by Stephanie Croston

    The Seward County Planning Commission held its public hearing on the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations Jan. 29 with between 50 and 60 people attending. After two-and-a-half hours of testimony and discussion, the commission board voted to table action on both the plan and the zoning regulations.
     The commission's next regular meeting will be Monday, Feb. 26.
     A motion to adopt the comprehensive plan with the discussed changes failed on a 4-4 vote with one board member abstaining. Motions to table both the plan and the zoning regulations passed.
     Twenty different people addressed the board during the hearing, with their concerns focused in two areas-the proposed industrial tract spanning six square miles east of Tamora and the proposed zoning in the eastern quarter of the county.
     With regard to the industrial area, which is the proposed site of an ethanol plan, most of those speaking addressed its impact on the surrounding area, including the city of Seward's wellfield.
     In addition to the water concerns, Bob Tempel asked about the extra space an industry would need if it required rail access. He told the board he had talked to John Ridder of Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad, who told him both a loop and a lateral turnaround would require an additional 100 acres and must have enough room to hold 95 cars.
     Tempel also pointed out the potential effects on the nearby wetlands with possible air and water pollution.
     Jim Winney, who retired to Seward, also talked about the environmental impact of industry in that area. Jessica Brandl encouraged the commission to consider the aesthetic values of Seward.
     Marvin reminded those attending that skip annexation, which has been discussed by the village of Utica for the ethanol plant, would supercede any county zoning.
     The question of zoning in the eastern part of the county then took center stage. The area is included in a water conservation overlay, which adds additional requirements to development, including a central distribution system for a regional or rural water system. That would be required if the population density tops that allowed in the district for which that area is zoned.
     "The soils are poor for water and recharge," Marvin said.
     The western boundary for the area is where the glaciers stopped their march south and dumped their rocks, soils and other detritus.
     Monty Klintworth of Pleasant Dale asked that the transitional ag (TA) district on the proposed county zoning map be changed. He suggested keeping the TA district around the towns' extraterritorial jurisdictions but changing the rest of the proposed TA designation to agriculture. The proposed map shows a TA district between Garland and the county line and along each of the county's paved roads.
     Don Baack, planning commission chair, said the area was set up to try to keep residences along the paved roads and limit the gravel road access issues.
     "If this is adopted, it will double the number of houses," Klintworth said. "That map needs to be changed in a big way."
     Anne Warner of Garland cited a lack of support from area residents and water issues as the primary reasons she was against the TA districts in the water conservation overlay. She said there was not enough groundwater in the area to support four houses per quarter, which would be allowed in a TA district.
     "We have to look at the worst case," she said.
     Marvin suggested adding a requirement that any development in that area have a central water distribution system for a regional or rural water district.
     Walter Kaden reminded the board that more acreages and residential developments make it harder to farm in the eastern part of the county because property values continue to rise. Some of that development is spilling over from Lancaster County.
     "The county line is not a fence," he said.
     Marvin said the board could keep the TA district on the future land use map with a caveat that the land can't be rezoned without a rural water system. He recommended that the board ask the county attorney for a ruling on that, however, because it could limit a landowner's freedom to build on his or her own land.
     Other concerns heard by the board included:
     - keeping the animal unit numbers for confinement operations the same as they were in the old zoning regulations instead of doubling them;
     - definitions of subdivisions;
     - housing setbacks; and
     - putting the county land use management policy map into the comprehensive plan.