3-acre parcel on South Main constrained by lack of water shares, sewer access; commission advises city council review for rezoning or variance

Mona Planning and Zoning commissioners on March 5 heard a presentation about a 3-acre parcel near 600 South Main that a real-estate representative said has repeatedly failed to develop because of utility and zoning constraints.

“I'm a local real estate agent. My name is Meadow, and I'm here tonight to represent, Joe Humphrey. He is a property owner, approximately 600 South Main Street here,” Meadow told the commission, outlining past attempts to develop the property and asking for guidance on rezoning or a variance.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the parcel’s lack of irrigation shares, limited sewer access and the cost to bring power and other mains to the site make many otherwise allowable uses infeasible. Those constraints have repeatedly undermined past purchase-and-development agreements, they said.

Meadow described prior proposals that fell through: Giles Dairy sought a small equipment-storage area but was turned down by a prior council as being too industrial; residential development was hampered by the absence of water shares and by sewer elevation constraints; a proposed strip mall was not feasible because the property has only one city culinary hookup, which does not support multiple commercial buildings. “Most recently, we explored putting storage units on that property, but after looking at the zoning on that, it is it does not qualify for that, obviously,” Meadow said.

Staff and commissioners identified specific infrastructure facts the applicant must confront: a culinary water hookup exists but the parcel has no irrigation (outside water) shares; the sewer does not run along the entire south side of the site and may require a major drilling operation or new sewer line to reach existing manholes near Cemetery Lane and Carter’s property; the nearest fire hydrant was identified on the west side of Main Street at about 700 South; and power would be most practical to bring from Cemetery Way. Chad (staff member) said the last sewer manhole is “just north of Carter’s” and noted elevation and flow would have to be assessed.

Commissioners discussed what uses might bypass the need for irrigation or sewer. One commissioner said, if an ordinance change allowed it, storage units could avoid irrigation and sewer requirements and only need power for lighting—potentially enabling solar or similar options. Another commissioner noted the land-use matrix shows warehouse/wholesale storage is not permissible in the parcel’s current combined-use designation.

Next steps and options discussed: staff recommended the applicant present a rezone or variance request to the city council. Meadow said she has a rezone application and that the fee is $400. Commissioners noted rezoning typically requires the whole parcel to be rezoned rather than a partial strip in front, and that the city council would decide whether to remove the property’s “flag” (a hold on development) if utilities and standards were brought into compliance.

Commissioners and staff also suggested other options that would involve higher upfront cost: bringing utilities from the back of the parcel, negotiating utility easements (Jeff said he previously asked for a quarter acre for a utility easement), or coordinating a sewer extension along the future road corridor. One attendee estimated a sewer main could cost about $42 per foot for an 8-inch line in prior projects, offering a rough cost illustration.

Ending: Meadow said she would ask the city to place the rezoning request on a city council agenda and return to the commission after the council discussion. Commissioners and staff recommended the applicant gather engineering data on sewer flow and elevations, estimate the cost of bringing mains to the site, and consult the land-use matrix before a council application.