Two residents allege denied appeals, trespass and due‑process problems; staff offers written follow‑up

Two residents urged the Morgan County Planning Commission on Thursday to address what they described as denied appeals and stalled permitting related to a fence application and alleged trespasses by commercial outfitters.

Kent Singleton, a property owner who identified himself as a Vietnam veteran, said the commission had ignored his formal written appeals to stay a fence permit while administrative procedures proceed. “Under Utah State code 78 b dash 6 11 o 1, those trespasses are your responsibility punishable at up to $250 per day per violation per trespasser, plus actual damages, court costs, and attorney's fees,” Singleton said, and he told the commission he was blocked from defending his land while the county pursued eminent domain and continued to license commercial outfitters who use his property without his permission. Singleton asked the commission to place his fence appeal on the agenda and promoted a public meeting–recording platform he said would ensure transparency.

Jeffrey Glum, another public commenter, said requests to be placed on prior agendas had been denied and argued the commission’s failure to hear both sides undermined the oath to “support, obey, and defend the constitution.” Glum said the applicants had submitted documents in December and that the county’s online submission system produced incomplete‑application notices; he said the parties disagreed about whether a “no rise” document was required and urged the commission to provide written notice if it intended to deny the request to be heard.

Commissioners and staff responded that the topics raised were not on the evening’s agenda and that, under the Open Meetings Act, the body could not make decisions on items not noticed. A county staff member offered to compile email chains and communications with state agencies and provide them to the commission so the record would show what the county has done and to correct any misunderstandings. The staff member said written follow‑up would be preferable to an on‑the‑spot discussion because a non‑agenda discussion would not allow the commission to take action.

No formal action was taken during the meeting on the fence permit or the appeals; the commission’s business proceeded to its legislative agenda item, the ranch rezone application. Several commissioners acknowledged receipt of email exchanges and encouraged staff to produce a consolidated response to the public commenters.

Singleton also referenced a mediation outcome from September 2024 in which he said Morgan County agreed to provide a letter of apology that he said was never delivered; he said his permit issues began with a December application and later document‑submission problems. Glum asked how long a government could take to respond when alleged rights are at stake and urged the commission to provide the record in writing.

The staff follow‑up offered at the meeting is a direction to prepare documentation, not a formal county decision or adjudication of the underlying permit dispute.