Okay, it says it's 7:00. Let's 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. Oh, I suppose I was supposed to call the meeting to order, but I did that in a way. Um, the next thing is approval of the agenda. >> So move. >> I'll second that. >> Louie moved and Jordan seconded. All
those in favor say I. I. I. >> Post. Nay. Pass unanimously. Approval of the minutes. Move. Second. >> Louie moved and um
>> Mike >> Mike seconded it. Um all those in favor of passing the minutes as recorded say I. >> I post nay. Motion carried. Um
next item is approve the amended rules of procedure. Did everyone or anyone look at that? >> Yeah, I would move to approve the amended rules. >> I'll second.
>> Okay, Jordan moved and Shep second that. Is there any discussion? >> That just that just follows the new they changed the open meeting laws and that this is current this is the current practice or has to be a roll call.
Previously that didn't happen on open meeting law. >> Okay. Okay. >> That's the >> So we all understand why they changed it. All right. Any more discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of the pro approving the amended rules of procedure
say I. >> I. I. >> Oppos? Nay. >> It's passed. All right. Updates. Board of adjustment. Jordan. Um, we had one petition today that we tabled from last
month that we'll be hearing for a cup today. We approved um two variances, one for a feed lot setback and one for prime soils.
And there it was a split vote 3 to one. Okay, that's that was the only item you had today, >> correct? Yeah. If you have any questions as we move on, I can answer them. >> Yeah, we probably should let it go till then. Yeah. Okay, fine. Um Marsha County
Board have a question. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Just wanted to clarify with George when you said variance on prime soils, was that on the number of regulated acres? Is that what the variance was for? No, it was for a new dwelling on class three soils.
>> Okay. >> Um, county board, uh, Tuesday we did hear the Lidol's uh, solar. It did pass on a 3 to2 vote. Um a lot of discussion um concerns about how close we're letting structures and
things getting built on a scenic byways and maybe there should be more setback with that designated uh route and the scenic byways did a study uh state study back in I think it was 1999 and they are going to
uh upgrade their study or or look at it again uh for across the state of Minnesota not just Winona county and so we probably will be having some discussion. Um, surprisingly, Commissioner Vaguely referred to it as an industrial application in a res in a
rural area, but he did vote to support it. Um, by our rules as they currently stand, you know, it was supported three to two. Uh, Commissioner Eling uh felt that he didn't have all the information he needed and he admitted he'd been out
of out of town and out of touch. And we've also had a little bit of technology problems in Winona County getting all the information we need. Uh and uh I voted against it because I just felt that it was affecting the neighborhood uh inadvertently um that
property values and things like that. But it did pass three to two. But there will be more discussions about um especially scenic byways and and particular areas within the county what our setbacks are. May we may change want to change some things. >> Okay.
um updates on a comprehensive plan. >> Good evening. So, since the last time planning commission has met, there have been two steering committee meetings. They've discussed parks and recreation, community facilities, source water, and
wellhead protection. Um I think that's all of them. And then there's the next final steering committee meeting for discussion of the plan elements themselves is going to be sometime around the first week in May. I think the date's still getting decided, but that's going to be land use and intergovernmental cooperation. So that's
typically the the one that people are most interested in. Um but that one should be beginning of May. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, am I supposed to move for this table or should I introduce it first?
>> This one's not. The first one's not on the table. >> Oh, >> right. >> On. >> Oh, it is. >> On mine. It is. >> Oh, it's just not in. Okay. My my bad. Sorry. >> Take it off. Move to take it off. I'll move to take it off. >> Okay. Louie moves to take it off table.
Second. >> Second that. >> Jordan seconds it. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos. Nay. Motion passed. Okay. Docket PC
04-16-261. Olivia has it. Take it away. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, so the first petition you have before you tonight, as Jordan mentioned, they did receive two variances earlier today for the dwelling on prime soils and then in relation to
how close they were to a feed lot. The request before you to tonight is because they are on less than 40 acres in the egg resource conservation zoning district. Try clicking once. >> I did have a quick uh question. Um, in
the packet it refers to docket 04162601, but in but isn't it still the 03192601. >> That's >> Yeah, it's under the table tab. So, it's the same. >> Correct. >> Okay. It's not a different >> Yeah. Okay. It's just the same. Thank
you. >> In the staff report, >> I assume it was. >> Yeah. Thank you for clarifying. Um, so the site itself, it's in section 34 of St. Charles Township. It's a 5.72 acre parcel. It's along Willnow Drive and then Willnow Drive turns into Willnau
Lane to the west of that parcel. Some of the overviews. So, the home site there on the upper left aerial is outlined in red on their parcel. This structure has been built. So, this is an after-the-act conditional use permit request before you tonight. Um, similar
to the variance, it was an after the fact variance as well. It looks like there's two separate structures, but it's one building. We're treating it as one structure, two separate roof lines. Um, the larger building to the north of that home site is the petitioner's cabinetry making
business that they did receive a conditional use permit for. The petitioner lives in the house that's just to the northwest of this parcel. Um, he owns both parcels. The family that lives in this
dwelling currently is his son and his son's family. His son is employed at the cabinetry making shop. Um so this is what we considered for board of adjustment earlier today. As you can see it was prime soils and then there's that feed lot setback as well. This just gives you a larger picture of
the um parcel boundaries. some of the project considerations. Um, currently the structures used for extra storage and living space for their son and family. As I mentioned, he is employed on site. The two variances that were required were granted earlier
today. Um, and they both are considered after the fact because the structure is already there and being occupied. Some of the photos of the structures. This is looking southeast. Um, and you can see in the bottom left corner there's that aerial image that kind of shows you where the photo was taken
from. Will Now drive is that green line and then Will Now Lane is the purple. So where it transitions into that private lane kind of on the the corner of that fence line. Um, this is just a closer up picture looking south towards the structure.
Looking southwest, the petitioner does have um some animals on site. You can see the the fence pasture there. St. Charles Township did hear the petitioner on their January 20th meeting. They indicated no comments for the proposal. Um it should be noted that
St. Charles has taken over their own zoning authority. So, if the decision um regardless of the decision, I suppose if they were to get approval from both the board of adjustment and the county board, any further permitting would go to St. Charles Township. So, that
includes zoning and septic as well. They would need to handle that permitting for this project. This one came in at a a time when we were transitioning zoning authority to the township and so St. Charles Township requested that we proceed with
processing both the variances and the conditional use permit for this project. Our recommendation as always should that you consider all materials and testimony. The petitioner is here tonight. So if you have any questions for them, um our analysis and draft findings do support granting the
petition as a conditional use permit and there are four conditions drafted um that I can touch on if you'd like. Otherwise, any questions for me on the project? Louie, >> uh, will the townships report when they do take their zoning plan, will the
county be informed of their results or are you blind from what they do? >> Ross might be able to answer that better. >> Yes. >> Uh, CMS is the has been contracted to administer the programs for both Saratoga and St.
and they've indicated that they're going to share their their files with us so that we can maintain consistent property files. >> That's Olivia, can you go back to what is our primary objective in that slide?
>> Yes. So, the petition is before you tonight because they're requesting a dwelling to be on less than 40 acres. So, the parcel is currently 5.72 acres, which is why they need a conditional use permit. >> Yep. >> When was this parcel created? Dina,
>> I don't have that information. I know their cup for the cabinetry making business, I believe, is 2016. 2018. >> 2018. Okay. petitioner might have the exact year for you. >> And is the fenced off lot next to the
cabinet shot considered feed lot or or not? >> Um, so the the neighboring parcel is considered feed lot. Yes. >> But they own that. >> It's southeast of there
>> or what? Southwest, sorry. >> And that feed lot is 50 feet or so from the on the new structure. >> Oh, sorry. For the the petitioner's property, is your property considered a feed lot? No, I don't think they have
enough animals to >> Okay. >> to be considered a registered feed lot. Yep. >> Um, are you referring to the recommended conditions on page six, the four set? >> Page six that has page 18 in the lower right as well. Yeah. Um, yes.
Um, so number four, the petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits as required by St. Charles Township. Okay. After if this is granted, Winona County and the state of Minnesota to include meeting the state electrical
code and obtaining the required permit and inspection if applicable. Now, I don't know that we've ever outlined the state electric. We say you know all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Is there a reason to
highlight the state electrical code? >> We have had it in conditions before that are for dwellings. >> Don't remember seeing it specifically. >> CMS has really made that a strong point
that part of their process for going through permits is um using the electrical code for for approvals >> and and h I guess at some point in time I have to understand how this affects a a
subcultural group in our community that does not use electricity as a source of >> that that was a big question at the Saratoga Township when uh when they talked about that that uh u uh families that do not use electricity shouldn't
have to have a junction box to their house. So >> Yep. And it does say if applicable at the end of that condition. >> Just to clarify with for you, we we did meet with CMS last week and they did
indicate that um really they cannot it does it sounds like they cannot require electrical to be installed under building code. question. >> Anyone else have any more questions for Olivia? >> Ra. Uh, Everett.
>> Um, I'd like to ask the group's opinion on adding a couple more conditions. Um, I think there should be something in here for some kind of penalty for all after the facts permits. And do we want to add a condition that
since this is an after the fact that if the son is no longer working for the business can that house not be lived in anymore? Similar to hired help on a farm. When that hired help leaves, the trailer
house has to leave. >> Yeah. We they get two years, right? >> Well, something. But I'm I'm just asking do we need to add a condition similar to that in this >> I think when we get into the talking about the petition we can discuss this
further >> and I can touch on that just briefly too. So we do have a a section of the ordinance that someone can apply under specifically for workers to live on site. They're requesting this as just a standard dwelling on less than 40 acres.
So they're not they're just you know yes the sun is working on the business. So consider that in your um discussion but they're not applying under that specific one. And then what was your your first question? >> I don't think
the permit. >> Yep. So after the fact um that was something that the board of adjustment discussed as well. We can charge double a permit fee. So they're required to pay $450 for the conditional use permit. You can add a condition if you want to double that for the after the fact. It would be an additional $450.
>> Any other Jordan? >> We did we did discuss that today by the way. Um we vote it came to a vote and it was a tie vote. So that motion failed. >> Okay. Now we're all clear how how how far we've gotten here so far. Okay.
Thanks Olivia. Okay. At this time, I guess the petitioner has the right to speak. Would you please come forward, state your name and address, and tell us what you got to say?
>> Do we need a motion to open the public hearing? >> Oh, not yet. >> No, not yet. This is this is before the public hearing, right? >> Jake Shettler from UI, Minnesota, 27021 Willow Lane.
And that's my my cabinet business there. And my son works in the shop there. And we actually moved part of the smaller part of that we moved in. And then we added to that and we built
that on a on post so it can actually be moved again. And that was one reason we didn't get a permit is we're always told if you move a building you don't need a permit. Most of my buildings are actually moved that I have on my property. So, we moved the little one in and then we added to
it and for the time being, we actually built that for a storage building, but my son got married and needed a place to go. So, okay, you can move in that for the time being and it's it's just temporarily. It's not going to be
forever. It was actually built for for a storage building similar to a shouse. So, that's where he's living for now. And you know eventually he's the house isn't big enough for a big family. So eventually he's going to be doing something different
but for temporarily that's where he's living. >> So this building was constructed elsewhere and then the foundation the cement foundation >> it's sitting on a cement slab. Yes. >> And then moved into that.
>> Yep. Set on the slab. And then the one we added that's also set on a post. So if need to be it can be moved. >> I have a question. So would you consider this a temporary dwelling in any way?
>> I do. >> Right. >> I mean it's not going to be their home forever. >> Okay. But this this parcel will be the site of their future permanent dwelling. Do you believe? >> Not necessarily. I mean it can you know
if if the permit go through for that it might be >> sure >> but as of now >> I'm not even I'm not sure. >> My only concern is is that part of the topic that's in front of us for giving recommendation would be to permit this as future and buildable. >> Okay.
>> Uh on acknowledging that it's too small for dwelling density. >> So if we permit this tonight or you know if we give recommendation to permit this tonight it may maintain that uh going forward. So uh it would probably save you a couple steps if it did become the
future building site or the anticipated building site of your son's future dwelling. Right. Right. >> Um just understanding that uh making sure that's communicated. >> Uh because that may come into conflict with if you want to ultimately move it somewhere else and
that be a much bigger space. Um >> and it's that you know it's also built in a way that we can also add to it if we want to if we are going to make a you know a permanent building site out of it I mean dwelling site it can all also be
added to it. >> So it's whatever you know as of now our goal was not that to be uh a per a building site forever. It was just a temporary dwelling. But if the
permit does go through, it might be considered down the road to do that. >> Louie, >> is the building sitting on top of the cement? Is it fastened? But it's set. Is there any wood between
the foundation of the building and the cement? >> Any wood between the foundation and the Well, it's a slab. >> I understand that. But what I am asking, do you have a shingle in between the foundation of that building and the cement? >> Yes, a shingle or
>> It doesn't matter how thick it is. But if it's on the cement, it's considered a permanent building. If you have a piece of wood between the cement and the building, then it is not a permanent building. >> It's just sitting on treated 2x6
so it doesn't rot. >> I understand that. nuance and buildings between considering to be temporary andor permanent. Yeah, it's it's >> we set on cement blocks a building. I
went this years and years ago in the assessor and the old boy we were on the farm. He had a corn crib. Oldfashioned piece of crap what they are today. Corn crib. The old boy put a shingle
between the cement pillar block pillars and the corn crib. But the corn grip wasn't permanent. It's probably in the law on this if there isn't nothing between that building would be considered. >> I mean the way it's sitting
>> could be moved. Yes. >> The way it's sitting now it could be picked up and moved. >> Understand that. But if it's sitting on the cement it's considered permanent would be for the tax assessing and anything else. >> That's all why I asked the question.
>> Yep. Yep. Are there any other questions at this point? >> Uh for the cabinet business, uh is all of the uh construction done on site and then brought to >> uh I guess my question is do customers come to the site or do you generally
just go to the customer? >> I they come to me first and then I go to the house and measure and build the cabinets and take them to the house and I install them. >> Is there you know for parking? Is that pretty well established? I imagine not. Okay. Fantastic. >> In the front. Yep. Now, the part that's
on me though is not the living quarters. >> Oh, thank you. I do have it mixed up in my head then. So, the as we're looking at this, the one with the blue roof is the livable >> Yes. >> component. Okay. >> Sitting on post. >> Thank you.
>> Oh, no. No. The blue roof is the shed. The larger >> That's the living quarters. >> Yeah. It does say it has a dwelling inside. I just see that now. >> Yeah. >> Oh, well, I'm confused now. Yeah. So the north one uh in that downright photo uh
the northern one with the blue roof storage with dwelling inside and then the southern one is as I understand it sir uh is just the storage you know as it says wash house and uh >> bathroom. Thank you. >> Okay. The way the way that picture was
was taken, it's uh when you go up Willow Drive, um you're looking south at it and I guess Okay. I guess the blue one is the one that has the the
porch underneath it. >> Yeah, the Okay. >> It's sitting up. >> Yep. >> Yeah. My perspective was was off. What what do you actually store in the storage here? >> In the in that uh storage wash house?
>> Yes. >> It's just their well their canned goods, their personal items that they don't use like >> what what you would put in your attic basically. Extra beds, extra cribs, uh whatever. >> So So it's not part of the storage for
your cabinet business. You don't have propane in there or other stuff? >> No, no, no. It's all there. It's all my son's personal belongings that he puts in there that he doesn't have room for in the house. >> There any other questions? >> Do any children live on site or have
they started their family yet? >> They've got one child. >> Okay. >> Okay. Unless you have something further to say, Jake. Thank you. >> That's it. Thank you. >> All right. Um
Louie makes a motion to open the public hearing on PC4-16-2601. >> Second. >> Gordon seconds it. All those in favor of opening the public hearing say I. >> Post nay. The public hearing is now
open. Anyone wishing to speak to this docket item, please step forward, state your name and address, and tell us what you got to say. Is there anybody online? I see.
Okay. For the second time, anyone wishing to speak to docket number one, please step forward. Say what you have to say. For the third time, anyone wishing to speak to this docket number one, please
step forward and say what you have to say. Now, I do have to do this once more or this is enough. >> Three times. >> Three times. Okay. Do I get a motion to close the public hearing? >> So, move. >> Louie moves. >> Second.
Yeah. Um, >> chef second. >> Yeah. I I have an awful time with your name and Steve. >> All right, I'll turn this way. >> I'm getting senior moments. Yeah, that would help me. Chef, but that's fine. Um,
okay. All those in favor of closing the public hearing say I. >> I. >> Oppos? Nay. >> The motion is carried. Now, at this time, uh, we go into the discussion on this
petition. Anyone want to start? Jordan. Um, some points I made earlier today were that when we're looking at places for development, I think we try to put
houses near each other and not have a house every eighth mile, quarter mile. It's kind of nice to have it all clustered in this area. He's not traveling downtownship roads to work. Um, it's a 5 acre parcel that to me seems
perfect for a house. It's just the issue of it being after the fact that that we were so hung up on. >> Everett, do you have a point? >> Um, I I really do feel there has to be some kind of penalty for all after the fact
permits. Um, I do think this is potentially a gray area because is this a permanent building or a movable building? If it's a movable building, does he need a permit? You know, we're right on the line there.
Maybe this penalty shouldn't be as stiff as one for a true permanent building. I don't know. I'd like to hear other people's opinion on that. >> Steve, would you like to comment on that or As far as uh whether it's a permanent or
temporary building, uh our our uh zoning ordinance doesn't define what is temporary, what is permanent, but under the state building code, it it basically boils down to whether it could be taken apart and transported uh and is is
intended to be temporary. uh though it still has to meet all you know code requirements that a regular building would need to. >> Is there a size limitation? Because I'd always heard that if you uh were within this uh the small size that you didn't
it didn't really matter one way or the other. But >> yeah, I'm not aware of a of a size threshold that that delineates it. >> 200. There you go. >> 200 square feet. >> Yeah, that's what I was I was thinking.
So, this is well beyond the 200 square feet that >> um Thank you, Steve. >> U Question for you. Yes. He said there he wasn't aware of any ordinance, you know, if you're moving buildings and stuff, is there a building permit
requirement if you are moving buildings? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> You know, that's been a misconception since day one. temporary versus permanent. Uh the ordinance does not distinguish a structure is a structure. Even a mobile home or modular is tempor
but we require a land use permit for as it was a permanent. It may be permanent. Most of the mobile homes modular homes are permanent structures. Uh the miscon wasn't until 2011 where we started
not but whether it's temporary but movable doesn't make a difference. If something need and we have a $2,000 value if it exceeds both of those thresholds you need a zoning permit for that. That's the way we've kind of operated since day one in
this county. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Uh any other questions? >> Can I ask the what is the intent of this at our related to this petition or >> it's for the following petition? >> Oh, okay.
>> Um I do have Olivia though, Mr. Go ahead. >> Uh page 517. Um you refer to the final composite map utilizes a scale um figure 49. Is that map in the >> I didn't I didn't find it. >> It's not. No. >> Oh, okay. Okay. And can can you give me
a little bit more? That's that's kind of one that pops up just every now and then, too. We don't use it a lot. I mean, as decision makers, maybe staff does know that >> the comprehensive plan, the you're not going to see a fa favorable score unless
you're right on the doorstep of the city limits. Everything out in the egg district is going to have a score that's not palatable to that finding. Um that shows the kind of the problem that we have with these conditional use permits for the increasing the density that with
the 10 conditions because almost always we're going to have a score that is not favorable because the intent of the egg district is to pro pro to to severely limit new houses and new splits.
So that's always a tough one that we've it was uh one of the criteria we wanted with the 10 criteria for this type of conditional use permit and we struggle with it every time. There's no good answer unless you're right there in an urban area right right at the doorstep
of a city limit. It's going to have a higher score because it's the composite score is taking in about 25 or so factors. it that basically is answering the question is this a good growth corridor to allow more building.
>> So the building boom going on in downtown Nodine is we get a high score >> around the CD area because it does have amenities. Um you know it is an urban area. It's a historical hamlet which allows infill is what the what the
thought pattern was with it. >> Okay. All right. Eric, with this site here, how did it come on the radar? >> Um, I believe the assessor's department turned it over over and turned it into us. Okay.
>> Came they were doing their township before, you know, their um reports and they kind of canvas township by township and when that one came up, it's like, do you guys have permits for it? And we went through our records and we couldn't identify it.
>> Okay. But it wasn't like a complaint from a neighbor or anything. >> No. >> So just uh for my clarification, there should have been two permits for this. A permit to move the structure and the uh >> additional building. Yeah.
>> And the uh uh DUP for actually putting it there permit for putting it there. >> Correct. We require a development certificate. That's our land use permit to establish a building site and that in
covers any number of of perh buildings that they want to put on there, but we technically would review that and identify that oh this is less than 40 um in order to establish a building site. The process would be to to get the variance and then we start or to get the
conditional use permit and then we see there's a neighboring feed lot and then doesn't meet the soil requirements because it's a new building site. So yes, we're starting from scratch in that sense. >> I I guess how do we communicate to the
community that these permits are really because I there is a uh barn that's off of uh County Road 35 where I've seen structures built and then moved out of there. I'm not sure where they're where
they're all going, but uh there's nothing to tie these structures to the ground because they don't have water coming up through the building. They don't have electricity coming up through the foundation. So, uh basically anybody can just uh any size of building if if
they build it elsewhere, put a slab down and put it down. And if there's a misunderstanding >> how how do we get the word out? Yeah, we've had an ordinance since 1970 and and it's been pretty similar from
what I can tell. They used to have signs at all corners of the county lines that said you're entering a county that's zoned. All all land use permits and whatnot are required. And so, yeah, we we try our best. And, you know, the
townships that now are striking out on their own. And we met with the CMS people. I said, you know, we spend a the three townships that they're getting into, they're going to spend a lot of time, you know, on that factor because
we have I I know we've spent a good share of staff time on that. >> My my question kind of uh uh it's uh confirms the fact that uh this is
nothing new. >> Correct. >> And the should have been out there. >> Correct. I I mean, you know, the question came up at the variance meeting and I think 5.10 is the enforcement section and there's a whole menu
selection of way to bring something in compliance. Well, getting an app, we try to work with the property owner to get compliance and that this is um a result of that is you have an applicant that is trying to get get the right process in
order to to legalize, you know, what's occurred and what they want to accomplish with it. So, you know, that that there is some financial impact, too. I mean, the individual in making this variance and conditional use permit has already paid $1,000.
That's that's been a a sticking point for the county board, some of these fees, you know, that we charge. And unfortunately, I think those are going to be going up, too, just because of the budget position we're in. >> Okay. Thank you, Eric.
>> Yep. More. >> Now, with where they're um anticipating the new P uh boundary line to be, is it already too close to one of the structures? like is it uh I believe if I saw correctly on one of the last slides it shows it effectively right on I don't
know if that's a section line there but uh that that barn to the west side how far is that setback and will it >> um actually the closest part of the neighboring feed lot that has horses was right at this point >> so part of the discussion is they would
not be able to really expand that feed lot if the variance was granted so they're kind of locked in at a c what it is at this point. Um, this pro this probably is a section line and that's probably some of the reason why
the parcels are such even though that this was maybe one larger farm if there's a section line um the the auditor when they created the parcel records they act they have to be different parcel numbers. So, if some of
you get multiple tax parcels in the mail, it's probably because something's in a different section or in some cases in a different township. Those are all going to be different parcel numbers and you get a separate parcel record for each one.
>> Is that answering? Well, and again, then just excuse me, when they had they sought prior permitting um for that barn that's there that's right on the uh again the western edge center of that lot line. Um it it looks like it's ex
right on top of the >> the structure here >> uh one north uh that with the white roof right there. Yes, I believe you know we uh did go through a public review process for the cup business and there was probably existing buildings when he
bought it and so yes I I assume there was I didn't see anything that would say you know that there's something that's not in compliance but yeah that's the problem because if you have historical structures that were built close to to
to lot lines you know it's right on top of it so you know if if they wanted to rebuild that, that's something we'd have to look at just to see what the setback um is currently with it. >> All right, that makes sense. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> All right, thank you, Eric. Okay, now let me remind you that our discussion here is basically considering whether we should allow this building on less than 40 acres. So, let's keep it to that
until we get this decided and then we can have discussion on other things afterwards. Um, anybody else have anything to say before we go to the findings of fact?
And I think in this case we should probably touch on each one of them. Hey, but >> for petition this petition that that's live on you just your split up
because it was and then numbers on there. So I was really Olivia straighten me out tonight but um >> started tonight on this permit leak because if it's not fee schedule it's a sign >> no the the uh ordinance gives the
authority to uh enforce a violation of the uh of the ordinance. So yes you can do a a penalty if you choose. we'd have to move to add a condition that would double the permit fee, >> right? And and then I think a second
step, if we wanted to make it permanent, we'd have to put it in our B schedule versus case by case. And >> yeah, and that that would that would eliminate the need for a discussion if it just adopted by the board as a as just a a penalty if it's an after the
fact permit. >> Say what is it? three 300 up to a >> up to a thousand thousand. >> Um we're just touching base with Eric here. We believe that the double was just kind of a a kind of department policy in doubling the fee you would
fall between the 300 to a th000. >> Okay. Thank you. Um now Everick, do you want to make a motion for this petition? I I make a motion that we add a fifth condition that the permit fee is doubled for being after the fact.
>> Is there a second? >> I would second that. >> Jordan will second it. All right. Is there any further discussion? I would just acknowledge that again there seems to be just some lack of communication between people that are
unaware of the ordinance however long it's been established and the situation we find the petitioner in tonight where again they were under the assumption it's an incorrect assumption but that there that this was a non-permanent structure and is not required to have
permitting again incorrect assumption but I I'm for what they're having to go through tonight, I feel as though this is enough. They're already going to have to uh plat this or excuse me, uh survey this parcel and
I are they am I correct to assume that they'll have to get a building permit. That building permit will come with inspection. They will need septic as well as zoning/building, but again, that goes through the township at this point because they've elected to take it over. Um, so the county's involvement would
end after the decision on the conditional use permit. >> And the, if I understand correctly, the septic has to be maintained on site. So because they're making a new dwelling parcel, it has to have its own septic. That septic has to be to state code. We're looking at already about 20 to $30,000.
>> Yep. So they they installed a holding tank. Um, did not get a permit for that holding tank. So they will need to work with CMS which is the company that the township has hired to make sure that whatever septic system they are using going forward is meeting state code. Correct.
>> I and I don't know if that was ever challenged there was in >> Mike I think sh you're talking about hardship. So it's written in the thing if you do it and ask for permission afterward. The real thing is you take it out. that is the alternative that
>> well that's what the that's what the the thing is so when you're talking about hardship you know that's kind of a good message that I I'm sure he'll share that with him when he goes back home is that you know all these things you better ask even if you don't need it >> right
>> because that is how it's written as I read it in here is that the the zoning board or the they can require you to take it out >> remove it and then ask for permit and do it again. >> Olivia, >> so I had that conversation with the
petitioner. We sent him a letter and said, "Hey, it's come to our attention that it appears that there's a structure that's being used as a dwelling, you know, let's please come in and we can talk about this and figure out what needs to happen." When he came into the front counter the day after receiving the letter, we had the conversation of,
okay, if you put this structure up and built it and there was not a dwelling, you would not need to go through public hearings in order to have that structure. It would be just a zoning permit, over- the-counter permit because he wants to maintain this as a building site for a dwelling. So, in the future, if the SUP is approved, technically he
could remove this structure, put a new house in the same location, and would just need a zoning permit. He elected to move forward in that path. He could have taken the dwelling portion out of this structure and just no longer use it as a dwelling. That could have been an option.
>> I don't know it. There was a court case in Filmore County about septics and I I apologize. I don't know how that ever it went through several layers of courts. I don't know what what the result was that but it was they were fighting the whole idea of having to have a you know a
quote um modern day septic system but I I don't know what happened. I know it was fought for quite quite a few years. >> Thanks Olivia. All right. We got any other comments or questions?
>> Just just one one comment and it doesn't really pertain specifically, but the fact that in the uh townships we see uh several of
these instances where um the buildings have been have appeared without having permits. school houses, other other things. And it's it's just that uh it's difficult to keep coming back and saying, "Okay, we're just we're going to
apply for a permit afterwards. We're we're sorry." That's just this comment. >> Okay. Now, we have a a motion to add condition number five, right?
And Jordan seconded. Is there any other discussion? >> I will state again to reiterate my point. If this rule, our ability to apply a fee for this is not something that's already been determined, it's at
the it's at the whim of this board or again at the recommendation of this board. I don't think it's fair for us to not apply it than universally previous to this. If there's ever a chance for again anyone to take it easier on their
neighbor and it's at our discretion to do so, I feel as though it's our responsibility to do so. If that decision's been made for us, that's part of the rule. But I don't feel that there is anything we can apply to
this that that makes it okay for us to uh to make this any greater than it is already. because again this is already very large expense for this individual and we have the choice not to. I understand there's a frustration in
uh people coming in after the fact but I think until that choice is again taken out of our hands I don't see why we have to make it any harder than it already is on this individual. I think moving forward that decision should be made for us. They're coming to this board. they're already going to
have to pay some, you know, two, threefold, whatever the building cost is. But if we don't have to, I would caution everyone as to why why would we want to other than just make it hurt enough for him so no one does it again
in the future, but we haven't applied it uniformally. So why should we single this one out tonight? >> Because maybe you start somewhere. >> Fair. And I I hear your point. My comment to you is why should anybody get it permanent?
>> Everybody. >> I would agree to that. You know, everything I've ever built I've always asked. >> And if they don't catch it, you never get it. Why don't the whole >> Why would you pay the first 500? >> Because it is still again like we >> Why would I pay it? If you don't catch
it, I don't even pay the first 500 >> because there are concerns about public health if you don't get certain permits. There are concerns about housing density if you don't get the permit. I think that's reasonable. But if I'm left with the choice of let's financially harm this individual or not,
I'm going to choose nearly every single time to not. It's all based on taxes. The permitting in my opinion, this whole thing of permitting and everything was so that the tax can be collected on the properties. And I think that's how it
all got started many many many years ago is that >> they didn't want the assessor doing his job originally. I remember the old boy on the farm. He was the assessor at one time. What you're saying is they didn't the people were going around they were getting lazy because they didn't they
wanted to know what was going on and the fee structure just gets as government has it has an insatiable appetite for the resources of people. So the price of the permits keeps going. So there is some reason in set aides like not to build in the center of the road and
>> that type of stuff that's common sense >> stay so far away from the road but >> well I do have some concerns and I don't know where the three townships that are going and the CMS that is this >> that is not our problem. >> No it's being taken off the plate and it
it we'll see how how it works. We'll have to moni, you know, again, I'm a little concerned that we're approving something, but then they have to still go to the St. Charles Township and get some additional. So, I don't know if that's going to complicate the issue or not. >> Well, >> till we get till we get the whole
transition done. >> I mean, >> they they applied for the permit before their zoning went into effect. So, the county >> the county is the ruling authority. >> Probably the last one >> for this one. >> That's probably the last one. Yeah.
>> In there. And when they find out how much the other boards charge, it might not be so happy. >> Time will tell. >> Yes, I know. >> I would move to call a vote. >> Okay, let's second. >> Uh Jordan moved to call a vote and um
>> John >> John took and seconded. All those in favor of calling the vote, >> I would ask, are we are we calling the >> This is for the petition. >> The the fifth condition. >> Yeah. >> We're all clear. All right. All those in
favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Nay. >> Nay. >> Um, >> show of hands. >> Show of hands. All those in favor raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand.
So the motions passed or carried. Okay. Now we can go to the whole CUP thing unless you have other conditions or that you want to add
or amendments I guess I should say. >> I would move to to recommend this petition for approval with the addition of the fifth condition. conditions >> and the finding finds the facts too. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Not specifically what >> page 22. >> Yeah. >> So it be perfectly clear that the board of adjustment didn't assess any additional fees or anything. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. It was discussed but it it failed.
>> Ever or not? Eric, do you want to >> make motion for the >> Oh, John. >> Yeah. All right. So, now we've got a motion and we got a second. Are we going to discuss anything else?
>> Okay. We move to vote. So, all those in favor of >> We have to have roll call Jules. >> Oh, okay. We got to have a roll call. All right. So where do we start on a
roll call? Everett, do you want to >> is the recommendation in is the recommend rather is this vote in recommendation of the uh >> amendment >> the amendment by excuse me in approving this cup with all the five conditions.
Is that the recommendation? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And what is the fifth condition? The one we just added. >> The one we just added. It would be like a duplicate fee of two old or something. >> Twice the building permit cost as a
violation fee. >> Clarification. Thank you. >> I am in favor of approving the proposed CU. >> Okay. Uh Louie >> two. >> Nice. >> All right. >> I
>> uh Mike approve. >> Marsha. Yeah. Approve. >> I John Steve and John >> approve. >> All right. And I'll approve too. So the
cup permit is mo moved and passed to recommend to the county board for this cup. And so we your next meeting, Jake, will be at the
county board meeting on Tuesday, May 12th at 9:00 a.m. Is that all we need to do on this one? You Olivia. Okay, I see a thumbs up. Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Just people to give some
thought. Some conditional use permits require a lot of staff time and to have a flat fee. You know, uh you know, at some point maybe there should be a graduated fee if they require more environmental reviews and more legal things and things like that. just give
that some thought to make a recommendation at some point because some are very straightforward and easy and some are very complicated and and then require a lot more staff time and that's what you know that's what we deal with >> in most of the zoning violations we do
have uh the ability to increase anywhere from 200 to 300 to 500 however to get property owners to work with us to get and a violation is typically administrative and where it's not going to arise to a level of a variance or a
cup. It's something that we do inhouse and we for the sake of efficiency, we have a forgivable amount that says if you get a hold of us and you start working this out right away, it's probably only going to be half of the fine that's mentioned in the violation
letter. So, that's our catalyst. That's our carrot. And then we got the we save the stick for ones that tell us to go pack sand and then we have to grind it out and other other avenues. So we do have that ability on administrative
permits where this one gets a awkward is where it's a rose to a variance and a cup level. So >> and and the point that you you made is if they come to you first yes before making a decision then we would have avoided all of this. Right, Mike. I
>> I have a little bit of concern. You know, just the comment he made is most of my buildings have been moved. Well, you know, how many other ones out in that area are in that situation that we have to clarify this to them so they're not just build and do whatever you feel
like doing here. You know, there are rules I've had to live by. It go It goes back to when you set on the foundation. We could discuss that later, but it had to do back when they had the personal property and real estate taxes division
because a lot of times in the old days they had bruder houses and if you sat it on cement rods without the wood shingles per cement block or a stone that mean
>> I got some shingles at home to keep them. >> Yeah. Well, you understand what I >> No. >> Yeah. And that's >> I mean mostly uh >> okay >> people have been around. >> Let's go on to docket number two PC 04-16-262.
Olivia >> back again. Um so just a note in your packets if you haven't found it yet. It is the the petition packet that is under new business. Um it's not included with the Shler's petition cuz that one was under tabled. So, it should be the only thing under the new tab. In addition to
that, I did ask DIY to set at your chairs tonight this packet. It's two pages from our zoning ordinance. I pulled out the list um that shows what are permitted principal uses and then what are conditional interimm uses under the egg resource conservation zoning
district. We're going to get into that a little bit tonight. This is not current. This is so you'll notice under conditional use permits dog kennels is still listed. Um, we're working on getting our ordinance into one version that doesn't include amendments. Um, but
for all intents and purposes, it is the list that we work off minus one or two things. Um, as you can see on the screen, they are applying under 104627. I did highlight that as well. Um, 27
lists other uses similar to those listed as permitted and conditional uses. So that essentially means that what they're applying for doesn't have a specific use category under the conditional use in the ARC's zoning district
and we will get into that. But their request tonight is for a recycling BOR manufacturing business called XL BOR to be allowed in the egg resource conservation conservation, excuse me, zoning district pursuant to 104627
of our zoning ordinance. Um the site location, it's section 18 of Norton Township. This one also >> Fremont, sorry, excuse me. Um, it's a 4.32 acre parcel. Their address is 30786
County Road 33. Um, and it should say Fremont, but along the border of Saratoga and Fremont. This is the site plan that the applicant submitted. Um, so the proposed expansion is on the east side of County Road 33 and then the home and existing business
are on the west side. So the home and existing business exist within Saratoga Township. That is one of the townships that has taken over their own zoning authority. The petitioner did get permit approval for the two structures that
they are operating their business out of on the Saratoga parcel. However, they have not received approval for the business operation on that parcel. But because Saratoga is doing their own zoning, any sort of rectifying of that situation would go through the township.
What we're considering tonight is the business operation on the east side of the road. There are two existing driveway access points um from that parcel. And then you can see
the building outline there with some um office space in the front. This is just a rendering that their comp their construction company contractor did. Um, showing the building similar to other structures out in the egg district is what they're describing the use to
look like. It is a rather large building um large operation of a business out in the ARC zoning district. As I mentioned, there is a loop around driveway. Um, the lighting would be downcast. They did provide um a write up from their
construction company detailing that as well. It's um the area of disturbance is.99 acres. So they are under that state threshold for an NPDS permit. And they have um you'll see in the photos that I
took, they have graded the site for um the building. So, some of the considerations, the petitioner currently lives across the road. Um, they operate their business from that parcel within Saratoga Township. They are applying under the
other similar uses to those listed as permitted and conditional category. We do have this drafted as an interim use with the trigger for that permit ending being that the owner, the petitioner no longer maintains common
ownership of those two parcels. So where the home and current business are and then the the parcel across the road. Highway department and soil and water did provide reviews. Highway department cited some concerns with travel back and forth across that roadway. Soil and
water did highlight the um the building footprint being rather large and could cause if there were if there were a a large storm or a lot of rain runoff potentially causing some erosion issues on the neighboring parcel
because the the building is situated near or the property line to the east. Um, so there is a condition in your packet stating um a section of our ordinance that requires basically any sort of storm water management happen on their parcel and not cause damage or
detriment to their neighbors field. They are operating with five employees currently. They're proposing to expand that to 10 with the increase um in the exit in the additional manufacturing space.
These are some of the photos that I took while I was out on site. Um in the lower left there's the aerial view of the proposed building and then um the closest stake is circled there. So you can see they've they've flattened it out and they've prepared the site. There is an existing dwelling on this parcel as
well. I think the current plan is to keep that as a dwelling. Um, and then would the new septic system that would be installed for the office bathroom would you would tie in. So, it'd be a shared septic for that dwelling and then the office bathroom with this building.
This is looking southoutheast southwest, excuse me. looking south. Um, this is looking south down county road 33. And then looking north, you can see the petitioner's home there in the background on the left side of that
photo. This is looking at the parcel from across the road. So, you can see the smaller dwelling um in the tree area. And then it's hard to see where that building site would be, but it's the flat area behind that. And then this is their existing shop
space on their parcel in Saratoga Township. So that should say Fremont, but uh Fremont Township Acknowledgement. They did attend the meeting on March 2nd. They did indicate support for the proposal and they also provided a letter of justification providing their
rationale for the project. So I would point you to that um in your discussions tonight. So our recommendation um be as always that you consider all materials and testimony. We'll walk through this in a second, but our analysis and draft findings um do have some of the criteria
being drafted as not being met, and I'll walk through those with you in the packet. Um but should you decide to recommend approval of the condition there are five conditions recommend approval of the petition as an interuse permit there are five conditions drafted
um and so the findings start on page 41 for this petition the ones that are currently drafted as not being wet met excuse me our are our number one so this is page 42 number one
two essentially states that with the added condition that's already drafted of um soil and water's concern about storm water management that it could be met with that condition number five is drafted as not being met
and then six and seven. And one of the things we considered in the staff review of this um petition is that because it's a manufacturing business that's more industrial in nature, we don't have a use category in the egg resource conservation zoning
district that matches that well. And so we've seen other conditional or intermuse permits get approved for things like agriculture oriented businesses, home occupations that are maybe a little bit more industrial in nature. One of the things that came into
play with this petition is that because it's on the township line, it can't be considered under the home occupation. So oftentimes if someone wants to run a business on their property that their home is on, they can just apply under that home occupation category. It's most of them are considered a conditional or
interm use, but because of the way that the the land is divided, because that's a section and a township line, we can't consider it that has to be considered on its own parcel, on its own property.
And there's also a temporary small business um pathway in the ordinance, but that does require limitations and it also requires it to come back for review. And so this being a a more permanent business in nature, um they
applied under the other similar use category and they did provide some justification as well. The petitioners did. That should be included in your packet. Any questions for me at this point, Jordan? >> I guess I'm having trouble understanding
the home occupation thing. So, if you have a if you have a home occupation business that is split on a section line or a township line, you each side of that you would
have to live on both sides of that line >> because there's a section township line. They couldn't have it be the same parcel if that makes sense. So like you have to >> the same home occupation business. Right. >> Right. But they're different townships
and so it's not the home occupation standards of the ordinance require that the property owner live and operate the business because this land is divided. I mean he owns both properties but in theory
it could also he could not own them. And so it it puts us in a tough situation because a home occupation needs to exist on the site that the home is. And this site does have a home on it, but he's not residing in that home. >> If he works 12 hours a day, is that
living on it or >> um any other questions? >> Would you again know where in the comm like where in uh Winona County this is located? I'm having a hard time placing it. >> Just south of >> just south of six. Y
>> one of the things that the highway department brought up was crossing back and forth between the roadway. Um and so that is you'll see in the findings when it touches on existing infrastructure. So existing roads and then traffic hazards. Those are comments that we used
in drafting our findings, but those are also things that the petitioner could address before you tonight. >> It's kind of a contradiction. Okay, he doesn't live on both sides, but now you're saying because he has business on both sides, then it's an issue.
>> Where I'm going with that? Well, uh, to me that's really I can't really consider that an issue because if you have a farm on one side and you have a field on the other side, you're always taking tractors or slow moving vehicles across. >> Well, it seemed like they wanted to make it an issue. I
>> Yeah, I I I think that uh >> there's a lot of farmsteads that are split down a road, even the barns on one side and houses on the other side. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not sure this that really should constitute as an issue, >> especially since uh
>> traveling. >> Yes, >> I've lived all my life off that road or most of it and there's enough distance that you can look both ways. >> Yeah, fairly safe. If you turn around and actually look both ways a couple
times, you shouldn't get hit. >> It's not on a hill or in a valley that >> No, it's pretty open. >> Yeah. you'll get a chance. >> All right. Anything else for Olivia? >> Thank you, Olivia.
>> All right. At this time, would the petitioner like to come forward and >> Yeah, that's >> talk to us. State your name and address and go to it. I'm Randy Targen. I live at 30787 County Road 33.
So, as a part of the traffic problem, I was worried when I bought the place because the driveway would go across and it went way down so you couldn't see very well. So, that's why if you seen on there, we raised the driveway up so I could see or
safety. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It's already been addressed. So, >> yeah, that's I guess >> on the west side or no, east side. East side. The new driveway put in the You raised it up on the other side too.
>> Oh, my Yeah, I raised >> you up. >> Yeah, you're raising up. Yes, >> I guess. Um, >> and I Yeah, I guess I don't know what else >> you need from me, but >> I have a question. You have a moment. So, um, your business is you repair
recycling bailers. Explain to me like I'm five. What is that? >> We do, we do both. I got we repair them or we refurbish them and then we also build new ones. >> So do you have uh you a uh and again a
bor being agricultural implement? >> No. Okay. Recycling bor. So I don't know if you've been to Miller scrrap or counties like a Winona or county or whatever where all like the recycling materials go. >> They process a material on this machine.
>> Okay. crush it and bail it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Oh, I see. Got it. Okay. >> So, it's no longer loose. It's in a confined chunk. >> Yeah. Cardboard bales, aluminum, but yeah, we just make the machines for that. >> Okay.
>> And they're large. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Industrial size. >> So, the size of the uh proposed build is because these are very large devices. Um but they're not like operated there. So this isn't there's not >> I test them there.
>> You test them there, but like this isn't the same. >> We don't run material there. No, >> it's not. Okay. >> Okay. >> I mean, for once in a while, like if we have one going overseas, we might run some cardboard through, but we we just clean it up and then we take it right back. >> It's not running 12 hours a day. >> Test is all.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> Um, you're increasing your employment from 5 to 10. Is business good or just because you know again >> it's good and I'll be honest right now I have a shop up in Wabasha
I got a guy up there which I want to sell that shop to get everything closer to home because it's just a lot of >> be easier absolutely >> and yes and then I can we see when I started the business I was just repairing well then Excel Manufacturing
was in St. Charles and then they closed. I bought the name. >> Okay. >> And then I started just it kind of blew up on me. >> So then um >> yeah um we issue conditional use permits and interim use permits and I have a
little I am a little concerned you're making a major investment in buildings and everything. An interim permit would just be as long as you're operating and I feel that with your investment and everything that may restrict your resale value at some point in time or anything,
but are you okay with an interim use permit or do you understand the difference? >> Yes, I don't quite understand the difference. >> Uh maybe >> long-term short-term permit. >> Yeah, I I guess the thing you may want to consider the long term. Yeah, if you >> never had that definitely going to
answer it. >> Yeah, the interim use permit is basically an identifiable time in the future that would sunset or terminate their permit. And that's typically been
looking down as far as um a sale of the property, different ownership um or if um you know, so so yes, it would be a condition that would terminate the the existing permit. So >> if you sold the business or something,
>> but you could get you the buyer apply for a conditional use permit. >> Buildings is going to be my I'm owning the p the building personally. >> Yeah, >> the business is separate. The business is renting from
me personally >> from a Yeah, I >> Yeah, >> I understand that. Um, I just I don't want to restrict you with going with an interim permit as a >> the interim, but if it's an interim, as long you could open-end it so that as
long as that's operated and he owns it, it's there's doesn't sunset. Right. >> Right. But if he wants to sell it, it ends and then will the new owner get a they can apply for
>> Marsha. Uh to me it seem the interim uh use permit seems better and maybe I'm just not experienced with this but if you put a conditional use permit then doesn't that mean they have to keep operating a BOR repair manufacturing
facility if he sells his property whereas >> whereas interim use permit would mean someone okay he he he decides to go out of that business and sell the land someone else could buy that facility They don't have to make bailors anymore.
They can apply for a different use permit. >> Can you clarify any of that at all or >> an amended c >> pluses and minuses for them? So that we get >> let's Eric, you answer. the uh the way
it's been presented in your staff report condition is that it is an interim use >> and I don't I'm not crazy about this >> staff's analysis that that should be treated as an interim use permit with a permit termination event being that it's
sustation of business operations for a period of one year. So they stop doing what they're doing for a year that interim use permit could expire. Um or to transfer or sell to a different ownership entity. Those are the two two
events that we identified as as being the basis of a different >> and I guess Marshall's concern is if you do decide to sell then >> the new person's going to have to come through and get a permit that's not
going to be guaranteed and it may not be uh >> from a business >> from a business perspective it may hold up your sale. I'm on board with Marsha. I mean, why did you encourage him to apply for an interim or what was the reason it was he applied for interim
instead of that? You know, was I believe we received a conditional use permit, but based on staff's review because the sensitivity of this type of use really not clearly being defined as an
allowable use. It has some merit as we get into those uses as similar conditional use permit. It may have been a more palable choice to approve this as an interim use permit. But that being said, there may be very
reasons and I think that's why we planning commission to make that call. >> Eric, Eric, could he at a later time apply for the conditional use from the inter? Can he come back to this and apply for
the conditional use instead of the intermediate permit upgraded? >> You mean in the future? >> Yes. >> Yes. I mean that that is possibility. >> To piggyback off that, can we recommend this just be a conditional use? You've made the staff has made a recommendation for it to be interim. We can make
counter recommendation it be conditional >> based on on what the owner wants to do whether he'd prefer to add. I guess I was thinking I was going >> um if it's a conditional use permit, >> does that require, for example, he goes
out of business and and sells it to another person who is in the same business? That's clear. But if he sells it to somebody who wants to use the building for a different purpose, does the conditional use permit interfere with that action?
Yes, the conditions are paramount that approval because if say an ownership change and there's something now that transpire that wasn't represented is what this petition holds. Um I think legal would advise department would say
that there's been a change. Has there been a change? Is there intensification? Is there so many more employees? Are they changing their habits as far as manufacturing part? You know, we get into all type of you know businesses could be startup
businesses and then that that's how we've seen a lot of additional use permits have to one up because things got out of hand. That's why I was thinking it was better for his future sales value. >> Yeah. I mean, if it's it's the type of
building where somebody may buy it and decide to do a semi-repair or >> then they would have to cut >> they'd have to have a different condition anyway. >> So, uh maybe in this point isn't that >> would would staff's opinion changed if
it was all on the same side of the road? That seems to be an issue. >> If it was all on the on the one side of the road, >> if it was clearly home occupation, but then you know that's that's a stretch too because a home occupation is not
supposed to be an enterprising character which trumps or exceeds the system. You have a a commercial slash slight industrial activity. I I think it's a stretch to
But if we're looking for tax revenue, you know, the township's going to benefit, the countyy's going to benefit. This isn't going to be a cheap building. >> No. Employment, it's all positive things that we've >> wanted to see. >> So, my opinion,
>> and I don't believe there's I I think there's a significant distance between households here. So, uh, so you're there's not a noise consideration here, uh, that would impact other users or other, uh, homeowners.
>> And we don't we don't shift. It's not like we're going to be all night long. >> Yeah. >> So, you uh, I guess just kind of back, we've really muddied the waters here. You're clear on uh, the difference
between the intrum and >> conditional use. pleasant. I mean, >> and which one do you really want to go with? >> Makes the property worth more money. >> I was thinking
>> additional. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you, Randy. >> Oh, I have one. Randy, currently on the property with the dwelling, so on the west side of the road, there are some
pretty big structures there now. How are you using those? Are those just storage facilities or did we skip the slide ahead to um >> there's just a small building there now? >> So on the on the west side of the road, you own that as well. >> Yeah. So the one manufacturing
>> Okay. >> storage. >> Okay. And then would they still be maintained like that even when you get the space on the east side of the road? >> Plan is to manufacturing across the road and that will be I cut parts and saw parts in
there too. Well, I just totally have no room. So that's going to be more just kidding area and then across the road will be the manufactur. >> When you like again say this conditional use goes forward, you now have that uh we have the new building. um how much like cross street traffic do you
anticipate through the day? And my only concern being, you know, we have a county road and we have row of trees. You know, there's there's invariably we do it a hundred thousand times, there's going to be one accident, right? And it could be catastrophic. So, um do you have any uh controls that you're trying
to implement to like again company policy that says look left, right, left, you know? >> Yeah. And my plan is like we're not going to just be going back like they're going to get already load up on a trailer then we'll be just Okay. >> So, I mean, you might go, I'll be honest, maybe five times a day. Go
across. >> And it is a straight shot. >> Yeah. >> That's why I said I raise that driveway up to >> Oh, you did say that. I I guess my only >> And you can see far enough along a pretty flat stretch. >> Okay. I just I can see that there's a
row of trees and you know, before you know it, >> trees are cut like those front we we trimmed all the trees way up. You can see right. >> Okay. Great. They're tall enough trees. Okay. Got it. >> Jordan, >> I've come through there many times with a dump truck and
>> you're either already slowing down there or you're getting up to speed if you're coming the other direction. So, it's not like traffic is just blasting through there. There's an intersection coming up just >> Yeah. So, >> yeah, that
>> look at Mara when you say that >> roads are safer. Go slower hills. >> Okay. Thanks, Randy. Um, at this time, do I have a motion to open the public hearing? >> Make a motion.
>> Yep. Makes the motion. >> Steve second it. All those in favor of open that public hearing for PC04-16-262 say I >> opposed nay. The public hearing is now
open. Anyone wishing to speak to this agenda item, please step forward, state your name and address and tell us what you got to say. My name is Bryce Lumman. I'm at 22856 and Randy better part of 28 years. Got
pretty good business going. I think he capitalized on finding a spot that wasn't primeable farm ground close proximity to his current business. I think it's win for everybody. probably benefits with tax revenue and he pumps a
lot of money in the local account. It's a very good thing. >> Thank you >> for this. >> What's that? >> He wants to speak to it. >> Okay. Okay. >> You're in the neighborhood, right?
I live at 16 144 County Road 6, sometimes known as I6. Uh I speak in favor of this action to go on. Uh Ry's been a very good neighbor sitting there. The noise has not
elements have not occurred in the place. Even if he has to run a second shift or whatever the voice doesn't bother far as I'm living, it is I I was originally started out in this clip of the being on the EDA and this was a kind of projects that we would really like to get
developed within the county because it'll give back us a better industrial base. Thank you. Okay, for the second time, is there anyone else wishing to speak on this proposal?
If so, step forward and state your name and address. For the third and final time, is there anyone else wishing to speak on docket number 02? Please step forward and state your name and address.
See, there's nobody on internet, is there? >> Okay. Do I get a motion to close this public hearing? >> Who moved? >> Second. >> Louie moved and Everett seconded it. Hello. All all those in favor of closing
the public hearing on PC04-16-2602 say I. >> Post oppose. Nay. The motion has passed. Public hearing is closed. Now it's up to you guys. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to excuse
myself. I got to use the restroom. >> Can I make a motion to enter? Go >> ahead. Okay, perfect. >> You want to take a two-minute break? >> Yeah, let's take a two-minute recess. Would you >> I think I can make it there in that car. >> I'll step out as well.
>> Yeah, then I'll make it home. Stop >> planted the Yeah. Anybody >> can I ask a question? I can believe it. I can believe it. >> I mean, to me it sounds like >> just kind of economic development thing
that we're talking about in the uh >> uh planning or the comp plan >> in some ways. Yeah, that's pretty good. >> Yeah, you have to be good for that. >> That's why
>> the conditional goes with the property. >> Correct. >> That's what it is. It's like a >> It does it doesn't have to end, but if >> you spoke very clearly, Louie. Well, I was on EDA and this is the type of businesses we really want to attract in
town. >> Yeah. It's the kind of thing that uh >> I wouldn't have mind sitting that time you talked about the Ford plant coming down here building up on the hill up there 43 >> 160 acres
>> just how much that would have brought into a business as large as this Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> If you make Baylor, there could come something else that you can make too. >> You got the ability to make that. Maybe
>> then you need another conditional use permit. >> I mean, if it's manufacturing some kind of item. >> Okay. I made it to the bathroom and back. So, let's proceed. Uh, is there any discussion?
>> I guess a big discussion I I have is are are we going to be talking about an in or a conditional? >> Well, let's go into it, Everett. >> Um, I think the letter from the township that they're supporting it and their
reasons why are very important. Um, this is good. the whole everybody benefits from this business for rural and >> every what page are you on? >> Um 53 >> 53 okay
>> is the recommendation township and the letter 54 is there reasons why they're supporting it. >> Thank you. >> I think that's very important. >> Um everybody benefits from this type of recycling business. I mean we need this.
It's very good tax revenue. um of the conditions being proposed. Um I I agree with them all. The last the last condition on page 45 number
five, the owner shall address water law. Um we are dealing with this situation in our township right now. Um, we have a gentleman built a business on the side of a hill and 100% of his water is now coming across our township road and
we're supposed to fix it. So, I mean, it's in here that he is responsible for water runoff to protect the county road. So, I guess we're leaving it up to the county to enforce that. I mean, whatever he he's going to have to do something if
this does become a problem. It's already in here. I'm glad to see that. Um, I am totally in favor of this, but I question if this board shouldn't recommend this as a conditional use permit and not an interim just to protect his financial
investment. I mean, I I think we should recommend this as a straight CUP. >> All right. Any other discussion on this subject? >> Louie, >> I would move that as a CUP instead of an interview. >> Second.
>> Okay. Louie moved and John seconded that we change it from an interim use proposal to a conditional use proposal. Is there any further discussion on this motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of changing the wording from interim to conditional say I. I. >> Opposed? Nay. It is. It's been passed and so it should
see you got one more thing to do now. Um >> we got to prove the findings and facts. >> Yeah. Now is is there anything on the findings of facts that you want to discuss at more length?
There is more there. I would move approval with findings and facts that you have in your >> with those conditions. >> With those conditions, >> yeah, you you will need to go through the findings uh because they were drafted as a as not meeting. So, you'll
need to discuss each finding that was that was found not to meet and develop language um as to what you considered and how you see them meeting those findings. And those findings of facts that were not met were what? What numbers again?
>> Um, >> number one, >> number two. >> Yeah. >> And Steve will help you. >> Olivia told me, Eric, I just couldn't remember what page it was on. >> Okay. Um, >> that was one, two, five, six, and seven.
>> That slide with the condition or the numbers on it, please. Okay. Thank you. >> 42. >> Yeah. >> All right, Steve. So based on your discussion, uh I've I've been looking at
the language here and it seems to me for number one, uh despite the highway department's uh uh uh concerns, uh the the petitioners taking actions to raise the high raise the driveway and uh trim
the landscaping to have sufficient visibility. And there was also a discussion in the board about the five crossings a day is not uh is similar to agricultural traffic in the area as well. Uh so I I would recommend that
those uh being included in your findings since you've already uh discussed them. Uh and and um I don't know if you want to take these one at a time or do you want just to be
on the safe side. Okay. So, um the second uh finding uh we had uh the uh issue of the uh runoff from the building that was a concern of the soil and water uh uh conservation
district. And uh you you have a uh condition on there that that mitigates that. uh which uh if that is if you find that sufficient that is probably uh a good finding that would support that. Um
and then just the it says given the proposed use the size of the building is not compatible with the ARC zoning district. Based on your discussion, I would say that could probably just be struck uh from the finding if if when you view uh the scale of that building,
the buildings around it, its relationship to the to the other properties, uh if that finding is not accurate in your view, you could just strike it. >> It um >> five. >> Yeah. Five.
So five. uh because this is a not being considered as a as a home occupation and it's uh just under other similar use. You could probably just uh uh strike the last part of that uh second paragraph
where it says uh uh the uh uh a non-aggricultural manufacturing shop of this size in a property with the owner operator with the business does not living on it is inconsistent with the purpose of the ARC district. uh you've talked about the fact that this use is
consistent with the needs of the county for uh uh employment, economic development, uh that sort of thing. And I don't think that the him or the owner live petitioner living on the property is is necessary to make
that finding related to this. Um, and in addition, I would also I'd also think that the the limitation of the township dividing line uh causing it not to be considered one property is is really doesn't isn't a performance standard.
It's just a bureaucratic division. Uh so I don't think it's really a substantive issue in terms of uh uh granting the conditional use permit. If if you wanted to uh consider this for all practical purposes to be one parcel, I think
that's a reasonable position. Um >> six. >> Okay. Uh six. Uh the last sentence, the proposed use is not an industry that serves the needs or complements the rural area. Uh as you
guys have already discussed that you feel that it does complement the the rural area because it helps with the economic uh uh uh situation in the rural area, create jobs and that sort of thing. Uh so in that respect uh it it
would probably just be sufficient to delete that last line. And seven uh seven is similar to uh the ear the earlier one where he's raised the driveway. Uh he's trimmed back the
trees. uh there's only be five crossings a day and it just is consistent with a lot of agricultural uh uh traffic in the area and so uh it would not cause a hazard uh uh
from what from what I've listened to your your discussion is what I took away from that and I would say you could just delete the last line. Okay. So, where do we go from here? >> I would move to adopt the
um changes as discussed with assistant county attorney Crayons. >> Second. >> All right. Is there further discussion on this motion? >> Because if we adopt what he is suggesting, we are then essentially
saying we agree with all findings and facts. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Eric has something. >> Eric second. >> I will. >> Everett did. >> Any other discussion? >> So, we're approving the findings effect
and end with the five conditions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> This is now a conditional use permit, not an inter. >> Yes. >> With the corrections >> that were advised by legal. Yes. Absolutely. Okay.
So we got the motion. Do we need a separate motion for this part or we can approve the whole thing? >> Yeah, the whole thing. >> The whole thing. >> Yeah, I guess I could amend my motion to
recommend this for approval with the changes and the conditions >> and Everett, you're okay with that? Okay. So all in favor of this this part say I >> I >> oppos. Nay. Now we need a motion to
either approve or deny. >> No, that was all part of >> Oh, that was all right. Yeah, you're right. All right. So, we're done on this subject, right? >> When is meeting is with >> Okay. Yeah. Um >> vote on it yet.
>> We did. >> That was it. That was it. We didn't do a roll together. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Isn't that a new He's right. Isn't that a new Hey, did I put this? >> Because when somebody's online only, >> that's correct.
>> If if I was sitting out in my house and I was just zooming in, then we need and if I want my vote to count, we have to do a roll call. >> Or I don't know. >> There's a guy. What date was on that note that I lost? >> May 12th. is 9:00 a.m. at the county
board of commissioners right here. Thank you. >> Um, now I have one other thing before I ask for adjournment. We've been discussing what we're going to do about these fees for late applications.
And I've been around planning zoning long enough that I know even if we do say we want to do something about it, it might take 10 years to get that far. But if we don't say we want to do something about it, it ain't never going to happen.
>> Ever. I' I'd like to comment why I made that suggestion and why I feel this way. For years, Warren Township had our own zoning. I was chairman. I was laughed at in my face more times than I can count by people said, "Why in the hell should
I even come and get a permit? You don't do nothing about it. We can come after the fact if you catch us." So, it was very upsetting and disturbing. I come down here and it's like nothing's changed. Why should it? >> It's on a higher level, right?
>> Yeah. It's So unless we do something about it, everybody knows they need a permit. It's just if I don't get caught, I don't need one. And if you do catch me, I'll come and get it. And there's no penalty. So the system is broken. >> Russ,
>> so we uh we did find the language on the uh county fee schedule. And uh um Mr. Crayons feels that based on how it's worded um the after the fact is almost a requirement it would be you determine
the amount between the 300 and a thousand. >> How do we keep that consistent? Like what's is there a ranking of severity or >> like you said if they make it clean and get things updated there ain't a lot of staff time in it. It can be better if uh
you say pack sand to say as Ross said before uh we got a little more work in it and if we got cost should be paid for by somebody it >> well the the the fee schedule as it reads now it would be double the cost of
the permit. Uh so it depend on the cost of the permit that they're applying for. Uh, and I do think it's a good idea to just take the discretion out of it and that way everyone is treated the same way. It's a simple a true or false question whether they whether they
applied for the permit before they uh uh engaged in the project. >> But if you doubled the permit fee, if they had a $400 permit or a $600 permit, if you double that fee, you're treating everybody >> that you know what the fee is going to be. It's double the permit, not just a
blank. >> That's why it's to a thousand depending on you know >> so that addresses chef's concern >> again I I don't want to be left here being like oh well my neighbor gets a $1 violation fee because I love them and they're great and they take out my garbage for me but you who has a
business that didn't realize you need a permit well yours is three times that because I don't know who you are and I don't like you don't like the look of your business you know like I don't I don't I don't want to get caught in this situation where it feels whimsical >> on a government level like that's that feels awful
It looks bad too. Be consistent. >> Exactly. >> Gordon, you have something further to say. >> Yeah. So, what what change do we need to make to to make that always apply? Does it start with us and go to the county already on
the books? So, it's already on the books, but because it hasn't been uh implemented really, I would I would say that you could recommend it to the county board that that they basically uh resolve that this is going to become
standard practice for uh permit fees >> like an internal policy. Is that >> Yeah. >> Well, history is and of course Ross is new at this, you know, past it's been at a staff level. I don't know that the county board has ever asked to implement
a specific after the fact fine or or fee to somebody. Staff usually has handled it and and yes and no. They've been very trying to work with the constituent instead of being antagonistic. So, but you know, >> well, yeah, I'd rather not have them
feel guilty, right, >> for imposing it. >> It ain't my fault. Somebody else passed this. >> Yeah, it can be our fault. or make it easy for you guys too, right? >> On one on one hand though, if if you set an amount, say $500 as a penalty,
somebody comes in and their permits $100, that's that's significant as opposed to somebody else comes in and their permit is $700 or, you know, that's that's why there's the variance there. So for the for the
doubling if you uh if you just set a static amount then uh really you're uh you're not looking at the severity of the >> isn't that your recommendation is just use double
>> my yeah my recommendation would be to just uh uh have a standard calculation rather than trying to make a judgment as to somebody deserves more somebody deserves less because then from a legal like equal protection standpoint, you
you open yourself up to potential uh litigation or problems 14th amendment. >> Yeah. >> You know, I I think we're talking about peanuts here. >> Someone builds a half million dollar home, they don't care if it's $1,000.
Why don't we make it 5% of the assessed value of the structure they're building is the penalty for not not getting a I mean something that hurts >> and then if it's if it's a minor fraction after the fact >> the worth is less you know it's not as
burdensome >> such a big problem is it >> depends on how hard you look I think >> it's a problem that 90% of them never get caught it's just a handful that you're trying to penalize and everybody else is just >> getting away with it >> getting away with it >> yeah And if if you I mean you could
decide what you want to do or what you want to recommend and you could the you could have Ross the planning director uh uh present it to the board and and uh it could be double it could be something else whatever you think would be uh uh
fair and helpful. Yes. >> Yeah. this this this time of year um I advance uh uh proposed fee changes so we can you know you can provide me with what your guidance what you would like to do within Mr.
Cran's guidance. Um, and I would bring that forward to the board and which would be approved later this year. >> When we're talking fees, is there like an application fee? Like how nickel and dime is it for what goes into a a permitting fee? Is it again $25 for the
uh for the uh administrative process and then CMS, whatever that's going to cost. How do what's the roll up of a permit? Normally, >> we we wouldn't have any role within CMS. So in the in the townships they'll be they'll be charging the fees within those townships. We will no longer have
any role. >> They're on their own. >> They're on their own. >> What's the current one for what you do? >> Oh, they're going to have a great time with that. >> How do you figure the permit? >> Those um essentially usually by comparison of surrounding counties is is how everybody tries to stay in the same
range uh and try to have it reflect >> the staff time cost. >> But is a house a house? No matter what, if I'm building a $100,000 house or I'm building a half a month, >> it's a standard $400,000.
So certain things are just and your idea. Yeah. So percentage of >> it's Yeah, it's difficult trying to predict anything. So >> does a $100,000 house require any more staff time than a $400,000 house? That's the thing. Time is money. So I, you know, it just
depends. And yet you don't want to make it prohibitive for people to build and do things within your county. >> No. No. >> It's a fine line. You know, the penalty for if you choose to take your chance on not getting one. Uh >> I' I'd be in favor of doubling the
permit. That way as the fees go up, >> it automatically goes with it. We're not dealing with an outdated dollar figure and you're treating everybody equal. They I mean most of your permits are between four to 600, aren't they? So, I mean, that's the range we're talking.
>> I I I think a multiple factor. Again, two is currently what it's at. I just I would make I would like it if it was more readily enforced. Again, I I see the argument for violators need more than a slap on the wrist or just, you know, being brought in here to
to do their due diligence, but also having a uh a restitution to pay. >> Louie, we're forgetting one thing. If we turn around the vehicle, it's not up to code or it's not been there. All you do is de dem demolish one or two and the
permits will be coming and people will not turn around and avoid it. >> Really, demolition would be a very strong statement. >> You would have to remove the structure from the site instead of getting your permit after. If you enforced it, you wouldn't have very many friends. But
>> you would you would have you would have compliance pretty much quick because everybody else would not want their structure demolished. Steve, >> uh, I I did want to clarify in terms of the equal protection issue, the percentage of the value of the bill is
would also be acceptable because there's a if your motivation is to try and prevent people from from uh uh uh wanting to not get a permit or doing that. If somebody I mean if someone's building a $10 million building probably
$400 is not a real motivator for them compared to somebody who's building a you know $5,000 building. >> Yeah. >> But they're going to go through the permit process any it's peanuts to them. So it's not going to matter. >> Yeah. But is it is there a cap at $1,000
still? >> Currently our our our ordinance caps it at a thousand. So if we were to go with property value percentage, we would have to change that as well. >> Yeah. But I just Yeah, I either way is fine. I just wanted to clarify that even though that's different, it's still okay.
>> Like ever says now you have a cost to make who's going to go out there and research and find out what does have permits. >> And we need to remember we're talking about this and all we're looking at is make a recommendation to the county board and it's still going to be up to them. >> And believe me, I don't think anybody on
the county board has an appetite to expand staff. at the in the planning and zoning department to >> Well, and again, we found this one because the assessors, you know, uh how often do the assessors reassess property values? >> Well, they're supposed to go every year,
>> but how often to do like a site tour? Like again, they would have not caught this for how many years if they hadn't been up >> supposed to do it. >> Yeah, they're out in the townships annually. They're supposed to hit every property once every three years, I think it is. Um but they have software that actually looks at aerial imagery. So
that's how this one was caught. The software actually compares development. >> We know more about you than you think. >> Yeah. And then it it can like literally just >> flag a building that wasn't there previously. >> Hey, you enjoyed your >> Yeah. Um
so >> we we're supposed to draft something to recommend to the county commissioners. Well, it I I it doesn't have to be in writing, but if you if you I would say if you vote to make a recommendation on something and then uh have Ross present
it to the to give Ross some guidance to what to present to the board, that would be sufficient. >> All right. >> Um and and I know it's the board's decision, but it also, you know, it gives the board a reason to bring it up and talk about it and that's interest. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, Joe Harden, >> I would I would make a motion that we recommend uh the county board adopt a policy that would either double the permit fee or
uh the 5% that John had stated of the property value for after the fact >> at their discretion. But then would be capped at $1,000. Yeah, it's an or is >> currently I mean I I guess I'm kind of leaving that part up to the county board to decide what they've
>> because they're going to decide anyway. So whatever's more palatable to the board. >> Probably not going to be a big figure, you know, in a budget. >> No. >> Yeah. We're not we're not going to be making our money back on this. >> No. Yeah. We're trying to get compliance.
>> Do we have a second? >> Ever seconded it. >> Any further discussion? Again, can you reiterate what is the recommendation, Jordan, just one more time? >> The county board adopt a policy to >> scale a fee to something
>> to Yeah. double the fee or uh >> anything for after the fact. Correct. >> Well, we already have policy to double the fee. No, >> no, >> no. The policy >> the policy now is 3,000 and they have discretionary
wherewithal to pick how much it's going to be. So that was confusing. I thought we had we could double it, but >> they when they discussed it today, that was a talk. >> Go ahead. Yeah. >> Just one point of clarification. Are there specific permits like a zoning
permit, conditional use per variance? We have a lot of permits. So I just want to be clear that >> there any after the fact would be my recommendation. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Now, is everybody clear? We're making a recommendation to the county
board to uniformly institute after the-act violation fees that are at scale with the assessed value of the project >> or double >> or double >> or they could 25% but something that scales with the
>> we're asking the commissioners to clarify it. >> Yeah. I mean ultimately they're going to pass it but they should do something that is aligned with what Jordan's recommended here. >> Okay. Is there any other discussion on our motion to make a proposal to the county commissioners through Ross
hearing? None. All in favor say I. >> Oppos? Nay. It's passed. Now, does somebody want to adjourn? >> I'll make that motion. >> Jordan makes a motion and Everett seconds it. And thank you all. You know, I've been to a lot of these planning and
zoning meetings, and this did take more time than I had hoped, but I think it's maybe the best planning and zoning meeting I have ever attended because we actually did something. We had open
discussion and that's very important for a commission like this. Thank you all. >> We have we have a motion and a second. Oh, I forgot. All right, >> we need to >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I get ahead of myself sometimes. All
right. Thank you all for coming.