Cache County Planning Commission Meeting - 8 January 2026

Well, I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting tonight on January 8. I'd like to welcome all of you here. Welcome you. I'll call I have the opening remarks, and I will say that in the form of a prayer. Then afterwards, if you'll stand and repeat the pledge of allegiance with me. Our father in heaven, we're grateful for this day, which thou has blessed us with. We're grateful for the snow we've received, and we're grateful that we can be here tonight, and we're grateful for the freedoms that we enjoy in The United States Of America. We're grateful for this land of liberty. We ask you to please preserve and protect this land. We're grateful for those serving in the armed forces. Please bless them for their service. We ask for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. 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.

Okay. Commissioners, have you had a chance to look at today's agenda? Do we have an approval or any questions? If not, can I get someone to accept the approval?

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda in the minutes from last month. Okay. Second the motion? Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Any questions on the last meeting's December 4 minutes? Anything we need to talk about? If not, can we get approval on on those? So mine. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. The extent items for the Mendon South Canal CUP and the Frenchies Farm lot split one subdivision amendment. Is there any comment on those from anyone or from the commissioners?

If not I'd make a motion we approve the consent items. Bend in South Canal CUP, the Frenchy Farm Locksmith number one, first our first subdivision.

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

Chair, tonight is I'm sorry to have Brady just text me, said he's on his way. So Okay.

Okay. We've gotta wait three minutes.

We went we went too fast. We start with a statutory.

Okay. Go ahead and start on the regular item. Yeah. Okay.

Alrighty. So this is the Mountain Manor Springs 2 rezone to request rezone 98.68 acres from the agricultural zones to the the profile zone. Should the rezone be approved, the maximum of 19 lots will be allowed. The parcel did not match the configuration as of 08/08/2006. Parcel 125217 is a boundary line adjustment and the legal parcel. Parcel 125226 was the result of an illegal split or just improper adjustment. Adjacent uses, properties to the north and east are a mix of agricultural and residential, while properties to the south and west are agricultural and recreational. The nearest parcel in the Canada is in the rural five zone is located 1.55 miles to the southeast of the subject property. Property is located in the Mendon City future annexation area. The future plan has this the Cache County future plan has this in agriculture and ranching. Location is mostly the Cache Valley outside of municipalities. Example areas are most of the valley. Purpose and character include agricultural and range land uses on private lands, and our conservation easements are expected to continue in the valley. Separation from dense residential development is advantageous. Agricultural landscape provides separation between adjacent municipalities and protect suitable soils. Preferred land uses include agriculture, ranching, rural residential uses at densities of less than one unit per 10 acres, conservation easements, and agritourism. Secondary land use include industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture, clustered subdivision developments, outdoor recreation, and farmworker housing. Discouraged uses include residential development and density is greater than one unit per 10 acres, if not in a cluster subdivision development, commercial office, commercial retail, flex office industrial, and heavy industrial. It's also located in the Mountain Rural And Conservation Area. Location of this is the majority of privately owned mountain And foothill areas. The example areas include f r 40 zone that's not on public land. The purpose and character of the the zone is forest recreation and multiple resource uses on private lands. Forestry and recreation land uses are expected to continue. Maintaining the environmental quality of steep slopes, canyons, and forests with minimal residential development, conserves watershed resources, improves resiliency from wildfire, geological, and flood hazards. For land uses includes forestry, agriculture, conservation easements, watershed protection, hazard mitigation, outdoor recreation, and tourism. Secondary land uses include land uses include seasonal residential housing at one unit per 40 acres, clustered subdivision developments, resorts, recreational businesses, and public institutions. Discouraged uses includes residential development at a density greater than one unit per 40 acres, industrial, commercial office, commercial retail, and heavy industrial. Roads, 70 commercial office, commercial retail, and heavy industrial. Road, 7200 West is classified as a major local, provides access to residential and agricultural properties, is maintained by the county year round, and has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. An existing width of 20 feet, a variable right of way, a one foot paved shoulder, a two foot gravel shoulder, and a five to 10 foot clear zone. It's considered substandard as right of way paved shoulder, gravel shoulder, and clear zone. One lane would be the primary access and is considered a private lane. Should they get the amount of loss that they're hoping for, they'll have to bring it up. In terms of service provisions, the Cache County Fire District had no comments on the applicant want to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. Noticing was completed on December. Okay. Public comment at the time we received one comment from Menon City, and Menon City doesn't have any issues with the rezone. Staff doesn't have a recommendation. We'll help you draft a letter to the county council.

Okay. Thank you, Connor. Commissioners, any comment before we open the public hearing? Nope. Okay. In a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. Yeah. I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Is there any here who would like to would like to come up and state your name?

Rai Lund. We're the ones submitting the application. Based on the staff report, just wanna kinda go through the facts of if we're hoping to get approval, there's a subdivision that's Northeast that's in RU two zone. They have a really good system that we're trying to follow if we can get approved. They have one big water system that feeds all the houses. There's over 50 houses in that development. It's a High Country Estates subdivision, and so we're trying to follow kind of their pattern of it. Instead of drilling a bunch of wells, we're just trying to have one feed into a tank and then feed down to all those lots. If we can't get approved, we'll probably just, pursue the a 10 zoning, subdivision change and have each individual lot drill their own well. So we're hoping we can get approved so we don't have to drill that many wells. So the other thing will fall into the Utah Safe Drinking Water Act if you do 15 or more homes, and so it's regulated by the state. They help with the design of the of the infrastructure of all the water system and everything, and they regulate and the requirements and and all that stuff, so we can be providing good healthy water. Just wanted to reiterate the fact of the RU five zone. It's to allow residential estate development in a low density pattern that can allow for rural subdivisions and smaller scale agricultural uses. Usually, people that move up there either have animals already or planning to have animals. My brother has cows. He doesn't buy hay from people way down in Salt Lake. He buys it local, you know, from the people that farm the land right around. I think, if anything, it'll benefit all the surrounding agricultural uses, and we're we're designed to not unreasonably impede adjacent municipalities. Mendon City is the closest city, and they have no concerns with with the rezone. And so we're hoping we can we can get approved. Thank you.

Any other comments?

K. Make a motion to close the public hearing. K. Do you have a second? Second. Motion. K. All in favor? Aye. K. Why don't you scroll that map just a little so we can see the south end of that. I'm just trying to get an idea of how many acres might come off of that as undevelopable with the R U 5.

So, Connor, can you explain to me the unapproved subdivision, what that is a result of? Are these are these, like, additional homes that are on there, they weren't approved. Is that why it's unapproved?

So to some extent, this was a legal parcel, and this was a legal parcel. It was eleven and sixteen at one point. Mhmm. Essentially, 11 got shrunk down, and 26 was created a a result of that. Okay. So it's just a bad down adjustment more than anything else, but, yeah, that's just kinda the issue with it. Okay.

So I have a quick question, Connor. I don't know if it's for you or for legal. So the planning commission is con considering a change to the density ordinance. Is that the right one we're working on? So was this in before that was being considered, this application? I don't know how that rule applies. Right? If if if a request comes in before we start discussing it or aft before it's approved, when is that line?

My understanding is when it's been adopted. Okay. Yeah. So as we consider under the old standards. Until the new one's adopted. Yeah. Right.

I just wanna clarify to make sure Has any test been done to find out if you can find enough water?

Not that I'm aware of. That probably happened more towards the actual subdivision process.

Each has a separate sewage

If it would be if it would be combined one, they'd have to

the last question I have is, what's the chances that men would annex them?

It's in our annexation area. In terms of annexation pace, I couldn't tell you. It's a ways out there. Miles. Quite a quite a ways out there. It's a ways out there, so likely won't be soon.

I will say meeting with that other subdivision that was meant mentioned that has that citywide system, they are currently scrambling because their well is down to producing a few gallons a minute for 40 something dollars. And the other one has arsenic. And the other one has arsenic. So they're not in a good way right now. We're we're trying to figure out how we can help them out there. But the Bear River Water District too to get a better water supply for that. So They they may not have lawns next summer. If if we did approve

Yeah. Yeah. That have come up. There there are only a couple of decisions that this body has made over the years that I that I really regret, and that's and that's one of them. It's it's that one. It's popping down town in a in a rural area that doesn't have the services. It's on the Far West side of the valley, and and all of those services are more difficult. That's that's my major concern about this is it's it's we're stretching, you know, and and the major discussion that we've had with the with the county council has has been, okay. Where do we where do we put these things? We've tried to be consistent in this in this body over the years to to place the higher density close to municipalities with with limited exception exceptions when we had a a small development. We've allowed some RU twos where it's a a couple of lots in an area. But in general, we've we've tried to take these these more major developments and make sure that they're close to municipal services and and roads and all of the things. And

proposal.

Connor, can I ask a question?

When you say in your report,

the county fire district did not have any comments or concerns. So no comments or no concerns or both? Some of the houses out in the apartment they can't get to. And I bring that up because, Mendon's fire station is it's there, but staffing has been a problem. Yeah. In this case, they don't have to either work. I'm sorry. Thank you. How you doing? Thank you, Jason.

Yeah.

Should we make a motion? We're to that point.

So I I would make a motion that we recommend denial to the county council on the Mountain Manor Springs to rezone based on the findings of fact listed for the denial.

I second the motion.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Alright. Our second public hearing, the frontage and access amendment.

I wonder if you can take us through that.

Yeah. One

sec. So this is a code amendment that essentially is trying to tackle an issue two issues we can get from between. One is people are starting to access properties where they have frontage on, let's say, the West side, but they'll access from the East side or the South side or the North side. That presents certain problems in terms of actual review of developments. So I was trying to tackle that problem first. And the second problem we're seeing a lot of is in the county, especially in the forties, is access is weird. There's a lot of roads that aren't guaranteed to be there. They're clearly visible. You can them, but the concern is if they have frontage or not. That's hit a lot of applicants up there, and it's has issues with development of just even a cabin or anything like that. So that's the primary purpose behind these two is to essentially kind of regulate access through the front of the property, the part that abuts the road directly, and then also kind of resolving an issue up in the forties.

Okay. Could could you explain the first the first concern, The the east versus the west?

So, essentially, I think I could pull up an example. That would be great. We had we had a good example.

Is it similar to the one that we have seen before? Okay. Alright.

So in this case, the applicant got a subdivision approved where they accessed on this side in all reviews up to that point where assuming they would access through that side of the property. And then what they ended up doing was accessing from the south side, which caused some problems. Questions of what was approved is actually what happened. Mhmm. That was the biggest concern. It also presents some problems in terms of reviewers later. I know that public works and the fire district had some issues with it, but that's it's essentially kinda closing that loophole that exists. Because two of us right now, this does meet code. Right? It does have 90 feet of frontage. The concern is that the access is coming off of somewhere else. There's concerns about addressing and just things like that. Kinda presents a safety risk. Do you know if this would also Especially, this just says, hey. It's on you to determine if you have access or not. That's basically it. So do they need to access through it?

So so let me just

sorry. I was trying to wrap my head around here. How how would this alter

that exam

that we talked about? Show this. Oh, in terms of this? Essentially, what it would require is they access through here, up through the stuff.

But what if they came in originally and said, hey. We're gonna we're gonna access from the from the South Side. Would that would this would this ordinance change

Yeah. I'd say that's a pretty hard regulation you have to access through the part of your property that touches the road.

But it's like on the south. Oh, okay. So so there is a Yeah. This is the parcel we're talking about right here. So there's that line right there. Right?

Mhmm. There's the property. Essentially, all reviews up to the point to the subdivision thought they'd access this one. They're accessing up through here.

Jared? Well, they wouldn't have had the frontage. Could we ask Matt to give us some insight on this?

Okay. Matt. Connor

touched on it, so I'll just expand upon that. So this subdivision plaque came in. Right? They met the 90 feet of frontage. So that particular lot would have been addressed off of one road. And now, when he comes in, after the fact, we don't have anything in our code forcing them to access off what was platted. And so now, they're coming through the farmyard, and and going through the old farmyard to get to their lot. And now, fire, EMS, everyone else, their address is still off the other road. So how do they find this house in an emergency? How to do these things? So basically, they use the loophole, and there's other people doing it to meet all the code requirements, but never had an any intent in accessing off that that was platted. So why don't we hold occupancy

on it? Because as we all know, life happens, whether it be divorced, something else. Right. If that house has to be sold, they're gonna

this could be a big big bigger mess. Yeah. They still have legal access, so that part's good. Right? They still have so if these two properties were sold and they got kicked out of coming through the farmyard, they would still have a legal access. So I feel like the code, you know, did its job there. But it's all these other things that you didn't anticipate. So now you start to find that people are just planning stuff to plan it to meet all the code, and then they wanna access through their neighbor and through other three other properties. And how do we start to address the other issues downstream that that creates? So The the utility, though, as you well know,

followed that or something did because it was excavated and Yep. There's still dirt piled out there. Powder comes in from out of there. Yep.

So, again, the code did a good job of creating that. I mean, it is a flag law. Let's, which we don't really have a way. But So this is an attempt to try to keep, you know, hey, if you're gonna plot this, if they'd never intended to go this way, which I'm assuming they did, so maybe I'm wrong or right, they should have plotted it where they were gonna use their access through the farmyard, then we could have made sure. But now you have fire truck issues, you have EMS issues. You have all kinds of other issues. Tractors parked in the driveway. Tractors parked in the driveway. Huge problem. Yes. But we didn't have anything in our code to say they could not.

Okay. Can I ask you a quick just a question on that? Sometimes, I can see a project would have hey. We have unforeseen issues. Yeah. We hit high water table or something, and we can't go where we intended.

Would there be a mechanism to make modifications if we make this change? We make this change? Well, and I I that's why I walked up here because I do think that there's probably in every code we have, there's always that one scenario that we need to grant an exception for. But I think that those exceptions should maybe have to come to this body. That way, that there's a little bit more of some legwork to get to that, yes, instead of just, you know, coming to staff and arguing with Connor or whatnot that, hey. It says right here, you can grant this. So I'm gonna come and visit you every day until it's granted. At least give a little bit more so that, hey, that that we're having more eyes on it to see if it really is one of those exceptions or whether it's just peer pressure

to grant that exception. So at this point in time, does the city or the county do we have any teeth to put in it or do we not and thus why we're No. They were granted access through the farmyard.

And they can't amend their plat to show that?

We didn't have we don't have any teeth to force them to amend it. Then. Okay.

And they have no desire to amend it. So what we're really doing is protecting them from themselves. The the next one that they're trying to The next one. Yeah. The house could be burned down in the meantime.

Correct. And that's a risk they had to take, but we're we're seeing this more often that, you know, because of other issues or whatnot that people are trying to access. And I do think there's gonna be the cases where that we should grant them access through somewhere else. Nolan, you also talked about what we're calling the forties, but those in the FR 40 area. If this goes ordinance goes through as passed, we wouldn't even identify if that was a road or not. We would just say, however you get to your property is up to you, and we're not gonna verify that you have access or you don't have access. So there's no way for us to verify they have frontage if we never verify there's a road. So this standard saying you have to access it on your frontage if we never find out whether they have frontage. We this so this one would currently, in my opinion, not work for the FR 40. You would have a code that you're stuck between. So if you're willing to grant that, hey, whatever happens in the forties, we're not gonna verify you have legal access because a lot of those if you guys are aware, where they were these PUDs that were done in 1975, and the records just aren't good enough. So while all these people are accessing those roads, we can't find any legal documents granting anyone. It's really a civil matter between all those people that the county since they're private roads, the county can't get involved in. So what end up happening is these people get run around in the goose chase trying to, you know, they don't even know who to go to to get access for them. But in that similar case, if we're not gonna verify the road, then we wouldn't have a way to really verify frontage in some cases. And they would probably be traveling through two or three different properties on what could be an easement. It may not be a private or public road at that point. So I do think that you're fixing one issue down lower, but you're adding another one up higher in the mountains. So So so is this gonna make the FR 40 more confusing then for land owners? Yeah. Because how do you verify that they're accessing through their frontage? And they can only access through their frontage. So, therefore, you have to determine how they're getting to it if it's a public or private road, and then that would be their frontage. You could assume, but if they just have some little two track through the neighbor's property to get to theirs, is that is that their which where's their frontage? So I do think you might have to that I was bringing out is there's some

lots up there. And this is a separate case, but they didn't even the property didn't even front the road. So Yeah.

So so it have to deal with that some way. But So you you you may have to say that in FR 40, you cannot you don't have to access it through your you cannot yeah. Your frontage. And then that would solve that little double code standard.

So it sounds like we might need to reword this before we approve it or just approve part of it?

Potentially.

Or or if we if we approve it as it is, maybe this this is probably a legal question. So for those for those people in the FR 40, we approve it this way. They basically can't. They would be existing nonconforming, and they couldn't modify their or, you know, add something or subdivide or anything like that because because it's it's not conformable.

Hey. Is that I think reasonable? I think anything before that would probably be, you know, maybe fall into that, but it would be going forward when we're trying to review that zoning clearance application and we're trying to apply, hey. You have to access through your frontage.

That's gonna be a hard decision. Taken

the develop an opportunity from a lot of FR 40 owners. They haven't built something or No. They've already built it. They've got it in there for the panels. And the ability to to sell that property Yeah. As well because it's gonna be encumbered with Yeah. And to me, that's why I say I I don't I don't know that we wanna pass it with that in until we Yeah.

Yeah. Then that that's the same thing right now. The code says you need to have frontage

on a public or private road. Because we held him up from, I think, wanting to build, didn't we? Because of that. Yes. Which

That's that I mean, we've been trying to protect some of these people in that neck of the woods up there from, you know, potentially building a home and then finding out they can't get to it. Well, he could it that was it mostly his problem. He couldn't get to it and no one would give him an easement or anything. If you change this, then it would be, like, not our job to figure out how you get to your property. If he comes in and says he has an easement there or he it's a public road or a private well, not a public road, but a private road through his to get to his house, we would just say, okay. We're gonna take your word for it. So what we've been trying to do, in in my opinion, is try to protect these people from their self or from selling things that doesn't have an access. But but it's been a very long delay in the development services office because it takes them a long time to try to get all that sorted out. And they have to go talk to the neighbors, and then this neighbor, and that neighbor. And then they say, well, this document proves I have it. And we're like, not really. So we've had to be the judge and the jury on whether that access is a really an access or not an access. And and it's frustrating to those people. And all we've have been trying to do is protect them from theirs, you know, kind of their self to make sure you, hey, prove that you really have legal access to your property, and then you're good.

Matt, so on on this property here, pending that we pass this, at least even if we split it tonight and said, let's go for it on county inside the county, not including F R 40. 10, R 2, R E 5. Could we hold this piece as nonconformable moving ahead like Jason was asking? So that if a sibling or if they sell a lot and try to get approval,

this road hold that up? That'd be a question for Andrew, but I don't think so because it's already passed before. Yeah. And they the at the time they did their development, they met all of our code requirements.

I I don't think we have a choice to not do something on a 10 or less, but I mean, as soon as possible, and then figure out that part 40. Yeah. I I mean, I would recommend that there's a way that there's

you can grant that exception. Right now, I don't think there is any way to grant that exception. And we know I mean, if you're just in code, code can't fit every

scenario. So Right. I think most codes need that, etcetera, at the end. Yes. But it needs it needs A lot of them don't, and it messes a lot of people up. And then we spend a year trying to tweak a code for one project Yeah. When they could just come for review and then Yeah. If it's really easy, though, then you find yourself just granting an exception to every one of those, and then the code you're passing does us no good. So

the aspects that are ready.

Okay. We have a motion to open the public hearing. Yes. I'll send it. Okay. All in favor? Aye. There anyone here that'd like to make comments on this code amendment? If not, I have a motion to close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to close. Order on that. We're still admitted out. I know it's technicality, but

No. We're at 05:50.

Oh, good. Am I looking at the wrong one? Yep. We're behind schedule. Oh, we're behind. I was looking at the wrong one. I'll make that motion to close the public hearing. Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Okay. Are we in a consensus to just hold off on this till we can make some changes?

Yeah. Either way, I'd be fine moving forward with the

just have the

it's frontage length, very depth there. Yeah. Yeah. So my point, all of them

Yeah. It's got it's got commercial in it. All of them there in red that looked like new.

But I think the motion would be for all zones other than the R four. Yeah.

That would be my motion.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Okay. And that was to recommend the proof to the county council. Okay. Just a second.

Okay. Item number five, public public hearing for the subdivision code amendment. I wonder if you can walk us through that one. Oh, that you do? Okay.

Okay.

on that.

So the way this is written, that's

that's just seven lots that doesn't have anything specific to to the zone. Correct. So it's a subdivision. It could be a an a 1,000 acre 100 acre parcel, but we're putting but we're putting seven lots. Eight lots on it. Eight lots. Even though it has it's under normal eight ten, and normally we'd go in this languages. Yes. That's This would be Look at the we can know what we want. Right? It's it's information will come to the council, but that's as it's Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. I don't have an issue with that. I just want to clarify that we're not. So maybe as an example, like, the

the the agenda Tonight. Item tonight, you know, they they can come back. They could turn around and say, okay. We we didn't get the RU five rezone. We're just gonna come in with a subdivision for eight and and we won't have lots. Nine lots. Yeah. Mhmm.

they Or Unless they wanna go to the city and get sewer water.

Yeah. They're not gonna run along the line that far. They don't have more. They don't have sewer. So they're really out.

the message I got from what the council and the commission wanna do was

Well, the the purpose of my question, I really appreciate you taking the extra time to touch on it because I'm fine with it. But, just just want to double clarify that's our intent. But then I was also wondering if I'm not familiar with them and I didn't see if they were in here, but can we clarify what is the water requirements, the additional water requirements if they're unable to hook onto the city or municipality. So if I read that correctly, they still have two options. They they can either connect to a municipality. Oh, never mind. There's not additional. That's it. If you're over 70 lots, you gotta connect to it. K. I'm fine with that. So Yeah. I think it's good. So that It's what's our main player at. So I thought we had an option that there was other. So that's what I was trying to clarify. I think that was our discussion

with with the council was that if they could put in a unit or a what's the what's the initial what's the official term? A water public water system. Public water system. System. This is much more restricted, I think, than some of our discussion there. Yeah. Like I said, not that I not that I disagree with it, but just to point out the difference in,

I think, some of what our discussion was. And I think that might if I miss something, just let me know what my understanding from that discussion was. Hey. We're still waiting on some information on these large studies that are coming out. Right? You know, we're gonna kinda track about problem. Down the road. Information. This is the k. For now at the end, whatever you guys wanna do.

Brady, to your point, we all know that there are some municipalities that respond very well to the county's request because it is in their annexation zone. I mean, if you go back to, like, some of the mayors have said, I want some say so of what's coming in my annexation zone because of zoning may be different where those people are in, like, city parks or anything else, and they're not paying city taxes. So Well, a lot of times, the developments don't meet the city standard. So when they do come to annex, they don't they have changed.

And and is this skin in the game for those municipalities

to say brings them to the point that they they need to talk to so they can help us decide what's going on. And if and if they want,

you know, this is your annex future annexation. So Is this what you want sitting next to them? Well, you ought to be willing to accept them and provide services to them if it's if it's within within that. So k. But So so I think it gives I think it gives options. It my one of my concerns made that this was was an absolute dead end, that it was that it was an impossibility. And and I'm just kinda concerned from a legal standpoint if we if we

wrote a code that was impossible to be Alright. The same thing for those big for those little bigger parcels. Right? If we have someone with a 150 acres, this for the most part, this is gonna limit them to seven lots.

Sewer system. But I don't think that I don't think because it's written, it allows that. I think it's only it's only written for municipal.

Is that Yeah. As it's written, it it it doesn't that's yeah. That's that's reading that. I had that concern. And and I had a little concern on five even. Right? Prior to final subdivision approval, they will have shall have proof of actual water on the subdivided lot. And I think that's similar to what, we were trying to get to to what Box Elder does. Right. But this doesn't talk about size of subdivisions. So if it's a two lot subdivision, right, they've got to drill a well before they could sell a lot. To me, it really depends on where in the county that makes sense or not. Right? To me, everywhere in the county, even if it's a five lot subdivision or a seven, right, there's areas we know, without a doubt, you're gonna get water. And to require that developer, that landowner to drill a well just to show it flows, to me, seems excessive in in areas. I think we could tailor that somehow to say, you know, in areas of of maybe ground water concern or something. But for everyone to have to do that, to me, it doesn't seem necessary.

They gotta do it eventually anyways. On a on a flip side of it. Potentially.

Yeah. Yeah. It it just depends where they do that. But now you don't know where it's sited, the actual lot, where the house is gonna be, where the septic's gonna and it right. It may mess up a lot later on. Right.

What's wrong with having every lot? I But this guy's at all, but the not why wouldn't they need a well? I mean, if someone's gonna go build, I'd why is it gonna buy a lot? One well, we'd want seven if they were doing seven lots and have it done in advance. I would think.

Yeah.

I know it's a big cost, but that's cost. It's gonna have to be They're paying for us. They're paying for it either way. Yeah.

It just it just seems like an area where we know every well is gonna hit hit water. Not necessarily, though. Well, that's what I'm saying. For the majority of the county, they can get that. And and by the end of the year, our study will show better where they can't. But there's there's not too many.

You know, to your point, most places can have water, but it would also be interesting to say the surrounding wells within a certain area. I mean, I've got three neighbors right now that have had to redrill a new well because the wells weren't pumping when these happen, a lot of people come in and their frustration is water because they're concerned about their will. And so I wanna watch that we protect their private private water rights or have a way to do that. This might be a way to do that. I'm just saying to give that some consideration as well. But there's been wells drilled in Richmond

on both the north and south side that they've had to drill multiple wells to hit water or not hit water. And so as that we're really protecting the developer comes in, makes his money, he's gone. I don't know what kind of a deal on that, you know, if he sold the lot saying they had it. If he just tells them they got a water right, I mean, we're protecting the individual that buys the lot if there's a drilled well and there's water there.

It proves

causation and not coincidence so far in the state has been pretty difficult. Right. I don't know if we wanna get in the middle of regulating that. Don't complicate things. Yeah. That would

But I just to bring back around, I mean, you're you're absolutely right. I mean, our discussion was, hey. We've got a water study going on. We're looking at some interim interim means, and and and so I'd certainly support this as a as a temporary measure that maybe we if we work through as as we're waiting for that water study to come in, okay, what are what are we gonna do when we really know what our resources are? Can we can we then fold that in? But I would expect I would support something similar to this in in the interim at least. K.

Should we I I had a question, mister Timmons. Andrew would you know, he's he's soliciting feedback, and I didn't know if the executive's office had provided comments yet or to you, Nolan, or whatever. I mean, because they had reached out to me when they saw this language and were kinda

struggling with it or whatever. To me, there's two sides in the executive's office. One's court, most.

Okay. Okay.

Good stuff. That's playing

Okay. Okay. Why don't we open this to a public hearing?

I think so. I can make that motion. Okay.

Second. K. All in favor? Aye. Does anyone here would like to make comment on this code amendment? They're like, why are we last on the list? Nibbly. Nibbly.

I think we come for this

So I agree with

Jason here like or maybe I don't agree. I don't I don't know. If I agree with myself. It it is super limiting to like some of these bigger parcels. If Yeah. Nate player. Yep. It is super limiting to some of these big parcels and I don't think we should punish them because they haven't split their lots up previously. So I think that would be kind of a a punishment to them. The whole saying, hey. Well, you can't do it unless, if you wanna have eight lots in there when you have a 150 acres, asking Mendon to send water lines six miles away. Like, that's never ever gonna happen. So you're basically just saying, hey, you guys just drew the wrong straw.

So We are allowing them to do it until they create their public water system. So if they so so there is an option in there that they can do

what We'll add it. We'll add it, but we Yeah. We're concerned about it. So The other thing though too, just in what you're saying, Nate, and I'll keep listening. Yeah. No. You're good. But you don't have anywhere in Mendon Cities well, unfortunately, I apologize. We don't have all we have is their actual boundaries. I was gonna say, I don't know if they've got a six mile. Yeah.

And I would question if they did. But Because go yeah. Going up into, like, Petersburg and They actually cross

Valley View Highway with their ancestors. They do. And then north.

Then that you might be in. And then to the east, it's like Little Bay River or something like that. But, like like, over there, we've even had problems with people's wells going bad where they've got methane or whatever, and they're literally, like, I don't know, a quarter of a mile away in Mendon won't extend their lines to those places. So it's like us saying that, hey, this is the new standard for the county. Like, it just most cities aren't ever gonna bend. Even though eventually, fifty years from now, they want them to be part of them. Like, especially for those small towns, that's that's a huge burden on on the on the city, but then it it really locks that up. And I I know I understand we're trying to lock things up. So development only happens next to the the cities. So it's not like out there in rural county, but I don't know. I I think it's silly to to punish those people who have bigger parcels. And then what was the last let's see.

I know. I remember So are you with Menon City? I I'm not. I

I I came here once again for the Hollow Road thing. I I live in unincorporated county just outside

outside of Mendon.

So that's that's why I know that area pretty well. And then oh, I should have wrote it down. There's one other one other item there. Oh, so on the, on the whole subdivision thing. So, so as a disclosure, so I am, I am in real estate and I help clients step through the processes of, of, of doing this kind of thing. Like for example, I've got one right now in, in Wellsville, just kind of on the bench. And they've got like a 72 acre piece and they're planning on doing like, they're seven, seven, six acre lots. So they're nice lots where they can keep things in greenbelt and whatnot. But yeah, in the process we've had to acquire water, which is a, I think it's a good, it's a good requirement is to say, Hey, look, you've got enough water rights for all your, all your parcels you're making. But to require a developer. And it's one thing if you're like a visionary homes or something, a huge thing like that. But most of the time it's, it's just local people doing this. And like it was already pretty burdensome. Luckily, we were able to find some pretty cheap water at $8 acre foot. But since then, like that same person we bought water from has raised prices up to $25,000 an acre foot. So it's like, here we are, like, punishing these people saying, hey, look. Yeah. We wanna make sure that you have the water for the your subdivision, but and and that's something they have to do. They've gotta find the water appropriate and transfer it over there. But then now we're saying, hey, you got to spend $50,000 per per lot to go ahead and drill a well on each one of these things. And so it's like, now you're going from this farmer that's scraping together a 100 to buy water, and now he's got to sink another $500 in drilling these wells. And at least for my client there in in Wellsville, out of the seven lots, he's only planning on selling like two, maybe three of them. And then the rest he's just gonna sit on. So it's like now we've got those those water rights sitting there that are not in use and eventually they'll probably have to oh, yeah. Five years. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, seven years yeah. If if it's a if it's a new if you appropriate new water from the state, then then that you have to drill something in five years. But if you if you transfer it and it's just sitting there, you've got seven years to use it. Or or file a non use application. Yeah. And you could and you can file that non use two times. So up to fourteen years, you can you can have that water sitting there. But like, if he went through the process and followed this new like train of thought and he he went out there, bought the water shares for $25,000 an acre foot, and then drill the 50 to depending on where you're at there on the bench or whatever, $100 well, seven times over. And you're only selling two of them, like, you're barely gonna scrape even there. And and yeah, so so that was my other thought was like, I understand like acquiring the water because we don't want people to say there's 15 lots on this 150 acre piece and not have the water to make it happen. But, like, I think, yeah, making them requiring them to to drill a well on every lot. Like, one one well, like, I still don't like it because I I feel like it's an overreach. But, like, definitely, I I just think that's inappropriate to to require a farmer to to go through that, especially if he's not even gonna be profiting by these by these lots where he's just gonna sit on them and then pass them on to his kids. So I don't know. Those were any other thoughts. Any any comments

before I take a seat? Really well. They just make that lot that much more profitable for themselves. So it is a cost that they'll retain and get back. And we see all the time somebody comes in and rezones and wants these as a lot and say I'm only gonna build four. But if they get approval for seven, believe me seven will be billed.

Yeah. Somebody And and we're happy to our responsibility is to protect the public from themselves. Yeah. Any of us that are from here and doing it know what we're dealing with, but people are used to building and buying in the city where it's all there. Yeah. So they go out and buy it in the county. And then if it's not provided, if it's not

clear, they're coming back here wanting taken care of, and and that's not our Exactly. And they're coming in and yelling at you. Yeah. Yeah. I know, like, I I about three years ago, I sold a a property out in Richmond, and Matt, Matt helped me with, with some of the stuff, on disclosures like saying, Hey, look, the chance of this being a buildable lot, like, like none. But like, yeah, you get, realtors all the time. Like, Hey, it's nine acres in the middle of Richmond. Like, it, like in the middle of the fields in Richmond. How many houses can I build here? And it's like, well, maybe one eventually. But, but yeah. So I understand that that we're trying to protect, yeah, just just the everyday person who doesn't know what they're doing. But I don't know. I I feel like yeah. Like, I I understand having the water there. I I I wish there was a better way that we could, like, do a study that said, hey. Yeah. There's gonna be enough water there for for seven wells there. But it's like I don't know. We're already yeah, we're already asking quite a bit. And and I I know we're trying to get ahead of this because the valley's growing, but like, I I don't know. I think if we made drilling a well on every lot, like once again, these wells, for example, if if if we we went through and pass this and added that as a requirement, like, you'd have like two of those lots sold. And and yeah, you could up the price a little bit because it already has a well on it. So tack $50 or whatever it costs to do that. But then it's like, literally these other wells are just gonna sit. Yeah. Just sit there. So I don't know.

Thank you. Anyone else wanna add comment? If not, motion to close the public hearing. I'll make that. Okay. Second.

K. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you, mister chairman. Yes. I don't know how the committee feels, but may I make one other suggestion? Sure. How about we hear the Nibley deal before we finish this so these guys don't have to wait, or do you wanna finish it?

Well, I guess, at that how close are we making a decision? Do you wanna have a lot longer discussion on this, or do you ever have the Still have a few other changes to go through, don't we? Yeah. There's a few things that we need to do. I'm fine with that. Still.

K. Well, let's go. Kelly, we'll take the tips over there.

Yeah. You're a good man. Okay.

So you can see Yeah. You're a good man. Okay. You can see it's not Come back to this I see all six of you in the same mindset.

I was hoping you'd all stay some comments here, but okay. Well, let's come back to that and and go to item number six then, to the blacksmith's,

Hiram Fork Irrigation Company, CUP. Perfect. Yeah. So this request to operate a utility facility distribution, truckers, and pipe the canal. Scope of the project is about 775 feet canal be piped with 36 inch corrugated metal pipe. Hours of operation, the canals anticipated to operate continuously or within the schedule that they have. Employees, no employees will be present for periodic maintenance. There will be no signage. There will be no on-site equipment, and no waste is anticipated to be generated as part of this project or part of the operation. The roads that it's located on the West side of the Tottenham property, so it doesn't necessarily impact any public roads. There was no comment there. Parking, it's exempt from our parking analysis due to its use type. Services, the fire district did not have any comments, but we'll provide feedback if needed. Solid waste disposal responsibility of the applicant. There are some detrimental effects and sensitive lands on the property. Stormwater, they'll have to submit a stormwater report. There are some noxious weeds on the property, but they've been working with vegetation management division. So we'll see the copy of whatever work they've done with them. Air quality, those have to make sure that best management practices are followed. There are steep slopes present on the property, but as the canal is following the existing canal alignment, this restriction is not applicable. There are moderate slopes present on the property. They want to submit a topographic review of the area that they're constructing. Should this tempo show that they are in those moderate slope areas, they want to submit a geotech geotechnical report. Noticing was completed on December 26 and the thirtieth. The agenda was posted to the county website on December 30 as well. At this point, the only public comment we received is from Nibley City, which was part of their application packet. The other public comment has been received. Staff is recommending approval to 10 listed conditions in three

Question on that. Is this is this Nibley City source protection?

It is, but that doesn't necessarily impact this because they're not doing septics. Not doing septics. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have any concerns on that front.

Is the applicant would they like to come up? Mister Burnett, would you like to come up and say something or one of you?

Would you do you wanna say your name? What's that? Do you wanna say your name?

Oh, my name is Brandon Parker, president of Hiram Blacksmith Fork Irrigation Company. And all we're wanting to do is pipe our existing little canal on Hollow Road. I don't know any questions. Alright. For water conservation, that's

Yeah.

And there's some safety aspects to it too.

Questions, commissioners?

Maybe the only one I have is just from a phone call earlier. The address you have down below, Connor, is 4785 Hollow Road. On the application at the top, it's they're just different addresses. And maybe it doesn't matter. It doesn't. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because mister Cunningham was concerned the address was wrong. I don't think that matters, but I'll ask in the meeting to make sure. Okay. It's just a general address of the location. I figured that. That is my choice. I'm gonna make sure it was in the meeting. I'll check. Thank you. There's no other questions. I have one other question.

Oh, Brandon. He had a question for you. When we did the highlight canal up here, there's a dispute as to what who owned what as far as the canal bed and everything else. Is that all clear? And Yeah. That's all. Any other comments or concerns, commissioners?

It's pretty straightforward. Yeah.

Okay.

Ready for a motion? Yes. Ready for a motion. Mister chairman, I I move that we this is a CUP. It's for us. Approve the Blacksmith Fork Irrigation Company conditional use permit. With the 10 conditions? With the 10 conditions. Thank you. Two conclusions. Two conclusions? Three. Three. Three.

I'll second that. K. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, gentlemen.

Not on this one. This one? No. It was there negative comments. We thought you were all together in favor of it. No. No.

Yeah. But it's not a public hearing, but it Yeah. It's just a CUP. The public comment should have came in during the application and sent notices. Right? Yeah.

Yeah. Well, then about it. Oh, really?

Oh, really?

Well, apologize about that. We didn't know. Now this would be the first meeting we heard about it. Yeah. Was there noticing on this one? Yeah. There was. That's probably why they're here is they they got the notice, I guess. We just didn't.

What's your name, sir?

What's that? What's your name? My name is Colin Smith.

He he was asking, do you live within 300 feet

from the project?

We

can still hear them, sir. We can still hear them, sir. We can still hear them, sir. We can still hear them, sir. We can call up you can call up voice or concerns. Yeah. We

Sure. Please go upstate your name. Here, all of them. Yeah. If there's any other comments, let's let's see them.

K. My my name is Khan Smith. It's kinda spelled crazy, k o h n. It's a you know? But but, no, you guys need to come see us. I live on Hollow Road. It's one of the most beautiful places in in Cache Valley. And If you were to come there you drive down my lane, you'd see probably 20 or 30 pheasants Probably 90 quail There were $6.04 point bucks in my backyard last night We have eagle sitting in the tree. We have beautiful big giant trees now Taking all that emotion out of it. Okay They did a study on a canal going right through my place, which is the Nibley Canal it was just on the other side of the road So Utah State came and had all the they did a study for two or three years there on the water flows coming through our property. And I and I was really educated by it because I couldn't believe what they they told me because I I've always thought differently. So one of the facts is that they came up with was if you were to pipe that canal that you would actually lose water. And the reason is is there's all kinds of springs come in and feed it as it goes down all the way down into the Bear River and so There is a little bit of seepage along the road there and it goes in the ground But I guess there's a giant aquifer underneath Okay, that you know, there's a lot of good for the wells and everything else throughout the whole part of the valley there, but but what happens is you know, we have these big giant trees and and where that canal is is being proposed to be pipe, there's these huge trees. So now you think that the trees suck the water out of the canal or the spring. And really what I didn't know for sure was and was surprised to really learn is they said that the trees actually store water. And So they suck up some water, but they also put it back in So the trees along the canal actually preserve water and and that's their fine. That's not me talking about that's that's the scientist talking about Utah State. And so when you think about it logically, you know, you go up and down Logan River. There's how many thousands of trees are there up and down Logan River. And but yet the water continues to flow. And so, you know, in my own study of water usage and ride and everything, you know, there was a supreme court case in the state of Utah. I could quote it for you or whatever. But it's basically this is that unless your name is God, you don't own the water. You have the right to use it, but every living organism uses water. So, I mean, you got all kinds of animals and all kinds of people, you know, whatever that need water every day. So when we put it in a pipe, you know, all of us that live along Hollow Road, we see those giant trees every day. We see the animals. We see and we all have at least two acres and and most of us have many more acres than that five or six. So we're a community of what you call. Oh There's a name for the homesteads or something, You know little home because we all got goats and you know and sheep and some horses and this and that and whatever so the Kimbell decree When water was first decreed for usage it had to come under culinary had to come under stock water, had to come under irrigation. And and there's one other so there's many uses for water. And I guess what we're saying there along Hollow Road, there aren't very many places left anymore where you have that kind of beauty. You know? I've got a creek running through my place, and there's five pound trout that I go feed every day. It's gorgeous. You know, and the animals that are there and but more than that, I think the clean air thing with the big trees and the or whatever and and man, oh, man. I we just hate to see to put the water in a pipe, you know, I would ask them Really? Are you sure that you know? That that that's gonna conserve water because the studies that have been made Don't say that fact at all You know, and we're just talking about a small area there. It's been there forever You know, maybe they say leaves fall in or what but spring water is gorgeous water that all kinds of things could really benefit from and we've lived there forever and you know, you can talk about a safety item, but if you do that, then you you better fence off every piece of open water in Cache Valley. We can do fence the Hiram Dam. You're gonna fence a little bit of river, you know, you know, that's the responsibility of people and parents to to make sure their kids aren't doing something that's dangerous. But that canal that's there is beautiful. It's got about maybe that much water in it that flows through there. And I appear I go along there sometimes with four wheeler go up on a hill and there's Jesus big trout in there that spawn there, you know, it's just to see them, you know, so I guess what we're saying is We don't want to be Downtown Logan. It's already you can get Congested. There's a beautiful piece of property an area up there that we love we you know, we We do everything we can to make it look good. We invite you all to come Come and see us. You know, I would love you to but but unless there's a really good reason to pipe that, you know, if they can do a study and say, you know, is that really gonna save water? Is that gonna, you know, then just to do it to be doing it? I don't know if that's what I'd want to be doing with my tax money for sure, you know, and and Like I guess our properties we go along and you pipe that canal. There's gonna be a lot of great big giant trees. It'll die. Oh, you guys think, you know, I mean, they they it's goes right through their property. But anyway, that's just my Thank you. My my own emotional pitch.

Thank you. Same same viewpoint for the reference

bridge. Come on. We come up here and state your name so it's 598

Hollywood.

Help us identify too, mister Smith, while you're up there. So we we can see on this the map, but I'm having a hard time I see Conn's property at the far north end, but will it actually will the will the river be piped Or is it exactly the last the West West side of the highway.

Okay. Okay. That makes sense. Well, that's not I got all my neighbors there too. I kinda try to look out for them. It's a full area. Did you receive The whole area is just scary. Just cast rally. I'm telling them. You know? And so, you know, that as it goes along the the hill there, there's all kinds of springs along there. You know? And and

Well, the the comment I'm Gary Smith. I live further down on Hollow Road. But the comment I would make is if you approve this relatively small project, I'd remind us that there are at least four canals on Hollow Road. Now we've set a precedence of how we're gonna deal with the Green Belt areas, the places that we all bought properties. You know, where I live is a 10 acre minimum. I have two canals running through my property. I moved from Logan, mister Poole will know this, because the canal got piped in my backyard in Logan. And I I moved out there for the very purpose of having being in that kind of environment. I have horses. I wanted to have the water running through there. You know, we talk about the trees. There's more value of trees than just the water it takes. There's shade water. There's clean air. I mean, there's a lot of environmental impacts of killing a whole bunch of trees. And if we start a precedence of pipe in this one little water so that people down the road somewhere can have water, we've hurt a lot of people. We've set a precedent set. Now we open it up for every canal company to do it. And we really, really hurt that environment down there, which we all paid a lot of money for those properties because of the nature of what was there. So I don't see any value in piping those, especially after I watched it happen from the Logan Canyon out to the North End. That that project was a disaster with all of the well, that's opinion. My my opinion was a disaster. In my backyard, there are there are so many springs coming into there. They had to leave the canal with the pipe, so there was places for the springs to run, which created a absolute disastrous bog that was mosquito infested. And so I moved. You know, I didn't have a choice. It was there and I moved. I hate to see the same thing happen in a in a place where there are not just one canal, but there are four canals. And if we call we shut all those down, we affect aquifers, we affect environment, we affect clean air. It just doesn't seem necessary in my opinion.

Alright. Nate Player again. So if you look right there, that 1152001 and 152002 is is my mom's property right there. So this one, yeah, it does run through the middle of her property, and then there's also another canal. So, yeah, that is definitely a concern. Like, you you you start piping one, why not do all of them? And the next thing you know, it's just we've got the rocks, but none of the good that comes with living in a river bottom there. And, yeah, I was gonna bring up that too with the, yeah, piping it. You are gonna you are gonna see that quite a bit. I've got friends that, lives live over there by Herms, diner there. Same thing. And I understand why we did it there. Like, tragically, we lost those lives of the of that that family there. So something needed to be done. So I understand why why we did that. But, yeah, a bunch of the trees all along there that had been there forever just, yeah, croaked because there was no water, which, once again, like the canal company, like, obviously, they want they want their asset to move to to the different areas. So I understand that. And I'm not sure you guys talked about it, but but none of us heard what was going on. So with the canal, did we figure out the canal bed? Like, is that owned by the canal company, or is that owned by the residents that live on

the on the canal? Do we Yeah. We have a prescriptive easement.

K. So you have an easement, but the property is owned by the people. Okay. Yeah. Because one thing that one of the big red flags why I wanted to come was because we did see that just happen in Logan, well, ten years ago or whenever it was, like, those people who own those properties with those beautiful trees along the canal there that all died, Now they've got, like, a walkway going through their backyard with with dozens of people walking through their backyard. So I'm glad that's not the case here. Right? It's not like we're gonna pipe this and then put a running trail on top of it. They're running through people's backyards. Been declared yet. It hasn't been declared. I know that's the intention of Nibley City because they've disclosed that. That's what that's the end result. So so that's no bueno. Like, I don't like that. Let's see. The other notes I had here was okay. So so yeah. Gary. Right? Yeah. So Gary mentioned how, like, in Logan, there were several springs on the mountain side, and and then that created a problem because before they just flowed into the canal, and then and then they were able to move. I I I I would say that this is this is even worse. So on on those properties that I'm talking about there, there's at least two or three that are pumping out probably, I don't know, a hundred, two hundred gallons a minute coming out of those springs, coming down the the mountain and just pouring into that canal. So it's like all of a sudden you you throw a pipe in there. Now that whole area is flooding and and yeah. Now the basement of of my my widowed mom's house is filled with with water because you guys piped that canal. So I'm not sure if if there's a plan in place. You do have a plan? So is there gonna be, like, a grade there, or are you gonna, like

A French training is a 36 inch pot.

Okay. Do you mind if I ask a question to all of you? Yeah. Has there been any communication between the canal company? You guys had an open meeting and allowed these people to come and talk to you or ask questions, anything before. I just was curious. What why why was the canal company maybe not Yeah. If you go upstate anything. He's still he's still going. Oh, I just I just had to I I can step aside and then finish my comment.

Do do you wanna and then I'll I'll finish my comments after.

I'm Floyd Burnett. I'm the secretary of the Blacksmith Fork Irrigation Company. Two years ago, we had a at our annual meeting, it was explained what we were gonna do from the friends and engineers have been been doing the engineering on the project. And it's been we've had several meetings. The engineers have been there. The water water users have been invited to those meetings. So they have been informed what we were gonna do.

Thank you.

When I lived in Logan, I was on a helped with a canal company, and the percentage of people who even look at that postcard that goes out is, like, super, super low. So once again, like, the people who read the notice that live on Hollow Road that would would like to put a voice like they're not here. This is just a handful that that we're paying attention. So yeah. So that's definitely going to be an issue. It sounds like you're you've got something in mind to capture that.

The reason we're working with Ned, we see on their screen.

Okay. Well, all the other individual ones because So this isn't a Yeah. You'd have to schedule. No. No. No. No. You're good. Just comment. Yep. No. You're good. Yep. You're good. Sorry. And then, like, if we're worried about water, like, getting down the canal, I don't know. Maybe it's just our little section of the canal there, but, like, just the the neglect because we still have, I don't know, probably still another 100 gallons a minute pouring out of this canal that we're talking about piping that just out of neglect of maintaining the bank is just pouring into the horse pasture on the south there and then flooding the yard right there. So like and I understand that that's probably why the canal company wants to pipe it is because they're sick of maintaining it. But, like, if we're worried about getting water downstream, like, maybe just fix the banks because Yeah. Yeah. I know. Yeah. I under yeah. Understand. Thank you for your comments. I'll try to keep it Yep. Sorry. Thank you.

One thing I because I'm involved with the I have Kennett Water Share and stuff. It's how important it is to go to those water meetings. I know you don't think they're that important, but you need to attend them because things happen that and you have that's your chance to have a voice in those meetings. And if you're not there to take part as a shareholder, you kinda miss the boat. Because when it comes to this point, it's it's almost too late at that at that time when we're coming for a conditional use permit. And so I I know your concerns are are real and and valid, but it's really something that needs to be addressed with the with the canal company at that point, not not a county issue. Because they have a a legal easement through there.

Any other comments? I just I would just add that, you know, the legal precedent that the Supreme Court here in the state has has provided is that you shall approve conditional use permits. Yes. And so that's all that's also a challenge from this side.

Have spoke against it. Do you have water rights with this canal? No. I just live across the street. I did not. These guys do. My mind. Yeah. These guys do. So water answers. We got a plan on the water. And I

Yeah. So the state, the water rights division, they want you to show good use of water. They they want you to show good use of what?

They they want you to We we understand. We understand all that. We got that. So that's, you know, that's Yes. What I wouldn't I wouldn't change anything on what we passed Okay. Based on those comments. Okay. Thank you for your comments.

Okay. Should we move back to number five? More discussion on the subdivision code amendment.

Yes. Thank you for being here tonight. You can hold around if you want.

Right. Okay. So back to back to number five. Number five. Yes.

So just to summarize, so we so we had a discussion on this and we and and we had concerns that there wasn't a an alternative from municipal connection.

Over seven. Yeah. Over seven. Yeah. Currently, the way it's written, there's no And I have a little concern even with number four on the fire one. Right? I'd like to see some of those parcels, how many parcels that's gonna say are no longer Yeah. Able to subdivide. If you got a that one that was in here earlier that we told, you know, she's in a 10, so she could essentially get nine lots. I think according to this, she could only get two now. That credit. Because she borders, I would guess, wildlife interface.

And and that's why I mean, we we talked wildland urban interface just in general, but we didn't talk anything about

numbers or anything like that. Well, I I did did you see this first came from Jason. Yeah. This one came from Jason on the fire department. That yeah.

I I should hear him touch on. I wonder where the three came from, more than three. My gut would be that we need to have some more discussion on that, but consistency is something that I would like to see is, you know, if we're if we're going more than seven on everything else, should we should we look at that? But we haven't looked at is that a layer that we can look at while then urban interface?

Why is he looking at Brady? Well, I'm just curious if the county's why we're it was actually one of my questions for the night afterwards, but since we just brought it up. The they recently passed the law that certain properties would be assessed additional fees for fire?

Based on how it's done and the potential And the location well, it's just

my understanding was it's not even necessarily zoning. It's based upon the actual location in relation

to prior fires and It's the state bringing out a map of what has the potential of forest fires Yeah. Fires it's causing, and then that will increase the fire insurance. So insurance is tremendously affected by that. But with all that said,

where would that come into play here? Because have we been, as a county, given any mandates yet? And who's gonna be the taxing authority on that? Are we the ones that mail them the bill and say because you're living in this high risk area, we're now gonna charge you more? Or who's responsible for that? Well Or or am I right in my question, in my thinking? We might have a comment in the back. Did anybody else read about that? Yeah. I I It's something that's being pushed to us by the state.

I couldn't tell you which

I thought I thought he might have been behind But that could have an impact

I agree with you. But in any case, I'm gonna say two words. Copy out after buyer beware.

I'm I'm in favor of it. Because yeah. This is coming from the state. Because those are costs Those are costs. That we all bear, but we have zero impact on. Right. So

state is saying, okay. Determine what's going on here. Figure out what's happening. Sandy,

map situated now. Right? They did do a map. Yeah. And the way they explained it to Us is the state who's gonna send out inspectors to do those inspections, so it would not be the county. However, the county will it will be a line item on property tax bills. We will be a pass through. We don't keep the money. It goes through to the state. And the and I wanna like, this is how I understood it when they talked to to us. There's still a lot going on. But I think for the first three years, it's gonna be pretty minimal, like, somewhere between 20 and $80 per lot. It won't be any more than that until they finalize and get it all taken care of. And then there's gonna be restrictions, like, so there's a certain code that says 20 feet from your lot. It is this, this, and this is in place, then this will be your feet. But you can mitigate those and have a lower feet. Like, there's all it's pretty complex, and they're still working on it. But for the first few years, it's gonna be pretty minimal. And that way they explained it to us is that we didn't have to do those the we didn't have to do the inspections. We'll see what happens. But they haven't even figured out exactly how the inspections are gonna happen yet. So it's it's it's still a little confusing, but it will come through the property taxes.

And and it's for properties that fall within that zone. Right?

In that high risk area of the fire. Correct. Correct. And just like she said, the land plot owner mitigation efforts to

control possibilities of fire. And so and so once that's out, we can probably just add that as a layer on our GIS. Yeah. We would People I just didn't know if we needed to take that into consideration now because that I understood it's it's in effect now, but it's probably not affecting us per se yet.

So Connor has

Yeah. So zoom in on that Petersboro area, Connor, there where we're looking just because that's where we were looking tonight already. So if they're within a quarter mile of that red line is that red line yet?

Yeah.

So that that lot we were looking at today, it crosses right through the middle of it. Yeah. Right just to the south of that there. Right there. So that would restrict And and all those lots below that, because they're within a quarter mile. So to me, that that three lot yeah. I'd like to have some more discussion with Jason on that, because that seems like there's a lot of large properties around the edge of the county Yeah. That we just told them. You just went from 10 lots to three. But what about our

yeah. Look at all the I wanna know what the the definition of that wildland urban interface Yeah. Is because I thought you had to have some urban in that because that's just forest. That's just forest ground. Yeah. I mean, it's it's

private property that

that is subject Subject. Subject to fire. Is that what the definition is? I I just don't personally know that It it's vegetation based. -Yeah. -Mm Not It doesn't have to do with with development at all? Okay. Okay. But yeah. I that that would be my comment is is is I don't know that I have enough information on that to to make a good decision where we haven't had that level. I feel good about the other changes that we've that we've added there, but that's one that I just don't know that I have enough information to to render a a decision.

Yeah. Me too. I yeah. Well, my my yeah. I'd I'd have to vote against it for sure with that three dots in there on that that more discussion with Jason and see where that number came from and better idea of how much ground that

restricts prop current property rights. Rights. I mean, you a lot of these, especially, particularly in those areas, I mean, some of these could be 300 acre parcels Yeah. Sure. And you're limited to three lots.

Pretty quick devaluation of that property.

Yeah. It's They'd be out.

That's south of the dam there. I don't remember how far south that one went, which parcels. But

Well, if Jason can defend it, he's the guy that's gotta protect those houses.

Yeah. I I I totally you know, I I just would like to hear more on

on what that decision was, what how we came up with the three and Well, the the thing that we have to realize, though, is none of them areas are gonna have fire hydrant. Items. It's all gonna be hauled water. Rely on It's all gonna be hauled water.

Mhmm. And so I don't know. I mean, when you said you start picking apart some of the cities and their fire departments and what they're getting as far as volunteer fire department people, it's getting

scary. If you like your house during the day, good luck. Yeah. Good luck. That's why Richmond hired with the county because their volunteer base dropped during the day hours. They basically lost their crew. No. That's what I was talking about with this subdivision. Yeah. There's a lot there's a lot of partisans in that. They don't have the meetings. Brett. Yeah. Got it. Not Brett. Brian knows all about it.

And like I say, I don't I don't disagree with that. I just feel like I've got a lack of information on it. Discussion is good? We can go further. We don't have to do it tonight. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think they got the answer.

What other

thoughts or questions do folks have or suggestions?

period. But that doesn't give you a true point because I take my 300 acres and sell off a 100, and I've still got others. So But you're not all one parcel on that. Aren't you multiple parcels?

Could be either way. But but if I read this correctly, when we say seven, that's only tied to one. If you've got three parcels of a 100 acres, each 300 acres side by side, you could still get 21 if you're within a If you did three separate subdivisions. Yeah. Three separate. Right. Right? Right. Right. It's the parcels that are

We just wanted that And

and and being protections always. Correct me if I'm wrong. Being a pub a public water system, then it's gonna have a source protection.

Yeah. Then it's gonna have that. So they're gonna have those those protections to be in place for the sewer systems.

So I think adding that So the sewer is actually kind of a moot point at that at that point if there's a requirement for the public water system.

K.

Will that match the what we find out

so we could put more homes on some places and fewer homes in other places. Can we I don't know about more or, you know I think it will more match of areas that we need to make sure they have a good water supply before we approve 20 lots in there. Whereas in other areas, it will say The water supply will be attached though to our disease. I I think and that's what we're hoping. We're hoping it's that detailed, which it sounds like from the initial presentation that that it will be. So I I would make a motion. We continue to work on this and don't pass it on to the county council yet. Please submit your

thoughts to Andrew. Yeah. Bring it on so he can draft this for our next ones. K.

Mister chairman, the only question I have though is Yeah.

Yeah. Service team effort. Right? Okay. The Herald Journal argued otherwise. Come on.

So with the with the kind of moratorium or whatever you wanna politically collect Politically correctly call it. It's after this month. We kinda just lost that or are currently losing it. Right. And so Yeah. Not that we really wanna stall this from keeping our size. I think Do do we have anything else in place that from the last meeting or anything that still kinda gives us a cap? No. That's that's the only fear that I have. We have nothing after. Because if if we don't if we don't put something in place saying Yeah. Words out. People are gonna be rushing. We we don't we don't want we don't even wanna talk about over seven without some exceptions. What can we do to protect ourselves there? That is a concern.

So I would There's other ways we'll have three twenty twos coming back. I would become the the one area that I just I just don't feel like I got enough information is the is the wildland urban interface. Number six. I would be Number four. Four. It's four on the second section. C four. C four. Oh, yeah. C four. You know, I would be more than comfortable if we if we made that amendment to add, you know, the option of of installing a public water system. On six. And and just strike the wildland urban interface for now. I mean, that's something that we could certainly amend. Well, to give us some protection down the

road, Yeah. Yeah.

So it's an option. That's what you guys want to do. I just don't know if we have an impact or if

The the concern that I have is that, hey, it's impossible. It will be impossible to do that because the vast It will be impossible to do that because the vast majority of municipalities will not do what we're asking the applicants, the property owners to do. It's just that's not in their it's not in their policy to

to make any connections outside of their municipal boundaries. Right. So even when even when, I think, developers that have come before to before us have reached out to them, is probably say, hey. I will put this in. Yeah. They'll they'll put it in the silver in the same room. We don't we don't wanna add. And and so that's my that's my concern is that we

you know, let's not give people also that this is going that this is an option if it's if it's you know, I my preference is code. If we're gonna give something, it should have here's an option. Well, if you wanna do this, you gotta you gotta put in a public water system. That's a that is a big hurdle. If that's something you wanna do, that's that's fine. I just don't know based on prior

discussion about their other impacts for other

Mhmm.

So on on a lot that's on a development that's eight lots or bigger where they have to drill the well to prove that there's water there for those eight lots before? Under this.

Yes.

Can we approve this with the condition to come back and amend it at a later date?

Well, I think yeah. I don't think we wanna approve it the way it is. Well, one point of clarification with the seven.

Additionally, the proposed subdivision must connect to municipal waters. That's what we could and and we could say or

provide a private waters. Private waters. Go north. Yeah. Let's see north. And this is gonna say Clarkston, Newton. So we got a lot of area that's not Newton. Yeah. In between Newton All that between Richmond and Trenton and the North Clarkston, we got a lot of area that's not annexed. That's true. Oh, yeah.

That's something. And I'm just using that language because that's what popped into my head, but I'm sure that is that is clearly defined in state code. Jay Jay's point towards that. Written on that? Yeah. And I think we went with seven, wasn't it? Yeah. He helped clarify my concern on my question. It's already clear in six. Mhmm. If they're over seven,

it must be within a local municipality's

annexation plan. So we don't have to worry about that. And then the water system is in addition to that.

Has to be in that annexation zone. They can't. You know, it it says, additionally, the proposed subdivision

must connect to a, connect with a municipal water supply from from a municipality within the within the county to meet the water requirements for the subdivision. And my proposal would be or provide and approve whatever the language is, public water system.

And I don't I don't know what's interesting is in Wellsville, there was a subdivision on the South Side Of 8991, and he petitioned to go to Wellsville. It wasn't in the city at that time. It's where our church is. Yeah. The developer had to give water rights, turn them into the city, and then pay for the water and the sewer to be put into there, and Wellsville jumped at the deal. They did it at that one. Yep. But they wouldn't do it for the next one. There there was another one right across from his mother's Right. South of his south of his mother's that Well, that that came down to the size of the lot. And they're going over the highway too. Wellsville came to that meeting and said, this is a new our zoning map that we want those sides of lots. Yeah. That is why we stopped it on that one.

It wasn't water or anything else. Well, it's Wouldn't it sewer the one that I weigh cost? Well as the the septic tanks was a big issue too. That many wells and septic tanks Yep. And size relation to them size of the Size of the lots. It wasn't it's what well is the one in. So Yeah. I I see there's a way of protecting existing water rights too, limiting to seven lots, you know, unless you go and develop a public water system on over eight. Yeah.

And we gotta change four in the other one too though then in the sewer. Because then if they're doing a private water system, then they don't need to hook on to a city sewage. We've gotta add we've gotta add something there. And that's still protected. The state is still Yeah. It's still so yeah. We might that might be a lot of reworking to approve tonight.

priority number one, I think. Yeah. Well, we met with the county council and with them. I mean, the whole concern was these big developments, 20 homes, you know, that system The concentrated

ones. But, again, to me, I'm with Jason. Right? You have that 300 acre parcel, and they're all, you know, maybe there's 20 lots and they're 15 acres each, then But you cluster making assets. It's hard to make the notes. Yeah. If if you cluster them, then it makes sense to have some of those requirements. If they're spread out on 15 acre lots I agree with that. Then then none of this, in my mind, makes as much sense other than making sure there's water there. We're we're way big in what we're trying to accomplish. Yeah. It's it's Way big. It's a lot. But we

doable to put within a protection zone? According to Bear River Health, those systems are awesome, but they have to be run by a municipality by law. So A sewer system. Yes. The new sewer system that we're trying that's gotta go up in Wellsville Canyon for those 28 homes. But the only reason that happened is Wellsville City agreed

To operate it. To operate that septic system. But but the one for the church in Coles where it's a single building, would that still have to be run? It's only if it's a community system with multiple homes. Negotiation meetings on that. Have you heard how they came out on that, Sandy? I I think Lewiston's almost to where they're okay with that. The source protection

was a big issue on that one. So

I know there's been meetings, but I haven't heard how they're going out on I heard rumors that Lewiston was alright with what was happening. I'm talking to some of Lewiston recently. I heard the same, but I don't know for sure. To me, it seemed like it made a lot of sense. They're gonna have a septic system that's been there for a hundred years. Well, they've already got one. Yeah. That's that's old and It's already being used. Old and not maintained. It's gotta be worse than anything. Get rid of that and put it on that's really good. Anything they could put in new today. That's what I thought. It seemed like a win win. See, I I think there's a lot here that needs

Well, can you approve with condition that we can come back and amend it?

This Like, I don't think you even need that. What about that thing? We can amend it whenever we want to. Three lot on the urban. How do you feel about that? Urban interface or whatever the edges,

Chris.

I like the

consistency, and so my inclination would Seven. Would be if we're going with seven to Go to seven. Going with seven. And I would support that.

I mean, in reality, we'll be visiting this once the water study is done and opening it. I don't know how many will be up there next to the wild the urban wildlife area until we get exact understanding from what the state's pushing us as well.

So all of these are moving parts. So that says that if we print it or if we suggested changing it from three to seven to nine, and after that's done and they say no three, all we gotta do is change it again. Right?

On the council could make that change independent of us. Yeah. That's true.

Yep.

Water protection. I I didn't know that you need to specify that. Just provide a because it can be required either way. It's that's automatic.

K? Help me from there. Well, we'll sing till she's got it. Right? Then C four Then C 4, you can take out a seven lots. Right? Change it from three to seven. Okay. But okay. B was b was good. And then on C 4, yeah, subdivisions over seven lots are not allowed if they're within a quarter of a mile of the wildland urban interface. Mhmm. That's what you feels good to this.

If Yeah. I think Or allow them either or. I think you're saying Either either or. Okay.

Yeah. So I think Why just trying to support the city if they were gonna give them the water? The wording change would be the same. Yeah. But Yeah. Yeah. That'd be mistaken. It's it's just instead of a private water system, now you just

Yeah. That's fine. I think it sounds good.

Yeah. Because it yeah. That that that will take you into all the source protection area stuff too.

You got it.

Oh, but you're already there too. Good job. He's got a new

k. That's my motion. K.

Do we have a second? Sure. Second. Second. K. All in favor? Aye.

K.

I think that's it. Gentlemen, thanks for your time and debate on that. That helps. So Yeah. Thanks for asking. That was good.

Anything else, Connor, tonight?

Next meeting?

Two rezones, and, yeah, if you were CP or subdivision.

Okay. Cool. Adjourn the meeting.