Cache County Planning Commission Meeting 09-04-2025

if >> we could bring our attention back up here. Thank you. >> Connor, I believe we are on the item number seven. Questar gas company DBA andbridge gas Utah conditional use permit. >> All right. So the question >> just so we can proceed if you guys could either go out in the hall or let us here. Thanks. >> Hey. All righty. So, the Questar Gas Company DBA and Bbridge gas Utah conditional use permits a request to operate a natural gas gate station metering facility. Um, it qualifies as use type 5610 utility facility distribution. Um, as some background, this project's tied to the Green Gas USA Hyram LLC, which was approved by the planning commission on July 10th. Um that's basically just uh request to operate a gas system that updates or upgrades bio gas that's produced by JBS's anorobic digesttors. Um the parcel is legal as it matches the configuration it had on August 8th, 2006. The adjacent uses the adjacent parcels are generally a mix of industrial and residential uses to the south and agricultural uses to the north. Um the high boundary city or the higher city boundary is located 500 ft to the south of the subject parcel. Um operation, it'll be in operation 247. Uh there won't be any regular employees on site, but it will have a routine inspections for safety and maintenance. Um in terms of structures, there'll be four buildings, a control building, an analyzer building, an odorant building, and a meter and regulator building. Um in terms of signage, it'll be pretty minimal. Only things that are required by federal, state, and county code, and then whatever gas is their standards. Um no waste will be produced. Um, in terms of roads, uh, 1200 West is what they have access onto. Um, it's major collector and it's county owned. Um, it provides access to JBS agricultural lands and serves as a through access from Hum to Nibi. Has a minimum access spacing of 350 ft for public and private roads and 200 feet for commercial, residential or farm accesses. Um, is maintained by the county year round. is currently 24 feet wide, has a 99 foot rightway, a three to four foot paved shoulder, a two- foot gravel shoulder, a variable clear zone, and is paved. Um, it's considered substandard as the gravel shoulder and clear zone. Um, in terms of parking, it's exempt from a parking analysis. Uh, as the use type 5610, utility facility distribution is exempt. Um, the fire district didn't have any comments, but I'll review uh zoning clearances as they come in. Um, solid waste disposal is the responsibility of the applicant. In terms of detrimental effects and sensitive lands, air quality is a concern, but that's just mitigated by best management practices during construction. And there is a wildfire hazard, so they'll have to prepare fire protection report. Um, noticing was completed on August 22nd. The agenda for the meeting was posted on August 22nd. We haven't received any public uh comments and staff recommends approval with the 19 listed conditions. >> Okay. Thank you, Connor. Appreciate it. Um, would the applicant like to speak about your proposal? >> Sure. >> I'm Caroline King. I'm I work for Embridge Gas. Uh, this facility is being done in conjunction with a development that Green Gas is currently uh planning. um we will be the receiver of their bio biograss product um and then we will prepare it for distribution out into the surrounding area. So that's pretty much >> how much how much gas is produced from this from this >> and while you're at it just tell us a little bit about how it works how it works. Yeah. Like where's it coming from? Where's it? Yeah. >> Yeah, for sure. So, Andrew Aspund um in Brit gas um engineering um how much gas is being produced? It's an average of about 400 teeth per day. Um max 700ish teeth down to that's in the summer >> that in the average number of homes or whatever that that can serve. >> Um I don't know average numbers of homes. It's a small amount. So in terms of Hyram overall I think it produces less than 5% of what total goes into Hyum on a yearly basis. So it's a very small percentage. Most of the gas that is being used in the community is brought in um on another feeder line. So what is going on is green gas. Um, currently, um, JBS, the beef plant down there, processes, um, I don't know exactly how they process, but I assume it's cow manure, um, and turns it into bio gas, which is they are currently burning, but in order for them to receive credits for that burning, they need to upgrade the gas and add it to a pipeline quality so that they can become a transportation customer. That's where we come in. So um green gas is the upgrader. We are the receiver of the gas as was stated earlier. Um and the gas will be brought to our system through a regulator station that currently exists in Hyram for the most part in terms of public safety. Um we blend the gas at Hyum. So in all reality you're not getting 100% RNG into your home. the max you could get is 40%. According to what we're doing. Um, so yeah, that's kind of the basis of the project. What's going on down what's happening at our facility is we are receiving the gas at a certain pressure. We need it to be at a certain pressure to go into our system. We regulate the gas if it exceeds the pressure um because we are only rated to a certain MAOP in our pipeline. And then we meter the gas. Those are the main things. And then we also provide gas to um green gas for their operations. >> So it kind of it comes to you in a usable state. Is that right? >> Yeah. So we are regulated we have a tariff um that's negotiated by the state. So the Embridge gas tariff which is on our website um their gas has to meet that tariff quality standard in order to be injected into our pipeline. So this process would it it would it filter or use some process to remove contaminants or is it just getting it up to pressure? >> Yeah. Um so bio gas in its raw form um is somewhere I think it's like 55% methane. In order to be tariff quality gas it has to be I think 93% methane. >> You're enriching. >> So that's the major part of the process. They're also removing harmful um gases like hydrogen and sulfide um from the gas. That's part of their upgrading equipment. That's all happening on their facility to make it pipeline quality. So >> So would that be flared off? Is that you know what happens to the hydrogen sulfide when you is it flared or >> Yeah, these are great questions. Um once again that is part of their facility. What I know is um there's a knockout system that they're using. So I don't think it's actually producing any um consumable objects. I think it's all handled their own facility and there's nothing released into the air. But once again, not our facility. So I couldn't tell you much about >> that. Questions. Are you guys familiar with and in agreeance with the 19 conditions and three conclusions? >> Yes. >> Let's get it done. >> Great. Thank you. >> Any discussion on this one? Have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve the Questar Gash Company DBA embbridge gas conditional use permit with the 19 conditions and three conclusions. >> Second it. We have a motion. We have a second. >> I'm sorry about that. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? >> Okay. Moving on. Number eight, the Suncore Edge Excavation Vehicle Repair Shop conditional use permit. >> Yes. So, uh this is actually an amendment of an original 2012 uh cup for this site uh for the sale and storage of landscaping and building materials which would currently fall under use types 3400 storage and warehousing. Uh you may recall that um Edge Excavation came in a couple years ago uh to expand their operation to the west. Um that conditional use permit was never recorded um and is void. Uh as you can see from the aerial um they have been operating on there uh storing materials. Um the particular project we're or property we're looking at now is the one that's along the highway. Um it is currently being operated separately from the parcels to the west. Um it's being operated by Suncor Construction and Materials Inc. Um and so as part of an enforcement action and a desire to build a new vehicle repair shop because their one within Logan city limits um is being demolished next year. Uh we have we felt that we could proceed with the CUP amendment on this property. Um and then concurrently there is an enforcement case being pursued on the properties to the west that are don't have a a current or approved conditional use permit there. So uh just to let you know there is that separation. >> Angie is so so do we have two separate owners then or? >> So the property owner is the same but the front property along the highway is being leased to Suncor. So it's being operated separately from the operation in the back. >> And yeah it's that operation in the back by Edge Excavation that is um currently under a code enforcement case. But the front parcel did receive proper authorization to be there. >> Yeah. So they have a current uh 2012 C for this parcel here. Um and they are not asking for any changes to that C. So they're going to have to remain uh in compliance with those conditions. So the only only thing that's being amended as part of this one is uh the request to add that additional use type the general vehicle repair uh so that they can construct a maintenance building to service primarily their vehicles and construction equipment that they operate. Uh this will not be open to the general public and because of that uh UD do is not requiring any improvements and um the existing county road along the north boundary will not require any additional improvements either. But again um the condition is explicitly that they do not do general vehicle repair for the public just for their own vehicles that are used on site and land u equipment that they use in their construction business. And the sorry just to follow up on the issue with the the west par solar west CUP. >> Yeah. >> The separate cup. >> So there's currently not a CUP now, but when they came in a couple years ago, it was a separate >> CU on the west. >> That's not that's what's not in compliance. And is it um like none of the conditions are met or is there one or two sticking? So it was primarily an issue with the wetlands and doing a wetland delineation and now the army corps is involved in doing some work but they're continuing to operate um outside of that. So um so I think that covers the basis. Um the structure is they described it and provided elevations for is kind of conx boxes with a metal shed. Uh it's not clear I haven't heard from building department if that would actually uh be approved in that type. So, we're not approving a specific type of building, but just in general a 6,000 foot um maintenance building. Um and then as they work through the building permit process, um they can determine if that's going to meet the building um the occupancy for that building type. So, uh but again, with that, uh there's just a few conditions of approval. Again, the main one just being uh no general vehicle repair for the public and that will um allow them to kind of proceed without any major improvements to the the roads or getting additional UD do approval. If you have any questions, I can answer those. >> How big was the building again? >> It's about 6,000 is what they're describing here. >> Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chair, council members or commission members. So, my name is Greg Fund. I represent Suncor, formerly Sunrock, if you're familiar with that name. Um, thank you for your time this tonight to uh look at this amendment. We've reviewed the staff report. Um, obviously, a lot of it's the conditions that she just mentioned, which is we're servicing our own vehicles. We're currently in Logan. that side will be demolished come January. So, we're we appreciate staff working with us to come up with a solution here to have a temporary and consider it temporary till we eventually get a we'll say a more permanent facility up here either by acquisition or or building one. But we uh think this is a good solution for us in the interim as that building comes down to be able to come over here and and build this structure and and operate this. So happy to answer any questions. Um we'll work with staff to meet the other conditions or the the next steps I'll say the application zoning clearance and that sort of thing. So >> any questions? >> Yeah, I was going to ask um where's your existing facility in Logan? >> It is just north of 600 south or 600 north. Um, it's the big uh I'm not from here, so I'm trying to I drove right past you, John. I when I came in here, but it's um what's the uh big >> I think it's by >> Shriers. I I was like I was going to Yeah, just south. It's right into Shribers right there. >> It's kind of tucked back in like you can't really see it from either road actually. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Just Mr. Mr. Applicant. Uh, >> Mr. Flint, you did say that you're familiar with and comfortable with the 10 conditions, conclusions. You're you're comfortable with all that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. >> Would you just ask if there's anybody here that Thank you. >> Is there anyone here to comment that would like to comment on this conditional use permit? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Approval. >> I'd take my turn. Well, somebody else wants to use theirs. Go ahead, Val. >> Yeah, I like yours. Get her done. >> 10 10 conditions and two conclusions. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. >> I'll second. >> Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. >> All those in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Okay. All right. Next one is item number nine, Nixon and Nixon, Inc. Uh, conditional use permit revocation. Attorneys from he'll be in here justable in this room tonight. Hey, uh recognizing that >> it's almost 8:00. >> Oh. Um Commissioner Sand brings up a point of point of order that uh we are approaching our deadline. Um we need to uh plan to extend the the meeting as we're as we're getting ready for this. >> Any uh would uh commissioner like to make a motion Extend to >> 8:30. >> You are optimistic. >> 8:45. Okay. >> To 8:45. >> 8:45. >> Okay. Be realistic. >> We'll make another one then. >> Okay. We have a motion. Have a second. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? >> commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name is Jarus Kendall. I am uh a county attorney uh one of our civil attorneys for the county and uh we're just going to present on um the issues related to the the Nixon CUP revocation. Um, obviously you haven't decided to revoke. That's not what we're saying is happening. But, um, I'm here to speak on that. The the issues before the the commission really are about access and the change in the nature of use. Um, and and for us to understand truly what's going on, I have to go through a timeline. I have to share with you when this all started and where we've ended up. So, I'll try and and be considerate at the time, but we have to go through the facts because the facts uh inform um what our legal analysis is and uh the reasons that we've made some of the conclusions that we have. So, this goes back all the way to um October 23rd, 1984. That's over 40 years ago. The county commission, which was the county's legislative body at the time, approved a reszone for Nixon and Nixon, which I'll just refer to as Nixon from here on out. Uh they approved an agricultural zone to be uh uh put into a planned unit development zone. Now, what we have um is on on your screen, you'll see and and this is on paper, too. So, if you if you want to look at the screen, you can. If you like paper more, it's there for you. Um, this is part of the information that we have. This is the records we have on uh the PUD application. You might be asking why what how does this relate to the the cups? Well, this drives the cup in 1984. So, one of the stipulations for the rezone was for Nixon to provide a UD do approved turn lane. This was um a stipulation, as you can see up here, we have it highlighted. This was a county commission proceeding of the public hearing for Nixon to receive the PUD resone. Under there, it says Yates moved he he was one of the commissioners that the reszone request be approved with the following um stipulations. And number four is really what I pointed out that a U DOT approved turn lane be provided and then the motion pass unanimously. So, ever since 1984, um there has been this UD do turn lane that was considered for uh this PUD development. On our next document, you'll see put that up. This is going to be part of the application material for the rezone. This is shows the uh PUB site, the development. Um in this these are involving some of the the parcels at hand here. On there you'll see that there's a a portion that says gravel. That is um the 1984 cup and we'll talk about that in a little bit, but that's the portion uh of this map that we're talking about. Then phase two is is part of Nixon's parcel parcel 10 and then above that parcel three and then phase one is is parcel three and phase three right there is parcel three. All of that uh butts up to highway 91. Now we're going to move into the actual cup. So on December 5th, 1984, the planning commission at the time approved the C for Nixon for 12 1/2 acres on parcel 10, which is now parcel 49. Um, as stated in the request, so this is um the gravel pit request from uh Nixon to the planning commission. the the request uh indicated that the primary purpose will be road construction for the planned unit development area. So, the reason I showed you the planned unit development so you can have that context to see that the cup was for them to um get a permit to be able to extract for their PUB for the planned unit development and um and that that that they were going to construct a road for that that unit development. Nixon also indicated as point number four of that request on this same page here and highlighted that a private road will extend north to the PUD and then west to the to Highway 91. So, it was anticipated under um this cup that there was going to be a road created through all of Nixon's parcels and that was um those were conditions of uh or what was presented to the planning commission and then the planning commission approved um the cup with that condition that a private road will extend north to the PUB and then west highway. So if we go to the next page, Ronnie, these are commission uh meeting minutes. So this explains what was going on in that meeting. So the primary purpose so so basically the planning commission adopts in their meeting minutes the primary purpose for the gravel will be road construction for the planned unit development area recently resoned immediately to the north and west. And then number four is that a private road will extend north to the PUD and then it's west on Highway 91. The PUD is all of Nixon's property. It's um all of those uh parcels that we've talked about and that goes up through those parcels and then left to the highway. So that was one of the conditions that was um part of that cup. Then we're going to go to July 2nd, 1987. 1987 Nixon sold parcel 49. So it was actually still part of parcel 10, but when he sold um the 12 acres that was labeled as gravel, it became parcel 49. Sold that to Lrand Johnson Construction Company. And so in 1987, that became parcel 49. um it became partial 49 and um it be it went under the ownership of Lrand Johnson. So in 1987, not long after the cup, Lrand Johnson now has ownership of of that parcel and and has the rights um to the cup to continue extracting and so forth. Then on John June 16th, 1993, the Grant Johnson enters into an agreement with Cash County. And this this agreement is going to be really important to Cash County and and what we're arguing here today. This um agreement shows that up to this point of this agreement which was uh entered into in 1993, so almost 10 years after the cup was offered, um one of the recital indicates that Johnson desires access from its parcel to US Highway 91 for purpose of the extraction, removal, and transportation of gravel from its proper property. So we what we learn is that there is no access at this time that that that road that um was under the cup was was never created and um that John in order for Johnson to be able to extract he's asking the county to be able to uh produce or construct this road. The agreement also uh under section one. So right here you have section one on permission. It states that uh Johnson has the permission to access parcel 49 over and across parcel 14 to and from US highway. So what this shows is Lrand Johnson so far is is re requesting and then receiving access through the county's um parcel which is um I believe parcel 14. Yes, parcel 14. So the agreement is clear and under section two it states that the access is not a public access nor open to other commercial vehicles. So Johnson is the only one whose commercial vehicles can be on there and the access is only um is is private. It's not a public access. It also establishes that the agreement does not constitute a permanent grant of easement. So there's no uh Johnson does not have an easement. uh he he does not have a permanent access. It's just access that's permitted under the agreement. Additionally, the agreement under section three there gave Johnson permission to construct and maintain a roadway across the county's property. So for Johnson to be able to have this access, he is the one who has to construct this property or excuse me, this road and this roadway. And it's Johnson who's who does construct that roadway. Johnson is also the one retain who retained the responsibility of maintaining that road, securing the road, and covering all expenses related to the road that were reasonably necessary and requested by the county. And so the county clearly is the one who still has control over this access. They're just giving permission for Johnson with these these parameters that are given to Johnson. And finally, the agreement was very clear and under section six that this agreement is nonassignable without the written consent of both parties. So for this agreement to be assigned to anyone else, it would have to be consented to by the county and also by Johnson. We're going to go ahead and forward now to July 15, 2008. And this is actually a letter of agreement between Nixon and Johnson. And what this agreement, as far as I can tell, reading through it, is a is an agreement between Johnson and Nixon for Johnson to continue uh doing operations on Nixon's property that is now um parcel number 10. So Johnson is is doing some work north of his parcel on parcel 49 into uh Nixon's parcel is is what this agreement seems to be saying. you know, it makes the this is how much it's going to cost. This is has all the terms uh of that agreement. Um and then down further, ironically, this arrow was not meant for today. This was done many many years ago. Um but that is the point that the county wants to point out. It says Nixon are assigned to have access to said property to extent Johnson can convey using road Johnson built to uh transport gravel from site. So, this this agreement between Nixon and Johnson recognizes that Johnson is the one who built the road that Johnson um can only convey any rights that we have. And under the agreement that we have with Cash County and Johnson, it's a non-assignable right unless there's consent from the county. So, this agreement um shows a number of things. It shows that Johnson was still operating on parcel 49 in 2008. It shows that Nixon recognized Johnson was the one operating on that parcel and that Nixon allowed Johnson to operate uh on Nixon's property and that Johnson is the one who would have been using the county's road under the access agreement. So, so far Johnson is still the one using access. This is several years after, you know, we're getting to be 20 years after. And um Johnson is the one who has access the the agreement and and I already covered that. Sorry. Um so it also shows that Nixon recognized Johnson as the one who built the road and this also shows that Johnson is the only conveying is only conveying access to the extent Johnson can convey. We're going to go ahead and forward now to April 14th, 2017. A coop for parcel 10, and a portion of parcel 3 was then granted to Nixon. The cop did not apply to parcel 49. Johnson still owned uh that parcel in 2017. Um right here, this just shows if you go down to the bottom, you show the findings of fact number one, the last sentence. It says this request does not include the existing extraction operation on parcel 49 to the south. So just making it very clear that uh those parcels are still separate under the cup. Um, as we go into the next document, Nixon represented to the county in its letter of intent that access was through 6800 North, which ends on county property where the paved road meets dirt and does not continue uh to parcel 49. So 6,800 North is a paved road. It goes uh maybe 500 or so feet. I could be off. it's it doesn't go the full extent to the parcel. Um and and so the access actually doesn't go all the way to uh parcel 49. However, in two exhibits that were produced to the county, Nixon represented that it had access to Nixon's parcel through Johnson's road, the same road that Johnson executed an agreement with the county to construct and maintain. Um, and this this is one of those maps. It's it's not as clear on the screen, but you have it uh on your paper there if you want. It's showing in the center there. It says access road. And that's that's the road that we have today. If you go into GIS, you have some copies of the GIS map right there. That's that's how the road looks today for the most part. It's the dirt part of that road. That's not 6800 North. That's a private road on Cash County's land that goes that Johnson built and and we know is private because the county did not agree for that to be a public access. And then this this is just another uh document that was presented to the county uh showing that there's access. Now, in section 11 of this uh conditional use permits findings, the county relied on exhibit D to indicate that there was access through county property to Nixon's Nixon's property. Now, I'll point out that in this the county is never saying that yes, Nixon has access. It's just saying there is access right here. Number 11. Access to the site is from Smithville Pit Road, a county road at approximately 6800 North. This uh county employee was just simply indicating that there was access. Right now, at this point under the the cup, the only access that was was permitted was the access that Johnson had. Johnson still had access to that, but um but Nixon did not. And then in section 14, the county further relied on an access agreement with the county for access to the excavation area, which again, the only agreement that was in place was the agreement with Johnson. So that agreement cannot apply to Nixon because that agreement was never made with Nixon. It was never consented to to be assigned to Nixon. And um the information that was presented to the county was as if the uh there there was access through that road, but there was no legal legitimate access that was provided to Nixon at that time. The only person who had or business who had access was Johnson. Finally, I want to go to our last document that we have in the timeline. This is September 6, 2022. This is when Johnson sold uh his parcel parcel 49 to Nixon through a quick claim deed. This was approximately 5 years after Nixon got a cup for partial 10 and part of parcel 3. This was in September on September 6, 2022. So Johnson had access arguably up until September 22nd. In fact, he probably could still use that agreement because it hasn't technically terminated, but he has no need to access that property for the purposes under the agreement. So that agreement as far as Johnson is concerned is is no longer um applicable because he doesn't own that property anymore. But it is it is important to understand that Johnson owned this property even through the time that they had the cup and to the time uh that uh he sold it back to Nixon in September 20 2022. And at that time and ever since, there has never been an agreement. There's never been an assignment for that access to Nixon. So, we go to county code uh 1760. A conditional use permit may be revoked by the land use authority if the land use authority finds that one or more of five conditions exist. Now, the county agrees with Nixon that the code states the planning commission may revoke a CUP. So, it is up to the planning commission to determine whether you will revoke this. Um, it does not require you to even if you find that there's uh conditions that are to be revocable. However, the county believes that the non-compliance on on the part of Nixon is such that Nixon cannot operate under their cups without coming into compliance by getting a viable access through their property. So, I'm going to go to the first uh cup which is 1984. The two there are two issues of non-compliance that we've presented and the first is the nature of the use for which the conditional use permit was granted has changed. The primary purpose or nature of the use for this conditional use permit was for road construction for the PUD the planned use uh unit development area that was reszoned immediately to the north and west. This was indicated in both Nixon's request and during the planning commission meeting where the CUP was approved and in the documentation that we've provided to you. While other development projects were permitted under the CPU and the county recognizes that these other development projects were subordinate to the um the main or the primary purpose of the cup which was to develop a PUD and and build a road up through that that PUD. That was the purpose of that cup. In other words, the main reason for getting the cup or the nature for which the cup was used was supposed to be for developing a road to go to and through the PUD and extracting for other purposes was minimal in comparison. There is no evidence that the extraction efforts uh taking place on parcel 49 were used for the purpose of developing a road to the PUB. Hence why we're here or the the issue is over access. If Nixon had built that road that they they were required to under their 1984 cup, we would not be here. And there is uh the nature of the use for which the cup was granted. The county argues Nixon has not met that commission that condition under the cup. And in fact, for for most of the time that parcel 49 was owned by Johnson. So, it's only recently that Nixon has come into ownership of that that parcel and has been using it for extraction purposes. Now, the other uh non-compliance with county code is that one or more of the conditions of the conditional use permit have not been met. Specifically, condition four of the cup has not been met. Condition 4 indicates a private road will extend north to the PUB and then west to Highway 91. So the commissioner who made a motion to approve the COP indicated that if Mr. Nixon were willing to meet the above conditions, he would favor the request. He then m made a motion for approval. It was seconded and then it was unanimously approved by the planning commission. One of those conditions was for the development of a road, the road that I just talked about. However, that condition was never met and is now over 40 years since that cup. So the evidence shows that no road was constructed on the relevant parcels to the highway and and therefore for that reason they the county argues that they're in non-compliance with with county code for that. Now that's the 1984 cup. We're going to go to the 2017 cup and uh the issue of non-compliance is that one or more of the conditions of the conditional use permit have not been met. Specifically, condition one of the cup has not been met. According to condition one, the proponent and operators, so proponent being Nixon and operators being anyone that's operating under Nixon or for Nixon must abide by the information as provided in the application and in this the cup report. So to abide by the legal definition to abide by is to obey or act in accordance with or or in conformity to something within Nixon's application and the cup report. Access is identified as a private road through the county's adjacent parcel. The findings in the cup also indicate that there was access uh an access agreement in place allowing access access to the excav exc excavation site. There is access. That much is clear. The problem is that the only one who had access was Johnson through the agreement that Johnson had with the county. Nixon cannot abide by the information he provided to the county, nor the information that the county relied on. I'll I'll admit that the county did rely on that information in its finding because Nixon is not the subject of the agreement permitting access across the county's property. Nor does Nixon have such an agreement with the county. There's no agreement allowing access for Nixon. Uh the agreement was never assigned to Nixon because it cannot be assigned unless consented to by the county and John and Johnson and the county has not uh consented to such an agreement and any access Nixon has been using over the county is without written permission or authoration authorization to do so. So written authorization or written permission. We don't have that for Nixon at this time. Therefore, condition one cannot be met because Nixon does not um have legal access through the county's property to access uh the excavation sites. That covers the cups. Uh we are aware that um Nixon has made some uh responses and in in response he has argued um that they have a vested critical infrastructure material use. I'm probably not going to say that a lot of times because that's a tongue twister, but um basically a vested use. I'll just shorten it up. So, their attorney further represented that they have a vested right in the county's road even. So, so we have two assertions that there's a vested right in in the properties that Nixon has um that they have this excavation right and that they have a vested right in using the county's road uh for access for these purposes. So the county disagrees with both. For an entity to become vested under Utah code, and this is 1727A 10001, they must meet three requirements. First, they have to have a critical infrastructure materials operation use as defined in state code. So we have to meet that definition. They also have to be a crit critical infrastructure materials operator as defined in state code. So they have to meet that definition as well. And then the use is an existing legal use. So they have to meet that. So they have to meet all three of these requirements. It's not just one or the other. It's all three. According to Utah code, a critical infrastructure materials operation use is and this is how the state code defines it. The extraction, excavation, processing or reprocessing of critical infrastructure materials. crit critical infrastructure materials are defined in state code as sand, gravel, and rock aggregate. So, the county does not disagree that Nixon meets this definition for his parcels. We don't. Um, however, regarding the county's road, the county does not agree that there is a critical infrastructure use on the county's road. The county's road is not an extraction of critical infrastructure materials. It is not an excavation of such materials. No such materials are being processed on that road and no such materials are being reprocessed on that road. The extraction, excavation, processing, and reprocessing, if any, is all happening on Nixon's property. This requirement is not met with regard to the county's road, but is likely met with regard to Nixon's own parcel. To the second requirement to become vested is that the use must be by a critical infrastructure materials operator. that is defined as an entity that A owns, controls or manages a critical infrastructure material use and B has produced commercial quantities of material for that use. Again, the county does not disagree that Nixon uh meets this definition for his parcels. However, regarding the county's road, the county does not agree that there is such a use. Nixon does not own the road. They do not control the road and there is no material uh use on the road meaning the road is not for extraction, excavation and so forth. The county's road has not produced any commercial quantities of material and therefore with regard to the county's road this requirement is not met. Not to mention um Nixon does not have any control over that road whatsoever. The third requirement is that there is that there must be an existing legal use. This is the requirement that the county will show is not being met for Nixon's own parcels and for the county's road. For Nixon to have an existing legal use, they need a valid cup that they are following in accordance with the law. Nixon does not have a valid um legal use for extraction on his properties nor on the county's road. In fact, the reason that we're here today is arguing that Nixon does not have a valid legal um cup at this time. Therefore, for them to be able to have that vested use, they need to have an existing legal use. If they have violated and are in violation of their cups, they are not they don't have a legal um use or excuse me, their use is not legal. There's not an existing legal use. So, let me just explain this in a little bit of detail. Both Nixon CUPs are non-compliant with county code requirements and the evidence for this has been produced in great detail. So, I've already explained how u the cups have been violated. You all know that. I don't need to rehash that. The definition requires an existing legal use. Nixon filed a declaration and so part of being vested, you have to file a declaration. Nixon filed a declaration required by state law on August 25th, 2025, which is about two weeks ago. That's after they were put on notice of their cup being in danger of revocation and that they have violated county code. So the they're claiming a vested use after they have been notified that of this revocation hearing. They cannot claim that they are vested because they're not they are in violation of county code. there meaning they are do not have a legal um authorization to continue operating with that permit. Nixon also does not have an existing legal use on the county's road. Nixon does not own the road. They do not control the road and they certainly do not have legal permission to use it. Not even Johnson, who had legal permission to access the road, would have been able to claim he was vested on the county's road because he did not have control of the road. he had permission. Therefore, since Nixon cannot show that they have an existing legal use, they cannot claim that they are vested on their own parcels, nor the county's road. Now, even if Nixon has a vested use, the county still has an argument that the vested use does not prohibit the commission from revoking the cups for an issue over access. Under Utah code 1727A 10003, becoming vested simply means that the entity with a vested use receives additional rights to the property for that use. So we we need to understand that a vested use means that you are receiving additional rights that allow you to operate um extraction. And those rights include expanding to contiguous land that is under the ownership or control of the operator, expanding the use to new land that is contiguous land to the surface or subsurface land. Use operate, use, operate, construct, reconstruct, and so forth. Buildings on any surface or subsurface land that the operator owns or controls. The operator may also increase increase production or volume, alter methods of extraction or processing and so forth. Discontinue, suspend, terminate, deactivate or continue to reactivate use. All of these are additional rights that are allowed when you are a vested use. However, to expand the operator to expand the operator must give notice to the county um let's see the county legislative body. So it would be the council. So even even though those rights are given even in some of those rights they still have to go to the county to make sure that the expanded use is going to be for the health sa public health safety and welfare other than the additional rights afforded to the operator. Nothing in state code interferes with the county's ability to hold a vested use operator accountable for not meeting the requirements of their cup. So reading through that state code, yeah, they get all these additional rights if if they are vested, have a vested use, but it doesn't prohibit the county from being able to um meet or hold, excuse me, let me back up. Other than the additional rights afforded to the operator, nothing in state code interferes with the county's ability to hold a vested use operator accountable for not meeting the requirements of the cup that do not pertain to the vested use additional rights. And that's what we have here today. We have an issue of access that has nothing to do with vested use. That has um it really has to do with whether or not they can access the property that they they need to get to for them to continue with their CUP. It is not the county's responsibility to provide, find, or help um an applicant to have a use or access to their their property. I'm wrapping up here, so you should be happy. Basically, you have several issues before you today. One, did Nixon violate their 1984 cup? And if they violated it, are you going to revoke it? That's going to be a question that you'll have to answer. Did Nixon violate their 2017 CUP? If so, are you going to revoke it? When making these uh decisions, the county wants to point out that the county is not obligated to enter into an agreement with Nixon. Entering into an agreement with Nixon should not be a consideration in today's meetings. I'm not saying that the county is not still considering that. That's actually above and beyond what I I am able to do. It's going to be with elected officials and other individuals who have the power and authority to negotiate contracts and so forth with the county. But for the purposes of today's meeting, entering into agreement is not uh what the planning commission is here to to consider. It's whether or not they revoked their or they violated their CP CUP and if you're going to revoke it. The the issues of revocation boil down to for the 1984 cup, did Nixon change the nature of the use and did Nixon fail to construct a road to the PUD and then to the highway for for their own property through their own property? And then for the 2000 cup, can Nixon abide by misinformation by the misinformation, whether intentional or not, I'm not saying it was intentional, that he represented to the county when they presented that they had access to uh through county property. And then based on this information provided tonight, um the county believes that that there is enough information to show that there can be a violation of these both of these cups. Uh we are happy to respond to any questions that you might have at this time. I'm not sure if uh how you'll proceed, if you'll let uh Nixon respond and then give us a a final opportunity to respond. um if if we're not going to have a final opportunity to respond, then there are a few considerations that have been brought up by Nixon that we haven't addressed and I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to address those. So, I guess that would be my question. Are we going to be able to have an opportunity to respond to any of the uh >> you got to get our pay scale much higher than it is right now? >> $15 a night is getting a little short here. >> Just talk to Nolan. I'm not getting paid much either. >> Any >> I don't have any questions for him yet, >> Mr. Chairman. As far as as far as come back to to uh legal agreement, >> I would be inclined to have a to have a followup after after we hear from the applicant. >> Okay, great. So, should we hold our questions for him then? Or should we >> do we want to if there are some Germaine questions, we probably ought to take care of those right now before we hear from the applicant. >> Well, we is it okay, Mr. Chair? If I ask in reading the information that we had beforehand and and then following this, there's no question that the county has some some information here, valid information and such. But but my concern is why now? >> That that's a great concern. So what happened was the county was not aware of of the situation. They just simply did not know about the agreement. They didn't no one who had basically it sounds like legal was never a prize of the situation. They never looked at that agreement to see that hey this agreement doesn't apply to Nixon at all. And so the why now is um the the director of public works brought this to our attention. We looked at it and we said hey this agreement is is not for Nixon. This is for Johnson. And as we started looking into it, we realized that there are some serious concerns. And and as soon as we started realizing that there were serious concerns, we started engaging in communication with with Nixon um and and others who have represented him, his attorneys, and um we've been trying to work on an agreement. And so that's a very great question, but we simply one of the things that we have to realize is the county has been growing exponentially and and that means that our services are growing, our capabilities are increasing. We're no longer in the days where where we can get by on handshake deals and other situations that that we now are better prepared and better able to handle. You know, back then in 2017, they had maybe one uh civil attorney to be able to help with all these things. We now have more attorneys that we can be able to look at and work with the different department heads and and other individuals. There is no ill intent here. I know that there are allegations that that's the case, but I can guarantee you that there's no ill intent. It simply came because our public works director pointed it out to us. We looked at it and said, "Yep, that's a problem. We need to work on it." And so we've been trying to work on it. We didn't revoke back in May and actually back in March and April when this came came to us. There have been a lot of efforts, a lot of history of us trying to work through it. >> Just one other question in that. So I I'm aware I've been in construction before and I'm aware of some of the pits that the county has and I'm aware of a pit up north that there's some controversy on an access point there that the county could be a part of. Not trying to change the subject. Sure. But the thing I find fascinating >> is that when you look on the parcel maps, the access road to that pit and cove and this one here now both say private. That wasn't before. When did that happen? >> Um that's not something our office did. And >> did it? >> Well, hey, we got >> But but here's here's the other thing. >> Um GIS is not that's that's my understanding. It's been brought to my attention. I would I would imagine well we have a GIS crew and I I think that Matt might be able to answer to that to that maybe. I don't know but but the the issue is that GIS might say that it's private. Well, the county has create treated that as as a private road. You saw in the Nixon agreement that um that it's private and GIS they are constantly trying to adjust to information. So, if they get better information than they had before, they're going to go this and this is my explanation that I've received from the public works director who works with the people in GIS. They're going to make that update and make that change in GIS. It it it's hard to say that just because it changed all of a sudden that there's ill intent. Um, that's as far as I've seen, there's no in ill intent on the county's part. We've just shown you the timeline and the misrepresentation that has been provided to the county whether it's in intended or not. I'm not saying that it has, but we're we're coming to a point where we are actually receiving information and are better able to process through that and provide this information. So, I don't know anything about the other the other situation. I can't speak to that and and I don't think that's that would be something I would have to look at. I know that the county has closed down another pit because of access issues and problems with that pit and contractual issues. So, it's not like the county is just targeting. We are not targeting. We just had um issues. You know, we've dealt with Kronquist and other other, you know, violations that have come to our attention. We're trying to handle the ones that come to our attention and trying to do our best to look at the legal considerations. >> Other questions for legal? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh we stood on behalf of Nixon and Nixon. I'm one of the attorneys who's been working on this from our end. I do have a statement prepared, but I'd like to jump into answering a question put forward by uh Council Member Christensen. So, to the best of our understanding, that road changed on the GIS from public to private in 2025 earlier this year. That was something we put forward in our letter. Um, and I can confirm that while I appreciate the representations made by county that that road uh has always been treated as private, the county has applied for and received UD do money to to maintain that road as a public road at least through 2024. So through the 2024 application, the county has received money to uh maintain that road as a public road. And I not only is that supported by direct communications from UDOT, but I believe that county representatives will admit that they have received that money. So, the idea of it having been treated as private when the county is applying for and receiving public money to to fund that road is is somewhat problematic. Um, as I mentioned, my name is Wayman Stod. I'm the attorney for Nixon and Nixon as it relates to or one of the attorneys as it relates to these two parcel numbers. Um, as you know and as we've shown you, your predecessors on the planning commission approved Nixon's application in 2017 for a conditional use permit to mine and distribute gravels to homes, developments, and commercial projects around Cash County. Sitting before you are numerous representate representatives of Nixon as well as their subcontractors who among others represent Kartcher Homes, Nex Construction, Visionary Homes, Savage Construction, and even Kilgore Companies in Geneva, who own their own independent gravel contracts, work with Nixon in order to deliver gravel to properties more close to the northern end of the valley. Nixon's parcel has helped in lowering traffic, reducing congestion on roads, as well as providing safer access to this me this mandatory material for countless parcels in northern Utah. Each of these organizations have used Nixon's parcels to provide the materials for countless cash county residents as well as large developments including commercial and otherwise. As f you are further aware, as part of the 2017 17 CUP, the staff was asked to evaluate whether Nixon and Nixon complied with the requirements of Cash County Code. In no few locations in the application, Cash County affirmatively stated that Nixon complied with the access requirements. There's the point where it was brought up um that there was a representation made in the communication. There was a latter point. Are your exhibits still here or did you take those down? >> They have. >> Okay. Um there was a representation made by the public works director that that access was there. And then finally, one of the conditions on the 2017 cup was that Nixon improve the public access road for about 500 ft past the termination of the public road. Nixon did do that improvement on that public road. So there is not a question here that the county knew about the access. The question and I guess what's being put forward is well even though we investigated it and even though we affirmatively stated that there was access and and not just relying on a representation we made independent findings that there were access and required you to work on improving that access. We didn't find that you had access. That shouldn't be on us. And and frankly members of the commission that's that's not applicable. The idea that the county can affirmatively state that access exists, grant a CUP for it, and come back 9 years later and say, "Well, we goofed." There wasn't actually access, and because of that, we're going to revoke your cup, and we're going to deprive countless families throughout Northern Cash Valley of the material we need. The specific quotes are that Nixon had quote access to the site from Smithfield Pit Road, a county road at 6800 North off of SR91. The public works inspector specifically stated that quote a county road, Smithfield Pit Road, extends east of Highway 89. At the end of the pavement, also the approximate end of the county road, a private access road, extends to the Nixon property. There is an access agreement in place with Cash County across the county property for access to the excavation area. The requirement from the planning commission was quote a 500t section immediately following the end of the pavement is a 25- ft wide gravel roadway. This section of the access is failing and repair of the subbase and regard uh regrading is necessary. Those were composed into condition number nine which required that prior to recording the 500 foot section immediately following the end of the pavement that is failing must be repaired by the proponent by Nixon. Those repairs were completed as required and Nixon has been safely serving the residents of Cash County in an environmentally friendly economically competitive way ever since. However, and I think as e echoed by the commission, for reasons unknown to Nixon, in May of this year, suddenly we had revocations and notices that we would be having a gate put across that property and we'd be locked out of our our operation. Um, first it was allegedly because of indemnification. Nixon immediately circulated and offered agreement where we agreed to indemnify Cash County for any injury that occurs along that parcel or any other impact along that parcel as it relates to Nixon. Cash County reached out to the counties, sorry, Nixon reached out to the county insurer and asked if that road created any kind of insurance risk or liability problem for the county and was told no. Next, there was an issue regarding compensation. Nixon is prepared to compensate the county for its use of that road. Um then county the county indicated that there were issues with where the road was located because it wanted to access the gravel on its property and Nixon offered to relocate the easement in order to in order to minimize the impacts to the county from the existence of that road. So Nixon has spared no expense in trying to negotiate this resolution. And frankly the reason for that is because any other access is impossible. Nixon has reached out to UD do about trying to get access off of Highway 89 to the parcel and UD do has told us that because Highway 89 is a limited access highway, it will not grant any add any alternative access for Nixon off the parcel. The exact reasons why as proponed by UD do were that there's already a perfectly sufficient access along Smithfield Canyon Road. So we can't get access to our parcel because the access that we've been given by the county for the last across the two cups 30 years 40 years precludes us from getting access to the road directly through UD do as is clear in the 2017 cup county affirmed independently that Nixon has access across the county parcel. While the county asserts that it's unable to locate any agreement, the 2017 cup is the agreement in question. Nixon has used, exclusively used, improved, and maintained that road since the 2017 CUP and reliance on that finding. The county made a lot made made substantial note of a 1997 agreement which it purports governs any access across this parcel. The transferability language of that agreement states specifically that it's not transferable except by written consent of the parties. The Lrand Johnson agreement specifically said that Nixon was to have any access that Lrand Johnson had. And that's the writing that under that interpretation assuming the county's interpretation is valid, which we disagree that it is. But assuming that it were, that constitutes a writing on behalf of LRAN Johnson. And I don't know what the 2017 cup constitutes if not a writing on behalf of the county. The county independently determined that there was access. It affirmatively stated it in three separate places. It's impossible for me to tell now how that does not constitute a writing that transfers the interest from Lrand. Moving to the vested parcel issue. Um as a preliminary matter, this vesting statute is rel relatively new. It was enacted as part of House Bill 355 which was enacted earlier this year. And frankly, it it attempts to address some of these issues relating to going back and finding issues with cups or or vesting requirements and revocations that result from that. Um, the county does not contest anything about Nixon's use of his parcels except for the fact that they contest that he doesn't have a legal right to use the parcels. Except we're here today for a CUP revocation hearing. There's no automatic removal of a CUP that results from a failure to comply. even if a failure to comply occurred. Um Nixon has had access and has used that access safely and successfully for the past 40 years. So to say that there has been no legal use under a CUP that the county now has a process and procedure for revoking just doesn't hold water. Frankly, if we have to go through a process of revoking the CUP, a process that, and I'll emphasize this again later, but is discretionary on this commission as to whether or not to revoke the CUP, prior to its revocation, it can be nothing but a legal conforming use. So, as it relates to the parcel, the county has conceded in essence that it is a vested use. As to the roadway, there is no question that Nixon has used the road. There is no question that Nixon has repaired the road. There's no question that the county recognized that Nixon had access to the road. And frankly, that road currently only services Nixon's parcel. So it it's difficult to say how it's not something that Nixon used and controlled for the period issue in this. The important language from House Bill 355 is notwithstanding a political subdivision's prohibition restriction or limitation on a critical infrastructure material use adopted after the establishment of the critical infrastructures material use. The rights of a critical infrastructure material use operator with a vested critical infrastructure materials use include the right to use, operate, construct, reconstruct, restore, extend, expand, maintain, repair, alter, substitute, modernize, upgrade, and replace equipment processes, facilities, and buildings on any subsurface or surface land that the critical use uh infrastructure material user owns or controls before May 7th, 2025. This commission could in theory determine today that it wishes to revoke the cup governing the Nixon parcel. In the event that the commission chooses to do so under House Bill 355, the only thing that would occur is that Cash County would lose the ability to work with Nixon as it relates to certain restrictions. Nixon would maintain under his vesting rights the right to use, to operate, to expand his operations, to extract material, and everything else. Notably, that could be better for Nixon. It could be better for Nixon if we asked you today to revoke the CUP. But frankly, that's not how Nixon operates. Nixon has operated in compliance with the rules of Cash County since its operations began when it was part of the 1984 CUP. And we want to continue doing so. We want to negotiate a resolution to this roadway issue. We want to fix the access issue. We proposed and and apparently there's been some communication issues whether it's from our end or the other end. But I'll tell you now affirmatively that Nixon is open to potential relocation of the easement to somewhere else on the county property. It's open to uh compensation as it relates to the use of that property. It's open to continuing to maintain, repair, and and perform all required maintenance and improvements on that on that road. And it's open to an indemnification agreement. Frankly, we think we already have one. But that's how we want to operate. We want to operate in compliance with the CUP. We want to operate under the conditions relegated by the CUP. We want to operate with the reclamation plan that's in place by the CUP. Let us one, we have access. We have access under the 2017 CUP. We have access under the 20 uh under the 1984 CUP. We have access under the independent agreement. Two, we have access under the agreement with LRAN Johnson because Cash County in a writing affirmed that that agreement existed. Three, we have access as a vested use owner. And four, even if we don't have access, we're trying to get it. We don't have to under the vested use operator, but we want to because that's what Nixon and Nixon is and has been. As I conclude my remarks, I'd like to reemphasize what is at stake here. Because of an error, as put by Cash County, we stand to shut down a business that generates $100,000 in monthly revenue and will generate that revenue for the next 35 years, according to our geologists. We plan to shut down a pit that employs not less than 40 people and has provided homes to countless residents of Cash County. We seek to shut down a pit that is uniquely situated in that it directly accesses a major collector in Highway 89. The comment was made about the Kronquist parcel. Fortunately or unfortunately, I was one of the attorneys who worked on the conquest parcel issue. And one of the issues that was raised by this commission was the fear of having to have gravel and other particulate travel through countless rural subdivisions across unimproved roads in order to get to a major collector. This is one of the few pits in the county that doesn't have that problem. Nixon provides materials to most the homebuilders in Cash County. Nixon contracts with larger gravel providers who have their own pits in order to save them trips that do potentially impact local communities that do impact these substandard roads that have been so much of an issue in Cash County. in order to minimize risk to the community as well as the impacts. There are no violations that have occurred as it relates to safety or environmental issues. No injuries have occurred on this road. There's been no liability issues that have manifested. Nixon has operated this pit directly under the 2017 CUP for almost a decade and it can deserves the opportunity to continue to do so. And on that I would open myself to any questions. >> Mr. Chair, real quick, you need to extend the meeting. I'll make a motion to extend to 9:30. >> We have a second, >> Mr. Chairman. Well, I'd second that while we're on it. >> Okay, we we have a motion in the second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I didn't want to add to or detract from your presentation, but for the record, that's 91. 89 goes over Logan. >> Oh, I apologize. >> Well, just we all know where you're talking. questions for >> my my question is um whatever happened to the uh PUD project? >> So the PUD project and I would I would defer I mean I'm not as involved in that. >> Go ahead. Sorry. >> You need to come up. >> Please state your name. My name is Alex Baronson and I'm with Nixon and Nixon. Um, I'm glad you asked that. So, one of their arguments was that the PUD or that that whole cup in 1984 was based on the PUD and he only read a portion of it, which is misleading, man, but it was a good argument. So if you really read that that PUD or that CUP, the 1984 one, yeah, there was a road being built as part of part of that, but it also said for other developments and it said on the heading of the cup, it says for for material extraction. It is a request for a cup for material extraction on the 1984 cup. So you can look that up and I don't have my presentation here, but I know it's there. I know those documents. So the PUD that was supposed to be built was never built and my understanding was Smithfield City could not connect water there and they couldn't get utilities to make the PUD happen. And so yeah, the PUD did not happen. And the other comment on the turn lane that was for the PUD if it was built. And so yeah, he he had a great argument, but he's just misleading it a little. >> I apologize. I just wanted to defer to the expert on that. >> Other questions? >> Thank you. Can I just add a couple? >> Um, members of the commission, you are unfortunately a deliberative body, but you're too often called >> state your name, please. >> Pardon? >> State your name. >> I'm sorry. >> My name is Brad Barrenson. I represent Mr. Nixon. Okay. You're, as I said, you're a deliberate body, but you're too often called upon to decide technical legal questions, and I I think uh that's somewhat unfair. If I could help you in your decision here, this is critical to Nixon because if this road goes down, there's no other access to this pit. So, that's the significance of it in terms of the easement or the access that Nixon has to this pit that can be granted in a myriad of ways and we contend that it was really if it didn't exist before it was granted in the 197 excuse me the 2017 cup any discussion on this topic about the 84 cup is a smokeokc screen it's just irrelevant in the n in the 2017 DUP the application very clearly just said we access this pit through this county road that's it and the approval said yeah you'll access it through this county road it's just that simple for for you to believe the county's argument on its reason to shut this down while we don't have legal access we contend that CUP the grant at CUP was our legal access. The county would have you believe on the other hand that the county council at that time and all the staff that reviewed and then approved the 80 the 2017 cup were just ignorant as to the county's rights and the prior use of this road that they just didn't get it. That's not the case. I think the CUP provided access to this if Nixon didn't have it otherwise. Okay. And your question as to Mr. Christen as to why now is right on point. Why now? Has the county continued to be blind to the use and relative rights of this you this road? Do they get to do that? Do they get to allow Mr. Nixon to invest millions of dollars up there? There's millions of dollars of equipment sitting up there now. And then just say, "Uh, maybe not. We changed our mind." No, they don't. And the Utah Supreme Court's very clear on that. A subsequent county council can't amend. You're not the county council. I understand. They can't amend or revoke a previously granted cup. They're stuck with it. And I think they're stuck with it now. Even though I think there's some personal consideration by one of the council members that they just don't like all the traffic out on this road. This is a significant pit. Uh and with temple coming in, there are subdivisions coming in all over. We can truck that material for for 20 30 miles to get there or we can use this pit. Not that it will be used exclusively, but I'm just saying the whole point of 335 which was pushed by Representative Snyder for the state was to encourage and promote the use of pits because there is a shortage. So, I encourage you to further that use and not swallow this suggestion that gee, the county gets to be negligent in its consideration in granting the 2017 cup when it shouldn't have and then let Mr. Nixon run on and and do his thing after he spent considerable investment in it. And it gets to be further negligent by just ignoring it until now. The first thing that was dropped on Jack Nixon's desk in May was a letter saying, "Oh, gee, liability um indemnification over Mr. Zuk's signature." We called Mr. Zuk. He didn't sign it. he didn't know had been signed or had borne his signature. Somebody used his stamp. The county should not get to use these kind of tactics in shutting down an otherwise lawful business enterprise. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I just want to point out that there's been a lot of allegations that aren't aren't supported by evidence and there what we have here is is the issue that we presented. The county has presented plenty of evidence to show why we believe we're coming from where we're coming from. We've shown deeds that show that Nixon never owned that property until 2022. We've shown that there's an agreement from 1993 showing that the county has always considered that an agreement is necessary for access through their property. One thing that's very concerning to me and um to the county, a a cup cannot give away another's right to their property to use of that property. There are legal documents that are permitted under law. We have deeds, we have contracts, and we have various other forms under the law that can give away um a use of property. That 2017 cup is not one of those documents. There's never been that I am aware of a cup in the history of the state of Utah that has said, "Okay, applicant, you now have access to an adjacent property owner's road." And and while there may be things that the county needs to to work on and improve in its its processes, they never the county never in all of that documentation said that that access is Nixon's. And in fact, Nixon has not taken the responsibility for presenting those document. I showed you that those documents were provided to the county representing that they were the ones who had that access. And that just simply was not the case. Um it's not fair for the county to take all the the the brunt of that when it was actually Nixon that presented that material to the county as if they had that access. Um, but it's clear that they didn't have that access that the agreement was with Johnson. They didn't even own the property in 2017. And from that 2008 agreement, what was happening was that Johnson Johnson was moving up into um Nixon's property and doing um work for or operating on that that northern property. And so if you can can look into that agreement and say well in 2008 they were operating without an without a cup on that northern parcel. They were acting outside of the law. They were acting outside of being permitted. So in 2017 the county allowed them about 8 years nine years after that to get a cup and allow them to continue to do that. The county is not coming from a position where we just want to close Nixon down. That is not where we're coming from. What we want is Nixon to be compliant with the law and compliant with the processes that are have already been established. And that's where the county is coming from. We we don't have uh Mr. Sold said um that they don't have access in in writing that the county basically that the county cu having the cup and the county being involved in that is is a writing. The county cannot enter into an agreement without a signature of the county executive. That is under county code. That's under uh it's also supported by state code. You cannot a a a person from planning and development or development services or public works cannot enter into an agreement for the county. Nixon knows that he he's been in real estate I mean as you can tell since at least 1984. He he would have known that that does not convey an interest. That is something that has been conjured up, it sounds like, since we've been dealing with this because he too realized just as the county, hey, this isn't right. We need to get this right. And so what we're saying today is, yeah, there have been missteps on both sides. What the county wants to do is get to right. We've presented several um options with with Nixon on what we can do with an agreement. Some of the things that we have to do are were not considered in the in the Johnson agreement. Some of that is indemnification. We also have to have adequate consideration under common law. We have to have certain requirements met. U DOT is now going to require us if we increase the use on that road. U DOT is now going to increase some increase some standards. We have to go through a permitting process and that's going to be on the county to to have to pay for that or to get that payment through Nixon. Um, we've also wanted to make sure that our our agreement is not uh a long-standing agreement and that we can work to um get that agreement accomplished in a in a period of time. These are all things that the county has been working with uh Nixon on, but Nixon has not come to the table fully to to have those agreements. We want to have those things in. In fact, I was having a conversation with Mr. Stoddard before this and he understands and recognized that we I have not received a lot of the information that he he even presented. If we decide today that the C uh gives a legal right to Nixon to use the property, we're going to be in in major trouble because that is unprecedented. That is not a way to convey property. You cannot convey another's person's property on a cup for a different person's um request. That being said, we're happy to answer any further questions that you might have if you have any. Um I do want to address one final thing. They Mr. Solder did bring up the fact that the county has classified uh that 6800 north in um records with UD do as a class C or B road. That is accurate. The the the thing that's that wasn't mentioned is that it's only that paved portion of the road. So, we still have all of that gravel access. Um, that even if that were to be considered public, which the county would argue it's not and the county is working to fix that and they're working with UD do to get that that remedied. They're we're not getting a lot of money from what I've been told by our public works director for that small portion of that hard road. And um it it was never meant we never meant to deceive you DOT. it was um some misunderstandings and and I've talked with uh Matt Phillips and we're going to work on getting that remedied. The problem is that even if that were to be considered public, it's only that that hard road. It's not the rest of the road. So, that still doesn't apply uh to any of this. So, there are things that the county is trying to to fix that the county is trying to do as it grows. Um, we're not saying that the county is perfect, but we do, as we strive to to come into compliance, we're also asking those that um that have coops to come into compliance. And that's all I have for for you. >> Any questions? Um, do so and I I could have I could have asked the other attorneys this, but does the 2017 CUP replace the 20 the 1984 CU? >> That's a great question. So, there's a lot of information. No, it's it's actually for a different different parcels. So, the 2017 uh cup covers So, if you look on on here, you have uh Uh, I'm going to just say the last two digits. So, parcel 49 is the 1984 cup. >> Okay. >> Um, the 2017 cup is the parcel above, parcel 10 and portions of parcel 3. >> So, um, what was happening is is basically Johnson was going up into parcel 10. The county said, "Hey, you need a cup for that." and and they got a cup in 2017 to continue those operations and and to understand that Johnson was the one still as far as the county understands um that was was doing a lot of these operations. He didn't sell that property title or uh parcel 49 until 2022 which is 5 years after the CUP was granted. And um if we were to revoke the cups, uh the um land owners could simply turn around tomorrow and apply for a new cup. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And the conditions would be defined at that point. >> Correct. >> That they would need to meet, right? other questions? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Lots to consider >> a whole lot >> discussion. >> Want me to go first? >> Yes. >> Uh yeah, I think if they were out of compliance with the 1984 cup, we should have brought it up earlier than 40 years. Uh, so I I don't see that not being used for a development right on site. We've known they've been hauling gravel out of there for 40 years. Uh, we approved another cup right next to it which stated they were going to use it for other stuff that that wasn't for development at that point, right? That they've been hauling it out for that. We've known they've been using the county ride ofway, whether it's a county road or a private road. that are going across county property for 41 years. Uh we didn't have a problem with it for 41 years and now we want to take that away from them when we're doing just the opposite to private land owners with roads across their private ground to public ground and we're going to them and saying people have used that road for 50 years. You have to continue to allow them across your private property to access public property. We're doing the opposite here to me. And I I don't think that's right. If that's really their only way to access this pit and we want to take it away because we can't come up with a new agreement. I think we need to sit down at the table again and come up with a new agreement. If that 2017 doesn't and I I can see both sides of that. Maybe the 2017 doesn't grant that because let's just update that agreement that was there with Nixon instead of Johnson and continue to operate the pit. Maybe there's some conditions that need to be added with with some other minor improvements. I don't think the UT1 is valid because the increased traffic has been there for eight years and UD do hasn't said you need to change the access with a new agreement there. Um, if it were a new CUP, the new access with UD do certainly, I think, come into play. So, without getting too uh upset at the county's negligence maybe for the last four decades, that's where I'm going to stop >> because I'm guessing some of you were here at the 2017 cup was approved. >> Three of us. >> Yeah. Right. You guys approved it. I mean, it's not like we didn't you didn't know what you were doing eight years ago. You're still the same people. You're still smart, right? I I don't get that part of it. >> Why is >> I'm done for a minute. This this is my first meeting on this commission. >> You picked a good one. >> And I picked a great one. >> You can still sitting here as a citizen who is now on this sitting in this position. I'm asked to be judge and jury in a situation that should have been solved long ago. >> Yes. So get in the room and solve it. I'm serious. You've wasted >> all summer >> all these people and all summer playing around with this. And I hope you guys got paid well. But I'm tired of sitting here and listening to this. I really am. So get in the room and solve it. It's all about money, isn't it? It's all about money. So where we can meet, you can make some money. Both sides come out of it. Give us a cup. Next time we meet, we'll raise our hands and the problem will be solved. But let's not keep playing games. So I say, let's table this dang thing and go home. >> We still got >> If you want to hear me next, we have to go through this again. >> And I'm only the first time. >> Started off good. Amen. >> Yeah, I I don't see any need to revoke the COP. I think I think there's a solution that can be worked out with a new agreement. >> So, what are our options for tonight? Can we can we hold it over their head for a for a month for the 90 days and they work it out? >> I would think so. I mean, that's that's what I would, >> you know, that's I guess That's what the way I was leaning uh you know to avoid having to revoke it and have them turn around and come in and apply for it again and that sort of thing is see if they couldn't work it out. That's that's what I was thinking. >> Uh my concern is here uh I know folks from both sides and I respect both sides. Obviously, we're here on behalf of the county, but in the time that I've been on this commission, I can think of maybe three cup revocations. There was the airport, Holy Oak Airport in Manden. There was the hell skiing deal in in Paradise. >> And in all of them scenarios, if I didn't leave one out, we was on it. Things happened, things didn't line up, we were on it, and it moved ahead. I I have there there's obviously real estate issues here that that I just feel we're being brought in as the scapegoat. >> And I'm not saying that ignorantly, but we we've heard valid evidence from both parties tonight, but we don't even have enough total as both parties presented. Some had some, some had some of the other. We don't even have enough to go off of. So, I just want to move on and uh not revoke the CUP. Hopefully, they can come to a consensus and we can learn a big lesson moving ahead because if it was me as I presented here tonight, if if if I allowed something to happen on my property and I didn't acknowledge it at the time, I should have the same one year on my CUP to bring it up or quicker. How can you bring it up after this much time? >> Huh? >> But just cuz you break the law for 40 years doesn't make it okay. I don't know that it was >> I don't know it was breaking that you >> there was maybe a misunderstanding >> misunderstanding for 40 in the 40 because the original one was good for the the access for the for the Johnson's that was there it was just the misunderstanding of what was construed in that 2017 >> yeah if you have misunderstanding >> so yeah but I think to me it seems like there should be an easy remedy for that we just update that agreement for access to just shut it off just seems silly to me >> you That was intentional. >> I don't I mean >> No, I was just saying I mean >> you make a mistake. There was some mistakes made. >> Let's fix them. >> I I will say, you know, one of the most frustrating u situations to be put in as a commissioner is when you're dealing with um of a land owner who won't comply with the conditions that, you know, we've all put in front of them. And I'm I'm not saying that that's what's happening here or whatever, but that's why these um situations are so important to get right. And I I've o over the years, I've been here for a while, I we tend to let people get away with stuff. And again, I'm not speaking specific to this one, but I think that's why we do need to have um you know, enough uh courage that when there is uh something a miss that we call it out and and and make sure that gets rectified. Well, as if you look up here on the map, if you look under on that 2017 permit on item number six, um on the request under item AI, active areas of material extra extraction will occur on no more than 10 acres of property at any one time in an east west line moving north to the north. As extraction in an area is completed, the operation area will shift and the excavated area will be reclaimed. Well, I can look at that and I can see that uh on a 45 acre parcel, it looks like pretty good chunk of it and that's not following uh that uh recommendation. And actually that would not even a recommendation that was a request. So we we have we still have some non-compliance from 2017. >> Okay. >> Well, I'd make a recommendation to uh >> motion to not uh revoke the cup at this time and give the county and the applicant some more time to work out a amicable solution. So would that be like a continue to continue this item? >> Well, if they figure something out never has to come back to us, right? >> There's no revocation needed. They don't have to come back. If they can figure something out, >> it's not like we're approving condition. At least to my understanding, they can work something out. There's no need to come back. >> You can I guess we can >> Yeah, I I'm I'm >> I don't know how you do. We don't We haven't done many of these, >> right? Exactly. That's I'm I'm sort of >> That's what options were. Look at the county code. It says a condition permit may be revoked by the authority. So you if the commission finds that one or more conditions exist those out, right? So it's a main discretionary option to its be right or you can just say we're not going to work be done or I guess if there's another potential option out for 30 69 days whatever >> if that makes sense to kind of clarify what options you have. What do you feel like with his point about, you know, it if there were an agreement, does it have to come back? >> Say again. What was the question? Sorry. Uh, Commissioner Dogs said, you know, if if if the county and Nixon and Nixon came to an agreement on use of the road to access the pro property, would this need to come back to the commission for >> further decision? Okay. >> Okay. Have a motion on the on the floor. Do we have a second for that motion? >> Motion is to But not invoke it at this time and let them work something out. Continue it. >> Two separate things, right? So there so there would be denying the revocation and then continuence would would keep the the revocation on the table. >> They would have to they would have to come back if we left it on the table. If we if we don't leave that on the table, they don't have to come back. >> Right now there's other commission. whatever happens, right? >> So, it's either approve or revoke statewide, deny it or continue. >> So, my recommendation is to deny >> revocation. Motion to deny the revocation. >> I'll second it. >> Okay, we have a motion to second. Any discussion on the on the motion? >> Can I ask then? So, if we were to deny it, that doesn't prevent um council from bringing it back, >> saying you're out of compliance. You're still >> just like if we made them come back for another cup, the council could send it back for another revocation review, I guess. >> And I don't mean county council. I'm sorry. >> Attorney council council. >> to the So Mr. Chairman >> because >> oh to put us in position >> current proposal then we wouldn't even get a report on it. >> What happens? I'm sure they tell us what happened, but >> we can request I guess >> no agreement. >> Council, was there any >> Okay. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Um, have we said >> I did. >> Have we satisfied all all the questions on the motion? >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> No. >> Any opposed? I'm staining. I'maining. >> There's got to be pressure on somebody to solve something. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll do it. No, just so Okay. >> Did you get that? >> That was a no as well. >> Yes. >> Two nos, three yeses, and an abstain. >> Okay. >> All right. So, >> so it didn't it didn't it didn't pass. >> And dogs voted yes. Voted no. So it didn't pass. >> So it will not >> also happen which >> it doesn't get revoked. >> So I didn't think I didn't think this was edited. >> The motion motion does not carry. Um and so and so we have a a separate motion. Would somebody >> Well, I didn't think this was ethical, but it was done before. So, is there any modifications that you two would take to come our way or modifications to get us to go your way? For for me, I would just I was more of a position I'd like to advocate that an the parties get together and come to an agreement. This goes away. >> You believe uh continuing >> continuing it was what I was more supportive of. Yes. Correct. >> Okay. >> So, are you willing to make that mo make that motion? >> I What does Mr. Rigby >> I I guess that was my reasoning is that I'd just like to see some kind of reconciliation or not even reconciliation just to solve the problem. Let's if if I'm afraid if we just look at it then maybe we feel like we're off the hook and don't have to look get the problem solved. is >> and that honestly wasn't my intent in >> no in in it. I just sure felt because of the time frame and whatever that's 100% but >> well I would consider what you guys are saying if if you would >> I I then therefore I would I would make a motion that we continue the item for up to 90 days to see if the two parties can come together on the agreement that would make this go away. All right, I'll second that for you. >> Get us in the same direction. >> We have a motion. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. A motion to second. Discussion on the motion. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. All right. That will be >> continued for up to 90 days. and >> we would encourage >> encourage the parties to uh to work this out. >> All right, we have 11 minutes left >> for three items >> for three items. >> Feel really bad for these good ladies. >> And I know Powder Mountain's been here waiting a long long time. So you you are up now discussion on Powder Mountain. Uh, >> and folks, I'd ask you if you uh >> I don't know. >> If you are leaving or you're not uh not concerned about this proposal, we'd ask you just to step outside, take a conversation out there so we can have our discussion. >> Let me go grab my power. >> Yeah. So >> I'd have to see >> almost I mean that's a real estate problem. >> Excavation part is just that little circle >> something to look at. So the square >> How could they do that? >> I thought he's getting bigger than me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Take away his only access to property. >> H2. That's a micro. >> You don't get extra minutes because of technology. >> I'm just glad you're running it and not me. >> Yeah, that is >> Connor or Angie, do you want to give us a an overview of >> All right. I was actually just going to do 30 seconds and update you on number 11. Um, just to get that out of the way while they get this going. Uh so the general plan water use element um as you remember from our last meeting was presented by our consultant. Uh they've since made a few minor changes based on the conversation including taking out that crop type map that was in there and causing some confusion. Uh but anyway, uh their final draft and layout um is in your packet if you wanted to give it a final look through uh and let me know by September 17th if you have any additional corrections or additions. We'll have it as a public hearing for >> what number that would fall under >> element. >> It's number um yeah 11 >> general plan water use. >> But yeah, so that's just the brief update I wanted to give. It's in a folder >> documents. So, if you look >> I pulled your folders up, but I'm still not I don't think I found it. >> Okay. There the folders are usually up at the top with the staff reports and that below it. >> Have to refresh. >> But yeah, it is in there. If you have a problem with it, just let me know and I can resend it to you, Brady. Uh but yeah, if we could just and I'll send out a reminder email of any final comments by September 17th just so we get that ready for hearing next month. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Hey. Okay, never mind. I'll I'll try and find it back. >> We are ready. >> All right. Good evening, um, commissioners. I appreciate the your time. We'll try and make this as brief as possible. I'm Brian Carver with, uh, with Jub Engineers here in Logan. Um, the development services office uh, retained me a couple of months ago to assist in reviewing the master plan application for the uh, Cash County side of Powder Mountain Development. And so I'm I'm just here to kind of present some a summary of findings and uh kind of initiate the discussion on elements of the master plan itself. Uh present them for your consideration and uh you know try and get to a formal uh review and approval hopefully in the next month or so. Um

let's see. So, uh, what I have, what you should have in your packets is an attachment A, um, which is essentially a summary of the requirements of the plan. Um, this is taken directly from, uh, county code, title 17, um, uh, chapter 14, which is the resort recreation development code. Um, >> there we go. We, uh, >> yeah. Yeah, sure. Um, requirement summary requirements. >> Okay. Well, uh, so I I guess essentially the the gist of it is, um, you know, we've found that the application is substantially complete. Um, the the documents are in order and and meet all of the requirements of the, uh, county statute in terms of elements that need to be incorporated into the plan. Um the uh if you if we can I don't know can I scroll down >> or no? Okay. >> Different page. Okay. So, uh, development services staff can provide you with a a PDF of this particular document, which each of these, um, elements is hyperl to the section of the plan document, um, that's relevant for your review. Uh but uh as I said uh all of the illustrations are you know meet the requirements of the code. Um we do have uh comments from affected entities uh which are also required and uh each of those comments and response uh those correspondences are documented um in this list >> have a number of affected entities that it's called out >> I believe it's uh 12, although uh we're counting individual responses from Cash County Fire and Weber County Fire. So, we've got 13. Uh plus we have a general letter of support from the Weber County Council, which was uh not required by statute, but uh they provided one anyway. So, >> thank you. >> Yep. And and in terms of those responses, um you know, the majority of them are are complete and supportive. We're waiting for some final written uh comment from the county roads director and uh I guess if if we will just run down the list um you know county roads superintendent. Yes. >> Yes sir. Mr. Gunning something from county roads department. >> It's uh it it's part of the statute. It would apply to any resort development within the county. This one is a little odd because They're not supplying a road to them. >> We're not supplying the roads to them. Um, so that's uh we're we're looking at ways that we can get a an interlocal agreement in place with Weber County uh because it's likely that they would be the ones servicing those roads. >> Okay. >> Um similarly with uh EMT, fire, and law enforcement. Uh all of those are uh required statements. Um the the Cash County's sheriff's office has submitted a uh draft interlocal agreement language uh to the county attorney. Um we're waiting for their response on uh getting that ready to present to this body and to the county council for review. Um but those uh the the existing law enforcement uh interlocal agreement is over 15 years old and so the sheriff's department has some concerns that that needs to be updated before uh before they would uh approve moving forward with this um application. We'd almost say that if our county search and rescue and whatever is responsible for robbery or investigating or anything else that we'd have to have a county road that supplies our departments to get there if that makes sense. >> It does. Uh it does make sense that and from what I understand the county has no plans to uh extend a road into that property. Uh so working with Weber County and making sure that the the agreements in place are are current and and sufficient is is one of the recommendations that uh that we have for staff and for the county to move forward with this. >> Okay. >> Um the health department uh likewise is not servicing this property. It will be serviced by the uh Powder Mountain Sewer Water Improvement District. uh they will provide water and sewer um to the entirety of the project area. Uh they have an existing master development agreement. Uh they have uh the all necessary water rights uh to support the projected growth and uh and so they have uh their will serve letters um provided by them addressing these issues. So, >> Brian, what what's DEEQ's role in this? >> Sorry, >> DEEQ. >> DEEQ. Uh, I I assume that the Department of Environmental Quality's um comments were intended to be solicited to provide input on water, you know, culinary water and wastewater management. Um, it was determined back in August of 2024 by staff that their comments were not necessary as they're all addressed by the service improvement district. >> Thank you. >> So, so there's there's just a memo uh under that link explaining as much >> over the general commit >> um there was a traffic impact study conducted as part of this master plan as part of the the environmental summary requirements. Um and uh the Department of Transportation had some comments on uh concerns of the scope of the summary. Uh they were concerned that it um focused primarily on traffic congestion at uh some major intersections down the state highway from the the the site and but did not address issues like um steep slopes and and capacity of of State Road 158 uh which is the route that services that provides public access to the site. um they have been in communication with uh the applicant on addressing those concerns and uh we're just waiting back for some final feedback on that. uh as a as a remedy to that. Um you know, we were recommending to staff that uh as a condition of approval some sort of uh um threshold for development or density be set. after at which point uh if the development reaches that threshold that a an additional traffic study be conducted to look at issues like road safety and uh and secondary egress in in terms of emergency. Yes, council member. >> So part of that um road study because I've been on that road and it's steep and it's in the winter. So wouldn't there be recommendation for guard rails or anything else like that because of steepness of drop off of up the road in that area too. >> That was one of UD do's concern. The existing study does not address that. >> It doesn't address it. >> No, Mr. Chair, you need to vote to extend the meeting. >> Okay. >> Do we have a motion? >> Make one. We have to quit. >> How much time is going to take us to finish it up? >> Uh I mean I mean >> that we're going to cut it in half. Whatever you say. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. I I think I think you've addressed all the major comments that we had uh regarding the uh um the affected entity comments and and the content of the plan that we kind of intended to discuss tonight. We would like to look uh towards a future meeting to get together to discuss about the the environmental s summary contents more in detail um and then uh start working on on recommended conditions uh for approval. >> Okay, that's what you've got. >> Yep. >> All right. I would assume the folks from Powder Mountain probably want to have a minute, two minutes agenda. >> And are we Is that something we take action on? Item 12. >> It's a discussion. >> We want to discuss something and your heads are clear. >> That was my question. Would it be better to discuss that on the next agenda? >> Yeah. So I would I would just say that with the pioner agreement there are various individuals in the county who would like to see that move forward in order for it has to be brought up for have a public hearing in this commission they wanted. So if it's delayed again which has been when there's been we can have a real quick discussion >> I think >> I'll make a motion we go no later than 10 o'clock because there will not be any extensions after that. M Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I just make a comment here? >> Let's take care of the motion first. >> Oh, first. Yes. >> We have a motion. >> I'll second. >> Have a motion and second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? >> I I just was going to mention that we're very very appreciative to you guys. This was kind of an overwhelming task for me personally to think that we're trying to help the county be in their best position. So, the smartness of the county bringing in skill and working with you guys just makes me feel a whole lot better. >> Quick question. Are there any dangers that you see the county could be open to sharing a property line with a entity? Well, where where the county is, and I I guess the short answer is no. Um, but I believe the county needs to have a solid uh agreement in place with Weber County to make sure that uh there's a good communication structure uh and coordination on on activities as developments are approved in this county and then served by a different entity. uh we just need to make sure that there's a that the interlocal agreement is sound and comprehensive and and that uh and that that line of communication is open. So >> yeah. >> All right. >> Thanks. >> All right. >> Thanks Brook Hunt Powder Mountain. Thank you so much for staying and um so I will keep it very brief. We've got uh a slide on the screen. Uh a few weeks ago, we met with Brian and Angie and some additional staff to look at how um now the music to my ears when and to my eyes when I saw the uh report come back that um the work that we had done that we felt really uh proud of and thought was very thorough in fact met the standard. Um and so that's the materials that I believe you received tonight. I didn't see the staff report, but that's what I just heard Brian say. And so, um, unlike other things I heard tonight, what we would like to do is to make sure that we're meeting with staff and, um, possibly legal counsel and crafting those conditions in a way that protects the county and is very clear in the future so you're not 10 years later wondering um, what we'll we'll leave that where it addresses the what you're getting from the developer and from the project and how you're um, and what we're getting as well. And so the intent is that those are really carefully crafted conditions and that's what you would actually be seeing at your upcoming meetings. I did put on the schedule because I was asked by the council to have a joint workshop and I think that Angie is still trying to maybe she I don't want to speak for her to schedule that um as an upcoming meeting where some additional information basically what Brian just gave um would be presented. um happy to show additional slides or whatever that go into the detail of that thousand pages, but I think in essence, you know, knowing that it um it meets your very in-depth and extensive code and that we've um met the standard. It's the pieces of making sure that in the future uh you're getting what you think you are that we want to negotiate and have in front of you as and that you vote on um in a future meeting hopefully before December of 2025. My concern has always been the interlocal agreement. >> Um, >> y >> we're sitting here, we were sitting there, we've never come together, but yet we've got fire, we got sheriff, everybody else needs to get together. So, >> um, that's where my hang-up's been from the total beginning. And yes, >> because there is so much that's got to roll into that interlocal agreement as far as responsibility and cost because I know you've kept telling us that Cash County is going to make a lot of money, but I think it's going to cost us a lot of money too for sharing those services and that's part of my concern from a council that we've protected our emergency services department and the citizens over there who are expecting, you know, safety and everything else that it's done properly. So my big agree my big concern is the interlocal agreement that it is drafted and protected for both counties and for our citizens. >> I totally agree and we have been um although we're we don't get to be a party as you know to the agreements um have been working with the entities since day one. So um over a year now frankly um I think that there's been great progress made on those um and they that's part of the conditions of approval is when those have to be completed by and um you know I'm not putting the necessary details in those but I think based on very good examples that Weber County has entered into before in Cash County um I think you can have assurance that they're going to tackle all of the um necessary and important issues. Additionally, you know, the I would highly recommend that fiscal impact study that's been provided. You could look at those assumptions and and say whether or not you like them or not. That's the um third party analysis of how much money the county um is expected over time to um garner from the project. Um and then we could have a discussion whether or not you liked those assumptions or not. But what that also shows is that the county who doesn't provide services right now, who doesn't have a note road right now, um isn't being charged for those services. And so going forward, even if we um impact by having some uh monies come back from cash to support the Weber services, there's still a a really large um fund and cushion of money that's in that um report. Happy to to look at that. But I I think that's one of the key aspects of making sure that that works is the funding. Sorry to keep you so late. >> Just a question and Chris kind of answered it, but so the with the the eight attachments that we were given. >> Okay. >> Uh the first six of them or five of five of them anyway are files, zip files. First six of them, but from these computers, we apparently can't open them. >> So I haven't even seen your report. Uh I am we can share with you the actual thousand pages of all of the documentation you per >> um no I I'm so proud of that I'd love for you to see it because >> pages there >> um >> only00 >> um in all I I haven't seen that report so I didn't put it together but I do think it's really important that you be able to see the work. So >> yeah we tried to put them in PDF forms to make it easier to access but apparently Sorry. >> We can figure out

because we all requested access several times. So, >> it just says copy file or some other error. >> Yeah, it works on the computer. >> Yeah. So, it's just on our iPads. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Any other questions? We look forward to seeing you again soon, hopefully with the county council. Thank you. Right home safe. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Pioneering agreement. >> That means back up. >> Start over again with the new new commissioner after tonight. They're cleaning all of us out. You want me to pull the paper? >> New >> Do we get double time at at 10:00? Is that >> Yeah, it goes to two two cents an hour. >> Before we >> Yes. Before we leave, I need to apologize you to you folks for being as viferous I as I was, but looking from somebody who was new, I really feel we got used and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but we got used by the legal department to solve their problem. I really felt that way because to revoke those things that were that old is asking pulling the straws as far as I'm concerned and that's why I was so upset. That should have been solved long ago. It's all about money. We know that. >> All right, Connor. >> End of question. Thank Sorry, Jeff. I apologize. >> Matt's taking this one. Andrew and I will tag team this together, but I guess I just in our 10 minutes that we have. The pioneering agreement is the purpose of that is so that if someone does construct a road that there's some way for those guys to receive some compensation back. If they're going to build a road down to their house, the property owners adjacent to them are going to get a free ride. And so that's what we're trying to prevent. And because of that, that means that if that's approved, that's going to put land use regulations on those adjacent property owners and th they will be forced to pay into that road. So by approving this, that's why we're here is because this is a land use authority. And you guys, if someone builds a road down, every one of those properties that are adjacent to that are going to be forced by this action to pay in to pay back that road. when they >> question only. So if if that if that parcel is already developed, >> right? We didn't make them do a road because it was years ago. >> That parcel unless they do a new development, they wouldn't have to pay into the road. >> It's probably not that clear right now to be honest with you. >> That's one we need. >> Yeah, I think that that needs to be clear. So, >> so what you're saying is when somebody develops a road, like in a subdivision, each of those lots that access that road pay for that road to be >> subdivision would be a totally different one. This would be just a parcel. >> So now an open road out through 10 acres. >> Yep. >> Somebody builds a house on that, he's expected much as a lot owner in a subdivision would, he's going to pay for part of that. I I think that's probably a good analogy. So, >> if you're out in Clarkston and and you've got a >> you're building and you have to improve the road because it's not just constructing a road, right? This is this is improvements as well. >> Yeah. I I think that's where I know there's people that are rushing for this, but I I think we want to make sure that we proceed very carefully. And again, I'm an engineer, so I'm very careful at everything I do. So, if I'm trying to pull the reinss back too far, then let's go forward. But I think we need to make sure that we we've thought about that and when we read this, we think of these examples in mind and how does that apply? And it talks about you're going to have a public hearing. The public hearing needs to be 10 days before. I mean, if you look at our whole land use process, this needs to align with that, too, because when someone comes in for a subdivision, you know, and and we need to decide there's just some timing things that we need to look at. There's some does it go along? Do we just kind of lump this into, you know, a development or a conditional use permit or something else? How do we how do we deal with these types of things? And then how do we, you know, how do we how does finance take that? How do we put this deed restriction on their property so that some unbeknownsted buyer doesn't know buy a piece of land thinking they're going to develop on this road and then find out that they have >> they got to pay $200,000 to play to, you know, to to play the game. So I I think that where we're doing things to property owners that may or may not be aware of it, we need to make sure that we've thought through this process and that we're notifying and that we're keeping track of this and you know there's a lot of pressure put on the engineer to make sure those costs are right and there's so again I think it's a great idea. It's a great agreement and that's why I was somewhat joking and not joking is that we really need to take some scenarios and run some scenarios across the board and and I guess I'm beseeching you guys to make sure that you've read it and you try to, you know, think about some of these things that you've seen over the years of development that's kind of off the normal grid a little bit and how that's going to affect the land owners and you know So could just maybe discuss on this one I mean one major concern I would have is that this this is something that's activated upon development of of property. Not that I've got a piece of property that I don't ever intend to intend to uh develop but somebody builds a road or improves the road through there and I get a bill for that. I don't think that. >> No, that's that's not >> only do you get a bill, but what if they need to build? So, you have to give you have to give up some of your land for that if they're gonna white it. >> Yeah. >> So, my question is is what if some of that land is in a protection or a conservation easement? >> You can't do it. >> So, yeah. So, how I mean you got a lot of considerations there. You throw a cost on a guy who's like you're saying I want to leave it a >> Yeah. But then not only have I got to pay for it, but I got to give up some of my ground to make the road the right width. >> So can I just So I I don't disagree with anything Matt said. We don't My comment earlier is I don't mean to come across as we need to rush this through. Right. I'm happy to take >> We need to have the discussion discussion. Sorry. Right. Um I guess just to clarify a couple things with this. Yes, like Matt said, absolutely read the proposed draft ordinance. This is just a draft. You can tweak it however you want. Right. It doesn't even have to be enacted. Now, the way it's currently set up is if someone, like I said, like Matt said, wants to develop a piece of property, has to go and make make improvements like a road and it's going to result in other properties who otherwise wouldn't be able to develop. Now they can develop. So, the value is increased. If they want to go develop later on, then if this agreement is approved, then they would pay the proportion share as determined by there. But no one's forcing them to develop. No one's forcing them to >> They have no intention. >> They're not touched by And then if it's after the 10 years, at least that's >> 10 years for free. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Then the benefits there. >> So it's similar to Utah powers. >> Correct. And then there's like the notice requirements there. And so what before this is agreed upon if it's agreed upon because I guess to clarify at the beginning of this, it's a discretionary each. So this will be provided mechanism for the county council to do thumbs up or thumbs down on a firing agreement on a case by case basis. So if the situation come up, no public hearing will happen. council say thumbs up thumbs down that's basically how this is drafted when it gets so the council is not forced to do this by any stretch then if one is granted into approved notice has been given it's not a lean on the property but there has to be something recorded there so that all the benefit of property owners on notice of it becomes along that they don't like brought up it's part of the what's recorded with the county recorders office etc >> just kind of hit that highlight again I'm not saying this is perfect happy to tweak it how you guys want to kind of give a general conception that's how more or less we're >> I mean give Powder Mountain the example right now Cass County doesn't want to do a road to there but Powder Mountain does their thing and it's in C County they decide to improve the road going back because as they tell us we're going to make a lot of money from taxes and so if they do that now we've affected I don't know how many land owners keep that as forest 40 or whatever else or range ground and so even if they don't improve or pay on it, but it's going to widen, take away some of their property to have that road widened. >> And that that would all have to be figured out with whoever the developer is. Say, not in this case. >> Wouldn't be an automatic. >> Yeah, it's nothing automatic with it if that makes sense. >> So, >> you guys looked at a reszone earlier today near the airport and I think you guys recommended denial >> that they would have to improve the county road all the way to that reszone. That would be one of these opportunities where he would say, >> "I I want to try to get a pioneering agreement. I'm going to improve this wide road all the way down to my property and then that's going to, you know, he's going to want to come in and say, "Hey, look, I don't want to improve county roads on on my dime." So, >> or at least provide a mechanism that if those >> previous parcels, hey, I can build on it now because of what the guy down the road did. and he's not pay his share if again the council as the current draft is goes through the process council approves it >> and it could be a deal right if the if inflation goes up they might be like sure >> I I got I'm getting that for 50%. But if say oil and asphalt went down they might be like hey I'm paying more than what I could get it for today. So >> I don't think it'll happen. >> I don't think so either. >> So >> in a in a subdivision when somebody Somebody builds a road, they are responsible to build that road to grade and do everything that needs to be done and then it is turned over to the city or the county to be maintained and taken care of. When does that point come with the person who develops a road out through that it's private or public? >> I think it depends on case by case basis like sub process look at that project. This will be something depends on what situation comes. >> So that person will be well aware of what they're doing. >> An an existing public road that's there, but it's a it's a lower standard and they need to widen and pave and and all of those things. So it's it's actually improving the public road. So >> Mr. Chairman, I just have a question for Matt. So, in my mind, I I still got a little confusion on this >> because I understand when we're talking I I totally understand the industrial use today, >> but it was my understanding, unless it's changed, that if I choose to build my house out in the county and it's down some gravel lane, I'm responsible for either paving the entire frontage of my property or paying into a fund that you guys have 10 12 years to use if you don't pave it in that time you give it back to me. >> So, >> so how does that tie in? If I'm only paving my frontage, how does that tie into this? >> If you're just paving your frontage, I probably wouldn't recommend this and I would hope that the council would say it it doesn't apply in your situation. >> So, are we changing that or is it already changed? >> No, that will that will not need to be changed. You're you're very close, but what you're talking about the fee in lie of and stuff is is a little bit different. That's more for leapfrogging improvements. This is really going to be when someone is pioneering a road that's, you know, let's say someone north of Clarkson wants to build a house, right? They're going to have to pave the road from Clarkston city limits to wherever that house is that they're going to go, right? That that fee in lie of stuff that you're talking about would not would not apply. They would have to pave it all the way from Clarkston all the way to their house. So, there was a kid that, it hasn't been too long ago, that was wanting to build a house, but he was going to try and split the parcel to justify his expenses and sell a second one. >> Are you talking about in Clarkston? >> Yeah. I'd have swore he was north of Clarkston. And I'd have swore we never told him he had to pave from Clarkston to his house. He only had to pave in front of his house or in LA. >> But that's because he starts at the end of pavement. So he's the first parcel. >> Yeah. >> He was on gravel. >> No. Well, he but his parcel is ends the the pavement ends. >> Okay. You guys are all shaking your heads. So I remember that. >> So this is possible that he could say, "Hey, I'm pulling this road out, this whole another 400 ft, and I'm paving it and improving it for my development." But the people on the other side of the street, I want to enact a pioneering agreement and they should be responsible for half of these costs if they come in to develop in 10 years. I support that, but I'm glad you clarified it because I was I was thinking >> that we were still allowing them to leapfrog and they only had to they most likely would pay the fee in L if it wasn't paved to them. >> He tried he tried to leap frog about 50 ft and I told him no. He was wanted to leave a tiny section of like 50 foot of gravel like no that's not how this works. He said that's off my property. Sorry, that's how the code works. >> Wow. >> So, I I don't think that that there's a lot in here, but I want to make sure that the planning commission is comfortable with it. They kind of understand what we're doing and make sure that that we're all on the same page. Andrew spent a lot of time, this has came from other cities that are enacting it, but they also might have different county codes. So, we're not looking at changing county code necessarily somewhere else. We're just trying to put this in code so that this would be an option for people. The the county council asked for this five years ago. >> So the the the Smithfield industrial resone earlier tonight as an example that that's how that would have played out potentially like he he would have had to improve that road all the way out there. >> Correct. >> And if this was in place, he could potentially have used this if we had approved it. Yeah, >> because he >> because all of those properties along the way are benefiting from it. >> Yeah. We might have said, "Okay, if you're residential, you're exempt from this, but any other industrial use that comes through here, let's let's enact this pioneering agreement solely for industrial uses or for commercial uses because if you were trying to build a house on that road, you wouldn't you would be fine. >> You wouldn't have to do any improvements." Yeah, I think it's a >> So, so we we want we think this is fair. We think it's just of the council, just of everyone else to do it. So, >> there was another development was going out to Paradise. This was four or five years ago. And I remember the guy was at the end of the lane and we were telling him that he had to pave it, >> which didn't coordinate with what I was thinking on just the frontage. I remember the neighbors here supporting it because the minute he got that they they wanted to do their deal. >> Yes. >> Quick and >> as I I know it's late and I can't read very well getting blurry but um so I I build my house pioneering agreement. It looks like on D here that I would have to if somebody comes in and builds across the street, I have to file an appeal to get that money instead of automatically coming back. Am I reading that wrong? >> You're looking at Delta, right? >> Yes. >> I guess I guess what that's referring to the build things there. So like say a benefit. So say neighbors building a house and you're get notice like, hey, if I want to go rent my property, >> um, >> well, because >> you get to a chance to come to the hearing, right? >> Yeah. Well, the scenario is >> just the decision of the council decision to grant this agreement or in that sense. But, you know, if if that neighbor has that parcel that's conforming and they don't have to come, you know, and they just get a building permit for it, >> then I might not be paying attention and see it until all of a sudden they're building and pouring concrete and that and they've already got a building permit and I put the road in. Is there a method? you know, if I don't get noticed, then I'm going to be coming in afterwards saying, "Hey, I paid for this road so you could build so you could build." >> So, how is that? >> It seems like that deed recording that's going to be on all those parcels would before the building permit was approved, they would get noticed in the building department. >> How it should work is everyone who could be a benefited parcel should get of the hearing and get and if it's approved and it's approved as them >> that will get recorded on that parcel. benefited parcel could be >> because I was saying I wouldn't be a benefited parcel because I would have already put it in >> so then you wouldn't >> but I would get it I would have paid for the road. >> Yeah. >> If you did that before this is an active ventures. >> Yeah. Right. So >> Right. Right. No. No. I I'm just trying to think through it in my mind how it's going to work. >> Is that something our clerk can keep watch on no matter what then? Right. as far >> as far as what he's talking about that he's not on it to make sure anybody who builds afterwards comes afterwards that he hasn't got to be >> as much as your pain you'll be watching what happens down that road. >> Yeah. But see he's on a mission. >> Yeah. I think I think it the the recording we got to make sure that part's good. The recording on the all those other parcels on that road that it would automatically trigger a restriction or review when when the planning department does the review for a building permit or whatever it is. I detail them. >> Yeah. It get it gets flagged that this >> I'm just wondering if our that department can keep up on that is what I'm wondering. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And and I think there should be some of these should probably start here, right? I think as part of a development they should come in knowing that hey, they've requested this be part of a pioneering agreement. So that's understood here even though a lot of the power and the authority is given to the council. So but I know it's 10. I was past my 10 minutes, but >> pretty good. >> How's our next

>> We would let you know. >> So, >> and thanks council member for being here with us tonight. >> Um, next agenda. >> I am so happy to report one reason, one subdivision, >> and 13 continuations. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Hey, we got Wait, don't hit that yet. We got two things to add. Two two first reviews of some uh code amendments. So, one, I met with Angie earlier today. There's there's a little line in our code that came up that if you do if you do anything within 16 and 1/2 ft of a canal. You can't build a fence in the county within 16 and 1/2 ft of a canal. >> Is that on both sides? >> It is. And that So, we need to address that, right? That that shouldn't be county code. That should be canal company code, right? If there's a development happening, you should get a letter from the canal company if you want to be in their easement. We shouldn't dictate that. So, that's I think a pretty simple one. >> And the other one is to get the densities between industrial and commercial to match at 80% instead of 50 and 80. >> So, I coverage. Yeah. Not densities, coverage. I think uh council member abuse will be making the same request, but if we can get those, if we already got a light agenda, those two should both be pretty easy to knock out. What about residential pools in the county? Do they have to be fenced or can they be open? >> I think it's a building code. It's actually building code. >> They are. So if they're not, you just call in and >> after you go swimming though, >> complaint based >> after your dog >> after your cow drowned in it. Don't teach