Utah County denies reduction of minimum home size in CE2 canyon zones after residents warn of water, fire and access risks

The Utah County Commission voted to deny an ordinance that would have reduced minimum dwelling floor‑area requirements in CE2 (critical environment) zones, a move residents said could open fragile canyon areas to unsafe development.

The motion to deny regular agenda item number 1 passed after commissioners heard more than an hour of public testimony about Hollow Creek/Hobble Creek Canyon and the Whittemore watershed. The chair announced the denial with a roll call-style voice result and the clerk stated the motion passed with commissioners Lee and Ainge in favor of denial and Commissioner Ivy opposed.

Residents described longstanding planning approvals and limited infrastructure in the canyon. Vicky Curtis, who said she lives in Grindstone on the south side of Hollow Creek Golf Course, told the commission a roughly 1,400‑acre plan could allow hundreds of seasonal homes in the Whittemore watershed and noted ‘‘we are 11 miles from the nearest emergency services’’ and that the area relies on a single winding county road. Janice Reap, citing plat maps and water‑rights records, warned that recent adjudication and well‑priority rules tied to the Hidden Creek Water Company could leave new or replatted lots without reliable water rights.

Several residents raised fire‑safety concerns. Dionne Baron, a cottage resident, said an engineering memo used by proponents was decades old and described a requested variance that would cut required water to ‘‘one tenth’’ of previously required levels, leaving inadequate irrigation or fire‑fighting supply. Jacqueline Rasmussen and other cottage residents detailed low winter water pressure, untested winter water, lack of cell service and distant emergency response as reasons the county should not loosen floor‑area standards that they said would encourage increased activity and traffic in a single‑access canyon.

The applicant, Keith Haslam, described the proposal as creating ‘‘affordable cabins’’—tiny retreats of roughly 350 square feet rather than year‑round housing—saying the smaller units could save buyers $150,000–$200,000. Staff planner Bryce Armstrong emphasized staff did not present the change as part of the county’s affordable‑housing strategy and reminded commissioners that any smaller unit would still have to meet building‑code, water and fire‑suppression requirements and be placed on a platted, approved lot.

Commission debate focused on property rights and safety. One commissioner argued the amendment would protect property owners’ rights to use their land in smaller, lower‑impact ways; other commissioners and many residents countered that CE2 canyon areas lack services and thus are not suitable for such housing, and that the county’s general plan discourages intense development where emergency services are too distant to be effective.

County staff also discussed a platted but unimproved road near the cottages that could, after improvements such as paving and a turnaround, be considered for county maintenance and used as an emergency exit; staff cautioned that upgrades would be required before county acceptance.

The commission’s denial leaves existing CE2 standards in place. Commissioners followed procedural rules for the vote; the record reflects a formal denial of the proposed amendment. No immediate follow‑up action to modify the county ordinance was taken at the meeting.