as printed. So move second. >> Motion's been made by Tim and seconded by Dennis. Um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Um minutes were sent out in the same packet.
Look for a motion to approve. >> Motion's been made to approve the minutes as printed. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay. Now look for a motion to open the
public hearing. opposed. Hearing is open. Take it away, Matt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to the property line setback shared with parcel ID23.011.4801
on parcel ID23.011.48000 and part of the east half of the southeast quarter. Section 11, Township 140 North, Range, 48 West, Oakport Township. Uh so location of this is just uh straight
north of Dworth um and east a little bit of of County 9. Uh the zoning on the property is agricultural general. There's some flood fringe um flood plane fringe zoning to the east. Uh they're
both residential and agriculture cultural. They have residence on each parcel and multiple egg out buildings. So the applicant uh Ryan Zimmerman would like to construct an approximately 27,000 square foot egg office shop and
storage building. Most of that would be on parcel on this parcel here, the big larger parcel. Uh there there will likely be some encroachment though into um parcel the the smaller parcel. Um
both properties are owned by Jerry Zimmerman. I think he's here with us uh this evening. Uh they can't be combined per code because they each have a a residence on them. Uh the applicant's practical difficulty that he gave is he'd like to be 12 comply with that 125
ft road centerline setback. So really looking for a variance to this sideyard setback which is 10 feet um for accessory structures and 15 feet for principal structures.
Uh this could potentially be resolved um with a boundary line adjustment where you would simply take this property line and it doesn't show up as well as I would have hoped on the screen, but they follow that dash line
and just essentially bump out this property line here. Could potentially do that. Um other outbuildings though could be impacted by that as well. um if this was to um straddle the this property line, I
did check with the assessor on any assessment um or valuation property tax implications and she didn't she said there wouldn't be any um from our comprehensive plan. The most I guess applicable goal and objective to
this request would be to maintain and operate a accessible, safe and efficient transportation system uh for the movement of people goods in the county. Um and that's one of the reason main reasons why we have these road setbacks.
So ultimately here you would guess need to determine um whether the applicant has practical difficulty that meets that three-factor test that's found in statute that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner uh not permitted by 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. Any questions for me at all? >> Yep, I got one. Um, we were just talking
about the setbacks. Is the only county got the 125? Is that's Township Road right there? >> Yep. And that would count for the for the county that because it's not in it 90. >> It's a 125, >> is it? Okay. Yep. Okay. Yep. Go ahead.
Any other questions for me at all? Okay. Would the applicant care to speak? Okay. Is there anybody online or in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? Is there anyone in the audience that on or online that wishes to speak for or
against? Is there anyone in the audience or online that wishes to speak for or against? Um, no question. No more questions for Matt. >> Hearing no questions. Look for a motion to close the public hearing.
>> Motion by Tim. >> A second. >> Second by Travis. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. public hearing is closed. >> So, Mr. Chair, just a a quick reminder that since the the
board of commissioners did adopt our new um Klay County Land Development Subdivision ordinance on June 3rd, our findings have changed a little bit in that um they've gotten a little more succinct. So, just just a note there. They're largely
the same. Um just some questions have been basically or some of the findings have been consolidated and again I still did draft uh draft findings um for this request that you they're
your findings they're you're free to uh change as you see fit or keep the same. >> Okay. We will now go through the findings of fact. Um, is the granting of this variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Klay
County Land Development Code? >> Yes. >> Yeses. Is the requested variance consistent with the Klay County Comprehensive Land Use? >> Yes.
Does the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict letter of the Klay County Land Development Code by demonstrating um that the applicant Do I need to go through those?
>> I would go through those just A through C. Yep. >> Yep. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. 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 any other circumstances over which a landowner has
no control or influence. and granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the property's locality. >> Yes, >> I definitely agree. Would
the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Klay County Land Development Code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance?
>> Yes. >> Is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty? >> Yes. The variance is limited to the setback along the common property line and does
not affect other setback requirements. It allows functional site use. Oh, sorry. Does the variance request meet all below criteria? No variance shall be granted where any of the
following conditions are not met. adequate sewage systems or water supply capabilities can be provided. >> Yes. >> Part of the building is likely to become a temporary agricultural housing in the
future. An interimm use permit is required for that. Septic and water supply capabilities can be assessed at the time because they'll need to come back in or another another hearing. Um so B the plate of the land owner or
hardship is not due to circumstances created by the land owner. >> The dual residential parial configuration was not created by the applicant and cannot be resolved through parcel combination due to zoning
recommend limitations. And I would say that the answer is yes. There also >> pardon >> the variance. Oh, the variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the zoning district.
>> Okay. Yep, I did. There would not be significant adverse effect on public health or safety. Okay. A staff has proposed two conditions. We can add, subtract,
leave the same as you choose. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Um, condition number one is that the
property line must be located by a licensed land surveyor. And condition two is that an encroachment easement describing the degree of encroachment be recorded against both properties as legally
described. I've got in my notes that that makes a lot of sense because who knows what will happen 20 years down the road and there's a good description a legal easement.
>> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chair, I think the only rationale for including that condition was to just so you could um >> 100% identify >> the degree of how many feet into the other property the building is encroaching. So that's known with certainty. Um that was the only
reasoning for adding that condition and not necessarily even a survey, just locating that property line. And I would like to keep it there because I'm in a situation now where the property that my wife and I own, it was all done by legal description.
>> There isn't a no feat or Yeah. Well, I saw the conditions obviously when reading through the findings and facts. I think both of the findings are warranted in this case. Okay.
So, look for a motion to approve, disapprove, or amend. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Motion by Travis. >> Second. >> Second by Dennis to approve the variance with conditions one and
two. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Varian is approved. Okay. Okay. Any unfinished business, Mr. Matt? >> Uh, no unfinished business.
>> How about new business? No new business unless anyone wants to um take a spin through the new code. Otherwise, I'm um going to plan on sending it to you all and just highlighting the >> primarily the the board
>> shortened up a bit. >> What's that? >> I said it got shortened up quite a bit. >> This the findings. Yes. Mhm. >> Yep. Yep. Um and then the code itself I think was is a little longer. It's about
208 pages. So I think before it was like 170 something but but yeah for for in accordance with statute essentially that practical difficulty for variances is that those three
factors essentially is the kind of the heart of that. So, um, just making it more focused on on that I think was key as opposed to adding a lot of additional criteria that may not be necessary when
considering a variance. >> Okay. Apparently, nobody wants to talk about the twins. So, >> we we haven't went over a whole lot on the flood hazard zones. you know, we haven't had too many uh meetings on that. Could we go through that?
>> One thing I could do um is I could reach out to I could put something together for our next meeting or I could reach out to um the DNR and they're always happy to come. They have their flood plane um uh flood plane
manager who is very good at outreach and would be willing to to give kind of an overview of that. Um with regards to findings, um there are two kind of attachments to these findings and they only really come
into play if um the property is in a shoreland district or if it's in um a flood what's called a special flood hazard area or flood hazard zone for shoreland really. Um
just looking at a conform checking that there's a conforming sewage treatment system present. Um and that's in a that's in uh Minnesota rule 7080 I believe is um a septic for flood plan for flood hazard zones. um if the
property is in a flood hazard zone, there's a number of of questions um or findings that that would need to be made positive. You'd have to make positive findings for these. So, we don't want to grant variances that would result in a
lower degree of flood protection than what the regulatory flood protection elevation is. So, that's what you could legally build at and that varies um from property to property. Uh there are different types of um flood protection that you can do that would be
below that essentially. Um uh making sure that any variance wouldn't increase flood levels um elsewhere. And then you have to meet these kind of um three criteria here. If there's a good ch good sufficient cause in
granting the variance um failure would exalt in result in hardship. Um wouldn't result in increased flood heights, thrust to public safety, uh extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud or victimization of the public or conflict
with exist existing local laws and ordinances. Um and then does it grant the minimum necessary deviation from the um considering the flood hazard to afford relief. So you can see there's some similarities here between our um
findings that we do for every single um variance asking if there is exceptional hardship. Um if it's the minimum variance necessary to grant relief um and really what these come from are
essentially FEMA. So, our um just the federal um flood regulations and then the state flood regulations as well. >> And these are likely to change some when the diversion is completed.
>> So, these findings won't necessarily change um unless there's changes to um state statute or state rule or the federal code. Um, then there could be potentially some changes. Uh, with the
diversion though, there will definitely be changes to the flood plane in areas that um are in the flood plane currently. So, I've looked at, for example, in the past couple weeks two properties that um
are currently in the flood plane. Once the diversion is complete, they will not be in the flood plane anymore. It's a long process though to get that stuff lifted. >> Yep. I think the the it's anticipated to be complete in 2027. Then you still have
to get the all the levies certified by FEMA and that usually can take a year. So should be operational if everything goes according to plan by 2028 2029.
Yep. But that will um Yep. Some did the anything for think about this the setback of for building next to water like some of the ones we've done for Lee Lake. Did that change the setbacks? Yes, they
did change. Yep. So, typically just in general typically it's we used to have like a 200 foot setback. Now it's 150 for most bodies of water um in Klay County. Turtle Lake obviously is a little different because it's a
different type of lake. Um Yep. Yep. So >> yeah, we uh attempted to line that up with the state so the state and the county were >> in unison. Yep. Becker County can be
different if they want because they're >> Yeah. So, I just know you talked about that that that might change. So, >> yep, that did change. >> Any other questions? The code too is um
on the county website. >> Yep. And it's currently um living in our planning and zoning page here. But eventually where it will go is what
they're we're working on now is getting it over into this county code. And the county code is here. And so the county code is um all the laws of the county. And so we have title
1 through seven right now. And this will eventually be uh title 8. So you'll be able to just find it here. It'll be all online. It won't be like a separate document that opens up. You certainly can get that if you want. You'll be able to search it. Um so should be easier to
find things. So that's they're going through that process now of it's called codification. Okay. Hearing no further discussion, look for a motion to adjurnn. Motion by Tim. >> I'll second. >> Second by Travis. All those in favor say
I. >> I. >> Motion is carried. Meeting is adjourned.