The San Juan County Planning and Zoning Commission on remand from Administrative Law Judge Lynn Cresswell voted that Love’s (applicant) was the proper land‑use applicant for the Sunny Acres/Spanish Valley travel‑center proposal and then considered whether the facility is a permitted use under the county’s 2011 zoning ordinance and whether it is “in harmony” with the surrounding neighborhood.

The commission approved a staff recommendation that Love’s is the correct applicant. A motion adopting the staff findings on that question passed on a recorded motion (motion carries on the record).

On the second question — whether the Love’s proposal qualifies as a permitted use under the 2011 Commercial Highway (CDH) rules — commissioners debated competing legal readings of the ordinance. After discussion the commission adopted the staff recommendation finding the proposed travel center is a permitted use in the CDH zone; that motion passed on a 4–3 recorded vote.

Commissioners then considered whether the Love’s travel center is in harmony with the intent of the neighborhood commercial/commercial‑highway zoning. Multiple motions were made and recorded on the question. The commission recorded a vote finding the proposal was not in harmony (motion carried 5–2) and also recorded a separate vote finding the proposal was in harmony (motion recorded as carrying 5–2). Those votes appear on the record as separate motions and tallies taken during the same meeting.

Public comment before the commission included multiple residents who live adjacent to or near the proposed site. Bradley Angel, who said he lives on Sunny Acres Lane, told commissioners he had submitted a state Department of Environmental Quality document about idling emissions and said, “pollutants released during idling have been linked to the increased incidence of asthma, allergies, lung and heart disease, and cancer,” adding that he has asthma and a recent cancer surgery and that living near a large truck stop would be unacceptable for him. Holly Sloan, who identified herself as from northern San Juan County, said residents have presented “credible evidence” of safety and health concerns and asked the commission to explain why those concerns are not persuasive. Ned Placid, who said his property is directly east of the proposed site, asked that any approval be conditional and include mitigation because the project, he said, would increase “light, noise, traffic, air quality, garbage containment, chemical containment, and local resources like law enforcement.”

Other public commenters raised legal and procedural points. Mark Shapiro referenced a 2019 Utah property‑rights ombudsman opinion and argued a truck stop is a distinct land use and should not be treated as a gas station by analogy. Colby Smith asked the commission to clarify which schematic the commission was considering: a 53‑bay layout that appears in earlier application materials, or a later 75‑bay schematic submitted in 2020; he characterized the 75‑bay plan as a material change.

County legal and planning staff guided the commission through three focused questions from the administrative law judge: (1) is Love’s a proper applicant, (2) is the travel center a permitted use under the 2011 ordinance, and (3) if not, alternatively is the use in harmony with the neighborhood commercial intent. Staff told the commission the original approval on record is the controlling schematic for the remand and that a later schematic would need to be considered separately if it becomes the applicant’s official submission.

The commission’s recorded votes and the public comments will be part of the administrative record for the ongoing litigation and any subsequent permit processes. Commissioners and staff noted that if the project proceeds through permitting it will still be subject to other regulatory reviews — building permits, fire and health department approvals, and any required mitigation tied to those processes.

A number of residents asked the commission and the county to release studies the applicant referenced during prior hearings; staff said the commission could request those materials from the applicant and that technical reviews by appropriate agencies would occur in later permitting steps.

The meeting record shows strong public opposition from neighbors who said the project would harm the character and health of the area; at the same time some commissioners framed the question as whether the use fits within the county’s existing CDH ordinance language. The commission’s votes on the three questions are now part of the public record and will be available to the judge and to parties in the ongoing administrative review.

Ending: The commission closed the agenda item after recording its findings; staff said any new or revised schematic from the applicant would be considered through the usual permitting or application completeness processes and that technical studies could be requested and reviewed before construction permits would be issued.