Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I know. It's okay. I'm just trying to help.

Are we recording still? You guys are in. Good. Okay. Hey, it is 7 o'clock. I'd like to call this meeting of the Grantsville City Planning Commission to order. Today is Tuesday, August 18, 2026, and it is 7 p.m. We are at our anchor location at Grantsville City Hall, 429 East Main Street in Grantsville, Utah. We are broadcasting this and recording it as well. So just a reminder for those that are visiting us to listen in or participate as part of the public, please make sure you sign in on the roster. Or if you're online, provide your name. And that would be helpful as we record attendees for public record. So we'll do a roll call.

Cameron Moulton present.

Gary.

Gary Merrill present.

Jason Hill present. Sarah Moore. And we are missing our commissioner, John Montgomery, who resigned. And our alternate may be online. No. We've identified Chris Horrocks as an alternate. He's participated before, but he's not participating tonight. I'd like you all to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance with us. I pledge allegiance to the flag Thank you all. Okay, for the last couple months we have been practicing this new meeting format which consists of the agenda that you see up on the screen and that is available online. For each agenda item we have a staff presentation and First, and then for those that are considering a motion or maybe a recommendation to City Council, we will have a public hearing and public comment period as the agenda item comes up. Then we go back to a commission discussion and consideration for those items. And I just want to point out for the item number four, presentation and discussion of a proposed used for... use, excuse me, for advanced technology and data infrastructure center. It is a discussion only. There will be no decisions made and there will be no public comment. So during the public comment portions for items two, or I'm sorry, items one and three, Please limit any public comment during the public hearing period to three minutes each person. And as you come up to enter your comments in the public record, we'd like you to state your name and your address for the record. And keep in mind that the Commission cannot answer questions or engage in dialogue during the public comment. It is solely to capture that comment, which is why we moved the staff presentations to the section before the public comments. So you may glean a little bit of information on those items before public hearing opens. So with that, we'll move on to agenda number one.

My apologies for the interruption. There is an interpreter present. This is Jacqueline Dale. I was asked to interpret for someone that may come to the meeting. They may need an interpreter. So I just wanted to... Just to make sure that if that person is there, I would be doing an interpretation.

Yes, Jacqueline, I will give you a call.

Wonderful, thank you.

That is great, Jacqueline. Thank you. Appreciate you making us aware that you are here.

My pleasure, thank you.

Could you repeat your last name, Jacqueline? Dale, D-A-L-E. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shelby. Thank you. So item agenda number one is a presentation, then a public hearing, then commission discussion and recommendation for the proposed amendments to Chapter 9 of the Grantsville Land Use Ordinance.

Good evening. My name is Aspen. You heard from Alexis Stewart on the July 21st meeting when this was first brought before you. This is amending Chapter 9 to... make it so that Grantsville City would be able to participate in the WaterWise programs to the state of Utah. It is not more restrictive than is required to be able to participate in those programs. I have some specific points I can talk about, or I think I have a representative maybe from the Department of Water Resources here to present for you to give you a little more information about the programs, and then I can return about code specific if you guys have anything for me. Okay.

Sorry, Aspen. We haven't met. Would you state your last name?

It's Clegg. I'm the finance director for Grantsville City. So I typically am at Grantsville City council meetings. Yeah, this is my first time. But this is Blue, correct? From the state. So he'll describe the program and then we can talk about the code more as questions arise.

That's awesome, Aspen. Thank you. Welcome, Blue.

Hi. Is there a way I could plug this in to show a presentation or would it be easier to just talk about it? Thank you so much.

What is your last name?

Herbst.

It's H-A-R-B-S-T. And you're with the Department of Natural Resources?

Yeah, Department of Natural Resources, the Division of Water Resources. Specifically, just the conservation section. I'm one of the conservation techs that helps out with the Landscape Incentive Program, so we help run it.

Would you sign in, please? Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you there. Hey, super. Thank you for being here.

Yeah. Oh, there we go. Sweet. Um, I just want to talk about some of the background, the landscape incentive program, how it really functions kind of with cities. Um, and then I watched the previous meeting. Um, so I just wanted to address some of the, the direct concerns that people had brought up. Um, So just to go over the program, the Landscape Incentive Program is what the ordinance, a water-wise landscaping ordinance, allows residents to have access to. It's a state-funded program. It's run almost all over the state. just outside of the cities that don't have a water efficiency ordinance for landscaping. It's mostly just trading out traditional turf grass with waterized perennials, mulch, and any kind of gathering areas. So we don't rebate hardscape with concrete, but we do with pavers or bricks so people can still make a pergola, a seating area, whilst also reducing the amount of water that they use. We at the state provide $2 per square foot, whilst our water conservancy districts provide anywhere from $2 to $3 per square foot. They do just kind of a funding match with us, and that's why they're able to provide that increased rebate. Um, typically the timeline is that a city adopts an ordinance. Um, the city does not, uh, uh, run the program at all. We run the program at the state, um, going to, uh, to residents throughout the city's community. Um, people can apply just based off of our, our website after the ordinance has been adopted. Um, if there are any specific, um, any specific regulations inside of your ordinance that we would need to know about. We would also put that information with your info on our website. So we would make sure that applicants are landscaping to what you've agreed to. We do a little bit of program promotion. And we ask that some of our handouts and educational materials get publicized at the city. And then we continue to run the program. This is the minimum requirements for all ordinances. So no lawn in the park strip, no lawn in areas less than eight feet in width for efficiency measures. We find that overhead irrigation cannot efficiently irrigate grass in areas that are smaller than eight feet wide because it oversprays or it hits a house or, you know, goes where the water is not intended. For residential lawn limitation, we have a 50% maximum. That maximum can be changed to any, yeah, that can be any lower than 50%. Washington County, for instance, has only 8%. Um, but obviously we want to, we want to match people's hydrology, the landscaping practices of the area. So, um, anywhere from some, from zero to 50% in the, in the front and side yards. Um, and then the total landscape areas for, for industrial commercial and institutional multifamily common areas as a 20%. So, um, if you had a large apartment complex, they could still have a field for dogs for people to, to enjoy. Um, but probably not all of the curbing and edging and partnership kind of areas. Um, This is just kind of more information about Landscape Incentive Program. So we have all of our eligible locations. We do not rebate golf courses, agricultural kind of areas, sod farms, athletic fields or parks. I know that we're kind of seeing maybe some interest in athletic fields and parks changing out their park trips specifically, but not the actual used area. So that's a rules update that we're kind of talking about right now. And then people use our website to apply. I just wanted to show some of the photos of actual projects that have been done in the state. So this is one here. You can see that it's still mostly turf, but the edging has been replaced with those trees, maybe some privacy. As they grow up, they're going to kind of cover that shed there. They have a seating area in the back right-hand corner. That's a great area that we would rebate. This as well, this is a front yard that has 0% lawn afterwards. They had decided to keep some in the backyard, but created a seating area, made kind of a nice pretty spot in the front yard for that curb appeal. We don't rebate projects with no plants in them. We require 50% plant coverage because of the soil stabilization, biodiversity, and the habitat that the plants will provide. It's just kind of garnering the evaporative cooling and those benefits with less water use. Just some more examples right here. So that's a front yard that kept most of their turf, but kind of got rid of the edge right there by the fence. And then a park strip that could use a little cleaning up, but a park strip that's a little bit more functional than just a turf park strip there. This is a project in Tooele that we rebated back, my coworker Matthew and I. Now, after the conversion, they use only 11,600 gallons of water per year versus the previous 102,000 gallons they were using. This applicant got back about $6,000. This is another one, not over here in Tooele, but up in Smithfield, but just a good use of the program, in my opinion. This person didn't have a sidewalk, but in the background there, that's the high school. So a lot of students were just crossing over their turf, killing their turf. and they wanted to keep some. So they're using that front area for their dog, but then still providing a little usable walkway for all the students who would be walking that way anyways. One of the big reasons why we are thinking about the Landscape Incentive Program and thinking about yard conversions as a whole is because Outdoor irrigation depletes at 91% versus the 2% indoor depletion. Depletion is just the description of water that exits our system through evaporation, evapotranspiration, or through some kind of unrecoverable usage. So we can't get this water back no matter what we do. And you can see in the five-year average, we use about 3.5 million acre feet that's depleted. We can reduce that amount from the municipal industrial kind of flow chart there that you can kind of track from the Great Salt Lake Basin over to that depletion. That municipal and industrial usage, it's businesses and it's people's homes. If we can reduce that amount, that depleted rate, then it helps water managers kind of consolidate that water budget and have more concrete variables to work off of. These are some of our cities that are available. That percentage is actually a little bit lower Outdated, it's about 75% of the state, which was the governor's mandate this year. So we'd have completed that already, but looking to get more cities on board. And then we provide a bunch of resources for our participants. We have the DIY webinar and the landscape guide just to get people affiliated with all the hallmark kind of things that they're going to have to do during their conversion project. We have a checklist, a plant list. I think this has, oh yeah, some of this stuff that just kind of, just to get people familiarized, the checklist to make sure that everyone knows all of the, what they have to do and make it easy for them, our plant list, and then our local scapes where we teach design classes to make it easy for people to make these conversions and make them look good. And then we have some stuff with the EPA. This is just the QWEL website. It's the Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper website, which some of us on the team are certified, including myself, so people can call us out and we'll come do any irrigation audit that may need. So even if they have a grass area that they just are wanting to conserve more water in, we can still help them out with that. These are some of our contact info. But yeah, I just wanted to open it up to address any of those like specific concerns. I have some notes about what was brought up, but are there any questions about what we've talked about so far?

Do we have a, are we part of a conservatory district? So there's no extra, so you said the $2, but we're not getting an extra $2 or $3. No, no. We have no district here.

Yeah, yeah. The districts will either take that, they take that from multiple funding sources. So sometimes it's like a tax and they'll do like two cents for this tax or a portion from another fund. But we provide the $1.50 for all the conservancy districts and then they will match us back.

That's interesting. That's great. I think we probably do have questions that you could answer, but if you don't mind, we'll just switch over to the public hearing on this item real quick and then invite you back up to field.

Does Aspen have more to present?

I was just going to address some of the questions from the previous meeting, but we can do that after more in the discussion period if that's good.

Is that okay, Aspen?

Yeah, absolutely.

All right. Super. Thank you so much. Thanks. If you don't mind signing in as you're coming into the meeting, please. That would be great. OK. So with that presentation, we will open the public hearing for Agenda Item 1, which is the recommendation of the proposed amendments to Chapter 9 of the Grants Bill Land Use Ordinance. If there's anybody here that would like to enter, comment on the public record, please feel free to approach the podium.

Camille Burt, am I on? Okay. 59 North Maraschino Lane, Grantsville. I'm not sure if it's changing it to just approve the waterwise or whether it's approved to do the zero scaping for the new communities. I'm all for that. I came from Nevada. We are in a drought here. I strongly urge us to do everything we can to conserve whatever water we can for our community. especially with everything that's going on. Not enough rain, not enough anything going on, and everybody's sucking up the water. So any way we can conserve water, I'm for it. So that's my two cents. Thank you. Thank you, Camille.

Is there anybody else who would like to enter comment, please?

I can't seem to get the agenda open on my phone right now to make sure I'm accurate. But I'm actually... Oh, my name is Cameron Ordikowski. I'm in Tulin now. I'm looking to move here to Grantsville in the next year. And I'm totally against mandating this thing for a couple reasons. One, I have eight kids. And digging rocks out of a wound rather than grass and twigs is... little more graphic than I would like to go into. I've always, my kids are always wanting to play outside and play out in the front. Where we're at now, we don't, we have these little tiny eight square, they can't play in that small patch of grass. Not in stuff and so we have to stick them in the backyard and the backyard is so small it's very constricting. They want a little more running space or if they're riding their bike and they're going to crash, they don't want to crash into rocks, they'd rather crash onto grass. Or at least I'd want them to. Sometimes it's in the road and you can't help it. The other thing I would, and that's one of the biggest reasons for me is because mandating this for all places, some of the outdoor spaces I am totally for. It really irritates me when we finally do get rain to seeing people's sprinklers going during a really good downpour like we recently had. That irritates a lot of me. I love water. I love conserving water. But I don't like mandates saying, hey, your yard has to be this way. The other thing that you need to consider is a lot of these water-wise landscapes are hot. I don't know how many people have ever walked on artificial turf with their bare feet. You can scorch your bare feet, especially when you get the sun scorching that we get here into the Tooele Valley. It's a little worse than where I grew up in South Jordan. And my uncle got some artificial turf. That, yeah, that burns your feet. And the rocks, and it all heats up. So the entire community, it'll raise, theoretically, it's going to raise the temperatures because it creates that small artificial turf. heat coming off. It's like if you do it over asphalt, asphalt does the same thing. It raises the heat value. So that's some things to consider whether you're going to mandate this and where you're going to put this. As I mentioned before, I love the idea of like right in between in the medians on the road or on some of the sidewalks that aren't going to be play areas. Totally for that, but don't mandate it on the residential homes. Thank you.

Thank you, Cameron.

Either go all in or don't clap. Pick a lane, guys. Sorry. Thank you.

Yes, please just state your name.

Are you Sarah? Yes. Thanks for answering my email. Appreciate it. I'm Rose Moore. We're not related. I live in Tooele, very close out here in Stansbury Park, and I am definitely for saving and conserving water. So I appreciate that you have brought this out here. I'd like to have you come out to my house. Actually, I have contact information to my backyard. um sorry was it rose yes okay i don't think i responded maybe it was shelby moore that's right that's you guys both have last night i know okay all right we are not related either no we're not okay but thank you okay well i appreciate um your hospitality and having us strangers from next door come out and and raid your hood, but I'm totally for conserving water. And so that is a big thing. And I just want to make sure that basically the reason why this is being proposed is because there are issues with regard to conserving of water. the current state of condition of the weather and the drought that we are in right now. And that it's, I mean, it's critical. I mean, it's really important. We hear on the news every day and then all the issues that went on with the fires, you know, so where's this water coming from? How is it, how can we manage things in a very responsible way so that holistically as communities, infrastructures are put in place and concepts are utilized to best ensure that that's what's going on. So just to confirm what this gentleman has said, the reason why we're doing this or advocating for it would be because there is a concern And this is the state's response as far as how to help mitigate and manage the crisis. So thank you for your information.

Thank you, Rose.

Joanne Jacobs and my husband had some great ideas as an alternative to that type of landscaping too. You could make the newer homes that are being built have a process to reclaim the water that's what did you call that gray water to reclaim the gray water to use that for yard watering too so that you know you're not making people have these type of yards and there is an alternative to saving the water and it works out for you know just a another thing to throw on the radar thank you joanne

Anybody else like to enter a public comment on this agenda item? OK. Nicole, if there's anybody online, would you please raise your hand if you'd like to enter a comment into the record for this agenda item one? Nobody online. OK. Seeing no further public comment, we'll close the public hearing and bring this item back to the Commission for Discussion and Consideration. So I don't know, Aspen or Blue, if you want to come up to the podium or wait until we have actual questions. Please, you're welcome to, if you don't mind standing. It's up to you. But we know we could address either of you. Jason, I'm actually going to start with you since you're a water expert guy.

Um, I have a couple of questions, I guess, and part of this goes back to be asking some of the questions that you were going to maybe address is, is some of the concerns that we were also seeing via email and everything was how this gets applied to existing groups and then how we're going to enforce what this looks like. I'm curious to kind of rearticulate what that looks like, because I, what's going to stop someone from saying, okay, I can't put in turf. I'm not going to do anything. We're just going to have a dirt patch that ends up turning into weeds. And no one does anything. Is there a way to look at that? Because I mean, that doesn't beautify anything. It just leaves it a low water eyesore in my mind.

Yeah. So as far as existing homes go, that is where the rebate program to the state would come in with the $2. And so we actually did run some numbers with the cost of, and to be sure this is do it yourself. I don't know the cost related if you were to hire someone, but like if you were to remove the park strip from, I have the notes right here. Like we just took an example for a home, but it was, their park ship was five feet by 35 feet. And so if they were to pull all of that sod out and then go get, we ran the numbers for a white glacier rock, which is one of the pricier rocks from right way down over here. Or we also did it with like a lower cost rock, like river rock or even mulch. And both of those would be, completely covered by the rebate through the state, like, and then some. So the idea with existing homes would be that they would pull out their turf and lawn and then replace it with rock plants and things. And the rebate would cover that cost. So that's the incentive would be to pull out that lawn, but then they'd be getting the money that would be necessary to redo that area, I guess. And so the rebate covers that as far as like new homes, um, they would have, we would have this code in place. And so they would need to follow the rules and regulations for their front. This is applicable to front yards only for new homes. They can do whatever they'd like in their backyards, but for new homes, they would need to follow the guidelines that would be adopted in this ordinance. And then it would be no different than the cost of putting in a yard regularly. So I know some developers do offer like some sod donations and things, when you purchase their home. But for the most part, you have to pay to put your own yard in anyway.

We already incentivize, I don't want to say incentivize, but we already offer a reduction in water dedication for outdoor if they put in water-wise or zero scape in the front yards. So with new subdivisions, they do need to submit a site plan with a landscape design with the plant materials and the square foot so that we can compare it to this

So I guess I didn't read this in there. Maybe I missed it. So in there, there's opportunities for what they can put in there. My part of my question was what we're not going to require them to put landscaping in though. That's what I was getting at is if someone says I'm not doing anything, I'm just going to leave it as a dirt patch. We have no, the city's not going to go after someone for that just because they choose not to landscape at all.

Not specifically, unless it's specific to that specific subdivision or development, as far as I'm aware.

Correct. So if I'm an existing home and I can't afford to, you know, put turf in, I could leave it a dirt patch. But if I grow weeds or anything like that, I do have to maintain those weeds and build them down because we do have in our muni codes requirements of how tall the weeds can be.

Right. Okay. I just want to make sure there was anything there.

Thank you. Can I... And this might help, it might not. So I did a lot of research. I asked some questions of... Sorry, Alexis is our grant writer. So my understanding is this is two parts. So the first part is the city has to adopt the zoning that restricts future builds. And that's future builds for residential and commercial. And in return, the state will offer current homeowners who not who have current weed patches, not who have had trouble maintaining their yards in the past, the yard that is eligible for this rebate has to be in good shape. So you're not tearing out weeds and you're not replacing dirt. You're tearing out perfectly good grass. And then when, so they have to certify it before you do it. And they have to, you have to tear out at least 50% of the grass. And you have to have the final landscaping plan have at least 50% of the area covered by native plants. It can't just be rock. And then you have to maintain that, which would be a challenge for people who are not maintaining their yards currently. You know, for people who already have grass, they may choose to maintain what is water-wise landscaping. So they come back out after the project is done and the new plants are in and they will process your rebate based off of the expense that you have incurred to do this. So they're not giving you money up front and then letting you go willy-nilly and not keep any commitments. They aren't paying the rebate until all of the work is done. But that's only for, now this is where it's gray, only for front yards of existing homes?

Existing homes. So if someone wanted to get rid of turf in their backyard, they can get rid of as much as they want. They actually don't have to go down to that 50% for existing homes. They can change out as much as they'd like. So if someone wants to do a park trip the first year, just see if they like it. doing the program, if they, if they worked out for them, they can do their park strip and then say, well, I, you know, I don't use this part of my front lawn much, or, or, um, you know, I don't have, I have a lot of these awkward areas to irrigate, um, where they do get more weeds and to the weeds point, I want to say, um, And myself or my coworker, Matthew, we take all the calls or drive over to people's houses and officiate that their turf is living in good condition. We'll take dormant turf, especially in drought conditions, because we want people who are saving water to still get their rebate back. And, you know, it kind of makes sense, especially if someone's going to be taking out the grass anyways. But we, you know, we only rebate back those living lawns or, you know, dormants, not dead and weeded over. Just for.

So if that helps with the consideration at all, I found it interesting that you would have to certify that their landscaping is in decent condition before they tear it out, it seems. It's my personal opinion not to step on your time Jason that if you offered an opportunity for folks who are already struggling to maintain landscaping. that would probably be less restrictive and be more open to it. There was a way that you could find a path. help those folks, that would be awesome. But Jason, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to take your time.

I'd like you to continue. I like this. Like I said, residential water is not my forte at all. But I do, I think what we're looking at here is something that gives people opportunity. And it's people that are using water to conserve water, not someone who's not using water to try to incentivize them through free money to try to do something different. So I think that there's a real reason why they're doing it the way they are. But I have no other questions.

Thank you. Gary?

Does this apply for those who are already using secondary water to water lawns? We have a lot of those users already here in the Grantsville City.

Yeah, it would apply for people using secondary too. And they can use that secondary for their water rise project afterwards. And we have some special considerations for that, especially for drip emitters and stuff that are going to clog more easily. But we educate the person through that.

I see on here you have some stuff that's approved, not approved, like turf, not approved, of course. But hardscape rocks. which also radiate heat back out, which seems contradictory to me. I want to save water, but I want to put rocks down as part of this, which is going to radiate heat back and raise my heat signature around my house, potentially driving. I think that's the problem that we have in Salt Lake is the heat radiation is driving storms over the top of us and pushing elsewhere. I guess I'm trying to figure out why, if we're looking at plants, I agree 100%, but why would we be pushing more and more rock and not mulch?

We allow for rock, especially those larger boulders, I think is what you're getting at with heat that's going to radiate back onto a property. What we see is that it's only dark colored rock that does that. We tell people that in advance and we tell them wherever you're getting your rock from, make sure you're not getting limestone or anything that has high calcium carbonate But we're trying to work with the applicants to make sure that they're not making poor landscaping choices. So deferring people away from darker rock that's going to radiate back heat throughout the evening versus lighter colored rock that's going to reflect heat throughout the day and then absorb some, but it's considerably less.

I guess I'd argue that point, though, because I'm not sure if you've walked on a sidewalk, gray colored cement sidewalk in the middle of July. Still radiating a grip load of heat. It can be 100 degrees outside and that's radiating 120, 125 degrees. Burning if you're walking on bare feet. So I would say a light-colored rock is not going to not radiate. It's still going to absorb heat. It's still... I guess the other question I would have also, sorry, I blew it to go away from that, for the city. We're trying to, I guess, create a district. What are we going to do as a city to lead out on this? I mean, we're going to ask the citizens to do this. Is the city already got projects in hand and in mind? Like, hey, if we do this, let's put our money where our mouth is.

Yeah, we've already considered doing the flip your strip at the front of City Hall here. As you, I'm sure, have noticed, we have like a four-foot strip maybe right along the curb between the curb and the sidewalk that we would anticipate we would be ripping out and changing. It's just another area that's awkward to mow and maintain. And it's awkward to water. It waters the sidewalks. with the lawn, it's just a waste. And so we have already considered that and verified with the state that the city itself would be able to participate in the program.

Well, the other part of this too, I found rather ironic today as I was up in North Star Ranch doing some work and there's the retention basin up there that now has 100% sod through that whole retention basin. And I'm looking at this as a city, I wish somebody could ask me like, how did that get approved? Because tell me if I'm wrong, but it's our retention basins, city property and city maintained. So now we have a greater than a football field worth of sod that no one is going to use that we have to water, maintain and mow. And yet we're talking about water, right? Water wise features here and how we save water and how we help maintain the water table that is depleting throughout the state. But yeah, we just put... how many hundreds of square feet of sod in one of the driest communities in our city. And that's okay. But telling somebody, we want you to take your turf out of your park strip, because that's not okay.

It's completely voluntary. You could keep your grass in your strip.

We're talking out of both sides of our mouth here. We want you to voluntarily do this, but we're going to put a football field worth of grass, probably more up here, that now has to be watered and maintained. So save water here while we're dumping more water up there. That just doesn't, it seems contradictory to me.

I hadn't seen that.

It just happened. I literally just happened. I watched these turf trucks and as I'm there doing some stuff, it's dirt this morning. I came out of a house 45 minutes later and it's 100% solid. I'm like, what in the heck are we doing?

I don't know if all developers turn over the water retention basins to the city or if that is just part of... Where did you say that subdivision?

North Star Ranch, right off the old Mormon Trail.

Is that HOA or is that... No, North Star is not water wise.

No, but we're talking about, I just found it ironic, we're talking item today on our agenda. And yet we just planted a football field where the draft starts somewhere, right?

Yeah, and we couldn't enforce anything without having a policy in place. Yeah, I mean, we couldn't enforce it because this wasn't in place in the first place, but that's North Star Ranch maintaining. The city doesn't maintain that.

Yeah, so some of the developers are still retaining that, like our subdivision.

Am I wrong then that the retention basin doesn't get turned over to the city?

Not all the time. Sometimes they do. We're trying to not take them.

Is the one in North Star, is it going to be still HOA maintained and everything?

Yes. Yeah.

I think part of this is ironic.

The irony still holds, whether it's the city paying for the water or the HOA, it's still the same water, right? It's still coming out of the same system. Yeah, and the irony is not lost on this, which is why we're having a conversation at all, because we want to get out ahead of it.

yeah if we don't have something like this in place we have no way to have developers do something different we have nothing no lake to stand on as far as enforcement of that so an ordinance like this would allow us to have a say in that i'm going through this but i don't see this called out retention basins even specified even defined in here as part of this code an eligible that's an eligible part of the code so it would be for all subdivisions so part of the landscape plan they have to include

The retention basin.

And if they, you know, applied their retention base that gave you the plan and then it had more than 50% grass, you could say.

Maybe going forward, the definition of retention basin being added.

So we do have a definition in chapter two.

I mean, yeah, it just determines how much water they would dedicate. So we have water rights requirements and how much they have to dedicate. So if they landscape 110% of it, that's how much water additional acre feet of water North Star Ranch would have to dedicate. But if they do a water-wise landscape, then let's say it's only 20% and it's only 11,000 square feet versus 110,000 square feet, then they only need to dedicate enough for the 10,000. That's for CC&Rs and other restrictions come into place to force the homeowners that buy any new subdivision as well as the HOA to maintain.

Anybody who's already there, if we talk about this, already invested through this, so this could just become voluntary.

Correct.

I know how Cameron loves the HOA mentality.

I've got some thoughts. Go ahead. And once you're done, fire away.

You look good, Gary. Yep.

So I just want to start off by saying I like water. Most of my body consists of water, so it's important to me just from the get-go. I think it's good for us to have something to hold developers to as they come in with plans and say, hey, this is what you have to do. My problem then becomes once someone comes in and buys that property, them and they then are being – held to something like this. I think if we went back and listened to a lot of the city council, maybe the mayor or elections even, we probably heard a lot of small government talk, deregulation, we're over-regulated. This is a good example of government coming with a regulation that I don't like, and it's not a good example of keeping a government small. I think it's de-beautification even if we're, I know we're not forcing people to take out grass, but grass is pretty. So if someone comes in, buys a home, the developer puts in some of this nice looking native plants and then the homeowner decides, hey, I'd like to put grass in my park strip. I don't like the idea that they can't do that at that point. And so my question for blue representing the state is if the state's goal here is to conserve water and make us water wise, why is the state requiring a city ordinance to allow citizens of the state to take advantage of this? When the true example of, hey, we want to be water wise, they'd say, hey, regardless of what your city does. We're not going to come and put a regulation on your throat. We're going to give you this incentive regardless of what your city did. Why doesn't the state do that if they're serious?

I think it's for curtailing future water use. So for developers who are moving into the state, like our state is growing. There's no question about that. It's hard for us to kind of... concentrate at our actual water use. Um, when, when we have like this 91% depletion rate of all outdoor watering, that means 91% of that water, like doesn't really stick around for the plants even. So that's taken away as, as water vapor through our atmosphere. If we have a bunch of new subdivisions and developers coming in and putting in, we will run out of water faster essentially is what I'm saying. Um, with no control over how much water we do use, then we have no ability to conserve. Um, so it's just an infrastructural kind of change to, to center out that water, to understand, or to center out that budget, um, and, and make sure that we're not using more than we actually have. Um, uh, And to comment on the ordinance kind of background, I think it was mostly kind of legislative desire to make sure that cities are adopting this ordinance when they want it. Not forcing it down people's throats, as you guys would say, but allowing people to pick up these ordinances as they kind of need it. Especially the pilot program was funded in 2022. kind of as we were seeing harder water years coming our way. And then now as we're seeing them again, um, I S we've seen more cities sign on a price today was sending like their draft ordinance over to me. And, um, more city. Yeah. More cities haven't signed on a faster rate, um, the last couple of years, but, um, Yeah, it's just mostly to try to maintain that choice, I think.

And I get that. But if that's the case, then either the state needs to be the big bad wolf and pass a law that says, hey, nobody in the state can do it. Or I think if they're serious about it, they would say, hey, regardless of what your city does, we want you to flip your strip and we're going to incentivize you. But instead, the state saying this money is only available if your city complies with us. Or the state needs to say, okay, look, we're going to be mean. We're going to pass this law and see how that... I don't know how that works out legally, but they're kind of trying to make the city the bad guy. But if they really want to save water, why don't we start... at the beginning and say, hey, regardless of what your city does, we're going to do this and then we're going to work with city on reasonable measures, as people like to say. So that shows me the state's a little insincere because they're not giving it to everybody automatically. I don't like that.

Yeah, I get that. I think the mechanism here is just to ensure that as we're going through drought years, as raised rates are going to be considered, as rates are going to have to increase anyways, we give people a mechanism in which they can conserve. If not, we kind of punish them for the drought. when it's not the resident's fault for that, or living in the city. We want to make sure that they have a mechanism in which they can conserve. That's what I'm saying.

So why doesn't the state let everybody have it no matter what? That's what I would say. Take it back to your bosses. Grantsville doesn't like this, and they're the most important city in the state. Okay, that's all I have to say. That's it? That's it.

And I'd say this, Blue. I'd take this back. I'm looking at a current satellite picture of the state capitol. With grundle and grundle of green grass. But yeah, you're talking to us like, you need to go to your yard and you need to pull out turf. Lead by example. It's like I'm talking to the city. Step up and just lead by example. I don't want a rebuttal here. I want an example. In 2025, they passed the... You can say all this, but I'm looking at a picture and what you say is not the truth. I'm looking at a picture of the Capitol right now. With acres and acres. A couple days ago, acres and acres and acres of green grass. It's not yellow. It's green.

And the state actually has passed a law in 2025 where we're reducing all turf on all state properties to 20%. So it's, you know, it's something that is working.

I don't mean to beat you up, but I'm like, I want to refocus the conversation a little bit here. These guys are not responsible for the policy. If you have a legitimate concern, and it sounds like you do, you should contact your state legislator who made the policy in the first place.

And I agree with you.

Because let's not beat up on poor Blue. Let's not beat up on poor Blue and Aspen who are just here to try to help us get some tools.

He's a state representative for the Division of Natural Resources for Water. He's got more accessibility to people up on that. He doesn't. He really doesn't.

That's what I'm trying to say is that he is the arm of the policy, not the policymaker himself. And frankly, they don't listen to him a whole lot. As much as they probably should, they don't. So we can tell him to take a message back, but he doesn't have any access any different than we do. So I'm just putting that and trying to redirect to say, your points are valid. They're just not necessarily best addressed by... Brother Blue here. Who gave the floor to Bill?

He just takes it.

He just takes it. Thanks, Bill.

Thank you, Gary.

But that would be my big thing. And Bill, you're probably right. Get ahold of our state of reps and stuff like that. I just hate being told one thing and the big brother not leading by example. You lead first. We'll see if we like it. And then if we like it, we'll latch on and go with it.

And I can appreciate that.

That's all. I'm just like, don't tell me, show me.

Sorry. At the Department of Natural Resources building, we're on Redwood and North Temple. We do have the full water-wise landscaping there, so if you want to drop by. Is that the map stores at your office?

Yeah.

That's great.

That's the nicest building on North Temple.

And it looks great with no lawn.

It does look great. Well, because there's no needles in the yard like the rest of North Temple. Sorry. Okay.

You digress. It's okay. It's going to be a long night. You better get all of the jokes out now because we're going to be dragging. I do want to go back and reiterate that the Planning Commission is here to ensure that folks are able to use their property as they see fit within given parameters. We take that very seriously. I personally have heartburn. I can see the end goal and the reasoning behind this, but to restrict new residents coming in in their choices of how they want to use their property just seems like it is, like Cameron said, it's overreaching government bureaucracy when we are here to protect our, our community members. So, um, I really, really enjoyed the presentation. I really enjoy, um, you know, fielding the questions from, from our members, even though, um, some of us are frustrated with it because our main goal is to protect our community, our community members and their use of their properties. So, um, But thank you for being such good sports. I sincerely appreciate it. I did also want to say that I drove around this town. I've lived in this town for 20 years. And we are authentic rural homeowners here. And most of us don't care about keeping green lawn. And we aren't trying to water a bunch of weeds and dirt, which is probably a good thing. half of our current homeowners. They don't maintain their lawns. They don't care to maintain their lawns. They have horses, they have goats, they have chickens. This ordinance that we would have to adopt to allow the Department of Natural Resources to provide a rebate would benefit less than 1% of our community right now as it stands because the people that does have grass maintain it and they want that grass.

We filled calls weekly about participating in the rebate program. I would argue 1% would take advantage of it.

I personally have also gotten a lot of calls. Last week, I was tabling for Craft Lake City, and there were folks from Grantsville there who were interested in the program.

So then this leads more to Cameron's point. Why do you have to set up a district before you allow people to take advantage of the rebates? If you're that... If you want to push it that much, open it up to everybody regardless.

And I think we will probably contact our representatives of the state legislature and probably encourage that. But I think as this stands, we'll probably entertain a motion. We'll probably not beat it. Can I ask one question, though?

Is there a way to modify this to where we still apply for the rebates if we looked at encouraging or mandating that new developers come in and actually do what we're saying here, look for water-wise landscaping for the entire project without limiting it to the specific residential and then leave it to commercial industrial that I would also apply. Is there a way to work through that? I'm curious.

Just to clarify your question, are you saying like developers who are coming in are just beholden to, I guess, yeah, what was?

So I mean, ask a developer, as they develop like a big subdivision, they actually have to comply with this as far as open spaces, parks, how they look at that, to look at this, but then to go for an individual person to tell them they can no longer put in their yard the way they want, limit that to where that isn't part of that. I mean, is that something that would still allow us to say we have an ordinance that's in place in Grantsville that still stipulates how big developers have to comply with this, but not specific homeowners?

I don't think it would open up the rebate possibility just because that's the phrasing of the statute of the legislature. But I think keeping the conversation open and continuing to work on an ordinance that does work for Grantsville, even if it doesn't open up the rebate, would be smart.

If I may just point to the purpose and intent under the applicability subsection 2. Provisions of this section shall apply to all new development requiring site plan approval, subdivision approval, building permit approval, or landscape plan approval within Grantsville City. Putting in a front lawn doesn't require those things after the fact. So it's debatable, perhaps arguable that someone under this currently written code where their subdivision was required to have a landscaping plan if an individual homeowner elected to put in some different landscaping in the future that's not subject to the application of this provision. That's very helpful. We just wasted an hour.

I think what I heard Blue say is that the rebate is paid after they certify and then there's a maintenance requirement. There's a Failure to maintain down here that homeowners will incur a violation if they aren't maintaining what they rebated for. Yes.

Rebates separate from new development. Correct.

Failure to maintain... Install or maintain required landscaping within parkway, park strips, or median constitutes a violation.

The new builder wouldn't be getting the rebate, though. So they wouldn't be coming to follow up to see if the developments still look the same. Someone that took the rebate would get checked.

Correction by the city with costs billed to the responsible party. So, okay, so we take Eisen's awesome. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but at the same time, I'm very concerned that at some point down the road somebody's going to get a violation and a fine or the city's going to have to pay for a new code enforcement person to enforce this.

I just want to point out that that's in black and so actually that was already part of the code.

That's not new proposed.

So the original code that doesn't have all of these restrictions that new builds will have water-wise landscaping, right?

Yeah, either way we would enforce if someone's not maintaining their landscape or parkway.

And to be sure, with 1,700 new homes coming in, Grantsville City is likely going to need many new employees, including code enforcement. But yeah, everything in black is already standing, so they would already be receiving subject to code violations.

I took probably 50 pictures yesterday driving around this town where there are several areas that there should be some sort of code enforcement that we're not doing. So that's where I come up with the assumption that we probably have to hire somebody.

I do want to correct you. We are doing that. Okay. And I think that we're not showing 150 cases.

Yeah, our code enforcement officer works very hard. Oh, I'm sure that they do. It's a process, certainly, and it's underway.

9.3a, subsection 2, which is green. I'll have to scroll down. 9.3a, keep going. 3. Here we go. Water-wise landscaping standards, applicability under 2. Provision of this section shall apply to all new development requiring site plan approval, subdivision approval, building permit approval, or landscape plan approval within Grantsville City.

So a single homeowner who has a piece of property that gets a building permit to build a home is going to have to submit a lot of wise landscaping plan.

Absolutely.

And then the city is not going to continue to ensure that that plan was followed and maintain.

Well, it's Part of their CFO and a part of their approval.

Sort of the enforcement here is that the CFO it's attached to it.

And then the CC and ours are the HOA would also make sure that that is applicable as well.

Could we use terms instead of acronyms. I know what the The certificate of occupancy is what we're referring to, right? It's for people who do not know that. Thank you. And so if they don't do that, their certificate of occupancy can be revoked. Did I read that somewhere?

How does that work? Because a new person going into a home gets their certificate of occupancy, but they don't have to put it in yards.

It can't be revoked. Can it be held up? Yes, it can be revoked.

But someone doesn't have to have their yard in when they move into their house. So I'm just wondering how would the city look at that?

It would be more of an incentive from the developer. So the developer is going to submit a landscape plan. We're reviewing it. They take that landscape plan and submit it as part of the building department site plan review, which is required for every home. And then we go, okay, you're going to have five trees and 10% lawn here. And that's part of your instruction.

But we already incentivize new construction to do that anyway. I think you stated that the city already provides credit or a reduced fee if they admit to having the water wise.

We don't reduce a fee and we don't provide credit. It's a reduction in water dedication requirement.

Okay. So just last, so I think that's cleared up a lot then. So what we're saying is ABC developer comes in, follows this ordinance, let's say it's passed. They get signed off. I go buy a house from ABC developer. I could then go do whatever I want with my lawn and we're still complying with the water wise.

You wouldn't be able to increase the percentage of lawn beyond 50%. So if they had installed 50% of the front yard as lawn and edging with whatever kind of plants they had, and you wanted to increase that amount of lawn, on that new build, you wouldn't be able to if you had a previous home.

So where is that in the ordinance, though, Ben Tyson? Because we're leaving the applicability and saying to the development, it's already developed, I've moved in. So does that mean this isn't written correctly?

So to clarify, the developer needs to install it to get the reduction in water. And it's the front yard only, not the rear yard.

But then once I move in, I can't make it 100% grass.

Your CC and ours would.

Gotcha. I see what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. So then at that point, oh, yeah, I think it's a little more dicey then, huh? Because then it's really this, yeah, the city. Yeah. Okay. I see you.

And fines.

No, I get that. I get that.

The city doesn't enforce CCNRs.

But they just made the CCNR have that.

Correct. So I want to point out, we already have a subdivision that essentially follows us. It already does that. It does this. They have to submit a landscape plan. It's reviewed by the HOA and reviewed by the city. Me. Hi. I'm the bad guy. And then I review it, make sure it's in compliance with how much water they're allowed to use. And then they go along their way.

I feel a little bit better after what Tyson explained. Yeah, me too.

I still feel like we're restricting people's choice to use their property the way that they want to. We will entertain a motion if there's no other discussion. We need to move on. Are you sure?

You just don't want to make a... I want to think about it some more. I do want to point out that Yes, you are able to table it, but you are only able to view this item four times. And if you don't make a motion by the fourth time that this item is on the agenda, Council will take it as a recommendation for denial.

Is this the second time we've talked about it?

Yes. I just wanted to point that out to you guys. Thank you.

Okay. I move to table the recommendation proposed amendments to Chapter 9, the Grantsville Land Use Ordinance, based on the fact I want to think about it before I can make an educated decision myself.

Second. Thank you, Cameron. Thank you, Jason. All in favor?

Aye. So does that mean we can tell you when to put it back on the agenda, though, Shelby? What's the timetable on that? I mean, can we put it back on in, like, two years?

No. It'll go on the next agenda. It'll just keep repeating until we do it. It'll go on the next agenda. Thank you, Blue. Thank you, Alston. Gotcha. Okay. Interesting. Okay.

So really it's the city is making CCNRs then for how it comes down to it.

We'll talk about it next time.

Hey, we've tabled it already, Shelby.

Thank you. The A2A makes the CCNR the city's property.

But the city regulation. We'll talk about it next time. I'll have more questions about that.

Super. So item one is closed. We'll move on to agenda item two. which is presentation and discussion only of a proposed new use for animal encounters facility within the R121 zoning designation. I am excited for this. We'll begin with a staff presentation.

This is just a discussion. Sorry, I'm putting all these buttons back. A discussion with the applicant to determine if this is a use that the city would like, either in the R121 zoning or a RR1 or any zoning within the city. But that's essentially just what this discussion is today.

Thank you. Hello, Nicole. Welcome back. Thanks. Good to see you. So is this a different property than the one that you subdivided last year? No.

Okay. It's been a couple years.

Has it been a couple years? Yeah, like three and a half to four. I've only been here a few months. So much fun.

Did you... So this isn't, sorry, I thought Nicole was going to, yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't know I had permission to speak. That was awkward.

Okay. So my proposal is that I would like to ask that an ordinance be formed in order for this agricultural encounter experience for the public to come to our property and have an opportunity to interact with cows, specifically mini cows. they're able to brush them, touch them, cuddle them, take pictures with them. It's a pretty popular thing around the country. It's becoming more and more popular. There's one in Spanish Fork. Now, and I just think that I would love this opportunity. It'd be awesome. But the problem is, is I'm zoned 1-21 zoning district for half acre lots, which I went back four years ago and wanted to get this, you know, taken care of and rezoned everything. And now I'm asking for a special permission in order to move forward with something like this that I could, because I have 4.57 acres of land in my 1-21, one zoning. I would like to just be able to remain there and have a conditional use permit that I can function under that zoning, keeping everything as it is. It's already agricultural. It already has a barn. It already has parking. It already has, you know, maintained areas. that are beautified and we have a restroom and we have all of these facilities. And just wondering if we could just continue with this current zoning and move forward because we do have the larger parcel in that exact property that we are considering this.

These Highland cows, is that what we're talking about?

I have Highland and Dexters.

I don't know what a Dexter is.

A Dexter is the tiniest mini cow. So their legs are the shortest and they're the stockiest and they have these big old bellies and they're just cute as can be. But we just had a new baby Dexter, half Dexter, half Highland born. The mom is a little black Dexter, and the dad is a Highland mini orange. And the baby that was born is black with white on it. It looks like a skunk. It has a skunk striped down its back. It has little white. I mean, so all kinds of things. Yes, you can come. So that's the point is people are already excited. They call me all the time. Can we come see your cows? Can we take pictures with your cows? So I have an expensive hobby, and I would like to help supplement it.

So is the antenna cold? Are you asking to have this allowed within R-121, or are you wanting to get rezoned?

I want to allow it within R-121.

And you're operating this as a business, so you're charging the entrance to go in there and start the business? Yes.

And it would be under the agritourism umbrella. So there's some benefits to that. You can have the volunteers and you can have some liability waivers there with agritourism as well in the state of Utah.

This would be something year-round you're looking to do? Yeah.

Yeah. But it would also be very controlled. It'd be by appointment only. One to ten visitors every half hour to an hour, basically. It would be very controlled. And it's not something I have time to do all day, every day. I run two other businesses.

Agritourism.

Is that something that's already in our system? No, this is why we are calling it an animal encounter facility. Agritourism is a whole new animal, or a whole other animal that we...

yeah no pun intended but yeah usually animal encounter starts the news article with something bad to happen are we are we asking for this we call it animal encounter facility you're asking specifically and only for this specific type of business to be run within an r121

That is the intent. So it would be conditional for everybody in the R-121 zoning.

But only for like an animal encounter. So like other businesses, for example, I know there's stuff listed in here about social gatherings or a wedding venue or anything like that.

Yeah, I'm not asking for anything like that.

So if we were to approve this, we'd be looking at something saying that in R-121, we can allow an ag, call it agri-business or agri-whatever, animal encounter option would be one of the conditional uses that allowed within that.

Yes.

Okay, I understand.

I like it. I think it's very inventive.

I bet you'll print money with this thing. Because people will come from Salt Lake like crazy.

Charge them more. Check that license plate. It is 300 miles down there. Seems like 300 miles, but it's only 90 miles back.

It's only 30 miles back.

I've been out to your property, Cole, and I could see how this would work. One of the concerns I do have with R121 is that it's R121 can have a half acre. So if we allow this in half acre, are you going to also say someone else has a smaller lot wants to do this? I could see where it would work really well with what you have here.

Right. And that's why I was, my suggestion was that it's has, there has to be a cap that you have to be like, if you are zoned R121, then you need at least four acres in order to do something like this. I haven't subdivided my five-acre property. It's zoned, and I could, but I really can't because there's also restrictions because back here, I have to have a road that comes from Clay Street all the way across through the Fossens land to be able to access this because I can't. Or I can buy the land next door for $2.5 million, and then I could knock down the front two houses, and then I could go through and get in there and create another subdivision. That's not my goal. That's not what I want. I'd love to have my kids live in the backyard, but... That's not going to happen.

And I think there's a limit of how many, I guess these would be considered medium-sized animals.

No, they would be considered large size, even though they're minis.

They're dexters, though. They are cute. I have one. They're tiny. So anybody who is on a half acre would still have to meet that. The same restrictions for a number of animals. Yeah, available area requirement and 100 feet from neighboring houses and things like that. So even though it's a great idea, I think it's very inventive and well-supported. I think not everybody's going to be able to do this. I mean, I would support it. So this is just a discussion item to get a feel for how conversations would go if you came for a conditional use permit, correct? Yes.

Can we do this with everything? And I've just never noticed, like, do we talk about everything before it's brought before is like an actual, because sometimes just an application comes, right?

Correct. So this would be an addition to the code first, and then she would be able to apply for a conditional use permit. The concern was the staff. because there are multiple properties, um, in the R1 21 zoning that would allow individuals to do this, that there was a concern and suggested that a rezone to the R1, um, was better than to leave it into the R1 21 zoning. And so that's the point of this conversation. So no, we typically don't, unless we feel like it might, um, be a popular conversation.

So let's just say someone with a half acre lot, they wanted, how many animals, I guess you can't really do without your fancy map and your circles, but like how many animals could they do this with on just a normal half acre with in the middle of the subdivision?

Probably maybe two, two or three.

So we're not opening a big can of worms by doing this.

I mean, potentially like, we're restricting it you you have to have at least two and a half acres to do this but like if you go um if you look in this area here so almost the majority of the slower half of grantsville is in the half acre lots and so you have a lot of properties that are next to homes and large subdivisions that you would allow

They could ask for it, but it would have to be with another city code or match other city codes. What does this do if we did, you're getting our opinion, if we're looking at that resolving car one, I'm just curious. Or is that what you were suggesting and saying that was one of the other options?

Yeah.

What would that do to you, Nicole, in this case?

Well, it took me a year and nine months to rezone to where I'm at now. And it would really set me back and cost me a lot more money that I've already feel like I've invested so much money in all of the requirements that it took to become a R121. And so starting over because I have a new idea, it would be very difficult. And I know it will take another year and a half plus.

Fair enough. Oh, sorry. Why did you rezone in the first place? What was the purpose?

Well, we created the subdivision in order to be able to build another home there on the property. And then a future thought of what if we could build behind the barn and build houses down the lane for our kids someday. But it got squashed because you have to have another access. They said the houses that we have now plus one... on that subdivision lane and a barn dominium. I do have approved, but I can't do any more down that one lane in order to access the back. There's no.

I'm supportive. I like your idea a lot. For the city, I think we need to be very careful that we don't open this up to any R-121.

Well, that's why I was saying if you are in R-121, could you say that in order to be considered, you need at least four acres to do this? Is that something that could be...

Yeah, yes. I mean, that's part of the conditions that could be stated in the code is that it's, you know, for it's conditional within our R121 or other zones that may be maybe applicable as well. But yeah, minimum lot size of two acres, three acres, four acres, six acres for that matter. If you say, look, I like this idea.

Yes, that would work for me. I just want to make sure we have something where it doesn't put the city in a bind. We're trying to fit this into a smaller piece where it works for you. I think what you're proposing here, I think.

Where everybody on a half acre wants to

People might have that dream and say, hey, Nicole's got a great idea. I want to do it at my place, but it doesn't work because of the public access issues or parking and everything where you guys are able to account for that. Okay. Yes. I'll split talking.

What would be the time frame on this? I just want to be able to tell my daughters when Highland Cows are ready.

I mean, you can come next weekend. I'll be home. Introductory tour. Yes.

We have so many Highland Cows that the animals in my house, it's ridiculous.

Oh, my goodness.

Okay.

Brett, did you have any input?

No, I'm fine.

Do you have anything, Gary?

No, I'd rather try to figure out a way to do it in conditional use. I just think if we're trying to rezone for a specific property.

I don't think we're trying to rezone. That's what they're saying.

Well, I know, but that was part of the could you rezone to in R1, which, but I do think if you could, I think like what Tyson said, if we could find some conditional use language, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Can you put an address as a condition? Can't get that specific?

I don't know if we'd want to be that restrictive.

I think we just need to be a little creative on how much land has to be within R1-21 with enough buffer, and maybe that's multiple lots like you have available, but just something we can write in there that allows this kind of work in R1-21 if there's enough land to support it around it. Perfect. That's what I would say.

I like that. Thank you, Jason. Hey, do you have any other questions for Nicole? I do not. All right. Thank you so much. Thanks, Shelby. Okay. Super. We'll close agenda item two. And then we are moving on to the presentation agenda item three, sorry, the presentation and then a public hearing discussion and consideration. of an order to show cause regarding the conditional use permit for green wood fire recycling located at 167 Old Lincoln Highway.

Shelby? I just want to clarify, Tyson, should we do a public hearing first and then the order to show cause just because we have to swear everyone in?

Yes, the public hearing would likely be helpful. That's the thing. Any witness would need to be sworn in.

Yeah. He's calling in a shame. He's calling in one witness.

Okay, so we would need them sworn in as well. Correct. If there's a public hearing on it, we can have it now. Okay. And then move forward or some other way. As long as there's no evidence being presented in the public hearing.

Okay, I'll do a very brief overview if I'm getting into the... Will you let me know? So this is a presentation public hearing and discussion and consideration of the order to show cause regarding the conditional use permit for green will tire recycling. What we are asking is the planning commission to review any evidence that is presented by city staff as well as the applicant of green will determine if they were in violation of their conditional use permit or if they were in compliance with it. and if the city wants to add or modify any conditions. Essentially, that's what we're asking. This is located off of Old Lincoln Highway and in between SR 138. Can you remind us when the conditional use permit was granted? It was granted in 2025 of last year. In March or

So it was June 19th.

Oh, was it June? Oh, my right. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Okay.

Yeah. June 20th and 19th, June 20th. Thank you. Okay. Um, so with the advice of Tyson, we will go ahead and open the public hearing on agenda item three. That is the consideration of an order to show cause regarding conditional use permit for Greenwell Tire Recycling located at 167 Old Lincoln Highway. If there's any folks who would like to enter a public comment into the public record, please approach the podium and state your name. I guess if you are not part of the... Two parties. Not the applicant yet. We'll just let the public come up. Yeah, if you're not part of the parties.

Can we confirm that Jackie is online and that she's able to do the interpretation of this entire portion?

She is available and online.

Okay.

She checked in.

So we'll need her to be doing live interpretation with us. So we'll need to speak, you know, in English and then give a moment of pause for her to interpret Spanish. Okay.

Not at this time, Jackie. You know, it would be so much easier if I have a phone number and I'll be able to interpret simultaneous with no interruption for the public. What do you think about that?

Yeah, I will get his number. So you can have her? Yeah. Okay.

Yes.

Thank you, Jackie.

Great idea, Jackie. You're welcome.

No, you're welcome.

excuse me you're good if you want to call the okay um is there anybody who would like to enter public comment on this item to the record if you're not part of the discussion if you're not part of the discussion that will be swearing in sorry yes

Good evening.

Please state your name.

Camille Miller, 629 Alley Avenue in Gradsville. I come here as a concerned citizen. I live not far from this recycling plant, so I drive by it frequently every day. And I just wanted to make it a matter of record that we, as concerned citizens, there was a group of us that came down in the end of May and raised our concerns to the city about the recycling plant and the amount of tires that were being kept on the facility. And when I looked at the conditional use permit that was approved in 2025, it stated on there that the employees would only have one trailer on the facility and a semi truck and one to two outside storage trailers. Like I said, I drive by this every single day and there is more than the one to two trailers that was approved for this conditional use permit. There is also supposed to be no tires outside storage for the tires. And there is a mountain of tires behind the facility. And as I have gone past, I've noticed that for the longest time, there was nothing being done. There was nobody there working. There was no tires being recycled. But the amount of tires continued to grow. So when we came down and made those concerns, it took a couple weeks for somebody to get back with us. And it was a city manager. And at that time, we were told that they were working on this violation of this recycling plant and that they were basically back to zero in compliance of making sure that this person was in compliance with their conditional use permit. So my question to you is, where was the enforcement officer that the city pays for to have these conditional use permits being enforced? And two, why was he allowed to continue to receive tires when we were told that the machine was broken and had been broken for quite a while and they were waiting for a new recycling tire machine or the parts from Europe. So that took a while. And the other question that I have is, Why, at that time, why was he still continued to be able to bring tires on there? And why is he still being able to bring tires? The amount of tires that he has on that property, it's going to take, sorry, that's three minutes. Okay, I'll just wrap it up really quickly. The amount of tires, it's going to take months and months. to recycle those. So I would say that at this point, he shouldn't be able to receive any more tires. Thank you.

Thank you for tracking. My name is Sherry North. I live at 650 on Lincoln Highway. And just a quick note. I'd like to know when when he was in violation and who Did someone okay the violation that he'd get more tires? And where is the oversight on all of this? And I don't know if anybody remembers. You guys probably don't remember, but there was a huge tire fire in Grantsville at one time. And it was just awful. They burned forever. They stink. There's no way to put them out. So if that caught on fire and there was the pallets next door to that, it'd be a mess. Thank you.

If there's anybody online that is not involved directly with either of the parties that would like to enter a public comment into the record, please raise your hand so Nicole can allow you to speak. Okay. Nicole's indicating nobody is... online to enter public comment, and we are not receiving any indication that there's further public comment from the folks here in person. So we'll bring this back for commission discussion. So this is a planning commission hearing on whether the Conditional use permit issue to Greenville tire recycling at 167 old Lincoln highway has been violated. And the subsequent actions that the city must take. So this is conditional use permit to 0, 2, 5, 0, 7, 7, 4, 3, we'll fire recycling and we have an interpreter. No.

Yeah, so hold on. I'm going to help walk you through this. So you need to ask the applicant if he wants an interpreter. And then this is where the applicant will state yes or no. Okay.

Yeah, my name is Humberto Miranda. I'm the owner, co-owner, mom of my brother. And no, I don't need an interpreter. Okay.

Yeah, this is Eduardo Miranda. I don't need an interpreter.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Bison, is that sufficient then? And do we just advise?

So that would be your ruling would determine whether an interpreter would be required. They've waived it on the record. And if you felt it was appropriate to dismiss Jackie Dale and relieve her of her services today, you could.

Okay. So Tyson is our city legal representative, and he's described the option to relieve the interpreter who's offered her services of providing interpretation services. I just want to double check, make sure you both agree. Roberto and Eduardo, you don't need any interpretation? We don't, no. Okay. Then... As Planning Commission Chair, I think that we will abide by the decisions made of the representatives here and relieve the interpreter of any further time spent on this item. Jacqueline, if you're online, thank you for hanging with us and listening to the previous agenda items, and I think we'll relinquish your commitment here. Was that part of my script?

No, that's fine. And then you just need to do your procedural ruling by the chair, and then you need to administer the oath and roll on procedural matters.

Okay, so this item is considering the order to show cause regarding conditional use permit 2025077 for Greenville tire recycling located at 167 Old Lincoln Highway. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the conditions of the conditional use permit has been fully complied with. Under Section 7.16 of the Grantsville Land Use Ordinance, the Planning Commission may conduct the hearing Or may, after conducting the hearing, either revoke the conditional use permit or a number to allow the use of the use to continue under its existing conditions or number three add new terms and conditions to the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission may also take action to compel offending structures or uses to be removed at the cost of the violator or property owner subject to applicable enforcement procedures. The Commission's decision must include findings of fact and ruling based upon the evidence presented during the hearing. So the parties here today for the record will be the, if the For the record, excuse me, for the record, will the following persons identify themselves? The property owner or property owner's representative. Okay, would you mind stating your name for the record?

Jim Sweden.

Jim Sweden, thank you. The owner or operator of Green Wheel Tire Recycling.

That's me, Humberto Miranda. Eduardo Miranda.

Okay. The city staff members representing the matter?

Shelby Moore, Planning and Zoning Administrator. And you say your name, Dave.

Dave Puff, Co-Force Officer. Bill Kobe, Community Development Director.

And you'd like any witnesses to say their name?

Thank you. The Grantsville Fire Marshal or Fire Department Representative?

Nate Critchlow.

Hello, Nate. And any representative of the state or another regulatory agency that may be present?

No, no one showed up.

Okay. Okay. The witness.

They should probably have their witness.

Oh, yes. So. Shane Alt. Sorry, Shane, how do you spell your last name?

A-U-L-T.

Thank you. So you are the witness. supporting our property owners and company facilitators. And I did not gather whether who is intending to testify. So Shane, you are intending to testify. Please state yes. Yes. Eduardo, are you willing to testify?

Yes.

Yes. Roberto?

Yep, as well.

Awesome. Shelby, you're willing to testify. Dave? Yes. Yes. Okay. Bill? Yes. Okay. And Nate? Nick.

Nick.

Nick.

Sorry.

I knew this. Okay. Okay. So Section 7.16 requires the following procedures. So the property owner, who I forgot to get an agreement to testify, Jim Sweden, are you able to testify? Yes. So the property owner and responsible parties must be allowed to present relevant evidence in support of their position. All persons who present evidence must first take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. The oath or affirmation will be administered by me as chair of the planning commission. I will rule on the procedural matters during the hearing. A procedural ruling by the chair may be reversed by a majority vote of the other planning commission members present. The planning commission's final decision must include findings of fact and a ruling. Testimony must address the conditional use permit, the alleged violations, the current condition of the property, Any corrective actions, regulatory compliance, fire and safety conditions or appropriate conditions of approval. Then the speakers must address the commission through the chair and may not interrupt another person speaking. The commission may ask questions of any witness and each party will be given a reasonable opportunity to present relevant evidence and respond to evidence presented by another party. So I will administer the oath or affirmation. And so anybody who is willing or expects to testify, if you please stand and raise your hand. Can we do like a big group?

I think simultaneous is perfect. Is that okay? And then with a verbal confirmation of each party. Okay. Let me go back to my list first.

OK. So everyone who expects to provide testimony, please stand and raise your right hand. And do each of you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you will provide to the Planning Commission concerning this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And then we will go through. So Jim? Yes. Answer yes. OK. Roberto? Yes. Eduardo? Yes. Okay. Sorry, Shane? Yes. Okay. Shelby? Yes. Dave? Yes. Okay. Bill? Yes. And Nick? Yes. Okay. Fantastic. So the record will reflect that the person's intending to testify have taken an oath or affirmation required by section 7.16. Anyone who arrives later decides to testify after this point must take the oath or affirmation before providing testimony. So the city staff may now present the ordered the order to show cause the conditions alleged to be out of compliance and the evidence supporting those allegations.

So on June 19th, I'm just going to go back when this was approved and then proceed forward. So on June 19th, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the green wheel tire recycling to operate a tire recycling collection station at 167 Old Lincoln Highway. The approved operation was limited to temporary storage of the tires within trailers for resell recycle reuse the conditional use permit expressly prohibits the tires from accumulating on the ground and prohibits expansion of the approved conditional use without city approval beginning in December 2025 the city inspections documented a substantial accumulation of tires sort on the grounds subsequent inspections correspondents state review photographs and aerial documentation indicated that the tire pile remained on the property for several months after the city issued a notice of violation. The Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control estimated that at least 60,000 waste tires were present during its January 12, 2026 inspection, including more than 1,000 tires stored on the ground. The division advised that maintaining more than 1,000 waste tires on the ground for more than five days requires a waste tire storage facility permit unless an applicable exception or waiver applies. The green will obtain state waste tire recycler and transportation registration after the January inspection. However, those registrations do not authorize violation of city conditional use permit and do not constitute approval of a waste tire storage facility permit. As of the preparation of this report, the record only demonstrates the green will initiated the state storage facility permitting process. The Green will submitted a corrective action plan dated May 29th, 2026, proposing to eliminate an estimated inventory of 20,000 to 24,000 tires by August 21st, 2026. And I do just want to rewind just... In that time from when the permit was issued to December when we sent our our first violation there was a building permit pulled and correspondence between staff and the applicants trying to get the electrical and the breakers as well as the equipment installed and fixed and up and running so there was that time period where it was not running. The Planning Commission should consider the most current evidence presented at the hearing when determining whether the stockpile has been removed or whether the operation is now capable of sustained compliance. The applicant stated that most businesses occur at customer locations. The operation would have two employees. Approximately four to eight customers would be served per day, and a semi-truck 28-foot trailer would be used to collect tires. or one or two 48 trailers would be used primarily for storage and on-site chemicals would be limited to basic truck maintenance products. The approved permit provides approval is for the tire recycling station with temporary trailer storage hours of operation Monday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Expected number of customers is four to eight per day. The conditional use permits occur. The conditions of approval for the conditional use permit with the current business license must be maintained at all times the operation must remain within the parameters of the application the use may not expand without city approval. The operation must remain compliant with local state and federal tire disposal and recycling regulations the proper waste disposal and sanitation measures must be maintained at all times storage of tires is limited to trailers. Tires must not accumulate on the ground. All trailers must be parked on a designated surface and may not obstruct driveways or fire lanes. Hazardous materials other than basic truck maintenance products must be stored on site. Signage and lighting requires separate permitting review and the permit is subject to periodic administrative review by the community development director and zoning administrator and review when complaints are received. Um, the alleged violations is the order to show cause, um, pertaining to violations of conditions for six and seven compliance with applicable regulations. The state, um, January 12, 2026 inspected and identified more than, um, 1000 tires stored on the ground and estimated that at least 60,000 waste tires were present at the facility. In March 25th, 2026 letter, the division of waste management and radiation control explained that a state waste tire for storage facility permit is required when more than 1000 tires are stored on the ground for more than five days. The division letter indicates the Greenville did not have the waste tire storage facility permit at this time of the inspection. And then they obtained the registration for the SW 637 and the waste transportation registration on PR 2026 to effective February 11th through December 31st 2026. On July 29th 2026 green will notify the city that it was a that they were applying for a waste tire storage facility permit submitted record records. and documents that the application and neighboring property notification it does not establish that the state has issued the permit. Number 6. Tires lifted to trailer storage. Condition 6 expressly it requires tears restored within the trailer and prohibits tires from accumulating on the ground. The city code enforcement document a tire stored on the ground getting December 1st 2025 and the city issued a notice of violation on December 16, 2025, and allowed 30 days for correction. The state's January 12th inspection documented a large waste tire on the ground behind the main building. The city inspections through spring and summer of 2026 reportedly continued to document tires stored outside the trailers. We're asking the planning commission to determine based on the evidence and testimony whether tires accumulated on the ground, how long the accumulation remains, whether the accumulation continued after the notice of violations, their additional tires were accepted, whether the files have been removed and whether the operators demonstrated the ability to maintain future compliance. Condition 7 designated services and fire lane access. Condition 7 requires trailers to be parked on a designated service and prohibits obstruction of driveways or fire lanes. The Planning Commission should take into consideration the testimony and or memo from the fire marshal, code enforcement officer, operator, and other witnesses. in this hearing. The order to show cause identifies potential violations of the NFPA 1 relating to outdoor tire storage, pile dimensions, separation from buildings, and exposure to tires remaining on rims and tire storage within a building that is not protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. The fire code analysis estimated that the primary pile at approximately 48 feet wide, 102 feet long, 25 feet high, and 122,400 cubic feet in volume. The analysis indicates that tires were stored against or immediately adjacent to a building that pile may exceed the maximum permitted height. Some tires remain mounted on rims. Tires were stored within a building that did not have a sprinkler system and required access or separation. Distances may have not have been maintained. These matters should be established through sworn testimony and supporting evidence. Greenville did submit a corrective action plan that was given to the Planning Commission. They've submitted two of them, one last week and then one a few months ago for corrective action. The plan estimated approximately 20,024 tires and Proposed process processing approximately 310 to 370 tires per working day operating Monday through Friday and monitoring inventory weekly. Maintaining photographic demonstrations, providing progress information to the city upon request and notifying the city of additional equipment and failure and eliminating the remaining inventory by approximately August 21st, 2026. The proposed action plan did not amend the conditional use permit and did not authorize continued storage of tires on the ground. Its submission may be considered as evidence of the operating proposed corrective efforts, but the Planning Commission should compare the proposed milestones against actual site conditions. August 4th, Green will submitted a I don't want to state a traffic impact city because that's not what it was. It wasn't by a certified engineer, but it was a estimated daily trips of equipment in and out of the facility. So approximately one incoming truck per normal day, as many as four incoming trucks on a peak day. So when we say incoming, that's material brought into the facility. And then approximately one outbound processed material truck per day and approximately three employee vehicles. Approximately 10 vehicle trips on a normal day and approximately 16 vehicle trips under peak scenarios. The study also described an operating schedule of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and vehicle access windows of approximately 6.30 to 5.30, which meets or is in compliance with the conditional use permit of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Thank you. So enforcement history, April 18th, 2025, green will submitted its CUP application. June 19th, the Planning Commission approved the CUP. June 20th, the CUP was signed and issued. December 1st, 2025, code enforcement documented a large tire accumulated on the ground. December 16th, the city issued a notice of violation citing conditions 4, 6, and 7 and allowing 30 days for corrections. January 12, 2026, the city and state representative inspected the property. February 11, 3 will obtain its state tire waste, tire transportation, and registration. March 12, 2026, the operator reported that the tire shredder was not operating and was scheduled for repair. Throughout this time, the operator was in communication with us prior to that as well. We had a building permit that was being inspected consistently for the electrical. So they had to redo a lot of the electrical to operate this equipment. March 23rd, the staff observed some reduction in the tire pyro. The operator stated that the process setting had resumed. April 6th, staff observed limited additional reduction and instructed the operator to Discontinued accepting additional tires until the existing pile was substantially reduced. April 14th, staff reported that the pile appeared generally unchanged and that the additional tires were present. April 27th, operator reported processing approximately 900 tires per day. Staff reported only minimal visible reduction and continued tire deliveries. April 28th, May 4th, and May 6th, code enforcement made additional attempts to contact the operator. May 29th, the Greenville submitted its 90-day corrective action plan. June 3rd, the community development director, the city attorney, and the fire marshal reviewed the continued compliance concerns. June 9th, Greenville authorized the city to conduct inspection, drone photography, mapping, and site documentations, which had been provided to the planning commission. June 10th through August 9th, the city conducted periodic aerial documentation of the property. June 25th, the order to show cause was mailed to the property owner and business operator. July 2nd, the city received a residential complaint and photographs concerning the tire accumulation. July 15th, certified mail address to the business owner was returned and unclaimed. July 20th, the city records indicate that the order to show cause was personally delivered by a police officer to the business. July 29th, Greenville notified the city that it had applied for a state waste tire storage facility. And then August 6th, Greenville submitted its traffic impact study. August 18th, the planning commission is scheduled. In between August 6th and 18th, Greenville did submit an updated plan to address the issues. Sorry, that's a lot of talking. I just want to read. So staff recommends to the planning commission to find green will in violation of condition 6 by storing the quantity of tires on the ground. Find that the violation remained after notice and an opportunity to correct it allow the CUP to continue under a 6 month compliance period. Permit Greenville to continue processing tires during that period. Require outgoing material to exceed incoming material so the stockpile is consistently decreased. Require weekly reports and photographic evidence. Require an interim staff review after their periodic three months. Require a final compliance review at the end of six months and direct staff to return the CUP to the Planning Commission for further action if substantial progress and compliance have not been achieved. And then I will just show some pictures of the drone footage. So this is, I believe in July is when we called out when we started flying over the facility. This is the next week. The next week. You can see now that this area here has been opened up as well as this corner. Tires have started accumulating here. It appears to remain the same through the next week and no changes. Okay, so this is just their letter. to grants to city letting them know that they have applied for a permit with the state. This is just the parcel information. There's 4 through 6 on the conditional use permit for them to answer this is the other conditional this is the original conditional use permit. Here are the nfp a fire codes. So 33.1.3 apparatus access to separate tire piles for effective firefighting and separation of store yard storage from buildings, vehicles, flammable material. Um, it references 33.1, 10, 33, 2.1.1, um, and so forth regarding tires sizing with, um, From the fire marshal, the conclusion is the following things are not in compliance. The tires that are being stored against the building, the pile is too large and there are tires that still have rims in them. Tires cannot be stored in the building as the building does not have a fire sprinkler system. This is the notice of hearing the order to show cause. This is the original approved conditional use permit. Here is the traffic daily trip estimate that was provided. This is just discussions between staff and the state. Sorry, I know this is a very long staff report. Here's a letter from the state on January 12th, the representatives of the division waste management and radiation control conducted inspection facility, and then they reference the permit number, a copy of the solid waste program inspection report at is enclosed in the scope of the inspection was determined compliance with the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act and Administrative Code R315. This letter is informing of opportunities for improvements noted by the inspectors. And then it references if they're going to allow more than 1,000 tires to stay on the ground, then they need to apply for specific permits and how to apply for those permits. They also had recommended action. And then they reference state codes on how to apply if you're going to have more than 1,000 tires. This is the inspection report. On January 7, a representative from the Division of Management and Radiation Control received a complaint regarding Greenwill on Old Lincoln Highway. On January 12th, a division representative conducted a compliance evaluation inspection at Greenville. Upon arrival at the facility, the division representatives met with representatives from Grantsville City and Mr. Humberto Miranda, who introduced himself as one of the two owners of Greenville. Mr. Miranda directed all parties into a fully enclosed building that houses the main recycling equipment. He stated that the equipment can shred up to 1,000 tires an hour. However, the equipment is currently not in operation due to technical with electrical connections with Rocky Mountain Power. He stated this will be resolved in a few days and tires were observed within the building. He stated that these tires will be resold due to their conditions once in operation. He stated that the process tires will go to a cement kiln in northern Utah and some of the process tires will go to the landfills to be used as alternative daily cover behind the main building. The division representatives observed a large pile estimating around 60,000 tires. As a result, the compliance evaluation inspections representative educated and informed the applicant of the Utah Waste Tire Recycling Act and the Utah Admin Code. The applicant stated he'll work on submitting both waste tire recycler and waste tire transportation registrations, which he did demonstrate he applied for to the division and will not accept any additional waste from the tire retailers until he has been granted approval of his registration. He agreed with grants representatives that he'll keep them updated in terms of his conditional use permit with the city to ensure compliance of the regulations. So here's a sign. This was inside the shop. It is a pretty neat machine to see in person. This is just pictures up close of the pile. Here is from applicant and corrective action that was submitted in May. I'm just stating how many tires he can process and the current inventory. Week 1, he'll target processing 1,800 tires. Week 2, additional 1,800 tires. So through each week up until August 17th, they anticipated processing up to an average of 1,800 tires. They will maintain weekly records, a number of tires processed, remaining inventory, operational days, photos of inventory reduction equipment, operational status, and then a signature just stating that they'll implement the tire reduction schedule. That is all I have unless you guys would like me to show you the drone footage that was sent to you as well as other documentation. I've seen it.

You have like latest updates?

Yeah, I can pull those up. Okay, thank you Shelby. So the Planning Commission members may now ask questions of the property owner and operators.

Do they, Tyson, do they get to present any evidence or speak before questions, I guess?

Procedurally, that's up to the chair. I think that's a fine suggestion.

I appreciate that suggestion, too, because that will probably answer questions that mission members may have. So, Roberto and Eduardo, if you have evidence you would like to present, The show that you have been in compliance with the previously issued conditional use permit where we're happy to hear that evidence now.

Yes, they are waiting for me to pull up. Yeah, we've made a similar. I don't know. I guess I can try to summarize situation. It's kind of a It's our first adventure going into starting a business, right? So just obviously got the conditional use permit, and then eventually got the machine. Everything was okay, but obviously by that point, when we got the conditional use permit, per landlord said, don't collect any sires until we have the machine. You know, it makes sense. So I met with, you know, future customers, let them know the situation, what's going on. Told them by the end of the year, it should be fine. We did get the machine. We had to have it delivered from Virginia, which that was kind of a process too. By the end of the year, we had the machine. The other situation was we had to get it operational, electrical, and come to find out we needed to install a new transformer box, and that took quite a while. That's why Shane's here to testify to that. He's the one who helped install it, so... So yeah, that's pretty much the reason why the POW got, you know, we've been playing from behind from the get-go. Yeah, that machine is awesome. You know, it's a CM dual speed tire shredder. It's, yeah, it's just like a, I don't know if anyone's ever seen those videos. It's kind of cool to watch. It just shreds. It's like a machine, just let it eat, you know? Um, yeah, basically, um, as far as complaints, uh, so the updated pictures, see, we finally, we realized we weren't, we were shredding about 200 tires more than what we were bringing in, which our assumption is about 30, 40,000 tires. So, um, obviously that, you know, that'd be 10 years, 20 years to get to that. So, um, ended up saving some money and we just purchased a brand new trailer 48 foot like a dump trailer and that thing is so instead of using our regular dump truck which holds seven to eight tons per product And having to go to landfill and whatnot. Now this thing is, you know, we're taking anywhere between 25 and 30 times per day instead of seven and eight. Right. So that's four times more than, and that's where you'll see the last few weeks. It's been a massive, massive dent in tire piles and stuff.

Okay. Um, So do you understand? I was new to the commission when relatively new when this came to us for consideration originally and I recall having some conversations about ensuring that the fence the perimeter fence was up and things would be maintained there and I'm just What portions of the evidence that Shelby's presented regarding the conditional use permit requirements, do you feel like you had a bite by any of those, that you might be in compliance with any of those six or seven items? Or... There was some requirements with the conditional use permit. The original one.

Yeah, I think. Obviously, we were not in compliance. Like I said, due to, like I said, we fell behind six months to get everything operational. But, um, catching up, we're at that point where now we're finally fully 100 percent operational, which is why we've submitted the plan of action, 100-day plan of action with verifiable proof, so receipts, invoices, and whatnot from where we've been taking the product. I don't know if that doesn't really answer the question.

Can I ask a question?

Yes. Do you have any other evidence to present that might help?

I want to kind of clarify what you just stated or ask a question. So you said you're following a plan that you've submitted. Based on the record we saw here, you've submitted two plans. One of them, you would have been in compliance by August 21st. I'm getting there.

I don't know what that one, that plan did not work.

Can you please explain the difference between the two plans? I read the one plan for later, but I wonder what the difference is and what other than you've started, what gives us confidence that you would be able to complete this plan?

Equipment. So instead of like a regular dump truck, it's a 16-foot bed or whatever, and that can hold anywhere between six and eight tons per load, whereas now we have any pictures of the new dump truck?

That's what I was looking for. I think we've got- That was theirs.

So yeah, we purchased a new dump trailer and it's open top one. You know, it's exclusively designed for products like this.

So are you stating that the trailer, because you have the trailer with limiting factor, why you couldn't complete the first plan?

Yes. So it almost looks like a semi-trailer. Just put the top open.

Yeah, essentially it's kind of what it is. It's like a big long trailer, but it's open top and the material falls in. So instead of like, if we fill up one dump truck, you know, unfortunately Tula County, we thought they were going to be able to allow us to bring, you know, shred material, but they're not accepting it. So that kind of Timeline-wise, it takes longer because we take our product to Intermountain Regional Landfill, right? So it's just a round trip. It's a three-hour round trip. Whereas now, and that's just with a dump truck. It's essentially the same thing, but now it's a bigger trailer, which holds five times more product. So... Oh, there's something here.

Okay. So your original permit stated that all the tires would be stored in trailers.

Yes.

Could you explain how we ended up with 20,000 tires on the ground?

Yeah. I was trying to reiterate was the situation of getting the electrical, everything up and running, right? Because the machine ended up drawing more current than Then, you know, so I kept like, what do you call it, the things that the fuses would blow. Trip the breakers. Yeah, trip the breakers. So obviously met with rock mount power, like you guys are going to have to install a new transformer box and that's going to be processed. So that was... That took longer than expected, right? And then by that time, it was a holiday weekend. So that took, you know, one, two weeks. Finally worked with Broken Arrow, Shane's company, electrical company. Eventually able to get that up and running, right? And from then, we were just trying to, we've just been playing from behind, you know, and we've been, like working seven days a week, like nonstop. But plan of action, like I introduced, is obviously because we're going to have more available time because this trailer is going to hold, you know, five times. So essentially what one day does, it does, you know, five days worth of a dump truck, it does it one day.

We're also going to have a double shift.

Yeah, I did see that in your plan. Ask a question. I guess this goes to Shane. So they were having issues with electrical. You were the electrician that handled this. Can you clarify that they are at a place now where the load that they are going to be using with these machines will be handled by the electrical system has been upgraded?

Yeah, so what happened is in the first part of November, We were contracted to go out and hook up a machine. So when we got out there, we found out that the machine was a lot bigger than what the service could handle. So we determined we needed, and it didn't have a main on it either. It just fed into the CT can, which is the main distribution from Rocky Mountain Power, went right into the building with no main. So we determined that we needed to put an MDP on it, which is the main distribution panel, and have it so that you had a main, actually had a main And you had breakers to feed the other panels that were just being fed before without mains in them that had been like that for years, from back when the brine shrimp plant was active in there. So then we start dealing with Rocky Mountain Power and their schedule, actually getting the service out there and getting it installed. And there were just kind of bumps all the way along the way. And then when we finally get power to the machine, It won't start up. So the machine was brought from back east. It was taken apart, shipped up here, and then put back together. But we fought that for probably three weeks, trying to get the gremlins out of it. Called the manufacturer back there, the guy that knew things inside and out, that started from the bottom, came all the way up through, retired. The guy that took his place was a salesman. So he didn't really have any direction to go with it. So we finally were able to get a schematic because it's an older machine. We finally got them to find a schematic for us. And then we had to start tracing it all the way down. So, I mean, you can imagine they're bringing 500 tires a day, trying to get product to actually shred. And, you know, they can't stop because if you stop, I mean, that would be the easy thing is say, we'll stop bringing tires in. But these are clients that if they say, okay, we can't take your tires, they're going to go to somebody else. And so then...

Okay, I'm just hearing your testimony. Just, I guess, asking to get to the point so we can get there. Is the system right now adequate? The system is operational. Operational and it will maintain operations based on the load that's being required.

Yeah, so we started that. We had it. We started, actually got it running January 22nd. But at that time, there was a pretty good-sized pile of tires. But I met with Bill and Shelby Thursday, and I hadn't been down there for a while, so I went down to see Eduardo, and the pile was still pretty big. It was up against the building, and he said that his goal was to get that alleyway off the building, you know, And he sent me a picture this morning that those tires aren't touching the building anymore. So they're making an impact on the tires. It's going to take a little bit to get it, but I mean, they couldn't.

I just want to make sure the system was.

Yeah, the system is operational.

Thank you. Jason.

Question and then just a couple of comments. So my understanding, if you've applied for the state waste tire storage facility permit, if you understand, though, that's not going to allow you to store tires based on what your conditional use permit is, right? So that permit's not going to do you any good.

Right. Essentially, it creates kind of an insurance policy. Assurity bond is what we had to get for situations where, let's say, we're not here anymore. Who's going to, how, how's that pile going to be removed? Okay. Right. Oh, sorry.

Can I, can I ask, is there no way to amend that or is it, I mean, I think that'd be a future conversation, but where my next comment was going to go is this pile, the easy solution would be that you should have stopped receiving tires. Um, so I own a couple of companies, one of the trucking company, um, Very regulated. Doesn't look like it with the gravel trucks on the road in Tooele County, but it's really regulated. One of those things is, you know, guys have to sleep a certain amount. And if I've got product in the trailer and my guy's out of hours, he's got to stop because it's dangerous. There's rules in place to protect people. And that ticks off clients sometimes. When a guy has to sleep, he's got to do a full 34-hour reset. It makes people angry. Um, so I understand that, Hey, you didn't want to stop taking tires because you don't want to upset clients, but. The city gave you rules and a lot of warnings and you let this thing keep building up. So my, my suggestion would be as part of this plan, whatever we do here is there has to be no more tires come in there until you're in compliance with the existing conditional use. Cause. You could have... This was 100% in control to be in compliance, so you just kept letting them come in. That's awesome. No, it's great. And if you've got to work double, triple shifts, whatever you've got to do to get that down, but that would be what I think needs to happen is nothing else goes into that facility until you're in compliance. Because I think the period of grace has passed, regardless of the equipment going down, all of that. Like I said, when my driver runs out of time, he's got to park because it's the rules. So that's...

I just think we ask for some consideration because that's like the majority of our income is to... Yeah, and I understand.

If you've got to contract more guys to haul loads out to the desert wherever you're taking this stuff to go faster, but I just... Yeah, that would be my concern. My rule of thumb always is with my guys and my equipment and my trucking company is if I'm not comfortable with my wife and my minivan traveling next to a semi-truck on the road, I pull that truck off the road. And I hope you would not be comfortable with your family living next door to this tire pile if it caught on fire. And so that's just kind of my litmus test of my personal life and how I run my business.

And per the fire chief, we added more extension. We added more fire extinguishers outside, you know, and And I don't have a way to point, but we'll send you guys some updated pictures. We've created a massive gap. So yeah, pretty much what there, it also goes around the back. So it's no longer touching the building in the back.

Oh, that's great. Yeah, it's great progress. Yeah.

So we're doing that. We're cranking, but that's all I have. And all that's cleaned out to the front. If you guys saw an updated picture, you guys can see. Yeah, there you go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So on your plan here, you have a 90 or 100-day plan to be down to zero tires? So is this meaning that the tires that you'll be accepting in a day will be also better by day so there won't be any storage on site anymore?

Yeah, I think maybe it's just a numbers thing, right? Because we know how much tires we brought in and stuff. So we were guesstimating 30,000, 40,000 tires. Right. So obviously for us, we put we were going to be shredding 10 tons of tire per shift. So 20 tons per day, five days a week, you know, in 100 days, that's 30,000 tires. We're generally doing more than that. Every load we're taking 24, 26, 28 tons. Right. And so that in our view, that would. cover, you know, any, any discrepancies or any differences that, you know, but more importantly, you guys would visually see the, you know, the evidence that, oh, the power of getting down, like, the power of getting down, like, just since we purchased, we just purchased this trailer less than a month ago, and that's been the difference, so. We got some of the receipts right here.

You can see in that, they doubled over the last three weeks.

Proceed with what you're saying.

Yeah, I got 292 tons.

So you meant, and I get that you're in a business and you have to, you take income by people giving you time. So you're saying you need to have tires to bring you tires. I get that you're in a business. What have you been doing with the income you've been generating for the last essentially nine, 10 months where you are taking the tires, you're taking the fees and that you're not You're accumulating the tires versus actually processing them. So I get that you're saying that. I like Cameron's point of saying, don't take any more tires until you can clean this up, and then we're willing to talk about what that looks like. But that's where I'm having a little bit of heartburn, because you've taken the income, and I get you're trying to fix things. At the same time, you're bringing in money, but you're not actually producing. Yeah, just the cost of everything.

It's not cheap. The machine was worth a quarter million. Just this dump trailer, we got a really good deal. It was worth $6,000, but we We ended up getting super cheap for 20,000, you know? So that's pretty much where the majority of the funds have gone. We're not even paying ourselves right now, right? But I view it more as like an investment because I know in the future it's going to be worth a lot. I never even mentioned any of this because there's no concrete evidence, but we've been in communication and coordination. Just a little bit about our past. We used to work for Liberty Tire, right? We were with him for together 20, I was there for 13 years. He was there for 11. We have ample, you know, experience. It's kind of our industry. It's what we know. But yeah, it's one of those, yeah.

So where's Liberty Tire?

It's in Salt Lake. There's two of them. They just signed a deal with UDOT. I guess they, like, need a certain amount of rubber because they use that for asphalts. And Liberty doesn't have the materials, so they approached us about, you know, obtaining the product. But I can't even bring it to you because it's just speculation and hearsay, right?

So do you subcontract for Liberty then?

We don't work directly with them, but this might be a situation where they need product. We have them out in a product.

I was going to ask where else you are taking tires that

Oh, well, we don't take tires. We shred them and process them, right? So we cut them down to different chip sizes. The Croydon cement plant, but that's seasonal, right? So they're only like four out of, well, pretty much eight out of 12 months, a couple months off, a couple months on. But yeah, right now, we're kind of hoping to be able to take it to quite a few dump sites. But Tooele County, it's kind of our... Our hope, right, because that would have been so much easier just that we could take a few loads a day. Unfortunately, they're not taking any product and that's that, but closest one to us is Intermountain Regional, which is about... Which is where? It's kind of past, before you get to like... Fairview. Okay.

Yeah. Fairview. Isn't that where Jim moved to?

I think it's... No, not Fairview. Yeah. Fairfield? Fairfield. Yeah, sorry, sorry. Sorry, I'm so sorry.

So what assurances do we have that your new plant, you're going to be able to action on your new plan? You've already presented a plan, like I mentioned, we didn't complete with it. Now you're coming back with a new plan saying you have it. You put the numbers out, showed how you can get to that, assuming that you operate based on what you're showing in there, but how... Give me confidence that you can actually meet that plan.

Yeah, you know, my confidence is that we got a bigger size trailer and we got two shifts. So we've been able to shred, shred, shred and take, you know, because we lost a lot of time with the dump trailer. Go back and forth and we're just very little tonnage with the other one. It's like four times just on one trip.

So that's going to be an ample time to shred. So you're running a dual shift. Yes. So how do you shred when your semi is on the road to the dump?

The trailer's parked.

Yeah. So you have two trailers parked?

Yes, we do. So we have a dump truck and dump truck.

So you have one tractor, two trailers.

Yes.

So two 48-foot trailers. So when one tractor trailer's on the road, is it backed in?

No, it's just a one 48-foot trailer. Okay.

So how are you shredding when that tractor is on the road?

We use the dump truck.

They have a dump truck. Okay.

Yeah. It takes about three hours, and that's about it. We're there and back in about two. Yeah, yeah. There's no jet lag.

I'm sorry, but that trailer, the new one we got, that can take, shred two shifts in just one trailer. Yeah, that one.

Yeah, we can do all day with the two shifts. Just an FYI, we shred all day, and that's the early morning run. Meanwhile, we start on the dump truck. By the time that's ready, that trailer's here. So we're trying to keep it.

So within three months?

Yes.

What is your determined percentage of tires will be gone?

I'm confident it's going to be 100%.

Within three months?

Yes. You gave us a 100-day plan.

A 100-day, you're right.

Because we're going to be working Monday through Friday.

So you're determined then within six weeks, 50% of that pile will be gone?

That's a month and a half.

That's half of that. All right.

But you also have to consider weekdays, not weekends, right?

Well, no, but you gave us a 100-day plan. Yes. So roughly a little over three months. Well, we realize- So if I'm going six weeks, which is half of that, say seven weeks to give you benefit, in seven weeks, half of that pile will be gone.

Yeah. Are those 100 days, 100 operating days or 100 calendar days? Yes, 100 operating days. So it's not three months or three and a half months. It's a lot longer than that because- We're actually talking more six months.

Mm-hmm.

Because you're only talking five days a week. Five to six months. That's 20 weeks. Is that what I'm understanding?

Yeah, that's ideally for us. And this is like a realistic goal, right? I'm not going to try to share code it. And that's kind of given us enough room for any contingencies or anything. If we have maintenance issues, which obviously we haven't had any since we finished up and everything's been operational, but.

Is there allowances, Shelby, within the city or this condition is permitted where they can operate more than just the five days?

I mean, that would be a condition that you guys would need to put on it.

Like a Saturday shift. I'm just...

I think our issue is... My plan is to Monday through Friday because we're going to be running double shifts for Saturday maintenance to make sure the machine's always maintained.

That's going to be the more important thing. Yes. Yeah. So you guys started this business last year, right? Yes. So again, I don't want you guys to hurt on the business aspect of it again, but... you were able to get enough clients to accumulate a tire pile that high this quickly, right? So again, I'm going back to, I would like to see the flow stopped. And if you have to go back and beg for some of those clients, if they leave you, but if you were able to get that many clients that fast, I would hope that a momentary positive incoming, you could go get some of those back to get this under control because we got to stop the flow to get this in compliance. So you killed it and you got all those customers. I don't know if you're, your margins are a lot thinner than Liberty and that's how you're doing it. However, it's working, but I would assume that if you were able to get that many clients that quickly, you could get them back if needed. Yeah.

Yeah. So, um, so we need some flow to get rid of the flow. It's kind of like a river, you know, it moves the rock, you know, that's what I'm trying to explain.

Cause essentially, um, out of that tire pile, right. We, there's always a graded quality, right. So in, in our, uh, About 12% of it is actually good used tires and those get resold, right? Those trailers full of tires get sold as, you know, we saw wholesale Victor's tires here in Tooele amongst, amongst many. Yeah. But yeah, that would kind of, you would probably like cut 50% of our budget.

So I would like, I mean, what I would like to entertain is allowing them to work seven days a week, put this all in their court and stop the flow and get this back into compliance before more tires come in.

I guess I see what you're saying. I would only argue against stopping the flow, because once again, that's money. It takes money to run a business. And to me, they... Well, I agree, but looking at this, they put out, I mean, just a quarter million dollars in a machine, which still has to be paid for.

So if we stop that... Yeah, we don't want them to go bankrupt.

Do we force the company to go bankrupt? I understand what you're saying, but it still has to take money to make money. And to get this pile of will down... I still think you need to allow them to bring in, but I would say you need to limit what's coming in. You've got to make sure that what's coming in is less than what's going out.

Yes, and that's kind of in our new plan of action. It's a daily input. We're sending updates daily, what's coming in, invoices. versus what we're shredding, right? And so that you guys can visually see we're bringing in 300 tires a day, we shred 2,000, right? So you guys would be able to visually see, and then obviously confirm your, you know, while seeing the pile get slowly down south. Besides the two of you, how many other employees? Right now we got six. Yeah, six.

And we're going to bring two more, but if it's, then we might have to shut everyone for one year. Yeah, how are we going to pay those employees to help us get rid of those tires too? So that's where we need some flow so we can get. That's all we ask. Yeah, that's all we ask, yeah.

Like we're, we've been, we've been chugging along, like we've been working last, probably last month straight, you know, seven days a week. You know, but that's because we've invested so much in this, and it's obviously there's hiccups, right?

I sold my home, and I invested in my brother. He took his retirement money. We all put it together.

So do you live here?

Yeah, we live in Tooele.

In Tooele.

Yes.

Okay, and Jim, you own the property? Yes. You live here?

No, I live in Bountiful.

You live in Bountiful. How did you acquire this property? Just for this project?

My father bought it four or five years ago. And he lives in Tooele.

Was the building there when you bought it?

Yes. We bought the buildings, yes. Buildings and the land.

I thought that we had talked about the relationship between you all when this came in front of the Planning Commission the first time when you got approved. It's not Referenced in the in the minute. So would you mind just describing the relationship that you have with these boys here?

They came and rented Asked if they could rent the property We told them if they can get a building permit and all that we'd be willing to rent to them So, okay, so you have no relationship beside a business agreement?

No, and they are paying you rent. Yes. Are they current on the rent?

Yes Okay

They wouldn't be able to make rent either if they stopped the incoming tires.

No, and I understand that. My frustration comes from this, right? And I'll go back. If you... you wanted to start this business, you wanted to operate the business. It didn't need to look like this and it happened. And I just feel like, I mean, because we're, December 16th was the first violation issued and it continued to grow. It's grown for the last eight months. And I love that there's a plan going forward. There's a plan before that failed. And I think maybe asking the landlord for some grace on some rent abatement for a minute, because if for some reason you boys, heaven forbid, went out of business and he's got those tires on his property, It's then his problem to figure out what to do with those tires. So if there's a solution where he'll abate some rent for a couple of months while you guys get caught up so that he doesn't have a headache on his hands, I think that's a conversation worth happening. But my concern is this, this happened, it was completely within your control and it, it got way out of hand. And I just, I'm a businessman. I understand. But like I said, if I get pulled over by a cop, my guys, the cops shut us down. They don't care. And I don't want to be like a cop, a police officer, but I just, I'm frustrated that eight months and it continued to grow where you could have slowed the flow. You could have stopped the flow. Because if that thing caught fire, my kids are breathing that air. It's an eyesore coming down from the mountain too, but it's a legit safety issue, and I think you guys let this get way out of hand.

Can I add something? It may have been eight months that the pile started getting bigger, but that's because we, per agreement with our landlords, can't have any tires until we have the machine up and going. We got the machine, but then obviously the hiccup of having the electrical situation By that point, we were already, customers were already coming in and then having to tell them we can't now pick them up. Right. And so it's tough. It's tough. Right. And, but now, you know, proof is in the pudding. Look at our last, last weeks, last month's invoices. That's where you can tell, like, finally we're, we're chugging. Like, it's like, it's like a train, right? It took us forever to get going. Now we're chugging. Right. And, I feel like we'd be crippled.

Yep. To me, part of the concern is I think there's a lot of things that have happened. You can't undo those. The pile's there. That's a fact. I think what we do going forward is where I have a bigger interest in making sure that we actually make progress. I think the 100-day plan, it sounds like you put some work into it. I wouldn't be comfortable just saying we're going to wait 100 days to find out if you did it or not. I think there would be a lot tighter inspections on there, whether it's every 10 days or something like that to say, yes, you're meeting 10% of the pile. And if it's not, there will be something else that will happen because there's a lot of risk here from you as a business owner, but there's also an environmental risk and I put on my work hat, if you get into what's called speculative accumulation, which is what happens when you get into RECRA, you lose your recycling exemption with these tires and you have a lot bigger problem because it's no longer, you don't have that option. And so you've got a lot to work on. And if you don't get done in 100 days, you're going to have other federal issues that you're going to have to deal with, which are not going to allow you to operate your system the way you want and actually take those tires and do what you want with them. So I would be open to submitting a plan with a lot heavier, tighter inspection criteria to make sure they're meeting it. But at that point, we're trying to dig out of a hole that's already there. We can't. I mean, I get what you're saying, Cameron. It is frustrating. But the problem to me is that it's there. And how do we get it clean?

In our latest plan of action, it's a daily update. So we're sending in daily invoices and daily...

Not just the daily invite, but someone needs to actually verify that you're actually meeting what you're saying. The trip tickets, everything, that's great. And it's showing that you're tracking that. I just think we need to make sure that the city is seeing that to protect the city. And you can get this lined out as a business. That's great. I'm a little concerned just because the past track record, you know, Shane mentioned that you guys had the system operational or the electrical part was fixed in January and we're still here in August trying to fix this problem that's growing. I think it was later.

That's just what he stated.

In this plan that they have, it states that they're going to, oh, I'm sorry, I'm Dave. Thank you. It states that they're going to bring in 400 tires a day from their businesses, from people, which I can understand because they've got people to pay. They've got to make some money, okay? But can we have them document, once they hit that 400, how many tires they chopped up out of that pile every day? That would help us monitor it a little better.

It's kind of hard. Can I add? It's just because it'd be hard because We're kind of working on the mountain. So, yeah, we're shredding that. But is that what you just would like some kind of documentation of those 400? I could do we could do that. We can give you an invoice because we have receipts of how many like quality grade. Right. So out of this pile, 400, eight of them were good tires, you know, and then.

Dave, what a weekly report. I mean, just thinking business-wise, I think a weekly report may be a little bit more substantial. That would be fine, too. It's easier to produce rather than I've got to spend a lot of time every day to produce. You're going to have to data log it anyway every day.

Yeah.

I'm just thinking, and I agree. I mean, I'm looking at the program data. I mean, I think we should be having inspections. It's every 20 working days. That's every month. Average working month is 20 to 22 days. We've been doing our flyover with the drone once a week. I think that would be substantial. If I'm seeing progress, I guess I differ a little from Cal. I've learned more from my mistakes and from my failures than I have from successes. I think you guys have probably, I think you even said it, right, Roberto? There are a lot of lessons you didn't realize you had to learn that you've learned. Having said that, I mean, you can't keep harming yourself and harming your business. You've got to slow the inflow a little bit while you get the outflow going. And I would agree with it. I think that's part of it. You've got to keep people employed and you've got to keep expenses paid. I don't want to see this company go bankrupt now that you're a landowner and then it goes to somebody else's problem. But I do agree with Dave. Like a week we fly over with an estimated reduction of the pile so we can make sure that we're still making progress. I think that's even better than a monthly like, hey, Elson, you try to show something through in one month. Like, I got to get caught back up. Steady progress is much better than chunks.

Can I make a proposal with that? I know you're trying to keep track of things. You guys have mentioned you're willing to do weekly reports. Yeah, absolutely. I think based on. if they know what the average tire is and they're seeing what their tipping fees are when they're dumping that, we should have an estimate of how much they're actually producing as far as waste they're recycling or whatever you're transporting it and how much is coming in and looking at those bill ratings, being able to look at that in a format that you can see would that satisfy your need to be able to account for how much is coming in versus how much is going out and your visual inspection to trust but verify that that's happening.

That would help. I just, I do know this last flyover they did a couple of days ago or whenever it was, there was all along that building. The flyover before, you had that little nook back there in the corner, but it was still along the building. Now there is an open space along that building. So we could see that they were doing stuff.

Progress is being made.

Yeah. And it's all the new trailers. So... But yeah, I would just like... Just someone to keep track and send us, which we did.

We hired an administrator who's going to be helping us with this because I'm terrible at communications.

I would request that whatever you put together a format that you're okay with. So if they come back and say, here's a report, it's in a format that you can read and understand and that you're okay with whatever that agreed or whatever that reporting format is. So you can verify it in a way that you feel comfortable that you can account for what's happening going in and out.

Yeah, because I'd agree with Jason. I think the burden of proof lays on you too. To prove what you say you're doing, you're doing. Not relying on a flyover or day to come over with sitting inspection to prove it. The burden of proof lays on your feet. You want to dig yourself out of this hole. You got to prove yourself that you're digging yourself out of this hole. I think so. And I think your inspection should be with their reports. Yes, I'm seeing what they are doing. Basically, you're doing whatever. Yes. Here's their burden of proof. Yes, I agree with what's being said or no, it's not. Then we have a different discussion going forward.

That works. And then we would, and I would ask that if we're not, if we're seeing a deviation from that, we're notified and maybe we pick in a month. I mean, is that, I guess you're going to the back to the chair, but I think we should have something where we have an update, even if it just comes back from me as inspector, just to say at a month update of where, if you're seeing that progress meeting, what we're seeing on that schedule. Okay. Would that be a fair way to just, for you to update us on whether we're complying with what we're working on? Yes, that would be fine.

So just to be clear, so Jason, what you're asking is that we get an update on the September 15th Planning Commission meeting. Just let us know what progress is being made.

And the expectation is based on when they would start, what's your proposed date? I think in the plan was August 21st, was that right? 20th, I believe. 20th?

Yeah, I think there's a Thursday and we've been working kind of as of last week, but flyovers can kind of just like back to normal with our guys, right? All right. That would be my recommendation.

Please go ahead. Does the city own a drone? Are we having to pay a drone operator every time this happens? Okay. All right.

We got one of the department.

Hey, guys. That group, sir, though, Eduardo. You folks are trying to rectify the situation that you let get out of control. And there's lots of excuses that we've heard about why we've gotten to this point. But there's really no reasoning as to why you had come to the city and explained the situation. And it wouldn't have taken six months for Dave to take on this monstrosity in trying to enforce the conditional use permit and involve all these other people if you would have just come to the city when you knew it was out of control and you weren't meeting the conditions of the original conditional use permit and the commitment that you made to the city. And I want you to just be cognizant of the time and effort that it's taken so many people now when some simple communication to Shelby's office, Bill's office, or Dave's office would have mitigated this whole conversation. And I know how hard it is to take accountability for our actions, and I can see that you're willing to work towards rectifying it, but this... I think what Cameron's concern is, is that it took less than six months for it to get out of control. And we will not let it get out of control again. And I think Jason and, sorry, I'm a little, I'm a little frustrated. Gary and Jason stated some very obvious expectations, but I think that We don't want to put any more burden on our city folks, our staff, who aren't making the money that you're making. And they have the same level of commitments to you and everybody else that's running a business in the city. You need to stay in constant communication. You need to come up with how you are reconciling your efforts every week. And you need to send that to Dave and Dave needs to approve that report that you are going to come up with. That's going to show how you're reconciling because my calculations put 20 weeks at the second week of January, working five days a week. And I know that's a lot to ask, working five days a week. The second week of January is too long to have this impact on our city and our city staff and the additional work that it's creating for them. So though... We were all on board and there's some things that we talked about when this came. One of it was looking back at the minutes that the shredding would not be done in the building. The shredding would be done outside the building, which you had not done. You hadn't met any of the requirements of the conditional use permit. And so I just want just a definite assurance that you're not going to have tires stored On the ground anymore, regardless of whether you get the state permit. That that conditional use permit requirement is going to stand. Right. So I don't know if you need to buy new trailers or if you need to look for other property. We're at school city had put very clear restrictions on your conditional use permit and you felt to communicate. How out of control it got. So. I just had to say that. I apologize.

I apologize on our end. I apologize on our end. Terrible communicator, first of all. And I hate speaking in public.

I hate speaking in public, too. Okay. So it looks like the fire marshal, the commission should receive evidence from the fire marshal if he's still here and willing to present any evidence.

Well, she's not.

We should have probably done that before that long and drawn-out conversation about accountability. I'm sorry, Nick. That's okay.

Nick Critchlow, Grantsville Fire Marshal. I understand you guys are in a tough position as far as deciding how to proceed with this. If you do decide to proceed to allow them to continue to operate, could I add on a... provision that if they do start to clear the the tires international fire code requires that a space be kept between an outdoor storage pile tire well outdoor pile of tires and a building that space needs to be 50 feet and I know we saw a picture before Just from eyeballing, it didn't look 50 feet to me. So if we could add that provision that that's where they start first. That is an industrial part of our city. I'm not exactly sure the businesses that are there, but I know that there's an auto body shop that's on the back end that has lots and lots of flammable hazardous materials. There's a weld shop a couple doors down. There's another auto body shop at the end. There's choice tires. There's a lawn care facility. And a concern that me and Fire Chief Remick have is in my staff report, there is only three hydrants in that relatively close vicinity. There is one directly across the street from Greenville Tire. However, if that were to, if that pile were to go up in flames, We would deplete our water resources very quickly. That would turn into a very hazardous situation. I know I'm only speaking from a fire safety side, but from a fire department, we are very concerned. Like I said, I'm not turning a deaf ear to that it is a business. They want to try and fix what was wrong, but I just want to emphasize that.

Can I ask a clarifying question? I believe so is that OK question.

50 feet is that from the toe of the from the toe of the pile or from the center of the pile or what I just if we're going to ask that is the thing we need to basically clarify here that means you're good.

I'll just I'll just read it straight from from code. Section 3405.4 distance from lot lines and buildings tire storage pile shall be located not less than 50 feet from lot lines and buildings.

I'm going to make the interpretation that's the toe of the pile. So if we make that as a thing, I think we should clarify what that is. So if an inspector comes out, they can say it's to wherever the first tire is on the ground.

Okay. And there are other code requirements as far as the size of the pile. If we want, we can get into the math of it. But...

I think just referencing, stating that they need to meet the National Fire Protection, the NFBA.

Is that the same as the international fire code?

Yes. So international fire code and NFPA often reference each other. We use both standards here in the city.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

No, you're good.

I think just to clarify, Fern, if we're going to have one of our city inspectors go out, what does that mean by that? Or would he clarify with you? But that interpretation to me would be that it's from the tow. And I think if we can say that it meets all NFPA requirements, then... I think I'd be good with that part, but thank you. That's really helpful. Thank you. Yeah.

Was there any other code specific to the situation that we need to ensure that we're all clear of?

Let me quickly pull up the staff report so I can reference it. No, you're okay.

While he's looking that up in your motion, I would just make sure you guys specify the NFDA and the IFC.

Yes. And if you want, I'll be more than happy to send you any code references that I have.

Would the inspection be done by that? Would it be someone from the fire department that would be going to verify that it's meeting NFPA and IFC?

It would be me. Okay. All right.

Thank you. Sorry. How long would it take to get to that 50-foot clearance?

I don't know. That's what we've been... That's why... If you notice the gap, that's why we kind of came in. So to create the gap. So there's already like, all right, 15, 20 foot gap. So we're already close, but.

So you're doubling and halving again. How long is it taking you to get there?

Month. You know, realistically, probably maybe a couple of weeks, but.

So if we double, right, that is another month for 30 feet. And then another month for 50 feet.

Yeah, because right now there's about, I would probably guess, 20 feet right now again. Okay, so that's the latest updated picture. Yes. Sorry.

Can we make a recommendation that it's more than 15? I don't want to be between that and it should be out or near that. Because if they're saying they're 40, 20 feet right now, that'd be close to that. He thinks it's probably 15, 15 to 20.

So two and a half months. Yeah.

Actually, it's in those pictures, the 25 foot in a week. That's what you're saying, basically. Okay.

So it'll take two and a half months to get to where the NFPA. 15, maybe 25 weeks. Right.

Five weeks would be double that, a month and a half.

It's faster if they throw some labor at it and move the tires away before they trust it.

Give them like a month and say you won't comply with this.

Hop over and make the 50 feet.

Make the pile higher. I don't know. Let's defer to an expert here. Yes, ma'am. If they worked on just getting the tires away from the building first thing, it would grow the pile.

And the reason why is these tires burn excessively hot. Typical fully involved structure fire, and don't quote me on this, is around 1,400 to 1,500 degrees. In the research I did on tire fires, they can burn anywhere from 1,800 to 2,000 degrees. And hence why the spacing requirements are there is because the radiant heat that comes off of them, off of those fires.

My husband was burning mustard gas at 2,000 degrees.

Hopefully he was standing back.

We have a concern about that, the safety issue. We've had private concerns as well. How long would it take you to either move those tires or to process those tires to get the 50-foot barrier away from the buildings?

Because it took us probably two weeks to get from where it was to the wall to where it's at now. Either process them or move them physically.

Right.

Well, we prefer to process them, right?

Obviously, what I'm just telling you, we've got a concern from our fire chief saying that that's an issue. So I'm going to change. Should we do both?

If we move the tires away from the building, the tire pile would grow, but at least we'd have a buffer immediately and then start working the pile down. Would that be sufficient? Unfortunately, we get into another code requirement regarding the size of the piles. And that's what the

the chart will indicate it goes up a pile height. Yeah. And I'd also caution on moving them because we need to have access around the whole pile and fire access road minimum is 20 feet and right now they're pretty close to that minimum. And I'll just be honest with you, if that was on fire, we probably wouldn't be driving that close to it anyway. Do you have any other questions for me?