Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landowners pitch 107‑acre Hendricks farm for conservation easement; committee urges funding partners and neighbor outreach
Summary
Hendricks family members presented a Phase 1 application for roughly 107 contiguous acres north of Richmond, asking the Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee to score the property. Committee recommended contacting NRCS and local land trusts, offered a site visit and suggested expanding the project by engaging adjacent landowners to improve funding prospects.
At a Sept. 9 meeting of the Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee, family members representing the Hendricks property asked the committee to consider their Phase 1 application for a conservation easement on about 107 contiguous acres north of Richmond.
The applicants described the land as longtime family farmland currently leased to the Christiansen family and said they would prefer to preserve it rather than see subdivision. “We'd love to see this farm stay a farm,” one applicant said during the presentation. Committee members and staff reviewed maps, existing trail designations and irrigation arrangements and discussed funding paths and next steps.
Why it matters: A conservation easement would prevent future residential or industrial development on the Hendricks parcel and could preserve scenic views and working farmland adjacent to an increasingly developed corridor near Pepperidge Farm and other new projects. Committee members said the property’s size and visibility from the highway make it a competitive candidate under several bond criteria, including scenic views, trail connectivity and agricultural protection.
Key facts and next steps: The committee advised the applicants to pursue multiple funding avenues and technical partners before or while the county evaluates the application. Members recommended an early outreach to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), local conservation districts and land trusts to “stack” funding — combining federal, state and local dollars with a possible county match — and to confirm who would hold an easement. Committee members also cautioned the applicants against ordering appraisals prematurely, noting many funders will require or supply their own current appraisals.
Staff outlined the easement valuation process: an easement typically pays the difference between the property’s development value and its agricultural value, and landowners may donate a portion of that difference. Staff also noted county bond funds are limited and that larger, contiguous projects generally score better and can be more cost-effective for public investment.
What applicants said: The family said they are willing to talk with neighbors, check the feasibility of enlarging the conservation block, and follow up with the suggested agencies. “We’ll check into some of these other things, talk to the neighbors,” an applicant said as the session concluded. County staff offered to schedule a site visit and to formally score the submitted Phase 1 application as presented if the applicants preferred not to expand the project.
Where it goes from here: County staff will remain available to help the applicants contact NRCS and local land trusts and will schedule a site visit when the applicants indicate they are ready. The committee did not take a formal vote on funding; its guidance was procedural and advisory pending application scoring and further funding coordination.
