Weber County Board of Adjustment hears appeal over required access easement for Osprey Ranch Phase 2

The Weber County Board of Adjustment heard an appeal from MCG Investments challenging a planning commission action that removed a requirement for an access easement between Lots 43 and 46 in the Osprey Ranch Phase 2 subdivision.

The requirement to show an access between Lots 43 and 46 originally appeared in the planning commission’s April 27, 2023 notice of decision but was replaced in a revised notice dated June 19, 2025. Counsel for MCG Investments argued the June 2025 change was improper and asked the board to restore the April 27, 2023 condition unless county engineering later determines the connection is infeasible.

Robert Mansfield, legal counsel for MCG Investments, said the April 27, 2023 notice “was based on recommendation from staff” and that the earlier requirement followed Weber County code, which he quoted to the board. Mansfield argued that “the striking out of condition number 2 is why we’re here on this appeal” and that engineering has not evaluated whether the connection is feasible. He told the board, “We think the planning commission error; we’d ask that this body, correct that error and require that the condition for access through Lots 43 and 46 remain.”

County staff confirmed the record shows the planning commission approved minutes including the April 27 wording and that staff later issued a revised notice on June 19, 2025 with amended language after a party asked staff to recheck the oral record. A county attorney/staff speaker explained the dates matter because they affect the appeal period and noted staff’s uncertainty about whether it had authority to change the final written record without the commission’s direction.

Counsel for Osprey Ranch, Bruce Beard, told the board the June meeting was a public meeting (not a public hearing) and said much of Mansfield’s presentation relied on matters not in the administrative record. Beard urged the board to remand the item to the planning commission for a fuller record and for engineering to evaluate feasibility, saying, “Remand it back to the planning commission... Do it right this time. Give everybody an opportunity. Have engineering address the issue.” He also said the developer expects to record the plat without Lots 43 and 46 and that a condition requiring an easement across lots that will not be recorded is moot.

Both sides disputed whether county engineering had completed a feasibility review. Mansfield said engineering had not reviewed the connection; Beard and county staff said engineering had been asked to review but that a final determination had not been made and the county’s statement to the developer indicated no decision had yet been reached.

After hearing presentations from counsel and staff, the board voted to go into closed session, later reconvened, and voted to take the matter “under advisement” rather than issue a final ruling at the meeting. The board did not vote on the substantive appeal (whether planning commission action was correct). The board also approved several routine minutes earlier in the meeting and later adjourned.

The immediate next procedural steps were not set on the record; parties and counsel suggested possible remand to the planning commission for an engineering feasibility review and for a fuller administrative record before the board issues a final decision.