Planning commission forwards housing‑element amendments to council, urges careful review of 'zone/rezone' language

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission on July 11 voted to forward a positive recommendation to County Council on amendments to the moderate‑income housing element of the general plan, while asking the council to review the new language carefully and work with staff to ensure the strategies are realistic and achievable.

Senior Planner Jennifer Strader told commissioners the changes primarily align the county’s text with Utah state code and respond to requests from the state's review so that Summit County remains eligible for potential transportation funding. She said the edits include matching strategy letters to state code, correcting typographical errors, and adding implementation timelines tied to the Summit County Visioning Project (expected to be complete in fall 2023). Strader also said the county will amend the development code in 2024 to add language addressing single‑room‑occupancy housing.

Jeff Jones, who assists with the county’s housing reporting, told the commission that the state’s annual moderate‑income housing report requires both narrative descriptions and numeric metrics — for example, numbers of new units permitted, affordable units added or rehabilitated, conversions, rezones, and changes in cost‑burden metrics. He said the state reviews that report and can require amendments or an appeal if it finds the jurisdiction’s responses insufficient. Jones also noted a reporting deadline: county staff must include the changes in the report that Jeff Jones will submit by August 1.

Public commenter Bonnie Park praised staff work but raised questions about key thresholds and language. Park asked whether the moderate‑income definition (households at or below 80% of area median income) and the plan’s mention of an ordinance requiring 10% of new units to be moderate income were flexible, noting the county’s existing code currently includes a 20% requirement. She also asked about the county’s approach to a regional housing authority versus joint acquisition agreements and suggested the county consider offering county‑owned land to Mountainlands Community Housing Trust for development.

Commissioners debated the tradeoffs of matching the exact state language versus preserving local discretion. Some expressed concern that firm timelines and mandatory wording such as "rezone for densities necessary" — and in some code sections "zone or rezone" — could limit local review processes or be used by outside actors to challenge county decisions. Others argued that keeping strategies and implementation measures on the plan and showing progress protects the county when state agencies and legislators prioritize funding and that being proactive helps the county compete for transportation funding tied to housing strategies.

After discussion a commissioner moved to forward a positive recommendation to County Council, adding a request that the council review the new language carefully and work with staff to make sure the strategies are achievable and realistic; the motion, as amended, passed on a recorded voice vote.

Next steps in the process will be County Council review and the county’s August reporting to the state. Staff noted that annual reporting will provide further feedback and that implementation is an ongoing, multi‑year process tied to the county’s visioning work and future housing‑needs assessment.