Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays Troyer development agreement after holdout signatures, Payson annexation complicate plan
Summary
The commission continued consideration of a development agreement and related rezone for Troyer properties in Payson Canyon for two weeks after learning one owner has not signed and another parcel was annexed into Payson City; staff and the attorney will pursue further outreach to the holdout and counsel.
The Utah County Board of Commissioners voted to continue two agenda items relating to a proposed development agreement and rezone in Payson Canyon, giving staff two weeks to pursue outreach and potential resolution after one property owner refused to sign and another parcel was annexed by Payson City.
Rob Moore and Bryce Armstrong from county staff summarized the background: the commission had previously asked staff to prepare a development agreement that would allow the Troyers two additional building lots by establishing a 9‑acre minimum lot size. Staff said the development agreement had been circulated and signed by most parties, but one owner of a 6‑acre parcel — who is legally tied by a 1980 declaration to an adjacent 50‑acre parcel — has not signed. Commissioners and staff discussed legal complications because the 6‑acre parcel is recorded together with the larger parcel for zoning purposes, meaning a simple withdrawal could create administrative and zoning consequences.
The Troyers said they had offered to help pay for the holdout’s attorney and had attempted personal outreach. Commissioners asked staff and the county attorney to contact the holdout's attorney and explore whether redefining the agreement’s defined term or other creative approaches could persuade the owner to sign. County staff noted Payson City has annexed one parcel within the proposed rezone area, which changes the legal landscape and may require adjusting the development agreement.
Commissioners moved and seconded to continue items 2 and 3 for two weeks to allow staff and counsel to pursue meetings and legal clarifications; the motion passed 3‑0. Staff was asked to report back with the attorney’s feedback and any proposed redrafts.
