I'll call the meeting to order and we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge >> allegiance to the to the flag of America to the republic for it stand indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. >> All right. Approval of the agenda. A motion to approve the agenda. I make the motion. I second it. >> We have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to approve the agenda. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> All in favor. Uh the minutes we will be forwarding to the next meeting as they're not available right now. So we'll move straight into the petition. Olivia, >> good afternoon. Um, so the only petition on your agenda this month is a carryover
from last month. So I have the same presentation up on the screen if you'd like to go through that again. Um, otherwise the petitioner is here this month and can answer any questions that you guys have. >> We need to move to take this off the table or anything. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, I would be looking for a motion to take this item off the table. >> Okay, I move to take this item off the table. >> I second. >> We have a motion by Lynn, seconded by Amy to take this off the table. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. That is all in favor. >> All right. >> Okay. Would you like to walk through the presentation again this month? >> I think I'd kind of like to just quick review >> refresh. >> Sure. Um so the variance before you there's two separate requests. One of
them is to allow the single family dwelling to be within the required feed lot setback and then the other one is to allow it to be located on prime soils. So class 1 through three in the egg resource conservation zoning district. Um a little bit of overview. It's in St.
Charles Township. It is along Willnow Drive and then Willnow Drive turns into Will Now Lane um to the west of that parcel. This is the site plan. So, as I mentioned last month, the structure is already built um and is currently being lived in. So, it is to the south when
you look at the aerial image um to the south of the cabinet making business and then it includes um a portion of it is the dwelling and then a portion of it is storage um washroom. So, the site plan for the variance, you can see the dwelling is outlined there.
the little box in red. It's approximately 285 ft from the neighboring feed lot to the southwest. It's also located on class 3 soils. Um the class the prime soils are a little bit difficult to see within the parcel boundary itself because 99%
plus of that parcel is prime soils. Um they are in class 3. There is a little bit of class 2 prime below that to the south. Um, and then in the top northwest corner of that parcel, there's a little bit of non-prime, but it's across the
roadway, and it wouldn't have been a feasible site for them to put the structure. One thing to mention with the feed lot as well, so the property line between the feed lot and then the shutler's property, um, that open lot is pretty
much as far north as it can go. So that fence line, they wouldn't really have more room to expand closer to the shutler's dwelling. Um there's the feed lot fence and then there's garden space that's already in existence. So um typically when you see feed lot setback
requests, someone puts a house, let's just say right here, and then the feed lots here, sometimes that can prohibit the feed lot operator from expanding closer. So then it would put the burden on them to get the variance. In this case, this dwelling is most likely not restricting that ability because that
feed lot's already as close as they can go to their property line. Some of the project considerations, um, as I mentioned, the structure is used for storage and living space. Currently, his son and family live in the structure, and then the son also works
in the cabinetry business, which is that larger building on the parcel. Um, two separate variance requests are under the same petition. again the feed lot setback and then the prime soils. They do also need a conditional use permit. Um and so last month at the planning
commission meeting following your meeting, the planning commission voted to table it as well. So um the petitioner will be going to tonight's planning commission meeting to have that um public hearing. And then again, both the permits would be after the fact
because the structure already exists and is being lived in. These are some of the photos. Um, so just looking southeast at the existing structure. Again, looking southeast. Looking south.
Uh, looking southwest. This one, the feed lot would be um very far in the background. Some of the fence you can see is on their parcel and they have some animals as well, but the feed lot would be in the background of this picture. Um St. Charles Township, they did attend
the meeting on January 20th. They indicated no comments. Um this petition because it's in St. Charles Township, the township elected to take over their own zoning authority. So, if the petitioner gets approval for the variance and the conditional use permit, they would be going to the township for
zoning and septic permitting. Um, St. Charles and Saratoga Townships are currently the two townships that have taken over their own zoning. >> UDICA signed the agreement this week, >> Monday. >> Udica's in the process. Yep.
So our recommendation would be as always you consider all materials and testimony before making findings that support your decision. Um we have done the analysis and drafted findings to support granting the variance and then there are four conditions drafted for your consideration.
Last meeting there was um discussion regarding permitting fees and we do have the ability to charge um double the cost of the permitting fee due to the after the fact. We have just charged the original but if that's something that you guys wanted to pursue we could add
that as well. Any questions for me? >> What is the original permitting fee? >> It's 550 for the variance. So they currently, even though they have a washroom and stuff, do they have a
well and septic where the washroom/b is and they're just going to hook up the dwelling to that or do they still have to get all of that with both build? >> They share a well with the house um I
can point it out for you with the house that's to the northwest. So, this is uh the petitioner's son is living in the dwelling that's in question as a part of this variance, but Jake, the petitioner himself, lives in the dwelling to the
northwest. And so, there's a well over on this parcel that they've already tied into. And then the new structure that you're considering, has a holding tank already installed that's being utilized, but has not been permitted through the county yet. So, would still need to go through the review and permitting
process. >> Okay. And so if they decided that that holding tank wasn't acceptable, they would have to put in a whole new system. >> They would have to have a septic system that meets code. Yeah. But again, that would go through the township and not us
at that point. >> Yeah. >> Would we do we have any option to send this variance back to the township? >> They requested that we proceed with it. Um it came in at kind of a a difficult
time because the township already notified us that they were pursuing it, but it technically was in our queue. Um and so all of the ones that were in process, we um kind of took the stance of like seeing all of those through and then any >> already started on our end.
>> Yes. Yeah. Olivia. Um, on a picture I have um of the dwelling, the new dwelling, um, the larger building. Um, it's listed annotated above it. It says it says
storage with dwelling inside. And then the adjacent L says storage wash house with bathroom. So, the larger building, I'm going to call it the larger building. Looks larger to me. Um,
is the dwelling. >> It's technically all one structure. There's two different roof lines. Yep. But one structure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Any other questions for me? >> And Oh, sorry. >> No.
>> And without um having obtained a permit, none of this was inspected by the county. not inspected. So, we do a site visit as a part of variances and conditional use permits and zoning permits for that matter. So, I've been out on site one
time to take these photos. Um, but it has not gone through the site visits for the zoning permit, which essentially gives them approval to build the structure in theory. >> And that was after the fact in 20 26
when it was >> Yes, I went out this spring. So when I was out there, the structure was already built. Yep. >> Okay. >> Our typical process is pre them building and pre the permit getting issued, they would stake or flag the site with where the structure would go and then we would
go out pre-development and then postdevelopment to ensure that the development happened in according to to the permit and any conditions. But obviously because this is after the fact, we were just going out post construction, >> right? you've seen the other examples, so it would be like that. Um, I could
not find a county ordinance uh for non-permitted buildings. I found one for feed lots that weren't permitted and a violation, but I did not find one for buildings. Is there a county ordinance
for non-permitted buildings? >> Yes. So we have enforcement um in chapter 5 I believe. So that is essentially anytime someone's doing something without a permit when a permit is required in in Winona County permits
are required for most structures other than you know under 200 square feet or something that is very minimal. >> Could someone guide me to what ordinance that is? >> I'm sorry I missed it. Nope. >> Hey, I have a hard copy.
>> So, just just to be clear, if they didn't have a dwelling in there, >> they wouldn't have to worry about the feed lot or anything like that if it was just the washroom or just a storage. >> Correct. Yeah. They wouldn't dwelling
that. >> Yep. They wouldn't need a conditional use permit or the variances. Um, we did have that conversation when the petitioner came to the front counter because it's there is a dwelling portion of the structure, but I don't think it
was necessarily built with the dwelling in mind. And so, we had the conversation of, okay, you remove the dwelling from the structure and just use it as a washroom storage. You would still need a zoning permit and septic if there's a bathroom, but you wouldn't need to go through the public hearings. And at that
point, the petitioner communicated that they would like to still go through the approval to try to get a dwelling site approved at this location. Does it look like in the initial thing in the summary that it was being used as a temporary living quarters? Is
it going to stay temporary or is the whole part of going through this process to make it permanent, which is why they're getting the CUP instead of an IUP or >> Right. So, they're going through the process. Um, temporary means that in the future, if they get approval for the
variance and the conditional use permit, they could theoretically turn this into a full dwelling. You know, they could replace it with a standalone house as long as it still meets feed lot setbacks and they would still have those approvals in place. So, they would just need the administrative
zoning permit. They wouldn't need to go through the public hearings again. >> Yep. Um, regarding the feed lot, what kind of animals are in there? >> I believe most of them are horses >> and
you said that they can't move the feed lot any closer to the setlers. >> Yeah, let me see if I have a good don't have a good image of that feed lot. Um, you can try to point it out in
this one, but the space that exists between the feed lot and the property line, that's this gray boundary here, this space is already used as garden space for that property owner, and it's already been developed as such. So, there's not really any quote unquote
vacant land for them to expand that feed lot. Because part of the question would be if we allow the dwelling on shuttlers that could affect if the neighbor wanted to expand their feed lot. But you're saying that
wouldn't be possible anyway. >> So it's really not going to affect the neighbors in >> correct. Yep. So, what I'm saying is that there's really not too much space for them to expand without having to like remove existing, you know, garden space or
however they have this little piece of land. >> The people at the garden, are they the ones that own the feed lot? >> Yep. This is all their property and they are related to the petitioner as well, his family. >> Anything else for me? >> Questions for Olivia?
>> Is the the petitioner, did they previously own that 5 acre parcel and there's splitting it off too with like the dwelling on it for the kid or
um that made it five acres or is it always just been owned by them and it's just been five acres just that separate parcels makes it five acres? Just Yeah, just to clarify, the five acres you're referring to is this one in red. >> Yeah. Yeah. But it's it's owned by
somebody that lives off that five acres. Correct. Like the petitioner. >> Correct. So the petitioner lives on parcel with the last 43061. Um he also is the owner and operator of the cabinet making business that's already on this 5acre parcel. I think at
one point this parcel that's outlined in red was a part of the parcel to the east here. >> Okay. >> Um but he has owned the parcel in question. At least he could probably answer the year of when he bought it, but um
>> so it's not that they want two houses on like 40 acres total or whatever. I guess it weird to me that he owns the two parcels, but they're not combined into like one total parcel to make or is the
whole thing including his other dwelling five over five acres or how come just that one section is >> So this is >> Yeah. um when they like if you go way back, these were pro this is probably a
section line and so they were different parent parcels originally. Then these ones got developed and then I think this the one in question was probably the last one developed because you can see when you look at the parcel number um when it the the ones on the west side the
3062 3061 versus 2990 typically that three or that two denotes that it's from a different parent parcel. So what probably happened is that the the parcels on the west side of Wilnol Lane were developed and then the newer one on
the east side they're looking to develop but they are all on less than 40. You're right. >> Okay. >> Anything else for Olivia? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh would the petitioner like to come
forward and uh address us please? Are you Jake? >> Good afternoon. I'm Jake Shhatler. So got any questions or anything like that? I'll try and answer them or >> I have a question for you Jake. Thank
you for coming today. Really appreciate that. Um because my question is um we're working with this because it was non-permitted >> and it's my understanding that there is
a business on that parcel already that uh probably required a permit that you obtained previously at some point >> uh at the cabinet shop. >> I would think that would be it. >> Yep. Yep.
So, do you know when you obtained that permit? >> We built we started building that in 2018. >> And did you obtain the permit before you started the building then?
>> I'm not I don't even remember. >> Was that your building? >> It was. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. >> And my cabinet shop was up on the hill before that.
about 200 feet to the west, southwest. I don't think you can see it on there. Well, now uh yes, you can. It's you can see it on there also, but it was going downhill. It was the roof was starting to leak and everything was going bad and it was
really dark. You know, on a cloudy day, you almost have to have lights. And so either I had to fix up the old building or else do something to re to replace it. And there was so much work in the old building that I figured it might
it's hardly doesn't really make sense to fix up the old one for what all they needed. So that's when we built the new one. >> And you don't recall if you obtained a permit? >> I do not. I do. I do not.
>> Did you obtain a permit after the fact? that I don't even remember. >> Okay. How about your house? >> My house? Well, that was that was in there since we moved that one in in 190. I think it was that was moved in
>> and there was no >> and I know I know there was permits back then because we had to put in a a legal septic system at that time and we had to get a permit for the septic that I do know. Um, >> and like the building that we're trying
to get it uh that we're talking about now, we moved the washroom in there and we added this other room to it and we build it on on post so it can be
moved anytime we want to move it. >> Okay. And we didn't realize that you need a permit if you move in a building because I moved in most of my buildings that I have. I moved them in from well one came from
west of St. Charles, my goat barn, my horse barn. So a lot of my buildings I actually moved in and even the old shop is all sitting on posts. So that can be moved. So, we were we we were we thought that if you move
one in, you don't need a permit. And then we also made it movable. That was another reason we didn't get a permit. >> So, that entire structure is movable. >> It would be. Yes. >> It's not uh attached to the ground in
any way. >> It's sitting on post. Yes. >> Sitting on posts, not in the ground. >> Oh, yeah. Oh yeah, the posts are in the ground with a platform and then the building sits on top of that. >> Even my old shop is built that way that
we built that 36 by 88 and that one was I had a fire in 94 and it was really wet that spring so we couldn't rebuild it. It was too wet to do cement work. So we went and put post in the ground about every eight feet four feet down and put
the building on top of that so we could continue building >> and that's actually sitting on post also. >> Have you ever attended a township meeting for your uh township St. Charles Township?
>> If I what >> have you ever attended a St. Charles Township meeting? >> Yeah. >> Um and what was that for? The you mean the meeting? >> Yeah. Why did you attend a township meeting? >> It was for for this to to I had to
attend that before this one here to get my okay from the township board and then they okayed everything >> after you built the building. >> After it was there. Yes. >> Have you ever attended a township meeting before
you attended the one for this building? Mm-m. I don't think so. Now, wait a minute. I'll take that back. I did, but I don't think it was for Oh, what was that for?
It I can't even remember. I attended one here a couple years ago, but I don't even remember what that was for. >> And has St. Charles ever sent you anything or informed you of permitting processes for buildings or anything?
>> You've never received anything in the mail about >> I not that I'm aware of. I can't not I can't say I have. >> You get mail? >> I do. Oh yeah. >> Okay. But not from the St. Charles Township or Winona County regarding a permitting process. I did when that's
why I'm trying to get this variance through. Win County contacted me >> after you built the building. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. I just want to be clear that you didn't have any awareness of a permitting process from the township or
the county when you built that building. >> Well, and to me, I always knew that you need a permit if you're going to start from scratch. If I would have built this, if this would have been a big house built from scratch, I realized I didn't wouldn't need a
permit for that. But I was always told that if you move something in, like if it's on skids or something or that you can move it, you don't have to worry about it. >> Who would do you remember who you heard that from? I I do not, but I've heard it
over the last 30, 40 years because when I when we moved in, the first garage was about in 1989. And I moved in a garage there. I actually moved in a garage. I moved in a
grainery. I moved in a big goat barn. I moved in a nursery. And they were all moved in. And I didn't get a permit for any of that. >> Well, yeah. Those egg buildings are not right >> really a concern of ours. It's more if it's a
new dwelling, >> it needs to be permitted regardless if someone's going to live in it. >> Mhm. Now, okay, let's say my So, if it's an egg building, I mean, I'm this I'm just throwing this out there so
I know. If I have an egg building uh that I use for for egg and I decide that okay, I'm going to take build a room the size of this inside that egg building or
dwelling. I don't need a I don't need a permit for that either. >> Someone's going to live there. You do. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, that's what I want to get clear. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If it's just purely agricultural >> when it's just egg alone, I mean, I think it depends because I
mean, I had to get a permit for my barn, so I'm not sure. >> I mean, it might depend on size or location or something, but >> you still need a permit for egg buildings. >> What's that? >> I mean, I had to get some
staff here, but >> Oh, sorry. >> Oh, >> I don't you don't have to pay for it. I don't >> just for clarification purposes. So the the township now has taken over zoning and building code authority. So none of that would apply for going forward. You will need to make all contacts with the
township >> and that you know building it building a anything inside a building may very well require a building permit. >> So so just don't take anything from this because everything is now changed. We're
just we're just resolving an old issue. But as far as this goes, uh I got to go back to them for everything. >> Any any future changes? >> Oh, okay. Okay. Because I was there once >> and then you could then
>> they've now since then they've now implemented the Since then they've now fully implemented the zoning as well as uh state building code. Mhm. >> So the all the requirements have completely changed and you would need to go back to the township for anything
future you want to do. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I know they're working on that. >> It is it is >> actually it's not Well, I I'll leave I'll leave it at that.
>> Well, it would be interesting to know. Have they published it? I believe the requirement is if it becomes published, it's enforced. both St. Charles and Saratoga >> and published it >> and published. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Well, what they're going to enforce for the Amish people is not all going to happen. I will tell you that. And it's not over with yet. But if they going to force what they're reporting now, they're going to drive it right out of the area. And that's what they're after.
Does anyone have any questions pertaining to this for Jake? Any further questions? >> Do you have any um agricultural stuff on there besides just your carpentry business? Like does the feed lot
next door like graze their horses over there or anything where that tillable land? >> It's like that red part is my for my >> for your horses. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So you do use it for agriculture then, >> right? >> Okay. Just ask. Okay.
>> All right. Thanks. >> Um, with that, I guess we would open the public hearing if we have a have a motion for that. >> Make a motion to open the public hearing. Second. >> We have a motion by Kelsey, seconded by
Amy to open the hearing to the public. All those in favor say I. >> I >> I. >> That is all in favor. The meeting is now open to the public. Does would anyone like to speak for against this petition?
For the second time, if anyone would like to speak for against this petition, please come forward now. And for the third and final time, if anyone would like to speak for against this petition, please come forward to the microphone. >> All right. Uh, a motion to close the
public hearing. >> I'll move to close it. Second. >> Uh, we have a motion by Lynn, seconded by Amy to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. >> That is all in favor. discussion.
>> I guess I didn't realize that it was potentially movable. So, I'm I guess I was curious if you say like no to this spot. Is there a spot they could move it where it would be acceptable? I guess like
they've got enough acreage, not on tillable soils. Olivia, is that entire parcel would apply to the feed lot setback, right? >> Even if it wasn't like right on that property, if they had another property that they just I I don't know who owns
to the above that or what. I'm just speculating like could they in fact just put it on a different parcel and then have the dwelling right across the street or something like that and it would be okay because it would be far enough away.
>> Yeah. I mean, I can tell you. So, when they apply for variances and conditional use permits, we're only considering what they're applying for on that parcel. Um, that being said, this parcel is 99.9%
prime soil. Um, and there's really not a whole lot of space that they could put that dwelling outside of the flatter area that they've put it without requiring more prep work. Um Jake, as I mentioned earlier, does own to the west
of Willow Lane. A lot of that's wooded and it gets into steeper slopes. He could probably answer whether or not he has land elsewhere. Um, but for the purposes of this petition where we were only considering the parcel that it's on, I guess the way I'm looking at it is the
that portion of the prime soils is already being used regardless of if anyone's living inside that building or not. >> And the feed lot issue is is kind of solved as they can't expand really
anyway. So, um I don't see there being a better spot for it. And putting it in another spot would still occupy that spot would still be occupied. So, I guess in my opinion, it
that parcel may as well have someone living on it since it's already it already does. >> I was kind of think along the same lines. I mean, even if they moved it up to that farthest corner, if it's 285 ft from where it is to the
feed lot, it still wouldn't be the thousand ft, >> right? >> So, I mean, if they're happy with living within that many feet of a feed lot, and it doesn't bother them. I don't think it bothers the horses on the other end if someone's living there.
>> Oh, and it sounds like the feed lot also like spreads out onto that property and like uses it for the horses as well. So they're I mean they're using it for agricultural purposes then too which >> Jake it looks like that's Rudy Gingerich
down there and and he's obviously fine with you having a dwelling there >> son's also working on in the building um the shop so >> so I guess the question would be um with this after the fact permit would you
want to do double permit fees to uh discourage this in the future or uh do you feel it's appropriate now? Um >> I would be I would be fine with that. And I think too that
you know he's got a lot of information about the township info now that he can go ask them is that going to be helping him going forward. No, >> but can you clarify? You'd be okay with
>> the the fee for the double after the fact. Yeah. >> And we would we have to add that as a condition. >> Yeah. Okay. >> If you could add it just so that it's clear. Yeah. So, if that was something uh that this
board would like to do, we'd have to have a motion and approve that um permanent fee as a condition. >> Can we discuss it first or do we have >> Absolutely. >> First? No, we can discuss it. >> Okay, go ahead. >> I'm just
thinking instead of 500 be like a thousand then, right? >> Well, that is that true. >> That would also Is that en capsule this whole thing? One permit fee for the feed lot and the
prime soils variance. >> How many permits are there? >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's combined under one request. So the 550 would cover both of the variance requests. >> The conditional use permit would still be separate. >> Correct. Y
>> and that would be a decision by the planning committee. >> Correct. Okay. The county board. >> So the county board still does whatever is it the cup? >> Yeah. So there at the planning
commission we have a cup request for >> I think Charles isn't taking that over. They're doing >> until this is done. Yeah. Okay. So, going forward, we're not going to be discussing any St. Charles properties. >> Correct.
>> Along these lines, >> right? >> Right. >> So, if we double the fine, it's really not >> it's not going to change anything. People that live in St. Charles, I guess. Yeah, that's a good point.
>> So, maybe that's a little harsh. just this one person just to single him out and make an example of him >> when it's not going to really help anything going forward. >> Yeah, >> maybe other people in Winona County
might get the hint, but >> uh No, that's a good point. I understood earlier from talking with someone that um and listening to the planning committee uh meeting online um that
Saratoga spoke up that they have had 23 at last count um or maybe more um of non-permitted building situations. Uh and they also spoke up
or another member of the committee spoke up that uh there was no repercussion or maybe it was Eric I think you spoke up in that meeting Mr. Johnson that there hadn't been any luck with uh
consequences for that violation. So perhaps those 23 and counting violations are a result of not consequencing violations.
In my experience in life, that's pretty typical. If people don't receive consequences for a violation, those violations continue. Um, in my attending
Saratoga and Udica Township meetings, those were a huge concern with their withdrawal from the county planning and zoning. I don't like to see
our county government being undermined because of a lack of enforcement of existing ordinances. So, I believe and I'm putting aside all my
personal opinions about Mr. Shutler not knowing things and um which is no excuse of the law as I've been told when I've been speeding. So I guess that applies to all of us. So I think that a consequence
is in order whether we're going to come back to St. Charles or not ever. Saratoga originally had their own planning and zoning, came back to Winona County and left us again. And I speak those I think those things
speak volumes for what's going on in Winona County. uh in situations very much like this. So I just want everyone to be aware of that because I think it takes a great deal of time, listening and research to
understand those situations. Uh and not all of us have that. So um I would say that at the minimum since I think we have come to an agreement it's an agricultural situation.
the dwelling. I wonder if the dwelling shouldn't be considered permanent somehow because moving it around is that an implication for future permitting? >> I think this would be permitting it as it is now in the footprint that it's in.
Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Well, then I can go along with uh doubling the fine. >> Okay. So, I would need a motion one way or the other, or I guess one way if we wanted to add a condition to double the
permit fee, >> I would make a motion to approve with a condition of a permit fee >> of a double the permit fee. >> Okay. Do we have a second for that? >> I would second that. >> All right. We have a motion by Kelsey,
seconded by Amy to add a condition five that would require a double permit fee for this variance. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed.
>> I uh that is a 22. Um. >> Motion fails. >> The motion fails. Okay. So then I would entertain a motion to either approve this variance or
um change the findings of fact to deny this variance >> in terms of the other conditions because it's going back to the township after this. Do they
because normally there's like the septic condition and there's the other conditions. >> Yeah, I think two where it says uh federal, state, and local regulations would cover that. And then there's a St. Charles Township uh permits as well. And
a third the third one So, anything from this point, if they need a permit or uh have to pay for a permit, it would go
through St. Charles and um make the decision and then it's in their hands the rest of the way. Correct. >> Correct. >> Regardless of how we make a decision, >> far as the conditions, Gullet says in
number two, they need to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. And number three, obtain all necessary permits. Could we add that from this point if they don't get those then
they'd be subject to >> I don't think it would be our preview anymore that would be up to St. Charles. >> That was kind of what I was thinking. >> So these conditions are kind of mute than >> well this this in order for this pyramid
to be effective they would have to comply with all these conditions. So >> okay I see what you're saying >> and apply to St. Charles Township then for the sake >> and get uh permission and be approved. Is that correct?
>> If this were to be denied. >> Yes. >> No, I think once it's denied, it's denied because it's our decision to make on this one specific >> Yeah, I believe they if we were to deny this, they could still apply through St. Charles Township afterwards, but they
would, I would assume, have to not use it as a dwelling until then. That sound accurate? >> Just a minute to check the ordinance to see if there's a provision that limits the time period.
>> Okay. >> Yes, please. I think in the meantime, I think this is a a pretty good parcel as we're looking for areas of development. Um, being that there's already several houses in the immediate area.
It's not it wouldn't be a huge disruption, you know, had there not been a house there and we were seeing this permit. I think in in under normal circumstances, uh, we would consider this to be a pretty good place for a home.
>> Uh, are you saying more homes? >> No, I'm I'm saying if this one didn't exist currently and this they were applying without a dwelling there already. >> Um, I think we've approved a lot similar to this already. >> President doesn't mean >> I Yeah.
Um, so I don't see anything in the statute that would prevent somebody from reapplying. Though we're in kind of a unique situation since this is being transitioned to the township uh uh after this decision and uh the township is going to have to interpret that as well
in terms of whether they will accept a reapplication or not. Uh so I it's hard to predict uh you know what what would happen once it goes to the township level, >> what would happen at the county level? uh with a township decision.
>> So the the the county has no authority over the township. So if they make a decision that's wrong and you know it's up to the the petitioner to if they sue them or whatever they need to do to enforce their rights, uh uh we don't have any oversight over the township in
that regard. >> So everything transfers to the township. >> All permitting, all consequences. Yes. >> All okay. All appeals. >> Yep. All All Yeah. It all goes through the township. The township just just
basically sit in our shoes uh for everything unless there's a statutory provision that says at the top that the county has control of of some area of zoning. But uh in this case it doesn't. >> Oh, okay. That was my next question. >> Well,
if we denied it, does that mean they have to move out? >> That means it's >> I'm not sure how soon, but Um, >> did you catch that, Olivia? >> Do you mind repeating that? >> If we were to deny it, does that mean
the people have to move out of their home? >> St. Charles Township requested that we proceed with these applications. If you were to deny it, it would then go to the township or so, it's already at the township. Essentially, these are just
kind of like hanging on petitions that we're processing as they already have their zoning ordinance in place. So any next step, whether it's approval or denial, would still go to the township, if that makes sense. So even if we approve it, it's still going to have to go through the
township. >> Not the variance process, but they would still go to the township for zoning and septic. If you were to deny a variance and they wanted to reapply or change something and apply again, they would be going through the township for that. >> So, but would they have to move out of
their home is more my question. >> It would be up to St. Charles Township. I mean, if they are adopting the zoning ordinance as it's written for us, we wouldn't allow the dwelling site if they don't have approval for the variance and conditional use permit. That's how we would process it. But again, the the
township will be doing their own zoning. >> So, we'd be making them homeless. >> No, it's a it would go to the township. >> It would go to the township for permitting and also for enforcement. Yeah. So, if if they were not allowed to
have keep that as a dwelling because they didn't get approval from us or they didn't reapply with the township, it would be up for the up to the township how they would enforce that and rectify the situation. Okay. But if we approve it, the township can't then come back
and say you can't live there. I mean, it's it's a done deal if we approve it. >> If the board of adjustment approves the two variances and the planning commission and county board approved the conditional use permit, this would be an approved building site for that dwelling to remain. They would still need to get
the septic and zoning. So, if there's any requirements from those permitting processes, that would still go through the township to process and approve. But in terms of the actual building site containing a dwelling, they would already have the approval. Basically, the approvals would
just transfer from us to the township, similar with all of the approvals that now exist from us in those two townships. >> And since the township has adopted the state building code, would they going to be inspecting for that as well? >> I believe so.
>> Okay. And the septic >> septic would still follow the state code that we enforce. So similar to how we do it. >> Yep. >> So it's our understanding that the when the township takes over, they will just
accept everything as it is. So, if this is approved, they're going to uh it's our understanding that they'll respect that decision and not revisit it, but that they will still have an opportunity with the septic and the uh permitting and building code in that
aspect of it. So, um, but in terms of of, uh, the decisions that this board makes up until this decision, it it's the the township, uh, indicates that they plan to respect those decisions
>> from this decision forward. >> Well, from from this decision back and then so they're they're not going to revisit decisions that you've made is what what I'm saying. >> Thank you. All right. >> But we can't Oh, we've already voted on
the permit uh fe. >> So, um would anyone like to make a motion regarding this permit? >> Um I'll make a motion that we allow them to go ahead and keep their
house stay where it is. I don't know >> of the variance with the >> There we go. >> As it's written with the conditions. >> Yes. >> We have a motion by Lynn. Uh do we have a second?
>> I'll second. >> With a second by Kelsey uh to approve this variance as it is as the findings of fact are written with the conditions attached. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Nay.
>> Based on the fact there are no consequences for non-p permitting. >> Uh the motion will pass. Um three of us are in favor. Amy was opposed. Um and with that I will read the appeal.
Appeal to the district court. All decisions by the board of adjustment in granting variances or in hearing appeals from any administrative order requirement, decision or determination shall be final except that any agreved person or persons or any department, board or commission of the jurisdiction
or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of the decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located on questions of law. In fact, any party that would like to submit an appeal to the the decision just rendered at this public hearing
must do so to the district court. The planning department is not responsible for filing the appeal. And our last order of business would be adjournment. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. A second. >> We have a motion by Kelsey, seconded by
Amy to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. >> I. Hey, is all in favor?