|
Interim use permits are voted down by Houston County Board
|
|
|
By Charlie Warner
Argus News Editor
By a unanimous vote, the Houston County Board decided not to add Section 7: Interim Use Permits (IUP) to its zoning ordinances. The vote was taken during the Dec. 29 county board meeting following about an hour of testimony from about 40 Houston County residents.
The vast majority of the sometimes vocal contingency were opposed to the county adding Section 7 because they felt it would be increasing the amount of county zoning bureaucracy.
The County Planning and Zoning Commission and Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan had been working on the IUP for more than 10 months. A series of public hearings had been held last spring to explain what the proposed IUP was all about and to gain public input to help develop it.
The IUP is something fairly new to Minnesota counties, with only a handful now using it, although, according to Scanlan there are quite a few counties that are in the process of adding it to their current zoning ordinances.
An IUP is a temporary conditional use permit, which allows property owners to conduct certain activities or business enterprises that are not currently allowed. At times property owners apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to be able to conduct a business or activity that is not an allowed use.
Once a CUP is approved, it is difficult to rescind. With an IUP the conditional use can be set up for a specified time period, say a year, three or five years. If things don’t work out, or if issues with neighbors crop up due to the conditional use, the IUP can be revoked.
An IUP cannot be transferred when the property is sold. If a property owner gets an IUP to convert a barn into a seasonal bed and breakfast for hunters or fishermen, and sells the property, the barn cannot be used as a B&B without a new IUP.
Some of those uses the IUP would allow include asphalt and concrete mixing plants; temporary ag employee housing, farm related (seasonal); a manufactured home (temporary) for parents, grandparents, children, sisters or brothers by blood or adoption; temporary start-up businesses; and seasonal boarding house for recreational use.
“I feel the interim use permit is just another layer of government on the property owners. Most of us who attended the meetings on this were opposed to it,” Keith Myrah of Spring Grove stated.
“I’d say 95 percent of the people attending those meetings were against this. Did you report that to the county board?” Seth Solum of Spring Grove asked Scanlan.
Scanlan replied that he had received comments both pro and con to the IUP. He pointed out there are property owners who supported the IUP because it would allow them to do things with their property they currently can’t.
“Section 7 would allow you to do more with your property, not less,” Commissioner Tom Bjerke said. “There are many things in our current zoning ordinances that are not allowable uses. With this (the addition of the UIP) they would.”
“We are land owners. We pay taxes. Why can’t we do what we want to do on our property?” Larie Wohlert of Spring Grove asked. “It used to be that things weren’t so restrictive. But it’s getting tougher and tougher for us to keep our land. With all these new laws, you are making it so hard for us if we want to sell our property.”
Yvonne Krogstad of Spring Grove said Scanlan told the group at a public hearing last spring the comments made at the meeting would be taken into consideration and another public hearing would be held before the IUP would be brought before the county board for its consideration.
Scanlan replied that a public hearing was held in November and advertised two weeks in advance, as required by law.
“People are tired of more regulations. We don’t need this,” Gary Thomas of Spring Grove said.
Francis Bruening of Crooked Creek Township said he felt the county had too many zoning ordinances on the books now, and didn’t feel they should add any more.
Commissioner Jack Miller asked Scanlan if there were many other counties in the state currently using IUPs, “or are we trying to be a trend setter?” he asked.
Scanlan replied that Houston County was not trying to be a trend setter. There are several counties that are currently using IUPs and quite a few others that are in the process of ratifying them.
“What did the planning and zoning committee base their recommendations on?” Bjerke asked Scanlan.
Scanlan said on a variety of avenues, including the public hearings, input from property owners and discussions with other counties.
“I’m not sure if these 40 people here, stating they are all opposed to this, represent the 20,000 residents of Houston County,” Bjerke said. “Do you people really understand if we vote this down, things will be more restrictive, not less restrictive? Is that what you want?”
The group shouted out a resounding “yes, no more guidelines!”
If we don’t approve Section 7, will we be creating a troublesome situation? Will this produce a backlog of requests?” Miller asked.
Scanlan said they already have a number of property owners who would like to use their properties for season recreational uses, but can’t because its currently not a permitted use.
“I’d like to check with other counties to see if IUPs are solving problems or creating more,” Miller said.
A motion to not include Section 7 in the county’s zoning ordinances was made by Commissioner Dave Corcoran and seconded by Bjerke. It was unanimously passed.
You can contact Charlie Warner at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
