All right, it is 1:00. I will call the meeting to order and we will stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge 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. be looking for the agenda. I'll >> make that motion. >> I second. >> We have a motion by Ed. >> Uh and a
motion by Ed, seconded by Lynn to approve the agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? None opposed. Um, the minutes, you all had a chance to read those? >> Anyone like to move to approve the minutes?
>> I move approve the minutes from last meeting. I'll second it. >> We have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to approve the minutes. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> None opposed.
Uh so our first petition is docket number BOA pen 162501 and that is the petition of James and Charlene Allen and Jeremy and Aaron Allen who seek a variance regarding a
single family dwelling on prime soils. Looks like that is Aaron. Good afternoon board members. >> Hello Erin. >> Hello. So as stated a variance request to locate a home on soils that are
regulated by the county. >> So it would be a a new new site being developed for a single family home. They're proposing slightly under a threeacre parcel and the entirety of that parcel would consist of class two and three soils.
Here you see the project map. The soils are indicated in the greenish shade there with the class being labeled and the parcel outlined in the pinkish color there.
In terms of zoning, the parcel and the area all surrounding it are all within the agricultural district. The requirement that they're they're up against here and asking for relief from today. It is parcels of land to contain
dwelling shall consist of class 4 through class 8 soils as identified in the soil survey of Winona County. as a means to prevent the disturbance to prime soils. An applicant may also develop a site if the percentage of class one through three soils composed
less than 40%. So really it's 40% is is what the rule is. And there I'll point out that we often refer to it as prime soils. Prime soils there is is used as an adjective meaning um high quality soils. It's not used as a noun.
Here is another oblique view of the site. So, this is in Saratoga Township. Again, you can see the parcel. It doesn't show up really great from this view, but you can see the pinkish lines illustrating where that proposed parcel would go. U, you see it's a panhandle shape. So, we've got a narrow driveway
there going back to a building envelope. It's coming off of Sinclair Road, which is a township road, which goes there. And we see this is in a rural setting. So we talked about uh soil capability class. So we regulate based on class one
through class three and then the ratings go all the way up to class 8. You see class one have few limitations to restrict their use. Class 8 have uh soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use for recreational purposes. And it
sort of gradually goes up between those two extremes. Here we see the site map of the soil class from the soil survey and we've got two major soil units within that site map.
Got 476 C and N56B. So those are numbers that have some meaning if you're a soil scientist, but for our purposes that's just what we would use to identify those areas. >> So the two areas there are class two or three, >> right? So we'll get to that on the next
slide. >> Thank you. >> So we see here we've got a parcel that's proposed that would consist 46.9% of class 3, 51.2% of class 2, and then some incidental um
other classes, but all below 1%. And then we often talk about these as prime cells. They're not actually prime soils. That's a different soil classification. That's the farmland classification. And within that um way of classifying soils we classify as
prime farmland. So we often hear prime soils. We classify as farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance or unique farmland. There's no class one through three or class 5 through eight within that rating system.
Look here at the soil map. This is showing the farmland classification there. And again, it's the same unit. So, we see those same two numbers. And we see this the delineation between the two remains the same. So, if we look here at what that site looks
like here, we've got 46.9% of farmland of state statewide importance, 51.2% of prime soils. >> Erin, are they currently being farmed? >> Um, I'll I'll get to that I think later
in the presentation. if I don't remind me. >> Uh water features. So, here we see again the proposed parcel and we're zoomed out pretty far. We've got um a view probably 3/4 of a mile in either direction. We have some mapped wetlands in the
national wetland inventory here north to the proposed site. And then as we go west, we have Trout Run Creek here, which has an associated flood flood plane with it and an associated shoreland district and also some wetlands over there.
>> Erin, are you going to get to the slope at another? >> Yeah, great. I'm I'm glad you brought it up because we're talking about slope right here. >> So, if we look here, we're looking to the northwest and we see a slope map. So in this slope map, yellow is less than
12%, and as we go up to, you know, bright red, it's greater than 25%. So the proposed parcel here, I guess I I called it relatively gentle slopes. You know, as you go to the north there, you see some more red, that means steeper.
in terms of uh your consideration of the site. Well, it's it's uh considered against what? So, the applicant submitted a prior application and then withdrew it before it came to you for a for a different site. Actually, it wouldn't have come to
you because they proposed this parcel last summer and this parcel was under that 40%, you know, magic number in the ordinance that allows a site to be developed. So they were proposing essentially a single family home as they now are, but up here instead of down
here. If we're going to determine that there's no reasonable way to avoid a variance and the least variance necessary is being asked for, we we need to compare what another site might look like or what another proposal might look like in order to do that.
So here is an oblique view of the prior proposal and one of the reasons stated for the withdrawal of that prior proposal was the amount of crop land that it would require to be converted.
So this has a again a panhandleshaped parcel but it's much larger. This is a 10acre parcel rather than a 2 and 3/4 acre parcel and it would have required converting that entire driveway out of production
into essentially driveway. Now we're looking west and here we're looking we're standing here and we're looking to the west and from this you can you can just barely see the the home over the horizon
area. It's quite a distance. It's about a third of a mile that would have been required of driveway to be constructed. So for those two reasons, that site was seen as less appealing, perhaps less reasonable to the applicants. And then what if we tried to look at the
parcel and find an area that wouldn't require any any sort of variance at all that didn't have the potential pitfalls of the application they submitted and withdrew the long driveway and the crop land conversion. Within the middle of the of the parent parcel just north of
the proposed site, we have a an area of unregulated soils, meaning soils that are class 4 through eight. So, you know, the ordinance would not prevent you based on soil standards from constructing a home there.
But it does have some issues with functional suitability. So, you see here that same parcel with uh the wetland layer turned on. So, the national wetland inventory has identified some freshwater emerging wetlands within that location.
And then again that slope question you had Amy here we see the same scale here the yellow flat red steep much steeper there than where we're talking about uh the proposal being currently today before you
and then another uh tool within the resource I should say within the soil survey it can provide some insights on limitations for various uses of soil. So when we look at the unregulated soils, the class 4 through eight soils there,
and we can go into the soil survey and say, well, what what can this tell us about this location's suitability for construction of a dwelling? And when we look here at uh the custom soils report with the rating for dwellings with basement, we see that the entirety of
that area has a rating of very limited, which is the the end of the spectrum in terms of not suited for for a dwelling with basement as far as that rating goes. >> So based on this picture, where is the current site that they're asking for?
>> The current site would be to the south of that. It would be I think about in this area but not on that current map. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And then if you're going to build a dwelling, of course, you need a a method of of dealing with the waste water that
the occupants of that dwelling would produce. And again, the soil survey has a rating system for septics. So here we're looking at what is often thought to be the maximum option for a septic in Winona County being the mound system where they
raise it out of the ground. And we see the ratings for the the mound systems for that same unregulated area based on soils. And again this has a rating of extremely limited which again is the the far end of the spectrum in terms of how limited an area is for that particular
land use. Before I jump, um, Ed, you you asked about something earlier. Did did your your question was your question answered? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Permitting history. Um, so we have no
history of permits on the parent parcel. There is an agricultural building on the parent parcel that is believed to have been constructed before permitting was required for agricultural buildings. And then public comments. Uh the township supports this application. No
other comments were received. And the conclusion here for you all as it always is is that the committee should consider all materials and testimony before making findings that support their decision. staff has prepared analysis that provided guidance for drafting the
findings and the county attorney's office has prepared draft findings for your consideration and should the board recommend approval, the county attorney's office has proposed conditions for your consideration as well. Been a pleasure providing the effective and efficient presentation to you. Any
questions before I take my seat? Erin, is the parcel in question actively being farmed? >> That was your question. Yes. Okay. I couldn't remember what it was. I tried to not dis disclose that in asking the
question to you, but uh so um it's back up to a map here would be the answer. There there's an existing field road here. So the panhandle of this proposed parcel would be that that highly rated I think that's
a class two soil there regulated soil but it is a field road so it is not under cultivation as you move to the west and it expands out to the building envelope then yes this the I mean nearly all of it except for the width of the field road would be under cultivation
currently I'm looking at uh it would the in small print page 26 in our uh packet and this is discussing the various conditions
and criteria to be met or not met if a variance is to be granted or not granted. >> Sure. >> And before we get to 26, let's go to 25. Number two,
the variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that the comprehensive plan would have this as agricultural land. Is that correct?
>> That would be my understanding. So if the comprehensive plan has this as agricultural land, uh putting a house on it would not be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, would it? I I don't think a statement that broad would always hold. I think there are many instances um where where they you could find support within the comprehensive plan for doing just that.
>> Are the owners of the proposed parcel under consideration? Are they farming the adjacent land? >> They own the adjacent land. Who actually does the farming? I guess I'm I'm not aware of that.
Will the owners of the parcel in question they're the ones that either are farming the land or have someone else farming the land? >> I believe so. >> And I we can clear that up when they
have their opportunity. >> Yeah. >> And we go to page 26 now. Number four. The variance request is due to special circumstances
or circumstances unique to the property not created by the owners of the property since the enactment of the ordinance are the what are the special circumstances
>> in this case we've identified the functional challenges due to soil suitability for the for a proposed dwelling as limiting the available areas on the parcel. >> When we consider the issue of special
circumstances, do we focus on the parcel in question or are we looking at other property? >> Well, in this case, we looked at the proposed parcel in question. We looked
at the previous proposal and then we looked at an area that had a different soil classification. So we looked at three areas. It is the uniqueness of this property
um as that term is used in the ordinance and in number four here the fact that it's agricultural land. What is the uniqueness? Well, in this case, the uniqueness here of of the parent
parcel, so to speak, because if we're looking at carving out a child parcel, it would come out of a parent parcel, were that the other areas that potentially would be an alternative have challenges,
i.e. driveway length and the requirement to take out a larger number of acres to construct a driveway and or construction suitability challenges in soils that are poorly suited for a dwelling and soils
that are poorly suited for wastewater treatment. I I could be an error here, but it's always been my understanding that the phrase the variance request is due to special conditions
or circumstances unique to the property. And when it says unique to the property, it's the property that's subject to the variation request. the the you're saying
the proposed parcel, >> correct? >> Well, I mean the variance request though is to create the proposed parcel. So in the lens I look through in doing the analysis, I was looking at the parent parcel because their post parcel is not yet created and that that's the the
relief they're seeking from you is is so that they can create that parent parcel or that child parcel. Let me uh may I ask the county attorney a question, Mr. Chairman?
>> Um, sure. I think that would be fine. Um >> Steve, my question to you is I'm looking at the statutory criteria for a variance to be approved and it's the phrase the variance request is due to special conditions or
circumstances unique to the property not created by owners of the property since the enactment of this ordinance. I've always understood that legal phrase to mean
unique to the property which is within the application for which a variance is being requested. Is that accurate? >> Well, uh there's room in the interpretation for
you to determine what is unique and what is not unique. What I would say is that if every property surrounding the area had the exact same conditions, it wouldn't be unique. So if every every property had uh steep slopes and and
wetlands and drainage issues that would not allow for placement in and of any dwelling on the parcel, it would it would uh uh wouldn't be unique. But if it has these characteristics that are here and there throughout the the area,
but very rare for, you know, one parcel to run into this circumstance in the situation, particularly in this where you're separating off a parcel, uh, and you're going to end up with two parcels. >> So, all of the property in the area of
this application appears to be agricultural. That's correct. >> So what makes this property unique? >> So if anything, >> so based on my reading of the staff report, it's a combination of the uh uh
slope uh the amount of slope on the property, uh the wetlands on the property, and the suitability for placing a dwelling anywhere on the property being limited by those things. So you're referring to
geographic characteristics nonex existing in areas other than on the proposed parcel >> right but but see the way I I I would what I view it is that if you look at say maybe this parcel for example has no
steep slopes uh or this parcel has steep slopes here this may or may not be cultivated. This is cultivated. They all have a little bit different characteristics. This has no, you know, agricultural land on it. So, there's characteristics that they may have in
common, but it's the combination that makes it unique, but that's for you to decide uh in terms of whether that standard is meant. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> And then my final question to Aaron is
if you would flip back to maybe your second or third slide that you showed us, Aaron. It's the one that has the other dwellings. That one. >> Sure.
would you point I think I see the uh the purple lines up there and that single family dwelling that's the proposed single family dwelling >> correct this actually let me get to a a different this might be a straight down
view you've got the red >> yes >> and then this turquoise light and yellow those are existing not just drawings all structures but uh so The structures on the other parcels uh below the proposed
parcel are are those agricultural structures versus residences. >> You're talking on parcel 14 ending in 321 >> 21 and 330. >> I don't believe those are agricultural.
Um I believe those are residential. >> So those are homes also. >> Correct. So I mean some of these parcels own adjacent parcels so you know the size is not necessarily indicative of of the use but that
particular parcel I do not believe they own adjacent parcels and they did not appear to be agricultural buildings when I was on site. >> Could you go back then to the previous slide? >> Yes. Do we know whether the
buildings on if you point south of the road that that one and the one to the right and even further further to the right are any of those improvements
residential buildings? I'll speak from memory from being out there. I qualify my response like that. Uh, you know, this looked like a somewhat more modern home. This is a longestablished farmstead
where the house has been tore down and rebuilt with a modern home. This is an agricultural building. So, this is on the actual parent parcel in question here. These are owned by the same land owner. In terms of improvements over here, I
believe there may be some some uh construction in the last 20 to 30 years based on visually seeing the sheds, but no more recent than that, I would say. >> So, the first one you pointed out to being a fairly modern residential
building. >> Yep. >> Do we know if a variance was required for that home to be constructed? I from memory I don't believe one was. No, I believe that predates the soil
standards being introduced into the ordinance. Thank you. >> Those are all my questions. Mr. Chairman >> Amy, did you have a question? >> I did. Um, if we can get a larger view, and I don't remember which slide that
is, Erin. Um, maybe that one that you flicked past there one >> here probably. Um what is the property I'm am I seeing property boundaries or >> you you are they are uh you're you're not seeing the western edge on this
particular slide but you are seeing property boundaries here in in the dark >> those are property boundaries correct go to one that shows the bigger property boundaries I think the one that shows it to the west >> further that's
boundaries. >> I don't know that I have one that goes all the way to the >> Oh, here we There we go. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um what would preclude other locations given that I see I think
if I'm correct what I asked that property boundary does go quite a ways to the west and I'm not sure about what that land all looks like although I was out there. >> Sure. So, you're asking, you know, why why why not something over here?
>> Um, I believe there is another pocket of unregulated soils over there, but I would suspect that building on those would have some of the similar challenges that building in the unregulated soils here did. Not suitable for dwellings, not suitable
for septics. And then you would of course have the same issue you had with the original proposal up here. The very long driveway requiring a a larger area to be converted out of out of tillage. >> Oh, so that is a property boundary, not
a road that the driveway runs alongside. >> Right. So this is a road here. >> Okay. >> You know, proposal one took a driveway all the way across here about a third of a mile. >> Okay. And that required, you know, loss of more crop land in the entire parcel they're proposing now just for the
driveway. And for that, that was one of the reasons they reconsidered. >> Okay. >> To get all the way out here, you'd be coming off of either here or somewhere on that town road. It would require a very long perhaps perhaps one would consider a driveway of that length to be unreasonably long.
>> Yes. Okay. Thank you, >> Ben. Did you have anything? >> Um, just wondering in the parcel question, So looks like the single family dwelling is in the lower right corner kind of >> in that particular slide. It would be
within that pink proposed parcel >> which leaves the rest of the parcel. I I'm just wondering what they're going to do. Is that going to be lawn? >> I mean it would it would be it would be right there. The dwelling I think is somewhat centered in that parcel but yeah I guess I'm not sure but you'll
have an opportunity to speak with them about about that. Okay. Any more questions? >> No. >> All right. Thank you, Aaron. >> Hey, thank you guys. >> Uh, would the petitioner like to address the board?
>> Just state your name and address for the record, please. >> Jeremy Allen, 3309 Street Northwest Plane View, Minnesota. I have no further comments besides just thank you for your time today and thank
Aaron for his time there. Any questions? >> Just what I was asking him is within that parcel that I assume is currently being farmed. >> Yep. Um, is that that hole inside the paint going
to be taken out of production or will they still have some farm fields >> right here? >> Not not the road itself. That's a field road, right? >> Yeah. This part is the field driveway now. >> So, where the big squarish area?
>> Yeah, that's farmland. Now, >> is that going to any part of that still going to be farmed or are they just going to turn it into lawn? What they >> um I mean, it's only going to this is going to be I think like two acres is all we got figured.
>> Two acres is the >> I think it the whole I think all this is 2.7 acres. >> So, if we take the driveway out that's not far now. I believe this is about 2 acres. >> But is any of that still going to be
farmed or you turning that into lawn or what are you doing? >> I guess we haven't really decided yet. possibly depending how everything lays out. >> All right, I was just plugging >> I think there was a question earlier.
Um, are you a part of the farm activities there or are you going to continue farming or how does it >> uh my dad owns the farm and he rents the farmland out right now? Okay. >> So, yeah. >> All right.
Any other questions for the petitioner? >> No. >> So, Jeremy, if I could just again, I think I'm back piggybacking Lynn on what you said. Um, and I I I assume this is Yeah, north. So, to the north of that
site is a corn field. what I saw um to the north of the building site >> on about a 12 uh not even that far just like right on the other side of the pink that's surrounded by a corn field and
then that little it goes downhill at less than 12% I think was the number um to that darker sort of curved area which is around a dry run which runs into a spring
>> and that right now is alalfa. I saw um would that continue to be in alalfa in order uh because there's going to be tillage on the uphill side of that and
there is a dry run that runs to the spring which goes to the kind of the north west. Um, is that alalfa boundary going to remain there? Would you be able to say or not? >> The one that's cuz there's one right here right now or the one
>> Yeah, that kind of arc right >> right here. >> Yeah, when I was there it was alalfa. >> This is probably the max that he we can allow to be farmed, you know, as from from here down because this is all kind of wet down in here and the spring
starts right in here. >> Okay. So over the years, dad has worked this down probably as far as he can to the whole pasture to be farmed because this is more wet and then the woods start here too.
>> Uhhuh. >> And so that spring starts about in I think about in here and then there's a a kind of a creek that goes through there. >> Right. Right. Okay. So >> this property is kind of hard because it's very long and not much access.
>> It is. Yeah. see that >> there's no access on the back side of this property, >> right? Okay. All right. Thanks. >> Does that field road continue down past the parcel you have indicated there?
>> Yeah, that'll it only there's a waterway right here >> and that field driveway continues down to about here. >> Okay. Will that field driveway have to then be modified because of the proposed
construction of the home? >> Yes, we'll just modify make a driveway out of the first part to get >> but that would essentially then cut the balance of the field drive off. So, I'm asking,
will the field drive to the left of the proposed home be eliminated then? >> No. Um, what do you use the term? I'll probably give dad access to access my driveway to
get to continue on to his field driveway. So, the field drive will stay. You'd have an easement there and then it would just continue past the end of your driveway as a field road, >> right? So that in theory the easement
would go through your parcel and the driveway would essentially be the same configuration that it is now. >> Correct. Yep. Yep. >> All right. We're just trying to look at
the best way to eliminate not take too much crap out of production to make this work cuz you know we want to my parents are getting older and we want to be out there and close to them and help them as they need and admirable.
>> Yeah. >> Are your parents still actively farming or do you rent the land? >> No, dad rents the land out. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. With that, I would entertain
a motion to open the meeting to the public. >> Also move. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Lynn, seconded by Amy to open the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> None opposed. Uh the meeting is now open
to the public. If anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, uh, please come forward and state your name and address into the microphone and let us know what your feelings are. For the second time, if anyone would like to speak for or against this
petition, you can come forward now to the microphone and state your name and address. For the third and final time, if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, uh, please come forward now and state your name and address. All right. I would entertain a motion to
close the public hearing now. >> I make that motion. I'll second it. >> All right. We have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to close the hearing to the public. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. None opposed. discussion.
>> No, you can go right ahead. >> I don't know. I think it seems reasonable. The only concern I would have, excuse me, um, is that it is a slope towards, as Jeremy pointed out, uh, a spring to a
wetland. Um, and then it's going to be, uh, corn or beans. It's crop land and it's prime soil. So, you know, they want to use it. Um and that that some form of that border of alalfa
as in a buffer to uh prevent the erosion off of that slope given not today or lately the violent rains but sometimes the violent rains we have that would create washing down that
slope. Um they have a waterway I saw and I did not see evidence of that erosion but um there's going to be hardscape I presume on a driveway and around a home um and then there'll be some disturbance
with a uh constructing a home. So, that's a concern I have uh is the erosion uh down towards that spring uh if something isn't uh put in place to prevent that.
>> Jordan, can I speak to that? >> Yes, please. I was going to ask you to >> valid concern. as part of the standard review process for um the erection of a structure in Winona County, uh an erosion control plan is is developed and
then reviewed by soil and water folks. So, um, often those will call for, uh, you know, some sort of control device such as a silt fence or straw bales, and they'll they'll dictate a timeline for seating depending on the slopes, all for the purpose of, I think, controlling
exactly what you're you're identifying as a potential problem. So, that should this be granted and should they move forward with the build, that would be part of their approval process. >> Okay. And that's something they go out and look at Aaron or use
>> well the the applicant would prepare what they feel is appropriate and then that would be sent over to the soil and water folks who would either say yes what you've prepared is perfect or do these other things in addition and then the permit that they're ultimately
issued by the county would require them to implement the practices that the SWCD recommends. >> Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying that, Eric. >> So, Mr. Chairman, uh I'll preface my comments by stating that I have high
admiration for the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and both promote agricultural land in the county uh in a condition like this.
Um, I'm torn on this one because I understand the options that were considered and eliminated and that this is a son and his wife who
would like to be close to the parents. It's different than some that we've considered in the past where the family member is going to be close to assist with the farming operation.
Um, it's a small amount of acreage to be taken out of production. Um, but in the back of my mind, I see that the insidious nature of chipping
away at agricultural production land over many, many years in Winona County will eventually at some point beyond the time that I'm alive, I'm sure, will essentially decimate the agricultural
production land in whole or in part. So, I'm going to vote in favor of this variance, but I'm extremely torn in my decision to do so. We're seeing
more and more of these requests for variances on soils that are considered most appropriate for agricultural production. I uh
believe the comprehensive plan was put in place for good reasons and that's to preserve the agricultural production and nature of property in Winona County. So, I say that just so in the future,
whether it's the staff um or the board, um I'm going to look at all of these requests extreme with extreme circumspection. Um,
and in this case, under the circumstances that it's a family member who's going to be on this parcel, that carries great weight for me in this unique circumstance.
So, that's what I wanted to say. >> Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying. Um, and I agree with it. Uh, I do like that there in this area there are a lot of other dwellings nearby. I
I think the goal of the comp plan is to kind of keep those all in a small area so we're not just every eighth mile as a dwelling. Um, but yeah, it does when it says uh, you
know, about altering the essential character of the area, I think that's what it's alluding to is this area has quite a bit of dwellings already and it won't change that necessarily. Um, were you looking to make a motion with that
statement at all? Um, I would not make the motion, but I I think Amy has a comment or question. >> Well, I think you said it beautifully. It puts us in an awkward situation when we have to consider these agricultural
lands. Um, I agree when it's a family member and so forth, it it's a bit different. But it occurs to me that by allowing these variances that creates the situation that makes it
an area where more housing can be put. If you hear what I'm saying, it's just a progression that need continues to need a variance but is allowed a variance by the fact that the previous variances were
allowed. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable totally with that. Um I've seen that occur a lot and it seems to me um that that's a really awkward
situation. A variance creates a situation where additional variances continue to be allowed because there are dwellings there. >> Yes. Um, and so the problem has been created by the board of variance and I'm
as you are not comfortable with that and it's an awkward spot to be put into. I'm not >> Yeah, I'm not sure that any of those the existing structures were granted variances to be there. I guess we don't have that information necessarily, but
>> well, >> there could be and or this could be the first of >> Erin believes not 100% that the modern home may have predated the provisions of the ordinance that would require a variance.
But now by giving a variance we create a situation where since this is an area where the housing is it would be I believe uh correct by the board of varants to give other variances because this very
variant if it's >> it supports that one thing but it doesn't >> it doesn't set a precedence in any way where we would have to allow further development there. >> As we talked about, each property has
its unique features and situations and family situations and whether they're farming or not farming. And so I don't think we're locked into granting or not granting a variance just
based on what we did with someone else. I mean, this one looks like they explored all kinds of possibilities and this looks like the best place to do it. There's also the issue of property rights and, you know, if parents own the
land and they're open to, you know, letting their son, you know, buy a parcel and build a house there. So, I mean, that's they certainly have that right to do that. They only
have the right to do that if a variance is granted. There's nothing in the zoning. >> Well, we're here for >> there's nothing in the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan that refers to the concept of property rights.
>> But the other problem with the comprehensive plan is they limit what people can build on edge of the books. So if you want if you're worried about farm production land, then you need to allow people to build
perhaps on on the bluffs because >> I totally disagree that steep. >> Well, either you want farmland or you don't. If you want people to be able to build their houses and maybe you don't want them to, but people want to build homes on their
land. So, you know, they're going to be on farmland and that's the only place they can go. You know, that's their prerogative to be able to do that. I respect your opinion and uh since we're not confronted with that at the moment,
I guess we don't need to discuss it further, but I certainly respect your opinion. >> Well, I I would be in favor of something. Steve, >> I just wanted to add if it would in case it would help if the board wants I could
put together some materials on what is meant while courts see unique to the property and how they define that term uh for future use. Maybe you could have a discussion about about that. >> I would love that. >> Okay. And then also Steve, the um number
five, the essential character of the locality, I think is somewhat about what we're talking about here also. >> Sure. Yeah, I could put together some some materials on that. Thank you. >> Maybe historically. >> Um Erin, could you come back up here for
a moment, please? Um I was just curious. I I don't see a um anything on the planning commission's agenda for this applicant this evening. >> Correct. Yeah. That that would not be
coming forward unless an approval were obtained here. So they they've begun the process of applying but they were looking to sequence them. >> Okay. >> Such that uh you know they wouldn't do both at once. They would >> and that would be a 40 acre. >> It would be correct. Correct. Okay.
All right. Thank you. All right. Um, if there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion uh one way or the other on this. >> I make a motion that we uh consider the variance and vote on it. Is that
>> it would have to be for or against. >> Oh, okay. >> So, I have to state I'm for the variance. Is that >> you would you would have to motion either approval or denial of the variance. >> I make a motion to approve the variance >> as it is written.
>> Heard as it is written I'll >> second. >> Okay. >> I just want to be clear. You're making a motion to approve the variance uh as with the findings and facts as they are written and the conditions attached to it.
>> Yes. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. I >> opposed. None opposed. Uh the variances granted and I will read the 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 or persons or any department, board, or commission of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have their 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. 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. Do we need does anyone need to take a break for five minutes or anything? >> Only if you want to. >> I'm fine. >> Thank you. >> All right.
Uh we'll move on to docket number BOA 10162502 which is the petition of HNB egg services represented by Greg and Jodieheim and Brian Bloom who seek a variance to allow a new structure
um 100 ft set back from Highway 14 instead of the required 130 ft and uh 20 foot setback from the rear property line rather than the required 50. >> Good afternoon, Board of Adjustment. Can
everybody hear me quite well? Okay. Going to go briefly through a PowerPoint uh presentation. Uh this request is to allow a setback variance from State Highway 14, a 100 foot setback instead
of the required 130 and to also allow a rear yard setback to allow a 20ft um rear yard property line instead of the required 50. Get this to work here. Okay, there we go. Um, properties in St.
Charles Township. Um, it's an existing agricultural commercial oriented business that is located there. Uh, the existing parcel is 2.2 two acres and uh they essentially would like to build I believe a 60
by 100 structure to um streamline their seed storage business. I believe part of the facility is for corn and this new building would be I believe for soybeans or vice versa. I have to verify that existing business is called H&B Egg
Services. Um Greg, Greg and Jodie Heim and Brian Bloom are the partners in this uh endeavor. Uh essentially a site plan that shows where the 60 byund 100
foot building would be located and it would be located on the western portion of the property. You can see the existing uh buildings that make up the balance of the property. Kind of showed the elevations. You can
see that there's somewhat of a a slope that goes somewhat uh kind of comes in from the north and it kind of angles kind of in a southwesterly manner. And then you see the wooded land that surrounds it with the elevations as uh
you look to the south on the property. This may look familiar. We had a request in April with the neighboring property or adj kind of adjacent property located to the east. That was uh uh Mark
Leonard's. And uh um you can see that there that was that his parcel that we looked at in April. And as mentioned in the staff report, there is some unique circumstances in that this area contained the old railway, the railroad going all the way back to
the 1800s. Um so uh it's kind of a remnant um of showing kind of what that rightway had looked like going years back in the past. Couple of photos showing the existing business. Um I
guess uh you can see this this view from 14 is kind of looking to the souththeast and this is just a straight shot looking east at the building on the left. Now some field ground shots. Um this is
looking at the existing driveway as you access the property. It does have a crushed rock um service there probably most likely for truck traffic and heavier equipment. picture on the right is is kind of a scan looking again to the east of the yard area and looking at
the existing buildings. And then I'm standing right on the edge of the wood line. Applicants had it staked out when I visited the site in September. And this is a view um of kind of where the building would be. You can see there's some red flags and that represented what
the proposed building would be. Uh the shot on the right is looking to the west. That driveway that you see serves a residential property that's located to the south. So that would be the nearest neighbor in this case. Couple more profiles. Uh this is looking
on that side on the west side of the building or west side of the existing buildings looking at where the proposed building would be. Uh the view on the right is looking to the south and you can see the pink lines of where the building would be located. So it's in
lawn is the current status. There is a septic system that serves that facility. So comments uh that we've given we've given diagrams and exhibits to the applicant that they have to um proceed with care should this go forward because there's a 10-ft setback from any tank
the septic tank and there's a 20ft set back from wherever their existing drain field is. So they'll have to make sure that they can adequately meet those setbacks so they wouldn't interfere with the septic system. Uh again the picture on the right is looking at the building site line. Uh the building setback for
this is actually they're going to be further away than those existing set of buildings. Those are these uh existing infrastructure there is closer than 100 ft than what they're asking for with this building. Again, that kind of shows maybe the comparison
roughly what 100 ft looks like. And then they'd be asking again 20 ft from the southern or the rear property line. Uh they did meet with the St. Charles Township board and uh is typical with that township. They indicated no
comments in regards to the request. I also did send a packet to MDOT and they necessarily didn't have any questions with the variance or the setback, but since they do have right away that's adjacent to them, they've taken a very recent interest in
reviewing all proposed projects that meet their storm water and erosion control. So that information was then forwarded to the petitioner to make those contacts with the district 6 staff to make sure that they satisfy all mind um specifications. They want to know
imperous surface. They want to know the drainage pattern and they want some typically some some uh drainage calculations. So that's something that the burden would be put on the applicant to satisfy it with MINDOT. Um, our recommendation has been to
support the granting of the variance, the two conditions as you see in the staff report and based on this late coming information from MDOT and in the correspondence and you'll hear more from the applicant, they can he can probably elaborate a little bit more where they're at with it. But we throw out a
proposed condition three that Mindot to review the storm water and drainage plans associated with the new building with the applicant as for your consideration based on the recent um events with it. So with that any
questions? >> Eric, refresh my memory when you said in April the parcel to the east was before us. was a a variance granted on that one.
>> Correct. And that's going to that's you can barely see it. It's coming into view right here, but it's a T-shaped. That's the hammerhead part of the lot. And if I was to show what that looks like,
that right there. So >> they they requested I believe um an 80 foot setback from Mindot and they were able to meet the setback and actually the beacon system the
agricultural district um required prime soils but in digging into this this this parcel I'm actually going to be bringing it back for November the planning commission for the reszoning or to make sure it's zoned appropriately because I did catch a
contradiction. According to what the beacon system says, it shows that it's agricultural, but actually it's it it is zone B commercial. So, we do need to correct that and that will be initiated through the planning commission next month on that one.
Then the middle parcel that has an improvement on it already. Maybe it's not the middle parcel, but the improvement that exists already that must have received a variance. >> There's been multiple variances for for these buildings in the past based on
similar reasons. Yep. >> Excuse me, Ross. Does that abut the city limits? it it's kind of a hodgepodge of municipal zoning. Um, across the road, I believe there is some
city of St. Charles property. I know the John Deere dealership is is under the city. Then you have the high school, but there is a township property between that and the high school where they have their ball fields and stuff. So, it is
kind of a mix of municipal and township zoning in that area. this property though uh does it abut the city of St. Charles? >> It would if I mean when you mean a butt even though a road separates it.
>> Um >> it seems close but I can't quite place it. >> Yeah, I don't know. >> It looks like the property to the west is St. Charles Township as well. >> But not city the city of St. Charles.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, I think I believe this one might be city St. Charles and then that way and then this one is township and then on adjacent to that is a city. >> Oh, >> these are mainly township as you go that way.
>> Okay. But whereas I think some of the records had gotten um kind of mixed up is that there was um previous annexations that were in this area too that were partially and non-partially approved. So that's where I think some
some of the records got haywired too, but we're working through that to try to correct correct some of the zoning districts on it. Okay. >> So the woodland behind it, I couldn't read your elevations. Does that go up?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Is it very steep? >> Um, it's I would say it's it's not a bluff, but it goes up approximately. You can if I was to look at the elevation lines. Um, like this is uh looks like it's 1210,
1200. Yeah, it's 1180. So, it's probably going up 20 to 30 feet within this wood. >> Okay. >> Wood line. >> And the property owners I mean that's steep. They're not going to be farming
it or anything like that. >> Correct. No, it's it's lawn and that's I guess the >> setback mean that closes the property. Um, we haven't received any comments and everybody within that vicinity would have received notice of this public hearing. So,
>> and it looks like as far as from the road, it's actually farther back than some existing buildings on that property. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Any other questions for Eric? No. Right. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Would the petitioner like to tell us
about your application? Just state your name and address for the record, please. >> Gregheim, 11617, Highway 14 St. Charles. Um, yeah, we're thinking it's going to be a 60 by 120.
They said 100, but it's a 60 by 120. And the reason we wanted to go back is to get the distance from the Highway 14 to be so we're no closer than any of the other existing buildings is is where we're at. And as far as the water runoff, we did talk to the mendot and I
said there is a culvert you can see about halfway back on the property on the west side to that dark spot and the water does run down that way and it will continue to the water flow will be the same as what it was. >> Okay.
>> Other than that, I guess that's about it, I guess. And we will bring in some fill so that we won't be eroding the hillside. So we won't be disturbing the hillside. That was another reason why we decide to go that way. So we won't be
eroding the hillside. So >> you mean you'll build up the >> We'll build up Yeah. So that we don't have to dig in the hillside. We will because you see is when you look from that picture from the west looking east, you're kind of down. We're gonna we'll bring that bring that up and then slope
everything for that water to go down that west side >> like it is now. But then we won't you know we won't dig into the hillside. >> Any other questions for the petitioner? >> No. No. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Uh so I'd be looking for a motion to open the meeting to the public then. I move. >> Have a motion by Lynn, second by Ed. All those in favor of opening the meeting to the public, say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? None opposed. The meeting is
now open to the public. If anyone would like to speak for against this petition, please come forward and state your name and address for the second time. If anyone would like to speak for against this petition, please come forward now and state your
name and address. Before the third and final time, if anyone would like to come forward, would like to speak for against this petition, please come forward and do so. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the meeting. So move. Second.
We >> have a motion by Ed, seconded by Lynn to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. None opposed. Uh discussion on Miss Walden. >> I move to approve the variance
and the findings of fact subject to all of the conditions recited not only in our packet but the ones that Eric the one that Eric recited during his presentation. >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> All right. We have a motion by Ed,
seconded by Lynn to approve the variance with the findings effect written and the conditions written and stated. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. The variance is granted with none
opposed. Appeal to the district court. All decisions by the board of adjustment in granting variances or in hearing appeals from any administrative order requirement decision or determination shall be final except that any agreved
person or persons or any department, board or commission of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after the receipt of notice of the decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located under 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. Planning department is not responsible for filing the appeal. And so we will move on to docket number BOA 10162503
and that is to consider the petition of Lisa Wingard who seeks a variance regarding uh new dwelling on class three soils rather than class 4 through 8 and that is Lou.
>> Uh good afternoon. Um um as stated um we have a variance another variance for class three so soils um it's pretty uh common these days. >> This one is accompanied by a
>> a conditional use permit this evening. Yeah. >> Um for a a dwelling on less than 40 acres. to the planning commission. That's the only thing on their agenda tonight is uh to hear that uh that petition um if it is granted here today uh by the board of
adjustment. Um the location of the petition is in section 17 of Whitewater Township. Uh you can see on the inset map below there's a flag in the northwest uh corner of the county uh indicating the location in the county that we're
looking at. Um it's a 262 acre property uh that the Wingerts are um engaged in farming. Uh they are proposing a 3acre parcel. You'll see uh in the staff report there is a little confusion. I apologize for
that, but the application was for a 3acre parcel and that's what it was noticed for. Um the uh as we scaled it out on their site plan, it it it looked like more like four acres. And then in in some of their materials, they did
reference um a larger acreage as well. They weren't they didn't pin it down really well, but um um we're going with the three acres for the petitions and for the notices. >> Three. >> Three. Um and that's the most restrictive, the smallest. I mean,
obviously, if they get bigger, um that I mean, we're not going to hold them to the three acres. Um if they need if it ends up being four acres, that's fine. Um but for notification um purposes and um um here three acres is is being used.
So I have a question. Why isn't that more important as far as specifying exactly the amount of the acreage? Sounds like
you're very amendable to adding an acre or taking an acre away. Why is that? >> I think it's um it it has more to do with um um you know, we're looking at a doesn't have anything to do with the um with the board of adjustments um petition.
>> Actually, you add an acre to to the three. It's another acre potentially taken out of agricultural production, right? Not necessarily. Um, >> is it going to be in this case? >> No, >> it's not a corn field.
>> It is, but we're not saying that the the parcel isn't indicating the area that's going to be removed from production. We're just saying that the dwelling is going to be located on class 123 soils. We're not looking at the I mean, they could at any time remove that that
acreage from production. That's their right as property owners. They don't have to keep it in production. It's only their right if they get a variance. >> No, they could remove it from production without any variance, any permits from the county at all.
>> By which you mean they could stop killing it? >> Stop farming it. Yep. >> Yes, that's correct. >> The current owner. >> Yep. Or future owners. Yep. >> Yep. Nobody is uh required to farm the farm that land. Um what we are here to
determine is whether they can build a home on it. And yes, building the home does have an impact on the acreage of how much how many acres are are removed from um from uh from um cultivation, but it doesn't
uh the the size of the parcel doesn't indicate how many acres are going to be farmed or not. >> Well, let me just follow up on that. Let's say hypothetically that the variance is granted. We know that the portion of the parcel
that the house is going to go on and the driveway and any outuildings will remove that portion of the parcel from agricultural production. >> Correct. >> We never when we grant these variances
put any conditions on that the balance of the property cannot be removed from agricultural production. So I've always considered that when we grant a variance for example on a three
acre parcel 3 acres is ultimately going to be withdrawn from production >> that I mean >> and logically >> okay >> that's practically that probably happens.
>> Not necessarily. Um I it's not been my experience with these. Um but um I mean you could be looking at at a at a proposal that's 30 acres. Um and we'd still be in here for uh the variance for building on class 1
through3 soils and we'd still be looking at a conditional use permit for building on less than 40 acres. Um but that doesn't I wouldn't assume that those 30 acres are being removed from production. Well, we would specifically ask the applicant in that hypothetical
what his or her intention would be regarding the entire parcel if a variance was. >> I I do think you'd be on I mean, we can ask Steve about this, but I think you'd be on slippery ground if you were to be adding conditions that they couldn't,
you know, they couldn't use their property in the way that they'd want to if it was if it was granted a variance and it was meeting the standards of the ordinance. I disagree. I think you can put whatever reasonable and appropriate conditions >> only if they have a nexus with what's
being being being asked for >> and they would in this situation because of the high priority of preserving agricultural land consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> I I guess I would disagree.
>> We can agree with this. We can >> could I ask a question about this three four you will know how much acreage to tax for a homestead whether it's three acres or four acres that
>> well it would be based on the actual what actually gets split and surveyed and recorded >> that will be a fact entered into uh the records. So >> right >> whether it's three acres or four acres
that will be known >> and >> will be known. Yeah. They will have to decide. It will be it will be what it is. Yeah. >> Be surveyed and that information will be recorded in a deed and recorded in the city. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. At this point we're just we're
just uh going through the um the the variance and the conditional use permit. Then there's construction per permits, um development certificate, septic permit, u which will need to indicate that as well. And then usually it gets more honed in at that point because
that's the final construction permits and documents. Awesome. And then that gets a lot permitted and then there's follow through with that which is the um the the survey and the actual construction >> is part of the reason that that's an
issue because this 34 thing is kind of strange um because there's still corn has not been taken off that ground and it's pretty hard to put flags in a corn field that hasn't been uh combined. >> Yeah. I mean, it's always an estimate
because they haven't actually gotten the survey done. So, um, usually on these properties, you're not out there pulling tape or, you know, it's too big to be able to like really pin down that that amount. So, you're you're relying on GIS drawing lines on and estimating what the acreage is. I mean, I was estimating
based on what they drew on. >> Um, which looked more like four acres to me. um what they had pre presented um was uh was three acres, but then they also did um indicate a slightly different acreage later. So, we do want to pin down and
especially if you're looking at a at at density or the size of um the parcel for um um you're going less than 40 acres. It has more to do with the conditional use permit because we're looking at a lot of less than 40 40 acres. So it is gerine like how how small are you going
or how big is that parcel going to be in relation to 40. Um I don't see a huge difference between three and four acres um in in that analysis but um you wouldn't want to um you certainly wouldn't want to propose something like
20 acres and then end up with going to five acres. quite a bit smaller and quite quite a bit of a difference um from what was proposed and and obviously we try to be as exact as possible you know on the front end to
you know minimize the the amount of change that would happen. So, >> but >> right. Thanks, Luke. >> Yeah. Any other questions on that? Again, I apologize for um not having that clear in the staff report and um representing that on the front end. I I
think we could have done that better, but um um just wanted to point that out here. Um uh when you see the differences in the staff report, that's why. Um okay. Um
moving on. Um the uh site plan shows just a little bit larger with some um um uh topography. Those are 10-ft contours showing that the proposed parcel is uh at contains 6 to 10% slopes.
Um the access is from Beaver Ridge Drive which dead ends on the uh petitioner's parcel. There are uh three farmsteads on the on Beaver Ridge Road which um so it's a deadend road with two other farms
on it. Um pretty uh low density and not a lot of traffic is I guess the point. Um the proposed driveway would be uh a shared driveway uh with the neighbors who have been approved for a dwelling on
you can see um just north and uh west of the proposed parcel um a parcel line that indicates a uh a neighboring um parcel to contain a dwelling. So their their dwelling would also have utilize the front of this uh this driveway
that's indicated here and then it would continue on along the field road up to that parcel. >> That's the one where we see a white outline blue. >> Yes. >> And that's >> right there. So in those uh in these
pictures the the white lines are uh parcel lines. And there's no improvement on that one yet. Or there is >> no improvement on it yet, but it's been approved for a dwelling. Yes. >> And there therefore, and I apologize for
not remembering this if I was involved, a variance must have been granted that one >> or no >> from soils. >> Yes, >> actually it was not because the parcel uh contained less than 40% class one through three soil. So, it met the
exemption of the um of of the ordinance requirement. Yep. Um so, an existing field road, we'll see in the pictures what that looks like. uh leading to the parcel and then the dwelling will be located on um
the 4 acres on the upper portion of the parcel um close to the driveway in order to minimize the impact to uh um class 1 through3 soils and to stay out of so um um out of slopes. You'll see when you go
further to the um to the east onto the parcel, the lines get tighter and that's indicating steeper slopes and a drainage way um which is one of the um uh practical difficulties.
Um zooming out a little bit, you can see uh the petitioner's existing farmstead uh at the end of the road. Um, I'll point out the existing dwelling right here. Um and uh also want to uh let you know that
they do uh operate a um agricultural enterprise Beaver Ridge beef uh beef cattle um that they raise on the property and um is part of the reason for the uh uh proposed parcel would be
for uh um Peter and Lisa's son Lucas to uh live on the farm and be more capable of taking care of uh duty. related to the farm activities. Um so building site located on class three soils
uh which is a seed and silt lom. Um conditional use permit required as we spoke about earlier for a a new dwelling on less than 40 acres. We have some photos to give you a sense of the lay of the land and what uh um
things look like on site. if you were not able to to um visit the site. The first uh picture on the left here is of the access point and the existing farm um uh field road
um going back to the uh proposed building site and then Beaver Ridge Road on the right um heading to the uh east towards the uh existing farmstead. On the picture to the right, we're at
the corner of um where the uh field road bends to the north and goes to the neighbors parcel. Uh the proposed parcel is in the cornfield to the right here. Um now we're looking the the opposite direction to the to the west along
Beaver Ridge Road. uh neighbors uh farm on the left there is the access um to their farm and then um the other farm is at kind of towards the beginning of Beaver Ridge Road where it uh um
connects with the county road and then uh we have a uh picture of the proposed building site further down Beaver Ridge Road. So we're looking to the north from Beaver Beaver Ridge Road towards the proposed building site.
Um, >> this would be out in this area. >> Um, Whitewater Township um had a um considered the request and at their September 30th meeting and are in
support of it. Um we did get a um township acknowledgement form um today and placed on your um by your uh your chairs there on your on the desk um so you have a more legible copy if you have any questions.
Um the recommendation is to uh is to grant the variance and we have attached two conditions for your consideration if you decide to do so. Um, do you have any questions at this
point for me? Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Lou. >> Thank you. >> Would the petitioner like to address the board? State your name and address for us right away so we have that on the record, please.
>> Hi, I'm Lisa Wingert, uh, 11283 Beaver Ridge Drive, Plane View, Minnesota. Um, good afternoon. Um, again, I'm Lisa and I'm here for my husband Peter and I as we own the parcel in discussion today. Uh, thanks to the board of adjustment
and the planning for taking the time to put it all together for us. Um, just a little bit of background, Pete and I have uh lived on on our farm for last 35 years and we've raised our six adult children. Um, we've got seven beautiful
grandchildren. Uh, we all love the farm life. Um, but as we get older, we just do not know what our next steps are in life. So, we think about the future and what what do we want to do? Um, we just
know we cannot do it alone. So, Lucas, our son, who's farmed with us for the last 10 years, um, he works off the farm and he's self-employed, but he loves the agriculture side of it. um he has talked to us and as he's been helping us he's
commenting he says mom dad I can help you and we're like yeah but do you want to if we gradually merge into this what do you want to do so he shows a lot of interest in helping he helps you know
with the cattle planting harvesting if we need help we need to call him he's currently living in plain view but we'd like him closer to help if there's a problem with cattle or whichever, he can be closer. Um,
we would love to see the legacy of our farm continue. Uh, this is just a small step we're taking. We have not made any other plans. Um, but we're asking just for you to consider our request. So, if you have any questions, I'm available
for you. >> So, you're not planning on building immediately, is that correct? We wouldn't build until we got approval. Um because right now, from what I understand, we need the variance and the conditional use permit. Um
Lucas just was married. So now he and his wife um have the financing set up. They've talked to a septic. They've done pieces of this, but we have not surveyed surveyed it off at all yet. We want
>> because you're waiting for this to happen for strength. >> Correct. Right. >> Uh Ed, go ahead. >> Mrs. Wingard, you've probably heard some of the discussion uh about soil quality and whether it's
going to be kept in agricultural production or not. In light of that, um, do you know, let's assume hypothetically the variance is granted and a home is placed on the property.
Is any of the property going to remain in agricultural production? >> Yes. Right now, Lucas and Calie have said they need the septic, they need the well, they need the house, but the area
around it is a field and we would continue to use it as a field. Um, no, we're not going to make it all a big backyard with grass in it. Um, because we have six children, we don't know what our plan is, but Lucas would
be one that maybe in the future we would sell our main parcel off to. We do not know. Like I said, this is very small steps that we're taking. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else?
>> So, more of a curiosity question, but I I don't know if this picture shows all your 262 acres, but I see a lot of it is in land is in production. But where are the cows?
>> Well, should I? >> Yeah, you can point. >> Okay, so this is our beef operation where it's a feed lot. So, we also had to stay within the thousand >> limit. Um, when we pull them off a
pasture, this is our feed lot. Um, this is all pasture right here. So, the cattle can go here. There's also pasture down here. And then there's pasture over here. So, um, this is our old barn. Um, so you can't see it close enough, but
there's cattle in different places. >> Okay. >> But there's a pond over here, too. But yeah, >> real quick. Um, most of the 262 acres are actually to the um to the east off of the map. Um, it extends out this way
and that's where most most of the tillable land is as well. Um and so the parcel um and their property on this is just here. Um this is uh is DNR land and then the
the property to the south and to the uh um west is a adjacent property owners. Do >> you have anything else for us? >> I have a question. I think I see a pond.
Is there a pond to the right of the yellow line there? >> So, we have a pond here and then we have a small sort of dried out pond right there. >> So, the the land must slope downward toward the pond. >> Somewhat of a slope. It's more sloped in the pasture here. But this is very
slope. This is okay. >> But the the parcel itself in question is not real sloped. It's >> it's just a nice gradual. >> So you'd say it's closer to level than a hill. >> There's a little bit of a hill, but >> it is a slope.
>> Six to 10% slopes. >> Okay. >> Pretty pretty manageable. >> All right. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Thank you. >> All right. With that, I would entertain a motion to open the meeting to the public.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Amy to open the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. None opposed. Uh, anyone wishing to speak for against this petition, please
come forward and state your name and address into the microphone. For the second time, if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward now. on. 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. I have a motion to close the public hearing. >> I make motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to close the public hearing. All those
in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> None opposed. The meeting is closed to the public and now open to discussion. >> So Mr. Chairman, I'll open the discussion and this would be an example
um from my perspective of if the variance is granted, it would actually promote the goals of the comprehensive plan and the ordinance to continue with the preservation of
agricultural use uh in the county. Um and the representation by the petitioner that they will preserve as much of the agricultural land as possible is also a
significant factor in my mind in arriving at my decision uh which will be to vote in favor of this application. But this I can say hypothetically if the
petitioner's son wasn't the potential purchaser and it was some independent third party bill that was coming in. I would most likely vote against it. >> Anyone else?
>> Um I would just like to say I agree with what you're saying. the conditions in this case uh lend themselves to the comprehensive plan uh almost completely. Um and I'm just going to make this case for what I said earlier that contradicts
that the concern about um prime soils going for residential and that is as I drove across Winona County to this location I covered the complete diagonal of Winona County on county roads. Okay. And
I'm just going to say what I saw was a lot of prime farmland in use. And it occurred to me that under the right conditions, using that some of that land for residential is not such a terrible
thing. I would certainly agree with that. And that's why following up on Lynn's comments that each application and parcel is unique unto itself
and uh we need to consider each parcel uniquely. >> I I agree what Ed was saying initially that you know this fits. it's a family member that you know that it sounds like they would keep a lot of the land in
agricultural production and you know being that it's a business I know as a farmer you don't take that lightly to take land out of production. >> Yeah. >> To build a house if they want to build a house there it's for a good reason.
>> Well, with all that being said, would anyone like to make a motion? Uh, >> I move that we approve this >> as it is written. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Lynn, seconded by Ed to approve the variance
as it is written uh with the attached conditions. All those in favor of that say I. I. I. >> I. >> None opposed. For the last time today, I will read this
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 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 decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located on questions of law and fast. 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 appeals. All right. And with that out of the way, uh there's only one item left on our agenda and that is adjournment. >> I make a motion to adjurnn.
>> I'll second. >> We have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. The meeting is adjourned. >> Thank you, Jordan.