Cache County Planning Commission - December 4, 2025

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the December 2025 meeting of the planning commission for Cache County. Glad you're here. Thanks. Packhouse tonight. Just a a couple just a a quick reminder. We do have a pretty aggressive agenda tonight, and so we're gonna try to try to move through that as as judiciously as we can, but realize we do have a lot of stuff on the agenda. We will begin tonight with opening remarks and the Pledge of Allegiance, and that will be led by Chris Hans.

I'll give my opening remarks in the form of a poem by local poet, Star Coolbrook. This is called Last Grays, which may sound familiar this time of year. They moved the cattle out of Cottonwood Thanksgiving weekend, rounding them up on horseback and four wheelers, channeling the balling sea of matted red and black onto one long dirt road packed with first snow. Last graze of the season, droughted grass, bitten down to nubs, cone flower tops eaten off, leaves cracklin', string bed a slog of green mud. We gate at the choreographed hubbub of dogs, men, and 1,200 pound beasts milling and flowing waves of sound carrying over the air long after they've passed, cows bellowing for their calves, tearing at strands of roadside chaff as they walk, brawny cattle spindle legged and pooping wildly on their way to what they have no way of knowing. It's pretty we'll find the stream renewed, snow belt coursing down from every draw, grasses beginning where bluebells have wilted. They'll bring the cattle in again by Easter or maybe Memorial Day, waiting for weather favorable to grazing. And by summer, they'll walk under maples, shaded from sun, black flies tumbling thick through the air around

Alright. Thank you, mister Stans, for that opening. We will begin this evening with the review of the agenda. Are there any modifications to the agenda?

There are not. I would just ask for your patience. Connor is out sick today, so I think I'm on top of everything, but we'll see. Thanks, Ange. Appreciate it.

And we also have the minutes to review from the November 6 meeting. I'll entertain a motion if we're, to approve the agenda and and the and the minutes. So moved. We have we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Moving along. We have we have one item on our consent agenda. Just a FYI for those in here viewing, consent agenda items are ones who have that have met all of the requirements unless there is a a need to discuss that one in general. Those are those are just we will approve the consent agenda. Was there anyone here tonight that wanted to speak about the North And South Sage Ponds? And and we'll start are you are you the proponent on that? Or

The representatives. Okay. Alright.

If unless you have something that we'll add, it would probably be beneficial to you. Just leave it on the consent agenda. Yep. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Hearing that, commissioners, any anything we need to discuss on item number one? Okay. Entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

I would make the motion that we

approve a six month time extension for the request of the proposed North And South Sage Ponds CUP. Second that. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? K. Alright. Onto our regular action items. Item number two is a public hearing for the Dutson rezone, and we're at on time. So, Angie, wanna tell us about the Dutson rezone?

Yes. So this is a request to, if you want to for them with the staff report, then I'll call you up. To request to rezone 15.12 acres from the A 10 to the RU 2 zone. Sorry. I'm trying to break it. The reporter's office gave them separate parcel numbers as it that they were a non contiguous split, but it is not considered an unpermitted subdivision as the legal description had described both parcels separately. The average parcel size in the surrounding area, adjacent to the subject parcels, there's 13 parcels with the without a home, an average size of about seven acres. Once you extend that to a quarter mile buffer, there's two parcels with a home on an average of 53.4 acres. And then when you extend that to half a mile, parcels with a home, there are six with an average of 19.4 acres. Properties to the north are a mix of residential and agricultural. Properties to the east, south, and west are primarily agricultural. The nearest r u two zone is more than seven miles, southeast of the subject property. It's the Birch Hollow Subdivision, which is just West of Smithfield on the State Road and about 800 West. That was approved in 2017. The subject parcels are not located within the future annexation area of a municipality. And the county code does not currently specify appropriate locations for the RU 2 zone, but does contain general guidelines and the purpose. The purpose for the RU 2 is allow for residential development in a moderately dense pattern the type of development should be located and designed to not unreasonably impede adjacent ag uses, nor to unreasonably conflict with development standards of adjacent municipalities, and they must be served by suitable public roads and have adequate provision of public services. So as we look to our general plan to the future land use map, it identifies this area as agriculture and ranching, which has a preferred land use of rural This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card numbers. At densities of less than one unit per at densities of less than one unit per 10 acres. Parcels from 6,400 West. It's speed limit of 40 miles an hour. Has an existing width of 20 feet and a 66 foot right of way, but it is substandard as to shoulder gravel. It also has frontage on 7900 North along the parcel to the west of the road. That is also classified as a minor local, provides access to ag lands and one single family dwelling. It is maintained only in the suburbs

and

and a 50 foot right of way. So it's considered substandard as to travel lanes, right of way, shoulder, clear zone, and material. Public notices were posted. Newton did not provide a comment. But since the staff report was drafted, we have received two public comments which have been uploaded to the Google Drive. Both are opposed to the reason. So staff has not provided a recommendation, but has drafted options for you both for an approval or recommendation of denial to the county council. And then, as you know, the pro we have a proposed ordinance amendment on our agenda later today that, would require an RU to be at least four no more than a fourth of an acre from the Eunice fourth of a mile, excuse me, from a municipal boundary. And as you can see from here, the Newton boundary is about here in relation to the properties

up. So what is that what is that distance in, Angie?

The recommended draft ordinance that we'll be talking about later is quarter of a mile. Is it quarter, but what is the distance Oh, I'm sorry. From the from municipal municipal than a quarter of a Was that three three

Okay. But that concludes staff's report if you have any questions. Great. Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any questions about the staff report?

Not at this time. Okay.

This is a, scheduled to be a public hearing. Do we have a motion to start the public hearing? I move we open the public hearing. Have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. This is a public hearing on this item, and so we will open up the microphone to to those of you who want to speak about this. Generally, we allow the proponent to speak first, and and then you can then you can speak. We ask you to keep your comments to to three minutes, and we also ask you if you've if you have something that's been that's already been said, we don't need to hear the same thing multiple times. We we get that, so we can we use our time most judiciously. We do have a lot of stuff on the agenda tonight. So if the proponent wants to wants to speak first.

So my plans with the land is me and my brother and sister. Name just for the record? Paul Dutson. So the land is where I wanna build and my brother wants to build. And then on the other side is where my sister wants to build. We wanna be able, me and my brother, to keep it into green belt, So we wanna be able to take an acre from the other side. So on my on the one side that has the 10, we want to do that it's five and a half. And then on and then he would have four and a half, and then we take an acre from the other side, which would give him five and a half to keep those two partials into green belt. And then my sister would just have the four which which as soon as she builds would take it out of green belt. And so that's what my concern was. And then where it says to the no record up there, I have talked to the neighbors and we're cleaning up our lines. And then right where the road is, there's also a partial there that we need to get cleaned up to. And I guess we need to have what what my engineer and survey guy says is that we need to get you guys also to sign off on that, where the road is. And that's pretty much about it.

Okay. Any questions for the proponent? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who'd like to speak on this project proposal?

Yeah. Craig Rigby. I'm a mayor elect of Newton. I we did submit an opposition. I don't she said she submitted it yesterday. I have the letter here that Yeah. I apologize. Oh, that's for the water, not for the Dutch. Dutch and reason. Oh, is it? We did the water as well. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. So we we had two we did two oppositions.

I'm sorry. The, the planner was out the history and Sorry. Okay. Should I read that into record? Or Yeah. If you'd like to or just briefly summarize it, and then I can add it to it. Okay. I mean, I can, briefly summarize the

Newton as a town, as a mayor, and a council is opposed to this rezone. Not I mean, we understand why, the individual wants to do it, but we are we're concerned about the precedent that it sets. This is this would create effectively an island subdivision within prime agricultural ground. This is this is ground that people are making their living doing agricultural on. This is not close to a community. As you saw, it's a half a mile away. It's not on the boundary of a community. It it, we we feel that it would be a bad precedent. We're also concerned about the roadway, improvements that would need to be made, and and we have concerns about water. As a town, we have actively been seeking for all for a secondary source of water with the continued building that is occurring in the Northwest of the town. It is in our aquifer, and and every well that is, is, could possibly take away from our community, which is already, we're very concerned about our water situation. So for that reason, we are very opposed to this, this rezone. And, thank, thanks for your time. Anyone

else?

Claire Christiansen, resident of Newton. I guess my concern is, you know, I talked to Connor a couple of times, and I sent him an email I never heard back. So I wondered, did he is there in your packet, do you have a letter from me? Yes. And do you have one from Myers? Yes. Okay. So that's most of those things that I have to say. We just really appreciate the staff report, and I don't know that anybody says any better than them. I thought the staff report where it says that it's against the the county the Cache County General Plan, I mean, I in my mind, that says it all. If it's against the general plan and what we're trying to do, it is in the middle of the ag zone. And as has been stated, everybody makes their living there. I have I sent some pictures also of the road on the road going up there. There's some six inch fall offs. The road's really even though it's recently been redone, there's many areas along the way that there's at least a six inch fall off, and Tuesday night bike riders have quite a time dodging all the tractors in the traffic. And and again, talking about the precedents that would set from the town boundary of Newton up to the cemetery, there are 11 more parcels. Parcels besides those two that if you set that precedence, then everybody how could you ever deny them to all go r two also? And so it's really a dangerous situation for for the road and also for the for the water and also the president once said for all the people from from that town boundary to noon and then from the cemetery more, there's more parcels too. But to have 13 parcels that close, we'll end up being like North Logan. We'll have to change our name trying to figure out if we're Logan or Newton or who we are if we have 13 parcels have our youth status from the cemetery down. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay.

I'm Terina Lund. I'm for this because I'm sorry. Are are there are there other people farming your land, or are you farming it? I I guess I'm confused.

If you direct your comments to the to the commission. I'm I'm just confused because

I would think that he would know how to farm his own land, and I thought his land was his land. I I'm just perplexed at why other people can say what you can do with your own land. I'm so confused. I thought this is America. And I understand water concerns. I really do. And I'm a little confused at the whole, why do people closer to a town get more rights than the people that are further away from a town? And I'm really just trying to understand that council. And I I think you're gonna speak to that further tonight. So I I guess I'm just in support of people doing what they want with their own land. And I understand that you don't want that to infringe on other people, but I really don't want other people to infringe on me. And so I am for citizens getting to do what they want with their own land. Thank you.

Thank you.

Steve Griffin. I wasn't gonna speak tonight. I just come here to learn. But, yeah, I feel like I need to say something. I I am a lifetime farmer. Me and me and my wife are both our whole married lives have been dairy farmers. Neither one of us have ever had a secondary job. We farming put our meals on the table, and that's what we've done our whole lives. I always I get I do drive my tractor on the streets, and I know there's more and more traffic all the time. To me, you know, we do the best we can to be safe and, you know, try and get along with each other. It's not our favorite thing to have more traffic, but I don't put my head in the sand and think we're gonna have less traffic. So we have to get along and learn to to work with that. But I am and I know there's there's water concerns, but you guys have things in line. And if if we meet those boxes and check them off, then, we should be good to go. And, and I'm totally for people doing what they want with their land in a reasonable way, you know, and that's all I'll say.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the public? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll make that motion.

Yes. The motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. All in oh, did we have

a question? Cap Commission, you okay with one more? So the land that I'm going to be taking is only a half an acre of each land. So, like, they're concerned about the thing. Kelly Griffin farms my land, and I have given him permission to farm my land still the day he doesn't want to. And I even told him that I won't even charge him. I says, you're taking care of my land. You can make a profit off of it. You can do what you want. And I've been proved by Wells. So the water thing I mean, I have shares and stuff with my water rights and all that. And so I know they said that there's a considerate thing that the water is low or so. But but, yeah, whatever I need to do to make the or the city approve me or or to say that, yes, that will work. That's what I'll need to do. So but, yeah, I'm moving here also because I have animals. I want more area to have my farm and stuff. That's the reason.

Okay. We had an we had a motion on the on the table here. Do we stand by the motion? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We do have an aggressive public hearing agenda tonight and we're a little bit behind so we're going to move on and have all the public hearings and then and then move along. Item number three, public hearing, and we'll we'll, have our discussions after. Item number three, public hearing for the Smithfield Safe Storage.

Angie.

This is a request to rezone six acres. Six acres from agricultural to industrial. A rezone to industrial would allow for a variety of uses with approval of a zoning clearance or conditional use permit, including but not limited to storage and warehousing, transport services, general manufacturing, and vehicle repair. Adjacent uses to the property to the north and south are a mix of residential and agricultural. East of the subject property is residential, and to the west, it's primarily agricultural use. The closest industrial zone is the TYJ Storage, which was approved in 2023. It's approximately a quarter mile to the east of the subject property, but it has not been developed due to the required road improvements that would have to be done in order to mister Faraway. The property is located within the Smithfield City future annexation area. The purpose of the industrial zone is to provide locations where manufacturing, processing, warehousing can be carried on with minimum conflict of deleterious effect upon surrounding properties. And again, must be adequately serviced by civil public roads and adequate public services. The future land use map identifies this area's agricultural the future land use map identifies this area as agricultural and ranching, with industrial uses being a discouraged use. However, because it is in the annexation area of Smithfield City, that land use is also identified as an urban expansion overlay. Smithfield was contacted, and they submitted a written comment that they didn't have any particular concerns about the rezone, but we're concerned about the alignment of 800 West, which you can see kind of jobs here. Access is by 4600 North and 800 West. They are both classified as minor collectors. 4600 North serves as a through access from Benson to Highway 91 and has a speed limit of 55 miles an hour. It's considered substandard as to 800 West also has an existing 20 foot width and is also considered substandard as to pave and gravel shoulders. We did receive one public comment in support of the project, by the property owners themselves, that was uploaded to the Sheriff Drive. And then, just as a reminder, we considered a similar rezone just to the south of this property called Spark Adventures. Last I think maybe in September. And that was recommended for denial and denied by the county council primarily due to substandard roads and lack of adequate services. So that concludes staff's report. Again, we haven't made a recommendation, but have provided options for a recommendation of denial or approval to the county council.

Thanks, Angie.

Okay.

I'll hear from the applicant first. The applicant Do you wanna open the here and we can open that. I don't know if you have an opinion.

We did. We did. I'll make a motion to open a public hearing for the Smithfield Safe Storage rezone.

The motion? Second. Motion is second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Is the applicant here for the Smithfield Safe Storage? Do you want to address the commission?

Travis Baldwin. We're just looking to there are storage units already along that, road about a well, I think the storage units are maybe about a half mile away. You can see them right there. We're not looking to do a bunch of storage units. We're just looking for parking for RVs and things like that and it has to be rezoned industrial. So that's what we're looking for. Nothing major, anything like that. But if you have questions, you can ask.

Any questions for the proponents? Okay. Thank you. Alright. Anyone here to speak on the Smithfield safe storage proposal? I'll entertain a motion to close public hearing.

My name is Stan Checketts. My property is just north of this planned zoning, And I would say that this has to fall on the same thing that we did two months ago on the property below this until we fix the roads out there. I think the rezones all have to be denied on almost everything out there just because 800 is a horrible road. If you guys wanna come drive it, it'd be great. But in 4600, the other project hasn't happened because of how poor the road is. So because of road concerns until we decide to fix that. Also, where that jog is, about once a year, I get to pull a car back up onto the road as I'm headed into work because they've come straight through that intersection and land in the property they wanna turn into storage units. So I'm against it.

I'm Tom Gibbets. We own the red section you got there with we have cattle and and horticulture, greenhouse. Mister is right about the corner being there. We did talk to the somebody in the county a few months ago this summer about straightening the road. I said I'd be willing to sell some of our property to straighten that road. The county indicated that they weren't gonna do anything for five years. So we've lived there for forty five years, and it's the agriculture is the best fit for this. We tried to help the the person that's that bought that land on all all your things, it says six acres, but it's really 5.92 or something like that. So he wanted to put three homes on it, I believe, but you wouldn't let him. But yet in another case, North of Northwest of or Northeast of Smithfield, you let people build on an half a acre or a fourth of an acre. So I don't know why the county wouldn't let this person divide that into three lots and have three homes. And the similar homes to the east there, you've got all those homes there. So I think if you'd let him build three homes, that would be a better fit for that area. But I don't think we should have industrial in an agriculture area. Thank

you.

I'm Scott Richins. I live on 8th West, north of that, across the road from mister Checketts. I agree. We just went over this a couple of months ago with storage sheds. Not sure what a RV storage. Is that gonna look like a homeless encampment? I mean, we can all move to LA and get that view. I'm against it. The roads are horrible. The the area by mister Gibbons' place. I guess the good thing is, Tom, is the road's so freaking bumpy, you gotta slow down to two miles an hour to even get through that intersection. But, I'm definitely against it. You know, if you wanted to build a home, you know, I'm a property rights guy, but commercial there's so much commercial property available. Go put it in the commercial areas.

Any other comments?

My name is Kelly King. Excuse me. I live exactly east of this proposal here. And, so this is probably gonna affect me the most. Not only is that road bad, I think you're you're trying to squeeze a industrial project in on where people are trying to create a small community community type area. I think we should keep industrial with industrial and residential with residential. I also feel like the development of this is gonna greatly depreciate my property value. Me and my wife are a year away from retiring, and this is gonna affect us very much on if we ever wanna downsize or or move, it's gonna affect our our value of a lifestyle if we try to sell our home to live off the capital. So I ask that you you keep industrial business with industrial business and residential with residential. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Mister chairman, I'd move we close the public hearing. Have a motion? I have a second. Stood up, but I just headed the wrong directions.

We have a motion. I'll second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Okay.

Alright. We're gonna move on to next next public hearing. Item number four, water and sewage requirements ordinance amendment.

Yes. So we discussed this at last month's planning commission meeting. It's a proposed ordinance amendment that was submitted by an architectural firm pursuing a project within a source water protection zone two. The amended ordinance would still prohibit so per the code currently, any portion of a septic system is not allowed in the source water protection zone two. The amended ordinance as proposed by the applicant would still prohibit conventional on-site wastewater systems such as a typical septic system with drain fill in that zone too. However, it would allow a, an alternative wastewater system that meets certain requirements, including meeting the division of water quality requirements and must be approved by River Health Department. And the proposed system must be under a renewable operating permit considered to be adequately controlled. And the operating permit must specify performance standards and track pollutant loadings discharged. And the proposed alternative on-site wastewater system must be approved by the owners of the public water system connected to the Zone 2, where the wastewater system is proposed. Staff has received a number of public comments, both written and phone calls in the last few days. As this was a discussion item in November, most of the public comments were generally in favor from private property owners whose properties were located in that zone 2, and they've been unable to develop their properties in the manner they want. Public comments since we send out notices have been primarily opposed with only one comment from Nibley City in support, so long as the recommended text documents were maintained. Newontown, as we briefly reflected on, they did submit a letter in opposition, as well as the mayor elect and the council member of Lewiston City along with a number of residents in the Cove and Lewiston area. Those comments were emailed to you today and uploaded to the shared drive. The comments consisted of the necessity to protect recharge areas and pathways that feed into those public water wells or springs, and concerns that once contamination occurs, remediation is extraordinarily difficult and expensive, and can often be impossible. The letter from Newton also pointed out also pointed out, inadequate long term oversight enforcement as an issue, the cumulative risk, the failure of a fuse, systems could result in the entire aquifer being contaminated. Permit lapses of no mechanism for accountability. They also point out that it seems to contradict our own subdivision moratorium where, we have issues and concerns with water. So, again, those comments have been provided to you for your review. Again, only one of them since our November discussion was in favor of the ordinance amendment. But, if you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer. But that will complete my report.

Any questions for staff before we move on? Okay. Entertain a motion to open the public hearing. I'll make that motion. Motion. Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Once again, we will open this item to discussion from the public, restate that. We'll try to keep please try to keep comments less than three minutes. And and if there's something that's already been said, we don't need to hear it again.

Good evening. My name is Roy Hall. I live in Lewiston, and my family drinks from the Lewiston City well located in the protection zone and consideration. I'm here to ask you to deny the text amendment that would allow a large septic or alternate on-site wastewater system inside Lewiston City's well drinking water protection zone. This isn't about religion. It's about whether we are going to keep our drinking water protection strongs or we're gonna poke a hole in them for one just one project. Right now, the risk from this well being contaminated is particularly low, possibly even zero. There is no large constant sewage sewage discharge sitting in that protected zone. Drinking water protection zones exist in Utah, in Cache County, for one reason. That's to keep risk uses away from the capture area, especially of municipal wells. If If you change the code and approve this project that changes, you're putting a permanent higher volume human waste system inside a mapped protected capture area of a public well. And by definition, you are turning the wrist dial up, and it never turns back down. Once contaminants get into an aquifer, you don't just run your shop vac over it and hope that it goes away. It's like deciding to store your gasoline cans next to a wood stove and saying, don't worry, we're really responsible and we're we're really gonna take precautions. And maybe nothing happens today in the present or in a hundred days, but we're deliberately setting ourselves up for a bad day later. Imagine you approve this ordinance and the church builds the new building, installs the septic system in the protection zone, and everything goes into service. A year later, Lewiston tests the well. Nitrates have increased significantly from what was basically zero. Bear River Health Department gets called. They take it seriously. They put tracer dye into the septic system of the church. One hundred days later, that exact dye shows up in the Lewiston well samples. At that point, there's no debate. You don't need a hydrologist to understand that what goes into the septic system is finding its way into our municipal well, and my family's been drinking it. The church is on the hook with regulators. Lewiston City is scrambling to protect its drinking water. Now they must pay for more monitoring and possibly treatment of their water. Everyone will be asking the same question. Why in the world did Cache County ever allow a high volume septic system inside a protected drinking water zone in the first place? You don't need a crystal ball to see how that movie would end. The simplest way to avoid that mess is just keep the septic systems out of the well protected zones right now before dyes have to be put in, before tests have to be done. Utah's drinking water source protection rule r three zero nine six hundred requires water systems and local governments to identify potential contamination sources and then to control or prohibit them in a wellhead protection zone, a large septic system in Zone 2 of a public well is a textbook example of a potential contamination source that we would allow. Utah's on-site wastewater rule, r three seventeen, says its site conditions may fail to protect water quality. On-site systems shall be prohibited, not shall be massaged into a we feel okay about it and shall be prohibited. Federal law points to the same in the same direction. The Safe Water Drinking Act created wellhead protection programs precisely so we don't put risky discharges where groundwater flows into public wells. The Clean Water Act says states and local governments are supposed to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution to protect the integrity of our water. You are that local government tasked with protecting it. It. Your own Cache County general plan admits that as septic use spreads, ground and surface water is harmed, and it tells you to protect groundwater, recharge, and source protection areas, and to expand centralized sewer where possible. Lewiston's own code already reflects that. Modern sewage isn't just germs and nitrates. It's pharmaceuticals, hormones, microplastics, things we don't fully understand and we don't have great treatments for at the moment. Right now, the risk of that chemical cocktail reaching the well of Lewiston City is minimal. Authorizing a big new wastewater load in the protection zone is like opening the door and shouting, come on in. We'll deal with you later. And then there's precedent. There's a county wide code change, so it's not a one off. It is a door that says, the protected zones are protected in name only, and this is what we call protected, I hate to see unprotected. I respectfully ask you to hold the line, follow the general plan, Cache County, and the state and federal framework that are already in place to protect our waters. Thank you.

Yeah, Paul, mayor of Lewiston. So the zone two protection was put in in ballpark in the mid nineties. Since the mid nineties, the demand for water, municipal quality water, has increased drastically, and the protection should increase also, not decrease. I realize that 2.5 nitrates is a low number, but it's 2.5 times higher than zero. We ask for a zero nitrates in that. Zone two is defined by two hundred and fifty days of moving water. Yearly testing doesn't begin to take care of this because the water has already moved through there in a lot less than three hundred and sixty five days. This ordinance is not well thought out to be changed. We oppose this ordinance very strongly. There are over 20 compounds that Lewiston City has to check for, and yet in this proposed ordinance, they only have to test for nitrates. There's a new chemical compound that we have to start testing for this very month. Kind of ironic that the anybody would entertain the idea of changing this during this month. We do not want any septic systems in Zone 2 anywhere. We ask for the protection that you've given us since the mid nineties and to increase that protection, not decrease that protection. So we would ask that you not make this change.

Simone Holyoke, Lewiston resident. Registering my formal opposition to the shift in the code. Reasons this should be the easiest denial you ever have to do in your time on the planning commission. One, there's nothing wrong with the code as it's written. Utah drinking water zone one refers refers to the physical distance from the wellhead or spring collection. Zone two refers to the amount of time it groundwater to reach the wellhead or aquifer. I'm just gonna repeat that. The time that it takes for the groundwater to reach the aquifer. Right? So we know that it will do that. And I have social anxiety, so please bear with. These zones are designed to protect our water sources, and one of them should not be arbitrarily just stricken from the code under paragraph b because the contractor is finding himself inept in his ability to operate within the code as it is written. Although some respect may get can be given to Bear River Health Department and the Division of Water Quality's recommendations and input, they're ultimately not the people for whom this water is intended and are not in a position to determine for us what extent contaminated drinking water is safe. There are plenty of things that may be purported to be safe that are still requiring consent before subjugation to those things. This is one of those things. There's a paragraph where it discusses adequately controlled, this is our water, this is our drinking water, that's absurd for it to even have been listed that way. It's more than just the nitrates, it's pollutants, it's bacteria, it's virus, it's pharmaceuticals. This has already been said. I'm trying to skip over the stuff that's already been said. Regarding health risks is outrageous that this is even being considered. And more so that the the check and balance proposed here is the local health department. Even agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the APA quietly change web websites to reflect new information as it comes up. A presumption that our little health department is even privy to all the information is ridiculous. I didn't have time to put together all that I wanted to. I have seven peer reviewed sources I will be sending to you over the next few days. I learned about this two days ago. This is not adequate notice for things that are this important. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Paul Swainston. I'm the, water operator for this section that we're took looking at. I'd like to thank the county for the years that they protected us. They protected the whole county with our source protection plans and with the ordinances that they've had on there. It's unfortunate to see this one area. This is one source that we're all talking about, but the changes that are proposed to be made to the ordinance for the county affects the whole county. Not only does my source protection plan be diminished, so does the rest of the counties for one plan. That's all I have.

Any other comments?

K. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Thank you folks for working with us on this. We're getting through these public public comments. Item number five, public hearing for the combined 17 dot one zero dot zero four zero amendment. Request to amend the Cache County code by increasing the permissible lot coverage from 50% to 70% in the commercial zone and to add an irrigation canal setback distance exemption. Angie?

Yes. So this is a code change that we've talked about the last couple of planning commission meetings, so I won't go in-depth. But, yes, we did, talk about increasing the lot coverage for for commercial zones, from 50% to 70. There was some discussion about going to 80 as it is in the industrial. But as we, were directed from the last meeting, we have added that change to a 70% log coverage. And then in addition to that, we have maintained the 16 and a half foot setback from the top of the irrigation canal that have added a seven foot note into that table for site development standards, that states an exemption to the setback may be allowed. If the board or other entity governing the recognized irrigation canal agrees to reduce setback and provides written approval, the written approval must then be turned in by the applicant to development services department at the time of the zoning clearance application. So we believe that those two items addressed your concerns and desired changes on the site development standards of chapter 17.

Okay. Thanks, Angie. Any questions for staff? Okay. Entertain a motion to open the public hearing.

I'll make that motion to open the public hearing.

We have a motion. Second that. And a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Anybody like to comment on this proposal?

Hey, Brett. Were you aware that the canal setbacks were being discussed right now? Pardon me? Were you aware that canal setbacks were being discussed right now?

On a piece of property for some storage sheds that come to the county. They told me to go with commercial. Then I find out that it affects my buildings and then my asphalt and stuff. And And so I I was doing some figuring if and if we go at 70%, I got nine acres at 70%. It's 6.3 acres I gotta have I could I could develop. And if I go to 80 per 80%, which is already industrial, which is the same thing, it's less than an acre, 7.2%. So I speak in favor of not only approving this, but going to 80% the same as as industrial. And that's most most cities are that way. That's what their zoning is on between industrials is 80%. So So I speak in favor of of 70 and and at least going to 80. So that's why I speak in favor of.

Thank you.

Any other comments? No? Alright. I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Alright. We have a motion and motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. The next public hearing is the RU two and RU five amendment, a request to amend the Cache County code 17,008,030 by adding restrictions to on rezone applications for the the rural two RU two and rural five RU five zones.

So this ordinance amendment, came about as part of the subdivision moratorium and the joint workshops that county council and planning commission held on October 30 and November 17, where it was discussed establishing a distance based restriction on rezone applications relative to municipal boundaries. The intent of this discussion was to formally codify the de facto practice that currently guides approval of rezones to be within or adjacent to municipal boundary. So what is proposed would be just to change to the section of code that talks about the purpose of the r u two and r u five. So the r u two, the added language would be, item number four. For properties to submit a reason request for the R U 2 zone, the nearest property line of the parcel or parcels under the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the divided, from the subject parcel of parcels is three or less. Similarly, for RU 5, the language the main change is that the RU 5 must be within one half mile, linear distance from the borders of the municipality. Again, if it's not, then it could only be considered if the parcel that was to be divided would have a maximum potential of three or less lots. So So those are the proposals again previously discussed with county council and planning commission and then drafted by the county attorney's office. But development services did review the language and made some minor changes.

Okay. Chris, there's any question for staff?

I have one maybe, Angie. So we talked about and maybe it's in a different one that I forgot about. For those larger subdivisions, they would still still be allowed currently if if they could hook to a existing system. Is that gonna be in a secondary

code amendment? That was a separate ordinance that didn't get restored, but it is our discussion item under item 10 tonight if we get that far.

Okay. I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. I motion that. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. One last one last chance to be heard. Anybody have any comments on this proposal?

Tarina Lund. Obviously, I'm against this simply because it feels like the people that live closer to a town have more freedom and more rights than I would if I were living further away. And I just simply think that that would be unfair. And I would like to think that I can still do what I would like with my property. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Okay. Further motion?

Make a motion to close a public hearing.

Second. A motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We have covered our public, public hearings. Commissioners, do you have a desire on what we should what order we should take if we go back and take action or should we This is go in sequence. Go in sequence? First one. Alright. Very good. We will move on to item number, item number seven, Powder Mountain Master Plan, a request to by Summit Mountain Holding Group LLC and SMHG Land Co LLC to establish a a master plan for the Powder Mountain Resort?

Yes. So we've discussed this many times. So I won't go in-depth on the staff report, which is 10 pages. But we started this journey a year ago, with the rezone request, to get the remaining part of the Powder Mountain area into, the r r zone, so we could create this master plan boundary. The master plan itself for the applicants description, all of the there are no big particular access to McLeod Mountain from Cache County and none proposed as part of this. Description of the proposed use would be as part of this. Description of the proposed use would result in a year round recreational resort community with residential units, condominiums and hotels, corporate retreats, commercial areas, resort support and maintenance facilities, ski, hiking, biking trails, equestrian uses, art interactive parks and trails, and other related improvements. There would be both winter activities and non winter activities. And then activities available in all seasons would include scenic lift rides, concerts and festivals, and race events. The ski resort is typically open from December to April, nine to four, with extended hours for special events. Night skiing takes place just in the Weber County side around the around the Sundown Ski Lift and base area. Resort operating activities can occur twenty four hours a day during the ski season to prepare, maintain, manage, and operate the facilities. Non winter operations are open to guests typically between nine and four with longer or alternative hours for special events. The actual development of the property is focused on flatter areas of the site and, are located to key recreation elements together as well as locations that provide mountain views, recreation access, village feel or shelter or a combination of these items. The architectural design of all the units will be governed by the Powder Haven Property Owners Association and CC and Rs, which would result in a cohesive design aesthetic. Currently, there's nothing in county code that regulates design or materials for development, so this will be a higher architectural design elements of all of the development. Future proposed development in the master plan will be required to submit approval from that architectural review board or the equivalent prior to receiving approvals or permits from the county. So the the whole boundary and development of the resort recreation zone is based on unit equivalent density. So the RR zone allows for the following use types, hotel, commercial, or multifamily residential, single family residential, mixed use, including including, like, a corporate retreat and then commercial uses. So there is a table in the r r zone in chapter seventeen fourteen of the county code, that kind of provides, ratios for each of these different types of uses based on the size, square footage, etcetera. So what meant the master plan for Powder Mountain is proposing is a total of 977.75 unit equivalents with 711 of those being residential uses. That is broken down in the staff report. That would include 225 single family lots, 65 cabins, 415 multifamily units, six corporate retreats, and then there'd be ski area facilities, rec facilities, and commercial units to meet that total build out further master plan. We will establish a way to track those number of units over the development course of the project to ensure that we're not exceeding what is allowed in the master plan. And then chapter seventeen fourteen contains some provisions that are no longer allowed under state code. And although the adoption of this master plan establishes some parameters for development within the boundary, it doesn't provide us, specific development standards by which to evaluate, those such as our 17, 10, you know, about block coverage and height and setbacks. We don't have any of that for the resort recreation zone at this point. So as part of the next steps after the master plan is adopted, we will be going through an ordinance amendment for 1714 with powder Right. To establish those development standards and create, not only development standards for, individual structures and the like, but, also for infrastructure for, like, roads and stormwater. So that will come back through to you guys and then finally be approved by county council in order to establish those. And then approval process for different types of

development

and that. We will also be working with the applicant moving forward to get those established because the current appendix A that is in 1714, one, it was lost for a while. Two, it doesn't really adequately reflect the whole process and is very basic in nature. So again, we'll be working with the applicant to establish that and get that approved, recommended for approval by the client efficient act by Lake County Council. So there is additional thing. As part of the conditions that are also reflected in the staff report, we are still missing some final interlocal agreements between the, Cache County and Weber County Sheriff and EMS as well as the fire districts. But as we discussed in our previous meeting, we don't really feel like we can hold back Powder Mountain or their master plan adoption based on those interlocal agreements. So until the developer, she'll continue to coordinate with those entities to get those interlocals. But in the meantime, if those still aren't finalized or established prior to them submitting for development plan applications, we would allow for the Weber County sheriff or for the applicant to submit a letter from the Weber County sheriff, basically a will serve letter stating lieu of the interlocal agreement being finalized. Similarly with UDOT, there's a threshold for, the Weber County portion of this development, that following the completion of 1,477 units in both Weber and Cash, that a new transportation impact study will be conducted. So that is a condition of approval. Again, we'll be tracking those and working with the Weber County site to make sure that we're always aware of that number moving forward. Condition four again talks about tracking the density. Mission five talks about there was, some geotech in that, submitted as part of the overall master plan submittal, but we'll be looking at site specific geotech, tests moving forward for each development. It will be all dark sky compliant. We'll Include that language also with the development or the seventeen fourteen ordinance updates that we'll be doing. Again, seven and eight. Condition seven and eight talked about we'll be making those ordinance changes moving forward prior to any zoning clearance applications or development plan applications coming through so we can get those, development standards and infrastructure standards established. And then, yeah, nine just talks about upcoming changes if they're considered de minimis or minor. The director of development services could have authority to approve changes. But any major changes or expansion of the master plan would have to come back to the planning commission for approval. And then the final condition we have here is, you know, the master plan's middle documents packet was 1,100 pages. We don't wanna report all of that against the property. So number 10 just kinda goes through the the basic information that will be recorded as part of the master plan against the properties within the resort recreation master plan boundary. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the Powder Mountain Master Plan after, yeah, few months that we've spent kind of going through it and making sure with our consultant, JV, that it was complete and met the requirements of the seventeen fourteen resort recreation. So with that, if you have any questions for me or Powder Mountain has prepared a small presentation as well if you'd like to see that. Questions for staff for

Questions for staff before we hear from Powder Mountain? K. We've seen it a lot. We've seen it a lot.

Thank you. Looks like you have a long night tonight. So I will tee up the presentation, but I'll probably just abbreviate it if that's okay with you because it's been a long fourteen months and I'm thrilled to be here tonight respectfully requesting the approval of the master plan CUP. CUP. We've had multiple meetings on this, as Angie mentioned. I think I counted six just related to the Master Plan CUP. Then there were some additional, whether they were work sessions or or other sessions dealing with rezones. During that time, we had also an extensive third party review of the of the application and we didn't have a lot of public input throughout all of those meetings. And so, it's great to arrive here tonight with a staff report that recommends approval. And, I really appreciate and have to speak to the time and attention staff has given it us over the past few months and this application on your behalf in order to do the work to come up with those conditions. So, we, have reviewed the commission the conditions and we feel like, those really help move us forward because what tonight does is not, approve the project once and for all. It establishes the framework for which that you would see us in the future. So subdivisions are going to be held up to this master plan to ensure that we're in fact doing what we said we would do. So essentially, unfortunately, this is just the beginning from a perspective of the work that you do. So, we appreciate that. We appreciate your consideration. If you don't mind, let's flip through just a couple of the slides. Visually, to get an idea of the, exceptional job that Angie just covered, that is the area that the master plan covers. And so the, this all is contained in that full package and you can see the amount of recreation that we're proposing versus the areas that are in tan where the actual vertical development will occur. We'll go to the next. We've covered that. We'll keep going. We covered this wonderfully. Oh, the the last thing I actually would like to leave you with, there's about seven more slides but we'll end here. Using the assumptions that were done by a third party reviewer and who prepared the fiscal impact study, the overall impact to the county financially using their assumptions, which are very conservative in terms of less value and less development and less percentage going to the county than we actually think will happen annually at stabilization or when we get, you know, to build out. The, the county will receive about $5,000,000 and $7,000,000 every year from this project. In today's term, that's about 7% of your of your, budget for the entire county. So, there is a financial benefit, that is various taxes that are collected from this project. And as Angie mentioned, there, still is no access, proposed or planned or envisioned from the Cache County side. So, with that, I'd love any questions before I.

Any questions?

Okay. Thank you so much.

Alright. Commissioners, any discussion on this?

There's been a lot of discussion on this. Yeah. I don't want the public to think that we're not thoughtful, but we've spent a year off on it. So I'm ready. K.

pages, the master plan.

K. I'll make that motion.

Motion

to send to the county council for approval. I guess Actually, the planning commission is the land land use authority Oh, and this this one doesn't go yeah. That's right.

Only conditions were there. Yep. There are ten ten conditions and two conclusions.

With the 10 conditions?

And two conclusions? Okay. We have a motion. I'll second that motion. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Alright.

Maybe the mister chairman, if I could suggest we go back to item two and work through those just so folks don't have to sit here. That was my original request question was

was if we wanted to go that direction. Do that. I think that That works for you. Yeah. I think that would be good. So we will move back up to that's some that's some reason is item number two, and we will have our discussion and potential action on that one. Alright. We've heard from the from the proponent. We've also heard from the public on this. Commissioners, any discussion on the Dutson rezone?

For me, it's similar to a number of others that have been like this. So away from town, and and although he's only seeking three lots, it would give him the option to do seven there. And and pretty much unanimously, we any anything that large, we have recommended denial to the county council in the past when they're not Yeah. And with the caveat that I am from Newton,

Any other discussion?

I'd make a motion that we recommend

motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Moving on to item number three, public hearing for the Smithfield Safe Storage, rezone. Discussion on this one.

I I think that we made it clear a couple of months ago that it doesn't fit for the road and the problems that we have there. So I would say no.

K. Any other discussion?

Yeah. I think with with the road issues that we faced on that, I don't know when it's close to this. Yeah. I'd agree with that.

Okay. If there's no other discussion, I'll entertain a motion.

I would make a motion.

Just a point of order on that. Recommend denial to the county to the county council?

Yes. Okay.

And, generally, we we we'll give a reasoning for that or or a conclusion. There's a conclusion. Yes.

So just helping with that. Yeah. The based upon the county's assessment, we'd we'd wanna recommend to the Right. County council denial of the Smithfield Safe Storage Rezone based upon the

Mister Poole, you accept that amendment to your Yeah. To your motion? Yeah. K. We have a motion.

Can I can I further make amendment? There's just a

Okay. Accept that amendment. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second that. The motion is second. Any discussion on the motion? Angie, we good with that motion? Yes. So the the vote yes means we reject. To recommend denial? Yeah. Correct. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Item number four, the proposal for the water and sewage requirements ordinance amendment. Say that three times real fast. Discussion on on this proposal? This amendment?

I would prefer before we vote on this to have another meeting with the state. Like, they they came to our last one, our combined meeting Mhmm. As did Bear River Health Department to get get more clarification and to maybe look at other options in the code. Because I think currently because I know I know this is requested from one project, but I know of at least two others that have had similar requests. But to even put the the septic system outside of that zone by running a pipe through zone two, have been told by the county that that's considered a system, part of this. So they they could they still couldn't do that. So I think maybe look at some other options before we were to vote on something like because it because it does impact like the one gentleman said. Right? It's not it's not this protection area. Right? There's there's maybe not a 100, but for sure dozens around the county that that this could affect. And I think looking at the size of some of those, the properties in them, and and if if there is a way to safely let, you know, someone do something on that property and maybe it's it's a dual pipeline. Maybe there's other options out there to get outside of those zones.

be something to the effect of, quote, according to the owner's code rules and regulations.

So So it would still give the the city that own or or that has that source protection area the final say.

K. Other comment? Comments on that? I had I had similar concerns on this. I I I think there were some really compelling arguments that we that we heard, and and there were arguments really going two different directions on the technology, and I felt I felt inadequate to make a good decision on that without some additional information regarding the technology, because we've heard from one side that this technology is great. It takes the nitrates out, and and and we've also heard that that it doesn't. And so I felt inadequate to make a decision on that without some more information.

If we put a six or a six months out on this, is that even enough time to allow do a a six month or ninety days is ninety days or I think six. We could do a ninety. We can do a ninety. We can do a 90. Ninety. But at the end of the ninety, if we haven't, we can just extend it. Yeah.

this will be more and more common as until we have sewer systems throughout the throughout the county.

We're gonna be getting closer together and on all of these things. And so this will be a

a common question that'll impact it'll impact more and more potential developments.

Well, I appreciated some of the letters, from the communities and and their comments because, you know, these are small communities. They don't have the resources to go out and and get experts and to, you know, what what's the long term gonna be if we open this up? We we, you know, we don't wanna be a Flint, Michigan and have, you know, a lifetime contamination of a water because of a mistake we made. And so it's it's a pretty big change. I would be in favor pushing it out as far as we can so we have time.

Yeah. Just just thinking ahead, you know, we've had we've had a number of of public water systems come through looking for approval. Maybe that's something that we that we look as conditions on those when we approve when we approve those. You're gonna impact the local the area around there by putting this in place. If it's feasible, you need to hook them up to sewer. Just a thought. So okay. Sounds like we have a a fairly clear consensus here. Do we have a Make a motion to con continue this for up to ninety days.

K. With the option to push it out further if necessary.

We've already had it. Yes. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion to second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

Hey. Question. If Brady's question get answered, can that be pushed out more than six

We we need to have council look at that.

Yeah.

Item number five. This is the combined 17Dot10Dot040 amendment. And this was the we'll allow people to Clear it out for a minute. Make their way out of here for a second. Okay. This the combined seventeen point one zero point zero four zero amendment, and this was increasing the permissible lot coverage from 50% to 70% in the commercial zone and to add an irrigation canal setback distance

Discussion on that, commissioners? So the only concern that I had was we did specifically we had a couple of canal presidents here Mhmm. And we didn't specifically identify nothing with the canal. But at the same time, if I understand correctly, pending that our deal meets it, it's it's optionable, but it's still up to the canal company. Is that correct? It's it's it's still not allowed unless they can get a lift from the canal. So I'm okay with that. Yeah. I just wanted to re clarify it. Yeah. And that means six 16 feet from the center of the canal both ways. Top of bank

In order to get the exemption Mhmm. Would be on the applicant. They would have to so whoever wants to hold and put in that setback would have to So when the applicant, they would they would have to bring they would approach the canal company and bring okay.

Yeah. And I've talked to a few canal companies in there with that with that. They still hold their cards. And so they've everyone I've talked to has been comfortable with that, knowing that no building is allowed without them. Yeah. Essentially signing off on it. But it gives us some leeway. Yeah. Because right now, it's just not allowed. And so if you get a landowner that wants to do something, there there's no there's no wiggle room for them. This this gives them a chance to Thanks for that.

Yeah.

But I I I still tend to cite Chris too a little bit. I guess, Chris, what what do you see the advantage of having, I guess, the 10% more undeveloped or or stormwater ponds. I mean, that that's a lot of that area is what's used for that, which which equals 20% and pretty much even 10%. Pretty much any facility, you can meet your stormwater requirements with that percentages. And I just see it, you know, similar to the complaints against, you know, two lot subdivisions. Right? A lot of people say, well, people don't take care of the other acre and a half and it ends up leaking stuff. To me, the more you have developed or asphalt, whatever it is, the cleaner that place looks in the end.

If I may say, if you're putting that line in the code that gives you the alternative to go from 70 to 80, I think there needs to be clear reasons or definitions that are outlined in that rather than subjective.

Does that make sense? Yep. Well, what are some thoughts there for what they would be?

That's a good question, and I don't know that right off. I'm just concerned about, hey. I've got the ability, so I'm here doing it. Give me the reasons why you would deny it, and yet you put it in there for me to come and question you about it.

What what about the conversation? When I I we talked about parts the paved surface versus the gravel surface. And

Much of that was talking about for

water to go through and and versus those two, wasn't it? Yeah. But remember, I want the water to run off and go to Gray Salt Lake.

I'll just give I'll go ahead. I was gonna say You haven't chimed in yet. I'll I'll give my my thought on it. I I look at going from 50 to 70%. That's a pretty massive increase, and my tendency is I I would I I would recommend going with that, and we'll see where we go from that. And if there's a if there's a massive desire for for looking at that again, I think that's good. But when you look at going from 50 to 70%, that's a that's a we're given a lot in in that change. And so in, you know, an abundance of caution, I I I would prefer to kinda stay at that going to 70.

But I was just gonna say the same thing. So

That's what you'd suggest with what Nolan said? Just looking at that, I mean I mean, you look at the the percentage increase that we're doing on that, that, that's pretty that's pretty massive. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. That be that being said, if if the commission feels strongly that that, there should be that option, I, you know, I wouldn't vote against it because of

because of that. I think we got some more education coming our way. So

Matt.

The percentage of the area of a lot or parcel which is occupied by all buildings, other impervious surfaces, or other covered structures.

And so there's a there's a definition of impervious

surfaces. Is that what yeah. What you've determined Whether whether compared to gravel is impervious or no. Yeah. And at that point, it was yeah. Deep's not. I'd have maybe one other thing to add is, I think it's it's Connor brought some other counties and their their densities to us. I don't know if it's last month or two months ago. But I think it makes more sense for us. Right? It's a lot of these that we're approving. Chris's is a good example. This other one just south of Smithfield that that probably will not get approved. But right, they're they're close to those cities and they're gonna be absorbed by those cities fairly soon. I think it makes more sense to be closer to the city, not not all the way to theirs because most of the cities are 90% density. Whereas those get absorbed and you're driving down that road, it looks like a commercial or industrial area. To me, it makes more sense than than you drive through there and and you got 90% coverage and then we go to to 30. I just think it can look cleaner as as a development. I mean, in the county, we don't see very many of them. Right? And I think that was part of your point. This is a big jump from what we've done. We've only had a couple commercial rezones every year that that go through. And so they're they're pretty small operations. But as they get absorbed, I think it makes more sense that they look. Operations. But as they get absorbed, I think it makes more sense that they look like the communities that are absorbing them. So that yeah. That would be my other push push for the ages just so it's more similar to what eventually it's gonna become part of.

No discussion? I'm ready for a motion to take a long one. Yes.

Mister chairman, I'd move that we, propose to the county council acceptance of the changes to, 17 dot 10 dot o four o, specifically increasing the total lot coverage in the commercial zone from I just lost it. 50 to 70%? 50 to 70 and then allowing I don't have it, but I can surprise synopsis or whatever. Allow them to canal companies.

And an and an exemption allowing for the placement of structures inside of the 16.5

setback. Number seven. Yep. Yep. Number seven. Under the note seven.

K. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good discussion on that one. We worked that one out. Plenty. Okay.

Made it better, at least. Yeah. Yeah.

Alright. Next one, item six, RU two, RU five ordinance amendment. Discussion on on this one. We beat this one around

with the county council a couple of times. And I I think that one looks really good of what we talked about with the county council

and because after those exemptions in there for those smaller

Mister chairman, I know the app applicant walked back in and no offense to him, but the thing that I find very interesting in our last two of our last half a dozen of these requests, including one in Mount Sterling, these people owned these parcels less than six months. People have formed them their lifetimes, struggled to make it. And I know it's it's it's not a good comparison, but it's unbelievable how and and I know there was other interest in that parcel that was discussed tonight. And I'm not really sure if it was the individual or whoever was given the advice. But there was differences in being told that they left thinking that it couldn't even be done. So I'm I'm just really glad we did what we did. But at the same time, it's it's something that's way important that we really take for serious as we evaluate these. What do we want our county? I mean, if we no disrespect to George Danes. I'm very appreciative of all he's doing and and and stands to do. But his personal opinion, it was kind of interesting. He says, we don't even we don't want no development known in our last our last meeting. But we we've gotta have some, but we just gotta do it smart because whether it's, I don't know, this or that. I mean, you you break the floodgates here, and and it's just gonna boom. And and how do we get one and stop another without having some

sort of what we've been doing. In the spirit the spirit of

Approvals versus denials on these rezones. I think this

But it but it gives us code to Yep. To back it up. To back it up.

And some of those will never then come to us because they're not eligible. Yeah. Which

which I think is and some would argue and say, well, you're you're taking away my my ability to to do that with my property. But in in a lot of ways, it just lets you know these are what these are what the standards are, and and if you wanna have a higher density development, get closer to the cities. Right.

Or buy a bigger parcel. Or buy a bigger

parcel. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion on this one?

I will entertain a motion. Make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance amendment 17 dot zero eight dot zero three zero. The RU two and RU five zone definitions.

K. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Let's see.

Pick it up to item eight, mister chairman, if I'm not mistaken. Wow.

Item eight, Saddle Ridge Subdivision, a request to create a new 22 lot subdivision on 221.72 acres located at 7000 South 1400 West Hiram in the agricultural This has been continued for the from the 09/04/2025 meeting.

And they are requesting

Another nine. An additional extension. Is that right? That is correct. Yeah. I think when we put the agenda together, we weren't quite sure. It just had come up on its previous ninety days. Mhmm. And then after the agenda was posted, it was requested that it continued again. The applicant provided some reasoning on the second page there, that they're working with the executive's office on some alternate, access, which was the primary concern of the project to date. But they're still working through some things, in order to be able to present that again. So they are asking for an additional ninety days. I did put a caveat in here that, again, I haven't been part of the discussions. So I'm not sure if they're, you know, minimal changes that might be expected or or significant changes, a new application may be required just depending on what that looks like. Plus there's isn't there a

if I'm not mistaken, there's kind of a limit to how long we can extend.

I was just gonna ask that. I just didn't have ninety days on their last one. Right? Yeah. I think it's been continued maybe a couple times on ninety days. The original,

we staff had recommended denial because they weren't meeting the minimum requirements. So I think that's in here. The April 3 meeting was the original date, and that was continued on that date for ninety days. And then at the July meeting, it was again extended, and then they came back with a modified plan with that twenty second lot instead of the twenty first. And then that was presented in September and again continued for ninety days. So that's where we are today. We probably do need a refresher on

how long we can extend agenda items or whatever. I I feel like there's a limit, but maybe it's only on certain type application types. Our

Can I add a caveat in there? No. I also the legal comes back to us in our next meeting if we've extended this too many times. We address it at that time. That was my

Did we do that? Just so we're safe following it. I think I think if if it is, I think as soon as we know that, we should let the applicant know. So they if they really only have to the next meeting, they can get stuff ready. And we can Yeah. So, yeah. I'm fine with that amendment to it. Okay. That was mine.

Okay. Do we have a second? We have a second on the with the amended motion. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We are cooking with gas tonight. It's getting time for elections.

Alright.

Item number nine, amending Cache County code 17Dot 07 Dot040 and 17Dot10Dot04 0 frontage. Is that do we do it? Frontage and access?

Yeah. We've just discussed it a couple of things. Before. Yeah. K. Listen. A little more discussion. One thing that we've got right now, you brought it to our attention, but I I feel this is extremely important in any zone because, specifically, we got a we approved a or a rezone for a house to be built. And now after they've got the house up and everything, they're trying to renegotiate their driveway. That that shouldn't even be an option. If you want occupancy, you do it the way you proposed it and the way approved it. Otherwise, sorry.

Yeah. So I'll bring up my favorite example. The reason that part part of the reason over here.

While she's bringing it up, I would just say that sometimes, you know, there may need to be modifications. You know? You find a wetland or something. Hey. We proposed that it's here, but as it turns out, we can't build a road there because of water or whatever we found.

Wasn't the problem, though. It wasn't about making beautiful or look nice. It was to allow emergency vehicles to get in the place and turn and things to happen that way more than it was anything else. And I remember this case.

Yeah. So this particular lot that we have up here, you can see kind of the flag lot shape, coming off of 3800 West here. So the subdivision amendment plat that they showed, this was their 90 foot 90 feet of, frontage that they needed. It also requires that that frontage be set back to the front yard, set back 30 feet, which is how we get this shape. But they wanted to build clear back here, and so that's why they have the shape of a a lot. And it was approved. But later, when they were coming in for their zoning clearance to build the home, the person who farms this area did not want them to put a driveway through the middle of it. And so they were looking for alternative accesses and now want to come up through the farm in order to get to their house. That create created a lot of confusion. One, because, you know, fire evaluated the access during the subdivision process. The address that's on the subdivision plat is an address that comes off 3800 West, not 3800 North. So it just creates a lot of issues. Fire engineering all had to go out multiple times to see if the width and all this met the requirements to get to the house. So we just felt that it should be clarified that wherever your actual frontage is that you're required to have per development standards and subdivision process, that that should be your access default. And if you want a separate or a different one, then you Apply that way. A variance process. Yeah. And that would be the code ordinance that we have proposed would be that that would be a director of development services variance, which they also have the authority to do for, setbacks in building height. So, it seemed like a natural addition there. And then that would, and then that would the director would work with fire and the public works in evaluating their decision on whether to grant that variance or not. But the default should be whatever your required frontage is should be

your access as well. Jason,

on? And and in reality, I mean, you look at I don't see how they can get the frontage through the through the farmyard anyway because they don't own that property. So yeah.

Yep. How about they just move it all north?

And long fence. North and call it good. That said, any action we take tonight doesn't impact Yeah. And then again, the discussion we bring in the next month

if we're good with the direction that we've taken here.

I feel like yeah. I'm supportive of of what we have here. Angie, do you need a motion on this one? No. It was a discussion. Okay. All right. Moving on. Item number 10, subdivisions.

Yeah. So this was part of the discussion and the workshops with county council and the senate commission as well. Again, the county attorney's office did, draft some language about subdivision requirements, limiting RE two, RE five steps. So we just thought we'd bring it back to see if you've had any additional thoughts since that workshop. So that's why that's here.

Okay. And I I think the only one I would add on that on the water one, right, the proof of water by drilling a pilot well would only come into play if if it's gonna be a a community water system that we we may require on some of these bigger subdivisions. Because it's it's kinda hard to do a proof of water right for a single lot on every lot even if it were, you know, five lots or seven lots on a 70 acre parcel.

So then we'd be able to change that by putting the number of

lots. Seven or above or above. Even if it's above seven, I I think it would really depend on where we end up with when we're gonna require a public water system in that discussion. If if it's gonna be a public water system that multiple homes are relying on, I think that that drilling that test well makes sense. If it's just for a a single home water system, right, because just just because if if you got a 100 acre parcel and it's it's 10 lots that they can have right now, now, but they're they're spread out that may not make sense for a public water system. And if you do your your test well on the first lot, there's no guarantee that that tenth lot is gonna be able to hit water. I agree. And so I think, you know, doing 10 test wells probably doesn't make sense then. But if it's gonna be relied on for a community water system, in my mind, and then talking with, Box Elder County Water District, that's when, you know, if it's a community water system well, it makes sense to have that requirement there. Because you don't wanna say we're gonna supply 10 or 15, whatever those homes are, and you don't know if you have any water or not. So then it seems to me we need to figure out a way to decide

when is the community water

Yeah. I think that's why we figured we're gonna need multiple combined meetings to Right. Because get through those discussions. In the previous discussions, anything above seven,

we would look at that because then we can start talking about hopefully, having an understanding of septic tanks and what we're doing from that as well. Yeah. Yeah.

So maybe we need a size of lot and a size of ground that's going with it. Going with it. Well, I think, yeah. To me for me, personally, it's more when we get those bigger subdivisions that are clustering, and so the lot sizes are small, the wells are close together, the septic systems are close together. Right? If it's if they're all 10 acre lots, the I think at least with the BetterHelp department, the the risk of this the septic systems really is pretty minimal. But if we if we do this the the one there in in the basin, right, Mount Sterling, the risk there is high because they're small lots. Everyone's gonna be on a well. And so I think I think that's the discussion. Right? What is that density to where that system would be required? And I think it comes down to lot size and That's where we're headed spread out. The second subdivision was 205

acres when we gave them a 20 lot. Yeah. But some of those lots are gonna be way less. I mean, there's one lots two acres, isn't it? I was gonna say two two two to five acres,

cluster when it makes sense, but I think that's the point. Right? Like, when they start doing that And then cluster too much or Trigger

Because I agree with you, a 10 acre lot, it's too far. It's too much. And 10 acres, you're you've got that distance, I would believe. And you can put your well lot And even that, in the 08/10, we've got people who are doing subdivisions and then bringing the lot down to a lesser amount with the remaining farm. Yep. So they still met it, but yet they've squeezed out a different way of sizing the lot. Yeah.

But I don't know. That that's why that's why I think we did the R U 2 R U 51 now because that was easy. Yeah. We This next one's gonna be difficult to it's gonna take a lot of value. Because we need to. Yeah. Because of the scope and size of some of these subdivisions,

especially when they're putting together. Yeah. So tight.

So with this said, pending the action that we take, if we all agree on, let's keep it at seven lots or less on the larger subdivisions for now. Does that take care of it, or do we need to extend out? So the six month moratorium, I think, takes us through February.

I guess January. January. And, yeah, mid to late January? Is it January? It was put in effect July 8. Yeah. So so January 8.

So if we had if we have the public hearing in January on this,

then then this could be in place Yeah. When that if the county council moves picking up extend that. I think there would probably be a window of time or it would the moratorium would have ended and this would not be in effect yet. But yeah. You think this will be adequate without extending the moratorium ninety days? I think like I said, I think there'll be a gap between because you have to have the public hearing with the recommendation. You got a set of hearing. You got a hold of hearing. Because we gotta have a public hearing on this. Yeah. That'd be our January meeting. Yeah. If you just wanted something simple for that January meeting

I I think if if they can find a way to hook to a community system, then over seven would be fine still, at least for me. If they can hook onto a community sewer or water system, that takes away all our concerns for the most part. And then they're right there where they're gonna get sense. Say for maybe Benson,

Water, they're I mean, we've got, I mean, take Petersburg up there. I mean, they have a water system

there on private.

And they're they're But it's a it is a public water system and meeting

state standards. But if if any well, Cove Cove. Cove could if they had shares, Cove could let them hook on. Yeah. So I think there are there are a few examples. But I I think the water's there. The the the sewer is the The harder. No sewer cove. No sewer and vents.

Alright. Commissioners are do we need to make amendments to this? Or Yeah. Yeah. We're a second. Yeah. Sorry. Just a discussion item. No. We don't have No. But but are there any amendments you'd like to send on to to staff and

for for public hearing in January. Wanna be

clear about what it is. Think something between now and then. Get it to them, what, two weeks before you your meeting? Well

to post them? I'd just reiterate the lot size on the actual like, you've already brought up. I concerning to me even though we've been through different meetings and they say it varies. It's concerning to me when our code says they can build on a half acre lot, but the health department in their first meeting says an acre three quarters is how they designed their septics. So They did they did kinda back away from that. But Well, they just they only backed away from how however the dirt is. Or what your what your dirt is, but that still is what you look like. Our our half an acre doesn't say

if it's not producing. But we but we do say but we do have they need to get approval from the Bearville health department. So

Yeah. That's Well, that part too there already. But we have to. Yeah. I I think yeah. It'd be good to look at it next month and have a hearing and get through the process. K. Is that enough for you, Angie? Angie, did you get anything that was forwarded from Andrew Crane?

I just have the, ordinance that he proposed in that last joint workshop.

Because he sent me an email. I thought he had sent it to you. Oh, I he copied you. Yeah. He copied an email to you about the moratorium and extending it. But he would also, on this subdivision, send out there, put out a piece.

Bring that up.

If he did, yes. Maybe send it out to all of us so we can call him on it before next month.

He did send. Can you forward it to these guys and everybody? It's a starting point is all it is from the attorney's office. So

Moving on. Item 11. Each of the Elections. Elections for chair and and vice chair for 2026.

And I will just add here that Oh, and also Aljay, Brady, and Kurt were reappointed for another three years. Yeah. On Tuesday during Congratulations.

Well, that certainly makes sense. The hotel California. Val, Jane, Brady, and Kurt were reappointed on Tuesday during Tuesday night's council meeting for another three year term. Yes. We did that. So So we know they'll be here, so they can be chair and vice chair. And oh, and and also on this, I guess, secretary is also part of that. Correct? I believe so. Yeah. Usually defaults too. So by default, if we don't appoint one,

then then the direct the director phenomenal. She carries a permanent title.

Thank you. Yeah. I think it defaults to the director. Right? The director of of development services. So okay. Or their appointee. Or their appointee. Okay. So we have have two open positions for the year, and I just will point out that Kurt is not here tonight. And he's not been here multiple multiple nights, and he is,

you know, probably needs a little more experience there. But Well, I was wondering if you're gonna say maybe he he should get out because he's No. He misses those same meetings every year. As long as I'm not wise.

I'm sure, man. I'm just looking at my screen.

He can he can probably use a little more experience. I'd I'd January. I'd I'd nominate Kurt for chair.

K. We have a nomination. Were you gonna look nominate a a vice chair or Sure. I'd nominate Brady Christiansen for vice chair. Give you a break.

This gives me a bad look there. He's a bigger guy too. But I'm faster.

You're right. It's quicker. Alright. We have we have nominations second on that. Any discussion on those nominations?

Sound great.

K. Any name that's not yours. Right? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Any update on next month's agenda?

I'm not sure. I do believe there is one rezone, which this new r e two r e five probably won't be adopted by then. So, it gets in under the old code, in a subdivision amendment, but I think that's about it. And then we'll bring back the frontage and access for public hearing and the subdivision stuff for public hearing.

Great. Will that other one with R U two one go on two county council meetings from now? Not the next one, but the one after that.

Yeah. So the next one's next Tuesday, and then they don't have any regularly scheduled ones till January 13. So it'd probably be the second set the hearing on January 13, and then hold the public hearing at council on that second. I just know there's one landowner

wanting to move that one as fast as possible. So if there's any way to get it on next Tuesday's, but for the set the hearing budget Mister chairman, I have two questions, comments, whatever. Okay. Just one that

May I say something? If we're discussing this in your first meeting in January, and I know we're in the holidays, but is there any ability to meet again before that that January meeting so we have a discussion on the subdivision? What's your thoughts? Steak and shrimp somewhere. We're all over.

I'm heading out of cars that you can go buy steak and shrimp today. So Christmas season, real generous. Yeah. I I wonder if we take a look at that

Yeah. K.

My second question slash concern is just a continuation. We we've got a huge weight on our shoulders with this water sewer stuff. And it's I don't know if it's I don't know who's gonna bear the cost if if the first applicant is gonna bear that cost. But I I still would reiterate, yeah, if there's one there and you move next to it. But what happens if one moves on top of you and you have zero say? Yeah. I Zero compensation, but it drastically affects

That's why I brought up the point that I made about that that, you know, we pretty much rubber stamped a lot of water projects that have come in. Hey. We're gonna put a put a water tank above town in the in the county. With that one because it went in the city, but it's right on the county. Agreed. But, I mean, we've we've had, like, water tanks up above Richmond. Yeah. We're gonna look at those very differently. At least, I will in the future and say, well, this is gonna have a major impact on all of those properties around there. So Richmond City, if they wanna put a water tank up above town, they need to have maybe a condition in there that says that they will accept sewer hookups from

from those residents there. Well and I think to your point, Brett, you're right. We didn't hear about that one because it was I'm gonna set that off. But I think I think we can amend our our county wide zone protection areas to where if if your source protection area goes outside of your city limits into the

away potentially. None of those none of those need a permit from the county. No. That's what I'm saying. We need to figure out water tank is a zoning clearance. That doesn't even come. There there's no extra conditions with Has that changed? Because we've we've seen those multiple times through the planning commission. You'll the the way it reads, and Angie and I have had little discussions about this, but that's only if that size of the water is over 18 inches and that's just not very common. It's a code of We got canal companies coming for permission to pipe their canal, but we don't have to have someone come for permission to take someone's property rights. So you And it's you're Donzo. Yeah. But that's not even that's not even the tank. That's the drilling of the well. Mhmm. And and you don't need anything from the county. You can go drill a well anywhere in the county you want, and you don't have to talk to development services, public works, or nobody.

When you drill a well, that's where your source

But most of the municipal wells are in the county. And if they don't have to come in, then I think I'm with Brady. I think that that's that should be come to the council. They should need to get a permit or CUP or some type of a thing that that the notice can come to the neighbors. We can talk about it. We can discuss because that's an exaction on Brady's property. Could that be

Because not every well I would think any any municipal water source well or or culinary water system. So it would be those if if they're gonna be a private or, you know, a single person's well wouldn't hit that, but I think there is a trigger similar to the 7 Lot Subdivision. Because that's what we'd If it's a well that's gonna be used for a community water system However, another scenario I've got is I I have

But but I think where we're looking is probably looking at what triggers a conditional use permit in our distribution lines or water lines Yes. And those type of infrastructure that then if we found out someone was drilling a well and Nate got wind of it or someone, we could say, hey, did you by the way, that needs a x, y, z permit from the county. But right now, what we require for you to come in for a conditional use permit doesn't include any of those things we're talking about. And it's a little fuzzy on transmission lines, water lines, sewer lines. You could have

a huge sewer line. Funds to our ordinance. Yeah. Well But it's good to start looking at it all. We we know that it is it's like dynamite because we witnessed it here at night. Yep. But I see that same dynamite should be considered The other way. The other side of the fence before it even happens. Correct. I think Matt's talk that's what Matt's talking about. I'm not just saying. I think we can work with with division of water rights in the county where the county's notified anytime one of those wells is

Yeah. Just to as as we close, just thank you. That was a that was a lot of stuff on the agenda. Thanks for all the discussion and all the all the efforts that that you've all put in on this. It's an honor to be a part of this group. So thank you very much. And we got done before 08:00. Here. Yeah. Alright.