Scofield council bars extraction in agricultural zone, declares proposed Kitty Mine No. 2 "unsuitable and incompatible"

The Scofield Town Council on May 19 voted unanimously to amend the town's land-use ordinance to prohibit resource extraction in the town's agricultural zone and adopted a resolution declaring the proposed Kitty (Kinney) Mine No. 2 permitting location "unsuitable and incompatible" with Scofield's character and long-term plans.

The council's action followed a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The commission, at its May 3 meeting, moved to change Scofield Land Use Ordinance Table 2 (use 1.32 — extraction/mining of sand, gravel, earth, stone, gas, minerals, petroleum, or similar resources) from allowed by special-use permit to not allowed in the agricultural zone.

The council amendment passed by roll call. The council recorded the vote as: Brad Peacock — Aye; Jim Langer — Aye; Ralph Brickerhoff — Aye; Liberty Smith — Aye. The minutes record the motion carried with no dissenting votes.

The council then considered and adopted Resolution 05/2025, which states the proposed permitting location for Kitty Mine No. 2 by Coal Energy Group LLC, whether within or immediately adjacent to Scofield town limits (parcel ID cited in the draft as 1B0483001), is "unsuitable and incompatible with the health, safety, welfare, and long-term vision of the town." The resolution text cited concerns about impacts to tourism on Highway 96 (a designated scenic byway), noise, dust, lighting, vehicle traffic, potential effects on a recently invested town water well, and effects to historic resources including the town cemetery and a 1928 schoolhouse. The resolution directs that a copy be forwarded to relevant permitting agencies, including the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining and the Bureau of Land Management, for consideration during permitting.

Planning and council members repeatedly said the town's economic future relies in part on recreation and tourism. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and the council's resolution frame mining operations as industrial activity incompatible with the town's agricultural, residential and recreational land‑use objectives.

Council members and planning commissioners said the change would remove extraction as a permitted use in the agricultural zone, which would prevent future extraction proposals in that zone from proceeding by special-use permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission record in the packet shows that Commissioner Shane Marino moved the commission recommendation and that planning members voted in favor with no dissent.

The council did not set an appeal or reconsideration timetable in the motion as recorded in the minutes. The adopted resolution will be transmitted to state and federal permitting agencies as noted in the resolution text.

Votes at the council meeting also included other unrelated items (appointments and budget items), but the land-use amendment and the resolution were the principal actions addressing mining and extraction that night.

Outcomes listed in the council minutes: land-use table amendment — approved; Resolution 05/2025 declaring the proposed mine location unsuitable — approved.

The transcript shows the council and planning commission repeatedly referenced Utah and local land-use code in their discussion; the council asked that any implementing ordinance language be reviewed by the town attorney before final codification.

(See "Votes at a glance" article for a summary of other motions the council approved on May 19.)