►
From YouTube: BOA & Plan Commission Meetings 09 7 2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
A
C
D
A
D
B
C
B
A
So
the
first
discussion
item
will
be
over
the
resolution
amending
section,
21
Oh
OH
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown,
establishing
a
sunset
on
unused
conditional
use,
variances,
which
this
is
resolution,
2017
29.
So
if
we
refer
to
the
resolution,
I
am
I'm
just
going
to
I,
guess
recite
Justin's
comments
and
background
of
where
these
changes
came
from.
So
where
he's
changing
this
ordinance
to
zoning
ordinance
throughout
this
resolution
is
just
because
it's
unclear
as
to
what
this
ordinance
means,
as
this
is
fundamental
law
regarding
Board
of
Adjustment
procedure.
A
A
A
The
sunset
duration
is
therefore
in
keeping
with
an
existing
sunset
timeframe,
and
that
is
the
most
substantive
change
to
this
ordinance.
Amendment
language,
also
with
variances
granted
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
shall
be
treated
as
non-conforming
uses
pursuant
to
chapter
20
104
and
shall
otherwise
lapse.
If
the
construction
authorized,
what
the
variance
has
not
yet
begun
within
one
year
of
the
date
approved.
E
B
E
Asked
last
time
to
have
this
proposed
resolution
tabled
until
we
had
legal
counsel.
There
are
a
couple
things
within
the
proposals
that
I
want
to
take.
Some
issue
with
the
first
has
to
deal
with
the
number
eight
when
it
talks
about
the
holder
of
a
conditional
use.
Permit
I
think
that's
great
language,
I
understand
from
a
staff
perspective
that
you
know
if
someone
is
granted
a
conditional
use
permit
and
they
don't
exercise
that
conditional
use
permit,
does
that
go
on
for
perpetuity.
E
How
do
we
track
it
and
those
types
of
things
and
it's
very
common
throughout
the
state
and
many
entities
to
have
some
sort
of
a
sunset
provision?
I
think
that's
fine.
The
one
thing
I
think
is
that
the
language
at
the
end
of
number
eight
were
says
and
any
future
you
shall
be
in
conformity
with
zoning
ordinance.
I
think
the
language
is
not
necessary
because
all
uses
have
to
be
in
conformity
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
That's
just
my
own
special
take
on
it.
E
E
A
variance
is
a
relaxation
in
the
terms
of
the
ordinance
and
then
once
the
variance
is
granted
to
a
property,
and
it's
not
necessarily
granted
to
the
individual,
but
it's
granted
to
the
property
that
it
goes
with
the
land,
and
so
you
are
basically
making
the
decision
that
is
okay
to
put
a
building
five
feet
closer
to
the
land,
and
so,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
why?
If
you
want
to
sunset
the
variance
because
it
hasn't
been
constructed,
why
don't
we
have
similar
language
that
we've
been
proposed
within
the
conditional
use?
Section?
E
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
former
city
attorney
prior
to
his
leaving
and
stated
my
objections
to
to
it,
and
his
basic
comment
to
me
was
that
he
understood
where
I
was
coming
from
I
provided
three
alternate
forms
of
language
that
I
thought
may
be
better
served.
The
intent
of
what
staff
was
looking
for
and
the
one
that
he
thought
was
also
applicable.
I'm,
going
to
read
it
for
your
discussion.
E
A
variance
granted
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment
shall
expire
one
year
from
the
date
upon
which
it
becomes
effective
if
no
construction
authorized
by
the
variance
has
commenced
upon
written
requests
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment
and
prior
to
the
variance
expiration
date.
A
1-year
time.
Expansion
for
the
variance
may
be
granted
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment
I.
Think
that,
in
my
mind,
is
probably
what
you
were
looking
for
as
opposed
to
making
something
a
non-conforming
use.
E
D
E
B
F
A
E
A
G
E
G
G
A
A
Okay,
the
background
is
the
rationale
of
this
addition
is
that
it
makes
explicit
that
buildings
that
are
not
constructed
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time
or
that
are
allowed
to
languish
in
a
state
of
partial
construction
for
over
a
year
should
be
declared
public
nuisances.
Such
public
nuisances
may
be
abated
or
torn
down.
/
SG
CL
21
10-5.
A
Although
the
extent
of
the
annoyance
or
damage
inflicted
upon
the
individuals
may
be
unequal
and
that
is
per
se
CL
21-10
3,
a
derelict
construction
would
fall
under
the
statutory
definition
of
nuisance,
as
it
arguably
annoys
injures
or
in
dangers
that
comfort,
repose,
health
or
safety
of
others,
and
renders
other
persons
insecure
in
life
or
in
the
use
of
property,
in
how
it
impacts
the
property,
values
or
neighboring
landowners,
and
that
is
per
SG.
Cl
21
10-1.
B
E
I'm
a
little
confused
just
from
the
language
itself.
It's
the
last
sentence
is
predicated
on
the
previous.
After
such
an
extension
are
those
extensions
only
to
commercial
and
industrial
uses,
maybe
I'm,
reading
this
wrong.
It
says
in
the
event
that
commercial
or
industrial
buildings
issued
for
more
than
one
year,
the
permit
fee
for
each
additional
year
shall
be
one
half
the
original
permit
fee.
The
building
officials
authorized
to
grant
and
writing
upon
request
of
the
applicant
and
payments
of
an
administrative
fee.
E
One
or
more
extensions
of
the
expiration
date
of
a
building
put
in
increments
of
up
to
one
additional
year
is
that
predicated
on
the
three-year
extension
for
commercial
industrial
and
therefore
the
extension
is
based
upon
that
previous
sentence.
I
understand
what
you're
doing
I'm
just
wanting.
If
it
reads
correctly.
E
Currently,
right
now
is
the
practice
to
issue
a
permit
for
a
single
year,
except
for
commercial.
Industrial
could
be
geared
up
for
three
years
and
then,
if
I'm,
if
I
don't
construct
in
a
single
year,
according
to
it
and
I'm,
not
I
can
get
another
extension
under
a
residential
building
permit
for
another
year.
Is
that
the
practice
for
another
half
of
the
fee
so
that,
if
it
doesn't
happen
within
that
extension
period,
then
it
expires
and
then
becomes
a
nuisance?
Is
what
you're
trying
to
say?
C
Seem
like
an
issue
to
me
in
the
actual
language.
After
such
an
extension,
any
lapse
of
a
building
permit,
when
quote
substantial
construction
of
the
permanent
building,
has
not
been
completed
any
time.
I
see
a
like
a
modifier
like
that.
That
scared
me
do.
We
have
a
definition
for
substantial
construction
or
what
is.
C
A
E
A
staff
perspective
I
mean:
how
often
are
you
seeing
a
residential
building
permit
not
being
completed
within
two
years
one
year
with
a
one-year
extension?
Does
it
happen
very
often?
Okay.
Do
we
want
it
to
stop
from
happening
while
we
just
say
if
it's
not
completed
after
the
extension,
it's
it's
a
public
nuisance.
That's
opposed
to
making
a
judgment,
call.
G
E
C
C
A
A
I
J
G
F
I
A
Which
it's
a
short
one,
except
you
might
need
some
changes.
So
the
background
is
this:
revision
was
derived
from
Matthews
municipal
ordinance.
It
is
not
legally
required
that
the
building
officials
send
out
a
certified
mail
notice
of
the
lapse
of
non-conforming
use.
Admittedly,
South
Dakota
has
not
explicitly
joined
those
states
like
Minnesota
that
have
declared
that
ordinance
can
automatically
set
the
lapse
period
generally.
There
must
be
shown
some
intent
of
the
landowner
to
abandon.
However,
South
Dakota
case
law
appears
to
support
such
an
automatic
phase-out
see,
brown
county
verse
might
injure.
A
A
Indeed,
statute
appears
to
allow
for
an
automatic
phase-out
CSD,
CL
11
6
39,
which
states
if
the
non-conforming
use
is
discontinued
for
a
period
of
time
more
than
one
year.
Any
subsequent
use
slot
or
occupancy
of
the
land
or
premise
shall
be,
in
conformance
with
such
regulation.
Proof
of
a
year
of
non-use
one
picture
at
the
start.
One
picture
at
the
end
of
the
period
is
going
to
be
a
good
indicator
of
the
landowners
intent
to
abandon
regardless.
One
thing
to
think
about,
we
could
sunset
non-conforming
uses
much
sooner.
B
Thank
you
brandy
this.
This
was
when
I
had
some
conversation
with
Justin
before
he
departed
and
I
had
some
some
concerns
over
the
the
language
that
that
was
used
here
and
how
it
could
be
potentially
problematic
for
a
number
of
older
non-conforming
Lots
in
our
in
our
town.
So
the
language
states
that,
if
a
non-conforming
use
is
discontinued
or
abandoned
for
more
than
one
year,
the
non-conforming
use
shall
cease
in
the
you
shall
therefore
conform
to
the
provisions
of
the
ordinance
and
in
title
21
21.9.
B
We
define
non-conforming
use
as
any
building
structure
or
use
of
land
which
does
not
conform
to
the
regulations
of
the
district
or
Zone
in
which
it's
situated.
Now,
we've
we've
got
a
lot
of
you
know.
Thinking
in
this
in
terms,
I
started
looking
at
the
residential
property
specifically,
and
we
have
a
large
number
of
residentially
zoned
properties,
particularly
in
the
older
sections
of
town,
which
don't
meet
the
current
zoning
regulations
for
things
like
setbacks
and
lot
size
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
my
concern
would
be
if
you
had
a
an
empty
property.
E
I
think
that's
problematic
from
a
due
process
perspective,
even
though
there
are
some
case
law
in
the
state
that
seems
to
lean
that
way.
Iiii
think
it's
right
a
one-year.
We
need
to
figure
out
how
to
get
rid
of
non-conformities
cuz.
Zoning
is
really
more
prescriptive
than
anything
is
moving
forward
and
the
only
way
we
get
rid
of
things
is
through
not
conforming
rules
and
regulations.
E
E
Mean
if
I'm,
not,
if
I,
have
a
house
that
maybe
or
a
manufactured
home
in
a
resident,
r2
district
that
doesn't
meet
or
something
like
that
and
I'm
still
paying
my
water
and
utility
bills
I
just
might
not
be
living
in
it
is
that
is
that
being
used,
I
mean?
How
would
you
define
that
from
a
staff
perspective,
I
mean.
B
E
A
E
Have
you
have
the
tool
in
your
toolbox?
Right
now
is,
if
you
see
something,
somebody
makes
a
complaint
you
check
into
it.
It's
not
conforming.
The
the
building
official
makes
that
determination.
He
puts
them
on
notice
and
if
long
as
they
don't
do
anything
for
a
year,
you
can
start
an
abatement
process
or
something
like
that.
Yeah.
B
I
mean
that's,
that's
where
I
was
to
it
right
now.
We
have
you
know
that
that
option
or
the
discretion
to
be
able
to
take
these
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
If
you
move
to
an
automatic,
then
then
a
person,
that's
in
a
genuine
situation
where
you
know
maybe
they're.
They
have
a
legitimate
reason
for
having
the
the
place
abandoned.
They
could
be
forced
into
a
legal
legal
bind
right
by
having
an
automatic
language
here
and.
A
H
A
E
Think
I'm
with
that
too
I
think
we
could
maybe
just
pause,
come
back
and
maybe
think
about
this
little
bit
minute.
Better,
maybe
give
staff
an
opportunity
to
think
about
administratively
how
they
want
to
proceed
with
this
I.
Don't
have
a
problem,
adding
the
words
abandoned
to
discontinued.
There's,
there's
some
words
in
here
that
are
fine
I.
Just
the
idea
of
striking
the
notice
requirement
is
somewhat
problematic
for
me.
A
Sounds
good
so
when
we'll
still
have
a
public
hearing
on
this
amendment,
I'm
wondering
if
I
leave
the
language
as
is,
and
then
we
actually
I'll
take
I'll,
leave
the
language
that's
crossed
and
then
leave
the
language
that's
added
and
then
so
it
can
be
approved,
as
the
discussion
has
went
without
having
to
amend
the
resolution.
If
that
is
on.
If
that's
the
page,
we're
on
that,
leaving
so
just
unstriped.
E
A
G
C
F
Brandi
I
have
something
on
fee
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
on
the
engineering
standpoint.
On
the
word
substantial,
we
do
use
substantial
completion
on
most
of
our
actually
all
of
our
projects
in
the
engineering
world.
So
when
we
say
when
we
give
a
notice
of
substantial
completion,
we're
pretty
much
saying
that
that
project
is
almost
finished
other
than
the
final
punch
list
that
we
we
create
on
the
final
walkthrough
and
so
I,
don't
know
I'm
not
trying
to
sway
anywhere
I.
F
Just
I
know
there
was
confusion
of
what
the
word
substantial
was
and
and
where
it's
coming
from
and
I
wanted
to.
Let
you
guys
know
that
we
do
use
that,
and
we
just
filled
one
out
today
for
the
skatepark
and
they
did
follow
through
on
their
punch
list
and
now
we're
we're
going
through
the
paperwork
of
final
completion.
Now,
so
we
do
use
substantial
and.
E
J
B
H
H
G
E
H
E
My
other
quick
question,
I
guess
and
that
whole
thing
on
that.
First
section
we
talked
about
zoning
ordinance
from
this
ordinance.
Well,
some
some
places
we
reference
to
this
ordinance
as
title
21
and
some
places
we
just
say
this
ordinance
to
zoning
ordinance.
So
there's
some
continuity
issues
there
to
either
either
just
the
very
first
time.
We
see
it
in
paragraph
a
where
it
says
this
or
just
just
say
title
21
or
here
after
we.