Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Dutson rezone, rejects 40-acre industrial zoning near Amalga
Summary
The Cache County Council approved a small residential rezone for the Dutson property north of Newton and denied a separate 40-acre industrial rezone near Amalga after planning-commission recommendations and local concerns about services and general-plan compatibility.
The Cache County Council voted on two land-use items on April 13: it approved Ordinance 2026-14 (Dutson 2 rezone) and denied Ordinance 2026-15, a request to rezone 40 acres to heavy industrial near Amalga.
Brian Abbott of Development Services summarized both requests and the planning commission decisions. On Dutson 2, Abbott said the revised application seeks to rezone a parcel to RU-5 to allow up to three residential lots; Abbott told the council the planning commission recommended approval on a 3–2 vote with one abstention. Applicant Paul Dutson told the council, “me and my brother wanna move out there and bring our farms and our family and just live out there,” and said he planned to keep most land in agricultural use while building two homes on one 10-acre side.
Council discussion on Dutson centered on roads, water and preserving green-belt eligibility. After a motion to waive rules and support planning and zoning, the council approved the rezone.
On the 40-acre industrial rezone petitioned just outside Amalga, Abbott said the parcel sits adjacent to municipal light-industrial zoning but is identified by the general plan as agriculture and ranching. The county planning commission recommended denial (6–0). Proponent Dakota Bodily argued the soil and parcel conditions made farming impractical and that industrial zoning would create jobs and revenue. Bodily told the council, “Industrial zoning represents the most appropriate and functional use of the land.”
Council members expressed concerns about the property’s inconsistency with the general plan, the absence of nearby county industrial zoning, and the probable costs of extending services. After debate the council moved to deny Ordinance 2026-15, noting the planning commission’s unanimous recommendation and concerns about services and future sprawl.
What’s next: Staff will prepare the ordinance language and administrative paperwork to finalize the council’s actions; applicants retain the right to pursue other lawful paths, including annexation discussions with Amalga.
