Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hanksville planners review zoning overhaul, agree on three-zone structure and tweaks to setbacks
Summary
The Hanksville planning group reviewed a proposed land-use code update that keeps a three-zone system, clarifies setback measurements and the building‑inspector review process, and asked staff to fix inconsistent fence-height language and appendices.
HANKSVILLE — Members of Hanksville’s planning group spent the meeting reviewing a draft land‑use ordinance that would simplify the town into three zones, clarify definitions and adjust numeric setbacks for accessory and commercial structures.
The commission prioritized clarity over new restrictions. Speaker 6, who led much of the presentation, outlined a workflow where applicants submit plans to the planning commission for setback review and then the town building inspector reviews fees and issues permits. "I'm gonna send it today and make sure everything's good," Speaker 6 said of processing permit applications and notifying council when permits are issued.
Why it matters: the draft aims to make it easier for residents and small businesses to understand where certain uses are allowed while preserving staff and council oversight for appeals and conditional matters. Commissioners noted conflicts between the appendix and the main body — notably inconsistent fence-height maxima — and asked staff to reword several provisions before adoption.
Key facts and what was decided: commissioners confirmed the draft’s numeric guidance for accessory structures (examples discussed included a 12‑foot front setback and an 8‑foot rear setback) and signaled support for having planning commission review many routine determinations while leaving appeals and conditional exceptions to the council. Speaker 3 emphasized that planning commission recommendations should still be appealable to council "if somebody has a problem," preserving a two‑step review path.
Concerns and edits requested: participants flagged several wording problems for staff to fix. They asked that language be added clarifying that the town’s interest focuses on fences or structures that impinge on town rights‑of‑way rather than all neighbor boundary fences. Commissioners also asked staff to remove an unintended 6‑foot fence cap appearing in one appendix and to align appendix tables with the main ordinance.
What’s next: staff were instructed to reword the fence and removal/repair provisions, correct appendix inconsistencies, and circulate updated draft text and sample subdivision/bonding language from comparable towns before the next meeting.
Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the meeting transcript only by speaker number because the record does not attach names or formal titles.
