Okay. I have 7:00. So I'm calling meeting to order. Rise to say the pledge of allegiance. >> I republic 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. >> And we have two board members not here. Chef Oxstead and uh Marshall Ward, they won't be attending on line either. You have a quorum so we can go forward.
Uh motion to approve the agenda or amend it. >> I so move to approve the second. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I oppose. Nay. >> Hearing none. All in favor. Uh approval of the minutes of October 16th, 2025.
Good to have those. >> Louie moves. Is there a second? Mike Miller seconds it. All in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Nay. >> Hearing no names. All in favor. >> Um Jordan. Any updates on the uh board of
adjustments? >> Yeah. So we will pertain here. >> Yeah. We had one uh petition today or sort of a two-part which would be our second docket item. Um, we had a a prime soils variance as well as a variance
from subdivision standards and those were both approved by us earlier today. >> Anything else? >> That was all we had. >> Okay, Marsha's not here. Does the staff have Eric? >> At the last county board meeting, they
did approve the linger condition permits. >> Thank you. Uh any updates from the comprehensive plan? Olivia, you taking that one? >> Just a brief update. Um so right now we
currently have an interactive mapping activity that's live on the website. If anyone we would encourage everyone to do it. If anyone wants to do it with us in the office, you're welcome to do that as well. We will have another survey going live as of next week. Um the next steering committee meeting is going to be scheduled for January. There's going
to be a township officer meeting, I believe, the first week in December. And there will be a worksheet going out to all of the townships in advance of that. Um so we can discuss that at that meeting. But that is all I have for now. We're working on the goals and objectives. Thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to move right into the petitions. The first one I have is docket PC 11-20-2501. This is to consider the petition of James Allen and uh Charlene Allen property owners and Jeremy and Ariel
Allen petitioners who seek a conditional use interim use permit regarding the following to allow a single family dwelling on less than 40 contiguous acres pursuit to the chapters 10.4.6.36.8
A of the Winona County zoning ordinance and I believe uh Erin you have this. >> Thank you. Thank you. Good evening board members. Um as I go through the the presentation any questions or comments please I would welcome questions or
comments. Please do not hesitate to interject. As you said uh the application is for a single family dwelling in the a district on less than 40 acres. So a very common application that's before you. This slide shows the proposed parcel um
purple shaded area and then within that there is a red polygon that shows the approximate location of the proposed dwelling. zoning information. As I said, the zoning district that underlies the proposed parcel and
the entirety of the area surrounding it is the agricultural resource conservation district and the ordinance pathway. I will not read it again. I mean, you did a a fine job of laying that out, but that would be the way they work through the ordinance to pursue their objective.
an oblique aerial view here. Um, it's in Saratoga Township. The proposed parcel is just under three acres. This guy's a panhandle shape. So, you have a elongated driveway accessing the the uh, in this case, the township road. And
then you have the building envelope comes off Sinclair Road and it is a rural setting, although there are a good number of single family dwellings within a half mile distance. some site characteristics.
If you look to the north of the proposed parcel, there's some mapped wetlands. And then to the west of the proposed parcel and a good distance to the west, we have a public water with an associated flood plane and a shorland
district slope. So this slide here, yellow means pretty flat, red means pretty steep. It's primarily yellow. So it's a fairly flat site that's being proposed. Uh soil characteristics.
So the entirety of the parcel is on the class three and class two soils. Those are soils the county regulates. The petitioners pursued and were successful in obtaining a variance from the soil standards during last month's board of
adjustment meeting. No uh low sinkhole probability and no carst features. Some more site characteristics nearby feed lots. Uh we've got one to the northeast and then we've got one to the
the east and we've got relatively low animal units there in the one to the east finger. Uh so there is an agricultural building on the parent parcel in this case and that's believed to have been constructed before there was a permit requirement
for an agricultural building and that although not a permit I should mention that I did mention that a variance was granted last month from the soil standards. uh comments from the town of Saratoga in support of the application.
And then finally, uh the same advice that I always offer to you from this slide. Uh committee should consider all materials and testimony before making a decision. Staff analysis provides guidance for drafting findings and the county attorney's office has prepared draft findings for you. And
should the committee recommend approval, there are some proposed conditions. Any questions? >> Is this the one where they're going to share the well but have their own septic system? >> No, >> I don't believe so. But that would be a
good question to pose to the applicants. >> Anything else? >> Um, I just be honest, I was a little surprised that the uh the township approved it. I was looking for the document that I have at my desk just to
check. >> Yeah, it's a twofold document. Um there's both the standard form you're accustomed to seeing and then there's also an email clarifying intention farther down the road. >> Okay. Thanks, Aaron.
>> Welcome. Would the petitioners or owners care to tell us about your project? >> Uh state your name and address is for the recording. >> Yes. I'm Jim Allen, 28 430 Sinclair
Road, uh St. Charles, the owner of the of the farm. Uh Jeremy would be here tonight, but he uh he's still working. He works on dairy farms maintaining dairy equipment and didn't get done
yet. So, I apologize. Um, yeah, I I I don't have anything to add to uh the package Aaron put together. I think it's very complete. Um, we u would answer any questions that you
might have. >> Anybody have questions? like >> are they going to have their own well or share a well? >> Plan is to have their own well because our well is not that fantastic. Um it I
understand you can connect them nowadays that that distance but >> uh our well is original to the property and it's not >> how how old is that?
I do I don't know that. I don't know that. Um just curious, >> but it's it's got several helps getting it getting it to qualify. >> Mike, you had a question. >> I was just going to clarify that on his
behalf because he'd asked that before. >> Anybody else? Thank you, Jim. Appreciate it. Thank you. Motion to open the public hearing. >> I move that we open the public hearing. >> Seconded >> and Jordan second it. All in favor open
public hearing say I. I >> oppose. Nay. Hearing none. All in favor. Public hearing is now open. >> Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the podium, state your name and address and your concerns.
My name is Tom Bouan. I'm uh the neighbor at 28493 Sinclair Road. And uh I just have a comment that I'm really surprised that someone would want to build in that particular place cuz uh usually when you build in the country, you kind of want privacy and whatnot.
and uh where it's positioned from my place, it pretty much takes away my backyard privacy totally. And uh other than that, uh again, I'm surprised that someone would want to
build there in the first place, but so be it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone, state your name and address and your concerns.
Anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the microphone and state your name and address and your concerns. Okay, one more time. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition,
please come to the microphone, state your name and your address and your concerns. >> I move we close the public hearing. >> I'll second that. >> Jordan seconds it. All in favor of closing the public hearing, say I.
>> I. >> You're against closing the public hearing say nay. Hearing none. All in favor? Now I'll turn it over to the commissioners. >> Jordan, >> um I'll say when we did the uh
prime soils variance last month, uh Aaron went over a few different locations that they could potentially put this and this seemed to be the best spot on this parcel. Um, I'm sure he can elaborate more on that if you want him
to, but I just thought I would add that little bit of information since I didn't since I forgot to mention it uh earlier. >> Okay. Anybody else want to speak? Jean? Well, is it possible that we could add a
condition that they plant some sort of vegetation between the two parcels so that eventually maybe it wasn't so visible. Well, you know, that goes into the
question of who should be deciding what kind of >> Well, yeah, I realize, but >> I'm in my thinking, the person who needs the privacy probably should plant that. >> Okay.
>> Make the decisions, you know, about how much privacy they need. >> I had thought of that, too. So, >> yeah. So, I guess I'm a little I'm a little confused about where the uh driveway access starts on since Sinclair Road
curve so sharply here. Um that used to be a do farm access, didn't it? Field access only. >> It's the existing field access. >> Yeah. Um, so is
how is that going to connect out specifically to Sinclair Road without having um vision issues? >> It's rather open in that area anyway. If you don't have trees in the way, you can see if somebody's coming or not on that
road at that particular inter. I I just I just meant that it's such a sharp corner and the uh um the property line doesn't actually butt up close enough. So, I was just curious how the how the driveway was going to connect up to
Sinclair. >> Well, it would have a >> might be >> it would have a driveway permit from the township. Correct, Aaron. >> Right. >> Right. That would be that would be up to them to >> I'm on page 22 of people. I think you are too, Steve.
>> I think that's the best map. Yeah. >> Yeah, that would be Sure. >> Yeah. Just Jordan, if I heard you right, it's a field driveway off of that. >> It is. Yeah. I provided some detail on the access.
>> Yeah. >> Go ahead, Erin. >> If you see here, this isn't an owned access. It's township owns this street. So, they have 33 feet plus of of width here to connect. In this zoning district, there is a standard width. It's required if you access via easement
that is 33 feet. There's no um minimum standard stated if it's owned access. Uh but if we just look at the ability to get a car down the 33 feet, the the panhandle is also 33 feet. So you would have in excess of that in a
connection to the township own strip. This strip here is not owned by the applicant. So if they were to try to access through there, they would have to deal with that property owner to achieve that, but they would have the ability to make a legal connection right right along this line right here.
just seemed I'm sorry. It just seemed a little uh inconvenient to have a a driveway right on that corner. But >> so that would be the purview of the township. The county does not have a standard in the zoning ordinance about connection
>> um on a township road. >> Aaron, >> yes. Is there supposed this driveway back there is 33 feet wide enough for all? >> Well, as I said, there is no standard
for owned access in the ordinance. The standard for easement access is 33 feet. Whether in a practical sense that's wide enough, that's a great question that I can't answer. Okay. In a regulatory sense, it's meeting the minimum standard stated for easement access and there is no standard for owned access.
>> Okay. It's a legal standard. Mr. >> Chairman Lou, >> I see a little problem possibly in the future. Somebody else wants to feed some livestock and they're on the feed lot situation. Wouldn't they read here that they could
not build or expand the feed lot with that house there? >> No. That well if they did they come to us, you know, to get larger number which we deal with quite frequently. What was the distance on that feed lot from
>> the one was over a thousand? The one that has over a 100 animal units. >> You're talking about the closer ones. >> You know, they'd have an issue with the existing uh home for Mr. Too,
>> right? >> Yep. >> So, they would both actually the Mujian farm would be closer to the feed lot than if they can go to 300 units without any problems. That's for us. >> Well, on page 16, uh the staff addresses
that under item seven. That's our packet agenda which you got tonight. I can complain if they turn around want to put in a great big stinky hog setup. I don't blame blame on that one, >> but that's not what we're talking about. >> Yes, I understand that. >> If they were, they'd have to come here
to get it. >> Not for these people, but >> Yeah. system. >> Well, that's hypothetical. Okay. Any other questions? >> J one more question. No. I move to approve the
recommendation >> recommendation for agenda item number one with the findings of fact and >> conditions. Do we have a second on Eugene and John second? But any other discussions?
Otherwise, all all in favor of recommending this to go to the county board of commissioners say I. >> I. >> Post say nay. Hearing none. All in favor. And from
here your next hearing would be with county board meeting at Thursday, December 11 at 6 o'clock 6 p.m. Okay. and think in this room, right?
So, that's December 11th at 6 p.m. Okay. Now, let's move to our next uh docket. That's docket PC1-20-2502. This is to consider a petition of Arnold Hoff property owner le Todd and Lisa Hoff petitioners seek a conditional use
interim use permit regarding the following to allow a new dwelling conversion of existing structure on less than 40 acres approximately 2.5 acres in the Agricultural Resource Conservation
Zoning District pursuant to chapter 10.4.6 6.36 of the Winona County. So I think Olivia got this one. >> I do. Thank you. Um so as Jordan mentioned, they did receive two
variances earlier today for the subdivision standards and prime soil, which we'll get into a little bit. Um but this one is for a new parcel and less than 40 acres is why they're in front of you tonight. So it is in Richmond Township, um section 32. The existing parcel that's shaded in green
is about 101 acres. They're proposing to split 2.5 off of that. So, there'd be a 98.5 acre parcel left. Um, and you can see the Interstate 90 down on the south of that aerial image. Lener Road is a township road and then it turns into a
private lane. Um, so that's what this parcel would be served by. Similar to the last petition that was in front of you, they would need an easement um for access to that new property. So, this is just a staff created site plan. You can see the outline of that
parcel that's being proposed in red. Um you can see similar residences along Huff Lane there as well. This is a petitioner submitted site plan. So, essentially it's showing the existing structure um that was approved as an egg building. they would be
converting a portion of that into the residence and then the remaining portion of that building would be used as um garage space. They did have a septic contractor out on site already. So, they've looked at kind of the area that they're proposing to split um and have
determined that there is enough space on that site for a primary and secondary septic system. And they would be proposing to share the existing well that's closer to that um dwelling. You can see on the right there some of the project considerations. It is ARC zoning which does require a
conditional use permit for a new home on less than 40 acres. Even though it's an existing structure, it's a new residence which is why they still need the cup for it. Um the makeup of the parcel is entirely prime soils for CL class 2 and three predominantly class 2. Um they did
get a variance from that as well as the subdivision standards. They're proposing to use the existing building. Um, like I mentioned, it would be family um that would be proposing to reside in this new residence. And then, as I mentioned
before, Lander is a dead end township road that serves Huff Lane. Just some photos of the site. This is looking northwest at the existing structure. Um, crop land surrounds it on three sides and then there's green space to the east of that structure.
Looking northeast, um you can see the crop land there in towards the left on the aerial image. Um looking at the area where they're proposing the septic system, looking northeast um at the existing driveway that serves the building and
then it curves um over to that residence. And then this is looking down Huff Lane towards Lander. There isn't any new disturbance proposed as a part of the project. All of the work would be within that existing building. They don't need to add a driveway. They don't need to
add anything. Um they're not proposing any new structures or additions to that building other than just the septic system which would be um added in that grassy area. Richmond Township did um indicate
support for the project. The petitioners attended the August 12th township meeting and that form is in your packet as well. So staff recommendation would be that you consider all materials and testimony before making findings that support your decision. The analysis and draft
findings do support granting this as a conditional use permit. We do have two conditions drafted in the staff report and findings for your consideration. Any questions for me at this point? You talked about the driveway having an easement that's already in place or
>> so the residences that are out there y >> have easements because it's a private lane. This one when it is split it would need to have an easement recorded providing access. So it' be similar to the to the residences that are out here already.
>> Yep. >> Right. Yep. Even though it's all family that's out there now in the event that it would sell, there would need to be legal access provided. Yep. >> Anything else for me? >> Any other questions? >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Libby. >> Uh would the petitioners like to come up and tell us about your project and just state your name and address for the record. >> I'm Todd. >> I'll speak. Go ahead. We'll get both of
you on the record. Okay. >> Okay. Tad Huff, 27962 Huff Lane. >> And I'm Lisa Huff. >> Okay. Tell us about this project. >> So, um, my husband's father, Arnold, uh,
is the, uh, owner of the of the parcel of, um, of all of the land. And, um, my husband and I live on it as well. Um, and our it is our daughter who she and
her husband who uh who would really like to live up in the rural area where she was born and raised. And uh they are right now in Utah. Otherwise, they would be here tonight uh to to be represented
as well. um because they're young and because they're trying to keep costs down and it's hard to find housing right now and because they uh building building this would allow them to do it at a lower cost. This is something that
works and everybody wins in our family. We get to have family nearby and um and they get to have a mortgage and and live up by by all of their family. My my husband's sisters live up there and my brother uh John Payatt lives on
the original farmstead that the farm was when it was purchased. So, but we welcome any questions. >> Well, it's truly Hoff Lane, isn't it? >> It it became that even without our knowledge because we lived there back when there were fire numbers originally.
So, we were it was a treat to find that out. >> Okay, commissioners, any questions? I presume based on the uh what the building look like that it has a cement floor. >> It does very thick one
>> and it already has water. >> It's connected to my dad's house which is >> Eugene. >> Uh I presume that this photo we saw with the driveway going is the end that they're going to make into a house.
Well, I think that uh I think that the it is actually the the reverse the they're going to keep that as um as sto as farm like tractor storage and garage space and and um they
plan to do the back end of it actually as residential. So >> what are the dimensions maybe you don't know 50 by 80? >> The the full building is 50 by 80. Okay. >> Um the the front is about 30 by 50 and
the back being 50 by 80. >> Yeah. The roughly the front part of the building we thought about at first because I already have that insulated and lighting and and and kind of set up to uh do a lot of mechanics in there. Um
but that is going to remain the same. So, the driveway that goes into that front part of the building will remain the driveway in the garage and we'll probably just have a sidewalk going around to the side where it'll become the front, but there won't be any access of road to that.
Actually, there really really isn't any changes at all that's going to be happening. I'm just very grateful that they want to come back to be on our property and they have some young blood to help out with some of the work around. Um, and you know, that's my been
my dad's wishes as well. >> So, if I hear you correctly, the footprint's going to be the same. >> Yeah, I understand that. >> Yep. Footprint won't will be same. We were well aware of the 40 acres and figured out this would be the best way of doing it.
>> Any other questions? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Motion to open a public move. I got Jordan as the motion and I got Louis as a second. Right. Just for the notetakers. All in favor opening public hearing say
I. I oppose. Nay. Hearing none. All in favor. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition, please come to the podium. 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. 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.
>> I move we close the public hearing. >> Second. >> I got a second from John. Right. Eugene. All in favor of closing the public hearing say I. >> I post nay. >> Motion to approve. >> All right. We're moving to that one. Didn't hear a nay. Okay, commissioners.
Now, where do we go from here? Uh Louie, I think, wanted to articulate it. A motion to approve with all the conditions. >> Approve. Yes. >> And findings of fact. >> Yeah, including findings of fact. Correct. >> I would second that. >> Jordan seconds that. Any discussion?
Otherwise, all in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Nay. Hearing none. All in favor. And your next meeting, we're going to recommend it is county board meeting on Thursday, December 11th at 6 p.m. >> Okay. Right here.
>> Yep. Thank you. >> No. Uh Eric, are we ready to move to docket the third docket? >> Yes, I believe so. It's, you know, as I read through it's real confusing here. >> It is. >> So rather than me read the two amended
seeking, I'm going to let you do it and explain each and I think I understand it, but I want to make sure I do. >> You bet. Uh, this one's a little bit out of the ordinary. I would call this housekeeping probably more than anything. Um, as you see on the agenda
item, I'm asking for two things. We're changing two official controls of the county. We'd like to change the zoning map to reflect um well actually I should back up. We want to first reclassify the comprehensive land use map and take it
out of RS and change that back to agricultural. But by also the same action, we'd like to change the zoning district, which is commercial or B, and change that back to agricultural. Um, we've had a series of
applications recently. Um, it's mainly Winona County that's driving this request, but you can see it does state that the petitioner is Mark and Cheryl Leonards are the property owners. We've been working with those folks the last eight or nine months. Um the board of
adjustment has has uh acted on a couple of variances both on this property for a proposed structure which would be occupied as a um occupancy on a semianual basis or seasonal by the applicants and as well as uh the
neighboring property the heimmes which is located just to the west. in researching the files, there's been a few things that have been lost through transitions through our GIS and through um just I
guess um um some filing filing issues. So, if I can get into it, those are the two requests. Uh this is the parcel that we're zeroing in on tonight. It's uh roughly that T-shaped parcel.
Um I believe it's about an acre and this is kind of their proposal. They wish to build a 100x60 shed which would be also served as living quarters on that building and that's gone through a variance to get closer to the to the
state highway 14. Um we solicited mindot for comments and whatnot. So that's been working its way through planning. This is kind of the height of the issue. Um, when we look at our beacon, our GIS system, it's going to um, when we select
zoning district, it it it's correct on the county viewer as egg, but digging into it, which I have now the last couple of months. Um, this property was reszoned with the neighboring property because of the historic nature of it
going all the way back to the 1980s. And then specifically it was zoned industrial up until about 2002 2003 and then the Heimmes and Decker who was a previous owner they sought to get that
industrial district reduced down to commercial and that's where it the record support that this is actually zone B. We plan or we intend to leave the Him property. They got the the seed business that's located to the west. That will remain commercial because that
is ideally suited for how they are using this. But for this new owner of this one acre piece, the Leonards, the agricultural district seems to be the most compatible for them, compatible with the zoning districts. What also has
kind of confused this part of of the county or this neighborhood is we got city of St. Charles here, here, here, and then um up in this area where the church is, and some other properties, there was annexations that
were proposed. And so I think that's how a good part of the records got goofed. Uh there were some annexations and there were some things that just kind of slipped through the cracks. So, I guess I just want to at this point make the record clean um as far as what's
actually going to transpire out here. St. Charles Township section 20 immediately adjacent to the city of St. Charles in a couple of areas. Uh agricultural, you do have a poultry farm that's located to the to the southeast
of this. Uh the the first the amend the comprehensive plan. This is a difficult map to look at because the comprehensive land use map was really adopted in 2001. If we were to zoom in on this, you can
see where the John Deere dealership shows up in red. But if you were to expand, expand expand, it's a rural residential service. >> And typically that almost prohibits or prevents a residential setting. and it's supposed
to be for commercial activity or something other like industrial. So the first step is to make sure that the record is clean that we want this one acre to go back to egg to do that. Uh kind of showing existing um
elevations and existing contours and that it's T-shaped because of the historic nature of it. It used to be part of the the rail system. ain't too far away from the tracks, right? The current bed.
>> Um, it was a former abandoned bed, >> the old Northwest. >> Yeah, it was the old Chicago Northwestern and before that the Winona and St. Peter. >> Uh, this is actually from earlier this spring. Um, Mark has all already done a little bit of excavating. He's he's
bladed in the driveway and he's working on plans to to get his construction. Um, the building that you see, that's the Heim property. That's immediately located to the west. >> With that slide, I'd like you to leave that slide. >> Is there going to be another access off
to 14? >> No. No. His son owns the next place to the east. And then it's that driveway also serves the turkey operation. He plans on using that existing driveway and then a spur coming to to serve his
site. the how big was that proposed building that you you said 100 by 60 or >> I believe so. Yeah, somewhere in that neighborhood. >> When I was up there today, you know, it was kind of wet up there because we've had rain. Is the drainage going to be adequate down the ditch by 14 so that
there's not a problem. >> He's got to work with Mandot on that as well as the neighboring property they're going to be doing or they have been doing some filling and they plan on putting up a a rather large structure to expand their seed business. In those cases, if they are going to impact
mindot, uh they cannot put that drainage in the rightway, they do have to provide um on-site. Um >> but I know their proposed one is on the other side and they filled it in. I'm only looking at this one, >> looking at the water coming off the roof
that comes this way and this afternoon there was a pool of water in there. >> Uh so I just, you know, I I realized the zoning changed. Right now, you just got a dead piece of land that you can't do anything with and do the zoning changes
gives it potential. But I still worry about if they can get the drainage to come towards Highway 14 >> because that's their only option. Yeah. >> As I see it, >> rain gutters, >> retaining wall, >> whatever they're going to do. >> Yeah.
>> So, when they come for some type of building thing, those that would be the time for that issue. >> Yeah. We'll have to have those discussions because uh you have to wonder about imperous surface and in fact this case since I think they only plan on occupying it as a dwelling like
six months of the year if that uh they do plan on setting some holding tanks because that is the best alternative because they might not have an area for a mound. They're they're not putting a new well in they're going to receive a water line from the sun's place. All there would do a sewer there. Maybe
they'd be on the second floor. I'm going have to worry about that drainage. >> Yeah. >> So, what was the reasoning for the uh changing the setback from 130 to 80? >> Uh they wanted I believe I'd have to see what it was, but they
wanted to be about 80 ft. They weren't even going to be as close as the neighboring property, but they wanted some consideration to be somewhere, you know, behind this line here. You see this is the right away. >> Yeah. >> From that. So they wish to be the set
back off of Highway 14 is 130 ft. Yes. >> That's going to be very difficult to meet though. They were asking for I believe in this case 100 foot for that one. >> Actually the neighboring one that we had a couple months ago >> believe they were asking for somewhere
in that neighborhood too. And since this is a T, there's uh a little bit of land between their property and 14. Who owns that? That'd be the state. That'd be state right away as well.
Yep. You there's a survey document. And then there's also that aerial, but that area between Highway 14 and that green parcel is actually would be recognized as state right away, highway right away. And the state doesn't have a problem
with this being a te that cutting into what they would consider their rightway. >> Um the anything that the owners of this property do, they cannot um enter into the rightway with any of their development.
>> Yeah, that's >> I I remember years ago being on the development council in town. Maybe that's where some of this got reszoned that way is that the DOT at that time said we were trying to find places that we could encourage uh development of
between our existing railroad track that's there and Highway 14 and it got zoned or pushed to zone it um industrial you know so there would be a place to do it >> good land used in between the railroad tracks turkey barns and part of the
issue was is that They said they need to have a furniture road. They didn't want all these driveways coming on to Highway 14. And that's why some of that setback was probably there. And then Hines actually built their building up closer than was originally intended, but it
might have been the driveway was going to be there and there was going to be a frontage road to feed any further development there. I remember that being a conversation or long range potential plan. You know, railroad track being in
on the south side of it stuff. We thought industrial use would be the most likely thing. Building houses in there wasn't going to be real attractive with the turkey sheds and the the railroad tracks right in your backyard. >> And part of the re the previous property
owner of this one acre, I believe, was John Decker. Y and I think he was holding out hopes of of maybe building many storage build uh buildings or facility for for storage. And I think he held on to that desire for quite a
while. But I think now he was just one acre. It'd be minimal. He'd have to go through the through the steps. And I think uh um interested buyer of the property kind of revealed itself. And that's why I guess we're here tonight to kind of finish those steps to to do
that. Again, these are from earlier. The driveway, you see where the vehicles parked? That's already in now where they do have a crushed rock access coming from. >> Yeah, they were out there working today on it. >> Yeah, I saw that. >> The son lives here, but it'd be actually
it actually has to be on the other side of the rideway. They had to make sure that that driveway was not in the rightway. So, is that a driveway that's there owned by the sun or is that owned by the turkey farms? >> Um, there's a number of easements. If
you look at those deeds, there's a number of ingress egress uh easements for accessibility on it. >> Again, this was earlier >> with it uh as it uh in industrial uh
use. They can't build a house there as part of the reason. >> Correct. Under a commercial. Yeah. We could >> more industrial. >> They could really stretch it, but it didn't it wasn't a very good fit. If it was like caretaker for a commercial business or something and he has a commercial business, but we didn't want
to stretch the ordinance to that. We thought this would probably be the most cleanest route is to get the zoning and to get the comp plan back to the consistent area, which would allow this much more cleaner and defendable. It's just kind of an odd place to build
a dwelling that they're only going to use six months a year. >> Well, I'll tell you what, if it was 12 months a year, it ain't a desirable place. >> No, neither stem coming down giving her the beans and the railroad tracks in the other side. >> I think plants in the summer when
>> wasn't you get that you get that nice country fresh air. Yeah, >> especially when it's from the southeast wind, >> right? It's right in your back yard. Wasn't the idea they were going to park a RV or something in the >> I don't know. Yeah, it could be. It could be that they brought that up.
>> Did we just do a setback >> a setback variance and prime soils? Because we already assumed it was egg. So, you know, this is to clean that up. And actually technically they probably would have needed that prime soil variance because if it's own commercial
but I guess you know that's that's when we're looking at the county system we were under some >> acre land which isn't big enough hardly to make >> yeah so >> would they need more >> we know going forward >> no I think we just have to issue the
zoning septic permit a new address they just need administrative per permitting from our office if possessible. >> Um, >> what what you're saying >> clean up red tape. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. This is housekeeping to get
our zoning maps and our official documents in line industry or something here. You know, it would be a good land use of that >> when they were looking at it and it never happened. >> Yeah. >> That's 30 years. >> Excess is not good either.
>> No. Um I did meet with the St. Charles Township board on October 21st, went over this discussion and as is their kind of typical um protocol is they just offered no comments and thanked for for
the Q&A session. So was good. So and this one's a little different because we're changing official documents. We don't have conditions, but we do staff has rep you can't arbitrarily do resoning or
reclassification. It has to meet certain um sections of the ordinance that talk about the zoning amendments. And in this case, um, staff, um, when we looked at the situation, we
offer the five, uh, bullet points, the five criteria for making this change to recommend approval to do that. So, with that, I'll take any additional questions. Go ahead. >> Uh, you mentioned that you're doing
housekeeping here. Now, I could stand some help with housekeeping, too, Eric. Yeah, we all could. I think >> come to mind. >> Yeah, that would mean more than just change it. >> So, what they're seeking approval for is
the changing of of this to agricultural and >> to >> building and to have a building on there at the same time or will they need to come back later for a building? >> No, they've already applied for the
building part of it. This is just to make it consistent with their desire and the actions and what we've already set our course on with the with the property owners. This is so that's why you see in the notice and in some of the documents that's Winona County and the petitioners
because taking a holistic view of this uh this is this is what would I guess be the best suited action for everybody involved. Any other questions on why the zoning changes? >> Well, the biggest thing is they're going
to use it for residents. Can't do it with a zone industrial or collect. And that's just what I want to make sure you knew. >> Residential. They can't. >> Correct. >> So, but it's land use. It's >> just a lot of keeping clean up.
>> Red designating it back to what it used to. >> Yeah. We need to open the hearing to the public then. >> Yeah. No, >> no comments. >> Okay. >> There was nobody to comment. So, well, but procedurally you want to make sure
>> but this is internal. The county is trying to >> it just because as I read through it, it was kind of a mess >> to begin with. So if this makes it clearer for a county to do their job, it's >> only an acre and there's so many different owners things that have
happened over the last 30 years that stuff that >> yeah my biggest concern was the setback difference of 130 to 80 and it sounds like that's >> building is closer to that. So >> but that's not our
>> No, but so not out of line with that. I would move we recommend this to the county board for approval. >> We have a second. >> I'll second. >> You got beat out here.
>> Eugene second it is. It resonated with me. All in favor of recommending this back to the county board. Say I. >> I. >> Oppos? Nay. >> All in favor so it goes back to the board and you guys know what to do with it. Uh I don't know what hearing that'll
be. Same night. >> Okay. On December 11th and at 6 o'clock. If there's no other business, we'll entertain a motion to accept. So >> moved. Second. Second from John. All in favor adjourning say I. I. I. Oppos. Nay.
Hearing none. We are adjourned.