[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6535199,"mediaKeyId","3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d","parentId",3410870,"title","Weber planners, commissioners and residents debate agritourism rules, acreage tests and event limits","audioSeconds",4769,"startMs",7320000,"endMs",12089000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d&start=7320&end=12089","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d/thumbnail_7320000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6535199/Weber-County/Utah/Weber-planners-commissioners-and-residents-debate-agritourism-rules-acreage-tests-and-event-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6535199-f9fcfc18bfbc7cccc8b5807acdaaa7a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770969393&Signature=BJwvriCBa90d5Jpgt~YVK0-gcWvh7o1BFSlVYfrhurY-Zfy2WV9Ws5zAsv21eRa0Pgh7qp8mHhGYOZJFDAxhNh22LXTLXdt0C~BVdt3~XUd-Yculkw-XBU39kalZz2S-O8O5t9GTs8B-R7Lgw68wrlrhTPeqEgsJk9MnbRbHGeoXW2cSvRbtc8xYMMP2GmC4LYyolGd8p8hLmWN8Xz54S3x3DvF0c~IRN15mL-VBS0RVrTiKGfvrTeNAYGnfeFC~VePjKNA2LcYtCynoMBadr--5vYOm5byAOQeGc9RRDBIqAEoShjIkc1b9lUNQ8uXmQf8A~NAuKRam~EZaV0cG2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-20T23:31:35.477Z","article","Weber County planning staff and commissioners held a work session on a proposed agritourism ordinance that would allow farm-based commercial activities ' such as pick-your-own operations, farm stands, educational farm tours, small events and other visitor-serving uses ' when properties demonstrate legitimate agricultural production.

Key provisions discussed

- Qualification and scale: The draft ties eligibility to the Farmland Assessment Act or to production thresholds modeled on assessment rules; the current code language allows property owners to demonstrate that a parcel ' even one smaller than five acres ' meets production requirements and therefore qualifies for agritourism uses. Planning staff said the existing ordinance contains objective production measures, and commissioners asked staff to reinsert or clarify that objective language so decisions are not purely subjective.

- Minimum acreage and exceptions: The existing ordinance includes a 5-acre threshold for certain treatments but contains exceptions if a landowner can show production levels equivalent to larger operations. Commissioners and public commenters debated whether to limit agritourism to larger parcels (suggested thresholds ranged from 6 to 10 acres and higher for \"dude ranch\" operations) to reduce neighborhood impacts from events.

- Conditional use and conditions: Commission members emphasized that agritourism would require a conditional-use permit (CUP) so impacts (hours, parking, traffic, septic and sewer capacity, noise) could be evaluated case by case. Commissioners and staff discussed how permit conditions should be specific (maximum attendees, parking plans, restroom capacity), and noted that failure to meet conditions should allow revocation of the CUP.

- Infrastructure, public health and environment: Multiple public commenters and commissioners urged explicit review by the county health department for septic capacity, by sewer districts for connections, and by public-works staff for parking and traffic. Concerns included septic overload during events, roadway parking impacts, noise in valley bowl topography and impacts to water recharge and microclimates.

Public input and examples

Speakers from the valley told commissioners that agritourism can provide vital revenue to keep farms viable but asked the county to ensure objective standards so small operations are not unfairly excluded or exploited by nonagricultural activities rebranded as agritourism. One farmer and educator described diversified small-scale urban and valley farms that produce market vegetables and hold workshops; other residents requested strong protections for neighboring residential subdivisions and asked the county to require infrastructure and health reviews before approving larger events.

Next steps

Planning staff said they would revise the draft to restore objective production-measure language tied to the assessor/Greenbelt criteria, clarify how exceptions for parcels under 5 acres would be evaluated, tighten conditional-use submittal requirements (hours, expected patrons, parking counts, event limits) and return a revised draft to the planning commission at a subsequent meeting. Commissioners suggested focusing initial implementation on larger parcels and using legislative development agreements for smaller or unusual cases.

Why it matters: Agritourism rules will determine which farms can host paid visitors, events and other commercial activities and how those activities are balanced with neighborhood impacts, septic/sewer capacity and open-space objectives. Commissioners sought a mix of clear objective thresholds and conditional-use review tools so legitimate agricultural enterprises can benefit without causing unmitigated impacts to neighbors or infrastructure.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ogden Valley Planning Commission July 18, 2023","oneSentenceSummary","Weber County planning staff and commissioners discussed a draft agritourism ordinance that ties eligibility to farmland-assessment or production thresholds, requires conditional-use review for events and asks staff to return with clarified, objective standards.","taxTitle","Weber County, Utah","taxId",2932,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6535204,"Weber County planning commission recommends denying county's water-wise landscaping text amendment tied to Weber Basin incentives",2124,4934000,7058000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d&start=4934&end=7058","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d/thumbnail_4934000.jpg","/articles/6535204/Weber-County/Utah/Weber-County-planning-commission-recommends-denying-countys-water-wise-landscaping-text-amendment-tied-to-Weber-Basin-incentives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6535204-39b81fd483435ef68c18df1c87c0834c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770969393&Signature=KdcILTIhYJo4GECgoRFVaoxBkyQrK9~DS2yQEpOhWxxYFc1xs5yzeqed~JYh8tXGAArTfCd-usYws0iFFdpJyRfyj4J2mDkjYdaziOeBv3UE7dZvzCwgZ3uxTs4qW8mv7O6k84M1MNf7ruv4-WUw3SNarZdUoeTV6R8zE6OtUY6rGDgCEN8jwoRK4hDsjN6RMKE8G7zHLzATmkBQ9PQzkreXq70SCE6GVAhhxG1FsFIXjDKCzoyxPSmmxc2ImRkYnkum8~1eqScsqycvgYPa-PM-xBn7Zm1kHBIpUuwClGmowAlEq15ycKmgNg6i8Zy1YEoQtj1srv3QqMA6bHV-NA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Weber County Planning Commission voted unanimously at a July work session to recommend denial of a county-initiated zoning-text amendment (ZTA 2023-04) that would have implemented Weber Basin Water Conservancy District's recommended \"water-wise\" landscaping standards across the county to enable residents in unincorporated areas to qualify for certain Weber Basin financial incentives.

The amendment proposed new landscaping limits and standards for new development: for single-family lots, no more than 35% of the front and side yard (or, in the draft, no more than 3,000 square feet) could be irrigated turfgrass; for commercial, industrial, institutional and multifamily developments, irrigated turfgrass would be limited to no more than 15% of total landscape area; park strips and any landscaped area under 8 feet in width would be prohibited from irrigated turfgrass. The draft also included requirements for low-flow drip irrigation for park-strip trees and a recommended park-strip cross section made of angular rock for some commercial settings. Planning staff emphasized that the proposed ordinance was county-initiated to allow residents access to Weber Basin incentives but was not a state mandate.

During the public hearing multiple residents and commissioners expressed concern that the draft did not reflect climate and lot-size differences across Weber County, particularly in Ogden Valley where parcels are larger, the growing season is different and abundant green corridors help moderate local microclimates. Public comments cited studies and speakers' health, environmental and urban-heat concerns, arguing that turfgrass and trees provide cooling, wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge. Some commissioners said the draft would be an overly prescriptive change to residential landscaping in areas that historically have more irrigated green space.

After public comment, a commissioner moved to recommend denial of ZTA 2023-04, stating that the amendment would be inconsistent with the county's general plan and would not serve the public benefit in the county's more rural and higher-elevation areas; the motion included a request that the county seek a mechanism to allow residents to participate in Weber Basin's incentive programs without adopting the proposed restrictive landscaping code changes. The motion was seconded and carried by unanimous voice vote (6-0 present).

Why it matters: The proposal tied county code changes to a regional water-provider incentive program. Planning commissioners framed their denial as an attempt to preserve local discretion and avoid an ordinance that would treat Ogden Valley's climate and lot patterns the same as suburban parts of western Weber County. Commissioners did not block the county or staff from continuing to negotiate with Weber Basin about whether and how residents can receive incentives without a countywide code change.

Next steps: Planning staff said they will continue dialog with Weber Basin and return any revised approach to the planning commission and county commission for further review.","The Weber County Planning Commission recommended denial of ZTA 2023-04, a county-initiated amendment that would adopt Weber Basin'recommended water-wise landscaping rules to let unincorporated-county residents access Weber Basin incentives.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6535209,"Weber County commissioners, planning staff revisit Ogden Valley general plan, urge focused updates",3616,285000,3901000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d&start=285&end=3901","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410870-512f8852ae45c96a26ebfe2ce89ac16d/thumbnail_285000.jpg","/articles/6535209/Weber-County/Utah/Weber-County-commissioners-planning-staff-revisit-Ogden-Valley-general-plan-urge-focused-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6535209-850e3435c1747b0101c167554f783886/orig.mp4?Expires=1770969393&Signature=mdyHR5TVcHfrc0LD-dy-EAZvkycY6n7qax96twN0kRYwSadxiYbCxLCfPuZ2QElMuewhVGPNPKXUpedh5~iUNIvSlORw-HtUQfxE7AM67ZCRE7sFzMbtpfixvtDmg9fCxQOER2~pRbkBrdv38ezcH6sxsRhCSr0VrP~kI4X91BpwAcdSswjgpxUOJQRpsHVwMdfhL7A3wu-Dlbn9~-Mn-EhwBpY2CmVJNqcdAqj7rY9m-HibGyuTQVkTCjy9j5M3USgKBjCydZ3NpLhouhu1pEonRje6J7d7fACrgeYopunl8-hU6qLJzwjtabdycxZ-tqDgk8YyelSGRoDAGw5VeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Weber County commissioners and planning staff spent a work-session segment reviewing the 2017 Ogden Valley general plan and how the document's village-centered approach should guide future growth.

The county's planning staff told attendees that a 2016 density analysis estimated a buildout of roughly 16,000 dwelling units for the valley floor (including some resort units) and that roughly 4,000 units existed at the time of the plan; staff's more recent parcel-level recount placed remaining buildout on the valley floor in the range of roughly 10,000 dwellings. Planning staff said the general plan directs that new density be clustered where infrastructure exists and identified eight candidate village centers (Old Town Eden/Newtown, Wolf Creek, Liberty, Nordic, East Huntsville, Snowbasin intersection/Traverse Loop and Old Snowbasin Road intersection) as preferred receiving areas for transferred density.

The discussion centered on two linked points: whether the county is following the general plan's intentions and whether the plan itself needs updates. Commissioner Harvey, who described his involvement in earlier public outreach that led to the 2017 plan, urged commissioners and the planning commission to respect the plan's goal of concentrating density around infrastructure while recognizing some development outside villages will likely occur. Planning staff reiterated the plan's objective that density should be directed toward village centers and that infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) should be the primary determinant of where to place density transfers.

Several commissioners and planning-commission members asked for a phased, targeted update to the plan rather than a wholesale rewrite. A long-standing concern is that a number of studies completed since 2017 ' notably water and sewer studies and a Division of Water Quality nitrate study ' are not incorporated into the 2017 document. Commissioners said those studies and funded infrastructure investments should be part of any update and asked planning staff to bring a focused package of revised projections, updated infrastructure maps and proposed amendments to the attention of the county commission in late summer or early fall.

Committee members raised implementation trade-offs: commissioners emphasized private-property rights and warned against regulatory approaches that could produce legal takings claims, while also stressing the county's intent to preserve open lands through transfer-of-density mechanisms and conservation easements. Commissioners said the county intends to use tax rollback/conservation funding to pursue open-space purchases and conservation easements where appropriate.

Participants discussed specific planning mechanics: how to locate village centers (the plan uses approximate quarter-mile radius \"nodes\"), whether and how to allow village location changes if developers propose to bring infrastructure, and how to handle street-regulating plans for nodes such as Newtown and Old Town Eden. The planning commission said prior review of street-regulation maps and more robust public notice for valley meetings would improve public trust; commissioners suggested a valley-specific public meeting before final decisions on street-regulating plans.

Commissioners and planning staff also discussed public concerns about septic-system failure and rising nitrate levels in Pineview Reservoir. Several commissioners said recent water-quality findings strengthen the case for sequencing sewer and water infrastructure investments and said the county is directing federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds toward sewer projects in the Upper Valley to mitigate nitrate impacts over the long term.

The work session concluded with an operational request: planning staff will separate compound items in future administrative and legislative packages where feasible; commissioners and planning leadership agreed to set up a pre-meeting review (chair/vice-chair of the planning commission and one or two county commissioners) so planning commissioners can clarify agenda items earlier. Planning staff said they will return with an updated projection package and suggested amendments for discussion at a September work session or county-commission review.

Why it matters: Ogden Valley's general plan sets the long-range framework for where growth will be allowed to occur. Updates that incorporate recent sewer and water studies, plus clearer public-notice procedures and mapped priorities for village centers, can change where development is most likely to be approved and how the county funds infrastructure and conservation.

The conversation threaded technical projections (buildout units, existing units) with political constraints (private property rights, potential litigation) and operational next steps (staff updates, valley meetings). Planning staff and commissioners agreed on the core policy: direct as much new density as feasible into village centers where infrastructure can support it and use conservation tools where development rights remain on open lands.","County commissioners and planning staff discussed the 2017 Ogden Valley general plan, reiterated the plan's village-based density-transfer approach and asked planning staff to produce phased updates to population, water and sewer projections and infrastructure maps for fall review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Weber planners, commissioners and residents debate agritourism rules, acreage tests and event limits

Weber County planning commission recommends denying county's water-wise landscaping text amendment tied to Weber Basin incentives

Weber County commissioners, planning staff revisit Ogden Valley general plan, urge focused updates