Commission debates agritourism ordinance definitions, traffic triggers and temporary accommodation for seasonal operators

Utah County commissioners spent the bulk of their July 31 meeting on Item 17, a proposed countywide agritourism ordinance that would regulate temporary festivals, permanent and temporary structures, and ancillary operations such as small amusement elements.

Bryce Armstrong, community development staff, told the commission staff had circulated a redlined proposal and an applicant redline uploaded the morning of the meeting. Armstrong said staff tried to balance protecting neighbors and accommodating agritourism uses and flagged lingering disagreements with the applicant over definitions, on-site storage allowances and thresholds that would trigger traffic studies.

Representing the applicant, attorney Steve Styler outlined the applicant’s redline and argued the county’s proposed language lacked clarity on what counts as a temporary versus permanent agritourism structure. Styler said his client wants clear, objective definitions so operators know which items must be permitted and which can be stored and reused seasonally. He raised the example of a low-profile seasonal train used for school tours: “The train is actually a really good way to have their full attention… Once the event is over, the train is removed… It’s less offensive than a fence or a stack of straw bales,” Styler said, urging the commission not to classify such removable elements as permanent amusement rides that would be prohibited.

A central disagreement concerned traffic-study triggers. Staff’s proposed threshold would require an engineering study for permanent structures that occupy more than 25 acres or a permanent structure of 10,000 square feet; the applicant proposed a complaint-driven alternative (for example, triggering a study only after multiple distinct neighbor complaints). Commissioners signaled a preference for requiring an upfront traffic-flow and parking plan that is reviewed administratively and reserving expensive engineered studies for cases where plans fail or complaints materialize.

Staff also explained the planning commission had recommended limits tied to the number of days an agritourism event can operate. Staff proposed retaining a 65-day limit for individual agritourism events, while the applicant requested up to 90 days; staff proposed allowing seasonal/cumulative events to reach a capped total in combination. Commissioners debated counting methods and whether a cumulative limit should be raised to cover typical seasonal sequences (Halloween through New Year’s, for example).

Because several operators, including Cornbelly’s and other farm-based festivals, need to begin planting and operations now, commissioners asked whether the county could grant temporary accommodations while the ordinance is finalized. Armstrong said enforcement and building-code-required items cannot be waived, but staff expressed willingness to allow non-structural activities and to work with applicants to identify which on-site pieces must remain off-limits until permitted. Armstrong said staff would check with the county attorney and enforcement staff about how to structure a temporary carve-out consistent with ongoing enforcement actions.

No ordinance vote was taken. Commissioners asked staff to return with more specific compromise language that addresses definitions, a reasonable administrative traffic/parking plan requirement, tailored triggers for full-engineered traffic studies, and clearer counting rules for seasonal event days.