Property owner and planning staff discuss zoning, utilities and possible commercial use for Humphrey property

Joe Humphrey, the owner of a multi‑acre parcel discussed at length March 11, asked Mona City Council and planning staff for guidance on what could be developed on the site and why recent communications appeared to conflict with earlier conversations.

Humphrey told council the family that owned the land before him “sold the property without having the subdivision done” and that the parcel was later identified in city records as irregular. He said a recent letter sent to him stated the lot was subject to litigation; Humphrey denied any litigation with the city, saying, “I was not in any litigation with Mona City. I never sued you guys.” He described plans his group initially proposed—self-storage units—and said they were told those uses would not meet current zoning.

Dennis, identified in the meeting as planning and zoning staff, told the council the parcel was part of a long-running matter involving illegal subdivisions. He said the city had litigated to correct an earlier map and that the settlement included the property. Dennis explained the lot is currently flagged as unbuildable because it was illegally subdivided and said, “The Wilkersons agreed they would put this road in if they divided any further. So the only thing you have to do to develop is bring it up as if it had been a legal subdivision, water utilities.”

Council and staff discussed several constraints that would shape any development: the amount of frontage included in the commercial/mixed-use zone (staff said a quarter acre of the parcel fronts the Main Street commercial zone), uncertainty about whether the back portion of the lot could be used under the same frontage, sewer grade and the availability of culinary water. Dennis and other staff said water transfers and changes must go through the state and noted recent state scrutiny of transfers. Dennis also said the city would consult the city attorney about whether the lot's frontage could be treated together with the whole parcel or whether a replatted or rezoned lot would be necessary.

Council members repeatedly encouraged the owner to pursue commercially viable, town‑compatible uses rather than industrial or dense storage. As one council member said, Mona needs “businesses. We need commercial. So I like that you're thinking that direction.” Humphrey said he was open to commercial uses, including a small strip of retail or offices, but said the property's constraints (sewer, water, road alignment) made a solution unclear.

Outcome: Council directed staff to review the property's zoning frontage, consult the city attorney about the lot's status under the settlement map and work with Humphrey and planning staff on next steps. Staff said they would follow up with formal guidance at planning and zoning and with legal review before any rezoning or subdivision action.

Why it matters: The 3‑acre Humphrey parcel is adjacent to Main Street; changes could affect the town's primary commercial corridor and future development patterns. Council and staff emphasized preserving Main Street as a presentable retail corridor while allowing productive use of the parcel if utilities and legal subdivision requirements can be satisfied.