Zoning & Land Regulation Committee - Regular Meeting

May 27th, 2026, Dane County Board of Adjustment public hearing is called to order. The members of the Board of Adjustment are George Corrigan with us remotely, Arlen Kai, he's from the town of Dunn. Arlen Kai, town of Oregon. Sue Stutz from the town of Berry. Myself, Al Long, town of Dunkirk. And our member, Travis Leeser, town of Rutland, will not be with us tonight. He has a conflict with some meetings in Rutland and will not be able to attend. Therefore, we will have a quorum of four this evening. Dane County Interim Zoning Administrator Hans Hilbert will serve as staff to the Board of Adjustments this evening. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Wisconsin State Journal on May 13th and May 20th, 2026. This meeting is being recorded electronically. The minutes of the meeting will show the names of those appearing. A copy of the electronic recording will be available on the county legislative tracking system. Hans, at this point, could you briefly explain how we conduct this meeting virtually?

There is no attendees, so I think we can forego that.

Fair enough. All right. First order of business will be opportunity for public comment for any item not listed on the agenda. Is there any person so moved to do so?

Doesn't look like it.

Yeah. Okay. So we will assume that's Not the case. We had a glitch with the notice on our minutes, therefore we will be approving the minutes of the public hearing at our next meeting. But we do have the minutes of the May 14, 2025 site inspection up for approval.

Move to approve.

Okay, is there any discussion?

I'll have to abstain, I wasn't there. Okay.

All those approving the minutes of the May 14, 2026 site inspection signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. And one abstention. George, were you able to visit the site?

It's muted, I think.

George, you're muted.

Sorry about that. I did visit the site and I think the applicant for putting the flags up it made it a much easier site.

So I take it that's sufficient for the site inspection. Yep. Okay. So we'll consider those approved. okay that brings us to the public hearing for variance appeals and uh let's see hans would you be able to take care of the staff report then and the notice i should say is appeal 3743 by robert and kim rigi for a variance from the minimum required wetland setback

is in Chapter 11032A2 of the Dane County Code of Ordinances to permit driveway access to a proposed residence on a tract of land being located in the northeast corridor of the southeast corridor of Section 28 in the town of Deerfield. Property is... pending rezone, but has been approved as recently as last night by the Zoning and Land Regulation Committee to be part of the RR4 zoning district. In your package, you'll find communications from the town of Deerfield of acknowledging the rezone or the variance requests and recommending approval from April 10th of this year. Existing facts of the case, Bob and Kim Riege own agricultural land on the north side of London Road in section 27 and 28 in the town of Deerfield. The land is adjacent to the village of Deerfield on the north and the south of London Road. The south, the western property line abuts residential lots within the town of the Deer Ridge Platte and unplatted residential lands are to the east. Previous ditched intermittent stream bisects the property and contains associated wetlands and floodplain. Historically, the drainage pattern in the area was along the eastern property line, but during the 1940s and 50s, the stream was straightened and moved further west to provide for agricultural drainage. In 1975, a west to east agricultural ditch was constructed in the southwestern portion of the property to provide additional drainage. These low-lying drained fields are included in the Wisconsin wetland inventory and recent wetland delineation has confirmed the wetland boundaries. The floodplain associated with the stream was included in a FEMA study with a defined base flood elevation of 854.8 feet above mean sea level. The owners are proposing to create a residential development site using a transfer of development right for a family member to build a home on a portion of the land. The proposed home site would be located outside of the wetland setback and floodplain, satisfying locational requirements of the ordinance. But access to the home site is proposed partially encroaching into the required 75-foot wetland setback and within the floodplain. The proposed building site is on a small ridge with an elevation ranging from 855 to 860 feet above mean sea level. Under wetland zoning, a driveway is defined as a structure and is required to satisfy the 75-foot setback to the wetlands greater than two acres. As mentioned last night, the ZLR recommended approval to the county board to rezone the property to RR4. The minimum required setback is 75 feet from a wetland. The proposed setback is 40 feet for a variance needed of 35 feet to the wetland setback.

Okay, thanks, Hans. Anyone have any questions for Hans about any of that? George? No. Okay. Nope, nobody?

Nope. Do we know the proximate acreage of the wetland, the wetland area? That's critical, isn't it?

It's large because it follows the constructed drainage to the north into a very large wetland complex that incorporates into the village as well. So I'd say hundreds of acres possibly. Okay.

All right. Thank you, Hans.

Now we come to the... Actually, yeah, I do have one question before Hans. So Hans, if it's... 40 feet from the wetlands. I'm looking on the map that was provided and it looks like they've got a 48 foot distance marked. Is there a spot where it's less than the 48 or am I reading that 48 wrong on the map submitted?

You're reading it right. It is 48 feet is what you show on the map and allows us to get a 12 foot wide driveway in, but it gives a little bit better line if it's only 40 feet.

Is that your understanding, Hans?

Just a moment.

The surveyor has it on this map.

Right. As surveyed, they're showing a 48-foot setback. As requested is the 40-foot.

So you cut that corner a little closer then. Well, that sounds like this is for the applicant, not Hans. So I'm good with what Hans said.

All right. Then we will step ahead to... give the applicant opportunity to submit either written information or oral testimony. And the applicant will be given five minutes to provide the testimony. And you can read a statement if you choose or testify however you see fit. And representative, are you gonna be doing the presentation? If anybody that wants to contribute needs to be seated up here. And please state your name for the record.

Dave Dinkle, Remax Property Shop. This is Dan Reggie and his wife, Sandy.

Okay. This guy back here is Bob Reggie. Yeah, if each of you could just state your name for the record. Yeah, Dan Reggie. Okay.

Sandy Reggie.

Bob Reggie. Okay. All right. Thank you. So I take it, Mr. Dinkle, you will be? I certainly could. Whoever is, I mean.

Yes, I'll take my five minutes. So the Rege family came to the town of Deerfield in 1959. These guys were just kids then, but mom and dad farmed on the other side of Highway 73 and mostly north of Highway 12 and 18. The home farm has 160 just wonderful acres. They added another 80 acres between there and what is now the village. And so that's all good land as opposed to this area that Bob bought. Bob farms, I don't know what, 700 acres or something, and has been all of his life, started dairying and now it's all just crops. The this is not as good land is anything on the farm, and so they would like to do a transfer of development rights Bob also has other lands that are good quality that he could use for a transfer of development rights also so really it's kind of in one farm owned by Bob and Kim. to another farm owned by Bob and Kim, as opposed to going to a third party, if that matters in the world of transfer of development rights. There was traditionally a ditch from way back then. Deerfield has a lot of lowland. We're a drumlinated area. The glacier came through and gave us high spots and low spots. some townships are all high in this county we are high in a lot of low we are as we see future uses we note that they are often affected by uh coming in proximity to a lowland We had a similar situation that it was a field road going to the back of an area on the Graphene Dalby Road and the Graphene Dalby Farm, about a half mile east of here. And I think that was eight years ago, but it's hard to remember all these times. This piece right here is a restriction because there's woods on the west and then some legitimate places you can't drive. So in many ways that this is the driveway to the rest of the acreage. And as Bob would farm this, he would just farm right on through, but it is a restriction. And so that is really the driveway that gets you to the land to the north. This whole zoning is RM16, and Hans will confirm that a residence is a okay use in the RM16. And there is no other place, if you look at the map provided by Surveyor Dave Reesop, right in the middle of that front piece, which is kind of lovely too. There's a wet spot that's delineated. There simply is no other place in this whole area other than going through this little neck that was the traditional route and driveway to get to the back. So without this, they really do not have the ability to use, build a house, which is a permitted in the RM 16 zoning. Would you like me to go right down the list of four or the fact that we submitted on that, is that enough? the list of... You have questions.

Yeah, it's always to your advantage if you could summarize your... that you've met the three standards.

Right. The hardship due to unique physical limitations. This little goofy, this little lobe of wetland sticking out there. that is really part of a drainage ditch that no longer is used. All the area to the west now, all that land that used to maybe drain over this hill now drains down a road called Sky Terrace and bypasses this whole area. So it's not like the water that used to come down the hill when Bob started there 40, 50 years ago. So without this variance, we are not going to be able to get to the very lovely building spot that Dan and Sandy would like to build on. So that's a definite hardship. There's certainly no harm to the public interest. This is a transitional area immediately adjacent to this lot is numerous homes in the Deer Ridge subdivision that was started in 1976 but fully developed in 1993. There doesn't really seem to be anything wrong with this as a good idea as we look at land and places to build from Dan and Sandy's point of view. Dan's been a lifelong resident of the area. Their children are there. Grandmother would like to really be able to have the kids come on over after school. There is a very nice route through the village to the north, and then they would simply walk on down, and it would be kind of cool, and there's other ways to get there, but it's just a nice family thing, and this is a family operation.

Okay. Let's see here. Should we give everyone else opportunity to participate before we ask questions or stop and ask questions of Mr. Dinkle? What's your preference? Anybody?

We were just going to say that, like David said, that it'd be nice for our family. Yeah. Our two girls live in Deerfield.

Yeah.

And our five grandchildren, of course, three and two there. And we're just hoping to be in Deerfield, you know, and so they can either walk over, ride their bikes, or take the school bus and, you know, be a nice little area for us. And we definitely respect the area, you know, as far as driveway and the house. And, you know, we're not going to make anything... I guess what it's getting at is it would be a beautiful area to be in, and we would very much just love to be there and respect the wetlands around us.

Yeah. So you then feel Mr. Dinkle summarized your meeting the standards?

Yeah, he knows the area very well.

Okay.

One question. How much of this driveway, in terms of feet or whatever, is estimated to not be in compliance?

Well, figuring 12 foot wide driveway, it could be 200 feet, maybe 150 feet, 150 feet. Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's a substantial area.

I think David Resop had it estimated at 2,000 and some square feet, so probably between 150 and 200 feet long. Just a pretty small portion. Yeah.

The math works out to 241 feet, but that would assume a straight line. It just happens to be where the driveway needs to curve around the lobe, so it's kind of a geometric shape as opposed to a straight line.

You guys have this sheet, right? I'm sure it's just this part here that's... Yeah, the shaded part. The shaded part.

Did anyone else have anything else they wanted to... State?

Yeah, well, this would be our dream home. We want to live there for the rest of our lives. That's our goal, you know, and then pass it on to our children and be in Deerfield again.

Okay. There aren't other access points to that property.

There's a ditch on the east side, which is wetland, so you'd be going through that. And if you were at the site visit, you saw how there's a wooded hillside, and all of those are somebody else's back lots, backs of their lots. Dan and Sandy, therefore, are owners of that 240-acre home farm with all of its good, wonderful land. They can go out and build where they want to on that land, but they don't want to, that's the home farm. You know how that is.

So is there anything else anybody needs to say?

No, I would just hope that you look on it favorably. I grew up on the home farm and own this since 1984. Always farmed straight through it, even though it's classified as wetlands. I mean, believe me, when we used to run 1,600, 1,700 acres and do another 500 acres of custom ground, a lot of that being marshland, I can assure you that I'm used to getting stuck. And I have never been stuck on this field. I mean, it is what it is. I know it's classified as wetlands, but it is. It's just a poorer piece of ground. You can tell it's a poorer piece of ground because when you guys came out there for the site visit, you seen it was all grass and natural grasses and stuff. That's because that land is in CRP. It's just a good thing to put your poorer ground in the CRP. So I would just hope that we can get around this driveway issue. We will certainly respect the wetlands. And, well, me as a farmer all my life, I always respected the land. So I guess that's all I have to say regardless of that.

Then let's open it up for questions for any of the applicants. Sue, George, Arlen.

Applicants? Of the applicants? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, I guess I have a couple of questions. One, this driveway... Where, what is the elevation of it in relation to the maximum flood elevation?

Well, significantly above us, it would be, it's on a little bit of a slope parts of it. So you have to level that on out, otherwise you're driving like that. And so it's, it's totally out. We are also assuming that the flood study is incorrect and And if this all goes with the variance, they will have a flood study done to whatever limit. Some of them run $20,000 to do a flood study in that area. This is a very interesting area in that when the water comes out of the village of Deerfield, that flow of water either goes due east or goes south there's actually a formed weir in the bottom of that flow way it's the damnedest thing so the water coming out goes this way and this way depending i don't get it either okay well you're trying you're getting somewhat to the point of my question uh stuff runs downhill

So you're saying that the water is coming out of the village to the west across this property?

The village is to the north. There's a drain line that handles a very large area. There is a major detention basin up there as part of the... development i did in the 90s and so there's a weir and a great big detention pond it flows there under a street and comes into the north side of this property it's not on the map and then that water flow breaks west or goes south or east or goes south through the dug drainage

drainage channel this is not a natural stream this is all just ditched out kind of thing okay i'm seeing on your plan or on the plan that there's a what appears to be detention yeah on here yep that runs through here yep We're here. Is water also running this way?

That's down the hill. Across the property. Yeah, that would be whatever's on the hillside, but most of that water goes down Sky Terrace, which is a north-south street way up the hill, if that shows there.

Okay, it says Simpson here. Does Simpson turn into... That's Sky Terrace?

Yes. Yes. Simpsons becomes Sky Terrace. Okay. And all those houses on Sky Terrace, that is a township subdivision.

So is that a... Trying to get my bearings there. Is that a natural feature, sort of a ridge that runs along there? The houses are up above?

Yes. On top? Yes, yes. And then... Tomb through 250, 300 feet. in going up the hill, and then there's the north-south road that handles all that drainage from that whole larger area.

I don't know if you'd call it a fence line, but it's more than a fence line between the houses and the property, right? It's just a bunch of trees. Yeah.

It's a 40-year-old, 50-year-old forest, basically. Yeah, it's a bit of a buffer compared to, say, a street fence line. Yes. And Mr. K, is it? Hi. Hi. The floodway is shown by the surveyor on the map. It's got X's. It's showing the floodway. The floodway is shown on that area.

That's that dashed line that surrounds the house, crosses the driveway, goes on the backside, then crosses again.

No, the dashed line is the 75-foot buffer from the wetlands. The floodway has the X's in it. So no, nothing will be built in the floodway. And this is the flood elevation.

That's the one on the blue line is the floodplain elevation.

Okay, so it's well-

And on the other map, it's shown in color. So nothing will be in the floodway, nothing will be in the wetland.

Okay, back to the original question, which was how the elevation of the driveway in relationship to the floodway elevation, how much lower than that floodway is the driveway, proposed driveway? Okay.

The culvert invert is 847. The floodway is 855? 854.8. 855. What is it?

854.8. 854.8.

The road center is 855.1. We've never had water go over that road in ever, not even in 08, not even close. So that's what we're thinking, the invert and the ordinary high watermark. And unless you're in a real active flood condition, because on the south side of London Road, there's a drop off there and it goes into a major area. That ordinary high water mark is 847.6. You can see where it's written in there. It's just slightly above the culvert. The culvert keeps itself clean, dry. Again, nothing in the floodplain, nothing in the wetland other than in the buffer zone. or the wetland.

Did that answer your question, Arlen? Yes. Okay. Sue, anything?

No, I'm just... You said the town of Deerfield has approved this?

Correct.

And they didn't add any conditions or anything like that? No. Okay.

They also... were in favor of the transfer of development, right, and rezoning took place last night.

George, any questions?

Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand the map. So the part of the driveway that's closest to the wetlands, It looks to me that the one corner is almost on the property line. How close to that does the driveway get to the property line at that rod 854.97 feet?

It could go right up to it, but we've asked instead of 48 foot being the close point, we thought it would be nice and save a few trees in there if we were to receive permission from you folks to To be within 40 feet of the wetland in that little critical spot. Again, then you'd be eight feet.

Roughly eight feet from the property line there.

Yeah, we wouldn't have to try and build a driveway perfectly. You'd have a little area there and a more gentle curve, but.

We'll do what we need. I also want to make sure. So the elevation at that rod at the corner of the property is 854.97 feet, and the FEMA zone is 854.8. Is that right? Yes. Okay.

I don't have any other questions.

Okay.

Okay. One comment, please. This wetland was done by Scott Taylor, who is a DNR assured delineator. That means he's really good. And he sent over a letter. I don't know whether all you guys get everything, but saying how it was never a high quality wetland. And we aren't, other than that little lobe sticking out, we would have no problems. It's a really small area that is the issue.

Anything, George, any question on that aspect? No. Okay. Sue or Arlen? Okay. Thank you for that. And now we'll see what the zoning administrator or the, which title should we use, Hans?

Yeah, you can use interim zoning administrator. In reviewing this, it's been approved as a buildable site for a residence supported by both the town and the county. This does appear to be the, the sticking issue of accessing the buildable portion of the lot. There's nothing closer to London Road that could be developed that would be less of an impact on the wetland or the floodplain. So accessing this higher ground in the rear of the property seems to be the only developable space. And if it's a matter of the amount of relief they're requesting to be able to develop and use this property in that fashion. I think that this is the minimal amount of relief. Could they reach out to the owners of the subdivision and try to encroach into their rear yards with either an easement or or purchase a property to move this driveway further out, yes. But in viewing the site, I think those trees are probably holding just as much water as this wetland is in this site. And I did receive reports from the wetland delineator, saw the wetland quality for myself. This is predominantly reed canary grass and is not much of a resource to protect.

Okay. Any questions for Hans?

I will just also point out one thing that what we have submitted here regarding elevations for the driveway are not a full-out design plan based on the elevations. They would have the options to study the, restudy the floodplain elevation, and if they show that the driveway is actually outside of the floodplain, then they could keep it at grade, basically. If they don't show that, there'll be a floodplain development permit required and fill associated with that. But that is all permitted by right, as long as you go through the administrative methods to get there and the applicants prepared to do that work. It wouldn't make sense to put that amount of engineering into a driveway that you don't know if you're going to be allowed to construct it at this point. So the primary focus here is the wetland setback as opposed to the elevation of the driveway, which may change based on a detailed study of the floodplain.

Okay. George, I mean, Sue or Arlen, any questions for Hans? Okay. So that, are there any interested parties?

Okay. I guess I do too have a question. They're showing their plan is 48 feet, their roadway is 48 feet from the wetland. They're asking to shift that eight feet to get further away from the property line. Do you find that an issue in this case?

Typically it would be, but the reason, typically it would be an issue to put a driveway right on a property line because we have topography ordinances that require you to maintain that elevation. However, there's an exemption when required to comply with floodplain development standards that we don't enforce that. So if they leave it very close to the property line within five feet, say, and because of flood compliance have to elevate it, that would be acceptable. we would typically encourage people to move driveways at least five feet away to be able to comply with the topography ordinance. Given this particular site, since the properties to the west are so much or elevated and all of the drainage is, this property isn't sending its water to up the hill, no matter what. It really isn't much of a concern regarding the topography ordinance.

Okay, but I'm looking at their request that they're asking for moving it eight feet closer to the, in other words, giving an eight-foot buffer at the property that satisfies one of your standards or requirements. Do you have a problem with them meeting closer to the wetland?

The minimum amount of relief is something that the Board of Adjustment gets to define. When I look at this, and we're dealing with a rounded lobe of wetland, and we have one dimension of 48 feet at the closest point, Once you start moving away from that point, you start getting away from that. I'm not sure in this situation that eight feet, once you start rounding, is going to impact the wetland any more than 48 feet versus 40 feet.

Okay.

Answer your question.

I do have a question. In a roundabout way. George?

Well, I didn't want to interrupt Arlan. Is he done? Yep, you're done. Okay. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding the scope of the variance grant, if we grant it. It's relief from the wetland setback. And in the map, it shows it in a particular place. Are we... By granting that relief now, would we allow them to move the house closer also as long as they stay within 40 feet? Or is it subject to the plans they're submitting that it's only that part where we would grant relief?

The specific request is for the driveway. So that is the only structure that would be permitted. And I think you could clarify that in a motion that it's particular to that northern lobe.

Thank you. That's all I have. Anything, Sue? Anything more, Arlen? Nope. Okay. Let's see. Do we have any interested parties or others that would need an opportunity to participate? There are still no other attendees. Okay. Scratch that. Okay. So that gives the applicant an opportunity for a three-minute rebuttal if they so choose, and I guess that would be in order if they wanted to summarize things or whatever. Or not. I mean, you...

I think George made a good point. You know, it's only for this section of the driveway. Yeah. We're looking to relief. Nothing to do with the house.

Yeah.

Anything to do with that because it's on a ridge. And yes, we have no... No, yes. No idea of getting any closer. No plans of getting any closer. We weren't, it wouldn't even work out better. So it's just the one section.

Okay. With that, I'll call the hearing closed and open it up for board discussion or deliberation. What's your pleasure? Go for it.

Should we get the dice out and I go first? I think we're dueling as to who's going to have a word here. I'm finding that this is an interesting situation. I was at first looking at why just can't we get a driveway somewhere from the north off of one of the Deerfield streets. And I see it, the only access there is down the drainage way. So that kind of mucks up that access from the north and not requiring relief. And take that this has been a field road, traditional field road for some time. If that, from the people that were there for the site inspection, would you confirm that that has been a field road for some time?

Well, it's their access.

It's their access. Did it show?

I don't know how else you could get back there other than through there.

Wasn't it? Didn't appear to be a constructed field road, but it was.

It was there. So this is a traditional field road route for.

Yeah, if we had to get machinery back there or anything.

For some time.

Yeah, that's where we went.

Arlen, I would say that when I saw it, it looked like enough of a road that I was tempted to drive on it. Tempted, but did not. rather than walk all the way back.

I think that's what I was kind of looking for. Confirmation other than the outside. Yeah, sure. An outside expert. All right. If I would be amenable for supporting relief limited to the 40-foot setback, as requested limited that part uh limited for that portion of the driveway so only for the driveway to allow the driveway yeah constructed there and to give some buffer to the rear pro or the western property line all right is that A motion?

Yeah.

Is that a motion? Sure. Sure. Let's make it a motion.

All right. Is that, that gets us there, Hans?

Yeah, I mean, that's as requested, so I think that's appropriate.

Zoning setback, the 40-foot setback, that's a 35-foot variance. from the designated wetland for this section of the driveway only. Gotta be careful if you're making a motion or not. Did you clean up the English? Sure. Okay, glad to hear it.

Pay to grant 35 feet of relief from the northern lobe of wetland for proposed driveway as requested.

That do it, Arlen?

That does it.

All right, your rationale for that?

The rationale, I believe, that this has been a traditional process field road driveway access for the farm for a long time established there. I'm not seeing that this is a buildable lot and I'm not seeing any other access. And I was trying to see access from other areas locations from the village or the adjacent subdivision and not seeing it, not seeing an alternative.

So that satisfies you?

Yes.

Okay. Sue or George?

I can support the motion to grant the relief. I think for all of the reasons that have been given, including those by the acting zoning administrator that, in his opinion, this is minimal relief. It appears to be minimal relief to allow access to this buildable lot. It has been approved by the town. ZLR has approved the property rezoned to make that a buildable place. As Arlen has said, there's no other visible access that we could come up with that would... be less intrusive and more practical. And there doesn't appear to be any harm to public interest. Yes, David.

Okay.

George? I support the motion. Going through the standards, looking at alternatives that was covered, there really aren't any. I do think that the trees... to the west of the driveway provide a benefit. And the farther you go, trying to go through those trees makes the problem the wetland setback is trying to avoid having happen is actually exacerbated. So I think this is a good alternative. In terms of unnecessary hardship, Without a driveway, they can't build on a lot zone for building. So to me, that's certainly an unnecessary hardship. And the unique physical characteristics of that property are the distributions of the wetland on the property really forced the building site to be up where it is. And those same wetland characteristics mean that there's no driveway that can be built that doesn't get within 100 feet, within 75 feet of the wetland. So the physical characteristics of this property caused the problem that prevent compliance. And I don't think there's any harm to the public from granting this. So for all those reasons, I'm in favor of the motion.

And I would be supporting the motion as well. The unnecessary hardship, they have a site that's been considered appropriate for development as opposed to various other less desirable alternatives. And it requires a minimum amount of relief in order for that to be brought into effect by means of a driveway. And as the zoning administrator has pointed out, there's offsetting concerns if we were to push that back you'd be eating into that that tree line and that serves a number of useful purposes as well and that would seem to be an unfortunate requirement for we to force that to happen the unique property limitations i think george and everyone has has summarized that nicely. And it doesn't seem to be a harm to public interest to allow them to do something that's in keeping with the overall neighborhood, although you wouldn't recognize it given that tree-lined ridge. as being right next to existing development. It rather gives you a feel of seclusion there. So it would be nice to be able to keep that both for this user as well as a buffer for those in those residences up above, which I assume would appreciate that as well. And the minimum relief necessary, I think, speaks for itself. And it doesn't seem to have any other issues like a self-imposed hardship or anything. It seems in keeping with a reasonable thing to want to do with your property, and it requires a small amount of relief. And it seems as though it has met the standards, although I would, and we are, Attach our approval to meeting the standards and not the desires of the applicants, which are understandable. But you have to do more than just express your hopes for it. You have to meet the standards and that has been met as I see it. So I can support the motion. Anything further from us? George, anything more?

Nothing more for me.

All right. Hans, could you repeat the motion?

To grant 35 feet of relief from Northern Lobe of Wetland for proposed driveway as requested.

All right. You've heard the motion. We've discussed it. All in favor of supporting the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. That's four in favor and none to be left opposed. So motion carries.

So you'll have, I don't recall if you'll need a shoreline zoning permit or just a regular zoning permit, but you have one year to get this driveway installed or the variance will expire, so. Well, the next step will be the floodplain development permit. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

For coming out and checking that out for us.

I just want to come up and shake everybody's hand. I really appreciate it. I really do. Thank you.

Us too. I can't tell you. Thank you so much. Our grandkids are already. Yeah, thanks a lot. It does. It does. Thanks for coming. I'll take care of you. Thank you. Enjoy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Enjoy. I can't. You made this girl happy. Wonderful. Can't wait too long. We're just all happy. It would be a good use for that property.

I hope you have an easy build. Best of luck.

We already have a builder.

Good.

Yeah.

This has made me ecstatic here.

Thank you.

I know you guys have got a rough job.

And George too. Thank you.

Have a good night. You too, take care.

Okay, that brings us to...

I'm going to go pop the popcorn. We got a movie to watch.

Oh, that's great. Reports to committee, ethics training video.

I just got to share my screen and we'll get this going. The county board passed an ordinance requiring all boards and committees to do an annual training on ethics and corporation council has prepared a video to fulfill that. So we will switch over to Carlos here in a second. I'll make it as big as possible and might have to adjust the audio here a little bit, but here we go.

It's going to require a lot of discussion. That's not going to work. There we go.

Am I supposed to be hearing something?

We're working on that.

Okay. I didn't know if you were getting it on your end.

Are you hearing anything?

I heard a little bit of, I can hear you guys and I heard him initially with an echo and then you were working on it. Haven't heard anything since.

Do we kill our mics or can we? No, we can't.

Oh.

might have to do this another time yeah oh sure there was a deadline right is there our next meeting would satisfy it we do have a june variance request so and we've got we got to remember the to bring up that um

minutes of the previous.

I will make sure of that.

I should have caught that I wasn't paying attention.

It could potentially work to our advantage come June if everybody's available. There would be at least one more person.

You may have found the issue here. Give this one more try.

... ... ...

I don't think you want to listen with an echo. I don't think we want the echo. No, no. We'll reconvene this ethics training and that would be the ethical thing to do, right? Yes, definitely. In June.

Communication and understanding.

We want to help the public gain confidence, and that would only happen if we can hear it properly.

So work extra hard to behave yourselves until June so we don't run afoul of anything.

Hans, can you give us a cliff note as to what we're not supposed to do?

Yeah.

I'm not going to tackle that one. You're not going to tackle that one.

Is this similar to what we had online? There was a requirement that we...

Probably, yes. It's a lot of... The information that you're going to gain is... Don't take money from people. Don't make decisions that make you money or your family money. You know, pretty common sense issues.

And that has all popped up in the training materials. I mean, the handbook and whatnot as well. So will you be available, George, for June?

Yes. Okay.

Sue?

Just make sure what's... How about our alternates for our own program?

Travis probably will. He had a conflict with a town meeting that he simply had to attend. Plus, he had a connection to this, a business connection. He said it might have jammed up a little.

Okay, so Thursday, June 11th, we have a trip?

Yes. Where is the variance located, Hans?

Uh... Albion, Highway 51. Oh.

Oh, okay. Down south, okay, and then we're... We could pick Al up on the way. And so we're, and the 25th is the Board of Adjustment?

The June 25th is the public hearing. It's our usual fourth Thursday.

All right. Well, as long as that meets the requirement, that sounds like a plan. Anybody object?

Not at all.

All right. Is there anything further? Any other business?

If there is, you're not getting it out of me. All right. Leave this one thing.

Okay. Anybody care to... Move to adjourn. Sue moves to adjourn. Any discussion? None. Hearing none. All in favor of adjournment, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Meeting adjourned.