The Toquerville Planning Commission on Oct. 22 recommended that the City Council deny a proposal to designate the Litchfield property as a Highway Commercial zone district, citing the commission’s finding that the parcel does not meet the nine statutory factors in the city’s zoning code.

Planning staff opened the discussion by summarizing the legal background: the parcel was rezoned in 2023, a lower court entered summary judgment for the city, and the matter is now on appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals. Kayla, a city planning staff member, said the 2024 general plan now designates the area commercial and noted that the 30-day period to challenge that plan has passed.

The commission’s decision followed more than an hour of public comment in which residents and interest groups opposed the designation. Ray Vance, a property owner and plaintiff in litigation over the earlier rezoning, described a long history of dispute and said, “This will continue. If this does not end, we are resolved to continue this. This is the hill we’re gonna die on.” Dwayne Auster, an attorney with the Dunn Law Firm, representing Kathy and Ray Vance, told the commission, “My clients intend to bring legal proceedings to set it aside,” and flagged potential constitutional takings and claims of contract zoning.

Speakers living near the site raised traffic, noise, flood and environmental concerns. Michael Franzese, who said his home overlooks the proposed area, said he recorded noise levels that “are in excess of 83 dB” and described the canyoned alignment of the bypass that amplifies truck noise and complicates traffic. Other commenters cited lack of a traffic study, water or environmental impact studies, and the risk that permitted commercial uses in a Highway Commercial zone (for example, truck stops, RV parks or light industrial uses) would be incompatible with neighboring residential areas.

Commission members debated the scope of their review. Several members and staff emphasized the narrow question before the commission: whether, under the city’s current 2024 general plan and the nine criteria in city code 10-8-3, the commission should recommend that the city council designate the subject parcel anew as Highway Commercial. Kayla told the commission the question was “whether you find that it meets the requirements in your city code, the 9 factors” under current circumstances, not a rehearing of the original 2023 council action.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend denial to the City Council on the grounds that the designation does not meet the nine required factors in the zoning code; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission voted in favor of the motion (motion passed; tally recorded by the commission as unanimous) and directed that the recommendation be forwarded to the City Council.

The action is advisory: the City Council retains final authority to adopt or reject zoning designations and previously approved the 2023 rezoning by council vote. Planning staff and several commissioners acknowledged that redesignation now could be used in ongoing litigation; staff said the ordinance under consideration would, if adopted, serve both as a present designation and as a potential defense in the appeal. Planning staff also noted the trial-court decision favored the city but that the appeal remains pending.

Next steps: the commission’s denial will be transmitted as a formal recommendation to the City Council for its consideration at a future meeting. The underlying litigation continues in the Utah Court of Appeals; parties in public comment said they intend further legal action regardless of the commission recommendation.

The meeting record shows extensive citizen opposition focused on environmental impact, traffic safety and the procedural history of the 2023 rezoning. The commission’s recommendation does not change the 2023 council action; it records the commission’s present judgment that the parcel, as presented under the nine-code factors, should not be designated Highway Commercial.