Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning.

It is September 15th. This is our regular Board of County Commissioners meeting. Go ahead and call it to order. Roll call, please, Chris.

Commissioner Holes is excused. Commissioner Chilcott.

Here.

Commissioner Burroughs. I'm here.

Jana, would you lead us in the pledge today, please? All right, for public comment, those wishing to participate via grant application, you may call in at 406-375-6513 to provide your public comment. Our first item of business is administrative review and approval, contracts for services and insurance requirements. We have a grant agreement award from the Forest Service.

Kelly Ann's here.

Kelly Ann?

Thank you, Commissioners. We have a new agreement that we're gonna start up with the Forest Service. They're usually around about five years. This is the first pot of money that should go into this new agreement that's happening, and it is for the amount of $7,679. This money has come about from the Forest Service because of the 2025 fires, so treating weeds and revegetation, whatever needs to happen through those areas. Wapiti Creek was one area. and Lonely Mountain in the West Fork Ranger District is kind of how these dollars became available for the Forest Service to be able to put into an agreement. So I'm asking you to approve and accept these dollars for this new participating agreement with the National Forest.

And that's the B-A-E-R-2? B-E, sorry. What did you call it, the grant that you emailed me and you said we're calling it ?

It's two, yeah. It's a, yep.

I move to approve the Forest Service Weed Grant, amount of $7,679, as presented.

I'll second that motion. Heard the motion. Is there any public comment on the motion? Any public comment? Seeing no public comment, further discussion? All those in favor signify as aye. Jeff? Aye. I vote aye as well. Motion passes.

Which commissioner would like to sign? Mr. Halls. Commissioner Halls' name is wrote on here, but one of you are able to sign.

He can sign yours and mine, so I can say you took the original to obtain forest service.

We can just have Dan sign when he gets back tomorrow. We're telling you that today. Okay. You want it over here?

Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kelly. Our next item is commission reports. All right. No commission reports. Next item of business is the hangar agreement contract on the airport for Meloche Trust.

It's going from Michael and his wife, Julie, to... Michael and Julie Maloche Trust. The airport board approved this at their last meeting. Recommended approval, sorry.

Move to approve the name change on E271 North from Maloche to Maloche Trust.

I'll second the motion. Is this one the ones on the septic system out there?

Not the first go-around, no, I don't believe so. I think they're on the second.

I don't know if this got updated. We need to check, and the airport board needs to make sure that they have language in there that requires them to connect when it becomes available.

Good idea.

So would you be willing to make that a friendly amendment?

I would, contingent upon the... amended language for this septic hookup requirement.

I concur. Second. Is there any public comment on the motion to approve the Maloche Trust name change? Any public comment? All those in favor signify with aye. Jeff? Aye. Aye. Vote aye as well. Motion passes. All right, then we have the mileage requests.

Oh, no. Nope. We've got August minutes.

Oh, we have minutes first, okay.

Yeah, there's quite a few.

Move to approve the August minutes as corrected.

I'll second that motion. Is there any public comment on approval of the amended minutes for August? Any public comment? Any further discussion? All those in favor signify with aye. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye vote aye as well. Motion passes. Minutes are approved. All right, update on our mileage per diem. Resolution number 4823.

So back in July, we received a MACO email that the IRS has increased mileage rates from 72.5 cents per mile to 76 cents per mile. Jan and I spoke with you guys, and You wanted to go ahead and update it, but also, therefore, be it resolved, it's changed from to or is changed from time to time by the state of Montana and the IRS.

Move to approve Resolution 4823, rescinding Resolution 4768, updating the mileage rates.

I'll second that motion. Is there any public comment on the motion? Any public comment on resolution 4823?

It's just rescind part of 4768 because 4768 has your holidays and da-da-da-da-da, so.

All right, seeing none, any further discussion? All those in favor, signify with aye. Jeff? Aye. I vote aye as well. Motion passes. Do we have that?

I got to walk over to the building.

You want to do HR now or later then?

I don't care. Let's get HR in our car.

All right, we'll go ahead and reconvene our next time business and update with Human Resources Department, including the Sheriff's Office. Good morning, Elizabeth.

Good morning.

We have three deputies in our new hospital. Can I give you an extra one?

There's four.

Sorry, there's four deputies. Yeah, there's four of them, sorry.

She had surgery on her hand. She can't use all her fingers to count.

No, I can't. I can't. I'm going to take my shoes off and use my toes. This is the request for a stipend to a grade 10 to fill in at the courthouse for backup for that court position from Page's office to Judge Lentz's office.

This is the grade 8? Yeah. All right. I'm walking over there.

Okay, we'll go ahead and adjourn until 11 o'clock with a rescheduled meeting on subdivision exemption. All right, we'll go ahead and reconvene. Our next item of business was rescheduled to today, public meeting, review and possible decision on subdivision exemption. Exemption agreement 2025-022, the Shaka family transfer complaint.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Chair. Chair. What do you call yourself that you're filling? Greg, you will work. OK. I just wasn't sure. Okay, we'll get started here. This is a request for commission action. This is a public meeting, September 15, 2026 at 11 a.m. It was rescheduled from August 26, 2026 at 1.30 p.m. The subject is SEA 2025-022 Shaka Family Transfer Complaint. This is a request from the Planning Department to review two complaints filed against Kristen Shaka's family transfer subdivision exemption on Tract A of Certificate of Survey 803207. Applicable regulations are Chapter 11 of the subdivision exemption, the subdivision exemption chapter of the Ravalli County subdivision regulations under Montana Code annotated regulations. 76.3207 is divisions or aggregations of land accepted from review. Background, on March 20, 2025, Christian Shaka submitted a family transfer subdivision exemption application. The application proposed to gift a single parcel of land to Christian Shaka's daughter, Finley Shaka, and son, Quaid Shaka, with Christian Shaka retaining the remainder parcel. The planning department approved the application on March 22, 2025, The approval was recorded on September 22, 2025, as shown on Certificate of Survey 808616-F. Ravalli County received two complaints alleging improper use of the family transfer exemption. Andrew and Marilee Cotero submitted the first complaint on March 25, 2026, and James Goodwin submitted a second complaint on March 30, 2026. Board of County Commissioners held a public meeting on June 3 to take public comment on the complaint. Public comments are summarized and attached to the draft staff report. I did want to note that we did get a handful of written comments after that meeting. I've summarized the public comments in a summary table. I actually think the paperwork is in my office. I can grab it for you folks so you can read through it, the summary table. I'll just bring it up real quick, though. So some of these comments, I think four through nine, came in after that meeting, but I updated the table to reflect that. Okay. And I've shared those comments with everyone. Following public comment, the Planning Department prepared a staff report documenting RCSR evasion criteria and the applicable regulations for BCC review and consideration. And then I will say some of those comments we did get really recently when I published the staff report, I don't go back and republish it. So comments that were submitted very recently after the publishing of the staff report are not reflected on the staff report. We can talk about those today in the meeting. Andrew brought that up with me yesterday. We do not have a recommended motion for this RCA. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commissioners.

All right. At this point, we'll go ahead and take public comment. Please state your name and where you live for the record. And can we hold off for once here? We just lost our secretary. Oh, sure.

I was going to. OK.

Thanks, Denise.

Hello. My name is Andrew Cotero. I live at 751 Hollybaugh Road. So part of the thing that what Rob just read isn't really the full picture. So what my neighbor and I really, initially what started this complaint was that there was a road approach permit appeal meeting on December 11th. Certain decisions were made at that meeting, and that's really what started this process. So we want to focus on, there's really two aspects. There were decisions and things done on the December 11th. Can you use a microphone, please? Thank you. On at the December 11th meeting, there were decisions made by the board. And so our complaint is more heavily focused on that issue, the road approach permit appeal. And we went through, filed this public complaint because we didn't know, at the time, I didn't know how to appeal an appeal. And we found out from our lawyer, like, month and a half after this December 11th meeting. So that's really what started this, and that's what we're going to talk more about today. There is definitely the subdivision evasion complaint, but there's really two aspects.

So what we have on the agenda today is a subdivision exemption, right? That's our discussion. That's what we're making a decision on. And so if we're going to have a meeting on a road or an approach permit, that's a separate topic from subdivision. Just so we're talking about the same thing today, right?

Well, this is the problem, because decisions were made in that meeting that contribute to subdivision evasion. That's the whole problem. So as an example, during the appeal meeting, This started because the Sayaka family submitted a road approach permit because that's required. The road department rejected that request because the request was not 150 foot away from the neighbor's property. So that absolutely does affect subdivision evasion. Then he filed the appeal to move used the, quote, existing road. And when that was done, there were conditions placed because, as John Hrat in the meeting stated, the road as it currently is in the flare conditions encroach on the neighbor's property. So I wanted to make sure it does relate. And to separate the two out completely is not going to, It's not going to understand our complaint or our complaint will not be fully evaluated. That's our point. So if the planning department, we go to the staff report, they're going to look at subdivision evasion. We're sitting here with this road approach permit that is doing these things and it's not going to get analyzed.

Mr. Cotero, can I ask a question? Sure. So in that meeting, we made some decisions on our appeal. So we have, we approved the appeal, but put conditions on it. Correct. are it is your issue so if we just focus on the appeal and that approach is your issue that you didn't like our decision or that those conditions have not been met those conditions have not been met okay that's what we're that so that's like I said that's why we read this background and it's not giving the full picture of what our complaint is about so what I guess my concern is and I had started

alluding to it earlier, is when we do a subdivision exemption review, we don't review for legal or physical access. That's not part of the review criteria that we use to determine whether or not the exemption can be employed. And so it's relevance to An exemption to me is, it just doesn't apply. It doesn't mean we can't have a conversation about it, but I'm just saying they're two separate issues in my mind. The legal and physical access is separate from that.

So following up on it, John Horat was supposed to go out and do a final approval on the approach, right? Correct. Did that happen? Or has that happened? I don't know.

Here. He can go up.

So you have a final evaluation from John Horat saying that it met the conditions of that meeting. Can I see that? Thanks, sir. So just so I'm clear, you're challenging that John Horat signed off on the approach with the conditions that we approved. You're saying that you feel like those conditions were not met. Is that?

May I? Sure. My name is James Goodwin. I reside on the adjoining property, and I am the complainant who asserts that the approach encroaches on my property. Before I address the document that Mr. Sciacca has just brought to your attention, I would like to state that, quote, a governing body may not approve a proposed subdivision if any of the features and improvements of the subdivision encroach onto adjoining private property. I think that moots any discussion of whether or not we're talking about the approval or the approach. It encroaches on my property.

But I believe you read something about subdivision. This is not a subdivision. This is an exemption to subdivision review.

So we have nothing to talk about. Is that what you're telling me?

We're definitely willing to listen. I just want to point out that there are nuances that we have to consider when we're listening to the complaint.

The County Board of Commissioners approved this development by whatever means you wish to refer to it, subject to the condition that the road approach was moved, as discussed in the December 11th meeting 2025.

I'm sorry. I wasn't at the December 11th meeting. So I have to just, is it OK if I ask, Jeff? Please. Because I'm a little unclear. When a subdivision exemption is requested, it goes through a review process. It's administrative. They apply and they do that review. And they approve or deny it based on the information that they have. And then in this case, that's what happened. And then the approach permit was requested on this Family transfer, the parcels created through family transfer and exemption to subdivision review. So that approach permit is completely, here's your subdivision exemption review. You have your family transfer application over here. Then sometime in the future or unrelated to that time is your approach permit. That's a separate, they're not related in any way other than by the parcel that they're, or parcels. That's correct. And so they're two separate things. And so I'm still trying to figure out, what I read in our agenda was we were having a subdivision exemption complaint against the exemption and the application of the exemption. What I'm hearing, what I've heard from both of you and Andrew is you're not happy with the approach permit.

Focus on the approach permit is simply because it is the clearest example of a willful, egregious violation of conditions imposed by the county commission on this family transfer, which is for the, please allow me to finish if I may, which is for the purpose of providing residences more than one residence on the property that was originally conveyed. It was a 10-acre parcel. It's been divided into three pieces. One house has already been built. Two more are platted. So by whatever name, if it's an exemption to formal subdivision review or not, this is a subdivision. It is. Perhaps an exempt subdivision, but it is nonetheless a subdivision by what the English language tells me. Now, my concern is that the approval of the subdivision and the approach thereto was conditioned upon certain requirements of the approach. Obviously, you can't have a house. If you can't get to the house, you have to be able to approach it. Mr. Horat did not inspect the property. His assistant from the office inspected the property. I was there for that. I did not overhear the conclusion.

His assistant was Nate Pelkey? Is that who was out there?

I'm sorry. I don't know the gentleman's name. Young man, tall, close-cropped hair, Not currently present in the room. That's all I can tell you. I have to go look through LinkedIn and find pictures. But he was present at the last meeting I was at. At any rate, he is the person who provided the information that caused Mr. Horat to affix his signature to the approval that Mr. Sciacca just presented to you. Because Mr. Horat was not present at that inspection. Well, if I may quote from the meeting, Mr. Horat said, and I quote, regarding the approach, it'll be encroaching unless you move it over a certain distance, like 20 feet over, 30 feet over, the flare will encroach. So Mr. Horat was not ignorant of the fact that there was an encroachment problem with this piece of property and access thereto. You, sir, Mr. Burroughs, you concurred with that and made it conditional upon approval of the appeal that the approach would be moved over. The approach was not moved over. It was simply extended 20 feet. It was not moved 20 feet. So the encroachment exists. There's only two legal reasons why an encroachment can be Exempted, one has to do with sanitary reasons. It doesn't apply in this case. And the other one has to do with the affected property owners adjacent are OK with it. I do not consent to this. I am not OK with it. So therefore, the conditions for the approach are not met. Therefore, the approach is not valid. That moots access to the subdivision. And this is my point. If the approach is corrected, I have nothing else to say. That's all that needs to happen. Any other problems with the subdivision, violations or apparent violations of the exemption for family transfer, et cetera, et cetera, the issue that is before the council today. I have no further input to that.

So what we physically have out there, if I remember, was we basically have a property line, and we have driveways right on each property line, correct? And when you flare the driveway per the requirements, the flare ends up on Mr. Goodwin's property.

My flare does not encroach on his property, but after redoing the entryway, the flare on his approach encroaches on my property. And there is a photograph submitted in a prior addendum to the complaint that shows where the property line is and where the flares are. How hard is it to move the driveway over and get the flare up?

The reason we moved the driveway over is so when we did the flare, it would not encroach.

Excuse me, are you asserting that the current situation does not encroach on my property? Okay, just want to make sure I understand.

Because we had a survey, we had a property stake on the corner.

Okay, let's go ahead and we'll... Finish, and then we'll let, if Seth wants to speak to it, we'll do that. I will say this morning I spoke to John Horat specifically about this issue. And he indicated to me that both of the approaches, both of them encroached on each other's property, the radius of the flares. That's what he told me this morning. That was a conversation. I have no evidence. I'm just telling me what I was told by the road supervisor this morning. I invited him to be here today, too, and I thought he was going to be here. There is a photograph showing.

We're working on it right now. He's working on it. No, I would like the photograph which I submitted in, not the one I sent you last night, but the one I sent you prior to the postponement of this meeting, which shows a view facing south with the two properties adjoining and a red line painted on the dirt where the property line is approximately. I think it's in the exhibits on that.

So you're not challenging the fact that there's three lots out there. You just don't like that his driveway encroaches a couple feet onto your property.

As the adjoining property owner, that is my, I believe that's the collection of photographs if you just look through the additional ones. No, that's actually, that's the previous meeting. It's subsequent meeting after that one. Sorry. As the adjoining property owner, I have no ability to object to this subdivision other than the fact that I believe that there's an encroachment onto my property. But that's because I'm the adjoining property owner, not whatever I have believed about the evasion of family transfer. I've already presented all of that. I'm not going to go over here.

I mean, this approach side is really, really simple, right? You've got a pin out there. Does your flare go into the pin onto his property or not? Okay. Yes. I mean, this is really, really simple question to answer, and maybe we just need Horat on the phone, and I'll call him over at Fairgrounds because that's all we need.

There it is.

There it is.

There it is. The red line represents approximately the property line. I derived that by hooking a string between the two survey pins, pulling it out in the street, painting a line in the road where it is. You can see my driveway is on the right. My flare does not encroach onto his property. His driveway is the one on the left. His flare crosses that red line onto my property. The agreement from December 2025 was that culvert was supposed to be moved, not extended, 20 feet to the east. It was not done. Subsequent approval violates the conditions that were imposed by the council.

So is that, I'm just, because I was not at that meeting, the culvert that we're talking about right now, I believe, is that in the right-of-way, the road right-of-way?

The culvert itself is, And I'm sorry because the survey does not specify the road right-of-way, meaning the county road right-of-way. So I cannot exactly answer your question because the survey specifies easement but no declared footage. The culvert is... adjacent to the county road and provides for drainage from the county road to pass underneath the driveways to a collection point.

I mean, that's... And I'm not a road engineer either, but we put the culverts in to protect the road base, right, and allow the access over the borrow pit so it keeps the moisture away from the road base. And if it's in the road right-of-way and that... prism of the right-of-way. To protect the road, it's not for any other purpose in my mind.

It doesn't provide an opportunity for the residents to go over the ditch. Sure it does. And the residents are putting it in at their own expense, whether it's me or Mr. Sciacca. That culvert's installed. You can see a good example here from Google Earth where the culvert lies. It's an old photo. That was before there was more than one house on the property to the east. The driveway we're looking down now. And you can see that the road, the driveway, simply goes straight out onto the county road across a shared culvert. That shared culvert was put in prior to my acquisition of the property by the individual who resides to the south of me and the individual who eventually sold their property to the Kateros. So the installation of that culvert, which is right underneath those Google Earth arrows, that's where the culvert is, the installation of that culvert predates either of our ownership of the property. Mr. Sciacca extended that culvert 20 feet to the east to provide a 40-foot wide access to his new three-home development. So he extended it away from your property, correct? He took from where the arrows are right now and extended it that way east.

But the culvert that is on your property has been in there for arguably decades?

Clearly decades, probably since 1972.

So I'm just trying to figure out how this is going to work into the future when we have a lot of precipitation and where the water moves. So if you're asking your new neighbor to dig up that culvert that apparently extends from west of your property, or west of your approach, to east of his approach, what you're asking is to cut that culvert off and then maintain a ditch between the two?

Yes.

Or are you asking the county to maintain the ditch between the two? Because I'm kind of assuming, and that's a dangerous thing to do in my job, but assuming that the culvert and the ditch that would convey water from culvert to culvert is in the road right of way. And that's, again, an assumption.

That's an unreasonable thing to ask. You're creating a public safety issue, a turning issue, by asking to cut, what, a few foot section of ditch into that and potentially create a spot where trailer axles could drop off.

Like, I guess I don't understand why you would ask for that other than trying to- Besides the fact that it encroaches on my property, the length of the culvert is now 60 feet. That is not maintainable in case of blockage. I don't have anything, nor can I reasonably expect anybody who purchases the lots on that property to have anything that can go out there and go through a small diameter culvert, 60 feet long, to clear a blockage, which would otherwise cause water to come out onto the county road, which in the past has happened, and I have in the past gone out there and cleaned out that 40-foot culvert with shovels and extensions to try to make sure that the water does not Wash out the county road. No, the county did not do that maintenance. I did that maintenance. No one else was going to do that maintenance. So the argument that this is, first of all, the ditch as you describe it, connecting the two, would be, provided it were moved as in your original contingency on the approval, would be 20 feet. There would be a 20-foot long ditch there. There would be flares. A flare on the end of a 20-foot ditch is no different than a flare on the end of a 2,000-foot ditch. The flare is there to prevent trailer axles from dropping into the hull.

I didn't see that in the meeting that I said that the road's going to have to shift 20 feet, but I didn't see where we talked about opening up a section of ditch between the two. or that that was a condition of approval. I think what I did is I understood that maybe the flare encroached, so shift the road over 20 feet to make sure that the flare didn't encroach on your property.

And so what you're suggesting is that they shift the road over another 20 feet but leave the existing 60 feet of culvert and simply add another 20 feet to that so that now we have an 80 foot long culvert there? Is that my understanding? Is that what you're suggesting to me? I didn't have a suggestion on that. I guess what I'm wondering is that if you want to move the road, you have to move the approach because otherwise the road is just going to go into the ditch. The approach connects the road to the county road. If the road moves, the approach moves. If the approach moves, we're down to is there going to be an unculverted section at the corner of his property or not. We didn't specify that. No, you did not. That was not discussed. You are correct.

Rob, can you go back to that picture that he presented with the red line on it?

The wind was blowing. My string was moving. It's approximate.

I wasn't going to grade you on your artwork. But I am, I mean, I'm looking here and I, sometimes our perspective is a lot different than you guys sit right there, right? I mean, it's just going to be, but it looks to me like these two approaches merge across the property line. See what I'm saying? I mean, if you look, your approach, and I don't know where the county road right-of-way is, but you're, Yours comes out here like this, and theirs comes out here like this. They do seem to both encroach upon each other. And I would at least... I get if this whole debate is because you don't want three lots next door. I get that. And if that's not it, then this approach has existed for many, many, many years. For both approaches, I assume. And people have lived with that. Now, the increased use of the approach is why this all came forward. But if your new neighbor decided that your approach is encroaching on their property,

Well, that's why the county puts in 150.

One second. Be careful with that screen. Okay. This one I can touch. You can't touch that because it's touchscreen.

My driveway flare turns out here. This is my fence. This fence lies completely on my property. The property boundary line is the east of that fence. My flare comes all the way out here. I'm standing in the county road, so.

Can you point out where that, I thought you put the county road kind of at the edge of the grass when you pointed out a minute ago.

There's my flare. There's the property line. There's his flare. There's the ditch.

In your estimation, how far east would he have to shift to get that flare? I mean, it's not 20 feet from looking at that.

It would be like five feet. However, a five-foot movement of that will not permit... present a danger to vehicles turning in. A 20-foot move, such as you originally made condition on approval of the approach program at the appeal, would provide sufficient separation of two driveways such that turning vehicles would not be fooled by a hole that's only this wide. Thank you.

I can't believe you just wouldn't move the driveway over a little bit. I mean, that's what I would do. I'd just move the driveway over and not be sitting in meetings.

But for some reason, this is a...

Excuse me. We're going to have a conversation. We need to just do it at the microphone so it can be picked up. I'm not chastising.

You're talking about the lateral ditch that runs along the driveway this way? Correct. Okay.

This gets used up.

So adding 20 feet of culvert, no problem. Except for now that the flare is over here. It's not on the property.

We understand the flare debate. Let's get some, I mean, we could talk about the flare being five feet on your property for an hour. Let's get a resolution to it. John, is the flare on the neighbor's property?

The flare, how many feet is the edge of your gravel road off the I'm sorry. How many feet is your edge of gravel road off this driveway? Well, my flare actually. Not your flare. How many feet is your edge of gravel road off that? About two and a half. So about two and a half feet right now in road standards, that's encroaching 13 feet over onto this property. This one is encroaching 13 feet onto your property, pre-existing. Okay. So is that your attitude? I'm going to finish talking. Sorry, I had a question. So then this easement back here, this person has 20 or 30 feet. 30. So if we were to encroach and move that whole approach with that easement right there, we would have to contact that property owner, have him be a willing partner to move the whole approach. So when this was all constructed and the irrigation culvert, which I believe is out here, was tied into, It didn't make sense to put a hole in the middle of this guy's easement so he'd be running over habit hazard. So it just got all tied together. It did get scooched over about five feet, the flare, to where it started right here.

Could you explain when you said it's 13 feet out, is that because the property goes technically out to the center of the road?

Your approach continues out perpendicular to the gravel road and the flare is 15 feet. So there's encroachments taking place on both sides of these things. We can't go back in time to regulate this. We don't really even know the intent of why they did this. Probably because they couldn't get along. That's my guess. I mean, except for the driveways. I'm surprised, huh? That never happens. So, I mean, it was a quandary to go out there. So in your opinion, technically, Mr. Goodwin's approach would encroach on Mr. Sciocca's property right now? Yes. Well, not Mr. Sciocca's. Someone else's. Oh, you sold the front lot. Okay.

county road culvert that goes across Polybar Road right at this edge of the western layer of my driveway. I really can't move my driveway any further to the west unless that culvert is also moving because it connects this ditch to the ditch on the other side of the road.

I hear what you're saying, and pragmatically, absolutely I agree with you that moving a road doesn't make a lot of sense. But to make it compliant where you weren't encroaching on your neighbor's property is...

I don't want to collapse or block the road and cross the town road.

Yesterday in a meeting, the term common sense came up a number of times regarding family transfer. And what I'm seeing here doesn't make common sense to me. I mean, this has been an approach. They overlap. Neighbors are encroaching on each other in their flair, no doubt about it, and has been for decades, presumably. Moving your approach really to avoid The culvert coming out may require you to move that approach so you're not encroaching on your neighbor to the east. Maybe moving it 60, 80 feet to avoid the infrastructure in the county road being the culvert. But to be legal and not encroaching on your neighbor's property, that might be the requirement to move it to have a legal approach. And you're asking your neighbor, to comply with the law and not encroach that 12 or 13 feet onto your road with the flare. To me, it just doesn't make common sense. We have now an approach that has met what our expert that we've hired, our road and bridge supervisor, to go out and say, okay, this is going to work and should work into the future, should meet the demands and the needs of these parcels as they exist today. To me, from here, we oftentimes would rather look for the common sense or the pragmatic solution rather than saying, OK, Mr. Shaka, you need to move your and cut a hole in that culvert. And Mr. Goodwin, you need to move yours over so you're not encroaching on Mr. Shaka's property. And then we're all legal and happy, but we've just incurred on your or you've just incurred a significant expense to move your roads.

So.

What's your name, sir?

Andrew Katero. I live at 751 Hollybaugh. So as part of the common sense, during the meeting, Commissioner Burroughs stated to the Sayaka family, three single family homes, no commercial. Looking at the state of the road. And you go look at his covenants and They're modifiable. So there could be businesses down the road. So we're talking potentially three commercial businesses on this road and with this flare situation. So common sense would be Mr. Burroughs stating three single family homes, no commercial. That's not in the covenants.

You have to go a little further.

What we're trying to say is there is issues. You start putting three commercial businesses on this road with this current setup, there's issues. And like we're pointing out, you drive along the road, there's an irrigation ditch. If people don't even know about that and you've got commercial businesses going in, it's going to be very easy for them to drive right into a ditch.

If we condition the permit on residential only, then... It would nullify the permit if there was commercial use on there.

That's all I'm saying is that was in you. They made that comment. The second person said, I'll put that into the covenants. I look at the covenants. Covenants say they can be modified by two-thirds vote. That's all I'm saying. Three single-family homes, given this situation, I agree. It would be a lot more common sense.

The covenants... The restriction on the approach permit. So obviously you neighbors are pretty savvy, right? And you're paying attention to things that are going on. And if you saw them putting a Walmart on there or a 7-Eleven, doesn't matter, a commercial business on that road, I would suspect that you would probably reach out and say they're violating the terms of their approach permit.

And at that point, that's... Where is it staked on the actual approach? I mean, I was calling him, upsetting him. I was calling him all the time.

Join the club I called and upset him all the time. How do we condition a...

It says single-family residences on the permit. I mean, the second... This says residence plural dash four. Oh, so you guys are all shared this driveway? Okay. Yes.

So Mr. Goodwins is on the right. You guys are on the same driveway with the Shaka transfer.

So we sit there and drive this road every day, and we watch the video. We're going, I didn't see the road move. I drive it all the time. I just didn't see it move. Why didn't you?

It looked like when we approved the approach, we conditioned it upon moving east.

It is. I have.

So what does the road, to me, when we had the approach permit, what we tried to do is Mr. Goodwin's may encroach. We had a change in use on the driveway that encroached. What we tried to do through that meeting, through the appeal, was, because it got denied, I think the difference in the two approaches, one encroaching on a neighbor's and one going through a change in use and trying to remedy that is that we wanted to make sure that since there was a change in use that that approach came into compliance with flares and encroachments and that was the intent it does come into compliance because

in addition to retaining the neighbors' flair onto this property.

We need some legislators here sitting watching this meeting about family transfers and legal... Luckily, you got it on Granicus. You can send it to them on Granicus. Yeah. No, they need to watch this. We can't make them watch it, though. So potentially, if the road were to shift and go outside of the existing easement for the Quinteros, they could lose legal access to their property.

At this point, when it was extended and done, it's like, do you want us to get in the middle and negotiate with an easement holder or have Siakas?

We have another public comment right now, and then we'll let other people speak.

Thank you. I'm Alan Mackey, representing myself, but also representing my being here for the Sapphire Coalition. I'm really glad that we're getting to have the common sense decision. Because after yesterday's, I couldn't find the common sense. And that goes back to the question that I have of you commissioners is, and Rob, Rob, would you be able to get the data from the planning department database for the commissioners with or without them asking for it, preferably with them asking for it? For how many family transfers are getting done in recent years versus how many subdivisions are getting done outside of city limits in the county jurisdiction and what those ratios are.

When you say how many, are you lots created through subdivision versus family transfer?

Because I don't think that anybody here really believes that all of this is an up and up. I mean, we all know what's going on. We're just using our little different ways of trying to get the way that we want and whatever, and that's fair enough. But we all know that these are getting abused, and we all know that the taxpayers are the ones that are footing the bill for all of this. We all know that. Not all the taxpayers know that, but by goodness, when they find out, they're not going to be happy about it. But so my question is, as you talk about all this going on, can the county start working towards doing something about this for the future so that somebody that thinks they're doing a development that's all right for the county doesn't have to go through this and the neighbors don't have to go through this so that we can start actually fixing this problem that's been going on for years and getting worse for years and years and years? Are you willing to do the littlest bit about that and just ask the county planning department for that data. Rob's already given us some of that data.

I've seen that data before.

What have you gleaned out of it?

I believe, well, I don't know what year it was where we actually created more through family transfer, but we did some presentations to the board of realtors where we had that information, um, It was more lots created through family transfer than subdivision.

Is that a problem for the county taxpayers when they're giving up all of that pro rata? If you're talking about creating, let's say you create 200 lots in an average year, and every one of those 200 lots would have paid $10,000 or $20,000?

It's not just pro rata. It's impacts to schools. It's impacts to water user facilities. It's all the criteria that we review for. Emergency services. No doubt about it. Alan, I'm not arguing with you. It's a bad way to develop a community in a county through family transfers. I think it is. I'm not going to say being abused because it's an allowance. And we had that big discussion yesterday is there's some that believe it was for the farmer's kids to be able to live and stay on the farm. But we don't have a lot of farms left here. So now it seems like an opportunity for somebody to send their kids to college by car. breaking off a piece and paying for college. And in some cases, it may be a tool for a developer to get one free subdivision here. And we've seen that as well. I mean, I sit on the Board of Health, and we've seen it where we've had developers family transfer and build duplexes on family transferred lots and start renting them out. So, yeah, it's being abused.

Does it say that the county can look for evasion in our laws? I didn't catch that. In our laws, does it say that the county can look for evasion?

In the law, state law, it says that if you have documentable evidence and it lists out what evidence is, then you can find evasion and the remedy is $10,000 or 10% of the sales price.

But we also have a county law. Is the county law moot? Does the state not allow the county to have their own law when the state law says that the county can have their own law within the parameters of the state?

It says we can have evasion criteria.

Which we do. So can we apply those? I think we do apply those. They weren't applied yesterday. But we'll focus on today.

I disagree with you on that.

We'll focus on today. But... So anyways, is it a possibility going forward that the county commissioners and or the planning department would like to work together to start solving this problem that you see as a problem? And then we're seeing that's more of a problem now because for the first time ever, we actually had a public meeting on it, which you, Mr. Chilcott, said, oh, well, we didn't realize we didn't have public meetings when we wanted to do all of this under the table.

That's not what I said.

You said that yesterday, except for not under the table.

I paraphrased for you. Paraphrased?

Hell, you made it up out of a whole clock. You said that you were sorry there was an omittance, that there was not public meetings on family transfer here.

Back in the day, you were around. We were both much younger then. They went through a meeting between the planning office and the clerk and recorder's office, and sometimes the county attorney's office go through and review the exemption applications. That was their meeting, and I don't know how they did it. We had nothing to do with it. I was a brand-new commissioner back then. But that was the public meeting that I think was overlooked in 2012 when we adopted new regulations because that was kind of, I think, and it's a long time ago, what the perception was that was that public meeting. Well, then it changed and it became the planning office doing it administratively, reviewing it and looking at those things. And it was clearly an oversight and unintentional. There was nothing, what was your term, underhanded. And I think when you say stuff like that, it just, it's pretty antagonistic and frankly, it pisses me off because the inference there is wrong. You don't believe that there's a cottage industry revolving around this? I do not think there's anything underhanded in it. Absolutely do not think that. Do I think there are people who take advantage of it? Absolutely. Do I think people take advantage of exemptions under tax law? Absolutely.

It's a loophole just like is used, and at some point that loophole gets exposed and abused, and I think we're getting to that point where our legislature needs to take a look at it.

But that's what I'm asking is... Can you, as the county, can you take a look at what's happening? I haven't heard anybody volunteer to look at that data yet.

Well, maybe if you came to the meeting, I think it's Thursday we're talking about.

Oh, I'll be there.

Okay. So the implication we're doing nothing is misguided at best?

I think if you look at your own data, you'll find out that you've been doing nothing, Mr. Chilcott.

Well, that's an opinion, and you're welcome to.

I think, Alan, that what's happened is – Greg's a little bit different because they used to have a different process. 14 years ago, I inherited a process which was administrate shit for 10 years. I didn't even know that was happening down the hall. Nor did I. I didn't know the planning was signing off on family transfers and they were happening. It just happened for those years. Right after COVID, when all of a sudden, Rob started providing us with information when we were presenting to Board of Realtors and other presentations where it's like, wait a sec, we're creating more lots through family transfer than through subdivision. That's when... That was some eye-opening information that we're like, we need to start having this discussion. Because for 10 years of being a commissioner, I had no idea we were family transferred. You heard about them, but I had no idea the prevalence of family transfers going on until we looked at that data. So we're taking it seriously. We're talking to our legislators. I'm willing to work with you and the coalition and legislators and planning to come up with something to, to tighten the loophole. I think it's a valuable tool and I don't think we want to close it, but we need to put some sideboards on it. And we've talked about it. We talked about it yesterday. It needs those sideboards. You need to ensure legal and physical access and not have flares that encroach on neighbors and And we need to make sure that irrigation infrastructure is not being messed up where our, our ag producers are having these issues and losing their water and, um,

But I think we also need to take a look at why are people doing this so much, right? I mean, there's – Because it's cheaper than doing a subdivision.

I agree with you on that. And that's a problem, and that's the same problem that we have with the county with working with Hamilton or whatever because it costs more to do a subdivision in Hamilton when you're running sewer and sidewalks. And if you do them outside of Hamilton, you do a subdivision with sidewalks, and then a little kid gets run over by a car. I mean, without sidewalks.

If I can finish what I was saying, Alan. I think you're right. I think absolutely we'll work with folks. Some of this was eye-opening to me the last couple of years, few years, seeing how many have been created. But you have to look at the genesis of the problem. Why are people doing this so much more? I agree with you on the genesis. And so I think that our subdivision process in the state of Montana has become so onerous that people are looking for alternatives. When you spend a quarter million dollars to try to create a five-lot subdivision, it doesn't pencil out very well. And we hear the legislature wringing their hands all the time about affordable housing. Well, take a look at what it costs you to create a lot. Back in the day, you could buy a lot for less than it costs them to develop a lot. And so that's a problem. We still have to do due diligence. We have to make sure it's done right. That's important. I'm not discounting that. But have we gotten lost sight of the outcome and focused on the bureaucracy? And that feels like what is done in the subdivision review process. So in a lot of ways, government in general has forced landowners to look for a more efficient, way, more economical way, to extract some value from their land. Because when you look at the other options, you have to do a whole lot more lots to pencil out to meet your financial needs than you may want to do. You may want to carve off, remember the occasional sale. You may want to carve off a lot, buy a new tractor or whatever. They did away with that because it was being abused and they came out with this. And when the legislator contemplated, strangely enough, it wasn't about your kids moving onto your property because you could give it to your spouse. They contemplated some financial extraction in that process more than just gifting. And so we are trying to figure out what their intent was when it's not clear. You're trying to define the intent I'm trying to define, everybody has a different.

I'm not trying to define the intent so much as I'm trying to define evasion. Because throughout the whole history of that law, evasion has always been the backbone of that law. And every time that that law has got changed at the legislative session in Helena, The legal team in Helena looks to see if it's still the intent of the law if you're gonna if you're gonna put a Addendum is that the name of? Addition to the law or a subtraction of the law they still The legal team has to look and make sure that it still can go within that law like you can't just completely change something see they got a

They don't always work it out all the way through. No, and it might not.

But my point with that is that law has always said that the local government needs to look for evasion and assume that it's evasion if following all of the circumstances, look at all of the circumstances to see if it's evasion. And that's what I'm asking you guys to actually start doing that in an objective way. And I actually disagree that you could be objective yesterday when your nephew was the one that did the case that went all the way to the Supreme Court where we were forced into having to do a lawsuit with the county.

I don't think that's productive, Alan. I really don't. You're correct. I apologize. I mean, I've worked with Greg a long time. And I've never seen that, what you're inferring, that somehow he's trying to backdoor these or ramrod these. I mean, it's not productive. It's untrue. He doesn't do that. He hasn't influenced any decision on any of his family's transfers. That's fair. That's fair.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Yeah, I apologize for that. It's frustrating because... we found out the same way that you said you found out, that all of a sudden, all this is going on, and you find out when you're going to be on the losing end of it. And that's what these guys found out, too, when they're going to be on the losing end of it. And that's what subdivision review is for, is to try to figure out some of these things that may or may not work. And so I'm going to get back to the subdivision review that a 12-inch culvert that's 60 feet as an irrigator, I can see the problems with that. Okay, well, that's probably a little bit better. But I can certainly see the problem with the 60-foot culvert, especially if it's one of them, especially if the grade is just off of the tiniest little bit and you start getting a little sediment in it and it starts becoming different. So I can certainly see the problems there. And then the other thing with the lanes, some people would say grandfathered in, which is not really a term or whatever, but there would probably be something to do with prescriptive easement there. Um, but, um, anyways, I'll, I'll leave it at that. I don't want to be any less productive than I already have, but, but I do hope, I do hope that we can, I hope that we can agree on one thing that, that, um, that this loophole is, is, is, is getting abused to do commercial subdivisions and the taxpayers are taking the brunt of it. I think if you, if you take a look at the,

work that's been done on the proposed amendments to chapter 11 of the subdivision regs regarding exemptions, I think you'll see that there's been a lot of thought, a lot of effort, and a lot of time put in by the planning office and the county attorney's office and commissioners in this process. And I think, well, I know that I'm proud of the work that's coming out to be trotted around the corral for the first time. We'll see what the public thinks about it when we start this process and take public comment.

Is that meeting scheduled? Yeah, Thursday.

This Thursday?

Okay. So are you aware of that meeting?

I just became aware yesterday for the first time.

OK. Yep. So the implication that we're not doing anything, we've got our heads buried in the sand or someplace else, I don't think it's altogether accurate, but it's been a long time, a long time coming. The work's been done and really appreciate the effort, especially by Planning and County Attorney's Office. They put a hell of a lot of work into this and a lot of thought, and they've been bouncing thoughts off of us via email and dropping drafts in our office. I think we're on the third or fourth draft now. You can take shots at me and Jeff and Dan all you want, but the staff has broke their back to try to do it right. And I really appreciate the effort they put into it and would like to see some recognition that by the public that complains about things all the time to recognize they are working to find a solution.

I appreciate that because we definitely need a solution. Thank you. Thanks, Alan.

So moving forward on today, how can we remedy this approach? Like, honestly, in a perfect world, you'd shake your neighbor's hand, you drink a beer, you'd have a barbecue, and you'd move the approach and get it done. That's obviously not going to happen. But is there a way that... Mr. Shaka, you can do something there. And Mr. Goodwin, you can accept that your approach probably encroaches on their property a little bit and come up with a solution.

I keep having this problem with the logic. The county regulation states 150 foot. That's why his initial road approach permit got rejected. And so now... I keep hearing the problem is the good one.

Who said the problem was the good one?

Just hearing that, well, his land is encroaching on the side of the problem. Well, that wouldn't happen if they would have moved the road 100... That's not true.

That's unequivocally untrue. His approach as it exists today, you just heard John Horat tell us, his flair technically encroaches on what was the Shaka property and now is somebody else's. Whether that approach to the east moves 150 feet or 10,000 feet to the east, the fact remains that his flair still encroaches. And legally, he could probably hire an attorney, and you could fight this out, and he'd say, your flare encroaches 12 feet onto my property. Move it. But practically, does that make any sense? So Mr. Shaka's approach, encroaching on Mr. Goodwin's property, moving that does not change the fact that that approach to the West still has some amount of flare that encroaches.

I have a technical question. Can I ask a technical question?

If you go to the microphone, sure.

It was asserted a few minutes ago that there is an encroachment of my driveway onto the adjoining property, and I presume that that statement was 15 feet from the center line of the road. Is that correct?

Which road are you referring to?

Sorry, my driveway, what is now known as Judy Drive.

It's not 15 feet from the center.

I just want to understand that. I'm trying to be critical. I just want to understand.

So in my estimation, existing driveways before the formation of the access permit policy are existing. So what we have here, we start with this driveway. This flare starts right here. It comes 15 feet over to the edge of the road here, and it goes 15 feet over some distance here. This one comes straight out here, 15 feet from the edge of the road. There's a radius here, so you're both encroaching.

Okay, so the 15 feet measurement that you describe here is not related to the width of the easement on the private property itself. Is that correct?

It starts at the edge of the gravel, and it's a flare.

But it's not a function of the width of the easement that's been granted on the private property.

No, it's physically the existing edge of the road.

The reason I ask that is that there is, coincidentally, the granted easement on the new development was 30 feet wide, and I wondered if the 15 feet was derived from that.

No, the existing 30 feet comes out right here, and then there's another distance that Mr. Siaka granted as a condition of the meeting where it goes either further this way to encompass that whole new approach to get everybody back over there. In order to move this whole approach, Mr. Gutierrez would have to be amenable to having his driveway moved over here. Because you have an easement out of it, that'd be my understanding. So the question is, are you willing to move your approach, your existing approach? Are you willing, there's some amount of culvert through right here, through this land right now, Are you willing to see a hole right there and have that whole culvert move over to the east? Mr. Lieutenant. We'd be a metal pullback. Then you'd have a hole there. Then this existing driveway would have to get ripped out also. We'd be a metal pullback. We'd rather, yes, we'd be a metal pullback. So you could remove a section of culvert there, create a pit, put the proper end treatment on each of those culverts, and then everybody would have to reroute over there it would pretty much meet standards there, except your approach would continue to encroach over there. So it is possible.

My question is answered. Thank you. I just wanted to know where that...

But that it may not be okay because you'd have to rely on prescription or go through a formal easement process for the Kateros because a shift may shift them out of the current easement that they have. That was actually discussed in the meeting about... considering another motion to make sure that the easement changes to accommodate the neighbor's use. I assume that's the Kateros, that if we shifted that over I mean, I don't know that you guys could get an easement now without fighting in court for prescription. If that neighbor said, no, I, I'm not granting an easement for the Kateros to move over 20 feet. They have an easement right here. Then we go dig a hole and put a ditch there. I mean, you can see where, when we start talking common sense, this doesn't make a lot of common sense to put a big hole in the middle of these two driveways for potentially FedEx or trailer, whoever comes in there to drop their tires in. Um, then you guys have to go through the process, and now this new owner, and acquiring an easement shift, 30 feet or whatever the distance is.

Yeah, I mean, we're just, it's a tough, because it's like, the way it is now, and then you use the rest of the easement, you're driving through the old irrigation. And it's just, you don't see it. And it's like, so you got to do all this, you got to come curve, and then go like this, otherwise you're going to drive right into the ditch.

Which ditch are you talking about the ditch that follows the driveway? Where's the ditch at in there? Right behind that sign?

It's right here. And this is a wastewater ditch. And I would gladly fill that whole wastewater ditch in because there's no more flood irrigation on that piece. Went through grid. it all has to be pumped now. There'll be no more flood irrigation on those three parts. So we won't be in a wastewater ditch to collect that water because there's no more flooding. If I could have the podium for a minute. So this is the property line right here. That was a surveyed state by Paul Jessup. So what we did is we came 15 feet off the property line, and then we did a 15-foot flare. So correct me if I'm wrong, but if we went 15 foot off the property line and did a 15-foot flare, I don't believe we're even encroaching Mr. Goodwin's property. And I don't think there was never a problem with that flare encroaching the property before when the existing owners or the Pateros used that driveway. Now that there's one more house using it, it's an issue. But like I said, I don't believe the flare is even encroaching on this now because we came 15 feet up. This was the existing driveway. Yeah, we could have tore all this out and moved this over, but we thought the same thing. What if a truck's driving in here? And I believe this is County Road right away. This is not even Mr. Goodwin's property. This Yeah, from the property line running east west.

They vary it may be their property with an easement on it. It may be we haven't all different over.

So really, all you didn't do is just kind of define with grass that radio it's just called gravel, right?

I guess I can come find some grass here to show the radius of the move to do that. I will, like I said, this ditch is going to get filled in, but there's a 30 foot right away here, an easement that was granted that you guys did not have before we purchased the property. When we purchased the property, part of the agreement was to give you guys a 30-foot right-of-way utilities, ingress, and easement. 30-foot. That was something we did, and then we redid the easement when we shifted the approach over.

Does the easement show kind of a little jog now? It does. It does. So they would have an easement.

Yeah, they have the easement. They just got... dug out for whatever reason. And I wouldn't dig it out there. I would dig it out right between our property lines, right here on the counter of the driveway where I dig that out. I don't believe it should be on your property. I mean, I don't believe it should be in your driveway or in my driveway. If we want to make a four-foot hole there and cut the culverts so we can clean culverts, you know, we can. I've seen the water that came through there this spring. I looked at it. Did you guys ever have water come over that culvert? Oh, not this year. Prior years, yes. So prior years, you had water come over that 15-inch culvert at 40 feet with gravity not pressurized. The 15-inch culvert is a 15-inch culvert. There shouldn't be any more restriction on a 15-inch culvert. The restriction is not from the culvert diameter.

The restriction is from obstruction because of the needs and the material that's washed into it. May I?

Let's let him finish.

That was what I was saying. We came 15 feet off this property line, drew that flare out. Like I said, we can plant grass there to show that there's a flare that connects back in here and we can fill this ditch back 30, 40 feet. If that's the danger is pulling in here and running into that ditch, we can fill it. That ditch is a good 50 feet back from The property line problem.

I'm not near as worried about that ditch on the east side. I'm worried about the hole in the pit we dig on the west side, a four-foot hole that typically, between two culverts, is going to fill with vegetation, at least on the banks of this ditch. It will not be easily visible from the uninitiated, like UPS or FedEx, when they turn in there and then Not only did they go into the ditch, they probably damaged the end of the culvert. That's a concern for me in taking out that.

It's a valid concern. I don't see that whatsoever. My assertion relates to the original condition imposed by the board. But at any rate, the condition that was imposed was move it 20 feet, not forward.

Yeah, but that condition was never cut a section. My understanding was never that there was going to be a really small section of open ditch that could be a public safety consortium.

That was a 20-foot move right here. We put 20 feet of culvert on that. But that's not a move. That's an extension. We did. If we move this over, the sweep started here. This is our sweep here. And once it gets back to our property line, that doesn't matter. The approach was back to our property line. Correct? I mean, the approach is to our property. Once it's on our property, we can do whatever we want. The approach is off of the county road. That means this sweep's here. This sweep's over here to the culvert. That's the new sweep. Now, granted, if we had done a little better job filling that ditch and tying into that rope, probably we still can. It's still a property that we own. It's still our easement. We can do whatever we want to.

But I can get a 40-foot semi into this thing right now. No problem. There's not an issue getting into that rope. And I definitely don't see an issue with that ditch.

But like I said, I can take care of that ditch and we can go fill it with 40 feet more gravel. That'll get everybody out of this place right now.

Whose culvert is that? Who's maintaining that culvert?

The one in the east-west direction? Yeah. As far as I know, it ostensibly belongs to the property owners who have to cross the ditch. The county owns the ditch.

That's the county road drainage ditch. Is that correct?

I'm not going to find out. So is that an irrigation ditch, or is that just a borrow-pip ditch?

I think there's an irrigation way. Will you clean that culvert out? Common sense.

a clean out near the junction of the two properties such that a person with an ordinary set of tools might be able to gain access to both ends to remove an obstruction. Would that be something that you would consider? I would consider that, yeah. You're saying like a concrete sump? Yeah, with a grate over the top of it or some kind of a lid on it so that

Yeah, I would consider that.

The dead animals, right? I see skunks and coons.

With the right design, I would consider that. So this is all I have. I mean, it sounds like if you guys got together in good faith and worked this out as neighbors, all the issues go away. Like Mr. Schock has said, I'm willing to help put in a clean out. I'm willing to help fill in the ditch for the Gateros to avoid that safety issue.

Not speaking for yourself. flooding construction.

I am satisfied.

Would you help put that in?

Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking, what if we graded the uphill side, too? You know, and then if it gets plugged with vegetation or even an animal getting in there, you know, it's easy to clean and easier. Yeah, you can get a corrugated T-made metal lid.

Put a lid on it and then tie it back in there. Metal lid, yeah.

Yeah, let's get a few designs built up and we'll see what would work here and then and maybe think about something there where we can do a clean-out. It's got to be something you can crawl down in. I don't imagine you'd be able to... 15 inches? Well, no, I'm saying you just got to be big enough this way to crawl down in there and actually access the 15-inch hole. Or at least get the end of a semi-flexible tool to go around the horn.

Right. Do some sort of PVC. Yeah.

Yeah, I'd consider that. Let's try to come up with a... Fair enough.

Thank you. Mr. Cotero, is that...

Yeah, I mean, like you said, the only other thing I can add is, like you said, we spent this whole time talking about pros. There's no big ones here. And we have a lot of We're sitting here today talking about all this stuff. That's our other concern is the road maintenance.

I hear what you're saying, but it's a little outside of the approach permit. That's where we have some authority.

This is more kind of the evasion part. We don't know what else to do, but this is our issue. There's a lot of road issues. There's a road maintenance agreement that gets spelled out now because

There is a road maintenance agreement today.

There is not.

There is in the covenants. Obviously, you're not part of that covenant, but there is on those three lots to have a road maintenance agreement to the end of those lots. Now, from the end of that lot to your property, obviously, nobody will be driving on other than you, so that would be up to you to maintain.

Right, but the covenant is more just a caution. It's not really meeting all, I would say, all the county requirements.

Well, let me ask you this. So the condition the road is in today, is it in any different condition than it was before I purchased the property?

Well, our question is, it's worse, actually, because of the builders. But our question is about the future. That's what we're trying to address. And that's why, if this went through standard subdivision review, the question of the road maintenance agreement would have gotten done during standard subdivision review. because the exemption is not getting addressed, and we're looking at all this with this gravel. It's going to help, but that's my wife, and I'm like, what about the future?

Are you willing to be a signatory on the road maintenance agreement?

Yes.

And contribute to the maintenance of that road?

Yeah, our lawyer hasn't dropped the agreement. I mean, he dropped it once, and we're like, We're really going, what are we going to do with the state of this road? We're looking, like I said, four-unit subdivision. The road, usable road, is about, well, 15 foot wide. I'm not going to quote an exact number. It's basically a one-lane road. It was a driveway for one home. So for them, that was their driveway. Now it's this internal four-unit subdivision road. And we're kind of going, hey, we need something with the road maintenance, and at least get that to help alleviate our future concerns.

Would you work on a road maintenance? I mean, it sounds like it would behoove you on maybe selling it to have some sort of road maintenance agreement back there that included the Kateros as a cost share into the... improvement.

So yeah, like the property owners in this first lot right here, they use they go left right there into their property. They don't continue down the road unless they've changed their driveway. They don't continue down the road and then go left.

Well, they could a future flat. The flat map that got approved shows all three homes are going down this single road and then that's what the flat show.

Right. So we can bring in a little more base gravel and widen it by five feet when there's new homes there. But The way I'm looking at it right now, you still are the only ones, and whatever is messed up right here at the front, we can do the maintenance on that right now. But until two other homes go down before you guys, nobody else is using that road other than you, correct? My kids are seven and nine. It might be a long time before they have to build a home.

Well, we don't know. People can change. One of the requirements would be a road maintenance agreement would be produced and in accounting regulations, the road maintenance room can't be weakened, can't be lessened. And that's our concern.

I think Mr. Schock has been more generous on what he's offered here.

Would what?

he's big yelling for so you know would you be willing to uh mediate this also i'll help out however i can but i based on what he's offered today i think he's been very generous and thank you sir i thank you because it is definitely an improvement and if we can get something out of the meeting minutes today that these things there will be some action so not just we talk today and then a week later somebody goes online and watches the video and go what was everybody talking about We can get something in the meeting minutes that states this is what Mr. Sayaki is being very helpful today. We can all look that up.

Okay, so here's as far as, at least right now, what I've heard as far as a decision, an agreement by parties in this room, is that I'm assuming all three, Goodnights, Kateros, and Shakas, will work together to put in an access portal into the culvert somewhere on or near the property line between the two properties to allow maintenance and cleaning of the culvert.

What's the name of that road?

That's on Hollywood Road.

Yeah, but that's what the irrigation culvert runs. They're perpendicular, right?

No, parallel.

Parallel, that's what I meant. Sorry.

That's, I think, the topic we've had today was on the approach permit and meeting the approach permit. I've heard Seth offer to continue filling in the wastewater ditch a little ways further to the east, but I didn't really hear that as a major concern from the good news. Good, nice. Good ones?

No, because my property lies entirely to the left.

Okay. Okay. So is it Kateros? Kateros.

And it's not the ditch to the east. It would be the ditch running south, right?

Parallel to the driveway. Parallel to the driveway. Oh, okay. Okay.

Behind that wood plank, whatever's there. It's on the east side, right?

It's on the east side of the north-south road driveway. And how far do you think would suffice to keep filling that in?

I'd say at least 30 feet. It's just like I said, it's very hard to turn and then go that way.

And as far as the road maintenance agreement, I'd sure prefer seeing this done between neighbors. Because what I think I heard, and nobody's hesitated yet, but feel free to correct me if I misheard it, that prior to this family transfer, etc., you guys didn't really have an easement, you just enjoyed an easement, right? Kind of a prescriptive easement sort of situation. And that's been, since the transfer of this property, that's been firmed up and it's a legal easement that you have and it's been adjusted to accommodate Mr. Goodwin's concern about encroachment of his driveway, right? So you now have a little curve in there and you, so... the benefit that I think that Kateros have is that you now have a legal physical access that's kind of bulletproof. So I think what I'm hearing is pretty good neighborly foundation to work on a road maintenance agreements that's fair to everybody. And I think, Jeff made a good idea. Beer and a barbecue.

Maybe sit down and... What would be an opportunity to do that?

I also think I understand Mr. Carroll say that you had an attorney that had drafted up some sort of a road maintenance agreement. I'm not suggesting that Seth should blindly execute that. I'm just saying give him an opportunity to look at it and that'd be a good starting point. And maybe the covenants on the The new parcels would recognize some amendment to not being the majority to say, yeah, the three of us agree that the one that's not here gets to pay for everything sort of a thing, you know. Just set some reasonable standards for the road maintenance and leave it at that because I'm aware of somebody that decided to pave their segment of road and then send it down that weren't paid but have to drive across that pay section send them a bill for that well that that ain't going to work so exactly um i i think i think we've got a good thing but i right now i think we the only thing i'm really walking away from this is seth is going to fill in 30 feet of the wastewater ditch going down the east side of the north south driveway He's going to, with participation from both Gutierrez and Goodwins, come up with a culvert access maintenance point somewhere near the property line between Goodwins and this property. And something that the county approved for not to be a hazard to, I would imagine? Yep. Yeah, because I don't want to see that culvert dug up. I just don't. I just see that crushed culvert, and then that, as you well know, fixing that's a real pain. So are there any other things that we've discussed they kind of agreed to that I've missed? Can we all shake hands and sing Kumbaya once real quick?

Kumbaya.

This is the way you hope it works out in a meeting like this, is that you can sit down, discuss it, and common sense solutions.

We appreciate you actually going outside the subdivision thing and addressing really our concerns. And that's, like I said, we were stuck because it was too late to comment on the appeal. So we had to file a complaint.

Well, and we all need to thank Seth Shocker for coming in because we can't compel him to be here for this. What he had. on both cases had been approved, and so him coming in was the neighborly thing to do, and he did it, and I really appreciate that.

It actually says in state law that we cannot compel him to come to this meeting.

Thanks, appreciate it. Rob? Back to the planning side, I guess I'd propose two options. One, maybe a Maybe a timeframe like you have an active complaint with the planning department, so I would respectfully asked if there's no longer a complaint that it get pulled. The Commissioners are in a meeting right now you, you know what do we want to do with this, I guess, is my my question. Asking the neighbors here, you know. I can. Let it drop. I mean, I would prefer to something that, hey, we've worked this out. We'd like to pull our complaint so I can just close my file out. We're in a meeting. It's good to talk about this now so we can kind of finish up and go to lunch. What do you guys want to do here?

Whatever you need. I guess we work.

I mean, I have a whole report that we went through last time. It doesn't sound like that. there's the appetite to do that here.

Um, so I'm, well, as far as the complaint on the, on the approach, um, either withdraw it or I'm in, I'm prepared just to deny the complaint because I think we've addressed it with this decision today and, um, and walk away from that complaint as far as the only thing that's really out is the, um, coming up to an agreement on the culvert clean-out and then the road maintenance agreement. And that's clearly outside our purview here, in my opinion. So do you want to withdraw the complaint?

So I think for the record, what I would do is I'd make a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the two conditions that because there's two solid conditions. The first is the culvert clean out. The second is a minimum of 30 feet of the wastewater ditch being filled in. And third, which isn't a condition, but a recommendation or a hope is that there'll be a road maintenance agreement figured out between the the Shakas and the Kateros.

Is that a motion? That's a motion. I'll second the motion. Is there public comment on the motion? No. Is there public?

I guess I'm just curious the nature of the family transfer. This is a family transfer exemption that's being contested, right? Are we talking? Because if it's a family transfer exemption, it would...

There was public comment on the family transfer by Alan. I didn't really hear the family transfer... challenge from the Kateros are good ones. Good one.

But I just want to make sure that we're not setting basis for family transfer exemptions based upon access.

We had that discussion while you were late for the meeting. That they're two different things.

Well, one of the things that triggered this transfer is this isn't just an average. This transfer for access required like a variance from the separation. And I think that's the difference is that. If it would have been a family transfer that the separation in sight distance would have been met, there was no variance to that, it would have just happened and we wouldn't be sitting here. But because it required that, I think that's what kicked it into this discussion. So I don't think it's precedent setting in any way.

And I've seen court-ordered splits granted that had no physical or legal access. And that came through district court. So physical legal access is not a review criteria for an exemption. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor, and we're open for public comment on that motion. If there's any further public comment. Any public comment? Any further discussion, Jeff? All those in favor signify with aye. Jeff? Aye. I vote aye as well. Motion passes. Thanks for coming in. Thanks, guys. Thanks for working together. I really appreciate that. That being said, is there any public comment on items not otherwise on the agenda? Move to adjourn. Second. We're adjourned.