Planning commission discusses 2025 general plan survey, decides to table formal action

The Castle Valley Planning and Land Use Commission spent the bulk of its April 3, 2025 meeting reviewing proposed questions for the town’s 2025 general plan survey and ultimately moved to table formal action while staff and volunteers refine specific items.

Commissioners and members of the public debated several topics proposed for the survey — including livestock limits, dark-sky and exterior-lighting language, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and senior-housing questions, local online communications, cellular service, noise and construction-hour enforcement, and potential town-provided water options. After discussion, commissioners agreed to remove two outdated animal questions and a proposed lighting-strengthening question and to ask staff and volunteers to reword and add explanatory text on other items before bringing the survey back for action.

Colleen Thompson, the town’s building permit agent, told the commission that the existing survey language on animal units was out of date. "A few years ago, we revised the number of swine... we amended it to only allow seven non-suckling swine maximum," Thompson said, noting that the earlier survey question that referenced 30 swine no longer reflected town practice. Commissioners voted to delete that question (C1) and the related conditional-use question (C4).

On lighting, Thompson and other commissioners said the town’s dark-sky ordinance is already strict and that strengthening it further could intrude into interior lighting. Commissioners agreed to remove the proposed question (D4) asking respondents whether they wanted to strengthen the lighting ordinance; Thompson said she uses discretion during plan review to ask for a lighting schedule on complex projects.

Commissioners discussed senior housing and ADUs (question E4). Thompson noted state requirements allow internal ADUs and temporary accessory dwellings for medical or caretaker purposes; the commission asked for clearer wording and for someone to draft a version that would ask whether residents want the town to explore elder-care or caregiver housing options. A commissioner offered to contact stakeholders who previously studied the idea and to draft proposed survey language within a day or two.

The commission clarified that two entries in the survey’s communications question (F1) both referred to the same private Facebook group — the Castle Valley group page — and asked staff to label it as an "unofficial, private Castle Valley Facebook group page." Jocelyn and other participants confirmed the page is community-run and not a town-controlled information channel.

Public comments and commissioners also raised infrastructure topics: the possibility of allowing collocation on a county tower on Andy Mesa to improve cellular service, and whether to add a survey question about support for a low-visual-impact tower to improve coverage. Commissioners asked a volunteer to draft a question under an infrastructure section rather than inserting an isolated question.

Water supply, long a complex issue for Castle Valley, drew extended discussion. The commission heard from water-committee members and residents that providing piped town water to lots without wells could trigger public-water supplier requirements. Participants noted state rules permit small shared well arrangements (commonly up to six homes) without converting to public-supplier status, while delivering town-supplied water or expanding service could require additional testing, certification, easements and startup costs. Pam Hackley agreed to help draft educational text and a short question for the survey about water needs and interest in town-delivered options.

Noise and construction-hour concerns were raised by multiple callers. Commissioners said the town’s nuisance and noise ordinances already address many concerns, and they asked staff to add a reminder about construction start times and noise expectations to building-permit information materials. Thompson said the permit information sheet will be revised to tell contractors and applicants to be considerate of start times and to reference the ordinance.

Commissioner Jeff and others proposed clarifying measurement rules for building height and square footage in the survey, asking whether residents want to keep, increase or decrease current limits and how to measure height on sloping lots (for example, average grade vs. lowest footing). Commissioners volunteered to help craft clearer survey language on those technical measurement points.

After hours of topic-by-topic review and several assignments to staff and volunteers to redraft or add explanatory text, Commissioner Dorje moved to table possible action on the 2025 general plan survey; Commissioner Jeff seconded. The motion carried by roll call vote and the commission will revisit the revised survey in a future meeting.

What the commission agreed on at the meeting: delete C1 and C4 (animal-unit questions) from the survey; delete D4 (lighting-strengthening question); ask staff and volunteers to draft clarified language and explanatory text on senior housing/ADU options, water-service possibilities, communications labeling for the Facebook group, cellular service/infrastructure phrasing, construction-noise guidance in permit materials, and building measurement questions; and table formal adoption until those items are revised.