Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll call this meeting of the Utah County Planning Commission uh to order. Uh it's September 16th. It's 5:30 p.m. and we do have a quorum present. Um just uh to announce um it there is a an attendance role at the door and uh a place there to um to indicate whether you want to um to speak uh during the meeting tonight. So make sure you sign in there. Our first order of business is to approve our minutes. We have a motion. Do we have any concerns with the minutes that were included with the packet? Commissioner,

I'll move that we approve the minutes. I second that. It's been moved and seconded that we um approve the minutes from our August 19th meeting. Um all in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? The minutes have been approved. Um, if we move to our next uh item of business, I know we've got uh the uh Pacific CPS item on the agenda, but uh do we have us do we have some Yeah, Mr. Chair, uh this is Bryce Armstrong, community development staff. Um we received a request from the applicant to continue this matter. Um, initially that request was or that request should have been forwarded to you um to your emails uh that I think that request was to continue it to the next month. I I do believe that the applicant is here and may wish to address some uh point of that uh request. So, okay. And uh just just to be clear for the those in attendance, continue means just to pick it up next month and to not make uh a decision tonight based on uh their request to provide some more information over the next 30 days. Is that is that how

correct? It would be to continue to the date that you will set to the date we set whether that's next month or or a later date. That would be the date um that the matter would be deliberated and potentially decided on, acted upon. Okay. Um the applicant here, do you want to speak to your request to continue?

Yeah, good evening. Thank you. My name is John Hutchkins on behalf of Rocky Mountain Power. Um yeah, we're here to seek a continuation. Um we'd actually like to ask for 60 days instead of 30 to your November meeting. um and stay any decision until November. Um and then if the continuation is granted, we'd actually like to also ask that the um 60-day requirement to approve or deny the application in 54183041A be told while the matter is continued till November.

Uh please state that again. I'm not sure I understood what you're asking. In uh in Utah code 5418304A1, there's a requirement that the commission approve or deny the application within 60 days. Yep. We'd like to just ask that that time period is told while the matter is continued. But that be held for for the same 60 days. Yeah. Or paused told. Are we allowed to do that? Yes, we are. Okay. In fact, it is being because of your action last month, it is being told right now. Yes. The 60 days is not running.

Okay. Okay. So, if I understand right, you're asking for continuing uh for until November and also for us to just pause the 60-day uh statute. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Any uh any questions or discussion from the commission uh for the applicant? Questions at all? Is there a motion from the commission? Then I move to continue this item until 60 days, which would be it. It would be the November 19th. Okay. Planning Commission meeting. 18th. 19th. 19th. So Wednesday. Oh, sorry.

To our regularly scheduled meeting in November. Yeah. So what you saying? Let's make sure we get the right date. Okay. So, it's the 18th. No. November 18th. Okay. Tuesday. And I move that we continue this item until November 18th, 2025. And with that continuence also incorporating a pause on the 60-day time limit that is contained in Utah statute for an approval or denial of a conditional use permit. Second. Okay. Well, it's been moved and seconded to continue this to November 18th. And any discussion on the motion? Did you get everything said that you wanted to say? Yeah, sorry.

Make sure. Okay, good. I I have a just a question now on the 60 days. Then when does that begin? Most likely, this is again we're interpreting stat state statute here. begins once you make a decision on whether the public utility has satisfied the notification of public workshop requirements in title 54. Uh last month the board exercised that discretion to withhold a decision on this application until that proof was was provided. So once you make that decision once you make the vote. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion or questions or comment from the commission. Um then we'll call for a vote. All those in favor of continuing say I. I. Any opposed? The the motion is carried. So we will continue this until November 18th. Um, there's no need to do anything else on that item on the agenda. So, if you're here to speak to that item, we welcome you back in November.

Okay. If you're here to um hear about the next item on the agenda, you're welcome to stay. And those that uh are exiting, please do so. Okay, the next item on our agenda is uh application CU 202507 from Richard Mickelson uh for the TSSD. Um and before we hear about that, M Mr. Chair, uh because I sit on the board at TSSD, I need to recuse myself from this item. Okay. Will you be excused? Thank you.

Okay. So, uh we have this item. Do we have a a staff report on this? Okay.

So, this item has been requested by TSC, the Tempanogga Special Service District. Um requesting uh conditional youth use Wow. For a structure, the primary uh treatment facility building to exceed 40 feet in height. Um TSSD is lo the site is located here um between American Fork and Lynden. This is more uh closer view of that. Uh again a little closer. This is the the improvements. This expansion was approved in 2023. Um at that time the expansion included structures the digesttors that were approved to exceed um to go up to 130 ft in height and also silos that were um approved to go to 90t in height. This request is for 75 ft in height and for the structure here. So let me So that's to the north of the site. This is kind of back out. So, it's the one at the top north um outlined in red. This is that same building. Um the request is consistent with our requirements and um has met all the requirements of the ordinance for this structure. Um it is below the height that was approved for um the other structures that were on the site that are closer to some of the commercial in in the area. This is Lynen's general plan designation. The the um so as I said it was adjacent to American Fork and Lynen. American Fork's current uh zoning designation includes industrials planned industrial um industrial shoreline preservation um are the zoning designations for American Fork. Sorry,

this is their kind of designation in American Fork in Lynen. Um it includes regional uh commercial uh and mixed use. Um mixed use west is the zoning designation. You can see that here. Um their general plans are consistent with kind of industrial uses and commercial uses in this area. Um we've not received any comments. Um public works is not um objected to any any of the uh site uh requests. Um, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those. The applicant is also here if you have any questions for the applicant. Why Why is Sorry.

Why are the extra yellows that just not I mean, I'm sorry.

Sorry. This is This is Lynen's Lynen City and that's their zoning designation. This is just to show you what the adjacent cities zoning is looks like. So, the uses in the area are industrial, light industrial, and commercial uses. Um there also I can let me go a little bit farther. Um there's just that's kind of the entrance area for for that. There's kind of a couple views looking in different directions. These were taken back in 2023. Um so this is kind of from a parking structure looking at the site where they're doing the improvements currently. So that's kind of the the area that we're looking at. And these are just kind of the existing uh general plan designations for this area. Whether um some of some of these have been developed, some of them have not been, but generally they're can they're not uses that would be in opposition to what's existing at TSSD.

Which what city is this tip? It's in the American Fork annexation policy plan. It's currently in unincorporated. That's why we're hearing it. Um I don't know if American Fork City or TSSD has any plans to make changes for to that. Um but but I mean which does Tempenogga serve multiple cities? Sorry. Yeah. The applicant probably can tell you exactly who they s serve, but they serve most of um North Utah is what? And uh currently um the highest structure there is has been approved for 130 ft.

It's been approved for 130, but how what's the highest current structure?

Um I don't know that information. I um I they don't have any approvals to exceed um unless it might be a cell tower. I'm not I can't remember seeing a conditional use for any cell towers or anything like that, but currently we don't have any approvals for any um structures over 40 feet at this point. Um so the digesttors are kind of those circular items kind of in the center if I remember. No, sorry, not there. They're closer to the property line. They're um I point but I can't really point. Um, so they're kind of in the center more towards the east boundary of the property is where the digesttors are in red. Yes. Okay.

Any question? Any more questions? Sorry. And so did you did you tell us what the staff recommendation is on this?

Yeah. So we recommend that there isn't we don't have any issues with with this application. We recommend that it be approved. Okay. Okay. Any questions for staff? Can does is the applicant here? Do they want to speak to their request? Thank you. I'm Richard Mickelson. I'm the district manager for Typanoka Special Service District. And as mentioned, we essentially cover from Vineyard all the way over to Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain, all northern Utah County except for Lyndon. Um and as some may know that uh waste treatment plants generate odor as we process the waste from uh uh from the sewer and the board has been very TSSD board's been very conscientious about controlling odors and this um is a request um from our board because they are adding a building to enclose this process. Typically, this process is left open and vents to the air. Um, and those who are close by could smell odors that come from that. And so, the board is spending a significant amount of money to cap this with the building so that the odors do not escape and we can control the odors. And that was the added height to provide all the services needed for this this part of the process. Um, and that's the main request. If you have any additional questions, I could answer those.

Did Did um were you able to answer the question if anything's currently over 40 ft? Um, the answer is yes. Uh, in Lynen the if you show the um multitory um um units that are just off the freeway. I think those are in 60 to 70 foot high. Um I don't know exactly what they are, but when you come off the freeway um right on that exit 275, those um um businesses that are just right off the freeway

and the power and the power poles. That's correct. And there is a cell tower that's um just off the property. We used to have a cell tower on our property. Um, and we just took that down a year ago. It was uh causing complications with our pipes that were going to be taken through there. So, they didn't coincide well together. You said you were putting caps on what's already there, the digesttor.

There is not currently anything there. Um this is a new process. As plants, treatment plants get larger, we add more uh unit operations to the facility. Um this will actually um allow us to grab the organic material out of the uh waste stream and we'll concentrate that and send that onto the digesttors which are capped. And then we'll grab the uh methane gas from that and inject it back into the uh to the grid for use. So it's a sustainable process. So they call that renewable natural gas. And so that's what we will be doing when we get complete this project in about four to five years.

Nice. That was my second question was whether you were incorporating that into it. Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. Are there additional approvals that will be needed as you're constructing the equipment needed to do that process? Um, we had already obtained those in 2023 and we probably would not have been back here had the board not kept this process with the building because I think that would have been about that range to be with underneath the 40 foot process. So, I I don't see another need for another facility that uh at this point for this upgrade that we're going through.

Just to follow up with that, as far as staff goes, there's based on the plans that they've submitted there, they've received all the approvals for the expansion. Any other uh permits that would be required would be any building permits necessary or um other permits that for the actual construction of the project? as far as planning and conditional use reviews, um they have all the approvals necessary to proceed forward with that. So, we should deny him since they're doing a favor for the uh taxator.

I don't have any questions. Any further questions for the applicant? Anyone? Okay, good. Well, thank you. Any any discussion from the commission? Okay. A motion. I found it.

I found it. Recommendation. Uh I I make the motion that the Utah County Commission approve a conditional use request uh CU 2025-07 for a primary prim primary treatment facility structure up to 75 ft in height subject to staff findings included in the staff report and following conditions uh including do you do you want me to read one two and three? Okay. Uh in addition to one, two, and three. Okay. Second and a second.

Any discussion? Okay, then we'll call for a vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? So that's passed. Thank you. Okay, we'll move to the last item on our agenda. Other business. Well, yeah, this is the last item on our agenda. We've um pushed this one a few few months now. Will we allow Solivan Love to also rejoin? Yes, we'll we'll let Sullivan come back.

Got to leave when you get the chance. Okay, we're uh we have on the table um resolution 20 251 to replace resolution number 20131. Does everyone have um have this? Okay. Um, has everyone had an opportunity to read it? And and uh is there any discussion about the resolution that's on the table?

I guess I would just ask that you guys in in your terms just to clarify what exactly this is going to do and what were the terms beforehand. So, let me kind of just give you a little reminder of what we're doing here. Um, several months ago, we brought forward for discussion um our existing the planning commission's existing resolution that was approved in 2013 governing um public hearings and and accepting public comment. Um, we saw some concerns with that and had had that discussion with with you in in several meetings. um we made those some changes that came out of those discussions. Those are not included in the red lines. Those are just because I didn't want it was getting way too messy. I think we all kind of got the sense that kind of you agreed to this idea of um rather than by resolution binding yourselves to accepting public comment kind of like we have been doing. We've had some good examples recently what that could look like

and rather have those in a in a public comment um session or opportunity at the end of the meeting after you've made your decision um to kind of avoid some of the concerns that could be coming up with uh with public clamor on these administrative issues. Obviously certain types of applications, legislative issues will require a public hearing and we have some guidelines in place to govern that. But just to accept general public comment, um it was kind of decided that the best practice and kind of what what our legislative body does, county commission, let's just give the public a period at the end of the meeting to give whatever comment they want. And so we kind of had flushed those out. I'll get I'll get to you uh Mr. Head real quick. Um and so what this is these changes that are highlighted in blue I guess in this document on the screen but in red on your on your um handout was we were asked about maybe some of the uh medium that come in whether it's a a video link or some a presentation and so um we were asked to review and incorporate that and so Dale uh are your attorney that represents you came up with some language and you can kind of talk about the specifics that are in this this version. You have questions on that. That's that's kind of where we're we've been and where we've kind of landed.

So if I had to summarize it, I mean like you you did. Number seven says period of general public comment should be held at the conclusion of the agenda. And I think if I remember from our prior discussions, the main purpose of this is that um that there was some uh potential um jeopardy or liability if we were um if we were uh caused you if if comment was made that changed our our um our decisions. or directed our decisions that um if if it wasn't presented in in the proper way that that that could somehow give us give us some liability down the road. And so by moving it to the end um it it it has two effects. One is there will be some people disappointed that they didn't get to get their comment in before the decision was made. But the second effect is that we aren't held liable for being swayed by public comment that may or may not be true or whatever may not have been presented in the right way um at this meeting, but we push it to the end so that it's still considered, still on the record, but it's at the end. That basically the the gist of it. and and by moving it to the end, maybe fewer people will be um emotionally fired up on certain um topics that uh um we may or may not need to have a a hearing, a public comment uh dialogue. So that that's that's how I see this, but any any discussion?

Yeah. Um my question is is will this then change uh the November meeting from the way that uh the uh last month's meeting went?

Well, I don't think we are required in November to have a public hearing about it again because we already had one and that's what I was prepared today is that we didn't need to hear any public comment. We got plenty that was submitted ahead of time and I thought I thought it brought up some excellent issues that uh obviously Rocky Mountain Power felt like they needed to go back and address too. So um yeah, in November I don't anticipate that we are going to necessarily have to we could but I don't think we should plan on having a public comment session because we already had it for that issue. just and maybe just as part of that what what items require a hearing versus maybe optional.

That's a good distinction. We hearing is a very specific term in in state code. The the matter that was before you tonight, both items were conditional uses which do not require a public hearing by by state law. And so um the the proposal as written is a we don't we don't have public hearings for conditional uses. So there is no um right for the public to come and and and speak at at a public hearing on those items. The way it's proposed now is you would not be accepting comment general public comment during the agenda item on the agenda. If people come in November and they want to speak to the item or speak to anything, they have to wait till the end of the meeting.

I guess my question on that would be, you know, how do we know, you know, I looked at the, you know, the the vote um I wasn't here, so I took the easy way out. I I was here for I was here for Snowbird. I just need to say, but uh uh my question on that is how do we know though if there was an issue? How are they supposed to let us know if you know one of the requirements is uh public notification? And if somebody has that, how are they supposed to let us know that they don't think that issue was I is it the only way contacting the staff beforehand or uh how are they supposed to let people know that? I guess would be my question. The notice requirement for conditional use permits is not required by state law. Oh,

only by county law. That's something that we've added. So, adjacent land owners are given notice. They're entitled to be at the meeting. They're also entitled to provide you information.

So, there is a way for them to weigh in if they would like to. And they know that before. I mean, how how do they know? you know, my my my question on this issue is that um uh sometimes reality and perception are much much different and and and I'll just I'll I'll bring my only concern about that I have with adopting this right now is that is once somebody's in the midst of something we live in an age of conspiracy, you know, people will say regardless that everybody doesn't know that we've been discussing this for, you know, months or a year and the perception will be some by somebody will be that we just did this so that we didn't have to go through another meeting on like we did last month which maybe is partially true but but that's not it was trying to ease the process all along and so that's my only concern about is taking an action like this in the midst of a highly controversial issue and you know I wish there was a magic wand that we could just let everybody know the rule of you know some things are administrative and some things are legislative. you can you you can influence us on the legislature but that's not in 20 years of public service I don't think we've made much progress at least in my experience and helping the public understand that and so that's my only concern about us adopting this now that regardless we've heard it we've heard most of the concerns from people but we haven't heard everybody and I'm still a believer that if if you if you hear a concern even if when it goes against you, you accept it better and and and even though it's not pleasant, you know, we all kind of signed up for some of it. So, you know, and I not strong on that opinion, but but that's kind of where my gut is kind of at the

very beginning. So, to that point, this still allows for people to submit emails and other materials prior to the meeting. So, we're not entirely cutting off all communication from the public. We're still allowing it. It's just more of before and after the meeting. Is and is is that this one 100 1 p.m. deadline that we've got in here like like as long as it's submitted by 100 p.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting. Is it is that the type of material that could be submitted?

Yes. Yes. So, so, so if they have a concern, as long as it's submitted in writing by whatever channels here by 100 pm on the day, it'll be distributed to this body and then can be considered because it we have time, you know, to digest it and but it won't be presented in the meeting, you know, by a speaker, I guess. Well, and we're not saying that we can't ever have people speaking either. we're we're we could still have that option at any time to open it up to the public if we feel like the public needs to have that opportunity to speak. There's nothing in here saying that we can't do that. All this is saying is these are our basic rules and

and that was the problem with the 2013 resolution. You had no discretion.

Yeah. You had to allow the comment. And all of that comment is fodder for litigation because it's very hard for us to prove you didn't rely on something that was said that probably shouldn't have been said, shouldn't have been allowed to be said during an administrative proceeding. Well, and I feel like in the last two controversial issues that we've had this year, um, we've done a pretty good job setting up for the public hearing by explaining the differences between the administrative and the judicial actions that and what our abilities and our options are. And the more that we they the public is able to see that ahead of time, I know with this the Snowbird issue especially, it calmed the

the public and they were like, "Oh, okay. Well, I guess I don't really there's there's not a lot that the commission can do. We still allowed them to speak their mind, but you know, this does give I feel like this is gives us a little bit more ability to say, well, this is our base rules and if we may, you know, we can change it if we feel like we need to, but we don't have to. one maybe a couple quick thoughts. One thing that we can do from a staff perspective is to um bolster our our our notice language that goes out that gives them that information to where they could submit and you know and be clear that that's the that's the avenue for submitting a comment. Um remember these are condition generally going to be conditional uses where you're really kind of doing a check check checkbox but you are kind of looking for adverse effects and really the proper way for you to digest something is to have it ahead of time. You're not kind of on the spot and you can kind of have some time to

that's what these especially this last the last two meetings I've been so glad that we had the information ahead of time. I can't imagine how I'd be able to process it all in the public hearing, but having it ahead of time, I was able to go and do some research on my own and get some questions ahead of time ready to present. So, and then to your point, um, Seth is, um, if there's something that elevates to like, hey, we need some more information, you could potentially invite that person to say, you know, this is an adverse effect we want to know more about. maybe invite them to come speak through that discretion rather than kind of waste than just opening it up for everybody.

And I do think that there was in the in the last meeting I think it was organized in a way to me it seemed clearly organized to delay the meeting or to delay to to postpone at a minimum a decision and they were effective at that. And and I think that if if we if we adopt this, we can still hear what they have to say, but we don't have to worry about them delaying the meeting. Well, and and if we adopt this, I also hope that we can stick more clearly to the three and seven minutes. Like, yeah,

there's your three minutes, the time is up, and you've had your say. Thank you. We're hope we're hoping from a staff's pers a staff's perspect perspective that that's going to be the exception more than the rule to having someone speak um during the item. You know, I I think I hope it would be rare enough that um you're getting the information ahead of time. You can kind of discern this is more of a public clamor and they're com they can still submit where they want in their writt comment and hopefully, you know, we can direct you to say, "Yeah, you can't really pay attention to I just don't want it there." focus on where it is and and really not have the need to to really open it up too much because then it's the expectation that everyone's going to want to speak. So,

so you talked about um in the notice materials maybe changing what's on there. Are you talking about what's up at the head of the agenda or are you talking about a different notice? Potentially both. I mean I I think right now we already do direct them where they can send comments but we can kind of look at that and bolster it to so it's clear like this is the way to provide comment is right through sending this to this website or this email and that'll be forwarded and here's the deadline so on. Yeah. Right now it doesn't have a time on it. It just says prior to the meeting. Um and on this agenda we don't have any public hearing items. I'm pretty sure that those are labeled.

Yes. this item public hearing. What may not be understood is that anything not labeled public hearing doesn't come with a public hearing. Maybe we can clarify that as well. These um like the the way that we I've seen it split up before is these are items that are this kind. No public hearing is is held on these items. And then he goes to the next section says these are public hearing items. Public hearing will be held. Yeah. Good on that language. strongly encourage say public comment may not be taken at the um at the meeting. Yeah, I think didn't we used to have that on the agenda or something along identified the public hearing. We did. We've identified those that have public.

So yeah, we kind of organize it by the type, but we can be more clear and provide some clarification. Well, if you if you pass this resolution, the last item, item E instead of a journ would be public comment period on every.

So they will see that. Yep. It works very much like county commission does it now. Okay. I have a question. So, I just want clarity. It's confusing to me. So, um so before before the meeting, we're allowed to receive emails that you guys um funnel our way and then which is obviously going to give us information. We're going to be able to formulate an opinion about how we feel about something, right? Is that correct? Is that why the is that why we're getting the emails? Why why are we getting that information? I I wouldn't say necessarily to formulate opinion, but to come prepared with knowledge and questions, gather information on the matter.

So, gather information, but but either way, if it's in this situation, it's kind of controversial, right? Obviously, like controversy, you're getting we're going to get we're going to get something from um the company. We're going to get something from the people that are going to be directly impacted, right? And so, I I'm just having I'm at having a hard time if I read that information and I read enough of it. I I can't imagine not having an opinion about at least what I want to decide on. Right.

But but my understanding is the number one thing is disclosure is transparency. So because if we get things in writing then that gives the other side the opportunity. They know what we've been seeing. And so that's that's the difference is that if people just come, you know, I this last meeting um you know, I had somebody come to my house and I I I disclosed I disclosed that and uh

but at least Rocky Mountain Power had the opportunity. They know what we talked about. Wasn't a long conversation. They he gave me basically the brochure. But but I think what you want to do is we're always going to have uh countering information that might not be but as long as we have a chance to have council's opinion as well as the other side that's when that's how you sol resolve that issue is that but I'm going to get the other side's opinion through the emails. Yeah. But that's yeah that's

it's gonna as a thinking rational person I'm going to come to a conclusion about what I think about that that issue. Right. And so that's what I'm confused about. And so when somebody comes and so we can formulate um an opinion or some attitude about what we think about that issue, but for some reason if somebody comes and talks to us about it, then we can't formulate opinion. Do you see what I mean? Yeah. That's where I'm confused with. I'm do you understand what I'm saying?

Well, you can you can always take information at the meeting from the applicant or if you choose to ask someone from like a neighbor to to give comment. Again, the our role is to make sure that you're educated on what you're looking at and what you're not looking at. This isn't these conditional uses. You're not is this use appropriate or should this be allowed? That's already been determined by ordinance. We're only looking at are there adverse effects that reasonably anticipated adverse effects and if so, how can we reasonably mitigate them, but by the list that's provided in the ordinance. So, that's where you should really be focused and we'll try to direct that to you in our staff report so that you can kind of clear out all the the fluff and get down to what you're really deciding.

See, that's why we paid top dollar for council and and staff as they're supposed to convince us that all that other stuff that you heard was wrong. You're more than welcome to come to meeting and say, "Can can can we talk? Is this an issue that that we can decide on or is this something I can consider and we can have that that

well that was my understanding of this whole process which didn't make sense where there and you talked about like checking the box right that that sometimes we're just here to check the box and and it didn't make sense to me if people are coming up thinking that what they're saying is is supposed to influence our opinions and that was my biggest concern was people coming up here thinking that that it it seemed almost like a facade like I'm going to sit here and I'm going to have an opinion and it's going to matter. But it seems like in this case it was effective. Well, there there will be items where you will be able to their opinions can matter.

You know what I'm saying? In this this past situation, the fact that people came forward and had really strong opinions and I wasn't at the meeting that it did delay it, you know, it it delayed the the application, but the reality is like it's going to go through anyways. We're just looking at like things that maybe have fallen through the cracks that um you just want us you want to you want us you want to do your due diligence and so and have is is that am I understanding it is that but I would argue though that that's a realistic though if there's reasonable doubt that everybody got you know that they're supposed to be notified if they uh that that's actually part of our job is that there's reasonable doubt that Not everybody got notified and that's actually a legitimate reason to to do it. The problem that most people have is at least my understanding is people don't realize that their time on these decisions was actually uh when they should have influenced the process is during the conditional use plan, the corridor plan. they're they should be uh uh lobbying their legislator because these a lot of these decisions the public still has influence but those decisions were made years ago and so I think the the one thing we need to teach people is that you can influence this process uh in the future but but these decisions have already been made by the legislature they've already been made by the county commissioners uh when they adopted the conditional uh use requirements a A lot of people don't understand. They think that they don't have a voice. Well, they do have a voice. It was just it was just earlier than

this than this meeting. And and that was my original concern was having people come up here and then ultimately we can't base anything on what they say. Um because you know the decisions it's way past that. But it but it does seem like in this situation I mean it was hours right? It was like three hours or longer. Let's say four. Okay. four hours. I was watching on YouTube like but I was definitely more comfortable. But but um you guys were but the fact that they came up and did present if if if we had this rule in place we would have had we would have made a decision not having heard what their concerns were and I I wonder if we would made the same decision.

Well, they would still have the ability to provide written documentation which many of them did. And to to the point we're talking about on this side, keep in mind this transmission quarter is a very very different animal. We're dealing with notification that we don't deal with on any other conditional use. So there was this these other rules in play that the planning commission took advantage of or for lack of a better word utilized because of some of the evidence that perhaps that notification didn't elevate to the threshold they felt that it was met. And so that can still be obtained through this new process.

Yeah. And that and that's yeah that's my only thing is like the outcome because I think I mean you know I applaud you guys. I mean you had it was great to watch you know how how concerned you were. Um and and I think it's great. Um but at the same time I just wonder if if this other had been in effect if you would have felt so I had the same concerns after reviewing all the information ahead of time as I did when we finally took the vote.

Okay. I felt like I didn't get anything out of the public comment that I didn't already had had reviewed from the what had been submitted. It was nice to kind of hear some of the back and forth, but I again I think that we could utilize okay do we have a representative for example from the public that could speak to this or something invite them up if we felt like that was again this doesn't stop us from inviting public comment. It just gives us a base a more organized base to go from. But but I would also argue though I still think though you look at the out I wasn't here uh you know for the last meeting but I was here for the and I think the motions were pretty high on the snowbird meeting and I thought uh you know the the way that uh you know the way that Karen let it uh and then you know some of the other things that we talked about but you know it didn't change it but I do think that people didn't leave with a bitter feeling. I mean, the people were disappointed, but they didn't live leave with a better feeling. And so, I I I can't I I don't think it was a waste of time, even though

no, I met my I missed my, you know, grandson's birthday party. I mean, you know, sometimes that's that's part of what we've signed up for. So, I I think it is it's not like I think your 4-hour meeting was wasted. I I I think But how how would that look now with if we change this? Would you would people still get an opportunity to speak or just be limited? Well, I think I think they would be notified that you know they can submit by you know before before the meeting and those will be are they they're included in the public? I don't think there'll be another notice though will there will there be another notice of the 16

not on that continue to be certain. No, but generally, yes, the the the backup that we receive is provided on our website. It's all available for for the public to also see. So, I mean, anything that would be submitted, they would be able to get ahead of time, but and I I think it'll keep our meetings moving a little quicker and and I mean, this in this case, um, you know, we had this on the agenda last month, but we decided we couldn't. We were out of time at 11:30 p.m. So,

they they can still Sorry to interrupt you, chair, Mr. share to your point, Lorraine, they'll they can still leave the meeting and and make a comment. They they they can still feel like, hey, I went to the meeting. I was least able to make my comment. It would be at the end or they can provide it. Oh yeah. In in my mind, if we had had this in in resolution before the meeting last time, it don't I don't think that it really would have changed a whole lot except perhaps it may have made it maybe saved us 30 minutes maybe. But it just gives us that ability to fall back on as opposed to

well it gives you the ability to kind of control which comments you want to receive. You know you can say hey this this one I'm I want to know more information. I want to know more information about noise or whatever whatever the issue is and then you can invite that person who presented that comment in writing to say can you come and and speak to this.

Yeah. And as long as we use it because I do think the me my experience will be though is if we re rely solely on the the comments at the end of the meeting I think those comments at the end of the meeting will be sharper than they would have been uh um had they done before I think they'll be more combative but that actually hasn't been our experience with the county commission. It's it's it's been actually it's worked really well. People come in say hey I appreciate how the commission thought about this. let me tell you what I think's wrong or good about it. And they make their comment and they go on. Um, one thing I should mention that I think will change uh everything drastically is there will no longer be the list back here, right?

Sign it up. We'll take that out of the script. Um, you know, that's I felt like that already set you up for failure last and and failure in the sense of we spent a lot of time and heard a lot of comment that was not helpful. I'm sorry it wasn't. you know, to hear about someone's kids playing in a backyard. I don't know if that really got to a detrimental effect that has a condition that can be imposed to mitigate it. I just don't.

So, um, that will change drastically for for a public hearing. We'll probably still have the signup sheet, but again, that will be listed right at the top. There's a public hearing at this meeting, probably the first thing you do in the meeting. And then you'll have to take that that list and and call people off. But for everything else right now, there has to be a list of speakers for every item on your agenda according to the 2013 resolution. That would change and that eliminates a lot of confusion back there a lot. Yeah. I think that's been a a great complication to your meetings. Yeah. Agreed.

Okay. What if there are multiple items on the agenda that have a public hearing? Should we have multiple signup sheets? There should only be a sheet for each public hearing. Public hearings are statutoily required. So we have to track those very carefully. And so there should be a separate sheet for each of them. Yeah. With the title for that for that hearing.

Again, it's a hearing. It's almost like court. You're taking that comment and uh it's on the record. It's required by law, so it's pretty important. What changes in a public hearing where comments might be made where there's some legal issues or liability issues incurred by decisions we make versus I mean obviously if they're making comments after we've voted there's none, but in a public hearing that could occur. Correct. Public hearings are usually only for legislative items. You're allowed to hear any comment on a legislative item. it's wide open. So there isn't that that liability that we have on a legislative um action.

And and the interesting thing too, the 60 days that we waved is actually there for to protect the applicant because a lot of times um uh you know as somebody that has developed in a previous uh earlier in my career, you know, sometimes you just want the legislature put it's called a rip cord. want that decision have to be made in 60 days because while you're in this continuation period, they can't take it to court. Uh so there's got to be a final action. You can't sue against it a continuation. And so we actually did uh you know, it was actually most people don't recognize on Rocky Mountain's powers. They actually did a favor because they could have said we we wanted this to start uh last month. Uh you know, we we're the ones that are asking for 60 more days. They could have they could have pushed it then they could have gone straight and they're going to win in court. They're going to win in court. We know we know that. Uh but uh so there are things to protect the applicant. Uh you know because continuation sometimes is not necessarily a good thing if you're paying you know interest on your project.

But it's not going to be a bad thing if if they actually um learn to educate people what's happening in their backyards. I mean that and that's that's you know especially in this day and age with I mean just just post something on Spanish for Facebook page why why can't you do that I mean everybody reads that right or post something on the Salem Facebook page so I I think that's actually a positive thing that comes out of this it helps them be more communicative and people don't feel like um somebody's throwing like a curveball at them

and and my I my reaction that you were reacting to kind of is that sometimes there is a difference between theory and practical. Again, some sometimes you do things in the legislative. It's just like an argument uh sometimes with my wife and I'm not saying that I'm my wife is sometimes more logical than I am, but uh sometimes logic doesn't help help you with the relationship. Uh sometimes you have to hear just both sides. And so as long as we remember that and that we occasionally allow it then I you know but I still am a little bit concerned that the conspiracy theorists will be out there even though it's been on there they'll not go they're not going away.

I don't think you can do anything to satisfy either there will always be somebody who disagrees with the decisions that we make the way that we do things no matter what rules we put in place. So really what we do is just put the best rules in place that we can and then we allow waste to mitigate things that come up. So hearing that, Mr. Chairman, I would I would move that we adopt this resolution number 2025-01. I'll second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Um, and before we vote, just one more question I have as part of discussion on this. So, if if we're in the meeting, it's not a public hearing, but we want to hear from someone. It's just we can vote on it or just up to the chair or h how does that work? All power to the chair, almighty. I really want to know. I mean is it so if we if we if we want okay we we just said maybe someone had a problem with notification and we thought maybe someone could speak to that because we I don't know like like you mentioned just a few minutes ago we could still hear that the process we would use to hear that someone would need to move make a motion make a motion from from the commission

we would ask you to vote on that because it would be out of order it's not on the agenda um the applicant is not prepared to do that staff's not prepared to do that um there could be some uh liab ability in having someone speak. So, at that point, we'd ask you, "Yeah, you better vote on this because we're going to be stuck with whatever you decide." Okay. Does that does that I mean, I I really wanted to get that out here because that's not really in in this. Yeah. And that's that I think it's an important point that if we do want to hear from someone, we can be in there and like so it's un so it's sort of like understood or is it applied? It would actually be part of the parliamentary rules that you're subject to. Anyway,

um someone making a motion. I'd like to hear from this person. So, someone makes a motion and we vote on it. We can hear from We just have to know at the time that we can make that motion. Yeah. But is is the liability any less or any more than it currently is the way we're operating to the county? Does this if we if we take an exception now that we have this in place, does that make it worse? Do you think that increases the county's liability or your last meeting was terrifying to a lawyer? Okay. Um Oh, wow.

This way, having you having you look at a specific item, a specific person, and talk about it and have all of you vote on that gives me much more comfort. Narrow stream of people coming up here just saying whatever they want.

Yeah, this would be much better. I think we also need to keep in mind that this is a process that we're trying to make fair to both sides. The public can come in and we allow open forum person after person to person. The applicant doesn't have the same process available to them. They aren't able to go out and bring in more specialists, more attorneys, more whoever for their side, their cycle with what they've got. So, by putting rules in place, we're also making sure that the process is equal to both sides. a little bit. Can I Can I make Who's whose rule? I don't know whose rules we use, but can I make a substitute? Huh?

Use Rosenberg. By by resolution, you use Rosenberg out of California and not Roberts. Roberts. And you can change that if you want. That's a whole another discussion. Yeah. Can I can I under those rules, can I make a substitute motion? Yes. Uh, I would I would stick with that, but I would actually like to formally include Karen's comments about uh what she expressed on beefing up the notice policy. I just want that in uh that uh instead of a substitute, would you ask for a friendly amendment? Okay. Okay. Okay. A friendly amendment

number. And that and that would be that that we clearly um um just yeah communicate in that our notice that uh you know kind of explain try to put out the fire beforehand. I mean, so however that language I I trust staff. I I think if you look at the record and the way that Karen described it as far as the notice noticing, but I would just like that to be part of this resolution.

That's fine. Do we need do we need some language or will you do that for us? We I I think what I've heard just duly noted that we will be very clear about how a person can provide comment and participate in providing that type of comment in the notice. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think that's great. And we'll clarify the agenda also um to the effect that we talked about tonight. Okay. Okay. I'm second. Okay. Second the amendment. Did we both of the things? Second the amendment. Second the amendment.

Okay. Any further discussion? Do we can we just do a cons uh roll call? Do we need to do a roll call on this one? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. We have a new resolution to guide us. We are resolved. We are resolved. You'll be terrified. We don't want you. I already feel better. You already feel better. A little bit better. I was waiting for some good Perry Mason moments. Do we need a motion to adjourn? Okay, we we No, we've reached the end of our agenda and we are adjourned. Thank you.