I have 7 o'clock and call me. I rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. You >> have you reviewed the uh agenda? >> I make a motion we approve it. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> I got shook for a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Oppos. Nay. Hearing none. All in favor. >> Uh, next is approval of the minutes from November 20th one five. >> Louie makes the motion and Mike seconds it. All in favor say I of approving the minutes. >> I.
>> Oppos? Nay. Hearing none. All in favor. Uh we'll move on to uh board of adjustments. So you gonna >> Yes, I'll do that. Gordon wasn't able to join us, but the board of adjustment did meet this afternoon, >> and this is relevant to your first item
on the agenda tonight. Um, it was a package of considerations that the applicants need to go ahead with their project. The variances that the board of adjustment heard was now that the applicants intend an enhanced use of an
existing building to include a dwelling unit inside internally um constructed. There's other sections of the ordinance that came into play. One being the prime soils for a new residence and um also this conditional use permit that you're
hearing tonight to allow a new dwelling within the shoreland district. The other setback consideration was uh that the setback um at the closest point at the nearest bend of that little stream in Lanes Valley, the structure was found to
be about 65 ft at the closest point. You have a diagram in your packet that shows that the setback was 85 from one corner and I think 75 or 80 on the other corner. But we have to go by the closest dimension and in this case that was uh
to to basically recognize that the structure um got built closer to the stream than what the setback would allow of 100 ft. So there was quite a few um um um comments received by the owners
and the petitioners. Uh there was findings of fact that were looked at and uh two conditions. But uh at the end of the deliberation, the board of adjustment granted those two variances on a 3 to one vote. So that's board of
adjustment update for you. Um also um we did have a site visit on this first one and I believe you have this document. It was comments that we received today from the DNR in response to that for your consideration. and they
were both um mentioned to to be addressed to the board of adjustment and the planning commission in that manner. If you have any questions on that, feel free to ask staff. Lou is going to be giving the presentation first on this one. So, thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Well, I don't see Mara Mara. >> Yeah. >> Good evening. I'm online. >> Oh, okay. You're >> you're coming uh cyerspace there, huh? Thank you. Yeah. Well, it's both both weather and and maybe a little flu coming on. So, I wanted to say spare you
all. >> Anything Marcia you want to say? >> Yeah, the the county board approved at our last meeting both the uh the two conditional use permits, Allen and Huff, with no additional uh comments or conditions placed on them.
Thank you. Uh any comprehensive plan update? Uh Blue, I don't know if much activities going on, but you give us a summary. >> Just real quick, just let everybody know that um we do have um a um a short
survey online for general public feedback. You all are welcome to take the survey. take much more than five minutes, but we have draft visionary goal statements that are um there and and um you can uh indicate your agreement with each of those and then
leave comments on them. Um so if you have the time and wish to do that, I know Eugene and I sat down and went through that and got got that done for him. >> Five minutes >> took more than five minutes, but I was happy to do it. We had a good conversation. Um, I'll also extend that
uh that same um um offer to anybody else here that wants to sit down and talk about comprehensive planning in general or the survey or any of the other engagement activities or the process. I'm happy to meet with you and um and discuss that with you. Um just let me
know. Um so that is open. Um it was open until the end of this week. We're extending it through the end of the month. Um so if you want to take that survey, please feel free. Um and then there's also the interactive map that's still there and will be there ongoing throughout the process. So there's two
opportunities to provide comments at this time. Um a steering committee meeting in mid January um is coming up. Um and then I'm sure there'll be again another round of engagement after that um in the the coming um month or so. So,
um it's all I have for now, but um if you have any questions, you can feel free to ask or grab me after the meeting um at any point. So, >> thanks, L. >> Seeing none, we'll we'll move to our petitions.
I'm going to uh start out with docket PC12-18-2501 and it's to consider a petition from Todd and Sheila Waymillers or property owners and Mike and Maryland Kendhammer petitioners who are seeking a conditional/interum
use permit regarding the following to allow a new dwelling located in the shoreline overlay and agricultural resource cons conservation zoning. district pursuant to section 11.3.5
um subchapter 3 of the Winona County zoning ordinance and I believe Lou you have this one. >> Absolutely. Thank you. Um so this petition is located in New Hartford Township uh down by the county
line. You can see in the map here the the kind of aqua thicker uh line in the at the bottom of the map. That's the county line um with Houston County below that and um about 5 miles from Lac Crescent um is the closest community. Um
the property is in section 36 of New Hartford. And the property is uh made up of two parcels, a 52 acre parcel and an 180 acre parcel. um um you know, we'll move ahead and you'll
get some closer um maps to kind of zero in on the on the building site. Um as you can see here in this map, uh it is within the shoreland overlay district. Uh the shoreland district is a DNR um uh designation kind of like flood plane. Um
it's overlaid over the the base zoning. So the base zoning here is a resource conservation and then the uh overlay district, the shoreline goes over top of it and it's defined as 300 ft on each side of the stream. Um
the um um the new dwelling is u proposed to be 24 feet by 32 feet within an existing structure. Um and they're proposing one to two bedrooms. Um you can see the existing structure there. It was originally
permitted as a as an egg structure. Um and now they're looking at adding that 24T by 32 foot um living quarter within it. Um that still leaves quite a bit of room for um you know agricultural shed,
gravel floor, um tractors and equipment um storage in that in that space. Um the um the the reason that we're here with the conditional use permit is that um I just wanted to mention is uh any
new dwellings within the A district that also fall within the shoreland overlay district require a conditional use permit. So that's why it's before you. Otherwise it would be a permitted use. It meets the um 40 acre minimum. Um the
variances were taken care of earlier today with the board of adjustment. Um so really the only thing left is that one piece is since it's in the a district and it's with in the shoreland it requires a cup. Um so getting a little bit closer here.
These are two foot contours on the map the purple lines. So you get an idea of slope um and where the stream and the the um the structure sit in relation to those uh to each other. Uh you can see an embankment coming up on the um on the
side from the from the stream kind of straight up towards the the building site. Um those contour lines are before any grading and filling was done. So obviously there was a little bit of grading there, but as you can see it's um they're up over the slope and in a
fairly um low sloping area. So there wasn't a whole lot of grading and filling needed. Um again, 18 to 20 feet uh above the ordinary high water mark. and we'll show you how the the flood plane runs through
here, but it's it's well above the regulatory flood protection elevation and is actually out of the 100redyear flood um flood zone. Um the variance petition as was indicated
uh dealt with the class 2 soils and the setback from the ordinary high water level. Here's the flood zone. I've got a couple of different maps here showing um on the right is the um um the existing flood
zone from 1984. It's shows uh those 1984 maps aren't quite as u precise as you can see the new data on the left. Um that's not been adopted, but we can use it for um for planning and zoning purposes. It's the most um upto-date and
um best um um data that we have regarding that flood flood zone. Um they actually line up pretty well. Um but um you can see on the left it also includes those um base flood elevations. So those numbers and cross-sections uh relate to
um the base flood elevation as you move up through the uh the water the wershed. Um, so a conservative base flood elevation for that site would be 722 feet. It would actually, you know, the the the building site is actually
between that 722 and 721 um 63. There's not a it's not moving a whole lot in there, but um again, we're well above that base flood elevation regardless. Um the existing shed is at uh 736 feet
above sea level whereas the base flood elevation is at 722 feet. So just wanted to show um um um how that relates to each other. Um there a site plan that the u the
petitioners had provided. Um this is nice. They um they show how it was developed. Um they have uh some rip wrap along the driveway there because of the steep slope. Um but as you come um further towards the the stream there and to the south um you can see the bank
comes close to the um comes up close to the the rip wrap and that's all natural embankment. So that wasn't um that wasn't u um um disturbed by the um by the construction of the building. Um, all of those slopes have been seated
down and um um um reviewed by the DNR. They they didn't have um much in the way of concerns regarding the soil erosion. I think the the petitioners might be able to elaborate a little bit on what they've done and how they developed it, but um they were pretty um thoughtful in
that and um have been uh working to control any potential erosion off the site. Um, and I think that went a long way to calming the um the DNR review and um and they weren't quite co so concerned after hearing um about what
was done there. Um keep moving on here. Got some pictures just to show you what it looked like a few days ago. Obviously um we've lost a bit of snow since then, but um um the first uh pictures are of the front of
the the shed. Um first one on the left there is uh from the road and the the road access from Lanes Valley Road um showing the the driveway and then on the right a little bit closer showing the front of the shed. The uh stream is
to the left of the driveway um where the the you can see the uh riparian zone with the the trees in it um there in that photo. This is the back of the building. um showing um a sun room there and then a
um um another access to the shed. Um the uh proposed dwelling site would inhabit the sun room there and then that 24x 32 um foot living quarters would be along that side of the um interior of
the shed. This is on the uh a couple of pictures of the riparian zone along Lanes Valley Creek um and the existing um building um in relation to that. So, um pretty well snow covered, but um we could see while
we were out there the the natural bank embankments um the um the rip wrap where that had been laid and um to see that there was a um there was quite a bit of cleaning up within that um riparian zone as well of
um you know kind of historic u garbage and um um material. Um then just a couple pictures of the neighborhood showing um Lanes Valley Drive. The one on the left is to the south uh would be towards Lacrescent.
And then the one on the right is back up the valley. Um it tops up up on County Road One. Um Apple Blossom Drive at the at the top of the valley there. um New Hartford Township um did consider
the request on November 13th and um indicated no comments um in as it relates to the proposal. Um staff analysis is in support of the of granting the cup uh and there are
three conditions related to that. Um, one other thing I'd like to point out is with the criteria, there are additional criteria uh for the shoreland overlay. So, we use the standard seven criteria for considering a a conditional use permit and then
added four um specific um um shoreland overlay district um um criteria that come from the state um ordinance. Um some of those are a little bit duplicative. So there's some similar
responses because they were kind of redundant, but um but then there are a couple that are very um specific to shoreland uh considerations. So just wanted to point that out. Um that's all I have for my presentation.
Any questions? >> All right. This what you just said there kind of it goes into my ears is gobbly goo. You said there's three conditions, but there's seven others. >> There's uh there's seven criteria plus
four additional. So, a total of 11 criteria, approval criteria, but then we add conditions on to the to the approval. So, if you were to approve the the petition, we recommend three conditions. You always have criteria that that are
approval criteria criteria, right? So, that's what you have to make the decision on. >> Yeah. Um, but if you decide to approve the the petition, then there's three conditions for your consideration. >> Okay. >> Right. It's the way we do everyone.
>> Okay. >> There's always conditions. Louie, >> uh, is the stream a water dry run or is it live? >> Um, from what I understand, um, it is a, um, well, I from what I understand that it has it does go dry from time to time.
It's a perennial stream and it is a public water. Um it does not currently have a um a trout stream designation but it is public waters waters of the state and so it carries that shoreland um designation with it. The petitioners
have stated though that um um that there have been years where it has dried up in the sec this this part of the reach. When the building was originally uh constructed, uh did it meet the requirements as seeing that it's only 65
ft for a setback or was it was that a uh >> oopsie? >> I I think it was a a bit of an oopsie, maybe some miscommunication. Um the site plan for that original um um um
development certificate uh indicated 114 ft. Um, but once it was built, um, once I came in, we started looking at it again. We're like, well, that's that's, you know, we didn't m we didn't make that 114 feet. Part of it is when you're on
site and you're trying to measure with tapes, you know, I mean, there's a decent size embankment there. You're going to lose a little bit, but um um I just think that um um it uh it was lost in translation at some point. It um it got moved a little too close,
>> unfortunately. So, the petitioners, the same people that built that old barn originally. >> They are, and they're here. >> Yep. >> Anything else for Lou? >> Thanks, Luke.
>> You bet. >> Actually, with that said, it leads right in. Would the petitioners like to come up, state your name and address, tell us about your project? Gentlemen, my name's Mike Kenhammer and this is my daughter Sheila. And the
property that we're talking to is in a life estate trust right now. It's going to be transferred over to Sheila. I built the building and uh >> for our record, can you just tell us your address? It's >> uh my address is N1337
Ley Road in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. >> Okay. And my address is 1464 Claudia Avenue in Lacrescent, Minnesota. >> Okay. No, now go ahead. Okay. >> I just needed that for the >> Anyway, to address Steve's question about the building, I'm I'm a builder
part-time. Okay. My her my grand or my wife's father was a full-time contractor and I worked for him. So, I built the building. The building exceeds all po. It ain't really a pole building. It's a ladder built. if you're familiar with
that where all the main beams in it are 8 by8s. The cross girts in it are all 2 by8s. It's all ladder construction. The roof normally on on a pole building like that would probably be 26 or 28 gauge.
It's 24 gauge on the roof, 26 gauge on the walls. All the doors in there are all insulated because I don't like using just a single panel door because they're so cheap and weak. Um around the building we went I got two
foot overhangs all over the building. Uh and the landscaping around the building goes out six feet. We went down at least 8 in and put Bosch river rock with with silt mat in the bottom of it. the area he was
talking about coming off the driveway all the way up. I hand laid 38,000 pounds of rip wrap and there's six and 8 inch breaker rock on top of matting to protect that hill in the back here. It's
very steep and we didn't touch any of that there. The only thing we did is went in and receat it. We probably put 800 lb of of different grasses and stuff on there and being off on the building was a combination. I measured from the
building down to the stream down a steep bank with a tape measure. Okay. So, but the other thing that happened I had a lady from the ASCS office from New Elm come over at that time. There was a lot of concern about taking tillable soils
out of production and she was questioning if I should do this or do that. And right where the billing is. I have before and after there was a bunch of scrub brush in there box elders and stuff. We cleaned them out. I know we moved the building but I didn't think we
moved it as far as we did. To the to the west of the building there's a little grade there that goes up maybe about 6 8 feet. And if we' have moved it up, we'd had to cut into that hillside and probably would have uh taken a lot more
>> prime >> soils out of production. Okay. Uh we did a lot of work behind the building. There's a a drainage box put in the ground there to catch the water that comes down out of the fields with a 14-inch tube that goes down and goes
down the bank in the back. We rip wrapped all that. Uh when we first bought the property, that whole bank in there was a garbage dump for neighbors, whatever. We took washing machines, oil
burners, car parts, farm equipment. We took seven loads of junk out of there and cleaned that bank up and seated the whole bank down. So, um, I can go on and on and what we did, but the building far exceeds what a normal
pole building would would ask for. Okay? And I've got a whole list of things we did, and I could sit here all night and tell you what we've done to to do things, but uh and then the other thing we did along the east side of the
building, we went out six feet with that river rock, but we also dug three trenches, one in the middle, one in the back and the front about six feet wide, four feet deep, and we filled that with uh wash rock and ran it out to the edge of the bank and then dug down and
Actually, all the water that runs off the building goes into the rock around the building and then drains into those pockets and goes down. You very seldom see any water even coming out over the hill. The center of the building of the floor of the building from there to the
creeks 21 ft. I recently the one map showing the survey that I did, I did that like about a month ago because I didn't believe I didn't think I was that far off. But two things too is the county goes to the edge of the creek and
we went to the center of the creek. So if anybody's got any questions, I'll entertain anything I can answer for you or tell you more about. >> Sure. I've got a question. Uh since you've built it to now, what's the uh
how has it been used and what's the um motivation to turn it into a dwelling? Right now we've got tractors and farm farm equipment in there and um my grandson hunts an awful lot. Okay. And he he's out there continually. Plus we're out
there quite a bit. We don't have any facilities there, bathroom facilities or anything. So we'd like to finish that off and my grandson would like to move in and live there. He has a friend that lives right across the two friends that live across the Lanes Valley. And my
husband and I both work full-time. Um there's quite a bit of lawn to mow, so we want him to kind of take that over um for security because nobody's out there right now at all either. >> And then um in the winter for shoing snow, making sure snow stays off the
roof and whatnot. And just to be able to enjoy it because without water facilities, we don't spend as much time up there as we'd like. Mhm. And when I when we built the building, we kind of had in the back of our mind someday of
maybe doing this. So that's the other reason why I put a few more bucks into the building and built it a lot stronger than we need to. I've got all the certified engineering drawings for the trust systems and all that that far exceeds the snow loads and everything.
So, >> um, and then I guess the other question would be how much of, and it's probably in here, but so forgive me for asking you to reiterate, but how much would you say percentage of the building would be dwelling versus uh, still like garage, you know, >> 20% probably dwelling and the rest would
be opening. The building's 104 by 50. >> Wow. >> So, don't know. It' be a small small corner of it. And the corner that we're looking at is on the southwest corner. It's further away from the creek by at least
another 30 ft. >> Yeah, certainly a humble abode. >> Yeah. And we had the ASCS office come in last spring and we recontoured everything and changed all the fields
for runoff. We had a few areas that were getting some erosion. So, the lady I I forget where she was from and I've been leasing the land out and my renter died here about a month ago, 54 years old.
So, but u so that's one of the other things we're looking at. My grandson thinks maybe I've got all the equipment. I own another farm and I've got all the equipment and he's thinking he might someday want to start farming it himself.
Well, Any other questions? >> Uh, one last. So, you hold this in two different parcels. One of them is about a 54. The other one's quite a bit significantly bigger. Um, why do you hold them in two different parcels and not together? >> That's just the way the ASAS ASCs office
drew it up. They got two farm numbers on this place. >> And why I'm I'm not sure. But, uh, >> because there's a section line. Anytime you have property that's in a different section, the system systematically assigned a different person.
>> I hear that. >> Any further questions? >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Motion to open the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> And I got Jane seconding that. All in favor of opening the public hearing say I. >> I. >> I.
Marsh is with me. When we do vote, I got to do an individual >> vote. So, a public hearing is open. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone, state your concerns,
say your name and address. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone. U state your issues, your name and address. Okay. third time. Anybody wishing to speak for or against the petition,
please come to the microphone and state your name and address and your concerns. Motion to close public hearing. So now move. >> Jean moves. Lou second. Is that okay? >> All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Those nay. Hearing none. All in favor? >> Motion to approve of the facts and findings. Um, second >> and I got a second from John. Any discussion before you vote?
>> Um, where are the conditions on what page? >> I can find that for you. Yeah, I think it's 23 through 25. I could be wrong on that because I read it on >> 28.
That's just before the >> Yeah, it's just before that >> the map that effects conclusions and replications the seven plus the four that Lou was talking about
and mine starts Let's search on 19 second to think it's the same summary starts on 25 goes to 28. I believe that's the same, right Lou?
>> Yeah. So there's uh the staff report. Um they're the same conditions, but um on page nine um of the staff report, which would coincide 23 in your packet, you can find them. And then the findings of fact also include them on page 28 of the
packet. >> But I'm sorry, Marcia here. 28 only shows three conditions on my packet. Maybe I don't have the right packet. >> Nope, that's correct. There's only three conditions proposed, >> but you you you referenced seven. I guess I don't see the seven.
>> Yep, that's the criteria. >> So, if you look at the findings of fact, >> I I Okay, I'm mixing criteria and conditions. >> Yeah, that's okay. But 25 through 28 is a good summary of what we've been discussing.
Uh just a question on condition three here. We're depending on the Minnesota DNR and the Winona County soil and water to determine whether any restoration orders. How do we enforce? Are they the enforcement of those or is the county
the enforcement of something like that? Corrective measures? >> The county would be uh would enforce those, but um but they would recommend them. Um there will be a um um a site visit and a permit for a development certificate if this is approved.
um at which time Soil and Water um could weigh in and they may have some recommendations uh as part of their report that we could um um then require as part of the development certificate. And this this condition just reinforces that
um DNR it was also written before the DNR was able to review um and uh should be noted that they did not really they they didn't have any additional comments or um suggestions for um uh changes to the riparian zone or um or anything else
relating to the condition. So, it would really just be um in our review of the development certificate for the new dwelling and um if SWCD had any suggestions, but um um we're not really at this point um um uh thinking that
there may be any. >> I don't think that there's a lot. If you read through the material, this is not a trout stream. There are no fishing easements. It's no rec no no recreational activity. Lou, I think you mentioned does this dry
up? >> We heard it did. >> So, again, I just want us to be aware of what type of secondary stream we're talking about. >> Yeah. I guess one of the concerns that I had was the uh closeness of the uh
building to the stream, but it sounds like uh efforts were made to get it uh in a correct location, but because of uh variance of measurements and that that it fell up, it fell up short. It's still
um still 40t short from what it should be. So, that was that was a concern that I had, but uh I believe that's been addressed. >> Yeah, I think the DNR Lucas Youngsma
who's got a statement on that. In fact, it's the last statement. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> But I I think u adequately addresses that. >> If there's no other comments or questions, I'll proceed to a vote. I'll
start with you John and next position I'll reverse it. Okay. >> Or against the recommendation. >> I I blue >> n. >> Okay. I'm an I. Jean is a n. >> I'm an a. >> Okay. >> I
>> I >> and Marsha. Um I I'm problem by this and where we messed up originally when we placed the shed there and such and it I guess if the unfortunately if the board in my opinion if the board of adjustment
approved it I I think our hands are somewhat limited. So, uh, regretfully I >> Okay. Uh, did did you get that recorded? And the majority is I. So, uh, we're the board is recommending this go to the
county uh, board for final approval. And your next meeting is January 13th at 9:00 a.m. here. Okay. Well, thank you very much. That was two Naz or three. >> Two. >> Two.
>> Okay. I just wanted another official. Then our next petition uh is docket PC12-18-2502 and this is to consider the petition of CMDM uh Winona LLC the property owner
and Trevor Klssky a land agent from High Point Land Company representative who seeks the conditional/interum use permit regarding the following to allow a single family dwelling on less
than 40 acres on a new parcel that is proposed to be approximately 1.6 acres in size. It's located in section 30 of Richmond Township. The request is in pursuant of chapter 10.4.6
subchapter 36 of the Winona County ordinance. There is an existing mobile home and garage accessory structure on the property that would be included with this proposed new parcel. And Eric, you got this one? >> I do. Yep. I've prepared a brief
PowerPoint to kind of correspond with your staff report. >> Um, in this case, it's your standard um non-farm dwelling or anything less than 40 acres that requires a conditional use permit. In this case, the applicants
have a concept of 1.6 acre parcel to contain an existing modular home and a detached garage. Uh this is located in section 30 of Richmond Township. The farm consists of
241 acres and um essentially kind of pointing out um the acreage and the main farmstead with farm buildings is located here on that parcel. And they do have a mobile home
or a modular home that's located there. Should be noted that what we're dealing with tonight is an existing building site. So there's no proposed new construction. It's just for them to legally divide this parcel as a standalone building site. That site with
a modular home was established as early as 1974 uh for farm help purposes. There was different renditions, different revisions that our department had done. One time it was full-time farm help and then part-time farm help. It did receive
a conditional use permit back in the day and occupancy has been verified throughout the last 50 years. Uh this is a sketch that kind of shows what they're thinking. Um showing the red box would be the acreage that they
would include to make that a building site. It's staff's understanding that they need to upgrade the septic system. So that would be one of the improvements that they would do because I believe they did have that looked at for compliance inspection. um why it's taking on the additional
woods is to make that um configuration or that equation for prime soils work where the building is and the yard is that's all prime soil and they had to at least get enough woodland or rough land to make that equation so that whole
parcel would be under 40% prime soil so they didn't need a variance I guess that's kind of a long way to get to that discussion this is the concept that the representative had shown up rough approximate approximate dimensions. Um
we always warn petitioners not to go ahead and commission a survey until they've gotten the zoning approval. So that would be the next step should should they do that. Uh the beige or cream colored is actually showing where that prime soil layer is on this map.
So in the egg district um the criteria for conditional use permit applies. They plan on using the existing driveway. There is currently an address associated with this. And again I touched on the prime soil standard which needs to be
met. Again the picture on the left is kind of what they're thinking as far as parcel. Picture on the right is as you would see just this week. Kind of shows uh the existing home and then detached garage
located to the left. Another view of that. The box on the left is kind of showing the how it starts to slope and there's it turns to a wooded vegetation associated with it.
Uh this is kind of a view looking back to the somewhat to the south along Hman Ridge Road. You can see the hedge line and the tree line. It's got a natural um shelter belt that surrounds this building site. So it makes logical sense
and kind of the way they're looking at trying to create the new parcel. This is a view off of Hman Ridge Road looking at the main farmstead. That's the original farmstead house, barn, um, silos, shed, and I believe at one time
the previous property owners also had a a cabin that they had permitted in which uh, it's seasonably occupied. They didn't know if they had uh relatives or if they had some hunters that were accessing it. But that that's also what the file kind of indicated is that they
also have a metal building that had been converted to a recreational use. Petitioners did meet with they did have a discussion with Richmond Township. I notice there's probably not a signed
township acknowledgement form and the applicant um can maybe add or elaborate on that. Um it's our indicate that they had received some verbal support but there was reluctance on the town board to sign a form. They didn't have a form
I don't think that night that they met but the uh petitioners are still trying to track that down. So, I guess if that comes up, we can uh talk about possible um options with that. Uh staff's recommendation was to support
granting this conditional use permit and we had the two standard conditions recommended as terms of the approval. That any questions? Jordan, >> I'm curious how this split would affect
uh tax revenue. Would this be a positive for the county? >> Yeah, if it's a standalone site, I my limited knowledge of the taxing system is they take one acre in a building site and that's a premium and then the balance of that acreage is taxed
accordingly to the way it's used. So, um you know, it's different classification. Yeah. So, it would probably increase or enhance the tax revenue or the tax assessment for a site like that.
>> Any other questions uh for Eric? >> Sure. >> Yeah, you kind of you kind of showed it in the photos there, but uh what are we looking at for like as we move towards the towards the uh into the tree line? Uh, is that roughly just flat land or are we looking at an uphill?
>> That would be I believe going downhill. >> Downhill. >> Yeah, that would be going downhill at that point. >> And I mean, >> should they again decide that this modular home isn't meeting their needs? They build up. Um, are they limited by
what size of house they can build for whatever septic can be fit on that 1.69 acre? >> Correct. Yeah, there'd be a septic design that would be according to the number of bedrooms and the soil type um and the flow. Those are the three in the
design. Those are the three factors of the equation on how much square footage they need for the septic. But I think a building envelope of 1.6 acres is a good size um especially to locate a well and a septic and should they wish to replace that house, it gives them plenty of
option, plenty of room. The setbacks that apply for future building projects would be 20 ft from the sidey yards. That would be their north and south. And they'd have a 50-foot rear yard or in this case it would be the east. And they'd have to meet a 65 ft setback from
the center line of the township road. But that size is is a is a is it seems to be ample as far as making future improvements for them too. Well, it'd be they wouldn't be able to go and just build a, you know, a gigantic manor out this way with the amount of acreage that
they've that they're cutting out. >> Correct. I mean, there's still the the setbacks I just referenced would be the main factors that we'd have to review any future improvements. >> Yeah. >> Um,
what now? I forget how I was going to ask. Um, oh, is there a well on this property now or is it >> My understanding it's probably served by a water line and I that'd be a good question for the applicants. My
understand is that the well is probably on the main and that might have to be I don't know maybe there is a second well that's something I I can't. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, Eric Marshia here. Uh does this restrict any like feed lot uh future
feed lot expansions or anything like that in the neighborhood? >> There's a footprint of the house. So that's I think the limit the standalone limiting factor at this point. It would be >> so it it would or wouldn't allow a fee lot expansion.
>> Well, I mean it currently does by its very existence that there's a there there's a dwelling site there now. Um, the only issue would be is if they took the modular home and they wanted to build a house that was actually closer to a feed lot, a registered feed lot of
a certain size, we'd have to reme-measure. But to replace like for like for a dwelling for a dwelling with existing setbacks that are in play, um, marginally, no. This this would be a different situation if it was a new parcel alto together with a new house
proposed. but to the fact that we have an existing dwelling um we're already dealing with a set of fixed circumstances and and dimensions. >> Okay. That that particular the pictures of that uh mobile home and I I kind of picture in my that doesn't look that
old. You said that was put in back in or was has it been upgraded? I think you said 1974 >> originally in 74 but they did remove they did upgrade it once already at least. Okay. >> Twice over the last 50 years.
Somebody else had a question. Was it Steve or Chef or Okay, maybe I >> Okay, thanks Eric. >> Would the petitioners like to come up and tell us about your project? Uh, state your name and address. Anybody
here to represent? >> Somebody's online. I'm on Zoom here. Well, whoever's online, just state your name, your address, and then tell us about your project. >> Yeah, this is Trevor Glomsky with High Point Land Company representing um CMDM
Holdings LLC. Um the address in uh that we're talking about is 26 830 Husman Ridge Road, Winona. And as uh Eric mentioned, it's in Richmond Township, section 30.
that you need. >> I'm also I'm also here. I'm Chris Michaels. Um U um is my property. >> Okay. We know where the address is. Can you tell us your address so if we need
to get a hold of you? State your name and your address, not the property address. >> My name is Chris Michaels. My address is 2935 Lily Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin
530005. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And Trevor, could you uh you stated the uh address of the location? Can you state your address, personal address? >> 2355
Range View Lane, River Falls, Wisconsin. No, if you both or either one of you can tell us about this project. >> This this property was recently uh acquired by CMDM. Um in the process of the transaction
uh the septic was out of compliance. So we're in the process of replacing the septic. Um and Chris Michaels senior can probably talk talk about that a little bit. Uh there was a question as well. Uh this property is on a shared well with the
main farmstead. So there is a water line. Um and that well has recently been updated as well. So brand new well uh new septic coming in. And uh the concept I brought it to um Eric at the zoning
office. Uh it's it's an extra dwelling. I understand it's been permitted for a lot of years. Um, and there's a possibility given the uh amount of time that it's been existed dwelling to uh split this off as a a standalone parcel,
which is our goal. And uh he presented a few things that we would need to accomplish with that one being mainly the prime soils and non-prime soils and getting that ratio correct to meet the standards. Um, and I did, like Eric mentioned, present this concept that's
in front of you in your packets to Richmond Township. And, uh, they had no comment at the meeting. And, um, the signature page for the, um, acknowledgement was missed by me. Um, I, uh, didn't get that information until
after uh, the meeting cuz the meeting was the day after I talked to Eric. And then um I'd reached back out and I had missed the December meeting um knowing that I didn't have that signed acknowledgement, but verbally they said they were okay with things just as long
as they kept kept them in the loop. So my goal is to go to the next meeting and get their acknowledgement um on January 13th. Uh so our goal is to split this off as a a standalone parcel. Not looking to build a new home or anything like that. It's a great little building
site and uh it could be a great residential uh home for somebody in an egg district. >> Trevor, I have a question. Um what is your interest in the property? How are you uh affiliated with Mr. Michaels? >> Yeah, I'm his uh real estate
professional. Um I actually sold the property for the Lean family and then built a relationship with uh Mr. Michael's here and um I've been assisting him even before uh the sale was complete. So
>> Jean, you had some concern and you >> there is a family living there now? >> Nope. >> It's empty now. >> Well, we're in the process of replacing
both the septics and the well. So, um, obviously that's a long process. We got a 633 ft well that just got drilled. Um, so that's should be up and running soon. And then the septics are getting replaced.
>> 63. >> Somebody else had a concern. >> Um, I got a couple questions, Mike, if I could. >> Yes. >> Um, so for staff, was this a permitted was this a farm help permitted? um
structure originally and if it's vacant, I mean there there's that seems to be a little problematic. >> Yeah, it's a there was a conditional use that was issued for it. Um and then there was a review done in the 80s and
then again in the 2000s uh to verify occupancy uh that there was at least some farm assistance on there. So yes, I mean it's not permitted as a standalone, no strings attached um rental unit.
There has to be some nexus to the property and to that farm for farm help. And yes, we're now at that decision point where if this is going to be used again or sold, that's why they're I guess decided to go ahead with this
action at this point in time. >> Okay. All right. And then a a question for Mr. uh the land highpoint land Trevor. Um I've seen your name a lot. I think you send me flyers. You're always wanting to buy my property and sell it. So uh looking at the parcel, are you
planning and and then Mr. U Michaels, are you pl there's a lot of woods there and you love to sell woodland to hunters that come in and I noted that you're both not local. You're Wisconsinites. Um, so you know, are you planning to subdivide this further at this point in
time? >> No, >> no, no. I I I have no plans and I I can pretty much guarantee you that will not happen. >> And the goal the goal from the get-go wasn't to sell any of the woods, but the prime soils um meeting that standard is
um what we're trying to do there. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Jean wants ask a question. >> Is is that a permitted feed lot that original building site or is that just
is it vacant or what's the status of that? >> Is that a question for for me or the staff? >> Staff probably both of us. You know, I guess at this point I don't believe we have a registered feed lot on that site. That being said, they do have an older
dairy barn, but I believe uh there's no animals currently being housed or or used for production on that site at this time. >> So, is the original um the original site being rented out? >> Not at this time.
>> So, that's empty as well. >> Well, I it's it we've just purchased the property and closed two months ago. I'm in the transition. I was there yesterday. I was actually there today. We're cleaning things up and I I plan to occupy.
>> Okay. So, you're planning to occupy the main house? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Okay. Great. Thank you. And we'll open the public meeting if I have >> I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. >> Makes the motion open public meeting.
seconds it. All in favor of opening public meetings, say I. >> I oppose. >> And I heard Marca, so we're all in favor. >> Yes. >> Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone. State your name and address
and your concerns. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone. State your name and address and your concerns. And again for the third time, anybody wishing to speak for or against this
petition, please come to the microphone, state your name and address and your concerns. Hearing none. Anybody on line? I don't see anybody there. A motion to close public hearing. >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
>> And Mike Miller seconds it. All in favor say I of closing public hearing. >> I nay of not closing it. Hearing no no nays. All in favor? Okay. Commissioners, what do you want to do? >> Jean? >> Well, I guess
I think we got a lot of loose ends in this permit. Uh I understand the owner is going to live there, but this dwelling was permitted
in the first place as farm help. Now, does that mean that anybody can buy this parcel? >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> As long as it's separate parcel. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> Use
>> It's just not going to be a farm help any longer. Separate. >> Yeah. Okay. And it's I mean with a trailer house and buildings already there and that it's uh tough to really say no.
>> Well, right now there's no use. >> Yeah. There's no >> you're stuck cuz the farm >> has changed. It's not the same farm, >> right? >> And that's 50 years of progress and change and adjustment. So to make this a viable option,
this is the reason for the petition before us. >> Question Mike, does this parcel being that was farm help and everything, does it have its own um address? I mean it has >> I mean does it currently
>> address right now? >> Okay, they did split. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That has been split off. >> Needed that for farm help or whoever. >> Yeah. Okay. I didn't see a a little blue sign. So I >> So we're moving it from a previous
conditional use of farm to a different conditional use for an own for homestead. Make sense to occupy an homestead. Exactly. Any other concerns or questions or before >> but I I'm sorry. It probably really
won't be if it's sold to an independent person. Is it still under a conditional use permit if it's a separate parcel? I guess I'd have to ask the recorder and stuff. I mean, are they going to be ti the new owner? Are they going to be tied to any uh comments or concerns of this?
It's it's st it's a standalone parcel then. Would it still be under a conditional use permit for staff? >> And it has to abide by the new conditions that our county is recommending. because it's less than 40 acres. >> Well, as I understand this, we're
actually approving it as though is it is a 40 acre parcel. So, it'll have buildability uh you know uh you could rebuild on it. Uh a new building altogether. Um as though this is uh again just a a 40acre parcel as I understand.
>> Only the owner could do a 40 acre. This is only a 1.6 acre parcel. >> Oh, I'm Yeah, allow me to reiterate this separate >> that the new owner of this 1.6 6 acre parcel should they want to. And if I understand this correctly, they could rebuild fully a new house. Doesn't have
to be a modular home. >> Yeah. >> Yes, that's correct. This would be this would be afforded any rights as a permitted use for a new a parcel that is exist. But as for any of the previous
conditions that were laid on this when this was a uh a secondary farm dwelling, those are null and void. >> Correct. Since circumstances have changed, this obviously now represents something completely different. Um there, you know, if there ever became an
issue with their abstract and they found that there was a conditional use permit in 1974 that made reference to it, uh review of the records would show that that really got vanquished by this action currently. um in some cases um dealing with different attorneys
throughout the area. Um if they are absolutely creating issues there, we do have a process to completely um vanquish a conditional use permit that of that's of that vintage too. So that's an option we extend to people in the legal
circles. >> And Jordan, you have a question. Eric, I think >> this is basically we're at a use it or lose it scenario here, right? >> Since there's no longer farming operations, this is going to
>> go away if it's not far. >> So, they're not necessarily doing this just to sell it, right? >> Correct. This is to to remedy um an outstanding record because we get into multiple dwellings on one farm. How are they being used? Is there a nexus to the
farming operation and either part-time or full-time farm help? And if that can't be met, >> then an issue >> if if between the owner and the realtor, if they had a party that wanted to buy the whole farm and they had multiple parties, that's another option. And we
would have never seen that seen this conditional use permit if they had buyers that could occupy both of those dwellings, keep the farm intact, and they'd all uh be engaged or or uh owners of that farm. >> That's that's not their preference at
this point. >> And so this uh this trailer house uh essentially could not be used until somebody actually buys that that parcel. They couldn't >> technically correct that. Yeah, that
would be that would be the rub. >> Yep. >> Anybody else have any questions? >> He's going He owns the property now. >> He's just sectioning it off. He'll own two properties, >> correct? But then it's a it's a separate permitted use.
>> Yeah, he he's trying to get it off of that farm conditional use. >> You can use it for a dwelling >> if it's on separate parcel. If this is approved, they could technically rent it. >> Correct. >> You asked the question about taxes. Then you're looking at a non-h homestead tax
rate that would be associated with that, too. >> Yeah. >> So again, my my input and then I'll listen to Jean. What? >> No, no, I was pointing to Jordan. >> Okay. Well, it's been repurposed and as we look at our comprehensive plan, what
are we short? Housing, right? This repurposes it to be able to use for housing. Jordan, you brought up the taxation. This will bring more revenue to the township, county, and to the school district because it's repurposed
and can be used. If it was 40 acres though, and they bought a whole 40, we probably wouldn't be here. All right. Unless there was an issue that I don't see. >> It'd be permitted outright. Correct. But right now it's it's kind of an abandoned
property because it's not to be rented because it's for farm use. Right. >> Right. >> So upgrading the conditional use to make it useful >> for a family or whoever.
>> As long as there's a question already there, it makes it a little less >> more desirable to do it this way. And you already heard they're going to upgrade the the sewer and abide by the conditions. So you either close a gate on it and walk away or you try to do something
secondary. That's the way I see it. >> I don't >> Well, the way I see I guess the way I see it is that once once they sell it, then all the conditional use permits would be null and void because it is it is creating a separate parcel.
>> Exactly. That's the goal here, isn't it? >> That's why we're here hearing it. >> Um, I was going to say basically everything that you said. Um, I would certainly rather see this
a dwelling remain a dwelling than go away. And I would certainly rather see us increase our tax role than decrease it or have it stay the same. So for those reasons, I would move to approve this or recommend it for approval uh as
the findings of fact and conditions are written in the staff report. >> Okay. Is there second? >> Second. >> Louis second. Any more discussion? Otherwise I got to start with you Jordan. Now we got to say A or N here for me. Say I
>> I I uh Marsha. I >> I So it passes unanimously. Um so their next hearing is Tuesday, January 13th at 9:00 a.m.
Okay. Parties involved. >> Noted. >> Okay. >> Noted. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you very much. >> Well, thank you. >> Pending any further action, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> We got a couple more items. Oh, do we?
>> One item, I guess. >> Good evening, commissioners. Um, we have unfortunately come to the end of Mr. Flynn's uh term limits. or anything. >> So, we are we are here to recognize his service and uh appreciation for all the
time he has invested in in assisting us in administering the zoning regulations in Winona County. Um whether he chooses to take a year off and come back, we uh we certainly hope he will join us
again. But in honor, I have a piece of paper for you. >> Well, thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. I I do want to recognize the staff. They've been you've been great helping
me over six years with everything really. and they do a lot of due diligence and a lot of work as you know from your uh documentation here. So, and I'd like to thank all of you guys. Uh and you too, Marsha. >> You're welcome, Mike. Thank you.
>> Uh I think it I think we've done a great job and I I wish you all the best in the future. So, thank you very much. >> Don't be a stranger, Mike. >> Yeah. Just don't come in with a petition. Here I I have just a I have just a sidlight if you're interested in
Mr. Lean. They said they just bought this, you know, the CMDM Winona. >> They paid uh Bob Bameick has his report here. They bought, it says 259 acres. The price was 2.5 million. So they paid
9,300 uh $9,672 an acre for that farm. >> That's a lot of money. Good valuation. That's good taxes. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I would have owned it. >> Just drives up the neighborhood though,
too. >> That's a lot of lot of money. I don't know what the guy's going to do. But anyway, best of luck to him. >> Yeah, that kind of precludes just farming. >> Yeah, I don't think he's going to farm it. >> We still have to adjourn.
>> I will so move. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> All in favor, shop, say I. >> I. Hi, sounds like we're ajourned.