Carroll County Zoning Board of Appeals met Jan. 6.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
Meeting was called to order at 6:27 p.m. by Clark VanBuskirk the ZBA chair. Roll call was taken showing Zoning Board Members Don Swanson, Clark VanBuskirk, Penny Kreusch and Paul Skoog present. Alternate ZBA member Steve Dykstra was also in attendance. Present representing the county was Jeremy Hughes and Assistant States Attorney Aaron Kaney. No members of the public were present. The minutes of the previous ZBA meeting held 12.02.2019 were called for approval, there was no discussion and the minutes were approved as read.
Notice for this public hearing circulated in the Mirror Democrat and Carroll County Review the week of December 18th 2019.
The meeting was turned over to Jeremy as to address the purpose of the hearing. The first item on the agenda was the continuation of discussion on the new Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Adult-Use Cannabis Business Establishments. Jeremy explained that the goal of the discussion was to review and approve a final draft of the ordinance. The meeting held 12.02.2019 was the meeting that the zba asked to send the topic to the county board for their review and direction. At the December 19th Carroll County Board meeting the topic was discussed and the County Board agreed that a final draft should be written to include the special use process and that it should have all business types included as a part of the ordinance.
There was considerable discussion pertaining to specifics of the ordinance, including identifying sensitive areas and the written setback requirements. The allotted zoning districts for each business type were also reviewed and it was noted that cultivation centers were not currently allowed in the Agricultural District. There was some debate on what a cultivation center could look like and whether to include it as an option for special use in the Ag-1 District. Discussion continued as to some of the information required from the petitioner at the time of application and why such requirements were a part of the application process. The concerns centered around making the application process as objective as possible when reviewing applicant information. Some suggestions were made and an additional meeting was requested to give time for review and discussion before giving a recommendation to the County Board. The discussion will be continued to a future ZBA meeting.
The next item discussed was the addition of Section 700-15.24 Tiny House into the Zoning Ordinance. The county currently has one permitted tiny home that was built in the Ag-1 District, allowed by variance from the 800 sq. ft. residential floor space requirement. As a part of that variance conditions were placed on the structure that it be placed/built upon on a permanent perimeter frost foundation that makes it an affixed structure similar to how any standard residential structure would be built. It was identified that a requirement of the tiny house ordinance followed the same requirement and makes building a tiny home in the Ag-1 District and allowed structure. A tiny house in a Residential Subdivision will be regulated by special use. A minimum floor space for a tiny house is established at 300 sq. ft. After discussion the motion was made and seconded that the ZBA recommends approval of Section 700-15.24 “Tiny House” as presented. The motion passed 5-0 in favor.
Lastly, the Chapter 360 Building Regulations were brought up for discussion. Jeremy went through the redline items of the ordinance that were up for a possible change. Those items included:
1.) Requiring structures that are 64 sq. ft. or less to obtain building permits. There has been some confusion from the public on which structures require permits and which do not. In an attempt to clarify, the new position will be that all structures (permanent and non-permanent) of any size will be required to pull a building permit.
2.) Adding roof mounted solar to the requirement of pulling a building permit. There has been a dramatic increase in residential scale solar projects and as an attempt to keep track of the locations implementing solar, we would like to start documenting roof mounted solar in the same manner that is being used for ground mounted solar.
3.) Re-write of a sentence that relays the same meaning, that permits are allowed to be renewed for no fee when construction has already started. Permits that are issued that have not begun construction will be charged a permit fee every year that a renewal is needed.
4.) Setting a sq. ft. building size for the cost of a building permit. All structures less than 400 sq. ft. will pay a $10 building permit fee. All structures 400 sq. ft. and greater will pay a $50 building permit fee. This does not apply to additions to a structure which are set at $50 regardless of square footage.
5.) Adding a permit fee for agricultural structures. There was discussion that the fee could possibly be set higher than $25.00. A fee of $50, $100 and even $250 were discussed.
6.) Increasing the fee for Land Evaluation Site Assessment. It was noted that Soil and Water also offer LESA reports and charge a $150 fee. The fee was also discussed at being set at $75 or $100, the justification also included a desire to go on sight for any LESA request, double checking slope calculations and taking a picture to add to the LESA reports kept on file. There is about 10 LESA reports done each year.
7.) Modifying the fee for Commercial Solar, something that was already done with the adoption of Chapter 725 SOLAR FARMS. Just cleans up the language to make the policies match.
8.) Increase the fee from $500 to $1000 for a non-complaint variance, only to apply when a structure has been built and has non-compliant issue that requires a variance.
9.) Increases the fine for an Ag structure built without permit from $25 to $50, there was discussion on striking this section and using the same policy for all structures, which is twice the cost of the original permit.
After introduction of the items up for review/modification, there was some debate in discussion. No recommendation was made to recommend the changes to the County Board. ZBA members requested an additional meeting to review the changes and to work on agreeing on a few items under review.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 PM.
https://www.carroll-county.net/vertical/sites/%7B7FC08AB3-4BE5-4C4B-891B-83D2782F3DCA%7D/uploads/ZBA_Minutes_01.06.2020.pdf
Alerts Sign-up