Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County Commission denies Saratoga Springs request to rezone Lake Mountain area
Summary
The Utah County Commission voted 3-0 to deny a Saratoga Springs-initiated rezoning that would have shifted about 16,000 acres from mining/grazing to grazing to preclude future new mining; commissioners cited property-rights concerns and the need for more targeted outreach to affected owners.
The Utah County Commission voted Nov. 13 to deny a request from the city of Saratoga Springs to rezone roughly 16,000 acres in the Lake Mountain area from mining-and-grazing (MG-1) to grazing (G-1), a change the city said was intended to limit new mining near planned residential growth.
"We are looking at a lot of future development in the city," David Stroud, planning director for Saratoga Springs, told the commission, saying the city sought to eliminate future new mining that could affect roads, air quality and residential neighborhoods. Bryce Armstrong of county Community Development summarized the application and said the planning commission recommended denial, describing the proposal as "a little overreaching."
Industry speakers and property owners urged the commission to reject the rezoning. Todd Cusick, representing CMC and presenting a letter from Waldo, argued the proposal showed "a serious lack of understanding of the environmental impact of mining," cited a local Deseret News article and an epidemiologist's conclusion that dust in the area "is not a significant health concern," and warned that rezoning could increase hauling distances, increase emissions and raise costs for aggregate materials. Cusick also flagged parcel 16029001 and permit S0490090, saying vested mining rights should be omitted to avoid legal entanglements. Property owner Dustin Huichlet said his permitting efforts, begun in July, were being held up and asked that the commission deny the request.
Commissioners debated options including denying the proposal, continuing it to allow the applicant to consult property owners, or adopting an approach with an opt-out protest window. A commissioner raised the principle that rezoning should "benefit the property owner" and warned against taking away established property expectations when land was purchased for mining. The commission ultimately voted to deny the ordinance as stated; the motion passed 3-0.
The commission chair suggested the applicant could do additional outreach to identify willing participants and that returning with a narrower, more consensual proposal would be an option moving forward.
