Castle Valley planning commission debates format, content and logistics for 2025 general plan survey

The Planning and Licensing Commission of the Town of Castle Valley spent much of its May 8 meeting discussing the 2025 general plan survey, including question wording, online versus paper distribution, anonymity, serial-number tracking and a proposed schedule for mailing and return.

Commissioners and staff debated where specific questions should appear, how to phrase items about livestock and agricultural uses, and whether to include questions about view-shed protections, height and square-footage calculations. The commission did not approve the survey at the meeting and voted to table the item for later consideration.

Members and staff focused first on logistics and format. Commission members discussed using Google Forms to collect responses and automate tabulation. A commissioner described Google Forms as a viable option that could "do everything we need" and noted it is available at no cost. Commissioners repeatedly said the town should retain a paper option for residents who do not use the Internet and discussed printing and mailing serialized paper copies so mailed surveys can be matched to online entries without identifying respondents. The group agreed an August mailing with a September return deadline (or returns by early October) would balance summer travel schedules with time needed to tabulate results and hold public hearings. Commissioners and staff noted the town typically needs several weeks to enter and analyze results and to schedule required public hearings.

Members discussed anonymity and ballot-stuffing concerns. Commissioners and staff said the last survey was anonymous and many residents value anonymity; others said serial numbers could be used to prevent duplicate submissions while preserving respondent anonymity if no link between serial numbers and property owners was retained. The commission discussed the technical options in Google Forms to require sign-in or limit responses and the trade-offs that would pose for older residents who prefer paper surveys.

Substantive question wording drew substantial discussion. Commissioners reviewed proposed changes on: livestock and agriculture questions (rewriting requested from two residents mentioned in the packet); measurement rules such as whether porch roofs, eaves and overhangs should be included in total square footage; how to frame questions about height limits and view-shed protection; and small outbuildings exempt from square-footage calculations (the current ordinance exempts two small outbuildings of 20 square feet each, and commissioners discussed whether to keep that limit or consider 200 square feet consistent with some county thresholds). The commission preferred more general, plain-language questions that explained the purpose of existing rules (for example, describing view-shed protection when asking whether to continue measures that limit visual impact).

The commission also discussed adding or refining questions about senior housing and caregiver housing. Commissioners asked that the survey ask whether the town should continue to explore senior-housing options beyond the currently allowed internal accessory dwelling units (IADUs) and temporary accessory structures (TAS), and to explicitly mention caregiver and caretaker options in addition to ADUs/IADUs.

Water-related questions were addressed separately. The town's Water Management Plan (WMP) team recommended including one WMP-related question asking whether the town should continue researching options to provide potable water to lots with inadequate or poor-quality water. The commission agreed that educational text from the WMP should precede any water question and that a metering question should be omitted for now because the topic is complex and not ready for a broad survey question.

Other items discussed for possible inclusion were a question about pursuing improved cell-phone coverage and a short volunteer/contact statement directing residents who want to help to a volunteer-information form on the town website.

Commissioners also agreed on process details: serialize mailed surveys (the town could have the copy center print incrementing serial numbers or hand-number up to roughly 300 forms), send reminder email blasts (once a week during the response window was suggested), and coordinate final survey formatting with the town council before mailing. Staff estimated printing and mailing costs in the range of a few hundred dollars, noting past mailings cost "$200 to $400" in prior cycles, but flagged that the final budget and exact mail counts would be confirmed when the town budget is adopted in late May.

After extended discussion, the commission voted to table further action on the survey so staff could revise wording, check logistics (including Google Forms templates and serial-number printing), and return with a clean draft at a future meeting.

The item was tabled by roll-call vote.