Government : Board of Supervisor Minutes 11/17/15

November 17, 2015

The Benton County Board of Supervisors met in regular session with Supervisors Frese and Hertle present. Supervisor Wiley was absent. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.

Moved by Hertle, seconded by Frese, to approve the minutes of November 10, 2015, with the change of near Tara Hill to adjoining Tara Hills. Both members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

The time of 9:15 a.m. having arrived, the board opened the public hearing on a land use change requested by Deborah and Dennis Nielsen. Marc Greenlee presented the technical information in accordance with the Benton County Agricultural Land Use Preservation Ordinance. The change in use is for approximately 5 acres located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of 10-83-10. The request is to create a new non-agriculture use, to build a building to house a honey business. A new septic has been installed and will be using the existing well for the property. Hearing no further comment, it was moved by Hertle, seconded by Frese, to approve the request for a land use change from agricultural to non-agricultural on approximately 5 acres for non-agriculture use purpose on a parcel generally described as being located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Sec. 10-83-10. Voting aye were Frese, Hertle. Nays none. Motion carried.

The time of 9:30 a.m. having arrived, the board opened the public hearing on a land use change requested by Justin Schrader. Marc Greenlee presented the technical information in accordance with the Benton County Agricultural Land Use Preservation Ordinance. The change in use is for approximately 2.32 acres located in Parcel A of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of 32-83-9. The request is to change from agriculture to non-agriculture use, to construct a building to store field tiling equipment for his Tiling and Excavating business. An existing shed is on the property. Schrader will wait to see how much he will use the shed to see if he will update the shed or demolish it. The existing driveway was viewed by DOT since it is off of Highway 30. It meets all criteria. Driveway is also shared with Doug McDonald. McDonald had no issues with the presented land use change. Greenlee did receive a letter opposing the land use change from Ervin and Cynthia Root; Greenlee presented the letter, and addressed the Root’s concerns. 1. Storing tile outside, Schrader intends to store the spool in the new building or the shed that is currently on the property. 2. Driveway visibility, and having slow moving construction and excavating equipment entering and leaving the driveway. DOT approved the driveway visibility and site distance requirements. 3. If Schrader would sell the property there would be no way to control what type of commercial business went in there. This land use change is specific; no other business could be moved into this area without a new land use change. 4. The property should be required to install a proper sanitation system and potable water supply. The site will have well and will have a compliant septic system. Hearing no further comment, it was moved by Hertle, seconded by Frese, to approve the request for a land use change from agricultural to non-agricultural on approximately 2.32 acres for non-agriculture use purpose on a parcel generally described as being located in the NW ¼ of the Ne ¼ of Sec. 32-83-9. Voting aye were Frese, Hertle. Nays none. Motion carried.

Mike Benson, Kari & Josh Burkhart, Jeff Bahr, Myron Parizek, Benton County Engineer, Mike Scarrow, Union Representative, Emily Nydle, Benton County Assistant Attorney and Dave Thompson, Benton County Attorney met with the Board to discuss the current nepotism policy. Mike Scarrow read the 2nd paragraph of the counties nepotism policy: “Individuals who are qualified relatives are permitted to work in the same department provided no direct reporting or supervisory/management relationship exists, and provided that one qualified relative’s work responsibilities, salary, or advancement cannot be influenced by another qualified relative.” Supervisor Hertle responded but they are a relative not qualified relative, he read the policy further; “Relative” is a spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, great grandparent, grandchild, great grandchild, or corresponding in-law or step-relative. “Qualified Relative” is any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the third or fourth degree.” Supervisor Frese stated we have to abide by the handbook. Thompson stated the policy is legal; they don’t have to like it. The Board does have the authority to tweak the policy. Frese commented that he regrets it comes to this. Hertle stated his family went through the same thing. He is not interested in changing the policy, not going to second guess previous board’s decisions. Frese stated we have a handbook for a reason, if we are not going to follow it then we shouldn’t have one. Thompson questioned if they should wait to make a decision for Supervisor Wiley to be present. Frese responded they could table the decision to get all 3 supervisors’ decision on record. Mike Scarrow presented the board formal documentation of the grievance form from the PPME Local 2003. No action was taken, item was placed on November 24, 2015 agenda.

Dean Brown met with the board to discuss his land use change on approximately 1 acre located in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of 32-86-10. Brown presented letters from 2 surrounding neighbors supporting him in the land use change for his auto repair shop, one letter from a real estate agent evaluating the market impact and a list of signatures of individuals supporting his request for rezoning and opening an auto repair shop. The realtor’s letter stated it may have a positive effect on property values and only if he would collect junk and let the property go downhill would it affect negatively on property values. Brown stated that the current car count is about 10-16 vehicles on average per day. Jill Marlow commented if they approve this land use change there will be an increase of traffic count, they spend money for dust control and it won’t hold up. It is not compatible with the overall use in the area. Other counties would not and have not allowed this land use change on gravel roads. If the county approves this land use change then the county should pay to seal coat the road. Brown responded that up the road Jeff Geiger has been zoned commercial for the last 20 years. Hertle stated that he believes that someone should not have economic gain over another person’s loss. There are a lot of unknown’s here, he has three concerns: 1. Comprehensive plan issue, it has a low compatibility for the area, 2. Possible economic loss and 3. Quality of life with the nature of the business. He wants to keep peace and tranquility in the area. Frese stated he sees points on both sides of this. Brown stated that there is commercial zoning in the area with the airport. Hertle stated the airport is off of a paved road. He can’t support the land use change. Thompson questioned if the standard of approving land use changes was that it needed to be on a paved road. Brown would limit the traffic, it would be more daytime traffic, and it would limit the night and weekend traffic which is what he has to do now. Greenlee responded that when he was doing it at night and weekends he is non-compliant, he was not supposed to be doing that. Brown stated he is not set up as a business yet. Frese stated the comprehensive plan is what we got. Thompson responded that the board has the power to change the plan, he believes this will have low negative impact on the area and he doesn’t want to see enforcement issues with this if they reject it. Moved by Hertle, seconded by Frese to deny the land use change for Dean and Taraca Brown. The proposed use is not compatible with the overall land use pattern of the surrounding area as discussed within the Benton County Comprehensive Land Preservation and Use Plan. Both members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Board discussed the bill for the Benton County’s website from Spinutech. Ben Bonar told the board that Spinutech said they had 10 additional hours to help the county with the website; no one was made aware when those 10 hours expired. There is a bill of $897.50 for additional charges that they are asking for an itemized billing to see what the additional charges are exactly for.

The bill they received is fairly vague at describing the charges. Marlow stated she needs someone to approve the additional charges. Thompson asked if we can ask them for itemization on the billing. Moved by Hertle, seconded by Frese to table decision on paying Spinutech bill after County Attorney speaks with them. Both members voting aye thereon. Motion carried.

Moved by Hertle, seconded by Frese, to adjourn. Both members voting aye thereon.

____________________________________

Donald H. Frese, Chairman

ATTEST:

_____________________________________

Gina Edler, Benton County Deputy Auditor