[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:22] Call door to the Buller County Planning and Zoning Board. The chair declares a quorum.
[0:30] If we need approval of the agenda, I would make a motion to move old business to the back
[0:36] and new business to the fronts so we can hear the new cases first.
[0:40] Is there a second?
[0:43] All second.
[0:45] Motion and second.
[0:46] Jacob on the motion, talon on the second.
[0:49] Polls and favor say aye.
[0:51] Aye.
[0:52] Those opposed and motion carried.
[0:54] We need approval of the minutes, as they were sent out.
[0:58] is there any additions and or the corrections to the August 18th, 2026 made in minutes?
[1:06] I would move to approve in minutes as presented.
[1:12] March on the motion to approve is our second.
[1:17] Andy on the second, further discussion, all those in favor say aye.
[1:22] Aye.
[1:22] Those opposed motion carried as per change in the agenda under new business item F1.
[1:29] public hearing to consider PL2623 a request for a homestead.
[1:35] A lot split, located at 15592, northwest 60th Street, white water cans is staffed.
[1:45] Our property owner is Wayne and Catherine, or a bulkable trust owner, track of land containing 80
[1:49] plus or minus acres. The property is located at the northeast corner of northwest 60th Street, northwest
[1:55] The property is zone to aggregating.
[1:57] The property owner decides to put out 9 plus or minus acres and place 71 plus or minus
[2:01] acres into an agricultural preservation overlay.
[2:04] The property is located outside the urban growth area.
[2:07] The county is surrounded by aggregating properties.
[2:09] The property is being used for aggregated purposes.
[2:12] Current home will most likely be surfaced by water well and utilizes the
[2:16] Lagoon for wastewater purposes.
[2:18] The Butler rule that provides power and northwest
[2:21] six-year street is a gravel roadway maintained by Milton Township. There are no FEMA map flood
[2:26] plane areas or dam breach areas located or excuse me there is a FEMA map flood plane
[2:31] area in a dam breach area looking on the west side of the property. The home and other
[2:34] structures are located well outside these areas of Chairman.
[2:46] Questions from Board?
[2:47] That kind of someone representing
[2:54] anything that adds to what to least.
[3:03] Any questions for Gerald?
[3:06] Thank you, Gerald.
[3:07] Anyone else there to speak to this case?
[3:10] Anyone else there to speak to this case?
[3:12] Not to chair close, but the current chair will entertain the motion and order discussion
[3:16] on PL-26-23,
[3:24] Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve PL-26-23 as written.
[3:30] Kermit on the motion, is there a second?
[3:31] Yes, sir.
[3:33] Various seconds, Marcia. We'll give it to Marcia.
[3:36] Oh, you can get it.
[3:37] There you go.
[3:40] Any other discussion, voting, siege agreement?
[3:44] Favorite.
[3:45] Favorite.
[3:47] Favorite.
[3:48] Favorite.
[3:48] Motion carried unanimously.
[3:49] goes before the county commissioners.
[3:52] September 29th, correct, Toby?
[3:55] Yes.
[3:55] That's different.
[3:56] That's correct.
[3:56] September 29th.
[3:58] Thank you.
[3:59] Item F2, public, caring to consider PL-2624, or request for a home-stead large plant located
[4:06] at 55-90 northwest metal arc road, white water can to staff.
[4:12] The property owner's welfare and glass-revocable trust on the track land containing 76
[4:16] plus minus acres, property is located south of North West on the east side of North West
[4:21] metal rock road, white water Kansas.
[4:24] Property is zone to Ag 80, property owners are split out six or plus minus acres in place
[4:29] 70 plus minus acres into an APO property is located outside the urban growth area of the county
[4:35] and surrounded by Ag 80 properties, property is being used for ag purposes, the current home
[4:40] may be serviced by rural water and there is a line that runs down metal rock road.
[4:45] The utilize the safety system for wastewater purposes,
[4:49] every due provides power.
[4:51] Metalark is a pay-broadway maintained by the county.
[4:55] The current home is located in a FEMA map foot plain area.
[4:59] Any future construction.
[5:00] And would have to meet floodplain requirements, staff does recommend approval with the APO as indicated on the survey. Chairman.
[5:09] Questions from the Board? Is the applicant or someone representing
[5:17] anything to add, Gerald?
[5:20] Thank you. Anyone else here to speak to this case? Anyone else here to speak to this case? Any other questions from the Board?
[5:29] If not, chairacles, public hearing, chair will entertain the motion and order discussion on
[5:33] PL-2624.
[5:39] I would move to approve PL-26-24 at Homestead, lots split as per sentence.
[5:46] March on the motion, all second.
[5:51] Talon on the second.
[5:52] Thank you, Talon.
[5:54] Further discussion?
[5:55] Boating procedure, current.
[5:57] Favor.
[5:58] Favor.
[6:00] Favor.
[6:00] member.
[6:02] In carried 6-0 before the Canada Commission, or September 29, the fear at 9 o'clock in
[6:07] the morning.
[6:09] Item F-3, if public hearing to consider, PL-2625, or request for a mortgage
[6:14] law split, located at 1013 North East 60th Street, El Dorada Kansas, staff.
[6:22] It's a property owner, Cynthia Barrett owns a track of land containing 39 plus or minus
[6:26] Takeers property is located at 1-0-1-3 Northease,
[6:30] 60th Street, El Dorado Kansas.
[6:32] Property is owned at 40.
[6:34] Property owner desires us to put out five plus minus acres
[6:37] in place the remaining portion of the land,
[6:39] accepting the area around the existing home
[6:41] and to an agricultural preservation overlay.
[6:45] Property is located outside the urban growth area,
[6:47] the county in a surrounded by aggregating properties
[6:49] and at 40 properties.
[6:52] The new home would most likely be served by a water well.
[6:55] The septic system will be used for wastewater purposes, but the rule of electric would provide power.
[7:01] Northeastern Street is a gravel roadway maintained by a Lincoln township, and there are no FEMA
[7:06] mat areas to look at on the property.
[7:09] Because there is an approved hardship case on the property, there is a mobile home in a second
[7:13] private wastewater system located on the property at this time, which are to be removed when
[7:19] the hardship in the longer is an existence.
[7:22] So staff recommends that any approval of the mortgage law split stipulate the following, that within 60 days of the completion of the new home, a private wastewater system in the mobile home, and then again servicing the mobile home will be removed.
[7:41] So if you do approve it, if you look at my recommended action on this, it does include the stipulation.
[7:47] So, the person who's caring for them that's in the mobile home that the mortgage
[7:52] law split is for that person.
[7:54] So, I think the desire is to remove the existing lagoon and the mobile home or whatever's
[8:02] out there now.
[8:03] Once the house is built, I think only fairer needs some place to live, so that's why until
[8:08] the home is built, so that's why I see my recommendation.
[8:12] And also on the APO, you'll notice it doesn't include the area around the existing home, because
[8:19] what we don't want to do is put an APO over top of the existing home, and then something
[8:24] happens to it and they can't rebuild.
[8:28] Carmen?
[8:29] Questions for staff?
[8:33] If not someone representing
[8:40] anything dad, Gerald?
[8:43] Any questions for Gerald?
[8:46] Thank you, Gerald.
[8:47] Thank you.
[8:48] You went out there to speak to this case.
[8:52] Anyone out there to speak to this case, not chair close to the public hearing, chair
[8:57] will entertain a motion and or discussion.
[9:07] I've made a motion to approve PL26-25 in mortgage slots split with an APO overlay as described
[9:18] on the certificate of survey with a requirement that within 60 days of the completion of
[9:24] new home and private waste water system, the mobile home and look in, servicing the mobile
[9:30] home delivery moved.
[9:35] Marshal on the motion is there a second, and the on the second, any other further discussion
[9:42] voting procedure, current, favor, favor, favor, favor, favor, motion carried again unanimously
[9:50] up here September 29, 9 o'clock in the morning, item F4 public hearing to consider PL
[9:57] 2626, a request for our own.
[10:00] Instead, a lot split, located at 80, 99 South East, 30th Street, Elderay to Kansas, staff.
[10:08] Property owners, Jonathan, and Tamlet Thompson, owner, track of land, containing 41 Push-Minus acres, the property
[10:14] is located west of South East Monson, Hill Road on the south side of South East, 30th Street,
[10:18] Elderay to Kansas, property is owned act 40, property owner desires to split out 5 Push-Minus
[10:24] acres and place 36 Push-Minus acres into an APO property is located outside the urban growth
[10:29] area of the county and surrounded by AG-80 and AG-40 properties.
[10:34] Current home utilizes a lagoon for wastewater purposes, which would be allowable on five
[10:38] acres of the land.
[10:40] Electricity is provided by every G, southeast 30th Street as a gravel roadway maintained
[10:44] by Rosalia Township, and there are no female map areas located on the property.
[10:49] Staff recommends approval with the APO as indicated on the survey.
[10:53] Chairman.
[10:54] Questions for staff?
[10:58] App in or some representing?
[11:02] I'm Roger Katsinger, I'm representing the owners in this case and I don't really have anything to add, Toby's pretty well covered it.
[11:09] Questions for Roger?
[11:12] Thank you, Roger.
[11:13] Anyone else here to speak to this case?
[11:16] Anyone else here to speak to this case?
[11:20] Chair close the public hearing, chair will entertain the motion and or discussion.
[11:28] Make a motion to approve.
[11:30] He helped 2626 as presented.
[11:33] press down the motion and is there a second?
[11:37] Jacob on the second.
[11:38] Further discussion.
[11:41] Soading to Superintendent.
[11:43] The favor.
[11:46] Thank you.
[11:46] The favor.
[11:47] Thank you.
[11:47] Again, vote unanimously appear September 29th, 9 o'clock in the morning.
[11:54] Item F5, public hearing.
[11:55] to consider PL-2627 or request for homestead lot split, located at 1156 Northeast Grant Road,
[12:04] Elirate of Kansas Staff.
[12:07] The property owner, Kimberly Riemann, owns a track of land containing 80 plus minus acres,
[12:11] property is located north of North East Tentry, on the east side of North East Grant Road.
[12:16] Elirate of Kansas, property is owned at 80.
[12:19] Property owner desires to split out 10 plus minus acres and place 71 plus minus acres
[12:23] and to an APO. Property is located outside the urban growth area in the surrounded by agate
[12:28] properties and is being used for ag purposes. Current home utilizes the lagoon for wastewater
[12:35] purposes, which would be allowable on the ten acres of land. Electricity is provided by
[12:40] below a rural electric northeastern road as a gravel roadway maintained by prospect township
[12:45] and there are no FEMA map areas. Or there is a FEMA map area in a dam breach area located
[12:51] on the property, the current home is located outside both of these areas.
[12:55] Staff recommends approval with the aye preservation overlay as indicated on the survey.
[13:03] Questions for staff?
[13:05] Zap can or someone representing?
[13:10] Roger, sir.
[13:11] I agree with everything.
[13:12] Toby said.
[13:13] There you go.
[13:14] I have nothing to add.
[13:15] Anything question for Roger?
[13:18] Thank you, Roger.
[13:20] Any other questions or comments from the Board if not chair of course public hearing?
[13:24] chair will entertain the motion and order discussion on PL 2627.
[13:34] Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
[13:35] to approve 2627.
[13:38] Tell on the motion prove is there a second.
[13:40] Okay.
[13:41] Marcia on the second.
[13:46] Further discussion?
[13:47] The voting procedure.
[13:48] Chairman.
[13:49] Favorite.
[13:50] Favorite.
[13:53] Motion carried 6.
[13:54] Zero.
[13:55] Up here.
[13:55] September 29.
[13:56] on a clock in the morning for the county commissioners. Item F6, public hearing, to consider
[14:03] a plat 2628, or request for a final plat, located at 333 West Rosewood Street, Rose Hill
[14:13] Kansas staff. So, Keller Dirt Company owns a track of land containing 48 plus or minus
[14:19] acres located off of West Rosewood Street and North Tara Acres Drive, Rose Hill Kansas, property
[14:25] isoned rural residential.
[14:28] The Tara Acker's second edition final plaque contains one
[14:31] law that is three acres in size.
[14:33] In December of 2023, the Tara Acker's edition
[14:36] was recorded with registered deeds.
[14:38] The original application and approvals went
[14:41] through the city of Rosil for approval since the property
[14:43] falls within their ETA.
[14:46] The city of Rosil has confirmed that the new application
[14:49] is to be submitted through Butler County
[14:51] and they had no issues with the addition of the new lots.
[14:55] property is located inside the urban growth area and is surrounded by Ag-40 Ark.
[15:00] For our and the city of Rosalty properties, water will be provided by a Cedric County rule, water district 3.
[15:07] Public sewer cannot be provided, so it will be serviced by a private wastewater system.
[15:11] Electricity is provided by a bill, a rule, electric. Access to the property is located off a north terror acre's drive,
[15:17] which is a newly constructed gravel roadway that met the county engineer standards.
[15:22] There are no FEMA mapped areas located on the property.
[15:25] staff recommends approval as it is located near the city of Rose Hill inside the urban
[15:29] Goat Theory and proper utilities can be provided.
[15:34] Questions for staff?
[15:36] I don't get a reason why the city did not want to.
[15:39] They had a change of hands and they had a new city administrator and so as the old one was
[15:46] leaving, I had spoken with him and he said just until the new person gets set up, he's
[15:52] spoken to them about the new city administrator.
[15:54] They felt comfortable with us just running it through.
[15:57] They were already meeting.
[15:59] I mean, they look for me for recommendations on the original one,
[16:02] as far as lot sizing and all that to be consistent.
[16:08] So it would be consistent with all the other lots out there.
[16:11] Other questions?
[16:14] Is the applicant or someone representing
[16:20] Brian Peltier
[16:21] with Mayorstone Survey?
[16:23] Any questions?
[16:29] Thank you, sir.
[16:30] Thank you.
[16:30] Anyone else there to speak to this case? Anyone else there to speak to this case?
[16:37] The chair will close the public hearing.
[16:39] The chair will entertain the motion and the discussion on PL 2628.
[16:45] I would make a motion to approve PL 2628.
[16:50] The chair will take a second edition final plan.
[16:55] Mark.
[16:56] Mark on the motion.
[16:58] Jacob on the second.
[17:00] Any other discussion?
[17:02] Boating to seat your permit.
[17:04] favour.
[17:05] favour.
[17:07] favour.
[17:08] In motion.
[17:08] Carried unanimously.
[17:09] I've heard before the County Commissioners.
[17:12] September 29th.
[17:13] 9 o'clock in the morning.
[17:15] Item F7.
[17:16] Public hearing.
[17:17] To consider a resound.
[17:19] 26th.
[17:19] And a request for change in zoning from AG 42RE on the property located at 13100 South West
[17:28] 15th Street, Beton Kansas Staff.
[17:32] I'll mention, Theresa Morgan on the track of land containing 40 plus or minus acres.
[17:36] The property is located at the northwest corner of southwest 15th Street and southwest Indian
[17:41] Null Road.
[17:42] Ben Kansas.
[17:42] The property is currently zone to AG 40.
[17:46] The owner wishes to reason the property to residential estates.
[17:49] This would allow the property owner split out, split the property into two tracks.
[17:54] The track containing the existing home would be 22 plus or minus acres in size, and the other
[17:59] track would be 18 plus or minus acres in size.
[18:03] The owner desires to dig one of their tracks to a son, property is located inside the urban
[18:09] growth area that county, property is surrounded by Ag 40 RE and RR zone properties.
[18:15] It is located approximately three quarters of the mile from the city.
[18:19] It then properties in the immediate area appear to be used for residential and agricultural purposes.
[18:24] As mentioned, the current zoning classification in the area are active for the RE and RR.
[18:29] Stafflies that impact on surrounding land uses would not be detrimental,
[18:32] since it would allow for only the addition of one residential home.
[18:36] Stafflies, the intended land use would be compatible with other land uses in the area
[18:40] as the parcel sizes would be larger in nature.
[18:43] There are similar sized lots in the area containing single-family dwellings.
[18:48] If a new home were to be constructed, it would be serviced by public water.
[18:52] A new home would be serviced by private wastewater system, electricity provided by
[18:56] Butler rule, electric, southwest, 15th street, and southwest, Indianola Road, or gravel
[19:01] roadways maintained by Benton Township, there are no FEMA map floodplain areas located on
[19:06] the property.
[19:08] The county's comprehensive plan would consider this an extra territorial jurisdiction,
[19:12] in ETA area that is located inside the urban growth area boundary, based on the location
[19:17] in the fact that services can be provided.
[19:19] Staff feels the request is in conformance with the county's comprehensive plan.
[19:24] Staff has received no phone calls for against the proposed zoning change request, and staff
[19:29] recommends approval based on the location of the property.
[19:31] The property is inside the urban growth area and the properties around it have similar
[19:35] uses.
[19:37] Questions for staff?
[19:41] Is that a can or someone representing?
[19:55] I'm Alan Morgan, I'm the owner of the property and I agree with everything that Toby's talked about.
[20:00] Questions for all. Thank you, sir.
[20:08] Any other anyone else here to speak on this case?
[20:21] Okay. Anyone else?
[20:24] Not Jericho's public hearing. Sheryl, entertain the motion and order discussion on RZ-206-10.
[20:32] Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve RZ26-10 as president.
[20:39] Current on the motion is there, second, second.
[20:41] Jacob on the second, further discussion,
[20:46] permit voting procedure, favor, favor, favor, favor.
[20:52] Motion carried six here, those before the can of commissioners
[20:56] on a clock up here at September 29.
[20:59] item FAA to public hearing to consider Rezone 2611, a request to change in zoning from
[21:07] AG-40 to RR on the property located at 2505 South West Shumway Road, El Dorado Kansas
[21:17] staff.
[21:18] The RK enterprises owns a track of land containing 74 plus or minus acres, property is located
[21:23] at the northwest corner of South West Shumway Road and South West 30th Street, El Dorado
[21:28] Kansas property is currently zoned at 40.
[21:31] The owner wishes to rezone the property to rural residential.
[21:34] This would allow the owner to follow up with a four-law pulmonary plan.
[21:39] The lot sizes would be approximately 18 plus or minus acres in size.
[21:44] The property is located inside the urban area of the county property surrounded by
[21:48] act 40 in our own properties.
[21:51] It is less than two miles east of the city of Twanda and approximate one mile west
[21:56] of Eldorado's growth area.
[22:00] Staff leaves the intended land use would be compatible with other land uses in the area
[22:04] as parcel sizes would be larger in nature.
[22:07] The purpose of the district is to provide provided low-density developments which retain
[22:11] the character of the rural area.
[22:14] The property is suitable as a rural water does exist and other services can be provided.
[22:20] The owner makes a request to create a low-density plated subdivision.
[22:23] The current property has been developed as it does contain a single family dwelling in a
[22:29] cup of accessory dwellings at this time.
[22:32] The current home is serviced by public water roll water district four.
[22:37] There is a six-inch line that runs along some way in a three-inch line, running along
[22:41] 30-threat, the additional meters can be provided in the owner has confirmed that they will
[22:46] provide the public water.
[22:47] Any new home would utilize a private wastewater system.
[22:52] Electricity is provided by Evergy.
[22:55] South West Shumway Road and South West Third East Street
[22:57] are a gravel roadways maintained by Twanda's Township.
[23:01] The county's comprehensive plan would consider this area
[23:03] a periphery area that is located inside the urban
[23:06] growth area boundary.
[23:07] This area, as mentioned in the comprehensive plan,
[23:10] is meant to be a low-to-medium density area.
[23:13] Because of the location, because the location is located inside
[23:16] urban growth area, and because the change will maintain a low density in the area, staff
[23:20] filtered quests would be in conformance with the county's comprehensive plan.
[23:26] Staff does recommend approval based on the location of the property and the character
[23:29] in condition of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff does believe it's in conformance
[23:33] at the compound and proposed future development is low density. Staff has heard from some
[23:42] of the surrounding neighbors who are not in favor of the rezoning. Staff has tried to
[23:46] summarize some of the concerns, and I did provide you with some of the communications that
[23:53] are on your desk.
[23:54] The RR's zone and classification that proposed the future lots are 18 acres in size and
[24:01] the RR district allows for a maximum of 10 acre lots.
[24:05] There are no RR's own properties within a mile of the property.
[24:09] The property does not serve as a transition between agricultural and residential lands.
[24:16] There are some safety concerns at the corner of Southwest Shumway Road.
[24:22] The Evergy Transmission Line Quarter traverses the property diagonally, which could be a land use constraint.
[24:29] The adequacy of water supply and the capacity and safety of the surrounding roadways.
[24:35] So, in a review of that, I think there is one possibly valid complaint that staff believes
[24:43] in that the proposed feature lots might be 18 acres in size as opposed to the maximum
[24:50] 10 acres per the rural residential zoning district.
[24:53] Although we've allowed those in past by sticking to the minimum requirement.
[25:00] I will make a suggestion if the property owner is down for it, and wants to make the change the request.
[25:11] But the board could consider as a post to a rural residential property rezoning it to residential estates or E.
[25:19] So that would allow for five minimum of five acres and maximum of 39.99 acres.
[25:30] With that Chairman, I'll turn it over to you.
[25:33] Questions for staff?
[25:36] Did you get anything from the township?
[25:39] I haven't heard anything from township, no.
[25:42] Is the applicant or someone representing?
[25:49] Hi, thanks Kim.
[25:50] bring up with the BRK enterprises.
[25:53] Everything Toby said was correct.
[25:55] I am totally fine with doing the root residential
[25:57] estate zoning.
[26:00] When we initially bought this, we had planned on shooting
[26:02] for five acre tracks, but throughout conversation,
[26:05] both with Toby and with just partners
[26:08] and whatnot, we decided that the four lot split
[26:11] would be more conducive to the area.
[26:14] I understand, you know, some of the, I guess I don't,
[26:19] the attorney land owner is having a issue with it. I guess I'm kind of struggling with some
[26:22] of that. Our intent is to have a single access point on Shumway Road and then a shared
[26:28] access point, I'm sorry, a single additional access on Shumway. There's already an existing
[26:33] one for the current house. It's an old single wide that's trashed hasn't been lived in
[26:37] a year, so not exactly a great asset to the neighborhood. So we would add an additional
[26:43] access point at the, basically, the 38 acre mark that would be a shared access for two residences.
[26:50] And then an additional access off of 30th.
[26:53] So the point would be to try to keep the traffic on Shemway going to 20th and the traffic on 30th going to Ohio.
[27:00] So that you don't have the concern of the corner because I do, I understand the safety as far as if someone comes speeding around that corner.
[27:07] It would be kind of kind of dicey.
[27:09] Currently, this is a pasture that really doesn't get any use.
[27:13] It's not productive at all.
[27:15] It's not giving any kind of tax revenue.
[27:17] What we would propose would do that.
[27:19] We're also trying to fill kind of a void that exists in the residential market.
[27:23] I mean, if you guys have paid attention to lots that are available in the circle school district,
[27:28] you can get five acre tracks for $150,000 or you can buy 40 acre parcels that are $4,500,000.
[27:36] So if you want to have a horse or, you know, goats or whatever, it's real hard to do on
[27:41] five acres and a lot of people can't afford 40.
[27:43] And this would be a 20 acre parcel or 18 or 20 acres that would allow that more of an
[27:48] agricultural residential blend without being heavy density, but also still being in the
[27:55] circle of school district, where it's really hard to find those kind of tracks.
[27:59] So questions.
[28:00] And you're not going to go more than four than no.
[28:06] Yeah, we talked to, I'm sorry, we talked to the water district and they said they were enough to do the four tracks.
[28:15] And my question was, was the land being used and you answered that?
[28:19] No, no.
[28:20] There's already one water meter on site at that, the north end, and so we would add three more.
[28:26] Your plans are to tear that house down.
[28:28] Correct.
[28:28] Yeah, and if everybody wants us to, we can restrict it to where, you know, it's sight-built
[28:33] homes or whatever, you know, we don't want to be bad neighbors, but we're also trying to,
[28:38] I guess I'd keep this affordable for people too, and a lot of people, there's some really
[28:42] nice, true modular homes that are out there, you know, I'm getting right by one myself, and
[28:46] sometimes you have to, you know, allow that kind of stuff.
[28:51] Questions?
[28:53] Good questions.
[28:56] What was the deal on the power of our own?
[29:01] It ran the signal.
[29:05] So they felt like there was peace and concerns there as far as because it was running
[29:11] diagonal across the property when we found my notes again.
[29:15] Is that a transmission line?
[29:23] I mean, you don't have any concerns, do you have a piece of advice on this, do you?
[29:33] Now, I actually serve on a foundation panel for a lot, and this season it was done prior
[29:37] to the nuance that they're doing that take a lot of time for the spindle and this does,
[29:42] because the reason it is restricted just to have a power line is, and that's just...
[29:51] Oh, okay, I got you.
[29:54] Okay, I could see where they've moved on the neighbor's factory.
[29:57] Yeah, yeah.
[29:59] Okay.
[30:00] Yeah, it shows there on that matter. Yeah, you can see it on across there.
[30:04] It's a really innocent set on your facts. Two lots on there.
[30:09] Yeah, the two. And one of them already has a house on it, so it's really only one that's getting
[30:13] a house that would have a power line. And I guess I wouldn't understand that being a safety issue
[30:17] considering power lines run right up against heavily populated places everywhere.
[30:22] Well, I wasn't so much coming out of front of the safety perspective as much as just
[30:29] you know, building with them and out of that, these meant to make sure that it's
[30:34] have plenty of room to do so.
[30:38] We're not up here asking for permits as on set.
[30:41] That's not right.
[30:45] Good point.
[30:46] No, we shouldn't have any of that issue.
[30:48] Thank you for those response.
[30:51] Another question.
[30:55] Thank you, Kim.
[30:56] Thank you.
[30:57] comes up, we'll bring you back at it.
[31:00] Anyone else here to speak to this case?
[31:13] All right, I'm Justin Hopper.
[31:15] I'm one of the landowners in the affected area.
[31:19] I came up to read the letter that was submitted to Toby.
[31:23] I'm sure all of you guys have it.
[31:26] And five, eight, five, seven, southwest, 30th Street.
[31:31] So, representing 16 of the immediate landowners as per the attached back.
[31:42] So, we're in opposition of the request concerns based on the stated purpose and intent
[31:48] of Butler County zoning regulations and the long-term preservation of the agricultural land use in the area.
[31:55] So, article 8 of the Butler County Sowning Regulation states that rural residential district is intended to provide low-density development that retains character of rural area and serves as a transition area between agricultural lands and low-density development.
[32:13] The regulation further states that the rural residential district is inappropriate in areas predominantly agricultural, in character, where public services are adequate only to meet the needs of farm.
[32:25] residents and farm operations.
[32:30] The areas surrounding the subject property remains overwhelmingly
[32:34] agricultural in nature. More importantly, the property does not appear to function as a transition
[32:40] area between existing rural residential development and agricultural land. And to the best of
[32:46] our knowledge, there are no existing rural residential zones within a mile in each direction.
[32:53] Proposed rezoning, with therefore created an isolated rural residential district in a predominantly agricultural area,
[33:01] rather than serving as a transition between agricultural and residential land uses, as envisioned by the purpose of the district.
[33:11] The application materials indicate that approximately 73.7 acres are proposed to be divided into four residential lots.
[33:19] article eight establishes the minimum lot size and the maximum of our minimum of three
[33:24] actors and the maximum of ten. And sort of we've kind of discussed through that part of
[33:30] we have, but she is accepted by rezoning to R.E. would even further do that. And it's not
[33:37] it's not an intent on to whether it is what it is today. The zoning and repurposing of the
[33:43] stands. So no matter what's decided today for the four lots, the zoning still stands beyond
[33:51] the side of this council. Are this commission, right? Agreed? So we're concerned that the approval
[34:03] of the rural residential district and predominantly agriculture area establishes a precedence
[34:09] And can be taken further and in where isolated zones created in more districts will further
[34:19] degrade the intent of the Ag-40 that's in place currently in the area.
[34:26] So it's not a question I don't think of whether the four lots are reasonable, it's a question
[34:32] of whether this meets the intent, I'm purpose of the Ag-40 that's set in place and was commissioned
[34:39] for this area in the beginning to protect the agricultural areas in this zone.
[34:46] And I'm sure that there are other landowners here that want to speak to this matter as well.
[34:50] So thank you.
[35:03] Members of the Commission, thank you very much for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is Jason Fensky. I'm at 6286F less 30th. I am the property adjoining to the west side along the entire tract. We are prone to own approximately an 80, that's the adjoining 80.
[35:21] Inside of everything that's already been said, I think that I can whip a dead horse
[35:26] 15 different times on this, but when I built my house in the last five years, I was
[35:32] required in APO when we made the lot split to be able to do this.
[35:36] stipulated inside of the APO, I am required to go and have a joining sewer to be able to
[35:42] release that.
[35:44] So when we go to low-density residential around my property, which we're setting precedent
[35:49] for this point. How will I ever be released from my APO as I'm encircled by an overall residential
[35:55] or an RE? And then basically there's no sewer ever provided because those zoning do not
[36:02] require sewer. So I end up in an island as a Ag-40 Ag-80 and I have no way of being able to
[36:10] release. My property is essentially devalued because it's Ag, whereas I will end up eventually
[36:17] inside of a rural residential or a circle around this, and then in
[36:21] a conference we'll be put against my land. So with this type of
[36:25] situation, is there a method inside of this to actually have the
[36:29] APO released or is that even possible for this? Because again, I'm in an
[36:38] urban interface, it's being created at this point, but I basically will never
[36:43] have the urban interface, and that's a seri-tural ECAPO.
[36:48] That's part of the APOs when they were established, and it's been a question on this
[36:54] board that we stress highly that when an APO was put down that they understand nothing can
[37:03] happen.
[37:03] But an APO is compulsory to be able to get our lots of left.
[37:07] We are already in construction at that point, or going through process.
[37:10] We had already had everything put in the play.
[37:13] This council required the APO to be able to do this.
[37:18] I would love to say it was voluntary, but it was not.
[37:20] It was very specific.
[37:24] And the placing of these low-density zones
[37:27] against these rural properties that are in these APOs
[37:31] will create a perpetual state of being unable
[37:34] to go in and ever release the APO,
[37:37] because the urban interface high density
[37:38] will never be able to make contact with my property.
[37:47] I have the same other issues I was in on the meetings that
[37:51] went and did this to go in and go through the RR stipulations.
[37:55] Obviously we've worked out the ability to go and work around the size
[38:00] and everything else, but also I'm on the end of that water line.
[38:04] There is not adequate water to be able to go and feed the water pressure
[38:09] is poor to begin with for words at.
[38:11] And there's not adequate to be able to go and feed maybe the three, four, one way or the other.
[38:17] But again, we're on the low end of water pressure.
[38:19] And I know that World Water District 4 was contacted on this for where it's at.
[38:25] But again, as a person who actually has experience on this,
[38:30] this will cause various encoverances on my property that I really don't know how to get out of.
[38:36] So, is there any suggestion on that?
[38:38] And, kind of, staff, did you say there was two different water wines going to it?
[38:44] I believe there was six.
[38:45] Yes.
[38:45] There was two.
[38:46] I'm on the three down on the bottom end.
[38:49] But I'm also with this.
[38:50] Can you bring up the photo of the actual overlay of property?
[38:56] So this is not correct.
[38:59] This was actually convenient, specifically
[39:06] put about halfway through this.
[39:08] It goes all the way up and somewhat of a diagonal coming through, so that a lower access doesn't
[39:13] even exist.
[39:14] We're establishing our fence line back again on this.
[39:17] It has a glimpse of this point of time that property actually looks bigger.
[39:21] But again, Mr. Gaudetti, how does it go to that key survey to excuse me, Gerald?
[39:26] What does it want to actually do this?
[39:28] We want to sound ten this morning.
[39:29] It's right in the middle of the existing existing, the existing gateway.
[39:35] And that will not be inaccessible to this amount.
[39:40] Any questions?
[39:45] Thank you, sir.
[39:46] Thank you.
[39:48] Anyone else, sir, speak to this case?
[39:52] Anyone else?
[39:55] Kim, do you want to give any of some answers or response?
[40:00] So with regard to the gentleman that was just up here, our splitting these in the four tracks will not encumber his property in any way. The APO is the thing that encumbers his property. I sympathize with that a lot. I've had multiple conversations with Toby and lots of people on the detriment that I see that APOs are. And I know the county's working towards a mechanism to get those removed. I tell my clients, don't ever sign up for one if you can help it. It's lost on me why he would have been required to do that when he was
[40:30] building a house on 80 acres in an ag forties own. I don't know why an APO would have been
[40:35] required unless he was trying to do something for financing. But as you can see on
[40:40] that GIS map.
[40:41] That's most generally the reason that's being sent.
[40:43] Right. So it just don't see what has anything to do with our land. When you talk about urban
[40:48] density development coming to meet his or ours, I don't know when the last time to
[40:54] want to had any significant growth. And I don't see all Dorado really coming this way because
[40:59] there's a lot, you can't see it on the GIS map right there, but just north of that, there's
[41:03] a lot of oil production. A lot of that land up there doesn't have the mineral rights intact
[41:07] and there's not going to be a demand for development of that. I don't think in my lifetime.
[41:13] So by the time this would ever be urban, I mean, I just didn't even like don't know when that
[41:17] would be. I think if Twanda was going to grow, it would grow to the west towards which
[41:20] taught anyway. So, you know, we're in between oil fields and a turnpike with a power line
[41:26] going through us at no ag production. I don't think we're hurting the area by making this
[41:31] for the four parcels. As far as the water meter concern, I do, I'll absolutely listen
[41:38] to that from what I was told from the water district. The line on Shumway is a larger line
[41:43] than the line on 30th, so if we need to get in the water district we'll determine that.
[41:47] If we need to have another access point from the line on Shumway for that fourth lot, then
[41:53] we can do that. And of course, whatever the survey shows it shows, I was drawing those lines
[41:58] based on the GIS map, which admittedly is not always accurate, but I'm not a surveyer.
[42:03] So.
[42:04] Questions for again?
[42:10] Thank you. Staff, anything else?
[42:14] Just a couple of things. I would like to speak to the APO just for a moment. So that is a
[42:27] You know, as areas grow up in and around cities and or right outside of cities and where
[42:37] we've seen a lot of rural residential grow or residential states or some of the other
[42:42] zoning classifications.
[42:45] It is something I want the planning board to look at in the future for when we start updating
[42:50] our rags to say to at least consider, do we need to have a mechanism in place for those
[42:58] properties that are specifically maybe located inside the urban growth area boundary where we
[43:04] are expecting some lower density or medium density subdivisions to go or anything like that.
[43:11] Just keep that on your radar. It is a staff concern. You know, some of these APOs were put in place
[43:17] a long time ago until public sewer is brought in. They cannot be removed. I mean, that's the
[43:24] regulation reads, so it is just something to consider.
[43:29] The other thing, staff does have available for you, and I can read that for you the
[43:34] residential estates, if that's a consideration, I'm happy to do so with the district's
[43:41] purposes in that manner.
[43:44] Is that what you want?
[43:47] This regulation set forth an article set forth elsewhere in these regulations, when referred
[43:51] to in this our regulations in the residential
[43:54] of states district.
[43:56] The purpose of this district is to provide
[43:58] for plotted low-density developments,
[44:00] which retain the character of the rule area.
[44:02] The district is intended to serve as a low-density
[44:05] area of development within the urban growth area.
[44:09] But outside the city's planning area,
[44:11] it is suitable in rule locations inside the UGA
[44:14] where adequate public roads, public services are available.
[44:18] But it is not suitable in rule locations.
[44:20] in all rural locations. It is inappropriate and areas predominantly agricultural and
[44:27] character where public services are adequate only to meet the needs of farm residents
[44:32] and farm operations. Chairman.
[44:44] Give your name just a thing.
[44:46] Kim Brungard. With regard to the ag use being the predominant use, I would maintain that the
[44:55] not being used as egg. The first one, and that talked appears to me.
[45:00] So live diagonally across the term pike, which wouldn't even be able to see our property, because of the term pike, also appears to be a role residential site. I don't think there's any significant ag going on there.
[45:13] So okay, I'm sorry then.
[45:15] What?
[45:18] So, sir.
[45:19] Well, well, well, well, well, well, well.
[45:21] I apologize, I'm not.
[45:23] But, but you guys, are you guys a little cost to turn pipe though?
[45:26] Okay.
[45:28] I won't make sure I'd better.
[45:29] Thank you.
[45:29] Sorry.
[45:32] Staff, anything else?
[45:33] No, sir.
[45:34] This time, Cheryl, close the public here in Cheryl, entertain a motion.
[45:38] On RZ 2611.
[45:52] Jeff, is this a motion or a discussion?
[45:54] Or discussion
[46:01] is the APO deal in the way it's structured is something that adamantly needs to be
[46:10] interested because as we are speak to the mic, we can hear it, sorry,
[46:27] as we are looking
[46:30] had best-suited uses for some of these things. I do think that we are going to need the
[46:38] ability to remove some APOs so that we don't create landlord-locked parcels and have
[46:45] the ability to use more inner cul-de-sax common-drive with these things like that.
[46:56] especially within the earth and in the earth and in the earth.
[47:02] Well, like I said, the only reason that he was because the bank required it.
[47:07] We didn't require it to bank required it because the only way he could get along
[47:12] is to break off five acres because the bank won't pay.
[47:16] I know how, I mean, we've heard this many times up here.
[47:21] And so, I mean, he could have went basically the route that Kim's gone and plided the whole thing and had it down at that time, but all he was looking at was the five acres.
[47:35] Yeah, so, I mean, I understand what you're saying, but we didn't require it, but we did at the same time.
[47:44] Because in order to do the homestead loss blitter, the mortgage less blitter, we require him to put the 80 on it from a county regulation standpoint.
[47:53] So I think the county needs a tool in their bag.
[47:58] In certain instances, no different than we look at every CUP on a case by case situation.
[48:04] I think that there needs to be some conversation had going down that red.
[48:14] And I could say that after we get some of these other regulations out of the way.
[48:19] Teague is to start on another whole set of regulations.
[48:24] Any other discussion?
[48:28] Not chair will take a motion.
[49:01] How would we get around the APO at this point?
[49:05] It's not an issue with this point.
[49:08] Well, in the beginning case, it's not having to really deal with the APO.
[49:14] I think it's an overall issue we need to deal with and the only way it can be changed is to our regulations at this point, so that's why I'm bringing it up.
[49:23] My discussion point was not pointed towards this case necessarily as much as just while we had the opportunity to say hey we need to address it, it was just emphasizing that point was all closed.
[49:36] Yeah, that is not case specific.
[49:48] Okay, I'll venture out.
[49:50] I move to approve R.C. 26-11, a resowning property,
[49:55] for a minute, Ag42 and R.R.R.R.R.
[49:59] R.E.
[50:00] Or a week, REK, RR, RRC.
[50:03] That's part of RR, EZ.
[50:05] If you're one-inch, if you're not comfortable with RR, because the law size is less, that's not for a recommended
[50:11] dollar.
[50:12] Let's go with REK.
[50:14] And we filled that, and that was all right with the applicants, so that's not in this
[50:20] view.
[50:22] Is there a second?
[50:27] No, second.
[50:29] Pretty on the second.
[50:31] Further discussion.
[50:32] And
[50:35] the motion is to approve the Reson Cermit, opposed.
[50:42] Favour.
[50:44] Favour.
[50:45] Favour.
[50:46] Favour.
[50:46] Favour.
[50:48] Opposed.
[50:50] Motion was afforded too.
[50:51] Is there anything on the opposed side for the can of commissioners?
[50:55] I was wondering if you can take you.
[51:01] Well, you see that APL is really not an issue for this case, but in truth,
[51:06] I've been my opinion it is an issue, so if I was in proper order, it certainly would be an issue.
[51:18] I would, I would second what he has to say, and I'd also like to see the water issue.
[51:22] I'd like to see something there. There seems to be a major concern about pressure.
[51:27] But that's a water district problem at the end of the day.
[51:31] But I can't still have the same concern for me.
[51:34] Okay.
[51:34] Thank you, guys.
[51:37] Again, it goes before the County Commissioner, September 29, 9 o'clock up here in the
[51:43] morning.
[51:45] Item F9, a public hearing to consider RZ-2612, a request for a zoning from Ag-40 to RE on
[51:56] and properly located at 11,000, 56-some-way south-west-shemway
[52:03] against the Kansas staff.
[52:06] Ellen and Colleen were barred on the track of land-containing
[52:09] 39-plus-monna's acres.
[52:10] The property is located at the southeast corner of south-west-shemway
[52:13] road and south-west 110-street.
[52:15] We've got the Kansas.
[52:17] The property is currently zoned back 40.
[52:19] Owner wishes to reason on the property
[52:21] to residential states.
[52:22] This would allow the owners to split out five plus
[52:25] money-sakers surrounding existing home and the Northwest
[52:27] corner of the property.
[52:30] The property is located inside the urban
[52:32] growth area of the county.
[52:33] The property is surrounded by Ag-40, R-E, and R-R-Zone
[52:36] properties.
[52:37] It is located approximately one mile southeast
[52:39] of the city of Gustav.
[52:41] The properties in the area appear to be used largely
[52:43] for agricultural purposes and low-density residential.
[52:47] As mentioned, the current zoning classifications in the
[52:50] our AG-40 RE and our our zone properties.
[52:52] Staff leaves the impact on surrounding land use system
[52:55] not be detrimental since it will allow for the addition
[52:58] of a new home.
[53:00] The current property has been developed as it does contain
[53:02] a single family dwelling in a couple of accessory dwellings.
[53:06] The current home is serviced by public water
[53:08] road, water district four in a private wastewater system.
[53:15] Electricity is provided by a rural electric.
[53:17] South West Schummer Rose, a gravel roadway maintained by a gust of township.
[53:21] There are no FEMA map, put plain areas located on the property.
[53:26] Staff does recommend approval based on location of the property.
[53:29] The property is inside the urban growth area.
[53:30] And the splitting of the property does not increase the density of
[53:34] the development.
[53:35] The county's comprehensive plan would consider this area a
[53:37] preferere area that is located inside the urban growth area boundary.
[53:41] This area, as mentioned in the Comprehensive Management
[53:43] to meet low to medium density area based on the location and the low density in the area
[53:50] is maintained.
[53:51] Staff feels the request is in conformance with the county's comprehensive plan.
[53:56] Staff has not received any phone calls for against the proposed zoning change.
[54:03] Questions for staff?
[54:08] Is the applicant or someone representing?
[54:14] Brian Peltier with Mr. Stone Serving?
[54:17] Just can't for questions.
[54:19] Questions for Ryan?
[54:24] I may be a little off, so you're wanting to split out five acres.
[54:31] How many five-acre plots are there?
[54:34] No, this is one five-acre track to be split off on the northwest corner of the 48-acre
[54:40] there.
[54:44] And they, in the future, like to build a home on the remaining acreage.
[54:50] On the remaining?
[54:55] Other questions?
[55:00] 30, would be because they're planning another home, so that's why they don't want to do an APO over I believe so.
[55:11] Any other? Thank you, sir.
[55:16] Anyone else here to speak to this case? Anyone else here to speak to this case?
[55:23] Staff, anything else to add?
[55:24] That's all.
[55:25] This time, Chair of Close, Public Hearing, Chair of the Intertain Emotion, on R.C.
[55:31] 2612.
[55:38] Chairman of the motion to approve, R.J. 26, today's 12.
[55:42] All second.
[55:43] Kermit on the motion.
[55:45] Talon on the second.
[55:48] Further discussion.
[55:50] Boding procedure.
[55:51] Favorite.
[55:54] Favorite.
[55:55] Favorite.
[55:55] Motion carried.
[55:56] Six-zero.
[55:57] because before the commissioners, 9 o'clock, September 29th, up here in this room.
[56:04] Item F-10 is a board of zoning appeals, so we will open as a board, as any other zoning
[56:11] appeals, our decision is final, it does not go to the county commissioners.
[56:18] So, upon hearing that, the board of zoning appeals public hearing to consider a variance
[56:23] 2607 or equested variants lying for construction and use of an accessory building staff.
[56:31] So Douglas Carr owns a track of land containing .23 plus or minus acres.
[56:38] The property is approximately 75 feet wide by 132 feet deep.
[56:42] The property is zone residential.
[56:45] It is located at 533 South Prairie Drive and over Kansas in the Crescent Heights subdivision,
[56:51] which was revised in 1952.
[56:54] The owner desires to construct a garage,
[56:56] so he can store tools and personal vehicles.
[57:00] There is no home located on the property,
[57:02] so the owner is requesting a variance
[57:04] to the zoning regulations, which to require a primary use
[57:08] building or home to be constructed before the construction
[57:11] and use of the accessory building.
[57:14] Well, our county regulations are called 26.
[57:17] Accessory and prohibited uses.
[57:19] Section 26501, except in the Ag District for conforming lots over 40 acres and except as prevented by the board of zoning appeals as found in Section 26401 of these regulations.
[57:31] No accessory building or structure shall be constructed upon a lot until the construction of the main building or structure has actually been commenced.
[57:40] And no accessory building or structure shall be used unless the main building or structure on the lot is also being used.
[57:47] So the property was plotted before the zoning regulations were in effect.
[57:52] A small home cannot be built on the property because the size of the property would not allow for a private wastewater system.
[57:58] The residential zoning infrastructure requirement by today's standards would require public sewer.
[58:04] The environmental regulations would require at least one acre for a private wastewater system.
[58:10] The residential zoning district does not allow for a variance to the infrastructure requirements.
[58:16] The property owner will be able to meet the normal residential setback requirements with the construction of the garage.
[58:23] The property is surrounded by Ag-40 residential and commercial properties and is located close to East Highway 54.
[58:32] Staff does not believe it will adversely affect the rights of property owners.
[58:36] It is the staff's opinion that the public health safety morals order convenience prosperity
[58:41] or gender welfare would not be adversely impacted by the allowance of the variance.
[58:46] And staff does not believe that the granting of the variance will oppose the general
[58:50] spirit of the regulations.
[58:52] The construction of the accessory building would meet all other zoning requirements.
[58:56] Water and sewer will not be utilized.
[59:00] Questions for staff?
[59:04] Is that applicant or someone representing?
[59:15] I'm dead car under the 238 South Fairway Circle in and over Kansas.
[59:20] Anything to add to what staff's given us?
[59:22] Yeah.
[59:24] Questions for that?
[59:26] It's just going to turn into a commercial adventure.
[59:29] You're going to come back now.
[59:32] Not my plan anyway.
[59:36] I will say that there are commercial lots next to it.
[59:39] or if I've expanded, they've just turned them into commercial laws, but that's something I can't
[59:47] tell you the question.
[59:50] What type of structures is this going to be?
[59:53] Well, it'll either be one of three types either a pole barn or a red iron barn.
[1:00:00] We are at the C-Channel barn, or garage, metal.
[1:00:05] There are several others already in that area.
[1:00:13] Other questions?
[1:00:19] Thank you, sir.
[1:00:20] Anyone else here to speak to this case?
[1:00:23] Anyone else here to speak to this case?
[1:00:26] Staff, anything else to add?
[1:00:29] This time, Chair of Cousupublic Hearing, Chair, will entertain a motion and discussion.
[1:00:33] On V82607, just remember, our vote is final.
[1:00:49] Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve V82607.
[1:00:55] Kermit on motion to approve is your second.
[1:00:59] Marcia on the second.
[1:01:02] Further discussion.
[1:01:04] Putting the signature current.
[1:01:06] Favorite.
[1:01:09] Favorite.
[1:01:09] Favorite.
[1:01:10] Motion carried six zero variance is granted.
[1:01:14] So that takes care of that.
[1:01:17] We will reconvene now as the planning zoning board.
[1:01:29] The E-1 Resolution T-C-26-2 zoning regulation amendment
[1:01:35] to Article 7, Section 7, 3, conditionally uses 703.
[1:01:49] I'd like to make a motion to take from the table consideration of
[1:01:53] the board related to an amendment of the zoning regulations?
[1:01:58] Is there a second?
[1:02:04] Let's table.
[1:02:05] She just wants to pull it off,
[1:02:06] that we got to officially,
[1:02:08] we tabled it,
[1:02:10] we have to officially remove it from the table to discuss it.
[1:02:13] Okay.
[1:02:14] All right.
[1:02:15] That's okay.
[1:02:17] That's all right.
[1:02:18] Andy, are you all right?
[1:02:19] Andy, I'm the second.
[1:02:21] Let's take voting to see the current.
[1:02:24] Favorite?
[1:02:25] Favorite?
[1:02:26] Favorite?
[1:02:27] motion carried. No further documents will be considered in the record is closed. Staff.
[1:02:35] On August 4, 2020, sex, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
[1:02:39] amendments of Article 7, Section 7, Section 7, 3, Conditional Uses, 7, 3, 4, 4,
[1:02:48] 4, 4, 4, the Planning Commission, table discussion of the proposed amendment to the
[1:02:57] Federation of Lake Records of submission, the Planning Commission tabled any action on Resolution
[1:03:02] TC-262 in the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners until September 1,
[1:03:09] 2026.
[1:03:12] I do believe the County Councilor has something to discuss with you.
[1:03:24] Terry, you all can, the other County Councilor. Chairman Barnard, Planning Commission members,
[1:03:31] What I like to do is just give a brief overview of the proposed regulations.
[1:03:36] After I give my presentation, then I'll go back to Toby and maybe discuss some of the amendments that were proposed in the latest version of the amendments.
[1:03:48] The amendment, before you tonight, is a prospective land-use regulation.
[1:03:53] It does not approve a particular data center, commit any county resources, provide an incentive
[1:04:03] or determine that any future application should be approved.
[1:04:08] The amendment gives the county a clear public and legally structured process for evaluating
[1:04:15] of future proposal based on its actual location, design, infrastructure requirements, and
[1:04:23] potential impacts.
[1:04:26] At the outset, there needs to be clarification as to the following facts.
[1:04:32] Number one, no non-disclosure agreements have been executed by Butler County concerning a proposed
[1:04:40] data center.
[1:04:42] and bears repeating, no nondisclosure agreements have been executed by
[1:04:48] Bother County concerning a proposed data center.
[1:04:53] Number two, the county has been disseminating information concerning data centers
[1:04:57] issues through its web page.
[1:05:00] Page, during open public meetings, and via social media.
[1:05:07] Number three, no incentives have been offered to any prospective applicant by the county.
[1:05:14] Once again, that bears repeating, no incentives have been offered to any prospective applicant by the county.
[1:05:21] The only incentives available to any prospective data center are those enacted by legislation
[1:05:30] by the Kansas legislature, not by the county commissioners, and not by you.
[1:05:37] Until an application is submitted, there is no reliable project specific basis to determine
[1:05:44] Number one, water consumption, electrical demand, wastewater or cooling requirements, traffic
[1:05:53] impacts, noise levels, building height, emergency service needs, or the effect on surrounding
[1:06:01] property.
[1:06:03] The purpose of the proposed amended regulations is to protect the citizens, property owners,
[1:06:09] infrastructure and the natural resources of Butler County if an application is filed.
[1:06:18] What would the amendment do?
[1:06:21] The amendment would define data centers and related facilities within zoning regulations,
[1:06:27] establish the zoning district in which data centers may be considered, establish site, building
[1:06:32] screening, noise, lighting, utility, access and emergency standards, requires sufficient
[1:06:38] technical information for the county to evaluate a project.
[1:06:44] To preserve public notice and hearing opportunities were required.
[1:06:49] And permit the county to evaluate a proposal based upon actual project specific facts.
[1:06:58] The amendment has intended to establish rules before a project is proposed,
[1:07:04] rather than attempting to create standards after an application is pending.
[1:07:12] Why are the regulations appropriate before an application?
[1:07:16] Data centers may be large-scale.
[1:07:19] We have Micro 2.
[1:07:21] The infrastructure intensive use is may involve
[1:07:24] significant electrical demand,
[1:07:27] cooling systems and potentially substantial water use,
[1:07:32] large buildings and equipment yards,
[1:07:34] Back up generators and fuel storage, continuous operation, noise from a mechanical equipment,
[1:07:43] specialized utility and transmission infrastructure, security fencing and lighting,
[1:07:49] and extended construction activity, existing Butler County zoning categories do not adequately address the characteristics of this use.
[1:08:00] A clear regulation allows the county to evaluate any future application consistently and
[1:08:08] transparently.
[1:08:10] A recommendation of approval of the amendment before you tonight does not mean the county has
[1:08:15] concluded that a data center is appropriate at any particular location within the county.
[1:08:23] KSA-12-741 provides enabling authority for counties to enact planning and zoning regulations.
[1:08:30] The proposed amendment is created in traditional zoning purposes, including protection of public health and safety,
[1:08:39] protection of property and neighborhood compatibility, planning for public infrastructure,
[1:08:46] conservation of natural resources, and promotion of the orderly development of the county.
[1:08:51] The Planning Commission has identified the relevant comprehensive plan policies concerning
[1:08:58] land use capabilities, public utilities, transportation, water resources, conservation
[1:09:07] of natural resources, and long-range public improvements.
[1:09:11] The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan, although the
[1:09:17] comprehensive plan does not specifically address data centers, the amendment is nevertheless
[1:09:23] consistent with the plan's broader land use, safety, infrastructure, and resource protection
[1:09:31] policies.
[1:09:33] KSA-12-753 authorizes zoning regulations, establishing districts, and regulating the use of
[1:09:41] structures within those districts. The proposed amendment uses that authority to establish
[1:09:49] objective standards addressing location and zoning district eligibility, sent backs from property,
[1:09:56] lines and roads, separation from resident.
[1:10:00] Instances, and noise sensitive receptors, maximum building height, maximum building coverage, screening
[1:10:07] and landscaping, noise and vibration, lighting, generators and fuel systems, utility connections,
[1:10:17] water and wastewater facilities, storm water management, fire protection and emergency access,
[1:10:24] construction staging and abandonment and decommissioning.
[1:10:31] Immended regulations are written clearly enough at applicants,
[1:10:35] neighboring property owners, staff, this planning commission,
[1:10:40] and the Board of County Commissioners can understand what is required.
[1:10:46] The proposed adopting resolution includes findings that
[1:10:50] While the county has the authority to regulate land uses under KSA-12-741 at SEC, data centers
[1:10:58] are distinct and emerging land use requiring specific standards.
[1:11:03] No data center application is currently pending.
[1:11:07] The amendment is prospective and does not approve a specific project.
[1:11:12] The amendment is reasonably related to public health, safety, and welfare.
[1:11:17] The amendment provides a consistent process for future applicants and affected property owners.
[1:11:25] The county has not offered incentives for a data center.
[1:11:29] The county has not entered into non-disclosure agreements concerning a proposed data center.
[1:11:34] Project specific water and electrical usage cannot be determined without an application and supporting technical information.
[1:11:43] And future applications will remain subject to applicable zoning, building, fire, environmental,
[1:11:52] utility, and other regulatory requirements.
[1:11:57] The amendment and the corresponding application requires enough information to evaluate actual
[1:12:03] impacts, including site plan, building dimension height and elevations, number and type of
[1:12:11] buildings, phase development schedule, electrical load and anticipated peak demand, utility provider
[1:12:19] letters or service commitments, water source, average use, peak use, the cooling method, wastewater
[1:12:27] and discharge information, storm water calculations, backup generator inventory, fuel type,
[1:12:35] storage capacity and spill prevention measures.
[1:12:39] Noise study and equipment specifications, lighting plans,
[1:12:44] traffic and road impact analysis,
[1:12:46] fire protection and emergency response plan,
[1:12:49] landscaping and screening plan,
[1:12:52] construction management plan,
[1:12:54] environmental or natural resource information,
[1:12:57] and a decommissioning or abandonment plan.
[1:13:00] The county cannot determine water or electrical impacts
[1:13:04] from public speculation.
[1:13:06] Those impacts must be evaluated from an actual application
[1:13:10] and competent technical material.
[1:13:14] The planning commission's action tonight
[1:13:16] would not.
[1:13:17] A repeat would not approve a data center,
[1:13:22] approve a site, approve utility services,
[1:13:27] commit water or electrical capacity, authorized construction,
[1:13:31] grant to special use approval, wave any state or federal requirements, provide an incentive,
[1:13:41] or establish that any future project is compatible with the county. Any future applicant
[1:13:48] would still need to satisfy the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the application
[1:13:54] together with all applicable permitting and regulatory requirements.
[1:14:01] The amendment addresses the following public protection objectives.
[1:14:05] Preserve safe and orderly your land use,
[1:14:08] protect nearby residences and property owners,
[1:14:11] avoid incompatible building scale and intensity,
[1:14:15] require disclosure of infrastructure demands,
[1:14:18] protect water resources, plan for electrical and utility impacts,
[1:14:23] control noise, light, vibration, and visual impacts, protect roads, and public facilities.
[1:14:31] Ensuring emergency access and fire protection, establish enforceable operating conditions,
[1:14:37] and provide a transparent public review process.
[1:14:42] These objective support the conclusion that the amendment serves the public health, safety,
[1:14:48] and welfare of bother county.
[1:14:52] In closing, the Planning Commission's decision is not
[1:14:56] whether to approve a data center.
[1:14:59] That's not what we're here for.
[1:15:00] The decision is whether butler County should have a clear, enforceable, and publicly adopted standards in place, if an application is filed.
[1:15:13] Adopting the amendment allows the County to make future decisions using project-specific information, public participation, and legally established standards.
[1:15:24] It protects the county from having to evaluate it in emerging and potentially intensive,
[1:15:29] land use, under outdated or incomplete regulations.
[1:15:37] I stand for questions.
[1:15:38] You may want to wait until Toby has an opportunity to review the modifications to the
[1:15:42] regulations.
[1:15:44] And then we can answer any questions.
[1:15:46] There were some changes from the August 18th packet that you received.
[1:15:51] So, I'm sure you've reviewed all those.
[1:15:55] I would be remiss in not stating that at Tuesday's Board of County Commissioner meeting,
[1:16:01] Commissioner Jackson requested that I, I guess, convey some information to you or concerns
[1:16:06] that he has.
[1:16:07] And I told him that I would.
[1:16:09] Those concerns, the first one, will be addressed as rather simple, and we made that change
[1:16:13] already.
[1:16:14] His other concerns were the height of the buildings.
[1:16:18] He was concerned with the 60 feet if you look in your packet.
[1:16:22] We've even increased that to 72 until we'll be able to give you some information on why that was changed.
[1:16:28] He was also concerned with the 1000 foot notification area.
[1:16:32] We'll address that issue also.
[1:16:34] And the other issue was the transfer ability of the CUP itself.
[1:16:39] I think there may have been some confusion as to whether or not he was requesting whether or not the land could be transferred.
[1:16:45] We can't do anything with respect to transfer of land.
[1:16:49] In other words, if they want to sell that land to somebody else,
[1:16:51] we have no right to interfere in that transaction.
[1:16:54] There may be some issues with respect to whether or not the CUP itself is transferable
[1:17:00] and that the planning commission will have to make a decision
[1:17:02] as to how it wants to handle that aspect of it.
[1:17:05] And that's all I have.
[1:17:08] Quick question.
[1:17:12] Thank you.
[1:17:13] Don't we want to take us through your part of it?
[1:17:21] So
[1:17:23] I'm going to go ahead and walk through the recommended changes that were in the red line version that is before you.
[1:17:38] Terry just covered Commissioner Jackson's concern.
[1:17:44] Planning Commissioner Jim Roussen also had one concern that he would like me to convey tonight to you all just for consideration and I'll just kind of, I will probably repeat some of what Terry just gave you as far as Jackson's recommendation and or Jim Roussen's.
[1:18:05] But I'll go through there, so starting on page 69 in your redline version, the very first page, which you'll notice the page numbers are more in line with where it would be inserted into the regulations under the conditional uses for the article 7.
[1:18:24] So, the very first page is page 69 under the Data Center classification table, specifically
[1:18:33] under HyperScale.
[1:18:35] We have added a maximum project site area, shall not exceed 640 acres.
[1:18:43] So, this was already on page 86 as part of the regulation.
[1:18:48] Commissioner Jackson thought it would be good to put it in here on the table as well for quick identification, so that was added.
[1:19:01] Page 76,
[1:19:04] you get there with you.
[1:19:14] So, this specifically, you're probably looking at a number of page here, a number three.
[1:19:26] So, some middle requirements for data centers.
[1:19:29] For consideration, the Planning Commission member, Mr. Nelson, it cannot be President's
[1:19:33] night proposed discussion and thought concerning the data center CUP requirements.
[1:19:37] He suggests that there was no separation as far as requirements between large-scale data centers
[1:19:45] and the smaller-scale data centers.
[1:19:48] On page 76, three that I was referring to currently reads that the Board of County Commission
[1:19:53] may grant written waivers to include specific findings.
[1:19:59] So, his suggestion.
[1:20:00] The question is that the smaller data centers would not have to go before the board to request waivers, but those different specific
[1:20:13] CUP requirements would be for your small-scale data centers as opposed to your large-scale. So that's for consideration and discussion.
[1:20:26] On page 83,
[1:20:35] public notice also found on page 74 for the community meeting notification but specifically on page 83.
[1:20:49] So, Mr. Jackson did express a concern about only notifying those property owners within a thousand feet from the project sites.
[1:20:58] So the staff does have concerns, just our concerns as far as if we were to extend beyond
[1:21:04] the thousand feet.
[1:21:06] Notice that the planning commission tearing shall be provided as required by Kansas
[1:21:10] law and Boller County zoning procedures, and that both still require an only required
[1:21:18] the thousand foot notification area.
[1:21:21] A change could impact other conditional use requests, and that those zoning regulations for
[1:21:29] all other types of requests still only require the thousand foot notification area in
[1:21:34] the uncorporated areas and the 200 feet in the incorporated areas.
[1:21:39] This would be consistent with other large-scale conditional uses such as utility scale solar
[1:21:46] projects.
[1:21:48] It could also create some problems with a protest petition, a valid protest position is only
[1:21:54] accepted if containing signatures from 20% or more of the total area required to be notified,
[1:22:00] which in this instance is 1,000 feet per the statute in our regulations for all conditional
[1:22:06] uses.
[1:22:08] In other words, this could create some confusion if we are notifying greater than 1,000 foot
[1:22:16] protection.
[1:22:19] We're only accepting signatures from those areas, those people that were notified
[1:22:24] within a thousand feet. On page 87, under building height.
[1:22:39] So we are only dealing with
[1:22:41] hyper-scaling co-location data centers. So again, Commissioner Jackson did have some concern
[1:22:48] over the building height, so we did do some research,
[1:22:56] so he felt like the maximum building
[1:22:58] height would be to tall the original draft versions of this document did have the maximum
[1:23:03] building height that 60 feet. After we started doing some research stuff, found that engineers
[1:23:08] may require substantial overhead clearances that may require massive air duct networks,
[1:23:13] like with cooling piping, complex overhead cable trays and heavy busways for electrical distributions.
[1:23:22] So it is staff's recommendation that we do increase it to 72 only for hyper scale and co-location data centers.
[1:23:42] The post-construction noise study,
[1:23:50] so as we did not account for the project being completed in phase phases we did at a statement that clarifies that where data center project is constructed in phase is the post-construction noise study shall be performed for each phase within 12 months of the certificate of occupancy.
[1:24:05] Right below that, on page 89, the measurement, when measuring sound levels should be measured
[1:24:13] based upon noises that are attributable to the data center project alone.
[1:24:22] So we did at a statement that sounds not attributable to the data center project shall be
[1:24:29] identified and escorted from the measured level
[1:24:34] on page 90 where
[1:24:41] we see the baseline ambient
[1:24:43] noise. This goes, I'm speaking as well as again. This goes along with the change,
[1:24:52] Chairman.
[1:24:54] Moving up a little bit, making my happy.
[1:24:59] Page it.
[1:25:00] 87, or Ron Page 90, baseline ambient noise. So this goes along with the change in the measurement,
[1:25:10] external noise should be separate from noise is generated by the data center. So at the end of
[1:25:15] the day, the post construction study shall demonstrate that operations of the proposed use do not
[1:25:19] exceed the maximum permitted sound levels. So that wording was added, and we did remove material,
[1:25:28] increases the baseline ambient noise on page,
[1:25:43] I think I got the wrong page.
[1:25:45] B9E1 would be your next.
[1:25:52] Just cover that.
[1:25:54] Over on page 91, of our Beratian city standard measurements.
[1:25:59] So here, we added wording for the calculation purposes for frequencies above 60 cycles per second,
[1:26:06] the maximum allowable displacement shall be determined by a linear interpolation based on trans-established
[1:26:12] in the table above and using the formula provided.
[1:26:21] Right below that, we did add some, so we did, we do understand that there are alternative
[1:26:27] methods that somebody can use to come up with frequency of ground motion in cycles per second.
[1:26:36] So we did add that there's alternative methods out there, so we also added wording that would allow for alternative methods to be used that may demonstrate compliance by proving earth vibrations and that they do not exceed the maximum peak particle velocity.
[1:26:55] So those alternative standards must meet the limits as defined by recognized national or international standards and they are subject to prior approval by the board.
[1:27:13] Page 99 on the transfer.
[1:27:18] This was Commissioner Jackson's, again, that the County Councilor did mention one of his concerns that ACVP should not be transferred sold conveyor of sign without written notification to the Board of County Commissioners.
[1:27:34] So I think there was maybe some miscommunication so that Mr. Jackson may have felt that they
[1:27:41] should have full control over whether or not a CUP may be transferred sold, conveyed or
[1:27:45] ensigned.
[1:27:47] And staffs opinion that board cannot legally prevent or prohibit the sale of the land.
[1:27:52] However, would still be in the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commission's
[1:27:56] to prevent the transfer of a CUP to another by utilizing its power when the application is first
[1:28:03] considered through the condition of the CUP that that makes sense.
[1:28:10] So with that, I will turn
[1:28:12] those items over to you for discussion.
[1:28:21] Questions or comments? Or Toby and or Terry from the board?
[1:28:28] I thought we had to put some of the CEP where they had to come in and we had to get a fine.
[1:28:36] I thought in one of, in the prior one, regarding the transfer that we had the CEP, we had to be able to,
[1:28:45] to review all the bonds, all the different things we're doing.
[1:28:50] The board still has to be notified.
[1:28:52] they still, they still have to be notified.
[1:28:57] They still have to meet the CUP requirements.
[1:29:00] So if you had approved one, and there's a transfer,
[1:29:05] they still have to, you know, make sure that the decommissioning
[1:29:09] bonds and everything are in place.
[1:29:11] And that, we still getting all the information, the
[1:29:16] contact information, all that kind of stuff.
[1:29:19] We're still notifying them, that they have to comply with the
[1:29:22] UP as it was approved in order that they still have to operate in the same manner.
[1:29:28] They still have to do all those things.
[1:29:31] So I don't know if they wanted, you know, full power to say yes, we would allow the transfer
[1:29:37] or not.
[1:29:39] Specifically for me, my recommendation is obviously the planning board does have some power
[1:29:45] like I stated in the transfer ability when it comes to the CUP specifically, not the land.
[1:29:53] We cannot prevent the transfer of the land, but the CUP has a condition the board.
[1:30:00] Court has the power, and so does the Board of County Commission as a condition if you feel like
[1:30:06] that this, the CUP, and you have this power with any CUP through the conditional use process
[1:30:13] to make a condition that that, once ownership is transferred or something that the conditional
[1:30:22] use is no longer valid, and they have to reapply for the conditional use permit.
[1:30:29] So, the way here suggesting that is if there was to be an application, when we were to consider
[1:30:36] the CUP, we would make that stipulation if we were inclined to even make it.
[1:30:40] Yeah, has a condition of the CUP?
[1:30:43] Sure, I understand correctly.
[1:30:45] Well, in love.
[1:30:48] So, my recommendation would be to leave it the way it is now,
[1:30:55] but...
[1:30:57] That's the area of a CUP.
[1:31:00] We have total control over it, and other
[1:31:09] questions, comments.
[1:31:16] I mean, mine on gyms, part of it, here again, I think that's the case by case type thing.
[1:31:25] We'll consider it if and when we have an application,
[1:31:32] but I don't see it as being, you
[1:31:35] We can nitpick these things today, which one of the gems do?
[1:31:41] So as it is written now, a small scale data center, so your micro edge, your edge micro
[1:31:50] and your modular containers, have the same requirements to apply as a hyper scale facility.
[1:31:59] So right now the way the regulations read has proposed is you would have to, if, so say it doesn't meet some of the study requirements.
[1:32:10] I mean, the system is different. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's not cooled, you know, by water, it's, you know, it's HVAC, you know, it's or something.
[1:32:20] They would have to make a specific, basically during the application process, they would make a request that they would like to wave those specific requirements.
[1:32:32] Then they would have to take that to the Board of County Commission.
[1:32:36] And they would have to give the Board of County Commission the reasons as to why they're requesting a waiver from it.
[1:32:44] And the Board of County Commission would have to approve it.
[1:32:47] So, if they approve one of those, then the application, once it's finally approved, would
[1:32:52] then come before the board, and then I would present here's what the application exists,
[1:33:01] and here's what requirements were waived by the Board of County Commission.
[1:33:07] It kind of takes one step out of the process, which I think, I think, Jim's to Jim's side of it,
[1:33:15] He was just for consideration.
[1:33:17] He felt like, first-small scale, why should they have to go in front of the Board of
[1:33:20] County Commission?
[1:33:22] Why not write a mention of the regulations?
[1:33:28] Well, with other, I mean, any type of cases we hear where they have to come before, if they're
[1:33:34] wanting to have a variance on anything, whether it's an Ag80 and Ag40.
[1:33:38] So I guess I don't feel like removing those.
[1:33:41] My opinion.
[1:33:45] And it's not like we're taking, I mean, they can still go to the County Commissioners
[1:33:49] request a change
[1:33:55] in those. I mean, it does have legitimacy.
[1:34:04] I mean, it's like I have a very
[1:34:07] clear. I mean, within a half mile of my house, there's two. I'm sure data centers in modular
[1:34:16] units. And if I didn't know they were there, because of what we're doing right now,
[1:34:24] I had never paid any attention to them, but it's that electrical substation.
[1:34:32] The five years ago we approved to go in, and at the time to add a centers weren't
[1:34:37] an issue. But I'm about 99% sure that those are the, quote, modular data centers.
[1:34:47] They don't meet setbacks. They don't meet a lot of the requirements that we have in here.
[1:34:54] but yet I haven't heard anybody in my name.
[1:35:00] We're complaining that there noisy, they're loud, they're suing real complaint that most people have is that for some reason, they were now in a certain light to get turned on to eliminate the substation, and those suckers are bright. They got electricity there. They can put a lot of power into them, but that's about the only complaint I've ever.
[1:35:28] And even that's very minimal now.
[1:35:30] They've got that regulated aim and everything on that part.
[1:35:36] Other questions?
[1:35:37] Discussion?
[1:35:38] Comments?
[1:35:47] I would say on that one.
[1:35:48] We just leave it in.
[1:36:03] What was the couple that Darren Jackson had and who
[1:36:07] really quickly had those kinds separated out or not?
[1:36:09] That one was building height.
[1:36:11] The building height?
[1:36:13] So, we've been about to discuss that one day.
[1:36:20] Oh, yeah.
[1:36:22] What's on distance?
[1:36:23] They've read and noticed what's there.
[1:36:26] Yeah.
[1:36:27] Thank you, Sandy.
[1:36:28] Don't put those in foot.
[1:36:31] And like I said, the other one was the front page.
[1:36:38] This had in the 640.
[1:36:40] Oh, that's right.
[1:36:41] I hate French.
[1:36:42] To that.
[1:36:43] Large is, it could be acreage wise, just six hundred forty acres.
[1:36:47] Well, because it was already listed in like 80 something, right?
[1:36:50] It was just 76, maybe somewhere in that.
[1:37:00] It was originally in.
[1:37:02] In 86.
[1:37:04] 86.
[1:37:05] Thank you.
[1:37:11] Toby, anything else that we need to review?
[1:37:14] The only thing is,
[1:37:19] if you're ready to adopt,
[1:37:21] tonight, or if you're not wanting to table it to make further changes, or not accepting
[1:37:29] of any of the changes presented to you, I would like the option I did ask permission
[1:37:33] to bring you, basically, some recommended findings for you tonight.
[1:37:40] You do have those before you and my staff report, and I could review those with you ahead
[1:37:50] time. I'm happy to read them off.
[1:37:57] I'll just go through them.
[1:37:58] Please go through them.
[1:37:59] Quickly.
[1:38:01] So, as far as authority and scope, the proposed amendment is a general revision to the
[1:38:07] zoning regulations that the Board may consider under KSA-12757 being following the planning
[1:38:14] commissions public hearing and recommendation. The proposed amendment establishes generally
[1:38:24] of self-educated, a site's specific entitlement for a particular applicant, our parcel.
[1:38:31] Notice of hearing.
[1:38:33] The Planning Commission finds that the notice of the public hearing was provided as reflected
[1:38:37] in the record.
[1:38:38] That the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on August 4, 2026 at 7 p.m.
[1:38:43] and that interested persons were given a meaningful opportunity to present oral and
[1:38:47] break it.
[1:38:48] Great comments.
[1:38:50] Comprehensive planning that proposed the amendment is consistent with and further purposes,
[1:38:56] furthers the purposes of a reasonably implements relevant goals and policies in
[1:39:01] Butler County's comprehensive planning, including quarterly growth, compatible land use,
[1:39:06] infrastructure planning, general economic development, environmental stewardship, protection
[1:39:12] of established neighborhoods, efficient provision of public facilities to the extent the
[1:39:17] The comprehensive plan does not expressly address data centers that propose a amendment
[1:39:21] reasonably applies to plans broader land use and managed infrastructure considerations
[1:39:26] to an emerging or an evolving land use.
[1:39:30] As far as land use characteristics, the plan commission finds that the data centers may involve
[1:39:35] large buildings or projects in intensive electrical demand considerations, water demand, utility
[1:39:41] facilities, emerging generation, emergency generation equipment, fuel storage, cooling systems,
[1:39:49] security infrastructure, construction activity and other characteristics that may create
[1:39:55] specific land use in infrastructure impacts.
[1:40:00] The legitimate planning objectives, the proposed amendment reasonably addresses potential data center impacts, through standards related to location, district, eligibility, compatibility, design, screening, setbacks, landscaping, lighting, noise, access utilities, emergency response, construction, and operational impacts.
[1:40:21] These standards further would legitimate planning objectives, including protection of public health, safety, and welfare,
[1:40:30] compatible development, managed infrastructure considerations, safe access and protection of nearby property.
[1:40:38] Reasonable relationship, the planning commission finds that the material requirements in the proposed amendment permit a reasonable
[1:40:45] relationship to legitimate governmental interests.
[1:40:49] The standards are directed to foreseeable land use effects and infrastructure considerations
[1:40:54] associated with data centers, and are not intended to regulate matters outside
[1:40:59] Belarus, County's lawful land use authority.
[1:41:03] Urban Growth Area Flint Hills Prairie ecosystem and compatibility.
[1:41:08] The planning commission finds that it's reasonable to direct hyperscale, co-location,
[1:41:15] and
[1:41:15] and sites capable of accommodating their scale infrastructure needs and operational characteristics
[1:41:23] and limiting or conditioning the use especially in residential areas, noise sensitive areas and plan development patterns.
[1:41:33] Infrastructure coordination, the planning commission finds that utility transportation, storm water, wastewater and emergency service coordination may be necessary for certain data center development.
[1:41:44] requirements for applicants to provide information and coordinate with responsible providers.
[1:41:50] Our reasonable planning tools and do not require Bell or County to guarantee private utility capacity,
[1:41:56] or to exercise authority reserved to another governmental entity or utility provider.
[1:42:03] Public Safety and Operational Effects, the planning commission finds that the standards
[1:42:07] addressing emergency generators feel storage fire access hazardous materials, equipment placement,
[1:42:13] generator testing, noise lighting, and screening are reasonable land use in site development
[1:42:19] measures. When administered in coordination with applicable building fire and environmental
[1:42:25] utilities, state and federal requirements,
[1:42:30] clarity and administration, the planning
[1:42:32] commission finds that the proposed amendment provides sufficiently definite standards to
[1:42:37] guide applicant staff and decision makers in his capable of consistent administration. The
[1:42:43] proposed amendment preserves site specific review or administrative flecks ability only were stated in the text and authorized by applicable law.
[1:42:53] Public comment, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral comments received in the record.
[1:42:59] The Planning Commission recognizes that commenters may hold different views concerning data center development and concludes that the proposed amendment reasonably balances those views.
[1:43:13] So,
[1:43:16] so those are what we came up with as far as findings for you that I'd like to present.
[1:43:21] You can accept those findings if you're going to make an adoption.
[1:43:28] As per the staff, in fact, I would give you if you look at your suggested motion.
[1:43:34] That's in your, either the staff, my staff report,
[1:43:39] Or also on the agenda item, I did recommend some emotions.
[1:43:46] If you're planning to adopt and you have no further changes or considerations that you're concerned of, then it's important to understand that you got to adopt the resolution,
[1:43:59] which is PC-262, I recommend you adopting my findings that's located within the staff
[1:44:14] report as a reason for the recommendation to the Board of County Commission.
[1:44:22] I recommend
[1:44:23] that approval to pose amendment to the zoning regulations that you're recommending
[1:44:29] approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
[1:44:33] You should also require that a written summary of proceedings before to the Board of
[1:44:38] County Commissioners.
[1:44:42] Questions?
[1:44:45] Raise a Toby or Terry, decide and over there at the end, send a place.
[1:44:51] Any other questions?
[1:44:57] If not, Chiricals are public hearing?
[1:45:00] terl inertane, motion.
[1:45:03] No sir, it was not open to public
[1:45:09] comment.
[1:45:38] We have seen all the emails that were provided, we have seen all the emails that were provided.
[1:45:41] They're up here before us. We've read through them. We were all here at 630, for other reasons.
[1:45:52] And it's not a public hearing.
[1:45:56] It's not a public hearing. It never was open to the public.
[1:45:59] We have a lot of things that we have to do.
[1:46:03] How do we call it?
[1:46:05] So we think we gotta make some issues.
[1:46:07] I have to go to open that up.
[1:46:09] We have to look at it.
[1:46:14] We have to get it on the other side.
[1:46:19] We're a little lower.
[1:46:23] Let us speak if we live a mile from that facility.
[1:46:27] Buffett facility.
[1:46:29] Buffett facility.
[1:46:30] every facility is on this address where he's talking about. We have got nothing before this board for that.
[1:46:43] We have not seen it as this board.
[1:46:46] We got a copy of that. You are not telling the truth.
[1:46:50] Toby gave me a copy of right in those letters that literally says those three sides.
[1:46:54] So yes, he's saying it. So stop that, Mr. Varder. You're not telling the truth.
[1:47:01] We have not seen anything in our midst.
[1:47:03] We can send you to take a look for Sam Shade, because he gave it to me.
[1:47:08] Either way, the Ranking House letter is all over the internet.
[1:47:11] You have the same letter.
[1:47:13] No, we're given it.
[1:47:16] You can take control of this.
[1:47:31] It's been online.
[1:47:37] I have it on my phone if you want to see it.
[1:47:43] That's right.
[1:47:45] folks. This is discussion for the board. Are you saying that all of you none of you
[1:47:53] and where's the other two, by the way? Are you saying that all of you have not
[1:47:57] seen that letter for breaking out with the three sites that the REC bubble rule
[1:48:04] electric is proposing? Is that what you all six are saying right there?
[1:48:08] We've seen that we've seen the latter, but we've seen a little bit formerly and has been a lot smaller.
[1:48:14] That's not formal.
[1:48:16] Yes, well, okay.
[1:48:17] It is not formal.
[1:48:20] Until thanks have been submitted.
[1:48:22] You just said you didn't see it.
[1:48:25] And now you're saying you did see it.
[1:48:26] Oh, I never denied that I didn't see it.
[1:48:30] But it hasn't been formally submitted.
[1:48:33] We've got to have an application.
[1:48:35] except for the virus been formally submitted to you, to you, without us.
[1:48:43] No, there will be public hearings on those CUPs when they come out.
[1:48:53] We would like to be able to review the entire proposal for proposed status and everything.
[1:48:58] And then open it up to public comments.
[1:49:01] Then we can actually comment on what you're looking at.
[1:49:03] We absolutely want to trust your judge, but if we cannot receive review
[1:49:06] the 91 page document, the 108 column is relevant.
[1:49:09] That's not a 91 page document.
[1:49:11] It's about a 40 page document.
[1:49:13] That's not a 91 page document.
[1:49:15] You just said, why do you not change?
[1:49:18] No, why do you not change?
[1:49:19] No, why do you not change?
[1:49:20] First of all, Chairman, I think this is not, you've had the public hearing portion of this,
[1:49:26] But first of all, the page numbers are start on page 69 because this would be an answer
[1:49:33] into, you have spoken, but go ahead, Jeremy.
[1:49:38] This is your, this is your, it's well, the board, what's the board say?
[1:49:49] Those two are the way this has been handled here there.
[1:50:00] That is good. That is good. What are you going to do? What do you go to high?
[1:50:09] Especially if there's no seat in the seat? I'm not even there. Do you know what he wants to say?
[1:50:18] I'll write, write, run this! What's it going to hurt? What are you scared of?
[1:50:24] Good to know you are not giving this to this responsibility.
[1:50:33] He gets to talk.
[1:50:36] He staffed for residents.
[1:50:40] We pay his salary.
[1:50:42] I want to remind everybody we pay his salary.
[1:50:46] He is our staff, not yours.
[1:50:48] Since then you've been in the streets.
[1:50:55] Just real quick on clarification, and if you look at the data center regulation section 20,
[1:51:01] that's the very first page, it says page 69.
[1:51:07] That's because our current zoning regulations under Ag, 40 Ag, 80, end at page 68.
[1:51:14] So we would insert this document at the end of that regulation to real clear.
[1:51:21] So the entire regulation was posted online, but it starts at 69, is if you adopted,
[1:51:29] that's exactly where it goes.
[1:51:32] So there's no hiding anything.
[1:51:35] This is the document that was presented to you for this evening and it's accurate.
[1:51:39] It was in a minute and I changed my name to that document.
[1:51:44] Yes, there was late submissions and you know what Mr.
[1:51:47] Yuzel can.
[1:51:49] And don't have the correct submission at the last meeting with the letter
[1:51:54] right now.
[1:51:55] No, just tell me.
[1:51:58] We're telling the truth.
[1:51:59] There is no idea.
[1:52:01] We have it.
[1:52:01] I come up here and got the letter.
[1:52:04] The letter is not an application.
[1:52:06] No, it's not an application.
[1:52:08] and we have to have an application before we.
[1:52:11] Of their regulations is what it is, Mr. Varner.
[1:52:14] Nobody is saying that.
[1:52:16] Everybody is saying it's late.
[1:52:18] Some missions let us have the chance to take a look at it.
[1:52:22] And speak to you with that report, guard.
[1:52:25] That's all we're asking.
[1:52:27] But it's really hard to relate with.
[1:52:29] It's hard to relate with.
[1:52:31] And you will create public goodwill.
[1:52:33] It's like one, somebody can send back there.
[1:52:35] Maybe we're not all opposed to it, but you need to create public good will if you want any kind of credibility in this community.
[1:52:45] God says we will help you out.
[1:52:47] Just as a reminder, we've had two public comment portions of this already.
[1:52:52] We don't have an application in front of you, there was the harm of the land two weeks or four weeks.
[1:53:01] A lot of people didn't know about it, it is not our concern up here.
[1:53:14] And all these narrations mentioned were given to you as well for consideration and their before you tonight.
[1:53:21] Yeah, it's not to concern, no concern of yours.
[1:53:25] What we think.
[1:53:26] A minimum of 38 emails are before you tonight for consideration.
[1:53:32] That what turned in late as well.
[1:53:34] You should
[1:53:40] be holding them to the highest standard possible, right?
[1:53:43] Got a minimum.
[1:53:45] I just have no water everywhere.
[1:53:47] We have the current climate for a plan and closed resources to plan.
[1:53:51] Those debt is not a requirement or a limitation on the water being used.
[1:53:54] And I do, all day well on this, I spend every day of every workout with AI people.
[1:54:01] All day well.
[1:54:02] All of them is researched for the last six hours.
[1:54:04] And I didn't even know you're having a hearing, but we don't have the opportunity to provide you the expertise that was right here in Butler County and it's going to help.
[1:54:14] Oh, we're all what experts need this fire.
[1:54:16] They don't even have an environmentalist in their environmental department from accounting.
[1:54:20] What's the importance of the fire?
[1:54:22] Mr. Mr. Jones, I'm pretty sure that I heard you a couple of meetings and go say,
[1:54:28] that you don't even know what you're regulating.
[1:54:31] And you agree that said everybody after you're probably doesn't.
[1:54:34] It's like, good grief, this is just, it's, it's crazy, that we get laid to mission,
[1:54:40] stoking an opportunity to speak.
[1:54:43] We, this is new to everybody, it's new to you, is it is to us and I urge you, I'm ready.
[1:54:50] That's right.
[1:54:50] I'm ready for the motion from the board.
[1:54:52] London, the fear of London.
[1:54:57] I'm so, so be here.
[1:55:03] Please, please, please, please, I'm trying to talk to be with regards to what we received over the weekend, the emails, the late submissions.
[1:55:15] What should we qualify as maybe a late submission? Because someone sending an email saying I don't want a data center, we're going to continue to get things like that.
[1:55:23] So what point do we say, we're going to approve regulations?
[1:55:30] Somehow we're going to approve them.
[1:55:33] It's one thing to send a suggestion.
[1:55:35] It's one thing to provide, you know, some alternatives,
[1:55:41] you know, some options, things that sort of versus just saying,
[1:55:44] I don't want to add a second.
[1:55:47] Sort of the question is, well, that's what I'm saying
[1:55:50] with late submissions, because we've taken the mission
[1:55:53] Again, that we got over the weekend, we're provided to you just like they were last time for consideration.
[1:56:01] Also, Mr. Barnard did close the record, so we would continue not to get,
[1:56:08] because this could go on and on and on.
[1:56:10] At some point, the board either wants to consider what's before them or take action on it.
[1:56:20] Here
[1:56:24] we're talking about the email they say because the link submissions I'm talking about is what happened at the end of last meeting after public comment heading close
[1:56:32] That is what I'm talking about it. It's the same, too
[1:56:37] Here, right in the love it more the beginning of the meeting and you'll allow those
[1:56:42] E.C. Which didn't have a cover page, which was given to the board
[1:56:51] Which is why they were why they were submitted and provided to the general public because they are accurate records that were submitted
[1:57:17] Did I answer your question?
[1:57:23] And by the way, I don't know how you got an email because we come up here and ask for your email addresses and they said we couldn't have them.
[1:57:30] I did not, I did not get an email personally.
[1:57:34] Okay.
[1:57:34] Okay.
[1:57:35] Are you just talked about all these emails you guys got.
[1:57:39] No, no.
[1:57:39] These are all the emails that were sent to staff that were printed off and provided to them.
[1:57:44] Are you staff?
[1:57:45] No.
[1:57:46] Staff.
[1:57:47] These were all emails that were sent to staff.
[1:57:52] We are having a pointy, you are a political and a pointy by the commissioners, so you don't have
[1:58:01] Are you going to open the public meeting or are we not?
[1:58:05] Okay.
[1:58:05] I think the commission is a tabler of doubt.
[1:58:10] Yes.
[1:58:11] Do you have official email?
[1:58:14] Okay.
[1:58:15] So how do you guys communicate if you don't have official email?
[1:58:22] You don't have an official email, but somehow no, he printed them off and we got him so you don't have an advantage
[1:58:44] You don't have an advantage
[1:58:49] Mr. Chairman, I recommend we move forward to either take over the request, or take action on the request.
[1:58:57] I think that's a really bad idea.
[1:58:59] I think the one on this side is all of our opinion.
[1:59:02] I'm not sure.
[1:59:03] Yes.
[1:59:04] The most involved in the very last page on that one,
[1:59:05] on the separate part.
[1:59:07] Yes.
[1:59:08] Every email.
[1:59:10] All right.
[1:59:11] All right.
[1:59:11] How are you, sir?
[1:59:12] So, I guess.
[1:59:14] It's an extra.
[1:59:15] That's awesome.
[1:59:16] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:19] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:21] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:23] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:24] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:24] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:24] Can I make it, man?
[1:59:25] I can.
[1:59:28] I would like to respond to your comment, ma'am, that you made to me, and yes, I made that comment.
[1:59:39] And yes, I stand by that comment.
[1:59:42] Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you for acknowledging that you set that.
[1:59:45] I'm not denying that I said that the process that we are working on is simply the application process.
[2:00:00] The regulations within any data center that may or may not be proposed against us, or to us.
[2:00:12] We still have latitude within that CUP to continue to regulate things as we find out more and more information concerning these particular projects.
[2:00:29] correct Toby.
[2:00:34] No, no, no, no, it's not public hearing. Can I finish it? Can I finish it?
[2:00:41] Could be, I guess we're trying to do the job like some issues.
[2:00:44] Can you finish this?
[2:00:46] No.
[2:00:49] Make a motion.
[2:00:51] Just give us an opportunity.
[2:00:54] Mr. Chairman, I moved to adopt the recommended
[2:00:57] findings found within the staff report as to the reasons for our recommendation to the board.
[2:01:03] Recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the zoning regulations of
[2:01:07] Butler County Kansas by adding section number 20 to Article 7,
[2:01:13] conditional uses for data center regulations, section 7, 301 to the board.
[2:01:18] A dot resolution PC262, a resolution adopting amendments to Article 7, Section 7, 3,
[2:01:28] conditional uses for data center regulations, 7, 301 of the zoning regulations.
[2:01:35] have staff adopt an application specific to submissions related to data centers to assist in
[2:01:44] the systematic administration of a CUP request and require a written summary of proceedings
[2:01:52] is be forwarded to the board of County Commissioners.
[2:01:56] Thank you.
[2:01:56] Do you get everything?
[2:01:58] Yes.
[2:01:59] You have talent.
[2:02:02] You're going to go there.
[2:02:02] Is there a second?
[2:02:05] All second.
[2:02:06] Hello.
[2:02:07] Hello.
[2:02:07] Can I have a seat?
[2:02:12] I'm Alan on the motion.
[2:02:14] March on the second.
[2:02:15] Further discussion amongst the board.
[2:02:17] I'm going to go.
[2:02:22] I'm voting to see your current.
[2:02:23] Thank you.
[2:02:26] Thank you.
[2:02:32] Okay.
[2:02:44] Good work for us.
[2:02:46] Thank you.
[2:02:49] Thank you.
[2:02:49] Thank you.
[2:02:54] Thank you.
[2:02:57] The vote is 33.
[2:03:00] Yes.
[2:03:01] Before I break the tie.
[2:03:05] This will be the third or fourth time I've voted in the last 20 some years.
[2:03:10] And with everything that's been said and done, we can sit here and go and argue about this for Frick and Ever.
[2:03:21] People don't want them. People don't want this.
[2:03:25] But we need regulations to do it.
[2:03:28] I'm going to approve motion carried for three.
[2:03:41] That'd be a failure.
[2:03:42] Yes, absolutely.
[2:03:43] Stay in the company.
[2:03:44] Stay in the company.
[2:03:48] Meeting adjourned.
[2:03:49] What a failure.
[2:03:54] Is it needed?
[2:03:59] How are you?
[2:03:59] How are you?
[2:04:00] Yeah.