mic, please. Everybody's here. So, we have a quorum. So, look for a motion to um approve the agenda as printed. Make a motion. Motion by Leo, second by Dennis. All those in favor say I.
I. Opposed. Motion is carried. Hopefully everybody got their packets in a timely fashion so they're able to review. Um, look for a motion to approve the minutes as printed. So move.
Motion by Tim. Second. Second by Dennis. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I to approve the minutes from June 24th. I opposed. Motion is carried.
Okay. Thank you. I'll look for a motion to open the public hearing. Motion by Tim. Second. Second by Travis. All those in favor say I. I.
Opposed. Hearing is open. Take it away. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the applicant um is seeking approval of a variance to the minimum lot size standard in the special protection low development overlay zoning district at 27451 South
Highway 34, Barnesville, Minnesota 56514 on parcel ID 28.027.0102. This is in part of the northeast quarter, the northwest quarter, section 27 township, 137 range 44, Tansom Township.
So, this property is in the way southeast uh corner of of Klay County, just on the south side of um State Highway 34. Uh the property is zoned um agricultural
general but it does have a shoreland zoning on it. Special protection low development. Uh other properties are zone the same. Some do have just the special protection. Um there's a prop use of the property is residential. There is a single family residence on
the property here. And then this uh this building also has living quarters in it as well. And then there's some accessory solar systems on the property. Um so they're would like to subdivide uh about 6 and 12 acres um from this 90
acre parcel. So right now there's currently two residential structures on the property and only one dwelling is permitted per parcel. So this variance would splitting it would would rectify that. Um the applicant provided a a practical
difficulty. um one that the property line would be defined by an existing natural visual boundary. Um so really what they're seeking to do is follow this tree line here. Um they'd want to place the property
line down the center of the existing access. They have looked into um installing another access to the property and kind of reconfiguring how this would would work, but uh it's because it's to a state road uh with separation and things like that. Mindot
would not allow for an additional access. And then they also want to keep their solar arrays on their property too. So that's another reason why it's kind of got this L-shape is this. There's a solar array right here. they want to keep that on on their their their
property. Um, so if they were to split it, the proposed lot, it would technically be 10 acres, but about three to four and a half acres of that would be water. And in our code and um Minnesota state shoreland rules, only land that's above
the ordinary high water level of a public water can be used to meet lot area standards. So looking at it here, this would be a 10 acre lot, but yeah, you'd have
much of it comprised of water. Um, so the 10acre minimum could be met if they were to shift this property line down into these woods. Um, there is a there's a it's pretty wet down here. there is a significant wetland here as
well. Um the applicant also wishes to retain ownership of the trees and contends that the established tree line provides for a more practical natural and clear property line delineation. Um as Iud said earlier, I did speak with mindot and we had kind of had a meeting on this
and they wouldn't grant another access on to 34. the lot proposed would meet all the other dimensional and setback standards. And so just from our comprehensive plan uh goals and objectives to consider, we
have a goal to protect and enhance the vital health and vitality of Klay County surface waters including lakes, rivers, and streams uh and reduce development pressure on natural environment lakes in Klay County. And that's why we have this zoning district, this special protection low development zoning district. It's
for smaller lakes. Um really just to prevent overdevelopment on some of these smaller lakes that wouldn't be able to to handle it. So ultimately I guess you would need to determine as you do for every variance request whether um this the applicant's
practical difficulty meets these three um criteria and in doing that in your findings of fact. Does anyone have any questions for me at all? Is Is this a building that was built and
then living quarters were added later? I think the building has always had had living quarters in it and it was used while they were building their house, I want to say. Um, but when the applicant has a chance to speak, I'll let him confirm that.
Sure. Because typically, I guess uh in all the other things that we've seen, when you're going to build something like this, you usually parcel it first. Yeah, that typically would be something you would do. Yep.
If you intended to have two living or dwellings on a property. Yep. So, so it's a lake is is why it's a 10acre minimum parcel. Yeah, it's just the the zoning district. So, our 10 acres is well above what the
DNR's um or what the state minimum is. The state minimum is uh for this zoning district, I think it'd be like 90 like just about two acres. So, it's well and above and beyond that for this particular zoning district.
And if this wasn't on the water, ours our rules would be two acres as well. If this was on um a different lake that had just a regular special protection zoning, then it would be Yep. two acres. Yeah. Roughly. Yep.
So even the 6 and 12 acre request would be well over what the state minimum would be or yeah state minimum lot size. What are the rules in our are new rule new rules in place now for the county? Yes.
Okay. And in the new rules it's still 10 for special protection low development. It is still 10. Yes. Um, everything else for shoreland zoning matches the the state shoreland rules.
You can one of the reasons. So, a couple reasons for why that 10 acres or this shore this this particular zoning district um was kept and not just reverted to state shoreland rules minimums is uh there was a desire again
to not see overdevelopment of the these smaller lakes. And then two, one thing with the Minnesota state shoreland rules is you have you can have something called implementation flexibility. So if you're more strict in some areas,
you can actually be less strict in other areas when implementing the shoreland rules. So in the future if there was some reason that Klay County desired to be less strict about something um having this in here. Yes. Yeah. You have to balance it.
Yep. Interesting. Yep. And we have dealt with something similar with so water with the buffer rules. you know, as long as you had you didn't need to have, you know, the
three rods for the whole distance. You needed, you know, on an average if you had it, you know, you there were some there was some give and take there. So, it is something that the county does do. Yeah. other situations
for the buffer wall and the the driveway. Uh being that it' be two parcels, is there need to be an easement or anything in that? There could be, but it could just be a shared access where the property line
would go right down the the driveway. I'd be wrestling with my neighbor who's cleaning it. Towns I'm like, is there any depth to that? Is there any I'm just looking at is there any depth to that or is it just a swamp? Small lake. It's just a small
a small lake right off 34. No depth to it then. No. Is it a 100? It's not even 100 acres. It's like no 50 if that maybe it's it's a small lake. Most of these smaller lakes are like 10
15 feet and hard to get hard to get access to because they're usually so full of stuff around the perimeter. Yeah. So, there's only two other houses around that lake. Is that right? Pull it up here. Or two other part residential
properties. Anyways, one on the south, maybe one on the east. Yeah, really on this lake there's two Correct. Any other questions for Matt? Hearing none, would the applicant care
to speak? And if so, please state your name for the record. And I'm Laura Elely and my husband I'm John Elie. And if I could just clarify, Travis,
what you had said as far as um the two built two buildings when we uh purchased this property and it was about I think three years, four years before we started the actual construction of the
steel building. Um our intent and we did live in there for 18 years. We have a two-bedroom apartment. Sure. With and um went through permitting with the county as far as sewer, well,
all that. And so we lived in 1,200 square ft on one end and then the remainder was garage, storage, that type of thing. And the intent at that time was that we would live there and construct our own house, which we did
over 10 years, moved in uh like two in 2023, January 2023 is when we moved in there. And as a result, um, John has, uh, an electrical business out of the
cities and was going to store and has stored his equipment there and that type of thing. But now, because it took a long time to build the house and that type of thing, um, it's just remained
and, you know, has we've kept it heated low level so things didn't freeze up, that type of thing. And now we don't we're nearing retirement in very near future and don't have a need for that property for any business purposes. So
that's why we come up with the idea to subdivide. Doing it to sell. Pardon? Doing it to sell. Yes. Yeah. And then we live down I think I can't
really see it's kind of light there but then the house that we built on the same property is kind of hidden from the road. So that's where we're currently living. Thank you for the explanation. We didn't have the intent initially to
subdivide but and sell but now that we are there we realize that for us. And you guys will have to arm wrestle whoever is moving snow. Anyone else have any questions for the
applicant? No. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody in the audience or online wish to speak for or against this? Anyone in the audience wish to speak or
online wish to speak for or against? Anyone in the audience or online wish to speak to this hearing? None. Uh look for a motion to close the public hearing. Like a motion. Motion by Leo, second by Dennis. All those in favor say I.
I. Opposed. Public hearing is closed. Okay. Is granting the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Klay County Land Development Code? Yes.
Is the requested variance consistent with the Klay County Comprehensive Land Use? Yes. Yes. Does the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict letter of the Klay
County Land and Development Code? Yes. Do exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist that apply to the property in question and that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity resulting from
lot size, shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property have no control or influence. Yes. Would the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Klay County Land
Development Code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance? Yes. Is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate
the practical difficulty? Yes. Yes. Does the variance request meet all the below criteria? No variant shall be granted where any of the following conditions are not met. Adequate sewage
treatment systems or water supply capabilities can be provided. Yes. The plate of the land owner or hardship is not due to circumstances created by the landowner. Yes. Yes.
The variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the zoning district. Yes. The essential character of the locality would not be altered or there would not be a significant adverse effect on
surrounding properties. Yes. There would not be a significant adverse effect on the public health or safety. Yes. This variance does not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this ordinance to owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Yes. Yes. Okay. And there's a condition on here that both properties must have compliant septic systems. Is that something that
is um right now happening or does it need to be inspected? My understanding is right now that they are, but when the sale of the property happens, they will need to have an inspection anyway. But I would want both of them to be
checked because there is um Mr. Mr. Chair, just one more finding that we'd want to go through for shoreline districts just about conforming sewage treatment systems. Okay. My understanding that there is it is right now, but would want to upon
inspection ensure that is the case. Okay. So, we'll go through uh is there a conform conforming sewage treatment system present for the intended use of the property? The variance as issued must require reconstruction
of a nonconforming sewage treatment plant. Um, you say we don't know the answer to that. Well, and talking to our environmental health director, he said yes, but that's fine. Yep. But they'll need to be inspected. Oh. Anyway, so it'll be okay.
Yep. Okay. Any uh further discussion? Okay. Then look for a motion to approve or disapprove. I'll make a motion to approve. Second it. Motion by Leo, seconded by Travis to
approve the variance with the conditions that they both must, you know, pass the inspection. And then if they don't, one or both will need reconstructing. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor say I.
I. I. Opposed. Motion is carried. Thank you kind of a side question. So in in the planning commission we would ask the applicant and I had nods over there when I was reciting is that something
that's required for this also? Uh not Mr. Chair, not for a variance. Okay. Thank you. And I do also think there's a window. So if you have a new septic system, if you have to have it reinspected in a window, you don't actually have to have it
reinspected if it's been done in so long of time. Is is it a year? It's five. There's a five. Okay. Three for new systems cuz their house would have a new system on it. Does that need to be inspected as
well before I would only assume the property that's in question? Yeah. Yeah. Which would happen anyways if it's being sold. Yeah, you're right. because they're living in even though it is, you know, could be 10 years. As she said, it took
10 years to build it. They've been in there for two, that's not changing hands. It's the other one. So, I thought under the new rules that you were allowed to have two residents on a property. The ones it is, you can have an accessory dwelling unit
on a property. Uh there are different rules for shoreland. Shorland allow us for like a guest cottage. Um but there are certain requirements that would need to be met for a guest cottage. Okay. Yep.
Plus ultimately in this case the applicant isn't looking for that. No. Oh, that's right. Yeah. They want to sell it off. Yeah. Got it. This is a you know kind of a unique Sure. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Uh, moving on. Mr. Jacobson, is there any unfinished business? I do not have any, Mr. Chair, unless anyone else does. How about new business? I just want to make you aware I did send an email out about this to you all about this um navigating key land use issues
training that's going to happen in weight park on uh August I want to say it's August 7th. Yeah, August 7th, 9 to 4. Um, if that's something that you're interested in attending, just if you could let me know by the end of the week, that'd be great.
Um, pay for it obviously and can drive down with myself and maybe Mr. Melton. Are you still planning on attending? Okay. Um for
the board of adjustment I think what would be is valuable what other folks who've attended this training um would be mainly creating a defense defensible record and finding findings
um there and then also there's some um kind of get a good up update on just some current legis or current um courta court court cases that might be pertaining to variances or things like
that as well. So sometimes they have training that focuses on more board of adjustment specific topics like variances or appeals of administrative decisions or things like that. Um
this one not so much but still definitely worth worth attending if if you can can make it work. August 7th. Yep. I want to say that's a Thursday. It is. Yeah, it is a Thursday. That's not going to work for me.
Okay. One thing that I'll do is and I I had mentioned this I think before is trying to do some more training. So after going to this training on the 7th for our August meeting, my intent is to have something depending on what's on our
agenda for for training purposes. Is this one similar to that one that that we went to a couple years ago? Yep. Okay. That was really good. That was actually actually kind of fun. Yeah. Yeah. They're definitely worthwhile. That's all I have for new business.
Anybody else have anything to bring up before the board? Hearing none. Look for a motion to adjurnn. Motion by Tim. I'll second. Second by Travis. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion is carried. Meeting is
adjourned. Thank you everyone.