Okay. >> Welcome to Purwing County's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting. It's 3:00 on January 15th. 20 2025. And if you would please rise for rise for the pledge.
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Welcome. And if you have not already
done so, will you please silence your cell phones? And if you are online uh joining us with this meeting, please make sure that you have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. And please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the
agenda is roll call. Rock Lammy >> here. >> John O >> here. >> Sumi >> here. >> Andy Larson >> here. >> And I am Rebecca Best. The next item on the agenda is to uh approve the minutes
and findings of fact for the meeting held. And >> Madam Chair, >> yes, >> I'm sorry. We're in we're at the election of officers. Oh, >> sorry about that. I jumped I just automatically went to the minutes. >> We are at the election of officers under review and approve. Uh >> well, I'll I'll uh I'll run I'll handle
that agenda. All right. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. >> It is 2026. Happy New Year to everybody. Uh we need to um elect our officers for 2026. We need to elect the chair first. So I would take nominations uh for uh chair for the planning commission board
of adjustment for 2026. >> I would like to nominate Becky Best as chair. >> Okay. So we have a nomination on the floor for uh Becky to be chair. Are there other nominations? Are there other nominations? >> I nominate Jean J for vice president or
vice chair. >> Okay. Okay. So, we have nominations on the floor for Becky as chair, for John as vice chair. Are there other nominations for vice chair? Any other nominations for vice chair? So, let's uh so based on the information provided, um we'd be looking for a
voting ballot to choose and elect Becky and John to fill the roles as officers for 2026. >> I would so move. >> Thank you, John. Agenda further discussion. All in uh all all in favor vote by saying I >> I
>> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Madam chair, if it's okay, I'll take item 2.2 as well. >> Sounds great. >> Uh so every year we go through um our rules of business and uh it's something that we review at the January meeting. This really just goes through all of the
uh ways that we handle our business. It's available for the public on our website. It's also um what's used by staff as we do the meetings as well as the commission members when um we do our business. And so um staff have reviewed this and u we do not recommend any
changes at this point. >> Um and make a motion to accept um >> I think we have a we have a comment first. Is okay if we take a comment first? >> Comment. Um, I've had conversation with Chris regarding rule number 19, Robert's
rules of order. Um, my township training and other training um, suggests that when you adopt not adopt Robert's rules of orders because if you adopt it, then by process you must strictly follow
Robert's rules in your proceedings. and I want to ensure that we don't adopt something that somebody's going to come back and make a process issue if we don't specifically and strictly follow them. So, in conversation with Chris,
since it hasn't been reviewed for a while, he'd like to review it with the appropriate folks. So, I was prepared to offer a motion to table this to February so that Chris can do that and then bring it back if that's the willingness of the
board. That sounds reasonable to me. >> Yeah. >> So I would so move. >> Second. >> So we have a motion on the table and a second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed sign. Negative. Oppose. Same
sign. >> Motion carries. Um Madam Chair, I'll pass over item 2.3 to you for minutes and findings effect. >> Okay. And we do need a motion for approval for the minutes and findings of fact of our December 18th, 2025 planning commission and board of adjustment
meeting. >> Madam Chair, yes. >> I'd make a motion to approve the findings of facts and the and the minutes. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second it. >> Second by Sue. Um any discussion? If not, all those in favor, please
signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved. Uh tonight we have um five orders or five items of new business. However, two of those uh 3.2
and 3.3 the Cobble Crest Properties LLC applications have been tabled at this point by the applicant. So um I would call our first applicant which would be Keith and Jod uh Sutterman. I think I still need to continue my introductory
comments that I um >> Madam Chair, can I just inter I just want I know online there's a couple I I know that Steve is online as well as Tyler. Um just want to make sure you guys caught that that we're not going to be considering those the plat variance until the February meeting.
>> Yes, I did catch it. Just was listening and >> Okay, sounds very good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> I I did as well. I'm sorry to interrupt. I I heard as well. Thank you for saying that and I likely will sign off soon. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so tonight we have
our then we would end up having having three items of new business and um no items of old business and we do greatly appreciate your patience um as we go through our procedure. And that is when we call your application you will be admitted to the meeting. If you are
online or if you are in person, please come to the table in the front, have a seat, and state your name and address for the record. Then we will have Nichollet read your request into the record. We then will give the you the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not been previously
submitted. After that, we will open the request up for public testimony. And tonight, we will have two public testimony opportunities, one in person here and the other online. If you are online and wish to speak to an application, please use your hand icon to indicate to us that you wish to
speak. Then once you are admitted, please unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record. If you are speaking in person, please come to the microphone in the podium in the center of the aisle. In either case, you will be given five minutes to give your
testimony. Please do not repeat what someone else has said, and please do not read your emails or letters that have already been sent. Everyone who wishes to give testimony will have the opportunity to do so. Once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it.
We then will bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Our rules of conduct are please be respectful for the applicant. This means to sit quietly during the public testimony period. And for the audience, it means to do the same for the applicant as they respond
to your testimony. All questions and statements are to be directed to this board or members of the staff, not to the applicant. Anyone that I feel is being disrespectful or not following these rules will be asked to leave or will be disconnected from the meeting
online. The decision process for a preliminary plat use map amendment request, we make a recommendation to the county board. For a variance or conditional use permit request, we make the final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact.
To help us do that, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to the property and examine the site and look at what is being planned. Prior to attending this meeting, we each read every letter and email that is submitted and then we hear public testimony and we listen to the
applicant. I'd like to pause for a moment to let the public know that we do greatly appreciate your correspondence and input. We have all read the submitted comments. In addition, in addition to that, we have a worksheet that we use to help summarize the findings of fact. Preliminary findings
have been included in our staff packet. Next, I will ask each board member if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet. Andy, >> I have. >> John, >> I have. >> Sue, >> I have. >> Rock,
>> I have. >> And I have as well. So with that, our first applicant this evening will be Keith and Jod Soldderman for a land use map amendment. If you want to come up to the table right up front here. >> I just have a question. Pardon my interruption, but I don't always hear
perfectly. This cobblestone cobble crest is cancelled. >> It has been tabled. >> Tabled. So it's not happening today. >> It's not happening today. >> When did that get tabled? >> I believe it was sometime this afternoon. >> So I drove here from Minneapolis just for a nice drive.
I apologize for that. >> Is there a way to let people know when something's going to be cancelled? >> It's the applicant can't >> The applicant cancelled it table at the last minute and >> sorry. >> So, we don't have any additional information as to why it might have been tabled. I mean, is there a concern or
>> I think after reviewing some of the comments, the applicant just wants to further um >> digest the information and >> Yes, exactly. >> And when will be additional information be available online? So the the process will be just like it was for this meeting. So there will be a notice will
be will be mailed out to everybody in the neighborhood like it was before that gets out 10 to 14 days before the meeting. It's published in the newspaper and then uh all the information will be published on our website the week before the meeting. And so the meeting date for February
um if I can open up my calendar is going to be >> the n yeah the n the 19th. And so everything will be up on our website on February 12th. The packet will be up for for public review. >> Thank you. We would just respectfully ask that if there is going to be another
delay that be communicated timely. >> Yeah, this this one was was more last minute um by the applicant deciding that they wanted some additional time. So, we apologize for any inconvenience. >> We als we also have availability to to participate via um teams if you'd like
to. So, you wouldn't have to maybe make the drive up. So, if that's an option for you to consider for the next meeting. The problem that we have is that if somebody says they're going to table the application, I don't have your phone number. I don't have a way. You know, I don't have a way. So, when it happens, >> that's fine. We will be here in person.
I think it just is more impactful. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Well, you know, there's nothing there's nothing on the team's uh site. Could you post a sign or >> you know, it's just not logging on, right? >> Uh whoever's online, could you please
mute please? Oh, >> I didn't understand what he was saying if he was speaking to what we were just talking about or not. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, so our first applicant is Keith and Jodie Soldman for a land use map amendment. If you'd like
to come up to the table up front, please. >> Hi. >> If you'd state your name and address for the record. Ouch. Uh Keith Solderman and my address is 3068 County Road 23 Brainer.
>> Thank you. And would you like to read the request into the record, Nichollet? >> Yes, Madame Chair. Uh tonight's applicant is property owner Keith Solderman at parcel number 761-90533. This is located in section 19 in Maple
Grove Township and the current zoning is agricultural forest district. Um the request tonight is a land use map amendment to go from agricultural zoning to rule residential 5. Um let's scroll down here to page nine. I just want to
show you where this property is located. So the property is highlighted in red. It is a 20 acre piece and it is about a quarter of a mile from uh County Road 23. You can't really see 23 here. It goes along these um properties right up
here and before it goes in between um upper and lower South Long Lake. Um Mr. Soldderman owns uh this 20 acre piece along with uh parcel 7690534
and parcel 7690532. Um his Mr. Sodom has expressed that he would like to split off a 5acre piece of land um with an existing house that is up in this northern west corner and he would like to sell it to his son and
retain um the rest of the acreage that he has keeping it agricultural and uh for the family farm. Uh looking at the map there is rural residential 5 immediately to the west and a comment was received from the township stating they had no issue with
the resoning application of Mr. and Mrs. Solder. No other applications were received and there are no proposed conditions for this request. I can answer any questions. >> Any questions from the board? Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> Uh, no. No. See, you hit it right on the
head. >> Okay. Um, then we will open up this request for public testimony. Is there anyone who would like to address this online? Doesn't look like there is anyone there. So, we'll bring it back to the board for
discussion and um further action. >> Um M madam chair, may I ask a question, please? >> Yes. >> Um so, we're confident there'll be access to the five acre lots or is that what happens when they split the lots at
a later date? And if there wouldn't be, then they couldn't split off a particular lot. Is that the right understanding? Correct. So the the parcel um if if this were to be reszoned to rule residential 5 um the parcel being split would be in the corner and
it would have direct access to Solderman Road as well as the remaining tract. Solder Road goes across the north here of the two parcels. >> But today we're we're um doing the whole 20 acres.
So there could be future 5 acre parcels obviously. >> Correct. and that each would have to have access >> by their own determination when that time comes. Is that right? >> Okay. Thank you. >> If I can comment to that. Um, so the
five acres around the house right now, that's all I'm going to zone the five and I'm going to combine the other 75 back into agricultural. It's all going to be one piece. So there's no intent to lot off that 20 acres in any smaller pieces. I have two sons. the ones living
in the house right now. My other one, if he does decide to build at some point, at that point I might do another one, another five pit just for him. But my intent is to keep the family farm as intact as I can in one piece cuz just I'm trying to protect it from if
something happens and they have to sell the house, it's only a 5 acre chunk of it that gets impacted. >> So So Madame Chair, if I may. Um, thank you. But we're reszoning 20 acres, are we not? So, I hear him saying he only wants five
and then he wants to keep the rest agricultural. So, I'm confused. >> Um, >> why would why would we reszone the 20 to 5 acre and then get a request to reszone 15 back to agricultural? That's what I
heard him say he would like to do. >> Is that Did I hear that right? >> So, we Yes. Yes, you did hear that right. We um unfortunately don't have the ability to reszone half. >> We could.
>> So with the ability to would you like the ability to create another five acre piece in the future for your son for your other son? >> At some point maybe I don't know. They're both so young right now. My my intent is just to protect that five acres around the house.
>> Okay. And then if my other son does decide he would like to build on that property, then I'd come back and do >> And you would like to come back and >> Yeah, I'd come back and >> Okay. >> Because at that point, he might want to build on Morganson Road. I don't know. >> Sure.
>> Is there any reason um why it couldn't um the whole parcel could be reszone now and he do exactly what he's planning on doing anyway? >> Yep. >> Correct. Yes. So that's so that basically we would be looking at all 20
acres and what you choose to do with this along the line you could break them up into 5 acre parcels or continue with the use as is my understanding from what you're saying. >> Correct. >> Okay. So then it almost makes sense to
do it now so you wouldn't have to really do anything in the future then if you wanted to have the 5 acre parcels. >> Yeah. And it it goes back to the tax rate too. I don't know what the residential is going to tax different than the agricultural either. >> I think the use is what the tax is,
isn't it? >> Correct. And but again, it's hard for us to make those decisions here because that's not our area of expertise. So, >> um you know, Madam Chair, I I guess this I I guess I don't know if we were maybe completely aware of of wanting to
only do the five acres to the north. Um, I think you would have the option if you wanted to just to say we're going to reszone the top, you know, the five acres to north as parcel as our five and the remaining left as agricultural. It would it would still meet the requirements, you know, we would it
would it would still um, you know, it would meet the five acre for that piece and then if the rest of it's going to be combined into that larger tract, then we wouldn't have any issues with that either. So, I I really think you'd be better off just doing the five acre right now because I think there's
I think there's going to be more headaches for you um down the road if we don't um because it because I don't think you want to combine those into one large tract. Correct. The remaining 15 acres and >> the remaining three I would I'd put them all into one piece.
>> I guess if that was the case then it wouldn't be an issue because we the lots would meet the requirements for the egg zoning. And I mean it's a little unusual. We we don't this is not something you can kind of see we're struggling with a little bit. It's not something we typically do, but I have seen some lots be zoned to different zoning classifications, and I don't
think it's a it's not a problem. >> I mean, yes, >> I don't have an issue with doing that whole 20. >> I mean, it he uses it agriculturally. R5 doesn't say you can't do agricultural proc business, you know, on R5.
I mean, if he in the future wants to give his other son five acres or maybe he needs to sell five acres to a relative would like to buy, it gives him an opportunity to do that without having to come back before this board every
time he wants to do a 5 acre piece. I have no issue with doing that 20 to RR5. He can still use it as egg and it butts for a residential five. >> Yep. Madam chair. Yes, >> if I may. Um I I agree, but I'm
listening to the applicant say I want to keep the other 15 agricultural and I want to make I want to see if I want to keep it that because it might be better from a tax value or evaluation standpoint. So what I don't want to do from this I think we look kind of quite
frankly stupid if we send a recommendation the county board to reszone all 20 and then we get a request two months down the road. Well, let's reszone 15 back to agriculture. We want to send that on to you. I I just I just don't think that looks good.
>> I just texted the county assessor who is the guy that puts the value on and he said, "No, it these the it based the value is based on the use, not on the zoning." So, it if it goes to zone R5, >> the use zoning, >> it won't affect it won't the value it's
going to be based on how you're using the property. So, >> okay. >> So, I I would I would recommend doing the full 20 as 5 acres and and that gives you flexibility down the road and for what you want to do, how you want to do that and it won't be honest. The other thing, too, is I don't want to make it too easy for
in the future for the somebody to come in there and lot it all off either. >> You know, I don't want somebody to be able to come in there and put three other for some reason if they have that get sold. Like I said, that the farm is going on its fourth generation now, soon to be
five. And that's why the the whole 80 would stay what it is now, except for once again, the next generation is moving on. They're starting their own family. I just want to have that a minimal area that could if something happened and they had to sell it, it's
not 20 of it that gets sold. >> Yeah. So, so m Madam Chair, if if I may, >> um the request that's in front of us, and here's my point. The request that's in front of us is not what the applicant is asking for, >> even though that's what's in front of
us, and I understand why it's in front of us, but of course, if we resone it to uh five, it could be sold for four fives. Sure, that's in fact what could happen. >> Yeah. Um, and so my point is,
uh, I don't want to recommend something to the county board. He's going to go to the county board and say, "That's not what I want." And then why are why do we have a recommendation to do that? So, could we is is this appropriate to maybe table this cuz it needs a little
discussion to get what he really wants and how we do this or where where we at with it. Uh, Madam Chair, Johnny, I think you have the option to table it if that's something that you would like or you do have the option to say we think it's appropriate for the top for the
northerly 5 acres of this parcel to be R5 the remainder to stay in the agricultural district and then you know knowing it's going to be combined with the other parcel so that it meets the zoning requirement. So I think you have that ability today to do that if that's what you want >> because cuz madam chair if I may. So I'd
support doing that. I wouldn't support doing the 20 because as I say that's not what the applicant wants and if we send that on to the county board and he goes there and says that's not what I want I don't think we look very good in our recommendation. So if if the if it's agreeable I don't
know if other people how you feel but I mean I'm okay with the top five. Yes, Rob. >> Um, my concern would be the northwest corner, not the north port five acres because that's what he wants is that northwest corner, correct? Not the
north. >> Yeah, the northwest corner. >> Northwest corner. >> So, it's not the north five acres. >> What's that? >> It's not the north five acres is what you >> It It'd be a five acre corner out of that 20. If if that's the route you want to go, then we're going to have to probably get
some other information like a survey so we can have the legal description of what that would look like. I I'm not sure how we could do that today because we're not going to know >> the exact uh >> I guess you could say >> 528 ft by 416 ft makes 5 acres.
>> There you go. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. Um, I would be intending to table this till next month so we can sort that out and get the right information because generally when we do this on the fly, it
doesn't always work out right. So, um, because I want to make sure that the applicant gets what he's requesting and that we can send it on and that the county board isn't going to have somebody saying that's not what I want. So >> yeah, Madam Chair, I understand what
John's doing and I understand because I like to see a site plan showing the dimensions of what he's taken out of there. You know, the other thing I just question I have Chris, if we do that just that corner for 5 acres, we can't condition reszones. What guarantees that
he's going to combine those two parcels into making it the current egg standards? >> I'm going to combine all three. >> There would be no need. >> It wouldn't need to. We're only taking off 5 acres. The rest is still a parcel, isn't it? >> Yeah, there's 220s there. So, it's not If it was the 40, it wouldn't be an
issue, but there's 220s. So, um >> you'll have to agree to something. And >> we got three parcels. They're contiguous, but we should have three parcels. >> Yeah. >> Y >> So, how do we guarantee that that those two part 20 acre parcels are
combined into one? >> Well, to combine it with that, >> make sure that >> Yeah. Yeah, I think what what they're saying, Keith, is that there we can't we can't require you to do that. And so what they're afraid of is if we only change the zoning to that 5 acres, the remaining track is 15 acres, which
wouldn't meet the zoning requirements to that. So, but it already doesn't meet the zoning. It's already 20 acres and an egg as it is. So, I I think I would be in favor of tableabling it. We'll bring the legal back to you guys next month. And then um >> if we're not going to do the whole 20, I
I would be in favor of tableing it so we know exactly what the measurements are and where that 5 acre parcel is coming out. >> It sounds like we have an agreement on that. >> Nobody else wants to weigh in before I make that motion. >> I would move to table to figure. >> There's a motion on the floor to table
this. And there's a second. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. same sign. >> This will be tabled. >> We'll give you a call and we're going to have to talk about this at our next in February. We'll give you a call. >> Okay. >> Right. Thank you.
>> Because going back to the commitment to doing it is I already got the form to combine them, but I have to go through this first before I combine the other parts. >> Right. This this is the step. He wouldn't be here at >> I'd like to do it all at one time if I could. >> Yeah. And we will we will we'll get we'll get back to you.
>> We'll get there. Thank you for your time. >> Okay. Okay, our next applicant would be Gregory Smith and Timothy Smith for a variance. >> Yeah, this is Gregory Smith. I'm attending online. >> Okay. And if you could state your name and address for the record, Gregory,
please. >> Yeah, Gregory Smith, PO Box 829, Lakeside, Arizona 85929. >> Thank you. and Nichollet if you could read the request and oh I'm sorry >> Cindy Hy with Stomark Lance vein
>> sorry Cindy >> 875874 Pquet Lakes Minnesota >> and Nichollet if you could read the request into the record please. Yes, Madam Chair, tonight's applicant is uh property owner Greg Smith and Tim Smith.
Parcel numbers 502905 02 and 5029579. This is located in Bay Lake Township. And the request tonight is for a variance for uh type three septic system site suitabilities where type one site
suitability is required for all parcels. Um, and this is to install a type three septic system on the proposed lots of proposed lots A and B within the administrative subdivision.
So, I'm going to go to um page 65 here and just show you these are the two parcels. They're located on Megan Court by um Hanks Link Lake and then Megan Road that runs north and south here. Um the properties are non-reparian
and there is a proposed administrative subdivision creating four total lots out of those two parcels. It is a requirement by ordinance that all new parcels have two type one septic site suitabilities. A type one septic system
site would consist of at least 12 in of good soil. Good soil meaning 12 in from the very top layer with no indication of saturation within those 12 in of soil. Proposed lots A and B do not have two sites with at least 12 inches of soil
without an indication of separation of saturation. The septic professional who completed the septic site suitabilities only found 8 in of soil before reaching a saturation layer. There were notes placed on the site suitabilities from
this professional that stated proposed lots A and B were low and a seasonal high water table was found. Type three septic systems are permitted on parcels with limited space, disturbed soils, or high water table areas with an approved design and an over-the-counter
permit. Staff spoke with the MPCA for clarification, and the MPCA stated that all new lots need to be need to have a suitable site for a type one septic system, but it is not a requirement that a type one septic system is installed.
Um, a type a type two, three, four, five could be installed once a lot is created. It just needs to be suitable for that type one. Um, a type three septic system for these properties would consist of bringing in a 3 ft of wash
sand for the creation of a drain field. It is the understanding of staff that a type one septic system with two feet of sand and a type three septic system with three feet of sand will effectively treat waste water the same. A recommendation to deny was received uh
from the township and the township's concerns were that two lots within the administrative subdivision um did not meet the repairarian the non-reparian lot size standards. Um there may be some confusion on that because all four
parcels within that administrative subdivision do meet the non-reparian requirements for um Hanks Lake. Um, no other comments were received and no conditions are proposed with this application. I can answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> I don't believe so at this point. >> Okay. This time then we'd open it up to public testimony. And seeing no one in the courtroom and I don't know if there's anyone online. Um, uh, seeing none, we
will bring it back to the board for discussion and further action. Madam chair, I'd like to ask Chris. Chris, a type three, is that like the advanced treatment? >> No. No. So, when Nichollet mentioned about the the soil requirements, so for
a type one system, um you need to show that you have that 12 that top 12 in is a um doesn't show a seasonal saturation in it. Um what that means is that typically in the springtime when the snow melts um you're going to have the water is going to hang up in that top
part of that that upright inches in this situation for a couple weeks and then it's going to go away. What that when it hangs up in the water that long in the soil it leaves um what's called reductorphic features and iron depletions from the water and that's what we use to measure our separation from. And so it doesn't mean that this
is a low spot. It doesn't mean this is wetland. It doesn't mean that. It just means and it's got some lomy soil which is actually a a really a good soil for septic systems. For some reason this situation it doesn't drain as well in the springtime as it should. So anything that gets built out here is going to be
a slab on grade. There's not going to be any basement's going to be going in here because of those reasons. But um a type three system simply means that you don't have that separation. So if you have think about if you have a mound and you have 12 in, you're going to put 2 ft of sand in to get your 3 ft which is
required for the treatment. On a type three, you're going to put the 3 in of sand or the 3 ft of sand on top which is going to be your 3 ft plus you'll have your 8 in already. So you'll end up having you know 3 in or you have the 3 ft of clean sand for the treatment plus the 8 in of dry soil that you already
have in the ground. So and we see you know um I wouldn't it's common to put in type three systems. It's very very common in Crowing County for that. >> So basically it's more sand and a higher mountain than what a type one would be. Right. >> That's basically what the difference
between >> that would be correct. Yep. >> Okay. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> My question is backing up before the the sand issue is what
constitutes for example a wetland? And I asked that because I'm very familiar with this piece of property and in the spring and then like last year through midsummer
virtually this whole piece of land except maybe 20 ft to the on the far eastern side is standing water. It's a bayou. And how how does a wetland delineation
relate to that? I mean, honest speed, you could canoe in in this area if it's certainly in the spring and depending on how wet it is in the summer. >> Madam chair, I can answer that question. Um, so first, there was a wetland
delineation that was performed by Ben Meister in September for this property. Um, the board of soil and water for the state of Minnesota set the standards for what constitute as a wetland. And you have to have primary indicators of um your primary wetland vegetation. You
have to have um hydrarology within the first 12 ines of the soil layer. And then um you know you have to have key soils that kind of that show that restriction. And so the state of Minnesota has um an outline of what those primary indicators are and if you
don't find them on site then it it's it's not a wetland. And if you do of course then it is. So Ben is a certified wetland professional at the state and he used those indicators to find that boundary. Now does it mean that there is seasonally holding water like you said?
Um it's quite possible. >> So I mean I don't mean to be silly. I'm just so being able to canoe a piece of land doesn't necessarily mean it's a wet land is what we're saying according to the definitions that we're operating on direct. Okay. >> Okay. >> Madam chair.
>> Yes. I have a question on that topic as well. So if there's only a foot of separation, then they would have to add minimum of 2 ft of fill, even 3 ft >> 3 ft to for the for the mound system. >> But how about for the lowest floor in
the house? >> So this can you pull the flood plane map up >> because don't you have to have 3T of separation between the lowest floor so that even if it is a slab on grade? >> We don't have the map. We don't have a >> Oh, flood plane map on here.
>> Yep. Right there. >> Got it. >> So that shows you your flood plane right there. So the that's So there's no flood plane back in there. And so um the flood plane trumps that cuz what you're talking about is 3 ft above the ordinary high water mark of the lake. And um we've had actually conversations with
DNR about that. And the actual FEMA elevation for the flood plane on lake trumps the 3 ft above the OW. So they wouldn't have any there'd be no restrictions on far as height of of building the structure out there. just more more of a buyer beware. >> Yeah, I I would be I guess at some
point, Madam Chair, I think it'd be great to have the applicant maybe explain what you know um the property itself and what he's seen out there. Um I know Greg's online at some point, man. I'm not sure if now is the time or not, but it'd be great to hear from him as well. >> Madam Chair, >> yes, >> I I have a question for Nichollet to
make sure I heard her correct. I thought I heard you say that the MPCA's requirement is that the parcels must be suitable for a type one septic system. That's what I wrote down. >> Correct. >> But we don't have to you don't have to install a type one.
>> Correct. >> Okay. But in our findings of fact, we say that the lots A and B are not suitable for a type one septic site. So therefore, so they would not be uh
in this, right? So we're talking about four four lots ultimately, right? >> Only um only proposed lots A and B within this. Let me bring up uh the certificate of survey here.
Only tract A and B proposed tract A and B cannot find two site suitabilities. >> Yeah. So, so I read that. That's why type lots A and B would need a type three, right? That's right.
>> But again, if I understood you right, the MPCA requirement is that a lot must be suitable for a type one. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Mhm. I think I and you're confirming that, but you don't have to install a
type one. And I want to go back to the text of our finding of fact says the proposed administrative subdivision does not have two suitable type one septic sites for proposed lots A and B. So, our
finding of fact says in fact it does not meet the MPCA's requirement. >> And that's why they're asking for the variance. >> And they're asking for a variance. Yeah, that's why we're just that is the fact about it. Not >> so we we have the right to vary from the
state requirement. >> We have we do. It's it's an ordinance requirement. Um I've actually been in contact with other counties who are having some of these similar um discussions in other counties too that have had this um actually happen recently down in Morrison County. So >> is it um and if I if I may ask one more
question then is it and do they have that requirement because uh type ones are preferred and far better uh in protection of water resources and other things. >> A type one system is the preferred system. There's no question about it.
That's what we would prefer to go in. If somebody were to come to our office today and say um can I put in a type 1 system instead of a type three? We'd say, "Can you put in a type one system?" If they could put in a type one, they put in a type one. I mean, that is that always is the type three systems are in
situations where you can't put in a type one system because of the of the of the issues with the lot that Nichollet mentioned. Sometimes a type So, a type three system means I can't make a type one work. So, a type three system sometimes is smaller. it doesn't it's not as the the drain field might be a
little bit smaller or there might be a situation where you know maybe 20 years ago somebody was on there and they really royal up the soils and they mixed them all up and the soils are all disturbed. A type three is for that and then a type three is for in those situations where you have a little bit of a higher water table. So those are
really the three times when that you would see a type one system put in. And so that's what they're asking is they're saying yes the the requirement is to put a type one is for have type one site suitability is they're asking can we have type three instead of type one
that's the request >> okay so madam chair question it doesn't have to do with the septic I'm looking at the administrative track D they're going to have access of magan court >> no >> is there an existing access there or are
they going to go through a wetland? >> We have a revised drawing that's um we show a 33 foot strip along the south line of track C. >> Oh, so they're going to get an easement through track C to track D. Correct. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure
that Yeah. I mean it has nothing to do with the variance, but it was just a question. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion? So go to the findings >> findings of fact that
>> I apologize. Findings of fact are on page. >> I have 87. >> Page 87. >> Um Madam Chair, review these and do you have some additions or changes you'd like to submit? >> Go up to question one. I see what John
is saying where it says the ordinance requires each parcel to have two suitable and then does not have two suitable. Maybe we could change that second sentence in that to say the proposed administrative subdivision does not meet the requirements for a
type one septic system but could install a type three septic system for tracks A and B. Just reward it a little bit >> for a little bit more clarity. >> A little more clarity that it, you know, >> I'm I'm okay with that. Uh what I'm just
kind of troubled by is our ordinance requires type one. It says that in our findings, the MPCA requires it. And I realize we have a variance in front of us to say we don't want to do that, but I'm listening to the conversation,
Andy's questions, etc. And saying, I realize we could, but is it a good idea? That's my question. uh we can but that just because they want to create four administrative subdivisions is this in
this area a good idea. That's what I'm struggling with. Um and I could turn that same ordinance requirement around and say that's a good explanation for no because there's a reason why we have those requirements.
And I've been educated in the um uh training and the when we talk to contractors and so on that we're the second uh largest septic county if by remembering that in the state and how important that is to our um groundwater
our waters right so that that's where I'm coming from listening to Andy's question etc. Um, it's there for a reason and I'm not sure or I'm asking the question interested other people's thoughts. Is this a good idea in this
place? That's my question. >> I think it's debatable >> not to be, you know, it just really is. >> Yeah. So, yeah. I'm going to rely on the septic designer.
I mean, he says that it can't meet a um a type one, but they can put a type three in. And I mean, effectively, like it says, a type three septic system and a type one effectively treat waste water the same.
It's even if they even if they did administrative subdivision for three lots, if you combine one A and B is still going to need a type three septic system. And if he sold that property to
anybody and they wanted to put in a septic, build on that, put a septic, it's going to be a type three no matter what because of the water table. Hey, Madam Chair, this is Greg Smith. May I speak? >> Certainly.
>> So, what we're doing is taking two lots that we've owned for over 40 years and basically splitting them into four lots. They're all oversized by county requirements. Two lots comply to type one. Two with a variance would comply to
type three, which is just as acceptable as type one. It's just costing the owner of the lot that additional money to bring in 3 ft of fill to make the same type septic system septic system is type one. So, we're not asking for a variance
to not meet requirements. We're just asking for a variance to accept type three. Uh, Madam Chair, if it's okay, Greg, could you address the comment about um the water on the lot and, you know, what that looks like on a, you know, maybe on
an average rainy year, you know, is there standing water? Is, you know, Andy observed it. He lives in that area. Um, could you maybe just talk about that a little bit? >> You know, part of all four of the lots do have some water that's considered marshy year round, but the majority of
all four lots are dry. year round. I mean, I guess if there was a 100red-year rain, you might have that. But once again, the type three septic system meets all the requirements of type one. It's just the expense of the
land owner to bring in that additional fill. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I'm not going to beat it to death, but I just want to comment that if type three and type one are the same,
then why do we have a county ordinance that says we require type one systems and that's our preference. >> I I because that's the statements that have been put on the record here. So, I'm just questioning. So what we I think what we're trying to what we try to
communicate in the findings is that um they both effectively um treat wastewater. Is there a difference between is a type one better than a type three? I don't know if there's ever been any, you know, studies to say to say that. But um
we if somebody were, like I said, if somebody comes in today, we're going to say a type one system can go in. That's what you that's what you have to install. Um, at the same time, if somebody came in and said, "I'd like to just put three feet of sand on because I think it's the right thing to do." Even if they had could have put a type one in, we wouldn't say no to that either.
Um, and so, you know, if if the point I mean the the point being is that the state is, and this has been a rule since 1996, and the state is basically wanting to make sure that we're not, you know, constructing sites that don't have a way
to take care of their wastewater. This is the first time I've seen this happen in, frankly, I've been doing this for almost 20 years. I've never seen a situation like this before. So, this is not the norm. This is definitely outside the norm. Um, but as far as a you know,
would a type 3 septic system treat the wastewater on this site? I'm I'm Yes. And it would. And um if it wouldn't um treat the wastewater, then I don't think the state would allow it in the rule as an option for a septic system as well. Um, Madam Chair, again, not to beat it
to death, but the so but the two lots currently are suitable for type one. So the action that's making it not suitable is wanting four lots. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> Y >> would you like to proceed, folks?
>> Madam Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> So currently I don't know. Can you bring up the survey? And we might have to bring up the um septic thing. Is this a plan? Right. Okay. So currently this dash dotted line right there
that is parcel and then second parcel. So this is dividing the two parcels that he's dividing into four. the top parcel would have to have a type three septic system if he didn't subdivide it regardless because that's the site
that's the area that is not um that doesn't meet type one. So even right now if he decides well okay I'm not going to subdivide at all this piece of property has to have a type three.
Does that make sense? Yes, >> Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. >> Okay, please proceed. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for a type three septic system site suitabilities where
type one septic site is required for all new parcels to install a type three septic system for proposed lots A and B with the change to that um finding in um the first finding. Okay, we have we have
that we have that noted here. >> Yep. >> Second. >> There's a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? >> If not, all those in uh in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign.
>> I. >> Roll call. So, roll call would be in order. >> Okay. Um Andy >> oppose. John >> opposed. >> Sue >> I >> I >> Brock I and I would vote I as well.
>> Okay. Three to two. Thank you. >> So motion carries. >> Thank you board. >> Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next and last application for this evening would be Robert and Monica
Pesila for an afterthe variance. >> He's online. >> Yes, I'm online, Madam Chair. >> Okay. If uh and Robert, if you could state your full name and address for the record, please. Uh, Robert Aola,
18868 Nelson Fork Road, Dearwood, Minnesota 56444. Thank you. Nichollet, if you could read the request into the record, please. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Tonight's applicant is property owner Robert and Monica Pisola.
Um, parcel number 59360543. physical address 18868 Nelson Fork Road in Deerwood. Um, and this is located in Deerwood Township as well. We'll go to the location map so I can point out where this is. The um parcel here is
highlighted in red. We have North Nelson Fork Road and um which leads to County Road 10 here in Dearwood Township and this is on Shirt Lake. Um the request tonight is an after the-act variance for a road rightway
setback of 0 feet where 35 is required to an existing pole building that was constructed 5.8 ft into the road right ofway. Um the 30x40 accessory structure was found by an assessor performing
their annual reviews. I'll get to the survey here so you can see this this has the um environmental services staff reached out to the landowner to inquire about the structure and obtain a permit and the landowner had stated that their
contractor built uh the building and obtained all land permits. When the environmental services staff told the land owner there was no permit and a variance was needed, uh Mr. Pollo then got in touch with me and signed up for DRT. Um it is to my understanding that the contractor was focused on meeting the
100 foot set back here to Shirt Lake, which if you can see the building set back here, um it is 101 ft back from Shirt Lake. Um which in turn ended up pushing this 30x40 building into um 5.8 ft into the
road right away. There are some limitations on this parcel with the location of the septic that kind of spraws across and the septic line with the septic drain field that would kind of that would limit the land owner from crossing over. Um
and that we did receive a con a comment as well from Dearwood Township. Um they were at the DRT meeting and they um we did receive a form that they recommended approval of this request. Nelson Fork Road
is a township road. It is um dedicated to the public and maintained by the township. No other comments were received and um I can answer any other questions. One more thing I wanted to add. Um this structure is 17 ft from the
driving surface of Nelson Fork Road. I can answer any other questions. Any questions for Nichollet from the board? Hearing none. Uh, Robert, is there anything that you would like to add?
Uh, I I don't think so. Just a couple of comments, Madam Chair. Uh, my wife and I, we moved up here from California two and a half years ago. Uh, I'm a I'm a native of Alexandria, Minnesota.
uh retired pastor. My last church was out here in California. We're out here in California right now because my wife's uh father passed away. And uh so we we love our community. We were
there two and a half years ago. We uh just were kind of rookies at this whole thing of building new structures on a property. So, we took the word of the contractor that he uh acquired a permit, which it ends up he didn't, and that uh he built
the structure an adequate space from the road, which he didn't do that either. So, that's why I'm asking for the variance. Um we uh we uh I guess that's really all the and we did all the required things, the
delineation, the survey, and everything else that we did. So, I'm coming to the board asking for a variance for this. >> Thank you. >> At this time, we would open it up to public testimony. And seeing no one in the courtroom, and I don't believe we
have anyone online, we would um take bring this back to the board for discussion and action. >> Madame Chair. >> Yes. Um, I this is my opinion. I I
cannot support granting a zero foot road rightway setback to a structure that's 5.8 ft into the road right away. Um, and you look at the survey. I mean, this should have there's room on
the southern part of this parcel within a building envelope to have that structure constructed. Um, so at this time, unless board can convince otherwise, I cannot support
this application. >> Madame chair. >> Yes. Obviously that we all have had our adventures with you know property and construction people and issues such as
this and an after the fact variance you know makes me concerned but I just can't support this because had this come forward timely this never would have been approved.
Absolutely not even close. I mean, if if we were close originally, if based on the original plan, we were pretty close to being in compliance, I would be supportive. But an after requesting an after the-act
variance for a variance that would have died, I can't support. >> Other thoughts? I'm not going to vote to have this guy tear his garage down. >> Yeah. I I can't I can't justify that. If
the township had a which is a road authority had a a huge issue with the placement of that and the proximity to the rightway and the road, my attitude would be different. that to
to force someone to remove a 30x40 building that doesn't have any concern with the with the township. I can't I can't justify that in my mind.
>> Madame Chair. >> Yes. So, uh, obviously it's a difficult, uh, choice, right? Um, I think we'd we'd agree with that. Um, I'd have three or four quick comments. One, as to the fact
that the township has the road authority. I'm kind of familiar with that as a township supervisor. Um, but I think we got to be careful about how we use that from a process perspective because we take we have many instances where we don't honor the road
authorities's recommendation to us. many instances. So I don't think we can use that then in a situation to say well but the road authority authority and and you're not necessarily saying this but we can't then turn around and say well if the road authority says it we ought
to honor that. Um as a road authority guy I'd say I'd like you to be consistent then and when I make a recommendation you honor it because I'm the road authority. So I my concern about it is um it's it's there and even
if the road authority says that it's 5.8 ft. Not only is it a zero setback, it's 5.8 ft in and I think the county has a should have an issue with something that's kind of an egregious
um violation of our requirements even if the road authority says it's no big deal. So that's just point one that I would make. Um, and I generally try to be responsive to the to the road authority issues. The the the other two issues is I was looking at at after the
fact criteria today um from our training again and you know it's two things strike me that one there there are no visible similar structures in the area. So that's one of the criteria of
considering is it already constructed? Yes. Are there other structures? No. Um and and the fourth uh requirement is you know is it that I have a difficulty
with is it reasonable to conclude that the property owner um and or their contractor who is their agent. We hold the property owner accountable. Should have known that there was a road setback requirement. Well, they knew there was an OW requirement because they met it.
So, to me, it's not reasonable to conclude that you wouldn't know that there is a road setback. Um, so, um, and had they submitted the permit, it wouldn't have been issued. And had they come forward with the
variance request, it wouldn't have been issued. I can't recall a time when we would approve a variance that's not only not a variance, but it's 5.8 8 ft into it. So when I look at the criteria, I
can't uh I can't approve it because uh it doesn't meet the criteria. And if I look at the yes findings, uh they are weak compared to the no findings. So um I won't be supporting the variance.
>> Madam chair, >> um just one moment. So, where my mind is going with this, and I just want to, you know, ask staff, too, is um and I think it's where Rock is coming from, is the benefit to the county far outweighing
the cost to the applicant for um remedying this situation? Are we not still looking at that as an item of consideration? Yeah, Madam Chair, if it's okay, John did a great job of talking about the after the-act criteria, but I'll just try to summarize
them a little bit. So, we kind of So, as you do an after- the-act variance, you have to remember we have to always consider the five that we consider for the regular variance for the practical difficulty. And then based on that stad case from 2008, the Supreme Court of Minnesota gave us some other criteria that we have to look at as far as that. So some of the things we have to look at
would be as as John mentioned it was did the applicant to fail to obtain a variance or comply with with the applicable requirements for commencing work. The question that should be asked is did the applicant act in good faith should be considered. Um and then the next one is the applicant attempt to comply with the ordinance by obtaining a
proper permit. That's one of the considerations. Number nine is did the applicant make up substantial investment or improvement in the property? Uh number 10 are there similar structures in the neighborhood? And then the last one was where the benefits of the county appear to be far outweighed by the detriment the applicants suffer if
forced to move or remove the structure. And so though that's what we came from >> that is that is the last one is the one >> that came from the Supreme Court. And it's so it's important to remember that the first the first five we always so say that if we answer no to any of those it's not we just you have to deny if you
if you if you can't answer the first five yes these are are away in balance. you don't have to answer yes or no all of them to be able to you know either approve or deny. So um when you look at the findings that staff put together and
you look in um the yes and the nos um in the nos we tried to address some of these issues in the nos there might be some some other things we might want to add into that. Um, but yeah, I mean, absolutely. I think it's just very important to to point out just from a
factual standpoint, as Rock mentioned, if you guys decide to say no to this, that would then require the structure to be um to be removed and either located in a conforming location or possibly not even to be built. But that is that is
the outcome if the um if you decide to deny the variance today. >> Madam Chair, could I just ask a clarifying question? and and any one of those criteria can be used as a basis to say I'm going to deny an after the fact.
In other words, they're not weighted. >> Correct? >> So, I don't have to give more weight. Does the benefit of enforcement outweigh the other? And so, I find that there are two of those requirements that are not met. >> That would be my finding. And so, uh, is
the benefit of enforcement? I I think when you get so close to the road, there is an issue potential issue for us. So, I think there is a benefit of enforcement. But I'm not going to try to weigh the dollar and cent benefit. I'm
just saying um some people jump to that I think and say, well, if almost in every case, the answer to that would probably be it's hard to make the case for the benefit to the county. So, everyone could get away with an after the fact. But I don't think we have to weight it that way.
>> No, it's just one of the criteria. >> Correct. And it's not a it's a it's a uh pole barn. Let's put it in context. It it might be a much more difficult issue if it was a house um for us. So, I I stand on that in my
I'm leaning to to no and I would actually be strengthening the findings of no. If if we go that way, if the board wishes to go to yes, that that's I I would be a no. Madame Chair, I'd like to just make a statement that
the property owners, there are property owners, they rely on their contractors, but in my opinion and the way I look at this, the property owner is responsible to make sure the contractor does pull
that permit, that the requirements, setback requirements are being met. And in this case, I mean, there was no permit, there was no variance. I just I cannot support this. >> Okay. Further discussion.
>> How how many houses are on this fork road or >> I mean, is it is this some heavily traveled thoroughare? We can go up to the um >> try to see >> to that map where it's uh to the aerial
map. We can look at that and see what we can observe >> for if we can see you know. >> So it's a dead end. >> Yes. >> Correct. And so we're on page 93 like you've got there on yours rock and you can see that there's you know obviously
it's a residential area with residential type lots and um for houses out there. I I guess I really can't have to zoom in a little bit to see maybe try to get a better idea but there's definitely a house at
the end there. I can see on North Fork. Um there's a house to the south. that appears. There's a house to the south. West it appears. >> There's six lots. >> Yeah. >> Basically. >> Mhm. >> One, two, three. >> Yeah.
>> Pass this. I I I if this went through and there's this big danger that the building is too close to the I I right away isn't always for safe
passage. right away is so if they need to improve the road in the future that they can go 80 ft wide or 66 feet wide instead of a 30, you know, instead of a 22 ft road surface, you
know, it it's not if it was right here on the corner in Nelson Drive where everybody's coming past it and it's it may be more justified. I just don't see the benefit and
This structure's been up for two years. >> Yes, sir. >> And two and a half years. >> Two and a half years. And the township hasn't made any comment on it. The the neighbors haven't made any comment that oh, he's getting too close and that phone rings. I'm sure you guys can
attest to it. The minute anybody >> cuts one tree, I'm >> We never got a call from anybody on it besides the assessor reviewing it. I don't I don't see the benefit to the county to make him remove or move or anything else. I I understand the justification
>> um with your thoughts, but I can't justify making someone move. >> Madam Chair, >> yes, John, >> I'm I'm going to propose a motion um with uh findings and then see what
the vote is. Sounds good. >> Um and and so I'm I'm going to propose a motion of denial. >> And so I would want to look at findings of no. >> Uh findings for no >> and we'll put them up on the screen here.
>> So if we could put the findings of no because I wish to propose two additions to them. >> Okay. So the findings are on page proposed findings are on page what again? Nichollet >> 110 for no. So I and I would propose on finding
three is the property owner owner proposing to use the property in reasonable manner not permitted in the land use ordinance. I just want to add a fourth bullet that says there were no visible similar structures in the area this close to the road
and on item four is the need for a variance. >> Just let us give us a minute right this then we'll this >> I'm going to talk fast so sorry I apologize. And you did you mention when you saw the similar structures that was noted during the on-site visit when we're there. Correct. That's based on the
>> we didn't see any >> based on your on-site visit when you're on this site. Yep. Okay. >> And and to item four is the need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. >> Uh I want to add item four. The need for a variance is solely created by the
property owner and their contractor. There's nothing unique to the property that creates this variance. And and I would just um say in discussion relative to my ordinance again, I I should be agreeing with you,
Rock because I'm a township guy, but I would say from a process perspective, if the township was complaining, would we then vote accordingly? We don't always do that. So, I think I'm
I I'm cautious about using the township um that way. I mean, we regularly disagree with townships and they comment on it, by the way, that we regularly disagree. So, yet I very much respect that they have an opinion. Sometimes I
disagree with them. Um, so that's my motion, Madam Chair. >> Um, Madam Chair, I'd like to add to question three. Um, it is not re reasonable to allow a structure to be located 5.8 8 ft into a road right away when there is room to
have the structure located in the existing building envelope shown on the certificate of survey. And then number four, >> let let us write this down. Just give us a minute. >> Remember was like when you were the staff person when they were firing stuff at us left and right. So give us a minute.
>> Write faster. Short hand. >> Okay, next one. Four, I would say the need for the variance is created by the property owner by having the structure built without the required building permit or
verifying all required setbacks are met. That's why I requested the variance. I'm I'm not understanding why that's even an issue. The whole purpose of me doing this was to is requesting a variance for these things. And I've explained to you
what happened and I'm I'm just a little confused here why there's so much discussion about this. The reason for me wanting this variance was the things that we've already talked about. >> So I I'll answer that, Madam Chair. So
um the a variance applying for a variance isn't something that's automatically granted. of variance has criteria in statute and then there's criteria in court in case law that we have to follow and that's what the board is using
tonight to address um you know to address your request and so it's um they understand that the your request and they understand that you're you know wanting the variance and they're weighing the the facts as they see them on the site where they're they think the
variance request meets the requirements of of state statute and of case law. So that's what they're wrestling with um as they're trying to make this decision today. >> Uh Madam Chair, may I speak again? >> Yes, sir. >> Madam Chair, could we have a status of the motion before we >> I'll second it.
>> Just one moment, please. Uh Robert, we have a motion on the floor and now we have a second. Now we'll continue with discussion. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh I'm sure that you all are aware that if
if you if this vote does not uh pass for the approved the approval of the variance, how much money this is going to cost my wife and I did I assume we you're voting for me to take it down or leave it up. It cost us thousands and thousands of dollars to put that thing
up. We moved here into this township loving this town and we are very happy here. We love living here. But that will cost us the the pole barn itself cost us 24,000 bucks just to get that thing up
and it's probably going to cost that much to get it down if we have to move it. We do not have that kind of money. So I I'm I'm appealing to the mercy of the board and I understand the statutes. I understand that we did all these things and I know the owner is uh
responsible ultimately but we this is something we are like I said we're rookies at doing this. We did I did I I trusted a contractor that I shouldn't have >> contractor >> and and I understand that but surely
there must be some some mercy that can be shown in this situation. >> Thank you for your comments. Going back to we have a motion on the floor in a second. Any further discussion on the part of the board?
>> No, no, Madam Chair, other than to say I I truly hear hear him. Maybe he has a cause of action against his cause of action against his contractor that's between him and his contractor, but I just uh can't support something
that is this in in my opinion egregious in terms of our setback requirements. Uh, and I apologize that I can't. >> Okay. Um, we have a motion on the floor in a second. Is there further discussion
or are we ready to take a vote? >> Madam Chair, I just um looking at the survey and the rightway lines. So they they actually squeeze that
rightaway line up farther than the actual road traveled road because they're of course they take them as a straight line. Uh the it appears if you were to be able to
>> Yeah. right there. It actually be even worse if you were to use that line versus the black line. >> Okay. >> Any other discussion or anything else you want to add? >> No, I'm good. >> Okay. >> Not we have um a motion on the floor in
the second. Are we ready to call the vote? >> Madam Chair, I recommend a roll call. do a roll call vote on this. And um >> can you explain could you explain the motion that's on the floor? I I wanted to go ahead and have that reread into
the record so everyone understands that this is a motion to deny this variance based on the items discussed by the board >> and and the revised findings of fact >> revised findings of fact that um
>> your on-site visit your >> etc and the survey >> staff report all the information >> and and the uh discussion on the review of the criteria for after the-act variances. Okay, >> which is part of the record. >> John has just added um the information
to the motion that was initially made and then I believe it was seconded by Sue. >> Yes, I will agree with that. >> Agree with that. Okay. So, the time has come. All those in favor of the variance uh denial, please signify by saying I.
And we'll do a roll call. Andy >> I. >> Don >> I. >> Sue. >> I. Rock. >> No. >> And I vote I. So, the motion does pass. >> They got to be kidding me.
>> Uh, we'll follow up with you at a later uh Oh, he left. So, okay. >> So, does this does this mean I have to take the structure down? >> Uh, we will we'll follow up with you um after the meeting. Uh we'll we'll get a hold of you. Um, if you're I know you're
in some times out in California, so if it works better next week, we can find a time in your schedule to talk about it. But ultimately, yes. The answer is that the structure needs to be moved. >> Well, thank you so much for all your mercy, folks.
>> So, that's what we have for the agenda tonight. Um I do have some items as matters not on the agenda that I'd like to run through you guys um tonight if that's okay, Madam Chair. So um I'm going to pass down some packets for everybody to take
a look at. We're going to just kind of run through a few things and and then uh be happy to answer any questions and and that. there's just some information I thought it'd be good to share and and um so the first thing I thought would be good to maybe go over and chat about was
uh the um decision that the county board made at the December 30th meeting to talk about that potential um about that reszone request up in first assessment to go from that row residential one in Shorland to um commercial. Uh the county
board in essence decided to deny that request and so um the property is not did not get zoned to commercial. It did it is still zoned partially Shorland district and partially rural residential one. um based on the information that uh
was passed on from the county board, um they felt that the findings weren't um um persuasive enough for them to be able to consider um changing that zoning to commercial and so they um developed their own findings of fact and decided
to um keep that as a residential lot. Um couple things that I think are important to point out. one is that, you know, I think from a staff perspective, we could have done a better job of helping draft a better set of preliminary findings. I don't think we did as good a job as we could have on that. And so, um, we're
we're going to we're going to do better. So, we we'll work and get better findings put together for you guys in the packet from a pimary standpoint. Um, another another uh question that was brought up by the um by the county board was that, you know, um we had missed the opportunity to um put the
um some of the comments that we received after the packet was published. Unfortunately, we didn't get those put in the packet to the county board either. So, that was something that we're we fixed internally now to have m make sure that we have that taken care of. The other thing that um I don't think we did as good a job was was going
over past history on it. And so some information that you guys didn't have, I think um would have been helpful. So, you know, the fact that um this was requested commercial back in 1983 and the county board denied it to go to commercial at that point and it was also denied back in 1998 by the county board
to deny it to to commercial. And so that wasn't um communicated as well to you as as from a staff perspective. So we're I'm going to kind of go over a little bit. We've kind of revised our packets a little bit and we want to go over kind of how we're changing things a little bit to address some of those issues. Um, and so you'll see also, um, staff
reports are going to be a little bit more in-depth and go over some of these facts. We're going to slow down a little bit and and really make sure that we cover all of our bases. I think you heard when Nicola did her, um, staff presentations tonight that a little bit more information. So, we're going to spend a little bit more time, I think, and not maybe try to rush through the
staff report. Um, just take a little more time and try to make sure that we really get you guys all the relevant information that you need to see. Well, thanks for your canoandor. I appreciate that. Yeah, that's, you know, this is a work in progress.
>> It really is. It is. And I I think that, you know, anytime the county board decides that they want to make a different decision than the planning commission does. I think it's important to review why and, you know, what were their reasons. And, you know, I I think it's it's a situation where there's nothing to take personal. It wasn't, you
know, they were just disagreeing. they just felt that um maybe you guys didn't have all the facts that they maybe had to be able to make that decision. So, >> and I I agree with Andy. Um and there are times they make a decision that's
different than what we recommend for their own reasons. Leave it at that. Right. In this case, they didn't think they got the best factual recommendation. So they made a factual decision, right, unanimously.
>> So I think that I always look at that as a learning opportunity to to step back and say, >> "How would we do that better the next time?" >> No, nothing more than that. >> Yep. Unless there's any questions about that, we'll jump into um they did adopt the
ordinance as you recommended. Um what they decided to do was to um require the 10-foot setback for recreation or general development lakes and recreational development for those situations where we're going to um try to restore based on a shorter sh
alteration permit to create a shore wreck area. And then on a GD on a natural environment length they kept it at 25. And so I just I asked staff we put together kind of a maybe this might be crude I'm not sure. We did the best we could with, you know, I don't think we're too artistic, but we want to make sure there's there's two standards for
vegetation in the county and we want I think that was part of the confusion maybe with um when with the public as well, I think. But so if you look at the top undeveloped lots, so this is a lot that nothing's built on it. It's a it's a it's a native lot. Vegetation's still
there. Everything's, you know, nothing's been removed. If you look at the GD lakes, we're going to regulate that vegetation in the first 37 and a half feet away from the lake. Recreational development lakes 50 feet. Natural environment lakes 75 feet. Then if you jump over to our rivers, it's general
development rivers are going to be 50 feet. Natural environment uh rivers are going to be 75, Mississippi is 75, and our cold water rivers are 100 ft. So in those areas, in that store impact zone one, you are limited to being able to clear 30% of your shoreline 25 ft back
to create a shoreline wreck area. That's where you might want to put a little bit of sand for the grandkids to play in. Maybe that's where you want to um maybe have your dock come out and build a little patio down there. And the remainder is meant to be left alone. The ordinance does allow. So if you see over here on the bottom right the word it
says intensive vegetation clearing in shore and pag zone one is not allowed. Limited vegetation clearing is allowed with a permit activities in the ordinance. Uh and then just again shoreline vegetation is not something new to our new to the county and our ordinance. So if you have a lot that's
15% or more impervious and you get a permit you have to do storm water plan. 20% or more you have to do storm water and you know that vegetative buffer. what you guys approved our recommended approval to the county board was in the bottom left which was this is a lot that's been developed for years years
and years and years and they mow down to the water's edge. What we have in place now is if they come in for a shore alteration permit because they want to do the beach area or whatever they want to do this is saying on a general development recreation development they're going to have to leave 10 ft back from the lake and that remaining
70% at 8 in of vegetation. That's that that's that um no maintenance buffer that you recommended the board that they put in for verbiage on a natural environment lake. It's going to be 25 ft. So I think the confusion has been that the old standard that we had we had recreational or GD and the RD was we're
going to protect shore and peg zone one. Then we had a separate standard for natural environment lakes that said we're going to protect 25 ft. And so this actually strengthens the ordinance by now saying no natural environment lakes we're going to we're going to protect the 75 ft on those lakes that
have never that have you know they have not been you know touched but on the lakes that have been touched we're going to maintain that 25 ft buffer which will go back to what was in that previous piece. So I think it gets the best of both worlds and so this I hope this helps you to maybe visualize what we what we're trying to accomplish. When I
was at the county board, I crudely made a drawing on the back of a piece of paper and tried to show it to the board like that and um and it I think it maybe helped for some, but it didn't help for others. And so just tried to just try to make this happen. So try to help. So I hope this helps a little bit.
>> Nicely done. >> This is good. >> Thank you. >> Um so just wanted to share a little bit about um our numbers for 2025 just as far as permits. So we issued,81 permits in 2024. That's uh three more than last year. So, we're pretty much on
line with last year. Um I won't go through the numbers, but you'll see a majority of them are resident. So, if you see LUP, land use permit. So, that's a residential land use permit. Um residential SAP, that's shal alteration permit. So, that's what you're going to if you're working on your shoreline. Um
CLUP, that's a commercial land use permit. And then commercial um shown alteration permit. So, those are the numbers, the breakdown uh permit turnaround time. So, when you submit a complete application to our office, you're going to get an approved permit in 4.7 days. Office goal that we've set
departmentwide is 10 days. And so, um I think staff, um and that's going to get lower next year because the staff were just getting more, um experience in that. I think you're going to see that number even go lower next year. Site visits, we did almost 2100 site visits um last year. Our goal for 2026, we're
hoping to get closer to 3,000 site visits on the property, doing inspections, meeting with contractors, meeting with our with uh with citizens and land owners, really helping them to a make good choices and reviewing to make sure that variances and permits
have been approved that things are in good place. So, um that I think is really important. We had 459 uh designs approved last year. Uh I think one of the things the data points I think is really important. Uh if you look at compliance inspections, we had 778
compliance inspections submitted, 646 compliant, 66 non-compliant, 92% passing. We are 93% passing last year. So we've been tracking this since 2010. And if you take that number, you know, we've probably done 12 13,000 inspections on our septics. You're in
that 92 to 95% passing rate. And the ones that aren't passing, they upgrade them. So, we're working on getting those upgraded. And we do have a few that are over in the county attorney's office because they didn't want to upgrade them. So, if you don't want to upgrade it, you don't just get to not do it. You still we still have some ways that we
work on that. Um, we had 237 enforcement cases that uh we had this year and then we had a couple ta tales from previous years. We're able to get 185 of those closed. We have 52 open. 78% of those are so we have a closure rate. There are some that are not in that 52 open that
are in the county attorney's office. So we we when it moves to the county attorney's office, we changed that status so that we know how many are over there and then how many are we're still working on. Um DRT meetings in 2025 we had 163. 2024 we had 209 and 2023 had
186. So we were down on DRT meetings this year from previous years. Um if you look at public hearings we had 127 hearings this year. Last year we had 121 and the previous year we had 124. What I want to point out to you guys which I think is really important and this is
kind of the direction I think that you gave staff when I came back in 2023. If you go to 2023 and you see after the fact variances there were 17 after the fact variances in 2023. In 2024 there were 12. 2025 there were three. So, from
a staff perspective, we've we're really working hard to get these folks to make sure that we're not having these similar with with with the applicant tonight, which is unfortunate um to to make, you know, to help folks, you know, make good choices and and, you know, get the permits on the front end, do it right, and and that and and we're also having
situations where folks aren't doing it right and we're saying there's nothing to apply for. I mean, they can come and ask for it, but we're telling them their chances are not good because of your consistent action and how you've been treating these after the fact variances and that. And so, um, we've been
basically been fixing their problems before they come to you guys. >> No, if I if I do my math right, I think it says that 5% of our permits get variances, >> right? Yep. >> To the argument
everybody gets a variance. No, 95% >> follow all the setbacks, all the requirements. >> Yep. >> It's quite the exception really. >> It is. Absolutely. So, um and then we just I just have the numbers for for what we do for the wetland conservation act as far as what have we done for
different applications and and the different if you look at that really long acronym that LGRWRP, that's our local road replacement program. So if anytime a local government unit like a township or the highway department, MDOT does their own um they need to sometimes do road work.
Sometimes there's some wetland impacts to that. We have regulation over that. We have a process that the state requires us to follow, but the state replaces those wetland credits. We just have to work with LGUs to minimize that to the greatest. So that's what that we live in acronyms on the staff side and sometimes you guys don't, but just
wanted you to see that so you kind of get an idea for that. Um >> you sharing this also with the county board? >> We're going to Yep. And so we do an annual um land services report to the board. And so a lot of this information is going to be in there and part of that. Yep. Um couple things I wanted to
talk about. If you look at your packet, we used we go just go to the beginning of just a packet. Any packet. We realize that sometimes depending on the application type, our packets were a little bit different. And so we're going to change we're going to try to have our packets be very consistent. And you'll
notice tonight, I hope you recognize that Nichollet said, "Here's a locator map. Here's where this is located." Trying to sometimes I think we zoom right on the parcel. And sometimes if it's not in your area, you know, if you're not familiar with this, you might not know where these parts are located. So, we're trying to to do that. We're also um trying to as you look at the the
the um the staff report, this is all going to look the same. Everything going down is all going to be very consistent. And the big one of the changes that we're making is so when people come in for DRT, we used to have a different permit or different report format, DRT reports now we're going to look like county board or look like PC reports. So
that way when the DRT application comes in, we just migrate that over into the planning commission and you've got 90% of the work done because you've already done the we don't need we are I think redoing work that we didn't need to do. And so, um, if you go through, you'll see, um, the you're going to have a a
much more clearer, um, history on the parcel and trying to explain what was some of the past history that we think is really important for you to know. Um, yeah, go back up to the go back up to the scroll back down just one more. One more. I'm going to ask a dumb and
unrelated question. Look at the name of the lake. It's showing it says Bay Lake. That tells me it's Bay Lake. I just figured out that's not the lake. >> So that's that's a GIS problem. I'm slow. >> And so that's Bay Lake Township. Correct. >> And so you're going to see things like
you might if if we're in Noki Lake, you might see a no might that's the township. Unfortunately, if it's going to if if it's the lake, you'll see the lake name and then you'll see a number after be 18- something cuz our so the state has created a a division of you
know basically they've identified the lakes. We're number 18. It's just alphabetical. Aken is 01 were 18. They put a dash and then they put the lake the lake number after it. So >> you you'd have giggle had you seen me thinking >> that's not on Bay Lake. >> Bay Lakes's got some exact same road
names as >> Hanks. Yeah. I wonder where that is. And >> yeah, sometimes it takes a little while to get that going. Um but so what we're going to do the map what the what your package going to look like is that you're going to see an identifier. You're going to see the identifier. The
next map is going to be a zoomed in version >> the aerial. The next map is going to show you the um topography. The next map is going to show you the the FEMA map if if there's a flood plane issue. And then we're going to show you the survey if we have one. If it's a Luma, we're not
going to have a survey for those, you know, reszones, but we're going to have the survey data. We might have wetland in at at this point. There'll be some other data, whatever they provide us, but that's going to be very set and rigid as we go forward. Um, and if we keep going down further, like on this one, this one had the sight
suitabilities. This was that one over on um, Hanks with Megan Cord over there. So, just wanted to go over that just I think it's going to be much easier for you guys to look at and easier for the board to um, have these reports just be more consistent format so they look the same. And
>> the conditions will always be right after the request. >> We're going to we're actually going to put >> I mean I >> we're going to put the findings and the conditions are going to go after the findings. >> Okay. Because personally for me, I like to see the conditions right before here. We have a request for a variance,
>> okay, >> to do X. And then I kind of like to see the conditions because if I'm going to make a motion, >> I go to that screen as to what my motion's going to be. >> Okay. >> And if I got to go all the way down to find the to note that there's sudden conditions, it's easier if they're right
there. >> Show it. >> Do you see the point there? >> Mhm. Right. >> So there's where we have we have the potential conditions are in that. I I misspoke. They're in the same spot as they usually have been. It's just at the bottom of the report. >> I just think they're kind of easier if they're closer to where the motion's
going to be, then you know what the conditions >> on the staff report on. >> Yeah. >> Or you would So, you'd want them to be right there. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay, we can do that. >> I don't know if others pe because if I'm going to make a motion, I want to say that there's seven conditions. It's easier. Otherwise, I got to scroll down
and find other conditions. Yeah, we can do that. >> Or they move everything, take the request, and put it down. >> Either way. at right above the conditions. >> Yeah, we'll put the condition and the request side by sideways. >> Yep. >> Yeah, we can definitely do that. >> I agree with you on that. It's okay.
>> Yeah. >> And then after that, we'll have, you know, >> why don't you forget there's conditions? >> Well, and then we'll we'll have pictures that we took on the on sites and then you have the the findings will be the last that'll be the last part of the packet will be the proposed findings. So, >> in both places. >> Yep. They're they are backed by the
findings, too. So, they're they're in two spots. So, >> Right. But they're not by Nice for us to have them back by the findings because when we're looking at the findings, you can say, "What are the conditions again?" I go to the I go to the one before it. So, >> it makes it makes it easier. >> It's just easier if you're going to make
them. >> Yeah, we'll do that for sure. No, we're on board. >> We have them in two spots. That's That's a challenging part that I think it was who who did it where she put the motion and the and the um
conditions down after down by the findings because you're scrolled down then you got to scroll all the way back up to remember what the >> we'll put the conditions up and then because it's it is helpful for us to have them down by the findings when you get there because you might say can you go look remember the findings again we just scroll one page up and it's right there but I can see where you would want
it by the by the by the recommended action so we can do that no problem at all um any other questions about the packet or anything along those lines the other thing I want to talk a couple other things one um is that the minutes are going to be a little bit different with the new system we've Not you know
in the past when we would put the minutes up for you to review you get that email through it's now not it doesn't if we put the minutes in it publishes approved on the it just publishes it so you either can look at it through I legislate which you have that option now or we can just
email you a PDF of it when you know because we we want to get those minutes to a week before the meeting we can just email that PDF to you too. Can >> I ask a question on that? >> Yep. Is there any reason that the minutes can't be just attached in this? >> They could be in the packet as well. >> The agenda packet because
>> does everybody use I legislate? >> No. >> What do you mean? >> Yeah. >> So, are you meaning >> I mean I get that's how I get in to review the >> That's the only way the packet, isn't it? >> No, you can go to the website, too. So, why don't you will you pop up the website and show them where
>> I I love I legislate. I have no >> We're gonna We're going to continue using that. But there's two ways to do it. There's two ways. >> I don't know how I got on to it. It took me a >> So if you if you if you click >> 40 minutes trying to find the agenda and minutes. >> Yeah. If you click the county board
button, county board meetings. >> You can see the county board stuff now. >> And then it's going to be right there. You see where it says planning commission? >> Yeah, that's where I finally found it. >> That's where it's at. But we can put the minutes in the packet, which I think would make sense. >> Well, I Okay, we'll start doing that. >> Looking at my whole packet and I'm reading the minutes.
Oh, not everybody says I legislate though. What do you mean put it in the packet? >> So, as you as we look at our agenda for the meeting, um Chris, so there's no more >> I would upload draft minutes. Then >> it'd be just in in the staff packet that we put out we publish in the website. The minutes will be in there.
>> Just in the packet. Yeah. >> And just say draft on. Okay. >> Yep. And then then because that's typically how I've seen in other boards, you have the draft minutes in the packet. >> That's how ours are. >> Yeah. I think that would make I think that would make the most sense. Yeah. Let's do that. >> Does that work? So there's no more going through meeting portal. You have to go
into the county board meetings to get the >> whichever way you want to access that packet. >> Yep. So when >> Well, I've been going through I legislate cuz that's the only way I knew that we could do it. >> So the other way to this this this is how the public this is how the public gets there. >> Yeah. >> If if you're John Q public that wants to
know this, this is how you >> If I go into that, then I can't make notes. >> Correct. Right. This this is just this is just for v >> and you actually see the county board stuff in I legislate as well. >> Correct. >> Right. The only thing you aren't seeing so far is videos, right? You have to go to YouTube, I think.
>> Yep. And we we can show you actually if you click >> funniest home video >> on the on the left side there, you can you'll see where it says um um county board playlist. That's where the um that's where you go watch the county board meetings. And then PCBOA, that's where you go watch they're all on
YouTube. And so if you click on that, it takes you to YouTube and you can watch. You can watch it live or you can watch it recorded. >> So if we do want to do the notes, and I really like this notes, >> continue doing that leg. >> I love it. >> Yep. >> The only the only thing that I don't like and I haven't figured if you can do it is if you're typing notes, you want
to type notes, then you got to get out of the packet and then to go >> you have to go back into the packet to review some more stuff. So you're constantly >> going back and forth on that. >> This is really slick, actually. >> I really do like this. Yeah, one thing
we're going to add to the packet too is um approval of the agenda because you know like tonight when we pull that one off, it would be great if staff would say if you would, you know, next the agenda is approval of the agenda just like the county board does it and and you would say staff any changes? We'd say well yes there is madam chair. Thank
you. We're going to police and then you'd make a motion so it's more formalized to say this is the agenda that we're working with tonight and these other two have now been removed. So, so we're going to we're going to put that'll be something new on the agenda for next >> because it wasn't act they didn't actually table it. Those applications
weren't actually tabled. >> You didn't table them. They were >> they were withdrew >> and then not withdrew completely but withdrew for for um action today. >> So there there's still there's still live applications but I think it would be much more clear. >> Is it the process wise best if we published our agenda and we noticed all
of those should we have tabled them? >> I don't think you need to. I you know because I I think of times like the other day at the county board you know they brought up um where you know um Steve looked at at Debbie and said the agenda she says well we're going to pull item 2.3 okay and then so agenda now
with item 2.3 removed motion second they approve the agenda they didn't table it they just said we're going to pull that for this meeting so that's what this is we're just going to pull those items for the meeting and so we would just then have you update the agenda by by taking a motion second to drop that. Okay, that works. >> Okay, >> we can do that moving forward every
time. Just approve the agenda. >> So, so now run by me one more time. How are we going to be getting our minutes and findings? >> They're going to be in the packet. Yep, they'll be in the packet. >> They're in the regular P in They'll be in the packet going forward draft over it. >> Okay. All right.
>> So, how do you get to I legislate? >> I can email you a link. >> Yep. There's >> there's a link with a password and then you get into it. So, then you have your kid show you how to do it. >> I'll I'll We did, but of course that emboss. >> Yeah, I will. I'll send it to you, Andy,
in case you >> I do I do I do like this. So, >> so what I the next thing I put in your packet, I don't think we need to go through these verbatim, but it's just a reminder of the findings that we have. And um you know, I think a couple things
that we need that we're good that from a staff perspective, we want to let you know that we're going to do a little bit of a more thorough job on these findings. um would be trying to do a better job in the findings of explaining the situation. So a situation like with Mr. Solder tonight with his land use map
amendment when it talks in there's a question under number two it says is the reclassification warranted due to change land use or circumstances or a need for additional property for the district. That finding is going to say Mr. Sodom wants to create a 5acre lot on the
northwest side of the property so that he can sell that to his kid. That's what it is. And so we're going to do we're going to put more facts like that in the findings so that we're not going to kind of beat around the bush, you know, >> really so that his son can get a
mortgage on the property. >> Well, and and to be honest, that was >> 20 acres. >> That was not what we discussed, >> right? >> So that was when he brought that up, we're like curveball. That wasn't really, you know, >> um >> so that they can't take more than five acres when they repossess it if something would happen
>> or he decided to sell. Yep. But I like what you're proposing because it's not just restating the comp plan or something. It's actually speaking to the application, >> right? And and there there might be situations where it might be a little more challenging where somebody comes and says, I want to change this to
commercial. I might not be able to say, well, they're going to put a gas station in or they're going to put in a Cabelas or, you know, I don't know. So, the ones that we know, we'll tell you, and the ones that we don't know, we won't tell you. And then you're going to have to decide, well, if I don't have enough information, maybe I don't recommend
approval of that landmap amendment. So, you know, >> well, I think I think if you look at them right as I read them tonight, if if you think one is weaker than the other, it does trigger me to think, >> yeah, >> I got to rethink about this then, right?
If yes seem weak, >> then I start to think, well, what about the nose? >> And I guess it gets you to kind of process that a little bit. That's helpful to me at least. Um so are there any are there any like um when you look at the find the fact for any so we basically got finding a fact for
variance cup and intermuse are the same findings plat lumas are there any findings that you go what does that really mean and so that because I think sometimes if if somebody has qu like what does this question mean it'd be good for us all to talk about it so we can say this is what it means to us so
we have that consistency and I don't know if there's anything here or if you maybe you want to take a look at it this month and maybe come up to me it matters on agenda next month and we can maybe talk through if you have a what does this what is this finding trying to get at more so we can try to maybe answer some of those questions
>> because I'm glad you mentioned that because there have been number of times like one of the items tonight I read through it read through it again looked at the map and thought what do they want to do what's going on >> y
>> and I'm attributing that to my you know novice status but Well, I don't I don't you know I I think it'd be a good idea to maybe you know even ne because next month we don't have we have three applications next month >> and um and so we could definitely we'll have time at at the end of
>> and we could we could just maybe we just walk through each one of the you know maybe you just take the month if you want to look at them this month and then next month let's just walk through each one and let's just say this is what this means everybody right we're on safe so that way I think going in I think because you know I think one of the things that John's brought to the board
sometimes it drives me nuts but I think it's right is that consistency Right. I mean, so >> I think the more that we can talk with because consistency in land use sometimes is a great idea and then sometimes implemented is challenging. Um, but if we can be on the same page for what these questions are trying to get at, it'll make our findings a lot
clearer, a lot cleaner, and a lot easier to to do. And Chris knows that on the land use map amendment. I called him this week because question number two basically says, is it warranted due to a change in land use circumstances or a need for additional property in the
proposed land use district? A literal reading of that says that somebody that wants to come and get Johnny uh his five acres doesn't meet that question. So I had to assume that a change land use circumstance is I want to will my
heirs >> is that's what that that that's exactly what and that's and that's how I that's we interpret it the same way. That's how we see it. I mean >> but I mean you could also literally say no is the answer. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, >> so just just maybe just take, you know,
read through these, maybe make some notes if you have questions and then we can come back and just talk through it so that we're all on the same page and knowing kind of I think that would be really helpful for kind of a especially since we're a little slow tonight. We're a little bit slow next week or next month. We don't have um a bunch of
applications coming up. So, >> I'm a Norwegian. Don't have an excuse. >> So, um couple things I wanted to chat about just real quick. I think just some common pitfalls that we make sure we need to avoid. you know, make sure that we're not telegraphing our decision before the meeting. You know, we're not sitting down and saying, "I think this
is horrible and before you've kind of, you know, so, you know, make sure that we're not telegraphing that you've made your decision." Um, neighborhood opposition. So, um, one thing that we're going to do differently going forward than we've done in the past is that when the neighbors when the people come up that want to talk, either loving it or
hating it, we're going to make the notes and write down the questions of what they're saying. And then um when it comes back to the board, if the chair would like, you can say, "Staff, would you answer the questions that they brought up?" Absolutely. And we'll go down that list and we'll answer those questions. That'd >> be great.
>> So that way I think they feel like they're heard because I think sometimes they come back and we don't respond. And so I think at least they may not like the response I give, but at least we gave them a response. And so that's I think a change that we'd like to make going forward. And we'll we'll take care of that, you know, >> but it also makes it a better record.
>> It absolutely does. And so we're going to do that. The other part about when we're dealing with the folks is personal feelings versus actual feelings, right? So let's make sure that um you know, as we're dealing with stuff, we're pulling out the facts and we're not you know, we're trying to you know,
sometimes people get really anxious up there and they start spitting stuff out like, "Oh my gosh, you're going to my property's going to devalue and my house is going to burn." You know, I mean, people make up weird stuff. You gave me one fact. I know you're up there for five minutes. All I got was but let's pull that one out. So just focusing on the facts. Um then the other
one is just conflict of interest. There is the perceived versus actual. If you feel like you have a perceived then maybe you should just feel confident that say hey I got to step away provided we have a quorum. So that's what gets me a little nervous. You know if all of a
sudden we don't have a quorum and you're you're you're not maybe don't maybe it's not actual but you feel like it's more perceived. Think those through. But I mean, typically speaking, I think if you feel like you have some sort of a of a conflict of interest, identify it, say it to the board. You can still be part of the conversation as you're as you're
mulling it over, but when it comes time to vote, you would abstain. >> Okay. >> I I think it's also important again from training. Conflict of interest is usually always around a financial >> financial. Correct. >> So, it's not that I if I know you,
that's not a conflict of interest. >> Nope. Nope. I agree with that. So I a lot of times you go well that's my fifth cousin removed you know I'm I'm I it's like no you know I mean I think if like you're sitting here and your spouse is there well that might be a conflict right maybe so >> Don had that problem
>> he did have that a couple times so um the other one so I think that's just the conflict side of it and then the other one a couple others is just making sure that we have a serial we don't want to violate the open meeting law by a serial violation and what that means is that Andy calls John and says hey what do you
think about that application and John says, "I hate it. I'm going to say no." Okay. Then Andy calls Sue. Hey Sue, what do you think? Oh, I hate it, too. Right there, you just violate the open meeting law because you you talk to more than you can any you can talk to any two people anytime you want, but it has to stay within that two. And so, and you
know, let's say that you two talk and comes over and talks to Rock, which you can do. You just can't go back to John and tell you can't go back and tell John what what Rock told you. So, make sure we don't want to do that. >> I mean, Rock has to come and tell me. >> Correct. That's the it is the reality. The other one is just emails. So when we
send you out emails, we're going to really our goal, our policy is to blind copy you because if we let's say we just do a carbon copy and you do a reply all with a response, that's a technically a violation of the open law again because you made you talked about an application or something and everybody was aware of
it without it being in here before it was published. So don't hit reply all. Just just hit reply and then we can we try to prevent that with blind copies. So, um the other one is just making sure that we have findings of fact like tonight for the um for the application. Which one do we had
a we didn't have back up? >> Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. >> There's another and I don't mean to stir the pot, but I'm just I'll just toss it on the table because if it ever comes up, I don't want you to get blindsided. uh argue one could make the argument
that us driving around on site visits is a meeting that needs to be disclosed and >> it is we publish every meeting. >> What is public? >> It's abs we Oh yeah because that's that's an open so if somebody wants to come with they are able to follow our vehicle out and they can when you guys
are out doing stuff they can't sit in the van with us but they can you know so but yeah know we publish every one of those every one of those is published for the open meeting law. Absolutely. >> Yep. anybody ever come along? >> Um, we've had people meet us at sites, you know, like I'm thinking about the horseshoe variants a few couple years
ago. We had the the neighbors. So, the neighbors will we'll typically say, "Hey, we're going to go do an on-site. Can I can I show up?" Um, the two things we say is maybe because if the landowner won't let you on the property, I can't tell the landlord to let the neighbor on
their property. So, sometimes the neighbor has to stand, you know, they have to stand on their own property and then we can go over and talk to them. So, it's up to the landlord to let them on. The other one is if they if the landlord won't let them on, then you guys have to go down and do your reviews in, you know, in groups of two. You couldn't go down all five of you by yourself and then come back. So, you'd
have to go in in groups if that happens. We've had that happen once um that I can remember where we had to where they wouldn't let somebody on the property. Um >> and I I like our onsites. We talk about concerns and try to reflect the concern in the on-site meeting and that's when
we ask for yeses and nos, which I think communicates >> that we haven't made a decision. we're waiting for the input. >> Yep. And and uh and so that's one I want to bring up about the finding of the fact. So um if we have an application where um all that's in the in the
application the in the packet is one finding or the other yes or no. Let's say either one and you're like oh I see you put yes findings in but I think it should be a no. Don't forget to do findings. You know we'll do our best to remind you but you can't just go well we no and and then if we don't have the findings we're in trouble. So make sure
that we always have those findings. You know, for us, the things that from a staff perspective, we need to make sure we provide written notice and we've changed how we do that. So the chair used to sign them and we used to give them out that night with handwritten stuff on it. It was kind of I think it was hokey. So tomorrow morning Stacy will she will print up the notes of
decision. It'll be typed up. Looks great. I sign it and then we send it off to the folks so they get that. So it's a little bit more professional. Um the other one is just making sure that our record is clear. You did a great job tonight of discussing with Pola. If he decides to sue us, I'm convinced we're going to win in court. I think there's
no question about it because you chatted a lot of what I mean what you have in the pack in the findings written are great. The judge is more concerned about what you said versus what was written down. So, that was a really great way to make sure we had a really clear record even though some of us didn't agree with
it. But uh um the other one is just making sure that our our connection our conditions connect to the request. So like with POA today, let's say that you approve that and you said, "Oh, by the way, you need to go do a 20 foot buffer down on Shirt Lake." You can't do that. The conditions have to be related to
their request at hand. So this is a rightaway setback, you know, and so you couldn't if they want to do a variance by the lake, you couldn't come back and say, "Oh, you know what? Looks like you built a shed. Now you got to move that because it's too close to the rideway." you've got to stay in your lane as far as what that application request was. Um, I'm going to jump back to findings
and something that was brought to my attention this week that I've never thought about. It's something you always learn. So when let's say we get a request and they ask for four variances, we do a finding a fact that really