All right, we will call our October 21st meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge >> allegiance to the flag of the United States. Um, are there any disclosures of interest?
Hearing none, uh, previous board meeting minutes from October 7th. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded. We approve the October 7th county board meeting minutes. Any further discussion? Seeing
none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose the same. Motion carries. consent agenda. We have five items. >> I'll move approval. Second motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> Oppose the same. Motion carries. Uh department uh reports access variance request county road 42. We talked about this at the last meeting and asked to bring it back to this
meeting. Actually moved to reconsider it and why it's back here. >> Chair, just one point too is we haven't approved the agenda yet. So we should probably do that. >> I missed that. >> There are no changes. >> We'll back up and approve the agenda. So
moved. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose the same. Sorry about that. >> All right. On to you, Jess. Go ahead. >> Morning, commissioners. Uh, as the chair
mentioned, uh, we are back to discuss the reconsideration of an access variance along County Road 42 in Zroa Township for Mr. Josh Bcher. Goody County Board of Commissioners at the last meeting requested to hear additional testimony from Mr. Betcher concerning a variance for driveway
access to his property. A little background. On June 24th, uh Mr. Betcher applied for an access permit. The permits attached to the report. The parcel number 470120100 has one existing access. The owner
requested a second access. That original permit was denied due to spacing requirements that are outlined in the county's access management and control ordinance. Uh upon denial, Mr. Ber applied for a variance. Uh on September 2nd, 2025, the board scheduled
a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance which outlines process uh to apply for variances. The public hearing was held on September 16th. Uh on a 4-1 vote, the board granted the variance, thereby approving the issuance
of a permit and communicating with Mr. Bcher. Staff advised him that no work should commence in the right of way until an approved permit was issued. The permitting process would have instructed Mr. Bcher on proper construction specs for the access, particularly with uh
regard to the county rightway permit had not been issued when it was noticed that Mr. Bcher had completed construction of the access. The board met on October 7th, at which time staff provided the board with information related to Mr. Betcher's construction of the driveway
without a permit and information related to potential business use of the property that was not included in the application. That memo has been attached as well. A formal motion was made to reconsider the variance with a request from the board
to have Mr. Betcher speak to them at today's meeting. That motion carried and the issue is now before the board for consideration. Mr. Bcher has been advised of this action and that he will be allowed to address the board today. Uh staff met with Mr. Bcher on October
14th concerning the driveway that had been installed and issues that would need to be addressed if the access is allowed to remain. The conversation revolved around discrepancies with culvert size and type, the need for the driveway to slope
away from the road and to be a half foot lower than the shoulder at 20 ft from the shoulder of County Road 42, and that the surfacing type would need to be a class 5 aggregate. The driveway width was acceptable as well as the slopes that were constructed. Um, beyond that,
it would be a little bit of turf establishment to uh get things to um be all tied down. Mr. Bcher and the contractor that built the driveway asked about potential ditch cleaning adjacent to the driveway and whether that would be acceptable. It was explained that
during a a process like this where someone's building a driveway, ditch cleaning is routinely acceptable uh to ensure positive drainage and that good county routinely allows that uh through our permitting processes. So in the process of reconsideration,
the good county access management and control ordinance specifies when a variance may be granted. The language from that document follows and and there's six items that are listed uh directly from uh our access policy. All
six listed circumstances according to the ordinance need to exist for a variance to be granted. Uh the board should consider reviewing those as it would be prudent uh during this reconsideration process. So with that, that's the background and and where
we're at. Um that can be considered here is is uh continuing discussion with Mr. Bcher uh reviewing the matter fully and then determining whether to resend the initial motion approving the variance request or not.
Um if the motion is rescended in the recommendations you can follow that process. So with that I'll stand for any questions from the board or the board could consider asking Mr. Ber to come up. >> Any questions for Jess? Go ahead.
>> So, one point that you had in here, you said you you kind of left out the fact that you told Mr. Betcher you weren't going to issue him a permit till the minutes were approved. >> Yep. >> I don't know if that's standard practice with that. We're all aware of that. Is that anything we vote on here isn't
official until we approve the minutes. But if we if we take a step back, these aren't really questions. These are comments. listening to a reasonable person. I'm not sure what the impression was, but a reasonable person would I don't know would come and ask for a driveway permit if the impression that you guys were given was that he's
trying to hide something by functioning a business because that's kind of what you led people to believe is that he's trying to do something different than what we authorized with the memos and stuff that you wrote up. I'm not sure how a reasonable person would do that. Okay. Okay. The other thing we have to look at is taking this back from the
get-go other than a functioning business which you doesn't necessarily need to have a permit for because it's egg related. Any reasonable person can look at that. >> It's not that's not accurate. >> It's debatable. >> No, it's not debatable. >> Okay.
>> Egg let's just take a step back. Loadmire implement had to get a conditional use to operate totally an egg business at their location. So yes, egg businesses, any business needs a conditional use.
>> So everybody selling seed out there has a conditional use permit. >> They should. >> Everybody doing custom chopping, farming, hauling, >> that's different. >> Okay. But anyways, reasonable person could look at the right or wrong. So the process that it went through
taking two months to get brought to this process, nothing really has changed in what Mr. Better is still eggreated. It's still access. So you guys were all here last meeting when we approved a permit condition use for uh Ryan's for their hog their manure storage. Did we look at
the access that they had to county road 9? >> I don't think they look to change anything. >> They had three access points on a paved highway. They didn't look to change anything. But I'm just saying a reasonable person
could look at this and say everybody else has this. It's reasonable access. I would like an additional driveway on my property. It's not unusual. And if you look at that specifically, I don't want to say assump assume, but I'm Have any of you looked at access points along county roads as you've been
out driving since we've had this discussion? >> Yes, it's not unreasonable what he was asking for any which way. He started the process out in two month was denied two months
and everything going through a typical process and even when he came to that meeting with the understanding that you need to come and ask for variance was he on the agenda? No. Was he intended to get talked about? No. Was he here with the impression that he was going to be? Yes. Did I have to bring it up to Mr.
Bezac to bring it up to ask for the variance request? Yes. Okay. We went through we heard all this information. There's nothing unusual about what he's trying to do. Whether it's being a business should get the condition use or not. Okay, we heard all that information. Makes sense. You can get an
additional driveway to access or you better utilize your property through that process. I'm guessing you all had the same impression from public works. They don't support it. Don't want it. Don't want to see it. I have longer story. Don't know why. It's nothing unusual. So, you get the variance
approved. Good. Went through the process. The board heard me, they accept it. When you call and contact public works that day and they tell you, "No, you're not going to get it until the minutes were approved." Meanwhile, you spent the last two months, which without
any from a customer service standpoint, failure. You spent the last two minutes and now you just felt you just got jerked around. Again, probably not the right way to go about it, but that's what happened. So, we put the driveway in. What's wrong with the driveway? Few
issues, but nothing that we're going to discuss here, anything or the use has changed, unacceptable, unreasonable. The ordinance in itself needs to be rewritten, looked at, tailored differently or set up differently. It's not a one-sizefits-all, which whatever
it is, but nothing we have utilized or looking at today is unreasonable that a reasonable person wouldn't have went about and done to get additional access. We approve approved the variance already with all the information we had. Nothing really has changed. There's not necessarily a functioning business. Not
necessarily more f more traffic or anything that's going to affect any use on the road. Question mark is why I'm not sure if that was Jess's intention. May or may not have been to think that Mr. Bcher is trying to hide or get away with something that he shouldn't have been to bring forth and put all the effort into
bringing forth this memo about what has transpired. the ordinance, the variance should be stayed, should be reapproved if we have to reapprove it, put the driveway in, make it up to standards, and life goes on. It's nothing unreasonable, nothing unacceptable that everybody else in the
county wouldn't expect and the way to be treated and dealt with. So, >> go ahead, S. >> Um, I have one question for you, Mr. O'Keefe. Uh um Jason implied that um when we approve something, it's not
actually approved until the minutes are approved. And is that correct or is that incorrect >> or is it depends? >> Well, I'm glad you mentioned it. I was going to speak up too on that particular point. That is technically incorrect. Once the board approves something in the
meeting here and votes on it and proves it, it is an official action of the board and it can be acted upon. I think the practice of some of the departments in the county is to wait until the board minutes are approved before they move forward on it. And in this particular case, the board action didn't allow the
property owner to go and put the driveway in. He still needed the permit from highway department. I think that was the issue that was in this particular case. >> Right. But the highway department wasn't required to wait um for the board minutes. Correct. >> I mean, it might be their policy, but it's not a legal requirement.
>> Correct. >> Okay. other policy. >> Yeah. And I I just have one other question and this is really more for land use to to me the real question is is um with the proposed business which I understand appears to have an agricultural use. I don't know if that's
quite the correct term. Um, I think the question that I would would have as a board member is, well, what kind of impact is that going to have on how many cars are coming and going from the property or what type of vehicles even I guess?
>> Uh, good morning. So, the way that the county zoning ordinance is written is that if you have a home and you on that home site in an agricultural district, if you're operating a business out of that home
site, um that can fall into either a tier one, a tier 2, or a tier three homebased business. In this case, um I've spoken with the Bchers and um they really fall kind of right in between the tier one and and or tier two and tier
three businesses. Um and what we're looking at specifically is the size of the operation. And the way that the county defines size of operation is based on how much square footage in your building are you dedicating to the use and how many employees do you have. Um
so number of employees is defined by people that are coming into the site that don't already live there. Um so that's additional traffic. You know in this case um a tier three can allow up to 10 employees. So we immediately are looking at 10 vehicles per day coming
you know to work on site to leave on site. And then we're looking at the actual the planning commission um would look at the use itself. So, deliveries, is there manufacturing? Um, is there odor, is there smoke, is there um
additional neighborhood impact? So, yeah, traffic would be would be a consideration for a tier three homebased business. Um, typically tier 2 lower impact. Um, usually there's not a not a
big traffic change for tier 2. Any other questions be we have more is there more questions for staff? >> So 10 employees but you don't have an idea of how much traffic they would expect would be coming and going. >> I think that's I think that would all
come out during the >> too soon >> once they do a actually application. We don't have an application. I don't think you have an application as of this point about what that business looks like and what what the traffic volumes could look
like. >> So, last week there was a conditional use um permit application for a tier three homebased business submitted to Good Hugh County. Um that'll be considered at the November 17th planning advisory commission meeting. There's some there's some information in that
application about the type of business um the number of anticipated um uh employees and some information about just the how the business would operate, the number of trucks and deliveries that are coming in and out of the site.
>> I guess my statement to it is uh like I said last month, I mean I maybe still will approve this. I don't know. I just I just didn't have all the facts and all the information ahead of time. I look at if we don't follow our permitting process and things are going to change in our county, somebody can go put a hog
barn up tomorrow and none of the neighbors are going to want that, you know. So, I I we we do have to follow >> the process >> the process. So, I guess that that's that's where I, you know, and I appreciate looking into it again. And I'm not sure on that whether the minutes
need to be approved, whether you know whether it's becomes action when our board chair goes and signs that uh variance that same day or if it happens the next day or what. >> I haven't signed a variance yet. But
>> I I think the point that I guess I steer the board back to is we do have an ordinance charged with following the ordinance. We don't like the ordinance. We should change the ordinance, but we haven't done any of those things. We haven't we
need to follow our ordinance and our ordinance said the spacing wasn't enough. Afforded Mr. Batcher the opportunity to come for a variance. And then we still need to follow our ordinance. And there are six items and they're still sitting
in front of you. And the last one, economics is not a reason for approval or denial. Economics is not entered into this. I just want us point us back to
following our ordinance as our oath says we should. Whether it be the zoning ordinance, whether it's access ordinance, or whether it's any other ordinance we have, we need to follow the process and follow that method. Go
ahead, Sue. >> So, uh, I think that the the board approved the variance based on concerns about safety. I mean, you can agree, disagree with whether or not that >> I think we did, but that doesn't answer all six of these. >> No, let me let me finish. And so, I I think the thing that's really changed is
learning that there's going to be a business or proposed business on that property. And that the number of cars and vehicles coming and going could definitely uh impact the safety questions one way or another. And we don't really have that information.
Okay. And so to me, what would make sense is to have Mr. beta go through the conditional use permit uh process and have the driveway be looked at again as part of that process and for us to make a decision at that time which would also
include the driveway. So then it would still be I don't know what the right term is uh um postponed or whatever until the decision was made about the business and the impact of the vehicles then and I for one would like to hear
from Mr. Better. >> All right. Go ahead. Let's just state your name and your address just for the record. >> Josh Bcher, 23830 County 42 Boulevard, Zeppa, Minnesota. Um, so starting out
with the conditional use process. So, we reviewed it with our legal team and it's not necessary. We feel that we would have to have a conditional use permit under the agricultural operations clause within the zoning. That being said,
we're working with the team with Megan and zoning and we're willing to review that process with them. And the tier 2 would be because we currently have two employees, but the tier three designation is based on square footage. So just the nature of what we're doing
takes up elbow room. So we're willing to go to that tier three classification and it's been a great process to work with and I'm I'm fine doing that. I've got no issues building the driveway to
code. That that's a non-issue. This business opportunity didn't start until after I started my driveway process. If we'd have had a reasonable timeline on getting the driveway process reviewed and completed, I didn't get let go from
Bayer until August 1st. That's significantly after we had put in the application for the driveway. The business opportunity came up after I lost that job. So, we started this business after that. So, it wasn't part
of this driveway. So, it wasn't meant to, oh, let's hurry up and get this driveway in. This was meant for agricultural purposes to start with. That being said, we do have a business now that we're starting up. We want to get going. We'll meet all requirements
for the conditional use. Um, you know, really to me, it it's we lost our patience with the county. Uh, you know, if you look at the zoning ordinance, you got 60 days to get stuff processed. We were, you know, we're almost on four months now. If we had
waited till now and then another two weeks after this meeting to get the minutes approved and then a couple more weeks for processing time within the department, the ground was going to be frozen. We still don't have a driveway. It was really a push to get it done
before harvest so that it was accessible and usable for harvest. questions. >> I guess I just have a couple. I I mean I I think we identified that there were other ways to meet the ordinance
with your driveway and you haven't accepted those, but we could meet the minimum 550 by moving your other driveway farther west, which would then meet the ordinance. You wouldn't have to have
variance. >> It's still two driveways then. >> I get it. But the meet the they meet the ordinance. >> Does it meet it within my property boundary limits? >> It does. Yeah, it will. >> But then you've got the bridge access. >> Pardon?
>> So there's a bridge on the >> if you moved if you moved your driveway to your house to the west, you could get them 550 ft apart because you have enough space on that where it joins the road. So you can meet the ordinance. There's not a question
about that. Jess could go out there and show you exactly where you'd put it and you'd meet it. So, what I think too hit on what really bothered me is we didn't get the whole story the first time and
we heard it was all agricultural and it's not agricultural and I understand what you're telling us. Um, but there's other factors that show that it wasn't quite that black and white. But to me, it fits within agricultural
operations and I reviewed that with my legal team after this whole piss and match that we've had with the engineering department. You know, it it's really starting to get personal. So, I don't know if the staff is intentionally, you know, looking Facebook up on company, you know,
corporate time for the county or if they're doing it on personal time. That that to me felt like a personal attack. If I need to do a business conditional use permit, I'm fine doing that process. Yeah. But to to why don't you ask me about that? I had never been contacted
directly by Jess until October after the last meeting when your team here mandated that he talked to me in person or email me. Prior to that, I had never
got anything except for uh redirected to the sub staff, you know, so working with the director from public works and working with the assistant engineer. And I've done what I felt was reasonable to comply with the standards to try to meet
the ordinance against all the recommendations of my friends, neighbors, everybody said, "Put the damn thing in. Don't go get a permit. You're wasting your time. Deal with the after. It's going to be easier than trying to get a permit. >> And we understand that. We we deal with that. We deal with that all the time.
And that means that means what that really means is the 48 other 48,000 other people in the county end up paying staff time for a driveway that someone puts in without a permit. And it and our
costs our cost for issuing permits whether it's in land use or whether it's in public works is based on we calculate about how much time it takes to do that permit and that's where we think that charge for that permit should be because
it covers the cost for you as a taxpayer for me as a taxpayer to get the benefit that benefits me and I pay for that and Sue doesn't have to pay for it. John doesn't have to pay for it. It is paid for by the person who gets the benefit.
When you don't do that, and we have to backtrack, it costs everybody in the county money. We have a process how we determine costs for permits and it's based on how much
time it takes to process it. >> It's not about the cost of the permit. It's about the fact of how inefficient the process is. It it takes forever. You you can't get anything done in a reasonable amount of time. And then to be
dismissed by the staff, oh, I've been informed. I can't come out to your property as the meeting minutes haven't been formally approved. And blah blah. If you got any questions, talk to Jess. You know, so that was very dismissive from public works staff calling me on a blocked phone number to make sure that I don't get their cell phone number to try
to call them back, you know. So, it got to the point where I was done. You know, if this doesn't end up going through, we'll we'll see you in court because there's so many other places, you know, just like what uh Mr. Majer's
brought up that there are these driveways. You can't tell me they all weren't put in prior to 2006, and you can't tell me that every single one of them had a permit. I tried to go through your process. I tried to follow this and get this done the right way and I lost my patience and I'm done.
>> Understand that. I totally understand that. >> But we have to follow an ordinance. We have to follow the ordinance. So >> we will build it to code per the variance that this board approved and it'll meet specs and we should move on.
>> Stop spending. >> That's that's a board that's a board decision. We have to make that decision. >> That's my recommendation. Okay, thank you. Questions from the board. >> Well, to me that we we we would like
anybody to be successful with their agricultural business. It's good for that individual. It's good for the county. It's good for the county taxpayer. So, I mean, we we want to support agricultural businesses. Um, but we do want it to be safe. And I I think the purpose of the ordinance is really
about safety. I I don't think it's about aesthetics. I think it's about safety and to me the that's why I look at that question. So I'm not as concerned as perhaps I should be about every single step as looking at safety and looking at
this gentleman's situation. Um I I guess I would like to know from land use and how many vehicles we're talking about, but uh I don't know that we can know that very soon. It'll be a bit before we know that. Is that correct?
I don't have the actual application in front of me. Um there had um what we'll do is we'll look at what I call employee traffic, customer traffic and then operation traffic. So that is you know shipping,
receiving, deliveries. Um, and so employee and um employee traffic and customer traffic are are typically going to be your your standard auto automobiles. Delivery traffic is going to be larger trucks. We'll be looking at turning movements um you know in and
around the site for those. Um there's going to be some parking. Nothing that um you know in our again this application came in last week. nothing in the initial review that shows that there would be not enough room on
is is relatively large. There's enough room to maneuver in the what I call the yard area for parking and and you know in in and out getting in and out. Um but yeah, that would that would get looked at by staff during our review and then
put in a staff report and forwarded commission. >> Then I have a question for Jess. Um, yeah, Brad suggested that he move the other driveway so it meets the 550 ft. Is that what it is? 500 ft. Um, but my
question is, is does moving that driveway increase safety, decrease safety, or really have no impact on safety? So, I understand it would meet the ordinance, but what's its impact on safety? >> It would increase safety by spacing those out because you allow for proper
breaking and sight distances. proper braking from the other driveway. >> Yes. Yep. Yep. When you look at when you look at the distance that it takes to stop a vehicle traveling 55 miles an hour, I mean, that's where these numbers
come from. It's all based on stopping sight distance and stopping distance for a vehicle. So, I didn't see any issue with moving the driveway to the western limits of the parcel that's identified in the report. Uh it's also um spaced
appropriately away from the bridge that was mentioned. Uh there's a box cover just to the west. It's a couple hundred feet from the property line. It's posing no no sighteline issues with traffic. So >> I'm going to ask Mr. Bcher another
question. I understand you're frustrated. So I I that message is loud and clear. And um other than being frustrated by being asked to move a driveway, which you don't think should have to be moved, what are the problems with that there? Some expense, I'm sure.
Um >> so there's some expense, plus it would take up more agricultural land, so we're going to end up moving it out into a field, so it's going to take away that additional acreage. Um for us, it's a
drainage issue then, too. So building the driveway down to that, we're going to have to put in another culvert on private property to be able to >> on your property. >> Yeah. >> So to allow the yard drainage to go down through there rather than driving having
it run over the driveway. So that would be complications of that. Um so regarding the speed, so the the offsets between driveways, I I think it was not a line of sight issue, right? It's it's
the speed. So, I think it's challenging in 550 ft to leave one driveway and get up to 55 miles an hour before getting to the other driveway. So, I'm not sure how the speed comes into play when you're talking about the
distance between my two driveways. So, if I have an employee leave one and another employee leave the other one at the same time, I don't see that being a concern. I I think that you know the standards we're
using were not developed by Goodyu County. Those are standards that are used by MIDNOT by counties all across the state. That's not a it's not a grab a number out of the air. They're documented.
They're Yeah, there's a method to how they come up with those numbers. So, >> so does every new driveway issued meet the standards? And I think Mr. Greenwood will say that certain parcels, certain properties within the limits of their extents will have to be given a variance
on that. So, not every single driveway is built to that distance. >> Might not have 550 ft on the road or there might be driveways too close on either side. Right. >> So, it's not a one-sizefitsall.
That's why there's a variance process. >> It's a recommendation. Yes. >> Well, no, it's the ordinance and then if you don't meet the ordinance, then there's the variance process. Same as same as if you went to to land use and
you wanted to have a tier three with more than the number of square footage. You may be asked to then if you want to continue to use more square footage, you might be asked to go get a variance to
that to be able to use 8,000 square ft instead of 7200 square ft. That's they're two different processes and we don't just say no, we give an option on how you can get past no and that's the
variance process. So that's the way and that's you know that's in state statute. So it's not us creating it. That's what state statutes gives. >> But again within the process there is a process the variance process where you can deviate from
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not disagreeing with you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So >> did regarding the business. Yeah. I understand it's >> Well, hold it. Hold it just a second. You said I did, >> which is what Mr. Bcher did. We went through the variance process, got a variance approved because obviously this
ordinance is flawed. It's not a one-sizefits-all. Just because it works in other counties, it doesn't work here. So, just as you identified, there's a variance process. You went through it, you got approved, >> and then what? >> Well, and well, >> wait another two weeks. No.
>> Well, okay, Jason, here's the process. When you change the use of a property, which is what happens when you get a conditional use, then accesses get relooked at. We're going
through a process to get an uh a conditional use, which then is why Jess said, "Hold it. This is different than what we were asked in the beginning." That's why we're here. >> So,
can I talk theoretical for one minute? to so if our conditional use permit is approved, what impact does that have on the driveway? Jess, can you answer that? Our conversations in person when we were
talking out at the site were that well, if it's still going to be majority agriculture, which it is, it's going to have more egg traffic than it is for this business that it probably wouldn't change was. But I'll let you speak for yourself.
>> Well, in terms of the location of the driveway, I mean, from the um from the policy, it still doesn't meet the the spacing requirement. Variance is granted. We have to go through the process of ensuring that um the driveway is built appropriately like we talked
about on site. U the ideal thing would be to um relook at your your the existing access that was that was serving your property initially and having that moved further to the west uh and having having everything meet the
conditions without um without having to have a driveway that's non-conforming to our policy. But so my question is regarding the driveway that was built, the new access, would there be any changes
or would it just still be built to county specifications? Um, it would be built to county specifications. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> So to have um
have the new egg business He needs to have a permit. Correct. >> That's correct. Y >> All right. And that is now in the process, but it wasn't at the time. Correct. >> It was not at the time when the variance was reviewed by the board.
>> All right. So, the variance was approved based on something different than where we are now. Right. >> I believe that's what you you all are considering. Well, I think if you read the application, talk about a business, >> right?
>> So, if you're if that's what you mean that the the difference is is >> a decision was >> in what the application should say today versus what the application said >> then >> back then. >> All right. It's the normal process if
this accurate that you get permission from the township and then it goes to the planning commission and then the the homeowner would work with land use and with public works to go to the next
steps to make it a driveway accurate or whatever. >> Correct. >> Right. Well, I for one would like to see it go through all the different steps and it sounds like now they're at least in process, but I do agree with Commissioner
Anderson that when we do it after the fact that it costs everybody the frustration of doing it, the co staff cost of doing it. Um, and if there really is an issue with our
ordinances, then maybe it is time to look at it. Oh, okay. Go ahead. >> May I ask Mr. Beter a quick question? Is that all right? >> Yeah.
>> So, >> we want all the information out. That's what we're looking for. driveway spacings and we've spoken about cross-sections of driveways and how they are to be built and the spacings and everything else. And when I when I
mention moving your existing home access driveway further to the west uh to your property line, I'm not referring to the egg parcel that's adjacent to you, rather your parcel that you live on. I
don't think that actually impacts the egg ground that much. >> It does. It does. Right where it would be is a hay field right now. >> Yep. And there's some trees right at that access point. I mean, would that be I mean to come into conformance and to
have something that's amunable. I believe uh most things would work out through the planning advisory commission. And um you know when we we're not going out and just denying permits perpetually just to deny
permits. We're looking at alternatives to issues that come up because we we want to be able to help the people that are applying. And you know some of those alternatives were discussed. They weren't viable for you at the opt you
know at that moment and no further options were um discussed before we went into the variance process. But I mean that would seem to me to be a reasonable accommodation that would suffice uh and and serve
everyone very well and and could be easily addressed through that planning advisory commission discussion. I still feel that it's an excessive requirement to have to put in the second driveway when we have a variance process
that can be reviewed. So, okay. I think the the one thing that the county board always has to remember is once a once it access is put in and the reason we want it built to our standards
is because once it's in, granted the landowner has to pay for it to get it in, it becomes good county property and we have to manage it forever. So if you don't put the right size culvert in, if you don't put the right kind of culvert in, if you don't have
the right slope, it becomes our problem once it's done when we accept it. So there is a reason why we dictate how we want it put in because it perpetually becomes our problem from
there forward. And when when we talk about other people and what they've done, that doesn't mean um that if something got done and wasn't
properly gone through the process, that doesn't give anybody else the right to not follow the process. Somebody puts up a shed without a permit, that doesn't mean everybody gets to put up a shed without a permit.
There's a process and everybody's supposed to follow it. I realize not everybody does, but we have a process and we need to follow it. And that's what we're charged with doing is backing up staff to follow our ordinances that
are adopted by our county board. Not maybe this one, but a past one. If we want to change it, then we should be bringing it back and have a very honest discussion about why we should not
follow mindot specs as far as as roads and that is a discussion we could have but it's not today's discussion. So is there any Steve is there any action we need to take? This needs to go through
the planning commission. It is a change of use and that will trigger looking at that driveway again because it's not an egg use, not an agricultural specific use. It will be based on the
use that gets approved through the planning commission. Is there any action we really need to take? just trying to think through that. Um, as the as the issue stands now, the board has approved the variance, which
would indicate that the um Jess and his group should be reviewing a permit application to issue a permit to build the the uh the driveway. Now, the obviously the complication is that the driveway was put in without the permit. So, that exists, but and there are
issues with it as um as Jess has pointed out. So, the board, I think, has a couple options. I mean, if the board doesn't take any action today, the board's previous action still stands. And so, that's going to put Highway in a difficult position about what to do with the permit application and that
permitting process uh as to where the driveway is currently located. Um, one of the options the board has is to make a motion to resin the previous action of the board, which would then reverse the board's action approving the variance and basically start that
process over um, as far as the board is concerned uh, for the board's consideration. Um, so that would tell Jess no that you cannot issue a permit um to correct the driveway I guess at this point and the board will reconsider the issue at a later meeting once the
painting information is provided. >> So that those are two options I think. Um >> so you're saying you're saying we could resend it >> and then recons and then it goes through the process and comes back to us. >> Correct. could possibly
>> I think I think basically would put the put the issue back to where it was when before the board voted to approve the variance. So the application would be there um the board could ask the uh property owner to submit the additional information with regard to the permit but you'll have that um with regard to
the variance uh request for land use. So that information I hopefully would be sufficient for the board at that time to make a decision. I mean, because what I'm hearing the board say is that had that information been provided to the board initially, the variance may not have been granted. And so, that's that's
the issue that the difficulty that the board is in um and was placed in, not at the board's fault, obviously um and whether or not that information was intentionally excluded or um unintentionally excluded. It was information that was, you know,
pertinent to the consideration of whether or not to grant that variance. So, I think the board would be justified in making a motion to rescend that authority at this point and um instruct the land owner again to provide the additional information and go through the variance process
>> or move the driveway or through the through the conditional use process. It may identify >> it may resolve the issue entirely. Correct. >> What's the board's wishes? >> And rescending it doesn't mean he has to wait six months. Is that right? It's not >> Well, I mean it it I mean obviously
you're delaying it because >> Right. I understand that and the uh you know the variance isn't going to be considered until probably a meeting in December. Correct. >> I mean that's that's the reality of the process at this point. So >> um the work that he's done on the driveway now that's an issue for him
obviously and um whether or not he'd be able to put a new driveway in later after the board finally approves this in December is another issue for the property owner. So, those are all practical considerations, but um
>> but the driveway isn't and the culvert isn't up to standards anyway. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So, either way, it needs to be changed. >> Correct. And that would be if the board decided to do nothing today and and go
forward with the variance approval. Um that would be something that Jess would have to work with the property owner to fix the construction defects in the in the driveway as it stands. I mean that's part that'll be part of the process there. And then obviously the board will have um you know considerations when the
variance comes through for the business use. And one last question. Um, so let's say we didn't resend it, but let him put the driveway in. Okay. And with this review of the conditional use permit, as part
of that, if the board chose, could they have him move the other driveway at that time? >> Or is that >> I might have to think about that more or maybe you two would have some suggestions on that. But I think that would be I think that would be one of the considerations whether or not the
variance was or the conditional use was approved could be conditioned on the driveway being moved. That's that's a reasonable condition that the board can consider as part of that process. >> So I'm sure the property owner doesn't want to go through the whole process of fixing the drive his driveway and
getting it up to speed and then having to move. So, one thing that perhaps could happen is we could approve fixing this driveway, the new driveway, getting it up to code, and the landowner would have to understand that as part of this
conditional use process, we may or may not require him to move the other driveway. Is that correct? >> That would be my understanding. Do anybody you want to weigh in on that or not? >> Uh, yes, that would be my understanding as well. And I'm sure you're not happy
with that, but it might be a better solution. It might be the best solution we have while the process is going forward. >> I would leave that to the board to determine as part of the conditioning use process. >> Okay. You understand that that you might
be required to move the other driveway? >> I would leave that to you guys to decide. And if the the board, you know, if the board's wishes was to were to pursue it in that in that regard, it wouldn't require any action today because the board's already approved the variance. So, it would just go through Jess and
the permitting process to make sure that the um driveways built to code. >> So, you're saying we wouldn't have to rescend it and part of the conditions on the conditional use could be that condition to move the other driveway. >> Correct. If uh yeah, if uh the board
wanted to proceed as Commissioner Bcher had just indicated, which would be allowing >> to me that seems like a solution that's respectful to Mr. Bcher and respectful to our ordinance and to the highway department. >> Okay.
All right with that. All right. Thank you. John, did you want to say something? So, I'm Josh's neighbor. I couldn't have a better neighbor. Um, this hund this
driveway moving it down to me, if you're coming from the west on this county road, it actually, what' you say? It's another 100 ft. You've got to change it. It interrupts your line of sight because you're coming over a null from the west.
to me moving his lower driveway down makes it harder to see if somebody's pulling out of that driveway. And I drove truck for 45 years. So to stop 70,000 lbs, I'm a little sensitive to that. And I've come I go down that
road quite a bit. I think it actually messes up your line of sight. Did you look into that when you were there or? >> Yep. When we looked at it, line of sight was not an issue. >> You don't think that null creates a problem? We didn't notice anything out of the ordinary that we wouldn't have
permitted elsewhere in a similar situation. >> So, as as you go to if we go to route and you're going to permit a driveway farther west, you'll take all that into consideration and how you you'll follow the ordinance, how you site it. So,
yeah, >> I guess from living out in the country like I do, I guess I'm coming at it from Josh's standpoint. I don't see moving that driveway 120 ft is going to I think it's a waste of time and money.
>> Don't think it would improve safety. >> No. >> Back to your concern it might decrease safety. >> Yes. And if somebody's pulling out of one driveway and the other driveway, the only concern I would have if maybe a truck is pulling out and you're turning, you can't see them, but there's enough
room for that, too. And in that spot in the road, nobody's moving that fast anyway. So that's my thoughts. Thanks for listening. >> Thank you. >> Did you say your last name for the record or not? >> All right,
we'll let this go through the process. Come back um at some point through planning commission. Thank you. All right, you have some reports there. Um, Lucas, were you going to go through
the third quarter finance report or were we just you want us just read that? >> Um, I wasn't uh really planning on going through it, but I guess if there's any questions, I can certainly >> Anybody have any questions on that?
Looks good. Project status, new and old business. >> Just a comment based on this. I'm going to ask for this ordinance to come back that we re-evaluate the driveway ordinance and go through the planning commission. And I just ask of my fellow commissioners as you
take a step, drive out in the country someday and just look at what you're looking from from the safety standpoint about how they're saying moving these driveways closer, farther apart. The driveways it it's not rational. It's not realistic the ordinance as it exists. It's not a one-sizefits-all. And that's
what we're trying to group in there. I will get that on the agenda probably for next meeting to get this revisited the ordinance. So, >> okay, committee reports. >> Thank you, >> Linda.
>> All right. The Redwing Housing Summit is going to be Wednesday, um, October 29th at the St. James Hotel from 2 to 6. Um, the Southeast Minnesota Coalition
Housing Study is g now currently gathering information from all the cities and counties and it should be um updated and available probably mid 2026.
And there's one other thing that came down from Association of Minnesota Counties. This had to do with something the sheriff had brought up about the how long somebody with a mental health diagnosis and needs hospitalization
um that there was a 48 hour rule that within 48 hours they have to be moved to a facility. Um, I did check into that. The 48 hour rule is apparently after a bed is found
and there are very few beds in Minnesota. However, it has now that rule has now been suspended for the next two years because of the fact that there aren't enough beds to um to handle the people that need it.
I think hospitals had an issue with that too because sometimes they had someone who they felt more acutely needed the bed who wasn't in any kind of uh controlled setting and so they didn't feel it was right to uh not be able to have some impact on that decision.
>> Yes. the release >> the adult hospitals who had juveniles >> desperate >> in in their buildings for a long time. >> So the Department of Corrections has committed to having 50 more beds by
2029, but now you're talking about four years from now and pretty much everyone says 50 beds is not even going to be close to meet the needs. >> It'll be full the first day and there'll be 50 more waiting. However, that 48 hour rule is suspended
for the next two years. >> I I was just going to give an update on the LEC meeting. Um so, uh the county and the city of Redwing got together and they were presented three options uh that might work. Um the options though
all involved building. Okay. And the the cheapest option and this was just for the building. it wasn't for the site prep and I can't remember the other word uh was $8 million and if there was a parking garage it was
uh 17 or uh $18 million. So the question will really end up being does the city really want to have a big investment in a building that um the county owns and does the county really want to spend a lot of money on uh building out space
for the city? So that's what what I think it'll come down to. I don't know Todd if you want to add anything. >> Oh, you're kind of explained it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other reports? >> I have one. >> Go ahead. >> Um Scott and I have met with uh City of
Pine Island and Ryan Companies and also Lucas and I met the other day. There is um if anybody wants to look at what's they're they're at right now in the city of Pine Island on their website has an alternative urban area review. It's called an AUR. So, if you want to kind of look and see what is kind of
happening there in Pine Island, it's a it's a monster project and uh there's a there's a lot more information to come. So, >> I think the one in Canon Falls just went through that that there, but it's not it's it'll be in the city of Canon Falls, but it'll be actually in Dakota
County. They're looking at that same stuff. >> You have something more to say, S? So, I just wondered if Todd if you thought it was pretty likely to go through. >> Sure appears that way. Yeah. >> Okay.
Any other committee reports? Hearing none claims? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> Oppos the same. Motion carries.
Uh motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. Second move >> and second we adjourn. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> O the same. Motion carries. We are going to go back to our uh budget meeting across the hall for a
few minutes and then come back in here for our health and human services at