Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ordnance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duchesne County hears public hearing on ordinance to allow temporary easements, debates fee structure and bond timelines
Summary
At a May 11 public hearing, commissioners and staff discussed Ordinance 26-430 (to add temporary easements and a permit process) and proposed changes to subdivision and flood-plain fees; industry representatives sought clarity on bond levels and whether cure/call timelines should be 90 days or six months. A motion to approve the ordinance was moved and seconded but no vote was recorded in the transcript.
County staff opened a public hearing May 11 to present a draft ordinance (26-430) that would add temporary easements and a matching permit process to Title 6. The draft mirrors existing encroachment permits, but staff said many dollar figures in the draft are placeholders to be finalized in the fee schedule.
"What we have found...the amount of effort of review, and correspondence and time that is needed for just our standard subdivisions...has gone far beyond the cost that is being charged," said the county planner (speaker S9), describing a proposal that would move some charges to a per-lot basis and offer a higher flat fee for full subdivision review (staff cited an $875 example for full subdivision review and suggested a $25-per-lot component as part of alternatives).
Industry representatives pressed for specifics on bond timelines and how multiple "blanket" bonds would interact. A representative (speaker S5) asked whether a single $100,000 blanket bond would cover asphalt-concrete and class-B/D road work or if bonds would stack. Staff replied the intent is that the highest blanket bond would cover lower categories: "If you already had a $100,000 blanket bond for all services, you would not have to pay that" for lower categories (speaker S4).
Representatives also sought clarity on cure and claim timelines in the draft. Staff explained the draft includes both a short cure window (two weeks for initial stability/cure activity in some places) and a longer claim period; "you can call on the bond within 90 days," staff said, while noting the bond term extends to six months for other claim-types. That distinction prompted back-and-forth about whether 90 days provides sufficient time in seasonal work constraints; one industry speaker said "90 days won't cut it" if the county faces a moratorium or seasonal limits on asphalt repairs (speaker S6).
Commissioners and staff also discussed permitting logistics: whether to maintain separate permanent and temporary easement applications or use a single application with a checkbox to indicate temporary status. Staff said the applications are "basically mirror images" and that a checkbox could simplify practical processing.
Commissioner-level questions included whether the county should add an explicit commission appeal process for permit disputes; staff acknowledged no clear code-provided appeal path currently exists and recommended adding explicit appeal language.
At the end of the hearing, a commissioner moved to approve Ordinance 26-430 (title 6 amendments to allow temporary easements) and the motion was seconded. The transcript ends before any roll-call or recorded vote on the ordinance.
Why this matters: the ordinance and fee changes would shift how developers and operators are charged for subdivision reviews, encroachments and temporary construction easements, and would set bond and cure timelines that affect the county's ability to recover costs for road or site repairs. Commissioners directed staff to refine language on bonds, appeal rights and the fee schedule before further action.
Next steps: staff will return with refined language and a finalized fee schedule. The motion to approve the ordinance was moved and seconded on May 11; the transcript does not include the recorded vote or final outcome.
