and we will start with Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the repu for which it stands Nation indivisible with li
so our first order on the agenda here is to introduce our new member this is Amy cordry uh if anyone else if you'd like to introduce yourself we've kind of all made introductions already yes well we already did that great to be here I live in Cedar Valley
been there for 40 plus years uh lived in Winona traveled outside Winona and here I am now welcome aboard thank you welcome our next order of business is to
elect a chair and a vice chair I move that Jordan Potter become the chair of the board and Kelsey Fitzgerald become the vice chair I'll second that those uh would be
nominations then in that case and then uh we can see if there are any others my motion was to have you be the chair and Kelsey be the vice chair and if you want to call it a nomination go
ahead okay um well we can vote on that since we have a second uh all in favor of that uh say I I I I opposed I'll say nay uh so that motion passes
so I'll remain here as chair and we can move on to the approval of the agenda give a motion to approve the agenda make a motion to approve the agenda second a motion by Kelsey and a
second by Ed to approve the agenda all in favor say iOS feel uh competent to approve the agenda I read it but I had no agency in it okay uh should I I'll say abstaining one
abstaining um approval of the minutes from the last meeting motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting I'll second sorry you can take it I have a motion by Ed and a second by
Kelsey to approve the minutes all in favor say I I I and one OB staining okay uh so moving on to our first agenda item like Eric is ready for us yeah I guess I'd like to refer to your packet
it's been brought to my attention here by staff who kind of reviewed it and an and and Olivia credit if you look at page nine the rules of procedure essentially we review those as um they've been amended and we just wanted
toing bring a potential correction to that under 1.1 of on page nine under section one meeting and that last sentence makes reference to the Planning Commission and to be staff's recommendation to strike
that and to insert Board of adjustment just for consistency sake Y is that the only place we have a an issue that's the only recommended change that we have I think by how that got put in there I I don't know there
must have been Gremlins so where were you talking about the very first paragraph under 1.1 under time and that last sentence in that it talks about when meetings shall be heard the third Thursday of each month as so
stated in the agenda and when the regular meeting of Day falls on a legal holiday that's going to get into our next agenda item too where we have our recommendation but there be be no Board of adjustment meeting unless otherwise noted if there
are no agenda items a meeting will not be held and notice of the meeting cancellation will be made to Planning Commission that should be struck and to read Board of adjustment members and post it on the County website I'd be looking for a motion to
amend that item I'll make the motion to amend it accordingly second a motion made by Ed and seconded by Lynn all in favor say I I I I None
opposed so now we need to uh vote to adopt these again is that correct correct make a motion to adopt them with the change I'll second right we have a motion by Kelsey and a second by Lynn to
adopt these as amended all in favor say I I I with none opposed thank you uhu so now we'll be moving on to the leaz on to the Planning Commission um I'm currently fulfilling
that role uh I do enjoy it and be happy to continue doing that if the board chooses so I move that Jordan Potter be the Le on on the Planning Commission on behalf of the board of adjustment
second a motion by in a second by Kelsey uh for myself to remain as the liaison to the Planning Commission all in favor say I I I non opposed Jordan I wonder on that
topic could you just share with uh us and the new member what what you do and sort of what happens at the Planning Commission yeah so I serve as a functioning member of the Planning Commission um but I also do
is a lot of the times when we see a variance here there will be possibly a cup or something to that nature connected to a Planning Commission item um so I'm going to inform the Planning Commission on what happened at our
meeting as it relates to uh the issues we're discussing there are you a voting member of the commission thank and not only that he Recaps all the variances that had been heard um previously in the day so the
Planning Commission has a kind of an update of what they were in the nature of them and some of the specifics so there's a lot of preparation that goes into you going to those meetings yeah and what sometimes it's kind of nice because the same site when I do a site
visit is pertains to both meetings yes it's not too bad all right with that uh we will move on to the change of the next meeting or the June meeting sorry correct the June
meeting would happen to fall on June 19th since it's the third Thursday and that is now a legal holiday so no government um Office Buildings would be open for the observation of June uh
tenth which is now a legal holiday so our recommendation is to move our meeting date up one day by placing that on Wednesday June 18th so hopefully that is an advance for everybody to make that correction but
we're trying to be proactive on that so probably a good time to be handling it um would anyone like to make a motion in that regard please I make the motion to change the June
meeting from June 18 to June from the 19th the 19th whatever Eric said June 18th the day before Wednesday so see a motion by Ed and a second by
Kelsey to move the June Board of adjustment meeting from Thursday the 19th to Wednesday the 18th uh All In favor of that change say I I and we have done
opposed um we don't need we kind of skip right over that if I could just touch on that quickly we that was posted in the daily news for a variance but after further review that was taken from the agenda um essentially for the fact that
there was a provision that due to a Calamity with a fire in so many days that we received notific a of that that there is an exemption where a variance would not have been required so we're pulling that variance and were able to
issue that administratively for that to be built closer to a Township Road than what the setback is and I this good opportunity to make sure because it was published in the paper just so if there's nobody in the room or online just so we know what the status is that
that is no longer needed at this point so that's all I wanted to okay so I'll just state that that is for low Jabs to replace an agricultural structure if anyone online happens to be here for
that petition is no longer on the dock so we'll be moving on to our first docket number boa 0116 2501 that is a petition of Nels Robert Epson
seing a variance from the rear yard setback thank you Mr chairman committee members um for those of you who don't know me I'm Aon Locker so good to uh reacquaint myself with you as you said uh the request here is a variance to reduce a rear yard setback for a
proposed accessory building in this case the accessory building would house a secondary dwelling and you will this is a situation where you will have the same site in both the Planning Commission and the Board of adjustment because uh they'll be making that request this
evening so as I said the proposal is a 150x 50 foot accessory building which may contain the dwelling um bending approval from the Planning Commission and the accounting board it would be in a location that would replace an
existing building that is smaller but at the same setback from the rear line and the the lot itself in question is a long established Homestead on about 4 and a/4 acres here is the lot you see in red in
the bottom left corner the outline of the proposed building you see the blue polygons those are existing Homestead buildings and then you see the white roofed uh polygon with the rosers on it that would be the building that would be
removed uh the proposal is to put it 20 ft from the rear line the requirement is 50 uh it is 50 ft from the sideline there the requirement is 20 so it's essentially an inverse of the location that's
required um access off of County Road 19 just south of the Wilson wiscoy Town Line here you see the zoning overlay the entire parcel and the area surrounding it are all zoned
agricultural I also point out to the northwest of the dwelling you see the approximate location of the septic trench system you see the well directly west of the house and then as I said you see the two
accessory buildings that uh were the remnants of what was a at one point in time an operating Farm so the ordinance citation here that they're asking where from it's the performance standard section it's the rear yard setback that language says for nonagricultural buildings there shall be
a minimum rear yard of 50 feet I mentioned it was a long established site so this is a 1940 aerial in the center there you see uh at that point was an 80 Acre Farm but you see the the home Homestead and the
buildings that by and large still exist today here we're looking at an oblique areial of the site it's you see the red outline of the building proposed there again in the center um to hilly area you know it's up on the on the summit of the ridge fairly flat ground throughout that
site um four and A4 Acres the Town Road you see if you move to the right of the subject parcel that is also the the Township Line so that Crossing that that farm you see on the
far right that would be uh Wilson Township I'll point out that directly to the rear of the Agricultural building you see a you know looks like a cube at this from this scale but it is the home of H sharp I point that out because I
I'll relay some comments that we received from him later here we are zoomed in so we see a 3D rendering of what that would look like large building with the rear portion of it uh being the proposed
accessory dwelling unit that's being requested subite characteristics so there are some Legacy challenges to this site based on the long established Homestead Farmstead layout where those buildings were placed in large part
dictates um where they are now you also see this is a a top topographic slope map so you're seeing areas in yellow being relatively flat under 12% and as it gets progressively more red it gets
deeper so the bright red is a 25% or greater grade and you see some areas there in uh front of the proposed building where you have those steeper grades specifically closest to it right right in front that is an old Silo bunker we may be able to see it from
this kind of see it there too it's it's not um rendering in 3D perhaps as well as it could but that slope map shows that that's a significant uh change in elevation right there and then to As you move closer to
the road from there you see you've got some remnants of other old foundations that also present some um slope variation so here on the left you see photo of the existing accessory building that would be
removed that corner to the back that that would be the the rear yard um in the background you can see some fence post those would represent the property line photo to the right that would be the silage bunker that I referenced
earlier some additional photographs here um on the on the left we have hedge R of trees and then we have the the tpost fence there the tpost fence would be would be the prop line uh the applicant has
communicated to staff that access continuing to have access to that North West corner is one of the reasons why the building can't be shifted you know further away from the line This represents you know what access would
look like if access couldn't be be gained from in front of the proposed building uh to the to the right there we have the portion of the existing house uh we have um some existing trees that's the north line so we're looking North
there so those trees serve as a Windbreak we also have the well location um approximately uh to the left of of the uh or not to the left on the left side of the snow fence you see there permitting history 1980 was a
septic permit issued 1990 the applicant was before this committee asking for a setback to allow for an addition on the existing house from the existing septic system and then in 1991 um because the variance was granted
that that permit for that addition of the house was granted uh public comments so Township indicated support for the project and they stated the township believes there are no negative impacts to neighbors AG use and property and then we received a email or I'm sorry the applicant
provided an email with an attachment with a statement signed by H sharp the neighbor who home I pointed out earlier saying that he supports the both the variance application and the conditional use recommendation so the committee should look at all materials and
testimony before making its findings that support their decision staff analysis provides guidance for drafting the findings but the findings themselves as they were presented to you were drafted by the county attorney's office and should the committee recommend approval the county
attorney's office has proposed conditions any questions for me was curious from what I read what I got is that the structure they want to build would have part housing and the other
part would be agricultural correct yeah sounded like so then if they flip-flopped it so the house was on the other end would they still need this variance because the setback would be closer so that's that's
a tricky piece when it comes to this particular site so one would think that that would make a lot of sense the way the County ordinance defines agricultural building is any building on a parcel or lot that's primary purs is agricultural production so in this case
the primary function or purpose of this parcel is not agricultural production as as it's defined an ordinance but rather residential use so without the dwelling unit in there the building would be a a residential accessory building now
they're proposing to use it for some purposes that one might look at and say these sure look like agricultural uses because they're starring machinery and and hay for a horse uh but per our definitions it doesn't fit neatly into them okay what would an agricultural
building be then it would be and I'm paraphrasing here but any accessory structure located on a parcel primarily devoted to agricultural production and there's a zon residential or rural residential or agricultural
this is zoned uh agricultural resource conservation okay so is the use of the bulk of the property agricultural in this case again
agriculture is defined an ordinance so that's a production of commodities for sale or for on Farm use Farm is defined and I'm paraphrasing all these but Farm is defined as a um parcel primarily used for agricultural production so in this
case they don't raise any crops for sale it's primarily residential use I yeah so is the land directly behind the building owned by the testings is that all part of the same that's correct yes
and they have no issue with it I'll I'm going to quickly jump to a map seek we talk ownership here so I guess tessing own blend entirely surrounding the the parcel uh we didn't receive any comments from tessing um the
only comments that we received were from the town board and from uh HP we did provide notice to uh I believe 12 or 13 neighboring Property Owners they hit our 10 um so the the testing were included in that
notice and and they've never had an issue with the existing building being that close to property line the testings none that I'm aware of in the neighborhood I guess the applicants have presented it to us as a harmonious
relationship but they will follow me up here that might be a better question for them I have a question um I see it referred to as an accessory dwelling and then I see through throughout uh also referred to as a temporary residential
accessory dwelling so which of those is the legal description that applies um so accessory dwelling is defined in ordinance accessory dwelling unit or temporary dwelling unit I don't believe those are defined terms however
there is a permanent pathway for a temporary dwelling to provide Health Care U for a family member so they're seeking that approval from the Planning Commission let's just say the approval from the board of
adjustment is granted and the approval from the Planning Commission and the County Board is not they would still then be able to build an accessory building at that setback but they could not put a dwelling unit in it so they need both to have both the distance from
the property line and the use as a dwelling the way that that temporary or dwelling secondary dwelling unit works is that it's authorized for the period in time in which it's p it's petitioned or asked
for kind of continues so when they say the petitioner will be occupying the accessory building and his son will be occupying the primary once that ceases to be the case that permit will will expire so that's why it's temporary so
it isn't a permanent dwelling it would revert to just the uh agricultural building it would no longer be available as a residential or someone to live in is that my understanding that
is correct yes okay thank you y so then under the um signature at the end it says that they're looking for a cup but in here it says interm use permit so are they actually seeking a
continuous use permit or an interim use permit another peuli peculiarity in a um the County zoning orance so there was an amendment that is not not Incorporated in the full document that you have that says something to the effect of anytime
you read the word conditional use take it to mean conditional use SL interm use I think that's in the I might have included that in the packets U I think the way that that's worked is the applicant hasn't been able to decide what they seek but rather the Planning
Commission chooses what is appropriate whether or not there's a identif identifiable end use or end time is that Jordan is that yeah your understanding so yeah anytime we've um done one like this for temporary
health care reasons uh it would be an intern okay that's going to thought but anyone have any other questions for Aaron is the proposed septic for the accessory dwelling within the range of
not needing a variance I mean they're not going to have to come back for all the extra stuff later or is that something we don't need to deal with now I just I mean there's no there's no relief from a standard being sought for septic at this point in time
okay would they use the original well they going to run a line from the existing well that's an area that the zoning ordinance doesn't stipulate standards for um but that might be a question for
for the applicant when when he comes up here and my final question is the condition number three that is being proposed I that been to 100% of the
meetings but I looked at that this condition and it struck me as being new I understand what I think the purpose might be and this is on page 23 of the packet yeah would you explain for us why
that condition is being proposed is it because of the residential use that is going to be part of the ructure perhaps that that's not a so it is being
proposed it was not a the Genesis of that is not me um so I guess I'll speak to my understanding of why it's being proposed there's already language in the agricultural District that states I believe exactly this so it it really
deserves to underscore this principle is the purpose of the provision in the zoning ordinance as well as this condition essentially to put an occupant on notice who might be living in the
building proposed to be constructed that they're essentially in an agricultural area and issues as recited in the condition may happen that is how I understand
it thank you welcome all right I think that's it um thank you if the petitioner would like to come address the board you're welcome good afternoon uh state your name and address just for the record please soon I get the microphone set up
here okay my name is Nels eison and my wife's name is Kathy we live just south of the um excuse me the Wilson wiscoy Township Line so as Aaron pointed out on on the property that were just just
south of Liberty Drive um we've lived there for about 33 years now um both my wife and I appreciate the agricultural um atmosphere and Landscape of wona colony since 1990 when we first
moved there our property was separated from the original 80 acre Farmland we tried to preserve the agricultural character of the area by using and re using and repurposing the buildings both the barn and the out buildings that we
have there for our needs so in keeping with the spirit of won County zoning ordinance and the won County comprehensive plan the building we're proposing would be agricultural in design in other words it looks like an
agricultural building but would contain a single floor dwelling for um in the internal to the outer structure in other words a building within a building the comprehensive plan encourages this by recommending and I'm quoting here it
says the citing of allowed non-farm dwellings using Innovative implementation techniques to reduce conflicts with agricultural uses the end of quote so the size of the building was determined by maintenance storage and
personal workspace needs as well as aot a reasonable size dwelling for us as elderly parents when we as parents no longer need the residence the dwelling space within the building would be usable only for non-commercial and nonresidential
purposes the proposed building would retain a 20ft setback from the rear property line identical to an existing building that is on the property and the property lines were established by um a
not survey in 1990 so we had the when we originally split off the parcel we actually had a survey made and everything we have Corner posts and so on so we know exactly where our property lines are so this rear yard setback
would be the same as prescribed in the sidey yard setback in table 10.2 in the County zoning ordinance and Aaron pointed that out if
excuse me if the rear yard setback of 50 ft as prescribed in the table now I'm speaking of the rear yard setback was enforced the building would need to be shortened by 30 ft to allow access to the south side of the building
because of that bunker Silo that that you can see there so we're we're leaving a space in between the building and the bunker Silo which stands about six feet up from the the uh level of the ground to be able to get our Machinery back and
forth if we have to have lawnmowers or tractors whatever it might be to get through there we use it essentially as a as a hobby Farm if you want to call it that very very small but but we enjoy the country and so we we live a country life there um if that building is
moved 30 ft to the east it will be essentially right on that concrete structure so there'll be no no access to get into the south side of the the building because of what Aaron showed if you look at the South property line it's
only 10 ft away from the bunker syum now originally when that property was set up we were uh allowing the the land owner who is dug and Doug and Cindy Tesson to prescribe where they wanted the boundaries and the idea was to keep as
much agricultural land as we could as they could so so you can see that the boundary lines lie on the trees for the Windbreak they lie right close to the buildings very close to the bunker Silo um and that's the reason why as the the
original Farmstead set the buildings in place but stting out the property lines ended up causing us a little bit of constriction in that property if we wanted to use it for anything else and so a long history of that Farmstead and
its layout presents challenges trying to move at other places you have Windbreak up on the northwest corner we have an established apple orchard in front of the family dwelling there uh the well is directly north of the building and you
can see the other buildings with the barn and the garage and the bunker Silo and the other areas so there's there's really no place for us to go with the building except where we wanted to put it um we have spoken with all of the
five closest property owners and all of them have confirmed that they're okay with the original setback and also what we proposed to do with the building so that is what we would like to propose to you that that we asked that the board
of adjustment would Grant this variance to allow us to have the maximum usability of our property on the building uh any questions I think I might have answered your question Amy about the residential portion of it um once basically the end
end date for it being a residence as if we're not here anymore right it just that's the nature of everything that you know as as people pass on then it becomes um the permit will be taken away for that particular structure and then
according to what I understand in the zoning ordinance they will have to apply for something else if they want to use it for that I understand that and uh understand that situation as well I think a lot of us are in that situation
um I did have a question about the well and the septic that Kelsey uh referred to as well if you could address that someone um the question from Kelsey about the septic was um I just noticed
the in these bigger pictures kind of the gravel or pad or whatever that is by the house part of your proposed site which as I've learned is not a good septic
site so I'm curious right from the pictures here just a little bit more clearer as to where you're proposing that's going and is that going to be within the setbacks right um I don't
seem to have a laser pointer here but if you look at where the building is um there's there's an unoccupied area of land to the south of that which is the bottom of the picture and that septic system would lay be in this area right here
okay another reason why we need to have this access here this is too close to get any kind of equipment in there if you need to do a bulldozer or you need to move things around um so if there was ever any problem with the septic system
don't have access here we we do not have enough room to get equipment through there without taking down the line fence of of dug and send to testing okay major problem there but the and Aaron did not show it but we did have a
proposed septic system area in this and then are you hooking up to their well or the same well yes same well same electricity the my energy line you can kind of see right here goes up to that point and at that
point the Transformer goes to all the buildings and we take it over to here also well is located right north of there and we would there actually is water in this building right now so we wouldn't have any trouble with that we
would just tap into that same water so but why wouldn't you have planned it to go the same angle as the existing building yeah supp it could but just we're trying to keep things
compact we we use these are garden raised garden beds and and have space there for grandkids and so on to play and so on so we're trying to keep as much open space as we could and move the buildings to the outside that's fair so yeah no I
I understand what you're saying probably could could not put it here because of the SE system and the the trees we couldn't put it in the northeast corner at least at this point because you can't see it in this picture but there's an established Arch there have about 15 or
20 trees that's nice can I interrupt for a second for the benefit of the of the record can I this thing I don't have a laser pointer so I couldn't stay here what would you like me to repeat well if you're going to be
at the map I guess the that okay um maybe I could just reiterate that um Kelsey when when we were talking about the um septic system the original documents that I presented
showed south of the proposed building that there would be a proposed SE septic system there between the building and the property line and to Lynn's question about why we didn't turn it um we were trying to keep his much open space on
the property as we could and so we were pushing the buildings to the outside um and speaking about why it would not move very well to the northwest corner it was because of the U wind Brak that is on the property and
also the um existing septic system for the W primary dwelling for the northeast corner there is a about a 20 tree established Orchard there so we felt that the best place to put the building would be to take down the
loafing shed which we don't use anymore it was originally part of the 80 acre parcel and they did keep cattle in it but we use it just for storage now so it doesn't serve the same agricultural purposes it did before they still use the
bunker no we just use it's just there it's concrete and it's very expensive to take out so we just left it there was other structures that that have been demolished over the years but that concrete structure was just too much to do so it just stays there now do you
live in the current house yes um we just just recently my son has taken over the property and he would move into that house and you would move into B exactly okay and so we would be just across the yard if we need any assistance um we
we're just trying to foresee the future and trying to prepare for things so we are hoping that he can help us not not only with uh health care which we don't need right now but also just to to be around and help that way he lives in
wona right now so and then you've referred to when you're no longer here what will they use with that livid SP and that's what I was I did say that but it probably Rand made by you the fact that once we're not
using that for residents then it would refer to a non-residential a non-commercial purpose other words they would use it for storage or whatever else that's there would could not be used for anything like a bed and breakfast or uh
Airbnb or anything like that and I believe that that's part of what the zoning people are putting in as as requirements is that correct here maybe as a conditional use permit right I believe that that because
here they're asking to reduce a setback line and they're not asking for the residential use that's perview of the Planning Commission there aren't conditions to address that in this ask but there are conditions to address that in the application for the the Planning Commission so in the future his son
could come and ask to use it for a bed and breakfast it seems a shame to put all the money into building a residence and then just let it decay or store stuff in it right somebody could at any point in time come and and make an application for any use provided for in
that District um you know so it might be Perhaps Perhaps that would be it or it might be you know at some point in time there might be another you know Family Healthcare need as the generations kind of move through but whatever it would be it would have to revert to
non-commercial n dwelling use or a subsequent application would need to be submitted would there be a future variance then under the conditions the future conditions uh that you just mentioned uh to
split that property and just have access to that road that County Road uh at some point and make that not a family uh related dwelling but a totally separate
residential dwelling it would that be a variance that could occur theoretically I suppose that that would be possible it would it would likely require some some or several conditional
use permits and it may also require some or several variances but in theory you know the minimum blot size is one acre so this is a 4 acre parcel and there are setback standards from many things structures from for instance septics uh so doing so would
would likely be quite challenging but in theory it it's not impossible okay yeah all right do we have any more questions for the property owner or the applicant I have one yeah Ed go ahead Mr eison I know you're not using the bunker
silo or silos if the building configuration remain the same and the bunker silos weren't there would you then be able to properly move the building further toward the road or
not that could be done um it's my understanding that the bunker silos are not being used but it would be very expensive to remove them yes and so we we chose not to do
that we uh are there historical uh a ICS to those bunker silos or a historical value to them this one is sheer concrete so I would say in my
opinion no there's nothing like a silo that you think of on the side of a barn that looks pretty it's just concrete structure with wing wings on the side to prevent it from collapsing when you put silage into it so in my opinion it's not
very pretty but it's very difficult to get rid of because of it's 8 ft tall from top to bottom and it's 8 in thick and it's 72 feet long and 30 ft wide with concrete on the bottom so with it
that being very pretty it sounds like the significant financial cost to remove it is the reason why you don't want to remove it could you state that again please
is it basically the extreme High Cost of demolishing The Silo and removing it that causes you not to want to do that that that is true we we hadn't thought about it at all because we just
familiar with the construction cost so we didn't really think about it we didn't realize that it would be as much a problem as we thought I'm not suggesting that you move it I was just curious yes no it's we had planned to just leave it
there and we work around it um our horse goes around it and he does his thing around there eats all the grass and he's fine so as long as it doesn't bother anybody it's it's out in the country so we don't really worry about it much thank you sure any other questions
that'll do it thank you thank you right so I would be looking for a motion to open the meeting to the public make that motion a second a motion by Ed and a second by Lynn to open the meeting to the public all in
favor say I I I None opposed uh the meeting is now open to the public if there's anyone else here or online that would like to speak for against this petition you can come forward to the mic right now and say your name and address and tell us what
you'd like to say uh for the second time if anyone would like to speak for against this petition please do so now doesn't look like we have anyone online so for the third and final time if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition please come
forward now with that if anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing I still move to a second second um motion by Lynn and seconded by Kelsey uh to close the
public hearing all in favor say I I I None opposed so the public hearing is now closed is there any discussion on this I'm okay with the whole thing I mean it makes sense the neighbors don't mind looks like they
looked into different possibilities and it's how we want to do it so I moved to approve the variation request including the findings of fact and the conditions recited in the staff report we have a second for that I'll
second we have a motion by Ed seconded by Kelsey to approve the petition as written uh the finding of fact are written and the conditions all in favor
say I I I I None opposed the variance passed and now I will read the appeal to 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 grieved person or person's or any Department board or Commission of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after receip of the notice of decision to the district court
in which the land is located on questions of Law and fact any party that would like to submit an appeal to the decision rendered at the public hearing must do so to The District Court planning and environmental services is not responsible for filing the appeal or obtaining representation by the by
Council for the petitioner and now we will move to our second item docket number boa 0116 25-2 the petition of Landon Jorgenson also represented by Skip Weezer who seek a
variance uh to the Winona County subdivision regulations this uh application is essentially a request due to a change in the surveying that affected an existed existing
subdivision um this centers on the zeni subdivision which was platted in 1980 and it also is um a result of kind of a a meats and Bounds described area that's
outside the subdivision um the variance is due to the fact that they are changing a couple of the lots that are within the subdivision in a kind of a housekeeping order of business as far as trying to make it more reflective of the
existing terrain uh this would be from subdivision regulations uh sections of the ordinance and I believe there is a um couple of paragraphs that talks about uh in chapter 15 1.3 any plat Hereafter made
it goes on quite a lengthy paragraph but it says when you have a situation where there's three or more Lots including the resubdivision or replatting of lots that's the threshold in which a person or a party or a developer would actually
have to start presenting a series of preliminary plats and final plats uh without this variance they'd have to go through four public hearings to the planning commission to do an amended plat but these lot lines that are corrected um in the form of a variance
such we have today is kind of a due process in order to avoid a full-blown going through the platting process we'll get into some of the specifics uh this is located in the Village of noine New Hartford Township
and there's three Parcels in which the applicants own kind of stated their um designated by the 08 and the series of numbers uh the two that and or that have the middle number 005 represent the ones that are in the
subdivision and then the last one is the area that's along more County Road 12 uh the property is own CD Community Development such as the core of the noine area uh there is access uh for the
one house off of County Road 12 as well as there is a secondary access on traven court which was a platted Street as far as that subdivision uh copy of the original plat of the zeni subdivision and if I can
just step here to kind of the existing Farmhouse is located on the non-planted area and they intend on dividing that and to clean up this and also the slot four is part of the
property in which you'll see some pictures and some other slides but the hypothetical line would be drawn here and then here and then this would be added to this parcel uh we received a survey that's
being proposed by gcubed engineering and this essentially shows the Devi of the property lines in order to fit the existing buildings uh you can see in the parcel a that is part of the the majority of that
is not part of the subdivision but they wish to adjust that due to the chunk of woods and they also as a matter of fact a point of sale to upgrade the septic for that house will need that area and that open space and adjust those
property lines to accommodate that uh the applicants in their statements have indicated they wish to retain the lot with the two the proposed parcel B with the existing buildings um to utilize it
as cold storage lot four or parcel C would be reconfigured is a a hypothetical um remnant of of lot that potentially could be built upon as far as that subdivision of zenes um that's
considered lot four and you'll see some pictures of that kind of zooming in kind of just showing that it's uh the lot four and lot six and also the accepted area
that's outside the subdivision another diagram showing the the nature of that um looking at the standards for the CD District uh if the Varian is granted it would not decrease any Street Frontage nor square footage
or lot size um for those standards for those existing buildings and lots picture on the left shows the existing house that's in question located at 42611 County Road
12 and then the picture on the right is showing the driveway looking into that property you can see one building in question on the left as well as then there is additional buildings that are immediately behind that and located to the south of where
that proposed division line would be uh picture on the left here um kind of more to the southwest and it shows the other building there that's in question and then the one on the right shows that
Brown building is the one that's exactly right behind the other building in that area it's also looking at that lot four kind of that grass area and then the area in between the two buildings I think on the last set of pictures is
kind of showing what's left of that lot for this is this these pictures are the view from the subdivision Street um traven Court [Music] uh the applicants did meet with the New
Hartford Township Board and on December 12th and they indicated that they had no comments in regards to this request um the board the way that the report has been presented is that um you
know I hope it wasn't confusing one thing I wanted to point out I know when the county Assistant Attorney looked at this we did have a a summarization on a co- applicant that was Mr skip Weezer who was representing
the petitioner and they did their best job to address all the findings so that's in your staff report you know I think just looking at my packet you know just want to say it's petitioners comments on page 49
through 50 are the comments that we received from the applicants on how in their words U the findings were being met by uh this this request staff further went on on from Pages 60 or 52
to 53 and that's staff's position and the way the staff report has been presented it's recommending approval with the one condition and then also the county attorney's office provided findings of fact um based on the report and the information from Pages
54 and 55 with what one condition on 56 so with that being said um staff would recommend that consider all materials and all testimony and um the
draft findings and draft U condition as recommended and the applicants are I believe here to um to um answer any questions or to elaborate on any points um to that I may have miss about that is
there anything I could answer could you go back to one of the maps just trying to orient in my head where it is like where's I90 and how are you coming into noine okay I90 is up to the north here okay
and 12 is the one that goes south and this is the village in odine um and where did you turn to go to Apple Blossom Drive oh turn right here this is where the t- stop is this is five goes down to New Hartford take five that goes back out on the ridge to get
out on County Road one or apple Blom but the school the church thus it's a CD Community Development does have that flexible zoning that allows for residential and it allows for other mixed uses to occur within the CD or
District they try to it probably doesn't show up very good but this is the actual zoning map for the area CD is kind of showing a 300t corridor on each side of the County Road in this area and then it's showing this whole block of 40
being designated as so where on there is the stuff we're talking here existing houses on this parcel uh this remnant of this
lot one thing this that happened prior to the county having a survey ordinance in 2006 I believe it's Lynn gellerson who was a contractor by trade he operated heavy equipment I believe he's now deceased and that's how this property has been transferred now to
this new applicant and at some point he acquired this chunk of woods he wanted more yard so they did that technically if if we had a survey ordinance so we get a chance to review it and we would have said no actually you're you're
altering an existing platted lot and the only recourse you would have would be either go through the plating process or you can come and appear in front of the board of adj adjustment for a variance so that's trying to undo this or to recognize that that had been done in
2006 contrary to technical right approval for it so it's it's this portion here and they would be changing this and they'd be changing this line so it's dealing with these
segments I guess okay and then that green line says Trav something C that's a street Yep this so that's actually a street that's how you get to the Lots there residential houses that that this
action is not requesting to create new building site or new lot this is is essentially just an alteration of some of the lot lines and it's involving an existing subdivision so that's really the the heart of the issue in front of you some lines are basically yeah
they're altering some of the the property lines and so we're we're essentially eliminating that little corner parcel then no there'll still be three Parcels sorry oh that chunk of lot sticks I'm I
guess I'm saying that is that a separate parcel currently corner piece yes okay parti number so that yeah that would be going into what is called parcel a on here
okay be absorbed is that where the proposed septic system then would be put is that why you kind of want that parcel and use it that way y I meant the remnant yep that little corner yeah correct okay that's how I
understood is that the overarching purpose of what you're doing here is to get for for a septic system we can do this to sell off this house so so we just bought the property to use as cold
storage and we want to sell the house it's it's a built in the early or late 1800s very very good condition yet we have a that wants to buy it so we want to include this so we want to include this corner section that Lynn bought years ago with
the house and then Square it off nice behind this building just so it kind of incorporates that back corner do your finger again around that parcel so this is the little corner piece yep that would be included with this piece
okay then we would take a section of this parcel off of this piece so it's Square building so they have we have the setback off the buildings on both sides and they have this as all their yard and they have access from County
into their garage with an easement and they wanted to pour us approach for outside their garage so then they could be able to swing into their garage and make it before we go any further can you just uh State yeah sorry Landon Jorgenson uh I'm representing fire
protection sprinklers uh we're the owners of the property okay and your address uh 39984 Echo Valley Drive L Crescent thank you does anyone have any more questions for him so would it just
basically it would just show then the whole parcel is then owned by that one person not like oh that little square triangle is owned by them and then this chunk is owned by them correct correct so what it is it'll be right now it's the three parcels and it's still going to be three Parcels just a homeowner's
name and then this these two Parcels will be in our name fire protection sprinklers with the idea that maybe in the future that we can sell this parcel off currently my brother owns this parcel here um the water this well
actually feeds this property this property this property this property and the next there's five five people off of that well um I received a call from Randy Hefner about this he was wondering why he was going to lose some property
line up there and I I explained to him that it's just a rough draft of what we're doing his lines won't change at all I actually spoke with him for about 35 minutes uh where I live now his grandpa used to own years ago he was just curious as to why and then he also
showed interest in potentially purchasing this lot uh in the future if we do decide to sell it so that North South Line you said made it look like someone's property line was changing that isn't really accurate it's so the white line is the accurate line that's
off Beacon the the yellow line is the proposal that the gqb rote up for for separating the three parcel this is this would be the one parcel and then this would be the second parcel and then this would be the third parcel so it's it's
still saying three parcels and why is there a white line going over that house what is the white line I'm not think former I think that was two lots before and that house is on oh so they buil two lots and then just
built the house right okay okay yeah right now we actually rent these buildings from uh the Lyn Gerson estate after he passed he wanted his grandson to have this this is his original shop where he did all his work
out of so this is going to be Brody shop when he comes of age he's only 13 now so at 18 he'll have the decision if he wants to sell it or keep it or whatever so we are renting it until he turns 18 uh and then we use these both of these buildings combined to store stuff and
then as well as the the loafing open front shed is that required to be surveyed then and registered as far as what we're doing here now
yeah after after 2006 anytime you create deviations person lines you do have to file a survey along and that's why we're doing this to avoid having it all replatted for just kind of squaring everything up with the properties that
have are there it wasn't that long ago probably six years ago that he actually had cattle in this feed lot that we my brother and I have known him for many years Lynn and we would help him clean the cattle pits and haul the man out and everything so it was not that long ago
he did did that always like he said always ran his uh Escavating business out of there um we we know all the neighbors surrounding uh like I said the only one was Randy that called I talked with him and he was after I explained to him that he wasn't going to be losing
any property he was absolutely fine with everything further questions for the applicant all right thank you thank you uh so I would entertain a motion to open the public hearing at this point
move a motion by Lynn seconded by Ed to open the public hearing all in favor say I I un opposed um if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition please come
forward to the microphone or make yourself known online again if anyone would like to speak for against this petition come forward for the third and final time if anyone would like to speak for or
against this petition please come forward so I'm looking for a motion to close the public here yeah motion second a motion by Ed seconded by Amy to close the public hearing all in favor
say I I None opposed uh any discussion I think it all looks pretty reasonable to me an improvement yeah cleans things up a bit anyone like to make a motion on
this agenda item well I move that we pass it as pass it second on that second a motion by Lynn seconded by Kelsey
to approve the variance is it a variance Eric as it is written uh with the attached condition all in favor say I I I None opposed uh so the appeal to The District Court once again all Decisions by the
board of adjustment and granting variances or in hearing appeals from any administrative order requirement decision or determination shall be final except that any aggrieved 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 decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located on questions of Law and fact any party that would like to submit an appeal to the decision rendered at the public hearing must do so to The District Court planning and
environmental services is not responsible for filing the appeal or obtaining representation by Council for the petitioner and with that uh our last agenda item is
adjournment make a motion to adjourn I'll second that we have a motion by Kelsey seconded by Lynn to adjourn all in favor say I I