Emery County planners table Ainsworth wedding-venue dispute after hours of testimony

The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission on its June 2025 agenda heard extended public testimony about a short-term rental and reception venue operated by Casey and a spouse Ainsworth near Orangeville, then tabled the item until the county zoning administrator can provide regulatory clarification.

Owner Casey Ainsworth told the commission the Ainsworths have taken multiple steps to reduce neighbor impacts — installing decibel meters and cameras, offering to pay 50% of a privacy fence, adding contract language for guests and providing a local on-call manager — and said the changes were intended to address complaints while preserving the business. "We have offered to pay for half of a fence," Ainsworth said, and described the number of events as small relative to total property occupancy.

Neighbor Stephanie Brotherson said the events have been disruptive and alleged the venue is operating beyond the scope of its city business license. "It's a rave in my backyard every weekend through the summer and through the fall," Brotherson said, urging enforcement and arguing that some event activity is unpermitted on the county parcel.

Doug Stilson, an Orangeville City council member, told the commission that Orangeville has engaged with both sides and that the city attorney and county attorney consider many of the disputes to be civil matters; Stilson said the city had granted a business license for the short-term rental but that most event activity occurs on county land. City administrator Seth Manning said the Ainsworths had cooperated with city requests and had provided the city standard operating procedures and decibel meters.

Commissioners and members of the public disputed whether parts of the property are in city or county jurisdiction, whether the county parcel is a nonconforming agricultural lot for commercial uses, and whether the Ainsworths had properly noticed neighbors as required by the conditional use permit. Casey Ainsworth said their attorney had reviewed county and city regulations and that three attorneys concluded the operation as run was not in violation.

Because the county's zoning administrator, Jim Jennings, was excused and could not answer several technical questions about nonconforming-lot rules and permit wording, the commission tabled the matter until the next meeting so staff can provide clarifications and the board can consider possible enforcement or permit conditions. Chair Gary Arrington said the item would return with the administrator's input.

Next steps: the commission will reopen the item at its next meeting after the zoning administrator or county attorney provides the requested code interpretations and jurisdictional clarifications.