Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal Agritourism Glamping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board takes appeal under advisement after dispute over glamping cabin setbacks in Ogden Valley agritourism permit
Summary
The Board of Adjustment took under advisement an appeal by Jason Fuller challenging the Ogden Valley Planning Commission’s denial of a glamping cabin as part of an agritourism conditional‑use permit; the board did not issue a final decision at the meeting and said a written decision would follow.
The Weber County Board of Adjustment heard an appeal from Jason Fuller challenging the Ogden Valley Planning Commission’s partial denial of a conditional‑use permit for agritourism at his property. The planning commission had approved several agritourism uses but denied a proposed glamping (luxury camping) cabin because it did not meet setback standards.
Planning staff told the board the applicant’s conditional‑use application had been grandfathered under the prior agritourism ordinance but that the planning commission denied the specific glamping cabin due to setback requirements: a 300‑foot setback to the agritourism area and a 500‑foot setback to adjacent dwellings were cited in the staff report, with the possibility of reducing distances by half if a berm or visual barrier of at least 6 feet were provided.
The applicant, Jason Fuller, told the board he operates a tree farm and said a forested barrier already separates his proposed cabin from the adjacent house. He said he planned additional plantings and could install screening to mitigate visibility. "I have a tree farm... there's basically a forest between the home to the east and us," Fuller said during his presentation.
Staff and legal counsel clarified technical points from the code: an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in Ogden Valley requires twice the minimum acreage permitted in the zone to maintain density limits in the valley; Fuller’s roughly four‑acre parcel in a three‑acre zone therefore did not qualify for an ADU under current standards. Planning staff also pointed to Code Section 108‑21‑3 and related development standards that require agritourism activities to be concentrated in a distinct activity center and permit the planning commission limited discretion to waive additional standards where mitigation or unique circumstances justify it.
Board members asked whether the existing structure could be relocated to meet setbacks, whether screening or berms could reduce the required distances, and whether the planning commission properly applied the code when considering the cabin. Legal counsel reminded the board that as the appeal authority they were reviewing the correctness of the planning commission’s legal determinations and the substantial evidence in the record, and that they could not consider facts outside the record during the hearing.
After a period of deliberation in closed session, the board reopened the public meeting and announced it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision later. No final vote or overturn of the planning commission decision was recorded at that meeting.
