Minutes for 2006-10-03, Direct pdf link.

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, October 3, 2006 - 6:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah

Each Commission meeting is recorded on CD or audio tape, which is available to the public through the
County Clerk's Office.
In accordance with the requirements of Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-7(1)(d), the County Clerk records in the minutes the names of all citizens
who appear and speak at a County Commission meeting and the substance “in brief” of their comments. Such statements may include opinion or
purported facts. The County does not verify the accuracy or truth of any statement but includes it as part of the record pursuant to state law.

Commissioners Present: Craig L. Dearden, Chair; Camille T. Cain; and Kenneth A. Bischoff.

Others Present: Linda G. Lunceford, Clerk/Auditor; David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Fátima
Fernelius, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.

A. Welcome - Chair Dearden
B. Pledge of Allegiance - Ernest Rowley
C. Thought of the Day - Commissioner Cain

D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $224,534.19
2. Warrants #218129 - #218362 in the amount of $1,235,877.36
3. Minutes for meeting held on September 26, 2006
4. Ratify with USDA Wasatch-National Forest for law enforcement for the Wasatch Cache National
Forest. Action not necessary today as initial contract date was correct.
5. New Business Licences
Commissioner Cain moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all
voting aye.

E. Presentation - Ogden/Weber Convention Visitors Bureau’s (CVB) 2007 Marketing Plan

Jim Smith, Chair of the CVB Board, stated that the CVB had spent many hours asking their
partners for input. Shelliece Stokes and Rich Kowski made a presentation on the CVB’s 2007
marketing plan that included promoting Weber County as an affordable, accessible and adventure
destination.

F. Action Items:

1. Contract with PRCA Wilderness Circuit Finals Rodeo to hold a Pro-Rodeo
Circuit Finals Event at the Golden Spike Event Center December 28-30, 2006 -
Contract C2006-152

Jim Harvey, GSEC, stated that this contract, originated about 14 years ago, had major changes this
year which brought it more in line with current contracts. In the past, the county hired the PRCA
to produce the circuit finals but this year the PRCA will put on the rodeo, provide the
entertainment and all the advertising, and collect all the gate fees. The county will charge a rental
rate and collect a portion of the ticket sales. This contract brings significant economic impact to
the county.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2006-152 by/between Weber County and
the PRCA Wilderness Circuit Finals Rodeo to hold a Pro-Rodeo Circuit Finals Event at the
Golden Spike Event Center December 28-30, 2006; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.

 

 2. Contract with Western States Racing Association for the Year End Finals
Demolition Derby to be held October 7, 2006 at the Golden Spike Event Center -
Contract C2006-153

Jim Harvey, GSEC, presented this standard contract. The county had contracted with this
organization in the past.
Commissioner Cain moved to approve Contract C2006-153 by/between Weber County and the
Western States Racing Association for the Year End Finals Demolition Derby to be held October
7, 2006 at the Golden Spike Event Center; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

3. Discussion on appeal of the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission’s
decision to deny CUP # 04-06 by Brad Kelley for a used car lot and ATV sales and
rentals in the CV-2 Zone, located at approximately 5402 E. 2200 N. in Eden

Sean Wilkinson, County Planning Department, stated that the petitioner was appealing the
Planning Commission’s decision to deny his conditional use permit for a used car lot and ATV
sales and rentals. Upon further review of this issue, rentals of ATVs are not currently allowed in
that zone. A recent petition had been filed to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow used car sales
and ATV sales but not rentals. The petitioner was proposing up to 13 cars and 25 ATVs on the
lot and would operate from 10 a.m. to dusk, Monday through Saturday. Mr. Wilkinson showed
a photograph of the existing building and parking lot for this project. No new construction would
be required. The new landscape plan had been submitted and exceeded the 20% requirement for
a conditional use permit. Parking for customers and employees met the Ordinance requirements.

The Planning Commission decision was appealed to the County Commission on May 16, 2006.
The County Commission sent the item back and the Planning Commission heard it on June 14,
2006 and moved to deny this project for the following reasons:
• It was not a necessary or desirable service in the neighborhood and did not contribute to the
general well-being of the community
• It was not compatible with or complimentary to the existing surrounding uses, which were
primarily residential
• The commercial use was in place before the General Plan was adopted
• There were questions about the deterioration of the environment, particularly in regards to
noise and light pollution

This parcel was rezoned in 1997 from C-1 to C-2, which later became CV-1 and CV-2. A Zoning
Development Agreement related to that rezoning states that the property was to be rezoned to
allow an insurance office and Mr. Wilkinson said that this proposal would have a different impact
than an insurance office. Other uses of this property included a post office and a video store,
which were more in line with the original proposal. Mr. Wilkinson addressed Commissioner
Bischoff’s question stating that all the properties on both sides were AV-3 zoning.

Brad Kelly, petitioner, addressed questions that had been raised: landscaping would meet
requirements–all landscaped areas would be 6 inches lower than the parking area; the water
management system would provide that all oil and antifreeze would remain on the property;
lighting would be adequate and would include Utah Power security lights; all recreation vehicles
would be cabled and locked. He did not feel that recreation vehicles and automobiles would create
more vandalism than any other use and he was willing to fence the property if it was an issue or
staff felt it was necessary; automobiles and recreational vehicles would meet EP and State off-road
regulations. He stated that some semi, dump and diesel trucks had higher decibels than some
ATVs and that those trucks traveling on the main road were closer to the cemetery than those
located on the property. He stated his willingness to do whatever necessary to comply with all
issues. Mr. Kelly had contacted the Sheriff’s Office and they did not have any way to check noise levels
but would be glad to visit the site if there was a noise level problem. He had also spoken with the
cemetery caretaker who had said there had been no services for 17 months and that the diesels and
vehicles driving on that road would be a lot noisier than starting an ATV or car on the lot. Mr.
Kelly said that the vehicles on the lot would not create any more hazard to children than other
commercial uses; that there was a new trail pathway next to the property which would ensure the
safety of children; and there should be plenty of room for loading/unloading vehicles–the area was
over 26 ft. wide between parking stalls, and over 66 ft. long. If necessary, vehicles could be taken
out of the parking stall and increase the area to 46 ft. X 66 ft. He addressed the Planning
commission’s reasons for denial:
• Everyone in the Ogden Valley owns automobiles and this would give the residents the
opportunity to obtain the service without having to travel out of the Valley, which is a
recreational area and most resident may purchase a recreational vehicle. Mr. Kelly had spoken
with UTA to verify there was no bus service to Ogden Valley and with Yellow Cab Company
and they do not travel to the Valley regularly.
• When Mr. Kelly petitioned the Planning Commission two years ago, they suggested he move
to an existing commercial zone such as the Maverick Store area, which is highly expensive real
estate and which he cannot afford, however, this April that commission approved a new
commercial site even though there were 8-10 commercial sites available. His property is on
the north with the General Store, Real Estate Office and the Montisori School directly east.
Between his property there is 2.54 acres of AV-3 owned by the Montisori School and 7 acres
of farmland in the AV-3 zone owned by the Huggins Trust. There are no homes between the
two properties except two homes on the south side of the road directly across from the real
estate office. No additional homes can be built on the south side of the road except across
from his commercial property. He said that the owner of the residential property was in favor
of this project. The closest home to this lot is directly west, 240 ft. away.
• Mr. Kelly said that the development agreement from 1997 had been completed.

If rentals were not allowed, Mr. Kelly would not have them, but the Planning Commission had just
approved rentals as an addition in commercial zones. He wanted the citizens decide if they wanted
this project, which would be beautified and improved. Mr. Kelly, Planning staff and legal counsel
addressed the commissioners’ questions including that due to liability, there would not be onsite
test rides. Mr. Wilkinson said that a petition was heard last week at the Planning Commission to
allow personal watercraft/boat rentals in the CV-2 zone and they had voted to recommend
approval. Kevin Hamilton, County Planning, added that the petitioner originally requested ATV,
personal watercraft and boat rentals and the Planning Commission recommended that as an
accessory to boat rentals and service the personal watercraft rentals be allowed. David Wilson,
Deputy County Attorney, stated that when a Zoning Development Agreement is terminated it did
not return to the original zoning unless so specified in the agreement.

Commissioner Bischoff noted that the Planning Commission’s findings for denying this item the
first time were related to landscaping and fluids on the property. Mr. Kelly had then solved those
issues only to have the Planning Commission not wish to hear the issue again. The County
Commission then remanded the item to the Planning Commission asking that they hear the issue
because the petitioner had done what they asked. Now the Planning Commission had a new set
of reasons to deny the petition. He said it would have been helpful to have had all those reasons
indicated at the onset. Commissioner Cain expressed the need to ensure that this proposal was
indeed compatible with the General Plan. The commissioners felt that this was an important issue
and needed to be studied further and to gather more information for a couple weeks. Mr. Kelly
agreed.
Because of reasons stated above Commissioner Bischoff moved to table this item on the appeal
of the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission’s decision to deny CUP # 04-06 by Brad
Kelley for a used car lot and ATV sales and rentals in the CV-2 Zone, located at approximately
5402 E. 2200 N. in Eden; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.

4. adoption of a resolution expressing official intent regarding certain capital
expenditures of U.S. Holdings, Inc. to be reimbursed from proceeds of industrial
development revenue bonds - Resolution 14-2006

Ron Kusina, Executive Director of the Weber County Redevelopment Agency, stated that U.S.
Holdings’ bond counsel presented their project last week, which was to purchase and renovate a
building in the Weber Industrial Park and to transfer metal fabrication operations from a plant in
Florida to Weber County. U.S. Holdings had indicated to him that they anticipated about $4.6
million investment, initially bringing in about 22 jobs and increasing to about 48 jobs. This
resolution is to induce the obligation of the industrial development bond that they are pursuing and
U.S. Holdings can then begin to incur costs associated with the proceeds from the bond. David
Wilson, Deputy County Attorney stated that the county would have no financial obligation in this
issue. Commissioner Cain asked that Mr. Kusina bring information to the public hearing (on
October 24) whether this company would be competing with other companies in the area.
Commissioner Cain moved to adopt Resolution 14-2006 expressing official intent regarding certain
capital expenditures of U.S. Holdings, Inc. to be reimbursed from proceeds of industrial
development revenue bonds; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Cain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aye
Commissioner Bischoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aye
Chair Dearden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aye



5. Request for preliminary approval of the Wally Acres Estates Cluster Subdivision
located at approximately 2000 South and 3600 West

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, showed aerial photographs and a plat map stating
that Wally Acres Estates was a proposed cluster subdivision in western Weber County. The
Planning Commission had unanimously recommended preliminary approval. Many area residents
had expressed concerns at the Planning Commission meeting and many spoke today in opposition
to this issue under the public comments section.

The petitioner is proposing to place all the lots on the southern portion of the property and leave
about 10 acres in open space on the north. The subdivision met the technical ordinance
requirements and exceeded the open space requirement by leaving about 50% of the subdivision
in open space. The petitioner is going with very small lots in order to have an estate type lot which
allows one person to own the property and continue with some type of agricultural pursuit. He has
not attempted to leave buffers between the lots and adjoining property. The petitioner met enough
of the bonus density requirement that the subdivision could have had two additional lots but
desired to leave an agricultural estate lot. Mr. Hamilton addressed the commissioners’ questions
and the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission. If this development contained one acre
lots it would have no open space; there were some water issues–some ditches draining from the
east eventually leave the water on this property and the issue would have to be resolved before
receiving final approval; Mr. Hamilton believed the petitioner intended to continue planting row
crops on the 10 acres of open space; there is a new subdivision to the west containing 40,000 sq.
ft. lots that is under way;

After reading the Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner Cain believed that this subdivision
was compatible with the General Plan and that the Commission had to give an opportunity to the
petitioner, Engineering, etc., to work towards trying to resolve the issues to protect area
homeowners, and she did not see a legal reason to hold up this item.
Recognizing that it meets all the preliminary requirements and that it needs to meet final
requirements, Commissioner Bischoff moved to grant preliminary approval of the Wally Acres
Estates Cluster Subdivision located at approximately 2000 South and 3600 West; Commissioner
Cain seconded, all voting aye.

 

6. Extension of a Medical Services Agreement between IHC Health Services, Inc. &
Weber County to provide certain medical services at the Weber County
Correctional Facility - Contract C2006-154

David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, noted that there was an existing contract with IHC Health
Services, Inc., d.b.a. McKay-Dee Hospital, to provide certain medical services at the Weber
County Correctional Facility. This extension if for two more years with the same terms.
Commissioner Cain moved to approve Contract C2006-154, extension of a Medical Services
Agreement between IHC Health Services, Inc. and Weber County for the purpose of providing
certain medical services at the Weber County Correctional Facility; Commissioner Bischoff
seconded, all voting aye.

G. Public Hearing:

1. Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings;
Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.

2. Continuation of public hearing on a street vacation on Old Highway 166

This public hearing was continued from last week because the petitioner had not been present.

Ben Toone, petitioner, stated that when he purchased this property 30 years ago it abutted 5500
East State Highway according to the county plat. For years he believed that was his property line
until he made application for a new building permit for a staircase on the southwest side and
discovered there was more ground than the legal description indicated. In a title search back to
1868 when this property was purchased from the railroad and the town was laid out it showed 99
ft. streets but was never dedicated until 1966 when the State dedicated the road to a State highway
and put in monuments by his property. On the west side it is 33 ft. from center and 35 ft. from
center on the east. Mr. Toone said there was 13+ ft. between his legally described property and
the State road, and that 14 ft. of the building is built on this strip along the road.

Kevin Hamilton showed an area map, stating that Mr. Toone’s store extended into the additional
property and the strip of ground, was dedicated as part of the right-of-way. The county’s Road
Master Plan shows it as a future 80 ft. right-of-way and if the entire amount was vacated, it would
put the right-of-way to about 69 ft. Ernest Rowley, County Surveyor, stated that most State
highways were split so that they are 33 ft. on each side of the center line of the road. In this case,
they did not split the road that way and there is more than 33 ft. on the east. Between that State
monument and the old historic (99 ft.) width is the difference between the 49 ½ ft. and the 38 ft.
on the east side, which is the strip being discussed. Vacating this strip would vacate the public’s
right to use that strip between the current State right-of-way and the full 49 ½ ft. half width area.

David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated that a license to encroach could be created so that
the county did not give away or vacate that right, but would allow Mr. Toone to legally maintain
his presence and at some future time if the store was torn down or remodeled in such a way, the
public’s right-of-way could be asserted at that time.

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, said that Mr. Toone had petitioned for a new
building currently under construction but the ordinance calls for a minimum of 20% landscaping
and even if the area was vacated his current planter boxes would be out into the right of way, thus
Mr. Toone wanted the extra space to fulfill the landscaping requirements. The Planning
Department was not certain what their rights were to that strip of ground and sent this item to the
Surveyor’s Office which made the determination that it was a county dedicated right-of-way.
Commissioner Cain asked if there were other properties encroaching along the dedicated side of
the road and how long they had been there, but Mr. Hamilton did not know if there were others.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.

3. Public hearing to take input on the proposed issuance on the Business Development
Bonds Series 2006 (Swanson Foundation Project)

Ty Burgess of Wells Fargo Public Finance, stated he was working with the Swanson Foundation,
a non-profit entity, which currently owns a building in Weber Industrial Park. It currently has a
mortgage and Swanson Foundation would like to refinance at a lower interest rate. The Swanson
Foundation can use the county as a conduit issuer to issue tax exempt in the market giving them
a more favorable interest rate. Wells Fargo Bank has credit approved the transaction and would
be a private purchaser of this new debt. The county is not financially responsible for this debt.
Mr. Burgess stated that the CFO from the Swanson Foundation and a representative from Wells
Fargo Bank were present. David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, reiterated that the county had
no financial obligation for the bonds in any way.

Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.

4. Commissioner Cain moved to adjourn the public hearings and reconvene the public meeting;
Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

5. Action on public hearings:

G.2. - public hearing on a street vacation on Old Highway 166 - Ordinance 2006-

Chair Dearden expressed preference for a license to encroach but Mr. Toone preferred to just
vacate. He said that the ground was worthless because the building was on it and had been there
a long time. Chair Dearden explained that it was prudent to proceed in this manner in the event
the road needed to be widened in the future when his building was not there.

Paul King, Attorney for petitioner, asked if the county would consider an option to go into that
easement to meet the landscaping regulations for the site plan. Commissioner Cain indicated that
the county would have to grant the right as long as Mr. Toone was the owner and the building use
did not change. Mr. Wilson stated that a license could be drafted for Mr. Toone’s review and
brought back before the Commission. Mr. King said that the assumption was that this parcel had
been dedicated to the county but this was not very clear. He said that the discussed easement might
resolve the immediate issues but not the long term ones. He believed it had never been dedicated
formally as a road, that the road was originally platted at 99 ft. width and built and monumented
at 66 ft. wide and everything along it, including the canal to the south of the property and to the
north was along that 66 f. width, thus, there was no conceivable reason that the road would ever
be extended. Mr. King preferred that the property be vacated and said that to widen the road the
canal and the park would have to be changed.
Commissioner Cain moved that county staff work on an agreement that would provide a license
to encroach that would meet County Planning requirements for the improvements the owner
wanted to make on the property, the owner then has the right to not agree to that and it would come
back to the County Commission for contracting; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

 

G.3. - public hearing to take input on the proposed issuance on the Business
Development Bonds Series 2006

No action was necessary. This item was held to take public input.

H. Assign Pledge of Allegiance & Thought of the Day for Tuesday, October 10, 2006, 10 a.m.

 I. Public Comments:

There were many present who wished to speak to item F.5. relating to the request for preliminary
approval of the Wally Acres Estates Cluster Subdivision. Chair Dearden reiterated that in order
to deny this item there had to be a legal reason. Commissioner Cain also stated that the
commissioners had read the Planning Commission minutes with everyone’s objections but the
property owner was entitled to an opportunity to address those issues.

Mark Stephens, Taylor Planning Committee Secretary, stated that the sewer system for that area
was designed for maximum sewage capacity for one acre lots and Mr. Peterson proposed to put
26 lots in just over 9 acres, which included roads.

Ken and Darla Jones, residing on the east adjacent to where eight homes were proposed to be
constructed along their property line, expressed serious concerns relating to water. Water levels
are high in this area and as irrigation begins, these levels increase dramatically. Their home and
those above have no basements. As the lands above them begin to irrigate the water flows above
ground and hours before it is even their time to water, the back 1/3 of the Jones’ property is
standing in approximately ½ foot of water. Water pools and remains on their property and after
several hours the water is absorbed and begins to go underground into the proposed subdivision
site, where over the past years the farmer working that land has sunk his tractor many times. They
stated that by placing homes along that fence line there would undoubtedly be series water issues
and flooding of homes. The Jones’ wanted it on the record that they had made the Commission
aware of this problem. They had been advised to contact an attorney so that written notice may
be given to the county and to the developer for a release of their liability due to water issues out
of their control. They were also concerned with the old clay water drainage lines that exist through
their property, above properties, and surrounding neighborhoods. These drain all underground
water into the main drain lines that go through this proposed site into the road and they were
concerned that the proposed drain lines and sewage system would create new flooding for them
by being blocked or destroyed.

Another concern was the placing of small lot subdivisions alongside existing rural one-acre home
sites with live stock because they would undoubtedly complain of smell, noise, dust, and there was
also the danger to small children who would cross their fence to play with their horses, try to feed
them or throw things over into their pasture to hurt or sicken their investment. The Jones contacted
several nearby cities and they all have a fence ordinance in place. In general they required a 6 ft.
fence and if this plan was adopted, the Jones were requesting a 50 ft. buffer zone between their
property line and the subdivision’s. The developer should be required to put in a sufficient
drainage canal as well as the 6ft. fence requirement to reasonably take care of the major liability
issues. They asked the Commission for careful planning for this cluster housing stating it should
not be able to destroy or greatly alter the feel or climate of existing acre plus rural communities and
needed to consider where to allow them and how they should look when completed. They should
be placed on larger tracks of ground where ample open area could be left around them. As a
county, people are in danger of losing their large animal rights on this ground for ever and these
should be protected. They also did not feel this cluster housing met the General Plan requirements
and should not be given the bonus points for extra homes that he was allotted. The open space is
hidden in a corner by homes, by a canal, and by an existing telephone company business. On all
sides, only one small area (about 400 ft.) will be visible on 3500 W., which did not enhance the
rural atmosphere. This space is too small for a cluster concept because there is no room for
allowing the true rural lifestyle. Another concern was the open space being developed in the
future. Although there may be easements, minds can be changed, events occur, and easements can
be lost. Open space needs to be placed around these subdivisions in a manner that it cannot be
built upon and is to be used as a buffer as stated in the original General Plan for cluster
subdivisions. They also felt that bonus points should not be given to the developer for sewer
because it is a requirement of a cluster subdivision.

Kevin Kent, Taylor Planning Committee Chair, noted that the county’s Subdivision Ordinance
encouraged cluster subdivision development as a means of preserving agricultural land, wildlife
habitat and open space. He did not feel this proposal accomplished that; it was simply a little
suburban subdivision with a field next to it. Mr. Kent expressed a major concern: the agricultural
property to the north is to remain agricultural and to have an easement through it (owned by the
county). That property is on the east boundary of Taylor and would be almost adjacent to West
Haven City–there are only a couple property owners in between–who will likely annex into West
Haven, leaving the open space easement adjacent to West Haven and open to potential annexation.

Barry Howard, residing 2-3 properties east of this proposal, stated that the Secrest property was
being developed. It borders Mr. Howards’ east fence line and the open space of this proposal. He
had heard that the Secrest property would go into West Haven and the developer had expressed
interest in buying Mr. Howards’ property to give him access to the land that would border the open
space so the concern about West Haven bordering the property in the near future was valid. Many
people moved to western Weber County to maintain the rural atmosphere and the vast majority
near this proposal were horse and cattle owners.

Reese Dahle, resident of Allen Subdivision, stated that the developer of his subdivision had been
held to one-acre lots and felt that this subdivision should also be held to the one-acre size lots.
Mr. Dahle trains performance horses and was concerned that people would complain about the
dust. He has spent a lot of money on his training business and did not want to be restricted, nor
children interfering with his horses or getting injured on his property.

Alvin Richins asked how long the 10-acre open space would remain agricultural and Mr. Wilson
said that it depended on how it was classified. If it was recorded as a covenant to run with the
land it would not generally change even if the jurisdiction changed. Mr. Hamilton said that the
cluster ordinance requires two easements–one to the Homeowners Association and one to the
county, which holds the easement. If that property annexes into a city, the county does not lose
the easement. He would have to research if the county could give up that easement without
taking the value for it. As the process moves forward for this proposal, the issues of what uses
will be allowed on that agricultural parcel will be discussed. Mr. Hamilton said that the plat
would state that it is an agricultural area and as such is noisy, dusty, etc. Commissioner Bischoff
noted that agricultural areas had rights and others could not complain and try to shut the down
the operations. Mr. Richins asked if the 10-acre open space parcel could not be developed and
Mr. Hamilton responded that as the developer comes through the approval process he could
identify in the site plan a small area for agricultural outbuildings and this would be approved in
the final process and could not be changed after that.

Keith Hall, owner of the 20-acre parcel on the southwest corner asked what size of lots would
be going in on the north side of his house because when he irrigates his acre, the water sits there
and bubbles and he did not want people to complain. Mr. Hall supported the one-acre lot zoning.
Mr. Hamilton responded that five lots were proposed to abut his property and these ranged from
17,000 sq. ft to 12,000 sq. ft., none would be an acre.

Jill Libby, residing about 20 ft. from this proposal on 2100 S., a very quiet dead-end road, said
that all homes had been built with basements and had major repairs trying to keep them from
flooding. Even in drought years the ground water is 2½ feet down and they have about 3 sump
pumps per home to keep up with the water and their homes should never have been given the
approval 50 years ago to have basements. In 2003 the Weber Master Plan mentioned that they
would have 1-acre lots and septic tanks, with the intent to help manage growth. Because of the
bonus density, there are 7 extra families that can build on the property and under the proposal
there would be 19 homes which was borderline too small to even qualify for cluster housing but
the developer was going by the letter of the law, which was not right.
Ms. Libby said that the intent of cluster housing was to cluster homes in the center and have it
above or between neighbors and she had seen this function in many subdivisions. Ms. Libby
stated that the General Plan called for transportation to keep up at the pace of development.
Their country roads in Taylor, which they love, are very narrow and have deep ditches on both
sides, and seven extra families would be crammed on their road, with school children. The
school was over built now. She said that 90% of the residents in 2003 voted for one-acre lots
and no sewer to try managing growth. Anyone within 300 ft. of this property would have to
connect to sewer and residents were concerned whether they would have to connect because it
is a large expense. The open space in this proposal is not visible from the road. Ms. Libby said
that if the houses were was swapped and went the opposite direction, there would be visible
space and buffers with neighbors. A horse arena is going in across this proposal and the extra
traffic is a major concern. She said that there was no water pressure along their road although
they had worked on it for years. All the residents flooded their properties and this subdivisions
with 26 homes would probably need a secondary watering system with enough water shares to
provide for it.

Mardell Godderidge, residing across from this proposal, said that in approximately 1994 either
the county or State had taken away a 50 ft. right-of-way each side of center on 3500 W. He did
not see that 50 ft. right-of-way reflected on this subdivision and asked if the 50 ft. was coming
out of the yards of the future proposed homeowners. He stated that there was a drain ditch along
the edge of the road and if the developer filled it, it would plug all the drain fields that came out
of that drainfield. Mr. Godderidge said that the drainfields could be heard running at this time.
Commissioner Cain said that the County Surveyor would have to research this.

Connie Fowler, Taylor resident, asked that before considering this item, the Commission
consider what the intent of cluster housing was really to accomplish, stating that it was not
applicable on this subdivision. She asked that the Commission do a site visit to see what is
actually proposed. The clustering of these houses goes all the way to the south end and there is
no open land visible. Chair Dearden noted that there would be a couple more opportunities for
public comments. Commissioner Cain added that the public could also contact County Planning
staff to make sure that the county attempts to address every issue that is raised.

J. Adjourn
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn at 8:24 p.m.; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting
aye.

Craig L. Dearden, Chair
Weber County Commission

Linda G. Lunceford, CPO
Weber County Clerk/Auditor