San Juan County planning staff told the commission they will pursue a multi‑month process to update the general plan and the countywide land‑use ordinance, and county leaders authorized hiring a consultant to assist. The presentation came during a packed meeting in which residents repeatedly asked the commission to preserve rural and agricultural land uses, protect homesteading rights and avoid imposing residential zoning outside incorporated towns.

Planning administrator Kristen (no last name given) presented a roadmap that breaks the work into chapter‑by‑chapter sessions over the coming months and asked the commission to coordinate review with the county commission and with a plat‑review team (roads, surveyor, health, recorder). Staff said the current general plan dates to 2018, the county has been operating from it, and the proposed schedule aims to have a new ordinance in place by January 1 of the next year, though commissioners acknowledged that bringing a consultant on board may move that date later in the fall.

Residents urged several specific changes. Multiple speakers said residential zoning should not apply in unincorporated agricultural areas; they asked that “homesteading” be explicitly recognized in the AG zone (private agriculture for household self‑sufficiency, small‑scale family businesses and related accessory uses). A recent county survey of unincorporated residents, presented by speakers, showed strong support for protections for agricultural/rural lifestyles and for less restrictive rules for micro‑enterprises and home‑based businesses.

Speakers highlighted three recurring concerns: (1) a perceived mismatch between definitions (what county staff label “urban” vs. “rural”); (2) lack of clarity about how existing area plans (for example, the Spanish Valley area plan and the 2019 Spanish Valley supplementary ordinance) will interact with a new countywide ordinance; and (3) the timetable and transparency of public engagement. Carol Martin, an organizer of a county survey, summarized resident priorities: “Protect our agricultural rural way of life, strengthen communication, and empower homestead businesses while rejecting heavy‑handed enforcement.”

Several speakers urged the commission to use tools such as Agricultural Protection Areas under Utah Code Title 17, Chapter 41. Lynn Martin described the APA statute and its benefits — protection from nuisance lawsuits, zoning stability and other benefits — and suggested the county craft an implementing ordinance to allow landowners to request APA status.

Staff responded that many of the topics residents raised will be addressed chapter‑by‑chapter and that the commission intends to keep public comment open; Kristen said staff are already aggregating all submitted comments (emails, workshop notes) and will post revised drafts as sections are changed. Commissioners and staff also discussed the tension between adding detailed definitions (which can lengthen and complicate the code) and keeping the ordinance compact and accessible. Several commissioners said they favored careful, slower work on the draft rather than rushing adoption.

Commission direction and next steps: commissioners voted to approve staff moves to hire a consultant to help coordinate the general‑plan rewrite and related ordinance changes, to run public workshops and to cross‑check draft language with department reviewers (roads, health, recorder). Staff will post chapter updates and a running list of public comments; residents asked staff to further publicize a planning‑commission email address and public‑notice sign‑up so commenters can confirm their input was received and tracked.

What to expect: the commission will continue chapter‑by‑chapter review at future meetings; the consultant is expected to help reconcile the county general plan, the Spanish Valley area plan references and the land‑use ordinance. Staff published a schedule for chapters 1–6 in the next month and said they will incorporate public comments into revised drafts prior to county‑commission work sessions.