[0:06] Welcome, all. This is the November, our county planning board meeting. And I'm already used to. It's five o'clock, so the number 21 will get started. Call the order and introductions. We have, can't handle all we have our new board member, Ellen Smith. Welcome. Back, park and Buckley and myself to cronly. Discussion of conflict of interest. Is there any conflict of interest? Is there any conflict of interest?

[0:34] interest for items on the agenda?

[0:38] No.

[0:39] Review and approval of minutes on the previous meeting.

[0:42] Do I have a motion to approve the October meeting minutes?

[0:48] So moved.

[0:50] We'll second that.

[0:51] Any discussion?

[0:55] All those in favor of approving the October meeting minutes.

[0:58] Please get the aye.

[0:59] Aye.

[1:00] Opposed?

[1:02] No.

[1:02] We don't have scheduled public comments, so I'm going to open it up for public comment for items not on the agenda.

[1:11] If you have public comment for items not on the agenda, please come forward.

[1:16] Say your name and address anything

[1:23] online.

[1:25] Okay, closing public comment.

[1:28] We're going to move into action items, discussion decision on writing a letter of support for the Dairy Creek Ranch Conservation easement staff wants to provide.

[1:43] because I think it's correct. I think it's fairy and we've got written this theory and we

[1:48] tend to have it, but it's fairy and we've got it. Okay, very brief. Yeah, thank you.

[2:01] They're written next to each other on the keyboard. So, why do you, do you have a grid? We have folks,

[2:06] folks come forward. Yeah. Sit down in the hot seat again. I like it.

[2:10] I have a few written comments that I missed.

[2:18] to provide to you. My name is Kelsey Heizer and the County Project Manager for the

[2:24] Dalton Valley Land Trust. We are to present the very quick proposed conservation

[2:29] easement to tonight. For Montana Law, it requires that the local planning authority review

[2:35] proposed conservation easements and provide comments of an advisory nature regarding local planning

[2:42] in the county. This past spring we spoke with the city and county planning departments

[2:48] about this project and there were not any concerns that we were aware of at that time.

[2:54] And GVLT and the landowners both lead a disconsubation project alliance with the goals

[3:00] of the Park County Code and Policy to protect open lands agricultural lands while they've

[3:06] habitat and scenic views and to support agricultural landowners to volunteer

[3:12] a little background on conservation easements, their voluntary agreements between willing

[3:19] landowners and land trusts that permanently protect open lands by retreating development

[3:23] and subdivision of a property.

[3:25] They're also rooted in private property rights and are a non-regulatory tool to protect

[3:30] open space and prevent sprawled.

[3:33] I want to extend a special thank you to Robert for Concert who is in the audience tonight

[3:36] for conserving his historic property to protect the scenic views and the

[3:41] Reggie Heritage of Park County. A few highlights about the project. The proposed

[3:47] conservation easement is 500 or 546 acres just north east of Livingston.

[3:54] Historically it's been known as the Ebert Ranch. The property is registered on

[3:58] the list of national and historic places and is attributed to Livingston's

[4:02] agricultural roots. The deeds of the, or the terms of the conservation use indeed have

[4:08] no subdivisions are allowed on an operating, one building on the loke in the southeast corner,

[4:13] this where all structures will be contained. Commercial activities are limited to those that are

[4:19] related to agriculture, recreation, and education, and no surface or gravel mining, it's going to be

[4:25] a lot of work. So I just want to thank you for taking the time to review this project and

[4:30] and we're just asking if you can provide us any comments

[4:33] and if you have any questions.

[4:35] Thank you.

[4:36] Thank you.

[4:38] I'll open it up for board questions,

[4:43] comments.

[4:50] If that was really interesting to me closely,

[4:52] that was well done.

[4:53] It was helpful to have the history and the background

[4:56] and the landowner's agreeing to do.

[4:59] And it seemed like it was roughly presented.

[5:02] One thing you've read.

[5:03] Thank you.

[5:08] I move that we read letters for.

[5:15] No time wasted.

[5:19] I second that. All right. Any board discussion?

[5:25] All those in favor say aye.

[5:27] I pose motion passes. Thank you.

[5:30] Thank you.

[5:31] Thank you.

[5:32] So you will put together a letter.

[5:36] Okay,

[5:39] moving along, we'll now get into our subdivision, minor subdivision review.

[5:47] I mean, it makes it up a little bit, but I just wanted to give a sense of people,

[5:49] or give people a sense of how we're going to proceed.

[5:52] We're going to start off with an applicant presentation.

[5:56] At that time, the applicant will present, give us an overview.

[6:00] you can ask questions of the applicant. Then we move into the staff report, again, time to ask questions. Then I'll open it up for public comment.

[6:13] Those public comment will go to board deliberation. Again, still time to ask questions.

[6:18] Going to reviewing findings and conditions.

[6:21] at that time, we get to ask a lot of questions and we'll also evaluate

[6:27] further challenges at that time and then move into a board recommendation.

[6:33] Sound good?

[6:36] So I'll go ahead and invite the applicant up for their presentation.

[6:53] Hello, good to see you guys again.

[6:54] Gary Box, Stone Gym Group, I'm a civil engineer working on a project.

[7:00] Kyle and Wendy Tager here, the property owners, nice to see you guys and meet some of

[7:05] you guys yesterday out of the site.

[7:08] Thank you for not making too much fun of me for forgetting my coat, I'm still a little

[7:11] bit of better stuff.

[7:14] Yes, I've been helping with the process, Dylan is online, he's my colleague and he's helped

[7:20] also more of the planning side, covenants and legal stuff, I'm a civil engineer and try

[7:27] I've got to play that role sometimes too, but he's online helping.

[7:34] Yeah, I'll go through this presentation.

[7:38] I'm not going to be too long. I'll try to not make it too boring.

[7:41] I'm some of the stuff you saw yesterday so there's not a whole lot of new information here.

[8:03] It's an existing price, so it's 6.55 acres, it's not 8.55 acres.

[8:12] It currently has an agricultural restriction, so development, you can't build a home one.

[8:17] You cannot put water sanitary facilities or build a home on the property because that restriction. So to lift that restriction, we have to go through the minor suburbs of process.

[8:28] And that's what we've been doing now. The plan is to build one single family home on the property.

[8:43] So a little history and I'm sorry for the image here, but it might understand properties created in 1979.

[8:49] and it was 8.3 acres. Originally, it was a bigger, culturally restricted property. I'm

[8:57] not sure exactly why it was created. Four years ago, in 2021, it was split into two,

[9:04] and this was before the colon owners. A little piece was split off the south end,

[9:10] which is actually south of the Mill Creek Road, and that's what's highlighted there in blue.

[9:13] So the current property that we're talking about is 6.55 acres, it's on the north side of

[9:21] the Millicric Road.

[9:22] It's got the restriction.

[9:26] Yeah.

[9:27] That's it.

[9:28] There.

[9:33] It's right at the mouth of the canyon, as you saw yesterday, there's an existing unimproved

[9:37] road that drives way that goes into the lot.

[9:40] We walked up it.

[9:41] It's at about 10% grade.

[9:42] We've coordinated with County County Mike and the Rose Department. We've got a road work permits.

[9:52] Sorry, they should say permits, so the project has been obtained to improve the approach.

[9:57] The county standards will be covered there.

[10:01] Yeah, and that'll be put in as part of the requirements.

[10:08] Yeah, fire protection. It's in the Paris Valley Fire District and one of our coverage areas.

[10:13] Those are just excerpts from the from the maps. We submit a fire protection plan with the preliminary plan application.

[10:19] The home will have internal sprinklers for fire suppression.

[10:24] Emergency access is required into the site that includes a turnaround for emergency vehicles at the home site.

[10:32] And some vegetative management, things in the building corridor that will clear some of the vegetation, just for wildfire protection stuff.

[10:44] Yeah.

[10:46] Water insurers, we've been working with the DQ state.

[10:49] It's a state permit application for the sanitary stuff for the, so go through DQ subdivision review.

[10:56] We need to get a coast of a certificate of sufficient approval or the on site water sewer and storm water on water is a new well sewer is a standard drain field on septic system and then storm water is on site two storm water ponds.

[11:12] So we've been working with the queue over the past six months.

[11:16] We submit an application to them, they have some comments and then we address some comments and have come back for them a couple of times and we're at a point now where they're good with this and but there they won't issue their final approval until.

[11:32] Pretty soon, I think until the commissioners meet and approve it because that's the last condition, I guess.

[11:46] Yeah, that's it there. Environmental, sorry on my other words, I'll show up like that.

[11:52] There's the irrigation ditch that goes through the property. It kind of splits the property into two.

[11:57] We saw it yesterday.

[12:00] The all the building and all the development is south. It's kind of down below that irrigation ditch. There's no plans to touch that.

[12:08] It's under easement. We cannot touch it. They have to allow continued access maintenance to that. So that's been plan.

[12:16] We spent we management plan as part of the preliminary plan application. You probably know a lot of this stuff talked to the weed district.

[12:25] Yeah.

[12:26] Yeah. Thanks.

[12:29] So I on the on my staff report that we got.

[12:32] We understand there's a series of covenants that will be reported as a formal document with the final plan and that those include those in that list.

[12:49] It's just to protect the property and regulate some of the use single-family residential

[12:57] mineral rights.

[12:59] You can read through those, I guess, or ask every question on those, but we will provide

[13:04] those components with final flat.

[13:09] Yeah, this is just kind of my extra slide, but we've been working on a file for a long time.

[13:13] We're actually submitted this preliminary plan application on January, and it's been a long process, and it's

[13:22] Not necessarily because of complexity of this. It's fairly simple. We're not creating any new lots

[13:26] It's just it's an existing lot. We're not changing any lot of lines. We had a couple delays

[13:31] From our end and it's been a long process for Kyle to realize that he's the owns of you know, they don't be properly. They got to

[13:38] I've lived this restriction via minor subdivision and so we've learned a long way but we've learned

[13:45] a lot about property and I think we've done this in a sensitive and tough way and are stepping

[13:51] through all the regulations and yeah, that's kind of a drone image and isometric image at the

[14:00] side on top and the bottom is just an excerpt from a slope map where we looked at the degree

[14:07] of the slopes on site for sighting. Some of the improvements for sighting, the turnaround,

[14:12] you can see that the T turn around there on the bottom kind of, and then the drain field.

[14:22] Yeah, I did want to say there is residential use both downstream and upstream

[14:33] adjacent and I think across the road. So residential use here is not a precedent.

[14:40] and there's some.

[14:42] I mean, we're getting into the canyon.

[14:43] Now, you know, it's limited,

[14:45] but there's room here.

[14:46] There's six nap acres.

[14:48] Although it's not all debuffables,

[14:50] you know, a few acres south of below the ditch,

[14:53] but there's other residential use upstream and downstream.

[14:56] So I think this makes sense in that scenario.

[15:00] We're not building the old nation, you know, the only house there.

[15:06] That's my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board. This would be the opportunity to ask questions with the applicant.

[15:21] I'm just curious, that infrared or the one with a slope is something that wasn't an original packet.

[15:29] Some of the color coding on that was just the intensity of the slope.

[15:32] or correct. Yeah, it was a CAD program to kind of analyze the survey contours and it's kind

[15:39] of cool. We make it on a lot of slope sites to make sure we have the drain field, you know,

[15:45] in the right spots. I wasn't able to go to the site visit yesterday. So does this keep

[15:51] parcels go span across the Elbow Creek Road? Good question. Elbow Creek Road does

[16:00] uh, bisect the property in the, what is the last or the northwest corner, just the corner of it will go to the, and so they do have access to the road also.

[16:16] Do they need to then give an easement for that road? Is that elbow Creek? Is that a county road? It's an easement. I believe it's a private road. I want to say, but it is an easement.

[16:35] The access of the trail head, right?

[16:38] Is that the right, the hay road I'm thinking of?

[16:40] No, it's still okay.

[16:42] Yeah, yeah.

[16:43] Access is a private property.

[16:47] Norse,

[16:51] probably thinking of a different elbow, brick road that's in the same area.

[16:54] Yeah.

[16:55] Two years.

[16:56] Two years.

[16:57] You've got a couple of easements that you have to deal with on the property.

[17:00] One is, easements will allow access for irrigation, the irrigation pitch for maintenance and anything

[17:06] of the folks who have the water rights to that.

[17:10] So they need to have access.

[17:11] And that's a permutative treatment.

[17:13] And then easing on the other end or other road.

[17:17] Yes.

[17:17] So you've got to those are just, you have to deal with her.

[17:25] Two existing easements as far as I understand.

[17:30] I don't think there's any new easements.

[17:32] But it's just those two existing easements.

[17:37] Here, I think there's an easement for our line too.

[17:40] Oh, right.

[17:41] That's right.

[17:43] Thanks.

[17:48] Questions.

[17:53] Thank you.

[17:57] So now let's go to Dr. Ford.

[18:02] Do you mind really quick?

[18:04] I know so there was that.

[18:07] And I myself were at the site being yesterday.

[18:10] And he's been just also discussed.

[18:12] What in lifting that exemption?

[18:16] So currently under state law.

[18:20] We deal with subdivisions and we deal with divisions.

[18:23] Divisions are exempt from review as a subdivision, and only certain divisions qualify as a subdivision.

[18:30] One of the exemptions is an agricultural exemption, and you can create a parcel for use for agricultural purposes only,

[18:38] and you are not required to go through subdivision review to do that.

[18:42] When you do that, you'll create a parcel that has sanitary restrictions on it, and under state law,

[18:48] The only way to lift that agricultural exemption is to aggregate it back into the original

[18:52] tract or that's not an option, you can go through subdivision review in order to lift it.

[18:59] So it's kind of like going through subdivision review for the division that took place some

[19:04] time ago.

[19:05] So you're looking for the potential impacts under the criteria.

[19:10] So in this case, the only option was for them to go through subdivision review because

[19:15] because it could have aggregated back into that parent tract.

[19:23] Okay, I'll try not to duplicate too much.

[19:26] This has been reviewed under the 2010 per county subdivision regulations.

[19:29] And as I like to tell folks, even though the regulations are outdated,

[19:32] we still have to adhere to current statute, both in process and our considerations.

[19:41] The recommendation that I provided with the findings, conditions,

[19:44] and the proposed report is approval.

[19:48] finding board has the authority to either prove, conditionally prove or deny if you do amend any portion of that we can do that through this process so if you want to add findings, conditions, any modifications to the report, I know there's some editorial findings that I've already

[20:06] located through this process. So feel free as we're going through it. I'll have it up on the screen. So any changes to it. Let me know.

[20:16] I'll skip over some of the visuals timing and authority.

[20:20] Want to be the delays that they spoke to. Let's get into the elements efficiency review. There were several of those element review.

[20:28] of the end is to make sure that all of the required elements are in the application and

[20:31] sufficient seed requires that I look at the preliminary platforms contents and something

[20:36] that's handled out to determine if the information that they've provided is sufficient for

[20:40] the group, and that one can take some time.

[20:45] As you'll see here, we're meeting for the board today and then the County Commissioner will

[20:49] review this at 10 a.m. on the 10th of December.

[20:53] There are not proposed in any variance requests,

[20:56] variances type of film form, access issues, road grade,

[21:00] slope, things like that.

[21:02] Our subdivision regulations do identify

[21:04] the cannot build on slopes greater than 25%.

[21:07] They have built slopes that are less than 80%

[21:10] and they've identified the max grade for the access driveway

[21:14] would be 10% which is a subdivision.

[21:21] So, when we get into the review criteria and I can provide just a basic summary of each

[21:27] of these and then you guys can ask any questions that you have and then I did do this a little

[21:34] different than previous staff reports where I used to create the narrative and then had

[21:39] the entire table of all the five institutions and one, but I've actually broken it into each

[21:44] separate criteria, so both not only do I have a narrative under the criteria for impacts

[21:50] agriculture. But as we go down, it'll jump right into the proposed findings and conditions.

[21:57] So when it comes to impacts agriculture, the application, or the sub-divided did a good job

[22:04] of identifying agriculture production in the area. This particular property has not been used

[22:09] for any agriculture production. Even though it was created under an ag exemption, it does not

[22:14] necessarily mean that they have to produce any kind of agricultural product. The problem,

[22:18] There is some agriculture in the area and specifically to the west and south of the property,

[22:26] that particular ranch raises livestock.

[22:30] The areas to the immediate west, immediate east and to the north are not in agricultural

[22:36] production.

[22:39] The ranch to the west is bisected, both by Milk Creek and Milk Creek Road.

[22:46] Mill Creek Road is under utilized in terms of the amount of daily traffic trips that can have that particular portion of the Mill Creek Road is paid.

[22:57] And so the daily traffic trips are in the thousands that are going to accommodate and right now the average daily traffic trip based on the last empty T-report was 242.

[23:06] So adding one residential structure would add up to daily traffic trips based on engineering analysis.

[23:11] So, one of the things that you'll see in our subdivision regulations under chapter three

[23:16] for first minors is we have criteria subsections of the criteria questions that you have

[23:24] to address, which is what I tried to do here.

[23:28] And so, it's not identified as prime farmland under the NRCS web soil survey, which they provided

[23:35] the further application. And so my finding was the impacts that

[23:40] agricultural will be met.

[23:43] And any questions on that particular. So under

[23:47] the recommended findings,

[23:50] this was the one finding I had no

[23:52] recommended conditions to mitigate impacts to have more of an

[23:57] alteration. Oh, sorry. One question. What are we getting into the

[24:03] questions or the I mean. Oh, no, sorry, just questions if you have any questions. Yeah, so just

[24:10] questions invited. Not at its end. Okay, my question is in the impact to agriculture. I don't

[24:21] see anywhere that it's addressed that they understand open range laws that they understand that

[24:34] Farmers don't quit at dark, always, and the punks and things make noise.

[24:41] How would that be, would those questions be addressed?

[24:47] So if the board, when you get into your discussion after you've heard from the public, after

[24:52] you've gone through any questions you have at the report, then you have every right to three

[24:57] discussions come up with the modifications of the report, those could be the form of additional

[25:01] findings.

[25:02] and for additional conditions. You do have to have binding attached to a condition.

[25:09] You do have to reference specific information for your life. You'll have that opportunity.

[25:24] Well, I was just going to say as someone who operates a farm on his property, a big advocate for

[25:31] agricultural use of land and having visited the land. I would say that the aerial imagery

[25:36] and topographic maps don't do justice how slow the property is now rocky it is it just doesn't seem

[25:44] like it'd be fit for any kind of agricultural production given that just the label it

[25:53] you know

[25:54] condition on hand so impacts agricultural water facilities so as they presented there's a irrigation

[26:03] facility and part of an area which running by second property I'll go off the milk creek that the

[26:09] The head gate is some distance from the property.

[26:14] They do not have water rights associated

[26:16] with that irrigation facility,

[26:17] but other down stream users do.

[26:20] There is an easement identified to rule 71 page 64.

[26:27] It allows for online access and maintenance

[26:28] of that irrigation facility.

[26:34] So in terms of impacts, I think there's kind of two poll,

[26:39] There's impacts that additional human presence of the former residential structure could have on that very

[26:46] patient facility from the recreation and construction. They have identified that they are no

[26:53] plastic construct within that easement. So they've located the house, septic well drain field, turn around,

[27:01] access driveway, all outside of the education easement. So impacts will be minimal based on construction.

[27:09] and then impacts from the irrigation facility

[27:12] to potential roadway, driveway,

[27:18] the structure itself.

[27:21] They did inspect the,

[27:23] they identified that they inspected

[27:25] the irrigation facility found no current issues

[27:29] with the structure or a seedage or leaking.

[27:33] That's not to say that it couldn't happen in the future.

[27:36] It will have to do with storm drainage.

[27:40] And I know that the applicant's terrain site

[27:42] is indicated that they were planning on doing some work

[27:46] to stabilize that.

[27:47] So I don't think that was in the applications,

[27:49] so that would be a better fine question.

[27:52] I

[27:54] think that's about it in terms of just an overview

[28:00] of the impacts to our use facilities.

[28:02] I did identify the existing easement and the location of the infrastructure outside of that easement.

[28:12] I think

[28:19] I may have read this in the documentation, but whose responsibility is to maintain the irrigation ditch.

[28:29] Well, there's the ditch underwriter and it's, this is the milk creek, so yeah, it would be the Milk Creek Water Research Association.

[28:39] Leave now.

[28:41] Just to follow up on that question.

[28:45] Is it clear the applicant that that maintenance wouldn't prevent.

[28:50] Seepage that it would just be to move water.

[28:55] Yeah, it's clear to us that I'm guessing that we have seen things that they're going to want to deal with that issue and we're going to want to work with them.

[29:03] There's all.

[29:07] But the, and just a follow-up.

[29:10] Yeah, when you clear that the irrigation district doesn't pool by ability with regard to.

[29:18] We're kind of in our house in a way that water does get out of the ditch, it doesn't affect us through the drainage system, and I'm quite remembering all of them about patients.

[30:00] I mean, go through the channel, go through the ditch to get what water you say. Yeah, that's their interest. And so they'll maintain it. And should that, to that extent, but they're not necessarily if there's a little bit of seepage that doesn't really affect how much water they're able to access for ad. You know, but it's something that could really compromise a structure that's those are two different sets of interests in a way. I mean, I know that's really not more of a comment than a question, but it just seems like I can see two different sets of interest.

[30:29] interest on that, that they think, oh yeah, it's fine with this water, and, you know,

[30:35] then it's compromised the house. So, and we can't kill all the go-over.

[30:44] I guess, Niano. So, anyway, yeah, I can just see that there could be possible, there could be

[30:51] hospital, she's in spend trust with people, other questions.

[31:01] Is this the final and later in the college?

[31:04] Yeah.

[31:06] Is it the time to ask about just to be with the reinforcement,

[31:10] potentially reinforcement was mentioned yesterday of that area that's not in the application?

[31:16] So you wouldn't do we ask?

[31:17] Probably more in the discussion to get into hospital.

[31:21] So, impacts to local services, this includes impacts to the local service capacity, sheriff,

[31:31] fire department, emergency medical services, grid, bridges, culverts, cattle, our school,

[31:35] solid waste facilities, waste water facilities, so they're included in the park County Sheriff's

[31:43] jurisdiction. They're in the Paradise Valley Fire Department.

[31:48] Merge Smith services will be facilitated through a road approach

[31:54] for a permit and a road approach that meets county standards, a driveway

[31:58] that meets county standards. And because the driveways over 150 keep

[32:02] length, they're required to have a turnaround, which they propose

[32:05] that meets the county standards in the form of a T turnaround

[32:10] access the property.

[32:13] No new roads or bridges are being impacted or proposed as

[32:19] part of this. There's no new facilities on Mill Creek road

[32:23] that will be necessary to facilitate access.

[32:27] They will be putting in a culvert as part of the road approach.

[32:31] There's no cattle guards.

[32:33] They're in the arrowhead school district.

[32:35] They've identified the number of schools currently in that district, the number that they can facilitate before they have to hire new teachers.

[32:45] They've identified the potential based on a formula of one to two additional students with this one residential structure, one residential lot.

[32:54] And then they've identified kind of the capacity, current capacity of the Sheriff's Department.

[32:59] and they've identified the current and anticipated tax revenues.

[33:04] Currently, the answer about the land is generating $3,500 and $41.20

[33:09] and they anticipate an increase of $5,000 less properties to build the new residents.

[33:18] In fact, the county road is minimal.

[33:20] Like I said, the low creek road to that to this property and actually just beyond is paid.

[33:26] And so they've identified the addition of 10 daily traffic trips.

[33:32] And right now, the current capacity or the current level is the 247,

[33:37] if that's the annual daily traffic trips, and milk reconsisting substantially more than that,

[33:43] given paving about section.

[33:53] So I've identified several findings, no recommended conditions to mitigate.

[33:58] Oh, in terms of any new public infrastructure,

[34:03] no anticipated, neither wastewater, water facilities needed,

[34:09] they're proposing individual onsite wastewater and water facilities.

[34:18] Any questions on impacts on local services?

[34:24] And now I should have said to on off the presses,

[34:29] as I did get the local fire protection authority who reviewed the fire protection plan with the

[34:35] private vice-valid, the firm and assistant team, Michael Garcia, and they did approve the

[34:42] evening of water supply requirements, because they've proposed a fire protection plan and

[34:48] these are completely alternative technologies, features, and systems, and so the local fire protection

[34:53] authority can approve those as long as they meet the equivalent of the rate of the fire protection

[34:57] for the property. So we did get that letter I dropped it off for each of you.

[35:08] So it impacts the

[35:09] natural environment. A lot of impacts from natural environment, due with construction, solar

[35:17] instruments, refrigeration, speed of weeds, the potential to find historic cultural sites on the

[35:25] property or pay the biological, archaeological, one of the things that they produced was a letter

[35:34] from the State Historic Preservation Office. They usually will do a file search.

[35:39] They did find a few sites within that quadrant that they looked at but none associated with this site

[35:44] and they did not recommend the cultural end to worry. For this site, they didn't think that there

[35:51] is highly likely that anything will be powered.

[35:55] That's not to say that if, during construction,

[35:58] those things were found, then that could change,

[36:00] definitely change that potential impact.

[36:04] And I did try to address that with recommended condition.

[36:10] The effects on groundwater quality

[36:11] want to be this has kind of been a big issue.

[36:16] I shouldn't go back to effects on their quality

[36:18] with one additional residential structure,

[36:23] mineral impacts to air quality,

[36:27] and that's one, frankly,

[36:30] it's very difficult to ascertain.

[36:34] That's a groundwater quality quantity.

[36:38] So because this property was created

[36:42] prior to, until the first 2013,

[36:45] is qualified for one example allocation.

[36:51] That allocation cannot exceed 10 entropy per year or 35 gallons per bed.

[36:57] One residential structure does not generate even close to 10 entropy per year.

[37:05] Most calculations are less than 2 entropy per year for residential structure with some irrigation in the area.

[37:13] The identified wells in the area through well-locked data, they identified specific information

[37:21] relative to each well in the area, depth of groundwater, how many gallons per minute.

[37:26] They have a letter from the health department, Caleb Pearson, our former sanatorium indicating

[37:31] that there appears to be adequate water for the property.

[37:40] They do have to go through review

[37:43] through DEQ and DEQ will have to determine

[37:47] a potability of that water, but one of the issues

[37:51] that we've found ourselves in with the

[37:54] Resurri waterkeepers decision relative to

[37:58] the rest of Montana, that order does not

[38:01] specifically apply to our county, we do not

[38:03] have to follow that order, but there are

[38:04] implications for that. And so one of the things

[38:07] that they say counties need to be looking at is

[38:11] water quality, is it codable, water quantity, how much water is there, is it's

[38:17] sufficient for the proposed subdivision, and then impacts of that water use on

[38:23] full surface water in the area and groundwater area. They did provide a lot of

[38:30] information relative to water in the area, depth to groundwater, and it is a

[38:37] in the military. But at this time, without a hydrologist working for per counting with our limited time

[38:45] to review this, we did not have the ability to hire a hydrologist to conduct that level of analysis.

[38:55] So one of the findings that I write in here or at least in a narrative form is that we have no way

[39:03] of knowing for certain whether the proposal will include adequate water service with the

[39:07] closing of the family residents. However, the ground water data in the area does illustrate

[39:14] that there's a likelihood that there will be adequate water for that. The reason I did not

[39:21] condition the subdivision to do a test well or something to that fact is because whatever that

[39:28] information generated would not be available for the public right now to review.

[39:35] And so one of the issues when you're reviewing subdivisions is that it's right to know.

[39:40] So by condition or weak condition, something that's going to take place later,

[39:45] it's going to provide additional information that you can't see. It could trigger a review for that

[39:51] particular item.

[40:02] There are the applicants did indicate that there are no wetlands associated with

[40:07] property.

[40:12] There could be an impact in the ambient exterior light

[40:15] level, resulting from a new structure. In the valley, there could be

[40:21] effects on historic or prehistoric sites. I talked about the letter from

[40:26] state historic liberation office. And so you'll see here that

[40:32] in the impact or the findings and conditions, I identify the need for

[40:38] for the lead management plan, right kind of approval,

[40:41] and make ensuring that the lot order will adhere

[40:44] to that lead management plan.

[40:46] Talking about soil disturbance

[40:47] and the need to re-vegetate,

[40:49] which is required under the subdivision regulations,

[40:51] and then making sure that that is weed-free.

[40:57] Talk about the need for them to recede to 70%.

[41:04] We also recommend that they work with MSU

[41:07] extension to find out which what's the best way to receive. That's one of those

[41:18] things that people don't realize but when you dig in a road or dig in a foundation

[41:21] and do any artwork, any kind, you will have weeds and so re-vegetations are really

[41:26] important. They'll have to reach 70% or show that they've reached 70% before they

[41:31] gets filed about approval, talk about the impacts

[41:35] of new construction to some of the cultural historical sites

[41:39] and then just making them file a covenant that says

[41:42] if during the verification, the project,

[41:44] if anything is found, they contact the appropriate agencies

[41:48] and stuff construction at that time.

[41:55] Talking about the need for that to be reviewed

[41:58] by the Department of Environmental Quality

[41:59] and approved prior to filed about approval,

[42:02] what Gary referenced, which they're being reviewed under two parts of state law,

[42:08] they're under the subdivision planning act and they're under the sanitation and subdivision act,

[42:12] and they can apply for both at the same time. And so they'll put in their DEQ application,

[42:17] they'll put in their preliminary file application, and DEQ will usually work through initial comments

[42:22] and feedback, but they won't grant approval until they receive preliminary file approved from the county.

[42:28] And then the county will not really will not grant final approval until they receive that approval to be cute.

[42:34] So that does kind of happen in tandem.

[42:40] Identify the combined appropriation law that they're being held to.

[42:45] That they have to comply with that 1987 combined appropriation, which means that they.

[42:51] When they apply for their example, well, if they cannot use more than that 1080p per year or

[42:56] if they, I mean, this is different.

[43:03] This happened while this is being reviewed.

[43:05] It used to be that they would go to DNRC and file for example, well, declaration and get

[43:11] a predetermination letter from DNRC.

[43:13] DNRC is now going to provide those at the time of development, so it's up to do that, but

[43:17] it'll be after the site division.

[43:21] And it was a rule created by DQ

[43:24] and through the administrative rules of Montana,

[43:26] DQ did re-vise that rule just the last couple of months.

[43:34] So it's different.

[43:45] Mineral rights, just making sure the owners are informed

[43:48] that there are no mineral rights being transferred.

[43:50] And so it is unknown if there may be impacts

[43:53] with mineral rights, surface rights,

[43:56] separate ownership in the future. And then my last one I talk about the lighting.

[44:05] Any

[44:09] questions on that one?

[44:17] So on Jay, on the residential ambient exterior lighting, the chapter 3, there's regulations

[44:28] for outdoor lighting.

[44:29] So, one of the things that changed in how we reduce subdivisions back in 2021 is when

[44:37] you're renewing subdivision, if you make a finding and you have a condition, you have

[44:42] to have reference to specific regulation or provision something that justifies that

[44:48] finding.

[44:49] So what I tried to do in all of my findings is reference where the subdivision regulations

[44:53] are where in their application that justification comes from.

[44:57] So we know.

[45:00] We're going to have specific design standards relative to lighting, but we do have criteria that we have to consider the impacts of lighting.

[45:17] I'm not sure where this question will fall into, it kind of looks like the internal

[45:21] contradiction.

[45:23] In some of it has to do with natural environment.

[45:25] It has to do with the noxious weeds and invasive weeds so that they need ADC and D.

[45:30] They have to come up with work with regeneration but also work with.

[45:35] You can fold forward in the readmator.

[45:37] But then it seems like, and so I think that 70% of getting

[45:48] re-vegetation in the application that it's a native re-vegetation,

[45:52] re-vegetation, again, that's compatible, that's not weak.

[45:56] But then, and this is getting into the next section,

[45:58] I don't know when we bring this up, but the impact on wildlife

[46:01] but at top of the number, it is the city, it looks like, oh, the government is all

[46:10] landscape, you should be encouraged to be in price for plant species that do not attract wildlife.

[46:14] Well, you know, a lot of native plant species attract wildlife, but if you're asking folks to

[46:19] re-vegetate, which, you know, re-vegetate and be careful with weed, you know, the plan for weed,

[46:26] I mean, but then you're also talking about

[46:28] the principle of not attracting the loud live.

[46:31] It just seemed like it was an issue.

[46:32] It just needed contradiction or any clarification

[46:35] in some sort of example by explaining something.

[46:38] And again, it's because it's the next section.

[46:40] I don't know if we want to talk about that now.

[46:42] That was my question.

[46:44] I just looked at that.

[46:45] It wasn't clear to me.

[46:48] Yeah, I mean,

[46:51] I think that there are two separate issues,

[46:54] but I think you're probably right that there might be some.

[46:57] internal conflict with that. I don't know in working with RCS if what they're proposing in terms

[47:04] of re-vegetation and a project like this would include vegetation that's an attractant. I think

[47:11] the wildlife attractant is really geared towards. If you go to Emmett, so you'll see that that's

[47:15] references him as well. Right, exactly. And because what they're going to tell them is don't grow

[47:21] apple trees and fruit trees and the things that really do bring in wildlife to that degree.

[47:29] But I don't know if what MSU is providing in terms of their recommendations

[47:37] crosses over into re vegetation through soil disturbance. Or if there's a conflict.

[47:48] So we need to, I mean, you hold, okay, hold on, I'm going to hold on to that, okay.

[47:57] So as far as impacts to wildlife, if I identify the impacts, wildlife should be, will

[48:04] be minimal, given only one new structure being proposed.

[48:10] There's a two track right now that will be improved.

[48:15] The

[48:18] Montana Natural Heritage Programs Online Management School does not show this as a critical wildlife corridor or critical wildlife habitat or identified associated with any endangered or threatened species.

[48:34] I do think there's wildlife in the area.

[48:36] So, I think that, you know, from a perspective, we're trying to mitigate impacts.

[48:42] The attractants bring in an attracting supply life, as well as, you know, any future disturbance

[48:49] of the property would be, would probably increase the impacts.

[48:55] So I think the fact that they've identified one structure, that's it, about six and a half

[49:02] acres, should help minimize that.

[49:07] It did not hear from FWP.

[49:10] This has been a question that's come up several times when somebody subdivides.

[49:14] They send letters to different agencies and they expect a response.

[49:20] Some of those agencies respond, some do not, including some of the VAR own agencies in the

[49:25] warehouse.

[49:26] So it gets really difficult, but it doesn't mean that the applicant doesn't have to do their

[49:31] own analysis.

[49:32] In this case, they did look at the different programs available to identify whether this

[49:41] is critical wildlife habitat, similar to what they do with air culture, so they can conduct

[49:46] their own analysis.

[49:48] We do not have the ability to hold up some division per se, if an agency is not receiving

[49:55] it, but sometimes they just don't.

[49:57] So,

[50:01] you'll see that in some of the, one of the other impacts with wildlife is just

[50:06] complex a lot of impacts wildlife people, those complex landscaping garbage

[50:12] containers, wildlife movement, things like that, and then impacts of pets wildlife

[50:20] and wildlife habitat.

[50:22] So, in addition to the impacts on ag, which a lot of active producers will tell you that dogs

[50:30] chasing their livestock and their significant impact with new development in the area.

[50:34] And so the way these folks have chosen to mitigate that is to limit the number of dogs to two,

[50:40] which have to be under control all times. And that was through sufficiency review that they finally

[50:45] landed on that. It didn't end up in the summary of the impacts, but I think I did incorporate

[50:51] that email and provided that to you guys so you can see that that's what they were planning

[50:54] to address that.

[51:01] They do have to do a storm, a storm water plan that has to be engineered

[51:09] has to meet the requirements of the use circular eight. And so that will minimize erosion

[51:15] during storm runoff, especially when you look at the improved areas, the driveway,

[51:20] house location, things like that.

[51:29] And so while that habitat, our regulations are older than where

[51:32] they don't, they don't differentiate, understand a lot now, there's the impacts of wildlife

[51:37] and wildlife have that. So our criteria and our regulations kind of cover both in the same

[51:43] and the same breath.

[51:48] I do have a question on the impact of the habitat. Under A, it says

[51:54] with the construction of five as the infrastructure. That was a mistake. Okay, so I've got a change

[51:59] and I have to assume it is one request I'm just going to start.

[52:01] Okay.

[52:02] I just know there's a mission.

[52:05] Alright.

[52:10] And then I'll miss one to describe it not just sweet, but I referenced the conditions so

[52:16] I didn't have to duplicate.

[52:21] Any questions on wildlife or habitat

[52:26] impact the public health and safety?

[52:32] So generally speaking, the hazards that have been identified by the applicants through

[52:38] their analysis, have to do with the irrigation facility,

[52:42] both impact from the facility to a owner,

[52:46] and then as well as how owners impact the irrigation facility.

[52:51] And again, this is kind of duplicated,

[52:52] but it does show that they're outside of that irrigation facility.

[52:55] They are building the consideration of that facility.

[53:02] Other impacts, public health and safety, traffic access.

[53:06] They are improving the access for the mid-county standards

[53:08] to help improve emergency service response.

[53:14] They'll create, can handle the increase

[53:17] of 10 daily traffic trips,

[53:19] given the current volume and the design of that road.

[53:23] Out of fires, it's pretty significant hazard

[53:25] I don't know if for those of us on site,

[53:28] if you want an example of the definition

[53:30] of a wildland urban interface, this will be it.

[53:34] And so they're in the Paradise Valley

[53:35] a fire district or regulations require a fill site and so if this was a one lot minor they

[53:42] would have to put in a 10,000 gallon water supply also under our regulations or the

[53:46] appendix be they can they can propose alternative technology features and systems and so if you

[53:53] looked at their fire protection plan they're requiring a subscription system in the home they've got a

[53:59] lot of maintenance and vegetation clearing that they're going to do around the structure building

[54:04] the structure out of fire system materials, improving access, and then they've identified

[54:10] ongoing maintenance, making sure the vegetation is cleared along the access routes.

[54:15] So there's quite a bit that went into that. That was submitted and approved by the

[54:19] local fire protection authority as an alternative. The self-surpassion systems are

[54:25] structured fire, and then the survival of all the potential space provisions that they're proposing

[54:30] and help minimize and mitigate the threat of wildfire

[54:33] or from a structure of our spreading

[54:35] or wildfire spreading to the structure.

[54:40] And just from a practical perspective,

[54:41] I think it's a really good idea

[54:43] that they're doing what they're doing.

[54:46] Our vice-valley, our district is some distance away,

[54:50] and so given the response time,

[54:53] it really does impact even if there is a fill site there.

[54:59] Oh, question, Mike, just thinking about

[55:01] when you've done a similar process with a different minor and then that we had to redo it basically,

[55:08] the fire suppression system was never installed. What is the follow-up? Like, how do we not,

[55:15] how does that not happen again? Well, I don't know that we've come up with that answer yet

[55:24] in terms of definitive. I think that when we update our subdivision regulations, that's going to be

[55:29] part of what we're going to be looking at is whether or not we're going to be able to continue to allow for those types of alternative because we don't have building codes. There's no way for us to inspect and then guarantee that those were put in place as perfect construction.

[55:45] So what he is referring to is somebody proposes a plan similar to this.

[55:51] It gets approved, property sales, somebody buys it, builds a house, no fire,

[55:58] self suppression system in the home.

[56:00] And so our ability to enforce that is limited.

[56:05] Although there are examples in state Montana where enforcement has

[56:11] prevent effective in terms of a house being removed or retrofitted with that system.

[56:19] But because we don't have a building code, we're not there at the right time to say,

[56:23] you've got to do this, you've got to do that.

[56:25] We're not going to give you your next round of permits to continue construction that kind.

[56:30] So I think we're going to be limited and we're going to have to have that discussion.

[56:33] But that's over the consideration on this as well.

[56:38] I might have a question about a statement in the summary, in reference to the irrigation

[56:42] facility that says providing access for maintenance and repairs will be essential to

[56:46] keeping the irrigation facility in good working condition, is that been, you know, analyzed

[56:51] as far as the current plans for the building of the house and me, is anyone made the inclusion

[56:58] that they have the access they need to keep it in?

[57:01] And no, I did not, I don't know if the applicants heard

[57:04] from the underwriter specific to that.

[57:09] I think the idea from their analysis

[57:12] is they will improve with the improved driveway

[57:16] and the turnaround and improving access

[57:17] to that portion of the ditch.

[57:20] But I did not receive any feedback relative

[57:23] to the location of the house from the ditch writer.

[57:36] question.

[57:48] I'm just

[58:02] going through to see if I missed anything. One of the impact

[58:07] projects we look at is development on adjacent landings and so many issues with the

[58:13] addition of one residential structure, as Gary alluded to, both on the both land and

[58:19] residential and agriculture in the area adjacent to it. Gary

[58:30] talks about the local fire

[58:32] The fire protection authority approving the fire protection features prior to approval.

[58:40] This relates to the required conditions or evidence that they will have the place.

[58:48] They want to delineate the fire protection plan requirements on the base of the path.

[58:56] And require future landowners to adhere to those.

[59:01] They will have to build their road to county standards and ensure that.

[59:04] So when we are trying to find a criminal that will be inspected, make sure they will

[59:09] have held county standards with their appropriate materials, and usually we'll get somebody

[59:13] from the fire department to travel there and make sure it's complete design.

[59:24] And then ongoing maintenance is a big issue, so it will be difficult condition if they maintain

[59:30] all access facilities to their original performance capabilities in perpetuity.

[59:42] Once we get into some of these other parts, there's a lot of, it kind of goes without saying,

[59:49] but one of the criteria, we have to make sure that they meet survey requirements.

[59:54] So, when they submit their final flat, I actually also do that.

[1:00:00] Plot. Then we make sure that it has all of the things that it's supposed to be in there, end of the

[1:00:05] universal standard to monetization for a few subdued to client flat, or it gets filed.

[1:00:13] Legal and

[1:00:13] physical access, the physical access is provided off of Mill Creek Road and their road approach,

[1:00:22] their driveway to county standards, and their turnaround. Legal access is the right-side way,

[1:00:30] and you'll create as a county-owned road, a live snow bank, maintained by the county.

[1:00:37] So they will be accessing a county-owned maintained road,

[1:00:39] and then the internal road approach and driveway will be private,

[1:00:43] but they will have to maintain those opportunity,

[1:00:45] and they have to build those county standards.

[1:00:49] And we said that, that means they will meet.

[1:00:51] There's only the access, and there are some good regulations.

[1:00:55] And again, I tried not to duplicate, so I just referenced conditions.

[1:00:59] that already address this whole access.

[1:01:04] Compliance with the provisions of easements and the locations and installation of any plant utilities.

[1:01:09] So they will have to provide more electric, whatever utilities needed to access that.

[1:01:16] Since it has already been existing a lot and it goes without saying they were producing more lots.

[1:01:21] You can imagine that you make sure that they're allowing for those easements for utilities to teach a lot in the subdivision.

[1:01:28] They will be able to access those utilities off of no pre-broad in the existing easements for electric.

[1:01:45] Under the compliance order review procedures, this just requires that they follow the review procedures outlined in the subdivision regulations.

[1:01:54] and this is just identifying that they shall be and that includes going forward into the final path.

[1:02:04] Consideration of an officially adopted growth policy through the growth policy and non-regulatory

[1:02:10] so you don't have conditions associated with those that are able to try to identify those areas

[1:02:16] where there was consistency with the growth policy and then

[1:02:24] compliance with the Park County subdivision regulations.

[1:02:27] This is where I really try to identify what's required in terms of review procedures that

[1:02:34] they have to adhere to the design standards, just because there's a condition in here that

[1:02:39] says they have to adhere to something very specific in our design standards, doesn't mean

[1:02:43] that it alleviates that provision.

[1:02:45] In this condition, I basically looked at them on notice that they have to meet the design

[1:02:50] standards even at the final plot and after some reason they cannot meet the design standards

[1:02:56] that may require them to be subject to re-review for any particular item does require that they provide

[1:03:02] the final covenants that they're proposing prior to submittal so I can look at those to make

[1:03:07] sure that they're consistent with what we've got.

[1:03:13] Making sure that they file a planning certificate

[1:03:16] prior to final plat that still shows that they're the owners of the property and they have legal authority

[1:03:22] to execute this subdivision. They have three years from the data preliminary and final

[1:03:27] out of approval to file for final approval.

[1:03:29] There's the ability to request an extension

[1:03:33] to the county commissioners.

[1:03:35] I just put them on notice that they have that amount of time

[1:03:37] to finish and meet all the conditions

[1:03:39] of final final approval.

[1:03:41] And then under six, I identify that if they make any changes

[1:03:44] to the application for any reason,

[1:03:47] that may suggest them to re-review depending upon the question.

[1:03:51] So, serial.

[1:03:56] And then it's just another blanket that they have to comply

[1:03:58] I have all other standards and procedures

[1:04:00] I don't think that I'm certain that you would.

[1:04:03] Okay, any questions on that?

[1:04:08] Yeah, that's three-year timeline is between the conditional

[1:04:13] approval, and then actually being able to get built.

[1:04:18] And then actually being able to get all of the bill.

[1:04:21] Yep, so they won't be able to build their house

[1:04:22] in that period of time.

[1:04:24] They would have to meet the conditions

[1:04:25] in front of the pool.

[1:04:26] So they are going to be putting in their road approach,

[1:04:29] driveway, turn around.

[1:04:30] They'll have to finish their storm drainage storm. They're grading and drainage plan and

[1:04:35] storm drainage analysis. They'll have to have their weed management plan developed and

[1:04:39] approved to the weed supervisor in the local weed board. And then any other requirement

[1:04:46] about to show that they've receded established weed vegetation. So all of those things

[1:04:52] have to happen within that three-year period. And they'll submit a final pilot application that says,

[1:04:56] Because here's our final rating and training plan, our design for our road approach and

[1:05:02] driveway.

[1:05:03] I turn around.

[1:05:04] Here's our weed management plan finalized.

[1:05:06] So all those things come in final documents, they're planning to certificate all of those

[1:05:12] things.

[1:05:12] And then we go, because the attorney's office review, our office review, the local fire protection

[1:05:16] authority will go out and inspect the access along with the road supervisor.

[1:05:20] There's a feed for them to do that.

[1:05:22] And then the commissioner will familiarly, if they meet all of the conditions of the

[1:05:25] will approve it, they file it, then they can build their house.

[1:05:32] Super simple, right?

[1:05:35] Well, back to my comment on agriculture.

[1:05:42] And I think what I'm understanding you to say is that we have no regulation that says,

[1:05:53] I don't know how you would word that,

[1:05:55] that you're going to be, if you're living in an ag area,

[1:06:01] you're going to be bothered by some agriculture things.

[1:06:07] In fact, maintaining that ditch through the place

[1:06:10] means that somebody's going to go through there

[1:06:13] with a track hole about every 10 years.

[1:06:17] And the fact that that ditch is there

[1:06:19] is going to change the water flow.

[1:06:23] And there might be a water worn at low spot

[1:06:25] and your ditch that's going to catch melt water from up above. So there are a whole bunch of those

[1:06:32] things that I've had to deal with neighbors personally and know about. But I think what you're

[1:06:39] saying is we have no provision in our subdivision law to address that at all.

[1:06:46] No, you do. Okay. You have this review. This is this is the platform. Any board member could

[1:06:54] present why you know based on you would want to base it on something but right now you have

[1:07:01] you're we're supposed to look at the potential impacts on ag and so we can any board member can bring

[1:07:09] up those findings, your discussion.

[1:07:15] Hold on to it Kent and we'll dive into that because they

[1:07:19] do you think what your raping is really important?

[1:07:22] I'm going to go along with that sometimes as well.

[1:07:24] Yeah.

[1:07:25] What I'll do now, if there's no questions,

[1:07:28] just come based on my summary.

[1:07:30] I'm going to open it for public comment.

[1:07:32] And then we'll go to our deliberation.

[1:07:36] I'll open it for public comment.

[1:07:40] If you have public comment, please come up.

[1:07:43] State your name and address.

[1:07:51] Do I need to identify myself?

[1:07:53] Yes, please.

[1:07:54] Your name and address.

[1:07:54] to Mar. I live in town in Livingston. Yes. So my question is, is there any plan I came late? So

[1:08:03] sorry if this is redundant per something you've discussed already. But is there any plan for like

[1:08:07] a very huge one to be maintained? Sometimes people come in and want to, you know, just put a whole

[1:08:16] bunch of grass in and then there's all the chemicals that keep that maintained and extra water

[1:08:23] and things like that, or are there any provisions to prevent that, so that most of the native around it stays native.

[1:08:37] Thanks, Linda.

[1:08:38] Thank you.

[1:08:39] It makes sure to address the

[1:08:44] additional public's moment.

[1:08:54] I was puzzled when you noted—well, I wasn't puzzled when you noted that construction causes weeds.

[1:09:01] I was puzzled that you wanted to be receded before they begin construction.

[1:09:10] So that seems like you've gone and spent all your money to put down all that new seed

[1:09:14] and make everything nice and the extension has given you these finance and all that stuff.

[1:09:21] And then it's approved and then you dig it up and you've got weeds because all the building,

[1:09:26] people come and supply all the services are bringing weeds every day. So I'm not sure how to solve that whether maybe you shouldn't be required to have your completed to have a weed plan but not to have fulfilled its implementation until after you've built kind of I don't I don't know.

[1:09:55] but it just seems backwards. So, maybe you want to think a lot, especially I think you

[1:10:01] have additional

[1:10:07] public comment.

[1:10:12] Anything online?

[1:10:25] I see any hands raised.

[1:10:29] If you're online

[1:10:30] of public comment, please shout out.

[1:10:39] Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment then.

[1:10:42] We'll open to board deliberation. I think what will be most helpful is if we basically just

[1:10:48] section by section and dig into the bindings and conditions. So let's go to it and start

[1:11:00] with

[1:11:01] it. Let me

[1:11:08] take this. It impacts on agriculture. And at this time, again, we can continue

[1:11:17] ask questions. This would be where, you know, if you wanted to make modifications, if you wanted to,

[1:11:23] the ad findings, the conditions, this is that time.

[1:11:31] Do we have a legal description

[1:11:32] of that easement to be able to access that ditch?

[1:11:36] Are they saying 30, 60 feet

[1:11:39] where we're deducting the ditch bank

[1:11:40] or is that encompassed that two track?

[1:11:44] And the only reason I asked that

[1:11:45] because of recent lawsuits of people using an access road

[1:11:49] that would probably qualify for court law,

[1:11:52] I think it ended up being ruled that way

[1:11:54] that it wasn't prescriptive easement, however it was not on the ditch bank, but it was

[1:11:58] the main gain of head meat that was on that person's property.

[1:12:03] So that would be my question, is there going to force them to stay along that ditch bank

[1:12:07] above, even though that gradient is there, or does that include that two-track coming in

[1:12:13] or improved road that they created off of County Road?

[1:12:19] That could open up a potential maybe not with that current owner, but with a future current

[1:12:23] or it opens up a lawsuit potential that need could be avoided knowing that going forward.

[1:12:30] And then the other comment I have is designing your structure and building site so that

[1:12:35] it's not so much the summer flow of the water. It's those high water events we have,

[1:12:41] like a ring on some of that. That dish does not melt out first. That's going to have ice in it.

[1:12:47] You're going to have ice jams. Any water coming down that dish that's kind of

[1:12:51] in that dish could potentially fall over and head straight to the house. The dish owners,

[1:12:57] the water-right users are not liable for that because we're being noting there as well.

[1:13:03] That's all I have to say.

[1:13:05] I think so. Is there a legal description of the easement to maintain the dish?

[1:13:12] Yes, under that roll,

[1:13:24] downroll 71, page 64, is it a 30-foot?

[1:13:36] And that ditch then goes the entire length of the property and there's not a headgate anywhere on that ditch to be maintained.

[1:13:46] And so probably the only maintenance is the ditch cleaning with a with a excavator.

[1:13:56] Yeah,

[1:13:59] there's no head game.

[1:14:01] But then that's the boundary property and they will access that ditch on both ends of the property via ditch bank that they stay on that ditch bank.

[1:14:09] I think it goes off the property into the, I do any property, right where it stops.

[1:14:16] Well, it goes underground and right at our property length.

[1:14:19] So there's not really any access from the other side of that ditch, just to wait and see.

[1:14:23] Yeah.

[1:14:24] That's what I thought.

[1:14:26] You know, the first part of that ditch is concrete line.

[1:14:35] Is there any climate?

[1:14:38] And it might, this might fall more in intersection two,

[1:14:42] I think there is a, I mean, you'd like to how,

[1:14:45] or do you feel like it's sufficiently addressed?

[1:14:50] Yeah, I guess it's the most sufficiently addressed.

[1:14:56] I do want to follow up with that at that.

[1:15:00] You have the current, you are the current owners, but in terms of going forward, I feel like history does get lost, you know, and things that might be intuitive to you all as the current developed, you know, the current developers. Um, you know, always, you know, people don't always keep, you know, what the history was. And I feel like your point about the ice chants and sledding and things. I don't know.

[1:15:25] So, probably, water use or facilities, I'm not exactly sure, and it's not a problem, I think.

[1:15:34] It sounds like I think you guys know it, you know, going what might happen, but somebody who purchased property from you years from now.

[1:15:41] Is there a way to list like, you know, the water association is liable for the planet that natural hazards do occur?

[1:15:49] And it's kind of like this funny liability.

[1:15:51] This is you have all sorts of things.

[1:15:53] But water hazards do occur in there.

[1:15:56] You know, these water rain on solvents.

[1:15:59] Maybe more likely to happen in the future.

[1:16:01] So I don't know what we do about that.

[1:16:03] But it does feel like that's a really relevant point.

[1:16:07] So we can.

[1:16:09] Again, I do think it's going to fall under the next section.

[1:16:12] Yeah.

[1:16:12] A lot of user facilities.

[1:16:13] Yeah.

[1:16:14] Sorry.

[1:16:14] So jumping ahead.

[1:16:15] Sorry about that.

[1:16:16] no problem.

[1:16:22] Can you have you had brought up the potential for yeah for affecting the agriculture

[1:16:33] of producers around that yeah a lot of questions about how to protect the users around them.

[1:16:43] There are people who don't understand open range laws that don't understand ditch

[1:16:51] that, yeah, noise at late at night, those kinds of things.

[1:17:03] How do we protect the ag users around this property?

[1:17:13] You could require the file covenant to mix them

[1:17:16] aware that there's additional production in the area

[1:17:18] that might be noisy for late hours.

[1:17:23] all of those things so that whoever provides this property will see that. Okay, but you're saying we need a finding.

[1:17:33] So the finding is kind of the justification. What's the factual component based on your argument? What's there?

[1:17:41] And you're you are already kind of started to say it and then you bait your it's just the thing of this way.

[1:17:47] How would you justify requiring a covenant that says a lot of nerds are here by notified that this is open-range country and they have to adhere to open-range laws and be made aware that agriculture production produces odor, smells, no ways, things like that.

[1:18:05] How would you justify that? That's your finding. So you kind of already did it. You would want to put it down in a finding.

[1:18:15] Okay, and so is that something we need to accomplish tonight?

[1:18:19] Yeah.

[1:18:20] Because I'll start writing.

[1:18:22] I'm happy to do it on the screen too.

[1:18:24] Yeah.

[1:18:25] Oh, we can help each other out as well.

[1:18:30] Should we?

[1:18:30] Yeah, we would need that.

[1:18:31] So we need if you do have a finding that you'd like to add or a condition,

[1:18:35] it needs to go down on paper now because at the end, that is what we would be voting on.

[1:18:41] Is there any agricultural property that directly, because I think there's a residential

[1:18:46] property to the west, there's now, because the wave of sub-divided, a residential

[1:18:50] property to the south on the other side of Mill Creek, is there any more west of the

[1:18:55] property?

[1:18:55] Southwest.

[1:18:56] Southwest.

[1:18:58] But it's on the other, it's South of Mill Creek Road on the other side of the creek.

[1:19:03] Okay.

[1:19:05] I just want to bring that up, because just having been there, I'm not sure how close to

[1:19:08] agricultural activities, or any properties that may in no.

[1:19:12] I know agricultural production adjacent to, right?

[1:19:16] Well, I think it's a good rule of thumb to set the precedence.

[1:19:19] If you do one, just like the other.

[1:19:21] And this one may not have adjacent ag lands right next to it.

[1:19:25] But because we start that provision and make that known to future owners as a government,

[1:19:32] it makes it kind of standard procedure going forward for those that are right.

[1:19:37] I mean, you can cut and paste it into the next room.

[1:19:39] Sure.

[1:19:41] And the recommended finds that we would add D. This is impacts on agriculture.

[1:19:46] We'd add D. The proposed subdivision is located adjacent to open range land and agricultural

[1:19:53] land.

[1:19:53] And there's, you know, there's pop abilities of agricultural smells, you know, or smells

[1:20:01] noise, or whatever, I don't know what all of them are, all related to the necessary

[1:20:09] distance of agriculture. Is that correct? Okay, keep going. I'm not a role here.

[1:20:16] The necessary distance of agriculture and in any condition, and so the condition is

[1:20:26] And the freed ranging animals, I don't know if they can do some of the easy, I would say

[1:20:34] like some of the more broad-like noise, smell, and light pollution, with the light dust.

[1:20:43] Yeah, dust.

[1:20:44] So, driving from necessary agricultural operations, so it's not leaving the next property under

[1:20:49] exposed to, you know, somebody having a big party all night long, you know, which is not

[1:20:54] sure.

[1:20:55] Yeah, I mean, that's the other thing.

[1:20:56] You want to be respectful of,

[1:20:57] you can't be somebody just having a big blow out.

[1:21:00] And it's like, sorry, you know, it's on my aggregate guidelines.

[1:21:04] So you want to have a backing up balance.

[1:21:05] There has to be necessarily a responsible agricultural activity.

[1:21:10] That's a morale booster in support of.

[1:21:12] I'm just trying to capture what you're saying,

[1:21:14] but tell me if I need to modify it.

[1:21:15] Okay.

[1:21:17] I'm doing this based on

[1:21:19] what that's an encounter sign to.

[1:21:22] So you guys try and then

[1:21:24] Heavy equipment so far.

[1:21:27] I think that's in our operations.

[1:21:29] Well, I like that light dust.

[1:21:31] You might just put light dust in noise or something.

[1:21:36] Yeah, the necessary.

[1:21:37] That seems to be the big ones that everybody comes to mind right away.

[1:21:41] It's the light at night.

[1:21:43] And that may be even just naming the ditch.

[1:21:45] You had a ring stone beforehand and they're looking for cloths because they're out of water.

[1:21:49] I mean, that doesn't always happen in the middle of the day.

[1:21:53] Yeah, it's one of the good things that I can do.

[1:22:28] Yeah, guys.

[1:22:30] Yeah, it's because you're supposed to do something else.

[1:22:37] One of those surprises I've been called.

[1:22:39] about.

[1:22:45] I feel like it is really good because I feel like that how responsible you are is

[1:22:52] your own, you know, your developing side, your own home. Folks who are buying things later on,

[1:22:58] and we've seen this with other development type things. People, you know, the transactions,

[1:23:03] I may be a really real estate agent who's involved with us and has something about agriculture,

[1:23:07] culture and who may be, you know, this is all sorts of things that are ongoing into the future.

[1:23:12] So I think it is, you know, as we deal with this, like on agriculture side, this property

[1:23:18] was adjacent to a stream bank. There'd be a lot more thing than I had to say via the based

[1:23:23] on the background and the policies and feelings of the hard conservation board as well. Because

[1:23:30] because we have had those issues where we are chasing violations through multiple land

[1:23:38] orders, because sales have happened so fast that we're still trying to check down the

[1:23:43] original one, and there's two others afterwards already, and it's like what do you, what

[1:23:58] your point Dustin about spring water events. I'm going to are we okay with because I do

[1:24:09] think that falls under water user facilities. Yeah. Okay. Any additional findings and modifications

[1:24:17] for impacts on agriculture?

[1:24:28] Let's let's move on to impacts on agriculture water user facilities.

[1:24:36] You know, do you find names currently, you know,

[1:24:40] recommended conditions, I do agree.

[1:24:44] I think it's important similar to this previous finding

[1:24:49] that we added that there are some reference on the flat,

[1:24:57] about basically that the irrigation district is not liable

[1:25:01] or either flooding or personal injury.

[1:25:08] Yes, it seems like just a couple of issues,

[1:25:09] there's access and there's also my abilities

[1:25:11] probably more issues than that.

[1:25:13] I'm not entirely clear based on the conversation here.

[1:25:17] Is there access either from Milk Creek Road

[1:25:19] or from the Northwest property lines

[1:25:22] for someone to move in equipment

[1:25:24] to conduct the repair?

[1:25:26] The access would come from the Northwest,

[1:25:27] they don't have.

[1:25:28] The easel doesn't extend to the driveway, the two track.

[1:25:33] Okay.

[1:25:34] So their access is from an elephant.

[1:25:35] Because easel means 15 foot off the center, and you're going to have your house just

[1:25:39] beyond that easement from where it looks like on the maps, and then the road goes to your

[1:25:43] house, and it's a pretty steep bank to get.

[1:25:46] Okay.

[1:25:47] They have not been using that two track to access that.

[1:25:51] They have been.

[1:25:51] Okay, so there we started to get into a prescription reason, the potential.

[1:25:58] That big isn't still there.

[1:25:59] Is it worth mentioning?

[1:26:00] I don't know.

[1:26:01] And it does read the question because I was under the impression from the application that they were suggesting that improved driveway will be able to be used for maintenance.

[1:26:12] And so maybe some clarification.

[1:26:14] And that's where the sticky point that I'm getting at would be because it's not the legal

[1:26:20] prescriptive or the legal easement to the ditch.

[1:26:23] A future landowner will say, well, what are you doing bringing that up my driveway?

[1:26:29] There's been a case outside of Clyde Park within the last five years that that was brought

[1:26:34] up.

[1:26:35] The landowner did lose.

[1:26:36] However, it was like a two year endeavor of encode.

[1:26:39] but not something you want to have a review.

[1:26:42] I guess if it could be something

[1:26:45] provided in the plaques,

[1:26:48] it gives a lot of resources

[1:26:50] that could actually have to go that way.

[1:26:53] So question for the applicant,

[1:26:55] are you saying you are going to allow PACs

[1:26:58] that to be a being approved, right, Wayne?

[1:27:02] I would allow it if they came in a lot of nuances,

[1:27:04] they didn't want to come up the driveway,

[1:27:05] but that doesn't mean that the next person will be ready.

[1:27:10] And that's kind of gives you the, you know what I'm saying, that's probably, she'll give that.

[1:27:15] You guys have the right, if you can make finding, there's an impact, and we need to mitigate that impact.

[1:27:21] You've been right for our condition.

[1:27:24] Would the finding be that, um, you know, the water, water users need to be able to access the irrigation ditch.

[1:27:32] For, uh, routine or for any kind of maintenance on this little routine, but emergency maintenance or whatever for maintenance period.

[1:27:38] It is a customer for the water users to be brought into this process to determine if they

[1:27:46] do have the access that they need.

[1:27:49] They have access via an easement and this subdivision does not impact that access through

[1:27:57] the northwest quarter of the property.

[1:27:59] Not even what's being proposed limits their access, takes away their ability.

[1:28:05] Okay.

[1:28:05] It doesn't mean that because it's undeveloped and very informal that they aren't using portions

[1:28:13] of the property that they don't have access on to get to the ditch.

[1:28:19] But nothing in this subdivision proposal limits that easement that is 30 feet wide on the

[1:28:26] ditch.

[1:28:27] And I think we have to be careful not to force somebody's hand to provide an easement that

[1:28:33] necessarily isn't justified on somebody's behalf that isn't here asking for it. Does that make sense?

[1:28:39] Sure. Yeah. So if they've got enough to come from that one side of the dish to go down the dish,

[1:28:44] that's probably sufficient enough. And then they need to understand that they're not going to use

[1:28:48] that to track it anymore. They might come and ask you not going to door. Hey, can we come in to

[1:28:52] look? We just got this spot right where we're going to pipeline. That seems logical. And then

[1:28:59] George may or may not grant that, but I don't think we as a board can force the hand of

[1:29:04] making that happen, I guess. So I wanted to careful that as well from the landlord's property

[1:29:09] rights perspective. Yeah.

[1:29:13] So does what would you suggest the language should be for this findings?

[1:29:20] Everything's kind of in there above, but I would, yeah I guess the only thing we can do is just assert

[1:29:25] that that easement that is intact stays relatively easily accessible so that

[1:29:34] they can come in from a boat on their prescribed easement that they have rather

[1:29:38] than the two-track or new improve.

[1:30:07] And some of them may be a little redundant, but a lot of it has to do with the building and the world above. So, yeah, it's probably wanted for us.

[1:30:20] You could also expand on the findings. Well,

[1:30:39] the next finding though talks about the water and. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:30:55] So, I mean, it says in the application there's potential for

[1:31:02] seavage, flooding, and increased recreation around the tip.

[1:31:07] So, then let's...

[1:31:10] Sorry, just nothing in the proposed one.

[1:31:12] It's access violates.

[1:31:14] Yeah.

[1:31:15] Sorry.

[1:31:15] Okay.

[1:31:20] Oh, Linus actually should be okay.

[1:31:22] Okay.

[1:31:27] So can we add the basically referencing that there is potential for

[1:31:33] blooding?

[1:31:35] New finding?

[1:31:35] New finding.

[1:31:37] Thank you.

[1:31:47] Say the answer.

[1:31:48] Um, there is potential for blooding, uh, seapage,

[1:32:01] uh, HG.

[1:32:04] An increased human presence, you know,

[1:32:09] So you guys have languages, yeah, so the liability part flooding yeah pretty well covers in on this human presence part of liability issue or is that more of an access?

[1:32:19] I'm trying to get a sense of the increase human presence.

[1:32:23] Oh, you know, it's the liability issue.

[1:32:27] Some of these that they're working on it may trip or something.

[1:32:31] Yeah.

[1:32:47] And

[1:32:51] then I think noting on the the final plat, there is Montana code or an irrigation district

[1:33:03] not being liable or personally being worked

[1:33:19] on an irrigation district because I just

[1:33:21] sure on. It's a . . .

[1:33:26] I just was so good that I'm on the side of the fireplace and.

[1:33:30] It's just a complex.

[1:33:33] It's a complex, yeah, you know, it's right up here.

[1:33:37] Yes, right up here.

[1:33:39] And if they build a bullet, they can't approve it.

[1:33:45] Sure. Okay.

[1:33:46] Yes. Yes.

[1:33:47] Yes.

[1:33:47] So you go to the room.

[1:33:48] No, why is that?

[1:33:49] Uh, due to the road model image of a potential failed septic system, all in due to the service

[1:33:55] water source.

[1:33:56] Yes.

[1:33:59] Yes.

[1:33:59] Which one can I gamble with?

[1:34:06] Intro.

[1:34:37] Yeah.

[1:34:38] Maybe reference.

[1:34:39] Section.

[1:34:40] What?

[1:34:40] 76.

[1:34:42] 75.

[1:34:43] 75.

[1:34:45] I don't know.

[1:34:46] Seven.

[1:34:47] Is it really, is it really the one?

[1:34:50] I think so.

[1:34:55] What is the same?

[1:34:57] That's really just me.

[1:35:02] Joe.

[1:35:03] There's a limit of liability.

[1:35:04] Personal injury, it's an

[1:35:10] irrigation district or private person or entity.

[1:35:12] and to see owning or operating irrigation diversions

[1:35:15] aqueducts canals, visions of the flower.

[1:35:19] You cut Hayseh?

[1:35:20] No, it's not liable to

[1:35:24] property damage.

[1:35:25] Resulting from the plant.

[1:35:26] May I ask you something?

[1:35:27] Yeah, yeah.

[1:35:28] I think that's right.

[1:35:29] They were doing such a good job for you.

[1:35:30] Yeah.

[1:35:31] I love reading.

[1:35:34] I love reading.

[1:35:35] That's it.

[1:35:36] So that's all I got.

[1:35:39] What about the seed of the amount of seed that we maybe

[1:35:42] have a comment or something because it was already easement that we need to say something

[1:35:55] else about the different re-everting easement because it was already easement as far as

[1:36:02] repairing the maintenance of the ditch.

[1:36:10] I was wondering if that could be with NC, if that

[1:36:14] could we perhaps add it to A?

[1:36:20] Yeah, it's going to ask that.

[1:36:21] Just kind of a read or a read.

[1:36:25] OK, let's, yeah.

[1:36:30] I mean, you're identifying that there's

[1:36:33] indeed access and nothing in the proposal

[1:36:35] limits that access.

[1:36:37] So I don't know that you would need a condition.

[1:36:40] Yeah.

[1:36:40] About the same.

[1:36:41] Well, you know, we were thinking, yeah, or that,

[1:36:43] or just adding it to A.

[1:36:50] Yeah, that's the right to do the condition, whatever, um,

[1:37:06] while he's doing that any additional.

[1:37:11] Find that we will cover your impacts,

[1:37:22] let's move on, impacts the local services and

[1:37:31] a

[1:37:34] questions.

[1:37:39] I mean, in regards to the fire surveillance system, I think we can graduate for us to have given the last start the vision of approval issue.

[1:37:48] But I'm not sure what can be put in here as a.

[1:37:56] Yeah, that's just the only thing we do.

[1:38:02] That's the most exciting thing.

[1:38:06] Because we don't, we're, we don't look like those to enforce that.

[1:38:14] And does the fire plan thing go?

[1:38:16] I don't know.

[1:38:18] If you're basically the, you guys with a property.

[1:38:20] Yeah, we'll take place in the form of,

[1:38:22] but they'll make a notation to it.

[1:38:24] And then that file.

[1:38:27] I have to hear to those provisions.

[1:38:31] That's okay.

[1:38:32] If anybody building something in there,

[1:38:33] why wouldn't you put it first?

[1:38:36] Be quick.

[1:38:37] No, it's really expensive.

[1:38:39] It's a good chance insurance.

[1:38:47] I mean, I think it's getting harder to.

[1:38:50] Yeah.

[1:38:51] Any.

[1:38:55] In fact, let's move on to the next slide.

[1:38:57] to impacts the natural environment?

[1:39:03] On page 11, this was in that with the question I had

[1:39:07] the way they thought is just that in October 1st,

[1:39:11] 2-13, that was confused to be 23rd, 23rd, 23rd.

[1:39:15] Yeah, that's right.

[1:39:15] I thought to just 13th, I get a quote number.

[1:39:19] There's a, it's in the middle of the page in 11,

[1:39:22] and it's just right about three effects

[1:39:24] some other service features, the paragraph right about it.

[1:39:29] No, sorry, but yeah, it's a type of that I, some of this reddit, it's like it's not up, you know,

[1:39:37] while you're at editing, go back up on paragraph, it says, on here, one exempt will is proposed

[1:39:45] for use.

[1:39:53] So the proposal will include it, I wish it was tough. Well, it says one exempt will is

[1:40:01] proposed for use rather than one example, well, is proposed for use, so further out.

[1:40:08] Oh, I see.

[1:40:09] Yeah, it's a top paragraph.

[1:40:10] It's a sport lined out.

[1:40:13] In Iconics on the top of page 11.

[1:40:17] I see your documents changed.

[1:40:18] What's your name?

[1:40:19] The new tables.

[1:40:21] The until it's pretty helpful.

[1:40:23] So it would be in the middle of paragraph or section here.

[1:40:47] I don't know if my eyes are feeling, is finding the redundant, is it the same as finding

[1:40:54] the A?

[1:40:57] Yes.

[1:40:58] Yeah, I thought you saw it earlier.

[1:41:00] I didn't notice that.

[1:41:01] Yeah.

[1:41:02] It's just a good detail.

[1:41:07] Really, really.

[1:41:08] What was it seeing?

[1:41:09] It was really.

[1:41:10] So, it's on that A and B. We're going to speak to Anne's

[1:41:15] question that receding 70% coverage is that that's on improved road construction correct, not your house site.

[1:41:25] So they have to demonstrate receding of any improvement they make prior to final pilot approval.

[1:41:32] That does include a house where they will be management plan that talks about going forward.

[1:41:38] So the receding is strictly to the improved road and putting the drainage system and everything else.

[1:41:43] before. And then there's no receiving requirement for the actual house construction.

[1:41:48] No, then we manage the plan that requires them to adhere to that. So that's the county's

[1:41:53] attempt to try to capture going forward, but we do have to make sure that they've addressed

[1:41:58] weeds for the roads. I get the house side the road has to be done. Yeah, but I do feel like there

[1:42:05] is a certain kind of thing where you're bringing construction, you know, bringing construction

[1:42:09] to share everything up that road again. You're just going to be, you're going to be, you may be,

[1:42:14] I'm doing all the good work that you did with the seas. I do feel like that's, you know, that doesn't

[1:42:18] like it. I think the danger would be, so say, they do the road, and then it takes some time

[1:42:24] for them to actually break ground on the house. Those weeds are also spreading to neighbors.

[1:42:29] That's what all the invasive is emerged. Yeah, so you've got to get seed on it. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:42:34] So, and that brings up the point back to the agriculture usage and the usage of that

[1:42:41] ditch.

[1:42:43] Um, that, that ditch owner is liable to spray his ditch bank.

[1:42:52] There's a lot of existing weed laws that I had never, my question is the enforcing of

[1:42:59] those.

[1:43:00] Yes, correct.

[1:43:03] If there's always the difficult.

[1:43:08] So should weed suppression be added to that list of.

[1:43:14] Maintenance of the irrigation facility.

[1:43:16] Yeah, to be that is that's a back to the agriculture thing is.

[1:43:22] Agriculture includes weed management of one kind or another.

[1:43:26] They're very most often with, so

[1:43:33] can are you saying to alert the group or the owner that

[1:43:37] there would be management occurring as part of the discussion?

[1:43:41] It makes a condition for somebody else.

[1:43:44] It's a part of this.

[1:43:46] It's a very, because that's kind of what that would be doing.

[1:43:49] You've been on the condition on there.

[1:43:51] No, we're, we're saying that the property owner acknowledges that that may,

[1:43:58] be a part of. They're watching somebody showing up in your property to spray along the

[1:44:03] jet. Yeah. And the within the prescribed easement. Yeah. That might be one of the, that might

[1:44:08] be one of the easement covers. The easement covers. Yeah. But if a future takes exception to the

[1:44:15] chemicals being used, does that need to be addressed? Is that essentially, and I think it's the

[1:44:20] way it has to be addressed. It's just that would kind of fall back onto the county when you've

[1:44:28] Yeah, you have language in there that says that they're notified that there's an irrigation ditch. There's an easement for maintenance.

[1:44:36] That might be gone.

[1:44:44] I don't know that you would have to specify each one.

[1:44:52] So going back to the summary of the educational on the road, on the one hand there's the

[1:44:58] The acknowledgement that he put in that...

[1:45:00] If, if your house building is able to happen, really pretty quickly after the road is completed and you've got the platform, the platform, then you may have cherry up all those scenes. On the other hand, if there's a delay, you don't want to have an opportunity to go into the green street generating it. And so, is there, I, is there any language that needs to change with that? I feel like we need it. Some of them for timing issue. And if you don't want to undo your

[1:45:30] good work, and the other things you don't want to let weeds grow, let them spread to neighbors

[1:45:34] or spread on your own after the entire year, and that's sure how we reconcile that.

[1:45:39] Yeah, I think it's the idea that those areas that are disturbed part of our plant, we can

[1:45:45] go out and make sure they have to demonstrate they've receded their vegetation.

[1:45:52] They don't have to build their house for any period of time, I mean they don't.

[1:45:56] So if you had any of that wheat management plan, now you know that people are going to be residing there and there's going to be activity.

[1:46:03] So it goes a step further than state statute that really specifies what the wheat management plan is.

[1:46:09] So there will be a working wheat supervisor to identify what we throw in the property and how to maintain them going forward.

[1:46:20] So that's, I think that's the idea between the work that we can oversee and then going

[1:46:27] forward.

[1:46:28] Because again, it impacts to the national environment, not the property on it.

[1:46:34] Do you mean, yeah, so you're kind of thinking in the context of, let's make it easier for

[1:46:39] the property of it.

[1:46:46] You know,

[1:46:49] and then the idea is, and I know this is about both in this one and going into the next one, but we control, you know, plan is with the supervisor Theresa.

[1:47:00] Well, do you get trees out there? She's great that she's one person.

[1:47:05] But then you have the next thing going down working with you have a shoot person about plants that don't attract.

[1:47:11] So it's kind of a two-stage thing, whether they're talking, I mean, I know the current

[1:47:17] weed control person talks to the current, the super-senif, but whether they'll have it in

[1:47:23] the future or not.

[1:47:24] And I think they're trying to differentiate between receding the disturbed areas versus

[1:47:29] the built-in house, and I don't like to see it.

[1:47:32] Yeah.

[1:47:33] Yeah.

[1:47:34] Yeah.

[1:47:34] What kind of trees I'm going to plant.

[1:47:37] Yeah.

[1:47:38] We're a bit different than we can do.

[1:47:39] Sure, we are a card, you know, we have to recede it.

[1:47:42] Yeah.

[1:47:43] Revisioning.

[1:47:43] Yeah.

[1:47:43] It's going to be a bit more specific to just landscaping.

[1:47:46] Yeah.

[1:47:46] That makes sense.

[1:47:47] Yeah, more than anything make the girl.

[1:47:50] Or bring a lot of life in school.

[1:47:51] Yeah.

[1:47:52] Yeah.

[1:47:53] And that's a lot of the better reason stuff.

[1:47:56] Yeah.

[1:47:56] Yep, yeah.

[1:47:57] All of us.

[1:48:00] Where was that way?

[1:48:02] That was under Wow, like, right?

[1:48:04] The first one was under natural environment and the said was well, okay, that's right.

[1:48:09] So under, I'm sorry, 6A or 6, you know, I do want to go back to this comment about which

[1:48:17] I think would fall under impact natural environment, the potential for a village.

[1:48:22] Long. Oh, yes.

[1:48:27] I have been to that site.

[1:48:33] It'd be hard to know.

[1:48:37] I think it will be hard to have a yard.

[1:48:41] Maybe a pretty limited building level.

[1:48:44] It's just a company that knows.

[1:48:49] However, I do feel like the intent of the question is really good in going forward.

[1:48:54] This is the big property is, you know, the building envelope is limited.

[1:48:58] There's really, there's, you know, it would be difficult to have any kind of strip of grass.

[1:49:02] And you know, anything other than probably made of plants.

[1:49:05] But, you know, as we're looking at crop policy or the regulations or the

[1:49:10] precedent going forward, what is appropriate for us?

[1:49:14] ask in terms of landscaping as a good question. I don't think it's that particularly relevant to this

[1:49:18] particular piece of property, but I think the question overall is when we can know what you're thinking

[1:49:22] about. Well, they've not proposed a irrigated lawn and they identified the impacts to ground water

[1:49:31] with the well just servicing the house irrigation. So typically when we have reviewed residential

[1:49:39] subdivisions in the past and that water issue comes up, a lot of times if you're looking at

[1:49:43] multiple lots, they have to calculate not only the usage, but the irrigated, the irrigatable

[1:49:49] area based on that water usage. So we've seen people limit creative building envelope for

[1:49:58] not only the structure, but the amount of irrigatable lawn based on the amount of water that they

[1:50:03] are allocated under the United Police.

[1:50:07] And they are somewhat limited with their 35 gallon of

[1:50:11] and I want to get down even the reason for DNRT,

[1:50:15] it's not a heck of a robust irrigation system.

[1:50:18] But that's sort of the crux of the issue here,

[1:50:19] the fact that the well use is not monitored,

[1:50:21] and if someone were to have extensive landscape,

[1:50:23] they would exceed that.

[1:50:25] They could.

[1:50:25] Right, and there's no enforcing that.

[1:50:29] Yeah, and because that kind of holds

[1:50:32] out of the county's perspective,

[1:50:35] a little bit that's all under DNRT and more so.

[1:50:40] So what were you saying that if it as part of this process we would usually see if there was intent to for extensive landscaping it would appear as part of the right so they have to identify with their proposing and they have to identify how the water usage identify the water usage for the residential structure.

[1:51:00] Right, but they have not identified or proposed like a lawn or an area that they're going to irrigate.

[1:51:09] They were going to do that, then they would have to include that in their calculations, or how

[1:51:12] to water their planet, or anything. Because, yeah, you could, but one house that only uses

[1:51:16] X number of acre feet per year, and then have a 4 acre, the turkey bluegrass lawn,

[1:51:23] that would use all the rest of it. You know what I mean?

[1:51:26] Oh, I think that's the key concern. They did not propose any kind of lawn or identify that that's what

[1:51:33] they're doing. So if they came back and somebody complained and they'd

[1:51:37] leveled off the whole other side and there was this massive area that we're

[1:51:41] irrigating, that would be contrary to what they applied.

[1:51:44] So what happens in that, I mean, not this case is going to happen, but you know,

[1:51:48] what happens in that case? Again, what's the enforcement for?

[1:51:52] Well, it depends if we're a party to the covenants that there's

[1:51:54] venture accounting could be involved in enforcement. But enforcement's

[1:51:59] complicated and it requires attorney's office that's willing to prosecute things

[1:52:05] are not adhered to and we've seen we've kind of run the gamut with our

[1:52:13] attorney's office and even compliance we have a compliance officer's or

[1:52:16] ability to track violations and put together an actual file and a request for

[1:52:21] prosecution is solid and I think even as a very recently our attorney's

[1:52:29] offices now moving in the direction of enforcement.

[1:52:33] But it's not always consistent because it requires a lot of different departments and elected officials to work together this side of the

[1:52:46] But, theoretically, if we're a party to it, and they're in violation, then we would have the ability to enforce really good.

[1:52:56] Make that the definition.

[1:52:57] We need to put a block in there, and say that we have acknowledged that they did not intend to have not included a footprint of.

[1:53:06] I have that kind of under the last section when I talk about impacts of the subdivision

[1:53:11] regulation for themselves and then what they're proposing is what we're doing and everything

[1:53:17] is based on that and if they make any changes to what they're proposing then that may subject

[1:53:20] them to the provisions in the regulations which we may require to be reviewed.

[1:53:29] Any additional findings, changes?

[1:53:32] is just one minor added on the second to last condition.

[1:53:39] For you.

[1:53:42] Okay.

[1:53:44] Okay.

[1:53:44] 16.

[1:53:46] Impacts on wildlife.

[1:53:48] Old 16.

[1:53:48] No.

[1:53:50] Okay.

[1:53:55] Any concerns.

[1:54:00] Additional findings.

[1:54:02] Modifications.

[1:54:05] The only other thing that interacts with the types of wildlife that this also may leave

[1:54:09] into, in fact, some wildlife habitat is fencing, there's a property boundaries, a question

[1:54:16] about it's maintenance of boundary fences at one point in reference, and then fencing

[1:54:23] to control, it was talking about pest-rounder control, which may imply fencing, but then does

[1:54:31] that impede wildlife. I know which is a couple of references to Fencing and I'm not sure if that's

[1:54:36] under have it at or under wildlife itself. And I didn't know if there was any sort of,

[1:54:48] you know.

[1:54:49] Yeah, it's under number one, landscaping may attract wildlife, garbage may attract wildlife,

[1:54:56] like foundry fence made heat while wet movement, but then yeah, and then there was, and

[1:55:02] there was something on maintenance. So I understand I'll look that up, but it just, um, do

[1:55:06] we need, um, in the, in the, in the, the dogs that are in control, I don't know if there's

[1:55:11] anything that, it's a contradiction in there between foundry fences, you can pull the

[1:55:16] pets, and then it'll also, I'll look at it and find the, um, maintenance part of the foundry

[1:55:24] I mean, I guess how I interpret this is it's not identified as a critical wildlife habitat or corridor.

[1:55:31] Is that impact? I mean, in that case, it's maybe or not as much of a concern to the work.

[1:55:45] I mean, there are times when that really comes into play.

[1:55:47] but we've worked at subdivisions in the Bernabeson area.

[1:55:51] The VGA identifies as a profile of a quarter.

[1:55:54] Right.

[1:55:54] And we run into this issue of allowing wildlife

[1:55:57] to freely move, also to be in bison property.

[1:56:01] So there's this boundary fences need to be wildlife friendly

[1:56:04] but then you're able usually to.

[1:56:07] And then there's the animal migration.

[1:56:08] It's very sensitive to fencing.

[1:56:10] So yeah, there are times when that really changes.

[1:56:13] That's the vibe.

[1:56:14] But it seems like this property would not qualify for that level of concern over anything

[1:56:21] from FWP.

[1:56:22] I didn't mind that.

[1:56:23] In the online information that they've provided and then I looked at.

[1:56:27] Showed it as I could create a wallet.

[1:56:30] Okay.

[1:56:30] So the owners are free to put fancy as they see fit.

[1:56:36] I have to maintain my importance with seeing statute of memory and life expenses.

[1:56:39] But I thought to say that you guys could not make a finding relative to wildlife habitat and wildlife.

[1:56:46] you could make a finding in condition.

[1:56:48] He was so difficult to do that.

[1:57:02] It's sort of just with garbage attracting my life.

[1:57:04] I know this.

[1:57:06] It's a simple shooting.

[1:57:08] But I don't know if we're able to add a condition.

[1:57:16] Do you make a finding?

[1:57:17] You can add a condition.

[1:57:18] Okay.

[1:57:20] So there is potential for garbage attracting wildlife.

[1:57:25] life.

[1:58:16] And so the condition would be use a, I know they're often called

[1:58:22] bear resistant, but what wildlife resistant containers? Outdoors or?

[1:58:47] Yeah, or

[1:58:57] isn't it recommended that they just keep the garbage in the garage, though? Or in

[1:59:02] the, so there's no garage part of the, what?

[1:59:15] Oh, I guess we don't know, oh, we don't know, okay, yeah, yeah, okay, okay, I think we covered pretty well without the work because you can't make people think they're trash inside

[1:59:25] but it's a very, very, very, very, very good job there, totally, but there once they get in it, it's like we're going to get in it.

[1:59:39] Yeah, I mean, you know, they're quite there in the boundaries of the brink, you've got the

[1:59:44] way.

[1:59:46] Well, you've seen some of the little hoodies.

[1:59:49] They can have been upholstery because of things.

[1:59:54] Should we say is in low garbage waste?

[1:59:56] because I don't know, I'm just...

[2:00:00] There's all kinds of stuff you can pile up under your other on the track. What life? What you thinking? Well, you know, you get the old carcass after a hundred days. I know, forming your stuff that kind of gets piled up. That's not what you're trying to say. Yeah, that's true. I don't, I don't know.

[2:00:35] Yeah,

[2:00:39] sorry. I just made that and that was not true. We don't even know if they're

[2:00:45] telling the other expensive alternative, but you're not allowed to have a garage.

[2:00:56] We've

[2:00:56] the house or any of that, yeah, recognize it on other than the site or wild

[2:01:02] are. Yeah. We just have materials.

[2:01:08] Yeah. Yeah.

[2:01:19] Anything else on impacts on wildlife habitat?

[2:01:24] Yeah.

[2:01:30] Hello,

[2:01:58] wildlife habitat. Yes. Did you have something you want to

[2:02:01] think of something like that? Just the wildlife made travel between summer and winter range habitat

[2:02:05] may be impede if the instructions are placed on the property.

[2:02:13] It's similar, but it's limitedified as it is accorded or however, yeah, there could be,

[2:02:21] I don't know, a point in, yeah, what are you wanting to, we're just thinking about

[2:02:26] right, like that they're, you know, limiting jack fence or, you know, fence that is not, does

[2:02:35] not, or sheep fence that doesn't prevent movement of wildlife.

[2:02:42] So you're making a your condition?

[2:02:47] Yes.

[2:02:48] Yes.

[2:02:48] I can say you're running again.

[2:02:51] How about moving in the air maybe?

[2:02:54] Yeah.

[2:02:56] Cicero VT and benzene.

[2:02:58] Yeah.

[2:02:59] Right.

[2:03:00] Putting in wildlife friendly attention.

[2:03:02] Whatever.

[2:03:03] There's multiple different designs.

[2:03:05] Yeah.

[2:03:06] But that bill.

[2:03:07] But it's not limiting.

[2:03:10] So to speak.

[2:03:11] Yeah.

[2:03:11] What if your fencing is intended to block wildlife?

[2:03:17] I mean, if you've got something to work about,

[2:03:18] let's come in and eat and you've got some shrubs

[2:03:22] or ornamentals or feed.

[2:03:24] And a garden?

[2:03:25] Organic garden.

[2:03:27] You can say that really.

[2:03:28] You read mama.

[2:03:29] You're talking about it.

[2:03:30] You're talking about it.

[2:03:30] You can say about it.

[2:03:31] You're talking about it.

[2:03:33] You're talking about it.

[2:03:34] Yeah, because a tree, a fence around a tree,

[2:03:37] a garden where necessarily does not

[2:03:39] in P, wildlife movement in the area to go around, but a boundary fence is good.

[2:03:46] Is that the boundary fence?

[2:03:47] Yes.

[2:03:48] I don't know.

[2:03:48] Where are the doctors in control?

[2:03:52] It doesn't necessarily specify fencing.

[2:03:55] And then there's a dog or dog issue.

[2:03:56] It could be a lunch, an hour or five days.

[2:04:04] Anything else on?

[2:04:13] That would you?

[2:04:14] I'm going to say.

[2:04:15] Yeah, addressing the concern for foundry fences alone.

[2:04:21] Yeah.

[2:04:22] Yeah.

[2:04:22] Cool.

[2:04:23] And perhaps

[2:04:27] on public health and safety.

[2:04:32] The concerns, the conditions, log to patients.

[2:04:40] I can use clarify under on finding the addition to what did it mean when it says the advocate shall also identify the county as a party to all restrictive comments.

[2:04:51] that's related to fire protection just that really specifies that the county will basically be a party to the government so if they need to be in force that provides us the legal basis to continue to force.

[2:05:05] And it also requires them to obtain approval from the governing body if they want to and then their covenants in the future.

[2:05:20] All

[2:05:23] right, moving into compliance with the survey requirements in person, wanting

[2:05:29] us to division and planning to act

[2:05:33] any concerns to determine the requirements.

[2:05:40] Section 9, compliance with the provisions of the physical and legal access to each

[2:05:43] in the subdivision and required notification of that access on the applicable plaques and any instrument of transfer concerning the first all

[2:05:59] complies with the provisions of these minutes of the location and installation of any planned utilities.

[2:06:08] Complies would review procedures contained in the park County subdivision regulations and Montana subdivision and planning act.

[2:06:16] consideration of an officially adopted growth policy for the area involved.

[2:06:26] Anything?

[2:06:29] Compliance with the Park County subdivision regulations.

[2:06:35] Any experience changes, additions to those fighting conditions?

[2:06:44] Well, right. We now have concluded our review of the fighting conditions, so we will now move on to a vote.

[2:06:56] It's time for us to determine if one of the following recommendations, the last page,

[2:07:05] recommend me to Google with the findings and conditions included in the administrative

[2:07:11] and the subdivision administrator's report or approving the findings and conditions as

[2:07:19] by the planning board or three denial.

[2:07:26] I'll move that we follow option two which is approval of the first

[2:07:33] minor subdivision preliminary flat application

[2:07:36] with the findings and conditions and then the final

[2:07:38] planning board.

[2:07:41] Any more discussion?

[2:07:45] All those in favor say

[2:07:46] I oppose motion passes.

[2:07:55] I'm wrong.

[2:07:56] You're out of here.

[2:07:58] I'm not.

[2:08:00] I'm not.

[2:08:01] Oh my god.

[2:08:01] I'm such a nice.

[2:08:03] You're not.

[2:08:04] All right.

[2:08:04] We'll be along planning department update.

[2:08:07] I'm going to.

[2:08:09] I'm.

[2:08:12] Thank you.

[2:08:13] Thank you.

[2:08:18] I'm a major one. I'm going to be very Christmas. Yeah, right. I apologize for that, but given our very limited time-trained tour of these things, and hopefully there won't be another one. There's another one coming, but I don't think we'll get to it in the next month.

[2:08:37] I mean, we can't know where it is or anything, so we're going to be able to do that.

[2:08:41] I'm sure you can.

[2:08:42] Well, it's located near the East Interchange, 40 acres, 12 log commercial, if you want to

[2:08:49] come in and see anything.

[2:08:51] Okay.

[2:08:51] Or I can start the one out in your heart can in Stafford.

[2:08:56] Yep.

[2:08:56] So it's in between heart K, highway 10, Stafford, and I 90, that's the last triangle.

[2:09:03] And it's a piece of pretty I think it's just right now it's 220 a person. We're going to aggregate those two and then divide into 12 lots.

[2:09:11] Okay, that's the proposal. Okay, why don't they want to do with the 12 last commercial, sell them individually for commercial development.

[2:09:22] And then conservation needs to be out. We may have another conservation reason. Okay, for next month, we're scheduled to meet on the 19th or 5 o'clock.

[2:09:30] I think we're providing a video on the meeting that the commission had on Wednesday to talk about growth, generally.

[2:09:45] They didn't make any decisions.

[2:09:48] Three commissioners provided very, very different opinions.

[2:09:53] But I do think they're going to need on Tuesday and potentially discuss a response whether to bring forward any kind of action item.

[2:09:59] And a lot of what they talked about was the notion of future consideration of growth,

[2:10:06] its impacts, and how to address it.

[2:10:08] That may involve planning board, some talk about community meetings, things about nature.

[2:10:16] Was that an insight on commercial and industrial and not really what was said about because of

[2:10:21] that?

[2:10:22] Okay.

[2:10:22] the kind of ongoing conflict in land use is that yeah local crop of time because our conservation which people

[2:10:30] was asked. Yeah, Julian Kelly. Well, I was there. There were about I would say over 100 people present.

[2:10:36] This was yesterday, right? Yeah, yesterday morning. Yeah, we're basically attended for sure.

[2:10:42] Did I miss anything there? So, I don't know. No, I didn't. You should go to spoke. Yeah. Nothing,

[2:10:47] definitive but it sounds like they're looking to potentially try to as

[2:10:50] commission decide how to move forward. I think you've heard that people really

[2:10:56] want to do that and so I think they took that seriously. So what does it mean

[2:11:01] move forward? Well that's where we don't know. Well I hope that was I think that's

[2:11:05] TBD. Well you probably were we going to find out how we need for it. Yeah they

[2:11:12] identified I'll look into it but when you really got down to the kind of the

[2:11:16] closing sentiment of the commission, the three

[2:11:20] could have been further apart, never really.

[2:11:23] We've had very different perspectives.

[2:11:27] So now I'll have them make that decision.

[2:11:30] And then of course, Quint's not going,

[2:11:32] but then you'll have new suggestion there.

[2:11:36] And so, I don't know.

[2:11:39] And we all know that Tara resigned.

[2:11:42] so we will re-notice another advertisement to fill her seat. There are three

[2:11:49] positions turning out,

[2:11:54] so we will have we already done that advertising.

[2:11:56] We've already begun to advertise it, so please, you know, you can only look at it,

[2:12:02] you can feel like they're possible online, the TVs that are all in our

[2:12:06] I don't know, my grocery stores.

[2:12:07] Carving.

[2:12:10] Give us your application for free.

[2:12:14] Reconciliation.

[2:12:17] Those of you who are in the afternoon.

[2:12:21] Yeah, these are just, I think it's Ann and Zach.

[2:12:24] We know that.

[2:12:26] Yeah, the two of us.

[2:12:27] Is it just you?

[2:12:29] Yeah, I believe so.

[2:12:30] And then Tara's.

[2:12:32] Well, and then you as well.

[2:12:36] Sorry.

[2:12:36] Very unfortunately, but yes, you jump right into the line.

[2:12:41] I appreciate it.

[2:12:43] Maybe after snout you out second thoughts.

[2:12:45] Yeah.

[2:12:49] Board correspondence and future discussion items.

[2:12:52] Any board for respondents to report for discussed?

[2:12:56] Through discussion and.

[2:13:00] Future agenda items.

[2:13:03] Like we are against all.

[2:13:05] And just know that after December, we'll go into January,

[2:13:08] that would be election of officers, potential new board members.

[2:13:13] And then I ended with all the water resource information

[2:13:16] that we were hoping to get at, a lot of those folks said,

[2:13:19] yeah, anything I have to look at the starting to be in here.

[2:13:22] I don't know that January would be the best meeting for that

[2:13:24] just because of the weekend time and daytime schedule.

[2:13:27] That there's a lot of housekeeping work.

[2:13:32] But I'll be thinking about that because as soon as you guys are ready for that, then I can reach back out. Yeah, that was about last time. Yeah, training about waterishings. Yeah, and it was what the water board and fresh water partner as some other organism.

[2:13:47] in the federal mine.

[2:13:48] Sorry.

[2:13:49] Every reminder.

[2:13:50] You were calling for some of our partners.

[2:13:53] Ashley with the watershed, she was going to watershed group.

[2:14:00] When you weaver.

[2:14:02] Wells.

[2:14:03] Special partners.

[2:14:04] Constitution.

[2:14:05] Matters.

[2:14:07] Minds.

[2:14:08] Great.

[2:14:09] I think it would be great to have that.

[2:14:11] I think it just seems like such a pertinent just think man needs.

[2:14:16] It's just so important.

[2:14:19] And then I remember how we talked about potentially hiring, hiring hydro solutions to develop

[2:14:28] basically a guide for some division review going forward at Boundary for water related

[2:14:37] issues.

[2:14:38] The idea would be for them to create a terminology and type of information we need from

[2:14:42] the density of the media are better equipped to catalyze it. They wanted 9,500 for it,

[2:14:48] and I tried to get Montana Association planners to pay for it so no humans said yes. Montana

[2:14:56] association counties and I've reached out to the community tech bills.

[2:15:00] This is program through public commerce, so far no bites. So, would like to move that forward. I will be a big help for me and private board and anybody else to say my answer to the subdivisions. That's why I was hoping others would contribute, but I'll provide you with our finance director to see if there's a way we can cover it.

[2:15:21] You might show the conservation district and Ashley in the watershed, because some

[2:15:27] of their partners and some of what they pull in might be interested in that as well.

[2:15:31] I mean, ultimately decision to affect a lot of those things that happen within those agencies

[2:15:36] so it's kind of the same in the answer, put that on the radar as well.

[2:15:41] Yeah, I hope you have it done by now with the fundraising for our sister.

[2:15:45] Pretty skilled.

[2:15:46] or

[2:15:51] I'm going to open it for additional public comment.

[2:15:57] Very thoughtfully review.

[2:16:00] Okay.

[2:16:01] Sorry when.

[2:16:01] Very thoughtfully review.

[2:16:03] Thank you.

[2:16:05] Anyone online?

November Planning Board Meeting

Agenda

Transcript