Grantsville council denies Mack Canyon General Plan amendment, rezone and master-development agreement

The Grantsville City Council on June 3 denied a suite of land-use actions tied to the proposed Mack Canyon Subdivision, rejecting a General Plan amendment, a rezoning and a master development agreement by votes of 4–1.

Planning & Zoning Administrator Shelby Moore presented the proposal to change the future land use for two parcels near Mack Canyon Road and SR-138 to Medium-Density Residential. Moore said the project concept included about 170 dwelling units on 113 acres (a net density of about 3.7 dwelling units per acre), roughly 2.78 acres of commercial land, more than 41 acres of open space, about two miles of trail connections, detention and recreation amenities, and buffering half-acre lots adjacent to existing residences.

At the public hearing, residents Jewels Mackley, Joseph Kempy, Rick Barchers and Ed Burrola opposed the amendment, arguing the surrounding area is characterized by half-acre or larger lots, that owners purchased property with expectations based on the existing plan and zoning, and that rezoning could produce unintended long-term consequences. The developer responded that the proposed plan would deliver open space and amenities that would not be provided under development allowed by existing half-acre zoning, and stated the total number of dwelling units would not increase under the proposed plan.

Councilmembers debated the tradeoffs between preserving long-standing development patterns and securing additional open space, trails and infrastructure. Councilmember Rhett Butler argued for maintaining consistency with previous land-use decisions; Councilmember Jason Thomas acknowledged amenity benefits but said he was concerned about deviating from established planning expectations. Councilmember Butler moved to deny Ordinance 2026-22, the General Plan amendment; Councilmember Derek Dalton seconded. The motion to deny carried 4–1, with Councilmember Brittany Skinner the lone dissenting vote. The council then separately denied the related rezoning (Ordinance 2026-23) and the Master Development Agreement (Ordinance 2026-24) by the same vote margin.

The denials mean the developer would need to proceed, if at all, under the existing land use and zoning. The developer had argued during the hearing that the site could still be developed under the current zoning but without the proposed amenities and open space.