Snowflake Council Denies Rezone Request That Appears To Violate Subdivision Rules

By Naomi Hatch
   Several times during the Feb. 26 meeting of the Snowflake Town Council meeting Mayor Kelly Willis asked, “If we approve this tonight, are we in compliance with what we have to do?”
   Willis was referring to a request for a rezone of property at 479 N. Old Woodruff Road from Light Industrial (LI) to Residential 1-acre (R-1A). The site was previously part of the property known as Copper State Well Drilling, which was owned by Jeff McCray. When his son, Joe Paul McCray, decided to build a home, Jeff signed it over to him.
   Planning and Zoning Administrator Dale Call explained that with this transaction, Joe Paul is at the maximum split. Joe Paul then deeded over a one-acre parcel to his brother-in-law, Allan Rogers who was requesting another split.
   Call advised the council that the Snowflake Planning and Zoning Commission determined that Rogers’ property was part of a larger parcel that had previously been split into three separate parcels. The commission asked Rogers what the future intent was for the piece of land between his property and Woodruff Road, and was told that it would be split off and become a home site.
   Call further explained that the commission determined that Rogers was acting in concertwith family members to split the property into four or more parcels of land without following the subdivision regula-tions, which is in direct conflict with state statutes.
   At the commission meeting, Commissioner David Decker stated that at minimum, Rogers needed to obtain a State Land report in order to split the property into four or more pieces.
   Commission Chairman Galen Hicks advised Rogers that the town has subdivision regulations, and that he should find out what the regulations are and follow them prior to requesting a rezone.
   After this report, Mayor Willis asked Town Manager Paul Watson and Town Attorney Robert Hall if the council would be in violation of any laws if the requested zone change were approved.
   Watson said, “In general, there are state statutes that govern land splits and within incorporated city or town it’s no more than three parcels, not splits, parcels.” He noted that the property is in the town, the property was owned by one individual and there have been three properties in existence and they are now asking to make a fourth parcel for residential use, then stated, “If that is the case it is in violation of not only our town subdivision codes but with state law…If the state was made aware of this, they could come in and stop it based on the fact it is an illegal subdivision.”
   Willis said, “I think you should have a right to build a house on a piece of property that’s residential,” but acknowledged, “We have to worry about protecting the town.”
   Councilor Dean Porter asked if the property was still zoned Light Industrial and if there were already homes there.
   Rogers said that the town gave his brother-in-law a permit two years ago to build a home, and then said, “I didn’t split the first two parcels, I split the one I’m petitioning…Is there anything that says who you can or can’t deed your property to?”
   Rogers also stated that he might build another house on the property directly west to his in the future, giving a total of four houses, but added, “That’s probably the most that’s going to ever be built there.”
   Porter then asked if the property was a gift, not a sale, and Call responded that it was.
   “On paper it didn’t look like another split was going through so Mr. Rogers could split the property, and that’s working to avert the regulations,” said Call.
   “I’ve had personal experience,” said Watson, who explained that the state looks at the original intent, saying, “If there was any intent to have more than three parcels, the state will look at that as a subdivision.”
   Watson then explained that the purpose of state law in regards to land splits, and splits and resplits, is that you don’t end up with areas where you can’t get fire protection, adequate roads, water or sewer. “There’s a reason for state law governing subdivisions for these purposes,” said the town manager.
   Councilman Charlie Hendrickson said, “We’re supposing that the state is going to rule in a particular way, I certainly trust Paul (Watson).” He then suggested that Rogers get a letter of endorsement from the state. “Until that point, with the state statutes we’ve heard, I don’t know how we can overrule that,” he said.
   Attorney Bob Hall added, “The other element is, it protects him (Rogers) with what the commission raised, it’s public record, it would seem to me if you got that (letter of endorsement from the state), it would protect you as well”.
   Mayor Willis then commented, “I think, Mr. Rogers, what we’re trying to do is protect us and protect you, too. We’re looking out for your welfare as well as ours.” He then asked if Rogers could get a vari-ance.
   Rogers said, “My intent is not to legally split, my intent is to build a house. I’m not trying to break the law here.” He noted that it is a different last name for this split than the previous splits.
   Hall responded that what Watson said was accurate, explaining that the council might approve this with jurisdiction and ordinance, but it doesn’t mean the town jurisdiction will bind the state.
   Willis asked, “If we approve this tonight, we’re in compliance with what we have to do?”
   Hall again explained that they could approve it, but if the state didn’t agree, Rogers wouldn’t be able to build a home.
   Willis then said, “My personal opinion is if we’re not going to do anything illegal and anything that’s wrong, we can go ahead and approve this.”
   Hall again referred to comments made by the planning and zoning commission.
   Councilman Chris Brimhall then said that if you look at a map, there are already five parcels on one piece of property. He noted that he also has had personal experience in this area, saying, “I’ve seen the rules and regulations, and they (the state) will turn us down…I think we need to listen to our town attorney and town manager. It’s against our subdivision laws and our state real estate laws. I recommend we not pass it.”
   “I hope that you can see we feel for your plight,” said the mayor to Rogers, “I think we’re at a loss for what we can do…I’m guessing that what we ought to do tonight is give you the opportunity to work through the proper channels, get you a variance or something to make that correct.”
   Hendrickson then moved to deny the rezone request until such time as Rogers has a certificate from the state stating that it is a legal split. The motion passed unanimously.
   In other business Feb. 26, the council:
   * Unanimously approved the town’s general plan.
   Call noted that the Snowflake General Plan had been discussed at previous council meetings. He re-called that a committee was formed to meet with Rick Counts of Community Sciences Corporation con-tracted, who was contracted to oversee the process. Call advised the council members that there was a lot of public input on the plan, and asked the Council to adopt it.
   * Held the second reading of and unanimously approved Ordinance 08-306, which rezones 8.6 acres of property owned by Brent Shurtleff located at the intersection of Freeman Hollow and Rencher from AG to R-2A. Shurtleff was requesting to split his property into three equal pieces, keeping one for his home and selling the other two lots.
   * Held the first reading of Ordinance 08-309 to rezone 2.5 acres of property owned by Kent Stratton and located at 301 E. Sixth North from Residential 1-acre to Residential 21, which would allow half-acre lots.
   Call explained that there is presently a rental on the most southern portion of the property, and Stratton would like to install two septic tanks on the remaining portion in anticipation of possible future use by his family members.
   Vice Mayor Kerry Ballard noted that some of the council members went out to look at the property. He asked if city water is available there. Stratton responded that the rental house has city water service.
   Mayor Willis asked if objections to the rezone were received from neighbors, and was advised that there were none.
   * Tabled a request made by Call in his capacity as assistant fire chief that the Snowflake Fire Depart-ment be given approval to hire Jenny Hancock, the wife of Chief Pat Hancock, as a fire fighter.
   The town has a nepotism regulation that may be waived by the town council upon written request by the town manager, which Watson had done.
   Call explained that fire department officers feel that fire fighters fall into the definition of “intermittent” employees, and as such may be exempt under the regulation. He reported that Hancock was previously em-ployed in the fire department and has been actively involved in auxiliary functions since she has not served as a fire fighter. She is currently state certified as a fire fighter and had been a certified EMT, and would be a valuable asset to the department.
   Councilwoman Sharon Tate spoke highly of Hancock, and moved to approve hiring her.
   The town attorney said he would like an opportunity to review the nepotism clause in the personnel manual before action was taken, so Tate withdrew her motion and moved to table the item until the next council meeting. The council was unanimous in its assent.