Council staff explains R‑1 zoning matrix: permitted uses vs. prohibited uses

At a March 25 work session, a city planning presenter reviewed the R‑1 (single‑family residential) zoning matrix with the Mona City Council and explained how the ordinance determines permissible and prohibited uses on raw land and developed parcels.

Why it matters: the explanation addresses common public questions about what owners of undeveloped land may build or use — for example, whether storage, private race tracks, or small private attractions are allowed in R‑1 areas — and clarifies when accessory activities are permitted.

What staff told the council

The presenter explained that the ordinance is designed to list permitted primary and accessory uses rather than attempt to enumerate every possible activity. The presenter read aloud a key sentence from the matrix, saying, “The very last sentence. Uses which are not specifically permitted within the zone are prohibited.” The presenter emphasized the practical effect: if a use is not listed as permitted, it is not allowed in that zone.

Using hypothetical examples, the presenter said raw land owners generally must establish a primary use — typically a residence or qualifying agricultural use — before accessory activities are allowed. “The minute I start going round and round, I’m creating a use, and that use would be race car track. That’s not permitted,” the presenter said, illustrating how unusual activities in residential zones are treated as separate uses.

Staff also clarified that accessory structures and activities are allowed when they are secondary to an established primary use, such as a house or qualifying agricultural operation. The presenter noted municipalities can amend the matrix over time: “ordinances… are massageable. You can always add, take away, change.”

Council members asked whether the city’s water and sewer engineering firms were doing specific analyses; during an exchange about air transport, a council member suggested checking with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about private helipads, and staff agreed to verify jurisdictional limits.

Next steps

Staff said the matrix’s current language is intended to make determinations straightforward by checking whether a use is explicitly permitted. Councilmembers asked clarifying questions but did not direct amendments at the work session. Staff indicated the council can amend the ordinance or add clarifying language about particular accessory uses if the council wants to change the city’s approach.

Ending

The presenter closed by inviting further questions and noting staff can return with ordinance amendments or clarifications if the council requests them.