Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Utah County Commission moves to rezone scattered RR‑5 parcels to RA‑5 with opt‑out window

Utah County Commission · September 11, 2018
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public comment and staff review, the commission approved changing a 153‑parcel cluster from RR‑5 to RA‑5, with notices to property owners and a written opt‑out deadline of Oct. 26 for owners wishing to remain in RR‑5.

Utah County staff described a cluster totaling about 773 acres across roughly 153 parcels — 119 privately owned — and recommended changing the zone classification from RR‑5 to RA‑5 to better align with the county's agricultural‑preservation policy and to encourage future annexation or incorporation by adjacent cities.

During public comment, resident Dave Ovenson said a petition submitted by property owners included more than 50 unique signatures and argued RA‑5 "seems to fit how we want to live, the things that we want to do with our property." Glenn Roberts, a resident and member of the Board of Adjustment, urged carving the area so the west portion moves to RA‑5 while leaving some east parcels unchanged because Spanish Fork and Salem are studying annexation into nearby cities.

Commissioners discussed administrative options to balance competing owner preferences. Staff said maps and meeting records captured statements of intent and that owners could still file independent rezoning applications later. To address undecided owners, the commission adopted a procedure to send written notices and allow owners to file a written request by Oct. 26 to remain in RR‑5; parcels with no written opt‑out will become RA‑5 effective that date.

A motion to change the parcels listed in staff documentation from RR‑5 to RA‑5, with the opt‑out notice and deadline, was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote (recorded as carrying 3‑0). The commission asked staff to maximize outreach (mail and phone) to notify affected owners.

Next steps: staff will prepare the ordinance with the legal description of parcels, send notices to parcel owners, and implement the opt‑out process. Owners who later seek changes may pursue independent applications or variances as allowed by county code.