[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6460619,"mediaKeyId","5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743","parentId",5842182,"title","Commission hears voluntary Ag Protection Area proposal and debate over \"parahurban\" definition","audioSeconds",171,"startMs",2679000,"endMs",2850000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743&start=2679&end=2850","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743/thumbnail_2679000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6460619/Utah/Commission-hears-voluntary-Ag-Protection-Area-proposal-and-debate-over-parahurban-definition","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6460619-b31604ec07519c1ff7179887d8b138a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771036787&Signature=a~3NoRMSOgCrj2LbVqmD1~Lq-fvNIHR6REZjD~Xsg9lor~gBblUsxPnPKs4KDed-f33YAzTgACvPq18HkdC0f9vj0aVA4hO72VhJ-ALb~ylXV7W4a56IlSjOU72M55kNVNb4zxUj8QaxFC1tcsliZOJK7msGqyeeeKHMHfVcydMPBpw6gmFQ~XH~w0OF7pk4ndTkiBW9grRo7dMJxrL28psmBkmCx4u9uMSLddlk-Dj7v5yruNWdh9y9H7aKb87WRnEBjixMNsDhPk7cwgJiZzzj42LOayDwSJqG6eDHflYKlHZWwuAfVGwJVJ91hxY-ZXQtn9HEJ0sxxf-~Ic9uEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Grand County Utah Government","date","2025-09-23T00:00:00Z","article","The planning commission discussed a voluntary Ag Protection Area concept and related definitions for a \"parahurban\" interface between urban and agricultural uses, staff and presenters said.

A presenter who brought the idea to the commission said the program was initiated through the local conservation district and the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF). The presenter described Ag Protection Areas as voluntary: landowners may opt in and receive specific protections in exchange for participation.

Staff and the presenter discussed core questions for a local ordinance, including minimum acreage thresholds, what qualifies as an agricultural producer, compatible zoning designations and whether the program should cover small-scale \"truck farms\" (direct-to-consumer market farms) as well as larger-scale agricultural operations.

The presenter summarized protections that an Ag Protection Area can provide under model ordinances from other jurisdictions: increased resistance to nuisance lawsuits, greater zoning stability, and limited exposure to eminent-domain actions. Staff offered to gather sample ordinances and recommended minimum-acreage approaches; the presenter said they would forward examples they had previously collected.

Commissioners and staff discussed outreach and drafting: staff said they will coordinate a working draft and circulate relevant materials from the state and other counties before the next meeting. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting.

The discussion also included background on common agricultural conflicts around new development: noise and dust from farming operations, lighting or security improvements by new residents, and changes in landowner intent over generations. Presenters said successful ag-protection approaches in other states often pair legal tools with mediation provided by county extension agents.

Staff listed next steps as drafting a working ordinance, circulating sample language, and convening stakeholders for input. The proposal remained at the discussion-and-drafting stage by the meeting's end.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","9.22.25 Grand County Planning & Zoning","oneSentenceSummary","Staff and presenters described a voluntary Ag Protection Area program and urged the commission to define \"parahurban\" and minimum acreage thresholds before drafting local ordinance language; staff said a working draft will be prepared for review.","taxTitle","Grand County Boards and Commissions, Grand County, Utah","taxId",67556,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6460624,"Planning commission to open public hearing on narrow landscape ordinance changes tied to state water rules; staff previews water-preservation element",825,295000,1120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743&start=295&end=1120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743/thumbnail_295000.jpg","/articles/6460624/Utah/Planning-commission-to-open-public-hearing-on-narrow-landscape-ordinance-changes-tied-to-state-water-rules-staff-previews-water-preservation-element","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6460624-9c34294c4444a959429c62afbe62c792/orig.mp4?Expires=1771036787&Signature=GaECRqdTE47cmY2DQCoVPTVcyahc7lOvuS8CQvCKkQfoDPMUDnFp4E63LdabS-lxYP6rTesx1zYQyihwdwa7npYZ3oyoY6MB8QGMYKdnVu4sJjsOlqY5Q3NkbBhZq7a8HKlKfFETa55h5qMwMH96MZ8TotMwnCtl~l2WzRBDvf6jdq3pwoGzF4ar6f9ryQShMY9qqtVaMTtPFb47Qn9FIbuN7n2u0NQrXHuXDOtH516VhKvSA4zQ527Kln~Ky-mOzRV2qZMyg6308cxnjYxYtvBZ2umXQnDMuyWcTFMH7sodK1EdtpT4wDksvlnSxgTciKAwoAiPLUPwBd5zb1Mc0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Grand County Planning Commission agreed at its meeting to place a set of narrow landscape-ordinance amendments on the agenda for a public hearing at its next meeting, staff said. The amendments would add four water-conservation provisions requested by the state Department of Water Resources to qualify property owners for a turf buyback (SOD buyback) program.

Commission staff presented the item as an information-to-discuss agenda entry and also previewed a separate information-only briefing on the county's required water-preservation element, which staff said must be adopted under state law by the end of the year.

The landscape change is limited to the subsection of the county's landscaping ordinance identified on page two of the packet, staff said. The amendment would insert the four water-conservation items under a new subsection (identified as \"e\" in the draft) and then renumber the subsequent sections. Staff described the change as narrowly focused on those four items and not a full rewrite of the landscaping code.

Staff said one of the items in the new subsection affects new commercial, industrial and institutional multifamily developments by reducing allowable landscape area, a change tied to state eligibility for the turf buyback program. Commissioners and staff discussed timing: the county must post public-hearing materials at least 10 days before the meeting, and staff said materials would need to be posted by Oct. 3 to appear on an Oct. 13 public hearing.

In the same meeting staff gave a slide presentation and verbal briefing on the state's water-preservation expectations. The presenter said the state has grouped water regions and set target reductions in gallons per capita per day for the Upper Colorado region, which includes Grand County. The presentation showed a baseline of about 333 gallons per capita per day in 2015 with progressive reductions to a target of roughly 248 gallons per capita per day by future planning horizons.

Staff noted the state's water planning work focuses on the municipal, industrial and residential portion of water use, which the presenter said accounts for roughly 15% of Utah's total water use; agriculture comprises the majority of statewide water consumption, staff added.

Staff characterized the presentation as an information item and said the full water-preservation element will be the subject of future staff-led outreach with local water districts and a public-comment process before any formal adoption steps.

Commissioners asked procedural questions about when the landscape ordinance would be posted for public hearing and whether the narrower scope of the change would be sufficient to meet the state's turf-buyback deadlines. Staff said they would circulate the draft ordinance and the PowerPoint to commissioners and proceed to post the item for a public hearing at the next meeting.

The planning commission did not take a final vote on adoption; the formal action is the scheduling of a public hearing for the proposed landscape-ordinance changes.","The Grand County Planning Commission agreed to move four targeted landscape-ordinance changes to a public hearing and received an information briefing on the state-mandated water-preservation element, including state targets to cut per-capita water use.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6460610,"County commissioner raises concerns about procedural correctness of recent CUP and rezone decisions",95,2903000,2998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743&start=2903&end=2998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743/thumbnail_2903000.jpg","/articles/6460610/Utah/County-commissioner-raises-concerns-about-procedural-correctness-of-recent-CUP-and-rezone-decisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6460610-e2b77223ce88800019eff7f26a247e34/orig.mp4?Expires=1771036787&Signature=eL~U2m7EE-JqggIsevv-tZvETMjyNm7ufWzas32ovcDxVsPb4vnmQpadZ8CUE31cJKKoEC9b4PGGBM~WvNhcpajkAFSMoN4p7U65vqfopdKBr-UYTFHvgW6lcO2lBTioXx3I~GBOWSVYD~6OfKzQ~JAaot2CTyZRyPnkPfoayl83wp1rtlFY8uKh9Dmj-JtKZrN85G1GYwb-wKLrZcnRyhgHsZ9mSIQP2w0PWs8-J1RiV3-NMMDNN-AikV6n4hj2~GRFeQc5mo9RyumSTiJFym-p6OV5alYTSggyFJh5QQga3s~XcXbbealQeH~FUWY0Kd8SAAefWBMlLC1QiguX-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County Commissioner Duffy provided a recap of items from a prior meeting, telling the commission that a conditional-use permit for one business passed 4-3 and that another conditional-use permit passed unanimously.

Duffy raised a procedural concern about a CUP that he said was granted where the use was not listed as allowed in the county's land-use table, and he cited state code 17-27a-506 as relevant to unilateral rezones. He said that, in his view, the process used to allow the CUP may have been inconsistent with the land-use table and could be subject to appeal.

Commission members and staff responded that the land-use table can be spread across sections of the code and that interpretations can be complicated; staff said they would review whether small-scale manufacturing or accessory uses were permitted in the relevant zoning designation and promised to follow up with documentation.

Duffy also summarized other items from the earlier meeting: a rezone for a walking course that he recalled passed unanimously, and a report that a conditional-use permit for \"Bridal Moab Industries\" passed unanimously. He said the commission needs to be careful about CUPs because a CUP overlays a property and stays with the property, which can create long-term implications for zoning.

No new action on code enforcement or appeals was taken at this meeting; the exchange was a status update and a request for staff review of the prior decisions.","County Commissioner Duffy recapped a prior meeting and raised concerns that a conditional-use permit (CUP) and a unilateral rezone may conflict with state land-use code and county zoning tables; he noted one CUP passed 4-3 and another item passed unanimously and said the decisions could be open to appeal.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6460614,"Commission schedules workshop on MFR45, discusses high-density ordinance and land-use code rewrite funding",221,3423000,3644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743&start=3423&end=3644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5842182-e8d2955fe303520af4c5f7d3e5eb7743/thumbnail_3423000.jpg","/articles/6460614/Utah/Commission-schedules-workshop-on-MFR45-discusses-high-density-ordinance-and-land-use-code-rewrite-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6460614-8507e9dfc78e6cf4cbdbbce234565717/orig.mp4?Expires=1771036787&Signature=il8hC2gmmje9xapAgI2SefUInltu7SLQYqTCaHBW1QKebx8rcMDbsv8g9HDOp5nZAX6qXH65axe2G4Hg9uBFGqQYWqvi5Qi7qwuHk5zfFfIS4sPgvG7GlpTKPhOR7vBP52QLZT1IqofkuIrS97DGRBErHzQD0OBKF2BhXs3s2ts6MVcoohaBJXSSaudccpdHM9XQnD287jETWAdJL7K-fSKFr6bGQSdTjeWkNVUksCetHBYIc-E9lXQXvK8l~te1LrGSzgDrU9uFpbC4R3rLVuMAV76npb8NorGDgWcAtjd42QFMxCiIYnKkUScD2wZMzG7qYPa7VJlsMS7lmiNZLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The planning commission agreed to hold a workshop on its Oct. 13 agenda (proposed start 3:30 p.m., an hour before the regular meeting) to discuss MFR45 and related housing items, commissioners and staff said.

Staff said they have been in contact with Utah Housing Corporation and local housing-trust partners and can invite state or local housing officials to participate by Zoom or in person for the workshop. The planning commission indicated it prefers to hold the discussion when a fuller commission membership can attend.

Commissioners and staff also discussed broader land-use code needs. Staff and a former planning-office employee said the county has budgeted approximately $90,000 for a land-use code rewrite and public outreach. Commissioners discussed procurement options: one suggestion was to sole-source the rewrite to a consultant that produced the county's future land-use map (to leverage prior work); others said procurement rules and the benefits of issuing an RFP should be examined. Staff noted that under county procurement rules, purchases below a $50,000 threshold may proceed without competitive bidding, but commissioners said they would coordinate with the county attorney's office to determine appropriate procurement steps.

Commissioners emphasized the need for a clearer, consolidated land-use code and a public outreach strategy. Staff said e-code and outside vendors can review conflicts and produce an online code, but commissioners said past updates have left unresolved contradictions and that a technical rewrite is needed. A commissioner reported a community preference for a facilitator-led workshop approach (similar to the future trails map outreach) to gather broad input.

The commission also received updates on the high-density ordinance (referred to as the H D H L/HTHO ordinance in staff remarks). Staff reported the ordinance language had been drafted and awaits signature; staff said implementing procedures and application steps will be required to guide applicants once the ordinance is finalized.

Commissioners asked that legal and procurement staff review options and provide an update at the Oct. 13 meeting. No final procurement decision was made at this session.","The planning commission set a workshop prior to its Oct. 13 meeting to discuss MFR45 and related housing measures, heard that $90,000 has been budgeted toward a land-use code rewrite, and discussed procurement and staffing options for completing the rewrite.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears voluntary Ag Protection Area proposal and debate over "parahurban" definition

Planning commission to open public hearing on narrow landscape ordinance changes tied to state water rules; staff previews water-preservation element

County commissioner raises concerns about procedural correctness of recent CUP and rezone decisions

Commission schedules workshop on MFR45, discusses high-density ordinance and land-use code rewrite funding