That. >> All right. Well, we can just get right into the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Agenda, would anyone like to move to approve the agenda? >> I move to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion by Amy, seconded by Kelsey, to approve the agenda. All those in favor, say I.
>> I. >> I. >> That is all in favor. We got two batches of minutes here. Did everyone have a chance to look at those? >> Mhm. Move to approve the minutes from both days or both meetings. >> Okay. We have a motion by Kelsey to
approve the minutes from March 19th and April 16th. Do we have a second? >> I'll second the minutes. >> Okay. >> I'm not sure. >> We have a second by Amy. All those in favor, say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right, petitions. Uh our only one
today is docket number BOA 05212601. And that is uh the petition of Sarah Slavik and Vicki Tiedeman regarding uh prime soils variance. >> Afternoon. >> Hi, Aaron. >> Okay, as stated, um variance request
that's commonly brought before you all uh from from the soil regulations of the non-irrigated capability class standards that are contained in the local ordinance. All right, bear with me here. There we go. Summary of the project. So, a parcel
would be split off from the existing parent parcel. This parcel would be intended for the construction of a new single-family home. The parcel would be approximately 44 acres in size, and it would be comprised of class two
to seven soils. And three to five acres of cropland would be removed for the construction of the dwelling, driveway, septic, lawn, etc. Here's a map of the area. So, you're seeing in pink there the proposed parcel. And then in the green over layer, you're
seeing the regulated soils. And then the red polygon below the text would be the location of the dwelling. Zoning information. Um the entirety of the parent parcel and the proposed parcel would be ag district.
The land under common ownership now of the the family's property at the end of this road does include parcel 3000000280. That is within the municipal limits of the city of Stockton. So, here's the ordinance requirement
that they're asking for relief from. Uh 10-4-7 performance standards, number six, parcels of land to contain dwellings shall consist of class four through class eight soils as identified in the soil survey of Winona County as a means to prevent disturbance
to prime soils. An applicant may also develop a site if the percentage of class one through three soils compose less than 40% of the entire parcel. Here's an oblique image of the same property. Again, you see the pink lines, they they kind of trail off
uh to the northwest there as the slopes increase. Um this is in Warren Township. Again, adjoining the city of Stockton, which you can see there to the northeast. You see Windy Point Road, which dead ends at the existing infrastructure um to the to the east of
the property. It's a rural setting. Um you got some perspective of the topography here. Fairly flat on top, fairly steep on the sides, cropped on top, forested on the sides. Here's information that you've received
from me in the past about what the class soil classifications actually are. Uh so, you know, one through three are the soils that the county pegs its regulation scheme to, and the rest of them are are not regulated by the county. Um this is a gradual
usage limitations that that uh increase as you move from one to eight. This is from the soil survey here. So, we took the polygon that they're proposing as their parcel, and we ran it through the online Web Soil Survey, and this is our percentages there. So, we'll
see that uh 44 acres, and we've got class three and class two at the bottom the bottom two rows there that consist of the regulated soils for this proposal. Those
uh tally of approximately 52% of the proposed parcel. Here's a map of the same, so a class two would be the orange you're seeing there, and the class three would be the yellow that's around it. Again, the blue outline is the proposed
parcel. Uh um this just calls out the slopes at play here. In large part, those those soil classifications uh take into account slopes. Uh so, there's a correlation between the grade of the ground and the and the soil
rating. So, again, we see yellow here is less than 12%, so fairly flat. And as we move all the way to dark red, that would be greater than 25%. And this is a sort of the predicament for a lot of folks who are developing including the applicants here is that if you see the
regulated soils there in green, uh nearly sit atop the soils that are less than 12%. So, when we move to the dark red, greater 20 greater than 25%, well, structures are prohibited on that soil
class. Uh so, but structures are regulated on the soil class here on top. And I shouldn't say soil class, I should say structures are prohibited on that slope percentage. So, you can't build something on 25% or over, you're in the CUP territory. If you're at 18 here, you
know, we really don't have a whole lot of of gray area in between regulated based on soil classification and prohibited by ordinance. In often cases, you'll see that they're nearly mutually exclusive possibilities. You have one not present, you have the
other present and vice versa. Uh water features, uh some information on the particular area that might affect this particular parcel. We've got, uh, Garvin Brook and Stockton Valley Creek uh, to the uh, east and to the north, respectively. There's an intermittent stream to the
west that flows into Garvin Brook. >> Could you point out the intermittent stream? >> Sure. It's this one over here, if you >> Okay. >> So, this kind of aqua-colored >> Mhm. >> line indicates intermittent. The darker blue ones indicate public
waters. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, wetlands, so none on the parcel in question. Uh, there are, uh, some wetlands mapped both man-made and naturally occurring to the north. Uh, I believe there's a
emergent freshwater wetland there as part of that what is probably a push-up pond in that gully. >> Is that the Excuse me, I'm sorry, Aaron. I've kind of lost perspective here without the pink line. >> Sure, and I apologize for that. We had, uh, still rebuilding some of the GIS infrastructure that I would typically
use, so this is not the map you're commonly used to seeing, and because of that, I don't have the editing abilities on it, but I'll use this side this time. >> Just kind of orient me, please. >> So, here is the dead end of Windy Point Road. This is that existing infrastructure. If you imagine the quarter-quarter section, the proposed
parcel is pretty much the entirety of of a quarter-quarter section plus a little bit to the east. The road runs on the quarter-quarter section thereabouts, so it would be sort of like that. God, I hope that helps. >> Thank you.
It does. >> Uh, permitting history, some permitting from long ago, nothing recent. This is on the parent parcel from which the parcel would be split. Public comments, none from just members of the public. We did get the form from
the township. The township did express support for the application. >> Excuse me, what was the comment they made? I couldn't really make it out. There was a very small print comment. >> I'd have to look back and see. I'm not sure.
>> I believe it just referred to that other parcel being in the city of Stockton. >> Okay. >> Is that what it said? >> Yeah, that was the gist of it. >> Okay. But none of this parcel is in the city of Stockton, just >> Just to the
>> Other stuff they >> It would have joined This post parcel would share a boundary with the southern boundary of the city of Stockton, but it wouldn't be in Stockton. It would all be in Warren Township. >> Okay. So that the fact that it's not in there
makes no bearings on the percentage of >> Well, it bears on the application itself and that Let me jump back a couple slides. So here's a Again, the green overlay there, the kind of gerrymandered looking polygon, those
are the regulated soils. If you see that This parcel which they own being in the city of Stockton, very small percentage of regulated soils. >> Yeah. >> However, they couldn't continue to create this parcel. Recall the the regulation is based on
percentage of the parcel. >> Okay. So they're not actually purchasing the land then, they're just part parceling off a piece. >> This is now an 80, so it would become about a 40 40. >> Got you. Okay. >> Okay.
>> The as I understood it, the challenge would be because this parcel was not available to be used and because this parcel contains most of the >> What is >> higher class soils, that was a challenge. >> Okay. >> Aaron, would you explain why that
northern parcel is not available because it's in the city of Stockton? >> Yeah, I I guess a couple reasons. Number one, the regulation as it reads is a percentage of the parcel. So, one cannot create a parcel that is partially in Warren Township and partially in the
city of Stockton. Uh number two, um the soil regulation applies only to the agricultural district. Well, the agricultural district does not extend into the city of Stockton. And there may be other reasons beyond that, but those are the two most most obvious to me. >> So, if that wasn't in there
hypothetically, then it would be included in the percentage? Or would it still not be because they're only acquiring 44 of acres of the whole parcel? >> Well, the parcel design is up to the applicant. So, they They can propose a
parcel of any >> Yeah. >> shape and geometry they like. However, when it comes to the application of the soils rule, >> Right. >> the two reasons I just provided would make those unavailable for that purpose. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay, I think I had reached the
uh So, again, as always, consider all material and testimony before making findings that support your decision. Um The staff here my I've provided you with analysis of it and the county attorney's office has provided you with draft findings. And should the board recommend approval,
the county attorney's office has proposed conditions for your consideration. Any questions for me? Yes. >> Aaron, looking at the uh the site, is the Is it a good one?
>> Don't look at that. That's a good >> one. And it's roughly That's not the entire parcel being considered part of that parcel's being considered, correct? >> Well, correct. You You are correct. So,
um the pink lines on this particular slide represent the proposed parcel. And the analysis on the soil percentages was done on just that area. But, the parent parcel or the parcel as it exists now is not the pink line. It is the pink line
less the black lines to the east. >> Are there any Is there any portion on the I'll call it the subject parcel um that is
buildable, non-agriculturable land that would be class four through eight? >> Well, um there's infinite possibilities. Uh >> I mean, but reasonably buildable.
>> That That's what this slide here, I think, is intending to get at is it shows that uh given the county's slope restrictions and given the county's soil restrictions, they nearly overlap. So, they nearly render that 40, if we're going to look at it as a clean 40,
either unbuildable due to slope or unbuildable due to soils regulations. The little area that is orange and yellow in between the red and the green, you may be able to carve something out if you took a creative approach and that could result in something that would likely require a CUP because it would be
under 40 acres and probably 18% or greater slopes. >> Well, if they built in the creative approach that you just hypothetically recited, wouldn't there still be 40 acres
the the parcel? >> There there could be. Again, in my analysis in that the report, it says that an alternative was looked at um to achieve a situation where potentially this variance would not be necessary, it
would likely require changing the location of the house and or a much more complex parcel boundary. So, I'm not a square or a rectangle, but you'd probably be trying to survey along the edge of the of the soil rated ratings.
>> So, essentially the selection of this parcel and the selection of the location of the proposed home on this partial parcel is what has precipitated the need for the variance.
>> As with any variance request from the soil standards, it ultimately can be traced back to the proposed parcel. So, that's true in this case, it's true in every one I've ever reviewed. >> There was some reference to alternative sites. >> Yep.
>> Um do you have any information on that? What the alternative sites were? >> I can speak generally to it. Um I can't show it to you up there, but I can tell you when we went through a several different variations of this
what was happening is the eastern line was being moved to the west because you see that would remove the class two and three soils and the northern line was being extended further to the east, which would bring in more unregulated soils.
That proved very difficult to do and stay at 40 acres. In fact, I don't believe we were able to do that and stay at 40 acres. It would have to be cut under 40 in my opinion. >> So, on the approval criteria portion of your report.
Uh when we look at at number one where it says the variance request is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Um in fact you've shared with us
provisions of the ordinance that would indicate that the variance is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. >> If I've done that, that was not my intention. I think that there are myriads of intents and myriads of
purposes within both the ordinance and all the official controls. So I think in my analysis there I highlighted a few of them where it is in harmony. Not to say that it would be in harmony with every single one. And not that it would be in disharmony with every single one, but there are many competing
um purposes. >> And and where I'm going with this is this consistent application for building on class one through three soils. Um redirect me if I'm wrong in this
conclusion that the county zoning ordinance clearly indicates an intent to preserve and promote agricultural property and if there is going to be building
it would be on non-tillable soil. Is that a main provision of the zoning ordinance? >> It's certainly a provision. I would be I I believe it's more so the the board's role to put those in a hierarchy. >> And I'm just asking you if Let me say
isn't that a provision of the zoning >> It is a provision of the zoning ordinance. >> And then we get further guidance from the county's comprehensive plan that the preservation and promotion of agriculture as a viable land activity used
throughout the county is is a goal. Right? >> I believe I I stated that one of the goals in your report, yes. Again, I guess I'll I'll qualify my answer saying there are many competing goals. There
are some related to housing. >> And I understand that, but I'm looking at the provisions that you shared with us in doing your job appropriately, we've seen these provisions before. But I raise these questions that
these variance applications seem to be coming before us on a regular basis now. And I'll use a simple colloquial saying that what I perceive happening to
the comprehensive plan goal of promoting and preserving agricultural land and the zoning ordinance putting a premium and a priority on not building on class one through class
three property as the board continues to grant these variances and by all means, I understand the altruistic and wonderful reason why the
applicant wants to build close to you know, their mother. Um and it's admirable. But essentially, it's like it's death by a thousand cuts
to these provisions of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. What looks okay in every instance because it's only one little parcel uh
and there's an admirable reason why the applicant wants to do it. You know, over the years you add that all up and you're whittling away at a goal that the comprehensive plan has clearly told us that we're supposed to
keep foremost in our mind. And I take no comfort in being the, you know, the proverbial you know, bad guy in the room and things like this, but we've got a situation where the applicant has
a couple of hundred acres of property and the selection of the land is one that is on class one through three soil and uh it just doesn't sit right for me
because of the comprehensive plan and the provisions of the zoning ordinance. And uh if anyone on the county board listens to these uh our hearing and our discussion, I would encourage the county board
to give further direction to this board on what we should be doing in this instance. Should we disregard the comprehensive plan? Should we disregard the provisions of 10.4.1 that prioritize not building on class
one through three soils? But as the ordinance and the plan exists um to follow the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan
uh when someone selects a parcel that is and wants a variance that's contrary to the ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Uh I'm uncomfortable in granting the variance.
So, I don't know if there are alternative sites or not. I can ask that of the applicant, but those were my questions of you. >> Just in terms of uh ordinance language and not
personal preference in terms of sites. The reason I put the soil map and the slopes both on the same map is to illustrate that you're focused on the soil regulations in the ordinance. There's also slope regulations. Working together, those eliminate nearly all sites. So, they
would be One may well be asking for an ordinance from either slopes or soils. >> And that's only because this specific parcel was selected. It's a parcel selection that puts one between a
rock and a hard place. >> Yeah, perhaps. If you I mean if you look this is a small sample size, but if you look at that particular slide, you'll see that the green extends nearly to the red in most places. You know, so it's and anywhere we can see there with the
that information presented, there are very few areas that are not green and not red. And red would be not allowed by ordinance and green would be soils that are regulated. >> Well, that's not 232 acres as outlined in purple. Is it or is it? >> No, that's 44. But, I'm not saying just
within the purple, I'm saying everything on the slide. If you look at I'll use this one cuz you're facing this way. All the areas in red everywhere prohibited for building. All the areas in green regulated for dwellings, other structures can go there.
And you know, there's very few areas anywhere in this slide, it's probably the most over here where you have any inner lying that's not red or green. So, it can be because of those two realities, it can be more challenging than I guess I just want to acknowledge that it is
challenging to find a site that meets all the ordinance requirements because of the way the ordinance is constructed because slopes go into account when they rate soils. So, we've essentially said you can't build on these slopes and you can't build on these soils and they're often mutually exclusive situations.
>> And even the orange and yellow areas in this situation I feel are we're still getting into like erodible slopes that are not >> Yeah, at 18% you have to go through
a use permit. At 12 you have to have an engineer or qualified person develop a plan. So, there's other parts of the ordinance that kick in when you get on those steeper spots which are usually the areas you would have to go to if you get off the regulated site. >> Where is the existing residence that the
applicants' mother lives on? >> It's small little white polygons there. That's the existing farm stead. >> And besides those three, what what other ones do they own then if it if it's 200 and >> I'll
>> Let them >> suggest you ask them to, but I These two and I believe some of this are they all matter? >> Okay. >> So, I agree that with Ed that this has always been uh troublesome
that uh we're continually confronted with a decision uh which opposes the regulations. It's but that's a variance. That's my understanding of a variance, how it works.
But I agree it can be real troublesome. I think it um I I correct me if I'm wrong, Erin, it behooves us to remember that precedence does not follow our decisions. >> That is my understanding that you're looking at each one anew.
>> The other part I noticed in here because I had the same concerns. Um when I went up and looked at this beautiful farm. This gorgeous tillable land. Um but I think one thing
that I took into consideration was the actual amount that is going to be taken out of tilling is only, if I'm correct, 3 to 5 acres. The rest of that parcel will continue
to uh be agricultural is the plan. >> Right. And I'm just looking for a So, a good proxy for that 3 to 5 acres to visualize it, it's about the same size as um the
original farmstead. So, you know, there's not a polygon around it, but you can see the windbreak. That's about the same size as what they're proposing, give or take. >> Does that include a driveway as well, the 3 to 5 acre >> It does, yes.
And I guess whenever that comes up, too, I should point out that there's no requirement They could choose tomorrow to not grow any crops. There's no You're not required to grow crops, and yeah. >> Are there any other questions for Erin? >> Um I have one more question. >> Sure.
>> have another question, Ed? >> No. >> Okay. Um I have one more question. Something that um I need clarification on was something about um that this soil is somewhat limited for
non-basement dwellings. I I'm confused because it looks to me from the blueprint, it is a non-basement dwelling. it's a slab, and so I just wanted clarification on that. >> Yeah, so uh this is general guidance. The soil survey will provide some
ratings for various uses. Uh so, it's my practice to give you s- relay some of that information. I think I also included some for septics. >> Yes. >> somewhat limited Yeah, I guess it's it's a relative to the other rating classifications. I think if you look at that particular
parcel and I can't remember what page is that sign. If you have your I think it's the page you're on there with the yellow and red. If you look at that page >> And then five and 15 are yellow. >> So, yellow is that somewhat limited and then red is extremely limited. So, on
this particular area, somewhat limited would be the best option available. >> My pages obviously are not numbered like everyone else's. Uh but if you could just explain that to me since I don't have the page numbered
that I'm They didn't number >> Right, it it's a it's just a rating that takes into account various attributes for location. I think the from memory, I think a lot of that rating in this case is driven by shrink-swell of what I
would presume are clay soil soils up there. Somewhat limited would be the better option than the extremely limited that you're seeing on the hillsides. There, I would expect the limiting factor to be primarily driven by slope. You know, because um can't build on a
you know, certain slopes, too. >> Right, but I think what I heard you say um the consideration is the soil type as well and that affects the foundation or the slab or the septic. >> Yeah, um let me
I don't want to say correct you, but let me better explain. >> Please do. >> They're two different ratings. So, if you go at look at a soil survey, they will give you ratings on scores, if not hundreds of different things. So, there's the one rating that the county pegs its regulation to, that's the non-irrigated capability
class rating. That's the map you're seeing here with the green. There's an entirely different rating for um all sorts of different activities, some of them related to construction of a dwelling. So, in your report, I included information on what the soil survey says about the suitability of a
location for dwelling construction and what the soil survey says about the suitability of a location for wastewater treatment. Believe both of them were somewhat limited. >> Based >> on the soil. >> Based on the soil survey and whatever their what I'll call algorithms are that
spit out a number. >> And what could be the result of those limitations? I mean, I presume you know more than I would, I think. Although, I can understand clay soil. >> Yeah, I I think that that's not an uncommon distribution of ratings for a parcel or
for 40 acres in Winona County. Because we tend to have those clay soils on the ridge. >> Okay. But the parent parcel hasn't had any problems with their drainage, correct? As far as you >> For some of those soil survey ratings,
it might be they may be most valuable to say the carpet bagging contractor who comes here from a location with a very different soils and needs to learn quickly, you know, what you have to do. But yes, given that uh construct and practice construction practices and whatnot, um I would hope
they could be overcome. >> Would that be something like an Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. >> No, go ahead. You're probably in the same one. >> Um Would that be something like with the septic amount instead of a subsurface or would that be a factor?
>> It could be when when a designer is evaluating a location, part of what they will look at is that soil survey rating. But they will also do an on-site investigation, and that would usually take or that will always take precedence over what the what I'll call more general information that they acquire
from the soil survey. >> Okay. Um >> [clears throat] >> as far as Ed's line of thinking, I can understand where he's coming from. Um mainly, we see the variances or variance
requests come through, so it seems like a lot of people you know, building on you know, regulated soils. But, in the overall scheme of everybody building, do we know what the percentage is that
need variances versus ones that don't? >> I can only answer that anecdotally, but in in my experience, in my time with Winona County, I've other than a replacement dwelling at an existing site, nearly every build requires either a conditional use permit
or a variance of some sort, and it's because the one of said that the regulated soils overlap the regulated slopes in most cases. >> All right, is that all for Aaron? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you, Aaron. >> Thank you.
>> Sarah, would you like to address the board? Uh state your name and address for the record, please, and then anything you'd like to tell us. >> I'm Sarah Slabik. I live at W841 Bond Road, Fountain City, right now.
Good to see you. It's been a few years. Um Vicky Heatman is my mom, and I've also got my husband, Eric Slabik, here. Um we have been working with Aaron on this for several months, um trying to come up with a solution that would avoid
any type of variance or any type of conditional use permits or anything. And it like you said, it is difficult because of those two the slopes inner inner inner lapping with where the um
tillable land is. There was a question earlier about well, what acres do does a family own? The family owns this this um and this. Mom, correct me if I'm wrong.
>> There's Is there another parcel over here? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um another issue that isn't necessary hasn't brought been brought up yet is that in order to get a driveway permit, you have to have 30 ft of road access
and none of those have that. Um when we had the surveyor come out to make the line the line where it is, we had to make sure that that was taken into account. Um >> Could you explain that one more time? >> That is the end of the road right there
at Curtis. As far as the township road is concerned is right where those parcel four parcels meet is the end of that road. So, you have to have road frontage in order for it to to be a buildable lot.
>> Right. So, that's just one more hurdle that we're trying to jump through with this. Um and as Aaron mentioned, we're not looking to you know, take 40 acres out of out of agricultural. You know, I I grew up here. That's you know, that's not
what we're looking to do. Simply looking Sorry. It's to build a home. Tell Mom and she ages. Are there any specific questions that [laughter] you have about what we're asking for? If not, I would really appreciate your
support. >> You in your written submissions mentioned the fact that >> the uh upsetting the class 1 through 3 soils would be in the 3 to 5 acre range.
>> Right. And what would make the most sense, quite honestly, because I've got three siblings, and so we're planning for the future. What would make most sense is to be able to extend this line up because where Mom's place is right now,
one of my siblings will ultimately be in. And so we are we're trying to plan ahead for the future with those connected acres to that homestead there. And because we can't go and grab any of this acreage from um what is in the
municipality of Stockton, we're we're stuck. It you know, it we're just trying to make a good plan for the family for the future while staying in with within all of the rules and regulations of the county. >> I'm not sure I
presented my inquiry properly. The 3 to 5 acres that you plan >> Oh. >> to build on >> Yep. >> Um and that would include everything you need to do to have your your home, your
driveway, your septic. >> Yes. The plan would be this little red thing here. I don't know if you can see it real well, but that's kind of sort of where we were planning to have the the structure. >> Yes. >> And and quite frankly, um one of the reasons for choosing this
site versus this site per se, this is downhill, and so then we can't see anything. If I'm going to build a 700,000 home, I want a view. Right? If I'm going to pay taxes to the county, I want a view.
Um so the home would be here with the driveway just straight here and quite honestly would plan to just keep it tillable around us. Have some trees up and cuz I I don't want to have a 10-acre lawn to take care
of. I'm not getting any younger. So that's what we're looking at. >> So at least at the moment, uh there are no plans to expand upon the intrusion of the class one >> No. >> through three acreage.
>> No. No. None. >> And you may have covered this and I apologize if you did. The work that you've done to find the building site and that you've already
touched upon >> Mhm. >> views as being one factor. >> Right. >> Were there any other sites that did not intrude into the class one through three land that you gave thought to? >> The this section
is cut off from access to the road. So that's really out of range, right? Um and if you're going to have family living that close to each other, you need to
have a little space between each other, right? So I'm not going to build in mom's front yard, backyard, vice versa. You need to which will ultimately be one of my brothers. You know, so there needs to be some thought to that for this
close family living, right? Um, one thought was to um oh, it was kind of became a C-shape where we'd have to pay for a bunch more um surveying. But the The of the matter is that keeps
the house in the same place. And even if we don't do this 40 acres right now through a variance, ultimately, you know, we always say in 50 years when mom passes, you know, jokingly cuz just seems safe. Um
I'll own all of that anyway. So, it's same same thing. Whether we go through a variance process now and that be approved or go through a conditional use permit and get the the 40% threshold met and be under 40 acres. >> But you, of course, would rather not
wait and do it now and get the variance. >> We've already lost several months. >> Are there any other questions for the applicant at all? >> No. >> Thank you, Sarah. All right. Is there anyone online by chance?
Um would anyone like to make a motion to open the meeting to the public? >> I'll make a motion to open the meeting to the public. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion by Amy seconded by Lynn to open the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> That is all in favor. Uh is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this petition? Looks like no one's online. >> Mr. Myron Mr. Crane's around online.
>> Okay. >> I was just going to ask if we can see that now that we've had some difficulties. >> Anyone Would anyone 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. Will anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn, to close the public hearing. All
those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> The hearing is now closed to the public. All those Oh, sorry. Was there any discussion? Or >> My discussion would be a little bit redundant to what I discussed with
Aaron. And I simply uh I would like to vote yes on this. And by voting yes, that means I believe that the variance is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the
zoning ordinance. And that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, I don't think the variance meets those two criteria. Um I would say if someone can
articulate to me how the proposed development is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, I could be persuaded otherwise.
But I haven't heard anything here, and and that's why I said this issue comes up over and over again. Every request, especially this one, is an admirable heart uh touching request.
Um There has to be a way to accommodate these people like the applicant without compromising our own personal integrity and ignoring the provisions of the
zoning ordinance. >> I don't think we're ignoring it. I think we're providing variance from those requirements. And see and if you applied the same situation to a parcel say in the western part of our
county where it's basically flat and they don't have um you know, slopes on all the sides and they're they're just they have 200 acres of flat tillable soil
and they're asking for a variance. I'd say it would be a different situation. You know, if they're if they had class four fringe soils around it that are not that could easily be used. That's That's another story, but there's nothing There's no easy place to build on any of
this property without some sort of variance. >> So, clearly the county board was aware of that when it created the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. >> Not sure they were because it's a lot of what we talk about in our compliance steering committee meetings
is how this this rule and the 40-acre rule are not necessarily working. And the intent of it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, but it just it's hard to apply it practically.
>> Has the county board given uh cuz you go to those meetings, right? >> Not the county board meetings, but >> Does anyone know if the county board has given some direction to the to our board to ignore certain
provisions that put a premium on this class one through class three property. Have you heard that kind of discussion at all? I mean, I don't have my ear to the ground. >> like to weigh in on that? Or maybe
Commissioner Meyer would like to talk to us as well. >> I can In general, it's the role of the Board of Adjustment to make those considerations. It's not that the intent of the either the comprehensive plan or
the ordinance is to exclude any development. It's to allow for reasonable development. What is reasonable is what what the discussion is here today. So, how much soil is being removed? Is it
being from tillage? Or how much acreage is being removed from tillage? Is it reasonable? Is it not reasonable? So, I don't think that the the board has generally, you know, they're not looking to exclude all development.
Um but they want It doesn't need to be responsible development. >> I don't see that anywhere in the ordinance or the comprehensive plan, what you just said. >> I In the early sections of the ordinance, it does talk about reasonable development.
>> The ordinance or the comprehensive plan? >> Cuz the comprehensive plan also addresses that in more narrative language. Um I think. >> Yeah. Together they make the official controls. Yes, it's and it's it's not an
easy decision and no one is is right or wrong here. It's just a matter of in your role to to um under statute to issue the variance. It's you know, that's where we allow you to make the consideration. We bring the petition forward for your consideration.
>> When people like the current applicant come in at the staff level, what kind of discussion, direction do you give these people as far as going forward with their
applications? >> We make them aware of the provisions that either support or or um may not support their petition. Um when they are fairly egregious, um you know, we just try to make them
aware of the the compatibility with the requirements. But with each provision, if there's a a reasonable argument to be made, we don't discourage them from coming forward. That is the role of planning commission
and board of adjustment to make those determination as just as the peers. Um it's not a staff-driven determination. >> Thank you. >> It is difficult to look at findings of fact
and see, for example, um I think probably you're looking at at least number two. The variance request is underlined consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, to me, it's a matter of the way that that
wording is and what we're expected to do with a variance. There's a board of variance because variances are a legal way for people to
uh use their land within the larger picture of what the comprehensive plan is. But, by the wording of this findings of fact issue, that to me puts us in a hard spot because it
tells us there are laws that are guardrails, ordinances in the comprehensive plan, that we're expected to follow. Not our feelings, not our political inclinations, not our personal inclinations.
And when we're put in this wording, that constrains us from going ahead with what actually a variance does. That's how I see it being a landowner
um and having been in that position. Maybe somebody else has. So, there's always that conflict, but I think that um the comprehensive plan is being rewritten now, being relooked at. Hopefully, that is improving that
situation. And obviously, the ordinance and some of this language needs to be adjusted to make what we're doing feel more legitimate. And that we are correct in our decisions. >> I agree.
>> I think part of it you know, in number four, they state this, is that even though they can't take that parcel in stack into consideration in this because it's in the city, but that is part of the parcel. And if that was a part of this,
then we wouldn't have this variance because they would have enough out of tillable percentage that they wouldn't have to come. Um
and so, even though I realize that like we're here before this and we're looking at parcels that are pretty much all tillable soil. That one is pretty much not. But it can't be included. And so I feel like that would have changed
um their need to be here as well. >> Many things would have changed. >> Right. Absolutely. I'm just saying that I was looking at that and >> I totally agree. >> Um >> All I'm saying is >> Yeah. No, we get a lot of these. We get
a lot >> I I I I just feel like I'm thumbing my nose at the ordinance and the comprehensive plan. I'd love to vote yes. >> Any other discussion? Would anyone like to make a motion one
way or the other? >> [clears throat] >> I make a motion to deny the variation request because the approval criteria number one, the variance request is not in harmony, intent and purpose of the zoning
ordinance, specifically section 10.4 .1 sub uh and it's not in uh compatible or consistent with the comprehensive plan, specifically
the comprehensive plan provision uh recited in the staff report um regarding the preservation and promotion of agricultural land as being uh
a prime activity throughout the county. Um And if two provisions of the criteria are not met, then in theory we're not supposed to approve the
variance. If only one is not satisfied, we're not supposed to approve the variance. Um I I feel bad making the motion. Uh but
from the standpoint of my own personal integrity I can't vote to approve the variance when in my opinion the county ordinance, the zoning ordinance, and the comprehensive plan
put such a premium on valuing class one through three soils. If the county board wants to soften up the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance so that we can approve applications like this one, I'm all for it.
>> Well, then they I think in that situation they wouldn't be here looking for a variance if if the zoning ordinance and the comp plan were changed to accommodate those things, then Well, then this would be >> The language of the plan
the comprehensive plan could be softened. It doesn't have to approve building on class one, class three. But it could put acreage limitations if it wanted to. Or family uh
members of the family building on on the property to carry on the legacy of farming. That's not there. It's not my job to rewrite the comprehensive plan or the zoning ordinance.
Um So I I'm I can't say much more than I feel very bad making the motion and making the motion because I feel that I
need to abide by the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. And uh that's about all I can say. >> Could I ask the planning commission uh if there is something in the comprehensive plan and perhaps in the
ordinances about developing land uh that counters or adds to what Ed is talking about about building homes or
uh property development. Is there something in any of those? I mean, I I've got the hard copies of both of those and I look at those regularly and I still can't find everything. Of course, that's why I
I I guess I ask you. >> There is a section um about rural development. It is applicable to the urban expansion areas as best I can read that document, which are delineated on a land use map. Within
the agricultural areas, it's fairly scant in terms of references to to development beyond the um language that I included in your staff reports. >> Okay. >> Uh beyond beyond that, you may uh the reasonableness language, I guess
I'm not familiar with that, but it that might be a a thread to pull on if you're looking for something beyond what I've told you. >> Well, I'm just looking for an ordinance that encourages or allows development on tillable land
of a certain say size or type or under certain conditions rather than saying we always have to give a variance under the conditions we're faced with today and have been faced with over time.
>> I'm going to withdraw my motion and make a motion to approve the variance with this specific condition included in uh our ordinance for the what we >> You want to add a condition
>> condition to the uh onto the end of the balancing side. >> Balancing three. >> And the language will read as follows. Development and disturbance of class one through three prime soils on the subject parcel shall be limited
to a maximum of four acres to include the dwelling footprint attached structures, driveway, well, and septic system. The remaining class one through three
soils on the parcel shall remain in agricultural use or undisturbed natural cover and shall not be converted to lawn, landscaping,
or other non-agricultural uses without further review by the Board of Adjustment. >> We have a We have a motion to approve with an added condition. Um is that something we need to run by
Attorney Krantz first? Okay. Sarah, is that a is that four acres of limitation you think you could live with? Yes. >> Was that yes? Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, he's just on my phone. He's not He won't He got kicked He got kicked out of
the meeting. >> Okay. >> And I've made that transition based on various statements that I've heard here from the board, the staff. And I make that statement and that
change in position encouraging the county board to take this issue into account so in the future we don't have to be approving a variance stating that things are being complied
with that aren't being complied with. >> And for Robert's Rules, um Mr. Wall states to ask the chair to withdraw his motion. Chair asks if there are any objections. If If none, he announces his >> Okay.
>> So originally you'd stated withdrawing your >> I'm withdrawing my my motion to deny the variance. And presumably nobody objects to that withdrawal. >> Is there any objection to that? >> No, no.
And then [clears throat] made a motion to approve the variance with an additional condition that I've recited. >> Okay. Uh do we have a second to Ed's motion? >> I second the motion.
>> Okay, we have a motion by Ed, seconded by Amy on the table. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> That is all in favor. So, the motion will pass. And I will read the 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 aggrieved person or persons or any department, board, or commission of the jurisdiction of the state shall have the right to appeal
within 30 days after the receipt of the note of decision, 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 just rendered at this public hearing must do so to the
district court. The planning department is not responsible for filing the appeal. So, that variance has been granted, and I believe that is the last thing on our agenda. I make a motion to adjourn.
>> Second. >> We have a motion by Ed, uh, seconded by Kelsey to adjourn. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All in favor.