County Commissioner & Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

Okay, you join me by the flag, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The recording's going inwards. Yep. Okay. Call the meeting to order. Thank everybody for joining us today. Uh do we want to do our swearing in first off here? We have a commissioner that needs to be sworn in officially here. Uh yeah. Where would you like to do that? Sir, quick picture.

Go ahead, sir. Um, I, Tim Comr, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state of South Dakota against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or for the purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of the office of Lawrence County Commissioner according to law to the best of my ability. So, help me God. Welcome. Thanks. Yes. Thank you, Brandon. Welcome aboard here, Tim.

We have any changes to the agenda? Mr. Chairman, the 9:00 schedule public hearing for CP 499 owner applicants to Mark Wine Master and Steven Wells. I don't know if anybody's here for that. Uh, their notices didn't get sent out. But I think they forgot to do it. So they will and it we'll plan on rescheduling it for March 10th. Public hearing for March 10th. Other than that, I don't know changes. Motend the agenda as amended. Second. It has been moved by Flanigan, second by Ying to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Motion carries. Any conflicts that anybody would like to declare? I have none.

I have. And has everybody had a chance to review the minutes from the February 10th meeting? Motion to approve. Second. Moved by Yuing, seconded by Tisdale to approve the minutes from February 10th meeting. All those in favor say I. Any oppose? Nay. Anybody have any questions on the bills? Good. Good. What would we like to do with them? Most bills. Second. Moved by Fling and second by Disil to approve the bills as listed. All those in favor say I. Any oppose? Nay. Okay. Bills are taken care of. We have uh a couple of personnel items. Brenda, I have no personnel. Uh travel requests.

I have one. Um travel request is to approve the travel uh the request for Leart and drug recognition export school as an instructor in San Francisco, California from April 17th through the 13th. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Lucy, is this reimbured? Is that why we're getting this like this? And it shows there at the end. Yeah, it's a essentially a grant. As an instructor, they bring instructors in from all over the country. So, no thought to us. Thanks. Move to approve. Thank you.

Second by second by Yuing to approve the travel request for Liz Siner. Kudos to to her for being able to be recognized as an instructor. That's that's probably a fairly big deal. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Name abatements.

I have 10 abatements for the city of Spearfish. It's because um they bought 10 lots in the subdivision that that brain cell doesn't work this morning. uh their new subdivision. Um the private ownership owner had owned them and then the city bought 10 lots back. So they understand they have to pay two of them 12 months but 10 months we should have paid them since they're exempt. So it's for these 10 lots exit 17. Yes. Motion to approve request.

Second then moved by Tisdale second by approve all 10 abatement requests from the city of Purfish. Any other questions? All those in favor say I. I. Any oppos? Nay. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Brett. The LEMPG agreement articles.

You should all have a copy, Mr. Chairman, of the uh the articles. I think it's an addition to the general agreement. It's fairly extensive. because of the federal budget shut down last year, we still have not been paid for the 2025 communication with Brenda, but the articles that they added on now in order to be paid, I went through them line by line. 10 of the articles are brand new, never been in there before. Nine of the articles are new for 2025, but we the commission has already approved them for the 2026. So in your copy, the last the last 10 were new articles that were added. And uh you know it's a myriad of article build America compliance with federal immigration laws uh specific terms and agreements uh impact of San Francisco versus Trump. Uh state of Illinois versus FEMA period of performance. Those last the last nine were were new. I did not see a problem while referring fruits, but

I tried to go through them, too, and I think we're compliant as far as I know. There's a lot to be compliant with. Yeah, it is. It's getting more and more and more. I wrote a letter to them yesterday to the state, but it's coming down from the federal government. It's not the state. So, there are a lot of articles, 64 of them. There's a lot to try to follow with every decision. Yes. Yes. I think Paul will be looking for authorization to have the chairman sign, right? Or is it Paul to sign? Just chairman. Chairman. Motion to approve and allow the chairman to sign. Second.

Then moved by Ying, second by Tisdale to approve the articles of certification agreement and allow the chairman to sign. Any further questions? All those in favor say I. Any oppose? Nay. State weed and pest chemical grant agreement. That's pretty standard annually. It is, Mr. Chairman. It allows for reimbursement or cost for purchase of chemical. I believe uh we'll be looking for authorization to allow Dave Hec to sign. I don't think you've seen this in the past, but you will going forward, but it's been something that's been in place for a number of years.

Motion to approve. Second. It had been moved by Ying, second by Flanigan to approve the uh weed and pest certification chemical grant agreement cost share thing with the state. So is this something that was just handled as the weed blood level before? I think so. Okay. M um years ago uh the commission directed uh staff that all sort of grants and so forth applications should go through the county commissioner so that you're aware of them. And I think this is one that just got missed out. So consistent with that that policy, we're trying to make sure we bring all this to you. Okay. Yep. That's understandable. Thank you. All those in favor say I.

Any oppose? Nay. Motion carries. Let's see. I think next up is our committee and board appointments. Uh Mr. or Commissioner Comr is is assuming Commissioner Slate's seat. You looked over those appointments, I assume, Tim. And you have any concerns about any of those? No, I do not. You need a motion for this.

I I think to reint Mr. Chairman, I would point out to I I don't have it listed. I will going forward that you're also part of, as we know, the building code of adjustment. You've never used it before. you appointed yourself to that in at the beginning of the of the year. I've never listed that on there specifically because it's never never used it, but I will go forward. So, you would also be added to that. You all will. Yeah. Of course, board of equalization as well, but you take a vote for that later. Yeah. Did you make a motion, Commissioner Y? Did I hear that as a motion? You did. Did I have a second? You did.

Okay. That was you. Second been moved by you second by Tisdale to appoint Commissioner Tomer Comr to the listed committees and boards along with the other ones that commissioners always building board of adjustment and building code appeal board I guess that is all those in favor say I glad you have something else to do now. Thank you for concern Mr. Chairman Tim, I I will be uh emailing all the different boards uh and I will CC you on them to develop the communication. Does that make sense? Makes perfect sense. So, you'll see lots of emails from even more than yesterday. No problem. Thank you for doing that.

And I don't know if you're aware, the natural resource committee is actually meeting tomorrow at 2 o'clock in this room.

Okay. Like Okay. Uh, Sheriff Dean like good morning. Things are going very well at the public safety and services center. Our annual revenue tube date is just shy of 300,000. So, we are already outperforming our business model by a significant amount. Uh and some good news, Western South Dakota Juvenile Services Center has notified Lawrence County uh that our rebate for 2025 will be 23,647 14. So we did very well in our uh historic decisions to stay with that that uh program down there and it's it's uh doing well for us. Um I'm happy to announce if you might recall a few short weeks ago um Mr. Das and I came to you to the board and and uh wanted implement the new security uh system for our employees as well as the court staff. We're happy to report that that system is actually um functioning even better than what I had anticipated. um it's going to be a significant improvement and we are now up and running. So Mr. Das and his staff did a considerable amount of work in a short period of time and uh I think you'd be very happy with it. So I look forward to any opportunity to display it for you as I'm sure Greg would be. So outside of that, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request an executive session based upon

a statute that I'm quite confident that Dr. Ala is going to quote at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that executive session be made pursuant to 1-25-2 subsection 3 consulting with legal counsel. And actually guys, I I think we're going to step into a different room so the rest of you could stay if you'd like. So we will go into executive session and we'll step into vote on it. Do we need a motion to move in the executive session and move by Tisdale? Second by you to move into exact session at 8:12. Do we vote on this? Yeah, just a stick.

All those in favor say I. I. Okay. For those online, I'm going to I'm going to mute the microphone out.

Okay, we'll come back out of executive session with no action taken. Mr. Chairman, that is my report unless the board has some questions from Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next up is a public hearing at 8:25. We got just a couple of minutes for that. It be nice to have this next item settled. Been working on this for a long time. significant little piece of property. See there two pieces of it?

No. Isn't that agreement? uh potentially but it's a yeah but it's the C to discuss how to put I don't know I guess

yeah good point

okay it says time and place for public hearing uh duly announced in the public notice and compliance with state statutes on section line vacations of public notice We'll have a staff description of proposed change. The applicant if here believe you're here will have any opportunity to speak followed by any proponents and opponents. If you would like to speak, we ask that you provide your full name and an address so they can be included in the minutes. So, are you doing the staff report, Bruce?

I will, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Chairman, this is the time and the place set to consider resolution 202611 uh proposing to vacate a portion of a section line affecting the land owners Ted and Kathy Thompson revocable trust in Black Hills Baptist Church. The vicinity of this is is Whitewood and in particular uh more or less at the intersection of Whitewood Valley Road and Highway 34. It would be to the to the to the west of that looking to vacate a portion of that section line. and I think essentially separates the church property from property owned by the Thompsons. This is a plat that's been pending as well. So you might have some familiar familiarity with it. Uh that that small portion of land to the south, I think it's owned by the Thompsons. I don't know that they knew that they owned it. Uh we're looking to possibly convey it, but needed to legally be able to legally describe it in order to do so. And so the plot would be necessary for that. And again, it's an egg, I believe, as well. So it's less than 40 acres. So it would be another informing lot. Uh those are kind of just side issues quite honestly. Uh would defer to you for any questions that you might have. Is there anybody that would like to speak on behalf either proponent or opponent of this section line vacation? I'm not seeing anybody online. If there is, they would need to indicate some way. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and offer it up to the commissioners. Mr. Chairman, looking at it, I can't see that there's any any access that's being anyone's being deprived of access to their lots either. Study that. It's not apparent that there's any issues there.

You've got a commission. Oh, sorry. Actually, look, sorry about that, Commissioner. Um, it looks to me like this section line, it goes from the rightway of the highway to the right of way to the interstate. So, I don't see it's ob obstructing or depriving anyone of access to anything. Um, that being said, I will make the motion to approve the vacation of this portion of the section. Second and moved by seconded by Tisdale to approve the vacation of the section line for uh resolution 2026 pass. Any other comments, questions? All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? The section line is vacated. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Mr. Bay. Is he still around the corner? Here he is. Oh, good morning. Morning, John.

I have a uh utility permit. This is a another Solarity internet requesting permission to uh to install some fiber optic. And this is on the North Rainbow Road. I know the last time they said that this that was it for them, but I think they thought this was the city of Spearfish. They thought this was the city limits and this north rainbow road is a county road. So, um everything's the same. I got their uh uh the bond amount of $21,700 on there. That's their estimated cost of the rightway. So I would recommend approval of this underground facility to follow the recommendation.

Second and moved by Tisdale, second by Commer to follow the recommendations for approving the utility permit along with the bottom amount of $21,700. Any questions, comments? All those in favor say I. Any oppose? Nay.

Okay, that was approved. Um, last meeting we talked about that home stake speed limit. Um, got a little bit of information if you guys are wanting to take some action on that today. You know, the request was made to to change that speed limit on approximately 2 miles of home state. I guess my my recommendation if we're going to do this, and I I have no problem with it. I think it's I think it's got merit that that section road has 241 cars a day on it. That's the last traffic count we did. That was in 2023. Um the section of Homestake right at the Larsson property is already 35. We have a little short short section in there that's 35. Uh prop bench is 35 miles an hour. Mhler's 35. Everything's 35 in that area. Um to change this to 35, I think would be pretty seamless. that I it is it is a commission level decision. So if you guys are in favor of that, I would I would recommend that you know considering that 35 in that area would would make sense. So it would align with all the roads around it to the west. So, this would be from Hills View up to the intersection where it turns to the west or

I'm proposing that it would be from Hills View to the to the west border of the Larsson and Grand property because that property is already 35 in there. That section of road is 35. So, I would make it contiguous of that to the to the west side of those properties. Okay. Commissioner Flag. So to clarify from the gravel where Hills View and and the turn off to the service road or Homestake Hills View whatever you want to call combination correct so where the asphalt ends up around the bend y to the west. Okay to approximately half a mile west of the crow peak intersection. Okay. Did you have a question? No. Okay.

Bruce John if it passes how do you let the public know the change in the speed limit? Do you post your your signs out there? That's correct. By state state state statute, that's all we have to do once it's once that this commission makes that decision to change it. Alls we have to do is post it. It becomes it becomes valid at that time. Mr. Chair, do you do anything else in terms of like notification like put like flags on the signs or anything like that to draw attention to it? We generally do when we put new speed signs or new stop signs up, we uh we always flag them. We don't take out ads in the paper or anything like that, but if you would like, we certainly could. Thank you.

I'll make the motion to follow the highway superintendent's recommendation to lower that section of road to 35. Second move by Ying, second by comr to uh follow the recommendations and changing that speed limit that portion of home stakes at 35 or 45. I think that's a good idea. You know, that's roads narrow through there. the 241 cars per day of traffic that was from 2023 and would think it's somewhat higher now. So, it's a lot of traffic for a for a narrow road that four to five. So, uh any other questions, comments? All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Name.

Okay. Speed limit changes. And that brings us to the next portion of this same discussion of the cup that we talked about at the last meeting. I did uh do we need to change to uh board of adjustment? Mr. Chairman, one thing uh John, were you going to introduce Dalton Kelly, too? We certainly can do that at this time. Maybe so. And then go into um board of adjustment.

Makes sense. Okay. Well, Dalton Kelly is here. He's our he's our John Deere salesman with RDO. I think he would like to to address you guys. if he'd like to introduce himself. Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. Thank you, everyone. Just want to get you my information here quickly. Then the sheet of paper that I'm handing you is just additional guarantee that we do behind our equipment. Just a n so I didn't show up empty-handed. There you go. Congrats. Just wanted to introduce myself. I know I've seen a couple of you in passing at some of the county commissioner um events, but wanted to formally introduce myself and um it's been great working with John, but want to be involved as much as I can in Lawrence County and be available for any questions. I look forward to to meeting all of you personally and maybe on separate uh separate occasions, whether at events or otherwise. But yeah, just work with the John Deer here in Rapid City, cover Lawrence County. and for the past year, I think you guys are familiar with Dana Brelinger was the previous representative. He's now our sales manager. So, he is still um in and available. Uh but I took his role about a year ago and never took the chance to formally introduce myself and that's that's all I was hoping to do today. So, grateful for the opportunity to work with John Jonathan. Great. Um but yeah, and then hopefully if there's any questions or equipment needs that come up, love to be a part of that conversation. So,

good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Absolutely. Thank you guys. Thank you, John. No. Entertain a motion to recess as county commission and convene as board of adjustment. So moved. Second. Then moved by Tinsdale, seconded by Yuing to recess as county commissioners and convene as board of adjustment. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Nay.

Motion carries. We are board of adjustment. Okay. Back to this the hall cup 498 agreement. I think we both we have both representatives here again. One from Pearl, one from Interstate. Interstate has got a little more information. He gave it to me last night at 11:00. So, thanks for that. Um, anyway, they're here to address that. I had a couple of things that I would like to address. First of all, uh, if we're going to go forward with this and if we're going to make a decision in the next, you know, before the next meeting or at the next meeting or at this meeting, I need to know, um, I would like to, first of all, I'd like to recommend that we're going to, if we're going to require this pit to use his material to make, you know, to improve this road, we almost need to find a way for him to open this pit ahead of this agreement. Um, and my my recommendation is to go with the existing hall route that's already in place for the other pit in that area, and that's to the west. That at least gets him open and able to start making material to do the to do the improvements of the proposed hall route that we're that we're requiring. That's that would be one of my recommendations. My second recommendation or my second uh point of interest is the uh in in the hall road agreement that we've put together in the last for the last proposed pit we had a 25 cent per ton sir charge. All of the existing search charges that we have with uh the other pits in the area is 5 cents. I guess what my my question to you is where do we want to go with that search charge? We're asking them to improve the road. I I kind and being that these cups are they're addressed annually. I I guess I I don't know why we're asking for a

search charge at this time if we're going to ask them to improve the road. My thought would be if we come back at a later date when this the cup is reviewed annually, you know, maybe we assessed a search charge at that time. But that's up to you guys. It's at 25 cents is what we did the last time. We can do something in between or we can remove it until we see what the value of this road improvement is. I'm going to leave that to you guys.

Yeah. Uh in context as you consider that as John pointed out, I've got the proposed conditions that were approved. Number two, uh the hall road route shall be approved by the highway superintendent and board of adjustment prior to start operation. And so if you're going to alter that or or include a hall route to the existing route, theoretically it would require an amendment to the proposed conditions and it would be a minor amendment to the proposed conditions which would require not a public hearing but I think a a writing submitted to planning and zoning that could be presented to you later on as a process issue. But I just want to point that out that technically that's probably how that would have to work out. Does that make sense to everybody, Mr.

Chairman? Yeah.

Um I was going to go a similar way and and our our highway superintendent does an excellent job. We're not requesting that they fix this. It was a requirement of the conditional use permit that they that they do the improvement. So it's not it's not we're asking you to do this. It's to get this approved. That's one of the requirements that we had and that's where I was going to go is it's a condition of the of the whole and not just an incidental. Um, and I I agree. I think there either needs to be a modification to condition use permit or else they need to find gravel wherever and do it that says to do it'll it'll happen before uh they open and are producing. Mr. Young, uh just a quick question. If uh if we force them at this time to go to the west and they're participating in the improvement to the east, I think that should come into play that they can at least go that far

to help with the improvement to the east. Well, I mean, yeah, absolutely. If they to do the improvement, we're going to have to haul room material that way, right? I just but it didn't seem to be included in what you're uh suggesting here. I apologize because I guess the way I thought about it that's how I thought I didn't say it that way but that would be correct. Yeah. You know to to the area of the improvement for c you know we certainly need to to allow truck traffic that direction.

My thought is if just to get them open to get a hall route in place. I mean, it could be it could be to the west and and and incorporate like our original one with the local traffic which included the areas of uh Gro Peak Bench and all of those areas. You know, we've already talked about it doesn't make any sense to make a hall route go to the west only to come back up home state to those areas. So, right, um I I'm I'm 100% on board with going east and west. I guess my thought is just to get a hall route in a hall route agreement in place so they can open and start making the material that is going to be required to do the improvement. I don't know how else they're going to do it. If we can't if we don't let them produce material, we're not going to be able to continue with this improvement unless we start bringing material in from outside the area. But then we're going to need to haul route to put it onto that area as well. We're putting the same truck traffic in the same area. It only makes sense to me to take it from that the proposed site.

Absolutely. Y So I I'm guess I'm a little confused why we would need to change the C at all because it it says that the the hall route shall be approved. So it just why can't we just approve the hall route um without going back and doing anything with the CV? Mr. Chairman, for your consideration, I would look at it says prior to the start of operation. Shall the AR route shall be approved prior to the start of operation.

So, I guess it comes down to when do you consider start of operation and maybe perhaps uh doing that work as preliminary work and not start of operation. When Amber and I looked at it, I think we interpreted it to mean that they were starting operations. Obviously, that's up to you. Go ahead, Commissioner. I think I think what you're seeing is a hall route agreement shall be approved versus the actual hall route being approved that the road service is ready to go for agree and so that's I think that's it's not spelled out exactly that way

but it's like so in like when we would have a the highway superintendent approve a road in a subdivision he would go in and inspect it before we would do the approval in this case it may or may not be the hall route well certainly the hall route agreement, but it may or may not be the actual surface of the hall route that we say he says, "Okay, this is up to snub. We're ready to go." So, could the language include then that the hall route would would begin going to the west over to exit 2, but at a time when the super highway superintendent deemed that the uh route to Hills View was acceptable for truck traffic that it could automatic or be included in the hall route. You sure?

Yeah, I I think so. So, just to project forward, I think what we'd be looking at is for you guys to sort of not take action on it, but maybe have a consensus that that's the sort of language that you want. We would pass that along to uh Croll and then they would come back to you at your next county commission meeting with this writing and then you would formalize it at that point as as possibly an amendment to the conditions or however you want to consider that. Does that make sense to everybody? Yeah, Commissioner. Well, it just seems like we're kicking the can down the road and preventing these folks that have a actual permit for that pit to get started. I I would think that we could do it today with the proper language. Mhm.

Um just looking at the ordinance, I think it did say it would it required a writing, so we would have to have the writing in the file at some point to, you know, meet that requirement. I don't have that today. Uh, in other words, I'll just filibuster while you think about that. It would be kind of like uh uh you know, you you prove a PL subject to something a condition uh later being done. That that would be the theory here is that that we would have to have that writing that request in the file and probably well we want to present it to you too. I think quite honestly modification for for amendment.

I guess you could do that today subject to that. I don't disagree with you at all, Commissioner Young, that this has gone on for quite a while and uh but we want to make sure we do it right, too. Well, I know, but I would think that we could Yeah, I I think that we are agreeing in principle here of what needs to happen. Uh I appreciate Mr. yesterday bringing this to our attention because it it did seem like we were getting the cart before the horse there. We need to make sure the horse is is ready to pull the cart and that that involves having some material there before we do any work on the roads. Uh the other question then is the is the uh the search charge search charge fee. Mhm.

Um I agree with the highway superintendent that maybe at this time we don't impose that and review it in a year to see if it's needed. Is that what All your cops are viewed annually. Yeah. I I I have a feeling that I think if I recall this was a 100 ton for the first year of production. So, at 25 cents a ton, you know, they're going to far exceed that in this in this improvement. I don't I just I guess I

it's just my belief it doesn't matter, but I don't believe it's fair that we're going to impose a search charge when we're already we're already requiring them to do an improvement. The search charge is for road maintenance and improvement. So, I guess my thought is is if they're already they're already going to surpass that amount based on the tonnage that they say they're going to produce. Um, I believe that it's just my opinion. I think that it's just a little unfair that we were imposing an additional fee on them. Yeah, I agree. I I agree.

That fee is going to go to the public. It's not really actually my thought on it is you're going to have them all to the west. That's for the the fee would be for maintaining that road and and maintain we still have usage of the road and and more of it. We would still have cost we still have cost maintenance. So

I uh I don't know. I kind of disagree. I think it needs to stay on. Could we do it in a manner that we had the 25 cent sir charge but then we could give them credit for the materials provided for the additional that onto the roads offset that don't we have further discussion on um design and the bid and all those things that kind of ties into all this I mean if we get everything on the board which we haven't yet maybe some of it possibly asked representative Do you have questions? You have something to add, Mr.

Yeah. Need your name and address again, please, Mr. Chair. I'm Brian Mar. So, we we do some of these road use agreements in in like Kuster County and stuff. And what they'll do is, you know, they'll charge me they'll charge me for the maintenance of the road. So if they have to do two applications of mag water or whatever to my section road, they just build me direct. I pay it and life goes on. You know, you do 25 cents per ton to me when I when we're doing the the whole maximum amount I can do for my my pit is comes up at60ome,000. Mag water costs I think John told me around 9,500 or 10,000 per mile. And so it's it just to be kind of a lot of money when if it'll exceed the cost. I'd rather just pay the cost of my of what the county what it cost the county to maintain the road for my for my damages. I I think that's fair, you know, and and going to the the west. I think that's a good thing. I think that that makes a lot of sense because I got to bring my crushers in and all that kind of stuff beforehand and just and I think I won't be able to do anything on the east side until and this is just talking from interstate. They'll have the August or sometime is when they'll have a design.

I think we'll have it much sooner than that. But when we talk I think I told you around that time. So I can't crush until I go until then. And I do have I talked to my superintendent yesterday about when I can get in on and do the do the slope repair and widening. And as soon as I get clearance, get a design, I'll move a crew in there. We'll start doing that. So I guess that's that's all I have unless you have questions for me. those other uh road use agreements you have. Do they have parameters on on what the maintenance what the upper limits of the maintenance are or

Well, you know, like like county, I'm I'm two or three I'm I'm five miles off the county road there. And they chose to do a they chose to do a cost share with me on that because there's other people that use it, other industries. So, I do a 5050 cost share and that that super just sends me a bill in the fall and I pay it and that goes on and it's kind of his discretion there, you know, what is appropriate and and you're okay with that being his discretion?

Yeah, because sometimes, you know, sometimes they do they do there's there's some on a dust dry dusty year there, they'll do two applications there and so the cost share changes a little bit. So to protect him, that's that's what we agreed to. And I think it makes a lot of sense. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mark. John, are you clear on uh um do you need any extra guidance from the commission regarding what work is to be done in what areas and how it's going to be accomplished? Are you squared away on that or need further direction?

I think we're squared away. I mean, I've got Interstate doing the work here. I mean, I think what and he can answer some of your questions. He's given us another proposal based on the work that we're asking him to do in those those areas. You're not going to see it. I got it at 11 o'clock. Yeah.

These uh you know that his proposal is now just confined to making you know widening those two areas leaving it as a gravel surface and and going forward with that. And then uh we're going to pay him to do that work and then we're going to we're going to be reimbursed by by the contractor, you know, as far as this engineering portion goes. So I think they're ready to start. I mean, they're ready to start getting the plan together. Sure.

Um I would propose that I I think that maybe at your next meeting if we have this writing from the applicant uh pit operator to amend the CP we would include items like that in there. What parts of the road are going to be done, how it's going to be paid for, how it's going to be accomplished. Then also to include any um fees that you're going to charge um and also any direction about what direction you go for a period of time and then come back. Just trying to keep all that in the forefront. Yeah, we'd have to have somewhere in that agreement as to when the how road would could change to the east instead of the west. What has to occur to get to that point? I'm also remembering uh at one time we were uh where Homestake Road turns to the west on that corner. Were we not going to change that corner?

It was brought up at more than one time about taking that curve out and making a T intersection there. Yeah. Is that still on the table or where did we end up on that? No, we quit talking about that when that last gravel Cy when that when that failed when that failed we So do we want to revisit that with with this one? Go ahead. Uh I travel that road all the time and I think that intersection is very functional the way it is. I I wouldn't see any reason to redesign it or do anything.

Okay. There's no crash uh concerns there that we we haven't had any necessarily reports from that spot. The only crash data we have in that area is we have one crash. Um probably it's a half a mile up. It would be at the guard rails. It was a DUI type of somebody ran in the guard rail. The other crash incidents are one on Hills View and one on West 14. Those are the only three crashes in that whole area outside of Interstate 90 from 2022 to 2026. But we are this is also the area that we just reduced the speed limit in. So I would think that that would also aid in that

and I guess what we can just take it as a a wait and see kind of approach and see how this thing works once this you know once this quarry is in place and the hall route and we see where where we are for traffic and you know if we have to change something then again this gets reviewed annually we can do something at a later date as well. Sure.

John, you say there's 241 trips up and down that road back in 2020. 2023 is when we measure that at the east end of Homestake. It was 241 cars. What's your point on payment? Is that 300?

400. What's 400? 400 is our is our kind of our threshold. We have many roads that are over that that we don't pave. So, it's it's a it's a point of interest. It doesn't necessarily trigger us into a into the point where we absolutely pave the road. We have sections of Mland that are much higher than that that we don't pay. So, but 400 is the number we use. That's what our traffic study kind of left off at. It's 400. Still kind of grinds on me that we were offered pavement and then now it's not coming. And uh I mean I kind of a deal's a deal that I still think a payment sound that idea there.

So I think we have our our marching orders here John that you do you have enough information of us is what we're thinking so we can get an agreement together to be looked at next meeting or is there more things that you need to know? I I guess I don't the only thing I really my two questions were the the search charge and and the the actual road map of what direction we're allowing them to go.

But I think we we've got the direction down or I don't Do you have a clear direction on the search arch? That's still kind of a stumbling block. I I think that I'm in agreement here that that uh as long as we're going to the west, I think we need to have a search charge because there's going to be some some dust control that needs to be done. There's going to be some extra traffic that could I can put in there instead of a search charge, you know, I can add in there that you annual magnesium chloride treatment is required, an extra one. Yeah. I mean, we can if he's willing for us to disabil him for the chloride treatment, we can go that route. That sounds fair to me.

Go ahead. So then ultimately I think uh what Amber would tell us is we would need a writing from from Brian to submit to with those changes and then we would look to present that to the county commission at the next meeting with the idea of amending the C to incorporate those changes. Does that make sense?

Well, I guess I probably come from this body. You guys have to I'm going to agree to whatever you guys stick right tell me to do. So, and I'm just talking about procedure just to make sure we have all our procedural elements covered. So, we'd have to visit with John and come to a agreement on what what changes you're proposing to the C have those in writing and then present that as a basically I think as a request from you as the permit holder.

Okay, Bruce, I'm online too. It's Amber. Um, I think we would need to review the process of amending the C. I don't know it well enough to know, but I just want to make sure it may entail a public hearing. I'm looking at it right now. Mr. Sh.

Yeah. When we looked at it before, I think so there's two types of amendments. There's a sort of a major amendment, right? And I think a minor amendment. the major amendment, it seems to me, I'm paraphrasing, that was like a boundary change or something more significant. When we originally looked at it, this looked like it fell under the minor amendment process. Um, again, you talked about a number of things here, so it's probably well put that we would review it again to make sure we didn't trigger the major amendment, but if it is the minor amendment, I think it just requires a writing be presented for action. Is that fair, Amber?

Yeah, let me look real quick just to make sure because this is a mining operations. So, um, zoning Okay. Okay. That takes us back. Would we need to set the public hearing if that was required today? We need to announce that today. This needs to be done by

I think Bruce, we need to probably have a little more discussion about it. And I think it's hard to to because I don't know what exactly they're going to be submitting. So, if maybe you could make maybe a motion or something that if we would need to set the public hearing, we we could just so we don't have to come back. But I don't know. I can't answer that right off the top of my head without reviewing. Okay. Thank you, Amber. Well, the question then before is if we do need a public hearing to change the conditional use permit, we would need to set that at a at a meeting or a future meeting. But if we didn't, we need to have Amber suggesting we do that as an option. So, we have the opportunity to set a public hearing.

Does that work to do it that way, Bruce? Yeah, I think u staff could set it if necessary just if they were authorized to, but they wouldn't have necessarily have to, right? We're not telling them they have to. They just giving us that option, right?

And I don't think that we probably would be able to have it. It does require public hearing by the next meeting on March 10th. Would be at the subsequent meeting in March probably. It's not as easy to get things published. So, how do we want to proceed? Do we want to give us the option of having a public hearing? Do we want to wait till we uh have a chance to get some language together for an agreement and determine if we need a public hearing and and decide at that time? Those are the two options. So what you're saying is we wouldn't get any closure on this at the first meeting in March. It would be the next one.

Maybe if we need to do a public hearing possibly.

Can we have Bruce, could we have you maybe review this a little bit? make a decision later in this meeting today on what direction we would have. I can go up right now and try to look at it. We can try. Yeah, we can uh table this for now and pick that up at the end of the meeting. Yeah, Amber's going to be down with the chairman planning and zoning. So, I won't have the ability to discuss it with her. Yeah. Um there's that issue. Can I interrupt? Sorry.

Yeah. Um I'm looking at it right now and I would agree. So under the extractive industry um amendment procedure, it does state any amendment to a conditional use permit or conditions thereto not altering the boundaries of the permitted area um shall require that the applicant modify the approved cup. And then it says according to 20.007. So if you look at 20.0 007. That's just basically the the regular procedure. So that's kind of the question that I have. But then if you refer to just the regular conditional use permit section, that's what Bruce was referring to. Um, and that one does. So if you look at chapter 19 under the amendments, that's where it says a major amendment is a change in the boundary, which this is not a change in height, density, setback, that kind of thing. It's not location of land use depicted on the plan. They're not changing anything. So then it would automatically put it under a minor amendment. And the minor amendment states that a c require a written request um with all relevant information and then basically if it's not amending the criteria for a major amendment, it's a minor amendment and can be administratively approved by the planning department. And I think Bruce and I's discussion was I would not be comfortable making that decision as the administrator.

So yeah, thank you for that, Amber. That all makes sense to me because I I don't see this as a major amendment to a CUP when all we're doing is approving a hallote agreement that was a condition of the CUP. Yeah. Yeah. That's why I think we're trying to make it more complicated than it is. We we make changes in these permits all the time, minor changes on the fly. And I mean,

we we've got people willing to work here and and uh I think we need to be willing to work with them as well. So I think you know again just to recap earlier I think what we need is a written re or request from crawl to present to you at your next meeting to act upon for purposes of modifying the C conditions. So in that minor minor amendment process. Okay. Yeah. An approval of the whole road agreement. Not necessarily amendment or an adjustment. It's just approval of an agreement.

It may or may not. Yeah. It depends on what it looks like. Right. Yeah. It actually may not be a minute ending but just providing more detail quite absolutely everybody agree with that. Yeah. Okay. March 10 for for my own clarification. What what is what do you guys require in my my you want do you want me to include reimbursement for control? So I think that that you can work with John to work out what that agreement is that you it's just the main thing is that you need to present it to us. It's not we can't bring it to you.

So that's that's the process that we need to follow. So you can work with our highway department to work out uh the agreement and and they will help you with what you need to submit. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Is is it fair, Mr. Chairman, that uh and board members that you would expect that you and John would visit and would be your request would be consistent with what you've heard today? Basically, I just want to make sure I'm I'm submitting what you guys want me to submit to make it. That's all I'm asking. And I think that's why I think somebody asked John if he's clear on what what he wants. And if what he wants is what you want, then that's probably what the commission wants, right? Are you comfortable with that, John? I'm working on it. I think he's a little crappy today. No, no, I'm good.

We got bothered at 11 o'clock last night. Yeah. And I think Bruce will be at John's disposal to visit with more detail. Oh yeah, we got Y. Just need to get started. We do have a public hearing scheduled five minutes ago. Uh John, do you is there anything more that you need? I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Need a few minutes to set up. Ember, or are we ready to go? We're going to go to So, um like you said, we'll just do the variance 219 is what I think is first. Yep. 499 obviously was continued until the 10th. So the public hearing at 219

much more variances. These are variances. So we're still a board of adjustment.

Correct. So the first one is for um James and Jean I camp and they're here. They're present. Um this one is Creek subdivision which is an older subdivision down Matland Road. Um and what they would like to do is they're requesting a 10-ft variance to the 25 foot front setback requirement. Um and that includes a variance to build within the power line easement. Now obviously we we can't give that power line ement. So, the power company did provide that. They did allow them to build a little closer already. So, it's kind of a two-part. Um, and then what they're trying to do, look at this. Maybe this is kind of a blow up of it. So, you have Matland Road is out here. You kind of get a general idea. And then you have Idigra Drive, which comes right off of Matland Road. And then you have this little Spokane Road which is just three houses in there and it's a little dead end. It's just like a little spur right off of here. Um this is a 66 foot road here. Their house sits on this side. They would like to build a garage right here, but there's a major power line ement that runs here. So the power company did allow them a little bit of variance to their normal setback along the power line. Um, so they pushed it back as far as they could that the power company would let them go into that easement, but it still wasn't quite enough right here. The terrain in here is a little little weird. Um, they own on both sides of the road, so they're just going to utilize on both sides of the road. Here's kind of a better what it looks like here. Their house sits over here. They own this. The rest of their property is coming uphill on this side. Um, this is what they're building. Just a whole building type garage. They

wanted to show you what it looked like. Um, here's kind of a overall, you can see what it looks like going back. Here's some more overall layout of it. Um, here was We did ask for a copy of the letter from the power company and they were fine with it. So, that's in in there. This is um the neighbors. We've had a couple of letters from him just so he went to all of them and kind of let him know what the deal was. So he got that one. We got this one. We took a picture of his letter to help get it digital. Um so there's that one. They also took some photos of it in here to kind of see the so you can see the terrain. Um there's another another one. Let's see where that power line is there. This is kind of showing where they wanted to put it.

Lots of photos in here. Amber, this road is not part of a road district. Is that right? Correct. It is not part of Ideree road district. We checked and that little Spokane is not. They kind of work together to deal with it. The land owners out there. But it is a public road public. I'm Yes. Yes. publicly dedicated or just No, it's it's a it's one of those that it's publicly dedicated, but they still pay taxes on the whole thing because it's not. It's a dedicated ement. It's an easement. It's there. It's public to the center line.

Yep. Their property line doesn't split it like some do. So, they still pay all the money for it. Nice. Y So, here's kind of an overall view to show the terrain. This gentleman way over here actually has a driveway across the upper part of all of these to get to his house. You can kind of see off of Gray. No. Well, that one would come off of Yeah, it's off of the top of Gray. So these ones, all of all of these lots are kind of this way. Long and skinny through Brett's property.

There's one back in here. Yeah. And so this is all on the we'll say the bottom end of the hillside. And you can see where that major power line runs through here. And this is one that um planning and zoning actually approved. Not staff but the board did. Um and then after I think the one thing that got added after this, we actually had two more letters from um they they brought them in after the PNC meeting. Two more of the neighbors also said it was okay with them. So, in this case, we have I think all of the neighbors down there.

One, five. Yeah, there was there was quite a handful that all said they were okay with it. And we get some letters of opposition also on this one. I thought we had an email. Did you get an email? That was from last night. That was on the other one that got pulled. I think that Okay. Y the one last night. Yeah. Yeah, that was for the city. Okay. It is public hearing. Yep. And this is a public hearing. Uh you've heard the staff report. Um, we'll open it up to any comments from the public. Up to the applicants to to start with if there's anything more that they would like to add on top of the staff report. Offer up the proponents and open.

My name is James Iamp. I live on my variants that I'm asking for Spokane Road. I guess Amber's got to be right. She says public road. When I talked to Jean Pesca, he thought it was a private road. I'm not sure. He's the guy that developed all that. This was before Jean Pes that's been he was on the other side of the I asked him about

Yeah, what do you call them covenants? He said they're not employed basically cuz but anyway, we just want to build a building so we can put our stuff in and that's all the room we got. If I don't build it there, I can't build this. All right, sir. So, the there property is elevated off the road quite a ways. Yep. I'm going to have to uh move some dirt to get it done. So, you're building an approach up or you're building back to the road?

Uh my our son-in-law is the general contractor that's doing this. He lives in D Smith and uh I was going to talk to him about how much above the road. I figured, you know, a little bit above the road, but not a lot, you know. And actually there is kind of a a low spot there. When I talk to the power line, you know, when you go to the north of the power line, the the land drops down quite a bit. They're letting me come 15 ft from the center of the power line instead of 25. So um in order to build building item can't do it without the variance.

Sure. Yep. Did you have a question starting? Yeah. Uh any other proponents or opponents? Anybody online? All right. Can I clarify? We did have one opposition and I I forgot about this one. This was the one we just we did get one last night. We have one for the CP and one for this one. And this was from um Joe and Michelle Curtain are opposed to it. They lived on Spokane. They were on Spokane Road. Yep. Which is the road that we're talking about.

That it doesn't surprise me because we don't get along. We share the well on road the three houses and uh she was paying the water bill but she's about $150 behind she's that's really not part of the the but also I had to call the sheriff her dogs were in my yard and that's still not part of the variance discussion. Well I'm just telling did we get his address Brenda item? Yeah. Okay. Uh if there's no further testimony there public I will close the public hearing and leave it up to the commissioners. Commissioner Flanigan

for clarification we are not we have nothing to do with the variance into the power line use is that correct says that on the listing but that's it did but we had the we requested a letter from Black Hills Power which they included.

Mr. as you consider it. I think Amber has it in her staff report, but SDCL 11253 plays out the twoprong test uh to consider as you approve or don't approve a a variance request. I would ask that you incorporate that into your motion into your thought process. I can go over if you want to, but you've heard it before. Any other questions? Commissioners, I did go up and look at this on Sunday. Um, it seemed to me that this is a case of trying to put a building where there's not room. Um, so it needs to have a variance in order to do that. Commissioner Ying,

I would make a motion to follow uh the uh planning and zoning's recommendation of approval. Sorry, planning and zoning board approval.

The board approval. Yes. Not I didn't want to confuse with the staff second moved and seconded to follow the uh recommendation of planning and zoning board and approve the variance request for variance number 219. Any other thoughts? Commissioner, I'm just going to echo the chairman's sentiment and that because you want a building a certain size doesn't mean that you need a variance to build it. might be a change building or location. This the location will be tough.

So we know the board of adjustment uh that the criteria for approving a CUP is the same as even though your board is adjust board of adjustment is the same as if you were going to originally approve it or deny it which is a simple majority for a variance. However, city has board of adjustment requires that super majority of 2/3. So require I think four out of five. Yes, three out of five would be 60%. So am I mapping for if I may Mr. Chairman if I may read the criteria again if I may um whether the granting the variance is contrary to the public interest uh to approve the must be a finding that the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public interest or welfare. Prong two is to approve must be a finding of special conditions maybe it's power line I don't know such that because of a particular feature of the property or because of some extraordinary and exceptional situation on the property a variance is necessary. And then finally to be considered is whether denial of the variance would create a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or an exceptional undue hardship. Not my words but legis.

Yep. Thank you for that reminder. Any other questions or discussion before we vote. Okay. We'll need to do a roll call vote on this. Please hi Yuing. Hi Homer. Hi Lanigan. Nay Yuing. You already called Jenn also that was 32. So 32. So that uh motion fails to. So the motion was to recommend. So

do we need to do a separate motion to deny? I can do a motion to deny based on I I failed to see special circumstance when you can adjust the size of the building. I will second that. So it's been moved by Flanigan, second by Jennings to deny this request. Spin M. Of course, you need to have three to pass a motion to deny or no um four. Four. Yeah. So, okay, we'll see how this goes. I think we're going to be on a cold culdeac here. So, uh I think we're probably ready to vote.

Tisdom nay. Nay. Homer. Nay. Flanigan. Hi. Hi. Motion fails. Now, where do we go? Well, so I'm struggling with this because if we vote down a motion to approve it, doesn't that automatically it doesn't just leave it hanging? The variance becomes denied, doesn't it? Oh, well, there's maybe two ways to look at it. So, you know, you need the supermajority obviously to pass it. The argument would be that you don't need a supermajority to deny it. Um, I don't that doesn't really make sense to me. So I um

well if we fail to approve it, it's status quo. It hasn't been approved. Y there's no variance issue if it did not approve. That's where I was going to go with it. Yes, it has not been approved. Yeah. I don't know what else you can do. Unless you want to for whatever reason continue it until another day my taxes, but that doesn't seem like you're going to change your mind with any more time. So just Oh, I think we just need to move on. Thank you for coming up. Thank you.

Okay, we'll continue on this public hearing marathon here for number 220. And I think you're in, right? Okay. So,

okay. This one is for variance 220 and this is for Allan and Nicole Walmer. Um, and this one is also Paradise Acres, so Caitlyn Road area. They are requesting a 6.5 foot variance to the side setback requirement of 25 ft. And this particular one, there's a packet in here. You can see um kind of the overall layout. Their driveway comes off of Morning Star Road. Their structure sits over here. Um they built a garage over here too, which overlooks, we'll say, kind of like lot 91. It's closest to the lot 91 down in here. Um there were a few opposition letters um in here and then there was also some approved ones. Uh there was a building permit issued on the property for a garage August 8th, 2025. At that time the building met the setback requirements according to the drafted site plan. However, it was later determined that a portion of the garage was built within the setbacks. The homeowners are requesting the variance. Um the access to the property is off Morning Star Road. As normal, staff conclude that the variance request does not meet the intent of the ordinance as written in section 15.03 um due to the findings that we found above. So, as normal, staff recommend denial of the variance. Um, as always, Bruce reminds you of the reasons for a variance. Those are listed in there for your review. There was much discussion at planning and zoning about this back and forth. um you know with there is a neighbor that is upset about this and they have called a few times. They've also been present and wrote letters. Um and at that time it was motioned to approve the variance to allow the allow it as it would not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public interest and welfare. So staff denied it. The PNZ

board approved it. It was a roll call vote. You can see that here. Um, very similar situation, but what happened is it built into the hillside. You can see here's the site plan that we had. They they ended up going and looking at it. The land owners did. So, they self-reported that they made a mistake when it when it was built. And you can see here, this is the garage. So, their house sits over here. They meet setback on the house. Garage sits down here in the corner. And it does not meet setback. So, this is after it was built. they had this done and found that. Um, and then within that there are some photos in here. Um, there is a write up here that Alan and Nicole did. Um, you guys have already read through that, so I'm not going to read through all of it, but I'll get to the pictures. There were a lot of pictures. So, um, so this kind of shows it's built into the hillside. The road comes right in between. So, the driveway comes in between there. There's the garage in question and it's the back corner. This is the rear view of the garage. So, you can just see the roof on it. This shows the general location. You've got house down here, leech field on this side, garage sits right here. Driveway comes in here. Um, these are just kind of showing that septic and driveway and there's lots of photos, so I don't know which ones you want to look at, but um, I do know we have online and in person for public hearings. So,

you can tell me what else. That's all I have. Yeah, this is public hearing as as Amber mentioned. So, I'll open the public hearing. Uh, offer it up to either Alan or Nicole, maybe would like to address us. We just need your name and address, please. Nicole.

I'm Nicole. Um, 20757 Road. Um, just a couple updates, I guess, since the last meeting. There was discussion, as Amber mentioned, about um a potential land swap between us and the Schwitzers, who is the neighboring land owner. Um that is something that we weren't able to come to an agreement prior. We did hear the feedback. Um my husband offered a one and a half to one ratio of our land to theirs. Uh their original offer was much greater than that. Approximately 3 acres of our land for this. Um our offer was not accepted either. I think next steps for us to be any further negotiation on that is going to involve third parties unfortunately. Um, we don't think that's necessary. We believe our structure is a good candidate for variance consideration, not detrimental to the neighborhood in any way and the unique characteristics of our lot. There is just no place else to put this. The regretfully big problem is that we have to come retroactively. We identified this mistake after the structure was material complete. We haven't finished it entirely, but it's just minor things. um we are doing everything we can. We take our accountability on this very seriously. So just following processes available to us to try to remedy the situation the best that we can. Um the other thing and I know our HOA covenants are not relevant to your decision- making but that was slightly discussed last week as well. We received conditional permission to leave the structure as is from our HOA. that happened since last week, but just a couple of updates.

Okay, thank you. I'll open it up to any proponent testimony either in person or online. Anybody in favor of this variance have an opportunity to speak? Go ahead, sir. Name and address, please. Yeah. David Bnar, uh 20786 Morning Star Road, um in Leed. I'm the uh president of the HOA association up there and uh it's per our legal counsel. Uh we have bowed out of it just because of our setback requirements being up 30 ft and uh the county is being a little bit more stricter. So at this time uh we take that that position. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Yep. Go ahead. James S. round 20809 morning star in lead. I'm on the board. Uh in addition, we've got documentation from our council of record, Eric Nice, where the board actually is uh asking that this variance be granted to to the folks that there's no no harm to the to the HOA uh at this point in time. And our recommendation is to approve. Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead, ma'am. My name is Lisa Chesher. Um I am at 20767 Morning Star. I'm on lot 90. The Schwitzers are on lot 91 and the Bulmers are on lot 40. So we go right, you know, right one two three. And um my husband and I see no um the variance has no effect on our property. Uh has no effect on our property value. I know that's been floated across the neighborhood that property values are going to go down if this variance doesn't go through. We do not believe that. We don't believe that it impedes the beauty of our, you know, of our neighborhood and we fully support.

Thank you. Uh any further proponent? I don't see anybody online waving. Uh any opponent, please. Name and address. I'm Bill Schweitzer, wife Melanie. We're the lot 91. So, we're the documentation letter. I won't expand on that. Your address, please, sir.

Oh, sorry. It's Well, technically, well, I guess we do have an address now. It's 20763 Morning Star. So, lot 91. Don't have any additional information other than the letter that we put together. I mean, um, we did our best to try to point this out very, very early on in their construction and, um, it's just too bad that it had to come to this point. And actually, be honest, it's probably a good thing because now it's brought out in the open and, uh, you won't have to deal with it much later obviously. So, um, guess that's all I have to say. Thank you for entertaining us and this whole thing. So, thanks.

I would like to also see I'm Melanie Schwitzer and what's our new address? 20763.

20763 Morning Star. I just like to point out if variance is not granted. We are willing to do a land swap so their garage can remain where it is. We just want to swap equal value of land. We don't want to be worth less. and we paid um four to five times more an acre than the Wulmers did. We are the smallest lot. We are 4.2 acres. All the other lots around us are much larger. And what we want to trade is equal value. Equal area is not equal value. We want we just want to be the same. So if their variance is denied, we are very willing to trade equal value. If they just want a small sliver, we are willing to trade equal value so that their garage can be in compliance with the county and the HOA and everyone in the neighborhood is happy with that. I just wanted to point that out that we want to work something out so everyone's happy in the neighborhood.

We want to be good neighbors with the boomers. So just that's all I wanted to say. Any other opport any online? Okay, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner, you

Well, I'm just struggling with uh listened to everything. I've read all the material. Uh obviously the uh building was built into the setback by mistake from what I understand. Uh I don't understand why the neighbors are involved in it because even though they built into the setback, they're still on their own legal property. Correct. Yes. Yes.

So, I don't understand how how this others coming into play myself. Uh I think I would support the variance. I I really have struggle with, you know, someone does make a mistake, but I struggle with the fact that uh you've got a structure that's already up. I that would be tough for me to make a a good faith common sense decision that they would have to remove it. Any other questions from the commissioners? I'm

sorry, man. The public hearing was closed. Yeah. So, I I struggle with this also. Um, it's a I went up and looked at this building, too. Uh, it's not a unusually large building. It was obvious that they tried to keep it back in uh into the space that they had it available, but uh technically it does violate the the setback to um and so that's why the question for the variance. I I guess what concerns me is the options that we have here. Uh and the land owner and the neighbors have the are involved in those options too. If we deny the variance then the building would have to be removed. Is that correct? That was according to our ordinance in order to comply with the the variance

to be compliant with setback. You guys would have to make that decision and then you would probably go through the legal meetings to do that I guess to go home. I I would Mr. Sure. I would say it has to be come into compliance. So that could happen a number of different ways. The acquisition of additional land, uh maybe not tearing it down, but altering it in some fashion, which doesn't seem practical, but maybe there's some creative solutions, too.

And if we approve the variance, then uh the building stays. Uh there's no issues with anybody. Uh that eliminates the Schroerser's ability to bargain. Um so so that's that uh doesn't doesn't favor you guys I guess. Um if we did not act on it today uh you the two parties could come back uh understanding that and try to work out an agreement um and the variance could uh the application might go away or we could work on it another time too but they've had more time to to to maybe reach an agreement. Those those are the three options that I see for us today.

Mr. Chairman, in other words, I think you're suggesting there's potential to continue it until a future meeting, March 10th, for example. Yes. And have the parties report back to see if they've been able to come to an agreement. Yes. Just so everybody tracks, right? Yep. Commissioner, that would that would be my recommendation. I struggle to approve it. So I would I would I would make the motion to continue it and let the parties have a discussion among themselves. Let's just do that or I would stand behind my vote at zoning which was to approve it but I would second.

Okay. It's been moved by Figan, second by Tisdale to continue uh variance application number 220 until March 10th. Is that when the next meeting? Yes. Okay. Any further discussion on that question? Um I think maybe we'll do a roll call on this one too. Hi hi hi Jen. Hi.

Okay, we've uh passed a motion to continue this until the March 10th. I hope that you two can can work out an agreement uh to where it'll benefit all the parties involved in the county too. Either way, I think we'll probably decide something uh on March 10th whether you can reach an agreement and pull the application or we can rule on it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. If there's any questions, you can visit with Amber, right? Yep. We want to power on or take a few minute break here. The restroom. Yep. We take a five minute break here while adjust.

Entertain a motion to convene or adjurnn. Second and convene as county commissioners. Yes. Reconvene. Okay. It's been moved by Tesdale, second by Euing to adjourn as board of adjustment and reconvene as county commissioners. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Nay. Vic. We are county commission once again.

All right. So, this one, I think you guys kind of knew about this. So, um the David Nielsen property um was subdivided and they were trying to he had multiple residences on his property and so he had subdivided it to break off so that they were sitting on their own lots and then he passed away and as part of that and they're going through all of the the stuff to deal with his estate. Um, one of the structures that had a deed restriction on it that Mr. Nielsen had started building but didn't get a chance to finish had a deed restriction because he was going to have a small house, a garage, and like an apartment on the side. And the new owner that is purchasing that um would has sent us new plans. So, he's basically revamping the plans that were approved because it never got finished. Um, and he would like to remove that little apartment on the side. It's just going to be he's basically just making it a a master bedroom for the most part now. Um, and so there's no kitchen in it. He removed all of that stuff out of it. Therefore, it does no longer need a deed restriction. But in order to clean up, because the deed restriction was put in before the plat that subdivided everything, we actually have to undo way back to the original because the legal description was on the entirety of the tract. Well, the tract has now been subdivided. So, in order to clean up the estate, um the attorneys from both parties have asked if this is the original deed restriction that was just done in May of 2025. Um after much discussion with Bruce to how to undo it because of the way the legals were written, the new one will look like this. And we use the same model that we did last time. We've done one other release of deed restriction because the

county commissioners actually have to release that deed restriction and you have to record the release so that the chain of title when people are doing stuff can undo it. So that is this document. So they would like to get this recorded but before recording we wanted to make sure everybody was you know on board with it. Um, if this is a okay with you, we would then record this document or the Woodsole or Schultz and Smith will record it. Um, but it is a release of deed restriction made to the county. Um, and this gives just a I would say a summary maybe of what happened and why. Um, it tells you that when he did it, he did it. Um, it was done against track two, then it was platted, now it became two R, then three R, and then they also have this 2R. This is the new owner, Wade Musk. And so, I think Wade is on. It looks like he is. Wade had agreed to go ahead and provide the new plans to show that he was undoing what was already permitted and finished the structure. We've already done that and reviewed those. We've issued a new building permit showing that change and then this would also just get recorded against it. Um Bruce has reviewed it. It's just releasing and discharging it. And then we just have to make sure this gets recorded and we use the same model that we used last time. We just we've got a copy of it from the dean's office because we knew that it was in recordable format.

Okay. Mr. Fer, you don't see any problem? No, we reviewed the whole plans and Mr. You don't see any problem? Uh, I think because of change of circumstances that the release is in order. Yeah, I mean it sounds it sounds all straightforward. I just want to be sure. I'll make a motion to approve the removal of the restriction. Second move by second by you to approve the removal of the deed restriction. Uh, my only question was there was the the garage with living quarters and now you say it's just changing into a master bedroom. It's a master bedroom. So, it'll have a bathroom and a bedroom. There won't be um a kitchen in it like there was originally. So, the kitchen is the determining factor whether the determining factor. Okay. Just want to clarify that.

Yep. Any other questions? All those in favor of removing the deed restriction say I. Any oppose? Nay. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. So, Wade, just for your information, you don't need to present anything. It's been approved. Um, we just need to make sure your attorney gets it recorded with the deeds office and then I need a copy of that once it's recorded. Okay, no problem. Thank you very much. Yep. I think that's all I have. Oh, that wraps us up for agenda items and on to items from the public if you're sure that she does. Okay. Anything else here?

Just doesn't appear we have any public but I'm going to go ahead and read this anyway just to we welcome your public comment as we move into items from the public. We ask that as you do please focus on respect, clarity, adherence to procedure while keeping your comments to three minutes or less so that we may capture the minutes. Please give us your name and address. While making your comment, please be concise, state your specific comment, avoid personal attacks and profanity, and follow the chair's guidance, remembering that we are listening, but typically not engaging in back and forth dialogue during public comment as the goal is effective communication, not debate. Anybody from the public online? I see that's why you sit still, Sarah. A lot of rules.

Not seeing anything. So, we will move on to items from the commissioners. I have none here. Peace out. Two items went pretty quick. Motion to adjurnn. Yes. Okay, we are journ. Thank you everybody. End the meeting then. Thank you everyone.