Glory to You are US. minutes [clears throat] to go. Yes. >> One minute. >> I go by my computer. >> Go by the clock. My clock says 2:59. Good evening or good afternoon. Welcome
to Crowing County's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting. It's 3:00 on June 18th, 2026. Would you please rise for the pledge? I pledge algiance 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, would you please silence your cell phones? And if you are online, please make sure you
have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. And please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the agenda is roll call. Rocky Linammy is not here tonight. John O >> here. >> Sumasi
>> here. >> Andy Larson >> here. >> And I am Rebecca Best. The next item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda? >> Madam Chair, uh we don't need to make any changes to the agenda, but we just want to note that items 6.9 and 6.10 10
have been rescheduled for the July uh 16th meeting. So for next month, items 9 and 10. >> Thank you. Any other changes to the agenda or additions? Hearing none, I'd ask for a motion to approve the agenda, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes.
>> Make a motion to approve the agenda. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> A second. >> And a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> The agenda is approved. The next item is to approve the minutes and findings of
fact for the meeting held on last month. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> There's a motion uh for approval and second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> The minutes are approved. Today we have uh no items of old business and [music] now we have nine items of new business on the agenda. We greatly appreciate
your patience with our agenda. And our procedure is when we call your application, you will be admitted to the meeting if you're online or if you're in person, you'd please come to the table at the front and have a seat and state your name and address for the record.
Then we will have Nichollet read your request into the record. We will then give the your the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not been previously submitted. After that, we open the request up to public testimony.
Today, we have two public testimony opportunities. One is here in person and the other is online. If you are online and 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 then be given five minutes to give your testimony. And we ask that you 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 given an opportunity to do so. Once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it. We then will bring it
back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Our rules of conduct are please be respectful. For the applicant, this means to sit quietly during the 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 and 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.
Our decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment request, we make a recommendation to the county board. for a variance, conditional, or interim use permit request, we make the final decision. We make our decisions
based on our findings of fact. To help us do that, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to the property and examine the site and look at what's 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. [snorts] Next, I will ask each board member if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet.
Andy, >> I've read them. John, >> I have. >> Sue, >> I have. >> And I have as well. >> Our first applicant of this evening will be Ryan and Nicole Wensman for an after
the fact variance. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, board. >> Ryan Wentzman, uh, 21550 North Raider Court, Crosby, Minnesota. Thank you. And Nicola, can you read the application into the record, please?
>> Yes, madame chair. Tonight we have property owner Ryan and Nicole Wensman, parcel number 95250537. Address is 21550 North Raider Court in Crosby and this is in Wolford Township. The request tonight
um the applicants request an after-the- fact variance to allow a zero foot side property line setback where 10 feet is required for a 1,218 ft detached garage that has already been constructed. This property is located on Rabbit Lake,
which is a general development lake with a 75- ft setback. Um it is on the east side of State Highway 6, north of the city of Crosby. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses.
Your survey is on page 22 of your packet. And let me zoom out here a little bit so you can So, North Raider Court is here. Um, there is some significant elevation kind of dropping down as you come into the driveway. Here is that detached garage
that was constructed 4 in from the property line. In June 2025, the county issued a land use permit for the 28x 28 detached garage based on a site plan showing it was a 15 foot setback. At that time, staff had used field
identified property markers in place of a survey. A survey was completed by the neighbor after the permit was issued, showing the garage sits approximately 4 in from the actual property line. The setback issue was therefore a result of a peritting error combined with
incorrect fieldlo boundaries, not an intentional violation by the applicant. Noting some of the on-site comments from the board, the site is well buffered with mature vegetation. Some erosion issues were noted around the garage. Concerns exist regarding storm water
runoff toward Rabbit Lake. The garage needs gutters and a compliant discharge direction. Minor vegetation management and blush brush clearing was also recommended. Wolford Township recommended approval on uh 4826.
Uh, no comments were received from other agencies, but the neighbor who performed the survey did submit a letter of support um with two proposed conditions addressing the brush that was along the property line. If the board does approve this tonight, staff would like to
recommend the two following conditions. Um, submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the county by October 1st and fully implement it by December 1st. Best management practices must be in place before any soil disturbance and remain intact until the site is
stabilized. Condition number two, uh submit a storm water management plan to the county by October 1st and implement by December 1st or earlier if the project is substantially completed. This plan must meet article 41 requirements and be in
place before the permit expires. I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board for staff? Does the applicant have anything that you'd like to add? >> No, not at this time.
>> Okay. Um, we will open up this request for public testimony. Is there anyone in the court room who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll turn to online. And I don't believe there's anyone there either. So, we will bring it back to the
board for further discussion. and uh action. >> Madame Chair. >> Yes, John. >> So, um it's unfortunate that we have this in front of us. >> Yes, it is.
>> Um some of us were here in 2024 when we had a similar situation. And in fact, we worked with staff and got the county board to fairly quickly change the ordinance to require a survey
for repairing lots unless the administrator deemed it was not necessary. Precisely so we would never be in this position as a board, right? Which I call the rock in the hard place position. Right? If we approve it, we're
approving something that if it came in front of us based on the ordinance, we would never approve. If we don't approve it, we probably put the county in a difficult position relative to potential litigation because the property owner
proceeded in good faith uh based on the permit. So, um I I think you know the point I'd make is there's nothing about the application that's the fault of the property owner. They proceeded in good faith. The two
conditions I'm comfortable with because they're the conditions that were in the permit. So, you should comply with that. It's part of the permit. Um I have a uh principle that I used in 2024 that I would use again today which is I don't
think the government can uh punish a property owner for their own mistake. Right? I just I think if we do that we erode the confidence of people in the government um if we allow that. So, I'm
going I'm going to support this um because of the fact that uh again nothing was done uh at the fault of the property owner and uh quite frankly, you know, the only disappointment is the the uh we changed the ordinance to not be in
this position and we shouldn't be in this position but here we are and I think the only reasonable choice is to approve uh the variance When it comes to findings, I will have some proposed changes to the findings.
>> Thank you. >> Other comments? >> Yeah, Madam Chair, I I mean, I agree with John completely. I mean, again, repairarian lots require surveys. It's not the property owner's fault. It falls
back on staff, the county. Um, I think with with the conditions two that are there, I'd like to add one because of the erosion issues with that garage and the proximity to that neighboring property
that that garage be guttered somehow as part of their storm water plan. I just want to condition that the garage is guttered to direct any runoff from going on the neighboring property if as much as possible. Um, and then the letter
from the neighbor addresses two concerns, two items. The trees and brush currently on their property needs to be removed. And I think we need to put it out. I think we should address those two concerns as conditions
>> that is removed >> and the woodshed and the firewood currently on the property needs to be moved to meet that 10-ft setback. Also, if it has, you know, if it hasn't been done, it may already be done, but I think just to lock it in, we need to have those two put in there as
conditions >> to reflect that. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Madam Chair, just one second. Um, so, so just to clarify your storm water, um, do you want to add it to condition number two, the guttering to the storm water >> whatever? Yeah, we can we can add it to
the to a an existing condition, but I think it needs to specifically say that that garage should be guttered to direct any runoff away from that neighboring property because of the proximity. And we're talking 4/10en of an inch. I mean, it needs to be addressed to prevent and
then if going to throw this out to the applicant. If there is erosion, and we've noticed erosion on the neighboring property because of the proximity, I just a suggestion, we can't condition it, a suggestion that you work with your neighbor to come up with a plantings or
something on to help put that on their property. >> Yeah, I have a suggestion. >> I have already worked with um members from the DNR forestry on a on a planting um only because of that 36 in storm culvert that comes underneath that road because that's the real issue. Well, I
just >> that has eroded thousands and thousands of tons of material into that lake. >> Yeah, there is there we notice some erosion back there. So, I'm just suggesting you work with your neighbor to try and correct that the best way you can.
>> Any further discussion? Not. Can we look at the findings of fact? >> Madam Chair, findings of fact are on page 39 of your packet. And John, you mentioned there um were some additions or changes that you'd like made there.
>> Yes, Madam Chair. If I can get to page 30 39, >> um item three, the third bullet that starts out uh on 514
2024. Um and after the um both applicant and neighboring property owner agreed upon the location of the property line after that I'd like to insert uh language that says whereas the ordinance specifically
states a determination to not require a survey can only be made by the administrator. as in reading the ordinance that's uh verbatim what it what it says in item four the uh first bullet in the same way
it was determined a survey was not required I would like to insert the same language after that in item six the language um in the first bullet the
approval of this permit followed department policy I would like to delete that language age. And then um when the permit in the uh later in that same paragraph when the uh was determined a survey was not
required, I would again like to insert the language that we inserted in number three and four. >> Okay, everyone okay with that? Okay, anyone else uh with comments related to
the findings of act? Any further discussion? Hearing none, we can entertain a motion. >> Madame Chair, I would move approval of the variance um based on the amended findings of
fact, the uh survey, the staff report, and I believe we now have four conditions, right? the two in the staff report and the two that Sue added based on the neighbors uh letter regarding the
U brush and the fire um firewood that I believe the applicants indicated he's addressed but for the record we'd put that in as a condition. So that would be my motion. >> I'll second it. >> There's a motion on the floor and then there's a second. Is there any further
discussion? >> Yes, sir. Madam Chair, just a quick comment. I'd like to echo John's previous observation about the fairness to a property owner. That's I
just really think that's important for the credibility of of you know this body that fairness is something that's that's important to us. So I uh I'm >> Thank you, Andy.
Further discussion hearing? None. Before we take final action on this application, I need to verify four items with you. Um, >> do you understand what's being approved? >> Yes, I do. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval?
>> Yes, I do. >> Do you understand that you must obtain the permits which you already have from land services department before construction which has already taken place? Do you understand what is being approved tonight is final? any further changes would be to um need to come in
front of this board. This means you'd be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> I understand. >> Okay. Thank you. We then will proceed
with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I >> oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you for your time. Thank you. >> Our next applicant would be Stephen
Sally Schmidz for a variance. Steven Sally Schmidz. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> Please state your names and uh addresses for the record, please.
>> Steve Schmidz at 14269 Mayhem Lane in Dearwood, Minnesota >> in Sally Smith. Same address. >> Thank you, Nichollet. Can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. We have property owner Steven Sally Schmidtz. Parcel number is
50200637. Address is 14269 Megan Lane in Deerwood. This is in Bay Lake Township. and the request proposes a complete tearown and reconstruction of an existing non-conforming home on Bay Lake. The new
construction includes a 1,956q ft dwelling and a 443 ft deck, a variance request to allow a 57 foot setback from the ordinary high water level where a 100 foot setback is required for both the proposed home and
deck. This property is located on Hanks Lake, which is a recreational development lake and has a 100 foot setback. Uh, Megan Lane is off of Megan Road, which is north of County Road 18 and west of
State Highway 6. This property is in the Shorland District and is surrounded by Shorland uses. Um, we're going to go to page 49 for your certificate of survey. This is the second survey. Yeah, we can put the new one up. So, we
did um on Tuesday, we did get a revised survey from the applicant um removing the attached garage proposal and um modifying it slightly. So, Chris is going to put that up there. Um the existing home experienced a flood
flooding from a pipe break prompting the owners to scrape and rebuild. The existing home is 49 ft from OW of Hanks Lake. The proposed new home will be a similar layout as the existing with a proposed setback of 58 ft from the lake.
Due to the layout of the shoreline, the deck will be 57 feet from the lake. Um the applicants are wanting to keep the existing detached garage and not construct the attached garage. this change result in a proposal of um 800
square f feet less than the original proposal that you have in front of you on your staff report and I believe that number is um previously it was 2,000 square feet and now we've dropped down
to the one 2754. Um, the applicants would like to construct the new home further back from the lake on a natural elevation line to minimize the grading for the construction of the new home. Noting some on-site comments from the board. U,
the property has a large building envelope. The home could be pushed further back from the lake. Neighboring homes are set back further from the lake than the proposed location. The shoreline is stable with healthy vegetation and an existing ice ridge. A comment was received from the township
today recommending disapproval. They noted the proposal involves a scrape and rebuild on the property with a substantial building envelope and they would prefer to see the new home constructed within that envelope. No comments were received from other agencies or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight,
staff would like to recommend the four following conditions. One, a land use permit be approved by land services prior to construction. Two, erosion and settlement control plan submitted to the at the time of permitting using best management practices in place before any soil disturbance.
Uh three, a storm water management plan submitted at the time of permitting and meeting all of article 41. And then four, once construction is complete, a final asbuilt survey be submitted to verify all setbacks. I can answer um any questions you might have.
>> Thank you. Does the board have any questions for staff? M madam chair if I may ask one question relative to the survey. >> So the the setback isn't changing and I see the new uh survey that's to the house right? What what are the items
that are being removed in the front? >> Are those patios or what what are >> you seeing this John? >> Yes. And on the I'm talking about the survey we received uh adjusted right. It has to be removed. It it points to that
little jut out on the left, that triangular I don't know what that is. Oct o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o octctagon thing in the middle and then apparently the addition on the right side says all three of those are being removed. >> And what what are they? >> Yep. So this is the existing home
currently. This is a little deck and steps and then a patio. >> So that's all to do with tearing down the original structure. So it really isn't affecting this proposal. I mean it it does affect the proposal but that hasn't changed what's in front of us in terms of the variance. Correct. Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? >> Do you have anything that you'd like to add? Well, the the only thought that I want to add is that the um township's recommendation
uh was before the decision to uh scrap the attached garage and keep the existing garage. So, I don't know if that'll have any bearing on anybody's decision, but with the existing garage in place, it completely changes the ability to move back to that 100 foot
mark. So, and that was a budget decision, not a please the variance people decision. So, >> thank you. Uh, and just to verify, they they did not receive the the township folks did not receive the the new
>> proposal. No, Madam Chair. Um, we just got this updated survey on Tuesday. Um, and the township had not responded in time. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. >> The meeting was like the 9th or something.
that clarification. Thank you. >> Anything else you'd like to add? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, then at this time we will open it up for public testimony. Uh today we like I said we have two public testimony uh opportunities. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this
application? Anyone? Not seeing anyone. I don't believe there's anyone online either. So, I will bring it back to the board for further discussion and action on this application, >> Madame Chair. >> Yes,
>> we're looking at we have an opportunity here to take an existing non-conforming structure and there is a large building envelope on this property. I think this new proposal they can rebuild in that meeting that
100 foot setback. I mean I'm I am not in favor of supporting um this new structure being located at 57 ft when there is a huge building envelope on this property. >> Other comments,
>> Madam Chair? [clears throat] in prior uh requests I've seen and you know I'm the new guy on the on the committee but in prior requests pretty much gospel that
footprint is is kind of the standard which we go by and well I I agree with Sue yeah there's more room back that if we're going to start applying that I would be concerned about frankly an arbitrary and capriccious
because if you look at the number of the requests where footprint is okay now we're sort of changing our our tune here frankly the fact that property owner was
push it back somewhat that as a as a positive. Frankly, my concern is going against what unofficially we've said as as policy footprint
and I chatted with my commissioner about this issue and his view was footprint is is sort of the
policy. So I I I'm concerned about switching gears and and I'm in favor of this. >> Thank you, Randy. >> Madam Chair, if I could just address I just want to be clear. So there isn't a policy for how we address variances. So we just be got to be careful with our
terminology. So each lot is evaluated on its own characteristics, its own all the information on that lot compared to the findings that we have to deal with in state statute that are in the county ordinance. So there really there's no policy. I think the what needs to be
maybe discussed or thought about is that um when there's been a a structures being added on to I think what you're in those situations I think we're seeing that typically for not going close to the lake that's been something that has been seen more favorable. I think the question on this one that maybe is being
that Sue is bringing up I think is that since it's being completely tore down and there's a it's going to be a complete new rebuild is that different? I think that's the question that's being asked tonight. >> Madam Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Um, so I I hear what what Andy's saying
and and I think the distinction is that um you can [clears throat] you can scrape and rebuild what you have, right? That's what the ordinance allows. When people choose to get have more, then it
opens it up for the board to review as to whether or not uh there's a possibility to get more conformance with our ordinance. I think that's the way I look at it. And um that's been consistent. I think um we've
had negotiations, we've tabled things and had negotiations with people about getting people to move back. [laughter] um uh to to better conform to the ordinance. So again, I I think we are consistent in that way. Each property,
as you say, stands on its own. But we're consistent in the approach that if you want to scrape and rebuild, just what you have that that's allowed. If you want something more and you need a variance, then that's where you come here. And we again try usually to see if
we can get people to better conform to the ordinance. Um, if we didn't do that, then basically everybody gets to keep what they have and we keep creeping closer and closer to the lake and then pretty soon we have to adjust our standards because nobody conforms to them. So, we might as well just say
let's change them. So, I think I'm with Sue that there's an opportunity here. We've we've in the past asked people to look at could they move further back uh to better it they don't always get to 100 ft but could they move further back
um as part of this and and I'm kind of along that line and again I hear I hear what what you're saying but um that's not inconsistent I don't think with with what we've done uh in the in the past.
Um so so that's where where I would sit here and and uh because there again whenever we have a big buildable area it it creates the the difficulty of answering question four is the need for
a variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. That's the question we have to answer. And if there's a buildable area where that can go, it's hard to answer that. Um, yes.
That's the predicament we have. Hard to answer that. Yes. So, respecting you can scrape and rebuild what you have, but you want more than what you have. Um, I would be desiring to see how do we get that closer to the setback.
>> Further discussion and comments. Madam Chair, just a question to the applicants about additional setback. What What's your thoughts? >> What's your comfort level on additional versus scrape and rebuild versus
rebuild? >> Um, [clears throat] ideally we I mean we kind of felt like we brought it back already, which is better than as it exists. um we didn't have a desire to do this. I don't I think it was I guess
stated in it that you know this was this was our place for 22 years and um not our desire to to go this route but it's full of mold um from a water problem and so we thought by bringing it back to
where we were it would be helpful and um appreciated by the county. Um, [clears throat] we are working very hard at kind of building the same feel and look. It's been there since the 40s. So, it breaks
our heart actually to to do what we're having to do to to make this work. Um, if we were to say, let's stay within its footprint. Um, and maybe this isn't the place to ask a question, but if we were to say,
let's stay within its footprint, but we'd like to remodel and go go back. Like, we're not making it significantly wider. It's about 2 ft wider on each side. It's generally the same shape from the lake. um would an opportunity to go ask for a
variance to be put in place for a remodel be an option in which case the house would still be closer to the lake than what we're proposing but so I is that a question I can ask you or is that something for a later date? >> Yeah, I think it's a good question. So
with the way that the house lays out today, you could replace that in its current footprint. And so you could tear down >> it current foot, bring it back up. >> The problem you run into is that if you want to have any sort of um expansion to it, you know, to try to even go back
that still was within, you know, let's say that it was maybe that the back of the house was was buted up to the 100 foot setback. If you add on, you can add on where the building setback is without having a variance. But because of the the location of where you're at today, any sort of addition would need a
variance because you're um you know, basically half you know, in halfway back of where the you know, the setback would be of 100 feet when you're looking at that, you know, 57 ft. So um I I think your options really are to rebuild in your current footprint.
>> Yeah. or to, you know, there's a there's potential that maybe maybe a tableabling the application tonight would make sense and have them go back and and see how far back they could be, you know, and come back with a updated version of what you've got maybe. I think that might be
an option that the board might want to consider because I think the options tonight are to you know obviously there's they can approve the variance they can deny your variance request and then you you are stuck in that 100 foot or they can table it and give you a chance to come back and come back with a different proposal moving it back maybe
not to the because if you move it back to the 100 feet it's just a straight permit at that point and you don't have to come to this board. So right so that's that might be an option on the table that the board might want to discuss with you. Yes. >> And to move it back 100 ft, there's a garage in the way of of what we'd like
to >> Yeah. >> to create. >> Um so that gets a little dicey for us. Um but maybe the idea is [clears throat] to try to slide it back as far as you can and still have the garage there so you have the space. What would that look
like? I think is maybe an option that the board might want to consider. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. Um so if I understand we've we're this proposal is [clears throat] moving back 8 feet if
I read this survey it's small but 49 to 57 right is that am I reading that right >> um so and trust me I understand that everyone wants to be as close to the lake and we I I do um I live on the lake
so I I get that Um, but we're also trying to protect the water and so we're balancing that as as we sit here. So, um, I'm hopeful that you're willing to take a look at it and, uh, maybe you can't go
back 100 ft, but maybe you can go back significant, you know, more than it is so that we could be favorable to to the request. Um, so I'm proposing the idea of tableabling it for
a month and giving you a chance to look at that. But if you say no, this is our proposal, then um I'm prepared to proceed, but I'm going to uh vote no. >> Madame Chair,
>> yes. I mean, looking at their new proposal up here. Okay. This is where the existing house is, right, Chris? >> Correct. The dark lines. >> Yes. Yep. The dark lines. >> So, if they could move this back,
it to me there's room to put all this proposed additions within this building envelope. They may not meet, they're not going to meet the 100 foot set back from the house, but if they push that house back as close to that 100 foot set back, this
this part of it, the existing house, most of that addition is going to be in the building envelope, which makes it I mean, as it is right now, I could not support this as um
support this variance. We're not with that large a building envelope. >> So, >> I'd like to um see maybe what your reaction is to this discussion before we take uh action as a board.
>> Yeah. So, again, I don't know what the protocols are. So, I'll ask a question and if it can't be answered, it can't be answered. >> Okay. >> Um it it feels funny to me to come back with an idea and say, "What do you think of this?" versus and I guess Sue you maybe just
answered that question. what would satisfy this committee um is to to to allow us to to build that because I think otherwise I mean I hear the opening conversation
um that variances are often granted for a remodel and so we have the opportunity to completely start over consider a remodel in which case. I don't know if we'll get
a a variance or not, but it feels like that's a almost a better chance and we're closer to the lake than by by doing that. So, >> a remodel in the same footprint. >> I understand. Yeah. A remodel in the
same footprint. >> Madam Chair, if I could. So, Steve, what are So, are you saying that you would propose a building in the same footprint, but doing an addition of two feet on either side >> and and back
>> and then backwards? So, you'd keep your existing is what you would say that would be your alternative, >> right? >> But you you you need to remove the structure that you have. You couldn't add on to what you have now because of this. The damage wouldn't make that feasible. Correct. We'd we'd be able to
save enough of it, I think, to Yeah. Again, I don't know, I guess what's considered a remodel, but we wouldn't be we'd have to keep the foundation, right? >> So, I think from a terminology standpoint, when you talk about a a remodel, um what we're talking about, so state statute has provision that says that a
non-conforming structure can be replaced in its current footprint with just a permit. It doesn't have to come to this board for approval. You can you can just do that with a permit. and um and we you could walk walk away and we could get be working on a permit next week to start you rebuilding what you have in your footprint if you want to make any sort
of additions to it just because of its location means that this board then gets to weigh in on those decisions. What I kind of hear I think what I'm hearing Sue say and just tell correct me if I'm wrong Sue I think you're saying is that if the front of the structure meets the rear of the structure that's kind of a
spot where you're thinking that there could be some agreement there that that might make sense. Is that what you're That's kind of what I heard you I think that's what I heard you say. Would that be correct? >> If they're going to scrape and rebuild, move that structure back. So the proposed most of the proposed addition
is within that envelope that moves that whole structure back. >> Yep. And and so is I think what they're asking for is is there is there a number that you guys have be 75 ft from the lake, be 80? I think that's what they're asking. I'm not saying that you have to give them that, but I think that's the
question he's asking. Is >> I'm Yeah, I I I would love to rather than like we came today anxious and unsure of what is going to happen and if we were able to walk away and know that if you came to us with this, we'd say
yes to that. We'd be interested in >> Does the board feel comfortable coming up with some type of recommendation? >> I Madam Chair, I'm not comfortable with that. a lot of I don't I don't know what
what's the width of what's the exist size of the existing structure >> looking on the survey >> you talking length or width >> is it 24 >> no 60ish the width
>> well that that's the that's the one they're not doing I mean of the exist the new certificate So the the existing structure today you're asking about the width. Is that what you're asking? >> Yeah. What is it? The >> this 24 ft wide and then width wise
would be 28 plus 16. >> So they're asking for >> 57. >> Mhm. >> Like >> put 24 under that. That comes up to 81. an 80 foot setback
potential. >> I'm not comfortable doing that. But >> Madam Chair, >> yes, >> if I may. Um, we're we're doing what I despise doing, which is uh doing this kind of planning here in in a meeting.
So, the the only guidance I would offer would be this and see if it flies. Sue is saying to try to get the majority of the addition within the buildable area. That might not be perfect. You might not be able
to. We can't tell if you slide things back and the existing garage, etc. So, she's saying try to get the majority of the addition within the buildable area. And that's the the area that's within the variance, right? Because that's what we have control of. not not replacing
the footprint, but the variance for the addition. And that's I think about the best guidance we're going to offer. We can't say if you come in at 92, you're going to get approved. We we just can't. Um so that that'd be my best uh guidance
um based on what Sue is asking that that I support. So, we can um we can table this make a motion to table or we can take action on this request as is. Well, if we're done with discussion, I'm
going to offer a motion to table it under the understand with the understanding that the applicant kind of gets the gist of what we're saying and and >> we're not designers, we're not architects, we're not [clears throat] builders, >> the gist of what we're saying and and can come back next month. Um, so I kind
of see a nod, so I'm going to move to table. >> There's a motion on the um floor to table this. >> I'll second it. >> There's a second. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign.
>> Motion to table is carried. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll be in contact with you next week to talk about next steps. >> Okay. >> Thank you. The next uh applicant would be Joan Brand for a variance.
Joan Brand. They're online. Joan, if you can unmute your microphone and state your name and address for uh the record, please. Joan Bran, can you unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record, please?
>> Madam Chair, it's Dan Carlson. >> Dan Carlson is the representative is what I was just told. Dan, if you can unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record, please. I heard a little something right there.
I'm not sure what that was. [cough] >> Go to the next one. >> Move on to the next one. >> Oh, we can barely hear him. Hold on. Yeah, >> just hold on, Dan. We're trying to figure out something on our end to make the speaker work better.
No, still not. [snorts] >> Can we go ahead and move on to the next applicant? >> Hello. Hello. >> Hello. >> That's better. Y >> can you hear me? >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay, great. >> Thank you. Can you state your name and
address for the record, please? Dan. >> Yep. Dan Carlson, 4448 Coette Lane, Hugo, Minnesota 55038. >> Thank you. Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? I think
you're going to have to mute your microphone when you're not speaking because we're getting feedback and then once you speak again, you'll have to turn it back on. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes, madam chair. Tonight the property
owner is Joan Brand. Um authorized agent Dan Carlson, parcel number 50110621. address is 16243 Brighton Point Road in Deerwood and this is in Bay Lake Township. Uh the request tonight is a proposal that involves a
complete tear down and reconstruction of an existing non-conforming cabin on Bay Lake to build a new 1,65 foot cabin. The applicant is requesting the following variances. A north property line setback of 7 ft
where 10 is required. South property line setback of nine feet where 10 is required. Lake setback of 32 feet where 100 is required and a type two septic system holding tank where a type one septic system is required. Um
this property is located on Bay Lake which is a recreational development lake and has a 100 foot setback. Um, Brighton Point Road is just west of County Road 10 and this property is within the Shorland district and it is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses.
This parcel was platted in 1924 as it is narrower and shallower than the current ordinance requirements. The new structure is similar in footprint to existing with approximately 20 square foot difference. There is no buildable envelope on this
property. Um, I want to show you quick. Um, >> okay. If you want to go to the This property was platted in 1924. I'm just going to show you the quick plat map to identify what is here to the north. And
this is actually a 33 foot landing um that was platted in 1924 for um road access for the public for people. And so this 10- foot setback here isn't isn't into a property. it is to um undeveloped road access. Just wanted to be clear
about that. A storm water management plan has been submitted by the applicant and is on page 76 in your packet. Noting some on-site comments from the board. The shoreline is rip wrapped. Additional vegetation plantings would be beneficial. The increased sideyard encroachment remains a concern. The site
has significant storm water issues. And um those are all the comments from the onsites, but we did receive a comment from the township today recommending disapproval. They advise that the house be shifted to align with the setback of the home to the southeast
um which is down here and they state that it's about approximately 15 ft further back than this house's current location. No comments were received from other agencies or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the following conditions. One, a land
use permit be approved by land services prior to construction. Two, an erosion and sediment control plan submitted at the time of permitting using approved best management practices. Three, a storm water management plan meeting um article 41 standards. And
four, once construction is complete, a final asbuilt survey submitted to the county. Um I can answer any questions you might have. Any questions for staff? >> Go ahead, John. >> Madam Chair, um the condition for Can
you help me again? I think I asked this once before this came up. Explain the difference between a type two and a type one septic and why we prefer type one because that's what's required in our
ordinance. A type two holding a type two septic system is going to be a holding tank or a privy um where it's just like one contained tank that would have to be pumped. A type one septic system is going to have a septic tank in a drain field. So um it would be able to filter
the waste on on its own essentially whereas a holding tank would need to be serviced frequently. And so that's why we prefer or want type one septic systems on repairarian lots is for lake quality and they're less likely to fail or um
>> and plus as as a reminder this the state statute of 394 does state that for lots that are non-conforming which would be this lot here. They're required to have um they'd have to meet setbacks and they'd have to have a type one septic to be able to get a permit. And so they
can't get a meet septic setbacks. They need a variance for this one, but they also need that type one. So that's why they need a variance for the type two system as well. >> There's no room there's no room on the lot to put a to put a septic system on here. >> And m Madam Chair, if I can ask um and
does it matter if a structure is seasonal year round? Uh is that a factor in our consideration? I I don't think it is, but at the same time, you know, um I think you can take into account the magnitude of what's
being constructed and built before you as far as a holding tank would be reasonable or not. Cuz if it's got a really small lot and they're possibly putting a structure that's, you know, maybe really pushing the 25% impervious, you could say, well, we're not sure that's too big of a structure for say a
holding tank. I don't think that applies in this situation, but it could down the road, I would say. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I have a question for staff. Yes. >> Is there I mean
>> in our packet >> on this certificate of survey >> is the approximate septic tank location. We have no setback from that septic tank location to the proposed house.
Is there documentation that says this property will not support a type one septic system? So therefore a type two is what's going to be required where the tank is where the setback from the house to the tank is. I mean if we
want take the township recommendation and move it back and get it out of shore impact zone one back to that 50oot setback. Okay. Do we is that tank then meeting the required setback to the
dwelling? We have no documentation on any of that. I'm not sure. I'm not comfortable granting a variance for something. We have no idea where it's going to be really located on the property and what the setbacks are.
>> Um m Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Um just maybe to Sue's point that I hadn't thought of, but she makes a really good point to to get a variance for a type two, right? That's what's requested.
uh shouldn't we have um documentation that says the required type one is not feasible and and and do we I I guess >> yeah so madam chair I did reach out to Tom Matson who was the septic designer
for the original holding tank in 2024 and send him um the information that we had so we can just um refresh his memory and he could get back to me his thoughts and he has not gotten back to me yet as a determination or his professional opinion. >> So the answer is we don't have any
documentation as of today tonight. >> Okay. Thank thank you [snorts] >> Madam Chair. If I could put something up on the screen to look at. >> Yes. So, madam chair, if you look, just doing a quick scaling here using my pointer as a scale ruler, which isn't super
accurate, but pretty close. Um, if we push this, it would be, if we push this back, um, this would be another 20 ft from here. This would be 10 ft to here. So, I mean, if you slid it back another 20T approximately, which would get you
to 52 feet. Um, you would still have plenty of room to meet the 10T set back to that tank with some wiggle room in there. So I think there would be room to slide it back to say 50 ft and still meet um setbacks to that tank.
And just Madam Chair, just looking at the lot, you know, it's a 6,500 foot lot. Uh a conforming lot today will be 40,000 square ft. So I mean, we're dramatically less than what would be allowed. So to be able to truly put a a
septic system with a drain field, I don't think it's feasible. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? >> Uh, yes, Madam Chair. It's a long discussion
on a staff report. Uh, it would be if if we moved it back, it wouldn't be feasible to have a drain field. >> Uh, what you just >> I would say in its current location, I think it would wouldn't even be feasible to put a drain field on there. But if
you move it back under 20 ft, then there's absolutely no room for it. >> So, so the staff determination is this lot cannot support a drain field, period. That's the staff's determination. >> That's my opinion based on the size of the lot. And what I'm seeing, I don't think because you got to be 20 ft from
the house, 10 I just don't see where you could get a a drain field on this property. >> Even if we removed any setbacks for a drain field. >> Correct. because I Yeah, I mean at at the same time it would we could wait to hear from the designer next month so
that we have ex he'll know where the wells are and because there's there's other things on there with that drain field that we're not aware of as far as where well location might be on neighboring properties and and that always has an impact on setbacks as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add, Dan? >> Uh yes I do. um significant trees. If we do move it back, there's a number of significant trees would have to go down. Just want to bring that to the
attention. Um that's all I have to mention on that. Any other comments from the applicant? >> That's it. No comment. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. At that this time, then we'll open
it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who'd like to address this application? >> Anyone? Seeing no one we can check and see online. And I don't believe there's anyone online either. So, we'd bring it back to the board for uh additional discussion and potential action.
>> Madame Chair. >> Yes. >> Yes. I personally would like to see a design done for the tank. I'd like to see documentation from a designer saying
>> without moving it back they could put a drain field in. Even if they, you know, >> moving it back we know will eliminate the fact that they won't have room for a drain field. But but having the actual
setbacks from the neighboring wells and all of that that's missing on this certificate of survey, >> I think um I'd like to I would personally like to see it postponed for that additional information. >> Thank you. Anyone else?
>> Madam Chair, I I agree with with Sue because there's some trade-offs here. Let's say we can't get a drain field, which I personally would like to see confirmed because I think it's important on a lake to have a type one if we can,
right? For all the reasons it's an ordinance requirement. And so, would we not push it back to get the tradeoff of a drain field? So, there's a couple of design considerations here. Otherwise, we push it back. And and I think we we
need that. And and I said I'd say the takeaway I would have is I'm going to be oriented to pushing it back to that 52 feet. Um if we're not going to have a drain field. So that would be feedback in terms of what could come back. Um but
my priority would be to get a drain field if it was feasible. Uh so um I would also support tableabling it. >> Thank you. Um any other f further discussion? hearing none. Um it sounds like we can entertain
a motion uh to uh potential motion to table. >> So moved. >> The motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Further discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I.
>> I post same sign. Your request has been tabled. uh and uh you can maybe get in touch with staff and they can give you um the next steps. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you for your time.
Our next applicant is Salvador Spacito for a variance. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. My name is Salvatore Spidto and the property in question is 29015 County Road 3, Mission Township.
>> Thank you. >> And Nicole, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. Tonight we have property owner Salvatore Spacito. Um parcel number 77190644. Address is 29015
County Road 3 in Mayfield. And this is in Mission Township. The request is a proposal um a proposed project that includes constructing a 1,836 foot addition to the existing dwelling. To accommodate this addition, the
applicant is requesting a variance for a lake setback of 123 feet where 150 feet is required. Um, this property is located on Young Lake, which is a natural environment lake and has a setback of 150 ft. Um,
this property is just off of County Road 3 south of Cross Lake. It is in the Shorland district and it is surrounded by Shorland and commercial zoning and uses. Um, let's go to page 65 for the survey.
The existing home is 139 ft from the ordinary high water of Hanks Lake and um the existing detached or the existing attached garage is at 132 ft. The applicant plans to
remove this breezeway and move this garage here to this relocated location on the survey. The new addition will be in line with the existing house. However, due to the curvature of the lake, the setback is
proposed to be at 123 ft. A four-bedroom septic design has been received and approved for this application and it is meeting all setback requirements and it is a type one system. Noting some on-site comments from the board. The the
lot slopes towards the lake. Storm water management will be necessary. A shoreline indentation appears to be driving the variance need and adjacent properties have similar structures and setbacks. No comments were received from the township and no comments were
received from either agencies or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the four following conditions. A land use permit be approved by land services prior to construction. An erosion and sediment control plan submitted at the time of permit
permitting. A storm water management plan submitted at the time of permitting meeting article 41 standards. And number four, once construction is complete, a final asbuilt survey must be submitted to verify all variance conditions and elevation requirements. I can answer any
questions you might have. >> Thank you, Nichollet. Any questions for staff from the board? Hearing none. Uh do you have anything that you'd like to add sir?
>> Uh none that comes to mind here. I did nothing really. My neighbor had some questions um about my um comments that I made in the DRT meeting about um possible campsites and things and that
was in question. I'm I have no intentions of making a campground out of it or anything. I'm simply looking to um get that approved so I can add on to the existing structure and try to improve
the home and make it my permanent residence eventually. >> Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, um we will uh open this up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who wishes to address this
application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I check online and I do not believe there's anyone online either. So, we would bring it back to the board for further discussion and potential action. I have no I mean, Madam Chair, during the I mean,
you look at the survey, there's a very small building envelope. This is an existing structure. I mean, he's the proposed additions in line with the existing house. And as staff stated, the shoreline curves in. That's where the difference in the setback comes
from. If it wasn't for that, it would be the same setback as what the existing house is. So, I have no issues for this. And I'm ready to make a motion if everybody else is. >> That's the case. Please proceed. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. I would like to make a motion to
approve the variance for lake setback of 123 feet where 150 ft is required to propose addition to construct a 1,836q ft addition to the existing dwelling based on the findings of facts um completed by the staff the application
submitted the staff report and the on-site visit um with the four conditions that are also in the staff report. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Andy. Further discussion.
Um, if you want to refer to the findings of factor on 107. >> Hearing no uh further discussion, uh we'll uh before we take action on this, I need to um just ask you a few things, sir. Do you understand what's being approved
tonight? Yes, the variance that I've requested in the footprint of the proposed structure. >> And do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes, I read through it. I couldn't don't
have memorized, but the storm water plan that I'll have to have and then submit the permit. Okay. >> Finalize. Yeah. And the next question is you you understand that you must obtain a permit now from land services before
before any construction would begin. >> Yes, madam chair. >> And then do you understand what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight such as structure size, height or 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's been approved by this board. >> Yes, understood. Thank you. >> Okay, we then will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> I. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you all very much for your time. Have a good day. >> You do the same. Thanks so much. Uh our next applicant would be Ted Jerel. Don't know if I'm close on that last
name. Hopefully. Gyrell. Jurley wasn't even close. Sorry about that. >> Ted Jurley. >> And I'm actually Colin Jacobs with Mara Architecture in Nisah. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. And Nichollet, can you read the read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. We have uh property owner Ted Jurley. Um authorized agent Colin Jacobs. Parcel number is 68120545.
The address is 37229 Fern Trail in Cross Lake. And this is an ideal township. The request is a proposal that includes a 48 square foot addition to the existing non-conforming
structure, expanding the screen porch and the front entry and incorporating a partial seconds story addition. To allow this project, the applicant is requesting a variance for a lake setback of 54 feet where 75 feet is required.
This property is located on Lower Whitefish, which is a general development lake with a 75 ft setback. This property is off of Silver Peak Road just west of Cross Lake. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential
uses. As you're looking through the packet, I'm going to go through to page 117, which is the second survey on your packet because it shows the additions. Um, the existing home is 54 ft from the OW of Lower White Fish Lake and the
proposed addition will continue that existing setback. I'm going to jump down quick to page 119 in your packet. And this shows a very good depiction of what the additions are proposed to be
for this home. The applicant is proposing to build the second story edition here over the existing and then um they're going to expand the porch and I called this front entry. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um so just to point out these
sections with that are on the survey. Um the second story edition would be essentially over here. You would have the front entry edition and then expanding that screen porch. A four-bedroom septic design has been received and approved for this proposal
and the septic system will meet all ordinance requirements. Noting some on-site comments from the board. The shoreline is well vegetated and includes rip wrap. The proposed addition does not move the structure any closer to the lake and nearby properties have similar
structures with similar setbacks. A comment was received from the township recommending approval and noting that the addition did not go any closer to the lake. No comments were received from other agencies or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend
the four following conditions. A land use permit be approved by land services prior to construction. An erosion and sediment control plan submitted at the time of permitting. A storm water plan submitted at the time of permitting meeting all of article 41 standards. And number four, once construction is
complete, a final asbuilt survey must be submitted to land services to verify all setbacks and elevations. I can answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff? >> Do you have anything that you'd like to add, sir?
>> No, that's a great review. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh at this time then we will open up the request for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Double check to see if there's anyone online and I do not believe there is. So
we will bring it back to the board for further discussion and potential action on this request. >> Madam Chair, could I put up the findings, please? >> Findings of factor on page 141 of your packet.
>> 141. I would just like to have the findings reflect that the township um recommended approval on this on 612. >> Thank you for that addition. Any other comments or additions uh
regard regarding the findings of fact? Any further discussion? If none, madam chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for lake setback of 54 feet where 75 ft is required to construct a 408 ft addition
to include a partial seconds story addition based on the findings and facts completed by staff, the application submitted, staff report, the on-site visit, the certificate of survey, and the in the um staff report along with
the four conditions in the staff report. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> There's a second. Okay. Further discussion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I.
>> I. Do you questions? >> Oh, the questions quickly. >> Oh, yes. I'm got ahead of myself. Sorry about that. Um, I do need to ask you the questions. Do you understand what's being approved tonight? >> Yes. And you understand the conditions that are required that were referred to
as part of this approval. And do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before any construction begins? >> Yes. >> And you understand what's being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, height, or location must
be approved by this board. 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. Staff cannot modify or change what's been approved by this board. Okay. Now, we will uh ask for the
vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Your variance is approved. Thank you. Our next applicant this evening is Jay and Judy Gilchrist for conditional use
permit. >> Afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> Jake Gilchrist, 25257 Eagle Ridge Road, Aken, Minnesota. >> Thank you. And can you read this request into the record, please, Nichollet? >> Yes.
Parcel. Thanks. Parcel number 87290538. The address is 25257 Eagle Ridge Road in Aken. And this is in Rabbit Lake Township. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to complete approximately 1,246
cubic yards of dirt moving within shore impact zone one on Rabbit Lake, a general development lake. Dirt moving over 30 cubic yards in shore impact zone one requires a conditional use permit under the land use ordinance on article 11.21.
This property is located on Eagle Ridge Road just north of the east of city of Cailluna. This property is within the Shorland district and is zoned by Shorland and residential uses. This property includes a historic ice
ridge with a depression area that was previously thought to be a wetland. A wetland professional determined the wet area to be incidental, meaning man-made. The wet area was created in the early 1900s during the mining of Rabbit Lake.
During the mining era, a miner's road was created by digging out a section along the lake to build up the road. Um, if you can kind of see it here in the contours, this is approximately the area as it comes through here that is flat to
come across. Um, and what they did was they dug out this area and um, I think I have a page here. I'll show you a photo on 154. So, approximately where we're standing to take this picture is where the old
miners road was. They dug out all of this area to build this up. so that way they could complete it to cool across. The applicant's intent is to stabilize the shoreline, correct an incidental wetland, and create a safer gradual slope to the lake. The applicant shows
the existing grade on this portion of the survey um indicating where that incidental wetland is, the steep slope, and where that minor's road was. Um this is indicating the modified fill area just showing that he's not trying
to make it flat. He's just trying to make it safe with um safer grade to prevent erosion as well. On the left side of the survey, the applicant has provided a reveation plan for shore impact zone one. Intensive vegetation removal is limited to 30% lot width and
25 ft landward per article 11.20b. Once the proposed reveation plan is established, the property will be in compliance with this requirement. Some on-site comments from the board. Um, there were concerns regarding the slope stability. Erosion was visible on
site. Owner has plans to have some grading and hydro seating done within the next week or two to fix the current erosion areas. A storm water management plan should be required and the property owner plans to grade below the ice ridge to reduce runoff.
No comments were received from the township and no comments were received from the public. One comment was received from the DNR on 617 recommending two conditions. The first was set aside um aside from the permitted 15 foot access cut to the lake
and allowance for up to 30% in intensive vegetation removal within short impact zone one. The existing ice ridge must remain undisturbed including its vegetation and natural elevation. No grading allowed. And the second was the
planting and vegetation plan shown on sheet two. The grading exhibit must be fully implemented by the permit expiration date or upon substantial completion of the project, whichever occurs first. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to
re recommend five conditions with the addition of the DNR's two recommended conditions totaling seven conditions. Um I just listed off the two from the DNR that we would like to add. Um the other five would be um the first condition would state that the conditional use
permit is for 1,246 cubic yards of dirt moving. The second would allow county staff to access the property to perform inspections to verify compliance with the conditional use. Third, um the applicant must obtain
a shoreline alteration permit or have the existing permit amended, including these plans. Um for an erosion and sediment control plan submitted at the time of permitting, um we would just have that updated and include that. And then we'll also do a storm water management plan at
that time, too. Um, those would be the seven conditions proposed by staff. I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? Do you have anything you'd like to add, sir? >> I do not. Thank you for all taking the time to visit, seeing the familiar
faces. So, appreciate it. >> Okay, we'll open it up for public testimony then. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll double check to see if there's anyone online and I don't believe so. So, we will bring it back to
the board for further discussion and uh potential action on this request. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> If there's no discussion, um findings, please. >> The findings are 164.
>> There we go. >> Do you have any changes? >> No. >> Okay. >> I'd just like to have them up there. Agreed, Madam Chair. >> Um, so I would offer a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the 1,246
cub cubic yards of dirt moving in SIZ 1. Uh, with the seven conditions now that are attached to that permit, uh, based on the survey and the staff report and the on-site visit comments,
>> there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> There's a second. Any further discussion? Any hearing? None. Before we take uh final action on your conditional use permit application, I need to verify three items with you. Do you understand
what is being approved tonight? >> I do. >> And do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? >> Yes. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight must be approved by
this board. 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. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. Okay. We will then proceed with the
vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. >> Post same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Our next applicant is America Real Estate Company to amend an existing
conditional use permit. >> Good afternoon. Thanks for your patience. >> Thank you. Glad to see you guys again. >> Sorry I missed your site visit, but Josh said he took care of you. >> Did my best. >> And if you state your name and address
for the record, please. Lucia Bean West from Blaine, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> Josh, >> uh Josh Lorn, Blaine, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> And Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? >> I do believe I have someone online as
well. >> Oh, there's someone online as well. Okay. >> And who is that online? Should >> be Sahia. No one popped in. Okay. We'll wa we'll watch and see. Okay. And see if they come in.
>> Okay. Nichollet, do you want to proceed with reading the request into the record? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Um, tonight we have property owner America Real Estate Company, um, also known as U-Haul, parcel number 99250566.
The address is 16707 State Highway 371 in Brainer, and this is in First Assessment Township. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit amendment to revise the approved conditional use permit in 2025. This property is located off of State
Highway 371 um just north of the county road 77 and 371 intersection. This property is zoned commercial and it is surrounded by mainly commercial with some residential uses as well. On page 173, you'll find um the
certificate of survey and um the conditional use that was approved in August 2025 was approved for the following. Six new commercial storage buildings with individual units. One existing commercial storage building
for Ubox storage. Three commercial storage for outside storage. Three commercial storage buildings for outside storage. And uh four one self- storage building for owner use. The amendment includes adding two additional
commercial storage buildings for a total of eight storage buildings. Six were previously approved. Um, one building at 2,246 ft offering 22 units. Four buildings at 2,63
square ft offering 20 units each. Those are these. And then three large buildings at 23,812 square ft having 180 units each in them. Um, they also modified the previous
layout for storage buildings and oriented the RV canopy. There we go. Um, and areas for improved access and getting out of this 150 foot setback. They also recloated the storm water basin due to the site
laid out change. Um, Jack's Lake is over here. This is a natural environment lake. At the time of the wetland delineation, the DNR determined that this inlet was actually directly connected to the lake, which would mean that this little finger right here was
also connected to the lake. Um, this line here indicates the 150 foot setback. Their amendment change, so this change pushed everything out, meeting that 150 foot setback. So, there would be no outside storage within
that area. Um, I do also want to point out here that this line, let me go up a little bit. There we go. Um, this line right here, sorry, this is lagged. This is the
shoreline protection zone. So, this zone identifies the first 500 feet within the lake. Um for commercial properties we have a imperous threshold of 30% within this protection zone area and um they
have an imperous percentage of 19.6% within this shoreland protection zone. The next area is 500 to a,000 square feet and we call that the shoreland buffer zone. >> [clears throat] >> The shorland buffer zone for commercial
properties has a 35 foot or sorry a 35% imperous threshold and um they are at 34% in this area for their imperous percentage. This line right here represents
nonshorland area. So nonshorland area for commercial properties can have 60% impervious and they are at um let's see 35.7% impervious with this amended request in that area. I also want to
point out that um this property based on ordinance requirements of article 17 could have up to 1,328 total lockers. That is not what they are asking for today, but that is the total lockers that they could have on this
property. Um the appro noting some on-site comments from the board. The proposal appears to be consistent with the original plan. No comments were received from other agencies or the public. Um if the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the 12
following conditions. These conditions are the same as the previously approved um other than a slight change to condition one and then adding condition two and three. They are the following. The first condition states that the condition and use permit is for one
building at 2,246 ft with 22 units. Four buildings at 2,63 ft, 20 units each in those buildings. three large buildings at 23,812
square ft having 188 [music] units each of in each of the three buildings. Um internal size of the units cannot can differ provided that the applicant notifies land services in writing. The overall size of the buildings are
limited to what is approved. Any changes in the building size would require an amendment to the cup. Number two, staff would staff must be allowed to access the property to perform inspections and verify compliance with the conditional use permit. Three, a land use permit must be
obtained to land services prior to construction of any of the features. Um, four, the storage units are for renting or or leasing only. Five, no habitation or overnight stays allowed in any of the units. Six, a storm water
management plan submitted at the time of permitting meeting article 41 standards. Seven, an erosion and sediment control plan submitted at the time of permitting using approved best management practices. Eight, building size shall be limited to the size listed on the certificate of
survey dated 51326. Nine, the maximum building height shall be 45 ft. 10, on-site signage must conform to article 40 of the land use ordinance. and 11 must conform to all
requirements found in article 16 of the land use ordinance. And 12, any permitted outdoor light fixtures shall be directed downward. I can answer any questions. Are there any questions from the board for staff?
Is there anything that you'd like to add? Okay. Um, at this time, we'll open it up to public testimony. Is there anyone in here who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, um I'll double
check and I don't believe there's anyone online either. So, we would bring it back to the board for further discussion and action. >> Madam Chair, can I just mention something quick? Sure. >> This is an amended conditional use permit. So, when we um add potential or
amend potential conditions for an amended cup, the applicant has to agree to that. And so we did amend condition one and then we added two and three and we have sent that ahead of time so they're aware of the conditions and we just want for you to just let um just let us know that you agree with the conditions as they've been supplied as
part of the amendment. >> We do. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Back to the board for any further discussion. >> Um Madam Chair, just a clarification on
potential condition one. um point D they can change the size of the units but the total number of units is as specified in A B and C and that cannot change. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you.
>> Anything else? Not we can entertain a motion. The findings of fact are on page 190. We can show those. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> I would like to make a motion to amend the existing conditional use permit
adding two new commercial storage buildings with individual units for a total of eight commercial storage buildings. Six commercial storage buildings previously approved by the planning commission board of adjustment. Based on the findings of facts in the staff report, the on-site that was
conducted, certificate of survey in the staff report along with the 12 conditions in [clears throat] the staff report. The motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> A second. Further discussion
hearing? None. Before we take final action on your conditional use uh permit amendment, I need to verify three items. Do you agree with what is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> You agree to the conditions that that I know that Chris just mentioned that are required as part of this approval?
>> Yes. >> And do you agree that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight must be approved by this board. And this would mean 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. >> I do. Staff cannot modify or change what's been approved by this board. With that understanding, we'll proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All the same sign. Motion carries. Thank
you very much for your time. >> And thank you for saving my jacket. >> We've been watching it for about a year. >> We'll take a year. So, yeah. Yeah. >> Walk with it. I started laughing. [laughter] >> Thank you again. Mhm. >> Our next applicant would be Adne Exchange Holding Company LLC for
preliminary plat. >> Hi. >> Hello. If you'd state your name and address for the record, please. >> [clears throat] >> uh Tony Becker and uh address is 188835 Marie Lane, Crosby, Minnesota 56441.
>> Thank you. Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madame chair. We have uh property owner Adne Exchange Holding um LLC or Tony Becker, parcel number 60320512.
The address is 18835 Mary Lane in Crosby and this is in Fairfield Township. The request tonight is a pre preliminary plat um Adne Lake Conservancy with two total lots. Um let's going to go to page 196. This
property is located on the north side of Adne Lake, a general development lake. It's on the west side of State Highway 6 and east of the city of Cross Lake city boundary. Um, this property is within the Shorland
district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. Both lots exceed the minimum standards for general development lakes. Let's zoom out so you can see what I'm talking about here.
The required minimum lot size for a general development lake is uh 30,000 square feet in size. Lot one has 3,000 or sorry 315,568 square ft and lot two has 1,350
square ft. The buildable area exceeds minimum the minimum 12,000 square feet for both proposed lots and both lots exceed the minimum 100 ft in lot width. The plat includes all required survey elements in article 9.6F.
Um there's adequate 66 foot legal access via Mary Lane for both lots. And at next month's public hearing, that is when lot two is scheduled for review for a conditional use permit application as well as the preliminary plat for the conservation design development.
No comments were received from the township and uh no comments were received from other agencies. One comment was received from the public in opposition, citing lon habitat concerns, short impact zone protections, and the potential impacts to the lakes's natural
character. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the five following conditions. One, a final plat submitted within 12 months of the county board preliminary approval. Two, all required subdivision improvements, article 9.8 are implemented.
Three, if soil disturbance is greater than one acre, a MPCA approved SWIP is required prior to any construction or clearing. Four, final documentation of all plat monuments. And five, a title commitment must be provided prior to
final plat. I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff on this? M madam chair if I can just um processwise. So in front of us is a preliminary plat
for two lots standard development right. The one that's on the schedule for next month will supersede this preliminary plat because it will be a new plat for the same lots. Is that right?
>> Correct. So it' be like the first addition to Yes. Okay. And that's the one that has the conservation considerations. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? >> Do you have anything that you'd like to
add? >> I do. Um just like to say something really really quick here. First of all, thank you all for having me and thanks for coming out and seeing the property. Appreciate it. Um uh just uh I'll be real quick here and then we can get into it. Uh uh Tony Becker. Uh, I'm a
conservationist and outdoorsman, which is why we named the subplat the how it is, Adne Lake Conservancy. Uh, my wife and I used to have a cabin on Adne Lake. We fell in love with it back then. Uh, since then, we sold that and we purchased this property to construct a home and guest cottage on it and plan to
live here permanently in the future surrounded by nature. We along with others on the lake are excited that we have the opportunity to preserve and restore this property from more intense development. I saw a public comment that was a concern about the variance on the road which is uh already which has already been there. Uh and this is a
small existing road that was approved by the county 50 years ago for uh property owner access. We can talk more about that but we have no intention of using it any differently that has been used in the past. Um we plan to build on only
287% of the total 40 acre parcel. Uh for spec specity it is about 38 and change. Uh we also plan to remove an existing cabin that's on site and clean up other garbage and rubbish that's on the site. I will make a comment that is our goal
and and to actually reduce the impact on wildlife from what has been practiced in the site on in the past. Uh this property has been used traditionally for farming in the past for years. Uh as with most farmland comes tillage, fertilizing and runoff into the lake and
very much adverse impacts to uh nature and wildlife itself. There was active tillage all the way until fall 2025 before we owned it. We are now converting that farmland into natural grassland and also replanting the forest that was once more prevalent based on
old satellite imagery. We plan to restore that based on the imagery itself so that it would go back to its natural habitat. Additionally, we are working with Minnesota Forestry Division and Prairie Restorations in order to achieve this. That's 8 and a half acres or 21%
of the total parcel that were in farmland practices and we're looking to restore that. After restoration, 99.7% of the property itself will be given back to nature and the rest of.3 roughly we'll be using for our house and guest
cottage. It's our intention to keep this in our family for generations and educate the future generations about the importance of living with nature and creating habitat for wildlife. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> At this time, we will open up the request for public testimony. Is there
anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I will double check to see if there is anyone online and there is not. So we will bring it back to the board for further discussion and action
on this request. Any discussion? >> No, >> we can put up the findings of fact. Those are on 212. >> And um well >> entertain a motion. M madam chair, um
before I do that, I would just say um we had discussion on the site visit about preserving the the property. So I appreciate the comments and I think there'll be more discussion >> uh next month relative to to that. Um but I I don't have any issues with this.
So, um, I would move a recommendation to the county board for approval of the preliminary plat ad lake conservancy with two total lots. Uh, based on the survey that has been submitted and reviewed, the findings of fact and with
the five potential five potential conditions stated in the staff report. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second. >> We have a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Before we do take final
action on your preliminary plat request, I need to verify two items with you. Do you understand that tonight we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request? >> I do. >> And the county board does have final approval over this request. And the
meeting is going to be >> July 14th. >> July 14th at 9:00 a.m. in this room. And do you understand that the required conditions placed on this preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request? >> Yes. >> Okay. We'll then proceed with the vote.
All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I same sign. Motion carries. Thank you for your time and patience. >> Appreciate it. >> Next month. Yep. >> Our last applicant this evening would be
Daniel Melanowski for a land use map amendment. >> [cough] >> Good afternoon and thanks for your patience. Someone has to be last. >> It's Ronald Melanoski. Daniel is my oldest son. >> Okay.
>> So, he's on the paperwork. >> Okay. >> And if you can state your your name and address for the record, please. >> Uh, Andrew Milinowski, uh, County Road 25, uh, 14194, Briner. Thank you.
>> Kimberly Larson, 4768 Fairview Road, Baxter, Minnesota. I'm a daughter. He's a grandson. >> Thank you very much. Nicola, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. Um, tonight we have property owner. So, I'm just going to
just pause really quick. And so, we have 1/8 ownership. I'm just going to call it the Malinowski own the Melanowskis. >> Okay. Um, so we have the Malinowskis here as the property owner and the applicant. Um, parcel number is 90030510
and this is in St. Matias Township. And the request tonight is a land use map amendment um to change from Egg Forestry to um rule residential 10. And this property is um located on the corner trail just northwest of the intersection
of Sleepy Hollow Road and St. Matias Road here. Um to the north of the property is Crowing Township. This is the Crowing line here. And um I did contact Crowing Township to see what their adjacent zoning was on these parcels. And they did say that it
was zoned egg forestry as well. Um this the property this property is zoned egg forestry and it is surrounded by mainly agricultural forestry and rural residential five to the east. Um so
here's this property. There's a little bit of shorland. This is the egg forestry and this is the rural residential 5. The applicant wishes to split the parcel into two 15 acre pieces giving or selling one 15 acre piece to his grandson. A comment was received from
the township on May 4th, 2026 recommending denial of the request with a comment that the township board would recommend no less than 15 acre lots which would be consistent with the township's comp plan of maintaining agricultural rural character. I just
want to note that the applicant's request of an amendment to rule residential 10 is the largest zoning the applicant can have that would allow this property to be split into two 15acre pieces. The next step up from rule residential 10 is egg forestry which has
a minimum lot size of 35 acres. Um there were no other comments received from agencies or the public and um there are no recommended conditions with this request. I can answer any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff?
>> Is there anything that you'd like to add? Well, they tell me, well, I bought the farm in 1975 and in 2003,
put a house on that 34 acres. It's actually a little over 34 acres and it was pasture when I bought it and I got rid of the cattle. So now it's
hay ground using it for hay. >> Thank you. >> I had a comment as well. So with it being 34 acres, it would actually be how would that where would the other two acres go? So that's that that's a good question,
Madam Chair. So um we just updated our zoning map. Um and I believe it was December of 24. December of 24 is when we updated our zoning map. And so um your property, if you were to split it or make a new one today, it would have
to meet those requirements. So we would consider this more of like um >> what you going to do if you split in half? >> Yeah. >> Just basically 17. >> So 17. That's that was my question. whatever, you know, however you want to.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Anything else you'd like to add? >> Okay. Well, we'll open it up to public testimony and there's no one in the courtroom and I don't believe there's anyone online. So, that brings it back to the board for further discussion and
action on your request. >> Madam Madam Chair, yes. Could we bring up 219? I think that's the zoning map. So there's is the light green right egg.
That's the property. >> So let's see. One lot over is five, right? I mean, that's egg. I understand that's egg, but then you got one lot over, you're at R5, [snorts] right? And a whole bunch of R5.
Um, so if there's no 10 in the area and it's all egg to the north, but I mean dividing it in half, how how could you do anything? I mean, they
could you could make a case that you could go to R5. I mean, there's pretty it's so I I think it's fairly reasonable proposal. understand the purpose of it and it's not um harmful to the surrounding zoning
etc. And that's kind of my thought. >> Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? >> Well, Madam Chair, when you look at the surrounding zoning going from a to RR10, it's a natural
transition for what's in there. I mean, you look there. Yeah, there's R5 there, but there's little tracks of R5, which we have no idea if that is a 5acre parcel or whatever that is. So, going to
R10, I have no issues with this. It's a natural transition in the um land use classifications. >> And Madam Chair, remember that that lot that is one over, that's the Marshall property that you recommend that reszone to that. So, that's why you see that little carved out acres there in the
corner. So, >> okay. Any further discussion? If not, we can entertain a motion. >> Well, before we do that, I mean, I'm I'm confused with the township's
recommendation to deny it. They want 15 acre parcels. That's exactly what they're doing, but I don't know. >> Well, I I think what the township's afraid of is that if it goes to R10, they could technically create three lots. And so I think they're okay with the two lot idea the 15 cuz that would
then meet but you can't force them to do that. I mean with the reason with 10 acres they get Yeah. So >> that was a concern of the township. So I think at the end of day everyone's going to get what they want if this gets approved. So >> and the findings of factor on 230 if we want to bring those up please.
>> So madam chair if there's no more discussion I am ready to make a motion. Madam chair, I would like to recommend that the county board um the land use amen amendment to the county board to go from agricultural forestry to rural
residential 10 based on the findings and facts in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> A second. Any further discussion
hearing? None. Uh before we take action on your land use map amendment application, I need to verify one item that you do understand tonight that we're making a recommendation to the county board approve to approve your land use map amendment request and the county board does have final approval
over this request and that is understood. Ex July 14th 9:00 here in the morning in this room uh then we will go ahead and proceed with our vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. I. >> I. >> Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> Have a good evening. >> You just might make something. >> Hey, items not on the agenda.
>> Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. First, I just want to say, didn't these guys do a great job tonight? >> Awesome job. And I think with the onsites that they navigate with you guys a couple weeks ago and I was unavailable. So, um it sounds like I may not have to come to these meetings much more. I don't know.
It seems like you've got a you got a pretty good team over here. So, I just wanted to just really want to point out that they're just doing a really good job and and uh just appreciate the the work that they're doing. So, Stacy's going to tell you the applications we got for July. >> Uh we have 12 applications for July 16th
with our on sites being June 30th and there's seven stops. So, so does that 12 include the two table tonight? >> No. >> Okay. So, you So, how many So, what do we have for the the breakdown? How many variances? Do you know how many?
>> So, we have eight variants, two cups, two plats, and then we will have the two variances from here. So, 14 total. >> I was able to make the first date that we changed, but I can't make the second date that we changed for the answer. >> What was the date again, Stacy? >> 29th.
>> It was the 29th. And >> it's the 30th and I've got >> we had to we had to move it to the we had to move it to that date because we couldn't get we missed the the publish date. So otherwise we had to do the two vehicles again which I don't think anybody didn't have a lot of fun doing that it sounds. So
>> so if we wait till the 30th that gives us our 10 days to publish. So >> make the 30th. >> I'll be on the 30th. >> Andy you available? Okay perfect. Well, the last thing I just want to talk a little bit about that first application that we went through with with Wensman.
Um, and so that was an application that was submitted last summer. Um, and and was approved. And when we found that, um, what we ended up doing immediately was we did a, um, review of every permit we issued in 2025. As soon as we found
that in would have been in probably earlier early this year, I think in 26. And so we did a quick review just to make sure we didn't have any other similar situation like that, which we didn't find any permits with any issues. So, um I know it's no fun to get those, but we issued 1300 permits last year,
and we had one that kind of went south