County okays Sky Ranch again, makes plans for updating General Plan

by David Boyle
News Director
Members of the San Juan County Commission reviewed a potential doubling of landfill rates for unsecured loads, moved forward on a partial amendment to the General Plan, and approved the Sky Ranch subdivision again at their latest meeting.
The commission continued discussion about the Sky Ranch subdivision at their July 1 meeting. The subdivision would build homes around a private air strip in Spanish Valley.
Deputy County Attorney Jens Neilson explained the Phase 2 approval of the subdivision was remanded to the county commission through the court system, with the judge asking the commission to answer whether the air strip is within the subdivision boundary, which was agreed upon, and the question regarding safety.
Nielson presented proposed findings to the commission which includes that the airstrip has been in operation since the 1980’s and in 2018 the county approved Phase One of the subdivision.
The county adds that they find nothing related to the airstrip has changed other than modifications that increase the usability and safety meaning length, width and buffer zones.
The finding said safety concerns were brought to the county planning and zoning commission in October 2020 and the county commission in February 2021.
The county finding states concerns were mostly shared verbally by lay persons and persons that had experience with flying. The county finding adds that county planning and zoning, and county commissioners were not persuaded that the airstrip is unsafe. One report considers the airstrip to be safe if operated with appropriate regulatory controls.
The findings suggested the county could address safety concerns related to new housing built along the airstrip with regulations related to distance of dwellings from the airstrip, number of flights per day, types of aircraft on the strip and other safety regulations.
Justin Matkin, the Attorney for Sky Ranch, offered voluntary limitations to mitigate impacts on neighbors, including capping aircraft to 35 total, averaging three flights per day, mandatory safety inspections, pilot certification, property ownership requirements and installation of fencing with all those incorporated into the subdivisions covenants, conditions and restrictions.
Commissioners heard from Carl Spielman, an adjacent property owner and retired commercial pilot, who is opposed to the project.
While the applicant provided a safety report from an expert who said the project could be done safely, Spielman commissioned a safety report which suggested that the project would not be safe.
Spielman additionally argued that self-imposed restrictions have been implemented for Phase One of the project and questioned their enforceability.
Spielman called for an unbiased, professional engineering firm specializing in airport design to assess the airstrip and aid in codifying airport ordinances in the county.
During public comment, the commission heard from other resident aviators. Alvin Chung, an FAA gold seal instructor, affirmed the airport’s safety. Professional pilot Dan Wheeler and Chris Benson stated that the airstrip is safe.
Another aviator and former county resident Dallin Redd also offered support of the airstrip.
James Schnaple, representing a neighboring property, urged the commission to send the item back for further review to assess safety and the legal status of the runway.
Schnaple contends that the 2017 expansion of the runway was illegal as it did not obtain a conditional use permit for the project.
Concerns were also raised about planned housing on both ends of the runway.
Ahead of a decision, Commissioner Lori Maughan said she had poured over the documents related to the issue and even had a pilot bring her in and land at the Sky Ranch airstrip. Maughan noted the safety she felt as the landing was made.
“I was not on the planning and zoning, nor was I on the commission at that time, but what I’ve read and seen the documents, I definitely have to lean more toward that it is safe, (...) they’ve approved it and it should go forth. So, that’s where I’m going to land on it.”
Members of the commission went into executive session to discuss pending litigation as it related to this item.
Following the closed session, members of the commission approved the findings presented by the county attorney’s office and returned them to the court by a unanimous vote.
Members of the county commission also approved a request to update the County General Plan presented by County Attorney Mitch Maughan.
Maughan emphasized the current county land use ordinances are “flawed, outdated, and unworkable,” noting they haven’t been updated since 2011 leading to enforcement stagnation and even criticism from the Utah Court of Appeals and Utah Supreme Court.
Maughan clarified the distinction between the County General Plan, a broad long-range policy guide and vision for the county and the Zoning Ordinance, a specific, legally binding document that implements general plan policies.
Maughan stressed that the General Plan must be updated first to avoid future litigation. The focus is on updating the land use provisions of the General Plan which is currently just four pages.
A consultant who previously worked on the plan proposed a $10,000 cap for the amendment billed hourly. While the commission approved the process to begin moving forward on a General Plan update, they didn’t approve a contract, asking for that to come back to the commission for approval.
The county tabled an update to the county land use ordinance about six months ago after public outcry regarding the update.
Maughan added he believed it is critical that the county move forward, with the update to the general plan preceeding consideration of approval for the update to the land use ordinance, which first caused public outcry.
Commissioner Jamie Harvey added clarification to the public record, “We’re talking about two separate documents, we’re not talking about the land use plan, we are talking about the San Juan County general plan.”
Members of the commission also heard public comments related to a proposed update to the general plan.
Monticello area resident Shanon Brooks raised concern over the letter from county attorney Mitch Maughan, stating that the request from the county attorney represented a “flagrant overreach of authority” and a “major violation of the separation of powers doctrine.”
Brooks also criticized the letter’s claim that the current land use ordinance provided no real benefit to the county. He also challenged the idea that the county had gone to great lengths to advise, educate, listen and involve the general public, saying that hundreds of submitted changes to the proposed ordinance had not been seen by the public.
Lynn and Carol Martin echoed Brook’s statement, also questioning the proposed $10,000 contract for services. They suggested the county consult state agencies for general plan assistance.
Joy Howell, of Mexican Hat, requested the county rid the item from the agenda, viewing it as an attempt to protect the county from landowners asserting private property rights.
Later in the meeting, Deputy County Attorney Nielson said that the suggestion of an “overreach of authority” was misleading and legally inaccurate as Nielson says the office’s duties extend beyond lawsuits and prosecutions, include broader guidance and legal counsel for the county.
Commissioner Jamie Harvey suggested that revised documents with public changes be brought back to the community to assure their input was heard.
Commissioner Sylvia Stubbs emphasized the importance of being involved from the outset, with the county establishing processes to allow for plenty of review and possibly additional presentations for the commission on large decisions.
Commissioners unanimously approved the process to begin the update of the General Plan’s land use provisions.
County Planning Administrator Kristen Bushnell provided a brief report of the latest on the land use ordinance. 
Bushnell said the previous planning administrator worked on the document for two and a half years, with an additional five months of work from county departments, and consultants working on the project for 10 months. 
Bushnell said there have been ten community workshops under her watch, open online forms, written and emailed comments.
Bushnell added, “There has been some large changes made. For instance, the animal density was a big big fuss. Private roads, I think were misunderstood, but we totally rewrote that section.
“There’s probably been 30-40 individually requested changes that we have made. There has been one request that we denied.”
Bushnell added that a summary sheet is online that outlines proposed changes since January, with additional time for comments to be received and reviewed by the commission.
Moving forward, county officials clarified they will hold another series of meetings over the next six months to solicit additional feedback and present the plan before another potential to approve an update to the land use ordinance.
Members of the commission also discussed fee adjustments at the landfill. County Landfill manager Jed Tate explained an update is required by the state legislature, with a minimum fine in place for unsecured or untarped loads coming to the landfills. The state minimum for the fee is $10, with $5 collected for the state and at least $5 going to the county.
In talking with other landfill managers at a statewide meeting, Tate said those with higher fees have had more success. He suggested that untarped and unsecured loads would result in paying double fees.
“Is that to generate a whole bunch of revenue? No, it’s not,” said Tate. “That’s not the purpose. The purpose is to get to where we really don’t ever have to charge this fee.
“So, (other landfills) have had success. It only takes one time of a commercial truck coming not tarped and his normal $400 fee suddenly went to $800. He doesn’t come back untarped.”
As part of implementation, the county would have an aggressive education campaign, including flyers to visitors to the county landfill for the next few months, ad campaigns and general awareness raised for the county. Implementation will likely come in late summer or early fall.
In addition, the county would offer one warning to violators who come to the landfill with untarped and or unsecured loads. Warnings would include a handout explaining the bill, and their first warning. The county will compile a database of license plates to keep track of those who had a warning and make sure that second offenders have their rate doubled.
In discussion, commissioners expressed general support for the initiative, agreeing in an emphasis to change behaviors and enhance safety rather than generate revenue. 
Members of the commission asked for additional details and plans before approval of the policy to double fees for untarped and or unsecured loads.
Members of the commission also received a presentation about a proposed Utah Association of Counties (UAC) program to offer civil legal services for countys with assistance for basic contract reviews, election law and procurement with the program aimed at reducing the burden on county attornies.
Another program is a recovery service to provide debt collection for unpaid property taxes and EMS collections. The proposed program would operate on a no-fee basis unless debt is collected. Members of the commission will discuss the programs at a future meeting.
At the meeting, the commission also recognized employees, including county EMS Director Jeremy Hoggard for receiving the EMS Instructor of the Year from the State of Utah Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, and Rosa Vargas, Executive Assistant, for her Outstanding Leader Award from the State of Utah Homeless Services Board.
Members of the commission also continued a discussion regarding the adjustment of compensation for the County Assessor. Assessor Rick Meyer brought the item to the commission at a previous meeting proposing a salary increase for assessors who obtain their required state license within three years of election, arguing it would motivate compliance and recognize the increase value of a licensed assessor to the county.
Commissioners expressed hesitancy, noting recent federal fund cuts and suggested the item be revisited as the county gets further into its budget in the fall ahead of the end of year budget period.