All right, I will call the meeting to order and we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one nation under God
indivisible with liberty and justice for all approval of the agenda. Have a motion. I make the motion. Second. Have a motion by Ed, seconded by Kelsey to approve the agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I.
I. None opposed. Approval of the minutes from August 21st, 205. Make a motion to approve. Second. Have a motion by Kelsey, seconded by Ed
to approve the minutes. All those in favor say I. I. I. None opposed. Uh petitions. We'll start with docket number BOA09 182501. Jeremy and Cassie or Casey Shield.
Well, good afternoon, Board of Adjustment. I'll be presenting the first request. Number one on the docket today is a request to allow an existing building site, recognizing that it's on a class three
or considered a prime soil instead of the required class 4 through class 8 soil types. The chapter of the ordinance that this is from is chapter 10.476 of the Winona County Ordinance. And I have to admit that this is somewhat
unusual upfront because we're dealing with an existing building site. Most of these similar requests are dealing with a proposed new site. Um in this case, um we're looking at an existing 53 acre
parcel that's in section 13 of Wisoy Township. um fibious owners went through planning and um the permit application process through our office at that time. Um since it was over 40 acres, a
conditional use permit was not required. And since um 90% of the parcel contained non-prime soils, it made the issue around the building site acceptable or it met that standard kind of put in some
um pictometry photos um kind of in this exhibit that shows where the red circle is showing the existing house and show showing the deep and sized valley that is located um to the south that compromises the
considerable percentage of the acreage. There is some pasture land that is also involved on the parcel. Again, another image from pictometry kind of showing the layout of the acreage. Um, there is an existing driveway that transacts existing
agricultural field from a Wiscoy Township Road. In this case, it's Wiscoy Ridge Road is the official name of the township road. Uh, this exhibit shows the soil types. um the kind of that cream or beige
colored is uh indicative of showing that it's a prime soil. And in this case, you can see the green highlighted one, that's the area surrounding the house. That is a type three soil. Uh the
labeling with the blue is a type two. And then you see again type three as you get closer to the road. Just want to point out that when 2011 we accepted the new performance standards of the soil bases, uh we used the USDA soil
classifications for these. The CER crop equivalency ratings was part of the part of the waiting that went into that. I I can say that the federal definition of that USDA a type three is not prime. But
when we got to the point of making a final decision on those standards with the county board, there was uh input from the county board that they were adamant that they wanted type 3es put into that definition. So that is the slight difference compared to the state
fed state federal definition of prime soils is that based on for our purposes we consider type threes prime. So that is significant in this request. Just wanted to point that out on behalf of the application.
We did get an exhibit proposal from the applicants. I believe it's um in this case a 53 acres is proposed. They they mentioned in their comments that there's a potential that they might have a buyer for B, which would be majority of the
parcel of the woodland and then A would be kept as a residential um property with minimal acres. It's not clear yet to me, but I believe they that yellow line that they've indicated on their site plan is that they would actually um
create an easement of access that would still be if this was approved to access both A and B that would be something that the applicants could could maybe clarify to. Couple of pictures of the site. Um, this
is kind of in the beacon system county assessor's office just showing the front profile of the house as you come in the driveway. This would be the rear profile or the backyard.
Um, that would be facing the south. This would be the view looking to the east. Um again they own just a strip that contains where you see where the mode mowed lawn is and the crushed rock driveway. The cornfield, the alalfa, the
woods and the then the corn on the right is all neighboring properties and it's in agricultural production. This is the access point off of the township road. The township road is on the left and their driveway
essentially winds back to the building site that we just seen the photos of. Another shot of the driveway approach. Couple more pictures from different perspectives showing the driveway, the
house, and that's a good view on the right is showing the woodland or the bulk of the 53 acres as you're looking down deep into the into that that valley setting. Again, agricultural land is flanking it on both sides.
Current zoning district is agricultural resource conservation. According to the assessor's breakdown on the land, 11.6 of the acres is considered pasture. They note one acre contains the building site
with the crushed rock driveway and 40 plus acres consists of timber and woodland. Uh the driveway of the dwelling is located approximately 800 ft from the township road. So I just wanted to kind of show that perspective.
And if this variance is approved, the applicants would be required to also apply for a conditional use permit to allow a parcel less than 40 acres. The the variance in CUP if this was presented as that small parcel
originally would have required those two steps in order to create this building site. Uh we received a Whisky Township form. They met on August 20th and on that form they indicated support for their
variance request. Just wanted to highlight a couple things from the staff report and also it's mentioned in the findings of fact. The chapter 10476 of soil types
states that parcels that are containing dwellings shall consist of type four through type eight soils according to the soil survey. The intent of that was to prevent the disturbance to the prime soils working agricultural fields and agricultural land. And an applicant
could still go forward with a proposal and build ultimately build on prime if their equation or their percentage of that parcel uh was less than 40%. When you consider the entire acreage for that
on reviewing the new parcel split and existing location of the house, the way that they proposed the new split is it would be creating a parcel technically that would have 100% of type three and type two prime soils along with it.
Um that changes u also the permitting status to that of what was a permitted use when they originally got the permit in 2015 to then the conditional use permit criteria. As we review this type of um situation
proposed split of the existing home site will result in no more further disturbance of prime tillable soils based on the apparent existing conditions. put that comment in there because we're dealing with a status quo really not changing anything based on to
allow consideration of their proposal. Question on that. It's not a huge amount of acreage, but if somebody were to actually want to do some kind of farming on those four acres, does a existing or
another disturbance of prime soils, barns or animal housing or anything? None of that would be allowed without another variance or uh no, we'd still have to look at setbacks from other neighboring dwellings. And in this case, looking at the vicinity, I believe there for like
livestock and setbacks, um there doesn't appear to be a a visible um issue with a feed lot. So, if they wanted to just do say like 40 chickens something and have a little chicken house, that would be okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We wouldn't be changing
another house. Correct. We wouldn't be changing the zoning district. That overriding district is always going to be agricultural resource conservation. I just didn't know where like the line was between disturbance of prime tillable soils allowed and not in terms of
buildings or structures. If they're agricultural, y it's just we get hung up on that acreage and then we look at just the acreage within that site as far as what's prime and what's not prime. So um as mentioned economic conditions or
reasons have been the leading set of comments as it pertains to this and that uh they've uh received feedback from perspective people looking at the property in uh dividing the dwelling with minimal
acreage is probably more appealing to some clients than others. Um and they do state that maximizing the value of the sale is um probably the leading cause. Um or that there could be alternative
methods to divide that. It just means they'd have to recapture more of the woodland or more of that nonprime and make that proposed split with the house much larger. When I say much larger, they'd have to get the percentage where
it's only 40% of that type three and then they'd have to have at least 60% or more of the of that what that equation would look like. You could sit there and pencil that out in a lot of different scenarios. Um
staff has identified conflict with this request as it pertains to finding six and seven and therefore recommended denial. Should the board of adjustment um
as they go through your public review process, have the public hearing, collect data. Um, if you do make a decision to approve this variance, staff is recommended for conditions that would
be appropriate to include in on that. Um, legal has reviewed the application and therefore has also had an accompanied findings of fact that goes along with it and it would be um, essentially following staff's
recommendation of denial too. So that would need to be altered or changed should you deviate from that. With that, I'll take any questions before I turn it over to the public hearing. Would would this variance apply only to the new 4 acre parcel then?
Yes. Um, but the remaining So, the remaining 49 acres, would that be a buildable? No, not not unless that came forward with a separate um um process. And then,
you know, because of the lack of road frontage that they have and now you have a potential easement, um I don't know with that original track of that farm, whether we get into subdivision regulations, but there's those number of other factors that would have to be
looked at before that would even be considered as buildable site. But as an action like this happens, you tend to get a lot of different um interests and that may spur additional requests too.
That should be uh be uh on your mind, I guess, when you're considering this because there wouldn't be there wouldn't be a less than 40 acres issue with that that divided parcel, but we would just be talking about road frontage or subdivision regulations possibly.
Correct. And then we get into some steep slopes and some bluff land too when we're looking with that with that um rem or the remainder of that parcel. Is this existing house is basically the highest point of the property? Yep. Is the easement already there for the
driveway and stuff? No, I believe it's a self-contained parcel at this point all the way out to the public road outship road. If it is in fact split and sold separately, how does that work in terms of like is it in just like the purchase agreement?
Easements are no matter who owns what private agreements between the property owners that have them. That's technically uh when we we used to require 175 ft for every buildable parcel, but then in 2011 that got changed where in lie of that as long as
they had a 33 foot easement that abudded a public road that became acceptable as long as they met the driveway standards. Eric, we know that uh variances should be granted when the applicant demonstrates that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Is that correct? Yes. What are the practical difficulties in this case?
That's for your board to discern. You being what I'll call an expert in planning and understanding the zoning ordinance, from your perspective, what are the practical difficulties
of the applicant complying with the terms of the practical difficulties would be that um you could I I guess maybe just for discussion purposes, previous owners
came forward with the original building plans. They were given a set size and location and circumstances with the property. Now, I believe this property is transferred at least a couple of times.
And you could always hear the statement that they were not involved with the original conception of how large the parcel was. And you know, that might be ideal for some parties, but it may not be ideal for others. Other than that,
um, as I mentioned, it seems to be economically based. That that was I think from reading the the comments in the application why staff's recommendation is why it is. So,
so essentially we have the need for the variance arising because the property owner wants to divide the property. Correct. Correct. And the property owner
essentially appears to want to divide the property for economic benefit, which certainly is understandable, but still it's for economic benefit. Is that correct? Correct. And I mean the original one went through
a permitted process. So after administrative review, it met the guidelines. It's issued over the counter administratively. It had no public review process. And then let me be clear that it is the staff's
recommendation that the variance be denied. Correct. Right. Yes. Thank you. So what happens if it's denied? Does the party they want to sell it? It sounds like
in two parts. So if if it's denied, is it just that they would have to sell it all in one? That's one option. It could be sold as is in its entirety. Second would be is they could meet um a large I mean
include enough rough acres with that to meet the variance prime soil standard. However, if it would be less than 40 acres, they'd still be looking at the conditional use permit process if the house is to be proposed less than 40 acres. So, that part would not be
alleviated by that action. So, there is options I guess. So, this part B subject property is there. It doesn't sound like a house could be built on that.
It would be difficult, you know, to locate a septic and um you meet slope criteria and be outside the bluff area. There would be some some difficulty with exploring that as a building site. Do we know what the sounds like they
might have a buyer possibly? Do we know what the I would direct that question to to the petitioners. Excuse me. Could you go back to this picture with A and B sorted out,
please? Thank you. So, you see where B is? Mhm. The actual letter B and the edge of that woodland. Um, is that a situ? Is that prime soil between the blue line for A
and the curve of the woodland where B situates? Right now, I don't believe so. I've looked back at the soil map that's in your staff report, but it starts there's a sharper decline at this point. It starts to become steeper slopes. Therefore, the
soil types are probably going to go up or they're going to be considered lower lower value. Right? So, uh, would that meet the percentage? We that would have it would be really variable depending on
Oh, yeah. Correct. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks. Yep. Any other questions for Eric? Thanks. Steve, I just wanted to uh let you know that
the the Definition of practical difficulties is in statute. Uh it is part of our zoning ordinance as well. Uh but it's 462.357. Uh which basically says uh practical
difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner
and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical diffies include uh inadequate access to sunlight for solar energy
systems uh and goes on to talk about earth sheltered uh buildings. But that's the main gist of it. It's a little those are the the sort of the elements to determine if you're trying to figure out if something fits the definition
practical difficulties. It's those three things. Thanks. All right. Would the petitioner like to come up and uh explain this to us? Geski. I'm the real estate agent representing the petitioners. They're
out of state. Um, when you're done with those, if you can just say your name and address into the microphone for us. Uh, just for the record. Chad Garteski, 1650 Lilock Lane, Byron, Minnesota. Thanks. All right. um you can kind of fill us in
on anything that the staff report didn't include or we can yeah questions at you too. First of all, just to put a little more color on the the surroundings there, that driveway, if you flip to this page here,
that driveway already has three other easements on it for properties that are further to the east. So, it's being used as a thoroughfare and as legal access to like three other properties. So, there's already an easement there.
Um, that's one thing I just wanted to clarify. We the question came up from someone about if it needs to be an easement and there is an easement there. It could just be assigned to parcel B. So, it's not not creating something that's not already there. So, it's not
like if they sell that property and they don't include the easement, the easement's gone. It's either way, there's there's three existing easements going right down that driveway right now. There would need to be other easements aren't gone because that property
correct. Yep. They're already there with the property for So, they just take the the legal description of that easement and assign it up to this point right here to provide access to that property. Okay. It's not like we're creating something new there. Okay. So, they just they never go away.
They're there. Yeah. Those are for federal easements. Yeah. Oh, yep. The other thing I'll point out is the the sellers didn't intend to do this initially. They started off with the intent of selling the entire property and neighbors began approaching them wanting to buy parts and pieces. And
that's what brought this whole thing on is that the two parts are worth more than the whole by something to the tune of $45,000, $43,000, something like that. And there's existing offers on both pieces already split. Now, they
obviously can go away because it's contingent upon the variance getting passed and the conditional use getting issued, but that wasn't their intent. Their intent wasn't to do this. for the bigger part that says part B.
Yep. Do you know what the possible like you said there's two offers on that? There's an offer on B and there's an offer on A. Yes. Do you know what they intend to use B for like are they going to recreation hunting recreation?
Okay. Yep. So, it wouldn't be used probably any differently other than I don't know part A hunts, but you you can't guarantee that going into the future, but no. And there's not really any practical build sites there either, plus the cost of additional
driveway getting to where there would be a build site. It's just it wouldn't I wouldn't promote that property in that matter. So, the woodland would probably stay woodland and Yeah, it it drops off very steep because it looks like it's pretty steep. Yeah.
So, in essence, whoever buys A and somebody else buys B, aside from all the legalities, the use isn't going to be different than what it is now. Correct. The use doesn't change. The other thing I wanted to point out is that the gentleman that made the offer
on B is the one that kind of created this map. And if we change the map to include more acreage with A, that offer will go away. He won't buy it. He's essentially buying it to keep the people that are buying a out of the woods, if that makes sense. That's why it's
drawn the way it is to minimize disturbance to the woods. So, he does he own the surrounding property then? Uh, he owns a number of properties around the area, but not necessarily bordering.
No. No. I actually order own some of the bordering piece. here myself. He owns where this narrow strip comes across. He owns all this over here. All this other woods on this side. And that easement also serves two of his
parcels that are back there. Okay. Further to the east. So, he's essentially adding on to what he already has back there. So, is there a gravel driveway going to his land or It's just a field that goes down. You can kind of see it there and it goes out
out into here. And then there's an easement that goes straight across to this parcel right here as well. Once you get back here, there's several other parcels and then those parcels connect Highway 76 on the bottom. Okay.
They've got road frontage back there. the other he can access it then even from that bottom corner because he's got that little sliver. Yes, he could he could come technically he could come across here. Yes. Yep. So he technically legally he
doesn't need that either, but it's already there. Yeah. Yeah. Good. So as a land owner, he understands that uh he could build a property line fence anywhere to divide the property he would
buy from the property someone else would buy to keep people off his property and that that line fence must be paid for by both land owners equally. Yep. He's aware of the the fence laws. Okay. Absolutely. It's just that if you have a
border out in the open, it is a little easier to monitor. And is that B uh towards A line where it shows no woodland? Is that now growing in or is that indeed all grass, some brush, that sort of
thing? No. Um prior to them building the house here, this was all CRP. It was on two CRP contracts and four CRP. that was in the older program, the soil bank, I believe. So, it was it was a mess. There's a lot of box elders and
stuff like that. They're all cleaned up and it's starting to grow back in now. Has not been farmed in 30 years or more. The the one question I had is pertains to the wording on the prime soils. Does
someone have that that exact statute? Yeah. You do you want to read it? Sure. Um 462.357 subdivision 62 practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a
variance means property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of
locality I think you're looking for the prime soil for the the prime soil but but that that fits kind of where kind of what I'm trying to point out as well well there was more to it though right yeah there's something in there about it disturbing prime cells that that's the
verbiage I'm looking for it's from the actual ordinance. I forget what statute it is. I think he might have it right there now. far as oh it means
yeah so the variance is there to prevent the disturbance of prime soils I think everyone agrees with that but the house is already there nothing's changing in terms of disturbance of soils so that was a point the sellers wanted me to make um the other thing I wanted to point out
on the last page of my handout there and I I believe uh it was alluded to already is that the definition of prime soils where the house sits. The definition that I would use in terms of marketing soils, that would not be prime soils. If you look at that heat
map on there, prime soils are typically blue and green in there and 80 CPI or higher. The location where the house sits is not what most people in this day and age would consider prime soils. On that heat map, I've got the house drawn in with a little square there or
the approximate location of the house. Any other questions for the applicants? Representative. Thank you. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to open the meeting to the public. Second. 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. Meeting is now open to the public. If anyone would like to speak for or against this request, you can come to the microphone. State your name and
address. the second time. If anyone would like to speak for against this variance request, please come forward to the microphone or unmute yourself online and state your name and address. For the third time, if anyone would like
to speak for or against this request, please come forward and state your name and address. All right. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing then. I'll move. Second. We have a motion by Lynn, second by Ed
to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I. All in favor. All right. Discussion. So, I'll open it up and uh essentially
state that um I have great respect for the expertise and the professionalism of the staff and I also have high admiration for the county's zoning ordinance
and I don't believe this would be an appropriate variance to grant for the reasons recited in the staff report. Um that they're uh the issue here is not unique to the
property but the need for the variance is actually uh has been created by the owners for their understandable desire to maximize the economic value of their
property. The property uh is clearly marketable. Uh it's valuable. Uh uh presumably, although I don't know this for a fact because I have no expertise in real estate,
presumably it is more valuable divided. Um however, the applicant has not established practical difficulties. The variance can also be alleviated by other means as recited by Eric
and uh for those reasons uh to adhere to the provisions of the county's zoning ordinance um and follow the expertise and professionalism
of the planning staff. I believe the variance should be denied. I would be curious since they don't really know how how big of a parcel A would have to be in order to not need a variance.
I don't right now they they could split it however they wanted if they just were able to move the line like two more acres or something like that. Sell it still as a 40 acre parcel and then it's
like 11 acre parcel or something like that. um doesn't sound like anybody would know the answer until they actually ran a scenario or something.
Yeah. And I mean it would be possible for for another different request to come to us that would be more in line with what the countyy's asking for, right? And I do agree the petitioners and the reitter didn't
really stipulate anything except economic gain and they had an opportunity to give us other reasons. Um well I noticed that um also the recommendation or one of the opinions
from the planning commission is that this variance could be alleviated by a reasonable method. So there is the possibility as I understand it to uh make this still marketable
as the owners would like to do but in a different way even though it may perhaps as you said come back to this board and there yeah and I think there might be a way to parcel it to where the potential
purchaser of property fee would still happy with the section they got because they didn't have to deal with a or whatever. I don't know. Yeah. And the other issue is there's still there's still a cup here ahead of us that would
is likely going to have economic considerations listed as the practical difficulties as well. Um the only difference with the cup is that that could be overridden by the county board. It's not necessarily decision by
the planning commission like what we have here. Um, but I agree with what Ed said in general. Was that a meant to be a motion? I could make it a motion. It was meant to stimulate discussion. Okay.
I think too the only thing I would say I don't the practical difficulties here other than the potential of them not initially selling it separately but selling it whole and then having
somebody come to them and ask them for a specific chunk and having them be like oh I guess we could split it you know and then realizing they would make more money that way. Um,
so pract practical difficulty could be that somebody wanted this chunk but not the house and it was worth them looking into it. Um, I'm not saying that that's a reason. I'm just looking at it from that perspective
terms of person that would want to purchase the well given all the possibilities. I think what is clear to me now is that uh the economic considerations are clear
uh and that uh the recommendations from the planning commission the staff the staff are indeed um valid and trustworthy and so I would agree with Ed
that the uh variant be denied. So I'll make a mo then sorry I was just gonna more of a puzzlement why economic situations aren't valued more highly in making a
decision because that's what the zoning ordinance recites and I assume are bound that's also based on state statute is that correct that's correct so as a board we're bound to follow that Then
so the the statute basically says that economic considerations can't be the only uh practical difficulty so to speak. So if there's other things economic considerations could be taken into account but they can't be the only
reason for granting the variance. Well, I guess, you know, if we're bound to follow that rule, guess there's not much we can change. So, I make and I do respect the board or the the county employees and what they're they
know their jobs. So, so had I didn't mean to interrupt. I'll make a motion that the var variance request be denied. and that the findings of fact um
specifically finding number four recite that the variance request is not due to special circumstances or circumstances unique to the property and is created by the owners of the
property since the enactment of the ordinance. Number six, the finding would read, "Applicant has not established practical difficulties in complying with the terms of the Winona County zoning
ordinance." And finding number seven, the variance can be alleviated by a reasonable method other than a variance and is the minimum and is not the minimum variance which
would alleviate the practical difficulty. Steve, do we need separate motions to uh change those findings of fact? I uh you can do it in one motion if everybody agrees to all of them, but if people
have want to vote on them differently, uh that that would be up to you whether you want to do them individually or all at once. Okay. Thank you. Um so we do do we have a second to uh the motion as Ed has made it?
I would second the motion. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Amy to uh deny the variance with changes to uh was that number four, four, six, and seven.
Okay. Um which would then exclude the conditions. All those in favor of that motion say I. I. opposed.
Hearing none, that is all in favor. Um, so that variance is denied 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 agrieved person or persons or any department, board or commission of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of decision to the district court in the county in which
the land is located on questions of law. 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, with that we will move on to
docket number BOA09182502. That is the petition of Daniel Hire and Kathy Hire and Robert Hire. Take it away. Yes. Okay. Well, good afternoon. Um, as you indicated, we have um a variance here.
um from the pet the the property owners Daniel and Kathy Hire um and um u Dan Daniel's son Robert um who is the petitioner asking for this variance um it's a two for one there's two variances
in this um one is from the prime soil standard um and the second one is from a feed lot setback um the location of This petition is in uh the northwestern corner of New Hartford Township. You can see the
parcel here with the proposed two acres split um in yellow. Um that's where the uh um proposed dwelling would be located with four acres remaining on that parcel. Um
again, section six, New Hartford Township. You can see in the inside map below where that is in the county. It's along um um County Road 12. Um property is accessed um from Sunnyside Road
um which is a dead end uh township road and you can see I90 there coming through just uh just west of the um Nodine interchange. Uh again, Sunnyside Road, Township Road is uh where they propose to access the
the site from. Uh this map shows the um uh neighboring Fela at the end of the road which is currently the only um um um property accessed from the uh from Sunnyside Road Farmstead at the end of the road there. Um
the neighboring feed lot has been registered for different numbers over the years and that's varied between 21 and 82 animal units. Uh currently it is um um just over uh 50 animal units. And so the um um setback requirement is 1,00
ft um as opposed to if it was 50 animal units between 10 and 50 animal units um it would be a 500 foot setback. Um so again the the current numbers there are just over that 50 mark and so
a 10,00 foot setback would apply. Um um the proposed dwelling you can see um 100 by 62 feet is the um is the dimensions that they have. Um and you can see the 205 ft um um um set back
from the feed lot. The feed lot is all the way up to the property line should be noted. Um so as far as um um hemming them in not being able to expand, they wouldn't be be able to expand further than that direction regardless. And um
so um they expansion areas would be, you know, to the north. Um, and so this wouldn't impact that specifically. Um, regarding prime soils, um, you're
looking at class 2 soils on the building site location and that make up the majority of the property. And, um, uh, the existing, uh, field there, you can see, is under cultivation and is part of a a bean corn and bean rotation.
It's currently in beans at the moment. Seed and salt lom is the soil type. Um have a couple photos here to give you an idea of the lay of the land. Um first one is looking straight from Sunnyside Road across the uh proposed uh building
site. You can see some um existing structures in the background. um and the the beam field uh um uh beyond where the building site has been mowed there. And then the uh um picture on the right is essentially the same thing, but you
can see the residential dwelling off of County Road 12 um in that picture and semi out on I90 to give you an idea of um of scale and location. Um, couple more pictures just looking the other way down Sunnyside Road
towards um from the uh the access uh point towards um the farmstead and uh the feed lot in the the background there. And then going the other way down Sunnyside Road and you can see the um interchange with um um
with County Road 12. Um the petitioners attended the August 14th uh township uh meeting and the township did indicate that they were in support of the request. Um regarding not notification, we have
not heard any comments uh beyond the township acknowledgement form. So neighbors have not um who were notified have not been in touch with us. Um so no further further comments. Um looking at the the criteria,
there are a number of criteria that we had trouble um making um um findings and support for. Uh criteria 2, three, four, and seven um is what staff would uh draw your
attention to specifically. Uh criteria two uh involves comprehensive plan. Uh and then criteria three, four and seven are getting at the question of um practical difficulties from different angles. So when you look at those um
those criteria um you're getting at whether um a 200 foot 205 foot setback from a 1,000 ft uh requirement is reasonable. um whether the circumstances here are unique to the property
um not created by the um by the property owner. Um um and um whether the um um the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a
reasonable method method. Um again when you're we had a little bit of discussion at for the last petition about what practical difficulties mean. what is reasonable and what is not, what is unique um and what is not. Um I just wanted to um throw out there and I think Steve can probably um talk a little bit
further on it, but um you know, we're we're trying to figure out um um when when you're talking about is it unique um if the the same problem affects all properties in the area, you know, that's that's not a unique um circumstance and maybe we should be looking at a zoning
change or something like that instead. Um, is it um a um merely an inconvenience or not? Um, is it um um is it unique to the property such as uh is it due to the shape or topography or
natural features on the on the property? Those would all be examples. If you could tie it to something like that, that would be something that would be unique and um um could be a practical difficulty. Um and then um reasonable. Just want to point out um it does not mean that it
can um to um um that it should be shown that the land has has no other reasonable use. So you don't that's not the standard. Um it's just is it reasonable um in this uh in this regard um to allow um a setback of 205 ft as
opposed to the required 1,000. So, those are um um those are issues that um that you're grappling with in this um um with this petition. And um I guess if you have questions or want to talk through through that, we can try to do that.
Question. And number seven, uh where you said it cannot beed by reasonable method. It does include areas that have not been cultivated. Can you point out those on there where you were thinking those would Yeah, I mean, if you're looking on at
the sixacre parcel, um you can see there are on the western side of the parcel, there are areas um um that are currently being used. There's a um a couple of um um storage facilities. Um the petitioner
has indicated that those are um used by um by his father, so the property owner. Um and um so I think they have some reasons why that wasn't desirable um for them. Um and um I think uh also looking at the um
um the access from the the township road obviously that the the gravel road um versus county road 12 is a much um um slower and um less uh traffic um property to access the property from. Um
so there are some some different um aspects to that but um um um and then there's the 4acre par parcel that's um um um you know that the 4 acre portion of the property that's under
cultivation. So um you know is it reasonable to um um um develop a portion of that and that can also get to the you know the the um the comprehensive plan piece
you know um whether um whether that's um um an adequate um justification or not you know and there is a 40 acre CU associated with this as well. Yeah. And that should be noted as well
is that uh the um um this is on um the agenda for tonight's planning commission meeting. Um if you were to approve the the petition um um it would still be before the planning commission. They'd be considered considering a conditional use permit for a new um dwelling on less
than 40 acres. And so does the amount that they want to put the on the proposed dwelling include the driveway as well because that's taking some out of production. Correct. And then is there anything having to do with that
road that as far as like a driveway or like is it regularly plowed as a road or is it a also a driveway? Sunnyside road is a is a township road. Newart New Hartford Township does maintain it. I would assume that they do
um um plow that um um to the end um and maybe the applicants can speak better um to that maintenance, but yeah, I would assume so. Okay. Any other questions for Lou? I guess does Well, I'll ask the the owner.
Okay. Thanks, Lou. Thank you. Would the applicant like to address the board? Uh, state your name and address first, please. Uh, my name is Robert Hire. I reside at 467 West 10th here in Winona. Fair enough.
Documents for you guys to look at. just a map for you. Okay. Good afternoon. Um, yeah, my name is Bob Hire. Uh, I'm a country boy, honestly looking to try to get back to
the ridge. um grew up on a 300 plus acre farm uh just outside of Ridgeway uh Pleasant Hill Township. Uh we put this application in uh started the process about a year ago and and kind of have been going through the
motions. Um what I prepared for you is honestly the uh board of adjustment approval criteria or responses to them. So obviously I'm not going to go through everything you know one by one but as it pertains um to criteria number two you
guys wrote it I don't need to go through and read it but you know stated in there the comprehensive plan encourages locating rural housing development away from recognized agricultural areas and into areas with marginal uh agricultural
soil and adjacent to existing cities where urban services can easily be be extended and conflicts with agricultural uses minimized. So there's a lot of instances in Winona County today where uh some of them ongoing, some of them that date back months. Um there's a
property along County Road 15, which is Homer Ridge Road, which today um um that that property was 2015, I believe, which would be after this variance was approved or the the zoning ordinance was put into place. Is that correct? 2014 is
the year that the 2011 so well after right four years after um there's a property there where in the attachments I pointed out and pulled from beacon some of the the properties and you can see clearly especially in that first
example attachment one that that used to be a field and somebody turned it into not a field now don't know what the soil types were I don't have enough education to go and find all of that. But looking at the feed lots as we go through, I did pull
some of that information. Uh right along that same road, Steven and Margaret Gernest Trust location. Um not sure if it's currently still under construction. It was I know as of this summer at some point, but again, if you look at the topography off of Beacon, that used to be a field.
Um, last one, and this is actually a a family member, uh, Brett and Kayla Martin, uh, attachment number three, Nagel Ridge Drive. Um, they are a in part of a field. Um, in conversing
with him, getting ready for this, they were required to, you know, your 6040 rule or whatever you guys had in that last one, they kind of had to follow that and put part of the property on untillable or or not currently tilled cultivated soils. Um, but at the end of the day, part of that property is also
in a field. That's no longer When you use the term in a phrase in a field, does that mean cultivated? Yep. Yep. And And with all of these attachments, you don't know the types of soil
involved. I don't I I I don't specifically. I do look at obviously I grew up in the area so I kind of know where things are at in some of the locations but yes you're correct I don't know specifics on soil types.
Um bullet point number two also recommends that local decisions should support maintaining and sustaining the vitality of family farms. Um this is not a family farm. It never has been since the early 90s that my
grandfather purchased the property. Uh he has leased it and and I know uh the neighboring gentleman is here today and I don't know if he's owned it for the entire duration that my grandfather owned it, but at the end of the day at
any point in time we could have my dad, my grandpa could have pulled the plug and said, "Yeah, we're just not going to farm it anymore and there it would have sat." Maybe today we would have been better off doing that 10 years ago because then we probably wouldn't be having the conversation. Um
so looking at the stewardship goals, trying to use that property for good use, make sure that it's doing something of good um was kind of the the uh intent obviously. Um the last point on there, the location in such close proximity,
the 205 instead of the,000 ft. Um not minimizing potential conflicts with neighboring agricultural. Uh Lou kind of pointed it out as well that that property line, that feed lot line butts right up to the adjoining property.
Anything that would be expanded would be to the north away from our proposed parcel. So really, we're not interfering with him and his plans or what he wants to do. Um, and not noted in here, but
I'll also throw in there, um, the 205 ft in the exact location is somewhat negotiable, right? We put it where we put it be because of the setback requirements from the center of road, center of sunny sunny side, and the setback requirements from the property
to the south, which is my grandfather's estate. So, we kind of picked that spot A because it's on a higher point, meaning less less excavation. But, you know, if there's a difference between 205, 250, 300, there's things that can be done there.
We're just trying to get through this process first. Um, the second bullet point underneath there, attachment number three, again, pointing to the Martin properties on Nagel Ridge. Um they've had that farm
since I was a kid. Grew up there babysitting their kids. Um right next door within 2 and I think 50 ft. Um there is a 254 head of cattle uh total animal units feed lot registered there
right now. Uh I looked at the feed lot as it sits today. It looks like the Weezer farm is slated at 68. So way more ahead of cattle, about the same distance, never had a problem with it. You know what you're getting into when
you move to the country. You know the sights, sounds, smells, and all all the things that come with it. Um, bullet point number three, um, the soil. Believe that's what we're talking about
here. Yeah. Um the biggest biggest thing that I have here is that the overall property is not for sale. If you look at that whole 6 point whatever 2 acres, you know, to the to the west
here, that's not that's currently being utilized, right? It it's he's doing something with it. Uh my dad's about 67 68 years old, due to retire here hopefully. Um, but at the end of the day, he still wants to do something with
it. So, we're not looking to purchase the whole thing, but we want to get up there to help with things. He's a over the road truck driver today, go up there in the winter to Bobcat and plow out snow for for both this property as well as um my dad's property a little further
down to the west on County Road 12. Um, but at the end of the day, we're, you know, a lot of this is the soil statement. So, and the 205 ft again being not a reasonable request. As I go through this, there's all kinds of easements. Um,
if we changed what we're trying to buy, we would pretty much have to lop off that that uh line fence and we would landlock my dad in there. Right? If if you drew a line here, there's a driveway right here that you don't see. Let's
just say we, this is probably the biggest piece that people are looking at. If we drew a line here and built here, right? We're landlocking him back here and he has no access to his property without an easement or other other things. Run that by me again.
Yep. An easement. Well, if if I purchased instead of this and we purchased there's about 1.2ish acres right here in this section. The line fence sits about right here. um shed here, driveway right here. If we
lop this off and we bought this piece, we're not looking at buying this. We want to buy this. If we buy, we change what we're trying to propose because the county is against the soil and the feed lot requirement. I'm landlocking my dad
in here. If I buy back here, unless you give them an easement, correct? Yes. Correct. Okay. Same thing vice versa. we would have to do something more and come back before you guys again to figure out how we make that happen. So right now this is the
most the easiest way to get what we are looking for to get back onto the ridge to help out with the family but not hurt what he's doing and try to build our own homestead here.
Um, bullet point two, uh, again, if you go back to that attachment number three and you start talking about the 205 ft, the,000 ft setback, uh, the initial house, Betty and Brian Martin, is 250 ft from the Brown feed lot just to the
east. Um, additionally in 2018, my cousin Brett Martin, who is just to the to the west of Brian and Betty Martin, and you can kind of see both of those highlighted there. Uh, he's about 780
ft. Uh, 760 maybe I got in there. Um, so he's still within that,000 ft setback on again now a 250 total animal units feed lot. much larger than what we're currently dealing with. Uh and it is
dairy where uh the Weezer farm is beef. So they're milking, they're doing lots of things there. There's By the Weezer Farm, you mean the farm above? I'm going to say that. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
Um so with that one there there's again multiple instances throughout the county and that's what those other attachments are where that thousand ft setback isn't reasonable as stated in here. But then I guess I beg the question what is
reasonable is there's instances where 250 ft if you look at Nathaniel and Shana Clitter uh adjacent to their I believe their brother or family member Joel and Lorie Clitter is 250 ft. Uh Brendan Brandon and Brenda Fricson
adjacent to his son Andy and Darien is 261 ft. uh Elizabeth Oliver and Justin Carol a little bit further to the the east out on County Road 3 uh adjacent to Dickger Family Trust 390 ft. Dan and
Kathy Hire who is is my dad and uh stepmom adjacent to Brett and Bonnie Fricson uh 535 ft. Ben and Amy Vandery adjacent to James and Sheila McN on McNal Ridge Road 839 feet. So, I guess
when I start looking at all these reasonable or unreasonable, there's no definition to it. And I understand it's more so at discretion, but there's existing properties and allowed variances for pretty much the same exact thing that I'm looking for
that are visible and viewable in the county today. Do we know uh how many animal units each of these uh feed lots that you say are adjacent at these uh lengths? Do we know
what they are? How many animal? I didn't I didn't look into the I looked to see that there were registered feed lots. I didn't necessarily look at every one of them to know the size in looking at a handful of them. If you look at the friction uh bullet point two there, they have a lot of head of cattle there. Um
and yes, I understand it's his dad and that's where they sold and then built to, but it's still the same process, still the same variance needed, right? Um you look at some of these other ones and you might only have 50 or less than
where where they're having to fight with essentially. Do you know if any of these uh individuals or couples it looks like um are employees of the feed lot? Uh I do not believe any of them are. No.
Um I know all but one of these people on here and they are not employed of that feed lot. So you're not running an instance where it's another housing to help support that that property. Can I stop you for a second there? Um
would staff or legal like to address what we're exactly allowed to consider um as far as as far as these other parcels go. So the um the problem is it's hard to
know what you can decipher from this limited bit of information. and you'd have to look at the the findings of facts for each of those variance requests and see what the issues are and what the practical difficulties were stated as. Um, you know, I I sympathize
looking through Beacon and seeing ones that are close to feed lots, but that doesn't mean that they were facing the same issues that are similar to this petition, but you should uh decide each one on its own merit and uh just in the
circumstances of that are uh that are before you. Uh and uh uh yeah, I guess that's it. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying is um we don't know
what was presented to provide any variances on the exhibit that's been handed to us if there were variances at all. and we have what is in our record
that we should be looking at in addition to the testimony from the planning staff and the applicant. Exactly. Yes. Thanks, Steve. Um,
last bullet point on there. Um, again, sight sounds within distance of feed lot. Not anything that I haven't encountered before in my life. Not anything that you don't encounter when you drive across County Road 12 or any of the roads up there. So, I know what I'm getting myself into. So, really just
kind of pointing that out. Um, criteria four, not unique in the uniqueness specifically. Um, completely, you know, as you guys have said, appreciate the staff's position. um you know they have their job to do and lay
everything out but I guess it's based on the you know more more based on the proximity of the feed lot unique respectfully the location of the feed lot itself is really what's creating this here I mean if it weren't for that
you would still have the class 2 class 3 soils but then I would revert back to the fact that that's being used that's not um additionally again the volunt untary use of that. We family has owned that property, that chunk of property for 30 plus years and at any point we
could have pulled the plug on using it as cultivated tillable land. And if we did that 10 years ago, we we'd probably be in a better spot today. Well, it would still be considered prime soils. Correct. Completely understand. But there is a clause in the zoning ordinance where it states if it hasn't
been in um production essentially in 10 years, then it kind of creates a different probably look at it. I would assume. Um again that just kind of goes through the same stuff. Um 7 variance can't be alleviated but
alleviated by another reasonable method. Um again there's no unused areas of the parcel. Um there's certain portions that aren't being cultivated or not being used as tillable today. still technically, excuse me, technically sits
on class 2 soils, but obviously not being used for production. You have a very small window there and that creates other other issues. Like I mentioned, um the scope of the variance request uh reflects carefully um you know
considered all of our options when we went in to look at this. Um, but we do believe that this request repres represents minimum variance needed to accomplish what we're trying to do. And like I said, that's really just trying to get back on the ridge, trying to help
my family. Um, trying to build a homestead, uh, and, you know, get out of town. Much rather be in the county than in the city. No offense to anybody in the city, but I've, uh, been here for 20 plus years. much much prefer being on the
ridge. So, is the proposed dwelling that just the house or does that include a yard? That includes the garage. Um, and again, we don't have exact. It's probably pretty close to what it would look like. Um, the intent would probably be to
leave the north side of that open at least for a period. Obviously, you're going to have septic and and all that type of stuff that has to go in in as well, but the intent is to leave a section untouched essentially where the
rest of that can still be cultivated, still used for production. What is the status of that parcel now? Which one? I'm sorry. The one where the proposed dwelling is going to be. It's a field. It it it's just a bean and
corn rotation field like uh Lou had mentioned. And when you say it it hasn't been cultivated, it actually has been No, no, no. I'm saying I'm saying this area here is the only section and a little bit over here which is does not
amount to much. Those are the only two sections on the property that are not cultivated. Everything else is yard and this is my grandfather's estate. This pasture has been sitting dormant for some time, but my parents don't own my grandparents
estate, so they can't make the decisions on that. And they're not willing to sell you a portion of each so you could build a house on the front on the south part there. Um, it's possible. there's uh a few more
people that have to get involved in that which creates some issues in and of itself. So, we would like to go this route if at all possible to to try to accomplish the goal that we set out for. And your grandparents estate, is that
just sitting empty? Uh no, my my grandfather's wife still lives there. Um and she has the right to live there until she chooses not to. Um, I mean, she's early mid70s, so you never
know. Uh, could be few years, could be 20 years. And does she have the right to sell a new property? No, she does not. It is an estate that's um whatever the term is for it. It's it there's multiple people that have to come to an agreement on that.
That's some kind of trust. It's not even a trust. It's sitting in a will and that hasn't been executed yet. So, Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
We have a motion to open the meeting to the public. I make the motion. Second. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Kelsey to open the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I. I. I. Allo. Any opposed?
Uh hearing none, the meeting is now open to the public. If anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward. State your name and address. Hi. Hi. I'm Steve Weezer. I own the farm they're talking about there. Uh I just
like to reply about what Bobby was just saying about all these feed lots next door that aren't 500 feet or whatever. They were built many many years ago before these ordinances were made. Just so you realize that. And also we just reapplied our uh feed lot and there's
150 head on our application now. I mean our feed lot. We replied it re redid it. There's 150 head there. And I bought that farm in 1999. The urban farm there 1999.
And I rented that piece of well from Bobby's grandpa for the last 26 years. Every year I've been up there, I've rent been renting that land. It's been on the farm. So Bobby Bobby knows that. And the land you're pointing to is the land in
Bobby that they got the proposed dwelling. Yeah. I've been renting that land every every year since I've been up there from usually was from Bobby's grandpa, but he's not there no more. And they didn't used to have that. It used to be six acres there, but uh but they
put that shed there. Obvious. But anyways, it's like you see it's beautiful soils. It's beautiful soils. But my uh thing is that uh like I say, me and my family own the
farm and feed lot next to the property applying for variance and zoning rules exist for a purpose. Allowing a dwelling 205 ft from our feed lot instead of the minimum 1,000 ft
doesn't make sense. That's why I recommend this variance to be denied. the kids are taking over the farm and it's going to be a lot harder to manage with the dwelling 200 feet from our feed
lot. And then like I said, the county has an ordinance on this prime soils which you guys all know and uh I don't know what else to say but
my kids have something to say. Thanks. Thank you. Who? Right. Just state your name and address first for us. Jared Weezer, 430 Coronado Circle on Alaska. Uh, I'm Jared Weezer, the son of Steve
Weezer, who uh just spoke, who owns the farm and cattle feed lot at the end of Sunnyside Road, only 205 ft from where this variance is being requested. Uh we're not comfortable with the variance because it's way too close to our family farm. Uh the property would come right up to the edge of the feed lot where uh
my dad's bulls, cows, heers, and calves live. Um having been around my dad's cattle, I know how spooked they can get when they see anyone who's not my dad. And uh they can just become unruly and even aggressive at times. Uh the only person they're really comfortable around is my dad, and we wouldn't uh want to
put them into a situation uh that could harm their health and production. Uh and secondly, uh just building a home this close is just not in the best interest of public health. Uh there are constant odors from the manure produced in the feed lot. It attracts bugs, especially flies in the summertime, um
which become rampant. And uh it would just negatively affect uh not only residents but um potential future residents, any pets they may have, any you know other personnel that would come for the building or anything like that uh for the uh building of the proposed
dwelling. Um so therefore we oppose this variance because of the negative effects it would have on uh our family farm um prospective residents and just uh the future of our family farm. Thanks. Thank you. I have a quick question. Sorry for
either one of you. You walked away really fast. So the two acres they're recommending to purchase you guys currently farm or you rent. So, if will the new potential property owners that want to build there still have that
same arrangement with you or are they planning to take all those acres out of production? No, just Okay. So, but I'm just I guess it'll be a question for the applicant. Yeah. Okay.
And as I stated at the end, like we would want to leave a section there so the rest of the field and part of that makers is accessible can be used for production. Okay. Thank you. But could I ask a question? Could you come up to the mic, please? Thank you.
You said uh is it north going up on that? Yes, it is. Yes. uh you were planning uh one of the reasons you had that space also is uh for your septic and drain field, correct? Yep. And you would not be able to till over that.
Ideally, we would put that off in this area, but say if you drew a line, you would still have access here to the rest of this field that's currently in production. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else like to speak for against this application?
Hi, I'm Caitlyn Delarwell, uh 540 Larch A. I live in the Crescent. Um that's my dad. He owns the um feed lot, the farm in question here. And I have a few concerns after hearing about it. Um if I could just point out
like in this feed lot, this right here is where the cow, we call it the cow yard. Um right here is where the cows kind of hang out and reside. Um that's where they're fed. and that's where they enter and exit from the barn. So, it's a very hightraic
area for the cows and the livestock. And I think that's probably my um biggest concern is having a residential dwelling that close to where the livestock are, it can cause them to be spooked and it can cause them stress. And if you cause the animal stress, they can produce
less. Um and then they can just do like aggregated like agitated behaviors, right? Like try to get out, um get aggressive, things like that. So that would be um kind of my biggest concern. I think my second concern is one thing my brother stated and I can attest to
this growing up on the farm is just public safety, right? So um like there's a lot of equipment that goes in and out as you can imagine like combines, tractors, um feed trucks, like all all the equipment coming in and out. Um
it it's a very hightraic area I would say on the farm. And then as far as that cow yard I mentioned where the cows hang out, they keep like large bulls there, right? And they keep cows that have just had calves. So those are two types of animals you definitely like do not want
to aggravate or get close to, especially if they're not familiar with you. Um, so I think for those those are the two main reasons I I guess I have concern with it. Um, also I think just a residential dwelling there being so close like there's just a nuisance, right? like
you're going to have manure, you're going to have smells, you're going to have flies. Um, and that might not be um concern for the current owners, but if it would ever change ownership, um, I think it would just be um, a concern there. So, those are my thoughts.
Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak for against this application? Please just state your name and address first, please. Larry Nagel, 41562 County Road 12. I was coming to support
my neighbor Steve. I don't think 205 ft is enough even with a variance for a feed with a feed lot that close. That basically all you know all I got to say.
Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for against this permit or application for the second time? If there's anyone who would like to speak for against this application, please come forward now or unmute yourself if you're online or on
the phone. And for the third and final time, if there is anyone who would like to speak for or against this application, uh please come forward and state your name and address. Kathy Hire, 3985 County Road 12, Bobby's
stepmom. um Dan and his his dad couldn't be here today, but we very much support this in that um we support his desire to work to move out to the country and we also support we're also glad that he's would be able to help us as we continue to age and with the property that we
have that Dan's really proud of that property because obviously it's came from his dad and um we still have the other property there too that's um the estate that we're managing through um the current
residents life lease and um we just wanted to say that we support Bobby in this petition. Thank you. All right. Again, would anyone like to speak for against this application?
Do I have the opportunity to say one more thing that's not probably in documents but in the application permit application? Yeah, you can certainly you're the applicant. So, sorry, the LA last piece I want to throw in there is the intent is to own all of
the acreage at some point in time. Um, splitting it at this point gets us where we need to be at this point in time. Uh, again, parents are getting up there. The intent is to buy the rest of it out. So, we don't plan on going anywhere. I know plans can change and I've heard that from a couple of people in this room.
Um, but being 43 years old, I don't intend on going anywhere once I get to where I've wanted to move back to. So, the intent is to rejoin the properties if and when we have the opportunity to. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Uh, would anyone like to
speak for against this application? And for the second time, if anyone would like to speak for against this application, please come forward to the microphone. And for the third and final time, if anyone would like to speak for against this application, please come forward at
this point. Right. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. I'll second. Have a motion by Ed, seconded by Lynn to close the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I. I. I. None opposed.
discussion your thoughts, feelings. So, I'll break the ice. Um, I think it's admirable that the uh a family member would like to do what is being proposed.
Um, however, I think the people on this board know that I thoroughly respect the comprehensive plan of this county. I respect the zoning ordinance of the county and I respect the staff's
position and recommendations that they provide to us. And in the past, at least in my memory, when there have been variances granted regarding prime soils,
almost consistently those prime soils have been either in the woods or have not been in cultivation. uh the comprehensive plan and the zoning
ordinance encourage agricultural use. I believe granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit, the intent and the language of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance.
And uh in addition to the soils issue, what I've heard from the neighbors regarding the proximity of the existing feed lot to the home uh would again be
uh inconsistent with the uh spirit, intent and language of the zoning ordinance and I don't think it would be a good practical uh use for either the new parcel if it
were to be granted by this board and the planning commission uh or more importantly for the existing use as recited by uh the Weezer family.
Um, so for all of those reasons, I believe the variance is inappropriate and does not meet the criterion for the granting of the variance. Um, if I could Lou, could I ask you a
question quick? Um it seems to me or this feels kind of similar to uh I don't know planning commission requests that we've heard for like um healthc care of a relative or something.
Uh, in that case, would you still be looking at a feed lot setback like a a an accessory parcel or a secondary dwelling on this parcel?
So, if it was a manufactured home, I guess the difference that you're looking at there is that it's um in that in that regard, it's a the idea is that the the the dwelling would be temporary in nature. So, it's there to provide um um a home for somebody while they're
while that relationship occurs where there's health care being um provided or if there's um farm help um um like that service is being um provided through that dwelling. In this case, that's um um there might be some of that still
same kind of connection, but this is a permanent um um dwelling location that's being, you know, proposed. So, that's the difference, right? So that to him, correct? Yeah. It'd be parcelled off. Yeah. Right. It'd be separated and, you know,
Yeah. So it's it is a um a standalone. They do indicate though that they they look at they're looking at uh consolidating the six acres, you know, in the future at some point. But at this point, what we're looking at is a twoacre permitting a twoacre lot that stands on it.
Curious or a little bit of extra information. Does does a feed lot um does the feed lot setback um still pertain? Um I I do believe it would unless it's for the feed lot operator
and um owner themselves. So this in this case it would still pertain um to that. Um yeah. All right. Thank you. Good question. Thanks. So, oh, are we discussing a more
as far as having another option of where they could build? He mentioned a couple, but is he going to run into issues there as far again being too close to the road or too close to someone's property line? I think there's still too close to this or that.
I think it's still all within 1,000 ft. Is that would that be correct? There's no point of this parcel that would be outside of the feed lot setback. Yeah, that's correct. I mean, it's just a matter of whether it's 200 feet versus, you know, 400, 500 feet. Um, but
yeah, the thousand foot um setback does encompass the entire um six acres and the the roughly two to three acres of the neighboring property to the south as well. So, even if he moved it where his grandfather's property was in that
southern corner, it would still be too close. Still need a variance to um you still need to grant the variance in order to allow that location. Okay. I mean, just looking at this map, that doesn't look like as nice a location to
put a house. I think the only reason you mentioned that is you were looking for a place that wasn't prime soils under tillage. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And you know, if if his purpose is to help his family
um and a temporary structure was put on one of these properties until such time that then he would be able to purchase get all of the other two properties, he wouldn't need to build a a dwelling on this space.
That's a good point. But um that's just what I'm hearing from him and from his stepmother that his help is needed and um part of alleviating the variances or
working around the variances might be accessory temporary dwelling to help family members. That's why. Well, when you look at his stepmother, I believe it is. Yeah. She doesn't look real old.
I don't think she's going to die anytime soon. But the but the grandmother, they're going to have to 20, 30 years for that to happen before they can build. And he's going to be in his 70s. So, no, I'm not saying that. But I'm just saying he mentioned that he's there to help his family. And so, in my mind, I
would It would make sense for him to be close. It would make sense if he was thinking about a court, he would eventually get all the parcels anyway. I spend all the money and time and variances building a house when he'll he could potentially if
he's he's going to have three houses at some point then you know what are you doing? Well, and I live a mile up the road. So, oh, we can't get in and out of the box, you know, to plows out and then we have to plow out the property that he's talking about plow the estate property.
a lot of stuff. Just just to be clear, I think it's a different party that owns the house on County Road 12 to the south. It is. The 6.2 acres does not currently have a dwelling on it at all. There is there is nobody living on that propert.
No, right here. He's talking about that upside down the one that looks like that the shed is on. Correct. Oh, I thought that was the house in the application. Okay. No res. Okay.
Yeah. If I may, um this is a this is his um grandfather's property here, and there is a dwelling right here. Um here are a couple of um um sheds, but no dwelling in this location on the existing six acres. Okay.
Is is that a parcel that would not require a 40 acre? No, it would. Um it's not a parcel of record. Okay. Yeah. Put a could he build a house on there?
Um you're you're saying could they build a house in this location? Um not without the variance, the same two variances that we're talking about. Now, of course, it is a different calculation because you're, you know, you're
tillable versus not tillable. here 500 ft or so versus 205 ft. I mean, there's different, you know, there's differences in that application, but the variances would still be required. They would still not meet those standards,
but it' be more likely to be allowed I I think it might be easier to come up with findings. Yeah. And you wouldn't be on the same road as the feed lot either in that scenario, which you know might be a little look a little better to the
person operating that. The applicant did mention that then that's where I got confused because maybe I just can't see the driveway, but he said his dad would be landlocked if he had a building in that spot because he's had the driveway.
But then I'm unsure if that's not a house. Where's the where's the house in relation or where how would they be landlocked? It's just the sheds would be I think he wouldn't be able to access his buildings as but he would just need an easement to
allow that. Yeah, but there that activity then I think right next I think they're thinking if I may speak to that to to that a little bit from what my conversations with the applicant is that um I think that they're thinking that it's um um those activities aren't
necessarily conducive to their their home, you know, their them building a home there. They don't want to be on top of their father and what he has going on there and vice versa. So, and I would say also that we have we don't have all these other, you know, um
scenarios. Those aren't what's in before us today. We have to act on specifically what is being um proposed um and what's before us. Just follow up on what you just said. It's your understanding that putting the
home to the west closer to his father's farming activities is undesirable. It's uh yes, I think that's been um um indicated. I don't know that it's farming activities, but um um um his use
within the um within those sheds, especially the the bigger one there. Um I don't know if he's doing um more mechanic type um basically we want to give him the space for his semis uh the 11 tractors that we have on the property all of the other
things that are going on there um without hindering him. But essentially what we then have is moving it to the east south of an existing farming operation. There's almost a
an antagonism going on there also. So no matter where the house goes, it's going to conflict with somebody's activity. Yep. It's not ideal, which maybe indicates that
shouldn't be there. Yeah. I mean, I would I think that's the reason we ended up with this in as an ordinance in the first place. It appears in spite of our best effort to uh imagine scenarios
um the facts before us are the facts we have to operate on and that is the prime soils and uh the adjacent really um feed lot if I'm correct those are the two
issues issues. Um, and I think that those are important issues. I think that the continuity of those prime soils is important to the comprehensive plan. Um, and as well as
the adjacent feed lot. Yeah, I think I think this application I think he's done a great job of trying to minimize the footprint as far as the prime soils goes. And um normally I
would be in favor of that. Had the feed lot operator was, you know, a family member or someone who's was in favor of this being there, I think I would feel a lot differently about it. So, do we all agree that the
four the four uh highlighted two, three, four, and seven? Yeah. Are appropriate the way they are. I agree. So, I'll make a motion that the
variation the variance request be denied and the findings of fact um numbers two, three, four, and seven be modified as follows.
Number two, the variance request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Number three, the applicant has not established there are practical difficulties
in complying with the official control and purposes. And number four, the variance request is not due to special circumstances or conditions unique to the property
and would be created by owners of the property. Number seven, the variance request is not the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical
the alleged practical difficulty. The other findings would remain the same. Do we have a second on that motion? I second that motion. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Amy
to deny this variance request uh with the changes to the findings of fact and removal of the conditions. Does that sound correct, Ed? Yes. All those in favor say I.
I opposed hearing none. That is all in favor. Uh with this request being denied, I'll 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 agreved person or persons or any department, board or commission of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after the receipt
of the notice of the decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located on questions of law. In fact, any party that would like to submit an appeal to the 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. And with that, we'll move on to docket number 09182503. Uh petition of Ridgeway Community Association. That is Aaron. Good morning or actually good afternoon
board members. Um I'll welcome and encourage questions. So if you have any as I'm going through it, please do not hesitate to interject. As you said, the applicant is Joanie Danzenberg and she's applying on behalf of the Ridgeway Community Association
and she's seeking to a variance to reduce the minimum setback from a rear property. The reduced setback would be or a larger although not large scale smallcale groundmounted or as defined in the county ordinance ground mounted solar
array. So it would be a 13 foot by 380 foot ground mounted array. Also called an ordinance a solar collector. Also called an ordinance a solar energy system. Uh this would be located on a site with
a long established school that's on plus or minus 7 and a/4 acres. Here's a site map. Go here so I can point some things out. So in red here along the back you see the outline of the proposed array. Uh
this is drafted to scale and it's relying on the county parcel fabric to determine where that that back line would go. The applicant has indicated that prior to construction should the variance be granted they would have a surveyor remark these corners which are
already marked by survey and also set the location of the proposed array. Other things of note on the parcel would be the long-established school. So the two polygons here labeled other, that is because we do not have a uh or that is because I do not have a category for a
school in this district because there are very few schools. But those are the original school uh buildings. Two additions have been placed on the school since that time. There are several accessory buildings um on the property
and there are also accessory structures or infrastructure I'd call it. So we have a large geothermal heating system installed here and we have a large septic drain field installed there. Um what is what is the age of that uh
drain field there? 2007. Thank you. Is that where it says trench? Correct. That's a trench is an ingground drain field system. Uh here you're looking at zoning information. So green is the
agricultural resource conservation district. Purple is the community development district. So the ordinance citations that are applicable to this request, we have
9.2 authorizing solar energy systems as accessory uses in all districts. And then as we move further within that section, we see that the location within lot it says solar energy systems must meet the accessory structure set back for the zoning district. And then even
more granular, ground mounted solar energy systems. Ground mounted solar energy systems may not extend into the sideyard or rear setback when oriented at minimum design tilt. We move to the district language in chapter 10 and we see the performance
standards which lay out the applicable rear and sideyard setbacks and we see it refers us to table 10 two which establishes those distances at 20 and 50 feet respectively. And then we move on to chapter 12.3
which again tells us what a solar energy system is and what standards it must adhere to. It says all solar energy system shall comply with the following standards. We're talking in this case about a smallcale solar energy system and it must within its location on lot
smallcale groundmounted solar energy systems must meet the structural setback standards for the zoning district when oriented at medium or minimum design tilt. So that very similar language as above uh really driving home that point because it's in there twice.
So, is the variance needed because the tilt is going to be too close or the actual system itself? Well, I think when they're talking about tilt, we're talking about uh the panels themselves being attached to some sort of racking system. And some of those
systems have the ability to move throughout the day to follow the sun. So I think what that language refers to is when it is at minimum tilt meaning nearly flat it would extend the closest to an applicable line at that point and that is the point at which you would
apply the uh the setback standard. Okay. So the actual spot where it's being mounted is far enough back it's the stretch of the panels. Yeah. Yeah. I think you could maybe think of it as the furthest protrusion toward
that line or furthest. Yes. Okay. So, I said it was a long established school. Here we're looking at a 1966 Winona Daily News article in which families are being invited to visit the new school building. Um, I'll note that
that date, that 1966, is before the county had a zoning ordinance in effect or a zoning scheme uh to regulate land use. Here we're looking at an oblique aerial of the proposal. So you see uh the school in the front and then you see the
the proposed panels far back toward the rear of the parcel. Um and Aaron, just again for my benefit, yeah, the proposed panels are shown up in this exhibit in red. Correct. In red. Yes. What what is the parcel adjacent to the
proposed panels? What is that? So the parcel adjacent to the proposed panels in terms of its observed use um immediately adjacent it would be rowcrops back and you can kind of see it here as we as we get down into that valley
there's a a rock quarry and then that rock quarry is accessed via that road there and I believe this is a scale facility that's used in conjunction with that rock quarry so the immediately adjacent parcel is crop land crop land and I will have a a photograph
of that um further on in the presentation. So those gray structures behind the what would be the solar array. Yeah. Are not silos or not structures at all. Those are generic trees. Okay.
They're actually plums, but uh Ezri does not have a a plum icon. So those are the generic variety. Thank you. Um, so in Pleasant Hill Township, again, an about a seven and a quarter acre parcel, uh, off of County Road 12 and
located in a rural setting. Here we're looking at the same property from a different vantage point, looking at it from the east. And we can appreciate from this vantage point the legacy development. And by legacy
development, I mean before there was a zoning scheme, we decided to build a school here. If you're going to put an addition on a school that existed before a a zoning scheme, it needs to be connected to that school. So then we ended up with additions on either end of
that resoning um school. If you're going to have a school, you need to treat wastewater. So we have a expansion of the accessory incidental use here. If you're going to have a school, you need to heat and cool it. We
have here um the geothermal system all located in the places on the parcel that were most suitable for all those things. Um drain fields do not last forever. You know, they they have a lifespan.
Hopefully, this one's lifespan will be very very very long, but at some point it may need to be replaced. So, if we look at this parcel um as a result of that legacy development, where would one think a replacement drain field might
go? None of us are septic designers, but just looking at the available space, one would probably think a designer would go to that parcel and look in this area right here and that it's the only area that's currently undeveloped and has a large enough area to accommodate
something like that. Erin, is that a running track around that yellow uh rectangle? Correct. A running I think just like a sports sports track might be a Yes. Before I leave from this image too, so
that sports track, that's a good thing to point out. Um, you know, the septic's a good thing to point out. The geothermal would be a good thing to point out. a solar energy system. Again, we're looking from from the uh from the east. So, this is oriented to
the south. If you're going to install solar panels, they need to face south, right? So, we need to find a location on this parcel where you have a long enough area to accommodate that size panel, which is which is designed to
accommodate the power usage of the school. It's not designed to you know sell energy back to the system in large part. It may be interconnected but as I understand it the design is foremost to power provide the power the school uses.
So one could in theory place them here and move the geothermal system and and move the drain field and take the track out and redesign all of that. Now that would be very expensive and that is a consideration in this in this case. It's one of the things they
looked at, but it's not the foremost thing it was looked at. The foremost thing would be uh the the optimal performance of the panels in that location according to the solar designer and the necessity to preserve a future location for a drain field.
And you will show us actual photographs of the density of the trees to the north of the proposed solar panels. Right. Yes, I will have some photos of that of that thicket. It is my understanding
that many of those trees may need to be grubbed out to accommodate the panel. Um, it is my understanding that the panel is not proposing to face the other way, which still would require the variance just because you would you would not get optimal performance with a solar system pointing to the north.
This is just from my understanding. Are the trees on the school's property or somebody the adjacent property owner. This particular slide does not show it. Well, you can the property line here is
is that turquoise bluish color. So, you can kind of see it there. I believe it is on the on the school's property. So, there there you see the property line right behind the trees. So, here we have some of that legacy development. This is a a photograph of
the geothermal uh coils being installed. Here we have on our my left, this is the location of the of the current drain field. Uh this flag here marks the the termination point of the furthest north trench.
And as I pointed to earlier on a previous slide, where might a future drain field go should they need to replace? It would in all likelihood go in this area here um which is to the north of the geothermal system. Now if we placed the solar system there, could
a future drain field go there? Likely not. And then solar suitability. So again, solar systems generally face to the south. In this part, on this slide, we see the checkered red line in this case um approximated where the the system
would go. And we see some analysis done with a tool created by the U of M that estimates solar suitability and they show that it is a good location for a solar system. And then the pictures you were inquiring
about. So here we have the area to the south of the of the trees, the thicket in the back. And the solar system would be I believe this yellow flag denotes uh where right we're looking west here. So that'd
be the front. It would likely required the removal of some trees to to fit them in. And then here we're looking to the east from the other side. Essentially, we're looking down the back of the thicket and we see, you know, get beans in it looks like this year, but the property line,
you know, would be somewhere in this location. We expect uh the permitting history. Um, so in 2007, the county issued a zoning certificate for a 6,246 foot west edition, a toilet room, an LTC
upgrade to re-roof the existing building, a speestous debatement to upgrade the HVAC, and a new septic. So, a full shopping cart of activities approved on that permit. In 2008, we had a a SSTS, so a septic permit issued for that trench system. And in 2011, a
development certificate was issued to add two classrooms to the north of the existing structure from the the town board and the public. From the township, we got acknowledgement that they were notified, but no comments. And then we did receive
a letter of support from a adjoining land owner Tim Coner and he would be the owner of the property to the north uh all adjacent to the lot line from which the variance is sought. And in conclusion, the committee should consider all materials and testimony
before making findings that support their decision. Staff analysis provides guidance for drafting findings and the county attorney's office has prepared draft findings for your consideration. And should the committee recommend approval, the county attorney's office has also proposed conditions for your
consideration. Any questions for me? Anything further from me? I also have questions for no. Thank you all. Great. Thank you. Uh, would the petitioner like to come
forward and address the board? State your name and address for us, please. Jody Dancingberg. My home address is 30972 Zephr Valley Lane, Rushford, Minnesota. I'm in Whiskey Township. Uh, I think Aaron did a great job of
explaining our circumstances. As he mentioned, this is not a large solar development. It's um been sized to support the electrical needs of the school. Um it does face a little bit southwest and um the thinking in that is
not only that it it fits within the property situation, but also it would um generate more solar power in the late afternoon when the demand rate is the highest for Excel utilities. um which would be beneficial both for our
production and then the way Excel pays people for their solar energy. I'm not an expert, but you know what I mean. Yeah. The the different price variations when they're under the highest demand. Our um use of electricity at the school is higher in the wintertime. So, the
geothermal system supports our entire heating and air conditioning of the school. And there is some supplemental electric heat that has to kick on in the the dead of the winter to keep us on. So our electric use is actually higher in
the winter and lower in the summer. So um adding the solar into the grid and it would be a grid tied solar system does um kind of support the needs of the greater community and that we would be generating electricity um that we didn't need when the demand
is the highest by the community in the summertime during those really hot days and using it when the demand is lower. So it's kind of and it's died but um from from the conditions that talk about the welfare of the community um our
school in addition to serving approximately 120 students um we provide summer child care for 50 to 60 um children some of which are students of the school and some of which are other go to other schools but are
children in the community and the school does serve as a um community center. There really isn't another community center other than the little meeting room next to the Ridgeway Fire Hall, Township Hall. Um we have,
you know, open it up for showers, craft fairs, um even we've had a couple of memorial services there. So, um, our goal in moving to the solar production is to help with the long-term maintenance
costs of the building and and supporting the school financially. Um, it will be beneficial to us financially, saving us once the system is paid off 25 or more thousands a year as the electric rates
continue to increase. Um, so hopefully promoting the longevity of the school to continue to serve the students and the community. Um, but as far as all the technical details that Aaron described with respect to our septic system and
our geothermal field, um, I think he did a good job of explaining all of that. That hedge row that it would be located in, um, is going to have to be grubbed out to some degree. So on the south side of that, we wouldn't we wouldn't hit
the, you know, we're going to um get the surveyors out to remark out and mark out where the 25 foot setback be would be. And then we would grub out the shrubs that we would need to to install the solar array, but wouldn't remove the
shrubs between where the solar array would be and the neighboring property. So there would still be some kind of a vegetative barrier um between um the neighbor's property and the agriculture that would be going continue to go on there and where the solar array is. It's
mostly plum trees, some old caragana dying shrubs that were probably planted in the 70s. Lots of raspberries. It's very hard to walk through there right now. Um so yeah, we we would have some expense in rubbing that out. um but
would try to preserve a vegetative road just to block that. Um there's there's a farm some distance away that would be able to see the back of it, but there's the other thing is we feel the the visual impact to the community would be minimized by the
location of the array on this north edge of the property. It's going to be pretty much out of sight of neighboring land owners. Actually, some people think the visual appeal of solar arrays is attractive. Yes. Goes both ways a lot.
Yeah. Yeah. You reconfirm for us that the property owner who has the farm parcel to the north is in support of your application. Yep. I have the original copy of his his
sign let me there. Um so Tim Coner is the property owner. He owns I'm not sure how many acres of agricultural land and also owns the gravel pit that you saw in the pictures. So, he leases the agricultural land. Um,
but the Yeah, he's supportive. He's been a good neighbor to us. Um, was rooftop solar considered at all? It was we did reach out to our contra the contractor that put that roof on in the 2007 editions is AB Systems out of
Rochester um and they said they would not guarantee the roof if we were to put solar panels on it. So that was the first thing we looked into and that was a number of years ago and so we've kind of been looking into other options and
this option was able to present itself. We part of why it's taken us a while to get up here is that initially there were a number of um larger community solar garden arrays proposed for that
electrical service line that Excel owns and so they weren't taking any other applications. So it wasn't until just recently that those applications had been withdrawn and uh we were able to put in a proposal to Excel to be
considered. And so we are pretty much through the process with them of having all their approvals in place. We're hoping to get this project built and online by the end of December. Um and
it's being set up in a lease to own arrangement with a solar developer which is Min Solar out of um St. Charles. And he is giving us a a really nice deal. He's taking off. So, he would get
the 30% tax credit and the 20% depreciation is taking off the final price of what he's charging us. So, pretty much getting it for half price. So, yeah, very lucky and advantageous to
us is financially. All right. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Uh, my name is Luke Blonnik. I have the property to the west of the school. Um, and I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I am kind of curious. I don't know
anything about what these things what kind of noise they might make or you know, we we'll have to wait for you till the public hearing is open. Sorry, this is just the applicant speaking right now. All right. Well, you asked about questions, so I thought I Yep. Sorry. All right. Thank you.
Okay. All right. Stop him from talking and then we'll uh entertain a motion to open the public hearing. I make a motion we open to the public hearing. Have a second. I'll second it. We have a motion by Amy, seconded by
Lynn to open the hearing to the public. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. there. None opposed. So with that, uh Luke, you could unmute yourself again. Uh if you'd like to say anything for
against this petition, now is the time. Yeah, I well, as you already know, I'm I'm I'm the owner of the property to the west and um like I like I said, uh I'm not really well informed on what kind of, you know, noises these things might
make or uh you know, if it could possibly, you know, reduce the the the value of my property. I mean, I guess I'm not really familiar. Is there anybody that can maybe educate me a little on this before I decide if I'm against it or for it? I've I've worked in the solar industry and uh am a
contractor so I can speak a little bit to uh the amount of noise would be I mean you'd have to be standing next to it the inverters to hear anything. Um and even then it would be pretty minimal. Um that's anytime even like I mean I I
don't know if they like you know operate more at night during the day when the kids aren't there. I guess I'm not sure how that works but you're talking 24/7 then. Well, when the sun's shining, they're going to be generating power, and that's when you would get a little hum from the inverters possibly. But,
um, those are insulated and sealed. And I mean, you'd have to be on their property to hear anything from from those. It depends on where they put them. Some of them don't like the cold, so they might be indoors. Yeah. It might not even be on the array.
Hear anything? I live all off-rid. My inverter is I can turn it on and off from inside my house. I turn it off at night because I'm not taking it. Actually uses more power to run it at night than I'm absorbing. So I just turn it off and I just use my backup battery
power. So they would just be using regular electricity since they're on the grid. So I I don't unless something happens like did at my house where it gets hit by lightning and stuff blows up. Uh you're you're not going to hear a
single thing. Um I don't know. I guess I don't know. Um they didn't mention how they're going to if they're going to move with the sun or not. Um I still had one of those until this year and that didn't make any noise either. Um but it was just one panel. It wasn't a whole
array. So I'm not sure on that. But if they're basically just staying at the same angle, they're not going to make any noise. Okay. Well, my I have a concern. I have a small hobby farm. It's not a big property that I own. I have a very small hobby farm. I'd be not only concerned
about myself, but you know, if it might possibly cause um issues with my my hair sheep that I have out there. Um you know, if it if they start getting loose, you know, or getting if something scares them, I guess I'd be a little concerned about that. Um but it sounds like that's probably not going to be an issue. But, you know, again, I don't know a lot
about these things. Um you know, I guess I I I don't know if there's possible, you know, radiation issues that might occur. I guess I'm I don't know. Um I guess I just I I I am all for solar energy and I'm all for the school saving money and doing this project, but I
guess I I just wanted to, you know, maybe put an an objection on record even though I doubt anyone's going to going to second it. Um just throw that on the record just so you know, just just so it's on the public just so it's it's it's it's made it's been it's been made announced.
Okay. Could you uh just state your address for the record so we can note that? 35374 County Road 12, Houston, Minnesota 55943. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Um
I think she wanted I just wanted to say that it is a fixed array. it would not be tilting. And we did situate it so um there would be some vegetative blockage so that um he wouldn't be able
you know there would be some trees between it and the east property line so it' be hard to see. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. All right. Uh would anyone else like to speak for against this petition?
Good afternoon. Sarah Bloom, 28878 Royal Grant Road, Dakota, Minnesota. Um I am just here to say that we are for this. I also am a parent of a child that goes to Ridgeway Community School. Um, and I also know that um, electricity costs are
not getting any cheaper and so if they are able to build this and generate their own, I think that's wonderful and that they should take advantage of that. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, again, if anyone would like to speak for against this petition, now is the
time to come forward and state your name and address for the second time. If anyone would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward and state your name and address. And for the third and final time, if anyone would like to speak for against
this petition, please come forward and state your name and address. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing at this point. Make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. We have a motion by Kelsey, seconded by Amy to close the
public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Uh hearing none opposed. That is all in favor. Discussion. I think as long as the neighbor to the north that it's for us seems supportive
of it. Yeah. And they're meeting this the setbacks on the other sides. So Make a motion to approve with the conditions. The one condition second. All right. We have a motion by Kelsey,
seconded by Ed to uh for approval as written in the staff report with the attached condition. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed hearing. None. That is all in favor. I'll read the appeal once more.
Appeal to the district court. All decisions by the board of adjustment in granting variances or in hearing appeals from any administrative order requirement, decision or determination shall be final except that any agreved person or persons or any department, board or commission of the jurisdiction
or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of the decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located on questions of law. In fact, any party that would like to submit an appeal to the decision just rendered at this public hearing must do
so to the district court. The planning department is not responsible for filing the appeal. And we'll move on to docket number BOA09182504 to consider the petition of Kelly Anderson for a single family dwelling on
prime soils. Good afternoon. So I'm closing out with the last docket. I think you got all of us today. Um, so this request is for a new dwelling on class 2 and three soils instead of class 4 through 8 in the
agriculture resource conservation zoning district. It is in St. Charles Township off of Cherokee Road. Um, currently it's a 71 acre parcel. It's proposed to be split into two. So the home would be on a 31 acre parcel and then there would be a 40
acre to the south. This is a couple of site plans that staff created that I created. Um so you can see the home there would be the outline in red. You can see that it's located on class two soils. Um class three are shown in pink. Class two are in blue. And then on the right on that
larger aerial, it shows kind of the hatched area where the parcels being proposed to be split. It should be noted too that the existing parcel makeup is still over the amount of prime soil. So even if it weren't to be split, they would still need a variance from the
prime soil standards of the ordinance. They are proposing two to locate the dwelling outside of that existing field. So in the wooded area, and I have a couple of photos showing that, but essentially it's going to be a straight shot through that field um into where they're proposing the home to be
located. It is an existing field approach. Um so it would be off of that township road and they would be going to the township for approval. There's also an existing shut on site to the south um as well. Some of the considerations, it is 56%
prime soils. Um that's using the 31 acre boundary that they're proposing for the split. Um they're proposing to either maintain the existing crop field or transition it to native grassland. It is um pretty much as far south on Cherokee Road as you can get. there is a a dead
end turnaround down there. Um there's a pending sale for the 40 acre split and then it does require a conditional use permit to be granted. Um so through planning commission and the county board tonight I'll show too before I move on to the photos. You can see here um in both of
these prime soil maps that there's really not an area of that 31 acre split that is not prime soil. That's also not either steep slopes or a drainage way. So, a lot of that wooded area is steeper slopes and would take a lot more to develop a new home on. Um, so they're
proposing to get it out of that field, but in the wooded area that is still technically considered prime soils. But confirm for us and it's obvious then the wooded area is not in agricultural cultivation.
Correct. Is there a house on the other parcel that they're splitting it off of or is it vacant? Undeveloped at this point, correct? Where would that split line be? So, if you can see the shed on the one
to the left, I'll point it out. Um, is that a driveway next to the shed? Yeah. So, there is an access for that shed. So, it's right to the south of that existing drive. Um it would kind of it would just come straight across here. Oh, so it's the dotted line,
right? Yep. So this is the total 71 acre parcel right now. And then this hatched line would be where they're proposing to split. Yep. So, excuse me, Olivia, if you just go back. Um, because the picture I have, uh, I've been supplied with and where
the, uh, there where the red outline is, the class blue looks as though it's different than the woodland on the map I have. Um, so is that class two behind the red outline of the proposed site
class two woodland? Right. Which page are you looking at on your packet? Uh, this brown one. Which page is it? It's It doesn't have a number. I'm sorry. Uh, what's that picture? It is. It might just look different
because the Prime Soils is a a beige. And so that on the right Ariel that is showing one, two, and three all together. Okay. So the lighter colored where the house is is like the prime two and then the darker ones are prime three.
No. So there's no there's no breakout on this photo on the right. All of the lighter color is prime soil. So this is not prime right here. So it follows this is just a a better definition of where two and three. So you put your finger on the home.
Yep. I'm sorry. No. And then you go back onto the prime and then you look at the other schematic. It the house behind the house is prime soil. Correct. So these are the same prime soil maps. Okay.
This one is just all one color whereas this one is two different colors. Right. And it's not woodland or it is woodland behind right behind the house. All of this is woodland. Yep. Okay. Okay. Even though it looks different.
I mean to me. Anyone else? Because it's different colors. Mean it's lighter, right? It is lighter. Yep. So this is an overlay. So it's just a little bit transparent and that's why it looks different. Yep. Okay. Y Okay. Woodland, correct? Y. Okay. Thank you.
Yeah. So, getting into some of the site photos, um, like I mentioned, it is utilizing an existing access. It pretty much goes from Cherokee Road about 500 ft straight to the east to get to that home site. You can see that existing shed in the photo um, off in the
background. This is looking north up Cherokee Road. And then this is down to the south. You can see the dead end sign there. Um you can see the road start to curve. That's the turnaround for Cherokee Road.
And then this is the proposed home site. Right now it's wooded, so there's really not too much to see in terms of distinguishing where you are. Um however, it would be a straight shot back from that existing field. So it' be outside of the field area. Um, but the
driveway would go through that that field. And then this is looking west up through the field and then Cherokee Road would be up in the distance. So, St. Charles Township did um indicate that they had no comments
with regard to the request. The petitioner went on July 19th to the meeting. We have not received any neighbor comments or any public comments as well for this petition. Um so our recommendation would be that you consider all materials and testimony before making findings that support your
decision. Our analysis and draft findings do support granting the variance. Um and in your packets we have drafted four conditions for your consideration. Any questions for me at this point? Olivia. Um, we go back to
the illustration you were pointing to. Yes. Um, is this area cultivation? It is. It remain in cultivation
production. They've indicated it would either remain in production or transition to native grassland. Yep. Any other questions for Olivia? No. Thank you. Thank you. Uh would the petitioner like to address
the board? State your name and address for us. Hi, I'm Kelly Anderson, 2111 Telmark Lane, Northwest Rochester. Um, I'd like to thank uh you for your time today and
um I would also like to express my appreciation to the county staff for their work. So, I'm available if you have any questions. We We may I Yeah, absolutely. Olivia mentioned that you're either
going to keep the uh property that's in cultivation also in cultivation or production or let it go to native grass. Um could you ex explain to me a little more detail on
what your plans would be with that? Some of it depends on what well what happens here of course and then also what the t how the township feels about drive access. Um we've considered a couple of different options. We do have access
from the south but it's not it's not ideal and it would be difficult if we wanted to avoid disrupting the prime soils it that are currently set in alalfa to come off of this corner. But there's a a pretty steep grade there.
And so it would create in order to put a drive access to just avoid it. Um so I the the most appealing route is to have drive access off of the field approach in the center. The longhand drawing we saw with the drive.
Yeah. The the field approach, the current existing drive accesses, it's dead center. And so that would be the natural most attractive route for me to access the property. Um, so if you did that, you would then at
the moment keep it in agricultural production on either side of the Yeah, the alpha alpha was just planted this year. It's fertilized. It it's it's in really good shape. So the preference would be to leave it that at that. But
at some point down the line, um, butterfly habitat or some some sort of native grass would be yes, something that I think would look just look nice as a next to the home. So, did you plant the alalfa or is there
a local farm? Oh, there's a local farmer and then he would harvest the hay. Yeah. Mhm. Does that having that driveway affect, you know, his machinery, how he's going to get from one side of the
driveway to the other for the hay? I don't think it would impact the the access whatsoever. It's just going to reduce by a small margin the amount that he's able to harvest. Okay.
Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, Kelly. Um, I understand that uh you own the entire 71 acre parcel and then you received a bid on the 40 acres to the I'm going to say south towards
I90. Is that correct? Correct. There there has been a a parcel split here. And so the s the the 40 acre uh this this piece here measures 40 acres and it's been sold to a
to a a local um local farmer that really wanted it for the pasture land potential that it has. Okay. Is it currently in uh tillage beans or corn? Alalfa.
Alalfa. Okay. Okay. Part of it is part of it is just pasture. Um because there's some slopes here that we're dealing with. Um and yeah, you can see this is a different color. Um and I think that just has to do with the topography
there. There's a pretty steep ravine here. This is more level. And so I think that's why you're seeing the the color variation. But you've just got pasture land here with there's a fence that goes all the way around it. And then you've got alpha alpha. And so behind your
house is actually woods or what's the proposed site? Yeah, I started the process with um preferring to have the home built um in what is the tillable section. And when I learned about the one through three soils, I asked about
well, are there workarounds? and um and so cons you know using part of the wooded piece as a way to preserve the prime soils is kind of my best effort at showing that I'm trying to trying to
follow the rules as best as I can. Um, are the woods something you would consider um using in the sense that perhaps uh timber harvest or uh timberland improvement or
there's a management plan in place currently? Oh, there is. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anything else for the petitioner? Thank you. Thank you. All right. I would entertain a motion to
open the meeting to the public. I'll make the motion. We'll second it. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Lynn to open the meeting to the public. All those in favor say I. I. I. None opposed. Um, 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 or against this petition, please come forward and state your name and address. For the third and final time, if anyone
would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward now and state your name and address. Entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Second. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Kelsey to close the public hearing.
All those in favor say I. I. I. Hearing none opposed. That is all in favor. What do we think? Seems reasonable to me. It seems reasonable the request.
I mean, he's agreed to put his house in the woods to avoid taking crop land out of production, right? Yeah, it's a pretty I mean, it's a sizable parcel. There's I I think it
uh I think he's doing his best to preserve as much land as he can there. Right. The other piece is going staying in production. staying a cultural. So, oops, it's not up there anymore. The other piece is staying in production. Um, and either
the piece that he's going to build on has moved into the woods off the prime soils and it will either be alalfa still. Well, it will be for a while because that's a big investment to have recently seated it or it will be um
some form of CRP type planting. So, I think it's good use. Do we need to consider imposing a condition that would specify which that has been represented.
That is it will stay in agricultural use or native grass or plant use as opposed to let's say putting in a a a lawn or a
play area or a basketball court that type of thing. I think the first condition would cover that in my opinion. um just that the land owner will abide by all representations and commitments made
during the permitting process as well as before the board. I agree. Thank you. So he's held accountable for having said that. Is that what I hear? Yeah, it's on record. So if if anyone were to take issue with his use of the land after that, uh
yes, this would be recorded, I suppose. I understand. And is that that then uh we have number four that has the staff. How does Can I ask a question of the
staff? Olivia, how does that work? Does do you have a a diary system that every year it'll trigger a notice to the staff to inspect the property to see if there's
been compliance with the representations made at the public hearing? No. No. So, we have our our permitting system shows dates of approval and dates of that sort of thing, but it's typically on an as needed basis. So this condition is drafted to say shall allow
us to inspect annually or as otherwise necessary. So if there are conditions or things a part of their project that we need to check up on in order to determine compliance, then we would go out at that point. So you have no immediate intention to go out there annually to see if it's in
crop land or native grass. Correct. We will be out there at least two times in the immediate future for the zoning permit and the septic permit. But after that, no, there's no regular inspection. Correct.
Could I ask how often uh do aerial photographs be taken of that that uh are referred to by the county for any reason? I think Google Earth is down to annually, I want to say. Don't quote me on that, but if we needed to pull aerial
imagery um for sure once every couple of years. Yep. So, the county pays for aerial photography to be flown that we use for our GIS purposes, but then there are alternative um options as well for us to use if we need to. So, actually, it isn't necessary to do a
site visit to check on something. You can use those systems online. We could. Yep. If we needed to. Yep. Or we could go out there once we're done serving on this board and check on it ourselves. Right. Fly the airplane over
the pretty drive. Thanks, Olivia. All right. Um, would anyone like to make a motion regarding this? Uh, I would like to make the motion to approve the request um by and include the recommendations
um that the U board has the planning commission. Is that what I said? The the findings of fact and conditions provided by staff. Findings of fact and conditions provided by staff. Thank you, George. You bet.
Uh, do we have a second on that motion? I'll second it. All right, we have a motion by Amy, seconded by Lynn to approve this um application as written uh with the findings of fact as written and the
conditions attached to those. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Hearing none, that is all in favor. For the last time today, 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 or board or commission of the jurisdiction
or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of the decision to the district court in the county in which the land is located. on questions of law 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. With that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjourn. Second. We have a motion by Lynn, seconded by
Kelsey to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. I. None opposed. Thank you. Thank you.