Commissioners and PZ discuss Area of Impact at Hearing
A Public Hearing about the adoption of Resolution 2025-02, regarding the Area of Impact, was held on Monday.
Although Planning and Zoning administrator Helen Barker had not received any input from the public on the ordinance to adopt the Area of Impact resolution, there were a number of members of the public at the hearing to make their concerns known.
Larue Workman raised concerns about issues related to the code detailing “home occupations” as well as general concern about being annexed into the city as a result of the Area of Impact boundaries.
Neighbor Kevin Corter runs a gravel pit nearby, and also expressed his concerns about the effect the Area of Impact might have on his ability to continue operations. His family has been in the business since the 1960s. “We aren’t planning to start a new one. We don’t think we should lose anything with access on this new one,” he said.
Barker spoke to the concerns that had been expressed by stating, “These new codes will have no bearing on existing gravel pits. The county doesn’t want to affect any existing structures or uses of the land. If you look in that code, any CU can be sought for an application even if it’s not listed. It will not affect any business that is in place. Any CUP goes with the land, even if it’s sold. I encourage you to come and speak with me, and I’m very open and want to work with people. I’m willing to work with members of the community. Your land and what you purchased it for is not going to change.”
Barker and Chairman Mark Mathews stated that the Area of Impact is a state requirement. The zone indicates where the city and county see likely future growth, and allows them to coordinate growth in a way that avoids being haphazard.
“A lot of the stuff involved with the Area doesn’t affect a small county like ours,” Barker said.
Workman asked about how the shipping container mandate (from Soda Springs) will affect residents in the Area of Impact. Barker explained that “we don’t have one [a mandate], so it will no longer impact the area. We do not have any regulations about them.”
Chairman Mathews stated, “Everything that happens in the Area of Impact is still under the county’s purview as far as what happens there. The city gets to have input on what happens, but they don’t make any final decision.”
Barker further added that, with regard to Workman’s original concern, “The county’s definition of home-occupation is actually stricter, which is why we went with the city’s, to keep it less restrictive. But I’m happy to look at recommendations and input you might have. I’d love to have you come and express any concerns, and I’m happy to address those concerns before we adopt the res.”
Attorney Doug Wood added that “If a city’s code has applied in the Area of Impact before, it no longer does. Because there is no representation for voters, it doesn’t work that way anymore.”
Commissioner Bryce Somsen encouraged residents of the county to “Talk to your neighbors and make sure you’re on the same page.”
Chairman Mathews stated, “We are not trying to make things more restrictive. We’re trying to do the opposite.”
Passage of the resolution was tabled, so that Barker could further discuss some of the concerns expressed with members of the public before creating a final draft of the document.
