[0:09] [clears throat]
[0:18] We can get started.
Perfect. All right, let's call the
[0:23] meeting to order.
[0:31] To the flag of the United States of
America to the republic for it stands
[0:37] one nation
indivisible with liberty and justice for
[0:42] all
[0:46] [clears throat]
[0:49] had a chance to look at the agenda. I
would entertain a motion to approve the
[0:54] agenda.
[1:01] » Second.
>> Moved and seconded twice.
[1:07] All those in favor? I
none.
[1:13] Uh hopefully everyone's had a chance to
read the minutes from last meeting.
[1:19] [clears throat]
There's no discussion or edits. I would
[1:24] entertain a motion to approve the
minutes from last meeting.
[1:30] So moved
[1:33] and seconded. All those in favor?
>> Unanimous.
[1:39] Are there any conflicts of interest on
the agenda today?
[1:47] Seeing none,
[1:51] any public comments, official public
comments before we start.
[1:57] Council seeing none
move on agenda item number one.
[2:05] [clears throat] Okay. The first thing I
have for you is request
[2:10] of lots A, B, C, and D of Borderland
subdivision.
[2:15] Applicant indeed holder is Michael and
Stephanie Divine. They are proposing a
[2:22] four parcel subdivision.
Lot A, B, C, and D will all be 24.69
[2:28] acres. Access to the lots to the
[clears throat] lot is from Mikey Place
[2:33] which is a 66 foot dedicated public
rideway. Access to lots A, B, C, and D
[2:39] is for a new 66 foot wide public access
utility easements aesthetic flat.
[2:48] We have a comment from the highway
department. Um, he will need a
[2:51] construction estimate on the road to be
built so a bond can be collected for the
[2:55] road construction. Please provide cost
proposal estimate and drawing so county
[2:59] commission can determine the bond to be
collected.
[3:04] Um, [clears throat] Black Hills Co-op
asked to have
[3:11] on the flat they have an underground
primary running through track. They
[3:14] won't have to
other than that there's no issues.
[3:19] » So track one I assume is track A.
>> Track one is the whole track now. Oh,
[3:25] [clears throat] I just see
it.
[3:32] » So, is that discussed with the property
owner?
[3:39] » Yep. [laughter]
I have to discuss.
[3:48] » So, you're okay moving forward with them
two contingencies?
[3:57] Okay. No. Is there a motion? Yeah.
[4:04] I was just making sure that she's
your motion and seconded. Any further
[4:10] discussion? [clears throat]
[4:17] Seeing none. All those in favor.
All those
[4:30] agenda item number two.
[laughter]
[4:39] The next one we have is a variance
request to ordinance number two article
[4:44] 4 section 17C. The minimum distance
between any structure and any property
[4:49] line [clears throat] other than arrival
shall be 15 ft.
[4:53] Applicant is requesting a variance from
ordinance number two set back with the
[4:58] property line. We requesting to be 10 ft
from the property line. Reason for
[5:03] variance is the concrete was poured
encroaching on the property line.
[5:09] [laughter]
There is a
[5:14] a survey. They did he did have it
surveyed. Um
[5:19] there was a comment from register of
deeds.
[5:22] No, this is a 5 acre parcel. This is
beginning to get out of control. Is
[5:27] there someone telling the contractor
should just pour the concrete and then
[5:30] come in for
[5:38] the
>> property? I've never done this before. I
[5:41] don't know when the speed of so he does.
I can share the back story if this
[5:46] helps. Um
when I actually hired the contractor to
[5:50] do it, I asked him to contact the
county. I'm new here. I've only been
[5:54] here for a couple years. I'm not from
the area. I don't know this place. So I
[5:58] relied on the contractor to perform
this. [snorts] Um he I guess fell short.
[6:04] Um I then found this out after the
concrete was done. So um it's the way
[6:11] it's the plot is, it's a little triangle
on the far corner that's not meeting
[6:17] requirements. I literally can lay my
body in it and that's the size of the
[6:21] triangle. But I'm trying to go by letter
and try to do my building as best
[6:26] possible.
[clears throat]
[6:29] So Terry, I saw in the packet that you
sent by email that there was a letter
[6:34] sent to the butter and you never got a
response from that.
[6:44] » This individual owns [clears throat]
properties just self. I looked up onx
[6:48] who was paying the taxes. I didn't
contact them. I'm not familiar with
[6:52] them. There's nothing built on that
property at this point in time.
[6:56] [clears throat] I know this look like
there's anything going to be built in
[7:00] soon.
[7:04] » The survey was done prior to concrete
uh post I was trying to see what level I
[7:12] needed to get.
[7:20] So in the ordinance the reasons for
variance are
[7:26] » um topography.
[7:33] [clears throat and cough]
[7:37] Um the board upon recommendation of the
planning commission may vary these
[7:41] regulations due to unusual pornography
or other conditions so that substantial
[7:45] justice may be done in the public's
interest here provided that such
[7:49] variation will not have effect of
nullifying the intended purpose of this.
[7:56] » So what did you say a letter was sent to
neighbor? Yeah, I did send a letter and
[8:01] I'll send another one.
[8:12] » The 19th
[8:16] August.
>> Yeah.
[8:19] [clears throat]
[8:24] » So they don't live there just a piece of
property.
[8:27] » [clears throat]
>> Yeah, I think the
[8:29] » it's just wrong. They own both parcels,
the 5 acre and the 10 acre.
[8:43] So, is there already um power to both
properties
[8:48] or does that
>> easily need to be kept open for running
[8:53] access for power lines?
I don't know if there's power or not. Is
[8:59] there a reason why
>> there's power on the road?
[9:01] » Why you put
why why is there a terrain reason or
[9:07] some other reason?
>> There were some massive boulders that
[9:10] the contractor ran into which are now
decorations on the property. And again,
[9:16] I asked him to contact the county and
I'm planning clean up now.
[9:23] [clears throat]
[9:25] As you can see in the photo actually
right there, [clears throat] there was
[9:28] master. That whole corner all the way
around on that north edge is all
[9:34] gigantic folders that were left behind
that they can't take out.
[9:46] Yeah, there is. I know the property, but
I think the the main thing that I would
[9:54] say could could be an issue is if the
neighbor needs
[9:58] if they don't have problem, I don't have
a problem with.
[10:02] But if they need that 15 foot to run a
power line,
[10:06] um that's I think we need to find out.
Well, wouldn't
[10:10] » that 15 foot be on their property
though?
[10:15] It's 10 and 10
with a 10.8 foot right away. Then we're
[10:21] still meeting the 10 and 10.
>> Yeah,
[10:23] » I was told that it was 10 and then it
got changed not too long ago to 15
[10:30] by I don't know by the county by just
hearsay. I know the trick.
[10:36] » So it's not in Black Hills energy
territories. in the co-op when the co-op
[10:42] didn't respond. They don't respond
then's
[10:48] how they work. [snorts]
>> I think based on decisions that we've
[10:51] made as a commission in the past, I
would make a motion to approve it.
[10:55] » I would second it and I would hope that
we would be here back from the neighbors
[11:00] before the commission sees it.
just in case there was something closer.
[11:06] But
[11:15] » and typically when people get a building
permit, you give them the form that
[11:19] shows the setbacks and the
>> well.
[11:23] So
>> typically if somebody would get a
[11:26] building permit before they start and
all that
[11:28] » what they told me is because it's
concrete you didn't need a permit is
[11:32] what you told me
>> correct you don't get a permit for the
[11:35] concrete
>> that might be a good requirement in the
[11:40] future
>> so there's not going to be a building on
[11:42] it's just concrete
>> no it's going to be a pole bar
[11:45] » but I I can't build on that corner you
>> sure okay
[11:49] » so I I just need to know how I have to
structure that corner Okay,
[11:54] guess call for vote.
All those in favor.
[12:06] [clears throat]
[12:24] » [clears throat]
[12:37] » Moving on to item number three.
>> The next one is a request for section
[12:43] [clears throat] 9 improvement.
Um, applicant is petitioning to approve
[12:49] a portion of the 66 wide section highway
starting at the end of this road west.
[12:56] Um, and continuing all the way over to
the west half of the northwest part of
[13:02] the northwest quarter section 24.
Um,
[13:09] that parcel is for sale and is going to
be purchased.
[13:13] » [laughter]
>> There is no access to it right now
[13:17] because it is a section line. Um
[13:22] how many years five years
[13:28] fiveish couple years ago
the parcel down below came in and asked
[13:35] to improve this section line going to
this corner but then shooting down
[13:41] south. And that one has never been
improved.
[13:45] They never did anything with it. They
don't need the access to that going
[13:49] south anymore. Um so now [clears throat]
we're just asking to go
[13:54] from the end of the road west to that
parcel so that they can access their
[13:59] parcel.
According to the new owners, they will
[14:03] just
come right off the corner and go
[14:07] straight up their property without using
a section line going to the north.
[14:15] So on what you sent us was it just that
little green piece. Okay.
[14:21] Um they did provide a road bond estimate
on there. The highway department did
[14:27] comment. The county commission will have
to decide on a bond amount to be
[14:31] collected from the proposal.
Blackfield Energy does have a
[14:36] transmission line in the area but sees
no issue with the line.
[14:41] with section being
[14:48] » and the portion of the road that's being
improved is on their property or
[14:51] » both both sides
33 and 33
[14:55] » and and both lane owners are in favor of
it
[14:58] » the the one down below. Yes.
[15:11] It just was seen ter
going all the way across in that
[15:29] » phone. I believe
[15:36] [laughter]
>> which property owners will be able to
[15:39] get a letter to
>> the 937.
[15:43] So that's borderland and then these guys
the tab searing they're the ones that
[15:49] came in originally five years ago to
improve the section line.
[15:53] » Did they get a letter this time?
>> No, they did not get a letter. I can't
[15:57] get them out this one because they came
in too late. They meet the deadline for
[16:03] the meeting. I can't get a letter to the
people in time for them.
[16:07] » I'd make a motion to table it until we
get letters.
[16:10] » I
[16:18] would put it
when would you put it on the commission
[16:22] meeting? Um, so it would go to
[16:30] commission. I would put it on the 23rd
meeting because I can send a letter this
[16:35] Friday for the 9th and 16th.
>> You send certified letters?
[16:39] [clears throat]
>> I do for these. Yes. Y, but I didn't
[16:42] they got it two weeks, but I could send
one for this. But I always send them to
[16:46] the commission meeting because that's
the actual public hearing on it.
[16:50] So I have to advertise for two weeks. I
advertise the 9th to the 16th and I will
[16:54] get send a letter out
this week for that meeting on the 23rd.
[17:03] Is there a standard from
I don't want to delay projects just
[17:09] because people don't respond and
sometimes people don't respond on
[17:14] purpose
even if they receive a certified letter
[17:19] just I'm not going to respond. No
response is in fact the response and I
[17:24] don't want to hold people's projects up
because of that. But is there a timeline
[17:28] you wait of because you sent it
certified, you know, they got it on X
[17:33] date via Correct.
>> Is there a Well, if they had 30 days to
[17:38] respond and didn't respond, we're just
going to move on with the universe
[17:42] because they're not responding.
>> So, I usually
[17:49] commission
for two weeks.
[17:53] They have three weeks to respond. I send
it out the day. Like if this one was to
[18:00] pass, I send a letter tomorrow. They
have three weeks to respond or come to
[18:03] come to the public hearing.
[18:09] In this instance, I didn't they didn't
have I don't [clears throat] think they
[18:12] would have gotten a letter in time
before this meeting. I didn't have time.
[18:17] [clears throat and cough] That's where
it's tough with these when I have a
[18:20] deadline for the agenda,
but I don't have a time enough time to
[18:26] get a certified letter to them without
pushing this to the next meeting.
[18:31] » So, if you were if it was to pass, you
would send a letter
[18:37] » tomorrow.
>> Yes.
[18:38] » For the meeting on the 23rd.
[18:43] Eject
[18:51] the commission
because it is their only access to the
[18:58] [clears throat]
>> stuff to look at.
[19:00] » Yeah, there is.
Suppose you know you've got a design
[19:05] here, but you don't have a number for
the bond. So suppose they don't want to
[19:09] do that.
Well, the commission has Right. Exactly.
[19:13] But that's still a question mark.
So, you know, it seems like there's
[19:18] still a lot of questions.
>> I I think if if they had a if if they
[19:22] had a letter prior to this meeting and
there was an objection that that might
[19:27] influence our
>> decision. So, I'd stick with my motion
[19:33] to table it.
I guess I would say that it's a section
[19:39] line. They're voting, you know, that
the other land owners might not like it,
[19:46] but it is a section line and
if these people are going to put up the
[19:51] pond and build the road, there's
it'd be hard to justify that you can't
[19:59] build your section and access your
property because one person says no.
[20:09] just in my opinion on something as big
as a section line opening is to give
[20:13] people all the chances to look it over
and there's things that we don't know
[20:17] could [clears throat] be out there that
they can bring up. But give us some time
[20:21] and let everybody have their chance.
[20:26] » So we have a motion to table and a
second. Any further discussion on that
[20:32] motion?
[20:36] Seeing none, all those in favor.
[20:42] All those opposed.
>> So they can still request to move
[20:47] forward their commission with a no vote.
>> If they request, but
[20:55] » you guys come back and say yes, but you
don't
[21:00] come back.
They have to wait.
[21:10] » You guys denied it. Yeah.
>> How come five years ago when those other
[21:15] folks requested it, it didn't go
through?
[21:16] » It did.
>> Oh, it did.
[21:17] » It did. It did. It went through and they
never built it because they didn't need
[21:21] it. So what happened was the person who
owns 14388 was going to
[21:28] section off aquat
parcel to their kid and they went
[21:34] through the whole process. But then
their kid got the bill for the road and
[21:38] the house and realized how far away from
rapid he was and he said
[21:43] so he just never did anything with it.
[21:53] So then with it being table letter goes
out tomorrow.
[22:03] [snorts]
[22:11] » Agenda item number four. Um, we have a
request of appropriate plat of lots one,
[22:18] two, and three of Westbury subdivision.
Applicant proposing a lot split into
[22:24] three parcels. Lot one will be 1.86
acres. Lot two will be 2.3
[22:29] 2.03 acres and lot 3 will be 2.40 acres.
Access to lots from Westwood Drive,
[22:36] which is a 66 public access utility
easement.
[22:41] Um,
highways comment was approach access for
[22:46] lot number one should be limited to
western drive to avoid congestion and
[22:51] issues
[22:56] comment
[23:01] [cough]
[23:03] to show the vac that they are vacated on
142 and 137.
[23:10] It was not vacated.
[23:16] It just stated that it wasn't
that small,
[23:22] but they took the note off because
they're using it because that last flap
[23:26] that went through, they're actually
using it and utilized it. It was never
[23:32] vacated.
[23:36] And then just to remove the one
signature slot as he is not
[23:42] he's [laughter] not part of it
[23:56] [laughter]
[24:02] and the changes meet the uh highway
recommendation.
[24:08] I believe so.
>> So this road in Culac is already in
[24:13] place.
>> Mhm.
[24:14] » Yeah. This is like
[24:19] number three or four in this
subdivision.
[24:24] » So So um Terry's comment
[24:32] showing the vacated area, but it hasn't
been vacated.
[24:34] » It's not. It says shaded portion of
culdeac within west windine subdivision
[24:39] in the temporary turnaround
area to be vacated [clears throat] with
[24:44] future expansion. But then we did the
last plat and they did not they did not
[24:49] vac.
[25:01] Is there a second?
I'll second it.
[25:05] » [clears throat]
>> One second. Any discussion?
[25:15] Seeing none. All those in favor.
[clears throat]
[25:20] Any opposed?
Seeing none passes.
[25:31] Any discussion items?
I think um when these uh um setbackes
[25:40] come up, I think it's important anybody
can to go out and look at them because
[25:43] it makes a big difference when you see
what's there, you know, versus seeing an
[25:48] outp
[clears throat]
[25:51] like I said, you know,
>> when they come up, everybody's possible.
[25:56] She's got to get out there.
I can I also really appreciate Terry's
[26:03] comment because I have that same fear of
the you don't want to set the tendency.
[26:10] I do appreciate her exact comment of
>> well do we just build it and ask for
[26:15] forgiveness if there's no risk of being
told to move versus
[26:21] » trying to do it right. I also hate when
we get hung up on precedent because the
[26:29] world changes for a reason.
get too involved with precedent
[26:35] then people don't agree to change
locked in and I think there's a
[26:40] situation difference which is every case
independently
[26:52] any other discussion items
[26:58] seeing none
to J [snorts]
[27:04] second.
>> Second. All those in favor
[27:08] [laughter]
[27:15] of the mirror.
practicing in front