Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs long‑running Giles/Bateman road dedication dispute; asks staff to draft agreement
Summary
A multi‑hour dispute over whether to amend the county road map and waive prior 56‑foot right‑of‑way conditions dominated the meeting. Clearwater Holdings sought ratification of a historic dedication; Giles family and attorneys warned changing rules would penalize those who relied on earlier county positions. Commissioners instructed staff to draft findings and continue the item for one week; vote was 2‑1 in favor of that procedural step.
A long, contested hearing on Jan. 19 focused on a request to modify prior conditions tied to County Road 3200 West and to amend the official Utah County road map to include a disputed roughly 300‑foot stretch. Cole Cannon, representing Clearwater Holdings, asked the commission to "ratify" what his client contends was a prior dedication and to accept that segment as a county road so Clearwater could proceed with development and provide a safer turnaround at its expense.
Leslie Slaw, representing opposing interests, told the commission the county should not grant an advance approval that effectively changes land‑use standards without concrete standards and notice. "What the county is being asked to do is give an advance approval of a building permit," Slaw said, arguing that judicial review standards and predictability require the county to wait until a concrete application is made.
The debate turned on a prior court ruling and recorded plat language. Commissioners and attorneys discussed whether the earlier litigation and plat established a 56‑foot dedicated right‑of‑way or a narrower public road (the judge had found historic public use "at least" 30 feet and the width remained in dispute in court). Opponents said thousands of dollars had been spent in reliance on earlier county positions and that changing requirements now would be inequitable; proponents said engineered improvements and a paved turnaround would provide public benefit and that the requested action sought only the 300‑foot map amendment.
Staff clarified that the item would modify a prior county condition (the 56‑foot requirement) for the Giles section only; staff also said the commission previously allowed similar road map exceptions where the route was already shown. Commissioners expressed concern about precedent and the pending appellate proceedings. After extended discussion the commission voted to direct staff and county counsel to prepare findings and an agreement and continue the item for one week to finalize documents. The motion passed with two commissioners voting aye and one voting nay. The continuation preserves a chance for a formal, written decision at the next meeting.
What happened next: commissioners set a schedule for staff to prepare formal findings, conditions and an agreement consistent with the commission’s direction; no final map amendment or dedication was executed at the Jan. 19 session.
