Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Time is 9 a.m. We are in the Warren County Boardroom for a regular meeting. Can we have a roll call for attendance, please?

McIntyre? Here. Erickson?

Here. Smith?

Present.

DeWitt? Here. Arnold? Here. We have a quorum. Would we kindly stand for Pledge of Allegiance? under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Agenda deletions, I believe we do not have any this morning. Item number one on our agenda is our consent agenda. All items listed under our consent agenda will be enacted by one motion. We have claims in the amount of $917,873.59. Minutes to approve. March 17th, 2026, board meeting. March 24th, 2026, special meeting, closed session. March 24th, 2026, special meeting, canvas election. March 24th, 2026, work session. March 31st, 2026, special meeting, tax levy hearing. March 31st, 2026, special meeting. Item C, approve payroll removal Dennis Dollison, motor grader operator. Item D, approve step increase for Thomas Edgenberger, concrete foreman. Item D, approve step increase for Patrick Bush, motor grader operator. Item F, approve new hire Ross Turner, equipment operator one, secondary roads. Item G, approve class C, retail alcohol license renewal for Sunset Saloon. LLC at 4835 Ellipson Street, Pearl. Item H, approve Class C Retail Alcohol License Renewal for Bailey Farm, Barn and Venue at 7919 G76 Highway, New Virginia. I approve retail tobacco license for Maverick Group LLC at 1453 County Highway G76 New Virginia. Approve retail tobacco license for Dollar General Store 21634 at 1035 G50 Highway St. Charles.

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

Second.

Roll call.

Aye. Erickson?

Aye.

McCook?

Aye.

Witt?

Aye.

Arnold?

Aye. Motion carries. Item two, public hearing for the conveyance of land between Warren County and Stephen K. and Donna J. Crowe.

I'll make a motion to go into public hearing. Second.

Roll call.

McIntyre?

Aye.

Erickson? Aye.

McCook?

Aye. Witt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. We are now in public hearing. Good morning. Good morning, Kelly. Morning.

Stephen and Donna Crowe just recently purchased the farm property from his family, and they've farmed this property for like 30 years. And in purchasing the property, the abstracts were brought up to date, and they realized that two of the nine parcels were not in their name. We're not really sure exactly what happened, but the parcel that went back to Warren County, it might have been because of a tax issue. And so they're working with the whole law firm to get clear title on the other parcel. And they've approached the county to get clear title on the other parcel, which is south of a riverbed. And a map has previously been provided. And we spoke about this issue in work session. So that's what this is for today, to have the public hearing on that issue.

Thank you, Kelly. Well, you can come up and up here to the podium, if you don't mind, and just state your name and address, if you don't mind.

103-95-40th Lane. OK. 50229. And Henry was alive. He wanted to donate a piece of ground where he could get off the rock road. and get in on canoes, and canoe to Crow Park. And that's why I thought it was going to be by the road, but it's clear out in the middle of the section. And my dad came home from the war, and he broke horses for him. He lived there right by the railroad. train those horses to come in, and so Dad helped him break horses, and he just gave him a piece for that for Crow Park, just for the kids to use as access. Yeah, I remember when he came down, he was, he walked all the way from down there to Crow Park, and he's chewing the back of it, just running down his cheek, But he wanted to do something, and that's what he did. I don't know if it was in my dad's name. I don't think so. It was just always in his name. I don't know. I got proof that my dad sold me his little cabin there on Crow Park. And that's where that land, that's where that, I never did see a deed.

Okay. So this one was actually, it's in the name of Warren County. That's what the property is, but. Is it? Mm-hmm. The one where it convened, right?

Yeah, okay. Well, the HL. Somehow it ended up in. Everything south of the river. next to it, evidently.

Yeah, south of the river, correct.

Yeah, everything south of the river. That's about all I got, I guess.

You got anything else?

Oh, I want to give you that billow cell from the park on that cabin. You have that?

Yeah.

Oh, OK. Thanks.

They're hers. You got copies.

OK. OK. So have you shared those with? And this came up yesterday, then.

Michaela, is there any way you can bring that up on the Iowa Assessors and bring up the parcel?

Yeah, the parcel on Beacon.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same parcel here.

Right. Thank you. I'm one of the three. This is Samuel Crowe, which founded this county. And he died in 1838. And that's all I got, I guess. CHRIS JERRAM, JR.: Crow's Park.

OK, thank you, sir. What's that? CHRIS JERRAM, JR.: Yeah, it's 0900290243, I believe.

I guess I'm not sure where Crows Park is.

So this would be the parcel we're conveying, is that correct? Yes. Yes. So is that part of this bill of sale or? Because I don't see it.

Oh, 420. Is 420 his property? Yes. Is that where that is?

Do you have a tax statement with you? Yeah, I've got one. It's got the parcel number on there.

My son, this is more than my son. He paid. Everything's going to go to his name when I'm gone. I named him after my dad. And my dad's eyes just looked like this when I told him I'm going to name him. My son has to be a dad.

And so that's the, Michaela, could you, where the text box is, can you X out of that a sec? Yep. And can you pull up the little piece to the south of what you just clicked? I wanna see what it is. No, one to the right.

Okay, there's, there's. Okay, so it's south of the river, but northwest of the corridor.

And is there a piece just above that, like that's south of the river, like that little sliver? What's that? There we go.

There we go. 427, yes, that's the... That's the one. Yeah, that's in your name. So if that's where your cabin is located or was located. Because we're talking about the piece to the east. That's in the county's name. Mm-hmm.

Okay. I was going to ask who's right above the two four. Yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Anyone else for public comment?

Well, I guess, sir, are you saying that the property to the east is what was sold to you as well, the one that we're trying to convey, or is just that the one that you have? I didn't know they split it.

I'm not sure.

It's the access to the river.

But he still has that on his property, correct?

Always thought the land was way too great. Well, I thought, and Steve owned it, I think.

Crow's Paw.

That's what Andy wanted to do. He got to the canoes.

I guess, yeah.

I guess, in my opinion, Stephen requested that that be conveyed. I guess I don't see it the county's place to get involved in a family dispute over land.

Yeah, the issue is we don't really have a legal description with the bill of sale.

No, there's no parcel report or anything.

There was a parcel that was transferred to...

The county at some point.

The county at some point, and also H.L. Crowe, which is different than the other Steven and Donna.

I think Steven's grandfather. He'd be my second uncle.

So, sir, do you have an issue with the county conveying the highlighted piece? When you're not making an ownership on that one, do you have an issue with the county conveying that to Donna and Steven? Or no? Or yes?

I thought it was all one piece. No, I mean it's two pieces. I just wanted a little piece of a bridge that anyone might agree.

OK. OK. Is there anyone else from public comment?

Anyone else? Public comment?

Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close or to come out of public comment.

Second. Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. We are now out of the public hearing.

And then I'll make a motion to convey the land between Warren County and Stephen K. And Donna J. Crowe. Did I say that right?

Okay. I thought it was to convey the land to them.

To approve the land conveyance between Warren County and Stephen K. and Donna J. Crew.

Is that right? To convey it to them, correct. Okay, second. McIntyre? Aye.

Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Armour? Aye. Okay. Item number three, public hearing for Craig Hill to rezone of land from agricultural district to rural residential district. Good morning.

Aye, good morning. So this application to rezone for parcel number 25000210 four six zero from as you mentioned agricultural to rural residential uh... eventually he wants to create four lots staff would actually like to recommend tabling this application Because there's still information that we're trying to obtain regarding water availability as well as access availability. Staff reached out to Warren Water, who then referred us to Marion County Water, who is actually servicing this area. They have come back and said that we asked if there would be enough water for these additional lots. They said, well, once improvements are made, there will be, there should be. Improvements we do not know when they're going to be complete. It could be a year or more so the other issue being access didn't realize that I I dot Iowa Department of Transportation actually controls access along 92 into Parcels so staff has reached out to someone in that department I've referred it to Craig Hill who is the applicant to keep in touch with him and they progress so because of these two issues with water and access staff would like to just table it keep it on hold and then come back once these two items have been resolved or we have more information to move forward with the rezone application and the applicant is here too if you want to ask another question how's mr. Hill feel about that is yes I did speak with them yesterday about it and he was agreeable to holding off

And he can come forward if you want, Mr. Hill. Thank you so much, Liz and Becky.

Good morning. Good morning. Craig Hill, 10438 213th Avenue, Ackworth. So in my application, I elected the fact of Marion County Water, as they do put a line right in front of those properties, I assumed access. But they have some issues with flow and with pressure. So there's improvements that are scheduled, but not, I guess, not proposed a time date certain. One complication. The other complication was I didn't think about getting DOT clearance on access. It's Highway 92. There's several accesses along that stretch of property. I made the assumption that that wouldn't be a problem, but we need to get approval from DOT. And I have not had a conversation yet with DOT, but I guess they're investigating and taking a look at it at this time. I concur that we probably should table at this time until we can get these issues resolved.

Well we could we could table it or in order to keep the process moving for you as everybody gets more information and whatnot we could prove the first reading of it and not waive the second and third readings. So at least that would keep everything rolling for you.

That would be your discretion. So the one property where we have our home, we wanna go ahead and get a survey of that and get an abstract drawn for estate planning purposes. The question is, does that impact your decision down the road if we go ahead with that? Or does it make it more difficult or complicate further and we can wait on that. So I just don't know the technical circumstances.

I think my only concern would be we're waiting on the DOT and that can be a really timely process unfortunately in the district that we are with the DOT. I'm concerned we won't have an answer in two weeks when we would have our second reading, but I certainly do like that proposal to keep this process moving.

Yeah, the water issue will be a little bit longer than that.

Right.

So I want to maintain our momentum. You know, we've already got things rolling and things established. I don't want to lose that momentum, but I understood that we need to postpone.

Yeah.

Well, when the...

The rural residential that you're applying for doesn't require connection to public or community water. So worst case scenario, you dig wells. I think your biggest obstacle is the driveways on Highway 92. Looking at the area, I would find it hard to believe that the DOT wouldn't approve some kind of driveway

Probably this is 600 foot clearance.

Yeah. The property adjacent to the west lot, the access is actually on my property into that home.

That's his house. Yeah. So it would be somewhere in here. So if they give him access here, I can't imagine they wouldn't give him access.

He'd take access out there too. Yeah.

Okay. I would be in favor of approving the first reading of it, and we can always come back and revisit it on second and third. We could possibly waive the third if you get the DOT approval. That way everything keeps moving for you.

My only question is, Kelly, is there a time constraint on when the next reading has to be? Because my... That's my only concern, Travis. I'm happy to help move the process along on this as well, but if there's a time constraint that we could theoretically approve not waive the next couple and then set it out, but if it has to be done within 30 days or something and we don't have our answer, then we're right back to the same thing, which is why my only take might be table it and come back but we'll we'll fire it right back up and and get you get you heard in a public hearing and i think we just need the answers we wait till we get all the information and then bring otherwise i don't i'm just not confident the dot is going to have a response if kelly says that hey we we have to run hearing two in 30 days or two weeks or whatever we that we might not have an answer in two weeks or 30 days and we're just kind of back here again spinning wheels

plus if anything were to change within the parameters of the land anything we would have to start that process all over again because we can only vote on what is before us today in the second third reading so i think it would be in your best interest to table it and then come back to us when you have all the information

And we're not looking for another application fee either. No.

I was just going to remind, if we wait and then you approve it the next time, we can always waive the second and third hearings. So it's kind of the same.

Yeah. Right.

But I would stress waiting to get all of the information. Yeah. Yeah.

I concur.

I think our engineers in the back, Tim, would you think that two weeks for the DOT to turn something around is going to be reasonable?

Okay.

OK.

I'll continue to work with DOT. There is another contingency possible with Warren County water because they're very nearby. I did request an estimate of what it cost to bring Warren County water in, and I don't know exactly what that amount will be, whether it's tolerable or not, but there is another option there for water. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

So the consensus is to table it?

I think that's in the public hearing first and then make a motion.

I'll make a motion. But we never, we're not in the public hearing now. So I don't think, do we need a motion to table it or do we just not take an action on it?

Bingo.

Yeah, I think we're good. Um, it's considered a tabled. We've not, we've not acted on it. So, um, item number four is a public hearing for Dan Cruz for a rezoning of land from agricultural district to rural residential district.

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

Second. Second. All right, so this applicant is Dan.

Hold on one second. Oh, sorry. Roll call, please. No problem. McIntyre? Aye. Bereson? Aye. DeKuch?

Aye.

DeWitt? Aye. Armand? Aye. We are good. We are in public hearing now. Go right ahead.

Okay, this applicant is Dan Cruz asking to rezone parcel number zero five eight zero six zero zero six zero zero from agriculture to rural residential part of chapter 41.03 of the 2026 Warren County zoning ordinance. The applicant would like to create 44 real estate lots for the construction of single family homes and to sell them. Staff's recommendations are based on findings of fact and guidelines for evaluating zoning amendments, rezoned requests. And the following checklist, which I'll go through, was used as a basis of our findings for recommendations. Will the proposed district be a benefit to the general public? Yes. Is the location of the proposed district in accordance with a land use plan and policies? Yes. Could the proposed district be considered spot zoning? No. Will the proposed district maintain or protect property values of adjacent landowners? Yes. Is the time schedule and type of development considered within the proposed district reasonable? Yes. Does the proposed district correspond to the area of proposed development? Yes. Will the proposed district be in accord with The intent, purpose, and spirit of the zoning ordinance and land use plan and policies of Warren County? Yes. Under land use agricultural, will the proposed district be located at least one quarter mile from any existing livestock feed with more than 500 head of livestock on feed? Or poultry farm housing more than 5,000 fowl? Yes. Does at least 75% of the property in the proposed district have a corn suitability rating of 55 or less? No. Is the proposed district or any part of it located within an area subject to flooding? Yes. However, so that's going to be mostly in the western side of the parcel, and the proposed development will not be located within this flood zone or within the flood point at all. Will the development within the proposed district be located outside of areas subject to flooding? Yes. Does the proposed district include heavily timbered areas? There's approximately 15% to 20% of the site, and they're all along the west side, kind of where the floodplain is. Will the development within the proposed district minimize the loss of woodlands or timber? Yes. Will the proposed source of water supply and wastewater treatment meet the requirements of the Warren County Board of Health? Yes. Will telephone, gas, or electric service be available to serve the development of the proposed district? Yes. Under transportation, will the existing roads and bridges providing access to the proposed district be adequate to serve the proposed development in accordance with the requirements and standards of the Warren County engineer? Yes. Is classroom capacity and school bus service to the proposed district adequate to serve the proposed development in accordance with the requirements and or recommendations from local school district? Yes. Will existing and or proposed parks in the vicinity of or within the proposed district be adequate to serve the proposed development in accordance with the requirements and or recommendations of the Warren County Conservation Board? Yes. Will the development within the proposed district minimize soil erosion, dust, and surface water runoff during and after construction in accordance with requirements and standards of the Warren County zoning ordinance? Yes. Is the proposed district located outside of approach zones of airports and landing strips? Yes. Will the development within the proposed district minimize noise levels during and after construction so as to not create a nuisance to adjacent property owners?

Yes.

Is the proposed district located within an urban expansion area as shown on the land use plan? yes if yes to 22 will the proposed district be in conformance with the comprehensive plan of the city and in accordance with the recommendations of city officials i actually put yes but just to note it's located within the urban fringe within the city of norwalk city officials are aware of the proposal They will however require should you approve the rezone? They will need to go through the city of Norwalk in order to make an amendment to their comprehensive land use plan Because that is zoned differently so they would need to amend their Comprehensive land use plan before they can move forward with subdivision So the subdivision was originally recorded on January 10th, 1980. Because improvements were never completed for the site, the applicant was required to go through the major subdivision process to date and follow current regulations within the 2026 Warren County Ordinance. Just noting, directly south of the subject site are residential lots ranging in size from two to four acres. The site is located within the urban fringe area and is approximately two miles east of the City of Norwalk. The applicant has reached out and discussed the proposal with the City of Norwalk, understands what planning staff is requesting of them. mentioned about the comprehensive plan amendment staff recommends approval of the request to rezone parcel number zero five eight zero six zero zero six zero zero from agriculture to rural residential to create real estate lots for the construction of single family homes based on the submitted application and findings of fact. And I would also like to note, Warren Water has also looked at it, and there is capacity for 44 lots. So I just wanted to make a note of that as well. And the applicant, I believe, is here today. Maybe not, hopefully. Anyway, if you have any questions.

Thank you. Why are we going for rural residential instead of our planned residential when the planned residential specifically calls out that that district is intended to provide low to moderate density residential development around or a zoning district designed for areas near cities and along county growth corridors? Why are we, the rural residential to me is more applicable to what Mr. Hill was doing with the three lots, not 44. 44 septic tanks, 44 lots. That's Greenfield Plaza.

Correct, but the lots will be larger in size than a typical planned residential would be.

Well, I understand that, but the intent of when we were all sitting down rewriting this code was that this would be an ideal planned residential development not a rural residential i think but then they would have to and i think they're that's what i'm saying 44 septic tanks yeah they didn't want to have to hook up to but that's what I'm getting at is 44 septic tanks, and there's a creek just to the north at the bottom of the hill. I don't think this fits the rural residential outline that we were going for. I think it's more of the planned residential. 44 lots on 162 acres is the very definition of low to moderate density housing.

Oh, yeah, you're correct. You can always request that they look into that. Yes.

I think the only reason that we're going for rural residential instead of planned residential is because of the connection to public and community water and wastewater. But I think that's the intent of what we're going after is so that these moderate density developments would have to be hooked to some kind of sewer. I think we're skirting the intent of what we're trying to do there.

Anyone from the public? Anyone from the public here to speak?

OK. My name is Randy Mason. I reside at 9259 Dubuque Street. OK. And I guess I just kind of have a question about, isn't it true that this developer can develop this ground as it's plotted? Which would be the same amount of lots.

So I want to address your question. You only have as much time as you want.

And my property is the one that has the easement that goes through it. So with that being said, we moved out to the country. for a reason, and that's not to have 100 Cracker Jack houses behind us. It's for space. It's for country living. Now, that's what Norwalk wants to do. That's their future plan. and none of us, and I'm sure I can speak for everybody in our area, nobody wants that. We want rural living, okay. We want space, we want two to four acre lots with nice homes. I understand what your concern is with the CRIC, but the gentleman can still do it without anybody's approval. And I think you need to consider what we want. The current residents there also take that into consideration. None of us want even a highway in our backyard, and that's what Norwalk wants to do with their new future corridor, which they don't even own the ground west of there anyway. Yeah, they can annex it and do what they want. But I think you guys need to consider that. Because there's nobody in our area that wants 100 future homes. We would much rather have the 40, 43, or whatever it is. That's all I got to say.

Thank you, Randy. And Travis, I was going to chime in after your questions or thoughts on it, too, and that's the rub. I actually sat in a meeting with Norwalk, and then I did attend their last city council meeting where there are some hurdles there from Norwalk's perspective because Randy's right. Norwalk at some point would like to maybe loop a main corridor through there. So So at the end of the day, because it's platted in 1980, the developer can 100% put in to those specifications and Norwalk, even though it's within that two mile fringe, they have no ability to say, uh-uh. So it's sort of a game of chicken right now because the developer wants to actually limit houses from that plat. And that's a rarity in my estimation. Usually land developers, not always, but usually they're looking to squeeze as many lots as they possibly can into their development because that's how they make money, right? More lots, more sales, more homes, whatever. Dan is actually, I think he lopped off maybe seven of them to make the floodplain better. And so they are large executive lots. I mean, I'm telling you, there's not going to be a home in that 44, if he can work through Norwalk's ability to influence this, there's not gonna be a home there that's probably less than 800, $1.1 million. I mean, they're executive lots. And if I was a neighbor, I would probably prefer that to more density. And so the developer can go with that plot, but he's really trying hard to make it better and to trim it down. He also, I'd point out for the public's benefit, he was the developer on Timberview, which is a wonderful development. It's within Norwalk. But in that meeting, it struck me. It was actually really impressive to me because Dan said something along the lines of, do you know why my pine trees that are lining the road are still alive? And if you look at a lot of other developments, they wilt, they die. He goes, because I paid Ted Lair for five years to water them three times a week. He's like, I genuinely care about my developments. I'm not slapping stuff up and moving on. So I get what you're saying, but the alternative is probably worse from the neighbor's perspective. You know, if you do 44 lots and a million dollars of pop evaluation. That's a lot of valuation too, and I I'm supportive of it I'm not sure that he'll be able to To work within nor nor walks restrictions. I hope so the City Council did approve something last Thursday Maybe but I I don't know if they're gonna change their comp plan or not, but that's my take one other thing his His plotting is much updated

The way it's plotted now is they're all pied lots. It really makes no sense. He moved his lots up out of the flood plain to where the way it is plotted now, a lot of those lots are in the flood plain. And he is, you know, he's trying to work with everybody and I think it would be a much better development if he was able to get this through, rather than the alternative.

Okay?

That's all I have. Thank you.

Very good. I think I had a question, but I think it's been answered because I've originally, I've had some reservations because I had a, there's some information in the packet here with, it looks like 49 lots. But then as I go through the packet, there's like a concept here with 43, so it looks like it's been.

I believe they reduced it to 44. And we also asked them to pull out everything out of the floodplain as well. Because they originally, and you might have some of the original ones in there that show it in the floodplain, but their newest concept plan has everything out of the floodplain. And that's why they had to reduce the lots as well.

Right. Yes. The page I'm looking at is called the concept plan. And it looks like 40. Well, I just see 43 is what I've seen. Yeah. 43 lots and it's out of the floodplain. I mean, I guess the septic, if the lots are large enough and... you know, like the DNR, whoever would look at this, and they're saying the lots are large enough to support, you know, that many septic systems?

Well, they've talked to, it's Tyler in environmental health, and he's aware of it, so, yeah.

Mm-hmm. Do they have to get any other approval?

They don't feel like there's any problem in, I don't think, if he was like, environmental health has any problem with providing septics for each one of them.

Yeah. Yeah. And then with the city... you know, being within their two-mile buffer. So they're not, like, we don't have any insight of where they kind of come down on this?

Well, they are... they are having to abide by their comprehensive land use plan. They have to. Because once you make changes to a subdivision that was approved, they were okay with it as it sat. They said, that's fine, it's already been approved, we're okay with it. However, it didn't conform with our ordinance and our road standards. So we made them change the entrance off the highway, off the paved road. So once that happened, Norwalk had to go against it and say, well, then you're going to need to,

Make it comply with our comprehensive land use plan, which has it as medium density with industrial so Before they still have to go before the City Council and try to get a comprehensive land amendment I don't know if the city of Norwalk is gonna support that but the City Council could still vote for it.

Okay As well

Yeah, the only thing I'd point out though, because I did sit in the meeting, so I'm not just making stuff up, but in the event that the lower number of lots, the shift out of the floodplain, in the event that that doesn't happen, there's not a lot that's going to prevent that developer. I mean, I think it was Lamar Cothe's old, it's Marco Properties. There's not a lot to prevent that developer from selling it to someone else. and that next person could just go back and say, hey, your plat from 1980, which by all accounts is terrible, it's terrible, you're building in the floodplain, there's a lot more property stacked in there, and we're gonna put up those cookie cutter, crackerjack boxes, houses that Randy mentioned that he doesn't like, if that next developer says, well, that's where the money is, I still can make some return on it, and they go ahead and do it, If they conform with the plat, then that's grandfathered in, folks. And Norwalk can't do much about it, and they know they can't do much about it, and we can't do much about it. So you can make it better, or you can play the game of chicken and see if Dan wants to just go forward with the old plat or sell it to someone else who will do it. And so this is an opportunity to make it better.

That was my question, because it's the... I had some concerns with that plat that's on the screen now. So I'm like, I don't know about this. But if you... I don't know, Michaela, if you scroll down, there's actually a new concept. So I guess I'd like the packet to be clear which we're actually doing here because there's conflicting plats in the packet. And I guess I'd be... I mean, I would be in favor of approving this plan that's on the screen.

Maybe the other one was what it was previously plotted. Yes, this is a current one. That's how I read it when I was looking at the packet.

The new concept came about because we had meetings. They approached the county and they came in and said, this is already plotted, can we do this? There is a new provision in the new county ordinances after we made the new ones that said that they have to meet current ordinances after there's a time, like a year. If a year passes, then they have to meet current ordinances. So we do have a little bit of power to work with them to say, hey, they have to meet our new county ordinances, which my biggest concern of the old plat was, that the road dumped onto Dubuque Street. So a big portion of this development dumped onto gravel. So at that point we talked to the developer and they made the decision to take that access off, which was good. So you can either pave to that access or you can take it off. So that's why they reworked it because We didn't want him to dump onto the gravel. If he dumps onto pavement, that is our best case scenario. So he is willing to work with us, and that's a good thing. So like I said, the old plot you saw that you didn't like, that access must have been this gentleman's property right through his driveway next to his house. It would have been a private road through there, and that went away. So now what you see is everything accessing the highway. And it can still be reconfigured, maybe not so many cul-de-sacs. Nothing's set in stone yet. He has worked with us in good faith in the last few meetings to to do it the way Warren County likes it. That doesn't mean that, which that actually caused more hurdles for Norwalk because now that we required he change it, now it's not grandfathered in for Norwalk. So while we have the provision where it has to meet current ordinances, Norwalk does not. So that is, that's where we're at.

The comprehensive plan change for the city of Norwalk, that kind of takes care of my concern that there's nothing in the packet that says Norwalk's in favor of it or not in favor of it, but knowing that it's gonna go Before Norwalk, I'm okay with that. I'd also be okay with approving, I guess, a first reading today. I'd like to see something in there more concrete about the septic, saying that the lots were of the size and nature that that would be you know, suitable to what the county's thinking with our plans.

I think that would come in the next step. Because right now all we're doing is rezoning the land. And then in the next step, they're going to have to go through a site plan and all of that with them. And that's where all of those details, such as the septics and probably the accurate mapping here of these lots, So it would be more in the permitting process then, I guess, would be? I would think so, yeah. And again, if Tyler's OK with the subject, I think that's fine by me.

Well, I think that saying he's OK with it, but there's nothing in the packet that says he's OK with it. So that would be my thing.

I was just going to point, they still need to come through with a preliminary plat. So you'll have, and that's a separate application.

This is just a rezoning, right?

Yeah, this is just for rezoning. Then they'll need to come in with a preliminary plat, really detailing.

Okay, understood. All that. Yeah, great. Okay. Sir, how are you this morning? So far, so good. Name and address, please.

Scott Thompson, 9249 Dubuque Street. Thank you. I'm Randy's neighbor, so I own the land on the other side of the easement. Okay. And if they actually did put a road through there, My house would be closer to that road than Randy's would be. And I've lived there 30 years, and I don't really want a corner lot. So I just want to say I'm opposed to that access off of Dubuque Street. I think they should come all off R63. That way they can leave us alone. And I own eight acres, so I'd have three lots backing up to me the way this one is. And I don't want Norwalk in there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Sorry, I apologize.

Okay, let's make sure there's no one else out here first.

Thank you, Chairman. I apologize.

Okay.

I was reading the room there.

No problem, no problem. We have a motion.

Second.

Roll call.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Now I'll make a motion to approve the rezoning of land from agricultural district to rural residential for Dan Kruse.

Do I need to put the parcel number?

Well, we talk once I make the motion. So I'll make the motion in a second, and then we discuss it, usually. But we won't vote, obviously, without discussion. Do I need to put the parcel number in there?

I don't.

I will, okay, on parcel number 058060060000. And that's rezoning from agricultural to rural residential.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yeah, I get the, I get what everybody's going after here. My concern is we're setting a precedence. for other properties like this. And I don't know how to get my head around it to be okay with it when we sat through several meetings with zoning and whatnot to figure out how to do this. And we specifically, I remember Aaron even calling out issues with septic tanks and making sure that we didn't have a greenfield plaza 2.0 or a liberty center 2.0 we've got issues with both of them 44 houses on 162 acres is the exact definition of our planned residential 41.04 i get that it's going to build the tax base i get that nobody wants norwalk creeping in And I get that he can do the previous deal. But I wish there were some kind of middle road. And I'm really worried about setting a precedence that the next developer is going to come in and use this as legal grounds to get his approved. So.

I think when we reset and change the acreage size and set like the subdivision rules, this is exactly what it said in there. We're not requiring 10 acres anymore. It's much smaller. These, I'm not sure, but obviously look like they're over two acres, maybe three, two to three. And I think we're gonna see some really high end homes on here upwards a million dollars plus. I see some nods in the back of the room. I think there's a difference between that and Greenfield Plaza. That's all I'll say on that.

Okay, so as long as the developer builds million dollar homes, we're good with having them at a very high density. If they're cookie cutter homes, we can't have that, but if they're million dollar homes, then we can have high density.

No, I don't. I think that they're going to put in a quality septic system that we hopefully aren't going to have to take care of. But again, all of that's going to come through in the next approval when they put together a site plan. And Tyler will have to give a formal recommendation, I assume, in that. Right now, all we're talking about is rezoning the land. not really septic, not really, I mean, they could go through the site plan and find out they can only really put 10 on there. I don't think that's gonna happen, but.

Yeah, we're not approving the plant, we're just approving the rezoning.

Yeah, this is just an idea of what they could do.

I understand what we're approving, but we're approving a rezoning, and our code literally calls out what this should be zoned as. And I apologize that it's, too far out from Norwalk to get Norwalk sewer or Indianola sewer or anything like that, but that's literally what we approved when we were redoing these zoning codes.

Yeah, I do hear your point. Our problems in Liberty Center are that they are not on septic, though, not that they are on septic. They actually took all their septic systems away from them, and they have now a lagoon system.

Why did they take their septic systems away from them?

Yeah, I know. So, I mean, for that reason, to me, I'm okay with the being on septic. I mean, this is kind of in line with what we wanted, the development along the paved roads. This is a paved road. The lots would have to be on a septic, but as long as the lots were up to the size that would support that, I'm okay with the concept as it is, I think. I mean, I'd like to approve a first reading, more or less. like something in the packet saying, but they said that comes later with the platting. So we're not platting today, we're just rezoning.

I do just have a question. Yeah. I'm no septic specialist, but when I heard you make comment as a Green Plaza 2.0 or something to that. I guess my question is, today's septic standards, I'm sure, are a lot more strict and better than what they were when they developed the last Greenfield Plaza 2.0 or whatever you referred to. I would think that would be considered also, you know, when we're talking about septics. There's gotta be a difference. I mean, when was it, 30, 40, 50 years ago, you know? So I would think that would need to be considered also. Okay, that's all.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm also supportive, but I understand the concerns. But again, I think some of those concerns were addressed with the goal of building was to be off pavement. both the plaza and Liberty Center, which were referenced as examples, neither of them are actually on septic. Both of them have stormwater sewer and a sewer.

And one was better when it was on septic.

But the main reason why I'm supportive of the rezoning on this is because that plat exists folks like it literally exists and whether it's Dan or whether it's another developer someone can come in and utilize that plat that's grandfathered in and they can build more homes there on septic so I mean any of the the main concerns like you can either improve it and that's what I think Norwalk's going to have to grapple with as well as they can either they can either change their comp plan a little bit or they can you know think that, hey, in 30 or 40 years, we're gonna run a southeast connector around there maybe and tie that to Fleur Drive. And so they, from Norwalk's perspective and every city's perspective, they prefer bare farm ground so that they can put in whatever density the city wants if they annex it. But I mean, in my mind, they're probably looking out 20, 30, 40, maybe more, and you have to get people to approve it. So a big landowner or two that says, hey, I don't wanna be part of Norwalk, They can throw some wrenches in them too, but I'm supportive of it because I think it's infinitely better than the alternative and knowing developers and Dan, I'm not saying that that's what he would do, but if he just decides to throw his hand up and cut losses on it, the next person might, and this is infinitely better than what's approved or could be approved via that plat in 1980. So I'm supportive.

Supervisor Erickson had a motion?

Yes.

Was that seconded? Any more discussion? Roll call, please.

McIntyre? Aye.

Erickson? Aye. McCook? Aye. DeWitt? No. Arnold? Aye. Thank you. I've also been told, I guess, back to item number three, apparently we did need a motion.

I told you I thought I was crazy down here. I knew we had a lot of public hearings. That was the one that I was like, do we need to close the public hearing?

I thought we actually closed the public hearing already.

I thought we did. Do we need to circle back to three?

We need to go back to three to table it. I'll make a motion to table item number three on our agenda.

Second. McIntyre?

Aye.

Erickson? Aye. Duclos? Aye.

Aye. Aye? Aye. Aye, thank you. So now we are onto agenda item number five. Consider Honor Guard's request to use North Conference Room on the third Thursday of the month with possible action.

I put this on here, just we have people that regularly meet. This would be after hours. And the fire department honor guard is just requesting to regularly meet. And so then I would schedule the doors on the third Thursday of the month, if you guys are OK with that. And then after a while, their goal is to invite other county entities as well.

So would they be given like access then card to access the building or do we have to leave the building?

No it's all electronic through the door scheduling process kind of like what we do now for like if there's an evening meeting they're just I request through maintenance to schedule the doors open for a specific allotted time.

So we're not going to have any employees here while they're in here? Like if the door opens at 6.15, but they don't open or they don't get here till 6.20, the door's theoretically gonna be unlocked for five minutes with nobody around? That's usually what happens. Okay, no, I understand that, but we usually have somebody here or no?

No, the other groups like the Warren County Democrats, we also don't have staff here.

I don't have a problem with it. I'm a little iffy on the just unlocking the door set on a schedule. I don't know that I like that. I mean.

I guess I'm in favor of them using the room. I'm just thinking maybe something the facilities committee could address because I'd be maybe more in favor of giving them actual

like a card that they could unlock the door so we don't have to leave that.

Well I would think that would be a better idea than just having a timer unlock the door even if the timer could unlock the door from six o'clock to seven o'clock, but it only unlocks with that key, like that key's only allowed entrance between six and seven p.m. or whatever it is. Just having the door unlocked.

I think it's been that way for about six years.

Yeah.

Where if someone is using the building, it will unlock 30 minutes before that meeting is to start. Mm-hmm.

So.

And I think it had, I remember the discussion was because it's a public building.

Yep.

I'm not sure how.

And we, Zach, with the new, did we do new door locks or? We haven't done any new door locks yet.

I'm pretty sure we did with the system we have. I'd have to check, but given the car that would, I know it's going to work at a certain time. That's what we're looking to do. I'd say the only issue we would want to get was the cars out. Maybe I'd have one person start each. Yeah, I think that would be something for the facilities committee to take up.

I'm in favor of them using the room. I have no problem with them using the room, so I think that's really all we're... all we're approving today.

I would go ahead and make a motion to approve the Honor Guard's request to use the North Conference Room on the third Thursday of the month. Second.

Mackenher. Aye. Erickson.

Aye. Cook. Aye. Lewis. Aye. Arnold. Aye. Thank you, motion carries. Item number six is going to be a consider Sheriff Joseph Carrico's retirement plan with possible action. We have a, I assume a resolution in our packet here. Yes? Yes, it's on the screen.

I'll make a motion to accept Sheriff Joe Carrico's resignation effective January 8, 2027.

I'll second that. However, I'd call it retirement and I think he used the word resignation.

Oh, sorry, retirement. Okay, would somebody like to read the resolution? I don't have it here on mine. I can do that. Okay.

On February 18th, 2026, Sheriff Joseph Carrico submitted his notice of retirement stating he intends to retire from the position of Warren County Sheriff effective January 8th, 2027. Be it resolved that the Warren County Board of Supervisors acknowledges Sheriff Carrico's faithful service and significant contributions to Warren County Sheriff's Department and hereby acknowledges receipt of his notice of retirement and officially and formally accepts his letter of retirement effective 10 a.m. January 8th 2027. Warren County Board of Supervisors expresses its sincere appreciation for Sheriff Carrico's 25 years of dedicated service and extends well wishes for a fulfilling retirement.

Great. We had a motion and a second to accept resolution.

McIntyre? Aye.

Harrison? Aye.

McCook? Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor DeWitt, for reading that. Item number seven, consider agreement with Iowa Department of Transportation for project number STP ending nine one with possible action. I'm not gonna read all that, but thank you. Welcome, Tim.

What do we got here? This is our normal federal aid agreement for an asphalt overlay project for Scotridge Road from Highway 65 69 to the city limits of Carlisle It's scheduled for a November letting of this year so likely construction window next year These agreements come out early in the design process and it's it's It lays out what we have to do in order to keep our federal money. So this project got ahead of some other ones because of the funding. It's service transportation block grant funding, just another pool of money that we haven't been able to spend for the last seven years because we were so borrowed ahead in it. So it's MPO money, so it's got to be in the MPO boundaries as well. So just like I said, it's a boilerplate how we get through project design, through contract administration. So if we don't follow these rules in this agreement, then we lose federal money. But it's just like the last four agreements I've brought to you, same wording and everything, so.

I'll make a motion to approve the agreement. Second. Second. Travis.

Roll call then.

Becker-Tyrant? Aye. Erickson? Aye.

McCook? Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Motion carries. Item number eight, discuss additional hire for secondary rose department with possible action.

So we've had a couple retirements in the last six months, and they're right around the retirement date. So right now we have four openings. We just filled, we're filling one on the agenda today. we're doing our due diligence on two other people so this will be for the fourth and final opening we have it's not new positions it's backfilling either retirements or people leaving for various reasons so this would be for i think we've gotten approval on two this is would be approval for the last two that the retirements went through so

these are in the budget yes yeah yep so i'll make a motion to approve additional hire for secondary roads department um i believe that there's plenty of work to be done and we need to make sure our staff is full and ready to work for our secondary roads second roll call mcintyre aye erickson aye

Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Item number nine is to consider agreement with both Miller Electric and Accurate Controls for camera upgrades in the Justice Center with possible action. Looks like we have one bid for $70,800 and another for $23,800. Is that correct?

That is correct, yep. The cameras we have over there, they're a proprietary system. We can't, we have to use accurate controls to install any additional cameras we have. So yeah, like I said, we're looking at 18 additional cameras at the cost total of $94,600. Okay. You guys have any questions? I do not.

When we had our work session, we had a kind of preliminary bid for Miller. Or is this that actual bid?

This is the actual bid. Yep, this is the actual bid. Yep.

And I remember that being somewhere around the $17,000.

I think we had had a bid from them from a long time ago, maybe.

I think that was the Annette Nature Center.

Well, I think we were talking about how they were going to have to. get through the concrete and stuff like that in the Justice Center to run conduit and whatnot because some of them didn't have conduit.

I guess if that was conversation, maybe I know you guys got bids on this previously from when I started.

I'm not exactly sure what was discussed during at that time.

I think it's updated. Yeah.

know there were some camera placements that didn't have any conduit run to them so they were going to have to make some adjustments yep i went ahead i uh touched base with marty with miller electric he said this is the up-to-date price we'd be good to go with okay any other questions for

Um, there is a note underneath that $70,000 said to add 1.25%. Are we going to require the performance bond? Is that a county requirement?

I am not, I guess I'm not 100% aware if that is.

I think it's something that they require. I don't think it's anything lawful.

I guess with talking with Accurate Controls, he did not mention that we would have to get that bond for him. Like I said, this had been previously started before I was here, but I touched base with him, had a video call. He said it is an up-to-date price and everything would be good to go once we approved that.

Tim, are you familiar, does the county, you're familiar with our contracts and whatnot? Do we require a performance bond? Do we need to add that 1.25? Okay.

I just didn't know what that mean at the Justice Center.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, it's not a number that's very friendly to any of us, but they're definitely needed. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the contracts with Miller Electric to install the wiring and accurate controls to install the additional security cameras at the Justice Center.

Second. Roll call. McIntyre? Aye. Erickson? Aye.

Cook? No. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Item number 10, consider first amendment to land lease agreement and first amendment to memorandum of land lease with possible action. I believe this was our potential lease for a cell tower that's located at the county yard. They do not have a permit to build a tower there, so I believe they have to go through that process. If they never build anything, we don't have a lease with them. This would just be amending the location of the tower that was in the lease, the potential lease. We actually don't have one.

And I think from our work session, we were waiting for Tim to get back. We had a couple of questions for him as well too. Okay. I think someone asked a question about airport.

The airport, which I think would be addressed under the permitting process.

Well, and Kelly sent me the letter from the FAA, and I think it's included in the packet as well. The FAA does have some issues with it, but when they sent the letter out to the airport, the airport responded that they didn't have any issues with it, correct? Correct.

I don't have anything to do with any of that. This was an agreement that was approved by the Board of Supervisors back before my time here. I've been here nine years. If you ask me whether I want a tower on the secondary roads property, I'm going to say no. And I believe the past engineer didn't want it either.

Which location do you like better, the previous one or the one...

If we have to have it, that's why we moved it to the new location because it was kind of right in one of the only flat spots of our property that we can use without doing a bunch of dirt work. So... You prefer the amended... I asked them to... I picked the spot for them because it's a spot that... you know we could use every inch of property at some point but if they have to build it that's where i would rather they build it okay so like i said this is at the end of the day secondary roads is using this property we do not own the property or control the interest of the property that's you guys i said i that if you ask me flat out if I want it, no, but I'm not going to throw a fit that it gets built either.

There are some times in life where we do things that we don't really want to do. We just did a 4-1 vote on $90,000 of cameras that I was the no one, but sometimes you want to pay for the $94,000. eight years later, ten years later, you've got it paid for, so.

They have been very willing to work with me to put it in a spot that is most convenient for secondary roads, so.

The thing, though, is, like, if you look at the original agreement, they were going to pay us $9,000 in 2015. It's 2026 and they still want to pay us the exact same amount of money. And I think that we could Google, we could find out, but I don't really think that $9,000 is pretty fair to put a large structure to lease from us. I would like to see us renegotiate that rate because that's the same rate from 2015.

I think that's, Kelly, can you comment on that? I think we talked about that during the work session. I don't know that it can be renegotiated because the lease was already signed by the previous board, but they've never built on it.

We're asking them to amend it, right?

How long did that first lease give them? I mean, this was forever? There was no deadline on when that lease would expire? Sorry, Kelly. Every five years, yep. The initial term shall be for five years and shall commence on the commencement date, at which time rental payments shall commence.

But that's where the hang-up is, is because they never built, so we never commenced the lease. We signed the lease, but we never commenced it because it never built.

Well, the lease states, we don't have a lease with them unless they build something there. So that's kind of where we're at now. They haven't built anything. They don't have any plans to build anything or a permit. And I think that's when the issue with the airport would be addressed, when they actually go to build with it. They never build anything, then essentially we have no lease. We have like an option for them to build a lease from us, but it hasn't happened in over 10 years, so. But I'm okay with the new location within the lease as is our engineer. Maybe not in favor, but also more, he prefers the new location of the town.

Did they provide the former board consideration for this indefinite period of time to continue having a lease if they choose to build a town? I don't...

I don't know that and I would have to read it again with the eye of seeing if we could have that possibility of renegotiating the money. I do know that he has continued to reach out to me, wants this to go smoothly and is like, has it passed yet? Has it passed yet? So I'm getting the indication that they do plan to do something. Okay.

I just think it's interesting to me that this is floating out there in the sky. I don't know that we've been paid anything on it but they have the ability to put a tower here and at some point I think we need to look at one of those renewals where we say hey you either put a tower here and start paying a lease payment or you know we'll we'll nix it we won't renew it again so that you can then hold it for another 10 or 15 years.

I mean, my predecessor gave me the impression that it was a valid document and that we're, but I'd have to take another look at it, reading it with that eye to give you a legal opinion on that.

They haven't built anything and they're not paying us anything, but we're just, this is something we asked for. We wanted a different location, so I'm okay with the location change.

I'll make a motion to approve the First Amendment, the land lease, and First Amendment to memorandum of land lease, also with the understanding that at some point when it comes up for renewal, if still no tower has been built, and the next time that it's up, that we take another real hard look at figuring things out, because it doesn't make sense to me. But I've made the motion.

Second.

Do we have any discussion on this item? Do we have a motion and a second? We already have an agreement with them. So I'm just going to say they can already put the tower where we don't want it because we already have this agreement. So I prefer to go with it. Let's make it better than to put the tower where we don't necessarily want, but it would be better. Because they can already put the tower where we don't want it.

I agree with that. I just I I guess I just don't know and I'm not a lawyer but I'm struggling with the fact that they've just had 11 years of a lease with no end date um and we want to amend something which might tie us into a new contract I don't know. I guess I would like to have clearer understanding of this document because...

It's the exact same agreement. It's just changing the location.

It is, but I think that... if Kelly looks at it, maybe there is an end in here because they haven't done anything in 11 years. I don't know if I'm being very clear in what my problem is here, but.

Well, I see what you're saying, and I see, I understand what you're saying about the commencement date, and I hope you understand what I'm saying about it. Absolutely, yeah. We never commenced the lease, so I don't know what technically happens to this lease if it doesn't get commenced, if it can be renegotiated in its entirety, or if this is the lease, these are the dollar amounts, that's the placement that it needs to be. So I 100% agree with you that $9,000 in 2015 was a lot less, or I guess the dollars made more sense in 2015 than they do now.

Which is probably why they want to put it up now. To be completely honest, I think you can find out what they're paying here in Indianola. I'm not going to say it on the record. But I think what you would find is that it's higher than $9,000 a year. But I'm thankful for the West Side service that I have with Verizon now. So the tire was worth it. I can use my cell phone now. But I think I made my point clear. So I don't have to drag it on at all.

Any more discussion? We had a motion and a second. Any more discussion? Roll call.

McIntyre?

Aye.

Erickson? No. DeCook?

Aye. DeWitt?

No. Arnold? Aye. Motion carries. Item number 11, receive and file reports from the Sheriff's Office Quarterly Report and Veterans Affairs.

Make a motion to receive and file.

Second. Roll call.

McIntyre?

Aye. Erickson? Aye.

Cook?

Aye. Wigg?

Aye. Arnold?

Aye. Item number 12, supervisor report. Any report supervisors today? Anyone? Okay, aye.

Yeah, go ahead. I met with the Palmyra Township Tuesday of last week and we've got the flagpole issue, I think, under control. I think Maryland is happy with the outcome of that. I'm happy with the outcome of it, and I think all the Palmyra trustees are happy with it. So we'll get that flagpole up just as soon as we get the new one in, and we'll keep moving forward from there. The other thing that I wanted to highlight for all of Warren County, especially Warren County employees, One of our employees, her husband, he has Huntington's disease. Ashley Thompson in the engineer's office. They have a walk on Saturday, May 2nd at Banner State Park in Indianola. It's free to register. Come out and raise some money and help her family out and help the Huntington's disease out.

I'm gonna win just in case anyone's wondering I'm gonna run the whole thing No Absolutely, I've already here we go. I've already donated $100 to this campaign. So if anybody wants to match that for Adam Thompson, I bet Ashley and Everyone dealing with that disease would be very thankful.

But if for every lap we walk I

I think it's not a lap. Do you know how long those laps are at Banner? I feel $1 rate. We'll figure something out. A friendly wager? Absolutely. I'll make a trophy and everything.

Thank you, Supervisor DeWitt and Erickson. Who else is in, though?

We didn't get any other commitment here.

Not on the record. Talk to me after the meeting. Item number 13. 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 meetings 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, just please come on up. The microphone's there. You have three minutes.

Morning. Can you state your name? My name is Jim Berry. I own a property at 5198 S23 Highway in Carlisle. I'm here regarding an ongoing erosion and access issue affecting my property. The erosion is actively preventing me from constructing a stable gully crossing, and the soil continues to degrade and expand into the gully. It's also washing out vegetation along my fence line and creating ruts around fence posts. In addition, the sediment from erosion is washing into the creek on my land. Beyond that, the current access point is not usable due to the slope and conditions, and to my knowledge has not been finalized or approved as a residential entrance. However, it is being marketed as if it is a valid residential access. I also have concerns about whether this access point can meet the required site distance and setback requirements from Eisenhower Place, given its current location and grade. I've made attempts to address this through proper channels, including contacting the DNR, zoning office, and county engineer, but I have not received a clear path forward or direction or responsibility. I also sent a certified letter to the property owner outlining the issue and requesting a resolution, but have not received any response. I'd also like clarification on the parcel split, specifically whether a field review or inspection is typically required to verify access, drainage, and buildability before approval and whether that was completed in this case. So at this point, I'm looking for clarity on who is responsible for addressing the erosion and drainage issue, whether this access point meets county requirements for residential use, whether that unfinished entrance is being treated as a valid access point for permitting purposes, whether it could be used to deny approval of a compliant entrance elsewhere on the property, whether it could be used to deny approval of a compliant entrance, oh, sorry, same thing, and what the process is to address any issues identified during or after a parcel split. Just want to clear a path forward so the situation doesn't continue to worsen, so I'd appreciate any direction or point of contact you guys could provide.

I'm sorry, what was your address?

5198 S23 Highway.

yeah i see what we got going there the uh yeah this i think this is like the access things tim sent me some information um that i had requested from him last week on this i can forward to you all um and i don't know whose area that is but if you guys once i forward it you could speak with him on it.

Yeah, the engineer would be approving the access driveway point, so I'd probably direct you in that direction.

Yeah, he told me it was never approved that the permit was, but that the rest of the process wasn't followed. It was permitted last February. The permit expired And it was never inspected, so that's all I had heard from him on that.

Was it a permit to build a residence then?

He said it was for a farm entrance, but it's being marketed as a residential entrance.

Okay. Yeah, and I'm assuming those would be two different things under our driveways and entrances.

It even wasn't approved as a farm entrance, so it wasn't inspected for that either. It's just clay sitting on the soil. I mean, it's washing out really bad. Actually, pictures.

We have not done a final inspection because there's been no notification to our engineer's office that the inspection is complete. that we have not signed off on a driveway. There's no final inspection at this point.

Yeah, and if it's being marketed that way, that's out of our control. We don't really control how people try to buy and sell things.

So can an incomplete farm entrance be used to, I guess, market a property as residential access?

I would take that up with the realtor, honestly. That's what I do, so.

Okay.

Right. Yeah. It's kind of the due diligence that the buyer has to do.

The due diligence, yeah.

Yeah, so what about when it causes erosion issues into a creek?

We can't get involved in emotion issues. So that would be DNR? Yes, the DNR would be the appropriate.

Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anyone else here for public comment today? Thank you. Oh, that's nice.

Kathy K. or Milo? Kathy K. Hi. Hi.

real quick i've got two things i'd like to do the first one is with all the changes in the zoning as i'd shared last year and i'm trying not to get emotional um we were going to split our land with our son and when we got back from florida i stopped in last week to start that process and was told you can't do it we've got 20 acres the plan was he'd take the primary the home the dwelling there, and then we would build just a very small home down from him to be close, and for him to take care of us when we are at those ages. Bob's 68, I'm 60. It is in our future. And I was told we can't do that because of our having 20 acres. I've got the letter, she said we could do the dwelling, accessory dwelling thank you the problem that we have with that is if something were to happen to our son and they lose the property then we lose our home too we all would be homeless we'd become homeless and when i asked about the variance becky said i never should have been given the form that variances are very very last last effort she said you haven't you you haven't exhausted all of your options and i said what option you can pay from your property to the nearest concrete i'm talking one home a thousand square feet there wouldn't be extra traffic because we're using the same drive anyway and when i said are you kidding we're a mile and a quarter from about a mile and a quarter from the nearest concrete how in the world can we do that and she said what you can't file a variance unless you have exhausted all of your options So I just want to share that I came to the meetings. I fully thought I understood. I kept hearing 10 acres, 10 acres. I had no clue that because we took off for winter, come back to do our plan, and by literally 45 days, all of a sudden we can't do it. And we've already had a partial contents auction. We've already started moving our stuff out, our son's moving stuff in. So I don't know what to do with this. And I just wanted to bring to you guys what that zoning change did. And when I kept hearing development, and I honestly, I'm not just saying this because of all this, I thought you were talking housing developments period. When I brought that up to Becky, she says, nope, one house, you're considered in that now. I said, we're talking 1,000 square feet and a Morton building for the tractor, you know, to keep working on stuff and the tractor and stuff. He said, nope, can't do it. And I said, well, what if we sell it and just portion it off and don't build anything on the other 10? Nope, can't divide it. So we're just kind of wanting to share the impact that change is making for the people that aren't doing the big 40 house, 48 house developments and stuff like that. This was literally, as I shared in November, I think it was, our granddaughter would be the eighth generation to be on our place. So this is really hitting family. I mean, and that's the core of it. This is family. So I just wanted to find out kind of what to do if we're not allowed to apply for a variance, or are we literally just, because of 45 days, not realizing I needed to do it December 31st to draw the line, can we not do it? OK.

I think we got to figure something out and get some clarity here. Looking at it, I want to do what we can to help our residents do this. And I thought that's what we were trying to establish here when we were lowering the acreage minimum. And looking at your parcel, I guess I would have to ask Becky what the problem was. I don't understand why there would be a problem with parceling off.

We would each maintain across the 10 acres.

It's probably been split before and it's a limitation on splits. On the 40? It's probably already been split once or twice.

The original parent parcel, of course, each generation as they passed on left family and then if some of that gets sold off, the typical parent parcel issue. Um, but that's been many, many years ago.

I mean 2003. That's how long ago that split was. I mean, that's what our assessor is selling, sale a portion of property split. So 2003, I don't like that hold up to.

Well, I do have a meeting with zoning later here after this meeting. So I'll take that up with them and see.

I would appreciate it just because, like I said, if I was selling to someone I didn't know and I'm trying to make a million dollars off of 10 acres sitting there, to me, this is so different. Because we're trying to.

I understand, but the way that they are set up is for if no one in your family has anyone else to pass on and it gets on the market. Right. Yeah.

Right. And I know you brought up like septic systems, things like that. We have no issue with all of that. I know everything in Warren County has become a lot more responsible about what they're putting in the ground and stuff. Very concerning to us because we have two natural springs in our pasture that we treasure. I mean, they're above where most of the farm ground drains. So I get all of that. It's just that for us and for others, it's not just us, we're seeing it all over the media, the Facebook and people that are going, wait a minute, what's going on? Because I'm not the only one that thought this was for developments, that this was a try to stop. Big developments coming in and taking over farm ground and stuff, not thousand square foot homes to live next to your son. You know, so, and I know that's emotional, but that's the truth. That's what's been happening for 150 years on that piece of land.

And Kathy, I'll chat with you after the meeting too, but I think that maybe you might want to explore that ADU a little bit more. There's other ways to structure things so that, you know, there's some other fixes there too, but I'll chat with you.

I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then I was going to ask real quick, while we were in Florida, they had an amazing recycling program. What do I need to bring to you guys to see if that's something the county could offer, whether it's out at the new yard, whatever? What kind of info would be good to present to you guys to see this? Because this was phenomenal and a way to keep things for the county as opposed to just city cleaning.

I might be willing to take another bite at that apple, but it was rough the last time. We had Ben's over here, and I couldn't tell you how absolutely abused, just horrifically abused. Was it unmonitored? Yeah, but I mean, you put up signs, you did whatever, but it, you know.

Oh, yes, I remember.

It was rough, but I would actually think it'd be a great idea to have some central location with some recycling, too, so we can explore.

I'd be great with talking in a work session about something like that.

That is something we were just so impressed with that they did, and it was a system you literally drove in. There's two lines, two dumpsters. There's, you know, worker at each one. Everybody's guided, put this, put that, and it was just, we've used it two years in a row now, and it's for the residents of that area, so... Just a great thing I'd like to see.

I think that sounds like a great item for a work session. Absolutely. And if you, you know, contact Michaela if you wanted to come present stuff or whatever, because we typically, it's a little less informal. We have the meeting back there at the table, and we can, I'd love to hear your ideas on that, that you bring back from Florida. Like I said, I was very impressed. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right, item number 14. Our next meeting date will be April 21st, 2026 at 4 p.m. And that's it for our agenda. Unless there was any other public input? I don't think there was. I guess I was presumptuous in saying that no one else wanted to talk. Okay.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second. Roll call. McIntyre? Aye. Harrison?

Aye. McCook? Aye.

Wood? Aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you.