Clay County planning panel recommends denying variance and countywide changes to allow cannabis or commercial reuse at Baker elevator

The Clay County Planning Commission on Jan. 20 recommended denying a set of requests from property owner Scott Doms that would have made it easier to reuse a historic grain elevator in Baker for commercial purposes, including a petitioned countywide text amendment to reduce residential setbacks for cannabis businesses and to shrink the minimum commercial lot size.

Staff presented the requests as two related actions: (1) a variance to reduce road centerline and side-yard setbacks and (2) a countywide text amendment to lower the adjacent-residence setback for cannabis from 500 feet to 250 feet in Ag Service Center zoning and to reduce the minimum commercial lot size from 1 acre to 0.5 acre. Staff noted the subject property is a 0.43-acre parcel with an existing grain elevator and is currently served by holding tanks; staff emphasized that a variance alone would not authorize commercial occupancy — separate conditional-use or interim-use review would still be required.

The applicant, Scott Doms, argued the rules were written for larger, greenfield lots and that Agricultural Service Center districts historically developed as compact, mixed-use nodes around rail and road, meaning many ASC parcels cannot meet current lot-size or setback standards. “If a use is allowed in the district, that ordinance should make that use realistically achievable on the lots that exist in that district,” Doms told the commission.

Residents of Baker and Alliance Township spoke strongly against the proposal. Shane Thompson, who said his family has farmed in the area since 1887, opposed any change and warned the town lacked policing and parking for increased commercial traffic. “There is no parking there, and it’s just a bad idea in a small town,” Thompson said. Several neighbors — including Nate Edwards, Christy Donovan and Richard Donovan — said Doms had not consulted nearby residents, expressed concerns about traffic, loitering, and impacts to nearby daycare and softball fields, and provided photos and petition signatures to the commission.

Commissioners cited several concerns in the record during deliberations: lack of a surveyed site plan demonstrating exact setbacks; uncertainty about wastewater and septic compliance on a sub‑acre lot served by holding tanks; potential for increased traffic and parking demands in the small town; and the risk that broad countywide changes would undercut protections the commission and county previously adopted. Several commissioners said they preferred handling individual variance requests through site-specific review rather than a blanket text amendment.

On a motion by Commissioner Steichen, seconded and carried by voice vote, the commission voted to recommend denial of the variance/text-amendment package to the Clay County Board of Commissioners. One commissioner recused from the later county-level vote. The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the county board will take the final decision at a future meeting.

The commission also tabled a separate, closely related minimum-lot-size variance for the same property to the Feb. 17 meeting at the applicant’s request so the applicant can correct paperwork and provide additional documentation.

What’s next: The planning commission forwarded its recommendation to the Clay County Board of Commissioners for a final decision; the applicant can supply revised materials or pursue the matter at the county board hearing.