Commissioners flag major omissions in CG3 mining site plan; residents press water, truck and safety concerns

Scofield’s Planning and Zoning Commission spent the bulk of its Aug. 1 meeting scrutinizing a site plan for surface operations and support facilities submitted by CG3 LLC, with the applicant’s representative answering commissioners’ questions but conceding multiple deficiencies.

Greg Hunt, introduced to the meeting as representing the project, told the commission the company has an engineered plan and “we have a plan, engineer plan stamped by the state. It just needs to be readied.” He also said the company expects to employ about "between 30 and 40 full time employees" and estimated haul volumes that could reach around 500,000 tons per year.

Commissioners and residents repeatedly pressed for a formal water and sewer impact report, saying the town’s culinary system capacity and the specific demand from showers, toilets and other uses were not documented. Commissioner (Committee member) asked for a clear assessment of “the estimated impacts on the existing transportation system” and of culinary water demand; resident Robert Acock pressed for deeds and the applicant’s detailed water analysis. Hunt replied the project intends to purchase potable water and sewer service from the town but also described an alternate plan: "There's a very good technology that I helped develop... and accumulating it gradually in a tank," to pump water from Mud Creek for fire and dust suppression.

Traffic and safety around a nearby blind curve emerged as another central concern. Commissioners sought exact vehicle types and daily truck counts; Hunt said the operation expects "maybe 20 trucks a day" for hauling and defended prior UDOT approval for acceleration/deceleration lane work while acknowledging the permit will need to be renewed. Residents urged moving the entrance north or building a frontage road to reduce risk at the curve.

Other technical gaps the commission flagged included missing building dimensions for accessory structures, clarification of building heights (one building appears to exceed the town's maximum), details on the fueling station and spill containment, sediment-pond designs and the location and setbacks for a powder magazine. Hunt agreed many items were missing from the submitted plan and said the team would revise and return with additional documentation.

The commission treated the meeting as a site-plan review — a fact Chair emphasized: this session is to identify deficiencies and ask for written responses, not to grant final approval. Commissioners directed the applicant to submit the requested impact studies, containment details and plan corrections and to route written questions through the town office so they can be distributed and discussed at future public meetings.