Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Nuisance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orangeville resident urges Emery County to regulate LaSalle Stable wedding events after repeated noise, trespass and privacy complaints
Summary
A resident told the Emery County Commission that large wedding events at LaSalle Stable—operated by Courtney and Casey Ainsworth—have generated disruptive noise, trespass, lights and sanitation issues across city and county parcels, and asked the county to adopt mitigation rules or a conditional‑use permit for event venues on county land.
Stephanie Brotherson, a resident who lives across from LaSalle Stable in Orangeville, told the Emery County Commission on March 18 that repeated wedding events at the venue have created noise, trespass and privacy problems for neighbors.
Brotherson said the venue operates across both city and county parcels at 340 East State Road 29 and is run by Rook and Red Properties (Courtney and Casey Ainsworth). She said events have drawn “upwards of 150 to 200 people,” exceed the city’s short‑term‑rental occupancy limits (10 people), and have produced loud music, laser light shows shining into nearby bedrooms, porta‑potties placed near neighbors’ gardens, and guests congregating immediately adjacent to private property boundaries.
“Asking for a schedule of when I can enjoy the privacy and peace of my own backyard residence throughout three of the four seasons of the year is truly difficult,” Brotherson said, urging county action to restore neighbors’ ability to use their property.
Brotherson provided photos, video and text messages she said were from the property’s representatives and laid out specific mitigation suggestions: a privacy fence paid or co‑paid by the business, decibel limits and meters, restrictions on laser/light shows, porta‑potty placement rules, limits on head counts, and advance notice of scheduled events. She argued that the county’s general plan emphasizes preserving rural character and that existing short‑term‑rental rules (Orangeville City code chapter references provided by Brotherson) do not explicitly authorize a large wedding/event center on county land.
Representatives of Orangeville confirmed that their city attorney and county attorney have advised that many aspects of the dispute are civil in nature, and that the city’s conditional‑use permit related to the barn structure did not, in the city’s view, authorize the larger event operations on the county parcel. Steph Manning, Orangeville’s zoning administrator, said the property owner has cooperated in some ways — updating contracts to penalize problematic behavior, agreeing to install decibel meters and cameras, and providing a local responsible contact — but some promised mitigation (privacy fence, decibel meters) had not been completed.
Sheriff Tyson Huntington said deputies have responded to multiple disturbance‑the‑peace and trespass calls tied to the property in 2024; deputies made contact on several calls and once used a PA to clear an event when they could not make contact.
County staff and commissioners noted jurisdictional complexity when events span both city and county parcels. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to Brotherson’s concerns and thanked residents for providing detailed evidence.
What’s next: Brotherson asked the commission to consider adopting county regulations or a conditional‑use permit process for event centers on county land, or to require clearer mitigation measures for operations that rely on both city and county parcels. County planning staff and Orangeville officials said they are available to meet with neighbors, the property owners, and the commission to explore options; no formal county code change or permit was adopted at the meeting.
