Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

agenda item can we get a roll call for attendance first please here here here here here if would have everyone join us in our pledge allegiance to start our meeting this evening to the flag of the United States of America

nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Any agenda deletions at this time?

I would like to remove number four until we have a little more information and some explanations.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Yeah. And I'll talk with you after the meeting and explain. Okay.

All right. Item four then. Table that. Item number one tonight is our consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda will be enacted by one motion. We have first our claims, item A, in the amount of $898,442.68. Item B, our minutes to approve, August 11th, 2026 work session, August 18th, 2026 board meeting, August 18th, 2026 work session, August 25th. special meeting closed session August 25th also special meeting August 25th work session September 1st board meeting September 3rd special meeting and September 8th work session item C is to approve payroll removal for Kelly Jackson driver's license specialist in the treasurer's office item D Receive and file payroll removal approved by the Warren County Conservation Board, Kevin Brown, conservation technician. Approve payroll removal for Richard Boatwright, motor grader operator of Secondary Roads. Approve step increase for Devin Armstrong, equipment operator one in Secondary Roads. Approve step increase for Vance Animas. Equipment Operator, Secondary Roads. Item H, approve step increase for Bryce Houston, Mechanic, Secondary Roads. Item A, approve six month increase for Amy Martins, Accounts Payable Clerk in the Auditor's Office. Item J, set a public hearing date for October 6th, 2026 at 9 a.m. to consider the application to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for parcel 1500140646. from urban fringe to rural commercial. Set public hearing date for August 6th, 2026 at 9 a.m. to consider the application to rezone the same parcel from ag to commercial. Submitted by Sharon Stover. Owner of the property is owned by Stover Digital Services Inc. It looks like also second reading hearing will be held on October. 20th, 2026 and a third reading November 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m. Set a public hearing date for October 6th, 2026 at 9 a.m. to consider the application to amend the comprehensive land use plan for parcel 27000260370, land use designation from agricultural to open space to rural acreage. Item M, set a public hearing date for October 6, 2026, 9 a.m. for the same parcel, 27000260370, rezoning from agricultural to rural. residential district and similarly a second reading October 20th, 2026 at 4 p.m. and a third hearing November 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m. Item N, approve 911 dispatcher telecommunicator job description. Item O, approve selling unused items located in the Justice Center. and there's several items listed here. Item P, approve five-day Class C retail alcohol license for a Pre's Bar Company LLC effective 10-5-2026 at 1641 G-50 Highway in St. Charles. And item Q, approve five-day Class C retail alcohol license for a Pre's Bar Company LLC effective the next day, 10-6-2026, at the Prelude located at 206-3235th Avenue, New Virginia. Oh, that was a lot. Okay, good. Consent, all right.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Roll call.

McIntyre? Aye. Gerson?

Aye.

McCook?

Aye.

Aye. Item number two this evening, consider application for road closure as submitted by Adam Frayer with possible action. Oh, Tim's here, good.

I didn't see you back there.

This is a road closure application that was submitted by the school for a homecoming staging on the county gravel. We don't see any issues with it. They're responsible for traffic control. It's going to be for short term, so it's just for the safety of the students and everybody lining up.

Are we providing any blockades or anything? We don't for events.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

Roll call.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Item number three, consider entrance variance application as submitted by Riley and.

Alaina.

Alaina, thank you. With possible action. Good evening, how are you? Good evening. You're looking for a, considering an entrance variance for a piece of property. Correct. Okay, tell us about that.

Yes, so first of all, thank you for your time. I'm Elena and this is my husband, Riley. Just to provide a little bit more color, maybe outside of what's in the application there. so when we initially posed the proposed the driveway it was on the far west side and then we realized that there was the 200 feet distance allowance from current driveways so we did the best we could and put the maximum distance with this new proposal and the variance for you and i believe it was 181 feet between the two current drives so did the best we could with what we have. I also wanted to note that we can't reasonably extend the current driveway just due to some utility meters, septic infrastructure, and geothermal in that area as you'll see on the map here. Without the current variance, the only current access to that back field of our acreage is crossing in our neighbor's yard. And that just creates unavoidable risk of damage to their grass. And they do have a water line that is currently equipment is happening to go over. So just kind of that place is unfair variant burden on the neighboring property. We also have talked to both adjacent neighbors and they're in approval of having this and don't have any concerns that they've raised with it. Another piece is that west side of the property is the best place to kind of locate the drive just due to a pond on the property and also some gullies that limit safety and unusable access in the other areas. Lastly, really this is to allow for reasonable use of the agricultural area in the back, and we also are hoping to eventually build an agricultural building back in that area as well, so it would allow access to that. while also avoiding any disruptions to utilities, neighboring land, and any existing site features. So would welcome any other options that you guys have for us if we aren't able to consider this. We're trying to be as flexible as possible with what we have. But if there's anything else we can clarify, please let us know.

What is the approximate distance between your water meter and your electric meter?

I believe it is 16 feet.

Tim, do you have anything to add on this?

Just so they can hear me. We typically try to treat everybody the same when it comes to the ordinance. When you split up properties in such small frontage, you're gonna be limited on the amount of entrances you can have. This one, I personally think the best option is to use the existing entrance. At some point, people need to use their own land access, the rest of their property, extra accesses, It adds extra maintenance to the road. Too many access points is a danger. We've talked about this before numerous times. The Iowa DOT has access guidelines for their roads. So have you guys looked at moving the electrical meter? Is that? We can stand adjacent.

To move the power meter, we would have to update our whole electrical system.

I guess at the end of the day, you guys need to consider whether you think 16 feet's enough to go in or if moving a meter or water pit constitutes undue hardship. So our recommendation is to use the existing entrance. Like I said, we try to treat everybody the same in that aspect, so I guess I can't add much more than that.

Thank you, Tim.

From where I'm looking at the picture, if we could go back, it looks like there's a trail, looks like a car trail or something to the right of the geothermal. Okay, thank you.

And I guess I would say, I don't know how many feet the driveway to our east is, but it's much closer than any of the other driveways to ours. So we would actually be going the other way from that closer driveway.

Okay.

Like we said we're open to other ideas if there are any we just are struggling to find any other and So we're we're just trying to meet in the middle with where the ordinance is at So how is the terrain on the front of the frontage of this road?

Do you sit on a hill?

There is a slight hill that peaks on the west edge of our property from our proposed entrance. You can see up and over that hill to the corner where it turns south on the gravel road.

Okay.

Can you base that off the site?

And I base that off of their site distance three and a half feet from the ground.

Okay.

And we would be tearing out any trees and having you know, a commercial tree company come and do that if that's needed to clear that.

Okay. I'm more worried about oncoming traffic and y'all coming out from that entrance. So, yeah, I'm looking at this from a safety perspective. So that's why we have the ordinance the way it is. Oh, yeah. So is that speed limit 55? Let me know, okay.

I don't think anyone's actually going 55 if they want to be a little concerned, but I guess that's what's posted probably, yes.

It's not posted.

Oh, it's not posted.

So this is going to be an actually second, the second driveway entrance is what you're... Yes.

Correct. So my other thought was, right, we're trying to... You know, our driveway exists with this one, so that would at least limit traffic within our property, right? I would be able to see if he's going out wandering. You know, there's only two of us. Right. So I didn't think about it that way. And we did talk with our neighbor to the west. That's where we're having the distance issue. And so he would be aware of it as well.

It's my understanding that if you pulled a permit to move the electric meter, the electric meter could come out towards that pole a little more. And the only inspection that would be required would be the new work. So it would be from your meter box to the meter. for them to make connection to your meter from the pole. With the direction of the DOT that we've had recently, and we have to stand behind our engineer in these entrance various applications, I kind of lean with Tim on probably moving either the electric meter or skirting between the two or finding another way in using the existing driveway.

Have you had like a estimate or contractor look at the electrical meter option like heavy? We have not. And I have like a estimate what it would cost to move there, what the scope of work would be to move it or anything like that.

Oh, we have not.

I mean, I guess I'm kind of. Maybe that would be an option to explore first, see what it would take to move the meter even.

What is to my left on the picture of the electrical meter? Like, what is that? It's a play set. That's beautiful. Sure. Yeah. I just didn't know what it was. I'm looking at it. I'm like, I don't know what that is. All right.

I do know the water line, the main water line runs in between the electric meter and the water meter.

So moving the water meter might be more difficult just because of the location of the main.

Hmm.

One of the things that we do have to consider, the state of Iowa changed some variance rules, and Kelly, correct me if I'm wrong, but financial hardship can't be considered a loan in a variance application, correct?

For zoning changes, that's correct.

Okay. So this isn't a zoning change, so. That's what I was gonna say.

No, this is a variance.

OK. Any more questions here? I don't have any, I don't think. Any questions there? I mean, I think I'd like to see as part of the request, maybe if you had, you know, come back with some documentation, some quotes, you know, let us know what.

Yeah.

Yeah. How that goes.

Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it. Item number four was tabled. Item number five. Hmm.

to table the third one.

Oh, the third one? Yeah. Sure, we can do that. We need a motion. We're tabling the number three, yeah.

I'll make a motion to table the rezone, not the rezone, I'm sorry, the variance application as submitted by Riley and Elena Madol. Second.

Roll call.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

I'll make a motion to go into public hearing for item five.

Second.

Roll call. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

We are now in public hearing and we are here to consider a rezoning for Greg and Barbara Crooks from agricultural district to rural residential district.

This is an application to rezone parcel number three three one zero zero zero one two zero 283 from agriculture to rural residential. The owners would ultimately like to rezone the parcel so they can divide it into two parcels. I'm now going to read the standards for approval and the findings of facts. One, does the proposed rezoning conform to the general goals, objectives, policies, and future land use map of the Warren County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? The parcel is located within the urban fringe designation within the comprehensive land use plan, which states that these areas should remain in their current use with no further development or division until annexed and served by municipal utilities. However, it also states that splits or minor divisions of agricultural land into a limited number of new parcels or lots for residential development may be appropriate. There is an existing home on the parcel. The owners wish to split the parcel into two lots and have their daughter live on the other lot. Number two, does the proposed rezoning conform to the specific purpose and intent of the proposed zoning district to be rezoned to the applicable use, development, and dimensional requirements of that district and other requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance? Yes, in order to rezone this parcel from agriculture to rural residential, each resulting lot must contain a minimum of two acres minus any rights of way. The parcel report on Beacon indicates a total acreage of 4.09 acres. This is presumed to be net when checked with assessor's office. If the rezoning application is approved, the applicant will need to submit a platus survey for the simple division application. and it will need to comply with this regulation. It will need to conform with the minimum lot size for each lot. The lot is located off Highway 65-69, where property entrance is determined by Iowa Department of Transportation. Three, is the proposed rezoning compatible with the land uses development patterns and zoning district designations of adjacent properties and does not significantly alter the character of the surrounding area? Yes, there are several smaller parcels of similar size zoned agricultural along highway 65 69 to the north and south near these smaller ag parcels are two acre lot subdivisions zoned rural residential so the two lots would not look out of place four is a proposed rezoning needed to further advance the public health safety and general welfare of Warren County and does not create a conflict with other regulations in the county ordinances. The proposed rezoning is not needed to further advance the public health, safety, and general welfare of Warren County. It is simply a request from the applicant owners. The proposed rezoning will not create a conflict with other regulations in the county ordinance as long as it meets the minimum lot size requirement which we will require. in a submitted simple division application. Five, is the proposed rezoning needed to allow reasonable development of the site and cannot be overcome by any feasible alternative means other than a rezoning? The site is currently zoned ag, which requires a minimum of 40 acres to subdivide. The subject parcel is 4.09 acres in size, not suitable for agricultural production, therefore rezoning to rural residential in order to subdivide the lot into two parcels seems appropriate given the surrounding lot sizes, uses, and character of the neighborhoods. Six, is the proposed rezoning not solely for the benefit of the applicant or does it serve a broader public or community interest? The proposed rezoning is solely for the benefit of the applicant who wishes to ultimately divide the parcel into two lots. Seven, will the proposed rezoning impose additional unreasonable costs on the public for infrastructure services or enforcement? No, the proposed rezoning will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public for infrastructure services or enforcement. The lot fronts onto a paved road. The owners will be responsible for any improvements should there be any. Eight, will the rezoning result in uncoordinated development or place unreasonable demands on public services, infrastructure, or transportation systems? No, the rezoning will not result in uncoordinated development or place unreasonable demands on public services, infrastructure, or transportation systems. If the rezoning is approved, the applicant plans on subdividing the lot into two parcels. Nine, will the proposed source of water supply and method of wastewater treatment for the proposed rezoning meet the requirements of the Warren County Environmental Health Department and Iowa Department of Natural Resources, if applicable? The existing parcel has actually two septic systems in place. If the applicant gets approval to rezone their lot to rural residential, they will need to submit an application for a simple division to split the lot into two lots. If approved, they will need to reach out to Environmental Health Department to obtain a septic permit for the additional lot and go through the appropriate steps to gain approval. And there is a letter from Warren Water indicating that there is available water for the additional lot. 10, are the existing roads and bridges providing access to the proposed rezoning adequate to serve any proposed development? Yes, the existing paved road provides access to the subject parcel and is adequate to serve the additional parcel as well. 11 are comments or recommendations from local school district officials regarding classroom capacity and bus service to the rezoning that are addressed and incorporated into the plan. If approved to rezone the parcel, the owners will submit an application to subdivide the lot into two parcels. This would not trigger the need to contact local school districts regarding classroom capacity. 12, does the proposed rezoning conflict with adopted intergovernmental agreements, comprehensive plans, fringe area plans, or coordinated growth strategies with incorporated cities? No, the proposed rezoning does not conflict with any adopted intergovernmental agreements. The parcel is located within the fringe area plan. However, as stated in number one above, the comprehensive land use plan states minor divisions of AG land within the county may be appropriate for parcel served by municipal utilities and services. However, this is septic and on worn water. There is an existing home on the parcel that is currently served by worn water and has septic. This proposal does not conflict with the statement. Oh, that concludes staff's presentation.

yes and the applicant is here if you wish to ask them any questions okay I do have a question for you on the um this is the rezoning I understand we're not approving the plat but with the creation of two lots would that be considered a

minor subdivision then it would be appropriate to have a shared driveway because I don't see another it's considered a simple division per ordinance I mean could be because I guess a minor is up to four lots but the since it's on highway 65 69 Iowa Department of Transportation they already have an existing road that comes off of of highway 65 and so it would be easy just to extend it to the other parcel because they already have access to the first parcel to the parcel be two separate drives then no it would they would use the existing drive and they would just extend it i think it's been done yeah correct

Okay. And I assume this came by recommendation of the zoning board?

Yes. Yes. Okay. I think I saw that it was unanimous in approval. Got it. Okay. I would make a motion, I guess if no one else had anything to say, to close the public hearing.

I make a motion to close the, oh, did you want to ask if anybody else? Mm-hmm. Okay. To close the hearing. Second.

Roll call. McIntyre?

Aye.

Gerritsen?

Aye.

Kucuk? Aye. Witt? Aye. Arnold?

Aye.

I would make a resolution to consider for approval the rezoning for Greg and Barbara Crooks from Ag Agricultural District to Rural Residential District RR.

Second.

McIntyre?

Aye.

Erickson?

Aye.

McCook?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye. Arnold?

Aye. OK.

Item number six, was there only one rating on that? We only have one rating on those? Was it set for?

Correct, this is just one. Set for one? It's corrected, yeah.

I'd make a motion to go into public hearing to consider a corrective amendment to the zoning boundaries and legal descriptions.

Actually, I'm sorry. Let me start. There is, you can waive the, because it's a rezoning.

Rezoning would be three hearings.

It would be three, so you can opt to waive the second and third hearing, if you wish.

Okay. Do you want us to withdraw our motion, Kim, or?

Just start over and waive it. Waive it, okay, so.

I'd make a motion to approve the rezoning for Greg and Barbara Crooks from Ag Agricultural District to our Rural Residential District and waive the second and third reading.

Second. McIntyre?

Aye. Erickson? Aye.

Cook? Aye. Duvid? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Motion carries.

Now I'll make that motion to enter public hearing for the corrective amendment to the zoning boundaries and legal description.

OK. Second.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson?

Aye.

Cook? Aye. DeWitt?

Aye.

Arm?

Aye. We're in public hearing. What do we?

That was to rescind that other one, wasn't it?

No, that was to go into the public hearing. All right.

We're back in the public hearing now. Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah. What do we got, corrective amendment?

Yeah, this next item. The purpose of the corrective amendment is to formally clarify zoning boundaries approved under Ordinance Numbers 498-C and 500-C, along with Resolution Numbers 26-104, in 26-198 by correcting the legal description associated with the rezoning and preliminary plat. This corrective action will ensure the Warren County Assessor's Office can accurately apply the zoning classification to the correct parcels on the county zoning and assessment maps. The original rezoning application submitted by the applicant clearly identified lots six through 49 of Rosewood North as the area included in the request. Parcel 05806006000 does not contain lots one through five. During both the zoning commission and board of supervisor hearings, The maps, plat documents, and staff presentations all consistently demonstrated that the rezoning applied only to lots six through 49. All neighboring property owners who received notice, all members of the public who attended, and the Board of Supervisors understood and discussed the rezoning and preliminary plat excluding lots one through five. Although the maps and hearing materials clearly showed the correct area, the original legal description that was attached to the rezoning application included language referencing areas that encompass lots one through five. A new legal description was presented to Warren County when the applicant purchased the property, and it had it currently conveyed to them, which was after both the rezoning and preliminary plot hearings for both the Board of Supervisors and Zoning Commission. The corrective amendment removes lots 1 through 5 from the legal description, confirms that lots 6 through 49 of Rosewood North are the only plotted lots included, and replaces the prior legal description with the corrective legal description that aligns with what was shown in all maps, staff reports, public notices, and testimony. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the corrective amendment as presented and recommend approval for your board so that a formal resolution may be adopted correcting the legal description and zoning boundary. That concludes. That's it.

I get it. Thank you.

Yes, correct, sorry. They approved it, yes, last night. The zoning commission approved the corrective amendment with a vote of four to zero.

So just to be clear, the maps, when we had the official or the first rezoning, we approved it. what we've seen on the map, it's just the language in what we approved did not include lots one through five.

The only thing that was incorrect was the legal description. The maps, the documents, the application, it all stipulated that it was only lots six through 49. It was just the legal description.

Anybody else have any questions? I don't. I'll make a motion to exit.

Oh, sure. Is there anyone to speak on this tonight? Okay.

I'll make a motion to exit public hearing. Second.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. I'll make a motion to approve the corrective amendment to the zoning boundaries and legal description established by the described aforementioned ordinances and waive second and third reading.

Second.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson?

Aye.

McCook?

Aye. LeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Item number seven, consider Interfund operating transfer for secondary roads with possible action.

Hello. Hello.

So this is the budgeted transfer.

It just gives me the ability to actually go ahead and process. In the budget, we budgeted $3,775,000 to go from the Rural Basic Fund to the Secondary Roads Fund. That is per code, and our minimum amount that we could transfer per I did have an update of the resolution for action, so when you guys are ready, I will just go ahead and read the resolution.

Just change it a little bit.

Okay. That looks perfect. So, whereas it is desired to authorize the budget director of County County, Iowa, to periodically transfer sums from the General Basic Fund and the Rural Basic Fund to the Secondary Roads Fund during the 2027 fiscal year, and whereas said operating transfers must be in accordance with Section 331.429 and 331.432 Code of Iowa, whereas said operating transfers were budgeted and appropriated for fiscal year 2027, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Thornton County, Iowa, that the total maximum tax revenue transfer from the General Basic Fund to the Secondary Growth Fund for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 shall not exceed the sum of $0, and the total maximum tax revenue transfer from the Rural Basic Fund to the Secondary Growth Fund for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 shall not exceed the sum of $2,210,000. Upon being notified of the apportionment of current property taxes and the state replacements against levied property taxes, the general basic and rural basic fund, the budget director shall transfer from said funds to the secondary group fund. The amount of the transfer required by section two shall be equal to 0% 8% of the tax apportionment of the Rural Basic Fund. Transfers from the Rural Basic Fund for revenues generated from sources other than property taxes shall not exceed $1,565,000 to be paid in installments. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 234, total transfers to the Secondary Road Fund shall not exceed $0 from the General Fund and 3,775,000 from the Rural Basic Fund. Notwithstanding the provisions of section two, three, and four, the amount of fee transfers shall not exceed the available fund balance in the transfer.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve as read by our budget director.

Second. Roll call.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Item number eight. Consider transferring Traylor from auditor's office to attorney's office for use as drug task force with possible action. So this would have just been a trailer that was owned or used by the, used for election. Not going to sell it. Not going to sell it. It's going to the drug task force.

Okay. I was looking all over Facebook buy, sell, trade for that thing. Okay. No, we found a good use right here in the county.

That sounds like a good use to me. That's good. I like it. I'll make a motion to approve the trailer transfer from the auditor to the attorney's office.

I suppose I'll second.

I'll let you do that. McIntyre? Aye. Erickson? Aye.

Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Item number nine, receive and file reports from A, Humane Society, B, Recorder.

I'll make a motion to receive and file the two reports.

Second.

Roll call.

McIntyre?

Aye. Erickson?

Aye. Cook?

Aye.

DeWitt?

Aye. Arnold? Aye. Item 10, supervisors report. Any supervisors with a report to offer this evening?

Okay.

Item number 11 is our public input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per individual. The board will not take any action on the comments due to the requirements of the open meeting law, but may do so in the future. No public input will be allowed for any of today's agenda items. Anyone from the public that wishes to speak, we have an open microphone and three minutes available for you.

Not any of today's agenda. Just here. to site the cease and desist order. They continue to put information out on social media, promoting events, and I believe they have some youth events coming up, which I don't know, as a mom, having kids go to a site that we know is being illegally operated and there's a cease and desist doesn't seem appropriate. So that's it, just to let you know that there's still Thank you. Anyone else? Hi.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else this evening? Three minutes?

I believe the Warren County citizens need to know how the Warren County By following what was written in the filming. Nothing's really written in the Iowa code. Okay, thank you. These were all emails you've already sent us. You're just reading emails we've already gotten.

I think we're on public record. I think we said three minutes. Yeah, we're, no, three minutes. You've had your time, thank you. Item number, anyone else speak publicly? Okay, haven't seen none. Next meeting date will be held October 6th, 2026, 9 a.m. right here in Warren County Supervisor Chamber.

We'll make a motion to adjourn our meeting. Second. Roll call.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.