Saline County Study
Committee
Monday, July 24, 2000
Saline County Extension Office, Marshall
Minutes
Saline County Study Members Present: Mark Belwood, Kathy
Borgman, Wayne McReynolds, LeAnn Haling, Richard Clemens, Becky Plattner, Roy Hunter, Marc
Harris
Saline County Study Members Absent: Ruthie Cramer, Vince Buck
Saline County Commissioners Absent: John Stouffer, Mike Dillon, Richard Pemberton
Saline County Extension Staff Present: Darin
Starr
Saline County Extension Staff Absent: Rachel
Miles, Cynthia Crawford
University Partners Present: Anna Cox
University Partners Absent: John Lory, Tom Johnson, Chris Barnett, Kathy Miller,
Mubarak Hamed, Chris Fulcher, Dr. Ron Powers Jim Meyer, Jerry Organ, Wendy Pettersen
Marshall Democrat News: Chris Post
Chairman Mark Belwood called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. He announced LeAnn Haling had a business conflict
that prevented her attendance, and Vince Buck had already informed us he could not attend
this meeting. Mark replied to the letter from
Bill Livengood and copies have been sent to committee members via e-mail or hard copy. Jerry Organ’s report is now on the web page. Jim Meyer is working on the data layer update. The preference ranking will soon be on the web. A representative of the Farm Bureau could not
attend tonight. We will discuss dates for
future meeting later in the meeting.
Mark asked if anyone wanted the names recorded on the health
ordinance vote. The sunshine law does not
require it. There was no request that names
be recorded. The minutes of the July 10
meeting were approved as printed. Mark
Belwood requested we clarify the issue of whether the chairman should vote on all issues
or only vote to break a tie. Richard Clemens
moved, Roy Hunter seconded, that the chair be a voting member of the committee. The motion carried. This is consistent with parliamentary procedure. If there is a tie, it remains a tie and the motion
does not pass.
Mark presented his “state of the recommendation
speech”. He identified three part of the
puzzle: Planning and Zoning and a good
neighbor policy, the agriculture exemption from P & Z question and the health
ordinance question. Mark suggested we draft a
plan and take it to the public before the commissioners.
Members of the committee felt it best to move ahead and make final recommendation
soon.
Mark ruled that motions about health ordinances would be out of
order until our Planning and Zoning recommendation has been mostly completed. Mark asked
Richard Clemens for clarification on the health ordinance motion made at the last meeting. It stated that we would not recommend a health
ordinance “at this time”. Richard
commented, “if you can show me there is a health problem because of odor, then
let’s consider the health ordinance again”.
LeAnn sent a proposal for a “Good Neighbor Policy”
that would require notification by landowners to their neighbors in advance of a change in
land usage. There would be a waiting period
and an equalization board of three people from each of our townships to mediate disputes
or refer to planning and zoning board or commissioners.
Jerry Organ’s initial response via e-mail was that the
idea of the good neighbor policy is a good one, however, there are legal problems. He does not feel the county can create these types
of “township boards” because they are not expressly provided for in the zoning
enabling statutes. In discussion, while
members felt the idea sounded good, they thought it would be extremely difficult to make
it work. For example, to find 33 people in
the county willing to serve on such a board that really does not have any authority would
be no small task.
Not coming to a definite conclusion about the good neighbor
policy, the group turned attention to reasons for recommending planning and zoning. They are as follows:
We have gathered a large amount of information, including the
GIS data layer that would be helpful for planning and zoning.
We have preference ranking information to help develop a plan.
We have the web site with the ability to keep everyone informed.
Planning and zoning will keep people talking and involved.
Planning and zoning allows us to plan for the future, to be proactive and not
reactive.
Planning and zoning allows for the vote of the people.
Planning and zoning keeps control in the local community.
Planning and zoning allows for evolution and change over time.
Planning and zoning follows our mission statement.
Planning and zoning deals with more issues that just CAFO’s.
Planning and zoning provides opportunity to protect natural resources.
Planning and zoning has been around for a long time and no one has come up with a better
solution.
We should reference our studies in our recommendation. We should definitely operate under the statues
that allow for appointing a temporary planning and zoning board that presents a plan for
the vote of the people. We should ask the
planning and zoning commission to implement a good neighbor policy.
There are some negatives to Planning and Zoning. They are as follows:
Planning and zoning only affects a small area because
agriculture is exempt from county planning and zoning.
Planning and zoning creates more regulations, more government, and more people telling
others what to do.
Planning and zoning could hinder development.
Richard Clemens moved, Roy Hunter seconded, that Mark Belwood
draft a planning and zoning recommendation for our next meeting. Mark will provide copies for review before the
meeting. Motion carried.
Richard Clemens and Becky Plattner will invite Jay Plattner,
Vice-President of the Farm Bureau or Tom Crawford, from the Policy department of the Farm
Bureau, to attend our next meeting August 7, 7:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to ascertain what action the Farm Bureau is
planning concerning the sunset clause on current CAFO regulations. We may have some kind
of recommendation concerning legislative action on removal of agriculture as exemption
from planning and zoning, or classification of large CAFOS as industrial vs. agricultural.
Mark noted he received a call from Howard Bailey after the
report of our last meeting indicating we were not pursuing the health ordinance. Bailey’s comment was that they presented
testimony to nose and eye watering and they won the case.
Meeting adjourned 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Borgman, recorder
This web site is hosted by CARES- University
of Missouri - Columbia
This web site is maintained jointly by the Saline County Study Steering
Committee and CARES
For problems or questions regarding this web contact the Saline
County Steering Committee or Chris
Fulcher (CARES).
Last updated: October 13, 2000
