Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays decision on nonconforming‑lot rule after debate over scope and consequences
Summary
The commission continued a proposed text amendment that would allow certain nonconforming lots to qualify for building permits in RA‑5; commissioners asked staff and county counsel to draft narrower language (examples: 4.5‑acre minimum or percentage‑based exceptions) and return the item for final action.
County staff presented a proposed text amendment to Utah County Land Use Ordinance subsection 1‑6‑j to allow some nonconforming lots of record (for example, a 4.99‑acre parcel) to receive building permits in RA‑5. The proposal drew extended discussion from commissioners, staff and public commenters about statutory constraints, precedent, and unintended county‑wide effects.
Participants emphasized several concerns: the Board of Adjustment had recently denied a variance for the parcel in question because of state law/case law constraints; staff estimated the change could potentially affect on the order of 200 parcels (initial estimates had been higher); and public‑works and public‑health implications (road dedication, emergency access, septic viability) could follow if many new permits were approved without subdivision requirements.
Speakers and commissioners explored drafting options to limit scope: (a) allow nonconforming lots in RA‑5 only above a new minimum (examples mentioned included 4.5 or 4.75 acres), (b) adopt a percentage‑based allowance tied to historical section acreage to adjust for surveying anomalies, or (c) require conditional‑use or special‑process review for lots within a narrow window of nonconformity. County Attorney Robert Moore and staff said a narrowly crafted exception could be feasible; commissioners asked staff and counsel to draft language that limits broad county‑wide effects.
The commission voted to continue the item so staff and the county attorney could draft alternative language addressing road dedication, public‑works impacts and minimum thresholds; the continuance motion carried by voice vote (recorded as 3‑0). The commission indicated a willingness to consider limited exceptions but not a wide‑open rewrite that would immediately enable many substandard lots to gain building permits without additional review.
Next steps: county staff and the attorney's office will draft a revised amendment (potentially applying a minimum acreage threshold or percentage rule, and adding conditions such as road dedication or conditional‑use review) and return the item to the commission on the next feasible agenda.
