[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6188319,"mediaKeyId","5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad","parentId",5063397,"title","Cache County reviews large-scale solar code amendment as developer details 150‑megawatt Honeystone proposal","audioSeconds",1919,"startMs",27089,"endMs",1946275,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad&start=27&end=1946","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad/thumbnail_27089.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6188319/Utah/Cache-County-reviews-large-scale-solar-code-amendment-as-developer-details-150megawatt-Honeystone-proposal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188319-7f1edf422a5c22a2f1a36227b49d7869/orig.mp4?Expires=1770612674&Signature=iPhZF-zrjAn7WqMY1ZD9BRPUhEuqGxAkDpQ4ZkXQzrlBWinfcZS-dnhZcZX1EMq8Uh9PJEdnfco3ZJpaHjwHN6EiH1CvGlr8fa8bu~4oXnpWStYG9JBgR4sFw76T2PJ6FW80jusfJTjlRHIcX5O0ajj59PpB2s9G3YSlwteW7~jAm~yGVbWpmvB3UL5ELzysudXke4blXrOU-5HNuMTuZf5BKfeZf5w~wCc2aghczBLdHEpWgE6R1V6LfpFIyaLrsJQpdGQWCZDbVsPYjL9uf-~DX7mIXBre8lED2oRd4264lGnTeRPRGT8vVW8JgoIByDioGb~ue4b14K8fuKImMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-24T21:19:40Z","article","County staff introduced a proposed large‑scale solar code amendment at a joint Cache County Council and Planning Commission workshop, saying the draft would create an entire chapter for solar and insert intermediate scale categories between household systems and very large utility projects.

The draft was prompted in part by a developer proposal discussed previously for a project the developer described as about 150 megawatts on roughly 600 acres. Cole Stocker, a project representative for Enel Green Power, told the meeting the project is called the Honeystone Solar Project and said the company has completed environmental diligence for the site.

Why it matters: the county’s current code has a large gap—rules suitable for a single residence and nothing to regulate multi‑megawatt facilities—so officials said they need a framework that lets the county permit, condition and evaluate projects of intermediate and large scales.

County staffer Connor said the amendment would add definitions and create multiple size tiers because “the existing code we have basically has a jump from it supplies 1 house to this very large scale thing.” The planning commission had asked staff to consider intermediate steps such as a community scale (under 5 megawatts), a mid tier (roughly 1–20 acres) and a large tier that would trigger public‑infrastructure overlay review and additional standards.

Cole Stocker, of Enel Green Power, addressed several concerns raised by commissioners. He said the company generally clears only what is needed for construction, then reestablishes native grasses under panels, and that leases include an obligation to restore the land after the project term: “after 40 years in our leases, it's set so we have to go back and completely restore the land to previous conditions.” He also said no wetland or habitat constraints were identified in the company’s diligence for this site and that the facility would connect close to existing transmission lines; he added that commercial contracts are not finalized but that power delivered on those transmission lines would likely be used in Utah.

Several council members pressed the visual and local‑benefit questions. One member asked whether any part of the power could be required to serve local customers or whether the developer could be required to offer a first right of refusal to nearby cities; county counsel said he would need to research the legal feasibility of such local‑preference requirements. Logan Mayor Holly Danes told the meeting Logan City was following the discussion and “we could potentially be interested in purchasing 10 megawatts,” depending on price.

Public‑safety and technical issues also arose. Commissioners and staff noted the proximity of an airport and asked whether FAA studies had been completed; Stocker said the company conducts FAA coordination and had considered the nearby airfield in its diligence. Officials also asked about battery storage and fire risk; attendees said the developer had met with the local fire marshal and that battery storage standards remain a concern because lithium‑ion fires elsewhere have been difficult to extinguish.

Next steps and council direction: staff said the draft code remains at the rough, information‑gathering phase. The planning commission and council expressed general support for developing tiered scale definitions and standards and asked staff to refine the ordinance and return with a recommendation. County counsel agreed to research the legality and practicality of local‑preference language a council member had proposed.

The meeting included no formal vote on the code amendment; council members and planning commissioners instead directed staff to continue drafting the ordinance and to solicit more data and examples from other jurisdictions.

Ending: staff asked the planning commission to provide recommendations on tier thresholds and implementation details; council members asked staff to gather quantitative evidence on environmental and economic impacts and to coordinate FAA and fire‑marshal reviews as the draft moves toward a formal public hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cache County Council Workshop Meeting – 06-24-2025","oneSentenceSummary","County staff introduced a proposed large‑scale solar code amendment at a joint Cache County Council and Planning Commission workshop, saying the draft would create an entire chapter for solar and insert intermediate scale categories between household systems and very large utility projects.","taxTitle","Cache County School District, Utah School Boards, Utah","taxId",74853,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6188305,"Staff updates council on Powder Mountain master plan; traffic, fire and interjurisdictional access remain outstanding",399,4354390,4754200,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad&start=4354&end=4754","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad/thumbnail_4354390.jpg","/articles/6188305/Utah/Staff-updates-council-on-Powder-Mountain-master-plan-traffic-fire-and-interjurisdictional-access-remain-outstanding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188305-7829d661297129650c4b49dc3c910f12/orig.mp4?Expires=1770612674&Signature=BKe-1JdLStpJrXaplfPsZih3GfcIxAf33Mg9kRHRxVbJ1rVdm2XfgbGpbcMaFi7Uzd-oOG4BnMtOY8e1NOO1m1enZUpUtClZe8XpF5ORn7frsohVSC7G40ZtWJJnJwjRdQ0dUAaifvJ-9oUbHqbkHyG2QWu9hh-43Hyr-VqGq0APgyxmLFuUNe4i-ayPx~nyynON5K0FMRJzWxK8aFqDXdMm~84EDSk0LZUKmaH8mifRIzJ3aHsMrAyCYqCq4npUDdG-LlOlrsyS7~kcL8B0yi5ix5eTHLLbzk3rae2bSdplXwa-Gx8Xv-DxlRhhjTAJuPNZEINwAEiq2x55PUGTKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County development staff provided an update on the Powder Mountain master plan process and timeline at the joint workshop, summarizing meetings with the applicant, consultant JUB, and neighboring Weber County and UDOT officials.

Why it matters: Powder Mountain’s proposed master plan could add a large number of dwelling units and seasonal visitors; county staff said they need to resolve outstanding studies and interlocal coordination before development applications proceed.

Staff provided a list of outstanding items: a revised traffic impact study has been submitted and awaits UDOT review; local law‑enforcement comments from the sheriff’s office remain outstanding and may require updates to interlocal agreements; county roads staff raised multi‑jurisdictional access concerns for a project that would rely on state routes and county roads for ingress and egress; stormwater and wastewater management questions remain; and wildfire/access issues in the wildland‑urban interface (WUI) require further mitigation planning.

Staff also addressed a circulating rumor about a large reservoir and said the consultant met with the local water and sewer district and that a full reservoir is not part of the plan; instead, staff said, the applicant has storage tanks and that current water‑rights materials indicate the district believes it can serve the master‑plan buildout subject to further review. Staff asked for periodic updates, and council members requested monthly briefings and suggested rotating council attendance at consultant check‑ins.

Next steps and council direction: staff will continue coordination with UDOT, Weber County, the sheriff’s office and county road and fire officials; they will seek final comments on traffic, access and service impacts and return to the planning commission and council with recommended conditions and any necessary interlocal agreements. The planning commission will handle formal review and recommendations prior to any approval of development plans.

Ending: county staff asked for and received agreement to provide monthly status updates on Powder Mountain master plan milestones and consultant meetings.","County staff and consultant JUB provided a timeline and list of outstanding items for the Powder Mountain master plan, including traffic review by UDOT, sheriff and county road comments, wildfire management and confirmation of water‑supply/tank capacity. County requested monthly updates and planning commission involvement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6188309,"Council discusses water adequacy, considers temporary moratorium on larger subdivisions",1199,3119665,4319429,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad&start=3119&end=4319","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad/thumbnail_3119665.jpg","/articles/6188309/Utah/Council-discusses-water-adequacy-considers-temporary-moratorium-on-larger-subdivisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188309-6d4e748244dbc00552a1b5d2459399f6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770612674&Signature=ah1f5nZtRvnwCKXv147mdK7x~KFMhQnyC6IVoGdyfu-dNp-YYzHUUV1JdL2rV8yIp63eQryDqsb50IbYSDqHrjXkT5puieIn4WWJmzWex1myhsibdwSgPD9mkqLPr88h30oOo4LPOlL-3dbqjzK2MEUiZ8QEECeVq-qnRAIMb1P-qVfDTrMQVy1Vr59hMaNQi-DYnDcJMPyU8zjVv5GXCogKuRzOfXsfxxHIPlOshE~CQ5myqbWNfy1c7PtA9wDbbL3YfpIy9YOrB~7PECoSRSfTIwvtHMk7sQkIGrSMDFFWa0uyN1NlYyIY~ieHB-M3oP~g8TJ56KfkE9NLyihARg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilors and planning commissioners opened a discussion about groundwater adequacy and county capacity after recent large subdivision approvals and additional large proposals in the pipeline.

Why it matters: attendees said several new subdivisions would add many new domestic wells and septic systems in areas where water is a limited resource; participants argued the county should consider standards such as requiring public‑water systems for clustered subdivisions or a test well requirement before recording lots.

Speakers said two recently approved subdivisions in the Mount Sterling area will add many wells in locations that previously had only a handful, and commissioners noted examples of recently drilled wells that produced no water. One participant summarized state practice elsewhere: “in Box Elder County, if you do a certain subdivision, they make them drill a well to make sure there's water there first.” Planning staff noted state code already requires public‑water‑supplier registration when a development will serve five or more homes or more than 25 people; staff proposed using that threshold as a model for county review.

County counsel, Andrew, outlined the moratorium option and legal constraints, saying the county can establish a temporary land‑use regulation without prior planning‑commission recommendation but that such a moratorium “is not gonna exceed a hundred and 80 days.” Commissioners and council members discussed whether the council should place a temporary hold on new large subdivision approvals while staff drafts standards addressing water supply, septic/sewer options, fire access and related service impacts. Several members supported using a 5‑lot threshold for additional scrutiny; others suggested 10 lots, and the group asked staff to prepare language for a moratorium that would be legally defensible and narrowly tailored.

Officials also discussed infrastructure impacts beyond water including fire response, roads and long‑term service burdens. Staff and public‑works officials said a county‑level policy that requires clustered subdivisions to establish a public water system (metering and state registration) would increase oversight and help protect groundwater and source‑water quality.

Next steps and council direction: council members asked staff and county counsel to draft a temporary moratorium ordinance or emergency regulation targeted at larger subdivisions (the working threshold discussed in the workshop was five lots) and to return with a recommended text the council could consider on the next agenda. Staff also will pursue code language that clarifies when a subdivision must provide a public water system or demonstrate water availability before final plat recordation.

Ending: the council directed staff to prepare draft language and told counsel to confirm statutory procedures and timing for a 180‑day temporary land‑use regulation; no moratorium had been adopted at the workshop.","Councilors and planning commissioners raised concerns about groundwater and service demands after several large subdivision applications; staff and counsel discussed a possible temporary land‑use moratorium for subdivisions above a threshold (working proposal: five lots) while new code and water‑supply rules are drafted.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6188315,"Cache County workshop advances draft short‑term rental rules after complaints about a Wellsville‑area event rental",1185,1941250,3126650,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad&start=1941&end=3126","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5063397-a6ed3fb7a001b62f9a7d5aa0f05635ad/thumbnail_1941250.jpg","/articles/6188315/Utah/Cache-County-workshop-advances-draft-shortterm-rental-rules-after-complaints-about-a-Wellsvillearea-event-rental","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188315-6e9f431410b5816cd64b8dd36acc5487/orig.mp4?Expires=1770612674&Signature=H6-e8uk2r~pZ86SGN6cQ6I0gGLJvh3dH3J3HzpUa8-A05fu~-wVL3bRfpxErknVr1szognAh8nuUk~S~jSwGnci62MD1LCGq3NA58KwEQkuutsTnhfbaBTFZyxJb6mESSi2aZSo5xHhl-tOIzCh6b-xTVmXK7dOSS-ac-jPOvHm8hGWNd~cijYa~6BB0izISRB55ITrMU~6dd~95mtWnP1KdWLon3Wq2qG6hRYMjwDjvRAlGWStNTWxZEsnTCWrShVjIR4Jg-LNMsPdoe7FU~DjtPZQCaGxRUjsBHGll8XDxomu6HdnMDMx1tP5sZRJ~IYTCEDyaJw80IVBpNrrf2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cache County staff presented a draft short‑term rental ordinance during a joint workshop after members described a county property near Wellsville being used for large gatherings and frequent rentals that neighbors say have disrupted residential areas.

Why it matters: council members and staff said short‑term rentals are increasingly common in the county and that the current code has no uniform enforcement pathway. Officials said they want a minimal regulatory framework that identifies operators, ensures safety inspections and gives the county enforcement tools for operations that resemble event centers rather than owner‑occupied home rentals.

County staff noted a draft ordinance in the workshop packet that would insert new language defining short‑term rentals and associated use types. Attendees described one property outside Wellsville where neighbors reported 30–50 people and a large number of vehicles at times; commissioners said that use more closely resembled a recreational or event business than a typical home rental.

Participants discussed a tiered approach widely used elsewhere: require a basic business license, collect transient‑room tax when bookings are processed through major platforms, and require annual fire‑safety inspections and parking minimums tied to bedrooms for smaller owner‑occupied or limited rentals. Larger operations or properties hosting events would be routed to a conditional‑use permit (CUP) process for fuller public review and conditions. As one staff member said of the current draft: “The way the current draft is, yes, you would get approved to have this via CUP.”

Speakers raised enforcement questions: county staff said some listings operate off‑platform or without registration, making compliance and tax collection difficult. Staff noted they can monitor listing sites and that IT could help scrape listings for compliance checks, but that such efforts require resources.

Other policy options discussed included limiting non‑owner‑occupied rentals, restricting rentals on private roads, and establishing proximity limits between short‑term rental units. Council members and staff emphasized the need to balance homeowner property rights, legitimate small‑scale rentals and protections for neighbors and emergency responders.

Next steps and council direction: attendees generally endorsed moving forward with a code that would require registration/business licensing, fire inspections, parking standards and a CUP threshold for larger or event‑style rentals. Staff said the draft can be adjusted to require owner‑occupancy for some categories or to require annual inspections and a landlord/business license for all rental operators. Enforcement and registration procedures will be refined and returned to planning commission and council for public hearings.

Ending: county staff will continue refining draft language and enforcement approaches with development services, the fire marshal and code enforcement; the planning commission and council will review a revised draft for potential adoption.","County staff circulated a draft ordinance after complaints about a property near Wellsville operating like an event center. Council and planning commissioners discussed requiring business licenses, inspections, parking limits and a conditional‑use permit for larger commercialized rentals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cache County reviews large-scale solar code amendment as developer details 150‑megawatt Honeystone proposal

Staff updates council on Powder Mountain master plan; traffic, fire and interjurisdictional access remain outstanding

Council discusses water adequacy, considers temporary moratorium on larger subdivisions

Cache County workshop advances draft short‑term rental rules after complaints about a Wellsville‑area event rental