P&z Meeting - Regular Meeting

get this going. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission being held in the Commissioner's Meeting Room in Monizuma County Administrative Offices, 109 West Maine, room 250 Cortez, Colorado. We're going to open with the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, Don, can we have roll call? Commissioner Hernandez, here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Lynch, here. Okay. Also present are Don Haley and Jane Duncan from the county planning department. Absent are commissioners Armstrong, Nargard, and Doyle. Please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. If you if there's an important phone call, you can take it out in the foyer. Has the planning and zoning commission reviewed the May minutes? Yes. I would entertain a motion then. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the planning and zoning minutes for May 15 planning and zoning meeting. I'll second. It's been motioned by M by Commissioner Lynch, seconded by Commissioner Saunders. Call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders. I. Commissioner Lynch. I

Motion was carried was unanimous for those present. Okay. The Monizuma County Planning Commission welcomes you to this meeting. This board is comprised of members who are tasked to make recommendations to the board of county commissioners. We are not the decision makers. We encourage public comment after each permit. Persons speaking during the public comment will be limited to three minutes or depending on the number of people wishing to speak, it may be reduced at the discretion of the planning commission to allow all members of the public the opportunity to address their thoughts and concerns. When addressing the commission, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record prior to providing your comments. Comments to individual applicants are not permitted and participants may not yield their times to others. I will be voting tonight. Roll call. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay. Number one. Notice is hereby given that the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for review and determination of proposed high impact application submitted by Lamp Post Creative Learning Center, Agent Nicholas and Cornine Saunders on property located at 32233 Highway 160, Cortez, Colorado, consisting of 65.22 22 acres more or less. Located north of Highway 160, west

of road 34, situated in section 25, township 36 north, range 15 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was the public notice posted? Yes, sir. Was evidence to of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. was a signposted. Yes, sir. Okay. Can we have the applicant come on down? Mr. Chair, I feel like I need to make a disclosure. Okay. Um I'm a member of the Monizuma Cortez School Board. Um and uh I believe Nick was a district employee this past school year. Um not returning the next year as I understand. I don't believe there are any issues with conflict of interest, but I do um feel like I should make that disclosure. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Can we have the planning department findings? Sure. Um first off um due to um the property being vacant for quite some time and other um properties being addressed in the area, the GIS department felt it necessary to readress the property to properly sequence um be in sequence. So the new address is 32171 highway 160. and that's what the address will be moving forward. Okay. Thank you. Um the applicants are proposing um continuing use of the current building and land uh to use for a nonprofit creative learning center for all ages. Uh the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and

residential uses with Colorado state lands to the west and land um Bureau of Land Management lands to the to the east. Um the access is currently um directly off of Highway 160 and is within the jurisdiction of Ced DOT. Uh, C do DOT does have a permit for this property and um they have commented to me that they have no problem with the use of this um learning center. Uh, and it is actually a less impactive uh entity than the church was. Um, and uh there is uh Monuman Water Company says that has an 8 in main line north side of Highway 160. And um currently this property has uh water to it. Um uh everything else is pretty much the same as it was. Okay, that's it. Great. Thank you. You have anything to add to that? I'm just a correction of my name for spelling. Okay. C O R I N E D N. Thank you. Microphone. Oh, can you turn on your mics, please? Saunders. There. There you go. A little red. Let me restate it. Or there. That's good. Okay. We don't know you're fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, questions, comments? Uh, yes. I have a question in looking at the um threshold standards. Uh under number 25 for noise um it says will comply see attached

answer to number 11 but when I went back to look at number 11 answer there was nothing in there about noise. I was wondering what you meant to say about the noise. I think we were just uh meaning for it to be that we would comply with uh the current um expectations. So, we may have mislabeled the the numbering on the application. Okay. So, as I understand it, we're not doing any zoning change. This is correct. It's right. Okay. So, previously it did have the letter permit on there for the church. Mhm. From ' 06. Um, so it'll remain a 503C, I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah. So, that that no longer is in effect just because the church hadn't been there for several years and this is a different operation, but um that did exist and that is the C dot access permit. Okay. Um same facility, same type operation. So like um Jane said they are uh C do DOT doesn't have any problem with that. Okay. So there's going to be an increase of traffic though um per your dialogue here. These uh events will likely occur four to eight times per year. Um 250 people 150 to 50 150 cars. and C dot's okay with that um because the permit is for a much greater um volume of vehicles for the church do not have a problem with it because this would have a lesser impact okay where the church would be like every Sunday or whatever and this is not

a weekly not a weekly thing okay type operation okay of that magnitude anyway and and this is only like two miles from the fairgrounds Um, yes. Yes, we're okay with all that. Okay, that's the questions I had. Not me. Okay, we're going to um open this up to public comment. If we have anyone from the audience wishing to comment on this, please come to the podium. Okay, seeing none, we'll close it and move it back to uh the commissioners. I can make a motion. Okay. To recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed high impact permit application submitted by lamp post creative learning center agent Nicholas and Karen Sa Sander. Sorry, I'm Saunders. Um the prop the proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning. And I have no conditions. I'll second the motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. No further discussion. We'll call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders. I. Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Okay. Okay, the motion carried. It was three to zero. Good luck. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be in touch with you guys. Thanks. Thank you so much. Okay, we have roll call. Commissioner

Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay, moving forward. Number two, notice is hereby given the Monizuma County Planning Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for review and determination of a proposed subdivision amendment application and reszoning to lot one of the laughing bear orchard limited moderate subdivision. Submitted by Kim Whitley Whitley Allen Whitley Allen Kim Whitley Allen, excuse me. Agent Allan Cap Cap Allen, sorry, on property located at 14757 Road 26, Dolores, Colorado, consisting of 11.89 acres more or less, located west of Highway 145 north of Road P, situated section 35, Township 37 North, range 16 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was the public notice published? Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. Was a sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay, we have the applicant come on down. Okay, Jane, can we have the planning department findings, please? Sure. The um the applicants are proposing to divide their property into 18.89 acre parcel and one 3acre parcel. Um this property is lot number one of the Laughing Bear Orchard Limited Moderate subdivision. This amendment would result in a three lot moderate. Um

the property uh is surrounded uh the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses. Um there are several uh subdivision lots in the immediate area. Um all of the infrastructure is already in uh due to the house that is currently on the property. Um and that's basically it. Okay. Do you wish to add to that? It's it's simply uh put simply, I'm getting old and less property is good. Uh I I wouldn't foresee that. Uh this my wife and I would sell it for some years, but just trying to get all that paperwork done while while we can. Okay. Um we anticipated this when the the lot in the front was divided off and we saved in the covenants the right to do one more lot within the covenant so that the folks out in front are not we've talked to them and they're not put out at all by the issue. Okay. So, we're basically just going to be making one. We're split what's there, right? So, you're kind of splitting off the orchard then? There's there's one out in the front currently now. Okay. And that's what makes it three lots total out once we're done. Okay. And so the house that is there, you're going to occupy that. Yeah. The in that

three lot, the rectangle in the middle there is where we live now. Okay. And it's largely that remainder of the bigger lot is just looking at it. It's 50% orchard right now and the rest is open pasture. Okay. And that's what's going to end up being for sale in the the orchard. Do you foresee it remaining an orchard when that happens? Okay. Commissioners. Okay. I have one more question. a 60oot easement from row 26 that's going through lot the lot first lot and that's going to remain for lot one which is that little the the flag lot let's call it and then for the house right okay that's your access okay and what I would point out is the first lot that's out by the road I don't know if it's unusual or not but the entire property is surrounded by 8 foot deer fence because it's an orchard, right? And so that first property comes through that gate as with the other two, but the first one turns off immediately. I mean, their their driveway immediately after the gate becomes their own driveway. So the sharing issue is is less than it would appear. Okay. And then there's a 30foot easement and that's going to be for the residents. Okay. It reduces from 60 to 30 strictly coming across and that's so 60 to the 9 acres and then reduces 30 to the residents. Okay. Okay. That's all I had. Okay. We're going to open this up for a

public comment then. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium. Seeing none, we will close it then. Okay. Bring it back to the commissioners for recommendation. Go for it, Mr. Chair. I I uh move that we recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed subdivision amendment application and resoning to lot one of the Lapping Bear Orchard LTD moderate uh subdivision submitted by Kim Wely Allen agent Cap Allen based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning and I have no conditions. Okay, we had a motion and a second by Commissioner H. Second. Okay, thank you. Me and you're the only other one. Yep. Okay, no further discussion. We'll call for a vote. Commissioner Hernandez. Hi, Commissioner Saunders. Hi, Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Okay, the motion carried. It was three to zero. Good luck. Thank you very much. In touch with the G. Okay. Can we have roll call? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Lynch here. It goes fast when there's only three of us. I like this.

All right. Notice is hereby given. and the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for review and determination of a proposed subdivision amendment and reszoning application to lot one of the Pinion Perch subdivision submitted by Tova Spectre on property located at 13699 Road 32.4 for Manus consisting of 21.16 acres more or less and a boundary line adjustment application submitted by Tova Spectre and Katherine Krauss on properties located at 13699 Road 32.4 and 32289 Road P Manus, Colorado consisting of 21.16 acres and 5.628 62 acres more or less. Both located west of road 33, north of road P, situated section 1, township 36 north, range 15 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was the public notice published? Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. And was the sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay, applicants. Great. We have the the findings in. Okay. Uh the the applicant is proposing to divide her property into one 18 acre parcel and one 3 acre parcel. This property is is lot one of the pinion perch subdivision. Also with this uh the amendment uh will be a boundary line adjustment in order to give western neighbor Katherine Krauss enough acreage to meet the county land use code setback

of 30 ft minimum. Um the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses. There are several subdivision lots within the immediate area. Um both properties do have uh residences on them. Uh so the the utilities are already there. Um and basically that is it. Okay. Anything else to add to that? I think that was a good summary. Okay. Okay. Commissioners, questions, comments? Yeah. Um Don, can can you bring up the sketch of the boundary adjustment agreement? It didn't print in my packet. Sure. This the bottom section here is the proposed 3 and 12 acres and then that adjustment would be up and around the house. Okay. for this adjacent property to meet the minimum 30 foot setback. Just going to cut a little notch out of it then. Yeah. Out of the 3.5. Weird configuration. So to do the boundary line adjustment anyway, you have to amend the subdivision. So we're just doing them concurrently. Yeah. Even though you guys don't do boundary line adjustments, it's all still part of the package. Yeah. Okay. And the my question Mr. S, you have a question? Nope. Okay. The access to lot or to the 17 acre, the big acre on the top is going to be

via that's what what road is that? 32.4. 34. Okay. 32.4. Right. 32. Okay. So, there it's existing now. You're just going to keep it that way. Okay. Okay. And then there's going to be there's residence on just the one lot 3.5. So, do we have um water and sewer utilities to the large property? Yes. Okay. Okay. That's all I had. Okay, we're going to open up to public comment. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this, please come to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close it. Bring it back to the commissioners. I got it. Um, I'll make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed Sorry, got stuck. There we go. A proposed subdivision amendment and reszoning application to lot one of the pinion perch subdivision submitted by Tova Spectre and a boundary line adjustment application submitted by Tovvis Spectre and Katherine Krauss based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning. And I have no conditions. Okay. I have a question, Don. Can we really as a as a board approve or disapprove the boundary adjustment? Uh, you can recommend it. Okay. Um, typically we don't, but it doesn't hurt. Okay. To have that in there. That was just my question. Okay, I'll second. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez, I. Commissioner Saunders, I. Commissioner Lynch. I Okay, motion carried. It was three to zero. Approved. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be in touch with you to Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can we have roll call? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay. Number four. Notice is hereby given. The Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the board of county commissioners regarding a proposed single lot development and AR 10-34 reszoning application submitted by Joe and Joanne Benson on property located at 15248 Road 22 Dolores, Colorado consisting of 47.108 10 acres, more or less, located south of Road S, west of Highway 491, situated in section 39, Township 37 North, range 16 West of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was the public notice? Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. And was the sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay. Oh, great. All right. How about the planning department findings? Sure. The applicants are proposing to create a single lot

development consisting of 10 to 12 acres, more or less. The remaining um property will be over 35 acres. Um the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses. The f uh Joe Folks subdivision is just to the north. Um the property is accessed directly from road 22 with two driveway permits driveways. Um any new driveway um is required to be permitted and and inspected by the county road department. Um um actually C do DOT also made a comment um that this property has two accesses off of County Road um 22 and one access off of State Highway 491. Uh based upon the plat, both proposed lots will have access to County Road 22. Um, state highway um 491 has an access classification of being an expressway uh for this section of the highway. The uh state access code states that the property owner should use county road 22 as their primary access to the property. C dot will require the land owner to close the access off of State Highway 491 through an access permit. Um uh and they have asked our department to um please have the land owner apply for the access for the closure. Um I have um emailed this comment from C dot to the landowner and they are aware of that. Okay. and they have contacted CEO. Okay. Anything to add to that?

Okay. Okay. Commissioners, questions, comments? I don't have any. Okay. I have a couple. You're splitting the property to separate the houses that are existing. Correct. Okay. Um Okay. And you're then you are aware of like Jane said you're the the access to 491 will be basically revoked. Okay. And forfeited okay and the existing water ensure everything is there in place. Okay. That's all I had. I do like the map though. Okay. We're going to open it up for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium. State your name and address, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Bryson McCabe, uh 22 East Main Street. I am here uh as legal counsel on behalf of my clients, Larry and Diane Phillips. Uh Larry and Diane are the holders of a note, indeed a trust on this property. Uh they want to um make an objection on the record to this subdivision. Uh they want to note for the record that this property is currently in foreclosure. The land owners are currently in default. Uh foreclosure notice has been recorded was recorded on May 19th of 2025. Public auction is set right now for December 31st, 2025. Uh my clients believe that this subdivision will devalue the property. They are concerned that uh MBI shares may not be properly allocated between the two properties and it could make um irrigation of the uh properties difficult.

And that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. With that being said, were we stripped it at all, Don, for being there's legal matter in front of it? No, we we don't have any authority over irrigation water. We usually ask just because we want to express how important it is, but we don't have any purview over that. Um but as the gentleman said that the house the property, yeah, there's not there's not a restriction from the court. Okay. Um order that this can't be subdivided. Okay. So, um, well, as long as not down to court order, then we can Yeah. Yeah, it's okay. I did clarify that. Okay, good. Can I make a comment, please? Oh, sure. Please lean. Property is for sale. It's listed with ReMax. Okay. Okay. We have uh nothing else. Commissioners, I'll make a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve the proposed single lot development and AR10 to 34 reasonzoning applications submitted by Joe and Joe Anna Benson based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area. and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning. And I have no conditions. Okay. No conditions then. All right. Do we have a second?

I'll second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. No further discussion. Let's call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders I. Commissioner Lynch. I. Okay. Motion carried and three to zero. Good luck. Thank you. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay, that takes care of uh that part. Beats last month. That's right. By about uh three hours. Yeah. Three hours and 90 comments less. A change. Yeah. Okay. We have additional discussions. Uh the only thing um is on the moratorum existing for not not only solar farms but um alternate energy. Um, I think I think you guys have the documentation, everything that that I have um, basically off of, uh, Mesa County's um, spec section. Um, I've had another solar company reach out and they basically reviewed Maces and they they were pretty much in agreement with it. Um the previous applicant said that ours was actually a little more stringent as is than what Mesa is looking at. So I don't know that we're that far off. Um, a couple of things did come out um that

I've come across and I think one important one is there was another I think it was in Montana that there was a requirement that should the property be sold that the county commissioners would have to approve who the new owner would be and under what um I guess conditions as far as shy goes, bonding Oh, sure. of the property of the project at at that time. Um I think that way so it doesn't just get sold off in the dark and then all the leases fall apart and it all turns into a mess, right? Which I think that's that's not a bad avenue and right and uh addition to to insert in there. Um, the absentee owner thing really bothers me, but I don't know what kind of wording or how you would try and over control personal property rights. Mhm. I don't I don't like where they you know if you lease out 800 acres and you don't live there and there's eight houses right around there and they're subjected to that development it's kind of an overbalanced right but again if if it doesn't fit it doesn't fit so maybe it kind of takes care of itself that leads me to a dilemma, if you will. Uh, obviously last month the the people out here spoke uh over and over and over and over again about them not wanting the large photootayaic solar farms. Mhm. So why are we

the planning and zoning commission looking at having a new land use code designation for egg? What do you call agravolt? Voltics. Egg voltics. If the if they're not gonna ever approve anything large do and we don't need one for small an acre just to say somebody wants to put photofatic cells on their property acre for their own personal use. Personal use. Yeah. As long as you met the well personal use and feed it back into the into the grid whether they put it on their on their house or their barn or put it on the ground which is a lot more expensive. Um, so, so why are we even entertaining this? They give them an option. There are there are some random places out in the county that have no housing. So, if it's nowhere near anybody, I don't know that it's a problem. But if you Well, it's going to be near somebody. It's going to be J join adjoining property owners. And if they come like they did last month, right? I mean then you definitely have the at all the adverse impact and and I guess my big dilemma over last month's meeting and you brought it to the attention Mike was the the tax base that's all going to Denver and very little of it's coming back to us. So why should we have the ugly monster? The taxes, the taxes do come to our county, but a portion of it, a small portion, it's just assessed by the state. The state does the evaluations and they determine through I don't know what that's way beyond me, but then they

just take that allocation and give it to the county. So probably also need to simultaneously look at tax base and possibly amending something for the county to be able to capitalize on it. So the so the state has not given any tax on this at the assessor. No, this the state. Well, I I guess I can't say um the panels, all the hardware, all the assets are taxed and the state determines through federal and state regulations and all that how much of that we get. Okay? And then the property owners are taxed on their a land. Okay? Still for property taxes. Okay? So we don't lose out any of that money, right? We gain whatever percentage or whatever amount the state regulations allow us% 2% to have. Yeah. And that's see that's my problem. Yeah. We have to suffer with the ugliness and they get the benefit, you know. Yeah. I mean then that maybe but if they work out a deal with their neighbors and their neighbors get a cut, then the neighbors might be happy. It's another thing. Any money? Well, not right now, but if somebody proposed, I mean, for instance, like your neighbor comes to you and says, "John, I'll give you 10% of the profit." You might be willing to look at something. Like, I think it's all situational, right? Okay. I see what you're saying. You know, like people, it might be different if you live next to somebody and share a fence line and you're like, "Well, okay. Okay. Look, I'll flip my patio around if you give me a grand a month. I don't know. Like I think people get to make choices, right? Well, they made it last month and they said no. Yeah. Right. But I mean there's

everything sight specific in this county. So if there's an access road that nobody really lives on and it goes out to nowhere, it might be appropriate. Well, I mean, I just think we're spinning our wheels doing this if we know Well, I I mean I don't know what the industry's legal definition of is for utility scale. Is that over 200 acres? Is it Do we have to go with industry or can we as a county set our own limit? We we we could definitely do that. I mean, we can we can set a limit for um residential use and then anything over that would be considered um utility scale. and you get to have up to this limit on your property without any worries. But if you're going to try and sell um on a utility scale basis, not industry definition, but ours, then uh you have to do something different. It looks like if it's under two megawws, it's county assessment and then if it's above 2 megawatts, it's state. I think that's what Leslie told me on the and then aggravaics is a different category. I don't think I know enough to make a decision. I have to go do some research. And then agraics is county and state and incomebased and I think all the aggravaic does is it elevates it so that the animals can graze underneath it or you do everything in rows. I mean, you could do vertical panels like fence lines. Mhm. Yeah. And put them 60 ft apart. You could still run wheat, wheat through there, whatever, you know. So, I mean, there's

I don't know how many types and kinds there are. So yeah, it's I don't I don't know if we tried to get that defined then technology is going to go right beyond everything we even tried to invent this year. It'll be different next year. So yeah, we would need to come up with our own aggravaic rules, panel height caps and 1041 requirements decide on the project size. But again that you're you're saying that that our citizens may approve of that of of a 900 acre like it was last month, which I doubt sincerely. Well, you could have over 50 acre. Okay. Now, now we're now we're because we do have we changed the rules. And like Mike said, if we can define the parameters of the size that you're going to be able to use, then then I understand that. I think that's um because because when you look out your window, it's the size the magnitude of all those panels is what you see. So if it takes uh 10 acres to make one megawatt, is 10 acres too much to have when you look out your window? I think it is. Depends on depends on which window. Yeah, I think it is. I don't care if it's in front of my house. I care if it's behind it. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean, I'm with you. I don't want I don't want but it's behind your house. It's in front of the other guy's house, right? Yeah. And and again, you know, if if we can define put the parameters on the size of the solar farm, then yes, then we can do this and let the people object or not. But I'm okay with that. But the 900 acres, no. That's just they're not going to put up with it. Okay. So we can we can add that wording

in here then about the size of the megawatts. Yeah. Okay. Collocating solar and a so they get re renewable energy and food and forager crops. So it's all about coexisting. Interesting. I'm just a one meeting behind you guys. figuring all this out. It's very complicated. Oh, it's very it's very So, the one at Totten Lake is 20 acres, 2 megabytes or megawatt, but that belongs to Empire, right? Yeah. And you know, that's utility property. I'm I'm just saying to for reference what it looks like. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But see, there's there's another one that's south of town on a farm. Nobody even knows it exists. That one in the back that we approved. Yeah. And so in its location, it could probably be 200 acres and Yeah. Because they only still nobody knows about it because it's back in there where there's 500 acres. So it's all tree screen too on that. It's all sight specific and location and traffic to build the thing. So it says 8 to 10 acres per megawatt. So if we were looking at something that's a county regulated, two would two and a half like 20 acres 2 megawatts would be the threshold. Right. But yeah, I mean Yeah. Well, construction of that magnitude 200 250 vehicles for 18 months. That's a lot. But a lot. Again, that's a time specific. It's going to it's going to die. Yeah. And you'll have caretakers that are there maybe once a week, whatever. Yeah.

And those people th those people that that presented at um solar farm over south of town. We had objection objections to that. There were people here that objected to that. But you're right. It it's and I went out there to see that it's before it was built and they had trees that are existing that screened that thing off. Mhm. So, yeah, they were just already there. So, what I heard the commissioner say in a meeting at least once and I think it was um Gerald uh is that he one of his big concerns is um what's going to happen after it's put in. um you know what about first it's first of all what uh Don mentioned if the next owner are they are they going to um run it into the ground and abandon it and what's going to happen when it's abandoned so th those are things that you can require upfront right and um where and making sure the the equipment the solar panels don't get in our landfill correct they're handled some other way um There's several things that we could add to the land use code for consideration in the case where there is a a utility scale solar farm. Well, we can require a bond. Yes. And then every so many years you make sure that that bond is adequate. Yeah. You revisit it due to right existing propert. So, if it's the original installer, original owner, and he's going to foot the bill, if he turns around, sell it, that next guy is going to have to make sure that that bond. Yeah. And you'd probably want to evaluate it every five years for

inflation, and cost increases. Yeah. And Yeah. We we cannot afford to have it go our landfill because you'd have to build a whole new cell for the whole thing. Right. Right. and and there's there's places that'll take those solar panels right now, but in 10 years maybe they're closed down and we have to go someplace else, which is a little further. And I'm sure they're the more technology they have in making them, the more recyclable they're going to be. Otherwise, you're pretty much start making junk and it's not going to panels are supposed to be good for 20 for 20 years. It's your um what's the word I'm looking for? The the photo vol the photo cells the converts it inverters. The inverters. They invert. Right. They're the ones that go that go bad quickly. Yeah. So, another option is if a a land owner in our county um has a has a place that they'd like to fill in, uh maybe they could provide um somewhat of a a partial landfill as long as it's permitted through the county. I don't know if that's that stuff's environmentally. That's a Colorado Department of Environment and Health and it's okay that I mean it's glass crushed glass but what's inside I don't know I think it is good that everyone's thinking from like start to finish the whole life cycle of the equipment the property everything so I think we can get somewhere and make a recommendation when is the moratorum up April be October 8th or the 30th. October.

I'll go back over this thing. I April was the size. If we can control the size, I'm okay with that. I see it better. And I mean I mean the public and the location is going to kind of control the size as well. Well, you got some because part of the other problem is where you want to have all the open spaces also migration corridors. So, that doesn't work. I mean, it's just a whole lot of catch 22 stuff for for that size. I understand the sunlight around here, but Oh, it taken taking producing land out of service is if it's barren wasteland and it's fow and can't be farmed, then it doesn't doesn't bother me. But, but you don't live next to it. Yeah. Right. It be interesting to see what requirements people are putting on in terms of like dual use, like if it really is supposed to be this. I think I think it's the same breakdown that our property taxes are now for our county. It's just the amount that comes from the state. If you if you have if that acre site was approved, not only does it bind that acreage, but the surrounding people, you know, what are they going to do? They can't subdivide. Who's going to buy a house that sits next to 900 acres? So, you've hampered them, too. And there's no way to measure that. Yeah, there's no way to measure that. But you could also have three family members that have 800 acres and they put it all around themselves and Well, or

again, they Yeah, you have 800 acres. Then if we say you can't go over a 100 acres, yeah, you put keep and you're surrounded. the rest have a then we've kind of cut that off for the property owner. We've defined the size. We've defined but you could also limit a property owners where it would not affect other people. That's the biggest thing in Dolores County is it's mostly all three families. There's only two or three other residences that are affected and it's 800 acres. Wow. That's a lot of acreage. But but that's that's why I mean you can get so specific that you get it wrong. Yeah. And you can be so vague that but at that point then it's up to the subjective part for each application and you evaluate it and determine if it fits or doesn't fit. I don't know. Well, this is what we have to start with. Yeah. Because that's the thing is we're not creating a box that you check. We're always going to have the specific site and subjective and does it work? Does it not work? Traffic. Mhm. [Music] Talk too long. Okay. It means we have to go. Okay. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. There's your two-minute warning. Thank you, Haley. We have a motion. We have a second. I'm sure. Hi, sir. We're going to vote. I I I to this