All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order for the Nunisa Planning Commission Board of Adjustment for Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. Roll call, please. Aaron Baseman, >> Sean Weldon, >> Josh Young, Gary Harris, Dave Reese,
>> Dane Mashad, >> Steven Timberland. >> Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? There >> are none. Being none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I opposed. Motion carries.
Next to approve the meeting minutes for April 7th, 2026. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? None. >> No. >> Hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda or approve the minutes. Sorry. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I.
>> All those opposed? Motion carries. Next item is an open form. Is there anyone present tonight that would like to speak towards something not on the agenda this evening? >> Okay. Go ahead. Good evening. Paul West and I live at 25839
Trailside Run, Niswah. Um, tonight's agenda includes a public hearing on the proposed amendments to section 20 land use and development of Niswah's code of ordinance. Roger Landers, who's present, and I, who were recent appellants in the
recent appeal of Verizon's cell tower application, have developed some suggestions for improvements to section 20, article 4, division 4 of the land use ordinance, which is communication towers. Um though it's not part of your
uh proposed section 20 amendments that you're going to discuss this evening, we would like to prevent an overview of our suggested revisions during that section during the hearing for your consideration and perhaps further discussion and maybe inclusion in
section 20 the current section 20 amendments. So we're asking at this time if we can have permission to do so. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Then we'll wait until the hearing section. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any others? Okay. Moving on to public hearing. I'll entertain a motion to open public hearing. >> Move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I oppose. Motion carries. All righty. First item is variance
application 010-26 seeking to obtain a variance for a 0 foot property line setback to contiguously own property for the placement of a shed as well as a 35 ft setback to the ordinary high water mark line for proposed additions to existing
residents in the shoreline residential zoning district. Subject property is located at 21934 Ivy Lane, Nysa, Minnesota 56468. P ID 28350611 28350612 and 28350613
owner applicant uh Lori Brown and Mark Brown. Is the applicant here? Okay. If you want you can come to the podium or the desk, whichever you prefer. >> Yes. >> All right. If you state your name for
the record. >> I'm Mark Brown. >> Okay. Stephen, your staff report. Thank you, sir. Uh, so we do have before us a variance application with two deviations on the application and survey proposed. Uh, the first of which you mentioned was
a zero foot lot line setback to a property line owned by the applicant um, uh, with property ownership across that property line. Uh the other of which it would be for the expansion of the non-conforming principal residence uh with the closest proximity of the
expansions being that 35 ft dimensionality for a covered porch. Dimensions are 8 by 20. On the certificate of survey, you'll also see that there are a couple other additions proposed here. So I'll navigate to that on the screen for
everybody's viewing. All right. So, we have the closest proximity depicted here in that 35 ft dimensionality for that covered porch edition. We also have an addition here. Dimensions are 8x2
um kind of to enclose off that that wall there. Um that dimensionality would be 66 ft. and the covered porch edition here roughly 7 ft x 26 ft is the third edition proposed. Um noticing I just put
the 35 ft setback. So if uh we're doing the public hearing as it relates to all of these things, we can just do it under that uh that 35t dimensionality encompassing all of those additions in there. Um, my staff report does talk about
additional things such as the first floor elevation. So, if you notice on the FEMA map for this proposal, we do have a uh flood plane on the property almost encomping the entirety of the property.
This green blob is actually the flood fringe depicted there. Um so we went through the analysis of what the first floor elevation would be for the proposed resultant structure and that came in at 1200.1 which would be above that regulatory flood plane elevation
for this water body of 1198. Um, another FEMA requirement is that a residence is elevated on fill and that fill pad extends 15 ft outside of the structure um to the base flood elevation which is
just 1 ft below that RFP at 1197. Um, Mark, you had arrow land surveying going out there. Um, they shot elevations of the existing grade away from the existing structure, all of which were above that BFE. So, I find no issue with that.
Um, one of the requirements when we're building inside of the flood fringe here is to have a certification of elevation done after it's built. Um, and so that would be a requirement that has been listed as a condition to this um,
variance application if approved. I do have one more um, point to talk about here. The existing and proposed impervious surface coverage comes in at 22.2 2% and 22.5%. You'll notice on the certificate of
survey that there's several areas listed as to be removed. Um, so not listed in my staff report is uh an eighth potential condition for your guys's review. That would include a statement saying that those areas that are listed
on the survey dated uh March 26, 2026 uh as to be removed must be removed by significant completion of the project or permit expiration whichever is sooner would be one that I would nominate as a
potential eighth condition to this. Um and then You'll notice that there are three parcels involved here. Um the house exists on the larger of them, but then there's a 15t and a 10ft parcel on there. Uh one
of the potential conditions is to consolidate all those three and combine them. Um wetland delineation was not submitted to the city for this application, although the national wetland inventory layer of GIS does not depict that to be a severe issue in the areas proposed. So, we've
conditioned that a delineation or a no wetland letter be submitted to the city um prior to land use permit issuance. And I believe Arrow had a conversation with you about that. >> Yes. >> Perfect. Um
so coming away from the dwelling edition and that deviation, you'll also notice on that certificate of survey that there is a shed listed to be moved. that is the one in question here and he's proposing to move it up against the western property line uh with a proximity of zero feet allowed um is the
request for this that deviation. Uh that's um most of what I have. Uh we do have a septic design uh for a three-bedroom system accompanying this variance application. And so, um, the final note
that I have as it relates to FEMA and those limitations of this property is that that design must comply with flood plane regulations such as sealed risers for the tank um to be above that regulatory flood plane elevation.
Outside that, uh, available for any questions or comments and provide feedback. >> Uh, can you give us a brief overview of the proposal? Okay. So, the existing um structure there
I think was built in the late 50s by my wife's grandparents and then her father uh bought it uh as they passed away and bought it or inherited it and then modified it in the late 70s, early 80s.
I bet it added on to it and and so it that's the condition it's in now. uh he passed away in 2019 and then my wife bought or my wife and I both bought it from the estate
to keep it in the family and it's kind of just sat there for since then the last seven years. So, we had bought the property next door back in around 2004 or five and I just recently built on
that started in 2021. And now that I'm kind of done with that project, uh, and this house just sitting there and paying taxes on it and not really doing much with it, we decided it'd be nice to, uh, remodel it and then
use it as kind of overflow for our family uh, or maybe even rent it to people to enjoy the lake. And so my goal is to make it just an amazing piece of property and house for people to enjoy
the lake. And so that's kind of where I'm at. >> Okay. Thank you. Questions? >> I I've got one. Um we were out I was out yesterday and we chatted. >> Yep. >> And uh uh the
application is relating to that. you're going to you're building additions to it. You're remodeling the the existing dwelling, but I kind of had the understanding that you were going to tear this down. This was going to be a tear down and start put a new building in there. Is that not true or
>> Right. So, what I was going to try to do was just remodel it. >> Right. >> But it's a 2x4 construction walls. I wanted to go 2x6. So, in talking with one of the uh builders in the area that
I'd like to work with, he said it'd be easier just to take it down instead of expanding 2x4 out to the 2x6 dimension. So, then I was thinking along the lines, yeah, I mean, it's old. Um, I can get
better insulation by doing that. So, I kind of went along that thought of just taking it down to the foundation. And in that, I want to use the existing foundation, but we have to really assess what we have there to see if it would
support um something brand new. So, right now, it looks like when I was able to dig down, uh it's it's not down very far. So, I don't know if that's considered like a floating type foundation,
which I'm not too comfortable with. And then the builder also or the construction person I was talking with, he and his sons had the kind of the same idea that maybe we should just do a whole new foundation. So if what I want
to do is what is right. I don't want to invest money and time on something that not going to support it, you know? So, if it's going to cost me more to get a solid foundation, it's a good investment
for me. Uh, so that's kind of where my thoughts are. And I'd like to do it in that same location if I can. Um, reasoning for that is it is a narrow lot. We're putting in a new well and septic
system and drain field. So, that going to take up a lot of space along that east, north, and east side of it. So, one of the things I want to do is move that shed over to the side to open
up where that shed currently is. U probably for that drain field in there. And that's what we had proposed. I had a um Martin Joyce came out and did a septic design, a drain field design. Um and
then given with the driveway, I was going to kind of shorten up, not do that roundabout thing because that was infringing on my neighbor's property. It's been like that for years. He's a great guy, you know, and I don't want to bother him with having that. So,
I thought I would come off more straight and then just have kind of a backout area. So, it's really tight and there'd be a lot of more trees as you seen that would have to come down if I were to move all that back. So, it's really tight. So,
that's what I was hoping I could get this variance and then stay within that. >> Okay. >> Place I got one more related question to that. assuming the worst or the best that your that the foundation existing
foundation would be removed and then replaced with a new one. Um does that impact at all the the the u fact that the the buildings are within are way less than the 75 ft setback.
Do we is there is there something in grandfathering that you have to leave the you have to build on the existing you know one wall or foundation thing like that? We don't >> in our current regulation. No. Um those existing foundations and the existing footprint of the structure are kind of
protected under that Minnesota statute 462 357. >> So I just want to make sure all the T's are crossed here and it's okay. Uh my question on the the 10 or 15 foot strips that are on both sides, was that previously like a a road vacation there
or something because it or an access point? What were those? As I looked at the legal descriptions for them, um it doesn't look like they're platted as any type of like road that had gone through vacation. No. Um they're more like meats
and bounds related. So certainly not a not a vacation aspect. Um, for example, it's like the east 10 feet of the west 300 ft of section township range yada yada. So, it's >> they were just land land transfers between the owners
>> most likely. Yep. And that just never got consolidated at that time. >> Okay. Yeah. My only the only reason why I brought it up is because there might be something on other people's titling that are around there if they have some sort of access point, but if it's there's nothing then it doesn't matter.
So combination of loss, say they're say they're encumbered by an easement. Um I don't see any easements depicted on this survey, but >> okay. >> Um if that was the case, consolidation of lots and legal description would not >> impact those other separate documents. >> Okay.
>> Questions down here. >> No, I have nothing else. >> Okay. Well, because this is a variance, we have to go through these list of questions and then answer them. you had put it in with your application when you originally did it, but then we as a
commission will do it as well right now. >> Okay. Um, is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan? >> Yes or no? >> Yes. >> Which one are we starting with of the
two? >> You want to do both? Do do them separate? one for the shed set back and >> we'll do the shed first. >> So even though they're going to be com combined because then the shed wouldn't actually be on that. That still has to be in there.
>> What was that >> being the shed? Because once he consolidates will that will that not then be on a zero lot line if if he consolidates the >> the three parcels. >> So on the certificate of survey I'll show you where those parcel lines exist here. Um, so you see this dashed line
here coming up from the shore. >> That is the property. >> The new location of the shed is on on his property. >> The bolded line around the subject property is all three of them. >> All three of the pair. >> That makes sense. I I thought the shed
was the one. So >> Gotcha. So this is for the shed. We'll do that first. Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan? >> Yes, it's a designated SR zoning in there and it's being used for this
purpose. Juds are quite comment. >> I agree. >> Agree. >> Is a per is the property owner proposing to use a property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city court of ordinances? >> Say yes. Same answer is number one. >> We agree. >> Agree.
>> Agreed. Is the need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner? It's a unique parcel. I mean there's no other room for drain field and there's a current structure there. So >> yeah, I'd agree with that. >> That's correct.
>> Four. With the issuance of a variance maintain the essential character of the locality. Uh >> yes, it it it'll blend with the adjoining properties and the or that are in there. Does the need for a variance involve more than economic considerations?
>> Does not appear to be a consideration. >> Does not >> cost. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. >> Any other pertinent findings? I cannot think of any. Okay, we'll go for the setback then.
Next one. Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance comprehensive plan? And it' be the same as the answer number one in for the for the shed variance. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. >> Is a property owner proposing to use the
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city code of ordinances >> is again the same answer as in number two for the shed. >> Three. >> Agreed. Three is a need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner. It is again it's the same answer that's as in the shed variance. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. >> Four. Will the issuance of variance maintain the essential character of the locality? >> It will again same same answer as in
shed variance. >> Agree. >> Agreed. >> Does the need for variance involve more than economic considerations? It it does same as same as number one for the shed variance. I agree.
>> Agree. Okay. I will entertain a motion. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. I'll make a motion to approve the variance application 01- 010-26 seeking to obtain a variance for a zero
foot property line set back to continuously owned property for placement of a shed as well as a 35 ft set back to the ordinary high water line for proposed additions to an existing residence in the shoreline resident
zoning district subject property located at 21934 Ivy Lane Nisa P ID is 28350611 28350612 and 28350613 owner applicant Lori Hamilton and Mark
Brown with the facts and findings of the city. >> Do we need to spell it number eight and the conditions of approval? >> And the conditions of approval. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Do you want to give us number eight just just so we have it?
>> Yes. So, uh the areas depicted on the certificate of survey dated March 26, 2026 uh depicted as to be removed must be removed by significant project completion or a permit expiration
whichever is sooner. >> Second. >> All those in favor I >> I all opposed motion carries. enjoy your new place. >> Yeah, thank you. Next item is ordinance amendment 007-26
to amend section of chapter 20 of the city of the city of Nisa code of ordinances. Stephen, >> thank you. So tonight we are hosting the public hearing uh for the proposed revisions to chapter 20. Um we do have
members of the public here looking to speak on behalf of some of those and uh this planning commission and board of adjustment has undergone significant discussion over the last two months about the proposed discussion or proposed changes. And so, uh, my point is to try to make this public hearing
responsive to concerns that citizens have and address any additional questions that you guys may have about those changes. Okay, I'll open this up to public comment. Um, thank you for letting um me speak
about um concerns about the cell tower ordinance, which is not one of the ordinances the the one of the sections of section 20 that you have been reviewing and I fully understand that you've been talking about these revisions for quite a while now into
last year. Um, but in light of the recent uh appeal of uh Verizon's cell tower application, Roger uh Landers and I have taken the time to review the our current ordinance against Crowing County's ordinance, Brainard's
ordinance, and Baxter's ordinance to try to make some we want to make some suggestions that we think would bring the city's um ordinance into compliance with all the other cell tower ordinances that are here in Crowing. county. And um
I just want to be clear that we did not appeal uh the Verizon cell tower because we're against cell towers. We know we have to have them. We know there's a a need in downtown area, particularly in various other areas of Nisah where coverage is Verizon's coverage is just
not um good. But um we think that the current ordinance has some restrictions that limit the placement of a cell tower and also did not do not consider safety and health issues uh in the process. And
um so we have some revisions to suggest to you. I don't um Stephen has been has received these previously. I don't uh think that you will probably want to fully discuss it this evening because you haven't read them. And I'm sorry I couldn't provide you with copies because
of course your printer runs out of ink just when you want to print something. So um uh I guess what we really are asking tonight is that you just take these under consideration and decide whether you would like to include these
uh in a uh a f this current ordinance revision of section 20 because they are part of the land the section 20 land use ordinance. um or whether you would like to consider these as a separate uh effort after you uh review this these
the current sections that you're going to discuss further this evening. Um I'm not going to go into detail about what your current ordinance says because um it's just lengthy. But some of here's a
couple of things that we would like you to consider. not the whole ordinance itself because there are sections of it that are appropriate um right now. But one of the sections that we want to take a look at is section 24/19 which is the
location of the cell tower. Um let's see. Okay, Steven's got it there. >> Yeah, that's the current this is the current ordinance which is somewhat limiting in terms of where a cell tower can be placed. It does prohibit it in
the central business district and encourages it on city-owned resident property except non city-owned residential uh zone property or the central business district. And it does um suggest that um it be given
preference to the city-owned parcel where there's municipal sewer ponds. Well, we already have a cell tower there and the current ordinance um prohibits another cell tower within one mile. So, that's kind of doesn't fit. Um, we would
s like to suggest and if if you want to proceed further with this, Stephen can provide you with email you copies of these suggested revisions, but we would suggest amending the tower district to expand tower placement in zoning
districts that include number one, highway business or open spacing, also open space residential, um, public and recreational except in the central business district which would be reszoned to include the city
hall uh fire department and playground area as part of the central business district. Now Crowing County's tower ordinance does allow cell towers on private land which they lease um and that get a lease and a conditional use
permit from the city. also Baxter and Brainard also allow that and that would allow some other options for placement of cell towers that are near the downtown area um and also near other residential areas that could expand coverage without having to be on
city-owned property. Um the second section that um we would propose some changes to would be section 20-420D which is setbacks. Um, the current ordinance states a setback of 500 ft,
which is still applicable, but we would like to see you add a fall zone, which is similar to the Crowing County ordinance. Um, and that includes um a a zone around the cell tower that's equal to the height of the tower plus 10 ft or
more. And that's just a safety issue in case there would be um a storm uh a do like we've had before here that would ensure that it would not be um the tower would not fall on any
structures within that district. Um, another section where we would propose some section some changes would be section 20420G which is self-supporting structures required. Right now it talks about the
use of uh guywired towers. Um, no it prohibits that but it does say towers must be self-supporting without the use of wires, cables, beams and other means. We would suggest that monopole designs be required in the
future because um technology has changed and um that design is more aesthetically appealing and has a smaller footprint. There's another section of section 20. It's not the cell tower ordinance, but
it's under section 2656, which is the appeal process. When we appealed this the um Verizon um cell tower, there seemed to be confusion about what is the appeal process. The
council didn't seem to know and we were uh sort of kept out of the dark in terms of when was when what is the process? And so we're suggesting that um you take a look at and develop um a a clear
appeal process. So any future appeals to the land use ordinance are fully understood by the city council, by this commission and by the appellant um to the uh to the appellent of the appeal.
And also there was confusion about like when is when is the hearing going to hold? Um, and what is what considered the closure of record? Because we were told that the closure of record on that appeal was in December when we
originally presented the appeal, but then it was tabled for two further months and um a closure of appeal means no further evidence can be presented. So there was confusion about that process and so we are asking you to take a look
at that. Um, and then there are sections of the Crowing County ordinance that we think would um you would benefit from further review and those relate to um key sections but not limited to um
applicability uh which is uh uh who can apply for a a permit. Section 43.6 six, which is general standards and
signage, which would require um uh any tower to be uh have signage that says who's the who's the owner of this tower, how do you contact them, which is currently not in our ordinance. These are just uh additions that could further
strengthen the cell tower ordinance um to prevent any further hopefully appeals. Um also lighting of accessory buildings. There's nothing in our uh current there's a just a little bit in our current um ordinance about lighting
but this would further define um the direction of of any further lighting. Um also strengthening site plan drawings uh and federal review. We had an issue with the fact that the Verizon
application cited the FCC safety requirements from 1999 when there had been 25 additional revisions to those uh safety and with 5G now cell towers there's a lot of different safety and
health issues of concern now um and also factors to consider in granting a cup the height, the capacity for additional antennas, proximity to residential structures and boundaries, surrounding topography, visual obtrusiveness,
character and aesthetics of the surrounding area. If those were part of the ordinance, that there would not have been a need for a variance. So, uh, that's just sort of a brief overview of
what we're suggesting. Now, I guess we're asking you to decide if you would like to further review the cell tower ordinances. We'd be happy to work with you on that. Um, and whether and if you do, whether it um should be included in
this current um ordinance revision that you're currently working on. So, that is my short and brief presentation on that. >> Thank you. Um, Stephen, you want to give us kind of a a
walk through on what that would look like if we would do a revision? >> Uh, if we were to include it and fold it into this one, we would want to um bring it back in into the public comment period. We'd have to postpone this public hearing, table this public
hearing, um, whatever you guys might decide to that. Um, what would be recommended would be to establish that under a clean legislative review. We've already received a conditional letter of approval from the DNR on our proposed
changes today. And so to close up this process would be my recommendation and then bring that forward as a new one potentially at the next meeting. we'd schedule a public hearing to occur related to specifically communication towers and that would provide the public
proper notice on what we're talking about um on its own timeline and we could have that on the agenda for June. Correct. >> Okay. Thoughts?
>> I think that's a good idea. I would agree to do that. How how would that affect the going back to the food trucks? How would that play in there? Because we >> Well, we did extract that from this public hearing phase. Um and so those
could come back on their own timeline. Um if we want significant significant community engagement on that topic, um it might be best to keep them separate from each other because this is this topic is very specific. Mobile food units are another topic. That's right. I
just wanted to figure out that's that that would >> So right now we're leaving things as they are now. >> Exactly as is for food trucks. Yep. >> Because I did talk I just to kind of share with you guys I did talk to Mike Foy with Main Street and then he brought
in Mark from Rafferties. They weren't in favor of any more food trucks coming in other than special events, that type of thing. And I guess I >> I guess I understand that. Yeah, I agree with that. He's like, you know, so I just don't want to I just want to make
sure that that was clear, but >> that's Yeah, that's not included in what we're doing. >> I just Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Jennifer, did you have a comment? >> Oh, not related to that. >> Oh, okay. >> Do you need a motion?
>> They're not. >> There's just >> We can continue through public comment on that. They'll work with you and going into the June meeting and >> I I certainly could do that. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um Jennifer Carneahan, I'm
actually here in my capacity as mayor uh as it relates to the chapter 20 ordinance revisions uh because it will come back before council I believe for a vote >> in two weeks at our May meeting. Um, and so I will uh do my diligence in sitting
down with Stephen later this week to go over additional questions, but I did have um questions for all of you who have been going through this. I was at the last meeting, but then I had to leave early and I didn't get a chance to go back and watch everything to revisit all of the discussion. Um, but I did
have an opportunity to speak with council member Hall, who is the liaison for planning and zoning. Um, and the feedback that I got from council member Hall is that the ordinance revisions and all the discussion that took place at the last meeting, I think the last few
meetings where it was several hours of discussion that um, I don't think I'm quoting him incorrectly, is that he felt a lot of the changes were good and the discussion made sense, but he thought there were a couple that perhaps were overlooked. And so I just wanted to ask
that because there was a gentleman that did come to the last meeting and he spoke during public comment. His name is uh Mr. Craig Peterson. He lives at 21869 Birchmont Lane. So very near to a few of you and also near to me. Um and he wants
to put an addition onto his already existing garage. but because of the ordinances that we have in the city of Nisa um from his lens being a bit restrictive, he's not able to put this addition without jumping through all
these hurdles and spending thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars just to go through the variance and application process. Um so I went by and looked at his property and spent some time with him last Thursday. I I I said as well I'd share at this meeting and
let him know that a few on the board live in the same neighborhood and could probably very easily walk over, stop by and see as well. But one thing he shared with me is the way our ordinances are is it allows him to build a second structure 10 ft away but not just put
the addition um on his. And so I had reached out to council member Hall asking about it saying, "Hey, is this already in the changes being proposed by the planning and zoning uh board because of so it kind of makes it a moot point. He can just wait until you know this vote comes before council." But council
member Hall indicated this change was not in there. And this is one thing I do want to talk to you more about Thursday to understand why not. Um because what council member Hall indicated to me is that Chris Pence didn't recommend changing it even though it doesn't align
with the county. And I guess that was just a question is if you guys had discussed it at length what the thoughts were because when this does come before council for a vote. I mean we we have options, right? We can choose to accept um what comes out of this commission. We
can choose to do a different thing as well. And I just wanted to understand that better for myself. So, I go into the vote in two weeks being more informed if anyone has any perspective. And I apologize. I don't know specifically which I was trying to grab this and look, but I think it's probably
multiple ordinances, right? >> It's one section in particular. Uh, if I understand the person and property and um of subject here, uh, it's an accessory structure, a garage that's about 1,200 ft² 30x40 existing. Um,
right now it was built at the 15t setback that we used to have for accessory structures and principal residences. Um, so it's right at that 15t lot line. Um, the proposal to expand that northwards along that property line would have that expansion component
within that that building setback. When the city had adopted this section 20-93, it chose to regulate structures larger accessory structures larger than 1,200 square ft in a more restrictive manner. Uh the setback in those cases becomes 30
feet on all sides. And so for this gentleman to um come forward and apply for that, I administratively would not be able to issue that permit without coming before the board of adjustment under a variance application demonstrating what the practical difficulty is, the reasonability of that
application and he would have to go through that method before getting the land use permit. Um, in these changes, we have taken a couple a couple motions to loosen up the regulations on other things. Uh, for example, uses that used
to be prohibited with a blank cell now have a conditional use permit pathway come in before the planning commission, but the setback was never of a topic to reduce that. It certainly could be a discussed point. Does the city still want to regulate these in a more heavy
manner? those structures that are larger than 12,200 square feet um requiring that 30- foot setback unless a practical difficulty presents itself would be the question as I understand it. >> Okay. So it wasn't
exclusively called out or discussed in the proposed changes but correct >> we can discuss it as a council at our May meeting. >> I would think you can discuss it. >> Okay, perfect. Thanks. Good evening, land commission. Uh my name is Roger Landers. I reside my wife
and I reside at 26587 in the Lake Road. So, uh, yes, I'm I'm part of of the, uh, of the, uh, cell tire re revision with, uh, with Paula,
but, um, I also have some, u some questions, comments about the, uh, the other part of the ordinance that you are now reviewing. Um, I have
I have reviewed Chris uh Pence's uh uh comparison uh and I think it was a wise move to have the Crowing County involved with that uh with that with the process of mostly re uh reviewing the the shoreland
revisions and some administrative sections too. So I think I applaud uh Stephen and uh you guys for getting together with the crowing county. So Chris's summary or compare comparison
included 17 sections as uh as I observed and and of those 17 sections uh that that he compared Crowing County to the the Nisa ordinance um it's my
analysis that um you're looking at at nine nine of those 17 as as actually being revised at his recommendation. Three of those that he reviewed
um they were already the same as the Crowing County. So there was no changes in that. And there were a couple others. So most of a couple other uh that that we were more restrictive than the Crowing uh ordinance and one that we
were less. I think overall you I think did a good job and I applaud you for for making those u uh revisions that that now uh synchronize with the with the county. Uh there is um there was a
couple of couple ones that I I did have some uh some uh discussion with with Stephen and and one of them was is kind of still ongoing. I just got your comments back
today and haven't had a chance to review them, but the the one I want to talk about today is is the one that the the mayor brought up and and I think th this uh this one is is a is a going to be a
concern and that's the section 20-93 accessory structures and I'm I'm mostly concerned about the accessory structures that are going to the uh that that are included in the
residential areas of our community. That would be the shoreline shoreland and the urban residential areas. I'm not as concerned about the uh the commercial districts, but it it just seems like
that um we're we're tending to to see larger uh accessory structures, storage building in in these areas. and and I'm I'm very concerned of if if we continue to go this way of of those structures getting larger, what is it going to look
like in in the future on on on our uh in in our residential areas? And so I have so I have some questions about this revision uh starting with uh on uh 20-93 if you want to what you've got up there.
So, uh, my my overall question, I guess is directed to you, Stephen, is is the overall revision proposed in this section more or less restrictive as it relates to preserving the community character of our uh of our residential areas.
>> It's a great question. Uh, so section 20-93, and thank you for the prelude to it all. Um, sounds like you're not mainly concerned about commercial. Um, you're mainly concerned about the residential neighborhoods of the community. Okay. So, section 20-93 is pertaining
exclusively to those residential neighborhoods. Uh you'll notice that the chart itself does not have any um of the commercial districts in its table. Um, and so the as far as preservation of it, there's
this constant balance anytime we do ordinance revisions in a community of how do you preserve >> what is >> while still evaluating and accommodating what should be and where the community wants to see itself in two years, 5 years, 10 years. Um all ordinance
provisions should be in harmony with a comprehensive plan and the intent sections of each section as we go through them. Um so we've had a lot of discussion around this particular section at the March and April meetings of the planning commission. Um
there were some discussions to eliminate some of the restrictions altogether and what would that do? Um my collective suggestion for the planning commission, board of adjustment and city council and members of the community is as we undergo changes
rather than dialing the um dialing it back more than one notch at a time is take small steps with it. Try it out for a little bit and um try to preserve the regulations that have been set by our forefathers and and
previous city council members. So I look at these changes as a step towards a little bit less restrictive. We are including allowances for up to two accessory structures up to 120 ft in size totaling no no more than 240 square
ft cumulatively so long as the placement meets all setbacks and impervious coverage maximums are not exceeded. Um >> could I stop you right there? So why why the two structures? what what uh what brought on the the two is that something
that that the plan commission has talked about or is this just something that that you >> this was something brought up at the March meeting an introduction. Um so you'll see that this particular statement under one generally was introduced for the April planning
commission review of this section. Um if you look at Crowing County's land use ordinance, they have a similar provision. And I'm not sure that the square footages are equal, but they do have allowances for placement of small accessory structures on residential lots
without a a permit. You just still have to meet all of the ordinance requirements and other standards, but you don't have to come forward for an administrative permit for those. >> Um, so I think that while it wasn't compared in the consultants summary or
discussions there, this would be a step towards harmonizing with >> Yeah. other localities. >> Um so one of the uh examples I I I wanted to
to illustrate um that it it uh this structure doesn't fit in with the uh the uh the shoreland and and the residential area. uh was the uh was the structure that was
built in uh that was given a permit by the planning commission in 2023. It's the uh it's the storage facility at the junction of Loroy Lake Road and Hazelwood. I don't know if any of you
were remember that. It was the C um um CUP pre that was presented in 2023 and that and you weren't here Stephen at that time that was Bethany that that u
um that handled that one. But so Loy Lake Road in that area is mo is is um is mostly um residential shoreland. If you as you go west on Loy
Lake, it it it turns into other districts. But but I I I was hoping I could use that, but I found out that that particular property is zoned highway business
on Lower Roy. I I you know that confused me how and when I look at the uh the the map the zoning district map on um on the website it's um it's the 20121
zoning map. Um, so I'm confused because in 21 it shows this particular property as as shoreland but but uh it when you uh heard this in
23 it was highway business uh district highway business district zone. So I I I know we're getting off base here. So, I was I I if that's in fact true that that it's a commercial piece of property,
then it it doesn't fit in into my concern into residential. But I am concerned that that if that's the case, we got spot zoning going on on on lower Royal Lake Road. We've got a spot where there's commercial and everything else around it is is residential. So, um,
that's confusing and I and that's another topic that maybe we can talk about, Stephen, um, at at a later date. So, let's So, so using that, but using that that type
of a of of a of a building and trying to have it match with with the surrounding area, it just doesn't it doesn't work. It doesn't fit in. and and I'm hoping that in the future that we don't continue to go down the road of
accepting larger permits. Uh I also noticed a lot a larger permits for bigger buildings. So getting back to this particular section, I also noted that you ex you've you've uh excluded
the exterior collar. Can you explain explain why that's been removed now? >> Sure, absolutely. Um, so the exterior color is stricken through here, but it's covered under the asterisk component beneath the table. Um, so if I look at
how the city had structured the table before, um, it looks kind of clunky with this one. So I suppose I could pull it up on another u screen. However, there's two rows for structures greater than 121 up to 2500 ft. If you look at the
language within the standards, you'll notice that the only difference between those two was that the exterior color either matches the principal structure or the exterior color does not match the principal structure. What that did is establish different use pathways on that basis. So, if it did match the principal
structure, you're in a permit situation where all you got to do is apply for administrative permit >> and get that from my department. If you're proposing that it does not match the principal structure, then it's processed as a conditional use permit. Uh many constituents as they come
forward for accessory structures look at this table as it is currently and find that to be confusing that there's two rows for two different dimensions. So what I've done is consolidated those uses into a single cell with an asterisk noting that separation beneath the
table. So harmonizing that's still a regulation. If you're proposing that it does not match, you still have to come forward for a conditional use permit. >> Mhm. All right. Very good. Thank you for that explanation. Uh property light and setbacks haven't changed. That's what
still 10 10 ft. Is that correct? >> 10 ft for structure small. >> Okay. So what what about height of accessory? Is that >> 30t? >> Okay, that's in there. Okay. Um, so, uh, when you send out the public hearing
mailings to the neighborhood for for, uh, for this type of a permit, uh, what what does the neighborhood get, the neighbors that are within the distance of of of this? What do they get
in their mailing that that can help them visualize what this structure is gonna look like? Because a lot of cases people don't want them the the property owner doesn't want to look at this new proposed accessory stripper. They want
it off to the side uh in the back uh which could impact the neighbor the the adjoining neighbor. So how do you present uh the the mailing so that so the public
clearly understand what's going on here? >> I do that in two ways. Uh I put one notice into the paper uh the primary paper for the city of Niswah is the Pine Lakes Echo. So I put a notice in there for all public hearing related applications whether it's a variance whether it's conditional use permit or
an ordinance amendment zoning map amendment. Um for the example of a variant say somebody was proposing to put a 2500 foot structure at 10 ft where 30 is required. Uh it would be very similar to the notice of hearing that I
put out for the variance heard earlier this evening. So it says as stated on the screen here to whom it may concern the following will be subject to public hearings on such and such a date. Here's the hearing. It's a variance application seeking to obtain a variance for a zero foot property line setback to
contiguously owned property. Um and it goes on to explain what the variance is for. It says who the property owner is in case they know who their neighbors are, >> what the property's description is, what the purpose is, and a note indicating
that, you know, this might not hit everybody. >> Um, so it's encouraging to share it with other neighbors that might have concerns about such a thing. >> Um, statutoily, I put that notice out to all properties within 350 ft of the
subject property. Um, okay. Yes. Uh so I have a couple other questions. So so so they do they do not get a visual uh which is usually in the packet that the uh design of the building and
in fact uh you know may maybe a concept draw uh the neighbor would not get that in in the in the packet. So they have a a better understanding what this uh structure that could be placed in in their in their view uh from they don't get that type of information
>> in the mailing. No, no, they do. They are encouraged in my letter to stop by and talk to me so that they can review the planet materials. A lot of times when we get an application, especially for a variance that comes with more cumbersome information that may have a septic design in there and so if we were mailing it, that may cause the need for
two stamps, three stamps depending on the amount of paper. Got it. So, >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like for Paula maybe to >> Yeah. interject. >> I would like to just um describe a situation that's related to this. I previously lived at 24839 Cove Trail in Niswah, which is on the corner of Lower
Roy and um Cove Trail, one block from the accessory structure that uh Roger was using as an example. I did get a mailing from the city. It wasn't from um Steven and um it didn't have a site
design on it or anything that looked draw to scale. I saw the dimensions, but it didn't register with me how big that building was going to be. Had there been sort of a a a sca to scale drawing in the packet, that would have alerted me
as well as other um neighbors to just how large this um accessory structure was going to be. So, I'd highly encourage you to have something that gives a visual um you know example of what this what this accessory structure
is to the property um in question. So, >> and Stephen, that should be in the packet during when we have the public meeting. Correct. >> Correct. For the public hearing, right, such as tonight, we have all application materials. >> But in that case, I didn't have much concern about it because I didn't
realize how large it was going to be. So, I probably wouldn't have gone to the hearing packet and looked at it. I'm just saying to give the neighbors a a some sort of visual example of what the size of that structure is going to be on the property would be would have been
really helpful. >> Okay. I I don't have any any clearer recommendations other than than uh trying to do a better job of of informing the the neighbors, the people that are going to get that that notice
uh of an accessory structure going up. I So, uh I'm hoping that you will uh you know consider that. Um and and and and and keep in mind that that you know
planning commissions are supposed to look in the future. And I was here at at the uh at the uh April meeting and I heard that discussion coming out of one person that said, "Why why do we even
have these permits?" You know, they we we just go ahead and give them out. So, uh, I'm I'm concerned, and I'm sure others are, too. So, I hope you you do take a look at at maybe modifying or adding something to, uh, to to make it,
uh, uh, more to to think think about the, uh, the character of of what we're doing. when we uh can when we uh when we approve accessory structures that are
that are really too large and and out of place. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Um in response to Mayor Carneahan's question about the background for that
information, I had sent you a letter on December 12th. I had to read it up and that's what that that letter was in relation to this. So they had brought those concerns up and at the time I mean it was me and Gary that was on that commission at that time. These these two
weren't or or John wasn't here yet and it was it was a lot of different issues but the accessory structure thing went to and in that letter I detailed a little bit more but it had to do with the placement on where they're being placed. um neighboring parcels getting
the opportunity to give feedback rather than just handing out uh building permits and they're putting up sometimes obnoxious buildings in areas that shouldn't have them. Um, so that's that was the reasoning behind it and we had discussed it a couple of times with Joe
and I mean I I disagree with him in that point but I mean that's fine and we did trim it down because I think there is a um an effort from the council to make it more simple and I I think that's good. Um but this is one I I felt was
necessary to keep. So and I'm not sure about anybody else's feedback. I think we didn't we chose not to do anything with it besides what Chris had recommended, but maybe there's some more comment. >> I agree with that. >> So,
okay. Does um ordinance amendment does that require a motion? >> Yes, for this public hearing, we do need a motion. Okay. um either to recommend approval to city council for adoption um
modification, you could motion something particular at this time. Um or denial, stop it, whatever you guys want. So, I mean, I'm fine with going forward with what we have and then coming back to the food truck and the cell phone tower
discussion uh later where we can give prior not proper notice to the public so they can make a public comment as well. And we we've been going through the chapter, you know, 20 ordinances for five years. And Chris Pence has been involved twice now at length and we've
asked for that. And he's his his advice and his research is really highly expertise and he he does a wonderful job. But we've spent I can't imagine how many hours we've spent over the years making these revisions to chapter 20 to
make them so that they're make the make the ordinances so that they're understandable and we we still aren't complete. You know, we the first time around we we took a we we solved a big chunk of it, but then it came up again last year and I thought, "Oh, geez, here
we go again." you know, but it was necessary. And I think the items that that we've come up with for changing now are are all well and good. And I think that they're all they're correct because and we've spent a lot of time talking about these. So, um, but it's it's a it
my point is that it's an evolving thing over time and chapter 20 is going to change again next year in some places, whether it's one section or one, you know, one item, I don't know, or it could be 10. And uh but that's just the
way it happens. And and we get through over a period of years, we get ordinances that people can rely on. They can come in and they can talk to the staff and they can get, you know, in Steven's position especially, he's got to be able to go to the ordinances and
be able to look something up and give an answer rather than 30% of the time laying it on the planning commission to come back and try to sort these things out. And that's that's the reason that we've been doing these. So, um, but >> I'll entertain a motion.
>> Okay. I'll, uh, I'll I'll move that planning zoning commission uh, recommends approval of the ordinance amendments, the chapter 20. It's a 007-26
uh, in the in the agenda and the notice of public hearing. Um, according to the attached uh uh what do you what do you call it? >> The markup and clean the marked up summary >> the marked up copy of the ordinances uh
as as discussed. >> I have a second. >> So do we have if I make a second >> then again I just want to make sure that >> and >> the cell towers out and the food truck remains how it is now. >> Right. Yeah. We're Yeah. >> Okay. I'll amend the motion if you'd
like. >> Sure. >> The the changes to chapter 20 exclude anything the sections dealing with food trucks and uh communication towers >> and the communication towers. >> Second, >> which will be taken up at a later time.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries.
Uh, we have no items of new business, no items of old business, city planners report. All right. So, um, for the May 2026 planners report, I have 12 permits issued in that date range there through 42426.
Um, business is certainly picking up on the development side of things, getting constant interaction with land owners, seeking to do additions to their homes. Um, asking about whether they need variances for things and going through
those motions with folks. Um, a lot of the permits that we're seeing right now are detached accessory structures and new homes. Um, over the winter months, we saw a lot of sign permits. People were like, "How do I advertise my business better?" So, um, business is picking up. We're trending pretty well
for another, uh, strong development year so far. Um, we also had that zoning map amendment at the last, um, public hearing for the planning commission member that you guys forwarded a recommendation to city council for. So, I wanted to update you on that, that
that was also approved by city council um, and published in the Pine Lakes Echo on April 29th, taking effect. And that's what I have for my report for you guys. Yep. Any questions, comments?
>> None. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned.