County attorney: form‑based code valid; planners recommend rezoning 2.26 acres near Eden to form‑based zone

The Ogden Valley Planning Commission voted 4–1 to forward a positive recommendation to the Weber County Commission on a proposed zoning map amendment to apply a form‑based zone over about 2.26 acres near Old Town/Newtown Eden.

The item drew extended legal and policy discussion before public comment. County legal counsel Courtland Erickson advised commissioners that, in his opinion, the form‑based ordinance and the accompanying street‑regulating plan have been validly adopted and, even if earlier adoption were later challenged, subsequent actions and public hearings in 2022–23 likely cured procedural issues. He explained there is generally a 30‑day period after enactment to challenge a legislative zoning ordinance and said staff provided notice of the original adoption; counsel added that courts usually defer to the legislative body on such zoning revisions.

Staff said the application requests a rural‑residential street designation (roughly one‑acre lots) under the street‑regulating plan. Miss Adelott and other staff noted the subject site sits near prior rezones — including a recent Dog and Bone form‑based approval to the west — and that street‑regulating plan circles showing village centers are intended as centers for higher density with transition zones toward rural residential areas. The packet and staff presentation stressed that the form‑based approach was designed to facilitate transfer of development rights (TDRs) rather than introduce net new density county‑wide.

Public comment included residents who asked why form‑based zoning would be used outside village centers, whether the street‑regulating plan’s adoption process was proper, and whether rezoning would be premature because technical questions about septic, wells or road frontage remain unresolved for this oddly configured lot. Applicant Seth Hartway said he intends to pursue building a second lot and that the rezone is the first step; staff and commissioners noted that technical feasibility (wells, septic, canal constraints) will be addressed at the subdivision/final stage and that a rezone alone does not authorize construction.

After debate about timing, spot‑zoning risk and whether a development agreement would be required, the commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the County Commission; the motion carried 4–1. Courtland had advised that attaching conditions to a legislative rezone is generally poor practice and that staff should rely on subdivision and connectivity standards at the final stage, although development agreements can be used if the commission seeks additional assurances.