oft-cited policy of protecting agriculture land and allowing only development that fits its general plan.
Commissioner Bill Wright teased as much when he said: “As long as we proceed and don’t put the county in a position, I don’t think the county is ready, someday when I’m gone they might be, but they are not ready to provide municipal services.”
He added: “I think it’s a very positive step for our county, in the right direction, to provide what we all say we need (more housing) in an innovative way without the services of a municipality. I would never approve anything that we have to eventually go in there and do any services.”
And yet, commissioners did just that, voting unanimously to rezone the 57 acres to residential.
Planner Adam Richins was clear— Commissioner Dean Draper also acknowledged it—that once zoning was in place, the plan outlined by Peterson was essentially meaningless since the developers could turnaround and do whatever they wished as far as putting housing down—the county only requires an acre per home.
“With 57 acres zoned residential, they could apply for 57 individual building lots, which is the size of some of our smaller communities in the county,” Richins said. “One of the concerns brought up was what improvements might be required to be put in.” Improvements—or avoiding them— is at the heart of the second leg of this tale of two projects.
During a Nov. 30 county planning commission meeting, officials unanimously approved a C-1 conditional use permit for two related light industrial projects on about 25 acres down east Main Street, outside Delta City limits. The projects secured county rezoning from Highway Commercial and Ag 20 to light industrial back during the summer. This even though an existing residence sits nearby—that homeowner vocally protested over dust and traffic and water concerns during both meetings—and a productive farm sits between the proposed project and city limits.
The project at full build out hopes to employ between 120 and 200 people in a high-tech industrial workplace—think lasers and software and custom parts cutting and manufacturing.
But water would come from a well not far from one of two Delta City wells, services such as fire suppression would come from Delta City, and improvements such as those required by places like Delta and Fillmore would be nonexistent as money-saving measures by the business’ owners.
In fact, the developers—they currently operate in Orem but are relocating to Millard County—initially met with Delta officials to see about opening shop within the city. However, curb and gutter and other costly development requirements quickly had them looking elsewhere.
“It would cost a substantial amount of money for infrastructure that doesn’t make sense for an industrial park,” McKay Christensen, representing the projects, admitted to planning commissioners.
Todd Anderson, Delta City’s attorney, got up to encourage commissioners to vote against the conditional use permit, arguing that allowing the industrial park to open at the city’s doorstep without adhering to city standards went totally against the county’s own professed policy of encouraging growth within the county’s cities.
“Yes, Delta City did have some requirements. Every city has some requirements. The problem is Millard County didn’t have any requirements,” the attorney argued. “So who became the cheapest, easiest option for development? I don’t fault them at all for taking advantage of the easier, cheaper option…(but) is that really what you want to be?”
The attorney also made a point of noting that as Delta grows it would likely someday annex the property into the city, which because there were no standards required by the county, would not fit into the city’s vision for itself, which he said made little sense.
“The question I have for Millard County is why are you creating that situation when your policy clearly says you shouldn’t be?” Anderson asked.
Christensen all but threatened to take the project somewhere else at one point, noting discussions with other communities that would be better locations if his companies were forced to spend more money anyway.
“There are some challenges that are incurred (with relocating to the area)…so for us to really justify, it came down to we need to get this done on a reasonable budget timeline,” he said, suggesting the money savings were really the only reason to develop inside Millard County.
Dent Kirkland, Delta’s public works director, later joined Anderson in protesting the permit. He cited concerns over city well water as well as the fact city firefighters would be the ones responding to any accidents at the site, not the county.
Also, city officials made clear they would be protesting the development’s well permitting since the project would be so close to one of two city water sources.
In the end, planning commissioners said nothing in response to the city’s concerns, mentioning it not once as they voted unanimously to approve the development’s conditional use permit, which does not now go to the county commission, but is a done deal.
Anderson noted this was the second time the county appeared to go out of its way to encourage development outside cities and towns that he believes really should be discouraged.
He said the mayors of Hinckley, Oak City, Lynndyl and Delta would be disseminating a letter soon to county officials. The disagreement outlined in it concerns the county’s effort to craft code allowing RV Park developments outside communities’ boundaries, Anderson said.
While the subject of the disagreement might be different, the argument is essentially the same: the county shouldn’t be taking actions that diverge from its own stated policies, because in the end it hurts its own cities and towns.
