Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Agriculture topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Utah County lowers minimum acreage for ag protection areas to 20 acres; updates fee schedule

5814011 · September 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Utah County Commission approved an ordinance amending Chapter 9.06 of the county code to reduce the minimum acreage for agricultural protection areas from 40 to 20 acres and to amend the county fee schedule to capture mailing costs for land‑use applications.

On Sept. 17, the Utah County Commission voted to amend Chapter 9.06 of the Utah County Code to reduce the minimum acreage required to create an agricultural protection area from 40 acres to 20 acres and to update the county fee schedule to charge for mailing notices tied to land‑use applications.

Commissioners said the change aligns with practices in other jurisdictions and that the designation remains voluntary for landowners — owners may apply to create an ag protection area and may remove the designation at their discretion. One commissioner said the 20‑acre threshold had been used by other local governments and praised the change as supporting property rights and local food security.

“Ag protection gives the farmer a lot of protection and lets them also come out whenever they’re ready,” a commissioner said during the discussion. Commissioners noted landowners in South Utah County had expressed interest in the protections available at 20 acres.

The ordinance also amends the county fee schedule to capture the cost of mailing notices for land‑use petitions and applications. Commissioners said the fee update reflects administrative costs that had not been revised since the ag protection program was first implemented.

A commissioner asked how soon landowners could apply if the ordinance passed; staff follow‑up was requested and will be coordinated with county staff (Bryce, referenced in discussion). The commission approved the ordinance by voice vote; no roll‑call vote or individual tallies were recorded in the meeting transcript.

The commission approved the motion and moved on to other agenda items.