[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6174392,"mediaKeyId","5370392-0dd20c666118ad5abb953361ab4d8ec1","parentId",5370392,"title","Planning administrator outlines timeline for land‑use ordinance rewrite as residents press for rural protections","audioSeconds",2754,"startMs",4406000,"endMs",7160000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5370392-0dd20c666118ad5abb953361ab4d8ec1&start=4406&end=7160","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5370392-0dd20c666118ad5abb953361ab4d8ec1/thumbnail_4406000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6174392/Utah/Planning-administrator-outlines-timeline-for-landuse-ordinance-rewrite-as-residents-press-for-rural-protections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174392-5a83c37c03bae4514c11d100f0fb6176/orig.mp4?Expires=1770443426&Signature=JDDaBr32~ESWhR7ZMv62LXIFYB81t2HVtzno8YYOcvZDvNZu7ZOUlOPxIhFhuhI28wpQzsSZZOzIEsUsjXfH9q0YNdInerQAB9lkOrdehicTMS5gqxFeR6gzC79FyqdicYCzobQXXJ4JXocEMUgEk8xdqAr21N2qyx-2rhBL8LTMy8ZVrXSKIUFc38ctn9Po0RQzOhV0exDduTldC5Q51TToZS8H94W7jiz4s17gJ0N3NsbvTekV0Il~pX48jo~fD4cgztl-MOTvXnid320bZl-Q2n6GLPjhVTz7NBGaUbAyJ-gbKWuO8fIGF2g9Ek1qzaBx9A79AwjrOyJMmGdu0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-12T03:36:16.45Z","article","San Juan County planning staff told the commission they will pursue a multi‑month process to update the general plan and the countywide land‑use ordinance, and county leaders authorized hiring a consultant to assist. The presentation came during a packed meeting in which residents repeatedly asked the commission to preserve rural and agricultural land uses, protect homesteading rights and avoid imposing residential zoning outside incorporated towns.

Planning administrator Kristen (no last name given) presented a roadmap that breaks the work into chapter‑by‑chapter sessions over the coming months and asked the commission to coordinate review with the county commission and with a plat‑review team (roads, surveyor, health, recorder). Staff said the current general plan dates to 2018, the county has been operating from it, and the proposed schedule aims to have a new ordinance in place by January 1 of the next year, though commissioners acknowledged that bringing a consultant on board may move that date later in the fall.

Residents urged several specific changes. Multiple speakers said residential zoning should not apply in unincorporated agricultural areas; they asked that “homesteading” be explicitly recognized in the AG zone (private agriculture for household self‑sufficiency, small‑scale family businesses and related accessory uses). A recent county survey of unincorporated residents, presented by speakers, showed strong support for protections for agricultural/rural lifestyles and for less restrictive rules for micro‑enterprises and home‑based businesses.

Speakers highlighted three recurring concerns: (1) a perceived mismatch between definitions (what county staff label “urban” vs. “rural”); (2) lack of clarity about how existing area plans (for example, the Spanish Valley area plan and the 2019 Spanish Valley supplementary ordinance) will interact with a new countywide ordinance; and (3) the timetable and transparency of public engagement. Carol Martin, an organizer of a county survey, summarized resident priorities: “Protect our agricultural rural way of life, strengthen communication, and empower homestead businesses while rejecting heavy‑handed enforcement.”

Several speakers urged the commission to use tools such as Agricultural Protection Areas under Utah Code Title 17, Chapter 41. Lynn Martin described the APA statute and its benefits — protection from nuisance lawsuits, zoning stability and other benefits — and suggested the county craft an implementing ordinance to allow landowners to request APA status.

Staff responded that many of the topics residents raised will be addressed chapter‑by‑chapter and that the commission intends to keep public comment open; Kristen said staff are already aggregating all submitted comments (emails, workshop notes) and will post revised drafts as sections are changed. Commissioners and staff also discussed the tension between adding detailed definitions (which can lengthen and complicate the code) and keeping the ordinance compact and accessible. Several commissioners said they favored careful, slower work on the draft rather than rushing adoption.

Commission direction and next steps: commissioners voted to approve staff moves to hire a consultant to help coordinate the general‑plan rewrite and related ordinance changes, to run public workshops and to cross‑check draft language with department reviewers (roads, health, recorder). Staff will post chapter updates and a running list of public comments; residents asked staff to further publicize a planning‑commission email address and public‑notice sign‑up so commenters can confirm their input was received and tracked.

What to expect: the commission will continue chapter‑by‑chapter review at future meetings; the consultant is expected to help reconcile the county general plan, the Spanish Valley area plan references and the land‑use ordinance. Staff published a schedule for chapters 1–6 in the next month and said they will incorporate public comments into revised drafts prior to county‑commission work sessions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Juan County Utah Planning Commission Meeting 7/10/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff summarized a six‑month schedule to update the county general plan and land‑use ordinance. Residents urged preserving agricultural/homestead uses and asked that residential zoning not be applied in unincorporated rural areas; commissioners authorized hiring a consultant to assist the process.","taxTitle","2024 San Juan County Commission, San Juan County Commission, San Juan County Commission and Boards, San Juan County, Utah","taxId",75294,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6174397,"Planning commission delays final decision on Love's travel stop after hours of public comment",16470,357000,16827000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5370392-0dd20c666118ad5abb953361ab4d8ec1&start=357&end=16827","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5370392-0dd20c666118ad5abb953361ab4d8ec1/thumbnail_357000.jpg","/articles/6174397/Utah/Planning-commission-delays-final-decision-on-Loves-travel-stop-after-hours-of-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174397-2df6391244b5efd846e68cfd0bf672e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770443426&Signature=Hjb1-jUbRKbq9ZdQNs8Be3e5o1IbB1Vkq~yMA4zEvDnX5sPZQiGnHs4fjJvkj-y~5DRN7xjBCzK24HBHCvNlICWribx0B7X15qDhHMtVEGh0OtBFwQe9Daz-O6Kejc4Zzz2jExNuJGQZu2nlGtTFAmqyHmsW11slUZ91fw9Jxc8JfOQcpCwnXUppabzizG6D1YLE9oDCU4I1KFZfnHnJTWSAYVVvTXxpKm1eaXLlBsVGPlcUgXky2wYVgHh2SCRgpIsLN7qLlpsYXxLzd-zQGkv-LpXtdNhsPJMBsECaCCKw6OuPAnOvIwoCPBealt2OW9cgWTksamXq15MmJeMgQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Juan County Planning Commission on July 8 adopted a finding that Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores (referred to in meeting materials and public filings as Love's or Luvs) has a sufficient contractual property interest to be treated as the applicant for a proposed 13.06-acre travel stop at Sunny Acres, then tabled further action after more than two hours of public comment and commissioner discussion.

The decision to recognize the applicant came after staff and the commission reviewed an administrative-law judge remand directing the commission to make three narrow findings: (1) whether the applicant is a proper applicant; (2) whether the proposed use is a permitted use in the highway-commercial control district; and (3) whether the use is “in harmony” with the surrounding area. The commission adopted the finding on applicant status but did not reach a final determination on the permitted‑use or harmony questions and instead continued the item to the next meeting.

The commission and dozens of residents debated whether a modern travel center or “truck stop” is equivalent to the ordinance term “automobile service station,” a use that appears in the county's 2011 land‑use code. Several residents urged the commission to treat the Love's proposal as a distinct use with larger, different impacts than a conventional service station. Colby Smith, a Northern San Juan County resident who has followed the case for years, said the commission must require specific studies before any approval: “You can ask them to do an air quality study. You can ask them to perform a noise analysis … you could ask them to do a traffic study.”

Neighbors said the proposed site sits adjacent to houses and short‑term rentals and urged stronger buffers or relocation of the facility to a less residential area. Susan Carter, who said she lives about 1,000 feet inside the area residents call the emissions circle, told commissioners she feared “the adverse impact that diesel truck stops have upon the health and safety of communities,” calling out noise, diesel particulates and 24‑hour operations as concerns.

Love's employee Kim Van Dyke answered questions from the commission and the public, saying the company had revised the site plan in response to concerns, moved truck parking away from the north edge of the property and removed underground tanks from the portion closest to residences. Van Dyke said Love's follows federal and industry requirements for fuel systems and emphasized the company provides local jobs and tax revenue. “We take it seriously. That's why we're the largest truck stop in the nation,” she said.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly returned to a narrow legal question: whether the 2011 ordinance language for “automobile service station” reasonably covers a modern travel center that provides fuel, a convenience market, heavier vehicle parking and other services. Planning staff circulated a draft set of findings prepared for the administrative‑law judge's remand and advised the commission that approval could be reached under either of two legal pathways — (a) that the proposal falls within a permitted use in the 2011 code or (b) that the use is nevertheless “in harmony” with the highway commercial district and adjacent uses. The commission adopted the staff recommendation on applicant status but tabled the remaining determinations.

The meeting record shows the commission approved the first finding (that Love's is a proper applicant) during the hearing. Later, after extended public comment and heated exchanges in the audience, the commission voted to table the remainder of the Love's item to the next monthly meeting so members can review additional materials, including new site documents submitted by the applicant and written public comments. Staff also told the commission it has authorization to hire a consultant to assist with coordinating the broader general‑plan and land‑use ordinance updates that are currently underway; commissioners said a consultant will be asked to help clarify definitions and policy questions such as how “truck stops,” “automobile service stations,” and “travel centers” should be treated in the updated code.

What happens next: the Love's application will return to the commission at its next meeting. Commissioners asked staff to include the applicant's latest site plan, any additional technical studies the company offers, and a clear comparison of which elements would be allowed as a permitted automobile service station versus those that, in the view of some residents and legal counsel, require conditional consideration or additional mitigation.

For now, the procedural record includes the planning staff's recommendation and the commission's finding on applicant status; the substantive question of whether the proposal can be approved under the 2011 ordinance or must be considered differently will be decided at a later hearing.","The San Juan County Planning Commission voted that Love's (the applicant) holds sufficient property interest to be an applicant, but postponed further decisions after extensive public testimony on air quality, noise and neighborhood impacts. The item will return to the commission next month.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning administrator outlines timeline for land‑use ordinance rewrite as residents press for rural protections

Planning commission delays final decision on Love's travel stop after hours of public comment