Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County adopts ordinance requiring signature blocks on development plats, adds commission review for certificate changes
Summary
The Utah County Board of Commissioners adopted an amendment to its land-use ordinance to require signature blocks (water authorities, health department and similar entities) on development plats and to require commission consultation with the county attorney for certificate modifications.
Utah County commissioners voted unanimously to adopt an amendment to the county land-use ordinance that will require certain signature blocks on development plats and tighten when those signatures must be produced.
The ordinance, introduced by Brandon Larson of Utah County Community Development, was described as a cleanup to formalize practices the department has followed. Larson said the change clarifies that signature blocks for entities such as culinary water authorities and the health department must be present not only when a developer posts a cash construction bond but also when improvements are installed before a plat is recorded.
Commissioners raised questions about apparent duplicated language in the draft ordinance and an exception that allowed the county attorney's office to approve modifications to required certifications on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Lee said the current wording was too broad and asked that the commission be involved in approving any modifications in consultation with the county attorney.
An unidentified commissioner moved to adopt the ordinance with Commissioner Lee's modification to make certificate changes subject to commission approval in consultation with the attorney's office; an unidentified commissioner seconded. The motion passed by voice vote, recorded as 3–0.
The board's change aims to make the county's plat review more consistent with state law and to reduce ambiguity about when specific agency approvals must be documented. County staff said the language was intended to correct an unintended limitation that had made the requirement apply only to one subsection of the ordinance; the amendment broadens the requirement to other development scenarios.
The ordinance was adopted as modified; commissioners did not provide a specific effective date in the public portion of the meeting. The record shows the motion carried and the ordinance amendment is now part of the county's land-use code pending any follow-on administrative steps.
