Neighbor asks county to halt events at Orangeville‑area rental; owner and city say they are coordinating fixes

A neighbor requested that Emery County “immediately and permanently” stop events at a short‑term rental property bordering Orangeville, saying repeated parties have produced excessive noise, alcohol use and privacy intrusions for nearby homes.

At the Sept. 11 Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Mark Brotherson read a prepared statement asking the county to cancel events at the event center adjacent to his property. He told commissioners the venue’s operations have created "severe and persistent disturbances" including loud music and groups close to residential property lines, and that guests sometimes arrive intoxicated.

The property owner, Casey Ainsworth, told the commission the parcel is about 7 acres, with roughly 3 acres on the lower side where events take place, and said the upper portion is in Orangeville city limits. Ainsworth said he has tried to be responsive to complaints: he has asked guests to stop music earlier, added contract terms that can forfeit a security deposit for violations and agreed to a 9:30 p.m. quiet‑down time that will be stricter than the city’s 10 p.m. noise allowance.

"We're willing to try to make the Brothersons as comfortable as possible," Ainsworth said, adding that he has offered to pay half of a privacy fence he estimates at about $25,000 (his share about $12,500), and that he has put cameras on the barn and is evaluating decibel monitors and an on‑site property manager to respond quickly to complaints.

County staff (Seth) told the commission that when the operation was originally permitted the county was not always notified that events would use county‑owned or county‑jurisdiction land, and that Emery County does not typically require a separate county business license if a business already holds a city license. Staff recommended coordinating with Orangeville City and "piggybacking" on the city's permit and checklist so county concerns can be addressed without issuing a separate county license. Staff said the county could accept the city’s permit as long as mitigation measures are in place.

Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement history: neighbors said deputies had driven to some events, asked guests to shut down and left; owners said police were called once when a party ran past the curfew and officers asked guests to quiet down. Commissioners emphasized that the county’s authority is limited on city‑permitted portions of the parcel but noted most of the loud activity is on the lower, county portion of the property.

A motion was proposed to formally "affirm past practices" of working with cities and reciprocally accepting city business licenses (a "piggyback" approach), but commissioners agreed the wording must be clarified and that the item should be placed on a future agenda rather than voted on that day.

The owners and city representative said they will continue to implement mitigation (property manager, camera monitoring, earlier quiet‑down time, contract penalties and consideration of decibel triggers) and that they will coordinate directly with county staff so the county can review and accept the city permit conditions for county jurisdiction. No county prohibition of future events was adopted at the meeting.

Next steps: county staff will work with Orangeville City to document the permit/conditions and the commission will consider a confirmation of the piggybacking practice on a future agenda.