Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents fault Fruit Heights council over general plan ratification, allege poor notice and conflict of interest
Summary
Multiple residents told the Fruit Heights City Council they were not properly notified before the council ratified the citys general plan and raised process and conflict-of-interest concerns, including an assertion that Mayor Jeanne lived within 300 feet of property affected by a zoning change.
Several Fruit Heights residents used the councils public-comment period on Feb. 17 to press city leaders over how the governing body ratified the citys general plan and whether residents received adequate notice.
Scott Heuser, who said he lives on Heights Way, told the council that during a call with city staff and the city attorney "Brad agreed that it had not received the required votes to pass it" and said the city later ratified the plan. Heuser also asked whether the mayor had disclosed living within "300 feet of property next to your neighborhood that was changing from commercial to residential," calling that lack of disclosure "a conflict of interest for you being the mayor." Heuser added that required mailed notice for properties within 1,000 feet of rezoning had not been followed "in 2023 or 2026," as he read it.
Kurt Williams, who described professional experience in survey-feedback systems, criticized the public-feedback appendices in the general plan as statistically weak, noting that some surveys contained only about 17 responses and calling any conclusions based on that sample unreliable: "It's just not enough." Frank Lever urged the council to re-check covenants and HOA obligations before transferring open space to private parties.
Nicole Williams, who said she helped start the city's youth council, said she did not see the advertised public open-house notices in the Ridge Runner newsletter and asked how residents were expected to learn about public-input opportunities: "We weren't informed." Colton Simonson, another resident, told the council he and neighbors felt "distrust" over recent actions and urged officials to be honest with constituents.
Council members did not take formal action in response to the public comments during the meeting. The chair invited residents to speak with staff after the meeting for follow-up. The comments included factual assertions about the ratification process and questions about legal notice and disclosure; those claims were raised to the council but not resolved during the Feb. 17 meeting.
What happens next: Several speakers asked the council to revisit the public-engagement process and the specific ratification timeline. Council members said they were willing to meet with concerned residents after the meeting; no new votes or formal re-openings of the ratification were recorded in the Feb. 17 minutes.
