Analysis conducted with the help of Grok
For reasons unknown the San Juan County Planning & Zoning Commission has proposed yet another Ordinance that is incompatible with our rural, dispersed, largely agricultural region. Using Grok I ran a cursory analysis of the latest proposed Ordinance, highlighting those provisions which are inappropriate to rural, agricultural counties with populations suffering higher than average rates of poverty and housing shortages. The following analysis shows how this Ordinance will create financial barriers to young families who want to put down roots, and how it will drive up costs for rural property owners related to maintenance and improvements of non-domicile structures, including storage sheds and livestock shelters.
ANALYSIS
Analysis of San Juan County Draft LUDMO (Chapter 2: General Provisions)This draft updates the county’s land use rules and applies to unincorporated areas. San Juan County is one of Utah’s most rural, sparsely populated, and agriculturally/ranching-oriented counties (vast remote lands, limited services, harsh terrain/weather, reliance on self-sufficient property owners for farming, ranching, and improvements like homes, barns, corrals, sheds, and fencing).The draft emphasizes uniform standards, detailed documentation, strict timelines, and robust enforcement. While it aims for clarity and compliance with state law (CLUDMA), several provisions clash with rural realities.
Items Incompatible with a Rural Agricultural County
- Broad building permit requirement without strong agricultural exemptions (Section 5): “No building or structure shall be constructed, reconstructed, altered, or moved unless [a building permit is issued].” Current San Juan County zoning (2011) explicitly exempts farm buildings except when electric/plumbing is installed or for dwellings. The draft lacks clear, broad carve-outs for typical ag structures (barns, corrals, sheds, fencing, outbuildings).
- Urban-style documentation mandates (Section 6): Requires scaled lot plans showing all existing/proposed buildings, plus certified surveys for unclear boundaries or unimproved roads (common in rural areas). This assumes easy access to professionals and ignores remote logistics.
- Detailed Certificate of Occupancy (CO) tracking (Section 9): Residential COs require specifics on number of dwelling units, families, legal parking, and notices for any change in use. Commercial/institutional COs demand employee counts, restroom details, square footage per use, and signed owner certifications. This fits dense areas better than multi-generational farms, ag worker housing, or flexible ranch properties.
- Heavy, detailed enforcement regime (Section 11): $50+/day civil fines per violation (cumulative, accruing daily), property liens, county right to enter/abate (remove/correct at owner’s expense + lien), voluntary corrective agreements that include waivers of appeal rights, and potential Class B misdemeanor classification. This is proactive and punitive, unlike complaint-driven or lighter approaches suited to sparse populations.
- Rigid, short expiration timelines (Section 12): Applications abandoned after 12 months of inaction; building permits expire if work doesn’t start within 180 days or is suspended 180 days; projects must complete (with CO) within 5 years (one possible 1-year extension). These ignore seasonal weather, remote material/labor delays, and funding realities common in rural construction.
- Strict conformity to approved plans (Section 10) and completeness requirements (Section 13): Minor practical changes or DIY adjustments can trigger violations.
Items That Increase Costs for Rural/Remote Residents
- Certified surveys and professional lot plans (Section 6): Required when boundaries are unclear or roads unimproved. In southeastern Utah’s remote terrain, surveys typically cost $1,500–$6,000+ (higher due to travel, access, and research on old deeds/monuments).
- Layered permitting, inspections, and CO process: Adds direct fees, professional drawings/help, multiple trips to county offices (often in Monticello), and delays. Even minor ag or home improvements can require this.
- Enforcement risk and compliance overhead: Fear of daily fines, liens, or abatement encourages hiring consultants/lawyers or over-engineering projects. Abatement costs (county does the work + charges owner) can be substantial.
- Timeline-driven rework or abandonment: Missed deadlines force re-applications, new fees, or lost progress—adding carrying costs (interest, materials price inflation).
- Overall effect: These add thousands in direct costs and significant indirect/time costs, disproportionately burdening lower-income or remote property owners who rely on DIY or incremental improvements.
How Provisions Discourage Building New Homes, Improving Existing Homes, and Limit Freedom on Agricultural Properties
How rules create barriers, costs, and risks that discourage practical use of property:
- New homes or major improvements: Require full permitting, surveys (if boundaries/roads involved), detailed plans, inspections, and CO with ongoing tracking (e.g., family count, parking). Any deviation from approved plans is a violation. Expiration rules pressure rushed timelines unsuitable for remote builds. Result: Higher upfront costs, longer waits, and hesitation—especially for off-grid or phased rural homes.
- Existing home improvements: Even modest additions, remodels (if triggering permit), or changes can require lot plans, surveys, and re-permitting/CO updates. The “conform exactly to approved plans” rule and change-of-use notices limit flexibility for growing families or adapting to needs.
- Agricultural properties (buildings, corrals, structures): Without clear broad exemptions, corrals, barns, sheds, fencing, or outbuildings may trigger permits, surveys, plans, and inspections. Detailed CO requirements complicate worker housing or multi-use ag setups. Enforcement risks (fines/liens for non-compliance) make owners wary of any work. Strict timelines penalize the slower pace of rural/ag projects (weather, seasons, equipment availability). This limits freedom to manage land productively—core to agricultural viability—and raises costs, potentially reducing property values or usability.
- Broader freedom/cost impacts: Shifts from self-reliant rural norms to county oversight. Owners face bureaucracy, professional fees, and legal risk for everyday improvements. This can discourage investment in ag infrastructure or housing, slowing economic activity in a county dependent on ranching/farming. Public pushback has noted concerns about overreach and impacts on ag uses.
Comparison to Other Rural Utah Counties
Most rural Utah counties (e.g., Garfield, Kane, Wayne, Duchesne, Cache, parts of Utah County) adopt lighter-touch approaches tailored to agriculture and remoteness:
- Agricultural exemptions: Common and explicit. Many exempt ag buildings/structures from building permits if used solely for agriculture and without utilities or human occupancy (or require only a simple exemption form/acknowledgment). Current San Juan zoning does this; the draft appears more uniform/strict.
- Documentation: Often simpler (site sketches instead of certified surveys/professional plans for minor rural work). Fewer mandatory surveys for boundaries/roads in ag contexts.
- Timelines & enforcement: More flexible or practical; enforcement often complaint-driven rather than detailed proactive with daily fines and liens. Less emphasis on detailed CO tracking in ag zones.
- Overall burden: Lower costs and faster processes for homes, additions, barns, corrals, and sheds. Focus on safety/health while preserving property rights and ag viability.
Approximate Cost Comparison (example: building/improving a barn, corrals, or home addition on ag land in remote areas):
- Lighter rural counties (typical): Materials + minimal/no permit fees; simple sketch or none for exempt ag structures. Added regulatory cost: $0–$500 + owner time.
- This San Juan draft: + Certified survey ($2,000–$6,000+), professional lot plans/drawings ($500–$2,000), permit/inspection/CO fees ($200–$1,000+), potential delays/rework. Added regulatory cost: $3,000–$10,000+ per project (plus time, risk of fines, and carrying costs). Enforcement exposure adds further indirect costs.
In summary, the draft imposes a more urban/suburban regulatory framework on a rural agricultural county. It increases costs, timelines, and risks while reducing flexibility—likely discouraging homebuilding, improvements, and productive use of ag properties. Aligning more closely with current San Juan exemptions and practices in peer rural counties (strong ag carve-outs, simpler processes, realistic timelines) would better support the county’s character and residents. Public input and refinements during adoption could address these issues. For parcel-specific advice, consult the San Juan County Planning & Building Department.
CONCLUSION
Friends, it’s time to step back into the arena once more. If passed, this proposed LUDMO will transform life in our rural county from one of self-reliant stewardship into one of costly, bureaucratic overreach. By imposing building permits on virtually every structure, mandating expensive certified surveys and professional lot plans for routine improvements, layering on detailed Certificates of Occupancy that track families and parking, and enforcing rigid timelines and daily fines up to $50 or more with liens and county abatement powers, the ordinance will drive up the already high costs of living and building in our remote, agricultural landscape—potentially adding thousands of dollars per project in fees, surveys, delays, and professional services that most families and ranchers cannot easily afford.
Worse, it will curtail the fundamental freedom to use and improve your own land for your own benefit—whether you raise livestock, have a workshop on your property or an established multi-family compound where people of all ages share in work and upkeep. Adding a home for family or workers, or making practical upgrades—replacing practical rural self-reliance with county oversight, approval requirements, will bring the constant threat of enforcement actions that treat property owners as potential criminals. In a county defined by arid landscapes and an agricultural heritage, this ordinance risks pricing out generational families, stifling productive use of private property, and eroding the very liberties that allow us to live, work, and thrive on our own terms. Locals must speak out now before these rules lock in higher costs and diminished rights for decades to come.
