Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ag Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County continues review of ag-protection-area renewal language after public questions
Summary
Commissioners continued Agenda Item 17 for one week and asked county counsel to draft clarifying language tying the statute bout the '120 days' review to the twentieth calendar year from original approval and to recommend whether variances or complaint thresholds should automatically trigger a full review.
Commissioners on the Utah County Board of County Commissioners voted to continue discussion of proposed language governing agricultural protection-area renewals after a member of the public said the current draft could be misread.
Chris Bauerbank, representing interests in Lehi and Lehigh, told the commission the draft of section 26-3-9(b)(2) "appears that it could be misconstrued that the hundred and 120 days needs to occur at the end of the calendar year" and asked that the text be changed so the 120-day review is tied to the 20th calendar year from the date the area was originally approved.
County Attorney Robert Moore told the panel the hundred-and-twenty-day wording appears to come from state statute and recommended caution before altering statutory language. Commissioners and staff discussed options including adding a clear phrase such as "100 and 20 days before the date of the original approval" or otherwise clarifying what the "twentieth calendar year" means in practice.
The public commenter also asked whether variances granted at approval (for example, acreage under a size threshold) or demonstrated noncompliance with best practices should trigger an earlier or full APA (Administrative Procedure Act) review. Moore said the only variance that directly affects ag-protection-area review is the size variance (for example, areas granted for less than 40 acres) and that the ordinance drafters could choose either to make such variances an automatic trigger for review or to preserve commission discretion.
Several commissioners said they favored keeping some discretion so the county need not perform expensive full reviews unless clear evidence or a set number of written complaints showed noncompliance. One commissioner summarized the trade-off: automatic triggers assure uniformity but increase administrative cost; discretion reduces cost but leaves the commission responsible for reinitiating reviews.
The commission moved to continue item 17 for one week so counsel can return with suggested clarifying language and options for whether and how variance and complaint triggers should be coded in the ordinance. The motion to continue passed 3-0.
The commission directed staff to return with redlined language and legal review at the next meeting.
