Cache County Planning Commission Meeting - 8 January 2026

- The commission recommended denial of the Mountain Manor Springs 2 rezone, which would have changed 98.68 acres from agricultural to RU-5 and allowed up to 19 lots. Members cited concerns about placing a larger rural residential development too far from municipal services and the precedent it could set. - The commission advanced a frontage/access code amendment aimed at preventing applicants from accessing lots from a different side than the frontage used in review. They recommended approval for all zones except FR-40, where the new rule could create conflicts because frontage and road status are often unclear. - On the FR-40 issue, members expressed concern that the amendment could make some mountain properties effectively nonconforming or impossible to develop, especially where legal access is uncertain. Staff and commissioners agreed that this section needs more work before final adoption. - The subdivision code amendment generated the most debate, especially on water and sewer requirements for larger subdivisions. Commissioners worried the draft was too restrictive if it required municipal water hookups or, alternatively, a public water system in areas where cities are unlikely to provide service. - Public comments on the subdivision amendment were split. Nate Player argued the proposal would unfairly burden larger rural parcels and local farmers by forcing expensive wells and potentially making development impractical, while other commissioners emphasized the need to protect buyers from unsafe or unbuildable lots. - Commissioners also debated a wildfire-related provision that would limit subdivisions near the wildland-urban interface to three lots. Several members said they did not have enough information on how the boundary was defined or how many properties would be affected, and they wanted more analysis before supporting it. - The commission ultimately recommended approval of the subdivision code amendment with revisions, including allowing either municipal water or an approved public water system for larger subdivisions, and changing the lot limit near the wildland-urban interface from three to seven. They also indicated the sewer-related language may need corresponding adjustments. - The Blacksmith Fork Irrigation Company conditional use permit was approved for piping about 775 feet of canal with a 36-inch corrugated metal pipe, subject to 10 conditions. Staff supported the project for water conservation and safety reasons. - Public comments on the irrigation project were strongly opposed by nearby residents, who said the canal supports springs, trees, wildlife, and the rural character of Hollow Road. They warned that piping could reduce water, kill trees, worsen flooding or drainage issues, and set a precedent for other canal piping projects in the area. - The applicant said the canal company had held meetings over the past two years and that engineers had studied the project, including spring flows, before submitting the application. Commissioners noted that while they understood the concerns, they believed the county was required to approve the CUP if it met code and did not present a clear safety issue.