San Juan County commissioners urge broader water, public‑input work as residents criticize proposed zoning

San Juan County commissioners heard public criticism of a proposed zoning ordinance and a lengthy staff update on plans to fold water‑use forecasting into the county’s general plan, with both residents and several commissioners urging more local tailoring and public outreach. Marjorie Hans Torland, a resident of Old LaSalle, told commissioners she had run the proposed ordinance through an artificial‑intelligence comparison and concluded “we will take the opportunity to rework the general plan and the new planning and zoning ordinance to reflect San Juan County and not a suburb of Salt Lake City.”

Why it matters: the general plan is the policy document that guides future land‑use decisions, and commissioners and planning staff said water availability and special‑service‑district data are central to any durable zoning or land‑use ordinance changes.

County staff described recent meetings with state agencies and local partners and said the Division of Drinking Water and the Utah Department of Agriculture have offered technical help. Todd, identified in the meeting as a representative from SIRDA, attended state calls with staff and commissioners. Mac (county planning staff) said the agencies “were willing to come and help us” and that a key next step is to convene special‑service districts and the county’s water conservancy district so water forecasts can inform zoning decisions.

Public commenters said the proposed zoning would not fit local conditions and could worsen housing affordability. Daniel Wright of Spanish Valley urged allowing single‑wide manufactured homes and manufactured accessory dwelling units in some residential areas, saying “Single wides are banned again…which really increases the costs of building.” Wright told commissioners the county could use zoning that preserves rural lifestyles while easing housing costs.

Staff said the water discussion is not separate from land use. Mac explained that if aquifer capacity is limited, “you’ve got to stop development,” adding that the general plan should state coordination is required and that the land‑use ordinance must contain the operational checks and application processes (for example, for agricultural overlay districts). Commissioners and staff discussed the practical effect: incorporating water forecasting and special‑district data will add time to rulemaking for the land‑use ordinance, though staff said some general‑plan language could be drafted quickly to point to later ordinance implementation.

Commissioners and staff identified immediate procedural steps: state technical assistance, planning‑commission briefings, and meetings with special‑service districts. The planning commission is scheduled to receive an update next week and county staff said they would arrange a joint session with the commission and planning commission on Sept. 16 to review the draft text and proposed changes.

The county’s approach will include public outreach and opportunities for comment at required public hearings; staff said state guidance notes both general‑plan and land‑use ordinance changes require public vetting under Utah land‑use law. No binding ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting; commissioners directed staff to continue coordination and to bring back clearer draft language and timelines for review.

The county’s next planning commission meeting is expected to include an update on water‑related tasks, and staff said they will provide commissioners with the existing three‑page draft of the general plan ahead of the joint meeting so elected officials and the public can see the base text under consideration.