Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

meeting of the Planning Commission to order. It's Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. I've asked member Taylor to offer a word of prayer and afterwards, if you'd all rise with us with us and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Father in heaven, we're grateful to live in this great nation in a beautiful place. Privileged to do so. Grateful for check the participation in these meetings. We ask that bless us that we will be able to make good decisions. Be open to input. And we ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'd like to welcome everyone here. We really enjoy it when we have company. Sometimes it gets kind of lonely. Um Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Have a motion by member Wilson. Second. And a second by member Maloney. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Declaration of conflicts of interest. Anyone on the commission have a conflict with any agenda item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on. The next is public comment. If you notice on our agenda, we have two administrative items. These items do not have a separate public hearing. So, if you wish to address the commission on item number six, the Meadowbrook subdivision, or number seven, WPR Mountain Villa plat, now would be the time for you to address the commission. If you wish to make comments on the legislative items eight and nine, we will have separate public hearing for each of those items. So, if you'd like to come up to the mic and please state your name. And you're limited to 3 minutes on your comments. So, if you could keep it short, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. Uh all right. So, my name is Anthony Dorsey. I live in Whittier Estates. Just wanted to make a couple uh brief comments. This is about the Meadowbrook phase two development. Um just wanted to start by saying I've I was hesitant to come and say anything because I have a friendship with the developer and and fully respect his uh right to be able to develop that parcel of land and and even support that. I just have some issues with the current design. I wanted to express I had a chance to share that with the developer already as well. I just figured I'd put that out in the the public now as well. So, um my my concern is more about like a specific

engineering concern and it has to do with having a three-lot design and with drainage. Um and I think it can be resolved, at least this is just my suggestion, you know, I'd love for the developer and the county to consider is to change the proposed plat map from three lots to two. Uh in my opinion, this would address several concerns from the community and uh several people in the area. Um the the lot above the parcel that's being developed has some some um geological questions because of having a third lot and then my issue though is specifically around drainage as I mentioned. So, just in clear plain terms so everybody's aware, here's kind of the situation for myself. So, my house sits at the bottom of this corner parcel that's being developed. Everything slopes down towards my house towards the north. Um and as I'm sure everybody is aware, Whittier Estates has a very high ground water situation in addition to the significant amount of surface water that exists. So, to give you an idea, I have three sump pumps that run year round because of the high ground water and because of the amount of surface drainage that all come towards my house at the moment. In fact, I've spent thousands of dollars breaking up my basement floor, putting in a drain field that directs all of the water towards these sump pumps. And then it has nowhere to go. I can't pump it into my backyard, so I actually ran sump pump lines up the front of my house out to the curb. I can't pump it straight into the curb. The county won't allow that and wouldn't want to see water constantly pumping cuz it run constantly. So, I ran it all the way down to the end other end of my neighborhood where the only storm drain exists. There isn't another storm drain at the top of the neighborhood that goes up the hill towards this parcel. That's also an issue from the previous developer of Whittier Estates. They neglected to do that. It was something that was overlooked. So, I'm actually pumping water and trying to mitigate water by putting it further down in the neighborhood. The only other storm drain

is actually above this parcel land higher. So, you can't really get to those either, right? Water doesn't drain uphill. So, all of that water's just kind of being directed towards my home at the moment and the I hadn't seen the proposed plan until yesterday, but the proposed proposed drainage and water mitigation plan is to dig detention areas. Basically, just dig a hole in the ground for each one. So, after you add houses with roofs, uh driveways, hardscape, all of that creates significantly more [clears throat] surface water. The current plan is to collect those in holes in the ground that are above my house and let them drain into the ground and just go straight at the foundation of my home. So, that doesn't solve the current drainage issue. It will take my existing issue and exacerbate it, make it much worse. On the map, one of the proposed detention areas that's in the corner for the lot exactly adjacent to my next to mine is actually an existing low spot where I've had to put a trash pump in the field to pump water out of the field into the street just to get away from my house. And so, the current plan says, "Let's make that worse. Collect all the water in that area and just let it sit." So, I I I don't have no idea what to say with that but that plan doesn't work. And I also don't think it actually meets code for what Morgan requires in terms of um drainage. So again, I I think you could solve that by, you know, doing two lots instead of three because those two lots would look exactly like mine. You could grade them so that they slope towards the curb exactly like my lot and the three lots like uh right next to mine. Kind of long skinnier lots. So, instead of having one long skinny one next to me and then two that face the opposite direction where everything then flows towards me, you could slope it appropriately towards the curb and actually have it drain properly that way. Um Morgan County code, I tried to look this up but you know, there's um

some specifics that would So, if you have to have some sort of some sort of discharge plan, you also have to have something that mitigates any potential harmful impacts. So, section 155.141 requires that uh they demonstrate mitigation of potential harmful impact. That's spelled out those calculations, which I haven't seen. Maybe they exist. Uh I believe this plat can't be approved tonight unless there's some sort of adequate drainage plan that doesn't appear to be present here. So, that's my concern. Um the developer has expressed an interest in trying to to do something different with drainage, which I think is good, but I don't think you can legally approve the plat until we actually address that. I know. So, same time, yeah. You're good. Sounds good. So, I just wanted to say that, you know, I support the effort to develop it. I don't have an issue with that, just the the drainage I would like addressed and I that's my suggestion. Thank you. Hello. Uh my name is Jordan Curtis. I live right up the hill from this planned subdivision. Um I'll echo pretty much everything that Anthony said. I have no problem with that area being developed. I think that should be uh the owner's right. The third lot um forces a house to be built right at the base of my hill. And the hill that that I have um at the top of it has a pool that has already had a little bit of shifting and cracks. Uh I'm I'm very concerned that movement at the bottom of that hill and it and it looks like it has to be just tucked right up against the property there um will have some pretty big effects on my property. Um That's really all I have to add. Everything else that Anthony said that I I agree with. I just can't Thank you. Thank you.

Last call. I see none, we'll move on. And item number six, this is the Meadowbrook subdivision plat subdivision phase two small subdivision preliminary and final plat. Goodness, goodness, goodness. First time doing one of these, so please be patient. [laughter]

And please. Um Chris Tremaine, I I serve as the code enforcement officer, but filling in for planning department tonight due to a surgery and a graduation, which both of those needed to be two. So, um just going to start off. Um we're here for the Metalbrook subdivision phase two small subdivision preliminary and final plat. Applicant owner, Brent Bowman. Project location approximately west of the intersection of North Thurston Drive and West 3725 North in uninc- unincorporated Morton County. Parcel number um 1-3258, just to make it short. Excuse me. 00-001-3258. Current zoning residential R120. The request is for preliminary and final plat approval of the Metalbrook subdivision phase two small subdivision for the creation of three lots. Attorney guidance administered this is for administration administrative review. The sole issue in land use administration is whether the application complies with county ordinances. If it does, as you all know, it must be approved. Um some of the discussions um recommendation county staff has reviewed the application for preliminary and final plats for the Metalbrook phase two small subdivision. Staff is hereby recommending approval of the requested preliminary and final plat based on the following findings and with conditions listed below. I just saw my I just saw Jesse passing out some information. Um the of some of the information that we've received in the last 48 hours, we

wanted to make sure that those were presented to the commission. Um to be put into the record. But some of the findings are that the subdivision is in conformance with current land uses of the area. That the proposal complies with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. Number three, that the proposal is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Some of the conditions that are already in place are that all outsourced consultant fees are paid current prior to final plat recordation. Two, that all other local, state, and federal laws laws are adhered to. Three, that the county engineer, surveyor, and fire services comments are all addressed. And number four, that the plat drawings shall be revised to prohibit basements due to high groundwater conditions that the detention areas are provided for in each lot. Some of the project description. Um the rezone we all know um took place March 1st, 2022. Uh it's a 10.17 acre portion which was fully rezoned at that time to R120. This is the area that the applicant is proposing to subside into three lots. The remaining 18.14 acres were left with a preexisting split zoning meeting that portion of the property retains both R120 and A20 designations.

[snorts]

Um want to skip ahead to um some of the I'm just going to be expressing some of the concerns. Right now I'm on page four. Um grading and drainage grading and drainage plan may be combined combined with the plat sheet if approved by the county engineer. I have been on the phone with the county engineer, county geologist um today addressing some of the concerns that the public had. And actually the engineer agreed with a few people and we we we made some ideas for some different conditions that can be placed upon the plat for your recommendation tonight. Um but there's a one of the concerns was a geo the geo uh history. Um it has received a geo waiver. Um but please know that one of the conditions um in the plat is that they could not build into the hill there. It is to be non-disturbed. Um I'm going to be switching over to um as as we already mentioned, one of the conditions is basements not allowed. The engineer as reading that felt like it could be a little firmer. Um and wanted to make a comment that um I this is his words, Mark Miller, Count Morton County Engineer. I noticed that the note regarding no basements is not strong enough. I strongly recommend slab-on-grade homes because of the groundwater issues evident from the homes in the neighboring community of Whittier Estates. Okay. Um

it it just kind of left a door open for, you know, walk-out basements, which is not going to be um of concern um with that condition that is being that could if you wanted to to be placed upon it. Some of the other engineered comments the plans show that the hillside cannot be disturbed. The buildable area is designated away from the hillside. Uh some of the other notations, any subdivision approval needs to be conditioned upon the construction drawing approval. Which talking with um the chair um prior um I we already have that documented. She does. Um Our ordinance does require that the developer to detain all new runoff water to ensure no additional drainage water flows from a developed lot. The detention needs to be sufficient to prohibit drainage releases to be equal to what they were on the undeveloped ground. I do not believe that the note on the plat about this issue is sufficient and I am waiting for the construction drawings so that we can do a thorough analysis. Which the drainage issues could be determined with the construction drawings. Okay?

[snorts]

Um Right now um the drain pipes are only sized for a 10-year storm event, which um is there and the streets serve as drainage channels for higher intensity storms. One of the concerns was about septic systems and the health department has jurisdiction over those issues. So, it's not the county. Um but we do communicate with them. Um One of the issues that was brought up was concerning the zoning and they wanted it to be in involved in the Whittier Estates project, which um could not uh happen regardless, but the zoning of the property is R120 and allows for 20,000 square foot lots. The roads into and out of Whittier Estates are public right-of-ways and the county will continue to maintain those roads. As they are public roads, all public traffic is allowed to continue to use and this pertains to future development along the connecting streets. Subdivisions according to our code are required to provide connectivity to adjacent properties to facilitate and handle future growth. So, I do believe you've got all those copies, Madam Chair. Um So, there's a couple recommendations that we could make um tonight that is put in front of you. There's one, the recommended motion for approval that you could make as is. A recommended motion for approval with conditions. Um please note as you're if you were to make a recommendation in that section, that you would please change one notation in there and it says

allowing for a one lot subdivision, it would be allowing for a three lot subdivision. Um some of the condition ideas that you might want to place upon it if you felt like that was uh required would be that it's only approved with the condition of a construction drawing approval. A no walk-out basements. And slab-on-grade homes. Okay? Those are just different ideas that you might be able to follow upon with yourself. But um Jesse, could [clears throat] you scroll down to page um page 11, please. It takes us to the vicinity map. So this is this is approximately the location of the subject property. Um as most people in in the um the public would be aware of. So I'm going to skip. Um this is this is the layout um which I already I've heard a a few mentioning um that they're already aware of it. Uh with the detention basins uh within. There are some different ideas that I've even heard the property owner um talking about. Um there's different ideas that he would be able to bore underneath um one of the right-of-ways uh to be able to put it upon another place which he owns into the next phase. Go ahead and go to the next. Okay. And I would like to give the opportunity I do believe that the applicant's engineer's here if he would like to say anything. I'll leave that up to him.

Okay. If you would like to. Okay. What's your name? Jess. Okay. Most of you know me I'm Jess Mountain Engineering. Uh we did do a grading and drainage plan um for the subdivision that that looks like it's not included in the packet here. So we've addressed some of those some of those issues um [clears throat]

you know we do have some ideas about how to take care of the the uh the drainage issue there. Especially right at the corner of uh gentleman's house there. So um the that stuff can be reviewed by Mark Miller. Maybe hasn't had a chance to get to or what but um but that stuff is available and we'll work with him to get to get all these uh minor issues taken care of. So Thank you. Thank you Jess. Um is there anything else that the commission would need answered or Do you have any more questions for staff?

[clears throat]

I had a couple of ones Chris. I'm just curious out of curiosity how how much when you figure a 10-year band how how many gallons how big are these retention basins you're requiring to be built? How do they figure that? I'm not even going to take a guess but I know when the water's high enough That'd probably be a question for Jess, right? Jess might be able to You can come on up Jess. Have you done a storm water study yet on it or So basically a 10-year uh event you know 10-year recurrence interval we would take a certain volume of water um whether that's uh I probably do a 1-hour storm what you know and that's probably an inch and 3/4 of water. So so that falling over the surface we would plan on detaining that amount of water. And usually we just look at the additional hard surface to size those uh those detention areas. And I think we came up with it's like 1,100 cubic feet per per lot uh taking into account the house and the uh the driveway. And so that that's how we kind of size those little detention areas on the lots. The we haven't done the street in this case because it's already built and uh it it goes it goes towards Whittier Estates the the existing street. So Anything else?

Is that Do you have all the all the questions? What's your release rate? Uh the release rate depends on the acreage. So you know we per acre per acre 0.2 CFS is usually the maximum. Um so in this case we don't have you know ponds and the you know like we do in a bigger development with ponds and outlet structures and and whatnot. We're just providing the the you know the individual areas on the lots that the code requires. Um so so that so what happens is we are allowed a certain amount of discharge and we usually restrict that to 0.2 CFS. So anything in addition to that gets gets detained. But in this case we're just provide we don't have an outlet really we're just providing that storage on the lot to to account for the additional hard surface um you know on the property. It's not it's not perfect but it's it's kind of it's what we can do. But we're not taking into account any subsurface water at this point. So if we dig a detention basin do we know what elevation the ground water's at? Are we going to be into ground water naturally? We wouldn't be into ground water um [clears throat] these they're not not so much as as holes in the ground as as what we want to see is just a a low area where the water you know ponds when we get a you know a a large thunderstorm. Um so so these are not you know we're like to see these not more than 2 ft deep um you know and with the fill it's brought in around the homes

we wouldn't have a situation where we've got a you know a hole in the ground. In fact it if it's if it's done properly really wouldn't even recognize it as being a a detention area. So It doesn't take a it doesn't take a very big area you know a foot deep to to account for the for the cubic footage that we need. So when you have a 12-year event or a 13-year event 14-year event or anything else other than a 10-year event where does that water go? Uh where it would naturally overflow to. But you're concentrating it though. Right? You're making it go towards this pond. Like you're gathering everything and it's going to go to this little pond area. So it's no longer going to flow naturally. It's going to have a concentrated point of release. Yeah it's it's going to release wherever wherever it overflows. Um you know we can't you know any situation where everything's been developed we can't really um you know we can't account for for absolutely any situation. I I guess the question is is it going to make its way to the road or is it going to make its way to the neighbors? It's it's going to make make its way depending on how they grade the property. Who grades the property? The neighbors or these three the builder of these three lots these three lots Um so yeah it the the answer is it goes either to the street um into our drainage areas or if it overflows that way it goes goes downhill. So is there a way to design these so

that it anything that's in excess of the capacity of the pond that you're going to make there makes its way to the street and not the neighbors? Yeah we we could we can design these so that so that they overflow to the street. We can do that with our our Is there a way to incorporate that cuz a lot of this is dependent on what the house I mean you guys showed a house on each of these lots to these weird but is there a way to incorporate that design into the subdivision itself so that there's a berm or something that would stop any runoff from going onto the neighbors that was in excess of the capacity of the pond? Right. If we if we

Yeah rather than leaving it up to the builder. Right. If we added the requirement for a berm or something to that effect then then we could But that's doable with what you see on the grading of the site? Yeah. Yeah I think I think we could accommodate that. I'm sure. stay something so there's no possible way it can go beyond that that berm. Right. It has to go to the street. Or or whatever we can come up with there to to ensure that it doesn't go where it's not supposed to. What would that be if not a berm that just Um if we don't have a berm to get it up up to the street height we would go with the culvert. I think we could possibly get a culvert under the existing road. Um just to get that storm water to the other side of the of the street at least. So then you would have an overflow place and a release. Yeah, so so in that case we would have a ponding area, you know, a detention area. And then we would have the overflow going either up to the street level or probably what would work better is if we just do a culvert under the street to get it to the other side. Um and that way that way when it reaches a certain depth it'll it'll flow across the street through the pipe rather than in the ground. So part of the concerns that I've heard is and I I don't know whether we're No, we don't take comments. Um part of the concern that I read about or heard is that if we're just allowing this to stay in pond and percolate down into the ground water that it's going to exacerbate the problem that the neighbors have or at

least that neighbor has. So is there a way to just and I don't know what the county code is uh for required drainage of pond that has to show that it perks out in 36 hours, 72 hours, 48 hours. I don't know what that is. Is there a way to Is there a way to show that we could actually release it somewhere else and you know, so all you're doing is attenuating the peak and then you're allowing it to release and getting it out of that [clears throat] little local area. Um We we can do a Would that be the culvert that you're talking about? Um you know, sometimes we have we put it put a you know, a box there so it overflows and then and then it's it's kind of uh restricted to a certain flow rate um going out. Yeah. I don't know if that answers your question. I do think we can come up with something. Are you the You're the applicant? You're just itching to You look like you're itching to say something.

[laughter]

We'll get him up here when we're done. Okay. Over to Brent here. We'll make sure we're done asking staff questions and then we can bring the applicant up. I have a series of questions for staff. Thank you. So [clears throat] I I made a and I got all the emails to everybody did. Yep. Um I made a list of things and then I went and looked Okay. and took a look at things. Um just I think you've addressed some of these. I just want to hit a couple of the points. Um one of the issues brought up was driveway safety and slope coming on on and off. I didn't see it the same way but I understand what they were thinking. Water runoff and drainage that's clearly an issue. The ground water piece and septic and other things I know the health department has it but do you have anything perk tested in any way yet? So the those that that uh the perk tests um are done after this. Okay, so So so we don't know Correct. exclusively what the ground water piece is.

And that you know, um some of the comments from uh you know, Commissioner Taylor some of those items in there would be able to uh resolve that. Okay. We're not getting close to the hill so the geological stability issue but we're relying on the fact that anything we do down there in the bottom is not going to impact geological stability.

Yeah, the no builds. The engineer looked at that. Yes, our engineer and geologist Right at that. Yep. As it says in here they had some issues that were being addressed but we don't get to see the issues so They um anytime, you know, the comment is mentioned that they adhere to their comments. Um that was one of their comments to us is um the no build into the hill. Okay. And you did it does fit lot conformity so we don't have have that issue. So we're back to the ground water and drainage. Thank you. Uh on your no build buildable envelope no build, I can't remember how it was labeled. It's on the other page but I can't look at my iPad. It's on the other page in the packet. Yep. Or this I think. I do know I do know that uh I've I've been getting very familiar with no builds especially up in many other subdivisions um in the Highlands and different things. No build is no build. No build is no swimming pools. No build is no um landscaping, no sprinkling systems. What if Okay, it says non-buildable area. No, it is You said it differently. You said non-disturbance area.

Non-disturbance. Oh. Is not non-buildable area defined in our code that says you can't cut into it and put a retaining wall or you can't There are things that Does it define what you can and can't do on a non-buildable area or is no disturbance What's the What's the best way to label that? Um I would probably put the non-disturbance area. Um I believe that that would be an appropriate measure that could be placed on non-disturbance of that lot site. I feel pretty safe that the engineer and geologist would be very safe or satisfied in having me say that. Yeah, it just wasn't clear to me what non-buildable means. Yeah, just the house moving the the home that's being built there is out of that particular area.

That's what I think it means. Yeah, that's not what you said and I think I tend to agree with what you said which was non-disturbance versus non-buildable. I I do believe that somebody had mentioned a swimming pool that was put uh very near um to that non-buildable area. Um you know, and and that would be that would be a clear violation and that's that's part of why code enforcement is uh around to be able to maintain to those things. And if you're here in the public, I'm sorry. Chris, have you looked at Tony Dorsett's problems at all? Have you Um yes, his was one of the emails that came in. Um I again, I've I've really tried and I I sat down with um Yeah, it's uh When it got

What's your opinion on it? What do you think? What's your opinion on how that would affect him? Um you know, looking looking at it and hearing what the engineer um made statements of that they could put a um you know, a a route going underneath the road to put it to the other side which would take it away from um the subdivision of concern um I think is is an appropriate appropriate item to be concerned with and I I feel like that answers that particular question. Would that mitigate his problems with water? I don't know. I'm not going to claim to be an engineer, nowhere close. Um but I just heard that engineer um who has that um make that statement. And I do believe by addressing that in a condition um that our engineers could take a closer look at that and make sure that that is feasible. That's why there's two parties working together and not just one to make it go through.

[clears throat] So there is something here that I just trying to read the information and and look at this with the stuff that we're getting right here. Some is really bothering me a little bit and it's mostly lot 15. So I know that uh septic is not really in the purview of the county. It's with the health department.

Yes. However looking at that, there are certain uh codes from the state that a septic system would be required to follow and there's a couple of them here that I'm really questioning specifically with lot 15. Um going back to the the ground water issue, he it sounds like he's got a basement um Mr. Dorsett does. And I do believe that there was no basements allowed in that in that subdivision.

And that's kind of that's kind of why they're going through what they're going through is lessons learned from the previous That's that's fair and I appreciate that but just doing some extrapolation say, you know, somebody goes out there with a backhoe, does a test pit, they find water at 5 ft or 6 ft um there's going to be heavy restrictions on a septic system. Where's that drain field going to go on lot 15? And if it goes on lot 15, is that going to hit even close to the ground water because you have to maintain 4 ft of distance between ground water and bottom of septic. So there's just a lot of hurdles that somebody is going to have to go through to even consider building on lot 15. I I wouldn't disagree with that. Um that is also one of the things that, you know, is left up to the engineers uh to be able to find out. And if they're not able to meet code from the health department, then they won't be able to build upon it. And and and I do know that that's going to be one of the things that I'm going to be stuck with. Um it's code enforcement, right? Um and I think after communicating with the property owner, um he is aware that um he it's something we will be continuing to be communicate about for the next little while, especially while they're building it. And that's why I like the clarity of slab on grade. Um there's you won't be digging down. And, you know, I I've heard stories from the previous building official who uh actually it wasn't him, but he heard it from the one before, that they said no basements, but yet people are digging down. And it just didn't make any sense. I don't let that happen. I hear about it, I get them a letter, I take no stop I take stop work orders out, I follow the ordinance, and it's

done that way. Um you don't get to continue. And that is that's one of the things I don't like to be a babysitter with it. We have an amazing building official now who is who is out doing amazing things, and we work great together as a team and communicating daily about different things going on in the county. So, thank you for bringing that up, though. Thank you, Chris. Honestly, it's it's not something that I would deny this for, but it's just going to be a big big ask. So. I understand. Any more questions? Staff? Before we get the applicant. Can you explain to me, do you know the plan that Brent has to run the water away from those properties? Um I had uh called him into the office earlier uh to make him aware of several um not to divulge the contact information um from the letters. I do believe that that is not within my scope. Um but I did go over some of the concerns. He came in. He did mention some of the culvert dig out and go under the right-of-way, put a you know, put a line in and to the other side of the street so it it goes somewhere else and not toward those property owners of concern. So, I did appreciate that. I did ask Brent earlier if, you know, he wanted to speak. Um he actually said not unless I absolutely have to. Um I do believe that a lot of the things that he had talked to me about we've covered. Um so, unless he absolutely wants to talk, he might just stay sitting down. There you go.

Brent, just state your name so we have it on record. Before Whittier Estates went in, my family farmed that ground for 40 years. We leased it after Frank Whittier died, and I was familiar with it. And I worked with the developer. I mean, it wouldn't be there if I didn't let them put a road across it. And when I saw that people were digging basements out, I'm the one that came to the county and said not a good idea. But it happened. I didn't create the problem. The people that put the basements in Whittier Estates created the problem. To be clear, the issue that we're addressing with water is not a surface drainage issue. It's a ground water issue, okay? Now, they built those homes. This is my battle grass field. I flow irrigated When I started flow irrigating it, they started complaining that I was flooding their basement.

[clears throat]

Which is really their problem, it's not my problem. We flow irrigated that field for over 100 years. But I asked the people that are managing my property to do it as least as they can to get the crops off of it. So, whatever we do here as far as surface water, yeah, right now if if ground flows in with rain, the water's going to flood right here. It's a touch screen. Anthony's right there. [laughter] Okay? Now, I can help Anthony a little bit by boring under this road and putting the pipe along here where each person in each lot can have a low spot that drains to that pipe that goes under the road. That might help Anthony a little bit, but it's not going to help this guy. Because it's a ground water issue. And this little less than 3 acres isn't creating the ground water issue that the 300 acres around here in the river created. It's insignificant. There is a way to help solve the problem, but the Weber Morgan Health Department Because I just helped solve that problem. Wanted to put five lots along here and then sell all the way to the slough here that field and then put them on our pressurized secondary water system so I'm not flow irrigating it and I'm not putting all that water and drains in the ground water, but the Weber Morgan Health Department has a little rule. It's very vague, and it's going to be an argument. So, everybody here that's worried about ground water might want to help me solve this. I want to build this up from this pipeline over here and put five lots there and get rid of the flow irrigation next to Whittier

Estates. But that's something for the future. Right now, all I can do is put three lots there and I can put a culvert in, I can bore under there, get the water on the other side of the road. I can do no more than that now. I didn't create the problem. I shouldn't be the one burdened by the problem, but I'll do some measures to help solve the problem. Thank you. You Anyone have any Just a minute, Brent. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? I I have a question cuz I'm not familiar with it, Brent. What is below when when you run the water out to the street, where would it Where does it go? Um to the street? I'm not sure what you're asking. Well, you said you were going to run low spot to the street. And if they hadn't built this road and elevated it not as high as it is, the water would keep flowing out across the battle grass field. There was actually an irrigation ditch that came along here that we were irrigating from that the developers put in. The water would just flood this way and dissipate in the ground. You know, if the river's high, the ground water's high. You can't solve it completely. There should never been basements in Whittier Estates. I have no problem with the condition that says slab on grade. And as far as uh to your comment, Yeah. You were talking about lot 15? But there's I understand that, but there's just no space based upon what I'm seeing, and it's really small in front of me. So, maybe I'm not seeing something that would answer my question, but it just doesn't look like there's any space for septic and a secondary if it fails, and the ground water's going to be it can change. I get that between lots.

But often times it's fairly consistent in that size of an area. So, if somebody does a test pit out there, and maybe you know, having farmed it for 40 years, what the ground water looks like. I mean, are we talking 3 ft feet, 4 ft, 10 ft? This road here is elevated Elevation shift the road actually closed the problem when they did it. So, if when I dug a test hole here about here, I get ground water at about 6 ft. Okay. When I dug here, I never hit ground water. I dug about 10 ft. And here again, I get it to about 6 ft. Okay, so it's fairly consistent. A little bit higher on lot 15, which is better for that lot, worse for the other lots, but 6 ft only leaves a couple of feet for percolation before you hit ground water. Um that may be an issue just just for you in the future just so you know. Yeah, the health department. Weber Morgan Health Department, the type of septic system And it's not their code, it's state code. So, you'll have to abide by that, and whoever buys those lots would have to abide by that. So, it's just one of those things that they would need to know that there is a risk there.

But under the state code, local health departments can make stricter requirements. They can make stricter, but not Done some with Wever Morgan. Yes, they have. But yes, I'm aware of that that would all have to be complied. I have a question. For preliminary, you need to submit a a verification of approval from Wever Morgan Health. Has Was that submitted? Did they submit? The report says you have it. The Well, the question was asked if you've done the perk test and the question answer was no. were done. That's what I thought. That's what I'm asking you.

They've been done. Yes. And feasibility and all that done. That was my question. No, I don't need to see it. Just someone said that the perk tests weren't done, so I was want to make sure that they were done and you had we had that letter. Thank you. So, any more questions? Act with staff. No, we are ready we can discuss. You had any questions? The discussion among No, I think there's going to be a few conditions. Added conditions. There was a comment made that there is already something about a culvert somewhere on a map. Yeah. Is it It says in there yeah, a culvert. Is We know. That's We're good. Kind of want to review some of maybe the added conditions that were brought up. The construction drawing approval. No walkout basements, no basements including walkouts and slab on grade homes only. What were the others? Um non-disturbance, It would be called a non-disturbance area. Yep.

[snorts]

Mr. Attorney, you okay on the detention? Or do you Do we need a condition? The applicant can come forward. I don't I don't know anything about a crack either or not, but whatever the issues are um that if you put a house there as non-disturbance should be non-excavation, I guess is my point. But if if the person that bought that lot wanted to put cuz it's elevated from the road 10 15 ft of fill material against that hill, that would help stabilize. It's a disturbance, but it would make it more stable. What you don't want to do if you have something slipping is digging into it. But adding material to it puts weight against it and helps it. So, how you define that is my issue. Maybe Chris Do you have Chris Do you have an opinion on the verbage there? As the code enforcer. On non-disturbance and specifically speaking of a subdivision up Trappers Loop area um non-disturbance is non-disturbance. You can up to it, but you can't go into it. You can't cut into it. Uh we we had it pretty specific. Um they did have it on the building plans as a non-disturbance line.

Um and there's literally a a foundation um like inches from it, right? It's gutsy to me, but I'm not the one building it. And it meets all geological hazards um you know, the uh geotechnical engineers and that they it's pretty amazing what they can do nowadays. Um building building homes right up to non-disturbance lines or fault lines or whatever it is. That's that's part of their That's part of their game, not our interpretation. If I were building on lot 15, I'd be worried about the slippage that exists above me. That already exists above me. So, something like no digging but reasonable efforts to stabilize the neighboring hillside would make sense. Non-disturbance doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I get what Chris is saying. At some point, it's just a risk you're taking. It's a ticking time bomb potentially. Like it could slip at any moment, but that's why geo studies are done and slope studies are done to to verify and there's all sorts of things you can do to a hillside, but just drives up cost. Yeah, and and if I understand one of the emails correctly, I'm certain the geological study was done, but the the hill above is still slipping. So, I think we've got an issue. But I think we say no disturbance, we prevent the stabilization future stabilization of that hillside and I'm not sure that's wise.

Might be an opportunity to put it to back to the professionals. Um uh the geological engineers and different things if if if there's a preventative measure that needs to take place, that it's put onto them to find those standards and then it's reviewed by the Morgan County engineer and the geologist. simple condition that's possible. Instead of the statement of absolute non. I don't know what legal might say on that. I think if the concern is by using the term non-disturbance, there can't be any future stabilization, I think you can articulate that. Like non-disturbance except for stabilization in the future. I'd be okay with that. I suppose she's speaking the big bucks. I've been hurt here. Okay, any more discussion? So, [snorts] I'm curious still, Debbie. I mean, if it goes across the road, it would just go out into the field. That's where it goes. It Yeah, in in rain. Well, Brian, you'll need to come up and speak into the mic [clears throat] so recording can pick it up. All the drains are there, but there's a slough to the east and water eventually makes it to that slope and then it actually goes south through the lots of Whittier Estates and out to the

river. Thank you. Okay, if there's no more discussion, I'm ready for a motion. I'll make a motion. Can we bring the motions up? Triple duty right now. Okay. Uh I move we approve the Meadow Brook subdivision phase two application number 25.061 allowing for a three-lot subdivision located approximately west west of the intersection of North Thurston Drive and West 3725 North in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated April 23rd, 2026 and with the following additional conditions that areas labeled non-buildable on the plat will be labeled non-buildable and non-disturbance except for stabilization effort efforts with the concurrence of the county geologist. Number two, that no basements including walkout basements will be allowed. Only slab-on-grade homes. Construction drawings.

And approval of construction drawings. Okay, I have a motion by member Taylor. Do I have a second?

Second. Second by member King. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried unanimous. We'll move on to the next item. This is WPR Mountain Villa plat amendment number two. Thank you. Um we've got as stated WPR Mountain Villa uh plant plat amendment number two. Owner Wasatch Peaks Ranch LLC. Um parcel number 00-0094-0174 and 00-0093-0461. Current zoning is resort special district. And the request is simply to adjust the limited common areas around the previously platted and recorded uh 12 townhome units. Um administrative review is the sole issue in land use administration. Uh we all we know that. Um but we do have the applicant here. Um if you do have any questions, um but the staff does recommend approval. Can we scroll to that? I'll park. It's right [clears throat] before the maps. It's right before the You want to see the maps, too? Yeah. Okay, page 17.

Any questions for staff or the applicant? [laughter]

If there's no questions or discussion, I'll be ready for a motion on this one. You bring the motion up. Bring the motion up. [clears throat]

Page 13. Yeah, page 13. Madam Chair, I move we recommend approval to the county commission of WPR Mountain Villa plat amendment number two, application number 26.003 to adjust the limited common area of the subdivision based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated April 23rd, 2026. I have a motion by member Watt. Do I have a second? Second. Second by member Wilson. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried unanimous. Okay. Next item is a side yard setback code text amendment, our first legislative item. Uh yes, uh thank you uh once again. Um just here to um seek for a text amendment for side side yard setbacks code text amendment application 26.012, request for approval of a text amendment to the Morgan County code to amend the side yard requirements in residential and multiple family residential districts. Um this very very simply, uh currently the provision requiring that in no case shall the total width of the two side yards be less than the height of the building has never been enforced. Other proposed strike-throughs are displayed in the proposed text section of this amendment. The proposed change removes language and standards outlined in 155-111 yard regulations to establish a clear

and consistent setback requirement. This revision ensures reasonable expectations for lot owners, application of the code, and supports fair and defensible administration by county staff, namely me and the building official. Um just to keep that simple. So, we've got some of the listings above, um but the strike-through would be um except that in except that in no case shall the total width of the two yards are setback two side yards be less than the height of the building. Um that's impossible to enforce and has never been enforced. Other main buildings shall have a minimum side yard in feet of and [snorts] uh council member excuse me, commission chair Sessions and I have had a deep discussion about this. I I don't know why Josh is striking that one. I it in these residential zones, there's not many other main uses of buildings, but you could have a school. Would you want a setback? You could also build an ag barn because agriculture is allowed in the R120. So, I think you would want a setback. So, I I don't know why this was why he put the strike through it.

This would be a non-dwelling building, though. This would not be an ADU. This would be like an non-dwelling. Right. It talks about the accessory Yeah. or have the setback, but this is just a non-dwelling main building. Like a barn. That's a good point. And as we've as we've been discussing, regardless, it would be 10 ft. Um no matter what was going to be put in there, regardless, it would be 10 under under our code. See. And so what do you think? I I ask the attorney. So, Chris, when you say that, are you saying that even other buildings would fall under the min- minimum side yard in feet for any dwelling? Yes. So, why don't we just add minimum side yard in feet for any dwelling or yeah. Or dwelling or main building. Okay. There. We were searching

understand the main building. I don't even understand that word. Exactly. I don't either. And that's part of the confucius uh part of even just getting rid of it. So, that is what what is main building? Like like main use, I I'm assuming. I don't know. I don't know. Let's Google it. It is. So, we're just going to say a side yard setback is this. 10 ft. And a rear setback is this and a front setback is this and it applies to anything on the lot.

And So, do you remove dwelling? Yeah, the dwelling doesn't make any sense if that's what we're trying to do. Correct. And discussion of the residential and multi-family residential districts. Yes. So, the minimum side yard in feet for any No, for in districts regulated by this sub- chapter shall be. Is that clear enough if you just say the minimum side yard setback in in feet in feet in districts The minimum side yard

So, strike for any dwelling? Yeah. Or what? Well, um It seems like if you're going to say dwelling, you got to say everything else. Yeah. Or building. If you don't want to say everything, then you leave dwelling off. I don't know.

Yeah. Building. Yeah. Building's a good word. Just just building. Is building defined as something? I'm looking. What's funny is main building appears in the title of a different code. I just never assume that we know the definition of anything when I'm reading code. It's just whatever the code says. So, while she's looking that up, if it's okay to go to the next box, okay? And a total width of the two required side yards in feet of not less than 40. That's reasonably taken off. Um and then skipping page if you'll go down to page four of 10, please. Thank you. Provided that no private garage or other accessory building shall be located in feet closer to a dwelling on adjacent lot less than 10 feet. That's kind of redundant. It is very redundant. On corner lots, main buildings shall have two front yards and one year one rear yard and one side yard. That makes it very difficult to build buildings. It makes it very difficult to adhere to fencing requirements. It makes it very difficult to have an RV pad, different things like that. So, in an effort to be more consistent, um two front yards and two side yards would be a more more appropriate measure. If Josh took this out of the chart because he said it's in the definition of side yard. That it's two front I mean on a corner lot that it's two front, two side. But I said I don't like to have code in definition. And she If we're going to have a chart, it should be in the chart and he agreed that we just need to change it to two front and two side.

And then leave the side yard in feet shall not be less than the 10. What's the front yard distance back on page three? [snorts] 30. 30. It's big to have two of those on a corner lot. I don't mind having a one one side defined as a front yard and one side just defined as a corner setback. So, you have a front yard setback and that's really big. 2 30-ft I mean that's just it's just a waste over there. But 30 and 10 is weird, too. What?

Don't you think 30 and 10 is weird, too, though? If we say the other side is a side. Yeah, but you could say 30 and 15, 30 and 12. I just think 30 and 30 Yeah. It's all Yeah, it's always been that we've always had the two front setbacks on a corner lot.

It does make things when you're talking about corner lots, there's there's a reason most jurisdictions put uh those lots as bigger. Um that way you can you can get a better, you know, setback rating and everything else, but you've got right-of-way ventures, you've got line-of-sight ventures that you have to be considerate of. Um and it it it makes it very very difficult. And if you don't do it correctly, people park on the street and then it's even worse [clears throat] for law enforcement.

have neighbors and you wouldn't you'd want the house to be at the same distance from the street as yours on both sides. You wouldn't want Yeah. It's a good The house to be moved forward on one side so that that neighbor's looking That's a really good point cuz you do you have those setbacks on both sides. So, that it's it's equal. I heard it I heard it last night. Somebody buys lot. Well, most people want to build a house, right? They want to build their house and they want to put it on the cheapest lot possible. Which is most likely the corner lot. That's an unfortunate aspect because you can't build your large home on a smaller lot or with more requirements. It's you got to build your house on an appropriate lot instead of buying a lot and want to build your big home. It's The city was just talking about it the other night.

[clears throat] Okay, building is defined in our code as any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. So, it's anything. So, any building. So, building would be a good Is there a definition of main building? [laughter]

Uh No. No, but it does appear in a title elsewhere and then it refers to dwelling. I I happen to to agree with um with you, Debbie, about um enforcing ordinance out of definition. I find it to be diff- very difficult and I've had a judge state that to me as well. We're all trying to enforce code. So. No one just thinks to look in the definition when you're looking up code. Ooh. There is main use or building defined the principal use which will occur on a lot or the principal structure to be used by the principal use on a lot to which all other uses and structures are accessory. I'm even more confused. I think we'll just leave it at building. Yes. And I do believe that's all I do have. Um oh, actually, sorry. Um there was the side yard in feet shall not be less than 10. We've already discussed that. So. Okay. Um staff does recommend approval. That's the end of my presentation. Any questions? I see We We're going to make the change that will be different than it's in our packet to change dwelling to building in the first line of the table. And then we're also we're going to unstrike the corner lots

that have it stayed on corner lots, main building shall have two front yards and two side yards. And unstrike the side yard in feet shall not be less than 10. One question. It does say and I know in the past it's only the second I've seen it. Said it came from an applicant requested this, like filled in an application for the text change. Is that true? Okay. Cool. Sometimes we have the applicant or we say who it is. We don't have to. I was just curious.

If the applicant is here, they can we all you need a hearing and we also need hearing and if the applicant wants to speak. Maybe hearing first. Sorry, I just caught that. Well, I yep. Didn't realize she was the applicant. Okay. Neither did I. [laughter]

Should we do the public hearing first? We can have the public hearing cuz then she can address any concerns that are brought up Perfect. by the crowd. So, ready for a motion. I'll move to open the public hearing. Second. I have a motion by member Taylor and a second by member Maloney. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're now public hearing. If anyone would like to comment on this code change text amendment, you can come forward. That's That one's gone. That one's gone. We can talk to We can You Chris can talk to you out in the hall. Okay, there's no more public comment. Motion to go out. Someone is closed. Okay. I'll I'll give it to member Watt. Motion by member Watt, second by member Wilson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. So, now if the applicant would like to come forward, Yeah. Just Yeah, come up and state your name, please. My name's Lauren Miller from the West. And um we got this from the range and our builders are having a lot of confusion trying to figure this out. So, just so I can provide them the we're sticking with the first line, but changing to building. Correct? Yes. Okay. And then sticking with the second line, unstriking Are we striking everything else because even the minimum side yard for private garage Yeah, we're striking that. Is that duplicative of the first one? Yep. And then corner lots

turn into two front yards and two side yards. Correct. Okay. And then the side yard in feet shall not be less than 10. Is that duplicative of the first one or how's that different? Um I think the way this table is set up, that refers to corner lot. But it I don't know if it's necessary. What do you think?

Can we go back to that? Just show the table. Yeah, go back to the table. After I was reading the table, I thought that it seemed redundant and I thought, "Okay, I think that is referring to corner lots. First line, minimum side yard. Okay, yeah, the first one that's where we're changing dwelling to building. We're leaving that strike in the third box down and we're the main building and that one we're leaving the strikes in. So, if you can go to the next page,

Wait, say that what about? Page four. Page four. Corner and corner lots. I thought that would work. Two front and two side, but that's on the next page. Next page. Jeez, there.

There we go. I don't think we're striking Yeah, the private garage is we're we're striking that. The corner lot's coming back in. We're undoing the strike. And we're changing it to two front and two side. and two side. No, no, go back to the page. I don't want to dismiss too much of our chart. What? Yeah, I think that is a duplicate. Because we're doing buildings on the first line. We'll go back to the second page, page four. And the second to the last line is a Is So you did it's another redundancy. Yeah. So we think it it meant to tie back into corner, but the way that is set up it It's It must be redundant cuz it I think the original the 10-ft minimum covers it. Whether it's a corner lot or not. Three lines, the minimum side for any building shall be 10. The total width of the two shall be 24. And then on corner lots, main building shall have two front and two side. 13 And we'll keep the government facilities, utility facilities and government. We're not getting rid of that. The very last box. We're leaving that one in. Utility. We're going to keep that.

Yeah, we're keeping that one. Okay. Okay, cool. We're keeping that. And we're keeping corner lots. But just a minute. Okay. Yeah, now I don't know that we need to leave in that the corner lots will have Because it's addressed it if you go to 155.111 A, front yard regulations. It says on corner lots, main buildings shall have two front yards and one rear yard and one side yard. So it's so it's covered there. But you don't That We don't want

We don't want the We don't want the rear yard. That one has to be changed has to be changed, too. I brought that up with Chris. Yeah. I brought that up with Chris that has to be changed, but we can't do that because it wasn't advertised. We did advertise side yards. But I think it's close enough. Yes. I think there's some logic to the whole thing as well. So we make the changes to this table Yes. and we say that change the other sections of code of code that conflict with that Correct. in alignment with this. Correct. But we're not also reading this line because you want it not in definitions. What's your reason? So like we're keeping it in the chart. Yeah, we want it in the chart.

it in the chart. And I just found that the other chart also had it, too. For front yard. Yeah. So Although I think they did pass a thing allowing you to make What was that? Oh. I can't remember the big word. Like delineation?

No, script. Oh, Scribner's. Scribner's. Scribner's. Errors. Yeah, I don't know that it's that, but I think But you could do a bunch of little little changes. Yes. Yes. I think we're okay with that. Okay. I don't think we have that We want it consistent. But I think we want to double-check the definitions just to be make sure that corner lots aren't defined the same way in the def definitions. Yeah, it

[snorts]

It probably would be nice to have this chart in clean form also in the packet. Yeah. Yes. So So in the definitions, it defines lot corner and then it adds on corner lots shall have two front yards and two side yards. It's in definitions. In the definitions. But you want it in the chart. We want it in the chart.

We want it in the chart. We just need to update it in the chart. So it's correct in definitions. It's correct in definitions. We just need to update it here. Cool. So yeah. To to update Yes. So keep that, not strike it out, but have two front yards and two side yards. Buildings. Buildings. Ooh. Yeah. [laughter]

Cuz even accessories have to meet the front yard setback. Yeah. So yeah, just buildings. I think I don't think we need to say main. This is why it's so stupid. It should just be setbacks. The setbacks on these, not to this building or not to this thing. It just just should be set This is written so confusingly, terribly. Welcome to our code.

Code, yeah. Yeah, probably. Not me. So we're going to strike main. Yeah, the building doesn't have two front yards, two side I mean the lot has The lot, you're right. It says this On corner lot Corner lots shall have two front yards and two side yards. Corner Corner lots shall have I think that works. Yeah. Okay, two front and two side. And maybe when this goes No, I I think it is and when this goes to the county commission, maybe they can have a clean version so that maybe they won't be as confused as we are. Thank you. Okay, so you understand the the changes? Do you want to maybe repeat them so we Pretty. Okay. Before we move on, let me double-check another definition cuz now I have a achy feeling Okay. about something else. So while you're looking that up accept that no case shall the total width of the two side yards it's gone. Correct. I'm looking at

But we got the very first one we're we're removing. We're on page three. I'm on page three. Let's go to page three. Go to page three. I'm page three. top one. We're keeping. Yep, first one we're keeping. Okay, read it. The minimum side yard in feet for any dwelling in districts regulated by this subchapter shall be Wait, wait, wait, reload that. I can't read that. It's saying building. I think that's what we're changing to build.

No, building. The minimum side yard in feet for any building in districts instead of dwelling. So strike dwelling and put building. Got you. Okay. The minimum side yard in feet foot side yard in feet for any building in districts regulated by this chapter subchapter shall be And then the next box, the total width of the two required side yards in feet shall be And then the next box, except that in no case shall the total width of the two side yards be less than the height of the building is removed.

And removed. Number the next box, other main building shall have a minimum side yard in feet of and that is stricken. Correct. Yeah. The total width of the two required side yards in feet of not less than is stricken. Page four. The minimum side yard in feet for a private garage or accessory building shall be remains. The next box, provided that no private garage or other accessory building shall be located in feet closer to a dwelling on an adjacent lot than 10 feet is stricken. Next box, on corner on corner lots shall have two front yards and two side yards is what it should be stated as. Remove the word on. On, just say corner lots shall have Okay. Okay, got you. Thank you. And then the side yard in feet shall not be less than is stricken. Utility facilities and governmentally operated essential service facilities remains. Okay. Do you believe that is everything for that? Can we scroll to the motion? And I double checked I like I wanted to make sure that there wasn't definitions for side yard and front yard that would mess this up. It's all okay. Okay.

Do you want a motion? Yes, ready for a motion. Uh I move we recommend approval to the county commission for the side yard setback code text amendment based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated April 23rd, 2026 with the following additional conditions that we make the changes as just stated by Chris and that um we we rectify any conflicting references in the code and standardize on this language. Thank you. Motion by member Taylor. Second by member King. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Well, thank you for waiting. Okay, the next is the wildland urban interface code text amendment. Good evening. Brett Wilkes, Morgan County fire chief. So there's a packet if you just go to exhibit A, the last page. So our request is in bold. Um we're going to strike the state and make that international fire code. And then give me the change Hang on just a second. Page seven. Of seven. Yep. One of seven. What's So it's three of seven. Seven of seven.

Seven of seven should be in the packet. Okay. Here we [clears throat] whoops. Wait, what? There we go. Now we're on one. We want to be on seven, right?

to be on page seven. Seven of seven. We're there. Nice. Basically we're asking that that change So the top one you can see the strike through state and we're bolding international. So Morgan County has adopted the international fire code uh 2006 but it's being amended 2024. Yeah. 18 years to get it amended but every year we get state amendments. So as you drop down into B state required modifications. Well, the point of this is that we don't have to revisit this every time the state of Utah does an amendment. We're just going to adopt it as they're required modifications each year. And the biggest example is this is a legislative ramifications for the wooey code just from this last legislative year and there's three different house bills and that this will just make it so those are automatically adopted by Morgan County in the international code. They're going to adopt the 24 and the big one is house bill 215 says the wooey code supersedes any local land use regulation or policy. So they just told us we're going to have to follow it and then house bill 48 says if we don't follow it and decide not to and we have a fire in the county, the county gets to pay for the entire suppression cost. So Sevier County last year you probably saw the Monroe Canyon fire. That's [cough and clears throat] the reason for the laws. Um they weren't following some wooey codes that fire cost $92 million to suppress. Sevier County would get the bill this year if that happens and not the state taxpayer. So put a bunch of teeth in it which is the reason we've asked for the text amendment.

So this text amendment is specific to the 2006. So every time you change the code you're going to have to update this rather than just saying we're hereby adopting all See yeah, so that that uh line 14 uh that's a B, excuse me. Whoops. B. So it says state required modifications. That's our blanket statement so we don't have to re-adopt every year. The state will adopt the state modifications. The state's taking over with the 2024 adoption of the wooey code. They are the they're going to run it, not international and not county. So that's why that language is in there so we don't have to come back every time and say house bill 48 now needs to be adopted and house bill 41 needs to be adopted and house bill 215. It would just be whatever the state tells us in their modifications to fire forestry and state lands we're going to follow. So that's that's the gist of number two. So I honestly I think we need to clarify that better, Brad. I That's my bad. Um because we currently have the '06 but the state has the '03. And I think we need to add something in here that I think if you just put Janet current wooey code that just covers us. Yeah, so maybe up in A we just put Well, the one we've adopted is the 2006.

but maybe after the 2006 we say and any future Or you say so is it that the county no longer has the prerogative of adopting anything different than what the state adopts and when the state adopts it? Correct. We have to adopt the minimum which we do anyway. We have the minimum codes but they're the point is they're changing they're doing state amendments to the international code almost every year now and we haven't addressed that since the 2006 adoption. But the the state is on 2003. We've adopted 2006. So we're out of alignment with the state and you're saying we cannot be out of alignment with the state.

Correct. So why would we say any of this other than we hereby adopt the whatever the state has currently adopted with all current amendments? Question for legal. So when I I was I drafted this and I was trying to make it work because we had already adopted the '06 but then when you go into the admin rules they're talking about '03. [clears throat] And but they're going to bring they're going to the state's going to yeah. So I think we can modify this a little bit to make sure that whatever they do whatever the state does we do. Because this is how we get our funding. If we're not we don't have an ordinance like he said we're going to be paying for it. I have a question for legal. So I don't know you. I just want to get this on the record. Is this kind of blanket adoption without reference legal? Yes, as long as we do have reference cuz we're referencing the state's required modifications.

on 2003. [clears throat]

You're you're saying what I suggested where you just adopt whatever you just blanket adopt whatever they do with any changes in the I don't want to get into a whirl but normally when you make an adoption you're adopting some specific language that has specific code provisions. You you don't normally just blanket accept whatever's going to happen here forward in a legal code or ordinance. So I'm a little bit concerned. But if we're a sub if we're a sub if we're a subdivision of the state and we just say we we're hereby no longer doing anything specific other than just defaulting to the state. We're a separate political entity that falls under the state. And my concern in drafting it was that because we'd already adopted the 2006 like I don't know anything really about it and so there might have been reasons we wanted the '06 version but then we're adopting the changes or modifications required by the state in the admin rules that refer to the 2003 edition. 2006 For clarification from my end, cuz I just came in here trying to clean up a bunch of messes. And the the adoption in the records here at the fire department refers to 2006. So, the 2003 in the states is something I wasn't aware of. Do we get a $92 million bill if we're following the 2006 and the state's following 2003? And we don't modify to fit. Yeah. And so, um

So, it's not the 2006. Well, it does say Utah Wildland Urban Interface. Does it say 2006? edition Okay. International Fire Code. But, it says it in our code. See, that that isn't changed. See? codes. Right. The International Fire Code and Wildland Code are two different. Yeah. Yeah. Wildland Code is the one is 2000 the '06 is the reference. Cuz the Wildland Code that Inter- IFC, they they're very good about that's kind of Chapter 21 is the adoption. We're we're just trying to deal with the Wildland

Okay. So, so what would be the what would be the text that would make us current to today? Um that you that includes the provisions that we just passed in this legislative session. So, that's where it's complicated. I'm getting you. No. I get I agree with you, and I I don't have the answer because right House Bill 41, and I'll read it to you. Utah adopts the 2024 edition of the International Wildland Urban Interface Code. House Bill 48 pushed that off adoption 1 year till '27. So, one House Bill says '24, they're pushing it off because the rollout for House Bill 48, which was high-risk urban interface and a whole other mess that we've dealt with, had assessments that Morgan County had to assess individual owners within targeted areas called high-risk Wildland. It's a U-RAP map. We couldn't even pixel to get the addresses. So, what we did, which was Tuesday night, is we rewrote our county sprinkler code. As far as I know, we're the first county in Utah to address U-RAP and House Bill 48 in a county code for sprinkling. Um we've defined our parameters, and we've said all high-risk to be individually rated by the International Fire Code. And this is really the last thing to try to get us When does House Bill 48 take effect? Portions of House Bill 48 are in effect right now, which means we have to do the ratings, the assessment ratings for those that they deem are in high-risk. Um And it's U- U-RAP, there's a portal and then it'll show you a map you can get on and look. Morgan County's one of the least affected by numbers. I think we had under 200 houses. And most of them are in the Highlands and Mountain Green. I bet mine's one of them. Yeah. I was down at the legislative session with

somebody. So, you understand what they did was said the the counties have to collect the hundred buck assessment for each one. Well, it's getting awfully late to do the assessments. The rollout was terrible, so they delayed. We still have to do the physical assessments. They're not going to get billed for it until '27. I'm just afraid we're going to make a mistake in here. But, [laughter]

you see my dilemma is now I'm looking I'm trying to make sure that we're ahead of the game. And the text amendment with what we have, the 2006 is not You know, they've already made like five amendments to the state required modifications, but we have no reference. And you're exactly right. My reference was 2006. We have reference to 2003. However, we choose to word it, and I don't know. I'm just I want to make sure that we're compliant. Cuz I don't want to get the taxpayers in a pickle here because I missed something that I should have got. So, I guess my question with these updates is a lot of it it's not retroactive, right? Cuz you just said there's 200 addresses, but if a house is there or something is built, like is it more just we're being mindful going forward? I mean, what does that look like? Because what you're saying is $92 million if it's Tina's house that was built in 19 67, where I guess just what is the implication for the county? Cuz it's that's scary for taxpayers. Like are they saying houses that were built earlier

No, so it really doesn't No retrofitting. No, it doesn't go back. What it does is if you're if you're up in the Highlands and you're going to get assessed, and they're going to tell you you're in high-risk. If you have a house that's in the high-risk, my understanding is we'll come and say, "Okay, here's what some things you can do to protect yourself a little bit." But, any building permit going forward is you got to meet crazy code. Fire-wise, you got to meet um they're called smooth as trip smooth exposure scores, U-RAP. Um basically, you're going to have to fire harden your house. You're going to have to put defensible space. Going forward, you will have to do that. Following the code, and the state's going to force us to do it. You know, in the end, it's it's the smart thing. When you build a house up in these trees, you're going to have to build it not to burn. Is it also though then, cuz you guys have different fire chiefs over different jurisdictions, even in our county. So, then that is also based on who's managing that area? No. Okay. We Mountain Green, they they do not have the ability to not No, I'm not even talking about I'm talking about like Peterson versus Croydon. Cuz we all have different No, it's the county. Okay. It's the state and then the county. They don't even differentiate when they do um Wildland Code adoptions, it's the counties on the hook. It's not individual cities. Okay. Yeah, the counties are responsible, and so it's county's responsibility to make sure the cities are in line. I guess my question was more around enforcement. Yeah, it's it's it's going to be all going forward on the house hardening. We're we're not the law does not state in any point that that or the code that you have to bring your house up to No, totally. Yeah. Yeah. You can't do that. It's like sprinkling systems. Yeah. We can't go in and make people in

50-year-old houses put sprinkling systems in. It's unreasonable. So, however you figure out their legal expert, So, what I'm thinking is if after the 2006 edition, because that's what our code already says, we add in something to the effect that and further adopt any later edition of the Wildland Code adopted by the state. And then we can get rid of B. Then we're always up to So, if the state adopts the 2024 Wildland, we're good. Does that eliminate the ability of us to make a stringer more stringent code? No. We we have the total authority to be more strict. I know the but the text that Janet's talking about, if we put that in there, that just says whatever the state says we do, do we still have the autonomy to create additional Yeah, that's actually in the code. That's in the that's in the Wildland Code. You can't back off, but um Mountain Green is the example. They're they're more strict on sprinkling codes and defensible space now than the county fire is. But, they have the authority cuz they're a special service district. You we can make it stricter by code. We can't go under. Yeah, I think the IFC, all those codes allow the building official or the fire marshal

already having jurisdiction is the word. And it it happens. When I came here, one of the big things, and we've come a long ways, is I want stuff standard. I want standard. I want standard. Protocols. I mean, Chief, I learned it from you for years. Standard policies and standard training and standard policies create standard outcomes, and then we don't get ourselves in trouble. How come he did this, and I didn't have to do that? And I deal with it every day here. How come I you're making me do this when he didn't do that 4 years ago? So, when we do this, the state code is the standard for us. If we choose at some point to make it stronger for a legitimate reason, then we'll address it then. Cuz the code does allow us to do that. I just wanted us to not give up our right. So, something in line with like uh and in compliance with current state Yeah, we laws and regulations, is that what you're thinking? And I'm talking to the attorney. What I'm thinking is then we we add a sentence. If the state of Utah adopts a later edition of the International Code, the county shall be deemed to have adopted the most recent edition of the WUI um as adopted by the state, including any amendments thereto, without the necessity of further action by the county, unless the county commission affirmatively elects to adopt a different edition by ordinance. I like that. That clears it up for my end. That's good. Should we go into public hearing real quick, get that out of the way? I'll motion. Second. Okay, motion [snorts] by member King and second by member Taylor. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, we are in public hearing.

Seeing none. Motion to close. Second. Motion by member Wadd and a second by member Taylor to close public hearing. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. So, how do you want us to So, what I would like is Can you get back up to the or down? The motion. [snorts]

So, I think we keep the first paragraph and then I can read the additional sentence that needs to be added at the end of it. [snorts] And then I don't think we need B. Okay. We just need the first paragraph.

So, the top one. So, Madam Chair, make a motion. I move we recommend approval to the county commission of the wildland urban interface code text amendment based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated April 23rd, 2026. With the elimination of everything except that first paragraph and then the addition after that first paragraph to include the sentence, "If the state of Utah adopts a later edition of the International Wildland Urban Interface Code, the county shall be deemed to have adopted the most recent edition of the International Wildland Urban Interface Code as adopted by the state, including any amendments thereto without the necessity of further action by the county, unless the county commission affirmatively elects to adopt a different edition by ordinance." Second. Okay, motion by member Wadd and a second by member Taylor. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Okay, I do have a question. Do We got an email from Josh regarding the flag lot off the bulb. Yeah. Are you I didn't know that. Like aren't we We asked to change the code. Does he know? I don't I had a hard time following with his letter. I I don't think he wants to change the code. Um I think and plus he didn't want to hold up the applicant. Um I think the bigger issue was and I didn't know that this was an existing non-conforming lot lot and driveway at the end of the

Yeah.

Okay, it was If it's okay to kind of discuss this a little bit and put it in your mind. Okay? There's only so many things that enforcement can do if in current enforcement can do if the past enforcement did not succeed at what they were attempting to do. As this building was being built, it was not it not have building permits. Okay? And it had a cease and desist order. Yep, had a cease and desist, had a couple stop work orders and it just wasn't followed through. Okay? He built the building. He built the dwelling. People are currently living in the building. I can assure to you that the county is not going to pay the money to demolish the house. So, that leaves a couple item that leaves a couple resolutions. One of those resolutions would be to um allow it, you know, for the amendment or the change or however it goes. Um and then have the property owner submit building plans, which would be required required regardless. Have the building official go out there and code enforcement. As he applies for this building, he will be charged a double fee. That double fee would be substantial to remind everybody else that this cannot happen any longer. Or the next item might be we keep it where it's currently at, not allow it, so it's in non-conformance. And the county spend however much money it's going to be to tear it down, which I do not see that happening. I don't either, but I have a hard time ignoring code to fix a problem that was a self-inflicted wound. He was a developer that developed all around that parcel. So,

Understand. We We

So, I don't I don't like that, Ralph. But, I don't have a problem changing the code. Is there a civil remedy? What's the penalty for building without a permit or occupying without a CFO? So, I'm I'm just Well, I'll I'll tell you what the penalty is currently. If I caught somebody building without a permit, they would receive a stop work order. If they continue to build without out a permit, they would receive They would start the code enforcement process. I would issue three violation letters to them, including citations, and when they did apply for a building permit, they would receive the double fee. Now, in this situation, though, knowing that the county's got no other retribution against him, bringing the property to closer to compliance is better than leaving it where it's currently at. So, he's completely non-compliant right now. Allowing the changes to take effect would bring him closer to being in compliance, knowing that we're still going to be issuing the citations and giving him a double fee. I would estimate with that double fee that double fee permit it it could be pretty substantial. I don't want to give a number on public record, but I I would assume it could be in the thousands of dollars. It would be greater than thousands of dollars. Okay, Chris, I'm going to challenge you a little bit because um we updated the enforcement code. I did um and gave us a lot more tools in the toolbox. It's not updated on the website. Um Today, if this happened, we got a ton of remedies and I think it's like one or two letters and then I can start injunctions. I mean, I can stop things.

And and the penalties are substantially more now. we could do that, but we can't do it with this particular building.

Cuz it's already done. No judge is going to allow make them tear it down. Well, I understand that. What So, what inspections the building had? Um we do have some documentation of from the former building official. Um we do have the stop work orders. Um there are some photos um that were taken. Um I've tried to communicate with I wanted to stay out of it just a little bit to allow things to take place the way they need to take place, but with certain conditions, it allows the building official to make special permissions to allow something as long as it was built with life, health, safety considerations that they would be able to go forward. Um but it does have to meet all the current does have to meet all the current codes. So, some things might have to be changed in the home, but that's according to Dustin. So, what Do we have a record of what inspections took place in the house? And I don't know what this has to do with planning commission. Just curious. Other than the bulb.

I mean, did they did they have a foundation inspection?

That is That's where it stopped. That is That That's kind of where it's going, right? I I don't want to say on public record of something that I don't um that I haven't dug into deep deep deep. Um But, the remedy was to create a flag lot. Yes. And the only hang-up is the phrase about the bulb, but can't we change the word to say that something they may allow the county commission may allow flag lot the end of, you know, I don't Okay, I think Josh did not want to do that because it creates a lot of problems as far as the fire access, emergency access, and snow. So, I mean But, yeah, the fire department already signed off on it and it's at the end of a cul-de-sac. So, I The fire department approved it a while ago. Right? Um here's something else that probably needs to be updated. Um the applicant has chosen to um move forward with a unfavorable recommendation from the planning commission to be able to go to county commission. I do believe in early May. And that that's the way that the applicant chose to go. Um when that was brought up that that's just how it had to be brought up. So, I'm sure I'm going to have to explain this to county commission as well. I don't agree with everything the way that it happened. I don't. But sometimes you have to look at something with I can't do anything about what happened. I can't do anything about that now, but I can send a message that if you do this in the future, this is what happens. And I can't think of too many double fees

that we issued prior to me being here a year ago. I know there was a few. What he's saying is that you could ignore the code and if you wait long enough, what is happening However, That's my fear. Yeah, [laughter] that's what happens. Yeah. I'm sorry, 10,000 made cheaper. That is not what can happen now because of what she just said. There is more teeth in the ordinance that we immediately stop it upon recognition recognition of it. If they don't stop, then we can move toward immediate legal action whether it's evicting from a property that they might own, right? That we have uh done it. Who was it? Builder up in the Highlands and I walked up there and I said everybody can leave. And I I can do that. That's what a stop work order allows you to do. Yes, it takes a little bit of babysitting, but that's why there's a code enforcement officer in Morgan County. Not to be heavy-handed, but you got to at some point.

With them electing just to move forward, then what's on our plate? Anything? Deny it or I I mean we had this table or Yeah. Yes, yes. And and that I had nothing to do with. I just heard about that. But see, we tabled it to a certain date certain, so he can't move it up. He didn't move it up. He just said He wants us to deny it. It No, he's That I don't know. treating it as I know we did, but that's what he wants. No, I think Josh has the ability to treat it as a denial. No. No, we we we keep No, this is going somewhere that I have no information on. I can just express to you It's with us [snorts]

and we postponed it so we could make the change to the code and we did it to a date certain. I I have no information on that. I understand

I can I can only give you the information of enforcement of the past that did not happen. Leads it to un-enforcement of current anything. I can't do anything about it except give them a double fee, go with the building official as he does inspection at the inspection on the property and make sure that it is adhered to life, health, and safety. If it passes, they can continue living there. If it doesn't, that opens up a whole new part of it. Even though it doesn't comply with code. Well, that's kind of why it was proposed to you to become closer to compliance. But but Josh's email just made it sound like that he had given them the option to either keep come back to us or just ignore us, treat it as a and a denial. denial and move forward. And I I after I learned about the meeting, um I I was not instructed to be at the meeting. If I would have, I would have stood up and I would have had this conversation with you last meeting. And I apologize for that. And if it would have led you to helping the property to be less compliant than it was yesterday, then I think you would have understood that we're not trying to get around the code. We're not trying to just change the code for every blah blah blah person out there. We're trying to help this property to be more compliant than it was yesterday following current building code and following our current enforcement techniques. I can't give a citation to somebody for speeding 3 days ago if I didn't give them a citation 3 days ago. I'm just confused about where we're at. Is it coming back to us or not? I I don't think so. And I don't know where it says that, but that's been my understanding from the get-go is if the planning commission fails to act, they can treat it like a denial and just go straight to the county.

We didn't fail to act. I'm not sure how you define fail to act. I don't know. So, I'm looking. I But that's been what I've been told from the get-go. either appear on our agenda or it won't. Yeah. No, we did not fail to act. We acted to try to remedy the situation. We were willing to find a solution. Except somebody brought up some obscure code section that Me? [laughter] Obscure? It was It was flat out in there. It exists flat out in there. It's just like in bold. And it's only been 2 years since it was written. [laughter]

And I remember because the reason I remember that was in there because I didn't like it and I argued with Josh and said I want I don't see why it can't be at the end as long as the fire department signs off on it and blah blah blah blah blah. So, that's why I remembered. That's it. We will need minutes approved. Motion. Second. Okay. Yeah, um motion by member King and a second by member Watt. All in favor? I. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimous. Ready for adjournment. Or we can just stay here. So moved. Okay. Second. Motion by member