Thank you. busy. You can't be bugging me. >> It can't be bugging. Don't forget if you're online, >> we're getting a little bit of feedback. So those online if you could mute that would be helpful. But the wearing is such that I got
That's pretty cool. I just got Please show really. Good afternoon and welcome to Crowing County's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting. It is 3:00 on February 19th, 2026. Please rise for the
pledge. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> If you have not already done so, please silence your cell phones and if you are online, please make sure you have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. Please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the agenda is roll call. Rock
yelimi here. John O. John's online. John, are you there? You have to unmute. >> John OJ. >> Yeah, I think he's working on it. >> Sumasi >> here. >> Andy Larson
>> here. >> And I am Rebecca Best. The next item uh to approve is to approve the minutes and findings of fact uh for the meeting held on January 15, 2026. Please note because we have some board members that are
online that for all votes, we will be doing roll call votes. >> Madam Chair, >> yes, Rock, >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes and finding effect. >> We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second it. I'll second. >> Second by Sue. Uh any discussion on the
minutes? If not, uh, please signify by saying I. Andy >> I. >> John. >> Rock. >> I. >> Sue. >> I.
>> And I vote I as well. Minutes are approved. Uh, this evening we have or afternoon we have two. >> Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. We need we missed item number three >> to review the >> Oh, we need to review and approve the agenda. Correct. Uh, Madam Chair, I
recommend that we move item um 5.1 down to 6.5, the rules of business, to make sure that we work through our um applicants before we get to that uh more of an administrative task. >> And for the people here, that uh involves our rules of business. Okay, that sounds great. Uh any other changes
to the agenda? >> None from staff. >> Any from the board? If not, is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. >> So moved. >> There's a motion by Andy. Uh second by
Rock. >> Yep. >> Any further discussion? If not, we'll do a roll call vote. All of those in favor, please signify by saying I. Andy >> I. >> John Rock. >> I. >> Sue >> I.
>> And I vote I as well. Thank you. And the agenda is approved. Uh this afternoon we have now one item of old business and then uh another item that will be moved to the end of the agenda and four items
of new business. And our procedure is when you call we call your application you'll be admitted to the meeting if you are online or if you are in person please come to the table in front and state your name and address
for the record. Then we'll have Nichollet read your request into the record. We will then give the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not been previously submitted. After that, we open up the request for public testimony. Tonight, we will have two public testimony
opportunities. One is in person and the other one is online. If you're online and you wish to speak to an application, please use your hand icon to indicate to us that you wish to speak. Then once you are admitted, please unmute your microphone and state your name and
address for the record. If you're speaking in person, please come to the microphone at the podium in the center aisle. In either case, you will be given 5 minutes to give your testimony. Please do not repeat what someone else has said. And please do not read your emails
or letters that have already been sent. Everyone who wishes to give testimony will be have given the opportunity to do so. Once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it. We will then bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public.
Rules of conduct. Please be respectful. For that, the applicant means to sit quietly during public testimony period. And for the audience, it means to do the same for the applicant as they respond to your testimony. All questions and statements are to be directed to this
board or members of the staff, not to the applicant. Anyone that I feel is being disrespectful or not following these rules will be asked to leave or will be disconnected from the meeting. The decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment request.
We make a recommendation to the county board. For a variance or conditional use permit request, we make the final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do this, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to
the property and examine the site and look at what is being planned. Prior to attending this meeting, we each read every letter and email that is submitted and we then hear public testimony and we listen to the applicant. I'd like to pause for a moment to let the public
know that we do greatly appreciate your correspondence and input. We have all read the submitted comments. In addition to that, we have a worksheet that we use to help summarize the findings of fact. Preliminary findings have been included in the staff packet. Next, I will ask
each board member if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet. John Andy >> I have. >> Rock, >> I have. >> Sue, >> I have. >> And I have as well. Our first applicant
this evening is Keith and Jod Sutterman. Land use map amendment. >> Hello. >> Good afternoon. >> You'd state your name and address for the record, please. >> Keith Solderman, 3068 County Road 23,
Brainer, Minnesota 5641. >> Thank you very much. Nichollet, can you please read the request into the record? Yes, Madame Chair, tonight um the applicant is applicant and property owner Keith Solderman, parcel number 761-90533,
and this is in Maple Grove Township. Um this application was previously tabled from the January 15th public hearing. So, uh, the landowner could further define, um, which portion of the 20 acre parcel, um, he wanted, only 5 acres, if
you guys do recall, of the full 20. Um, and I have an exhibit here on, um, I'm actually going to turn it um, showing the five acre section. And this was a legal description provided by Mr. Soldman. Um so his request is the
land use map amendment to change from agricultural zoning to rural residential 5 with only the highlighted portion um which would be defined as the west 416 ft of the north 528 ft of the northeast
quarter of the northeast quarter section 19 township 44 range 29 in Crowing County Minnesota. Um if the 5 acre piece is reszoned, the land owner does plan to um consolidate the remaining portion of that 20 acre
parcel, so it' be 15 acres with um his other farmland. So it would be in compliance with the agricultural zoning district of that minimum of 35 acres in egg zoning. Um no recommendations were received from the township and no comments were received as part of this
um application and I can answer any questions. Thank you. >> Anyone have any questions? >> No. >> Do you have anything that you'd like to add? >> No. No. That's perfect. >> This time we'll open it up then to
public testimony. And I don't see anyone in the courtroom. Is there anyone online? I don't believe so. >> I don't see anybody, Madam Chair. >> So, we'll bring it back to the board if there is any discussion and then uh after that we will entertain a motion.
Uh remembering that we have two people online and three of us here in person. >> Uh Madam Chair, findings of facts are on page 18. >> Thank you. >> I Madam Chair, I have no concerns. He's he's presented what we asked him to do
last month. So >> Anyone else have any comments or concerns? Okay. If not, I guess we'll entertain a motion. And remember with this, we're making a recommendation to the county board. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. >> Yes. >> I would like to make a motion to
recommend to the county board the land use map amendment from a Forestry to rural residential 5 with the legal description that is um stated in the staff report along with the um findings of facts in the staff report.
>> Second, Madam Chair, I would second. There's a motion on made by Sue and seconded by Rock. Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? Okay. Before the board takes final action on your land use map amendment uh
application, I need to verify one item. Do you understand that we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your land use map amendment request? >> I do. >> And the county board does have the final approval over this request. And that meeting is coming up when? >> Um March 10th.
>> March 10th at 9:00 a.m. in this room. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Do I have to be here for anything or I just get notified after that? >> Um you don't have to be here. You're certainly welcome to be here. >> No requirement. We we'll take care of it. >> Okay. We then will proceed with the vote
which will be a roll call vote. I will start with those online. Andy, >> yes. John >> I >> Rock >> I >> Sue >> I >> and I vote I as well. Your motion
carries. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> The next item on the agenda is for a land use map amendment. William Shrader. >> Hello. >> Good afternoon Madam Chair. Kevin
McCormack, Land Design Solutions, 11821 Lake Trail, Cross Lake, Minnesota, representing Mr. Schrader this afternoon. >> Thank you very much. Nicole, can you read this request into the record, please? >> Yes, madame chair. Um tonight we have um property owner William Shrader with the
authorized agent of Kevin McCormack. Parcel numbers 6006059 and 60060502. Parcel address 38275 Picker Trail in Cross Lake, Minnesota.
And this is in Fairfield Township. Uh the request tonight is a land use map amendment to change from agricultural forestry to rural residential 10. Um this is the property here on Pickerl Trail. Let's see if we can get a better
one. So this is on Pickerl Lake. It's a natural environment lake. The Shorland district. It comes out um 1,000 ft as you can see here. And we have a sliver of this parcel. The majority of this parcel is zoned agricultural. So, what they would like to do is um change to
rule residential 10 and um we have no recommendation received from the township. We did receive one comment from the public um in opposition of the request um with concerns of the condition of Pickerell Trail, the maintenance of the road, and uh
potentially adding five more homes, as well as concerns of how the request may affect Picaro Lake. I can I can answer any questions you might have. Any questions from the board for Nichollet? >> Do you have anything that you'd like to add?
>> Oh. Oh, you bet. >> I thought you might. >> Um, I I I've read the uh comment from one of the uh adjoiners. I'd like to address that first. Um uh u uh Mr. Schrader has owned this property since uh 1995. Um I was
actually involved with Land Decker and Associates in the um preparation of the easement that runs down Pickle Trail. Uh Mr. Schrader is also a resident of the city across Lake. So he's had quite a bit of time invested in this. What we're
looking to do today is take a substandard lot under the current conditions of the ordinance. We need 30 acres for egg and as you can see we're 15.4 acres. So, I'm not sure when that came about, but that's what happened out
here. And when you look at this, that thousand foot shoreline is the accurate um portrayal of the shoreland district. So, it actually bleeds over into here. So, we have an existing poleb barn, an existing driveway, an existing house and
shed on the egg piece. Now, uh we're not looking to do anything other than this than bring this up into a 10acre parcel uh and get it out of the egg district and then he could follow residential standards for rural rural residential 10
rather than egg. We're not looking to construct anything. Uh we're not doing any changes to the roadway um itself. Um, this really in my mind as I looked at this was a uh cleanup of a zoning
district that is no longer valid. Everything to the south is already zoned rural res residential 2.5. We're requesting 10. The owner doesn't want any further subdivisions on this property, especially on this egg piece
is what we're referring to tonight. So, if there's any other questions, that's what we're looking at here. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> When this is done, Kevin, what's going to be how many lots will be what's the proposal for lots when this is completed? >> Uh there the uh 15 acre parcel would uh
be a exact 10acre parcel uh keeping the pole barn, the house, and the garage. and then the rest of this shoreland district and whatever is left over the A would be incorporated to those properties providing uh three uh 10 acre
plus tracks along the shoreline uh in probably I think they were all over 300 ft in shoreline length. So, we're not looking at a a major development and I think that's uh would the the con existing
ordinance would cover a lot of the concerns of this folks. Um, if I'm not mistaken, we need 66 ft to get in. So, it's never going to happen. It's it's never going to happen. Um, they'd have to do a uh condemnation of the roadway to do any further development. >> So, so at the end of the day, just so
I'm clear, there's going to be three lots on the lake and then that and then the back lot. So, be correct. Four told correct. And all those they'll be exempt from um going through the platting process because it'll be over uh our says that you're exempt from platting if it's over 10 acres and 300 ft wide which
um this is going to meet that. So >> correct correct thank you Chris. >> Thank you madam chair. >> Yes. Any um >> John go ahead. >> What's the size of the total parcel again
>> currently? >> Yep John. So, we have two parcels. Um, one parcel is 15.4 acres and then the other parcel on the lake >> 29.45 with a total of >> Yep.
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Hearing none and seeing no one in the courtroom, is there anyone online uh that wishes to speak to this application? Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to
the board for further discussion and action and um go from there. >> I mean, Madam Chair, I mean, he's asking to go to RR10. He could actually asked to go to two and a half which would have made it a lot could have put a lot more
houses in there on two and a half on that agricultural than what he's doing. Um I have no concerns with this. >> It's time. >> Any other comments from the board? >> Madam Chair.
>> Yes, John. I I agree with Sue's uh comment, but if I'm not mistaken, he could administratively subdivide those 10 acres to get a lot more lots. Is that not the case?
>> Yes, John. So, just to clarify your question, he could go through an administrative subdivision to apply to have more parcels in there, not necessarily a plat. Is that what you're asking? >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Yep. That is correct. Um it would be a plaid if they wanted less than 10
acre parcels on the lake. >> Yeah. For repairing, correct? >> Yes. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? >> One one limiting factor on that though is the road coming in. Correct.
>> Being only 33 feet rather than the 66 feet. So they could not subdivide >> for variance. >> Well, it wouldn't be an automatic, >> right? Exactly. No, absolutely. They'd have to ask for that. Yeah. >> And and I think we see the concerns of of just this resident alone, you know,
trying to increase that roadway to 66 and do a formal plat. Uh even if you even if you wanted to do 2.5 acres like to the south, um that would uh we'd be uh stuck at our maximum there too.
Correct. And that's not what the applicant wants. That's why he is requesting 10. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. And the findings of fact are found where? On what page? >> On page 30, Madam Chair. >> On page 30. Uh if there's any not any
further discussion, we will entertain a motion on the action of this application. >> Madam Chair. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. Rock. I'd like to make a recommendation to the county board that they approve the land use amendment from
agricultural forestry to rural res 10 on on these parcels. >> Madam chair, I would second. >> There's a motion by Rock and a second by uh John. And before we take final action in our roll call vote, uh I
>> Madam Chair, hang on a second. Rock, would you add to your motion uh with the findings of facts submitted in the staff report? >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. As well as finding facts. >> Very good. Okay. And before we take action on this, I need to verify that
you understand we're making a recommendation to the county board to approve the land use map amendment request and the county board does have the final approval over the request. >> I do. >> Okay. Um, with that I will take a roll call vote. Uh, Jean O
>> I. >> Andy Larson. >> Hi. >> Rockmi >> I. >> Sumasi >> I. >> And I vote I as well. Your the motion carries to make this um uh
recommendation to the county board. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time. Okay. The next item on the agenda is for a variance request from Stephen and Janet Rudy. >> And I'm here.
>> I I am here. I'm only audio. I'm having internet problems at our in our building right now. >> Okay. Um if you >> But I've just gone audio here. Is that Is that going to be okay? >> Yes, that will be just fine. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. I have a question.
>> Sure. Steven Rudy and it's uh the address we're talking about the variance or my current address. >> Your current address? >> Yeah. 2700 North Oxford number 137 Roseville, Minnesota 55113.
>> Thank you very much. Nicola, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. Uh tonight property owner is uh Steven and Janet Rudy. Parcel number is 50300523. Parcel address uh physical address is
13206 Quams Bay Road, Dearwood. Um and this is in Bay Lake Township. And the request tonight is a variance for a road rightway setback of 28 ft um to a proposed new dwelling where 30 ft is 35
ft is required. a dwelling setback of 17 feet to the proposed septic drain field where 20 feet is required. A property line setback of 7 feet where 10 ft is required to the septic drain field.
>> And this is uh to allow a 2760 ft dwelling with attached garage and the installation of a new septic system. I can send you >> Excuse me. Um, can someone please mute their microphone online? We're getting
we're getting sounds coming through. Thank you. Okay. Um, the certificate of survey we have on page 38 of your packet. I just want to back up a little bit here. So, um, this
property is on Portage Lake. It's on the south side, um, just off of State Highway 18. And, um, it was on that little traveled road, if you guys remember that from the on-sightes. Um, some on-site comments from the February
5th on-site date was that the proposed location of the dwelling and the septic are both meeting the lake setback. The road does not appear to be a welltraveled road, and there appears to be a natural depression between the lake and the proposed location of the
dwelling for storm water. The proposed imperous coverage for this property in this proposal would be 12.48%. Township recommended approval of this request on February oh sorry December 11th and uh there were no other comments
received. I can answer any other questions. >> Oh yes. So here is the uh proposed driveway. We have the 27 foot setback proposed to the dwelling with attached garage meeting the lake setback. Um what
they're requesting is the 17 ft to the from the house to the absorption area of the drain field and then the absorption area of the drain field would then be 7 ft from the property line. And those are the requests. Thank you, Nichollet.
Does the board have any questions? Is there anything that you'd like to add? Um Stephen, >> I don't think so. That was very well said. Uh, so I don't think I really have anything to add to that. >> Okay. Um, hearing uh, no other comments
or questions, we'd open it up for public testimony. And there's no one in the courtroom. Is there anyone online? I do not believe so. Uh, so therefore, we'll bring it back to the board for further discussion as necessary and action.
Madam Chair, I mean the requests that they're having to me are minimal because they've done everything they could to get that structure located within the building envelope. I mean look I mean about 95% of it is in that building envelope and I
can I commend them for working and at least and you know and meeting the lake setback. To me, the lake setback, I mean, road rightway setback's important, but that lake setback to me is very important. And as we noticed on the onsite, Eagle Creek Lane is not doesn't
look like it's a very heavily traveled road. So, I just wanted to say just to the applicant, thank you for meeting Lake Setback. >> Yeah, thank you very much. We've been on that lake since 1971, so it's uh those kinds of things are important to us. So,
thank you for that comment. >> Okay. Any other comments or questions or discussion uh um from the board? And the findings of fact are located where? >> Um Madame Chair, potential conditions are on page 46 and then findings of fact
are on 47. >> Very good. Um bring it back to the board for any other discussion and then uh action on this application. Madame Chair, >> yes. I'd >> like to make a motion to approve the
variance for road rideway setback of 28 ft to the proposed new dwelling where 35 ft is required. Dwelling setback of 17 ft to proposed septic drain field where 20 ft is required. Property line setback is 7 feet to a proposed septic drain field where 10 feet is required to allow
a 2760 foot dwelling with attached garage and the installation of a new septic system with the um conditions as shown in the staff report on page 46 and the findings of facts in the staff report on page 47.
>> Thank you Sue. Is there a second? >> Madam chair second. There's uh a motion and a second on the floor. Um and Stephen, before we take final action, I have to verify four items with you.
>> I'll uh ask these questions. Do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. Do you understand that you must obtain
permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> Yes. >> And do you understand what that what is being approved uh this afternoon is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight such as structure
size or height or location must be approved by this board. And this means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Uh staff cannot modify or
change what has been approved by this board. >> Do you understand all that? >> Yes, I understand. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. We will then proceed with the roll call vote. Andy, >> yes. >> John, >> I. >> Rock,
>> I. Sue >> I >> and I vote I as well and the motion carries and your variance has been approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time. >> Okay. >> Yep. Thank you so much. Yep.
>> The next item on the agenda is for a variance and um actually preliminary plat as well for Gregory Larson. And Gregory, are you online? Yes, I am. >> Thank you. Could you please state your
name and address for the record, please? >> Uh, Greg Larson, 11348 Sornson Lake Road. >> Thank you very much, Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes. Um, Madame Chair, tonight we have
property owner Gregory James Larson, parcel number 73350583. 733-50589, 733-50587, and 733-506-97.
The parcel address is 11263 Sorenson Lake Road in Mayfield and this is located in Lake Edward Township. Um, we have two requests tonight. Um, I would recommend holding the public
hearing together and then we'll make a vote separately on each one. But the first request is a variance for a lot width um a lot width of 72 feet where 150 feet is required for a repairarian parcel on a recreational development
lake. Um and we actually have the second request here would be a um sorry a lot width for lot three as well for 119 ft where 150 ft is required. Um, let me get down to this locator map
here. So, this is on Sorenson Lake Road on the south or sorry, the north side of Sorenson Lake just off of County Road 3. And here's all of the parcels owned by Mr. Larson. Let me get down to this survey. Here's
a certificate of survey for the request. So this leads me into the second piece which is the preliminary plat um of Sorenson and Lakes Lake Estates consisting of five total lots. So the variance would be for lot two which is
right here um having a 72 foot width down at the lake where 150 ft is required. Lot three would have 119 feet here um where 150 ft is required. Lots four and five would meet or exceed those
requirements. All of the lots meet or exceed the buildable area and the total lot area required for um parcels repairarian parcels on a recreational development lake. These two dwellings that exist now on
the lakeside both had variances in 1993 and in 1997 to be constructed as is in their existing location. So what the applicant is requesting is to separate those two dwellings creating a separate lot um which would be two and three.
The wetlands were delineated in June 2025 and septic site suitabilities were done in July of 25. Each lot has two septic site suitabilities. Um there are some existing septics that have compliance inspections as well. There was no recommendation received
from the township. Um the DNR did submit a comment. I'm just going to read it verbatim. Um, the DNR had no comment given the fact that there's already existing dwellings near the lake with no density issues and overall and and
overall and buildable lot sizes meet the adequate septic treatment areas in the rear lot zone. Um, one comment was received from the public who genuinely had some concerns with mainly questions. I did call that individual back and answer their
questions just to clarify. and afterward they still had concerns about the lot sizes for two and three down at the lake as well as um the precedent that it may set for the area. Um I can answer any questions you may have.
>> Thank you. Any questions from the board for Nichollet? Is there anything that you'd like to add? Gregory? No, she did a very good job. We're just trying to clean up stuff and try to make
it the most compliant we can. >> Thank you. We'll go ahead and bring it back for public testimony and the record should show that there is no one in the courtroom. Is there anyone online who wishes to speak to this application? Seeing no one, we will bring it back to
the board for uh discussion and um potential action. And um the public hearing was for both the variance and the preliminary plat. And we're going to take that as two separate
um motions, but we can discuss we can discuss maybe starting with the variance and then the preliminary plat. >> Yeah. Variance first. >> Madam Chair, I mean I have a concern. I mean you look a lot too it's less than
50% of what's allowed. I just don't I just feel they could combine lots two and three and make them one and then there would be no need for a variance. They would meet the um lot width requirement for a
recreational development lake. Just a point of reference, if if that was the case, then they would be um technically non-compliant because they would have two they would have a house. They they have two houses on one parcel, which so right now the the house and the
trailer are are both over uh 700 square f feet. So that's just a just just another another point. >> Madam Chair, I see no problem with this. This is the landscape is not changing. The only thing that's changing is that there's ade there's actual property
lines that will now exist. Um if you go farther to the east on Senson Lake on the north side, all those lots are can't be over 100 ft wide. It's not uh
it's not new to this lake. you aren't really adding any additional lots, uh, repairing lots. You're just cleaning up what's already there. So, I I I don't have a problem with the 72 foot lot done.
>> Thank you, Rock, Andy, and John comments. Madam Chair, I guess, you know, in light of the point of that, as Chris mentioned, that true house issue, I guess I'm inclined to uh agree with Rock's comments.
>> Thank you, M. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, John. >> Um, one of the houses, if I understand correct, is a trailer, right? >> That is correct, John. So, I
share Sue's concern and the fact that it's a trailer. It's not a permanent house. I mean, it's permanent trailer, but um I don't see that as a constraining factor.
>> Can Greg address that? The applicant address the trailer. >> Gregory, would you like to um >> address the trailer? Excuse me. Can I talk or >> Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> There's uh it is not a trailer. There is a permanent foundation there. Uh it
looks like a trailer because it was grandfathered in. Both of these houses have been in there for over 80 years. Uh the brick house, there was a cabin there for over 60 years and there was a a trailer there for over 50 years before the two houses that are on there now,
which is when we got the variances for those two. But they're both permanent houses. They are not trailers. The trailer would be across the road next to the pull barn. >> Thank you for that clarification, >> John.
>> No, I was just going to say thank you for clarifying that. >> Okay. >> The other thing I'd like to make a comment on is that you cannot discriminate against manufactured housing. I don't care if it's movable or not. You can't say, "Oh, that can be moved." it. You can't discriminate
against someone's house >> federal standpoint. >> And that's federal law, not state or county. >> Thank you, Rob. >> Uh madam chair. >> Yes, John. >> Yeah, just given that comment, I can't just leave that out there. I don't think
there was any suggestion we would discriminate against a housing type. It was simply a a question. >> Thank you, >> Madam Madam Chair. >> Yes. I mean, yeah, it would be nice to combine those two, but I do understand that if we did that, then we're can
still doing a nonconformity because of two in the fact that in the past the county approved variance to variances to allow them to be placed where they're at. I guess um I can I could support this
plat. >> Okay. Madam Chair, I just I do want to add to um while working with Greg in the last couple months, he did have an original proposal that had six lots included in here. And um he did combine
lot five to make a larger lot. And um originally the proposal was to have six repairarian lots. Um but he did reconfigure that to make one. >> There's a lot of wetland on lot five. That's why we work we we we've been working with Greg for a few months on
this to try to get this. We think this is the best for this piece of property. We feel like this is the best we can do >> to get it to cuz if you look on lot five and if you look to the go to the east on that, they would have had to go up that east line with some potential wetland impacts to get to the north side where
there would have been it just it was just problematic. And so, um, Greg's I think they've done a really nice job to the best that they can to try to make this as reasonable and and usable as possible with the existing buildings that are already been approved by the county in those locations. So, and the
DNR in addition didn't have any concerns or comments either. So, >> okay. >> So, how would you like to proceed? I know that we were going to take uh the variance first and as far as taking action on that. >> I'm ready to make a motion.
>> Okay, please go ahead, Sue. >> I'd like to take make a motion to approve the variance for let me find it here real quick. for lot width uh lot width of 72 feet where 150 ft is
required for lot two 119 feet where 150 ft is required for lot three based on the um >> findings of facts in the staff report on page 70
heavy object Second. >> There's a motion on the floor and a second. Uh any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Um before I go ahead and uh do the roll call vote on this, Gregory, I need to ask you a few things.
Uh do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes, I do. Do you understand the conditions that are required, which I don't believe that we had conditions that were listed out? >> No. Do you understand that you must
obtain permits now from the land services department before any construction may begin? >> Do you understand what is being approved this afternoon is final? Any future changes to being what is to to what is being approved uh this afternoon such as
structure size, height, location must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay their appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change
what has been approved by this board. >> And that is understood. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Hearing that, um, I'll go ahead and do the roll call vote. Andy, >> I >> John, >> I
>> Rock >> I >> Sue >> I >> and I vote I as well. Your variance request has been approved. Next we will um move on the preliminary plat talk about that. Madam Chair, >> yes.
>> I'd like to make a motion to recommend at the county board the approval of the prelim preliminary plat of Sorus and Lake Estates consisting of five lots with the conditions um listed in the staff report and the findings and facts
listed on page 96 is of the staff report. >> Madam chair, second. >> Okay, there's a motion on the floor and a second. Uh any further discussion hearing? None. Gregory, I need to verify
two items with you regarding this. Do you understand that this afternoon we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request? The county board does have a final approval over this request. >> Yes. >> And do you understand that the required
uh conditions placed on the preliminary plat applying for the final plat request? Yes. >> Hearing that we will proceed with the vote. >> Andy >> I. >> John
>> I. >> Rock >> I. >> Sue >> I. >> And I vote I as well. Motion carries. Thank you for your time. Oh, >> Madam Chair, can we drop down now and go over the rules of business?
>> Yes, that's going to be the uh last item under uh old and new business and let's go for it. >> So, can you take us up to the rules of business, Nichollet, please? >> Should be way to the top. Don't look everybody get dizzy. So, um remember we
looked at this last month and uh we were um going to make some changes and then um John had some really good feedback about the idea of needing to um look at the uh specifically the Robert's rules of business, Robert's rules of order
with this. And so, um we did I did get a chance to talk with county administrator Ericson and u was able to get some feedback from her. So, we'll just kind of walk through this. So if you look on number six, this is just more of a administrative update to this it's no long it's not the land services manager, but it's my title is the environmental
services manager. So it's just more of a clean up on that. If you scroll down to item number 13, um this is again where we get down into the motions and that and this is where uh um uh Commissioner, excuse me, Administrator Ericson recommended that
we would delete this. And so we're proposing to delete that, you know, completely. Number 13. Um, we don't we're not going to have that in there. We don't we're really not adopting Robert's rules of order. We're adopting basically the the gener general way of making motions, seconds and and that.
Um, so >> uh let's see. There we go. Uh then if we go down to uh the next, if we scroll down a little bit further, you'll see we just had to make an update to add intermuse permits as uh since we recently added those to the ordinance.
Then if we go to the last page, um just needed to um clarify a few things for ordinance amendment process. Um we don't we we uh wanted we don't need to limit ourselves as far as how we handle our business time-wise for the
ordinance amendment procedure. That's not subject to the 60-day rule 1599 as we do for other um items. And so just wanted to state that you know once we go through the process doing the ordinance amendment after after the uh comment period is complete then you as a board
will conduct a public hearing on the ordinance and then um you end up making a recommendation um to the county board. And so just clarifying that number 18 again is just clarifying for administrator putting in um environmental services manager. Number 19 is clarifying that we're not adopting
Robert's rules of order. So, those are the recommended changes to the rules of business, and I would be happy to answer any questions if uh if there are any. Otherwise, I'd ask for a motion to approve.
>> Any discussion or questions from anyone? >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> I'd make a motion to approve the >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Further discussion? Yeah, Madam Chair, just a quick comment to say thanks Chris for following up on
that. I think it's cleaner this way. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with a roll call vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Andy, >> I. >> John,
>> I. >> Rock, >> I. >> Sue, >> I. >> And I vote I as well. Motion carries for approval. Thank you. >> All right, Madam Chair, we're going to move to matters not on the agenda. >> Um >> Stacy, what do we have for applications
next month? We have a lot of applications and the