Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mark will be able to shed a little light on those. Those are the that's the fruit of our labors from from this previous year. Also, uh hope you've had a chance to look at your packet. In that packet were the meeting were the minutes from our January 15 meeting. Chair will entertain a motion on those minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move for acceptance of the minutes as submitted. Second. Been moved and seconded. Any any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor of approval of the minutes say I. I. I. Opposed? Same sign.

Minutes are approved. Okay. On to new business. We only have one item on our agenda and that's discussion of our future uh text amendment projects for for the zoning and subdivision regulations. Mark, do you want to give us a little background or you how do you want to kick us off here?

Sure, I can I can do that, Mr. Chair. Yeah. So, um, as chairman said, you know, at your desk is the text amendments for, um, cell towers, manufactured homes, uh, ADUs, and shipping containers that we we did. Those were approved by the county commission last week. Uh, they will be published in the paper tomorrow. So, uh, those regulations will be effective tomorrow officially. Uh there were no changes by the county commission on that. So what was adopted and recommended for adoption by this board was adopted by the county commission. So that's what's at your desk right now. And so I think at this time, you know, we're we're moving on from those. Uh I think you guys did a good job with that and we're just looking for ideas on future topics. You know, I have several on my list. you have some uh topics you on your your side of the the piece of paper that we put together over the years, but I think we're open for discussion on what should be the next topic uh that we should maybe try and tackle at that point in time. Um since we have these adopted, I'll update my list. Uh I've added to my list from what you see here. I I still feel that, you know, in in the discussion that we should probably still look at maybe not necessarily changing too much, but better defining a lot of this stuff. Um, home occupations. I still have concerns with parking and loading space requirements. you know, cuz every every time we have a public hearing, it seems like we're doing waiverss for parking saw requirements, paving requirements, loading space requirements, and so it's kind of the same thing like we do with variances. If we're going to grant variance every time somebody, you know, doesn't want to do something with the rags, then we just

need to change the rags. And so if we're going to grant waiverss to everything, then we should just change the rags to something different, you know, with that. Um, and that's not a it's not a a a fault or a criticism or anything like that. It's just this is what we're doing on on both ends here. So, I think we need to maybe look at something like that. Um, again, I think another topic we had talked about in the past a little bit was uh the topic of public roads and subdivisions. Should they be public roads or should they be private roads? Um, should we limit the number of of lots that we could have off of a private road or not? I've I've had lots of discussions with with people on um various other counties uh subdivision regulations and I do have copies of those and we could try and mirror something that they do. Some require public roads, some don't require public roads. And so, it's just going to be kind of a topic of discussion for this board and on what direction we want to go. Same thing with uh the uh platting requirements and the reszoning of agricultural land. Currently, when you reszone from agricultural district to a residential district, depending on what zoning district you reszone to, you're going to be required to develop between 8 and 16 residential lots. And obviously many people probably aren't necessarily interested in developing a subdivision, but you know, they would like to maybe have an additional home site, you know, on on their property. And for your information, as we've had with training, you know, everybody's allowed to have one lot split on on their property without going through a big planning process or a reszone process. and you still have to meet the requirements that we set aside for that particular zoning district. But for all intents and purposes, you can have one split on your

property without platting. But then what happens when that person say wants to have another split on on that property because when you split it once, it it locks down that parcel to where further divisions have to be reszoned and or platted at that time. And so it's something that we could have examples of, we can have further discussion on. Is that a good thing, a bad thing? Should it be revised, you know, from that point?

Mark, how does that play out over time? If I if I split my lot now and it's now 35 years later and I sell my property and somebody else buys it, uh c can that be split off again or are records that intact for eternity or they are. I mean, they should, you know, to answer your question, I mean, if the regulations are the same now as they are in 35 years, then the current regulations would say you'd have to patch your land and or reszone the land to be able to further split. And we're not we're not saying that you can't do that once you split your 40 acres, once you split your 20 acres into 210. We're just saying if you're going to further split now, you're going to go through the subdivision planning process here. And it's it's our job to make sure that that planning process is something that we want to have happen and the reasons behind that. So,

the look back is always as far as there are records. Yep. I mean, it's just like zoning permits. I mean, I have zoning permits on properties that were issued in the 1970s for certain areas of the county. I mean, they're there forever, and I have every single lot split that's ever been uh filed with the office and approved, and I I have a way to look that up to make sure that that that was split legally, and if it wasn't, then we have to get it into conformance that way. So, yeah. So, it it lasts forever. Now, if the regulations change, then we would have to adjust with that. And but yeah,

does it happen that people come in 20, 30 years later and didn't even know their lot had been split once? I don't know about 20 or 30 years later, but you know, kind of along that that same line. When we put that in place in 2016, it was it was fine because nobody had had split their land. Uh, prior to 2016, it was pretty much give me 60 ft of road frontage and 3 acres of land

and you can split your property and build a house if you wanted to. When we put the subdivision regulations in place and started doing more enforcement of that, it's still fine 2016, 17, 18, but as you go further in time, every single piece of ground is getting split. And so when you take your 40 acres and you divide it into a 220s, a three, and a 37, somebody that builds on that 37 acres maybe likes at that time and then all of a sudden situations change and now they want to split that house off or they want to take that 37 acres and split off another three acres for another family member or or somebody different. And the answer to that is well you can't cuz back in 2020 or 2025 whenever we already did one split on that property. So when you split that that lock that parcel down until you reszone and plat. And so that's where our regulations come in place. Is that what we still want to do or or not?

So does that come up? It has come up. Yeah. Frequently you know I wouldn't say frequently but

but it has come up. it has come up because you know each each 40 acres of land because a long time ago you know this board we set the standard of two houses per 40 acres of ground and I think Russ was part of that right in the beginning here. Um, and so then you're allowed to have two outs in that 40 and then any further housing that you want out there or any further divisions, possibly a reszone if it's already zone residential, then you're not reszoning, but then it's a subdivision plant. And then that's where oh well okay now you have to develop eight residential lots or if you don't have the acreage to be able to get eight 3 acre lots then you got to develop the rest of the property to you know uh at least fully develop it out to where you know you you have the whole idea of what that area is going to look like in the future. So you know for example you know if you had 20 acres here you can't just split off another three and have a three and a 17. you'd have to take that whole 20 acres and develop say six residential lots and then you're constructing you know a public road for all those lots and then you're doing a drainage plan. It's a lot a lot of work. It's not saying you can't never split. So when we say oh the person the parcel's locked down, we're not saying you can never ever split it. We're just saying if you're going to split it further, you're going to go through the platting process. So I guess we need to think what's the downside to an allowing some kind of another way to split it easily,

you know, without making people spend a bunch of money doing something that really isn't going to do them any good. Yep. But at the same time, you know, I think the county would want to to know how is that land going to look when it's fully developed out. Yeah.

Um, you know, should we be allowing splits along the section line roads, whether it's a county section line or township section line road? Should we be allowing that? But then on the on the converse, should we make a person construct a new public road? It's going to be a township road. It's not going to be a new county road. So, it's going to be another road for the township to have to maintain for an additional three or four lots potentially that are out there that may be built on or may never be built on in the future. So, because once it's platted, once it's recorded, it's it's a public road whether anybody's living on it or not. So, so yeah. Is it easy for somebody that wants to make a change someday in the future to you research the public records versus just waiting until they ask you and you say nope you can't do that?

Uh is it I say that again. What are we trying to is it easier for the public to research that or um I would say no. Well, probably not cuz it's not on the the public won't know whether that that land has been split. They would have to check with my office and I have a way of of determining whether that land has been split or not. Wouldn't a partial tell you? A surveyor partial search could tell you, but it may not tell you when the land is have knowledge enough or access to the public records enough to be able to tell his applicant.

Yeah. No, you can't do that.

I have a way I I have a a a layer in my GIS or computer program where I know what the parcels look like in 2016 at the time that the subdivision regulations were adopted. So, when I pull that up and I see a division of land that looks different than what the parcels look like in 2016, I'm able to say, "Okay, there was a split of this land here. So, when did that occur?" Then I go back to my records and say, "Oh, okay. In 2018, we had a partial split on that property. If if the colors, and Allan probably knows more than what I'm talking about, because he deals in all that, you know, if I have the two colors and the two parcels match, then I know that that parcel is always a 17 acre, always a 20 acre parcel. And so, it's still eligible for a split potentially. So, it's easier for me. It'd be it'd be more difficult for the public, but I would want the public to reach out to me to begin with instead of assuming something on their own.

But if you're out looking for a parcel to buy, you don't know to ask. I guess you um you may not know but yeah, you should really just check with me first whether that parcel is a league. Yeah. And I and I've been in this business for 33 years. So it's obvious to me. It may not be obvious to that other person. So it's hard that realtors are they aware of this? realtors because yeah, if somebody's looking to buy land, if they're going through a realtor trying looking for ground

are I mean I can't speak for all the real and then I would hope that a lot of them are. So, but yeah, I don't it's hard getting that word out. Hey, Chuck, you know, because again, we've got a third of the county that has to abide by these rags, twothirds of the county doesn't. So, if you're way out west, you don't have to bother talking to me about buying a piece of ground. I do get calls and I get a lot of calls, I would say, you know, from from people out west want to know if they can split this farmhouse off or if they can buy this piece of ground. It's way out west and and that's great. I'm glad that they're checking, you know, and there's some kind of realers association or whatever. Have you ever

been invited to speak to that and and give them a kind of a update on what things they should look think about? It's been a few years, but I've spoken to the real association probably two or three times in my time here and and Darcy has as well, you know, with the sanitation in. So, uh, yeah, every once in a while we get invited whether it's the entire group of realtors or if it's an individual office. So, yeah, I've spoken and given them, you know, help on what to look for and and how a lot of the lot splits and the zoning works and so

Yep. So, uh, what was the intent of limiting it to one lot split? The intent was the idea that an additional house or an additional split on that property is not going to be a a big hindrance to how the the character of the neighborhood is going to look. the the maintenance of the road with like an additional covert. Um when you start getting into multiple splits now you're starting to kind of turn turn the area and turn that parcel from say agricultural to residential. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But at some point in time the county should have the right to know well what is that development going to look like so we can review to make sure we have a drainage plan in place. you know, if you just start splitting off ground, then what happens? You can start having drainage issues, whether it's draining out to the ditch or draining on somebody else's property. uh you know, if it's in the zone area of the county now, you may be dividing up parcels that are going to make it very difficult to get permits to be able to build a house or build a nice shed or better yet get a wastewater system in a well on there in compliance with the codes without the need for variances or waiverss from the director and all. So that's really the purpose of that subdivision rag is to make sure that what is being developed will be something that can be uh issued permits for relatively easy without creating all kinds of of problems here. So so I had those um Don this may be a question for you since we kind of work through the direction of the county commission through you. What have you heard any have you had any conversations? Have you heard any hubhub about uh any direction that we might take on battery storage or data centers?

You mean like creating regulations or No, I haven't. Uh, but I need to probably find out because they find out whether they want regulations or they're just going to get a, you know, development agreement or anything like that or I mean, no, I haven't heard anything from them. I know we can't really push things, right? It's a one-way ticket kind of. I'll find that out and and you will know that answer by the next meeting. Yeah, that's fine. I was just kind of curious cuz that that's kind of weighing on our mind because there's our neighboring counties are going through some of the some of those situations now and it would be really cool.

Okay, we lost a couple pounds of flesh when we went through the the uh commercial wind energy hearings and we made we kind of made the the regulations on or the excuse me the conditions to the conditional use permit up on the fly in that situation. And then we made regulations after the fact. Just was kind of just it'd be kind of for I'm being selfish in my from my seat. Could we get ahead of it? Be proactive on it. Yeah. Reactive.

I'll uh I'll find out what they want to do and then even before the next meeting one way or another, then Mark can email out to you. So like if they want them, then you need to think about it. Yeah. Just just kind of trying to understand what the direction of the commission, the county commission is. I've read some articles. It's all over the country. People are Yeah. Yeah. Starting to regulate that. There have been rumors floating around battery storage facilities in Reno County. There have been proposed and whatnot. Yeah.

Well, with a new power plant, I mean, you would think that would attract industry that consumes lots of power. Well, battery storage is not just it's that's many different could could be many different things that could other businesses. It's not really battery storage but yet what data centers whatever exact related got one battery storage place over by what is it helen or wherever it is that solar place put in but they aren't they're just storing the the raw product not the not the not an energy store right

solar so they're not hooked up they're not hooked no they're just But those two things do tend to follow one follows the other. The gas generation plants that are popping up all over. Yeah. I was just kind of curious if you had heard anything and whether or not we we'd get some direction somewhere. You want us to have another major project, don't you? Well, you know, we not not You're tired of text amendments. Well, not so much. But well, in our neighborhood, we're looking forward to being proactive rather than reactive. In our neighborhood, I say our Russ and I,

I counted on on my way over, there's six nice big red signs about battery storage within a about a mile. So, somebody's upset. That doesn't The words on the street didn't take very many people to start putting those up, right?

Yeah. So Mark, you've kind of given us a list and I kind of I was I'm going to summarize and you have you help me out if I'm overstepping, but it sounds like home occupations, parking and loading space requirements, and then the the public roads and subdivisions and plan and the platting requirements for reszoning ultrand those kind of go hand in hand. So you I mean I'm So those are the kind of the four topics that I that I heard you heard you heard you mentioned. Those are the four that we I need to look at. A couple more. Well that I have. All right.

You you look at your list. You look on your crystal ball. which ones are if if these tend to be a painoint and I say pain point might not be the right way of describing it but a a source of conversation for you when you get applicants. What are what else is there that that might ease your pain when it comes to because if we could if we could write something into to the regulations that make some sense that you can you know you can approve by right it would it would I think that makes in in it's logical in my mind.

Yeah. you know the home occupation thing I think it's not that I want to add additional regulations or requirements you know home occupations are businesses that like one person or one person and a person outside the home travels to a house and and operates some type of business whether it's accounting or you know it could even be like bookkeeper, those types of things here. Nothing that's causing, you know, a big traffic problem within, say, a residential subdivision, for example. I mean, that's something that's on the list maybe just to kind of help clarify and put basic regulations in place, say, hey, if you can hit all four or five of these uh requirements, then you can be considered a home occupation and no further review, no further conditional use permit review is necessary. I I I don't get a lot of those and so I don't know the appetite of the board if you think we need to have a lot of clarification on something like that. I mean that could be something that would rise to the top. I I think if I had to pick on the surface of everything without hearing your discussion, uh, you know, the parking and loading space requirement is kind of aggravating to me a little bit because you've read enough of my reports and they all read the same pretty much that the applicants requesting a waiver of this. And if if all that gets modified or changed in such a way that then that that topic really shrinks and you're not reading a page and a half about parking and waiverss and and the requirements of paving or not paving. Um that would be something for the here and and now I think you know the public road thing I think is is you know is important though as well. I

mean, what are we going to I think, you know, do we do we drastically change that around? Do we change the planning requirements around to something lesser? I mean, you know, do we do we put in place something where, you know, if you're if you if you have 40 acres and you want to split your house, your house, excuse me, your your property like into three residential lots or four residential lots. You still have to plat, but maybe it can be a private road and you go through a short plat process and then you're good to go. This board reviews that versus reszoning and full-blown drainage plan, full-blown road construction plat, you know, preliminary plat, final plat. This would be just what we would call like a a short PL. I know some communities will will allow you say up to four divisions. You'll on a property be served by a an essentially an easement, an ingress egress easement. It's a private easement. Still have to do a drainage plan because we still don't want you to be able to drain, you know, your runoff into the township county ditch nor on somebody else's property. So, you still have to do a drainage plan. Uh but it wouldn't be a full-blown subdivision plan. And what I mean by full-blown subdivision plat like what we talked about in our training where you're you're coming in, you're doing a a preliminary plat and you're developing a road plan. We're having a public hearing on on the preliminary plat and then we come back and then we review a final plat and and it's similar to what the full-blown platting process is, but it'd be a little bit quicker and probably a little less costly to to people. Would that would that subject have fit in with our

recent golf course discussion where there were uh comments and concerns about the roads on that property?

It it could have, you know, if they were going to be doing like public roads or or we could have required them to do like this short plat. Sometimes people will call it a short plat where they will delineate where the private road is going to be. we could require that to be platted and and then that way we would know where the easement is for that private road and we could have set the standard right then and say well because this board changed it to 20 ft. Remember the the the secondary road that could have been called out in the plat and then that could have been recorded so then it would have been known to have had to be 20 ft. So it would have some benefits in in a development like that you know potentially. Um,

well, I guess I just think of, you know, the Cottonwood fire in that situation and that I mean that was done years ago, but uh I mean road standards do have some safety issues tied to them. So I I would hate to throw that by the wayside. We we saw the we saw the product in that situation of a private road maintenance program. And that's yeah, that's a big concern.

Couple of the other ones that I had on on the list was just a general review of the definitions. I've been working through some um situations here and I know some of our definitions uh need to be modified probably from what they are and clarified and so there could be a general review of of definitions in there. Do we need to add definitions? Do we need to take away definitions? One of the bigger ones that I just recently saw and just came to my attention was in article four of the subdivision regulations where when we changed the lot width to lot depth ratio and the minimum frontage requirement uh of zoning parcels. We did not I did not I'll take the I'll take the hit on that. I did not look at article 4 in the subdivision regulations which still has the minimum width of 165 ft still has the lot width a lot depth ratio of 3:1 and all that. So that should have been modified at the same time to match what article 13 was. So right now there's a conflict. It's it's an easy fix but it is a conflict right now that that I missed on that. And so if you read article four in there, it'll it'll mention the width to depth has the wrong frontage requirement in there, wrong minimum depth requirement, and it doesn't match article 13. So that's something that at some point in time needs to be fixed. I mean, you know, people aren't beating down the door to do subdivision plats where that's that's an issue, but but we need to change that as well. So

I'll ask the question. And there's there's four items B the four four big item four main items. I wouldn't say big four main items that you that you mentioned there. We tackle all four. What's your appetite? I probably don't right now I probably wouldn't have the time to tackle all four in a timely manner. Um

so let's say we tackle two. Tackle the what what what in your opinion which are which two are the quick hits that we could get done in a short amount of time that would have the greatest impact? I had to so if I had to jump off the fence and it sounds like you're making me jump off the fence here. I would I would say the parking and loading space requirement. That's one one article here. And I would also say probably amending article 4 in the subdivision regulations. That would be the easiest. I think the quickest one would be the the parking and loading space. Now, I think, you know, we we can certainly have a a discussion while we're looking at that on subdivisions, subdivision plat, and this board can give me some direction on how they want me to write the new regulation. So, I think there's some value in in providing some input there before I give you a proposal without getting into too great a detail because, you know, that that's a major discussion point with this board is and staff for that matter. I don't want to short change that. You know, should it be a public road? Should it be a private road? I don't know if staff is even, you know, in agreement on what it should be. It's just been something that's been discussed. at that point in time.

That's going to take a little bit of discussion on that. That'll take some lengthy discussion, I'm sure, to do that. That's why I mean, you know, we can certainly try and tackle that, but yeah, to have something ready for this board to discuss, say, in May. Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. Because when I was discussing with Mark, I'm not even sure I'm in the same place as I was back then. I I don't know. Because it's a It's one thing you create a subdivision, you shove it on the township that's already struggling to maintain what they already have. Then if you don't have it public, then you end up with something that's not maintained at all.

Who I don't know whose fault is that? I don't know. I don't see I don't have an answer. I I just don't know anymore. It could go either way. Yeah, it could. Yeah, exactly. I guess is it I think I asked this question before, but I don't remember the answer. If I create a a township road, it seems like I should have to contribute some tax money to that township to maintain that road. Well, is that in place? Well, if you're living there, but you can create a you can create a subdivision and never build a house on it and the township's out there maintaining that road. There's no road assessment unless there's a

other than the tax rate on it on a subdivision lot. But I like what you're saying, Garly. Yeah. I mean, there's like certain incentives or certain requirements that you can require development to contribute certain amount of money, you know, during that development here to help that township maintain that road or even the county for that matter. You know, I just don't know what the process is if that's not in place. It seems it's not in place. So, yeah, in my mind, it should be in place and that that would help eliminate this. There's there's counties that do that. there's counties that will put that in place.

We touched a little bit about on this on in a previous conversation, but some of it is is the townships don't raise the mill levy to match what they're what they're at where they're at. And sometimes they're they're struggling to find the skill level to run. They have to find to to operate the machines to keep up the road. So there's there's there's a really it's more than just money there. Yeah. Well, money is is mill levy. It's that's as simple as that. I mean, I don't like I I don't I know you you've been to that you've been to that. Well, that many many times. Yeah.

It's it's you know, we don't like to raise taxes, but also the the townships can do that to a point to help themselves out. Sometimes they have to. Yep. You know, their backs are when they need to, right? And don't when they need to. Yes. Exactly. Um, I have kind of an unrelated question mark. We got several items on here on your list and I'm wondering if they're even pertinent any longer or why, you know, how much control do we have over those items? Can we, you know, just delete them like livestock confinement in that department of egg? Pretty much

pretty much until you get above a certain number of head, then it turns into potentially a conditional use permit. But almost nobody ever gets to that point in time. But yeah, these are all items that the board had brought forth. Oh yeah. 2023. Yeah. But we don't have a lot of a lot of say so in in something like that though because it's aggreating public land, recreation, green spaces. I mean that's that's great idea, but is it realistic? Are we going to is Reno County going to create public grounds and green spaces? Are you going to require that of the developers? I don't know.

Well, and so I mean, it's popular in in certain metropolitan areas that they do like the green spaces and whatnot because they're so densely populated and built. I don't recall the person that that that said that. So there's there's a concept out there. It's called a a conservation subdivision. And the way conservation subdivision really works, the the the principle behind that is you get away from the the cookie cutter type subdivision.

Three acre minimum road serving all that. You got to give me um this and there's no there's no wiggle room and something like that. What a what a conservation subdivision concept would be. It's like, okay, you maybe zoned R1, you have to have three acre lots. If, for example, we do a conservation subdivision, maybe we can let a developer have 2acre lots in the R1, which is like, hey, that's a that's a violation. We can't do that. But if it's a conservation subdivision, we'll let you have the county will let you have two acre lots, which gives him more lots to sell in exchange for us giving you a greater density. That developer in turn gives the county green space. So now we don't have three acre lots, 5 acre lots, and we have four acres of I don't want to call it wasteland like grass land or you know stuff that's unused, you know. So you you give us those 2acre lots and in turn you give us a green space that would be dedicated to the people in that area to maintain. It wouldn't be given to the county or the township to maintain. So keep that in mind. So so I think that's kind of what that was maybe referring to a little bit. That's one idea behind it. I think another piece of that is or could be if you talk to the fire chief, fire concern is very real and having fire breaks, natural fire brakes.

Um, you know, we're we're a long way from getting that implemented, but it does seem like it uh we should be thinking about it anyway,

right? That's something that could be put in place. But yeah, with that like if you had a lot of flood plane on the property and obviously we don't want houses in in a flood plane. So maybe if we can get a developer to concentrate his entire development up and out of the flood plane and leave the flood plane alone at the natural area if he's willing to do something like that because he's he's losing land that he could develop. So to kind of entice him to agree to that, we give him a greater density so he's not losing money on his development. In exchange, he provides us as an open space area. And so that was kind of the idea. It was popular. I think I first heard about like in the 1990s

when we had that out on the south of Haven that I forget what that was, but you know, the property was didn't seem very desirable. Yeah. And uh Oh, yeah. You remember that one? That would be a case where maybe smaller lots could have enhanced that property, right? Yeah. So, that's Yeah. Right now, I mean, you know, creating public public lands or recreational, you know, I don't we're the county is not interested in creating a parks department or anything like that. So, I'm following your public works. Yeah. There would be another division.

Yeah. Yeah. So, but I think that would be one concept that could fit under that that idea. See, Don is probably already ordering his retirement cake. I think on your list, I mean, I think the gun range thing now, private gun ranges, we wouldn't get into anything like that, but um you know, public gun ranges certainly we would. Yeah. What about open to the public? Heavy industrial. Is there a definition for heavy? No.

I don't have I don't know the person that wrote that what the intent was, but uh is there a definition for industrial? Well, it'd be along the lines of manufacturing plants and and that I mean commercial is usually when you're selling selling or most part you're selling a product. Industrial would be when you're manufacturing products bigger than home occupations. Bigger than home occupations. Yeah. So heavy heavy industrial would be car manufacturing plants. Um asphalt plants. Asphalt plants, you know, going in right now.

Companies that work with steel and and metals, you know, and molding molding car parts, you know, airplane parts, that type of stuff. Yeah, you have usually you'll have light industrial and then heavy industrial and then um heavy. Yeah, it's usually those two. The heavy moving that in. I can't think of the third one right in but was that in the area? Y got a question for you though talking about this kind of stuff. You know they're APAC apparently is putting in it looks like an asphalt plant up on K14. Yep. Temporary. Is that No, it's temporary.

It's temporary temporary asphalt plant that's permitted under our special event um requirements. Yeah. And so it's a it's a special event. It's believe it or not, it's classified like if the circus is coming to town or if you're running a a music concert. What's your definition of temporary? Less than a year. less than a year. I I don't know if it's in there or not. I I don't know. Um I'm just curious. You know what? They're going to where they're going to take their product. Why they need an asphalt plant right on K14? Are they going to resurface the highway or Yeah, they're doing the highway. They are. Yeah. So, it's okay. That's why they're putting it there.

Temporary. I don't know if there's an exact definition. I'd have to I'd have to look. But it'll be a damn mess for a year. So, so that's another section of this article 19, I believe, where you know you you have certain events that people want to put on. Okay. Um, that was going in. I finally figured out.

So, this is one where this actually is a level five type of or type five type of special event which rises to the level where it takes board county commission approval to be able to prove something with it. It' be like hosting a music concert for example or um potentially a car show or or a race, something like that. Uh that would be a type of special event. A one or two time thing. That'd be that'd be probably one of your definitions of temporary. It's something that just occurs once or or twice a year. You know, it's not something that's going on for years year end. Here's a situation where it's a temporary asphalt plan. It's going to it's being built now. so they can get ready for paving season. They're going to pave the highway this uh spring and summer. When that's done, then that land use goes away.

They built one one that's on K96. Yeah, there's one on Langden Road. Got to figure out how to get out without going down that. So, yeah, the one out on 50 was unzoned, right?

So, they could just do it. This one just happened to be in the zone area. So, in our regs, we have it to where uh county commission has to review that. And so, you know, because you think about it, it's like, okay, well, you know, where's their entrance to this property? Are they going to put right on the corner of two roads? I mean, you know, all kinds of, you know, if it's if they're if it's a circuit or if they're selling product, you know, well, are you going to have stacking of vehicles spilling out onto the road or or are the vehicles going to be intermixing with people walking up to purchase the products? These are all things that, you know, we take a look at. Many of the special events I approve in house here, sending it to other departments for review. Uh, this one actually rose to the level where it takes county commissioner approval. So, so, so you'll see that going on and then after they get the highway paid, you'll see it being torn down and land restored.

Yep. Where's that at? It's down on K14 north of Silver Lake between that and Sun City, I think. Yeah, that is Sun City. Yep. Good question. So,

I knew you'd have the answer to that. I actually knew knew about that one. I asked you a month ago and I forgot. Oh, really? Yeah. Uh the the other ones on that that list um at this time is not going to be be discussed really. you know, you talk about building codes or or nuisance regulations and that's not really probably something that's on the table, you know, at this point in time. So, did I see a neighboring county? This I think I saw a a post from Harvey County that they were taking a survey on nuisance regulations. Oh, I did not see that. Have not heard that. Okay. But, uh I it was just a social social media post. They were taking a survey.

Oh, really? Okay. Interesting. But that be something on a complaint basis they're not going to have.

We tried that at one point and it really got to be complicated because there's a lot involved with nuisance regulations as far as you know how do you enforce them? Where does it go? You know you don't want to take a nuisance code to in regulation to to district court. I mean so you have to develop like a codes court and so that takes a lot of uh a lot of effort a lot of money to do that. So, um, that's all I really had with with mine right now. I don't know other thoughts with the board, other things that you when you run across. I mean, I could probably literally go through every every section and see little tweaks, you know, that need to be done here and there. I thought we took care of a big one here with the shipping container because there was an actual conflict uh in there between different articles. So, that was good that we got that cleared up. um article 155 which deals with all the conditional use permits. There's always some land uses will have a listing of you know one to 10 conditions of approval that have to be met if you're going to do that that type of land use. Again, cell towers was one of those where there's like five or six uh things that they had to meet and unfortunately all those were prohibited now by statute. So, we had to tweak that. And so, that would be another place to look for um amendments that we can do in the future. So, what's the flavor of the board?

I'll put my two cents in after everyone else is done. I think Steve, you know, you brought up, you know, the the asphalt plan. I think that section could probably be refined as well, maybe to made a little bit more clear potentially. I don't know how yet. Just first thoughts, you know, uh maybe give samples of what is um a special event and when does it take this board to special events, you know, usually you don't want to bog down necessarily with this board. Usually they're going to be handled administratively by by me um

commission. Yeah. or take it directly to the county county commission versus because usually special events, oh yeah, we're looking at doing this in, you know, six months, four months or less here and, you know, by the time we run it through this process and then take it up up to them. Yeah, we're pushing the envelope on on that. But that's certainly something as well. I mean, I think all the articles could be, you know, tweaked and made more clear, but I'm sure you know, you got to go back through them all eventually. Yeah. But yeah, we got to look at the hot spot hot right now. Ones that we think what? Yeah, that's what I'm more interested in right now.

Like your parking thing. Yeah. I mean, we make a lot of waiverss on that. Is there something we can do to clarify that reduce those? But on the on the flip side, you know, there needs to be some requirements. Yeah.

And that's the way this this was. This was the parking rays when we adopted it were we're put in place as a a benchmark for somebody to start at. You know, inevitably when you're doing a commercial or industrial type of land use of any type of significance, you know, the first thing they're going to want to know from the zoning people are, well, how many how much parking do I need to provide? That's going to be the first thing, you know, they want to know. So, so these rags provide that benchmark clarification says, okay, if you're building this this building and doing this land, you got to give me one parking space per 200 square foot.

On the flip side, you know, usually we get into that waiver request as a part of another conditional use permit. Yeah. You know, thing. So it's somebody wants to put in a business and they need a conditional use permit and then they then they have the waiver they deal with they so I mean it's it's there. It's an obstacle. It's not an obstacle but it's it's a something they've got to think about. It's good that we have

some guidelines. I think it's good that we have it in place that we can wave that. You know, that's one thing versus saying, "Well, no, you know, you have to have 25 parking spaces for your threeperson business in there, but you know, how much how how do you change the rags to build flexibility into those without shooting yourself in the foot,

so to speak?" and this does that versus saying okay well in addition to you know you having to put in those 25 spaces if you don't want to do that now you're going to get and do a variance so then another public hearing another application and then you know we'll listen to the fact that well I've got three employees got a 5,000 foot building I don't have the need for 25 spaces so now we're here in another case and more money out their pocket and more time and effort So if there's something that we can do to have some requirement but yet also that flexibility I don't know what that looks like we can simplify it or you know streamline it somehow.

Yeah. But you know we like I said I think we do need some guidelines on it.

Yeah. Not for just eliminating the whole section. Yeah. I I don't sense that we have any real hot spots. I mean, we speculated on some possible upandcomers, but uh I I don't know how far into the future it's prudent for us to try to work. Uh I mean we can create all sorts of disastrous requests that might come might come along.

Uh I guess I did not have the opportunity to live through the the wind situation and what that was like is you know what you described trying to build a plane while it's flying. Exactly that. We were we were we were we were picking up the spilled rivets in the bottom of the fuselage trying to stick them in little tiny holes as the plane was flying

and there was a gaping hole in the fuselage as they were dripping out on the ground. So that was that that's about the best way I could describe that that process. So, you know, trying to balance the, you know, we we want to attract uh development and positive energy and well, do you do that by anything goes or do you do it by very strict rules or do you shoot for a sweet spot in the middle and give yourself some conditional use permit uh possibilities? I think it's kind of like what we just discussed about the the parking, you know, the parking and loading space requirements.

You know, we've got to put something out there and then if it is if it starts to be a pain point, then we can adjust that as we as we go. You're right. We we we need to find a sweet spot so we don't say not know but heck no. We want to be open and open for the conversation, but yet we want to be have some guidelines for that conversation. Well, like parking, if we say it has to be paved, well, probably not always, but if there's houses, you know, to the north and you're going to put down limestone gravel in Kansas, they're going to be dusty.

So, yeah, we might want it paved. So, yeah, it's it's finding that sweet spot. You're right. We want to be inviting, but yet we want to make sure we got our bases covered. So, what's what does it look like if um a developer comes to your office and says, "U, yeah, Reno County is like our number one pick for a new data center." Well, what do you where do you go with that? Uh, well, we don't really have any rigs, so or we're going to we'll mix them up real quick. Or

just like any other undefined type of proposal. It's if it's not laid out like in article 15 with specific conditions of approval, then it's a conditional use permit and you got to get that past planning commission and the county commission and we'll come up with a certain level of conditions of approval and if they can meet that then great. Like I say, they'll they'll get the staff report and they'll be able to argue if they don't like my recommendations and this board will get a chance to review my recommendations and you can agree with that. You can add your own requirements if you would like and then that person will have to develop it according to that standard. and

and it also includes the the input from the public hearing because we can there's there's there's many there's many avenues that the information comes in that we we go ah didn't think about that we make a little note then as we discuss that becomes that could may or may not become another condition this this board didn't hasn't done it lately but Russ you know you recall I mean after we closed the public hearing how many meetings did we have were you as a board reviewed the public hearing record with the winning case? I mean, you had several Well, there were lots lots of public input on that.

Yeah, you had tons of public input. So, you can't imagine trying to make a decision that night and so you had time yourselves to review the public record and then you had couple couple meetings maybe at least a couple at least a couple meetings, you know, where you discussed. What's is your memory better than mine? I've kind of shut that back in a corner of my mind is there but it's been I know we had at least a couple meetings if not three that we went through the public comment and tried to tried to sort through what was different locations too. Yeah. What's that at different locations? Yes. So basically what what I think for each encampment building is saying the

the hotel that isn't there anymore an undefined thing like you know battery store or data center or something then you make up the regulations as part of the conditions with respect to that's correct use that that was building the plane while we were flying. Yeah exactly. So for these couple of topics, are they complicated enough and controversial enough that we want to start putting the fuselage together before the order? Well, we need to get direction from the county commission is what that's what Don's going to put some peelers out and see what they

It doesn't mean that you can't do your own research. It just means that this board won't be doing any action on it. Yeah, I went down that rabbit hole and I learned I know less now than I did three hours earlier. Yes. Yeah. What's your experience with developers and investors uh knocking on your door and well what you know what what rigs do you have for data centers? And if you say well we don't you know we have this conditional use permit. Is that scary to them or do would they prefer to have a you know a clearly defined yes you can no you can't checklist

I guess I'm just thinking I don't have a lot of those types of large a lot of those larger developments are going to obviously look to the city because that's where public infrastructure is but you know to say that I I I think everybody likes to know what rules they're playing by with with the game. I mean, you know, it's it's hard to tell a developer, oh, it's just a conditional use permit, and we can make up whatever, you know, rules we we feel like are going to be satisfactory to let this development potentially take place. You got to survive a public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's scary on that sense.

Negotiated at this point. So, this way, if you have rigs, you got a starting point. They know what you're expecting. They know the minimums at a minimum when you try to conform with that. They're going to know the minimums, but they also know at the same time that those minimums can be amended

amended and tightened down if we so fit see fit. But but to say that, you know, every every developer that comes knocking on my door has that same same expectation. you know that they want to know what the rules are, but I said, "Well, the rule is a conditional use permit." And here here's a starting point potentially, but yet that can also be tightened. The golf course went through that. Look what you did. I mean, you know, uh, you know, I had conversations with them on on the roads and we put a set of conditions in place and then this board modified that. So, so no matter what it is out there, those rules can always be modified by by this board. you have that ability with it. That's part of that conditional use. The basic set of rules may be fine if you don't have a neighborhood within a quarter of a mile, but if you have a neighborhood a quarter mile away, maybe some more stringent rules need to be put in place to potentially allow a type of land use to go in there. So, yeah, I think those people are always going to want to know what the basic rules are, but that's not the way it works in this county. So,

so what I'm hearing parking and loading space requirements, Mark, is probably going to be one of them. What's uh what's the other I would like to pick two that we'd work on. I think a general review of these definitions. Yeah, because those always need some clarity and and whatnot. I mean, that can be fairly extensive because you're looking at a lot of definitions, but you know, I don't rely on Mark to provide us. there's clarity

there. There's some in there that probably need to be modified. But, you know, at the same time, you know, we don't need to define every single term. You know, I think what we could do part of that amendment is that undefined terms shall be defined as per Webster's dictionary, for example. I mean, that's that's typically what we do, you know, because well, if the term's not in there, then what's the definition? Well, it's always common knowledge that you go to the dictionary, but it probably should be put in in paper that that's what we're doing.

But at the same time, you know, we don't need to define every single term in the world that could potentially be out there. You know, we don't need to define what a chair is, what a desk is, you know, and get crazy that way. But but there could be some I I know of one definition that needs to be, you know, modified right here. Uh but I'm sure there's probably, you know, other ones that could be tweaked as well out there.

Does that sound okay with this board? Those are the two topics that we get started on and then we move move from there. I think it's pretty much, you know, and that may change based off of Don's conversations and, you know, I can probably provide research on, you know, potentially some of these other topics um like the the planning requirements for example. I mean, I'm thinking, you know, what's Harvey County doing? What's our neighboring counties doing? That'd be a good place to start. what's Cedric County doing as far as the platinum requirement? I mean, I think I don't know if we would see additional development. I mean, I haven't had a lot of requests for like a a third split, you know, on on a property, but it it's coming. It's coming because every parcel out there is is being split every, you know, every 40 acres out there. And and that's the way I always think about part, you know, you may own an 80 or a quarter, but I always try and get people to think in terms of 40 that each one of those 40 acres is allowed one split. So even though you have one deed for a quarter section, 160 acres, you're not just allowed one split, you know, on that whole quarter, you're allowed one split per 40 acres, meeting the regulation requirements here. So, and I'm trying to get people to to start thinking it in those terms. And it's hard because whether they own two 40s or or one 180, they're thinking it's just my one parcel here. And so, no, you you'd be allowed to have one split per that 40. So, you could have potentially four home sites without going through any kind of platting requirement, you know, that way. Which to me though, the problem is more when you get down to 20 or 10 and you want to split it

two or three times because you, you know, yeah, most people don't want to own 40 acres just to build a house on. See, that's what that's you can't afford it. And that's what the Well, and the banks don't want to potentially loan on it either. And that's the problem. You know, they split off the three for their family member to build their house. That's great. And now they want to split their house off and can't do it. It's stuck at 37 and now the bank won't loan on 37. They want that split into a 10. So that's I think we need to come up with some kind of a mechanism to make that a little easier. So are we still looking for a possible second challenge?

I think the the first one is the is the parking and loading space. The the second one would be the general review definitions. And let's get through those two, okay? And then we'll tackle then then we'll we'll recircle with with Mark and Don on the on the next one to that may be home occupation. It may be public roads and subdivisions but maybe we've got some direction entirely different.

All I just want to just put on the table for consideration is the uh home occupation businesses said we want to make sure we have limited But we also want to have regulations that encourages people to do business in Reno County. Right. And you can do that with you get much interest in laptops, four different locations all operating out of this one home business.

I So it limited and but it could also encourage development of business in Reno County. looking for a third or an alternate. I' I'd suggest we we strongly consider home and we did have a problem case with a home occupation. The they were at the end of a dead end road and they were having delivery trucks going back and forth. I forget what the name on that but yeah, it was a construction company. It started out as a small operation and turned into something much bigger.

To answer your question, yeah, I don't have a lot of people inquiring about home occupations, but I don't know if that's because they don't know that there could be regulations or they're just doing them without without

I think it's just don't ask. I think the thing yeah I think the biggest thing you know with that would be daycare daycare centers you know many daycare centers are are home home occupation based we still need to be able to review and say okay well where are where are people parking cars and what's going on you know there so because yeah we we had a situation there a few years ago with a with a daycare center and our regulations need modified based on regulated to a certain degree licensed and regulated but on the other hand you do have the aspects like traffic and whatnot which those regulations don't cover I don't think right

right right

yep so okay well I can probably not next month we have two public hearings next month but probably I'll try to shoot for like maybe April at least to start and then I would encourage maybe this board to review article 10 and 11, which is the parking and loading, and come up with your own ideas individually. If you have things that you want me to consider, then you can just email me. And then the general definitions is article one right there in the front. I'm not sure what I'll find with that. I know that there's at least one that needs to be be modified. Uh, but there could be others and certainly terms that we maybe need to add as well. And I'll have to look at article 14 with the um subdivision regulation. If I could throw that in at the same time, I may do that. That's a simple simple change as well.

Yeah, I'm with you, Harley. That the the home occupation was a close it was a close two and three. Yeah. Yeah. And I I think for the quicker hit, I think we'll go with definitions and then we'll we'll tackle that one. That's that's on that's on my mind also. Okay. Is there any other business we need to be brought before this board?

I've got something last month with the with the golf course. I was a little uncomfortable. You know, back when I was on the city planning commission and Harley remembers, we used to have study sessions and then the case would come up. You know, of course, we met every we met twice a month, so the delay wasn't so bad. I was a little uncomfortable deciding that when when the water rights issue came up because I think there were people not telling the truth and it's something like we need to study that and yet they and the public were looking for a decision that night and I don't know if there's at some stage where a project is big enough that we need to have a study session. Most of them aren't you know but

Right. Right. But that one might have been where we we could, you know, get together, you know, we look over the stuff, but we don't get together and say, "Well, I think somebody needs to talk to us about water rights or somebody needs to talk to us." We we can also recess. So, I know we can close, but but it's awkward, you know, because it's kind of like we're avoiding making a decision. Yeah, it does. It does. I mean, even though sometimes maybe we should, but I don't know. If they exceed their water rights, they're going to be notified and pay a hefty fine. Well, when they were start talking about perfecting their water rights, and I know that's a really weird

area of the law. And you know, they had the county commissioner that was here said they it wasn't perfected and they said it was and and then they brought in like on the corner over negotiating with the city for water. Yeah. And it's like but they're just negotiating. They don't have a deal, right? Like you Yeah. I back I'm glad you brought that up because that that was a little uncomfortable in retrospect driving. The rest of it I didn't have a problem. No. Yeah. you know, but and and most people here were really just concerned with the water. They weren't concerned about traffic or noise or anything. They just didn't want their wells going.

Remember, I asked, "Have those water rights been perfected?" They Well, no, but we got X number of years to do that. That's the type of thing that we ought to know more about it before we make But I don't think we were necessarily being told the truth. And it was really hard to go back and say, "Are you sure about that?" Like I'm not a water right expert. So you really hate to speak up and say well is that even in our purview? Well I you know it's not you know there there are regulators for that. I think so. If they're going to suck up all the water then we shouldn't allow it. Yes. Well, and it would have been nice to know something that important was that they have a plan, a legal plan, whether it's

water rights that they have, whether they've been perfected or not or whether they're negotiating with another provider. I mean, I was on the subdivision committee the first time, you know, so I remembered a little bit, but you know, that was yeah, whatever it was 12 years ago or something like that. I remembered them saying, well, they had the wells and all this stuff, but I don't understand water rights. In hindsight, yeah, nobody here without authority on that. But I guess if it was a a major concern with this board, we could have, you know, tabled any action on that. Yeah. Conditional use permit and until we could find some authority on that, right?

Or we could write a condition that says the the the permit would not be valid valid until the till the till the water rights are perfected. I liked that approach about could have done that but you know yeah I I recall doing the study sessions at the city when you were on on as well cuz I was stationed over there you know as well and that was always really uncomfortable because you know you're you're you're bringing the board together and we're introducing

all these cases and there's some discussion minor discussion hey okay talk to me about this and you're not in a public hearing setting. Certainly, you're in a public meeting setting, but not a public hearing setting. So, it's like staff or this board could be introducing thoughts and and questions prior to an official public hearing. And so, I I always thought that was a little little sketchy to do something like that and a little dangerous in that in that sense. And so I prefer like what what Steve said, don't ever be afraid, you know, because it's this or any other type of development of just tableabling say I'm not comfortable yet because you heard a lot of you we had 70 people here potentially here and you heard a dozen of them, you know, speak up and that's a lot of of testimony to take in place. You know, most of our public hearings aren't that way, you know, but here's a situation where there's some questions. So table it and direct staff or direct the applicant to provide you some additional you know testimony to make yourselves feel comfortable you know in that sense. I mean because you know I would have been uncomfortable if this board decided the wind farm that night. I mean you know you heard four days of testimony and all of a sudden you're going to sit up there and in a span of 30 minutes say yay or nay.

Yeah. I mean that you know so I I was pleased that the board decided to have several meetings afterward to review documentation here and saying this is a huge huge development and a lot going a lot going on. There's a couple different ways of going after it. You can table it keep the public hearing open. Yep. And that way that gives the applicant a an ability to to continue to speak and we can and we can continue to take public input if we if we do close the public hearing and then then

continue the conversation to the next to the next meeting. It kind of ties our hands to what staff can give us and what we can find as far as self-discovery in the meantime. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, I like that approach better. Just continue the public hearing and directing the applicant to provide some more clarification on what they're doing with with water and or like what Harley said, writing a condition of approval saying you cannot begin construction on this until such time as the water rights are perfected. Proof is given to the planner. Proof proof is given to staff.

What's involved in perfecting water rights? We don't know that either. Something can be done very easily or something that takes months and months. They have to use the water that's been used. I was going to say what's that? Have to put beers on the wells and so they can't do that because that'd be a catch 22 then because they can't consume the water till they build the project. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So you don't know. So we just needed to know more. Yeah. Because if you don't then you Thank you, Jack, for bringing lose it.

Yeah. Well, in this case, I really thought the state was the responsible party for approving or not approving the water right. So, I guess I felt like that was not in in my uh line of sight to try to intervene on. But in our case, we didn't really know if it was approved or not because they had the they had the water rights, but they hadn't perfected them or they had perfected it. We we didn't know and we don't understand that the rights. Yeah, they hadn't been used yet. They had been used, right? So, you have to have Well, we don't we didn't understand that. Okay.

And so, yeah. So, you could have Yeah, you could have asked for more clarification on that or or some type of document that shows that yeah, this is the water right for the property. Yeah. Could have gone that route, but like what Gar said, that's mainly a state. Yeah. like but you just wanted some more evidence that says they actually have done that and they actually do have that right cuz you remember those rights were under a different owner and you were hearing testimony that oh they were just transferred to us three or four owners back you know yeah so I get it yeah so repeat that's a good point to bring up thank you

the the Evergy plant I guess they really haven't decided which city it's going to be. It's going to be in county. It's going to be in the county. So, it's county right now. It's county right now. Will we do Well, it's it's South Hutch extr territorial zoning. So, it's not going to go but it's not annex. It's not going to be in the city limits. So, yeah, there's different it's in their ETJ in their ETJ. So, we will not hear that in that case. goes under their it's already been heard and by the city of South Hutchinson. Okay. So, they've already had that that public hearing. So, it doesn't involve us whatsoever.

Yeah. So, it's it won't be annexed. It won't be annexed in the near future. So, it's going to remain out in in the ETJ.

Appreciate your comments, J. All right. Yeah. What else? Anything else for this? Good conversation.

You have all your marks and papers marked? I think I do. I think I have some directions. So, we will get working on that in all my spare time. I move we adjourn. Okay. Second that we adjourn. All in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign.