Planning commission approves short‑form final plat for four‑lot Emmett Country Homes; rezoning to Suburban Residential recommended to county commissioners

The Dickinson County Planning Commission approved a short‑form final plat for the Emmett Country Homes subdivision and forwarded a companion rezoning request from AG‑80 (agricultural) to Suburban Residential to the county commissioners at its meeting.

Staff recommended approval of FP 25‑01, a single‑phase, four‑lot short‑form final plat, conditioned on standard county permits and proof of water service if public water is used. The commission then voted to recommend rezoning the parcel to Suburban Residential; that rezoning will be heard by the county commissioners after the required public notice and 14‑day petition period.

The plat would divide the subject parcel into four lots ranging from about 8.6 to 10.9 acres, to be served by private wells and septic systems or, if chosen by buyers, by the local rural water district. Tim, a planning staff member, told the commission that because the proposal is fewer than five lots and requires no new public infrastructure, county subdivision rules allow processing this as a short‑form final plat and that the county engineer did not recommend a traffic study.

In recommending approval, staff noted that required utility easements were added to the plat before the meeting: a frontage easement along 1500 Avenue/Camp Road was adjusted from 10 feet to 15 feet and an additional 20‑foot easement was placed along the south line of Lot 4. Staff’s written conditions require that county building permits, driveway permits, and environmental permits be applied for each lot and that if lots use rural water, the applicant must provide proof from the water district that service will be provided prior to issuance of residential building permits.

Members of the public raised questions during the hearing. One resident asked how the zoning change would affect property taxes and expressed concern that new rural homeowners might complain about agricultural odors and operations; Tim and staff responded that building‑permit zoning and property tax classification are separate processes at different offices. Another speaker who said she owned a well asked whether private well water had been tested for nitrate levels; staff said environmental services requires water testing when building permits are applied for and would restrict use if tests show high nitrates. Several speakers raised road and access concerns for Camp Road and Magnolia Road; staff and the road and bridge department said driveway placement and drainage showed no initial issues but explained that private driveway improvements are commonly required where existing roads need upgrades.

Applicant Danae Houser told the commission the owners plan to market the parcels to residential buyers; she said rural water has confirmed three additional taps would be acceptable on the existing line but that some buyers may choose wells. Houser explained the family’s decision to subdivide followed the closure of their business and health issues affecting Mike Houser.

The commission also discussed future splits and covenants. Staff explained that under subdivision regulations an individual lot may be administratively split once without replating; additional splits generally require replating the subdivision. Commissioners suggested the Houser family consider deed covenants or developer restrictions to address issues such as further lot splits or design standards.

The planning commission’s recommendation to rezone the parcels to Suburban Residential will go to the Dickinson County Commissioners; public notice and a petition process apply. Staff said a valid protest petition received within 14 days from recipients of mailed notice could change the county commission’s approval threshold to a super‑majority vote.

Votes at a glance: the planning record shows the commission moved and seconded approval of FP 25‑01 and separately moved and seconded to recommend rezoning Z25‑01 from AG‑80 to Suburban Residential; the transcript records that both motions passed. The transcript does not include a complete roll‑call vote tally by name in the record provided; the staff record shows at least one abstention on the plat motion but a final numerical roll call is not specified in the meeting transcript excerpt.

The rezoning record, with staff findings that the proposed SR zoning is consistent with surrounding low‑density residential and agricultural uses and that rural water is available, will be transmitted to the county commissioners for final action after the statutory notice and appeal period.