Iíd call it a Catch 22.

The term Catch 22 comes from the book by that same name. Catch-22 was a rule that prevented pilots from being grounded from flight duties on the basis of insanity.

One of the characters was a pilot named Orr. He was crazy and wanted to be grounded. But the only way he could be grounded was by request. So as soon as Orr asked to be grounded, he was no longer considered crazy!

By asking, he showed a concern for his own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate. That is the process of a rational mind, so therefore he wasnít crazy.

Houston Countyís Catch-22 is in its criteria for granting conditional use permits. It was revealed to me at the end of a public hearing on a feedlot permit at the January 26 Houston County Planning Commission meeting.

The meeting had lasted 90 minutes, and people were tired. There had been some disagreement, which didnít help tempers either.

Commissioners finally went through the list of 15 criteria for granting the conditional use permits. Number six said, ìDoes the proposed use create a potential pollution hazard?î The board agreed that yes, it did.

Number 15 asked, ìAre site specific conditions and such other conditions established as required for the protection of the publicís health, safety, morals, and general welfare?î

The seven planning commission members pondered that question like it was Einsteinís theory of relativity. They spent 15 minutes repeating it, questioning what it meant and how it applied. They finally just left it dangling and did not give it a yes or no. Someone mumbled that it was non-applicable, and that was that. They then voted by a 6-1 margin to deny the conditional use permit.

But in reality number 15 was applicable. If they said yes to the potential for pollution, then they should have answered no to 15, that there are not conditions required for the protection of public safety.

Yet Scott Sanness, who applied for the feedlot permit, had met all the requirements of the conditional use permit. The design had been approved, the soil borings were fine, and he had met the 1/4-mile requirement of distance from the nearest neighbor.

Something has to give here. Either the countyís feedlot rules need to be revamped or the criteria for granting the permits needs to be reworded.

Planning commission member Bruce Lee of Houston even asked that criterion number 15 be clarified somehow.

But criteria numbers six and 10 are the real culprits here. Number six is much too vague, because just about anything can be considered a potential pollution hazard.

Number 10 is very subjective too. It asks, ìWill the Conditional Use be injurious to the the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted?î But what is injurious? What is enjoyment? Those terms vary from person to person.

The county board, which has to approve planning commission decisions, wrestled with these issues too. It tabled a final decision on the Sanness permit on February 7, then voted to deny the permit a week later.

This isnít an easy problem to solve. I donít have the answers. The county is in the process of reviewing its land use ordinances, and this topic will no doubt be reviewed.

Top of Page

Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475

E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com