e meeting the order for our special December 31st board meeting to the flag of the United States of America and to the for which it stands one nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all that add um not necessarily to add to the agenda but just for your information um we have Planning and Zoning on the agenda I just wanted to make note that Kyle it won't be here so
we will go through those items in addition to that um I did have pigy modify the board packet that's out online which you also received the information had met with members of the Isaac Walton Lake yesterday and they requested that their information also be
included in the um public packet so that others would have the opportunity to see the information as well so I just wanted to make note of that just what public packet um the board packet that out online so it was just included in the yes yeah yes I just wanted to make note
of that we got it yesterday afternoon yeah yesterday after yeah and it was sent out via email with the note that I had included that in the packet as well okay and that's all I have else motion to approve just did we get anything from Farm Bureau or Corn
Growers or soybean Growers to add to the packet no okay not to my knowledge good I'll make a motion to approve the agenda motion by Dave second I'll second ER all in favor say I I moving on to the consent
agenda anything you want to pull or additional information [Music] on nope move to approve motion to approve the consent agenda Barry I'll second here further discussion
hearing now all in favor say hi hi hi very C Miss for a report I'll make it quick um just a reminder uh next Tuesday at 7 we have our joint governance meeting at the city um I also wanted and I believe I've told the board this
before but um Matt will be returning to his position on the second of this week who Matt veterans veteran Serv sorry I should have said first and last name veteran service let me finish my sentence um so yes we're excited I was
thinking City relation I'm like no I was talking so yes Matt will be returning to his H position as our veteran service officer um on on the second after office other day and I said it's been I thought 6 months been gone a year
I know when I saw him I asked him year are you how long how long are you back for it's good because yeah I've seen him at basketball games oh so yeah it's it's a good to have him back um we did get confirmation from from the state um as
you recall this board um did the resolution to appoint Lee Brey as our assessor we did a confirmation back from the state that that he has been appointed to that position for the next four-year term and uh just as a another reminder
for you all our next regular board meeting next week will be the swearing in of our commissioners that got through their elections and as well as our new incoming commissioner and we also will have our board picture so just uh yes
please are we are we swearing in also at the same time Soil and Water it yes you know that's a great question we usually do invite Becker County Soil and Water and I think they were planning on that okay yeah and I didn't arrange for the judge to be here that was the auditor
treasurer's office so I can certainly they are here okay okay there and if they can't Soil and Water people can't make it they they have alternate but they usually try to make it I oh okay yeah good point and that's all I
have okay thanks you resources good morning the only item I have for all of you today is to approve the contract adendum for the LS deputies contract they did not have the updated
longevity in their contract so looking to get that added in for the 2024 to 2026 contract I'll make a motion to approve the the addendum I'll second motion by Erica second by Dave further
discussion is that the one I signed yesterday no I'm not sure which one that was but it was one of the ones that were already approved okay all in favor say hi hi thank you Happy New Year yeah you see
you next year next year yeah see you next year I guess it wait a couple minutes uh scheduled for 8:40 so oh oh [Music]
um there's a book on our desk is that um is there a something Reading I didn't get one you didn't you're you're not important enough Phil got it is that who is it from or what's it and is that a gift that we shouldn't
be accepting that's a good point I don't feel comfortable taking a such a valuable book like this $25 $ again [Music] G do we know for the Cannabis are they
are we is the state ready for it to start on January 1st or no I me June I think is the last I read okay there so all this we don't have to worry about I mean we'll have it in place but it there's nothing like some opportun
yeah the push was to have anything because originally it was supposed to be January 1st right yeah the last summer okay there too many losses that's about it too for the application
I know the the gaming part um just changed now so the e e Eames they had to change their format because of complaints from the tribal communities that they were too much they're making too much money I think and they so they had to they couldn't have all the bonus
rounds I mean you don't win any more money but people like going in those bonus rounds so those they had to modify them now so they weren't so is that's for next year well it started it's I think the January 1st is the start date but they've already started incorporating those in the old or as the
games new games come out they they're different now so there's not a they're not as attractive you know so we hurt the state's gaming opportunities because of concern from another group it's like so it's unfortunate is true
see couple special elections probably coming up in the legisl the state legislator got legislature got closer than they originally 33 the 33 the Senate won't change I don't think but they're tied right now yeah what about that what
happened with that R well the one got the residency had to they have to revote he he chose not to contest it contest it so he resigned and they'll have another special election for that
seat also and then there's still one that's those that's today lost ballots or thr yeah that one I don't think they've made there's been a ruling on that one yet so it could be some changes down there I don't think those two seats that are up for special election I don't
think they're going to change the party but well especially the contested one I think W by like 65% or something like that but but you got to reside where you're mhm where you're running well it says 8:40 so we'll open Planning and
Zoning portion with open form Bill hanky good morning Commissioners morning and I wish you in advance a happy New Year coming up to and um I have two issues that I'd like to address but before I do um I you could consider consider the uh book a document on loan
we'd be happy to uh work a checkout basis with you on that split and Harris maybe at any rate um the first thing that I'd like to address is uh uh the uh comp plan uh issues particularly
as it pertains to uh the uh feed lot issue and um uh also the Wake boats although I know that's not being addressed today uh what I am going to do is I'm going to respectfully requests that the two documents uh that we were
sanctioned by uh chair chairman oasen uh on uh CFOs and wake boats be incorporated into uh whatever is finally adopted in your comprehensive plan um I realize that it may or may not be
approved today but um uh there's critical content in there uh your constituency acted in good faith uh to provide uh information that's well sourced and has science to back it and so again I respectfully submit that it
should be incorporated into the comp plan and U made available as a public document as the comp plan is um secondly um I would like to address the feed lad Amendment to the zoning ordinance and I'm going to just
start out with a simple statement that uh as it is written at this point in time it really should not be accepted um it's deficient for multiple reasons um it really smacks of uh cookie
cutter uh it's lacking in spe specificity particularly with regards to site selection and it really doesn't account for such items as slope soil compos composition um the connectivity of the
adjacent waterways that are likely present and the fact and I think you're all hope we realize that uh many of our adjacent fields are pattern tile drained and uh you know certainly that needs to be taken into
account um I also am concerned about uh some of the word and language changes in there the uh Shoreland to shore impact zones you know they lack definition um based on um discussion
that I heard at the um uh last plan Planning Commission meeting the distances uh appear arbitrary uh 300 ft for um uh 1,500 or less animal units uh 500 ft for animal units greater than
1500 so uh 1499 animal units 300 ft away uh several thousand hogs for instance uh in a unit like that uh it really it really has no basis other than being arbitrary so that's that's a key area that I'm
concerned about um the uh tagon addition of well monitoring I think that's an important aspect of it but it lacks definition at this point in time and I think that certainly if you're going to consider an
ordinance there should be definition with it uh for instance are you going to obtain Baseline data uh you know with it so that you can make a comparison how many Wells get sunk you know around um a
site um what about the landowner that lives a quarter a mile away and uh several years down the road comes in with concerns that uh my well is contaminated by nitrates uh do we have a baseline you know so that individual has
a foot to stand on and then lastly I'd like to speak to to reparations I know that it's common for um people to indicate that with uh land ownership uh comes basically an
inalienable rights but also with land ownership comes responsibilities and so uh manure spillage tile drainage that uh fouls surface water with nitrates uh adjacent
Wells that a problem who's responsible for that um is it going to be on the onus going to be on the county and the citizenry and the property taxes that are associated with that um so reparations I I really feel
need to be um you know a significant aspect of this um you know uh when a large corporation and again what I'm addressing is I'm addressing these industrial complexes which you know you know not not our local
farmers um you know that are well established here and and embedded with this but uh individuals that come in and we don't even know you know who the uh actual owner is um so how do we seek out reparations for repair and for
protection of the county and so again I would submit that this uh uh ordinance at best is a work in progress and it it really needs to factor in a lot more than where it is uh at this point in time so I think that uh uh the nod from
you guys ought to be that it needs to go back to the drawing board so uh thank you thank you thank you Rick state your name and address please I'm Rick muff uh Callaway is my address
um I raise hogs in uh Becker County and in Clay County and um I support animal agriculture in uh in Becker County I mean we need we need animal Agriculture and um we're not big corporate Farms out here we're just trying to make a living
um and I have 2,000 head on one site I mean they would consider that big I guess but um it's really not that big um so and I know you guys have been through a lot with this comprehensive plan and I appreciate that and I think you're doing a good job at trying to figure out where to put this stuff and um you're putting
it in Ral uh out in rural areas where it needs to be and um we are not out there trying to pollute or or anything we're doing the best job we possibly can to protect the environment and we want to protect the environment we're not
spreading our manure we we spread it at agronomical rates to um we have to because it's too it's too valuable um and uh um so I guess that's where I'm at I just so I I I like the plan you guys have done and I
hope you can pass this and and um and we can move on and and uh get some more animal agriculture in Becker County cuz cuz we need it for for the crop Farmers also cuz that's where a lot of their crop goes is to animal Agriculture and and um so so thank you Bri a question
for you and this is a question probably for the board too um I did not see that we've we use the term I mean best management practices according like to the University of Minnesota standards I know that that through the nrcs when you do their programs that's the guideline that you're supposed to use I think
that's kind of acceptable for for all applicators too isn't it that I mean we could mention you know that's one of the concerns that we that it's being over applied well I think most of us that are in the business know that it's not being over applied because it's it's it has a huge value so you have to have a manure
management plan so maybe that language in there you know best management practices according to University of Minnesota guidelines would would be a phrase you know that would help establish where where that because that's what they suggest anytime you're in a program through the county or the
nrcs that's that's what they refer to so yep yep and we have to go through all the we have to follow all the state regulations and I mean it's not like we don't have a lot of regulations to follow and I've been through the process of putting up a hog bar it's it's not easy it's not easy to go through all the
permits you have to get so anyway thank you thanks M good morning Matthew Davis Lake View Township um thank you for the opportunity to speak uh I just have two points that I'd like to make uh the
first is on public involvement and way back when this process started and you guys have heard me say this before you know I signed up for the email updates from the county or the consultant uh and unfortunately it's almost like it just went silent and it got even more silent the closer we got to the finish line and
those of us who are watching it's almost like we had to pay attention to the legal notices in the paper uh just does not seem like very good uh way to run an operation seems like you should be amping up opportunities for the public to be more involved in this process which is going to guide our County for
the next 20 some odd years uh my second point is on active citizen involvement uh as you know I'm part of the Prairie Woods chapter the Isaac Walton League uh as Bill mentioned we prepared the two reports on Kos and wake booat and my question is you know were those reports
considered in the development of the ordinary and the comp plan uh it appears to us as Citizens that they're not and my question for the board is what message does this send to beckard County residents if they want to be active in helping you accomplish finding solutions
for problems that we identify but the work that we put in goes unlistened to are citizens going to step up and be active in helping to address these concerns that we're all going to face together in the future I would say that citizenry is going to say say the
Commissioners don't care why should we invest our time we'll just move on to something else and to me that's going to make solving the big challenges that we have as a county that much more difficult in the future so I would just encourage the Commissioners to take up citizens who want to be active in
finding Solutions use our expertise don't turn us away thank you thanks thanks man wellis good morning Mr chairman uh members of
the board my name is Willis Matson I live out in uh Toad Lake Township um to want to speak both to the comp plan and to the feed lot ordinance um as you know we've appeared
um many times before this body and before the Planning Commission and at your hearings to um enter what we believe were science-based well researched and supported evidence in which you could make informed
decisions um it's important that the documents that we entered officially be included in the record of the hearings not only of the board itself but in the comp plan hearing that was held before the Planning Commission
this board held a separate hearing on the comp plan and then lastly you had an a hearing on the new fedot ordinance efforts were made to expressly Rec requests that those
reports be included in the record now those are not frivolous unsupported requests um met with um K Smith this week and sent some information to her about the statutory requirement for for
management of information in government functions and the statutes require that information that is gathered in the process of a important uh government
action that there be clear complete and accurate records kept on which that decision is based and that's important not only for the current board but for future boards as they go back and look at the comp plan
or look at the ordinance you adopted it's important to understand the reasoning that went in what evidence was their um assembled in support of a particular action so those records are necessary not only for you but for the
public and for future boards and for future administrators a future zoning administrator may be challenged as to why was a particular provision in an ordinance that would be based on the record and the record must be complete
must reflect supporting evidence as well as opposing evidence can't be selective so we once again request that that be made official um parts of the records of those
proceedings it's also important to note that the fot CFO report was very definitive in determining that these large industrial operations
are harmful to surface and groundwater quality wherever they are implemented the mention of best management practices is a good one because it's been tested in all the states referenced in our reports they are using those best management practi
IES and especially the the um the agricultural commissioner of the state of Michigan declared the best management practices insufficient to protect the water of that state and the great lakes in that that surround that state so uh
relying on best management practices has already been shown to be inadequate it's also clear that our document and our lead position does not oppose in fact very much supports
conventional Family siiz Farms that's healthy for our economy healthy for our schools healthy for our um uh communities it's important that they are functional supplying good food to to the community and the and the world industrial agriculture is definitively
different from that conventional agriculture so be clear we very much support the folks here that are here talking about wanting to run run their Farms um the way they have um now having said that the proposed
ordinance on the feed lot for feed Lots is not supported by the record nothing has been entered into any of the records or these meetings that would discount any of the findings in
our report so that the findings are report STS that these are negative influences for the accounting for the economy for jobs for property values and for water quality
um you wind it up Wells pardon your time oh I didn't know there was a limit on minutes oh I'm sorry okay well I I will wrap it up open form regulation so yes um shut up
the I'm glad you enforce the regulations strictly the the um setback that are in the proposed ordinance are not supported by any facts um they nowhere have they been shown to be effective so they in fact are only uh window dressing that
should be you know discarded and substituted by real distances and soil conditions and slopes that are protective of the water water quality monitoring should be done by design by a
licensed hydrogeologist that is familiar with where impacts would occur from a particular site New Mexico has adopted water quality monitoring criteria for their large feed lots and that could be a model for Designing yours here so
thank you for allowing me to testify Steve did you Lindo did you want us speak or not yeah I'm Steve lindel I I live in Forest Town ship and I'm a member of the Planning Commission um today I'm
speaking for myself uh as a member of the Planning Commission and what would maybe help us in making our decisions um and that pertains to the feed lot uh type
information um first of all the survey from Becker County said that you know I think in the environment and water quality was number three and the concerns for um what the people um Wanted um you
know based on that survey um what I think we ran into when we're looking at that feed lot um is that there there was a there was a couple things the technical
committee either we didn't know it was meeting or I didn't know it was meeting or it didn't meet I'm not sure which one it was but the technical committee needs to meet for any of these feed lot type operations it's has what the feed lots
have is a big impact on their surroundings the environment water quality and that should be a minimum and it should be re required that the technical committee meet um and maybe more than once uh because some of the
stuff that they need to talk about might take a while in a discussion to figure out um you know the applic application of manure is an example um you know I don't know how that works exactly I don't know what the rules are and so you're asking me to
make a decision a recommendation on what should be done with this feed lot application and with the technical committee that's where we can get at this stuff and we can kind of get the junky stuff out of the way the the technical stuff out of the way uh before
we have have our our our meeting and so we have an understanding on what's real and what's not real and often times all we hear is what somebody's opinion is about something and that doesn't lead to good decisions and good good
recommendations so that would be helpful in from my perspective to look at uh as far as voting to pass the the applicant's application on to to you um the idea of water table water
monitoring um that type of uh work needs to be done and each site is different some are going to be maybe on a side Hill some are going to be where there's no slope to the land for a mile
around um but the regulations the ordinances that you're proposing is kind of like an open door to abuse the ordinance um you it's it's not specific
enough and so having more specifics as to the site the actual site and what needs to be done there maybe one site needs something the other site does not need something you know looked at and um so
it's it it it's not in there you know you have some regulations about distances and so forth and that's good but each site is different and there has to be some kind of an open an an opening there to further evaluate these sites um
that we're asked to vote on um the last thing is the the applications need to be complete um from my experience with the feed lot uh issue a couple years ago here is that
we we got the application there was a circle on the map on where this site was going to be and it turned out the circle was in the wrong place and then we had to adjust it and you know Water Management plans things like that aren't on these
applications and they aren't complete and we kind of resolved the issues during the meeting and we can't really get together and talk at those types of meetings uh and so it's hard to have a
discussion on what re what things really are what's what's real and uh so with a complete application um if there's something that comes up that's not there we should be able to
send that application back and have it time is up Steve wind it up so as a member of the Planning Commission uh these are the things that I see for myself that would be helpful to us for
looking at um applications of any kind really and U making a better recommendation to you so thank you Mr chair just just to comment on that I I think the Planning and Zoning
has the authority to send back anytime that they have feel the if the board feels that it's not complete so you do have that Authority it's just that you're in the minority um so that's and you you stated that you wanted to be more specific in the requirements of of the feed Lots but you then you go on to
say that everyone is all different so how do you how do you pigeon hole something that's all different I mean you you can't you have to look at that when that comes before you so well just back at the Planning Commission Ed CL was there and testimony already closed but I think he wanted to address that
issue from Soil and Water perspective if there's an application does come in where it's going and because they're going to weigh in on it also I think the other issue also is just to go off a little bit about what Steve said is the when it comes to the Planning
Commission the feed lots are in the very beginning stages thinking of the zerns one because they need the approval once they get the approval from the county then they go to mpca and that's excuse me when the manure management plan comes
and so to to ask them to not only the farmer but mpca to do it backwards I mean it's it's it doesn't make any sense to me for them to go to npca when they don't know if that's a lot of work and a
lot of money to to do with the npca when they don't know if the count is going to approve it so to me it makes sense the way it's doing it um and we have to trust that the M you know the mpca um follows through with with their state
regulation so I just I just wanted to point that out okay was there anybody else that want to speak on open form some came in a little late for sign up could I answer that can you answer it can I respond to that comment or not at this time
that's no no okay JY did you want to just come on up and state your name good morning my name is Jay Ken I'm a crop farmer over in oton Township I'm also on the otton Township Board uh Township Board and uh
I'm also the president of the Becker County Farm Bureau we represent over 800 active members in the county and uh we really appreciate all the work the board has done I think some of the changes that we've made on the feed lot side of things have been common sense and I
think that's what we really need to take into consideration is is the common sense idea that farmers already deal with a pretty overly burdensome regulatory system in the state and it's very thorough and we
already have a lot of Hoops to jump through we certainly don't want um dirty water and and dirty air we're uh we are very lucky in this County that we have a
really good Soil and Water Conservation District that works very well with the environmental side and the farming side to come to Common Sense uh understanding on Where the Line needs to be there's a lot of money that's
thrown at these projects already there's a lot of time a lot of effort that goes into it um I think it's important to understand that most most farmers are very much conservationists we have to take care of our land in order to have it produced
for us and be healthy for our families that we raise on our own land and uh I think it's important to remember that we have a vested stake in the continuation of Agriculture over years and years to come and we won't be
able to do that if we're being irresponsible I think when it comes to water quality issues and testing there's never much talk about extreme L Shore development large applications of commercial fertilizers on lawns you have
a drought during do you have a drought during a summer where there's no runoff going through but yet all the all the lake lak shore Lawns are all perfectly green and and and and watered and you can't tell me that none of these uh
nitrates and phosphates and things that are measured don't come from somewhere other than commercial agriculture so it's not it's easy to point at farming and say well here's where the the point source problem is when in all reality the water
quality issue is a is a very large issue that needs to be addressed in all in all forms and and talked about in all forms not just pushed over onto the the S the side of Agriculture and so I appreciate the work that the board has done on this
especially on the feed lot side we've already made some compromises where we've moved the setbacks back further than they originally were the mpca and the Minnesota state regulations are already in place they're already very thorough and uh I just appreciate um
everything you guys have done so thank you and appreciate it as a question as a as a president of the local Farm Bureau um we've been asked now today you've heard that uh the Isaac Walton League wants their their position stated part
of the part of the document would Farm Bureau like to like to be I mean if that's the case should we ask Farm Bureau to have a position to and include that as part of the comp plan I mean I I think that it's kind of silly request to
ask to be have your paper part of our comprehensive plan now it's documentation that's that's there to riew if you want um after we approve or not approve it but I mean we can't have every every agency add their own pages
to to a county comp plan and um I'm just I'm sure Farm Bureau would love to love to have their input in and counter some of the claims that have been made in in some of these other reports certainly if that's something that the board requires we can certainly write something up we have a lot of we certainly have a lot of
extroverts on on environmental policy and if that's something that the board would like to include I can certainly look have have that drawn up but I don't know if it's really necessary I think at at at this level here at the county this is what we're able to do we're able to
come here see your faces going forward it's not going to change we're already we're always going to have an open form discussion at the county level and I think that those problems and those projects can be addressed here at the county and that's the important part is that we have an open form to discuss
these things I I think I think today and and John you have the farm background too if you look back 40 years ago compared to what we've did then to where we are now and the next 40 years farming is evolving at a rapid rate I mean you look at what you know what's going on
you're looking at cover crops and strip you know strip tilling strip seeding um applying fertilizer without turning the soils I mean it's it's going there I mean I and I think you know I think we're going in the right direction as you stated the farmers are um their best
interest is keeping that soil healthy and on the field so absolutely um those nutrients are are are key to that and in that respect the the use of organic animal waste animal manure is so much so
much healthier for the soil than than commercial fertilizers that are they're full of salt and uh so the more animal agriculture we can have in the in the rural areas of Becker County the better it will be for crop farmers
agriculturalists I know lots of people that go to my neighbors uh Hog Farms to get manure for their Gardens so there's there's an an un there's an extreme amount of benefit to having animal Agriculture and and a and
a healthy system for that in the county all right thanks Jake y thank you is there anybody else before it close public form hear none public form was closed thanks everyone item number two uh resolution
12243 Area adoption of the Becker County comprehens of land use plan well I I think there's still things in there that I don't I obviously don't like and I have I think this a few goals and and
objectives that I I just don't see us that we should have in there I think or we should we reward it now I don't have the full copy in front of me but um on page 62 was conduct Economic Development study now I I I think you have to put wordage in there saying you know we'll
consider conducting an economic you know at some point but I I don't think that we want to put our tie our hands to some of these things and say um there's another one that light pollution standard I mean we're not going to I mean I hate yard lights I mean as as now
that I'm not a farmer I mean that has livestock I don't like lights outside but there's some wordage in there that that puts goals for us that um the 3.1 on page 62 says we're going to put a nuisance ordinance in now I'd love to put a nuisance or but I don't know if we're going to get there so I don't know
if we we just say we we're considering putting a nuisance ordinance um uh established sustainable management policy standards do we want to put our hands together say we we should consider establishing a a standard but in that
same language and on 1.2 it says require mitigation now did this did this change since we looked at it last because some of those some of that language did not um that part I don't think is any change I don't think so you're on the same you're on 3 34 is 1.6 develop a
surface water water Ordinance do we have any intention on developing a surface water ordinance I don't I I talked to Kyle about that actually this morning and he thought it shouldn't be in there 1.6 he said it should be in there shouldn't be should not there is another
spot that says in plan on page 12 under findings it was like we will not yeah on page 12 there's a link to how what the process is for Lake Associations to go through to have a to try to get a wake ordinance on their lake so what I would
ask if we're going to approve this to put instead of conduct and and do that put those as considerations or or and not as hard things that we're going to do Carri can we make those little Corrections without going back
for consultant or I that's a great question I don't know answer think well and then page 34 on 2.3 it even there was one sentence in there that said it had to de do with
developing if it's aand that it can only be developed if it's not sustainable for Farmland it's like well that doesn't make sense CU you have property rights too if if I have Farmland south of 10 and that's a field and I want to make a Housing
Development and it and it how is that if it's still a I you know that I don't want to tie the hands of property owners either um and then the other thing is well two other things on when it goes back to watersheds then it doesn't even list Pelican and Corman that they should be a subwatershed within the or Otter
Tail I mean because they are very active and they should be listed as active watersheds within the within the Otter Tail um and then I I'm not going to argue anymore about the one acre only Lots I don't support one acre lots
either on around Lake Park otan otan a lot of various Corrections there it's just stuff that you read it you kind of skim over it and you miss it and but I think if we can make those Corrections
I'm willing to move on this yeah I agree that we should change them to yeah be worded a little different worded better I I think eliminate 1.6 I think you're just get rid of 1.6 y yeah I don't have a problem with that one and 2.3 and I can't remember how that was worded it
was just it say 1.6 no 2.3 said something about it was has to do with farmland and then it said it can you know it only and that's not the intent it's it's like develop recreational resources in agricultural areas only when the land's quality quity makes
farming economically unviable yeah that's terrible that's a terrible sence we could just eliminate it I put it up on the screen okay yeah bar did those distances around the towns get modified um the one acre they
are they are within a half mile so that that currently the the and it's not and again we have to State this is just a plan this is I mean I would like it to say that they should be incorporated with the the city's expansion then I mean because I mean it doesn't make
sense if you're not partnering up with them and I think that should be an Unwritten rule that if you're going to develop sub you know that type of development it has to be incorporated with the city but um but it was two miles it was two and we we got that down to one half mile so it's still some I
have a 220 acre field that's I can I can you know if you were looking at this you could oh one acre lots on 200 200 acre field but I'm not gonna I argu my point on it long you have any other Corrections that we can Dave did you have any you those are I got those
two yeah yeah we talked about a couple yesterday in finance so just for clarification um Mr chair you're talking Del leading 1.6 and 2.3 is that correct no correct that I mean you could put 2.3 re you could just reward it so
instead of saying taking the word only out say develop Recreation is when lands I mean youve have a willing Farm a land owner and I don't know I would just eliminate it yeah okay that's what I was hearing I just wanted to make get it but on page
62 on the goal or yeah 1.1 I mean that's where I'd just say that was my other one um consider establishing a sustainable land I mean because I mean these polic that these these things would all take time and money I mean so if 61 I think
it is Page 61 1.1 3.1 and 3.2 p no page 64 sorry right right well they're all everything's different format it is economic development one y y under
policy one one consider conducting and Y consider conduct versus conduct put consider got it anything anything else um 3 31 and 32 develop and enforced nuisance ordinance
consider I I yeah I think I I do think we need to say consider developing andfor consider we do know that it isue has a look at that some and develop and 32 is light light standards
yeah light pollution I mean we I I don't know that we I would love to but I don't think that's no what we're going to do no I have no intention of developing a light pollution standard in the county no you just eliminate
that I mean you could recognize that light pollution and say you know we we we support we support reducing as much as possible or encourage redu encourage reducing light pollution but other than that so 32 encourage reducing light
pollution M to protect the rural quality and night SK that the last one that's that's all I had that's that's yeah that's all I had on okay with those changes that we can approve the plan with the changes
I'll make a motion to approve the plan with the changes motion by Richard I'll second second by Erica further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I opposed
carried thanks and you could hold the V make or the format so they can make them or we can I don't I don't know what format we have if we can ED we we should be able to get that they should give that to in a form give that to us in a format that
we can modify modif if they don't we certainly should be I know I've seen both uh both formats but either way we'll we'll we require that they give it to us in a format that we can modif should have when Kyle sent it to us it came through in in mic up words so I
think we have it on we obviously have it on Words yeah and we have the ability to modify into a different format as well so okay so Peggy Peggy's able to do that okay okay PG on item three act Amendment to the zoning
ordinance take cannabis first um Gary wasn't an attendant and spoke at the planting commission hearing and here I was I was sick that day y okay that's right cool so um with
regards to that there were recommendations to include um more uh setbacks than what's Allowed by State Statute so I did uh speak with Brian and did some research on this so the recommendation from the Planning Commission I don't recall if it was
twice or three times dou double I believe I think is where they landed they talked about both of the setbacks that had been previously stated in State Statute which isn't a lot allowed so I just wanted to make that point it's not allowed that we increase the setbacks correct really correct really yeah we
can't be more restrictive we can say that there there's none but we can't do more correct and I read it and I had Brian review it as well so it's uh yes and this is an ordinance that will definitely be modified I assume in the
future because this is it's work in progress the state is way behind the ball on this too and but we we need to get something on the books initially it's unusual us usually it's usually the reverse and I have asked the question numerous times and it's pretty clear and
and Brian is online if you want to ask him as well but he did uh re read it and review it and came to the same conclusion as I did well and the other issue too that Kyle brought up is we're dealing with the setbacks and then the you is it permissible or it should be a
conditional use permit or location are we're requiring all cannabis to be conditional use for we're talking about sales or just sales right now sales just sales right now I believe
not growing not not growing Growers will have to have a conditional use correct I understood it to be all I thought that's what that's what I understood too and we do we have size limits on what is there are we going with the
state limits on those the size limits on growing yes that was my understanding is what was discussed at the planning I think at this time there's lot on orang up from the state um yeah I I I'm actually have a little bit more concern about the
growing you know portion of it than the selling of it I think selling we can I mean once we get know who they are we can monitor that quite nicely you know a lot easier um it's a growing that you know there's there's restrictions in fencing security and and some of those
things that will be required and I guess I'm not real familiar with where the state's going with that either and there size limits and it is it I mean anyone can grow their own if you're adult a certain amount of PL the ordinance that's all cannabis establishments so
that probably takes in growing and I understood it to incompass ret and if you are going to become a grower I'm assuming there's state regulations that you have to go through also like we're we're just doing the conditional
use permit but they really regulate it correct not okay so we just have to decide if we want to permit it where it's per where it's permittable or do we want a conditional use well in the ordinance right now we got to day
Asal use for growing for growing or but for all though right for retail too you yes for all yeah well CU I could see like just for example on four corners there's two places that might do it well one that they're too close we'd have to conditionally do that they' have to do
it conditionally the matter what if they're too close if they're too close together oh together yeah we we're not we're not going to not allow one if the other one has correct well we're not saying that they have to be there's no distance from
other businesses no it's just res res the homes the homes oh homes right but we're not we're not trying to say that they can't have competation no but one is far enough way and the other one probably isn't the other thing with regards to setbacks that other um entities have
done is defining where you're measuring from from the property line versus the building that's your other option and I know other entities have have defined that in their ordinance and I did talk with Kyle last week about that as well if that's the way isues of the board
that would give you perhaps uh little more distance a little more distance still require I wouldn't do it on property though because you're penalizing someone that has huge green space I mean I would do it on public maybe public area for that business
or you know if they own 20 30 acres and it's you know set back you don't want to penalize them for having a big lot my opinion well I think conditional use I would take care of right but I think we need to set the standard where you're measuring from that's what I'm saying I
think we should say the home the the the nearest public no the if any place they have a public use for so if there's if they have a say they have a public smoking area on the edge of the property then then that's where but if that's private
you know if that's not open to public use but so basically be their their front of their building but if they have a I don't know I don't know what this is going to evolve to you know if they're going to have smoking area or smoking building any any area where it's open to public we're thinking reverse though I
AR we away from like we're we're talk aren't we talking about distance from a private residence we're not talking about the distance where people are purchasing it out we're talking about okay this you're measuring it between the two though yeah but I but I think
but I think you go from the resident resident building a home yeah to the business the business yeah but if the business not the property not the property if the business has if the business has 100 acres and they're a quar mile off the road you're not going to measure from the road no where the business is physically at that's what
I'm saying but if they have a smoking area right on the you know put a building that that would you'd measure from that one but no I don't I think you just measure from where you're selling it depends on that's what I'm saying it's you don't know what you're going to get you're if you're going to have a a
separate building or any building that are you thinking if you have like a business where they allow multiple cannabis smoking in test you know maybe have a different building for testing or there I I don't know maybe they have a growing area where they're I you just don't know so I would say you want area
yeah I don't know what this is can evolve to soow I I think this is going to be we can progress as the state comes out more defining and some of their lawsuits are settled and let's say let's
just put the building then that's what I think okay or no near the nearest the nearest used building used or something and so are we saying if we're looking at a school let's say 1,000 ft from the school so the buildings building needs to be 1,000
feet from the school or 1,000 feet from the school property line building I would say the property line for the school because those kids are in the playground any us I'd use put usable area usable playground would be fence
and I I do believe the the intent of other entities when they're talking specifically about public use spaces where there's children schools those types of is you're going from the property line versus the building because you get more distance so property
line of the school entity state regulations it doesn't Define it I know other entities have defined it within their ordinance from property line property line because again I think the intent was to get more
distance yep if the seller wants to the seller can split their parcel if they want to so let's just do property L property line then we can back because they if they really if it's really an issue for that one they can they can just go and
get a a survey on a on their property and condense their property if if they got if they're out in the country and have 100 acres they can single off a corner y property line property line all right yep that makes sense anything else on
it I think uh future board proba revisiting this was things progress I would imagine too though the state's going to change their rules where we might have to follow suit to this is just more or less getting something in place at the
time if yeah applications would come in right and I don't know that this board or I don't recall the Planning Commission either talking about you know regulating any time as far as operations you know time of business I don't know if that's something you want to speak to
I think it did say it in here 8 a.m. to 900 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 900 p.m. on Sunday okay I barely Miss there so okay M but I'm I'm assuming that number those
times come from the state I don't know if they come from the state I know that this particular ordinance was mimicked from Clay County so whether or not it we borrowed it from Clay County or if it comes directly out of the state statute I can't tell you that I mean I think we go with what's in
here if we find out that it'sif this is one where we kind of have to accept we're going to be changing yeah this is we just don't know enough about it so with that do I have a motion to approve the Cannabis ordinance I'll make a
motion to approve the Cannabis ordinance with Mr chair just for clarification with the modification of the measuring setbacks from property with included prop lines okay I'll second and then concur with concur with planning zoning except for the finding of distance
because it conflicts with state law yeah I would make sure that did you second you second thank you further discussion hear none all in favor say I I
carried on the feed lot ordinance um Mr chair we did receive uh a language recommendation from Kyle since he's not here with regards to which you all have I believe a copy of recommended uh for well water monitoring
once a year with the steps included in the language if you'd like me to read it I certainly can um couple things on on that I did not see uh will has brought up a good point we should have an initial Baseline well you know it should be a start brief prior to state that it's a baseline I
think we we talked had that discussion that planing and okay so that should be included in here yeah you need a baseline to start with and then if it's year yearly and then and then where that that will where the placement of that well would be um I mean it should be
I I don't know how you word that within so many feet of the main confinement the animal structure [Music] structure well it's 50 ft now so if you got a house with people there's the set bag is hardly nothing but if you have
animals even the Humane Society is 50 ft I yeah but the has to be 50 ft from the building between 50 and you know 200 ft you know the monitoring well has to be between 50 and 200 ft there you know I don't where does that placement go where should that be because you don't want it
3 miles away or you know you want you want to have it closer relatively I could support 50 to 200 fet and I don't that's just I don't know I don't know Richard you have a better idea on that where it would be best well you know and then the wild drill
whoever's going to do this is going to look at the placement of that well certainly you don't want it downhill from anything you know but that's all part of the that's not a regulation that's just a common sense way of doing is there a depth that we would look at I
mean a minimum depth of the well well you know a deep well has to be 50 ft deep or so you'd want a deep well though you'd want a deep well so minimum 50 fet I don't know that we need we need to be regulating the depth well that's
what I mean so that's but a deep well has to be 50 ft deep or go through so much in material before you can have it any shallower than that I can't and I think the purpose of the the distance is to ensure that the well is that's going to
be tested is on the feed light feed lot site right correct yes yes I mean and so it's whatever I mean I just thought it should be noted that it has to be no I agree yeah within on that
property would there would there need to be more than than one I mean that be more than one um I don't think so they're expensive yeah and you're if you're going to if you're going to you're going to hit the same aquafer
over there as you are here almost all the time not you know there's no way to know that so I certainly wouldn't want to see more than one that's not going to be that's not going to be retroactively enforced on current operations no NOP I think it
says new feed Lots with more than 1500 animal units oh wait NOP sorry I'm reading the wrong thing this is for new it doesn't affect the ones that are already out there and permitted so new feed Lots yeah that was brought up to it plent it's in here new
feed Lots I knew I read it somewhere the location of the Mr chair get I also asked that we consider um in this ordinance distance from res other residential homes if if within a quarter mile that they
must appro they must approve I mean if you have over 1500 I I think that would be I was thinking of your your thoughts on that and I thought that would be coming more of the condition say the conditional use would that would trigger
that that you know you got a resident within a quarter of a mile I mean I don't if the residents are all signing off on it I then that's fine but if you have resident I mean because it will have a negative um especially if they're downwind have a negative effect on their
I agree um when we say residents are we saying people that live there or Property Owners or I I wrote down residents um what did I write well my my thought was permanent res year you know permanent resident
residence within a quarter of a mile I would think that that I you think we could that would be that' be put into the cup then ordinance ordinance but that would be a yeah okay
I got you um I don't know how you I think we'd have to look at that a little bito I mean you have we have to think about that a little bit but how how that wordage wouldn't have a unintended circumstance for us yeah that's I don't
know that we want to require do you want a notice I mean they already do get notice I was going to say that's what I think you're already getting a notice through the process and some of them aren't are different than others and I you know like I've been to Mr muff's Hog
operation you can't smell it from 50 fet away on that one I I live on a dirt road of one and I mean I had to walk right up to it and look in there and I won't say what I'm thinking about
say I mean I think I think I think it depends on what it is because you know at least at least his operation was extremely clean and there was no order you had to walk stick your nose right in the screen to smell it so well and I
think but I agree I don't want I don't want that either Berry for somebody who's living there I don't want them to be affected by it so I don't know how you do that but I think it's hard because I think there's in some ways misconceptions
of large feed lots that they're going to be odorous and it's going to be it and I think Mr muff had mentioned at one of our last meetings about it that he had many of his neighbors that were against it and they didn't even know a year
later that he had pigs in there because you couldn't smell it so it I don't know that's it depends on what the animal units are too and how you know go to the dairy me with the manur pit that might be a little different that's a different
story in the old days you know they had lagoons and they stirred those and then I tell you what you had some odors then yeah yes and that was that was a whole lot worse than any um so I think do you want to I think what we have now with
the noticing on a conditional use permit is I think is sufficient as far as I think so too because then you can I think I think yeah it it just gets unintended circumstances sometimes when you but individually I think though people should know that if there's neighbors
close that those neighbors have a very um if they're your own neighbor they have a a big input on whether that I agree you they should not be affected if right that is already part of our ordinance it cannot have a negative
effect of the and now to come back to the full board mhm for appr the dis approve so yeah anything else hearing n do I did we add in there the use the the term uh best management
practice according to University of Minnesota uh I don't know um we can suggest or where's that require using the best management practices of the with
I I mean I don't know is that would that be a hardship does anyone um well I think do we have in in here a minur management plan fall in line with best management practices I mean we have a certificate of compliance when required
by Minnesota regulations shall be obtained by the owner of or operator of an animal feed lot and I believe those regulations part 72.0 1000 are the state regulations for fedot which I
believe includes the minor management plan that's a I think you have to have in place when you start I think we could I mean I think we could add it under there could or we could add a number four yeah utilize guidelines for from
the University of Minnesota as best practices I mean utilize those using the guidelines is that what you said utilize utilizing the guidelines for from the University of Minesota best management practices is what
okay it's the same as what nrcs requires you know when you do when you're in the CSP program or or stewardship program or I use best management practices and they the only thing I want to say if we include that in there are we then going to be required to ensure
that they're following it yeah as if it's if it's part of our ordinance it's it says utilize it it doesn't say required CER if we say utilize recommend utilization yeah I like that better recommend
utili well I mean that I think it does fall under the statute then like you referenc I mean I think I think MP mpca is already regulating it I do like the idea of just saying utilize you know recommend
utilizing the U ofm best practice whatever when we have it here it says when required by state by Minnesota regulations you know in all these programs that and have a lot of requirements I mean um I've been in CSP
and and you have to have I mean I have annual books thicker than the binders we have you know it's it's huge and so and you have to follow those to get into these programs and and these programs are I mean the US government and the state of Minnesota require a lot of a
lot of following and university is just one part of that so just cons you know we got that change no I think so we're good I'll play the take back if I also just want to to to make a point a little bit just because this was in the the
Isaac Welton leagues um verbiage that they wanted is these industrial live Farms are not new to Becker County you know they we've have muffs and briards and you know Slaughters I mean we're not these aren't new the these
industrial I mean if we're saying industrial sizes 999 animal units is that's what the zern one was these aren't new to Becker County and I think I think we I just wanted to make note of
that that farmers are doing a good job so well the other the other thing to that is we can't go back back to 20 20 head cow cow pair I mean you can't it's you can't make any money F make money I
mean what are you going to make $300 a you know if you're you know per cow and you're going to live on $6,000 a year I mean it's well I'll take my family for instance we have 75 beef cattle and my husband works and I work yeah I mean we
can't we can't live off of just what we make on beef cattle and 7 5 head at one point was a fairly decent Siz you know beef herd so it would be wonderful to start over and um do do farm I mean I would love to
go back to the days where you could make a living on 160 acres and or two 300 acres and and your day could be a nice relaxing day you could spend and and you could have your animals and because being with your animals is was the best part of the day you know tractors cost
$10,000 but I mean I I can't put I can't put limits and restrictions on an industry that is changing so fast that but I I do say that that egg egg producers are
improving their their Farm their soils and I mean that is the that is the biggest change I see in the next few years is soil health and preserving your quality of your soil um if you're not doing that you won't be farming over the last couple weeks I
love on this with multiple people and their big concern is if we don't allow some of this who's going to raise the food it's got to come from someplace the Hogs like the muffs and some of those are the slaughter off
daries and stuff like that it's well and there's so many people that depend on it's not just not just him it's the people who work for him it's it's Bond everybody depends on this and to to give
credit affects a lot of people and to give credit to the Ike's goals they're good goals um and I think if they're if the if the findings if they can sh findings at the state level I think that's that's where these some of these these are some of these considerations
are above above County that's these are state and federal rules that should be reviewed if that if the if it's truly that big of a concern this is a state and federal concern that that's where the that's where they have to make the change if it it truly is a
well just in discussion with clay or ail County Commissioner I said how do you handle it he says we issue a condition use and then everything is turned over mpca and the
state departments we don't do I agree with Barry that's where the change has to come so it's a Level Playing Field for everybody in Minnesota we can't restrict Becker County Farmers and then play counties got some different rules it just it can't go that
way okay any other did we decide on the well the well the well distance well it's it is 50 feet it's got to be 50 ft a deep well up between 50 so I think all that is regulated by this health
department in the state of Minnesota and they're very but the monitoring will well we want it on the property s it needs to be I like 50 to 200 100 ft you're probably not going to find a different aquafer in that distance we just have to give some some guid so it's
not two miles down the road so 50 to 500 feet or can we just can we say on the same property as the well well I guess the same property you could have a I think with 50 to a couple hundred
feet yeah 200 it gives them room to put it somewhere out of the way and and you're certainly at 200 you're certainly going to be in that you know and then also just adding the um Baseline the Baseline Baseline
testing then how often annually I think the recommendation was annually sent to the Department of Agriculture andca and the be County Soil water and the DNR are we we didn't address um any road agreement
are we looking at I think that's to me conditional individual but I mean I think when the individual ones come forward I think Road agreements depending on where it is in routes are essential for townships to have some security probably some should require in
our conditional use that for that type of application because that you know you you take out a couple miles of Township Road that will take their whole budget I think if we're going to require it in a conditional use permit we have to have something in our zoning
right I mean if we're because the conditional use permit is only those seven we could just say consider you know consider Road Road agreements for application because if you're on a County Road you're not going to go get a yep so that wouldn't be in there and
it wouldn't affect like consider consider consider Road agreements if you're on if you're on Township Road on Township Road okay okay so adding that is that what you're saying okay anything
else with a call for a motion to approve we want to make we want to make sure that this wording is in there when we do the the testing is done that the sample shall be analyzed that was my intent was did we read this um I I think we got sidetracked to
be honest another question now I noticed the change went from Shore impact to sh from Shore land to shore impact but that was not there's there's not that's not buildings right there's no you we can't we can't there's differ between Shore impact and
Shore I know the difference between Shore impact and Shoreland but we're not saying it's changing the setbacks for buildings I didn't understand that it did like a hog building or a there's still setbacks if it's a if you're
talking Waters there's still setbacks so we're not changing the setbacks on that correct we're changing it from 300 to 500 right yeah right but it said it said changing the shore Shor land to impact to
impact shall not be located in the short Impact Zone are we talking just buildings or new feed Lots well the feed lot cannot be not located be the building yeah yeah anything to do with the feed lot we can't be in the Impact Zone that's what
I what I'm also saying what I'm also saying though is is that's we're not saying that there's I'm just saying that there are other standards if you put a building within a water course or Bluff there are still setbacks on any
buildings that would this would not supersede those setbacks that's a great question because those are those are State setbacks is Kyle on the phone Kyle you understand my question we're not
I I don't think he's on there I don't I when I read that I don't think there I don't think you can supersede the setbacks if from the state regulation so I would agree that that's probably accurate should not be located I mean if
we're just talking about property I mean but you still have you can't be in the shore you can't be on you can't build a building within the setback I mean if you're outside that you know if you're there's a water course and it's a nav you mean if it's
registered like an environmental Lake you still can't build within so many feet of that even if this ordinance says sh Impact Zone because Impact Zone is would be considerably less than a setback for a building on a environment Lake great so that I mean you just do we I
mean I don't think we can't but I mean you can't supersede that so you just note that or there are still there are still setbacks on these for any structure for any structures no that would [Music]
be PR a little bit anything else no you just to approve if you wanted to read that or read that email oh yep let's see here uh water well monitoring uh feed Lots
with over, 1500 animal units shall be required to submit an annual well water sample to Becker County the sample shall be analyzed by the Department of Agriculture mpca Becker County Soil and Water and the DNR if any contaminants meet a threshold of concern the group
shall make a recommendation to the Becker County Board of Commissioners on how to alleviate the concerns also just we had talked about this before is this new feed Lots yes with over 1500 new feed Lots new feed
lots and I think I think you put it I think you put an as or I think you note in there that existing ones do not have to I mean I think it should be noted existing do not fall under this grandfather okay or we could save
new feed Lots as of the state the state the state okay 1125 yeah 11 11 125 okay anything else I hope not I got a lot of notes second do I
have a motion to approve I'll make a motion to approve Erica a second I'll second second M Richard any more discussion hearing none all in favor say
I I I oppos cared thanks who we got item four um I'll just make note of that and this certainly could be brought back it wasn't an item for Action um Kyle's intent was just to give some information on there'll be a
newly formed uh joint planning board uh which will include the city the county and the lake view Township with regards to some land that was being annexed into the city so he can certainly bring that back there was no action that was requested on that so
that's all I have we motion to adjourn who we are adjourn you are happy New Year to everyone get your book take your book see you next year