Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Nathan Watkins

Vote: 6 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicant Jeff Thiede provided an applicant's statement following staff's presentation. No one present spoke in favor or against the request. The applicant waived his rebuttal.

Commission discussion: No Commission discussion.

Staff recommended forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with no conditions attached.

Vote: 9 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Nathan Watkins, Second by Member Jim Martzke Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicants Dan and Rose Weber were present but had nothing to add to staff's presentation. No one present spoke in favor or against the request. The applicant waived their rebuttal.

Commission discussion: No Commission discussion.

Staff recommended forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with no conditions attached.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicants Jonathan and Ashley Longnecker provided an applicant's statement following staff's presentation. No one present spoke in favor or against the request. The applicants waived their rebuttal.

Commission discussion: No Commission discussion.

Staff recommended forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with no conditions attached.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Jim Martzke Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicant Vici Seaver provided an applicant's statement following staff's presentation. She explained the existence of a one-acre parcel under different ownership in between her parcels. No one present spoke in favor or against the request. The applicant waived her rebuttal.

Commission discussion: No Commission discussion.

Staff recommended forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with no conditions attached. This was a dual motion for the zoning and comp plan docket.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicant Kirk Stearns and his wife Natasha Stearns provided an applicant's statement following staff's presentation. Ted Hass spoke in support of the request. Jack DiGrado spoke in opposition of the request, because of dust and noise. Todd Miller spoke in opposition to the request. He read letters from two other neighbors. All had noise, traffic, and property value concerns. Benjamin Thomas spoke in support of the request. He stated the business provided jobs and local services. The applicants provided a rebuttal, mentioned proactive measures taken to address compatibility and efforts to find alternate property.

Commission discussion: Vice Chair Montgomery asked what was being fabricated onsite. The applicants responded that they provided various farm-related fabrications, Member Gonzalez stated he felt the applicants were beneficial to the local economy. Member Watkins asked how the material was broken into. The applicant stated most was on a flat-bed trailer. Member Watkins added that it looked like a clean operation from the photos and this would be allowable by right as a hobby shop. Vice Chair Montgomery complimented the applicants on their presentation and their efforts to accommodate the neighbors. Member Martzke asked about their hours of operation. Member Fickett mentioned that she operated a similar business and worked with their neighbors, especially those not from rural locations. She wanted to keep young families in the community. Chair DePew asked whether the applicants had sought feedback on their noise reduction efforts to date. The applicants responded they were not aware there was an issue until they got some negative responses to their request. Chair DePew asked what their transition plans were. Member Watkins asked whether the building was insulated. The applicant responded not yet. Member Limbach confirmed whether this was their intent to eventually insulate the building. The applicant confirmed. Chair DePew reminded the commission of their consideration requirements and asked staff to clarify whether the special use would remain valid after sale of the land.

Staff recommended approval with conditions attached related to hours of operation, screening, vehicular entrance to the site, location of permitted business activity, and application of onsite gravel.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved