Proposed ordinance adjustments despatched again for additional research | Information

“If there are substantial adjustments, it might come again to public listening to and be heard once more earlier than the County Board would look to undertake it,” Kowalzek stated.

After a public listening to and prolonged dialogue, the Planning Fee elected to go together with the third possibility. The amendments will return to the County Board for additional dialogue and/or clarification earlier than one other public listening to is scheduled.

Particularly, the Fee outlined 5 matters it wished to see addressed earlier than it may suggest adoption.

Fee Member Dave Stish advisable altering the proposed minimal parcel measurement from one acre to 2 and a half acres and eradicating the cap on the variety of animal items a single producer is allowed to have. Chairman Clint Kathrein urged lowering the proposed setback of 200 toes for a feedlot from the street proper of manner. Fee Member Brent Lindgren requested for clarifying language relating to leisure autos in ag zoning districts and survey necessities tied to variance requests.

A movement to ship the amendments again to the County Board with these 5 stipulations handed, 5-0.

“The driving pressure behind wanting on the ordinance amendments that we’re is actually the disconnect that now we have between our complete land use plan and what we are saying the position agriculture performs within the county and significance of it; and the concessions that we’re going to make for it, versus what we permit within the ordinance,” Kowalzek stated.

The proposed change that acquired essentially the most pushback from each members of the Planning Fee and individuals who spoke on the public listening to was in reference to the minimal parcel measurement in an ag zoning district. At present, the minimal parcel measurement within the ordinance is listed as 5 acres. That, nevertheless, was advisable to be lowered to 1 acre.

That included permitting three single-family dwellings per quarter-quarter (40 acres). Extra dwellings in extra of that density restrict could possibly be permitted by means of the conditional use allowing course of.

Kathrein stated, all through the previous three years, there have been a number of conferences about attainable adjustments to zoning throughout the ag district. All through that point, the concept of “good growth” was mentioned a number of instances.

Nonetheless, he stated his understanding was that the parcel measurement could be lowered to solely two and a half acres, and the variety of dwellings allowed per quarter-quarter would additionally drop to 2 or one.

“This part actually troubles me,” Kathrein stated.

“Now, what you probably did is simply made it actually inexpensive for extra individuals to try to stay out within the nation,” he added. “I’m not towards individuals dwelling within the nation, however whether it is at a value for the farmer and folks doing ag enterprise, then I’m.”

He stated the minimal parcel measurement must be modified to no less than two and a half acres earlier than he would contemplate voting in favor of recommending adoption.

“I agree with you,” stated Fee Member Dave Brutscher. “You get a one-acre lot and, what are they going to do with it? Particularly if we get proper of manner issues, as nicely. A one-acre lot, half of it’s taken up by the county proper of manner.”

Stish and Marvin Trettel additionally agreed that one acre was too small.

Through the public listening to, a number of individuals among the many eight who spoke and two who submitted letters additionally expressed opposition to the one-acre parcel measurement.

In a letter to the County Board, Paul Kuske stated that small of a parcel measurement didn’t “appear logical.” He felt it may create extra battle and issues between producers and non-agricultural residents.

Chuck Parins of Little Falls Township stated it was an “odd juxtaposition” to scale back the allowable parcel measurement to 1 acre in ag districts when it’s two and a half acres in areas zoned rural residential. Eugene Younger added that he didn’t even know what somebody would do with just one acre.

“I’ve an actual difficulty with taking place to the one-acre lot measurement,” stated Terry Hargrave, of Granite Township. “To me, I do know as a (Township) Board, we’d wish to see it 20 acres. A minimum of 5 acres, it’s usable. For a one-acre lot on the market, there’s no manner you may hardly construct on the market, with setbacks and every part.”

Following the general public listening to, Kathrein and Kowalzek defined that the concept behind lowering the minimal parcel measurement from the prevailing 5 acres was to make it simpler for individuals to utilize non-producing land within the ag areas. For instance, Kathrein stated if there was an space that may’t be farmed or it’s within the nook of a pivot, that could possibly be extra accessible for different makes use of.

Kowalzek stated dropping it from two and a half acres to 1 was carried out in an try and additional cut back the quantity of “idle” land. On a two and a half acre lot, she stated the house and every other adjoining constructions and utilities could possibly be positioned in a small space, leaving a bigger piece unused than on a one acre lot.

“If we take it down to 1 acre, the remaining could possibly be left alone,” she stated. “It provides essentially the most flexibility whereas preserving agricultural land.”

One other proposal that acquired a considerable quantity of consideration was the 200 foot setback for feedlots from the street proper of manner. In fascinated with these adjustments, Kowalzek stated a setback refers back to the nearest level of the feedlot — no less than 50 animal items and meets Minnesota Air pollution Management Company (MPCA) necessities to be registered — to the sting of the correct of manner.

Kathrein stated it was a difficulty many individuals he had spoken with had been “having a tough time with,” and he was, too. He stated the setback for a home is 40 toes from the street proper of manner, and a machine shed is just 40 or 50 toes.

“I’ve received two roads that border my property,” Kathrein stated. “I’ve received a 48-foot proper of manner and a 33-foot proper of manner. Now I’ve received 248 toes and 233 toes that I pay taxes on that I can’t use on my farm. Take into consideration that. The subsequent neighbor down the street, he can have a home 40 toes away and he can pile junk proper as much as the correct of manner they usually’re apprehensive about us parking some equipment there, 200 toes away. I’ve had a tough time with that one, and so do a whole lot of different individuals.”

In a letter to the Fee, County Engineer Tony Hennen addressed why he was in favor of the 200 foot setback from the correct of manner. He stated it’ll assist defend county infrastructure and supply a uniform panorama all through Morrison County. He additionally asserted that it might safeguard towards vital interruption to feedlot operation if future calls for dictated a street or freeway wanted to be widened.

“Current setbacks additionally make it extremely unlikely to have proper of manner enlargement require a construction removing or relocation, holding proper of manner acquisition prices inside motive for the constituents of Morrison County,” Hennen wrote.

He added that the variance course of was in place to permit for exceptions, when warranted.

Myron Czech, of Pike Creek Township, conceded that a few of Hennen’s factors had been legitimate, however felt 200 toes was “fairly extreme.”

“Should you’re like me, whenever you drive within the nation — and I do it fairly a bit — to me essentially the most stunning factor to see is the feedlots that you just drive by,” Czech stated. “The nearer they’re to the street, the higher for me.”

One difficulty on which the Fee advisable additional research by the County Board that was not included within the amendments was the cap on animal items. The most important feedlot allowed below present ordinance is a Tier IV, which is between 1,000 – 2,500 animal items.

That was not scheduled to be modified, however lots of the individuals at Tuesday’s assembly felt the cap of two,500 needs to be eliminated.

Ron Miller identified throughout public remark that there are a number of necessities livestock producers have to fulfill. He stated there are attending to be “much less and fewer” farms practising animal agriculture, however the ones on the market are bigger.

“Having the dimensions restriction, really, I believe goes within the face of our comp plan,” Miller stated.

He additional stated he hoped it could possibly be reconsidered throughout this modification course of. He additionally famous that any feedlot over 1,000 animal items needed to undergo MPCA allowing to make sure it’s assembly all operational and environmental requirements. That, he stated, alleviates a few of the points typically related to bigger farms.

“I believe you’re actually placing a burden on the livestock farmer by having that restriction in there,” Miller stated.

Czech stated he agreed that the difficulty wanted revisiting.

Kathrein stated he felt, throughout earlier discussions, it was a consensus to take away the cap. He didn’t know why it was not included within the amendments. Kowalzek clarified that it was a heavier a part of the dialogue in an earlier part of the method when there was consideration to “diversify” the ag zoning district, which was finally scrapped.

She stated, when it was determined to work throughout the framework of the prevailing ordinances, they felt lowering the setbacks from non-feedlot residents and lifting the animal unit cap on the identical time was “greater than what we wished to chew off at this second.” Nonetheless, she stated it definitely could possibly be addressed sooner or later, even when it stays within the ordinance after this course of is full.

“I don’t suppose that dialogue is over; I don’t suppose it was off the desk,” Kowalzek stated. “It simply didn’t make it into this modification.”

The clarified language relating to RVs in ag districts was in reference to a change that added language to outline the quantity that had been allowed on tons. They’re at present an allowable use, however provided that there isn’t any dwelling on the parcel. On a vacant lot, as much as two RVs are allowed.

Particularly, that is in reference to RVs getting used as a “second dwelling,” akin to a visitor cottage or cabin. They will, nevertheless, be there quickly, for as much as 10 days, and not using a allow.

Together with Lindgren believing this needs to be revisited, Dan Meyer of Leigh Township additionally felt 10 days was too in need of a interval.

“When you’ve got individuals come from out of state or out of city, I believe 10 days is just not even possible,” Meyer stated. “More often than not when individuals, if they arrive from distant, it’s far more than 10 days.”

The ultimate suggestion for additional research was associated to the addition of language again into the ordinance that requires a variance applicant who plans to encroach on a neighboring property line to get a survey carried out previous to utility. That is to make sure each events know the place the property line is situated and is relevant solely to aspect property traces.

“My concern with that is, there’s a big value to having a survey accomplished previous to a variance request,” Lindgren stated. “If we’re going to require a survey earlier than we do a variance, we’ve added a value there. Couldn’t there be a situation on the variance {that a} survey be carried out earlier than they proceed?”

Kowalzek stated the issue with that’s ensuring individuals know what they’re asking for. She stated the county doesn’t need to put the Fee able the place it grants a variance, solely to search out out that the proposed construction wasn’t even encroaching on the neighboring property.

It’s a lesson she stated they realized “the laborious manner.”

“There’s some duty on the applicant to know the place their property traces are,” she stated.

Trettel stated, as members of the Fee, they’d all been on a website go to the place the applicant didn’t know the place the property line was situated. He was in favor of this modification.

“I thank all people for his or her time; for his or her enter,” Kathrein stated. “Thanks to the Board, all people for the laborious work that they put into this. It’s a course of.”