Landowner’s NRCS‑backed conservation easement application draws Cache County site visit

Mister Silva, the applicant and landowner, hosted members of the Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee for a site visit to review his Phase 1 conservation easement application and explain how local subdivision rules and existing irrigation infrastructure shape the proposal.

The visit focused on whether the proposed easement could provide public visibility from the roadway and how the city’s five‑acre minimum lot rule affects the configuration of the remaining parcels. "He offered me a million dollars for 20 acres," Mister Silva said, describing prior offers to purchase road‑front acreage; he added he prefers to preserve the land for his family and farming operations. A committee member said, "That's what this program's for," describing the easement program’s role in preserving agricultural land rather than selling to developers.

Why it matters: a conservation easement would permanently limit development on the conserved acreage, but the shape and placement of the easement must work with existing and proposed residential parcels. Committee members repeatedly cited the value of roadside visibility so the public can see what tax dollars fund and asked if the easement could front 800 East or be placed between newly created lots.

Key facts from the visit: Mister Silva said several residences already carry grandfathered five‑acre parcels, and he estimates roughly 30 acres remains after those splits. The subdivision that would produce the 20‑acre conserved portion has not yet been recorded; committee members noted that unrecorded parcels may allow flexibility for trail alignment or easement placement. Committee staff advised that final parcel shapes will determine whether a trail easement would sit on one future parcel or run between parcels.

NRCS involvement and funding timing came up repeatedly. Mister Silva said he has provided paperwork to state contacts and that Jeremy (a state food‑and‑ag contact identified during the visit) plans to submit an NRCS application in December. Committee members reminded the applicant that NRCS applications commonly begin with a broker’s estimate but require a full appraisal before NRCS funds will close.

Committee process and next steps: staff said they will collect site‑visit information and ask committee members to score the application before the next COSAC meeting (first‑round scoring). If the project scores well, the committee will make a recommendation to the county council; a second round of review would require dollar figures, a full appraisal and more detailed funding materials.

Agricultural context: members noted the property’s pivot irrigation and pressurized water, and Mister Silva and staff described high‑quality soils. The group discussed crops (potatoes and winter wheat) and potential market opportunities tied to the Utah Flour Mill coming online, which could increase demand for soft white wheat grown locally.

What was not decided: no formal motion or vote occurred at the site visit. Several technical questions remain open, including exact easement placement, whether the city will permit an easement between lots, and the final NRCS funding request amount. Staff and the applicant said they will pursue the NRCS application in December and return materials for committee scoring.

Next procedural step: staff will circulate site‑visit notes and set up scoring for the committee before the next meeting; the committee expects to use that score to make a recommendation to the county council.