Grand County Planning Commission, June 9, 2025

Transcript Notice: This transcript has been auto-generated then reviewed by Moab Sun News staff for clarity, but may still contain occasional errors in speaker labels or phrasing. We recommend double-checking key quotes or context against the official meeting video when accuracy is critical.
Learn more about how the Moab Sun covers local government.

Meeting Summary

After months of review, the Grand County Planning Commission voted 4–3 on June 9 to recommend changes to the county’s High Density Housing Overlay (HDHO) ordinance—despite ethical concerns and confusion about the policy’s reach.

The change would allow up to 50% of HDHO units in a development to be owned by individuals who do not qualify as “Actively Employed Households” (AEHs), as long as the occupants still meet local eligibility rules and use the homes as a primary residence. The update introduces flexibility for ownership—such as retirees or local landlords renting to workers—while preserving the occupancy requirement that originally defined the HDHO program.

Commissioners were caught between concerns from developers and lenders—who said the ordinance limited sellers’ options and left housing units unsold—and concerns that changing the local homeownership requirement would undermine the ordinance’s original intent: to improve housing access for local workers.

The commission also discussed enforcement revisions made in response to feedback from mortgage lenders. According to Acting Planning Director Cristin Hofhine, earlier versions of the HDHO included language that allowed the county to unilaterally revoke building permits or Certificates of Occupancy if an owner violated deed restrictions.

That clause had raised red flags with lenders, some of whom reported they could not issue loans for HDHO units under those terms. In the revised ordinance, enforcement has been reframed to require formal legal action—such as an injunction—rather than immediate administrative revocation, with the intent of preserving both accountability and lendability.

The meeting also included a tense moment when Grand County Commissioner Brian Martinez began commenting on the discussion from the audience. Commissioner Trish Hedin, who serves as the County Commission’s liaison to the Planning Commission, pushed back, saying that County Commissioners should avoid influencing Planning Commission deliberations, since they’ll ultimately vote on the recommendation in a formal setting.

Chair Tony Mancuso addressed both Martinez and Hedin directly: “With all the depth and respect in my heart, not going to be letting anybody campaign. I need to just keep this one focused.”

During the meeting, Acting Planning Director Cristina Hofhine clarified that the revised ordinance would only apply to under 300 units in already-approved and vested HDHO projects, since the program itself has expired. Any attempt to resurrect the HDHO would require a new ordinance and public approval process.

That realization shifted the tone of the discussion. Mancuso, who had spent much of the meeting critical of the proposed changes, ultimately voted in favor.

“How much time have we spent talking about 80 to 120 housing units that could be bought by Californians?” he said.

Mancuso explained that while he found aspects of the policy troubling, it was more important to resolve the issue and move the item forward—particularly given its limited application. Commissioner Aaron Lindberg agreed, saying he didn’t love the change but could support it “in the spirit of compromise.”

Commissioners Jerry Klaes and Megan Schafer also voted in favor, forming the 4–3 majority. But the vote is advisory, not binding—the final decision rests with the Grand County Commission.

The three commissioners who voted against—Laura Long, Mary Hofhine, and Robert O’Brien—emphasized that their opposition was grounded in principle.

Long said she couldn’t join colleagues in support of a policy she didn’t believe in.

“If you are a servant of the community,” she said, “you should vote on the principles.”

“The intention of the HDHO, to me, appears that it’s to give people that live here and work here a chance to build their lives, and it was already compromised for developers to get a bunch of extra units,” she said. “I understand you guys want to compromise with the county, but I just can’t.”

“[The developers] all bought into this,” said Commissioner Mary Hofhine, who added that she thought the original ordinance was clear. “I feel like keeping it as is.”

“It should be recorded that…there was debate about this number,” said Robert O’Brien, commenting on the 50% of homes open to outside ownership. “and the issue really was ownership for locals.”

Mancuso formally noted their opposition “for the record.”

The ordinance will now proceed to the Grand County Commission for final consideration.

View full agenda

Appreciate the coverage? Help keep local news alive.
Chip in to support the Moab Sun News.