Staffing shortages delay comprehensive Grand County land use code rewrite
Grand County’s Planning Commission is pushing back against a pattern of individual “rush” ordinances, demanding comprehensive land use code updates instead of developer-driven zoning changes that commissioners say create legal vulnerability and planning chaos.
The latest example—a high-density affordable housing proposal that would allow 45 units per acre—prompted planning commissioners to delay moving forward until broader planning priorities are established.
The Planning Commission agreed during their July 28 meeting to postpone any public hearing on the MFR-45 zoning proposal until after workshops with county commissioners to address issues with the overall process.
High-density affordable housing proposal details
The specific housing proposal would more than double the county’s current maximum density from 20 to 45 units per acre. All housing would be restricted to renters earning very low to low income—currently up to $50,000 annually for a four-person household according to federal housing guidelines—and could never be sold as individual condos or homes.
Acting Planning Director Cristin Hofhine said 45 units per acre would require three-story apartment buildings up to 42 feet tall— something she says no surrounding counties allow except Provo.
The housing proposal represents a revised version of a similar ordinance that failed legal review in 2023, originally requested by a Wasatch Front developer interested in developing low-income housing.
The Planning Commission emphasized that developments of this density require coordination with agencies outside county control, with infrastructure limitations that could make projects unfeasible regardless of zoning permissions.
“It is not easy to deliver 138 kilovolt lines just wherever the heck you want because you’ve got a bunch of large apartment complexes down that private road,” Planning Commission Chair Tony Mancuso said, noting that any high-density proposal would need review by Rocky Mountain Power, gas utilities, the fire district, and emergency management.
Pattern of developer-driven rush ordinances
The MFR-45 proposal represents the latest in a series of ordinances that planning commissioners say have been fast-tracked in response to specific development interests— a pattern that Planning Commission member Jerry Klaes called being “smacked down in the brain every week” with urgent ordinances.
Just weeks before the July 28 meeting, the County Commission approved major changes to the expired High Density Housing Overlay ordinance following months of pressure from developers and lenders. That change impacted only around 250 housing units, though it consumed many hours of the Planning Commission and County Commission’s focus.
County Commissioner and committee liaison Trish Hedin acknowledged that county commissioners face pressure to fast-track ordinances, also mentioning a recent landscaping ordinance.
“We have constituents that are pushing,” Hedin said, but noted that “the sloppier that we’re rushing through these processes, I think it puts the county at great risk.”
Hedin suggested the problem stems partly from county commissioners underestimating the complexity of the land use code.
“I don’t think the bulk of the county commission understands the land use code — how important it is, how complex it is and how complex the update would be,” Hedin said during the meeting.
A culture of rushed individual fixes
Planning Commissioner Klaes asked why the housing ordinance couldn’t wait to be included in a comprehensive code update “that we all know we need to do.”
“I love that question. And I would love an answer to that question, but I don’t have one,” Hofhine responded, adding that she too would prefer to “look at everything together instead of doing things this way.”
“Every time we get something like this, I feel that we’re having to make a decision on a whim,” Planning Commissioner Megan Schafer said. Hofhine agreed, noting that without systematic updates, individual changes may conflict with existing code sections or create unintended consequences.
The approval of the final section of the Grand County General Plan in 2024 set the stage for the next major phase – a comprehensive land use code overhaul. The county planned to begin seeking bids for a comprehensive land use code overhaul in 2025 under then-Planning Director Amy Weiser, aiming to complete it within six to nine months with funding included in the Planning and Zoning Department’s 2025 budget.
At the planning commission meeting, Hofhine said that she had not had time to complete the request for proposal documents to begin the process.
Staffing crisis rooted in 2021 department collapse
After Community & Economic Development director Zachariah Levine departed in 2020, Planning and Zoning was spun out as its own department. In 2021, then-Planning Director Mila Dunbar‑Irwin and associate planner Amy Mayberry both left on the same day after just 5 months as a department; neither they nor county administrators commented on the reason.
The abrupt exodus forced the county into crisis mode, reviewing land use applications by committee and temporarily rehiring retired planning director Mary Hofhine to keep basic operations running.
Counting Dunbar‑Irwin’s five‑month term, four directors have come and gone in under five years.
Three months later, the county recruited John Guenther from Saskatchewan, Canada, to rebuild the department essentially from scratch. Guenther, who held a doctorate in Urban Planning and over 25 years of experience, was hired along with associate planner Elissa Martin in May 2021.
Guenther departed June 16, 2022 after just over a year; Martin was promoted to director but resigned in summer 2024; and Amy Weiser left February 7, 2024 after about six months on the job.
Planning Commission Chair Mancuso noted that even with adequate staff, comprehensive code updates would require “a fully staffed internal not outsourced planning and zoning team, probably larger than the one that we had the last three years.” The understaffing means individual ordinance requests from developers overwhelm the department’s capacity for systematic planning.
Cristin Hofhine currently serves only as acting Planning and Zoning Administrator, not a permanent director, while handling what should be multiple roles that are generally full-time positions.
The county recently outsourced its building inspector position, has no permanent planning director, and relies on Hofhine and occasional administrative help to manage all planning duties plus complex policy development.
This means that comprehensive policy work happens only when Hofhine has “three hours at the end of a week here or there,” she admitted, while legally mandated permit reviews and administrative obligations consume most working hours.
Why comprehensive planning matters for Grand County’s future
The ongoing dysfunction has real consequences for residents and the county’s long-term sustainability. Without comprehensive land use codes, the county faces increased legal vulnerability from inconsistent regulations and developer challenges.
The piecemeal approach means crucial issues like infrastructure capacity and environmental protection get addressed in isolation rather than as part of a coordinated strategy. This can lead to unintended consequences, such as approving high-density housing without ensuring adequate water, sewer, or emergency services capacity.
For residents, the current system means unpredictable development patterns and potential conflicts between new projects and existing neighborhoods. It also makes it harder to address regional challenges like workforce housing, traffic congestion, and preserving natural resources that drive tourism.
The General Plan 2030, approved in 2022, established policies calling for sustainable growth and community input in planning decisions. However, without the updated codes to implement those policies, the plan remains largely aspirational.
Joint workshops planned to establish priorities
The Planning Commission will meet internally in early August before scheduling joint workshops with county commissioners to attempt to establish systematic priorities instead of responding to individual ordinance requests.
Workshop dates will be announced after Planning Administrator Hofhine returns from travel on August 18, with meetings likely scheduled for late August or early September.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting is August 25 at 4 p.m. in the Grand County Commission Chambers at 125 East Center Street. Planning Commission meetings include public comment periods where residents can speak for up to three minutes on any agenda item.
Appreciate the coverage? Help keep local news alive.
Chip in to support the Moab Sun News.
