[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6168230,"mediaKeyId","5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4","parentId",5408499,"title","Planning panel backs Inland Port rezones but conditions UDOT traffic review","audioSeconds",2851,"startMs",1358000,"endMs",4209000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4&start=1358&end=4209","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4/thumbnail_1358000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6168230/Utah/Planning-panel-backs-Inland-Port-rezones-but-conditions-UDOT-traffic-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168230-6f668d01181a1e00a4afa854a590cbee/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525384&Signature=JISf5PY0YFzDkjG3hgwr43K0Uf9Rfi6ThfDHzFTq517MMcS7eZ75fLNHGGvYCb9Tjtl6NqVtCwJuSDg2cEm~NqvDdc-LmR12vAzziY2l~sNQRM5Corzaosxx77lduMhd0YzzHqgEr~xUy8OVXqQfGih~kozRJ~oFCKN20C2UCShq0d-ipx4vGQ9dddINOE-14~j7iuiw7iGIZRwwfHx53Oa-8dl9gH6WXGeBfH4IB2~XRktnK1byi078XIi3nJyAaQQp~kQkzaipJIAE~tuVG9Fdtf6KpKvAaVpty-wpaeZquP7rND0O4ofg16Gwp0ZhXPKlbimSy67zvTQ1ETYtXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Tooele County, UT","date","2025-07-17T00:15:52Z","article","Tooele County planning commissioners voted to forward favorable recommendations on two industrial rezones tied to the Inland Port area, attaching conditions aimed at addressing traffic and access concerns at the Burmester/I‑80 interchange and along Higley Road.

The commission recommended approval of REZ2025-046, a request to rezone about 232.52 acres from MU‑40 to MG (general manufacturing) to support Inland Port–related development, on the condition that the landowner provide the project traffic study to the Utah Department of Transportation and obtain UDOT’s written response. The commission separately recommended approval of REZ2025-035 with a condition capping the combined daily trips from the rezoned area at 250 trips per day until Higley Road is “sufficiently improved,” after commissioners and staff raised concerns about the road’s width and capacity.

The actions responded to repeated questions about whether local roads and the Interstate 80 interchange can absorb future truck and employee traffic. Trish DeCloe, planning staff, told commissioners the rezones are consistent with the county’s land-use plan but acknowledged that “the main concern … is just that Higley Road, that’s gonna have to be reclassified as a truck route through the transportation plan, and it’s gonna have to be improved” to accommodate industrial uses. Rochelle (staff member) proposed the UDOT review condition during the discussion; commissioners adopted that as a formal requirement when recommending REZ2025-046.

Applicant Chuck Ackerlow (who identified himself as chair of the Tooele Valley Public Infrastructure District and as the project developer) told the commission the development team has invested millions in roads, utilities and geotechnical work and that the project’s infrastructure — including a 700,000‑gallon water tank and a modular wastewater plant — is being built to serve the industrial parcels. “We are developing everything,” Ackerlow said. He described an interlocal agreement with the county under which the infrastructure district will own and maintain streets and utilities inside the industrial area; he said that arrangement would limit impacts on off‑site systems.

Commissioners and several public speakers pressed for greater clarity on timing and phasing. Commissioner Mitchell noted a traffic estimate cited during the meeting and asked whether the county or developer can influence the pace of traffic growth. A planning staff response said infrastructure would be required as development comes in and that traffic engineers will specify lane and signal needs at the site plan stage. Commissioner Alder and others warned of a local “choke point” at the Burmester/I‑80 area and urged that traffic impacts be documented with UDOT.

Public comments included supportive statements from nearby landowners and commercial real estate representatives who said the project could bring jobs and commercial activity; one online speaker, Jamie Fitzgerald, identified herself as living “kitty corner” to the area.

Formal votes: REZ2025-046 carried on a unanimous roll call recommending the rezone to county council with the UDOT‑review condition (motion by Commissioner Mitchell; second by Commissioner Stets; yes votes recorded from Commissioners Mitchell, Alder, Stets, Scott, Beckstrom and Dow). REZ2025-035 carried on a unanimous roll call recommending the rezone with the 250‑trips‑per‑day cap and related conditions (motion by Commissioner Mitchell; second by Commissioner Dow; unanimous yes votes).

Why it matters: The two rezones would clear zoning barriers for large industrial and manufacturing uses near the Inland Port and Interstate 80. Commissioners attached traffic and phasing conditions to preserve safety and local road function while allowing development review to proceed.

What’s next: Both recommendations now go to the Tooele County Council for final action; the REZ2025-046 recommendation explicitly requires the applicant to submit traffic materials to UDOT and to supply the county with UDOT’s response as part of the review record.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Tooele County Planning Commission 7/16/25","oneSentenceSummary","Tooele County planning commissioners voted to forward favorable recommendations on two industrial rezonings tied to the Inland Port expansion, conditioning one on submission of its traffic study to the Utah Department of Transportation and the other on a temporary trip cap tied to Higley Road improvements.","taxTitle","Tooele County Planning Commission, Tooele County Commission and Boards, Tooele County, Utah","taxId",19853,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6168215,"Commissioners approve small‑scale site plan and amended final plat; private road, three‑foot setback accepted",460,4986000,5446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4&start=4986&end=5446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4/thumbnail_4986000.jpg","/articles/6168215/Utah/Commissioners-approve-smallscale-site-plan-and-amended-final-plat-private-road-threefoot-setback-accepted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168215-7c5390cb3c21ad2ba965850f22295843/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525384&Signature=OvqnPgdTW3RKZPcIx8kgafLzx9PQwPgtTPRZAZtlfVr-PYnMtkC0pYNzIUAAjO60GjsAPWUKXL-hGY1E6shdxgxZ988RPglpUTD8jVItz9~MPnRzVJsfvOKle8sSaeyzSJADgnURQpwVWc-0fpTOrYbnk8Kw3YYT9Hdg7J1ZR3K-YZAhWg1Zy0W4Dt6XZOxXlL29K~RqaySyGPoG~MnGo-wE77RYs9gD5xr7rhW2KAtpmIK6eU~jPY0C0uUE-d8aVnm32MzrhD5PZQ5cCWMa1mYMEGQskNyqlin-FAiBxZ~VpTawXQ1IXC3gBhqHaSWbVQafX4~9kNSj7PJIveWfpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tooele County planning commissioners approved a small site‑plan variance and recommended approval of an amended final plat on routine items that do not require public hearing.

The commission approved SPR2025‑086 to allow a 3‑foot front setback for a pavilion proposed by Adobe Rock. Staff noted Village Boulevard has been dedicated with a 100‑foot right‑of‑way in the area, and commissioners agreed the 3‑foot setback was acceptable under the subdivision and commercial zone rules. The motion passed unanimously.

The commission then recommended approval of SUB2025‑037, the amended Prickly Pear Acres subdivision plat. The amendment adds a lot and formalizes an internal private road to provide access to the reconfigured lots; staff confirmed required reviews from relevant agencies were complete and that a road‑maintenance agreement and easement would be recorded with the plat. Commissioners voted to forward the amended plat with a favorable recommendation to the county council/recorder as applicable.

Why it matters: These approvals permit modest site changes and recordkeeping that allow developers and property owners to move forward with building and lot transfers; the private road will be governed by a recorded maintenance agreement.

What’s next: Staff will issue approvals and record the plat and supporting documents per county recording procedures.","The commission approved a site plan granting a three‑foot setback for a pavilion at Adobe Rock (SPR2025‑086) and recommended final plat approval for an amended Prickly Pear Acres subdivision that adds one lot and a recorded private road (SUB2025‑037).",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6168220,"Commissioners approve conditional‑use permit previously tabled over traffic concerns",223,109000,332000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4&start=109&end=332","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4/thumbnail_109000.jpg","/articles/6168220/Utah/Commissioners-approve-conditionaluse-permit-previously-tabled-over-traffic-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168220-d37bdf77efbaa7c45d7f98c3c5743274/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525384&Signature=GnazMv0T-rSET5QVMFa6yBA790corcB6RHeYMuRKyHOI2-xCaTDv12aLJZQAf-iuaJRxf8Bbtp5N5~BNRezgGjKLdC56NBHt9emx5hXS9zgKLDzccUe3i-x81x63ozZzQog0RBLzcwjux6qCCPfl5apwiBD-HYP4Hz0geTnt9j4cnyWnK5irsEnE7Yx4F4v1zf3Azm5KF7kvPsK5~OSK0C2amhMZ5NervppWb6HPsGc2wXhQW6rNWq253V7wxxO~4vpekiWsAAr1RVprDKyBt-OC1cy0BXL0QJxS1c0bS6TlaRv~FwnoQFb9k7II0VJvha5n~dNCGmZYhAOi3XPwdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tooele County planning commissioners approved Conditional Use Permit CUP2023‑116 following staff updates showing prior traffic concerns have been addressed.

Trish DeCloe, planning staff, told the commission the item had been tabled at a prior meeting because of traffic concerns; staff’s follow‑up found that ingress and egress lanes already exist off State Route 36 and that the traffic study satisfied the earlier questions. Because the public hearing had already been held at the earlier meeting, the commission moved directly to a vote.

A motion to approve CUP2023‑116 carried unanimously on roll call (votes recorded for Commissioners Mitchell, Alder, Stets, Scott, Beckstrom and Dow). The commission’s action was recorded as approval and will be processed according to the permit’s conditions.

Why it matters: The CUP clears a previously tabled application after staff completed follow‑up traffic verification. The approval allows the applicant to proceed to the next permitting steps subject to any CUP conditions already set.

What’s next: The approved CUP will be processed under Planning Division procedures and any required conditions will be enforced through the permit.","The planning commission voted unanimously to approve Conditional Use Permit CUP2023‑116 after staff reported the earlier traffic concerns had been addressed by identifying existing ingress/egress lanes.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6168225,"Commissioners recommend land‑use code updates: land farming, shooting ranges, subdivision language",682,252000,934000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4&start=252&end=934","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5408499-b70dde11a12ba033f555ef09aa3381c4/thumbnail_252000.jpg","/articles/6168225/Utah/Commissioners-recommend-landuse-code-updates-land-farming-shooting-ranges-subdivision-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168225-ef1065502a4bbb2a09ac110c25cb0bf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525384&Signature=iusLUuKMVmEP0Ic5BV34WXzPoWf~aJECyXnxrRsBj~YLdsQzkMUNHQaEXA~2yXmAY1DtuY7VK7kORlpjaApj9l6yChe3BW44IcFrYGSvDnVqeLp2qfdZnLXKBk3TpMyNsVB6ZVShUbTC~cfLhYMhp7mQf6lkFJfdBbkaqMSntpcR6CYy~sjEaWXb6jGswv8oFnLZdEpXd1ApNRSAlFVUSid21z0dI5P2JXrkJf8pQVqfW0VKFl01MPG-fggWqNZslQ19vV2YzGzvOj1YKAkGqdkJiAgO756k6-NueyQxGYTq9VPPGKjihMaU97QiuhY4S~tFXQJ3EjTxKrbVdOTxxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tooele County planning commissioners unanimously recommended several text amendments to the county land‑use ordinance, approving additions and clarifications on land farming, outdoor/indoor shooting ranges, and subdivision procedures to bring county code into alignment with state rules.

The planning commission recommended the county council adopt TC LUO 2025‑079 to add definitions for “land farming” and “land farming modified” into chapters 2 and 27 (mining, quarry, sand and gravel excavations) and to add those uses to the applicable use tables. Planning staff told commissioners that the amendment responds to requests and clarifies that land farming involves treating imported soils so they are not contaminated and may later be sold or reused; the amendment also states such operations must be at least 1,300 feet from residential or commercial zoning boundaries.

In a separate text amendment, staff presented DCLUO 2025‑082, which would add firearm training facilities and indoor/outdoor shooting ranges as conditional uses in MU‑40, MU‑80, MU‑160 and MG zones. Trish DeCloe explained that state code requires deed notification to properties within 1,000 feet of a shooting range boundary; the planning commission recommended the change and noted that each proposed range would return as a conditional use permit so site‑specific operational conditions can be applied.

Commissioners also recommended TCLUO 2025‑092 to update subdivision chapter 35 to reflect state requirements. The changes rename “planning commission” references to the broader “land‑use authority” to reflect possible future procedural shifts, move certain final‑plat requirements to final review (for example health‑department feasibility studies) because the state will not provide those items at preliminary review, and clarify boundary‑adjustment procedures.

Staff and commissioners discussed several technical edits during the hearing, such as paragraph numbering and where specific items should be required (preliminary versus final plat). Commissioner Mitchell pressed staff on why evidence of water rights moved from preliminary to final; staff said the state and the health department will not provide water‑rights feasibility letters until after preliminary approval, so the requirement was moved to final plat.

Votes: Each amendment received a favorable recommendation to the county council on unanimous roll calls (TC LUO2025‑079: motion by Commissioner Scott, second Commissioner Dow; DCLUO2025‑082: motion to recommend; TCLUO2025‑092: motion to recommend; all passed unanimously).

Why it matters: The amendments add uses and definitions that make county code explicitly address emerging site practices (land farming) and previously unspecified uses (shooting ranges). By making shooting ranges conditional uses, the county keeps site‑specific public‑safety and notification controls in the permitting process. Moving technical requirements to final aligns the ordinance with current state processing.

What’s next: The planning commission’s favorable recommendations will be forwarded to the Tooele County Council for consideration and possible adoption.","Tooele County planning commissioners voted unanimous favorable recommendations to amend land‑use code items that would add definitions for land farming, add firearms training and shooting ranges as conditional uses in specific zones with state‑required deed notification, and update subdivision language per state requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning panel backs Inland Port rezones but conditions UDOT traffic review

Commissioners approve small‑scale site plan and amended final plat; private road, three‑foot setback accepted

Commissioners approve conditional‑use permit previously tabled over traffic concerns

Commissioners recommend land‑use code updates: land farming, shooting ranges, subdivision language