makes a lot of sense and we do makes a lot of sense. Matt have anything to add or anybody in the audience wish to speak for or against this variance request? Anybody in the audience wish to speak
for or against this request? Anybody in the audience or online wish to speak for or against this variance? Thank you, Nate. Um, hearing no questions or other comments. Look for a motion to close the public hearing.
>> Motion by Dennis, seconded by Tim to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. We will go through the findings of fact. We're going to do um things a little bit
different tonight. And um so I will begin. Um is granting the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Klay County Land Development Code. >> So Mr. Chair, I should just add I uh did
draft two findings, an approval finding or a positive finding and a negative or denial finding. Uh, I think it would be good when we go through these um to review those two statements as basically starting points um and to determine
specifically which one you'd like to go with. Yep. >> And if you're going to if you'd like to change or again they're your findings change, add modify in any way. >> Now would be the time to do so for as
you go through each one. Uh so staff has written the board um finds the requested variance meets the general purposes and intent of the ordinance because it allows a customary agricultural accessory which a grain bin
while still meaning maintaining separation from the public rightway. Based on the on the stated location 95 ft from the center line, the structure would remain outside Mandot's 75- ft rideway. And the board finds with the
conditions requiring a site plan and confirmation of no encroachment into the rightway and appropriate drainage handling, the setback modification can be granted without undermining the ordinance's intent to protect public infrastructure and safety.
And on the other hand, the board finds the requested variance does not meet the general purposes and intent of the ordinance because the ordinance setback standard is intended to maintain consistent separation between structures and roadways for roadway corridors for
safety, maintenance, long-term corridor function. The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation. For example, surveyed setbacks, detailed site plan, or alternative analysis
demonstrating that the reduced that reducing the required setback is consistent with the ordinance intent rather than a preference for a particular site layout. And I agree that
we approve. Yep. And okay. And uh Dennis, I'd like you to read Number two. >> Okay. >> Is the requested variance consistent with the Klay County comprehensive land use plan?
For the approval, the board finds that the variance is consistent with the Klay County comprehensive land use plan because the proposed supports continued agriculture use and agricultural infrastructure investments on the existing farm site. The board further
finds that the maintaining the structure outside of Mindot rightway and requiring review of for drainage impact addressed the public infrastructure considerations typically reflected in the land use plan
policies for the denial. The board finds that the variance has not been demonstrated to a consistency with the Klay County comprehensive land use plan because records lack specific evidence tie in the requested reset back
reduction to revalent plan policies. transportation corridor protection under development or hazardous migration. Without the site plan showing a comprehensive rightaway limits and how drainage will be managed, the board
cannot make an affirmative consistency finding. I believe this is also a yes. >> Yes. >> Approve. Tim, would you care to do number three? >> Pardon? >> I don't have a glass.
>> Okay. >> Darn. Uh, does the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict letter of the Klay County Land Development Code by demonstrating a the applicant proposes
to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. for approval. The board finds the applicant has established practical difficulties in complying with the setback standard because the proposal is
for a reasonable agricultural use grain storage integrated with existing farm infrastructure and strict enforcement would require relocating the bin in a manner that substantially impairs the functional
operation of the existing established grid handling system on the property. On the other hand, denial. The board finds the applicant has not established practical difficulties as defined in 8-11-6
because the stated hardship is primarily operational convenience and cost of conveying the grain if the bin must be placed elsewhere and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The board further finds the record does not
demonstrate the landowner's plate due to circumstances unique to the property rather than the owner's preferred site layout and the applicant has not documented why compliant placement is not feasible. >> Absolutely.
>> Part B. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district or vicinity and which result from lot size, shape, topography or other circumstances over which a landowner has no control.
Approval. The board finds extraordinary circumstances apply to the property due to the establishment of existing grain bins, dryer, and internal circulation access patterns that constrain practical sighting options for a new bin in a
matter comparable to other agricultural operations. The board finds these constraints function as other circumstances affecting the property's reasonable development pattern and were not created solely to obtain a variance.
For denial, the board defines extraordinary circumstances have not been demonstrated because the application does not identify inherent sight conditions such as size, shape, topography, or other similar physical constraints beyond the owner's optional
operational preference. The record lacks a detailed site plan or alternative analysis establishing that conditions beyond the owner's control prevent compliance with the setback requirement. Approve
C. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the property's locality. Approval. The board finds that with the structure outside Mindot right away and
subject to drainage review, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality which is agricultural in nature with existing grain facilities in the area. Practical difficulties are used in connection with the granting of variance
mean the property owners proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance if granted will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 21c.06
subdivision 14 when in harmony with the official controls. >> Yes, it approval and a yes. Dennis, would you read number four, please? >> With the lit literal imp interpretation
of the provision of the Klay County Land Use Development Code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the ordinance approval. The board finds that literal interpretation of the setback standards
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others agricultural properties in the same district. Namely, the ability to reasonably expand or add commentary grain storage infrastructure
in functional proximity to the existing agricultural facility. board finds that approval with conditions allows comparable agricultural development opportunities while maintaining the structure outside Mandot right away and addressing the
grain addressing the drainage impacts. The denial. The board finds that literary interpretation of the setback standard would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district because green bins remain allowable on the
property if site is conformance with setbacks. Board finds that applicant has not demonstrated that similar situ situated properties are permitted to place a structure within the setback or that denial would uniquely restrict
customary agricultural development compared to other sites. Approved say yes. Yeah, I would agree. Number five is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty
approval. The board finds the requested variance is the minimum necessary because the proposed location 95 ft from the center line maintains the structure outside Mindot's 75 ft rightway while allowing functional integration inter
integration with the existing grain handling infrastructure. The board further finds that conditioning approval on submittal of a detailed site plan showing exact setbacks, rightway, and drainage provisions ensures the relief granted is limited to
what is necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty and avoids additional encroachment. for denial. The board finds that the minimum variance standard has not been met because the application does not establish the ordinance required setback
and does not provide alternatives demonstrating that a lesser deviation or compliant placement would not reasonably excess address the applicant's stated needs. Without a detailed site plan and
documented options, the board cannot determine that the requested encroachment is the least relief necessary. >> Dennis number six. Does a variance request meet all the below criteria? No variance shall be
granted where any of the following conditions are not met. Adequate sewage treatment system, water supply capabilities can be provided. Yes.
The plight of the land owner or hardship is not due to the circumstances created by the land owner. Approval board finds that the variance is not prohibited because the request is driven by the site's established agricultural development pattern and
needs to integrate new storage with existing facilities rather than self-created conditions intended to give the ordinance. The board finds no evidence in the records that the owner created the
hardship solely to necess necessate the variance. denial side. The board finds that the variance is prohibited because the hardship is the result of the owner's preferred site layout and operational convenience rather than the unavoidable
constraints. The circumstances necessary the requests arise from the owner's chosen placement of the improvements and are therefore self-created. Yep. The variance would not allow the use
that is not already allowed in that zoning district. Board finds that the variance is not prohibited because it is dimensional setback variance for grain bins and does not authorize the use that is not otherwise allowed in the zoning
district. The underlying use remains agricultural accessory agricultural Yes, approve. There would not be significant adverse effects on the public health and safety. Board finds that the variance is not
prohibited because proposed structure remains outside MDOT's rightway and Mandot has indicated no objection to subject to rightaway avoidance and drainage review. The board finds that the public safety
is protected through the conditions requiring some verification of the rightway limits and the site plan addressing drainage and access considerations. The denial of the board finds that the variance is prohibited because the records lacks sufficient information to
rule out public safety impact relating to the proximity of the highway corridor and drainage. Without detailed site plan review by MDOT as requested, the board cannot find that the public health safety will not be significantly
affected. Okay. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact creative by the variance.
Um, the grain bin can be no closer than 95 ft to the road center line and a site plan must be sent to mind for review. Um, isn't that
95 ft? Shouldn't that be 75 ft? >> Um, Mr. Chair, the 75t represents the edge of the mind right away. The 95 ft is that what the applicant indicated. >> Okay. >> That would be the where the edge of the um grain bin would be placed.
>> Okay. Well, we have gone through all the findings of fact. Uh we got yeses on every question. So, we're to the point where um look for a motion to approve or deny
>> the variance. Move to approve. >> Second >> motion by Tim, seconded by Dennis to approve it. Um with the two conditions, the variance. Um all those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Motion is carried. Variance is granted. Next item on the agenda is Scott Dams as a request for variance. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to the road center line and
property line setbacks to operate a commercial business in an existing grain elevator at 11649 123rd Street South Sabin Minnesota 56580 on parcel ID 01.050.6011
6011 on outlot P1 town site of Baker section 1 township 137N range 47W Alliance Township. Look for a motion to
open the public hearing. >> Second motion by Tim, seconded by Dennis. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion is carried. Public hearing is open. Matt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is a
variance request to the road centerland and sideyard property line setbacks um for a grain bin for commercial business. This property is located in the uh between Sabin and Barnesville on the northwest end of the town site of Baker.
It is zoned agricultural service center. Um it's a roughly 43 acre lot. Currently residential, commercial, used as a vacation rental. There was a home occupation permit um for an architectural design business that was granted in uh 2018.
Uh the applicant is requesting setback variances just to allow for the existing grain elevator to be used as a commercial establishment. Currently does not meet uh road center line and property line setback requirements. Uh would not involve the request would not involve the expansion
of building footprint or construction of new structures. Uh the applicant is seeking relief from the dimensional standards that prevent reuse of the existing building for a commercial purpose. This is a site plan that was provided by the applicant. Uh the red is where that
property roughly is uh along um 123rd Avenue in Baker. Uh the practical difficulty provided by the applicant is the applicant asserts that the existing grain elevator is a historic structure constructed in the early 1900s with its location, footprint
and orientation determined by historic rail-based grain handling operations that predate predate county zoning and setback regulations. As a result, the structure cannot physically meet the current sideyard property line and road centerline setback requirements without being relocated, substantially altered,
or demolished. and the applicant states that this condition prevents reasonable use of the property under the current ordinance standards because the structures fixed placement makes compliance with modern setbacks infeasible. The applicant further asserts that the hardship is not not self-created as the structure existed
long before the adoption of the zoning ordinance and current ownership and that the request requested variances are necessary to allow um continued use of the property in its existing form. Uh some considerations on this. It's currently served by two holding tanks
for wastewater. Um no indication that sufficient land area exists for compliant drain field. Um that any commercial use would require inspection certification. Continued compliance of existing septic system or an alternative wastewater solutions that be consistent with state and county requirements. Uh
the applicant would also need approval of variance to reduce the minimum lot size from one for a commercial use from 1 acre to 042 acres. Uh most commercial uses require either a conditional use permit or an interim use permit must meet minimum standards for wastewater and parking among others. We don't have
any information on the current building setbacks from the road center line and property lines. Staff estimated that the building is probably 18 feet from the road center line. It's a conservative estimate. Um just some history here too. Um
granting this variance would not authorize the proposed use by itself. Uh it would give the applicant kind of more options in the future to pro um additional commercial uses that would require a
conditional use permit. Um and in that conditional use or interim use permit review um you could address operational standards, compatibility, and other performance criteria. Um there was a prior request that was heard in November to reduce the 500 foot residential
setback for cannabis business to 250 ft um that this board did deny. Uh that is under appeal before uh district court and would need to be overturned or the standard amended before a cup for a cannabis business could be considered.
Uh how this relates to comprehensive plan goals and objectives. We have a goal to encourage commercial and industrial development that is in harmony with the egg and rural character of Klay County. Um looking to relates to the goal by seeking to allow reuse of an existing egg structure rather than new
commercial development on land. It's limited to setback relief of an ex existing building does not involve any expansion. uh really depends on the the scale of um the commercial activity and compliance with other uh requirements that would be evaluated separately from
the variance. So you know like a car dealership for example would be different than a um what it's currently being used for like a vacation rental or a administrative home occupation type permit where you have a homebased business that doesn't have customers or anything coming to it. So different
varying degrees of of commercial uses there. We have an objective under that goal to promote value added egg agricultural, commercial and industrial development in egg service center areas and along transportation corridors and and hubs.
Um similar to um the previous goal looking to use an existing uh structure rather than establishing new development. Uh and again setback relief really depends on um the the scale and intensity of the proposed commercial use
relative to a transportation corridor. We have a uh um objective to avoid or mitigate against commercial and industrial development that increases potential for land use conflicts with rural residential egg cultural uses. Um
again uh similar to the the other goals and objectives looking for an existing structure without expanding its its footprints at all. Um approval of a variance could facilitate commercial activity in proxim proximity to rural residential or egg uses. Um and again
whether those conflicts are avoided or adequately mitigated against would depend on the nature and intensity of that proposed use. So with that uh recommendation be to work through the findings of fact in order for this variance request. Again this request is um specific to the
setback from the property lines and the setback to the road. Any questions for me at all? >> I don't believe so. Thank you. Thank you. that would the applicant care to come to the podium and speak to his
request. I'm the applicant Scott Doms and uh I think Matt covered everything so we're good. >> Does anybody have any question for Mr. Dumps?
Thank you. Does anybody in the audience wish to speak for or against the this variance request? >> Shane Thompson. >> Hello board. Shane Steven Thompson. Been down at Baker since 1887.
great grandfather, my greatgrpa, my grandpa, my dad's still alive down there and started delivering uh actual grain at that elevator when I was 14 years old. Single ax truck and we don't
have police department. We don't have security. There is no parking there and it's just a bad idea in a small town. So, I don't know really what else to say about any of it. And uh you can see from
the pictures there's part of roofs missing and everything else too. So, and everything else going on. So, yeah, definitely against it and they came to me in my dreams and said, "Don't let it happen." All three of my grandpas. So,
yeah, I we take care of the small town people and that's what we do. So, appreciating hearing my words. >> Nate Edwards. >> Hi there. I'm Nate Edwards. Um, I live in Baker at 12225
118th Street South for about the last 15 years. I think that these uh changes it'd be a bad idea. I think allowing these changes in Baker will lead to increased traffic, noise, and crime. It'll also lead to higher home insurance
rates and lower property values. Allowing these changes will endanger our safety, well-being, and community culture. It would not be a desirable or beneficial change to our community. Thank you, >> Gerald Buttonhoff.
Gerald Buttonoff, 10449 140th Avenue, South Barnesville, representing Alliance Township. Uh, township's basically against the project right now. uh basically here if anybody has any questions of the township. Thank you
>> Rick Donovan. Hey, I'm Richard Donovan. I reside at 12219 119th Street South in Baker. We've lived in Baker about 15 years. Uh people move to a small community, a small town and out in the country to get
away from stuff like this. U we have personally talked to 95% of the people right in Baker and we talked to one person that really didn't have an opinion either way or just plain out just didn't want to get involved. We've talked to others in the
surrounding community and only ran into one person that didn't have an opinion either way. All of the rest of the people that we have talked to are opposed to this. As you can see, a lot of these people are here tonight. Unfortunately, we didn't have quite as
big of a turnout as we did at the public hearing. Some people couldn't make it. Some people are out trucking, things like that. This is a strong, supportive community that helps people when they're in need. Doesn't matter whether you're stuck in the snow and need a pull, if your
lawnmower's broken and you need a mow, if your plow's broken and need somebody to move some snow for you, or you just need something moved in your garage. People pull together and help each other out. Scott, unfortunately, is not one of those people.
Scott told council members here in his first meeting that he talked to most of the people around Baker and everybody was okay with that. Well, that was a lie. U we are here tonight to let you know that we are opposed to this. People in Baker didn't move here because there
was a pot dispensary, a bar, a sea store, anything like that. Most of the people moved to Baker because there wasn't any of that. Scott has this elevator listed for sale now, which leads me to believe that he's here looking to create chaos. He's
looking to make a quick buck on his elevator, basically sell it, bolt out of here, and leave everybody in the town of Baker to live with his destruction to our community. Which leads me to the question, where do we go after this? after this gets pushed into our small
rural community. I believe this would be a huge impact and not a good one to the people of Baker. Thank you. >> David Mclofflin. Uh David Mclofflin. uh 11704
123rd Avenue South in Baker. Um I guess I'd first like to start off saying that um when Scott bought the elevator in 2017, Scott and I have always had a good relationship and uh you know, the guy's
done a lot of different stuff over there. Uh whether it's good, bad, or otherwise. uh when he converted it to an Airbnb. Uh our residence is fairly close and we've only had a handful of issues
and Scott has taken care of that. We've called them or messaged them uh with noise complaints or fireworks uh guests that bring their pets and let them run loose and end up in our yard. Scott's always been pretty good about taking
care of those problems, but uh this is just another attempt by him in order to facilitate his cannabis business uh which uh myself and my wife are opposed to. Um we don't think it's a
good fit for Baker and we don't uh think that it belongs in a small community like Baker. Um, I would encourage uh this board to uh deny his requests. Thank you. >> Ray Bernard.
>> Hello, I'm Ray Bernard. I reside at 12026 120th Avenue South at Baker. Um I've been out there for eight years. Um yep, I agree with what other people are saying. This is just another uh pass to advance the cannabis business in Baker,
which I'm completely against. Um I guess one one of the main reasons I am against you, it brings crime. Anytime you have drugs, it brings crime. It brings people littering, um, stuff like that.
Scott has been running a business out of there for quite a few years now. And if you drive by the place, it's a disaster zone. There's garbage, there's piles of lumber outside, there's scrap metal, um, concrete. This summer it looked pretty good for a
while cuz the weeds grew about head high, so you couldn't see any of that. But then they, you know, cut them all down and there's a gaping hole in the roof. there's windows missing out of it. Um, you know, and you what you put out is what you attract. You know, I we we
don't need bad people coming around our little town and causing trouble and, you know, trashing the place. So, you know, that's a big concern of mine. I I like where where we live. I like our town. I like our neighbors. Everybody gets along there and, you know, we we just don't
need this kind of trouble out there. Thank you. Christy Donovan. >> Hi, my name is Christy Donovan, D O N O Van, and I live at 12219 119th Street South in Baker. Um the first we heard actually about
this whole dispensary that uh was when it was announced on the radio the day after it got approved. Um I was told that Scott went into his first meetings stating he had talked with the residents in Baker and we were all on board. Well, that was just a bold-faced lie. My husband and I have talked with as he
stated 95% of the residents or more and none of them had talked with Scott about his plans. The proposed location is near a new daycare and our softball fields. Our town is a family-friendly environment. During the late spring to summer months, we have te-ball and softball practices
every week. They also do games here a couple times a month. When the games are being played in Baker, the whole family comes with. Nobody worries about their kids if they want to go walk around town. The introduction of a commercial cannabis andor liquor bar establishment
could potentially alter the atmosphere of our neighborhood. and it raises concerns for all of us. We don't want the loitering, the extra noise, and more litter than what is already there. Introducing a cannabis dispensary and/or bar could conflict with the established character and intended use of this zone,
potentially impacting surrounding property values and the quality of life for nearby residents. He stated in the last meeting that this elevator was cost him 15 grand a year to maintain. He has now put an ad on Facebook trying to sell this place for 300,000. In this ad, he
stated that for three years now, he has documented documented revenue of approximately $50,000 annually doing the BNB. Well, if my math is correct, that is still a profit of approximately $35,000. And while I do trust the local law
enforcement, the presence of a business dealing exclusively in a high value cash intensive product can introduce new security challenges. We're concerned about the increased traffic and the demands that this could place on our local police and emergency services which are already budgeted for our
community size and needs. I believe that the well-being and future character of Baker should be the guiding principle in your decision-making prog process. The potential risks and impacts associated with this dispensary and or bar outweigh any potential benefits for our town of
our size. Thank you for that. I do have a bunch of signatures and then I do also have a copy of his ad on Facebook if you guys wanted that at all. U Mr. Chair, just a question is for the um for Miss Donovan. Is this the a new
petition or is this the same one from the November hearing? >> I did do this. I went around again and asked a bunch. This is all new. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or
against? Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against? Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against? Hearing none. Look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second.
>> Motion by Tim, seconded by Dennis to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. We will next go through the findings of fact.
is granting the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Klay County Land Development Code. Approval. The Ford The finds that the requested variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Klay County Land Development Code and subdivision ordinance as it allows continued use of an existing structure without expansion or intensification of physical its physical footprint. The variance addresses dimensional
nonconformities associated with historic structure that predates current regulations and does not undermine the overall setback framework of the ordinance. Mr. Chair, can I just send a a a
reminder for the board and then just for those folks um in the audience that the this variance is looking solely at the property line setbacks and and the road center line setback. So that's the these findings draft findings are based on
that. Again, if you agree with them um or want to change modify them in any way, they're your findings to to do so. >> Thank you. The board finds that the requested variance is not in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Klay County Land Development and Subdivision ordinance as setback standards are intended to ensure safety, orderly development, and compatibility of uses. Granting relief from required setbacks to accommodate a commercial use
will weaken the intent of the ordinance by allowing continued nonconformity without sufficient justification tied to land use. >> And Mr. chair and um board members for
an variance to be granted you have to make positive findings for every single finding. Um so you just as a reminder for that. >> Yes. And I heard a
no on item one. Dennis, I have any? >> No. Okay. Um, the board is no and we
do not we, you know, do not approve of that intent. Dennis, would you care to read number two? Is the requested variance consistent with the Klay County comprehensive land use plan?
Approval. The board finds that the requested variance is consistent with the Klay County comprehensive plan as it supports reinvestment in existing development and adaptive reuse of longstanding structures while avoiding expansion into undeveloped or
agriculture land. If oppose proposal aligns with the plan objectives, encouraging efficient use of the existing infrastructure and preserving the community character. The denial, the board finds that the
requested variance is not consistent with the Clay County comprehensive plan as a variance would facilitate a commercial use in a location that does not meet the current dimensional standards. Comprehensive plans emphasizes orderly
development and the infrastructure adequately and the record does not demonstrate that the these objectives would be met given the site's physical and wastewater constraints.
Um I I'm I'm an O on this one. It it it doesn't other than what he's currently in in my view the the the property just
isn't consistent with what he's um other than what he's doing now which didn't need a permit um while he got the home use the occupation. Um, I I'm a no on this. Okay.
Number three. Does the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict letter of the Klay County Land Development Code by demonstrating a the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
official control. for approval. Um the board finds as the applicant proposes to use a property in a reasonable manner manner not otherwise permitted by the strict application of the ordinance. The existing structures
location prevents compliance with current setback requirements and without relief the structures we re reuse would be substantially limited despite its continued physical viability. Denial would the board finds that the
applicant has not demonstrated a reasonable use that requires a variance as the difficulty sites cited relates to enabling a specific commercial use rather than an inability to use the property at all.
The ordinance does not guarantee the right to every desired use and the record does not establish it reasonable use is otherwise denied. In fact, the applicant is currently using the property as a vacation rental suggesting the property can be used in a
reasonable manner for its current use. I concur. Did I? B. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district or vicinity and which result from lot size,
shape, topography or other circumstances over which a landowner has no control or influence. The board finds that the exceptional circumstances apply to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the district. As the green
elevator is an historic structure constructed prior to adoption of zoning regulations, its fixed location relative to property lines and the roadway is a condition beyond the landowner's control and and
unique in nature. The board finds that the circumstances identified by the applicant are not exceptional or unique as other properties containing older structures may also face limitations under current zoning standards. The difficulty
described does not arise from unusual lot size, shape or topography, but from the intended change in use. approve it. Okay. See, granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the
property's locality. The board finds that granting the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the property's locality. The variance applies only to an existing historic structure and does not authorize expansion of the building
footprint or new encroachments into the required setbacks. The green elevator has long been a prominent and established feature of the area and the requested relief would not change its physical appearance or sighting. Any
changes in activity or intensity associated with the commercial use are subject to review and permitting and therefore the variance itself does not alter the character of the surround surrounding locality. Opposing view the uh board finds that
granting the requested easement may alter the essential character of the property's locality. Although the structure is existing, approval of the variance would facilitate a commercial use in a location that does not meet current setback standards, potentially
introducing increased traffic activity and infrastructure demands that are not characteristic of the surrounding area because the variance would enable a change in use that may affect the character of
locality. the criterium is not met. Practical difficulties as used in connection with granting a variance mean the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the land owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not con constitute practical difficulties.
Variances shall be granted for earth shelter construction as defined in section 216 C.06 subdivision 14 when in harmony with the official controls. >> That's going to change the character of it.
Okay, Dennis, would you read number four, please? Would the literal interpretation of the provision of the Klay County Land Development Code deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under
the terms of this ordinance? approval. The board finds that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land owners in the district as similarly zoned
properties are able to utilize existing structure for permitted and conditional permitted uses without dimensional barriers created by historic sightings. The denial of the board finds that this
strict application of the ordinance does not deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by the land owners. All as all properties seeking commercial use are required to comply with the current setback standards. The applicant is not
entitled to a special treatment based only on the age and the placement of the structure. I would agree that no. Is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty?
For approval, the board finds that the requested variance represents the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty as it applies only to existing encroachments and does not authorize building expansion, new structures, or additional reductions
beyond what already exists. Opposing the board finds the applicant has not demonstrated that the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the claim practical difficulty. The application does not specify the existing setbacks
or the extent of the variance requested in measurable terms. Without knowing the degree of encroachment or the precise amount of relief sought, the board cannot evaluate whether the variance is limited to the minimum
necessary. >> Yes. Minimum that we need. Okay. Does the variance request meet all the below criteria? No variances shall be granted when were any of the following conditions are not met. adequate sewage
treatment systems or water supply capabilities can be provided. The board finds that adequate sewage treatment and water supply capabilities can be provided for the subject property. While the property is currently served by holding tanks, the
variance does not authorize use of the structure without compliance with applicable wastewater regulations. Adequate sewage treatment can be ensured through inspection, certification, and permitting by the Klay County Environmental Health Department prior to
establishment or intensification of use. The board finds that adequate sewage treatment has not been demonstrated for the subject property. The application materials indicate reliance on holding tanks and the septic system has not been
inspected or certified by the Klay County Environmental Health Department. In absence of the verification that adequate sewage treatment can be provided for the proposed use, the ordinance prohibits approval of a
variance. Pardon? >> Um, that is not my understanding. Clay County has not been out there and looked at the holding tanks. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, that's not my understanding as well. There's been some initial work on potential design for for
future uses and you're welcome to ask confirm that with the applicant, too. >> Mr. Dom, have you talked to Click Colony Engineer? >> Environmental health. >> Pardon? >> Environmental health. >> Environmental health. Okay. Yeah. That was schools.
>> It's our understanding that uh septic tanks need to be inspected every 5 years. So, we will comply um as soon as the rest of the community of Baker is complying with that same uh standard. So, >> So, you have not >> no >> reached out to the and been inspected?
>> No, we've reached out. We've we've created a a spreadsheet of all the properties in Baker and we we intend to >> That's all that. >> Okay. >> That's a no. >> The plight of the land owner or hardship is not due to circumstances created by
the land owner. The board finds that practical difficulty identified by the applicant is not self-imposed. The structures location relative to property lines in their roadway was established prior to adoption of current zoning set zoning and setback standards and is
unrelated to actions taken by the current land owner. The board finds that practical difficulty is in part self-imposed as the variance request is driven by the applicant's desire to change or intensify the use of the property rather
than by the physical constraint of the land itself. The ordinance does not require accommodation of a specific proposed use when compliance with current standards is otherwise possible. create some of these
was there. Pardon? >> Prove it. It was there. It's >> okay. The variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the zoning district. The board finds that the variance does not allow a use that is
prohibited by zoning. The variance request is limited to dimensional setback relief and does not by itself authorize a commercial use. Any such use would remain subject to separate review and approval under Klay County Land
Development Code and subdivision ordinance. Pardon? >> Yep. >> There would not be significant adverse effect on public health or safety. The board finds that the variance will not
have a significant adverse effect on public health or safety. The request is limited to dimensional relief for an existing structure and does not authorize occupancy, operations or infrastructure without compliance with
the applicable health, safety and building regulations. The board finds that granting the requested setback variance may have a significant adverse effect on public health or safety. Required road center line and property line setbacks are
intented are intended in part to protect public safety by providing separation from roadways, maintaining sight lines, allowing for emergency access, and reducing conflicts between structures and adjacent properties. The existing
setback from the road center line is 18 ft, which is potentially in the road rightway. A variance that grants relief from the setback to allow more intense commercial use may have a substantial impact on public safety due to the
proximity to the roadway. Yeah, that there just isn't any. Okay. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a
rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Um so we have gone through the findings of fact. We have found numerous reasons to deny. So I look for a motion
to deny. >> I'll make the motion to deny the >> motion by Dennis, seconded by Tim to deny the variance. um for the reason being that there was numerous things
that were found to be not adequate. All those in favor say I. >> I posted motion is carried. Variance is denied. Okay, our next order of business is a public hearing for Scotts.
Our request for a variance. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to the minimum lot size to operate a commercial business in the existing grain elevator at 11649 123rd Avenue South, Sabin, Minnesota.
56580 on parcel ID 01.050.6011 on outlot P1 town site of Baker section one township 137 N range 47W Alliance Township.
Look for a motion to open the public hearing. >> So move >> motion by Dennis, seconded by Tim Tim to open the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is open. Matt,
>> thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, this is a variance request to reduce the minimum lot size for commercial use from 1 acre to42 acres. Uh same property as the previous hearing. So, um between Sabin and Barnesville on 52, just off 52 uh
northwest side of uh the town site of Baker. Zoning is agricultural service center a roughly according to our deed acres in the GIS or in our land records it's a43 acre property uh used dissification rental there's an
administrative home occupation permit for an arc contextual design business that was granted in 2018. Uh the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot size um for a conditional use cannibal cannabis
micro business or other commercial use. Um the property is an existing grain elevator structure. Uh the proposed business would operate entire entirely within the existing structure. No proposed expansion building footprint, no increase in impervious surface, no
additional site development. So same same property. Uh the practical difficulty stated by the applicant is applicant states that the strict application of the 1acre minimum lot size requirement creates a practical difficulty because the subject property
is a legally existing subacre parcel improved with a substantial permanent structure that predates the current zoning ordinance. The applicant asserts that the grain elevator had a has a fixed footprint that cannot be relocated, expanded or reconfigured to meet the minimum lot size requirement.
The applicant further states that the parcel size, configuration, and historic development pattern are unique when compared to surrounding properties, many of which are large larger agricultural tracks. The applicant indicates that acquiring additional land to meet the 1acre minimum is not reasonably feasible
and would not change the operational impacts of the proposed use. The applicant asserts asserts that the strict enforcement of the lot size standard would effectively prohibit reasonable economic use of the existing structure despite existing infrastructure and prior development.
The applicant also notes that the proposed use would not increase traffic noise, visual impacts, impervious surface area beyond existing conditions and argues strict application of the minimum lot size requirement does not advance the underlying purpose of the ordinance as applied to the site. Based on these factors, the applicant contends
that the requested variance relates to the physical characteristics of the property rather than personal circumstances and represents the minimum relief necessary to allow reuse of the existing structure. Um so just going to go through the purpose of minimum lot size standards.
uh the aam and Klay County to regulate development intensity and scale of commercial and conditional or interim uses. Promote compatibility with surrounding land uses. Support safe functional long-term site design. Provide baseline dimensional controls for building separation, buffering, mitigation of operational impacts, which
would be noise, lighting, traffic, parking among others. Um to ensure site function and infrastructure considerations. Um we'd ensure the minimum acre the 1acre minimum is to ensure sufficient
land area to accommodate essential site function functions including access and internal circulation, parking and loading, emergency vehicle access, drainage, storm water management, utility placements and snow storage uh and reducing on-site impacts uh to other
properties and public rights of way. The lot size minimum provides flexibility for fire separation, emergency response, hazard to mitigation, promotes predictable and consistent development patterns, supports efficient administration and enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Uh
benefiting neighboring land owners through clear development expectations. Double side there. Um and also for management of just cumulative impacts. We have several substandard parcels in the county that
could be manageable in isolation. Repeated deviations could contribute to congestion, infrastructure strain, inconsistent land use patterns, and minimum lot size helps ensure commercial and conditional or interim uses remain sustainable at a community scale.
Uh specific to this property as well, the property is served by two holding tanks. Um again, we've kind of gone through this. There's not a sufficient land area for compliant drain field. Any commercial use would require inspection certification of existing septic system or an alternative weight wastewater
solution consistent with state and county requirements. Uh ongoing compliance would be required. Again want to iriterate that granting the variance would not authorize a proposed use or any use by itself. That a conditional use permit or an interim use permit for most commercial uses would still be
required. Uh the review of those permits would address operational standards, compatibility, performance require and performance requ criteria specific to this um property um potentially becoming a um cannabis
micro business location in the future. Uh again just reiterating that the previous variance request was denied uh and that is under appeal in district court would need to be overturned or that standard would need to be amended before a cannabis business could be
considered. How this would relate to our comprehensive plan goals and objectives. We have a goal to encourage commercial and industrial development that is in harmony with the egg and rural character of of Klay County. Again, this would
seek to allow reuse of an existing structure rather than new commercial development on eggland. Um, it's limited to lot area relief for an existing building that wouldn't involve any expansion. Um, again, depends on the the scale of the commercial activity um
that's being proposed there. Uh we have a goal an objective under that goal to promote value added egg service egg commercial and industrial development along egg service center areas and along transportation corridors and hubs. Uh similar to the the previous
goal um looking at reusing an existing structure and lot. It's related solely to the lot area and again um would depend on the intensity of the commercial use
and we have an objective to avoid or mitigate against commercial and industrial development that increases potential for land use conflicts with rural residential and egg uses. Um, similar to the the previous hearing, um, the this is, uh, again, um, something that's
not looking to, uh, establish a new commercial activity um on, uh, egg land, reusing an existing structure. Uh, could facilitate uh, commercial activity in proximity to rural, residential, or egg uses. And again, that depends on the
intensity of that of that use. recommend uh working through the findings of fact in order for this variance request. Uh any questions for me at all? >> Oh, would the applicant care to come up and speak?
>> I just kind of want to get something clear. I'm under um the impression that this is a request for a variance that has nothing to do with cannabis at that this doesn't have anything to do with cannabis. This is a commercial business. So, I'm not quite sure why that's being
brought up. Um and if that's the case and um my paperwork from the county says it's a commercial business and has nothing to do with cannabis. So, I'm asking this to be tabled for a month so that we can get our paper this variance to be tabled for a month so that we can
get our paperwork correct because I was under the impression that this actual variance didn't have anything to do with the cannabis. This was just a commercial variance and I don't think it's appropriate to be mentioning something as like cannabis in that if that's the
uh if that's the case. I have my paperwork here too, Matt, if you want to look at it. >> I Yeah, I'm looking at it right here too. So, yep. And it says conditional use cannabis business. >> Okay. That's not what you guys sent me though. >> I was >> this is not what I got sent in the mail.
So I'm asking I didn't come prepared to argue for that. So I'm asking to be tabled for a month for that. >> That'd be fine. >> Can certainly table it. >> The parameter of the the 60 days. You know
concerned with the time frame. he has a 60-day if if he if he did this in December which I believe he did we may be may have to do something >> we would be within the 60 days and then also because this comes at the applicant's request we will work with
the applicant to extend that 60-day or to extend this 60-day period but we would be within the 60 days >> okay um I'm assuming that would require >> a motion
Mr. Chair, I'd recommend a motion to um >> table close the public hearing and then table. >> Okay. >> Correct. Yeah. Close the public hearing and table. >> Look for a motion. Thank you.
>> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion by Tim, seconded by Dennis. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Um, now look for a motion to table this variance request
until the February meeting. >> Correct. >> Motion by Tim, seconded by Dennis. All those in favor say I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Meeting is tabled for the February until the February meeting.
>> Mr. Chair, that's February 17th. >> That would be February 17th. Okay. Now, was there any unfinished business? >> No unfinished business. >> How about new business?
>> No new business. >> Oh, yes. Actually, I have one thing just about um mileage. Um the IRS mileage rates have increased from um 70 cents to 72 cents. So, getting a pay
raise. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else have anything else they want to bring up? >> No. Hearing none, looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> I make motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion by Dennis, seconded by Tim. All
those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion is carried. Uh, meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone. Call the meeting to order. Hopefully everybody materials online or Nobody.
>> So move. >> I'll second the motion. >> Motion by Brad, seconded by Jenny to approve the agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Agenda is approved.
Um, we did not meet in December. Our last meeting was November 18th. Does anybody have any additions or corrections to the minutes from November 18th? Hearing none, look for a motion to
approve the minutes. >> So moved. >> Motion by Sebastian. >> Second. >> Seconded by Brad. All those in favor say I. >> I >> opposed. Motion is carried.
Uh minutes are approved. >> Now next on the agenda will be is there anybody in the audience or online that wishes to speak to something that is not on the agenda? Is there anyone in the audience or online that wishes to speak to something
that is not on the agenda? Is there anyone in the audience or online that wishes to speak to something that is not on the agenda hearing? None. We'll move on to the our first public hearing. Uh the first um hearing is Scott Dom's
petition for text amendment. The petitioner is seeking amendments to the Klay County Land Development Ordinance and subdivision regulations to reduce the minimum lot size for all commercial uses and to reduce the adjacent residential setback for cannabis
businesses. The geographic scope of the proposed amendment is countywide, including the petitioner's property at 11649 123rd Avenue, South Sabin, Minnesota 56580
on parcel ID 01.050.6011 6011 on outlot P1 townite of Baker section one township 137N range 47W Alliance Township. Look for a motion to open the public hearing.
>> So moved. >> Motion by Ashley, seconded by Laura. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is open. Matt Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a kind of
a two-part uh text amendment request. The first part being to reduce the cannabis business setback from an adjacent dwelling from 500 ft to 250 ft in the agricultural service center zoning district. The second would be to reduce the minimum commercial lot size in the agricultural service center
zoning district from 1 acre to 0.5 acres. Uh the petition cites the following as a basis for the request. Um to improve feasibility of locating cannabis businesses in the agricultural service center district to support the reuse of existing or historically developed
agricultural service center parcels and to align dimensional standards with historic agricultural service center development patterns. Uh background on this. The planning commission previously reviewed text amendment allowing cannabis businesses
as a conditional use in the egg service center district recommended denial. They cited concerns in the commission cited concerns including compatibility of cannabis businesses in the egg service center uh areas where residential uses
are often in close proximity, potential for nuisance impacts such as traffic, odor, lighting, security, limited operational experience with cannabis uses at the time, high proportion of um parcels that would be in ineligible due to setback requirements. uh increasing
the likelihood of variance requests and consistency with the comprehensive plan in the intended role of the ASC as a real service district with a significant residential pres presence. Uh the board of commissioners did uh enact this amendment to permit cannabis business as
a conditional use um in the ASC district. Uh their findings included that the use has a potential to revitalize and diversify egg service center economies. The use could be cons similar to other conditional uses uh permitted in the egg service center
district such as a bar, restaurant, commercial entertainment regarding business type traffic generated noise, lighting and parking and then adaptive reuse of structures has the potential to stimulate economic activity and promote tourism preserve structures that contribute to the rural character of Klay County.
Uh some background on the egg center egg service center zoning district. So, it's uh small unincorporated communities throughout the county. Um support rural, residential, commercial, industrial, and egg industry to supplement the egg
economy of the county. Um one thing that's called out is commercial and industrial uses in this district must be located and designed so they do not create nuisance or trespass concerns for nearby residential uses. for our cannabis use standards. Um,
cannabis businesses are subject to specific use standards. They're intended to mitigate land use conflicts and off-site impacts. Current standards require a 500 foot setback from a dwelling on an adjacent property. Um, the board of commissioners adopted this
residential setback to limit impacts to nearby residential uses. It's consistent uh with separation distances for similar sensitive uses such as schools and daycarees. That's established in statute. Um it also reflects the statutory requirements that cannabis be
located 500 feet from daycarees and considering that um is relevant just due to the presence of at home daycarees throughout Klay County. Uh the purpose of a minimum lot size for commercial uses is to regulate development intensity and overall scale
of commercial uses, ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and support safe functional long-term site design. really to provide adequate area for building separation and buffering, mitigation of noise, lighting, traffic impacts, uh minimum lot sizes help
ensure access and internal circulation, parking and loading areas, emergency vehicle access, drainage and storm water management, utility placement, snow storage, and then um just that the on-site accommodation of these um uh
aspects of a commercial use, most commercial uses would reduce spillover impacts to adjacent properties and public rights away. Uh.5 acre minimum lot size would be the smallest minimum standard in Klay County. Properties in unincorporate
unincorporated areas of Klay County are not like uh the incorporated areas and where they rely on private wells and on-site sewage treatment systems um which require adequate space and also separation distances say between wells and septic systems. Uh, our county sewer
and storm water management ordinance also requires that we have two soil treatment and dispersal areas for lots created after January 23rd, 1996. So, any new lot would have to meet this, be able to um ensure two soil treatment and dispersal areas. And the purpose of that
is to ensure that there's adequate space for initial placement and if there's some sort of failure that there is a backup um uh area in place. So on smaller lots, um site functions do compete with the overall building
footprint, septic placement, um there's parking or loading issues that could impact adjacent properties or public rights away. Um for the specific to the um to the amendment for reducing the 500 foot set
back to 250 ft, the board of adjustment did um divi did deny an amendment to that um in November and that decision is under appeal in district court. Uh the petitioner's lot uh deed acres at 43 acres. It would be under the halfacre
minimum lot size and would be non-conforming if approved. Uh we have received comments from Alliance Township opposing the proposed amendments. Goose Prairie Township did submit a letter opposing the proposed amendments. Uh we did get a letter
uh from Elton Township as well which has a agricultural service center of Downer. Um they're also opposed to approving this amendment because they believe that the current setbacks are appropriate for the best interests of the residents of Klay County. And we did get one uh
letter also submitted as well and those were all included in your in your packets. So I can give this excuse me how this request might relate to our comprehensive plan goals and objectives.
We have a goal to encourage commercial and industrial development that is in harmony with the egg and rural character of Klay County and to avoid or mitigate against commercial and industrial development that increases the potential for land use conflicts with rural residential or egg uses. Um, this
amendment would reduce the residential setback for a cannabis business in the agricultural service center district by 50% and the minimum commercial lot size from 1 acre to.5 acres. Uh this would increase the generally the number of of
parcels in this district that'd be eligible for commercial cannabis development uh and allow such uses to locate closer to existing rural residences. Um from a policy perspective, the reduced setbacks and smaller lot sizes, they may improve development feasibility
on some of these constrained or historically platted parcels that are under that acre. Uh and may support reinvestment in existing structures and properties. Uh prior findings emphasize that many and testimony I would say emphasize that many of these areas
function as predominantly residential in character uh with service or commercial uses interspersed. Uh in in this context, reducing separation distances in smaller lot areas could increase the proximity of commercial activity to rural residential uses and increasing
potential for land use conflicts. Um the comprehensive plan does call for avoiding or mitigating development patterns that increase land use conflicts with residential or agricultural uses. Uh reducing setbacks and lot sizes may shift that balance away from avoidance and to and towards
um reliance on sight specific m mitigation. Um, and you might want to consider whether mitigation tools are sufficient um or if the existing standards are are are clear and and predictable in minimizing these conflicts. We also have a goal to ensure
affordable, efficient, safe, and environmentally sound individual and community wastewater management for the benefit of Klay County property owners. Um and in unseured areas of Klay County, minimum lot size standards help ensure adequate space for compliant uh sewage treatment systems and included
replacement areas. Uh reducing the the minimum lot size may limit design flexibility on some parcels. Uh all dependent on soils, building footprint, and site constraints. Uh larger minimum lot sizes function really as a preventative measure to support long-term environmentally sound
wastewater management. Uh and then you may want to consider then whether the pro proposed reduction uh increases uncertainty in meeting these management objectives um for commercial development in the zoning district. Uh as far as recommendation you you are
only making a recommendation tonight to our our county board. That would be a separate public hearing um taking place at a later date in time. Um you can recommend approval, denial or continuence based on the request and evaluation against the ordinance, prior
findings, uh overall public health safety and welfare consideration. So uh recommendation would be to go through the the findings of fact for for the text amendment. Any questions for me at all? our current setbacks. That's uh what's
going known throughout the state, right? If I remember correctly, our 500 feet, that's what the state >> uh we when when Klay County went through the developing and enacting the cannabis ordinance, the residential setback is
not in statute in state statutes. daycarees, um, uh, treatment centers, um, residential treatment centers, um, features on playgrounds or features in
parks where there's a frequency of of minors that might use that area. Uh, residences were not included. There are some counties that have done chosen to add residences and some that haven't. Uh my understanding is based on the the commission is that they wanted to add
residences just because of um prevalence of at home daycarees and and other things like that. And then just for general um the intent to keep um the cannabis uses
as a commercially zoned use essentially. Okay. >> Any other questions for me at all? Okay. Would the applicant care to come and speak to your proposal? Is it green?
>> Is no. There we go. >> Got it. >> Please state your name for the record. >> Uh Scott Dons. This petition asks whether Klay County has land use regulations that reflect current law, modern business operations, and the original intent of its zoning
districts, or whether those regulations operate as a structural barrier to use the county uh to us as the county has already decided to allow. Cannabis businesses are permitted in the ASC zoning district. That policy choice has already been made. The issue before you is whether the dimensional standards
attached to that permission make sense in the context of how ASC districts were originally planned and developed. ASC districts were not designed around large isolated parcels. Historically, they were established as compact service centers intentionally located near rail lines, highways, and small communities
to promote efficiency, shared infrastructure, and economic clustering. Proximity was the point. Smaller lots, closer relationships between uses, and reuse of existing properties were normal and expected. The problem is that the current ordinance applies large lock
commercial standards to districts and were never laid out to accommodate them. A 1acre minimum lot size may be appropriate in a suburban or green field context. It is not appropriate in ASC districts that were platted decades ago around grain elevators, service buildings, utilities, and transportation
corridors. Imposing that standard retroactively renders many ASC parcels permanently nonviable for any new or evolving commercial use. That does not impact regulation. That is regulatory mismatch. The same problem exists with the adjacent residential setback for
cannabis businesses. ASC districts frequently sit near existing residential development because that is how service centers historically evolved. Applying a 500t setback assumes a land use pattern that does not exist in these districts and never did. The result is not mitigation. It's it is elimination. This
matters because cannabis businesses today function as controlled commercial uses, not industrial nuance nuisances. There's no smoking. There's no outdoor activity associated with the product. Everything is contained within the building envelope and regulate regulated through licensing security requirements
and standard building and fire codes. Much like a pharmacy or other highly regulated retail businesses. At the federal level, cannabis is now being recognized as a schedule one substance, including actions taken under Donald Trump, formerly acknowledged that is not the drug it was historically portrayed
to be. That reclassification has real land use implications. These businesses are moving away from cashonly operations into regulated banking, insurance, payroll, and transparent accounting systems. From a planning perspective, that makes them more predictable, more
stable, and less risky, not more. Clay Countyy's ordinance, however, continues to regulate as if none of that has changed. Is it also important to look at regional consistency? Neighboring jurisdictions jurisdictions regulate the same state licensed businesses under far less restrictive
dimensional standards. In Ottertale County, no residential setback exists and there's no acreage constraints that effective effectively eliminate sites in the Detroit Lakes. In the Detroit In Detroit Lakes, there is no residential buffer or minimum lot size requirements
for cannabis businesses. In Morehead, the ordinance likewise imposes no residential setback and no minimum lot size. Clay County is not required to copy neighboring ordinances, but when its standards are so restrictive that compliance becomes functionally impossible, that disparity becomes
relevant. It demonstrates that the impacts being feared here are not borne out elsewhere. This amendment does not remove oversight. Conditional use review remains. Building code enforcement remains. Fire and safety fire and life safety requirements remain. What changes
is that pro projects can finally be evaluated on what they actually do rather than being precluded by acreage and setback standards that were never calibrated to the districts they govern. The amendment is countywide because the consistency is countywide. It affects
ASC districts near Sabin and elsewhere through our unincorporated Klay County in exactly the same way. If a use is allowed in the district, that ordinance should make that use realistically achievable on the lot lots that exist in that district. The proposal restores this proposal restores the basic
alignment between zoning intent and zoning execution. This is a reasonable correction. It is defensible and it is necessary if Klay County intends to regulate businesses rather than prohibit them by design. Thank you. >> Anybody have any comments or questions?
I have a so you know with the we're talking about you know42 acres and.5 acres did you have a or have you had a survey done? Do you know where your do you know how many what your square footage is that you own or where your property lines are?
>> I I know where partial property lines are. I have not done a survey yet. >> Okay. So you don't so you you agree with that you have less than a half an acre? Oh, that's what it that's what it says. Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Please step down. >> Is there anyone on the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against
>> David Mclofflin? My name is David Mclofflin. Uh my wife Debbiey's here as well. Uh we reside at 11704 123rd Avenue South. Uh we're one of the residents that uh are within the 500 ft
setback requirement. Um, as I stated earlier, uh, in the previous meeting, uh, when Scott bought the elevator back in 2017, since that time, Scott and I have had a a good relationship, um, as far as neighbors
go, uh, when he opened his Airbnb, uh, we did have some issues with his guests, uh, noise concerns, fireworks, uh, loose dogs running through the neighborhood, and Scott was uh you know I called him
or text him a message and he was always very good about uh accommodating that or getting that taken care of. Uh but uh in looking at this request uh to uh uh to change the text or the setback
requirements uh minimum lot size things like that. I guess I would strongly discourage uh or recommend a denial uh recommendation to the county commissioners on this. Uh reasons are uh several. I think one I think you uh to
change an entire county uh ordinance or uh what have you would be a bad precedent uh for uh the county commission just based on one individual property. Um, I'd also like to just uh, and I didn't mention it at the last
meeting, although it was brought up, uh, Scott currently has the elevator on the market for $300,000. Uh, in his ad, he says, "Today, this structure function as a fully turnkey vacational rental operation with three
consecutive years of document gross revenue averaging $50,000 a year annually." uh at the November meeting uh uh he stood up and said he's losing 15 to20,000 a year uh which is quite contrary to what he was advertising. It
says all core building systems, life safety elements and guest amenities have been stabilized and modernized to support short-term lodging use. This asset is currently incomeroucing, professionally maintained, and operational without deferred
maintenance. In addition to his existing rental income, the property offers substantial upside through potential development and additional use with existing structures on site, leveraging the building scale, industrial co construction, and unique character. This
is a proven cash flowing, adaptive reuse property with stabilized income and clear expansion potential. Uh there's an old saying, how do you eat an elephant? Uh one bite at a time. Uh that's exactly what Scott Doms is trying to do here is
to eat an elephant one bite at a time by getting the county to start bending their rules and to change their uh guidelines uh in regards to his cannabis business. uh his end goal here is to sell this structure to somebody else and
unload this building uh to somebody else. And by changing these ordinances uh setback requirements, things like that, it adds uh potential value to his property. I have a couple copies of uh not only the
ad uh but pictures that I took yesterday of this property. Um, and I'll be happy to to to provide a couple copies here uh for review. Uh, you'll notice that uh that they're the same one. I I have two
if you want to share them. Um, you'll notice uh uh for a property that says needs no deferred maintenance. It has a substantial amount of debris. There's a Porsche stuck in a snowbank along with another vehicle. Uh there's uh numerous
trash and garbage uh put there. Uh building that uh one part of the structure, the roof is entirely gone. This building has not been professionally maintained. It does need extensive deferred maintenance. And again, I would recommend that uh you uh
move this forward with a recommendation of denial. Thank you. Gerald Buttonoff. Gerald Buttonoff. 10449 140th Avenue South Barnesville. Uh I'm an Alliance Township Supervisor. Um I don't know if you've seen maps of
it. Uh the township road runs right up against this property. Uh I don't know where there's going to be parking. I don't know where there's going to be a whole lot of stuff. If anybody has any questions of me, feel free to ask. I've recommended no vote.
Rick Donovan Hi, my name is Richard Donovan. I reside at 1221919th Street South in Baker. I've lived in Baker now for over 15 years. When we were looking to purchase a piece of property in Baker, uh to put up a
shop, planning and zoning had told us that it was zoned residential and we would have to build a house there on it first. uh end of discussion. They uh so I'm wondering if you know why would we start bending rules um for
somebody like this? Uh they wouldn't bend the rules for me. Uh people move to a small community or small town. Uh or out into the country just to get away from stuff like this. Um, we've per personally talked to 95% of the people people read in Baker and
we only talked to one person that actually didn't have an opinion either way or just didn't want to get involved. We've talked to others in the surrounding community and only ran into one person that didn't have an opinion either way. All the rest of the people that we've talked to are opposed to this
and as you can see a lot of those people are with us here tonight. This is a strong, supportive community that that helps people when they're in need. Doesn't matter whether you're stuck in the snow, you need a pole, if your lawnmowers broke down, you need a
mow, if your plow is broke and need some snow moved, or if you just need something moved in your garage. People pull together and help each other out here. Unfortunately, Scott is not one of those people. Scott told council members on his first
meeting here that he talked to most of the people in Baker and everybody was okay with this. We'd like to know exactly who he talked to because everybody we've talked to said, "No, we don't want this here." If he boldly lied to you about something so
small, what else is he going to lie to you about? People in Baker didn't move here because there was a pot dispensary or a bar or sea store here. Most people moved to Baker because there wasn't something like that here. Mentioned before that the the elevator
has listed for sale. Scott Dom is looking to create chaos here. We've seen him tonight literally stare down and glare at people in the audience here. He's looking to make a quick buck on this elevator, basically sell it, bolt out of here, and leaving everybody in
this community in the town of Baker with the destruction that he's created. Which leads me to the question, where do we go after this something like this happens to our community? This dispensary comes in here and all this traffic comes in. Where do we have to
move to get away from this now? So, thank you very much for your attention on this matter. Christy Donovan. Try not to repeat everything that's already been said. My name is Christy Donovan. I'm at the 12219 under 19th Street South in Baker.
Um, I do want to say though that the first that we actually heard about this dispensary, most of us, was the following day after it uh ended up on the news and radio. He said that he went and talked in Baker, everybody there. No, that was a flatout lie. Never talked
to anybody. Um, therefore, I don't even think that should even count. It should just be wiped out. Um, this proposed location is where he's talking is near a new daycare uh on our softball fields. Our town is a family-friendly environment. During the late spring to
summer months, we have T-ball and softball practices every week. They also do games here a couple times a month. When the games are being played in Baker, the whole family comes with and not only in Baker. I have gone to other areas with my daughter when she was on T-Bo and we feel safe going to these
small neighborhood, small little towns. We don't have to worry about our kids walking around the town. The introduction of a commercial cannabis establishment could potentially alter the atmosphere of our neighborhood and others. And it raises concerns for all of us. We don't want the loitering, the
extra noise and more litter than what is already there. And for what he has there for property, I don't know where all these people would park. Are they going to park on our road? I mean, it's it's not that big. Is where is this overflow going to go to? Introducing a cannabis dispensary could
conflict with the established character and intended use of this zone, potentially impacting surrounding property values and quality of life for nearby residences. We already stated that while I trust local law enforcement, the presence of a business dealing exclusively on a high
value cash intensive product can introduce new security challenges. We are concerned about the increased traffic and the demands this place could hold on our local police and emergency service resources which are already budgeted for our community size and needs. I believe that the well-being and
future character of Baker should be the guiding principle in your decision-making process. The potential risks and impacts associated with this dispensary outweigh any potential benefits for a town of our size. And here I do also have more signatures for
this meeting. Would you like those? >> Certainly. Give them matt, please. >> Thank you. >> Nate Edwards. I am Nate Edwards. We're live at 12225 118th Street South in Baker. and
everybody else pretty much said what I already had to say, but I just wanted to point out that these laws were put into place to keep these kind of businesses out of our residential areas and changing them would really take away
peace and quiet in residential neighborhoods and it would be kind of dangerous to have them around. I think that that would be a bad decision to allow this. So, I hope you don't. Thank you. Bye. Shane Thompson.
>> Hi, my name is Shane Steven Thompson. My middle name comes from my great grandpa, but my great great grandpa homesteaded there in 1887. One mile and a quarter from that elevator. I used to deliver grain to
that elevator. I know I was over 14, but I don't know if I was quite 15 in a single ax truck back in the day. And that road, like everybody else said too, is very narrow that we had to wait for other trucks to come by to get into the elevator. And if somebody was going to put it back into a
grain elevator again, that'd be a perfect place for it. I won't have to haul my crop so far away because we take care of the best and that's what we do. So, I didn't bring up a piece of paper because I don't write nothing down. And I just speak from the heart like my great great grandpa comes to me in my
dreams and tells me no absolutely not. And uh I would have gave you my addresses but I actually own the property where my great greatgrandfather homesteaded now too. So and it's very frustrating. Used to be a coach for the
T-ball teams and the softball teams in Baker back in the day. So, tell you what, we like I said, we take care of the best and we just want to protect. We don't have any police department. You know, the sheriff's department comes through and back and forth, but it's not permanent and the roads aren't they're
gravel. I mean, there's no concrete down there and started shoveling spuds back in the day when I was about 10 years old. I wish I wouldn't have, but my back would feel better, that's for sure. So it comes from a long time ago and I just want to hear from long heritage from my
great great grandpa grandpa and my dad who's still alive now at 82 years old and says no. So I appreciate all the other people that talked. They gave good really good words about how honest that community is and we take care of the
best down there. So, I'd like you guys to put that into consideration when we come to a decision on this and uh like I said, turn it into a grain elevator again. And I'm perfectly fine with that cuz I didn't even know they had a bathroom when I was 14 years old dumping
grain there. So, yeah, same old thing. So, appreciate you guys having the meeting. So, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against?
Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against? Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against? Hearing none. Look for a motion to close the public hearing.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Josh, seconded by Kurt. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. So, Mr. Chair, I don't know if you want me to kind of run through how the
findings Okay. Um so uh commission for each um finding uh there's been based on the on on the record so far not based on the the public testimony here um tonight but uh did staff did draft an approval
finding and a denial finding for each um of the review standards. Um, and this is essentially to serve kind of as a starting point for any discussion um, as well as um, an opportunity for you to
either uh, kind of accept these findings as is, one of the two findings as is, or to u modify um, revise, delete, and start fresh as as you see fit. Um, kind of the hope is to to go through these and and come to a
general consensus for each finding before moving on to to the next finding. That makes sense. >> I have that's Oh, okay. ASA
in uh okay hearing. Okay. Um number one burden on public utilities. The development authorized by the text
amendment will not create a excessive burden on any public facilities or utilities. I think there's an issue with the road parking. >> Yes, I would I would uh I would I would
agree that there the lot is very small. Okay. Number two, consistency with ordinance. The text amendment is consistent with the general purposes of this ordinance.
And I would have to say no. It's it's it's not consistent with the previous cannabis businesses that we've set up that we've we've approved that we've had hearings for. It's
not even close. And I, you know, question if one acre was enough, but that is what we agreed on. Anybody else care to comment on
consistency with ordinance? Dave, go ahead. And we spent a lot of time going revising the text amendments. I don't know how many meetings we had. A lot of thought was put into every aspect of
setbacks. You know, if it's feed lots or whatever it might be to go from one to 0.5, that's a huge step. And then this one's this is a point 43, I guess. So, um, it
just seems like there's so many obstacles in the way to, you know, everything from what Jenny mentioned, traffic, snow, parking. I can't imagine there would be some wouldn't be violations of many of those
things. Um, but the text amendment was put in there for a reason. Um, and I would rather keep it as the text amendment reads now and just deal with each situation on its
own merit. >> Okay. Um, item number three. >> So, u Mr. Mr. Chair, just so I'm capturing this correctly, would you would the commission want me to add that um the comments by Mr. Stiken? Does that reflect the the commission's the
sentiment of the commission? Would you want me to add that into the denial findings? >> I I would agree to that. I always say that very well. We research and each in each individual as
we have. So the planning would be we say the planning commission and board of commissioners put like careful consideration and research into the development of setbacks and minimum lot sizes. >> Spent hours on those things. Hours.
>> I do have one more when you Matt's ready. And so I'm want to capture the second part of that. um you would rather see um >> essentially the board of adjustments there for a reason instead of having a
blanket statement for those six m little ASC's around the county um deal with one individually and it was stated that you know Ottertale didn't have a setback from residents looked um just the two counties close to
us Becker County has a 500 foot from residential and Pulk is 500. There's others uh counties in the state that I'm not exactly familiar where they're at, but true there is barely Ottertale, but there's others close by that do have
basically what we have in place. Then there's a county 10 miles west that it's illegal completely. And so, um, Mr. Chair and Commission, would this denial finding would that kind of satisfy what you were or reflect what you were looking for?
>> Does for me? Yes. And just to backtrack, would that be the same with the the burden on public utilities finding? I want to make sure that that's >> I guess it would I would say it all kind
of blends in similar fashion. Um, you know, they do deal with specific things, but it it all kind of bleeds together. So the the commission would be this is would be your finding then >> correct?
Okay. >> And Mr. Chair, I think Mr. said he may have had one more thing to add. >> Well, I was just referencing there's two counties right bordering us in one little bit of ways that have sim 500 foot setbacks from residential. Uh and
there's others in the state that have not a lot but there's others that have setbacks similar to what we have. Uh but I don't know where they're at. Okay. >> Number three, conflict with comprehensive plan. The text amendment
is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Klay County comprehensive and transportation plan. I there just I find so many things wrong with this application. Um
little evidence of the property itself currently. Um daycarees, houses. I mean like said in the first meeting, I questioned if you know 500, you know, one acre was enough. Is 500 ft enough? But that's that is what we settled on. And um I remember
the first two I think two I mean this is not the only one or the first application we've had for this type of business and they they met all the criteria right out of the gate and
>> and Mr. Chair I believe >> I Mr. Chair I believe that those two were approved unanimously by the planning commission. It's just, you know, the, you know, he's asking for a half an acre. He doesn't even have a half an acre. Um, he has um
said that in a prior meeting that, you know, we've we've we've dealt with with with this uh potential situation before. He has not met with Klay County environmental. just so many holes in this and I I don't
feel we should approve this. >> There's Mr. Chair and commissioners just related to the to the comprehensive plan and the goals itself with the reduction of the setback and then the the minimum lot size. Um would you agree with with
either of these either the approval or denial findings and then um if there's anything in additional related to the just the comprehensive plan? Mr. Sher, you me mentioned daycarees being a potential conflict as well. So, especially at home daycarees
and that's what you do in a small you have in a small community. They're not downtown or alongside the highway prior, but they met the setbacks. if you could add, let's see, with rural
residential or agricultural uses. Um, yeah. To the to the residences and playgrounds where kids can be. that be appropriate. I believe so.
Anybody else? Mr. Sten. Yeah, I do appreciate Mr. Dom's uh he wants to improve his lot and bring in economic development and all
that, which is what we all like to see obviously. But um as far as the comprehensive plan, yeah, it does talk about reinvestment and economic diversification and all
that. But in the denial side of things, you know, some of the things you've already spoken on, we can't discount the fact that people showed up here for a reason tonight. And the reason is they're not happy. Not that they're not happy, they don't want
things changed for this particular spot. Uh they want to be they they see the potential issues. And on the last sentence of the denial finding, it says these amendments will increase conflict potential and undermine plan objectives related to
rural compatibility and environmental health protection. That seemed like it takes in a lot of the things that's been discussed tonight. if if this has changed and this is allowed. It just seems like this is setting up for I think Mr. Mclofflin spoke on u who knows
what's going to happen next but increases conflict. You know that's not what not what we are here to encourage. Uh but I do appreciate him wanting to start a business. I'm not going to take that away from the guy but um like the chair has talked about the
other things we approved unanimously. It was like no questions asked almost just seemed like the right fit for those situations and this does not seem like a good fit on so many levels.
Anyone else have anything to add? If not, I look for a motion to send this on to the planning commission with a recommendation for denial or approval.
>> Make the motion to send it on to the commission, county commission for denial. >> Motions are made by Mr. Stiken to deny. >> Second. >> Second by Ashley. Any further discussion, >> Mr. Chair? as I've done on some of these other
similar I will recuse myself from the vote because I will be voting at the county board level. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Chair, I just want a clarification on Mr. Styen's um motion. Is that based on these um these findings
that you've made >> that we've those last three findings that we talked about? Yes. based on the the findings in three consecutive denials. We have a motion and a second. We've had some discussion. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Denial is recommended to the board of commissioners. Thank you. our
welcome to state for the for the rest of the year. >> Our next hearing >> um thank you everybody for >> um >> thank you guys >> taking part in >> local government. Thank you guys.
>> Appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Nobody in here. >> Our next public hearing is for Eric Ori. Request for interimm use for home occupation permit. The applicant is requesting an after the-act interimm use
occupation permit >> for an existing service business at 27655 102nd Avenue South Holly, Minnesota 56549 on parcel ID 24.027.1301 027.1301
in part of government lot 2 section 27 township 138N north range 44 West Park Township. Look for a motion to open the public hearing. >> So offered >> second
>> motion by Jenny, seconded by Sebastian. All those in favor say I. >> I >> opposed. Uh motion is carried. It is uh hearing is open. Matt, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, this is a
request for an intermuse permit home occupation for Lakes Area Jetting. The applicant landowner Eric and Summer Ary. Uh this property is located on the south side of 102nd Avenue South and directly south of the Minnesota Steam Threshers Reunion property. Uh there is an
residence and an out building on the property. The subject is zoned egg general and shoreland special protection. uh the surrounding properties have similar zoning and this type of request is allowed in these zoning districts if it meets the minimum
requirements and granted an interim use permit. So the request is to continue to operate lakes area jetting out of the property. Basically the use of the properties to park two semis and two vans as well as a small office within the shop for day-to-day paperwork and employee
check-in. Uh they estimate just under use under 3,000 square feet of the shop for the business. Uh and then they employ four additional employees. Uh they do have parking for employees on the south side of the shop building and it operates year round Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Uh on review of the application, they appear to meet all the standards for this uh interim use home occupation. Uh the nearest residence is to the east uh about 260 ft. It's buffered by trees. We
have not received any um public comment for this request and have not received any comment from the township as well. Uh from our comprehensive plan, we have a goal to maximize the potential of Klay County as a thriving center for egg business and recreation while
maintaining enhancing its livability. Uh home occupations that follow our regulations for home occupations. They do provide unique opportunities for residents to live and work in the county and they have the potential to enhance both the economy and livability of Klay County.
We have a a goal to establish a comprehensive growth management strategy that promotes orderly and efficient growth of residential, commercial, industrial development while preserving um the county's rural character. Uh home occupations are nice because they allow that flexible living and working arrangements u making for more efficient
use of large tracks of residential properties and shouldn't detract from the rural character of the county if the structures in use are in harmony with said rural character and if the use does not create nuisance conditions. We also have a goal to plan land uses and implement standards to minimize land
use conflicts. Home occupations that meet the uh development code regulations should not contribute to land use conflicts. Any questions for for me at all? I should note that this property is in shoreland. It and it does appear to meet
all the shoreland um setback uh impervious surface uh standards as well. >> The applicant care to speak, please come up to the podium and state your name. Um, I'm Eric Ary, reside at 27655
102nd Avenue South Holly. My wife Summer is present with me. Um, I guess it's something we should have applied for out of the gate. We're a little late on it, but uh, we received a letter that we needed to get in and do that and I guess we followed through with the county's
request to do so. Um, we currently are on our third year of operation with this business and things are going well. An end goal would be to get this out of my wife's yard. Um, but it it takes a little financial gain prior to going through with a further commitment to
building or renting or purchasing. Um, so I guess if if you guys have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. Um, I don't see a lot of growth as far as employee or equipment wise in the near future that would involve any expansion of our existing facility and
we hope to stay in good standings with everybody. So >> now is this the same property that you ran County Line Plumbing? >> County Line Plumbing has been operated out of there. I will say that's has always been a much smaller scale. That was one van and two guys in it and uh
that's all that was coming and going and one of the two guys was typically me. I understand I probably should have had this permit at that time. Not saying it was any confusion, but I guess it it probably was. Um we are still operating a plumbing business out of there which we're we're
starting to slow down with and trying to take off with our our lakes area jetting business. >> So and Mr. Mr. Chair, I should just add in the three years of operation and then even prior to that, we have not received any complaints or anything about the
business or the property itself. >> Is the home yours or >> Yes. Yes. This is our property where we raise our three sons and operate our business. Are there on the daily? Um, my wife works in our home office a couple days a week and I guess we put that out
in our shop. The home itself has no existing business operations out of it. Everything takes place out in our shop facility and setting. >> Mr. Chair and Matt, uh, Mr. Ary, for the benefit of everybody here and listening,
can you explain what jetting is? >> Um, we actually serve you guys quite regularly. Uh, we we take care of um commercial infrastructure, a lot of storm and sanitary sewer. We've done some culvert work throughout the county um opening them up. We have right now
currently we have two large hydrovac trucks. They're full scale semiis um that we have the ability to through water pressure clear blockages. Um we also do a lot of inspections for surrounding communities, multiple communities that are within Klay County.
Um where we clean and inspect their infrastructure, storm sanitary. Um, we do a lot of new construction pre and post cleaning inspections. Um, that kind of covers our scope of work. We do we do work on the residential scale, but
primarily we're we're working for civil and uh commercial contractors. And just just to add on to it quick, most of the summer our trucks are staying out on site. We're not typically if if we're working in a community,
we're there for a week and we're trying to go from one community to the next. We're we have less truck traffic than the local farmers probably have on the road, honestly, in our busy months because we're just not coming back to the home base. We're leaving trucks on site and
transporting back and forth with a vehicle. >> Although the gravel that goes up and down that road. Yeah, we we we see plenty of traffic between steam thrashers and agricultural use, which I have zero complaints about. I'm happy to see everybody thriving and doing well in the community.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else? Is there in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? There anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against?
Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? Hearing none, look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Motion by Brad, seconded by
>> I. >> Um, all those in favor say I. I >> opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. Okay, readings of fact. Interimm use will not be injurous to the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of residents of Klay County. Believe that there is nothing that these guys are doing. that would be any conflict with the county
residents. The interimm use will not be injurous to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted. Mr. Chair and Matt, you said there was no formal objections from or anything on
record of being an issue. >> Yep. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Sikin, there's been no records of complaints from neighbors or >> Okay. >> And has the applicant aware of, you know, how many employees
you can can go up to 10 15 plus himself? eight 15 I think. >> Okay. I didn't think it was that high, but okay. >> Erica will fact check me. >> Okay.
Um I see there's nothing under this item that is objectionable. The establishment of the interimm use will not impede this normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
predominant in the area. Imagine the only time would be the steam threshers reunion, Mr. and Matt, but I'm sure you you're part of that operation and you understand that. So, >> Oh, and you know, your driveway is off
the downer road, isn't it? Or are you >> Okay. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide utilities, access roads, drainage, and off- streetet parking and loading spaces as required by this ordinance.
Um, Mr. Jacobson in his presentation stated that everything that he had there there's notional wetlands, the impervious requirements are met. >> And Mr. Mr. Chair, they ample space for
parking of equipment and vehicles. >> And he's not adding anything. So, okay. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, vibration,
water pollution, and soil erosion so that none of these will constitute a nuisance and to control lighted signs or other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. He's going to be the quietest one in the
neighborhood for >> Mr. Chair's been >> operating for three years without any complaints. So I guess that kind of answers that question. The interimm use will not create an excessive burden on current or anticipated public infrastructure or
services that serve are proposed to serve the area including but not limited to parks, schools, public safety devices, roads, water supply, sanitary sewers, storm sewers. Unless the county and the applicant establish a development agreement that
determines how such impacts will be resolved. He is not doing anything out there that adds and he actually assists with something that's really big for our area which is threshers. Interimm use is allowed by this
ordinance and conforms with any specific use standards established in chapter 8 as may be applicable. This was covered in both of their presentations. Also, um, the interimm use is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Klay County comprehensive and transportation plan and any comprehensive plan of a township or city as may be applicable. providing a service and providing jobs and
I approve that. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant or Matt or comments? Hearing none, look for a motion that the
interimm use permit be denied or that the interimm use be issued. Um, let me pause for a moment there. Um, uh, staff has three conditions.
Home occupation shall comply with the Klay County Development Code Home occupation standards. The permit ceases upon ownership change. Employees shall be limited to members of the house and 10 additional non-family
employees unless a plan for additional employee parking parking and mitigation of potential impacts are provided to the ser to the planning office. Eric, do you have you read and understand and would you be able to
comply with the three conditions? >> Yes. >> As Okay, >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve intersections. >> Motion by Brad to approve. >> Second.
>> Second by Kurt. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. up is approved. Thank you everyone. Next item is
Noble Noville Energy Solutions request for a conditional use permit amendment. The applicant is requesting to amend a previously granted conditional use permit number 831742
for a 1 megawatt community solar garden on parcel ID 07.034.4600 4600 part of the west half of the southeast quarter, south half of the southwest quarter. Northeast quarter of the
southwest quarter section 34 township 142 north range 46W Felton Township. Look for a motion to open the public hearing. So >> motion by Jenny, seconded by Sebastian.
All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is open. >> Matt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a CP amendment request for a 1 megawatt community solar garden uh brought
forward by uh Novel Energy Solutions landowner Charles and Sheila Hildy. Uh this is uh the east side of trunk highway 9 and it's a quarter mile little under a quarter mile uh south of Felton. Uh it's currently egg tilda agriculture.
Uh the planning commission did grant a conditional use permit in 2021. Uh there was an amendment to that permit in 2022. Essentially the amendment just was for um the initial conditional use permit was only good for a year. uh and or the
the use would have had to have been established within a year. In 2022, that was amended to allow three years for the use to be established. Uh and now that three-year time window has passed, so we're back for another amendment to this. Uh so the base zoning, it's
agricultural general. Uh the request is to establish a 1 megawatt community solar garden on approximately 10 acres of farmland. Uh this is a program through Excel in the the state of Minnesota allowing for residents, businesses, and other entities to subscribe to solar power and receive
bill credits. Um it's ex accessible to Excel Energy customers in Minnesota. Uh so this site was selected due to its level terrain, the amount of sunlight, probably most importantly proximity to electrical infrastructure, landowner participation, and it's going to
interconnect to the grid through Excel Energy. Uh the goal is to begin construction in 2026. Uh solar pan solar panels will have a max height of 12 feet. The project lifespan is 30 years. They will establish beneficial habitat pollinator
vegetation. Uh the site will be enclosed by a farm fence. There'll be a gate access with keyless entry and signage with 24-hour uh contact information. uh decommissioning of this uh looking at just all the the the costs. They'd be
looking at a full removal of all equipment, restoration of the site to egg production uh based on the landowner preference. Uh looking at just over $35,000 would be estimated for um for the decommissioning. I don't think that
that uh includes any potential um salvage costs or salvage um that they might get from from the um from the equipment through recycling and things like that. Uh this is on uh prime farmland. I think
the crop equivalency rating it ranges from 67 to 71 prime farmland if drained. Uh it's also uh directly to the the east of the Felton Cemetery. Um some considerations.
This would take 10 acres of prime farmland out out of production. We did not receive any public comment on this. Just want to note that this site plan has changed a little bit from the original requests. Uh before they were going to use an existing uh a field
approach uh to enter in from the south side of the cemetery and now they're looking at uh uh accessing trunk highway 9 uh through the through the north side. So there'd be a new access connection to trunk highway 9. That would be proposed. Um that would result they'd need to have
um an access permit from the state of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Transportation as well as a utility rightaway permits as well. Relative to our comprehensive plan goals and objectives, we have a goal to support long-term protection of the countyy's
strong and diverse egg economy. Uh community solar gardens do add diversity to the egg economy in Klay County. They allow for producers to diversify their operations and revenue streams uh that in a manner not at odds with the agricultural production. Uh ensure all
new development is compatible with the character and quality of the county's egg areas. Um we have some folks who have perceived the uh communities or solar in general as detracting visually from the egg character of Klay County. Uh virtually all these are are installed
along major transportation corridors and hubs. We have a goal to recognize and protect the egg character of Klay County and objective under that would be to protect prime egg soils from commercial industrial and residential development. So, this would look at taking 10 acres
um of farmland if uh prime farmland if drained. Um for a minimum of 30 years, there'd be there's an estimated uh 297,600 acres of prime farmland if drained. In 154,240 acres of prime farmland in Klay County,
uh the project site could potentially be restored to farmland as soil loss would not occur. And ideally, we'd want to site these on marginal egg land. Um it looking in the grand scheme of things it is small uh scale relative to the total
acreage of prime farmland in the county. Uh we also have an objective to avoid or mitigate against commercial and industrial development in or near environmental sensitive areas. This is not uh in or near an environmentally sensitive area. and to avoid or mitigate against commercial industrial
development that increases the potential for land use conflicts with rural residential egg uses the uses uh relatively passive doesn't generate excess traffic noise vibrations or dust does generate power for Minnesota businesses residents institutions I
should add to that we in our code do have a screening requirement from any nearby or adjacent residences as well so they'd have to screen that with the vegetation we have a goal to to um grow and restore prairie and woodland areas in Klay County. Uh the community solar garden
would result in about 10 acres of pollinator and wildlife habit habitat. And that's kind of done through this objective to encourage egg commercial industrial and residential development to establish prairie or woodland areas and properties to provide ecosystem services such as erosion and flood
control through excuse me assessment, permitting, tax, and zoning programs. Uh the beneficial habitat establishment is a requirement for community solar gardens in Klay County. Any questions for me at all?
Again, this is one that's gone through this process. This will be the third time. Nothing has changed significantly. Tony is this has been approved probably for seven or eight years for wet I mean been looked over for wetlands or
>> Yeah that's my understanding and they have done a wetland delineation. The only big change is that that the access >> and that would be up to mind to grant that. We would have nothing to as a board or as the Clay the Clay
County that we did. >> Correct. >> I believe the applicant is online. >> Okay. U go ahead and introduce yourself and speak please. This is essentially
require questions. >> Mr. Chair and Matt, uh, I have your name correct. It's Mr. O oathman is that correct? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. Just for our benefit here u
the uh if this if the solar farm is less than one megawatt is there solar energy production tax on that or is that when it's only over one megawatt? There's the reason I ask is that why a
lot of them are capped at one because we're going to talk about a larger one a little bit later. >> Good evening everyone. Honestly, I couldn't answer that because we don't deal with that part of the business when it comes to taxes and regulations. I can
tell you that the driving force a lot of times the size of one of our solar gardens is based on what the need is in an area. A lot of times these enter into system studies and they decide what capacity of what we're going
to offer. So typically in Minnesota and even in Maine a lot of our sites are one megawatt for a while we were doing 2 megawatt but as other companies started uh doing what we are doing uh it dropped down
I would say because of that the tax portion of it I honestly couldn't give you a straight answer on that because I just don't know enough about it but while I have you I will tell you one of the that was mentioned decommissioning. That
number does not include any recycling revenue that we could get back by recycling it and you know paying us that number. So that number is not incorporated into the demission plan. Um and as well you know
I mentioned where we put these dependent on having electric nearby uh if it's too far away you can't run it that far and it won't work. this site has access to phase electric and that's why we're able to propose a garden where we are. And
then the final thing I just wanted to mention um you know we've been lucky that you us uh or extensions however you want to look at it and the main reason why is the supply chain issues that we're still
still dealing with. Uh as maybe you might be aware not aware the president bill some change in the industry which actually knocked a couple big solar companies out of business and one of the things that all solar companies have to
do is we have to buy a majority of our products domestically which is good for United States and our economy but which has caused a definite backlog in being able to acquire things in a timely fashion but a lot of times we'll say at a meeting that if we get an
approval tonight we probably won't be able to start it takes that long to get that site as it was previously approved and they were starting to work on it. So, we're well on our way to getting the equipment
we need lined up to get this site started and finished in uh 2026. I just wanted to give you a little background information on that. If you have any questions, be happy to answer those. I just had one kind of followup. It says
the estimated life Mr. I'll just say Mr. Ralph because I probably will butcher your name. >> Um Mr. Ania was my father and I'll never >> it it mentions the uh lifespan of the project is 30 years. Is it just for our
understanding is it more realistic to expect within the next 5 10 15 years that technology will come to a point where the 30 years might you might still want to operate for 30 years but probably not with existing equipment.
>> Oh absolutely. So that is something that we routinely uh speak about even even in sites that we've had approved previously. A lot of times we'll come back is once we start going out and getting the equipment we need and the different panels and maybe we can't get a
particular panel we usually do come back and say hey we have to make the site a little smaller which is always a good thing because the technology in the panels is better so you can do more with less panels so I honestly suspect the way the industry is going and the technological advancements because you
even see with AI and everything else that in probably 10 years this site will probably get updated and probably half of what it is now and generating the same amount if not being able to generate more. So the technology is definitely moving in that direction. I
mean you see even now u they have shingles that are uh solar powered and generate solar panel for uh power for houses. So it's a it's a industry where they're always looking for a better way to do things and certainly as what you mentioned I I don't even think it'll be
probably 10 years where we'll see such a big jump in the way things are done even a lot of sites uh we do uh battery storage in Maine and u the battery situation has just gotten so much better as well because these sites you know they generate a lot of electricity but
some of it goes to waste it doesn't get into the system and what it does in a batteryit it stores it in the battery and then overnight it goes back into the system. Now, the benefit of that is that it doesn't make the the utilities generate electricity. So, they're not
using coal or or whatever they might be doing to generate that electricity. We're getting it from the sun and it basically you can almost do it 24 hours a day at this point. So, just a little additional information for you guys. >> Very good. Thank you. >> And Mr. Chair and Mr. And I'll just to
answer the question about the solar energy production tax is it's the one megawatt is the cutoff. Anything under one is exempt from that. Anything over would be subject to that tax. It's a$120 per megawatt hour generated. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Anybody have any additional questions? Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against?
Is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak for or against? Hearing none. Look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. Motion by Laura, seconded by Brad. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. Now we will go through the findings of fact. Um, the conditional use will not be injurous to the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of residents of Klay County. Do you have any comments? This is a something that we've gone on this particular site. We've just wiggled it around. Third times the charm. >> Long as it comply with fencing and
access and safety, I guess. Uh, looks looks fine. >> Okay. Thank you. The conditional use will not be injurous to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted.
Okay. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses predominant in the area >> so it's not going to change anything.
>> Nothing. Yes. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide utilities, access roads, drainage, off- streetet parking, and loading spaces as required by this ordinance. He said that they've got their permit and they modified it a little bit to put
a culvert in. Um, >> guessing Mandot has already stamped this. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Commissioner, would you want me to just modify that to state that they do have an access permit?
>> Yes. >> That would be good. Okay. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, vibration, water pollution, and soil erosion so
that none of these will constitute a nuisance and to control lighted signs or other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. um they are required to do some native
plannings. There won't be any dust after the project is done. Um other than there really is no lighting at these sites. Um no vibration.
The conditional use will not create an excessive burden on current or anticipated public infrastructure or services that serve or are proposed to serve the area including but not limited to parks, schools, public safety
services, roads, water supply, sanitary sewers, storm sewers. Unless the county and the applicant establish a development agreement that determines how such impacts will be resolved. Minimal traffic and it does not require
public sewer water service. Uh so no demands on that public facilities. I agree once they get it done that they do maintenance a couple times a year and the conditional use is allowed. The
conditional use is allowed by this ordinance and conforms with any specific use standards established in chapter 8 as may be applicable. We have approved many of these and they definitely are allowed
to be where they're proposed. The conditional use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Klay County comprehensive and transportation plan and any comprehensive plan of a township or city as may be applicable. I just wanted to make a a note on that.
I I I know this is a small acreage um but these little small acres add up um and that prime farmland does get reduced over time. So I just want to just want to state that I I'm not not fond of the
idea of this going on any prime farmland. So, thank you. Anyone else have any comments on this fact and I, you know, share many of
Ashley's concerns. Um, it is in theory temporary isn't like you put a Walmart up and that ground will never ever be farmed again.
Um, this I don't I'm not I'm not I have voted against some of these in the past, but um personally I I'd rather I I'm stuck more on telling somebody what they can't
do with their own land versus losing 10 acres. >> So, Mr. Mr. Chair, just considering um Commissioner Hank's comment, I just want to ask if the planning commission has any issues with the approval finding
then as drafted or would you like wish is the consensus to keep keep it as is? >> Keep it as is. >> Okay, I would think you could keep it as is. I mean, this is great for soil health, you know, being planted in pollinators. Like, this doesn't get any
better than, you know, than tilling it and erosion and wind for something for all the acres that got taken out of CRP in the state, uh, years ago, a 1 acre or say a 10 acre piece here and there.
That's good for soil health in our in our agricultural community with the addition of the pollinators which is which is really great. >> Mr. Chair and Matt, I do understand Commissioner Hang's s position and
Brad's as well. The soil health will be exceptional when this is coming out. So, but I do understand your concern about everything because we've had that come up before. So, I do appreciate you mentioning it. So,
do we have more that are approve than disapprove? We have Okay. Um Yes. I it we have a consensus of the board that um for approval
on that fact finding. Okay. Um, so now we're at the point where uh I look for a motion that the conditional use permit be denied or a motion that the conditional use permit be issued
subject to the following conditions. Are is the applicant still online, Matt? >> Yes. >> Yes. Do you have a copy or have you read the
six conditions? >> Yes, we have a previous copy and we're able to fulfill each condition. >> Okay, you're understand and are able to meet them. Okay. I mean, I think that for me personally, because we don't we don't know what things are going to
cost, the the condition number six is important because you know that you know they have a trucking cost in their estimate. I mean, what's diesel going to be? What's a what's a half a million dollar semi going to cost? I mean, who knows? Um,
I like to see that there is some dollars put forward to protect the county and and not just the county, the land owner themselves. So again, I'm going to uh ask for a motion
to deny or a motion to issue the permit subject to um conditions one through six or anybody want to change a condition? Mr. Chair, matter. Are these the same
conditions that they've been complying been asked to comply with in the past? >> These are the conditions that we would they're um essentially the same for any >> community solar garden. >> I think the conditions are fine if they if they can accept them.
>> Would you make a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve the uh conditional use permit subject to the following six conditions. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Dave and a second by several. We'll give it to
Kurt. Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Imum >> motion is carried. Um, Commissioner Hang voted to deny. Thank you everyone.
>> Thank you for your time this evening. >> You are welcome. Next item on the agenda is Buffalo River Garden LLC request for conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a
conditional use permit for a 4.75 megawatt community solar garden and parcel ID 06.00 005 3600 part of the northeast quarter of the
southwest quarter and west half of the southwest quarter section 5 township 138 north range 47 west Elmwood Township. Look for a motion to open the public hearing.
>> Motion by Jenny. >> Second by Laura. All those in favor say I. I >> I opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is open. >> Take it away, Matt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is not
an amendment, so apologies for that. It's It is a CU request for a 4.75 megawatt community solar garden. Uh this is about 3/4 of a mile north of Sabin. It's on the east side of uh County State, Highway 11. It's currently tilled
agriculture. The parcel size is about 95 acres. Uh the project area would be 28.8 acres. Uh zoning on this parcel, the base zoning is egg general. Overlay zoning is resource protection wellhead protection.
So the request is for uh 4.75 megawatt solar garden. Uh this garden would participate in the Excel Energy low and moderate income community solar garden program. uh would provide renewable en energy to income eligible households,
public interest subscribers and community organizations uh looking at just under 1100 megawatt hours of annual generation and an anticipated operational life of 35 years. a similar site selection criteria to the previous
um uh solar garden request. Uh looking at beginning construction in summer of 2027. Looks like it would take around 135 days. There's a 35 year lifespan to the project and they would establish beneficial habitat and pollinator
vegetation. Um, so this is this is the site here and um also enclosed by farm fence gate access with keyless entry and then signage with 24-hour contact information. Uh, surrounding land uses uh uses relatively passive, no excess
traffic, no noise, vibration or dust and vegetative screening is proposed. Whoa. Um, there we go. Near residences. And so I just want to note here too um that they'd be using an access off of um
County Road 69 um just to bring uh construction materials to the site. Uh and then the actual transmission would occur um to going to the to the west here uh underground except for three poles here um
uh and and connect uh with XL Energy infrastructure at that location. uh would take uh prime farmland and prime farmland if drained with a crop equivalency rating of 67 to 73 out of production for a minimum of 35 years.
Wouldn't be any soil stripping or permanent foundations. They'd remain intact and vegetated during the operation would be restored to egg use at decommissioning. Again, small scale relative to county prime farmland acreage. Uh one of the differences with
with this one um as opposed to our one megawatt sites, this would be the second site uh that's been approved by um this planning commission uh around this size would be subject to the solar uh production tax. Uh looking at an estimated annual revenue of just over
$13,000 and just looking at a 25-year uh time frame, it amount to $327,000. Klay County would receive 80% of that revenue distribution and the township would receive 20% of that. So Klay County would be looking at about
$261,000 over that time period. And then Elmwood would be looking at $65,400 um over that 25 year time frame. Uh decommissioning uh plan was included
um includes removal of basically everything. uh site restoration. Uh the total estimated cost is just north of $200,000. Uh that's not including any salvage value and they do have I think it's a 200 million $2 million financial
guarantee associated with that as well. Um considerations. This would take um just under 29 acres of prime farmland out of production. We did receive some public input just on the placement of overhead power poles screening from
residential properties. Uh future expansion concerns, we did not receive any comments from the township. Um just looking at um the applicant did provide some pictures of where the the power poles would go. Uh basically this is where they would um need to tie into um
to the XL grid essentially is is this would be that row of trees on the north side of a of a property. So this would be looking um looking north on Cassaw 11 and then looking south on Cass 11. So you can see that there's some pretty
good vegetation there. Um this is really the only area where they could actually tie it in where XL wants them to. They are going to do some improvements to this culvert as well as part of that um which has been an an issue with with drainage along there. Um, regarding
future expansion concerns, uh, the the state community solar garden program does cap um, community solar at 5 megawatts. So, there really isn't any potential for expansion. Um, if they were to say propose another additional
community solar garden on this parcel, um, that could be challenging just with the collocation requirements from from Excel. uh similar um relative similar this project how it relates to our comprehensive plan goals and objectives.
It's similar to the to the previous hearing. Um looking at supporting the long-term protection of the county strong and diverse egg economy and these adding diversity to the agricultural economy of the county, allowing producers to diversify their operations, ensuring all new developments compatible
with the character and quality of county's egg areas. Again, kind of um a a spectrum here of of uh the opinion that these detract visually from the egg character of Klay County. They're all virtually along major transportation
corridors and hubs. This one may be on a lesser traveled um uh county county road. Uh we have an object or a goal and objective to protect uh prime egg soils from commercial industrial residential development. Again, this is a larger
one, so it's looking at just under 29 acres of prime farmland. Um, could potentially be restored uh as well. Uh, and encourage commercial industrial development that is harmony with the the egg and rural character of Klay County.
Um, again, uh, differing opinions on if they're detracting or perceived as an emerging component of the the egg landscape. Uh we have a objective to avoid or mitigate against commercial and industrial development in or near environmentally sensitive areas. Uh
there could be some minor disturbance to top soil. There'd be about uh.3 acres of impervious surface. Um the solar arrays are mounted in the ground. They're not on permanent footings or foundations. Uh established about 28 acres of of native
prairie um uh and improve local water quality. I should note too that this use would be over the Buffalo aquifer in our wellhead protection zoning district and solar development just because of the um soil health properties, infiltration
properties uh with water quality especially um is considered a preferred use in uh this zoning district solely because in uh wellhead protection areas that are um established by communities in in the state. this is is listed as a
preferred type of land use um in wellhead protection areas. Uh we have a goal or objective to avoid or mitigate against commercial or industrial development uh that increases potential for land use conflicts. Um
again relatively passive use doesn't generate much for excess traffic noise, vibrations or dust. Uh we have a goal to grow and restore prairie and woodland areas in Klay County for the benefit enjoyment of Klay County businesses, residents, and
visitors. We'll look at establishing about 28 acres of pollinator and wildlife habitat. And again, that would be required through our ordinance as well. Any questions for me at all? >> Mr. Chair and Matt, you mentioned uh
it's a this is a preferred use when you're above aquifer or wellhead. Is that because the soil is not being disturbed throughout the uh Mr. Chair and Commissioner Stiking? Yeah, it's essentially the the soil is not being
disturbed. Uh there is also more opportunities for potentially groundwater recharge and filtration that occurs uh in these areas as well. Um Buffalo aquifer is an aquifer uh that
does not have a lot of recharge potential just because the clay is so hard above it. But um if you're establishing uh prairie vegetation or native vegetation where the roots will get in a lot deeper into that, it allows
for filtration and re and smallcale recharge opportunities. Not saying you're going to refill the whole aquifer with a 28 acre solar site, but it certainly doesn't hurt in that respect. >> Thank you. You had mentioned that the power will be
underground until it gets to >> correct. >> So there this but those three poles will be new. >> Yep. And that's an XL Energy thing. All all of our solar gardens have that same. If you look at any of them when you're driving, especially up or down Highway
9, they all have those three at least three poles before they before they connect into the to the transmission. So, this would be set back kind of roughly in this area right here. Um, there would be there would have to be
screening from this residents. And it's not on the site plan, but it would probably be beneficial to have that screening if possible wrap around a little bit here too for for these residences down here. >> Oh, wait. Did I get that right? Yeah.
>> Top right corner. Yeah. So what's really required for the people directly next to it or you talked about >> essentially yeah for adjacent properties. Yep. Might be >> important to put that in there. >> Yep. And that's in our that's a standard that we have or performance standard in
our ordinance. >> No matter what size it is, they have to >> Yeah. And typically what we see or what what has been proposed, we haven't what we haven't seen for the ones that need to be screened are um that have been permitted after the adoption of our
updated ordinance is like a double row of conifers or something like that that can provide immediate screening and not something that you have to wait for. >> Anybody else have any questions or comments for Matt? Hearing
none. Would the applicant here to take his turn at the podium? >> Uh thank you. My name is Fritz Ebinger. I work for Ncomomas Energy as a project developer. Uh we're based here in Minnesota. Um I want to thank the planning uh department staff for their clear communication throughout this
process. It's always uh nice to have kind of direct answers and and to have uh folks on the other end be very responsive. Um as as Mr. Jac said, we're asking for a 4.75 megawatt uh solar garden um by conditional use permit. Uh
it does pay the energy production tax approximately 13,000 to $14,000 per year. Uh we did follow the county's lead here and put it in a wellhead protection area. Uh we did best uh as best we could to use the existing field entrances. Uh
the Excel Energy connection point uh already has an existing aerial overhead and the the poles that Mr. Jacobson discussed um should be hidden by the existing mature conifers um on a shelter belt to
to the neighbor. Um what else can I tell you? Uh this is as you know community solar gardens are centralized installations. So all folks have the ability to participate in solar energy. This is a low to moderate income program. So it's designated primarily
for schools, churches, uh nonprofits, and low-income housing providers. So they can benefit from the rate savings. Um and uh we already discussed the pollinator friendly habitat. Um
and I think that's that's most of it. The one thing I one comment I did want to make is I I routinely hear the concern about prime farmland. There is an electrphysical limitation to the the volume of solar energy that you can put in a community and I will tell you that
that Klay County is approaching the end of that that volume. So I don't think you'd see much more past this. Um other point of information is that Klay County has 15,473 acres in CRP right now as of August 2025. So those are acres that are not in
agricultural production. There may may or may not be prime farmland, but it's u something I do like to to bring up from time to time. Uh the primary risk to to loss of prime farmland is actually low density suburban expansion. So you can point at Morehead and maybe the greater
Fargo area for chewing up some of that stuff. So um if you have any other questions for me, I'll be here. Um again, thanks for your time. Appreciate it. Anybody
have any questions for the applicant? Hearing none. Is there anyone online or in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? Is there anyone online or in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? Is there anyone in
the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against? Hearing none. Look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Jenny, seconded by >> Ashley. Ashley.
>> Ashley. Okay. I thought it was Ashley and then I Yeah. Seconded by Sebastian. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. I think I need to get a hearing aid
or you need to talk louder. Um go through the findings of fact. The conditional use will not be injurous to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the residents of Klay County. Um I've never been part of approving or
working on one this size, but the standards are All the same. I don't see where there any issues on this. The conditional use will not be injurous to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted. feel that with the with the screening that there really shouldn't be and I wouldn't see any potential issues coming up.
The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. There again really is nothing. Maybe somebody
can keep some bees or do something with it. But um adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide utilities, access roads, drainage and off- streetet parking and loading spaces as required by the ordinance.
I believe you showed that the road was proposed road is already in in place and that was going to come off the township or the county road where they're bringing materials in and the power is going out. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, they're both county roads and there have to be an internal
road that would be constructed, but it's all essentially on the property it's all on the property owner's land or the property owner's relatives land. And then that would just be for construction for
Okay. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, vibrations, water pollution, and soil erosion. So that none of these will constitute a nuisance.
and to control lighted signs or other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. And I guess one of the things about this type of construction is that they don't even pour concrete. They drive them into
the ground. And um there really is no especially if they're plant if they're doing this on a on vegetation or on if it's on bare dirt of course there would be some potential issues to start but looks good there. Uh the condition of
use will not create an excessive burden on current or anticipated public infrastructure or services that serve or proposed to serve the area included but not limited to parks, schools, public safety services, roads,
water supply, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, utilities. Um unless the county and the applicant establish a development agreement that determines how such impacts will be resolved. They're actually adding to the infrastructure.
The conditional use is allowed by this ordinance and conforms with any specific use standards established in chapter 8 as may be applicable. This uh something that is a common practice now
and it uh is definitely something that is good or be beneficial to the to the aquifer. The conditional use is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Klay County comprehensive and transportation plan and any comprehensive plan of a township or city as may be applicable. It's been a a common practice and uh
it will I believe benefit benefit the area. Um now we're on to the the conditions. Have you read and understand and able to
comply with the five conditions as they are printed? >> Yes, we've read them there in the staff report. Yes, we agree. Does >> anybody have any comments or additions or tweaks that they would like to see to
the conditions? in there the standard ones. Um, and this is say this one will provide some tax revenue to the help the township out
and the county out some. So at the point we're look for a motion to approve the conditional use permit with items 1 through six or to deny the permit
to approve >> five sorry 5135 a motion by Brad to approve Second >> motion by Commissioner Stiken or second by Commissioner Stikken. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed.
>> I Commissioner Hang is opposed. Um motion is carried. Permit is approved. Hey Matt, any unfinished business?
>> Um, no unfinished business, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Under new business, you want to talk about the DNR? >> Yes. Um just want to give you all an update on um the public waters inventory. The the state of Minnesota,
the DNR is go undergoing a statewide um basically review and uh revisions to the public waters inventory. So that would include the public waters maps and then the public waters lists as well. They're really looking just to correct
and update the existing PWI. looking to identify additions or removals um just based on updated mapping um field and field review and then some other um administrative um removals that happened as well. So they
started in Klay Klay County. Klay County is fortunate to be one of the first counties >> um to go through this process. So they started in Klay County in um August of 2025. recently just had a public meeting uh on that to provide an opportunity to
explain the project more to and provide the preliminary uh list and maps um uh to the county and that happened on Tuesday. Um and that happens typically halfway between through the 60-day public comment period. So the public
comment period is set to close on February 10th. Um, and then there'd be a um revision update to a uh for a final map and list um and a 90-day appeal period. So, they'd be looking at um
probably this fall potentially of of having that that process finalized. Um, in Klay County, they're looking at uh the additions of eight um water courses.
And a water course is essentially anything that has um two square miles of drainage or greater and also would have to have a bed, stream bed and a and banks as well. Um and so they're looking
at at additions. Most of the additions are quite small. Um there's a couple up in the the northeast part of the the county uh Yulan Yulan area that are larger. Uh this one around Felton, some of these were removed by an administrative order by the commissioner
um essentially because back when these and waters were originally adopted and or when this map was originally created in the 80s, not every landowner was properly noticed. So they took they took some off and are now
properly noticing um land owners and putting putting them back on. Also around Felton 2 uh is designated trout streams. So any trout stream uh state designated trout stream and its tributaries would be
automatically included into the public waters inventory as well. Um so that's why you see that on there. And then there's one basin. It's pretty small um down in Tansum Township and I think it's almost virtually entirely surrounded by public land.
And so that's kind of the um the update you have in your packet just uh maps that kind of show each each one. Uh if you do have comments um you can use this QR code down here uh to scan and get to
to the website. And I can kind of show you what that looks like. So, this is a candy site that basically gives you kind of it's the one-stop shop for the for the project. Um, you can kind of see there's a map where you can
see where they're uh so um Blue Earth County is currently under review. Um, Klay County, uh, Sherburn County, I think, and then, um, Aken County,
Benton County, sorry, Sherburn's over here. Um, >> it's all the environmental policy resource chair and vice chairs for the last three years. So, everyone said we shouldn't have ever volunteered to be in those positions. That's the >> I don't think that's the way it is.
>> Coincidence >> how it came. Yeah. >> Um so they provide um impact or they they provide kind of examples of like what feedback they're looking for. Um one thing that's
very specific for for the public to know about this is that you have to submit your comments in writing and through their proper commenting. um through this site essentially is where you would have to go to submit written
comments. They do not respond to the comments, but they do say that they take every comment into consideration. Um um I'm assuming too that part of that process is if you were to um
want to appeal something, they might be able to actually meet um on the ground with you and and do a a field type review uh as well. Um and then our area hydraologist Roger Hempill, he's based out of the Detroit
Lakes Lakes office is a very good resource for um any questions that anyone might have about this project. Any questions for me at all? Commissioner Mojo, is there anything that I >> think you covered it well. >> Thank you.
>> Well, it's, you know, and then we'll look at all the ones they're taking off the site, you know. I did ask that question of the commissioner of the DNR. I did meet with her a couple weeks ago and there are components that are coming off. It just doesn't happen to be in Klay County.
>> Yes. >> That stuff I looked at. I mean, does Okay, so they're piecing together whether it's to get the two miles. We've dealt with this in soil and water
for mostly really since day eight since the buffer law. >> It's been a interesting time. >> Yeah. So once this is finalized there I and I will consult with the DNR on this,
but there could be some updates to our county shoreland zoning map as a as a result of this of this project just to make sure that they you know we can have a public waters in the state that doesn't um fall under um shoreland zoning for example. Um there can be
public waters wetlands or anything that'd be under 25 acres. we don't necessarily have to have shoreland zoning around and there's a lot of of public waters in the county that don't meet that criteria. Um water courses that would be added we'll probably have
to to modify uh and add shoreland zoning to that. So that's something that that could happen too. Um that is an implication for for the county for the planning commission and and and the board as well coming up in the future is doing an update to that
>> could cause some problems for green bins going in or different >> Yeah. And just kind of a cursory look at it. Um you know Erica's done a really good job of of diving into this too is there could be some potential impacts
along the Felted Creek area to um gravel mining operations. Okay, thank you. >> The other new business I have is is that we do have our um officer elections, annual officer elections in February.
So, please start campaigning if you haven't already. Um and uh yep, that'll take place at our February meeting. Any questions about that at all? And then finally, it looks like the uh
IRS mileage rate did go up 2 cents. So, you're all getting a little pay raise uh this year. So, going from 70 to 72 something. So, >> Mr. Mr. Chair and Matt, when will the county commission act on our
recommendation for zoning? >> With that recommendation, I would like to speak with the petitioner and make sure that we find a time that works for his schedule. Um, >> I think it also has to deal there might be one or two meetings that we have are
short commissioners because of travel issues. So, we'll >> we would want to have a full board >> once we get that. Yes. Once we get that, we'll communicate to you. >> Yep. And I'm happy to keep the planning commission updated just by email about
when that would take place. >> Be great. >> Anybody else have anything to add? >> I just wanted to say thank you to you guys um for reappointing me um even though I wasn't here at that meeting. So, I appreciate it.
>> Good to have you here. >> Did it tell you what else we volunteered you for? >> I'm I'm scared. uh needing to be discussed this evening. Look for a motion to adjurnn. >> So second >> motion by Laura, seconded by Ashley. All
those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone.