Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends county council review after narrow approval for Dudson 2 rezoning
Summary
The planning commission recommended the Dudson 2 request to rezone 15.12 acres from agricultural to rural‑five (allowing up to three lots), after commissioners weighed proximity to Newton, road‑improvement requirements and prevailing lot sizes. The recommendation goes to county council for final approval.
The Cache County Planning Commission on March 5 recommended that the county council consider approving the Dudson 2 rezone request, which would change 15.12 acres from agricultural to RU‑5 to allow up to three lots.
Staff presented the request and explained the parcel’s zoning and context, noting it lies within the county’s agricultural and ranching future‑use designation and that a neighboring RU‑5 parcel sits roughly a mile away. Connor, the staff presenter, told commissioners the application met county submittal requirements but that road access and water rights remain conditions that must be satisfied before any subdivision can be recorded.
At the public hearing, applicant Paul Dudson said he and his brother planned to build homes and continue farming, and that a current tenant would continue to farm part of the property. Commissioners and staff then spent substantial time clarifying access and road‑improvement obligations. Staff and a county representative identified 6400 West as a major local road and a nearby gravel road as substandard; frontage and shoulder upgrades or a fee‑in‑lieu would be required as part of subdivision approvals, and UDOT must approve any access across state highways.
Commissioner deliberations focused on the county’s recent code change establishing a half‑mile range where RU‑5 subdivisions are preferred. Several commissioners said converting two lots to three represented a modest increase in density that fit nearby lot patterns, while others cited neighborhood opposition and roadway concerns. One commissioner recused, noting a familial relationship with Newton’s mayor and nearby property holdings.
A motion to recommend approval was made and seconded; the transcript records at least two explicit 'nay' votes and multiple commissioners in favor. Chair noted the planning commission’s recommendation is advisory and that final approval rests with the county council.
The recommendation will be forwarded to the county council; conditions including UDOT access approval, required road improvements or fee‑in‑lieu, and any water‑rights or septic requirements must be met before a subdivision plat could be recorded.
