Neighbors oppose R‑3 rezoning; council closes hearing and moves discussion

A public hearing in Parowan on May 28 drew multiple neighbors who asked the City Council to deny a request by PCP Trust to rezone parcel A‑0026‑0027‑0000 from agricultural A‑1 to residential R‑3. Residents said the R‑3 designation would permit higher density and change neighborhood character, and raised traffic and water impacts as key concerns.

The matter came before the council after the mayor opened the hearing and residents spoke in opposition. Shelley Roy told the council she supported growth but favored R‑1 or R‑2 rather than R‑3. “I am opposed to an R‑3 for the PCP Trust land,” Roy said. Tim Roy and Greg Owens described traffic and roadway concerns from future subdivision access. Frank Lewis gave a detailed statement about density and neighborhood compatibility, noting R‑3 could allow up to 13 dwellings per acre compared with four dwellings per acre under R‑1.

City staff told the council the applicant initially sought only an R‑3 on part of the parcel and later proposed rezoning the whole parcel; planning commissioners gave a negative recommendation for R‑3 but indicated R‑2 likely would have received a positive recommendation. The applicant representative, Adam Allen of American Consulting and Engineering, said the owner indicated willingness to consider R‑2 but that a new application would be required.

The council closed the public hearing after receiving public comment and a letter read into the record from a nearby resident describing an understanding that the owner intends single‑family homes. No final amendment to the application was made at the meeting; councilmembers discussed the difference between approving a zone and approving a subdivision layout, stressing that a zone change permits what the zoning code allows regardless of a concept plan.

The council did not adopt a new zoning designation at the meeting. Staff advised applicants that to pursue R‑2 they must file a separate application and follow noticing requirements. The council indicated it would consider the record before any future vote.

The hearing record remains open to formal application amendments; the applicant said they may return with an R‑2 application if they wish to proceed with a lower‑density plan.