Good afternoon. Um, I will chair the meeting until we elect a new chair and then we will turn that over to the new chair. Um, to begin with, uh, let's call the meeting to order. I have 1:00 and if you want to join me in a pledge of
allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation America, indivisible and liberty and justice for all.
>> Okay. We we'll move on to election of the chair. Uh could I get a motion and second to open the floor for nominations? >> Second. >> Go ahead. >> I have a motion by Jordan and a second
by Lynn. Um, all in favor say I. I. >> Okay. The floor is open for nominations. Uh, they do not need a second. So, anyone is free to nominate um for the position of chair. >> I have a question. And why are we
electing a new chair? >> It's required by the bylaws annually that the chair be reelected. Okay. >> So, there's nothing stopping you from nominating an existing chair. >> I nominate Jordan Potter.
Okay. Are there any other nominations? I will ask two more times. Are there any other nominations? And third and final time. Are there any other nominations? Can I get a motion to close nominations for chair?
>> So move. >> Uh >> second. >> Second with Amy. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All opposed. Okay. U motion passes to um to elect Jordan Potter as chair for
2026. And I will turn it over to you. Do do you did were you provided procedure? Are you good with it? >> So it Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Ross. Um we need to elect or reelect a vice chair as well. So, if anyone would like to, I guess we would have to move to open that nomination as well. That' be correct.
>> Okay, I still move. >> We have a motion by Lynn, seconded by Amy to open nominations for vice chair. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Does all in favor? >> I nominate Kelsey Fitzgerald
>> before you put that. >> Huh? >> Yeah. You did such a nice job. >> You did a really good job >> when Jordan was not here. >> Now you're experienced. >> Are there any other nominations? >> Elsie, you don't you want to nominate Ed
back or anything? >> I would respectfully decline. >> Are there any other nominations? And for the third time, are there any other nominations for vice chair? All right. All in favor or would anyone
like to make a motion to close that uh vice chair nomination? >> Also move. >> Second. >> Motion by Lynn, seconded by Ed to close nominations for vice chair and elect Kelsey Fitzgerald as the vice chair. All in favor say I.
>> I. Right. Election of officers is closed. So approval of the agenda we need to reaffirm of procedure. Is that correct? >> Okay.
So I would be looking for a motion to adopt or readdopt the rules of procedure as um they're listed here in your introductions. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. We have a motion by Ed, seconded by Amy
to adopt the rules of procedure as they're written. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> That is all in favor. All right. Now I guess we can move on to approval of the agenda.
>> Motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. We have a motion by Kelsey, seconded by Ed to approve the agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> That is all in favor. Approval of the minutes from December.
>> I make the motion to approve. >> Second. >> The motion by Ed, second by Kelsey to approve the minutes from December 18th, 2025. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I.
says all in favor. I guess we can skip that next one because we just did that. Uh liaison to the planning commission that is currently myself. Um
we can open that to nominations and we would like to make that motion. >> I make motion to nominate Jordan. Second. We have to open the first or >> Okay.
All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. That is all in favor. I will continue on as the liaison to the planning commission. >> So with that I believe we can move on to docket number
03192601. I believe that's Olivia. Good afternoon. >> Hello. >> Hi, Olivia. >> Hi. Um, so the the petition before you today are two separate variances. Um, they are
both after the fact. The structure is already being used as a dwelling on site. Um, and so the two variances today are allowing that dwelling to stay within a thousand foot feed lot setback as well as to exist on prime soils. So
I'll go through just some of the background like we normally do and then um give you some of the background on how the after the fact is being processed. The petitioners as far as I knew were supposed to be here. Um I don't see them online but they may join
in hopefully at some point. Um, so background on the site location. It's section 34 of St. Charles Township. It's a 5.72 acre parcel along Will Now Drive. Um, it turns into a lane. It's a little bit small, but the parcel is
outlined in red. So that green line leading to it towards the west is Will Now Drive. And then the lane, you can see it changes to purple on the left side of that parcel. It I'll zoom in a little bit on another picture so you can see it. Um,
so in the the top picture you can see Willnow Drive. They're up in green and then that purple line following the roadway that turns into the lane. Um, so the home site on the top picture is outlined there. Because our aerial image is aerial imagery isn't flown every
year. We don't have one that actually shows the building as it's built. Um, but we do have an eagle view. So, they're basically different data sources that these two maps are from. Um, but we were notified about the structure being
up from another county department, which is how we reached out to petitioners saying, you know, that you need to have permitting and um working through that with them. So, the structure as it's currently used, um, most of it is storage for the
building that's to the north, which is a commercial cabinetry business. They went through a CUP for that, I believe, in 2017 2018. Um, there's also a washroom and then temporary living quarters. So,
Jake and Edna Shetler are the petitioners. their son and his family live in this currently. Um, the son is employed in the cabinetry business. >> You would be kind enough to just put your pointer on the building that we're concerned with.
>> Yep. Let me bring the microphone with. Um, so this is technically one building. There's two roof lines, but it's all one structure. So, this is what's in question. the the picture up in the upper left here that says home site.
That's just because we don't have the aerial imagery that shows it yet because it's so new. It's hasn't been updated yet. But this is the structure in question. >> The dark roof >> living roof on top roof. >> Okay. >> Yep. So, this is all one structure. I
believe the dwell the living quarters portion of it is on the southern side here or not southern it' be western. So it's the whole >> it's the whole structure. Yep. So when we look at the feed lot setback, we're measuring it from the closest point of
that structure to the feed lot. And I have a map of that. >> And the was the entire building which looks like two buildings put together. Were those the building or building
subject to this previous cup? >> No. What was >> the very large structure? If we're looking at the the image on the top left, this very large structure up here. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So, that's the commercial building
that they use for cabinetry making. >> Were any of the buildings um built without going through the permitting process? >> This one that you're currently considering today. >> So, it's not just that
They're now using it as a residence, it was entirely built without going through the permitting process. >> Correct. And so because it's after the fact and because they're using it as a dwelling, they need a conditional use permit and variances. If they just built
an accessory structure that didn't have a dwelling or living quarters in it, then it would be an after- the-act development certificate. So they wouldn't need a public hearing for it. It's the dwelling that brings them to both your board and then the planning commission tonight.
>> And just to help me out, if they weren't the per son wasn't going to live in it or it wasn't going to be used as a dwelling unit, all it would require would be a development permit. >> Correct. >> No hearing process of any kind.
>> Correct. Yep. Yep. So the variances that they need are for prime soils because those come into play for any dwelling and then the feed lot setbacks are also because it's a dwelling. >> Thank you. >> Yep. And when they So I sent a letter to the petitioner saying we were notified
that a structure was built on your property. We don't have any permits for it. Please come in contact us to let us know and then we can go through the correct pathway. When we had that conversation, I notified them that they needed a cup invariances because of the
dwelling portion and so they could remove the dwelling and just use it as an accessory structure. But um Jake communicated that they want it to stay as a dwelling. They want it to be a home. Um, so even if the structure as it
exists now, only a portion of it is a dwelling, if they receive approvals from you and the planning commission and county board for it to stay as a dwelling, they may in the future use that whole structure as a living quarter, which they would be allowed to if they get the approvals from you.
>> And do we know what percentage of the building is now being used as a living? >> I don't know the percent. No. Do they know that there's a public hearing today? Whoever's >> They do. Yep. >> Have they told you they had no intention
of being here? >> They did not communicate that they were not going to be here. So, my understanding was that they were planning to. >> Do we customarily proceed with these without the applicant being present? >> We would proceed with having the
meeting. We wouldn't cancel the meeting. It's up to your guys's discretion. if you have questions for them that I'm unable to answer as a staff, if you still want to proceed with um making your decision today. >> Anything else on this slide? Before I
continue, >> I make a motion that we table this hearing until the applicant can be here personally. >> If um Just want to make sure you want to check
uh when the application was filed because we have that 60-day window where if we don't act on it and they don't uh uh wave that 60-day window, it automatically is approved. So, I don't know when this was submitted, but that
would probably be important to know. >> Does it apply to variances only? >> Uh no as well. >> Yes, up as well. >> And does that apply if it's table? Yes. Yeah. So, the you you have to take an
action within 60 days unless we have them sign a letter or I'm sorry, you could send them a letter saying we're delaying it uh because we don't have sufficient information or whatever reason. Uh and as long as we have proof that was delivered within 60 days, then
uh you'll be okay. >> As long as the letter was delivered within 60 days notifying them, >> yes, >> we would be okay to table it. >> Yes. of their initial application >> when they submitted their application. >> Right. Right.
>> And you have to state a reason why you're tableabling it. >> And the statute doesn't require any particular reason. It just has to be a reason and uh that just has to be in the letter. >> Thank you, Steve. >> And I make the motion only to discuss the issue. I'm not necessarily hardly
driven on the tableing, but I'd like to know what the entire board feels about proceeding. Do you have uh information on when that application was submitted? >> Right. That's what I would want to know. >> We do have it. I don't know if we have
it here. >> We can check quickly, but we believe it's April 20th would be the 60-day, but I can we can go check on that. >> April 20th would be the 60-day ending. >> That would give us a month to get a letter to them, a certified letter. So
that would be sufficient >> anywhere in five days either side of that would probably be just fine. >> So >> are you open to hearing the rest of her presentation so we don't background or would you rather be less like wait to
hear the rest of it when >> that's a good point. So I'll withdraw them from the table. >> You want to have her finish >> and then you can proceed. >> Okay. Sure. Okay. And if there's any questions that you have, feel free to ask them. And if I don't know the answer, I just will tell you that I
don't know. Um, so this is an aerial showing the prime soils on the site. It's hard to tell because it's pretty much the entire parcel. Um, there's only a small triangle in the northwest corner
on the other side of Willnau Drive that's not prime soils. Um so the area that the structure is in is considered class three. Um and then I also have a measurement from the closest point of the structure to the feed lot and that's
285 ft um using our GIS tools from the feed lot. In the staff report I mention um one of the criteria we look at is is this restricting that feed lot's ability to expand. Um, and in this case, the
feed lot is pretty much as far north as they can go already. Um, so between the feed lot and their property line, there's already a garden space that they're utilizing. So there really isn't um like undeveloped space for them to
expand. So the so I mentioned in the staff report, but um it wouldn't necessarily be the dwelling that's restricting it, >> which is the feed lot. Um, so the you see the dwelling >> outlined in red and then there's the
hatched line going down 285 ft. It's the corner. I'll show you over here. Um, it's the corner of this open lot right here is the closest point. So the property line comes over and then down. And then the closest point of the feed lot is right here. This is all garden
space currently. >> So that's just like a fence coward or horse. >> Yeah, it's a horse training facility. So, I believe they have horses in that area. >> The other that weird little L parcel that's a different property.
>> Yes. Y >> that's not the feed lot part of the feed lot. >> Correct. I think um 2990 3061 and 3062 are all Jake and Edna's property. >> Yep. >> So, they're
five whatever acres. No, just we just look at the the bigger red outline is the 5.72 acres. So, they're separate parcels. Yep. >> Are there dwellings on those other parcels? >> There is one dwelling right up here. Um
that's Jake and Enda's primary dwelling. And then there's a dwelling down on this parcel that we're measuring the feed lot setback from. It's not their property, but it is relation. Any questions on that feed lot setback
or the prime soils? >> Feed lot is on a neighboring property and it's that kind of shaded area that's >> correct. >> Looks like it'd be pasture or something. >> It's this darker area. Um, if you take
if you go down the hatched line to the south, you can kind of see this fence line. This is the the closest point of the neighboring feed lot. >> Yeah. How many horses they keep in there? >> They have over 50 animal units. Um, I don't know specifically the number that
they have. But anything over 50 isn't a thousand foot setback. That's required by ordinance. That's why they need the variance because they're only about 285 ft. Um, and do you know is it an Amish training facility? >> It is.
>> Yep. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, April 20th is this the 60day by the way, just so you guys have that information. >> When would our next meeting be? I don't know if that makes a difference
as well. 16th it looks like be correct. >> Whatever that third Thursday is. >> Yeah. 16th should be our next meeting. >> Does that make a difference if we're able to have a meeting before? >> Well, I think it would only take less
than 10 days to get a letter there. So, I think it would be plenty of time. Okay. >> Okay. >> Um so some of the project considerations they state that the structures used for extra storage and living space. Um like
I mentioned before the sun is employed on site. So that was one of the reasons is the son is um close by you know to be able to go work in the cabinetry business with this family. You're considering two separate variances. So one is for the dwelling to be on prime soils. Um, one is for the dwelling to be
closer to a field than the required setback. They do need a conditional use permit. Um, which is on the docket for tonight's planning commission meeting because it's a parcel that's less than 40 acres. And both of them are considered after the fact because the structure is already being used as
living quarters or as a dwelling um, at this point. So, these are some of the photos of the structure when I went out to the site. This is looking southeast down the driveway. Um, just a closer up image
looking south. Do they also already have like a septic system in there without >> They do. They have a holding tank. >> Do they What about the driveway access? Is there something that has to be done about that as well? Will that be
considered of prime soils or drainage or anything like that? It just looks like they're going down. >> Sure. So, the >> like they're the driveway made from that previous picture. It just looks like they're driving.
>> They have some gravel in there. Uh let me see if I have a better picture. So, there is gravel leading up to it. Um, one of the things that I'll touch on after the pictures is the township with St. Charles Township and we can get into that a little bit. Um,
>> but yes, they have >> road to a lane, >> correct? Yep. So that where their driveway is coming off of is connecting to the lane and so that's private. So it's not a township road at that point.
Yes. Yep. Um, this is looking southwest and you can see off in the distance is the feed lot. If you look straight, um, there's a red barn in the distance. So, the feed lot is closer that way. And they also have animals on this parcel as well,
but those would be part of this property and not part of that neighboring feed lot. Um, St. Charles Township did hear the petitioners on their January 20th meeting date. They submitted the township acknowledgement form and
indicated no comments. One of the things that I added to the packet into our uh proposed conditions is we do have a few townships that are pursuing their own zoning. Um and so we were notified that St. Charles is one of those townships.
So if the decision um is to approve the variances and cups, it would most likely be moving to the township to then approve and process um any zoning or septic permits.
Olivia was the information that you submitted on January 20th obviously that was past the date you found the dwelling was not permitted correct >> was past the date correct
>> they knew they knew the dwelling was not permitted when they received the paperwork the township board >> correct because the petitioners had to go to the township to apply. >> Um, and they're >> when did they go to the township?
>> January 20th. >> That would be 60 days though, wouldn't it? >> But the 60 days is measured from when we received the complete application >> after correct. Yeah. Yep. >> And they had no comment.
>> St. Charles Township indicated no comments on that form. Correct. They did ask us to proceed with processing both the variances and conditional use permit because it the shutler's petition and their
movement towards enforcing their own zoning and being their own zoning jurisdiction happened at a similar time and so we're processing these but it the intent I think is for them to then process the next batch of permitting.
So they do not have uh their board of variance and planning and zoning in place in order to do that at this time or that time when it came forward to them. >> Uh St. Charles Township had passed a a
moratorum ordinance and then they made a request for for us to to go ahead and proceed with this phase of the operation. So this is at St. Charles Township's request even though they had they had they had notified us of their moratorum this they made the request to
us that we we go ahead and proceed with this one. So, if if we were to table this, would that have any effect on whether or not they >> I don't know. >> Or can they like if we approve or deny it, can they then
>> later on do anything or once we decide it's done or could they appeal to their own township at that point and say, >> um, >> we want you to make the decision. um ba based on the conversations that that I had with uh with the township
chair they just felt it's you know just for expediency they they asked us to proceed so that the moratorum didn't hold up that part of the process but they have not applied for anything for the septic so at that point that would be their
responsibility to proceed we would not we would not uh take any additional action but they we had already made contact and they just followed through. >> Okay. Well, that's very confusing to me uh their action because they are quoted
as saying the reason that they want to go ahead with their own planning, zoning, and board of variance is that because Winona County specifically, of course, to them uh they their their townships, Saratoga, Udica, and St.
Charles are quoted as saying they've been frustrated at the number of new homes allowed and after the fact permits allowed by Winona County. So, it's very confusing to me that they haven't even
put a comment on January 20th, 26 on this issue. I I'm it's just it it seems as though they would have had something to say given their public statements regarding these situations. So I don't know if they're online at
this time. Um I guess his name is Tom Campbell. >> That would be Saratoga Township. >> Saratoga. >> Yeah, this is >> St. Charles. >> Okay. I would have questions them.
>> We can check to see if they're online. They were not at the start of the meeting. >> Okay. >> They're not. >> So, I'll just >> one question Amy that information about
the township's comments. Where did you learn that? Is that in our material? So, >> no, that's public information from the Winona Post on February 4th, 2026. Um, which was of interest to me. I read
the post and anything to do with especially knowing our board of variance in Winona County, uh, planning and zoning and ordinances. You're welcome. Go ahead, Olivia. >> Yeah, I think I just have one more slide
here. You mind moving it for me? Um, so the recommendation as always that you be considering all materials and testimony before making findings that support your decision. Our analysis and draft findings do support granting the variances both as after the fact. Um, we
do have four conditions for your consideration as a part of the packet and I can take any questions you have. Um, at this time >> there have any questions for Olivia? >> I do.
>> Um, the well >> where is their well attached to the original well or how they >> they share a well with the dwelling that I pointed out on Jake and Denna's property. >> Okay. Any other questions for Olivia?
>> So Olivia, want to make sure I have the facts correctly. There were was a building or building that was subject to a cup in 2017 or 18.
Correct. >> Correct. The larger building that's on the property. So, the current applicants obviously knew about the county's requirements and the entire permitting process
as far as uh their past experience with the county. That correct? >> The petitioners that have applied for these permits are the same people that went through the cup process for the commercial cabinetry business. Correct.
So, I think the thing that troubles me, and I want to find out if it troubles the staff here of the county, is that we have property owners who theoretically know about the permitting hearing
process. They don't even come into the staff and ask questions about, is it okay if we put up a building like this? What do we need to do? Whatever the typical people do if
they're going to put a building up in the county, put the entire thing up, lay low, somebody else calls it to the attention of the county, they're a no-show at the public hearing and you're here carrying
the ball for the petitioner. The whole thing just doesn't sit well with me. how at your level and the staff level. I'm wondering why does it even c come here? Um
if if the petitioner is not here under the circumstances like we have it, I mean, they're just thumbming their nose at the county. They may have a real good reason for not being here, but they didn't share that with you. Um, we I
have some questions I'd like to ask these people like I'm raising with you. As a matter of principle, I'm disturbed by this. I personally on that principle could not vote in
favor of this today. I just want to know from a staff level, what do you what is your position? What is your feeling about what has happened about putting this building up, them not
being here, and you coming before us asking us to make a decision? >> Sure. I mean, our role as staff is to enforce the zoning ordinance, right? And so, anytime that that's not followed, it's frustrating to have to go through the process of reaching out to
applicants to try to get it through the correct permitting process. That being said, he did respond when I sent the letter out indicating that we were notified of this. He came into the counter within the next day. I believe he said after receiving that letter and
worked through the process and was in communication with me that during that time period when we receive applications for variances or cups, our role is to process them according to the code. So, in terms of him showing up
today or not, it's not I don't know why he was notified of the meeting times and the dates. I can't speak to that. Did Did the subject come up as to why they didn't come in before the fact instead of now after the
fact? >> I wouldn't want to try to quote what they said. Um, at that time it did come up. Obviously, we have that conversation anytime something is after the fact of obviously this needs to happen ahead of time. We don't want to be in the
business of bringing these to our boards and then having to even zoning permits. You know, we want that to be following the correct process for all of them. It does happen probably more than we want it to, but it's just something that we're trying to do our best with. So, >> thank you. Yeah,
>> Olivia, I see that um if this had been a feed lot under these circumstances that was put on a property without a permit and then used, there is a violation policy in the ordinance.
>> Okay. >> I believe it's uh 8.62 subdivision 2E. Um, and that is a violation for not following a county ordinance. Does that fall under your purview? And
is there such uh an ordinance for someone who builds a dwelling without a permit? >> We do have a violation ordinance, an enforcement ordinance outside of just the feed lot standard. We are able to
charge um double the permit fees. So, that's something we could look at if you guys want to add that as a condition. In addition to charging fees each day, I believe that it exists as a violation. Um, this one when we notified him that there
was a vi that we thought that there was a violation because we didn't have any permitting history on it, um, he did respond and was working towards it. And so often times when we have someone that is working towards getting permitting, obviously the variances in cups take longer than just coming in to apply for
a zoning permit. And so he was following the timeline that we set forth at that time. So there wasn't any additional fees or violation violations I guess like enforcement actions taken because he was working
through it. And that was he was working through it once he came in once you notified him of the violation. >> Correct. >> At that point he began working towards it. >> Correct. >> Had you not notified him of the violation, I'm going to assume things
would have continued on as they did up to that point. But once you started under his uh cooperation, >> Mhm. >> then
have if there were to be uh a violation fine, it would be from the point he did the construction up to the point he came in under your notification. Would that be correct?
I'd probably have to defer to Steve to make sure that that's being enforced correctly. I know the the board of adjustment and like within our department's perview is an after the fact permit fee is double. So if you wanted to add that condition on to this
when you make your decision, um it would be an additional 550 for the variance and then 450 for the conditional use permit. >> Okay. Thank you. That's you're really knowledgeable. I appreciate that and you make it very clear. My concern is we
have three townships joining together to create their own planning and zoning and variance because they are dissatisfied with Winona County's response to uh non-permitted buildings among other
things. And yet I think we know that unless people are quote unquote caught that they will go ahead and not obey the ordinances. I think this is an example of that. Unfortunately without the
person here it's impossible to know. So I'm going to qualify that statement because they're not here to defend themselves. But then what happens I believe and you can tell me whether or not you've
experienced this and I think you say you have experienced the fact that because one party does this somewhere another party feels free to go ahead and do it again to build a building or a dwelling
or something that needs a permit but they do not follow the process that and I will admit I believe the vast majority of the people in the county follow those ordinances.
Hooray for them, us who do that. And it's disturbing to me that that becomes something that then is like a domino effect. and the county
for one reason or another and I'm willing to hear that and understand that uh is put in a position perhaps where that does continue and it begs the question of why have the
ordinance or why have any ordinance at all and I think we would all know the answer to that. So um for the reasons you say Ed and the reasons I have just expressed unless
Steve you can bring something forward to that um I would ask to table this as Ed made the motion also I would agree with you. >> Um yeah the the those are all very valid points. Uh, I would add that the policy
generally I think of the planning environmental services has been to try to bring people into compliance when they're out of compliance. And that's probably why it's it typically would come this route. Um, but the one thing I wanted to add was uh really what I hear you saying is you don't have enough information to make a decision right now
and you have questions for the applicants and so uh uh that is uh uh you want to delay the the public hearing and set it back uh to a time when they could be present. Steve, in in theory,
when you have a situation like this, is there a procedure what I would commonly refer to like red tag the building where it can no longer be used for any purpose until the violation is
remedied, if it's ever remedied? Does the county have that procedure? >> I I would have to check into that. We haven't encountered that situation since I've been here. If there's certainly if there's a public safety issue, the county has a great deal of flexibility
to make sure uh it's safe. The the reason I ask is this building that is technically put up contrary to the ordinances of the
county. So technically, it's an illegal use of the property and I would think that a consideration would be that people are notified this is an illegal
use if you're going to come in fill out the application and you may not use the building for any reason until the county addresses this one way or another. It sounds like that doesn't happen.
>> Uh yeah, I would have to defer to what's happened in the past. uh it seems like something that would be reasonable under sort of the administrative penalty process. Uh but again, I would have to check into that. And the I guess the reason I raise these is because people
scoff scoff at the county's ordinances and if and that's a a policy decision I assume for the county board to make. If they want to let their ordinances get scoffed at and stepped on, then let it
go. But I believe the issue comes down to allocation of resources in how much our county can afford to spend chasing these down and prosecuting or
>> Yeah, we Yeah, we the county has basically a complaint-based enforcement mechanism for zoning. So, uh, uh, doesn't actively go out and look for >> I understand that part of it, but once you know about it, >> to let it go on seems, uh,
inappropriate, but I don't set the policy for the county. >> Yeah. Well, certainly if if you uh uh uh delay the hearing or you hold the hearing and make a decision today or whatever you do, you could certainly uh
uh put something in the minutes asking or making that recommendation that the county uh research that issue and and determine what might be appropriate. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> Just to add, um, generally the guidance from the county board has always been
not to take punitive actions, uh, towards the residents. It's been always been the focus to bring them into compliance. Uh, so this this petition was brought forward for you to at least evaluate under the under the terms of had they done it correctly, do you see a
problem with it? Um, that's one option to pursue. You're also free to respond however else you you you view it. But >> policy then around here is ask for forgiveness. >> Follow the rules.
>> This historically we can get wrapped up in a lot of legal aspects and the and the courts have not always necessarily supported when we've taken more more active enforcement actions. >> I'm sorry, Ross. Did you say the courts have or have not >> have not >> have not supported
>> actions that you have requested uh a long level of violations? >> Fines have been assessed and they've been and they've been greatly reduced as they migrated through the court system. So typically the focus has always been have it evaluated. If
there's a if there's a s significant problem that you see as as as the body that determines that then you render your decision accordingly. Uh but if you see no you know if you can evaluate it in under the terms of had they done it
correctly is there a problem here is there not a problem here that's that's for you completely to determine >> while you're here being that there's a cup on this property. Um, and in that cup, I'm sure it doesn't
say anything about people who work at the place having an additional dwelling on the property for working at this cabinet making place. We would be free to proceed with pulling that cup for this violation. Would that
be correct? I mean the planning commission obviously would have >> if there's no action it would not would a decision be able to be rendered. >> Are you talking about the cup that was granted on the other building? Correct. Oh okay. >> Well it be on the parcel for the other
building. But >> yeah I'd have to read the language in it but uh that's certainly a possibility. >> So let me understand what you asked Jordan. the cup for the building from I think it was 2017 would be attached.
>> It's it's with this parcel. Yes. So when that CUP was granted, I'm making an assumption that there was nothing in there about there being a secondary dwelling added to that parcel which right
>> which there now is. So, um I would think that would >> essentially what you're saying, Jordan, is that there's a >> a technical violation of the previously issued >> cup.
>> Yeah. And I'm I'm bringing that up as a possible avenue for enforcement outside of, you know, finding them or something. But >> just one comment on that, too. So their their petition includes the fact that
their son lives there currently and that's a part of what you guys have received as information. It would still be considered a dwelling under the zoning ordinance and the same variances had it be someone that isn't employed on that in that business. Um so it's the
first dwelling on the parcel, but there is also that business there. So it's not I mean the sun is employed in that business so technically there is a little bit of a tie but it's not there separate uses in the zoning ordinance under that zoning district if that helps at all.
>> Just out of curiosity then if we denied the variances what is the procedure for that no longer being a dwelling? Are they do they have to take the whole structure down? Do they have
to just make sure somebody's going to go check no one's living there or can they can just convert it all to like a farm building and then they're in compliance and the building stays? It could still be considered an accessory structure. They would need to go through the zoning permit for that, but um we have a it's
basically a an administrative process. It's called a change of use form. So, they would need to be on the record stating that it was being used as temporary living quarters and is no longer being used as a dwelling. um >> just go to the township at at that point, right? Correct. If we deny it,
>> right? >> Or like can we vote to send it back to their township and have it be their decision instead since she brought up a good point about them wanting to do their own? >> Yeah. I mean, we have we have the
petition in front of you and in front of the planning commission. It's on the docket, so you would need to make a decision. Yeah. Uh, I mean, you could table it for more information from from whoever you want to, but ultimately there would need to be a decision made, I believe. >> And then the one thing I'd add if you if
you do decide to make a decision today to make sure you go through the public hearing and evaluate it based on the criteria for variance. >> All right. You you want to finish your presentation for us? >> I think I only have one slide left and that's the Thank you. Do you mind going
to the next slide for me? Um, and I can move it back to any of the maps or anything if you guys have further questions on the structure as it relates to prime soils and the feed lot setback >> property. The other house that's far
enough away from the feed lot. That's a >> Jake and Edna's house. >> Yeah, the one that's up in the way corner is that ft. that wasn't evaluated as a part of this petition. So, I can't speak to it's a separate parcel.
>> I was just curious if like they had to go through other permits besides just the C for any of the other stuff that was on any the other of their properties. >> I don't know about the other properties. Yeah, I just looked at this parcel.
I will say, can you go back to the map for me? Um just a couple of things to reiterate based on the zoning ordinance itself. Um they are on class 3 soils instead of the class 2 that exists to the south. So they are on arguably poorer quality
soils. Um and their dwelling is about as far north as they can go um in the undeveloped area of that parcel. So they're they're farther away from that feed lot than they could have applied for. Um just two points that I wanted to
reiterate. >> Is that class three because it's like sandy or >> they say >> I know that area has got quite a bit of >> Sandy I believe they call >> somewhere.
>> All right. Are there any other questions for Olivia? >> Last question I hope. >> Yep. Not uh is that class three dark piece in the souththeast corner right over here. Excuse me.
>> Oh um >> that it >> class three. So it's this big portion. Um the soil different classes are this gray these gray lines are the boundaries. So the class three is the majority of where
that dwelling and the commercial buildings sit all kind of majority of that parcel and then class two comes in um down in the southeast. >> So even that far corner would be closer to the feed lot than that other dwelling
than the existing dwelling in the class two soils. Class two soils up in the mid east piece. You see the one I'm talking about halfway up. Class two soil. Yeah, you got it. Class two,
>> three, >> down further. >> This part. >> Yeah, you could go as far to the property line to your right as possible and it would still be closer to the feed lot and would need a variance that >> it would. Yeah. Uh, so it would probably
be pretty close, if not maybe a little bit farther from that feed lot point, but it would be on better soils, >> right? >> Yep. >> Thanks. That's what I meant. >> It does. The land does slope a little
bit more over there as well. >> Um, I don't have the contours on it, but >> anything else for me at this point? >> You're good for now. >> Okay. Thank you. Steve. >> All right. Well, we're obviously not
going to ask the petitioners to come up here. Um, can we check that there's still Looks like the same people are online. Um, before we open the public hearing, is there any uh discussion or motions that
we'd like to make? >> I'll renew my motion to table our application. We have to state reason for tableling it. Is that correct? >> What if you decide to extend the time for you to make a decision by another 60
days? >> That would be a on a separate motion then. >> Uh it could be I mean it could be one but >> okay >> either ways. >> So I'll make a motion to table the application and extend the 60-day
requirement an additional 60 days. Do we have a second for that motion? >> I'll second that. Okay. >> Um discussion. Uh just to go on record, I believe you've already stated it, but your reasoning is basically that petitioner
is not here and you would like more information from them before >> proceeding. >> All right. Um all those in favor of tableabling the um this item say I. I. >> I.
There are none opposed. So this item is tabled. Um and then I'll wrap the letter and the Ross could uh send it out under the department head's name. >> Thank you. Mhm.
>> So then just out of curiosity, would it hopefully be put on the next docket next month and they would show or does it depend on when they get back to you that they got the letter? >> U no, it could it could be on the docket for next month. >> Is that something where like you just need to make sure they can be here for
that or would you just be like, "Oh, yours got tabled till next month and if we're here, you need to show up or >> Yeah. Does that work? I well I think staff could maybe uh uh give them an indication of what was discussed here today and what uh uh the board of
adjustment may need to know in order to move ahead. So uh yeah they they will have an idea I think of of why it was extended and what needs to happen next. Um, I would also ask uh if staff could attempt to reach out to them
today uh to notify them so they maybe don't show up tonight or maybe we just proceed tonight with the cup anyway and if they're there that helps. >> I don't have a phone number. Um >> yeah, so that would be a little bit
tricky to contact them today. >> Mhm. um could drive out there if the board wants me to to try to get >> tonight. Uh that hasn't been tabled. So >> right, it's still on the docket. Yep.
>> Right. Um any other discussion on this matter? I can tell you or I will tell you um in our meetings uh with the steering committee committee for the comp plan,
this has come up a bit. We've talked about the townships um wanting to do their own planning and zoning for these reasons. Um, and we've had petitions before after the fact in these areas, and I personally
know of other dwellings that are right next to existing ones on the same parcel, same sort of deal. And it's one of those things where I think the community is aware of it. I think everyone knows what needs to happen. And
I I can't explain to you why it's not happening. >> Well, I think it's happening, Jordan, because as was explained when the violation goes forward through the county, which is the appropriate channel, if I understand that then that
uh is either dismissed or modified to the point where it is not a deterrent for anyone to engage in this kind of violation. is I think I'm correct in speaking what I heard. >> Yeah, it I don't know. To me, it seems
like it would be just as easy to get the permit beforehand than it would be after. Of >> course it we all do that. >> Yeah. >> Well, they mentioned too um in the meetings the shes or whatever, which this kind of is as well.
um houses in barns or sheds or whatever and people not really liking those either, but also they haven't really been around before. So, it's kind of like a new thing that we don't really have any big regulations or zoning requirements
for yet. So, that's a big topic of discussion. Well, I agree with Ed as far as they they already knew there was a permitting process when they built that other building. So, did it just slip their mind for the next one?
>> I don't think it's a matter of awareness at all. It's it's like, you know, >> is it just a cultural philosophy for the Amish to >> I believe it's a of >> or I think it could be just them not or trying to not interact with the rest of
society as as much as possible. But that's just a opinion I have. I don't know. I can't >> I mean I think there are a lot of people not just them that don't follow the rules. Especially if like
>> you're willing to just take consequences. They're not as big of a deal and you know that then no one says anything then you don't have to do anything. >> Yeah. >> With at risk students for 22 years and I
will say this those were students who uh were at risk because they failed to follow the rules and they continued that behavior until they were stopped. And I think the same is true of adults.
>> Well, yeah. Unfortunately, if if we're not gonna we don't have the tools to stop them, it seems like the townships are going to do that. >> I would be very curious because as their planning and zoning would have to come
to what court? What county court to have their violation heard? Winona County. Am I correct? Okay, I'm seeing nodding. And Winona County has already
had a history of not honoring violations of this type or others brought forward before them is my understanding. If I'm correct, >> typically just the focus of the board is that's been communicated to us is to try
to bring people into compliance and evaluate evaluate each each instance had they had they properly done it. Again, it's a frustrating process. Um we've reached out with the community trying to make ourselves more accessible. We'll
continue to do so. um that portion of the the county will be going to township zoning. So um that will end that aspect. But um it just you know we we continue to try to improve the relationships,
make ourselves available and and hopefully that will pay off. We we have had in historically less good relations with with the Amish community and we've been working on trying to repair that, making ourselves more accessible.
>> That's very honorable. That's very honorable to try and do the right thing. But if it becomes a say St. Charles Township issue, then they have to bring a violation request before Winona
County. Am I correct? >> Because they >> if if it reaches that point. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I know some of the some of the some of the stated reasons for also the township going they are adopting building code. So that is a second
component beyond the the zoning and conditional use permit process. So >> they are actually adopting building Cooken in two townships >> and so the townships would have a little more uh or a few more tools as far as
imposing fines and uh than we have as a county. >> Yeah. Basically, they would be sitting in the shoes of the county when they take over their zoning. So they'll need their own board of adjustment and their own uh uh conditional use permit
application system. And if somebody is is uh uh violating it or somebody brings a lawsuit because they didn't like the outcome, they would have to defend that. Uh it would come it wouldn't come like back through the county. It would just end up in in in the uh county district
court. >> Uh >> where >> the county district court? >> You're right. Yeah. Right. The county. >> Yeah. But it's not like hierarchical like they would come, you know, township and then here and then they're uh they basically replace >> what we're doing here.
>> Right. >> So, >> thank you. >> Um is there any further discussion? Anyone? >> No. >> Like to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make the motion to adjurnn.
>> We have a motion by Amy. Do we have a second? >> Second. Second by Ed to adjourn. All those in favor say I. >> I. We're >> adjourned.