Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I should have sent a message.

Would you like to start? There is this meeting of the Morgan County Planning Commission. It is Thursday, December 10, 2026, and ask the Maloney member to make a prayer. Then, if everyone could get up and join us in the oath of fidelity. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you very much for allowing us to meet here tonight in this beautiful county that we call home. May the Lord bless our peaceful and productive meeting tonight and please pray for rain. All of you. I swear fidelity to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic that it represents.

A nation under God, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all.

Okay, the next item on the agenda is approval. Is there a motion? Approved. There is a motion by Member Maloney.

Supported by Member Wilson. All in favor? Me. The motion is approved unanimously. Declaration of any conflict of interest with the item on the agenda. There is nothing. The next item is the public comment. The only item on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and you will have time for this public hearing when we address this item on the agenda. But if you have anything else you would like to talk to the planning commission or that we address, please come to the pulpit and say your names for registration. There is nothing, we will move on. This is a legislative item Commission of amendment and reasoning of the future use map.

This is requirement number 23.

The applicant is the Paul and Beverly Warner Family Trust. The owner is the Paul and Beverly Warner Family Trust.

It is located next to Mountain Green Middle School, approximately in 4070. The current designation of future use of the land is residential lots of 5 acres. The current zoning is A20. The designated future use of the land is a low density residential with a maximum of 2 units per acre and the requested zoning is R120. There are four plots involved in this requirement. They total approximately 50,299 acres. Around the perimeter, you have some properties with similar zoning due to a development agreement with Rollins Ranch to the east and south. You have properties that have, you know, less than 13,000 or 14,000 square feet that are close. If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them now.

Any questions for the team?

Maybe soon.

Would you like to enter public hearing now? Are you ready for a motion to enter public hearing? So, move forward. Motion by Member Maloney.

Supported.

And supported by Member Taylor. All in favor? Moção aprovada por unanimidade. Agora estamos em audiência pública. Se você gostaria de fazer comentários sobre a futura emenda ao mapa de uso do solo, resoneamento, agora é a hora de se apresentar. E novamente diga seu nome para registro.

Yes, I was going to say that it is closed.

My name is Kate Deb. I live in the area of Rome, just below. My biggest question is, what is the public benefit of changing zoning? Obviously, the owners of the fund probably benefit financially from making some kind of subdivision. Mountain Green already has, I would say, many families for which there are not many extracurricular activities after school and things for children to do. And if we continue to add more housing without any of the amenities to support those we are probably trying to achieve?

This is my question for the fund.

What is the public benefit of this type of subdivision? I think this question is probably further forward, but the crossing of the Trapper's Loop with the old highway is very congested. And if we add what? 150 houses in that area? Congestion. They plan to make UD speed up the crossing schedule. I think the crossing should not be financed, even close to the Olympics schedule. So what kind of infrastructure will be necessary to support this type of growing development? Assuming that's why they want to rebuild. Thank you. Anyone else?

My name is Tom Johnston and I live on the corner, right on the intersection, right where the street goes to the elementary school or at the bottom of the elementary school, in the parking lot.

To clarify some of the concerns I have.

is the topography and my question is, was there any geological study in terms of hydrographic basin? A few years ago we had a very significant snowstorm and there were circumstantial concerns, especially with some neighbors, a little lower above water, in the basement. And there was an emergency on Sunday morning. We all got together and helped to bomb the neighbor's backyard to prevent the basement from flooding. So the way the land goes down towards the existing houses is a concern for me in terms of, and I think for some of the other neighbors along Ranch Boulevard, in terms of how the water is controlled and managed from the sludge of the spring and winter. Another concern I would express is traffic. This is a critical point for the school, right where the entrance is. I don't know if we discussed, or if it was mentioned where there is access to vehicle traffic leaving Trappers, or if all this must be channeled back to Roland's Ranch, or both. That would be another concern I would have, especially living in that corner. I've seen several near-accidents on the corner in terms of traffic and these near-accidents usually happen at school when the children are entering or leaving the... Many children ride a trenó or big wheels. Some of us are old enough to know what a giant wheel is. It's amazing. In one wheel, in others, scooters and electric bicycles, the battery. And the children are all over the road, as the children do, going and coming and going. But if we significantly increase traffic at that point of stranglement, I think it would greatly increase the possibility and probability of an accident. We were kind of waiting for it to happen, hoping that it wouldn't happen, that it wasn't serious and that it wasn't serious. But given the circumstances, children disrespect signs of stopping. They simply don't pay attention to traffic rules. So it will only be a matter of time until someone gets distracted and takes a child for a walk.

and I hope it's not a serious accident.

These are some of the concerns we have about which I thought and talked to my wife. I believe that I'm not sure about the other resources. Again, the infrastructure that was mentioned in terms of water and sewage, how they are impacted. And I just wanted to know if maybe there is no better or more appropriate place to put another subdivision in the county. That's all.

But I'm going to comment. No kisses. Ready for the motion to go to the public hearing.

So move.

Motion by member Taylor.

Supported by member Wilson. All in favor? Yes.

You are approved to move. Any questions? To the team now.

The narrative said that the requierent is looking for lots of 5 acres, but we are moving to a density of half acre. What is the reason not to divide the lot zone of 5 acres if the requierent wants 5 acres and half acre? Where does it make sense?

We presented the requirement according to what was given to us. They asked for zoning R120, so that's what we presented.

So these will be their rights, not meio Acre.

This is correct. I think my position is that we are not making zoning conditions. Are we able to make zoning conditions? So, it is a request for this area and we must consider everything that is available to them in this area.

No, you don't need to. I mean, will they go through the subdivision requests that deal with geology?

What I'm saying is that when we're considering a zoning, if they request a certain area, then our assumption is that anything available to them in that area, we could expect a request for any of these things. But all these technical issues will be, you know, be it geological, be it water, sewage, traffic, whatever it is, will be treated after zoning, when they make a specific request for whatever they want.

Any property that has slopes and soils with geological risk is automatically forced to pass through the Geological Risk Law and send it as part of any subdivision. Subdivisions would also be necessary according to the engineering traffic impact studies. These traffic impact studies would include stipulations or requirements for road closure or access, any access under an old air circuit. Tracks would also be required to obtain UD approval, because this is UD property and therefore there is another stage there. So, all the specificities regarding the project, the geological risk, how many lots came out of it because of slopes or soils or whatever, all this is treated during a subdivision. In fact, during a zoning, you want to analyze the future use map of the soil, see if it is in agreement with the future use map of the soil. Otherwise, you need to analyze the zoning and the development around it to see if they agree with what is being proposed. And if they are, Maybe they are consistent with the development standards of the area, as the planner highlighted, as Kent highlighted, there are lots of 8,000 to 15,000 feet to the south, to Galgrida, and then further south and west you have Roma, which has lots of up to 5,000 square feet. These approvals arrived at Rollins Ranch. The main approval for this was in 2006. The developments took place over time. Wein... Rome arrived in 2018 with the development agreement of the basin that allowed the mined houses and the smaller lots there. So, I mean, you need to analyze the zoning around, the size of the lots around, the map of future use of the soil currently and decide if the zoning for R120 in this location is consistent or if it should be zoning and then make your recommendation, whether approval or denial. Another question for the team.

What is it? I'm analyzing, I don't know what the Udo classification is for Trapper's Loop, but this controls the spacing of new accesses and would have its own process. But in general, from an access, if there is only one point of access, what is the maximum number of single-family houses, only single-family houses that can be served by the VED in an axis? So from an axis, according to the fire code, you can have up to 30.

There are exceptions that allow you to go higher if they are all irrigated. But this is really from the fire department. Do they have authority? They are authority with jurisdiction, so to speak. But usually they are 30 or less in one access. More than that, it requires two access points. And there are requirements for spacing within the fire code. Nothing.

I would like to publicly complain about being just the access point further west. before entering the highway. I would like to complain about everyone here, accelerating and almost killing me every morning when I leave my road. So I can feel the pain of everyone there, but you know about all of you. There's nothing else.

The other one, I know, a lot of this happens in the subdivision, but our code says, under my reasoning, in CINZ, INDO, AIDES 34, ORTEM 4, the adequacy of the facilities and services intended to serve the property in question, including, but not limited to, roads, parks, recreational facilities, police, fire protection, schools, drainage systems of rainwater, rainwater supply, water supply, sewage and garbage collection. So he says we should consider this in a reasoning. So how do we separate this from subdivision? In comparison now...

I think you analyze this broadly now and with more details when the subdivision requirement is presented to you.

We analyzed this in a broad way, such as sewage, water, traffic, roads.

Available sewage. Available water in the area. There are roads that can be connected. The property has access and potential access to the trapper's loop, as well as the Rollins Ranch loop. Therefore, all these things are available for this reasoning. As an administrator of the area, I described what you need to look for.

I have a question for you. If they build a half-acre space, do you have any idea how many houses there would be?

No, we didn't do this analysis. There would probably be... the topography as it is. They are not planning now that each lot has a half-acre. That's why I'm asking about the traffic.

If so, let's say it's half-acre, how many acres do you have?

There are 51, so let's say the worst scenario is 100 houses.

No, this is much worse than the worst scenario for the roads. I'm just looking. You'll only get a maximum 80% return on this.

So 40 out of 80 houses...

I don't know if we can talk about topography.

There are zingrams on the back there. The floors, things like that. This is really not relevant to the discussion now. How many houses?

They may not be relevant to the discussion. It's relevant to me. I'd like to know what I can ask when they come. Right.

Well, maybe...

They don't have to answer this question.

No, they don't, but they can if they want to.

That's true.

Can we see a map of the slopes? I know. And if there is, can we take a look at the geyser? We can access it. Ah, I think that... That this can be useful.

I think we can pull this up.

It can help you visualize. The brown is dark. The red is more than 25%. Great. And then the brown color, I believe it's 15% and 25% of... inclination. And the soles are probably... We can pull it up, but I see the TN. It's Norwood's tufa.

Yes, this is not totally accurate.

You betray the soles.

To show the soles and the soles, it's kind of difficult to color the soles. So, you're there. You basically deactivate the soles first. This shows the soles. Anything dark red is greater than 25%. Anything orange is 25%, I believe 10% or 15%. So anything that doesn't have color is very flat. And then when you add the slopes, all this is indicative that a geological risk study is needed during the subdivision.

So now the brown color is showing where the Norwood Tufo is. Basically, most of it has a 25% inclination.

And the Norwood Tufo is difficult to build for those who are here.

Teod Nord only requires mitigation that a licensed geologist would be responsible for making this determination along with a geotechnical engineer who would determine the mitigation factors that the geologist identifies.

I think that with inclination this would limit even more than 80%. I'm assuming

Again, this cannot be determined at this stage because it is not a requirement, but during the requirement of the Geological Risk Study, they would have to meet the requirements of the average inclination of our code.

Well, I think we need to decide if this is an appropriate place for the Acre area, in this plot, with some of the restrictions. Could you explain the average inclination?

For geological risk, we use the average inclination of the area to be developed, including roads, sidewalks, access points and the lots themselves. So, if they took every lot and calculated the average inclination, this would greatly restrict the amount of lots they could get. So they would really need to go in and adjust the locations where they would want to put the houses to get an average inclination lower than 25%. And about your question?

Yes, you answered. Reflects on memory? Thanks.

So with a direct zoning,

they would follow this formula. They would identify a maximum number of houses that would be allowed under this calculation of inclination area and calculation of the maximum number of houses. And if nothing else was done, if this was approved for reasoning after that, they would be limited to these and could not go to a lot smaller than 20,000 feet.

So it would be even more restricted than that, because you can't just take the total lot, then calculate the total number of lots and What you would do is subtract 25% to 35% of the lot immediately. And these 25% to 35% of the lot go directly to the infrastructure. Roads, half-wire, sawdust, sidewalks, landscape strips, etc. This is obvious. But you are excluding this part. So what's left is a liquid area, with which you can calculate an approximate estimate of how many lots but with grim declives like this one, you'll never get it.

So, if they wanted more than that, if this was approved for this area requested by our 120, and if they wanted to come and say, okay, we calculated the number of houses we can get, or the number of lots we can get, but we want... I don't know. They simply don't know. If they don't get this number, let's say it's 50, 20, 40, whatever. 50 lots come out of this calculation. And they say, well, we didn't get that many. We can only get 42 lots of 20,000 square feet. So, how would they do to get the extra 20? They would have to enter a puddle or something like that, that's it. They would have to ask for another zone for something smaller.

Yes, for the hard zone property they are looking for, you have a limit of 20,000 square feet, end point. You can't go any lower than that. Regardless of the inclination, regardless of anything. If they wanted an opportunity to do what Romy did, or Rollins Ranch, they would have to enter and go through a PC zoning district. And the PC zoning district is more intensive because it depends on the area and how much they want. Submission requirements are really great.

So, I think that looking at this, if you didn't know all the complexities that you just described, you would probably say, you take 50 acres and multiply it by 2 and you have 100 houses arriving here. But the process you just described is so complex, with the steep slopes, with the geologist, with your average area calculation, that this thing really continues, I mean, the reality of it, looking at it, is that this number continues to decrease and the place where they can really put something to build something is very small.

Questions for the applicant?

I have some. Okay. The applicant's representative?

You can come. Wade Warner. Wade, I'd like to know what your view of this property is. If you don't mind saying it. We don't have a vision of the number of houses to build. I'll come to you with the clarification.

Because we don't have a number of houses that we want to build.

We only want the same zoning, or even a bigger zoning than the... I'm not asking for lots of 30 acres or less. They are lots of half acres.

And as we discussed, the property limits the place where the houses can be built.

If you look at the property, you will see that it is a nonsense. It may not necessarily be true. If they go through the mitigation process, they will probably be able to build in difficult places. I don't see much, and they wouldn't be able to if they wanted to. The slopes are very steep. So, as I said, it's a basin. And at the bottom of the basin, there are several potential lots that can be built there.

There are other potential lots that can be built outside the basin. So, we don't have a plan now.

We don't talk to the developer. We are not looking for a house number. We just want to resonate for future opportunities that are consistent with what has been done with other properties around.

Any other questions for the requirer?

There's another quick question for the team. We're good. When these other enterprises arrived, Rollins Ranch, Rome, and they were considered and the future use plan of the soil was analyzed, we looked at the neighboring properties and said, well, this really affects the neighboring properties. And as you go out, you know, if you're having, I don't know what the size of the lots in Rome is.

Unifamily lots in Rome vary from 460 square meters to about 740 or 830 square meters, something like that.

So when this is considered, something like that is considered in an area and it is kind of discarded. We look at the surrounding areas and say, well, you know, maybe a 2-hectare lot restriction. Compared to a lot of 150 square meters, maybe it doesn't make sense anymore, because of course the neighbor next door will look at something, you know, this kind of transition.

I don't know what the planners were looking at at that time. I wasn't here. If it were done today... If it were done today, I would say the same thing I have said. The general plan is a discretionary document that can be followed. It provides an instantaneous vision of the time of which the vision for the community from now on. So part of your job is to look at the future use map of the land, observe the development patterns in the area and decide if they would justify in this case that lots of... Acre were moved away from the highway, which would increase the size of the lots in relation to what is south to south. It is up to you to present a recommendation and, later, the County Commission will make the final decision. But, in the end, the general plan is descriptive. It is not an adopted document that can be kept strictly as an orientation document. Otherwise, it would not be a general plan. It would be a specific plan, a zoning map.

Any other questions?

Can you go back to the package?

I think that many of the concerns raised by the public and in the letters we received situations that will be raised at the level of subdivision. For example, the geological risk will have to be done, drainage, traffic, general infrastructure, all of this is raised at the level of subdivision. And it seems to be a difficult part to develop. I think, as Josh pointed out... Is there any further discussion?

Yes, I think we should discuss this very quickly. Right, of course. So, if we zone out what they're asking for, they'll cover everything with an ACRE email, everything. My next question is how fast will this happen?

They have plans to control the traffic, or they can go out on the hunter's circuit. You know?

We don't know that, but it's a concern for me. I drive by Mountain Green almost every day and I see the... ...caverns, people are really trying to get in and out of there, which will make the situation worse. If they had the right infrastructure for that, I would be faster to do that. But I worry about all the traffic that would create with so many people in that small place.

I think I understood you. Is this the right time and the right place for this reasoning? Maybe.

Don't have problems with that because it will be studied. I mean, they'll have to do a traffic study. Mitigation.

If necessary. They'll have to do the mitigation.

But this will happen in the county, but the traffic is controlled by the UDA. That's the truth, right? Like, right hand, left hand, no traps. No traps. That's my only comment about it, personally. My other thought about Rome and Rancho Rollins is that they are planned.

I don't know if that's totally true. I think I would ask the team... Se um estudo de tráfego for necessário, então ele não precisa necessariamente parar no trapper's loop. Se o tráfego tiver que passar pela frente da minha casa, então... Quem determina o ir, o escopo desse estudo de tráfego, sua amplitude?

The county engineer will recommend a traffic study if necessary. For a property like this, which is feeding existing streets and potentially in the trapper's loop, I would risk a professional opinion that it will be absolutely necessary. Regarding the scope of this traffic impact study, the traffic engineer hired by the applicant will do this study and we will analyze the traffic patterns in the region and then we will make recommendations based on this. Then, we ask that our own traffic engineer, who was hired, analyze it through OASAC Civil and they will agree or not. And if they agree, then, we will allow the certification of the engineer that the carimbou assumes the responsibility. If our traffic engineer does not agree, he will have to go back and review it. And if we don't agree with that?

And if it comes to us? Come on, because I know that when you bring something to us, and finally to the commission, you will have these recommendations in force. Yes, the traffic study will not reach you. No, the recommendation will arrive. But if we ask a specific question, this... did the traffic study extend to here? Did they study the traffic patterns here? Here, here, because it's about defining this goal. If we asked this question and you said, well, it got here, and we thought and said, hey, we know there are problems here and there, We're not sure if the engineer was aware of that. We could file this. We could recommend the denial. We can't file it. No. But we could say that we recommend the denial until this is explored and the county commission and the county commission. We could ignore it.

Well, I think the county commission would ignore this, for example, because none of you have the certification to handle these plans.

Well, I don't.

Well, you may have the certification to work on these plans as an engineer, but you will not have worked on these plans. That's true. And I wouldn't be an official reviewer of these plans? That's right. And then we have the individuals and professionals we hire to review the plans that take care of it. And then, in the end, we have... a traffic engineer, if our engineer agrees with that, because if I care, he will assume responsibility. We don't want the county to assume responsibilities by demanding that they design in a specific way.

Not to design in a certain way, but to consider certain things. Someone has to define and agree with the scope.

If we tell them how to design and what we demand them to do, we assume responsibility and... So, if something happens, they will come after us.

So Josh, can I intercede? So if we ask them to do a traffic study, our engineer will give them guidance on the area they need to study. Like they usually do that. And then they will have to do a traffic study that satisfies our engineer before he says ok, your traffic study is great. Put your seal on it, take responsibility.

That's right. Our engineer will analyze it.

Any discussion?

What are your concerns, besides what I heard you say? Do you have any other questions?

I don't know if I have any major concerns, because I think we adopted a law with closing gaps in force. I look at it and I think they are, I mean, in general transition from a higher density to a lower density. I think if you're worried about time, I look at it and I can see the number of houses that would possibly be built. There, I think in terms of impact on traffic, it will be extremely small, especially in comparison with what already exists next door and what is happening. I see all this as something very small. And I see all these concerns, engineering as I think they are valid, but I think the concerns are valid, the stability of the slope is valid, the slope is valid, all these things are valid, but I think they are all contemplated in our law and if we don't do that, I mean, we just considered some of these changes in our law recently with this new decline calculation with the geologist here and you know that we kind of accept that. So I think I think we have all this in force. To build my house I had to hire a geologist and then I had to pay the county geologist to review my work plan proposed by the geologist, so they had to modify it. And I mean, the costs were increasing and this was just to build a house. A house in an area where there is no potential for landslide. So I know the process they have to go through. So I simply don't have the same concerns. Yes, of course. You can try.

I'm curious to hear what you have to say about it.

No, I just, well, I think two points that Debi raised were at the right time and obviously I asked for 10, 100 and 20, but in relation to your point about density and construction, a plan, I mean, 50 acres is not a small portion in my opinion, in a dense area. Do you know what is the best use? A development plan with something else? I think this will end up being residential in the future. It's today, it's tomorrow. Half-acre lots are the best, since, you know, maybe they would have more visibility in another area. Where they could have an open space, as someone commented, or parks or infrastructure like Roma has, right? Hmm, so I don't know. I also don't like the vocabulary. You know, the five acres? If they were in lots of half acre. I see that we consider them by the nominal value of half acre.

Yes, try to ignore all that. But what is in the area? I would analyze this and say that if I were the owner of this property, this would be a starting point for me and I would have something in my hands to explore what this means. And you can be right. They can decide that there is a better way to end this. Maybe the R120 has been poorly conceived. And they can come back and say, hey, I want to do something else now that they spent US$ 50,000 in engineering and geologists. This can very well happen.

but they will have to go through another test. If you want something planned to do cluster density to have the tools.

But we would also have a lot more information. I think the impact of a zoning in this area is low, with strict restrictions, enough in zoning, so I'm perfectly comfortable with it. And I look at the density around me. I want to say that I have the same inclinations. I want to close the door behind me.

You got stuck this weekend in the fire traffic. Because I spent three hours. In traps. So, personally, I'm a little exhausted after this weekend. And, currently, there are cough houses all over my neighborhood.

I also recognize that I had five children. I am the problem. I mean, for everyone who had children there, I want my children to have a place to live and I don't want them to have to move. So, I recognize that I am the problem.

I kind of agree with the member Taylor on this. There are many restrictions with this property. I don't think they will even get close to the number of lots. that everyone thinks will happen there only with the inclination and the soils. I understand that 20,000 square feet is a proper size lot for the area. The area. There won't be much. You have the lot that is probably suitable for houses. You have a little flat area near Trapper's Loop, but the rest of the part is very difficult. All concerns, again, and they are good concerns. I agree, the drainage is big and the traffic is all at the subdivision level. We can't solve this now. But we understand the concerns. It is a pity that we cannot simply resonate certain areas and not We have a mechanism to do this and keep them out of the clutches. But they will be kept out of the clutches. So, any more discussion?

Let's do it. Let's do it. I ask that we send a positive recommendation to the County Commission for the alteration of the future use map of the Warner land and the request for review, requirement number 26.023. Altering approximately 59. Acris from the future use of the Res Ranch Residential 5 soil to Village, Low Density Residential and Resonance day 20 to R120, based on the discoveries listed in the team report dated September 10, 2026.

Okay, there's a motion by member Taiter. Does anyone support?

I support.

Okay. We have support from member Wilson. All in favor?

Does anyone oppose? Right, the motion is approved by four. One is against. Thank you. O próximo item da pauta são questões de negócios e da equipe. Acho que queremos fazer um treinamento, cumprir nossas horas.

Há algo específico que vocês queiram que possamos consultar aí? Exoníaco. reasoning, I was observing that maybe it's better to observe what other courts are doing and it's frustrating.

It's one of the most difficult things.

I have a question for you, Janet.

When Josh arrives, presents these things and says, this is out of the question. I'm here long enough for this to be discussed. Who decides the rules of what is or is not out of the question? Where did you get these rules from?

Well, Josh is the interpreter of our code. And I think if you analyze the zoning code, the first thing you should analyze is what is consistent with the general plan and what is around it. Like, is this zoning consistent? Because it's fair, like, if you have people with kind of acreage or smaller lots around, I mean, it makes sense. The other thing is that, and I'm not a specialist in planning, like this has been a learning curve, like no other for me, but I think many of the problems are solved by means of subdivision. And some of the major concerns, such as access to wells and traffic, well, if you let them resonate and build, they will have to provide this secondary access, which can benefit existing houses and alleviate the traffic problem around. So I think the main focus is, and I think you need to be thinking in the future about fires and essential services and things like that, but if these things are available in some great way, you will have these properties, like, can I resonate in the middle of the desert where it is not possible to obtain water or any other basic resource? Does that make any sense? No. But, again, many things are resolved or resolved in the subdivision.

I agree with you. But when you start saying that you can't speak legal, I assume that this is relevant to what you are presenting. I'm asking where these rules are written and who is doing them.

Well, I think Josh, I think we can suggest that these are not the most important things now that will be addressed in the subdivision. And I don't think it's a rigid and immutable rule.

I mean, I think you're trying to focus on... Where are we in the whole app?

We have one thing, we have a problem. I get here and there are questions that I asked many and many times to different commissions. Suddenly they are out of question. You can't ask this question. And I think they are pertinent to what we are analyzing. When you have a lot coming with 100 houses, I think it's pertinent that we can ask questions about it. And there's someone telling me that you can't ask this question. I'm curious to know where this comes from and why it's being presented this way.

And I think this is a question you will have to ask Josh, but I think what Josh is trying to do is redirect to zoning and not to subdivision. I mean, we will all have personality conflicts and maybe it's time to sit down and talk to Josh before coming to a meeting.

I tried to talk to Josh before.

Hey Josh, I have a question for you.

Let's do this. Can you train us right now? Tell me this as training. We're good. You count this as training. In the zone redefinition, I used to think it was just a whim. You are approved or denied by pure whim, because this is the way everything always seemed to be. You go over there. the reasons why we can deny or we would have to approve a redefinition of zone, is it still just a whim?

Where are you going? You can go first. This is our medonda. It is not to be something improvised, taken by impulse, to the taste of the wind, it is to be so in any way. You must evaluate the zoning around the sizes of the lots around, such as the development occurred in the past, where the development occurred, if it is in the vicinity of where they are proposing the zoning. Because, frankly, a general plan is only good until the date it has to be adopted and well, all right, all right.

So forget the general plan. But if we have a reasoning requirement in front of us, you shouldn't forget the general plan. You should analyze it. You should consider the general plan.

May I?

So I think what you're asking is cool.

Like, what are my cool limits? And here we are in the legislature and I put this as my legal guidance. We need to look, you have a lot of description. But what the state statute and what the courts want to see is that you observe these things outlined about why we do the reason or deny the reason. Are we doing this where we are protecting private interests? So, I try to include them in the personal report. And it is outlined.

So, I want to say how to protect values, right? But as we consider this, if we were to recommend a denial, we would analyze this list and say, okay, these are my reasons to recommend a denial again. I believe it will have a negative impact on traffic and safety.

I would like us to follow the state statutes and, when making a recommendation or a denial, that you clearly articulate them when presenting them to the County Commission. We have nine out of ten times. And if someone comes back and processes it, it would be very good to have some substance and factual things to support this. But yes, we need to go back to our State Code and analyze it.

the problem of asking questions about sewage and if they are available or if they can get X number of lots. Well, you are asking questions that were not necessary as part of the registration process for the applicant. And frankly, these questions put the applicant at a disadvantage in relation to all the others, because all the others arrive and argue vehemently against it. Rarely is someone coming and speaking in favor. So you also have to look at the requirements for sending the registration. And frankly, for a reason in a rigid reasoning, the only things that are necessary to register a registration are paying the fee, sending the legal description and a map of the neighborhood. So, if you are asking a client, a owner, who just wants to resonate with your property, how many lots will you get with this? With this? You have an idea. Because they are not forced to do anything to prove anything about it. And frankly, I believe that these questions are not strictly pertinent.

But with the list that Janet put in the package, of protection of residential values, we would have to assume that anything on the R120 list or any list of uses allowed in any area we are considering, be it commercial, business, whatever, any area, we would have to consider that they could enter tomorrow and would be, by right, invested in any of these uses allowed in that area. And if we could choose any of them and say, well, look, I'm worried because, you know, a drive-in cinema is on this list of allowed uses, so I have to consider, under this reason, that they could come in tomorrow with a requirement for a drive-in cinema, and I don't, and I think that would be harmful to anything. This would cause traffic jams. It would be a noise problem. It would be a light problem. It would be a problem for the neighbor. We could list any of these things, because it would be a permitted use.

Containers for transportation.

Whatever. Well, unfortunately, the state legislature, speaking of containers for transportation, although I agree with you, the state legislature, in its infinite wisdom, made this absolutely legal. The end.

They are considered a structure now, and you have permission to put them in your property up to 350 feet. Good question.

So it's not just the employees who make the rules just to solve this.

I was joking about this because we talked about transport containers last time. There is no good answer in your state code, in our state code.

Yes, it's very descriptive. But the main point is that, if we want to deny

we still have to be able to articulate the reason why we deny it.

A really necessary discovery, and it should continue.

But it could be a...

I feel that... Yes, 100%. That's what Craig Cole said 100%. Legislative, it could be. This is your opinion.

That's right.

So it could be that you feel this is bad. He said this is a bad reason. 100% bad.

But if you could choose something from Janet's list,

This is a good reason.

And to say, well, I feel that this will end up having a very harmful impact on the values ​​of neighboring houses.

Cut.

This is on the list.

I would be very happy if we used the list instead of going deeper into the subdivision.

Yes, I'm a little uncomfortable entering the subdivision and that's why I asked these questions.

inform them that there is a process after that, which is not insignificant.

It will be difficult for them, but the rights are treated here. That's what I wanted to say, because I know it's written there in five acres. I think sometimes the public reads this and is not saying that maybe they know, but if someone doesn't know about zoning and there are 20 people here, they say, most of the time it will be five acres. They also need to know that legally, the second this is zoning, the second this is zoning, is when the rights are defined. Therefore, regardless of the subdivision, now this property has these rights and those who live with it. This is great. And I know that not everyone who is here knows that. That's why I'm sorry, I know I've said it three times, but there are a lot of people here.

And I think it's extremely useful to sometimes get into this rabbit hole just to inform the public. I mean, because it helps. A lot. I mean, as long as you recognize that this is not what is in front of us. But we recognize that in the future, in the subdivision, they will have to solve all these things.

It's about that, it's the reason why I ask about half of the questions I ask.

Thank you very much, because it helps. I know it makes meetings longer, but I think this is the role of the Planning Commission. It's part of it, right? At least it's useful when it comes to the County Commission.

But I think what Steve is trying to address is the adequacy of the facilities and services. We need to know if there are adequate facilities and services to deal with this reasoning. He wants to know how many houses there will be to know.

Apparently, this is not allowed.

Well, that's it. During a subdivision process, they are forced to provide all the water and all the sewage to each location.

We are potentially approving 100 houses. I think it's a fair question to ask. I don't know why it's not. Do you have an opinion on that?

I think it's a fair question to ask. Absolutely. I don't want to say it would be good for the public to hear this question and then hear an answer to it. It's in our code. I know you're saying you agree it's good, but I think it's fair to ask if it's in our code and says it's the subdivision or reasoning process, not the subdivision, but the adequacy of the facilities and services.

But there is nothing that prevents any of these requirements from going to the Health Department of Weyver and getting approval for septic wells and wells. There is nothing that prevents them from increasing. The capacity of any of the water systems costs money, but there is nothing that prevents them from doing this. And from my point of view as a planner. There are water systems in the area, there is a sewage system in the area, and they all deal with these facilities and these services.

So maybe I have a better question here. These are all the things, because just like in the State Code, Josh, you know he talks about traffic, roads, water, sewage. These are all the reasons they should consider as a reason. Have you analyzed all these things before presenting the requirement?

In a general sense? Yes, we analyzed this to see in which areas it is But in all cases, if there is a water system in the area, they can go to Weber Basin, buy their water rates, they can go to Cottonwood, Mutual Water Company, they can request the right to obtain server cards for this number of lots and Cottonwood, Mutual Water Company or Highlands Water or any other water company will provide you with X number of service units. You will need to provide X amount of infrastructure that we need to provide these services. But none of this is necessary as part of a reason.

Josh, let me. So in section F of the approval standards, wherever the subsection is, the planning commission must consider the following factors as a reason. We must, we must. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the County General Plan. It must be considered. Number 2. If the proposed amendment is in harmony with the general nature of the existing development in the proximity of the property in question. Correct. Number 3. To what extent can the proposed amendment negatively affect the adjacent property? In number 4, and I think this is where we are stuck, the adequacy of the facilities and services intended to serve the property in question, including, but not limiting to, roads, parks, recreational facilities, police protection and fire protection, schools, drainage systems of rainwater, water supply, wastewater and collection of refuge. Therefore, it is saying that it is our duty of the Planning Commission consider these things according to our code in a reasonable zone.

So, in general, yes. Are there roads in the area that could accommodate the street and traffic? Yes, there are. Are there water companies in the area that could provide water services necessary to serve these houses? Yes, there are. There is a sewage company in the area that would allow these services to be provided. And I must note that if you have a lot of half acre, 20,000 square feet or less, you only need a municipal service. You don't need both. You can use the sewage and make the well, or you can use water with a municipal company and septic tank. You don't need both. So the adequacy of this is

Well, I think the point is that we should ask these questions. The previous code. The code says we should ask these questions. Doesn't it resonate?

So, answer me this. You can ask these questions. I don't have a problem with you asking these questions.

But how should the requierent prove to you when the submission requirements don't require any of that?

So, in general, I think you can ask these questions and then look at the map and decide if you think they are adequate enough. But these submission requirements are not required by the requierent at the time of submission. Submission.

I think what I think is that the code has a code problem here because He even talks about parks and recreation, which I know someone mentioned. If you said 80 houses, our fertility rate in Utah would be 13 single children per family. That gives you 20 children. I live near Kent Smith. And when there are soccer games, there are cars on the street.

I think the fertility rate is three and a half. No, the average size of families is half. No, the average size of families is three.

That's right. Three and a half in Utah.

No, I researched it a few years ago. It's a fixed three.

According to Google, there are currently three and a... All right. Search on Google. So there are 280 people.

You, the Essence Bro, from where I obtained my data, said three. So that really doesn't matter.

But I can ask this, Josh. So, if someone arrives and it is clear that they want to do a new zoning and it is clear that they will not have water, will not have access to anything similar. This is something that you would say directly to this person, like, hey, this is probably not a good application for some reason, or you would say just go ahead, pay your fee and let's go ahead.

I talked to the requirents about this and they usually don't sign up. I must say that it is very difficult for me to prove to them that they cannot obtain water, especially if the future use map of the Earth shows 5 acres and you can go to the Wegan Health Department and obtain the approval of a pit and septic fossil in 1 acre, 1.75 acres or more.

So in the practical application, when people arrive, practically everyone will be eligible for a resigning in the basic services.

They will attend to that, in my opinion, according to the basic services, because there are different state agencies or public service companies that provide these services and they depend on the taxes and everything else to continue providing these services. So they need growth to continue.

So, how do we meet the requirements of the code to consider these things?

Well, I would look at the map in general, I would go in and talk to me and ask if there is water or sewage in the area or how they would get these services. I think many of these questions could be answered before the meeting.

So, this is something we could take, a list of verification of our port and put it in the team report to see if the team verified these things. Just mark the boxes.

It seems that this would be an easier button if we were forced to ask. So... And it doesn't need to be very specific. It could just be that these services are available in the area or...

In the team report?

In the team report.

Ems, can we add this?

I think it would be easier.

That would solve it. Well, it would prevent us from having this discussion repeatedly too.

Well, I mean, you'll have this until the code disagrees with you.

I think when it comes to interpreting the code, I'll stay on the side of the requierent. Alma demands that, actually.

But I think... As for Travis's point, the code says that we must ask about these things. So about Steve's point, when he asks, it seems that our questions are only stupid, ok? To ask, our code says we must ask. So now we are in disagreement with each other because we read the code and say we must ask about these things and you say I am the administrator of the code, the fiscal of the code or not, the zoning administrator. You should not ask about these things. So there is this tension and it is frustrating. I think I'm going to speak for myself, I'm not going to speak for anyone else, when it seems like frustration. When the questions are asked, when we feel that we are only doing what we should be doing here and we cannot appear before the meetings, we often work until six and we are not really paid to be here. So we're just trying to do what we can. And I also think that's what the public meeting is for, you know? The open forum is to ask and for the public to know that this is part of our diligence due to our public code. So I think there's a disconnect here. That's how I feel.

And many times our questions are more like a water lawyer, that is, how do you do that? The benefit, the benefit of the public hearing us ask these questions.

So it's not like we're attacking you personally. We're just asking these questions.

Because we receive emails.

Because of the emails we receive, then we lie.

I don't think it's attacking me personally. I think this puts the Commission in disagreement with the requirement. My goal is to ensure that the requirement is treated in a fair and equitable way.

I don't think this puts us in disagreement if it is part of our code to ask these questions. It is part of the process. I don't think we are upset with the requirement.

I think the easiest thing to do is to change the code or...

include the list in your team... Until the code is changed, we will include the list and answer these questions.

And I think the code really reflects the state law and probably needs to be changed to...

I want to say some of these things are in the state law.

I believe that the legislator is kind of putting his finger in the middle of the legislative actions. They have administrative actions for a subdivision. They are starting to get involved in legislative decisions. Negations.

I know that the legislature likes to make a lot of changes and... Many of them. It's not good.

That we can't keep up.

Yes, they probably... Well, thanks for the training.

No, no, but... As for the four-hour training requirements, if you want to join the... the... yes, the LULU, or whatever it's called, If you want to watch the videos on your own, and then send me a list of how long you've been watching, I'll count that as your training.

It's great that we asked this last time. Go, go, go. Perfect.

With everything that's happening this summer in my life, and in my family's life, it's been very difficult. Great.

Let's do this.

Any more questions from the team?

Ready for approval of the act. So, approved.

Approved.

The motion of the member Maloney is supported by the member Taylor. All in favor?

Aye.

The motion is approved unanimously.