P&z Meeting - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to get this started. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission. It's being held in the Commissioner's Meeting room in Monizuma County Administrative offices, 109 West Maine, room 25, Cortez, Colorado. We're going to open with the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. [Music] All right. Can we have roll call on? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Negard here.

Commissioner Lynch stepped out. Um, Commissioner Doyle here. Okay. Also present are Don Haley and Jane Duncan of the County Planning Department. Absent, uh, Commissioner Haley Saunders. Please turn off your cell phones during the meeting. Important calls can be taken outside. Has the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed both August regular and special meeting minutes? If we have, I'll entertain a motion. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve the planning and zoning minutes for the August 14th planning and zoning meeting.

Those include those changes that Commissioner. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. I. Mr. Nurgard. Hi. Commissioner Doyle. Yes. Okay. No further discussion. Motion carried.

It was unanimous for those present. Okay. Hey, 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 time to others. I will be voting tonight. Roll call on.

Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Nurgard here. Commissioner Doyle here.

Okay. Number one notice is hereby given. 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 subdivision amendment application to lot two of the Lynch minor subdivision. First amendment submitted by Paul Leate and Case Stacy CS on property located at 14587 Road 29.75 Dolores, Colorado consisting of 21.05 05 acres, more or less, located south of Road R, east of Road 29, situated section 33, Township 37 North, range 15 West of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was a 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. All right. Can we have the applicant please come to the table?

Thank you. All right. Can we have uh department findings, please, Jane?

Sure. The applicants are proposing to amend lot two of the Lynch minor subdivision first amended to divide into three parcels. This amendment will result in a four lot moderate subdivision. Uh the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses. Uh the area is predominantly smaller parcels within subdivisions. Um the current access um is off of road 29.75. Uh any new driveway uh access will be required to obtain a permit from the road uh road bridge department. Um there um Monuma water company says that there is a inch main line running through the middle of the property. Um and they um have water available for three additional 5/8 inch residential taps. Um wild wildfire adaptive partnership recommends a waiver from a wildfire mitigation plan due to the parcel. It is a at low uh fire risk and mainly looks to be cleared of forest fuel. Um the county noxious weed manager recommends a waiver from a comprehensive weed plan. However, the property owner is still responsible for management of noxious weed populations. Um and that's basically it.

Okay. You have anything to add to that? Uh no. We're good. Okay. Thank you. Okay, commissioners questions, comments. Uh, how is access going to work to that nine acres at the I guess to the west there? This one right here, right? Yeah. How does access how is access going to be granted to that parcel? We'll do an easement along the that line. Okay. Okay. Along that line to the bank there.

The center. Yeah, the center line. The dash line across the 6.4 acres. Is that it'll be actually on the north lot. On the north lot on the 5.5. Okay. And the easement's going to be 60 foot, isn't it?

That was one of my questions. Okay, okay. Um 29.75 is a green road, correct? Or is it um currently? Yes, it is. Yes, it is. So, it is maintained by the county? No. Okay. It's a green road and not maintained by the county.

Correct. It was reinstated as green in n or 2022 um when this subdivision was approved, but it's got a long history and we don't need to go there. Okay. When when the Lynch two lot mo uh minor was created, there was a dedicated 60 ft right of way to the county for the road ride ofway.

Okay, that's lot two. So, it comes down and this is the uh the dedicated realiz right of way. Mhm. Okay. But no, it's not a countymaintained road. Um, when quick history when the Pollston Miner went in in 07 06, it was approved. So, go 16 lots down here.

Oh, wow. this subdivision road was acknowledged as the access to get to this and be approved versus 29.75. Uh Mickelson's just subdivided this with their access and driveways coming off here, but there's all kinds of issues with that section but in the middle. So 296 is county road and maintained by the county. Um no it's a subdivision road here. It's not okay. Who who maintains those roads? Do you know?

Uh yeah. So 2975 is is maintained down to where 296 meets it. Right where the the white circle is that says 29. So from pave road down to that circle it is kind of maintained because they can turn around there. I went and talked to Virginia about it. The reason they won't come down is because they don't have a turn at the end. So I could put a turn around there if they wanted to right you know on that property. I could put a culdeac right there but he just can't turn the Okay. They're not going on private property. So then those three lots that you're creating, um, one of them still has a home on it, right?

Has a structure? No, there's no structure. There's no structures. Okay. So, they're going to be three lots. Um, they're going to be for sale. Uh, we're going to keep the the north one and the west one and then we're going to sell the Okay. Okay. So, we got the ement. Okay. And the water's going to be hauled in. I know. You have you have taps. You have taps. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Mon water company said that there's um there's a 4 inch mainline that runs through the middle of the property. Okay. So right now the property sits at what acreage, Don? It sits at 35. Uh 21 21. So do we have to reszone to 5 to9? Yeah.

Okay. So we are going to reszone it then too. Correct. I didn't see it in the front. Yeah, that that should be noted in in the motion. In the motion. Yeah. All right. We're going to Public says it's just not in the front up here. resume 5 to nine. Okay. So, we have Yeah, we make a motion, didn't you? You know, do that.

Okay. If nothing else, and we'll open up for public comment. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this application, please come to the podium. State your name and address. Hello, my name is

Hello, my name is Kelly Shepard and I do live at 29.6 um County Road 29.6 and on that house there. Yeah, exactly. So I do have a question and I talked to you Don about it uh earlier on and I don't know if this is the right forum for it but I would like to know uh it was brought to my attention that my house should be 29.75. It is currently addressed 29.6 six and what would I have to do or what I am concerned about the road. I'm not a part of the 17 lots I'm told that are below me that are subdivision and now I've got three more lots coming in above me plus further up the road. Um, it's my understanding when I moved uh into my residence in 21 that that was County Road 29.75 to my house, which I pay taxes for. And uh somewhere in all this, I'm supposed to pay uh the Juniper subdivision below me to use the road. Uh, I know you just said you didn't want to get into it, but uh can anybody here advise me uh what what anybody's going to do about that? Is it supposed to be 29.6 or 29.75? And I don't know how Paul feels about it, but uh you've got two more places going in. And I guess he's comfortable with that. I don't I did not know. Um, and I am concerned as to where the house is going to be built on the south lot of the abate subdivision. Um,

and uh, it is an agricultural I was told this supposed to be maintained as an agricultural area. There's a lot of wildlife that's going to be squeezed off. There's they're already being squeezed off. It's a a very a fawning area. We do have a variety of wildlife in the area. That does concern me, but that's Mr. Bates land. I realize that. But I do have concerns because I am a private residence. I'm trapped in the middle of all this. Um, can anybody advise me on what to do about the road? Like Paul said, he said he'd be willing to put in put in a a a roundabout. I would too if it was maintained down to my residence as initially I thought it would be.

Who do we address that with? So we could get you with addressing because currently you're addressed um odd and it should be addressed even. So, your address needs to change anyway if you want it changed. But by doing that, isn't that saying that the road should be 29.75 to my house?

Um, to me, I don't know. That's an addressing a GIS question. They do that per the driveway access and the house location, but the driveway looks to me like it comes off 2975, but you can contact addressing and figure that out. Yeah, would make s. Well, that's a that's a good question. Has her property is not not for this public hearing. No, not here. Yeah, but that's a good Would the roaded uh bridge department have any input on that? Just to help her out with the road and bridge somewhere in all this. It just seems like we need to make a decision. Have to check and see if there's a driveway permit. Okay.

Yeah, I would try go through road bridge or try to don like dons at the GIS here. figure out because that's a that's a that's a good dilemma. It really is. Well, I find myself paying for a road that is supposed to be county road. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um your time is up. Thank you. Okay. Who was that again? The addressing department. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. GIS department in the in the land here.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? All right. We'll close the public comment period, bring it back to the commissioners. Okay. All right. Uh, I'll make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve of a proposed subdivision amendment application and resoning application to lot two of the Lynch Miner subdivision first amended submitted by Paul Abate and Stacy Cost based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use should 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 us is consistent with the proposed zoning.

Okay. Um, one of the conditions I would put on you that when you sell the new lots that those new owners are made aware of the land use code. Okay. That's okay. I think we need to add an eastment. The Eastman. Oh, correct. And and that that e there is a 60ft easement that is on the it's on the south property line of the north 5.5 acres. Yes. 60oot easement. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Okay. We have a a motion and a second. Call for the vote.

Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi. Commissioner Negard. Hi. Commissioner Doyle. Hi. Okay. Motion carried was unanimous for those here. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Can we have roll call? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Nurgard here. Commissioner Lynch here. Commissioner Doyle here.

Wait a minute. Go here. Two. Yeah. Couldn't find it. Where was two? Okay. Number two. Notice 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 county board of commissioners regarding a proposed 5 acre single lot development and resoning application submitted by Brenda Davies, agent Brianna Webb on property located at 25580 Road 18 Pleasant View, Colorado, consisting of 328.38 acres, more or less, located south of Road CC, east of Highway 491, situated in section 3, Township 37 North, range 17 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 here. Okay. Can we have um findings please?

Sure. Um the applicant is proposing to divide off five acres more or less from their 35 uh 328.38 acres um for a residence. The remaining acreage will um not be a part of this subdivision and will u remain a uh the surrounding properties consist of agriculture and residential uses with several smaller in the area. Um the current residence is accessed from road 18 since uh the year 2000. Any new driveway um is required to be permitted through the county road department. Um Monzerma Water Company stated that they have a 12 inch main line on the east side of road 18. Um and it currently provides u water for the residence that is there and can um provide water for an additional 5/8 inch residential service. Uh wildfire mit u wildfire adapted partnership recommends a waiver from a wildfire mitigation plan due to the parcel being categorized as the lowest risk factor. Um and the majority of ground cover is agricultural. Um the weed department also recommends a waiver from a comprehensive weed plan. However, the uh property owners are still responsible for uh weed mitigation. Um and that's this plan.

Okay. Anything to add to that? No, sounds good. Okay. Commissioners, questions, comments? I don't really have a question. It's a comment. Um just make sure that when you draw the uh new property boundary that you're maintaining the setbacks for the existing residents. Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Lynch

the um nothing for the applicant. Um uh just that the date referenced for the land use code on the permit is the old date and not the new date. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. I have a question. So originally um whenever dawn that parcel 25976 was cut out of the original 300 plus acres and now we're going to cut it up again. There's nothing in the code that says we can keep cutting five acre parcels, three acre parcels. Um not not anything directly. I mean there's 300 and some acres. So

long as they to add add one more parcel for a family member is not a stretch. Okay. Now if you took one 5 acre corner and then you decided the rest of the 300 would be five acres because you set a precedence that would be a problem. Okay. that 5 acres was created by an exemption in 1999. It wasn't even a single lot development.

Okay. And this is going to be reszoning also for the three to nine. Correct.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, that's that's all the questions I had. Okay, we're going to open it up for public comment then. Anyone wishing to speak in for or against this application, please come to the podium. State your name and address. Okay, seeing none, we're going to close it and bring it back to the commissioners for further discussion and or motions. Um, I'll make a motion to approve to the board of county commissioners a proposed 5 acre single lot development and reszoning application submitted by Brenda Daves, agent Brenda Web 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 properties in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning and no conditions.

I'll second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Lynch.

Okay. Get it right this time. Okay. Don, can we have call for the vote then? Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi. Commissioner Negard. Hi. Commissioner Lynch. I. Commissioner Doyle. I. Okay. Motion was carried. It was unanimous. Good luck to you. Okay, roll call, please. Commissioner Hernandez, here. Commissioner Armstrong, here. Commissioner Nurgard, here. Commissioner Lynch, here. Commissioner Doyle, here.

Okay. Number three. Notice is hereby given. And the Monzuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the count board of county commissioners regarding a proposed three lot minor subdivision subdivision and reszoning application submitted by Tracy Tracy Westfall Agent Cheyenne Stower on property located at 22252 Road 22 Lewis, Colorado consisting of 36 6.54 acres, more or less, located south of Road Z, east of Highway 491, situated section 20, Township 38 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 signposted? Yes, sir. Okay. Do we have the applicant come on down? Is the applicant's not here? Okay. Agent. Agent. Agent. Nope. There. Not no representation for this application. Okay. Then I guess we just carry on without them. Yeah. Planning can present it. Say again. planning can present. Yeah. Can we have findings, please? J.

Um, sure. The applicant is proposing to create a three lot minor subdivision. Um, the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses. Um, the current driveway has been in use since 2001 when the residence was built. Uh, any new driveway permit is required to be obtained from the county road and bridge department. Um, Monzuma Water Company has a 4 inch main line on the east side of road 22 uh which provides water to the um mentioned property and does have uh water available for three additional 5/8 inch residential taps. um wildfire adaptive partnership recommends a wildfire mitigation plan um that is necessary. Um while the property is classified as low risk, there is dense juniper and pinion fuels uh especially around the existing structure. Um if the landowner would like to schedule a risk site assessment um to determine whether the home ignition zones have been mitigated um they can contact Wildfire Adaptive Partnership uh and they would come out and do a site assessment. Um the county weed department has recommended a waiver from the uh weed plan but they are still responsible for weed management. Um, basically that's it.

Okay. Commissioners, discussions, questions. I don't see how it's divided here. Oh, it's um, you got this sheet right here.

It's splitting it in thirds, north to south. There's got to be three. There's a house on the south. What would be the the south lot, the third lot. So, the other two driveways will come off of row 22, correct? Yeah. And the line the reference to the land use code on the permit should the date should be changed to be the correct date.

Okay. Anything else? Okay, we haven't opened this one yet for public comment. Okay, Jason is the is the applicant. Is that right? Uh for number four. Number three is Westful. And that's and that's the applicant. Right. Right. Look at these looking at three lines here. One, two,

three. Right. below. Below

correct separate lots, separate parcels. Okay, we're going to open up for public comment. Anyone wishing speaking for or against this application, please come to the podium, state your name and address. Seeing none, we'll close it and bring it back to the commissioners for their verdict. Mr. Chair, I recommend to the board of count I Let me see start this over again. Uh, Mr. Chair, I recommend that we recommend to the I move that we recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed three lot minor subdivision and resoning application submitted by Tracy Westfall, agent Cheyenne Stoers 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 us is consistent with the proposed zoning and I have no conditions.

I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. No further discussions. We'll call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi. Commissioner Negard. Hi. Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Commissioner Doyle. Yes. Okay. Motion carried and it was unanimous. Okay, moving on. Number four. Oh, sorry. Roll call. Commissioner Hernandez

here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Nurgar here. Commissioner Lynch here. Commissioner Doyle here.

Okay. Number four. Notice is hereby given that the Monosuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purposes for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the board of county commissioners regarding a proposed two lot moderate subdivision and reszoning application submitted by Harold and Linda Randolph on property located at 13348 Highway 145 Dolores Carter, Colorado, consisting of 15.89 acres, more or less, located north of Road N, east of Highway 145, situated in section 6, Township 36 North, range 15 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. It says, "A public hearing. Was a public notice published?"

Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. Was the sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay. Can we have the applicant for this come down? There we go. This is for Okay, great. Can we have the department findings chain?

Um, Mr. and Mrs. Randolph are proposing to divide their property into one 5.7 acre parcel and on 10.2 acre parcel. The surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses along with commercial uses. Uh there are several small acreage parcels in the area. Um the uh current access um for the property is off of Highway 145. Um the SE dot would like to have um the Randolphs to um submit an application for the current u access off of 145 for the current with for the existing residence. Uh just to have record for that because it's uh the house has been there for so long it just never was. It was grandfathered in but now they're doing this uh development with their property. dot would like to have record. Um, but the new parcel will be accessed off of road in. Um, there is already an an access apron that is present present off of road in. So, that's where the new parcel will be accessed off of. Um, Monizuma Water Company has a 3-inch main line on the east side of Highway 145 um that currently um services the residents and they have water available for an additional 5/8 inch uh tap. Um, wildfire adaptive partnership uh states that the a wildfire mitigation plan is not necessary for this parcel um due to the lower fire risk and it's u majority is agricultural um and um the county weed department

recommends a waiver from the u we plan but the residents are required to maintain the not just weed population. Okay. You have anything to add to that? Pretty good. All right. Okay. Commissioners, discussion, comments. Shall I say the date? It's the same thing on this. The date is wrong.

Yeah. the land use code uh referenced on this permit is incorrect. It's been superseded. So I I suggest the date be changed before it's brought before the commissioners. Just as a note, uh those dates have been changed, but um when these applications were given to the applicants, the date had not been changed. Okay. Anybody else?

I don't either, believe it or not. Okay. We're going to open it up for public comment. Anyone wish to speak into for or against this application, come to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close it and move on to the commissioners for recommendation. I'll make a recommendation to the commissioners recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve the proposed two lot minor moderate subdivision and reszoning applications submitted by Harold and Linda Randolph based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. Proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other properties in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed.

I'll second. We have a motion and a second. No further discussion. We'll call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi. Commissioner Negard. Hi. Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Commissioner Doyle. Yes. Okay. Motion carried was unanimous. Good luck. Thank you very much.

Okay. Roll call done. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Nurgard here. Commissioner Lynch here. Commissioner Doyle

here. Okay. Number five. Notice is hereby given. 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 16 lot major subdivision and resoning application submitted by Paul and Dana Wland. Agent Cody Maxwell on property located to be determined Highway 145, Cortez, Colorado, consisting of 91.76 acres more or less, located south of Road M, west of Highway 145, situated section 13, Township 36 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. Can we have the applicant come on down? It's number five.

Okay. Plan department findings. The applicants are proposing to a 16 lot major subdivision consisting of single family stick built homes. The lots will be restricted to one home per lot. Uh there will be uh 35 acres 35 plus acres that will not be a part of this uh project but will deed it. Are you still going to be deeding it restricted? Uh

no. Yeah. Okay. I didn't think so. Um uh Surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses along with commercial uses. There are several smaller acreage uh parcels uh in the immediate area. Um the um there will there will be one access off of highway 145 with a 60oot easement through the subdivision and culdeac. Um the applicant has per um performed a traffic study and submitted a permit application to C do which is in process. C dot has stated that uh they have received all the information and the application is currently being processed. Um Monzuma Water Company does not currently have a water line in place for this service. However, the developer uh which is Cody Maxwell uh has been in contact with Monizuma Water Company and there is a plan to place um in place to extend the main line to the property. Uh at this time um they uh will be able to um service each lot. Um when the main line is completed, uh Monzuma County Monzuma water company will be able to provide water for with uh 5/8 inch uh service taps. Um and bur mitigation uh plan is not needed um due to the clearing of the parcel. Um and the lead department recommends a waiver from the lead plan.

Okay. Anything to add to that? One note. The uh C dot application is approved. It is it is approved. Okay. Great. I'll cross that off. Cody, could you have C do uh email me a copy of that? I can put it in your file. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners questions, comments. Um, I was wondering about the 35 acre portion. Uh, are you dedicating that to open space or what is your plan there?

No, eventually uh could potentially sell it as one lot, but we won't further divide that into other residences. So, I got access with the C do permit for 17 lots total. That way, it have access to that one additional 35 lot. So that's all the access that I applied for. Okay. Um Jane, I I didn't understand what your question was in terms of the a restriction on the deed. Well, at first um Cody was wanting to um deed restrict that parcel for not being um subdivided, but um he's changed that to where it's it's going to just be um one lot

one lot. So if that gets sold in the future as one lot, then whoever buys it would be able to further subdivide that. Yeah, I was looking previously I was looking at putting additional homes on there. So I was going to do deed restricted with like a 20 someacre lot, but I just dropped the housing count down to 16 lots to keep the 35 acre um parcel in there. All right. Thanks. So what will be what will prevent that from being developed the CCNR? It's going to be in your restrictions or just in the housing section but not on that 35 acres on the 35.

Correct. So I just you'd have to go back through the seed dot process to see if you could gain additional access. So that's why I only did it for the 17 lots. So 16 single family residence and then one for that 35 acre parcel. Okay, that answers that question. commissioners. Okay. We have um existing groundwater can handle that. That's kind of a little lowlying area, isn't it? It is. Um I did a wetlands delineation study on it as well and all the residents have road contour or elevated out of that. So anywhere where there is a wetland area, it's in the lower on the 35 acre section. Okay. So you have done a study then?

Yep. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay. And the utility easement is the little leg off to the south. Yes. Right. Okay. And if you bring water in, will it follow the contour of the road? It would. Yes. Okay. And that brings me to whose road is it going to be? It be private road. It'll be private road. Yes, sir. Okay. So, it'll be private water line then. Yes. Okay. Okay. And you will be the developer? Yes, sir. Okay. You're going to maintain and build those lots? Yes. Okay.

Yeah, we'll build out all those and then I'll uh charge a road impact fee um so we have future monies to help keep it maintained in the future. Yep. As each lot that we build out. So, okay. Anybody else? Okay. We're going to open up to public comment. Anybody wishing speaking for against this uh application, please come to the podium. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Noah Herman. I live at 11187 Highway 145 in Cortez. Uh, first off, I just want to say this is nothing against the owners. We're good people. Um, but we're the ones that live there and have to deal with this. though. Um, I served in law enforcement here in Monzuma County for the past 14 years. I care deeply about this community, not just because I live here with my family, but because I've spent my career working to keep our neighborhoods safe and healthy. Uh from that perspective, I want to raise some broader concerns about this subdivision proposal. Uh, first, Cortez is already experiencing experiencing the challenges that come with rapid growth. We see it rising housing. We see it in rising housing costs. We see it in traffic and we see it in increased calls for service. Our police, fire, and EMS are already stretched thin. Adding another subdivision, uh, a large subdivision when there are already multiple developments in town struggling to fill lots only increases demand without addressing real community needs. Uh, second, infrastructure and services are already under pressure. Uh roads like Highway 145 and Dolores Road um were not built for subdivision level traffic specifically in that area coming out with the school with the church that's there. Um gives me some concern which I'm not sure what that that would entail with C dot. Um in increased congestion means slower emergency response times and greater risk for accidents which we just experienced a pretty big accident just just uh to the north there. Uh public safety is not just about crime. It's about making sure families can get or get help quickly when it when they need it. Uh third, development like this is a long-term has longterm consequences. In law enforcement, we often see that poorly planned neighborhoods, those

built without enough green space, uh without thoughtful traffic design, without respect for the surrounding community, end up creating more calls for service and more safety concerns. decisions made here don't just affect us in the next few years. It will affect us and the health of Cortez for decades. Um, finally, there is a question of need. Cortez does not currently have a shortage of available housing lots. Uh, what we have is a shortage of affordability. Another high-cost subdivision won't solve that problem. It will actually drive up higher prices. Uh, responsible growth means building what the community truly needs, not simply just adding more of the same. I ask that you consider the immediate project. Uh um not just the immediate project, but the long-term impacts. Uh will this subdivision make Cortez safer? Will it make the housing more affordable? Will it strengthen the our infrastructure and services? Or will it strain them? Uh if the answer are no, then I would believe I'm sorry, then I believe the responsible choices denied to deny the proposal. Thank you for your time and for your service to the community. So, on a side note, again, just with the church school there and all the traffic that comes through there, there's been a lot of issues that we've seen. We used to take our son to lighthouse, so we're concerned about the turn lot there. Then, we also have our entrance, which would be that rightway. Um, so we're in the I'm sorry, I'm trying to point that out in my mind here. Southwest section here.

Okay. I'm sorry, southeast section there. So, we just wouldn't want to have that there. So, but thank you for your time. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Amy Herman, and my family and I live at 11187 Highway 145. I'm here today to respectfully but firmly oppose the proposed 16 subdivision on Highway 145. This project would completely surround our property, boxing in our home and land. what is now open space and a safe environment for our children would be replaced with roads, construction, and dense housing right up against our fence line. This would take away so much from our family. Our view, which is one of the reasons we made our home here, our children's safety as a subdivision, traffic will bring congestion and speeding to an area where kids currently walk, bike, and play. Our peace and privacy as we would go from being part of a rural Cortez to being an island inside a subdivision. Beyond our family's impact, this project raises larger community concerns. Traffic and safety on Highway 145 will worsen significantly. This road already carries heavy volumes, not only from through traffic, but also from Lighthouse Baptist Church and Academy and from San Juan Gym Rock Shop. Adding subdivision traffic into this mix creates serious serious safety risks for drivers, children, and pedestrians alike. The county has recognized this danger before. In 2022, the Summit Lake subdivision was restricted until Ced required a left turn declaration lane on Highway 184. That project was denied on public safety grounds, and Highway 145 deserves the same level of protection. Wildlife displacement is another consequence. This land is regular habitat for deer, fox, raccoons, honeybees, geese, and other animals. Pushing them out with dense housing not only disrupts the natural balance of the area but also increases the chances of vehicle

wildlife collisions on Highway 145, further compounding traffic and traffic hazards. Incompatible growth. Cortez already has subdivisions that are not filling up. Building more is unnecessary and does not reflect responsible sustainable growth. The county's comprehensive plan calls for preserving rural character, protecting public safety, and ensuring sustainable development. Surrounding a family's home with dense housing does not meet those goals. For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to deny this subdivision. Please protect our family and our children's safety and our community's future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, we're going to close the public comment, bring it back to the commissioners. When I questioned you about the groundwater, and you're talking about 3 acres, 16 lots, um, that's going to be able to handle that kind of septic systems on each lot. Yes, sir. We did a test pit with, uh, Craig Wickstrom, Wickstrom Engineering. Could you stand a little closer? Yeah, we had uh Wickstrom Engineering do test pits to verify groundwater throughout the property. Um and then all where we have the road mapped, it's all elevated um above the wetland area. And you did six test pits. All right.

Yes. Not 16. Not 16. No sir. So just for cost just the topography coming from uh the engineer the topography of the land after doing those test pits. So if you the road contour it's a a higher elevation than where the the wetland area is. So, and Don, each lot was going to end up having to have its own septic permit and it's going to have to have it's going to be required to have its own tests also. Right. At that point, the location determines gravity flow or a pump system and they would have to do their own um each lot. Correct.

Okay. Pass then it's not going to be built. I'm concerned with the 35 acres and what potentially could happen to that. Uh you're the developer. You're not the owner of that land at this point in time. Um once if it gets approved, then I'd be the owner. 35 acres as well. Yes, sir.

And there's on the 35 acre portion. Um there is a previous subdivision, I believe it was 1.6 acre lots, and I think they had two to three um lots in that 35 acre section right there. That's that'd be the only actual buildable spot that you'd want to put homes on and it'd be in that northeast corner of that 35 acre section. Yep. There up in here. Yeah, up in there. But there are no plans for that,

right? No plans. That's why I only did the permit for the 17. It's very unlikely C do DOT's going to let any any more traffic go in there on that access. Yeah. Yeah. Could Could we put a condition, Don, that would prohibit any future building splitting of that 35 acres? No, I don't think so. The 35 acres isn't part of the application. It's not a part. It's not a part of Oh, I Okay, right. You're not a part of Yeah. So we'd have to address it separately. It would come back. If it's be developed to be developed, it would then have to have its own application,

right? Come back to us. Okay. There's the protection again. Okay. Any other questions? Obvious, right? Yeah. There's a lot of little ones down below. These are all little guys here. These are all three acres. What are these? I don't know because we don't go that far.

We're only up against adjacent properties. What type of I believe the two public speakers that came up are in lots 12 and 13 on this map. Is that right? No. Is that right? 12 and 13. They're they're right there in the corner, right? Yeah. That little in the notch. Yeah. So,

they were part of the phase one of the original planned unit development and phase two um was rescended. They decided not to pursue that. Otherwise, there would have been five other lots. I think those Yeah. 1.2 or 1.6 acre lots. Yeah, it was it was a an approved PUD, but now this is strictly a subdivision application. And then also one more note on that lot 12. C do DOT wanted our access to be right there up above. They they chose the location.

Um no, it was where the current access permit was is where lot 12 and 13 were 60oot utility. I moved that to the north end of the property so we're not driving that traffic past those residences that were not part of the subdivision. Now that's that strip there. Yeah, that's going to be an easement. Yeah, for utilities. So somehow it's going to have to go through there. Cut up one of the lots.

Yeah, that's actually a current 60 foot utility easement. And that's where the current for the previous subdivision was going to have the access. I didn't want to drive that vehicle traffic past those two residents. So, it's why we to get it on the north side. Yes. And your you electric's going to be underground in the street. Yep. So, how are you going to get from there? There's a cabinet on the north end and on the south end of the property on the west or east border.

So, from from the utility easement, how are you going to get to the road? We'll have a utility easement going from the southern easement up to the road. And then where our road access is off 145, we'll have another utility easement coming from the northeast corner down to the road right there. Oh, okay. Yep. What's the timeline for this project? Um, how long is it going to take? It'll take like to build out the houses or just the development part. Build it all out. Um probably three years, right?

Yep. The housing section um the roads, infrastructure, all the horizontal stuff would go this fall or winter, you know, depending on weather. Out of curiosity, you going to stick stick built or? Yeah, single family ranch homes minimum like 1950 square foot. Okay. Okay. There's nothing else with These are all these are targeted to be zone agricultural residential. Do we have a plain residential? No. Well,

there is an agriculture going to be there's an R3 zoning and you cannot grow anything on it. You can alone. I don't I don't think that's going to happen. So I have I have no more questions for the applicant but for discussion I do. Okay. So when after this is after the applicant is done. Okay. Well I'll entertain a motion then. Oh you going to do a motion next? Yeah. Oh okay. Then I'm ready for discussion. Go ahead.

Okay. So, um, to the the public comment was a concern about the subdivision, and I just wanted to talk a little bit about that. Um, what, uh, I I understand there's concern about the loss of, um, the view that you're going to have, and and what used to be kind of, uh, the rural feeling is not going to be there anymore. But um this particular subdivision is right up against another subdivision as they are all moving out toward the north toward the north. So as Cortez expands, it does it a little at a time hopefully. And it's not a decision by Cortez, it's a decision by the land owners that own that property and them uh wanting to develop and wanting to submit their application like this gentleman. Um, so my perception of this is this is the perfect typical case of subdivisions being developed as the city of Cortez grows. And I'm uh, you know, there's going to be loss of rural feeling, loss of views. You're going to start feeling surrounded as as houses go in. But, um, that's the nature of, um, the process as I understand it. you know, I I could be wrong, but that's that's what I'm seeing. So, even though I feel for you, um, this is like for me the perfect case of putting in a subdivision. So, I I can't I can't go against it. It fits the land use code.

Yeah. I mean, I agree with what you're saying. And at the same time, it's kind of obvious that's what's occurring. Now, right on the land use code 1201 general, major objective of land use code is to protect the rural character of the county and the enactment of development regulations, etc. So, yeah, it's a bit of a I mean, if this was conundrum Yeah. And if this was sticking out in the middle of, you know, properties all adjacent, 100 acres on each side, yeah, you'd have a an uphill battle. But like Commissioner Lynch said, this is the building blocks step to step to step. Yeah.

What's your choice? Um, yeah. I mean, this is a county property. It's not annexing into City of Cortez. So, um, yeah, I'm in the same opinion that you guys are. This meets all the land use code requirements. I don't see any reason why I would recommend not approving it. Is that a motion? Oh, okay. Well, I can I can actually do a motion. All right.

Okay. I'll make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed 16 lot major subdivision and reasonzoning application submitted by Paul and Dana Wyland agent Cody Maxwell based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with code. Proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other properties in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning. I don't have any conditions. Okay. My condition would be that all the new owners are notified about the county's land use code. Okay. So, they're aware of it. Do we have a second? I'll second.

Okay. Commissioner Lis, we have a motion and a second. Um, no further discussion. Call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi. Commissioner Nurgard. Hi. Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Commissioner Doyle. I Okay, motion carried. It was unanimous. Good luck to you. Thank you guys.

Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Nurgard here. Commissioner Lynch here. Commissioner Doyle.

All right. Number six, last one. Notice is hereby given. and 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 subdivision amendment application for a common lot line change to lots A and B of the Bear Dance Ranch 2 lot minor development submitted by Katherine and William Voys on property located at 1355 50 road 42 Mus Colorado consisting of 23.61 acres more or less and Aaron and Melissa Walls on property located at 13520 Road 42 Manus Colorado consisting of 3.88 88 acres more or less and a subdivision amendment application for subdividing lot A of the Bear Dance Ranch 2 lot minor development into two lots submitted by Katherine and William Voys on property located 13550 Road 42 Manus Colorado consisting of 23.61 61 acres more or less. All located east of Road 42, situated in section 2, Township 36 North, range 13 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, can we have the applicant come on down? Applicants, this is as bad as that other one that five was only three. [Music] Okay. Can we have the planning department findings?

Sure. Um the applicants um are proposing to amend lot A of the Bear Dance Ranch two lot minor subdivision or development uh creating one 11 acre parcel and one 12 acre parcel. This amendment will result in a three lot moderate subdivision. Also, Mr. and Mrs. Boils and Mr. and Mrs. laws are in agreement of a common lot line change to lots A and B of the same subdivision. This change will result in the Wallace property increasing approximately one acre. Um, the Wallacees would like a property line that adds more acreage and room room near their home. And the Boils want boundary lines for each property to be straight and make sense in the future. Um the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses with several subdivision part uh parcels in the area along with property owned by the US uh Bureau of Reclamation which is the um Jackson Gulch Reservoir. Um the current residence on uh well both properties I guess was in 1940 um with access um is in existence from that time. Um and um so water right now they um it is through a sistern um but uh any water service will be um in the future due to location of the property. The property is part of the upper uh road 42 water association for waterline um configuration in the future. So the upper road 42 water

association is in the process of getting water to road 42. How are they doing that? Uh that would probably be a question for Don. Special Water District. They're looking for grant funding. So it's kind of on a long hold. Isn't that the one that came before the PNC earlier? It's come before the PNC before.

Yeah. There was uh one of the northern property owners did a 1acre in kind um donation that will purportedly house their water storage tank. So it'll be pumped to that tank, gravityfed to the other 20ome property owners, but the grant funding cycle is minimal right now. Okay. So, it's all fed by sisters right now.

Okay. Do you have anything to add to uh Jane's discussion? No. Okay. Okay. Commissioners, I'm sure we have questions and concerns. So, so if you did you understand the map there that that 96 acre triangle would go to the Wallace that has this current 3.88 88 acres, right? And then this part, the balance would look to be it's going to be split in half more or less. Okay. So this photograph, this line is not in existence any right. Oh, sorry. Right. On the screen.

Well, I'm just talking about the photograph that we have. Okay. I don't know that it's that one that was given to us. They were going to follow an existing field fence and decided that that was more solid line is now the dash line. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Following that existing fence was more problematic than just to Okay. Clear. Make it like they want it and put in a new fence. Um if if they fence it. The access easement is basically on the road that you see here. Yeah, I saw that. Yeah. And would have to have an easement to the back lot. Correct.

Okay. Okay. Um well, bring now that we talked about the that easement. Um, I know the commissioners have brought that up several times that they don't like shared access, but um, and in my opinion, an easement can be written as exclusive as it possibly can. So, I disagree with that thought of theirs. Correct. Easement can protect can be protected. The commissioners don't want shared easements, but it's not in the land use code.

Yeah. Okay. Um, Texas just as a curiosity, the road that's along the ditch, that's within the property line. So, that is an easement, the ditch and the road. Do we know? It is. And is that an exclusive easement to the ditch people? Correct.

Okay, that answer is that one. It was it was also yeah it was also brought up with the uh land owners to the north there when they divided their property um for that one uh parcel. Um the ditch u wanted their easement to be exclusive and not be used. So that's the reason why the owner to the north made their own driveway easement. That yellow line is the driveway. Yeah. Yes.

Okay. Now, where did I see that? This a big concrete ditch, is it? Yeah. Portion of it is concrete. Where did I see that?

This section is concrete down to here. Does Oh, yeah. There you go. Okay. Let's go back to that boundary adjustment. It How far are these properties before you go to the forest line? That's it. Sorry. Say that again. How far are you from the forest? I mean, you're up the road by ways, I guess. Um, it's very close.

Half a mile, mile. Okay. When us there's one more property to the north of us and there's one more property. That top one's Wyatt ramp. That's the one. Yeah. Okay. And when we make the boundary adjustment, there's no no buildings that are going to be out of compliance or anything. Okay. Okay, no other questions. No boundary adjustment.

I just uh again point out that the land use code reference is incorrect and needs the date change. I suggest it for the permit that's given to the BOCC. Okay. Okay. We're going to open this up to public comment. We have one public one lady. One lady. Okay. not coming up. So, um then we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the commissioners for

a recommendation or more questions and we we're going to tackle them both at the same time. We're voting on both the uh lot line adjustment and the split. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed subdivision amendment application for a common lot line change to lots A and B of the Bear Dance Ranch to lot minor development submitted by Katherine and William Boils on property located at 13550 road 42 Mus Colorado consisting of 23.61 acres more or less and Aaron and Melissa Wallace on property located at 13520 Road 42 Mangus Colorado consisting of 3.88 88 acres more or less and a subdivision amendment application for subdividing lot A of the Bear Dance Ranch two lot minor development into two lots submitted by Katherine and William Boils 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. I have no conditions.

Okay. The only condition I would see recommended to make sure that we have that easement to that back lot. Okay. Okay. I mean, I apologize to Mike for not bringing this up before he made his motion, but I'm looking at the fire mitigation. I see the fire mitigation was done around the existing structures, but this back lot is 12.8 acres. That's why I'm asking how farther we are to the forest. We're not far from the forest there. And look at that. I mean, you can see it from this picture. It's densely wooded ponderosa. I can't tell if there's a lot of gamble open there as well, but there's certainly a lot of ponderosa here,

right? And this thing says wildlife adapted partnership recommended a fire plan. I think we need to have a fire plan as well. Is that what you said to to recommend? says, "When the subdivision was created in 22, Wildfire Adapted Partnership recommended a fire plan based on connectivity to a large stands upon surround steep topography. There is steep topography there too and runs off to the side surrounding how and then there's the however as the applicant has mitigated around existing structures." So that was three years ago.

Yeah. an existing structure in existing structure. There going to be new existing structures up here presumably. Obviously there will be. This statement comes directly from the wildlife adaptive partnership, right? So I think that's my point. I only have to take what I am giving. Yeah. So they're so part of the waving it. I don't need to take what I'm giving though.

They're waving it different in that regard. So part of the covenants, the eight minimum covenants, one of those is that wildfire mitigation will continue um as the course of any roads or buildings are created or constructed. I mean, you can't go in there and just clearcut 12 acres and call that mitigated. Um but when roads are added and structures are added then the uh mitigation continues and uh wildfire adaptive partners will come out and meet with people at their property to develop a plan and go over exactly what recommendations they have

and I'm sure in a plan I mean yes and no. I mean if they clear cut the 12 acres that is fire mitigation. Yeah. That's the ultimate fire mitigation. That's all so-called weed creation. Yeah. Nobody's going to want I wonder if you could put that into a condition that

if that's all we're looking for a second. I'll second. Is that it added as a condition? That's why I asked it. I'm sorry. You want that as a condition? I like that that Okay. That that fire mitigations. We'll continue. We'll continue. Okay. Okay. pretty important particularly up where that is. I mean that's and I'm sure that's why you know you're backing close up to 2 million acres of forest land. Mhm. Which I'm sure is why you like living up there as do I. Okay.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. No further discussion. We do have the conditions that the easement and then the fire mitigation will you know continue especially for that back lot. Okay. Call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Armstrong. I. Commissioner Nurgard. Hi. Commissioner Lynch. I. Commissioner Doyle. I. Okay. Motion carried. The vote was unanimous. Good luck guys. [Music] Think we've ever had a double one like that before, have we? Oh, yeah. We had one of those five five things at once. Yeah. Okay, we have roll call. That's not on the list. Commissioner Hernandez, hi.

Commissioner Armstrong present here. Commissioner Nurgard here. Mr. Lynch here. Commissioner Doyle, trip me up. I am here. Okay, we'll continue with uh LLC regulations final draft to the BOCC. [Music] So, we need to decide who's on this group is going to come present at the workshop. Is that going? Yeah. So, rather than having it during a commissioner's meeting that uh that it would be better to have it during their workshop that's on uh in the afternoon. So that would be at 1:30

on September 22nd. 1:30 and I I will be I will be around. So I can't I haven't seen a final draft. Do we have one? Nope. We don't have one and we will need one. Well, you got to have one before we can present. We have What was the time? So the planning department isn't going to be 1:30 Monday the 22nd. the 26 here, right? So, the planning department won't format it and put it in 130 section that it needs to be in. Just asking.

Um, it depends on how you guys want it worded and how you want it to fit. If you've got part of it in under special use permits, if you've got part of it under high impact permits. If you have it as its own spec section.

So I wasn't meaning that um it be merged yet. I was what I was meaning is that we see the the final text of what we want to put in and we can I attempted to say where my suggestions would go and that's kind of how I was envisioning it but but I don't know what you guys feel about what's been written so far. So we're going to you're saying we we could put it into different categories or create its own. Well either one. Either one. Yeah, it would make more sense as a as a subcategory. I wouldn't I wouldn't make it a category by itself. Yeah. I don't want to zone it.

Yeah, I agree with that. Keep it way. We don't want to get into separate zonings and No, no, no, no, no. Definitely not. That would be another level of nightmare. Okay. So, you have all the comments from other commissioners? Yeah. And I did actually finally get a hold of the guy from Mesa County and they have not processed any applications instead. Okay. Yeah. I've been kind of following along. Okay. Well, if you have all the comments, then just kind of put something together and throw it back at us and we'll call that the final draft. uh or give it or give it one more shot and and have

I'm going to say you're guys going to have to draft it up because and have things back to you. If I if I do it, I'm going to put in my own thoughts and not your thoughts. So, well, we gave you the thoughts. You should put in your thoughts. Yeah. Oh, I have. Yeah. And in the uh you you Some of those thoughts are not in the draft that you guys have. Oh, okay. Well, well, that's even better. We want to see all the thoughts a lot more than we are. Are you thoughts pertinent to the code or are they commentary? Cuz I like the way Mike did it where we had the different colors. This was yours. This was mine. This was the original. Yeah, I like that.

The problem was that I forgot to include yours because I think you wrote in blue that one time and I did. I tried to I read them but I didn't remember to put them in. Can Can we Can Can we do that, Don? put it all that back together in colors or not colors. That doesn't matter. Some people and get it and get it back to you by none of us though, you know, a week from today. Period. I'll even look at it on vacation. Oh, I didn't know that. Well, we can't have agree and disagree. I mean it's going to have to basically

No, no. If you know if you if you disagree then by all means you have to say something. You have to put words to one would hope. Yeah. Well, I mean you have your responsib but but to say agree that's responsibility to say I I would never have uses by right put a acre of solar panels anywhere in the county. Say that again. You would never I would never agree that because in here we had an up to an acre as a use by right of solar panels going anywhere in the county. I don't have a problem with that. But

I would have everything that is larger than just your own house have to be approved with a special use permit and a high impact. Didn't that didn't that go with certain zones only? Yeah. Um, it kind of does with Mesa County's regulations. No, I mean on the suggestions that I made, I I think I um said which which zonings that I would put it with every zone unless you're putting it on your house just for your own private use. Yeah. You're If you're putting one acre on the ground, I think it better be permitted. But that's just me. No. No. I'm I'm I agree. Yeah. If

Okay. Let's go. Let's go back one more time. When you say personal use, does that mean it's staying on your property? You're putting it in batteries and you're using it, right? Correct. Okay. So, it is not going on the grid. It's not going to your neighbor. You're not going back to the grid. Nope. Okay. I wouldn't limit that. Not everybody wants battery. Correct. As long as you're netting out, right? I disagree with that. I have solar. It's going strictly back into the grid. Just turning my meter backwards. That's all it's doing. Mhm. That's fine. See, that should be all right to me. That should be fine. Not a generator. No, no, no. Just depends. If you're knitting out

Well, you're zero. I would say big deal. Yeah, we're not going to read the meter. I said it's got to be a portion of your square footage of your house. No, your load. Can't go by your house. I got barns. If my current the structure that it's on my put it on structure at my property. Okay. Well, if it goes on the ground then then then I agree with Don. If it goes on the ground then it needs to be permanent. Then when you do that that's really depend on the size of it. The definition of use by right is no permitting necess necessary. If you make it conditional then it would require permitting. That's all you have to do is make it conditional rather than use by right in order to settle the issue. Yep.

And I think that's the way it should be. If it's on the roof and you're either using it for yourself or give me some language or you're sending it back to the grid for your own benefit, then you don't need a permit. But if it's on the ground, then we need a permit. What difference does it make? Why would I want to ugly up my house by putting on my roof when I got a slope I could put it on there tying right into the line? That makes no sense. Yeah, I need a permit, but you can I got to look at your damn roof glowing in the when I'm driving down the highway. It makes no sense at all.

It I would say it depends on the size of the ground mount system. Yeah. How are you going to define it? Up to an anchor. Yep. Mike's size up to I'm with Mike put down more than an acre. That's 28 foot square. That's an acre. 28T by 28T. An acre is 43,000 ft. That's what I said. It's 28 ft by 28 ft. That's a lot of solar panels. That's about what I need. That's a lot of solar panels. Okay. Well, you should see my bill. I got I got water heaters for the stall. Like I said, you guys are going to need to uh finalize this and give it to me. I mean, yeah,

if what do you I'm okay with if that's what we want to do. You use by right in my opinion should be no more than twice your the load on your property. Therefore, if your property is using 50KW, you can have 100KW. That's not 100KW is 1 acre, but nobody uses 50KW, right? No. Yeah. Not unless you're processing something, right?

Yeah. So 100KW, one acre is quite a lot. So if you say twice your your home home and building load, whatever your um outbuildings and your home use, twice of that would be um sufficient. And and if you're going to if you want one acre, you're going to have to permit it. So that would be conditional use. Anything over one acre is what you're saying. No, no, no. It's anything over twice your load twice your load is conditional. Anything over twice your load. So you have mom paw that just have a dishwasher and a washing machine. And then you have somebody like Mike with everything.

Um, horses, water, horses, heaters, everything else. That's it may be fruit but it's apples and oranges. I would say so we have to address we have to address that agricultural people will have they use much more electricity. I mean well how are we going to how's that enforceable? It's a problem. I don't know how what are you going to Well, that's what I'm saying. Like we're just depending on the property owner to own up to that conditional use permit. What's this code? Yeah. which I'm fine, you know, it's the same as putting up a barn up against the property. Wow. You know, it's same thing. You have to know, you know, well,

I mean, there has to Yeah. I mean, there's the difference between measuring from a structure to a property line and then what we're talking about here. So, like understanding what the load is for any given property, it just I don't know. Just doesn't seem like we're going to be able to enforce it. It's either a use going to do it anyway. Yeah, exactly. It's that's what I'm saying. Like it's just it's maybe it's just I maybe I'm just too naive. I I asked

put your So it's easy. If that's if that's too complicated, don't do it. Just put rooftop. Rooftop is all and if you want anything more than that, you need to permit it. So it's conditional. True. I don't know. I would put square footage of of panels as opposed to where you position the panels. Roof versus ground. Okay. Can I can kind of see that point. I can see that point. Um what one cost to the other is extreme. So on a roof is is a lot less money than putting it on the ground. A lot less. But but it's got a good

I mean I would never put them on. Yeah. But I mean that's okay. So what we what we do with them now is if they're going to do a ground mount system, it has to meet the 30 foot setback, right? I mean they're permanent structures. They're not just temporary that blow away in the wind. Correct. Your structure. Yeah. So your house is 30 foot back. It might have panels or your panels are 30 foot back and Yeah. Yeah. And people have to ask. They have to ask. I think that's reasonable. I think we're just hung up on the size. So right now what's on the table is an acre or more. It needs a permit under an acre does not makes no sense. I mean as proposed.

So that's what we have to wrangle. That's a lot of panels on acre. That's a lot of panels. So we have to decide what our threshold tolerance is. Like what's that nuisance that's being created? If it's is it an acre? Is it less than an acre? Like I don't know how

corre correct me if I'm wrong but I think uh the Senate bill that dealt with this the change to agricultics I think in that bill didn't it refer to uh one uh one acre as being the largest size that uh that is taxed to the home and if it goes above one acre it's taxed differently. it it it uh is handled by uh state. I think I I could be wrong, but I think you're right. That would be that would be very helpful because now you've got But I didn't have a chance to check that out with the assessor.

When do we know, Don? Does that make sense? Have you heard that? I have not heard. Well, I I mean, I like that if if if that's Yeah, we don't Somebody's already thought about it. It's a natural boundary, right? So, if that's the case, then yeah, I don't think we're going to be strict. Why don't we just follow that? If it is true, and if it's if it's a halfacre, then we stay with a half acre. If it's two acres, so so if if in fact rooftop solar is by right, or and then anything on the ground is conditional.

Yeah. No, no, it's not. It's not. If it's within that acre, if it's within that acre, then it's okay on the ground as long as it meets the setbacks because it is a structure. Yeah, it is. Certainly have to meet the setbacks. Yeah. Yep. I'm okay with that. So, what are you wanting to do with the rooftop? It's It's the Who cares about the rooftop? It's the size. Well, Mike cares. Well, he rooftops only give me the size of the roof. That's what I'm saying. Think of other people. I mean, I'm not planning any whether you call it by ride or whatever. You know, rooftop installations are fine, you know, on on your property.

I mean, they're going to be under an acre. Yeah. Let's And let's say that too, you know, just so that somebody doesn't put up this burn. That's Yeah. One acre roof. Oneacre roof. Hey, think about it's 200 feet. 208. Okay. So, do you do you use that term by right? I guess and then the same thing with the ground. If it's on the ground, it's it's by right as long as it's within an acre, provided you meet the setbacks. I feel like that's what's on the table. What do you think that might

I can agree with that. What are you going to do with the provision that unless you're commercial property on a highway, you can only cover 12% of your land with the structure? All right. But that could be that. That's one specific. If it's conditional, who's reviewing that? That's true. Where does that go? That's true. Here. Yeah. I mean, we have properties that exist that are only not even an acre. Right. So, they going to go cover their whole property with panels? No. I mean, but why would they? It's under an acre and they're generating their house. The why would they do it? No,

that doesn't happen anymore. It's like you're going to have somebody that's going to do it just to do it because they have no common sense. Well, you know, you got that. I understand. We can't help it, but we got to figure out till we don't get those people. That's why we have Dawn going out and policing. Yeah. Okay. got a big stick. But that that sounds reasonable to me. Can you investigate that, Mike? That that tax laws. Yeah. Okay. And then just get back with him and he'll send it out to us. Sure. But let's have let's look at this, have comments back to Don no later than Thursday of next week. Are you

Well, it's got to go to the agenda on Thursday. It needs to be done. Oh, Thursday morning. Oh, okay. We got to have Thursday. What's Thursday? The date. They just thought they have to They have noticed on the agenda. This has to go on the agenda. Yeah, they got a Tuesday. Okay. On the packets. Go to the commissioners on Friday. Okay. Well, let's How about Tuesday? Can we do it by Tuesday? Okay. Tuesday. Send it back out to everybody so everybody's on the same page. Tuesday. Review it. So, how are how are you wanting this formatted as a spec section?

Does anything need to be said about INAL's phone? Codes lips. Did you put it in chat? We've got Enrail. We've got commissioners needing to approve transfer of ownership. The best way to go. We need Enrail information. What is that? What section is it going to be in? Is that what your question is? No. Yeah. And is it Yeah, I gotta go. What is ENIL? The EN rail report, national regulatory level. Oh, the report that you made available to us, the one I sent you back in March. No.

Yeah. Okay. I didn't understand it. and rather you want the commissioners to approve the uh take off new journey possible owners if it goes up for sale now you lost me so I think from what I've seen is most of these get sold commission and so yeah they put them in and then and then the provision I would like to see in there is that the county commissioner ers get to approve the new buyer and the conditions

that they're going to operate under because they have to be under the same condition as the land use code, not just some buyer and it could be some fly by night guy. Yes. But I I uh I wonder if we're stepping on private on the rights of the the land owner or the lease, the operator, whatever. Um, it it seems like I feel like I don't have any evidence for this, but I feel like we're overstepping our authority by by doing that. Have the commissioners Well, I know the three that got built here, they got sold and we know nothing about it or nothing about them. Yeah, but as long as they continue to operate within the guardrails that they've been given

and they're not. Yeah, but we there weren't any guardrails, but now there will be. They had tree mitigation. They had prairie dog mitigation and these people cuz I had complaints and I finally contacted and tracked them down. They're like, "Oh, we weren't aware of any of this." Back to the I see that too, Mike. Back to the nobody and all all of that stuff was put in. And the other thing is is if can we just require notices provided to the county and not have it be an approval? like I don't know

what are in the past hasn't the county used deed restrictions in order to handle things like this county can't do deeds unless it's county property so the pre previous company that wanted to go in out at Pleasant View they were planning on selling it and new deeds from the new company were going to be created Yeah.

Now you are not pro protecting the property rights of anybody because they're all in trouble. Now they've got solar panels on their deal and it's like, "Oh, we'll pay you half price of what the other guys were. What are you going to do?" So, it could turn into a mess easier than it could be, right? The commissioners knew who was going to buy it. What would they do to prevent catastrophe? What what what could they control? Ensure the shities are in place and references to see if they've ever operated or ran one of these and if they were a disaster or not. If they bankrupt everything they go to and leave counties in a bind.

So by their history. Yeah. Their history. Yeah. There's got to be there's got to be a way to that's some sort of oversight. Yeah. Oversight. Yeah. And if they can't get a shity that meets the requirement of the shity, then then for sure. Yeah. You're out. How how can uh the commissioners um require that trigger to happen when they want to sell? How what is it that you It's going to be in our land use code regulation and they're going to be bound by it. And if they don't, then they pay the cost. they get to go to district court for the land use code.

So currently the enforcement is that we can take anybody to district court for non-compliance with the land use code. Okay. So it just needs to be oversight. When you get in the legal part that's the county attorney. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know that either. I don't have any issues with putting something like that in. As long as we can. Yeah. Yeah. As long as there's not a case log. That's a bad idea. If I want to sell my house to this guy, I should be able to sell my house to that guy.

Um I'm I'm assuming the process for the uh commissioners is that it goes through legal before it goes to them for their vote. Correct. Doesn't he have to look at it? We see well the commissioners are going to look at it first and see if they like it or don't like it. Yeah. So I mean before they the moratorum runs out in a month. Mhm. 8th. Today's the 11th. It runs out the eighth. Yeah. Let's extend the mortorium. Yeah. We're probably going to have to. There we go. Yeah. And they're not going to be happy. I know. They're going to be pissed. This is because they said they weren't going to.

This is a complicated issue. [Music] That's why I can't write this for you. What? We're not asking you to write it. We're just asking you to format it. Yeah, there you go. I like that. That boy, Jason, just format it. Just format. This is how it would go in other places.

What do you mean format it? Well, just I mean we would I'm just saying like a municipality and this is not a municipality, it's a county would lean on the planner, planning department to make the recommendation of where it fits, what sections, all that kind of stuff. So that's all I'm really asking Don to do is just think it through like where does this actually go and then from there just format it so it fits inside of the current structure of the code. That's That's it. Contentwise, I don't I think you're right. I mean, that's up to us contentwise and then if the commissioners want to poo poo it or sections of it or if they want to add to it. Um,

so that that's probably a misunderstanding I had. I I I was thinking or assuming that that would be after it's approved, then it gets melded in with with what's there with the text that's been approved. Well, I mean, we try to get all usually what by the time it comes to the decision-m body, all that's kind of done. Like, you've told the decision-m body, here's your here's your text amendments, here's where it's going to sit. Um like again that's usually what comes before the before the decision makers. So um

I don't know but we could do it however the county is comfortable doing it. I mean so this will go to the commissioners and then they can make recommendations or send it back or whatever they want to do and at that point it's going to need to be in final draft form so that they can hold a public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. That's still another So they're not voting on it right away. Right. Right. They're just Okay. So we don't have to have it all formatted and all that stuff yet. We're really just This is like first round of hey, do you guys agree with all this? What do you want? And then we'll hopefully the attorney will get to it.

Yeah. They'll have the parts of that that are legal. They'll have to have some input. Okay. I see where we're going. Yeah. Okay. Well, So, I'm assuming the other the other thing we talked about would go as a condition for approval like the other conditions that we've listed, it would be an an additional uh condition uh that the uh if the owner ever owner operator ever decides to sell, it must come before the commissioners for approval based on the requirements that they have for approving it. We don't have to put those requirements in the land use code. Correct. It just needs to come before them and they

they can decide or or they'll come up with the conditions they want to add in there. Correct. We we want to see the insurance. We want to see the bonds. We want to see so and so. Do you think they're going to want some decision criteria spelled out? Sometimes that helps. Right. Right. I'm sure they will. just they can whatever they feel is appropriate and whatever legal feels is appropriate. They'll just list out here's your decision criteria on that particular issue when it comes. So I don't think we need to do that ourselves. I don't have no idea some of that. I'd rather the attorney sort of make some recommendations and

figure that part out. So but we should Yeah. I mean I think we should build that in for him or somebody should. Do you want me to add that condition? Sure. Yeah. Throw it in there. You think they'll like it, right? If it looks bad, change it, but I can. Yeah. That statement. Yeah.

And I think you had no disposal in our landfill, I guess. Oh, man. I don't want to belver this conversation. Um, I mean, don't you already have things in the land or things that aren't allowed to go in the landfill? Why do we need to call that out specifically in code? Cuz if they end up with a some strange hail storm and you lose 10,000 acres of solar panels, Yeah. it's going to take up

we're going to have to build another $8 million sale in our landfill. is are the other things that the dump doesn't allow sorry the landfill I don't want to call it dump the landfill doesn't allow certain things right now right are those things in code specifically or is that just like a policy like we're not that's this is not the land the landfill is its own enterprise zone yeah and they operate on their own they don't operate through the land use code right so that's all I'm that's just the point I'm trying to make is like the landfill would be the one then would decide if they would take the panels, not the land use code. So why do we need to mention that it won't be disposed of here?

Because the commissioners have made that a one of a statement that they requirements. They don't want it in the landfill. Exactly. Isn't there another mechanism to do that? Like don't they have a say over the enterprise? I don't know. Again, like I hate adding I don't like adding text. If it's in the land use code, it lets them know upfront that they're decommissioning better be figured out with more money in it cuz you're not going three miles. You're going 103 miles. That's fine. I mean, I'm not I mean, it's not a hill I want to die on. I'm just saying like I'm not We typically try not to add more text than is necessary.

We're getting 30% of L Plat County's waste now and it's filling up our landfill. I bet it is. Wow. Yep. And we can't say, "Oh, you're out of the county, so you pay double." Yeah. Yeah. I mean, still bring it. I mean, there's a logage. I mean, if if they feel strongly they want that listed, that's cool. I mean, I mean, if if they want to see it, put it in. I mean, well, now the state wants all this special stuff for landfills and nobody can meet it. So, I don't know. Where are you going to have

Well, that's kind of what I was worried about, too, is it's like, well, at some point, is there going to be legislation that they're going to try to force places to take the solar panels? I had to pay a guy probably 30 bucks to bring I don't know, whatever. I mean, that's it's a very small thing that in the scheme of what we're trying to do here, they see they see upfront. Okay, here it is in the code. If if if the hail storm comes or I got to decommission it, now I know I got to take it someplace else. Yeah. Well, and it'll be in the decommissioning plan. Yeah. Yeah.

And and that needs to be understood when they uh did an estimate on the bond. It could be a deterrent, too. You know, very much so. Very much so. Because, you know, if you had to if you had to haul it to freaking say Albuquerque or somewhere, you know, right? And the reason we're getting some of the platas is because bond had closed part of their prop their property. Well, that's why we want that bond to be reassured every five years because again, yeah, you're right that the landfill, let's just say in Albuquerque says we'll take it and now all of a sudden they say no more. Now it's got to go further. Yeah. Need more bond. So I mean it's okay.

I'm good. Yeah. No, I just wanted to throw it out there, especially if they want it. Yeah. No, that's what we're here to do to discuss that. What else do anything else you see that we might be missing? Jason prop. I'm going to take out all the color stuff just that work. Yeah. Oh, the batteries. Okay, the batteries. And I did check. Yes, you're right. But some don't produce the gas that that will older systems did. Yeah. Yeah. And now you got the lithium stuff is you know

the Tesla battery I have a friend who put in a Tesla battery. He has no issues with flammable gases. No on a on a single family. But when you do the multiple you know generation stuff. Yeah. I mean, half of that property, if you're going to do, you know, a large scale, it'll be 10 times as room full of batteries. And I don't know if those will catch fire or not because I don't know if those could be if if there's a choice for that kind of storage in the large commercial generating type. They're now designed to be self-contained so that they lock themselves down and Oh, yeah. But but they still catch fire.

Oh, yeah. They still catch fire. And then the one next to it, you know, hopefully doesn't because whatever. Yeah, they've got Yeah. minimum distance so that they're not all lined up too close and the ones I saw are very close together and I saw one catch on fire and man, they were doing everything possibly to keep the other ones from catching fire and they did. The fire department did stop it at just one, but it burned and burned and burned. They couldn't put it out. No, you got to have those special blankets and all that kind of stuff. Those are super expensive. So, you're going to have to have those with your fire department.

I still like that agricultural part in there. You know, if if if it's going to be zoned voltag, then make it agricultural. Also, put grass underneath it. graze it. The thing is, um, yeah, I know. Gota have water. I'm supposing they're not going to be able to graze it. They're just going to do like what Julie wanted to do. Use the animals to mow and then they're going to go through and then they're going to be off the property. You won't be doing agriculture. You're just going to be bringing in mowers.

That's fine. That's fine. But it's in my estimation you've got animals that are in there feeding off of weeds, grass, whatever. To me, that's it's not agriculture. Well, to me it is. Not if you're just doing a mowing operation. If they if they raised them, if they raised them there, that to me that's agg. But if you're just having them come in to mow, that's not Do I Do I get to claim that my property is agricultural because I hire a herd of goats to come in and eat all the weeds? No, I don't get to zone my my property agricultural because I do. Well, that's a Leslie question. You won't get you won't get an agricultural a tax break. No, you won't. That you won't.

But it solves the problem. And that's what I'm saying is that if you have that commercial solar farm that's just massful of weeds because you got the solar panels up above, you know what I'm saying? Then bring the herd in. Make sure it's maintained. Maybe it's, you know, maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, but don't let those The biggest problem with it is is they call them solar farms. They're not farms. Farms. They're not farms. But if you bring the animals in, make No, they're still not farms. I'm sorry. That's what I'm saying. Just somehow make sure it's maintained.

It's the difference between moving your cows into the national forest for half the year. Same thing. that they do. They do. It's still an agricultural use when they come home for as long as they're there. It's agriculture. I'm not sure what you're using for. Yeah, we could. I guess you can pack out prairie dogs when you shoot them. Can't we? Well, we could put it under maintenance then, right? The the the ground underneath's got to be maintained.

Well, again, it's the county we control stuff at the end. you're then you're excluding certain ge g uh geographical areas because um they can't be maintained that way like if there's a lot of rock or something. You you just there's there's going to be issues or or a high incline property. There's going to be issues with what? Maintaining it. Maintaining the ground. Yeah. [Music] What's the issue? Where are you putting it? The what we It depends on where you're putting it.

I'm not following you. And I'm saying you maintain the ground underneath. Period.

Yeah. What I'm saying is that um we're instead of allowing uh solar wherever someone brings the idea and it's properly permitted, we're going to say nope, we're going to limit the scope to only these that you can um take care of the ground underneath them. And why do they have to take care of the ground underneath? Why not? Why not be able to have a solar farm with no uh agriculture involved and it's just the solar panels and they don't have to worry about maintaining the ground underneath because it's probably not going to grow very well anyway. There are places in this county that will not grow things very well already and then you take away part of the sun part of the day and what's it going to do? Mhm.

I'm just saying if we put those kind of conditions, we kind of narrow the possibilities. Yeah, I disagree. And and I could be wrong. To me, if it's if if again I just don't want to see that that solar farm out there with a bunch of weeds underneath it. I just don't want to see that. Go drive by Tom. Look at their little one that they got up there. That's all it is is weeds that tall. Yeah. You know there get people out there. Whack them. I don't care. Maintain it.

Maintain it. That's as part of your obligation to produce. What do What do we do for our neighbors? Do we require them to maintain their yards? If they put a cellite and they put they put a Well, if they got an acre worth of what the solar panels are going to Yeah. they're going to and you have weed abatement programs in in the with the metro with the Cortez within Dolores the town of Dolores there's weed abatement programs you have to maintain your property so uh I'm going to refer to what I think uh Mr. Haley has referred to in the past and that is if if we're going to do that we better do something about all the junk in the county and we don't we do

they're they're on it we don't oh well I mean you're not getting everyone but they're getting the the only ones they get are the ones that have been doing it for the last 25 years. They've got a couple of those, but that's all. I mean, this county is so full. I mean, unfortunately, bring it to his attention. He'll go and get them. Got like 10 cars sitting in my backyard. You guys did you got those guys on road and you know, the one up on 184, you know, you guys get them. Yeah. They're not getting every one of them, but they're getting them. Slow but surely 17 trailers at Traersville. credit. The first 14 I guess you're okay.

Yeah. Okay. So, where are we going with this? We don't know yet. Okay. You guys also need to vote to see who's going to be the representative. I vote for him. Well, I will be there. Oh, you will? Yeah, I will be there. Yeah. I can't make it and I need So we want somebody else to two of us, right? It's up to It's whatever you It doesn't have to be.

Oh, well come. If you can come. Yeah. If you can make it, make it. That way when they throw questions at us, we have more than one mindset there. I only have half a mind, so I would five. Huh? Five. We have 1.5 people representing. I can't I I as much as I would love to do that, I cannot make it that day. Okay. I looked at my I might be able like I said, I I don't know if my thought process is that good yet.

Yeah. 1:30 in the afternoon's not okay. What else is that? It done. We got more. No, that's all I got. Do we have orders? I mean marching orders or not? Weird. Weird. Sounds like we're going to look up the legislation. Make sure about that one acre. About that about that. Yeah, we're going to add we're going to add just a little bit about the ownership ownership section. Definitely. And then I think and then do it by Tuesday. Yeah. And so that it can be sent out by Thursday. and then we'll just put it on the hands of

commission and make sure we leave that um that um a part of the commissioners having oversight. Yep. Especially if they want to see it. Yeah. Give it to them. Give it to them. Let them decide what they want. And if they kick it back to us, then maybe we do need to have them extend the moratorum. But maybe they'll be direct enough and be like, "Nope, yes, yes." And we'll just be done. So, be done with it. Well, it depends on I don't know what before when we did the land use code change, it was a 30-day notice, but I don't know what it has to be.

Yeah. Isn't that in your procedures somewhere? Oh, it just says a minimum of one public hearing. Oh, okay. Yeah. So, generally we like to advertise it two weeks in a row. Yeah. But I don't know what the absolute minimum is and it's going to depend on what the commissioners want. Yeah, absolutely. Like last time they were Yeah. said to do one thing and we did that and then they went off and did totally different

went up the river and one acre lots and it was a train wreck. Yeah. So the if once we give it to the commissioners and they digest it, give it back to us, then it becomes its true form, does the public get to see it? So yeah, it'll be a public hearing. It has to be a public hearing. But how do they get to read it? So at that point, I will have to go into our land use code and Okay. So it'll be where put it in there where and how it would read. Okay. Yeah. And then that's when the public notice goes out to the public so they know what to expect they're talking about. And then if they want to come comment.

Yeah. Cuz I mean if they if they like it then they won't have to go just a little bit. Maybe like a couple weeks. Yeah. Or a couple weeks. Maybe a couple more months. I told him I said you know this summer people have been gone. Can't really get get it too hammered out when everybody's got a hundred things going on and people are in and out. Yeah, I think we're pretty good. Okay, we're good. Motion to adjourn. Second. Who did the first? Okay. Second by Mr. Lynch. Sure.

Armstrong. Me. And the time was 8:10. Armstrong. Okay. Okay. Oh man. Go home.

Yeah. I think Wiser's just down here doing his road show for