General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Amalga

Public Body

Amalga Town Council

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Appeal Hearing Minutes

Notice Type(s)

Hearing

Event Start Date & Time

August 25, 2026 03:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

August 25, 2026 04:00 PM

Description/Agenda

AMALGA TOWN, UTAH APPEAL HEARING MINUTES August 25, 2026 Date: August 25, 2026 Location: Amalga Town Hall Address: 6590 N 2400 W, Amalga, Utah Hearing Type: Administrative Land Use Appeal Hearing 1. CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING Christian Hansen, Appeal Authority, opened the hearing concerning an appeal of a land use decision relating to the zoning clearance application submitted by Charlie Erickson. Mr. Hansen stated that his authority was governed by Utah Code §§ 10-20-1101 through 10-20-1110 and explained the statutory limits of the proceeding. 2. STANDING AND BURDEN OF PROOF The Appeal Authority reviewed the statutory definition of an adversely affected party. An appellant must either own real property adjoining the property that is the subject of the application or demonstrate damage different in kind or an injury distinct from that of the general community. The Appeal Authority explained that the appellants bear the burden of proving that the land use authority's decision was illegal or that the factual findings supporting the decision were clearly erroneous. 3. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL The Appeal Authority stated that the hearing was limited to whether the facts presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission supported approval of the zoning application under the applicable zoning provisions, identified during the hearing as Ordinance 3.31 and Section 7.4.1 of the Light Industrial Zone. He further explained that he did not have authority in this proceeding to rescind or amend an ordinance, determine whether ordinance-adoption notice was proper, or review the issuance of a business license because those matters were outside the scope of an administrative land use appeal. 4. APPELLANT PRESENTATIONS Jeff Broadbent stated that he believed he was adversely affected because his property could be affected by an accidental explosion at the proposed site. He acknowledged that his property does not adjoin the subject property. Mr. Broadbent argued that Section 7.4.1 states that uses generating excessive noise, vibration, smoke, odor, dust, fumes, or danger of explosion are not allowed in the Light Industrial Zone. He presented examples involving above-ground fuel storage incidents and argued that Town leadership was aware of a potential conflict between Section 7.4.1 and Ordinance 3.31. Mr. Broadbent asserted that Ordinance 3.31 permits above-ground fuel storage and argued that its adoption operated as a change to existing zoning requirements without following the proper code-revision process. He requested removal of the provisions allowing above-ground fuel storage. The Appeal Authority reiterated that he did not have authority to amend or rescind the ordinance. Mr. Broadbent also raised concerns regarding the issuance of a business license. The Appeal Authority stated that issuance of a business license is not a land use decision within the scope of the appeal. April Turner stated that she considered herself adversely affected because traffic associated with the proposed use would travel along the highway near her residence. She focused on Section 7.4.1 and the language concerning excessive noise, vibration, smoke, odor, dust, fumes, and danger of explosion. Ms. Turner also raised concerns regarding notice for hearings concerning the amendment that resulted in Ordinance 3.31. She stated that the Town's code required 14-day notice and asserted that the June 3, 2026 hearing was noticed 12 days in advance and the June 24, 2026 hearing was noticed 13 days in advance. She requested a determination regarding the validity of the amendment if the notice requirement was not satisfied. The Appeal Authority stated that ordinance validity and the ordinance-adoption process were outside the scope of the appeal. Jason Munk raised concerns regarding the process and public notice associated with the zoning and ordinance changes. He stated that the public had received changing information concerning the proposed use and argued that additional information may have affected public and Planning and Zoning consideration. Mr. Munk also described potential impacts to cattle, agricultural property, drainage, and water supplies in the event of a fuel spill or explosion. The Appeal Authority acknowledged the concerns but explained that the appeal was limited to the land use decision and that hypothetical catastrophic events and matters regulated by other governmental entities were outside the scope of the appeal. Diana Broadbent questioned the process by which the code amendment was adopted, including whether required notice and voting procedures were followed. The Appeal Authority recommended that she consult an attorney regarding available remedies because those issues were outside the scope of the administrative land use appeal. Michael Bouck stated that the appellants understood the matter to be an administrative appeal concerning the Town's actions and process and expressed concern that the scope was narrower than expected. The Appeal Authority explained that an administrative land use appeal is limited to a land use decision and does not provide authority to review every action taken by a municipality. Additional questions were raised concerning prior zoning records and actions reflected in Town records from 2025. The Appeal Authority stated that those matters had not been raised in the appeal and therefore were not properly before him. 5. TOWN RESPONSE Seth Tate, acting as Town Attorney for Amalga Town, addressed the hearing on behalf of the Town. Mr. Tate stated that the Town's position was that the law should be applied fairly and that the Town was not seeking to favor either an applicant or an appellant. Mr. Tate explained the distinction between an administrative land use decision and the enactment of a land use ordinance. He stated that the Appeal Authority does not have statutory authority to hear an appeal from the enactment of a land use regulation and that the issue before the Appeal Authority was whether Planning and Zoning properly applied the law to the zoning application. Mr. Tate addressed Section 7.4.1 and stated that, when read as a whole, the provision identifies an automotive fuel service station and convenience store as an allowed use/objective within the Light Industrial Zone. He stated that the provisions concerning noise, vibration, smoke, odor, dust, fumes, or danger of explosion should be interpreted consistently with the expressly identified use. Mr. Tate stated that Planning and Zoning determined that the application met the applicable requirements and that, under Utah land use law, when an interpretation is ambiguous, the land use authority is required to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the applicant. Based on his review of the record, Mr. Tate stated that he did not see an error in the Planning and Zoning Commission's application of the land use authority. Mr. Tate offered to remain after the hearing to discuss concerns regarding the enactment of the ordinance and notice provisions and indicated that he intended to discuss certain matters with the Town Council. 6. ADDITIONAL COMMENT Mr. Broadbent stated that the language allowing an automotive fuel station in Section 7.4.1 was added after earlier discussions concerning the relevant zoning provision. The Appeal Authority acknowledged the statement. 7. APPEAL AUTHORITY CLOSING STATEMENT The Appeal Authority stated that he understood the frustration expressed by attendees concerning the limited scope of the proceeding. He explained that the hearing provided a forum to present concerns, but that his authority was limited by statute to the land use decision under appeal. The Appeal Authority stated that he would issue a written decision within 14 days and provide the decision to the appellants and the Town. 8. ACTION / DISPOSITION No final written decision was issued at the hearing. The Appeal Authority stated that a written decision would be issued within 14 days. 9. ADJOURNMENT The hearing concluded following the Appeal Authority's closing remarks. The Town Attorney offered to remain after the hearing to discuss concerns regarding the ordinance and related notice provisions. These minutes are an official summary of the proceedings and are not a verbatim transcript.

Notice of Special Accommodations (ADA)

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify David Lee @435-881-0552.

Notice of Electronic or Telephone Participation

NA

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

6590 N 2400 W
AMALGA, UT 84335
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

August 28, 2026 11:32 AM

Notice Last Edited On

August 28, 2026 11:32 AM

Subscribe by Email

Subscription options will send you alerts regarding future notices posted by this Body.