Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves one-horse conditional use at 565 S. McKay Circle with conditions
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 3–1 to overturn a zoning administrator denial and allow one horse at 565 S. McKay Circle subject to setback compliance, fees, health and nuisance standards, and administrative review; the property’s qualifying open space fell short of the ordinance requirement.
The Grantsville City Planning Commission on Feb. 17 voted 3–1 to allow one large animal at 565 S. McKay Circle under a conditional use approval, despite staff findings that the property did not meet the code’s open-space and 100-foot separation standards.
Community Development Director Bill Cobabe told the Commission the lot failed to meet two code requirements: the minimum qualifying open space of 10,000 square feet and the 100-foot separation from neighboring dwellings, and that accessory structures were located within required setbacks. Staff’s analysis showed only about 6,500 square feet of the property met both area and separation standards.
Applicants Courtney Rossow and Ian Howard said they were first-time homebuyers who relied on the property listing and that the shelter for the horse was built on skids so it could be moved if required. Rossow said neighbors had told them they had no objections and that they had taken mitigation steps, including weekly cleanup and odor-control products. An emailed public comment from the Parks family said the animal was well cared for and “nice to have in what I would think would be a more ‘country’ town,” while another email from Janet Gonzalez raised odor concerns.
Commissioners wrestled with competing priorities: enforcing consistent application of the ordinance versus allowing a limited, low-impact use supported by nearby neighbors. Commissioner Gary Merrill warned that approving a nonconforming property could set a precedent and predicted nuisance complaints could arise in warmer months. Chair Sarah Moore said the 100-foot setback requirement existed to address public-health and nuisance concerns and expressed reluctance to override the ordinance.
Vice Chair Jason Hill moved to approve the appeal with conditions requiring that accessory structures be brought into setback compliance, all applicable fees be paid, health-and-safety standards be met, the use be limited to one animal, and that the permit be subject to administrative review and potential revocation for noncompliance. John Montgomery seconded. The motion passed 3–1 (Hill, Merrill and Montgomery “Aye”; Chair Sarah Moore “Nay”).
City Attorney Tysen Barker advised that any conditions must be grounded in standards in the City Code and that revocation would require due process.
The Commission’s action allows the applicants to keep one horse under the stated conditions; the permit will be reviewed administratively and could be revisited if complaints are received.
