Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Emery County planning commission tables Rochester Ranch retreat CUP over lot-size rule and neighbor notice

Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission · February 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission tabled a conditional use permit for Rochester Ranch, a proposed short-term cabin and RV stargazing retreat on a 6.01-acre A‑1 parcel near Moore, citing questions about a county resolution on 10‑acre legal-conforming lots and the need to notify nearby residents.

The Emery County Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday tabled consideration of a conditional use permit for Rochester Ranch, a proposed short-term cabin and RV rental retreat near Moore that the applicant says has been in the family for more than 50 years.

"She wants to do short term cabin and RV rental retreat in Moore, Utah, offering dark sky stargazing camping opportunities," Chair Gary Arrington said when he introduced the application. The parcel is in an A‑1 zone and the applicant reported owning about 6.01 acres.

Commissioners focused on two threshold issues: whether the parcel is a legal, conforming lot under a county resolution that some members said requires 10 acres for certain businesses, and early outreach to neighbors about potential impacts. One commissioner summarized the legal concern: if a lot is not "legal conforming," a conditional use permit might not be approved under the county resolution, and that interpretation should be clarified by the county commissioners.

Members also raised practical concerns about neighborhood impacts if the retreat becomes a staging area for off‑road vehicles. A commissioner urged early outreach and recommended a public hearing to gather input rather than risk late objections from nearby residents.

After discussing the legal and neighbor‑notice questions, board member Bart Cox moved to table the CUP until the March meeting and to schedule a public hearing with written-notice to adjoining property owners; Bruce Wilson seconded the motion and the commission voted in favor. Chair Arrington asked staff to check property records to see whether the family previously owned a larger parcel and to prepare the neighbor notices and public‑hearing materials.

Next steps: staff will prepare neighbor notification and materials for a March public hearing and confirm whether the commissioners’ resolution about legal-conforming lots applies. The commission did not take a final substantive vote on the CUP at this meeting.