Neighbors split over request to add agricultural rights on Hagen Road; applicant says designation should match nearby lots

A trio of Hagen Road homeowners asked the council to add the 'A' agricultural zoning designation to three parcels so property owners could lawfully keep farm animals. Jay Corner, Sandy City's long‑range planning manager, said the application covers three developed lots totaling about 1.79 acres and that the planning commission sent a positive recommendation to the council for final action on Sept. 15.

"The request is to add the A designation to their existing zoning," Corner said, explaining that without the 'A' designation farm animals are not allowed on the lots in question. Applicant Matthew (Matt) Grant told the council he and two neighbors applied together after learning their half‑acre parcels lacked the designation most comparable lots in the neighborhood already have. "We feel strongly that we should have an A designation on our properties," Grant said. He described family and neighborhood benefits, including children participating with lambs and local support shown at the planning‑commission neighborhood visit, and said the commission voted 7–0 in favor of the rezone.

Neighbors opposed to the rezone described noise, nuisance and property‑use concerns. Adele Clark, who said she bought and developed land on Hagen Road in the 1990s, told the council that unrelated owners put sheep on adjacent parcels and that animals have trotted through her yard and created noise and feces issues. "I don't want to live next to a farm," Clark said. Council members asked staff about allowed animal counts, boarding rules and whether a limited or conditional use could allow temporary animal occupancy; staff said the code allows animal allotments based on overall lot square footage and that boarding is generally prohibited except in a small area (Bell Canyon). The ordinance and annexation records were incomplete for the property; staff said the adopted ordinance designates the lots R‑1‑20 rather than R‑1‑20A despite a earlier planning commission recommendation.

No vote was taken; the item was presented as informational and scheduled for a final decision on Sept. 15. Council members asked staff to return with any additional clarifying code language about animal limits and potential interim measures for nuisance complaints.