At a San Juan County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, multiple residents used the public‑comment period to ask for clearer responses from planning staff on proposed changes to the county’s land‑use ordinance (referred to in the meeting as LUDMO), to raise concerns about enforcement language in the draft ordinance, and to request procedural changes to commission bylaws so public input receives formal acknowledgement and tracked follow‑up.

Several speakers said they had submitted suggested ordinance edits by email after an earlier July meeting and had not received written responses. One speaker who asked not to be identified in the packet pointed to specific sections by page number — for example, a request to revise page 13’s definition of household pets and page 4’s definition of agricultural industries — and asked the commission when submitted edits would be addressed. She told the commission: “It is useless for us to suggest changes if we don't receive feedback on our suggestions.”

Lynn Martin and other residents raised concerns about expanded enforcement language in the proposed 2025 ordinance. Martin read language in the draft that allows an enforcement officer to investigate alleged violations and to “make examinations and investigations of all real property in the county as allowed by law.” She told the commission that in her reading the text could allow inspections of private property based on complaints and that the ordinance lacks stated oversight or limits on inspections. Martin cited a local compliance dispute involving a business owner, saying the county had pursued court action rather than rezoning in that case.

Speakers also urged the commission to add an agenda item and a follow‑up mechanism so that public comment is acknowledged and tracked. Shannon Brooks proposed a four‑step process: (1) the public submits ideas; (2) the commission discusses and provides prompt written response; (3) a public awareness committee presents suggestions to the broader public and gathers feedback; and (4) the commission records determinations and provides closure. Brooks told commissioners she and colleagues had collected petitions and survey responses and said, “We can live with it [approval or rejection], but to be ignored, that's a problem.”

Several residents urged adoption of agricultural protections. Joe Musumeci noted that Utah Code Title 17, Chapter 14 provides for Agriculture Protection Areas (APAs) and asked whether the county would adopt APAs; he said a state official had encouraged the county to adopt that ordinance since 2018. Other commenters asked the commission to consider revisions to allow single‑wide manufactured homes and manufactured homes as accessory dwelling units to increase housing affordability.

Commission members and staff spent substantial time on a separate, detailed review of proposed bylaws edits. Planning staff (identified in the meeting as Melissa) walked commissioners through dozens of redline changes covering grammar, membership representation (including a seat for a special service district representative), nomination and voting procedures, conflict‑of‑interest language, and rules for motions and findings. Commissioners debated whether to require a special‑service‑district member, whether representation should be by named communities or at‑large unincorporated areas, how to handle recusal and conflict of interest (the draft language used “shall be required”), and whether motions should be required to state findings “as needed” or for conditional uses.

On procedure, commissioners agreed in principle to add agenda follow‑up items so questions raised in meetings could be tracked and reported back. One commissioner suggested maintaining two tables: one to track internal follow‑up items for commission members and a separate table to track follow‑ups from public comment so the public can see responses in subsequent meetings.

The meeting record shows a high level of public engagement: speakers said 19 people were present in the meeting room for public comment and that petition and survey efforts had produced hundreds of signatures and responses. Several commenters asked the commission to respond in writing when suggested ordinance changes are reviewed and to clarify how enforcement provisions would be applied.

Ending: Commission staff agreed to incorporate many of the redline edits and to return revised bylaws language to the commission; staff also agreed to examine a follow‑up mechanism to report on public comments and suggested ordinance edits at future meetings.