Cache County Planning Commission Meeting -- 03/05/2026

Well, we'll call to order the March 5 Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to welcome everyone for being here. Thanks for attending tonight. We'll have our opening remarks and pledge by Morris Poole.

I'd like to give my remarks in the form of a prayer. Moisture we are receiving. We're grateful for the opportunity we have to meet and help in the planning and zoning of this county. We are grateful for the many blessings which we have, for the joys that we have in living in this valley. And these things we pray for in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. May we stand and pledge to with allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions about tonight's agenda or the February 5 minutes? Can I get approval on that if not?

We recommend we approve the revised agenda and the minutes from the February 5 meeting.

I'll second that. All in favor? Aye.

K. We have two consent items. Number the first one is the Wengren Ranch subdivision and the Alpenglow Estate Subdivision. Any questions on those two?

No? Okay.

Getting my motion on this then. I move that we approve the consent agenda.

Okay. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Item number three, we have a public hearing for the Detson two rezone. Connor, if you take us through that.

So the DUCs and two rezones request to rezone a total of 15.12 acres from the agricultural zone, so the pro five zone. Should the rezone be approved, the maximum of three plots be allowed. So one more is already there. As a little bit of history, these persons recently went through the rezone process to try to get the rural two zone, but that request was denied. The parcel don't match the configuration date on 08/08/2006. There was a split that was a termination of the court's office. There's also two, laws described as legal description, so it's still legal. Jason uses property to the north are made as agricultural and residential. So properties to the east, south, and west are primarily agricultural. The nearest parcel in the county that's in the rural five zone is located 1.16 miles to the southwest subject properties. This is currently located in the in the future plans in the agricultural and ranching zone. The purpose of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character in most areas of the valley. Preferred land uses includes agriculture, ranching, conserve public lands, and rural residential uses at densities of less than one unit. Rural residential uses at densities of less than one unit for 10 acres. Secondary land uses include industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture, support, clustered subdivision developments, and farm worker housing. Discouraged uses include residential developments at densities of greater than one unit for 10 acres, if not a clustered subdivision development and industrial commercial uses. They're also not located in the urban expansion overlay. In a no foot grab shoulder to a one foot grab shoulder just depending on where you're at. It's currently considered substandard as to pave shoulder and grab shoulder. And you also have 7900 West, which is at the top of the west parcel. So it's a county road that's classified as a minor local. It provides access to agricultural properties and a single residential property. It's maintained by the county in the summer only and has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Has an existing width of 15 feet, a 50 foot right away, no paved shoulder, no gravel shoulder, no gravel. He said it's not standard in every way. The Cache County Fire District had no comments. The acting wanted to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. Notice it was completed on February 20 and the twenty sixth. In that sense, notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet on the twentieth, and then a revised agenda. So it says a county website, three public places, and Utah public notice website on the Time of writing the staff report, no public comments have been received. We've received several from noon, and Newtown is against the rezone. Staff has no recommendation, but we'll hope you direct a letter to county council.

Okay.

Thanks, Connor. Any comment, commissioners, before we open to the public hearing?

K.

I'll make a motion to open a public hearing for the debts and two rezone.

K.

Just open a public hearing for the deaths in two rezone. Yeah.

We thought you were just introducing what was on the agenda. Are we out past that?

Yeah. On the app and globe, that was that was a consent item, and it's it's been approved and gone through. Through. There was at this point, it was there was no comment on that at this point. It was just finalized. When was the comments to be made? Just tonight? No. It was it was previous meetings on that. Okay. We were to the other one, and then we got the notice about tonight, so that was just to That was just to

Yeah. I mean, it was just to It was saying, hey, do you want As a consent item, it meets all the requirements. And so it's it's a subdivision at this point.

What about access? Can we ask questions about it, or is that not allowed tonight? Well, the the access on that comes through udot.u. Down there. There's there's gonna be one access point to that. Right. And that that's not been granted yet?

No. It I don't know if it has or not. I'm not sure. It was one of the conditions. And then yeah. And this this board doesn't deny or approve based on that. The the application meets all the county requirements.

And so if they can't get a u dot access, it will the the subdivision will never be recorded. Okay. There's a water question on the water. How was the water access gained then? Because there was a meeting plan and then they canceled it. Application I

don't know. If you know anything about the water or not, that that'd be something water rights. So, yeah, that would also be outside of our our purview on that. And so the consent items for for our our side of it, they meet all the county requirements. And so we we can't deny those request for those subdivisions. They meet everything the county requires of them. The other things are outside of our

our control. The access, because it's a UDOT road and the water is also outside of our, purview on that. It's just one of those conditions he has to meet for the subdivision to Okay. I thought it was a conditional and asked you within was it half a mile of the city limit or if we go to a a R 5?

That's that's a newer that's a newer code. This this went through before that. That is the reason. When when was that? You mean it went through just the the passing or the the amendment to the The amendment to the code went through Connor, was that two months ago? Might have only been yeah. January. I believe our January meeting. First of the year. Yep. And this rezone was approved previous to that.

Thank

you.

K. Okay. We had a motion. We'll

still let you stay and be entertained.

That's all we got. We have nothing else to entertain with. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for coming. We have a second on that to open the public hearing.

Sure. I'll second it. Alright.

All in favor? Aye. Is the applicant here for the Datsun two rezone if they'd like to come forward and say something? Keep your comments to two to three minutes, please.

Hello. I'm Paul Dutson. I'm the one who owns that land. And me and my brother wanna build on it and build the two homes and then bring our farms there because we have animals too. And Kelly Griffin is the one who's farming my land right now, and so I told him he can still farm it. Still, we build or so. And that's pretty much about it. Just moving to a smaller city city to raise our families.

You state that one more time. You started off saying that you wanna build two homes.

Yeah. Me me, my home, and then my brother's gonna build a home, wants to build one there. So aren't you allowed to build the two homes right now just on

they'd have to be on the opposite sides of the road?

No. They said I could still build them on the same side as far as I know.

Do you notice that you have to build on two separate sides? Get 2,000? Oh. Because I think they're asking what you do with the because because you have two parcel numbers so you could have

a home on each parcel. Well, we we're preferring just to build on the one side and just use using the other side just still as farmland. I just clarified. Oh, okay. Yeah. That's pretty much what we our plans were. And then I was just gonna build a barn and stuff and bring my animals out there and stuff. Yeah. Because where I live now, I can't really ride horses. All the farmland's disappearing. And so yeah. So I decided to buy some land up here. Me and my wife loved it up here, and we've been coming up here for over twenty years and stuff. And so eventually, we were gonna build up here. We finally found land and decided to build up here now and raise our family. So any other questions?

I don't have any. Do you guys have any? No. Okay. Thank you. K.

Does anyone have any comments on this rezone?

K.

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Connor, how close was the is is the next

RU five to this location? It's located on the South Side Of Newton, so about a mile mile away. Kind of the West Side, I would say. West Side Of Newton. But South South of this. Yeah.

Okay. So I think it's Terry Terry Griffin. Sue Griffin down by the river. Okay.

And this is just just over a half a mile from the city limits currently. Is that correct? Alright. Just looking at the roads, it looks like that on this map. It's very close, though. Right? I was gonna ask the same thing. Yeah. It's probably like Is that six or miles? It's pretty close. Either way, it still qualifies just because the max potential is three months. Lots. Yeah. I don't think it's a Will you zoom out a little bit on that, Connor? Just so we see the other lots around there.

The little Density ones. Meaning it's a very minor subdivision. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Not more than seven lots.

Well, yeah. It's going from two two to three. So it it is less than half a mile even.

Thanks, Connor. Yeah. It is.

Your small smile, so you must have something going on. No. It's just GIS system. I guess they do updates around this time, so maybe that's why you're having issues.

Is it? Yeah. That's it.

I think it has something to do with the tablets like that.

Yeah. I look at this similar to other ones that we've looked at around the county, even that one that was here earlier. This one, even with our new updated code, this would still fall into what we would generally approve for that. Right? It's in that half mile distance. Even if it was outside of it, it's three lots or less. And if you look at especially that ground to the north of this is already some of that split into smaller lots. I don't know when that was done, but the the same amount of homes could be built right across the street as as could be built on this currently. So to me, it doesn't it doesn't adding that one lot doesn't change the feeler character of of that area. Now granted, he could put those as three little lots and it would look different if it was rezoned that way, but still the overall density to me looks identical to all the other RU fives we've we've approved around the county. And I do acknowledge that that Newton City is against it and and I understand some of their reasons. But

Did they give their reasons and they

were protest or what? They did. Yeah. They had they had they sent a letter in It's attached there. But, I mean, I can't read mine on my phone anymore.

I got two sets of glasses here.

But, yeah, we've we've pretty much everyone that that's come like this in the past, we've approved these ones. So I would that would be my comments on it, but I'm hoping to hear others for sure.

Yeah. I kind of felt the same way. You can tell from the lot sizes that there's quite a few five acre parcels in this vicinity Yeah. As you can see. So seems to fit the context

well. That's right. It's back on All five of them on the north side of that road are that that size is so full. Already. Yep.

Or smaller.

Yeah. A couple are a lot a lot smaller.

I mean, the city's concerns are the roadways is is really the biggest concerns. They have They still have to improve those to do the subdivision anyway. Yeah.

That that would already be be

a requirement of

the city won't be improving the roads. No. The the the subdivider will. The landowner wants to subdivide that ground has to do the road improvements before he can do the subdivision.

I don't.

They'll have to meet county standards. I mean, Matt's shaking his head back there. He'll he'll have to improve that road to county standards to meet that requirement. They improved the county road, but it's already Yeah. Matt, would you mind come up and just give us some clarification on that, please?

Thank you. We we haven't

It's close to the thing there. So right there. Yeah. Along along the Dam road, for lack of better terms, Valj, there there might not be a ton of improvements, but there would be shoulder improvements along the frontage of that. And then there's a gravel road that's along the north of that property would also have to be improved and paved as part of the subdivision when it goes to Yeah. That one. But the the North South It would still have to be improved. It's because we can't hold them to a a bigger standard, you're gonna pull that back to a major local road, which is basically twenty twenty four foot of asphalt with gravel shoulders.

I just noticed when the others have built on it, they haven't improved

it or they've gone past. There hasn't been a whole lot of development on that road since I've been here, so I can't speak to that. Yeah. I just that's why I have questions. That that standard is certainly more enforced now than it was about Jay.

Matt's

on top of things pretty good now. Improve that along wherever he subdivides. And then if he doesn't subdivide one but the other one, he'll have to improve that one when he builds his house. So either at subdivision or when he comes in for a building permit request, he'll have to improve the roads along with whatever parcel he's developing.

What would that improve the way? So?

Sometimes at the rezone, I don't know the exact measurements, but we did go out and measure them and in Connor's report, he did say they were all substandard. Most likely on the road in front of him, that's probably gonna be a little bit of pavement and shoulder. There is not a lot of shoulder on that road, but Right. I can't remember if that was 22 feet or 21 feet or whatever that width was. But on his side of that, and he owns property on both sides, when he's done that road, it's gonna be 24 foot wide pavement. And then there'll be four foot gravel shoulders.

So

and then the the the gravel road would would get a little reduction in that and that would be a 20 foot wide paved road with four foot gravel shoulders.

Okay.

And the chances are that would be a fee in lieu of because the properties to the west of him are not the county would have a fee in lieu of, so there'd be money in an escrow account for the pavement cost of that road.

Pat, one question I have.

The speed limit's 40, I believe, along there. They clarified. I think on the gravel road, that's probably a misprint because there's no speed limit on that, which means it would be 55. So it'd be 55? The m road would be 40, but the gravel road would be I'm I'm 99% sure we don't have a speed limit on that road. Okay. I was I was trying to pull this back

to to this parcel at hand. If they were to say put if if this was to pass tonight, well, they're they're already able to put a home on each side right now. But I was just kinda looking for your clarification with an existing driveway on the north border of the West Side. What's the spacing between driveways?

That's a county road on the North side, I think.

Yeah. That's a county road. Used as So that is county? Yes. Okay. So that that'd be an intersection. So

But but even then with that being an intersection, whether it was private or not

On that road, we would probably go about 80 feet from the paved before he could have any access. How far? 80 feet. 80 feet. 80 feet? It might be a little farther on the main road, depends on safety. But on the gravel road, you're gonna be about 80 at least 80 feet

before you Has the county done any maintenance on that road that you're aware of? Only when Claire calls us.

But we don't maintain it in the winter, so you you're talking about a couple of times a year gravel.

Because I've been on it. It's pretty dang rough. Yeah. It's I remember

last year or the year before that Claire called because they had a little bit of flooding down further that way. But there's only that one place that's kinda like a farm on there, so there's no current residentials. That's why I don't think we plow it. Because we in the winter, we're we're not required to provide any maintenance down that road. So you're talking, you know, bare minimum is we try to hit those types of gravel roads twice a year. So you're not if the farmers come in for season and they they rough it up quite a bit during summer, chances are that we're not gonna make it there till spring and fall because if not, we need a water truck to track us around. If you're degrading dried dirt, it doesn't do much. So Yep. Okay. Other questions from the planning commission?

Thank you, Matt. You're welcome.

Okay.

Any I think we've had a lot of time to think about this one. Can I get someone ready to propose a motion?

Mister chairman, I'll just make note that the mayor of Newton is my brother in the comment period, and I also have three five acre lots within the half mile. So I'm gonna recuse myself. Okay.

Yeah. And I think to that point, Brady, I think, for me, the big the big divider on that is one, this is within the half mile range of the city limit that we've just updated the code. That's where we want to argue five. So if we move barely to the north, then if it were a 20 acre parcel, it wouldn't even be a question. We couldn't do it because it's over three lots and it's outside of that half mile distance. So for me, that's the big break. It's a it's a small and it's inside that half mile limit that we just determined is where we want these type of subdivisions or or developments, yeah, to to to go. And where we're going from a two lot to a three lot. We're adding we're adding That's the reality. We're adding one lot. You want two homes or three? Yeah. And and we're we're adding one lot. And so it's not to me, it's it's it's a minor difference. I agree you know, I acknowledge there's there's opposition, but, we just we just updated the county code for this exact type of a project. And so for me, that's that's the big defining difference.

I'm similar. It it fits the context. To me, going from two to three is not a big change. It reflects the sort of growth cluster cluster type growth in the rural areas of the county along the roadways that we've approved a a number of times now. So

And it's and it's why we denied the or recommended denial of the request for the r u twos because that would have then been seven lots and definitely a change. Yeah. So with that, I would make a motion to recommend approval of the Detson two rezone option two based on the one conclusion with four, I guess, sub conclusions on there. Okay.

I would second it.

Okay.

All in favor? Aye. I'm gonna be nay. Nay also. So two nays? Yeah. Two nay two nays. Yeah. Yeah. So that Okay.

Alright. Item number four. Just point of order, mister chairman, just just to state that this will go now to the county council for Yes. Their approval final approval. So it's not the end of the That's right. Project. So thank you. Oh, thank you.

Okay. Item number four, public hearing for 40 acre industrial, rezone. Connor, if you'll take us through that one.

Okay. So this is a request to rezone a total of 40 acres in agricultural zones to industrial zone. Malaga is directly adjacent to the property to the east and south. The nearest parcel mechanic that's in the industrial zone is located 3.56 miles to the southeast of the subject property. For future land use, it's agriculture and ranching zone. The purpose and character of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character of most areas of the valley. Preferred land uses includes agriculture, ranching, conserved public lands, and rural residential uses of density less than one unit per 10 acres. Secondary land uses includes industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture, clustered subdivision developments, and farmworker housing. Discouraged The storage uses includes residential developments at densities of greater than one unit per 10 acres. If not clustered, any industrial and commercial uses. This parcel is also located in the urban expansion overlay. In terms of roads, we have S R 218 to the north. It's a UDOT road and is classified as a major collector. It provides access to residential and agricultural properties and serves as a connection between Smithfield and Mountain and Newton. It's a proposed road for the Cache County transportation master plan, and it runs along the west side of the parcel. Cache County Fire District had no comments. The acting want to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. The motion was completed on February 20 and the twenty sixth. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet on the twentieth, and then revised agenda was posted to the county website, three public places, and the top public note public notice website on the twenty sixth. At the time of writing the staff report, one public comment has been received. The mayor of Malaga and I had a conversation about it. They didn't necessarily have any concerns about it. They were concerned about water mainly. That's kinda what I got out of the conversation with them. But staff has no recommendation, but we'll have draft a letter to kinda cancel.

Thanks, buddy. Any comments, commissioners, before we open the public hearing?

Just wondering if you could zoom out a little bit, please,

Cheese Ponds. Make a motion to open the public hearing for the 40 acre industrial rezone.

I'll second that. Hey. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Is the applicant here who would like to make some comments? Please state your name and keep your comments to two to three minutes, please.

Dakota Bodily. I am the applicant for this rezone. As you can see to the east there, the full nine acres is in Amalgam City, but it's already zoned light industrial with Amalgam City. And then to the north is the Schreiber Waste Ponds. So our plan is to get it zoned into industrial and create workspaces for blue collar places like mechanics, garage door, people, plumbers, just a place to work out of. So that's about the gist of it.

Any comments?

Okay. Thank you. For the outfit,

the water on that property has does not drain very well. What's your how how will you deal with that? Do you have a plan?

Could could you come back up so everyone can hear you on the microphone? Thanks.

So, obviously, working with engineers, creating a plan, but I'm sure what I would imagine would be creating some coverts throughout the community and then having, like, a holding basin probably for it all to drain to and percolate out from that.

Okay.

I have a question. As far as access from that road, the main road, is that something that

you feel you can get without much problem? Yeah. So we've already talked to UDOT, and we've been in conversations with them. And, actually, the owner to the east is planning on, putting in a building right there as well. And so they've talked to UDOT, and we're actually gonna put access along the east side of our parcel and share access with them is the plan.

It would just be one main

exit. There'd be one Yep. Just one. Yeah. Just one and off. We have to do a right hand turning lane and then a center left turning lane as well. It's just such wet, wet around. Yeah.

Terrible wet.

Okay. Thank you. Is there any other comments anyone would like to

make?

Motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. So is the Schreiber Foods, it's not industrial because it's just a holding pond. Is that why? Okay.

For me for me, this one's similar to the one that came maybe six months ago or so. I mean, maybe it may be a proposed different use, but not I mean, it could then right? Anything industrial would be allowed. It was out there West of Benson Marina. A lot of water issues with it. A lot of wetland concerns similar to what what there is here, a spot rezone as far as the county goes of industrial, not close to really other any industrial anywhere. So to me, it seems a little little out of place, but those are my thoughts.

I guess I would I would just comment having done some farm work on that property. The best thing for her is covering gravel.

How much? And that that was similar to the other project. To get the water to drink. That was similar to the other piece out there West Of Benson. It was, yeah, pretty poor farm ground.

But it's it's underwater. When they mentioned light industrial on that nine acres east of it, it's one of the things. That included scuba diving lessons or Yeah. Light light swimming, whatever.

That that's yeah. That's been a manure staging area for probably thirty years. Yeah. Yeah. It

Wet. You know, it's it's not productive farmland. Yeah. So

Lots of accidents over the years. Really no shoulder? Yeah. There's no shoulder.

But it's it's a u dot road. So

You said how far is the the closest industrial?

From here. Three miles. Three over three miles.

Yeah. It's probably the I don't know what shop that is down there.

Yeah. It's the storage unit spot that's right outside of Snowfield.

Okay. And then there's yeah. Then there's one to the south too. Maybe the

But but it's right next even though the other is is Amalgam, it's right next to it it it's currently zoned. Did I hear that right? Yes. So light

Amalgam has light industrial right there.

Okay. Just making sure I heard that right.

Was there any comment from Amalgas City on this at all? No. I had a conversation with the mayor just over the phone, and they weird conversation. I'm not gonna lie. It's kinda around a couple places. The impression I got is all that water.

They would provide water outside their city limits to it? They wouldn't. They wouldn't. They wouldn't. They wouldn't. They wouldn't. They wouldn't. They wouldn't. Very firm how they're not gonna do that. Okay.

Would they annex it into the city? Okay.

For me, Nathan expressed the same concerns I have. So

I need to repeat those. Okay.

We get a motion then. Wake that. Ready for that?

I did the last one. So this guy this guy jumped. I can't do it this way. You're out of the forest.

Well, you you know what I'm gonna say. So

Do you wanna make a motion?

Yeah. If we get moving forward, let's do it. K. Yeah. Move that we recommend to the county council for approval.

Based on the three conclusions that we I was just trying to see how many conclusions There's three.

There's three. Three. Yep.

Okay. And I get us this someone willing to second that his motion.

I'll second. Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

K. There you go. One vote.

One approval. And I will make a second motion. K. Recommend denial based on the two conclusions of the county council.

Okay. I'll second that.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Okay. Any opposed? Do you wanna ask for any opposed? Any opposed?

Yeah. That's right. Right. Okay. Next item on the agenda, number five, water sewerage requirement ordinance amendment.

Chris and I needed to know who we were. Oh, gosh. Thank you, Donna. Sorry about that.

So this is a proposed ordinance amendment for chapter seventeen ten zero five zero are supplemental standards, specifically regarding water and sewage requirement. As you may recall, we've had a couple conversations about this, about the way the code currently reads, which is

that

It's

all in code. Okay. About how our code currently prohibits any part of a septic system within a source water protection zone two. So just briefly, source water protection mandatory delineated area around a public water well or spring that's designed to prevent contamination and is categorized by how groundwater the travel time to groundwater to a source of the public water well or spring. So there's four different zones. The county code addresses zones one and two, but zone one is that 100 foot radius surrounding the actual wellhead or spring, and then zone two is the area within two fifty within a two fifty day groundwater travel time. So it's that two fifty day, groundwater travel time zone that our code does not allow septic systems. So again this is our current code. First it talks about you know the the agencies including Bear River Health Department, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, and the State Water Engineer are considered the county experts, but then the very next section is that no proposed septic system shall be permitted within a zone one or zone two. So some of the issues that this has raised, it's overly restrictive, it doesn't provide exceptions for repairing or replacing old septic systems that predated the application of the source water protection area, and then it essentially negates, the initial paragraph of that section, identifying Bear River Health Department and the State Water Engineer and other agencies as the experts in evaluating proposed sewage systems. So the proposed code amendment, this is just a summary of the changes, would allow property owners with existing septic systems in Zone 2 to repair, alter, or replace the system, so long as it meets or exceeds current standards, and with the approval of a variance from the Bear River Health Department. For any new proposed on-site wastewater system, so on a property that's never had a septic system before, a wastewater system may be allowed in a Zone 2, so long as no part of the absorption component system. So like your drain filled things of that nature are within the Zone 2. So it can be piped out to outside of that zone. And then it identifies Bear River Health Department as the expert in identifying if that absorption component system is within or without that zone two when they issue the permit. And just kind of going back on the history, this started out as a third party application, kind of for a specific project, but we realized it had far reaching consequences throughout the county and for cities. So the initial third party applicant has allowed Bear River Health Department to take over as the proponent on this project or this proposal. So the new proposed code first would add quite a few new definitions just about wastewater systems, including conventional, which is your septic type system, alternative wastewater systems, just a general on-site wastewater system definition, which were not included in the code previously. It would also make the change to that section b about wastewater systems and source water protection area. So instead of reading no proposed septic system, we would completely strike proposed septic system and then replace that again with no portion of the absorption area component for a new on-site wastewater system alternative or conventional shall be permitted in that zone one or two, and then the Bear River Health Department shall be the expert in confirming that that system is outside of the Zone 2. And then the rest of this is all new language, so we're dividing it out again into existing systems that maybe need a repair, so the owner with an existing wastewater system would be able to work with Bear River Health Department to make any needed repairs the system, to ensure it functions properly and does not create any new risk to the environment or public health. And then we've also added existing system if it's an alteration or a replacement of an existing system, that a variance is required. So again, an existing on-site wastewater system that is located within a public drinking water source protection zone two may request a variance through the Bear River Health Department for any proposed alteration or replacement of the system, and that variance and approval process will be administered established and administered by the Bear River Health Department, consistent with that Utah administrative rule that you see there. And members from Bear River Health Department are here to kind of talk through what that might look like. This section also continues with stating that the replacement or alteration of the existing system shall result in a system with equal or greater protection of the public health and the environment as required by meeting the minimum standards of that administrative rule again. And then written approval of a variance from Bear River Health Department would have to be included as part of the zoning clearance application for anybody wanting to develop on an existing property with a septic system in that zone two. So that is kind of a quick overview of the changes. We received a number of calls. I sent out a email to all the mayors about February. Haven't received any comments back from that email. We also sent out to the same noticing, area that we did previously for this item, and we received a number of phone calls. We ended up putting a copy of the draft ordinance on our web page so that people could easily read that. Thank you. Yeah. No problem. A lot of phone calls. Okay. Didn't know what for it first. Yeah. But yeah outside of those phone calls, we received one written comment which is in the packet from a property owner in Clarkston. But again that is the only written comment we have received. That, again, concludes my report. Again, Bear River Health Department is here to answer any questions as the applicant.

Yes? Angie, just one question. When this was first presented well, I don't know if it was misinformation or fear or whatever, but the crowd that was I mean, we got one good one here tonight. But aside from that, the crowd that was here that night was a lot of fear based Lewiston folks, and I don't see if any maybe, I don't know. We got accomplished. K. We got a good one there. But what changed? Has there been communication between the community and the county? Where did that fear get resolved?

Yeah. We've had a couple of stakeholder meetings regarding this, and I think a lot of it was fear and trying to understand the science. And so there was an expert engineer. I I can't remember his exact expertise, Matt might be able to help, but Richard Jeks. He provided a lot of information. We worked together with Bear River Hill department that Mr. Jeks and other stakeholders in drafting this, And again, I think that alleviated a lot of fear, and especially having Bear River Health Department oversee it, and make sure that everything is good or better if it's being replaced. If it if an existing system is being replaced. So I with that said, I did just have one question.

Mhmm. Because it addresses repairs. Mhmm. So let's just say that you've got an existing facility that's on a septic, but they decide they wanna rebuild or start over again. If they retain the system that they currently have, does that grandfather them into repairs? Or does new construction

constitute having to start over? Yeah. Yeah. This is a point of clarification we had, actually just today. But, yeah, according to Bear River Health Department, Richard Worley answered an email today about that, that, yeah, if they've had a permit for a system on that property, then it could go under that,

repair or alteration through that variance process. With the new structure, regardless whether the old one is retained or not. Correct. Mhmm. Okay.

Thanks, Angie.

I make a motion. We open the public hearing.

If we get the Bear Bear Health Department to come up and I don't know who's here from the Bear Bear Health Department. Can you come talk to us and give us more clarity on this?

Yeah. Jordan Mathis, director of the Bear River Health Department. We're very supportive of this. We've gone through to answer your question, we went out and we met with Lewiston. We had lots of good discussion there. And we weren't a 100% behind the the past ordinance because it it opened the door pretty wide as long as a certain standard was met met. As long as they can meet that standard, then new construction could be allowed in this area. Our concern there was if we allow too much new construction and that standard ended up still ending up in the pollution of an aquifer or a spring, the only option that we have is to mandate increased treatment or kick people out of their home. And that's really hard once it's there. What this one what we got to after that meeting was a narrowing down saying, we need to be able to make sure that we can help and assist individuals when they have a system that's not working in these zones to repair it. Because a system not working in these zones is gonna lead to pollution. And the other thing that it allows for, it allows for a replacement. So with the the case study that we were looking at, the church, they're bringing in they're demolishing the other one, getting rid of an old septic system, putting in a new advanced treatment septic system. Although their flows will increase, the actual net pollution or the net pollution would go down. So the risk to that aquifer is far less. And then the other one that it it still allows for us to do is to look and work with a homeowner. Say they wanted to add a couple bedrooms to their home, which requires them to increase their system. As long as we're confident and work with them, an engineer and a a geologist, is that what we have in our we would require somebody with a license to to work with us and make sure that that is equal to or better than what they're currently putting out. So it wouldn't limit those individuals that currently are grandfathered in from making some alterations to their home if they wanted to. And we feel comfortable with those those. We weren't as comfortable with just opening the door and saying as long as they meet a standard, we can allow whatever to go in there. So are there questions?

Yeah. I do. Two of them. You've got a 5,000 gallon septic tank. Right? That's a pretty big size for the area. So when would something be over 5,000 gallons? It would have to almost be a commercial or something figured School. School. Yeah. And the second question, a hundred year storm or high water table throughout any part of the county because this addresses the county, how does that impact that? You know, with so much rain in such a short time or anything else, potential for pollution or carrying it away. Just some things. Cover them.

So to answer the 5,000 gallons, anything above you're asking anything above 5,000 gallons? We've limited at that, but I'm saying that's a pretty big size of septic tank. Yeah. Anything above 5,000 gallons is is actually regulated by the state. So that would be pushed to the state department of environmental quality. I guess, what is your question? What does it look like?

Well, go back go to the hundred year storm. We we have an immense amount of moisture coming in, and that just saturates ground area there, but you still got the drain fields and everything else. Does that concern you or anything for pollution or anything at that type of incident?

They're already there. We're we're not we're not adding any additional new ones. They're already there. Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean so unless

In the future, if something goes in based on this new plan, I just wanna know if we've thought about if we have excess moisture that sometimes it does happen in that area.

In the case where they would be expanding a system, that's why we're going to have a geologist or an engineer sign off on it with their license and and have a review of it. That's part of that's the other thing I met failed to mention. We've already developed the the the variance process, and the Board of Health. We're planning to present it to the Board of Health on Monday as a proposed variance.

So what you're saying is is that if we do have a storm that give us, say, three inches very quickly, there's a lot of runoff and a lot of saturation. The geologists could say beforehand how much water could get into that ground before it would disturb that system, I assume.

They should be able to provide some level modeling. But I think my primary point is we're only addressing systems that are already there. Okay. Right? These systems already exist. The Church and Cove already has a system. And personally, I'm really more comfortable with the fact that they're gonna get rid of this super, super old system, and they're gonna go to an advanced system, because the potential for pollution to that source is far less, in my view, with this advanced system, even though the flows will be greater. And the other ones, we're we're going to work with them. But we're not talking about huge, huge additional discharges from what already exists in these areas. We're talking about minor ones. We're talking about repairing. So So say you have a system that fails, we're allowing you to go in and repair it. And then we're talking about the addition of some homes. If if it gets beyond that, somebody wants to to add something huge to their property, we're gonna have to take a hard look at that. But we're trying to make the accommodation for somebody that wants to stay on their property, but maybe expand their home a little bit. We're not talking massive, massive new discharges.

So can there be new construction on a in a zone two if the septic tanks in Zone 2 and you have and the discharge goes out to a zone three Yeah. Is that allowable? How far into that zone three is it allowed to do you have to discharge that into?

That's weird. Come on up, Richard. It just has to be outside of zone 2. Just outside of zone 2. They have to pipe it out of so I build my house in zone I have property in zone 2. Mhmm. That pipe has to leave. Hopefully, I own property or I get an easement, an agreement, something that allows me to then have the absorption area. It just has to be outside the zone. Okay. There's no minimum distance?

No. Okay.

The minimum distance is set by the the the zone. Zone. Anything outside of zone two allows for it. Okay. So so that'd be the only time where new construction would be allowed in a zone two under this ordinance is if they piped it out. Okay.

So I have a question that pertains to we're talking about protecting existing water source protections, and we're pretty much limiting or restricting that in zones one and two to existing structures. On the flip side of that, I know I brought it up the last time this was discussed, but what are the protections for the property owners if there's no current water source protection area, but they hurry and bring one in without really being aware of it. And next thing you know, it's done. What's what's property owners' protection in a scenario such as that as we move forward? I'm sure there more of them gonna go in.

And I wish I wish do you know that? Cameron? Cameron Drainie, the district engineer, he spoke to that very question when we we had this discussion. But there is a more there is a process for that. So you can't just come and plop down. If you're proposing a water source, then there's a similar process for public input to understand what the impacts are before you just plop down a zone two on somebody's property. Just recently been changed, or has that been the same process all along? I think he said it was earlier in the February. Yeah. They because they've had issues where properties have been had been impacted when they implemented the whole zone process. But they have I don't know the process. Cameron does. But he says it's more of a public process where inputs achieved before a decision is finalized. But we're not involved in that. Yeah. So

Yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions for me? Any other comments?

Just let him go in in your weapon to go up.

Mayor Lussen, City Breed Bodley. We're for this. This only protects us right now. If one of those systems gets damaged or fails, there's no path forward, for them to fix it. The we've been told that this system that they're putting in, with that increased flow reduces the pollution by about a 100 times. So, I mean, we'd be kinda dumb not to be for this. We worked for it originally. We had a lot of people come. We've kept them informed in the council meetings. So that's part of why you don't see everybody here with their pitchforks tonight. But, anyway yeah. So we're we're for that. We think it would be, keeps our protections the way they are, but still allows for the current landowners in those areas to be able to maintain their stuff.

Thank you. Please state your name and and comments two to three minutes, please.

My name is Robert Gunnell. Excuse me. I am the proud owner of the of the property that surrounds the Benson Wellhead. I also have a septic that's within 300 feet of a septic system drain field that's within 300 feet of that well, which was grandfathered in when they drilled that well. We live in a unique area of the county. I refer you to the Cache Valley area soil survey. You find our place is just a mile and a half west of the old El Monte plant West of Smithfield. And we are in an area that I was told by a former state water engineer is the largest underground aquifer in the state of Utah. And so where we live, water comes up, it doesn't come down. About eight feet down, there's an impermeable clay layer that it's hard to get a pick to pick it into. It is that dense and that hard when we irrigate. We live on a near the a a slough called the Hopkins Slough. Irrigation water will percolate out through the sides it, of the, of the bank. It never goes deep because there's no way to get down there. And it's the very reason we have such, an active underground aquifer. Our culinary well is also about 300 feet from our septic system, and it has enough artesian pressure to raise the water when the power goes off about still 20 feet, and you can get a KOA shower. But I'm in favor of this proposal because if you look at the different soil types in in Cache Valley, sounds like the engineers and the health department are gonna take this into consideration. And if you do that, you'll find that there are some places where you could even be closer and not jeopardize a culinary system.

Thank you. Thank you.

My name is John Galtier. I bought a place over off of Hollow Road. And when you're buying a place, you don't have a whole lot of time to come into the county and figure out all the ins and outs before you, you know, make an offer on a piece of land. So somewhat naive, I got stuck buying a piece of land that is in some of my land where I'd like to put a home someday is in that zone that we're talking about. So I'm in favor of being able to pipe them liquids that into a better location so that we don't pollute. So I just wanted to, you know, say that I'm in favor of it and I think it's a good idea. I did a solar system, a ground mount over in Huntsville, where they're in a bottom an old ancient river bottom, and so they can't have sewer systems. And brand new home, multimillion dollar home. Lady put in a sewer system. It's $50,000, but you can drink the water that comes out of it. So my idea would be it's not shouldn't be no. The answer should be what can you afford and what can be safe, you know. So that's my 2¢. Thanks, fellas.

Any other comments?

K. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? Aye.

I think this is a good compromise from where we were with the first one, which was pretty broad, but this narrows it down and it to Brady's concern. Right? Some of those lands that have been incumbent without oftentimes that landowner's knowledge, there's there's still a chance that they could do some slight development on that ground and and still protect the ground water.

I think it's great that there's something there about the geological formations and what's happening. So I think that gives them more insight as to what's going to happen.

Yeah. I like the part of the variances. So I think it's it's a good move.

Do we we don't need to act then. That was just in a for your information. Right?

A recommendation would be warranted. Okay.

I'd be willing to make a motion.

K. Unless somebody else wants to talk. Go ahead. Mister chairman, I'd move that we recommend to the county council approval or Yep. Yes. Approval of this updated ordinance 17 dash 10 dash or 17 dot 10 dot o five zero three b supplemental standards supporting scenarios where, as discussed, existing systems in ones and two can be repaired or what have you, just as it states.

Okay? I'll second that. K. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Item number six, public hearing, to amend title 16 and title 17.

Connor, you take us to that one? Yes. It is. Okay. Not a very concrete one. It's kinda just a housekeeping event. I thought that's why everybody was here.

It's not a relief.

Essentially, the state did is it just reconified seven nine twenty seven a to 17

k. That's simple, Yeah. It was a little bit up. Yeah. Alright. Pretty straightforward. Yeah. When I read through it, it looks pretty pretty straightforward. So

Okay.

So we'll have a public hearing on this next month and call it good, Oh, we do a public hearing now. It's it's public hearing. This is a public hearing. Perfect. We need to have a motion. Motion to open a public hearing. I would second that. K. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Is there anyone here who would like to have comments on the amendment of title 16 to 17?

Motion to close the public hearing. We get a second?

Yes.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Can we get a recommendation?

Recommend that we, send this to the county council with a recommendation for approval, pending, title sixteen and seventeen. Okay.

I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Item number seven, Saddle Ridge Subdivision. Are you taking us through this, Connors? Oh, Angie. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

This should be fairly brief as well. I just wanna update you from last month meeting. The previous ninety day continuance that was approved in December ends today. Last month there had been some discussion about a memorandum of understanding to allow the applicant some time to work through access issues, but that effort has been abandoned. So they are just moving forward with their application for the 22 Lot Subdivision with the conditions from that we presented in September. So there has not been any change to that recommendation with this updated staff report. I think I did add one condition at the end just kind of clarifying our process because there's a separate process for preliminary plat versus final plat, but other than that all of the rest of the conditions apply and those conditions will help them meet the code requirements regarding access and road improvements etc. I don't know if you had any questions for me on that.

So there's no update on this second access then?

It's still one of the conditions of approval. So, with this, with the application as they submitted it, it still is going to be a requirement.

So are we are we looking at a vote on this tonight? Yay or nay? Or

Yeah. Mhmm. Because again, the end of the '90 or you can continue it again, I guess. But, yeah. It's come to the end of that, the most recent ninety day continuance that was granted in December.

So with with that, Angie Mhmm. So in essence then, if with all those conditions, this would almost meet a consent item at this point with all those conditions in. It's a 22 lot subdivision. They're a 10 with all those conditions under the way you've stated it, it would essentially meet the requirements of a a consent item at this point. Correct. Yeah. Okay. But yeah. Given the history in that, it's not a case. Yeah.

That's fair. I just wanted to make sure I was thinking that. Do it the right way. Even with the fire the fire access, like, there that'd still be a condition then on that. Yeah. Yep. Those are all conditions.

And yeah, would still all be required including the approvals of the amendments to Nautica Subdivision that help provide that access from the North as well.

So there there's been all I I was misunderstanding on this. I was wondering I was thinking it was just an update. I didn't realize that we were gonna be making a decision. But with that said, I mean, everywhere from I mean, there was problems with the even the access road questions on ownership in places. The last section didn't didn't meet with the conditions. As staff, are you are you confident that the conditions that we have here protect everybody that if they're followed this is gonna be adequate?

Yeah. Before presenting this last fall, I we we did sit down with Fire and Public Works to kind of work through each of the conditions because they weren't currently meeting the requirements, so we made sure to tighten all those up and make sure that it was protected and those roads still be conditions that they would have to do and follow through on. And then my second part of that question,

if this is approved tonight, I don't know whether it's tonight or when the plat is well, the plat won't be signed until these are completed. Correct? Right. So this would be the applicant has one year Yes. That's right. To complete them all. And then if not completed in full at that point,

it's void. Well, they do have an option under the code for a hundred and eighty day extension. So it could go up to eight two months. Because we had one tonight. Yeah. But it does start the clock on that effective period of land use approval. So

Okay. Thank you. Mhmm.

K. Anyone else have any comments? I'll make a motion so we can move things along. Okay. I'd make a motion that we approve the Saddle Ridge subdivision based on the there are a whole bunch of conclusions. 21. 21. Yep. 21 conditions and three conclusions.

Before there's a second, can I ask something, Connor or Angie? This has been one of the largest conditions I've seen on a sub division. I would like to see if there's a way of keeping the planning and zoning updated as this goes along as to what conditions are being met so that we're informed.

Yeah. I think that's easy enough. We can just put a note and have it be part of our staff reports at the end of a meeting if we have updates. I'd be interested in following along so that we know where they're at as far as the time frame for the one year or eighteen months as well. Yeah. Actually, I do have one update. They did submit a fire management plan for review by Jason, and that has been approved. So that's one condition that could be checked off of these 21. So k. Thank you.

That's a good point point, Nolan. That's just a lot of conditions. Yep. A lot of moving parts here.

K. You're sold on it, Matt.

It meets the conditions. If they meet the conditions, then they get approval.

Good.

This one's tough just because there's so many conditions. It'd be

tough to meet. Yeah. When I when I think that's that's where we don't I mean, we worry about it, but we don't. Right? The the rules say if if they we have conditions and we put them in there and they meet them or not. Right? If they don't, they don't get it. If they do, they do. And that's, I think, where we gotta take our, maybe, personal preference out and say, it it's according to code. We approve it. It's not it's a shall. I don't think It's not much personal preference, but it's just if we've

all the conditions aren't listed out here. We we got them all.

It was about my first meeting when this all came about and we were talking about finally getting there. And you just can't make exceptions if they're not part of the ordinances in the way this is put together. And I know it costs them money, and I know that it's a lot for that development. But it's either going to be a development that we're proud to see happen, or a development that's going to be a disaster. And so the conditions were put there for a explain why we put them there, other than that's part of conditions that are required.

Is that a second, sir? I'll second him. That sounded like it. I'm not a second. I just changed. I'm sure. I'm sure.

Morris. Barsteed. Yeah. Okay. Let's go let's cap a vote then. All in favor. Aye. Aye.

Oh, okay.

While they are making their way in here, I will just provide a little background. So as you know the master plan for Powder Mountain was approved and it has been recorded. As part of the conditions of approval of that there were some next steps that needed to happen, including revising, chapter seventeen fourteen, the Resort Recreation Ordinance, and those changes that are going to be required are kind of partially the the county responsibility and partially Powder Mountain's responsibility that include bringing the code up to current law requirements because we had that whole development agreement section that was nullified by state law, and then also codifying their development standards so that we have something to review their projects against, as well as infrastructure standards, and a process for the development plan application, review, and approvals that will come through you as well. So they did submit an application for next month's meeting, but I just thought it would be a good idea if we had a little discussion and introduction of what this is all going in going to entail before we've just presented without that kind of upfront information next month. So with that I'm gonna turn it over to Brooke and Olga, and they can go over kind of the big picture items.

Okay. Hi. Brooke Hans with Powder Mountain. It's great to see you all again and to be on this side of the approved Master Plan CUP and to have done the the work that we said we would do post that approval. And so, as Angie indicated, I thought it's I'm pushing the button, Connor. It's not going. Okay. As Angie indicated, there was work done basically regardless of whether or not we move forward with the master plan for your code cleanup because over time the state laws change and the sometimes the county codes need to be updated to reflect that. So it just so happens that within the RR zone there are some sections that reflect historical references to development agreements and I think that might be the only standard that really is in there that's out of whack with how the current state code allows counties and cities to operate. But that particular piece is meant to be addressed and and we do think that that's something that's valuable for the county to consider as you're going through other pieces of your your code and making necessary updates. The one of the pieces that we're working on, I think, collaboratively with the county is this chart that you see in front of you. We did, I think, share this a few times in over the the time period that we've been in front of you. But what this is is, unlike some of your other zones, RR has some different requirements and an additional step that we've talked about before with a development plan being submitted. And so there historically had been a a chart like this in the code, but for a while, it disappeared. Then I think somebody in the county found it, but it needed to be updated as well because it had, you know, development agreement and so forth listed in it. So, basically, this is a flowchart that explains, you know, if you start on the left hand side, well, the the steps that we've already completed, which is the master plan CUP, and you go vertically down after that gets approved, which we are in that little green button, then we have a variety of things we can do. And not every application needs to necessarily go through every, step here. For example, when we apply for ski lifts, we don't subdivide the land underneath those. They stay as part of the overall master planned area. And so they're called out specifically in the middle of the page as proceeding to because they were approved in the master plan, assuming that the ski lift is shown that we're asking for on the master plan, we proceed to a ZCA application through planning, and then you follow that piece of the the process. In cases, like, if we're looking first, we would need to carve that land out just like you do in the rest of the county through a subdivision plat, and that's shown kind of on the bottom center of the page. It gets more complicated and, more laborious if we're coming in with a plan for maybe a ski lodge or something that has, multi multiple uses in it, like condominiums and a hotel or something like that. That would include you'd wanna see the subdivision plat and the development plan. The way that, we've proposed it here, you could have those things happen concurrently or you could have the subdivision happen first and then the development plan. But eventually, you're going to get all of the information. It's just depending on how you want to have that structure go through a process. It all ends on the right hand side of the page is if and when we decide to go vertical, you have to have done the things on the left hand side of the page, and then you can pull of a building permit. And so that's this is what the story that we're trying to tell here. It basically other properties in the county except for that other step that we have, which is the development plan. And then we have ski lifts and most other places don't. So that's So the two things that we're trying to do, as Angie mentioned, is the state law compliance, working and supporting the county and updating the r r zone. And number two is was suggested as part of your findings that we would propose development standards and guidelines. So things like setbacks and height and so forth for within the RO zone are developed. We have created a draft of those within the timeline that you asked for, and we've provided those. And so that's what we'd like to talk about in the near future is reviewing. Does do these make sense for this particular zone, and does the county want to adopt those? They would then live inside the, RR zone ordinance. I I don't think necessarily anyone else is ever, going to use it. But if they were to, that would be the standard that you would expect to see out of things that were built there. And those are for structures beyond residential. We'd already had residential subdivision standards, and we've submitted those as well. We submitted those actually, I think, back in December. Let's do mine. Yep. Here they are. So, yep, the they're unfortunately quite lengthy, and we cover all sorts of things like roof slope and architecture on the the residential side. It's trying to control, like, look and feel, which I think the county has less interest in of, you know, what the siding's made of, but we still address that in there. And then the nonresidential, we're trying to talk about things like stormwater, road standards, all of the applicable things, not only that are kind of the guts of the subdivision and the development, but also some of the elements like art, which aren't they're not covered in the residential standards. I think it's okay. So here's the summary of the different topics that we cover in them. And the whole idea, again, is to give the county peace of mind that when something comes in and is processed, whether it's through the development plan or just even pulling a building permit, someone in your staff has a reference document to compare it to to to say, oh, yes. This is what, we think the design philosophy or the, you know, the trail network should fit this standard and that's what they said it was going to do. It matches that. Great. And then, you know, then it can be processed a little bit more clearly. So some of the, design some of the things that we've either got in design right now, some of which are in Weber County, but still, we wanna have, obviously, the, architecture to have reference to one another or to actually be very, telling the same story and similar. We don't want a county line to dictate the architectural differences. That's for sure. And so you can see, the buildings that we have in the center, picture are actually under construction right now. That's a clubhouse. And so we wanted to make sure we were referencing things that either are on-site already, like in the bottom left hand corner, are under construction or actually, the maintenance shop on the upper right hand, which you guys approved is also, architecturally important in what we wanna make sure we're referencing. And then the reason why, again, that we're here is we told you we would. We said we would come back as soon as possible with the design standards and guidelines and the code amendments that we thought were necessary. And what does that do to anything that we wanna submit? If we were to stay on the schedule as contemplated right now, we're here on the green side on the March work session. We would have two at least two more meetings, which would put us through, mid April. And then we wouldn't be able to, the way that the conditions were written, to submit for anything until mid April related not lifts are a different story, but some of the other things, buildings and so forth, subdivisions until, about that same time. So that's why it's not just because, we know we said we absolutely wanna be back here and and committed to that to you. We do wanna make sure that we're staying in front of the designs that we wanna bring towards you. And that's that's it. So I'd love to take any questions that you might have.

So I understand this correctly. There is a building being built right now. I assume that's in Weber County. The

one building is being built in Weber County. The maintenance center shop you approved as part of a development. It is in Cache County, but it's right on the line. It was one of those close ones. But you always have two meetings to to go to. I have a lot of meetings to go

to. But yes. Every time you do one, you have to do the other one for the second. Yeah. Yes. In that one structure, is that either the proposed maintenance shop or is that the actual?

The one in the upper right hand corner is the it's being built. It's I don't have a pretty picture of it right now because there's no siding on it. So it would look I think it's, like, blue currently because it's got the, like, the Tyvek stuff on it on the exterior. That's being built right now. And as soon as we get something, you know, the windows in and the the siding on, we'll we'll show you some current pictures, but it is gonna look just like that. That's a rendering. Awesome. K. Thank you. Thank you so much.

It's all checked off. Yeah. Just about.

Alright, Connor. Do you wanna take us through the joint workshop?

Yeah. So councilman Gill hit me up a couple of days ago. I think there's a certain limit on how many people should be there. Are you shooting for three, four?

Yeah. We're looking for two or three from each from the planning zoning, two or three from the county council just so that we have a kind of free workshop, narrow down the things, and then have another one. So okay. We don't need all of you there, but I'm not gonna say you're not welcome because you guys have a big part of that. So

that's what we're looking at. Will it be a public?

Yeah. Yes. It will be a culture. So your thoughts?

I guess if it's a public meeting, either way,

That was fine. Yeah. If one or two more show up, we're okay. And so if you if you all show up, I'm not gonna You won't send us out? You guys have the bigger footprint of approving than what the council does. So You won't pay us double for coming? I've been fighting to get you ask Kurt. I've been fighting to get more recognition for you. I'm just kidding. I'll be I'll be there either way. For sure.

I'll be there either way. Can I point out that the new invitation of the sent out starts at 03:00 instead of 03:30?

Is that confirmed at three?

That's when Andrew sent out. So it's 03:00? I didn't see that one. Started up late.

Yeah. The one that Connor sent out was at 03:30, but when Andrew sent out Wow.

We we should have acknowledged Pattern Mountain. We really appreciate them coming with an update, but we don't need to act on any of that. That was just information only.

Unless you watch. No.

How was your snow this year?

Do you want me to approach it just kinda Just out of curiosity. Unfortunately, similar to everyone, it's been horrible. You know, it's

Thank you.

Alright. Anything else, commissioners? Next month look fun, Connor?

Actually, yeah. Like, I think we have, like, two applications. Nothing too crazy. That's good. You know, no tears and screaming after it.

Okay. If Connor's

nothing else, you'll end the meeting then.

Make a motion to the general.