Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Do you mind all turning your mics on? I think they might be off. Yeah. Thank you. >> No, no worries. Um, uh, roll call has been made. A quorum
has been reached. Um hopefully everybody had a chance to review the agenda and um it's gotten better. Uh last month I got my papers on Saturday. This month I got my papers on Monday. It's a lot
better than getting it Tuesday when you mail it on Thursday. So hopefully everyone has had a chance to prove to look at at the agenda. I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda as printed. moved. >> Second. >> Motions are made and seconded to approve
the agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. >> Um, now part of our packet was the minutes from January 28th.
>> Make motion to approve the minutes from 28th. >> Second. >> Motions are made and seconded to approve the minutes from January 28th. All those in favor say I. >> I. opposed. Motion is carried. So, do I need to ask that there's
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak? Okay, I do not. Okay. So, uh looking for a motion to approve uh the opening of the public hearing. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Motion's been made and seconded to open the public hearing. All those in favor
say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Take it away, Matt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a variance request uh to the uh for a structure or two structures actually
from the ordinary high water level of a public water. So, uh the property is and all of the immediately adjacent properties are zoned agricultural agricultural general and special protection rivers, streams.
The use of the property is agricultural agricultural. There's a bin site, office shop, storage buildings on site. Uh the applicant uh is proposing to replace uh nine grain bins with a total capacity of 52,000 bushels with two
grain bins with a capacity of 130,000 bushels. Um the practical difficulty given was that he would not be able to build on about 90% of his farmard. If any kind of fire or disaster were to occur, he would not
be able to to rebuild. So essentially this unnamed creek here, it's really a ditch. Glorifi I don't even know if it's a glorified ditch, drainage ditch. It's a ditch. Um essentially these these structures are all within that 200 foot setback. A lot
of them are quite old. Um, most of them predating our our shoreland rules. Um, and so what the applicant is referring to here is essentially these are would be non-conforming structures. If they were damaged to more than 50% they would
have to be moved back um on the property behind this 200 foot uh setback. So, you know, theoretically this 200 set foot setback could be met just by moving these back here. Um, but there are other structures that do exist within the
setback. Um, the replacement of all of these grain bins with um two other grain bins would definitely reduce the footprint and the impervious surface um on the site. um
the proposed bin placement might also be better for farming operations just considering how this um operation is set up right now. I should also note that in 2018 this tributary or this creek was removed from uh the DNR's buffer mat
map. So that was the buffer law that that required that uh set buffers be put into perennial vegetation on public waterways. Uh this one is no longer uh well it hasn't been on for uh seven
years now. I know that also the state is looking at updating the what's called the public waters inventory. Uh it hasn't been done in a long time and that process is in the beginning phases right now. It could take a long time for it to
happen. this um tributary or this unnamed creek not being on the buffer map might potentially make it a candidate for removal from the public waters inventory as well in the future.
Uh policy considerations. Uh so from our comprehensive plan, the goals and objectives that rel relate to this uh request, we have a goal to protect and enhance the health and vitality of Klay County surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and streams. Um to maintain and
enhance riparian areas of public waters, especially within shore impact zones. Um this does have a lot long history of um just agricultural activity um within that shoreland zoning area and the shore
impact zone which is approximately 100 ft from the ordinary high water level of this public water. Um as I mentioned it was removed from the buffer map. Uh the proposed development could also reduce runoff impact as well.
And then we have a objective to continue to enforce shoreland regulations on county lakes, rivers, and streams. Granting variance would um make this request, I guess, compatible with the shorland regulations. Any questions for me at all?
to me. >> And on my notes that I had made reviewing things, um, I was part of the group that worked with Richard in getting this piece removed from the DNR buffer. And
I'm just wondering if the tributary how applicable this setback even is, but that may need to be that may be something being addressed when with you saying the DNR is looking at updating the public waters. Yeah. So,
Mr. Chair, even though it was removed from that buffer map, um its status as a public water is still in place. And so that's where the setbacks come from. They're not tied to what's on the buffer map, but they are tied to the the fact
that it is a public water listed as a public water. >> Okay. Well, hopefully that gets >> Okay. >> It's It's interesting because I don't know if you look at the um
See if I can pull it up here. Going to wing it a little bit. So, this is our county public waters inventory map. See if it loads. I might have to zoom in. So this is the
public watering in question here. Um it really only runs through a three sections. So a lot some of these are determined though by their drainage area as well. So, and I don't know what the drainage
area is on this, but um that's how that determination is made in some cases. >> I think you needed two miles to be considered one, but >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, it's definitely one of our
shorter public waters in the county. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for Matt? >> Would the applicant care to come to the
podium? U state your name. >> Uh Brandon Menhold. anything you'd care to add or um >> Matt did a really good job of uh kind of saying everything that I would probably say myself. Uh I guess I really don't have nothing more
to add. >> So a question for you. So, according to what we have in front of us here, you're looking at, you know, eliminating a bunch of the old bins and then putting up two two single bins with a little bit
more capacity to replace the nine. >> Yes, sir. >> Yep. >> Makes perfect sense to me. >> Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Brandon?
Thank you. And as there is nobody in the audience, um Matt, do you have anything else to add? >> Uh not at this time, Mr. Chair. Just um just just the findings of fact, I
>> Okay. Look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Moved. >> Second. >> Motions are made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Now to
find the findings of fact. Okay. Right here. Does it right there? Men hold. is granting the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Klay County Land Development Code.
>> I agree. The purpose and intent of the Klay County Land Development Code applied to this request is to promote and protect agricultural as well as water resources. Placing grain bins within the setback
may not appear to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code to protect water surface resources. However, the placement of these bins and removal of the nine grade bins would present present would reduce the footprint of
the bin site and consequently the impervious surface. This would reduce the amount of runoff entering public water. Is this variance consistent with the Klay County comprehensive land use? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, does the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying within the strict letter of the Klay County Land Development Code? I >> agree. Do exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances exist that apply to the property in question and that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity resulting from lot size, shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property have no control or
influence. Would the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Klay County Land Development Code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this ordinance? >> Is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty? Does the variance request meet all below criteria? No variance shall be granted where any of the following are not met.
Adequate sewage treatment systems or water supply capabilities can be provided. The plight of the land owner or hardship is not due to created to circumstances created by the land owner. >> Yes.
>> The variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the planning district. The essential character of the locality would not be altered or there would not be a significant adverse effect on the surrounding communities.
>> There would not be a significant adverse effect on public health or safety. The variance does not confer the applicant any special privileges that are denied by the owners this ordinance to owners of other land, structures or
buildings within the same district. May be imposed in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. >> Oh, Mr. Chair,
>> yeah, I don't have any on there, but um condition you might consider would be what you what the setback would be from what would it be reduced to? So proposed I think setback they're looking for
would be 130 ft. Are we uh interested are looking at a uh putting a number on how many feet they need to be that on there? I think it would be good for them to for it to at least not be in
the shore impact zone which is approximately 100 ft just because there are existing structures but >> that are in >> Yep. But I think the proposal is to to place them approximately 130 ft from
the from the ditch. shaking his Okay. Um Okay. Uh we would like to uh put in there that they must be 130 ft from the
current ditch. Okay. Anybody have anything else to Well, I look for a motion to Um it' be chapter 7 um administ administration and procedures. Uh that's the chapter that covers kind of the
board of adjustments role duties um and then also um variances as well. And we did have an attorney review uh that chapter. She provided some great comments uh on that on that chapter. And
so we're looking at at proposing some changes. And the ones that I just want to touch on briefly relate to the um review criteria for variances. Uh that's kind of the main one that I want to
focus on. So, the review criteria for variances, that's essentially the criteria that you use when you're determining whether or not to um grant or deny a variance. And
for variances and the board of adjustments role, it is spelled out pretty specifically in state statute um what those criteria should be. Um right now if you look at your findings
and the findings or the that's what makes up the findings what we went through we have quite a few um some of them overlap a little bit some of them might not really be necessary
and so what I guess I am proposing based off of the feedback that we got from um this attorney is just kind of reducing um those excuse me to um eight. And so that would be some of these are the
same. So the first two you have to have they're in statute. Uh the third number three you also is required that is in statute too. Um really there isn't a definition for practical difficulty.
Just there's three three I guess components of what a practical difficulty is considered. That the property is going to be used in a reasonable manner. um the landowner is not responsible. Um it's due to circumstances related to the property.
Uh and then granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the property's locality. And locality is not defined in statute either. So it could be the neighborhood, it could be the township. Um it's kind of up to you in the to decide.
Um, again looking at four, the variance would not allow a use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. That that is in statute as well. And then economic considerations alone are not the basis for the variance. You can't just want to you can't just deviate or
vary from the code because it's going to be cheaper. That can't be the only reason. It can be a factor, but it can't be the only reason. Uh and then the variance being the minimum minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Um so those six
would kind of be the main um review criteria for you as a board to consider as opposed to the we have eight right now but then there's one that's got a through there's a lot. Um so kind kind of
starting to streamline this a little bit. uh if if it's in um uh a flood hazard zone or if it's in shoreland, you'd have to consider some of these other two if there's septic associated with that. Um
but otherwise, it would mainly be those those six. Any thoughts at all? I know that there are some in our current review criteria that might be kind of tricky. Um the one that I'm
thinking of specifically and I've always thought this is um this item F here or it's not on there here. Let me pull it up.
the variance not conferring any special privilege that is denied to owners of other lands. The variance is essentially a special privilege. So that's that's one that's problematic.
Um, so we'd be looking at at streamlining these a little bit more and just covering essentially what the statute the statutory requirements are. Does that make sound good to
>> Yeah, I can see eliminating that question. Okay. I think theoretically you could deny every variance based off of that. Okay. Um we have not had one of these um
as part of a hearing since I have been um in this position. But also, I've as I've alluded to before, you're you have another role and that's to um basically if there is appeal of an administrative decision. So, if I deny a building
permit or if someone commits a violation and they have to remedy it in some way, they can they they can appeal that within I think 10 days um and to the to you as the board. Um and so that hasn't come up yet. There really isn't going to
be many changes to that at all, but um maybe it'll maybe it'll come up in the future. And I won't take it personally if you overturn an administrative decision. >> Not yet. No.
>> Cross that bridge when we come to it, right? Yep. Okay. So, where we're at basically, um I should also just mention one other thing that's not going to change because this is also in um in statute is that your decisions are
final. So, if someone wants to appeal in a variance and any agrieved party can can appeal. So, it could be a neighbor, it could be anyone who the court determines as standing well, anyone can appeal essentially. Um that
would go to uh district court. >> Are they subject to the same 10 days that >> I think for district court it's 30 30 days. Yeah. And I think court of appeals is 60. Okay.
Yeah. 60. Yeah. Yeah. So really I think the goal with just um the revisions to the to the review criteria that are in your findings is just to make it a lot I think there's a lot of gray area and a
lot of room for interpretation which can be good but then also sometimes it can be not so good um to just give a little clear path on what you really need to look at um for different variance requests because a lot of them are
pretty open and shut pretty easy, but there's some that are pretty tricky, can be pretty tricky, too. So, um, so hopefully whittling those down will help with that. Any other questions for me at all?
All right. There's also I will just mention one more thing. In our current code, there's language that the board of adjustment um has a responsibility to uh make decisions on conveyance rights. So, if
someone wanted to convey development rights from one property to another, uh that's in our current code. I think we're just going to get rid of that because that I don't think ever comes up and um I think
that's just been carrying over for years and years and years. I don't even know what that hearing would look like. Yeah. >> Yep. So, all righty.
>> Similar to when you sell a Okay. Um, anybody have anything else? >> Second. >> Motion's been made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion is carried. Meeting is adjourned.
That was