Scofield holds public hearing on proposal to reduce street setbacks from 20 to 10 feet

Scofield held a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on June 9 to gather public comment on a proposed amendment to Table 4 of the town land‑use code that would lower the minimum setback from a dwelling to a street lot line from 20 feet to 10 feet.

The hearing drew a mixture of officials and residents who framed the proposal as a trade‑off between increased buildability on narrow in‑town parcels and potential safety, utility and visual‑consistency concerns. The Chair opened the meeting and described the proposal, saying the council was “taking comments on the Schofield land use code table 4 amendment” that would change the on‑street setback from 20 to 10 feet. (Chair)

Staff read the existing code aloud to clarify baseline standards, stating that the minimum setback from a dwelling to any lot line adjacent to a street is 20 feet and that accessory structures also currently have a 20‑foot street setback. (Staff member)

Supporters said a smaller side setback could enable construction on very narrow lots. “It’s something I support at this time in that we have some really narrow lots in town,” said a Committee member who spoke in favor, citing examples on Church Street and a recently sold parcel that might become buildable if setbacks were reduced.

Several residents and Council participants raised safety and service questions. One resident asked whether shorter setbacks would complicate meter placement, electrical service or sight lines at street corners; the Chair said staff would investigate site‑specific issues such as bushes or fences that could block visibility. Participants noted the town already regulates fence height, which affects sight lines if setbacks change.

Staff reported they had consulted Carbon County staff responsible for building and permitting. According to the staff member, the Carbon County building official cautioned against creating piecemeal variances and advised a broader review: “you really don’t wanna just creating variances and providing just single things piecemeal around town,” the staff member paraphrased. The staff member added that the town attorney has reviewed the draft but had not yet provided formal written comments.

A resident asked whether homeowners could seek an individual waiver rather than changing the ordinance; staff confirmed the hearing was focused on an ordinance amendment and noted building permits and existing ordinance provisions would still govern additions and permit review. Deborah Brown, who identified herself during the public comment period and said she owns a cabin near Mountain View, spoke to how the proposal could affect property owners who are not full‑time residents.

After roughly 10 minutes of discussion, a Committee member moved to close the hearing on the Table 4 amendment; the motion was seconded and members approved the closure by voice vote. The Chair closed the hearing at 6:10 p.m. No final decision or ordinance change was made at the meeting; staff said they would continue coordination with Carbon County and await the town attorney’s formal input.

Next steps: staff will follow up with Carbon County and the town attorney, investigate site‑specific sight‑line and utility issues raised at the hearing, and report back before the council takes any formal vote on an ordinance change.