Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the September 18, 2025 Reno County Planning Commission meeting to order. Staff, will you please call the role? Nisley here. Strand here. Schaefer here. Selzer here. Mlin here. Martin here. Gerson here. Hey, we've got a full crew tonight. Welcome to everyone. uh in your packets. I hope you had a chance to review the mean the minutes from August 21. Chair will entertain a motion on those minutes. I move for approval as they were submitted. Second. Been moved and second. Any any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, all in favor of approving the August 21, 2025 minutes say I. Oppose. Same sign. Minutes approved. Well, this evening we have uh no cases in front of us. However, we have uh we're going to start on some text amendments. Staff, will you help us out and kind of lead us down the path? You shared shared some of the potential changes and we just like to know like to hear a little bit about what what you have going, what what's happening.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh so last month uh we had a discussion about future text amendments and the board directed staff really to bring forth uh some further text amendments on cell towers um accessory dwelling units manufactured homes and then in doing that uh I noticed that there was uh an issue with shipping shipping containers. And so since we were amending some of those articles of the regulations anyway, I went ahead and threw that in as well uh to add a fourth one, shipping containers. That was something that I had noticed a long time ago. There was a discrepancy in the regulations. One part of the regulations prohibits them. Another part of the regulations um allows them. And so we need to get that clarified here. And so, um, I thought what we would start out tonight, we just start out with page one. Everything is all kind of mixed up. All all three or four of these topics are all geed into all the different articles. So, I thought we can just start out with each article and then talk about what is highlighted in each one of those articles on those four topics. I hope that won't be too confusing, but I thought maybe that would be the best way to do it versus flipping back and forth and talking only about cell towers and only about accessory dwelling is we can just kind of take it one at a time. Uh because a lot of the articles here are just talking about where it's going to be permitted or or how it's going to be permitted. So So with that, I just get started here on on the first page is adding uh definitions. And so the first uh definition that I wanted to add was under number 73 is talking about a

dwelling unit. So I added the definition of dwelling unit, accessory. So I provided that here because we need to define what that term is. And we just said it's going to be a subordinate in size and independent single family dwelling located on the same zoning lot as the principal single family dwelling for use as a permanent and independent living facility. So what this is all saying in a nutshell is it's a second single family dwelling on somebody's property. That's maybe in simple terms what we're looking at potentially allowing. But it has to be smaller than the main residence. That's the only requirement.

Oh, for discussion. But yes, that's that's my my W. The board didn't really give me a direction on what an accessory dwelling is. I think we can get into that discussion a little bit deeper later, but yeah. So, that's my definition of what an accessory dwelling unit is. I don't know if that's the board's definition of what that is. And so we can certainly uh talk about that later on when we get into the specifics. But that's the definition that I have provided you. If the discussion goes a different way, then we'll have to maybe go back and modify that definition to match whatever direction you give me on this. What does permanent imply?

Permanent implies it is not to be removed from the site. So it would not be a like a manufactured home for example. It would be something that's permanently affixed to the ground by like a slab of concrete for example. on the next page on on the flip side. Um I in our discussions with with cell towers I felt that it was important to maybe add the definitions of what a monopole is, what a lattice tower is, what a guide tower is, and then certainly what a a cell on wheels or what I call a cow. You might have seen that uh last time when we discussed our our last uh cell tower case, a cell on wheels. Um I did up on the top under number 18 I want to take out uh the phrase or similar structure 50 ft or more in height. And so I I eliminated that cuz I don't think it makes any difference if the communication tower is greater than 50 ft because it could be somebody's ham radio tower for example. It could be, you know, any other type of communication tower that you want to have on your personal personal property that you that's used for um, you know, broadcasting, microwave, transmission, or receiving tower. So, I didn't think 50 foot should really be, you know, in there.

So, we need to regulate like if somebody wants to put up a a tower for communications on their farm or something, we need to regulate that. Well, it'd be under Yeah. Depends on what the Well, we eliminate any size. Yeah. You know, it'd be under if it's still a tower, you know, it'd have to meet as you saw in the regulation to meet those setback requirements. And yeah, I mean, if it's for a use, it could almost be considered, but I think we'd want to still regulate, you know, that where that's going to make sure it's not on the property line, for example. So,

so you're looking at not just commercial towers, you're looking to regulate even private private use towers. Yeah. And I don't know if there's going to be a lot of those or or not. There's maybe a few, but hey, do we know how many ham radio licenses are in Reno County? Yeah, we don't have that. But, um, it'd be for any any type of tall tall structure. I've had people talk to me in the past, albeit far a few between, not there's not a lot. So, I don't know how much that would affect, you know, a private private use type tower. That's why I wonder if we want to just eliminate the height limitation on that, you know. I don't know.

Yeah. Do we care about like a an FM two-way radio that's 25 30 ft 25 ft tall, you know, or a ham radio in their backyard? uh line of sight, internet. I've seen I've seen some poles out and out in the country, get over the trees. Yeah. They have to get the signal to the little disc on top of the elevator in town. Yeah. Yeah. Something to think about.

Think about. Okay. So then you want to like leave that in and say those are not regulated or just think about that for a little longer. Well, I guess are we if we if we if we take out that height restriction, what's that going to do for you as far as case load? because all of a sudden to Steve's point, we're going to be opening the door to and even Allan mentioned, we want to really regulate every tire that goes up, you know, on every farmstead or every every every home site. How do we want to

I know I know the statutes that you have there kind of kind of limits us to what we what we do, but we're also putting something in our regulations. What I don't want I don't want to have any ill effect on your load. Yeah. Well, but I think as you will see or maybe you hadn't noticed, I mean, I'm looking at permitting them by right. So, it's not going to be like a private property owner is going to have to come through a conditional use permit process. It's just a zoning permit. Okay. Zoning permit, you know, one to one ratio from the property line and you got your permit in the matter of a day or two.

Yep. Well, let's go through the regulations right quick and let's leave that in for a second. That might that might explain a little bit more what we have going on.

So then under article two, which is the agricultural zoning district, I'm looking at eliminating the the placement of a single wide or double wide manufacturing home and all the language that you see in there and just simply calling it a manufactured home regardless if it's uh a single wide or a double wide. In the agricultural district, we currently permit a manufacturer home by right, meaning just come in and get a permit. If you want to put a manufacturer home on your your farm ground, you can certainly do that. And so I don't see the need to to distinguish between single wide, double wide uh for land used for agricultural purposes. So I just wanted to kind of simplify that and say just a manufactured home. I do want to say that that that is intended to be used as a principal residence regardless if it's a principal residence. Um I mean where are you what are you referring to?

I'm saying because we the the part where it describes a principal dwelling is removed. Mhm. I didn't know you wanted to qualify that to say manufactured homes used as a used as a you know principal dwelling as a you know family dwelling or principal red. I mean whether it's a principal dwelling or be permitted as a potential accessory dwelling unit or it would be permitted as like say a guest house or temporary living quarters. I don't know if

of course the way you've got this worded, you know, somebody can move a mobile home out into their ground and plump, you know, it's it's just there and they can use it for whatever they want to use it for. Use it for a dwelling. They can't use it for like a storage unit anymore. Yeah. But where does it say it has to be used as a dwelling? Well, it's in the definition what a manufactured home is. Okay. And so why are you thinking that they would Well, no. I mean, put a manufacturer. I didn't I haven't seen the definition. Yeah. I mean, I I didn't include the definition of manufactured home.

Um Well, are you thinking that they could put a manufactured home and use it as a storage unit or storage or office or something like that? Now, it could be an office if it's for egg. A egg. Perfectly. We ran into that with my neighbor down the road. Yes. Yeah. But as a story as a as a storage unit. No. It said you can't use use a manufactured home as a storage unit because that's not what the intent of of that is. So you're just taking a lot of the words out of it then. Yeah. I'm just simplifying saying it's manufactured home instead of regardless if it's a single Y or double Y.

Yeah. I understand. Eliminating that verbage. Yeah. Okay. And then um on the back side I'm proposing to the board that telecommunication towers cell towers another word would just be permitted by right would be a zoning permit from me. It would not be a conditional use permit where it would be a public hearing. Um, you'll see later on in the regulations what the criteria would be in order for me to issue a permit, but right now it would just be a land use that we would add in the agricultural district. And as you see in the other districts, it'd be something we would add permitted by right, which means it's just a zoning permit. So you you review all the setbacks, all the drawings, all that. You you rubber stamp it and it's done.

And the reason I can go over with you, you know, is the statutes change. A lot of what you'll see and I we'll discuss again later uh in article 15, we can't discuss anymore. And so you know I went through I provided you uh electronically the statute and it's in your in your desk right now the paper copy version but you know the first part of the statute talks about towers that are permitted in the road right ofway on page three at the bottom letter F it'll start talking about towers that are on private property. And you can see there's a whole list of things that we can't do. And you know, I summarized it. I don't know if you've read it all. I can I can certainly summarize some of the things here if you'd like.

Which reading this is what summarize it

which reading this it led me to the conclusion to permit rights. So I come up with essentially about 13 things that now we cannot review with with cell towers. Uh such things as is there a need for for the tower? Um the type or quality of service that you would uh receive from that tower going in that place. Um is there a specific need that they're trying to uh solve? um you can't request them to uh provide like the coverage maps. They'll have coverage maps of the areas that they are are serving. So you can't, you know, review that. Um you can't review if there are other possible locations that this tower could go. Um you can't review if this tower or is there another tower that can provide collocation opportunities. Um, you can't review the type of equipment or the type of technology required. So, versus like you can't require that it be a monopole or you can't require it that be only a guide tower. You know, it's like if they want to put up a certain type of tower, they're allowed to put up whatever tower that they so choose. U, you can't require the removal of an existing tower. So it's like, okay, we'll grant you approval for this tower if in fact you provide collocation opportunities and then you tear down a tower that's a mile away that's no longer needed. So you can't require that. U you can require if it's going to be abandoned. So if a tower is abandoned, that can be something that you can require. Um you can't put in restrictions near like civilian airports. Um let's see. um anything that would be like greater than what the FAA

requirement. So in other words, you you can't say that you have to have a a greater setback or greater lights than what the FAA requirement would be for that proximity to a a civilian airport. Um you can't require any kind of data indicating what the signal strength is or the service quality. Now, you got to remember a lot of these are for towers that are like located in the city and they'd be way beyond our our review process. Um, you know, some of the stuff that we're talking about signal strength. You know, we don't really get into that in the county. Um, shity requirements. You can't require a shity bond to to require the removal of of a tower unless we do that for other types of commercial land uses. And so if we had a big commercial development going on somewhere and we permitted that and then we required a shity bond said okay if this commercial land use is going to be removed and cease operation and you have to tear that building down because we don't want that out there. So we don't do that right now and so therefore we would not be able to require a shy bond to tear down a tower. Um, you can't discriminate based on the property ownership. Uh, you can't restrict public safety towers. So, like for police or fire, we can't restrict that. And you can't place unreasonable appearance uh requirements on a tower. So, you can't require, you know, extra landscaping requirements, you know, or you can't require the towers. Sometimes you'll see way back in the 90s used to be really popular where you would try and disguise the tower be like the shape of a of a Christmas tree or a large redwood tree for example. You know you can't put those kind of restrictions on anymore.

So you know that's a lot. So after reading this um I come up with potentially about five things that we can regulate with towers. setbacks, lighting that's not required by the FAA. So like, you know, we could maybe say that, you know, they can't put other types of spotlights on on his tower other than what the FAA requires right now. Maybe a driveway location, you know, if we don't like a driveway location, maybe we can require them to move the driveway location somewhere else to where it it's for safety factors. um fencing, you know, we can require some type of fencing. Um and then maybe a little bit with the actual location on a property. And I I say that if it's like the tower is located next to a identified wetland or maybe it's located next to a flood plane, which typically they don't want to put a tower in a flood plane anyway, but you never say never. So, so really those five things, you know, setback, lighting, fencing, driveway location. So, really when when you look at the statute, what you can't do and I come up with what you can do, do we need to go through a public hearing process for towers? I mean, you heard it here. Was it earlier this year or late last year when a lot of people were concerned about electromagnetic fields? You can't talk about electromagnetic fields and how much EMF they call it.

Yeah. Is coming off of a tower. Uh talking about the location of the tower. U the fact that hey there's another tower two two miles away. all the way from the list of things that we can't do regulate basically down to a minimum of a few things that we can that we can handle those by stat you know just regulation say this is what it has to be and we just handle it through permit process no sense going through a conditional use permit type thing you know what's there to hear if you're complying with those four or five things that we're regulating

which we would put in our zoning regulations. You give me a survey, show me your 1:1 ratio. You give me, you know, the fencing, driveway location. We review that internally and we we issue the permit because, you know, it's hard to listen to the public and they have concerns and they could be legitimate concerns, you know, but they're not concerned. We can do anything about it. we can't do anything about. I mean, it's hard telling telling citizens. Well, I mean, yeah, state statute right here says that we can't review that. Our regulations say it. So, you know, in our regulations, you'll see collocation of uh 48 different carriers.

You know, I've we have to ignore that because this trumps it. This this says no, you can't. So, a public hearing in a tire setting is mute point. All we're doing is all we're doing is listening listening to Yeah. So, Well, people are going to get public. I don't I don't like that, but I understand it. I don't like it either. I I mean, I I like the thought of being able to notify folks that that a tire is going up, but I also understand that our our hands are tied and there's no sense really discussing what we I mean, well, I mean, even if the the items that you mentioned, even if you notify them, there what's what's the recourse? Yeah, there's nothing.

So, there nothing. So, I mean, what's I mean, they're not going to like it whether you notify them or not, but there on the other hand, there's nothing we or the county, I would do about it because it's a state state issue. Yeah.

And we'll get into the specifics, you know, later, but I mean, now you have the paper copy and I apologize for not getting into your packet. I just slipped my mind. But, you know, the page three, you know, the first half, like I say, talks about road rightway. We don't regulate road rightway. Uh there's certain things that, you know, Don and his his staff would have to look at. You know, would somebody want to put a tower in the road right away? Uh ours really starts on that third page at the bottom. Start flipping over. You start reading it. Oh, okay. Well, we used to say, hey, collocation. We used to say, you know, where's the nearest tower? You know, we want the towers to be separated three miles away. Now, it's like, uh, in my opinion, we can't we can't do that. So

I don't see any point in making that go through. So that was my thinking on that. You can think about you know if you want later and come back with other questions here. I would say that you know look at the things we can regulate come to us with recommendations on what those should be and then we'll go from there what I think.

The next one on the one page is didn't have much right. There's no changes on that. Everything what the changes are are highlighted in yellow. And so um under R1 again, residential district one uh cell towers permitted by right manufactured homes permitted if they can prove A, B, or C existed on the property at the time. And so this was this kind of came up last month or so when we had the discussion on on a manufactured home a little bit and can they replace a manufactured home that was previously on the property. I put forth that it's not specific in the regulations although we have tried to accommodate those types of situations without going through the conditional use permit. This will formally put it in place that if you're in the R1 zoning district and you have a manufactured home on the site, you can pull it off, put another one on with a permit. Still has to have a permit. Um, or if you tore one down within like the last year and you can prove to me when you removed it, then you can put another one back on the property with a permit. And then the last scenario was if previously 1980s, 1990s, whatever 2000s, uh, we did a special use permit or a conditional use permit and they had that documentation or I can find it my records, then we can permit a manufactured home to be put back on that property. Any other case in the R1 district, if it's vacant ground and you want to do a manufactured home, it's conditional. on your C exception. There's no time limit on that.

So, if there was ever an approval by the county commission for a special use permit or conditional use permit, then at any point in the future, if there no home on there, they could put one on. Yeah. If they had documentation or if I could find that documentation, the conditional use permit goes, you know, with the land unless unless there's conditions. So for example, you know, like in 1975, somebody did a conditional use permit, something like that. If there was a condition on there that said, you know, this conditional use permit will expire in 10 years, then Yeah. No, but generally we don't on it. Yeah.

So are so conditional use permits just in general are considered perpetual. Yeah. They go with the land. Yeah. Unless this board and the commissioners say this conditional use permit shall end in 10 years or something which so C is really just aligning the mobile manufactured home conditional use with how we treat other conditional use. Right. Page 3-3, no changes of course. Um, page 4-1. Again, you you'll see a theme here for a while here. Yep.

Sell towers permitted by right in R2, manufactured homes with those three criteria. Now, as you get into the R2, R3, even the village district, you know, with cell towers, they still have to meet that 1:1 ratio. So, chances of having a cell tower and an R2 district at smaller because smaller because falling. Yeah. because of the one ratio. So, uh, page 5-1, R3, same deal.

Same deal with cell towers manufacturing homes. And then R six or excuse me, our page 6-1 under the village district, same thing. Probably won't happen, but we don't know. I mean, it doesn't have to be a a 250ft tall tower. It could be a 30 foot tall tower, for example. 10 foot tall tower because we don't have a height limit on it anymore, right? Could be that. Yeah. You know, it could be something just for a a specific area. Think think Madora or Yod, you know, somewhere like that. Well, that's where you're getting into like your internet towers, you know, reception type things,

right? Are are we is it being written in a way that we're going to regulate like a TV antenna? No. No, it's not like you put on a house or Yeah, some of those are on tall. But some of those are all Yeah. I've got I've got my TV antenna up on about a 20ft pole on my light pole, but it's on Yeah, I was going to say mine was 35 ft when I moved in. I took it down cuz I say no, but maybe maybe leave the maybe change put the height restriction back in then. Maybe maybe that's what the purpose was. What about

some of that is under accessory uses? I I thought though, TV antennas and stuff. I'd have to go back and double check. If we remove Go ahead, Keith. What about these guys that put uh like a internet antenna on top of a silo or something like that where they're on up there pretty good or line of sight internet type thing? Yeah. The antenna itself is only 10 15 ft tall but it's on top of a 60ft silo. So is the whole silo now considered a tower? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I'm just asking.

Yeah, it's a good question. [Music] I'll probably have to do some more thinking on that a little bit. I I wouldn't think I mean, it's an existing structure, so I would initial thoughts say no. I don't know if there's a need to regulate something like that. It's like regulating antenna. I mean, if it's just antennas, then I would say no. It'd be like putting antennas on a water tower, like our water tower. We don't regulate that. if it's an actual tower. Yeah. And I I can't give you a definition of what it is. I just know there's some around. Well, the primary use of the structure is something other than holding up holding up the antenna, right?

Like a silo. Yeah. Yeah. You look at these green elevator house, they are just loaded. Probably no, but I think it probably warrants maybe trying to clarify that language. Well, it needs to be it's an independent tower. So, that excludes it from being I mean, you go back to your article one definition

where we're talking about the different types of towers. Now those are I don't see anywhere saying that that the regulation is limiting the discussion at the towers to these four types that you've outlined you know u but you know that's like a bottom pole that's a single vertical pole okay what what Keith's talking about it would be a single vertical pole on top of a grain elevator so technically that would fall under this if there's no height regulation that All you needed to say is unless fast unless mounted to a existing building or something to that effect. Yeah. I mean

I don't know how you word that to where it would you know. Yeah, I know what you say. Yeah. I mean you get you get some places I know out in the country they they have internet service. They'll put up towers for line of sight, you know, connections. Um, you know, I had one of them. I didn't have a tower. It was roof mounted for a while before we finally got the fiber out there. We're talking about towers independent from any other structure. We make that.

So, we ought to we ought to write that in there. Towers independent of any other any other structure. something that that you the way you said it was probably the way I was thinking. No, it needs to be clarified because yeah, that brings up that question. So, we either add the word independent or structure a great big block of concrete set into the ground. Yeah. The anchor that you know 100 foot tower at that point if they tie it to their five foot tall wellhouse, we don't care. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So, oh, all right. I'll I'll do that. I'll we'll figure it out. I'll figure it out. Yeah, I'll try to figure it out.

That's next time. You know, talking about that and then looking at that height restriction, you know, trying to eliminate that minimum height thing. I don't know if that's Yeah, I think that would solve some of these issues that we kept a minimum. you know, just so I mean, you know, my intent wasn't to regulate those, you know, those those types of towers, you know, the roof and I think unintentionally it sounds like you are. Yeah. I I think, you know, un again consequences by putting something in place like we did with the, you know, a lot split, you know. So, yeah. So that's why we have you guys as a board to help me because

I have you because I have my way of thinking on it and it's like yeah my intent was like oh yeah we're not regulating the antenna on your roof or if you're going to put you know antennas on a drain silo or so but yet the way the rag is proposed it makes it seem like potentially we are okay we'll try and clarify that language for you. Okay. Um, under 9-1, the performance standards here, this it's been in the rags, you know, since its inception here, but I don't see where it makes a lot of of of difference when we're talking about residentially designed, manufactured home, residential design, manufactured home. You know, there is a definition in in our regulations. Um, I just going to look. Um, a residential design home is it's on a permanent foundation, minimum dimensions of 22 ft in width, a pitched roof, and sighting and roofing materials, which are customarily used on sightuilt homes. And so it it's it's kind of what I call like almost like a modular.

So that would apply to the manufactured home.

Yeah. So I didn't see the need to have all of this, you know, in here. If if it's if it's a residential design home, you have to allow those. And so they're treated like a stick built house. And so those would be permitted by rights. So I don't see where we need to have all of these design stand, which are like building codes. Yeah, we need to reference that those other standards, you know, include or extend to manufactured homes [Applause] for clarity or whatever. I mean, I can if you think for clarity purposes, I I just treated manufactur because I I treat modulars, residential design manufactured homes that it's just like a still sick built house. It's all permitted by right. It all falls under that big umbrella of single family dwelling. The only thing the only differentiation is the manufactured home. That's that's a different category. So, um I thought about it a little bit, but I didn't I didn't I did not put it in there for clarity purposes. You think maybe

now if this is taken out, there's some really interesting kind of house ideas floating around the internet. If if all this is taken out, does that open a door for somebody to build something that may not be compatible with the neighborhood, like a tiny house or, you know, like you seen the ones that look like grain silos, grain bins or which which I mean I'm not necessarily opposed to, but if if we're expecting a certain standard,

well, all those types of of houses, you know, the shipping container house, the the grain silo house, the the tiny home. When we don't have a minimum standard size that constitutes a house, nor do we do we specifically prohibit that type of house going in on a property. So, so then maybe we don't need these cuz right that that was kind of the until we put some standards in place so they know you're not allowed to do a shipping container house without like a dome home or dome home. I've got one that's uh like an octagon shape. It's like a geodetic

geodetic house and you know I don't have a definition that says that you can't do that. So, it's it's permitted. Not to say that we shouldn't or should, but bottom line is we don't have that right now. By and large, we're just looking at land use and not aesthetics anyhow, right? Yeah. That's why we don't have building codes and stuff.

Yeah. See, a lot of that a lot of those types of homes, you know, maybe like your shipping container and and other type of um unusual and unique homes, a lot of them probably can't meet building codes or it's difficult to get it to meet building codes. So that's why it's kind of not permitted in the in the cities. You don't see those in the city because they can't be code, but in the county without codes, whatever you want, you do whatever you want as far as your house goes.

So that's why I was saying all that really needs to come out. I read through all that and talking about, you know, ranch style homes that predominate, you know, under letter B there. um placement of the house, you know, you should have it to where that the the greatest length of the house faces the street. That's Well, just curiosity in the recent history, have we ever had any issues with manufactured home relating to this section of the rail? Never. Never. So, so it's not really

So, it's not really Yeah, it's not an issue. And pulling this out, there's still verbiage where a new manufactured home has to be built after 1994. Correct. Still at Okay. Yes. Yep. That's still in play. And that would be that would really be the only standard that we would have has to be built. But but that really keeps a lot of the old sardine cans that people think of when you think of a quote unquote trailer. Yes. Yep. because anything older than 94 is a mobile home and those aren't allowed in the zoned area. Um zoned area allow anything built after 94. So but um

in 94

that's when HUD changed the standards on how manufactured homes were built. So yeah so that's why 90 that's why 94. Yeah. But like, you know, it references building codes and standards in here. Well, we don't do that. Um, you know, talks about stairs, porches, and entrances. I mean, a lot of what's in here, I think, was kind of tipping toward the building code requirement. And, you know, we don't we don't have that. We don't say that you have to have stairs or porches. I mean, you assume you would, but, I mean, we don't have that as a code requirement. our regulations on manufactured homes. Do we require like anchoring and skirting and stuff like that?

No, not right now. We don't. Okay. They just pull it on there and set it on a lot on wheels and hope it doesn't blow away. Right. Right. Unless it's in a flood plan and then Yeah. then we get into that that requirement there. But that's a flood regulation. So that's not a a zoning regulation. you bring up a good point because I think that's what Ken before he left the board he was concerned about. Yeah.

Yeah. It's not saying that we can't have some some standards. I mean, if you if you want, you know, I could try and come up with some minimal standards here for change number, you know, well, change that to, you know, manufactured homes or or so, but I I don't know what those would be. I mean, the the thing it is, if we put anything there, we're going to have to have somebody to inspect it. That's what I was going to say. Who's going to be the skirt enforcer of Reno County? There you go. You're looking at their job. You're looking at him. So, that's the balance that you try and and and do.

And are we really wanting to regulate proper? We're just we're just worried about whether the land use is proper for it, not the placement and secure security of it, right? I mean, it'd be like you got to lock your door because there might be somebody coming in that you don't want. I mean, that we don't need to be regulating all that in my mind.

I say this is first reading. Think about it and think we do. and and I I wrote this, you know, I had a twoe window or whatever I wrote this and so I need to go back and look at again like you know we talked about with towers if we're missing anything on that but I guess I'd comment I think you've done a superb job getting to the next up I think so I I appreciate Yeah it it it um I assume Don had a hand in it

Yep. Yes. Yes, he has. So, we've we looked at this. We did one reading on it. Usually, we do one or two readings on it. We just were able to get together for one reading here and well, as a as a first draft to this board, we felt like maybe it's it's appropriate right now to introduce it rather than waiting like another month, you know, because sooner I get it out to you, sooner I can get feedback and we can um move on with that. So a lot of that though you know talking about the the siding should be consistent predominant consists predominantly of vinyl or metal. I mean we don't we don't get into that. Um the manufacturing home should have a a roof pitch of 2.2 2 in for each 12 in and that's building code.

Well, I think you what you restricting is just fine.

I mean, so then we get into if we if we do eliminate all that and you questions, but I don't want to gloss over if everybody's got questions, so just stop me or so. So then we get into the specific regulations for towers in the agricultural district. And if you the way it's laid out, you've got performance standards for the agricultural district and then you got performance standards for the residential district. And so you'll see essentially the same thing. It's just copied over. So, it looks like a lot, but it's just a lot of copy and pasting uh in the in the A district as well as the residential uh setback is going to be for a tower uh a one one setback including the lighting rod. You know, that's always a question I always had was, you know, our current regulations say it has to be one to one, but it doesn't say whether that includes the lighting rod or not,

you know, and so here I clarified that it does. Uh, and then those distances um shall be verified by a surveyor. So, they'll have to submit, you know, a survey showing me where that tower is going on the property and the distances it is from the property lines. So you know usually we don't require people to provide surveys but this will be one instance where we will require a survey to verify those setback distances versus coming in and pointing on the map that's going to go right here need to be surveyed. Um any anchor points for like say a guide tower uh shall comply with the setback distance of that zoning district as you know.

Can you explain that to me? What are you trying to say there? Think think mainly um a guide tower. You know, a guide tower will have anchor like three anchor points. Three anchor points. Yeah. So, what are you what are you saying? So, it's going to be to be at least it has to be at least 20 foot off the road right away and 10 foot off of the property line. Okay. Minimum setback distance for So, they're treated like a building. I understand what you're talking about. Okay. All right. Okay. Do they do they have to be within that in that uh fall distance? The anchor the anchor points. No, they just have to meet that setback from the property line.

The center of the tower will have to have the 1:1 ratio, right? But the anchor points if it works out, they could have it 10 foot from the property line. Unless we wanted that could ever happen. If you if you got a 100% fall height, the the anchor points aren't going to be 100 feet out. If you got 100 foot tower, they're not going to be 100 feet out from the tower. That I don't know. So, I'm not the tower expert guy. I wouldn't think so either, but who am I to say? So, I just I I had to have something in there to say, well, yeah, there is a setback for the anchor point. So, they aren't outside their footprint. Right. Right. Okay. And they're not on the on the property. So yeah, it's treated just like a building.

Um, exterior lighting shall not exceed the FAA uh minimum requirement. Any other lighting would be prohibited. So you can't have other spotlights, you know, not that they would, but you just never know. Can't have other spotlights, you know, on there cuz cuz this isn't just for telecommunication towers. This could be somebody else's tower for whatever reason. So you you just don't you can't assume it's going to be for the cell tower company.

I think I've seen where you have towers whether telecommunications or some type and there's small building at the base of it house equipment or something and they may have uh just one exterior security light or something by the door. That'd be fine. That's not where that's Yeah. I mean under strict interpretation is that Well, that's on the building, right? That's on the building. on the building. Yeah, be on the building. Not on the tower. Okay.

Yeah. Not on the tower. Yeah. Um 6T security fence um included around the lease area or the base of the tower cuz some tower companies and that's what when I'm ref referring I'm referring mainly to cell tower companies. Some cell tower companies won't put a fence around their 50 by 50 or 100 by 100 lease area. they'll just put it mainly around the base of the tower. So it might be at a 20 20 foot around the tower. So versus requiring them to go all the way out and fence their entire lease area. We say it can be either or around the the tower itself or around the lease area. Um you can use barb wire. I thought I should clarify that some some communities don't allow barb wire but I thought we clarify that. And then the cell on wheels. Sell on wheels are usually on trailers or trucks. I thought I should clarify that says we're not going to require fencing for that type of of cell tower.

Those are generally temporary. Use anyway.

Yep. Um, and then they need to submit the lease agreement with the property owner saying that the tower will be removed and how the ground will be restored to the satisfaction of the property owner when it's no longer abandoned. Um, and I just threw in there that they don't have to give me the entire lease. you know, we're not interested in how much they're getting paid per month by the the cell tower company or any other type of, you know, personal information. All we want to know is that, you know, the tower will be removed and and that the ground will be restored to whatever satisfaction the owner wants. Um, letter F talks about existing towers. You know, I get this question a lot from companies um you know, if they need um to change out antenna. They always ask me if they need a permit to change out antenna. And they always tell me that they're not increasing the the height of the tower or anything uh affecting the actual tower itself, just mainly changing out antennas. So what letter F is trying to communicate to people is that anything that's existing now if you increase the height of it for whatever reason now you have to comply with the 1:1 setback ratio. Okay? Uh because you're increasing the height of it. It's treated like a brand new tower. However, if you're going to decrease it, then you don't have to comply with that one to one because you're lowering the height of the tower. And I don't know if that's ever happened or or not. Um, likewise, I don't know if it's ever increased, but um, I thought I just I

want to put that in to clarify that, you know, if you've got a a tower out there and you want to go up another 50 or 100 foot, so long as it still meets that setback requirement, that 1 one, then it's okay, get a permit. Um, but likewise, I also want to clarify if you had a cell tower that was built, you know, in the 90s and we didn't have this type of requirement, it's maybe, you know, 100 foot from the road. Now, if they want to lower that that tower from what it its current height is, now they don't have to come into compliance with that 1:17 because they're actually lowering the height there. What would happen if there was a change of ownership, a portion of the property uh and it invaded that the fall zone? I may not be describing that correctly, but the tower's in compliance and now I've sold 20 acres over here to somebody else and and that you know the surveyor said it's going to be inside the fault of is how's that contended with

the tower is still okay but like you under this you know so if they would want to increase the height of that tower that be a problem that would be a problem. Yep. It'd be a problem. The original height had to be grandfathered in. If you if you're going to increase it now, you got to follow the new regulations. Yep.

That paragraph right after as you're describing the decrease in the height just reads rough to me. Maybe I'm just not not maybe I'm just might be thickheaded, but it just it says a decrease in the height of existing communication tower which does not comply with the setback. It almost implies that the tower did not comply in the first place. You could have had it grandfathered in and now it doesn't comply because of what he just said. I got you. So they're saying you can make it shorter and you're still okay, but you can't make it any bigger. Okay. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. Yep. Yep. I understand now. Makes sense.

Um then lastly, it's just it may not been needed on it, but I thought it was good to clarify that you got to get a zoning permit for the tower and any kind of building that's over 120 square foot uh needs a permit. Um also again adding replacing antennas, generators, electrical repairs do not require a permit. I get that question probably two to three two times three times a month from cell tower companies. You know, they hire these third party, you know, people to to get the permits that they need to make their repairs and maybe some of this will help take care of that. Um, so on wheels is permitted on a zoning lot for 6 months from the date of the zoning permit issuance. And then it says I can grant uh one six-month renewal. I thought about that a little bit, but I'm thinking that any anything more than a year now it's starting to turn into a permanent tower and you know you need to be in compliance with setback requirements at that point in time.

Does there need to have a sentence there after that 12 month term that the the cell on wheels needs to be removed? Does there need to be something written there? I mean, you're you're you're acknowledging that, hey, we understand it that six months might not have been enough. We can do another six months, but after that 12-month term, we need to write into it. So, that needs to be removed. Uh, I can the definition says providing temporary communication services, but I mean, yeah, I mean, I can add in there. or it must be removed or

or maybe reapplied. May let's let's just put reapplied would be a better term, not removed because if it all of a sudden is a disaster that we for whatever reason the supply chain can't get another tower in place or whatever, they just need to reapply for a original permit. That make sense? I like to not remove rather than I'd like to apply rather than Well, how many times you going to allow them to reapply? that we're allowing one. It's usually for six months. It didn't take that long.

So, I I don't want to don't want to let them to do it in per perpetuity, but it at least gives them it makes them come and say, "Hey, I don't know how that you bring up a good point. Maybe after 12 months, they have to comply with the regulations as if it's a permanent." So, they got to have the set back and fence around it. There you go. That would that's Yeah, there you go. Make it permanent or move it? Yep. I don't know.

I'm thinking through it, but I I'm I'm In my world, I'd do it by fee, right? Yeah. How bad do you want it? Yeah. Yeah. Would you open it up then for the opportunity of an unscrupulous operator to just buy 50 of these cows, put a fence around them and call it good. Yeah. If you don't have a limitation. Yes. Maybe that's I think Don, you may I like the way you said that. I'm pretty agreeable with your suggestions.

Yeah, cuz permanent is not a on wheels. So, right. They must after a year it has to be permanent. Has to be permanent. Yeah, cuz by the definition it's a providing temporary cuz they've already got two six months now. Okay. Now you're evidently you're if messing with us and if you're messing with us now make it permanent. Either make it permanent or move the move the cow. Yeah. better. Yeah, you could come in with a final sentence and say after 12 months from the initial date permit then fix the structure is considered permanent and we'll need There you go.

The requirements of a permanent tower installation. There you go. There's our wordsmith right there. Whatever. We can figure it out. Yeah. Okay. got the general ID. Mark, I it's not quite related to this, but do we if if uh towers are going to be allowed by right, then are we regulating the equipment buildings in any way? How does that work? That's just a regular zoning permit from me. Anything that's over 10 x 12, it's not necessarily in the zoning reg. within the our zoning resolution that governs building permits

120 foot, right? So, but I mean if it's a cuz like in this one, so we're talking about the egg district, if someone wants to build equipment storage that's 2500 square ft. If it if the tower wasn't attached to it, they would require a conditional use permit, right? Because it's not an egg use and it's not a residential use. So, it's just an equipment storage building related to the tower, right? So, then are we allowing that by Right?

We're allowing a generator to be placed out there. Let's just say they want to put this generator under a roof, but it just so happens that they're going to need three generators to take a 50x50 building. Yeah. What if it what if that build see that's what what if this equipment building that's housing their generator is 10,000 square feet because they really need to get around their generator to work on it. The tower's by right, but not a building. Would the would the accessory building would it fall under accessory building rules at that point because of the acreage and that type of thing and have to be a conditional use permit?

Right. So, are we going are we going through the conditional use permit process anyway? If they're gonna have anything bigger than a building bigger than a five,000 bigger than 120 bigger than 120 square feet. Yeah. Yeah. You're But G says, you know, basically saying you got to get a zoning permit application fee for the tower and equipment building greater than 120 square ft. Well, the you concerned about the s the size of the building? Well, it goes back to our accessory building red. Right.

So 2 what is it? 2 acres and below we have it 2,000 square ft. 2 acres or below it's 2,000 square foot. And then above that is what 5,000 something like that. Above 2 acres it's 5. So this will be for a commercial use. So it's not an accessory building like for a house or for an agricultural use, right? So it's So then won't it require a conditional use permit anyway? The building the building will be a commercial building. Correct. I mean because the tower's permitted by right. So, so, so all those regulations that say we can't do anything about a tower has nothing to do with a building, but the building is

But is the building related to the tower? You know, technically, I mean, well, but the buildings are only the buildings are only going to be, you know, 10 by 20. Yeah, but they could be bigger. They could be big. It's like the uh the channel 8 tower out on Buer Haven Road. That's bigger than 10 by 20. So, so we are saying any size building related to a tower use is okay. Okay. By right as long as it's related to the tower. I I had now define related to the tower. If I need the generator, the generator and electrical equipment related to operate the tower,

right? But if I need a truck to go get equipment to operate the tower, then So, so then I could Does that mean I could build a shop that attaches to it to store my truck that I'm using to repair the tower? Nothing here says you can't. But we don't for any other commercial purpose, right? Wouldn't we require a conditional use permit? Yeah. For That's what I think that's the difference. We hadn't discussed this between a tower and a building. No matter what the building's for, all buildings require conditional use permit. Not in the they don't think about a wind tower. We needed to know where those where that maintenance, right? The maintenance building was a

big deal. Yeah. Commercial or commercial or private. Take it easy. Yeah, Harley. Thank you, Harley. This fun. It's too much fun. Thank you, Mike. See you next month. All commercial buildings require commission a conditional use permit because it's Yeah, because it's not a residential or agricultural use

tire by ride building by CD. Well, we don't want to do that though because because then we're we're going through a conditional use permit process anyway. I don't Well, I don't for the project. I mean, I see the building the building I see as an accessory use, not I mean, we're we're regulating commercial principal uses, not an accessory use. So, to me, the tower is the principal use. And then if you do an accessory building. I mean, that's just a permit.

Well, we don't I don't want we don't want to do a conditional use permit for a building because that defeats the purpose of permitting these by right. I kind of agree with Mark's line of thinking. Well, it has you just need to word the, you know, the regulation such. I never, but I've I've never So then, so how does that stop somebody from sliding in a 5,000 square foot shop and call it an accessory use to the tower? A 50 by 100 building that they park a bunch of service trucks in. Yeah.

Or or tractors to mow their mow their cell tower lots. I think I'd never have that. I think if you're going to make a building by right with a tower, you better eliminate the size of it. So it's so it's for the generator or something and not for So maybe that's how you fix I understand it by right if it's directly rated to a generator for a tower. Yeah, it's the electrical components of that. But this is wide open for any size building. Not saying it' ever happen, but saying it wouldn't. and and because our regulations I guess as I've understood it is that we have a narrow stuff a relatively narrow amount of things that are by right and then everything else goes through the conditional use permit process

but now we're going to have a big exception a big tall exception well I don't want to permit a tower by right and then go through a conditional use permit for if I an equipment storage building that's going to be 400 foot or less. Well, you know, so then do we need a do we need in the regulations then that limit the size of the accessory building by right and everything else beyond that? So accessory building and location like under 400 foot it has to meet setback requirements. that kind of thing.

It can't have, you know, living quarters or, you know, any kind of plumbing for human. It's not an office. It's a setback kind of thing. The setbacks will be indicated in the permit. So, yeah. Yeah. We're just trying to eliminate somebody take building a tower and then just by right because he could build that tower decide, well, you know, I own six towers and I need a base. Let's just build my building. And this is my tower that's in the middle of my six towers. And this is so I can put up a building to put my mowers in that I maintain my towers with. And we're talking more about a a private person,

whoever, whoever. It could be a cell tower. It could be a a third party that, you know, operates the cell tower. It's a It's a cell tower developer. Yeah. I think I think I think limiting it to size limited size and use and then if they want to make it any bigger than that then they come in and talk to us. 400 square ft 20 by 20 you can put a pretty dog on big generator to a particular size and anything greater than that takes a conditional use permit. What size is that? Yeah. What's that size? What size is it?

20 20 by 20 square ft. I mean, I can go back and look at some of the permits to see what 20 by 20 is a onecar garage. I can go see what the size of these equipment shelters are. That'd be a good start. Yeah. Yeah, that's the answer to just come up with a number. You know what we're looking at? See what they're using. There you go. It could it could be one of these. It could be it could be one of be a container and we'd have no say about it and it would be by right because Yeah. Yeah. I guess I'm Yeah, I'm just I'm perplexed. I guess I never thought of that because every tower we've done and everything has been anything like that. We're just thinking off the wall.

No, I mean we're just thinking and I'm not Chris. I It's good. I just I just Yeah. I'm just like, "Wow, I never thought about taking if all of a sudden there's a building size loophole in the regulations. Somebody figures we'd rather you be able to rubber stamp it up to a point And then that if they if they're if they have in their mind that they're going to go bigger than 400 square feet, you're you're articulating with them saying, "Dude,

do you know that if you go bigger than this, you're going to have to come through through the process." And then they're going to I could the scenario would be to say, "Yep, cuz I'm going to store a tractor in there, too. I'm willing to or yeah, thanks for letting me know. We'll just cut that size down." I just not been focused. Of course, we didn't have time to work on it together as much as we used this year. I've already been all over it, but you know, let me look at Can you look at some of the prior applications, see what how big their their buildings are and give us that information. I don't know that there was they they never proposed and and Mark says he's got some. Yeah, we we've done several towers throughout the years, but not with big buildings. build up.

Yeah, that's why building a building just your standard equipment shelter 10 by 15 or 10 by 20 or whatever. It's just enough to So 400 square ft is gosh a plenty. I mean, I don't think even the generator sits inside the generator sits on a a concrete pad on the outside and you have a a small equipment shelter, you know, for the electrical and that's it. That's why I'm just a little Well, then then your 100 maybe your 120 square ft max is the right number. It might be.

Maybe we're being too generous with 400 said that. It's just because that's the minimum that you that you have to have in order to get a permit. You know, if you do a 10 by 10, ah, you don't need a permit.

So now, is it is it a a BZA? Is it a special exception or is it a conditional use permit or does it depend on the size of it? Depend on what they're doing with it. You know, if it's 425 square foot and they just have some electronic equipment that's oversized, that's different than if it's, you know, if they're parking a service truck or a tractor with a mower in there. So if it's 425 square foot and it's just an oversized building related to the tower conditional use permit which greater well it's greater if if we put if we put a number in there

if it goes above that by one inch it's coming through us. Yeah. Yeah that's fine. I just let's make it generous enough so that we shouldn't run into that issue out of 20 by 20 should never run. Oh jeez. Yeah. Well, and anything bigger than that, it's turning into a shop and because like we really don't want them to have like a shop or they're storing equipment and driving in and out all day. Well, these places are costconcious anyway. They're not going to put up a bigger building than they need to.

We want to close the loophole if one ex because usually usually, you know, it's a 50 by 50 lease area. So, they don't have room to put giant buildings on there. And if they don't, then hey, you know, they come in, they just get that permit. They're good. Just go with 400 foot that requires a conditional use permit. Yep.

Solves that little problem. Okay. Yeah, it's good. I mean, yeah, I that's why we have seven other sets of eyes. Look at this. Um uh here's where regarding shipping containers, you'll see that under performance standards, uh we're not allowing we're not allowing it at all. You go later on in in the document that I gave you, we're allowing an egg in and R1 and then not in R3 and village. And so um I think we want to allow them. I guess I guess that's my thought, my proposal to you is to allow them I guess so eliminate this uh section right here. Um on page 9-5, that's where we start talking about the residential zoning districts. So just a repeat of what the A is. Okay. So, it's basically the same verbiage.

Yeah, same verbiage. So, just repeating it for the residential districts. So, the same changes we've talked about on the other one. Yep. I'll make that change on letter G on both and we're allowing barbed wire in the residential districts for tower. Yeah. Yeah. We I mean right now for like we don't have any fence regulations at all. So somebody could put a barb wire in on their residential lot right now. We don't have anything that says you can't.

There's new construction of a tower right along well 82nd turns into Dutch Avenue in Harvey County. And they've just got a a 6ft chain link with barbwire at the top right right around the base of the tower. And then the generator even sits outside of that chain link. Oh, really? Yeah. Oh wow. to just keep people off the tower. That's why I put that in because some of them may want to fence the 50 by 50 area. Some other ones I would say money on fencing and just fence a 10 by 10 area around the tower. They put the post right in the concrete base. Oh, they're not messing around. No, they weren't.

So, yeah. So, the proposal on the R1 would be to to not prohibit them in all those zoning districts. And you'll see we'll add that back in later. Uh, one thing that I I hadn't thought about here initial, but talking about communication towers on page 141, 14102, you see we've added communication towers being exempt from the height restrictions in that zoning district. And all those listed there are exempt. Otherwise, you'd be technically probably going through a variance situation with every single tower if it's in a residential zoning district. Luckily, the ones we've done in the last few years have been in the a district and haven't required a variance as well or a waiver there. So, I thought we'll add that in there. That way, that's covered. We don't have to worry about running in an issue having to issue a variance for residential zoning districts. Um, so then on article 15 on page 1510, this is where we're talking about all the regulations under the cell towers that we currently have. And I can tell you like on letter A, location is equal distance from all property lines. We'll carry that over. Um, letter B and C are now not permitted anymore under the statutes. We have to have 48 antennas and minimum service area is three miles for every tower and we can't do that. Um the lighting we've kind of carried over a portion of that and letter D. We don't talk about highintensity strobes prohibiting that. It's just whatever the minimum FAA requirement is. Period. Um,

letter E talks about uh, abandonment. We, so we've covered that in the new rags. And then letter F, uh, the reclamation plan and the shy and all that. That's not permitted anymore. We've got a variation of that where typically they'll put that in the lease contract with the property owner. So, we'll just have them submit that to verify that they are intending to move the tower. I believe the last tower we did for next tech he had mentioned that you know it's in their lease agreement that they will going back to E you said you dealt with that in the other regs somewhere where you're talking about

yeah the other abandonment um the previous regulations had that and this was a the proposal says that yeah it doesn't talk about uh when it's declared abandoned. It just says if it's abandoned. Yes. Yeah. If it's abandoned. So it doesn't say that you know if it's not being used for 12 months. So like you know under this you have to wait

12 months of not being used before you declare it abandoned and then it has to be torn down. Here it just says hey if you're if you're walking away from the tower then it's considered abandoned and teared down. So we don't have to wait a year to declare it abandoned. Okay. Who's monitoring that? Yeah. The land owner, I assume. Land owner. He wants to Yeah, that'd be he stopped getting his rent check or whatever, right? Yeah. That's that's usually when you'll tell that it's being abandoned.

Yeah. I just gave you the 15, 12, and 13. It's just the the start of of this section discussing about shipping containers. I just want to see you see where it's located. So, it's under accessory uses. So, shipping containers, uh, in the egg, if it's used for a purposes, it's exempt and you can have as many as you want if they're for your farm operation. If it's not for farm operation, you got remember we have a lot of a lot splits, 7 acre lots, somebody just building a house and they're not, you know, actively farming or pasturing. It's just a a rural residential house. Um, limit of two. I mean, I'm just no rhyme or reason. I just put two out there. If you think it should be one, we can do one. or if you think it should be, you know, all of them are permitted. You can have as many as you want. I didn't know where to go necessarily with that and this is this is only for the a district. So in that district, you're saying that the commercial industrial or egg and non-residential can put as many as they want out,

right? Whereas on a resident residential unit, you can have two two storage containers.

And that also kind of gets into the pictures that I showed you there. Are those shipping containers or are those just buildings that are using shipping containers? So if somebody wants to build that building on their property, is that two shipping containers or is that just a building? So he can have are we talking about freestanding shipping containers or are we talking about any shipping container? That's something you can ponder and tell me next month or whatever to what you want to do with that. A shipping container with pretty sighting is still a shipping container.

I like the shipping lipstick you could put on and tell it something. I mean, I like the one with the pretty sighting. I do like that. But, you know, I was thinking if I held that sighting up to me, I I'm still me. So, but but we don't monitor ugly buildings. We don't. No, but is it is it a it's still a shipping container though even? Yeah. But on on a flip side, if you built the same building on a stick built and you had the same dimensions and same, you know, for instead of shipping container there, you had a stick built structure there. It's the same thing square footage. Same same, you know, only this is more secure than a wood frame building or something.

That's a building to me. Yeah. The thing is, I mean, if we say two and this is in the egg, then if he puts that in now, he can't have any more any freestanding. I want I want to stack four of these one on top of the other and make a 16 ft sidewall and put a roof over it. Why am I limited to Why am I limited to just two? Now, in the egg side, in the egg side, they they aren't limited, right? But residential probably ought to be. Yeah. I mean, it's it's a building. Mhm. I mean, do we accessory use? Do we care? Yeah, we do. Yeah. About how many? Yeah. I mean,

well, we probably don't want an unlimited amount. I think two is a nice number to start with for residential. I mean, for egg use. Yeah. You know, they talk about store equipment or whatever they have in there. I mean, it's, you know, I know a guy that has a duck lease and he used to keep his, you know, ATV in there because you can secure it. Well, he thought he could until somebody came out there with chopped with a grinder and cut the lock even though it was a real high dollar lock. Some regul we don't do it in ours. Um, I've seen other community regulations to help get the message across of what you're referring to is we can incorporate a picture

into that that section right there that says buildings that look like this are considered buildings and not counted toward the two shipping container aotment that you are have in that zoning district. So you could build a building. You could you could do it without a picture. Say if two two containers are incorpor if there is a roof incorporated with two shipping containers, it's considered an accessory building. You can do it that way as well. If that's if you're just going to lay a shipping container out there and not and just set two side by side. So So in that case, I could have two with a roof and two standalone. Two standalone.

Yep. four of them. You have two buildings like that if you wanted to screw. But then your accessory buildings are regulated elsewhere. It's treated as an accessory building. Yeah. And it's still got to meet the square footage requirements. So that keeps somebody from stacking 20 of them in a row. You got height height requirements, but you're still only 8 ft wide. Yeah. 300 maybe. Yeah. Eight and a half. 320 square foot. Yep. Yep. There's such a big difference between that and that is shipping containers. That's a building. Yeah, it is. That but you what you just described what you said on it. I mean, you could even do something. I understand. You can put a flat roof with 2x4s and t on it.

Yeah. And still a building. Yeah. But I But you know, I get it. So you want to they make fiber hoop uh toppers for two containers too. So that could almost be treated as a temporary. Yeah. Then what do you do? You notice on this one the shipping the outside walls are not the shifting unit. Yeah. Well no that one I think they are. I thought that one was just made armor. They just built a roof over it. Now there, you know, this one they don't have

that one. I put, you know, tin on the outside, right? So I just that one. I think it's something that needs to be clarified for I think the color of just the color of it. Yeah, it should be container. So you think that would be considered a building and then we're So we're really talking about freestanding shipping containers out on our property. That's fine. I don't I think it's dangerous territory when you express tricky th this building is ugly, but this one looks nice. You know that's the truth. Yeah,

we don't we don't do that with stick building. We don't care what color tree you put on. If I put in there, you know, it's got a roof. I mean, you know, the roof doesn't have to be in any type of code. It could just be, you know, but that's true of a stick built. That's true of a stick build, too. Yeah. Exactly. So, I just I need clarity on what we want. So, when that happens, I can say, "Oh, it's just a permit." Or, "No, no, there's shipping containers." You can't have two of them or you can't have four of them.

And and when we say shipping containers, we have this particular whatever they are 8 by 30 metal structures, but I think shipping containers can be other uh have other dimensions, other material, different sizes. Okay. When you when you talk about shipping containers, you talk about uh prior use as a ship being intended for prior uses. It could be a semi-trail. Yeah. Could be an old reefer. Yes. Yeah. Don't those shipping containers, don't they have the standard? Don't they have a name? I don't

Conco box. I don't know what the I've heard them called. There's something that that the standard, you know, that the ships that bring them across the ocean and when they put them on a train and stuff. I'm not a transportation guy. So, I was thinking there was like a specific name for the standard of a stereotypical shipping. Well, they're standardized, but I'm just saying shipping containers. We have this picture, but shipping containers come in various sizes and shapes. Yeah. Could it be a box van that they just pull the wheels off of? That's not what we're calling shipping containers, but it doesn't say that.

Yeah, I mean it shipping we're talking about shipping containers that's never had axles or wheels on them and never was meant to have. But yeah, but it's not written there. No, it's not written there. Yeah. Well, we need to qualify that cuz you don't want it to have just right. You don't semi semi-tra out there they pulled the axles off of or do you I don't know. Well, Wikipedia calls it an interodal container.

And there are ISO standards that define what we think of as a shipping container. There you go. inter modal is the name. And then everything else is a, you know, if you're talking about an old semi trailer, that's an old semi-trail. That's not a shipping container in this context. Awesome. Good job. [Music] All right, I'll try and clarify. This started out as a in the definitions. Yeah, it started out like as a simple change and it got really complicated when we got

now building are these buildings are these shipping containers and so because yeah there's a there's a conf container I think as a from an egg standpoint we're not limiting it from a residential we say two and do we care if there's a roof on it if we say Two. Yeah. Said two. I don't think way we started out we just had two. We didn't say there was a roof or not, but they want to put two out there and put a roof on it. Do we care? They don't want to put a roof on it. They still got two. But if that it goes back to the argument, if they put a roof on it, does that is that considered uh excessor building at that point?

I don't know. But when we go into our calculations for accessory building, you look at you you get your little satellite map and you're and you're and you're looking at your satellite map and measuring everything that has a roof. Mhm. Maybe they can have All right. Maybe they can have two with a roof. We and we're not going to we don't you know put put it up. But if they want more accessory building, they want let's just say they're they're at their their 40 by 40 by 40 accessory building. You know, they got whatever that is with that or 40 by 40 roofed storage contain containers 2,000 square foot.

So, they're at their 20 they're at their 2,000 square foot level. If they want to come back and build another big garage for their motor home, they got they've this figures into that. We just we just put that qualifying language in there that the you know residential purposes the storage containers will count towards the accessory use limitations for storage buildings. We aren't going to if they're if they're uh 2 acres and they're going to put a and they're going to put a 40x40 building on there. Do we care? Mhm.

I thought they they count anyway because they're a four-sided structure. If they have a roof that connects them, that's all one structure. Well, you never done have a roof. I think we include they should be included in that accessory. They do. I mean, it's a foursided footage. Yeah. Yeah. So, they're included separately. If they have a roof on them, it's one great big one that's figured square footage. So, they put a roof on them. They're space in like some of his. That's a bigger footprint which gives you a bigger building which will count against them if they wanted. It'll count against the a lotment of accessory buildings. It just won't count against them on the shipping container side.

So maybe we need to include some language here to indicate that you know the shipping containers will be included in the accessory buildings for footage limitations. You know just so people are aware of that. We're not going to govern them up front, but on the back side, they will be governed. They'll be figured into the They'll be figured into any future future development of that. That's one way. I mean, do it. I mean, you're going to let them put things in. I mean, I'm not the shipping container and anything that's attached to it on the outside of it figured into it. That being a roof or an awning, I personally don't have a problem.

Our neighbor across the road. Your neighbor across the road has two of them stuck in the trees. I don't know if we need He might have more. I I think he's probably got two or three of them out there. At least two. Yeah. So, do we care? I I don't really think of them much differently than another a four-sided structure with a roof. Aesthetically, they're different. We don't regulate that. We don't regulate bad aesthetics on a stick built building. I know. I know. Yep. I also know there an inexpensive secure way to store things. This uh I tell you we we're sounds like this is a topic we need to do a little research on and at least a little bit of

thought on thought on and maybe we put a pin in this one for tonight. How about the permanency issue? Yeah. You know, you can just roll these off the truck and set them on gravel or whatever or you can permanent. That's what a building is. It talks about any sightuilt structure that encloses um people or animals and movable property. But it says which is permanently affixed to the land. Okay. Exclusive of fences. This is not sight building. It's not necessarily permanently permanently fixed. Not easy to move, but you know, it can be moved. How does the assessor's office look?

Yeah, good question. I was kind of thinking about that in my mind how they completely off the radar because they're tent buildings. They're they're not So, are they are they then treated like a like a semi-trail because are they? I would I would assume as much. Now, I've heard maybe I'm this is wrong, but if you take the wheels off the semi-trail, the assessor can tax it. It's in a a structure on your building. Is that But as long as it's still sitting on the wheels, it's just a trailer. I don't know if that's true. That's just what I'm supposed.

So, is it tax more as a structure or as a trailer? Different. You got it. You get road tax on Yeah. property be personal property tax. Yeah. But if you're not buying a tag for it, you're not paying any tax, right? Right. Aren't you technically even if it's off the road, you're still supposed to pay property taxes on your vehicles. Yes. Whether people do or not is a whole another question. But

this turned into a rabbit hole. Yes, it did. Yeah, of course. What about old railroad cars? Used to see those around. Same thing. Precursor to the storage container. The old box cars. The cabooseas were cool. Mhm. Okay. I'll think about that. What you think about it?

And you think too and let me know. Uh moving on to another topic last week uh is the ADU. So we talked about secondary residences. So are you talking about another big house or equal size or what's on the property now? A second house. Are you talking about something that is subsidiary to the main house right now? An accessory dwelling? That's that's my question. What What are you meaning by allowing a second residence on the property? because I I went the route of saying that it's a smaller house whether it's stick build whether it's a converted shed what what have you that you can use for a family member or not that can be a second residence on on the property meeting certain criteria or are we just talking about hey I want to be able to have two houses on my property would not be limited by square footage like what I have here.

You there subdividing almost. I would say it should be smaller, you know, like you're saying and uh think of it more as a a mother-in-law unit type thing for, you know, older relative or something not necessarily for a second, you know, main house for somebody. I mean,

cuz here we're talking about egg, which we're talking larger parcels, but you got to remember if we say it could be a second house on a property that's zoned R3, you could have something that's like 2 acres or 3 acres. As long as they can comply with sanitation code, then you know we would allow a second larger house versus restricting it like what I have done here. I mean that's that's kind of the the tradeoff. Mhm.

You know, you're thinking don't think in terms of an extra unless we're going to write two sets of regulations. What? Have you seen any other counties in Harvey or somebody around here just recently passed some or started talking about some ADUs? It's pretty popular thing. I pulled Douglas County which is Lawrence and Miami County which is right south of Johnson County. The thing with that is they both have building codes. So they get a lot deeper into the woods than what we would want to do. But the the general theme of all those that I've seen is what you see here. It's, you know, limited on size. Some say 50%, some say 80%. Um, it's not separate utilities. Um, it's not to be split off ever unless you can do it by planning. And so everything you see here is kind of what I gleaned from these other two.

The other one was like permit for you full kitchens and everything. It's it's it's another house. It's not it's not like our guest house where you can't have the kitchen. This is another full-blown house for no limitation. No limitations amenities within the home. No limitations are in the fact that size size no separate address no separate like utilities that type of stuff. You say no separate utilities only one meter comes higher meter they may share the same well what about what about septic well that's what prompted this discussion further is county

Don can maybe go further than I can you know the sanitation code changes now we can put two homes on one septic system but these regulations don't allow it these regulations say no you have to have one house you can have a second house on property. It just has to be a separate deed piece of land. Okay. Sanitation code says, "Well, we can tie these together." You've got a one owner.

You got a primary dwelling. It's 1,500 square ft. The septic system is knock on wood. They've had great luck and they haven't had to they haven't done anything to it for 30 years other than have the tank pumped, but it's not sized right. Who determines that? Environmental health. Environmental health. And then what happens after that? So, if you're building a new building on a another building on this parcel, then you're going to have to bring up that wastewater system to handle both of them. Okay. What if there's elevation change and you can't use the existing and you you'd have to build a new new field. Okay.

Back to the amendment that will hopefully be soon. What I'm getting at is that basically the the sanitation piece could be separate. We don't have to we can tie into it if it's adequate, but if it's not adequate, they can comply with has to comply with sanitation. Has to comply comply with all public works codes. So, but you could have a second field. Yeah. If the lot permits. Yeah. Yeah. If you got the space you want to. Well, what you're saying is the problem now is that the sanitation code will allow for a second unit on the septic, but we don't we don't. Gotcha. We don't allow the And it causes issues.

We don't allow the second house other than the guest house, but that's but the kitchen, right? Well, how does it I guess I'm not familiar enough with the sanitation code, but I mean now like if a single family requires 3 acres per se. Is that correct? Not necessarily anymore. No, we can have an enhanced system on a smaller lot. Well, I was just thinking of a a small lot and we're going to say you can have another residence on there. How do you scale the the sewer system? It it may not it may not fit. I mean, if you've got the existing system may not efficient,

in order to build this building on this lot, it's going to have to comply with those regulations also. So, you can't build it roughly. Roughly, is it based upon number of number of facilities in the house or is it based on occupants? Bedrooms. Bedrooms bedrooms. Okay. So most of these ADUs are going to be maybe one or two bedroom. Hard to have a lot more than that. That's the thinking. But do do you also agree that the ADU can be no larger than 50% the size of the Yeah, I'm thinking I'm thinking I'm thinking if I'd want to do something like that at our house at my place, that'd be a 750 foot little

Are you going to put mom and dad in that? Well, they're moving to one right now. Yeah. To think about. Well, it's does the limitation. Do we just need a 1,200 foot limitation? Because it seems like the way it's written now encourages a bigger house on a lot that already has a large house independent of the size of the lot. Well, the what you got proposed is 50% of the the primary residence or 1,200 square feet, whichever is was right. But like, whichever is less, whichever is less,

but like in Russ's case there, you know, you might have someone that has the current house is 1,200 square feet and they may be on 7 10 12 acres, but you're limiting the ADU to 600. Well, the guy that the the couple that want to have their parents live with them because they're getting old, they got a 4,000 square foot boy, mom and dad's a lot better off than the person that has 1,700 ft. It's going to put their right. It's like so I don't know something to think about

cuz I would think that you know your parents are roughly the same size regardless of whether you have a 4,000 ft house or a 1,200 ft primary house. If you want a bigger house then split your lot if you can. Well, I guess my question was relating to the percentage like do do we need the the percentage limitation or increase that? Maybe maybe you just need to take shall the ADU shall be the greater of 50% or 1,200 ft 400T which which limits you which with a maximum of,200 square ft. Well, but you also got to think

so that doesn't that that doesn't the percentage is what's limiting us. Yeah. If you just put if you just put if you take that percentage out and just say a maximum of 1,200 square ft then then you're then you're done. So you may want you want a,200 foot house on a small residential subdivision. But that's they're independent of the size of the lot. We're talking about number four is talking about the size of the primary residence, not the size of the lot. Yes. If we want to regulate the the coverage on a particular lot, that's a separate deal, isn't it? Then then you then it then sanitation comes into play where whether you can place it.

Setbacks, setbacks, it's all going to come into play because you can't be within a certain amount of feet of your well. You can't be within a certain amount of feet of your field. you know, your your sanitation field. It's gonna on the small lot, I think it'll all kind of take care of itself. Have room for a second sanitation field, too, just in case one fails, right? In fact, in the case that you have two of them, then you need to have places for two. So, so for those smaller lots, then the limitations will take care of themselves. That will take care of itself. Well, if it's public sewer and public water though, then 1,200 ft because if they can squat if they can squat 1,200 feet in there,

what what's the maximum under roof for accessory buildings that we allow for like smaller parcel? It'd be like 2,000 square foot before you have to do the special exception. Well, I was I was trying to get a picture if if we're if we can make one requirement is say you can have 2,000 square ft under roof on this lot and it can be 1,200 square foot of uh auxiliary housing or and plus an 800t shed or

I'm all right I'm I'm I'm thinking like you all right I'm looking at this and you mean I'm only going to be able to build a 1,200T house but I can build a 2,000 ft building and put and put a and put a living quarters in there. Guess what I'm building? I'm going and have two storage containers. Yeah. And now I mean I'm I'm going for the trifecta. Put mom and dad in the storage. No, that's not right. But you get my point. We're We I don't think that 1,200 square feet on a on a on an ADU is not out of line because if they want to build a building, we're going to let them do it. We're talking about the egg district too right now. So, but what I'm I'm still going at the same.

Yeah. Now, I think 1,200 is probably

probably should be the max because you you get into you get above 2 acres and we go to 5,000 square ft. But we're not going we don't want them to build a 5,000 square foot house as an accessory house. I think 1,200 would probably be a Tell you what, 1,200 1,200 square f feet is a nice living quarters for let's just say it's a mother-in-law. Maybe it's a maybe it's a son that's going to live there. 1,200 square f feet is a pretty pretty nice pretty nice footprint. I mean, I I'm used to living in,200 ft², so that's my that's the only thing I know. Now, if you're used to living in 3,000 square ft and you knock it down to,200, it feels like you're in a hotel room.

Well, now it sounds like we're talking more about just a second residence because these that's that's basic dwellings. That's it's basically what we're putting there cuz the idea is to downsize from my 2500 ft house to something that's more manageable. Yeah. Right. That's where the,200 square ft comes in. That's where the 1,200 maximum of an ADU comes into play. 1,200 is still pretty reasonable house. Yeah. Yeah.

But but my point still stands. If I'm looking at this and I have the acorage, I'm not going to buy I'm not going to spend whatever it cost to build me a stick built house and only be able to do 1,200 square ft when I can up my game and get another 800 square ft, which would be a really nice garage attached to my living quarters with a 2002 200 with a 2,000 square foot accessory building. And and by definition, it says in here that we can do that we can put the ADU inside my accessory building, right? But the ADU has to only be

50% of the main house or 1,200 square foot. So now you're going to have to I can build I can square foot building but you can only have 1,200 foot or if your house is only 1,500 I can see your house 750 square foot but I can but I can build a 2,000 foot building and put my 750 in that building in that building. But no more than 750 but that's all right. I can do I can live with that. That's yeah that's fine.

So so 12. So to me, if we can put a two my the way I my conventional wisdom is balling this up is if we can build a 2,000 foot building, we can build a,200t house. Let that let the let the landowner decide. That's my I mean it's roof it's roof line to me. That's how I'm looking at it. I mean 1,200 that's a that's a nice house. I've got a shop. I've got a shop building that's 20 or that's 30 by 40 and it's a lot of space. Yeah, it is a lot of space. You know, you can you can, you know, cram a lot of living space in there.

Yes. But 600 square foot is something else. Yeah. Half that size into a home would be tough. You want to take out the 50%. Yes. Yeah. Just put a max of,200 square foot. Yep. And let them decide. So then this is not then I don't want to call this an accessory dwelling, you know, because it's not accessory anymore potentially. I think the definition needs to be changed and what this is. It's more about just having a second house on the property. That was my my question. You still have the accessory dwelling, you know, definitions. If they're going to put it in a if they have an existing building or are going to build

same electrical system, shared utilities, it's still going to be an accessory dweller. It's not a standalone, but not if you have a tiny little house on on the property. Right now, you have an old old house. It's, you know, I guess the old house becomes the ADU. There you go. There you go. I'm building a new one for then see if you do that then you can build any size square footage house that you you want original one wasn't over 1,200 right so well so is that what we I mean I guess so what's wrong with that then if you've got say 7 acres

and you've got an 800 foot little bungalow from the 30s there what's wrong with remodeling that putting the parents in there and then building you a new house where you heard that. Yeah, that's what there's nothing I because it seems like you still have the same principle. You still have a primary residence and then you have your smaller secondary. So, you're taking the principle and turning it into an edu. as long as we declare it that. But then just just as long as one house isn't over 1,200 square ft. Mhm.

But then the u that house that you're converting into the ADU, we'd have to take that out because the primary house could be located behind the ADU then cuz I have cuz I have it in here where um the ADU has to be the ADU has to be behind or adjacent to I guess it depends how much front yard you have. Do you have room to build the new house? This kind of goes back to that when we when we changed the frontage and front front yard, sideyard, all that stuff. Why do why do we even care where that we're Why do we care where that house is placed?

Because it's an accessory dwelling unit and it's something that you're not supposed to be seeing. It's just we don't tell them we don't tell them where Well, there are times if it sets within it within the setbacks, we tell them to move the shop, but we don't tell them where to put the building. I mean, if if on a on an egg on an egg lot, for sure, if they're if they want to put a building right along the road and they drive right by their building to get to their house, what do we say?

That's why I'm I'm hearing more about we don't want to make it an accessory, a little bungalow for mom and dad or or my college kid. I'm hearing that we just want to allow a second house. It can just be anywhere on that property, but just limit it to 12,200 square foot regardless. So, that that's fine. I think it's potato to potter.

I think I think I think I think if you're so you're limiting it to 1,200 second home call it ADU second home whatever but you can also extend that definition to include like shared utilities yada yada yada where it's not a totally separate standalone home. It is still like part you know it's connected somehow to that primary residence whether it's through the utilities, septic systems, electric water, whatever. Because it seems like our goal is to make is to write it so that it's like you can move in your parents and they can age in place but not so you can build another second house and get around the lot split or the platting process. Correct. Yeah. Because that that way I mean the utility thing is going to you know

right it'll limit it. It's going to limit that the same the the one address not having a the one entrance one entrance you know drive and what you know I mean you got a lot of those issues that are going to prevent an independent second home on the property not to drag a lot of mud but how to if I want to add on to my house are you going to limit how much I add on to my house by 1,200 square f And in that house, I have a secure door that separates that house. There's two kitchens. There's separate separate living quarters completely. Yep.

I can do that all day long, but I can't put I can't do what I want. And that's what people are doing. You know, now other regulations will regulate that. You'll have to declare it as a second res attached to your house. Why do I need to declare it as a second residence if my folks are moving into my main house? There's their mail coming the same mailbox. My mailbox mine is you're paying electric bill utility bill cuz it's a second it's a separate entrance and no it's not a separate entrance. You're not going to have a separate ent but you could you could I could but what what so

so you're creating a duplex and I just I just I just increased my footprint. system. I'm using this for argument sake. I have I started with 1,200. I'm thinking, you know what? I'm going to build onto our house. We're going to create another living space and etc., etc. Now, I'm going to 3,000 square ft. Okay. I just exceeded our 1,200 we've been talking about. I've just increased my footprint by 1,800 square ft. That's okay. But that's okay because it's it's still within the confines of a house.

But if I wanted to take that same 1,800 square feet or let let's let's take that that's a bad example. But let's let's just say I we can't I can't build another 1,200 square foot which is less footprint. I pay I think I think when you're looking at an accessory dwelling unit, you know, whoever is considering constructing one, they're going to have those options. They can they can add onto their existing home to make living space for mom, dad, or whoever, or they can build a a separate freestanding building for them, a little more independence and whatnot. Right. Right.

You know, with the the other restrictions we'd have for shared utilities and address and all that stuff. Yes. you know, it's just their choice what to do. I think I think if we I think it's their pocketbook. This is this is where I I still come back to. I think if we limit it to,200 ft, they don't have to build it at,200 ft. It could be 800 square f feet. It's max 1,200 square f feet. Yeah. The majority of them wanted separate unit majority of the people I've talked to wanted it as a separate smaller. I just did one that's they want the independence. I just did one that's 12 by 40

I think. So well they are smaller in size but people always have the option. I I I've told that for years to them add on to your house if you want. I don't have any way to regulate it. Mhm. When you say you just did one is this actually happening now? Yeah. So how how are you doing those? They connected this 12x40 sturdy built shed, if you will, with a breezeway to the house. So now it's one building. Oh my gosh. So they got around the regulations, but they actually put more square footage under it.

So there'll be a little area for mom and they'll have a little breezeway that leads into the main house. And there's another person that did it too a couple years ago. same type of thing. I think his daughter was moving back and so he added on to his existing house as well. Well, I'm thinking of the Yodor area. There's some odd odd makeups around there. Most of them are smaller yet. I mean, that's

okay. Now that's just for egg. I guess the same thing would apply to to both. I I thinkard if they if they can comply to the setbacks 1,200 would be the max setbacks in the sanitation sanitation code. Yeah. Okay. I think I think those two things even on the smaller lots like I think we talked about earlier what three acres. Yeah. Yeah. You could do it on three acres. Yeah. the concern would be in on smaller lots. I mean, it's one of those things where we can give you a 1,200 square foot garage if you get it. So, why can't that be a a dwelling unit? Yeah.

Other than the fact that, you know, you buy a piece of land with the understanding that, hey, it's single family dwelling. What if every single one of those small lots put a,200 square foot house in the backyard like that? But you you say right in right in I don't remember where I read it that the owner has to go to register of deeds. There is that they got to go get a deed written to where it restricts to where it cannot be sold separately. Right. Well, it just has one address, doesn't it?

Yeah, I I don't mean that. That statement alone told me why do we care how big it is? I mean at a but we max it, right? Yeah. That's just simple 1,200 square f feet or 13 whatever. I think 1,200 is a nice round because it's not that house too. The idea was to have something smaller than the primary house or it's not an accessory dwelling. You could have you could have a th00and foot like what,000t little bungalow. Now you're going to go off and you're going to build a 1,200T accessory dwelling unit behind it. So, it's not really

you run into situations where you have a small home and mom and dad, you want to retire and they come in and say, "Well, we want to build a house on your property and we're going to build a you know, we can't do you can't we go up to 1,200 square feet, but we're going to build 1,200 ft and then when we die, you can have it for your house, you know. Does do does the appraiser care?" Oh, it's just whether whether we got whether we have a I mean, they don't care. They just care about square feet. Oh, yeah. And how many bathrooms, how many how many conforming bedrooms. Mhm. That's all. That's all they care. And and the changes, why should we care?

Yeah. The changes in land use. If you have if you move mom and dad into the backyard, whether it's a 900 ft house or,00 foot house doesn't really change the intensity of the land use, how big their bedroom is. I might be building a place for my son to come home to work on the farm. Yeah. Once the parents move to their next stage in life. Maybe that's I think the 1200's much better than 50%. Yeah. Yeah. I I agree. And now they'll be able to share the waste water. If you look at 50% then you get to 1200 2400

as long as it's all on one parcel. So, all right. Going back to your definition, Mark, I think you still need the definition in there and just in the event that they utilize a corner of an existing building cuz then it would be that to me would be an accessory. Don't you think? Yeah. An accessory dwelling. They're taking building into an ad. I've got a 60 by 100 building and I've got water in it already and I' I don't have sewer there, but I'm I'm going to make a corner of that building for my I don't

for for my hired hand. I'm going to build a 600 foot 600 square foot kitchen bunk house for my hired man in this in the corner of my shop. I just don't like the word accessory anymore because it it implies that it's subsidiary to the primary use of the property which would be the main house and we have situations where it would not be subsidiary to the main house. So instead of using the word accessory you say additional an additional dwelling unit that's what I mean you know and it's not necessarily suborded either anymore. Yeah. Yep. You know, additional billing. Additional bill. I like that.

Change the wording on it. If we're if we're keep the number, it is an ADU. An ADU. Yep. And that keeps everything in. Yeah. And we can still use the the abbreviation. You okay with that, Mark? Still don't like it. Still don't like it. Finally found something you didn't like. Well, I knew this was coming. I don't like it. But I mean, help us. It's not for tonight, but help us understand for next month

the implications in the county. What what true implications do we have if that this additional or accessory is larger than the primary? What implications are there? I mean, really, it's still 1,200 square foot and still a max still doing the max. What what implications do we really have other other than

G might drive by my place and say that Russ is putting an accessory dwelling or or an additional dwelling right there. What the Sam Hillsy thinking? That's the only risk we have and we don't have we we all we care is does it fit on the property? Does it fit within the setbacks? And can we do sanitation? That's all we care. But there's also an implication of when you live in mainly residential subdivisions, platted residential subdivisions, that you're going to have one house there. You're not going to have two houses on every single property. Well, if if it's platted that they can't have it, then they're not going to

Well, they can have it. They can have it because they're on public seat water. So, there is no issue with that. They can have it. And now you you buy this lot and now you've got like seven or eight of your neighbors that have now an additional house in there. Now you're creating like a multifamily type situation. Somebody that lives in a subdivision because they live in a subdivision, but my cousin down the road that lives on 80 acres can do whatever the heck he wants. That's craziness, too. No, I'm saying some some situations, you know, you're not going to have hardly any. But if we have the same regulations for smaller lots, it could have huge implications on people that way.

Just the just the density. Yeah. But the density is the same whether or not the house is 700 ft or 900 ft. Population density because it's the population density that same that same subdivision. We can I can put an accessory building in there and park my big old motor home and my $50,000 boat. But you're not going to let me build a house to You're not going to let me build a house to put my to to let somebody live in place for as long as I was going to have to live in the camper. Yeah, I guess.

Pipe pipe pipe it outside. See, that doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense. Should we Well, should we be allowing those large buildings on those small lots? But we've already We already have. We've already rolled that ball around. That ship is sailed. Yeah. So that's why that's why I'm saying if we compare roof line to roof line, I see no difference. Yeah. I see. But I don't see any difference in some of the subdivisions you see now where they're building 5,000t houses on 3/10 of an acre. Yeah. Yeah. You know, and the houses are this far apart.

Yeah. You can't hardly get a mower. You can't get too much more dense than that. Mhm. I think we just need to make it simple. 1,200 square feet. If you can fit it on there, then it's okay. That's That's my thought. Exactly. You're the seven. Is that what you want? But it counts as the total and then we end square feet of accessory space counts towards that. Yeah. Yeah. Count toward your total space. Mhm. Yeah. That would still count. So, I'd have to have an interior plan that shows me how much is dwelling, how much is accessory, and and if that 1,200 foot, if it's,

you know, I if it's a,000 and that puts you over, then you got to do a special exception for that for that building. That's correct. for that building. I'd say write it to 12 m, 1200. Take the take the percentage out, put 1,200 max and we'll sleep on it until October and we'll same address, same utilities. Okay. Same mailbox. All right. You want to call it an additional dwelling unit instead of itself? That's fine, too. I can deal with that.

All right. Um on 1518 right quick then uh I just put in the rags that a person can live in their existing house while they're building a new house on their property so long as the other one gets torn down or is in compliance with our ADU regulations. Holy smokes. Why didn't we read this 45 minutes ago? Because this this that answers your question about that that that that takes care of all of our argument that we've been all of discussion. No, it says you got to remove the

or it is considered it may be considered as an additional dwelling unit if it complies. If it complies but if the house is 2,000 square foot then it's not going to comply. So if it's not going to comply then they got to then they got to got to demo I think part of it. I'm with I think a couple dollars inside. Then the other one um on shipping containers on 1519 um let's see prohibited in R3 and village

districts but allowed if in the R3 and village district you're doing a nonresidential land use and you want a shipping container as part of your commercial business, for example. So, okay. So, you you're running a grocery store and you need something to store your your non-p perishables in, you can put something like that through. Just put it on the site plan. We review it under the conditional use permit and it would be permitted that way, even though it says no here. But if it's for residential use, no, I'm with you. Okay, that makes sense.

All right. I would say, Mark, unless the the this board has any other desire, whatever you've stricken Go ahead and take it out. Clean clean the copy up and we'll look at another yellow line copy next month. I'll try. Okay, that is that okay? That's fine. Yep. I can strike then we can get closer to a clean copy. Yeah. And I tried to incorporate the potential changes in the other reg. So, we're looking at there might be some on the text we just did where you see something in there. Don't pay attention to that. So, just pay attention highlighted in the

Yep. That sounds fair enough. Fair enough. Spirited spirited conversation tonight. But that's all it's all good stuff. One quick thing I have under other business, Mr. here is just let the board know that the text amendments we just approved last month, they're scheduled to go to the county commissioners on September 24th, next Wednesday. Um, if they approve at that point in time, hopefully publication would occur sometime first week of October, somewhere in that realm. And then those regs will be done and official and on the books. And then eventually I'll be able to get you guys copies of

split stuff is max taking a while but that's just the way it is. Hopefully by then it'll be done. Process is working slowly but surely. It's slowly but surely. Any other business to be brought before the board? Thanks for your work on this Mark. Yes. I know. [Laughter] You're you're working you're working with a couple with with with a bunch of guys that don't exactly know the ins and outs of your of what you've done as far as the all the regulations and definitions and whatnot. We appreciate your patience.

It's nice to see every now and then see Don say, "I told you so." See, we we have this that you guys have. We've already had this. So, he's prepared. I feel so loved in this room. I prepare him for what you guys are going to do to him. No, I I appreciate your comments cuz that's that's part of this process cuz, you know, we want to close loopholes and make sure things are are um read well and so that's I appreciate you guys too. So, anything else to add? Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Second. Whatever. Moved and seconded.