San Juan County pauses proposed land-use ordinance after crowded public hearing; commissioners send draft back for more review

SAN JUAN COUNTY, Utah — The San Juan County Commission voted Jan. 21 to table consideration of a proposed countywide land-use ordinance and accompanying zoning maps after an extended public hearing that drew dozens of residents from across the county.

The commission directed planning staff to pursue additional legal review and broader community engagement before they consider adoption, saying they wanted more time to ensure the public had a chance to review the draft and that inconsistencies were addressed.

Planning Administrator Kristen opened the hearing by describing the five‑year effort to update the county’s zoning rules, saying the work began with a 2022 draft and has incorporated legal review, community workshops and multiple staff reviews. “Everything in this document, we can’t go backwards,” Kristen said, adding that the ordinance’s standards would apply prospectively to new development and not force retroactive changes on existing structures.

Residents who spoke during the hearing raised repeated concerns about the process, specific map changes and the ordinance’s effect on private property and small businesses. “I’m worried about private property rights being infringed upon and stuff,” said Curtis Pew, a local business owner from Blanding. Multiple speakers urged the commission to allow more time for residents to digest the 130‑plus page draft and attend further community sessions. “I would really like to have a little bit more time to try to figure things out,” said Riley Pugh.

Speakers also raised site‑specific zoning objections. Robbie Filkorn, who provided a printed map to the commission, said the proposed change for an area near Monticello would “is approximately 1,401 acre residential lots,” a level of density he and other residents called “spot zoning.” Others asked for specific parcels — including parts of Pack Creek and areas in LaSalle and Lisbon Valley connected to mine housing proposals — to be rezoned differently or left agricultural.

Commissioners acknowledged the volume and intensity of public comment and the limits of the county’s outreach in some parts of the county. Commissioner Harvey moved to table consideration of the ordinance, asking for clearer, documented public‑engagement steps, and a formal legal review of outstanding inconsistencies; Commissioner Shannon Brooks seconded. The motion passed on a voice vote. The body asked staff to pursue a legal check within roughly 30–45 days and to plan a community outreach schedule leading up to a compound review station in June; the commission said it would reconsider the ordinance no later than six months from Jan. 21.

Planning Administrator Kristen warned that the existing 2011 zoning ordinance remains the county’s operative code while the draft is under review. She said some applicants and pending permits could remain out of compliance under the 2011 rules until the county finalizes a revised ordinance. Kristan also highlighted a number of substantive changes in the draft intended to expand allowed small‑business uses countywide and to provide regulated options for RV housing and short‑term recreational uses; she said the update reflected recent state law changes and recommendations from multiple county offices.

Several residents pressed specific technical changes: one asked that the ordinance recognize the state’s new statutory definition of “microschool”; another requested that “kennels” be allowed in agricultural zones to align with veterinary and boarding services. Mary Lee Linton, a Blending resident, framed the public’s concern about timing: “Once you’ve passed this, then, ostensibly, it is a done deal,” she said, urging the commission to preserve residents’ options, including the right to referendum.

Commissioners and staff also flagged practical implementation issues raised during public comment: questions about how mapping decisions were done, concerns about infrastructure (wastewater, water and roads) in proposed higher‑density zones, and requests for more localized treatment of Spanish Valley versus the broader rural county.

What’s next: The commission sent the draft back to planning staff and the planning commission with several directives: (1) a focused legal review for internal consistency and alignment with state code, (2) a documented outreach schedule of community meetings and workshops across the county, (3) a plan to produce a clear, written summary of changes made in response to public comment, and (4) a target timeline for reconsideration no later than six months from Jan. 21. Commissioners said they expect to attend the public meetings and to be briefed on changes before another final vote.

The Jan. 21 hearing drew more than two dozen speakers and multiple written submissions. Commissioners made clear that tabling the ordinance does not adopt the draft into law; the county’s current zoning code remains in force while staff and the planning commission refine the document.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to enter a public hearing on the proposed land‑use ordinance — passed (voice vote). - Motion to close the public hearing — passed (voice vote). - Motion to table the proposed land‑use ordinance and return it to planning with directives (Commissioner Harvey motion; seconded by Commissioner Brooks) — passed (voice vote).

Ending: The commission’s decision postpones what could be a major rewrite of San Juan County’s land‑use rules while it attempts to bridge a large gap between planning staff’s multi‑year drafting process and residents’ demand for more localized explanation and time to review. The county accepted hundreds of public comments and asked planning staff to produce regular updates as the work continues.