Commission flags code gap over ‘greenhouse’ use, urges low‑impact permit or code amendment

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission spent extensive time on May 28 considering whether a large, glass‑walled structure at 8845 North Silver Creek Road should be classified as a permitted greenhouse/agricultural use, an accessory dwelling, or something else under the development code. Staff said the building permit originally approved in July 2023 described an on‑grade greenhouse with planter boxes, but subsequent on‑site inspections found basement excavation and proposed internal amenities beyond the approved scope, prompting a stop‑work order and a land‑use determination review.

Community Development staff explained the procedural test: when a proposed use is not clearly listed in the land‑use table, the code defaults to treating the use as prohibited until the code is amended or another established use is shown to be the best fit. “If something isn’t defined in the code, it says we default to Merriam‑Webster,” the development director said while explaining why staff could not find a precise match for the proposed uses and why the additional amenities raised questions about the structure’s classification.

Applicant Olivia D’Agostino said the primary purpose is household cultivation and food production and that she did not intend to hold events in the building. “The intention is really just to grow the highest quality food for my family,” she told the commission. The applicant acknowledged earlier social‑media marketing and said the family would remove any materials that suggest commercial lodging or events.

Design professional Ian Hannon, who designed the structure, testified the building was engineered for year‑round cultivation — including supplemental growing lights, dehumidification and radiant heat — and that many internal systems are for plant health rather than commercial activity.

Commissioners were split on legal classification but generally agreed the code contains a gap on how to treat relatively large accessory greenhouse‑type buildings with significant internal amenities. Options discussed included (1) requiring the owner to build strictly to the originally approved slab‑on‑grade greenhouse plans, (2) pursuing a code amendment to create or clarify a use category, or (3) processing the structure as a private recreation facility through a low‑impact permit (an identified use in the table) with conditions that could include deed restrictions and limits on commercial or nightly‑rental uses.

Staff advised that a low‑impact permit is a practical next step: it is administratively processed but can be remanded to the commission for public review and would allow precise conditions addressing lighting, activities, and transferability. Commissioners indicated they would be open to a private‑recreation classification if the application included enforceable safeguards (for example, conditions that run with the land or a deed restriction that limits commercial use).

What’s next: staff recommended the applicant consider filing for a low‑impact permit (private recreation facility) or seek a formal code amendment; if a low‑impact permit is filed, staff could either process it administratively or remand it to the commission with recommended conditions and public hearing.

The commission did not make a final land‑use determination on May 28; instead, members asked staff and the applicant to pursue the practical next steps and return with a discrete application and proposed conditions for review.