Brighton council adopts ordinance defining ski-resort boundaries and limiting off-resort facilities

Brighton, Utah — The Brighton Town Council on Nov. 11 adopted OAM2025-001431, an ordinance that defines ski-resort boundaries by map and clarifies which resort-related support facilities may be treated as conditional uses within those boundaries.

Curtis, the town planner who presented the measure, told the council the amendments remove ambiguous language about “associated facilities and improvements” and replace it with a new definition: “Ski resort support facilities” are to be located within resort boundaries established by maps in Appendices A and B. As Curtis summarized, “Ski resort boundaries are defined based on the maps adopted as part of this ordinance in appendix a and b.”

The ordinance establishes the maps as a legislative product subject to future amendment by the council; boundary corrections or expansions would return to the council for legislative action while conditional-use permits for specific facilities would remain a planning-commission decision. Curtis emphasized the distinction in procedure and said staff added a footnote clarifying that conditional-use permits for facilities inside resort boundaries are decided by the planning commission.

Public comment at the meeting was strongly engaged and largely supportive. Jack Stause, executive director of Save Our Canyons, thanked council and urged adoption: “I really wanna voice both my personal support and our organizational support of, the ordinance that you all worked on.” Dani Poirier, speaking for Wasatch Backcountry Alliance, said, “Wasatch Backcountry Alliance strongly supports this ordinance as written by the town,” and several long-time canyon residents and property owners urged the council to adopt language that preserves public-safety and environmental protections while allowing an orderly process for future boundary changes.

Several residents and council members raised questions about parcels of private property that lie inside proposed boundary lines and about overlap between the Brighton and Solitude maps. Curtis acknowledged that some privately held properties are shown within the resort outlines and said the maps are intended to illustrate outer resort areas, not to transfer ownership or control of private parcels to resorts. He noted planning staff used Forest Service special-use permit boundaries as a starting point and adjusted them for local context.

Council members expressed general support for the clarification the ordinance provides. During discussion members said the maps appear close to historical expectations, but they also emphasized the ordinance is not “set in stone” and can be amended if specific errors are identified. After a motion and second, the council conducted a roll call and the ordinance passed.

What happens next: the maps and text adopted by the ordinance may be revised through the town’s legislative process; conditional-use permits for resort support facilities within those boundaries will continue to be reviewed by the planning commission. The council said it intends to continue stakeholder engagement with resorts, federal partners and local residents as the town implements the new code language.