Cache County Planning Commission Meeting – 05-21-2026

Grew up and have to sit by me. I thought I told these guys I got lucky. We'll start the we'll start the meeting. We'll call to order the planning the planning commission meeting. I'd like to welcome everyone here. Thank you for taking the time to be here tonight. And we'll start with opening remarks and pledge by Morris Poole.

Okay. My opening remarks would be in the form of a prayer. Our father in heaven, we are indeed grateful for the opportunity we have to meet citizens of this community, county, and we pray that as we deliberate, we will be able to find the ways in which we can accommodate the things that people would love to see happen. We're thankful for many blessings, for our health and strength. And we pray that we might receive moisture that will allow all of us to enjoy the beauties of this summer. These things we pray for in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Could we all arise? Yes. Say pledge allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

liberty of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alright. Commissioners, have you had a chance to look at tonight's agenda and the previous agenda from April 2 meeting? Can I get approval on it?

I'll make that motion. I'll second. Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Okay. Consent items, Creekside Estates second amendment. Connor, do you wanna go through that on any of that? Any any comments or concerns on that? Not really. It's just an adjustment. If you look here,

it's basically this line is gonna shift 50 feet this way. That's pretty much it. Okay. So we don't have any concerns.

Okay. Is anyone here that would like to make a comment on this?

If not,

mister? I'll make a motion to approve the, Creekside Estate second amendment.

Second?

Alright. All in favor? Aye.

Okay. Second item in the consent items at Skyline Metal Subdivision.

Anything on that, Connor? We need to Not really. So I can read through the staff report if you'd like. Skylines Meadow Subdivision's request to create a three lot subdivision. They're all around 10 acres with Lot 3 being 12. The applicant is provided an unapproved water right. It has three equivalent domestic units on it. The condition on their staff report is they have to get that approved before they can record the plat. The road will access off of 1800 West. So it's east of the subject parcels. It's classified as a major collector, provides access to residential and agricultural properties. Currently, it has an existing width of 23 feet, a 66 foot right of way, a one to two foot paved shoulder, a four to five foot gravel shoulder, variable clear zone, and it's paved. It's currently considered substandard as the width right of way, paved shoulder, and clear zone. Cache County Fire has had no comments, and the applicant will have to work with waste management. In terms of sensitive lands, there is a drainage that's up on this side, but we're working with them on their plan to figure something out for that. There's also steep and moderate slopes, but it's also in this area. Noticing was completed on the eighth, and staff is recommending approval.

K. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment?

Mister chairman, that if if anybody still wants to speak. But I just think it's important we recognize the letter from Hiram City that the applicant had reached out to them regarding power, and it sounded like that was not a possibility. So as long as that's well known and taken into consideration.

Good point. Good point. K. Any other comments

or concerns on this?

Mister chairman, I move that we approve the Skyline Meadows Subdivision.

I'll second it. Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Okay. Regular action items, the Nautica Subdivision first amendment extension request.

Connor, do you want to tell us about that extension on that? Yeah. So, basically, we accepted a plat on the last day. There was a missing signature from the HOA because there's motion in the county council to transfer that road from a private road to a public road. So we missed that. So we're just asking for an extension both to give the applicant some time to get that signature and then just get it recorded. Because it's it's on us, to be honest. It was our bed.

Yeah. No other concerns on with it at all? Okay.

Alright.

Well, then I'd make a motion to approve the Nautica Subdivision first amendment extension request.

K.

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Public hearing.

Mister mister chairman, we're about ten minutes early. Do you think we ought to take one of them discussion items, sir?

Yeah. That's a good point. Okay. Can we get through that in ten minutes on number seven?

What was the number seven? Yeah. We probably changed. Okay. So last time, we were talking about, basically, increasing that exemption. Right now, we have a current exemption for 200 square feet. So if your structure's below that, you don't have to do a geotech report. If it is, it's above that. You have to do one. So our proposal is that we shift that up to 2,400 square feet. And so last time in our discussion, we asked to kinda look at other counties. These are all the other counties in Northern Utah. It's it's confusing to say the least. Cache County is the only county that has a square foot exemption that's clearly spelled out. Other counties, it's a little bit weird. As you can see, if you're doing industrial or commercial operation, you do have to do one. Primary, you do. There's a few is Davis County was a little bit not specific. And as with the others of accessory and ag, it gets confusing in the sense that some say, no, you don't, but others just use the word development, which under our code is basically anything. So if you came in for a chicken coop, theoretically, if that was our, like, code, you would have to get one. So I reached out to some of the planners. I just haven't heard back yet. Kinda get some clarification on that, but that's kinda where it stands. So if we were to increase it to 2,400 square feet, we would be unique in order to to say the least. We don't necessarily think it's a bad idea, but compared to other counties, it's unusual.

Okay. But other than Weber. Right? See? Yeah. Weber is It doesn't require it on any accessory dwellings. Yeah.

For dwellings or anything, it's residential. Yeah. But Ag already just structure, they don't. Oh, yeah. Ag isn't really specified in a lot of county code. I think Weber and Box Elder were the only two that specifically called it out. Actually, Box Elder is one that used development, so that's why that one's a yes there. Because usually, it's just kinda defined different ways. They specify uses that require it. So an option we can do is specify uses that don't have to do it versus just having a flat 2,400 square feet. And I can't It's kinda down the way you guys want us to bring next time. That's Okay.

Connor, will you clarify one thing? So the not specified, does that mean that it's not required? Or

It's just not specified in their code. It doesn't specifically say ag structure, accessory structure, or anything like that. So it's a little bit unclear, to say the least. It would mean anything, though, wouldn't it, if it's not specified? Effectively, it kinda depends. Like I said, I reached out to some of those planners. Yeah. It's it's a little weird. It kinda does come to interpretation. A few of the counties also had a where the director has pretty significant power to say, yes, you need one, or yes. You don't. Or no. You don't. That's another option that's still kinda rare for Northern Utah, but it's not unheard of. So if you wanna move in that direction, that's an option.

If I understand this right, it's a requirement so that you're basically protecting the the property owner against some type of earth movement, either quake or whatever. Yeah. So they're protecting themselves against themselves.

Yeah. But they have to pay money upfront to get this, and that's the expense part that's really Yeah. And so that's the idea behind it is with a residential dwelling, that makes sense, you know, if you're gonna be in that structure a lot. Right. But if you just have, like, a shed or a shop or something like that, that's where it gets a little, you know, shifty. Like, I had to ask a, like, 90 year old woman to pay $5 for an 800 square foot shed. That was pretty bad. Yeah. That's what's horrible with this.

I think I mentioned before, but the one thing that stands out to me is if it was gonna be agritainment where we're gonna have public there. I mean, that's important. And we've had a few that were applied for is just an ag building. And then whether unintentionally or intentionally later moved to the such, but I support whatever commission likes. But I based off what these other communities are doing, I mean, it'd be nice to know if the not specified means that they're not concerned about it versus just address it on a case by case. Least we're good at up in the 2,400 square feet, but then again, that's not gonna cover any hay shed or machine shed.

They're exempted. If it's an axial If it's an axial, they're automatically

exempt anyways. Yep. If it's ag building exempt, it's just This is all for accessories. So we are because I thought there was the concern before that we were asking that on ag buildings. No. So that was one that came before us a couple years ago, I think. It's been a while. Where they basically exempted that, that's already existing exemption. This is more, like, specific towards accessory structures of garages, chairs, things like that. Buildings that are just bigger than 200 square feet. So Oh, it makes sense. Yeah. Or just So if ads exempt and I

I support the 2,400, I guess. It's a step much greater than 200.

For me, it you know, we'd be kind of the outlier if we use the square footage, and I would be more inclined to say, let's let's just focus on the land use or the use of those structures, you know, as far as what's required.

That means it's going to be more consistent with those. If somebody's gonna have an apartment there or it's gonna be turned into a business to sell something, people in and out public, then you would That's an automatic Primary residence already. Yeah.

But this but that's not what we're talking about with this. Yeah. This is for structure. It's not meant for human habitation. It's just like shop sheds, garages, and things like that.

I like this. I like this. You know, I it we're it I don't mind being an outlier if we if we lean more towards

property rights and footage. Yeah. I I like that. It's really clear.

Yeah. It's not arbitrary.

Yeah. Yep.

He cool with us setting a public hearing for next time for Sure. 2,400 square feet. Okay.

Okay. I just gotta kill three minutes. But he could start the presentation on it.

Okay. Let's move to number four for the Richmond City Creek rezone. If you could take us through that. Okay.

One second.

Okay.

So this is the Richmond City Creek rezone. It's a request to rezone a total of 7.58 acres from the agricultural No. Industrial zone. It's two parcels. The south one is 1.92 acres, and the north one is 5.66. The properties match the configuration they had on 08/08/2006 and are legal. Adjacent properties to the north and east are a mix of ag and residential, while properties to the south and west are just agricultural. Highway 91 is located on the west side of these properties. The nearest parcel in the county that's in the industrial zone is located a little under half a mile to the north. It's that Lauer's Foods, reason we did last year or earlier this year. Future land use. So for the Cache County general plan, it's in agriculture and ranching. The purpose of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character in most areas of the valley. Preferred land uses include agriculture, ranching, and rural residential uses. Secondary land uses includes industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture, clustered subdivision developments, and farmworker housing. Discouraged uses includes residential developments at densities of greater than one unit per 10 acres, if not in a clustered subdivision development, and industrial and commercial uses. The parcel is also not located in the urban expansion overlay. It is inside of Richmond City's annexation area. Basically, from there, they don't have a general plan that extends down this area that I could find. In terms of roads, Highway 91, that's on the West Side. It's classified as an other principal arterial, and it's a UDOT road. It provides access to basically industrial, commercial, or agricultural residential properties. Access off of these would have to be approved by UDOT. We'll get to that in a second. 900 or 9000 North is classified as a minor collector in a county road. It provides access to residential and agricultural properties. It's maintained by the county of Urarana. It has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. It currently has an existing width of 22 feet, a 55 foot right of way, no paved shoulder, a three to four foot gravel shoulder, seven to 10 foot clear zone, and it's currently paved. It's considered substandard as a right of way paved shoulder, gravel shoulder, and clear zone. One issue that exists for these parcels are not not necessarily directly related to this rezone. But early on when this road was built, all of these properties to the north of these subject properties sold their access rights to u dot. So if they wanted to actually access these properties up here, they would either have to figure out something coming off of this, or have a road that goes north. That's kind of a concern to say the least, because you wanna land on properties. Past that, the Cache County Fire District had no comments, and they have to go up to work with waste management for a solid waste disposal. Noticing was completed on the eighth. The agenda was also posted to the county website on the eighth. At the time of writing the staff report, one public comment has been received. Richmond states they have don't have any concern regarding the rezone. The mayor also submitted the this if you wanna hand that up. Basically, they don't have a concern. One's from Justin Lewis who is Have a good one. Clerk there, though. And then the other is from the mayor. We don't have a recommendation, but we will help you direct a letter to county council.

K.

Alright. Commissioners, do you have any comments before we open the public hearing? Just a question.

Will there be a major realignment of that of that intersection? You said we'd talk about the u dot issue there.

I couldn't tell you. I don't know if Matt's here, but if he's not, I can follow-up with him and send you guys an email after as far as I'm aware, no. That's part of a different parcel. I don't know if there were two realign that, but at this time, I'm I'm not sure. K. So you said they sold off their access rights to u dot. So how do they access this property now? They would come off of 9,000 or 9,000. There's a There's some there's some ag as you can see them.

Mhmm. I guess they're ag accesses. It doesn't make sense that they sold them, but yet they still have accesses. There's one on the north side of the north parcel, and there's also one on the south side of the when I say the north, the two parent parcels. On each parcel individually, there's an ag where the ag where the farmers got on and off. But

Maybe that's the only ag access is all there. Might be a different access category that they're allowed versus, like, let's say, building a house, they wouldn't be able to do it, but an ag access is an ag

Okay. Well, can I get a motion to open the public hearing? Second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Is the applicant here or they'd like to make a comment?

Sure. Never done this before. So I Okay. Coach me up whatever. Please come here and state your name and Yeah. Over here. Yes. My name is Judd Eads and I'm a resident of Richmond. And, yeah, just looking to rezone that to put a little shop there.

Okay. What kind shop are you things you do? So I

I own a company called Adrenaline Industries. We build expedition trucks, like off road yachts, and all that work's currently being done in Twin Falls, Idaho.

Okay. And

so we'd like to we have a backlog of two years. So it's supposed to be a hobby, but it's a it and it's a great it's been a fun business, but we'd like to bring that work here. Okay.

Okay. Is that is that why you're looking at that south parcel to get that access?

Are you familiar with the no access from UDOT, I guess? No. I'm learning all this. I've never done anything. I guess I live close by. I just live up, you know, on the same act same road up there. So it's just convenient. I guess I'm spoiled. I used to I used to own ARS and I got sick of driving that far. But, it's only fifteen minutes. But anyway, just be convenient. It's not necessary. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But, we're under contract assuming that it gets approved, then I'll buy it. But, yeah. It just made sense. I we only need probably an acre, you know, but just on the circumstances, we're kind of forced to which is fine to buy all that, to make it work because the two acres alone wouldn't be enough.

Yeah. Okay.

And so then that first two acres a little slope to be a little awkward to put up any sort of a building there, so you kinda need the other parcel next to it. So that's why we looked at buying both together. It

it does give you room to grow though.

We do. I'm trying to Where would you place your access then? Wherever we're allowed, but hopefully, there off the side road would make the most sense. We don't wanna access off the to the east. Off the highway. Either Yeah. Just on that, wherever it would be allowed, really. It's not gonna matter because there's so much property and we're not looking to to develop all of it. We're just looking to put a, you know, I guess, a small industrial shop there. So and I'm also hoping I didn't realize that there was like they sold their access or whatever. If we needed to help gain some sort of easement to other properties, we're happy to. Sounds from what I'm hearing, Lauer's is is under contract on the next 10 acres and I know they've been trying to buy the other property from Archibald. And then that would then connect to their to Lauer's property. So they would have their access coming that way, but I would be again, it's more property than I need. I'm happy to work with somebody on easement if that was needed.

Okay.

Yeah. Do you have do you have many large semis deliver things or is it basically

not not really. We have, maybe twice a month, we would have it, you know, again, all that's being done in Twin Falls. And now, occasionally, if we need something here, I have it delivered to my building at ARS because I still own the building. I would estimate a couple times a month, but that's semis, you know, but Amazon type vehicles nearly every other day or so. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions?

Commissioners?

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. If there's other comments, could I have the chance to come back up? If there's questions to be answered or something, love that. Thanks.

Any other public comments?

So my name is Kim Breger. I I live just east of there. That whole corner is is where my my wife and I live. We've been there for thirty years. And I've talked to Judd about this, and I still have a concern and maybe he knows more than I do now, but I would have bought that whole piece when I bought mine forty years ago. But there isn't any water on it. And we've we've discussed that. We had it which and the only place I drilled one spot, and that's where we're lucky to eat a little bit of water. So there's not a lot of water on the West Side Of State Street. It's I guess I would ask Judd on there, where would he put his building? Because obviously, that affects our view, and I've got I I raise hay and everything on there and have horses in that. So I just like to keep I mean, I've told him if there was another option, I'd rather keep it agricultural. But if I gotta have a neighbor, Judd's as good a neighbor as there is. So I guess I just like to know how big the building is. I know my wife's concerned about that because we have a beautiful view out of the back of our home. And like I said, it drops a lot there, so we could probably just see over the top of it. But those have been my main concerns. And I again, the entrance on there, you said that you would put the entrance anywhere along there. There's a creek that runs down the north side of that or the south side of that property, and it runs year round. And so right now, there's a culvert that it goes through, but it varies on the amount of water that comes down there based on the year as to how much we get. But it runs continuously, So that'd have to be left open there. But that's really all I all I have. It's a

Thank you. Any other comments? You can try to come back up.

And just one one note why he's coming up too for where tonight, this is only a rezone for the property. I mean, there's no commitment on how big or where or whatever else. Obviously, you guys are neighbors and can talk, but in a rezone, we're not even considering yeah. This is strictly a rezone for the land. But but

the the development will come back through the planning commission. It will. The details will be revealed at a future meeting. Yes.

Yeah. Those are good questions. And the part of the of the contract I'm under to buy that is that there has to be water. So I would have to and the water we would need is a toilet, you know, maybe two if we're if we had his and hers. And so so if there's not water, and Kim and I talked about that, that's a big problem. Or even worse is if it if there's so little water that it affected the neighbors, I don't wanna be that neighbor either. And so that's so that before I even close on this is is for us to verify. We don't need to go very deep. We just whatever. We just need enough water even if it went into a small cistern, which I talked to the fire department as well. We need to make we were we need to have a a holding tank anyway. So we'll probably even if we just had a little bit of water that could pump into there in the evening or something, make sure that's full, and then that's what we would draw off of that. But but that that way, that could also serve in case there was a fire for the fire department. So I addressed that as well. As far as we want we're pretty proud of what we build. So as far as where we would intend of putting a building, assume the county allowed, is is close to the highway as possible, still leaving parking in front of it. You know, and so yeah. Even if even if we that's that's where we would prefer to have that building. It is closer. Size wise, probably somewhere between 12,500 square feet would be the size of the building. And and then when I looked at the property where the the the small little creek comes through or the stream is at, through there, the cost to put it in a, you know, put a culvert in a certain area it looks to be about the same no matter where we put it. So that's why the entrance doesn't matter to me. It might take into effect of, like, where's the best easement for other property owners too and is is is that did we then use that easement as the entrance to come in? Is that at the far east side of the property? I don't know. Again, because of what we're building so small and the acreage is so big, it doesn't really matter, where these things end up, other than it sounds like it would also benefit the breakers to have the building furthest away, which is be our intention to put it as close to the highway as possible and kind of facing the front end. With the front of it, it'd be rectangular. So it'd be longer and skinnier with the doors facing the highway.

Okay. How

tall do you think the building's gonna be? We need 14 foot doors and then we'll probably do a single slope off the backside. I don't know if that's 20 feet. 20 or 25 feet or something. Something like that would be our intentions. We even we even have kind of a design. I don't know if that even matters too much information, but we don't want it to look like a metal building. What what we build is pretty high end stuff. We want the building to to match that. K. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Did I answer all those questions? Kim, you said the three. K.

Yeah. Any other comments?

If not Move to close public hearing. I second. All in favor.

Aye.

Right. Well, I think this kind of makes sense. So I don't see any issues with it. What's your thoughts? Commissioners?

Mister chairman, prior to voting, I just need to disclose that Judd's my ecclesiastical leader. But if I can tick him off, that might help.

You're speaking to cheer Sunday, poor guy. It

won't affect my vote is what I'm saying. Okay. Brady's gonna be in nursery pretty soon.

It's worse than that. He's higher than that.

Okay. K.

Yep. Yep. It's the highway is where these kind of things it should be. Yep.

The the the access was, I think, my biggest concern or whatever. Yeah. And I know that in in previous commission meetings, we've had some landowners to the east there talk about that road and how dangerous it is and that sort of thing, and it's really in need of improvements and that sort of thing. So those are concerns that, you know, don't necessarily prohibit this project from moving forward, but I think they're gonna come back at some point. Yeah.

And probably just to just to let the applicant know ahead of time, it seems to me the further east on that property, the better for the access just to keep it away from the highway and kind of balance it with that Yeah. That corner there that has some pretty has some issues as well. So Yeah. And and wide enough that you can get a truck in and have without any problems. Yeah. I mean, we know what's happened up the road and we've discussed that. Yeah. So it needs to all be taken into consideration.

We get a motion. My my only concern I'll just add to what they said. My only concern with when I first saw this was especially where the same individual owns the two parcels together was coordinating the access. But since the applicant's more than willing to work with the other party, and then I'm also confident from knowing the applicant that he will work with the county and do what's best for that. With that turn on the east there being almost a 90 degree, there's people that take it faster, but those that do end up usually off the road. So they should be slowed down coming around that corner.

Move to recommend approval based with the four

conclusions? Second that.

Okay.

All in favor? Aye.

Okay.

And then item number five, public hearing for Wellsville safe storage two rezone. Connor, if you'll take us through that.

Yeah. So this is the Wellsville safe storage two rezone. I'm going to request to rezone eight acres from the agricultural zone to the commercial zone. There's a bit of history. In February, this parcel went through the rezone application process to rezone from the ag zone to the industrial zone. The request was recommended for denial by the planning commission and was denied by county council in March. This parcel matches the configuration of 08/08/2006 and is legal. In terms of adjacent properties, properties of the north and east are agricultural, while properties to the south are primarily agricultural. And properties to the west are a mix of ag and residential. Of note is the American West Heritage Center and Wellsville City boundaries are located directly to the south of the subject parcel. The nearest parcel that's in the commercial zone is located 1.74 miles to the east of the subject property. That is the Curtis Knight rezone. It's a request to rezone 9.75 acres and is currently developed into storage units. The Cache County general plan identifies this area as agriculture and ranching. The purpose of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character of most areas in the valley. Preferred land uses agriculture, ranching, and rural residential uses. Secondary land use preferences includes industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture. Clustered subdivision developments in farmworker housing. Discouraged uses includes residential developments at densities of greater than one unit percent acres and industrial or commercial uses. Of note, this parcel is not in the urban expansion overlay. And so the subject parcels included in two general plans. First, we have Wellsville. They located as in the R A C 5 zone, which is the residential agriculture five acre zone. Preferred land uses for that zone includes agriculture with limited residential development, and discourage uses includes commercial and industrial and higher density residential developments. Nibley has it as open space, agriculture, and low density residential zone. I couldn't really find a cut and dry definition of what that means. I'm just gonna guess it's in the name. What's interesting is the zone that's directed to the east of it is in the commercial zone, and that's a general plan. Currently, it's access. We came off of 3900 South. That's classified as a minor local and as a county road. It provides access to residential and agricultural properties. It's maintained by the county year round and has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. In terms of the stats for the road, it's currently 24 feet wide, has a 50 foot 55 foot right of way, nine foot paved shoulder, a two foot gravel shoulder, a five to 10 foot clear zone is paved. It's considered substandard as a right of way. Of note is that industrial and commercial uses per county code must be on a major local road. Problem is the subject property is on a minor local road. In terms of service provisions, Cache County Fire District had no comments. The applicant will need to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. Noticing was completed on the eighth. The agenda was also posted to the county website on the eighth. At the time of writing the staff report, one public comment had been received from Wellsville City. This is their original industrial zone letter, so Wellsville didn't have any concerns on that side of things as long as they went through the conditional use process with us. Since writing the staff report, two additional public comments have been received. The American West Heritage Center and USU provided one. They should be in your folder if you wanna take a look at them. Staff has no recommendation, but we'll help you draft a letter to county council.

K. Thank you, Connor.

Any comment, commissioners? Just a clarification. So it's it's not in the in the urban expansion overlay, but it is in Wellsville City's annexation?

So it's in both Wellsville and Nibley's. And Nibley's. Yeah. K. Yeah. So those

Wellsville get there first. Yeah. Yeah. On that road, Connor, the road distinction, will you say that again?

Yes. So the road is currently classified as a minor local Just for county code, if you wanna have an industrial commercial use, which storage units or anything would fall under, and he's got a major local road. So they're not in the right classification to actually have an industrial commercial use.

So so with that, is there is there the possibility is that just a designation that the county puts on that, and that doesn't change? Or would applicant have the ability to improve a road to that to the higher level? Or that's kind of a math question. I know a bit It's a math question. My understanding

is it's all about use. So if, let's say, density increase further on down that road, it probably would classify as a higher road. As it stands right now, there's just not enough use for it to qualify as that. That's that's my guess. We'll we'll roll with that.

Okay. Alright. I'll make a motion to open the public hearing.

Mister chairman, I'd move we open the public hearing. Okay. Second that. All in favor? Aye.

Is the applicant here to make a statement or

comment? Okay. So, some more state statement. Oh, Mike Baldwin. We've got a few partners in this, including the landowner, Christiansons on this. And we're looking to put just some storage sheds. We've got a similar project that we did in Smithfield, with Smithfield City, and it's worked out great. They were happy happy with it. Everyone's the first ones to go in there, and so they were really looking for something. That's why we're looking for it in this area as well. I know you were talking about a major versus a minor classification, and it's easy. It's definitely been used by more people than any other minor one given that they just had over 10,000 visitors go through that thing. So just in the baby animal days with America West Heritage Center. So you really have a commercial traffic there already that's already accessed in that. And whatever we've gotta do, similar to what we've done is widen the road through there if it needs to go to the 30 foot, I think is what the major is, and improve that. That's what you have to do we would do anyway on that. So I know that if that was a concern with that, but it's already getting much more traffic than any other county road like that would see given the uses that the America West Heritage Center has with that and then all the events that they have there on a weekly basis while the receptions and everything that they've they've got there too. So but, yeah, that's what we're looking to do is just have it rezoned. The county council, when we went to them, said, hey, we would rather instead of it, we first brought it to you guys when when it was industrial. They said we would like it to see see it that it's commercial. We know it's likely that Wellsville City is gonna annex this in the next few years, as they look to expand their commercial area where they've already got commercial just, I don't know, half a mile away from us, where they brought in that commercial subdivision industrial. So it is owned with the Palace of Utah, right there as well. So any questions?

Questions? No. I don't think so. Thank you. Yeah. Any other comments?

My name is Eric Olsen. I represent the board of trustees of the Merrick Olsen Heritage Center, and 13 of 14 board members are opposed to this and I think you have our letter before you of the Opposition. I won't read the whole letter, but I do want to read just the last bullet. This project would the inconsistency with the preservation goals, Cache County's general plan emphasizes the importance of safeguarding agricultural lands and rural character. Maintaining the current zoning in this area aligns with those long standing priorities. And I know for years the county council planning zoning has been concerned with preserving the corridor and keeping that ag feel and I don't think storage units say welcome to this beautiful agriculture corridor. And so we we strongly oppose that, this project.

Furlson, I have a a question for you. Yeah. I don't really know the history of this property, but from what I gather and remember from our last meeting, it has been for sale previously.

Have you guys ever considered buying the property so that you could control it? I I've been on the the board for twenty five years, and I have I'm not aware that we have ever been approached to purchase that. So I don't know who it was offered to. You know, we're a nonprofit organization. I don't know what I don't know what eight acres would go for in in this area, but, as as a, you know, nonprofit organization, we certainly don't have the the ability to purchase

that. K. Thank you.

Any comments? Measures. Thank you. May I have

Okay. I'm Margaret Christiansen Bosworth and I own part of that land with my brother. And I have to disagree with you, mister Olson, because my brother has talked to them for years and years when they bought the two, county ones, to the west of us from, Ted Hall years ago. They never did want I don't know why they did not buy our eight acres, so you had the whole whole field down there all the way down to the corner. But my brother has talked to him several times. We've known different people on the board and asked them, I mean, to put something nice there. And so we it you have been approached. I I know that for a fact. I just hey. But Mark, if you can just Yeah. Just just look up here. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll miss Doug. Okay. I'm sorry. And, I mean and Doug has talked to my brother has talked to him several times because we could not figure out why. I I don't know clear back then why they didn't at that time because, you know, the Cache County did buy the rest and it's hay and they use it for parking for their baby animal days. And it's not something that we want to be not looking nice. I mean, it's something that we've been approached on and we've we've talked to Utah State about buying it too. And whether it's not the money or they don't want it, I don't know what it is. But we're to the point that for us, our farm down below the Little Bear River to we cannot pull a swath or something up that road to to run that land, and we've got the water rights to run that land, so we've do want something that looks nice. And when we've talked to the Baldwin's and the whatever, we have says we'd like this, we'd like a landscape, we want something nice. Because we the land means a lot to us too. And we want something to look nice in that property and that. So I guess that's all I've got to say. Thank you.

Any other comments?

K.

Mister chairman, I move we close public hearing. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

You know, on this, I I I understand having open space. I'm a farmer. I like open space. I have a farm in Wellsville, and I I think that's important. But I think that more important is preserving people's property rights and letting them be able to and within, you know, the the laws that have been set forth to to be able to develop their property. I think that's really important to have a corridor that's I get that that's safe, but the county has has not followed precedence on that. They've allowed, other commercial properties to be be built in the open areas that are supposed to be preserved and for property rights. And I think this makes sense to me because it's right on highway. I understand the heritage center. I do get that. But that's my take is is preserving property rights here. Any other thoughts, commissioners?

As I mentioned the last time this come up under a different category, I served on the board and worked hard to purchase property. We purchased some property to the south. There was a triangular piece down there that was gonna become a gas station. And, we worked really hard to get that. Talked to the realtor and and so forth. That's why I'm having such a hard time understanding why this property has not been purchased or otherwise. I know at one time, the Shoshone tribe was thinking about it. True? Yes. And I think they either ran out of money or decided to develop the massacre area up in Idaho. So that's where that money went when they were doing that. Because this is the natural trail of the Shoshone Indians when they go back and forth. Reason I know that is because they go right by Newton on their way. So it's it's a piece of ground that is very, very difficult for me to see turn into something that's a lot of stuff is gonna go grow around it. And so I think we we are saying goodbye to that corridor from that point on from thirty nine what is it? Twenty seven hundred south? Thirty nine hundred south north is probably once this happens, it's gonna go. That's a great sphere. And you do take away a bit of the agricultural response of this valley. I've been here most of my life except for a few years away as education. And the one thing that people would say when they would come into my office is I entered this valley and I knew this is where I wanted to live. And will this destroy that? Not single handedly, no. But in time, it'll all become developed. So I guess we have to decide where do we take a stand.

My my concern is I mean, I like open space, but where is the county reimbursing these landowners? Compensation. In compensation for that because it's to have a corridor come through, that's great for everybody else. But the people don't property along there, that's sure an injustice to them. No question. And so it's a hard it's a hard talk. I mean, it's it's similar that we have. Right? We had the the the landlord come in that wanted to rezone from

a 10 to r u two Mhmm. Right, that we denied. Mhmm. So similar to that. I think I think we do them often, whether they're fair or unfair, I guess. And that's the the good thing about rezone request. Right? They can be, I think, at least for me, a few of the comments in USU's letter, you know, to me show the public sentiment, all the all the other ground around there to the to the south across the road is is public ground already. Not gonna be made commercial. So we know we got two thirds or or three quarters of that corridor preserved through there already. And for me, that's where it it seemed like a good chance to to to preserve the rest of that. And to the north, this church owns a bunch of the ground on that side of the road also. I guess there may be a temple or stake center there someday in our lifetime. But I I really like USU's letter that came in this go around. It wasn't there the first time. Hey. Can I is there any way I I can make a comment? You can. And I Just just just wait till we're So Yeah. That that's what I'm looking at it from is Yeah. And and the the 40 acres to the east or the west they're talking about there, you know, what whether the county develops that into their their new fairgrounds at some point or or what they use that for. If they put that fairgrounds think they just I don't think they've decided that yet or what that's gonna be. Yeah.

It could be a park. Who who knows what they're what they're gonna do? I don't I don't think they've made any decisions on that. But Well, I mean, living out there, I mean, if they put fairgrounds out there, that's just loses the feel of open space too. I mean Yeah. And that's what I was saying. And you have all those university buildings on the other side that you know, those big university buildings, and and then you have Palace Utah down the road. So to me, from the Maverick North, you've kind of lost that open spill,

you know, from in Wellsville. You also have Vernon Investments that we approved here within the last year or two that who knows what they're gonna do there with Sharps

on that property right there on the

frontage, and they own right to the highway. And that's South of Palatine, Utah. Plus, you've got that parcel in front of it, the parcelless side of it. It's just unknown. But, yeah, that's a commercial subdivision.

Right.

Now I'd like Do you mind if I'm expanding up just a little bit, Connor, so that we can see the Pallets Of Utah south of there on the east side? See the structure right there? And then south of it is the Vernon Investments.

That's all Wellsville. Yeah. I was gonna say that I mean, it's all Wellsville. There's not any county zone

commercial or any property along It's correct. It is Wellsville. Yeah. Well Industrial Vernon Investments is on the east side of the road further. Pallets,

Utah is in the county.

No. It's in Wellsville. It's city's it's Wellsville City's industrial. Yep. They they annexed that. So where do Wellsville and Hiram

meet? Which road? Hiram? Further to the Are you talking about Nibali or No. Well, Nibali, we can see.

In Nibali?

Down to here. But Hiram comes over almost to that gas station. Right? Right there. Yeah. Not that far. Not that far. No. So Wellsville Owns all those properties north. Mhmm.

Can you clarify where the boundary is for Wellsville on the East side again?

Yeah. So Wellsville is just south of it and extends out a little bit that way.

It's south. Yeah. Turquoise.

Yeah. It's not turquoise.

It's actually more of a pine green, but Somebody's colorblind. Right? Definitely.

So so for me, I I guess, you know, I still have the same concerns I had when it was, you know, recommended for industrial zoning. And so all of all of those items that I had mentioned previously are also in some of the comment letters, so I don't need to repeat those. But it's an it's an access concern and a corridor preservation concern and the fact that we don't have other, you know, similar type zoning in that area. It's immediately adjacent to Wellsville. They love it. They should annex it and be done with it and get us out of it. It's kinda how I feel about it. So

Yeah. The gateway is kind of kind of the concern that I have. You know, when we look at these areas, that's one of one of the the values that we looked in looked at. And so that's a that's definitely a concern among what I've what else I've heard.

And to go to to put on the record, I I do own storage units in this valley. That doesn't qualify as a conflict of interest, but just so it's on the record. I do own storage units in this county on a piece of ground that was rezoned commercial, I think, forty years ago or thirty years ago. Thirty. A long, long time ago. Certainly before I owned it. Just so that just so that's out there, but that does not qualify the conflict of interest because I'm not involved with this particular project.

No. This is the property right here. Right? It is. And the county's general plan identifies that area with the commercial owed at that location. Yeah. Yeah. All the parcels around there will eventually be

commercial most likely based on the county county plan.

K.

Commissioners are good good if we have mister Baldwin come back up to

I understand the open space and the concern there and I Mike Baldwin. And, I realized you just got another corridor that you just approved from ag to industrial just literally right before us up in Richmond. Another corridor coming right into the in the valley itself along there. So I I'm a little conflicted there. And then no no disrespect, mister Docks, but there's definitely a conflict of interest with you. I mean, I respect a fellow business owner as well, but it would be in competition to some of some of mine. So I I would disagree with with the conflict of interest, but not no disrespect meant by that. That's right. But that that's where we see it. And then last time, I think I left the county council meeting, I also was approached by county members, leadership members, and said we are really interested in this property. And I don't know why every be everybody became interested in it all of a sudden when we finally wanna do something with it. And so when the landowner can't get what they wanted, we've we've know we know them and they they they came to us and said, hey. Can we can we do this with you? We don't wanna sell the land to you and have you do it. We wanna do it with you. I own businesses in Wellsville. I live in Wellsville. I grew up on that south end of the Valley, so similar to what your your Richmond guy was just saying. I want it to be a a good place. When we when we build them, we don't just put them up. It's gonna look nice. I think we sent in to that. And as we talked to the county council, that's what some of the concerns they had as well. So Thank

you. Any comments from the county council?

Liaison? We'll get to make them soon. It, to me, goes back to if if the you don't like what's happened next to you, you should have bought the property. Right? So Yes. Exactly right. That's exactly right. And it's and I again, I've said this again, but I I like the open space. I like that. But at the same time, it's comes down to property rights that someone shouldn't have to be punished because just because they own property on the highway because someone else wants thinks it's their opinion to have open space there and keep that that corridor open. You know, that's I I could see both sides of it, but we need to make that point, you know, that they have property rights too. So does, you know, the people in the valley, they they wanna have open space. They should have make a way to have that happen and buy property. But, anyway, it's a hard one.

Chris, have they applied for coset?

And I I can say in the eighteen or so years I've been here, we've approved at least a dozen storage unit commercial rezones, and there's two to the east of here, one in Nibley and one in Hiram. So they're, you know, they're they're used to it. I personally don't have a problem with.

It's all about context in the location. And and, you know,

location. And and, you know, it's more for me, it's the open space is important, but it's more of

the access and preserving that corridor so traffic can move through the valley. And, corridors

are.

So

how how long are we corridors are. So how how long are we gonna continue to make it worse before making making it better or, you know, preserving that corridor, which I know there's been multiple plans associated with corridor preservation from a UDOT perspective. And so that's why I'm not I I'm not comfortable approving it.

Alright, commissioners. Where do we stand?

Probably your turn, Trace. Okay.

Someone wanna make a motion?

Well, I'd make a motion that we recommend denial to the county council for the Wellsville Safe Storage LLC to rezone based on the six conditions

or six

conclusions. Sorry. Second the motion.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Aye. Aye.

Okay.

Alright.

Move on to the Perhaps the council will feel differently. Yeah. Yep.

Okay. Move to the next public hearing. The Wi Fi fiber tower summit storage rezone. Can you take us

I guess we know why everybody was here.

Okay. So this is the Wi Fi or slash summit storage rezone. It's a request to apply the public infrastructure overlay to a quarter of an acre on a parcel that's a total of 5.93 acres. That's in the a 10 zone, the agricultural zone. The lot is legal. It's the same size and configuration as it was on the Summit subdivision plat that was recorded in 2009. Jason uses properties to the North are industrial, the the Logan City sewer ponds. Properties to the East oh, hold on. Sorry. I lost my place. Properties to the East are a mix of agricultural and residential, and then properties to the south and west are mainly agricultural. Logan City boundaries are located directly to the north of the subject parcel, on the other side of Highway 30. Nearest parcel that has the public infrastructure overlay on it is located 4.72 miles to the southwest of the subject parcel. In terms of the general plan, this area is marked as agricultural ranching. The purpose of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character in most areas of the valley. Preferred land uses includes agriculture, ranching, and rural residential uses. Secondary land uses includes industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture, clustered subdivision developments, and farmworker housing. Discouraged uses includes residential developments at densities greater than one unit per 10 acres and industrial and commercial uses. Also, the parcel is not in the urban expansion overlay. This property is located in the Logan City annexation area, and it falls within our gateway zone. The purpose of the zone is to develop high quality highway entrances in the Logan City. Preferred land uses include visitor oriented commercial uses, corporate campuses, and recreational opportunities with attractive buildings, maintain landscapes, or natural areas, and large setback from primary roads. The road to the north is Highway 30. It's a UDOT road. It's classified as other principal arterial, provides access to industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural properties, and serves as the main connection between Logan and Tremont. Any access to the proposed development require approval from UDOT. Cash County Fire District had no comments. The effort went to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. For solid waste disposal. Noticing was completed on May 8, and the agenda was posted to the county website on May 8 as well. At the time of writing the staff report, no public comments have been received, just that letter from Logan. And then staff has no recommendation, but we'll help you draft a letter to county council.

Thank you.

Did you include the letter from Logan?

I didn't see one. I didn't see it.

That's okay. You I I was kinda looking for

I'm not sure if it's having an issue.

It's like the biggest issue with that is if it were in there, it's need to be at the back of the lot, not the front. Yeah.

And they have, like, you know, tower height limitations.

Yeah. That I think that Like we do. Yeah. More than likely, if they develop this property, it's gonna have to get an exemption kinda like what was that one down? SBA down in Paradise. Similar situation.

K.

Motion to open the the public hearing. So moved.

All in favor? Aye.

Okay. Is the applicant here? Who seconded to that? I'll second it. Sorry. Sorry. I thought you said it's alright. The applicant wants to come up and state your name.

Yeah. Good question.

Hayden Nelson with WiFiber. This whole project got kicked off a couple years ago when there was a preexisting tower that we purchased from Altec, and UDOT, started a road expansion project that had us take down that tower. And UDOT is funding us to move the tower further back onto the property. And to do that, we need to do the rezone, get the canoe canoe use permit, and continue on building there. So any concerns about the height and the setback will be brought up as part of the next step.

What is what was the height of the previous tower? Height the height of the previous tower was

60 foot. 60? Yeah. And the one that we submitted to UDOT for reimbursement is one twenty because of the difference in difference in height that we'd have to make up for.

So you're wanting to put a 120 foot tower there? Yeah. K. And you realize we have a 60 foot tower limit?

Yes. Okay. Yeah. And that's that's gonna be the next step going to the conditional, trying to get an exemption for it.

Would would there be any issue moving that to the to the south side of that lot somewhere? So that when it is is annexed into Logan, it would also meet their requirements.

So that's working with the landowner is the reason we wouldn't wanna move that to the back. It's where he would like us to place the tower.

Looks like it might be a good spot right there.

Might make it easier to get an exemption. We're struggling a tad bit or at least I am of hearing you clearly. Have you even had discussion with the landowner of possibly moving it, or have you even tried?

We yeah. We have talked with the landowner, but that's the location that he wants us to put it.

Was there I I kind of over or heard understood that was it 02/20/2020 when you you had an existing 60 foot here Mhmm. But then with the expansion, is is there no tower at all there now?

Not not since the expansion of the road started. We had to take it down a few years ago.

So did they allude to you or guarantee you that you could get a 60 back at minimum at that point? Or was there any concessions?

Just in order to make it function similar to how it did before we had to take it down. And what it's used for is to you do wireless links throughout the valley. After it got taken down, we had to do links twice as long, which reduces reliability, reduces speeds, for our offering of fixed wireless access to the home. What this tower in the center of the valley would do is make, make our service more reliable by cutting the link's length in

half. And you said moving into that place would need that to have a 120 foot tower because the buildings will block it. Is that Build buildings and trees. And the trees. Okay.

That makes no sense to me. It's right next to where it was. So how does I mean, it's not like it was down in a ditch or up on a hill. It's you're moving at 20 feet, and why does it need to be twice as high all of a sudden?

Trees halfway in the distance.

What's that? In trees in the distance from the tower. You're talking about trees throughout the valley? Yeah. Yeah. So you just wanna make it taller because When we when it was originally placed, the towers that it feeds were, you know,

20 feet over, trees 20 feet in the distance, even half mile away can walk it. I get it. Yep. I I I won't be supportive of that. I

Yep.

I I I won't be supportive of a 120 foot tower. I can tell you that. Would it would it

be worthwhile to go tell the land owner that you've talked with the planning committee and you'd really like to put it in one of those back corners? Because it doesn't look like much is going on there.

It's

black. But you got different owners. Yeah. That's outside of that building. There might be some restrictions

on it. In next to a boundary. And currently, it's being used as a as a lot. And so there's dirt in that corner is my understanding that would need to be moved.

He's leased that then to somebody who used it. Is that correct? That's correct. So he would just have to to go to the lease owner and find out how you could get in there because it doesn't appear to be a problem building up there. Correct.

Alright. Chris, do you wanna explain to just sort of understands what's the problem with the 120 foot tower? Just so you It's just it's imposing. It's out of scale, everything else. And I I realize

not everybody sees it that way. Right. But but I certainly do. Like, I I'm sure at a 120 foot, I could see it from my house in Young Ward. And Yeah. So you not alone right there in the gateway to Logan. You read what Logan's trying to do with the gateway, and a 120 foot tower is not compatible. They have a height limitation of 70. We have 60. We've given exemptions before, but twice as high. Just again, it's it's context and and scope. And for me, I'm not comfortable. But those power poles on to the west are a 120,

so it's not that far away. So so with with those power lines, that high tension line that comes across the cuts of middle of the valley. Sure. That's how big they are. And industrial And they're right there going into the wilderness. Industrial corridor,

you know, it was you you expect those kinds of

of of that tower. But this is right. By the sewer plants. That then this is their this is their corridor, like, coming in as the sewer plant? I don't know. One of those sewer plants. Then it it'd it'd move all day. It'd go around. I'm just saying Maybe to get better connection. Get some reflection of them. Yeah. I I I'm just trying to understand. It's just something to thank you. Sure. Sure. It yeah. It's It's similar to the one we had that came in Paradise. Was it Paradise or Avon a couple months ago? Yeah. It was, you know, was seeking the the really high one in We we put grain bins out in Richmond at 01:20. They bought my view, but they're necessary.

Yeah. They do.

I think think some businessmen in Logan would probably think this is necessary

too. Okay. K. Could we open the it's public. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Any other comments?

My name is Will Charles MacGregor with yFiber. And the reason why I wanted to address you guys today is the entire point of this project is to provide better connectivity to areas. For instance, as brought up earlier, Yonge Ward, where a lot of the current Internet providers that are coming into the valley can't quite cut it with, you know, what's going on technology wise, just the change. Everything's happening so rapidly. And that's kinda where we come in as a local Internet provider. You know, of course, there's, you know, gonna be objections about tower height and view obstruction. But with this being in the area that it's located at, I don't necessarily know if that's gonna be too big of an issue for the benefit that it would actually provide for the community. And that extends all the way out to Benson, Mendon, you know, pretty much all nearby areas. And, you know, one no matter what issue may arise, us being a local company, we don't wanna, in a sense we we wanna keep Logan clean, keep it nice. That's something I personally stand by myself. And the tower itself, I don't think would cause any issues, but actually provide a lot of benefit to the neighboring areas. And that's all I have to say.

Yeah. Yeah. I I don't know if you guys have any statistics, but do you have any idea at this time how many clients would not have service that you wouldn't be able to service if you wasn't able exceed to

60 feet? That is actually a great question. I feel like Hayden would be potentially better to answer that. But to my understanding, the height of a tower, if we were I mean, you're doubling it from 60 to one twenty, and that wasn't necessarily even the initial point of this hearing is to talk about the tower height. You know, we're gonna get to that once if if we're able to get it rezoned, you know, say even if that part of the plan doesn't get approved, Now it's really just to have the land rezoned for potential use in the future. But doubling the height of that, you can probably imagine, just think double the amount of customers or even potential amount of radio links we're able to hit with that. And there are gonna be issues with having it be moved, you know, as Hayden brought up earlier, the 20 feet to the south or, you know, to no matter what direction, there's gonna be some adjudge adjustments that have to be made to how our current and previous tower was set up. So just little things like that, having the extra height will at least be able to have us guarantee, you know, these people great Internet service where a lot of these areas they're overlooked is a good way to put it. And we have a lot of people who we are currently struggling to service in the area as are a lot of other internet companies just due to, I guess, first off, our tower initially being moved and us having to reconnect them to not the most optimal places. And with as many people working from home as there are nowadays, Internet, you could consider a basic necessity. And in order to get these guys the best connection possible and guarantee their success no matter what it is, whether it's spending time with family or work from home, I think having that extra height kinda justifies

itself. You're not gonna benefit my house, but I could tell you right now firsthand, I have no Internet at my house. And we've talked to providers, and we can't get it because of trees. Do you mind if I ask where you're currently located at? Ashland. Right East Of Pepperidge Farm.

East Of Pepperidge Farm? Yep. I mean, in a separate matter, we might be able to help you out. We actually have a fantastic brand new tower right on top of Crow Mountain out there. Should be able to I can't I can't hit Crow Mountain. How or so you're down into that? Yeah. We can talk after, but I'm just sharing the I'm sharing the frustration. Hear you. I'm sharing the frustration as an individual.

I've had companies tell me, oh, we can get you service. You can't. I mean, you might be able to, but I can promise you we can get you good service. Where where I'm at, we were on Trenton Mountain and had excellent service until COVID, and the techs told us that they turned it down because everybody was using too much.

Trenton Mountain was my only source. I think that's an issue with them not updating their current infrastructure where they were not prepared to have that many subscribers and users at home using their networks. For us being a local company, we wouldn't, like, we started in Cache Valley in 2017. We wouldn't be in business if that's how we ran our operation. I won't waste anymore of your time than this.

Question I have is, as I understand it then, fiber, cable, and Wi fiber, Wi fiber is all through the air. So we your home from that tower to your to your house. Is that correct?

Yes. In a lot of most of our use cases, yes, we have a wireless link. Oh, sorry.

If you speak into the mic, you would when you talk. Here you go. Yeah. So Hayden.

Yeah. WiFiber started 2017, a wireless company, and we've operated that way for many years now. We are working on expanding our fiber so we can offer more fiber to more clients, but having a strictly fiber network or wireless network is not a good way to operate. There are areas where wireless makes sense to install because of the cost of deployment, and there's areas where fiber makes sense to install. And the wireless we're putting in isn't subpar in any way. And we wanna make sure people are able to work from home. They're able to get telehealth. They're able to do anything that they need to use the Internet for. And we're expanding our infrastructure in the valley, especially with a grant that we're going for. And this is one of the towers that we were working on before we were even started applying for grants in the valley. So this is one of eight towers we're looking at either improving or building to ensure coverage throughout all of Cache Valley.

Thank you. Thank you, Aiden. Any any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Any other comments?

Move to the close of public hearing. Second, Dan. All in favor. Aye. Aye.

Mister chairman, I just need to disclose that they have a tower on our ranch property. We don't have a business relationship, but

Okay.

It's a small little one. How tall?

15 feet.

I don't know. It's

also got a couple thousand feet a couple a couple thousand feet of mountain. Yeah. One more time? Have you looked at Starlink from out there?

So the issue here is that you had a tower That I've built. That was there. That you got came into the expansion. We just gotta move it and do that's what we're looking at here. The tower height will be another another time. Right? Yeah. I do have

just a a point here, Connor. I don't know what the date is on the on the image here, but I think your GIS is I I just pulled up the the Google Earth current Google Earth. And with the expansion of of Highway 30 there, and maybe that's maybe that's going to update there.

This is really close.

This is really close to the to the property line. Yeah. And that's my that's my biggest concern about this one is You even get the tie wires. As a risk manager, when there's a tower, I look at it and say, well, I want it. If it tips over, it's all on the property. And this is really close to hit really close to a major arterial. Not saying the towers tip over very often, but it's it is it it it is at risk with the highway and all of those things. I would be more comfortable if if it were moved to a different location on the on the property.

Yeah. If they came in for a CEP for a 120 foot tower, they'd have to get two exemptions. One for the height itself and then one from setback requirements. Mhmm.

Yeah. Yeah. I really that that concerns me more than any of the you know, the tower is a tower where they're it's infrastructure that we have to deal with. But that location is is a real concern for me and be a problem for me in in improving a a rezone there.

What are the setbacks on a 60 foot tower? Like, it'd be 60 feet? I can 60 feet just to hide the tower? That'd be tough. Yeah. It would be tough.

So is it is is it a moot point then? I mean, there would be an I guess there's an existing process for both of us. That would be hard for me to both if we had a, you know, a 60 foot setback for a 60 foot tower, and we're I mean, looking there a couple of dozen feet, maybe, from the from the property line in that in that fence.

Probably 90 feet. Yeah. So if it's a 120 feet, they'd have a 120 foot setback. Yeah.

And I get some exemptions, but I but I also look at the at the potential with the traffic and everything that's that's there. To me, that's a problematic site for this, and I and I have a challenge with that for for a reason.

Does it spell out on that red square what that size is?

Quarter acre. Quarter

acre. Okay. Quarter acre.

Yeah. I I had the same as Jason. Just seems to me like I mean I mean, the landowner is getting a pretty decent payment for that quarter acre. May maybe if his option is you gotta look for a different landowner or he needs to move it, maybe he'd be more willing to to move it. I mean, I I'm fine with approvers, you know, recommending approval this reason, knowing that there's a good chance it may not get a conditional use permit approved because the variance don't happen. But if we could move it somewhere else, it seems a lot easier for the secondary approval. Yeah. At least at least from my perspective for either of the variances then. So I I don't know if it's worth the applicant working with them a little more to see if there are some options. If, you know, if you gotta leave the site altogether, they may be more amenable to looking for a different spot on there that you could put that tower.

I mean, that said, it it makes sense to put it in an industrial site there because we already have the industrial impact, the visual impact there. So it it it it does make make a lot of sense there. It's just the proximity. That parcel.

Just And and exemptions, you know, I mean, in this case, that those are significant exemptions. Right? We're talking about double ice, the height and

And Hardly any of the 10% of the setback. Yeah. Yes. Well, they might have the distance there. I mean, acres 43,560 square feet, divide that by four, that's 15,000. 10,890 square feet, and 60 by 60 falls within that range. So, I mean, you might have the height there. I don't know. I mean, that's the distance there. As a point of clarification, the maximum height is 45 feet for a tower. Okay. Okay.

As long as you kept the same proximity elevation wise, not going in a hole, could you be anywhere within a mile of that area and still fulfill your your, transmission? Or is that only spot critical?

We'd we'd have to double check all sites that go to it do have reverse line of sight. Oh.

Yeah. I think the big thing too is you dot willing to pay for this. There's fiber to that point, I

assume. So On that highway, that's where you you told me, I was trying to Comcast, Lumen,

and First Control That's a major that's a major part of deciding is access to fiber.

Okay. And the big reason why you're moving it to this spot is because you dot gonna help pay for the cost. Right? Because there was a tower there and you're gonna move it.

One, u dot helps to reduce the cost, and two, it's close to where the original was. Yeah. Okay. But u dot doesn't say that it has to be exactly in that location, though. Not not exact, but close to the corridor. That has to be similar to where

Sure. Sure. But if it but if it were on the parcel somewhere

else, it would probably still fit because it's on the same parcel. Would would we be better off to

extend this out up to ninety days and let them try and work through these details or what what's best? I like that. That's a good idea. I I What's your thoughts, Chris? I would love to

find out if if their, you know, their their landowner is open to shifting the location a little bit. I think I think it would help for

multiple reasons. But Well, and even if I mean, I'm sure it costs because you gotta have your power. But if that's land owner's not willing, I mean, I think there's a number right there that could be possibly. But as long as you're still lined up, but if we just if you had the time you needed to do some more research based upon their concerns I mean, we know it's important, and we wanna help because governor Cox here, what, four years ago or three years ago, wanted to get Internet to everybody. And so we wanna help with that, but we gotta be smart in where we put it.

So if it was approved tonight, it'd be a 45 foot limit on right?

It could be any exemption you want. So that's kind of the risk you're taking. You could approve it and and grant an exemption later, but if that exemption isn't granted, it's just a dead spot based on the I personally would feel better Yeah. Given all parties more time to

make it work right.

Yep. Just and just to to maybe put an exclamation point on that, you know, I I mean, my vote would be nay tonight, but I would support a continuance to to work that out. Same. And and I'd be supportive if we if we looked at the the location. And k. Better.

There's no question that if you can talk that parcel owner into letting you go somewhere else that's off that highway and safer, I think we're we'd feel much better about it.

Chris, what is your are you okay with that?

Yeah. I am. I mean, I it it still may not make me wanna approve it, you know, in the future when they come in for the tower height and all of that, but certainly it's better. So

Making that motion.

I'd I'd be willing to make the motion. Mister chairman, I'd move that we extend up to ninety days the Wi Fi, Wi Fi, Verizon, storage rezone to allow all parties more time to specifically, we wanna be in an area where they can service their area, but if there's a better area economically probably not economically, but just aesthetically and safety. I would I would move that we, extend that up to ninety days. I'll just second that. Okay. All in favor. Aye. Thank you.

Okay. Item number eight. Connor, if you wanna take a set on that surface fault rupture.

Yeah. So we presented this to you last time. There is a new category of geologic hazard that's kinda coming up in other counties on the surface fault rupture study special study zone. Right now, our proposal is just adding it to our definition of geologic hazard, which would cause it to trigger geotech. It's pretty much it. We did a little bit of research in other counties in their code. Most counties do specifically call it out as a hazard that would trigger geologic geotech report. So we're just kinda proposing that we amend that definition, take it up to county council, and just have that where in the future someone's in that zone with a building house or something, it would trigger the requirement for geotechnical report.

Connor, do you have any examples specifically maybe of where this has happened or what it's in reference to?

There's a there's a document that the Utah Geologic Geologic Services happened is

It's almost Geologic Service. UGS. Yes. Yeah. UGS has out there

that that gives examples. Almost all the examples they had were outside of Utah. There was one out in Hansel Valley or something some place like that. Yeah. Data center. Who knows? I think that was the one. But then then the the examples they gave were the if you've ever been to Mount Bora up by up by in between or by Mackay and Idaho, there was an area where there was an uplift, and there's this scarp that is, I don't know, 30 or 40 feet Yeah. Where it opened up. Yeah. So that's what it's referred to. Yeah. So it and that's really what it's talking about is is it can open at the surface. Or it can open. But they That's true. But that was the only example in in Utah was one in in Barksdale County out in the middle. They didn't give any other Utah examples, but but there were some in Idaho.

Were there I know I know quite a few municipalities in the valley have that as part of their sensitive lands and require additional work

geotech information from the property developers and that sort of thing. Yeah. That was the next thing I was gonna say. And and they have a study zone on that that's really limited to the to the major faults. Yeah. So so though those would be the only areas that would that would include this. Yeah.

Does that go through Benson?

No. I think there is That one does.

Oh, yeah. Well, kind of Yeah. Nearby.

All the West Side Of Bend's in there. It's almost to your place.

Yeah. I'm good. I'm

good. The water will drain the other way.

We're we're already in for liquefaction.

Yeah. That word? Yeah.

Makes makes sense to me. Yeah. I appreciate the, you know, the research on what the what the other jurisdictions are doing.

Super helpful. And Connor, maybe maybe adding that that paper to the to the materials there for the county council to to look at. I found it beneficial. I I have a question. Are we doing

this to make them build when they build something to prevent against this, or are we doing this to make them aware that they are building on it and enter at your own risk? Which way do we

The idea would be that we can build in a way that prevents them from dying, basically. That's the idea. Mine might have a little bit more on the building side of things, but the idea would be we can identify these areas if you are building there. It is kind of a, hey, be aware of this, but it's also kind of a hope that you could design your house in a way or structure in a way. Are we asking them as a commission to do that? No. So what you would do is you would add that to the code. That'd be your part, and then I would tell them to do it. So

it's a little bit So so we're not talking about a a a geotech survey or or report on this. It's you're you're proposing development in this geologic hazard zone, and so you're building your code per se increases to whatever level is appropriate for

Sort of. It would require a geotech report just so it can inform the actual design and structure itself. So let's say let's look. Let's say a gentleman wants to build his house somewhere in here. Right? Mhmm. So he comes in for a zoning clearance. I would say, well, hey, sir. You're in the surface spot rupture study zone. You have to provide us with geotechn as part of your approval. Let's say this gentleman or does the same thing. Hey. I wanna build because he's outside of that zone, we would have required geotechn. Mhmm.

Yeah. I guess and I think I think your your point is is really accurate there. Is there a way is there a way we can just say, you know, versus paying $5,000 for a geotechnical survey and all of that, can we just build to a higher level? Because it's probably going to be footings or, you know, whatever whatever that additional additional measures in the construction. To me, I would rather just okay. Well, I'll take the $5, and we'll and we'll build the building to a higher standard. Yeah. And I might defer to Eric on the legal side of this, but realistically,

you're supposed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. That's kind of the first thing we're supposed to do. So I would argue, does it suck being the person that tells them that to get the study? Yes. But at the end of the day, if they build in the wrong spot or build in a way that's insufficient because they didn't get that geotech report and they die, I see that as a failure on our part.

I'm not sure what the liability would I'd have to research the liability on that. I mean, especially if it gets sold and there was no notice on the property, and then a disaster happens that wouldn't look great.

I think if that big disaster happens, that house is going down either way. Yeah. Come on, mate. It's a screen. If we make if we make the footings four inches wide and two inches thicker, it's still it's still gonna have enough damage. It's not gonna matter. So, yeah, I'm I'm more to the line of because because I think if if most of the geotech studies and they work with that that engineer to do that and they get it back, I think that's all it's gonna change. Right? They're still gonna build that house there. It's just gonna make that footing a little bit bigger. Maybe. Maybe it could be something else. Brian might be able to speak to the actual design of the structure itself. I would be I would like to maybe talk to a few different engineering firms that do that and get some idea. Because if it is 99 percent of the time, this is what it does, then I think we put that in there as an option. If it's if it's every third house or every third building is different, then we probably need it. But, if they're all the same anyways, then let's just put that in the code. You can do this or this for your options. I I would like more information on it than just say blanket statement. If you're in there, you get the geotech. This is what they're gonna tell you to do. We know that, but spend this money first and then then we'll let you. We'll stand we'll stick we'll stand for your house plans. Wouldn't wouldn't you put a 100% of it on the engineering? What do you mean? Yeah. You would anyways. Yeah. Yeah. The engineer. So you just tell them their their their house plans have to be stamped from an engineer that they know this is in this house. That's a design. She's a design. Watch it. It's designed to meet it.

What are cities doing?

Same idea. It's an automatic trigger for most cities. They require a geotech permit. Yeah. The second you're in that zone, it's geotech right away. All those folks up on the hill, they're moving

in that last subdivision.

Yeah. It it it never stops all the remaining had to buy a lot back in the subdivision because it was geologically unstable.

So will that happen in the county? Not necessarily, but there is kinda some some risk in the sense of if we approve something, even if they sign a, you know, CYA for our side of things,

it might still blow back on us. And realistically, if you get down to health, safety, and welfare, that's kind of the big thing. That's getting the morals and The county doesn't have a duty to to protect everybody's health, safety, and welfare. There's not a duty to do that. Now we have we take some of those things on ourselves, but the but the duty is because you can ask Box Elder County. They don't have zoning on in the mass vast majority of the of the county. Yeah. You know, you're there's there's a certain amount that we take on ourselves.

And I was just gonna respond to Morris's question about what they're doing in the cities. In these zones, they they do require the geotechnic, but it's often happens at the happens at the development. You know, the developer has to pay for that. Mhmm. And it affects where they lay out lots and locate houses, typically. Like, they'll try to stay off they'll try to stay out of these zones most times if they can. Right. And then if they can't, then it's keeping up the the structures. Fire beware and they warn them and say, you could have a problem, you may have to Or they say you're you're gonna have to the home that you want to build within this subdivision has to meet these standards.

There's more. Thank you. And And I guess the point that that should also come into this is this is a study zone. It doesn't actually mean that the the hazard exists in that area. They're just looking at it. This is kind of this is a new a new area of of concern in in geologic research, and so it's not technically a this is a hazard zone. It's potential. Study area, and that's that's based on the faults that are in the in those areas.

Part of what the county does is a hazard mitigation plan, and a lot of times our code that we're putting in for looking at a flood plain,

Thank you.

Anybody notice Matt walked in after all the controversial items? I had some road questions for you earlier, and you're here. Yeah. I mean, one sitting listening to us or what?

Punch

it. You were missed. We'll put it that way.

So, Nate, do you want more information then?

Yeah. If if there's no if there's no way to do it that way, maybe we don't need it. But if there's a way that that we can give them a do this or this Mhmm. Seems like it It just worries me a little bit when we're saying that though, then we bring the liability back. Yeah. I I don't think we do because we still say it has to be engineered. Engineered. Yeah. The the the engineer for those house plants still has to make sure it's engineered to those specs and so it's still that that the one who stamps that is the one that's that's taking that liability. I mean, if the homeowner does his own drawings and brings them in, we're probably not gonna approve them. But if there's an engineer designing that and he knows it's in that zone and has to meet those specs, maybe he still does the gets the geotech or maybe he has one from the home to the north because he designed that one and so he can already put it in there. But this guy doesn't know that. And so I think they're just options that that would save homeowners or or builder. Maybe it would be a home. Right? It may be a commercial building in that area. It could save them some some money. If there's no way to do that, I'm okay with that, but it seems like there could be.

Connor, zoom that out just a little bit. Yeah.

You see the house as a

Jason's like, oh. That's funny. It ain't easy right there. I was just looking at so can

so go back in. We wanna see Jason's house. Hey, Jason. What's your address?

Right there. I'm in the North of here. On the public record.

So you were That's right. We don't want that in public record. No. Don't give me I just whispered in my ear, man. We'll turn the camera off. Straighten north of them. Yeah. If if you zoom in there, Connor, on my piece, the way the storage units are, Right? We had to do one, and it didn't change anything. Right? We spent this 4 or $5.

And, Nate, don't you feel so much safer?

No. I don't. We when we were just close to one. Feels porous. So we we we were close to that one, and we still had to do one. We weren't even quite in one, but we were close. So you made us do one. Well, it's probably liquefaction or something like that. It it didn't change anything. But that's what I mean. I think there's there's times when we're we're spending money for residents, and nothing changes.

So Connor, what are you wanting us to do then? You want us to make a decision on this? I mean, it's just kinda like it's up in the air when you make a decision here.

I guess, you can continue with it. I can do some more research. If you guys wanna specify what you want me to look into, we can just kill it and just not bring it back.

Sounds like we need to put it in there somehow. Yeah. Taste does what Yeah. It's got it's gotta be in there to some degree. Something in there. So we need to just kill it.

Well, this it was a discussion item, so we don't have to take action. No. Yeah. You you you were looking for input and then bring it back. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. They were hoping for a public hearing next time, but if you wanna bring it back as a discussion item next time, that's perfectly fine too. Just a little bit of direction would be great.

The next meeting is two weeks away. Yeah. Just to remind this

Two weeks.

So I might wanna put it on July if we're gonna get more information, give you a little time to look at look at stuff. Come on, man. I can do some overtime.

Does that Okay. I like it. Is everyone else good with that? I'm good with it. Okay. Alright. Let's move on to number nine then.

Number nine is the FRC four thing. Right? Yes. Access for That's just a heads up. We're still working on that. It's just kind of a reminder that that's in the process. We don't really have anything for you tonight. Okay. Just kind of a reminder that's in the process. We're hoping to bring some to you next week or next time, but maybe July, you know. We'll see. Okay. But that's just kind of a reminder that's in the works. Okay. Just a just a question on that one. What

I mean, the impact of this, is it just the one location where we're seeing this challenges up at Sker Canyon or It's everywhere up there. That's the issue. You can see these cabins

that are coming in, and they don't have a public or a private road next to them. So maybe it's an identification issue on our end, but we essentially have to say, well, hey. You don't have frontage,

so we can't build. So we're trying to figure out a solution to that because up there I mean, in my mind, economics should really drive a solution for that. If people want to sell their property, they wanna buy property, they they should work out a work out a delineation of a road through there. And

The wildland fire interface too, I'm sure, is a big part of

this. To some degree, yes. Or it could be. It could be. Yeah.

Okay.

What's the agenda look like in two weeks?

Not bad, actually. A couple subdivisions on CEP. I guess, a couple discussion items, a public hearing. It's gonna take thirty minutes. I'm gonna say it right now.

Free. Jinxed. We have officially been jinxed.

I won't just meeting of the year.

Well, good meeting. It's Wendy.