Your email to the council? It might not count.

Photo: Photo by Stephen Phillips – Hostreviews.co.uk

Officials clarify when and how the public can weigh in on pending development cases

SUMMIT COUNTY, Utah — Summit County officials on Wednesday tried to clear up a point that regularly confuses residents in high-profile development disputes: when and how the public can weigh in on land-use cases still moving through the county process.

During a work session, county attorney Dave Thomas told council members they should not privately discuss pending land-use matters with applicants, neighbors, or other third parties outside official meetings. The same rule applies to substantive emails sent outside the formal public process, he said.

“If it’s a specific one with a specific applicant, that’s when those rights kind of kick in,” Thomas said, distinguishing project-specific cases from broader legislative efforts such as general plan or zoning updates.

For residents, the practical message was straightforward: use the public hearing process.

If a hearing has already been scheduled and a resident cannot attend, Thomas said, written comments should go to the assigned planner and the county clerk so they can be distributed to the full council as part of the record. If no hearing has been scheduled, residents should follow the case on the county website and wait for the notice of the hearing rather than emailing council members directly.

“The comment should actually go to the county clerk, as opposed to the county council,” Thomas said, adding that the clerk can compile comments and provide them to council members in the proper setting.

Emails sent after a public hearing closes cannot be considered in council deliberations, even if council members acknowledge receiving them. “You can certainly thank them for their email, but that’s all you can do,” Thomas said.

Chair Canice Harte said the issue comes up regularly because residents often reach out directly to council members on major land-use cases, sometimes before they understand where a project sits in the approval process. Thomas said that confusion is especially common when a case is still before the Planning Commission but remains legally pending.

The discussion also addressed what residents can do when they still need help. Thomas said people can contact the planner assigned to a project and, if necessary, the Utah Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman. Community Development Director Peter Barnes said the county’s Planning Lab is already running a spring cohort aimed at helping residents and staff better understand land-use procedure, with another session expected in the fall and possible one-day workshops under discussion.

The issue drew public follow-up later in the meeting. Summit County resident Meta Haley thanked the council for the discussion but said residents still need clearer guidance on what happens when new materials are posted close to a hearing, when new information surfaces after public comment closes, and what recourse people have if they cannot get answers from planning staff.

Council members acknowledged that the process can be difficult for first-time participants. Harte said the council effectively acts in a quasi-judicial role on project-specific matters, which is why officials are cautious about reviewing communications outside the noticed public record. Thomas added that a public hearing can be reopened, but only with proper notice — not by informally considering late emails after the record has closed.

The takeaway from Wednesday’s session was not that residents should stay silent. It was that county officials want comments routed through planners and the clerk, and held in formal public hearings, so the full council hears the same information in the same legal forum.