Neighbors, commissioners raise access and sewer concerns at public hearing for 24‑lot subdivision near Highway 89

The Willard City Planning Commission heard public comment June 5 on a preliminary plan for a proposed 24‑lot subdivision on roughly 16 acres near 8200 South Highway 89, a development the record alternately identifies as 'Mountain View' and later as 'Mountain Bay.' Developer Kelvin Judd told the commission his intention is to lay out half‑acre lots ‘‘that's what's right next to it’’ and to avoid higher‑density infill (Kelvin Judd).

Residents who live adjacent to the project urged the commission to require a secondary access and to consider safety and emergency response. Lance Lewis, who lives north of the subdivision, said the plan shows a single access for 24 homes onto 8100/8100 South and that the existing left‑turn movement onto Highway 89 is marked off and may be unsafe; he recommended connecting to an existing road near the stake center to create a second entrance. Bryce Shoop, another nearby resident, described recent collisions near the intersection and said an additional entrance south of the church would reduce risk.

Commissioners and staff focused questions on two technical issues: access (including UDOT spacing rules) and sewer infrastructure. Commissioners noted that a single access serving more than about 20–40 homes can exceed local fire‑safety thresholds; several members said that, as currently designed, the subdivision would add significant units to the same single access. The applicant said UDOT had already indicated it would not permit a new access where the subdivision ties into Highway 89 because the proposed location is too close to an existing access. He said the project is designed to stub to a school‑district parcel to the south and that negotiations or a purchase would be needed to enable a future second access.

On utilities, staff said Willard City petitioned Fair River Water Conservancy District and was allocated 11 acre‑feet of culinary water for the development; staff explained the city will wholesale that water and retail it to customers. The commission also debated whether to require ‘‘dry’’ sewer lines — dormant sewer mains installed now for future hookup — or to allow lots to use septic systems until a sewer main is extended. Commissioners and the applicant agreed the dry‑line requirement reduces future disruption, but they also noted the upfront costs and uncertainty about when a connecting sewer line would be available; staff estimated the sewer extension timeline depends on unresolved wetland issues and could take years.

Outcome and next steps: commissioners did not approve the plan at the meeting. The commission voted to keep the public hearing record open during the meeting and then directed staff to work with the developer, the city engineer and the city attorney to identify what can legally be required (for example, dry sewer stubs or an access easement), to collect cost estimates, and to return with proposed modifications. The item was tabled for further review rather than advanced to approval.

The commission asked staff to put any specified plan modifications on the record so the applicant would know what to address. The developer said he will continue engineering work and discussions with the school district and return with clearer options for a secondary access and the cost of dry sewer lines.

Next procedural step: staff will follow up with the developer and return the item to a future meeting once the commission's engineering and legal questions are resolved.