NEVER LET IT BE SAID...

...that I don't try to give credit where credit is due.

AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, I (also following the Citizen Input Policy as did Jeff Otto!) put myself on the agenda as "Ordinance Item."  Frankly, I was hesitant to put "Accessory Building Size Ordinance," which is what I wanted to talk about, for fear that someone might try to delete me from the agenda again because "We've already talked about that."  Boo.

At any rate, I first asked the Board what uses it envisioned in these buildings. "We" had the correct answer this time (Credit Alert #1): personal storage, that is all that is allowed under Ordinance.

Next, I addressed the Non-ag properties that are greater than 11 acres.  You may recall that I had seen and brought this omission of regulation of accessory buildings on such properties to the Board's attention. When they rewrote the Ordinance, they had failed to address this even though it had been addressed under the original Ordinance they wanted replaced. (I still hear officials saying that properties greater than 11 acres "are ag."  Wrong; it's the USE that makes it ag. By state statute one must have a minimum of 10 acres, or 11 with buildings, to qualify as ag. Then you have to "DO ag.") The Board had decided to address this acknowledged omission (Credit Alert #2!). They determined to do so by granting 10,000 square feet of accessory buildings to such properties as a given, with the option of having a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for those property owners desiring even more.  When they did not place any restriction on the CUP size other than meeting setbacks, I had stated that I felt that was certainly excessive.  The attorney had suggested the 25% limit, and the Board had concurred.


So, I asked at the last meeting, why not have a cap to the CUP other than 25%?  Under the 25% rule, a property of twenty acres could have five acres of accessory buildings, also as long as setbacks were met.  I again expressed the opinion that should, I thought, have seemed obvious: that's a LOT of accessory building space!  I suggested why not settle on a square footage limit, even under the CUP--say, 25,000 square feet?


Next, such a CUP would have to be added to the CUP list that is in the Ordinances.  Without that addition, such a CUP could not be granted!  Further, the matter of "opening up" the CUP list, I suggested, goes beyond what was presented at the public hearing on this topic.  I commented that I thought perhaps, because of that, an additional public hearing might be required.  They never got as far as soliciting an attorney opinion on this as, ultimately, (Credit Alert #3!) they decided not to have a CUP option at all and to limit the size to 10,000 square feet on those parcels, plain and simple.


Still not finished.  The original Ordinance had limited the size of NON-ag buildings, even on ag properties, to 200% of the primary structure, presumably a house.  (Ag buildings were never included in the total of accessory buildings.) After several reiterations, I finally got across my point that I was not talking about tractor storage, but personal storage-- yes, on an ag property.  To do so, I resorted to actually reading them the pertinent Ordinance portion. (Imagine that!)  It states: "Permitted Uses and Structures, B. 6: Accessory structures to single-family dwellings such as detached private garages, decks, swimming pools, non-illuminated signs, fences, tool sheds, and other such structures, for the storage of domestic supplies and equipment."  Even farmers might have out-of-season clothes, Christmas decorations, extra furniture, and similar items to store.  A personal storage building would be the place.


When it was argued by a Supervisor that the original Ordinance did not address ag properties, I then read the language the Board put forth as the change: "The maximum total area of all accessory buildings shall not total more than 5,000 square feet on 2 to 5.999 acres and not more than 10,000 square feet on 6 to 10.999 acres 200% of the primary structure total area. There shall be no maximum limitation to total area for agricultural buildings, and agricultural buildings shall not be considered in the total sum of accessory buildings on an individual parcel."  That's any parcel, even those greater than 10.999 acres, which is as far as the new language went.  You may have noticed that it was actually nonsensical to speak about agricultural buildings when addressing only those parcels 10.999 acres or smaller, as they could not have ag anyway by the Board's calculations!

I asked the Board had it been their intention to have no limit on personal storage buildings on agricultural properties? I did not receive an answer from any of them, even though I repeated the question.
Okay, if it is NOW your intention, I queried, what is your rationale for that? Again, no answer to my question.

   

 


 Hopefully, you do not have a headache by now, because I am still not finished..                                


.

Last point: The Board has been considering language to allow agritourism.  If this goes through, I stated, there could conceivably be buildings on ag properties which would be used for the agritourism part, allowing the public inside.  This would render such buildings NON-ag.  Hence, they would be accessory buildings to the ag use, but not ag themselves, and thus fall under this Ordinance, yes?  Had they given any thought to that, I asked?  Only one Supervisor was "brave" enough to answer, no, he hadn't (yet).

The Board did not have any real conversation with me on the points I raised. The item was coming up later on the agenda. I said, "Okay, so you'll have answers for me then.  Please keep in mind my questions regarding intent and rationale for the change."

When it did come up on the agenda, (Credit Alert #4), Supervisor Miller told me not to "fall off my chair," but he told the Board that I had made some good points.  (I just about did fall off my chair!)  As mentioned above, they decided to limit the total square footage of accessory buildings on all non-ag properties to the maximum of 10,000 square feet if over 6 acres, and further, to limit the accessory buildings on agricultural properties to the same amount.  Again, understand, farmer-followers of this blog, that does NOT apply to ANY ag buildings.

I thanked the Board for listening.  I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.