To the editor:

I am submitting this letter as a concerned citizen with “standing” and take exception to Mr. Flory’s code issues comments of June 9. He made several statements that are in direct conflict with Home Rule Resolution No. 07-4-3, which very clearly addresses what an agricultural building is and specifically how it can be used. It does not state that an office and bathroom are permissible nor any other interior amenity “without improving and retrofitting the building to make it comply with all the applicable codes of Douglas County.” His statement that the vast majority of the completed work prior to the inspection in an ag-exempt building was permissible is incorrect. Nothing is automatically included.

What prompted the new “unwritten policy”? There was not a single negative comment made at the June 3 meeting with respect to how county residents had been treated by the inspectors, but there were several positive comments made on their behalf.

I find it concerning that Mr. Flory thinks that Mr. Kobach, a high-profile politician, was unfairly targeted. It appears to most everyone, except the commission, that the intent was always to inhabit a portion of the building. Why build an ag building, at considerable expense, that has no apparent agricultural use?