Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call the Reno County Planning Commission October 16, 2025 meeting to order. Staff, will you please call the role? Eisley here. Fran here. Schaefer here. Selzer here. Mlin here. Martin. Gson here. Want to welcome everyone. Uh,

Martin, you we've uh I trust you've had a chance to review the the packets you received. In those packets were the minutes from the September 18, 2025 meeting. Chair will entertain a motion on those minutes. So move. I've got been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor of approval of September 18, 2025 minutes say I. Oppose. Same sign.

Minutes are approved. New business for today. Mark, we've got some text amendments that uh you've prepared for us and some edits and whatnot. Would you mind taking the floor and heading us down?

Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, so the last month we introduced a series of text amendments regarding ADUs and cell towers, shipping containers, and manufactured homes. Uh the board had u some edits and some good discussion last month. And so, uh, what's before you today is was the directive I think I received where you wanted a kind of a clean copy of of those edits. And what I did is I took out everything that we had struck through with the existing regulation to kind of help um, show what the regulation may look like uh, if if uh, adopted here uh, as presented here. So, I thought what I'll do is go uh through some of those changes here and see what the board thinks and see kind of where we go. I thought we had a great discussion, you know, last month on some uh good points and so I hopefully I uh hit those points and certainly make further further changes. I've got one to suggest to the board anyway right now, but I'll just take it from the from the top and we'll go through this and and then open up the floor for discussion on each one. So, starting with article one, uh that we added a definition of um dwelling unit or or accessory dwelling unit. We changed the word accessory dwelling unit to mean uh the word additional because the board last month, if you recall, didn't want to uh limit the size of a second dwelling unit uh as far as being based off of the original parent house. And so this is more of just a second dwelling unit. We decided to call it an additional dwelling unit. So I just changed the word from accessory to additional there

mark on that definition it ends with independent living facility. Mhm. And that's terminology from a from the elder care uh world. So that I mean I I know what it means. If you read the whole definition I think you get it. But that kind of caused me pause there. Do you have a suggestion? It was it was intended to say that it's a single family used as an independent dwelling. Independent dwelling instead. Single family. Tried to That would that would make sense. Like a

That's how it starts out as a single family dwelling. Yep. Yep. Permanent single family dwelling. I like that. So dwelling three times in one sentence. That's a lot.

Yeah. It was meant to convey the fact that this is a fullervice house not restricted by you know like what we have with guest house where you can't have a kitchen facility. I mean this is a fully functional house is what I'm trying to say by saying independent living facility and to Allen's you know point you know using the word dwelling three times or more in in that sentence. How about we strike for use as a permanent independent dwelling facility and put a second permanent single family dwelling located on the same zoning lot as a principal? It's a principal single family dwelling unit.

So, a sec a second a second independent a second independent single family dwelling located on that same zoning lot as the principal single family dwelling. That mean the the word independent would indicate a separate building altogether. We're not adding on to a house. Then we could strike that for use as a permanent independent living independent living facility or you could say second permanent independent single family. Well, you're talking about changing it at the top. Yeah.

Get rid of that. I was Okay, that's what I was trying to say. the second permanent independent single family dwelling. So yeah, just this and the period and delete for use as a permanent independent living facility. Yeah. Yeah. That takes care of Garc issue, right? Okay. So then you said strike for use as a permanent. I was changing it on the second sentence. So Okay. And then add permanent second permanent second permanent single family dwelling located on the same zoning lot as the principal single family dwelling. Yeah. It says the same thing as you had only gets rid of the ambiguity on the definition. Yeah. All right. I like it. Okay. Good.

Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense now. Yeah. I was having trouble making sense the other way. The way I might not have been explaining it. If this makes sense, we need to change it. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Good. I like I like simplification. Yep. That's fine.

Okay. Uh on the back side then regarding communication towers. Uh good discussion last month on um smaller smaller towers that people put on on their property, you know, that are say 50 ft or less. So essentially what I did here was I I put back in uh the 50 ft or more in height.

And so that means that if you're doing a communication tower has to be 50 ft or more. If it's less than 50 foot then it's not subject to these regulations. And so that'll hopefully take care of the you know other types of small little communication towers. I think that Allan was mentioning before if I if I recall. Yeah. Yeah, private two-way radio. Private two-way radio or TV antenna or something. Does that make sense? So then if it's 50 ft or less, it's not subject to that that permitting requirement here. Yep. I like that.

All right. So, as I went through this, I looked at number 188 where it says uh the definition of a tavern where malt beverages are sold or served to customers like a liquor store would fall in that category then. Yeah. So, should it say sold and served to customers? that that's what I feel a tavern is. It sells it and serves it to customers. But when it says or that would also cover what

that may go be a throwback to the old days when you bring your own bottle and they'd serve it to you. Yeah. So yeah, I can make a note Harley. Yeah, we can look at that, you know, or if it said sold and served, that's definitely what I call a tavern. Tavern. I'd have to look at how like the other ones like if we say bar, if there's other definitions in there to see how how a tavern differs from like a bar. I don't have the rest of the regulations. I say liquor laws have changed, haven't they? Cuz there isn't like 32 beer anymore.

Yeah, there is. But it's not necessarily. It still exists. Does it? Malt. So like a serial malt beverage. Is that still a serial mage? So that doesn't that doesn't take into consideration liquor like a club then. Right. Right. Right. You're just defining a tavern, not a private club. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Right. There I'm sure there are regulations in there on on the private clubs. Yeah. That's just yeah we can pay way better

you know and that's the question on andor is you know the way you get creative and say well I'm just going to charge a cover charge and I'm not going to charge for the sale of sale of liquor. Yeah. So if you just say answer, you know, so if they, you know, guess a they're not selling it, then they're not they don't care if they're serving it, right? So I mean, yeah, I guess the definition of a liquor store is for consumption off the premise. Okay. Uh so here we could spend a whole I was going to say this is we're opening up a can.

Yeah. We can spend a whole, you know, two or three months on cleaning up definitions and stuff. So I wasn't focusing on on other ones like that. But yeah, so I think sold or served encompasses, you know, kind of coverage on both ends. So it kind of prevents people from trying to do an end run on it. I think doesn't hurt to leave the or in there. I don't think

on the height 50 ft or more. Do we need to add that tagline we've got later about including the lightning rod or who knows what could be extended. Yeah.

Yeah, we can. I mean, I guess it doesn't more in total height. You could put the word total height and I don't know if that would encompass it enough. I don't know. Oh, would for me. It would. It would for me too. If I would read that as total, then that means everything I'm putting on that pole has got to be a I mean, I think we should consider that further back because who knows what could be a new piece of equipment could be attached to the top of a tower and we just say including a lightning rod. So, I like the I like the concept of referring to the total height. Yeah.

Lightning rod or other attachment or something. Just say just say total height if there's anything above 50 ft then should be regulated 50 ft or more in total height. Okay, that should anything that's attached to it. Yeah, good. Good catch.

I didn't do anything with the definitions listed below on on communication towers. Uh so then if you go over to article two which is the a district again we're going to in the egg district permit a manufactured home in the egg district by right. It is already permitted by right. If you recall, we just took out some of the other language that was in there currently in the A district and just simplified it to say manufactured home and then you refer to the definition of what a manufactured home is on the back side. Um number nine, we talk about making cell towers or towers permitted by right. One change that I just saw here within the hour that I need to make here is we say radio or television broadcast towers. There's not that definition. So I want to change that to say essentially communication towers. Communication towers will match the definition. So uh I didn't catch that till like I said right now. So we need to change that.

Say a radio station broadcast say communication tower. Yeah. So it would just say communication towers. Um it say communication towers andor stations microwave transmitting I think. Uh oh no it al it all says that in the definition as well. So well at the end it does say any tower or other similar structure. Mhm. I think so. Yeah, I think all that could be strugg.

So, well, that's included in the definition, too. Yeah. Well, yeah, it is. Yeah. So, you just say communicates entire subject compliance with article 9, page one, two, three. Yeah. There you want to do that. There you go. Right. Yeah. There. just knock everything except that and then you just refer back to the definition. Yeah.

Yeah. There there it is. This was I had a chance to study too much. I just saw that. Okay. We didn't have that definition. So yeah, just communication towers subject complies with article 9. And that will follow true for all the other zoning districts. So article three be the same thing. Yeah, I just change that to communication.

So just communication towers subject to compliance with article 9. Um, as I recall, I don't believe there are any changes to the manufactured home stipulations in the R1 district. It would be changed from a conditional use permit to permitted by right subject to the owner of the property proving either letter A, B, or C. So, they would have to in order to be permitted by right and get a permit, they'd either have to have a manufactured home existing on the property currently or have a manufactured home that was previously on the lot but removed uh less than one year from the date of the application. So, if they had a home on there 6 months ago and they can prove that to me, then they can come back and put a new home on that property or if they had a previously approved special use permit or conditional use permit. And for those you don't know, the county used to do special use permits and those were treated like conditional use permits uh prior to 20 2016. So special use and conditional use, although now they're technically a difference uh for our county, they were they're treated as the same type of approval. Both required county commission approval. So, so if you had a special use permit back in 1998, year 2000, then that if there was nothing restricting uh that special use permit, then they could come back in and get a permit for a manufacturing. I doubt something like that would would be in existence, but that's what that's meaning.

Would there be any expiration date? Not unless it's unless we put it in. Unless you put it in at the time. Okay. Unless you put it in at that time, there would be no no expiration date because they go with the land. Can an auxiliary dwelling unit be a manufactured home? Right now, yes, unless we say no. I thought the definition is written was a per was was a permanent home, wasn't it? It says permanent. Is a manufactured home considered permanent? So, so if it's on wheels with skirting, it's not permanent. No, it is. Well, they could take it off.

Manufactured home would be like a uh built offsite and then set on a permanent. It could be, but a mobile home is manufactured home is like what you're referring to as a mobile home. So, I was going to say a manufactured home could be either one. Could be either or could be on a foundation or not, right? So, so then is going to be or not? Then I guess if if you don't think a manufactured home should be a dwelling unit, then we need then you have people pulling trailers behind their house. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that may not really fit the character of some neighborhood. I think you're right.

It's kind of like the one we had here ago. It could it could fit under that 1,200 square foot threshold that the board set. So it needs to be clarified whether we want a manufactured home to be considered an ADU. I think I think as I think as long as it would have a permanent foundation, right, I'd be okay with that. Yeah, it has to be a permanent foundation. Yeah. Because And then I think that

we we talked about that a little bit in the in the in the definition, did we not? I should. It said a second permanent single family dwelling. Well, so we didn't really define what permanent means, but permanent can mean bring it in on wheels and put anchors in there. So, I think rather than put it in the definition, easy to put under the ADU requirements and define what permanent is it in there somewhere. I think we need to Yeah, because I think a a building that's on a foundation is fundamentally different than one on wheels with sturdy. Yep. Exactly. Sure is. Yeah.

Okay. Keep that in mind and I'll we'll make a note when we get to that point. But um good point. Thanks, G. Yeah, always thinking but that's the kind of stuff that I run across weekly, monthly, and it's good to have it. Well, I was just thinking clear. Yeah. somebody is really entertaining putting a second home on their property, a manufactured home is going to be possibly a a good option for them.

Well, and we would allow it as we would allow a manufactured home through the BZA through a special exception process. So, if you wanted to put a manufactured home to care for your elderly parents, you would apply to the BZA to do that. So that is still potential option subject to being able to meet you know the the criteria of you know a child in need or or elderly parents that you know need to be cared for something along those lines. So that's an option right now that people people have but uh you know maybe if we add the dwelling unit option maybe that would be a better option versus bringing in a mobile home or manufactured home. So,

well, and a mobile home might still be the right option, but I think there needs to be maybe we doesn't be provided by Right. Right. Yeah. Exactly. And there's a three-year statute of limitation or so on that too with our regs. So, you can only have it for three years, then you have to have that renewed. What? What does a manufactured home?

What are you talking about? The three-year limit. I'm sorry. So recall when you're acting as the BCA there, we've done two of these. I believe you are a citizen is permitted to apply to the BCA to have a manufactured home on their property as a second dwelling unit for the purposes of caring for a child in need or caring for your elderly parents. you know that that was the only way that we could allow a second dwelling unit on on a property right now.

With that approval, it's limited to 3 years. Okay. Subject to renewal. So, and that can be a a mobile home. And it can be a mobile home. Yes. Because the idea is it has to be a mobile home because after that three-year period, it has to be removed from the property and we get back to one dwelling unit on the parcel. Now, the board can certainly look at it. If the situation is still the same for the property owner, you can renew it for another one year, two year, three year, whatever you you decide here.

Yeah. The idea and on you then require set on permanent val. Yeah. If you if you've done one renewal and now they're back again, you can say after six years now we want to be, you know, on a permanent foundation. But that wasn't an option until this is potentially approved. Yeah. Yeah. We still need to make we still need to define that we want a permanent foundation in in the zoning rags. If you're if you're looking at a an accessory or ADU additional dwelling unit, then we need to define that it h if if that's what you're going to classify, then it needs to be on a permanent foundation. It needs to be a permanent structure.

So, I guess where I'm going with that is is there's still an opportunity for John Q citizen to come in and put a mobile home on there if he come before the BZA. Yes. Even though we're doing this in the zoning regulation, not as an ADU though, not as an as a as a medical issue. They can do they can do a temporary they can do a temporary thing just as we just I think I just don't want to handcuff anybody. There's still an opportunity that they can it's just a different set of process that they can that they have to go through a different set of process and a different a different set of criteria or need for their

I'm game. I like that. Okay. Article four, R2 zoning district. Same same criteria. Uh change number four to say communication towers subject to compliance with the article 9. I think everything else was straightforward. I'm kind of whipping through it, but please shout out if you have have something. Article five, same issue. Number two, communication tower. Yeah.

Article six, which is our village district, same thing. Number two, communication tower. And then now we get into article nine, which is our performance standards. So the first one first performance standard is the communication tower and this is where in conjunction with allowing a tower by right in every zoning district. This would be the criteria that a cell tower company would have to comply with in order to get a permit from me for that tower on that property. Um,

go ahead Steve. 3A [Music] I would suggest in the second second line set equal distance to the total height of the commun communication tower including the writing the lightning rod. So adding the word total adding word total which kind of ties back to our earlier leave the lightning rod off. Well, this just kind of defines it. shall be equal distance to the total height of the communication tower including the light rod. Yeah. Which kind of just expands a little bit on the original definition we had.

Okay. Uh I don't believe there are any changes from A3 other than what you just said from last time. um where the where the changes came in place. I think Keith was the one that was talking about you know some of this on grain grain elevators, water towers and and and the like here. The changes that occurred in here were letters H I and J. I clarified again that a communication tower less than 50 ft in height, it should be probably not less than 50 ft in height or less.

Should we add the add the word total again just to stay consistent with everything so it reads consistent? communication tower uh less than 50 feet 50 feet in total height or less because because the definition says 50 or 50 ft or less less than 50 ft in total height what is or it say 50 feet or say 50 accepted it says 50 feet or more in height so this so the other one would be less than okay so we're fine it's right

there it says 50 feet or more under the definition. So this would be for anything less than 50 ft. So this would be from 49 ft and under. Once you get above once you get 50 ft or more, it's a permit. If you're 49 ft or less, then you are exempt from the requirements under the performance standards. So then I would say a communication tower less than 50 ft in total height is exempt. Right. Right Russ. Yep.

Okay. That that short tower still has to meet setback. Yeah. Requirements. No. If it's under 50 ft, they they can build it wherever they want on the property. Yeah. Whatever. Yep. It's less than as it is as it is now. So it can fall on the neighbors. Yep. It's not subject to permitting. That's what we were discussing last month. I had it everything. Yeah. Then we got into the discussion of TV antennas and and whatnot. So if we need to have more discussion, we can. I don't want you to have to worry about a satellite dish that gets put up.

Yeah. Yeah. You know that that's that's craziness. That's a put it bluntly. It' be a waste of your time. Now, help me out on I cuz um I was trying to get this done as you cuz I was gone here. Um is that what the board requested that a communication tower anchor to like a grain elevator, a water tower, building or other structure? Let me ask a question in regard to that. I mean, is it even feasible that somebody might attach a tower greater than 50 ft to a structure like that?

I have a concern the way it's worded because it would any building if I wanted to exempt myself, I would just find a structure or an old agricultural silo and bullet. I mean, there's there's no requirement about how it's attached. It just has to be attached. So we don't have a building codes and so I can't say that is it is it feasible to do that. I mean you know you got to remember we're not talking about necessarily sell tower companies. We're talking about any type of tower. I could put up a 300T tower as long as it's attached to a structure. Green elevator you could bolt it to your house and I would from everything. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, like I believe what we were talking about before is hey you know the grain elevator the you know the water tower is there now why don't we just carry over and just say communications tower less than 50 ft in total height anchored to whatever whatever it's exempt. So, as long as the tower part is less than 50 ft, like say it's on top of a 200 foot tall water tower, as long as the tower section is less than 50 ft, we're okay with that. I mean, I don't know if that's possibility. See, I'd caution because, you know, usually it's just the antenna. If you're talking about communication, if you're talking about cell communication companies, it's just the antenna on the head.

You already got the height, but I don't know if it's anything else. I mean, you think there's other buildings out there and they'll put a tower on top of another another building to get additional height. You know that that you know that's thing over maybe you know 100 foot tall but they need to be 300t tall.

You may have just said you may have just said what we needed to say in there antenna versus tower the antenna but then we need to put a definition in here of what antenna is. But if we put if we wrote that a communication antenna anchored to a green elevator, water tower, building or other structure ex is exempt from the performance standards and permitting requirements. We're not we're not talking about tower attached to the barn. We just we're talking about an antenna that's attached to a grain elevator. Well, we don't do anything with that right now. So, do we need to

clarify that we're not doing anything with with antennas? Well, Thought we did. Can we just delete I We do anything if it's over if it's over 50 ft. We've already said it's it's subject to regulations. Regulations. Yeah. Are you including Are you including the tower just the tower? Are you including the just well you go back to the definition of the communication tower where it tells you how to measure it total height and it says so does total height everything above ground

height of the tower is measured from the grade at the base of the tower to the top of the lightning rod base of the tower or base of the base of the tower is what it says. So if you have like say a grain elevator that's 120 feet tall, right? Then you have a tower on top, it' be based the way the definition is based on the tower, not the elevator.

And you may not meet that setback requirement and you've got a an existing drain elevator and they want to put a 75 ft tower on top of that. That grain elevator is 120 plus the 75. So you got 195 ft setback. Now you can't now you can't put the tower there because the grain elevator that was already there is too close to a property line for example. And I'm just throwing it out there. So white side elevator is case in point. It's got it's got an antenna or I don't know what it is antenna or tower or something on top of it. Right.

So do you go from the base of the elevator or do you go from where the antenna? How tall do you guesstimate the antenna or whatever to be? I've looked at it close. I'd guess 30 ft, but I don't know. I can't see anybody putting a huge Well, of course, that's I don't see that either. I don't see it because it can always happen. Yeah, I I don't see it, but the minute I say that, it'll happen, you know? So, it doesn't seem to be real. Like if someone's going to build a 700 foot tower like ones out in the sand hills east of Hutch, they're not going to stick it on top of a grain elevator to avoid.

Yeah. So I don't know if we're maybe a mute for think about something realistically going to happen or not usually when I mean if they're looking at they're going to want to hang antennas on that and we don't regulate the antennas. They're not like you said the the grain elevator probably structurally can't handle. Well, they were regulated total height which would include the antennas. Well, the picture I got from I was if I was wanting to uh circumvent your regulations, I I would put my 300 ft tower next to a structure and I would attach it somehow.

There's no requirement. And then I'm exempt from all your regulations. Couple pieces all thread. Yeah, whatever.

So, they wouldn't be exempt. So, something in that and I get what you're saying, but I would not approve that permit and if they would want to challenge my my decision, then they can appeal it to this board. Well, why would they come for a permit? Because it says it's exempt from the permitting requirements. Yeah. Well, it's No, cuz the tower is greater than 50 foot, I thought. Well, yeah, but it's but it's attached to it. Yeah. This doesn't have any difference to height.

So, maybe I So, if the the typical installation where it's just antennas aren't really relevant. So, maybe we just get rid of I I think. Is that what you're saying, G? Yeah, I think that's Well, what I wanted to preface, you know, Don and I have not had a chance to review this yet and so that's why it's one of the reasons why I didn't have on there possibly setting a public hearing date for this because he and I haven't been able to get together. So,

well, I can stretch it for now. We can discuss. Ultimately, we don't want to have to we ultimately from my standpoint when I don't want every person, every cell company that wants to put an antenna on top of an elevator to have to come through you. Yeah. Yeah. But we don't do that now. No. So, I get those weekly. I think we can just scratch that. Yep.

Okay. I mean, the only reason you're going to have an issue is if somebody is putting in something that meets our definition of a communications tower, then they've got to deal with it. What would happen if under I instead of having a communication tower anchored to a grain elevator to say on a grain elevator that definitely implies it's on top of it not just anchored to it because it's standard beside it. You can change Yeah, you can change the word on. But why don't you and Don review that and see what I'll think about. I'll do I mean

we could we could words smmith this thing to death and I just I don't know whether it's good to leave it or not right now I mean we're just getting rid of it but I'll scratch it for now with the understanding that I'll do a little more looking and discuss with Don and I'll maybe bring something back different because I was just trying to address I think it was Keith's concern about what about towers on grain elevators and other tall structures that are there right now and That's what I was concerned that I was capturing what the board was was asking. I I wasn't sure on that if I was. It sound like I kind of am, but it sound like there's more more discussion that needs to be had.

I mean, I I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to the antennas or towers on top of elevators buildings, but I don't think they're I can't think of any that I think are 50 ft or more. Yeah. I mean, you look like downtown on top of the plaza building a bunch of towers. It might be taller than you think it is, right? When you're on the ground looking up there. I think the Plaza Towers one is at least 75 ft. Yeah. Well, that's a good example. Yeah. I mean, extreme example I was thinking of like the Sears Tower in Chicago, World Trade Center. Yeah. Let's talk about Reno County, Kansas. Yeah. Well, talk about Yeah. Yeah. Plaza tower. Plaza Tower.

And the old fire station on Avenue B used to have a 100 foot tower on it. Did I climb that once? Was that on the building or It was cash. Was it? It was on top. It was very challenging to get to. Had to have fire department carriers up there. That was fun. It was. Okay. All right. Well, strategy was subject to maybe some some review. Yeah. bring you back maybe maybe something different to think about on that.

I mean if 50 ft is kind of our dividing line could we say any any uh attachment greater than 50 ft on a structure existing structure requires is regulated. That's the That's the thing, you know, if there is such a if there is such a scenario out there and somebody wants to put a 75 ft tower on top of a 200t grain elevator. Yeah. Is it subject to a permit by me or not? Well, if I'm in case you have to meet the setback, which if I'm the neighbor Yeah.

and that thing is dangling over my house. Yeah. I would like it to be I would like it to have some attention from the county. But but if you have setbacks, it's not going to meet the setbacks. So setbacks, so it's not going to be allowed issue cuz the grain elevator is already there and it ain't moving. So great elevators don't take up any more ground than they need to generally.

Okay, I'll think about that and I don't know, we'll see what happens. Uh the last one dealt with a subject I hadn't hadn't thought of and I Allan again was leading the charge on on that was the size of the equipment shelters and when is it going to be conditional use permit when is it not and so what's at the at the end isn't obviously going to be subject to the regulations. I just put that in here. I thought it was easier to do that. So I did some research on the conditional use permits that we've done over the last 10 years. with uh cell towers. Sometimes they put equipment shelters in, sometimes for whatever reason they they don't. But my research where I've issued permits, uh I've had three permits for a 12x 20, one permit for a 12x30 equipment shelter and one permit for an 11x4 equipment shelter.

One would be the only one that exceed the 300. Yeah. So that's what that's what that is saying. It's not like this is going to be part of the regulation. I just wanted to put that in for the board if you didn't catch that. And so that's what we've done as far as permitting goes. And so, so I thought looking at those square footage is 300 the number, you know, if you're going to be doing an equipment shelter greater than 300 square feet in size, then you need to do a conditional use permit based off of what the permitting is there. If you want it less than or greater, that's fine, too.

Since you only had one that was going to exceed that 300 square feet, I think that's probably about in the sweet spot, that number. That's kind of my thinking. Not like most time people are going to comply with it. Yeah. I mean, most of the time, I mean, I mean, it's an interesting thought. I think Allan, again, I I had never even thought about that. Somebody wants to put a a large equipment shelter in there to house the electronics for the tower, but also use it as a staging area for trucks or whatever. Yeah. Well, yeah, that's something a little bit different than just a small equipment shelter for the tower. I haven't I haven't seen that, but you know, you got to be prepared for stuff like that to happen if we don't have that regulation in place. So if they want something like that, then they come talk to us.

Yeah, they can come to Yeah. We're not opposed to it necessarily. Not opposed to it, but hey, what what else are you using that for? Yeah. Exactly. So yeah, I think that sounds good. Okay, good. Be a township. It's already half built or half fil. They don't have communication.

Well, they do. Some do have towers, you know, half built and half filled. So concrete por. So that was for the a district. Those those had regulations. The same thing was copied over on page 9-3 for the residential zoning district. So if I'm following you, I would add under letter A what Steve wanted. add um to the total height on the second sentence, second line, excuse me, right

to the total height of that and then under letter H on the back side on 9-4 50 ft in total height. Then I is a question mark. Then I is a question mark or a scratch. And then letter J was okay. Everybody follow

questions so far? No. Uh, next one's fairly simple. Article 14, we're going to add the word words communication tower in there because there's a listing of height regulation um exemptions, if you will. It just says that these types of structures, if you will, are not subject to the height limitations within the residential zoning district. we have specific height requirements for cell towers, you know, the 1:1 ratio. So, it's covered that way. Just so now what this does means that they don't need to get a variance to put up cell tower in there. Okay, last one, article 15, we'll start talking about ADUs. Um, first page, first page number 52 was the old cell tower regulations that we eliminated that you requested. I just put the word reserved in there because I'm not sure legally if I can just take numbers 53, 54, 55 and move them all up without doing a text amendment to that. Um,

it's easier. Yeah, I just write the word preserve. It's easier just to do that. me. I think I have to do a text, but I'm very picky in that because we are technically changing recreational areas from number 53 to number 52. I put that in for now. I'll probably talk to Patrick and say, "Hey, what do you think? Can I just move these up or or not?" If I can, then we'll just do that and call it good. But for all intents and purposes right now, I'm going to put the word reserved in there. That just means that that word means that, you know, we can put something in that spot in the future if our nuclear 54 last item. Uh, no. They go past. No, it goes past that. It's like 59 or you have to move all.

Yeah, I have to move all those. We'd be doing a text amendment for every single one of those conditional use permit items. So, well, Dr. Patrick. Yeah, exactly. We need to We're going to do a text, you know, hearing anyway. So, we just do it all at once. Easier just to write the word reserved and call it good. Then you got to cross reference that. Do you have any other references to those reg numbers you're changing? I know. Yeah, exactly. See, you can see how it just compounds the issue cuz if there's something in there that says, you know, recreational uh related activities number 53 and if it's in article six, oh, now I got to go back and change article six. So, it just compounds when you start changing stuff like that. Run that through your your word search program. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Then I can see where all the and that's how some of these uh issues come about because there's there's uh conflicts there. Okay. Um, so now we're going to talk about the A district and shipping containers. Last month, uh, I think there was some discussion on what we're calling them. And there's also some of these containers, if you will, shipping containers, kind of a a catch all

word, generic word. I also added the words interotal freight container. I think that was Alan. I think you had mentioned that again last month. That way that should cover any kind of shipping container on on a large ship or something that's brought in by semitr. Probably question for me on number four. I I guess I was struggling with words again. Um multiple storage buildings with an attached roof will not count. I I don't know if I like the words will not count and but I can't come up with any anything different. If you can, it'd be great. It's kind of in my haste and I want to get this ready to send out to you. So, I just put that in there and and if you can come up with something maybe more professional to say,

why help me out? say will not be included in the total in the permitted number of independent be included or will not be included in the permitted number of independent shipping containers parcel. What about what? Okay, I'm I'm hung up with the storage building multiple storage buildings. I would I would much I myself as I was reading that I was saying I was thinking multiple shipping containers or interotal freight containers with an attached roof will not count toward the the number of independent shipping containers on a parcel because when you're saying multiple storage buildings Yeah. Yeah.

I I'm think I'm thinking stick built. You need to say multiple independent shipping containers, interotal freight containers with an attached roof with an attached roof. I think that's what we're talking about. So we Yeah, I agree with you there. And the same thing up on two. Well, I mean cuz the reason I So the reason I wrote it that way is because we're under letter K, this top we're talking about because I I kind of caught what you were saying. I had the same thought, but then I thought later, okay, we're talking about letter K, storage buildings constructed or intended for prior use as a shipping container. So, we're talking about shipping containers under that section. We're not talking about

I was I was looking at it as it as it was standing on its own, not as See, I was too. So, once a shipping container is dropped off in the yard, it now becomes a storage building. Yes. Yeah, it's a type of building. A type of building. It's a four-sided building.

It just happens to be a shipping container interal versus a a stickuilt shed. So, yeah. So, so yeah, if you if you take letter K and think, okay, storage buildings, this it's kind of like the definition right here relatively, you know, storage buildings that are intended for prior use as a shipping container or inner modal. So, that's what we're talking about. So then everything under numbers under letter K 1 through 4 is referring to shipping containers. So do shipping containers once they're dropped off and they become a storage building. Are we counting those toward our square footage? Yes, on our accessories.

Okay. Is that written somewhere or do we just assume that? Not. Oh, okay. It is but not under the egg because egg we don't have. And you don't have that. Yes. If you go onto the back side somewhere, if you go under the we'll get to that under the residential districts. Yes. Let me kind of Yeah, this is the avoid some of the confusion we've been talking about. Could you change the first sentence

on K to say storage building structure for prior use of shipping container interotal freight container are subject to the following limitations? 1 2 3 4 or restrictions or something like that. says okay that then cross references okay K to use storage building in the following limitations restrictions yeah to the the following restrictions guidelines or not guideline the use guidelines following

restrictions I like restrictions restrictions why you were saying what we can how many you can use on what you know restricting the use or like two on a residential use no more than more than two you know whatever I'm really hung up with storage buildings being that lead off in that sentence if I'm if I'm a new reader to this document and I'm looking for uh shipping container unless I have a an electronic copy and I hit control F I'm not going to find shipping container so change around say shipping containers or interotal storage freight containers used as storage buildings.

Yes, that's that's where I Yes. Flip it around because if I'm scanning this thing for a regulation and I'm just scanning and I see storage buildings, I'm rolling right to the next just go that way and that way. But you want your eyes to hit shipping containers. I want my eyes to hit shipping containers. So you start out say shipping containers are in freight containers, used storage buildings. Yep. uh are subject to the following limitations. Correct. Something like that.

Correct. That's I mean I fault me for reading like that, but it I I'll guarantee you they're going to roll through this and be scanning it in a somewhat of a hurry and not seeing what they're wanting to see. Fine. I I like it. Yeah, I mean that's I do too. Is that all right? Hardly anything.

Okay. No, I mean that's I had thought about that way. I was just trying to keep it consistent. If we're talking about storage buildings, constructor intended for use as that and I was trying to use the word storage building throughout the document because like I say letter K is dealing with a shipping container. Well, I think this helps even with 1, two, three, and four because you're you're saying you're dealing with okay, we're dealing with shipping containers or interotal freight container containers and they're using storage buildings and then we're discussing the limitation on storage buildings. Yes. Okay. I like it.

Okay. And then I believe what we had number four I think was the one changed that if if you're going to put a roof on them then it's not going to count toward the number of independent ones meaning separate containers but it will count toward the total square footage of all your accessory buildings once we get to the residential zoning district side of things. I could stack eight of them and put a roof on it and and have my walls 16 ft tall and 80 ft long.

Mhm. I have a one thing that I was thinking of with this again we do a lot of a lot splits. Well, egg loads aren't necessarily an agricultural parcel cuz they were most of them now were limited to 7 acres and we have a lot of those out there but there's own a and so are they if we go by the egg district then they don't have that square footage limitation I think be used for egg

I think we well if it's zon from the to be exempt from the the square body's limitation if if the property is zoned a they don't need to even come to see you mark. So if you're if you're if you do an a lot split and you're you're we're not changing zoning. So it may be a residential house and that's the the intent of that district but um but there but the square footage limitation is for the residential zoning districts. But maybe that's something that we need to change elsewhere in the regulations. So

I think I think our almost on those smaller lots that that square footage might be almost it won't be dictated, but it'll be influenced by sanitation. Yeah. How big a building can I mean they they might already have the building put up. Well, your building is too big. We can't put anything. We can't You can drop a well, but we can't put any septic out here because you consumed all your property. So, there's there's there's some Yeah, I I from an egg standpoint, I don't think we need to worry about it.

Most of them are seven, but you know, yeah, you could go down minimum three, you know, and so seven acres, you're not going to have a septic well issue, you know. So,

help me out on number two there. K2 two storage buildings are permitted for residential use. So if you're so we're talking about the agricultural zoning district and so if the shipping containers are for a purposes you can have as many as you want. You're you're fine you know because they're for a purposes storage or grain whatever. But if you are using a shipping container for what I would say a residential use where it's storing your bicycles in store your motorcycle in you know I don't residential permit store antique furniture in that's not a so that's not exempt so then you're going to be limited to two in the a district for a residential use and that kind of gets back to what we were talking about with the a lot splits. as well. And the square footage, I mean, are you going to are we going to let them because their egg have five or six of these if they want?

So, you could have a egg lot that was a little over three acres. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. Well, just it just seems if we're allowing an unlimited number for agriculture purposes. So, now you're talking about parcels that are 40, 80, 160 acres. So, how are you going to go out? Who's going to who's going to go out and and look at these containers? Crack the door open on an a lot and oh, this one's full of side by sides and and motorcycles. Oh, this next one is full of seed and feed. Yeah. Nobody to do that you have to fill out an egg exemption, you know, permit. But yeah, I mean, you're right. Realistically,

realist. So, why do we even have that number two there in an egg? I that's what I was trying to get in my head. What if we don't care if there's 40 of them for a purposes? What why do we care if there's two with sideby side? You're talking about a smaller smaller parcel. But that's not that's not defined here though. Then we need to deter then we need to have a different line that says it well then it needs to be every then if that's if it's a small if we're looking at smaller parcels then every container every container needs to be in the calculation for accessory building

because right now the way you're saying it it's written that if you lived on 40 acres and you had a farm but you wanted a couple of shipping containers to store your boat and your side by sides in. You'd only have the two, right? Even though you've got 48. But if you put seed and fertilizer and then you have 100 fertilizer, built a building for your combine or whatever, you could have as many as you wanted out there. Even though it's the same lot. It's the same lot. Okay. I mean, yeah, we I mean, I get the smaller lot issue, but we don't address that in any way. Not if we're one per acre. Not yet. I mean, so maybe

if we're concerned about the if we're if we're concerned about the footprint that these containers take, then they need to be included in the accessory in the accessory building footprint. Does that make sense? I mean, I think we do later on, don't we? In the in the when in the R1 in the R1, we do, but the A is not subject to that. Then we take then we take line two out of it. Yeah. in the a side if we don't care what they have in it, however many they have to put their or do you want me to add it for a certain acreage and under, seven acres and under or whatever?

Then we're then we're starting to split hairs. Yeah. Then we then we need to then we then it's easier just to say to because we've already got the accessory square footage uh values. I don't know if values is right but we have you know 2.9 acres and under and 3.8 acres and above are x and you know 2,000 and 5,000. If if they have a a house and a 30 by30 garage that's connected to the house, well, that's all one piece. But then they build a 40 by 70

on this 3 acres, they're about they're they're out of accessory building and without coming to us if there's residential. Yeah. Okay. If this is a, right? So, do we care? I maybe

if I if if uh yeah I don't want I mean we don't want it to become a a a storage container farm out there on that seven acres. That would be crazy. I wouldn't like to look at it but that's not business. But we don't care if if you have 7 acres of stick built buildings. No, we don't. So what's the difference? There's not a difference.

See, I think two and three were kind of together because you know you're if you wanted to do a commercial use on a 7 acre egg lock split for a a commercial business, that's where we can permit more than two for a commercial use for that. But a commercial residential property, but a commercial use on egg own land would still require a conditional use permit. Like whether it's shipping containers or stick built containers or

I I think we take number two and just strike it because on an egg on a egg lot, if we don't care that they have 16 of them building a building or they're just laying them out there like cordwood, why do we care what they how they're using them? I guess I agree with that with just regulating these in the past. Storage these shipping containers. Yeah, I mean I I've done permits for not a lot, but I've done I mean what were the prior

Well, the reason we're addressing this now is because there's a conflict in the regulations. One part of the regulation says that you can have one, another part says you can't have any. And so that's why I'm trying to get rid of that conflict right now in in the reg. If you go back to the original uh set of regulations that had the strikethroughs, you can see that that conflict in there, but it's in two different sections. I mean, you you drive around, you don't see a whole lot. You see a few here and there. I mean, guy down the road from me, I know he's got two of them out in his place. There you go. I have issued I haven't issued a lot of permits, but a lot of people don't think they need one. That's what I'm guessing for a shipping container. Yeah, I can think of something.

I I would they don't think of it. I looking from that standpoint, I would hate to have to make a guy that's already put up his put four or five of them out there as for a use to I would have to explain to him why he would have to get a permit to get two more to put his side by sides in for residential use. I would hate to have to explain that to him because I don't know that I could. No. So that's that's my that's my standpoint that that we just need to strike that. That's my

Well, it goes back to the fact, you know, that you know, no regulation is perfect and no regulation can address every single scenario. So yeah, if you have your 40 acre farm, you say, I've got two out there for grain storage, now I want another one for my side by side. Yeah, that's hard to explain that away, but there are many other parcels out there that are also zone ad that aren't, you know, 40 acres as well. So that that's the struggle that I have with a lot of these regulations. So So I don't So do we regulate it at all? I guess go that is that what you're kind of thinking, Steve? I mean, do we regulate these at all? Oh, yeah.

I think there needs to be something in there by right. So if they come in and they talk to you, you have the blessing to say you're good to go. I think we need that. They don't. It goes back to when we bumped that accessory building square footage numbers when we when we had that conversation. That's something that doesn't need to become need to come before this. But you don't have to right prepare a great big long report. Is it going to be suitable? Is it going to affect the neighbors? Is it going to do all that? I in an a setting I don't believe that's the case.

Here, let me throw this out then. Okay, we do away with two. In three, you're saying no more two two storage buildings for commercial industrial and other non-residential land use. Uh maybe peritted with a conditional use permit. Then you get down to four and you say multiple storage buildings with attached roof will not count towards the peritted number of independent shipping containers. So, if you have somebody who goes in and puts four of them in there for commercial, industrial, or other non-residential land use and puts a roof over them, they're okay. Yeah. Okay. That's I mean I mean that's my interpretation of what we've got.

So, we say you can only put two for for you know industrial uses, commercial uses, but then if but if they put a roof over them then they put as many as they want. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's a building. It's a different type of That's kind of what the direction was I thought last month. Was it? Yeah. Agree. But if it's a building on an egg parcel for non-ag use, it still requires a conditional use permit anyway. Right. If you're a commercial building, if you're running a commercial building, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Yep. I think I think two is safe to strike. That might be another subject that you and Don might want to roll around a little.

Yeah, we'll we'll bat that around a little bit and come back with more uh more discussion. Um so then still in the agricultural zoning district portion, the next subject was the um additional dwelling unit. So, under letter M, I changed the word from accessory to additional. Um, I think everything else was the same. We're going to have no more than one uh ADU per the zoning lot or parcel. Um, you can convert a legal non-conforming building or portion thereof uh to an ADU. Here's where the one change was. Number four, that's this is where we had a size limitation based off of the current house that's on that property and the board wanted to strike it. So, I struck that. Now, it's like if you've got a, you know, a house out there right now, your ADU can be 1,200 square ft maximum.

Yeah. Not based off the square footage of your existing house. Remember before it was based off of the square footage of your principal house. So if you had a,000 ft house like we talked last month I mean 1,200 ft that's 3540 foot building and that would include like an attached garage or you put a detached garage is it that would be it's a 1200 foot building period. Well, I just was thinking of somebody with a special needs vehicle, right?

You know, they take up a lot of space to, you know, get the lift extended and and then that same person probably needs more square feet in the house to get around. And I I don't know if 1,200's the right number or not, but uh that was just one scenario that I was thinking. circumstances though they could come to the board for forance variance potentially. Yeah. But no it would not. So it's it's a 1200 square foot building just like you know if you had a an attached garage on your your principal house. I mean that still counts as square footage to your house. Well that's what I was thinking. So but like Steve said you can do a detached garage.

So they could still apply for variance and Yes. Oh sure. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, they do. They if that if that certain need arises and like you said they had a a type of vehicle that had a a lift in it. Yeah. Now, would an attached carport be included in square footage? So, if you had just a lean to roof type thing for a carport. No, cuz a a carport is not a four-sided building. So, it wouldn't count. could do something like that.

I'm just trying to think back because the vehicle sheltered.

I don't know question. Yeah, I my initial reaction is no. But the reason I'm I'm pausing is because in the accessory structure in the calculation of the total square footage, we do count the lean tube. Remember we had that discussion because that leanto it could be a 12 by 80 foot lean to on the side that could easily be enclosed. Mhm. And now you've added additional square footage to your building. You know you do a 60x 80 and now you do a 12t by 80 foot lean to on one side.

You're going to have siding on one side of it. You'll be open on the other two sides. But theoretically again, you could enclose that those two sides and now you've got an addition on your 60x 80. So we did count the square footage of lean tubes.

And that just helped everything being up front and say, "Okay, here's your total square footage." So then if they want to enclose it, they can enclose it later and not have an issue with zoning. But if it's an attached carport, different than a lean to it's like we've got a carport on a couple of our rentals and it's not you can't really enclose it and then it becomes the same kind of finished space as the actual house. It's just a metal roof and a couple of 4x4 post.

Yeah. And so I'm just kind of thinking out loud. Yeah. So I, you know, in that like if it's a cardboard that sends metal thing, metal carpet you find, then no, that wouldn't count toward the square footage of the house, even if it's attached. But if it's like a a wooden one or the same same type of material because some some carboards can be, you know, wood, you know, then I would I'm not going to I'm probably not going to stress over that something like that. A good thought on M on M1. Do we need to add the word permanent

again? I know I know we have it in our in our definition, but maybe we need to have shall be constructed as a separate permanent accessory building. Permanent accessory permanent separate permanent. Yeah, per I like what separate permanent and then we need to define what permanent is, right? probably need a 1A permanent. Now we're getting into building code. Well, I I mean uh I think we're just talking I mean it can be defined as foundation and foundation crawl space and or basement

something like Yeah. You know, something to that effect. Yeah. concrete slab or Yeah. Something that's not has doesn't have wheels. Not Yes. Not on blocks. Not on blocks. Must be constructed on Yeah. Yeah. Like you said, slab, concrete, slab, concrete pad. Concrete pad. Concrete slab. You do one a

foundation. Expand on that. Yeah. Good idea. Yeah. um still file that the register D stating that the ADU cannot be sold separately unless um unless it complies with subdivision regulations. Um I didn't have any other changes. I don't think the board had any changes on the rest of that from last month. How about somebody wants to make a shipping container into into a house? I mean, that could be done. It's been done. There's probably some out there. There are some out there.

Yeah. That'll be for future text amendments to talk about. You know, is it on a permanent foundation? Yeah. Well, as heavy as those critters are, I wouldn't would not want to live in something that's just on a couple cinder blocks. Yeah. Yeah. you know, the the the shipping container homes, the tiny homes on wheels, all those alternative what I call, I guess, types of dwellings. That's all going to be probably subject to a future text on just to clarify more. Not necessarily restrict, but just to clarify that they're allowed or they're not allowed. You're looking for November. Okay, there you got it. Yeah. Yeah. Final rule.

Yeah. Well, because the way we're writing this, a stereotypical tiny house wouldn't fit under the ADU because they're mostly on wheels, aren't they? Some are. There's some that aren't. You know, sometimes you take them off permanently built. Yeah. Yeah. They can't be and then that would and then they fall under the ADU. So, right now, my interpretation of those tied on wheels, that's just like an RV because you can pull it off and on the property like you do like an RV. And so, so those aren't allowed. The one the tiny homes on wheels aren't allowed on a property. Well, they could build one on a permanent foundation. You build on a permanent foundation. That's different story. Yes. They just built two in Hutchinson, right?

Fifth in Maine or somewhere around there. And they were like prefab. Yeah. Put together panel kind of construction. Having on a trailer is like an RV. So, okay. So then now we're going to transition to the residential village district. So then storage buildings under letter G. I'm going to switch those words that sensor out to say shipping container or interal freight containers or storage building. The same word again on K.

Yeah. And um no limit if it's used for egg purposes. That's And now in the R1 and R2, we want to allow one. One or allow two. R1 and R2, you're talking about in theory parcels that are at least an acre in size up to 39.99 acres. R2 is is between one and 2.99 acres. Subject two again, sanitation code compliance and setback compliance and everything.

Chances are if they're going to have one, they're going to have two. R2 is what size? 1 to three. 1 to three. R1 is 3 to 39. You're on 38 acres. Well, my beef is still the fact that we don't regulate stick built and and I could throw up a rusty corrugated tin structure and nobody I could put three of those on my property and nobody would care about that. Or

those are under the total square if you if Yeah. If they're under the if they're under the accessory square footage and and andor you say they're for egg use. I mean the appearance we're not we don't regulate appearance. No make them out of use used barn tin and we don't have building codes. So no Mark what's your thought by right you we're going to give them one storage building on R1 and R2.

We really don't have any way of forecasting foot traffic or requests on whether or not it that that's going to either bump your workload or otherwise. But by right you can bless one but if they want to put two they've got to go through the conditional use permit correct or have R1 not for residential use. No the only time you do the conditional use permit is for commercial or industrial. All right so you just can't have two in the R1 R2 for resial purposes. Say they need a variance if they want two of them. [Music]

How would they do that if they're coming? We would have to I've got 40 I've got 35 acres out there. Okay. I'm I'm rural. I'm R1 and you're you're limiting me by right. I can come to you with a signature and a stamp and get one of them laid out there. But I want to go I can put as many but it's but it's R1. It's it's real residential. So now I'm now I'm working on a different set of rules. I'm wanting two. You can bless one without any problem. What's the what's the process to getting to?

We would have to write it in here that if you want more than one that that is something that the BZA can consider as a variance because we only vary the the bulk regulations. And so our our variance procedure says that we can only vary like article 13 which are the setbacks and the height restrictions and and and the lot size. We can't just arbitrarily go in here and say, "Oh, yeah. Let's let's get a variance for that." So, they would have So, if I'm that land owner with 35 acres, you're blessed the one, but I want two. I'll have to go through the BZA to get the get a get

be allowed to because it's it's restricted here. Variances aren't allowed for anything like that, you know, because because but if we if we wrote it in if we wrote a a one a 2A in there, additional storage buildings have to go through the the BZA process for variance. Okay. Yeah, I I think that would cover because Yeah. Or as a special exception, you you'd have to decide exception would be better. You'd have to decide what process variances are mainly just for setbacks, heights, and lot configuration. I would rather add it as a special exception. What's the process for that?

Huh? What's the process for that? Speciera hearing just like Okay. exceeding the Okay. the total square footage of a of a structure. Okay. That I like that if you want to write that as like a 2A. If you if you I don't know how you want to word it. You can work smooth it how you want, but yeah. Any additional must go through the per special special exception. Are we going to say if you put a roof over the two that you want, then R or one, it doesn't matter.

Yeah, it's in there. It's if you if you have two and you put a roof on it, then it's it's not counted. We're talking about independent shipping containers. So, if you have the tube and you put a roof on it, then you're good to go. Now, you still have the square footage. Yeah. You still have to the accessory building square footage plays into it then.

Okay. I like that. So, I don't I don't want to handcuff somebody. you know, it it be the same reason same way we we we don't handcuff somebody that I've already got 5,000 square feet of of uh accessory buildings on my on my property and I can't build anymore, but I've got plenty of acreage to build that extra 40 by 80 to put my car collection in, whatever. I'm just I'm just throwing that out there. Yeah, we we allow them to do that if there's plenty of property. Mhm. So, I think that's a good move,

you know, and and you're thinking about the 35 acre R1 and that's great and and I get that that seems like, wow, I can only have one without doing this. R2, you go to the other end of the spectrum and you know, and you've got like a a 3 acre lot or even an R2 where you got an acre and a half lot and I'm in a residential subdivision. Now you're going to now you're turning my residential subdivision into an industrial site because you're allowing uh two or more shipping containers or property. So, so that's the struggle that I come up with.

If it if it comes well, but what we're writing in is one is by bless. You can bless it and they're they live long and prosper. Set it where you want it go. But if they want a second or additional, they got to come through us and we can we then through that process we can determine, okay, you don't have enough you don't have enough land for this thing. And it' be the same thing that we used to have probably when you had 35 acres and you were limited to 2,000 square feet. Yep.

Yeah. I can't approve it, but we can go through this process and you can more than likely get it. And I understand, but that's the struggle that I deal with, you know, because we've got 3 acre R1's in a subdivision where uh you may not want to have multiple shipping containers, but then you got 35 acres out in the middle of nowhere. It's essentially farm ground. Just have it be uh less than 40. But now you've got this added restriction and you got to go through this added process

to add 2 A, 2 B, 2C, maybe even 2 A. R1 has the ability of having of uh going through the the special exception process for additional ones. R2, you're done. I would say our two you're done with one because that's one to three acres. Yeah, generally I mean yeah there's yeah there might be some we always have some you know computer program glitches where you know there might be a a 3acre R2 or whatever like that. But um so you want the special exception only for R1.

No, I'm just I'm I'm going I'm working backwards now. I mean, R2, they could put two of them on there. Three acres. You could. Yeah. It's, you know, depending on what else they had on there. But yeah, they also put it on one acre then, too. I would say that if they want to if if it goes through the special exception process at that point, sanitation's going to get involved that I mean, we're going to get a lot of other other things involved in this to make sure that they've got the footprint to put this thing down. I think that that's an all right move. I think All right. We don't know. We don't know.

It's kind of like that 2,000 square foot building. How many buildings did we just rubber stamp? Right. Right. If we we we don't know where we're starting if we don't have any reference. So, let's start with that. And if it be if it becomes something that just overloads you, we can quickly react and put a text amendment in there that says, "Hey, this is crazy." So, special exception for more than one. Yep.

And if we start seeing some weird stuff, if it's for commercial, then it's a conditional use. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So well we just continue on. This is then go down to letter I with with the ADU. Now this is the ADU for residential zoning districts.

Same changes I think that we made previously. See [Music] [Applause] Okay. Um then on page 15 18 uh again no changes on that but just to reiterate that will allow you now to live in your existing dwelling while you build a new dwelling on on your property. That's something that not clear in the regulations, but I have allowed people in the past to do that subject to the removal of that of that existing dwelling. But now, you know, if it still qualifies as a,200 foot accessory dwelling, now they could theoretically leave that that existing house on the property if they wanted to. And then under 1511 on the back side, last one on page 1519. Um five

storage buildings are prohibited in R3 and village. Are there are there any currently in R3 or village? You beat me. We had one. Yeah, we had some in Yodor. Uh, are they grandfathered in or it's gone now, but more than likely I can't tell you if they'd be grandfathered in or not depending on when they put it out there, but um, yeah. So, village districts can consist of Madora area, um, St. Joe area, there's some village there. So if they're already there, are they just grandfathered in as non-compliant? Yep.

They'd be grandfathered in. We want to consider rewarding that paragraph to be more in keeping with earlier verbiage saying residents use of shipping shipping container freight containers as storage buildings. The R3 single family resident village one are prohibited.

Yep. So, if they want one in the R3 or V1, they're going to have to come prove to us that they are running a business out of it. Okay. Using it using it to store they're doing they're they have a lawn care business and they're storing their mowers in it over the winter. Y that type of thing. But if it's their personal mowers, it's prohibited. That's correct. No, no residential use of it. Yeah. Okay.

Because there's there's some, you know, Well, I'm thinking mainly Yodor, you know, businesses down there. If there's if there's somehow some room on a on a lot to be able to to store a container on there and they want to have some outside storage and they want they choose that then it would be a conditional use permit. It'd be part of that conditional use permit. The only problem with it, I guess, is if it's well, I mean, I mean, if it's an existing business, then they just have to do the conditional use permit for the shipping container at that point in time. I mean,

got to keep busy somehow, huh? Got to keep you busy somehow. I know. Yeah. Got to earn my money somehow. I don't know. Unless if it's an existing I can see doing it in conjunction with a new business like the coffee shop or solar place. Um if it's an existing business that'd be pretty tough to go through a conditional use just for a shipping container and take that all away the county commission just for that specific use. Yeah, that would seem I don't know. Maybe maybe I would write write something different and since we're going the special exception route,

chances are it's going to be on the consent agenda anyhow. So, it really doesn't Oh, yeah. It will. But now, if we do the special exception, does that go to the county commission? No. So, it's something we can approve. It doesn't have to. So, it would be something that could potentially it would save somebody, you know, about a month. Yeah. Because by the time I get get it out of here and get it up there, it saves them time and it also county commissioners don't have to deal, right? They don't have to deal with that, right? So, so maybe that's a route to consider going.

All right. What else? Well, this reminds me of the discussions I remember about these barnaminium, you know, when there when those first started showing up. Oh, there were protest and we can't build that in our neighborhood. Well, now they're all over. That's another type of home that I would like to add to the regulations just for clarifying language. I do a lot of those. A lot of those.

So, I just view storage containers as as another example of something new and different that that we're resistant to. And I still go back to, okay, if you don't want my storage container, I will build the ugliest structure I can build out of the junkiest material. And there you go.

Okay. I'll um make those changes and we'll reconvene I guess next month and maybe we'll I'll have it on the agenda as potentially setting a public hearing date if we think we're getting closer. I think so. Um we don't have to. It's always, you know, possible setting of a public hearing date. We can look at that. That won't be that public hearing probably won't be till after the first of the year. you know, on on this. Um, depending on how long that would take, I could potentially look at a training session. Uh, I owe the board training session. I know, but we've been busy with regulations for solar. Is there any topics you think that we could maybe consider?

If you're considering subdivision regulations, it might not be a bad refresher. I know we had one maybe what, a year ago. Yeah. It might not be a bad idea to kind of go through the subdivision regulations. We go through them so often. We I have to relearn them every time we have have something come through and then you could kind of tie in a discussion on this is where I want to tweak it. That kind of thing. Yeah, I can do a training on our subdivision regulations and that might trigger some thoughts on some potential text amendments because it's, you know, I I've got some things that I'd like to do uh in addition to those subdivision regulations to

Are there topics that we had uh you know our own little kind of strategic planning process about future uh feed lots? uh you know what whatever was on that list are I know there's more on the list that we haven't got to but you had that list and it wasn't been 3 4 months ago I have the list y I have the list at that within that training session yeah for sure we have a review of what the next step

be careful what you ask last night we talked about this dumped all this stuff on us all going through a little bit of a drought That's what we're getting paid for. Double time. I guess earn our mileage. Wow. Yeah. Okay. I can do I can try to put something together for that. Go have a discussion on subdivision regulations so you have a better We don't do a lot of subdivision plats here. um

because I think we're a little restrictive on on some of that stuff and I know Don and I have talked in the past about some text amendments and we can have that discussion on if that's feasible to this board or where we want to go with with that such as public roads and and the platting requirements and stuff that go along, you know, with that. So, I'll I'll put that together and if we if we get to it, great. If if it takes more time to do this, then that's fine, too. We can do that some other time. But yeah, I do owe you guys a training session, you know, yearly. And I know, like I said, we were busy with solar eggs and so we haven't got a chance to get to it like I wanted to. But I'll put that together then. That's all I have.

Any other business be brought before this board? I'll entertain a motion to to adjurnn. So moved. Second move and second to adjurnn.