Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noxious Weeds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County commissioners deny change to require noxious‑weed certification before subdivision approval, direct Public Works to assist landowner
Summary
The Utah County Commission voted 3–0 to deny an amendment that would change how noxious‑weed certification is applied to subdivision approvals, while directing Public Works to work with a landowner who says he has already spent substantial funds clearing his property.
Utah County commissioners voted unanimously to deny a proposed amendment to the county land‑use ordinance that would have altered the county’s noxious‑weed certification requirement for subdivision approval. During the meeting commissioners heard extended testimony from a landowner who said he already had cleared and tilled his parcels and argued the county rule is more burdensome than state law.
The ordinance under discussion would have changed sections of the county land‑use rules (listed on the agenda as 14.12.c.9). Greg Robinson, community development staff, and Richard Nelson of Public Works described the county’s current approach and the weed‑control alternatives available to landowners. Robinson said staff provided background materials in advance and invited questions. Public Works noted non‑chemical options such as discing, mowing and use of livestock but cautioned that loosening certification requirements could allow seed‑laden vegetation to spread to downstream agricultural neighbors via irrigation ditches.
Robert Stevens, the property owner who addressed the commission, said he and his tenant cleared, laser‑leveled and disced the parcels earlier in the year and that weeds subsequently returned; he submitted a document titled “45 Roadblocks for Subdivision Approval in Unincorporated Utah County” and argued the certification requirement places an unfair burden on developers who do not live on site. Stevens told commissioners he spent in excess of $100,000 preparing the land and said the Utah Noxious Weed Act already applies to property owners statewide.
County staff and the attorney’s office responded that the certification used in the subdivision process is a time‑specific inspection intended to assure the property is free of noxious weeds at the time of approval. County Attorney staff cited state statute 4‑17‑112, which requires counties to develop and pursue an effective noxious‑weed‑control program. Staff explained that the land‑use ordinance’s certification requirement supports that program and that enforcement and technical detail on methods sit with the county code and the weed control board.
Staff clarified several procedural points: a noxious‑weed certification used for subdivision review is valid for two years once issued, and there is an option to post a bond after the growing‑season window (after Sept. 30) if certification cannot be obtained in time. Public Works agreed to work directly with Stevens and his tenant to schedule an inspection immediately after the tenant completes tillage or other control measures; staff said they could often arrange inspections within days for tillage and within one to two weeks for chemical treatments.
After discussion about next steps and potential referrals for code revision to the weed control board or county code review (rather than the planning commission), a commissioner moved to deny the proposed ordinance amendment and to direct Public Works to help Stevens obtain certification before the end of the month. A second was recorded, and the motion carried unanimously (3–0). Commissioners said they remain open to pursuing broader updates to county code in consultation with the Weed Control Board and county staff.
The commission did not adopt the amendment. The formal outcome was denial of the ordinance amendment, and Public Works committed to contact Stevens’ representatives to coordinate inspection and remediation so the applicant may pursue subdivision approval within the existing regulatory framework.
