Cache County Planning Commission – 07-09-2026

Alright. I'd like to call to order the July 9 Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to welcome everyone here. We'll have our opening remarks and pledge by Chris Sands.

My remarks

will be in the form of a poem. This one's from local

poet Star Coolbrook called Walking the Bear. Seemed pretty relevant for as it was written fifteen years ago. I walk on water, take the river from its high Uintas down Utah's Cascades, wander Wyoming's meanders, Montpelier's

meadows,

to soda's hairpin curve, where thirty thousand years ago, lava turned the bear away from Blackfoot's snake and sent it down to grace. Doubling back from Jim Valley to Cash, I walked the river's cobbled bed where tributaries surge, rowdy cub, little bear, beaver headed Logan, six tinned fork of blacksmith. Down the length of flood pain plains I pass through wetlands of cattails and bulrushes to bottom lands leveled and drained where the river silts in, slows down its honeyed pace, tamed for grain. On the river's colliding current, I travel miles each step, a dreamlike passage through cedar and cottonwood, hawthorn and chokecherry, lifting like heron over dams and sluggish lakes that halt the river's breath. I walked the bear all summer as it builds strength again, widens into marshes, joins in lush bird heavy congress with the great peculiar salt, a lake that would surely die if not for this river, this path, this milk and honey. Please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alright. Thank you. You're signing around so they can cut you. Mister, if you get a chance to review and can and approve the we get approval on the minutes and, from June 4 and also on the agenda for tonight.

So moved.

I second the motion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Consent items. We have a Petersborough, Schoolhouse First Amendment and the hideout at the Scare Canyon First Amendment. Is anyone here with with comments or concerns on that? If not, commissioners, any questions on this consent items?

Mister chairman, I I move that we approve the consent agenda

with two items.

I'll second that. K. All in favor? Aye. Alright. Item number three, the public hearing solar project ordinance amendment. Connor, do you wanna take us through that?

So if you remember last year, it worked for a solar amendment, solar ordinance amendment. Essentially, what happens, you got out to see county council, the whole thing hasn't changed, and then decided to send it back in. Thoughts on how that applies to the smaller 20 acre maximums. What needs to change? What doesn't? If you want them included just as is. Chair.

Are these standards in the 20 acres gonna also apply to floating solar? I don't wanna throw a wrinkle in, but I I know there's a company looking at multiple sites in the county of installing floating solar and and how we might address that when it comes up. It's not it. It's it it'll be coming.

Probably its own thing at its own time. Yeah. This is kinda just covering stuff that's on land, basically. Anything that

So I had just a a question where we've we've added that line in in those various areas. Additionally, these facilities may be outside of gateways, view corridors, and vistas as determined by the the county open space advisory committee. I just wondered from a from a a legal standpoint, we have a a committee that's not part of the land use process. Are you comfortable with the with something like that?

I I believe it's permissible k. To allow them discretion. I mean, if if you're allowing it in the county, so the county council's allowing that, where they're the ultimate land use authority, I think they can tell.

Well, it's something the council has approved and put and monitors the committee members. So Chris is on it. I think I think we've given a lot of responsibility to him for giving us Sure.

Their suggestions and has review and everything else on there. I I think it's a reasonable thing to have in there. I just wondered from a legal standpoint whether whether they had standing that would if there was Yeah. They're they're a subset of the of the county council.

K. Good question though. We haven't even begun yet. Come on. Stick around for a while.

You open for a public hearing? So moved. Okay. Mister chairman. I'll do it. We'll open it. Okay. All in favor? Second it. All in favor? Aye. Is anyone here would like to comment on this, solar project ordinance amendment? I just have a quick question. You come up to the and state your name.

My name is Dirk Howard. I just have a quick question on the solar. Is this primarily looking at commercial applications, or how does it impact a homeowner trying to set up solar to be in in an off grid. So that's my only question. K.

Connor, you might have to answer that one.

For example, a domestic. Just if you were putting putting panels on your roof, this would have no impact on on that.

Even if they're putting them out on their yard to a small scale,

it's That's fine with it. Less than one acre. Right? Because it says one acre or more. Yeah. The income is conserving one household. At most, you need a zoning clearance, so it's an entirely different process.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other comments?

Mister chairman, I move that we close public hearing. Second that. All in favor? Aye.

Mister chairman, I just wonder if committee members if you I guess, if you look at the general requirements we had for the commercial, a a lot of them would apply or could apply, I should say, could apply to the other categories that we are approving development in. And with with some minor tweaks, obviously, to meet those current standards or whatever. So I'm just curious if and I think it would make sense to have some of these standards in there so that we could be transparent about the kind of conditions we're gonna

put on a conditional use purpose, for example. It gives us some really good guidance. Yeah. I would think. Instead of make instead of making up conditions, we can rely on this.

So, yeah, my suggestion would be that we we can re just revise section seventeen twelve to fit the smaller categories. Right? But and eliminate the items that don't apply. Some of them are smaller scale stuff. But

Okay.

K. Alright. Otherwise, I think the the version reflects everything else we've already talked

about. Seems like from previous meeting. Yeah. I'm just adding those couple of lines with the record in there. So Yep. Do you want a recommendation for what's there, or do you wanna add that other stuff and send it all at once? Oh, we'll add that other stuff. That's right.

Alright. Item four, short term rentals.

This is great.

Okay. So, yeah, here we are revisiting another one. Alright. We do have as just a slide thing here. Let's get it up. So this came up when we were discussing with council about the solar ordinance and subdivision amendment subdivision ordinance amendment status, that we have been getting a lot of inquiries on short term rentals, but we haven't had any code to give people direction as to, what they would need to do or if they can do it. You may recall we had a previous discussion last summer on this topic. At that time, it really didn't seem to go anywhere. There wasn't the appetite from this commission to move forward, but county council has requested that we revisit this and take another look. So I have gone through and updated it. It's pretty lengthy. Mainly based these suggestions are based on code from both Logan City and Washington County. So that's where a lot of these ideas for standards and requirements come from. So short term rental, just its basic definition. And then I have included all of the requirements for it within the definition as well. I was talking to the county attorney about it. And hopefully in the future, we can kind of take all of these requirements and standards for different use types out of the definitions and into a different section of the code. But I think since we've traditionally done it this way, residential dwelling unit, primary, or accessory. We've listed in case there's an accessory dwelling unit. Keeping that in the definition would require also a change to the accessory dwelling unit definition, which currently prohibits short term rentals and requires at least thirty consecutive days of occupancy. Whereas short term rentals are less than thirty. And then the residential dwelling unit must have received a certificate of occupancy through the building department is the basic definition there. Then as we look at some of the other requirements, it would require CUP in the RE two, RE five, a 10, FR 40, and resort recreation zones. It would be prohibited in commercial and industrial because we don't allow residential in commercial and industrial zones. There would be a owner occupancy requirement. So what this is is it would have to be a property where the property owner, it's their primary residence and where they get their property tax exemption. It's not a second home or a vacation home. There would be an exception for cabins in the F R 40 though because obviously, we don't allow single family homes or primary residential in F R 40. And then there would be a process to determine maximum occupancy during that CEP process. We would look at different things, like the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, what their septic capacity will allow for, water rights that they do or don't have, and then there would be signage that would be required to be posted inside and outside the home that stated what that maximum occupancy is. And that is something, again, that both Logan City and, Washington County do. Annual fire inspection, that would be a physical inspection. Currently, with home based business type uses, they can do self inspect, but this would require fire inspection and would have to meet all of the occupancy requirements of the fire code, and it would be confirmed at that point. We would limit the number to just one per parcel, kind of like we do with accessory dwelling units currently. And then parking would be on a one space per bedroom ratio, and it would be on-site only. No street parking would be allowed on public or private streets. And when they submit for the CUP and when it's approved, it'll be an approved site plan that would show where the parking has been permitted. It would not be allowed in, like, a front yard setback area. There's also a section here that prohibits certain structures. So structures detached from the primary residential dwelling unit cannot be used as a short term rental, and this would include, but not limited to, RVs or camp trailers, accessory agricultural structures, camping sites, and the like. And then there are requirements. Again, these are reflected in Logan City's short term rental code and Washington County about, owner responsibilities. They have to be available either themselves or a local property manager would have to be available to respond within twenty four hours, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days a year, to any nuisance complaints or complaints that were raised by a guest county official, law enforcement officer, or neighbor. They would have to have their contact information posted on-site so they can be easily contacted. And then there are some, points in the code about violations and revocation. In talking with the county attorney's office, I need to work on some more specific language on that. And, so that will be changing a little, but it will be part of the code. And then if it were revoked, they couldn't reapply for a year from the date of revocation.

We don't this last stuff you're reading or referring to, we don't have. Correct?

You do. It's in the, item four discussion.

It just looks different in ours.

Yeah. So this is in the presentation folder or the slides folder, but the actual ordinance It's in there. Draft is just in your main shared drive.

Oh, I got it. So remind me. Mhmm. Does our ADU ordinance allow for detached?

No. K. It specifically prohibits it. Yeah. We just allow the internal and the attached with certain requirements.

What are the reasons for Chris, would you come was there confusion for you on that?

Water septic trips per day on road. Just that. I just wanna know. That was clear. Yeah. I if we did allow a set a detached structure, then that prohibition

would wouldn't make sense. But since we And you and with Chris saying that, the only reason I was wanting to clarify, maybe I'm not clear on this, but on the slide packet that you just referred to. Mhmm. So it starts out with $43.20. Short term rental means a residential dwelling unit primary or accessory or any portion So I guess the accessory primary or accessory or any portion of a residential dwelling unit. Mhmm. So that leads me to believe that it could be the the residence or an accessory building. No. That's meant to refer to accessory dwelling unit. And I can just spell that out if that would make it easier. Okay. Well, Chris's question just confirmed it. Because then down at the second to last slide, prohibited structures. Any structure detached from primary residential dwelling. Mhmm. And Mhmm.

Yeah. Because we do have some accessory structures, like a shop or that that have been converted into or built with, as a guest house as a proportion of it so that those type of units would not be allowed or structures would not be allowed to have a short term rental. It's gotta be clearly either the residential dwelling or attached to it. Right. Yeah. Or and the portion thereof would prefer to maybe there's a room or something that they're renting out.

Is it at all a conflict to say that building has to be owner occupied, but

it can also be a short term rental. Yeah. So if you look at that section and, yeah, it can be confusing. But owner occupied, we clarify in there, then it means it's their primary residence. So for instance, there as an example, there is one property owner who one property owner who, they only have their house. They don't have an accessory dwelling, but they're gonna be gone for months at a time or whatever and want to rent it out while they're gone. But it's still their primary residence that they call home. Okay. So that's kind of the scenario. I mean, it could be,

an attached ADU that they rent out or they stay in that part and Rent out the house. Rent out the house. Right? Right. Or they're not on-site, technically, even though that is their

Right. And we could we could add some of the language from accessory dwelling units that allows for, you know, if they're on a sabbatical or an extended

wave for extended length of time, that that also counts. It kinda for me and and this is an an aside, but for me, it brings up the ADU thing again and questioning why we don't allow a detached scenario. So anyway

because recommendation. I think it was. But

anyway, we we landed where we landed, but it it I don't think it that's gonna go away.

Yeah. And again, that a lot of those discussion and the questions about the detached just have to do with, do we require separate water right? Do we require septic septic septic system? Do we add those trips as additional trips that might increase the road requirements? With what we're putting in here, all that would be addressed.

Right? They gotta have the septic. They gotta have the water right. Well, that's how we would

those would be the factors that to determine occupancy.

That's what I'm saying. But but they could be addressed, detached or not, with what we're gonna require under this current code, even under the ADUs. We're addressing it here when we didn't there. So, yeah, I I had the same question. We we we recommended doing the other one. They didn't because of those concerns. Now we're gonna make the property owners address those concerns and still not have that option. It seems either overly restricted for for this or we should go back and look at the other two and fix them both at the same time. But that's why we're having the discussion, I guess. So it sounds like a lot of appetite for that here on this side. Maybe not on your side. So maybe it'll be the same thing. We'll send it up, you'll reject it, and it'll sit for another year. Yeah. And those

how to determine maximum occupancy is also based on complaints we had from the party barn, if you may recall.

That was my question because you're limiting it based on bedrooms because the party barn had an open area where they put cots and sleeping bags.

Right. So that's why this would be very focused and would be context based on every specific property as to what would be allowed or not. So, actually, if you look on utahrealestate.com, the Party Barn is actually up for sale if anybody's interested. But, yeah, it has a a very small living area compared to that open Yeah. Area in the back where they had a bunch of But but that one, I think we already have code we can address that with if we wanted to enforce it.

So I I feel like we're going over restrictive for our problems because of one that is a problem. And this was the discussion. Maybe somewhere in the middle that we could fix them both.

Yeah. That's just gonna kinda put everything in here. And then, yeah, there's pieces you wanna take out, but just try to address all possible issues and reflective of other jurisdictions that have it. So

Well, I would say we love the city's not our basic answer. So

Yeah. And they have, I mean, they have a maximum number that they allow in the city. It is Washington County. The number of people. Yeah. All that. Yeah. Washington County. And, yeah, distance between and and they have a Perwich County. Already determined occupancy kind of scale based on bedrooms. But, again, you know, we're hooked up to sewer and water, so it's a little different too. That's why we would do a

One one question we had earlier that I don't think we found an answer yet is where does that room tax when it goes to the county? What what fund pool does that go into?

Or how is that tracked? Yeah. That would be a discussion that if we move this forward, we'd probably need to bring the clerk's office in. Okay. That'd be good. Get that taken care of and make sure it's how that, yeah, affects it. Yeah. So this, they would have to get the CUP approved first, and then they'd go through the business license to get licensed. And that's where that tax in occupancy

yeah. The pillow tax, whatever it's because it seems like a year ago when we're talking, when it kinda died, because we were at least here, we're looking at business license and fire inspection made a lot of sense. Mhmm. And and then we would just set a maximum occupancy no matter what size it was. And I think you guys wanted more of this stuff in there, so that's why when we sent that up, that's where it kinda died.

So it looks like we've got a

What the council was hearing, for instance, if you build on your land and you have a private drive, if you put more than five houses, you have to then have the road meet the county standards. Matt, hit me if I'm wrong on any of this. But if you're at four houses and then one of the houses decides to build a detached unit, does that count a house to go to the road? What does that do and all of that? And that's an answer we haven't got. Does that make sense? Those are the particular ones we're trying to decide on as to how we address that at that point. Because in that view, depending on how you do the detached dwelling, that should count as a house. My off course here, Matt?

Mister chairman, as as as I read read this proposed ordinance, it is so narrow. It basically bans short term rentals. Because if you've gotta be owner occupied owner occupied, have all of the various things to get in to fit into that window. It just doesn't it doesn't work for the vast majority. And and that's and at the same time, I you know, we we we make a good argument and say health and safety with the looking at fire inspections and those things. And I agree. That's my that's my gig is is safety. However, I I have to ask the question if if if that's the driving force, there's the driving impetus for this, why are we not doing this to all rentals? You know, long term, short term. It's because at the same time, those those concerns could still be there. And I go back to I think the majority of this comes from one given situation where we've had some some real problems. And I believe that we have an ordinance in place already, which is a recreational facility that we could have easily regulated on that and handled that situation. Exists. In most cases, we've probably all gone on a trip somewhere and and rented out a house in some neighborhood. There it's a lot and ate breakfast and left and really didn't impact the community at all except we left some tax And so that's that's kind of my concern. This seems like this is really overboard for for the vast majority of the situations. And I think those those can be handled, particularly the ones that are bringing in parties and weddings and and large family reunions and things like that. To me, those all fit within our recreational facility. And we should be able to to regulate those that way. That's my that's my take on

You make a great point. It's very restrictive.

Yeah. Do do is it, Jason, for you, is it primarily the owner occupancy in particular or more of that?

I think there are there were a number of things that seemed it seemed like we were really heaping it up. Okay. You can't you can't park on the street. Now I understand that that's a that's something that can be a be a challenge there. I don't know that that we have any ordinance anywhere in the county where where we've we've put those kind of kind of restrictions on any property that you can't park on the street. And and then just going back to to the overall regulation of, yeah, fire inspection, we're we're requiring insurance. Do we do that for a long term rental long term rental the same way? To me, it seems like we're really heaping it on to a portion of our of our community that in some ways, you know, these are when we when we had the discussion over ADUs and those things, that's kind of what we were looking at was, well, here's an opportunity for somebody who maybe is retired, fixed income. They can rent their basement out either as an accessory dwelling or a or a short term rental for an additional additional income for that may be able to keep them in their home for a longer time. Those are the those are the things. I I just think we could go we could go through all of those things. You've gotta be you gotta be accessible twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days per year. Otherwise, we'll pull your we'll pull your permit on your business license. You know, do we do we look that look that similar with other landlords for for long term rentals?

Mister Chairman. So could we I appreciate Nate kinda recap and what he recalled of the prior discussion. It's kind of a little harder when we talk about something, then we get a long span of time and Right. And then it comes back like this. I I would just echo without taking a lot of time that I feel that to me, this feels very restrictive. And so I wanted to ask with that with the history, was the only reason why we were trying to put this together was because was the primary driver the the party house? Or what what were our goals? Multiple phone calls a week. People we get multiple phone calls a week asking Oh, you still are? Yes. From all over? Yes. Okay. So

what are the what are the

it's SIM calls that are driving this. What are the Yeah. And I got a business

license application recently for a home based business that was actually short term rental. And I had to deny that because we don't have anything in our code for short term rentals. At least they were asking for a license. That's true.

They gave them one.

Well, do do we know what I mean, Rich County was brought up. Is this modeled after any other community or is this ours? As I mentioned, I looked at Washington County and Logan City. So This is Washington Counties? Yeah. But is that from a water standpoint?

Yeah. It's their unincorporated area. So just I think the water specific stuff, factoring in max occupancy, that wasn't from Washington County. That was just one of the ways that we could determine what the occupancy is. Instead of putting, like, five people per bedroom, the septic or water rights wouldn't allow for that many people. It's just, again, a factor. I just don't think they help determine. I would just, I guess,

make a quick motion that we maybe take a little longer to maybe refresh all this together and make sure that we're truly doing what's best for property rights as well as safety and welfare of people. And would you have any specific direction or things that you wanna seek on? I I I don't right now, but it just it just feels way restrictive even without knowing maybe here's some of the concerns that's been brought up and are they valid? And then, I mean, even one that just I would question is I I mean, I'm aware of a number of people in the county that have built, and and I have no personal ties to any of this, so I'm not speaking in favor of it. But whether they build a shop or something, you know, that might have a living quarters in it to get there, not really set up to have somebody there full time, but somebody could stay. I don't know. I just I I would ask that we maybe have a little more time to to identify here here's our true concerns with this and if safety and welfare and whatever is that. But I I realized we do not want just party houses being built all over, inflicting on neighbors. So I I I don't know. Go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna ask Angie if you could are the calls that you're getting, are they complaints?

No. There are people wanting to do it and wanting to do it the right way. Okay.

And just wanting to follow the rules because what's happening now? Can you do you have a sense for I mean, people are obviously I mean, yeah, you can go in Airbnb,

VCBO. I mean, you can find plenty of rentals that are currently happening. But, yeah, these are the people who wanna do the rights. Or dozens or hundreds. Yeah. And maybe yeah. I don't know if their insurance requires certain things that they're doing that. But, yeah, mostly the phone calls are people wanting to do it and do it the right way. But we just don't have anything Okay. Or any guidance to give them. Yeah. I know this has been a big concern in Rich County. Is there a way we can look at what they've put into place? Yeah. I can If that's working for them. Yeah. They do have a lot more vacation rentals, second homes, third dates. Yeah. Probably.

Mister chair, the interesting thing is is human nature is such I think the council probably sent it back to us, but that if trying to understand property rights. Yes. But at the same time, you give people the right to do something without regulation. Regulations. And that's the only concern I have in the whole thing.

It's interesting that insurance was mentioned here and Jason questioned, you know, that in itself. But being involved with insurance, it's easy to write a landlord policy if you have a a tenant. But to try and get a short term Airbnb transit, it's it's much more and it's almost like this. And it's very easy to get insurance if you have an owner occupied. Well, it's not easy, but it's it's more doable if you have an owner occupied residence owner occupied residence that part of it. So that coincides from insurance standpoint, but it it's it's more difficult

all around than just saying I have a rental property that's full time rental. Okay. So my question for you then is if there were to be an incident while it was being operated as a short term rental and they didn't have that on their home owner's insurance, would that be an issue for them?

It could be. But, yes, definitely could be. But I I can't speak from experience because I haven't had one or aware of one. And some of it may depend on which

vendor they go through. Like, a lot of those, they're covered for two to five million dollars through the website, you know, if they're using VRBO

by chance. They provide pretty high coverage on some of those. Yeah. I just I was interested. But, yeah, that was just, again, something I saw in Washington County. Sounded interesting.

Something that would be fun to discuss. And I don't disagree with I mean, every business should have insurance coverage. That's a that's a a good business practice. Right? But is it the place of the of planning

to require that? But at the same time, that's a whole another can of worms itself because they can tell you they've got it or bring you in something. Mhmm. They might even have a homeless policy. Yeah. But who knows if they're gonna keep it or if they even have a policy. So it makes it that part of it, I don't even know how I mean, you'd have to hire a whole department to enforce it and track it. Problem.

Yeah. I'm I'm I'm still more in the favor of our old motor. I mean, it it'd be good to send that back out, so everyone could refresh what it looked like. But requiring a business license, and if annual fire inspection Which gets fire and roads. And then and then we have we we set up the code that says, you know, this is how big they can be. Right? That and and that limits it, so they know the rules. And then if they go beyond that, right, you revoke their business license and and they're done. Instead of because even we know how hard it is to revoke the CUP. Right? We are next year. There's some we're working on for a decade. And so if it takes that long, right, business license can be suspended tomorrow. Where a CUP, it it could take a long time. So to me, it seems like a a easier way to regulate with just a business license and and that annual inspection. But I think we could maybe put a little more in what we did a year ago, whenever that was, and may maybe relook at that. But I think that's a happy medium to still get the coverage. Mister chairman, could we

inquire of Nolan and his thoughts or recollection from the council's standpoint?

Well, there comes a point when it when a rental is a residence and versus a commercial. What's the definition and where does that that's what we wanna get to? Mhmm. Because, personally, when I'm in a resident, I don't want somebody who built a house and then it turns into commercial without something being watched. And Sure. That's the part we're watching also with Matt and Rhodes and with Jason and with Fire, trying to figure out what goes on there so that we're aware of those. So if we can bring those in, that's what the council is trying to make sure that we're doing, if that makes sense. So I'm fine with what you guys are talking about. Reminded that alone because that's a burden on neighbors as the party house. Because you guys talk about property rights Mhmm. But they have property rights as long as they don't take the rights from somebody else. So we gotta watch that part. And that's where the commercial weddings and throwing I mean, this blue house, they had thirteen, fourteen people sleeping on a floor, and some even outside. And so, you know, to them, there was a noise situation. We've never really talked about the noise, but I hope we don't because you want them to have some fun in that time too. So those are all things that we're trying to figure out what's there. And yeah. So

You know, in in discussing, you know, where we came from before is, you know, could there be a vetting process that way that we could identify this is will there be recreational activities that take place? Will you will you be hosting weddings? Will you have family reunions and parties and and those things and as part of the business license process? And then that kicks it to well, you gotta have a conditional use permit for for recreational facility. A recreational facility.

Well, we had that one wedding venue in place come in within the last year or two, Rafton's up there in Richmond. And they had to go

through a process. So That's agritourism. That's agritourism. That was agritourism. And what do you guys Yeah. Oh,

yes. Could I bring that in? Because we have a that was another thing that that was in there we talked about, not just allowing I don't remember exactly the terminology, but we're talking about accessory agricultural structures, those things. And yet somewhere in our code, at least, we talk about farm stays and and agriculture. I think there's a there's a conflict with with this proposed code. And The agritourism

allows can't remember exactly. I think it's four rooms in the house. So it's not like a separate structure or staying in the barn or anything. You must have modified it because it used to be two. I thought it was one separate structure. The two? I think it it also allows for, like, a separate cabin. Because we had the elk

the elk out in Paradise. I thought we held it to two.

Yeah. That was a recreation facility for the hunting. Yeah. Go to that cabin. And he had an existing cabin. And they got one north of Hyde Park too. So

It hurt?

Yes. By the way, weigh in from the executive executive's office. Yes. Kurt Webb, deputy executive. First of all, these things we're right now in the process of trying to make sure that we can enforce code. And one of the things that we've been asked to do is to prioritize what needs to be enforced because we've only got so much enforcement capacity. I'm a little concerned that this isn't if we sit down and write down what we want to enforce most, this isn't gonna rise to the top. So whatever you do is if you write this code, consider how enforceable it may be. Hawaii passed a law that you just can't have these things. They don't enforce it. We still do short term rental rentals over there all the time. Why? It's still on the books, but it's just too hard to enforce. So just keep that in mind as you're as you're making these decisions. The executive's office with as part of the development services, we've got an enforcement arm, the code enforcement arm, but we only have so much capacity there. Thanks.

Thank you. And I'd I'd just add to that the legislature kind of added to that when they when they passed a law that said you can't enforce just because you placed it up on Airbnb or whatever the whatever that is. That's not enforceable. You have to show that they're actually actually renting and doing those things. So that so that enforcement would be that much more of a challenge to go that way if somebody were doing it without without going through this process.

But to be fair, if we go back on what mister Webb said, we've got that situation on any CUP that we deal with. Yep. And there are some CUPs out there that we do need to be doing enforcement on. And I hope we're aware of that because some of those that we've seen, we have to be careful.

Mhmm.

And and just thinking of of impacts on resources for I mean, we're talking about an annual fire inspection. I don't know what the fire districts what their capacity is to do that, but I'm sure those take some time. And if and if we had a 100 of those, those does that pull away from our from our other responsibilities?

Well, and and to that, could we impose a fee? Because

Yeah.

The fee the fee I know we can, but the fee needs to be paid. You have to pay every time they come out.

Yeah. And that's part of the code was requested by the fire district. So

That's the one I know in favor. Makes a lot of sense. Yeah. It does. I mean,

Maybe send his history.

If Angie could put that we'll just have to forward together and find something to I'm happy to ask him if it would be worthwhile.

K.

It would probably negate this back and forth thing if it's gonna happen if we all talked about it in a workshop. Well, it's a great idea.

Do you have do you track complaints like this? Do you have, like, a a running database or something that shows

Well, again, it's not really complaints. It's people wanting to do it that we get the most inquiries about. And then, yeah, all of our complaints go through code enforcement.

But code enforcement could could give us an idea of how many how many problems that that they that they see.

I I'd have to check Steve. Steve was our former code enforcement officer. He left, so we've just been kind of doing it internally. I don't think we've received any specific complaints on short term rentals during that period of time since the end of May.

But again, yeah, it's more we just need something that we can tell people how to do it when they want I think it's good to have the whole picture and and, you know, so we so we adequately define the the problem or the challenge that we that we're facing.

Yeah. K.

Okay. So we'll work to set up that. K. Do you wanted me to contact Andrew? Or No. I'll talk with the chair. Okay. Sounds good. Alright.

Thanks, Angie. Thank you, Angie. Okay. Item five,

Holly Oak Airport. Yeah. This isn't a discussion so much as I wanted to provide an update, because, yes, we do have a that we'll probably have to go through the revocation process again, but just wanted to give you the history. I know some of you have lived it already, but there have been some recent activity that's prompted this to come back. So originally, a private airport CEP was issued for the Holyoke Airport in Mendon in May 2016. They met the required conditions and recorded the CEP in May 2017. Then in June 2019, the planning commission did conduct a review to determine whether the CEP should be revoked on the grounds that substantial work had not been completed within twelve months. That's one of the reasons in code to revoke a CEP. So at that time, the planning commission found there were no grounds for it. It was appealed by adjacent property owners. That appeal went to the Board of Adjustments in September 2019, and it was remanded back to planning commission to make some additional findings, but ultimately, that revocation or not the not revocation was upheld. Then in October 2021, there is a certificate of occupancy issued for a new single family home on a parcel in that same subdivision. Well, I guess it's two separate subdivisions, but on a parcel directly south of the location of the private airport. That property is located within the runway protection zone and condition eight of the conditional use permit that if any structures are built within the noted runway areas and protection zones, the CUP must be reconsidered by the Cache County Land Use Authority. So in June 2022, the CUP was reviewed by a planning commission and what the commission, voted to revoke it. Again, based on condition eight, and I think it's condition one. Within ten days of that decision to revoke, the applicant filed a timely appeal per code. Unfortunately, during that summer of twenty two, there was a change in the appeals process. We went from the Board of Adjustments to a land use hearing. Process. We went from the Board of Adjustments to a land use hearing officer because the Board of Adjustments just met so irregularly in trying to keep that all of their appointments up to date, and that proved to be difficult. So we switched to a contract land use hearing officer, an attorney out of the Salt Lake area. I can't remember where he is exactly. Then there was the vacancy of the director of development services at the time, Chris Reelt. He was the primary lead on the revocation for that CUP, delved deep into FAA regulations, etcetera. And he left in early July of that year. So the appeal hearing was never held, and the matter was not further reviewed at that point and everybody kind of forgot about it until

I didn't forget about me either.

Well, unfortunately, yeah, staff and the applicant got dropped by the wayside because of staff changes. But then, summer last year, 08/30/2025, there was a minor incident that occurred on the property involving the landing of a small aircraft, that led to complaints with the sheriff's office, complaints to our office, and the code enforcement. Enforcement. The sheriff's office did go out. I don't can't recall if they actually filed a report or not on it, but the pilot was uninjured, but, yeah, the plane did crash there. There. So that those complaints triggered a review of the status of the c e p and that's when we discovered that the appeal process had never been completed. And so based on that and in talking the applicant's attorney and our county attorney's office, we agreed that, that CEP is still considered valid, still recorded against the property and runs with the land. So in order to rectify the situation, we can't really pick up from three years ago, four years ago. So a new revocation process must be initiated. This the code enforcement officer did send out a letter to all the neighbors, earlier this year, talking about the timeline, talking about the confusion with the status and whether the, revocation and appeal had been completed. And we informed them that we we would be starting a new revocation process within Initially, we issued a notice to the applicant, the thirty day notice that's required by code, at the beginning of May for a potential June hearing. But then there's been some correspondence and back and forth with the applicant's attorney that they want to pursue an option through the ombudsman's office. Unfortunately, they haven't provided us a timeline on when they wanna do that. The question that they want answered by the ombudsman maybe I don't know if Eric wants to talk about this, but may or may not really impact the reason for revoking it, which is a health safety issue, having a house in the flight path. So it may be gonna moot. So we're looking to see next steps. We might do the revocation review in August, August meeting, or the September meeting based on whether they do or do not move forward with the abutments process. But Yeah. We just wanna give you an update. We have many concerned neighbors in the area, property owners. And Oh, no. Yeah, it is something that we need to clean up and finalize from 2022.

Do you have an idea of how many landowners or how many letters that went to? How many people?

So the subdivision is there's two subdivisions, north and south. They're each four lots. I I'd have to check to see what his mailing radius was, but a minimum of eight to 10 people probably got that letter. So k. But, again, that's just I wanted to give you an update, bring it to your attention, kind of give you the history again before it comes back to you for that reputation.

Is is there a map that can show

this this parcel where the house is at and can There's eight property owners just in the immediate development. Well, where's the house in question at where the runway's at? Yeah. We're gonna bring up the GIS for you here. But then you add all the development behind it, the people that are in line with the runway or bordering the property. There's quite a few.

Mister chairman, may I ask the May I ask the This is Yes. Yeah. If we can just view this and then we can just have you come up and make comment.

Do you know that field that Kim Hawes has pivot tipped over on the spring? Yes. That's right there. Okay. And they're right here. Lawrence Welch used to live right here. Mhmm. It's this parcel right here. Okay. So you access it. This road comes in and then goes down to Mendon. I think it's 2nd North. Yeah. I don't know. It's kind of a roundabout. You can enlarge that or lease and then wherever. Okay. So When we originally built it, they built a hanger. That's a hanger right there. Okay.

So these are the kind of two subdivisions here just north and west of Mendon boundaries, but the airport is here. This was the house that was built in 2021. It's in that flight path. They submitted a flight path and analysis of Given note. All the FAA required stuff as part of their CEP in 2017 2016, 2017. But then again, this house was built after it was discussed at the time that if something were built within the flight path, we would need to come back and be revisited as well. And that's where that condition ate from the original CEP.

So this is all the aircraft activity. Just refresh my memory. Does it all happen on that? It's right there. Okay. Yeah. So he this is the runway. And then that also Not on the other side of the Yeah. I think it's on this side.

And then that also precipitated a change in the code for private airports that we passed as well, requiring These homes. The entire flight path and everything to be on the property on the property.

Chicken coop down there.

That was 2,017. So

k. Do you mind zooming out just a little bit?

You can see this is Mendon. Mendon property.

Actually, they have put a little building on that parcel right there. That one to the northwest of it, 12688001, that shed, I think, has been added too.

Yeah. This is currently an ag remainder in that subdivision. But, yeah, they are planning to come into the single family home doing

a I sure remember seeing it the last time. We've done it.

Oh, yeah. Again, that will be coming forward. I just wanted to give you an update and the historical background on that.

It's

on that little parcel, it just shows building agricultural. Do you have any tools to show what year that little shed was possibly built?

It was built last year. It's recent.

Is that you? Oh, built last year. Okay. Because that's kind of right there. This is built last year. What kind of building is it? How high is it? It's pretty tall. It's 20 Plus feet. At least At least 12 feet height. 20 feet. 20 feet.

It's got leads on it open.

They store equipment. The commissioners, if house here as well. There's a couple few people here that wanna make some comments just to get some better understanding or we all right if we if you let them use their view their their point, you know, make their concerns. Keep going. Minutes? Yeah. Three minutes comments each. I think there should be a motion to open it up for public hearing. Okay. We need to make a motion to allow this to happen. Motion for open public hearing. Okay. Can we do that? Yeah. Was it public? Okay. It's not a public hearing on the this discussion. Oh, no. Not for public comment. Public comment, not a public hearing, because we didn't notice it that way. Right. Correct.

Okay.

Okay. May I may I just ask one question before we do that? Did we notify all property owners within 300 feet of this of this discussion tonight? That's why we're trying to be careful there. It's like a public comment, not public hearing.

K. We're we're legally okay. Do that? Okay. As long as it yeah. It's not public hearing. It's public comment. Okay. We need to make a motion for a opening of public comment. So moved.

And I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay.

Thank you. I just wanted to make this part of the record and give it to your clerk to go ahead and have it. My client wanted me to just come and tell you a couple things. First off, when they bought the property, there was an existing landing strip there and a hanger.

You should you should give your name.

Oh, I thought everybody knew me. I'm sorry. We only do, but the person that's gonna take the note being sarcastic by that. Joe Chambers. I represent the Holy Oaks. They have our position is they were they had a nonconforming use before they, when they bought the property. And I told them they didn't need a CUP. They wanted to be good neighbors, so they went ahead and applied for it. And they've tried to to comply with with the conditions of the county. One of the concerns that I have is and what I've expressed in this record is and and and the director has covered this is you guys had a revocation hearing. We appealed it. The Board of Appeals sustained the appeal and sent it back to you. We then had a further hearing. I appealed it and then it's fallen into limbo. You guys don't have jurisdiction over it. It's up there somewhere in limbo. If you have another revocation hearing, it's like me suing you in court, you losing the case or me losing the case. I appeal it, And the appeal is pending, and I start the whole new record over again to get a whole new record. And the record is there at the at the appeal level. The county hasn't done anything with it. So I I don't think you can just start it over. It's not I think the court would under due process would stop you immediately from trying to do that, and I think it'd be a waste of your time. And and with regards to the ombudsman, we haven't made a decision on that, whether or not to get the ombudsman involved on a on a prior existing nonconforming use or just let you guys issue a citation on it, and then we'll go to court to defend it. We haven't made that decision. But I think it'd be a waste of your time to reset it because I think you need to get the jurisdictional limbo straightened out because you don't have jurisdiction on it. The appellate authority has it. And my position on that is the appellate authority has sat on it so long. I don't even know if they've got jurisdiction over it. But that that question has to be answered first, or else you're just gonna waste your time. That's all I came for. Thank you.

What what's your comment on that? From your standpoint from the calendar? I wasn't initially on this, but, our view was that restarting it would give them due process as it is expired. I mean, all timelines have expired, on, the appeal, and setting it back. I mean, we don't have I mean, the I don't see how we can't, you know, restart it if there's no way to give it to an appeal authority that doesn't exist. It was appealed to, a board that that's no longer there. It's now, an ALJ. So I think it should be a statement that says, hey. This we recognize that that this board no longer exists, And in order to give, the applicant their due process to, look at this case again, that's that's the way that we have viewed it, to restart the process, to give them that due process.

Okay.

Okay. And, yeah, if you have comments, please come up. When you do come up here to the mic. And and Sure.

My name is Dirk Howard. I live directly to the east of the bench of the Holy Oaks. I did send a letter to the development services, and I don't know if it has been passed on to the commission members or not. The couple of things that I have to say is the character of the neighborhood has changed since 2006. We now have fence line on the, North End Of The Holy Oaks and the South End Of The Holy Oaks that did not exist before. We have construction of the stokers. We have the shed work area for the farm that's almost in the flight path. And then, of course, we have the Rupert's with their home directly. The length of their parcel is approximately 1,250 feet. Their airport runway in their original application was suggested that they were wanting a runway way length of 625 feet. When you put the runway object free areas on either end, That is an additional 240 feet on both ends. That puts the length of the runway areas already at 1,105 feet, and we still have not put in the runway protection zones. Runway protection zones add another thousand feet to each end of the runway. So for a total of 3,105 feet, Over 1,800 feet of the entire runway design, it would be unposed on neighboring parcels. They have no input on that, and they haven't been considered on that. And there has been no negotiation for rights for that. And I think that, because they are unfairly impinging on other neighbors that it should remain revoked.

Thank you. Thank you.

Please state your name and keep comments to three minutes, please.

Aaron Stoker. I live just north there, that property. It's against the Holy Oaks. I think there's the biggest question going on dirt is they make it a minor incident. It was a minor. The plane crashed. Flat out crashed. We sent pictures of actual crash. Happened. Can you identify where the crash occurred? We did. We we sent pictures to this to the county with all the information showing everything. Who said the video?

Who said I have a video. We have a video. Don't don't come up yet. But Okay. Was it did it happen on their property or on somebody else's property? The first the the crash actually happened on their property. Do you know where We have another incidence. I know exactly where it happened. If you want, I can show you. But the the other thing is Commissioner's care. I mean, I find it interesting.

What's it up front?

About where you read Samuel in that photo is about where that happened. Correct. Back by the house. Right there? Up there. Yep. Yep. Right about there. What

But we need to understand is it it was a cub. I mean, they they land these things in Alaska on nothing. This is supposed to be a full airport, and they couldn't do it. Another example, and that was at 05:30, twenty, twenty five. Another incident we have on Parcel 1260011 was I send these pictures as well. As I show a figure one that they landed the plane on another parcel. We have the you can see the landing strips of the plane actually in invading their property because they don't have enough land to land their plane. They don't have enough runway on their existing property to make it work. And that was submitted to the county as well. Accord you know, no way's ordinances, planes are loud at 105 decibels. A jackhammer is only in the hundreds. Farming there, you know, the most tractors in the sixties decibels. So the harassment, the noise. They also haven't complied as Dirk pointed out. They haven't met the FAA hardtop conditions for fire, for, there's no there's no mitigation how they're gonna get in there and suppress if anything happens, just like this this airplane crashing incident is already a part of the airport incident. This was revoked and needs to be revoked again, completely ended. So we all can live our lives in peace and safety and not have to be harassed by this airport. Thank you. Mister Stokes, could you just confirm?

If I'm looking at this correctly, your house is due north of the runway? Exactly north. It was built in 2017. Correct. And if I measure from approximately the south end of their property to your house is about 2,000 feet.

Would that be approximate? Houses. That's correct. But you're still invading two other properties now

as well. 2,100

feet. Right. You're still invading two other properties just to I I understand, but I just was a whining here. When they did it when we first built and we went to the county and said, this will end it because your house is in the runway protection zone, which it was. Then the lawyers got involved and changed all that. They just mitigated and shorted the runway to make it work. Well, it's proven with the plane crashing and landing in a in other people's property that it doesn't work. It originally needed that runway protection zone. Could you just show one more time quick where did the plane land on somebody else's property?

Scroll

That's hard.

Yeah.

Right here.

So was that before the picture? I can show you the facts. Literally where the the plane landed right there. We have a picture right after right right after the incident. We I I got her permission, the good sales, to bring my truck and drone and take both overhead pictures of it. And you could just clearly see where they landed in her property. But the fence was not up at that time? Time, the fence was not there. Okay. So the fence was there, we'd have another accident. And this this building wasn't even here as well. But they shortened the the protection zone went into my property. So they realized, well, that's not gonna work. The lawyers changed everything, so pushed it back to into here, still impacting the good sales and and now this property as well.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name and keep comments to three minutes, please.

I'm doctor Leo Herbert. I have PhD in mechanical engineering. Just saying that for the record is that the same credentials that the parties involved like to tout. So my house is the one that is just due south that is in the production runway production zone. And I want to just first say that RPZs are for safety. That's their job is to keep the people on the ground safe. That's what the FFA FAA says they're for. So if you put a home in that, you are not keeping people safe. And I don't care whether it happens here or some appeals court, there is no safe way you can say that no house in a RPZ is safe. So if you put a school in that, if you you never let a school in there, so why would you let a house with three kids in it in RPZ? Another another fact is that at the speeds for takeoff, it only takes about ten to fifteen seconds to get from the edge of their property to my house. That's only that's ten to fifteen seconds of reaction time. If something bad happens, there's only that much time to react to it. So they're either gonna put the plane down and crash, or they're gonna crash into my house, and that's not okay. Let me see if there's anything else I have in here. I don't think there's much else that I have to state. Just that, you know, permission should be given before you put RPC on someone else's property. And you guys already wrote that into ordinance now, and so we should just conditions aren't gonna change. Like, it's not just just because they had it before you wrote that ordinance doesn't mean that's still a good idea. So I guess that's all I would say. If you want a video of the crash that happened, I have it on my phone. I don't I don't how to show that or send that.

Email it. I can email it to you. Yep. K.

Thank you. Thanks.

Could you could you email that? He's emailed to Connor. Yeah. Email it. I'll send it out to yours.

My name is Laura Barris, and I'm at the property just to the east of the Rupert property. So a lot of information has been provided to the county, and I would just really encourage that it all be reviewed because all this, know, the plane crashes and the, landing of an airplane on someone else's property, that's all been submitted. But my concern is that this will be continued to be drug out. And, you know, the, Mr. Chambers talks about a nonconforming use and that county doesn't have jurisdiction. So much of that is irrelevant. The facts are that Cash County Ordinance number twenty twenty two dash 30, which amended title 17 land use type fifty eight ten private airport is being violated in that one. The Holy Oaks do not own all of the property nor have an easement on which the runway protection zone lies. They have their runway protection zone right over the top of the Rupert's home that is right over the top of it. Their runway protection zone is over the top of the Rupert's home. Like, Levi Rupert said, the purpose of a runway protection zone is to protect the people and property. This should be of concern to the county to protect public safety. It's not being protected. No amount of discussion or jurisdiction or anything can refute the fact that their runway protection zone is right over the top of the Rupert home. It's not safe. In addition, the current code says they have to have an easement that and, you know, obviously, it doesn't make any sense to that someone else someone can use someone else's property for something that they don't have permission to do. I mean, that seems so clear cut to me. So and I think this will be, you know, the the the strategy over the last five years that we've lived there and the pri previous five years to that was just delay, delay, delay, delay. Things went slip through the cracks. I'm afraid that will continue. So it's my opinion that it should be revoked. And if by some reason, you know, somewhere, someone can determine that it's not a safety issue, that, you know, they have the right to and that they have the right to use someone else's property, that Holy Oaks have the right to use someone else's property for their runway protection zone. If somehow they can prove it, then it could be unrevoked. But in the meantime, it is a safety issue, and I encourage anyone to just look at it, drive out there. It's a safety issue that should be of prime concern to the county, as well as the rights of the Rupert's that they should not have to have someone's runway protection zone on their property and endangering them when it's right over the top of their house. Not safe. End of story. No more discussion is really needed. Thank you. Could you identify one more time where you're at? The Barris' is just

Oh, Barris'. Okay. Right. South South East. So thank you. We get a motion to, end the

public discussion. So moved.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. I assume we need some more time to research this where this has been going on for such a long period of time. Get legal's point of view on this. Right. All All the information. So what do you think commissioners wanna readdress this? The next meeting or in September?

Where does the FAA

enter into all this? Well That's what we gotta find out. So

you guys wouldn't believe the meetings that we've sat through on this since well, they said 2016. Yeah. We were here for that. Yeah. And it I'll just express this nothing personal, but it just blows my mind that this wasn't finalized and handled when it was supposed to have been, but we understand why that happened. We just it's gotta be taken care of, and I don't think it can be postponed. It's gotta be acted on as quickly as possible because it's not right.

That's my opinion. Well, let's bring it up then to August on the August 13. That was not Well, I don't know what legal says or staff says.

There will be a discussion. Believe me. So

Yeah. Just when you can get it to us, and we're in the clear. Let's get it done.

No. It's closed. Thank you.

But along with the we don't need to have a what do you call it? A meet with the council on this ahead of time, but there is so much history from his question. I mean, we had meetings where we had FFA. FFA. There was a lot of education that went through this process with all of that. I don't even know how we can

digest it all to Where where is all that information? Is that, Con, or something you could send to us to refresh so we You'll be reading for three weeks. Right.

All that overtime.

Yeah. But there's been multiple occurrences what revisited it again there when it got stirred whichever time was they were landing them on the roads out there.

Yeah. K. Send a phone. Alright.

Any other discussion on that? If not, I think we've got a good idea here. So alright. Well,

nothing else? Connor, is it Actually, there's one more Oh, yeah. One more thing. The subdivision ordinance of Inwood. Yes. I don't know if Kurt wants to speak on this, but during our last meeting, we talked about subdivision ordinance, and the one that you had recommended approval to county council, limiting it to seven, unless they connected to a municipal system, sewer or water. So you had asked for that to be coming back here today for a public hearing, but in the interim, there's been some activity and the executive office has been doing some work to figure out the best way to move forward on the subdivision ordinance. So we will be drafting an ordinance. In your packet, there was what you recommended approval on, some minimal changes about changing it from requiring it to be connected to a municipal system to a public or private water system. And then there were some other ideas from different counties, in there as well, requiring wet water, and other kind of ideas. But after this meeting, we'll be doing that draft. The executive's office is going to gather together a small committee of folks, kind of work through that before we bring it back to you again. Anything you wanna add to that, Curt? Nope. So anyway, I just wanna give you an update. And and now you can adjourn. Okay.

Thank you. Well, with that, we'll adjourn the meeting for today. So