Orangeville neighbors ask Emery County to curb wedding events at LaSalle Stables, citing noise, trespass and public-safety concerns

Neighbors of LaSalle Stables told the Emery County Commission on March 18 that wedding events and related activity at 340 E. State Road 29 in Orangeville are causing repeated noise, trespass and privacy impacts to homes across the street.

The complaints came from Stephanie Brotherson, who said events held on both city and county parcels — including music, laser lighting and groups of guests — have led to trespass, public urination near her child’s play area, and repeated late-night disturbances. Brotherson said the couple who own the venue operate under Rook and Red Properties, registered to Courtney and Casey Ainsworth, and that Orangeville’s conditional-use permit covers only a short-term rental, not a wedding venue.

Brotherson urged the county to require mitigation measures on county land, including a privacy fence funded by the business, decibel meters, limits on lighting and laser shows, porta‑toilet placement away from residents’ gardens, limits on crowding and parking, a 20‑foot no‑gathering buffer at property lines, and advance scheduling notice to neighbors. “We are not looking to revoke the current Airbnb rental… We’re simply looking to find a way to have our peace and privacy restored,” Brotherson said.

Why it matters: Brotherson said many of the loudest impacts occur on county property immediately adjacent to her yard, and that Orangeville officials have told her they can only enforce the city permit on city-owned land. The county’s general plan language about preserving rural character and protecting agricultural and recreational uses was cited by Brotherson as a reason for county action.

Officials’ responses and enforcement status - Orangeville representatives told the commission they had reviewed city code and met with city counsel and the county attorney and had been advised that aspects of the problem are a civil matter when the events occur on county land. A city representative said Orangeville officials will share records and meet with county staff as needed but that the city’s authority is limited to its parcels.

- Sheriff Tyson Huntington said deputies responded to several disturbance-of-the-peace calls related to the property in 2024 (dates cited in meeting: July 31; Aug. 17; Sept. 21) and that deputies made contact or used on-site measures to quiet events when possible. “So there’s definitely been calls there,” Huntington said.

- Orangeville zoning administrator Steph Manning said the property owner has been responsive to city staff. Manning told the commission that the owner has revised contracts to fine guests for prohibited conduct, is planning to install a decibel meter and cameras tied to staff phones, and indicated a willingness to provide local contact information for on-call management. Manning said the owner also offered to split the cost of a privacy fence.

What residents say they documented Brotherson presented photographs, videos and text messages between her family and the property owner showing events on both the city and county parcels, decibel and lighting impacts, parked vehicles and the placement of portable toilets near her garden. She told commissioners that short‑term rental rules cited by Orangeville (sections of Chapter 11 referenced at the meeting) restrict occupancy to 10 people for a vacation rental and impose hours and noise limits that, in her view, are being exceeded by wedding‑style events with as many as 50 to 200 guests.

County reaction and next steps Commissioners said the county will review whether regulatory language or a conditional‑use framework for event centers on county land is needed. One commissioner noted that much of the disturbance appears to occur on county property and urged county staff to consider developing rules, conditions or mitigation measures that would address large events that affect neighboring residences. No formal enforcement action or new permitting decision was taken at the March 18 meeting.

The county and the city each said they were willing to share records and continue discussing possible mitigation; county staff and Orangeville officials also encouraged neighbors and the property owner to meet and document concerns in writing so enforcement or civil remedies can be pursued where applicable.

What remained unresolved Neighbors requested clarity on: which agency has jurisdiction for events that begin on city land and spill onto county land; an identifiable “responsible party” and local contact for each event; the status and timing of promised decibel meters and cameras; the location and funding of a privacy fence; and whether limits on the number and frequency of events could be imposed. Commissioners did not set a formal timeline for follow-up at the meeting.