[0:00] Ready?
>> Yes.
[0:02] » All right. Good evening and welcome to
the Morrison County Board of Adjustment
[0:05] uh public hearing for uh today's date,
September 1st, 2026. Uh please stand and
[0:10] join me in the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:16] United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:21] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
[0:27] [clears throat]
[0:29] All right, I have a few items to cover
before we get started. Please sign in at
[0:33] the door if you've not already done so.
Uh there you'll find a detailed handout
[0:37] of a step-by-step procedure that we're
going to be following tonight. If you
[0:41] wish to take one, please do. Uh putting
electronic devices in a silent mode at
[0:46] this time. Also, please note that all
testimony is being recorded for the
[0:49] record.
Members of the board of adjustment are
[0:52] appointed by the uh county board of
commissioners with one member from each
[0:56] of the five commissioner districts. Land
services staff is here to assist the
[1:01] board of adjustments with its duties. Uh
the task of the board of adjustment is
[1:06] to consider a request for variances and
appeals from an order requirement or a
[1:11] decision made by a county zoning
official in accordance with state law
[1:15] and county ordinance. Each request is
considered on its own merit. The burden
[1:20] of proving a practical difficulty rests
with the applicant. If a variance is
[1:25] granted, it's granted to the land, not
the land owner. There's a pro protocol
[1:30] for how we will proceed tonight for each
variance request. Uh on the agenda,
[1:34] we'll hear a staff report. Uh we'll hear
testimony from the applicants and then
[1:38] the board will discuss and gather more
information as needed. Next, I'll ask if
[1:43] there's anyone from the audience wishing
to speak to the request. I'll ask each
[1:47] party to come to the podium right over
there uh state their name for the record
[1:53] uh and give their testimony. Please be
as factual as possible and direct all
[1:57] statements and questions to me. Uh after
all testimony is complete, I will close
[2:02] the public hearing portion of the
process. Uh the board will then review
[2:07] and discuss the case in terms of our
findings of fact criteria as required by
[2:10] Minnesota statute and county ordinance.
will have a series of votes, discuss
[2:15] whether conditions be made, and have a
final motion to approve or deny the
[2:19] request based on those findings. After
the final vote on your request, uh you
[2:25] can leave if you wish.
Uh our first
[2:31] um agenda item tonight is Rainbow Acres
Dairy LLC. if uh those representing will
[2:38] come to the front table here and then
just state your name and address for the
[2:42] record. Make sure the microphone is
working and we'll move on.
[2:48] » Dave Vanal,
>> you say address too.
[2:51] » Address 153 145th Street Swindle.
>> Right. Thank you, Dave.
[2:57] Um with that, Amy, do you have a staff
report for us?
[3:01] » I do, Mr. Chair. This request is to
encroach on the road right ofway with an
[3:07] expanded animal holding area. The
ordinance section is section 128 and
[3:12] that requires a 200 ft setback from the
road right of way. Here's an aerial
[3:17] photograph of the uh property.
[3:25] And then here is a site sketch.
[3:33] Here [snorts] are some photos taken at
the site viewing on the 28th of August.
[3:46] This property is a registered tier one
dairy feed lot. The applicant recently
[3:51] combined the property with the parcel to
the south. However, it has not been
[3:55] updated in the maps yet. So, that's why
you see the two parcels. A variance was
[4:00] granted to the property in 2014 to place
a 68x 125 total confinement barn 45 ft
[4:07] from the road right ofway. The applicant
proposes a 68x 120 foot addition to the
[4:14] south end and a 68x76
addition to the north end of the 2014
[4:20] barn. Since the original barn encroaches
on the north and south property lines
[4:25] and these additions won't further
encroach on those setbacks. Per
[4:29] ordinance section 1282, a variance is
not needed for those encroachments. A
[4:35] variance is required for the
encroachment on the setback from the
[4:38] road right ofway and the barn is 45 ft
from the right ofway. The surrounding
[4:44] area consists of feed lots, agricultural
fields, and rural residences.
[4:49] And here's just a more detailed drawing
as far as um that existing
[4:54] non-conforming barn that essentially
sets those north and south setback
[4:58] limits. and then the barn that was
approved by variance in 2014.
[5:06] And then here are criteria questions,
Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Amy.
[5:10] And just for the record, on
Friday,
[5:15] uh, August 28th, 26 about 1:00. Most of
us were there. Greg was there. Marv was
[5:22] there. I was there. And George was
there. Clint, I believe, was there the
[5:27] day earlier?
>> Thursday. Yep. About 9:00, 9:15,
[5:31] somewhere in there.
>> 9:30.
[5:33] » All right. So, Dave, the entire board
got to view what you had out there.
[5:37] You've heard the staff report. Uh, is
what Amy presented here accurate?
[5:42] » Yes.
>> And this is your opportunity to add any
[5:45] information that you think the board
should hear or know about your operation
[5:49] or your plans or what you're doing out
there. So, uh, feel free to enlighten us
[5:53] on anything you want.
Well, we've had a very successful
[5:58] operation out there the way we have it.
And um we need some more room as we're
[6:03] milking more cows now. And um in my
mind, it will not affect the uh
[6:10] visibility in terms of the highway. Uh
we have that row of trees in there plus
[6:14] some small pines. We had pines the first
time, but they didn't take very good, so
[6:18] we put some more in a couple years ago.
Uh we try to keep it as neat as we can.
[6:24] And um
I I think it'll be just a fine operation
[6:29] when we get this completed.
>> All right. Anything else?
[6:34] » All right. The board might have some
questions for it. So I'm going to turn
[6:36] it over to the board. Um questions of
the board.
[6:43] » Mr. Chairman,
>> George. So this question is for Amy. So
[6:47] Amy, what what parcels were uh put
together there? Was it the one to the
[6:53] south or? [snorts]
>> Yes. Let me get back to the slide here.
[7:02] So, it was this one and this one were
combined. So, essentially this property
[7:08] line goes away then. Uh but uh then
there is other acreage that's contiguous
[7:14] to this to make up the contiguous 20.
>> Okay. And that I guess that's where I
[7:19] was going with it. That south property
line does disappear then.
[7:24] » This this south one does not.
>> But that doesn't meet that one either on
[7:29] the south.
>> Yes, it does. But this this one goes
[7:32] away. But we're looking at um this
encroachment here. This barn would need
[7:38] to be this is as far as that one can
encroach without needing a variance.
[7:43] » Okay. Gotcha.
>> And it's not going that far. So
[7:46] » Okay. Okay. And then Dave, have you
talked with the state or Mandat or No,
[7:53] » but they were I'm I'm assuming they were
okay with the last variance.
[7:56] » Yeah, the water all goes that way.
>> Water goes south.
[8:00] » Okay,
>> Mr. Chair,
[8:03] » go ahead, Amy.
>> Um, Mindot was invited to the
[8:06] development review team meeting and they
did receive the packet as well. And so
[8:11] generally mindot
doesn't get real concerned. Um as long
[8:17] as you're not in their right of way,
they generally don't have comment. Uh
[8:22] and so they've been notified of this
request. Um and we have not received any
[8:27] comment.
>> Okay. Thanks. That answers my questions.
[8:32] » All right. Thank you. Other board
members,
[8:33] » Mr. Chair
>> Marvin.
[8:35] » Uh, so there was brought up about uh
storm water plan and you had mentioned
[8:40] about the water flowing towards the
ditches and um I noticed in a dirt
[8:45] meeting here Shana made a comment about
she'd like to see the water uh not just
[8:51] for going towards the ditches. With that
being said, I'm uh proposing that we um
[8:58] have as a condition a storm water plan
submitted to u either soil or uh water
[9:06] to that with uh their approval of it.
[9:15] » Okay. So your recommendation is to have
a storm water plan submitted
[9:20] » and approved by the uh soil and water.
>> Okay.
[9:27] » And I think you understand that you know
because you you uh obviously there's a
[9:31] lot of roof in that soil will probably
handle it and it does look like it is
[9:35] flowing towards the ditch but when you
add more roof there's a lot of imperous
[9:39] surface for that area and you know we
get a major rainfall. uh so it uh would
[9:46] be diverted in a proper way. So thank
you.
[9:50] » Thank you Marvin. Any other board
members?
[9:53] » Mr. Chair
>> Clint. Okay. Um
[9:57] then uh Dave the basically the fields
all to the west. That's irrigated.
[10:02] Correct.
>> Yes. Most of it.
[10:05] » Most of it. Yeah. Okay. And then um I
noticed that on site it's pretty clean
[10:10] around there, you know. Um, don't look
like you store a lot of feed or bedding
[10:14] or anything there. Is that stuff all
like hauled in as needed or maybe just a
[10:18] little bit on hand? Maybe you can
explain that a little bit.
[10:21] » Uh, the bedding is hauled in as we
needed and goes in the barn. Uh, we do
[10:25] have a little bit of dry manure stacked
on the back side of the longer barn.
[10:29] » Yep.
>> On cement pads. Um, sometimes gets a
[10:34] little messy, but we try to keep it
clean.
[10:36] » Yep.
We usually take that manure out of there
[10:39] about once four or five weeks and haul
it out.
[10:43] » Okay.
>> It's dry. It's kind of dry manure
[10:45] because it's calf, mostly strong.
>> So then your feed kind of just gets
[10:49] hauled in.
>> Okay. The feed is mostly milk of course.
[10:54] Y
>> and then um
[10:56] » a shell pellet mix, shell corn pellet
mix that goes in a tank and then we use
[11:01] a little bit of dry hay and that's also
stored inside. Okay. basically no feed
[11:05] outside.
>> Yep. Okay. So, kind of what where I'm
[11:09] going with it is part of the thing that
um we look at, you know, we got that 200
[11:13] foot set back. You got a variance um
already, you know, in 2014 for what's
[11:19] there now.
Um you know, now you're 45 ft from Road
[11:24] Rightway. Part of the reason we want
them back a little farther is, you know,
[11:27] people start putting a lot of things in
between the buildings and the road right
[11:31] away and things like that. And that's
where I was going with um your stored
[11:35] feed and stuff. There's never nothing
there. So um I know this case by case,
[11:39] but so I don't think that's And then
looking at the map, you know, uh
[11:43] Department of Transportation didn't say
anything good or bad about this. So we
[11:49] assume that um they're fine with it. I
would say if you were down closer to the
[11:53] curve, it'd be a little bit different
even in my thinking because then when
[11:59] you got to redo a road or something on a
curve, then it's getting a little tight.
[12:02] I think where this is situated, um, if
the road was to be rebuilt, I don't
[12:08] believe that they'd go past what their
road right away is. So, um, but if we
[12:12] were creaturing down towards the south
to that curve, it'd probably be a little
[12:16] different situation. So, um, that's why
I asked about the feed and bedding
[12:20] stored on site. I didn't see any didn't
see any remnants of it. Um I figured
[12:24] that's how the operation is in proximity
to the home farm that things are just
[12:28] hauled back and forth. So and then
everything's pretty uh everything here
[12:32] is 100% confined. The only manure that
would ever leave the confinement would
[12:36] be anything that's stacked on that slab
for a little bit. Yeah, we do um in the
[12:41] winter time we do put a row of round
bales or two on the south west corner of
[12:49] Long Barn to uh give us a windbreak for
the hutches that are out there.
[12:53] » Okay. Y Okay. So now if this expansion
goes through then is there going to
[12:58] still be a need for hutches on this
property or
[13:01] » there'll still be a few hutches?
>> Yeah. Not as many. Yeah.
[13:04] » Okay.
>> They might be there but there won't be
[13:05] as many cabs in it. They'll they'll stay
in the same pro spot they are now. Yes.
[13:10] » Okay.
>> So, they'll probably be used less. A
[13:13] » little less, but as we melt more cows,
they might be full as well.
[13:17] » Okay. All right.
>> Our nursery and the original barn is uh
[13:22] too tight. We're going to move part of
that in farther to the south. And um our
[13:28] [clears throat] uh waiting facility is
too small. And so uh because
[13:34] and then when we take
our milk pens which they're automatic
[13:39] feeders or actually this north part of
the addition will be for baby baby cats.
[13:44] » Y
>> okay
[13:46] » south end will be wean kids.
>> Okay. So basically this request will be
[13:51] all 100% confinement.
>> Yep.
[13:53] » And then where you have the hutches now
>> y
[13:57] » that's probably not going to expand at
all or much ever because now you don't
[14:02] have the room either. So
>> okay. So, just just wanted to be clear
[14:05] on that because on how we're looking at
this um we're kind of looking at
[14:09] nothing's going to really change from
the open animals,
[14:15] but uh here what we're looking at for
the new proposal is all confined.
[14:18] » Yes.
>> Okay. I think that's all I have for
[14:22] right now, Mr. Chair.
>> All right. Thank you, Clint. Any other
[14:24] board members questions?
>> Yes, Mr. Chair.
[14:26] » Greg, go ahead.
>> Uh being your shed is getting bigger
[14:29] like in the wintertime going to the
north there, you're going to have a lot
[14:32] of storage for snow. What about to the
south? You going to have enough room for
[14:37] » We got you got a bad snow pile.
>> We got plenty of room for the south. The
[14:40] north is is going to be the tight part.
>> Okay.
[14:43] » Yeah, we would pile it closer to the
highway.
[14:47] » Okay. Just
>> there is still enough room along side of
[14:50] the building. We got a little road
there. Plus, there's a lot of grass
[14:53] area.
>> Okay. Just wondering sometimes in winter
[14:56] time it gets to be a tight thing.
[15:00] » Any other comments, questions of the
board?
[15:03] If not, I have just maybe one. Dave, uh
we're talking about the encroachment
[15:08] here on the road rightway. And
sometimes, um in the past, we've had uh
[15:14] concerns about the parking of vehicles
or farm implement equipment along that
[15:21] stretch. I would assume, and correct me
if I'm wrong, that that's not your
[15:25] intent to have parking out there close
to the road as these buildings occupy
[15:30] more of that space.
Um we we still have some room in front.
[15:35] We usually have about three cars there
at a time. We have to come in there with
[15:40] a cattle trailer to load calves out of
there and bring calves in daily. Plus,
[15:44] we have to bring a tank of milk over
there to pasteurize
[15:48] » on that. Yeah. On that east side now,
we're talking uh just 45 ft. And
[15:54] » some of that is taken up by the u by by
the the trees and you've got your
[16:00] roadway in there, but it's not your
intent to have anything parked
[16:03] permanently along there.
>> There is a road right there and then
[16:07] there's some grass and then the trees
start. Yeah, we weren't planning on
[16:11] that.
>> All right. Are you opposed to a
[16:13] condition being that uh we write in
there that uh there won't be any parking
[16:18] of implements or farm equipment in the
>> in that encroached area?
[16:23] » Yep. When we bring straw over to the
farm to the calf facility, we park
[16:28] [clears throat] a trailer on the south
side. It might sit there a day or two,
[16:33] but they'll load it right away and then
we come back. Nothing along that side.
[16:36] » Yeah. Sometimes we've had a few of these
that are just like this and that's one
[16:40] of the conditions that sometimes we
recommend and
[16:44] » All right. If you're not opposed to
that, I'd re I'd recommend that as well.
[16:47] » Okay.
[16:51] » Any other questions of the board?
Otherwise, I'm going to move this to um
[16:56] uh public comment.
[17:01] » Okay. I haven't called I haven't called
public comment yet, but I'm going to
[17:04] here shortly. I was just asking the
board if they had any more questions.
[17:07] All right, no other questions from the
board. I'll move it to public comment.
[17:11] If you have any public comment that you
wish, please go to that podium over
[17:15] there. Microphone should be on. Go ahead
and state your name and address for the
[17:19] record so we know who's representing.
>> Good evening. My name is Jill Schultz.
[17:24] My husband Charlie and I own the land
north and
[17:29] west of of this. And um we rent our
land, our field land to Dave, which is
[17:37] fine. Um but we have a few questions. Um
you said the north side is already got a
[17:44] variance or something, so we have no
say. Um you know, and if if someday we
[17:52] decide to put our own fields in or sell
if we want
[17:57] to be able to use all that land. Um,
right now we can barely get a tractor
[18:03] around that north side
and uh to have more
[18:12] building there I think is going to
really take up more room around with
[18:17] things, tractors, cleaning machinery.
So, I do have some concerns
[18:23] to the north and to the to the west that
there isn't maybe not quite enough room
[18:29] for all of this farming to go on in that
smallest space.
[18:36] Um, I I don't want to be a dick at all.
[laughter]
[18:39] I want to be a great great neighbor, but
I want to be able to use my field as
[18:44] necessary someday. if I want to sell it,
I want to be able to have them use all
[18:51] of that. And uh I I guess I didn't
realize that we had no say in the north
[18:57] end whatsoever, even though it's getting
quite close to our land.
[19:02] They can't even It's very hard to get a
tractor on the north side of the
[19:05] building the way it is now. So,
I have some concerns with that.
[19:12] » All right. Thank you, Joe.
[19:17] Yeah, the letter was misleading because
we had no idea that the variance was
[19:21] already in place on the north end
encroaching on
[19:26] » Yeah. And it is encroaching on our
lines. I think it's
[19:29] » says it's already been approved.
>> Yeah. And I guess in 2014,
[19:33] » we'll address some of those uh concerns
as we move forward, but we appreciate
[19:37] your comment, Jill. Thank you.
>> Uh I made a request for public comment
[19:41] once. I'll make a request for public
comment the second time. If anyone has
[19:44] any comment, please step to the podium
and
[19:49] let us know.
I'll make one final call for public
[19:55] comment. The third and final call. Any
public comment.
[20:00] Having none, I'll uh entertain a motion
to close the public portion of the
[20:03] meeting.
>> Mr. Chair, I make a motion to close this
[20:06] portion of the meeting to the public.
>> Okay.
[20:08] » I'll second it, Mr. Chairman. A motion
made by Clint, seconded by George to
[20:12] close the meeting. All in favor,
starting with Greg.
[20:15] » I Marv
>> I.
[20:16] » Clint I.
>> myself is I and George.
[20:20] » Hi.
>> All right. The public portion of the
[20:22] meeting is now closed. Now we'll circle
back and answer some of the questions
[20:26] there. Um I'll direct maybe first to you
Dave if you'll address that. You heard
[20:32] the concerns of Jill regarding the
>> the compactness on that north and west
[20:37] side. So, we'd like to hear from you
first.
[20:40] » Yeah. Uh the north side, you can see the
light ground on the other side of the
[20:46] blue line to the north of Blue Line.
That is on their land. And of course, we
[20:51] rent it and we do go through there. Uh
basically, because we have not um we
[20:57] have not added on to that barn at all.
That's the way it was. Okay. that the
[21:02] the barn on the west has never been
touched other than we covered up a
[21:07] little bit of an area.
>> We never had
[21:14] north side.
>> That was all there, right? We just
[21:18] covered the room.
>> We put that we covered it up.
[21:21] » Yeah, that was all there. And so again,
it goes back to the size of the lot from
[21:28] pre971.
Uh the chicken barn. It was a layer
[21:32] barn. Started out as a
>> It was a pullet barn.
[21:35] » Pullet barn. Then they made a layer
barn. Yeah. And um on the back side it
[21:42] was a mess for quite a few years after
we got over there and we poured some
[21:46] cement to u to put the um straw pack on
there. And we could pour some more as
[21:53] well.
Um, we do uh that grass that's there,
[21:58] Charlie and Jill. Is that some of that's
on your land and some's on ours?
[22:03] » Well, the line is pretty much on the
gravel
[22:08] » line is on the gravel.
>> Dave
[22:11] » Dave, if you have something, just state
it to us. We don't want to have a
[22:14] conversation between you and the
audience. So,
[22:16] » okay, that's fine. Yep. So, so, um, we
had a mess there right after we got into
[22:23] this facility. It was muddy back there
and just a mess. So, we poured some
[22:29] cement in there and then built a
driveway along there. And we think
[22:34] that's probably on the line. And then
there's grass after that. Uh, it's on
[22:39] Charlie and Jill's land. We seated grass
in there. And um it's uh a lot better
[22:46] than what it was. Um it does get a
little bit we probably could do a little
[22:52] better about cleaning it more often. Um
we usually haul they take the manure out
[22:58] of there with a skid loader, put it on
this cement and then about once every
[23:02] five, six weeks we go there with semls
and haul it out of there.
[23:06] And yeah, it's tight. We're we're
encroaching on their land uh pretty much
[23:12] to go around that side. We won't be
encroaching any more than what we are
[23:16] right now. Um same way on the west side.
>> Yep.
[23:24] » Okay. Thank you, Dave.
>> The go one more. Go ahead. The new barn
[23:28] will not affect anything that goes on
behind
[23:33] behind there uh to the west and it
should not affect anything
[23:39] more trips around the barn on the north
side either. But but we do go on Charlie
[23:44] and Jill's land. I do rent it, but her
concern is later on. I understand.
[23:51] » Okay. Thank you. Um Amy, maybe just uh
could you for the enlightenment of the
[23:57] the public comment here um what we're
addressing on the new structure as
[24:03] opposed to what's already been there.
>> Yep. Yep. Happy to break that down. And
[24:08] I own that mistake that was uh in the
letter. So I had it in my head that we
[24:14] were doing um an encroachment on the
property line as well. Um but because of
[24:19] that original barn, there's a right
there that um they have. So we have an
[24:27] original barn running north and south
and it's a tier one registered tier one
[24:33] feed lot. Um by the ordinance tier one
if you stay within your tier and he's
[24:39] not moving tiers. He's not adding enough
animal units to move tiers. If you have
[24:44] a nonconforming
uh feed lot, which this is, it's not on
[24:48] enough acreage on its own and it doesn't
meet setback from the north and south
[24:53] property lines. Uh if you are expanding
up to the top of your tier, uh you can
[24:59] expand to the limit
of whatever existing legal
[25:04] non-conforming setback you've got. So
when you look at that original barn
[25:09] running north and south, as long as the
any expansion any as long as he's
[25:15] staying in his tier and as long as any
expansion does not go beyond that, he
[25:21] has that right and does not need to ask
for a variance for that. The variance
[25:27] that was given before was for
encroachment on the road rightway
[25:32] because that that new barn is a further
encroachment. the original barn does not
[25:37] meet the setback from the road rightway
and he was proposing a further
[25:41] encroachment. That's why he needed the
variance for that second barn. And now
[25:47] um because that got there with the
variance, any expansion of that, he's
[25:51] also he's intensifying that uh
encroachment on the road right away. So
[25:59] um yeah, so that that was a mistake that
was it was advertised incorrectly. It
[26:05] should have been just an encroachment on
the road rightway, not on the north and
[26:09] south um property lines.
I would say the trespass essentially is
[26:16] what it is to onto the property to the
north. That's that's really something
[26:21] that uh you know if you go to sell it
and and a new property owner isn't
[26:26] willing to allow uh Dave to either lease
or rent the property and or use the
[26:32] property for access, then that's going
to have to be something that gets worked
[26:35] out. either he purchases a per and and
does a property line adjustment to give
[26:40] him room to get around that barn, but
that would be something that would need
[26:44] to, you know, be be worked out and it's
a legitimate concern. Um, I think let's
[26:50] see. I think that's all I had written
down, Mr. Chair.
[26:53] » All right. Thank you, Amy. And
hopefully, Jill, some of that answers
[26:57] your your comments and questions up
there. You heard from Dave and you heard
[27:01] the county's explanation of uh why it
isn't um the north and south lines that
[27:08] we're dealing with here tonight as a
variance. We're dealing with one
[27:11] variance,
the setback to the road right of way.
[27:16] Does that make sense?
>> It does. It does seem like a lot of
[27:20] building for a small space.
>> I get that. Thank you.
[27:24] » Not arguing that,
>> Mr. Mr. Chair.
[27:27] » Yeah. One thing I was looking through
maybe Amy um I look back at 14's
[27:33] variance and then in this one here it
never gives us a it don't give us a
[27:37] distance from that barn to that north
property line
[27:41] » because it wasn't it it wasn't at hand.
>> Okay. because because the the existing
[27:48] barn was closer and so we didn't address
it
[27:53] » cuz I don't know if it's 15 ft or 10
feet or 20 feet. You know,
[27:57] » I can go I if
>> it's fine. I just I thought it just be
[28:01] pertinent to help with the
>> the other thing or whatever.
[28:04] » Yeah. The other thing I'm going to say
is our lines in Beacon may not be what
[28:08] the property line actually is on the
ground. Only a survey can answer that.
[28:14] And so right now it looks like he's
going onto your property. He may be, he
[28:20] may not be. Um, so if a property owner
doesn't know exactly where their line
[28:26] is,
>> good idea.
[28:28] » Yeah. So if you want a gentleman's
handshake as to where that is,
[28:33] » yeah.
>> Yeah. But that's just that's just our
[28:37] disclaimer that
>> [clears throat]
[28:38] » um we would never use this for legal
purposes as far as where your property
[28:43] line is.
>> All right. Uh so we'll bring this back
[28:48] to the board uh now. Any other uh
comments uh from the board members?
[28:54] » Mr. Chair Mark,
>> as what was brought up from Schultz's
[28:57] here? Uh I'm thinking Dave's given this
consideration, but uh it would be at a
[29:03] higher cost being you have purchased
that adjoining land and you were
[29:08] combining with that instead of adding on
to this barn uh on north and south. uh
[29:15] have you given it thought of moving it
on that uh piece of property to the
[29:20] south and to the west and then you would
meet all the setbacks?
[29:28] I don't know if I made setbacks there
either. Property line setbacks. This is
[29:33] only How wide is this?
Plus, there's an irrigator going across
[29:38] there.
>> That parcel that's in the yellow, it's
[29:42] » a 10acre parcel.
>> Okay. 10 acres.
[29:48] » Right.
>> That's correct.
[29:50] » So, you have the adequate acreage right
next to it, which you could uh have a
[29:55] conforming barn. There is an irrigator
there.
[29:59] » All right, we'll bring this back. Uh,
we've got the comment from a board
[30:03] member. Any other comments from board
members?
[30:04] » Mr. Chair, I do have Go ahead.
>> So, when I was looking through all this,
[30:08] you know, cuz I knew there was going to
be people saying we got a big structure
[30:11] on a small acreage and this and that and
you know, part of when we look through
[30:15] our agriculture goals and objectives,
you know, when you go through all these,
[30:19] I think he meets the criteria of all
them. We want to save a highv valued egg
[30:25] land, things like that. Um, not limited
to egg land, but also for production
[30:29] like as far as meat, milk, all them
types of things. The one that I looked
[30:33] at when I'm um, looking at this and
we're looking at the set back to the
[30:38] road right away was goal 3A. Understand
the positive and negative impacts of
[30:44] emerging agricultural practices and use
in agricultural products or lands. So
[30:50] when I look at this, if I'm looking at
because we're just looking at the set
[30:54] back to the road rightway, hearing
nothing from Minnesota DOT, they're 45
[30:59] ft back from the rightway plus they have
the rightway. It does not 100% follow
[31:05] ordin county ordinance. But is it
detrimental? I don't I don't believe so.
[31:10] When I look at the positives,
yeah, you could take and build a whole
[31:16] new thing out in the middle of any one
of them fields, but now we're just
[31:20] taking away prime valuable egg land. We
don't want houses out in there, so why
[31:24] do we want barns out in there? Um, so
that's how when I'm looking at it and
[31:29] looking through the ordinance and and
what's going to happen, um, like in my
[31:33] thoughts and votes, them are some of the
things I look at. And if if I can kind
[31:38] of go through all the goals and
objectives and agree that this applicant
[31:41] meets them and then when I get to a goal
A3, that's how I kind of went through it
[31:47] to look at the negatives and the
positives. And I think being in an
[31:51] agricultural zoned area by adding on to
something that's already established and
[31:55] is there rather than build something new
somewhere else, I think that that's more
[32:00] positive. I think it'd be more negative
to the egg uh zoning or the egg land
[32:06] that's out there if we would put it on
um out in a field or something. So that
[32:11] that's just when I'm going through this.
I just wanted to comment on that.
[32:15] » All right.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[32:17] » Thank you, Glenn. We'll now uh move to
the uh discussion of the findings of
[32:22] fact questions. Uh if there's no other
uh comments by board members
[32:29] hearing none, I'll uh I'll start off
with uh you Marv. Is the request in
[32:34] harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the Morrison County land use
[32:38] ordinance and comp plan?
>> You said me.
[32:42] » Yes.
>> Okay. I believe it is. Uh I add uh on
[32:47] the most part it is in harmony uh
protecting uh uh prime eggland having no
[32:52] objection from uh the state uh highway
department having heard nothing about
[33:00] it. Uh and the the the shrubs and trees
that are already in place there uh make
[33:09] it look like uh it's hardly there and as
they grow up you won't even know it's
[33:13] there. And as you go around that
neighborhood, um yeah, that's there's
[33:17] egg piece uh egg um buildings right next
to that place all over the place and I
[33:25] feel it does fall within the ordinance.
>> All right. Thank you, Marv. Uh any other
[33:31] board members?
[33:34] Hearing none, I'll move on to question
number two. Uh, is the applicant
[33:38] proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the
[33:42] land use ordinance? And I'll take that
one. Um, you know, the land use
[33:47] ordinance is talking about a 200 foot
setback for the tier one um, operation
[33:52] that exists there. Um, much of this is
already at 45 ft based upon a previous
[34:00] variance. Um and due to that variance uh
he has a right to move uh north and
[34:06] south along that same uh stretch. He's
not taking up uh as Clint had mentioned
[34:12] not taking up valuable egg land uh for
the purposes of uh putting in uh
[34:18] structural buildings there. is looking
to maintain that uh current operation
[34:23] and the flow of animals um inside from
from um holding area to uh growing. Um
[34:32] and it makes sense to have it there
rather than on another part of the farm
[34:35] that was um discussed uh on our site
visit. Um it is egg expanding in egg
[34:42] land. Um so I think that's reasonable.
There are those uh rows of buffers out
[34:47] front of trees between the road when
we're talking about the rightway because
[34:51] this is what we're talking about is just
the rightway. Um there is those two rows
[34:56] there. Um the first row looks to be uh
plenty tall and if the second row
[35:02] actually comes up and goes, I I think
that's in good shape. So I think um he's
[35:07] proposing to use it in a reasonable
manner, continuing to do egg and egg
[35:10] land uh area um much of which is already
at 45 ft by 45 ft by a previous uh
[35:18] variance. And he's just expanding the
buildings to the north and the south.
[35:24] And I might add um he's not he's not uh
expanding north and south to the extent
[35:31] that he could. um he actually could go
further to the north and further to the
[35:35] south and that's not what he's
proposing. And I think he realizes, this
[35:40] is my thought, not his. I think he
realizes he needs that parking. He needs
[35:43] that turning around area to maneuver um
uh both manpower, equipment, and farm
[35:50] operations. So, uh that's what I've got
to say. Anything else from other board
[35:54] members on question two? If not, I'll
move to question three.
[35:59] Question three, will the issuance of the
variance maintain the essential
[36:02] character of the locality, George?
>> Uh, yes, I believe so. Uh, you know, the
[36:07] proposed construction will fit in nicely
on this lot. Uh, it's not going to
[36:11] affect the surrounding crop land. Uh,
there is an irrigation pivot um, west of
[36:17] the building. Uh, there's scattered
residents and there's no further
[36:21] encroachment on the north and south
property lines. only encroachment is on
[36:25] the Minnesota 238 rightway which is 45
ft from that edge of that rideway and
[36:32] the variance if approved will maintain
the essential character of this area.
[36:37] All right, thank you George. Any other
comments from the board on question
[36:41] three? If not, I'll move to question
four.
[36:44] Moving on to question four. Is the
alleged practical difficulty due to
[36:48] circumstances unique to the property?
Clint, if you'll take that one.
[36:52] » Um, yes. I think what's really unique
about this property is uh numbers and
[36:56] numbers of years ago that this uh was uh
petitioned off to a small acreage lot
[37:03] that had an old poultry building on it.
Um so there's nothing new to the area.
[37:08] It's been there for a long long time. Um
we have a applicant that uh purchased
[37:14] it, retrofitted it, and used something
that was old and made it into something
[37:18] that's usable. um not like a lot of
people that buy houses and uh just bows
[37:23] them down and build out in the field
instead of building where the old house
[37:27] was. Um but anyways here uh I think uh
[snorts] using what Brent had stated
[37:33] using that footprint without even going
to the max um all the factors that uh
[37:40] they put into thought with the trees and
all them things. But anyways, we're
[37:44] looking at the road rightway and I think
uh they can't they can't expand towards
[37:48] that road. They're not encroaching on
the road right away anymore. They're
[37:53] staying with what's already there. Um it
just to I think the practical difficulty
[37:59] here is to uproot all that and
[clears throat] move it into some
[38:04] valuable farmland. I think the that's
where a lot of the practical difficulty
[38:08] lies. Um, it just it's to me when you
use a farm operation and how it's not
[38:14] always how much money you spend on
putting these buildings in and stuff or
[38:19] yeah, it might cost more if they build
something else somewhere, but it's
[38:23] logistics on how you do your daily work
and and uh here's something that we
[38:27] already have and it'd be just a shame
not to utilize the full potential of it.
[38:33] » All right. Thank you, Clint. Any other
board members have comment on question
[38:36] number four? If not, I'll move on to
question five.
[38:41] Hearing none. Question five is the need
for the variance created by actions
[38:45] other than the landowner or prior land
owners. Greg,
[38:49] well, they did [clears throat] stick
this on a very small plot of land. So,
[38:53] if it had been a little bigger, it'd be
a little easier. But I believe he is
[38:58] using the land. Like I said, what he
has, he's maximizing it. Definitely
[39:02] maximizing it.
It is
[39:05] it does fit the boundary lines. So I
believe he's utilizing it
[39:12] the he should.
>> Okay. Thank you, Greg. Other board
[39:17] members, question number five.
>> Uh [snorts] Mr. Chair
[39:20] » Clint, go ahead. I would just add that
again um it's created by actions is just
[39:26] how this uh parcel was created
originally um and then how it was
[39:30] allowed to keep moving forward you know
um 2014 they got a variance um yes part
[39:37] of it was this landowner could be part
of it with the previous landowners but
[39:41] it's also um just how to it was created
county ordinances or county or however
[39:48] the regula regulatory agencies that just
allowed us to keep moving forward is
[39:53] also part of it. So,
>> all right. Thank you, Clint. Any other
[39:56] board members? Question number five.
>> Mr. Chairman, just one more question on
[40:00] that. You know, the other the other part
of the need for the variance is
[40:03] preserving
preserving the surrounding egg land for
[40:06] crops. I guess that is probably another
part of this.
[40:10] » All right. Thank you, George.
All right. Hearing none other, I'll move
[40:14] on to question number six. Uh, does the
alleged practical difficulty involve
[40:19] more than just economic considerations?
And Marvin, will you take that one?
[40:24] » Yeah, I'll take it. And part of it is
the conditions that we put on it that
[40:30] involves more just an econom economics.
Uh, would this be time to uh uh before I
[40:37] answer this, could Amy, could you share
them conditions that we uh recommended?
[40:43] » Mr. Chair,
>> go ahead Amy. I have two written down.
[40:48] One is that a storm water plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the
[40:54] soil and water conservation district. Um
and the other one would be no parking of
[41:00] equipment andor supplies um between the
barn and the roadway.
[41:07] » Thank you. So with uh that being part of
the conditions and thinking about the
[41:12] practical difficulty in that small area
with him will uh willing to work with
[41:17] soil and water and possibly divert the
water so it doesn't create any issues in
[41:22] a future u and uh few other practices
like they've uh already planted the
[41:30] shrubs and trees in there. uh he's in uh
thinking about more than just economics.
[41:37] » All right. Thank you, Marv. Any other uh
comments from the board on question
[41:41] number six?
[41:44] » Hearing none, uh we'll move on to the
vote on the findings of fact and
[41:48] criteria questions. Uh board members,
keep in mind the two conditions that
[41:52] were just read by Amy as we go through
our vote. Question number one is the
[41:57] request in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Morrison
[42:01] County land use ordinance and comp plan.
Marvin,
[42:04] » yes.
>> Myself is yes. George,
[42:07] » yes.
>> Clint,
[42:08] » yes.
>> Greg,
[42:10] » yes.
>> Question number two. Is the applicant
[42:13] proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the
[42:17] land use ordinance? Myself is yes.
George,
[42:20] » yes.
>> Clint,
[42:21] » yes.
>> Greg,
[42:22] » yes.
>> Marvin,
[42:24] » yes.
Question number three. Will the issuance
[42:27] of the variance maintain the essential
character of the locality? George,
[42:31] » yes.
>> Clint,
[42:32] » yes.
>> Greg,
[42:33] » yes.
>> Marvin,
[42:34] » yes.
>> Myself is yes.
[42:37] And then question number four is the
alleged practical difficulty due to
[42:41] circumstances unique to the property.
Clint,
[42:44] » yes.
>> Uh, Greg,
[42:46] » yes.
>> Marvin,
[42:47] » yes.
>> Myself is yes. George,
[42:49] » yes.
Question number five is the need for the
[42:52] variance created by actions other than
the landowner or prior land owners. Uh
[42:57] Greg,
>> yes.
[42:58] » Marvin,
>> yes.
[43:00] » Myself is yes. George,
>> yes.
[43:02] » Clint,
>> yes. Question number six. Does the
[43:05] alleged practical difficulty involve
more than just economic considerations?
[43:10] Marvin,
>> yes.
[43:11] » Myself is yes. George,
>> yes. With the conditions,
[43:15] » Clint,
>> yes.
[43:17] » And Greg,
>> yes.
[43:19] » All right. Um,
do I have a motion to approve the
[43:23] request?
>> Mr. Chairman, I'll make that motion to
[43:27] approve this variance.
>> Motion by George.
[43:31] » I'll second that, Mr. Chair.
>> Seconded by Clint. All in favor,
[43:35] starting with Greg.
>> Yes.
[43:37] » Marvin.
>> I.
[43:38] » Clint.
>> I.
[43:39] » Myself is I and George.
>> I.
[43:42] » Motion uh to approve the request is
been granted. uh and your variance is
[43:50] granted with those two aforementioned
conditions. So, um you'll need to work
[43:54] with uh soil and water on a storm water
plan and then also remember that that
[43:59] parking uh ban is in place there.
>> Thank you.
[44:03] » Thank you.
[44:22] All
[44:44] right.
[44:48] All right. We'll move on to the uh
second uh agenda item tonight and it is
[44:53] an application by Marita
uh Ho Hoy
[44:58] » Van Hoy
>> Van Ho Vano I'm sorry I'm seeing both
[45:01] here
>> Vaneki
[45:04] well if you come forward to the front
table here and state your name correctly
[45:09] as I didn't for the record we'll
appreciate that and then state your
[45:14] address and we'll make sure the
microphones are
[45:18] I got the first name right, so that's
great.
[45:22] » My name is Marita Van Hookie, 21828
205th Avenue, Little Falls.
[45:30] » All right. Thank you. Um, and let's see,
Amy, do you have a staff report ready
[45:38] for this one?
>> I do, Mr. Chair. This is a variance
[45:42] request to create and develop a parcel
that cannot support a type one septic
[45:46] system. The ordinance sections that
apply is section 131
[45:51] and 151.
Here's an aerial photograph of the
[45:56] property outlined in blue.
And then here is a survey provided by
[46:01] the applicant with the proposed parcel
split.
[46:07] And then here are some site photos taken
at the viewing on the 28th of August.
[46:16] This is a 27.64 acre parcel with a
dwelling on it. The applicant would like
[46:22] to split uh 8.85 acres, convey it to a
buyer, and retain the existing home and
[46:27] remaining acres. [snorts] In preparation
for that, septic soil borings were
[46:31] completed and it was found that there
was only a 3-in separation to the water
[46:35] table, which requires a type three mound
septic system. The septic designer has
[46:40] determined that adequate soil separation
does not exist on the property. To
[46:44] install a type one septic drain field
for a type one mound system, at least 12
[46:50] in of separation between the soil and
the seasonally high water table is
[46:54] required. Those 12 in of soil contribute
to the 3 f feet of soil treatment needed
[46:59] needed for septic effluent and again uh
3 in of separation was found on site.
[47:05] The surrounding area consists of crop
fields, forests and sparse residences.
[47:10] There is available dwelling density
within this quarter quarter for an
[47:13] additional dwelling. And then here are
criteria questions, Mr. Chair.
[47:18] » All right. Thank you, Amy. And just for
the record, um, on 82826,
[47:23] uh,
everyone with the exception of Clint was
[47:26] there and I believe Clint viewed this
property and they Tuesday I went. I did
[47:31] not walk around the property cuz I
didn't know if anything was even staked
[47:35] and I wasn't going to through the
woods, but I did get the just of it.
[47:40] » All right. So, all of the board members
last week were out to the property and
[47:44] did have an opportunity to view it both
on Friday with you and a drive by uh as
[47:49] stated by Clint. Um you heard uh the
staff report. Is everything that Amy
[47:54] presented to us uh accurate?
>> Yes.
[47:58] » And uh this is your opportunity now to
provide us with any additional
[48:02] information that you feel uh we as a
board should hear and should know uh
[48:07] moving forward on your request.
>> Yep. I um am looking to um again just
[48:13] make another um create a a lot um and
whether it's buil you know we do have
[48:21] someone who is interested
um they've not said if they're going to
[48:26] build or not build um there is no
purchase agreement yet um and so we just
[48:32] I want to help someone live a dream just
like I did um it's a part of a great
[48:39] community. Um, we've got really great
neighbors. Um, and I want to give
[48:43] someone else the opportunity to to do
that uh right along with when I was able
[48:49] to do that.
>> All right. Thank you. Anything else?
[48:53] » No thank
>> All right. Thank you. Um, and let's see,
[48:59] board [snorts] members. Uh, any
questions?
[49:01] » Mr. Chair
>> Clint, go ahead. Since it wasn't there
[49:03] Friday, was there anything I mean, did
you walk any of that or is there
[49:07] anything that I should know that
>> uh on Friday? I asked Amy and she just
[49:11] pulled it up now to have a topographical
map of elevations here for us so that we
[49:15] could see that because walking out
there, you know, in there um we could
[49:20] see the uh the stake uh by this line.
I'm pointing to the 1270 line. There was
[49:27] a stake here that went out and up and
over uh marking off the eight acres.
[49:32] Then other stakes were out here
>> um maintaining the driveway in for her.
[49:37] So it came up and it went out
>> 12 ft.
[49:40] » Uh but we did not walk out in the woods
itself. U but seeing that the elevation
[49:45] is important. It's up there for us. No,
I think the elevation map was great
[49:50] because that's about how I envisioned it
from me just looking at it is kind of
[49:56] how that
works. So, okay. Thank you.
[50:00] » Yep.
[50:03] Um any Let's see.
[50:10] » Any other questions? Board members,
Mr. Chair,
[50:14] » go ahead.
>> Okay. I got um
[50:17] um
so Marita maybe uh I know your place is
[50:22] kind of wet you know I mean it's uh not
like flood driven or anything like that
[50:27] I'm not saying that um but is that just
because of the soils because it's a lot
[50:33] of clay there or is is that's why um cuz
when I when I looked you know I mean you
[50:39] got a meadow on the backside or upland
meadow I would say maybe it's not like a
[50:43] real bad meadow to the north. Um the
woods there's, you know, popples as to
[50:47] the west. As you gradually get towards
your house, it changes a little bit and
[50:52] you could see that with the elevation.
>> Um so when we look at these, this is its
[50:57] own case. We look at different ones for
type three sewers. Um to me, they tend
[51:01] to look a lot lower than this did. Um
and then here you only had 3 in of
[51:06] separation. And so that's why I asked
that question because uh it just uh I'm
[51:11] not going to say this is prone to
flooding or anything like that, but it's
[51:14] just kind of wet in that area and that's
probably due to the clay or
[51:18] » That is exactly right. When we did the
building, um the clay is about 2 feet
[51:23] below below the surface. Um and it's
solid dense clay for when we dug like
[51:30] the driveway and stuff, it was clay for
a good four or five feet. So, it is it's
[51:37] not only rocky, but it's also very clay.
>> Okay.
[51:43] That's basically the only question I
really had, Mr. Chair, was just kind of
[51:47] hear from the applicant. Um, when you
see, you know, we haven't seen many of
[51:51] these with just 3 in separation. Not
that it I mean, it does matter, but it
[51:56] don't matter because it can't meet
separation, but I just wanted to point
[52:00] that out that it's not cuz it's a swamp.
It's just the soil type. So,
[52:05] » all right. Thank you, Clint. I do have
um I'll get to you in just a second,
[52:09] George, but I do have a question maybe
for Amy.
[52:12] » Um so, my question is
um since this meets a dwelling density
[52:17] in the area, if not for the the the the
sewer,
[52:23] » if this would have been land that would
support a type one, everything would
[52:28] proceed without the need of a variance.
Is that correct?
[52:30] » Yes, that's correct.
>> Okay. And so, uh, the reason we're here
[52:34] is because of the 3-in separation, not
the 12 in. Um, and would it support a
[52:41] type three? And that's the decision that
we're making tonight. I just wanted to
[52:45] clarify that for the record so everybody
here knows what we're considering.
[52:49] » Thank you.
>> Other comments of board members,
[52:52] » Mr. Chairman.
>> George, go ahead.
[52:54] » So, just an observation. And so I'm
looking at this top topographic map here
[52:58] and if you'll go on the west side of the
road, you see an elevation of 1258.
[53:02] Well, off to the northwest corner of
this parcel that that she's proposing to
[53:07] create, there is a there is a residence
where we turned around off the northwest
[53:12] corner. So, so and I would venture to
say that that falls. So, that's about
[53:18] the same elevation. So, so if you look
at all these elevations here, it's it's
[53:22] it's a fairly flat piece of land.
Yeah, I I would agree. Thank you. Uh
[53:29] George, any other comments uh by board
members?
[53:31] » Mr. Chair, just one more.
>> Go ahead, Clint.
[53:33] » Marita, yours is a type three at your
house.
[53:36] » It is.
>> Yes, that's what I consider. Okay.
[53:39] » Okay. Just wanted to put that on the
record, too.
[53:42] » Okay. Uh Mr. Chair
>> Marvin,
[53:45] » uh just a few comments. Uh, one I
noticed most of the trees are ash and
[53:50] papa which thrive in lower wet areas but
uh to my surprise as I was driving by
[53:56] slowly there were oak trees here and
there so it can't uh if it can support
[54:01] oaks and not die off apparently it's not
too wet.
[54:05] » Right. Exactly.
>> Just a comment. So my from one of my
[54:10] observations and another thing I look at
this year we talk about our comp plan
[54:16] and uh protecting prime egg land. Well
obviously this isn't prime egg land.
[54:21] This is exactly what we like to see and
you could put this in a couple acre
[54:25] parcel and sell it off. Instead you're
going to make put in 8.85 acre parcel
[54:30] which is a nice big chunk of property
nowadays. Just another comment. So,
[54:37] thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Marvin. Any other
[54:38] comments from the board before I move on
to uh public comment?
[54:46] » Hearing none, I'm going to move on to uh
public comment. I'll make a call three
[54:49] times for anyone wishing to speak uh
regarding this uh variance request to
[54:54] step up to the podium over there.
Microphone should be on. First call for
[54:58] any public comment.
>> Mine is more just a question.
[55:03] » That's fine. Just go to the state your
name and your address for the record so
[55:06] we know who's representing you.
>> I'm Ken and we live just south or just
[55:12] north
>> Jason.
[55:14] » All right.
>> So 220
[55:18] it's more just a question. Not that I
have any opposition or opinion on on
[55:24] this but if there wouldn't be a variance
can the type one be just remedied bying
[55:34] make the mountain higher.
>> We'll we'll actually we'll actually
[55:38] answer that question here in just a
little bit.
[55:40] » Okay. And it's it's not that I'm
expressing any type of opinion. It's
[55:44] just a question I have.
>> Thank you.
[55:49] All right. First call. Second call. Any
public comment? Please step to the
[55:53] podium and state your name and address
for the record.
[55:59] » One last and third final call for any
public comment.
[56:05] All right. Does the township have
anything to uh let us know?
[56:12] » I guess not. [laughter]
[56:18] » Okay. [laughter]
>> All right. Um with that, uh I made three
[56:24] calls for public comment. Um no further
public comment. I'll ask uh for a motion
[56:29] to close the portion of the meeting. So
moved.
[56:33] » Second here.
>> Motion by Marvin, second by George to
[56:36] close the meeting. All in favor? Greg?
>> I.
[56:39] » Marvin,
>> I.
[56:40] » Clint,
>> I myself is I George
[56:44] » I.
>> The public portion of this meeting is
[56:47] now closed and we'll bring this back to
the board. Um,
[56:58] uh,
>> answer about this.
[57:01] » Yeah. So, uh, to answer your question,
Ken, I'm going to have Amy just give us
[57:08] a a slight lesson in type one and type
three, and I think it's going to answer
[57:13] your your question.
Uh so in order to get adequate treatment
[57:21] of sewage, you need at least three feet
of good soil. So what we're looking for
[57:28] is so as soon as you hit anorobic
conditions, which is where water
[57:32] regularly sits, you stop treatment. And
so what we're looking for and by state
[57:39] law, um, a type one septic system offers
at least 12 inches of native native soil
[57:50] for treatment. And so you can have a
type one mound system where you've got 2
[57:55] feet of sand and then your third foot of
treatment is that native soil. That's
[58:03] considered a type one mound system. You
can have other type one systems. If you
[58:09] have a lot of separation, then you can
have an atgrade system and all of that.
[58:14] And that's relying completely on the
soils on site to provide treatment.
[58:20] Those all fit into the category of type
one septic system. And by law, if you
[58:26] are creating a new parcel, your new
parcel must have adequate soils to
[58:31] support a standard system. Um, in cases
like this where you either get have 12
[58:39] in or zero. So if you have three inches,
it's zero. If you have seven inches,
[58:46] it's zero. There's no treatment. So
you're creating that entire treatment
[58:52] system above grade.
So you are hauling in sand, but you're
[58:57] hauling in three feet of it because all
of that treatment is happening in above
[59:04] grade before it hits the soil. And so
and that's considered a type three
[59:10] system and they need more maintenance.
Um you need to take care of them. You
[59:17] need to monitor them. Um and they're not
guaranteed. They're they're not a
[59:21] guaranteed system. and you and a
property owner who puts one in has to
[59:25] sign acknowledging I understand that I
am putting in a nontypical system and I
[59:33] have some obligations and no one's
guaranteeing that this thing is going to
[59:37] work. And so that is the difference
between the two. So, yes, you do the
[59:43] mound and you do just haul in sand. But,
um, anytime you're replacing any native
[59:49] soil, that's a type three system because
you're you're messing with what was
[59:54] already there. Does that answer your
question?
[59:59] » So, so it would have to be type.
This one there is no choice because this
[1:00:06] soil does not offer any sewage
treatment. And so you you would you must
[1:00:14] um install a type three mound which all
of the drain field is above grade.
[1:00:23] Yeah, that's the only option.
>> Mr. Chair, if I could just add on to
[1:00:29] that. So basically, if you own a
property and you know it's too low for
[1:00:33] type one and let's say you add four feet
of fill on that whole property and 10
[1:00:38] years later your plan is to sell it,
they're still going to do the soil
[1:00:41] borings. The soil boring is still going
to go through your four feet and find
[1:00:45] that virgin soil, the soil boring going
to be 4T below that that dirt you filled
[1:00:52] in and it's still going to give you the
same reading if you filled it in or not.
[1:00:56] Well, essentially now you're
automatically type three because you've
[1:00:59] got a disturbed site. Yeah. Because if
you haul in fill and it's not and you're
[1:01:05] not looking at native soil,
>> right out [snorts] of the gate, you're a
[1:01:08] type three because you don't have native
soils.
[1:01:10] » Y
>> All right. Hopefully, Kim, that
[1:01:14] addressed your question. I said we'd get
around to it. Um when you get when we
[1:01:18] get into sewers, it gets a little more
complicated than most people uh
[1:01:23] understand. But uh suffice to say that
that the separation will occur above the
[1:01:30] ground, not utilizing any of the current
existing ground. It's got to be
[1:01:34] separated above ground uh on a type
three. So that's the difference between
[1:01:38] a type one and a type three in
[clears throat]
[1:01:41] layman's terms.
Um
[1:01:45] we'll now move to uh findings of fact
criteria questions. We'll kind of go
[1:01:49] through those with the board uh since
the public uh portion of the meeting is
[1:01:54] now closed. Question number one is the
request in harmony with the general
[1:01:58] purposes and intent of the Morrison
County land use ordinance and comp plan.
[1:02:03] And I'll take that one. um
as stated here in the discussion it it
[1:02:10] meets the dwelling density in the area
um but it does not meet um the adequate
[1:02:16] soil for a type one. So um in today's
world um you have to have um a variance
[1:02:24] to uh determine or once it's determined
that um there isn't adequate soil uh
[1:02:32] separation on the land itself and u you
have to have a variance for a type three
[1:02:37] septic system. And so that's what this
variance request here is in front of us
[1:02:43] tonight for um you know there is no egg
land being destroyed by this. This is a
[1:02:49] wooded parcel. There is residential uh
homes in the immediate area uh and
[1:02:56] meeting that density dwelling um
criteria. um it is a a a part of uh land
[1:03:03] in uh that area that is suitable for
development and so in that regard I
[1:03:09] think it is in in re u it is in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of
[1:03:14] the land use ordinance any other
comments from board members
[1:03:19] hearing none I'll move on question two
is the applicant proposing to use the
[1:03:23] property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the land use ordinance
[1:03:28] charge.
>> Uh yes, I believe so. Uh the surrounding
[1:03:31] area has homes on what I assume to be
assumed to be five plus acre parcels. Uh
[1:03:36] topography on the surrounding small
acreages in the immediate area. Uh also
[1:03:43] are very similar to this. Uh
applicant is requesting a variance to
[1:03:48] create a lot for a home with a type
three system. And this is a reasonable
[1:03:53] request in this area being it is not uh
valuable farmland. It's a wooded
[1:03:59] acreage.
All right. Thank you, George. Any other
[1:04:02] comments by board members?
Hearing none, I'll move on to question
[1:04:06] three. Will the issuance of the variance
maintain the essential character of the
[1:04:11] locality? Clint, I think two parts. One
is there's uh if you look in the
[1:04:17] surrounding area, it's uh some farms.
There's also some rural residents out
[1:04:22] there. They're kind of mixed in between
in all that. So, I think from a central
[1:04:27] character that way it'll fit in. Then
when we look at the type three sewer
[1:04:31] system that way, um, you know, I don't
know for sure, but I'm going to say
[1:04:35] majority of all them homes that are
right in that vicinity. More of them are
[1:04:39] type three than not. And uh basically
that eastern side of Morrison County is
[1:04:45] is a big percentage of uh buildable land
is requiring type three just because of
[1:04:51] the way our soils are in that part of
the county. So I think um from both of
[1:04:55] them aspects it will maintain the
essential character.
[1:04:59] » All right. Thank you Clint. Question
number or any other comments from board
[1:05:02] members on question three. If not I'll
move on to question four
[1:05:07] hearing none. is the alleged practical
difficulty due to circumstances unique
[1:05:12] to the property. Uh Greg,
>> uh because of the soil around here, it's
[1:05:17] very typical. I mean, I guess Clint just
stated that too that I almost all them
[1:05:21] houses in that area are with that lower
ground, you're going to need this type
[1:05:26] three septic system to make anything
work because of its and that's typical
[1:05:31] to most of this ground in this area
because we just had that one two weeks
[1:05:34] ago. Kind of the same type of soil. So,
it is
[1:05:39] It is uh unique to the property.
>> All right. Thank you. Any other comments
[1:05:44] from board on question four?
>> Mr. Chairman, I just got one more
[1:05:47] comment here. And you know, without a
variance for this piece of property, it
[1:05:51] would not be a buildable lot. I mean, it
would be be wasteland basically.
[1:05:56] » All right. Thank you, George.
>> Mr. Chair Clint,
[1:05:59] » I'd just like to add the practical
difficulty here is it's a buildable
[1:06:02] site. Um with the clay soils in here, it
don't meet the soil borings. Um, I think
[1:06:08] the elevation of it, unless they do
right by the road because that's the
[1:06:11] lowest elevations, but when you look at
the elevations of this property, I think
[1:06:16] there's more than enough adequate
building space and it can't meet the the
[1:06:20] soil borings because of the clay ground
and the water retention. So, I think
[1:06:24] that is the practical difficulty here.
>> All right. Thank you, Clint. Any other
[1:06:29] comments?
Hearing none, I'll move on to question
[1:06:32] number five. is the need for the
variance created by actions other than
[1:06:36] the land owner or prior land owners.
Marvin,
[1:06:39] » yes. And the reason why is because of
these new uh regulations requiring type
[1:06:44] three uh variances for type three
systems is the need for this. And as uh
[1:06:53] we probably all know there were numerous
systems put in that uh if they were
[1:07:00] having to be redone would be basically
all type three in this area. So the need
[1:07:05] for it is uh the separation of it and um
you know not having adequate separation.
[1:07:14] » All right. Thank you. Uh any other
comments from board members on question
[1:07:18] five? If not, I'll move to question six.
Question six, does the alleged practical
[1:07:24] difficulty involve more than just
economic considerations? Uh, back to me
[1:07:28] on that one. Um, you know, here, uh, the
practical difficulty is is is the land.
[1:07:36] Um, and the soil that is on the land. I
think that's what's been stated here.
[1:07:41] Um, we have a buildable lot um, with um,
oaks and poppel and ash. um but it
[1:07:49] doesn't have the the soil needed for a
for a type one. So we have to go uh to a
[1:07:54] type three. And to get to a type three
um you need a variance to do that. Um it
[1:08:00] costs more money to get a variance. It
costs more money to haul in more sand.
[1:08:05] It costs more money to have a type three
system. And it uh is going to require
[1:08:09] more monitoring ongoing and into the
future. So um this is more than just
[1:08:14] economic considerations. This isn't a
cheap route. this is an expensive route
[1:08:18] and it's buyer beware on this uh moving
forward. So, uh hopefully you relay that
[1:08:24] information to them and they're well
aware of it and they know what's going
[1:08:26] on there. Any other comments from board
members?
[1:08:30] » Mr. Chair, I just say with any of these
with not just this one, any of these
[1:08:34] there needs to be adequate uh acreage to
put more than one of these. You know, we
[1:08:39] have to have two spots. So, I just
wanted on the record and with this uh
[1:08:43] this proposal and the acreage size of
it, there is plenty of room for multiple
[1:08:48] sites. So, just wanted to add that into
this answer and for the record.
[1:08:53] » All right. Thank you. Uh if the board is
ready, we'll now move on to the findings
[1:08:58] of fact criteria questions. And there
are no conditions as of yet on this uh
[1:09:05] for consideration.
Question one is the request in harmony
[1:09:09] with the general purposes and intent of
Morrison County land use ordinance and
[1:09:13] comp plan. Myself is yes.
>> Uh George,
[1:09:17] » yes.
>> Clint,
[1:09:18] » yes.
>> Greg,
[1:09:19] » yes.
>> And Marvin,
[1:09:20] » yes.
>> Question number two, is the applicant
[1:09:23] proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the
[1:09:27] land use ordinance? George,
>> yes.
[1:09:29] » Clint,
>> yes.
[1:09:30] » Greg,
>> yes.
[1:09:32] » Marvin,
>> yes.
[1:09:33] » Myself is yes.
Uh, question number three. Will the
[1:09:36] issuance of the variance maintain the
essential character of the locality?
[1:09:41] Clint,
>> yes.
[1:09:42] » Greg,
>> yes.
[1:09:44] » Marvin,
>> yes.
[1:09:45] » Myself is [snorts] yes. George,
>> yes.
[1:09:47] » Question number four. Is the alleged
practical difficulty due to
[1:09:51] circumstances unique to the property?
Greg?
[1:09:55] » Yes.
>> Marvin?
[1:09:56] » Yes.
>> Myself is yes. George,
[1:09:58] » yes.
>> And Clint,
[1:10:00] » yes.
>> Question five. is a need for variance
[1:10:02] created by actions other than the land
owner or prior land owners. Marvin,
[1:10:07] » yes.
>> Myself is yes. George,
[1:10:09] » yes.
>> Clint,
[1:10:10] » yes.
>> And Greg,
[1:10:12] » yes.
>> Question number six. Does the alleged
[1:10:15] practical difficulty involve more than
just economic considerations? Myself is
[1:10:20] yes. George,
>> yes.
[1:10:21] » Clint,
>> yes.
[1:10:22] » Greg,
>> yes.
[1:10:23] » Marvin,
>> yes.
[1:10:25] » Uh, I have all of these questions
answered in the affirmative. Do I have a
[1:10:28] motion to approve the request?
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make that
[1:10:31] motion to approve this request.
>> I'll second it, Mr. Chair.
[1:10:36] » Okay, we have a motion by Marvin and a
second by George. Uh,
[1:10:43] and we'll do a roll call vote starting
with Greg. All in favor say I.
[1:10:47] » I.
>> Marvin,
[1:10:48] » I.
>> Clint,
[1:10:49] » I.
>> Myself is I. George.
[1:10:51] » I. Uh the motion uh
to approve the request passes and thank
[1:10:58] you for uh presenting tonight. Um any
questions you have, please follow up
[1:11:04] with land services during business
hours.
[1:11:06] » Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
[1:11:18] And moving on, um, we have some minutes
from our previous meeting.
[1:11:24] » Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve those minutes.
[1:11:28] » I'll second it.
>> Okay. And just for the record, those
[1:11:30] were the meeting minutes from August 18,
2026.
[1:11:35] Uh, all in favor?
>> I
[1:11:40] » I
>> Clint I. Myself is I George.
[1:11:43] » All right.
>> All right. Um, old business. Any old
[1:11:45] business, Amy?
>> Mr. Chair, I do not have any old
[1:11:48] business.
>> New business?
[1:11:50] » I do have new. All right.
>> Um,
[1:11:52] » the uh, as you know, the way you're
going through your voting um, has
[1:11:59] changed where you're always making that
motion in the affirmative uh, to grant.
[1:12:06] And um so what we're going to do is
we're going to and I'm going to send
[1:12:10] these down each take one. Um I just the
voting sheet is going to change and it's
[1:12:15] really just assuming that that motion is
always going to be to approve. So then
[1:12:22] it's just going to be this voting block
down below where we're going to keep
[1:12:27] track of who makes the motion, who
seconds it, and then I keep track of
[1:12:31] whether it passes or not. this way. I do
this with the county board as well and
[1:12:37] so number one it'll be consistent
between the two and it's uh I think
[1:12:41] maybe a little bit more straightforward
and easy for someone to follow. So
[1:12:45] anyway um next meeting you'll see this
for planning commission and for board of
[1:12:50] adjustment you'll see this voting block
like this.
[1:12:54] » Okay.
>> Okay. It won't change your procedure any
[1:12:57] just know that this is what we're doing.
>> Otherwise that's all I've got.
[1:13:01] » All right. Thank you.
>> Just Mr. Chair, just one thing with that
[1:13:04] cuz sometimes I think some of us getting
confused yet. So we always make a motion
[1:13:08] to approve. So if I make a motion
approve, I could still say no
[1:13:12] » when you vote.
>> Yes.
[1:13:14] » So just because somebody made the
motion, that's how we're going to do it
[1:13:18] every time. So just understand that.
>> Um I think sometimes it gets a little
[1:13:23] confusing.
>> Yep. Agree.
[1:13:24] » It's just we all choose that we're just
going to make a motion to approve every
[1:13:28] time. Yes.
>> And if it's
[1:13:30] » five to zero, no. That's how it is. It's
just
[1:13:32] » Yeah.
>> Yes. And so then essentially the motion
[1:13:35] fails and by law um the way the law is
set up that a failure to pass it is a
[1:13:43] denial. So that's that's how that works
for you.
[1:13:48] » All right. That's all I have, Mr. Chair.
>> Yeah. The only thing I got to comment on
[1:13:53] with regard to this, it's always kind of
confusing. Now we do our opening
[1:13:57] statement. And in our opening statement,
this last paragraph,
[1:14:01] we'll have a series of votes, discuss
whether conditions be made, and have a
[1:14:05] final motion to approve or deny the
request.
[1:14:09] » And we read that to the the public every
time. I'm wondering if we're going to
[1:14:13] make that change. Yeah.
>> Do we need to delete that deny?
[1:14:16] » I think so. Yes. So, we'll update that.
>> That's always kind of confusing to me
[1:14:20] when I go through that going, "Well,
we're going to approve or deny and then
[1:14:24] we're not."
>> Yes. Agreed.
[1:14:27] » Okay. Uh that's it for new business.
>> Motion to adjurnn.
[1:14:31] » Second
>> to adjourn by Clint, second by George.
[1:14:34] All in favor starting with Greg.
>> I.
[1:14:36] » Marvin
>> I.
[1:14:37] » I.
>> Self is I. George
[1:14:40] » I. Meeting is adjourned at
7:13