Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Stay. Another At least I didn't say

It's a lot of math. Doesn't mean much.

six. Great. Good evening and welcome to the January 6th, 2026 Brookings County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. This meeting is being recorded, televised, and viewable on Swift Channel 19 ITC channel 168 or the Brookings County YouTube channel. And I'll call this meeting to order. Approval of minutes. Is there a motion? Motion by Jensen. There's a second. Second. Pollson. Second by Pollson. All in favor? I. Motion passes. Items to be added to agenda by commission members or staff. Just our regular staff reports.

Okay. Invitation for citizens to schedule a time on a commission agenda for an item not listed. You're good. Thank you for the cookies. That's my disclosure of conflicts of interest relations to applicants or exparte communication. Nothing. Approval of agenda. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion by Kyle Vanderwal. Second that one. Randy, second by Jensen. All in favor? I. Motion passes. Move on to election of officers. Richard will take over. from the nominating committee. I have a nomination for chairman.

Do you want to do the honors, Tim, or you want me to handle it? Okay. Um, I'm sure this is going to come as a big shock, but uh, everyone on the zoning board wanted to leave things as they are. So, therefore, the nominating committee officially nominates Chairman Ford for the chair position again. nomination for Mr. Ford. Is there any other nominations? Is there any other nominations?

Any other nominations? If not, I'll have a motion for cast nomination cease and cast unanimous ballot for Chad Ford for chairman. I move that nomination cease and cast unanimous for Chad. Okay. All in favor say I. I motion passes. Chad or chairman? I take over. Yep. For vice chair. So, does the nominating committee have a nomination for vice chair? The nomination for vice chair is Daryl Klein John.

Any other nominations? Is your motion and nomination cease for unanimous ballot? Go for it. So moved. Second. Motion and second. All in favor? I Daryl, you got your job back. Thank you. Do we got a We need to um select members for the joint board of adjustment.

Okay. So now we need to select members for the joint board of adjustment. be the chairman and the commissioner and Kyle, I believe you were on there and then the alternate was Tim. So, look for nominations or be nominated again. I can't nominate you. I'm over here. But I'll nominate Kyle. There any other nominations?

Make a motion the nomination cease. Motion nomination cease. Is there a second? Second. Second by Kelly. All in favor? I motion Kyle's got the job. Now we need a nomination for an alternate. Right. You good again? I nominate Tim. Is there any other nominations? There's no other nominations. Is there a motion to cease nomination? So moved.

Motion by Darote. Is there a second? Second by clerk. All in favor? I. Tim, you got your job back again? That should be it for them then, right? Yes. Okay. So, now I got to go through this whole one here too.

Yeah. Just read the introduction. Okay. Since we're convening, we'll now convene as the Brookings County Planning Zoning Commission. The Brookings County Planning Commission is a nine member commission whose function is to recommend approval or disapproval of land use plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision plants, and amendments thereof to the Brookings County Commission. The commission makes its recommendation based upon the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the unincorporated areas of Brookings County. As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive. After a motion has been moved and seconded, it is open for debate. Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons. Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons. After everyone has been given a chance to be heard, the commission shall recommend approval or disapproval based on the testimony and information presented. A simple majority vote of a quorum of members present of the planning and zoting board in attendance is required to forward a recommendation.

Number 10. Number 10. work session discussion and review of ordinance. Luke, you're up. You want me to start or do you want to start, Richard?

We're just going to kind of go through um got to talking about some of the variances that we've given over the years just over the past year. Um is there a way we could go back and maybe segregate them by the lakes? So to maybe cut back on some of the variance applications on there um with that setback distance that we have now of 75 ft from the highest known watermark. Um maybe fine-tune that for each lake a little bit to make it a little more user friendly and maybe keep us you as the board not quite as quite as busy but yet allow people to do what they will do anyway or want to do without having to come to the board. So, we've just kind of put together over the years ones that have been approved, the distances on there, um some the ones that have been denied on there. So, we're just going to discuss some of those and and um just kind of think about maybe think tank, maybe there's something, you know, later on we can come to a decision and determine what that magic number would be for for the lakes. If is it a percentage of the lot that's so occupied? Is it the depth of the lot? Is it so much from the high water mark for each light on there? So, that's just kind of what we're gonna discuss and think about tonight. So,

so I'll start. We we talked we talked a little bit about just kind of your staff keeps a list of all the variances that have been issued and conditional uses for that matter as well and properties tied to and I want to say what 20 years maybe more you go back 25 yeah we've

so what we did is we went back I just went back to and in the report and I know that staff looked at it as Well, as far as variances that have been issued since this version of the ordinance was updated, you'll remember we went through the this section, then that section, then that section, at least some of you who are here, and then we put it all together in one giant document. Lake Park was done in roughly 2018. Does that sound right? So, yep,

that's how far when I looked at this, I went back at least and I'd planned on taking about an hour and just stopping and then I didn't. So, spent the whole day on this. So, basically, um, we just focused on the idea of looking at Lake Ponet specifically. Now, you know as well as I do that the lots around Lake Ponet, like the south side of Oakwood and much of Hendricks and honestly a healthy portion of Campbell were all platted well before frankly parts of it well before we had Brookings County um much less um zoning. So, it stands to reason that they're going to be smaller lots and there's going to be some things that we don't account for. But that's kind of where we're coming from is that it really seems like I mean, and I'm sure you've experienced it that it feels like a a square peg in a not even close to a round hole in many of the cases when people are coming in and asking. And the reality is we kind of want to look at because like Richard and I were when we were talking on the phone is that gosh some of these there can't be that many left. So thought well heck let's just look and see. So that's what this is. Are you able to switch it to my computer?

No you'll have um Eric can you switch that to or Sean switch that to um Luke's computer. There we go. Let's see if I can run it this way. Thank you. Look at that. All right. So, this is only for Lake Ponson. Okay. And I'm just going to rattle through some of this somewhat quick and I'm going to take one stop so that you guys can um yell at me a little bit too, but I just kind of want to lay it out here. Okay. So, here's what I use for numbers. All right. Total number of lakefront lots was 96. That does not count things like ABR that have kind of a big lot and then a bunch of tiny cabins on it or that you might have issued some conditional uses. It also doesn't include the campground because frankly that's going to skew our averages and they're not used as a house. So, it's kind of a different animal. Might they get a variance? Yeah, probably. If you came in and asked they probably would, but that's a different story. The average lot size, even taking those away, is about 12,000 square feet, which is bigger than I thought, uh, but it's still about half the size of your minimum lot area in the Lake Park district. So, when you think about that, your setbacks are essentially written with the idea that you're going to have a 20,000 square foot lot. Frankly, they're probably written with the idea of a bigger lot than that. um median lot size just meaning that we've got um roughly 48 below and 48 above 8,800 square feet. So half the lots are less than 8,800 square ft. Kind of give you that idea. Okay. In terms of variances issued in this area of those 96 lots, 33 of these lots have received variances. uh the average lot size on those is about 25% smaller than the average lot

size in that district. So lot size probably plays an issue in that. One of the ironic things though and I really don't even know what to make of this is the idea that um frankly you've issued variances to more bigger lots than smaller lots. It's just that the small lots are really really small. That's basically what that looks like as far as that number. Is it huge? No, it's frankly I don't think it's all that relevant. This is your setbacks just for reference. And this is me taking a selfie with Brookings County's side of it couple years ago just in case I thought we'd be doing this. So it was uh 98 degrees and I was wearing long sleeves. That's the relevant part there. Um this here, just going to show the map here. So what I've got on this is square footage of buildable area. What I did is I took couple of things. I took a little bit of liberty here because your ordinance says that your setback is 75 ft from the highest known water elevation. I borrowed some language from Hamlin County where at the time the highest elevation that the emergency management director up there had told me that he recalled on the lake was happened to become the 100red-year flood elevation. now. So that's what the 100red-year flood elevation is on the lake now. At least that's what they recall as being the highest known elevation on the lake. So that was handy. I was able to just trace it 75 ft from the new flood plane that you have. So on the lake side, this measures 75 ft from the flood plane. Is that the number you're always using? Maybe not because it kind of depends. But for what it's worth, it was handy for this case. uh from the lake or the road side measured the 25 feet. 25 is that right? Yeah. 25 feet buffered it.

So that took out all of those areas. The lots where there are no colors, those are unbuildable. That means that the setbacks take care of the entire lot. So no building permits can be issued to that without a variance on any of those lots. The lots that are in red are going to um they've got less than a th00and square feet of buildable area. Um it's an arbitrary number. I just kind of threw some numbers out there. And then 1,000 to 3,000 which kind of tells me, you know, um you know, 1500 ft² living space, 1500 square foot garage because nobody can have less. Um that's the yellow. Okay. And then 3,000 and above is green. So, as you look at this, you can see where those are at off to the east of uh the resort. And then when you get all the way up to the northeast corner of the county, uh those are all super narrow. And when I I'll show you the map of the variances here in a little bit. I just flipped that. It expressed it a different way just in terms of the percentage of the lot area that's covered. I showed it in red. Less than 15% is buildable. So over 85% is covered by setbacks of these lots. Um 15 or sorry uh 80 85 to 70% is covered by setbacks of the yellow ones and then the green ones have 70 um less than 70% is covered by setbacks. So again, when you're talking about these percentages, oftentimes you're going to have a lot coverage in zoning districts that are 30 to 35%. So they many of those lots, the ones that are in red and yellow, can't even hit that due to setbacks. I'm telling you all this to make the point that if it feels like you've

issued a lot of variances in this area, you have and it looks pretty justifiable here. I'm not saying that we should always be issuing variances. To me, this looks more like you read this at the front end when you're issuing variances. Um, is it arbitrary and capriccious? No, it's not. Um, but is it so general as to necessitate a change in zoning? Well, looking at these tables, the reality is if you look at it here, I'm going to walk you through it. top line. I just expressed these differently on the right half of the screen. Okay, again there's your 96 lots, 33 variances issued. You've issued variances to 34% of the lots. In terms of non-buildable lots, the share comes out. Half of those non-buildable lots have received variances, 48%. Now, that tells me that we're halfway home. That also tells me that you've got roughly 20 more people that are going to be coming in asking for variances at some point on that property. And I mean, I'm sure that in a way you kind of want to see them, but in a way, um I if you know what situations you would say no to, that's a handy time to ask that. So, um I'll roll through this top one and then I got a question for you. So, the ones that are less than 15% buildable, that's 10 of those lots that are buildable still. Um, three of those have received variances. Seven of them are between 15 and 30, five out of those seven have received variances already. The ones that are um greater than 30% buildable, 11 out of 42 have. So, almost a quarter of those have. That's not

crazy because I I don't want you to look at it and go, "Holy crap, we just we've been issuing them to 70% buildable." That's not saying how much of a postage stamp they have on that percentage. It could just be a 25 by 120 swath that's buildable on some of those, too. So, you do have to look at those on case by case, and that's kind of the point. But, this is where I want to step back, and you can certainly look at and read. I don't have to go through those with you. But I'm going to bounce to this one here. My real question is, are there any of them? And are there any of them that you can think of that you wish you had back? Can you think of anybody have one on there that they're like, gosh, I've been out there and I just we shouldn't have done that on a variance. Anything come to mind? Is there any of them that stick out as you thinking, why are we even asking this question? These guys should get a permit. Is it most of them? I don't know.

Yes and no. The one that we did was it last month right dead center in the middle there. But we issued it. But we didn't have any reason to not say with the zero footback setback with his public access trees. I believe that'd be right. Yeah. You guys had that one where it was a um that was in October. That was October. Yep. Seems like it was December. It'd be real similar to, you know, coming up off of this uh that section line isn't a good example because that's a section line, but that's how it was. Was it a section line or was it just a just a lake access? It's a lake access. I think it was just a PL

lake access that was platted on the plat.

See those ones there? that one to me I I would be able to make that case pretty handily because that that that makes sense because you're not going to vacate that. That's illegal to vacate that access. Yeah. For all practical purposes, the people on both sides are the only ones who have anything to do with it. So, as long as it remains open, that's probably the main thing you're trying to care for and that there's no way they're going to park over the top. So, I mean that one there, I could I could straight face that pretty easily. Um, frankly, the ones that are a lot harder are the ones where they just want to be closer to the lake despite the fact that there's room to build as long as they stay closer to the road or vice versa. Those are harder to stomach or that there's plenty of buildable space. It's just that it's not in the footprint they want. Those are harder. And so, I'll tell you a couple of things and then I'll I'll show you this map here. Uh from a standpoint of setbacks, doesn't mean you got to follow everyone else. I'll tell you your roadside setbacks are very similar to if not um less than a lot of similar counties. 25 to 30 is about that number. So frankly, you're right in line there. Your setback off the lake is more.

A lot of places have decreased that.

Luke, just one one thing to add back on this other one, ones that we questions or whatnot is one we did in 2024. Um there was a water line or sewer line there and they had plenty of room on the lot, but that's what they were using for their hardship was the water line that went across their lot. the variance was granted and they also built their accessory building behind that. But yet behind that accessory building, there's still 60 ft of open lot that they could have had everything back and met all the setbacks had they gone behind that easement for the water line. So that's that's one that I look back is was that the right decision that was made on that particular one, but Was that one Did they go closer to the lake or did they go closer to the road on that one? I don't remember.

It was They were about a little They were still close to the lake, but there weren't as far as what the existing house was now. That was there. Yeah. So, they were back a little bit farther, but yet they were still within that. And um I'd have to pull it up to see what it was. Yes. Right next to ABR there. Oh, it's that long deep one, isn't it? Yep. I see it right there. I do too remember that. The one over. Sorry, I got to scroll in there. The one that right next to ABR, that purple one to your right. My right or your right. Oh, it's this other one here. Right there. Yep.

Oh, I was thinking it was that longer one, I believe. No, that was the one that No, you were right the first time with that yellow on there. the purple and yellow right there. Yeah. Because that makes sense that that sewer line would run right through there. Yep.

And then the irony there is that it kind of follows that that ridge that you see on your set back there, too. Um I set and we don't it's not like we need to belabor or show any points here, but I just kind of lobbed those into 3D. Um, those ones that look like they're sliding off the cliff are more than likely walkouts, I would assume, is what those are. Um, but this kind of gives you a look starting from west at the top, the west end of the county that's on Ponet and then moving off to the east. The lake kind of messes with me, but is that right? I write west to east. Yeah, that'd be right. And then the next one, too. And if you wanted to, we could slide in, but I don't I didn't have time to do more than just show you something. But so I don't really have much of a recommendation that if you decrease, you're going to gain this much. I also didn't do anything with regards to the sideyard setbacks. I do know you get some some ass on that. The truth is on your setbacks I mean I don't you're at 8 feet aren't you? I mean I don't think you can go down much more than that.

We've very few that we've gone less than 8t on if we have but with an accessory building we've had them also put fire protection sheetrock in there also as part of the variance requirement. Yeah. But yeah, not sidey yards are very very few variances that have been given on those.

I couldn't in good conscience tell you to do much less than that because you're I mean you're you're playing with fire code at that point. You know, given some false input, but I don't Anybody have any questions or airing of grievances or telling me I'm wrong and whatever? I mean it. Where do you stand? Do you think you think you ought to should it be lake by lake? Should we just do a swath and consider decreasing setbacks or write in some situations where you know you're probably always going to issue variances? What I mean where do you stand?

What is the average or other counties on their water setbacks?

Good question. Um that number is it varies far more. Uh one of the things I will tell you and Richard kind of led off with it. I'll tell you two things. Okay. I want to pre I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying that I think measuring a setback from the highest known water elevation is the smartest way to do it. I think it's incredibly subjective and hard to do unless you have an actual elevation that you go all the way around the lake. The other thing that I would say is that 75 ft is a long ways from that and that would absolutely be the biggest setback on a lake of anybody that we've got. Most of them that I work with will hold a they might hold a larger setback, but they'll go from ordinary high water mark as listed at the state. That makes it problematic when you have a meandered lake because then you don't have one. But in your case, most of yours are that way except for certain portions of couple lakes, I think. But the bottom line is, yeah, your setbacks are more because of because of where that is. I don't think it's a bad idea to measure it from there. I do think that you're creating yourself a little more headache and I think you could probably at least allow some decreases in certain instances if you knew what those were, whether they be decks or you know unenclosed decks or whether they be um in certain cases a lot coverage or maybe if the neighbors aren't closer, things like that. What is the number? Um a lot of them are 40 to 50 feet from ordinary high water mark. So what is like on Lake Pon comparing Brookings to H County?

It's a lot less than Hamlin County. A lot less than I I'd have to go uh double check because I don't have it. I didn't save it on here like a fool today. Um if I remember right, the number is 50 feet from ordinary high watermark. Um roughly ordinary high water mark is in a lot of places 10 to 15 feet under out into the water from the shoreline right now. So it's quite a gimme. I mean truth be told you're getting about a 20 foot gimme tough you know counties it's really hard. Yeah.

Same way like Hendricks where you got Brookings County you got Minnesota. I know. I know. And I think that's that's a major issue that you run into is that you're you're constantly on that one. Um I wish I had Moody County with me, too. You got Campbell Camp,

you got this one, and you got Henrik's that you're sharing with another jurisdiction. And everybody's trying to keep up with the Joneses regardless of how much of that lake is in which jurisdiction. If Moody Countyy's setback is less than yours, even though there's only a fistful of lots on Campbell, you're still going to want to have that. I will say that I just looking at the numbers, it didn't look like you've had percentage-wise as many on Campbell. That's probably due to topography a little bit, but um so yeah, realistically, it's rare to see anything more than 50 feet from Om. Yeah.

What would be the difference from like 75 ft from the highest park to the area? Um, in some cases, well, here

let's take that. I'll just take um here it's going to take a second to load here, but I'll just do a quick measurement here. Um if I'm taking here and I I want you to understand there's I mean it's a surveyor would not just laugh. They'd fall off the floor if I were doing this. But um you know the platted lots are great. It's in meters too by the way. That's helpful. Um I hope you know your conversions feet. So right here in this case, I mean the lot line isn't even starting. You're talking about it's usually in the neighborhood of about midway through the last panel of the dock. So there's 86 feet there. So I mean I'm not even getting to what you've got here. So reality if I'm doing it let's do it this way. If I start from here and out I mean my 50 feet at the shoreline. I mean to me that's too close. That's too close. 75 feet. Well now I'm here. that that's generally going to be from where that's at. And I'm guessing here, but the reality is you're going to have 25 feet of of green space set back probably in a lot of the cases if you're having 75 ft from ordinary high water mark and doing it that way. Another thing to keep in mind is a lot of them places that could be in the flood plane too that are on the lower part and that highest elevation mark and the flood plane are one and the same.

Yeah. I was just going to ask

2015 2019 uh 2015 there were several in fact um we granted a variance guy raised it up raised his callus up two houses down three cabins got destroyed by ice shelves being blown in off off of that. That was when So, it's a great point and I that's where it's hard for me to sit here and say that it's a bad idea to do it because because the truth is I mean when take Hamlin County, let's go back to that in 2011. 2011 we updated their rules and um set the set back at so far back. Well, a year later started having buildings again get ripped out into the lake because of the ice. And so finally then that was when the or the emergency manager said we're not only going to have a setback but we're also going to have a minimum elevation and that elevation is seven feet above ordinary high water mark. And so as it turned out, 7 feet above ordinary high water mark was and I don't remember what the flood elevation is here, but it was 310 of a foot by the time you added the 7 feet. The difference was 3/10en of a foot. It was 3.6 in. So bottom line is that's where I said, wellundred-year flood plane is that then. So truth is I mean there is validity to it and there's a very good point and that's where I mean you are saving people from ice jam as long as you make them follow it. So are I mean my question would be is if we switch our

uh rule to this 50 foot or whatever cut it back does the planning and zoning board here or the county become liable if you know like Richard was saying there the flood plane becomes the problem. You know we're we're changing the rules now and basically okaying that to to build down to there. I mean, are we are we liable for that then? Or

um I'm going to preface it by uh the reminder that I'm not an attorney. Um I run into a lot of these questions, but I will say um go ahead and look up there at that purple house up there, the one that's in the purple lot. You guys won off that one. So, if that one gets ripped away, you wouldn't be any more liable than that. And I will say that as far as the setbacks on that, none of those counties that I've worked with have uh been held liable in court for allowing someone to build according to the setbacks. I guess yeah that was that was kind of my question I guess is you know versus like this coming in front of the board and being approved versus just a a broad term of you know approval would we be more liable I guess in the stance of we just change the rule versus you know they just go and do it and then it happens versus us them coming in front of the board and us saying yeah you can do that but you you you're accepting the liability behind any of that you know I'd say that I'd say that you're probably in uh I haven't had any any other place run into it. We'll put it that way. And I would think that the liability would be higher where you issued a variance looking at it individually as opposed to a general legislative rule following it. Um but that's I mean it's a good question, good consideration and the truth is that is the question. I mean how big brother are we and how afraid of it are we? Um, again, I know and I don't know I Richard and Bob, you can tell me. I mean, do the surveyors even really try? I mean, do what do you do the surveyors really? Do you guys ever have surveyed setback lines on these? Do they just you just tell them an elevation line or what do they ever do that?

It depends. If they're doing elevations for a flood plane development permit, then we have them. Otherwise, they go they're going off of if they've been there long enough history what they remember or they ask their neighbors down there or the terrestrial line on there. Basically, we'll have some of them um oftent times on the Hamlin side, they'll wind up having to submit a survey just to show where it's at. And it's generally been the the statement on that is that survey proves that you are basically buys you that amount of feet wherever that ordinary high water mark is. Otherwise, we're doing the same thing there as you're doing here, Richard, which is well that grass line, that's it.

That's generally what we do if there's not survey. the more expensive houses they have where they have a surveyor done anyway. They do have that on there where they're doing it for the flood plane and they do mark where that mark is on there. The last three that I can think of for the more extravagant houses that are built up there. So it is they do have the surveyor benefit of that on there for themselves. off of that. I think the the conclusion and I'm not again we'll as far as you want to go and I'll happily answer any questions. I mean what I'm trying to tell you is the practice of issuing variances on this. It's it's a fallacy. I mean we're not this isn't against the rules. It's really not against the rules to go closer than than the setback to frankly more the lake. I'm seeing more of them and I that was the one thing I didn't dig into was the number of lakefront versus roadfront on these. But I mean I just kind of looking at the aerial image here as I go through here. I mean, it looks like there's more closer to the lake than there are um Yeah, Lake Pon's it own unique I know critter there

with the wide when they redid the road and they have the wide rayway. the board has come to the conclusion or the decision to allow them to build within two feet of that front rightway with the big rightway with the ditch there instead of the 25 ft. So that's kind of a skews things a little bit on Lake Ponet for this part. But otherwise, um, Oakwood, other ones, front yard variances are very few and far between because you want a place for the car to park. Mhm.

And there's no other parking spaces on those roads. So that's why late roadside variances are very have been very few of those have been granted since I've been here. You know, Randy and Daryl, I mean, you might be able to think you've been you've like I say, they're hard to not not very often that we've granted a roadside setback variance. 99% of them have been lakefront lakesides. So, I think they build a storage shed or something like that.

Yeah. Yep. For an accessory building possibly. Yep. So with Hamlin County being 50 feet and Brookings County being 75, you know, with the percentage of variances on ponet alone there that we've issued, you know, we're 30 to 40% done. How many people are we going to upset changing that now? where could we do something instead of changing the setback length go to a line of sight deal so that if we've issued a variance in this lot not in the middle and then one on the right they can build to the same line.

Yeah. And and the truth is really where I'm going with this is that, you know, go see every other time I open my mouth here in front of you, right? A variance is a request to break the law. Well, clearly that's not what's happening here. I mean, we're we're past that now. So, let's figure out how you're going to be okay. And the answer is, yeah. I mean, you could you could do one. I don't in in the case of a lake that's often what happens. In fact, Lake County has a get I'll call it a get a call get out of jail free card on it where it's I don't remember if it's a conditional use or a special permitted use where again as long as you're not affecting line of sight. I don't remember if they have a sign off of the two neighbors on either side or not. Um but yeah, you can build in line there if that's the case. Um, naturally the requirement to stay out of the flood plane comes into play there and all of those requirements. But yeah, that's an option that you could do uh very very simply. However, I mean, if you've got some vacant lots up there, that makes it a little trickier setting that line. Well, then you're just going to have to follow the line or by gosh and by golly, figure it out. But that's really where I'm going is that is that I think it makes more sense to write in the we're just not crossing this line, whatever that line is. And um and then beyond that, here are the exceptions that we're going to grant them under and go from there and list it as either conditional use or something that staff can issue. But all right, I'm I'll be honest. I'm trying to I'm trying to help out the amount of time that you guys are spending on these things where I mean most of the time, you know, you're probably going to issue them, especially in a case like this. I mean, the book's

kind of written as far as the direction they're going to go. And I agree like like Richard said, I mean the this the stretch where it's oversized rightway pretty much almost all the way to the um to the camp, you're going to allow them to be closer to the road. And in the standpoint of the lakeside, uh these are narrow lots in a lot of that stretch. Not all of it. This is the widest part here that I've got right here. So that's a bad example, but for the most part, you're looking at a lot of narrow lots here. So I mean, you're probably going to issue variances on the front side, too. But even this, just for what it's worth, let's just take this one here. That width that's buildable is 75 feet now. Or sorry, that depth I should say. The width, well, they've got more than that. They probably got all of them. Probably got 70 feet of width, maybe 80 there. So, that's a good size lot. It's buildable. 75 ft. Should be able to make something happen there, you'd think. But, um, you can see that that's probably as wide as we get out there. So for me to shut up, how about this? Since I was giving you I thinks on these, how about for the sake of at least the lakes that adjoin other jurisdictions, why don't I get you at least the comparable setbacks that they have for those lakes, Campbell, Ponet, Henriks. From that standpoint, at least you will then have at least then you'll have three examples of surrounding counties that you're sharing. You may

not want to apply that to other lakes in the county. Heck, you may not even want to apply it to yours, but you can at least look at what that does comparably if you applied that all the way around the lake and did that and figure it out from there. That sound good? Okay, that'll be a far lesser amount of time of a report at that point than I can just tell you that. Anything else for me? Lake or non-lake related?

Good question. Um those thing uh those uh there's obviously a lot of talk about them right now. Your ordinance doesn't allow for them. You don't have a you don't have a data center ordinance. So they would be another thing that's not listed and therefore prohibited. It's probably prohibited because we didn't think about it. Um the uh it's much like the battery storage situation as well, which we probably need to look at something. Uh Grant County has adopted an ordinance to allow for them. Uh I'm not going to because I don't remember offhand if Dual County ever did. I almost think they did. I think they did, but I don't want to say it on record because I know that's a hot button one right now. I don't remember if they did. Um, but there are not a ton that had already because it was a pretty new thing. Generally speaking, the things that you're looking at from a zoning standpoint, while people will throw out a lot of points and things, uh, there's some noise, there's some utility requirements that they have that you're well aware of, uh, if you're following anything to do with the news. There's roads on the startup of them and maintenance. Truth be told, there's um that there's there are jobs, but not enough employees really to figure you're going to have enough daily traffic to affect roads a ton. Um battery storage facilities even less if you have that. But there is noise. Um, with the battery facilities, I can tell you that I've sat in enough meetings on those to tell you that those things are

actually tested by figuring out if they're going to start on fire. And they're actually their suppression system is tested before they walk out the door. So, the bottom line is that they're set up, they practice lighting them on fire and putting them out before they walk out the door. So bottom line is they're set up to save. It's my understanding that they're done that way with these as well and they're done as cells that way, but I again I'm speculating based on third party and it's also stuff I learned three years ago. Um that's some of the information out there as well as setbacks on it. Um but again, it's noise mostly. One question that's come up often is decommissioning on them. Um I would anticipate that you're probably going to have a similar similar uh rule that they've got to be taken down or some level of of dollars set aside to take them down if they're if they're not going to be, but it's private property um at that point. So, you have the ability to remove if need be. So, it's a thing to keep in mind though. But those are generally the things that people are looking at with those screening then as well, you know, trees, what have you. But yeah, it's a utility. It uses a lot of utilities.

Mhm.

Mhm. Yeah. But that's almost like our wind towers. We got wind towers in a lot of places where you don't have regular egg. Regular egg. It's just pastures. None. They don't. Some of them's got the crops, but most of them just just sitting on rocky rocky hilly ground that no one farms on our wind towers at least. Yeah. What kind of Got a question for you, Luke. And for you, Luke, andor the board. Um, got a customer out in the county. They have a variance or got a variance for their bin site. It's 50 ft from the rideway. Um, they want to put in a dump sump with a grain leg. Grain leg takes up about 12 by 12. The sump is flat on the ground. some and the grain leg is not a taxable structure. So there's no revenue coming for that. So technically there would be no building permit for that. Wouldn't that need a variance? That is an interesting question. I usually require a variance on them.

I usually do because uh that thing reminds me a lot of a patio or a deck. put a sump under it and then oftent times that becomes a place where we long term leave trucks or things like that and our whole goal there is to try and decrease snow. So the reality is I mean I I've run into the same thing and I'm sorry that this is apples and oranges but I I've done the same with scales when somebody puts a scale up. Yeah, technically doesn't require a permit but the next thing that I'm going to hear about is I want a scale house. Well, that does. And now, no. Go back to my dad put up a a pump on the water line which was 20 ft from the front property line. I told him, "Don't come in and ask for a spump house cuz you ain't getting a variance." But that was okay. In that case, I'll tell you, I actually had to ask this question in Kenan County. So what they wound up doing from a standpoint of permitting there, I just took it to the farmers and I said, "What do you think?" I mean, what part of it was what am I issuing a permit for as well? You know, and so what part is more like an air conditioner to a house, whereas the other part is a component that has to happen to have a dryer bin. And so going back to that, some of that stuff didn't require a permit, but they were all required to meet setbacks, which makes it really hard to do the zoning job to go track that stuff. But that's my opinion. That's what I would say because you could easily make the argument that other things such as bail piles and and things like that should be meeting setbacks as well. board. What are your thoughts on it?

I would agree because eventually, you know, you could cover it the building.

Okay. To me, that's the downside of building right up on the setback line. When you build your bin house, the same thing here.

I guess my my main question on that would be permanent structure versus temporary structure. If it's permanent, yeah, I'd say variance your grain leg and pit. It's not an augur that you're just going to drag away with the tractor. So, it's going to be there until, well, a datio happens and it's not. Yep.

He says, "Do is there anything restricting the height on that like the cell tower that's on a quarter eye farm had to be so that if it falls it doesn't hit the road. Is there anything with that? No. It' be there's no height no height restrictions on agricultural building silos or things that chimneys and that time they're ex exempted out. So that would fall underneath that

that uh setback on towers. I'm assuming that your ordinance is written like most of the ones I work in. Uh the setback on towers kicks in over 99 feet. So it's it'll hold that setback even if it's an egg tower. It'll hold that. Technically the ones that I've run into are the GPS tower that I've got a if I've got an extra one there. If as long as I keep it below 100 feet, it still meets whatever the setbacks are, they're fine. Then beyond that, that's when some of the telecommunication regulations kick in is above that. Bottom line, no. And then it's pretty clear in the ordinance too, egg structures, there is no height limitation.

I think that we're kind of done with our variance discussion and with what you had, right, Luke? Yeah. I I hope you didn't want me to turn it back open because I shut her down. Uh nope, that's I'll come back next time with uh the setbacks of the surrounding area lakes. Okay,

we can do that. Just had a couple things here on um the ordinance that we when we updated it, I didn't realize it kicked into one of the things was um when they're deeding off existing farmsteads or building sites from the quarter. Um, before they could be two, three acres, whatever the tree claim was and whatnot. Now they need to be five acres. Minimum size for building sites are five acres. And yes, if they're going to sell the existing building site off, it needs to be five acres or more. We ran into that in the joint jurisdictional area here. They came in with a plat 3 acres. I told them, "Nope, it had to be five acres." They weren't very happy with it, but I says, "It's in our ordinance. That's what it has to be." So, um, one thing that I didn't realize that when we added that five acres for the son or the daughter to build their house onto the existing farmsteads, that also went into the existing building sites for that minimum lot size. So, But then you're not going to come back and issue any variances though either. They have enough land area. So that's the other side of it. If they want to do future building in there, they have the area to do it.

I'll tell you pretty specifically where that comes from is uh five acres. Uh think of your setbacks on shelter belts for a minute. If I want to have a site in there, now granted, most of them are within existing sites, but if I'm going to put a put a house out there in the pasture on that side or something like that, or I'm platting off one, your setback's 150 ft from property line on a shelter belt, isn't it still?

If it's already there, then it is then it is what it is. Then it's up to you guys when you draw the line. But the truth is the five acres it does that's that's why it's in there is to help give the ch give a fighting chance to meet setbacks. Two acres gets pretty tough on a if you're going to have a 100 foot setback if you're doing a new building or something like that. I don't remember what are your internal ones. Are they 50 or 25? Your setbacks for structures on side and rear sides are 25 ft and the rear is 50. Yeah, right.

That's your setbacks for any buildings whether it's existing or not. But I mean, say for instance, I own a quarter of land. Yep.

Right. If it's already plotted, that's fine. Yep. It's just from Yep. Yeah, it can only be added to, not taken from. Yep. Only from when this ordinance was adopted forward is what that would pertain to. I'll I'll tell you that I'm going to speak for the idea that that it probably needs to be more. I am going to give you two reasons it's a headache and just for what it's worth. So, I want to give it equal play. One, for years you've done it where it's two, right? Honestly, it was whatever, wasn't it? Whatever it was. You didn't have a minimum, but yeah, two to three. I would say I would cover 75% of them.

The other headache is that if you had been doing that for a long time and I've got three acres and I want to add a little bit that doesn't take it over five, you can't approve the plot because it's not big enough. So, it does make that a headache, too. Are you gonna run into that often? No. And could you handle it? Probably as a oopsie or something like that or a one-off? Probably. But it does make you it does make you squirm when you do it. I'll tell you that. We've I've run into that. That's that's similar to a couple of counties I work in. And that's those are the headaches that you get with it is because you used to have it this way and now it's a little bit more. But acres that if they split it off before the 10year time period. period. Yes.

After 10 years, after it's 10 years, then it's fine. But if it's deed off prior to that and something happens to it, it would come before this board and you could deny it according to the ordinance. 10 years that's been here since 1991. Ordinance was here when I started. The building had to be there 10 years before you could split it off.

It was blessing a building site. It was a look back. It was a look back, 10-year look back when they built the ordinance into it. I'm sure of it. That was ultimately what wound up happening on um in Kening counties when they did theirs as well. They didn't do a 10-year look back. They they actually um they started with, "Nope, we're done." And then some people came in and said, "Well, now hold on. Um I want the kid to come back. How's that going to work?" They go, "You know what? five acres uh you were using it as a farming and it was a established building site were good. The thing that they didn't do in Cottington County was they didn't allow that one where someone came back and started farming after 1976 when that rule came into play like you guys did. So you guys said okay you got your building site on your 35 acres. Okay, you can sell that part off. Whether it's dad to kid, kid from dad, or it's just equal protection. I'm ready to walk away. So, that's where I'm sure that came from. I'm putting words into the mouth, but that's how it was done around the other ones. That's why they did it. So, I'm sure that's why it came in there. And it's all done in a effort to try to minimize those instances like was just being brought up where you're going to have people going out taking good egg land out for houses.

No. No. A lot of them don't have that that look back on 10 years.

No, it's the other way. You'd have well you'd have 35 acres as your minimum lot area. And if you went ahead and sold it, hope you don't get a fire and your insurance is no more. Your house now depreciates except for in taxes hopefully.

The ones that do it that way. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone has a 35 acre rule. There are places for there are other places that have other versions too. There are some that have uh they'll go with a density rule, not a not a Well, Kynan County has a density and minimum lot area.

They've got density rule. Minimum lot area is less, but a density rule. And so effectively it's about the same difference is and if you don't have a transfer development right built into your ordinance it really is the same. Hamlin does a transfer development right. So you could take if you own the quarter you could put all four houses in one corner which has very mixed reviews out there. And the truth is, I'll tell you, for example, they're they're talking about, their board is talking about saying, you know, it's kind of silly that we're allowing someone a building right on a quarter that's underwater or a 40 that's underwater or these internal 40s. That doesn't make any sense. And so that's that's a discussion that they were slated to have, but they're going to kick to the curb for a little while here while they just um work on a new zoning officer. Yours truly here for a while. So we're going to tread water. All right. Just comment one more thing here coming up. Um March meeting first Tuesday is also township meeting night. How many board members will be at the township meeting versus being here at the meet at the so two. So we do have enough with our alternates. We should be have a pretty close to a full board then unless you want to change the meeting night for that. But why don't we B3. Okay.

Not a good idea. Yeah, we can. We'd have to check the availability of this room for that day. But yeah, we could

I'm open any night as long as Ray Lynn calls me that morning and tells me I got to be here. we can check it out and let you know what the February meeting with that would be. So, um, February coming up, we are going to have a joint meeting with the city on here. Just a discussion on this. When we did the joint ordinance, our publication date for public notices and such was 14 days. We have now, when we updated our county zoning ordinance, we went back to state law, so it's 10 days. So, we need to get our joint jurisdiction ordinance in line with the county ordinance and in line with the state. So, we're going just going to have a discussion on that and probably if we're not going to meet in probably go to the April meeting then have the joint meeting on the change of that unless the city has some other things also that they want to add into that but otherwise um or other changes at that time when we do the update to the joint jurisdiction. So, Otherwise, that's all that I have. Bob.

Yes. Today, the county commission approved your board pay again, same as you had for 2025. Commissioner Vanderwal's the leazison for the planning, zoning, and drainage side of the house. and Commissioner Host Hustler is our emergency management layers on for the so county development who we fall under. We've got two different layers and um we also got notified that Excel Energy is looking at possibly putting a 745 kilovolt power line from Bigstone down to Brookings County. And um if you want to know what a 745 kilovolt uh pot tower is, it's bigger than the ones you got over there now by Elton. So they're

Yep. It's those those are big ones. The recctor set towers.

But they uh it's you know it's going to take years. We're just now in the beginning. I think next week's the the first meeting of it. I'm going to try to attend the meeting and um you know we'll we'll keep a a breast of it. You just have to realize most of those kind of power lines are permitted by the public utilities commission. We won't have a lot of say in the matter where we will have a say in the matter is like substations the the electrical the physical substations if they have them in Brookings County. We can get them for lay down yards if they're constru constructing in the county. But as far as saying yes or no to a to a power line like that, it's public utilities commission level.

No, public public utilities commission permits the lines.

That's that's beyond my our pay grade. County Commission obviously would be notified and if we if the public utilities commission does meet the county commission will sign on as a interested party. You know, we'll be involved in everything because we do want to protect our citizens as much as we possibly can. But um it's almost like them pipeline deals. Public Utilities Commission's got the power and they but they listen to the counties. I can tell you like on the wind towers and stuff where the very first wind towers that came in didn't have road agreements with the townships, but we started putting them in and PUC followed our guidance. So, we can we can protect our county citizens as much as we possibly can. But as far as saying yes or no to the actual big power lines, that will be up up to the public utilities commission.

Is there a solar farm or something else going up there? A what? Is there some sort of solar or something going with it too or something? Well, there's talk of ground though. It's actually pretty much sold already for the deal. But

there we we got the battery storage that we already permitted up there next to the XL power station or substation. There's been talk of of solar coming in anywhere from over where the where the wind towers are all the way I've also heard over here on Old 77 north of town. So, we've seen nothing come in on that one. That one will have to come through our office to be permanent and through you guys. So, there's no sneaking that kind of stuff in and commissioner. That's all I have. Happy New Year. Anything else for department reports?

Bob, back to that uh deal on the 14th. That is open to the public, isn't it? By all means, because I believe the invite I said got just said Brookings County Commissioner or current resident. I went online. Richard Richard Richard got a phone call on it today and I went online and looked and I put my name on to get all the mailing. I put my name on a list to get all the mailings for it and I'm going to drop in whether they want me there or not. Good. January 14th at the Brookings in I believe from 4 to 6:00 p.m. Correct. If any of these uh zoning members want to attend, they're more than welcome to. Correct. By all means. It's open to the public.

I can't pay I'm not paying you a meeting fee, but you're welcome to attend. And that's all I have. Chairman, that's it to conclude. That should that should it should be it. That being said, then is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion by clerk. Second and second by Troy. All in favor? I