Scofield planning commission closes public comment on rezoning request for two parcels near Mud Creek

On Monday, Dec. 9, the Scofield Town Planning Commission closed the public-comment portion of a zoning hearing about landowner Ted Helston’s request to rezone two parcels (1B-0353-0000 and 1B-0354-0000) from commercial and light-industrial to agricultural.

Shane Moreno, who read Helston’s written petition into the record, said the petitioner listed flood plain and wetlands along Mud Creek, railroad boundaries to the east and limited road access as the reasons for the requested rezoning. "The subject land does not fit commercial zoning definition," Moreno read from the petition.

The petition said the adjoining Jensen Cattle Ranch is in agricultural zoning, described long-term use of the land for hay and grazing, and said one parcel is not accessible from Scofield roads. Moreno also noted a photograph taken from Highway SR 96 and an attached plat showing the creek and railroad boundaries.

During public comment, a participant questioned the implications for future development and taxes, saying, "I thought I just wanted to have it changed back to residential and not pay the extra taxes," and asked whether the flood-plain designation would bar any future development. Moreno responded that the letter on the record was all that had been submitted.

Another resident noted that their house is also in the town’s flood plain and said flood-plain adjustments are possible but cautioned against removing land that could hold development potential. "This town is in a flood plain," the resident said, and added that commercial parcels may hold value for future growth.

Commissioners reviewed the plat during the hearing and clarified which map polygons are 0353 and 0354, confirmed that 0354 includes multiple parcels, and said the petitioner wanted to exclude parcel 0352 on Front Street. They also discussed unimproved road access on the south side and a town road on the east side as possible access points.

Jerry Lynch moved to close the public-comment period for the rezoning request and to adjourn the hearing. The motion was put and the record captured multiple 'aye' responses (two 'aye' responses were audible on the recording). The transcript does not clearly identify who seconded or thirded the motion. Commissioners stated deliberation on the rezoning request will occur at the next planning-commission meeting.

No county statute, ordinance number, or formal application documents were read into the record during this session; the petitioner, Ted Helston, was not present and did not have a representative speak during public comment. The planning commission noted county guidance limiting discussion during the public-comment period to comments only, with deliberation and any formal decision reserved for the listed deliberation agenda at a later meeting.