Planning commission tables East Hills Meadows subdivision after weeks-long water and HOA disputes

The Mona Planning & Zoning Commission on Feb. 4 voted to table preliminary approval for the five‑lot East Hills Meadows subdivision after lengthy public and technical discussion about irrigation rights, pond reliability and homeowner‑association protections.

Commissioners opened a public hearing on the development and heard from several stakeholders, including Gordon Young, who identified himself as president of the local irrigation company. Young said the developer’s plan to deliver 2.75 irrigation shares — described in the meeting as approximately five hours of stream flow every two weeks diverted into a pond — ‘‘is not the reality of the situation’’ once ditch losses, carrier‑water needs and evaporation are considered. Young warned that if ponds run dry, residents could either put a heavy load on the city culinary system or “go up and throw a head gate they’re not entitled to.”

Developer consultant Jonathan Jones and other proponents outlined alternatives. Jones said converting to culinary water was possible but would require city‑council approval; he and staff estimated a culinary‑water conversion at roughly 12.56 acre‑feet for the subdivision. Richard Hatfield, who participated in on‑site measurements, called the 2.5 acre‑feet figure ‘‘quite a bit more’’ than typical needs for half‑acre lots and said allocation remains negotiable.

City planning staff and the developer also discussed HOA declaration language. Staff told the commission the draft declaration primarily protected the landowner and lacked provisions that would shield the city from long‑term maintenance responsibilities for ponds and pumping equipment. The developer said HOA language could be revised to protect the irrigation company or to keep the city from taking on ongoing maintenance costs.

Commissioners and irrigation representatives debated whether allowing culinary‑water hook‑ups or approving pond systems would set a precedent that invites more peripheral development and could strain system capacity. Irrigation representatives noted the town’s secondary system had been sized for the in‑town area and cautioned that mixing irrigation shares and town culinary use complicates scheduling and system management.

Given new information and unresolved technical questions — including recent engineering numbers the planning staff said were compiled only that day — the commission voted to table the item for a 30‑day review cycle so staff, the developer and the irrigation company could reconcile numbers, refine HOA protections and, if desired, pursue city‑council consideration of a culinary‑water alternative.

The commission recorded the motion to table and several members responded 'Aye.' The subdivision will return for further review after the additional materials and potential council input are provided.

Next steps: the developer may resubmit revised HOA language and water‑use calculations within the 30‑day review; staff said a special meeting could be scheduled if materials arrive in time.