Brookings County/City of Brookings Board of Adjustment - meeting_joint_regular

8 o'clock here in one minute.

Yeah. Carol, do you want to sit on that board?

Good evening and welcome to the July 7th Brookings County and City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustment meeting. This meeting is being recorded, televised, and viewable on Swiftel Channel 19, ITC Channel 168, or the Brookings County YouTube channel. And I'll call this meeting to order. Approval of minutes. Is there a motion?

Move to approve.

Motion by Kelly VanderWaal. Is there a second? Second. Second by Darrell Klein. General in favor? All right. Motion passes. Items to be added to the agenda by Commission members or staff.

I have none.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest, relationships to the applicant or ex parte communication.

Nothing.

Approval of agenda. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion by client, John. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Avery. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. We will now convene as the Joint Board of Adjustment. The Joint Board of Adjustment is a five-member board which has the power to hear requests for variances, conditional uses, and appeals of the non-ministerial decisions of the zoning officer. The concurring vote of two-thirds of the full board membership of the board for votes is necessary for approval of a variance or an appeal of the zoning officer. The concurring vote of a simple majority of those board members present in voting is necessary for approval of a conditional use permit. In accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, we require a motion to approve a request before the request can be debated. As a matter of policy, all motions are made in a positive. The board under specific powers granted to it by the state shall authorize variances from zoning requirements for special conditions existing on the land will result in an unnecessary hardship for the applicant the financial disadvantage to the property owner shall not constitute proof of an unnecessary hardship agenda item 2026 jj variance 001 taylor w arndt has made an application 2026 jj var001 to the joint jurisdiction board of adjustment for variance joint zoning ordinance for brookings county in the city of brookings Article 3, District Regulations, Chapter 3.06, Aquifer Protection, Section 3.06.04, Section A, Section 3.06.04.04, Performance Standards in Zone A, Number 1, the property is described as the east 172 feet of Lot 1, Cunningham Subdivision in the northeast one-fourth of Section 28, Township 110 North, Range 49 W Aurora Township located at five one seven 58th Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota five seven zero zero six is there a motion Move to approve motion by Kelly has their second second limer second my limer Richard would you read the staff report?

Yes, 2026 JJ VAR 001 Taylor aren't has applied supplied for variants to replace the existing accepting system on his property with a new one septic tank and a drain field. The property is located east of Brookings on US Highway 14 and South on 58th Ave. In the Brookings City, Brookings County Joint jurisdictional area and is under the Brookings City, Brookings County Joint jurisdictional zoning ordinance. The property is zoned Joint Jurisdictional Ag and is in Zone A of the Occupational Protection Overlay Zone. Zone A is a wellhead protection area. Brookings County, Brookings City Joint Jurisdictional Zoning Ordinance prohibits the replacement of existing septic systems in Chapter 3.06 the aquifer protection section 3.0 604 and of the performance standards in zone a number one new or replacement septic systems are prohibited in zone a Sanitary to sewer shall be accommodated by means of a central sanitary collection system or a sealed holding tank The granting of the variants would be in violation of the joint jurisdiction zoning ordinance as it is a prohibited use and not a permitted use I Public notices were published in the Brookings Register on June 23rd and 30th, 2026, and letters were sent out to the adjoining landowners, South Dakota Department of Transportation, Brookings Municipal Utilities, Aurora Township Chairman and Clerk. Here is the joint jurisdiction variance application. There's a site plan, existing system back on the west side of the house, proposed system to the northwest and north side of the house. This is the beaking map showing the location. The pink area is the joint zone A of the wellhead area. The yellow square right there is where his property is located. Just a close up of his property. That's with the wellhead on there also. Here's a map without that, a little clearer on there. Just some photos taken looking west towards the house from 58th Avenue. This is looking south of the house, looking towards the northwest of that. This is looking from the intersection of US Highway 14 and 58th Avenue, looking towards the southwest. This is looking west and at the south end of the lot right there. This is at the north end of his lot where his proposed drain system would go, drain field. This is on the back side. Existing septic system is back behind these trees right here. And this would be the proposed area for the septic tank right in here. So that's all that I have on the applicant. I believe the applicant is here this evening.

Thank you, Richard. If the applicant wants to come forward, clearly state your name into the mic.

My name is Taylor Arndt.

Do you have anything to add to Richard's report at this time?

Yeah, just a little write up that I kind of put together. Just throw a little context and kind of what. What I'm dealing with and what I have been dealing with on our property over the past few years. So first of all, thank you for allowing me to be heard tonight. I'd like to start with a little background information. My wife and I moved into this house in 2021. During the buying process, we did our due diligence. We did get a home inspection. and we were excited to move in, knowing the joys and the hardships of home ownership. Upon moving in, we began cleaning, as you might imagine, using some water, flushing the toilets, just cleaning the house so we could get ready to move in. And it backed up into our basement. There's no floor drains in our basement, so you can imagine that cleaning that is not very fun. And that's happened a couple times since we've moved in. We did have some plumbers come through over the years and snake our service out to the tank, and the pipe that is existing right now, it's deteriorating. It's not functioning correctly. Since 2021, my family has grown. Wife and I have three beautiful daughters now, and adding more people to our family, of course, has created a greater demand on our system. My request regarding the variance that I bring to you today is to replace the existing system with a new one that meets the needs of our growing family and will meet the needs of any family that lives in the house in the future. For this efficient, updated system, I'd like to put a 1500 gallon dual chamber tank in and then have a lift to pump the gray water into the drain field that we're going to create in the northeast part of the property. Absolutely understand this ordinance and why it's in place safe potable water is a cornerstone of functioning communities However granting a variance granting this variance in my opinion is not making an exception to the rule Because I'm not putting in you know a brand new house with a brand new system This has already been here when I moved in and well before I'm pretty sure well before this ordinance was put in place and If and when I sell this house at some point in my life, we would need to disclose that we would have a sealed holding tank if we were not to be granted this variance. And I would have to disclose that this tank, depending on the size that I can get, would have to be pumped regularly. for the rest of the life of the house. And that just doesn't seem feasible for a family of five living in a full-time residence and not having an actual system that has the leach field that drains out into the rest of the property. So I appreciate the opportunity for me to sit here today and state my case. I thank you and hopefully you can consider some of my points when you're making your decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the board at this time? You can go back to your seat for a minute. Seeing no questions from members of the board at this time, I'll move to the public hearing portion. Is there anybody in the audience that is for this? Seeing and hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that is opposed to this? Please clearly state your name into the mic.

Thank you. Eric Witt, water and wastewater manager for Brookings Utilities. So as part of the water system management, one of my tasks is to look after all things wellhead protection related. So I did put together a letter, hopefully the board has that, stating the utility's objection to the variance request. We would support the ordinance has currently written for reasons of wellhead protection in this area Hopefully you had a chance to review the letter And with that I could answer any questions should you have them but that would be a request that you uphold the current ordinance Any questions from members of the board for me Eric what

What kind of a system do they need to have? You alluded to that, and Mr. Arndt did too, that there is an alternative to our traditional septic field and that kind of thing. Is it a workable type of replacement?

It would be a sealed holding tank, and that is... I am aware of that in certain sensitive environmentally sensitive areas. It does come with a nuisance of having to pump it out. So there is no drain field that goes back into the sand and gravel formation there. So Taylor, the applicant is not incorrect that there would be additional pumping than you would have over a septic system with a drain field. If you have a drain field, you pump to get the solids out of your tank. If you have a sealed holding tank, you pump to get everything that goes down the drain out. So it absolutely increases the frequency of pumping for whoever has a system like that.

But the law was put in for a reason, I imagine, that we're concerned that How much pollution do you want in your wellhead area?

Right. The letter that I put together talks about nitrate contribution or nitrogen contribution. That is certainly a component of fecal matter, what goes down the sewer, down the toilet. That is what we're looking at in the aquifer. We do have areas of nitrate contamination above what EPA considers the maximum allowable contaminant level. So every opportunity that we have to look at control on nitrogen contributions to the aquifer, We do support kind of controlling that. So I say that also the wells we're pumping from the nitrates have not reached that location, but they are in a portion of zone A already. So I'm looking to control nitrates within zone A at opportunities that present themselves. Thank you.

Any other questions for him?

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else opposed to this? Seeing and hearing none, I will close the public hearing portion. Move back to the board for any additional comments or questions. Anything from members of the board?

Well, I would just like to speak in support of what Eric said from the municipal utilities, that even though these things always get complicated, you know, I came in thinking, well, this is the law, and I understand the law, and we should do that. And then we get to hear the gentleman that it affects his livelihood and his home, and then you feel bad about that. But then in the end, I think you usually have to go back to what the ordinance says very clear of what should be done. And I guess I will do that, support the ordinance that we have put together to protect everybody's livelihood and their There you know we just once we don't have the water is contaminated. It's it's it's you can't be brought back, so I Guess I'm gonna vote against the conditional use There any other comments or questions from members of the board Good seeing and hearing none Richard who juried the findings of facts I

This will be the draft findings as Before the vote so Brookings County Brookings City Joint Jurisdiction variants 2026 JJ variant zero zero one Application for a variance have been filed with the Brookings County development officer on behalf of the Brookings County City Brookings Joint Jurisdiction Board of Adjustment capital of the application being attached here to such application being made by Taylor W aren't regarding the following real property a East 172 foot of lot 1 and Cunningham subdivision in the northeast 1 4th of section 28 Township 110 North Range 49 West Aurora Township Located at 5 1 7 58th Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota after due notice a public hearing have been held on the application on the seventh day of July 2026 Number one, the Joint Board of Adjustment, hereby finding that the strict application of the Joint Jurisdictional Ordinance for the Brookings County and the City of Brookings would produce undue hardship, that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same district and the same vicinity, and that the authorization of such variance will not be substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed of the granting of the variance. granting of such variance is based upon reasonable, demonstrable, exceptional hardship and as distinguished from variations for the purpose of convenience, profit, and caprice. Number two, the Joint Board of Adjustment further finding that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not so general or reoccurring in nature as to make reasonable, practical formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Number three, the Joint Board of Adjustment hereby further finding that the written application of the petitioner demonstrates that special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or buildings in the same district. The letter interpretations of the provisions of the Joint Zoning Ordinance for Brookings County and the City of Brookings would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant and that the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to other land structures or buildings in the district. Number four, the Joint Board of Adjustment further finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify that the granting of the variance and the variance is a minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and the intent of the Joint Zoning Ordinance for Brookings County and the City of Brookings. It will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Number five, the Joint Board of Adjustment further determines on the condition of this variance upon the special conditions or safeguards. None stated. The Joint Board of Adjustment, by at least two-thirds vote of its full membership, hereby grants the above petitioner a variance for the above described property as follows. Replace the existing septic tank and drain field. This variance is specifically conditioned on initial and continued compliance with all our conditions and safeguards and five above upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the Joint Zoning Ordinance for the County of Brookings County and the City of Brookings. Never proved the Brookings County zoning director is authorized to issue any required building prints for construction Consistent with the terms of this variance of this variance is not used in three years of the date granted And she'll be invalid dated the seventh day of July 2026 Are there any additions or corrections to the findings of facts?

Seeing and hearing none, Richard, would you call it up?

Kelly Vanderwall. Aye. Aye. Darrell Kleinjohn. No. Wayne Avery.

No.

Jacob Lemmer. No. Chad Ford. No.

Motion fails.

I'll read the denied findings here. Brookings County City of Brookings Joint Jurisdiction Variants 2026 JJ Variant 001. An application for a variance haven't been filed on the Brookings County City of Brookings Board of Adjustment. A copy of the application being attached here too, incorporated by this reference. Such application being made by Taylor W. Arndt regarding the following real property. East 172 feet of lot 1 cutting ham some division in the Northeast 1 4th of section 28 Township 110 North Range 49 West Aurora Township located at 517 58th Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota After due notice a public hearing was held on the application on the seventh day of July The Brookings County City of Brookings Board of Adjustment hereby finds that, number one, on May 21st, 2026, Taylor Art applied for variance in the Joint Jurisdiction Aquifer Protection District to install a new septic system and drain field. Number two, the Joint Zoning Ordinance for the Brookings County and the City of Brookings Zoning Ordinance for Action Article 3, District Regulations Chapter 3.06, Aquifer Protection, Section 3.0604, Zone A. Section 3.06.04.04, performance standard in Zone A, number one. Number three, the applicant requested a variance to replace the existing septic system and drain field. Number four, the legal description for the property for which the variance was requested is the east 172 feet of Lot 1, Cunningham, some division in the northeast 1-4th of Section 28, Township 110 North, Range 49 West, Aurora Township, located at 517 58th Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota. Number five, a public hearing was held on the Brookings City, Brookings County Government Center, room 310 Chambers at 523rd Street on Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 at 8 p.m. Number six, legal public notices of the hearing were published on June 23rd and 30th, 2026 in the Brookings Register, legal newspapers for Brookings County and the City of Brookings. Number seven, at the public hearing July 7th, 2026, five members of the Brookings County, City of Brookings Board of Adjustment were present. The Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Jurisdictional Zoning Ordinance required two-thirds vote with full membership, i.e. four votes would need to approve the variance. Number eight, property for which the variance was requested is located in the Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Jurisdictional Area, County of Brookings, South Dakota. Number nine, the real estate for which the applicant requested the variance is owned agricultural in zone A of the aquifer protection critical impact zone. Number 10, following the testimony of the applicant, the proponents, the opponents, the Brookings County City Board of Adjustment voted one, In favor? And for? Opposed? Approving, causing the variance to be motioned to fail. No, I didn't. Number 11, Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustments finds that the application should be denied because the reasons set forth in the application do not justify the granting of the variance. Number 12, Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Jurisdictional Board of Adjustments finds that the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general spirit, the purpose, and the intent of the regulation would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Number 13, the Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustment finds that Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Jurisdictional Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Administration and Enforcement, Chapter 4.03, Board of Adjustment, Section 4.0303, Powers and Duties of the Joint Board of Adjustment, Number 2, the Board of Adjustment shall operate in accordance with the powers, duties, and procedures set forth in Article 6 as amended of the Brookings County Zoning Ordinance. Number 14, The Brookings County City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustment finds that the variance does not meet the requirements of the Brookings County City of Brookings Joint Jurisdiction Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, District Regulations, Chapter 3.06, Aquifer Protection, Section 3.06.04.04 Performance Standards in Zone A. Number one, new or replacement septic tanks are prohibited in Zone A. A sanitary sewer shall be accommodated by means of central sanitary sewer collection system or a sealed holding tank. Number 15, the Brookings County, City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustment finds that the variance does not meet the Brookings County Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Administration Chapter 6.01, General Section 6.0502, Powers and Jurisdictions Related to Variance is number 7. Under no circumstances shall the Board of the Adjustment grant a variance to allow a non-permissible... under the terms of this regulation in the district involved or any other use expressly or implication prohibited by the terms of this regulation in the said district. Number 16, the application of this variance is denied, dated the 7th day of July, 2026. Is that it then, Richard? That is it. You concur with the findings, I guess.

We can, yeah, concur with the findings, which you read there. I didn't see anything, so we should be good. That being said, moving on, is your motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Motion by VanderWaal. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Kleinjohn. All in favor? Aye. Motion. Joint meeting adjourned.