Council accepts Hollow Road annexation petition for further study; conditions include Cache County agreement and water‑modeling

Midland City Council · November 7, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council accepted for further consideration a 29‑acre annexation petition south of the city along Hollow Road, subject to Cache County approval of any unincorporated peninsula and payment by the applicant to run a city water model to evaluate pressure adequacy for the annexation area.

Midland City Council on Nov. 6 accepted for further consideration an annexation petition for roughly 29 acres south of the city along Hollow Road, filed by the Hanson family. Staff said the area lies within the city’s annexation planning boundary and could be contiguous to city limits by including the Hollow Road right‑of‑way.

Staff warned the annexation would create a short unincorporated peninsula unless the county concurred; Cache County staff had signaled they would be more amenable if the city annexed the full road right‑of‑way rather than only half the typical width. Council also heard that a preliminary water review identified possible pressure adequacy concerns in that area. Staff recommended acceptance for further consideration contingent on Cache County approval and on the applicant paying the cost to run the city’s water model to test system adequacy.

Applicants told council they intend low‑density residential development (rural estate-style lots) with average lot sizes consistent with rural estate zoning. Staff noted zoning and utilities would be addressed later in the process; planning commission review and county concurrence are required steps before final annexation decisions and zoning determinations.

Council action: The council voted to accept the annexation petition for further consideration and to include staff’s recommendations (county approval and applicant-funded water modeling) in that consideration.

(Reporting note: acceptance was a procedural vote to move the annexation through staff, county and planning commission review; it is not a final annexation or zoning approval.)