San Juan County officials, planning commissioners agree to simplify 2025 land‑use ordinance and boost public outreach

San Juan County commissioners and members of the county planning commission met in a joint work session to review the draft 2025 countywide land‑use ordinance and public feedback, with discussion centering on simplifying a lengthy use table, improving public notice and comment systems, clarifying nonconforming‑use rules, and tailoring outreach to Spanish Valley and other populated areas.

Commissioner Michelle Harvey said the process should allow more time for public education: "It would be more meaningful to spread out those public education dates throughout the 6 months and not just the cluster in 2 months," she said, urging more opportunities for residents to comment and for the county to use video links and flyers to reach people who cannot attend daytime meetings.

Why it matters: the 2025 ordinance would replace the existing Spanish Valley ordinance and extend a single countywide zoning framework across diverse places such as Spanish Valley, Blanding and remote unincorporated areas. Participants said a one‑size‑fits‑all document has created confusion for residents and developers and can carry financial and legal consequences if not clearly written.

The meeting combined presentations from planning staff with public and commissioner remarks. Kristen, a planning staff member involved in drafting the ordinance, described how staff have collected comments and maintained a running spreadsheet of submissions and suggested that a Google form or a dedicated SJC Planning Commission email address could streamline collection and distribution: "We had the consultant here through that process. They had a system exactly what you're saying. You know, it tracked the documents." Kristen also cautioned that staff must consider public‑records and timestamping requirements when changing intake methods.

Resident Anne Austin of Spanish Valley urged clearer, protected ways for members of the public to communicate with planning commissioners: "There is a legitimate need to address how the public can communicate with planning commissioners in a way that is protected, that is transparent, that keeps everybody on the same page," she said, and recommended a county email that would forward comments to commissioners and a public comment form to compile and distribute feedback.

Longstanding planning commission member Lloyd said much of the public reaction reflects frustration with the draft’s level of detail and called for returning to an earlier, simpler framework: "We need to go back to the basics," he said, arguing the current draft reads more like municipal or homeowners‑association rules and can deter development and increase costs for residents.

Commissioners and planning commissioners discussed specific concerns raised during community workshops and the timing of technical materials: attendees noted maps tied to the draft were not made available until mid‑summer, limiting some residents' ability to assess on‑the‑ground impacts. Several people suggested publishing short, scenario‑based summaries or FAQs (for example, how long‑term RV use and short‑term rentals would be treated) to make the document more accessible.

Draft language and legal review also drew attention. Staff explained the draft had been reviewed by an attorney team (Mitch Mon, Jens Nelson and Bart Koons of USIP) to reduce litigation risk and to align the ordinance with changes in Utah law. Participants debated whether nonconforming‑use rules could be adjusted so existing businesses would not be unduly constrained when zoning changes occur; staff said they prefer to make those uses permitted where appropriate rather than leave many landowners nonconforming.

Participants raised process questions about public records (referred to in the meeting as "GRAMA" requests) and text messages or personal emails of commissioners that may be subject to public‑records requests; county counsel has advised caution and that broad, mass replies by commissioners could create meeting‑quorum issues under the Open Meetings Act.

On outreach and scheduling, several commissioners and staff proposed spreading workshops across a longer period, adding more community site meetings, restoring a comment form on the county website and issuing clear, dated links to the current draft. Commissioner Michelle Harvey and others recommended using Zoom and posting meeting notices and one‑page timelines or flyers so residents can more easily track status.

There was no formal vote on the ordinance during the session. The only formal action recorded in the meeting minutes was a procedural motion to adjourn, which carried on the voice vote of those present.

The county and planning staff will return to the planning commission to refine the use table and ordinance language, consider ways to simplify public presentation of the rules (for example, moving technical checklists out of the main ordinance and referencing them), and develop a more explicit outreach schedule for the next months.