Cache County Planning Commission Meeting – 08-13-2026

>> All right. >> I'll make a recommendation to extend that. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I regular action item number three, Bird family reszone. One second. >> Okay. This is the bird family reszone. It's a request to reszone one uh 17.17 acres from the agricultural zone to the rural two zone. The maximum number of potential lots is eight. The parcel is legal. is in the same size and configuration as it was on August 8th, 2006. Um adjacent uses properties to the north and east are primary primarily residential while properties to the south and west or mix of agricultural and residential. Um mending cities directly adjacent to the subject parcel to the north and east. Um the nearest reasons there's a few. Um the nearest parcel in the county that's in the rural two zone is located a little under a quarter of a mile away uh to the east of the subject property. There's also two additional reszones that are 0.29 and 0.35 miles to the east of the subject property. So, there's a few that are out there. Um, in terms of future land use, the general plan identifies this area as agriculture and ranching. Um, the purpose of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character of most of the areas in the valley. Preferred land uses includes agriculture, ranching, conserve public lands, and rural residential uses. Secondary land uses includes industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture. Clustered subdivision developments and farm worker housing. Discourage uses includes residential developments at densities greater than one unit per 10 acres if not in a clustered subdivision development and industrial and commercial uses. Um it's important to note that this parcel is in the urban expansion overlay. Um in terms of mend city, it's a little bit weird. They are inside of the mend city future annexation area. Um the portion of the parcel that's east of the canal, so this side falls within a residential zone. And the portion that's on this side falls within an a zone. Um so the residential side, it's intended for residential development at densities of 58 of an acre or one per or more per building lot. Then the a side is intended for residential development at a pace that is slower and maintains the agricultural character of the surrounding area. Um, in terms of roads, Highway 23 is east of the subject parcel. It's a UD do road and it's classified as a minor arterial. Provides access to agricultural agricultural and residential properties, but primarily serves as a connection between areas on the west side of Cache Valley. Um, the access is listed as a category 4 and seven. Um, category 4 has a minimum driveway spacing of 500 ft and a minimum street spacing of 660 ft. Category 7 has a minimum driveway spacing of 150 feet and a minimum street spacing of 300 feet. Um there's also 5900 west um west of the subject parcel. 5900 west is a county road and is classified as a minor local. Um it provides access to agricultural and residential properties. Has an existing width of 19 1/2 ft, a variable rideway, no pave shoulder, a three-foot gravel shoulder, and a variable clear zone is paved. Um it's considered substandard as to rightway gravel shoulder and clear zone. Um as a reminder and just kind of a heads up in your decision, this road is closed for development. Um basically there is a piece of fire code that says you need to have two ingress and egress points once you get above 30 lots or um 30 houses or lots that have development rights. And so it's reached that point. So now it's kind of restricted until that secondary access is built. So, in terms of access to the property, 5900 West might be a problem in the future if they can't get UD do to work with them. Um, in terms of service provisions, Cash County Fire District had no comments. Um, the applicant want to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. Uh, noticing was completed on July 31st and the agenda and the agenda was posted to the county website on July 31st as well. Um, at the time of writing the staff report, no public comments have been received, but we've received a few since then. um that should be in your packet. Uh we don't have a recommendation, but we'll help you direct a letter to county council. >> Thank you, Connor. >> Connor, so under option two, >> uh 4a. >> Yeah. Is that just a typo? >> That's a typo. Yeah, >> I thought it probably was because you just said a potential of eight lots and this one says a potential of two new lots. I'm like, well, there's >> Yeah, thanks for reminding me. >> Got to be off in there. So, you look >> Yeah. Yeah, when you look at your option two, uh, if you go down to 4A, it says a potential of two new lots. That's a typo on my part. It should be eight. >> Okay. >> So, I'll correct that depending on how you guys vote tonight. >> So, you said that the road is 50 5900. It's it's closed right now because of its max capacity. Where's the second egress going to come in? Is there a plan for that or >> I've heard a lot of different things in my time here. Um, there's a road that's kind of towards the north that people talk about connecting on ending. I know there's discussion about improving a road that's to the south. There's also one that's kind of uh in the middle. The county I don't think has any plan right now. It's kind of just going to have to be citizens out there working together to get it done. But at this point, there's nothing concrete. >> All right. So, their their only option will be to work with you do >> at this point. They could theoretically reszone and just wait. That's always an option. But if they want to develop anytime soon, unless that secondary access gets built sometime soon, >> they've got to work with you. Okay. >> Make a motion to open the public hearing for the bird family read zone. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> We'll open the public hearing. If you have comment, please come forward and keep your comments to three minutes. Is the applicant here would like to make a comment? >> Please come forward and state your name. Good evening. Uh my name is Norm Bird. I am um the one submitting this application for my mother who owns the property. Um and we're simply trying to seek a reason so that we can at some point do a family subdivision to more equitably uh divide up the property among family. Uh we have no real intentions to build at this point. maybe in the future, but uh we wanted to um see if we could fit into that. Um in the research I did as as Connor's mentioned, uh it seems like it would be a really good fit because uh you know, even though the county's agricultural A10, this is adjacent to the city and an R2 would I think be a really good fit and it aligns with what what at least three other uh parcels around Mend that are just like that. And looking across the county, I also noticed another couple couple other areas that are similarly spaced right around Nibi and Peter up north and a couple other places had that same type of use of R2 adjacent to a town or city that would be uh you know good for homes. Um and um that's kind of where we're standing. What questions do you have? >> There's been some concerns about flooding historically on that property. Can you tell us any data on that or any >> that Yeah. Um the only flooding that I know of is uh when the canal was uh cut probably 30 years ago and there was a massive cavern that was created and the the canal company opened the gates and they weren't we did not give them permission to do so. Um and but as a result it opened up a big huge chasm and we actually had to sue canal company or whoever it was to come back filled back in the chasm. Um but that's the only thing that I am aware of. >> Okay. >> So that's been 20 plus years ago I think. >> Okay. >> What other questions? >> Have you had any conversations with you on access? >> Yeah,

actually twice. Yeah, we've had uh good conversations with them and uh if we were to do something right away, we're we've had conversations about aligning uh with 100 is that 100 south 100 East um that we probably just do a street off there and get access to any of the lots there. So, since 5900 is closed at this point. So, if we could put in a a road to connect it, we'd do that, but that's not going to fit. It's not feasible there. >> Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask um Menon City, have you had communications with them over potentially annexing into the into the city? >> We have. Yeah. Several conversations. Um and it

took about a year and at the end of that we concluded that the best alternative was for us not to annex and they supported that. >> Right. Thank you. >> And and you're aware that they're not going to provide any culinary water, >> correct, >> to this? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> I know the property has water shares, I think, off the canal, but uh yeah, we'd have to drill wells or do something else for that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Please come forward and state your name and My name is Dennis Jensen. I just live down the road from this place on Highway 23. Uh my concerns with this road is it comes down at a sharp angle getting onto the highway. you have to go down and then look back over your shoulder to see if anything is coming and you're down in the traffic and I question with the houses up there. The road cannot be widened because houses are built on both sides. So I fees of adding any traffic to that highway would be a big no no and probably impossible. But yeah, and then like I say, the point on the corner years ago, there was a young man killed on that corner hit by a semi. And that's my question about using that road for more residential use. >> Are you referring to 5900? >> Yes. >> It comes down at an angle. >> Yeah. >> And it's hard to turn and crank back. >> I think on the north end of it, Connor is where he's talking. >> That's on right there at that stop sign. So, so this development would not be able to use they would only be able to use the highway for access. They couldn't >> that is my feelings. I don't and I think all the residents up there on cobblestone would agree with that assessment probably why the city has stayed away from working with it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, I'm SD Watts Hunt and I'm um I live on 5900 and I have a few things I just wanted to bring to the attention to the the council here is my biggest concern um is wells if there's potential I read on the um notice there was potential for eight homes. Um, we know there's been multiple people who have drilled in this area, not that lot, but up and around Cobblestone that have failed

in their in receiving water. So, if we get eight more wells in that area, I do worry about uh sustaining the aquifer that we're already providing. I know Mend City spent millions trying to drill in that same zone for water. Um, so just as someone who does live in 5900, it does affect us. So, I am a little bit concerned about that. Um, I do know that within I can't even remember the was it a half a mile into cities that the count the council kind of was advising cities to kind of annex and adopt um this type of development as they weren't in the world of development and they wanted cities to kind of help out. So, I'm curious why we're not sticking with the city in the development for annexing this zone. Um I also had um you took care of the moratorum on for on 5900. So I appreciate that. Um the flooding risks there is multiple springs on that piece of property and um in the more recent years there has been a lot of flooding that comes down 5900 and I'm certain that it's also flooding in that zone. So something to keep in mind. And one other item is that of safety. that whole area, that road is pretty tough in the winter and um the Forest Service road that comes down into that bottom piece of the property. There's been a few accidents including buses that are going up 5900 that end up in some of that property. So, just also to consider for safety. I don't know where these homes would be built. Al obviously slope is a situation. There is quite a bit of slope on that area, but that is a few things to consider. Thanks. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Motion to close the public hearing. >> Second motion. >> All in favor? >> I commissioners. What's your thoughts? Well, as we've worked on that subdivision ordinance for the last year plus, I don't I mean, nothing was ever finalized, but this is exactly where we wanted these type of reszones to happen next to a city. The city's in favor of it. Um, yeah. So to me it it meets I mean there's some some obstacles that will have to be addressed in the subdivision portion of it which is which comes after at some point but as far as the reszone goes this is uh exactly where we are trying to steer them to for these larger type subdivisions adjacent to a city for the RU2s. So for me I think it yeah fits exactly what we were >> maybe add just a little bit to that for for the question that we just heard. Why don't why don't they why didn't they go into the city? And I asked the question about that and that's really our that's really kind of our goal if we have that option that they get annexed in and they get city city services and all those things but we can't force them um to do that. And so, and so in that case, that's why we developed the RU2. And I can see some there's there's certainly some challenges to the to the parcel, but that's something that the the proponent's going to have to have to deal with those things at the subdivision state. But in in uh

my perspective on this, it seems like it's it's reasonable for uh to make this this change to the to the zoning. >> Okay. It appears to me that there's a little bit of a

six months and about 145 pages later uh they told us we you know go ahead with the project as long as you you know don't go outside of 30 feet and you know uh you know contractors are a little nervous about trying to work in that in that easement with silt fence on both sides of the project. Uh anyway, uh we'll just have to deal with those project with those problems as the you know as we move ahead if if we even move ahead you know at this point. uh the time constraints that we've been put under. It's getting to a point where anyway uh money has been uh you know allotted for the for the for the project. Uh but it's got to be you know we got to have everything in place by the end of December. And talking to contractors that's that's kind of iffy at this point. But we'll just continue to talk to them and if they feel like they can get things done in that order, you know, in that time frame, you know, we can move ahead. If not, we'll just say we've been watering out of that ditch for 150 years. We'll carry on. So, that's where we're at. Okay. >> Thank you. Larry Howell, 432 East, 250 South in Mendon. I'm neither for nor against the South Canal project except for it's an open ditch that runs directly into my back property. And at that point, it goes into a direct buried pipe. And I've been able to find an answer where the what we call big ditch where it comes down to my property line and then it's going to head east across the back of the James' property and then it daylights from somewhere after that. There's a proposed debox or distribution box right where the open ditch enters the buried pipeline. I haven't seen any engineering or detail that shows where that Dbox is. What's going to happen to the opening of the pipe at the back of my property? So, the proposed pipeline comes down like this, hits a Dbox, and goes like this. But, there is a pipeline that goes across my property running north and south. Um, and it's off the easement. But that's not why I'm here. So my concern is what is going to happen? Are they going to connect to the existing pipe that runs north and south? Are they going to dead end there and just go east is what I can see on the drawing. And then what are the plans to either abandon that pipe in place or are they going to cap it off or what are they going to do? My concern is that if they leave it open, it'll be a breeding ground for skunks and raccoons and and whatever. So that's that's my first concern. My next concern is and this last winter isn't a good example, but but when my kids were little, I remember I remember 4 foot of snow in the winter. And that's pretty rare these days, but in the 19 years that we've been on this property, um there have been two occasions where we've had deep snow and then early warm weather. The ground is frozen, the snow melts, and then it rains heavy. and my property's been flooded because we're down slope from Highway 23 down to the bottom road was at 5400 West. So, we're just before 50 400 West. And when that water comes down those open fields, it does fill the ditch and then overflows the ditch and then runs up on my property within maybe 10 yards of my back door. My concern is um twofold. If the I I would like to know what what plans or what engineering has taken place to deal with the runoff, any mitigation. Um once that ditch is covered, there's no catchment. That might be better. If it's covered, it might just continue down to the bottom road or 5400 West. In the meantime, those parcels behind me have uh they have a new operator, same owner, but the new operator uh distributes several thousand gallons of hog waste every every season. And in the last two seasons, the runoff from the hog waste is contaminated my food plot and my orchard. And I had the u the UDAF um people out there and their scientists out there and they said it wouldn't be a problem. So I offered to get them each an apple and fresh bottle of water. Here you go. Show me it's not a problem. And they all refused to eat the apple. So um what they say and what they do are two different things. But that's our family food food plot there. So the issue isn't here, not directly with the pipeline, but with the tenant behind us distributing thousands of gallons of hog waste. And in the news, we're hearing about E. coli and cycllosperasis or whatever it's called and and food poisoning, people getting sick and dying. And uh I made it 75 years, and that's not how I want to go with some bad bad disease from that. So I'm not for the pipeline. I'm not against it. I just have those concerns and and how do we address that? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um we are planning on on that last box uh at that corner. we are planning on tying onto that 12-in line. Uh when that line was put in, it was put in against uh the uh recommendation of the canal board. Uh at the time we mentioned that any pipe that was to be put in the canal needed to be 30 in. and uh the the owner of the property, Elmer James, decided that he wasn't going to uh follow the recommendation of the canal board and put in a 12-in pipe. And so, you know, at that point, it was on his ground. There was nothing we could actually do about it. So, uh that's the way it's been. Uh we are planning on putting putting uh you know connecting to that 12-in pipe and then from that point we're going to go directly east down Hner's uh property line until we get past Elmer James uh facility there and then 45 it over to the uh to the county road or close to the county road and that's where it'll that's where the project will end. So that's the plan for that for that area. As far as the uh runoff from above the uh you know from all the fields above it, uh I have no idea what's going to happen with that runoff. >> Please keep your comments pretty short where you've already been. >> Sure. I have an idea what happens when the runoff is excess excessive. It comes right up to the back of my house. Fortunately, we're on a slab, so a basement's not affected. Um, my other concern is with the hog waste, and >> we can't This project has nothing to do with someone's We can't control >> I've already I've already hog >> I've already said that. I've run a hog operation, a cow calf operation, an alpha alpha operation. So, I'm aware of it. I'm not against it. I'm just saying where where that backs up to all these residences. Um I don't know who to talk to or where to go. Maybe open for suggestion. But when the runoff runoff is excessive, it does come up and flood the property. So is there any any engineering been done that would pro or con show what happens with that runoff without the ditch catching the major portion and slowing the water down and then it continues on down? >> That's a question you'll have to ask the engineers that are involved in our project. I mean, we we're just here to approve, you know, approve or you know, they're talking about the access points along here, not >> well there and there's a condition that they have to do a storm water report that'll that'll determine that. So, that's one of the conditions in here is that they'll look at that. We don't have that. >> Who is they? >> It's one whoever whatever engineer they have look at it. >> Okay. >> So, that that's not that's a condition we put on. So, we don't have that answer today of where that water. >> Okay. I just need need to know where to go, who to talk to. So, public works, that's it. Okay. Thank you. >> Guess we didn't really open a public hearing. We just took >> Yeah. >> Ready for a >> I think we understand >> motion. Yeah, I think we're ready to go. >> I'd recommend approval of the amended South Canal 2 conditional use permit with the >> 20 conditions and three conclusions. >> Second motion. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, Connory, take us through item number six. >> Yeah. >> Solar project ordinances. Okay. So, this is a solar projects ordinance amendment. Uh, it's been going on for a while now. Uh, basically the idea was to have commercial scale uh solar projects that kind of got trimmed down. Um, this is kind of what it looks like. There's a couple changes to a couple different parts. Um, in terms of 170730, there are a few definitions that get added. Um the only difference from the one that you approved uh when you did the first approval uh is it now takes COAC into account. Um just in terms of getting their approval uh past that it's generally the same definition in the event you saw anything please let me know. Uh that's pretty much it. And then once we get to 1707040 four definitions are getting added or five definitions are getting added. Uh basically just kind of providing a little bit of context for the future in the event anybody ever comes in to do one of these projects. Uh past that 1709 really this is kind of what that uh use table look like. Um smallcale solar and community solar will be conditional use permits in the A10 zone and the commercial zone and the industrial zone. uh everything else. So the commercial solar, battery storage, and concentrated solar are all not permitted in any zone. Uh creation is 1712. I know we were talking about doing something in 1710 establishing standards for that, but it was kind of weird to do it that way. So the only thing that would be in 1710 is saying C1 1712 for development standards. So chapter 1712 is going to be uh solar standards, and this is kind of what that looks like. Um it talks about design standards uh visual appearance and then uh activities and all that. Um did any of you have any comments on any of those? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Okay. Uh pass that. We also have the actual application requirements. So they have to do a conditional use permit. Um they have to do the standard part of that. So ownership or control over the land. You also have to provide an analysis with us. So a glint glare plan, a habitat management plan, and a sensitive area analysis. Um then a site plan that kind of shows just standard stuff. Then an operations plan that outlines the following emergency plan. Um just to clarify that a little bit that also includes uh fire plan. I know that was a point of concern. And then a restoration plan. Did any of you have any comments on any part of that? The only thing I would say on that is we discussed at one point um potential of bonding or some other mechanism to fund the restoration >> that's in the next part. >> Okay. >> U basically sorry >> no on the Glint Glair plan >> I assume that we'll have some regulations and things so we're not involving pilots or airports or families or getting reflected into directly. Yeah, it kind of ties into the actual general requirements. Um, uh, in terms of visual appearance, it says no glare that would constitute a nuisance to occupants of neighboring properties or persons traveling neighboring roads shall be permitted. So, that glint glare plan is kind of a way for us to see if that actually is a concern. Okay. >> And then we can hold them to that standard basically. So, it kind of ties back a little bit. And then in terms of bonding, um they do have to do a restoration agreement. Uh they do have to have a financial guarantee for the rehabilitation and restoration of the land. So that's basically part of it. So once they decommission one of these projects, they essentially have to pay to restore the land. Um and that payment just comes up front. Connor, can we go back? And I apologize. I can't I know it's been so long since we talked about it, but I know we asked the question before. So, if somebody has a small uh community solar and they choose to have battery storage, I know we looked, we read that definition, but on under 5660 under battery storage, I know it says utility facility, but we didn't provide a place that if they want to do if they have so they put in specifically thinking, you know, out we talked these pivot corners. They put in solar in the A10 area and they put storage on that facility. It looks like they don't they would not be allowed to store >> Yeah. The way this is written, it would be that way. Um if you want, we could >> because we're permitting the community. >> Yeah. >> So, the community solar. If you want, we could probably try to split it out a little bit versus like >> I just I just would hate to make somebody, you know, not be able to comply. >> Is that in the definition of of utility? >> I know we talked about it before and I can't remember what we just how we >> because there may be it may be just in the definition >> of the community. Yeah, because utility facility battery storage is probably a certain it's way different >> than a community level. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Wouldn't want to restrict them. >> Yeah. The way it's written right now, if you look, it says one or more electrochemical energy storage devices. So, that's pretty strict. Um, if you want, we could try to, like I said, split it out a little bit. Have one where it's battery storage like everyone thinks battery storage and one where it's just a pivot corner. We'd probably try to >> Well, where we're allowing community solar, >> maybe a whatever that would look like for community to fit that same size. >> Yeah. >> All power is used on site or something like that. >> Well, but they we wouldn't want to restrict it to that because most of them are tied to the grid so that they can they power receive power when they're back. So, we wouldn't want to It may also have to do that last sentence says must be outside of gateways, view corridors, and vistas, which means roadways. And but if you have one of those batteries along the roadway, they become a hazard. And so we should take that in some way to prevent >> I wonder if them being >> Yeah. >> in the way, >> right? if it has some more to do with scale. >> I think it Yeah, for sure. Because I mean really what we were intending on that is these large energy storage facilities industry around the west >> had some significant problems and I don't think I don't think our intention was to restrict >> the ability of of a pivot corner to have enough power to run the pivot overnight. >> Right. If you want to permit it, um, just change 1709 to say it's part of a conditional use permit process. Change that N from a C. That might be the easiest way if you want to permit them. >> You want me to make that change in the actual >> I think. So that would solve it. >> I like having a little flexibility there. Perfect. Do you see anything else in those standards or anything else like that or anything? >> I think with those changes, I think we're good. >> You guys agreeance? >> Yes. >> I think I have to vote on it. >> What's that, >> Eric? Do they have to vote on that to take it up to county council? >> Yeah. Yeah, if they're sending it to county council, you guys have to >> make the motion to send the uh what are we calling it? >> Ordinance uh project. >> There about five different ones. Yeah. Sol solar project ordinance to county council for >> with those with those minor changes. >> Yep. With those changes to the uh conditional use permits for battery storage. >> Okay. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> Okay. Items number seven, wild game processing facility ordinance amendment. >> Okay. >> So, as a little background on this, we had a gentleman stop by the office one day for a meeting with uh just to get a feel on the project he was talking about. Um the initial pass that we had on that was that he should do a small scale slaughter facility. Turns out the standards of that didn't really line up really well with uh his proposed business, which is just uh game processing, a lot of game processing. Um from there, we talked about having him just do a reszone to commercial and then doing a commercial business. Uh however, he thought it was best to come in and actually create a used type and uh allow for them in certain zones. So, that's kind of how we got here today. Um in terms of that the changes to 170730 basically just creates its own uh definition. Um as you can see it basically is similar to the uh um small scale slaughter facility but still kind of in line with what the applicant provided to us. Um and then from there the uh changes to 1707 or 1709 would allow for it in the RU2 RU5 A10 commercial industrial zone. Um and our questions so the key points on this one are kind of meant for wild game only not livestock. Um the way the state kind of mandates it and Trevor can correct me if I'm wrong. Basically you can't sell wild game meat to anybody. So it would be the customer provides the animal to them. They get the animal back. Nothing else is done there. Um none of the meat will be sold to the general public and it's permitted in the those particular zones. Um so before we bring it for a public hearing next month, we're kind of hoping that you can give us some guidelines. Um if you think it's perfectly fine, that's great. Uh but we kind of wanted Do you have any standards that you want added right now? Do you have anything you want us to look into? Do you have any concerns about it being in the zones that it's currently proposed for? Anything like that? We're just kind of hoping to get a little feedback from you guys just so we >> I do know there's a couple of these in box. Have you looked at how they permit or regulate them then over there? >> It's kind of done the same way just conditional use permit. So >> the state has some pretty rigid guidelines I'd say in terms of it. So >> yeah, they're going to be permitted for the critical stuff through the state anyway. So >> yeah. concern. >> Yeah. >> So, just bring it back next month to a >> public conditions as we as we got that as far as waste disposal and and things like that. >> Do you want us just add that kind of same idea onto that definition to say, hey, got to dispose of waste properly and all that. >> Okay. >> I think there'd be a concern that way. >> Okay. I take a look into that. Bring back options next month. >> Sure. >> Go from there. >> Yeah. the applicant's here. Do you guys have any questions for him? >> Yeah, if you'd like to come up and get your comments on it. >> Um, yep. My name is Trevor Booth and everything that u me and Connor worked on the past, you know, couple of weeks look very proper to me here. Um, looks pretty straightforward as you brought up. Um, Boxeller County has has some similar ordinances to this and and by my research is very similar to what we have here. um which is everything that I've wanted to do and and have needed through um you know just to conduct the business as as seen fit and to also just add you know uh an added value processing option to people here in the valley and and especially on the south end of the valley that we are planning on doing this at. Um it's kind of a niche that hasn't been tapped into um and something that we've been able to do for our you know out of good faith for our neighbors um in that area but haven't actually but the influx of need for that has kind of grown to be out of our capacity to the point where we think that this could be something that we could do um and kind of take a little bit further. So um >> and we don't have to take our meat to Franklin to get it smoked. >> Exactly. Right. And I'd love to do that for you. So if you have any >> closer >> Yeah. So, if you have any questions for me um that way, uh I'd love to answer them for you. Just a quick question because we addressed it here at some point. The leftover waste, is there rules that that industry follows or has in the past that might help us to know how to help regulate you so that the public doesn't become concerned about that? >> Yeah, that's a great question. So um in the past I've seen it do done just through the public waste um because there's very limited byproduct from this such as just um bones and things like that but I also have contacts with um like just local community as far as like compost piles and things like that goes so that we can distribute that as needed as also bringing it to like a fertilizer point that people actually do spread that byproduct on their fields. So, as far as that goes, I have not seen any necessarily necessarily any need for like the regulations on the side of like just going to the public waste um landfill as a side of things a bio um type of thing. But um but as far as um doing it in a timely fashion um that's obviously at our um most you know of um interest for us because we don't want it around us either. So, um I think in just a semi-timely fashion is probably the most concerning thing. Um as far as where it goes, um being the bio thing as well as being compostable um is probably not as super concern if that answers your question. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Cool. Appreciate it, guys. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Cool. So, I'll bring you guys some options next month. Uh, we'll do a public hearing with you guys. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Now, on to adding the surface rap uh rupture special study. Thank you. >> Um, so big. >> We've brought this to you before. Um, essentially the surface fall uh rupture hazard study uh zone is basically an area around fault lines that are suspected. Um the Utah Geological uh survey has decided that areas that are within this distance uh pose actually do face geological threat. That's kind of the big concern they have. It's not necessarily a threat of the fault itself. It could be those are kind of just estimations where the faults at not not necessarily where they are. Um but there can be geological hazards that come out of that. So uplifting, um separation of the ground, stuff like that can actually damage houses. um and other structures. So in terms of actual changes, it's relatively straightforward. It's just 1707040. Um we take the definition for geologic hazard and just add that to it. Um that way somewhere to come in and uh uh try to get a permit, they would have to get a geotech done just because it's in that definition. Um in terms of what we've seen in other counties, um that is impossible to see. So I'm sorry about that. most other counties require something. Um they specifically call out this uh hazard study zone. So that's kind of the big part there. It's not necessarily unique if we were to take it on and add it to our definition and have requirements to get a geotech done as part of it. Um I know last time there was concern about what structures are actually impacted. Um code has changed slightly. Uh county council did pass that 2400 foot exemption. So now really the only structures that would be impacted are ones that probably do need that geotech. So houses, commercial buildings, um accessory buildings that are more than one story and more than 2400 ft. Um so we've kind of narrowed it down to where personally I feel like if someone were to come in and want to build in that zone, I think it would be very fair for them to have to get a geotech done because it's an actual health and safety issue. So >> that will kind of cross over to to other reasons we require geotech as well, right? >> Yes. Yeah. So >> those other things are in there. This is kind of a special thing that the states put out. So it's a little bit different. It's it's in line with what we have though. It's not really branching out like anything unique. >> Since those fault lines are not respectctor of C boundaries and county boundaries, this is only for county properties. >> Yes. If you come up to the line and the fault keeps going, then it's the city's responsibility beyond that to warn them, >> right? Yeah. We only manage uh unincorporated areas. The cities do their own thing. >> Usually, it's kind of in line with this too. Um >> I couldn't read who you looked at there. Did you look at municipalities in the city as well or in the county as well? >> I did. Most of them call it out. Um >> some of them have it for basically any structure. some of it more in line with us where it's accessory structures at a certain size and houses and commercial buildings like that. >> So, it's a little bit more in line with what everything else is going on both in the state and local area. I think it's in line >> what we talked previously. >> Yeah. >> Um we'll bring it back for public hearing. >> Okay. Sounds great. >> One sec. Okay, so this is the F FR40