Utah County Commission Denies Proposal to Let Subdivisions Use Private Access Easements

The Utah County Commission voted unanimously to deny a proposed amendment that would have allowed subdivision lots to use private access easements instead of frontage on a dedicated public road. The denial came after a prolonged hearing in which county planners described safety and emergency-access concerns and the property owner, Robert Stevens, urged the board to ease rules that he said prevent development of his parcels.

Planners told commissioners the county land-use ordinance requires dwelling lots to have access from a public city or county road, arguing that dedicated frontage provides safer, more direct access for residents and emergency responders. Staff noted risks that private easements could be blocked, causing safety and emergency-response problems. Planner Brandon outlined alternatives staff has discussed with the applicant, including building a short 250-foot road segment so the county could accept a dead-end county road and then approve the subdivision.

Applicant Robert Stevens, who owns the parcels at issue, described long-running efforts to ready the land for development, saying he had installed power, brought water rights, tested wells and graded road base. Stevens said building the full loop road now would cost roughly $350,000 and argued that bonding and ordinance requirements make development infeasible for smaller landowners. "If I can afford to make the payments, it should be into these lots worth about $90,000 when they're unimproved," Stevens told the board, noting that conditional subdivision approval would increase lot value and make bank financing possible.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on specific options: recording a full subdivision with a posted bond, phased platting, or building a gravel turnaround and dedicating a temporary dead-end county road. Public-works staff said gravel improvements and a temporary turnaround could reduce initial cost while meeting safety needs. Planning staff reiterated that the text amendment itself would affect countywide policy and might enable access patterns staff consider less safe in other areas.

Commissioner motioned to deny the ordinance amendment "with the understanding that we'll continue to work on the right-of-way and road solution," and the commission approved the motion 3-0. The board directed staff to keep working with the applicant to explore practicable alternatives — including potential short roadway construction, bonding options, or a phased subdivision application — while leaving the county's frontage requirement in place.

The denial resolves the amendment before the commission but does not preclude the property owner from pursuing a full subdivision application (including bonding or construction of required improvements) or other negotiated solutions with county staff. The county said it will continue administrative follow-up with public-works and planning staff to identify workable, ordinance-compliant options for access.