How's your elder care adventures with your dad coming along? He's >> coming. What's that? process. I'll just You know, Becky, I feel like I'm in timeout, though.
I feel like I'm in timeout. Won't be the last time. Number seven. might Ready to roll, guys? >> Good afternoon and welcome to Crowing County's Planning Commission and Board
of Adjustment meeting. It is 3:00 on March 19th, 2026. Please rise for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America to the stands one
indivisible with all. >> If you have not already done so, please silence your cell phones. And if you are online joining us, please make sure that you have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. Please note that
this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the agenda is roll call. Rocky >> here. >> John O is absent. Sue Masky is absent. Andy Larson >> here. >> And I am Rebecca Best. The next item is
to approve the minutes and findings of fact for the meeting held on February 19th, 2026. Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes and finding the facts. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved. Tonight we have or this afternoon we have two items of old business and six items of new business. So we greatly
appreciate your patience. Our procedure is when we call your application, you will be admitted to the meeting. If you are online or if you are in person, please come to the table in the front, have a seat, and state your name and address for the record. We will then
have Nichollet read your record into your request into the record. We'll then give the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not been previously submitted. After that, we will open the request up for public testimony. Tonight, we'll have two
public testimony opportunities, one in person and the other 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 are speaking in person, please come to the microphone at the podium in the center of the aisle and state your name and address for the record. In either case, you will be given five minutes to give your
testimony. Please do not repeat what someone else has said and please do not read your emails or letters that have already been sent. Everyone who wishes to give testimony will have an opportunity to do so. Once we close
public testimony, we will not reopen it. We will then bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Our rules of conduct are fairly simple. 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. The decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment request, we make a recommendation to the county
board. for a variance or conditional use permit request. We make the final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do 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 would 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 our findings of fact. Preliminary findings have been included in the staff packet. Next, I will ask
each board member present if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet. Andy, >> yes. Rock, >> I have >> and I have as well. With that being said, our first
applicant this evening is Cobblestone Properties LLC. I'm Tyler Pigba, 10878 Brent Drive, Brainard, Minnesota. I'm the land surveyor that uh is uh working with the client. Um they're in
the back there. They're just a couple couple pews back. There just wasn't enough room here. and Brad Pur, attorney in town here for the applicant. >> Thank you. And Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please?
>> Yes, madame chair. Um, the property owner for tonight's request is Cobble Crest Properties LLC. Authorized agent, we have uh Chad Connor with Witsth. The parcel number is 50070563. Physical address 230001
Clearwater Point Road in Brainard. This is in Bay Lake Township and the current land use is Shorland. Um this property is located on Clearwater Lake. Um here is Clearwater Point Road and the lake does wrap around
the um south side as well as it comes in on the east over here. Um, Clearwater Lake is a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback, a minimum lot size of 40,000 square ft, a minimum buildable area of
16,000 square ft, and a minimum lot width of 150 ft. Madame Chair, there are two requests tonight and I suggest running the public hearing for both items together and making separate motions on each request.
The request is for a variance for um 115 cubic yards of dirt moving within the bluff impact zone where no dirt moving is allowed and the placement of a driveway located within the bluff impact zone where the driveway is required to meet a 30-foot bluff setback. The second
request is a preliminary plat for Clearwater Point second edition with four total lots. Going to the certificate of survey on page 18 of your packet to the north of Clearwater Point Road.
There are two lots proposed. Clearwater Lake does come in here. There is a 66 foot wide access for lot three and then access to that for lot four. On the south side of Clearwater Point
Road is uh lot two and lot one. Existing access for lot one is currently through a parcel of land which is not owned by Cobble Crest Properties and an easement for access was not obtained to continue utilizing this driveway. The applicants are proposing to reroute the
driveway through the Bluff impact zone to connect to Timber Trail. The original proposal was for the driveway to go through the bluff impact zone and go straight to Timber Trail. Um, I'm going to put up an alternative route on the screen that was submitted
by the applicants um to wrap around. So, it would continue in the bluff impact zone and then it will wrap around to the existing easement. One second while I put that on my screen. There we go. This is the um alternative access that
was submitted by the applicants just a few days ago. Um so the trail will the driveway will instead of go direct, it will connect back into the existing access. You can go back to my screen. An engineered plan for the erosion
control has been submitted with this application and is part of the variance request. All proposed parcels within the plat meet the land use ordinance requirements for lot size, width, and buildable area for the repairarian parcels on a recreational development lake with the exception of lot one
needing the variance request. A comment was received from the township on January 14th recommending denial of the application stating concerns of conforming lot sizes. Since then, the request was updated to include the variance for the driveway, and another
comment was received from the township recommending to deny the application, stating concerns of the driveway location, safety of pedestrians utilizing the road, as well as concerns on how the proposal will impact the bluff impact zone over time. A comment was received from the Soil and
Water Conservation District or the SWCD stating the existing parcel is adjacent to over 500 acres of county administered land which is valuable habitat for natural species. The SWCD would like to offer their assistance ensuring the property is developed in a way that
ensures the habitats stay connected. Eight comments were received from the public, one with no objection to the application and seven stating concerns on the new proposed driveway creating unsafe conditions, noting limited sight lines with the driveway in either
direction of Timber Trail. Concerns of pedestrian, ATV, and golf cart traffic and safety. There are also concerns with what the environment hazard with the new driveway may cause. Although engineered, there are still concerns of what the runoff from the driveway will do to the
bluff itself over time, as well as noting concerns about the bay to the north of Clearwater Point Road, this bay, and um what environmental impacts that that may have to um the native species
in the area. I can answer any questions that you may have >> at this time. Are there any questions from either of you? Not at this time, >> Rock. >> I guess I'm so So
why would they want to put this hook in the road? >> Well, so um the original request was to go straight and um they decided whenever comments are received, they are sent to the applicant and the applicant was responding to those comments thinking um
that that would be a solution. Um and the the impacts then decreased to below 100 cubic yards with the alteration. >> And uh Madam Chair Rock, I think what they're also trying to do is keep the driveway with it not being a new
driveway. It would still be at that same approach where you're coming in instead of having a new because that was what the township concerns were at the last letter was they didn't want a new approach town new approach, but I think they're trying to work around that with uh with that um driveway design that you see there. So that would keep the line
of sight farther from that sharp corner. >> It's still a sharp corner no matter how you look at it. >> It would improve it would improve that. >> I think so. I think so. Yep. >> So, Madam Chair, uh two one or two
questions. Originally, the township was opposed to that first proposal. >> Correct. Have they appined on the second one that you just showed us? >> They submitted a comment on on this
applica on that you're looking at. >> They have not submitted a comment on the most recent that you were that we put up on the screen. Brand new one. >> Yep. We received that on Wednesday, I believe. >> On Wednesday. >> On Wednesday. So, there hasn't been time for the township to review that yet.
>> Okay. >> Any other questions at this time? Yeah, it just seems to me that I mean I, you know, the original proposal I had, you know, concerns with that, too. But the second one sort of mitigate a lot of my concerns,
but I am curious to get the township's buy in or rejection. I'm curious about their opinion on that. So, I'm just I'd kind of like to have them have opportunity to react to the the the new proposal. Madam Chair and and Andy, um I
did notice that the Bay Lake Township is in the audience, so um hopefully they'll he'll have a come up and maybe able to address some of your issues that you're bringing up. >> Good. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything else? I'll turn it back over to the applicant to see if there's anything that you
would like to add. >> Just we could further clarify, I think, and it might might help everyone out. So based on Andy's uh question, so Bay Lake Township did have two two comments. One was from January and one was from March.
The January comment was based on uh the access easement over lot three, which is on the north parcel. Uh we showed an we showed a 33 foot before and we have since updated that to 66. Um and they
were happy to do that. So that fully satisfied that comment. Um the second one um is based on the driveway re relocation. So we had sent in that driveway relocation um engineered plan
storm water grading and in erosion. Um and the first set which is what was going to have a new approach was going to move 85 cubic yards of of dirt. Um but the clients listened to um some
of the opposition and some of the concerns with uh most of it being they wanted they didn't want a separate driveway access you know closer to the corner and then so they listened to that our woods engineers redesigned it
connected it to the same access point so then uh the line of sight is better or the same as what it is existing and then also the amount of dirt to be moved moved is only at 40 cubic yards. Um, just wanted to clarify that if that
helps paint a picture of anything. >> Thank you. Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Then at this time, we will open up. >> Can I make a couple of comments as well? >> Certainly. Sorry. Yes. >> Um, I just wanted to make a couple points on first of all, but I think some
of the comments kind of just suggest why can't we just access through the neighbors properly like we always have. We've tried to resolve that and they want a lot of money for that. And if a variance were denied, my hunch is it would be a lot more. We don't control our destiny if we have to go through someone else's land. And my
understanding of county ordinance in state law is if we have a buildable lot, which we do, we have the legal right to access our the road from our own property. And the variance is simply it's a very wide access point along the road there. It's just all as you if you've been to the site, you know, the
contours are crazy. And according to the surveyors of my client, the most the only really viable place to get to the property is where we actually try to locate it. Now, anywhere to the west of that, it the hills are just too it's too much of a hill. Um, but if we move the
access point to realign with exactly where it is now, it's a pre-existing condition. We're not making it any worse. We don't I understand that neighbors don't like change, but that's more about the development and the and the subdivision. It's not about the road access. As to the road access, we have
we clearly meet county ordinance requirements. We have legal access. We just need to you can locate it as you wish. Whether you want the old alignment or the new alignment, we'll do as you want. But either one would work. Or if you want us to move it somewhere else on our property, we're willing to hear that, but I I don't see where it could
go. And without a condemnation, I don't get how you can say we don't have access to the the road. Um so that's that's where we're at. It's not about I hit I I hear that's a steep corner, but it's opposed to 50 mph limit there. We're not talking about a county highway people
going 55 miles an hour. It's you almost have to stop to make that turn. So, it's it is a hard sight line, but it's the contours of that road kind of force people to go slow. So, and and it's already there. We're not changing 50 years of history.
and we want to make sure if if there is any more comments or questions after you hear other feedback, we'd like the chance to respond to that if we could. >> Certainly, you will have that opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, we will now open up this request for public testimony.
And as I said, tonight we'll have two public testimonies, one in person and one online. If you wish to speak to this application, is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to speak to this application? Anyone in the courtroom, please come forward and state your name and address for the record.
>> Good afternoon. My name is Don Hails. I live at 14994 Greek Lane, Deerwood, Minnesota. And for the record, I'm also a supervisor in Bay Lake Township. I have a couple requests I'd like to respectfully make tonight. First off, uh, as since we just received this
information and we have not had a chance to review it yet, I would ask that respectfully that this application be tabled for until next month. so our board can meet and go over it. I'm hearing some positive things that I'm hearing tonight, but I I'm just one of three and I'd like to have an
opportunity to discuss this with my fellow supervisors. So, that's that's my first request is to ask to have this tabled. >> Thank you, Don. Anything else that you'd like to >> If it's not tabled, then I have other comments I would like to make. So, >> okay. How does the board feel about that
request? I know we've heard already from Andy that and and I have to concur that I would like to have uh you have a an opportunity to weigh in on the new proposal. I think that's only fair and reasonable. Brock, how do you feel? >> I'm I'm fine with that.
>> Okay. Um >> can I ask a procedural question? >> Yes. Maybe maybe to point it to Chris, but um if it is tabled and we have to wait a month, um is there a way to coordinate the final plat approval together with the preliminary plat approval to kind of speed it up in time
for and combine it off? >> Potentially there could be with no road development on this. It would be a matter of getting things in place like >> Excuse me. Yeah, apologize for that. I didn't have my microphone on. Yes, we could coordinate that um final plat where it would it would uh want to go
because the if it uh does if let's say were to get tabled, it would go to the April meeting which would be what's the day of the April meeting again? >> It is April 16th >> and it would then it would end up at the
county board's desk on April 27th. Uh and so our our cut off date that the extension that you guys have provided to us was May 1st. So we would have time to get to the April meeting and we could coordinate um preliminary and final at the same time. We could definitely >> keep thinking that through. If if this
if it were not tabled and it were approved like there's a lot of ifs right there today. >> Correct. Right. >> Um we still got to come back for final would it be any it would be the same timeline if we in that scenario would >> correct final does not come back to the planning commission. Final goes directly to the county board. So and that has we have that has been past process and
similar plats where we've done a preliminary and a final plat county board at the same time. So, >> right. >> Yeah. Um, yeah. And we should ask the applicants this, but, uh, you guys are proposing potentially
tableabling the variance. Um, but may or may not table the prelim plat hearing tonight. >> If we're going to table the variance, I'd recommend we table the plat as well. >> Both would be tabled. >> Yep. >> I don't think you can. They're connect. They're two connected. I I >> I don't think we could approve one
without the other. So, >> or get clarification at a minimum on that approach on lot one. >> The only thing I'm thinking of is have you ever I don't know your practice on um approval subject to or contingent upon the the town board meeting and giving
you a something that was done without having a second meeting again. Have you ever done that before? >> We have not. And so that's not been past practice of this board to to do a conditional approval. And so I think that if we're not comfortable with approving it now, um, you know, I think
the big question that maybe the board has to is wrestling with, I think, is that when you look at the proposal, um, while it does stay on that same spot, it is within the rightway of tall timbers there. And so I think the township would want to have input into that because if they ever wanted to the road be removed
forever purpose and there's that driveway there that I think the township just needs to weigh in and say that they they would you know respect that or be willing to accept that as a location for that driveway because it will be in the rightway of of uh tall timbers there of that platted road. So I think that's the
that's the question I think at hand. >> Can I have a second please? reading the room. We we don't oppose the tableabling of the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you very much, >> Madam Chair. I would recommend though that we complete the public hearing because this has been tabled once before
and I believe some folks have probably made the trip up and they should at least be given the opportunity to speak today. Not that they wouldn't have the opportunity in April as well, but I think at least for the public to be heard at this point. I'd recommend finishing the >> that this afternoon versus >> and we still have another public hearing at the April meeting as well, but I feel like the folks are here, they should be
a chance to give them a chance to be heard. So, >> I think that's only fair. Okay. >> Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Please come forward if so. Anyone else? Seeing no one in the courtroom, is there
anyone online who wishes to speak? Okay. Please note that we've made that opportunity for um additional public testimony. I'll bring it back to the board then for um action further. >> Madam Chair, I'd make a recommend or I'd
make a motion to table this application till the April meeting. >> Thank you, Rock. Is there a second? >> I second. >> Madam Chair, can we just clarification? It is the variance request and the plat request are being tabled together. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> There's a motion to um table both the
variance and the plat request on uh Cobble Crest and there is a second by Andy. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. >> This request is tabled until next month.
Thank you very much for your time. Our next uh applicant would be Shirley and Perry Leler for an interim use permit. >> Shirley and Perry Leler. >> Hi, I'm Shirley Leler. >> Hi, Shirley. >> I'm online.
>> Would you like to state state your name and address for the record, please? Shirley Leler and I live at two I have a home at 27177 Ridgewood Drive, Maryfield, Minnesota. >> Thank you.
>> And I live at 28615th Street Northwest in Naples, Florida. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> And Nichollet, can you read the request into the record for us, please? >> Yes, madame chair. Tonight we have uh
property owners Shirley and Perry Leler. Parcel numbers 5304581, 5304582 and 5304583. The physical address is 27177 Ridgewood Drive in Mayfield. And this is
in Center Township. The current land use is in the Shorland district. Um, let me change my map here. So, this property is located on Upper Mission and Lower Mission Lakes. Um, Upper Mission Lake is
a general development lake with a setback of 75 ft and Lower Mission is a recreational development lake with a setback of 100 ft. This property lies in Center Township just below the center township line. Um up here is Mission
Township and of course down here would be Center. Um Madame Chair and board members, I just want to remind you that this property um had a preliminary plat application heard on the August 21st uh PCBOA meeting where you had recommended
approval of the preliminary plat with variance at that time and the county board had approved on September 23rd, 2025. The request tonight is an interimm use permit for an event center to allow a wedding venue.
Going to the survey on page 78. I'll adjust my screen here. Here is the property that that lays out. Um it consists of three total lots. One, two, and three. With lot one being
utilized for parking. Uh, I believe there's a total of 53 total parking spaces now on the property. Um, there is an easement for access that goes through the neighboring property up here to the north that is utilized um to access lots
one, two, and three. And then there is an easement that comes down further for the neighboring property to access Lower Mission Lake. Lot two is proposed to be um an the event and reception area. I'm just going
to go to a an exhibit over here. This is an existing building proposed to be a reception and a kitchen hall. Um, this existing house over here on lot two is proposed to be a bridal suite with additional family V accommodations.
And then on lot three, there is an existing house that is proposed for a short-term rental for the wedding venue. on the peninsula over here. I want to point out that this is a proposed outdoor wedding ceremony area for this event center of where the outdoor
weddings will be hosted. The applicant is proposing up to 100 guests at any given event and plans to utilize portable restrooms to accommodate these guests. No comment was received from Center Township. A comment was received from Mission Township since the access
into the property is utilized via Ridgewood Lane and Ridgewood Drive, which are both Mission Township roads. Concern concerns were noted regarding the commercial enterprise not being in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The township also
commented on the anticipated increase in volume of traffic for guests or commercial deliveries as well as an increase in public services. Mission Township requested an an assessment of the private easement, also known as Hoot Owl Drive, to be to
address the increased usage and maintenance that might occur. 29 comments were received from the public, all of which were in opposition of the application, stating concerns of increased noise, disruption of peace, and concerns regarding hours of operation. There are also concerns of
safety for the residents along access roads, light pollution, and lake environment concerns regarding increase of phosphorus, invasive species, and nutrient runoff. concerns of environmental and wildlife impacts to the native species in the
area as well as concerns of overflow parking impacting neighbors, emergency vehicle access concerns, and the narrow access of H of Hoot Owl Point, increased traffic on the lake, and concerns regarding the existing septic system
capacity being able to handle the venue. A comment was received from the applicant stating that there will be staff present to oversee parking and guests will receive clear direction and instructions regarding this. It was noted that the residence directly to the
north is for sale and being advertised as a potential home business. The applicant stated they are committed to maintaining the road collaborately with the neighboring property owners to ensure its responsible use. It was noted the applicant believes the request is in harmony with the surrounding area as the
uses include residential, recreational, and business related activities with their proposal being seasonal with clear operational controls. The applicant stated in closing that their goal is to ensure that any growth or development associated with the property will be thought out, responsible, and beneficial
to the broader community by addressing the concerns and following the guidelines set by the board. I can answer any other questions you may have. >> Questions, comments? >> Yeah, Madam Chair.
I when we toured the property, um, a couple of things just really uh jumped out at me. Uh if you look just to the the north of the property we're considering where the the access road from the north uh enters
uh to the east side there you've got a a residence on the lake and then on the west side you've got a their garage and effectively the traffic would be coming through basically someone's driveway.
And what struck me is that my home setup is pretty similar to that. Um, I've got the house on the lakeside and then my driveway and then there's a, you know, my garage behind that. And I couldn't imagine a situation where one of my
grandkids is running from the house to the garage to go get a life preserver or, you know, a bike or a trike and there's cars coming in there heading into a wedding. I mean, that's just inimicable to public safety. That just I no way you
can mitigate that. I mean, it's it's a narrow setup and there's going to be whoever lives in that house is going to be going back and forth. So, number one, that was a huge red flag for me because my own home is, you know, laid out not
dissimilarly. Secondly, I just don't think it fits in that neighborhood. It's so close to that to that property I just mentioned. Uh weddings are not quiet events.
So the you know the sound issues and the noise are significant. Secondly, to the the east there where the actual venue occurs, it's virtually on the lake. You know, sound cover, you
know, travels. >> Water's free. >> Yeah. >> As far as sound goes. >> Yeah. It's, you know, I wouldn't want that situation on the lake. um light uh issues.
A big consideration uh parking uh what you know what happens if there's 56 cars? Are they going to be parking on spots they're not supposed to park? So, Madam Chair, for these these reasons,
I'm just not supportive of this. It just doesn't fit uh that neighborhood in that in that area. Thank you, Andy. Um, I would add from being on the on-site that, um, I have several concerns that you articulated
very well. Um, uh, the the traffic and safety and noise being the ones that are at the forefront of my um, mind with this particular um, application. >> Rock, do you have anything around question? I don't see how it fits the
neighborhood myself either just because noise across the lake just travels. You can hear people talking a boat. You can it um and this is going to be not just a dup disruption just to this area. It's going
to be all across upper and lower the upper and lower lake. So, I can't support it. >> Okay. Um I'd like to turn it back over to the applicant. Uh do you have anything that you would like to add or
um respond to the discussion that's been had at the board? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Um, couple things that you brought up that I definitely wanted to also um, bring some further information. The
house that is sitting right next to us is currently listed for business use. So, the easement, obviously, the current owners next to us think that the easement can support this type of easement for a mechanics business or a
detailing business. And um we do have 28 acres there with seven that has been deemed environmentally protected. And we do have a large area that is is uh can support the parking and the um we've had
Witsith go in provide information to make sure that we can accommodate these the existing history of Hudal that was a fish camp for many many years. Families came and went. It was designed, the original structures are there that
support a commercial kitchen. There was actual pictures of hundreds of people being out there having big large events. So, this is something that we took into consideration when we were thinking about this is already the history is there. We're not adding any new
buildings. There's significant buffers on the property. We too have lived on the lake. We've enjoyed it with our family and we do have a vacation rental for a large family at this time. People have respected the property. We have
respected the ordinance. We've applied for every permit through the county. We have gone through the process. We have been transparent with the property and we were we have had a lot of people ask us about utilizing the property as a wedding venue. So, that's what's
basically brought this up because of the vacation rental. We wanted to make sure that we went through the process correctly. >> Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add before we do open up this application to public testimony? >> Not at this moment. Thank you.
>> Okay. You're welcome. At this time, we will open up this application to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom room who would like to address this application? If so, please come forward to the center podium and uh state your name and address for the
record, please. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm Nick Per from 26825 Mission Narrows Lane. I'm just south of that. I live permanently right across the Narrows from there, which is a narrow channel, which is a no
wakeake zone because of environmental issues. Weddings should be happy, loud, and boisterous. This is not the neighborhood for that. The noise we're used to hearing from over there is loons, ducks, swans, uh, geese,
um, blackbirds, frogs, perching for, um, eagles and ospreys, and an occasional American bitern. You guys know them as Slooh Humpers and
or Thunder Pumpers and an occasional Wilson Snipe. This is a recreational um lake designation. And um this is just not this is just sorry it's
inappropriate. I hope the family could enjoy their lake homes and listen to the uh the nature as we do. Um, the only life wildlife that really likes it around there at night are the hood dolls. Um, which they would have to
compete with, I guess, but I'm in opposition. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Please come forward. >> And if you'd state your name and address.
>> My name is Darwin Boy, 27181 Ridgewood Drive. I am the neighbor that the next door neighbor uh concerned about the safety. We have 10 grandchildren, 10 great grandchildren. When they come up, they have four-wheelers and
three-wheelers and they shoot across that driveway to go out to the woods ride their trails. The little ones race around the building concern that one of them might get hit or killed. In regards to the easement, in 1979, my
brother and I and our wives bought Hudall Point, which consisted of roughly 100 acres. In 1981, my dad passed away and made my mother passed away. Settling up the estate. We says, "Hey, we better divide
this property up here so that if something happens to one of us, our families don't have to go through what we went through." So, we divided the property and we give I gave my brother a driveway easement through our property
to get to his place and he give us a easement to go down to the lake. It was designed for one person. We haven't sold any of that property. It It's wetland.
It's preserved. We have deer, loons, and all that. Uh, so it was never intended to be an easement for commercial property. It's a driveway. If you were out there, you can see it's dirt. There's some soft spots in it that need
to be tended to. Uh, so like uh it's it's a driveway easement. There was a judgment and I brought you a copy of that where the judge stated driveway easement, driveway easement. Even the plaintiff said it was a
driveway easement. So, uh I would I'm very concerned about that much traffic going between them two buildings. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh madam chair, members, that the document that Mr. Voit was referring to is is up on the screen right there. So
>> this is what we were given prior to the meeting beginning today. >> He Yeah, he brought it with y. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address this application? Please come forward. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh my
name is Bob Snell and I live at excuse me 14755 Eagle View Lane in Mirfield. Um, my wife Paula and I um have lived on Lower Mission since 2011. I also serve
as the treasure for the Mission Lakes Association board of directors. Our family has spent 15 years fishing, boating, and swimming here. Uh, my children grew up on the water and now my four grandchildren, excuse me, are making their own
memories. Um, I am here today to ask for you to deny the proposal for the event center in wedding venue in Center Township. Uh, this is a quiet residential neighborhood, a commercial enterprise uh
is simply not in harmony with our homes. Uh, specifically, we are concerned about neighborhood peace. Loud music and speakers will shatter our quiet. Uh, also bright light pollution will destroy our dark night skies. Uh, safety. Our
local roads are not designed for the heavy traffic and congestion a large venue brings. Uh, in incompatibility. Uh, the extended hours and high volume of activity are the opposite of why we invested in this community.
Um, furthermore, this commission approved Mission Lakes the Mission Lake improvement district in December of 2025. Uh, this proposal I feel works directly against the lid lake
improvement district uh be against uh its intentions. A commercial venue requires pristine landscaping, raises serious concerns about uh certain concerns about fertilizer runoff into our lake and other uh and
our lake, not to mention the septic concerns and its effects. Um I appreciate your time today. >> Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to address this application? And just a gentle reminder that we have
read all of your letters and and emails and um have heard everyone thus far today. So if you could not repeat what has been said that would be wonderful. Please come forward. Uh, my name is Jim Johannis and I got a
property at 27162 Ridgewood Drive. That's just north of the property. And and one thing I want to say is I've been there since 1999. So, if that was a fishing camp with a lot of traffic, I would say I 100%
disagree. Maybe there was one family that went up there, but we do not have the traffic. And the thing is I I strongly disagree for all the reasons brought up. But I know you've been to the site and one of the things is we have a one-way dirt road and I also have
little grandkids running around and I don't want that traffic, you know, during the weekends and stuff and that's when there's traffic on our road is during the weekends. And so how can we put a commercial activity in a residential area? And then the question
I've got is are we planning to make that commercial property or is it just for a zone? Is it just uh to give them the wedding venue? >> They're asking for I can answer that question, Madam Chair. Yeah. So, uh, the application is for an interim use
permit. And what that is, uh, intended to allow certain uses, um, in in zoning districts that wouldn't be permitted, you know, just like an administrative over-thec counter permit. Uh, and so the county board has decided that these wedding venues um would qualify, you
know, to apply for an interm permit, not automatically be granted one. There's a process that you guys have all been part of. Uh, and so the zoning on this would not change. And so the zoning would still remain residential with an intermintment if it gets approved. So there's no there's no proposed change to the zoning on this parcel. Okay. So I
did look up there's a Minnesota statute 462.3597 and it said a city or county may grant an interm permit only if certain conditions are met, including it conforms to the zoning ordinance. And I would disagree with that. It's it's
clearly a recreational thing and in order to put a commercial business in there with a parking lot and buildings and on top of the wetland, I think you have to zone it. It's commercial activity. So, I I think that's a no. And
then the other thing is you can't have additional costs to the public for this interim use. And I would disagree that there's no cost because if you have a onelane dirt road, I would argue you're going to have to make that road um bigger. You're going to have to add
street lights. There's going to be police calls. And then even I know there's a noise ordinance after 10:00. You can only have 55 dB according to the state of Minnesota. And when we have a wedding venue and we're up there every weekend, we're going to there's going to
be a lot of police calls and problems. And it just it's blatantly obvious to me that this just does not belong in the proposed area. It needs to be somewhere where it's zone commercial. It just it it doesn't belong. If if you
approve this, it's just going to create a a bunch of problems and a a lot of unhappy people. >> Madam Chair, can I I address the >> Yes. >> So Minnesota statute 462 you refer to refers to cities and towns when they zone. Minnesota statutes 394 is what
governs how counties do their planning and zoning. And so, um, if you look in our ordinance, article 10, you'll see a list of uses and where they're allowed in certain types of permits. And so, this event center is an allowed is is a use that's allowed with an in permit in
the Shorland district. It doesn't look at the difference between light classes, general development, recreational development, and nor natural environment. So, um, if this gets approved, I'm saying if I'm not there's the staff doesn't make the decisions. It's the board that makes the decisions. Um, it isn't it is a allowed use with
the proper review, public testimony, all the process that we're going through. So, it's not in violation of the ordinance. You may not like the location. You may not like the but it it it would be um it if if it was something that wouldn't be allowed with the permit, they wouldn't have been allowed to apply for it and they wouldn't have
gotten to this point in it. So um just just to be clear that you know the the the the purpose behind an intermuse permit or a conditional use permit which is very similar is to make sure that um it gets proper review from the neighborhood. So we mailed notice to the neighbors. We publish in the paper and
the decision is made by by the board here and this board is appointed by the county board and that's set out in statute 34 is how you would create a planning commission and a board of adjustments. So um just wanted just to clarify that aspect of it. So, and the other a couple other things I'd like to
clear up is Butch's Land that's just north of that, even though it's his own business. Um, he's lived there for a long time and it's not a business, he him and his family go through there once in a while and he works on his on his trucks. And then the last thing I'd like
to bring up is we didn't know it was in Center Township. So, we can also call Center Township and have them assess the impact of this, but I think they're going to have the same uh the same thoughts as Mission Township. So, if you
give us more time, I can contact whoever center township is and we can have them make the same assessments. And I did even get a letter from Mission Lakes Association. Everybody has the same feeling. So, I just think with so many people against it, it makes completely
no sense to to to have this permit approved. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Just for clarification, the zoning on this property is residential as well as the property to the north is residential as well. >> Okay. >> So, it is residential and uh Center Township was provided notification um
and given the opportunity to comment and we didn't receive a letter from them. So, they were they were provided the opportunity to comment though. >> Okay. But I can I can con I can contact them myself too, but it might be too late. But I'm willing to do that to discuss it with them. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Is there anyone else who would like to address this application? >> Make another comment. But in regards to the road that's not a road, that's a driveway. When you divided that up and
put three lots there, the county told up and said that for 911 they had to have a road a street address. So we had to pick a name for it. So we named it Hudall Drive just so that that was for 911.
That is not a road. That is a driveway. And who's going to maintain it? The township county. Nobody's going to maintain it. I've been doing the maintenance. You know, all the years I did it, never once did anybody ever say, "What do we owe you for dirt? Do we owe anything for fuel?" I just did it. Thank
you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to address this application? Anyone? >> Matt's coming. We got one more. >> Hi, my name is uh Matt Kelly. I live at 28728 Plaris Lane, Marfield. Uh my folks
have a lake place uh 27682 Ridgewood Drive. Um I've been going there since I guess to uh Upper Mission since I was born. 44 years this June. Uh my grandfather lived on the lake for 50
years. Um my dad went from the time he was born. He's going to be 76 I think. And um I'm going to try not to resp um safety's probably number one, the noise and honestly everything that they
all said before. But the question that I think the county's got is how did this even get to here? Right? And I understand how that happens. There's a template. There's rules that they have the right to come and submit. Um, however you guys decide
to vote on this, that's your whatever. You know, you got your information, you're going to go yay or nay. Um, I just hope that whatever decision you do make here at the end of the day that you use this as an example for the future for the
decisions that are made when this instance come up comes up again. The 30 the 30 letters whatever that came in in opposition. And I think that's really scratching the surface. My dad allegedly didn't get it in the mail. Whether he didn't open it, it got lost, I have no
idea. It's the It's the mail, right? But this was just brought to our attention last week, so late to the game. And um kind of illprepared, but um ultimately I I guess I just I'm really curious where this would end. Um nobody's talked about
I guess the future development that would stem from this. So, the first thing I've been self-employed for 20 years. I'm not into real estate. My dad is. Um, somebody who's in real estate is going to see dollar bills here. And VBO's, Airbnb, huge thing here. Where
does it end? And, and how does this reshape the community long-term with somebody seeing dollar signs at every turn once these things get established? and you push out uh generations of families who are established there and
are trying to get away from this type of environment. And um I I would assume that when a wedding venue gets established and real estate comes for sale, in some cases it's going to devalue it because it's only going to become appealing to somebody who wants
it as a real estate investment like the Lelers. Uh, and the person who's going to come to get away from it all is going to say, "I don't want anything to do with that. I want to get as far away from a wedding venue that's a quarter mile away or on the other side of the lake as I can get." And it's going to
devalue everything in between. And it's going to really change the dynamic for the future. And that's one thing that I didn't really see in the notes. And I think everything else has really been addressed. But it's really concerning to me to where this situation could end or
not end. And um I would hope that things are changed in either my local ordinance uh Mission Township and or at center and then furthermore to the county to say hey look this was a real big issue. This was this was a lot of people who didn't
want this and who are we serving? Who are you all here for? I get that they're part of the equation, but uh the numbers speak for themselves. Um when it comes to a lot of the checklists that are on here, I think to me anyway, my opinion is is half of them really weren't met.
And it comes to the public safety welfare. I mean, it's very subjective to say that yes, is it going to employ some people? Sure. But when you put it on a scale, how does that balance out? And I just don't see it being a fair balance for the taxpayers and the people who, you
know, have worked really hard to afford these uh properties, you know, and they come here for uh relaxation and to get away from the hustle and bustle of the cities and city life. So that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
courtroom who wishes to address this application? Seeing no one, I know we have some I believe several people online who would like to speak. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct, Madam Chair. Yes. >> So, let's uh um
>> start with um >> why somebody online hand up unmute and go ahead and introduce yourself. Once you've unmuted, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. >> Should I go first? >> Yes, >> sure.
>> Okay. Um, I'm Kitri Kylo and my uh the property address that um we have is 27301 County Road 19 in Marfeld. Our permanent address is in Lakeville, Minnesota. thus
I'm here remotely. Um I won't reiterate I have all the concerns I serve on the as on the Mission Lakes Association board but my family has been coming to Mission the Mission Lakes for 97 years and we've had a property for 40 um two
of those. Um so I've been there my whole life and my father his whole life. Um in addition to those concerns that have been said um when we talk about commercial venue and it's being that there's a difference between having a
mechanical something where there's little traffic but then having a wedding venue and besides the um I'm concerned about the congestion also on the road on 109 that would be coming or or the congestion to get into the wedding venue
when you have lots of vehicles arriving at the same time. But the and the other point is that be it's been alluded to by other individuals, but the lower lower mission is already labeled as impaired
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It does not need a big commercial venue that is going to be dumping more harmful nutrients into the
lake. Um, we are battling that now. We do not need to distress that lake anymore. Um, and the other thing it's been said, but the wetland area is is precious and it does not need to be disturbed by all the noise and and so
forth at a wedding constant activity every potentially every weekend during, you know, from spring to fall. So, um, I'm in staunch opposition to um, granting the the application or the permit. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next, if you would please unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record. >> How about number one? Would number one go first? >> Cindy Carps. >> Cindy,
if you could unmute your microphone and state your name and address. >> Hold on. >> Sorry about that. >> There you go. go figure out where the mute button was. >> Uh, it's Paul and Cindy Carris, K A R O S, and it's 27998 Ridgewood Drive. Um,
and I'm not going to I I did send you the note. I'm blind and I we bought the our property in 1997. And I just want to thank you first of all for giving us the opportunity to share our feelings. It's really uh really nice that we get a chance to
communicate how we feel. And we also took a huge uh sigh of relief when we heard some of the board's concerns as well. So the only thing that uh we wanted to add is that the the channel that goes between lower mission and upper mission which happens to be our
kids and nieces and nephews favorite part of the lake actually because you feel like you're in a I don't know like an Amazon type thing. It's so peaceful and it's so quiet. It happens to go directly attached to uh the Hudal Point property and you know because it's a
wedding you know most weddings do start probably 3 4:00 in the afternoon um the character of that change could be so dramatic that you're going to be going through this quiet channel and you're either listening to or watching a
wedding. Uh and then you know not to mention the of course they're going have to have microphones and all that kind of stuff as well. So, we just, you know, uh really hope that that the board will say no. Otherwise, it really the Mission Lakes will, I think, forever be changed
because of this. So, we just want to thank you for the opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Number three. >> Oh. Oh, number four. Pardon me. Number four, >> JP. JP,
>> if you could unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record. >> Yes. Uh my name is John Zoya. Uh I live at or our property is 27990 Ridgewood Drive. Uh I am the president of the Mission Lakes Association. We
wrote you a letter with confir concerns that we had along with many that we received from other fellow neighbors on the lake. Um couple things I wanted to provide in addition to that. Um it was stated for one thing that the there's
enough parking spaces for 50 vehicles. Um yet there's going to be as many as 100 people at these things. Uh so what prevents 100 people from driving their own cars there? And where will they park? Uh the soil in that area is very
soft and after a heavy rainfall it uh could be a problem for cars parked there. Uh so I imagine there's going to be quite a bit of class 5 brought in to create a solid surface uh which will add to the runoff issues that uh we have with our lake already and we surely
don't want to make that any worse I'd like to also add that um my family's had property on upper mission since about 1970. Our lake home was actually the first one built on that section of of the lake uh
that was uh created called Rididgewood Estates. Uh this was sold by Richard Harrison uh and developed by him and um we do not remember it ever being a fish camp in that in those 55 years. So if it
was it uh predated when there was any residential properties nearby. Uh so if it was it's kind of a mute mute point. Um the last point I'd like to make is that I participated in the uh August
2025 uh planning commission meeting where it was proposed that this property be split from one piece into three. Uh no there was no mention whatsoever that this was to be a commercial property. Uh I think everybody including the board of
commissioners were under the belief that this was going to be uh residential. Um and I they might have had a different feeling about it had that been the case. But uh yeah, this was a surprise to everybody uh I believe. And uh it's really not appropriate. It's just too
much traffic on a rural road uh with lots of residents around and uh you know this driveway access I believe was given a a variance based on the fact that it was going to be residential not commercial which would require I believe a 66 wt wide easement and which is
virtually impossible because of the buildings that border the the current road or driveway. So those are my thoughts. Um, hope you'll consider this and uh rule against this decision. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. Is there anyone
>> I may I'm sorry if I may. I'm the second part of the JP Zoya. >> Oh, absolutely. If you if you state your name. Yes, >> absolutely. Thank you. My name is Palma Zoya and I um also have a resident
shared on 27990 Ridgewood Drive and I also am on the Mission Lake Association. And I just wanted to also point out that I think for many of us in the Marfield
Centerville Township area, I think so many of us embrace, you know, the business atmosphere and we want to support that in the community. Um, that's important to all of us who live there full-time and for seasonal
residents. My primary concern is what everyone has stated before us about safety very much. So I do want to suggest that a wedding celebration and I don't doubt the
applicants you know encouragement and ability to embrace the community and the wedding venue and the peacefulness of it. I don't doubt that by any means. I'm
sure that they are very well-versed in that um approach and have had experience as I understand it. So I do not doubt that. My concern is again from a safety perspective and I I know celebrations are happy
wonderful times for so many um and I do believe that alcohol consumption will occur. I am concerned about that for the children in the area. It is not a well-lit area. It is a residential area
and that gives me pause for people with children and our grandchildren. And the only other second point I would make is that time in Minnesota in the Brainer Lakes area is precious. Our summers are we all
know it's it's critical. Um, and this venue, the operational time frame is during the summer months. and to be on a lake in the peaceful setting up north and to have that potentially
intruded upon even though I think the intentions are there to try to create opportunities to mitigate it. I don't know that that is entirely possible within the
constraints of what everyone embraces and has purchased the property to escape that in the our precious northern woods. And I thank you again for allowing us to to speak to this. Thank you for your
time and consideration. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else online? Um, Madame Chair, Mark Casey. Mark Casey, if you could please. >> Hi. Uh, hi. My name is Mark Casey. Uh,
I'm a seasonal resident at 13979 County Road 116. I'm also part of the board of the Mission Lakes Association. Uh, I'm not going to belabor uh what was already said. I just think this is fundamentally incompatible
with upper and lower Mission Lakes. uh this is the quote quiet place to be and uh this would not be a quiet place if this venue is approved. Thank you very much for this process. It's it's it's it's a very good process and appreciate
the opportunity to both submit written comments and to speak with you. >> You're welcome and thank you for your input. Is there anyone else online? Okay. Um, seeing no one else and we've heard from no one else in the courtroom
or online, I will bring this back to the applicant if you would like to address any of the issues that were brought up during the comment period. >> Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I wanted to bring up a few things. I first off, I I appreciate listening to people and listening to their comments and um,
when we purchased the property, it is something that we have had for years and we have had our children there. We've been in the school district. My kids are actually in Florida on educational purposes, but we'll be going back up to the Minnesota area. They love the area.
There's going to be long-term use of the property, the family. It's not something that we purchased that we want to get rid of. Uh we do have the one home that is a vacation rental. I do want to bring up a couple things that I thought was just very disheartening and also very contradicting. Um, one of the things
that u multiple people brought up was the fact that the neighbor to the right next to us and they mentioned him by name Butch has brought up the fact that he is concerned for his family's uh well-being and his the children and
everybody that comes to his property. But he has not lived on the property in almost two years. The house is vacant. It is for sale and dur through the MLS it's listed and I can be quoted on the verbiage that is a prime listing for a
commercial business. I suggest all of you go in and you take a look at that because if we're condoning somebody that lives next door to you saying that you should not have commercial use, you should not list in the fourth sentence of your commercial listing of your
residential listing. It's the perfect setup for a car or boat collector or a homebased mechanic or detailing business. Those businesses bring a lot of noise. Mr. Voit has owned a large busing company and transportation
company for many, many years. I've lived next door to him. I've lived in that property. I've seen the buses coming in and out. I've seen the cars coming in and out. And multiple people that spoke today spoke on behalf that it's okay for him to have a mechanic business there.
But they had never spoke on the fact that I've had to live next door to that also with my kids when my kids were young and outside playing and driving through as he's backing up buses and doing all these things. So the next thing that I found that was really interesting
and I really like the fact that the gentleman brought this up. There is a process and I have followed the process for 13 years. I have pulled permits. I have been transparent. I have had the county come to my property. I have gone through the system. I have completed
applications. I have hired surveyors. I have hired engineers. I have done everything with my building process. I have one of the lowest density probably in the nation for as large a property that I have on a lake. Literally across
from me is Mission Beach Resort. It is 8.4 acres. And look at how much has been developed on that. I have two homes that are still there. I've added one shop and I haven't done the the large commercial
growth that is being said that I'm doing. I asked for this venue because I've had a lot of requests in my VBRO because the property is so beautiful and I decided to ask the county and go through the proper chains and ask for the proper guidelines, the proper
ordinances, everything. I have followed the rules the whole time. I have never had one complaint in 13 years of owning that property for noise issues. I have not in the three years I've had it as a seasonal vacation rental had any
complaints. I can show you that I have emailed my neighbor that he has never in 13 years sent me an email nor asked me for assistance in maintaining the roads. We've always done it collaborative together. We've always worked together.
So when you come forth and you bring facts, please bring the correct facts on our history. Our history has been we we have done everything we can and and with our home and look at the low density. We even have the seven acres that has
actually preserved wetlands. I paid for that when we purchased the home. So we want the the neighborhood to know that we have followed rules. We respect people. The reason we have that 28 acres is because we love our privacy, too. We
understand and we come there with our family and we still come there all the time with our family and we're not going to stop coming with our family. We just decided to go through the proper process and we have followed it and we have complied all these years. So, I just
wanted to end on that note that there's more information and when there is statements made that are incorrect, it is not okay to have a mechanic businessman, not allow a wedding venue. You have to have guidelines for everybody. One gentleman even thought
that the property next door to us was zon commercial because of the use over all the years. So, that is a contradiction to what we've done. We've been transparent. We have allowed the county on our property. We have gone through all the process through everything. We've asked for input and
the county has been more than willing and has provided amazing information. They have guided us through this process. So, the county is not failing the system. The system's in place and we need to respect the people that are sitting upon those boards that are
guiding us. people like me that are going through processes, whether it's building onto my house, whether it's a a short-term rental, whether it's any growth that we're doing, that you are providing us with the correct information. Cuz without your information, we don't have any ordinances for anybody to protect their
properties there. when you have a resort across the street with 44 RV sites, nine cabins, 10 pontoon boats, multiple tents, um a general store, and if you actually go on, I contacted the county last week, there's multiple properties
on the upper Mission Lakes and lower that are already commercially zoned. I know when I moved there and I was living on my property from the very beginning that traffic and the amount of people that have moved there have increased after COVID we've seen house after house
after house. I've divided my property just like anybody else would to protect their families to make sure my kids and everybody's protected for the growth. I will continue to utilize the county, the land services to advise me on any direction that I'm going because I have
been transparent and I want to make sure I continue to be transparent. I want to build that relationship. But I also want people to know that I also I also am concerned about the areas and that's why I have such a large property and I have
such low density. So, I want to close on the note that I truly truly appreciate this whole entire process that I've been through. I have learned a lot. I have understand that the respect for the neighborhood, the sound, the the noise,
the traffic, the growth, all those things are very important in protecting our own home and things that we have going on. But the fact is also that I am a homeowner and I am not there at this time and just like many of you I do use
my home in the summertimes. I do have an investment and I have invested into the community. I am not going anywhere. My family loves it. I call it my little piece of heaven on earth and we enjoy it. I just decided when I had people contacting me to go through the right
appropriate channels on how I needed to continue with the progression of my property and to share when people are asking about having weddings there. There are multiple homes that are on that lake that are now VBO. We were just there in September and I could not
believe down Ridgewood Drive or Rididgewood Drive how many homes had cars out front with boats and trailers. They don't even have the parking and they have VBOS's. I have the parking. I have the land. I have the ability to host these people and keep them
privately on my property. I can tell you that moving forward for 27181, I will continue to monitor because I don't want a mechanic shop with five bays tow trucks running in and out of the property with loud uh equipment going off all day long because I've
already endured that. because just like other people thought there was a commercial business being ran out of that property. So I want to thank you for allowing me to come forward today. I want to thank you for guiding my family with this process. I hope that you
understand our position and we will continue to use the advice of the county. It is in place. It has been proven and is the reason it's in place is for people like me to go to to thought an application to know what my future holds and what my rights are with
my land. So, thank you very much on behalf of the Lelers. I hope that we can get this permit approved and I truly truly want everybody to understand that we also have a vested interest and we also love the property that we have there. Thank you.
>> Thank you. With that, we'll bring it back to the board for uh further comment and discussion and um action. >> Well, vacation rental generates traffic, but it doesn't
generate 50 cars for an event. I I look at it, would I want this in my backyard? And I would say no. I um I don't think it's the right location
for for a event center. We have approved many event centers. Most of them are on huge parcels of land, 100 acres. The closest neighbor is, you know, a half mile away. The closest
neighbor is right next door, right across the lake. There's multiple houses and like I said, the water's free travel as far as sound
goes. It just there's no buffer. There's nothing stopping uh sound leaving the property. And to have multiple I I see it every I see this if it if it was approved. I see I
would I would think probably almost every weekend there's going to be an event there all summer long and I don't think it's the right thing to do to the neighborhood. That's my opinion. >> Thank you, Rock. Andy,
>> I concur with with Rock. I his comments are are spoton. >> Thank you. Uh I concur as well. Uh getting back to uh earlier um concerns that were voiced, the traffic, uh public
safety, the noise both locally right in the neighborhood and then across the lake as as sound carries. Uh lighting, parking, just the overall um wedding venue is in my opinion
inappropriate for that particular neighborhood. So, um, based on that discussion, um, I would entertain a motion regarding >> Madam Chair, if I could interrupt if that's okay. Uh, if you look, uh, in the packet on page 109, you'll find, um,
some potential findings that the staff prepared that would support approving the interim use permit. And then over on page 112, um, there's, uh, some, um, findings that would be able to use to support denying the permit. And so, >> Chris, 112
>> 112 is where is if that would be for findings. If if the board was leaning towards um denial, uh if that's the route to choose to go, I'd recommend that we work through and discuss the findings that have been prepared and see if there's anything that needs to be added or anything needs to be modified
or changed based on uh the board's opinion. And Madam Chair, if it's okay, I could just kind of walk through those findings. >> Okay, everyone have that in front of them. Please go ahead, Chris. >> Okay. So, so everybody as just a point of reference too for u everybody who's here in the courtroom and online
um there is a a set of um requirements or um con findings that have to be met and they're actually located in the ordinance. And so this is not something where it's just a very subjective choice of whether they approve or deny. Um, and so there's there's a list of findings
and we'll just kind of walk through those here quick and make sure that everybody is on the same page and help, you know, correct things for us if you have things that you'd like to point out. But the first um first consideration is what impact will the proposed use have on the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants and the surrounding neighborhood? Staff
included events will increase traffic and activity in the vicinity which can affect nearby residents sense of quiet. Uh, the access drive is located approximately 150 ft from the neighboring house to the north. In addition, the access drive is located approximately 20 ft to the neighboring
accessory structures. Um the sheds are there as well. Uh more visitors on site will increase noise levels during events impacting neighborhood welfare and uh the driveway parking use increases vehicle movement which may raise safety concerns with the shared access
driveway. Is there anything that you'd like modified or anything you'd like added on there based on the discussion today? the what we've heard from um the comments submitted the oral testimony. Anything you'd like to add to number one, >> Madam Chair? >> Yes.
>> One of the uh the individuals pointed out that with the development of the parking facilities because of the nature of the existing soils that would require uh different types of soil brought in
for parking which is by and large impervious. which adds potentially to runoff and water quality issues. So, I would encourage us to add that also. >> Okay, we've added that. Is there anything else that the board like to
consider looking at health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood? >> I would uh say something about the health of the lake. Um, part of our goal is to protect our precious water resources and lakes in the area. And
someone uh spoke quite well to that as far as the wildlife um and the impact of uh noise, uh maybe increased boat traffic, those types of things. >> There was mention about nutrient additional nutrient loading and so we should we can include that. Okay, got
that. >> Is there anything else for number one? Okay, we'll move on to number two then. Uh the number two says, is the proposed use able to meet the standards of the county land use ordinance? And uh the answer that staff has put in is that the proposed event center is allowed with an
intermuse permit in the Shorland district. Um so that's you know that that is what is allowed. Um, I think other things that you could maybe think about is do you think that you could put conditions in place that would mitigate things like um lighting or noise or
those sorts of things? Um, I think that's I think one of the questions that we have to really come to as far as a finding if you're not supporting the request is there aren't conditions that can be put in place that would mitigate the concerns or of the potential impact to surrounding properties or to the
lake. I think that's really the conclusion at the end of the finding that you would come to as we go through this and and maybe we get to the end we determine that there are conditions and maybe you would move the route of approving too. So just wanted to that's kind of the conclusion that we're working towards is are there conditions
that would mitigate are there conditions that would not mitigate the concerns. Okay, >> Madam Chair, just to comment on that. You know, clearly we conditions could be put in place. You
know, closing down at 8:00 at night, limiting number of attendees or cars to 15 or 20, uh moving it away from the lake, etc., etc. But for me personally,
I'm a business owner. By the time we put conditions like that, we effectively eliminate it as a viable business. So I I think we're not doing anybody any favors trying to condition this into acceptability
when it is just not a fit for the neighborhood and and for that location. >> Okay, I agree. >> Agreed. >> Okay, we'll go to number three. Is the proposed use consistent with the goals and policies adopted within the county's comprehensive plan? Uh there is a goal in the county comp plan that talks about
uh fostering a diverse mix of business environment focusing on growth and designated infrastructure supported areas. Support business development that creates livable wage jobs, enhances tourism, improves residents quality of life, address blight to enhance community character and preserve quality of life and then to increase the support
of local tourism, vacation oriented business and nonseasonalbased economy. So that's what we have for number three. If we move on to number four, um will the proposal cause any adverse effect on neighbor property values and future development of the land in the
surrounding neighborhood? Uh finding number one is that there is potential for decreased property values in the neighborhood based on increased traffic, potential increase in noise and lighting. The main concern is the proximity from the existing 33 ft easement to the neighboring residential properties. Um, outdoor events, outdoor
event areas could require additional mitigation such as noise lighting and buffering and noise light and buffering. Is there anything that you'd like to add as far as that? Could we go back to number three? >> Sure.
So it's just my opinion but foster a diverse business mix environment focusing on growth in designated infrastructure supported areas. >> Yeah. >> There's no infrastructure. >> Yeah.
>> In this area there it's not on a county road. It's not it's on a a gravel road. That's >> right. It's on an a driveway, >> right? >> It's not supported by infrastructure.
>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. We could put something we could um look there's another um factor that would be in the comp plan that would talk about protecting natural resources, water quality, lakes, and we could um use that as a finding in it in that's in in place of that. >> Yeah.
>> You could also mark no and state of why it is not. >> That's what I'd say. I'd say no. And it's not an infrastructure supported if this is off of a county road. >> Got it. >> That would be different, but it's
>> okay. >> Madam Chair, can I ask a question, please? >> Go ahead. Um I just have a question pertaining to this first report that so when the when just so we know in the future for these types of things when we come to the county these finding of
facts was done by a whole bunch of people that came out to our home and it seems to me that the facts that have been provided that are on listed on here are not even align aligning with what's going on at this meeting which brings me to some concerns as what was the purpose
of this finding of facts if they're not aligning with what we're talking about today because this was a bunch of people from the county that's gone out and done this this complete report and put this report together. So, I'm just a little
concerned at this time as to the difference of finding of facts versus the opinions of what's going on with the county. We went out on a site visit and um we come up the findings of fact uh the uh
board members who were on the site visit as well as staff and this is how these are drafted. The purpose of going through these right now as part of this process is to go through and make sure that we have everything uh uh as we
would like to see it in final form because >> I just want to make sure yeah going forward I mean we've involved with Seth we've had surveys we've had people involved and you know looking at the proposed information and there was not
one box on here that did not support moving forward. So, I just, you know, myself learning the process and working with the county and going through these processes, I'm just trying to understand where the big change came from from all these
basically supporting because I've reviewed this with, you know, with Witsith and with Tyler and just going through this, I just wanted to find out how this changed so dramatic. And it kind of goes back to the gentleman who brought this up that making sure that
someone who is moving forward and asking questions has the proper information when we're trying to do things whether it's, you know, a remodel of a home to a vacation rental to asking for an interim use permit. So, Madam Chair, just to answer that
question, um the information that we're looking at today that's on the county website was posted a week ago today. And so, nothing has changed since was posted a week ago in the website as far as what's in this packet. So, the what you'll see in here, the findings that would support the request that were on
page 109 were in the packet a week ago, as well as the findings that were on page 112. So, nothing has changed uh from when it was published or was posted to the website uh one week ago. in the process we're going through right now is just um going through and seeing
if there are any additions or um other information that the board feels that they'd like to be added to this document. >> Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. >> So if we look at number four, Madam Chair, we just talked about the adverse effects on property value in the future
development. We talked we had the two bullets there. Is there anything that you'd like to add in addition to number four? We talked it talks about potential for decreasing property values in the neighborhood based on increased traffic and the increase in noise and lighting. Um the issue is the 33 foot easement to
neighboring residential properties and the outdoor event could require uh mitigation for noise, lighting and buffering. Is there anything else that you'd like to put there? >> I think from my standpoint I think that's fine. Rock and >> I'm good. >> I'm good. I think you might want to
state that when we had that required mitigation, you could state something that the board doesn't feel that there are conditions that would be placed that would mitigate the noise, lighting, and the buffering from it. Is that kind of the conclusion that you're coming to? >> Right. That's kind of with my starting
comments that if this is where we would like to include that, that would be um appropriate in my opinion. >> Okay. Really comes down to where this parcel is located between the two lakes with if it you know if it was tucked in somewhere else it
>> uh question number five will the proposed use have any effect on public utility public services roads or schools um if we the uh point number one event traffic will increase vehicle volume on hoot I will drive condition two is that there are no schools near this property
so that won't have any impact number three was the use of the shared access driveway raises concerns for emergency response fire access and safe ingress egress for occup and neighbors. Is there anything else that you'd like to add on to that or is that suffice? Okay. Number six, will the proposed use have an
impact on the environment including its impact on groundwater, surface water, and air quality with the additions of conditioning a storm water plan um this would have minimal impact? So I guess the question is do we feel that um a if there was a storm water management plan that would have minimal impacts to groundwater, surface water and air
quality or are we wanting to focus more on the idea that I think Andy heard that we're concerned about the added impervious coverage, increasing runoff and um and then nutrient loading. I think that was mentioned earlier that the >> yeah the increased runoff on account of the imperous surface
impacts that >> the driveways will have >> and I also think when um there was reference to the wetlands and in the channel I I'm thinking about that environmentally as well um and we spoke to that earlier in this process going
through this list. >> Okay. Um number two is that the is that um the septic has been adequately addressed through an existing shared septic system and there they do have alternative sites as well as utilizing porta potties for the events. So they do
I think have that covered. And then um but the septic is not sized for a commercial kitchen. So if they wanted to add that the se would need to be upgraded to meet capacity and kitchen demands. Um if we go to number seven, does the proposed use have adequate water supplies, subsurface sewage treatment facilities, erosion control
and storm water to for the applicable standards? I think again we mentioned the increased impervious as was discussed um and runoff issues um septic sizing for the commercial
kitchen. Is there anything else that you would like us to add related to this uh bullet number seven about um as far as storm water management? I think there was concerns about um that lower mission is in impaired water
and there's concerns about added runoff and septic issues as well contributing to water quality. Are there any other items that you'd like to talk about related to water water quality to water supply, septic systems, erosion control, and storm
water management? >> Okay, I think that we have what we need to put the findings together for you. >> Thank you. >> At this point, I think we're ready to bring it back to the board for uh any final discussion and action.
Madame Chair, uh I'd like to make a motion that we deny the uh the request for the left property subject to terms and conditions specified in the report. >> Second.
>> There's a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? >> Yeah, Madam Chair, can we just clarify? So, we're basing that decision on the findings of fact discussed tonight, the written testimony received from the public, oral testimony we received both in the courtroom and virtually, your on-site visit of what date did we do the
on-site? >> March 5th. >> On March 5th, your on-site March 5th and um and your consideration of all the facts that was put together in the staff report and that information, that is what you're basing your your decision on tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That along with the application submitted. Yes.
>> Application submitted. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion on the floor? If not, all those in favor of the motion to uh deny the interim use permit, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Thank you. Thank everyone for your time. Thank you. Our next our next item of business. Um, >> excuse me folks. >> If you could exit quietly, we're going to continue on with our business. That
would be great. You can carry on your conversation out in the hall if you wish to. >> Thank you. Our next application is Harold and Brenda Worly for a variance. >> Harold and Brenda Worley, are you in the
courtroom or are you online? Harold and Brenda Worley Harold sitting right there. >> You want to come forward? >> I think my nephew is >> Oh, okay. >> Are they online? >> If you're online, please introduce
yourself. Should we proceed? >> Yep. I think we should head on to the next application. >> Okay. He's making a phone call. >> You're up. >> You're up. He said his invite was for five. >> No, it was for three.
>> No, you're up now. I guess >> we'll just uh he can tell maybe he can try to get down here and we'll just go to the next applicant on the agenda, I think. And >> we can skip back. We'll come back to this one. >> They'll move you back. >> We'll come back. >> Okay. So, we're going to move forward. We're going to come back to Harold and Brenda Worly.
So, the next application will be Chris and Leanne Oldsburg for variance. If you'd like to come forward to the table up front, that would be great. >> We think this one might be quicker and easier. >> Welcome. And if you'd state your name
and address for the record, please both of you. Leanne Olsburg. Property address 5521 Crowing Lake Road, Fort Ripley. residence 732 Westwind Avenue, Shakipi. Thank you. >> Chris Oldsburg, her husband.
>> Thank you. Would you like to read the request into the uh record, Nichollet? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, tonight's applicant is the property owner, Chris and Leanne Oldsburg. Uh, parcel number 63010529. Physical address 5521 Crowing Lake Road
in Fort Ripley. Um, this is in the township of Fort Ripley and the land use is currently the Shorland district. Um, on page 152, I'll be able to show you where this property is located. Um, this is Crowing Lake and this little
highlighted parcel right here on Crowing Lake Road is the Oldsburg property. Uh, Crowing Lake is a general development lake with a setback of 75 ft. And the request tonight is a property line setback of 6 feet where 10 feet is required to the proposed detached
garage. Um to construct a 1,40 square ft detached garage. I'm going to go to the certificate of survey on page 160. And this is the Oldsburg property here um with the driveway coming off of
Crowing Lake Road. There is their septic mound here on the south side of the driveway. Their proposal here is uh six feet from the property line and 8 ft from this corner and of course the detached garage with a little bit of a p
of a driveway. Um the applicants wish to place their garage at an angle for ease of access into the garage. noting a comment from the March 5th PCBOA on-site visit um that there appeared to be room for the
proposed structure that doesn't encroach the septic and have adequate room for additional parking. No comment was received from the township and one comment was received from the public who is the neighbor to the north actually um stating the structure will not impact their property and they support the
request. I can answer any other questions. >> Thank you. Any questions, Rock or Andy? >> Okay. Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> Uh, no. Thank you. Uh, I believe you
have all the data. The big thing that the township that was at the board was asking to make sure that the neighbor to the north was good and Kevin and Carla Parch are uh they do have a letter of recommendation. So, >> okay. Thank you. Um then at this point
we will open up this application to public testimony. Is there anyone in the court whom who would like to speak to this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one. How about online? No one online. So we will bring it back
uh to the board for uh further discussion and action on this request. I guess so. It says south southeast corner of lot 21's edition. Was that the original before?
Was that the original property line? >> So you look great. Um >> to answer your question, it was not the original property line. There was a boundary line adjustment to accommodate for the neighbor's well that was placed in this corner right here. So, if you
can see that circle with the W, that is the neighbor's well. And uh correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a boundary line adjustment to move that property line. So, the neighbor's well was on his property. >> You are correct. Okay. >> Yes. >> Well, I just I just see southeast corner
of lot 21, you know, this dotted line. And a lot of times with new technology, the lines move a little bit because of wasn't wrapped around a pine tree or a oak tree or piece of brush and the chain
wasn't pulled tight, >> you know. >> Right. Yep. >> Yeah. No, that's that's the property line now where you can see. >> Okay. >> Y >> any other discussion or questions? >> Not we can entertain action on this uh application. Madam chair, the findings
of factor are on page 172. >> 172. >> So as as as like previous, there are findings that would support and findings that would support approval and support denial. So which route would you and the applicant also has done a great job of
providing his answers to the findings as well. So that is part of your packet for your consideration. So >> Madam Chair, I'd recommend the findings supporting variance. And so those are on U 172. Correct. >> Correct.
>> And I don't have any additions to it. So >> I have no additions either, Andy. Do you have any? >> No additions. >> Okay. Any questions or followup, Chris, on that? >> Uh there are uh recommended conditions on page 176 as well. There's three
recommended conditions. can review those conditions. That would be part of any motion. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the property line set back to 6 feet where 10 ft is required to the proposed detached garage to construct a
140 ft detached garage with the conditions of land use permit shall be approved by land services prior to construction. Starting the storm water management plan according to article 41 and a as built certificate showing all variance requirements including
elevations are being met must be submitted to the county once construction is complete. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? If not, before we take action on your variance request, I need to verify four
items with you. Uh, do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes, we do. >> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services
department before construction begins? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that 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'd be required
to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey, and any other required information with a new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. Is that understood? >> It is. >> Thank you. We will then proceed with the
vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> I. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Your variance is approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. The next application would be Boris and Anna.
>> I think Worley are Worley's on >> I think he's coming in person. >> He's coming in person. >> Oh, he's coming in person. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, it' be Boris and Anna Gumic. And I'm probably not mispronouncing that last name and I do apologize. If you could come forward to the table that
would be great. Thanks for your patience. Being waiting sometimes can be frustrating. So, we appreciate that. >> Quite a job. Okay. >> If you would state your name and address for the for the
>> My name is Patrick Wadik. I'm friend of Boris is here. >> Uh Boris Gmanuka. >> Okay. And your address? uh address for Kevin or for >> No, for the for the accessory building that we're looking
>> for for for your your address, your residence. >> Uh it's 6115 Holiday Harbor Drive. It's in Garrison, >> but my address where I live, it's 9900 Brooklyn uh Evergreen Avenue, Brooklyn
Park. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Nicola, can you read this request into the record for us, please? Yes, madame chair. Um, the applicant tonight is uh property owner Boris and Anna Gumck. Uh, authorized agent is Patrick Wadik and
parcel number is 67310584. Physical address 6115 Holiday Harbor Drive in Garrison. This is in Garrison Township and the land use is Sorland District. Um, this property lo is located off of
Highway 169 off of Holiday Harbor Trail. And this is Max Lake. This is a harbor of Max Lake. And it is not a permitted harbor, which permitted harbors would have um a 50% reduction. This has the
typical lake setback of 75 ft for Max being a general development lake. The request tonight is a variance for a bluff setback of 7 feet where 35 is required to the detached garage uh to construct a 600 square f foot detached
garage. I am going to go to the certificate of survey on 185 and there you will see the bluff that has been identified. Um, there is a driveway that comes off of Holiday Harbor, an existing dwelling that is
meeting all setbacks here and the applicants wish to have a detached garage um that is placed there. Um, an engineered erosion and grading plan um was submitted by the applicant as part of this application as well as an
engineered storm water plan. Um, a few comments were noted during the March 5th PCBOA on-site visit, noting that there are similar structures in the area at the toe of the bluff and with the proposed location really being the only spot on the property to have an
accessory building. No comments were received from the township and no comments were received from the public. I can answer any questions. >> Any questions, >> Madam Chair? after looking at, you know, the property, considering what the way it's laid out
and what they have to work with, I think they did a very good job of laying this out. So, I I think it was well thought through. >> And I would add that we saw similar structures as was stated in in Nichollet's report with um similar types
of um locations. >> Yeah. >> Anything to add or questions? >> No. This bluff is a issue. It's longstanding. >> Yep. Is there anything that you'd like to add
>> at this time? Otherwise, we'll go to public testimony. >> We Well, I think it's going fine. >> Okay. You don't have to. Okay. >> I know. >> Okay. At this time, we'll open it up to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this
application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll go to online. Is there anyone? >> No. Okay. Then I'll bring it back to the board. Uh findings of fact are on what page? >> Findings of factor on page 196 of your packet? >> 186.
And we'll entertain further discussion and action on this application. >> Madame Chair. >> Yes. I would move we uh approve the variance request for the Gmenic property uh based on findings of fact and the
conditions listed in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I >> oppose. Same sign.
>> Your variance is approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Next will be Scott and Sandy. Sandra Gross for variance request application. Scott and Sandra Gross.
>> Hi. >> Good evening. >> Getting close to evening. >> If you'd state your name and address for the record, please. Uh, Scott Gross. The property address is 8625 Paradise Beach Road, Brainard. Um, my home address is
38275 Honeysuckle Lane, North Mano. >> Thank you. >> And Nicola, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madame chair. The applicant and property owner tonight is Scott and Sandra Gross. Parcel number 752461.
Physical address is 8625 Paradise Beach Road in Brainard. This is located in Long Lake Township and is in the Shorland district. This uh property is located off of Paradise Beach Road. Um that is that
long green road that comes through here and that is on South Long Lake. South Long Lake is a general development lake with a setback of 75 ft. The request tonight is a variance for a lake setback of 66 feet where 75 ft is
required to the proposed addition to a dwelling. Uh another and a lake setback of 54 ft where 75 is required to a proposed deck addition to construct a 648 ft addition to the existing dwelling and
a 40 square ft addition to the existing deck. I'm going to go to the certificate of survey on page 207 and zoom out a little bit here. This is the existing driveway entering into the
property um with the existing cabin here. The proposal is to add the addition to the home on this side and this is the 648 ft addition. There is a proposed addition here of the deck.
There is an existing deck currently. It's just to connect the proposed addition and expand a little lakeward. Um, a few comments were noted during the March 5th PCBA on-site noting that there are structures in the area that with
similar setbacks. Their proposed addition is not going any closer to the lake and a storm water management plan may be needed as a lot slopes towards the lake. No comments were received from the township and there was one comment received from the public noting support
of the application. I can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions? >> Madam Chair, just a note there. I think we also talked about after the inspection, you know, there had been a building, you know, removal just to the
what east or west side there. So, I think that's that was a plus. So, I think we've seen some mitigation of some other issues. So, I I was pleased to see see that and and that made me more comfortable with
the with the request. >> Is there anything you'd like to add? >> Yeah, to to his point, the building I removed to was actually 6 to 8t closer to the lake and our addition is no closer to the lake than the current obviously and with the only direction I
can go. Obviously setbacks are more than fine. The deck edition is actually 32 square ft or 36. Yeah. 2x8. We're not we're just canlever. We're using the same footings. I'm just looking to canlever 2 ft over. So we're not, you know, putting any footings any further
out. And and like was stated earlier, several of the neighbors nearby are closer to the lake than I am or similar um than the proposal for my addition. and we're not in anymore. Basically, the addition we or the bunk house we tore down, we're basically replacing that
square footage with the addition to the existing cabin. >> Thank you. >> Y >> thank you for adding that. Um at this time, we'll see if there is any uh public testimony regarding this application. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would wish to address this
application? Anyone? Seeing no one, is there anyone online? No. Okay. Then we'll bring it back to the board for further discussion. We can take a look at the findings of fact and uh any potential conditions and move
forward with this request. >> Madame Chair, uh I move that we approve uh the variance for the gross property subject to the findings of fact in the staff report and the conditions noted therein.
Madame Chair, findings of fact are on page 216 and proposed conditions are on 219 of your packet. >> Second. >> It's a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of this
motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Your >> quick question. >> Yes. I assume article 41, the storm water management program. That's the next step that I find out what >> you can work with staff and they can give you direction with that.
>> Your next step will be permits and and we'll work with with us to help you get the permits for it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um let's move on to anger and then we'll do early last. >> Okay. Uh the next applicant would be
Melvin Anger for variance. Melvin. >> Hello. >> Good evening. Thank you for having us. Uh Jared Johnson, Miller Construction. Uh address home address 5834 Wilder Drive, Pine River. Um site address would
be Twin Pond Lane. Um, ideal corners. >> Okay. >> Uh, Melinger, home address 9234 Woodlark Way in Maple Grove. >> Thank you, Nichollet. Can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Uh tonight the
applicant and property owner is Melvin Anger, authorized agent Jared Johnson, parcel number 68210585, physical address 35748 Twin Pond Lane in Peekquat Lakes. This is in Ideal Township and uh the current
land use is Shorland uh the Shorland district. Um this property is located Oops. help if I got to the right page. This property is located um on Twin Pond Lane
here on Clamshell and uh Clamshell Lake is a general development lake um with a lake setback of 75 ft. Um let me back up one step. So if you go down Rucker Road here and then down Twin Pond, that's where that property is located, just in
that bay. Uh the request tonight is a lake setback of 60 ft where 75 ft is required to the proposed addition of the dwelling. A lake setback of 60 ft where 75 is required to a proposed deck. Lake setback of 62 feet where 75 is required
to the proposed septic tank. And a lake setback of 50 ft where 75 ft is required to a proposed septic drain field. to construct a 566q foot addition to an existing dwelling, 348 square foot
addition to or sorry, yes, 348 ft deck and install a septic system. I'm going to go to the certificate of survey on page 233 of your packet. Um, you will see that Clamshell Lake does wrap around to the north side of
the property. There is an existing dwelling here within the building envelope available. They are proposing the addition here to the north. Um there is an existing deck already also on the lakeside and the proposal is to have the
deck wrap around with that addition. And here is the septic drain field that is proposed 50 feet from the lake. The septic tank over here um is actually moving further back from the lake uh 62 feet for the proposed septic tank there.
Um and I don't believe any comments were received for this application and I can township township um we did not have any comments from >> township approval. We did get it. We do have some goodies.
>> I stand corrected. The township recommended approval and there are no other comments on this application. >> Thank you. >> That's why they keep me around. So, >> do either of you have any questions regarding the report? >> Do you have anything that you would like to add?
>> Uh, no. I think the fact findings as you guys go through them have the >> same with you. Nothing. >> Yep. I'm good. >> Okay, great. Then we'll move to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Seeing no one, is there anyone online? Seeing no one there, we'll bring it back
to the board for further discussion and action on this application. >> Madame Chair, um, findings of factor on page 247. >> 247. >> The proposed conditions are on 249. Madame Chair. >> Yes. Uh
>> I move that we approve the anger variance per the uh finding of fact and the conditions noted in staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> It's a second. Uh any further discussion hearing? None. Before we take final action, um I need to verify four items. You do you understand what's being approved tonight? >> Correct. >> And do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Correct.
>> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> Correct. >> And do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? >> Correct. >> And any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, height, location, must be approved
by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay 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. >> Correct. >> Okay. With that, then we'll proceed to
vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you guys so much. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. That leaves us with the Herald and Brenda Worly variance request. Hopefully
>> state your name and address for the records, please. >> Dan Worley, 33853 Jenro Road, Cross Lake. >> Harold Worly, 2266 Shady Nook Road, Brandon, Minnesota. >> Thank you. Nichollet, can you read this request into the record for us, please?
>> Yes, madame chair. Um, the property owner is Harold and Brenda Worley. Um, authorized agent, I had Sarah Goodro, but we have uh Dan Worly here as authorized agent. Um, parcel number 63010568.
Physical address of the property is 5043 Crowing Lake Road in Fort Ripley. This is located in Fort Ripley Township and the current land use is in the Shorland district. This property is located on Crowing Lake
off of Crowing Lake Road on the peninsula here. And Crowing Lake is a general development lake with a setback of 75 ft. The request tonight is um lake setback of 52 feet where 75 ft is required to a proposed dwelling with an
attached garage, a lake setback of 48 feet where 75 ft is required to the proposed screen porch. A lake setback of 51 feet where 75 ft is required to the septic drain field and a lake setback of 57 feet where 75 is required to the
septic tank to construct a 3,34 square ft dwelling with an attached garage and a 248 square ft screen porch and to install a new septic system.
I'm going to go to page 128 for the survey. We'll rotate our screen here. So, the property, like I said, is located on a peninsula here. Um, there is an existing cabin, if
you can see this in the gray, and there is an existing detached garage. What they are proposing is um this is the house with detached garage. Um the screen porch here 48 ft from the lake
and then um the house I would like to note is meeting the property line set back over here of 10 ft. Moving to the septic tank we have 57 ft from the ordinary high water um here for the septic tank. 75 is required. I would
like to note that the septic tank is meeting the 75 foot on the opposite side since it is a peninsula. Um and the drain field here is 51 ft from um Crowing Lake where 75 is required.
Um during the PCBOA onsite on March 5th, a few comments were noted that uh the applicant is moving the proposed structure further back from the lake than the existing. There is a tent carport um down here by the lake that is proposed to be removed and the location
of the septic system is preferred due to the wetlands on site noting to keep the vegetation natural on site except for the clearing of the new septic system. No comment was received from the township. Eight comments were received from the public, all of which were
noting concerns regarding the existing water quality of Crowing Lake and how this proposal will increase nutrient runoff and phosphorus into the lake with the size of the structure and the location of the septic drain field as well as what long-term effects this may
cause. Concerns were noted regarding potential environmental impacts to wildlife. And there are concerns the request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan. Noting concerns that the size and the size of scale of the proposal does not
align with protecting shorelines, preventing overcrowding or safeguarding water and environmental quality. I can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Do either of you have any questions at this point? >> No.
Do you have anything that you would like to add to what you've heard so far? >> Just from a procedural standpoint, after we comment and we get public comment, do we are we able to respond to the public comment? >> Yes, you are. >> Okay.
Uh I'll just summarize u some a few things that aren't obvious. So, it's it's stated that we're proposing a 3300 ft² home, but it's important to note that it's a,900 ft home and a 1300 foot
garage. So, it sounds like it's this huge house, but it's a normal size house. Um, we did a couple of different renditions of this, quite a few. The closest we came um was trying to attach
the two existing structures together and see if that seemed palatable. And at the end of the day, um working with staff, we determined that it the foundation of that existing building is
moving all over the place because there's no footings under it. So, it's getting pushed all over by the frost moving around. So, we propose to move back from the existing location, new construction, correct all of those issues, as well as provide a storm water
plan so we can capture all the rainwater and deal with it appropriately. the septic issue. The location we chose for it um is the furthest back from the the lake
setback that we could find that is in a very vegetated area. So, we don't have any surface runoff issues. There's a lot of existing tree cover in that area surrounding it. And as you can see, the the driveway access
comes into where the building footprint is. I don't know if you can kind of outline that teeny little building footprint, but you know, it's unreasonable to try to fit a building into that small area plus be able to
drive in there and turn around. So, we thought we used best practices, tried to align with the spirit of the ordinance and come with a proposal that made the most sense overall. >> Anything else you'd like to add?
>> Uh, I would just like to say some of the comments were made that that uh we're going to be full-time residents. A lot of people going in and out. Not true. It's just my wife and I and we're just want a little bit bigger house we
can if our grandkids come they got a where we can meet in one room. We don't have that right now in our existing house. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um move on now to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would
like to address this application? Please come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record, please. >> All right. My name is uh Rick Peterson. I currently reside at 2749 Chipawa Shores Road. Uh I've held uh various uh
positions at the Crowing Lake. I've been the president of the association. I'm currently the secretary treasure lake improvement district. I have submitted uh somewhat extensive comments to the board already about opposition to this variance which of course I won't get
back into. Um won't waste time with that. I would like to use this limited time I have to address probably a broader issue not just this variance but other variances also and that's one of respect. Uh this is something that's kind of lacking in today's uh society
and I acknowledge the board actually talked about that earlier as far as respecting everybody here. In this case this is not so much a respect for current property owners. It's also respect for the air, the water, and the land that we all share and respect for
future generations yet to come. One of the points that was brought up in the variance request is recognition p the past development of land did not meet best practices or specifications. And they refer to the lot actually in
their own variance uh report here as an extremely narrow lot. It really is. and their proposed uh development does not meet current best practices either especially minimum setbacks from the lake but there seem to be I guess in the
report it's maybe my impression they were acknowledging that yeah there was some bad stuff happened in the past the standards are up here but let's just split the difference and call it call it a day and I think that's a trap we shouldn't fall into uh there's a
historical pre uh perspective in terms of property ownership. Uh that's ownership is kind of a funny thing. Uh you know, we've been around humans in this uh area for thousands of years without any concept of ownership whatsoever. Who can own the air, the
water, the land? We're just temporary occupants. We're just stewards of the lake and the nature if you like. Now, settlers actually introduced the concept of ownership up here. uh my own deed in my property which I'm just across the lake from this one here uh goes back
over a hundred years and that's introduced the first concept of ownership on these properties here that actually was granting parcels of land adjacent to what was then known as Thunder Lake not Crowing but Thunder Lake to the railroads. So time goes on,
property is bought, sold, development occurs and kind of fits and spurts. Some of this respects nature, some of it does not. You know, we didn't know as much as we do now know now as far as how we have bre best practices in terms of respecting our natural resources, you
know, but thankfully we have learned a few things and we set these out in I think was well-crafted uh codes by the county because I guess frankly we're not all angels. So rules and regulations really are required. Uh respect for the land really isn't automatic or
universal. It has to be defended. The the point in all this leadup here is that the past can't be changed. Voter setbacks happened. That damage is already done. But we can take what we already have learned to actually start respecting the land. That's why this
apparent what I call splitting the difference. You know the the setbacks restrictions are here. we did this in the past. Let's just split the difference and move forward. You know, if we do that, we don't progress. We don't get better. We just compromise in
halfway measures. And the land suffers, the lake suffers. And as it as comments out there, Crobing Lake is an impaired lake. In summertime, it's literally pea soup. And it's not getting any better. And we should not compromise our our respect for the land in this matter. And
you know the thing we also should take note of is time moves forward. Our future generations are going to face even greater challenges in their uh world. Their ideas and best practices for respecting nature could be a whole lot different than ours. And we should
take uh I guess acknowledge the fact that no did we actually learn today and respect nature and leave them hopefully a better world. Do we truly respect the land or do we just split the difference? Well, I guess in conclusion, my
opposition to this variance boils down to not so much just a debate as far as there's a 48 foot setback for the screened and porch versus it really should be 75 ft per county regulations or the exact percentage of impervious
surfaces. It's more of a question of how do we really respect the air, the water, the land we currently occupy, and just what sort of future are we supposed to be leaving for our our future generations? With that, I'd just like to thank the board for time. Have a nice
day. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Please come forward. >> Good evening. I'm Kathleen Maloney Herming and I'm a cabin owner at 5085 Crowing Lake Road. Um I'm speaking in
opposition of this to um I sent a letter so I won't reiterate that. I'd like to reemphasize what Rick said about the minimum standards. Um the county sets minimum standards. So the 75 foot setback is minimum. The request is
significant. Um there have been previous variances granted to homeowners on that lake. um numerous. The last one that I'm aware of, there were seven variances that were granted and that has impinched the quality of the lake. We just approved one earlier tonight. I had a
little one, which is easier for me to understand, but this is a pretty big one. And so my cabin is six cabins down from this property. Um the average size of the cabins near there are is less than 700 square feet.
the property that they're proposing is almost three times that size. Um, most of them are seasonally occupied. There's one that is year round. It's large. It was built without county approval and they've had numerous numerous runins or
not runins, but had to work with the county to be compliant because the previous owner did not didn't talk to the county. Um, so I guess on that note too, I would
yeah, just ask the county to follow the regulations that they have set for the health of the lake and for those of us that um have property there and understand the rules. We've been there 20 years. We bought the property. We have a large family. We understand that
we will never be able to build closer to the lake. We knew that. We bought the property knowing that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address this application? >> Hi, Chris Peterson, 2715
Chipoa Shores Road. Um, I just want to say Mr. Worley has been on our lake for years. I've been there for 70 years. He has a reputation
for disregarding the wild life uh and the wetlands on our lake. And I don't see that giving him a house on the point is going to
change anything. I am totally in disapproval of this variance. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address this application?
Anyone in the courtroom? >> I have one hand online. >> Okay, we'll go to online. And uh it looks like DJ, you would like to unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the
record, please. Can you hear me? You need to unmute your microphone and state your name and address for What did that say? can't verify the identity. Is that what it >> Donald Gruland if you're able to turn to unmute
yourself and comment? >> Donald, you need to unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record. >> He's trying. Yeah, maybe try to log out and then try to log come back in. Maybe sometimes maybe you just have to get out
quick and come back in. We can wait for you to try that. >> We'll give him a minute to see if he can come back in. >> Pardon me. >> He's trying to come back in. >> Okay, we'll give him a sec or two. How would you like to proceed? >> I think we need to move forward.
>> If he I think we move on, Madam Chair. >> If he comes back in, we'll we'll backtrack if we haven't moved on the on the um item yet. >> Okay. Um, I'll take it back to the applicants and if is there anything that you would like to do to respond to the
public comments and testimony? Uh, just a few points. Um, based on the splitting the difference comments that were made by Mr. Peterson, we're we're not asking to split the difference. We're asking to move back
further than the existing building is on both sides, further from the lake, and improving the sideyard setback encroachment that currently exists. So, we're we're not splitting the difference. We're we're trying to make an improvement.
Um, leaving the legacy of the lake. We don't want to leave a dilapitating foundation that continues to degrade. We'd like to make an improvement on on the structure that's there so it can last for a long
time and can be used for a long time. And the comment about the disregard for the wetlands uh by Mr. really we spent quite a bit of time with staff and uh working through wetland conversations to make sure that we were being respectful
and um and continue to to work with the wetland delineator to make sure that we're doing the right things and improving not destroying um I feel like I should go through um
Mr. Severson's letter and I have comments on literally everything he says that I feel like are inaccurate statements, but um you guys do this every day. So, I think I'm hoping that you can see we're trying to to work with
you and do the right thing so we can make something work on this property. >> Thank you. >> Anything you'd like to add, sir? Yeah, I guess I have to respond to the personal slam because it's reputation.
Um, I've worked with the county before on our current property and we went through a process to uh add a buffer in front of the the one of the small houses that we have on the lake and I worked with the county. We
put in dog wood. We did it the way the county asked me to and uh it looks great. Um I'm not out there killing cattails or whatever whatever I'm being accused of today. Uh
uh basically what's happening is uh there's new progress going to happen and sometimes people don't want that. Um, I look at myself and my wife, we're the
lucky new owners of this unique piece of property. I'm the new custodian. Um, I'm the one out there picking up all the beer cans already that people throw out on the weekends. Um, I'm the one
cleaning up all the firework debris that lands on this property. And I'm going to continue to do that. Uh, a lot of the lake residents at the end of the point use that area to come and swim and recreate. You know, they park out there
with their pontoon boats. We did the same thing. We We would pontoon over. We're all for that. We're not saying we don't want that. Um, I just want to build more one level home. I'm getting older. We're My wife's
getting older and I'm just trying to uh get ahead of the future a little bit here. So that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Donald or Ann. >> Okay. Um if you would like to unmute your microphone and state your name and
address for the record, that would be great. Ann, can you hear me? If you could unmute mute your microphone, please. I don't know. Others have used it tonight and we haven't had
any problems. So I I'm sorry. I wish >> not sure what's going on. I'll give one more chance. Can you hear me if you can? You're going to need to unmute your microphone and and state your name and address for the record.
>> She's trying. They're trying to type something. It says, >> "I'm sorry, but we're going to need to move on." >> She said, she says she can hear us, but she is unable to unmute. Her property is at the property she listed is at 5049
Crowing Lake Road. >> Okay, I think we're going to just need to move on. I'm sorry, but since we cannot um hear you, we're going to need to move on. I apologize for whatever technical issues that are going on here, but um
we've we've had no problems this evening. So, this unfortunately has ended on the last application for the evening. Sorry. Okay. So, we'll bring it back to the board for conversation and review. Um do you have any questions of
the applicant or any comments that you'd like to make? >> No, it's it's low impervious coverage of 11%. Um >> the uh >> page 145. >> Yeah, madame chair. The findings of
factor on page 143 and the conditions are on page 145. 143 and 145. >> They're actually moving farther away from the lake than the present structure is located. I mean, they're improving
both sideyard and and lake setbacks. go. I don't have a problem with it. With that, um, we can entertain a motion regarding this request. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the request with the conditions as stated per the findings of
fact >> and the conditions listed. >> And conditions listed. Yeah. And any discussion on that? Or Andy, is there a second? >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Further discussion here. >> Hearing none. All those in favor of this
motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. And I apologize for my tardiness. >> And I just wanted to review too. Do you understand what's being approved tonight? >> Yes. Do you understand the conditions
that we were referring to? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And you understand that you must obtain the permits now from land services? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And understand what's being approved tonight is final. Anything that would change as far as structure size, height or location would need to come back for
um and be approved by this board. You'd need to get another um submit a new application, pay the fees, that type of thing. >> Yes. >> Okay. what we what we approve is final and and uh the staff cannot change any of those
things. So that is understood. >> Yes. >> Thank you sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you.