Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses consideration of removing noxious-weed certification from land-use code after lengthy testimony
Summary
The commission continued action on a proposed amendment to the Utah County Land Use Ordinance that would remove a planned-subdivision noxious-weed certification requirement and directed staff to return with options after further review. The continuation passed 3–0.
County staff introduced an amendment to the Utah County Land Use Ordinance (section 14.14.0.12-C.9 as cited by staff) that would remove the requirement for planned subdivisions to provide a certification that the land being subdivided is free from noxious weeds. Planning staff told commissioners the planning commission voted 7–0 to recommend denial.
Community development and weed-control staff described the ordinance’s origin in 1996, when different development patterns prompted tighter protections for adjacent farmland, and explained how the county’s weed-control program conducts inspections and education. The staff noted the certification is not an absolute ‘‘weed-free’’ standard but a process that may include treatment plans and education; nuisance-code enforcement and the county’s weed-control procedures provide additional avenues for enforcement.
The applicant, Robert Stevens, and Suzanne Stevens described extensive site work and said they could not safely or practically comply with a requirement that, in the applicant’s view, effectively demanded chemical spraying across tens of acres. Dean Minor, vice chair of the Utah County Weed Board and a longtime agricultural producer, explained the board’s role: when soil is disturbed, seedbeds can be exposed and targeted action is often required to prevent spread of certain high-risk weed species. Planning and Public Works staff said some weeds warrant a 100% expectation because they are newly invasive or carry special risks.
Commissioners discussed options including in-place modification of the ordinance language or referring the item back to the planning commission with more detailed direction. A commissioner moved to continue item 31 for three weeks to allow staff to explore options and draft possible language changes and to look at enforcement balance between regulation and enforcement; another commissioner seconded. The motion passed 3–0. The item will return for further consideration with suggested amendments and enforcement options prepared by staff.
