Yankton County Planning Commission April 12, 2016

Transcription

1 The monthly meeting of the Yankton County Planning Commission was called to order by Zoning Administrator Patrick Garrity at 7:00 p.m. on. Members present at call to order: Gudahl, Sylliaasen, Kettering, Guthmiller, Bodenstedt, Pietila, Kretsinger, Klimisch and Schultz. Members absent: Svatos, Kotalik, Welch and Becker. Action 41216A: Moved by Gudahl, second by Schultz to approve the March 8, 2016 Planning Commission minutes as written. By voice vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Patrick Garrity introduced new Planning Commission member Dan Guthmiller. Patrick Garrity called for nominations for chairperson. Carll Kretsinger nominates Carll Kretsinger for chairperson. Dan Klimisch seconds the nomination for Carll Kretsinger. Debra Bodenstedt nominates Butch Becker for chairperson. Gary Sylliaasen seconds the nomination for Butch Becker. Jeff Gudahl nominates Jeff Gudahl for chairperson. Kristi Schultz seconds the nomination for Jeff Gudahl. Debra Bodenstedt moved to cease nominations. Steve Pietila second to cease nominations. Ballot election results: Carll Kretsinger is Chairperson. Carll Kretsinger requests nominations for Vice Chairperson. Kristi Schultz nominates Jeff Gudahl for vice chairperson. Debra Bodenstedt seconds the nomination for Jeff Gudahl and requests nominations cease and pass unanimous vote for Jeff Gudahl. By voice vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Jeff Gudahl is Vice Chairperson. This was the time and place for discussion with Ashley Huber. Applicant is requesting a rezone from Moderate Density Rural Residential District (R-2) to Agriculture District (AG) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as Track 2, William Schramm s Addition, S26 & S27-T95N-R56W, hereinafter referred at as Central Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA 302 nd Street, Utica, SD. 1 Mrs. Huber stated the rezone is to change a Moderate Density Rural Residential District to an Agriculture District to establish a greenhouse and horticulture production. The produce will be distributed through a Community Supported Agriculture system. The property is half Agriculture District and half Moderate Density Rural Residential District. A section line creates the zoning district situation and the property conforms to proposed use with the rezone request.

2 The Planning Commission discussed the lot size and the adjacent Agriculture District property around the proposed rezone property. The site will provide proper ingress / egress and will be compatible with all adjacent properties. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: REZONING Article 18, Section 1809 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Ashley Huber Parcel Number: Legal description: Track 2, William Schramm s Addition, S27 S26-T95N-R56W Physical Address: TBA 302 Streets, Utica, SD. The Planning Commission shall have the power to hear and make recommendations, in accordance with provisions of this Ordinance, on requests for a change in zoning. A petition for a change in zoning will not be acted upon until: 1. All documents required for application for said request have been satisfactorily completed and all required fees have been paid in full. John Smith filed the rezoning request on March 7, Fees were paid by Ashley Huber. 2. The individual petitioner provides a completed change in zone request. Said request must clearly state: A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which require the land to be rezoned; The property is Moderate Density Rural Residential District (R-2) and the applicant has adjacent agriculture property. B. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The property is adjacent to Agriculture District property and uses are agriculture. C. The granting of the change in zoning will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structure, or buildings in the area. The applicant will not confer special privileges. 3. Notice of public hearing shall be given, as in Section 1803 (3-5). 2

3 The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-half mile radius of the proposed rezone on March 31, 2016, 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing as supported by the affidavit. Legal notification was published on April2, The property was posted on April 4, The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person or by agent or attorney. A public hearing was held at 7:10 p.m. on March 8, 2016 in the Yankton County Government Center. Mrs. Huber stated the rezone is to change a Moderate Density Rural Residential District to an Agriculture District to establish a greenhouse and horticulture production. The produce will be distributed through a Community Supported Agriculture system. The property is half Agriculture District and half Moderate Density Rural Residential District. A section line creates the zoning district situation and the property conforms to proposed use with the rezone request. The Planning Commission discussed the lot size and the adjacent Agriculture District property around the proposed rezone property. The site will provide proper ingress / egress and will be compatible with all adjacent properties. 5. The Planning Commission shall make findings that the requirements of this Section have been met by the applicant for a change in zone, to include: A. The reasons set forth in the application justify a recommendation to approve the change in zone: Ashley Huber proposal to rezone the property to acknowledge the current use of the property. B. The change in zone will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure: The property will benefit from the rezone to facilitate reasonable use of the property. C. A recommendation to grant the change in zone will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance: The Planning Commission finds that the change in zone, in its proposed use, would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. D. A recommendation of approval will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as presented and testified to by the applicant. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will involve uses, activities, process, materials, equipment, and conditions that will be beneficial to the progress of Yankton County. 6. No change in zone shall be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds that the condition, situation, or the intended use of the property concerned is unique, required, or necessary as to make reasonably practicable the amendment or change in zone. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed uses of the property are sufficiently unique in its scope and intended use and approves this application. 3

4 7. Before any petition for rezoning is recommended for approval, the Planning Commission shall make written findings certifying compliance with: A. The Comprehensive Plan; The proposed project does provide for orderly, efficient, and economical development (Comprehensive Plan p.138 & 139). B. Specific rules governing land uses: The proposal will meet all rules governing land uses as proposed. C. Zoning district regulations: The Planning Commission finds that Agriculture District regulations will be met. D. Satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning the following, where applicable: 1. Certification of compliance with all ordinances and regulations regarding licensing and zoning, health, plumbing, electrical, building, fire prevention, and all other applicable ordinances and regulations; All codes and other ordinances have been met by the applicant in all proposed activities for an Agriculture District.. 2. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe; The Planning Commission finds that ingress/egress to the property will be designed as not to create traffic congestion or interference with traffic or surrounding thoroughfares. 3. Off right-of-way parking and loading areas where required; with particular attention to the items in (A) above and the economic, noise, glare or odor effects of the amendment or rezone on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district; The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has provided a plan for adjoining properties or properties generally in the district. 4. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in (A) and (B) above; All refuse and service areas will be provided and in proper working condition / service as shown in the site plan. 5. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility; The applicant has on site power and water utility service. 6. Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character; The Planning Commission finds that buffering is sufficient. 7. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district; All signage must meet requirements in YC Zoning Ordinance Article Required yards and other open spaces; The yards and open spaces are currently meeting requirements. 9. General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is compatible with adjacent properties. In recommending approval of any petition for a change in zone, the Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this ordinance. 4

5 1. Based upon the above findings for a rezone from Moderate Density Rural Residential District to Agriculture District, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation(s): A. Approve the applicant a Rezone from Moderate Rural Residential District to Agriculture District. Action 41216B: Moved by Schultz, second by Bodenstedt to recommend approval of a Rezone from Moderate Density Rural Residential District (R-2) to Agriculture District (AG) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as Track 2, William Schramm s Addition, S26 & S27-T95N-R56W, hereinafter referred at as Central Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA 302 nd Street, Utica, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. This was the time and place for discussion with Lloyd Nedved. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to conduct Agriculture Services (corn / soybean seed sales) a variance of Maximum Accessory Structure from 2,000 sq. ft. to 5,184 sq. ft. and a variance of Minimum Lot Requirement from five (5) acres to three (3) acres in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. The property is legally described as NE1/4, exc Lots H-1 & H-2, S1- T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA 434 th Avenue, Yankton, SD. Plat consideration: Said property is legally described as: Scott Nedved Addition, NE1/4, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred at as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA SD Hwy 50, Yankton, SD. Scott Nedved, representing Lloyd Nedved, stated the request is to start a farm seed distribution on the site. The SD Hwy 50 frontage is a key component for decision to locate on this site. The property is a total of 160 acres in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1). The current use is agriculture production (soybeans / corn) and the proposal is separate three (3) acres to place an accessory structure. The ingress / egress will be approximately three (300) hundred from SD Hwy 50. Dayna Larson, a neighbor, stated her interest is safety for the children in the Homestead Addition area. The majority of the lots are protected by topography and vegetation. One neighbor on 434 th Avenue is content about the ingress / egress location approximately three (300) feet from his driveway. Richard Bahm, a neighbor, stated children play in the yards, but it is rural and agriculture type traffic is expected. The commission discussed the application and stated the large accessory structure is double the size allowed in Article 6, Section 605 (1). If the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance is to be effective, some requests should not be approved. The intent of the accessory structure size is to limit building density in rural residential districts. The request also must acknowledge the size of the property (160 acres), the location along SD Hwy 50 and good ingress / egress to the proposed lot. The property was zoned in 2003 and the use has continued to be agriculture. 5

6 Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: CONDITIONAL USE Article 18, Section 1805 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Lloyd Nedved Parcel Number: Legal description: NE1/4, exc Lots H-1 & H-2, S1-T93N-R57W Physical Address: TBA SD Hwy 50, Yankton, SD 1. The applicant specifically cited the section of the zoning ordinance under which the conditional use is sought and has stated the grounds on which it is requested; Applicant requested CUP under Article 6, Section 607 (1) to locate an Agriculture Structure / Sales Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1). 2. Notice of public hearing was given, as in Section 1803 (3-5); The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed Conditional Use Permit on April 1, 2016 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on April 2, 2016 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on April 4, The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person, or by agent or attorney; A public meeting was held at 7:25 pm on in the Yankton County Government Center County Commission chambers. Scott Nedved, representing Lloyd Nedved, stated the request is to start a farm seed distribution on the site. The SD Hwy 50 frontage is a key component for decision to locate on this site. The property is a total of 160 acres in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1). The current use is agriculture production (soybeans / corn) and the proposal is separate three (3) acres to place an accessory structure. The ingress / egress will be approximately three (300) hundred from SD Hwy 50. Dayna Larson, a neighbor, stated her interest is safety for the children in the Homestead Addition area. The majority of the lots are protected by topography and vegetation. One neighbor on 434 th Avenue is content about the ingress / egress location approximately three (300) feet from his driveway. Richard Bahm, a neighbor, stated children play in the yards, but it is rural and agriculture type traffic is expected. The commission discussed the application and stated the large accessory structure is double the size allowed in Article 6, Section 605 (1). If the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance is to 6

7 7 be effective, some requests should not be approved. The intent of the accessory structure size is to limit building density in rural residential districts. The request also must acknowledge the size of the property (160 acres), the location along SD Hwy 50 and good ingress / egress to the proposed lot. The property was zoned in 2003 and the use has continued to be agriculture. 4. The Planning Commission shall make a finding and recommendation that it is empowered under the section of this Ordinance described in the application, to include: A. Recommend granting of the conditional use; B. Recommend granting with conditions; or C. Recommend denial of the conditional use. The commission recommends granting of the conditional use permit with conditions stated in the following findings. 5. Before any conditional use is decided, the Planning Commission shall make written findings certifying compliance with the specific rules governing individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning the following, where applicable: A. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe; The applicant has shown sufficient access to property with established roadway (SD Hwy 50). B. Off right-of-way parking and loading areas where required; with particular attention to the items in (A) above and economic, noise, glare or odor effects of the conditional use on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district; All off right-ofway parking is in compliance with proposed site plan. C. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in (A) and (B) above; Refuse and service areas are in compliance with Article 6. D. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility; Utilities are currently available and will be in operational condition. E. Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character; Screening and buffering are provided as stated in Article 6. F. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district; All signage will conform to Article 14, Yankton County Zoning Ordinance G. Required yards and other open spaces; Yards and open spaces have been met or exceeded 6. General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district and that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. The use is compatible with adjacent properties and the granting of a Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the public interest. The recommendation is approval of Conditional Use

8 Permit to locate an Agriculture Structure / Sales in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1). Action 41216C: Moved by Klimisch, second by Sylliaasen to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit based on Finding of Facts dated, pursuant to Article 18, Section 1805 of the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance, to locate an Agriculture Structure / Sales in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as NE1/4, exc Lots H-1 & H-2, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA 434 th Avenue, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, eight members present voted aye, one member present voted nay. Motion carried. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: VARIANCE Article 18, Section 1807 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Lloyd Nedved Parcel Number: Legal description: NE1/4, exc Lots H-1 & H-2, S1-T93N-R57W Physical Address: TBA SD Hwy 50, Yankton, SD No such variance shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission unless it finds: A. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The property owners request to have an accessory structure for a farm service facility adjacent to SD Hwy 50. B. Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; The hardship can be shared by other properties but is limited to properties with highway frontage and agriculture production property. C. The authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the grant of the variance; The granting of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property nor the character of the district. D. The granting of such variance is based upon reasons of demonstrable and exceptional hardship as distinguished from variations for purposed of convenience, profit, and caprice. No convenience, profit or caprice was shown.

9 2. No variance shall be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds the condition or situation of the property concerning or the intended use of the property concerned, or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment of this ordinance. The requested variance can be recurring with special circumstances discussed in the findings. 3. A recommendation of approval concerning a variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be founded by the Planning Commission unless and until: A. A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings, in the same district; The property is demonstrating special conditions or circumstances with size and location and could be applicable to other properties. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance; Previous variances of maximum accessory structure requirement have been granted in Yankton County. C. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The special conditions and circumstances are not a result of the applicant. D. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same district. Variance requests of this type (maximum accessory structure requirement) have been recommended previously by the Planning Commission. 4. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in this district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered. 5. Notice of public hearing shall be given, as in Section 1803 (3-5). The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed variance on April 1, 2016 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on April 2, 2016 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on April 4, The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. A public hearing was held at 7:25 pm on. Scott Nedved, representing Lloyd Nedved, stated the request is to start a farm seed distribution on the site. The SD Hwy 50 frontage is a key component for decision to locate on this site. The property is a total of 160 acres in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1). The current use is agriculture production (soybeans / corn) and the proposal is separate three (3) acres to place an accessory structure. The ingress / egress will be approximately three (300) hundred from SD Hwy 50. Dayna Larson, a neighbor, stated her interest is safety for the children in the Homestead Addition area. The majority of the lots are protected by topography and vegetation. One 9

10 neighbor on 434 th Avenue is content about the ingress / egress location approximately three (300) feet from his driveway. Richard Bahm, a neighbor, stated children play in the yards, but it is rural and agriculture type traffic is expected. The commission discussed the application and stated the large accessory structure is double the size allowed in Article 6, Section 605 (1). If the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance is to be effective, some requests should not be approved. The intent of the accessory structure size is to limit building density in rural residential districts. The request also must acknowledge the size of the property (160 acres), the location along SD Hwy 50 and good ingress / egress to the proposed lot. The property was zoned in 2003 and the use has continued to be agriculture. 7. The Planning Commission shall make findings that the requirements of this Section have been met by the applicant for a variance; the Commission shall further make a finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify the recommendations of granting the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; the Planning Commission shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The Planning Commission further finds that the reasons set forth in the application and hearing satisfy all requirements for this variance request. 8. In recommending approval of any variance, the Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this ordinance. The Planning Commission approves this request. 9. Under no circumstances shall the Planning Commission recommend granting a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this ordinance in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this ordinance in said district. The variance request of Maximum Accessory Structure Requirement is approved. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: VARIANCE Article 18, Section 1807 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Lloyd Nedved Parcel Number:

11 Legal description: NE1/4, exc Lots H-1 & H-2, S1-T93N-R57W Physical Address: TBA SD Hwy 50, Yankton, SD No such variance shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission unless it finds: A. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The property owners request to separate property for the farm service facility from the farm production property. B. Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; The hardship can be shared by other properties but is limited to properties with highway frontage and agriculture production property. C. The authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the grant of the variance; The granting of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property nor the character of the district. D. The granting of such variance is based upon reasons of demonstrable and exceptional hardship as distinguished from variations for purposed of convenience, profit, and caprice. No convenience, profit or caprice was shown. 2. No variance shall be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds the condition or situation of the property concerning or the intended use of the property concerned, or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment of this ordinance. The requested variance can be recurring with special circumstances discussed in the findings. 3. A recommendation of approval concerning a variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be founded by the Planning Commission unless and until: A. A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings, in the same district; The property is demonstrating special conditions or circumstances with size and location and could be applicable to other properties. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance; Previous variances of minimum lot requirement have been granted in Yankton County. C. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The special conditions and circumstances are not a result of the applicant. D. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same district. Variance requests of this type (minimum lot requirement) have been recommended previously by the Planning Commission. 4. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts

12 12 shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in this district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered. 5. Notice of public hearing shall be given, as in Section 1803 (3-5). The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed variance on April 1, 2016 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on April 2, 2016 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on April 4, The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. A public hearing was held at 7:25 pm on. Scott Nedved, representing Lloyd Nedved, stated the request is to start a farm seed distribution on the site. The SD Hwy 50 frontage is a key component for decision to locate on this site. The property is a total of 160 acres in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1). The current use is agriculture production (soybeans / corn) and the proposal is separate three (3) acres to place an accessory structure. The ingress / egress will be approximately three (300) hundred from SD Hwy 50. Dayna Larson, a neighbor, stated her interest is safety for the children in the Homestead Addition area. The majority of the lots are protected by topography and vegetation. One neighbor on 434 th Avenue is content about the ingress / egress location approximately three (300) feet from his driveway. Richard Bahm, a neighbor, stated children play in the yards, but it is rural and agriculture type traffic is expected. The commission discussed the application and stated the large accessory structure is double the size allowed in Article 6, Section 605 (1). If the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance is to be effective, some requests should not be approved. The intent of the accessory structure size is to limit building density in rural residential districts. The request also must acknowledge the size of the property (160 acres), the location along SD Hwy 50 and good ingress / egress to the proposed lot. The property was zoned in 2003 and the use has continued to be agriculture. 7. The Planning Commission shall make findings that the requirements of this Section have been met by the applicant for a variance; the Commission shall further make a finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify the recommendations of granting the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; the Planning Commission shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The Planning Commission further finds that the reasons set forth in the application and hearing satisfy all requirements for this variance request. 8. In recommending approval of any variance, the Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this ordinance. The Planning Commission approves this request. 9. Under no circumstances shall the Planning Commission recommend granting a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this ordinance in the district involved, or

13 any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this ordinance in said district. The variance request of Minimum Lot Requirement is approved. Action 41216D: Moved by Bodenstedt, second by Schultz to recommend approval of the Variance, pursuant to Article 18, Section 1807 of the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance, based on Finding of Facts dated, of variance of Maximum Accessory Structure from 2,000 sq. ft. to 5,184 sq. ft. and a variance of Minimum Lot Requirement from five (5) acres to three (3) acres in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. The property is legally described as NE1/4, exc Lots H-1 & H-2, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA 434 th Avenue, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, eight members present voted aye, one member present voted nay. Motion carried. Action 41216E: Moved by Gudahl, second by Bodenstedt to recommend approval of a plat. Said property is legally described as: Scott Nedved Addition, NE1/4, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred at as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA SD Hwy 50, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. This was the time and place for discussion with Richard Bahm. Applicant is requesting a variance of Maximum Accessory Structure from 1,200 sq. ft. to 2,400 sq. ft. in a Moderate Density Rural Residential District (R-2) in Yankton County. The property is legally described as Kabeiseman Tract 3, exc Lots A, B, & C & exc Frailing Addition, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is th Avenue, Yankton, SD. Mr. Bahm requests a variance of accessory structure to provide sufficient storage area for his private use. The property is 39+ acres and the proposed structure does not adversely affect the building density in the neighborhood. A proponent wrote a letter of support to allow such structures in rural districts. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: VARIANCE Article 18, Section 1807 FINDINGS OF FACT 13 Applicant: Richard Bahm

14 Parcel Number: Legal description: Kabeiseman Tract 3, exc Lots A, B, & C & exc Frailing Addition, S1-T93N- R57W Physical Address: th Avenue, Yankton, SD No such variance shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission unless it finds: E. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The property owners require larger storage areas and want to locate the structure on their property. F. Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; The hardship can be shared by other properties but is limited to properties in isolated locations and proper topography. G. The authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the grant of the variance; The granting of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property nor the character of the district. H. The granting of such variance is based upon reasons of demonstrable and exceptional hardship as distinguished from variations for purposed of convenience, profit, and caprice. No convenience, profit or caprice was shown. 2. No variance shall be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds the condition or situation of the property concerning or the intended use of the property concerned, or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment of this ordinance. The requested variance can be recurring with special circumstances discussed in the findings. 3. A recommendation of approval concerning a variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be founded by the Planning Commission unless and until: A. A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings, in the same district; The property is demonstrating special conditions or circumstances with size and location and could be applicable to others structures or buildings. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance; Previous variances of maximum structure requirement have been granted in Yankton County. C. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The special conditions and circumstances are not a result of the applicant. D. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structure, or buildings in

15 the same district. Variance requests of this type (maximum structure requirement) have been recommended previously by the Planning Commission. 4. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in this district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered. 5. Notice of public hearing shall be given, as in Section 1803 (3-5). The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed variance on March 31, 2016 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on April 2, 2016 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on April 4, The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. A public hearing was held at 7:40 pm on. Mr. Bahm requests a variance of accessory structure to provide sufficient storage area for his private use. The property is 39+ acres and the proposed structure does not adversely affect the building density in the neighborhood. A proponent wrote a letter of support to allow such structures in rural districts. 7. The Planning Commission shall make findings that the requirements of this Section have been met by the applicant for a variance; the Commission shall further make a finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify the recommendations of granting the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; the Planning Commission shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The Planning Commission further finds that the reasons set forth in the application and hearing satisfy all requirements for this variance request. 8. In recommending approval of any variance, the Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this ordinance. The Planning Commission approves this request. 9. Under no circumstances shall the Planning Commission recommend granting a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this ordinance in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this ordinance in said district. The variance request of Maximum Structure Requirement is approved. 15 Action 41216F: Moved by Bodenstedt, second by Pietila to recommend approval of the Variance, pursuant to Article 18, Section 1807 of the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance, based on Finding of Facts dated, of variance of Maximum Accessory Structure from 1,200 sq. ft. to 2,400 sq. ft. in a Moderate Density Rural Residential District (R-2) in Yankton County. The property is legally described as Kabeiseman Tract 3, exc Lots A, B, & C & exc Frailing Addition, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is th Avenue, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye.

16 Motion carried. This is the time and place to for discussion with Darren Tuch. Applicant is requesting a variance of Maximum Accessory Structure from 2,000 sq. ft. to 2,520 sq. ft. in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. The property is legally described as Blk 1, Deer Run S/D, E1/2, SW1/4, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 202 Cedar Hills Road, Yankton, SD. Mr. Tuch requests the accessory structure variance to provide storage for his machinery and personal items. The lot size 5+ acres. The proposed accessory structure does adversely affect the building density in the neighbor hood. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: VARIANCE Article 18, Section 1807 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Richard Bahm Parcel Number: Legal description: Kabeiseman Tract 3, exc Lots A, B, & C & exc Frailing Addition, S1-T93N- R57W Physical Address: th Avenue, Yankton, SD No such variance shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission unless it finds: A. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The property owners require larger storage areas and want to locate the structure on their property. B. Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; The hardship can be shared by other properties but is limited to properties in isolated locations and proper topography. C. The authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the grant of the variance; The granting of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property nor the character of the district.

17 D. The granting of such variance is based upon reasons of demonstrable and exceptional hardship as distinguished from variations for purposed of convenience, profit, and caprice. No convenience, profit or caprice was shown. 2. No variance shall be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds the condition or situation of the property concerning or the intended use of the property concerned, or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment of this ordinance. The requested variance can be recurring with special circumstances discussed in the findings. 3. A recommendation of approval concerning a variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be founded by the Planning Commission unless and until: A. A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings, in the same district; The property is demonstrating special conditions or circumstances with size and location and could be applicable to others structures or buildings. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance; Previous variances of maximum structure requirement have been granted in Yankton County. C. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The special conditions and circumstances are not a result of the applicant. D. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same district. Variance requests of this type (maximum structure requirement) have been recommended previously by the Planning Commission. 4. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in this district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered. 5. Notice of public hearing shall be given, as in Section 1803 (3-5). The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-quarter mile radius of the proposed variance on April 1, 2016 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on April 2, 2016 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on April 4, The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. A public hearing was held at 7:50 pm on. Mr. Tuch requests the accessory structure variance to provide storage for his machinery and personal items. The lot size 5+ acres. The proposed accessory structure does adversely affect the building density in the neighbor hood. 17

18 7. The Planning Commission shall make findings that the requirements of this Section have been met by the applicant for a variance; the Commission shall further make a finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify the recommendations of granting the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; the Planning Commission shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The Planning Commission further finds that the reasons set forth in the application and hearing satisfy all requirements for this variance request. 8. In recommending approval of any variance, the Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this ordinance. The Planning Commission approves this request. 9. Under no circumstances shall the Planning Commission recommend granting a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this ordinance in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this ordinance in said district. The variance request of Maximum Structure Requirement is approved. Action 41216G: Moved by Kettering, second by Gudahl to recommend approval of the Variance, pursuant to Article 18, Section 1807 of the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance, based on Finding of Facts dated, of variance of Maximum Accessory Structure from 2,000 sq. ft. to 2,520 sq. ft. in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. The property is legally described as Blk 1, Deer Run S/D, E1/2, SW1/4, S1-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 202 Cedar Hills Road, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Brian McGinnis presented a draft of Yankton County Comprehensive Plan Chapters IV, V & VI. The Planning Commission discussed each chapter. The commission then discussed the Planning Considerations at the end of each chapter. The Planning Considerations are a critical component in the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance is the regulatory tool to implement what the Planning Commission recommends for Planning Considerations. Action 41216H: Moved by Gudahl, seconded by Sylliaasen for adjournment. By voice vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. The next meeting of the Yankton County Planning Commission will be held at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 10, Respectfully submitted: Patrick Garrity Zoning Administrator 18