Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasant Grove council denies rezone request to allow animals on 1.5-acre lot
Summary
After a public hearing with multiple neighbors raising runoff, odor and property-value concerns, the Pleasant Grove City Council voted to deny Ordinance 2025-3, a request to rezone 543 North 1380 East from single-family R-1 (12/20) to Rural Residential to permit animals.
The Pleasant Grove City Council on Tuesday denied Ordinance 2025-3, rejecting a request to rezone a 1.5-acre property at 543 North 1380 East from single-family residential to rural residential to allow farm animals.
The proposal, submitted by property owner Ben Kerr, would have converted the lot from an R-1 (single-family) designation to RR (rural residential), a zone that allows one animal per half acre. Community Development staff told the council the property meets lot-size requirements but that the change would primarily be requested to obtain animal rights.
The change drew a packed public hearing. Multiple nearby homeowners urged denial, citing concerns about runoff, odors, pests and property values. “This rezone isn't compatible with the neighborhood and general plan,” resident Rob Weaver said, adding that his home sits about 30 feet below the parcel and that “odors travel through the air and will make my daily life unbearable.” Another neighbor, Nate Hardy, said runoff from the lot already creates sediment in adjacent yards and said adding animal waste would worsen drainage problems.
Director Daniel Cardenas summarized the zoning differences for council members: rural residential requires roughly a half-acre minimum and permits higher animal densities than the city's single-family zones; for example, single-family zoning allows up to 12 chickens while rural residential allows 25. Cardenas told the council the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial, voting 5–2 against the rezone.
Applicant Ben Kerr told the council he plans to build a single family home and said he would be open to measures to limit nuisance impacts. “I would ask that there would be a consideration for even if there was a plan to do some type of... conditional use and revoke it,” Kerr said, adding that he intends to work with neighbors.
Council members discussed whether the request fit the city's general plan and whether the applicant had met the burden to show the change would not materially affect neighbors’ reasonable expectations. After discussion, Councilmember Jensen moved to deny the ordinance and Councilmember Williams seconded. The motion carried; council members recorded affirmative votes during roll call and the ordinance failed to pass.
The council's denial leaves the property's zoning as single-family residential. Staff said the lot is legally buildable under current zoning and that any future building permit would be reviewed by engineering for grading and runoff mitigation.
Council members and staff noted that alternatives exist if the applicant seeks animal rights without a full rezoning; the city does not currently list animal rights as a conditional use in single-family zones, so adding such a conditional use would require a separate, citywide text amendment and public process.
The item closes without a zoning change; neighbors and the applicant were encouraged to continue dialog with staff about possible mitigation and next steps.
