Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conditional Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends keeping farm business after owner removes dilapidated house
Summary
The McPherson County planning board voted to recommend approval of conditional use case CUD-25-0102, allowing an existing agricultural business to remain after the property owner removes a dilapidated house. The board struck a condition that would have required all equipment and materials be stored inside.
The McPherson County Planning Board (sitting as the Zoning Appeals Board) voted to recommend approval of conditional use case CUD-25-0102, allowing an existing agricultural business to remain on the property after the owner removes a deteriorated residence. The board approved the recommendation after modifying conditions to remove a storage requirement.
The request stems from a previously approved conditional use from October 2020 that allowed an accessory shop to operate tied to an on-site house. Zoning Administrator John told the board the current house on the property is in such disrepair it must be removed; the property owner has since purchased another residence nearby and moved off the parcel. "About a year ago... he purchased the second property and has, since moved into the new house, because the house that's currently on this property is in a state of disrepair and cannot be fixed," John said.
John said the agricultural shop has been used for maintenance and storage for agricultural spreaders and related equipment and that the property (approximately 37–40 acres) remains in an A-1 agricultural zoning district. He summarized the prior conditional-use conditions, including that the shop had to remain accessory to a residence and that no subdivision was permitted. "It does not prohibit him from building a house on the property in the future," John told the board, adding that a future house would require only a zoning permit rather than a new conditional use if the board's recommendation is approved.
The applicant, Jesse Kane, spoke briefly and agreed with the administrator's summary. "I don't have a lot to add to what John presented... I don't have any plans of building a house really in the future," Kane said.
During deliberations the board considered the standard 17 factors in the case report. One point of focus was condition 6 of the proposed conditions, which would have required "All equipment, supplies, materials, salvage materials, et al., shall be stored within an enclosed structure or surrounded by fencing or screening and not stored out in the open uncovered." A board member moved to strike condition 6 on the grounds that the requirement would be difficult for many farmers to meet; that motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. A board member (unnamed in the record) said, "It's an ag based business. Where else you gonna put an ag based business?... I'm all for it," during discussion.
The board's recommendation, with the modified conditions, will be forwarded to the governing body, the McPherson County Board of County Commissioners, for final action. The chair announced a 14-day period during which protest petitions may be filed with the county clerk; the board noted that if properly signed protest petitions representing 20% or more of the affected property owners are filed, state law requires a three-fourths vote of the governing body to approve the change. The staff packet and the case report were provided to board members at the meeting.
No public speakers testified against the request at this hearing. The board closed the public comment period before deliberation and recorded its recommendation as noted.
The case will now proceed to the governing body for its final decision.
