Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County delays West Mountain rezoning after hours of public testimony over gravel pits and farmland
Summary
After hours of testimony from residents, growers and industry representatives about dust, traffic and water risks, Utah County commissioners denied a proposed general-plan amendment for West Mountain and continued related zoning and mining-regulation items for more stakeholder work and planning commission review.
Utah County commissioners on Sept. 5 denied a proposed change to the county general-plan land-use map that would have reclassified large portions of West Mountain to a CE‑2 residential designation and then paused additional land-use and mining-rule changes to allow more drafting and public input.
The vote came after more than two hours of public comment from residents, orchardists and business owners who described dust, safety and water concerns tied to nearby gravel pits. “We are concerned about the lack of adequate notice on such an item that would negatively affect the property rights and values of our 500 acres,” said Julie Smith, who read a statement from Todd Cusick, a Clyde Properties manager. Neighbors and growers described near-misses with school buses and cyclists, well-level declines, and losses to orchard productivity they attribute to dust.
Commissioners heard industry responses that emphasized compliance and on‑site mitigation. “Our mining operations have to be full compliance with federal and state law,” said Stuart Lamb of Kilgore Companies, urging cooperative, site‑specific solutions and monitoring programs his company uses. Kilgore representative Joe Johnson said a zoning change would not solve road or enforcement issues by itself and urged stakeholder meetings to agree on practical fixes.
Staff said the planning commission had recommended disapproval of the CE‑2 general-plan amendment because CE‑2 permits higher residential densities and could enable development inconsistent with the county’s current general-plan priorities. Bryce Armstrong, Community Development staff, told commissioners the applicant had identified roughly 8,780 acres (state and federal lands included) in its application.
Commission debate focused on process. Some commissioners urged drafting an ordinance with input from industry, residents and state agencies before referral; others said referral to the planning commission was the appropriate next step to start formal review. The board ultimately denied the CE‑2 general‑plan amendment 3–0 and voted to continue the related rezone/referral items and an ordinance to tighten earth-extraction standards for two weeks to Sept. 19 to allow further stakeholder work.
What happens next: Commissioners instructed staff to convene stakeholders and to return with refined language for the planning commission’s review. The continuation gives county staff and applicants time to reconcile mapping, clarify whether the proposal would affect federal (BLM) parcels, and refine enforceability provisions before any final adoption vote.
