That was useless. >> Having fun. >> So, >> yes. >> It's fun to see. >> I can stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag, the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Right. Approval of the agenda. Have a motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll move that. >> Second.
>> We have a motion by Lynn, seconded by Kelsey to approve the agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Un opposed. Approval of the minutes from October 16th, 2025. >> So moved.
>> I'll second. Have >> a motion by Ed, seconded by Amy to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> None opposed. Uh petitions. We have docket number BOA1202501
to consider the petition of Arnold Huff property owner and Todd and Lisa Hoff petitioners who seek a variance to uh put a dwelling on crime soils or class one through three soils. Olivia,
>> is it good afternoon? Um, and just one point of clarification too, there are two variance requests. So, it's prime soils and then um the subdivision standards as well. So, some of the site overview, it is in Richmond Township. It's actually right on the border of Richmond and New
Hartford. Um, Linander Road serves Hoff Lane, which is a private drive. It's a 101 acre parcel right now proposed to be split into about a 2 and a half acre parcel. Um and then the remaining acreage would stay with the existing dwelling that's on it. It is in section
32. Um and the address there is for the existing residents. The red outline within that parcel is kind of the area that they're proposing to split. Um this is again just the staff created site plan. You can see there on the
lower left. Um, that's how the parcel has been split previously. So, it was mentioned in the staff report that there have been splits for residences in the past. Um, this one's a little bit different because it's an existing structure. So, there isn't any proposed additional farmland that's proposed to
be taken out of production. Um, essentially they'd be converting a portion of that structure into a residence for family members. Um, I believe that this road serves all family members. Is that correct? Yeah. Um, so four there would be the the new split.
Um, and then since 2001 is when the three technically four other residences. Um, I don't have the one that's in the 99 acre parcel outlined. Um, but that's how it's been split in the past.
This is what they submitted. So essentially just a portion of that building would be converted into the residence. there would be a septic system within that parcel that would serve just that residence and then they're proposing to share the well and they did have a septic contractor out on
site just to take a look and make sure that that would fit within where they're proposing. Some of the considerations um like I mentioned they are proposing to use an existing building. There isn't any new disturbance to the site. Um, I didn't
include a soils map because this the prime soils takes up the entire parcel. So essentially the whole thing would have been shaded. Predominantly it's class 2, but there are there's a little bit of class three. Um, it would be a new septic system. Again, the well would be shared. It would be the fourth split
of the parent parcel, which that that triggers their request for a variance from the subdivision standards. Um, it's a pretty intensive process. Typically, we would see that for um a subdivision where multiple parcels, this is just they're proposing one split that
wouldn't meet those standards, which is why they would need the variance. Um it is ARC zoning, so they would need a conditional use permit as well. They are going to the planning planning commission, excuse me, meeting tonight um for that request. So, some of the photos um this is
existing structure. So, there's just a couple of different angles looking at that. So, this is looking to the northwest. Um, looking to the northeast, you can see the crop land that kind of surrounds the building. Um, and then the existing
residence that's closest to it, you can kind of see way in the background on the larger picture. Looking to the southwest, um, the septic area would be in this grassy area. Um this is looking to the northeast. So
there is a driveway that already serves that building. Again, there isn't proposed to be any new disturbance to the land other than just um interior conversion of that building. And then this is looking at looking
south down the lane that serves the the dwellings towards Linder Road. They did go to the Richmond Township meeting on August 12th. Um the township did indicate support for the proposal as presented for the two variances and then the conditional use permit.
So our recommendation would be that you consider all materials and testimony. Um the analysis and draft findings do support granting the variance. We do we have two draft drafted conditions within the staff report um for your consideration. The petitioners are here as well if you
have any questions for them. But I can take any questions you have them for me. >> I I was just curious what constitutes um my gosh totally blinking now. The second variance, the subdivision one. Is
it because there's already broken up >> parcels on this former property? like so many things on that road already or is it because they're breaking that up for another dwelling? >> Yep. So, the subdivision standards come
into play when it's a new residence. And so, we look at the parent parcel. So, how that parcel existed um back I think is 1970 is the date that we look at. But essentially um when a parcel has been split throughout the years, if it's
split larger than five acres and it has the required road frontage, then it's considered a split that doesn't count towards the subdivision requirements. Once you hit three splits that don't meet that, so they're either less than 5 acres or they don't have the required road frontage, then it triggers the
subdivision standards. So, if they sold this property for five acres instead of 2.5 acres, they wouldn't need to worry about a variance for the subdivision. >> They still would because they don't have the road frontage. This is a private drive, so they need public. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Yep. >> So, just out of curiosity, the road frontage then does that mean that it would then be like a township road and need would be plowed or and not a private driveway? So this the subdivision standards get into all of
that and so if if a new subdivision is proposed it needs to be dedicated and there needs to they need to go through the the formal process of having that road be I think it's a public thoroughfare. Yeah. >> Um so the
two of the residences on this road were approved as back in the the quarter quarter sections. Um, so when we allowed one residence per quarter quarter section and then number three was approved in
2011. So they did have to go through the public hearing process in order to get that approved. >> Okay. And was that but that wasn't part of the uh subdivision. >> Correct. They got approval. Yeah. Right. So they didn't go through the formal subdivision process
>> because they did get a variance for that one to avoid the subdivision. >> Correct. Okay. Yep. And they did back probably 25 years ago before these residences were developed the way they were the way they were,
excuse me. Um there was a variance from the subdivision standards that was applied for for the entire development. Um that didn't go forward. So they they applied for it, but they didn't actually I think they pulled it before it got to
the final public hearing. Any other questions? Y um I guess this is only the second time I've come across something to do with the subdivision, so I look to you for some clarification. Uh
it was the quarter quarter section for the first uh variance. Did they need a variance for that first dwelling when it was a quarter quarter section? No. So the quarter quarter section um is for the minimum lot size.
And so they they didn't need variances at that point for those first two. Um we do see variance requests for oneoffs I would say. So for just like one split um from the subdivision standards.
>> So the subdivision standards is if it's three or more uh of the smaller lots, is that correct? then it falls under the subdivision and they'd need a variance and that is why they needed a variance from that. >> Correct. Yep. So the third split of the
parent parcel would require the subdivision st like a formal subdivision process. And so it it comes into play sometimes when even if it wasn't the original property owners in this case um the
owner of the property Arnold was the owner back then as well. But oftentimes if land has been bought and sold in the past and then someone new comes in and wants to split it again, even if they weren't a part of the original splitting of that property, the third split would
technically trigger them. So they might not have any knowledge that that's happening or that would need to happen, I suppose. >> Okay. Was there an awareness at that time uh that there were going to be more splits or No, there was just the one.
So, like I mentioned, they did apply for a variance in the past um for I think four small splits and then didn't move that forward. When I talked to the petitioners, it sounds like this would be the last residence that would develop that would is being proposed to be
developed in this area. Um but they might be able to speak more about back then >> because it looks like there's room for more lots or residences, which is I guess why I ask. >> Sure. I can tell you that most of this
parent this the larger parcel is prime soils. >> So they would be running into the same thing where they're they would need to go through multiple public hearings in order to get that approved. Um and if there were being more lots proposed that would be something that we would take into consideration for the formal
subdivision process, right? Because looking at just one versus five, um there might be a different review process that we would be recommending. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Mhm. >> Where does does the road end kind of right at the
where the line is from the parent parcel? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So really there's not any road frontage available for any of those. >> There's not. No. >> And then I thought I read something about a farm dwelling. Is that just
referring to like the original? >> That's the dwelling that's closest to them. Um, so if we're looking at the larger aerial image with the red outline, that's the dwelling that's immediately to the right. So, it's in the middle of those those trees, which
are the circles. >> Okay. And what are the other um things on that property that it looked like there were some white things to the right of the proposed
dwelling on the larger blowup? Are those just trucks or are there more storage sheds or garages or something there? Um, so in the photos that I had, >> yeah,
>> let me see. >> Were like little white rectangles. Do >> you mind just moving it for me? >> Oh, did I get control back? Is that me? Okay. >> The ones where the proposed septic was like, okay, white. What are What's Are
those just storage sheds, too? Or >> Um, it looks like maybe just I don't think they're structures. No, I think they're just like It looks like one of them is a boat. Um, yeah, they would they would be able to answer that better. Yeah, but this is the only structure that is
within that area that they're proposing to split and would be just because the septic would be there as well and they would need the primary and the secondary because it's a new they would need two sites for septic >> because it's a new parcel. >> Any other questions for me?
Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome to come up and uh let us know about it and uh answer any questions we have. If you could start by just saying your name and address for the record. >> Todd Huff, 27962 Huff Lane, Dakota.
>> And I'm wife Lisa Huff. Um, our house is uh on the lower part of the property. So, uh, >> you could walk up and Oh, sure. Yeah. >> We're number two here. >> Oh, okay.
>> And, uh, and Todd's father is the is the primary that owns the whole of the land. And, um, his sisters are one and three. And my brother is the original farmstead at the bottom that actually does have
frontage to lander. So >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. And then the residence would be owned by uh would be parcelled off to our daughter and her husband who would like to move to the area back to the
area. They've been gone for a year and a half. Um and they just would like to be near family and we'd like to have them on the land. And that's my dad's granddaughter. >> Yeah. >> So everybody on the on all of the land is
I remember when we came here 25 years ago that we did pull that for the subdivision thing because we didn't we thought our kids would want to go and move but we're very grateful that they want to come back.
following my dad's wishes on that. Keep family on the board. >> Yeah, that's our goal really is to just uh not develop it, but just to keep it for the family that's that's there. So >> those those that white thing that you
were talking about um that was a boat in the trailer. >> Okay. Okay. >> Big one's there now. >> Oh, is someone in the family currently farming it? We rent the land. All of the tillable is right rented to a friend from church,
Andy Fricson. Andy Andarian Fricson. So, >> and so in the proposed area, you know, where they want to build, looks like there's already some land in production. Is that going to stay that way? >> The same.
>> Yep. >> And then what will the back of the building be used for? Um, well, actually, we we're working with the contractor to know whether it's best to develop the front half or the back half, but the other one will just be used for the garage. >> Oh, okay.
>> Oh, yeah. >> It might just stay the same. >> Yeah, it won't be won't be >> the road the gravel road going into the garage part. >> Oh, yeah. That all stays the same. Yeah. >> Someone Sorry. Go ahead. So, for the
residents, did I hear you say um the outside of the structure will not change? >> Um other than the addition of windows and entrance doors and >> cosmetic >> cosmetic curbside, >> it won't get larger or it won't Yeah.
Right. Okay. That part won't change. >> Yeah. >> How big is it right now? >> The structure is a 50 by 80. They're hoping to do uh 2500 square feet of it, but um yeah, they're first time they're
young. They're first-time homeowners and just trying to see what they can get for their money. So, working with the contractor and and they're working with the lender to find out what they might be approved for. That kind of determines how big. So,
>> we've also had a septic pull out take a look at it, too. And Olivia mentioned that as well that septic system would remain in that area that we're asking for. It wouldn't take up any more agricultural land. >> So I don't know if this is for you to
answer or Olivia or who but if they would I mean it kind of sectioned off or somewhere I saw a picture of that if they ended up wanting to develop inside a bigger new model. Do they have to go through the whole
variance thing again or is that all included in this? >> You mean the inside of the structure? >> Yeah. >> Um >> I don't have an answer to that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So if this passes they can do whatever they want as long as it stays inside the
walls >> microphone so the online hears too. So they can the the variances for um relief from the subdivision standards as well as the prime soil. So that just looks at the residence overall. Same with the conditional use permit tonight
with the planning commission. It's for a new residence, new dwelling. So within that existing structure, we don't have any requirements as long as they're, you know, they're not taking up any additional farmland. They're not changing the footprint of that structure. So, however that works for
them to convert, um, we wouldn't have any additional public hearings for that. No. >> Okay. >> And whatever lawn they've got around their are they do they have to keep that or is there any issue with expanding their lawn? Like if they have kids and
want bigger lawn play area or whatever, >> the whole the whole property is kids can go anywhere they want. It's all familyowned. So there really isn't a specific May I point something? >> Yeah. >> Um this is this is the garage part.
We've already have this insulated for the garage area. And this is the part that we're looking at turning into a residential part of the facility. Kind of a marinium. I guess the only thing that would be added here would be like a sidewalk
would be it. This would all remain the same. would be anything else back here. This area is just a green space right now. >> That looks pretty big. >> It is pretty big. >> Play area for kids. >> It's
But yeah, that that's a pretty large area. And this is over here. >> A nice set. >> That was the plan that he had. >> Thanks, Lydia. >> Just out of curiosity. Um, is there
a reason or a thought process in like the size of the parcel where if you did it differently, you wouldn't need like one of the variances like the prime soil variance because you added or acreage or you didn't sell it
to them, you just needed the because you'd have the percentage right or anything like that or is there something >> I'm not quite sure I alow. Can you >> Well, cuz if >> Yeah, Olivia might be able to answer that a little bit better. >> You mean like if it was 5 acres instead
of 200 >> or if they don't sell it at all and they just wanted to remodel it and needed the permit for the residents, but because of the prime soil percentage of the whole parcel, would they still need a variance for that? Because there's >> they would. So they they came in to talk
with us originally to look at what options they had for putting a new residence on the land. Um and then came up with this decision one because prime soils makes up the majority of this parcel. And so to get anything that would even meet the prime so like under
40% would result in a really not great parcel configuration quite honestly. Um and then putting a residence on the parent parcel to begin with. There's only specific situations where we would allow multiple dwellings. Um, one of them being they need to be involved in
actively farming that parcel and because it's being rented out currently, that wouldn't work. So, this this was their way to request it so that it met the zoning ordinances if both of these are approved. Yeah. >> Great. Thank you. >> Other than just the farm farmed area,
the agricultural area, it's going to be nice to have some young folks take care of the rest of the area. >> Absolutely. not necessarily plowed and used for agriculture, but I'm getting older and I I mow everything and it'll take me a day and a half, a day to mow
that. So, to get the young folks in to help out with stuff like that, it's going to be a blessing. >> So, that uh area we see, the lighter area is the crop ground, >> correct? >> And that looks like it's been that way for quite some time.
>> That way forever. been that way since we >> well since we've been since we've been since the structure was built. I think pretty much it it's after that it begins to slope downward and and so I think at one point there might have been some
apple trees beyond it but I think it's always just been farmed like that area and the area where where the structure is and I assume that's 2.5 acres uh around it uh with the boats and
everything and to the road Um, that area obviously has never been part of the farm ground since that building has been put there. >> That's correct. >> Right. Any other questions for the petitioners? >> Right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. >> I would entertain a motion to open the meeting to the public. So move. >> I'll second. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Lynn to open the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> None opposed. >> Uh the meeting is now open to the public. If anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward and state your name and address.
For the second time, if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward and state your name and address. And for the third and final time, if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward and state your name and address.
Entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So move second. >> We have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> None opposed.
Uh discussion. >> Approval of both variances subject to the conditions staff report. >> Have a second for that. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Ed,
seconded by Lynn to approve uh both parts of this variance with the attached conditions. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> That is approved unanimously. Appeal to the district court. All decisions by the board of adjustment in granting
variances or inhering appeals from any administrative order requirement, decision or determination shall be final except that any agrieved person 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 decision just rendered at this public hearing must do so to the district court. The planning department
is not responsible for filing the appeal. >> All right. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion to adjurnn. Uh made by Kelsey, seconded by Ed. All those in favor say I.
>> We are adjourned.