![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/bQuQZML6z0c/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 01 18 2018
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).
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
The
question
I
guess:
I'm:
okay,
with
it
being
since
there's
three
weeks
between
this
meeting
and
the
next
meeting.
It
gives
us
an
extra
week
to
work
on
those
details,
but
my
only
caution,
I
guess
I,
don't
think
we're
on
a
tight
timeline
here,
but
if
you're
willing
to
keep
postponing
it
until
we
get
something
we
all
agree
on
is
one
thing
or
I
like.
B
A
I'm
fine
with
that
I
just
thought
I'd
want
to
add
how
I
think
the
process
is
gonna
unfold,
but
we'll
visit
with
the
park
board
about
his
kind
of
his
counteroffer
to
where
we're
at
right
now
and
we'll
keep
keep
discussions
going
and
we'll
keep
you
guys
informed
with
updates.
As
often
as
we
meet
I'll.
D
E
F
Well,
hi
again,
everyone
thanks
for
the
chance
to
talk
to
you
again.
The
today
we
had
is
you
remember
the
last
time
we
talked
about
more
about
roles
and
and
in
issues
with
issuing
permits,
how
they
reflect
or
relate
to
the
job
that
you've
got
and
some
of
the
things
that
you
want
to
look
for
as
you're
issuing
the
permits.
The
next
meetings,
the
next
two
meetings
that
we
have
into
there.
F
The
next
couple
of
hours
of
discussion
involve
one
or
two
things,
and,
and
one
of
them
is
specific,
meeting
rules
and
meeting
procedures
running
a
meeting
all
the
way
down
to
maybe
some
parliamentary
procedure
tips
in
which
I
described
that,
for
example,
a
motion
to
postpone
should
be
specific
to
its
intended
to
only
go
to
the
next
meeting.
Unless
you
have
a
specific
thing,
you're
looking
for
or
you're
referring
it
to
a
committee
waiting
for
some
sort
of
a
some
sort
of
an
action
from
them.
F
So
those
are
the
sort
of
things
we'll
talk
about
in
those
meetings
and
and
how
to
make
motions
and
run
things.
But
I
thought
it
made
more
sense.
At
this
point
to
talk
about
the
due
process
and
ex
parte
communication
cases
that
we've
had
out
there
and
I
know
that
I
knew
that
stone,
Barger
had
was
not
going
to
be
here
and
I
know
that
he
sat
through
the
last
time.
F
F
It's
a
real,
difficult
part
of
your
job
as
a
Planning,
Commission
and
Board
of
Adjustment
member,
and
it's
one
that
frankly
I
don't
envy
and
that's
why
I'm
happy
to
tell
you
a
good
way
to
do
it
and
hope
you
can
do
it,
because
it's
it's
a
difficult
thing
to
do
as
you
live
in
a
community
and
try
to
serve
on
a
citizen
board
like
you
do.
What
we're
concerned
about
here
is
due
process
aspect
of
issues
giving
our
applicants
so
that
they've
got
a
fair
hearing.
Constitution.
It
comes
back
to
the
Constitution.
F
If
you
want
to
blame
something,
you
can
blame
the
founding
fathers
in
states
that
we've
got
to
rights
that
need
to
be
safeguarded
and
that's
the
equal
protection
law
that
says
that
each
law
needs
to
be
applied
fairly
and
equal
to
all
persons
and
then
there's
a
due
process
law
that
encourages
objective
decision-making
and
that's
generally,
the
way
that
we
do
it
is
we
provide
notice
of
action
and
we
provide
an
opportunity
for
folks
to
be
heard.
We
provide
findings
or
why
we
issued
the
decision.
F
F
There
was
not
on
the
record,
and
there
was
no
reasonable
prior
notice
to
all
parties
involved.
An
interested
person
outside
of
the
Commission
or
the
court
would
be
someone
involved,
or
else
the
Commissioner
or
judge
handling
a
proceeding.
Those
are
folks
that
could
be
subject
to
ex
parte
communication.
That's
you
because
you
are
a
quasi
judicial
board
when
you're
handling
items
as
a
as
a
Board
of
Adjustment.
There's
a
Planning
Commission,
you're,
you're,
more
of
a
legislative
body,
largely
plats,
maybe
a
little
bit
different,
but
it's
still
largely
legislative
because
you're
making
recommendations
on
things.
F
But
again
the
process
is
intended
that
the
information
you're
going
to
hear
is
going
to
be
information
that
any
member
of
the
public
could
get
and
that's
the
bottom
line.
So
I'm
gonna
talk
about
a
couple
of
cases
where
we've
taken
some
cues
over
the
last
few
years,
probably
last
20
years
on
some
of
the
more
landmark
cases
and
I'm
going
backwards
kind
of
an
order.
F
Here,
you
start
with
a
case
that
occurred
in
Minnehaha
County
and
most
of
these,
for
whatever
reason
why
end
up
being
in
County
had
to
look
hard
for
the
winter
case.
But
that
really
is
a
landmark
one
that
we'll
get
into
in
a
little
bit.
Hansen
versus
Minnehaha,
County
Commission
was
a
case
that
occurred.
It
was
the
year
that
we
had
the
planners
conference
here
in
Watertown
which
what
I
believe
was
four
years
ago.
F
We
had
one
here
and
I'll
go
through
the
specifics
of
it,
but
what
had
happened
in
that
case
was
had
an
applicant
apply
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
have
an
agronomy
plant
outside
of
Sioux
Falls.
Actually
it
was
near
Baltic
and
they
they
applied
for
a
conditional
use.
Permit
their
process
is
a
little
bit
different
in
Sioux
Falls,
but
we're
not
going
to
we're
not
bogged
down
in
that
portion,
but
the
conditional
use
was
for,
as
we
said,
a
ground
me
plant.
They
have
farm
chemicals,
anhydrous,
ammonia.
F
Think
hefty
seeds
is
probably
a
good
example
of
what
what
it
was.
It
was
not
hefty,
but
it
was
similar
to
that.
But
there
are
several
new
worried,
neighbors
that
testified
at
both
the
Planning,
Commission
and
and
and
then
there
during
their
appeal
process
as
well,
that
they
had.
So
there
are
several
people
that
that
I
testified.
You.
F
An
interesting
thing
that
went
on,
though,
is
that
they
have
with
their
board.
There,
of
course,
is
they've
been
appointed
body
with
with
one
county,
commissioner,
that
sits
on
that
board,
and
the
county
commissioner,
having
been
living
in
the
city
really
had
no
idea
what
in
agronomy
plant
really
involved,
what
the
herbicides
were
with
the
safety
procedures
were
how
they
handled
things
on
the
site.
So
what
he
did
is
he
lined
up
a
tour,
go
check
out
a
different
plant,
so
he
went
to
another
plant
now.
F
One
of
the
things
that
you
ran
into
trouble
with
was
the
fact
that,
and
he
said
in
his
deposition
that
he
was
not
aware
of
the
fact
that
the
plant
he
did
go
to
was
owned
by
the
people
that
made
the
application
that
that
was
brought
up.
Obviously
at
hearings
that
that
that
was
improper,
but
the
point
is
he
went
out
there
reviewed
the
site
and
near
Worthing
and
after
having
been
there,
he
felt
like
he
had
a
better
feel
for
it.
F
When
they
came
to
hearing
and
talked
about
the
issue
or
the
the
request,
you
know
he
had
it.
As
we
said,
he
knew
about
safety
procedures
and
he
made
that
known
during
the
hearing
that
I
went
to
the
birthing
site.
I
viewed
these
safety
procedures.
I
now
feel
more
comfortable
with
this,
and
at
that
point
he
was
he
was
comfortable
voting
for
the
permit.
So
that's
just
what
he
did
and
in
that
they
wound
up.
F
That
was
one
of
the
key
points
of
contention
as
they,
as
that
was
appealed
to
Circuit
Court
when
it
went
to
Circuit
Court.
What
one
of
the
arguments
there
were
several
arguments,
of
course,
because
and
again
this
board
hasn't
seen
many
cases
referred
or
challenger,
Circuit
Court,
but
in
our
experience
at
least
of
late
and
well,
I
I
believe
one
of
the
documents
we
had
asserted,
21
things
that
were
wrong.
F
You'll,
see
many
things
that'll
be
listed
as
far
as
points
of
issue,
but
one
of
the
things
that
was
brought
up
and
one
of
the
key
points
was
that
idea
of
bias
that
he
had
already
had
because
he
went
and
toured
this
plant.
And
you
see
up
here,
I've
listed
the
four
forms
of
bias
that
that
are
based
out
of
cases.
F
Not
only
in
this
state
but
also
other
states
as
well,
but
they've
they're,
more
laid
out
in
in
the
hanok
versus
winter
case,
I'll
talk
about
in
a
minute,
but
there
are
four
types:
there's
direct
pecuniary
interest,
which
is
when
you,
as
someone
on
the
board
can
get
money.
You
you
benefit
directly
monetarily
from
the
from
the
vote.
There's
indirect
pecuniary
interest.
F
Where
someone
you
know
an
employer,
someone
that's
closely
tied
to
you-
may
financially
benefit
from
the
from
the
request,
there's
direct
personal
interest
and
that's
where
there's
a
blood
relative
or
someone
of
great
importance
to
your
family.
Maybe
even
yourself
is
the
one
making
the
application
or
is
directly
involved
in
whatever
that
application
is
for
and
then
there's
the
tricky
one,
which
is
indirect
personal
interest,
which
becomes
a
case
of
great
difficulty,
because
part
of
the
reason
you're
on
this
board
is
because
you
know
a
lot
of
people.
F
You
know
the
area,
but
the
bottom
line
is:
is
that
it's
where,
in
an
individual's
judgment
your
your
decision
may
be?
Your
decision
may
be
affected
based
on
your
membership
of
an
organization,
a
friendship
so
on
and
we'll
try
to
we'll
try
to
narrow
that
down
and
make
things
make
a
little
more
sense
as
we
go
through
this.
F
In
this
case,
though,
what
happened
was
at
Circuit
Court,
the
circuit
court
held
the
commissioner
Kelley's
visit
to
the
agronomy
plant
to
go
teach
himself
more
about
agronomy
was
a
violation
of
due
process
of
the
neighbors.
Hanson
is
the
neighbor
in
this
case
they
brought
the
suit,
and
so
because
he
did
not
notify
the
public
that
he
was
going
to
that
to
that
site
to
learn
more
about
it.
F
He
violated
the
due
process
of
the
public
in
that
case,
court
found
that
he
took
evidence
outside
of
the
record
and
that's
where
the
issue
was,
and
so
he
not
only
did
he
take
that
evidence.
He
relied
on
that
when
he
made
his
decision,
they
did
say
there
is
no
personal
motivation
to
his
bias,
since
he
was
just
visiting
to
learn
more.
However,
they
found
that-
and
this
is
a
key
point
here-
they
found
that
the
very
appearance
of
a
complete
fairness
was
not
present
because
of
his
site
visit
and
the
ex
parte
communication.
F
So
the
point
is:
is
that
it
led
to
an
appearance
that
he
may
be
biased,
and
that
was
that
was
really
all
they
had
to
prove.
In
that
case,
that's
what
the
circuit
court
contended
so
Minnehaha
County
did
what
I
would
have
expected.
They
appealed
that
to
the
Supreme,
Court
and
I'll
tell
you
as
planners
Association.
We
were
watching
that
very
closely
because
we
want
to
know
for
your
own
sake
as
a
Planning
Board
member.
Well,
what's
this
mean
to
you?
Are
you
not
allowed
to
drive
by
a
place?
Can
you
not
go
wander
around?
F
Can
you
not
go
talk
to
the
person
who's
made
the
application
or
walk
up
to
the
house
and
Supreme
Court
punted
on
that
question?
Basically,
what
wound
up
happening
was
they
ruled
on
the
portion
of
the
arbitrary
decision
and
said
that-
and
this
is
relevant,
though
in
different
circles.
Here
they
ruled
on
the
arbitrary
whether
or
not
the
decision
was
arbitrary,
because
they
said
that
there
are
only
general
statements
in
the
ordinance
with
regard
to
their
case.
F
This
is
just
kind
of
a
sidebar
here,
but
in
their
ordinance
they
just
had
the
general
the
same
things
you
have
the
ingress
egress,
the
signs
compatibility,
those
sorts
of
things
that
are
within
most
ordinances,
they
had
similar
and
then,
within
their
land-use
plan,
some
general
policies,
and
they
cited
that
those
were
the
the
board
had
cited.
Those
as
reasons
for
issuing
the
permit
and
the
the
Supreme
Court
said
that
was
that
was
good
enough.
They
referenced
those
as
long
as
they
touch
base
that
they
had.
F
They
had
met
those
criteria
that
were
established
as
vague
as
they
are.
That
was
fine,
but
the
part
that
was
more
interesting.
That's
the
part
that
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
they
didn't
have
to
rule
on,
because
without
with
disqualifying
Commissioner
Kelley's
vote,
the
vote
still
passed.
So
it
was
really
moot,
and
so
they
didn't
really
have
to
decide
whether
or
not
he
actually
needed
to
be
involved.
So,
ultimately,
the
decision
by
the
Supreme
Court
was
to
uphold
the
permit
not
based
on
anything
Commissioner
Kelly
did.
F
B
F
Exactly
right
had
they
had
they
had
that
vote
being
disqualified,
led
to
a
denial,
then
it
would
have
been
a
bigger
problem.
I
mean
then
they
would
have
had
to
have
specifically
looked
at
it,
as,
as
you
said,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
one
of
the
things
that
was
within
theirs,
and
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
the
Supreme
Court
latched
on
to
was.
F
There
was
not
a
specific
number
of
votes
that
they
needed
to
listed
in
the
ordinance
that
they
had
to
have,
but
bottom
line
was
they
had
the
four
votes
they
needed
at
that
point,
so
it
was.
That
was
a
bottom
line,
so
one
of
the
cases
that
was
referenced
many
times
throughout.
That
was
a
case
that
again
it's
as
I.
Look
at
this.
It's
entertaining
and
interesting
to
me.
F
Looking
at
some
of
these
rules
I
some
of
these
rulings,
which
may
tell
you
all
you
need
to
know
about
me,
but
the
bottom
line
is-
is
that
this
is
this
case
itself
is
one
that
gets
referred
to
a
lot
in
in
any
sort
of
ex
parte
communication
case.
It's
the
case
not
a
winner
in
which
and
I
it
deals
with
a
liquor
license.
So
it's
it's
a
it's
a
City
Council
issue
that
was
issued,
but
it
really
lends
itself
to
decisions
that
you
make
as
well
specifically
since
they're,
it's
a
license
process.
F
F
Not
only
is
a
biased
decision-maker,
a
poor,
constitutionally
unacceptable,
but
our
system
of
law
has
always
endeavored
to
prevent.
Even
the
probability
of
unfairness
and
again
there
you
go,
that's
the
probability.
It's
not
necessarily
the
fact
that
you
had
a
motivation,
it's
that
the
probability
was
there,
so
basically
off
of
that
decision.
F
What
we
find
out
is
that,
in
order
to
show
that
you're
biased
it's
more
about
the
the
need
to
show
an
unacceptable
risk
of
bias,
not
necessarily
the
bias
itself
and
that's
where
is
you
have
these
conversations
or
you
hear
from
people
out
there?
You
think
about
how's.
This
look
which
I
you
know
it's
the
sort
of
thing
you.
F
Would
you
try
to
tell
your
kids
not
to
think
about
what
other
people
think
about
you,
but
in
the
same
breath,
when
you're
doing
this,
you
actually
have
to
think
about
what
people
think
about
what
you're
talking
about.
Yes,
a
couple
of
points
in
here
that
were
they
were
key
that
I
take
out
of
take
out
of
that
they
get
referenced.
F
F
It
gets
pretty
nitpicky
into
some
of
this,
as
it
goes
on
and
I'll
kind
of
back
some
of
this
away,
if
they
show
there's
a
capacity
to
tempt
the
official
to
depart
from
the
duty,
and
rather
this
and
instead
to
serve
their
personal
interest,
that's
also
the
key
risk
in
the
actual
bias,
and
then
they
court
they
quoted.
The
I
was
Supreme
Court,
which
that's
where
a
lot
of
those
four
points
came
up.
That
I
talked
about
the
direct
pecuniary
interested,
indirect
and
so
on.
F
F
What
came
out
of
it
is
the
idea
that
the
interest
must
be
different
from
that
which,
for
you,
as
a
board
member
than
a
general
member
of
the
public,
so
did
you
get
some
sort
of?
Do
you
have
a
different
interest
when
you're
issuing
this
permit
or
than
everyone
else?
Is
it
unique
to
you
because
of
a
family
member
is
a
unique
to
you
because
of
a
friend
is
a
unique
to
you
because
you
receive
money
on
it,
but
not
only
that.
F
F
He
had
he
not
been
a
board
member
they're,
arguing,
essentially
that
he
would
not
have
got
in
the
tour
or
they
may
have
told
him
things
that
they
wouldn't
have
told
other
folks
walking
through
there
so
and
in
the
end
it
was
really
hard
to
argue
either
way.
To
be
perfectly
honest,
because
no
one
else
was
there,
so
that's
where
it's
more
about
the
risk.
However,
it
does
say
here
that
that
interest
does
need
to
be
direct,
definite
capable
of
demonstration,
not
remote,
uncertain,
contingents,
unsubstantial
and
so
on.
F
So
it
doesn't
even
need
to
be
something:
that's
demonstratable
in
some
way
shape
or
form,
but
it's
kind
of
talking
out
of
both
sides
of
the
mouth.
But
it's
more
about
the
risk
that
you
have
to
be
able
to
identify.
So
again
you
go
back
into
it.
The
types
of
the
types
of
bias
that
you're
having
to
argue
against
whether
or
not
you
have
and
then
leading
into
that
bias
case.
F
F
It
comes
back
to
some
of
the
decisions
and
actions
you
make
where
you
where
you
have
had
or
you've
got
something
that,
in
the
back
of
your
mind,
you
think
well,
maybe
I
should
bring
this
up.
Maybe
I
shouldn't
basically
about
seeing
in
here
is
that
you're
probably
better
off
to
bring
up
that
point,
and
if
that
winds
up
being
something
that
it's
really
up
to
your
board.
Ultimately,
your
chairperson.
F
D
F
It's
essentially
the
it's
the
antithesis
of
what
I'm
saying
there,
obviously,
because
what,
in
that
case,
they're
they're,
saying
that
the
applicant
should
have
had
the
opportunity
to
say
I'm,
okay
with
you
on
this
board
in
that
case,
ultimately,
the
decision
does
come
with
the
board
to
decide
whether
or
not
they
feel
like
that
person
is,
and
but
it
doesn't
need
to
come
down
to
you
as
well.
If
you
feel
like
your
relationship
or
your
past
information,
you've
gotten
is
gonna
as
predisposed
you
already
yeah.
You
need
to
disqualify
yourself
right
away
and
generally.
B
Would
you
agree
Luke
that
it
should
happen
prior
to
get
into
the
public
discourse
of
the
public
hearing?
You
know
talk
to
the
attorney.
If
the
attorney
says
it's,
you
know
your
decision
to
make.
If
you
think
that
you
can,
you
know,
still
be
unbiased
in
your
decision
making.
You
should
still
disclose
it,
but
at
the
same
point
in
time,
does
the
board
have
the
ability
to
censor
a
person
if
the
I
disclose
something
I,
don't
think
it's
a
problem,
but
the
other
four
or
five
I
think
it
could
be
a
problem.
They.
F
Do
and
and
I
I'll
go
through
with
some
best
management
practices
as
far
as
their
best
practices
how
to
how
to
handle
that
throughout
a
meeting
and
we'll
probably
double
double
over
that
at
next
meeting
too,
but
basically,
what
you
want
to
do
is
you
want
to
point
that
out
not
be
what
you
need
to
do.
Is
you
need
to
point
that
out
ahead
of
the
actual
motion
on
the
item
or
even
any
discourse
at
all
I?
F
Forget
that
you
don't
do
a
motion
before
you
start
talking,
but
the
point
is
before
it's
even
brought
up.
You
want
to
point
out.
I
had
a
conversation
about
this
I
know
the
the
applicant
is
my
third
cousin,
but
I
perceive
no
monetary
and
no
no
no
conflicts
here.
This
will
not
affect
my
judgment
ahead
of
time.
Let's
say
that
you
make
that
point.
Let's
say
the
Blake
makes
that
point,
but
there
are
one
member
says:
you
know
what
I
disagree.
F
You
do
know
that
person
to
well.
This
may
be
a
conflict
of
interest.
You
can
ultimately,
they
make
a
point
of
point
of
order
to
the
chairperson,
chairperson,
says,
makes
a
decision
saying
you
know
what
Blake
you're
right,
you're
fine!
If,
if
that
person
who
disagreed,
wanted
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
chair,
they
can
do
that,
so
they
make
an
appeal.
They
they
make
a
statement,
say
I
appeal
the
decision
of
the
chair.
If
there's
a
second
you
you
can,
you
can
actually
discuss
that.
F
Why
there
is
the
allowed
discussion,
but
then
the
board
can
vote
on
whether
or
not
they
feel
like
Blake
is
predisposed
to
make
a
decision
in
that
particular
case,
and
so
it
does
allow
through
parliamentary
procedure.
You
do
have
that
ability.
So
bottom
line
is
yes,
you
can
and
then
I'll
point
out
procedurally,
when
the
best
time
to
do
that
here
is
at
the
end
here.
F
So
back
to
this
case,
the
the
point
that's
that's
set
in
here
and
I-
see
where
you're
going
with
that
Blake
is
that
if
the
person
doesn't
bring
that
up
during
the
hearing,
then
it
really
falls
on
the
applicant
to
point
their
finger
at
hey,
you're
you're
not
qualified
to
do
this.
When
they
don't
know
what
happened
out
there,
and
so
that's
the
point-
is
that
that's
not
due
process
I,
don't
know
all
of
the
factors
that
are
involved
in
this
ahead
of
time,
so
it
that
particular
case
was
again
used
as
a
basis.
F
In
another
case
that
will
end
up
being
an
ex
parte
communication
case.
I
kind
of
want
to
see
my
time
here.
I
do
have
to
get
on
the
road
at
some
point
here,
but
it
looks
like
I
got
time,
one
of
the
another
case
that
occurred,
and
this
is
another
County
case
it
occurred
in
Turner
County,
and
it
was
approximately
ten
years
ago
now
already
in
this
case,
it
was
a
Zoning
officer,
knew
that
you
know.
Also
a
zoning
officer
was
a
finance
officer
in
the
zoning
officer
and
several
other
officers.
F
At
the
same
time,
it
was
the
same
person
had
mistakenly
issued
a
building
permit
for
a
elevator
come
to
find
out
need
the
conditional
use
permit
oops,
so
they
informed
the
they
informed,
the
elevator,
sorry
cease-and-desist.
You
need
to
stop
because
you
need
a
conditional
use
permit
at
this
point
they
had
and
I.
Don't
remember
the
dollar
value,
but
it's
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
I'm
gonna,
throw
out
a
hundred
thousand
I
think
it
was
somewhere
in
that
amount
that
they
had
already
spent
on
this
and
gotten
going
on.
F
That's
not
counting
engineering
and
they
already
had
a
couple
bins
out.
If
I
remember
right,
it's
only
applied
for
the
conditional
use.
Permit,
no
big
deal
we'll
go
back,
we'll
get
it
straightened
out.
Well
here
some
neighbors
I
didn't
like
it
and
they
made
pretty
good
case.
So
the
board
said
no,
your
denied
well
now
what
so?
F
What
happened
was
they?
They
did
not
have
a
provision
that
said
that
they
had
to
wait
six
months
and
their
ordinance.
They
got
to
come
back
and
they
could
just
through
attrition,
keep
on
asking,
and
so
they
asked
again
they
amended
their
application
because
they,
the
board,
did
do
one
thing
within
it.
That
is
within
the
findings.
They
did
point
out,
here's
why
you
are
denied
and
they
had
a
couple
of
reasons,
and
so
what
they
did
is
they
addressed
those
reasons
and
they
came
back
and
they
reapplied
now.
F
There's
a
new
board
member
that
was
on
that
board
and
and
in
between
the
the
denial
and
the
next
application
that
new
board
member
had
taken
upon
himself
to
try
and
mediate
this
issue
and
got
into.
He
talked
to
the
neighbors
on
the
one
side
that
didn't
like
it
and
talked
to
the
board.
There's
a
elevator
to
try
and
get
things
straightened
out,
and
you
know
how
are
we
going
to?
How
are
we
gonna
bridge
this
gap
and
he
did
make
it
known
because
he
also
was
a
county
commissioner.
F
He
did
make
it
known
that
it
was
his
goal
to
try
and
try
and
help
save
the
county
some
money,
because
they
knew
that
they'd,
probably
out
some
money
in
the
lawsuit
if
they
wound
up
losing
this
lawsuit
and
so
that
board
member
had
been
involved.
As
I
said
in
those
mediation,
he
had
pointed
out
that
he
was
trying
to
save
the
county
money
and
then
the
hearing
came-
and
he
testified
talked
a
little
bit
about
that.
Then
he
made
the
motion
to
approve
the
request.
F
Then
obviously,
he
voted
in
favor
of
the
request
and
the
board
did
ultimately
approve
that
request
with
some
conditions
and
the
neighbors
didn't
like
it,
and
so
they
filed
a
petition
in
court
oops.
Let's
come
back
to
here,
so
the
Supreme
Court
looked
at
looked
to
administrative
procedures
and
found
bias
that
the
Commissioner
should
have
disqualified
himself.
Given
the
fact
that
he
had
pointed
out,
he
was
trying
to
save
the
county
money.
F
He
had
already
talked
to
both
sides
outside
of
public
hearings.
In
some
cases
it
was
individually
in
some
cases
they're
in
the
same
room,
and
so
his
motive
was
different
than
that
of
a
member
of
the
public.
Particularly
his
motive
was
that
he
was
trying
to
save
the
county
administration
money
because
of
a
potential
lawsuit,
Chief
Justice
Gilbertson,
who,
at
the
time
of
the
winner
case
and
I,
did
not
bring
this
up
at
the
winter
case
before
I
read
this
part
he
stuck
up
for
you
guys
on
the
board
is
what
he
did
he.
F
He
was
actually
the
dissenting
vote
in
the
in
the
winter
case,
because
the
point
that
he
made
was
essentially
that
when
you
live
in
a
small
town,
justice
Gilbertson's
from
Sisseton,
he
said
you
can't
help
but
know
somebody,
that's
making
an
application.
You
will
never
be
involved
in
a
decision
if
you
disqualify
yourself,
because
you
know
someone
who
knows
someone
or
it's
a
third
cousin
or
I've
known
people
that
have
said
he
can't
throw
a
rock
in
the
county
without
hitting
a
cousin,
and
the
bottom
line
is.
F
C
F
Of
what
his
statement
was,
but
the
bottom
line
was
was
that
maybe
I
have
some
leeway
in
this
case.
He
was
a
little
bit
harder
on
him
but
said
that
in
the
case
of
hanok,
he
created
an
unacceptable
risk
of
bias
when
when
he
was
serving
in
the
other
capacity,
so
in
this
case
any
reasonably
minded
person
would
be
able
to
point
out
that
he
was
trying
he
was.
He
had
another
motivation,
whether
he
was
voting
with
that
motivation
or
not.
F
F
So
in
that
case
the
decision
was
reversed
and
it
was
remanded
back
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment
based
on
a
process,
a
violation
of
due
process,
and
so
it
was
based
on
the
idea
that
the
board
member
had
orchestrated
a
plan
to
avoid
a
lawsuit
and
then
voted
as
a
member
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
To
put
that
plan
into
action
again,
you
have
the
ability
to
put
a
plan
into
action
when
you
sit
on
a
board
like
this,
and
so.
C
F
C
F
That
they'll
use
for
an
example
is
someone
calls
you
and
you,
maybe
they
lead
into
the
idea
talking
about
it
or
you
know
that
they
might
be
involved
in
it.
The
one
thing
I've
heard
individuals
say
is
that
they'll
answer
back,
listen,
we've
known
each
other
a
long
time
and
talked
about
our
kids,
we'll
talk
about
the
weather.
F
But
the
point
is
your
I
know
it's
difficult
and
you
are
going
to
wind
up
in
cases
where
someone
has
talked
to
you
about
an
item
ahead
of
time,
but
I,
just
kind
of
want
to
talk
a
couple
of
things
that
wind
up
doing
here
and
as
far
as
how
to
handle
that
once
no
crud
I
may
have
stepped
in
it,
I
may
have
talked
to
somebody.
I
may
have
gone
out
there.
F
What
you
do
in
a
case,
if
you're
not
sure
and
we'll
go
back
to
what
our
conversation
was
a
few
minutes
ago,
if
you're
not
sure,
if
you
have
you
have
a
bias
or
that
you've
had
too
much
ex
parte
communication
work
with
your
attorney
first
make
sure
and
talk
to
them.
Let
your
staff
know
that
you've
had
a
conversation
or
that
you
may
have
a
have
an
issue
and
talk
about
it
beforehand.
So
you
know
whether
or
not
you
want
to
you
need
to
point
that
out
the.
F
But
the
main
point
is
you
make
sure
that
you
point
that
out
ahead
of
any
discussion
on
the
item,
because
if
you're
seated
up
there
and
you
involve
yourself
in
the
conversation
and
then
before
the
vote,
you
point
out
well
I'm
gonna
abstain.
Now
there
I
need
to
recuse
myself
because
I
already
talked
well,
it's
not
to
say
that
you
did,
but
you
may
have
directed
the
discussion
throughout
and
you
really
don't
know
at
that
point.
So
the
point
is
it's
way
better.
It's
it's!
F
He
had
pointed
out
a
couple
of
items:
I
don't
see
Mike
here,
but
I
had
suggested
that
he
come
to
the
meeting
those
items
he
pointed
out.
Were
these
two
I.
Don't
think
that
predisposed
my
decision,
my
ability
to
make
a
decision
on
this
topic
and
then
that's
where
I
said.
If
somebody's
waves,
the
flag
onion
says
no,
you
did
too
well,
then
you
can
you
guys
can
go
through
that
parliamentary
procedure
style
to
figure
out
whether
or
not
you
did
or
not.
But
once
you
have,
let's
say
that
you
did.
F
The
other
example
is
you'd
point
out
that
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
someone.
I
got
too
far
into
that
conversation
on
Thursday
night
I
was
out
an
event
and
the
applicant
was
there
as
well,
and
we
got
into
discussions
and-
and
we
discussed
this
matter
too
much
and
I
feel
it's
predisposed
my
ability
to
make
a
decision
in
this
case,
so
I'm
going
to
step
down,
and
so
you
get
up,
walk
over
sit
in
the
audience
and
watch
as
that
goes
on
and.
B
We
come
up.
The
good
thing
is
that
we
have
alternates
to
the
board's.
So
if
you
even
think
that
it's
a
possibility
or
you
don't
feel
comfortable
regardless
of
what
you
know,
the
advice
of
the
attorney
is,
if
you
still
don't
feel
comfortable
participating,
makes
your
staff
knows
so
that
we
can
have
somebody
here
to
fill
those
spots.
That's.
B
I
think
we're
a
little
bit
on
the
Planning
Commission
on
the
one
end
of
it,
though,
what
we
want
to
do
is
we
realize
that
we
also
recommend,
and
we
only
need
to
have
four
for
the
quorum
anyway,
so
we
can
make
it
well.
It
will
work
both
ways
but
I
think
on
the
board
of
adjustment.
With
with
the
alternates,
it's
really
important
too.
If
you
feel
that
you're
gonna,
you
don't
even
want
to
you,
don't
want
to
be
deposed
over
that.
F
One
of
the
things
that's
been
brought
up
before
is
that
if
you
have,
if
there's
an
issue
or
an
item,
you
know
why
don't
we
allow
I,
don't
know
what
in
the
residential
district
it's
something
that
could
be
brought
up
to
a
Planning,
Commission
member,
but
once
there's
a
request
or
a
hearing
scheduled
or
in
discussion
on
that
item.
That's
where
that
conversation
outside
needs
a
stop
about
that
topic.
Once
it's
been
voted
on
by
you
all
right
now
you
can
now
everyone
can
hear
every
idea.
F
You've
had
and
I
bet,
there'll
be
less
people
interested
once
you
already
told
them
at
the
Planning
Commission
meeting,
but
the
bottom
line
is:
is
that
when
there's
an
application
pending?
That's
when
that's
when
you
need
to
close
the
blinders
a
little
bit
more
and
and
do
that
and
like
I
said
I
know
it's
difficult.
I
mean
the
buddy,
no
matter
where
you're
out
you're
gonna
get
brought
up
on
it.
The
point
back
to
what
was
made
by
mr.
Kay
is
what
you
were
talking
about.
F
Is
that
one
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
point
out
specifically,
is
that
as
you're
a
board
member
and
you're,
seeing
up
there,
especially
on
a
Board
of
Adjustment
adjustment
item
and
you're,
not
sure
if
maybe
I
do
have
a
conflict
of
interest.
I
think
about
the
fact
that
you're
probably
staring
right
at
an
alternate
that
doesn't
have
a
conflict
of
interest,
and
so
is
it
better
to
maybe
have
a
conflict
or
let
that
other
person
come
up.
F
And
that's
where,
like,
like
you
said,
have
those
conversations
before
the
meeting,
especially
because
I
helps
to
ensure
that
there'll
be
an
alternate
there
and
and
whether
or
not
you
feel
comfortable
doing
it
with
the
Planning
Commission
items.
And
that
was
a
point
that
I
was
leading
into
one
of
the
things
and
I'll
make
this
point
to
staff
as
well.
F
That
I
would
suggest
is
that,
if,
if
you
do
start
to
have
more
of
those
kind
more
of
those
issues
where
you
get
more
written
comments
and
that
sort
of
thing,
one
of
my
recommendations
is
that
I
will
oftentimes,
especially
if
it's
an
issue
like
a
legislative
item.
If
it's
a
if
it's
a
Planning
Commission
item
where
you're
recommending
approval
of
say
whatever
ordinance
to
allow
this
or
that
oftentimes
I'll
suggest
direct
those
towards
the
staff
have
them
have
written
so
that
essentially
in
them
staff
you
can
tally.
You
know
I
receive
27
phone
calls.
F
13
were
in
favor
of
it.
14
were
opposed
of
the
13
that
were
in
favor
of
it.
They
cited
reasons.
For
this
reason.
This
reason
this
reason
were
reasons
that
they
had,
citing
for
approving
it
of
the
14.
Here
were
some
reasons
that
they
hadn't
in
opposition
to
it.
I
do
have
record
of
all
of
those,
and
you
keep
a
record
of
anybody
that
did
talk
to
you.
I
have
record
of
that.
F
If
anyone
wants
to
review
those,
however,
the
summary
is
this
is
a
summary
of
what
I
had
heard
from
it,
and
that's
an
example
of
that.
One
of
the
other
things
that
I've
seen
is
where
a
board
member
got
emails,
sent
to
them
and
immediately.
My
suggestion
on
that
is,
if
you
get
emails,
sent
to
you
forward
them
on
to
staff,
is
the
best
thing
to
do.
B
F
This
point
at
this
point
based
on
what
we
know
and
it
becomes
more
of
a
legal
question,
but
the
bottom
line
is
not
in
the
experience
that
I've
got
and
the
experience
that
we've
seen
around
you
go
back
to
that
point
that
was
made
about.
Do
you
have
access
to
something
because
you're
on
the
board
and
I'm
gonna
tell
you
that
most
people
have
access
to
Google.
F
The
application
comes
in
and
the
site
is
between
you
and
work
that
you
have
to
take
a
different
route
to
work
it
now.
That's
that's!
Actually.
The
the
whole
point
is
that
if
the
information
is
publicly
available,
for
example,
if
you
can
see
it
from
the
street
the
right-of-way
park
on
a
street
or
something
like
that,
it's
probably
alright,
given
that
it's
a
public
publicly
available
information,
you
want
to
stop
Park
there
yeah,
that's
fine!
F
Once
you
get
into
the
point
where
you're
pulling
into
the
yard,
you
may
even
be
able
to
pull
into
the
driveway
into
the
parking
lot
and
and
look
at
that
information.
But
once
you
see
someone
walking
out
at
you
now
you
don't
squeal
the
tires
and
run
away.
That's
just
creepy,
but
the
bottom
line
is
that
you
do
want
to.
You
need
to
avoid
those
instances
where
you
might
get
specific
information
and
at
that
point,
you're
just
gonna
have
to
friendly
wave
and
have
to
be
on
your
way.
Don't.
A
Just
a
quick
question:
if,
if
some
of
that
activity
happens,
where
you
get
in
too
deep
to
the
conversation
before
you,
you
realize
that
I
think
one
other
option
is
to
make
sure
that
that
person
comes
to
the
public
hearing
or
comes
directly
to
the
whole
board
and
restates
their
case
that
can
eliminate
as
long
as
all
the
discussion
is
before
the
entire
board.
Does
that
help
the
discussion
or
not?
It's.
F
Probably
the
only
way
to
try
and
save
it.
However,
you
go
back
to
the
ability
of
you
go
back
to
the
question
of.
Is
there
the
perception
that
an
unacceptable
risk
was
occurring
and
that's
the
bigger
concern,
if
you,
if
you
do
that,
so
that's
yes,
that's
probably
the
best
way
to
try
and
save
it,
but
it's
not
gonna
guarantee
that
that's
gonna
save
you,
the
the
this
best
practices
slide
came
out
of.
C
F
First
point:
once
an
applications
made
don't
go
on
a
field
trip,
that's
probably
the
best
way
to
do
it,
but
there
are
ways
where
you
can.
You
can
hold
a
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
meeting.
You
can
hold
a
Planning
Commission
meeting
somewhere
else,
there's
nothing
against
holding
a
meeting
somewhere
else,
but
it's
a
meeting.
It's
a
public
hearing.
It's
a
you
know
it's
a
it's!
F
A
public
meeting,
so
you're
gonna
have
to
post
that
you
have
post
where
it's
at
you're
gonna
have
to
post
what's
going
on
and
the
topics
and
that
it
will
be
a
part
of
the
discussion,
and
the
problem
is,
is
that
when
you're
say
you're
on
a
tour,
unless
you're
walking
around
like
this
almost
holding
hands
wandering
around
there,
you
can't
guarantee
that
one
board
member
didn't
hear
something
different.
That's
why
it's
advisable
prot!
Do
that
and.
F
That,
if
there's,
if
you're,
getting
the
free,
tacos
or
or
what-have-you
out
there,
that's
something
to
avoid
again
before
there's
any
sorts
of
applications
or
any
questions
on
that
matter.
That's
fine
there!
Afterwards,
that's
fine,
too,
but
I
think
the
tacos
aren't
you're,
probably
be
paying
for
your
tacos
after
that
I
just
a
couple
of
things:
I'm,
not
gonna,
read
all
of
these
to
you.
But
again
you
asked
yourself
in
your
state's
attorney.
F
If
you
feel
like
you
do
have
these
these
conflicts
of
interest
is
my
potential
conflict
different
than
a
regular
member
of
the
pillar,
any
other
member
of
the
public
out
there
make
sure
you
disclose
it
in
and
one
of
the
items
that
out
there-
and
we
suggest
this
where
we
go,
is
that
you
offer
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
request
a
matter
to
be
acted
on
postponed
it
withdraw
pending
the
information
based
on
it.
They've
got
a
clear
vision
of
what's
going
on
with
the
board.
F
They
know
that
this
person's
are
there
and
and
if
they've
got
a
problem
with
the
fact
that
you
were
that
you
may
or
may
not
have
a
potential
conflict
and
they
can.
They
can
address
that
at
that
time
as
well,
and
so
they
can
request
a
handle
it
differently
and
and
then
it
would
be
up
to
the
board
as
to
whether
or
not
they
want
on
or
that
or
not
in
that
case,
but
again
I.
G
F
Know
basically
you're
any
it's
a
good
question
as
far
as
an
application,
none
that's
the
bottom
line
from
your
own
personal
standpoint,
then
it's
it's!
Your
own
I
mean
you're.
Gonna
have
to
use
your
own,
your
own
conscience
on
that,
but
the
bottom
line
is,
is
that
is
it
with
regard
to
an
application?
Your
conversation
goes
through
your
staff,
and
so
it's
very
much
like
a
like
a
bad
TV
show.
E
F
You
can
watch
that
or
else
you
might
get
to
have
yourself
a
chair
out
in
the
waiting
room
until
first
one.
So
but
yes,
they
can
definitely
come
to
staff
and
that's
the
whole
point
is
that
if
there's
something
you
drive
by,
you
go
to
a
site
and
you
look
at
and
you're
curious
about
something
that
you'd
like
to
know
more
about
before.
You
go
knock
on
that
door.
Think
about
the
idea
that
you
know
who
really
can
knock
on
that
door.
It's
Ken
and
it's
Jill
and
that's
Brandi,
and
it's
it's
your
staff.
F
They
can
go,
do
that
they
can
take
the
picture.
They
can
take
the
notes
they
can
bring
that
to
you
you're
able
to
do
research
on
the
topic.
It's
just
got
to
be
information,
that's
publicly
available
and
if
you
have
a
question
chances
are
someone
in
the
public
has
the
same
question,
and
so
it
makes
perfect
sense
and
that's
why
you
ask
your
staff
to
go,
find
out
more
information
about
it.
Otherwise,
you're
just
blind
siding
staff
you're
not
supposed
to
enter
their
room
blind
with
blinders
on
either
there's
a
good
question.
F
D
A
A
I
do
have
one
item
of
old
business,
just
an
update.
The
City
Council
did
pass
the
modifications
to
the
Gateway
overlay
district
as
provided
or
discussed
by
the
Planning
Commission.
However,
there
was
an
additional
directive
and
that
was
to
go
in
and
we
are
being
asked
to
prepare
some
additional
clarification
language
in
there,
and
so
staff
will
be
doing
that
and
we'll
probably
have
a
small
community,
the
same
small
community
meeting
that
met
what
the
other
changes
will
briefly
run.
A
Those
by
them
you'll
eventually
get
something
back,
but
they
did,
they
did
pass
it
the
way
the
planning
commission
also
recommended
it,
and
so
that
will
be
the
law
of
the
land
and
tell
these
minor
changes
come
forward,
but
they
decided
to
pass
it
as
is,
and
then
redress
the
minor
issues.
So
there's
not
big
big
issues
up,
there's
just
small
stuff,
but
just
I'd.
Let
you
know
that
you
will
see
something
from
staff
again.