January 24, 2012
Special Meeting
Antelope County Board
Neligh, Nebraska
The Antelope County Board of
Supervisor’s convened in special session on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM in the County Supervisor’s room, Antelope County Courthouse annex, Neligh,
Nebraska. Special
meeting was called for in accordance with Nebraska State Statute Section
23-273. Special meeting was called for
the purpose of conducting a public hearing to amend the zoning
regulations. Meeting called to order by
Chairman Kerkman with the following board members responding to roll call:
Brandt, Schwager, Baker, Williby, Henery and Kerkman. Bolling appeared at 10:19AM. Chairman
Kerkman stated that the open meeting laws are posted on the east wall of the
Supervisor’s room with more copies available at the County Clerk’s office.
Notice of the meeting was
given in advance thereof by publication in the four county newspapers, legal
newspapers printed and in general circulation in Antelope County, Nebraska as shown by proof of publication filed in the County Clerk’s office. A
letter and agenda for said meeting was sent to all members of the County Board of Supervisor’s.
Chairman Kerkman opened the
public hearing at 10:01 AM with the
following board members responding to roll call: Brandt, Schwager, Baker,
Williby, Henery and Kerkman. Bolling absent at the time of roll call. Antelope County Zoning Administrator Char Carpenter as well as several
individuals from the public was also in attendance. Chairman Kerkman read the proof of publication
which was published in the Neligh News and Leader, Clearwater Record, Elgin
Review and Orchard News and stated that the meeting was for the purpose of
reviewing and/or amending zoning
regulations 1005 and 1007; 501.03 subsection 1; and 501.05 subsection 6; 502.05
subsection 8, 503.05 subsection 8 and 303.
Chairman Kerkman asked for information from Antelope County Zoning
Administrator Char Carpenter. Carpenter
– where doing possible amendments.
Changes would affect Section 1005 and 1007 to change the written
statements that go out to the applicants after public hearing. Currently states its 7 days we would like to
change that to 14 days to give Carolyn a little more time. Sometimes when she is really busy that time –
7 days is kind of crowding her. It
doesn’t affect me too much but another 7 days isn’t going to hurt either, so
that’s one change. Section 501.03
Subsection 1 makes it a conditional use instead of a permitted principal use
and that’s for commercial grain and produce storage uses, including storage
warehouses and grain elevators. I will
elaborate a little bit. Meuret’s, they
added on a grain bin last summer, they did not have to go through zoning it was
a permitted principal use. They didn’t
have to do the public hearing; they still filed a permit with me and everything
that way. No conditional use was
needed. We’re going to change that or
would like to change that to make another conditional use so then it does have
to come back through the public hearing process. Kind of goes along with the rest of the
anhydrous stuff that we’ve been talking about; so that’s one of the changes
we’d like to look into. Section 501.05
Subsection 6, 502.05 Subsection 8 and 503.05 Subsection 8 deals with the
commercial fuel and fertilizer bulk plants – changing that a little bit to make
it more user friendly for everyone.
Putting a definition in of bulk storage – we don’t have a definition at
the moment so we changed things that really needs to be in there – as a
definition so we know what we’re talking about.
That’s what we have at the moment, any questions. Chairman Kerkman asked if the board had any
questions about the amendments. Kerkman
– were these recommendations by the (Carpenter interrupted). Carpenter – this is all
recommendations from the Planning Commission.
We’ve done their public hearings it’s now on your table. Schwager – okay beings these are
changed like this Char – do they have to come back and get a permit for each
one of these or does that change that? Carpenter
– it would just - this
comes out of CVA’s (Central Valley Ag) everyone knows
wants to put in the bulk fertilizer tanks and anhydrous tanks. Right know there’s a quarter of a mile
setback. This would change that to 500
feet and then it’s still is a conditional use permit and it would come back
before both boards and you could add conditions on to it to mitigate any other
potential problems you see, they can’t just out right do it without doing a
conditional use permit. Schwager
– so otherwise you’re telling me that we’re changing these cause
of the bulk plant for CVA up there. Carpenter
– that’s kind of the jist of it and anybody else. I mean if Meuret’s wants to come back and
they want to put in bulk fertilizer and anhydrous down the line they’ll have to
follow the same rules and regs. Williby
– how did you come up with the number?
Was this the State? Carpenter
– this is the States recommendations we’ve took in the State Fire Marshall’s
code is what we’re following and I have that downstairs if you want me to get
it. Carpenter was asked to get the fire
marshals code. Kerkman – are
neighboring counties also adopting this on grain elevators and so forth
too? Carpenter – I don’t know the
answer to that. Carpenter handed out the
Fire Marshall’s code. Carpenter –
when I did do my own research – this is kind of standard throughout the
planet. Canada kinda follows the same things. It’s nothing unusually with the State Fire Marshall’s
stuff. No further questions from the
board. Chairman Kerkman opened the public
portion of the hearing at 10:10 AM and asked for those in favor of the changes to testify. Karl Hensley – I’m an employee of
CVA. I guess I’d just like to cover a
few things. The information that you’re
looking at is provided by the American Standards which the Fire Marshall in
most States adopt as well as all the other industries so it’s nothing that CVA
is doing particularly but it’s a well known fact that all your major
manufactures all follow the same guidelines.
The other thing I’d like to just encourage you guys to go ahead and vote
in favor of changing the language; I understand that this was all brought up
because of CVA’s proposal site but actually the
language change today is basically to promote more business opportunities in
Antelope County which I think we all should encourage. Another point I’d like to make I think what
we’re doing there is a state of the art facility meets all the state federal,
environmental regulations and what we are trying to do is bring business
opportunity to Antelope County and also brings tax base which is good and so
we’d appreciate your in favor vote. Chairman
Kerkman asked if there was anyone else who wanted to testify; none stated. Chairman Kerkman as for those opposed to the
amendments to testify. Sally Finch
– asked about the language and changes made to the storage tanks. I’m just curious as to where its sitting;
whether its 2 – 30,000 gallons tanks or whether it’s a total for the whole
facility or as far as the setbacks are concerned because the Planning
Commission was wanting to change how it was originally presented. A copy of the proposed amendments was handed
out. Finch – so is says that with
a capacity of more than 30,000 gallons, but less than 100,000 gallons – that is
for the whole facility or that’s per tank – that’s my question because that discussion
was held at the Planning Commission and I’m just wondering what you’re voting
on today – which way is it? Kerkman
- I’d have to
call on one of you to answer that question?
(Kerkman was referring to the CVA representatives present). Finch – Well that should be part of
the regulations. I mean is the
regulations stating that – it says that the “explosive or poisonous gas
materials storage tanks with a capacity of more than 30,000 gallons or less the
minimum separation shall be 500 feet.” Carpenter
– I believe it was per tank if I remember right. Finch – and one of the comments that
was stated at the Zoning Commission was that it shouldn’t really matter if
there’s one tank or two tanks as long as its under that amount because the
chances of both of those tanks having a failure or something at the same time
is practically impossible, which that’s true.
But the more tanks you set there no matter how many there is the more
valves you have the more – to me – the higher percentage you have of something
happening. So I think it should be in the reverse it should be considered by
the number of tanks there are not necessarily the quantity. Do you understand what I’m saying? So if you have ten tanks there you have ten
valves you have a much higher percentage of something happening than if you do
with one tank and one valve. And I think
the way they were taking at the Planning Commission that night – to me they
were thinking of it backwards they were like saying – well whatever it doesn’t
matter how many tanks you have they’re not all going to go bad at the same
time. Carpenter – and if I
remember right – guys look in your State Fire Marshall’s - they follow the
State Fire Marshall – cause Orville had written it the other way and they
decided not to do it that way they wanted to do it the State Fire Marshall so
it was already something that was stated.
Finch – I really think for clarification you need – per tank – it
should say that in your regulations because that question is going to come back
to you next time. Carpenter – and
that can be adopted as part of the amendments today if that’s what the board
wants to do. Finch – and then my
only other comment is I think we’ve all resolved ourselves to the fact that
this is going to happen. So I guess I’m
putting it upon you to make them make it be safe; and I know they’re saying they’re going to be
good neighbors – we’ve heard that and heard it, heard it but the comment came
up that a sprinkler system or something could be put on this as a safeguard so
that if there is a leak it pretty much stops any harmful thing right then and
there – their comment was well that’s going to cost us more money and we have
to pass that on to our customers – and I guess I feel like that if you want to
be a good neighbor then you shouldn’t have to make it mandatory that they put
it on there, they should be willing to do that, but obviously they’re not so I
would plead to you to please at least make them do that. Carpenter – and that’s something that
when it comes back for a public hearing that that would be a condition. Finch – and also of course naturally
the place I’m concerned about is my mothers which is directly south of this and
you know how many south winds we have in this country so I think she is put at
risk so I think at least that is something that needs to be done. Chairman Kerkman asked if there were comments
from anyone else. Ken Schwager –
I’m opposed to it but I’m not opposed to bringing new business into Antelope County. This question
was brought up from the governor’s office and they want to know what is the real legal reason for changing this? Is there a principal that you’ve got to
follow that you want to change these regulations and can they be changed again
down the road? Maybe 500 feet isn’t
close enough. Carpenter – yep –
nothing is ever written in stone – amendments can always be done. Comprehensive plans change, your vision for
your county changes. A request needs to
be made to the Planning Commission to look at changing regs. Things change over time. Schwager – so otherwise you’re saying
– not CVA or anybody at this fertilizer plant – if they want a change some of
this they can come back to the zoning board and change it to 250 feet or 150. Carpenter – yep, and it can always be
changed at a conditional use public hearing if we’re doing a specific permit –
maybe conditions aren’t right for the 500 feet, maybe it would be 750 feet or
200 feet. It’d be a condition that you
could add on to that permit specifically and any other safety measurers can be
added specifically to any permit.
Kerkman asked if there was anyone else opposed who wanted to testify;
none stated. Chairman Kerkman asked if
there was anyone present who is neutral to the permit and would like to
testify; none started. Chairman Kerkman
asked for other testimony; none stated.
Chairman Kerkman asked Carpenter if she had any clarifications that
needed to be made at this time; none stated.
Supervisor Bolling appeared at 10:19 AM and asked what regulations were being changed. Carpenter reviewed the proposed changes with
him. The per
tank language was discussed and it was pointed out that in the Subsection 6 at
the bottom it does state “per tank basis.”
Chairman Kerkman closed the public portion of the hearing at 10:28 AM and asked for a motion from the board. Motion by Henery, seconded by Baker to accept
the Planning Commissions changes to zoning regulations 1005, 1007, 501.03
Subsection 1, 501.05 Subsection 6, 502.05 Subsection 8 and 503.05 Subsection 8
and 303 Subsection 15. Those voting aye:
Bolling, Brandt, Schwager, Baker, Williby, Henery and Kerkman. Nays none. Motion carried. Motion by Schwager,
seconded by Brandt to adjourn.
Those voting aye: Brandt, Baker, Williby, Schwager, Bolling, Henery and
Kerkman. Nays none. Motion carried. Hearing closed at 10:29 AM.
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 AM. ANTELOPE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By: _______________________________________
Chairman of County Board
Attest: ____________________________________
Antelope County Clerk