Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Utah County continues Leland 2023 agricultural protection hearing after landowner concerns over roads and rights-of-way
Loading...
Summary
The commission heard hours of testimony on the proposed Leland 2023 agricultural protection area, with landowners urging protection of farm parcels and Spanish Fork City asking existing city roads be excluded. Commissioners agreed to continue the item to May 3 to allow follow-up with landowners and staff.
The Utah County Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Leland 2023 agricultural protection area, heard detailed testimony from landowners and city representatives, and continued the matter to the May 3 meeting to allow additional follow-up.
Kevin Stinson of Community Development told the commission the ag-protection designation offers landowners an extra layer of protection from nuisance claims and limits on eminent-domain actions but does not change existing zoning. He said the application was noticed per state code, a 15-day protest period occurred, and both the ag advisory board and planning commission recommended approval with suggested modifications — including removal of some roads from the mapped boundary.
Multiple landowners urged the commission to keep the area intact but to resolve road alignments through direct negotiation. James Eaton, a landowner on County Road 1400 West, asked the commission to deny city-requested rights-of-way inclusions until the city actually owns or develops those corridors. "I would encourage you to deny the city's request for any rights-of-way that are still in the county," he said.
Rex Larson, another landowner, warned that permitting city exclusions could ease a future eminent-domain path and cited state code language limiting condemnation within an agricultural protection area. "By allowing the city's exclusions on these roads, they don't have to come talk to us," Larson said, calling that outcome "a takings" in his view.
Spanish Fork City representatives clarified they were not asking for the future Mount Loafer Parkway to be excluded; rather, Jared Jones said the city sought removal of existing city roads from the protection boundary so the city could improve or dedicate those streets after annexation and development.
County Attorney staff reminded the commission that the decision is legislative and that the commission has broad discretion to approve, modify, or deny the designation. Counsel also noted statutory timing: an ag-protection application creates a 20-year designation once approved, and the commission has a statutory deadline for final action; if no final action is taken by that deadline the statute provides for automatic approval.
Developers and property owners described real impacts from the currently mapped roadway alignments. Steve Young (Young Development) said the parkway alignment would bisect parcels he has under contract and "completely destroy[]" planned development designs. Jackie Larson, the applicant who farms adjacent land, urged the commission to maintain the integrity of ag protection and to address road dedications at the time properties develop rather than by map modification now.
After extended public testimony and exchange between staff, city representatives, and owners, the commission voted to continue item 39 (the Leland 2023 ag-protection matter) to the May 3 meeting to allow staff and landowners time to refine proposals and answer outstanding questions.
The continuation leaves the record open for further information; staff flagged a statutory decision deadline in early May (the county later identified May 11 as the statutory cutoff for a final decision) and recommended commissioners decide whether to act at the next meeting.