The San Juan County Planning Commission voted Dec. 23 to recommend a package of edits to the general plan’s land-use chapter and send the revised language to the county commission for public hearing and possible adoption.

Commissioners and staff spent the meeting reviewing word changes intended to clarify the plan’s intent and correct citations to state law. Several members said the map displayed to the public had caused confusion and asked staff to emphasize that it is a "future land use map" and not a zoning map. As one online commenter, Cassie, asked during public comment, “Can you explain that a little more?” staff responded that the map is a high-level guide indicating where the county envisions future development and "is not a zoning map by any means."

The edits the commission approved to recommend include: simplifying the public-lands description to refer generically to "state and federal lands" rather than listing specific agencies; changing the residential heading from "low-density residential" to a single "Residential" category that explains densities range from high-density areas (for example, Spanish Valley) to low-density large-lot single-family patterns; reframing agricultural language to allow incidental, agriculture-related uses provided they do not adversely impact core farming operations; and updating incorrect Utah Code citations that changed under recent state action.

Members also discussed a separate water use and preservation element that staff are developing and agreed to note in the land-use chapter that a more detailed water section will be integrated later. Staff said Todd has begun that work but warned the county has encountered difficulty obtaining detailed water-availability data from some special service districts for security and operational reasons.

Commissioners asked that the public-survey text be condensed: instead of publishing raw survey numbers and dates, the plan will include an informal-survey summary with an asterisk explaining the source and validation status. Commissioners also recommended adding a brief placeholder that signals more detailed water planning will follow and keeping trails planning language (including coordination with Grand County on a Mud Springs trail project) as an item the county will pursue in more detail.

Speaker 8 moved to recommend the changes as read at the meeting; Speaker 9 seconded. The commission voted in favor and the motion carried. The packet, with the approved wording changes, will be posted for public review and transmitted to the San Juan County Board of County Commissioners for its public hearing and subsequent consideration. The commission expects the matter could appear at the commission’s second January meeting depending on notice timelines.

The meeting closed after routine adjournment motions and seasonal greetings.