Many in rural Utah may feel like they are being surrounded by new development.
For Kaleb Kimber, it could be more than just a feeling.
As Nibley city leaders discuss a possible annexation of roughly 28 acres on Hollow Road, he realized their decision could bring the city right to his property line, and with it, new construction.
Worried that the narrow street and spring water source that he and his neighbors rely on could not handle the added development, Kimber said he thinks the city is rushing a decision.
“I just feel they need to pause, do the studies,” Kimber said.
Despite concerns from him and others, Nibley’s planning and zoning commission voted April 16 to recommend the city implement rural estate zoning for the annexation, in the case that the annexation is approved. The zoning designation would allow one house per 2 acres, roughly 12-14 homes on the property in question.
The decision on annexation, according to Nibley officials, is still several steps away — and won’t be made without weighing the words of nearby residents.
Unhallowing Hollow Road?
Still, Kimber wishes the process would have been halted even before the planning and zoning commission made its recommendation. He wants the city to check out how a development would affect traffic and water sources.
“I wish we would pause until we get those studies in place, before they designate a zoning,” he said.
Most of the property in the proposed annexation, owned by Rachel and Trevor Hansen, sits near the south end of Hollow Road in unincorporated Cache County. The couple, according to city documents, requested the annexation and plan to build houses on the property near 5325 Hollow Road.
While the planning and zoning commission’s recommendations mean that there wouldn’t be more than 14 houses built on that land, many argued during a public comment period that even the low-density housing would strain the road’s capacity.
Several homes that line the winding and narrow road have posted signs stating their opposition.
“My biggest concern with this deal is the traffic on that road,” said Jay Tuddenham. “I currently run a farm with light equipment. It’s extremely hard to get through there with the tractor.”
Kimber said the road, secluded from busier Nibley streets by a hillside, is also popular for runners.
“We’ve had people hit many times on that road,” Kimber said in an interview. “It is very much a recreation road. In fact, Nibley city has gone and put wonderful signs up talking about this being a designated recreation road. … So that’s a concern.”
Troy Liquin, the president of the Hollow Road North Culinary Water Co., said another worry is the effect construction could have on Hollow Road residents’ spring and ground water sources.
“Disturbing it through grading, excavation and road development creates a very real risk of reducing water supply or contaminating it,” he said. “If that system is damaged, families lose their primary source of drinking water. There is no easy backup.”
Answers to come
In an email to UPR, Nibley city engineer Tom Dickinson said the city has not yet investigated potential impacts to the water source or whether the road could bear a higher traffic load.
Those worries, Dickinson said, will be brought to the City Council. Members likely will consider the annexation petition during their May 7 meeting, he added, though the agenda has not yet been finalized.
Water impacts, he said, typically are not investigated as soon as a city receives zoning or annexation requests, and the requests don’t provide enough data to understand how the road’s traffic will be impacted.
“There is a lot of game clock left before the annexation might be accepted and a project proposed,” Nibley Mayor Larry Jacobsen said. After the City Council reviews the petition, he said, there are still several more steps before an annexation is finalized and zoned. Then, a landowner can submit a development proposal.
“The potential impact of that proposal could be evaluated against engineering standards,” Jacobsen said. “Depending on that outcome, the proponent would be responsible for mitigation.”
Still, Kimber left last week’s meeting feeling disappointed by the outcome, wishing that the zoning recommendation would have at least recommended fewer houses be allowed if the annexation comes to fruition.
“I was trying to urge them, if they do move forward, let’s at least designate it agricultural,” he said. “That’s been the historical use of that property.”