Roy planning commission denies general-plan change, recommends development agreement to limit future uses

Roy CityPlanningCommissioners on June 9, 2026 voted to deny a proposed change to the citygeneral plan that would have redesignated a parcel near 4600 South and 3100 West from single-family to multifamily residential. The commission also forwarded a negative recommendation on rezoning from R18 to R3 but attached a recommendation that any approval be conditioned on a recorded development agreement limiting the parcel to 18 single-family dwellings on a private road.

The applicant, Robert Fuller, told the commission the property has been in his family for roughly 20 years and that the request is driven primarily by road-configuration constraints created by existing power-line and water-line easements. "We're not talking about hooked-together multifamily; they're still single-family homes," Fuller said, adding that he was willing to record a development agreement that would run with the land to ensure the density and private-road arrangement are preserved.

Staff presented aerial maps showing Rocky Mountain Power easements and a Hooper water line that reduce buildable area on the parcel and explained that the R18 zone requires public roads while the requested R3 classification would allow a private road with narrower frontage. Staff noted the smallest buildable area in the proposed plat is about 1,929 square feet and said most lots in the layout would exceed 8,000 square feet; staff recommended either approval of the request or, alternately, a development agreement that would limit the project to 18 units and require private-road maintenance by an HOA.

The public hearing drew more than a dozen speakers. Several nearby residents urged the commission not to change the general plan or allow the property to be used for apartments in the future. "They was going to try to stick some apartments in there," said James Openshaw, a neighbor, expressing a common fear among commenters that a multifamily designation could lead to higher-density housing. Others asked for stronger safeguards: Deborah, a nearby resident, asked commissioners to ensure a zoning change could not later be used for apartments and said she opposed HOAs; Leavon Castanada raised detailed water-usage projections and questioned whether the cityhas the water supply to support more homes.

The applicant and staff responded to concerns in a rebuttal and follow-up. Fuller reiterated his intent for single-family lots and said a recorded development agreement would bind future owners. Staff said notice requirements were met (mailing to properties within 300 feet and posted signs), that Rocky Mountain Power must approve construction under its easements, and that development agreements are recorded with the property and run with the land.

After deliberation, a commissioner moved to forward a denial of the general-plan amendment to council; that motion passed on a roll-call vote. The commission then voted to forward a negative recommendation for the rezoning from R18 to R3, but with the explicit condition that the council consider and record a development agreement limiting the property to 18 single-family dwellings on a private road. The roll-call votes were recorded as unanimous for both motions.

Next steps: the planning commissionis a recommending body; the city council will make the final decision. Staff indicated the item will be scheduled for the council agenda as soon as calendar and budget commitments permit, likely at the next available council meeting; if the council approves any zoning change, commissioners recommended the council require a recorded development agreement specifying unit count, private-road standards, and any other conditions the council deems necessary.