Cache County Board of Adjustments

On Friday, August 9th, 2019, we received notice that Cache County has assembled a new Board of Adjustments. On Wednesday, August 14th, the new board will meet to be instructed by the State of Utah’s Ombudsman office on their duties. At this time the board will also elect a Chairman and other board officers as required. The meeting will start at 6:00 pm. The public is invited to attend, but there will be no public comment or input.

On Thursday, August 15th, the Board of Adjustments will hear our appeal. This meeting will begin at 6:00 pm. There is only one item on the agenda.

Board of Adjustments meeting packet.

Please attend the August 14th & 15th meetings. Be sure to spread the word.

Dirk Howard

Appeal of Decision

We have decided to appeal the decision of the Cache County Planning and Zoning Commission. This appeal goes to the Cache County Board of Adjustments.

During the June 6th meeting of the Cache County Planning and Zoning Commission, the commissioners decided to let the Holyoak conditional use permit (CUP) stand as valid. Their primary rational was that the Holyoaks had met the condition of having completed “substantial” work on their airport project.

You can read our appeal here.

We have also have a transcript of the May 5th, 2016 Cache County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It is a fairly long document, but it is very enlightening. It does demonstrate that the concerns that the commissioners had about future conflicts with the airport have come true. The last four pages are worth reading to find out how the commission originally wanted to handle any future disputes. I think the commission chair was pretty clear about the process. My only question is “Why wasn’t this followed?”

Holyoak Airport Revocation – Staff Report

The Cache County Planning and Zoning office has recently released a media packet for the June 6th, 2019 commission meeting. Included in this packet is the Staff Report for the Holyoak Airport Revocation. It is a long read (46 pages), so settle in to read it.

I think the most revealing portions of this report are the inconsistancies. In the staff review section, it is stated in section D-8-a-i that “the Holyoak Airport landing area has not been operational”. Yet in Attachment C, John Sweeney of the FAA states, “I spoke with Rachel and she confirmed that the airstrip is operational”. Confused yet?

Holyoak Airport with June 2019 runway length

Also in Attachment C, Rachel Holyoak states “The landing strip is as complete as we intend at this time…” and then submits an Airport Master Record (FAA Form 5010-5) that is “…to notify the FAA that the landing area is now operational.” How is a landing area “operational” with only 260′ of runway? Is there anyone that is willing to use this “operational” airport?

The final page of Attachment C is the Master Airport Record as the FAA has recorded it. The FAA lists the runway length of the Holyoak Airport to be 1414 feet in length. This is pretty remarkable since the Holyoak property is not that long, measuring from north edge to south edge. Rachel Holyoak filed the form listing a runway length of 640′. Still a far cry from the 260′ of existing runway.

The current Planning and Zoning staff recommendation is to let the Holyoak Airport CUP to continue. If this concerns you at all, please plan on attending the June 6th, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It will be at 5:30 pm at the Cache County Historic Courthouse. It is time for this ill thought out project to be cancelled.

Neighbor Comment & Response

I received the following comment from the Contact Us page. I thought this is a great discussion point. Here is the original email and my response.

Comment: I say no to you and people like you that feel they have the right to tell and say what another person can’t do on their property. I have lived in Mendon for 15 years I watch people do things that I don’t like all the time but it is not my say what they do. I work rotating shifts and sleep day and night. I have to listen to a train whistle morning and night. It wakes me up, there are no safety gates, it runs right by the school, again no gates. It is not safe, it is annoying, and brings down my property value. What are you going to do about this? Where is the “ no railroad website”. Mind your own and our community can be a community where we all can be proud and happy to live in. You are heading down a slippery slope. You start this and then we all can say what the neighbors can’t do with their property, that includes you, farms, ranches, town and county people.

Thank you for your comment. This is the type of discussion that we need on a project like the Holyoak Airport.

Your home was built in 1994, the railroad was built in 1906. The railroad tracks are 3300 feet from your property, the airport is 300 feet from mine. As you have pointed out, the noise from the trains is not confined to the property where the tracks are located, the sound is a long distance nuisance.

Let’s look at this situation comparing items of equal value.

Source of SounddB rating
Train horn, at the source140
Propeller driven airplane, at 300 ft (my home from Holyoak airport)98-100
Power lawnmower 96
Train horn, at 3300 feet ( Distance to Main Street Mendon )80-90
Food blender 88
Propeller driven airplane, 1000 ft overhead88
Garbage disposer80
Ambient noise, west of Mendon, typical day40-63
Conversation at home50
Whisper20
Breathing10

While the railroad tracks predate the construction of your home by several decades, the Holyoak Airport only exists on paper at this point.

I agree with you that as property owners, we should have rights to enjoy our homes and property as we wish, or until someone else is harmed. We should be able to farm, garden, raise our chickens, park our cars, jeeps, and trailers without interference. However, when a property use starts to harm the neighbors, we need to look at the allowed uses. Is the proposed use compatible with the neighborhood or area?

The joy the Holyoaks receive from having an airport at their home does not
trump the joy Kookie Tanner would have if able to sell her property. The harm to Kookie is significant. The pleasure the Holyoaks receive from having an airport should not trump the joy of the Stoker family to live in their home. The Stokers were told the airport would be voided if they built their home in the runway protection zone. They built, and the airport did not go away, the protection zone was shortened to just off the edge of their home by 10 feet. The Stokers will be directly under the airplane taking off, and the aircraft will be less than 300 ft overhead!

I believe that we need to balance the rights of a property owner to do as they wish, but the desired use should not harm adjacent property owners. I hope that your neighbors will consider your widow’s property rights before they install a biker bar next door. Kookie’s rights have been trampled on when it comes to this airport. To calm your concerns, I would be one of the first to sign a “No biker bar/protect this widow’s rights,” petition.

Please come to our meeting at the Mendon Station on Thursday, May 30th at 7:30 pm. It is this type of discussion that we need as a community.

Dirk Howard

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started