Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parowan council denies rezoning request for PCP Trust parcel after residents cite traffic, privacy and density concerns
Summary
After a packed public hearing, Parowan City Council voted 4–1 to deny Ordinance 2026-06, a request to rezone parcel A-0026-0027-0000 from agricultural A-1 to residential R-3. Residents warned R-3 could allow substantially higher density and change neighborhood character; the applicant said they would consider an R-2 application.
Parowan City Council voted to deny an application to rezone a parcel owned by PCP Trust from agricultural (A-1) to high-density residential (R-3), rejecting Ordinance 2026-06 after a public hearing crowded with neighbors concerned about traffic, privacy and scale.
Several nearby residents told the council they oppose R-3 because it would permit a much higher unit density than surrounding neighborhoods. "I am opposed to an R-3 for the PCP Trust land," said Shelley Roy during public comment, urging the council to require R-1 or R-2 instead and to protect nearby green space with a memorandum of understanding. Frank Lewis gave a detailed breakdown of density limits, noting R-3 could allow as many as 13 dwellings per acre compared with four dwellings per acre in R-1, and said two‑story buildings would threaten neighbors' privacy and views.
Staff and the planning commission had reviewed the application and recommended caution. City staff explained the planning commission gave a negative recommendation for R-3 but said a proposal for R-2 likely would have fared better based on the concept layout. Adam Allen, the applicant's representative, told the council the owner would consider filing a new application for R-2, but that the council's decision tonight had to be limited to what was before them: the A-1 to R-3 request.
Council member (S3) moved to deny the ordinance and the motion was seconded; the roll-call result was recorded as four votes in favor and one opposed, and the motion carried, formally denying Ordinance 2026-06. Mayor (S1) read a citizen letter into the record from a nearby homeowner who said the owner’s stated intent was single‑family residences. The council closed the public hearing and moved on to other items.
The immediate procedural outcome is denial of the R-3 rezoning; the applicant may pursue a different zone request (such as R-2) by submitting a new application and going through the notice and review process.
