Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner disputes 'red‑flag' after boundary adjustment; city cites water‑allocation code
Summary
Mike Kay asked the commission to remove a red‑flag on a 2.25‑acre parcel at 200 S 200 W; staff said a past boundary line adjustment left irrigation shares with another lot and cited MCC 10.6.3 water‑allocation requirements that make the remaining parcel unbuildable without securing about 1.14 shares of irrigation water.
Get email alerts on the Property Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner Mike Kay told Mona City Planning & Zoning on March 4 that a red‑flag on his 2.25‑acre parcel at 200 S 200 W is damaging his ability to sell the property and asked that the flag be removed. Kay said he believed prior correspondence had suggested he illegally subdivided the parcel and disputed that a full allocation of irrigation water should apply to the portion he is selling.
Secretary Lori Henrie told the commission she reviewed the matter and concluded the situation resulted from a boundary line adjustment that left the existing home with the parcel’s original water shares; the residual parcel therefore has insufficient water for a buildable lot under city code. Henrie cited Mona City Code (MCC) 10.6.3 and explained that lots larger than 0.5 acres must provide 0.45 acre‑feet of culinary water and a 1/4 share of irrigation water per half acre; Henrie estimated Mr. Kay’s parcel would require about 1.14 shares of irrigation water.
Mr. Kay pressed whether neighboring properties had met the same requirements and asked about alternatives such as purchasing less water or metering irrigation; Henrie said irrigation water in the area is not metered and that neighboring properties provided water at the time of their development. Chair Dennis Gardner also pointed out access requirements for private drives, including recommended turnarounds and a fire hydrant within 500 feet for buildable parcels.
Both sides agreed to consult legal counsel; no formal enforcement action or vote was recorded at the meeting.
