00:00:13,500	So, Marla, if you could take us through that. Okay. Commissioner Bittner. Commissioner Connell here. Commissioner. Jared. Here. Commissioner Munson. Here. Commissioner. Patrick. Here. Commissioner. Ridge. Here. Commissioner. Small here. Commissioner. Staffel here. And chairman. Here. All present. Fantastic. We have a quorum. We will move into the approval of the February meeting. Minutes.

00:00:49,300	Any changes needed? Move to approve. Second. Okay. It is been moved and seconded to approve the February meeting minutes. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none. Minutes are approved. We’ll move into the public comment portion of the meeting. And to lead this off. I just want to say this is for public comment.

00:01:10,330	As for Burleigh County residents and landowners. Uh, we will have public hearings later. So this is, uh, we will definitely if you’re here to talk to a public hearing, uh, you don’t need necessarily to talk to the public comments, but you sure can.

00:01:24,530	If you’d like, uh, to start this off, we do have some legislators in the crowd. Thank you for coming. Uh, if, Commissioner Connelly, if you could introduce, uh, the the legislators and maybe invite them up to say their piece. Well. They’re actually not going to speak tonight because it’s an ongoing conversation. But I’ll let everybody know the reasoning.

00:01:44,500	This ETA conversation is a follow through on a promise that actually, for me, is originated since 2015. Commissioner Bittner and I’ve talked about it in the past, even before I was an elected official. Um, bringing this conversation forward because there was a lot of people in the county that wanted it to happen.

00:02:02,470	And kudos for the city of Bismarck and Burleigh County Commission, all ten of us getting in the room. And this is not an easy topic to overcome. There’s a lot of moving parts to it, but we’ve moved the needle in the most significant way since 1977 to move things from regulation without representation to right now.

00:02:26,070	As of last week, regulation with representation for 95% of the county residents that were formerly in the ETA, but a couple of our commenters at both planning and Zoning, city Commission and county Commission were talking about what about the 5%? And that takes a legislative, um, effort to have a discussion to see if

00:02:50,000	we can look at that differently and answer it for both, um, people that are still in the ETA and out. And so I’ve had primary discussions with Mike Burg from district eight and, um, Dick Devore, uh, Senator Dick Dever, um, uh, he’s actually on the committee that oversees the ETA, and we’re

00:03:11,930	talking about a bill to where we could possibly redraw the lines to where the state can wash their hands of, um, the, uh, where the city would say, well, it takes legislative or we’re just following state law, and but we’re still in the struggle of representing regulation without representation.

00:03:37,730	If, uh, they handed that toolbox to us to where we could draw those lines and give that control to a commission, um, Fargo can be Fargo. Bismarck can be Bismarck. Uh, then we can make the decision locally and address those other people that are still left in the ETA. It’s evolving. It’s ongoing. There’s some things to overcome, but I appreciate them stopping by.

00:03:57,270	Even though it’s for a short amount. The other representatives is Senator Diane Larson from district 30. And, uh, House representative Mike Brucker from 47. Um, but I’ve talked to other ones like, uh, Senator Dwyer from 47.

00:04:17,300	I’ve talked to a couple of the people that are running that have a pretty good chance of being there. So for the 2027 legislative session, uh, this could be one of those things to where we can actually, uh, address every citizen, um, without leaving anybody out and just wanted to let everybody know. And we’ll be carrying them on. I’ll be addressing the city commission. This a.

00:04:41,000	Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Connelly. Uh, yes, Commissioner Rich. Just like the comment. Um, this is a zoning commission. I don’t know if this is a proper forum for that, but, um, regulation or oversight without.

00:05:00,970	Would you would you say it regulation without representation? Okay, well, I have property in Morton County and Mandan, and I get all kinds of regulations that I pay all kinds of things. I got a special assessment, a far beyond $100,000 coming up. And I don’t get the vote in Mandan or Morton County. That’s just the way it is.

00:05:16,900	The people in the APA, they pay school district taxes, so they get to vote on the school board. They don’t pay city taxes. City property taxes. And that’s the rationale behind that. So it is what it is. We took care of 95% of these people. That’s pretty good. Yeah. At the same time, we live in a representative republic to where these discussions can always be ongoing.

00:05:38,200	And it’s codified in our national constitution. We can grow towards more perfect union. And there’s an opportunity to do that. That’s why we have committees and boards, including planning and zoning. All right. I don’t want to get sidetracked on this, I guess.

00:05:54,230	Is there a thank you for for the introduction? Thank you for your attendance. And, uh, is there any further public comment? Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Diane Larson. My name is Diane Larson. Um, I live on Fox Island.

00:06:20,500	Um, just for your information, you may not realize that when you are living in the Oeta and then the city, uh, is the one that determines what you have to do is as far as getting any permits or any building code, types of things. Even though you don’t live in the city. So, for example, back a long time ago when we built our home, we wanted to build our house at a higher elevation.

00:06:45,630	We were told no because then we’d have enough room for a basement in basements, flood and we said, okay, we’ll fill it in, but we want to build it at a higher elevation. We were not allowed to get our building permit at all if we built it higher. So we didn’t.

00:07:06,800	And in the 2011 flood, we had water in our floor joists. And for three months. And so we did have damage because of that. And so we didn’t get to have any say as to what was going to happen or who should say what kind of building permits should be allowed or not. We were just under that authority without representation.

00:07:27,730	So I really appreciate this discussion happening. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Larson. Uh, yes, Commissioner Rich. Senator Larson, what if the people in the APA would start paying city property taxes? Then they would get to representation. Would you be receptive to that? But if they paid.

00:07:47,530	But if if the people in the Aeta paid city property taxes, then they should also get all of the services, like like, well, fair. Yeah. But also even, um, uh, the plumbing, we just had to put in a new septic system and, um, that’s, that was what we paid for.

00:08:11,870	And so the kinds of things that are what you get to have living in the city are wonderful things. But if you live in the county and you choose to take care of your own stuff, you should be able to have a little bit more autonomy.

00:08:28,470	I just say that the plumbing thing is paid for through the utility fees, or when you develop it, you pay that, but you get police and fire protection where you live now from the city of Bismarck. No. Oh, okay. Well, our police know, our police extend out. I tell you what, if your house is on fire, our fire department will be there to help. Well, Commissioner. Commissioner. Yeah, right. Commissioner.

00:08:50,400	Um, we, um, we we have the the sheriff’s department. That would would take care of this. Us in the county, not of the city. Police don’t come out to our house. I would imagine if there was a huge, um, uh, disaster or something that was imminent, they would come into that ETA to, to assist, but they wouldn’t be the primary person. Once the sheriff came.

00:09:13,730	Yeah. Just two weeks ago, we sent our Swat team north of Mandan to help in an incident. Sure, because different jurisdictions do help each other. At times of an emergency. But yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Memorandum of understanding. It is agreements. Most sort of things are common. Yes. Thank you Commissioner.

00:09:32,570	The comments I know a lot of this is probably going to be reserved for the for the the session. I just wanted to say thank you for, for taking on this discussion. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Commissioner Bednar. Yeah. Further. Let me do the Pledge of Allegiance here at these meetings. We haven’t in the past, but.

00:09:50,630	Uh, legislature did something about that. Oh. We can definitely have that added to the, uh, to the future agenda. It’s absolutely. That for the next. I think. That’s if we could, uh, add that to the future agendas. Uh, the pledge of allegiance. Thank you.

00:10:08,270	Any further public comment? So is there going to be opportunity to speak on item six later or. Yes. Yes, correct. Thank you. Any further? Uh, general public comments. If not, we will, uh, we’ll move into the consent agenda.

00:10:41,930	Is there any reason anyone would like to open, uh, any one of the two items under the consent agenda? If not, we can approve the consent agenda to move those to hearings. Um, will we approve the consent agenda second? Okay. It has been moved and seconded to move the consent agenda or approve the consent agenda. To move to public hearings. Uh, all in favor, say aye. Aye, aye. Any opposition? Hearing none.

00:11:06,470	The consent agenda will move forward. We’ll move on to our public hearings for the evening. We have six public hearings. Uh, our first public hearing is for the All subdivision. And so if, uh, Marla or Mitch, if you could come up, give us a few details, and then we will open the public hearing for comment.

00:11:33,700	This is the All American subdivision. It’s, um, petitioner developer is Nathan Jensen. Um, Toman engineering is the engineers. It’s located in part of the northwest one quarter of section nine, Township 139, range 79 West, and the address is 8203 Apple Creek Road.

00:12:05,670	And it’s one lot containing five acres, more or less on the zoning is agricultural and Apple Creek Township has zoning on this. The petitioner is requesting approval of the final plat and a do pass recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Um, the announcement was posted in the Bismarck Tribune, February 25th and March 4th.

00:12:30,870	Surrounding property owners were notified February 27th, and it was put on the Burleigh County website February 27th, and Burley County was approached about constructing a shop building on five acres on a Lot parcel that contains 21 acres. Because the lot is less than 40 acres, the petitioner was advised to plat the parcel into a subdivision.

00:13:01,730	Tillman engineering met with the county staff regarding the preliminary plat. Staff had concerns regarding the floodplain and adjoining floodway on the west side of the property. Burley County Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat on February 11th. Staff findings. This subdivision fulfills the requirements of article 33 of the Burley County Zoning Ordinances.

00:13:29,170	The final plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities and all concerns and corrections are addressed. The zoning is agricultural. Apple Creek Township has approved the subdivision, and this subdivision meets the requirements of the Burley County Comprehensive Plan. Article three residential neighborhoods.

00:13:55,200	Objective one and two a stormwater management waiver was approved on February 16th, and a paving waiver was not required. Staff recommends approval of the final plat and giving a do Pass recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and you can approve it and give it a due pass or approve with conditions. Deny the final plat or table the final plat. For more information.

00:14:20,200	All right. Any questions for Marlo before she steps away okay. Seeing none. Thank you. Marlow, we will open the public hearing on All-American subdivision. So if anyone would like to speak in this public hearing, please approach the lectern and introduce yourself. Tell us where you’re from and sign in.

00:14:54,430	My name is Nathan Jensen. I concur with what was just all said, and I’m the owner of the property. If you guys have any questions for me. Any questions for Nathan? Seeing none. Appreciate it. Appreciate you coming. Thank you.

00:15:16,900	Is there any further comment in this, uh, in this hearing on All-American subdivision and last call, if anyone would like to speak on this, uh, All-American subdivision, please approach. Seeing none, we will close public hearing and move into, uh, comment and action.

00:15:49,470	Anyone have any discussion or action they would like to take on the All-American subdivision? Well, I’ll move to approve as presented and send it to the county commission for final decision. Second. All right. It’s been moved for approval, uh, by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Strafford. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll move into a roll call. Vote. Marla, if you could take us through that. Okay. Commissioner Bittner. Yes. Commissioner. Stifel. Yes, Commissioner. Connolly. Yes. Commissioner. Small. Yes. Commissioner. Jarrett. Yes. Commissioner. Rich.

00:16:20,900	Yes. Commissioner. Munson. Yes, Commissioner. Patrick. Yes. And chairman. Yes. All approved. Okay. All-American subdivision that will move to the county commission with a do pass recommendation. Move it to our second public hearing of the evening. That is Apple Creek Ridge. Two Ridge, second subdivision.

00:16:41,400	And it looks like Marlow is going to be coming up here. Give us a few details of this before we open the public hearing. You’re going to see me a lot. Tonight. We appreciate. It. Um, this is Apple Creek Ridge, second subdivision. Um, the petitioners are rustling. Jennifer Heaton, and the engineering is Mark Isaacs. Independent land surveying.

00:17:07,400	It’s a lot. Combination block seven and eight, a block three, section 35, Township one, 39, range 79. West. And the address is 11517 Creek Top Road.

00:17:33,600	It will be a one lot subdivision containing three acres, more or less the ruling or the zoning is rural, single family residential and they are requesting approved the plat and give a do pass recommendation. The Bismarck Tribune posted it on February 25th and March 4th. Surrounding property owners February 27th and Berlin County website February 27th and Berlin County was contacted with regards to a proposed lock combination for two lots located in Apple Creek Ridge subdivision.

00:18:02,400	The owners were advised to do a short plat subdivision just subdivision fulfills the requirements of article 33 of the Berlin County’s ordinance. Zoning ordinances. The final plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities, all concerns and corrections are addressed.

00:18:29,070	Zoning is R-1 rural single family residential, and this subdivision meets the of the Burley County Comprehensive Plan. Article three residential neighborhoods. Objective one and two a stormwater management waiver was not required and a paving waiver was not required. The petition for the final plat meets all the administrative requirements of the Berlin County Zoning Ordinances. Staff recommends a due pass recommendation.

00:18:55,200	Okay, any questions for Marlow? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing on the Apple Creek Ridge second subdivision. So if anyone would like to speak in this public hearing, please approach lectern. Tell us who you are, where are you from and sign in. I have. A question.

00:19:36,830	Have the lots in this subdivision already been sold? Can we start with your name? Oh, sorry. My name is Corydon Hughes. Um, so in this apple Creek Ridge second subdivision have other as part of the original subdivision, have lots been sold or occupied? Uh, okay. Um, I know Marlow. Mich. Can you answer that? No. They haven’t been pulled out of that subdivision. And this is just combining two lots within the subdivision.

00:20:03,470	Okay. In the original subdivision that these lots are part of. Are there lots sold? Are these lots? Not these lots, but are there lots sold that are part of the original plat? Um, yes. Okay. There are two separate lots. Okay.

00:20:25,370	Have the other owners that are part of the subdivision been asked to sign, uh, approval of this? No, they were notified of the public hearing. Okay. So I only ask because I have a similar replant petition before that’s stuck at the county commission, where I’m asking for a similar thing to combine multiple lots into one that was contended by the original developers.

00:20:52,670	And the it was sent to the state’s attorney for opinion, who quoted chapter 40 on the vacation of plat before or after sale of lots. So if you’re vacating a plat or any part of a plat where lots have been sold, that you have to get the signatures of approval from every owner, that’s part of that original plat before.

00:21:16,670	And she considered that requirement before replanting. And so I ask, is this different? Is is the the one that you’re speaking of? Is that the one where it’s, um, taking one piece out of this or combining? Well, it’s combining three lots, two of which are not part of the subdivision.

00:21:37,670	And okay, so it’s outside and inside the subdivision type thing. Okay. I don’t know if that changes anything. Marlow. Um. We haven’t heard from the state’s attorney. Um, we had requested it in writing, but this is a little different than his. These are two lots that are in the subdivision, so they are right next to each other.

00:21:56,730	Um, with the new subdivision, it’s two lots that are outside the subdivision and one lot that is in the subdivision. So the vacating the vacating piece is the is the single lot that’s in the subdivision. Yeah. And it’s it’s not I wouldn’t say it’s vacating it, but it is pulling it out of the subdivision. Oh okay.

00:22:21,270	Just combining it. Um, it’s not like we’re well, we are getting rid of it, but it’s going to be combined into another subdivision. Okay, I, I guess I would assume that that would be the difference between the two cases. Yeah.

00:22:39,570	The difference is that the these two lots on these and the ones that we have going on tonight, they’re all in the subdivision already and we’re just combining two lots that are side by side. Um, uses is different because there’s two lots outside the platted. If that answers your question. Really because that was part of the original plat.

00:23:00,800	And so theoretically, any change to that original plat would, according to the way she interpreted it, would have to go through this process. Okay, that’s I think it’s a good question. I don’t I guess I don’t know the answer. That’s a and, uh, I guess that’s, um, Mitch, I don’t know if you have anything you’d like to to add.

00:23:21,570	I don’t, um, this is a complex question. Uh, the, um, the use subdivision was, uh, they requested to get the all the signatures. That was the that was the state’s attorney’s interpretation of of century code for that particular situation.

00:23:45,770	And and, um, it’s it is different than this, but it’s still a little bit it’s still I would consider it the same because you’re vacating a lot out of out of subdivision and you’re creating a new one. You’re creating a new lot out of this, um, this country side, uh, out of two out of, uh, one out of two.

00:24:04,330	And so it’s basically your vacating one, but it’s this is different because it’s within the subdivision. The other one is, is, is is pulling a lot out of the subdivision into a new subdivision. It’s completely different. So I mean, it’s similar, but it isn’t.

00:24:27,870	Um, and there’s no, um, enabling legislation in Century Code that says you can’t vacate these single lots, but it’s also very vague on what you can do. Okay. And I mean, this is we’re we’re following history, historical, um, before us, all these lots that have been approved, this has never been brought up, never questioned since I’ve been and I’ve asked many planners the same thing.

00:24:49,300	And it’s it’s a standard procedure to go ahead and vacate the lot out of the subdivision to create a new subdivision. If it’s not, if it’s all privately owned, you can do that. That’s that’s the interpretation of all the planners I’ve ever talked to. But we we don’t have, um, a secondary opinion, legal opinion on this.

00:25:09,930	Okay. Yeah. I guess to answer your question, no, uh, there has been not been approvals from everyone in this subdivision for this. Okay. Is that going to be expected at the the next step? Because I my take is I want to make sure that this is being applied evenly, inappropriately.

00:25:29,270	These new rules that have been created by the state’s attorney’s interpretation.. And commissioner. I just had a question. I thought we passed your request from this body to the city county commission, and then the state there. It stopped there. Okay, so that’s new information for me. Yes. You did. Pass, okay.

00:25:48,430	But there’s no public forum or public hearing at the county commission. So that’s why I’m discussing it here. Okay. Gotcha. So yes, I, I would say it’s a it sounds to me like we have a, we have a little bit of a difference in a little bit.

00:26:07,670	But as you said, this is vacating and creating a new subdivision within a subdivision. But still vacating and creating.. And I would say I would just ask Mitch, is do we need to continue this public hearing on so that we can get some, uh, clarification on that or not? It wouldn’t hurt. Don’t you.

00:26:31,730	Or do or can we can we make a decision on this tonight without that information? Mr. chairman. Mr. chair. Yes. I, I do not legally. I don’t have the answer for that question, but this is this is unprecedented because it’s never been held up before.

00:27:00,700	Um, the request on the subdivision was, um, placed there by previous owners, uh, for them to go through that. Now, we’ve never had this problem before with, with creating lots within a subdivision or separating or vacating a lot out of a subdivision. And it’s never happened before. It’s unprecedented that you’d have to get a signatures of all those people, unless you want to vacate the entire plat.

00:27:18,130	Okay. That’s how that’s how I read central code. But they’re not vacating the entire plat. They’re vacating one lot or two lots in this case. Okay. And creating one. Okay. Um. Commissioner Patrick, you had a had. A comment. I was wondering if maybe. I was going to ask me. Maybe we need a legal opinion on this.

00:27:40,000	Yeah. I’m not an attorney. Would you? But I would say that this is very normal procedure to to create a bigger, a larger lot in a subdivision. It happens all the time. Yeah. Okay. We’ve done this before. I mean, it happens. It happens within the city without a plat. Yeah. Commissioner Strickland yeah.

00:28:00,300	Can I ask why is it stuck at the county commission? What is the status? What happened? Because the finding was that we first have to vacate a plat or part of a platinum, even though that’s what Century Code says.

00:28:15,400	And that in order to do so, we have to get the signature of every property owner in that plat. And so I’m still in this process. Okay. Commissioner Patrick. Yes. Well, I just want to clarify, in your situation, you were actually vacating a lot in a subdivision and taking it outside that division.

00:28:34,530	Is that correct? Isn’t that correct? It was creating a new subdivision. This is creating a new subdivision as well, even though it’s within the subdivision, it’s creating. A new. This is combining two plots within the subdivision. As we understand it. Yeah. This is not a new subdivision. No, it’s not a new subdivision.

00:28:54,730	Mitch described it as vacating two lots within one subdivision and creating a new subdivision within that. No, that’s not what. We’re talking about. Going. Yeah. Um, what we’re doing tonight is different to you. Um, combining these lots is we’re using article 33, section 12, where we’re creating a new subdivision, but it’s really just a lot combination, like the city of Bismarck does.

00:29:20,870	And we just call it a minor plat. What uses is, was would be considered a major plat. So which has been done many times prior to mine. Correct? Yeah. We’ve done these kind of things since we put article 33. Section 12 was voted in. Um, like a year ago, maybe two.

00:29:44,930	And we’ve done this, but all with minor plats. And that’s where we ran into, um, Island Road, where they were concerned about covenants. So we had them sign on to the covenants with their newly created one. Um, so they’re all minor, but this is a major plat, so.

00:30:07,830	Okay. All right, we will we will do the best with, uh, the knowledge that we have tonight. And, uh, should there have to be other things that happen with it, uh, in the future, then I guess we. That may have to happen. I don’t know. Okay.

00:30:25,070	So, ah, is there going to be a legal opinion on this? Does. That’s my question. I don’t think so. No. Okay. Not not from not from our standpoint. Once it goes to the county commission, I can’t I can’t say. Okay.

00:30:43,130	But I also have no room to object at the county commission or express concern. That’s why I’m asking now. But yeah, Commissioner Conley. Actually. you do, because with the. Passage of Senate Bill 2180, which modifies everybody’s opportunity for public comment based. on the county’s. Uh. Ordinance. For that, you. Can speak on any item on. The agenda. Okay.

00:31:08,730	So definitely I mean, feel free to use that at the at the county commission. Well, let me let me take that a little bit further. Okay. I’m currently the chairman of the Burleigh County Commission, and you’re welcome to come in and speak. Okay.

00:31:25,800	We don’t we don’t, uh, we don’t make it a practice of eliminating, uh, public input. Okay. So I don’t think that’s a problem. Your situation is totally different than this one. In some senses. But I think we’re going to get an attorney’s opinion in the meantime. Anyway. So just so you know, that that’ll happen. But it doesn’t have to happen at this table. Okay? Okay.

00:31:48,730	I appreciate the concern. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on the, uh, Apple Creek Ridge second subdivision? Anyone else like to speak on in this public hearing? Last call. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and move into discussion and action. Mr. chair. Oh, yes. Commissioner Patrick. Second. Okay.

00:32:20,270	It’s been moved to approve by Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Munson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we’ll move into a roll call. Vote. Mala, if you could take us through that. Okay. The motion is to approve the subdivision and give it a do pass recommendation. Um, Commissioner Swann. Yes. Commissioner. Rich. Yes, Commissioner. Bittner. Yes. Commissioner. Conley. Yes, Commissioner.

00:32:49,600	Steffen. Yes, Commissioner. Patrick. Yes, Commissioner. Munson. Yes, Commissioner. Jarrett. Yes. And chairman. Yes. All approved. Okay. The Apple Creek Ridge second subdivision will move to the county commission with a do pass recommendation. We’ll move on to our third public hearing of the evening.

00:33:15,300	Uh, it is the able fifth subdivision, and it looks like Mala is back up again. And going to give us some details on this before we open the public hearing. Okay. This is the Everly Park fifth subdivision, and they’re requesting a zoning change. So there’s two items tonight. Um, Abergele Land Company is the petitioner. Swenson, Hagan and Company is the engineering firm.

00:33:42,570	And it’s part of the auditor’s lot three, section 28, Township 139, range 78, West. It’s a five lot subdivision containing 11 acres, more or less. The zoning change is agricultural. They’re requesting industrial. Um, the petitioners are requesting approval of the final plat and zoning change. Do pass recommendation. And it was posted, um, February 25th.

00:34:12,500	In March 4th. Surrounding property owners February 27th. Early county website February 27th. Um Berlin County was contacted with a proposed five lot subdivision on 11 acres, and they requested the zoning change. This is the final phase of the Everly Park Industrial Parcels and county staff has reviewed the subdivision and have no concerns.

00:34:44,000	Burley County Planning and Zoning approved the preliminary plat and zoning change on February 11th, 2026. Staff findings. This subdivision subdivision fulfills the requirements of article 33 of the Berlin County Zoning Ordinances. The final plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities, all concerns and corrections are made, and the zoning change has been requested. Stormwater Management plan has completed being completed.

00:35:15,930	Um staff findings. The zoning change fulfills the requirements of article 18, Industrial District of Burley County. Zoning ordinances. The zoning change fulfills the requirements of the Burley County Comprehensive Plan Number six and number eight. Um, and the goal is to encourage orderly development in Burley County.

00:35:44,400	Staff recommends for the final plat approval, and they also recommend approval of the zoning change and a do do pass recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. Any questions for Marla? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing on the April 5th subdivision. And, uh, subdivision and rezoning. So if anyone would like to speak, please let us know who you are, where are you from? And sign in.

00:36:07,670	Hi. Thank you. And I’m here with Swenson Hagan Engineering, representing Able Land Company in this one. Um, yeah. As Marlow had mentioned, this is sort of that final phase of this industrial area out in Magnolia. And everybody’s probably been out there at one point or another.

00:36:19,600	That last little piece of land that’s, uh, to infill the rest of this area. There’s one little green piece you could see on your map there that is not part of the the family land.

00:36:32,970	So this is the last of their pieces that they can infill, dedicate that little last piece of right of way and, and develop some industrial lots so I can answer any questions if you have them. Okay. Any questions for Lana? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. If anyone else, anyone else would like to speak in the hearing for Able fifth Subdivision and Rezone, please broach the lectern. Let us know who you are.

00:36:51,230	Where are you from? Sign in and last call. If anyone would like to speak in this public hearing. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and move into discussion and action on this hearing. This I’ll remind you, this is a a subdivision and rezone. Motion to approve. Second. Okay.

00:37:15,000	It has been moved to approve by Commissioner Bitner, seconded by Commissioner Munson to approve the subdivision and rezone. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll move into a roll call. Vote. Marla, if you could take us through that. Okay, this is to approve the subdivision and the zoning change and give a do pass recommendation. Um, Commissioner. Staffer. Yes, Commissioner. Small. Yes, Commissioner. Rich. Yes, Commissioner.

00:37:43,970	Patrick. Yes, Commissioner. Munson. Yes, Commissioner. Jarrett. Yes. Commissioner. Conley. Yes, Commissioner. Bitner. Yes. And chairman. Yes. All approved. Okay. The Eberly fifth Subdivision and rezone is approved for us to send to the county commission with a do pass recommendation. We will get into our fourth hearing of the evening, the Riverside second subdivision, replant.

00:38:20,600	Okay. This is an interesting one. Um, when we first received this, it was called Riverside Section Replant. And then, um, since it’s not a replant, it went to Riverside Third, but then land and informed me today that there’s a riverside third already.

00:38:46,970	So now it’s Riverside fourth because it’s just a lot combination of two lots in the Riverside subdivision. It’s, um, Dustin and Ashley Massad. We’re the ones that requested it, and it’s lots 11 and 12. Block one of Riverside Second Subdivision, section 33, Township one, 40 North and range is 81 west, and the address is 9448 Island Road.

00:39:11,870	The project size will be one lot containing two acres, more or less. The zoning is R-1 rural single family residential and they have request approval and do pass recommendation of the lock combination. Um, it was put in the Bismarck Tribune, February 25th and March 4th.

00:39:36,470	Surrounding property owners February 27th and Burleigh County website February 27th. Um donors had contacted us, contacted us to do a lot combination of two lots located in the Riverside subdivision, and they were advised to do a short plat subdivision and combine them into one lot. And there’s this subdivision fulfills the requirements of article 33 of the Berlin County Zoning ordinances.

00:40:05,370	The final plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities. All concerns and corrections will be addressed. And that means we’re changing the title. Um, the subdivision does meet the requirements of the Burley County Comprehensive Plan. Article three residential neighborhoods.

00:40:28,430	Objectives one and two a stormwater management waiver was not required, and a paving waiver is required, and the petition for the final plat meets all the administrative requirements of the Burleigh County zoning Ordinances. Article 33 and staff recommends approval of the final plat and giving a do pass recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners..

00:40:50,230	And Marla, when you said the corrections, you mean just the the the title being forth, right? There’s no other corrections. Um, there was 1 or 2, just like minor ones. Um, that he was still getting corrected, but nothing that’s going to affect the plat. Um, he’ll have that to me by tomorrow. So. Okay. All right. Thank you.

00:41:12,530	Any other questions for Marla? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing on the Riverside Fourth subdivision. I think I got that right. Riverside. Fourth. Riverside. Okay. If anyone would like to speak on this in this public hearing, please approach the lectern. Let us know who you are, where are you from? And sign in.

00:41:33,330	Thank you again. And I notice once again engineering representing them on this one. Uh, as Marlow noted, this is basically a lot combination to get up to that two acre parcel rather than some of these, some of these older, uh, county lots are a little under that acre

00:41:45,670	and a half a little smaller than most people, like now. Uh, so two acre subdivision lot is what they’ll be looking at here today. Um, as Marlow also mentioned, a number of riverside subdivisions have already come through since second was initially created.

00:42:02,370	So we’re on to Riverside Fourth here at this point, but I can certainly answer any questions. What are what are the, uh, corrections that the minor corrections. Sure. That’s a great question.

00:42:16,700	So, um, we’ve noticed in this area that the some of the section corners that we would need to tie the plot to from a distance and bearing, uh, situation is those corners may not have been recorded ever, uh, and they may or may not actually be in the ground. So we’re, we’re verifying that they actually do exist. If not existing, then we’re going to be setting them ourselves. So that’s what our our technical issue is. Okay. And that’s, that’s it. And the title of course.

00:42:31,570	And title okay. All right. Yes, Commissioner Bitner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Landon. Um, is it concern you at all that we’re that we’re doing a Riverside fourth just as part of combining two lots? No, combining two lots just doesn’t seem to rise to the creation of a subdivision. Thank you. Commissioner, that’s a good question.

00:42:53,000	And it’s a recent, uh, change, obviously, to the Berkeley County ordinance. There was a time, probably a year ago, you would have just simply contacted the auditor and asked them, just combine them administratively and they would have just done it.

00:43:06,800	Um, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the with this new process of doing it in combination. I think the city of Bismarck is heading that way as well. So I think you guys will line up pretty, pretty well going forward where it’s going to be.

00:43:20,670	These minor plats, um, rather than in the past, would have been a part of a regular description or just a administrative action where if you were not paying attention to these meetings, you would really wouldn’t even know that they were combined. If you didn’t have a way to track it. So I think this does actually help in that aspect. Okay, okay. Mister chair. I had that done on my land years ago.

00:43:36,200	We had multiple lots, you know, and it just put them all into one. No big deal. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Mitch. Auditor’s lots are fine for combining, but they don’t. They don’t change the subdivision. What happens to the lot line when they give an auditor’s lot? It still stays there and it doesn’t erase it.

00:43:56,400	Just because an auditor created a lot, or you call it a plot of regular description. Platting removes those interior lot lines and creates one lot. Okay, okay. That’s the difference. That’s why we don’t use auditors. That’s the difference. Yeah.

00:44:17,270	Because if we use auditors a lot, somebody could come along and sell that lot because it’s still recorded as a separate lot. Okay. Still shows up on that subdivision. Okay. Good to know. Uh, Commissioner Small, did you have something? He answered. My question. Fantastic. Uh, anything else? Any other questions? Thank you. thank you. Thanks a lot. Anyone else would like to speak on the Riverside Fourth subdivision? Oh.

00:44:38,200	I’ll save the full discussion, but I have the same concerns with this. One. Would you like me to say that.? So we’ll save the full discussion. But same concerns as with the previous one. We just. Yeah, absolutely. I understand and yeah being this that this is in the same subdivision a lot combination then. Yeah I think.

00:44:56,470	We’re calling it a new subdivision. So correct. So yeah I think that’s a we may need to have to work on that in the, in the ordinance to maybe call out some clarity on that. Absolutely.

00:45:17,600	Any other, uh, anyone else like to speak in this, uh, in this public hearing? Last call, seeing none. We will close the public hearing and move into discussion and action on Riverside fourth subdivision. And I would say if, uh, if we’re going to move approval, I would say that we’d probably want to just include the, um, the, the two corrections or the with corrections. I would say.

00:45:37,870	I would move to approve the final plot with conditions and give a do pass recommendation to the county commission. Those conditions being the property pens and the renaming of the to the fourth. I’ll second. Okay. It has been moved for approval by Commissioner Munson, second by Commissioner Patrick.

00:46:01,400	Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing? None. Uh, Marla, if you could take us through the roll call, vote. Okay. The approval with conditions. Um. Commissioner Bittner. Yes. Commissioner. Connell. Yes. Commissioner. Starfall. Yes, Commissioner. Small. Yes, Commissioner. Jarrett. Yes, Commissioner. Rich. Yes, Commissioner. Munson. Yes, Commissioner. Patrick. Yes, chairman. Yes. All approved. And I’ve got the conditions of property pins and title.

00:46:38,800	Fantastic. Uh, that will go to the county commission with the do pass recommendation. We’ll move on to the fifth. The fifth, uh, hearing tonight. This is Holly’s Horses edition. Come back. This is the last time. Okay, this is Holly’s Horses edition.

00:47:19,330	And, um, we’re at, uh, Bruce and Holly Gallagher and Gallagher. I’m not sure if I pronounce that right. Um, they’re the developers. Petitioner, um, independent land surveying is Mark Isaac. And this is, again, a minor plot. It’s a combination of lots one, two, and part of three. Block one, Sibley Island Estates, section 34, Township one, 38 North, range 80 West.

00:47:44,470	And it’s addressed as 1712A State Avenue. The lot contains four acres, more or less. It’s zoned rural single family, residential, and they’re asking for do pass, posted Bismarck Tribune. Uh, February 25th. March 4th, uh, surrounding properties February 27th.

00:48:18,700	Burleigh County website February 27th and the Burleigh County was contacted for a proposed lock combination, and they were advised to do a short plat subdivision, which is up there. Um, this subdivision fulfills the requirements of article 33 of the Burleigh County Zoning ordinances, and the final plat has been submitted to all reviewing entities, and all concerns have been corrected.

00:48:44,870	Zoning is R-1, rural single family, residential, and this subdivision meets the requirements of Burleigh County Comprehensive Plan. Article three residential neighborhoods. Objectives one and two. Stormwater management waiver was not required and a paving waiver was not required. Um.

00:49:11,000	The petition for the final plat meets all administrative requirements of the Berlin County Zoning ordinances, and staff recommends that do pass recommendation to the Board of Berlin County Commissioners. Okay. Any questions for Marla? If not, we will open the public hearing on Holly’s Horses edition. If you’d like to speak on this, uh, hearing, please approach the lectern. Tell us who you are. Where are you from? Inside.

00:49:40,200	Anyone like to speak in this public hearing? Again, I have the same concerns. I mean, this is combining and creating a new subdivision, and we’re not asking them to require or to get the authorization of everyone. Signature that already is in the subdivision. And it’s not even name the same subdivision. In this case, it’s got new name. So.

00:49:59,970	Yes, absolutely. I, I definitely think we need clarity on this. So I appreciate you bringing it up. I really do okay. Anyone else like to speak in this public hearing on Holly sources edition and last call. Anyone likes to speak. Uh, I’m. Gary Nelson. I’m in the same subdivision.

00:50:32,770	Um, I just had a question on, uh. We haven’t been assessed for for our road that’s out in our neighborhood. And they basically just said that they would repair it. But if we were assessed, is that according to our lot sizes, or is that according to the number of lots that we have in the subdivision? I think it’s both. It’s both.

00:50:57,670	Yeah. I think that, um, there’s two parts to it. The number of lots that you have comes into play more when you when you’re determining the special assessments and then the amount of the land creates, the amount for the specialist. Is that the frontage, the frontage.

00:51:23,270	The percentage of ownership I think applies, um, for the special assessment district, like if you have to sign a petition. Okay. All right. So is that clarified? Yeah. Because I know there was that there was talk of amongst us of what is is the advantage of putting if we have multiple lots, is it an advantage to put them together as one or is it a

00:51:43,600	or, or does that change anything in doing that? I’m not aware of that being a benefit either way. Either way. Yeah okay. Because ultimately it’s based on the amount of land okay.

00:52:09,730	So um, my question is, are these lots being combined and then separated from our subdivision, or are they still part of Sibley Island Estates? Uh, Marla, if you could answer that one. They are still part of Sibley Island Estates. It’s just that she requested to change the name to Holly’s Horses Edition. But you’re still part of it. Okay. That’s it. That’s all. It all. I had a question of. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

00:52:33,200	If anyone else would like to speak in the Holly sources edition, public hearing. Okay. Seeing none, we’ll close the public hearing and move into discussion and action on this hearing. I’ll move. We approve the final plat and give a do pass recommendation to the Burleigh County Commission. Second.

00:52:58,800	Okay. It has been moved for a a due pass recommendation by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Munson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Seeing none. Marla, if you could take us through the roll call, vote. Okay. Commissioner Munson. Yes, Commissioner. Jarrett. Yes. Commissioner. Conley. Yes, Commissioner. Bittner. Yes, Commissioner. Patrick. Yes, Commissioner. Ridge. Yes, Commissioner.

00:53:28,770	Small. Yes, Commissioner. Stiefel. Yes. And chairman. Yes. All approved. Okay. That is approved. And that will move to the county commission with a do pass recommendation. We’ll move into the final hearing of the evening on the Ainsley special use. And we get Mitch this time. Fantastic. Mitch, if you could take us through the details.

00:53:53,830	Good evening. Commissioners. We have a special use request for an an oversized accessory building. This is out at 11 515 Edgewood Drive. It’s there. It’s a 1.05 acre lot, 45,000ft. Basically. And they’re asking for an allowance of up to the 3000 square foot building.

00:54:25,430	The there are no there is no excuse me, there is no primary structure on the building. So it’s it’s a single lot by itself. The owner lives, I believe, right across the street. And they want to build a an accessory building. I’ll get it on the. It’s roughly a 60 by 50 square foot building. This is the Edgewood side. It’s basically the single garage.

00:55:29,930	It’s got a large garage door in the small one, and that’s a 50 foot width building. The, um, there’s an existing accessory building there now, and they want to tear that down and build this right in its place.

00:55:48,770	Or we’ve had no no comments from anybody, no opposition to this. Uh, the normal allowance for this side, lot size lot would be, um, 1800 feet, but that’s really they want to go to a 3000 square foot building to house their toys. I stand for any question. It is in the floodplain. They have to elevate.

00:56:15,330	Um, well, it depends on what their elevation certificate finds. I don’t think that they’ll have to, because it’s already, uh, according to my map, that’s already five feet above the BFE. I don’t know why it’s in the floodplain, but it’s on. It’s mapped as such. So. Uh, any questions for Mitch, Commissioner Rich? Uh, Mr. Chairman Mitch.

00:56:36,730	Um, it’s called an accessory building. Doesn’t have to be accessory to something like a home or something. I mean, why do we call it that? I don’t have any problem with the issue, but it just. That’s what they’re described as. They’re not. They’re not a single family resident. They’re not for residential use.

00:56:51,670	Um, I’m not saying that he can’t in the future get a permit and put a, put a bathroom in the kitchen in this. But they’re called accessory buildings because they’re accessory to the primary structure. And on we don’t relabel them just for this particular application because it’s I mean, it’s still an accessory. It’s not the primary structure. Okay.

00:57:14,570	Agreeing with the confusion on that. It’s an it’s an accessory to a home on a different lot. Is that what you’re saying? Right. Yeah. I mean, you could say that we do this quite often, though. They build they build their accessory building first, and someday they’ll build a house there. I don’t know.

00:57:32,230	It is really accessory building. Just saying it’s not a residence. Yeah. We do not want to call it a primary residence okay. Because then they could put another accessory building there. So it’s the idea is that you have to describe the building somehow.

00:57:50,430	I mean, it’s and yeah, technically it is an accessory building to a primary structure. But the primary structure here happens to be across the street. But some there’s some that we’ve issued permits or they don’t even live there. Some of them live right next door. So it’s it happens quite often anyway. Yeah. Commissioner Bittner yeah.

00:58:10,070	So there’s nothing in the ordinance that says there has to be a primary structure before you do an accessory building. There’s no that says you. It has to be. But if you want to build the accessory building, be prior to the to the single family home, you have to you don’t have to get a special use permit.

00:58:26,670	You just have to get signatures from 60% of the people that live there. Now, the special use permit for here is because it’s oversized. If they didn’t get the special use permit, they would be restricted to 1200 square feet. And if they were going to build something 1200 square feet, they would have to get signatures from 60%. And I think they’re getting.

00:58:50,630	So they have to get the signatures anyway. They um, they did get the signatures already. Okay. For allowing accessory building on the unattended lot. So that’s good to know. Yeah, yeah. The intention of this in our ordinance is to keep people from building an accessory building.

00:59:13,600	Call it an accessory building, and turn it into a shop and start working on trucks and cars and living on the other end of the neighborhood. Yeah. They didn’t want people to commercialize these buildings, use them for work and that sort of thing. Uh, any additional questions for Mitch? Yeah. Commissioner Rich.

00:59:31,330	Just seems like it’s kind of interesting that they only need 60% of the signatures, and the gentleman in the audience needs 100%. 100%. All you need is one person. That’s it’s a different issue, don’t get me wrong, but, I mean, 60% is somewhat reasonable. 100%. You get somebody that just says no and you’re you’re out of luck.

00:59:51,500	Any other questions for Mitch? All right, Mitch, seeing none. Thank you. Uh, we’ll move in to our. We will open the public hearing on the Ainslie special use permit. And I guess just just remind me, uh, what is what is the city in the in the Oeta? What’s what is the lack coverage? Uh, percent allowed.

01:00:17,230	Do we do you remember. 4% lot coverage? 4%. Okay. It doesn’t. Just for my information. Hello, commissioners. I’m Rob Ainslie, my wife, Lisa, and I. Excuse me on that piece of property. We live across the road. Our primary residence is there.

01:00:57,300	And so this is just the intent of this building is, uh, a shop to hold tractors, snow blowers, mowers, all those things you need when you live out in the county. So I’m just wondering if anybody had questions for us. Any questions for Rob? No, I think, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Mr. chairman, I think the big thing was just making sure your neighbors are okay with it.

01:01:15,370	Yeah, we had 80% approval. Yeah, basically everyone I contacted said no problem. That’s going to be better than what’s there now. Yeah. Yeah, I understand okay. Thank you very much. No questions for Rob.

01:01:39,930	No thank you Rob, if anyone else would like to speak in this public hearing on the Ainslie special use, please broach the lectern and, uh, let us know who you are, where you’re from and sign in.

01:02:19,000	My name is Dennis Wetzel, and I don’t have a problem with this, but I have a question as far as what are what are the rules? Because a friend of mine just told me at a funeral the other day that he. He has a lot up in Grand Prairie. He wants to build a garage. He’s told us less than 1200 square feet, and he has to get permission from everybody a mile in that jurisdiction from that lot. So is that that’s not right.

01:02:42,970	Is grand just a question, is Grand Prairie? Is that in the prairie was in the area, I guess. Yeah. Was in the Oeta right. Is I guess is um, was that quoted before it moved to the county or or after? No. Well, this was before. It must have been before. So I think the answer to your question is that the rules are changing.

01:03:01,030	Okay. Or if I try to have him come in and talk to. I, then I think it would be worth Worth’s time to maybe, uh, maybe approach because that’s that’s going to be a little bit different, uh, not being in the Oeta. Now because he doesn’t have a house there. It’s just a lot.

01:03:16,000	He lives in town and he wants to build a shop out there. Yeah. So. Yep. So you’re asking about the rules. The question is the rules are changing. Yes. Thank you. Oh.

01:03:40,000	Any any other, uh, any other input? Uh, anyone like to speak in the Ainslie special use? Mister chair, I would say that to his answers. We do require a quarter mile for if you’re going to do an accessory building such as this. We asked for signatures within a quarter of a mile. And that’s 60. Not not a full mile and 60%. 60% in a quarter mile. Gotcha. Yeah, that makes.

01:03:58,870	Sense there. Good to know. Anyone else like to speak in this public hearing on the Ainslie special use last call? If anyone would like to speak. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and move into discussion and action on the Ainslie Special Use. Motion to approve. Second.

01:04:22,400	Uh, it’s been moved by Commissioner Bitner, seconded by Commissioner Munson to approve this with a new pass recommendation to the county commission. Uh, is there any discussion? Um, I think this is a really interesting one. Uh, leading into all the, uh, the changes that we’re going to be looking at. So, uh, this would be 6.5% lot coverage.

01:04:43,070	And, uh, and, I mean, a 3000, 3000 square foot. So I think that’s a good one to kind of keep in mind as we, as we move into the discussions on the the changes to the ordinance. Yeah. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we’ll move in to the roll call. Vote. Mala, if you could.

01:05:02,730	Okay. Uh, the motion is to approve it. Um, Commissioner Jarrett. Yes. Commissioner. Munson. Yes, Commissioner. Patrick. Yes, Commissioner. Rich. Yes, Commissioner. Small. Yes, Commissioner. Stripe. Yes, Commissioner. Bittner. Yes, Commissioner. Conley. Yes. And chairman. Yes. All approved. Okay. That is approved. Uh, the Ainslie special use is approved with a do pass recommendation to the county commission.

01:05:35,400	That concludes our hearings for the evening. Uh, and, uh, and now, in other business, uh, we have obviously kind of extending on to the discussion we’ve had in the past, um, which was nice enough to kind of get this down into some bite sized pieces for us and talking about some of these, these pieces and these

01:05:55,800	zoning comparisons. And I as, as I understand it, Mitch, what you’re really looking for is that, uh, how we want to craft, uh, the text and the language so that we can kind of address these one by one and know what we want to have for the language in the, uh, the county ordinance. Correct? Yes.

01:06:15,370	I’ve broken it down to, uh, zoning districts, a floodplain, R1, R5 c I d and b public, um, there’s some at the introduction. Um, there are some facts about, uh, what’s changing in our ordinance.

01:06:41,300	Our changing in our jurisdiction for almost doubling the size of the amount of people that are in there at the it’s the idea is on page four of your packet of this part of the agenda. It describes the minimum lot size. And it’s, it describes some of these zoning jurisdictions and what their purpose is. We’re not going to go into all those our districts because that was way too much for you guys.

01:07:05,600	So um, and we’ll someday have to address some of those because there are quite a few parcels that that won’t be that won’t fit any of these jurisdictions, but they’re not as many as what we’re talking about tonight. The first up staff report, 6.11 is the floodplain Districts. It’s on page five.

01:07:27,170	I brought this up, um, because there’s the difference between the city of Bismarck and Burleigh County is, um, fairly large. Uh, the the idea is the city of Bismarck does not regulate to 2% or 500 year. Uh, we recognize it as a special flood hazard area. And we we regulate and require the two foot freeboard like we did.

01:07:49,630	We would do in the 1%. So we regulate both. Whereas the city regulates just one. And and I guess, uh, on that, I guess maybe just from the, from the commission here, I really what what do we want is, is 1% what we want in there or the 0.

01:08:11,270	02% because that’s the that’s the, the difference. So I mean, if we if we keep it the same, it’s the 0.02. If we say, okay, well we want to do really what the EPA had. Yeah. Just in it. You have the choice of doing of removing the 2%.

01:08:34,800	The regulations, like the city or we do both, which we are doing now for the entire for most of Burleigh County that we regulate in our jurisdiction, we require both, uh, both floodplains to be regulated. And that’s a very important fact to we. We did that long before I got here. Really? County did. It.

01:08:55,000	And in the purpose of it was because these these flood maps change and it’s, um, they weren’t very accurate back in 2014 or 2004, even back into 1970, 77, I think it was the one back first, the very first one.

01:09:20,070	And so we have we have areas in in the county that were in the 2% of the 500 year are now back into the 1 or 100 year, 1%. Do you mean that? Is it? Do you mean the 2/10 of 1%? Yeah. The 500. They’re the two. Yeah. Two. Okay. 2/10.

01:09:41,700	So it’s the idea is that the um if we remove that one idea, is that what would happen to all the people that we required to, to elevate before. I guarantee they’d be pretty upset. Right. You wouldn’t require them to take out the elevation, but, uh, that I mean. When I was in. My I mean, regulations change all the time. So it’s when I was in Minot, we didn’t regulate 500 year.

01:10:01,430	And when I got here, I said, whoa. Yeah, because it’s it’s it’s a lot more work. But it it is, it makes the it makes our jurisdiction and our, our community more resilient. Absolutely. Because these first off, these flood maps will change. I guarantee you the 2024 map.

01:10:21,130	It’s going to be different when they come out in 28 or 38 for whenever they come out, I guarantee you they’re going to be different. And so, um, it is it is more restrictive. Um, but I don’t recommend changing.

01:10:39,370	And I guess I would just ask the commission, um, I mean, are we on board with that? Do we want to keep the, the 0.02? I guess it would be that 2/10 of 1% or just have the 1% as the, uh, the Bismarck, I guess the ETA would have had in it prior.

01:10:55,830	That would mean that the 1% would apply to the entire county. Not not the, uh, 2/10 of a percent. Right? Right. Yes, Commissioner Bitar. I think one of the problems that we run into, in what I’ve heard about lately, um, is that somebody that was in the ETA built their house to that particular flood elevation, but now that they’d be into the county, they’d have to go to

01:11:19,970	this new elevation. That was not what they were under before. Yeah. So, like. a new like you got it? Yeah. No. If you have I think the issue was like like if it’s more than 50% of the property value or something, there were, there was some, some catches to it.

01:11:37,000	But what it amounted to is you’d have a house that your floor is here, but your additions, your floors, I don’t know, somewhere else. And that’s the kind of thing that I think we need to be aware of.

01:11:53,430	And, you know, the goal with doing the ETA was, was not to make people have to do something they weren’t already having to do. That seems like a negative. Even though, and I and I agree that it makes us more resilient with with flooding and it protects people to a higher elevation. But this is one of those things, kind of an unintended consequence that I’m not real comfortable with.

01:12:14,630	Yeah. Because really it’s the difference between the hundred year flood plain and the 500 year flood plain. Right. Is that how I read it? Yeah. Mister. Mister chair, the, um, our ordinances allow an addition to an existing building at the same elevation as that floor. As it is up to 50% substantial improvement.

01:12:37,130	So we got we get calls all the time. We get calls on a garage. I got a call today on a garage they want to add on to their house. And I said, well, you can, you just have to document the, uh, the valuation of it. And you can’t go over 50%.

01:12:51,000	Okay. And it’s, it’s, that’s how that works. I mean, even on, even on a regular edition don’t have to be a garage. It could be any kind of addition. But the thing is, on a lot of the a lot of these older homes, they were built 20, 25 years ago.

01:13:08,170	We don’t know if they were built to the ordinance at that time. And even if they were built at that time, they would still only be allowed 50% even in the city, even in the city. So it’s got great.

01:13:24,000	So if we if we do keep the, uh, 2/10, 2/10 of 1%, which is the 500 year, basically the 500 year flood plain right on on there, that would mean that any additional building that goes on or in, uh, more than 50% of your value of your house goes on those in, in, in what was the ETA and the transfer area. Yes. They would have to build higher.

01:13:43,300	If it’s past it. Yes. If it’s if it’s more if it’s more than a substantial improvement, which is the 50% mark, then yes, they would, they would have to bring that house up to okay. If they want to do any work. So what’s the what’s the thoughts here I guess, uh, Commissioner Rich. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:14:03,700	Oh, thank you, Mitch and Marla, you did a really nice job of putting this comparisons together. I appreciate that. What impact does this have on someone buying flood insurance? Is it that a factor at all? I mean, that’s one of the issues.

01:14:19,200	I lived on the south side of Bismarck and I bought flood insurance just because I was on a 500 year flood plain. But yeah, Mr. Chair, the flood flood insurance is not required or it’s not mandatory in the 500 year. It is in the 100 year, you can absolutely buy it if you want, but it’s not a mandatory nfip requirement.

01:14:36,670	Yeah. So the, the basically the if we said we wanted to keep the uh, the, the 2/10 of 1%, that means anybody in the, in the transfer area that is going to improve their home by more than 50% of the value, or any new buildings are going to have to basically go raise to the 500 year.

01:14:54,270	If it’s new. Yes. And if. It’s existing, over 50%. Are over 50. Yeah. If it’s an existing house, you get up to 50% value, same level, okay. If it’s a new house, it has to be elevated. Okay. Yeah.

01:15:14,570	Commissioner Benner, how much of an elevation difference are we talking about? The freeboard is two feet on both both zones. So the elevation depends on the BFE. We don’t know if you you know, if we had a BFE, we could determine how much elevation it’s going to be. We’re talking out at on Hog Island. They would have been about eight inches higher if they elevated.

01:15:34,070	If they elevated to the freeboard to the existing house, because those because those flood maps changed now because, you know, the ground change of the house changed, but because that floodplain changes and it’s not just out there in Hog Island, it’s going to change everywhere again.

01:15:52,530	And so it’s these these things are not, uh, static. Uh, try to, you know, hold on to this in ten years is going to be the same thing, because in the next round of flood maps, we’re going to have all kinds of different elevations, and there

01:16:08,670	in your in the 500 year now, you will be in the 100 year whatever, whatever they decide, whatever they determine. So it’s you got to look in the long term for, for some of this stuff. And it’s just idea that.

01:16:25,800	Now another thing I might want to add is I don’t know how the DWR, the Nfip coordinator, is the North Dakota Department of Water Resources. I don’t know about how they would respond to us reducing our ordinances. And, um, yeah, I don’t know what if we if we remove this 2% just in the ETA, or do the entire county? That’s the question. So if we’re if we’re not.

01:16:49,630	So thoughts thoughts on this I mean are we are we on board with saying just keep the 2/10 of 2/10 of 1% and just keep it at that, which is what the county was at anyway? Mr.. Commissioner Munson yeah. I mean, if we’re talking eight inches in, in the Hog Island. Example. Just that one.

01:17:06,300	Example, that one example, we’re talking. eight inches going from the 100 to the 500. That’s it. No, it’s either either one the 100 year or the 500 year. The elevation is still the same. Still okay. It doesn’t I mean, it’s the 500 year is a less hazard area. It’s considered less hazard. Right.

01:17:25,500	And the ground elevation changes is not us, not the BFE or not the elevation requirement. So it’s a I don’t know it. It is less restrictive. It is it’s you don’t have to have insurance in there. But but we’ve in the past have required it. And if we I don’t know how this will affect I don’t know how.

01:17:47,970	For one thing, if you just did the ETA then you’d have to have a separate ordinance for that, or we’d have to change our ordinance just to fit the ETA. Then, or change it for the entire Burley County.

01:18:04,400	And I honestly, we’re going to get into legal water if we take if we remove that 500 year for the rest of the county. and we made them elevate. Remind everybody that what we’re doing tonight is just giving Mitch, uh, input on crafting something to bring back to us. We’re not. We can. I mean, we can change it. Yes.

01:18:22,630	When when the actual when when we’re going to be voting on this. So I to me, it sounds like we should just keep the 2/10 of 1%. And I mean, we got a bunch to get through here. So I think if we just say go ahead and keep that 2/10 of 1% and then we can move on to the next thing. I would agree.

01:18:38,500	So I think we can move to that 6.0, 6.1.2 okay. Which is um ag ag district. Yes. AG district. Um, the highlighted areas, you should have highlighted areas in your packet. Mm. Those are the differences primarily. Um, it’s uh, the big ones for the AG. To me, it’s not the animal feeding operation of the ten acres.

01:19:11,600	It’s down on the home occupations. Um, you can have up to three external employees, up to 50% of the primary home and 100% of the accessory building. You can have a sine of three square feet sales. You can have a sales are allowed.

01:19:34,070	And these major and minor home occupations, they’re allowed by right. You don’t have to get a special use permit. So that’s a big difference between ours. If you look at ours, you have no external employees. And so temporary sales and what is called out in home occupation, which is different than it would be a change from no one’s external employees, up to three external employees.

01:19:55,400	And then the 50% of primary home and accessory building and maybe some different signage, things like that. But sales allowed, right. So we it’s it’s a sales allowed. And then it also says temporary sales allowed. Yeah. Unless it causes a traffic problem. So does it just then say sales allowed.

01:20:15,130	You can just get rid of that temporary piece of right. Good. Yeah I mean it’s but yeah, I absolutely the idea is the city worked pretty hard on this and they, they had a lot of a lot of involvement. And so uh, it probably is one of the most extreme home occupant occupation zones in the state. Extreme when.

01:20:39,170	What do you mean that would allow this to have. It’s very allowing. Oh yeah. Okay. There’s nobody else like it that has this. So it’s um, but it’s important to the people of Bismarck, important to the people in the ETA. Uh, Commissioner Connelly, you had something.

01:20:56,900	Um, out of respect to the county Commissioner Bitner, you said on that board on the planning and zoning and, um, a lot of it was, is that there’s a lot of people that have home occupations that never went through the permitting process. The, um, paying of the $700.

01:21:16,530	And at the time, and that was a point of contention because, uh, county residents paying the city fees for listing that. And when I checked in on it, the city was only averaging about $2,100 a year. So there was a lot of people opening up businesses that were going unreported and all in the CTA area.

01:21:35,930	I think the I think the thing is, is that, you know, we’re talking purely the ag district right now. Yeah. You know, so this is just ag this. But in commercial, I think it’s called out also. But yeah, I’m just kind of highlighting on some of the stuff that I remember. Uh, Commissioner Bitner talking on and stuff.

01:21:51,800	So I don’t know if you want to add to the context of that, because it was a lengthy discussion. There was some long public hearings. I’ve watched all the meetings and that, but it is your area, so I don’t know if I want. to go into interpreting. Um, I fight pretty hard for the Aeta residents.

01:22:08,300	So, yeah. Um, you know, I don’t I don’t have a lot to add. Just simply that a lot of people are operating, um, commercial things, start ups and whatnot out of their out of their homes, you know, and in my case, I did.

01:22:25,930	I’ve got more land than most. And you can’t tell because I got such mature trees and all that. But years ago I did. And, you know, places like Apple and companies like that, some of the biggest heavy hitters in industry today started in people’s garages.

01:22:45,730	And so a lot of it had to do with allowing people to start someplace, because not everybody can afford to go down here and and buy an industrial lot in one of these, um, subdivisions, like the one we approved earlier. And, and make a start. You know, you got to get started someplace.

01:23:04,930	And that’s basically, I think what it really boils down to is, is nobody wants to see nobody wants to see a company like this, that this would allow in a normal subdivision. I don’t think, you know, this is something in the EG where your neighbors just aren’t that close, you know? So it’s a little bit different. I think the conversation is different.

01:23:30,130	Certainly if you’re in a subdivision, I wouldn’t advocate for a company the size of mine. Being in a subdivision. In like in, like an R-1 or. Yeah, I would, I would think that would be not appropriate. You know. But on my place, you can’t even tell, you know, nobody, nobody can see it. And it’s always been that way.

01:23:47,670	But it’s a pretty fairly good sized I mean, I think 18, I’ll say 18.5, but it’s actually 18.486 acres now. So, you know. so that answer.

01:24:11,800	That in, in AG, uh, that would be so if we, if we said we wanted to do exactly what they were doing in, in the ETA, then that would mean the whole county would have the, uh, the ability to have, you know, the up to three employees and sales allowed, uh, this kind of gets back to, I guess I remember the one we had, uh, was it last year we had the Burnt Creek

01:24:26,130	Farms. Let’s use that one as an example. Would that then allow something like that? You know, with the sales sales allowed? Now what what includes sales or does that mean that okay, we allowed an egg, but if you’re not an egg, then you have to be

01:24:43,200	you have to then be commercial or, you know, kind of where do we draw that line between between that and what has to be commercial. Mr. Chair? Yeah. Apple would Apple, uh, Creek. Creek. Yeah, that was more of it. They wanted to more of an agricultural, commercial agriculture. Yeah.

01:25:05,630	And I mean, they would have employees, but they it’s not a would not be a commercial event like a, like a, I don’t know, like an event center type thing, uh, charging people to come into their property and be entertained for whatever, all that stuff that still requires a special use permit.

01:25:25,330	This is for somebody who owns a small business. He can have his employees there. They can show up in the morning, get all the stuff out of the garage and drive to the job site. Oh. But it also allows for sales. Yeah. That’s that’s kind of where I was getting at. Is that.

01:25:41,900	If you like this guy that built a 3000 square foot accessory building, you could turn that into sales, have three employees..

01:26:00,600	And I guess another reason that I bring it up is that, uh, I see that that is in, in the, uh, AG piece, it is also in the R-1, uh, portion. And I just kind of think, like, I look at this and I’m like, well, if this is such a it seems to be a point of contention that we’ve, we’ve gone, gone by in the past and should maybe that be in the pud, like we pull it out of AG,

01:26:18,130	we pull it out of R1. And if you’re going to have employees or anything like that, does that then fall into PUD? I’m just going out just as a suggestion, because then then we can then it’s more of as like a case by case. But yeah, Commissioner Bittner or. Yeah.

01:26:34,930	Commissioner Rich, I think you were you were first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mitch. Well, we worked on ag recreational. If we adopted this, could you build a corn maze with three or less employees? Well, this is this has nothing to do with agricultural recreation. This is employees. But it’s. You have to get into it, though.

01:26:53,970	It is. You’re right. It does. But it’s it’s. No, uh, that’s that’s a commercial that is more along the lines of commercial. Um, the recreational entertainment, you know, the the invite complete strangers on your property charge of the money, and then entertain whatever you’re doing. This would allow three employees in sales. That’s inviting people to your.

01:27:18,500	Well, these employees, I don’t think they’ll be entertained. So I don’t. Know. They’re working there for working. So it’s different I don’t know, but this is allowed in the city. Yeah. And there are people here I that we’re here at the last meeting that we’re looking at this heavily too. Yeah. Commissioner Bittner you got.

01:27:38,830	Yeah. Think we need to slow down just a minute here. It has never been, um, my intention, and it’s never been, um, where sales were allowed. You know, because that’s what increases the traffic and disrupts neighborhoods and whatnot.

01:28:03,500	And with with my company, we we don’t sell anything off the premises. You know, it’s it’s like he said, if somebody shows up there to get a truck and a trailer and something and then go to work someplace, and I don’t think I really struggle with the sales allowed because it says sales allowed unless traffic problem.

01:28:25,230	Well, it’s almost always going to be generating traffic that the neighborhood may not appreciate. Um, you know, I think that was the biggest thing with the Burnt Creek Farm issue was the traffic and the condition of the roads and the one way in and all those sort of things. So I would certainly urge caution on that. Sales allowed thing. Commissioner Connelly. Yeah.

01:28:47,630	Well, if I remember right, because I watched the meetings in that with Burn Creek Farm, they were talking 57,552 50 because you’re talking larger events in that. And that’s where the agritourism came up.

01:29:05,370	Or like even in Bismarck, say, uh, on Main Street, the 1603 or whatnot. Um, it’s limited to the 23 events a year. So but we have their limitations. That’s kind of a whole different thing.

01:29:27,270	When I talked about sales like this, where people selling sourdough out of their house or say some taxidermy to where it’s or like your MLM, they weren’t having, uh, parties per se, in that it’s just one customer picking up a nutritional product.

01:29:43,200	And that that was a lot of the stakeholders that were sitting in the area that they weren’t reporting, but some of the things that came up like, um, my wife’s a government employee, she works from home, but she would also be subject to that home occupation once the Covid rules change. She wasn’t selling anything, she was just working. So those are some of the little nuances that came up.

01:30:00,530	And part of the reason for the change, it’s a lot of this stuff is going on, and I would presume it’s going on in the county. Just nobody knows about it because we figured that. That’s why I mentioned the $2,100 a year. Some people were doing their due diligence and reporting. Three of them a year, and there was an estimate there was between 5 and 8000 of them out there.

01:30:22,300	It’s how do you know? Um, but, uh, there are definitely areas of concern because everybody in the neighborhood, if all of a sudden 50 cars show up on a repeated basis, and all of a sudden, is there a mechanism to where that trips to where it could be a case by case? I don’t know. I think there needs to be something like that. Yeah.

01:30:38,800	I mean, you can’t have you can’t just say sales allowed because now a guy like me, I would do an Amazon warehouse because it’s all robot controlled. But look at the trucks that would be rolling in and out of. There, right. You know, so, I mean, not like me. I’m not going to do that.

01:30:55,570	But you know what? I’m saying in AG. So if if we even said if we even said, okay, what if we changed it to three external employees and said the, the 50% of the primary home, 100% of accessory building sign at three plus square feet, but took the sales allowed out of there and just keep with the no on premise

01:31:14,470	sales? I mean, is everyone okay with that? And AG district? That would have been my suggestion. Yeah, I think I think let’s let’s put that into the draft.

01:31:34,370	Right, Mister chair, the, um, the sales in our ordinance, no sales are allowed on site, but they are allowed on an advertisement. If they in other words, they can order it online. And then they they transact this online. They come over to pick it up and go, that’s allowed in our ordinances. As long as they know there’s no sales transaction, there’s no products there to displayed. Um, there’s no open sales. And we would call that out as stipulations.

01:31:58,730	Yeah, that would be that’s that’s allowed as a home occupancy right now in our home. And there are people that sell guns online. And they they live in these residential houses and they transact that over the, over the internet. And they just come by and pick it up and they leave.

01:32:15,800	The, the thing I want to get back to is that now an agricultural, uh, it says temporary, temporary sales of certain items are allowed in. That was in the, in the transfer in the what used to be the ETA.

01:32:32,630	Um, what I guess what would you consider is a temporary sale. What what can I mean? If somebody said, well, I’m selling things, but it’s temporary. Well, then. Oh yeah. I got a yard sale. Yard sale. Is I mean, do we limit them to a number of days? Number of hours per day? I don’t know what’s what’s temporary.

01:32:49,500	We don’t limit it. I mean, it’s yeah, I mean there are people that have yard sales every weekend in the city. I only ask because that’s that was allowed in the ETA, but it’s not allowed in. Right. For the county.

01:33:05,600	So I and I think it’s I don’t, I don’t see a problem with it because if someone wants to set up a they have their sweet corn stand by the, the road and it’s purely just, it’s you’re not inviting them. Probably not getting a lot of traffic and it’s seasonal.

01:33:20,500	And I would consider that temporary, but I think there would have to be if we would put that in there, we’re going to have to tell people what is temporary, right? I have to define temporary. In the in the definitions. But I don’t know if anybody is is anybody is or is everybody okay with that. If we would say we could pull that temporary sales of certain items into our ordinance. Well. You. Could. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Patrick.

01:33:39,770	Yeah. Someone, for instance, a someone that’s raising corn and and those 2 or 3 weeks of the year when the corn is ripe, they’re going to be selling, um, corn to people. Same thing with strawberries. You’d be doing it with strawberries.

01:33:56,370	You know, there’s just a few weeks in the year when that stuff is available and they’re going to be selling it. So I think that would be something that we I think we’d want to consider putting that in there. It seems to make sense. Isn’t that. Already in our. Ordinance? Oh, it was it was called out as a difference here in AG. in a. Temporary sales.

01:34:18,100	That’s in the Bismarck, right? It doesn’t, it doesn’t. It’s in the Bismarck, but not the Burley. Right? Yeah. Commissioner small. Uh, first of all, I need to know. what we’re affecting.

01:34:35,230	Is this is this the change, the ordinances and the whole county? Or just the ETA that they took back from the city? County? It would have it would it would affect the what is county prior and what is the transfer area which is now in the county or controlled by the county. So, yes. Well. It would be, it. Would be, have more than three employees.

01:34:55,000	In ag district actually right now on home occupation, Berlusconi says no external employees at home occupations. Right. But that. But that is. The. Agricultural business is separate. There’s a. Different code for selling corn on the side of the road for employees coming to and from work. That’s a whole separate ordinance. Well, it better be. because my brother’s going to come down on me.

01:35:18,430	That’s all I can tell you. Well, I know when we were talking about the ag tourism side, we were we were we had that ordinance out making sure that sweet corn sales on the side of the road was legal. They call it a was it a truck. Truck, truck. Farm, truck, farm.

01:35:36,670	So yeah, that’s a whole different ordinance. So, so so what what what are we talking about right here? You’re talking about on page eight. Yep. Okay. So home occupations. So okay. And so in your house for everybody except the farmers. That is what you’re saying, right? If you’re working out of your house. So like you have a business in your house. Yep.

01:35:54,230	So it’d. Be, it’d be like. Bit cool. You know, this would cover bit to be legal. Is that correct? Because are you registered as AG? My land is. Your land is. Yep. Yep. I’ve added some. That’s rural. Residential. That’s two lots on the far north end that are.

01:36:12,430	But Bidco is on AG. And so really this now makes what he’s doing legal. And like small sanitizing. But yeah we wouldn’t have about the sales side of it. Small sanitizing business. So that’s really what kicked off a lot of it was a permit.

01:36:32,730	Um, somebody had their insignia on the side of their trailer. They had the concrete company ready to go. They wanted to build the shop so they can move all their equipment inside, rather than having to expose to everybody. And our planner was out in the ATA, so, oh, it’s a home occupation business. Denied the permit and prevented that.

01:36:50,870	Well, to move into town and to say rent a shop drives the price up that transfers to the customer. And we all talk about blatant our communities and things, and we don’t want that.

01:37:10,300	Some of these, just like Commissioner Bitner talked about, is, is that everybody starts somewhere, and those are the people that people with lesser incomes or people trying to be more frugal with their money. They’re going to reach out to the companies that don’t have a lot of overhead.

01:37:26,230	Well, if we drive all of that into Bismarck to where they have have a lot, well, now you’re going to have people that now that are priced out of that, um, uh, Tyson Austin was one that spoke at our last meeting and his landscaping business. And he does have employees. He does have a shop in town, but some of the stuff he carries with him, because of the threat of theft in town, he prefers it on site.

01:37:45,470	So his employees meet there and they drive off. And that’s some of the flexibility that was created in the home occupation. This is a new ordinance from last year in the city. A lot of people in the city, uh.

01:38:02,400	You were there, Commissioner Bittner, one of the people within the city, were not comfortable making this change, but because it brought in so many different people that would be affected, they decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. And if the problems arise, ordinances can change at any time.

01:38:22,130	That’s one of the reasons why, um, some of the things are on both the city’s plate right now and the county right now that are heated discussions is because it’s elevated to the level that people are asking for it to be addressed differently.

01:38:38,670	So with, um, what if so if we say that, uh, temporary sales, certain items would, would stay, would move into the Burley, uh, the 1000 plus a you I think to me, I think that should stay. And then if we said that the in home occupation, we just take out sales allowed under sales allowed unless traffic problems.

01:38:58,000	Just take that out of there and move that in so that it would be the move that into the burley. The up to three external employees with the 50% of primary home, 100% of accessory buildings sign at three plus square feet. If we just say, okay, put that into the the AG piece, is everybody okay with that? Yep. As a draft. Yes, Commissioner. Yeah I have a question.

01:39:18,670	This sign of three plus square foot, does that mean you can basically have a 100 square foot sign. Please? Says the guy himself. So. Yeah. What it was before. was what it was before was one square foot sign. That’s for Bismarck or that’s really. That’s Burleigh County or in three.

01:39:43,270	The three plus, though, is does that mean three square feet or it says three plus. So to me, I would read that as I could make it 100ft. No. No, it’s three square feet is three square feet. You got one square foot and the SF is in there. I’d have to look exactly worded, but I. On the plus that I’m questioning.

01:40:02,770	Yeah, honestly I would I would like to change that. And I don’t know what everybody’s opinion is. Change it to eight square feet because a piece of plywood is eight square. Feet, 32ft. Or 30, excuse me, 32ft. The four, four by eight, the four by eight. So basically somebody could use a four by eight piece of plywood.

01:40:17,870	I can’t support that or not. Um, that’s that gets into the category of two. Too big, too much. Okay. It’s too much in a in in my case I think it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

01:40:34,770	Because I just think like, what’s what would be kind of about that sign size we want to go with because three square feet doesn’t really well make a lot of sense to me. That’s that’s pretty small. It’s still a home occupancy. But that’s my point. Okay, okay. You’re you’re you’re not trying to advertise to bring people to your facility. You don’t need 32ft.

01:40:53,270	You know, three is a little difficult if you’re driving 55 miles an hour to try to figure out that this is where I need to deliver my product to, you know? But what makes what makes sense, you know, what’s the. Yeah. Go ahead.

01:41:07,170	Some of you some of you may already know this, but I have home business. I build kitchen cabinets. Okay. I don’t need a sign outside. Right. Um, my business is, uh. Word of. Mouth. It’s verbal, and I, you know, and people know about me, and and they’ll come out, and I’m not selling stuff on site. Uh, I’m building them. And then I haul them out.

01:41:27,930	Nobody comes in. Uh, I don’t think you need to need a sign. That’s my opinion. So my. Question was. The three plus, if I was a business owner and wanted to put up a sign, I would consider that unlimited, correct? Yeah. So if we just did the. Block. If we took the plus. Seller.

01:41:44,430	Well, the ordinance is not written. Let’s let’s back up a little bit. So we can limit it to three square feet, four square feet or just or a foot and a half by foot and a half. I don’t. Know, Commissioner Conley. Well. Back to the discussions from back then.

01:42:01,070	They were a lot of the people, the stakeholders that came in, uh, even if it was temporary signage, we’re talking like the little corrugated signs with steaks that you could put in the ground. or takeout or even if it was more of a permanent one, depending on the type of business.

01:42:20,730	Um, daycares were a lot concerned about the home occupation ordinance, and there’s a lot of people that struggle with finding people to take care of their kids. Um, as long as those were included in the discussion to where it’s thoughtful and doesn’t interrupt the continuity of the county. But even in the rural areas, people are looking. And that’s something in there, too.

01:42:37,270	What would, uh, yeah, what would be, uh, acceptable, I guess. Well, I don’t, I don’t think, I don’t think a bunch of signs is a very good answer at all. Yeah. Um, but I do think the question could be answered with a special use permit process.

01:42:52,430	I mean, if you’re if you wanted to have a sign and you could convince your neighbors through the special use permit, you know, then then that would be the citizens taking action, not us sitting here and going, oh, no, no, no, can’t do that. Right. Good point. You know. Yep.

01:43:11,470	We can keep it same as what it is in the county as one square foot. Yeah. And then. Yeah. And then and then it would be special use permit if you wanted to go above that okay. Yeah. All right. So moving on to chair. Yes. Since we had this conversation earlier accessory buildings or we’re at four square feet or 4% in this ag area.

01:43:35,000	We just approved six and a half. And that wasn’t the ag area. But we’re, we’re we’re listing 4% of your lot for an accessory building in an agricultural. Zone. Keep in mind that I’m sorry, Mister Chair. Keep in mind that’s a minimum ten acre lot. Okay. Right, I I sorry.

01:44:00,200	Yes, I, I glazed over that one and I yeah I think that’s it needs, it needs to be more I think but Commissioner Conley yeah. Yeah I. Would maybe it’s in another area. We did change ours specific to try to match the county. Is this in relation to it. Because we did change it to 4%.

01:44:17,230	Knowing that the conversation may change. So we would just update it at that point. Yeah. I um. I want people I’m sorry. Yeah. Go, go right there. Yeah. Sorry about that. Um, I want people to be able to keep their stuff inside. You know, there’s more. There’s more campers, more boats, more toys, more mowers, more.

01:44:37,470	I mean, my track, my. I just needed more space, you know? And the folks that I’ve talked to said, okay, so you’re you’re adding up my barn, my lean to my chicken coop, my, you know, tractor storage. You start adding all of those up if you’re doing it correctly. And I can’t have a garage to put my tractor in.

01:45:00,400	Yeah. And so for 4% in the folks that I’ve talked to is just not enough. Yeah, I think I mean, on ten acres, that’s it’s probably not going to make a difference. But on. Mister Chair two, three acres. Ten acres is 17,000 square foot building. Yeah. That’s a that’s a big building on ten acres.

01:45:20,130	But when you get down less than that. But we because in eg is ten is not our minimum though. If it is. We just approved some the night that we’re in ten acre that we’re five acres. For which which product which. They. Weren’t, they weren’t AG. That was in Apple. Creek Township. Yeah.

01:45:41,500	Oh yeah, they were it was five acres and it was eg. That’s their zoning. Yep. That’s Apple Creek zoning. I’m just bringing that one up because it’s uh, if we’re going to say okay, then we’re going to think about, oh, this is on the ten acres. Sure.

01:46:01,900	You go to I mean, like you say, 26% is 26,000 square foot building. That’s a monster building. But if we’re going to say, oh, well, we’re going to have these smaller ones, well then we’re going to get down to four and five acre. Well. You may. A percentage gets pretty small. They have an out lot somewhere that’s less than ten acres.

01:46:17,300	It’s zoned eg. But if they want to develop and put a house on they have to turn it back to an R-1. What about accessory building. for what if that if they kept it eg put an accessory building on it. Oh we would if it’s less than ten acres.

01:46:34,400	I mean we, we would ask them to rezone it for one thing to correct that part, but it’s typically we we have minimum ten acres for all these ag lots. It starts at ten acres. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Bittner. Yeah. You had something. Thank you.

01:46:51,000	Um, kind of ask a question as a lead into a comment, but do any of you know why we have that size? Just the size limitation to begin with? I, I don’t know, I asked the question years. Ago. Oh, they didn’t want people starting businesses out of their garages. That’s how it all started. And we’re sitting here talking about home occupations, no. You know.

01:47:16,170	No, no. So realistically, um, what happens in a subdivision is that people build their stuff and plant their trees, and within ten years, you can’t see their yard anymore. You know, you’re you’re a pretty good example of it.

01:47:37,600	If you had a whatever size shop behind your house, who would care? That’s right. You know, and he’s in a nice affluent neighborhood. So, you know, the 4% thing, uh, it really outlived its usefulness because the goal was to stop people from running businesses out of their house. And then we’re doing the allowing that along nowadays. Right? So what, you’re in the same boat, you can’t see your. Yeah.

01:48:02,970	What do you what do we want to do? I mean what’s the because we’ve had how many now in the last year we’ve approved what I want to say five of oversized over the.

01:48:19,530	Well and at the city too, because it’s bothered me that people are spending money to get the blessing to do a bigger building that everybody needs, because everybody’s cars, you know, like my garage was a 63 model house. Their garages were smaller because, you know, well, nowadays you just need more space. And and when was the last time we, we disallowed someone from building? We never had. We had. That’s why I’ve said before.

01:48:41,330	That’s why I stayed on the city planning and zoning for so long, because I was there to make sure that do the best I could, to make sure that people from the ETA were, if they came in requesting a bigger building. That was a focus of mine.

01:48:59,530	Um, as well as other issues in the ETA, but that’s a big deal to a lot of folks. And I just think size restrictions, I mean, realistically, in these subdivisions, you can drive around, you can’t see after the trees get up. And because everybody likes that, I. Don’t know. Commissioner Small. Uh, Mitch, I got a question for you. What is a variance cost? Uh, two.

01:49:19,870	$5,250. So if they build a building, don’t you get paid for the building permit? Yeah. So why are we charging them $250 for that? For a public hearing? We don’t make any money on it. We are. We have to send out an advertisement.

01:49:38,670	We have to send out notices, letters to all the people. Um, and we have to hold a public hearing. And, like I said, advertise in the paper twice. So it’s it’s we’re losing money on that $250. But I would suggest back to the your accessory buildings. I would suggest maybe an increase per the size of a lot.

01:50:01,400	Uh, instead of just one flat 8% or 10%, because we’re seeing I’m thinking we’re seeing an that we’re, we’re seeing an average of probably 3000 to 8000 square foot on these residential accessory buildings. The one to date tonight was 7000. Now this was this is 80. So I understand we’re talking about accessory works.

01:50:22,270	We’re assuming that ten acres is the is the is the bottom of 80. But it really isn’t. Well, I mean when you guys got a question of what what should we have what should we do on these accessory building, I think that maybe you can increase them size the minimum

01:50:36,730	4% to 5% for say, a lot. That’s three acres, 5% for a lot. That’s four acres. I don’t know, but we’d have to come up and we, you know, we can determine it that. Way because R-1 is down to is it two, 4%? No. Two acres. Yeah, acres.

01:50:51,100	Two eight. Well, 65,000ft, but yeah, that’s acre and a half. So I don’t know, uh, do we want to change that to two more for for ag? I think it needs to. Yeah. Because we’re, we’re have been our, our the ones that we have approved. Have they been I know some have been in AG.

01:51:13,770	They haven’t all been an egg. They’ll have they. Never. Are. Got some R-1 right. The ones that we’ve gone through here, they’ve all been on our ones. That’s all been R-1. Okay? They’ve all been our ones. So maybe 4% makes makes sense in AG. But then in our one, now we need to. We need to up it.

01:51:34,370	Well, I think I’m on my acreage. I calculated I could do like a 35,000 square foot building and currently, you know, under the county zoning. And you know what limits me on the size of building how much money I got. So right. It’s like.

01:51:53,070	Okay, I’m not going to build a 37,000 square foot building because I don’t need it. So. Okay. So are we are we good with. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, one last thing on a two.

01:52:12,130	We just recently had an issue to where, um, height of building also, um, they were talking about, um, dorms and that in the height where they were going higher was totally determined on how much setback they calculated into it to. So they couldn’t run the height real close to the edge of the property. I don’t know if that comes into the county perspective at all, but just a little side note. City, the city does that on signs too.

01:52:32,070	I can go higher if I step. Back. Further. Um. On well, to your question, Mister Connelly, Commissioner Connelly, we are going to start having those problems because these lots in the this transfer area are many of them are substandard. Many of them are less than 65,000ft. Some are down to 40, 35,000.

01:52:53,370	So and that would be the more like the R5, right? Well, R-2 but it’s okay. Yeah, I don’t know. But if you want me to come to the next meeting, I can do a gradation of of sizes per lot size. Uh, except for building size per lots, the size of a lot.

01:53:12,270	Well, on on AG do we want to do we want to change it on ag or do we want to leave it on AG. And then we can talk about it because R-1 is our next one that we would want? I don’t think we need a limitation on AG. No. Right. Because you know, if you’re an agricultural use like Mr.

01:53:28,130	Small and he’s got a bunch of cattle, he’s got 500 head of cattle, he should be able to build whatever size building he needs to keep those cows inside when there’s a storm or whatever, right? I mean, you’re just flat out and your equipment, whatever, you know. So I think it’s, um.

01:53:46,330	Well, I think it’s contrary to the law to put those kind of restrictions on ag property, because I don’t believe that your zoning ordinance is applied to ag zoning. Yeah. I think the, uh, the height accessory building heights also need to go up. Uh, just a thought that 25ft and 16.5ft sidewalls are.

01:54:11,330	I mean, you can easily see some 18, 20 and more sidewalls out there for, uh, accessory buildings. And in AG and right now we have it, uh, we have in the county, it’s 16.5ft on sidewalls, 25 foot overall height. Medium height, medium to the middle of the gable.

01:54:34,330	Keep in mind, also for agriculture, if it’s an agricultural use building, we have no regulations on them. They can build them as big as they want. They can build them upside down. We have no radios. It’s not a it’s not an accessory building. Then it’s an ag building. Okay, okay. Mister chair. Yes. Mr. Sheffield.

01:54:56,730	When Commissioner Small was talking about, uh, zoning on AG for against farmers or for their activity, the North Dakota Central Code generally prohibits zoning ordinances from restricting or preventing the use of land for farming or ranching purposes. So we really don’t have any right to. That’s. Yeah. For farming purposes. Yeah. Okay. Pretty much that’s pretty much the thing.

01:55:21,030	You got to kind of leave AG alone. Um, you know. If you want to eat. All right. So the. So the I like. To do. Okay. Leave in the 4% in ag. I know I think. You take. Percentage out. Yeah. I don’t know why. What what’s the purpose. Shouldn’t be any restrictions on AG because we can’t.

01:55:41,000	Yeah I don’t I would say because really you’re going to be limited by your pocketbook anyway. You know, you don’t nobody nobody goes out there and builds a giant building just for giggles. So if we took a if we took the 4% lot area Max. Just out. Just out of there. Yeah. Okay.

01:56:05,000	We’re going to raise it for the other, you know. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Commissioner Bittner, I mean, the I agree on lots that are used for AG. Yeah, let them go.

01:56:21,200	But some of these lots that are out, lots in our ordinary in our jurisdictions are down to five, six acres that are still zoned a. So if you, if you did have any limit for those and these are usually next to residential, like Mr. Hughes here, his his lot was residential. AG. So I mean it could be problematic for these, you know, these areas that are next to residential. I, I’m just throwing this out there.

01:56:41,470	I don’t because not all AG’s lots are 4060 acres. Some of them are eight, seven, six acres. Yeah. Commissioner small. Those wouldn’t be in a subdivision, though, would they? No. No. There’s no ag zoning in in a subdivision. Well, that’s to go to ten acres.

01:57:09,130	That’s the other thing, is, if, um, they have less than 40 acres and they want to build on it, um, they have to plat it. Um, it has to plat it. And when they plat it, if it’s only five acres, then it’s zoned agriculture.

01:57:23,130	They will have to apply for a zoning change because they wouldn’t be able to plat it under AG. With the way the rules are, you can’t plat something that the zoning doesn’t match. So they’d have to go through the planning process and change the zoning anyway. If they’re under ten acres.

01:57:44,930	So the, uh, I’m a little confused here because we have this, uh, egg piece and we’re saying we have all these things and coverage and heights and all this stuff, and then we’re saying that, well, we we can’t we can’t regulate AG. How does I don’t get it? Farming. Just farming.

01:58:07,970	So if you’re, if, if the, if it’s zoned egg and it’s not used for farming purposes, then these rules apply. If it’s used for farming purposes, these rules are out the window. Is that how you understand. It typically okay. So it’s you know we’re getting into into the weeds on this. But they typically on a 40 acre plot. They don’t have the parcel.

01:58:24,570	They don’t have the plat. If they’re farming they don’t need permits except for the single family house. They still require to get a permit for that.

01:58:41,470	Their farm buildings, if they’re heated and cooled, technically they need to be permitted because they’re no longer considered ag use, but that I don’t go out there and look for an unheated or a heated farm building. But the idea is that if it’s 40 acres, we don’t bother with their accessory buildings or their setbacks. Use me.

01:58:58,000	But there still has to be regulations on where they put that single family house or where they put that accessory building. So the zoning still is applicable, even if it’s a 160 acre farm. It’s very limited, though. But, um, when I just caution any, any, um, requests for a unlimited accessory, building on lots that are or ag plots that could be down to 4 to. 5 acres. Or six. Acres.

01:59:22,100	So do we. I mean, in here, do we say something about that accessory building area is that it’s, uh, anything under ten acres has different, as has the 4%. Anything above ten acres? Yeah. Is I mean, or above 40, I mean, it’s 40. You don’t have any. You don’t bother with any of it. But you. Could. Yeah.

01:59:42,830	You have. To have that. I’m not I’m not sure. Changing the 4% on these ag plots is going to because you got ten acres you can build in eight, almost 18,000 square foot building. So why do we need to increase that? I don’t know. I think we need to increase it for the smaller lots.

01:59:59,930	You know, the big lots like mine. It’s Mox Nix. Doesn’t matter. You know, this is an ag district between 10 and 40 acres is really the definite. The first page. Our definition is between 10 and 40.

02:00:17,530	But we can have we do have examples of less than ten acres right. EG. So so then do we I mean do we want to say in here accessory building coverage. Uh when it’s less than ten acres then then you have a coverage. There is a coverage size limit. I’m sorry. With with something less than ten acres that’s zoned eg. 4%.

02:00:40,470	But if it’s more than ten acres, you’re still at 4%. Um, yes. Okay. But I can come back at another the next meeting. Come back with a lot size compared to the size of lot. Say you have five acres, you can have a 5% or 6% or eight acres like these.

02:01:05,070	This this couple tonight had a 4.42 acre lot. And they they are building a 7000 square foot accessory building a lot. On there. And that was our but that’s our one. It was zoned R-1 right. Yeah.

02:01:23,730	So I mean I can start at five acres and leave the two, three, four acres alone at 4% and go to 5%, five acres and increase it. I to me, I would be on board with that. I think that’s that’s a. Starting at five acres. Right. Because we and if it’s zoned AG or is that. No I was. I was R-1 also. Is accessory buildings in R-1 two. Okay.

02:01:49,400	Because in R-1 it is. 4%. Still 4%. Yep. So it’s 4% of an acre. Acre and a half. Uh, it’s. What’s that, 2300? I think? Yeah. That’s not enough. Not enough. Not enough. Right. So, um, forget about this.

02:02:14,030	4% on those small lots, because you should be able to you should be able it should be able to do a little bigger building. Okay. I can start a two acres. Yeah, 2600. What what do you what do we think? A on an acre and a half. What is it? What’s an acceptable size? Because the 4% is 2600. What’s an acceptable size? Do we think like. 4000? 4000.

02:02:35,270	6609 hundred. But that’s you’re probably not going to build a 3900 square foot. Like a. You mean you’d go smaller? No, probably. You go to 4000, 4000. So. Right. So if we say 6.5% or no more than then, then you, then you have that 4000. Six and a half is what we approved today.

02:02:56,600	And we approved a six and a half just today. And that was on our one. Yeah. If you want 6% on, on a half, one and a half acres, you can get up to 4000 square foot building. So I think 6.5%.

02:03:15,330	So I think we’re, we’re jumping now on to our one. Um, but I think in our one, it makes sense to go to from 4% to 6.5%. On a, on at 5000. On a R-1. Correct. On 65,000. That would allow that would allow 4000 A for 4000 square foot. Well on an acre and a half, I guess. Yeah.

02:03:48,930	Is that acceptable? Do we think in R-1 that. I’d be okay with 10%? I wish to leave people alone. You know, I mean, we can. I mean, if it’s all this is all up for discussion. Yeah. I mean, you know, and most people just.

02:04:17,800	not either, right? You know, I mean, there’s there’s limiting factors on a lot that’s that size, the property lines are your limits anyway, or the setbacks and all the setbacks here. And the septic is your limit. So in an R-1 just get rid of that and say, obviously your setbacks are going to be your setbacks and your septic are going. To be.

02:04:36,470	Like I said. Yeah, well, like I said earlier, the the original reason for that was to stop people from starting businesses in their buildings. And if we’re allowing some of this to a certain extent, what’s the point? You know, we’ve we’ve we’ve like we’ve got regulations that make no sense because we’re doing this other stuff. So.

02:04:59,970	Mr. Chair, when I. When I put my accessory. Building inside the city limits of. Bismarck. I was told the reason that they had the limits was so that I could have enough grass to grow, enough to create enough oxygen for that was what the building inspector. Told me. Yes, because.

02:05:19,700	Because he wanted to start counting my sidewalks as coverage, and he wanted to limit the size of my accessory building because I had too much driveway and concrete sidewalks. Is that for your water? No. Like for the I needed to have enough grass so you can mow.

02:05:39,070	I couldn’t put a pool in. I couldn’t have an A ground pool. I couldn’t. No, he wanted to make sure. That in. City, in city that was his reasonings. Well, I think I’m on a hard surface in the stormwater, but it was.

02:05:57,600	And that’s what you call a green agenda, right? Okay. So moving into our one, we’re kind of we naturally got gone into that. Uh, so just starting from the top of our one, it looks like in the Oeta there was a little bit of a difference with, uh, hens, uh, hens, foster families or foster home adults, family childcare, childcare centres.

02:06:18,700	I guess that’s kind of the same thing. And then this up to three external employees. And then also if you look at accessory building area also so that I know that was a point of concern. So do we want to bring those those highlighted items into our R-1 zoning. Which would be the ten chicken hens.

02:06:45,730	You could have chicken coops and ten hens. Uh, you could have foster family homes for is that foster family home adults for. For yes, it’s for elderly elderly care. Okay. And then family childcare and child care centers under special use.

02:07:08,170	Is that okay with everyone to pull in or do we want to leave some of those out? Let’s just leave the number off the chicken hands. Why are we even talking about chicken hands? I mean, well, we got to put them in there so that they can have. Them on on. Our one. We don’t have them in. Leave the number off. They’ve got them now in the 80 right.

02:07:23,570	Yeah. Yeah. That’s what we’re talking about. Is that bringing the ETA or what used to be the ETA into the, into the county piece. So if we if we bring that in, scratch the ten. No, you know. we’re not if we’re changing. Yeah. Here’s my problem.

02:07:38,800	If we’re changing all of the overriding Burleigh County ordinance, which I don’t agree, which I don’t I don’t agree with that. We’re trying to talk about like one of my neighbors has, what, probably 30 chickens. Yeah. Well, you know, but but this limit.

02:08:00,470	Is that R-1 or is that AG? It’s R or something or another because you had to do a plat or somebody before him did a plat. Yeah. You’re not going to go out there and tell him he’s got to kill 20 chickens. That’s why we’re taking the number off. You know, we want the number off. We don’t care how many chickens. We just want to allow. Yeah, we want to allow chickens get rid of the number.

02:08:14,330	No, no. Right. So that would that would mean an R-1. You can have you can have chickens. You can have a family foster home for adults. You can have family childcare, and you could have a child care center under a special use. Right, Mr. chairman? Yes. I think. Bismarck put the ten chicken.

02:08:31,400	And I’m in favor of chickens. Yeah, okay. I think they put the ten limit in R-1. Because of these. Little subdivisions out there. And they didn’t want somebody with 300 chickens. Right. Okay. You know, if it’s an egg, I’m. Who cares? But, but, but in the R-1, we should probably have a limit on the chickens.

02:08:47,900	And, I mean, like, we always remind people also is that if you have an HOA, then that’s going to override this. So if your HOA then says you can only have 5 or 2 or none, then that’s different. But, uh, in R-1. I would agree with with, with, uh, Commissioner Struble.

02:09:04,500	Get rid of the number. Yeah, but allow chickens. Just say chicken hens get scratch the ten and then, um, and then in R-1, do we want to do the 6.5%, uh, accessory building coverage? I’m. I’m with Commissioner Bitner on this or just the percentage. Take it out. On R-1.

02:09:24,730	Because it’s going to be limiting by your setbacks and your septic and your water lines and whatever else. So if when on accessory buildings on R-1, then take out a take out the max lot area, Max coverage. I can match, I’m happy. And then. the and then the, uh.

02:09:47,730	Now we also have in here the up to three external employees, the 50% of primary home and 100% of accessory building sign of three plus square feet. Do we want to keep that or do we want to pull that in? Because right now our one says no external employees and no more than 25% of your primary home.

02:10:04,800	Oh, and this also. So in the ETA one, it also says sales allowed. And I think did we want to pull out sales allowed. And not bring that into the. County discussion on AG. Yeah right. In R-1 poll sales. remove sales. Sales okay.

02:10:24,530	So remove sales and then but also but pull the rest of it from the transfer or from the ETA into county. Yeah. Can I say a few words? Yeah. Go right ahead. Yep. Is it, is it good. I like chickens okay. I would ask if I could, but my neighbor doesn’t want him. I mean, they’re there for some people.

02:10:48,230	They’re a health issue. If you get more than ten chickens, that’s that’s a whole lot that’s considered a lot of chickens. Yeah. If we if there’s somebody that doesn’t want them, but you’re allowed unlimited. What does that what’s the option for that person that lives next door to them? Commissioner Patrick.

02:11:06,130	Yeah. When I was growing up, we raised from 200 to 400 chickens. And I’ll be darned if I’ll have a chicken next to me. But. But if it’s a lot, it’s allowed. But yes, they’re the messiest and stickiest animals.

02:11:21,200	I think what Mitch is saying is that if we say if we take the number out, then you could have someone on an acre and a half that has 300 chickens. And that that’s my concern, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we’ve got an established out in the former ETA now with ten chickens, which is quite a few. And like I say, and this. Is our residential. This is what I want.

02:11:40,370	One hour, one. You know. I’m okay with that in R1. That’s right. That’s all I’m talking about is. Yeah. Just R1. So keep keep the ten or change that number ten. Keep ten. Now keep the ten in R1 okay.

02:11:59,070	And the consideration here is that if if somebody has 14 chickens and there’s nobody complaining, they can have 14 chickens. Yeah. Well not going to go out there in town. But if the lady next door. I got one. Of those and I think that is all in R1. Yeah. Unless anybody wants to I think it looks like setbacks are. The size of that sign to..

02:12:18,270	Oh yeah, size of the sign. What did we. We said one. Leave it at one. Leave it. At. One for one run okay. What was all. Your business? I know one square foot. Yeah. Mr. chairman. Yes. One plus. Yeah. Plus on a couple occasions, Mr.

02:12:39,070	Robert Field mentioned that quail are a lot less messy and whatnot than chickens. And maybe we should allow quail if we’re in a lot of chickens. I know that’s around. Well, at least. I think the. I think I think the whole thing is sound though, too. Right. Because hens are obviously a lot quieter. This doesn’t say there’s there’s no roosters.

02:12:56,730	Uh, pheasants. You’re going to get zoned quail. I don’t know, I don’t know what they make for sound, but I mean, that’s why we don’t allow peacocks. Oh, yeah. I think we leave it at chickens because that’s what’s already there. Okay. He thought they were easier.

02:13:11,100	Know if he wants quail, he sure can come in for a special use. You know? Yeah. So. Okay, so that’s all for our one. Mr. Chair. Yes. I’d like to point your attention to lot area. for in our one. For accessory. Uh, no, a lot area. Page. Oh, a lot area. Yes.

02:13:31,430	Page ten. Um, in the city there they because of the hundreds of of homes that are less than 65,000ft, they’ve allowed them to go down to 40,000ft if they are platted before 2004. Currently, we have, um, 1044 parcels, tax parcels that are located in this transfer area that are not 65,000ft.

02:14:02,930	They’re substandard loss. We’re getting requests for permits on lots that are, uh, 30,000, 28,000ft. Wouldn’t those fall into our.. No, two or our two if they’re on a on a central sewer system so they can get down of 20,000 on R2 if they’re. But they have to be on a central sewer system. Okay. A community service.

02:14:29,100	So you’re saying that there’s there’s lots that are requesting right now that are septic, uh, have septic system or want septic system or maybe even have septic system. We have a request to put an addition on a house. That is the square footage is like I said, it’s 38,000, 36,000ft. Um, and so we do not have that.

02:14:49,400	We have a minimum of 65,000 if platted before 2004. So we have to keep this in mind, because these are going to be problematic. Very problem. What’s your do you have a suggestion on what we should do there? Should we take that out? I don’t know yet.

02:15:08,170	I don’t have I don’t have a good answer for it because it’s some of these lots are unbelievable. I mean, they have to be I believe it’s 100 minimum, 100 square, 100 lineal feet and 200 200 long and 100 wide. That’s the minimum. And some of them are so I don’t know if we create a district for the substandard lots, that would be an exception.

02:15:34,200	Wouldn’t they? Just wouldn’t they just have to re plat to a different or rezone to a different. We don’t have that. We don’t have a zone that’s smaller than our one except our two. But then you have to be on the communities. But the Burleigh County are five district. That’s the mobile homes.

02:15:50,730	That would be just purely mobile. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. chairman, there’s a lot, uh, width and depth. That’s 30,000ft, not 40 or 65,000. Multiply times 150. Times the 150 by 200. Yeah. So I mean, those are the minimum. It doesn’t matter about the max. I mean, it doesn’t have to.

02:16:12,700	It’s not measured by it’s those are the minimum dimensions, right? They can’t go less than 150ft and they can’t go less than 200ft. They can go 400ft wide by 200ft. See what I’m saying? Um, but that’s that’s for future consideration. But that’s the only thing that I want to point out in our one.

02:16:34,570	So could those unique properties come under a PUD? No, they are already platted. They just they were kind of just some of them aren’t even platted. They’re just a parcel. Many of them, I would say half of them are not, are not even platted. Yeah. Commissioner Bitner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I’ll ask the question.

02:16:55,500	What’s the 65,000 or 40,000 square foot? What? Why? Anybody? No. Septic system. My guess. Yeah, that’s what I was going. I didn’t ask the question because I didn’t know the answer.

02:17:13,700	That the answer was because, um, if you have to replace your septic system, you’re likely to have another spot where you can put your septic system, which is an absolutely ludicrous reason, because as a contractor, I can go in there and I can tear out your I can tear out your septic system. And a lot of the septic systems are gone. The Novak thing or the mound system.

02:17:29,270	And so you’re on the surface anyway. And you’re relying on evaporation and the whole thing. Right. So the reason that you would replace your septic system is if your soil got bound up right with a, an old style septic system, you relying on the soil to, um, soak away, basically.

02:17:50,000	So your perk is called perk rate, percolation rate and whatnot established the size of your septic system. Well, nowadays things have changed dramatically. So you’re doing these surface things and we’ll go in there. We’ll just remove whatever’s there. If it’s plugged up, you know it.

02:18:10,130	People run, uh, that’s the size of these things always in or including like, you got a garbage disposal. How many bedrooms and all that stuff. But we can go in there and we can just remove all that, put a new one in there. Done.

02:18:29,330	So that my point is that the size minimums were from a different era and a different time, because as far as I’m concerned, I own, well, you know, I own a large lot and I’m not going to move my septic system. If I have a problem with it, I’m going to address the problem, and it’s going to be right there.

02:18:44,800	So even though I could move it a hundred different ways, I’m not going to because I don’t have to. And so my point really is that some of these things we’re talking about, it’s like, well, it’s always been that way. Yeah, yeah. You got to ask yourself why? Because those reasons went away. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

02:19:04,000	One of the other issues I’m thinking about is, you know, affordable housing. People have to have places they can afford to buy so they can buy a 30,000 square foot lot way cheaper than 65,000. Maybe they can actually put up a place. Um. And I think we could accommodate some of that.

02:19:23,200	Um, depending on how much septic. I mean, we’d have to figure that out, you know, how much how much septic system would a house, a tiny house or something like that actually need? Because that’s there again, that’s. Yeah, but that’s all new.

02:19:41,930	See, nobody nobody was talking about tiny homes and mobile. You know, those, uh, all those things in the past. So, you know, times are changing and I think it’s up to us to, to adapt to the, to the realities that we’re faced with today instead of just saying, nope, it’s just this way.

02:19:59,630	Mitch, I know that the in on that first page R2, there’s there’s no no R2. I haven’t included that. Okay. Yeah. But we could we will talk about that one maybe at a different time. I mean I don’t really think we need to address it. It’s it’s it’s for duplex homes or for small lots.

02:20:20,930	That are on a community septic system, like a large subdivision, not a singular lot, but to Mr. Commissioner Benton’s comments, the idea is that we could do these substandard, smaller lots. Just ask for a design system on their septic. Then you go no attack or they do a gravel system. You know, it all depends on the number of bedrooms. Mhm.

02:20:38,700	Um, and they’d be restricted by that of course. But um, the idea is we don’t have that. We can’t get below the 40,000. Another thing is the state requires a minimum 40,000 for their septic systems. Doesn’t mean we can’t below that. We can I mean but I would absolutely require that they be designed. Yeah, but. I think.

02:21:01,430	We should probably look at that, though. I mean, it makes sense if if a goal is to try to help people like, say, the entry level homebuyer, you know, they might need something different because we all know that things are getting pretty expensive.

02:21:22,400	And Mitch, can you craft something like that about with a, I don’t know. In in it would be an R1, but we can go down to I don’t know what the number would be, but something with a with the like you say the engineered septic. Yes. I mean it’s we’re we’re going to be up against this because we’re getting questions.

02:21:39,600	I’m getting requests from parents and I’m like, oh look, we can’t even use this substandard lot. And that minimum square footage, that’ll be I mean, I think you can probably come up with that, right? Yeah. Yeah I could okay. Yes. Commissioner. Better. Thank you. Mr..

02:21:53,730	Um, so the question then further would be how did any of these lots even get created if the rules have been 40,000 or 65,000 or whatever? Why why do these smaller lots exist? I don’t know, there’s over a thousand of them and they’re they’re in many subdivisions. Uh, the olive tree, Ponderosa. They’re out there. And those are RR purview. Those are RR.

02:22:16,130	Those are the zoning. Okay, gotcha. But there. nonconforming they’re non they were never platted. They’re non-conforming and people are living on them. They want to do it. So we’re going to have to create some kind of district some kind of separate district for these. Okay. I want to.

02:22:32,500	Add and I would not recommend it to put it for the entire county. No. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Um, I want to add one other thing because now there’s new technology in these septic systems that, um, address the waste and everything without even using a standard septic system. You know, there is new technology.

02:22:51,400	You know, it started with the the stuff up at the ranch. And Mr. Small here is actually the guy that came up with doing that up there. So yes, there’s smaller lots and, and um, therefore it reduces the cost to the, to the homeowners and, and whatever.

02:23:14,000	And it ends up being a really remarkable thing because we went after that. I worked with the rural water so that that system is being maintained similar to how it’s being done in town. And some of these places, like what Mitch is talking about, maybe fall into that kind of category.

02:23:31,530	If they’re if they can, if they can utilize an onsite system that’s different than a septic system utilizing new technology, we should be looking at that too. And those are individual persons per house, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean there’s systems that they just, um, recycle everything and then water the lawn, you know, I mean that the technology is there.

02:23:55,000	So we, I think we need to be cognizant or aware of that. Okay. Anything else on our one that we want to change. Yeah. Oh Commissioner. To the septic system. And a lot of it is what I learned watching. Like Commissioner. Bittner and other people. at these meetings from prior conversations.

02:24:14,870	But some of those extra things were, like you said, from the state, like the ghost planning conversation and that, um, what would it take? Maybe working with Lee counties to get rid of that so that we’re up to date is because kicking it down the road causes more challenges here.

02:24:34,470	And I think previously I’m willing to take on those conversations, but I don’t want to go into it for informed. I think it’s it’s really important that we just remember that just because it’s always been that way doesn’t mean it should be that way. Today. You know, we all have we all have heard stories about that. Okay.

02:24:56,100	So on on R-5, Mitch, I noticed there’s nothing there’s nothing, uh, highlighted here, but there’s definitely some differences. There are. Um, I mean, there’s almost each one of them is different.

02:25:19,470	And so I don’t know if if you consider all that, probably the big one is that you are allowed, um, child care in home child care, up to 12 kids under the age of 12 without without a special use, um, again, one employee with 50% of the area of the house, um, a lot of dimensions are the same with same, um. Don’t have any. Are five. So with the with. The these are parks. Yeah. Page 12. Um.

02:25:42,830	With the with the allowed uses, I guess with the. My age. Minor home occupations. Do we want to bring those over into the. Do we want to bring those over into the county which would be the in-home child care up to 12.

02:26:03,700	One employee and 50% of the floor area of the house, or 100% floor area with the accessory building. Got it? Yes. Mr. Sheriff. Did you just put some of the occupations or are they limited to these five? They’re limited to those. Five in in county. Right. Where on places are limited to those five. On, on our in our five district.

02:26:26,630	They’re limited to these five occupations. That’s ridiculous. Yes. This okay. You know zoning is vague. A whole lot like central code. But it gives you an idea. It’s a representative representation of what a home occupation is. It’s so it’s just an example. And these are. Dated minor home occupations. Such you. should say such as.

02:26:49,100	Or such as. Yeah. Otherwise they’re limited to two five. If they were to take this. That’s what you mean. It’s such a.. Yeah. But it doesn’t. Say that there’s a learning curve on this dressmaking. I can. Warn you. A new occupation. Right. I’m out.

02:27:07,770	But then you’re going to have to move into a mobile home, Commissioner Bittner. So. So these are for parks. These are for whole mobile home parks. Uh, and then we have front setback is a little bit different. Uh, County, it’s 15. ETA was 20. Any any thoughts on that? Keep the same in the count. The keep the county. Peace. We don’t have any mobile home parks in Berkeley County.

02:27:34,930	We have in the inherited ETA though. We I’m not sure. If we may not or. No, no we don’t none. Okay. 15 foot. Setback in the front. Lincoln. Lincoln. That’s in Lincoln’s jurisdiction. Yeah. So it’s we just don’t have it. That’s about I mean, those are really about the only..

02:28:00,000	Isn’t there one park on the north side of highway ten out by McDowell dam? No. Okay. There was a mobile home, but not a park and highway ten. There was a campground not too far from the rural fire, but not mobile home park. So. Yeah.

02:28:19,770	If on the on the allowed uses do we want to bring that A, B and C in those minor home occupations? Uh, those examples for the childcare one employee and the 50% and then just leave everything else the same that it was for county. Because there’s not a lot of difference. R5 this. Is mobile home park.

02:28:48,030	No. Correct. Do we okay. We I think. And we. Don’t have any mobile home parks. Not yet. Mister chair. It doesn’t mean that we’ll never get one. Okay. Well, it would make. Sense that we’d allow for childcare at. Least. Yeah. Commissioner Patrick. I think, uh, Commissioner, um, was corrected.

02:29:07,800	Uh, home occupations such as? And that means then it could be those or others doesn’t have the. You don’t have to specify. Right. All you gotta do is. Yeah. So if we. Put into such. Out perfect.. Right when we get the full ordinance, it’ll have that. Will these those part sections like that will be described more fully. Okay.

02:29:28,070	And our next one. Could answer your question though, adding the home care and child care and whatnot is kind of a no brainer. I think we should. Absolutely. Yeah. The next one is the, uh, the commercial district, the C district, which would the Bismarck zoning would be CA uh, there’s definitely some differences here, right.

02:29:51,700	Uh, it looks like the, uh, in, in the, in the ETA, it was allowing multifamily dwellings to be commercial. Why is that? Well. Is that just high density, like high density housing? Or if they have a commercial building underneath any of the residential stuff on the floor, stuff like that.

02:30:11,970	But we we don’t have an REM, we, I, we brought that up last time and you guys didn’t. Yeah. Yeah. And there’s not that many parcels out there that are considered. Mm mm.

02:30:30,600	The thing is that I don’t want to get into weeds on some of this stuff, but it does allow things that we don’t. And that’s, I mean that increase the use like on page 16 by special use permit, we only allow those 4 or 5 things there. Whereas the city allows filling stations, nurseries, childcare, driving banks, all that stuff.

02:30:51,970	So I mean, it’s to me it’s better to have a more defined what you can use by special use or even allowed use. So on the in the special uses, the thought would be. To move those. Bring those over okay. Yeah, yeah. Commissioner Conley, you had something.

02:31:10,230	Well, to some degree, when you’re talking high density in the county, part of the things that drive costs up in larger communities is the fact that if you’re extending those services out, so if somebody wants to say, build something like this and they own some of that raw land in the 50%, that’s still the ETA.

02:31:33,070	If they’re petitioning to come in and annex into the community, that’s where those considerations might be more fruitful. But to have, say, the multi dwellings and the county that kind of gets along that slippery slope to where, um, people don’t want a lot of people close to them. So I don’t know if that should be part of the conversation or not.

02:31:53,830	Because multi-family dwelling could be an apartment building, correct? Yeah. I wouldn’t recommend moving any of those. The R ones are M the group dwellings. None of that are row housing is is an AR 15 are ten and our 15 we we don’t have those districts so I wouldn’t I wouldn’t. I would keep it city.

02:32:12,000	So leave those leave those three out of the in the allowed uses. Uh the density. So we uh, 20,000 square foot minimum for county and it’s 7000 square foot minimum. Uh, in the ETA, do we want to go somewhere in between? Leave it at 20, go to seven. What’s what’s the thoughts? I don’t understand what that means. What density. You can maybe. What does.

02:32:34,270	That mean? You can you can zone. If they ask to rezone in in our in the county. If they ask a rezone commercial lot it has to be a minimum 20,000ft. The city in this same text. Is just a lot smaller parcels. Yeah it allows a lot smaller a lot parcel. I don’t recommend doing it.

02:32:54,700	To me. I think leave it at 20, but. Uh. 20. You know. Okay. All right. And then is there anything else in there? I know there was some different setbacks and things like that, I would assume. Just leave those at. leave them at that county. Yep. Okay. Uh, the next one is the industrial. Is it. Yeah. Yes.

02:33:20,300	I district Emma for city.. Temporary Christmas trees would be an industrial. Yeah. Didn’t that wait a minute. Wasn’t that that was back in C. That’s in commercial. And commercial. But it’s but it’s temporary Christmas tree sales. To me this just, uh. Well, I don’t know.

02:33:45,600	I mean, it’s because it’s, it’s that kind of to me falls into the, the sweet corn sales on the side of the road type of thing. But I don’t know. That it would. I’ve never seen a Christmas tree lot out in the county here. It would be because this would have to be you would have to be commercial then to sell Christmas trees.

02:34:05,700	Right? What do you mean, commercial. In back on. See if you know. Does it have to be zoning? Commercial law? Yes. Okay. Yeah. That’s I mean. And then I see it’s. Under you see them in menards you see. Yeah. Okay. Uh, grocery store. And that would be why it’s an industrial also. Yeah. Okay.

02:34:24,330	It’s typically there’s parking there. There’s plenty of vacant lots. So on the allowed uses and industrial under special use has allowed uses special. Do we want to bring these these highlighted ones over. We’re not. Well if you got to drive in theater you might want to have a religious ceremony there. For a farmer.

02:34:45,370	I mean, to me, it. Doesn’t seem. It seems like they could come over and yeah, not it’s not going to hurt anything. I don’t think. Because again, it’s special use. It’s a permit. Right. And then we also get into the minimum lot size. I assume we want to keep that at 20,000 and maximum lot coverage at 30%.

02:35:04,400	That’s what the county is now in industrial. And any other changes to like setback and building height or anything like that. Mr. chairman. I’m just wondering if we’ve got if the EPA currently has a minimum 10,000 foot lot size and we may move it to 20, what happens to the existing property? And this is in industrial. Yeah.

02:35:28,670	Right. What happens to the existing properties. Would they be out of compliance. Do we have any industrial in the transfer area. Uh I think there’s like a couple lots in there.. In industrial. Yeah. Okay. Look. Because I know in the county we only have the one.

02:35:54,730	I have a hard time believing there’d be anything that’s small in the. Well, yeah, I would too, but, I mean, it could be. If if it already if it already was there, then it’s it’s there. There’s there’s five, five lots that are zoned five parcels.

02:36:13,000	So I guess back to the, the question if there’s if one of those is 10,000ft and we say okay, now we’re only going to allow 20,000, it doesn’t matter because that one’s. Already there grandfathered. That’s already been plotted. Yeah okay. Yep. Okay. I don’t think that hurts anybody. Nope nope. But again we’re back to the allowed uses that we are in industrial. It’s usually not really restricted.

02:36:39,530	Um, it’s we don’t have any of these things listed. And it’s very in-depth. This is one of the probably the longest ones that has more difference allowances than what we do. Yeah. But as far as the, uh, what would it be? The industrial use group. Uh, there’s a bunch of them.

02:36:57,130	There’s a bunch of them that are highlighted here. Do we want to bring those over to me? I think we should. I don’t see any in there that I would be concerned with. I guess unless anyone has a an issue, I would say bring them over in the county.

02:37:27,200	Those, those highlighted pieces under, um, under industrial use group. uh, from, 19. From 19 to 20, 21, 22. Yeah. It’s it’s like a, it’s a really long like you said, very in-depth, very, uh, detailed. But you see. Yeah. And I’ll give you just one example.

02:37:55,870	We have nothing in our ordinances for propane storage or bulk storage or delivery. We don’t even have a defined. Um, so if somebody wants to open up that for propane tanks and the large 50,000 gallon tanks are going to we those are usually special use permits. And that’s what these some of these are. Yeah. But we don’t have we don’t have any of that in our.

02:38:16,830	Ordinance in the county. In the county. But it is. We don’t have cell towers. We don’t even the cell towers. It is allowed in the ETA though. It is or was. Yeah.

02:38:33,300	So it’s I my my recommendation is, is to take the highlighted ones that are just transferred into our, into the allowed uses or even the uses that are require special use permit for this. So it’s the idea is that these are not just put a cement plant, you have to be 500ft. It has to be in a zone which is not prohibited.

02:38:47,830	And the other one is it has to be in an enclosed building. So there are restrictions for these. Yep. Um, yeah. And I think that was the what I think we were saying is bring them, you bring them over into the use the use group. Right, right. Yeah.

02:39:05,770	The other thing that the county does not have is buffer zones. We have no buffer zones in either commercial or industrial. Okay. And that’s very important because one of them an open is next a residential area. Um. And what would you suggest for buffer zones is there do you have a suggestion? I mean, 50ft. It’s pretty normal. It’s landscaped area.

02:39:30,330	You can’t. You suppose designed to be landscaped or whatever, a fence or a barrier. So you can’t see or hear. Um, so 50ft, it’s pretty standard. Can you put that in? Can you write that into I can use groups, which would be you said commercial and industrial. Yeah. Right. Okay.

02:39:49,500	Because we’ve got a commercial zone up there and next to the ranch all the way around there. That’s all commercial, right? Yep. And there’s no buffer there. There’s no buffer. Our second to last one is PUD and. there’s our. Oh. Mr. Chairman, I just. Got I don’t know. Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

02:40:06,270	Okay. The only thing about the allowable stuff is there’s some of this stuff is a little on the nasty side. Manufacturing, um, shellac, turpentine, lacquer and varnish. And then, um, smelting of tin and copper. I mean, that that’s a big industrial dog. And it’s allowed in the Aeta. Well.

02:40:24,170	It’s I mean, it’s it seems like it’s a little bit over the top. Yeah. To me. Maybe that should be a special use permit type of thing. Yeah. I would think that would make sense. Doesn’t that go into special use or is it not. Um, because it’s not under allowed uses, but it says industrial. Use.

02:40:43,970	It’s zoned for industrial use. Yep. And that’s that’s the thing is you get when you say, yeah, that’s really who wants that. But you have to you have to be able to allow them somewhere in your county. You can’t restrict them and say it’s not true. So you’re you’re. Thinking.

02:40:59,430	Uh. Commissioner Rich, are you thinking that we bring Mr. Rich or do you say that, uh, these ones that are under, uh, industrial use, industrial use group, we should bring those into allowed uses, special. So they would require a special use permit. I defer to Commissioner Bittner on his thoughts on that.

02:41:19,870	That would make, you know, we’d have more oversight then. Yeah. Yeah, rather than just be automatically happy. Right. At least than you’d hear it and we’d all go, oh, right. That’s something we want there. Or the commission, you know, whoever’s on the board. Sure. So I would recommend that we, uh, acetylene the paint line. Um, which. Uh, Mr..

02:41:44,300	20 or 20. Yeah, 20. Yep. The acetylene and the paint. Shellac. Turpentine. Okay. 20 A and F. Maybe even I plastics. I don’t know, you might want to review that. Oh. Maybe consider it along these lines. A lot of these are probably regulated because of the chemicals.

02:42:07,900	No I would say from federal. So anything that carries like regulation on multiple levels of government, those automatically default to a special use permit just because you have to be able to pivot as laws change. And how do you do that any other way? These have to be contained inside a building as well. Mhm.

02:42:28,670	Okay. So if we can get those somehow put into special use permit under industrial. Yeah. Is there. They can do it if you want. I mean industrial industrial uses. That’s what it is. Yep. It’s industrial and have a place. To put it.

02:42:50,530	I think it’s interesting that that there’s more allowed in the ETA. than it was in the county. Right. Well a lot more. Way more. So I. Don’t know actually part of that. I know. Commissioner Patrick. Yes, I would. Disagree with putting those into special uses.

02:43:08,800	And the reason I, I would because I think Mitch points out those are industrial uses and these, these these contractors that are doing this already have, uh, licenses and, and those sorts of things. I don’t think we need to do any of that. I think it’s fine the way it is. I mean, think about this.

02:43:29,530	Uh, who’s going to manufacture or compound acetylene? It’s going to be somebody that’s licensed and already regulated, probably by the federal government. In a lot of those cases, like. You want to put them into a allowed uses. Them just a little more of that. Yeah, I can live with that. I they just kind of jumped out at me as being some pretty, pretty heavy duty industrial. They’re already regulated, heavily regulated.

02:43:50,870	Well, I wouldn’t it’s an educated guess. But I think some of it the reason why it’s ETA is access to more, developed, um, security systems, like the the amount of police fire, the access of trucks is. But I think that’s already there. Mr.

02:44:14,870	chair, when you go through it’s rezoning of of an industrial area heavily scrutinized. We don’t want that here. We want to pass. Okay? We want it out there in Sterling or away from where people live. And that’s what’s typically takes place in an industrial. You don’t have to worry about the special use permit for rendering plant or an asphalt batch plant.

02:44:37,300	I mean, that’s that’s already allowed in there as, as a use in that place that’s been zoned industrial. That’s regulated. Right? Yep. Okay. All right. Clear. You’re good. Okay. Our next one is. Oh yes. Commissioner cycle. Yeah. 18. Did you change the building height to match the highlighted or not. Did I miss that. Building height. Building height. Maximum. Yeah.

02:45:05,600	Accessory building height. I mean 50ft to 25 or it’s 25 in the county right now. 50 in the ETA I guess. What do we want. You looking at in, uh. 1818. Yeah, 50 and 70. Under the industrial. Mhm. Yeah. The I got principal height, four storeys, max, 50ft. Right. The city is 75ft. Right. That’s fine.

02:45:31,770	And this other one is double. And then. So but we would, we would keep those county keep that as the county is in the, in the green. So leave it. As, as of now we would leave as. Is which part. The height and the. Starting at density and going down on that. It’s not been brought up.

02:45:52,070	Great. So that would that would stay county by default. Exactly. Unless we unless we want to bring those highlighted ones over to me. I don’t think. So. We wouldn’t be okay to bring it over. But I spent that much time thinking about it. So move the 75ft height. Um. Just to what, two tall to be in the.

02:46:16,970	County or. I don’t know, I guess don’t. Yeah. Do do we, do we want to do we want to change the height or do we not because there’s building a height principal and accessory building height.

02:46:36,930	And if we bring over what was in the ETA, they would both go up, uh, one by 25ft and the accessory building would double in height. So, Commissioner Patrick, yeah. First question is why? Why would we limit the height 25ft? To you? Maximum 50ft. What’s that? It’s maximum right now in the Burleigh County at 50ft. It says 25. We’re not two different things. There’s a building height principle and then accessory path. Okay. All right.

02:47:02,100	Yeah. Your principal, your principal is 50ft. Yeah. Accessory is 25. Accessory is is not the primary structure right. Yeah. So the limit on that I mean usually they’re smaller whatever they typically. So do we want to keep them at 50 and 25 or. No no I don’t I don’t think you do because yeah.

02:47:21,200	You know as a contractor I can tell you right now that for allowing bigger buildings, that makes taller buildings because of the slope of a roof. Right. Okay. So there’s there’s got to be some give and take. We, we can’t do bigger buildings and keep a 25 foot maximum roof height. I think it needs to go 50 and.

02:47:38,830	And I can tell you if you’re if you’ve got a batch plant ready mix batch plant. I need my 97 foot. truck to put the graphics on the top of that. Yep. Yeah. Batch plant. So so. You’re telling you 50ft. So change accessory to 50. Yep. And leave principal at 50. Also nope. Principal up 75.

02:47:58,570	Go to 75 okay. Yep yep. So we got the ETA for building type principal and accessory building height. Yep. Drop those. Anything else in there? A lot. Coverage is three two and a half times more. On page 19. I think that works out. To 80%. County. Leave it at 100. Or leave it at 30.

02:48:28,430	We’re at 30 and the city’s at 80. For an accessory building. Yeah. So. You’re on page. Eight. On on page we top of page 19. Yes. There’s accessory building. Um, lot coverage. In a commercial area. Or in industrial? Industrial? Yeah, I see it, I see it. I’m just.

02:48:51,870	So do we stay at 30 or should we? I mean, we don’t have to change to 80. We could change anywhere in between. Um, or we could keep 30. And again, we’re talking accessory. We’re not talking the main bill. That is correct. 80%. Well that’s up. Why do we care? That’s a big coverage.

02:49:08,970	Yeah, that’s what I’m wondering. Why do we care? Yeah, yeah. I mean what’s what’s the reason that we’re even having a conversation? Take it out. Yeah. I’ll have to come through this table anyway. Yeah. And this is, that is the accessory building to not the, not the principal. Right. Well, stormwater permit for all for everything.

02:49:30,370	But we got max lot coverage. So if. Right. Yeah. We’re not changing that. Yeah. The 30%. We’re not changing that. That’s a. Accessory building area. Do we want to change. Do we want to just take that. That’s why I was looking at density on page 18 right. Because there we got, you know, same kind of question right.

02:49:58,070	Oh sure. Because if you change yeah. If you change one you got to change. No. Both somehow. Yeah. And. Yeah. He was much more lenient. So my tendency is allow it. Yeah.. I just don’t know why we wouldn’t. So do you keep the minimum lot size and then change the coverage. Or do you change both.

02:50:23,200	Does minimum lot size stay at 20,000 coverage increases for density and accessory building. This is for an industrial lots that we’re talking. About right? Right. This is industrial. I just don’t see I don’t see anybody wanting a 10,000 square foot lot size. No, that’s just, you know, pretty small. My shop is 4800.

02:50:55,200	Doesn’t take much to get to that. Yeah. No. Mister chair, the difference is on a on a ten 000 lot, you can build an 8000 square foot building. Yeah, uh, 20,000 square foot lot. You can build a 6000 square foot building. That’s the difference. And that’s the county’s. Yeah, the 6000. The 20,000 square foot minimum. Yep.

02:51:15,470	I’d say keep the minimum size lot at 20,000, because I don’t think anybody’s doing a 10,000 square foot. Lot. And then. Lot and then change your density lot. Coverage 80. Yeah. Go to 8,080% lot. Coverage I would think. Yep. On density on density. on density. And then what about accessory building? I would remove it. Yeah.

02:51:34,770	Just take that out. Yep. Accessory building area. Remove that. Okay. So change that to 80. For county. And change the accessory building. Right. Uh, the. Yeah because it’s not. Serving accessory building max lot coverage. Yeah. Remove that. Okay. So the question. Is do we move these highlighted all these highlighted items that are in the city ordinance.

02:52:05,730	Do we move them to our county? Uh, I just industrial zone. In. Starting on page 20. Starting on page. Let’s see 19. Right. Or so the industrial use group. Yeah. Do we want to move. Did we say we wanted to move those over to special use. No, no. Or just move them into normal. Allowed use.

02:52:30,300	Allowed use. Allowed use okay. Yep. The highlighted ones. Yep. Okay. And our next district is our next piece is pud. Would it, would it be easier to say what’s not allowed. Yeah. I mean why are we you know, we’re just adding so much a lot of many layers of fluff. But the hard part is ordinances have.

02:52:53,230	To list. What’s allowed. For the most part, they should have a good a fair representation. Yeah. Yeah. It’s a it’s a lot. That’s. 0I0I forgot about automobile detailing or I forgot I mean it’s just. Like I would agree with you that that is that one has that that’s the most allowed uses I’ve, I think I’ve ever seen.

02:53:14,630	Yeah. That’s great. But you can’t cover everything. No. Great. Even with that, somebody is going to come with something. Because somebody’s going to walk in and go, you know what, I want to do a lithium extraction thing or something, you know? So with, uh, so just just on a pud pud to me, uh, I think we

02:53:38,230	just keep it the same as county. I mean, there’s really. There’s virtually. No there. Is. Very little difference. Very. Well. So let’s keep that one county and then our last, our last, our final one, folks. Our final one here. Uh, on the top ten list is public use. And in public uses.

02:53:59,470	There’s, there’s a, there’s a couple changes on here. It looks like with the allowed uses by right there’s four. That would be are allowed in the, in the transfer area but are not allowed in the county.

02:54:18,700	So do we do we want to bring those four in or is it, is it just that point that we made two minutes ago that no matter how many we list, there’s always going to be somebody that comes with something new? I don’t know. I don’t think it hurts to bring them in. When this is municipal landfill. Is that different than just a landfill? I mean. It’s not a private..

02:54:40,070	Okay, that would be owned by a a town or something. Like that. So, I mean, we have private landfills in the county. Yeah. Got it. So we could change that to well, public use is more for public land publicly used land. Yeah. And so it’s yeah, I don’t see why.

02:55:04,070	I mean, we don’t have a municipal landfill now. I don’t know, I don’t know if we’re ever going to have one. I don’t I mean on, on public use, I don’t, I don’t see why we wouldn’t just bring those four highlighted ones over and put them into the county piece.

02:55:18,100	Is that anybody have an issue with that? I don’t, because then our, our only other change is Mister chair setbacks. Yes. So Mitch, for the items that are currently being held at the Missouri Valley complex, are those all listed in here? Because it is now public land. It was resolved. There’s rezone P. So we have a racetrack. We have a motocross track. We have a rodeo. We have.

02:55:42,530	I want to make sure we include them since we’re creating. Well I’d have to look under public Recreation group. What are listed for that. Yeah. Because public recreation group is a broad. Yeah. Yep. Golf course is. But you’re right. Yeah. None of those are. None of those are specific listed. Yeah. I’ll I’ll look that up.

02:56:03,300	Okay. Thank you. Whatever. Whatever we have at the complex already. Right. We should at least list those. We’re out of, uh, out of compliance. The only side note on the municipal landfill, the city of Bismarck does on land northeast.

02:56:26,500	But we just bought a significant amount of land directly east of our current landfill. So I don’t know what the city intends to do with that land to the northeast side, because we don’t have to move infrastructure. Now, that’s a huge benefit to the citizens. So then that would be allowed. Allowed in public.

02:56:46,600	And it looks like setbacks and principal building height are the are the only changes. And surprisingly, ETA is more restrictive than the county. Yeah. It’s that has not been the, uh, the way it’s been on the last few. So do we keep with the the county piece or bring those ones in for, for setbacks.

02:57:12,200	And this is on public use or the public. Yeah. Public use district. Yep. I this works well in the, in the ETA but not for the rest of the county. Yep. I don’t. Know I, I’m inclined to keep with the county on on the setbacks. The building height principle I don’t know.

02:57:37,330	That’s you know, that’s either 35ft or or what does it say, 50, 30, oh, 50ft or 75ft. It looks like. . Then I’ll go back to the accessory buildings again. Now for bus Stop Junction. We’re looking at 4%. I think I’d rather get rid of that 4% again of accessory buildings. Um, okay.

02:58:02,370	So accessory building area. Are we okay with ditching the 4% on their out of the county piece so we can take that. Out public public district. On public district, public district. Yep. And building principal building height. That’s the only one we haven’t committed to.

02:58:25,870	Do we keep what the county has or just go to the 75ft that the EPA had? 75ft. I mean, I’m inclined to keep what the what the county had. But I don’t know if I have an issue with what the county has. Okay. If everybody’s good with that, that is, uh, that’s that’s all we have. That’s all we got. That is all we have.

02:58:49,530	I know it was a quick one, but I do want to call out something that we you know, we talked about this and a couple of the public hearings of the, uh, I don’t know where we put clarity on this, but clarity when we are doing a lot combinations

02:59:05,870	within a, within a subdivision already. You know, to me, if, if there’s, if there’s ambiguous and if it’s ambiguous, then we should call something out to say that if we just want to combine two lots or four lots or whatever, if it’s if it’s in the, in that same, uh, subdivision. Already.

02:59:27,230	Subdivision not not not the, the issue that that the Hughes family is, is dealing with where it’s, you know, for a portion of it’s in and portion of it’s out. I mean I think that’s okay. We’ll probably have to get an answer on that.

02:59:42,200	But we should have clarity on this of saying that of the do, do you have to get any, uh, signatures? Do you have to get any approval? Do you have to get any or do you just say you plot it all together and and bring it here? Well, hopefully we can we can bring this back and ask the state’s attorney to weigh in on this, uh, or we have, um,

03:00:01,400	attorneys on on retainer. We can ask them. Um, it’s we we I would like to bring it back to see if we can set up a meeting with the state’s attorney and see if we can’t review this. Um, but.

03:00:21,430	Because I bring it up because obviously, it’s it’s been brought up to us as people are asking, well, which way is it? We also have set precedent, and I don’t want to I’m no attorney, but we have come combined lots. We’re not setting precedents. We’re here long before. I agree. But but we’ve combined lots within subdivisions.

03:00:40,500	How many times? A lot. Just us. Every other jurisdiction. I’ve talked to. It’s never been brought up. And so I. Don’t know, it’s basically it’s not there’s not enough definition of enabling legislation to do either one. It’s just you say, well, I mean that’s is it has never been brought up. Yeah. I’m just saying I think it needs some clarity.

03:01:01,170	I opinion it’s kind of ridiculous. Some of the things that are going on right now. Yeah. With you sit with this. I understand that there’s it’s a different story when it’s when it’s trying to pull something actually out of a subdivision.

03:01:16,670	But if it’s just combining lots inside a subdivision, I mean, I don’t know if we need clarity on that or not, but if we do one, I would ask for it. Please. Yeah. Yeah. Then then we don’t have then there’s no question. So. All right. Yeah. We. have to talk. All right. Any other business? Anyone want to make a.

03:01:39,600	Couple comment? Uh, sure. If you’re. If it’s quick. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And it’s Dennis. Correct. Uh, the 100 year versus the 500 year. In my case, the 100 year is 1633. I talked to the state Water commission today, and 500 years, 1636. And I’m not sure if it’s 0.

03:02:01,170	5 or not, but it’s about 3.5ft difference. So what’s the process now you’re going to come back with updates and there’s going to be a public hearing. Yes. Correct. And then I’ll go to the Burleigh County Commission. Correct. Because this is what we were doing tonight. And and there’s more. This isn’t this isn’t it.

03:02:19,270	There’s going to be it’s going to be more this is our this was our bite sized chunk. And uh, and so we’re just making some recommendations for Mitch Marlow. They can put it together into an ordinance and then present it to us, and then we’ll have a public hearing on it, do all sorts of discussion.

03:02:32,530	Then it goes to the county commission for final approval. Okay. Because I’m one of the 1540 40. And I’m sure there’s 139 that are interested in this floodplain. Yeah.

03:02:51,170	So too so and then I guess the other thing are these are these changes then for the whole county, are this just for the ETA? This is the whole county. So, also we’re in the county, correct. Okay.

03:03:07,200	And that’s really what we’re trying to do is to say that, um, we have, we have this transfer area that used to be ETA, and we have county, and how do we how do we make rules that now are going to govern everyone when we just, you know, brought in this transfer area that used to have different rules. So and my neighbors will be happy about the chickens. So I’m glad you solved that. Problem. Good. I’m glad to hear we did something right. All right.

03:03:24,730	Can I entertain a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Is so moved and seconded. Is there any opposition to adjournment? Hearing none. We are adjourned. Just know.