Emery County planner to ask county attorney to review Huntington Canyon owner's trailer, uses

Jason Merrill, a Huntington Canyon property owner, pressed the Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 2025 for written, legally binding answers about what he may do on his one-acre nonconforming lot, saying county staff had given him inconsistent verbal guidance.

Merrill told the commission he had been told at different times that he could fish, park a car or park an RV on the parcel but later received a county letter saying the county's rules had not changed and that he needed to request permission in writing for certain uses. He listed a long set of specific questions for the commission and the county attorney, including whether he may park licensed vehicles and enclosed utility trailers, place Connex shipping containers, pitch tents or teepees, build 6-foot privacy fences, construct sheds under 200 square feet, pasture livestock, build corrals, and use fire pits.

Merrill cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent — specifically Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council — to argue that overly restrictive ordinances that deprive owners of economically beneficial uses can require compensation, and he warned about "void for vagueness" concerns if local rules are not clearly written. He said the Utah Highway Patrol had inspected his utility trailer and found it road-legal and that the State of Utah classifies it as a utility trailer, but the county had told him he could not place it on the lot and sleep in it.

Commission members and staff clarified that the parcel is a nonconforming lot that generally cannot host permanent structures; that camping and temporary use have separate limits; and that some federal or agency rules (for example, Forest Service rules on camping) could apply in certain locations. Zoning administrator Jim Jennings confirmed he had received paperwork from Merrill, including documentation about a grandfathered highway access, and said staff would request additional copies if needed.

The commission declined to make an immediate ruling. Chair Gary Orrington said the commission would forward Merrill's written questions and supporting materials to the county attorney for review and then place the item on a future planning commission agenda after the county attorney issues guidance. Commissioners voted to hand the paperwork to the county attorney and defer action until that legal review is complete.

What happens next: The county attorney's office will review Merrill's packet and return recommendations; the commission expects to place the matter on a future agenda once the attorney responds.