Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'll call the May 15 Reno County Planning Commission to order. Staff, will you please call the role? N here, Fran here. Schaer here. Selson here. Mlin here. Martin here. Gson here. Good to have everyone here tonight. Uh I trust you had a chance to review your packets. In those packets were the minutes from April 17th. Chair will entertain a motion on those minutes. So move. I'll second. I have one small typographical. Oh jeez, that one on on page 17. I don't think uh anyone was consulting the firm Marshall. Oh no. Page 17. Yeah. At the top. Oh yeah. I don't remember a mattress store being awarded the per Oh, did not see that. Okay. Per Marshall. Yeah. Oh. correction. I I assume Mark puts those in there to see if anybody reads it. Just make sure. Yeah, it's nice to see somebody read this. This was an easy Where's Wald? That's a very good catch. I'm glad somebody reads it. You get an A and the rest of us get frown stickers. There you go. All right. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? You want to subject subject to the correction on page 17? Okay, the second. Okay, I don't remember which one did it. Okay, any other f any further discussion? All in favor of approving the April 17 minutes, say I. Opposed, same sign. Minutes are approved. Our agenda item for this evening is the discussion on the proposed text amendments on several of the articles. staff, you've shared some things with our in our packet with some

highlighting. Would you care to elaborate and kind of guide us along? Sure. I thought it'd be better to maybe talk about all the text amendments. Uh we should try to write the same type of memo here and the board can take some notes as we go along here. Um so we've been discussing for a long time the potential desire to to remove and change the agricultural lot split acreage from seven acres to something different. And last month, this board uh asked me to prepare like some slides of potential issues with lots splits. And so uh I've done that. I can kind of go over those, which will kind of help explain what maybe some of the issues or some of the things that I'm seeing with lots splits, uh what they're what's occurring out there right now. And then all of the text amendments that you see here are related to the potential amendment of removing that 7 acre uh designation in the agricultural district. So I knew it was going to be a lot but as we got into it it's it's a lot more than I thought it was. But you can see when we were we were going to change the um a lot split we also wanted to take a look at setbacks as well. So when you get that that affects a lot of other types of uh articles as well. So that's what you're seeing here and I will try and go over those as quick as I can but yet thoroughly and certainly stop me if if you have questions as we go along the way. Okay. Uh so let's see here. So, uh the first first uh situation that you're you're seeing here uh is potentially uh an illegal lot split here. The the blue lines that you're

looking at are the parcels as they were established in 2016 when we adopted the subdivision regulations. So then anytime anybody wants to split land after 2016, it requires a lot split or a boundary adjustment. What you see in the yellow is where the parcels are right now. And so as you can see, uh there was a potential split where somebody divided off about 11.79 acres. The property is zoned agricultural a triangle shaped piece of property and somebody split off 11.79 acres without going through the lot split process to do a lot split. You know it's a 7 acre maximum. So that makes that parcel illegal. It also created another parcel to the west just by the way that this triangle is shaped and the way it's fronting on two roads. So the parcel to the west which is about maybe 3 acres at most that would be illegal and then the other parcel to the east would also be illegal because it's less than 40. And so it created a bad situation with that 7 acres. And so then with our width to depth ratio, if it was done legally, you had to comply with that 3:1 ratio, you would have a situation where you might have 50 60 ft between the south side of that parcel and the highway. So you'd have a little strip of ground that would connect that small triangle to the west with the rest of the land. And and that doesn't make, you know, a lot of sense either to do something like that. So, so that was one situation. I can I can tell you though that this situation

did um end happily. Uh upon further further review and investigation, it turns out that this property is actually four separate deeds. So, it's one taxing parcel but four separate deeds. And so because of that, it would be considered a legal non-conforming parcel of ground. And so they were able to sell the ground as it is right now and keep that 11acre split and it'll just be considered a legal nonconforming, you know, parcel because So you say there's there were four name four separate deeds when is that just four separate owners on the deed or just four separate deeds? One owner. It was one owner that purchased four different parts but combined them but but it was combined for taxing purposes. Yes. Gotcha. So because what you look at on Beacon uh is not a deed map. It's a taxing map. And so you look at a situation like that that land that triangle could be consisted of two or or 3Ds that were just combined for taxing purposes. So that person doesn't get four tax bills like here's a tax bill for this four acres. Here's one for the 11 and here's one for the 15 and then here's one for the 17 acres. So but something like that if it was all considered one big triangle piece of property that would have it would have been a deal and it wasn't it was an issue for for a while but I thought it was a good example to kind of show show the board. What happened to the triangle to the west? It's considered a legal non-conforming parcel. And so somebody could theoretically go there and sell that legal description to somebody else and then they could put a house on there potentially or try three acres.

Yeah. I mean there's a lot of roadway. I mean it's not going to be a very big house nor is it going to be a very zoned egg or what? It's all zoned egg. It's all his own day because see when we did the parcel map it was treated as one big 40 acre piece of ground although it consisted of four separate deeds. So the four deeds then predate. Yes. Yes they did. They did a lot the lots but they created three parcels of land basically. Yes. They put the part they wanted was in the middle of the other two. Right. Each. And it makes sense. It goes all the way down to the other highway. So, you know, you don't want to have a a small strip of ground that's, you know, 50 ft that's going to connect to the other parcel. That doesn't make a lot of sense. So, but yeah, so that was what I've got about eight slides here. Um, this is a situation here. Um, these are all legal lot splits. And so, what you're looking at, um, is these parcels were created prior to 2016. And you've got a couple of parcels there on the north side that have 60 ft of road frontage. And then the one on the southwest corner there, it's got about 125 ft of road frontage. And so I I present this to the board here just to kind of show you what could potentially happen if we don't have the right type of regulations in place that would prevent something like this. And I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or good or bad. If if you think that this is something that is okay, then you know we can change the regulations to allow something like this. If you think that there might be some concerns with this, because here's a situation where you've got parcel lines in in the middle of a of a pond. And so, one person owns a portion

of the pond, the other person owns another portion of of the pond. Uh, but you've got what you're ending up with is you end up with long, skinny strips of ground that are going out onto a township road or a a county road. So then you're going to have multiple driveways out there versus requiring a planning situation where you would have maybe an interior road whether that road be public road or if we change it to make it a private road. You wouldn't have a situation that would occur like that. Didn't we also several years ago have uh property lines across a body of water here on like on East? Yeah. Yeah. Yes, we did. They were all family owners, but they were combined. All family owners, but the property lines went across the body of water versus requiring pladding and making the body of water like a reserve area where each lot would own 16 1/8 or so of of that body of water and then your parcel line would stop at the shoreline. Gotcha. Another situation here. Um this was a a partial legal lot split and then an illegal split. So uh what you're you're looking at um if somebody wanted to split the ground in the middle where you see the the dark blue line in the middle and then you have the white parcel lines uh on the north and south side. So somebody wanted to take that large lot. the white parcel line or yellow parcel lines is the original lot and they want to split that into two parcels, which makes sense. They'd be like 10 acre parcels, but because of our 3:1 lot width to lot depth ratio, they couldn't do it. They could not get to the east property line

because of the ratio and the way they split. So they didn't have enough road frontage to be able to give me the appropriate amount of depth. So the the one on the south side, he had to build his house on the front of that lot and the other guy should have built his house on the front part of that lot, too. But as you can see by the picture, he he did not. If you see which one I'm talking about, it's kind of right there where the the road name is in purple. It's those two parcels. And so what it does is it creates a portion of the parcel which would be legal. And then what they did was they did like an illegal 3 acre land division which means that you can't issue permits on anything on the back side of that property because the only legal portion of that would be like say the front seven acres, 78 acres. The back portion of that's illegal because it's an illegal land division as it's mapped right now. All because of our width to depth ratio that we have. And what's the logic history behind the depth ratio? The logic behind it was to have parcels that um or squares, rectangles, and not long skinny flag lots like what you see back here. All those lots, the majority of them, two or three, they're considered like flag lots, long skinny driveway that opens up in a great big area. So, that was the thinking behind putting a width to depth ratio in is the fact that you're going to prevent something like that from occurring. But in this case, you can see what it did. They just went ahead and got an approval by me. But my my survey doesn't look like what is being drawn on

the on the parcel mapping right there. You know, my survey stops short of that. And then they just created an additional legal description and created an illegal parcel behind there because that's what they wanted to do. They want to split that parcel into into two and build houses. But our width and depth issue uh prevented it from being split like the other lots are. The other lots you see on there, there's no yellow lines. And so all those were done prior to 20 2016. So long skinny lot from a planning perspective is a bad thing potentially. Yes. but for the fact that, you know, it creates problems with building building sheds or it could create wastewater well issues, you know, locating everything on there. But, um, that's one theory, one planning theory is you don't want to have long st because we've had long skinny lots in the past and inevitably, like on the other case here, you know, they want to split that. Well, I've got 15 acres, but I've got a 800 foot long driveway that's 60 foot wide, and they want to be able to split the remaining 15 acres and divide into two 7 1/2 acre parcels. Well, you can't because you you don't have the proper road frontage to be able to split. And so, that that makes it hard for for me to to tell the person, I'm sorry. Yeah, you got 15 acres, you got the right zoning, there should be no reason why you can't split but the fact that you have a flag lot that prevents that from being uh legally split. And so that person is stuck with a 15 acre piece of ground unless something changes in the regulations that would allow that to be

split. Here's another situation here. This is uh an illegal split. It was zone A. Uh they split off 10 acres. Maximum is 7 acres. Reasoning was they wanted to include uh the parcel lines up to you probably can't see it on the area, but a couple of tree roads. But because we have a 7 acre maximum, they were prevented from going all the way to the north to be able to take into account the tree roads that they wanted to acquire. Um, problem with this one was it's mapped as a 10 acre piece. I approved a seven acre split and then they in turn did a separate legal description for another three acres that would take into account the tree row that my lot split would not allow to be approved. And so it got mapped as a 10 acre piece of ground because when the appraiser gets it and maps the parcel, they see two legal descriptions. Well, they're not going to make it a separate 3 acre parcel, which would be essentially going to the to the west and to the north around that other one. So, they just mapped it all as one. Well, that creates an illegal land division. And then going further to the east right there, that's another illegal split that happened on on that property as well. So there's no policing if you want to call it that between the register of deeds office and your office. Yeah, there's no policing of it. I mean the register of de's office is you know what they what they can do legally and then they go ahead and do whatever they want and the register de just records it. Yep. Yeah. They have the register of deeds isn't going to be my security officer police officer and say hey did you did you check the planning before you're recording this? Now, in a perfect

world, that would be very nice cuz I can help a lot of people that probably a lot of them just didn't know. Oh, I didn't realize I had to get this approved or I didn't realize this was illegal. Thank you for telling me. Uh it's not their job to know my regulations. Their job is to make sure the document that they're recording meets their standard and if it does, it's getting recorded even though it doesn't meet another department standard. Even though it doesn't meet another department standard. Yeah. Now when but when you were health department was separate from planning or this department public works both departments had to sign off on we'd work together on work together why can't the register of deeds work with your office is what I'm saying I mean yeah it's somebody should talk to the county commission about this see if there's a way to you know it it's it's been a thing for legal situations keep cropping up it's been a planning thing for like 30 30 40 years or more, you know, not just not just here. Yeah. So, I mean, yeah, change can't happen, you know. I mean, it'd be nice, but it's not something that ever gets, you know, pushed, you know, something like that, you know, because they want to record the document and and if they want to record it, that's fine. They can record it. I previous position I, you know, they we just want to put a sign up. Hey, just put a sign up and just say, "Hey, have you checked with planning before you record this document?" and and not here, of course, not in this county, but previous um you know, they said no, that they don't want to do that. It's not their job. So, so you you end up with that. And so, how this got caught was they came in for a zoning permit and I see a 10 acre piece of ground. I can't issue a permit. My my lot split says seven. So they had to go and and split that other three acres back out and put under a separate

deed. So here's another situation. I've been dealing with this off and on for a long time. Um this is a very large large parcel. It's over 200 acres. Uh the big square you see there and then it's got very little very little road frontage. Um, they did one 7 acre lot split up. There's a house. It's up there where it says, it actually says 30th Avenue. The pink. Uh, they did 7 acre split, but as you can see, they didn't want to do a 7 acre split. They wanted to do a 23 acre split. So, they recorded a 23 acre legal description. Split that off. But now they can only build a house on the remaining portion of that that acreage right there. Uh this particular parcel even though it's like 200 plus acres, it does not have any road fronties except for up on 30th Avenue. So pretty pretty difficult situation, you know, right there for want to put in additional houses. It's a road frontage issue. House is in the long skinny. Yeah, the house is in the long skinny and the two parcels adjacent to it are the ones that they also those are already split off. So those are those are different parcels and not associated with that land. So um another one here zone agriculture it's about 29 6 acres right now it looks like and it was actually you know illegal split as well. uh is a 7acre split in the A. Uh the state park wanted to buy a portion of this land and the owner of the house sold the majority of it to them, but he he only

split off 20 26 acres. So that's a 26 acre egg parcel and it should only be 7 acres and the rest of it goes to the state. So, this is something that we'll get into eventually. Uh, it's not included in the text amendments. So, this this parcel right here, uh, zone R1, it's about 15 acres total. And so, zone R1, you can split off anything greater than three. And so he split off a 5 acre piece of ground. Um the larger parcel does not have 165 ft of continuous road frames. So you can see there's land north of that parcel in yellow. And I don't have the exact measurement. It might beund 115 feet goes up to the highway. If you look on the south side of that parcel that was created, there's probably about 50 ft of road. And so the question to this board eventually would be should a parcel that is split have 165 200 300t of continuous road frontage or should you be allowed to do a situation like that where I can have 50 ft on one side of my property the new parcel and then have the majority of the land on the other side of the parcel. This is about the only situation I know that this has ever occurred. We discussed it here at staff and we didn't have any regulation that would prevent something like that. So, we went ahead and approved that lot split, but I I don't think that should be allowed. I don't know, you you as the board may have a difference of opinion

on that if it's all right to have 30 40 feet on the south side and then the majority of the land on the north side of the parcel or vice versa or something in between or should it be all continuous frontage along there. Interesting interesting scenario though. That is an interesting split why they didn't take that that little sliver to the south. There must have been some there's a road that goes there. So, I don't know. It's a road that goes around the pond and maybe you just you can enter or exit from that road that way and get around the south side of the pond. Yeah, I don't know. I'm just guessing. I don't know if it's a uh I wasn't here to say, well, why are you doing that? I just Okay, this is the split you want. Um, so that's that's all I have for for those some of the some of the issues, you know, we're facing here. Um, so questions, comments, so that kind of leads us into your request to maybe have a text amendment on the 7 acre maximum. So I have these in kind [Music] of kind of an order where I think I'd like to discuss because the main the main issue we wanted to alleviate here and eliminate was the 7 acre split. So I wanted to start out with article three in the subdivision regulations. And so um probably start on page 3-3 first. And so it's article 3-105 number three which talks about the 7 acre maximum. So all

lots you create in the agricultural district shall be a minimum of 3 acres but then it's a maximum of seven. So what uh we're proposing here is to eliminate that 7 acre maximum. So what we're saying got 40 acres of ground. If you want to divide off three acres, divide off three acres. If you want to divide off 20 acres, divide off 20 acres. So, if you got a a 40, you want to make it into 220s, great. That's your one split that you're allowed. It can be any combination of 3 acres and 37 up to a 10 acre and a 30 acre and anything in between. So, you won't have that 7 acre maximum anymore. But once that's split, let's just say they do a three and a 37. Okay, that three acre minimum, they they make a make a building site, so on so forth. That 37 acres is now strictly a it cannot become a building site. Well, they can they can make it a building site, but they can't split it off for more. Yeah, you can't split it. Unless you're reszoneing plat, you always want to throw that in there. Okay. So, you know, if they want to if they want another home site or they want to do further development, now you got a resone, now you got a plat. Okay. So, it's so there's so it doesn't mean it's never it's not like we're closing the door. We're just they just have to go a different path. That still maintains back in 2016. The the the two two houses per 40 acre kind of standard that was set. It doesn't mean they can't change. It just means that if a person wants to, then they have to reszone and plat and go through that process. But this is major opening the doors. You can split at 40 any way you want to as long as the minimum split is three acres. But but you can only do that once. Like so the original spirit of where we're only going to split an angl lot one time before it has to come back before the

board. We're still keeping that. But you have many splits you can do. You can do any kind of crazy as long as it meets the other regulations and has three acres, right? Three acres is the minimum but once only one time. Yeah. Question mark you in that same section says no portion of either lot or track shall be less than the minimum lot width requirement. Where is that set out? That be the next page on article 13, which is what we'll get to. I knew I knew there was an answer. I know. Yeah. That's why I That's why I tried to do it in some kind of sequential order because I knew that there would be other question. Well, what's the minimum lot width? What's the minimum lot depth? And so, talk about the lot split, what we want to do here, and then we'll move on to what we're going to do with parcel width, parcel depth, setback, so on and so forth. And that and that one split there, your last sentence there. So like that three acres can't be 85% pond and then they try to build a house if environmental wouldn't approve a septic system. Correct. Correct. Yes. So what that that statement was added right right at the end and we had we had talked about that. What we're trying to get at from here is you split three acres, but like you said, if 85% of the lot is pond, kind of like what we had had here, then you're not going to get a permit. So, you might as well not do the split because you're not you're not complying with all the public works divisions here. Same thing as if they could do the split, they just couldn't build. They wouldn't be able to build on. Yeah. Yeah. Question. In our earlier conversations when we were talking about change making this change on egg lot splits you know because back was it before 16 or somewhere there when we came up with the seven acre minimum was that 16 17 18 somewhere in there where we changed that before that there was

like a 10 acre or some other minimum there 10 acre minimum in the egg before 16 then it went to then we went down to the seven and now we're trying to figure that we went from 10 to 40 We also we had discussed the possibility of giving anyone who had done an egg lot split under those earlier provisions a one-time option to do a boundary adjustment or whatever you want to call it because we had a case in point of one person I know that we had visited with several of us that had bought a quarter section of ground and wanted to sell 20 acres of And we said, "No, you only do seven, right?" So, I'm not sure what he wound up doing. Maybe you do, but I don't. Yeah. I don't know. I I couldn't find the part. I was trying to build. I had talked to him. Well, you can only legally sell the guy seven acres, but you can, you know, lease him 13 acres or something and work out a lease purchase thing and then if we law changes, we can do something with it. So, I mean, were we going to do anything to allow people that were did lots splits under those prior uh rules to make a one-time change with a boundary adjustment? Will the legal non-conforming be grand beat automatically changed to conforming if with this rule change? Yeah, it Yeah, it would. Or if they if they did a a legal lot split but they wanted to do more and the parties involved still want to do more. Can they go back and redo that to fix it? If you're saying the seven out of the 40s already been already been taken out. This is all prior to can they split that 33? Can they can they go in and adjust that seven acres say to make it 20 acres and do boundary adjustments? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we're talking about splits. So

when we talk splits, you got to keep in mind that we're talking about splitting your ground to build a house structure. Okay? So that's what we're talking about with with this. So in your scenario, yeah, if the maximum allowed was seven, they really wanted 20, but my rag said, "No, you can't have 20 because that'd be an illegal land division with a house on it." Right? Now, like what Don said, you would just come back and you would do a boundary adjustment and you would boundary adjust. Now, we could do that under the the proposed regulations we're talking about because we've done away with that 7 acre minimum. Yes. They couldn't do it earlier with the seven now. Okay. You got can't do it because of the fact that we want to make sure there's a mechanism for that to happen. They can't do it because it's a 7 acre maximum because they already did a 7 acre maximum split. Now, if they did a a three acre egg loss and they wanted to go up to seven, yeah, we can approve that. But yeah, it would be a boundary adjustment. So, I could only buy seven. I really wanted 10 or I really wanted 20. You come in with another survey and you do what we call a boundary adjustment because a boundary adjustment doesn't create a new building site. A boundary adjustment like, hey, I I've got a shed footprint of the existing Yeah. changing the foot. It's like I've got incorrect. I've got a shed that's too close to a property line. Hey, you know, can I borrow not borrow, can I buy like, you know, 10 foot of your land to make it conforming? That's a boundary adjustment. So, yeah. So, that if this goes through as as written, then yeah, that something like that would now be allowed. Okay. Um, I have another logic question. The limit is you can only do this split once. So, let's say I have 40 acres and I split off a three acre track and I'm

left with 37. Why is it bad to be able to split that into a 20 and a 17? What's magic about only two? I mean, I can see where at some point you you would have a whole uh you know, a subdivision of three acre track. Yeah. you'll end up with the situation that you have on the screen. Uh I mean, don't don't you want to have some kind of say so and and how that land is ultimately developed? I mean, sure. I mean, in your example, a 20 to 17, well, yeah, is that bad? No, that's not really bad. But then what happens when that person takes that 20 now? Well, why why can't I just do two 10 out of that 20? And you just keep cutting it down. Keep cutting it down. Yeah, I can see where there's some there needs to be some limitation, but I just two doesn't seem like it gives much flexibility because of that 40 is agricultural. I mean that and so that's why you try to keep it agricultural which is what we're supposed to do which is not which is the opposite of planning and zoning in reality because every time you allow anything it's not agriculture unless it's a building on that agriculture. So when it's zoned to agriculture, that's why there's only one split. If if you don't if you want more splits, then plat it. Now it's not agriculture. Well, you you just own it something else. You accomplish what Gar is proposing. You just have to plant the land. Yes. Go a different hammering route. A little more costly process, but it can do it. Yes. Well, and it gives the opportunity for like us to have as a body input before something like that's created. Is that Yes. So you don't end up with At that point, we have a chance to see how the lots going to be letting that make sure we're not

creating an issue like what Allan said where we got a 5 acre tract and 90% of this lake. Oh, okay. Well, what are we going to do with that? You know, and so it gives us more more of a more input on on a review of that. And like what Don said, it's a and so if if somebody is saying that this isn't agricultural property anymore, then they should have to come before this board and tell this board why this should not be agricultural property more. It's more suited for residential use. And then if that's the case, then you'll reszone that property to residential and then let him go through that process to plat that land out. Has there ever been a case where where the decision was no, the property has to remain a Yeah. Can't split it more than once. Yeah. I mean, yeah, reszones. Yeah. We've we've denied reszones in the past and because it needs to remain. It should be. Yeah. It's not We found it wasn't appropriate at that time. Yeah. Yeah. You have a lot. Mhm. like the subdivision we did, you know, a few years ago that was already residential. So there was no there was no debate on whether it should be a subdivision or should remain as a um a small farm ad if you will a 10acre tract or so because it was all his own residential, he had that right to go ahead and divide them into three acre lots if he wanted to and that's what he chose to do. So, well, if you got somebody that's got 40 acres and they got three kids, so they want to split it amongst the three kids, we can't do that without platting it. How how expensive is it to plat that? It's Yeah, I mean, you cuz with

platting, you know, you have surveyor fees. Yeah. You're going to have uh engineers involved to develop drain plans and and that and and what you're talking about, you know, that might be phase two of our maybe revision of subdivision regulations is then you got to build a public road. I'll just throw that out there right now. one road in. And then so the next phase of all this potentially would be do we require public roads anymore or do we require platting or is there something in between a full-blown subdivision plat? Yeah. And versus somebody just recording tracks of ground that we can still have a review process over to make sure everything looks good, utilities are taken care of with easements if they need easements out there and let them go that way or or what do we do in that situation? So that that's the next phase. Somehow it just doesn't seem fair that you can't split something in in thirds, you know, without having to spend Mhm. $100,000 or something, right? That's the next 5,000 maybe that'd be okay. You bring up a good point because I think that's the next phase. If we can get through all this then, okay, what what do we do from here? Talking about planning and public roads. 20 acres flooding the three 40 acre tracks here. All right. The thing is though, you got to remember, there you are. Yeah, it's limited on a 40, but if you if you had, you know, an 80 Yeah. then you can get right now you can get four houses out there without any kind of review process by by you or or the commissioners. So, so, you know, you can take the 140, do a split, and it could be two 20s, you know, if this goes through, and then you take your other 40 and split that into another 20 for the other kid if you'd want to. you know, and under the current rags,

you'd be limited the seven acres split on each one of those 40. But yeah, so okay. Um, going back to then page 303-2 here, uh, the water track may be less than the minimum lot width. We'll discuss that next under number seven. And then number eight, like I say, we want everything to be in compliance. So if if for some reason road bridge won't give a cover permit somebody based on that track, then you can't split it. Or if there's a septic and well issue, no, you're not going to be able to split. So whatever you split still has to be in compliance with all the divisions of of public works. It's not just planning and zoning. you know, you still have to work with environmental. You still have to work with public works as well as far as entrances or your township for that matter. I was just going to ask that. Where where does that play in? I know you notify them. Not maybe not so much on lot split. Lot splits. We don't but somebody's going to be contacting them for a culvert at some point. They should. I always tell them to when I issue the permit, I say, "Okay, now you got to go to your township and contact them for their entrance permit policy or on that that they don't have, which they may not have, but I still tell them." They go out there and go, "Yep, you need about this big and go with it." Yeah. Yeah. So, I get it. Um, then going back on 3-3, a lot of what you see under number four, it's just taking out what I think is unnecessary words. Um, we don't need to say Reno County. We know it's the Reno County subdivision regulations. Uh, we don't need the words then applicable. Um, under 3-106, uh, homestead splits. Same thing applies to homestead split.

This board has done two homestead splits, I believe, since been in existence here. Um, 7 acre maximum is still in play. A homestead lot split is where you have a house on a large tractor ground and there's no way that you can meet width to death ratio. It's really why this was put into place here. You know, because the house sits so far back into the parcel by the time you figure out the 3:1 width to death ratio, you're not going to be able to split the ground because you're going to have one, you're going to have uh greater than the 3:1 ratio. Number two is you're going to have more than seven acres involved with that. So, both of those are are issues. And so, I left homestead law split things. There may be a situation where somebody wants to apply for a homestead loss split and have that house come out on onto an easement. This is the only situation where somebody can have a parcel of ground uh come out and have uh frontage through an easement situation. So we had one on Wilson Road. We had one up on 82nd Avenue where we So you're talking more like a flag a lot there. More like a flag. Yeah. What it would look like it would just be a big box or so in the middle of an 80 or 40 or whatever and then you would have an easement that the surveyor would create that would lead out to to the road preferably down the driveway of that house is would be easy. And then they would sell the house along with the easement and keep their farm ground for their their income. In other words, the actual tract is the tract in the middle of the correct parcel. Yep. And then the easement is just that's not part of the tract. It's just a easement agreement. Okay. Included in in all that. Yeah. Uh we took out a lot of stuff with this with compliant. You'll see in the regulations a lot of compliance with the sanitation code. Yeah. And that's great. But because we put the other wording in

there, compliance with all public works policies and regulations, we don't need to have a specific reference to the sanitation code. Um the other one under number four, um we eliminated that. It's it's not really something that planning is only needs to get into the appropriate documentation provided regarding the responsibility of the owners. you know, they're talking about the responsibility of who who maintains the easement, if you will. That's not something that planning and zoning really needs to be bothered with. And so, we eliminated that. So, in summary, we would eliminate the 7 acre split in the A district and allow one split of any acreage so long as the parcel is above three acres or three acres and above. Okay. Um the other the other dials will probably go a little bit faster here. So the other big one then is we got to determine what is the minimum lot frontage, minimum lot width and then while we're doing that we've also had previous discussions on setback requirements. So I gave you on one side is the existing regulations and then on the other page is what we're proposing as stamp to to the board. Again, we haven't had a lot of discussion, you know, on this. Uh but what we're looking at doing and what one of our goals was was to be consistent throughout all of these zoning districts. And so a lot of the setbacks will go down as far as requirements, a couple of them will actually go up as you can see uh what we're looking at across the

board. 20 foot set back from the right of way and 10 ft on all other property lines. Uh if you see under the existing the R2, R3 and V1 zoning districts uh have an 8ft sideyard, but in order to keep the consistency, we just made everything 10t. So they'll actually as proposed have a twoft increase, but they'll have more front yard available to them. And a lot of times they'll have more of their rear yard also available because a lot of the rear yards were 20 ft as well. Got a question. Uh now I know your goal is uniformity and you know I'm not I'm not hung up on that but and my question is particularly on the egg setback where you're saying you know front yards 20 ft side yards 10 ft rear yards 10 ft. To me, an egg egg lot is much different than a residential lot because you're situated in farm country and you may be next door to like a CRP field that needs to be burned every few years. Would you want a grass fire 10 ft from your your property line? You know, to me it's too close for This is the minimum. They can put it they can build it wherever they want. Well, I know. I know. I understand they can put it wherever they want, but you know, people do dumb things, do you know? Yeah. That was that's what I my concern is that particularly on a I know it's goes against your uniformity idea, but to me I think those setbacks should be a little greater on egg because of just the nature of the beast we're looking at. So what if you have a 3 acre lot in egg that you're going to build your house on? You want

50 foot setbacks. I don't know. That's still I mean I'm just see how it I know. Yeah. This is our world. Yeah. I know. I know. I know. Yeah. It it it's ch it was challenged to me. So you have 40 acre 45 acre piece of ground in its own egg and they have to be 50 ft and 30 ft. Mhm. Right next door to you. You just happen to have a 36 acre piece of ground still under crops just like the other one in his own residential because it was less than 40 and he only has to be 30 feet and 10 ft. So the challenge to me, well, what's the difference? I don't I don't have an argu I can't argue it. I I don't know. Yeah, I see I I see your point. Yeah, I and I see your point, too. How do you how do you account for that? Where does regulation stop and protection begin? That's kind of my my point. I mean, it's I don't I don't think I don't think we can mandate common sense to a point, but we can So I don't know. I I mean I've got I've got you know I mean I'm sitting I used to sit right next to a CRP field. It's it's a mild field now but it was CRP and there's probably 50 foot setback between my house and the the field and then with the permission of the owner I used to mow another 50 ft. So I had about 100 ft and I felt comfortable with that you know and I mean and we we burned it a couple times. I think another thing in the same realm would be the lack of u maximum on building height for a property.

And you know, if I if I can build a 200 foot tall uh structure 10 ft from the property line, I I don't I don't think that's uh a good strategy going forward for for the neighboring properties because there there is no for maximum height there's no limit on a is that correct? Correct. So if I'm the if I'm next door in a R1, two or three, I may be living in the shadow of your grain elevator. What's the difference between that and a big cottonwood tree? What I was Yeah. Well, I was going to say, G, you know, you got to remember too that a is exempt from regulations. And so you could have your little 3 acre non-farm house down in the country and you could be surrounded by farm ground and yeah, you could have a grain sil you could have a large machinery shed. It could be on the property line because it's exempt from zoning regulations. Now we would we like to have the the farm building at least, you know, 20t off the road right away, but they can put that building anywhere they want. It's exempt, but we can put minimums for for the front yard, but everything but everything else is exempt. So, yeah, but you're saying here it's it would be 10 for non-ag is for non-ag buildings in the in the egg district. Nonag. The setbacks are for the house. For the house or setbacks on land zoned for a barn, you know, you you could have or something. Yeah. Yeah. You could have an

agricultural property and not be an agricultural production. So you could build one of these seed silo deals with all the machinery out and everything. Green bin and a leg and you could have the you could have the right off what houses. I mean that this is a lot of it with the egg loss was where Yeah. But you can only build that bin and a leg if you're using it for your operation, right? If you're if you're selling feed now, you're a commercial outfit and you need a conditional use permit, right? Maybe maybe if that's your only if that's your only source of income. Yeah. Yeah. So if someone's selling seed on the side and they want to build a bin with a leg, but they're using that bin to hold seed they're selling commercially that they're raising. Well, not necessarily. If they're okay, if they're if they like if they're raising some of it, but some of it's different varieties they didn't raise. Depends on if they're if they're selling their own or if they're bringing it in. How do we determine gainfully gainfully? You're just trying to confuse me. DNA test on a farmer can sell grain. So that's how they can so they can sell seed and it's okay. They can buy seed and sell seed. So they're selling seed doesn't mean it's they're selling the seed they bought. You know how you prove it? Exactly. I got I I just Let's just say we are are we we've decided on our lot split dimensions and that kind of thing. Acreages. I just uh I just split off 10 acres. I I work in town, but I'm also going to sell I'm going to become a XYZ C rep. I'm still zoned a but I'm not gainfully my I do not have I am not gainfully employed, I guess you want to call it, on a farm. I'm I'm not engaged

in in farming itself, but I have 10 acres, but I'm working in town, but I'm going to sell seed on the side. How does that I mean that I'm getting way out in the weeds here, but I just want there are situations like that. There are situations like that. Yeah. How do we how do we treat those type of facilities? Do those facilities get treated as a commercial to Allen's point or does it fall under the egg? You're still you're still in that agricultural commercial use because you're you're not growing the seed or producing the seed on site. All right. We're buying the seed for resale. So it's a commercial. It's a retail commercial. Then it's a retail outfit. So then it would go through a CU paint. Perfect. Yeah. So early early. Early. Yeah. You didn't leave till 6. Well, I came early. I get to leave early. There you go. Have a good evening. I have to take my wife to at certain time. Enjoy. Yep. Enjoy. I'm sure I'd be home. Enjoy your evening. We'll see you in a month. So yeah, you bet. So So that makes sense. I I'm just trying to put my head around how how this all works. I probably had it in my head. I've just And it doesn't have to be zoned agricultural to be an agricultural use. It's it's land or buildings used for agricultural purposes. And so you could have like I said, you could have a 35 acre parcel zone R1. You got corn on it. So my my R1 I live on nine acres. My my R1 if I put a loafing shed for that I'm going to put I'm going to have bulls in in offseason I would just have to come to you and say hey this is what I'm doing and then I'd rubber stamp it. I'd show you location dimensions setbacks. You rubber stamp it and go. Yep. No feed

permit and go. Yep. Even though you're zoned R1. Yep. If it's used use Yep. So it doesn't m the zoning is immaterial really. It's the land or the building if it's used for a purposes. So it doesn't have anything to do with zoning. All right. Now does that does that Okay. Now I'm going to I'm going to I'm hang on. I'm going to put another layer on that. Jeez. Okay. Where does that figure into the to the footprint the square footage footprint for like for like R1 the the acreage like you know up to 0 2 and then or up to two like 1.9 acres and below get what is it 2,000 square feet and 2.1 and above get 5,000 square feet. How does that how does that calculation come into that same scenario since I'm an R1? your R1. How do you think it comes into play? Or do you you just want me to Well, I'm just thinking, okay, a we're saying everything a is exempt. So, is it is that is that a is that a get out of jail free cart for It's exempt. Long as it's used exclusively for a purposes. If you want to put up a shed to store your your your highowered automobiles there, then that's a different story. Yes. I don't want to. So, I've got a I've got a tractor and a stock trailer and an old pickup. You need a shed to put those in. And I need a shed to put those in. So since I have a tractor and it's an old farm tractor and I use it to rake hay and the cows, I could I could put a I could put up a storage shed. I'm just using that use to pick up a too. Yeah. So it would all be it would just be a rubber stamp. You just can't put your boat in there. Yep. If all of a sudden I put all of a sudden I buy a boat, I'm going to have to come back here. That's the scenario. I have to move my boat out of my garage. We'll be coming to visit you, Steve. I'm just spy satellites. I'm just trying

to lay get the lay of the land so when we do our setbacks, we understand what we're what we're getting into. Agricultures exempt. Does it count toward the square footage of BZ? There's no way we can put setbacks on there without getting into zone. Did that kind of muddy the water for you, G? Or did it kind of clarify? I kind of hijacked your question. Well, I I get that egg is exempt. I just I'm I'm trying to wrap it too or I'm you know I'm thinking trying to be good planners and thinking of neighboring properties and you know what's allowed whether it's agriculture or not. I I don't for me agriculture maybe shouldn't always get a get out of jail free card for everything there. It does. It certainly can create problems for other property owners. There's some dynamics there that could be It just seems like every property ought to have some kind of setback. I mean 10 ft but okay. Well, I mean you're concerned maybe about you're you're talking main excuse me about the egg. Is that Well, that's the only thing that's exempt, right? Yeah. Yeah. So then the egg structure a structures are exempt. So So we're talking about a buildings, not a zoning. Yes. Yes. Right. So there not much you can do about that. Not much you can do about it. It's

statute exempt statute from to exempt a land and buildings used for a purposes. Okay. state. Yeah. No, right. Not county deal, not us. Okay. So, we can't touch it. All right. Yeah. I get it. Yeah. Try to touch it if you want to fight. Okay. Then so we're doesn't make sense, but it makes sense. So, going circling back this the what you're what we're seeing that you gave us that is that's for a primary residence. Primary residence or accessory building. Non non egg building. Non egg building. Non non egg building. or it's a house. That's for a building 10 by 12 or 100 by 200 because a zoning does not have the accessory building restriction only the residential. So every zoning be at least 10t from all the other property lines and 20 foot from the road right away. The proposed just gets the land owners a lot more use of their land. Yeah, it does. Yeah. Now, you go further into this. If you look at what I've got in the letters, letter D, if you've got a easement, if you're in a planned subdivision or if you've got a pipeline running through your property, then you can't put the building in a platted easement. Yeah. So just kind of what we had last month if you remember with that gentleman wanted to build that big building in a drainage easement you like we approved the land use but yet we can't approve it in that location. So basically on your your setback the front that is generally going to be facing a roadway correct or roads. Yes. Road to road. Or

roads. Yes. Yeah. So, you're looking at the side and rear are the ones that you're looking at bumping up against other property lines and not a roadway. Right. Right. And if you look at what's existing now under the side yard, you're looking at Yeah. 10 or eight. Yeah. And so that's relatively stay the same with the exception of the of the a district which was 30. Right. Now, if you're on a corner lot, no matter where the front door is, it's still going to be 10 or I mean, it's still going to be 20. 20. Still going to be 20 both roads later on. I mean, we we're going to eliminate if if if we reduce the setback as proposed, then back in article 14, we propose to eliminate the break that you get for having two front yard setbacks. Uh so we have situations where if you have two front if you have corner lot you got two front yards setback requirements and so regulations would permit you to reduce the side front yard down to 15 ft. I know you we had a long discussion on this and so well I'm thinking of this building that we that we denied up north of town. It was with it if it it was on a corner lot was off of 56th Street. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And it was on a corner lot and it was too close because it was a side it was a side yard. Mhm. Mhm. Or it was a front yard. I forget. I forget all the He had two front yards, two side yards. Yeah. It was a street. Yep. So we It was too close like 10 foot from the rideway. Yes. If that. Right. So with that chain, if we go with a proposed, would that be permitted? No. still wouldn't because we're still doing the still going to be 20 foot from every

road right away. Even on a corner lot, you said just said something about 15 ft on the side. That's existing. That's current. Oh, current. You got to be 30 30 off the short side. You can be 15 ft off the long side of your lot. And your proposed you would be 20. If we reduce it from 30 to 20, now we're giving you more use of your land. Now, we feel like there's no need to have another break in there to let you go and have closer. Okay. Closer. So, no matter where you're at, the road is going to be 20 ft. No matter where you at, if you got if you got one, two, or three roads or whatever, you got four roads, it's going to be a 20 foot setback all around. Okay. No break. Please note B says corner lots have a minimum of two front yards. Yes. Okay. Is that true? If you have a corner lot, you have two front yards even though the the house faces one one street. Yes. You have two front yard front yards. Yeah. Front yard is defined by the street. Right. Right. You have you have a front yard setback. So that front yard that says that Okay. You have two front yards. I'm going to draw I have You can give them I have 500 by 700. Okay. I have a road here and I have a road here. Right. Okay. Uh my driveway comes in here and approximately 150 ft in is my house. My front door faces east. This would be I'm sorry. This is this is backwards. Let me let me draw it for let me draw this for scale. So the so the map is good. I got a road here. This is east. This is

north. Okay. I got two roads. I have a driveway about right here. I have a house right here. My my front door faces the east. And you and I saw Dawn shaking his head about front yard, back, front yard, sideyard. How are we going to determine is this is this my front yard now with my door facing this way? This is almost three acres. You have two front yards. I have in the regulations we have right now. I have two front yards. Yes. And proposed. And proposed and in proposed. And they both have to be 20. Yep. So I'm I'm roughly 100 ft here. All right. And I'm good there. This is all right. This is 700 feet from here to here. So do your math. We're about 200 200 plus. So this would be considered if I you don't need house. I struggle with two front yards. It's hard to get past. I think I think I think what you're running at is on a residential lots where you're you're in more developed areas, you're going to I can see his point. If you have smaller lots and you have on a corner lot, then yeah, you have that's the problem with lot. This is R1. You got more grass to mow, you know, but this will simplify it. Yeah. Does the rule just be 20 ft? Yeah. Period. Standard. Yeah. Both sides. Instead of 30 and 15. I got to be 30t off of my my short side, you know, like my east side, I have to be 30 ft. But so I got to be 30 there. But because the north side of the property is longer, then I can be 15t off of that road. So I can be 15 here and 30 here the way it's written today. Yes. And so we're going 20 and 20, right? So, it's simple. Yeah. Okay. I'm I'm I'm

gaining. Yeah. I'm just I'm just This is So, the 20 and 20 is good. The fact that your front yard isn't the front door facing the road is hard to get past. That's exactly where I'm at. But that's just a Yeah, I I get it. But change is good. Maybe front yard needs to be defined differently. Maybe it needs to be like roadard or something. I'm sure there's a better term Mark because it's not really whether it's in the front or the back other than it's from the perspective of the the road, not from the perspective of the front door. Exactly. Allen. You got to get the front yard thing out of your head, right? It's not my front door. It's just yard. Yard. Yeah. Yard and it's 20 ft. It's a yard adjacent to the road. any portion of your yard. Maybe change the wording from a road document that reflect that 20 ft from a that just road a road right away or something like that, you know, instead of calling it a front yard. That's fair enough. A side front yard then you confuse everybody. What's a side? It's hard to get It's hard to get past that. It's not for Mark, but it is. Yeah, we got we got Russ confused. Well, I'm I'm on the straight and narrow now, but it's just look at front yard and I'm thinking front door. We don't care about your front door. You could care less what color my front door is, right? I don't care which way it faces or or if you never If I never use the front door, you always park in back. There you go. What if it faces a corner? What What if your house faces the intersection? Now, what now? Where's your front? What if it's at an angle? Then we're at the creek. But we got we got some geometry in trigonometry figure out. So now it's just now it'll just be 20 ft. Fair

enough. So then along with that um with the depth we would reduce the egg to 200 by 200 minimum. Uh it's 660 now. Um R1 would go down to 150 down from 165. And then R2 would also go down to 100 because usually R2 are smaller lots. R3 would go down to 100 as well. Now the village district doesn't have a minimum. It's just going to be as platted. The village district only applies to Madora and Yodor area. And that's just the middle of your not the whole what you would think of as as the community of York. which is the the downtown the downtown area if you will residential area or whatever you want those are already platted as what we call town sites and so they've already got lots established like 100 by 200 I think a lot of them are mador is a little bit different but you're not going to be able to reszone something from R3 to village the the village district is it's locked down it's locked in stone here it's never going to change from what it is right now. And so there's no need to have a minimum width or depth. Okay. And that's state statute. No. No. No. Okay. No. So that's why you don't see any numbers here, but if somebody I don't know if it would happen. I I kind of looked at Yoda. I don't think that that's a possible. We did a conditional use. You remember for a duplex that's one vacant lot, you know, there. But if on the happen stance that somebody wanted to split their lot into another parcel to build on, you're like, "Oh, what's the

minimums? What do I have to be?" Well, there is no minimums. But you go back to the fact that you still have to comply with sanitation code, entrance permit requirements, and anything else under the public works umbrella. So if like in Madora it's not on sewer and water so will we give them a septic and well permit if the answer is no then they can't split that land u down at Yodor can we connected to the public sewer water system if for whatever reason the answer is no then they can't split it so I think we're still covered that way by not having minimum width and depth of parallel so if they want to do something that's 20 foot, 20 foot wide of road frontage and go down behind another house to put another little shed or or shed house or like a little, you know, mini hat if you will. If it complies with the sanitation code, which would include public sewer and water under the public works umbrella and also entrance permit, then we would allow. So eliminating the ratios, it's we basically put a width or depth in as in the conversation, right? So we we always I I get the math. 200 by 200, that's one acre. That doesn't count count 40 acres. I'm just trying to clarify to make sure we that if I come to you and want to do a split, my width has to be a minimum of 200 or if my width is not 200, it needs to be at least 200 ft. That's road frontage. Yeah. The width it has to be a minimum width road frontage. Okay. So we still you still have to comply by both of those. Yes. Yeah. And there is no lot depth to width ratio anymore on anything. Okay. So these are

these are these are just the minimums. I got you minimum road furniturees. Okay. Okay. So as proposed then we someone could make a really long skinny split that so you could have a split that's 200 ft. 200 ft wide and a mile long. Yes. Or you can or you can it's mile wide and 200 ft deep and you can kind of have a flag lot. You can have 200 foot and then it can get wider but never narrower. Yeah. The idea is to not get narrow. So see okay everywhere on the parcel. You'll see it elsewhere in the regulation. I think you'll see it under the individual zoning districts. It has to always be 200 foot. It can't it can't be 200 foot of width along the road and go out couple hundred feet and then shrink down to 150 and then go out a little bit more then expand back to 200. It can never drop below 200. It can never drop below 150 or or 100. So that's going to help prevent, you know, some situations like like a flag lot. All right. So how how wide are those little flag poles on here? That's 60. That's 60. Okay. So, those two combined are just over half what our minimums will be. Okay. Yeah. Or the other one, the other one there on the south Allen, it's 125 ft. Okay. Southwest corner, right? So, that's you got like right here, right there. That's like 125. Of course, a 200. That's the biggest all the right. That's the big the others are more like a what 100. This gives a lot more use for your land and not near as restrictive as the ratios. Yes. Yeah. Ratios were not. So like so like that would be allowed now. That would be legal and they could build anywhere they want on that part. So instead of being restricted to just what I approved on my survey. Okay. You know that would be allowed now. That would be allowed. You could have a 10 acre

split. Um that would be allowed. That'd be 23 acres. They' still be limited and another split, but they could do that. So, all of these would be no issues now. All right. So, that last one you had there, Mark, uh, go back. Uh, the one that was the the farm ground that was hidden in the bank. Yeah, that one there. All right. So, that yellow parcel there, that was split after 2016. Is that correct? Yes. All right. So that would be legal currently, but they couldn't do any additional splits without pladding. Correct. Is that right? It's actually illegal, but for the fact, right, but like hypothetically, that's their one split. If we had our new regulations, that's their one split. Okay. Uh and unfortunately, yeah, they don't have any more road frontage on that acreage. And so, so that's as far as that's as you could have that big like a quarter section in the back or you could have something like that. or a square 80 or something. I'm not sure. I think I'm sure it's at least 200 foot wide. Yeah, I'd have to look at the I'm sure it's at least 200. So, yeah, something like that would be allowed. They could just do what they had a road as long as they had that minimum. as long as I had that 200 foot of road, which I believe they do cuz the reason I said 200 I mean we have 165 right now in the A when you do a lot split uh and also in the R1 but nobody does 165 foot of road front but for the fact that you can't do 165 ft of width when you do three times the depth you can't get three acres. So you're always giving me at least 200 to 250 ft of road so you can get the depth. So you can give me the minimum 3 acres. But we're getting rid of the ratio. But now we're getting rid of the ratio. So you know, so now it can go down to one. So now you can do 150 down from 165. You can do a 150 and

go back 400, 600, whatever you want to do and get your three acre minimum. In my mind, this opens up for a person to be able to buy some land that they whether they that they want and be able to do what they want with it. I would think that that ratio handcuffed a lot of purchasers. Yeah. I mean, this is going to this is going I'm I'm thinking like G now, you know, looking forward this will open up for more more people to come to Reno County and say, "Okay, I can buy that piece of property now." A little more flexible. Yeah. a little bit more flexible. Should that column width that's labeled width? Should that say frontage? I mean, if I'm somebody that's looking up your rigs, you say road frontage. I think it'd be better communicated if it said something about the road or frontage or something. I think it does in the as say that. I think it says it in the individual voting districts. Yeah, it says in the individual zoning district. We haven't got to it yet, G. But randomly, it says the minimum width of a lot adjacent to a street, avenue, court, or road. And so when you see the word with it's referencing this. Now we can add road or something if you think it clarifies it even more. You know that it's referred to somewhere else but as Mr. Uninformed taxpayer looking at this chart only I think oh 200 I could have 20 ft of road. Yep. I think it just be helpful. Okay.

I don't know if there but the thing you got to think about too is on the uh on the width road width whether it's continuous or not which I think it should but I don't think go to that one picture. Yeah. I think this road frontage if this is 150 this and and you have this 50 then that makes your 200. I don't think that's correct. I think if this is I think you can have this if this is 200 you can have a 50 here and then still you can do something later and you can move it a and you know adjustment and still have your frontage and do something with this. This and this should not equal should be cumulative. should be contin the 200 should be continuous on the parcel. Yes. Okay. Agreed. I agree. So, how do you you put that in a footnote? Uh yeah, I got a footnote with needs to be I think somewhere on this chart would be ideal place to put it. That has to be if you go past the 150 to 100. Put a put a footnote letter E down here that and put a E in each one of these boxes and says that needs to be a contin requirements has to be continuous. Yes. Yeah. Yep. That would be an easy point. And then reference that that is that width actually references road frontage. Yeah. Yeah. That might that might take care of width. Yep. I'm so glad we're getting to all this. Oh my have waited two years because of

solar and all to get to this because it's so unfriendly. I agreed. Okay. Hammer down. Mark. So, do you agree with the the 200 to 150 100 those for the big the biggest thing for me is is that the ratios are blanked out. Oh, I the the the widths we we could we could talk about that all day long, but the ratios is what really handcuffed everything. And I think the road footage is, you know, that gives you plenty of room for access for emergency and everything else. If you know public works is comfortable with that kind of access, I should think everybody else would be. Well, like when you have in an egg 200 the size of the the lot back so to speak 200 frontage in an egg when you go 200 by what 240 or something that's your three acres. So it's not so you know that's reasonable. Sounds a reasonable loss. Yeah. And you don't have you know with 200 feet you're separating your drive. We don't have separate access just one right after the other like some of those other examples we have. Yeah, I think that's good. But probably just further explain clarify we may sleep on it and come back to it. But I think for right now that's a great starting point a little bit in the R2 uh the minimum you know lot area of an acre but more importantly I think R3 being 10,000 square foot or 23 acres. I just wanted to make you aware that's usually going to be for parcels served by public sewer public water. However, not always. If

you think back a couple months ago or last month, last month when we did the township, Reno Township, that property was R3 and it was 5 acres or something like that. So theoretically under that they could split up 10,000 square foot of that parcel and create a buildable lot. But only if sanitation approves could they build. Right. only if it meets all the public works, right? That's the kicker. They've got to have room for septic systems or septic wells because there's a because I think there's there's city water there but no sewer, right? But in the in the in the instance you have an R3 that doesn't have city services. They still have to comply with wells and and septic setbacks and all that homework. Yeah. So that's to a limiting factor. Oh yeah. It's a protective factor. Yeah. Thank you, Alan. Yeah. you stole my thunder and stuff. But yeah, but no, you're but you're exactly right in your thinking. I just wanted to make the board aware that hey, wait a minute. You know, not every single parcel out there is zoned R3 and served by public ser. So I can build a house on 10,000 foot and only if you can get past sanitation, right? Okay. So So don't I didn't want you to be alarmed with with that. Uh, one thing I see here under letter C, we probably just need to take out subject compliance with the sanitation code because we have other wording in there that says you have to comply. Consistent with that. We missed that one. All right. Any other questions for now on that? That kind of gives you a lot of background, something to think about for next month. I'll make those few little changes and come back hopefully with a real quick. So, we changed all this all the current uh current properties that are going off of the existing like let's just say the

R the R2 is 38 and 20 setbacks that's still going to be conforming. It's going to be legal. It's all going to be that because we did expand 30 10 and 10. Like the only thing is if somebody did build a building, you know, eight from a property line um and now we've gone to 10 and that makes it uh non-conforming. It'd be considered legal nonconforming, but still okay. All right. The only concern would be is if it would burn down, what have you, they'd have to move over two feet. or 2 ft or if they wanted to expand that building, then they can't expand it to the 8 foot to make it even with the other building. So, there's going to be potentially some concerns with that, you know, but in the grand scheme of things, it's non-issue. I just wanted to make sure we weren't causing issues on the on the back side. Yeah. No, it should be considered a legal non-conforming building. Perfectly able to use it. you know, um, you know, you can expand it just as long as it's not expanding down that 8 foot setback line. Um, okay. Move on right quick. Next thing was when we got to looking at everything and reading all this stuff, we everything is is referencing like street and I always think of street as being something in a city. Now, we do have streets like Hallstead Street and stuff, but we felt just to make it super clear when we're talking about a street or whatever in the regulations, we haven't changed any of the articles and so there'll still be probably other references to street. We're going to change the definition of a street to also include an avenue or court or road. That way, it covers every public road type of setting. Boulevard. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Come on. Be all-encompassing part.

Anything else? Anybody else can think I throw at it? Yeah. At least hopefully. Yeah, we don't we don't reference laying boulevard in there, but we do reference these other ones. So, yeah. But yeah, that's what I was trying to do with that. Definition will stay the same. It's just including those other types of of roads. All right. Okay. So then we get into the individual zoning districts because we're looking at changing setbacks and width of depth. And so pretty much all the zoning districts will be the same type of wording. Um under the A under number eight, it talked about one additional lot of lands used for agricultural purposes. Well, it's not just used for agricultural purposes. Okay? You can create one additional lot for a non-ag purpose if you want to. So that needs to really come out of the regulations. Then again, you'll see this in every single article. We'll have that all-encompassing uh statement in there that all the construction has to comply with all public works divisions. Um under 2-107, again, we don't need to have Reno County. We know this is Reno County subdivision regulations. We did remove along designated major roads and highways in Reno County. I don't know what is a major road and highway in Reno County. There's no list or definition or anything like that that tells me what a major road is. And so it just needs to say that minimum dimensions of yards required shall be then as follows. Um, under number one, under 2171, uh, we don't require the a lot split agreement to be filed with the register of deeds. It's just filed here at my

office background information right quick. So, when you apply for an egg loss book, there is an agreement that you have to have signed and actually notorized. What that does is that you the property owner signifies that you understand that this is your one-time split of your land without going through a reszone and platty type of process. And so further divisions of that land will require you to reszone and plat that land. And so that notorized signature uh is on file saying that hey you agree that and you understand that this is your one-time split of that land without going through additional process. So number two is that definition everybody's been looking for. Yes. So then the the lot dimensions we added those other street road avenue court and then we changed it from 660 down to 200 got rid of the ratio and changed the setbacks to match what was in article 13 questions kind of in light of our previous discussion about onfarmm activity What farm? What's egg? What's commercial? Uh, I had this question for another purpose, but I think it fits in here. Uh, under article five, the R3, there's a statement that says all other uses, including any proposed commercial industrial uses, shall require a conditional use permit. Would it make sense to put that in this somewhere? [Music] This is where you see five 5-102 item two. Yeah.

Yeah. I Yeah, I saw that in there. I don't know why it's specifically called out in that zoning district. Yeah, I wondered. I think it's one of them. Um, but it seems like the conditional use permit fits into just about anywhere. And again, if I'm not used to looking at this stuff and I'm trying to figure out what it can do or can't do with my property, I think it'd be a a better communication to say that I like that statement. all other uses uh need a cup. The only reason I think maybe that they included in that because R3 is usually platted subdivisions and so you know people need to realize that hey if I'm going to do commercial in a platted subdivision it needs to be a conditional unit. Well same thing of the egg though too wouldn't it? It fits the the vineyard that we just saw the case that we saw last month. Yeah. If it would be that was all zone egg correct. Yeah. So if it he there whether he understood or not if he would have read that he would have said ah yeah I'm going to since I'm going to be selling popsicles that I'm buying on the on the street I'm going to need a commercial a cup. So what we do is add two dash 110 and put that paragraph that sentence in. Yeah. Put that in each each one. And that way, that way if it's out, I mean, if it's outside of the eggs, if it goes back to our seed corn or seed seed salesman. Yeah. Yeah. You know, if if he's producing his own seed and then selling seed on top of it, we're probably going to look past it a little bit. But if all he's doing is buying buying and selling seed day job in town, we're probably going to be looking at at a different thing. Yep. I saw that, you know, I thought, well, we got a lot of

text amendments in here anyway. And what's one more? It's what's one I just I just basically, well, it's covered in article 15, you know that, you know, but yeah, it's not but somebody looks at the regulations on egg districts, it's there. So, it's they don't have to hunt for it. They don't have to read all the regulations. I agree. Well, I would I would be thinking kind of the somebody wants to do this and they'll say, "Well, it doesn't say anything about that." And exactly. Yes. Yes. Okay. Agreed. I like it. Article three, just a couple of just worseness stuff. Um, Reno County doesn't really have rules, I guess. We have resolutions, we have regulations, we have codes. I don't I don't think I ever see anything written as rules until they kind of come out and just say regulations. That's kind of an all-encompassing thing. Um, again, soil suitability classification. I don't know why that was put in there. Uh, as far as compliance with subreg, sanitation codes, soil suitability, I mean, that would be covered under the sanitation code. So, that should come out. Um, I'll add what Gar talked about to the other zoning districts as well. Um, is is the term low density defined anywhere? I I noticed that several times. And I mean, other than it's just what's arrived at based on, you know, what's allowed. Yeah. I I don't know if low density is defined. I don't have my regs in front of me. Um my guess is probably no.

[Applause] Well, I don't have a suggestion. That just was a question I had reading through this. I wonder what that meant. Um, nope. It goes right from lot width, lot zoning to manufacture. Is it under density? Yep. Average number of dwelling units per acre of land expressed in terms of per acre. Example, 300 dwelling units occupying 40 acres of land is 7.5 units per acre. So what's low density? Is that high or low? That that doesn't define it. Just defines density. So it doesn't say what's low density. He doesn't define low or high. Yeah, probably need to do that. We're going to talk about it. We need to define it. Yeah, I'm sure there are many de there's there there will eventually be probably a whole segment of definitions that we need to do and and clarify. That could be one whole public hearing on just definitions alone. Well, um, so yeah, but if that's part of these regulations, which in Rome, why don't we do it? Yeah. Well, just clarify it. Part of these regulations. Oh, okay. I got you. Trying to get to It's just a matter of trying to get to it, you know, and buy it, you know. Yeah, I I hear you. Um, I was looking mainly at the mainly I was looking mainly at the stuff that affected setbacks and lots, you know, while we have You know,

us we're not going to let y'all that easy. I know you're not. Yeah, exactly. Um, I know you keep me on my toes. Um, everything else I thought was pretty standard here. I know. Certainly speak up if you got a question. Um, under R2, same type of wording. If there's anything different under R2, R3, um, R3, for whatever reason, was written different than the other zoning districts. And so rather than try and save some words and and fit them in with way they had it, I just would rather just cross it all out and then rewrite what you see there. They had um lot size dimensions and I I changed it to like minimum lot size and dimensions. And so then that's where I added in here. That's 10,000 square foot. Then they had lot area per family. And I don't know the thinking behind that either. I never noticed that really until I started really looking at it. So I changed it. Lot area per dwelling unit. Again, still has to comply with all the public works regulations and codes. Okay. I'm going too fast or so. Um,

under article six under the village district, uh, just scratch that last sentence. It says instead of saying comply with the sanitation code, add a sentence down below that says it complies with public works codes, policies, and regulations. Then under number six, no minimum lot areas established. uh it is it is required that sufficient area will be provided to meet the requirements established here. And so in essence, hey, we're not going to tell you how much land you need to split off, but whatever you split off still has to comply with all of the policies and codes and regulations of the public work. Okay. And then lastly, under article 14, this is where we'd like to strike letters D and E. Um, letter D and E. E is the easy one where we're talking about two front yard setbacks where you could have that break of 15 ft. So, if we do reduce the setbacks as proposed, then our request would be to eliminate that little break that you get because we're giving you more of your land back along the road. So, we don't really need to have a break just because you have two streets or two roads. Letter D is is probably really confusing letter that and I've never used it. Letter D, you know, jack light, you know, it's a probably a city regulation. Essentially, if if you've got if you're like in a subdivision or if you're in amongst a

group of tracks of ground with houses in there and all those houses are set back, say 25 ft from the road right away and you happen to have a vacant lot in between, we would let you build your house up to that 25 foot setback instead of having to be 5 foot further back and be at 30 foot. That's usually a a city regulation for a what they call like established neighborhoods or established subdivisions where you got 15 20 houses. I mean just pick any street in Hutcherson or any other city for that matter and all the houses are are set at 20 ft for example and but the setback changed now throughout the years and now the setback is 30 ft. So now you know you would have to be 30t. No, we'll let you be that 20 foot. uh you know to match the other houses along your your street that way. That way you have a a nice even even row of houses and something like that's not really used. Are there any subdivisions or areas in the county where somebody might care about that? Not that I thought of. Not really. Somebody basically somebody going to plat it a land. I mean, they may have covenants or something and setbacks within their within their district that they neighborhood they develop. Yeah, they may have something like that. That'd be and that would still apply, but that wouldn't be enforced by Right. No. Yeah. So, if they want to have their own covenant that says 50 ft and mine says 20, they should come up. I'm going to give you a permit for 20 and if your developer says it's got to be 50, then that's that's on them. got another question for you. Going back to Gar's question on low density. Um I kind of couldn't Google

that and it's kind of a undefined term. Why do we even need it in there by question? Because the lot sizes are all prescribed in the regulations. So it doesn't you're not saying anything about how many housing units, you know, per neighborhood. You're saying we got lots of this size, you can put a house on it. So I think we can just delete the uh just the words low low density and just say development of residential neighborhoods. You see that under R1? Uh it's article 33 3-10 in the third line. And it's in I think it's in four and five two or four. Yeah, it's not four. Yeah. So, I mean I don't see any need to leave that in there just because it's it's meaningless. You know, why why unless you want to try to define it because the lot sizes are all set by statute and you put a house in this lot. So I mean that that determines the density. You don't have some other definition say low density is this. So you can't overload it. Yeah. Los size are determined. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it' be easier just to eliminate the term or just say density. Density density is defined. Eliminate the term low density. Just have it read development of residential neighborhoods or that. Yeah. I haven't read. Yeah. just just eliminate those two words out of each of those sections. That'd be easier than trying to define Yeah. Well, I you we're going to have an argument about trying to define that. Yeah. You know, when in essence, it's already defined by the reg. Well, the reason that been there because it's talking about the purpose of that zoning

district. So, you know, they wanted to do I think it's simpler just I don't I think it's meaningless. I think it's easier to just take those two words out and go for it. Okay. Simplification. Yeah. You can do that. Wow. Okay. So, so far what I'm hearing is take that out. We'll discuss that situation there and eliminate being able to split a lot like that or have that situation occurring. And then I have I had a circle there. Um, I'll add add that to conditional uses, right, to all the other districts, right? That can happen. Yeah. As long as one of them is 200 has 200 ft. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. You can't you can't use that situation. Can't go 15050. It has to be Has to be 200 somewhere. You could have 250 there, but 200 is is the magic number in a 165. So on Okay. Yeah. It doesn't have to be written to let people know that that is allowed. If you have 200 on one side, you have when you have a parial, you have to have a second that has the the minimum width. It might be all right just leaving it that way. Yeah. I didn't think about it, but yeah. So, okay. Um, thank you for your hard work. Appreciate that. Gives us something to ponder for next month. Now, do you want how do how do you want us I mean I I'd like any text amendment or any any action that we want to make. I'd like to like to sleep a few a few times on this and we want

you want to come back with maybe try to try to make a draft next month. How do you want us? How do you want to attack? How do you want us to attack it? You mean what? You look at like say we say we come to this and we say, "All right, all of our suggestions are good to go. We like it. Can you get us a a hard copy of a draft of what we've done tonight by next month? Maybe should be out. All you got to do is a couple of things to check." Yeah. I mean, it's like Can you get Can you get us Can you If you can get us If you can get us a draft and we review it next month so you like it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, all the little tweaks we've got in there, it looks good. So, you want like highlighted in yellow what you suggested tonight? I would just say give us just make the changes and give us a draft copy and we'll take a look at make the changes and give you Yeah. And if we and we've got a monthly sleep on it, look at this copy and we'll read it. Read the read the draft in our packet and come prepared. And if you like it, then we just remove draft and it's done. Yep. Draft done. Publish it. But we'll probably have 20 other amendments to make. You would not drag this thing out for I guess what is our major changes and just give you a clean copy of clean copy to review for next month. Yep. to have it draft and then we can with the date on it so I don't confuse it between my other drafts. We're probably have 15 drafts done. We've had a few of those cases, haven't we? Yeah, we have. I finally dated them. Hopefully, this baby won't be as long. I think I think review won't take very long. This was a good night. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. What What's our I guess are we are we done visiting about this? we can move on to the next agenda item. New business or other business? I have uh I

want to go back to Steve's comment earlier. Uh I know it doesn't fit in now but you know my understanding of government it takes a while before something gets to the the front of the line and that is the coordination between departments of u you know the the proper way to make for a taxpayer to make their way through the system. There should be uh helpful checks along the way that says no, you need to go check with this other department because uh we can do it, but they won't let you do it. And and I I sense that in some of these cases that we hear that it's just I mean people are not experts in this stuff. Taxpayers shouldn't be expected to be experts, but uh if I go to the register of deeds office and file a deed, I have to assume must be okay. And then later when I run into Mark's department and he tells me, "No, no, no, no, no, no." Well, why didn't they tell me to check with Mark? It it just it seemed like uh much better service to taxpayers if we can somehow start building that coordination into our local government. 100% agree. Yeah. There you've got to get interdep departmental cooperation. Well, all but the registered deeds has been handled because to come out here to get a permit for any of this stuff, whether it's environmental or or road and bridge or planning, zoning, it's land, it's all pretty much focused here. They just have to walk 30 ft and they got it taken care of and maybe somehow we can explore getting you know some level of cooperation with that office. Something internally we can we can look at. Register of deeds is an elected position, right? Yeah. So there's in theory there's nothing it's all a carrot approach. There's no possible stick

within the organization. Right. Right. Service to the to your taxpayers to your customers, you know. Yeah. But we all strive to work together. So Well, that's good. Yeah, they do. That's Well, at the same time though, I don't necessarily want to review every single deed that's filed because I mean, yeah. Well, it may be just twothirds of it's unzoneed, so I don't care. Well, you know, I mean, that's part of it. They they would know whether it's in the zoned area or not. If it's in the zoned area, then they can ask a question. Well, they would have to read it, right? Because they don't read it. They just file. They just file. They just file. Yeah. I I had that thought the other day looking at my tax statement. Uh it seems like it should tell me I'm in a zoned area and some, you know, before you do build anything, contact your uh whoever planning a zoning, but I'm guessing a fair number of Reno County residents can't tell you whether they're in a zoned or unzoned area. I know that for a fact, but your taxes wouldn't have anything to do with whether you zoned or unzoneed. Yeah, it doesn't. Well, I know, but just as a means of communicating to me, if I want to if I want to start a business on my property that I own. Well, I guess I can just do that because I already own it. No, you can't cuz you're in a zoned area. Yeah. I don't know how how to communicate that. But I I read my property taxes from top to bottom. It's it's just what I do. And if if it says something in if there's a sentence in there that says just a reminder you're in the zone portion of Reno County, that's all it would. It just eliminates the excuse of nobody told me. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Go talk to the county appraisers office.

Been there internal discussion. I had to call them the other day on my property real estate personal property. they were testing. Well, I know I know they don't put it on on there north and on, you know, Beacon because not necessarily in our county, but like in cities, you know, zoning can and does change for people and so then you're going to have to update all those records and and so I'd rather than just not even have it on there at all. But, you know, is it on the property record card? It's not on here. It's got a property class and a zoning. So part of that's up to the land owner to there there is some onus there for sure but there's also we have a responsibility to help them lead them along the way just a little bit just a little bit we don't need to take them the whole we don't need to take them the whole journey we just need to make sure that they understand what what their destination any other departments we need to reorganize well since you mentioned it some's been grinding on I mean, since we uh since we had that case with the township shop there on West Fourth and had just been at when I was on the township board, this has been quite a few years ago, probably more than 20, it's probably before Don was even on the count in the in the county side of things, we used to have uh annual township meetings where you would discuss where to put a stop sign, Why do you need why do you need road safety signs? Why do you need you know that just something like that? Is there some would there be some value to have I mean you can't require it and then I don't think those were required either but we all you know we were all kind of we were all township guys. We were going to get a free meal off the county. We were darn well going to be there. you know, we we'd have something

like that with the with our builders in the area and say, "Hey, don't know if you know or not, but this is what the codes are and this is what zoning is and this is what is required. As you are selling these buildings, make sure your people that are buying these understand what they need, what the requirements are." I don't know if that's I don't know if that's something we should we should look at. a lot of times, you know, I did I did budgets for most the townships in Reno County for a number of years and that was probably one of the few times you'd get all the township trustees and treasures, general officers all in the same room and they'd sit down there and they some would I treat it as kind of an annual meeting and we'd go over stuff like that and if they wanted to do a building there's a process and sometimes I'd find out about it after the fact like Mark does and you know the building's already built. Well, did you know you were supposed to have an election to get approval to do this? No. So, I mean, some of them didn't some, but I I'm I'm not really gearing it towards the townships as a as a focus. I'm more of a let's bring in uh let's bring in the builders. bring in the build of and we we could probably make a short list based upon the the cups that we've had come through here of guys that we probably ought to invite in here to to to help them. And and it's not going to be it's not going to be to browbe them. It's we're going to feed them and make them smart so they can sell more buildings and be and and make this make this make the process more smooth. I don't know. I'm okay. Yeah, I go for that. I don't know. I budgets are tight. I don't I get it. But I'm I'm just using that as an example. The the township meeting feed that we had you just to Steve's point, you had everybody's undivided attention for an hour and a half. Well, it should be the the buck gets passed on whether

you have a permit or not. So, it's up to the landowner to get the permit, but yet and then the contractor starts building. Well, I assume the land owner got the permit. where if you're in the city, the land the property owner gets a permit and it's posted, right? And the contractor needs to see it before they start and the contractors that should be the same way outside of the city. They should have that they should see that permit and if they don't don't start building. But it's it's it goes back to that education piece. If we don't tell them that they need to see it, we're we're we're back to where we and are they building in the zoned area or the unzoned area? That's true. Yep. So there's there I don't know it's just been kind of grinding on me a little bit and just kind of going going around running rent rentree in my head and I mean if nothing else I mean you putting together just kind of a little newsletter memo to send out to contractors reminding them of this stuff you know. Yep. Because have you reminded your your uh your purchaser that they have to in the zone count, you know, they have to do this and this and this and this? I don't know. I don't know what that looks like. Seeing them because we've never really it's the it's trying to do that. It's down on the list, but it's probably something you ought to put on on your project list somewhere down the line. Well, in the Unzone area, too, you you have to know whether you're in a flood plane or Yep. or any of that. Well, it's and you have and in the unzone, you have to know where you're building your buildings based on where your septic system and well is too. So, it's it's it's not just the zone. Exactly. I mean, it's all it it it covers all I don't know. I don't know what you do to I I don't know. I don't know either, Don. I'm voluntary compliance is what you're trying to get and you've got to The only way you do that is through education. I like the education bit because there's

there's going to be people that are going to do what they want regardless, but I I I don't think most people are intentionally flaunting zoning regulations. I think they they're going doesn't agree with you. Well, we got I agree I agree with the most maybe I say most is a qualifier. I but you know that's it. The problem has been recurring often enough that we know it's a problem. Yes. Well, I that's it occurs because there's no consequence, right? And you know, there's been suggestions that there's con going to be consequences. Whether it's you build a building and you don't get a permit, maybe the consequence is a fine of 1% of the cost of whatever you built or something. I'm not suggesting that, but that's a consequence. someone when when all it is, okay, now you got to buy, you know, a $100 permit times two. So what? They'll take that chance. Yeah. So that's another subject that's coming. Yeah. Right. It seems like right now the only consequence is you run the risk of your halfbuilt building being denied or the typically we don't do that. I remember doing that once. I think we've done that once in my time. Yeah. I don't And that was because it was a variance. Yes. That wasn't because it was a special exception. The variances have a lot stricter criteria than just this board or the BCA looking at a special exception. So yeah, that if it was a special exception and it met the setback, it probably been approved right there, but it didn't meet setback. And when we have when we create consequences or fines, then we do have to get the word out there so that Oh, yeah. So, it's it's so it's not a surprise. I mean, then then you have to enforce it. And the first few guys are going to

piss and moan and you just take, well, I'm sorry. We were told, you know, you didn't believe us. I'm sorry. But, you know, then y kind of make an example of the first few and then the word spreads. Got to be sacrificial lamb. Yeah, that that's that's a text amendment right through here anyhow, isn't it? Yeah. Be uh an amendment to the resol to the permit resolution actually. So, it wouldn't it wouldn't even need a permit. It probably wouldn't come through here because it's not because the permits and stuff aren't in the regulations. The permits are in the county resolution. So, it'd be just something that the commissioners would amend the existing building permit or zoning permit resolution. put a bug in the county commissioners here. So, what do other what do other counties do? Cuz I would think the idea of, you know, you know, Harvey County is all all zoned. So, if you have somebody that's everybody struggles with it. It makes it diffic more difficult when you're partially zone and unzone. There's people don't know. They don't like other counties, you know, they'll have code enforcement. Okay. So, so they'll have they'll have more staff. They'll have code enforcement. And so that's part of it. Um, so they do have sticks, not discarants, right? But so Mark wants to hire code enforcers. Yeah, they'll have that or or they'll have like codes court, which would be something that' be faster than than going through district court, but counties that have building codes will have code enforcement, so they'll catch a lot of that as well. Uh but some of the the rural counties or some of the counties that don't have building codes. Yeah, it's same struggle. Same struggle. And this is I don't know that we even need building codes. I'm just thinking of putting it up before they come before they come talk to you. Right. It's that's it's it's I'm simplifying by a lot, but it is that simple. And you can do that

twothirds of the county as long as you meet you put a building wherever you want. as long as you meet the other public works regulations which is environmental and whatever. But yeah. Yeah. I didn't mean to keep us longer with an extended conversation but I just thought it's been running rent free. I thought that we put that on your list. Yep. Good good talk. Yeah. Any other business to be brought out before the board staff? Anything? Good. I'm happy with the rest of the board. I move wejourn. I second. Then moved and second to journ.