Union County board hears zoning law complaints
By Michele Linck, Journal staff writer | Posted: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
ELK POINT, S.D. -- Union County residents voiced their concerns about the proposed new zoning ordinance to the Union County Board of Commissioners at a public hearing Tuesday.
The board took no action following the hearing. The ordinance must be approved by the board three times in order to become law.
The complaints expressed Tuesday largely echoed those remaining from the 2007 version of the law, even after adjustments were made based on recommendations from a 10-member committee after seven months of study.
They included the conditional-use permit needed to build more than two homes on land zoned agricultural; the setbacks for large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), the allowed use in some cases of an "odor footprint" computer model to establish setbacks, and the neighbors' involvement -- or lack of it -- in the granting of permits for CAFOs.
In addition, a number of residents said they are wary of a section in the code regulating adult entertainment businesses and requiring a conditional-use permit for them. That was in the 2007 version of the ordinance, but went unnoticed. Since then, a new state law established the set-back from homes, churches, schools and other such entities at 1,320 feet, so the county deleted its proposed 500-foot setback.
Both Carolyn and Dale Harkness criticized the adult-business provisions. Carolyn urged the county to get additional legal opinions "before you turn us into Minnehaha County." Dale accused the commissioners of trying to solve the county's financial problems by "getting a refinery and adult businesses."
Rich Nutt got a laugh when he mimicked language used to pitch the oil refinery Hyperion Refining is proposing to build in the county, pledging a "lily white" adult business that would keep young people in the community and provide off-farm income. Steve Hofland called for a moratorium of two to five years to come up with a better solution.
Dennis Henze, the county's land use administrator said after the hearing not having an ordinance does not mean such businesses cannot come into the county; instead it means they could locate in any area meeting the set-back requirement in a commercial or highway commercial zone.
Ed Cable spoke first at the hearing. He protested the 10 a.m. start of the hearing, saying people were at work and couldn't attend. He asked for a 30- to 60-day delay on a vote so people could review the ordinance, asking for a summary to make it easier. He told commissioners that relevant maps should be attached to the ordinance.
Burdette Hanson got the only applause of the hearing after he chewed out the commissioners, claiming they did listen to the people and for not providing a summary of the law.
Henze said later that the county has already put out a color-coded summary showing the parts that are being kept intact, the old language being replaced and the new language replacing it. It is 151 pages.
Liz Merrigan told the board that to limit landowners to one dwelling on 40 acres infringes on their rights.
The odor footprint model is not a proven one, is based on flat terrain and would be expensive to implement, Doug Maurstad told the board.
Jeff Dooley, who worked on the ad hoc committee, said there are a lot of "different interpretations and misunderstandings" of the ordinance. He urged the county to hold a series of workshops to explain the intentions behind the various provisions.
That way, he said, people would have an idea of what they were voting on if the new version of the ordinance is put to a referendum.
The board took no action following the hearing. The ordinance must be approved by the board three times in order to become law.
The complaints expressed Tuesday largely echoed those remaining from the 2007 version of the law, even after adjustments were made based on recommendations from a 10-member committee after seven months of study.
They included the conditional-use permit needed to build more than two homes on land zoned agricultural; the setbacks for large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), the allowed use in some cases of an "odor footprint" computer model to establish setbacks, and the neighbors' involvement -- or lack of it -- in the granting of permits for CAFOs.
In addition, a number of residents said they are wary of a section in the code regulating adult entertainment businesses and requiring a conditional-use permit for them. That was in the 2007 version of the ordinance, but went unnoticed. Since then, a new state law established the set-back from homes, churches, schools and other such entities at 1,320 feet, so the county deleted its proposed 500-foot setback.
Both Carolyn and Dale Harkness criticized the adult-business provisions. Carolyn urged the county to get additional legal opinions "before you turn us into Minnehaha County." Dale accused the commissioners of trying to solve the county's financial problems by "getting a refinery and adult businesses."
Rich Nutt got a laugh when he mimicked language used to pitch the oil refinery Hyperion Refining is proposing to build in the county, pledging a "lily white" adult business that would keep young people in the community and provide off-farm income. Steve Hofland called for a moratorium of two to five years to come up with a better solution.
Dennis Henze, the county's land use administrator said after the hearing not having an ordinance does not mean such businesses cannot come into the county; instead it means they could locate in any area meeting the set-back requirement in a commercial or highway commercial zone.
Ed Cable spoke first at the hearing. He protested the 10 a.m. start of the hearing, saying people were at work and couldn't attend. He asked for a 30- to 60-day delay on a vote so people could review the ordinance, asking for a summary to make it easier. He told commissioners that relevant maps should be attached to the ordinance.
Burdette Hanson got the only applause of the hearing after he chewed out the commissioners, claiming they did listen to the people and for not providing a summary of the law.
Henze said later that the county has already put out a color-coded summary showing the parts that are being kept intact, the old language being replaced and the new language replacing it. It is 151 pages.
Liz Merrigan told the board that to limit landowners to one dwelling on 40 acres infringes on their rights.
The odor footprint model is not a proven one, is based on flat terrain and would be expensive to implement, Doug Maurstad told the board.
Jeff Dooley, who worked on the ad hoc committee, said there are a lot of "different interpretations and misunderstandings" of the ordinance. He urged the county to hold a series of workshops to explain the intentions behind the various provisions.
That way, he said, people would have an idea of what they were voting on if the new version of the ordinance is put to a referendum.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 24 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
Union County Resident wrote on Sep 5, 2008 2:08 PM:
Union County Resident wrote on Sep 5, 2008 2:01 PM:
I rest my case. "
EPJeff wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:31 AM:
Have you not look at the election results? Most of the 58% yes votes did not come from the south. Only 4 out of 13 precincts voted no. The total vote count in those 4 precincts was 1,311 out of a total of 6,787 votes. So the area around the refinery counted for less than 20% of the total votes. So clearly, the commissioners were representing their constituents, otherwise 80% of the county would not have agreed with the commissioners.
This is all very well documented, so what is your point in lying or displaying your ignorance on the matter. "
Jeff wrote on Sep 4, 2008 2:53 PM:
Have you not look at the election results? Most of the 58% yes votes did not come from the south. Only 4 out of 13 precincts voted no. The total vote count in those 4 precincts was 1,311 out of a total of 6,787 votes. So the area around the refinery counted for less than 20% of the total votes. So clearly, the commissioners were representing their constituents, otherwise 80% of the county would not have agreed with the commissioners.
This is all very well documented, so what is your point in lying or displaying your ignorance on the matter. "
Union County Resident wrote on Sep 4, 2008 2:50 PM: