Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Equestrian topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kaysville council adopts nonbinding resolution to preserve equestrian uses after residents urge protection of Sunset Equestrian Center
Summary
After multiple public comments urging preservation of Sunset Equestrian Center, the Kaysville City Council approved a nonbinding resolution expressing support for equestrian and agricultural uses; the resolution does not legally prohibit future rezones but signals the council's current intentions.
Kaysville residents and facility users urged the City Council Thursday to preserve the Sunset Equestrian Center and oppose rezoning the site for higher-density housing. Speakers said the equestrian center serves more than 50 families, supports youth programs and local small businesses and contributes to the city's agricultural character.
Tina Ehr, who identified herself as a boarder at Sunset Equestrian Center, asked the council to place a protective resolution on the property and to reject rezoning requests that would allow high-density housing. Nicole Steed, another user of the facility, said she had heard the property might soon be under contract to a developer and warned that the buyer had indicated no interest in operating an equestrian facility.
City staff (Nick) presented a drafted resolution expressing the council's support for equestrian uses and agricultural heritage. Nick emphasized the measure is nonbinding and would not create contractual rights or legally prevent a future council from changing course; it would simply record the current council's position.
Councilmembers spoke strongly in favor of the resolution, noting the site's history as part of a development agreement and the community value of retaining equestrian amenities. Councilmember (speaker 11) moved to approve the resolution; the council adopted it by unanimous voice vote.
Because the measure is declaratory, it does not alter zoning or bind future councils; any binding protections would require separate, formal land-use or contractual actions.
