The Clinton County Area Plan Commission on Wednesday continued consideration of application CCDash2025Dash01086, a request by applicant Casey Byrne for primary approval of the Tab Minor Subdivision, a one‑lot minor subdivision on a 0.76‑acre parcel in an A‑1 agricultural district.

Commission staff told members the property had previously held a single house trailer that was removed in 2021 and that the parcel’s small size made it a legal nonconforming lot until recent variances were granted. Staff said the Board of Zoning Appeals approved three variances on Aug. 27, 2024, and the health department has granted a variance from the perimeter drain requirement contingent on placing a mound septic system and reserving a set‑aside location for future septic replacement.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing urged the commission to delay approval. Eric Keith, a property owner immediately behind the lot, said he believed a prior parcel split had been handled improperly and told the commission, "I don't think a house should be built there." Michael Girardi, who owns property to the west, said the site’s current septic configuration "doesn't meet those guidelines," referring to modern setback requirements.

Staff and the commission replied that septic permits and technical setbacks are under the health department’s purview, not the Area Plan Commission’s. An unidentified staff member told the commission that "state law is clear that if [a subdivision] meets the standards, it must be approved," and that APC cannot overturn health‑department approvals. The staff presentation noted the health department had provided written approvals for both the existing system and the set‑aside location for a mound system.

During board discussion commissioners acknowledged the neighborhood tensions — including concerns about livestock setbacks and historic drainage issues — but also noted that subdivision decisions are constrained by written standards in the subdivision ordinance. A motion to approve the subdivision was made and seconded; the initial roll call produced three affirmative votes and no recorded negatives, which the chair said did not carry given the commission’s composition and absences.

Commissioners then debated whether to identify a specific subdivision standard that was not met (and direct revisions) or to continue the matter to a meeting with a fuller membership. The commission voted to continue the application to its next regular meeting on Jan. 6 so additional members could participate. Staff said they will contact interested residents with details about time and venue once logistics are finalized.

The meeting also included a brief announcement from staff that initial interviews for a building inspector position are underway and invited commissioners to participate in second interviews. The commission confirmed its next meeting date and adjourned.

The commission’s next formal consideration of application CCDash2025Dash01086 is scheduled for Jan. 6; staff and neighbors may submit additional materials or testimony in the interim.