Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs UDO, agreements and 75‑foot setback after Mammoth solar survey errors; staff directed to clarify language
Summary
The Drainage Board reviewed survey encroachments and inconsistent language between private developer agreements and the county Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) related to a 75‑foot maintenance setback for the Mammoth solar project.
Board members and staff reviewed recent fieldwork on the Mammoth solar project and described a survey error that initially placed fencing and poles inside a 75‑foot maintenance setback. Company crews later removed the posts after the survey was corrected; staff said engineering plans for portions of the project remain outstanding.
Discussion shifted to a broader concern: language differences between private agreements and the county Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Multiple speakers said a developer agreement had been interpreted differently than the drafters intended and that ambiguous terms (testimony cited an interpretation issue around the meaning of a phrase in the ordinance) create the potential for disputes. “When you have an ironclad UDO, then is an agreement such as between the county and a developer — which one has the ultimate authority?” one speaker asked; staff and legal counsel responded that the UDO governs and that agreements should mirror ordinance language.
Several board members and staff said prior agreements were drafted without sufficient input from technical staff — drainage, roads and building inspection — and that leaving those staff out of final agreement language created inconsistencies. Members directed that future projects consolidate relevant conditions (road use, drainage and other items) into a single UDO provision or unified document so the county and developers reference the same language.
Staff also committed to follow up with the Mammoth project engineering team to obtain outstanding plans and to ensure any encroachments are resolved consistent with county standards. Board members said they will pursue clarifying ordinance language so agreements cannot be interpreted in ways that contradict the UDO.
No formal ordinance amendment or final legal decision was made at the meeting; the board gave staff direction to draft clearer UDO language, to consolidate agreement terms where practicable and to involve drainage, road and building staff in final drafting.
