State land-use trainer reviews LUDMA, roles and public participation with San Juan County commissioners

On Sept. 2, 2025, Rob Terry, statewide land‑use training director at the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman, gave a training to the San Juan County Commission on the state legal framework and planning practice that guide local land‑use decisions.

Terry told the commission that the Land Use Development and Management Act (commonly called LUDMA) is the foundational state statute for land‑use law in Utah and walked through how local agencies use general plans, ordinances and zoning to implement community policy. “Everything that is land use law related within the state of Utah is going to have its foundational base in the Land Use Development and Management Act,” he said.

The presentation covered three practical areas: (1) required and recommended documents and processes (general plan, zoning and land‑use ordinances); (2) the roles of legislative bodies, the planning commission and designated land‑use authorities; and (3) the distinction between legislative decisions (adopting or amending laws and maps) and administrative decisions (applying adopted rules to a specific proposal).

Terry emphasized process and recordkeeping. He told commissioners that general‑plan amendments must follow the statutory noticing and public‑comment steps (he referenced section 17‑27a‑204) and warned that failing legally required notice can invalidate a process. He also said that courts give local agencies broad discretion when a legislative decision is “reasonably debatable,” but that agencies must support administrative approvals with substantial evidence recorded in the administrative file.

Commissioners raised specific questions about timing and involvement. Several commissioners asked whether the county should update the general plan before pursuing a large land‑use ordinance change. Terry said Utah is not currently a “consistency” state that requires zoning to match a general plan, but he recommended best practice: align the general plan and zoning where possible and, where amendments are expected, consider handling plans and ordinance updates concurrently while aiming to adopt the plan first. “You can absolutely do that as well,” he said when asked whether general plan and map changes could be processed at the same time.

Commissioners also asked how and when elected officials should attend planning‑commission meetings. Terry recommended caution and said that elected officials often should handle technical questions through staff rather than routinely attending as members of the public to avoid confusing process or creating the perception of pre‑judgment. He recommended regular work sessions between the commission and the planning commission early in a major update so commissioners’ policy concerns can be surfaced before the planning commission completes a draft.

On public engagement, Terry drew a clear line between legislative and administrative roles: public opinion and preferences may be considered as part of legislative decisions, such as a change of zone or adoption of an ordinance, but cannot replace the plain language of adopted rules in administrative approvals. He gave an example: if a use is permitted under existing zoning, a member of the public saying they “don’t like convenience stores” does not provide a legal basis to deny an administratively reviewed permit; factual evidence (for example, previously unknown contamination) may be relevant to an administrative determination.

Terry highlighted state resources the county can use, including the Land Use Academy of Utah (luau.utah.gov) and regional technical assistance staff he named in his talk as resources for plan updates and ordinances. He also noted the office’s advisory‑opinion service and mediation options as lower‑cost alternatives to litigation.

The commission and planning commission planned to schedule additional training: Terry said he would provide his slide deck to staff and deliver a consistent training session for the planning commission. No formal motions or votes were taken during the training.

The training closed with a reminder about statutory requirements, substantial evidence and recordkeeping as foundations that will support defensible policy choices and administrative decisions.

Looking ahead, commissioners said they will consider more joint work sessions and staff‑led briefings to ensure the planning commission’s technical work and the commission’s policy direction align before public hearings on any major land‑use ordinance.