Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the June 19, 2025 Reno County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. Staff, will you please call the role? Nley here. Strand Schaefer here. Selzer here. Mlin here. Martin here. Gson here. Welcome everyone. I trust you've had a chance to review the packets. In those packets were minutes from the April 17 BCA meeting. Chair will entertain a rule and entertain a motion on those minutes. So a move second been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor of approval of those minutes say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved. To ensure the rights of all parties of interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the board of zoning appeals BZA in order in an orderly manner, the BZA will follow the factf finding procedure which is outlined in the hand on the handout in on each chair. Your attention to this procedure is appreciated. All decisions by the BZA are final. Decisions may be appealed to the district court within 30 days of the decision. If a decision is made tonight, that decision will be based upon the record of information presented to the BCA. I will now formally open the public hearing regarding case number 2025-06. A request by Ross and Selby Richardson for a special exception from the Reno County zoning regulations to construct a 32x 60 ftx 17 ft residential accessory building addition onto an existing 60x 80t residential accessory building and permit a total of 8,000 square ft of accessory buildings. The total square footage of all necess of all accessory buildings exceeds the 5,000 square foot

maximum permitted on a parcel greater than 2.0 acres in this in size. The property is zoned R1 Rural Residential District and located at 7818 North Hendrick Street. Do any of the BZA members have any conflict of interest? No. Do any of the have have any of the BCA members had any outside contacts regarding this case? No. Seeing none, will the applicant please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair. BZA members may request clarification at the end of your presentation or may have some questions. if you Hey, I'm Ross Richardson, 7818 North Hendricks, north of Hutchinson. Um, I don't remember what else I was supposed to address, so I'll just get get down to brass tax here. Just fine. Okay. uh more or less I talked to Mark a couple months ago about timeline of I don't necessarily want to put a addition on now but with steel pricing fluctuating I just want to have my ducks in a row in case I got a big steel price increase that I could just go ahead and order the steel I want for it. So as far as timeline of when I'm going to do it I can't answer that if could be this fall or it could be next summer. I don't know. Um, more or less it's just an addition just to store some equipment in. Uh, not going to really work out of it. It's just for equipment storage. Um, and the other thing is since I built that one, my brother has built him a hobby shop and he built his just a scoch

bigger than mine. So, I've got to add on to mine some bigger than his. Um, that's really the really the gist of it. In the application, it says for a hobby shop. Kind of would you mind you might expand what your what your intentions are for this edition and what you might be doing in your shop. Now, uh, right now, uh, I have a race car and a couple of classics. That's what I do in my free time. I'm a a shade tree mechanic. I don't do it for for uh business. I just do it for pleasure, if you will. Um and but right now also in there, I've got what I call my property maintenance stuff, tractor, rotary cutter, lawn mower, all that stuff. And I'd like to get it out because of the mess it makes. Um so that really That's fine. Any other questions for the Okay, thanks. Yep. I will not hear from the staff. Mark von Aen, county planner. Um, as you heard, this is a request to put an addition onto the building. We originally did a special ex exception for Mr. Isherson back in 2017 to build the initial 60 building and now he's requesting to put an addition on to that. Um, I'd probably note for the record that the Apple is the only person in the audience and so everybody in the room has has reviewed and received my staff report. So, I would probably uh not go through the staff report, but

certainly be available to answer any questions. I do have several pictures of the area just to kind of help you understand where the building's located and what the addition would potentially look like. So, right now, this is the zoning map and he is zone R1. It's a strictly residential area. Across the street is a residential subdivision. As you can see, there's fairly large lots within that that area. and you're at Hendricks and then the crossroad is is 82nd. So you're in the northern part of the county. This is the site plan that was submitted by Mr. Richardson. The area highlighted in blue is the proposed addition. So it's going to be going closer to Hendrick Street. The building right to the east label number one is what the building was that we approved back in 2017. Uh number two uh building labeled there is is a barn and then the number three building there is his house. This would be a picture that was submitted by by the owner here. As you can see the area highlighted in red is approximately where that addition is going to go on the west side of the existing building. Uh, I put together some some slides uh to help you kind of look at the property in general and see what the surrounding area looks like. This is kind of a a large overview. As you can see, the residential subdivision is to the west. Uh, not every lot has a a single family dwelling, but could potentially, you know, in the future on the east side of the road, there are several large large residential lots. a little bit closer view of the area. You can see the building that we approved back in 2017. Uh the existing barn to the south and then further to the south would be the uh single family dwelling and even a little bit closer view of the exist existing building there.

Uh this would be just another view of the property. This is looking actually to the east. So on the bottom of the screen is is Hendrick Street. I did do some uh ground level views taken from from Google Earth. And so this is kind of looking northeast uh at the proposed building addition. What you see in the background right there is the existing barn. And then to the north there would be the the existing building. And then lastly, this was another picture looking south down Hendrick Street, but looking kind of southeast at uh the existing building and where the addition would go. So, with that, uh like I say, uh everybody in the room has received the staff report. Staff has recommended approval of this based off of the three standard conditions that we typically put on these board zoning appeal requests here. He did mention in his testimony that, you know, he's not looking at building the building right away. And I would say to that that we don't typically put timelines on board of zoning appeal approvals. And so if he doesn't build the building for 6 months or a year, if this is approved tonight, the the approval would still be in place and he can still come in and get a zoning permit for that building addition at any time unless this board would choose to put some type of timeline on that. But I don't see the need to do that or anything. So just want to kind of clarify that for the board. So questions for me. Mark, you said if he does it within 6 months or a year, is there a time frame? There is no time frame. So, in other words, it could be two years. It could be two years, it could be 5 years. Uh, it could be never if if he doesn't want to. He just like like he said in his testimony, he just kind of wants to get through this process right now. he'd like to maybe build one, but

if prices change, then he may go ahead and purchase that steel and then he'll have this already in place versus having to wait the 30 to 45 days to see if this board would grant approval of that addition. So, uh, yeah, there's there's no timeline. He could do it next week, next month, next year, 5 years from now, unless this board would choose to put some type of timeline on on that approval. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Mark. Thank you. I mentioned the only only ones in the audience are the applicants. So, we're going to forgo request for I think you know from record there's nobody in the audience of that. Yes. Uh, maybe his daughter thinks it's a bad idea. Is she going to oppose this? Yes. She's more interesting her book. Do you have anything to add? Uh, no. Okay. Uh, staff, you have anything more? I have no further comments. Okay. Does the BCA have any further questions for the applicant or staff? Is your brother in Reno County? Can we anticipate hearing from him? He is, but he's in the city, so he's he's already maxed out on what he can build. You run up here now. He's he's stuck. Oh, okay. Thank you. Unless he moves. Yeah. Well, seeing no other no other further questions, the public hearing is now closed. Acceptance or denial of the special exception must be based on the public hearing record of information and its opinion. As a matter of fact, such

special exception will not have adversely affected affect the uses of adjacent and neighboring properties. This is a time for BZA to discuss the case and ask procedural questions of staff only. Is there any further discussion about the BZA? If not, chair will entertain a motion on this case. I'd move that case number 2025-06 to request by Ross and Selby Richardson for a special exception from the Reno County zoning regulations to permit the total square footage of all accessory buildings on a parcel to exceed 5,000 square foot limit in the R1 rural residential district at 7818 North Hendrick Street be approved allowing a building addition of 32x 60 ft and be constructed onto an existing 60x 80 foot residential building for a total of 8,000 square ft of total accessory building square footage as requested in the application and subject to conditions listed based upon the reasons stated in the staff report and as heard this public hearing. Second move and second. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, staff, please call the role. Nley, yes. Schaefer, yes. Seltzer, yes. Mlin, yes. Martin, yes. And Gson, yes. Motion carries. All right. Thanks for going through the process. We appreciate that. Actually, my third time going through it, though. Okay. Season veteran. Appreciate it, though. Is there any other further business that needs to go before the BZA? I do not have any. Okay.

Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn the BZA. So move that been moved and seconded. Did you catch who moved a new seconded there? Martin and then Mlin. Good. Yep. Yep. that we adjourn this this session of the BCA. All in favor say I. Oppose. Same sign. BZA is adjourned. Okay. We got We got softball practice to go to the next Okay, let's go. We'll call to order the June 19 session of the Reno County Reno County Planning Commission. Staff, will you please call the role? Nisley here, Strand. Schaefer here, Zeltzer here, Mlin here, Martin here, Gson here. Welcome everyone. We have uh got before us, I think Mark, you might want to I'll I'll let you fill in the blanks. We've got before us the the clean copy of the draft of the text amendments. Sure. Before we do that, can we do the minutes? Yes, we can. Sorry, I'm getting I'm I'm want we got so fast it got me all flustered. All right, let's go backwards a step or two. Uh minutes from our May 15 meeting. The trust you'll had a chance to review it. Chair will entertain a role. I move to approve as submitted. Second. Been moved and seconded. Any discussion on that? Seeing none. All in favor of approving May 15 minutes of the Ren County Planning Commission say I. Oppose. Same

sign. Okay. Minutes approved. Now let's go. All right. Pin our ears back and run. Right. I'd be happy to discuss. Help us out. So, as we left last month's meeting, I believe this board just requested from me a clean copy of the proposed text amendments that we've been discussing for the last several months. And so, in your packet, uh, I provide you that clean copy. I'll I'll discuss a few little adjustments here. You got an extra sheet in article 13 that I'll I'll discuss uh here shortly to kind of give you an idea of what we're doing. But I think essentially what I heard from the board last meeting, there were a couple minor little changes here. One of them was by Mr. Strand who wanted to have uh in every single zoning district uh the sentence that said like all uses including commercial and industrial require a conditional use permit. That way that kind of helps clarify everybody that's looking at the regulations that if you want to do something commercial or industrial in the residential zoning districts, you got to get a conditional use permit. For whatever reason, it was found, I think, in the R3 zoning district, but it wasn't put in the in the other zoning district. So, G wanted to have that included. So, I did include that change. I didn't highlight it yellow because everybody would wanted the clean copy. So, that was the one change. Uh, and I believe the other change was by Mr. seltzer here where I think he wanted to have the low density quote unquote terminology removed from some of the zoning districts and so I went through and I removed that term from there talking about low density residential because I know we had a discussion last month on it yeah there's no definition of low density what does that mean it really doesn't add a lot of value to the regulations and so without a definition I think it was it was a

good a good catch to have that go ahead and be removed So that was the two changes that that I heard from last month I believe unless you correct me differently. Um I want to go through a couple other little notes that I had here. Um nothing really major, anything like that. But in um article five under the R3 zoning district under number five, uh the word minimum isn't underlined where it says minimum lot size dimensions. So um I'm going to underline that in the updated clean copy. You see the word minimum isn't isn't underlined. Then one thing I would want to again stress to the board that with the changes in the setbacks uh the R3 and the village zoning district will have an increase of just two foot on the sideyard setback. All the other setback requirements will be reduced accordingly to match the other zoning districts but it will actually be a twoft increase. That way every every zoning district will have a 10-ft side and rear yard set back and every zoning district will have a 20 foot um front yard or street street setback. So, but just want to make sure that you're aware that uh that is a twoft increase in what we have right now. But conversely, now it'll all be uniform across every single zoning district. going through um article 13. I did have a couple things that I want to discuss with the board here. The first one has to do uh with the category minimum lot dimensions and feet at the top of there.

And you'll see there street width and depth. Uh question to the board for discussion is should that say street or should it say road instead? street, road, boulevard, lane, avenue. They're all the same term in the definition section. If you want to get right down to it, the county really has more roads than streets. I mean, you got Hendrick Street, but every other type of named road out there is actually named road. And so, I discussed it with Dawn this afternoon a little bit, and we felt like maybe the term should be changed to road just because we have more roads than streets. Streets are usually associated with city. Can you say roadway or roadway generic term or road rightway? Road right away or road right away gives a different different definition of width of the road rather than width of the parcel or the road frontage. I'm afraid it's just something I caught later. I thought, well, we have more road designations in the county than we do street designations. Even though the term is there and put an asterisk down say reference the street also reference definitions, roads, streets, boulevards, whatever. You know, I do that. I was going to say, no, that's in the definitions, right? It's in the definitions. If you go back street is that street avenue. Yeah. If you go back to the first page, it's all the same thing. I think it was just kind of like I I don't know if it's a big deal or not. I It's just something I caught that I thought maybe it should be road. When you deal with the county, you call it road. It's been street for how long? 2016. Like whatever you and Don agree on, we are I mean, it's not a huge deal one way or

the other. It's just that maybe should be should be called road instead because usually if we're doing a new subdivision, you know, we're going to call it such and such road is not necessarily be called street, but we do have street designations. Well, now yeah, you want to talk about says street width. I mean, we're talking about the actual width of the street in front of the property. No, because at the top you're talking about the uh lot dimensions and stuff. Yes. So frontage be a better word. Road frontage. Road frontage instead of street width. What would you say frontage? And road frontage. Yeah, I think that makes more sense to me. Yeah, that it'll throw off your table. Yeah, it will. I don't know. It's going to expand that. It might might mess it up. It'll all be your smaller print in that one column. There you go. Well, that leads me to the second one. I don't nobody mentioned it, but I noticed it that the letters A A through D I think uh below there if you look they were at a different size than what the rest of the um the page was at. So I did change that. It's not now on your copy because that's correct. But the one previous one was at an 11, the other one was at a 12. So I I changed that. Mark, good catch. Try try and keep it all uniform if I can. The the last discussion item here on this page has to do with the letter E and we hadn't discussed this at all as a board but I had it in my notes that I wanted to further clarify and it has to do with the sentence uh second line at the end that starts uh a state highway or county roadway and I misspelled the word adjacent. I see here.

Um, what this is talking about is situations where you have a parcel of ground that is adjacent to a state highway that has no access. So, we'd be talking about K61, at least north of town, um, K96. If any point in time that there's no access allowed, whether it's through Kadon or it's even through our regulations, you know, cuz sometimes in subdivisions, we'll put access control along the section line road where somebody can't put a driveway along that road. They have to access their property off of the subdivision road. What this is trying to say is that you cannot use the state highway or the access control portion of the road as your frontage requirement. So for example, you may have 8 or 900 ft of frontage along a state highway but only 30 feet 40t whatever of frontage along the county road. So therefore you cannot use the state highway frontage as the ability to be able to split the parcel. So if the if the property border one side it borders a controlled roadway so to speak then that side is not eligible to be content. Okay. And then okay bring up another issue there where if we're going to change street width road frontage probably need to change it in E also. Yes. Yeah. Okay, it's in there twice. Yep. Yep. Okay. And make sure I spell everything correctly. Huh? That helps. Okay. I'll try and do that, too. I'll try and do that for the public

hearing, but double check. We got another opportunity at that time. So, uh, yeah. So, that's what group it's in there three times actually. Oh, street width. Yep, I see it. Okay. Now, are there any scenarios in the county where there's a parcel that only has restricted or restricted access road front? Not only I mean they they would have uh restricted access on the section line road, but they would have access to the parcel off of a subdivision street, but there's not there anything like where the fourlane was put through north of town or south of town where Yeah. where it created an island or No, because during that KOT fixed that to where Yeah. that made sure that everybody still had access to a road. Uh but saying that that's where this uh idea first came up was when they built the new highway north of town. Some property owners were concerned because all of a sudden 61 highways going through no access off of that. It left them with a minimal amount of frontage along the county road. And so they were concerned about their parallel being labeled as like non-conforming and being able to be rebuilt should a fire, tornado, what have you, flood occur. And I told those people absolutely not. I mean, the parcel was made that way by an act of Kad. And so we're not going to punish you and say no, you can't build anymore. But but that doesn't mean that that person can now all of a sudden because they have 1,000 ft or 500 feet of frontage on the highway be able to go ahead and subdivide their their partial because remember we're doing away with the width width the depth and all that. And so all we're going to say you got to have 200 ft 150 ft 100 foot of front edge and so oh well I've got front edge along K dot and I've got 50 ft of

frontage along 56. So now I can split that and now I got another buildable parcel that can use 25 ft of frontage along 56 43rd or whatever. You need to expand your note on E to indicate that road frontage does not include roads with restricted access. Something like that that's what this does. Well, that's I mean that that's not what I'm reading it, but uh on E where it says a state highway, county roadway adjacent to a subdivision law. Oh. Oh, I'm looking at the old one. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Got the old one. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, grab the new one. Yeah, grab the new one with the misspelled word. Yeah. Okay. I couldn't see the misspelled word. All right. Okay. You got Street Worth in there four times in the middle then. Yeah. I'll run through. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Think makes sense. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We read the right one. It looks good. There you go. Wonder why we have That's all right. This was something that I think I caught late last week, so I thought, well, I'll just share with the board tonight. Um, so I'll make that change. Um, with article 14, we eliminated a couple of sections including the, uh, so-called break that you would get if you were on a corner lot, but other than that, I didn't have any changes, I don't believe, from the board. Same thing with the lot splits and boundary shifts in the subdivision regulations. And so, I don't believe the board had any additional changes for me in that article. So, I got one question on that though. You know where we've talked about I know it's not covered by this part of the regulations that people who have already gone through an existing egg lot and because of the change in this regulation, you know, if they were dealing with the 7 acre limitation previously and they did a lot limited to that but they wanted to do more. We talked about the ability now they could go back and do what we call a boundary adjustment to enlarge that 7 acre tract to whatever they wanted to do as long as it was left one one parcel less than 3 acres or more as long as they're not creating a third parcel that's buildable. Right. But how do we communicate that that that option exists to the public? So I mean we we've had these a lot you only do one and you're limited to seven acres. Everybody grumbles and groans that's all I can do.

That's what I do. You know and then they've done either illegal things or creative things to try to get around it. Now we have an option that they legally go in and fix this. But how do we communicate that? How do we make an an illegal non-conforming three acres that made the 10? How do we make that legal and conforming? Well, how do you make it legal or how do you communicate it? Well, there there's actually two questions in that. How do how do we communicate that? So we have that's the main question to make it I can answer the the I can answer yours chairman is to make it legal you you apply for a boundary adjustment. Okay. And and I'll sign off on that and it's done and then it's legal. Okay. Communication is is a harder question. I I I guess I mean um if you're looking to talk to people that have done an egg split, but they didn't do the split. They were they were limited to like seven acres or 10 acres. They did a a deed for seven acres and they did a deed for five more to make the hilly whatever third track that they really narrow to the other guy or they entered into a lease agreement for the remaining on ground saying well hopefully the county will fix this one day and you know now that day is here they were going to get it fixed but how do we let them know that gee this can be done I mean it's going to be hard to communicate that because I'm not going to know is unless because I would have to go back in my records and research. Okay. Where would it first come to my suspicion? What I'm wondering is is there any way to work something like that into these egg lots split regulations to indicate that you know

agricultural lot splits performed under previous regulations with three or seven or 10 acre limitations are eligible for a one-time time boundary adjustment to increase that split parcel to you know whatever size they want within the regulations. You follow what I'm saying? Yeah, I know what you're saying. I'm just I got concerns with one time. Well, that's what we talked about though. Well, hear me out a little bit because can you do I mean because you can do like if you wanted 10 acres and you can only do seven. So you can do a boundary adjustment to get it to 10. You do a three acre. But but that person if all of a sudden now they want another 10 they can do another boundary adjustment. So so so saying a one time boundary adjustment. That was my misunderstand. Yeah. Well that's fine. I just want to make sure. Yeah. You understand what we're saying. Yeah. I I follow you. And so, you only wind up with the two tracks in that 48. Yeah. As long as you don't end up with more than two buildable tracks, then you can do potentially as many boundary adjustments as you want. As long as one is at least three acres. Yeah. As long as all the parcels within that 40, you know, don't create a third track that's buildable. Yeah. So yeah. Yeah, cuz we don't really have a a minimum except for the three. We have the threeacre minimum. So I guess that's what I'm saying. Is there any way we could put a provision in this article three? I guess to let people know that option exists. You know, anybody's reading reading the

stuff on angle lockins. Oh, well geez. you know, I mean I mean that's the only way I can think of other than you you sending out a public public release. Yeah. Well, that's why I mean that's going to be tough to try and communicate that because number one, I'm not going to know every single person that did what you're saying. And so it'd be more about them approaching me and saying, "Hey, I have this now. Can I fix this some way?" Or Yeah. Or if it's vacant land now, they want a permit. and I looked and I've got a a 10 or 15 acre parcels on a and I'm going to question, well, how did that get created? Because my my information says it was created after 2016. So now I got to do research. I'll look say, oh no, I approved a 7 acre split and now it says it's 16 acres. So how did that happen? Now we got to fix it through the boundary adjustment process, right? And and do I understand that boundary adjustments you you authorize them? Yes. We don't it doesn't have to go before a point. It doesn't go before the board, right? Yep. I That's something to me like if if somebody has a condition they would like to do and they they deal directly with you and do it. Yeah. And we don't need to publish to the world that you can do this. Yeah. I mean, I know there were people that did lot splits that were locked into the smaller parcels and wanted to do more. Mhm. And so, how do we let them know that that option is now available? The the list that I have of those people that kind of that talked to me were was very short. And I in fact, if these if these pass, I'll get on the phone with them and say, "Hey, don't know if you're still interested." Talk to Mark. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that's so I think

that communication that that I mean we there's no way of knowing the whatifs of the ones that happened that did not contact us. Right. Right. So I I don't know. I think it's a matter of Yeah. If if you know people and I'm sure people on this board have been contacted by people uh it's it's a fairly fairly simple you know fix. I mean, uh, you know, if they did something like that, it's just submit a boundary adjustment application. It's a $25, uh, you know, review fee by by me to add that additional acreage legally at that point in time. Review time for me is, you know, 3 days or less. Typically, that require a new survey or something. It would require or well, it may or may not require a survey. if they did a survey of the 10 acres, you know, which I which is going to have to happen, you know, because if they want to create a 7 acre legal parcel and a 3 acre nonconforming parcel, it's got to be surveyed anyway. So, the survey is already available from the surveyor. So, it's just a matter of calling your surveyor, going back out and submitting that document to me with a battery adjustment application. I'll review it. everything is still conforming with our minimum requirements for the a district and then it's back to a legal legal status at that point. But like Russ said, I think you're talking about I mean that I know of. You know, I know there's some out there myself. I've seen them, but you're probably looking at maybe 10 or less potentially that we know of that we know of. The rest of them, yeah, don't get caught when they try to I don't want to give a lz fair attitude, but the rest of them we could if we bump into them over time, we could say, "Hey, we got a fix. We got a fix for that." Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's satisfactory. Maybe. I guess.

I guess. It's all It's all up to you. It's all up to me. It's all up to you. Thanks. We'll put you on the EW morning show or something. Mark Jacobs will be visiting with you soon. So, anything else board you see that we do and and mind you, you know that we can still make changes to this document. You know, we still have to go through a public hearing process where you can still review that, take testimony, you know, here and you can look at this all over again. If you still have changes, we can still make changes to this document, you know. So this isn't like your last time to make any kind of change to this if you see something else that that pops up. Okay. So to recap the changes we've discussed we're underlining the word minimum or whatever it was. Yeah, I caught that. Yeah. Yeah. And then the changes we just discussed on article 13, changing street west to road frontage column heading and then that down in item E the four times. Yes. Those are the changes I think that I know that we and removing that word low density that you requested last year. Yeah. So that's not in this. Yeah. I'm saying the the changes the draft we have. Oh the draft. Yeah. Yeah. So, just think of rules of order. Do we need to vote on this draft in order to move forward or do we just need to determine a time, date, and a place for for a public hearing? Um, do we need to approve this for publication or hearing? Yeah. Why would you do that? Yeah. Okay. You want to do that by vote? Yes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Chair, Mr. will entertain a motion on the text amendments in in the in the articles presented. Mr. Chairman, I move

that we adopt and put put out for hearing the proposed changes to articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 14. regarding article three of the subdivisions and article three of subdivisions regarding the setbacks and lot splits. That's a big mark. Yes. You can however you want. Okay. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the on the motion? And and the motion is to publish this so it can be used for the public hearing. For a hearing it approve it for a hearing. Yeah. Approve it for a potential hearing. Approve the and we'll discuss that next and that includes all of these documents as is plus the changes we changes we just talked about. Yeah. Very few changes. Okay. Been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Seeing none, staff, please call the role. Nisley, yes. Schaefer, yes. Yes. Mlin, yes. Martin, yes. And Gson, yes. Okay. So then you approve the document. So then uh the next thing would be to set a public hearing date. And I can tell you that because of the timing of our third Thursday meeting in July and what I need to do to be able to get this uh legal. Uh we cannot do it in

July. So the earliest you can do would be August 21st because if you don't know I have to send notice of the public hearing to all the cities that are affected by it and all the townships that are affected by this. So um the western part of the county, those townships and those cities, they're not going to get a notice of this because this doesn't affect the unzoned area of the county. This is only for the zoned area. So I have to send notices to all those cities in the east and all the townships in the eastern part of the county has to be published 20 days in advance. And you know we only publish legal notices on Friday because that's when the paper is published. And so there's a lot of lot of back work that I have to do before we can get this as a as a legal public hearing. And so the earliest you can do it would be August 21st. And so my suggestion is if you're good with that date is to, you know, make a motion to set the public hearing date for August 21st, 2025, uh, at 4:30 p.m. at this facility here. If you want to go later, you can certainly go later if you want to. What's your anticipated case load for that month? Uh, I don't have anything right now scheduled for for August. Okay. So, if we schedule this, will you schedule any other any other public hearings? Um, I'd like to not, but I was just go that was the track I was going on. Yeah, I'd like to not. It's it's a little early to to determine my case load for for August because that deadline won't happen until July the 5th, July 4th, somewhere in there. So, we're about a week. You don't see anything you don't see anything looming? Um, not uh I've got one that's pending right now potentially, but um I don't I don't think so. Okay. I've got one

time. I don't know if it' be a big either. Yeah, big big one or not. A big um hearing date. I'm not sure, but um I'll look at it and I'll see. We could potentially have one uh one vacation case which we could run through and then do this. Yeah. Nope. I'm just I was just kind of curious. Yeah. Yeah. We don't we don't have like u you know a big big development of any kind or anything like that going on. No BCA stuff on there. No BCA stuff. Yeah. There's no BZA. Okay. Chair will entertain a motion on date, time, and place of the public hearings for the text amendments. I move that uh we set the date for the public hearing on the text amendments at hand for August 21st, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. at Reno County Public Works. Second motion. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Staff, you please call the role. Nisley, yes. Schaefer, yes. Seltzer, yes. Mlin, yes. Martin, yes. Girtson, yes. Yay. I'll make the changes and I will try and get that to the board sooner rather than later so you can have some time to review the the public hearing documents and we'll get those documents uh probably have the highlighted ones. We'll get those um also on the website along with the public hearing notice and so we can get this out to the public so they can have a chance to review that and ask any questions or submit comments you on that. Awesome. And then they'll follow the name normal procedure. If we

get any written comments, I'll certainly submit those to this board for review before the public hearing date. the timing. If we hold the hearing and we we approve this after the hearing at the same date could too as I understand then it would go to the county commission what the two weeks or what uh that's it's going to depend on if there are changes that are made assume there are no changes assume no changes Uh, it it could potentially [Music] potentially could go to the commissioners on September the 10th. If not, it would definitely go to uh go to them on September the 24th. I've been advising some people that are wanting to do some projects here that potentially September the 24th. Uh after that, you know, it has to be again published in the paper of the resolution and then I have to obviously make all the changes official and everything. Uh but after the county commissioners would potentially adopt this, then whatever they would want to do, I could approve based off of whatever regulations are adopted by them. So, so we have we let's just say we we might we want to sleep on it. Just I'm just putting a scenario together. Our meeting is the 18th of September. Could we still have it on the on the agenda, the county commission agenda for approval on the 24th? This. Yes. Uh yes. Okay. I I don't want to I don't want to push it like that, but I'm just if we if it's either if we or if we win just in case we make we make changes and table and and want to

table it and then make a decision on the on the 18th of September, can we still be on the 24th agenda for the commission? I would say no at that point unless unless we would get special permission say from administration. uh cuz their deadline is their deadline to get stuff on is probably going to be the 17th. It's at least a week before at noon. So that's that's always the issue with conditional use permits is why I can't get it on the first Wednesday. Almost always has to go to the second the fourth Wednesday, you know, because because of the fact that they have their they have their own deadlines just like I have my deadlines. I I if they Okay. I don't anticipate it. No, I don't either. But if we do, but if we all sudden do, we could hold a special meeting somewhere in there. Yeah, if we if we had to. I I truly am just I'm I'm looking at the worst case scenario just just so we can plan. I would maybe like that scenario better rather than trying to squeeze it. Yeah. You know, I do just hold a quick special meeting something if needed. Yep. If needed, something like that. What do we have in the the wings after we get this done? We have uh oh, as far as other text amendments, yeah, we have a whole litany of of text amendments. Uh I know this board, you know, discussed couple years, maybe three years ago. Uh we put together a spreadsheet of amendments that this board wanted us to work on and one of them was solar. So that that we cross that one off. This is a big one. Um, yeah, I'd have to look at my list that this board developed first because I want to check a lot of those off. I know we talked a while about about manufactured homes and kind of clarifying some of those rules. That was something that was on on our list um to do. But, um, yeah, I I've got I've got

my own separate spreadsheet uh of things that we want to to try and correct. This was obviously the the biggest one right here. A lot of them are just um cleaning up, clarifying. Uh another big one I think we probably want to tackle at one point in time is home occupations. What is allowed? What is not allowed? What are the what are the rules and ranks for home occupations that don't come to that don't need to come to this board for a conditional use permit? You know, we don't have a lot of home occupation rules and stuff. And you know, um you know, that goes with like daycare centers. um you know at what point in time do we want to have a conditional use permit for a daycare center for example um so there's I have a list I have a list surprised me with that question I can't think off top of my head but yeah sorry yeah I understand we aren't going to be bored well I was afraid God easy easy certainly this board has other priorities next year I don't think so I want to take care of your priorities first you know so if you have things and like Russ said yeah uh you're not going to be um you're not going to be bored. So, and I guess the thing to look at on some of these pending things that we have, you know, if you once you get around to looking at them and are there ways if there some of them are just cleaning stuff up, can we consolidate some of those and make bunch of those changes all at once and just hold one hearing on those instead of having all these separate hearings and stuff? Yeah, that that's one thing. Well, one thing that as I'm sitting here listening to you that comes to mind is I think it's in uh it's in art I think it might be under article 17. It's involving shipping containers. You know uh shipping containers require permit. One one article of the regulations prohibits shipping containers in like R2 and R3

and village. Another section of the regulations permits shipping containers in R2. So there's a conflict right there. So that'd be one minor thing that we would need to clean up. Are we going to allow shipping containers? Are we going to allow multiple shipping containers or none? What are we going to do with that? So that's that's something simple. There's a conflict there in the regulations. Typically, you don't want them in like the village district or R3 because those are lots that are 1 acre or less and build a house out of shipping containers. That's another thing we're starting to get. Then you get a conditional use. I'm starting to get inquiries on on that. I just discussed that yesterday, believe it or not, and what do we want to do? Is that a an acceptable type of of house you to be allowed? So, that's all something to discuss next. So, I'll listen to your thoughts. I I maybe we get to that point, you know, maybe in July, you know, we can see um I'll get you your list again. You can look at that if we want to add to it. I'll get my list and we can see what the next priority of this board is to tackle. Get the list and look and see what we got. Yeah. Yeah. So, all good discussion, but I don't think we voted on the date, place, and time. No, not yet. Or do Yeah, we did. Motion. Yeah, we did. We had a motion and a second, but we did not vote on date, place, and time. Okay. Yeah, you're right. Yeah, I only have two. Yeah, you're right. So, will you please call the role? I will if we're ready. We're ready. Nisley, yes. Schaefer, yes. Seltzer, yes. Mlin, yes. Martin, yes. Gerson, yes. Yeah. My first vote was for the uh minutes. Yep. So, here I do catch, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Is there any other any other business to be brought before this board? I don't have anything.

Seeing none, chair will intertain a role of a motion. So move second. Been moved and second to journ. Any discussion? All favor.