Okay, I have 7 o'clock. I'm going to open the meeting. Call the meeting to order. Pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Motion to approve or agend. Is there a second? >> All in favor approving the agenda say I. >> Opposed? Nay. >> Hearing none. All in favor?
>> Approval of the minutes of September 18th. >> So move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say I. Approving the minutes of September 18th. Say I. >> I. >> I. >> Nay. If opposed. Hearing none. All in
favor. Uh Jordan. Any information from the board of exhaust? >> Yes. Uh we approved three items today. Um one was a prime soils variance or should I say class one through three
soils variance for this same applicant that we have here. Um, we had another one through three soils variance and Eric, can you remind me what the
>> Yeah, I was in St. Charles or Saratoga permit will be forthcoming. Then the last one we have setback Charles Township 14. Were them two connected or >> No, they were all three separate.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Um the the setback one was as you're coming into St. Charles from Lewon, the uh feed door kind of on the left hand side. >> Oh, okay. >> They're just adding another building and it's so it was a setback from Highway 14
and a setback in the back yard. >> All three were approved. >> Correct. Okay. Marsha, you're on uh camera here, but any anything from county commissioners? Lost her in cyerspace, but we'll try to
bring her back. Got stage fight on me? No, I don't think so. If if not we I can go back to commissioner Ward any on Tuesday at the county board meeting they approved the two additional
residential for the additionary for healthare reasons in St. Charles Township that we took action on the county board authorized both of them. Okay. Thank you. Uh Lou, uh anything on the comprehensive
plan? >> Yeah, just real quick. Um we had um steering committee meeting uh last week. Was that last week? So, time flies. Time flies when you're having fun. Um, last week we had a steering committee meeting. Um, I
thought it was a good discussion. Um, >> uh, getting the report summaries from all the engagement that we did during phase one. Then we had an exercise where we split out into small groups and um, um, helped inform the draft visionary
goals. Um, and I thought that went well. the was a good um response from the from from the steering committee. I think they like the activity um and um and that was the end of the the the meeting essentially that took us the to two hours um to the do those two
things. But uh in the meantime, staff has been working on putting together drafts based on the feedback that we got from the steering committee and those will probably be released uh next week um back to the steering committee for their review. We've uh put together a
worksheet for them to provide feedback on um both the vision and the draft um visionary goals. So this is again the highlevel um direction that we're setting that'll inform the future objectives and action items that will be developed for the plan. So that's where
we're at. There will be um communication about the um the the um u um comprehensive plan in coming weeks to you guys as well as to uh other committees um and the steering committee. So keep an eye out for that and there will be some public engagement
coming up in the next month or so as well. Let me know if there's any questions at all at any time about comprehensive planning. >> Thank you Lou Marsha. Did Marsha get back? Well, anyway, Eric, can it give us a
summary of what Marsha usually does? >> Yeah, at the county board meeting, they had problem with audio, too, because of the Zoom bombing stuff. There's another levels of security that they have to add, and I unless you opening up the right route for them to get in. That's probably why she might be kind of locked
out right now on it. >> Thank you. I think we can move on. Uh we're going to move on to the petitions. Uh first one is uh docket PC 101625-01 to consider consider a petition
>> of Lisa Wingert. Is that how you pronounce it? >> Wingert. >> Wingert who is seeking a conditional interim slash it's be a conditional use. That's not interim. I would assume being in a house permit regarding the following to allow a new single family
dwelling on less than 40 acres three acres proposed pursuant to chapter 10.4.6 subchapter 36 of the Winona County ordinance and I think you have this one Lou. >> Absolutely. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um,
this petition uh involves the split of a 3 acre proposed parcel in section 17 of Whitewater Township. If you look at the inset map uh on this uh slide, you will see a flag in the
northwestern corner of the the county and that represents the general location of the um um the property in question. It is uh at the end of Beaver Ridge Drive, which is a deadend road. Um the
Wingerts uh operate a um a beef cattle operation on their farm um on 262 acres um at the end of Beaver Ridge Drive there. And the the white lines on the map that you're looking at are the
parcel lines. Um, so, um, if you look, um, here's the farm. Oh, it's not going to show up on there. >> No, >> shoot. >> The the farmstead's at the end of the road there, um, with the the beef cattle
operation. And then the, um, the dwelling, existing dwelling is just to the south of the road as you come onto the property. Um, so this would be a proposed 3acre parcel. I apologize for um the four acres there on the map, but
um the the the map the site plan that they showed made it look closer to four acres. So that's when I was putting together the site plan, I went off of of that. Um but the the notice and what it's being proposed is three acres. Of course, you know, if they end up going a
little bit bigger, um you know, that's not as big of a deal as if you were going smaller. So the smaller number is good to um to be considering um for our purposes. Um, go to the next slide. Okay.
Oops. Do I see? Thank you. Um, so here's a just a closer look at the property showing the access drive uh and the proposed 4acre lot or threeacre lot.
Um, again, access from Beaver Ridge Drive, which is a township road. Uh, the driveway is proposed to be shared with the neighbor. Um if you look on this slide, the uh um smaller parcel just north and uh um
north and west of the proposed parcel is the neighbors property and is a a parcel that's been approved for a dwelling site um um on their property. So, the proposed driveway will utilize an
existing field road and enter their property um as shown on the map. But then a driveway will continue to the north on the field road to the neighbors uh parcel in the future once that is developed. >> Is that the parcel that looks kind of
like a half a house there? >> Yep. Yep. >> All right. All right. >> Yep. And um that one was approved um for a conditional use permit a year or two ago. Um so that was before you and was approved.
Um proposed site is 6 to 10% slopes. Uh so fairly gentle and manageable. Um our ordinance uh defines a steep slope as anything above 12%. And then really the um um restrictions or additional uh
review for steep slopes doesn't kick in until like 18 to 25% and then 25% and above to give you an idea of um of the slopes um associated with the site. Um there was a variance earlier today as
Jordan mentioned uh that was granted for a new dwelling on class three soils. This is a soil map showing how the those soils laid out across the property um in relation to the proposed parcel.
Um I would like to I guess just take a minute and point out uh that the proposed parcel is for um Lisa and Peter's um son Lucas uh who is also involved with the farming operation and uh on the on the property and they can talk a little bit more about that when
when they have an opportunity to speak. But um um it's essentially the whole point of the the the application is to allow the second generation to move back to the farm and more u um um more uh
easily help out around the farm with their business. So have a few photos in case you weren't able to um get out to the site. Uh the first one there on the left is the uh proposed access drive. Um the field road
that comes off of Beaver Ridge Road would act as the driveway and then the field in the in the back there would be what is um would be where the uh um proposed dwelling would be located. Uh you can see the farmstead beyond um be
behind the uh um um power pole there. And then the second photo is of is looking northeast towards the proposed building site. Um but you can see where the uh driveway or field road bends to the north towards the neighbors uh approved parcel. Um and this is where
the driveway would would uh would take off into the the cornfield there to the proposed dwelling site. A couple more photos. Uh the first one on the left is showing Beaver Ridge
Drive towards the west and uh the access drive on the left there is the neighbors um is to the neighbor's farmstead and then there's one more farmstead um down the road about a mile or so. So three farmsteads on Beaver Ridge Drive.
So pretty low um low trafficked um low density um area of the county. And then the uh second photo there on the right is uh looking north from Beaver Ridge Drive towards the pros building site. Um just from a different angle. Um so you
can see that whole that cornfield there is six acres. Um and their parcel would be about half of that is what they'd be proposing. Um, Whitewater Township uh considered the request and uh sign the township
acknowledgement form indicating support. And uh we have attached two conditions uh to the uh um application. um if you were to approve the the petition. Um staff analysis and draft findings are in support of granting the conditional use
permit. Um and I guess if you have any questions, feel free to let us know. Otherwise, um we'll stand behind the uh uh staff report as is. Any questions for me off the bat?
>> I don't anybody Lou? Uh, are there easements in place anyway for the driveway from the other property or whatever that you know? >> That's a good question. There will need to be. Um, but I don't know that there is a at this point. Um, >> no.
>> As of now, there's I don't think that there's anything Yeah. that's been recorded and is in place. I think there is an easement for um for field access. So, um, so I mean that might be enough for the two property owners. Um
>> I just rather they avoid troubles in the future. >> Yep. And I know that there is a good relationship between the two um property owners. So um yeah, getting that that easement in place and making sure that it's um it'll need to be 33 feet in width um um in order Yeah. in order to
um they've already showed supporters. >> Yeah, the neighbors are in support. So, um, but yeah, that will be something that'll need to be, um, you know, the eyes will need to be dotted on. >> Thanks, L. >> Just trying to save him some headaches and >> Absolutely. Yeah.
>> As a curiosity, uh, I mean, uh, whatever happened to the uh, you have to have 40 acres to to build. I mean, all all that I've been seeing over the years is these small parcels. And I'm not saying that there's not a good thing or that, but I
was just uh curious. >> Uh the number of these small parcels being granted uh conditional use permits in order to build seems to just keep building and building and building. Uh is is the 40 acres uh still relevant or
not? >> It's a good question. Um um a little bit of the history. Prior to 2011, our our density standard was um um one quart one one non-farm dwelling per quarter quarter section. So a quarter quarter is
roughly 40 acres. You could have one non-farm dwelling which would be um anything less than um um how did that go, Eric? Was anything less than 40 35? It was anything less than 35. So, anything less than 35 acres was
considered a non-farm dwelling. You could then potentially have a farm dwelling in the remain. So, you could have like a 35 acre parcel, you know, that could be considered a farm dwelling and um then you could have a 5 acre parcel which was a non-farm dwelling and so there could be two dwellings per
quarter quarter potentially. >> Okay. >> Um in 2011 they um they they did away with that partially because it was pushing a lot of people out into the middle of farm fields. So, you know, people were looking at their their quarter quarters and they were maximizing their quarter quarters for
development. Um, and so they'd end up, you know, with driveways kind of snaking out and it was just eating up a lot more um a land than what um what we wanted to to be allowing. And so, at that point, they just went to a lot large lot zoning,
which was the 40 acre standard. So, you had to have 40 acres to build. But um they also put in relief, you know, that you could you could go less as long as you applied for and received a conditional use permit. So um so what
that standard did, it did a couple of good things. It allowed more flexibility. So people were able to put houses where they wanted to put them um more on the edges and in places where maybe they wouldn't have been allowed per the quarter quarter section. Um so in that regard, I think that it's worked
well. Um, but it also kind of took the guardrails off a little bit more um, as far as density goes. Um, it's still a 40 acre um, standard. And if you look at this area um, obviously that's pretty low density. So you can look at it and
be like, well, the neighbors had one non-farm or one small um, small dwelling. Now this property owner is doing the same. Um, I guess we'd look at this this group and, you know, the comprehensive plan and the the purpose
of the zoning ordinance to weigh whether, you know, at what point I think that's a good question, though. At what point is it is it too many? You know, um, at this point, I mean, if you look at 40 acres, there's there's lots of acreage there for these dwellings. I
mean, it's still very low density um along Beaver Ridge Road. Um but we really don't have a great um you know measurement you know by which to measure like at what point is it is too much enough. >> Yeah. And that's that's the difficulty I have is
>> is how can you say no to somebody >> unless they're really falling uh um run a foul of uh regulations like too close to a feed lot or you know uh something else that's that's specified is that uh
um it's virtually impossible to say no to >> uh any other requests now because they point back and say you allowed this one, you allowed this one. >> Yeah. I mean, the the more you I mean, there there isn't I mean, it's important in zoning in the zoning world to not to
realize that there is no precedent for really um they're all unique. They're all in a different location at a different they're separated by time, space, and um and um landscape factors and um and and those types of things. But I I I get it is like the more that
you approve, the harder it is to then, you know, turn around and and say no. But I think looking at it critically and and um on a case- by case ba basis and you know determining whether it makes sense um and whether the density gets too to
be too much is is uh is is something to keep in mind. >> Just to follow up on that though a little bit. The reason we don't hear much about the ones over 40 is they don't need to come here. They just get their permit. >> So we only see the ones that are less than that. who was saying
>> there's just more and more coming >> but otherwise they just come and get to prevent build so you're not going to hear a lot about the ones that have 40 acres or more now the ones that I recall that have been denied too steep a driveway over 12%. one was too close to
a feed lot and it was withdrawn, right? >> So, you can't say it's just universal. You get in there, you get rubber stamped. >> No, I I I understand that, but I I just meant with um if it doesn't run a foul of any of the other regulations, it's going to be really difficult to say your
density is too high or uh that, you know, in in the future, it's it's going to get tougher and tougher to >> and and I don't disagree with what you're saying either. I just want to explain the ones come true. But in the same token, as we work on the
comprehensive plan coming up, one of the big issues comes up is lack of housing, right? Well, who can afford 40 acres? So, you're looking at these areas that are nice sites to build a house on and not have too high density. Now, as Lou
and I have been at many meetings, we can argue for a week on what is the level of density, >> you know, depends on what area and stuff. >> Uh, but they're good points and and looking in from the outside, you wonder how they make reason out of this and
sometimes it just diff. So, anyway, I appreciate your questions, but I'll put a petition. >> The last thing I'll I'll just add is that there are other options for how to deal with density. um you know that the county can look at but um at this point this is what we have to deal with and
what we're the rules that we're working with. So >> I have a question. Um what is the smallest permitted uh like how how much smaller could they go should they meet all setback requirements? >> The minimum minimum lot size is one acre.
>> One acre. >> Yeah. >> Um once they have this >> in the in the egg district. >> Okay. >> So it's smaller in some of the residential districts. And then if this is permitted, it gets its own parcel ID and all that. And then from there, is there any process that comes back to us?
Should they boundary adjust smaller or larger? >> Um, if the if they were to go smaller, especially, and it was, you know, a a a significant change, then it'd come back for an amended conditional use permit.
So if they were to go to that one acre, it would it would trigger a conditional use again >> potentially. Yeah. Yeah. Um that's why we try to get it um pinned down pretty close. Um we had this discussion with the board of adjustment today and like I what I said there was, you know, we're
noticing it for three acres, but if they end up at four or five acres, I don't see much of a difference there. Um especially since it's getting larger. Um, but if you would if it was like, you know, we're proposing a 20 acre parcel
and it ends up like a, you know, they go to like a 10 or a five, I mean, that's significantly different and needs um um needs to be renoticed and amended, I would say. You know, so um little changes uh are I think in keeping with
um the the spirit of what they're proposing, but a larger change like that would would need an amendment. >> Okay. Thanks, Lou. Steve, >> um I just wanted to say too in the talking about uh approving and denying,
there's the big picture issue of what's happening sort of at the comprehensive plan level or what the goals of the county are, what's happening by applying the rules that we have. But for each one that you do, you really want to look at those the the findings of fact and the
staff recommendations. And those each one of those are if you if something is denied it has to be because it doesn't fit in with one of those. Uh so uh I think the chair is correct that the bigger issue is probably more of an
ordinance comprehensive plan issue and whether it's achieving its goals and then you are applying the applying that to the the factors uh that uh that decide whether or not you should approve it or not. Right.
>> Thanks, D. >> Would the petitioners like to come up? Uh, Peter, Lisa, Luke, any of you can come up and tell us about your project. >> Hi, I'm Lisa Wingert. Uh, my husband and I, Peter, uh, own the parcel that is in
question. Uh, our son Lucas, is the one that, um, expressed interest in building. Uh, he currently, um, helps on the farm. He um enjoys agriculture, he has um some self-employed
businesses um other than working on the farm. Um right now, as Pete and I think about the future, and we're just taking small steps now because we don't know like what we really want to do for the future. I mean, I'd love to see our son
Lucas, you know, maybe transition into the farm, but this small 4 acre piece, if we can just get him and his wife look closer to us, it would help. Um, right now, I'm think I want to thank the board
and all you for your review of this file. And if you have any questions, I'm here um to review them or answer them. >> Does anybody have any questions, Lisa? from the board. >> Yeah. Uh what uh what's the family size
that Lucas currently has? >> So Lucas just got married. He just got married on Saturday. So he has no children. >> Congratulations. >> Oh, thanks. Um but right now lives in Plane View. So then if there's a cow cving or we have something that's an
urgent need, then we have to like, hey, can you get out here to help mom and dad and, you know, figure out what to do? But at this time, Lucas is married Ally. So Yes, >> I uh think that I read somewhere in the
original docket that this proposed area was fenced and was currently in pasture, but now when Lou talked about it, he's pointed out that was a corn field. Which one of them is right? >> So, right now there is a fence that's
around that whole piece right there. Um soon we'll it'll be combined or chopped off. Then we'll run the cattle that are in the pasture right next to it in that piece to graze. We may bring a feeder wagon or whichever in there. So, yes,
there is a fence around there. And because Luke will he's working on the financing and all that, we'll see what we need to do to just continue to have some type of border around his house. We're not going to have the cattle, of course, running around, you know. >> Well, yeah, I understand that. But uh
that's one of the criteria right that we are supposed to consider is whether this land was actually tilled or not. >> Well the variance that he that got passed today took care of that issue. >> Okay. Okay. But
>> yeah it's as you said it's a consideration. >> Yeah. >> But the variance for it is already okay. >> All right. >> So that's off our docket so to speak. Okay. Any other questions from any other commissioners >> um in this area? Do you have uh any
yourself or any of your neighbors that have um uh I forget what we call them, but they're uh like temporary housing for farm workers, anything like that? >> No. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. If we need any more,
we'll bring you back if we need any answers. >> Okay. Motion to open the public meeting. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> I got Eugene has a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Is Marsha back before we at the end.
>> I am I I got through. >> When we get that far, I'll I'll do a a roll vote. Okay. Um public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone. State
your name and address and your concerns. Okay. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone and state your name and address and your concerns. And for the third time, anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition,
please come to the microphone. State your name and your concerns and your address too and concerns. Nothing uh online. >> Motion to close the public. >> A second for that. >> Second. >> All right. Jordan seconds at this time. All in favor of closing the public hearing say I.
>> I oppose. Nay. So we've closed the meeting and now >> move approval with the fact findings and facts of the committee. >> Is there a second to that? >> A second. >> Okay. Any any discussion otherwise?
>> Yes, Mr. Mr. Chair >> and Marsha. >> Marsha. >> Yeah, Marcia here. Uh just a question out of curiosity. Being that the two parcels will be relatively close together, is there going to be any option for them to like share a well? Uh
I know they'd have to have individual septic systems. Um but again, that would be up there. There's no restrictions for them to be allowed to share a well, is there? >> No, but they may want to do that. But I
would say that that is their pretty >> Yeah, it's their Yeah. I think it's basically out of order to put it in. >> No, no. I'm just asking for curiosity. Not to put it as a condition or anything. No, but to give them options. >> I understand your curiosity, but I want
to stick to the petition. >> I would say it's out of order. >> Well, I already said that, Lou. >> Okay. >> I'm not out of order, Lou. I can ask questions. >> I didn't say you're out of order. registered put in a condition or whatever the well that's their business. >> Oh no no no I don't want to put it as a
condition but I think um as the earlier discussion with us allowing more and more small units in and around the neighborhood I mean sometimes shared wells make sense. So >> thank you other discussion otherwise I'm going to do a roll call vote.
>> I have just a point. Um so again with that we are regarding this as though it meets all the other needs of like a large farm uh 40 acre parcel you know that's what they got the variance for. Are they permitted all the other um
entitlements that come with having a large farm? So again, my my only concern would be could they also get a temporary farm dwelling on the property outright without having to come back for a conditional use or amended uh cup?
>> They could. According to the District of Agricultural, they're entitled to every permitted use that's available in the egg district as well as conditional use. Um, if the sun in this case would have been buying the entire farm, we wouldn't
even have these applications. It'd be permitted as an additional farm dwelling. But for financial reasons, um, most of the loans now, they want a smaller parcel for for mortgages and collateral and whatnot. So a lot of
times we see this situation where the lending institutions and the banks are really in the driver's seat of creating a smaller parcel for them. But yes, if if circumstances changed on the farm and they wanted to bring in um additional
farm dwellings, they could do that for for full-time farm helps >> and and they'd be they wouldn't have to that wouldn't be an amendment of their cup. >> Correct. It's when this conditional use permit, if it's granted, will be just referring to that new legal description
describing that 3 to 4 acre parcel. >> Okay. >> And I understand what Eric's saying. Financially, your banking institution is going to want to carve out and they want to know exactly what they're putting the loan on. >> That makes sense. >> Any other questions of the commission
before we do a roll vote? Louie, I'm going to start with you. I >> I John. >> I I >> Mike Flynn is I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. Here Marsha. >> I
>> I So it it's so moved we're going to recommend it to go before the county board for final approval. That will be November 12th at 9:00 a.m. here. Um so that's your next time to get the final final, but we're recommending you go
ahead with this project. Any other comments before I ask for an adjournment? >> Yeah, I got one. >> Go ahead. >> That permit we granted for him to put fill up there by the moss area or
whatever we call it by your place. you >> um I was told that maybe you told me that they had to put it on 43 quarry for a while because of the length of time it took them to get approved by the county commissioners.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. I was talking to a guy from another county and he just got in sense because he said that should have never been that way. Now, who's at fault for that? I'm
just asking out of curiosity. >> Well, in this case, because they didn't have their conditional use permit. >> Yeah. >> Until July 8th, they had to put it somewhere. >> No, it's it might have been moved or it might still be there. I think it got moved. >> Okay. >> They had to keep their project going.
>> Yeah, I understand. >> And they couldn't. In other words, it was the contractor's fault for not applying for the permit earlier >> or the county for not approve getting approved on time. >> Every county is different. In this case,
I knew about this project two years ago. >> Well, that's what I would assume, >> but I can't control everybody there whether it was. Now, the state of Minnesota was very involved in this. So, at this point, pointing fingers, who is
wrong, but certain counties that wouldn't have happened. Now, we have an ordinance says if you move over a thousand yards, >> yeah, >> you need a conditional use permit. >> Yeah. >> I can get in my car and drive a half a mile into a county where you don't need that. >> Yeah. >> Does that make sense to you?
>> Yeah. >> So, they got caught probably used to not having to get one. >> So, somebody and they deal with a lot of people here. >> Yeah. and the chain of events just didn't get here. So to keep the project going which started June 2nd if you remember. >> Yeah.
>> And finally they got to conditional use if I remember July 8th. >> Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. >> So we had five six weeks there project. So in this case they had to go to an active quarry or whatever that's moving
whatever. And remember every load they took over they brought a load back. >> Okay. because they needed gravel. >> Yeah. >> Uh so that makes sense to me, but it is a lot more trucking to haul that over. >> But project has to go and as we're
talking, they hope they still get done by November 20th. Got a ways to go yet. So when I came, I was delayed because they were still working until at least 7 or 8 at night try to get this project done.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And Jean, uh, Marcia here, our, you know, the county is all in a timeline. It's all statutoily, you know, timelines that we have to follow. We do have to permit them in so many days, but it's just a matter when we meet and and how the timing is on these conditional
use permits. So, the count the county board followed the process that we've always followed as far as a timeline. Well, I understand that, but the person that I was talking to, he was probably from a county that had different
>> I can almost guarantee it, Jane. >> Yeah. >> So, and I'm not shocked by any of that. >> Yeah. >> I mean, another consideration is what how long was it before between this company being awarded the project to
when they had to start? I don't know how much time they had to >> Okay, I understand all that, >> but I was just wondering because I would like to prevent us from having this problem in the future if we could possibly >> and that goes back to our comprehensive
>> that goes to the comp plan. That's why we >> Well, then in other words, I'll have to live another hundred years. >> Yep. I guess so. >> Okay. >> Motion to adjurnn then. Uh, were you going to have Marshall give the update on the >> No, we already got that from
>> We We got the update on the permits that were authorized. >> Yeah, they they were approved with no changes. Yes. >> Yeah. And Eric gave your report, Marsha. >> Yeah, I know. We've got some We got some glitches in with technology we're working on. >> I was on a Zoom meeting last night. I
ran into the same stuff. It was six o'clock till 8 and I had to go back rego on twice as it >> show. Yeah, it's security and you got to get codes and Yeah. >> But anyway, I have a motion in a second
to adjurnn. All in favor say I. >> I post nay. >> Hearing none. All in favor of adjourning. And uh I got 737. >> Thank you. Second motion.