[{"_1":2,"_114":-5,"_115":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85,94,104],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6557220,"mediaKeyId","3308118-c93f48499f52de40d4b2f76e828afbef","parentId",3308118,"title","Votes at a glance: Emery County Planning Commission, May 20, 2025","audioSeconds",2584,"startMs",34000,"endMs",2618000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308118-c93f48499f52de40d4b2f76e828afbef&start=34&end=2618","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6557220/Utah/Votes-at-a-glance-Emery-County-Planning-Commission-May-20-2025","mediaUrl","author","Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission","date","2025-05-14T13:00:00Z","article","The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission recorded the following formal actions at its May 20, 2025 meeting:

- Approval of April minutes: Motion to accept the April minutes as written carried by unanimous voice vote of members present (aye). (Mover: not specified; second: Bruce Wilson.)

- JNR (J and R) Minor Subdivision (agenda item 4): Approved. Motion by Bruce Wilson, second by Bill Delos. Commissioners voted unanimously to approve after staff verified that previously identified mapping discrepancies were corrected.

- Ainsworth/Brotherson presentation (agenda item 6): Tabled to June 11. Commission voted to table the presentation to allow both sides (neighbors and property owners) to submit further documentation; commission requested staff to circulate materials before the June 11 meeting.

- Mike (Michael) Mattson Minor Subdivision (agenda item 3): Approved contingent on county ordinance compliance. Commissioners approved the minor subdivision with the amendment that staff must verify the parcel meets Emery County minor‑subdivision requirements (point system, utilities, access and water shares) prior to final recording. Vote was unanimous among members present.

All votes reported in the meeting minutes were unanimous among the four commissioners in attendance; no roll‑call tallies with individual yea/nay breakdowns beyond voice votes appear in the transcript.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Emery County Planning and Zoning - 5-May 2025 Planning Commission Audio","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken May 20 by the Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission: approval of April minutes, approval of two minor subdivisions (JNR and Mike Mattson conditional), and tabling of the Ainsworth/Brotherson presentation for June 11.","taxTitle","Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission, Emery County Boards and Commissions, Emery County, Utah","taxId",74996,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6557225,"Planning commission opens discussion on code enforcement, general plan and possible enforcement officer",2637,2777000,5414000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308118-c93f48499f52de40d4b2f76e828afbef&start=2777&end=5414","/articles/6557225/Utah/Planning-commission-opens-discussion-on-code-enforcement-general-plan-and-possible-enforcement-officer","The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission devoted significant time May 20 to a broad discussion of ordinance enforcement and the county’s general plan.

Why it matters: Commissioners said enforcement gaps undercut the effectiveness of the county’s land‑use rules. They discussed options including a part‑time code‑enforcement position, clearer enforcement steps and grace periods for property owners working toward compliance.

Highlights from the discussion:
- Need for enforcement resource: Commissioners and the planning administrator said enforcing county ordinances will require a designated enforcement officer or dedicated staff time. \"If we don’t have enforcement, then why even have an ordinance?\" one commissioner asked.
- Consistency and priorities: Speakers urged focused enforcement on matters that negatively affect neighbors (public health hazards, open dumps, unmanaged waste or safety issues) and suggested leniency or a clear compliance timeline for less urgent matters.
- Examples discussed: Commissioners and residents cited camping and long‑term trailer occupancy, unregistered equipment or junk piles, and dilapidated structures as recurring enforcement challenges. Several speakers recommended differentiating agricultural uses from human habitation in ordinance language.
- Implementation steps: Commissioners asked staff to review county ordinances, identify which provisions need clarification or relaxation, and develop an enforcement workflow (notice, time to comply, fines or other remedies). The planning administrator said Huntington City had assigned code enforcement duties to a city employee but without additional budget; the county discussed hiring or assigning a similar role.

No final policy changes were adopted. The commission asked staff to prepare a draft enforcement chart and to bring specific ordinance recommendations and a proposed enforcement process for further consideration.","Commissioners spent substantial time discussing county ordinances, code enforcement capacity and possible hiring or assignment of an enforcement officer; members emphasized consistent enforcement, a clear complaint process and leniency/grace periods for owners working to comply.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":46,"_47":90,"_49":50,"_51":91,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":92,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":93,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6557228,"Planning commission approves Mike Mattson minor subdivision conditional on compliance with county ordinance",490,2128000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308118-c93f48499f52de40d4b2f76e828afbef&start=2128&end=2618","/articles/6557228/Utah/Planning-commission-approves-Mike-Mattson-minor-subdivision-conditional-on-compliance-with-county-ordinance","The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously May 20 to approve a minor subdivision application from Michael Mattson, legalizing a six‑acre parcel that previously was recorded as a sub‑10‑acre lot. The approval was conditional on compliance with county ordinance requirements.

Why it matters: Utah county land‑use rules typically set a minimum legal lot size; the commission used the county’s minor‑subdivision process to regularize a 6‑acre lot that had been sold and recorded without proper subdivision procedures.

Applicant remarks: Mattson told the commission he purchased the parcel about four years ago for family use and is preparing utilities, septic and road access. He said power and culinary water are present on the parcel’s edge, and he has a recorded easement from the highway. He reported ongoing work on septic designs and engagement with the water district; he noted Orangeville City moved a resolution to allow a temporary lease of a water share to the parcel owner while he secures a second share.

Motion and conditions: Commissioners asked whether the lot qualified under the county point system for minor subdivisions and required that the parcel meet all ordinance criteria, including utilities and water‑share requirements. The motion to approve was amended to read \"approve as long as it qualifies under the county ordinance.\" The motion was seconded and carried unanimously by the members present.

Clarifying details: The applicant stated he currently holds one water share and needs a second; Orangeville City indicated it would temporarily lease a share to allow the applicant time to secure a permanent second share. The applicant said he intends to start building this summer once final approvals and shares are in place.

Implementation: The approval is contingent on staff verification that the parcel meets minor‑subdivision ordinance criteria (points, access, utilities). Staff will proceed with recording once documentation is complete.","Commissioners voted unanimously May 20 to approve a minor subdivision for property owner Michael (Mike) Mattson, making a six‑acre parcel compliant under the county's minor‑subdivision process provided the lot meets ordinance criteria (points, utilities, water shares).",{"_33":95,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":96,"_41":97,"_43":98,"_45":99,"_47":100,"_49":50,"_51":101,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":102,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":103,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6557233,"Emery County planning commission approves JNR minor subdivision after mapping discrepancies fixed",81,108000,189000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308118-c93f48499f52de40d4b2f76e828afbef&start=108&end=189","/articles/6557233/Utah/Emery-County-planning-commission-approves-JNR-minor-subdivision-after-mapping-discrepancies-fixed","The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously May 20 to approve the JNR (J and R) Minor Subdivision after staff reported that mapping discrepancies identified in an earlier review had been corrected.

Why it matters: The action regularizes a previously reviewed land division that officials had tabled until mapping errors were fixed. Approving the minor subdivision resolves an identified record‑keeping and boundary issue for the property owners.

At the May meeting the planning administrator said the commission had reviewed the parcel on Google Earth at the prior session and tabled action because of mapping discrepancies. The administrator reported that Josie Stillson verified the discrepancies had been corrected and there were no outstanding concerns.

Motion and vote: A commission member moved to accept the corrected subdivision; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously by the four members present.

What’s next: The commission did not attach additional conditions in the meeting minutes; staff will proceed with standard recording steps for the minor subdivision.","The planning commission voted unanimously May 20 to approve the JNR (J and R) minor subdivision after staff corrected mapping discrepancies identified at a prior meeting.",{"_33":105,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":106,"_41":107,"_43":108,"_45":109,"_47":110,"_49":50,"_51":111,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":112,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":113,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6557238,"Neighbors, owners ask Emery County planning commission to mediate disputes over private wedding venue",1954,197000,2151000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3308118-c93f48499f52de40d4b2f76e828afbef&start=197&end=2151","/articles/6557238/Utah/Neighbors-owners-ask-Emery-County-planning-commission-to-mediate-disputes-over-private-wedding-venue","The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission heard extended public comment May 20 over a private short‑term rental near Orangeville that neighbors say has been operating as a wedding venue since 2023.

A neighbor said weekend events for “eight or nine weeks” last year interfered with family use of the backyard and described “processions,” “loud rave‑like music,” trespass and guests urinating along a fence line visible from a children’s playset. The neighbor told the commission she had provided videos and photos and that Orangeville City had issued a conditional‑use permit for an Airbnb but not for a wedding venue, and that the city said much of the activity occurs on county land and therefore is outside city jurisdiction.

Why it matters: The dispute raises questions about overlapping city and county authority, limits on enforcement, and whether the short‑term rental’s operating practices match permits issued by Orangeville. Neighbors asked the county to consider conditions such as privacy fencing, decibel monitoring and restrictions on event timing.

At the meeting an attorney for the property owners, Robert Cummings of Spencer Fane, said the owners were surprised the matter appeared on the planning commission agenda and asked for more time to prepare. Cummings asked the commission to treat the session as an informal presentation and to table any decision until the owners could provide a fuller response and documentation, including contractor testimony and a timeline of events. “Our understanding coming into this meeting was that it was going to be an informal discussion,” Cummings said.

The property owners addressed the commission and said they had already made many changes to mitigate impacts: adding cameras, adopting a 9:30 p.m. curfew clause in rental paperwork, offering to contribute to fencing costs and promising decibel monitoring and an on‑call property manager. “We’re looking for a resolution. We’re not really looking for a fight,” an owner told the commission.

Several commissioners and members of the public urged mediation and additional fact‑gathering rather than immediate enforcement. Commissioner Tyler Jeffs asked whether any events were scheduled before the commission’s next meeting; the owners said a June 7 event had been canceled in response to concerns and that no events were scheduled before June 11.

Action taken: The commission voted to table the item and asked both sides to submit documentation for the June 11 meeting. The commission asked staff to circulate incoming materials in advance so commissioners and the public can review them.

What’s next: The commission directed that the item be placed on the June 11 agenda and said it would consider a formal recommendation to the county commission after reviewing materials from both neighbors and the property owners.","Neighbors and the owners of a short-term rental at the Fruit Ranch area asked the Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission to mediate repeated disputes over noise, trespass and privacy related to weekend wedding events. The commission tabled formal action and requested both sides present fuller documentation at the June 11 meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Emery County Planning Commission, May 20, 2025

Planning commission opens discussion on code enforcement, general plan and possible enforcement officer

Planning commission approves Mike Mattson minor subdivision conditional on compliance with county ordinance

Emery County planning commission approves JNR minor subdivision after mapping discrepancies fixed

Neighbors, owners ask Emery County planning commission to mediate disputes over private wedding venue