Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public split at Parowan P&Z hearing over removing long-term-stay restriction at Arbury Park; commission takes no action after agenda oversight
Summary
At a public hearing, Painted Hills RV co-owner Casey Jones urged the commission to remove a restriction on long-term stays to support local businesses; resident Janelle Zajac opposed relaxing the ordinance, citing enforcement concerns. The commission could not act because the item was not properly on the agenda.
At a public hearing March 5, residents and a business owner told the Parowan Planning and Zoning Commission they were divided over whether the city should relax an ordinance banning long-term stays at the Arbury Park RV site. The commission took no action after staff later said the proposed amendment was not on that meeting’s agenda and therefore could not legally be decided.
Casey Jones identified himself to the commission as a co-owner of Painted Hills RV and spoke in favor of removing the restriction. “It would allow us to be able to manage our business effectively, bring more customers into the community to our gas our businesses, gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, gym,” Jones said, adding he and other owners were present to show support for removing the restriction.
By contrast, Janelle Zajac, a Parowan resident, said the city already has long-term stays in violation of the ordinance and that inconsistent enforcement meant she could not support relaxation. “Because of that, I cannot support a relaxation of the ordinance for long term stays,” Zajac said during public comment.
Earlier in the meeting staff had called for a public hearing to receive comment on the proposed amendment. After public comment concluded, a staff member told the commission the item had not been placed on the agenda and therefore the commission could not legally make a determination that night. The record shows staff apologized to the business owner for the oversight and said the matter would be placed on a subsequent agenda for formal consideration.
No formal motion or vote on the ordinance change was taken at the March 5 meeting. The item will be rescheduled for a future meeting and legally noticed as required.
