Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Motion by Tupper, second by Dargis Johnson. Any further discussions, amendments, changes to the May 21st, 2026 meeting minutes? Hearing none, all those in favor, you're not going to give me trouble, Mr. Manager, for you doing voice votes on this, are you? No trouble. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. The minutes are adopted.

Liam, if I could add to, just for the record, that Ternus and Albie are absent, but we have our full board quorum.

Perfect. Thank you, Ms. Hanton. Item number four is disclosures of conflict of interest or ex parte communication. Does anybody have anything to discuss that is related to the agenda items?

I do, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Oops, sorry.

Counsel.

Sorry, just for the sake of the integrity of the board and making sure we do what we're supposed to be doing. I need you guys to just basically let Mr. Kays present his relationship with regard to one of the annexation parcels in his role at First District. And then you guys can either yes or no, make a motion to have him recuse. I'm not recommending that you do or don't. I just want to have the process so that we've met the requirements.

Thank you. Do you want to take it, or do you want me to explain it, Mr. Casey?

Well, I can explain what I do. As everyone is aware, I am the executive director for the First District Association of Local Governments. It's what I do as a professional. And I have provided counseling services to the city of Watertown and Kyington County for those 33 years when it comes to planning and zoning issues. I am aware that, like most people on this board, that there has been an action of Watertown the city of Wartown and the Cuyahaghton County Joint Jurisdictional Ordinance Board on a request by the applicant in front of us to have an action of that. I am aware of reading the staff report of that. I've read the minutes of that action. A staff person that works for me is the zoning administrator for Cuyahaghton County and for the area of joint jurisdictional zoning. There is no pecuniary relationship that I am receiving by that, so I have no conflict of interest. And any ex parte contacts and information regarding this topic would be no different than anyone else that could have received sitting on the board in my interpretation.

Thank you, Mr. Kays. Based on that disclosure, if anyone on the board wishes to make a motion for Mr. Kays to recuse himself, do so now. You do not have to, but if you desire to, and then we can vote on it. Going once, twice, three times that. No motion here. And I agree with Mr. Case. I don't believe that that represents conflict of interest. We're going to proceed. Any other disclosures or conflicts of interest or ex parte communication related to anything on the agenda? It's a TIF. It's a vacation. It's the annexation. Okay. Hearing none, declaration of new business. Any board members or staff that have anything to say regarding new business? Ms. Hanton, any new business?

No, sorry.

Okay. Wonderful. Public comment submittal. Sign up, excuse me. If there's something that you came here to talk about tonight that is not otherwise on the agenda, there will be a time to discuss that at the end of the agenda. Please just let Brandy know, and we will get to that before we adjourn. Finally, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

Approved.

Motion by Tate, second by Dargis Johnson. Further discussion or amendments to the agenda? Hearing none, all those in favor of approval say aye. Aye. Aye. That was pretty lackluster. Anybody opposed to approving the agenda? No. Hearing none, the agenda is approved. That brings us to our regular agenda, which is 8A, which is our TIF. Randy, would you please take it away?

Thank you, Liam. So this is TIF 24, that's before the board today. This is for Prairie Haven phase two. We approved the TIF for the first phase previously, and so now they're ready to move on to their second phase. This, and if IT, if you could share my screen, I'm gonna pull up a page. on the agenda packet there to point out. So they are proposing to do 75 single-family homes. The property is zoned R1C, single-family compact residential district, which helps reduce the lot size and in turn contributes toward affordability. The average so they have to with it being classified as affordable housing. They have to stay under the South Dakota housing limit and that but they are estimating that their Lots will be a part their homes will be approximately three hundred and ten thousand on average and for approximately 22 to 24 million dollars in investment in the development in total and then for the TIF eligible costs that comes to four million four hundred and twelve thousand six hundred eighteen and they're requesting the full amount and we have looked at the calculations to Show that they conservatively estimated for that And then the point that I want to pull up here, which chart, is showing the difference with the lot prices. So here you can see the real, how this really contributes toward affordable housing is what the how much the infrastructure costs per lot, and then what the TIF allows them to reduce the cost for, contributing towards affordability. So this chart here shows that gap of what they will be pricing the lots at, and then what each lot is actually worth. So with that, I will stand by for any questions, unless Manager Steiger has anything more.

I'd just remind the Commission that your role in the TIF process is, first of all, to look at the suitability of the location. Secondly, take a look at the numbers in the plan. Do you believe the numbers will work to recover the value in 20 years? And then finally, look at the economics of the TIF plan. And as our community development manager mentioned, this developer's actually presented a different way of looking at the economics of it. They're looking at it per lot price. The cost of the lot versus what they plan on selling a lot for So with that I would turn it back over to you and recommend that you hear from the applicant Thank You mr.

Manager does anyone on the board have any questions for staff before we take the applicant I would note, and for the record, I think that the previous TIF on this project is one of the more or the most successful TIF that I've seen, right? I mean, that was the one that was adequately aging.

I mean, there are still lots being sold to get the full increment and get the full value, but the TIF works. little better in these scenarios where you've got multiple properties supporting the TIF versus an apartment building where there might be a single property and The TIF is wholly dependent upon the revenue of that single property and the assessment there of that one product Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Stein if you want to come up here and tell us about the TIF It'll be red.

There we go. Are we good? Okay. I'm Tracy Stein. I'm representing Hometown Builders. I did write the previous TIF, TIF 17, for this development. So now they're moving into Phase 2. And one of the things that I wanted to talk about today was the purpose of the TIF. for this phase is to just abridge that development costs because those development costs per lot is $58,835. So while the current market conditions support the finished lot values in the range of approximately $20,000 to $30,000 per lot, That creates a development gap that is approximately $30,000 and that affects affordability for the homes that are going in out there So that is why the TIF is needed without those TIF without that TIF assistance The cost would likely need to be absorbed into lot and home prices which would increase the home price and make it unaffordable for people to qualify for those home loans right now because those rates are actually also affecting the affordability of having a mortgage on a home. At a $310,000 mortgage, that's going to be quite a bit of a payment for someone who's making $50,000, $60,000 a year. Do I have any questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Case. Have you seen this approach to bridging the gap lot prices done in other communities through TIF process?

No, I have not.

Just so the record's clear, can you just briefly describe where this location is? Because one of the, as Mr. Stager mentioned, one of the things we have to consider is the boundaries and the location of the TIF.

The location is just south of Derby Downs development and it would be west of the airport and it would be west of the current phase one Prairie Haven development.

Can you describe what are represented by the TIF eligible costs of $4.4 million?

That would include any public infrastructure, including roads and anything put underneath. Anything underneath.

Sidewalks or not?

Sidewalks would be included. That would be public infrastructure. Okay. Ms. Dargis-Johnson?

How many lots are undeveloped right now on the first phase? 17?

IT can you turn back to me?

We were at 21 the beginning of the year. We're currently By the end of the year we'll be down to eight But by the time we get this next project current plan is we'd get that in this summer or fall and in the blacktop would go in next next summer and we had it Currently we're expecting to have eight lots left. We'll knock those out and then jump right over the other one Originally, we're gonna wait another year just to kind of it But the bidding's been coming in pretty good on this stuff and actually on this project We're 75 lots and we're less on total than we were on the 69 loss first time so that Things have been moving along fast enough that we're projecting eight But that could be down to four or five by the end of the year the way things are going so well depends on how many other Contractors I can do We're doing about a dozen houses ourselves, and we got some other guys doing some other ones. If I can get a few more people, we can move even faster on it. But everything out there is sold. That's done. We had a little stretch in there. It was a little tight. We had 11 homes for sale, and there was nothing. And then right after January, everything's gone. So things are moving like we wanted to, and this is, you know, Purpose of this development in the future ones of them actually buying that whole quarter land was to do what we're doing what we'd call it for workforce housing and Through that the numbers I would have liked to seen Less on the houses, but it is what it is We're keeping them down as tight as we can in there there seem to be able to keep getting them sold. So I But you ask how many lots, there were 21 at the beginning of the year, and we've already got a number of them going there. We don't expect to have any more than eight by the end of the year, and most likely less.

Mr. Chair?

Go ahead, Ms. Tate.

Do you have any plan for a pocket park or any place like that in this development?

Yeah, part of the development agreement is to deal with the park. Last time we had to put some money toward that. There's a spot that's marked out for that temporarily, but the park board's going to make the decisions on that at some point in time where that's going to be. But yeah, there's plans for a park to be in that area.

It's been a while, but remind me, Brandy, phase three, right?

It actually is in a further phase. Okay. So it's down here on the southeast corner.

That's what, okay.

Adjacent to the bike trail land and everything there so but then right now they are it within proximity to the Derby Downs Park so But that is where it's planned on this development Currently the I think the current reason why that park is projected to be there.

There's a big Parcel land there the city already has that they could use as part of the park, but there's I'll be honest Park board's gonna decide that I don't you know they're gonna be where it's gonna be And they've already decided that

Wonderful, okay other questions for the applicant Where mr. Riefenberger, I guess he is the applicant, but um What is the lot size I wasn't on this body when during phase one So maybe you can help bring me up to speed Is this good are the what are the lot sizes gonna be and are they going to be compatible with phase one? Yes

This project was the first R1C lots, I believe, that were done since they were approved. The smallest lot was 65 by 110, which is most of them, but some of the corner lots were bigger than that. And there's a few in there that were 69 by... It angled a little bit up to 120, but basically the smallest one was 65 by 110. We could do them smaller as far as the zoning on the R1C, but... It's been part of my personal thing is I've been insisting that we do double garages on everything in time I get a garage. It's tough to get it much smaller than that Thank you Chair go ahead.

Mr. Case Miss Stein As you're aware starting in July 1st, there's a third party verification and all TIF finance plan moving forward you just tell us a little bit about your experience and your background in creating TIF plans and We can attest to the professionalism regarding this I've reviewed them, but I just wanted to hear absolutely, so I Started creating TIF plans while I was at the Watertown development company.

I was at the Watertown development company for over 16 years I started with TIF 6 which would be the first Avenue extension going out to Walmart and From there on I did not create tip 7 that was Terex. I created pretty much the rest of them until I left and went to work in Millbank at Grant County Development.

Follow-up Mr. Chair?

Go ahead Mr. Grace.

And so based upon your experience doing that you feel fairly confident that these numbers Reflected adequate.

Yes. Yes.

In fact, I have visited with Toby Morris on several occasions about my Mathematical skills when it comes to TIF and he has no issues with Does anyone else have any questions regarding the boundaries location any of the numbers or economics in the in the TIF plan that is before us I There is a public hearing on this matter. I don't believe I've actually opened it I will open the public hearing if there's anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this TIF Now is the time to do so Is there anyone that wishes to speak on behalf of against or I guess is neutral to this TIF currently Mr.

Chair One comment I'd like to thank mr. Riefenberger. I mean this was I was I Council when he first brought it forward Seeing the original plans part of that decision-making and going with the smaller Lots I Drive out there every now and then it just amazes me what you guys have got done in a few years I just want to give you a personal. Thank you for Myself and what you guys have invested in the city of Watertown and and being responsible developers, so Thank You mr. Tepper

Public hearing is still open technically. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak? I will close the public hearing. I'd ask for a motion in the affirmative to get discussion rolling.

So moved. Second.

Motion by Michelle, second by Ms. Tate. Further discussion regarding this TIF. Okay, I will just briefly add again reiterate that The empirical data the first tiff in this project Seemed like that went pretty well the project as mr. Tupper indicated is going swimmingly and mr. Riefenberger indicated that phase one is nearly built out and by the end of the year will be almost completely built out it appears to otherwise come Meet all the requirements found in statute regarding boundaries location the retirement of the TIF and the TIF eligible costs and with that I will Any other further discussion? And hearing none Brandi, would you do a roll call please?

Yes Case yes spire. Yes targets Johnson. Yes, cocaine. Yes tape. Yes Tupper. Yes. Kaka check Yes

7 yes 0 no Motion passes or the the TIF plan is approved I guess is probably the technical thing the resolution passes that brings us to the vacation 8b Brandi, please go ahead Thank You Liam.

So this is a vacation of approximately fourteen thousand four hundred and thirty square feet The property owner on both sides are Jeffrey and Sandra Statham they are petitioning to vacate because they are actually hoping to or constructing a Detention pond within this area. There are no utilities. So that is not a problem we don't have to retain a utility easement over the Right-of-way the right-of-way Did connect between 19th Street and 21st Street, but the connection was actually vacated in 2019 so this right-of-way does actually not serve a public purpose and staff recommends Vacation and with that I'll stand by for questions Does anyone from the board have any questions for Ms. Hanton or other staff?

Okie-dokie there is a public hearing on this matter. I will well, I guess I would take Jeff if Jeff if mr Sodom if you want to come up and explain anything you can identify yourself you certainly don't have to And then I'll open the public hearing. Okay, Jeff Understood, okay, then I'm gonna open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone to speak on behalf of or against this vacation? There anyone here to speak on behalf of against or is neutral to this vacation Is there anyone online that wishes to speak regarding this vacation? Fair enough. I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion in the affirmative on Resolution 2026-19. So moved. Second. Motion by Tupper. Second by Speyer. Further discussion regarding this vacation?

Go ahead, Mr. Stoudam. That retention pond I'm that is getting made There's five or six businesses where waters running into that and And it's all on my property I just wonder if if there's anything that has to be done should some of these people step up to the line if there's Problem or all the ones that needs to be fixed We've got Watertown box directed their water right onto my property and Stein sign and Then there's Charlie and Buddha and part of the sign company And I just wanted to say that I didn't I

I can appreciate why that would be very frustrating. That is a little bit outside of the bounds of what we're dealing with today in terms of the vacation. Okay. And I certainly can't give you any legal advice or any other particular advice about it, but I would maybe inquire with staff regarding drainage issues either after this meeting or sometime next week, Mr. Stoudam, okay? Okay. Hang in there. Okay, so we have a motion and a second regarding Resolution 2026-19, which is the vacation that we just discussed. Any further discussion about it? Mr. Chairman.

Go ahead, Mr. Tager. If it's okay, I'd just like to make one comment. Mr. Stodham, as the petitioner and the developer with the drainage pond and his property, we will be asking for a best management practice around the pond, which we do at all private ponds such as that. That's pretty standard, and I would suggest that if you do have concerns about other People draining into that pond before taking on all of that responsibility on your own Certainly recommend that you meet with them and develop plans accordingly, okay Thank You mr. Steger Okay, the board has no comments I would just note that it looks like a fairly standard vacation there is It's not tied in with any other street plan or anything else.

It's not going any the public right-of-way. There's no easements and There's no public service really being supported by this particular easement and we've already vacated the one directly to the west of it That would be what I would say about this one. Is there any other comments before we vote?

roll call Brandi Tupper yes, Kaka check Yes, Tate. Yes, Colleen. Yes, Dargis Johnson. Yes spire. Yes case.

Yes seven yes zero no the resolution passes I Unanimously, that brings us to the annexation 8C of parcel 2. Go ahead, Brandi.

Okay. Thank you, Liam. Oh, you're fine.

Ashton is going to go talk to you.

Okay. Sorry about that. This is the annexation. annexation and zoning request for a Two parcels, I'm going to explain we'll take action on them separately But I'm going to explain them together because they are related so you see that we have What do we have going on here Parcel two is what we are acting on first that is currently a adjacent to the lakes of willow creek second edition this area is north of where the ice arena is located for proximity and it runs it runs up to third avenue and 31st street and so That that property standalone is 41 acres they're proposing to zone it as a one agricultural district and And with that district, you need 35 acres as a minimum. And then the parcel number one will be pinpoint contiguous. And that is why we're taking action on that following parcel two. So again, this property is approximately 54 acres and is proposing to be zoned A1 agricultural district. It is currently, it's been developed at least for 10 years as a mining operation gravel pit. That will come before the board on June 18th for action for the conditional use, following council's second reading on June 15th. So that will be a separate action item. But with that, I will stand by for any questions.

Does anyone from the board have any questions for Ms. Hanton?

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

So annexation of these lots, would that vacate the Joint Jurisdiction Commission's permit decision that was made on May 18th?

So, yes. If it comes into city limits, it will. And I believe that that action was delayed. It was approved, but the effective date was four months with a two-month grace period.

July 18th is the effective date to... Commence operations with the valid permit in the joint jurisdiction So the annexation that would vacate that joint jurisdiction Decision that was you know made on May 18th, right? Yes, because they would become part of the city So the Board of Adjustment in the city would then act on the conditional use on June 18th Subsequent a conditional use Consideration they would have to get another permit within the municipality, correct?

Hold on one second.

Go ahead. Mr. Steger.

I might suggest you limit comment to parcel two There are two distinct actions.

Sure, and I don't think your comments apply to parcel two Understood that's yeah, that's fair if there's any questions regarding parcel two, which is the one to me immediately to the east of It was just they were presented together.

Yeah, I understand Mr.

Chair, go ahead. Mr. Case

You need a development officer? Yeah, manager. The current use of the property right now is kind of a borrow-pick. Is it an active mining of parcel two, or is it just waiting for development? I haven't been out there, so I don't know.

Yeah, so they use that. It's like a stockpile area, and that use can exist with a grading permit in the city.

With a grading permit.

Yep.

Okay. There would be no request for a mining permit subsequent to the action of it.

Correct. Thank you. Specific to parcel two, yes. Okay. Ms. Hanton, what's the anticipation in terms of the master plan and those kinds of things? What's the anticipation for this property in the years going forward?

So the comprehensive land use plan did not have any insight on this. What I can say is that the major street plan does not show 31st Street being the major collector that it had previously, as there's large, I'll pull up GIS here. There's large topography constraints. when you go to the north of where this is located. And so 28th Street is going to be the major collector that will connect going north. So there's not... And actually... 28th or 27th? 28th. And what was your question again?

What are we gonna do with this? Okay, so parcel to I'm talking about parcel to I'm talking about the one that is immediately to the east of Willow Lakes Oh Eventually it will be developed.

They have it in a concept plan.

Yeah, okay Yep Okay, wonderful Mr. Paulson, do you want to come up and talk now before I open the public hearing?

I'm calling Paulson representing J&J land sales I'm just here for any questions. Yeah, I was just gonna help with that that Personal to will be more housing and then not too distant future Perfect.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. Mr. Case.

Mr. Paulson when you say not too distant future less than ten years. Yes.

Thank you Mr. Johnson, go ahead At what point and I don't know who can answer this when does 3rd Avenue get paved and

We are paving about a half mile stretch of Third Avenue this year. It's already ready for pavement, actually. We have curb and gutter on about a half mile of it. Only our portion, keep in mind, which is from the bike trail, or roughly where the creek crosses right there to the east.

And it is development driven. So as things develop is when 3rd Avenue will continue to be paved but There's obviously a lot of properties that are not annexed that are adjacent to 3rd Avenue which poses a struggle Mr.

Chair, go ahead. Mr. Paulson. What's the current use of a lot to?

Just stockpiles Mostly um we do have we have a topsoil stockpile, and then we have just some crushed concrete stockpiles concrete Mr.. Chancellor, how many homes do you have out in your first development there?

You know I mean, I'm not gonna hold you to it.

I knew this not too long ago um and I believe there's roughly 100 residential lots, and then we have commercial lots to the south.

How many are there? Five.

Any other questions for Mr. Paulson before I open the public hearing? Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Ms. Tate.

So just to clarify, the current use... There's no mining actually occurring on lot two, correct? Correct. It's just stockpile, it's just sitting there, and it's waiting. There isn't going to be like a depletion date or anything like that.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Shetty, as liaison, do you have any questions for Mr. Paulson? Wonderful. I'll open the public hearing then and ask if there's anyone else that's here to speak on behalf of against or opposed, excuse me, or otherwise neutral. Again, this is related to the annexation of section 33, 17, 52, what we're calling parcel two.

Hey, Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. So if I recall, the Willow Creek development, there was a stockpile of earth there that I believe the city had to go for zone enforcement to have them knock that down. Is my recollection correct on that?

Yes, so that was in actually the East Park and Morris addition, and that was because they were zoned C3. Right.

Okay, and this would be zoned A1?

Yep.

Okay, thank you. Okay.

I have an additional kind of a follow on question to Mr. Speyer's question more probably for Brandi than for Collin. So should this pass and this is annexed, does that put into force for any stockpiling areas or kind of holding areas any advice? or ordinance as in regard to kind of ground stabilization, then that wouldn't be active on the county level?

Yes. So the city has grading permits, and that is what they would need to utilize the stockpiles in this location. And the difference of that, like the previous example that was brought up, they were actually trying to mine gravel from that area. So they're not doing that here anyway, but there will be more regulation as far as getting a grading permit to be able to do their stockpiling.

The public hearing is still open. I just want to get through that before maybe. I had a question. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Case, sorry.

Are there still mining rights retained to parcel two with the state of South Dakota and the license? I don't know if there's any gravel material there, but is there still a license with the state and mining rights?

I believe there is. But we, yeah, like I said, we're currently not mining that.

And they're also not applying, I sent out public notice for the June 18th, meaning they're not applying for that parcel.

Parcel, no, I'm saying that parcel two will be zoned ag. You still retain mining rights with the state of South Dakota. You have probably some time left on a 30-year mining license. You could turn around and sell that property to me. I could subsequently, if there was any gravel left to mine, I could start a gravel mining operation on the parcel.

By conditional use.

I'm just asking. I know it's a condition. I'm just asking. I'm just trying to put the chain together.

All right. Thank you. OK. Public hearing is still. Go ahead, Mr. Shetty. Sorry.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question, Mr. Paulson, on the timing, I guess. I'm just curious on the timing of getting this annexed, requesting the annexation now versus when you're ready to actually develop it once the other portion is done. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Like I kind of mentioned previously, I mean, that will be less than 10 years later. But that's also dependent on lot sales. It's been a struggle recently, but it is in our concept plan. And then we will bring a preliminary plan. I mean, you can kind of see the termination of the roads there. So the curb and gutter and stuff already go right up to that property line. And they will just continue to the east.

First District has so many layers on here.

Go ahead, Ms. Fargo-Chanza.

Mr. Paulson, so my question, I guess, to follow up Mr. Shetty there. So I think, too, that your lots would sell quicker with a developed Third Avenue. So why are we bringing this in now if we have plenty of lots, ample lots, to get sold? What is the advantage of bringing it in right now?

It's tied to actually the other parcel to make it continuous. So that was kind of, that's why this one's being brought in right now, but this would have been brought in within a couple years anyway. So yeah, I don't have a good response other than that.

As a different zone, so they'll have to rezone this property to conform to their concept plan. So that will come before the board again. The A1 is acting as a placeholder.

Understood. Are there any questions from the board for Mr. Paulson, or if they're not, is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of, against, or neutral to this annexation? Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing, and I would ask for a motion first on annexation of parcel 2 Mr.

Chair I would recommend approved annexation of this it fits within the development of the area and the conformity of the future use of the area even though it may be several years off but I agree that you know, this is a appropriate, you know municipality zoning area motion by spire

Second by Douglas Johnson. Further discussion regarding parcel number two.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead, Mr. Case.

I also wholeheartedly support the motion as it is a holding property. There will be requests for substantive uses to comport with the plans that have been generally approved by staff and us so far. And the other main reason I'm comfortable with this is that

It also comports with other Supreme Court decisions in this state of this having a substantial contiguous boundary So my concern about it Is that parcel 2 gets rezoned and I jump back to Eastwood's I don't want to see that this you have residential over here. That's already developed and I bought a lot, built my home, and then all of a sudden I have you coming in front of us to ask for a different zoning than our one. Then I'm going to just, my hair's going to raise on my neck. So that's my problem of jumping piggy bank here when we don't have any, you know, there's no guarantee. This can be rezoned at just about anything. And then we have, you know, the pitchforks and lanterns coming at us. So that is my concern of, yeah, we're contiguous, but

In response or in reaction to that I guess I do see the value in the immediate term to having a area AG does designate an area that can be a holding area for you know Gravel and materials for the municipal use not necessarily a mining operation But just for you know, so that would be an appropriate zoning within the city jurisdiction so I see that as a

Intermediate use that seems appropriate for the development of the community If I can add to if they wanted to change the zoning from the approved zoning on the concept plan That would also have to come back to the board.

Yeah, and that's a discussion frankly for another day Okay further discussion regarding this is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding parcel number two and the annexation thereof Hearing none. I'll go do a roll call vote Brandi

All right. Kays.

Yes.

Spire. Yes. Dargus Johnson. Culhane.

Yes.

Tate. Yes. Tupper.

Yes.

Kakacek. Yes.

Seven yes, zero no. The annexation will go to council with recommendation. That brings us to the zoning of A1. Could I get a motion? So moved. Motion by Tupper. Second by Kays. Further discussion regarding the A1 zoning? Hearing none, Brandi, roll call.

All right. Topper.

Yes.

Tate. Yes. Culhane.

Yes.

Dargis-Johnson. Yes. Spire.

Yes.

Kays.

Yes.

Kakacek. Yes. Sorry, I forgot her.

Seven yes, zero no. It will go to the council with a recommendation for A1 zoning. That brings us to parcel number one. Go ahead, Brandi.

Thank you, Liam. So I did, for the most part, explain this property with the previous action. So bringing it forward, because it's pinpoint, oh my gosh, pinpoint contiguity. And it also, we feel like there could be a benefit with this being within city limits. Again, this will come before the Board of Adjustment for conditional use action, but there might be some benefit for the city with 31st Street East and the city already controlling or being responsible for the maintenance from the township roads of 31st Street East and 3rd Avenue North. And then so 31st Street East going north, I think there could be some safety benefits that the city would be better controlling. With that, I'll stand by for questions.

Does anyone from the board have any questions for Brandy regarding parcel two? Mr.

Chair, just picking up on your last point, there wouldn't be a need then for a road hall agreement if this was annexed into the municipality?

We would likely require a road hall agreement under ordinance if this is annexed in.

With Watertown, but not with the other townships.

Correct.

Because we have, the city has a,

Agreement already with the township, but we would still want it for the mining operations That would be a condition of a subsequent conditional use permit we would present that with the conditional use at the Board of Adjustment And then Picking up on my previous line of questioning about the permitting in the current joint jurisdiction action which is delayed that permit until July 18th and Annexing this would vacate that decision with the joint jurisdiction But there would be a subsequent my understanding subsequent permit requirement with the municipality, you know pending a conditional use approval correct and then Timeline wise I mean they would have to go before the next Adjustments and then to the council they would gain a month which is Vital for construction season.

Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Mr. Case. I We could have a conditional use permit hearing on the 18th of June, but the CUP could not begin until the annexation has met the 20-day, the rezoning with 20-day. So it's probably July before that they could actually start mining, correct?

It's actually at the risk of the developer.

Or the risk of the city if somebody asks for a mandamus proceeding to halt that. I mean, if the city is acknowledging that, They're allowing something to happen without actually being ordinances in effect. It's a legal question.

I'm asking They don't But if they start that I'm good with it, okay, I'm good with the risk

Other questions for staff before we take comments from the applicant?

Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Ms. Tate. In the agenda item description that you put together, the facts talk about the adjacent property zoning designation. Do those descriptions apply to parcel one?

Both of them, basically.

So the directly west is... Oh, okay, okay. Do you see what I'm saying?

You caught my copy and paste there. South is county, west is county, east is county, north is county.

And are those zoning assignments the same?

They're zoned agricultural and the joint jurisdictional one.

but southwest is city.

Mr. Chair. Good point. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. This is all surrounding joint jurisdiction. All around it. All around it.

Go ahead, Mr. Chair. What was the reasoning with the joint jurisdiction board for the delay?

He was there. Great question. He was on the board. He voted.

As the, I guess, municipal rep on the joint commission. The... Petitioner requested that their permit be reinstated Immediately the board or the Commission considered it There are four present for the Commission and we heard the applicant petitioner as well as testimony from the community and discussion amongst the the Commission the reason the permit Was stopped is for there there was a cease and desist last year and To stop operations, so they're not in compliance with the county as far as you know what we considered and It went forward for vote Initially It was to start immediately that that failed Then it was subsequently to you know, the motion was to a four-month you know delay for the permit with two months granted for

Efforts have been done on behalf of the petitioner to comply with the county zoning Requirements, so that's in a nutshell I don't want to get too far into the weeds on that because that's really not particularly germane at least into the To the action in front of us at this moment, and I and you can address it if you want in your minute in your time Mr.. Chairman, maybe I could ask one question just to ensure that there are no prejudicial thoughts in

Around the testimony that was just given but the conditional use permit in the county did that that Expired to the passage of time or did it expire due to revocation?

It was my understanding it was Because of the cease and desist as revocation Passage of time Okay, thank you.

I think that's important for the Commission to understand and Todd Did you you answered that?

What did you want to expand?

My understanding from the whole thing from reading the staff report that was public document prior to the meeting is that there was a permit previously issued to someone else which was not J&J. Upon transfer of that property to J&J, J&J should have been made aware of the 10-year time frame. For whatever reason, something happened, miscommunication, no communication. However, the 10-year window had expired, and that's what started, my understanding, reading the staff report of the county wanting to bring J&J into compliance with the Joint Jurisdiction Ordinance, because that was originally done prior to Joint Jurisdiction, I understand.

So the conditional use was, yes, and my review of the Joint Jurisdiction Ordinance, I had confusion with how that was handled.

We're getting far field here because the matter in front of us is annexation under 9-4-1, and what the county did or the joint jurisdiction did or whether they did it correctly or not is not really our purview. So is there any other questions for staff regarding the annexation and whether or not it meets the statutory requirements? Otherwise, I'll let Mr. Pulse go ahead.

I don't do it now. I'm going to bring it up later. And I'm just going to preface this with a monitor. So for over 30 years, I have been in a position of providing technical assistance to counties and cities, spoken in front of attorneys as being deposed and or education classes. One thing that we've talked about and conducted over that time is discussions on annexation. what is a legal annexation request, statutory requirements, and case law state. Going back all the way to the Streeter case, Fred's, Anderson, Elcing, Supreme Court has been very clear that we need substantially contiguous boundaries to be shared. And they even reference in Anderson a case out of Kansas which is specific to what I call checkerboard or pinpoint not contiguity. And so have you as the city attorney reviewed those cases to say whether or not this is a request which would meet the findings of the Supreme Court in those cases that I have specified?

I have reviewed those cases, and for the most part, the factual patterns were different. In other words, had this been a request for the other side of I-29, it probably would not have come before you because we would have already, or we would have recommended not to approve. The cases, especially the Anderson cage, had to do with the Rapid City Airport. The block that was, and it had to do with the actual annexation of the airport, was 4.7 miles away. from the city limits. It was not the situation of what we have here, which is the pinpoint. It also is not, I don't like the idea of if you look at this whole area as a whole, you have development going in that direction. I didn't feel it was appropriate to hold this parcel hostage to the one that's in between when it has a connection to the southwest. portion which you already approved or recommended approval. Now, is it a clear cut? No. It's not black and white, which as you know with most attorneys, it never is. But it gave me enough to pass the smell test that if you wanted to recommend, my other consideration was in talking with Community Development Manager Hanton, was that the We had other situations in Watertown where we approved parcels of this nature in these fact scenarios. So I was going also off of precedent in that we didn't have any challenges on those ones. Doesn't mean we wouldn't have one here, but it gave me enough of this fact pattern to present it to you, especially with the shared road and the whole ice arena being further down. They've got Willow Creek going across. In other words, there's going to be future annexation, and I didn't feel that it was my purview to say no right off the bat of not presenting it to you or not recommending disapproval because we're holding them hostage to the land in between them. And it wasn't 4.7 miles away.

I'm going to let the applicant speak, and then we can have the public hearing, and then we can further discussion when it's motioned and seconded. Go ahead, Mr. Paulson.

Thank you, Mr. Colleen. Collin Paulson, again, representing J&J Land Sales. I just want to, I guess, clear up a couple things. Obviously, this is not typical. We would not be coming before you if that action was not taken by the county joint jurisdiction. But with that said, we are here because we have to operate as a company. And us not being able to operate a pit to keep our operations going through the summer months is, I just think there was a lot of errors made along the way. First, we were not notified that our permit or conditional use had expired until months after the fact. And when it did became a factor, they gave us 30 days to address the issues. We did that immediately and did address those issues. And they were still holding us hostage in the terms of saying we couldn't even haul out of our pit, not even mine. And so then they were saying that we were in violation. And then they proceed to tell us that they redefine mining and say that we were crushing concrete, which is recycling of material. And I can even confirm that with MSHA, because MSHA came out there just this week and said the same thing, that crushing material is not mining. Crushing material is recycling, as long as you're not improving it with natural materials, which we are not. And so that's what led to them making the decision that they made, is they redefined what crushing and mining were, which is actually a violation of state law as well. So we do disagree with the action that was taken, and we had no option but to come here in front of you because this is our next step anyway. Once this mine is done, it was going to be annexed, and it's going to become housing. It's going to be developed. And so that was our next step anyway. I mean, yeah, that's probably a few more years down the road than the first person that we talked about. But I just wanted to clear that up that, I mean, we had MSHA out there just this week saying the exact same thing. We have a valid mining license through the state, and we're just hoping to continue operations. And this is how we, this is our next step.

Any questions for Mr. Paulson before I formally open a public hearing for other testimony?

Mr. Paulson, Mr. Chair, go ahead. You stated that you had given 30 days notice, but wasn't there a letter received in September of 2025 notifying you that you were out of compliance and that you needed to apply for a permit and you had had up to six months to apply for that permit?

Yes, I'm glad you brought that up. Thank you, Mr. Case. I actually did email the zoning officer several times with no response in that time frame asking for the next steps. I provided actually a pseudo permit, kind of what was sent to me. I filled out. It was not the appropriate permit just because that's what was sent to me. No response. And then when I did send in their appropriate one, he said that it was...

Questions around an annexation, but you want to say something you look like you want to say something Ask a question mr.. Paulson if you have one So we're gonna keep mining out of there, and we're gonna use 3rd Avenue and 31st to get out of there with our trucks oh We do limit use on 3rd Avenue.

Especially now that we'll be paving it. We'll even limit it more and Just because we don't want to destroy the road. We're just creating to So it'll be mostly 31st me 31st is gravel.

It is gravel. Yes All right, I'm gonna open the public hearing now if there's anyone here to speak on behalf of against or opposed to this annexation What we are calling parcel number one How's the time speak? It's the time to speak is anyone want to speak on behalf of against or neutral to the annexation Is there anyone online that wishes to speak? They're all I will close the public hearing and I would ask for a motion in the affirmative to get discussion rolling So motion by Tupper second by Douglas Johnson Discussion go ahead mr. Case

I don't have a problem with the concept of having this property annexed for the intended purpose of mining, which is something that would have been allowed in the joint jurisdictional area or allowed in the city of Watertown. What I do have is a problem with how the approach to checkerboard annexation, whether that's a great issue to somebody else in the city. So solely based upon that decision and my ethics in that area, I will be voting no on this.

Further discussion? Don't all speak at once?

Go ahead, Miss.

I have a question perhaps for staff or perhaps Colin as well. There is the parcel directly to the West not being under their ownership. Is that part of the long-term comprehensive plan? What were the plans for that? Is there an expectation that in the future... that land will be developed as, you know, I understand it's under family ownership now, but has there been any indication of what the future of that would be or would we always, or for the foreseeable near or far term future, expect that to stay undeveloped or for an agricultural purpose?

The property to the west, or to the south?

Let me get on my map here. The one that would be directly to the west, yes.

Yes, so the comprehensive land use plan did not include information on that. But as we see development trends, I would expect that to be developed as residential. And then same with the property that we're talking about annexing today. When it is, right now it's a natural resource that we're utilizing, or that's being utilized. So, and then they will be reclaimed. But we'll discuss that on June 18th.

And I do just- I was just asking in regard to, you know, the question of, you know, Mr. K's point of the pinpoint development and not, or pinpoint- Continuity so just kind of kind of just trying to look at the crystal ball to see if you know how how that argument or that development philosophy and and this is the future yeah, and this is the Circumstance that wasn't actually contemplated in 2014 when this one was done here By fireside campers when that was annexed in and it is the same exact

Scenario And Michelle just the but first to give you a little background we have had discussions with Mr. Orris Which is the property owner to the west of that property? I don't think he has any immediate plans, but he also acknowledges that He's old, and it will eventually move on in the probably shorter future, and he acknowledges that. We have a good relationship with him. He understands what we're trying to do, and we are working with him on stuff like that. So if it does become available to us, I could see us even purchasing that and developing to the north.

Thank you. Further discussion?

I'd like to just bring up one point, if it's okay, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. I think it's wise to listen to the counsel of Mr. Kays. However, I'd also just point out to everyone that we've done similar annexations in the city at various points in time in the last 30 years, including just a few such as the entire River Ridge. the development in the community, several along East Highway 212. If you go back further, you could very clearly draw a line to all of Lake Compesca was a pinpoint annexation. And certainly the cases referenced often have something that we don't have in this case, which is another municipality competing for the right to annex the property. In this case, there is nothing but joint jurisdiction. And clearly, whether defined in our long-term land use plan or not, this is a city of Watertown that is growing in this area. I think it'd be far-fetched to claim that the city of Kransberg at some day might claim to have rights to annex this property. So with our counsel from legal counsel, I would encourage you to strongly consider whether there is risk in annexing this property just because of the contiguous nature being such a small portion today. I'll just leave you with those thoughts. At the end of the day, respect whatever decision you guys come up with as a commission.

Further discussion before I go on my spiel? Anybody? The controlling law here is, and I'm not providing legal advice. I'm just somebody that read the book and read the case law. The controlling law here is 9-4-1 South Dakota codified law about whether or not you can annex. The South Dakota Supreme Court and Anderson has said annexation must be contiguous. So what is contiguous? You can look to the Supreme Court in Esling. This is great. To be contiguous, the annexed territory must be, one, contiguous to the city, two, encompass a community of interests, three, constitute a natural and reasonable inclusion. And then cited Anderson saying that it must have a substantial common boundary. That's Esling citing Anderson. The territory must be contiguous to the annexing city. Continuity encompasses more than physical touching of boundaries, but also encompasses the requirement of a community of interest. Basically, do we want a gravel pit in the city? So the one question is, is it contiguous? And two, do we want a gravel pit in the city? As we go home and vote, that's what you need to consider. In referencing continuity or contiguity, this city should consider whether or not it touches at every point, or at least should share a substantial common boundary. Must be contiguous in the same sense of adjacent to and parallel to the existing municipal limits. Adjoining to could be synonymous with contiguous. Both terms meaning touching or adjoining in a reasonably substantial sense. So those are the words that the South Dakota Supreme Court has used to interpret the controlling law. I question whether or not we meet that burden. The question of whether or not we're going to get sued for it is a different question entirely. Do we have legal authority to do this? The second question being, even if we're not going to get sued for it, do we want a gravel pit in the city? And so that's when you're voting yes or no, that's your choice. And so if there's other further discussion or that invites other further discussion, we can do it. Otherwise, we can just have a roll call on it.

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead, Ms. Tate.

I do have a question for you, sir. Am I understanding from your discussion that the permit for use that you would want to use this property for the county is not going to Extend that and that's part of the driving force for asking for this annexation. Am I understanding that correctly? I

Not entirely. So it's the conditional use. So we have our mining permits actually through the state and then the conditional use that allows us to mine in Coddington County is given by the county or the Joint Jurisdiction Board. They just suspended that for four months. With two months we can come back if we're made good effort. But that Is not good for business is why we're here, and I'm being 100% truthful with you why we're in front of you So that's all we're coming for is that yes It'd be technically in the city, and we'd get the conditional use from the city if if you so allowed and Then we would continue our mining operations until it's time to develop that land So that's kind of where we're at and I mean I to hit on Mr. Culhane's point, too, is, you know, we wouldn't have came if this wasn't a conditional use option. If it wasn't even listed, and it's the number one listed use, actually, underneath in Title 21, I can't remember the exact, or 12, 21-12. And so that's why we're in front of you. It's not that, we're not trying to create new rules, we're just trying to follow guidelines. all of what's given to us.

In the current situation, you're going to lose a whole season of activity that really helps you run your business.

Correct. Mr. Chair.

Go ahead, Mr. Tupper.

You know, I look at this whole development, and to Mr. Colleen's point, do we want a gravel pit there? Well, the whole development was a gravel pit at one time. It was an eyesore for the community for many, many years. My hat's off to you guys for taking that chance. It looks like it's going to be a great development, you know, and I know that's kind of off the beaten path of what we're talking about with track one. But to look at it, do we want a gravel pit there? And we see what they've done with the old gravel pit. How many acres is that?

It's almost a full section.

Yeah, so... They did some tremendous things with that, and I look forward to the growth of that. And for that, I'll be supporting this.

Further discussion? Ms. Dargis-Johnson?

Well, Randy kind of took the words out of my mouth. We already have a sand pit in our city limits, so that's exactly what I was saying. Do I like it? No. No. And we've heard it from the people in Dakota Commons, you know, the dust and, you know... But, you know, obviously you have the south way out. But how many years, Colin, is there still material to pull out of there?

It's tough to say that right now. But if you could turn off the zoning on there, you can kind of see where we're sitting currently. And we can go to the south a little bit, but not all of that is mineable, if that's even a word. But... Eventually we'll have to move north if across the creek if we continue this so there's not many more years of this specific spot Because We do so Is so I'm just gonna ask the question the land to the west is that mineable? Is there sand there or gravel or whatever you're after talking to the owner he had some drilling done to determine if he could do the same thing and I He thinks that there's a very small vein in there that is it wouldn't be worth opening Mr..

Chair I do have one more question so Mr.. Paulson you made a comment earlier that with your mining operation once you pave Third Avenue You you will no longer use third Avenue very minimally very minimally yes. How are you or how do we? And I'm not trying to throw your competitor under the bus They also, it was brought up before that we have a lot of complaints from Dakota Commons with the dust. A lot of that's also their trucks. I don't know if at that point after it's paved, if they can look at maybe a load limit on that road or

Yeah, and that would be up to city staff and the agreement we come up with on our behalf. But if they want to bring in that or limit it however they can legally.

To me, for years, that would have been the simplest solution for that whole area up there is put a load limit on that road. But I suppose we couldn't before because it was all Township Road, correct? Right. Thank you.

Further discussion before we vote? Brandi, roll call.

All right. Case?

No.

Spire?

No.

Dargis-Johnson?

Through this bar, yes.

Culhane?

No.

Tate? Yes. Tupper?

Yes.

Kakachuk? Yes.

Four yes, three no. The motion passes, and it will go to the council with a recommendation for annexation. That brings us to the zoning.

Kaka check.

Is there a motion to approve this? I'm inviting a motion to approve. So moved.

Second. Second.

Who motioned? Kays. OK. And then? Rhonda.

It doesn't matter.

Either Rhonda or Michelle seconded. I don't care who shows up in the minutes. OK. Further discussion regarding A1 zoning. All right, Brandi, roll call, please.

Kachak?

Yes.

Tepper?

Yes.

Tate? Yes. Culhane? Yes. Dargis-Johnson? Yes. Spire?

Yes.

Case?

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously. It will go to the council with a recommendation for A1 agricultural zoning. And that brings us to item 9, which is open public comment. Is there anybody that wants to talk about anything that we didn't cover? 10 is new business. Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

I would really like to see the city of Watertown develop an annexation policy. Under what circumstances we would allow subsequent annexations into the city, how we handle the issue of township roads and boundaries, whether under what circumstances we're okay with checkerboard or quasi-flagpole annexations. Because at some point in time, when we get sued over something, we need to have a policy that substantiates why we're making the decision.

Totally agree. We would love to follow the ordinance. Yep, and that's what we have done and we will continue to do. And if the board thinks that that's something that we should do, we can definitely.

I guess I'll follow up with Todd on that because, you know, what do S.E.A. Hoos know? So it would be nice to have it in writing what really is, I mean, more clear. You know what I mean? If just touch pointing is not enough.

And it's not only this issue. It's also we've had these conversations of what do we do when we're butting up against township roads. our annexation policy. Should we go to the center row? Should we take the whole road in?

Oh, we do the center line, yep. That's our policy.

I know that's what we do, but I'm just saying I think it's a broader conversation because it's entanglements that we may avoid in the future or subsequent people making decisions that should have solid policy.

Love it.

We won't put a cease and desist in the ordinance because it's not.

All right. All right. That's good. Any further new business?

Old business.

Good. Old business.

No.

Wonderful. No need for executive session, so we are adjourned.

Thank you.