The monthly meeting of the Yankton County Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Carll Kretsinger at 6:00 p.m. on. Members present at call to order: Klimisch, Guthmiller, Williams, Sylliaasen, Welch, Bodenstedt, Gudahl, Kretsinger, Pietila, and Schultz. Members absent: Becker, Kotalik and Kettering. Action 31417A: Moved by Bodenstedt, second by Williams to approve the February 14, 2017 as written. By voice vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Action 31417B: Moved by Schultz, second by Klimisch to approve the February 27, 2017 Planning Commission minutes, with corrections. By voice vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Brian McGinnis facilitated a Comprehensive Plan discussion on Chapter VII Economy Policy recommendations. The discussion on Chapter VII Economy planning challenges and policy recommendation was focused on the policy to limit Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Yankton County. The planning commission discussed the implications of permitting large scale operations in our rural areas. A suggestion to replace #6 Protect the quality of life for county residents establishing limitations on concentrated animal feeding operations regarding maximum size and minimum setbacks; Encourage growth in agriculture industry by maintaining environmental regulations and promoting best management practices in agriculture. Planning Commission discussion to have both statements in the Comprehensive Plan. An extended conversation regarding the advantages / disadvantages of large scale agriculture in Yankton County. Mr. Klimisch stated the Conditional Use Permit from SDN, LLC regarding the thirty (30) and fifty (50) foot poles received objections from some commissioners. Other comments stated excluding #6 and it is a repetition of #4. Other comments were quality of life issues and the importance of this factor in Yankton County. Some members state the CAFO will ruin our quality of life in Yankton County. A process to facilitate neighbor cooperation is an option for regulations. Family farms are increasing in size and need the ability to expand to remain competitive. Current regulations with maximum animal units does control large scale agriculture in Yankton County. Mr. McGinnis states too much is given to #6 and the statement does not eliminate large scale agriculture. The Planning Commission needs to understand property rights and quality of life. Planning Commission discussion stated promotion of the three top strengths in Yankton County, Agriculture, Tourism and Manufacturing. Agriculture drives the local economy and expansion is critical to future growth. Regarding Yankton diverse economy, policy statements are important to establish regulations for implementation. Mr. Kretsinger requested comments from the audience. Jim Petrik stated he does not forecast Yankton County as a large attraction for many CAFO operations. The best option is to allow expansion of existing family operations. 1
Tom Gilmore discussed medical impacts CAFO s will bring to Yankton County. In reference to medical journals, E. coli, salmonella and other infectious diseases can occur around CAFO s. Mr. Gilmore favors best management practices and does not favor any changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Pam Epp stated medical issues are not confined to CAFO s. Many of these issues appear in many industries and all industries are diligent about proper sanitation procedures to limit these issues. Ron Heine stated his operation has experienced no medical issues at his family farm operation. He stated the regulations are beneficial to reduce environmental issues and health issues. Cheri Loest stated quality of life is important and the regional casino concept is focusing on the quality of life in Yankton County. She wants the commission to keep the quality of life statement. Guy Larson stated everything is same as fifteen (15) years age, the county is not interested in CAFO s. Mr. Larson stated the citizens will request a public vote on any changes to the Comprehensive Plan and / or Zoning Ordinance. Dick Weydert stated limitations on Agriculture is demoralizing for growth and the lack of growth over the last fifteen (15) years is the evidence. Nate Hicks states he refutes the thought Agriculture is leaving Yankton County. He states the CAFO s will limit new producers and the proposed CAFO operations are too expensive for beginning farmers. Greg Loest states a marriage of statements as outlined will cause no harm. #6 Protect the quality of life for county residents by establishing limitations on concentrated animal feeding operations regarding maximum size and minimum setbacks; Encourage growth in agriculture industry by maintaining environmental regulations and promoting best management practices in agriculture. John Kramer states quality of life is subjective and agriculture producers need multiple income sources to be competitive in the current environment. Marilyn Huntley asked about the zoning process and public hearing process. Wes Chambers stated his experience is family farm operations are building the 2400 head pork facilities to provide pork for the new slaughtering facility in Sioux City, IA. Dave Husby stated the last pork production facility in Yankton County was 2007. Mike Sherman stated as livestock equipment business, eighty-five (85%) percent of his business is in northeast Nebraska. In Cedar County, NE there are twenty-two (22) functioning dairies. Jessica Goeken stated quality of life is important and agriculture needs a chance to expand and prosper. Debra Bodenstedt stated the Yankton County citizen have clearly stated no new taxes. The CAFO and Agriculture growth can help with this issue. Chairman Carll Kretsinger requested a motion regarding the Comprehensive Plan statements. Motion 31417C: Moved by Schultz, second by Klimisch to leave #6 Protect the quality of life for county residents by establishing limitations on concentrated animal feeding operations regarding maximum size and minimum setbacks; as presented and add #11 Encourage growth in agriculture industry by maintaining environmental regulations and promoting best management practices in agriculture. By roll call vote, two (2) members present voted aye, eight (8) members present voted nay. Motion failed 2
Motion 31417D: Moved by Bodenstedt, second by Williams to change statement to #6 Protect the quality of life for county residents and encourage growth in agriculture industry by maintaining environmental regulations and promoting best management practices in agriculture. By roll call vote, eight (8) members present voted aye, two (2) members present voted nay. Motion carried. Preliminary Plat considerations: Ryken / Knodel Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Tract A, Law Overlook Subdivision, SW1/4, SE1/4, S7 and NE1/4, S18, S7&18- T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Dew Drop In Lane, Yankton, SD. Action 31417E: Moved by Klimisch, second by Bodenstedt to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Said property is legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Tract A, Law Overlook Subdivision, SW1/4, SE1/4, S7 and NE1/4, S18, S7&18-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Dew Drop In Lane, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Plat Considerations: Ken Mertens Lot 1, Leona s Addition, NW1/4, S17-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 103 Marina Bluffs Court, Yankton, SD. Action 31417F: Moved by Bodenstedt, second by Sylliaasen to recommend approval of the plat. Said property is legally described as: Lot 1, Leona s Addition, NW1/4, S17-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 103 Marina Bluffs Court, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. 3 Baycliffe Estates Lot 26, Baycliffe Estates, W1/2, S12.91 Acres, S1/2, SW1/4, Section 7 and W1/2, W1/2, Section 18, North SD Hwy 52, exc Tramps 7 th & exc Lots 1 2 of Parcel A, B & C, McVay Addition, S7 & 8-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Baycliffe Drive, Yankton, SD. Action 31417G: Moved by Schultz, second by Pietila to recommend approval of the plat. Said property is legally described as: Lot 26, Baycliffe Estates, W1/2, S12.91 Acres, S1/2, SW1/4, Section 7 and W1/2, W1/2, Section 18, North SD Hwy 52, exc Tramps 7 th & exc Lots 1 2 of Parcel A, B & C, McVay Addition, S7 & 8-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Baycliffe Drive, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried.
Kaiser Plat Lot 2, Dan Kaiser Addition, NW1/4, SE1/4, S14-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Hidden Hollows Drive, Yankton, SD. Action 31417H: Moved by Pietila, second by Klimisch to recommend approval of the plat. Said property is legally described as: Lot 2, Dan Kaiser Addition, NW1/4, SE1/4, S14-T93N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Ziskov South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Hidden Hollows Drive, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. Ryken/Knodel Plat Lot 2, Tract A, Law Overlook Subdivision, SW1/4, SE1/4, S7 & NE1/4, S18, S7&S18-T93N- R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Dew Drop In Lane, Yankton, SD. Action 31417I: Moved by Schultz, second by Bodenstedt to recommend approval of the plat. Said property is legally described as: Lot 2, Tract A, Law Overlook Subdivision, SW1/4, SE1/4, S7 & NE1/4, S18, S7&S18-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Dew Drop In Lane, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. This was the time and place for discussion with Jarod Schrempp. Applicant is requesting a variance to build an accessory structure before the principal structure (residential) in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County and a variance of Maximum Accessory Structure Size from 2,000 square feet to 2,520 square feet in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as E521.75, E1/2, SW1/4, exc Lot 11, Block 2, Kingsley Knolls & exc Lots A & B, Kingsley Knolls, S7-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Kaiser Road, Yankton, SD. The Zoning Administrator stated the applicant requests an accessory structure before the principal structure. This is a Conditional Use Permit issue not a variance. Variances pertain to area and size while Conditional Use Permits create controlled conditions that would not be appropriate throughout the district. Jared Schrempp request to build the accessory structure 520 square feet larger than the Low Density Rural Residential District requirement. Mr. Schrempp will build the principal structure in five (5) to eight (8) years. The property is over five (5) acres with sufficient space for the accessory structure and principal structure. The Planning Commission discussed the application and clarified the variance and CUP distinction. The property is sufficient size to properly site the structures. The time period for building the principal structure was discussed and a condition of five (5) years was requested. No other comments, positive or negative, were received by the Zoning Administrator or presented at the public hearing. 4 Yankton County Planning Commission
Meeting date: CONDITIONAL USE Article 18, Section 1805 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Jared Schrempp Parcel Number: 09.007.300.125 Legal description: E521.75, E1/2, SW1/4, exc Lot 11, Block 2, Kingsley Knolls & exc Lots A & B, Kingsley Knolls, S7-T93N-R56W Physical Address: TBA Kaiser Road, Yankton, SD 5 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 to build an accessory structure before the principal structure (residential) in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County 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 variance on March 3, 2017 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on March 4, 2017 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on March 6, 2017. 3. The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person, or by agent or attorney; A public meeting was held at 7:45 pm on in the Yankton County Government Center County Commission chambers. The Zoning Administrator stated the applicant requests an accessory structure before the principal structure. This is a Conditional Use Permit issue not a variance. Variances pertain to area and size while Conditional Use Permits create controlled conditions that would not be appropriate throughout the district. Jared Schrempp request to build the accessory structure 520 square feet larger than the Low Density Rural Residential District requirement. Mr. Schrempp will build the principal structure in five (5) to eight (8) years. The property is over five (5) acres with sufficient space for the accessory structure and principal structure. The Planning Commission discussed the application and clarified the variance and CUP distinction. The property is sufficient size to properly site the structures. The time period for building the principal structure was discussed and a condition of five (5) years was requested. No other comments, positive or negative, were received by the Zoning Administrator or presented at the public hearing. 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
The commission recommends granting of the conditional use permit with conditions stated in the following findings C. Recommend denial of the conditional use. 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 (Kaiser Road). 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-of-way parking is in compliance required by Article 6. 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 permanent relief 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 are sufficient. 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 condition is to build the principal structure before March, 2022 (five years). Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: VARIANCE Article 18, Section 1807 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Jared Schrempp 6
Parcel Number: 09.007.300.125 Legal description: E521.75, E1/2, SW1/4, exc Lot 11, Block 2, Kingsley Knolls & exc Lots A & B, Kingsley Knolls, S7-T93N-R56W Physical Address: TBA Kaiser Road, Yankton, SD 7 1. 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 residential property is sufficient size to properly site an accessory structure. 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 larger lot size of five (5) acres. 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 regarding lot size. 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 Size 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 Size 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 3, 2017 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on March 4, 2017 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on March 6, 2017. 6. The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. A public meeting was held at 7:45 pm on in the Yankton County Government Center County Commission chambers. The Zoning Administrator stated the applicant requests an accessory structure before the principal structure. This is a Conditional Use Permit issue not a variance. Variances pertain to area and size while Conditional Use Permits create controlled conditions that would not be appropriate throughout the district. Jared Schrempp request to build the accessory structure 520 square feet larger than the Low Density Rural Residential District requirement. Mr. Schrempp will build the principal structure in five (5) to eight (8) years. The property is over five (5) acres with sufficient space for the accessory structure and principal structure. The Planning Commission discussed the application and clarified the variance and CUP distinction. The property is sufficient size to properly site the structures. The time period for building the principal structure was discussed and a condition of five (5) years was requested. No other comments, positive or negative, were received by the Zoning Administrator or presented at the public hearing. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 Size Requirement is approved. 8 Motion 31417J: Moved by Klimisch, second by Schultz a Conditional Use Permit to build an accessory structure before the principal structure (residential before March 2022) in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County and a variance of Maximum Accessory
Structure Size from 2,000 square feet to 2,520 square feet in a Low Density Rural Residential District (R-1) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as E521.75, E1/2, SW1/4, exc Lot 11, Block 2, Kingsley Knolls & exc Lots A & B, Kingsley Knolls, S7-T93N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica South Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is TBA Kaiser Road, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote: Seven (7) members present voted aye, three (3) members present voted nay. Motion carried. This was the time and place for discussion with PCi Roads, LLC. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Temporary Construction Service in a Commercial District (C) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as Lot 1, Dakota Rail Park Subdivision, exc Lot H31, S21T94N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica North Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 30668 436 th Avenue, Yankton, SD. Joe Miessen, representing PCi Roads, Inc. stated the company is the contractor for the NAPA Junction construction project in 2017. The request is to locate a portable concrete plant and appropriate aggregate materials on the NAPA Junction property. The operation will be fifteen (15) to twenty (20) days in mid-june, 2017. The roads will receive dust control and hours of operation will be daylight (12 to 15 hours) hours only. Some materials will be stockpiled during the next few months. The Planning Commission discussed the application and determined the request meets the requirements for a temporary construction service permit. No other comments, positive or negative, were received by the Zoning Administrator or presented at the public hearing. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting Date: CONDITIONAL USE Article 18, Section 1805 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: PCi Roads Parcel Number: 10.021.150.100 Legal description: Lot 1, Dakota Rail Park Subdivision, exc Lot H31, S21T94N-R56W Physical Address: 30668 436 th Avenue, Yankton, SD. 9 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 10, Section 1007 (8), (9) required for temporary concrete batch plant.
2. Notice of public hearing was given according to state and county law; The applicant mailed notifications letters to all owners of real property one-quarter mile buffer on March 2, 2017, 10 days prior to the PC hearing as supported by the affidavit. Legal notification was published on March 4, 2017, 10 days before the Planning Commission meeting. The property was posted on March 6, 2017. 3. The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person, or by agent or attorney; A public hearing was held at 7:55 pm on. Joe Miessen, representing PCi Roads, Inc. stated the company is the contractor for the NAPA Road construction project in 2017. The request is to locate a portable concrete plant and appropriate aggregate materials on the property. The operation will be fifteen (15) to twenty (20) days in mid-june, 2017. The roads will receive dust control and hours of operation will be daylight (12 to 15 hours) hours only. Some materials will be stockpiled during the next few months. The Planning Commission discussed the application and determined the request meets the requirements for a temporary construction service permit. No other comments, positive or negative, were received by the Zoning Administrator or presented at the public hearing. 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; The Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with conditions as stated in the findings. C. Recommend denial of the conditional use. 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 structures thereon will not be negatively impacted; The ingress and egress is established with existing roads and NAPA Road. B. Off right-of-way parking and loading areas are not required nor will noise, glare or odor affect adjoining properties in the district; The applicant will provide sufficient dust control, operate in daylight hours and manage noise levels during operation. C. Refuse and service areas are required; The applicant will provide sufficient refuse containers during the CUP time period D. Utilities are available and compatible; All utilities are available and compatible E. Screening and buffering are not required; The area is large enough and sufficient buffers are present to be compatible in the neighborhood. F. Exterior lighting will not cause glare nor affect traffic safety and is compatible with properties in the district; The hours of operation will be daylight only, no exterior lighting permitted. G. Yards and open spaces have been met or exceeded; The area is large enough and sufficient buffers are present to be compatible in the neighborhood. 10
H. The use is compatible with adjacent properties and the granting of a conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest; The temporary construction site will begin June, 2017 and terminate July, 2017, with haul routes dominantly NAPA Road with minor activity on other roads during road paving process. Motion 31417K: Moved by Bodenstedt, second by Sylliaasen to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Article 18, Section 1805 of the Yankton County Zoning Ordinance, based on Finding of Facts dated, to provide Temporary Construction Services in a Commercial District (C) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as Lot 1, Dakota Rail Park Subdivision, exc Lot H31, S21T94N-R56W, hereinafter referred to as Utica North Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 30668 436 th Avenue, Yankton, SD. By roll call vote, all members present voted aye. Motion carried. This was the time and place for discussion with Marquardt Family Trust. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to build a Class D 2400 head pork (finisher swine over 55 pounds) production barn (960 animal units) in an Agriculture District (AG) in Yankton County. The applicant is requesting a variance of Minimum Property Line Setback requirement of 660 feet to 350 feet in an existing parcel in an Agriculture District (AG) in Yankton County. Said property is legally described as Tract A, SW1/4, S28-T95N-R57W, hereinafter referred to as Lesterville Township, County of Yankton, State of South Dakota. The E911 address is 43048 302 nd Street, Lesterville, SD. Dave Husby, representing Marquardt Family Trust, stated the operation requests to place a single swine production barn for 2400 head finisher swine over 55 lbs. facility (960 animal units) on an existing parcel with two (2) production barns currently producing 1200 head finisher swine (960 animal units). The current operation was established before the zoning regulations were implemented in Yankton County. The parcel is located in the southeast corner of the production property and requests a variance of 310 feet to locate the facility in the existing parcel. Mr. Husby states the parcel is currently screened with trees on the west and north side with plans to add a tree screen on the east side of the parcel. In regards to facility management the location of the proposed barn inside the screened area is beneficial for water, electricity, loading / unloading and odor mitigation. The neighboring property connected to the 660 foot setback requirement has an abandoned farmstead and pasture ground. The pork operation operates under a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) General Permit SDG-0100142 and has a Best Management Practices Plan and Nutrient Management Plan for a 2400 head pork production facility (960 animal units). Mr. Husby stated the operation experienced a manure application late fall 2016 which was improperly applied. The situation was brought to the Yankton County Zoning Administrator attention and the Marquardt Family Trust personnel took immediate action to cease the application. The Planning Commission requested more information regarding this application and Dan Klimisch wanted to follow the possibility of stream contamination from this application. The Zoning Administrator stated from his observation the quantity of manure was insufficient to cause runoff pollution in the waterway. The Planning Commission asked about where the manure is 11
applied and clarified the DENR is responsible for the Nutrient Management Plan regulations to properly apply all manure. Dennis Bloch stated the original pork barn was next door to his mother s place in the 1990 s. He requests the pork barns not be built at all or at a minimum 660 foot setback as stated in the zoning ordinance. He feels the odor from pork production facilities will reduce land values. Troy Bloch stated the pork facility will cause lower land values and many court cases have resulted to resolve conflicts. The farmstead to the east is abandoned with no residence currently and the Bloch s do not live in the buffer area (1,320 feet). Kristi Schultz and Dan Klimisch requested the letters from the area citizens be read into the record. The Planning Commission requested the letters be part of the application packet for the Board of Adjustment. Wiatt Tesch stated he is a resident in the area and does not approve of the site location for the pork barn facility. Mr. Tesch is concerned with the current management practices and current ownership. He is not in favor of production facility ownership by nonresidents who do not actually farm the property. If the pork barn is to be built, Tesch s would choose option to locate the barn in the parcel. Doug Marquardt stated they believe the family business is important to quality of life and will conduct business in proper manner. The family business is involved in many operations and projects and feels they are good neighbors. The family business will do all the practices necessary to mitigate odor and visual aspects. The Planning Commission discussed the agriculture aspect of Yankton County. The variance will reoccur because the site is not meeting current regulations and any replacements will be required to receive a variance. The Planning Commission requested the construction plans and location plans with the DENR permits with Management Plan and Nutrient Management Plan. The request is to locate the barn in the parcel with the other barns. The discussion became disruptive and concerns which are not relative to the application. Technology improvements can help mitigate odors and proper visual screening. The pork production barn located outside the parcel will be in the open area and many management issues will be present. A request to correct the animal units in the application to 2400 head and total animal units to 960. Comments were received with letters from Paul and Debra Dummer and Troy Bloch, were received by the Zoning Administrator and no other comments were presented at the public hearing. Enclosed in BOA packet is Dummer letter, Bloch letter and eight (8) page handout from Troy Bloch. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: Section 519 Animal Feeding Operation Performance Standards Animal Feeding Operations are considered conditional uses and shall comply with the Conditional Use Process, all applicable state and federal requirements, and the applicable requirements as defined in this section: Class A (5,000 10,000) Class B (3,000 4,999) Section 519(1,2,3,4,5,6,7(a),8(a),9,10,11,12,13) Section 519(1,2,3,4,5,6,7(b),8(b),9,10,11,12,13) 12
Class C (2,000 2,999) Section 519(1,2,3,4,5,7(c),8(c),9,10,11,12,13) Class D (1,000 1,999 ) Section 519(1,2,3,4,5,7(d),8(d),9,10,11,12,13) This is presently a Class E operation. The facility will be 4200 head feeder swine. The expansion results in 1920 animal units, a Class D operation. Class E (300 999) Section 519(2,3,4*,5,7(e),8(e),9,10,11,12,13) Class F (1 299) NA *If required by state law 1. Animal Feeding Operations shall submit animal waste management system plans and specifications for review and approval prior to construction, and a Notice of Completion for a Certificate of Compliance, after construction, to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources or as amended by the State of South Dakota or the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The facility is currently permitted by South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (SDG-0100142). The DENR contact is Pete Adair, Natural Resources Engineer. 2. Prior to construction, such facilities shall obtain a Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required by the permit must be developed and implemented upon the start of construction. The facility is currently permitted by South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The Best Management Plan and Nutrient Management Plan is monitored by the DENR and will be a performance standard for Conditional Use Permit. 3. Animal confinement and waste facilities shall comply with the following facility setback requirements: A. Public Wells 1,000 feet B. Private Wells 250 feet C. Private Wells (Operator s) 150 feet D. Lakes, Rivers, Streams Classified as a Public Drinking Water Supply 1,000 feet E. Lakes, Rivers, Streams Classified as Fisheries 1,000 feet F. Designated 100 Year Flood Plain PROHIBITED The facility meets each of the requirements and the Marquardt Family Trust, September, 2002, engineering report provides compliance reports. The expansion will require updated plans submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicants must present a nutrient management plan to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for approval and/or certification. Examples of such management shall include at least: A. Proposed maintenance of waste facilities; The Marquardt Family Trust facilities will meet all DENR requirements. B. Land application process and/or methods; The application and methods are stated in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan. The expansion will require a revised plan from DENR before issuance of a building permit. C. Legal description and map, including documented proof of area to be utilized for 13
nutrient application; and Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan, September, 2002, engineering report provides all required information to meet DENR regulations. The expansion will require a revised plan from DENR before issuance of a building permit. D. All CAFO s are required to obtain a South Dakota State General Permit that outlines the manure management practices that an operator must follow to prevent water pollution and protect public health. The facility is currently permitted by South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (SDG-0100142). The DENR contact is Peter Adair, natural Resources Engineer, Feedlot Program. 5. New animal feeding operations, new CAFO s and waste facilities shall be setback six hundred and sixty six (660) feet from a property line delineating a change in ownership and three hundred and thirty (330) feet from a right-a-way line. Additionally, the applicant shall locate the operation ¼ of a mile or 1,320 feet from neighboring residential dwellings. The Planning Commission and/or Board of Adjustment may mandate setbacks greater than those required herein to further the intent of the Zoning Ordinance while protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The facility is currently permitted by South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (SDG-0100142). The DENR contact is Peter Adair, Natural Resources Engineer. The facility location in the parcel with other structures will require a variance of 310 feet. 6. New Class A and B Animal Feeding Operations shall be prohibited from locating within the area bounded by the City of Yankton, 431 st Avenue, the Missouri River, and South Dakota Highway 50. This is an existing facility and operates as a non-conforming legal use and Conditional Use Permit. The proposed site is outside the described area and a Class D operation. 7. New animal confinement and waste facilities shall be located no closer than the following regulations prescribe from any Class I incorporated municipality or residentially zoned area bounded by the City of Yankton, 431 st Avenue, the Missouri River and South of South Dakota Highway 50: A. Class A 4 miles B. Class B 2 miles C. Class C 1 mile D. Class D 2,640 feet This is an existing facility and operates as a non-conforming legal use and Conditional Use Permit. The proposed site is outside the described area and is a Class D operation. E. Class E 2,640 feet 14 8. New animal confinement and waste facilities shall be located no closer than ½ mile from any Class II or III incorporated municipality, active church, or established R2 or R3 residential area as shown on the Official Zoning Map. New animal confinement and waste facilities shall be located no closer than the following regulations prescribe from a residential dwelling; one dwelling unit is allowed on the facility site. The owner(s) of an animal feeding operation and/or residential dwelling may request the required setback be
lessened or waived in accordance with the variance procedures as detailed herein. Residential waiver request forms are obtainable from the Zoning Administrator. This waiver would run with the land and be filed with the Yankton County Register of Deeds. A. Class A 2 miles B. Class B 1.25 miles C. Class C 2,640 feet D. Class D 1,320 feet This is an existing facility and operates as a non-conforming legal use and Conditional Use Permit. The proposed site is a Class D operation outside the described buffer area. E. Class E 1,320 feet 9. Animal waste shall be transported no further than five miles from the point of origination by equipment designed for direct application. Animal waste hauled within non-application or transportation equipment shall not be restricted as to distance. Both methods of transportation must comply with federal, state, and local load limits on roads, bridges, and other similar structures. Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan, September 2002, engineering report provides all required information to meet DENR regulations. 10. Animal Feeding Operations shall prepare a facility management plan. The plan shall be designed to dispose of dead animals, manure, and wastewater in such a manner as to control odors or flies. The County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment will review the need for control measures on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration prevailing wind direction and topography. The following procedures to control flies and odors shall be addressed in a management control plan: A. An operational plan for manure collection, storage, treatment, and use shall be kept updated and implemented; Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan, September 2002, engineering report provides all required information to meet DENR regulations. B. The methods utilized to dispose of dead animals shall be identified. The Marquardt Family Trust Best Management Practices September 2002, engineering report and all documentation reports are submitted and meet DENR requirements. All rendering service will be South Dakota certified operations. C. A screening and/or buffering section to include the planting of trees and shrubs of adequate size to control wind movement and dispersion of odors generated by the facility; The facility currently utilizes screen / buffering and will continue to maintain the buffers. The applicant has proposed to increase the trees buffers to the east side of the property and improve the existing tree screens. 15 D. A storm water management section shall provide adequate slopes and drainage to divert storm water from confinement areas, while providing for drainage of water from said
area, thereby assisting in maintaining dryer confinement areas to reduce odor production. The facility is a pit storage system and will meet all requirements in the Marquardt Family Trust Best Management Practices September 2002, engineering report. The facility will be verified by DENR. E. A solid manure storage plan detailing the number and size of containment areas and methods of controlling drainage to minimize odor production; The facility is a pit storage system and will meet all requirements in the Marquardt Family Trust Best Management Practices September 2002, engineering report. The facility will be verified by DENR. F. A description of the method and timeframe for removal of manure from open pens to minimize odor production; The facility maintains and monitors all methods and timeframes as specified in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan and Best Management Plan Animal Waste Management System Engineering Report. The facility will be verified by DENR. G. The applicability, economics, and effect of Industry Best Management Practices shall be covered; Industry Best Management Practices are specified in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan and Best Management Plan Engineering Report. The facility will be verified by DENR. H. A notification section should be formulated by the applicant. It is to include the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all occupied residences and public gathering places, within one-half (1/2) mile of applicant s manure application fields. The preferred hauling and application process shall be detailed and include timetables of probable application periods. Application of manure on weekends, holidays, and evenings during the warmer seasons shall be avoided whenever possible. Complaints could lead to having to give 48 hour notice in advance of manure applications. Annual notification advising of an upcoming 30 day window should be given. The facility maintains and monitors all methods and timeframes as specified in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan and Best Management Plan Engineering Report. The facility will be verified by DENR. I. A review of weather conditions shall be included reviewing the effect of climate upon manure application. This section shall also include the preferred times and conditions for application to mitigate the potential effects upon neighboring properties while outlining the least advantageous climatic conditions. The facility maintains and monitors all methods and timeframes as specified in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan and Best Management Plan Engineering Report. The facility will be verified by DENR. 16 11. Manure generated from Animal Feeding Operations shall comply with the following manure application setback requirements if it is injected or incorporated within twentyfour (24) hours:
A. Public Wells 1,000 feet B. Private Wells 250 feet C. Private Wells (Operator s) 150 feet D. Lakes, Rivers, Streams Classified as a Public Drinking Water Supply 1,000 feet E. Lakes, Rivers and Streams Classified as Fisheries 200 feet F. All Public Road Right-of-ways 10 feet G. Incorporated Communities 660 feet H. A Residence other than the Operators 100 feet The facility maintains and monitors all methods and timeframes as specified in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan and Best Management Plan Engineering Report. The facility will be verified by DENR. 12. Manure generated from Animal Feeding Operations shall comply with the following manure application setback requirements if it is irrigated or surface applied: A. Public Wells 1,000feet B. Private Wells 250feet C. Private Wells(Operator s) 150feet D. Lakes, Rivers, Steams Classified as a Public Drinking Water Supply 1,000feet E. Lakes, Rivers and Streams Classified as Fisheries 660 feet F. All Public Road Right-of-ways (Surface Applied) 10 feet G. All Public Road Right-of-ways (Irrigated Application) 100 feet H. Incorporated Communities (Surface Applied) 1,000 feet I. Incorporated Communities (Irrigated Application) 2,640 feet J. A Residence other than the Operators (Surface Applied) 330 feet K. A Residence other than the Operators (Irrigated Application) 750 feet The facility maintains and monitors all methods and timeframes as specified in the Marquardt Family Trust Nutrient Management Plan and Best Management Plan Engineering Report. The facility will be verified by DENR. 13. If irrigation is used for removal of liquid manure, dewatering a lagoon (gray water) basin, or any type of liquid manure holding pit, these rules apply: 17 A. Drops must be used on systems that disperse the liquid no higher than 18 off the ground if no crop is actively growing on the field. Drop down nozzles will be required on lagoon dispersal with irrigation system. B. If a crop is actively growing on the field, the liquid must then be dispersed below the crop canopy. Drop down nozzles will be required on lagoon dispersal with irrigation system. C. No runoff or diffused spray from the system onto neighboring property or public rightof-way will be allowed. The application of water through the irrigation will not allow runoff of spray onto neighboring property or public Right of Way. This includes water from the drain tile located on the applicant property. D. No irrigation of liquid on frozen ground or over FSA designated wetlands.
The applicant will not irrigate on frozen ground or wetlands. E. No big gun type irrigation systems shall be used for liquid manure or dewatering lagoons or other manure containment systems. No big gum system will be used for irrigation using lagoon water. Yankton County Planning Commission Meeting date: CONDITIONAL USE Article 18, Section 1805 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant: Marquardt Family Trust Parcel Number: 15.028.300.200 Legal description: Tract A, SW1/4, S28-T95N-R57W Physical Address: 43048 302 nd Street, Lesterville, SD 8. 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 5, Section 519 to establish a 2400 head (960 animal unit) pork production facility in an Agriculture District (AG) in Yankton County. 9. Notice of public hearing was given, as in Section 1803 (3-5); The applicant mailed letters of notification to property owners within a one-half mile radius of the proposed variance on March 2, 2017 (supported by affidavit), a legal notice was published on March 4, 2017 in the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan and a notification sign was placed on the property on March 6, 2017. 10. The public hearing shall be held. Any party may appear in person, or by agent or attorney; A public meeting was held at 8:05 pm on in the Yankton County Government Center County Commission chambers. Dave Husby, representing Marquardt Family Trust, stated the operation requests a Conditional Use Permit to place a single swine production facility for 2400 head finisher swine over 55 lbs. facility (960 animal units) on an existing parcel with two (2) production facilities currently producing 1200 head finisher swine (960 animal units). The current operation was established with one barn before the zoning regulations were implemented in Yankton County. The second barn was permitted with a Conditional Use Permit from Yankton County on October 8, 2002. The parcel is located in the southeast corner of the production property and requests a variance of 310 feet to locate the facility in the existing parcel. The neighboring property connected to the 660 foot setback requirement has an abandoned farmstead and pasture ground. Mr. Husby states the parcel is currently screened with trees on the west and north side with plans to add a tree screen on the 18