Planning commission reviews Bennett Farms master development; public hearing rescheduled

Western River County Planning Commission met in a work session on May 6 to review the Bennett Farms master development agreement and an updated land-use table for the Bennett Farms project. County staff, the project team and commission members discussed zoning under a transect-based model, uses for different transect zones, open-space dedication and park improvements along the Weaver River corridor, obligations and oversight tied to a town architect, stormwater/flood studies for areas close to the river, and how phasing and partial assignment should be managed.

The discussion mattered because the draft agreement would vest many long-term approvals and design standards for a large, multi-phase development. Commissioners and staff focused on provisions that affect public access and river-park improvements, who enforces design standards over the multi-decade term, and what conditions should be required before sub-phases are approved. Several procedural items were also set: staff and the developer agreed to reschedule the public hearing to June 10 and to hold an additional work session on June 3 so staff and commissioners can review revisions before a hearing.

Planning and zoning details The project team presented an updated land-use table built around transect zones (T2–T5 and special districts). Commissioners and staff asked for clearer limits where the more intensive transect zones meet rural areas, and for language to require transitions between transects so that, for example, a high-intensity T5 edge does not abut T2 without intermediate zones. County staff said they will add cross-references to the TNZ/design code where those transition rules live.

Weaver River corridor, open space and trail improvements The draft identifies a Weaver River corridor defined as the 100-foot ordinary-high-water-mark corridor. The commission discussed dedicating corridor land to the county or park district and how to phase improvements. Staff said the agreement contemplates dedication of open space easements as phases plat adjacent property, with a default of contributing a proportion of required open space as phases are recorded (the working draft discussed a 50% baseline contribution of open space tied to initial phases). Commissioners pressed for clarity on whether the county should receive outright dedication or easements and whether escrows or credits should be used so that trail and bank improvements are funded when built rather than risking unpaid obligations later.

Town architect, design code and enforcement The agreement ties long-term design oversight to a town architect and a form‑based/design code administered by that architect and county staff. The commission discussed removal procedures for the town architect: immediate removal for serious misconduct or criminal acts, and a multi-strike removal procedure for repeated noncompliance. Commissioners sought limits on unilateral authority and asked that the county keep final oversight so a town architect cannot unilaterally rewrite the design code in ways the county finds unacceptable.

Uses table and site-specific standards Commissioners and staff reviewed dozens of individual uses in the draft use table. Key outcomes of the discussion included: - Agritourism/wildlife sanctuary: staff recommended minimum acreage thresholds (discussion suggested 3–5 acres; participants proposed 5 acres for agritourism and wildlife sanctuary uses as a baseline where more intensive visitor activities would be allowed). - Accessory dwelling units: commissioners discussed whether ADUs count toward density; the project team said ADUs are not intended to count against density in adjacent examples. - Entertainment and outdoor events: commissioners preferred special permits or conditional use review for outdoor entertainment to address noise, traffic and timing impacts. - Short-term rentals: staff and commissioners discussed restricting short-term nightly rentals in lower-density transects (T2/T3) and limiting short-term rentals to higher-density transects or tying them to agritourism where explicitly allowed. Several participants expressed concern about impacts on long-term affordability and community character. - Animal-related and agricultural activities: commissioners asked for minimum lot-size thresholds for stables, grazing and breeding operations and proposed special permits or acreage minimums (example suggested: 1 acre minimum for arenas/stables; 2–3 acre thresholds discussed for some animal facilities).

Stormwater, floodplain and riverbank engineering Commissioners required a stormwater/floodwater master plan and hydrologic/hydraulic analysis for sites within the river corridor or within a specified distance of the channel (the draft flags work for areas within roughly 300 feet of the river). Staff emphasized that floodplain modifications must comply with FEMA and county standards, and that a qualified professional (licensed engineer/hydrologist) must recommend mitigation measures where development or grading affects riverbanks.

Phasing, public improvements and crediting Commissioners and staff discussed how to ensure the public receives commensurate park improvements during a long, phased buildout. The draft ties certain contributions of open space and park easements to subdivisions recorded adjacent to the corridor; commissioners asked for clearer triggers and options for escrows, credits, or additional land dedication if the developer elects to front‑end corridor dedication rather than building improvements immediately. Participants discussed crediting future phases for improvements built early so the overall obligation remains balanced across the full project.

Assignment and partial transfers Staff and several commissioners said the county should retain discretion to approve any full or partial assignment of the master developer’s obligations. Commissioners noted past examples where partial assignments to parties that did not follow prior commitments created long-term administration problems; they sought criteria that would allow the county to deny an assignment that undermines the original approvals or public commitments.

Next steps and meeting scheduling At the end of the work session commissioners and staff agreed to provide more consolidated edits to the draft and to set a near-term schedule: an additional work session for commissioners and staff on June 3 to review revisions and a rescheduled public hearing on June 10. Staff will notify the public of the reschedule and update the staff report and exhibits for the June meetings.

What the commission did not decide No formal action or vote was taken at the May 6 work session. Commissioners gave direction on drafting priorities and asked staff and the applicant to return with a revised draft and supporting technical studies for the next work session and the rescheduled public hearing.