Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone Mountain Manor Springs 2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cache County Council denies Mountain Manor Springs 2 rezone after residents raise water, road and compatibility concerns
Summary
After a public hearing with multiple residents urging flexibility, the Cache County Council voted unanimously to deny Ordinance 2026-04, which would have rezoned 98.68 acres in Petersboro from Agricultural (A10) to Rural 5 (RU5). Council cited road, water access, and inconsistency with the county plan.
The Cache County Council on Feb. 10, 2026, denied a request to rezone nearly 99 acres near Petersboro, rejecting Ordinance 2026-04 after staff, commissioners and multiple residents raised concerns about road access, water supply and the parcel’s fit with the county general plan.
Brian Abbott, interim director of Development Services, summarized the staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation to deny, citing incompatibility with the RU5 zone’s purpose, substandard access on portions of 7200 West and unresolved parcel-legal issues stemming from a prior unapproved subdivision. Abbott told the council the parcels are partly in “Agriculture and Ranching” and “Mountain Rural and Conservation” designations on the county’s future land-use map.
Property owner Terena Lund addressed the council during the public hearing, rebutting staff findings and saying Mendon city officials were aware of the anticipated change. Multiple residents — including Rye Lund, Mark Cardell and members of the Yonk and Keller families — urged the council to allow more residential development, saying limits on lot creation and subdivision standards prevent families from building homes and create hardships for landowners.
Councilmembers discussed the technical findings at length. Members questioned whether the site had adequate public-road frontage and sufficient culinary water to support a higher-density subdivision. Brian Abbott noted a pending water study intended to inform subdivision regulation changes; staff advised that without municipal water or other improvements, subdivisions over seven lots would be constrained under proposed code changes.
Councilmember Nolan Gunnell moved to suspend the rules and deny the rezone; Councilmember David Erickson seconded. The motion passed unanimously, formally denying Ordinance 2026-04. The council recorded no votes in opposition.
The denial leaves the property in the Agricultural (A10) zone; staff and the council noted that any future development proposals would need to address parcel legality, road improvements and water service. The council closed the public hearing and moved on to other agenda items.
Next steps: the county’s staff report notes parcel-legal irregularities (Parcel 12-052-0026 was created by an improper adjustment) that would require additional actions before any future rezone or subdivision proposal could proceed. The council also pointed to the ongoing water study, which staff said could inform later decisions about subdivision standards.
