Box Elder County approves Larson ag-protection area, approves only zoned parcel for Anderson and denies RE Farms until zoning is obtained

The Box Elder County Commissioners opened public hearings on three agricultural protection area (APA) applications and took mixed action: they approved Resolution 25-15 covering the Larson parcels in the Brigham City area; approved only the Anderson parcel that is already zoned agricultural and denied the Anderson parcels that are unzoned; and denied the RE Farms application until the applicant secures agricultural zoning.

County Commissioner Perry explained the purpose of agricultural protection areas, telling the room: "What this agriculture protection area is... it's a personal choice of the property owner, and if they choose to do this and put it in place, it protects them from neighbors that may choose to wanna shut them down for what they do in agriculture." He emphasized the protection is aimed at disputes between private parties, not government regulation: "it's a protection for a farmer, rancher, somebody who has agriculture land that wants to keep it agriculture protection, and doesn't want their neighbors or some lawyer suing them out of being in agriculture."

The hearings drew both opposition and support. Deanna Hardy of the Box Elder Committee of Liberty urged the commission to oppose APAs, calling the program unconstitutional and saying it was "another bureaucratic program to control the people." By contrast, Brandon East, who identified himself as representing RE Properties and as a fourth-generation farmer, said APAs are needed to protect farms from complaints and development pressure: "The sound of a tractor... these are not disruptions. These are signs of a productive working landscape... These are just a few reasons that ag protection areas are so important." Several neighbors, including Jonathan Gardner and resident Julianna Larson, also spoke in favor of APAs, citing long family histories on farmland and concerns about encroaching development.

Scott Lyons of Community Development reviewed local planning guidance and state code criteria, noting that state statute requires evaluation under section 17-41-305 (quoted in staff materials as "17 41 3 0 5"). Lyons told the commission that of the six parcels in the Anderson application, five are unzoned and one is zoned RR-5 (rural residential) or otherwise agricultural; the planning commission recommended approval only for the parcel already zoned for agricultural uses. Lyons also noted that the RE Farms parcels are all in an unzoned area and that staff and the planning commission prefer that properties be placed into an agricultural zone (for example A-20 or the newly adopted Ag Heritage zone) before being added to a long-term APA. He said staff's concerns include the potential for APAs to be used as de facto zoning protection: APAs last 20 years and automatically renew unless reevaluated.

On motions and outcomes, Commissioner Perry moved to approve Resolution 25-15 (Larson, Brigham City area); the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. Perry then moved to approve Resolution 25-14 (Anderson) only for the parcel that is already zoned for agriculture and to deny the other parcels in that application; the motion carried on a voice vote. The RE Farms application was denied because the parcels are unzoned; the commission also approved a follow-up motion to waive the $200 APA filing fee if denied applicants obtain necessary zoning and reapply within six months.

The commission discussed administrative timing and fees. Staff said the APA application fee is $200 and that planning and commission action generally must occur within statutory timelines (staff referenced a 120-day review window). Commissioners and staff also discussed the county's recent adoption of an Ag Heritage zone (adopted at the July 9 planning action) that could provide a pathway for owners of currently unzoned parcels to seek appropriate zoning prior to APA application.

The commission framed the actions as applying the state statutory criteria and planning commission recommendations rather than creating new policy. Several speakers asked the commission either to approve APAs to preserve long-term farming or to reject the program entirely; commissioners split the difference by approving only parcels that already meet zoning criteria and denying or tabling parcels that do not.

What happens next: owners of parcels that were denied were directed that they may seek agricultural zoning (A-20 or Ag Heritage) and reapply; commissioners agreed not to require a new APA filing fee for reapplications filed within six months. The RE Farms applicant indicated a family decision is required before proceeding.

Votes at a glance - Resolution 25-15 (Larson, Brigham City area) — Motion to approve carried (motion by Commissioner Perry; second by Commissioner Vincent). - Resolution 25-14 (Anderson) — Motion to approve only the parcel with agricultural zoning and deny the other parcels carried (motion by Commissioner Perry; second by Commissioner Vincent). - RE Farms APA — Motion to deny carried; motion to waive fee on reapplication within six months carried (motion by Commissioner Vincent; second by Commissioner Perry).

The commission's decisions apply county and state review criteria and leave open a path for denied applicants to obtain zoning and reapply without an additional APA fee if they act within six months.