go ahead go ahead and call the Planning Commission for February 12th to order um and start by approving the agenda is there any changes to the agenda or and the minutes from last month's
meeting I move that we approve the agenda and the meeting minutes as submitted I'll second that any more discussion all in favor I I I uh new business election of
officers I don't we do it every year and I don't really remember procedure Mr chair um one recommendation I'd like to make is when you um vote on something an A or an A that you also raise your hand because sometimes the microphones may
not pick up and so it's easier for the public and for Diana she's taking minutes to know who is doing that so we have a visual and an audit signal so just a suggestion thank you I've received that suggestion before on the board from our
public also if I may Mr chair um probably should have added this to the agenda before we do the election of officers would you guys like to go along the row and introduce yourselves and kind of what your maybe experience on the board or familiarity if you're a new member we have two new members with us
tonight and it just might be nice if everybody greets each other that' be great let's start on that okay um my name is Jeff Lee I currently live in luten kind of between Cascade Beach Road and Highway 61 um I've been the commission for two
years is that right a little over two um I've been a property owner up in Cook County since 1994 and I've lived here fulltime since 2022 and my background is um I've worked for a number of cities and worked for a large consulting
firm so I sometimes Tire of public meetings but this is much more fun because I'm on this side of the public meeting so uh my name is Paul Stucker I live in hoveland and I have been on Planning
Commission and board of adjustment for just about two years now as well hi I'm Courtney qu um first meeting new member and I grew up in grar my husband and I have the Holiday Circle K
in town and and um yeah I'm Charlie lebot grew up in Cook County in hoveland um been on both sides of this I've been on the board for a long time I I don't know how many years
eight years or something so um oh you were on it when I did my last um I lost track it's been a while so so Brad San uh was in the Marine Corps for 21 years that large consulting company did a lot
of it security stuff so when things start getting technical they'll hear me start speaking up and awful lot on that stuff um and then the uh been living here since 2022 joined the board May of 22 and uh I have gone
through two variances and a conditional use permit on on that side of the table so I I agree with your comment made before the meeting started it makes a difference having that understanding I'm Sheila weav I'm a new member uh I live on Pike Lake and I ran
ineva in the hallway and here I am welcome we're glad to have you I'm Anne Sullivan District Four commissioner this is my fifth year serving on the Planning Commission and um my background and experience prior to becoming a commissioner was as an educator so I was
a teacher for 22 years years then I worked in staff development and I was a school administrator and I did a lot of Emergency Management planning and um so when covid hit and we were in an emergency that's when I
stepped up to be a commissioner and have continue that it's a pleasure to be here I am a non-voting member of this group and so again this group is an Advisory Board only and so after you make recommendations I take those to the
Board of Commissioners and it's very helpful having a county commissioner who's been also in these meetings to help convey you know your decision making to the Board of Commissioners for their decision um I was thinking Mr chair that it might be helpful for this officer duties of the officers part of
our agenda item I could read from our bylaws what the duties from our bylaws are listed out as for each of these we've got the chair and then the vice chair and then technically there's a secretary position but we do recognize that in our bylaws that that's does done by Land Services staff so that's okay
with you that that would be great great so per section 4.01 in the Planning Commission bylaws the chair shall have the following responsibilities number one supervise the Affairs of the commission number two preside at all meetings number three create and appoint
subcommittee members as may be necessary and shall be ex officio member on all committees number four may vote on all issues n it says may doesn't have to be some I've been on some boards where the chair doesn't vote and some chair boards
where the chair does vote um number five schedule special meetings staff do that too sometimes and number six determine meeting location in event change is needed prior to regularly scheduled meetings so historically it's mostly presiding over
these meetings but as you can tell we could be more functional as things get more complex and do more with those duties so that is the role of the chair for this board and now you may vote and make decisions so you probably take nominations I don't think we have anything on here like a
formal nomination process process just throw that out to the board to I'll nominate Charlie Leota to be chair I'll second any other nominations do you ask if people want to be
chair could be relevant to accept I I am willing to do it okay call for a vote all in favor say I I I opposed to anyone there we go Vice chair if you
read the description that that great thank you so the vice chair shall have the following responsibilities perform those duties delegated by the chair and number two act as chair in the event of the chair's illness disability absence from the meeting absence from the county
or not being readily available to function as chair Mr chair I'd like to nominate Brad Silman for vice chair okay we got a nomination do we have any other nominations I'm willing willing I will
second the nomination for second for that all in favor for Brad for vice chair I I opposed hearing none there we go got that done we'll go into
Item B proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance all right so a lot of the items in these amendments are items that staff have recognized and been implementing as policies more or less over the last
couple of years and then some of these items are things that we've just identified maybe are more burdensome regulations than we need and we kind of perceive some ways to be more flexible with property owners in a way that won't be uh an issue for people so I will walk through this with
you um and since there's nobody here for the public hearing um you know I'm I'm comfortable if you guys want to ask me questions as I talk through each of these items because this is a little bit more of a broader scope of things if that's okay with you Mr chair I think that would be a good way to do that
okay um so I did include some background in the cover memo about the purpose of the Cook County zoning ordinance which we always want to be aligned with our changes to be in line with those purposes so the purpose statement of to promote the health safety morals and general welfare of the inhabitants by
dividing the county into zones and regulating therein the uses of land and the placement of all structures with a view to encouraging the most appropriate use of the land in the county and to recognize and Preserve the economic and natural environmental values of all lands within the
county and I stated that given evolving nature of development patterns a periodic review and update to this ordinance is necessary to satisfy our legal requirements this was noticed in the Cook County News Herald and we also sent notices to County state and federal agencies the townships the City of Grand
marray the NorthShore management board and Grand Portage I did received one written comment to those legal notices from the DNR and they provided some um they they do pretty hefty reviews of ordinance revisions to make sure they're in compliance with State Shoreland
regulations and they had determined that uh the proposed changes were substantially compliant with Statewide rules and approved these proposed ordinance revisions without conditions they did provide some highly recommended changes for consideration that I'll talk
about once we get to the bluff standards so in my in in your packet itself it it may look a little red depending on what pages you're looking at but Pages 8 through um 13 of the packet itself is my staff
narrative the green writing is the language that I use to help provide interpretation of the proposed ordinance language so as we go through this the green language is my interpretation the blue underlined are proposed additions into the ordinance and the red striketh
through is proposed deletions from the ordinance the remainder at the back of that package then is the U dnr's um letter which can look very similar because they just wrote their comments into the legal notice so just didn't want people to get lost as we get
started so beginning on page eight of 27 uh I would like to add in a figure one and a figure two that includes an illustration of the bluff and the bluff Impact Zone and this was one thing that the DNR had uh a comment on that as
we're looking at Bluff uh definition with these figures Lake Superior does have a specific characteristic that we need to take into consideration when we calculate Bluffs so the DNR comment is essentially recommending an addition to
clarify bluff definition language I view this as a very nice addition to help clarify that I was actually planning on adding that in future revisions itself so since they already proposed that I think that makes sense and I did a screenshot of the dnr's letter in
between that green text on page n that shows uh DNR area hydrologists comment to include adding that elevation of Lake Superior when we do our bluff definition uh interpretations and then also to integrate that um interpretation into
the actual figure itself so that's the the bluff part of things um these figures I think will really help convey to land owners when we're trying to explain what a bluff is because explaining that over a phone is not an easy task sometimes so any questions
about that bluff definition component um so there's go ahead sorry I was there's a text box inserted in that uh screenshot and there's red text in there is that is that what they asked you to add DB1 and db2
comments the yeah yep so that was so I'll read that out so DB1 comment this is where the DNR suggested adding in the ordinary high water level of Lake Superior set at 60 1.5 continued on um she said that the county should consider including the ordinary high water level
elevation for Lake Superior as defined by the norstrom management board in the bluff definition so that red text is from the DNR proposing addition so I would recommend that we adopt those additions so um I had I had I had a question on that in a comment I guess it
seems like that makes sense to add that but it should say ohw for like care because many Inland Lakes do not have an established ohw mhm and trust me it's not fun to do it yeah you get to know administrative law judges really well
right she did an asterisk so it's for Lake Superior um so on Item B she added an asterisk for the slope Rises 25 ft above the ordinary high water level of the water body and then she added the asterisk and then the asterisk would lead you to say the ordinary high water
level of Lake Superior is set at this would that address that concern um from my perspective they the bluff definition is the same but then there's a sub paragraph says for Lake
Superior um you know we add this language that they' recommended and then there's a second sub paragraph that says for Inland Lakes if there isn't one established then it has to be calculated MH um
let me pull up my zoning ordinance real quick okay because we have a lot of definitions included in the zoning ordinance and I think ordinary high water levels already defined but I will confirm yeah because you're right because normally it's o w is typically
the transition from aquatic to terrestrial vegetation and in this case Lake Superior has got a set elevation right whereas the rest of the Lakes typically don't so ordinary high water level ation is defined in the C County zoning
ordinance um under sections 2.61 and 2.62 um so ordinary high water elevation ohw is a measure of water surface level used by the Minnesota DNR to define the water line to be used when determining Shoreline
setbacks see definition in section 2.59 which refers a person to the norshore management Zone and then that second definition I referred to ordinary high water level is a much longer definition so as a reference to the body
boundary of public Waters and wetlands which is determined as the margin where aquatic vegetation changes to terrestrial vegetation as caused by the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient length of time to leave evidence on the landscape the level of water at this margin is it
the high ordinary high water elevation other terms used in this ordinance which shall have equal definition are Shoreline and normal high water mark I think as staff we haven't had any issues using the definitions we already have and historically when we do bluff
definitions we have been using the 61.5 for doing Bluff analysis so I didn't do a tremendous amount of background research because I wasn't quite anticipating us to go into this this corner of detail cuz that that elevation is for
like superior but not any other Lake yeah and that's what Danny's recommendation here is too she says high water level Lake Superior set a 601 right and so if with this text box I think this is what Brad's getting at it just says always orary high water
level you're saying in the figure yeah yeah yeah if you want we don't have to accept these changes I can think through it some more I can't see of a circumstance where this would be causing more confusion I live in a world where if it
can be misunderstood it will be yeah yeah well I've been applying these Bluff definitions on Lake Superior for nine years so I I think uh I I think this would clarify things but I'd be more than happy you know I've got more Shoreland regulations coming up in future years so or future months uh if
you want to not address this right now um I think this is clarifying more and and from a staff's perspective you know we we have to make judgment calls all the time we're dealing with lots and lots of different shaped properties applying black and white rules on Shades
of Gray Landscapes if you will um and that's why we have our appeals process to come to you guys if people ever feel like we're you know being erroneous in our application of things so um how however you you want to feel about moving forward with this I'm comfortable
either way I I think just let's defer this one okay to you know another month and then um we can get a chance to just play with the wording a little bit because I think it's just a just a breakout because the DNR has asked us to put in the the 61 and2 ft whatever that
was so the figure one and two you don't want to include those or you don't want to include I like the figures I do want the figures to go into the order okay eventually okay so just not the DNR Amendment right okay at least not now and you were thinking you would add the
DNR Amendment yep okay I think adding the DNR Amendment um because I know Lake County had um some ran into some issues because that 61.5 wasn't defined in their bluff definition they had a surveyor come in and say um try to argue
with them about where that bluff definition begins at so that's why there's a movement to get this definition codified in ordinances locally so one suggestion I might have because I'm assuming the the text that's
ahead of um Bentley's letter is the text that you proposed correct which text the that starts with the agenda item and then the text that's after Cliff's letter is what the DN are
proposed but you in this first version I don't know how else to explain it you have the aster with the ohw level for Lake Superior that was the dnr's addition right yep and I guess all for me all that would take is to say on all
other Lakes the DNR determined ohw level so that it's clear to people that the 601 elevation is not a applied to other Lakes it's only applied to the Lake Superior Shoreline M does that make
sense does that help or I don't know so you're saying keep it as is but add an aster that says all other Inland Lakes see cuz the way this is re reading you know it says Lake Superior elevation
is the ohwl is 6 61.5 for Lake Superior and then it says DNR determined ohw usually permanent vegetation line on Lake Superior will be utilized for all public Waters related
issues but if we've already that seems like it's confusing to me because we've already got a set elevation for Lake Superior all the other Lakes are determined based on that ohw determination and that lake Lake
Superior being in that second sentence makes it confusing MH is that I don't know if I'm conveying that thought would it make it better if it was an asterisk and then it said four Lake
Superior colen and then what the DNR those two sentences provided by the DNR that way was made really clear that those two sentences only apply to Lake Superior and not Inland Lakes so I don't want to mess with this definition at all for Inland L right
right no there's nothing wrong with the definition but it's like not conveying that that 61.5 might relate to anything other than Lake Superior yeah so I agree with you just putting an asri and saying that number only refers to Lake Superior
I think that would clear mhm it's the last Clause that feels sloppy for all public water related issues MH applies to everything yeah not just like Superior right right correct that's a good way to say it yeah yeah and that's what the DNR wrote maybe
confusing maybe for right now like I don't I want to be cautious about amending Danny's language because the DNR hasn't reviewed anything that we would potentially change to their recommended language although I agree I understand the ambiguity of that second sentence um so maybe we I I would
recommend you know we we keep what staff originally noticed for figure one and two adding in those we we not include the DNR recommended language for maybe the second sentence I think getting the 61.5 would be really helpful to clarify
the intent of what uh the DNR hydrologist wanted and we just not include that second sentence and then I can talk with um the area hydrologist some more to see if she's in favor of better language for that second that works for me okay same
yeah I promise the whole rest of this is not that complicated I sold this as not being a complicated sudden changes oh ohws are not easy no no matter what rules I I will say that I I think it's a really
good initiative to bring visuals into the zoning really agree with that having looked at other counties I think you know ours is a big block of text that is hard to access if you're not part of this world and there there's a lot of
different opportunities I think to utilize visuals in the zoning ordinance so I think it's a good initiative cool I'll keep looking for more opportunities to add in those type of explanations um and then what was our appetite on the
proposed that so on page nine of the St of the pack the DNR hydrologist had included a parentheses saying orinary or ordinary high water level if same as toe this makes sense to me as a person who's applied these rules but I want to see if
that's included as being okay too yeah I had no problem that yeah that just means your bluff your bluff extends below the water so the jurisdictional area is from water line up mhm I think it's kind of implied by the
text behind the arrow but I don't think it's a problem to reiterate it but all right I mean so hopefully people understand too that there can be a toll Bluff that's not the ohw right yep toll
Bluff can be we had one just it could be 900 fet away from a lake yeah it was December right H it was December when we were doing the board of adjustment stuff that we had a to of the bluff that was not not on the water mhm yeah so the bluff definition as as you guys had on
there applies anywhere you're in Shoreland area and Shoreland is designated within 1,000 ft of a lake or 300 ft from a river or the NorthShore management Zone and so that bluff definition gets applied anytime you have a slope of 30% or greater rising 25t or
more above that ordinary high water level that we just had a lengthy discussion about and it drains towards the lake those are kind of like the four four criteria and the DNR has a lot of great guidance related to that so any more questions or conversation
about Bluffs Great um so section 2.23 A minor revision to the definition of bunk house for residential uses uh we proposed to strike the word accessory uh it's partially problematic because at the end of our zoning ordinance we have a list
of of times a person does not need a land use permit you're Exempted from a land use permit if or this that and the other thing and one of those things is an accessory structure less than 161 Square ft but we would expect a land use permit for anything somebody is being
sleeping in a dwelling type structure like a bunk house so calling a bunk house an accessory structure and then also saying accessory structures don't need permits but then saying your bunk house needs a permit very confusing for people so I would propose and also
accessory means that there's another principal use on the property because we have so much recreational land up here quite often people just want to have the you know hunting land and they just want a very simple rustic bunk house so that would be the Principal structure not really an accessory structure so
semantics a little bit but I propose just striking the word accessory and that would make everything a lot clear for everyone AG great all right I'm hopeful this next session doesn't get complicated but after the bluff conversation I don't
know so um I met with some of our land services staff to try to clarify things about recreational vehicles so um there are time so we've got three different recreational vehicle definitions in our zoning ordinance which feels excessive
but it is what it is um so section 2.71 recreational vehicle the proposed change there is to clarify that Park models and and tiny homes can qualify as recreational vehicles because these types of structures are brought in on a
chassis and quite often are kept on a chassis they're not put on the grounds like a normal structure um now would be a good time so that I can clear any thoughts in your brain um when we talk about recreational vehicles our office approaches them from
kind of two perspectives one they're eligible the tiny homes and park models specifically they can be issued a land use permit if they are converted to look like a normal structure which would include skirting covering the tow hitch a couple of other things and they need a
land use permit and they take kind of one of your dwellings they they count as a dwelling on your property so that's one thing we can do with Park models and tiny homes the other way we approach Park models and tiny homes is through the RV permit if somebody just wants to bring the tiny home out on their
property and it's just there they they're not going to do any covering or anything we uh require that recreational vehicle license which is an annual license through our office um and then sometimes there's like incidental use like it's on my property for the hunting season and then it goes home and then we
require no permits and that's kind of I wanted to clarify just a length of time so um so incidental use recreational vehicle uh it a period of time I'm just throwing out no longer than 9 months it covers a whole summer season up here
pretty easily um and then removes it from the property for storage at an alternative property so that's the language we kind of came up with and then uh section 2.73 permanent seasonal use so this is
um clarifying to people that these recreational vehicles are subject to permitting requirements if they're on the property permanently and then we're also including a definition for tiny home and um I will say as staff we spent
a lot of time talking about tiny homes because they get complicated pretty quickly um I know that from a purist perspective including Park models and the definition of tiny home might might not be compatible to some folks from the
zoning land use perspective I don't truly see a big difference in how we do the permitting and so that's my perspective on why as staff are proposing to just say at the end of that tiny home definition Park models are also included in this definition for the purposes of permit
requirements so um I've been well made well aware there's a difference between Park models and tiny homes but I kind of don't care that much from a zoning perspective trying to keep it simple so what is a park model that's a great question it is uh it's got all these I
think the state the an with the building code there's like a page long definition but they're like these modular units that come in on a chassis they're kind of like I think they're like tiny homes but people get offended when I say that so I did not come prepared with the park model definition but they're I know
they're like manufactured they're meeting certain building standards um people can dwell in them that's the main difference is the standards applied I mean tiny homes kind of just are often DIY okay you know yeah so it's basically
the same plastic trailer house okay no no Park models are smaller the smaller units of those that's my understanding there's there's been quite a movement in the that tiny home space to you know give people basically it's a everything on one floor kind of house but it's it's
it's like you know a t 120 square ft you know it's 12 by 10 right you know it's it's or something like that right as staff we discussed whether or not it mattered to put in some kind of square footage requirement and it just seemed
unnecessarily I like the way you got it so just to clarify we're we'll get to the like making it look like a house or not part but a tiny home can you can either permanent administratively as an
RV or get a land use permit and call it a structure we're fine with either now okay that's what the rules in here are going to clarify yes which a little Wiggly right as long as it's only there for nine months well that's where you don't need a permit that's an incidentally that's that's the
incidental use part so the 2.72 is incidental use that's where it we as staff we can say okay if it's there for less than 9 months you don't need a permit with us okay if it's there for more than 9 months okay let's talk through which of these two permitting routes what is your use level going to
be so so that would allow somebody to bring a camper or a trailer onto property and technically leave it there and use that as their cabin yeah and leaving 2.73 I I did that I brought a fifth wheel trailer onto the property
and left it there for 2 years and that's already a thing yep that's not an issue at all the policy part of here the thing that our office has been doing without real Clarity in the ordinance is kind of what Paul described about tiny homes and these Park models things that are brought in on these on
these chassis and like we we're expecting people to like do something to get qualified for the land use permit other than just make it look like an RV so yeah so I'm mostly putting down on paper what we been doing for like the
last 10 years and haven't had a lot of issues with doing it that way so we we will Circle back just the order of how the ordinance is laid out we will Circle back to the RV stuff in a little bit okay so the next so we can go back to those definitions once we're talking
through other stuff it might matter might not um so page 11 is where I'm at and so um I'm proposing that we be more uh less restrictive I would say uh with our
accessory structures in the far one two and three Zone districts um for my perspective I've been in this County for three years now we've required a few conditional use permits for these larger accessory structures and in the far one two and three Zone districts um I think
I think it wouldn't be problematic to be more lenient on these this is not a set of rules that comes from anywhere other than Cook County these are local rules and regulations so we have a lot of flexibility in making them how they need to be to meet our needs um so the
proposed changes so the far one again that's that 20 acre minimum lot area zone District often tucked away in the woods far away from roads so I would propose that we not require conditional uses for any sized accessory structure
um it's it would be aligned I think with the recreational nature of that zone district and that we just let staff work with people people on the permitted uses as is um far 2 uh again same thing uh far 2 is the 10 acre minimum lot size
Zone District uh typically it's between the far one zone district and getting towards the road in some cases it's the Road Corridor itself on certain trails in the county and then for the far three uh I would recommend that we
clarify um you you can can have accessory structures up to 3,000 square ft without the need for a conditional use permit and it can be the first structure that's put on the property I don't I don't specifically see a need to have a dwelling on the property before you put in the accessory structure um
and then the conditional uses uh to say that accessory structures in excess of 3,000 square ft period trigger a conditional use permit the current language for for these conditional use accessories structures
had like a comma and then it said any more than one and the language as staff we had a lot of confusion on like is it just one of these things does there need to be another structure on the property it was very ambiguous and vague so um
part of the goal here is to find more efficiency in our permitting process we don't need to have unnecessary conditional use permits in places where we don't feel that they're necessary and you know the distinction between permitted uses and conditional uses the idea of permitted uses are those are
things that aren't problematic if if everybody had one of these on their property in that zone District it would not cause a problem similar to how a single family residential Zone District doesn't matter if every person has a house on their property that's kind of what the Zone district is for
conditional uses by definition are in any unlimited number or without conditions they could cause a problem so we put them through the conditional use process to um Define the use quantify the use put on conditions to address
concerns with the far three Zone District you know the difference there between far one and two in my mind is that far three is the one that's going to be on smaller Lots so 5 acre minimum lot sizes and usually right along Road corridors so they're going to be much
more visible to the traveling public whereas far two and far one they're out in the woods typically much more remote typically much larger Lots so that is kind of the landscape of our accessory structure and I'm not married to any of
these proposals I will take no offense if you guys think let's just stick with what you got I would just want to do some punctuation changes to clarify things so I think it looks good yeah I definitely you know going all the way even back to the the
previous ones the clarity that you brought on the smaller vehicles of recreational use setting time zones and expectations 9 months is generous you know we know how fast the snow and how cold it gets around here so they're going to get all the way through deer season without a problem and then be able to remove it so
you took care of that that would be where you'd run into a challenge and then the um and I agree with you on these you know that some of the you start getting into those far out districts you know where it's out in the middle of nowhere and gu going you know somebody's got to go
through a lot to just say all I want to do is put up a pole bar and so put my snowmobiles up you know go ahead mhm Y is there any is there any effective limit then if you
put this in place uh I mean there's probably some coverage of the lot limits that are inherent yeah that's a great question Paul as I was going through our zoning ordinance it occurred to me that we actually don't have a lot coverage requirements in non Shoreland
areas uh so to that point I'm considering proposing adding that uh at a later time that was after I had already noticed all of these we have a 10% impervious limit Shoreland areas have a lot of impervious surface coverage yeah we've got different
definitions and different Zone districts um Shoreland is very well covered in the impervious surface coverage area um so yeah I would I would be totally happy too if we wanted to punt on this and have this in a later zoning revision to have associated lot coverage
requirements yeah I think I'm I guess I'm just playing Devil's Advocate with it right I mean you take the LD you take the lid off then mhm I can build a 50,000 sqt Warehouse back there you know is it feels a little too I'm I'm in
general in favor of you know not getting in people's way on things that make sense but I also think this takes the lid too far off sure in my mind so leaving it like this is saying you can take your 20 acre and build a basically
19 acre building yeah that's how I read it I mean yeah as long as you meet your set yeah and that's exactly what this conversation should be because it's really hard to imagine every interpretation of these changes and and we unfortunately we'll only find out by
applying them down the road and we'll say well one of the things that we were charged with BL right to remember the character of the county you know and so that is a good point you brought up Paul it really helps say you know somebody will push it too far some
proposed changes could be clarifying you know a different square footage is 3,000 square ft you know it's we do get get some larger buildings that get beyond that or um the I think that any more than one accessory structure without the
existence existence of a principal structure it it's just kind of confusing to me this like accessory principle thing um I didn't have that at the county I worked at before here and it just always kind of throws me through a loop so so the definition of accessory
structure MH maybe we should go back to that just to see we're out of curiosity because I don't think that has a size limited on a as a stay alone no it's all very fuzzy and then you just to talk Brad about you know having nice clear things this is where vague and ambiguous
and interpretation there's you can't do everything perfect accessory structure is defined as a structure on the same lot with and customarily incidental and subordinate to a principal structure that's it it's not helpful no
I mean 3,000 square fet is big I mean that's a house so is there a reason to take out that well people have come with bigger things than that because they're making you know equipment sheds and yeah
tractors cars they've got track hose and semis and you know like when Bloomberg construction's in here I know those guys they're you know they're working on dump trucks all winter right you know and uh and big ones mhm I think maybe
impervious surface isn't the way to address it though um CU that creates other issues with parking lots and um I guess I I would suggest that probably um there is uh difficulties in building
large structures so maybe in far one and two it isn't a concern cuz someone's not really going to go build a 10 acre building um without having triggered some other uh non-permitted use some business some other reason to have to
come in in here they'll trigger a grading per there'll be other things that would trigger that question I think in far three maybe keeping the one accessory structure um in the residential might be a good limit to keep in it but that's just my
suggestions yeah so proposed potentially for far three may be one accessory structure in excess of 3,000 sare ft yeah and then all the other language you struck seems reasonable to me it does seem to really clean it all up and make
it simpler and I guess my my first th well I'd really like a 10,000 ft building but there's no way due to other things that I can really justify it so I mean maybe somebody can but I mean I I I think there's only so far someone can
realistically go MH so so 4.07 would stay accessory structure or structures up to 3,000 square ft is a permitted use so if I wanted to put in a p small pole shed and a greenhouse I still could yeah yeah
yeah that makes sense to me like that yeah so I have accessory structures up to 3,000 sare ft as a permitted use in Far 3 and then conditional use reads one accessory structure in excess of
3,000 square ft so then you know the way staff would view that then if someone has a 5,000 they use their one and they got a 5,000 foot accessory structure in Far 3 and then they want to come and put in another 5,000 foot we would still require them to apply for a conditional
use permit because we have a catchall phrase that allows us to consider anything not already defined it's just a higher bar on their part because you guys are intentionally recognizing one seems okay two too much it's not prohibited so they can still
ask for it so just kind of think through when we say like you're allowed one but we're not answering what more than one means that's what that would look like remind me are for commercial purposes in far one and two is that
permitted I mean cuz I recognize like you know at our scale it's not feasible to build a 10 acre building but like it is to some people that might want to utilize things I'm thinking of was when someone comes to try to hire me for
those types of projects well we almost inevitably are going to run into some Wetland issues we're going to there's other regulations that are going to be triggered um that are going to continue to limit that or likely limit that um no there's there's probably always someone
out there who could push that but yeah um yeah so we can look through the permitted uses that's a that's a really good way to approach this so for far one uh principal purpose is provided for Forest management agriculture uses and recreational activity in the less
developed areas of the county permitted uses Forest management facilities and temporary chipping debarking and Sawmill operations number two Forest harvesting and replanting based on specific management plan by the appropriate
federal state or County Agency number three Orchards harvesting of wild crops such as Marsh hay ferns Moss berries tree fruits and tree seeds collection and processing of maple syrup and livestock grazing number four dog kennels number
five single family dwelling manufactured homes and modular homes number six farming including the raising of crops and livestock number seven home occupations so that's kind of a a home type business that's in the house and I
can read that definition more later if you'd like like um number nine vacation rental home and number 10 recreational vehicle those are the things as sta we have the authority to issue permits for in that zone district and don't require special
review so somebody can't build a grocery store correct yeah I think that's helpful I think that alleviates um yeah the the unknown commercial I don't know a data center or something you know like asked that
question yesterday right Amazon like Warehouse exactly I think I guess my thought is on going back to section 4.07 on far three I I I think um leaving it as one accessory structure as permitted and
then in the conditional use would be multiple accessory structures or in structures in excess ESS of 3,000 square ft so if they wanted to have two structures of 3,000 squ ft and and 2,000
ft they'd have to come get the permit so that we'd have a chance to or whatever board sitting at the time to judge that property and see if it was really feasible mhm but but I think what Jeff was saying is if he wanted to build a 1,000 sqt shed he could also do a 1000t
greenhouse under that permitted use if it just said up to 3,000 versus limiting to one that's true okay I'm I kind of like the structure parentheses structures cuz then it does allow mhm
couple small buildings but then when they hit that like hit that 3,000 limit they got to come in for a a cup then are you thinking that it's structure a plus b plus C together
up to 3,000 square ft without a permit without a permit that's that's the way I would oh okay not Str without a conditional use I get what he so it's like my my syrup Shack and my my dog shed and all those different things I could have multiple structures mhm um as
long as they together aren't over 3,000 then I got to go for the conditional use M mhm what are your thoughts on that that a new can of worm turning that so much fun comp AR we yeah yeah it adds a
lot more on staff to do that permitting to evaluate all the existing structures it's a little bit more complicated uh in that sense we don't have anything right now that we are
doing a plus b plus c c is if you're above or below that threshold um I mean I think it's a nice a nice clear way to to do that well because I think you have it
written in here with the S so it reads it as multiple structures up to 3,000 right yeah different ways to read the same sentence this is good uh because I was thinking like you can have one structure 2500 squ ft another structure 2500 sare F feet a third structure 2500
square fet uh for a total of 7500 sare ft and I'm thinking in we may want not have that but yeah I don't think what was that Charlie I I think in far three that might not be appropriate
y but okay up to 3,000 square ft total yeah without the conditional use permit I mean that that allows to go through this process so I have a few different notes here that aren't making sense Works
they're all saying different things so we're thinking well could we go Zone District by Zone District maybe just sure see what's see what what's straightforward so far one do we think just no size restrictions is a good idea
or and we can always Workshop this some more so keep in mind when I read through those chair roles you can always make subcommittees so if we feel like there's more to flesh out and think about here I am more than happy if one or two of you guys want to step aside and work with me offline in between meetings to be a
little subcommittee I would welcome that feedback because it seems like there's little there's there's some really great considerations here I'm I'm willing subcommittee if you want I think that's up to the rest of everybody I for far one I'm good with
the proposals that you have here if other things are going to trigger them coming in I think as is is perfect yeah with the definitions you read for usage on there if we do a subcommittee I'm curious
about the the use part is always a little complicated you know okay you need this really large structure what's it going to be for far one kind of makes sense there's a lot of farming uh well we don't have a lot of farm area in this County but a lot of logging equipment or
contractor type stuff like that to me doesn't seem too much like a problem but you are kind of creating a very open accessory structure thing and it is hard to foresee every version of
development like I said I'm not married to these rules they're just they're things that we as staff always wonder if we're being overly restrictive and if there's a way to be more reasonable can you read the uses for far two M like you did for far one yeah it's
an easy thing to do I can I can I can do that far to principal purpose to provide for seasonal or permanent residential uses at a low density farming forestry operations and other rural activities are also allowed so permitted uses read
as single family dwelling manufactured home and modular homes farming including the raising of crops and livestock Forest crop plantations harvesting temporary chipping and deep barking operations Orchards and harvesting of wild crops such as Marsh
hay ferns Moss berries trees fruits and tree seeds collection and processing of maple syrup home occupations vacation rental home and recreational vehicle I paused and had a deep thought as I skimmed over the farming
one and it says the raising of crops and livestock and so someone wants to have a big old chicken hen Factory i' I've processed cups before for for livestock and those are good
things to have conditional uses for often that's that's the one thing I was thinking could be something that we feel should be thinking of I guess do we need an animal unit limit yeah it takes a lot
of chickens to get to to get to uh well it takes a lot of hogs to make a cow but it doesn't take a lot of chickens to make a hog thinking back on how those convert yeah we don't really have um the have any c requirements in our ordinance yeah
what what Jeff is referring to is you know feed lot regulations which Cook County sees almost none of it would take a lot to trigger State it's a Bayfield County thought for a long time too yeah don't we have animal limitations in this County though unless you have a sled dog
permit does that only pertain to dogs and cats not chickens I you know good question cuz I know for like dogs you can only have four yep because we had five for a while and I was like I could
probably be arrested for having five dogs yeah technically so if that falls under that could they only have four chickens technically we don't have a number of chickens so chickens fall under the definition of small livestock
which are recognized as farm animals but we don't have a quantity of it so like dogs are easy because we're a dog County so that previous boards have needed to clarify that but that was not an easy process to so that's why I'm I think if
we start getting into uses I I would I think we're we're getting into bigger discussions that probably weren't intended to have yeah yeah cuz C confined animal feeding operation kful the real issue becomes manure
management mhm and that's where they use the equivalency I think it's four pigs equals one cow and so many chickens e equal one cow and then the limits all go back to the number of cattle how many acres you need to get rid of that manure
so but I think we're getting into uses because we're concerned about the implications of taking the lid off right you know like and so I I I think yeah having a breakout sub on this to think through it a little bit
more is wise um I can also tell you uh the other option as staff when we first started having this discussion was a much smaller discussion and it was the removal of a comma in each in each of
those conditional use items where you see that red strikethrough language there is this comma in the middle of the sentence and we as staff have had endless conversations I think previous staff were not applying this in the way that grammatically you would with the
comma so often these say an an accessory structure in excess of 3,000 square ft or any more than one accessory structure without the presence of an a principal structure and previous staff we I believe applying this with a comma like
before the without the existence of a principal structure part um if we had just removed the comma if we just said it's an either or situation or if we broke them out into two items we would be consistent with how a staff you know consistent with what we've been doing
more or less like we don't have to do a full overhaul we could just remove a comma and save ourselves a bunch G NE I have looked at people and accused them of grabbing a pinch of commas out of there and sprinkling it over the paper yeah it it it feels as though these
commas weren't necessary but so that's another option too that Steph had been considering was you know hey we only see maybe two or three of these cups it kind of stinks to tell land owners yes you need you do need a cup
for that but it you know it triggers a public hearing we talk about lighting we talk about screening we talk about water drainage it's not the worst process and quite often it's it's good to be we think about things that the land owners hadn't considered in that process too so
um you know could be something that we not move forward with and I'd be totally fine with that too I would just ask that maybe we remove that comma in the middle of the conditional use part of it if you needed more options to consider as to the subcommittee one
would we have to what would we want to get this done you know I we could move forward on other amendments and just put this on the back burner I anticipate I'll be having other zoning ordinance amendments coming forth in like April or
May time frame depending on what future public hearing workload looks like um so it's an option also there's nobody pressing us to do this this was more so me just doing housekeeping so there's nobody waiting for us to you know clear
the deck on this language maybe for the depending on how the rest of the board feels maybe for the moment let's just clear up the comma and then staff can decide if they want to come back with some different changes or if we should look at having a
subcommittee to address some things so how do you guys feel about that just this is this an important topic MH y because we do see this quite a bit well and even as we started talking about chickens right it's getting more and more popular to
have a chicken cop in the backyard right especially when eggs are almost the bucket piece now well right now the zoning ordinance prohibits chickens in some parts of the County R1 city does yeah and R1 yeah but conditional use but not
prohibited the only prohibited use in this whole county is like adult entertainment in one of the Township's mixed these districts so that's right R1 youi so for R1 and R2 remove the comma
and R three keep the wording the way you have it with the corrections yeah R3 or F3 had the comma also so if we just wanted to do a a small minor change it'd be removing the comma for each of those conditional uses
categories so 4.05 b 4.06 b and 4.07 well B 11 I forgot the numbers associated with those B8 B8 and b11 so then for R3 you would keep the one accessory structure and not remove that you're saying the original language said
un accessory or us for permitted use it's not reading right let's see the original language here is UN acccessory structure in excess of 3,00 square feet or any more than one accessory structure without the
presence of a principal structure it was that presence of principal structure that caused staff a lot of confusion so the way I would read it just so we're all clear about intent is that there's two ways that you get triggered for a cup in these Zone
districts is number one you have an accessory structure and excess of the square footage that's one and then the other one is or any more than one accessory structure without the presence of a principal structure so you get you get one accessory structure without a
principal I want to put it my garage first and I'm living out of the RV while I build the house that sort of thing but if you want to build a second garage you need a cup before and that's regardless of size so two garages regardless of size you need a cup for the second
garage if there's no house on it okay so you're removing commas removing commas seems like maybe a a good starting sounds good for a good start do that let's yeah check check check I would also be happy to be on
that subcommittee to look at the language all and Brad and I would too part of it was was the question of the timing cuzz yeah I'm leaving the country Saturday for quite a for a while sure a lot of this can be like kind of email side Communications too so cool thank
you guys that was a really wonderful conversation I appreciate the efforts how many more pages do we have I don't know a few hopefully not too many uh two more pages okay we're getting there we're getting there I'm just trying to get my money's
worth audio per DMS today so uh for the RVs so section 5.17 I'm on page 12 now of the packet So currently we allow only one RV permit per parcel and we are proposing a
staff that um there be an exemption that would allow two permits per parcel only in the far one 2 and three Zone districts on conforming Parcels so conforming meaning that they're meeting the lot area lot width requirements for
those Zone districts good with that that sounds good and then we're just changing the Land Services Department phras and this is just to
reflect um there's kind of these RV standards and so it is just kind of repeating that um under these like special conditional use permit standards and this would would allow to recognize that same thing we just talked about under the cup
standards and then article 16 is where we talk about Administration enforcement and penalties so when you need permits when you don't need permits and I'm going to pull up the section of the ordinance here I should have given you a little bit more ordinance language for context in these sections because it
matters so 16. 03 D so item D and then I have item s so everything under 16.03 D is stating no land use permit shall be required for the placement of the following that's
the header that I was remissed to include in this I apologize and that is to say that solar panels mounted on the roof of a residential structure such as a house or private garage does not need a permit this has been a standard practice in our office for many years now so this is just codifying this an
ordinance has not caused problems and then item L is different it's not under item D so item L is a standalone item under the permits category of our zoning ordinance and this has again been another standard practice that our
office has been doing stating that solar panels mounted on the roof of a commercial building require land use permit solar panels mounted as free standing array on the ground require a land use permit if the array is greater than 160 ft in size and the ground mounted array is required to meet
setbacks for the Zone District it's located in uh staff's reasoning behind this so the requirement for a land use permit to mount a solar array on a commercial building has been the policy for many years this was required because of the generally large size of
commercial building arrays further freestanding ground mounted PV or solar arrays commercial or residential are considered accessory structures and become quite large as such this ongoing policy should be added to the ordinance
this has been what we've been doing probably since like 201 12 or 13 is kind of my guess so I'm good with that everybody is yep it's in keeping with the 160 Square ft we have for an accessory building it means all the
other same requirements consistent great and we have made it to a Full Circle to talk about RVs again a long and windy road so I'm on page 13 of the packet so this is where I'm
proposing again item M so 16.03 M so under permits when permits are needed so we're proposing language that states tiny homes and Park Model recreational vehicles delivered to a property on Wheels require recreational vehicle
permit if intended for permanent seasonal use these units may qualify for a land use permit if the unit is placed on a foundation or blocks has the wheels removed has skirting installed to hide the undercarriage has the tow hitch removed or covered so it is not visible
and is placed on a permanent conforming location on the property and the staff rationale is over 10 years ago a policy was developed to regulate the option for tiny homes and Park Model recreational vehicles to qualify for a land use permit the conditions for a land use permit will make these units permanent
structures on a property and they will look like small cabins so we covered a lot of that earlier on in our definitions category mhm and then my recollection is someplace else in the ordinance we talk about septic requirements that's a part
of the like the issuing of a land use permit so so land when we do land use permit for any type of habitation any dwelling that's where we have that check with environmental health to see what the waste plan is and everything like
everything about septic waste uh septic systems got pulled from the zoning ordinance years ago and got placed in the septic ordinance so we just completely lean on the septic ordinance for those types of things okay M what is considered permanent seasonal use that
was what we defined earlier good question is that the N9 months um longer than 9 months okay yeah so permanent seasonal use is the parking of the vehicle on the property throughout the year and used permanently
or intermittently subject to permitting requirements is [Music] newed so cards on the table uh we have a tiny house so I'm quite familiar with uh going through
this process and the confusion of it um so just to parse out I feel like why wouldn't I get a permanent seasonal RV MH if I had a tiny house if the both options are available
to me why would I not do that why why would you not do the RV permit yeah uh well because it's much less arduous as it's written right like it's
administrative I I don't have to do this like list of things we just talked about well when I got it years ago it expired after 2 years and I had to come in for a conditional use permit to stay uh-huh so
there is some if that's still in there the you're you go the RV route but it's an expire in two years and then you're back in Fr for I've looked at it yeah so you're asking about a l versus an RV permit yeah if you got both in front of
you that you can do it's much easier to get an RV permit I think I mean yeah they can administratively issue yeah it's you know and you can yeah you can do a I mean a land use permit is Administrative too but if you're compliance you got all yourp place and all the
other I guess like are we trying to push people in One Direction or the other like no and then my other question is because in my dealings I've been steered towards the land use permit route essentially um or basically told
like what the intention for it is is not an RV permit you'd need to do a land use permit I my I'm unclear why all these requirements are in M like what do we have against it
having wheels and being able to leave mhm but if you put it on a foundation and you cover it and you remove the the hitch then it becomes a permanent structure so it's no longer an RV yes right so how could you even have still
an RV MH at that point right and I think to your point Paul we as we don't have a dog in the game as far as trying to push people towards one way or the other these two permitting routes reflect kind of the two different intents people have for it so like I'm I brought I just
bought this thing I'm moving up here I'm living out of this thing for a while but I'm going to build a house you know it's like an RV just like Brad's RV that he had but some people like it's all I can get to live up here and I'm living in the thing and like that's like okay let's talk about your your waste plan
you know let's let's figure out what what those more long-term uses are um so just to clarify some of the expectations there are there are consequences of these two different things one of them is vacation rentals so next month I will have the vacation rental ordinance to
you for some I promise mild changes I said these were mild changes and we've been here for an hour so um but so you I'm proposing to clarify in the vacation rental ordinance that tiny homes and park models are eligible to be vacation rental units MH if they do the
land use permit route and do check the boxes to make it look like an actual structure like an actual cabin cuz Park models I don't think people can really tell them from a normal you know built cabin when they're like on the ground
with these things but if if they they don't do those things then they look like an RV we're just trying to call a dog a dog so so that's kind of the two things these the RV you don't need a cup for the RV I don't know if there were rule changes um at some point from what
people were recollecting so it's a a 2year so permit shall expire two years from the date of issue for the first permit and three years from the date of issue for renewed permits so it is like something you kind of have to keep track of you got to stay on top of your permits um doesn't really matter to us
but also keep in mind people only get so many dwellings on their properties so if I'm someone and I already have a house and a guest cabin and I want some place for Grandma to come up and stay in I'm going to bring a park model up and I'm going to permit it as an RV I can't do
it as a we can't issue another land use permit for another dwelling if there's kitchen or sanitary facilities in it so those are kind of some of the nuances we as staff have to think through when people say I want to bring a tiny house and a park model to my property and we're like is this a dwelling or is this
an RV I don't know so we're trying to create standards that we know how to do that permitting appropriately that use case is H the use case you just mentioned is is you know an easily foreseeable uh event that you know
would dad died and mom needs to be cared for I need her to move up here where she can be closer to me and I can get to her you know by walking across a driveway mhm is there a reason to use the terms tiny home and park model versus just
saying something on Wheels we talked about defining tiny home with like a square footage um so again people get really hung up on Park models because there's like a really strict definition with like building code stuff so park model is a term that
has like a really firm definition attached to it I don't foresee our office really needing to get into those weeds again okay um if we see something on Wheels that's coming out there like I couldn't imagine a scenario where we wouldn't call one of these things a park
model or a tiny home like if it's on Wheels like maybe it's a travel trailer but like yeah I don't know maybe we're going to have to get into dog fights with people about like a travel trailer that's trying to be called you know get a land use so I just I just Googled it
Park models homes are designed for temporary seasonal use and must comply with specific RV regulations while tiny homes are often built without strict codes and can be used as permanent residences essentially all Park models can be considered tiny homes but not all
tiny homes qualify as Park models well that just made it a little bit more difficult I feel like that with that phrasing though that the definition where we have we're just defining tiny home and then we're nesting Park models underneath there I think that is aligned with what you were reading out Brad as
they said that Park models can be tiny homes but not all tiny homes can be Park models because Park models are more precise in their definition well and they have RV standards they have to meet right yeah or a tiny home yeah it may come in on Wheels cuz it was Factory built y but the really the intent is it's going to go on
a slab MH yeah so our office you know land use things change all the time and we before we react with just big ordinance changes we kind of create policies of how we're addressing these things as long as they're more or less aligned with the ordinance and so like I
said these rules for item M this is how we have been issuing these permits for people so we have been telling people to either follow these standards with your tiny home or we'll do the RV permit if that's you know more aligned with what your use is so I only say that to the
point of like thinking through all of the effects of it like this is kind of a tried and true practice that we've been doing more or less and people have been accepting mostly of yeah yeah I think so
I mean a couple couple thoughts I I'm fine with having both options available I think that's great um I think I I mean it it feels very relevant in our housing conversation like let's not create an arduous pathway
when there's this low hanging fruit of you can move a tiny house up and then you can live here I think that makes great sense if anything my I would just strike the bit about having to remove the wheels and cover the hitch and I don't know why we care I guess is is my
thing unless there are reasons to like sure it can leave and then it leaves I don't know I have a YT a yur is made to be put up and taken down I still had to get a land use permit mhm you know just because the structure can leave uh I I just don't see how it's
relevant doesn't necessarily make a recreational yeah I don't know that's it's so tricky cuz I feel like no matter what you do people are going to try and bend the rules with wheels versus no no wheels I think the biggest difference is
the taxes m I don't know anything about that because once it becomes a permanent structure and it has a foundation it can be taxed as a homesteaded property yeah so so I think it would be if you want to remove the
wheels and cover the hitch then it has to get a land use permit otherwise leave it on its wheels and have it be an RV right yeah and keep getting a permit and make in compliance right then that's the loophole because then people aren't paying they're only paying vacant land
tax even though they're living there is their home oh because they have the permanent seasonal use yeah so I I don't know cuz I think it's intended for like a trailer yeah a like little thing but now you're going to
get I well that being said the tax on a tiny house is going to be pretty negligible but yeah I mean so you guys can work up a facts one thing I would I would put because these are not the I don't think about tax rates it's like
the thing I don't want to think about specifically um but we could table this part of things and consult our County Assessor Bob Thompson and ask him to draft us a memo of like how would you view these two different scenarios same
structure on the same property differently camouflaged not camouflaged what do you think about that you know if you feel like that's an important thing that you want to take into consideration um I'm not even going to try to surise a conclusion as to what those things look
like yeah I don't know if that needs to be even or is irrelevant to what we're doing here so I think someone goes back to what Brad said what do we want you know what's the county going to look like and do we want RVs scattered across the county
with people living in them and then have septic issues and all kinds of issues that go on with it mhm so what's the major difference between an Lup and a RV is it Sewer Septic water yeah I think
that's that's the the gist of it um I might have to do I don't remember totally off the top of my head what the RV septic expectations are I think they need a agreement with the septic um plumber Mitchie Veron didn't give me a
memo for for this section of rules um but he would be the person I would consult with on that um um I think From staff's perspective when these standards were put in place the idea was that people are bringing these models up to live in them and so I was
like okay we'll issue a land use permit but you got to make it look like a cabin and that was the perspective that they were coming at it from and in my mind it makes sense like if you if you want this thing to live in it make it look like a cabin it's not an RB anymore and these were the ways that staff came up with to
achieve that goal For Better or Worse that's that's why it is what it is proposed to be well I'd consider you know so when RV vehicle right I wasn't going to haul it down to dump every time so I got a hold to G&G septic and had them bring
a outdoor toilet and they serviced it every two weeks for me and I just paid for that and then I had that all addressed right um so we need to make sure that we close that Loop cuz we're just not want to have some somebody who's just going to try and get away with dump and stuff out
on the ground it causes all kinds of problems the um what the make it look like a c has some attraction for me because we did get the charter to maintain the character of the county
and then the second component is the land use permit does trigger a formal septic review there's going to be something done there's going to be a holding tank done there's going to be a septic system installed something's going to be taken care of
correctly so um it's uh I don't want to create loopholes where we start having problems with those yeah I don't know I see both sides of it I guess from my perspective it's what
we've been doing what what is before you convenient or not you know from St from like I said this is this has been our way to make what's brought in on a trailer look like a cabin and get a land use be consistent with those things
yeah just so where we're at are we really we're pretty well have a consensus on everything except for item m is that where we're really at right now in that DNR language way an hour ago yeah okay I just trying to think of how
how to keep us moving forward so um do we want as do we want to come back to itemm with with a little more information from Mitch or uh for from staff on on a couple of these topics or
how do we want to move forward I think what you've been doing is fine but I personally I'm okay with with how you have it written right now mhm um but
I but I'm okay with saying let's let's uh revisit it at another meeting also so and I don't have any experience so I can't say yay or nay to it that's why I'm just right yeah I would vote against
it with the the language about basically trying to make it look like a cabin and that I mean that's sort of an aesthetic thing and yep as a millennial I'm like I I don't know people live in tiny houses and are coming up to the county and if they do it that way I think that's great
mhm so I'm thinking let's let's table M this this item and and uh come back to that with with some more discussion well could I just I think it's a really good idea um it doesn't sound like Paul's going to be persuaded by anything that
he hears I don't think I may be persuaded to go his way to and I right I mean I I would be I would like to get part solved very selfishly I already notice the vacation rental ordinance uh and in that notice it cites this section
because I had an anticipated this to be uh contentious at all so um you know I I think if we if do we think there's room to word shop this language at this point you know do you foresee you know if or like I'd like to
get a better gauge like if we table it which I'm totally okay with I can re notice things lots of times that's no problem at all I've got lots of time to re notice things um you know tell me where you're at as far as what information you would want brought back for a tabling so it sounds like Paul
wants more relaxed standards if any standards I want you to keep in mind in this discussion that we are proposing that these be included for vacation rentals in the vacation rental ordinance maybe that's a whole different discussion as far as like are they suitable for vacation rentals do you want them maybe that's just like a a non
nonstarter right there that would you know so there's those are kind of some of the consequences like think about that um to depart out I think it's what I think I understood from Paul and I guess I maybe would agree with the land
use permit is really where we want that's how we're addressing septic that's how we're addressing permanent living um if I'm following what I heard Paul say really we're talking about the skirting and the tires as being aesthetic issues
um I really don't care about whether I'm seeing someone's tires are hitch um I do I do think I care about whether they're hooked up to a holding tank or dealing with their waste properly and so I would like to see them have land use permits to to do that
um I don't see that having their tires covered is a concern to me I don't how the rest of the Paul am I kind of covering what I think I heard your concern 100% I think the the difference to me too is also it's not
are we trying to invite people to live in their RVs you know like because we're specifically addressing tiny homes and Park Model wreck vehicles in M right so like that's what a tiny house is and sure I can go through the rigar roll of taking the wheels off but like what's
the difference if I want to move in I'm going to put them back on like the skirting really probably is for your benefit anyway but whether you want to do it or not it's not I was sitting here thinking what the temperature I can so I could see not having to have remove the
hitch and the tires and and the skirting and still have it qualify for a land use permanent and just leave the phrase is placed in a permanent conforming location on the property I could agree with that and placed on foundation and blocks u i mean a tiny house if you got
a slab that'll support it that I've seen a lot of them like that in other places around the country mhm yeah or I mean just to be specific like ours I mean yeah we put blocks underneath the Jacks so it's stabilized you know but it's
still got weight on its Wheels but like you know yeah I mean to me the the key is conforming location it's got septic it's got water you're not taking your septic down and dumping it on somebody
else's property mhm just kind of goes on and tofy and told so then would you just say these units would qualify for land ifed ining loation on the proper and get rid
of all that other right we wanted Foundation or blocks too right uh yeah I can put a trailer or RV on blocks and then still remove the blocks and drive off right so then I wouldn't want a land use
permit am I concern about some some blockage or some way that your neighbor or your somebody who doesn't a guest can't hook up and move it and rip your sewer pipe that you got hooked up to your holding tank or whatever um so I I
I'm thinking some kind of blocking system would be might be appropriate but I don't have a lot of experience with these so MH um Paul what do you think there um I mean I think yeah
it would deter someone from accidentally moving it I think you know I think there's utility to that and that's pretty easy to do to put it up um on blocks you know so if we leave it as if the unit is placed on Foundation or blocks we we don't have the wheels
removed or skirting installed to hide the undercarriage or tow hitch removed and then it's it uh and is placed in a so I think we so with this language there is pretty much no
difference now between when it's an RV and when it's a land use permit so I just want you to be conscientious that you have pretty much taken away all direction from staff on which permitting Avenue we should direct these types of units before it was nice and clear as far as if you want
to be an RV this is what you do if you want to be a landing permit this is what you do now it's kind of we've got does does RV require that they how does R RV deal with sewage that's the agreement with the service provider and so so they show
like G&G is coming out and pumping out the tank or they've got an ous out there and see I think that's fine yeah mhm they have to meet all the setback requirements yep I I think the RV standards to Pa's point I think the RV standards are pretty straightforward that's like the
low hanging fruit mhm land use permit from staff's perspective was it looks like a cabin we'll issue a land use permit for a cabin so uh you know we just Define these as we're proposing to Define these as RVs but we're removing all the standards
for these types of RVs to be eligible for a land use permit so I think the next question from someone would be like why can't my other RV get a land use permit now what makes the tiny house different so that's kind of the devil's advocate of it's easy for your staff to explain that yeah the way you have it
written it's easier for it's easy for us to tell people the two permitting routes and they get to choose which they want to do and I don't know Paul if you just had a bad communication experience with someone that they didn't make that clear to you that and it wasn't really made clear in these rules like maybe because
it wasn't made clear as an RV you know maybe that's something that we've sophisticated a little bit more on with time yep it's interesting cuz I've done it twice I did it once for the iup and in that instance I sure would have liked to have been told that I could
have done it as an RV yeah uh and then in the next instance because we want to keep the option of having it be a vacation rental open MH then we wanted a land use permit mhm but what it really comes down I'm I'm fine going getting the land use
permit but uh it just doesn't feel necessary to make it look like a cabin if I want it to be a vacation rental to me that's just an aesthetic difference you know that's not yeah but if you say it's an RV and I can't
have it be a vacation rental then that would throw wrench in things yeah even though the standards are already there for both of them you know and M applies across all zoning classification right yep so even R1
mhm so how does that work with like section 5.17 where we just said you are going to allow two RV permits allowed on a conform yep F1 or F2 or F3 it was the fars that
would allow two RVs M so people could bring two tiny homes up to a conforming 20 acre parcel and just do the 2-year license or a five acre or what or a five acre or or yeah depending on the Zone
District so one two or two or three f are two one two or three yeah so 20 10 and five acres respectively yep but everything all those other Zone districts if it's in the listed permitted uses for recreational vehicle then they're
subject to 5.17 which is still a 2-year permit and then it can renew for up to three years at a time after that okay feel like the standard RV permitting route would address calls concerned of people not wanting to scir it but then they can't do a tiny
home then they can't have it via vacation rental yeah right so if they want to be vacation rental they've got to make that decision yeah sure yes so in your ordinance is it addressing vacation rentals as needing a
Lup versus an RV so we've got a vacation rental ordinance that will come up next month and in that ordinance I have language proposed that recognizes Park models and tiny homes are eligible for vacation rental licenses if they're
meeting the items outlined in item F or item M here and are getting an Lup yes yeah and that's where like yeah eligible for a land use permit okay then it can get a vacation rental okay which I feel like the general tone of the public is people
like vacation rentals to be held to certain standards mhm oh yeah okay okay I don't have any further discussion on that I I think keeping it like we had just come to with the foundation and blocks but not requiring
this removal of the wheels or adding of skirting or the foundation is is probably the big key there so um if everybody's comfortable with that can we move forward MH so so let's loop back to the
vacation rental then so a vacation rental that has to meet the requirements to get a land Ed per but it doesn't say anything specifically about skirting and so on no it's been implied thus far yeah that you have to do that yeah because that's what you
need to get your can we just I think the thing is you can't call what would be important to clarify is you can't call an RV a tiny house just cuz you want to make it a vacation make it a vacation rental right like the tiny
home and the park models yeah they're different they're not self driving or they're not you know self-propelled Vehicles MH so there's a difference there yeah I think this is why staff frankly created these standards because we say that you cannot have a vacation
rental and a recreational vehicle mhm but Park models and tiny homes are recreational vehicles so staff were trying to find a way to make Park models and tiny homes be structures and that's why these standards are there it wasn't to try to inconvenience people it was trying to make a clear designation of
hey they're not RVs if if you do X Y and Z which are the standards that you're proposing to remove right but it feels like a sort of like a Dosey Do where we sort of agree to like not cuz I can just put the wheels back on if I take them
off right like I hide the hitch I take the wheels off I get a land use permit and rent it as a vacation rental and then like when I want to sell it as a tiny house I just put those things back on yeah yeah yeah you could I mean sure it just feels like an unnecessary step but can't you just say it a camper and
an RV or campers and RVs and a tiny home and a park model are not considered RVs we could mess with the whole RV definition that seems like a whole another thing I just think tiny homes and park models are not considered recreational vehicles mhm the difficulty
is that Park models are by definition recreational vehicles yeah these are the same when we when we had staff meetings about this language we have had the exact same discussions very very circular discussions totally I I mean I would be
happy to also take this offline and try to you know Workshop it with you MH yeah I would be open to tbling this and talking about it because it's going to limit and moving on I mean I'll just postpone the vacation rental ordinance
this is why ordinances never get brought up for revisions I don't think it would require too much time no yeah I mean even just doing a little bit more res I think having this whole discussion on the record is very helpful and will you know
get us to where we're going quicker we've taken the temperature we've heard what people think you know I'm good either way yeah I guess I'd prefer to have it done tonight but if we if we're if we're not there yeah that's we're just not there yeah yeah I
feel if you could distinguish those from those it would be perfect but it seems like we're not going to be able to distinguish those with all this other stuff that's going on with skirting and hitches and I mean that just doesn't make any sense to me cuz like a trailer
you're not going to take the hitch off and all that stuff but I have no experience with a tiny home and Park Model I didn't realize you could take off hitches and tires from those things and they were even on well we need to differentiate right cuz we we are starting to slur the terms right right
correct the the park model is Highway movable it's it's designed to be able to do that that's why they make the distinction that a tiny home can't necessar it can be moved but it's with an idea that it comes from
either being stick built and or put on a trailer and you get a onetime wide vehicle permit you hold the thing up yeah that's not I mean ours wouldn't need that permit to move you no no no a tiny you can get those just reading the article it was just that's what they
were talking about you know if we get over this many feet wide okay it could be bigger yeah but it it gets moved but the intent with the tiny home is it gets moved to a location and installed the idea is not that it's going to get picked up and taken again
somewhere else where the park home meets RV requirements so you can hitch onto it and go or start it up and go whichever it is that you're doing with it right so that's why they've made that distinction with Park Homes can be tiny homes tiny
homes cannot be Park Homes because they don't meet the RV requirement they can get that onetime move generally anomally that's what they're thinking I moved mine three times and my partners mov but you have wheels on it right yeah but br's get you're not going to hook on to
it and drive to Moab every year December with it but the park home you can do that right you can move down to Florida every fall sure so if they're clearly distinguished then why do we even need them why don't we let people decide if they
want an Lup or a RV right why are we making the decision why don't we let them why don't we let Brad Paul Paul Brad no Jeff Brad why don't why wouldn't we just let him
decide which one he wants yeah I mean I think I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who needs to consistently apply rules to a myriad of different situations and so if you don't we need to be consistent with how we're doing this right
whichever way we go forward with and having two different permitting processes for a non differentiated thing I'll just pick out which permit you want you either pay one time for the L use permitter you we just do the recreational vehicle it's every two years every 3 years like that's not
really efficient administrative work I look at these expectations I don't think they're the most honorous I think wheels are moved okay we talk that out is it a big deal to ask someone to skirt a a structure and cover a hitch so it's not
visible like I don't think we're asking the sky and the Moon from people to make what's a very much more clear administrative route like that's what I need I need Clarity and administration and we need to tell people what the differences are if we struck all of these
expectations it's going to be so confusing telling that message to people like you either get an RV permit or you get a land use permit okay well what's the difference what's the difference well you do this one every two years you this one one time okay and then you want to do a tiny home okay well it's a land use permit and then I can't like I'm
trying to think through all the different consequences there is diff very clear differences though it's how you're managing your your septic and it's I would say part of why I went with the blocking that that's really a safety issue if you're going to then use that as a as
vacation rental or some other thing versus that owner occupation in an RV um so the blocking the stabilization of it is a safety where where even in this this what's written now it says that the
skirting is about covering the frame and the it's about visibility it's really about Aesthetics and that so that's where I would dri draw the distinction is the safety part of The Blocking and then it is it is a self-determination after that how you want to deal with
your septic mhm deal with deal with your sewage um and both both routes have pros and cons uh and different costs associated with it which give people clear decisions to make yeah yeah I think yeah I like the way it
is removing that has the wheels removed skirting installed because like he said you could just put wheels back on a park model so what's the point an Aesthetics and Aesthetics I I don't mean to make this more
complicated but there's a phrase here it says if intended for permanent seasonal use which is defined yes yep and so what if it's permanent use it says it
can be an RV permit if intended for permanent seasonal use mhm is it eligible for an RV permit if it's permanent use like you're going to live in a 12 months out of the year every year I
don't know in your case yours was seasonal you didn't live in it in January it's kind of cold we don't have a definition of permanent use because I think we're Cook County in northern Minnesota yeah it gets too cold I think for a lot
of permanent use that it just hasn't been defined yet it's my guess maybe that's be the next thing home one winter southern Minnesota but yeah yeah I mean people build them to SP you know like yeah we've gone through the winter and then time
so okay never mind I'm just looking for a way for us to move forward or table it and I guess that's the um if we want to kind of look into you Nea if we want to table this and and continue this discussion or um can we call for a vote
on this particular item um or how do we how do we move forward I'm frankly not excited about these changes um because they're so different than what we've been consistent with and I think you're making decisions based off of things I think I could get better
facts on so I could check in with Mitch erson um try to get a much clearer vision of what the two septic expectations are between the two um yeah I think uh it this seemed like a pretty easy easy thing when we brought
it Forward because again it's something that we've been doing typically when something's been a policy for a long time we don't run into issues when we bring them forward to get codified an ordinance um so I'm not quite prepared to think through all the effects I'd want to talk with my co-workers on hey
this is what the Planning Commission is thinking about let me know what you'd like me to convey to them about things to take into consideration with these proposed changes maybe it's like yeah makes no difference but these two completely different permitting routes with virtually no difference between the
two I'm I'm just a little leery to come up with conclusions off the top of my head of how to advise you on what that looks like to me it just doesn't feel good to have two different permitting routes for almost no difference I can't think of another case where we have
something like this can I jump to n and ask if what you have for n clears any confusion for M when you say structures intended for human habitation and buildings used as sleeping quarters require a land use permit does that not
clear up everything we have an M for what is an L or a RV well it sort of calls into question can you sleep in an RV oh yeah yeah it does in a way what is
that habitation when is an RV a structure again that's what those standards were trying to outline when RV becomes structure for our permitting process which we're talking about Aesthetics and that's that is what it is but it's trying to draw a line
administratively so we can know the path forward okay so that suggests that in order to get a land use permit they have to be considered a structure mhm which is what the skirting very good point the covering of the tires covering
the tow hitch mhm so if you left M as is and have n as is n would clear M because you would have to make your RV
a structure by doing all those items if you wanted to have an RV permit then you could not do all those things because then it would be considered a structure is that
correct if I don't remove the wheels if I don't install skirting then it's not technically a structure which means then it would be considered an RV permit M I think yeah I think you're understanding why staff
have proposed these kind of two perming routes and why that's what this language is essentially and was in there for different intentions but I think you're you're viewing it you're understanding why that language is in there yeah I just feel by reading
n m makes so much more sense like I feel like if you leave them as is I don't know that would to me the difference is uh where we got to about the foundation or block like that's what makes it a structure to
me is that you've attached it to the ground correct you know like for instance the YT is on blocks as well so it has a block Foundation but it doesn't have a skirt put snow around it in the winter like you know but no there's no question about sort of the
Aesthetics of the yurt being on blocks but don't RVs just go on blocks for a weekend anyway to level it out think got Jacks but yeah um I mean I see
RV RV is in the park and they have the wheels covered they have skirting they have decks they're there all the time are they considered a structure because they have all that even though you can move the deck and technically remove all
that stuff and pull out I would say no that's an RV permit M and we have RV permits that have decks built onto them and people get permits for the decks but they have an RV permit yeah all right on M has
may it may it's not that it will it may qualify so if you don't want a land use permit and you want an RV permit you don't have to do all of this correct right the RV permits like the defaults
yeah we never should have even allowed no well well and I remember when this was an issue a number of years back with a couple of properties where people had RVs and they were living in them and you know it was kind of a conten de ision
for a while I say we take a vote as is and see what happens and if we don't pass it then we have to table it but either way I don't think having any further discussion is going to get us anywhere else tonight yeah with that one just point of order I know that nobody is
here can we just at least go through the rules of asking if there's anybody here for the public comment yes ask a question Mr chair is would anyone from the public like to speak on this on these ordinances all
just in case of Diana cared hearing none we're closing to the public thank you check the box um ju one one other thing just to jump back to what cuz I'm like okay so what is a tiny house then that's what we're trying to do here is decide what a tiny house is and is it different
than an RV so tiny home definition a small dwelling often moved to a property on its own wheels these types of units require permitting and are either permitted as an RV or as a structure depending on the duration and type of use like that's what is being pointed
out as the fork in the road bad phrase no but yeah you know what I mean like that that's what we're trying to get at actually not what does it look like uh you know yeah we're trying to get it is this is this your house then have it be a land use
permit doesn't that come where permanent seasonal uses versus permanent structure yeah like isn't seasonal and then we're just debating what the requirements of being a permanent what it looks like right I mean and I understand it's a way we've
been doing it uh I just don't think we need to that's that's where I come down mhm and I think it totally makes sense to make sure it's attached to the ground so you can't drive off if it's hooked up to a septic or you know yeah um
I guess uh I would look for a motion to approve these changes as written or as other discussions that we had all agreed on how do I word that um I would move
to adopt this amendment with has the wheels removed has skirting installed to hide the undercarriage has the tow hitch removed or covered so it is not visible removed from the language we have a everybody understands
that motion we have a motion do we have a second for that so delete so would still be placed on a foundation or blocks correct then delete Wheels removed skirting installed tow hits removed recovered y I can
second that motion Place Mr chair I can second that motion we got a motion and a second um for striking part of that sentence I think we all understand what we're talking about here um any more discussion on
that particular uh call for a vote all in favor I I opposed I I we'll we'll
uh that motion fails so um um do we have a motion any other motions I would make a motion to leave M as as is with added n as is and can we are we voting for all the other changes we've dis all everything
as we've discussed so far yeah I have pretty good notes but I could summarize them for you if you guys want I do we need to summarize we had pretty good conclusions at the end of I feel like we were pretty good on everything so um
Courtney made a motion do we have a second I'll second that we got a we got a motion in a second uh any additional discussion all in favor I I I I opposed
n motion carries thank you very much for the discussion I'm sure the Commissioners will have an equally robust discussion unequally or unequally I don't know I mean I totally see where Paul's coming
from but they need some clarification so when they have those people in their office they can they can talk about it move forward to our proposed amendments for the wind energy conversion systems ordance number
63 on page 23 of our packet Nea yep thank you Mr chair staff proposed amendments to the Cook County wind energy conversion systems ordinance for consideration by the planning for the command Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners these changes clarify the regulatory distinctions
between private landowner WX wind energy conversion systems and large-scale Commercial wax for background Cook County First Incorporated the wind energy conversion system Provisions into the tower ordinance in 2001 where they remained until 2018 at that time the
county separated the wireless telecommunications Provisions from the WX Provisions to establish a standalone Wireless telecommunications ordinance the cell tower ordinance the intent was to follow up by adopting the wind energy conversion system Provisions into its
own ordinance which was completed in May 2021 the purpose of the wax ordinance is to provide a balanced regulatory framework for the placement and operation of wind energy Towers in Cook County the legal notice this was noticed in the co County News Herald on January 25th notification was also sent to
County state and federal agencies townships the City of Grand marray the NorthShore management board and Grand Portage no written comments were received by the written comment deadline the DNR did provide a letter stating that the state Shoreland rules do not address wax and therefore the DNR does not have authority to approve these
amendments beginning on page 24 of your packets is uh in green is kind of the purpose statement language from staff the blue is proposed added language and the red strike through is proposed itions so section 5.01 talks about
General permitting requirements and this adds in the clarification that um what you're not seeing in here is the full wind energy conversion systems ordinance but section 4 lays out some general Provisions I'm going to bring that up in front of me here just one
second um so this clarifies when you don't need a permit specifically in item a so any residential production phase wax within the far one 2 and three Zone District where lot Siz is conforming to the minimum lot area for Zone district and tower height does not exceed 35 ft
and accessory buildings may require land use permits in accordance with Cook County zoning ordinance so those are WX facilities uh generally allowed without having to make an application but still must meet appropriate Provisions regarding accessory structures that's what section
5.01 is and just for context um all of these Provisions came up because we had just a regular land owner call us and say I want to put up a a little wind Tower wind generator in my yard and as we read and interpreted this ordinance it certainly made it read as though a
residential one person wind energy conversion system had to meet all of the commercial wax facility standards which is very robust and I don't believe really in the intent so our goals is clarify one when you don't need a permit for the wind energy conversion system
itself which is what that's talking about um in the far one 2 and three conforming lot not over 35 ft no permit needed um but they still have to like not have blinking lights on it and whatnot there's still other Provisions they need to meet um and then section
5.02 is going to clarify when you do need a land use permit for these wind energy conversion systems so again you this is where you would see we're striking out the standards outlined within this ordinance because the standards outlined within this ordinance also include the big commercial scale WX
so we're trying to clarify okay residential WX you need to meet section four the general Provisions not all of the standards that are outlined in here um so item 5.2a uh any residential production phase
wax that does not exceed the total height of 35 ft constructed within any e Zone district and that meet all the applicable regulations contained in section 4 General provisions and the Cook County zoning ordinance and wex Facilities meeting the requirements outlined in section 5.01
are exempt from this section so again there was some confusion when we read through this ordinance of like this is saying that you need a permit here but that you don't need a permit here it was very confusing so our goal staff again is consistent application of these regulations and we believe these changes
will help with that um and then the conditional use permits 5.03 everything outlined in item C there is what is being stricken at the bottom of page 25 it's just a copy paste situation U for some reason there was
like two conditional use permit sections in here and so I shifted them to all be under one section for clarity um there was no real clear understanding of why that distinction was in there and then section 5.05 should be in my perspective
for commercial wax facilities larger scale facilities not um subjecting regular land owners to those standards so that is the long and the short of the wex ordinance
proposals I have one question go ahead go ahead courton you start um so looking at section five um the general permitting requirement says um the tower height does not exceed
35 ft in a and then if you go to 5.02 a It also says the total height of 35 ft that you do need a land use permits so I'm lost in the difference between those two where one is saying General permitting requirements and one is a
land use permit is there something that I'm missing where they're both talking about it's under 35 ft yeah earlier on in 5.01 it says they're exempt from permits so the the 5.01 general permitting requirements starts with the following wax facilities will be deemed
generally allowed in Cook County without having to make application but still need to meet Provisions there's still standards that they have to meet but they don't need to make an application a land use permit that's if they're under 35 ft and but also within the far one
two and three Zone districts on a conforming lot and residential phase okay so that that item a has so that's talking about two separate zones different Zone districts yeah the reason we're adding does not exceed 35 ft is to make it clear that even if you're you're
on far one 2 and three if you're doing a 40ft tall one you no longer qualify to be exempt you would need to get a conditional use okay thank you for that clarification and my question relates to those same two items tower height is different than total
height MH so CU once you put your blades your sails into the equation they can be quite a bit taller than the tower height so is that intended to be that way let me look up um I need to bring this up here but there's a lot of definitions
that aren't in this just you're just looking at the legal notice unless you brought up the tower ordinance um because you you could have a tower that's 35 feet high and you could conceivably have a sail on it that's another 20 ft
tall depending on how low you want to let it get to the ground yeah so total height is the elevation of the structure measured from the base to the tallest vertical extension including any attachments including anten toal height that's the total
height and we could replace tower height with total height because I'm not seeing so you may want to may want to yeah tower height definition there could be some confusion so i' have to strike that tower height and make it total
height mhm 5.02 says total height or 5.01 says Tower right right good catches yep um and my second question is total 35 foot if you're in a forested setting is are you going to want to build I I
don't know if I'd want to build one that was only 35t tall mhm gu that was what my question was going to be is where did the 35 ft come from as a restriction and and we're getting into stuff I don't know a lot about but I know the previous
owner of my site had a 60ft tower I know that most of the pole trees on my property are in that 50 60 foot height anything less than that height wouldn't function so um and it is a residential
setting so I'm yeah wondering where the 35 if there's some regulations other regulations that that bring it to that MH 35 seems to be a magical number it is it is the height of all Maximum building Heights throughout the county and it was
already in this Provisions so we we are the proposed changes before you are just being consistent with that Benchmark I can't answer whoever came up with 35 ft I see it all over the place as far as like a maximum height of things as like
a permittable or exempt sort of thing and then anything over 35 ft pretty much always triggers some form of other review okay so do the commercial does the commercial aspect of this have a height limit
200 makes for commercial operation yeah yeah especially when you start getting bigger bigger units nowaday have we had anybody come in and ask for one bigger than 35 No but we don't get these very often
no I mean it's this ordinance gets pulled out every once in a while but there was a lot of confusion as to when permits are needed and what we're expecting people to be subjected to in that permitting process so that's what these proposed changes they're not I
wouldn't say any of these changes are making anything more restrictive if anything it's making more clear when things are lenient yeah just as a side note because about 15 years ago from I work for was asked to do an analysis for lotd mountain for wind power and it was not found to be
viable for them mainly given the way the winter is this year that the wind but still it's not the wind rose and the frequency isn't good enough yeah my understanding is when this ordinance was created was to prepare for like large
wind farms on the ridgel line is is why this was created and then I think it was later discovered maybe it's not the most viable op so if you were if you're a land owner who did want want to build a 60ft tower you just you can you just have to meet all of the other
requirements conditional use permit right again for us it's always drawing a line when do we as staff have the authority to approve things when do they need to go to the next level and come for a special conditional use permit that's kind of what we're trying to clarify are we all good with these
changes um 5.03 conditional use permits you might want to put that same language in for B where you talk about total height and axis of 35 ft I'm sorry what was that Courtney total height that you're going to keep total
height versus tower height instead of Tower so we have consistency so it's consistent yeah whichever one you're going to use yeah I think we're using to total okay tower height is not defined but total height is so what I just read in this quick read on an
article and everybody's going to be coming in for a conditional use permit because you're you're supposed to clear your the bottom of your blade is supposed to clear the highest obacle by 20 to 30 feet around you so if you've got a
popular that's 50 60 fet you're coming the bottom blade is supposed to be at 90 ft mhm so uh unless you're going to clearcut yeah well if you've got an open field it might work well for you right I've got some neighbors who've got some
pretty open space it's not going to work for me for a second yeah I say I guess I think for the purposes the changes tonight though these seem like half changes not problematic I mean there are other ones there are smaller residential units you can use with different BL can
the circular ones I've seen that too and that actually although I don't want one but where I sit between white Skyrock and and the hill I'm on that wind is whipping down that you Carib tra Chann
there I think it's fine for our point of order is anyone from the public wish to speak on on this amendments hearing none uh closing to the public and looking for a motion on the on
this Mr chair I'd move that we approve what's presented With The Changes related to tower height versus total height second that we've got a motion Brad second any other
discussion all in favor I opposed none for a motion to adjourn anyone I move to adjourn do we need to second that yeah we do
I think never we just move forward there we go everybody agrees to adjourn all we're going to do the election if we want to do a quick Bo of adjustment meeting just to do the election of the chair and get that business over with let's do that um we'll call to get is everybody
Sheila Courtney on board of adjust Courtney is on board of adjustment I am not yeah all right um we'll call our Board of adjustment meeting uh for to order and approve our agenda and minutes from the December 18th meeting I move
that we approve the meeting agenda and the minutes as as submitted I'll second all in favor I I great advantage of reading in advance um election of officers
um do we have a motion for chair I'll nominate Charlie the V this chair any other nominations I'm willing to do it so uh all in favor I
opposed second oh I will second sorry uh Vice chair nominations for vice chair I'll nominate Brad San any other nominations I'll second that nomination
I second I'm willing he's willing okay all in favor I opposed no Mr chair I make a motion to adjourn I second second we're all in favor I I all right thank you everybody now we have
the quickest Board of adjustment I was going to say I think that's' got down about 10 minutes once before but that was a f I think that was under a minute question which took longer the meeting or to get there and go home well it's a good thing we
accomplished other things are we offline Diana yes cool thank you everyone yeah really good discussion I was going to suggest between Board of adjustment and Planning Commission