Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting – 05-15-2026

Any anyone else we're waiting for? Sounds good. Welcome everyone to the, Cache County, appeal hearing officer meeting, regarding the Saddle Ridge, appeal. It is March 5 or 05/15/2026. My name is Rob Patterson. I'm the appointed Cache County hearing officer for land use appeals. Am I close enough to the mic? Oh, I was just making sure we were recording. Okay. Then we are good. We believe we have Saddle Ridge in the county. Could I have those who are going to be presenting make their appearances?

Chris Hobel here for salaries.

Thank you, Chris. Eric Davis from the county.

Thank you. I will give you a bit of a heads up about how this will proceed. This is not a hearing. It's open to the public in the sense it is a public meeting, but it is not open for public comment. We'll be hearing from the from council representing the two parties by only not asking for public comment. I have reviewed the briefing and the majority of the record. I'm sure there's a document somewhere in there that I haven't quite gotten to, but I've read a lot of staff reports. And so I'm very familiar with the arguments and points here. I will also point out, I will likely interrupt and ask questions. I like to make sure I get an understanding of each side's position. We'll proceed with general appellate procedure. We'll have Saddle Ridge Council and then county and then you'll get the final word. With that, as I understand it and so I'll summarize my understanding and kind of the the the area the pain points that we're on here. And and if I've missed something, feel free to correct me, give me additional information. Saddle Ridge is looking for preliminary plat approval. We have a long list of conditions, and most of them Saddle Ridge is perfectly fine with, it sounds like, or at least not appealing. There are a two essential essentially two major issues. First relates to fire access. We have a requirement from the county and from the fire chief that a second access be provided due to appendix d of the fire code. We also have a separate requirement. This is the second issue of looks like improvements to the road leading to the subdivision, not necessarily within the subdivision or adjacent to it, but the it's one road, that the county is requesting that, Saddle Ridge, improve and widen, to county road manual standards. And those are the two, you know, there's there's some sub issues in there, but those are the two major issues. In looking at this, I will say on the first issue, I have a a couple of questions I'd like both sides to address. And that first, I'd like to understand what relevance or impact the fire board appeal has. How binding is that? Is this almost like a restudacada issue? Is this a recommendation from a recommendation? How does this weigh into this? I mean, am I actually looking to review the fire chief's decision or is that just part of the Planning Commission's decision? I would like some clarity from each side on how you view the significance of the board's decision on that matter. And I think with that, I will turn it over to counsel and we'll have a discussion.

Good morning. Thank you for your time. On behalf of Saddle Ridge, we really appreciate your time and attention and your your your, thorough preparation coming into this. I wanna make sure I address your question. I have the the record printed out. Your your question was, what what is your role vis a vis the fire board opinion? Are you reviewing the fire board opinion? And I have a letter in the record somewhere. I was trying to find it and maybe, while mister Davis is talking with you, I can leaf through and find it specifically. But in that letter to the Planning Commission after the fire board decision, I cited the Cache County code provision that sort of lays out how they should treat that Fire Board decision. And what it says is, it's it's basically just some information. The Planning Commission has to make the final decision with respect to the application of d one zero seven. That's

basically advisory. I mean, I can get the exact language and I'll look for it. Maybe I'll ask. I I think I know the code provision. I found it as well. Is it something along the lines of the essentially, you can't appeal a staff decision. It just gets wrapped into the larger decision for the Land Use Authority to decide. There's also an appendix a to the fire code that no one cited that deals with appeals. And it basically says you have this appeal process, which is what I think the county followed when they created the board kind of in response to this process. But it directs the fire chief to follow the or implement the decision of the appeals board. But there's also a state code provision that amended fire code that says fire code, you know, decision to the fire chief relative to a development subject to LUDMA are subject to the appeal procedures of LUDMA. How do I square those?

Well, I mean, you you you are a creature of LODMA, and LODMA requires the county to have a a a land use appeal authority, And that's what you are. And so I think you have to follow the provisions of Utah state law of of Ludmots, from the legislature that sort of overrides I mean, it it it undu indubitably overrides the Cache County code and the Cache County code is what brings in, the fire code, the international fire code. So I think based on the hierarchy, state state statute is preeminent and so LuddMud really governs here. And so you I think you summarize the issues correctly. What Saddle Ridge is appealing? Are the conditions that impose exactions of land and improvements for a second access? And, the requirement for improving existing roads to bring them into compliance with standards. Right? Before Saddle Ridge even builds any house at all, they have to bring roads up to what the county considers to be, standard right now. And those are conditions one, nine, and 14, and thirteen and sixteen to the extent they they touch on those those issues. But it's really conditions one, nine, and 14. And I think there's some foundational matters that we probably ought to cover right out of the chute. First of all, this is well, it this governed by LUDMA and specifically with respect to the the scope of your authority, I look to Utah code seventeen seventy nine one thousand seven. And I think it's subsection three that really governs the scope of review of factual matters here. Subsection two says, if the county fails to designate a scope of review of factual matters, then the review is is is de novo. You review factual matters de novo. I don't think that applies because in Cache County code 17 o two point o six o, the county has designated a scope of review. It it basically says that the scope of review is on the record and and so you're, you know, you have to apply the factual record as it exists and as it was before the planning commission. And there's a case, in case you're interested, that came out in 2023 that basically deals with that. It's the North Monticello Alliance LLC versus San Juan County case 2023 UT app 18. So the the scope of review is on the record and what your job is is to determine whether there's substantial evidence in support of the factual findings. And subsection four of seventeen seventy nine one thousand seven says, the appeal authority shall determine the correctness of the land use authority's interpretation and application of the plain meaning of the land use regulations, and critically interpret and apply a land use regulation to favor a land use application, unless the land use regulation plainly restricts the land use application. And so that's that's the scope of review. As you're probably aware, your decision has to come within fifteen business days of this hearing. It has to be in writing. And it's the final land use decision for Cache County, which means there's no room for remanding, back to the planning commission to take additional evidence or, to make additional factual findings. Your decision is the the county's final land use decision under Cash County code 170206 o Subsection G. If if any you know, if we're if, Saddle Ridge is is not, in favor, if it's not supportive of your decision, that's what it takes across the parking lot to First District Court. Right? And I would say also, so I don't forget, you have authority to stay your decision if it's in the best interest of the county. And I and I would request on behalf of Saddle Ridge that if your decision is to deny the land use appeal, that you stay it. Because it's in the best interest interest of the county to follow Utah law and the Federal Constitution and to get it right. And, it's important that a denial gets stayed because the approval lasts only a year until 03/05/2027. And we appreciate how fast you've been to give us a hearing and and mister Davis and the county, but First District Court moves a lot slower. And so unless we get that stayed, you know, it could the the approval could be null and void unless we otherwise convince, you know, an authority to stay that for us. But we would ask you to do that first and foremost. So I'll get to the the first issue, which is the exactions of land and improvements for secondary access. And as you indicated, the county primarily relies on appendix d section one zero seven point one of the International Fire Code. It's quoted it's quoted at least once in the notice of appeal. But I'm gonna talk about the general rule and I'm gonna talk about the two exceptions because it doesn't rule and if it does apply, well one or both exceptions apply as well. So there's no require d one zero seven point one basically does not require a second access for the Saddle Ridge project. The general rule is that developments of one or two family dwellings while the number where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate approved fire access roads. The the you are required to interpret that, in favor of the Saddle Ridge project. That's what we looked at in seventeen seventy nine one thousand seven of Clodma. That's also Utah law who cited the cases in in our briefing. Nowhere in the text of d one zero seven does it indicate that a development, must be provided with two access roads if it's less than 30 dwelling units. Saddle Ridge will have 22, So that's less than 30.

Can I interrupt and just get your take on this? Yeah. I'm well aware of the the requirement that essentially, if there's a a tie in interpretation, it goes to the applicant, not to the county. Looking at this, tell me why this is incorrect. I have a fire code says, developments of one or two family dwellings where the number of dwellings exceeds 30. Shall we provide two separate proof fire apparatus access roads? Developments is spoken of in the plural. I have developments here. I don't know how many Nautica and Saddle Ridge and then probably a couple others to the north. They that are all one or two family dwellings, and the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 in those developments. How how is that not the plain language

of the of the fire code? Well, I'll I'll there's two answers for that. First is, under the standard of review applicable under club one needs a law. You have to you have to construe that in favor of the project. So developments this is the development we're talking about. And secondly, the Takings Clause. To construe that to mean that Saddle Ridge, has to provide has to provide a second access would mean Saddle Ridge has to absorb the impact of 27 dwelling units that it had nothing to do with. Right?

And just to clarify, it doesn't it says, interpret and apply land use regulation to favor a land use application

unless the land use regulation plainly restricts. So my question is, how does this not plainly restrict when I have developments with more than 30 dwelling units? Well, I I mean, I think there's a number of ways you could look at it. There's at least two ways you could look at it. You could look at it like what you just articulated. But it's also, you know, developments in the sense of if a development comes forth, one of the that development, the subject development, is looked at to determine whether it has, an excess of 30 dwelling units.

So with that, we haven't gotten to exception one yet, but exception one seems unmistakably clear. It doesn't talk about development. It just says road and 30 units on that road. And then it says, but you can ignore the normal requirement if they're all, you know, they have the fire protection of the sprinklers. How does that not inform, you know, reading those two in harmony? It sounds like if one is supposed to be an exception to the general rule, one applies anytime there is more than 30 or more units on a single road. How does that inform the general rule that, yeah, we actually are looking at any number of developments with any number of units over 30.

Well, it's interesting exception number one doesn't use the term developments. No. It does not. It says 30 dwelling units access from a single public or private road, basically. So if the I think that's telling. It doesn't use the word developments, which means if the general rule was intended to apply basically to all dwellings up and down the the single the road that's accessed, then it would say it would use that language. It wouldn't use developments. It would say, in excess of 30 dwelling units, access from a single public or private fire apparatus access road.

Let let me phrase it this way. Under your preferred interpretation of the general rule, you can have multiple developments, each individually, you know, twenty twenty twenty twenty, and at no point do we ever trigger the second access. Exception one then, however, it looks at that road and says, well, you have more than 30. I'm going to give you relief from the requirement to have a second access road if you sprinkle all those homes. But under the your interpretation of the general rule, that rule was never triggered because we had four developments each with 20 units.

So we don't need an exception because that never applied. Well, I mean, if somebody wants to come in with a development for in excess of 30, then it would apply. But if people come in with less, that's just the plain that's just the plain terms of the of the statute and how it need or not statute, code provision and how it needs to be interpreted under Utah law. But the other point too is, you know, and this is I I cited this in the brief, ordinances are to be construed in light of and in harmony with applicable provisions of constitution and public policy. That's the Murray City versus Hall case. Alright? So we're not looking at these code provisions in a vacuum. There's constitutional provisions that come to play. And the takings clause in the Nolan Dolan line of authority say, a land use authority cannot impose a burden. They can't impose an exaction on a project based on the impact that has of of existing development that has nothing to do with the project. And in this instance, what the planning commission is saying is that Saddle Ridge, you have to absorb the impact of 27 dwelling units you had nothing to do with. Those are there. You wanna build, you know, four at least four more. So that means so I mean, look at it in that instance, in that hypothetical, somebody comes in with just, you know, four, that's an excess of 30. Then all of a sudden, they would be responsible for having to put in a a separate secondary access or somehow retrofit all those 27 with sprinkler systems in the inside. So, CLEDMA LUDMA and the takings clause, the Nolan Dolan line of authority, require an interpretation of the general rule that developments means, you know, the development comes in. You look at it from that perspective. And in our case, that's 22 dwelling units. Another argument on exception number one. Again, section d one zero seven isn't in a vacuum. In addition to constitutional provisions, it's there's other provisions in the IFC. If you if you look at it, you know, if you have to answer the question, how many dwelling units are accessed on this single access road? Then it's 27 now and whatever, and the 22 that Saddle Ridge wants to put in. But the 27 existing are already there. And so to not apply exception number one would mean Saddleridge has to somehow retrofit, these 27 dwelling units with sprinkler systems. Is that required under the International Fire Code? And it's not. If you look at I don't know if you had access to the International you do, okay. Because I I printed out copies and I can distribute them if it's convenient for you. But basically, section 11 o 3.5, which is part of the IFC adopted by Cash County in section 15 o eight zero two o, the Cash County code. It it says, automatic sprinklers are are required for some existing buildings, but not, single family dwellings. Single family dwellings are are group r three according to the definition section of the IFC. That's section two zero two. What what is required to be retrofitted are, groups a two, which is assembly buildings like a banquet hall, I two buildings, which are like institutional buildings. Medical care would be an example of that. A high rise building, which has to be over 75 feet tall, or existing buildings where cellulose nitrate film or, pyroxylin probably didn't pronounce that right. Plastics are anyway, not not applicable. Not applicable. So rather than the 27 dwelling units that are there right now, they would fall in the group r three, provision of the IFC because, quote, that that group r three applies to quote buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units. So that's a single family dwelling, is under the r three category. And r three, that's conspicuously absent from the IFC code provisions that require retro fitting. Right? To require bringing up existing structures to the IFC. So construing exception one, I mean, if if if all of these if somebody was coming in with 31 or more, then, yeah, they'd have to put in sprinkler systems throughout or they have to build a then, yeah, they'd have to put in sprinkler systems throughout or they have to build a second access road. But in this instance, when you, look at the IFC code as a whole with all related provisions, in mind, there's no requirement to retro fit, those 27, existing dwellings. Exception two also applies. And I think this is the one that's easiest to apply, frankly. It says, quote, the number of dwelling units accessed from a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development as determined by the fire code official. Right? We know that, future roads there with future development, there'll be a future connecting road. We know that. And we know that because the county requires that. Section 16 o four point o four o sub c, and also in the in the Cache County Road Manual, section 2.5 b one c has basically the same language. It says, where appropriate to the design and terrain, proposed roads shall be continuous and in alignment with existing planned or platted roads with which they are to connect and based on the grid system common to Cache County. So if you look at the proposed plat, well, the plat that got approved with conditions, there are two roads to the south that go all the way to the southern border of the Saddle Ridge Project. That's because of 16 o 4.04. And we have the properties to the south owned by the Nielsen family and the Leishman family, who have gone on record with the letter of intent saying, yes, we'll cooperate. We understand. There is no and actually, there's no finding by the planning commission or the fire code official or anywhere that a road a second road will not connect with future development. There's nothing. If you look at the staff report, it it it reads as if the two exceptions don't even exist. But and so there's no application. There's no findings to say, oh, exception number one doesn't apply because of a, b, c. Exception number two doesn't apply c. Exception number two doesn't apply because the a b c. There's nothing like that. Can I

ask a couple questions here? First on exception two, and this relates back to the very first question I asked and forgive me for asking you to partially repeat yourself. This exception is unique to me or this code provision in the fire because it specifically says as determined by the fire code official. Everything else is has a general statement upfront that the fire code official obviously is the one who enforces all of fire code. This one has an exception that says it is determined by the fire code official. With that, it's it's what is your take on on possibly the argument that in this case, a fire code official is the land use authority for that one exception? Yeah. That can't be. That that's not consistent with LUDMA. It's not consistent with the Cache County Code. How is it not consistent with LODMA? I mean, a county can assign any number of land use authorities for any kind of discrete things.

Well, it hasn't assigned it had so that 17 o two chapter of the Cache County Code, there's a table. And it says who what the land use authority is. And it's either the planning commission or the county council. I think those are the only two options. I can tell you for a fact, the fire code official is not listed there

as a land use authority. Actually, he is, I believe, as to subdivision improvement plans. And that's one of the question you're I know you don't do it with preliminary plat. Right. But with your final plat, you will have subdivision improvement plans.

K. But we're not there yet. So I guess I So maybe Fair enough. That's a fair point. I need to go back and look on that. You're you're probably more educated on that than I am. But for purposes of a preliminary, plat application, which is what we're talking about here, the the table in the code provision says it's the planning commission that's the land use authority. Doesn't list the, the fire code official. And so under the other provision that I'm gonna find when mister Davis is talking to you, I'm gonna show you how that applies to what the fire code and the fire board folks did, and it's basically just preliminary. It's the planning commission is the land use authority. It has to make the final call. Now it is kind of a weird how does this work when you've got a a international fire code provision that says as determined by the fire code official? Okay. Well, it has to be, you know, it has to be it has to be inconsistent with the law. Can't be arbitrary and capricious. I mean, if if the fire code official is the land use authority, that's the standard of review. Right? It has to be consistent with the it can't be illegal, and it has to be supported by substantial evidence. Now if it's just adopted by the planning commission, it's the same thing. You can't circumvent LEMMA by just saying, well, we're we're outsourcing this to the fire code official.

And right? I think the and these are the two thoughts I I'm I'm tossing around my head is if the fire code official is the land use authority on this, you had your appeal on it and lost that one. And I'm not supposed to revisit that appeal. On the other hand, we have a lot of staff that always provide recommendations on, you know, the county engineer provides certain recommendations, public works does, the, you know, planning director does. Ultimately, they will make a recommendation and say this should or should not be done, but it's the language authority who makes the decision. Those are the two kind of competing thoughts I have in trying to interpret this.

Yeah. And and I and I would submit that, you know, Cache County code says it's the planning commission and there's a provision that says the the types of, the input that you're talking about. Right? This the engineer, the public works. I I think the fire code official and the fire board fall within that that same rubric, that same category. It's on that same level, their advisory. They don't understand that and you read the fire board, you know, read their decision. They didn't cite LUDMA. They don't understand that land use decisions have to be, you know, that an applicant is entitled to a favorable decision if their application is consistent with with applicable law and they've and they've paid their fee. And they don't understand that there's a narrow, you know, how LUDMA how LUDMA works in this context. And so that's where why you need a planning commission. And I think that's why the county council, just, designated the planning commission to be the land use authority for this because they do have that understanding, unlike the fire code official and the fire board. But okay. Either way, if it's the fire code official or the planning commission, it still has to be consistent with the law, including the Nolan Dolan line of authority, and it has to be supported by substantial evidence. And there is no there's no there's no finding that there won't be future there won't be a second row with future development. There's no factual finding, and there's no evidence to support that factual finding if it did exist.

On on the finding, you mentioned this earlier and I didn't interrupt you then. There is a couple of, I believe, court of appeals cases. I believe it's is it Moab City? It's the one where if there's a lack of findings, the court of appeals says remand so they can actually do that. And I I have done that before in reliance on those code provisions. So explain to me whether how that applies? Does that apply? If if there's no findings on the exceptions, it just didn't get addressed. You clearly raised it in the appeal and in the application process. Should I remend for them to address the exceptions specifically?

Yeah. Well, a couple of answers to that. First of all, I don't think you can. I mean, I think what the county code says is that the appeal authority is a final land use decision. That's what it is. And there's no there's no in LODMA or in the code, there's there's no authorization to remand. It's just here here's what it says. LODMA 1,007 says that the appeal authority should this is subsection four. The appeal authority shall determine the correctness of the land use authority's interpretation and application, etcetera. Interpret and apply land use regulation to favor land use application, etcetera. And then with respect to the factual matters, if the if the scope of of review of factual matters is on the record, which it is in our case, the appeal authority shall determine whether the record on appeal includes substantial evidence for each essential finding of fact. It doesn't say you have to go through and make sure that the the planning commission did its job and made findings of fact where it should have.

Well, I think there are court cases that say that. They say to the extent in order for the I can't remember the exact language off my head, but it's something along the lines of in order for an appeal body to do its job, it has to have a decision that it can review. And it can't do that if there's no written findings of fact and conclusions of law. So in that case, they they directed that it be remanded for decision. And it seems like I could issue a final decision that is I decide whatever I decide on what issues I do have. And I say on this, my final decision is that you didn't do this well. Do it again. Yeah. I can't approve this. This essentially granting the appeal in the sense of your decision cannot stand, but that doesn't stop you from I I need you to go back and do it again. Right.

I mean, I hear what you're saying and I think and I and I read the it's the McCain Micklehaney or something. That's that's the one, Micklehaney. It is Moab. And it does say that, but I I don't think they were dealing with a decision from an appeal. I mean the court of appeals is definitely a pea an appeal authority, but is it an appeal authority within the phrasing of LUDMA? And I don't think it is. But regardless, what the county the cash code section 17 o two zero six o f says, quote, the appeal authority, you, must issue a decision in writing within fifteen business days which constitutes a final decision under Utah code annotated, and it's meant to cite to Ludmott. Right? But it it it just has a outdated reference there. But so your decision constitutes a final decision. How can it be a final decision if you're remanding for more findings? It can't be. If it's a final decision, that's the final decision. And on top of that, you look at g. Any any person adversely affected by a final decision of the appeal authority may petition to the first district court for review. So that means it goes, you know, if there's an somebody dislikes your decision, it goes across the parking lot to first district court. It doesn't stay in this room for the planning commission to meet over it again.

Well, I mean, I think the counterargument would be if you if say I remand, you appeal saying that's not what there are sufficient the decision is complete enough to make a decision on and the appeal authority just straight up got that wrong. Yeah. And maybe this I don't know this will come into play. I was just questioning that a little bit. But I take the overall point as well that your argument of

say there were factual findings, you still say there's no substantial evidence to support any findings related to this. Well, and there are factual findings in the staff report which get adopted by the planning commission in its letter. But they just don't deal. Like I said, the staff report doesn't even treat exception one and two to d one zero seven. It acts as if it doesn't exist. And so it's not like, you know, they knew what they were doing. They I I think the interpretation is there's no basis for a factual finding that a secondary access will not be provided with future development. And there certainly isn't any evidence of it in the record. So, I mean, that's where exception two sits. There's there's no evidence. There's no substantial evidence to support a factual finding had one been made that there won't be a secondary access with future development. And that's because county code requires it. And the county doesn't have discretion to ignore its own land use regulations and we cited a case to that effect in the reply. Alright, so that's d one zero seven. They also invoke Fire Code provision section five zero three point one point two, which seems to us an afterthought because we were dealing with the fire code official, we were dealing with the fire board and and you know, just so you know, we went to the fire board because they told us to. They said go to the fire board. Okay. We'll do all that. We'll we'll exhaust what you're telling us to exhaust. We went to the fire board and at no time did anybody bring up 503.10.2. It was always D107. And what 503.10.2 says is that the fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climactic conditions or other factors that could limit access. And it's arbitrary and capricious to, invoke that. There's no substantial evidence for that. They cite the the school tran the school, transportation guy who just says, you know, the bus stop's gonna road without guardrails. And then they're saying that you they can bootstrap that to a five zero three point one point two finding. The required finding there is the fire code official requires more than one fire apparatus access road based on etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So they don't have the fire code official. That's the school transportation official. They don't have any evidence or a finding of impairment of a single road by congestion, condition of terrain, climactic conditions, or otherwise. They don't have that. It's not on the record.

So to your earlier point, you were saying essentially the the a decision by the fire marshal or fire official isn't binding Mhmm. Because it's a planning commission. So does it matter that it was wasn't brought up earlier? It seems like the only question, at least you're asking me to say is look only at the planning commission's decision and what was presented to them. So the fact that wasn't brought up during the fire board appeal process, I get why it might be frustrating to have a new argument raised. But ultimately, as you say, the land use authority is planning commission. Now it doesn't change, you know, they still have to have findings of fact and get supporting substantial evidence. But it seems like it's not a problem that they raise a new fire code issue towards the end of the process. Okay. Well,

maybe. But I think where you're going though is who cares if it's the school official rather than the fire code official? And I think it matters according to the provision that they're invoking. It says a fire code official. Now does that that doesn't mean we're not saying that the fire code official, you know, his word is gospel on this. I'm just saying that the the code provision on which that they're invoking requires the involvement of the fire code official. So in so here's the situation, another hypothetical situation. And this is D107. Let's say the fire code official said, yeah, you don't need two accesses. You're good with one. And the planning commission said, no, we don't agree with that. Right? I would I would come back and say, well, d one zero seven one, you know, it requires the involvement of the fire code official. And he went the other way. But if he based on the decision he did make under the county code provision I'm gonna find, and I wish I could remember right now. It's only advisory, but it's like a a necessary step just under the plain terms of the code provision that they're citing.

And that sorry to bring it back to appendix d again. But that requires an affirmative finding by the fire code official for exception two. Yeah. It's not a unless they find it doesn't connect, it's a the fire marshal has to make this exception affirmatively. Okay. And it seems like you you you pointed out they haven't made that decision affirmatively.

So doesn't that run across the same issue then? Well, I I mean, I think that argument suggests that the fire code official could just turn a blind eye to county code that says there has to be continuity. There has to be connectivity.

I'm I'm just trying to square the two of if if exception two requires far marshal to do something, makes sense. You know, they should look at the exceptions that are presented by an applicant and, you know, follow LUDMA and follow the the all that process. Same with the other code section of, five zero one that the fire marshal should make some kind of statement. But do we even have a a written decision from a fire code official or is this just part of the normal review kind of back and forth?

Well, I don't I don't haven't seen anything in writing from

Deputy Winn who's the fire code official. We have something from the fire I know the board has a a decision that I've read but I was just wondering if there's something about that. You know,

so I think part of the problem is is that the International Fire Code, you know, maybe it wasn't really meant to be a land use regulation.

I would agree.

So, I mean, that's part of the problem. If it was, then it might be worded differently, you know. I mean, the fire code official weighs in one way or the other. But we don't have there's just nothing. I mean, they asked us to go to the fire code official. We did. And I was on the phone call when the fire code official made his determination, and the determination was you just need two. And he didn't address the two exceptions at all. The first time we have, I think it's the fire board letter that that might I don't know if it does or not actually, address the two. But it but that's the first, you know, determination in writing we have from an official.

Seems like there was discussion during the appeal by both you and the fire code official about these exceptions. Yes. And I'm not really reviewing their decision, but No. There was some discussion. I remember listening to that.

You probably read my same arguments on exception one or two. I did several times. I made it wherever I could to whoever That's great. Even those who would, I made it too. So I just, you know, anyway, so the fire code official under 503.10.2, you know, the requirement has to come from the fire code official just under the plain terms. Now, you know, you have to apply LUDMA and the county's land use regulations on top of that, which require the planning commission to make the final decision as the as the land use authority on that. And then now, it's up to you because you're the appeal authority and you're making the final determination. But there's no evidence in the record. I mean, just set aside the fire code official versus the school official. There's no evidence in the record about vehicle congestion or condition of the terrain or climactic conditions. There's nothing about, impairment of 6400 South. There's just nothing. So I mean, you know, and it makes sense because this really was sort of an afterthought. They should have told us. We could have dealt with this with the fire board, but they said, you know, it's D 107 and we took their the fire code officials determination on D 107 up to the fire determination on D 107 up to the fire board and none of this came up. So they're they're sort of I I don't know. Anyway, I I think what that indicates is that the they think it's their d 107 argument really isn't all that strong. So they're casting about for additional authority. And another some other additional authority is section 2.4 a one b of the manual, the road manual, roadway design and construction standards. And and and, you know, basically says well, it says, quote, a development may be required to provide multiple access points points if it is deemed necessary for health, safety, and welfare reasons. Now you couldn't get more broad than that. I mean, LODMAS says, an applicant is entitled to approval if their application conforms with applicable ordinances. Right? So basically, what the legislature is saying is you can't move the goal rules. You can't make it up as you go along. But this road manual decision enables just that. We could require multiple access points, basically, if we think it's necessary for health, safety, and welfare access points basically if we think it's necessary for health, safety, and welfare reasons. I I just don't think that's I didn't find a Utah case on that, but I think I did find that Zweber case out of Minnesota, and I think they applied basically the same principles that are that are applying in Utah. You can't make it up as you go along, and so you can't enact, a provision, a land use regulation that basically gives you the authority to make it up as you go along. You can't circumvent Klubner that way. And then on top of that, there's no factual finding as to what the health safety I mean, if we're talking about fire access, okay, that's the d one zero seven issue. I get it. But if it's something else, what else is it? The the staff report doesn't say what besides fire considerations goes to the health, safety, and welfare considerations that make a secondary access necessary. And non existent finding in the record. And then so with that, the last thing I wanted to talk about was the, requirement that we improve substandard road, the 6400 South Substandard Road. I think it's 1000 West as well. And they they rely on 2.4 a one c of the road manual. Two things. The Hales engineering report, which is the only traffic study we have in in the record, says it's fine. Existing transportation infrastructure is fine for what there is and for what Saddle Ridge proposes. And, most of them fundamentally, a requirement to remedy substandard infrastructure violates the Noll and Dolan. I mean, you can't get any more clear an exaction to, deal with the effects of of preexisting. I mean, that's that's clearly a foul of the Dolan Nolan authority because Saddleridge had nothing to do with the 27 existing dwellings and the conditions of the road as it is right now.

Would and you may not be able to answer this question, but say there was some analysis of, hey, we have a couple miles of road. We've got 60 units on it. You're doing 20 more. You should contribute, you know, a fourth because that's, you know, we got 80. You're doing a quarter of the of the homes. Can you contribute a fund of, you know, we estimate the cost to improve this road to standard is, you know, $5,000,000. Can you contribute 1.2, you know, whatever the number is. Would that be something that you think I know it wasn't done. Is that something more along the lines of what you think possibly could have been done? No. I mean, they you can impose an exaction requirement

on a developer to, you know, fix the road to enhance the road, improve the road, to absorb the impact of the new project. But you can't go to the you can't go to the developer and say, hey. We got all these problems with our existing infrastructure. Before you do anything on the ground, we're gonna make you bring those up. You're gonna pay a fourth any kind of fraction. No. None of that is none of that, impact has anything to do with a developer's project. It's all preexisting. And we cited a case on that. Unfortunately, I didn't find a Utah case, but there's this the California case. I I can't remember what it is. It's the the the only California case I cited Yes. A couple of times.

So Do you know how how much of the sorry. I forgot the 6,400. It's 2 different names. 6400

South and then there's a Thousand West, I think. Yes.

How how much of the road length? I mean, how long is this section outside of, you know, just the development frontage has Saddle Ridge been asked to improve?

I mean, I I don't I have to refer to this staff report, and I don't think it's that I I didn't find it in there. So Only it's about 8,000 feet. K. 8,000 feet. I can have a check. That's

I was just curious what the length was. Thank you.

So, you know, if you if you don't have any questions, I'll let, mister Davies speak with you, and I'll come back and and hopefully with that said. K. Thank you.

Hello. Hello. Thank you for being here, and thank you for, giving us time to speak. I'd like to start by, you know, the county gave preliminary approval, because we're, you know, we're open and willing. I mean, we we believe that I think the planning commission stated this, that they believe that with within those conditions that it could be, development that the county's proud of, and they just would like to make sure that the law is complied with as they create this subdivision for future county residents. We're grateful that many of the conditions were not appealed. However, we believe that all conditions are valid under the law. Going to your question about the Fire Appeals Board, that was an issue that the thought when when it was created was, I mean, there's a lot of issues right now with the fire district. Those are separate and aside. We do not believe they were when we were looking we're looking at it, we did not believe they were the appropriate authority to listen to an appeal, from a fire code official who's a Cache County employee, although they work for the fire district and under an interlocal agreement. And we the the thought was that any appeal from there would have to go straight to first district Court. However, under the staff report, the Planning Commission clearly adopted the findings of that fire board and the board appeal as the final land use authority, and so that's why we believe that the planning commission was looking at, and considering, those findings, that they made. Sorry. Do you have a

So just, essentially, obviously always correct me if I misstate your position, but essentially you had two staff reports. It kind of looking at one way. One was from most of the usual staff report from county staff and you had this other quasi staff report, which is the fire board decision, which outlined its decision

and the planning commission looks at that and says, we agree with both of these things. We're gonna adopt them all. Yes. That's correct. So Yeah. And and that's in in the staff report. It it talks about how they well, it informs them of the appeal, the letters, the information that was given on both sides from the County Attorney's Office and from the Saddle Ridge Development, for their consideration, and they chose to adopt those findings and put the conditions in place and approve the subdivision, subject to those conditions. So looking I mean, this has kind of already been hashed out and we we our our position of the D one zero seven point one is that the plain language states that, that the developments of I mean, as it's already been read, units that exceed 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. We believe that this the plain language applies to Saddle Ridge and that they're going to need to

comply with that in order for the safety for fire. I'm gonna ask the inverse of the question I asked to Saddle Ridge Council. We have exception one that talks about 30 dwelling units access from a single or private fire apparatus access road. I think that's really clear. It doesn't talk doesn't use the word development. It just says you look at a road, how many dwelling units are on it? But the general rule of d one zero seven one doesn't say that. It doesn't say dwelling units on a road. It just says developments as long as they're one two family. So doesn't that mean because, you know, there's the canon construction, you use different language, we assume different meaning. Doesn't that mean the general rule doesn't mean the same as the exception?

Or how should I look at that? Well, we would argue that the the exceptions inform the the initial rule and that in the context of a fire code, it is for the safety of evacuation, of if there is a fire, if there's a wildland fire and people need to get out and fire trucks need to get in, that excess of homes and families within a community trying to leave could cause hazardous conditions. And Fire Code decided that that's 30 dwellings along a single access road, and that's that's the way that we would argue that it should be interpreted. And, looking at exception one, like like Artie has been said, it it seems like a very firm rule. All dwelling units along that access road, so all 49 potential units that would be on that road should In terms of exception two, we believe that the the fire code official has that discretion. Again, that has been discussed. They have the discretion to determine. The fire appeal, their letter, they state, the applicants for the Saddle Ridge development must understand that the fire authority responsibility extends beyond evaluating individual projects in isolation. Sorry. Instead, it must consider the broad impact of public safety across the entire area. Sorry. That was in the third paragraph. So and then this is what they found specifically with exception two. Additionally, while the Saddle Ridge Ridge Development Group has indicated conceptual plans for future access routes as of the appeal hearing date, no documentation has been submitted to the Cache County Fire District or recorded with Cache County. This includes road agreements, timelines for completion, signed approvals between property owners, or updated plat maps. Without these formal approvals in place, Fire Marshal Wynne cannot assume the proposed connectivity will be completed in a timely or guaranteed manner. So what standard does the fire code official use

here? It it the exception is not very wordy unless fire fire apparatus access roads will connect the future development. And to settle ridges and and their council's point, the county will require connections as, you know, every land use authority does when we build out developments. We want them all to connect to each other. We know they will and landowners have tentatively, you know, they've it's not recorded, but, you know, a letter of intent saying, yeah, we understand that we should work with the county on connectivity. How does a fire official make the call between, yes, there will be a connection in future development versus not, and it and future seems very ill defined. Future could be fifty years from now.

Yeah. And I I think to that point, I think that's part of the reason why he would deny this because we don't know when that future development will get in there. And if there is an emergency, it could cause issues down the road.

But but and I guess to the question of how what standard is is is he supposed to use?

I mean, he's got training experience based off of the the fire code. He's he looks at developments consistently and we we rely on that. In in terms of, the road manual, no, sorry, going going to the five zero three point one point two, we you know, many of these concerns were brought up previously. And to your point, they the the staff report was released before the approval was given on in March. We we received we we send that out. We give public notice. That that condition, I guess, on the night of the the approval, they they had the opportunity. The developers were there. They could have spoken up and and pushed back, and the planning commission could have considered, striking that. However, they decided to, adopt it based off of the recommendations of of, Deputy Wynn.

Question on that. Yes. So I'm looking at the staff report. We have a finding let's see. Where's the 18? Which is entitled fire control, and there's a long number of subsections, and then down at h, says additionally the fire marshal site section five zero three point one point two additional access of IFC, that authorizes the fire code official to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on potential for impairment of a single road. So it wasn't the staff report. There is a finding about it, and this was adopted. And then notes, essentially just restating the rule by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Counsel for Satterbridge is arguing, that's all well and good. Where is the evidence to support any of these findings? And that's what I'd like to ask you.

That that is a good question. And going back to the point of, remand, I I do believe that under under that, you do have that authority that if if you need more findings that you can remand it back to the planning commission to require those findings to be made. Not on this, but not only on this, but on other aspects as well. So I think I'll actually disagree with you on this. I'm disagreeing with everyone today.

I I think I might have the authority to remand for findings. I don't think I have authority to remand for additional fact gathering, and that's what I think is the problem. I'm looking at a at a record and applying it to factual findings. I'm trying to say, if something in this, you know, 3,000 pages of documents and five meetings, does there something in there that supports this evidence that is more than a scintilla? And but if it's not there, I don't think I can remand to say, go get more information about it. But what's your take on that? Yeah. No. I I would agree with that. Okay.

Looking at, road manual, section 2.4 a one b, the county engineer, determined that the secondary access is necessary for health, safety, and welfare. And that was based off of the general record that was presented to the planning commission. I mean, we have that letter from the school, although, you know, that is not an engineer, but they used that in the determination. Further, looking at this, and this also goes into conditions fourteen and sixteen, and 13. Condition three, which which was not appealed, requires them to have another traffic impact study that specifically, is in compliance with road manual 1.9. That condition number three talks discusses that the traffic impact study needs to recommend the need for any improvements to the adjacent and nearby roadway system to maintain a satisfactory level of service and safety and to protect the function of the road system while providing appropriate and necessary access to the proposed development. So and that's that's quoting the road manual. Once once that study is completed, which was asked for back in September, the county engineer would be in a better position to determine those the needed improvements both to the road and for secondary access.

So what was defective with I know that I I I tried to find

So nothing in in the CIS discusses safety. Okay. It mostly deals with how many with how many vehicles are coming in and out. I imagine they tracked vehicles over a specified amount of time that are coming in and out to that that one single access road. However, it didn't specifically look at any other, conditions. And and that's what the county is asking for them to do. And and, again, that wasn't appealed. So well, again, once the county has that information, I believe that we'd be in a better position, to determine what we are requiring of them. And that would go towards, any needed as as as the condition 16 says, any improvements made necessary by that development along that road. And I don't believe we would ask them to do anything more than what their impact would require. Is that sorry. Does that make sense? Sorry. Could you Rephrase that. Yeah. Rephrase that. That we would not require them to improve the road beyond what their impact is.

So I think I I've I understand Saddleredge's argument of the the exaction analysis requires a rough proportionality. You know, case law says it doesn't have to be mathematically precise, but there should be something that determines that. And and I think their argument is we don't have any kind of analysis. We we have a statement says improve it to county road standards per the manual. And it sounds like you're saying and we understand that we also have to comply with, you know, the constitution. We're not going to exact more than is lawful. But how does the applicant know what what the expectation is?

When is that going to be decided if not here? So, yeah, that's a great question. They they asked for approval with conditions. The engineer was a little hesitant to do that, but with the with the other conditions of, hey, once I get more information, I can figure these things out a little bit better.

So you'd be saying that the extent of an exaction of the exaction for the the outside development roads will be determined at

essentially final plat and subdivision improvement plan level. As we, as we continue to work with the settle rich before final.

Yeah. How do you respond to the argument that you can't exact anything outside of their development? As soon as you cross over the frontage of their development, you're done. Like they'll, they'll do anything on their side. They'll dedicate all the right away, they'll build the roads, but once you go north, you can't require anything from them. So they're

planning to put in 22 new families into a road that will be affected by those families now. Their their traffic study says it's minimal. We believe that another traffic inspect study might, go against that.

It's noon.

K. I I take your point. Thank you.

And and that that goes to that same point of of thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen to improve it to major, minor local road standards and any access right of ways. The staff report has those standards and where that road is substandard. On page eleven and and twelve, it discusses how right of way, paved shoulder, grab shoulder, gravel shoulder, and clear zone are all substandard along that road.

So how and maybe you won't be able to answer this at this point, but how are you how is the county assessing their impact? I mean, they're doing less than already exists along this road. It's, like, 27 existing and they're doing 22. Seems like why why are they responsible for the road when not those 27 homes were not responsible for it? That's that's a good point.

And we are still looking into that. So that's the you'll

determine that later is what you're saying. Okay.

Do you have any other questions? Sorry.

Yes. The the question of whether, you know, say I I deny this decision, this appeal, upholding the decision, there was a request that I should continue that presumably for a an appeal to first district court. What is the county's take on that request? If it's within their right and within the law then No. No. There'd be no objection to a stay? Okay. Could you address briefly the the conversation I had, mister Noble, about the fire official determinations? We have two fire code sections that talk about the fire official will make a determination, whether an exception or to impose something. How does that determination work in the context of kind of this process we were going through? Or what what is what do we need? Fire code says the fire official can grant an exemption to the two access roads if they find that there'll be future connectivity. And another section, fire code official can require additional accesses if needed for health and safety. What kind of determination is required from the fire official?

I mean, I I would believe that he needs to advise, as as the planning commission asks questions as as the as the developer or the applicant ask questions, answer them accordingly and give them the information that they need in order to proceed.

So do you disagree? Sorry. I shouldn't say it that way. Planning commission is a land use authority on So essentially, do you have any objections to saying we had a bunch of processes before with the fire official, staff, fire board? All of those are relevant to kind of the background, but ultimately the only decision that matters is the planning commission. Yes. Okay. I think those are all of my questions unless you have anything

Okay. I found the site. Okay. Okay. Code provision 17 o two point o six o sub b sub two. And, I cited that in my 08/01/2025 letter to the planning commission after the fire board, decision came out. And, basically, head off the argument that, you know, might get it articulated that, nope, fire board, that's it. That's the be all end all and and you're just stuck with it. And so I cited that to say the fire board's, decision consists of preliminary advisory decisions subject to planning to the planning commission. And I at least that's not the exact language in the in the code, but that was my take on. Alright. And it doesn't sound like there's a difference of opinion on that anyway. I mean, just hearing mister Davies and the exchange that you had with him. The planning commission is the land use authority, and what the fire code official did and what the fire board did is preliminary and adviser. I think that's I think that's where everybody's at. So I wanna address kinda what mister Davy said in sort of the order that he said it. So it might be a little bit disjointed. But first, on section D one zero seven, he was saying that their interpretation, the Planning Commission's interpretation is the plain language interpretation. And it and it's not. Their interpretation adds words and you can find precisely the words that their interpretation adds by looking at how it exists in the code today. Because after Saddle Ridge filed its application, and and and I think it was after the fire board decision, or at least after the correspondence that some of the correspondence that I had where we laid laid out our interpretation of d one zero seven. They, modified their adoption of d one zero seven. So it says quote, any development or combination of development or combination of developments of one or two family dwellings. And then the language goes on. Right? Where, that exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire access roads. So that's the that's the gloss they're putting on it. And now they're trying to say, well, that's the interpretation that you should apply. But as we know, Lutman says, you apply the the land use regulations as they exist at the time of application. So you can't do that. They're stuck. We're all just we have to apply D one zero seven as it existed at the time of application. And it doesn't have that, you know, any development or combination of developments. It doesn't have that language. The other way that the the county's argument goes astray is by talking about policy considerations. And policy considerations go into land use regulations. But the time for policy considerations is over once the land use regulation has been enacted and passed. And now our job our job is to help you make the interpretation that is consistent with the language. And you have to apply it to favor the land use applicant. In LUDMA's, you know, canons of statutory construction and in the case law, policy considerations have no place. The time for policy considerations is when they're deciding what the land use regulation should read, how it should read, what it should look like. And that's where the fire board went wrong. And and that's why it's good that they're we're considering the fire board decision as merely advisory because it it kinda it kinda goes a foul there. It, and mister Davies read from it. In the third in the in the fourth paragraph, the fire board, says instead, he says instead, it being the fire board must consider the broader impact on public safety across the entire area. We don't Saddle Ridge thinks public safety is important, but LODMA says, you know, certainty controls in this instance. And, the you know, what you have to apply is the text of the language, and you don't you don't get behind it and look at the the considerations of public safety across the entire area. I think we're in agreement. Oh, mister Davies talked about the fire code official's discretion, but it it can't be arbitrary and capricious. And we don't have, you know, where exception two says as determined by the fire code official, we don't have a determination at all. So the problem might be one of, well, do we have a factual fighting problem? But it goes deeper than that. You don't have an you don't have the evidence to support a determination. So he would have to determine, no. A second access won't, you know, won't be provided with future development. But there's nothing like that, and there's no evidence to support that because all the evidence in the record goes the other way. With future development, there will be a second access. The county mandates it.

So let me ask a couple questions about that. The the proposed findings in the staff report mentioned it's in the this is page nine of the report. With the proposed 22 lot subdivision also taking access off the existing single access Road, The 1249 Lots, sub c. Applicant has disputed the meaning and exceptions of IFC appendix d section d one zero seven. Letters have been issued. D subsequently, chief deputy fire marshal Jason Wynne has made a made a formal determination, requires a second fire access. So sounds like, arguably, the factual findings do address the exceptions in that they say these exceptions were raised and the fire marshal decided they didn't apply. The board said agreed and planning commission, we adopt that.

Yeah. I don't I I think you're I don't think you can read that into it. He doesn't it doesn't say anything about the exceptions. And and what it just to me, what it says is he read d one zero seven point one where it says developments of, you know, in excess of 30, and he said developments mean a combination of developments. It's all the dwellings that are accessed by that, and they exceed 30, and so there needs to be a second access. I don't think you could read into that, an application, you know, and a decision, you know, any kind of analysis of the application of the exceptions. And if there was one, I I mean, I don't know where it is. And if there was one, what's the evidence that supports it? I mean, that that gets to the second point about the evidence to support.

And and with that, we have the the letter from the neighbors and kind of the concept, You know, this isn't final. We're not obviously recording a dedicating a right of way for this, but this is the way it could work. There's discussion at the fire appeals board about, like, whether a private road counts or not on the Southwest Side. A lot of discussion went there. How is looking at this, the counties the evidence that I can see is we have a few developments far away and a lot of land in between owned by different property owners, and we have nothing recorded or formally approved that approves a road. How is is that how is that not substantial evidence to support a finding that there because the the word is will connect, not may connect or could connect or is likely to connect. It will connect with future development. So how is that not substantial evidence to support that decision? Assuming the decision was made, but

Well, the relevant evidence has to be considered in the context of what the legal requirements are. And the legal requirements, according to the county, are Saddle Ridge, you have to extend your roads all the way to the border of your your property for connectivity purposes. And then code says, okay. Other properties when you develop, you have to connect to that. That that's the legal requirement. And so what do we what's the evidence that's related to that? Well, the evidence is the proposed plat actually does that. We're committed to do that. We're gonna extend the road clear to the south border of the project where the Nielsen family property and the Leishman family property is. Then on top of that, you've got the county provision itself that says, okay, Neilsons and Leishmans, when you go to develop, you're gonna have to connect. And then we have the letter of intent from the Neilsons and Leishmans that says basically, Yeah. We get it. We'll cooperate. We'll coordinate. And what's the evidence that goes the other way? I mean, there isn't any. Mister Davies couldn't cite you anything. There's there's no evidence. And and what the fire board is asking for, you know, in terms of road agreements, timelines for completion, signed approval between property owners. That's not that's not required in d one zero seven exception two. It all it says is we don't have to show that there will be future development. We just have to show that when there if there is, with that future development, another access road will connect.

Doesn't it say will them? So a single fire apparatus road should not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development. Will connect with when future development happens. It doesn't say,

oh, future development imminently, future development, you know, within the next year, whatever. But what the fire board is saying needs to be in place is basically that. You need a road agreement implementable and actionable with timelines for completion. You know, you know, they don't say in in what term, but clearly, they intend it to be in the near term. But that goes beyond what exception number two requires Saddle Ridge to do and show. So the fire board, they got it wrong because they they they looked at, broader public safety considerations in interpreting d one zero seven, which doesn't really apply. And they they sort of rewrote this exception number two of d one zero seven to require things that aren't there. Okay. I've I don't think I need to say anything more about whether you could remand to the planning commission for findings. I've covered all that, but I but there's agreement that you don't remand for evidentiary gathering purposes. We heard mister Davey say that the engineer's indication of the road manual provision, section 2.4 a one b is the school letter. Right? The school bus letter. And I that's not substantial evidence. That says that the road is quote unquote narrow, quote unquote steep, quote unquote lacks guardrails. That I mean, those are vague terms. There's lots of narrow streets that are perfectly compliant. There's steep roads that are perfectly compliant. I'm not sure if the road manual says we need to have guardrails or not. But if if you, you know, you guardrails are important because they're part of the code that when you go from a, you know, a 27 dwelling unit to an additional 22, so, you know, 49. If you need guardrails for that, then, you know, we'll consider that, but that's not part of the conditions. We're not talking about guardrails. We're talking about a second access. And so the evidence that's been cited to support the invocation of, you know, 2.4, point one b, I think it is, 2.4 a one b, it's not substantial evidence. It doesn't rise above the scintilla. The hails traffic study. Mister Davey says it doesn't address safety. It does address safety. It talks about the accidents that have happened there. Neither of which were based on road conditions. I think one of them was a impaired driver and one of them was the involved an animal interfering with, with the safe driving. So none of them was were road conditions, related. And the Hales report says no improvements are necessary. What the what mister Davies is saying, you know, there's this new condition for a new traffic study. Well, there's no basis for that. What what's wrong with the Hales traffic study? It it sounds like the reason they wanted another traffic study because they just disagree with the Hales one. That might be the case, but you didn't appeal that condition, did you? No. But I mean, we're here he's here, you know, disparaging the Hales study, and the Hales study is fine. We'll get a new traffic study. That's not that's not a problem. But I don't want there to be a situation where they disagree with that traffic study. And so we're just at a, you know, we're just circular going through this until we give them a traffic study that, you know, that they like and whatever. So you're right. But I just wanna set the record straight on what the hails traffic study does. And there's no yeah. It does address safety, and there's been no criticism of how it addresses safety. There's nothing in the in the planning commission findings the staff report on that. So I think those are the the remarks I wanted to make. It sounds like there's no objection to a stay if your decision is denial. So we would repeat the request for that because otherwise, going through the district court process would definitely take us past that 03/25/2027 or fifth twenty twenty seven deadline.

K. Thank you. Thank you to everyone who's participated. I very much appreciate the arguments and letting me interrupt you and ask a lot of questions. It is very helpful to my process. I will issue my decision within fifteen business days as required by county code, and then you can do with that as you will.