Emigration Canyon committee approves April minutes, removes technical defensible‑space wording pending codes review

Members of the Emigration Canyon committee approved the April 2025 meeting minutes and agreed to strike a line in draft ordinance language that attempted to list defensible‑space distances, saying the language was unclear and that the ordinance should instead refer readers to the applicable codes.

Committee members moved quickly through procedural business and voted to approve the April minutes after a brief exchange about editing minutiae; the formal motion was made and seconded and recorded as approved unanimously. Members also agreed to postpone approval of the March minutes until the next meeting and to revisit the ordinance language at a later date.

The substantive discussion centered on one sentence captured in the draft minutes and staff notes that read, in part, that “the defensible space that falls under 30 feet is moderate, 50 foot high, and 100 feet extreme.” Several committee members said that phrasing was confusing — both the ordering and the meaning — and recommended striking it from the minutes and from draft ordinance text. One participant summarized the concern this way: “I feel like you documented something great, but I don't remember what it was,” and suggested staff check the recording or remove the line if verification would take too long.

Members noted related technical points raised earlier in the meeting: setback distances used in wildfire hazard assessments increase with higher risk levels, steeper slopes tend to require larger setbacks because fire can move uphill faster, and jurisdictions already use a set of fire‑rating categories such as low, moderate and extreme. Committee members said the proposed ordinance should not attempt to restate those technical distances in the text; instead, the ordinance will include language that requires “proper defensible space” and refers readers to the applicable current codes for exact dimensions.

Staff (referred to in the meeting as Wendy) was thanked for documenting edits and asked to either verify the disputed language against the recording or remove it. The committee agreed to revisit the changes at the next meeting and accepted that the ordinance would point to existing code language rather than reproduce technical tables in the ordinance itself.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn; the motion and second were recorded and the adjournment was approved.

The committee scheduled follow‑up work to refine the draft minutes and the ordinance text and left the technical defensible‑space specifications to be determined by the referenced code language rather than by the committee's draft text.