Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Airport Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Cache County planners to revoke private‑airport permit after recent crash and lingering appeal
Summary
Residents urged the Planning Commission to revoke a private‑airport conditional use permit, citing a small aircraft crash in August 2025 and a house within the runway protection zone; the applicant’s attorney said an appeal remains pending and urged the county not to reopen the record. Commissioners asked staff to compile the historic record and consider jurisdictional questions before scheduling revocation.
Near the middle of the July 9 meeting, planning staff gave a historical update on a contested private‑airport conditional use permit (CEP) and told the Planning Commission that procedural gaps left the matter unresolved and that recent incidents have prompted renewed neighbor complaints.
Staff said the CEP for what staff referred to as the Holyoke Airport (recorded 2017) was reviewed by the commission in 2019 and again in 2022, when the commission voted to revoke the CUP after finding structures had been placed in a runway protection zone (condition 8 of the original CUP). An appeal was filed and, staff said, administrative changes and staffing turnover left the appeal process incomplete and the recorded CEP in place. A minor landing incident in late August 2025 renewed neighbor complaints and prompted staff to notify the applicant and neighbors and to consider starting a new revocation process.
Joe Chambers, who said he represents the airport owner, told the commission the appeal remains pending before an appellate authority and argued the commission lacks jurisdiction to restart the process. “I don’t think you can just start it over,” Chambers told commissioners, saying the appellate authority’s pending review places the matter in jurisdictional limbo.
Multiple nearby residents urged revocation on safety and nuisance grounds. Aaron Stoker said the aircraft “crashed — flat out crashed” onto or near the airport property in late August 2025 and presented photos and drone footage to staff. Dr. Leo Albert, who identified himself as holding a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, argued that runway protection zones (RPZs) are designed to protect people on the ground and said houses in RPZs are inherently unsafe: “There’s no safe way you can say that no house in a RPZ is safe,” he told the commission.
Neighbor Laura Barris said the airport’s recorded runway protection zone overlays adjacent private parcels and lacks required easements, and she urged the commission to treat the unresolved violations as a public‑safety issue. Several speakers pressed staff for maps and asked the county to provide the full FAA and CUP record for review.
Staff response and next steps Staff told the commission the county had sent the applicant a 30‑day notice as required by code and had invited the applicant to pursue ombudsman mediation; staff said the applicant’s attorney had not provided a timeline for that process. Staff recommended restarting the revocation review because the previous appeals board no longer exists and the appeals process had changed to a contract land‑use hearing officer since 2022.
Commissioners asked staff to compile the full historical record — including prior minutes, FAA materials, appeal filings, correspondence and GIS maps — and to return with jurisdictional guidance and a recommendation for timing; they suggested August or September for a revocation review if procedural questions can be settled. No revocation vote was taken July 9.
