Excuse me. Oh, I need a piece of All our >> What's he talking about? That's where I was confused when he's talking about. >> Okay, >> I'll be going.
Where are you going? It's your job. What are you doing? We're going through some hearing issues now. We have some extra steps until we can get hearing aids because >> there is unusual.
>> Why not? Everything is complicated. >> Good afternoon and welcome to Crowing County's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting. It's 3:00 on May 21st, 2026. Please rise for the pledge. >> I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> If you have not already done so, please silence your cell phones. And if you are
online, please make sure you have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. Please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the agenda is roll call. Rock Leni >> here. >> John O >> here. >> Sumasi
>> here. >> Andy Larson >> here. >> And I am Rebecca Best. The next item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda? >> No changes, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Okay. If not, I would then ask for a motion to approve the agenda.
>> Move to approve. >> A motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second by uh Sue. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. Agenda is approved. The
next item is to approve the minutes and findings of fact for the meeting held on April 16th, 2026. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes and finding facts. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> And a second. Uh any further discussion?
>> M madam chair. >> Yes. >> Um if it's agreeable to the motion maker and second, um I'd like to suggest that where there are roll call votes that we should record the roll call. Um so that's kind of the standard practice when we have roll call votes.
So if we could just the last two items were roll call votes. If we could just actually amend the minutes to record the roll call and then kind of make that our practice, I think that would work. >> That sounds reasonable, >> Madam Chair, we can definitely do that. >> Okay, that sounds great. You're okay with that? >> Rock? >> Yes.
>> Okay, with that change. Uh, any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I pull the same sign. Minutes are approved. Today we have 11 items of uh one item of
old business and 11 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 and have a seat and
state your name and address for the record. We will then have staff read your request into the record. We will then give the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not been previously submitted. After that, we open the request up for public
testimony. And today we will have two public up uh public testimony opportunities. One is in person and one is online. And if you are online and wish to speak to an application, please use your hand icon to indicate 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 aisle. In either case, you will be given five minutes to give your testimony. And we do te uh
keep time. Andy Larson is our timekeeper for testimony. So please do not repeat what someone else has said. And please do not uh read your emails or letters that have already been sent. Uh, everyone who wishes to give testimony
will have an opportunity to do so. Once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it. We then will bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Our rules of conduct are please be respectful. For the applicant, this means to sit quietly
during the public testimony period. And for the audience, it means to do the same for the applicant as they respond to your testimony. All questions and statements are to be directed to this board or members of staff, not to the applicant. Anyone that I feel is being
disrespectful or not following these rules will be asked to leave or will be disconnected from the meeting. Our decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment request, we make a recommendation to the county board. For a variance, conditional or
interim use permit request, we make the final decision. and we make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do that, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to the property and examine the site and look at what's being planned. Prior to attending this
meeting, we each read every letter and email that is submitted and we then hear public testimony and we listen to the applicant. I'd like to pause just for a moment to let the public know that we do greatly appreciate your correspondence and input. We have all read the submitted comments. In addition to that,
we have a worksheet that we use to help summarize the findings of fact. Preliminary findings have been included in the staff packet. Next, I will ask each board member if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet. Sue,
>> yes, I have. >> Rock, >> I have. >> Andy, >> I have. >> And John, >> I have. >> And I have as well. Uh with that being said, our first applicant this evening would be Michael and Julio Giorgio for variance.
>> Hello. >> Good afternoon. >> Bounce. I'm Mike Giorgio, 4556 Lake View Lane, Jenkins Township, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> I'm Jamie Stozinger, uh 34244
North Oak Drive, Pekqua Lakes. >> Thank you very much. And Nichollet, will you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Tonight we have property owner Michael and Julie Giorgio, parcel number 72260536. Physical address is 4556 Lake View Lane
in Pekquat. Um this is in Jenkins Township. And the request tonight is a variance for the lake setback of 86 ft where 100 ft is required um to construct a 784T detached garage and a variance
for a 1,831 ft driveway to be located in the shore impact zone where no driveway is allowed within the lake setback. Um, on page 18 of your packets, this property is located on Nelson Lake.
It is a recreational development lake off of um, West Nelson Lake Road, and it's just north of County Road 45. Um, Nelson Lake, like I said, is a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback. This application was discussed at the April 16th public
hearing and the board decided to table the application to obtain additional evidence um regarding the historic driveway. I'll discuss more on that in just a moment. I'm first going to go to the survey on page 20 of your packet
and make this a little smaller. So over here we have Nelson Lake. This is the existing house with the proposed garage here to be 86 ft from Nelson Lake. Um we have the existing driveway going in here. This is the setback um the 100
foot setback here and then the amount of driveway that goes in um to the shore impact zone area. On page 27 of your packets, there are additional aerial photos that were provided um upon request of the
board. And I'm just going to walk through these here a little bit with you. So, this photo here was captured in 2017. Um just showing the aerial photo of what we have for the driveway of what was existing at that time.
Here is a 2025 aerial photo of the driveway. I thought we had other driveways. So, this is the I do want to point out that they do have a uh storm water management plan in place for the driveway for um to slow water down as it goes down the hill
um because there is a significant incline. And um this was the proposed from the landowner of putting I don't I'm not sure the term for those >> a great >> Yeah. across the driveway to slow the water down. >> A gutter.
>> Yeah. Um no comments were received from the township and two comments were received from the public with no objection other than to ensure erosion control protection um for the lake. And if the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend
the following three conditions. Um, a land use permit prior to construction, of course. Um, implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. And three, implementation of a storm water plan to include measures to prevent runoff from the driveway into Nelson
Lake. I can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Does the board have any questions of staff at this time? Hearing none, I'll add uh ask the applicant if you have anything that you'd like to add. >> I'll defer to my contractor.
>> Okay. >> No, everything's been explained. It's just so >> Okay. Thank you. Uh at this time then we'll open up this request for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom that would like to address
this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one in the courtroom, I'll go to online. Is there anyone online who would like to address this application? I don't believe so. So then we will bring it back to the board for
further discussion and action >> madame chair. >> Yes. >> Um this the was table this item was tabled in April because we wanted evidence of the existence of the driveway in the shore impact zone.
Um I don't know that it's conclusive as to when it existed but it has obviously existed for some period of time in some form be it gravel, dirt, whatever. Right. So um I think also that um it was
improved at some point. The pictures seem to show that uh without a permit as I understand it. However, my understanding from following up with the staff is that if the applicant came in for a permit because of the um
understanding that it had already existed, they would get a permit. Um and I think the third point I'd make is the storm water management plan uh seems to be pretty good. Um the concern is of course the water going down on the paved
surface right into the lake and I think we have a plan that's that's probably pretty good. So um you know my my thinking is to uh approve the request uh with those given those comments.
>> Thank you. Any further discussion >> hearing? None. So, Madam Chair, if there is no discussion, I would offer a motion to approve the variance request for the lake setback of 86 ft where 100 ft is required
um and the 1831 square foot driveway to be located in the shore impact zone where no driveway is allowed within the lake setback uh to construct the identified detached garage and driveway. uh given the survey that's been
presented, the findings of fact in the staff report, the findings of fact favorable, and the three conditions in the staff report that have been reviewed tonight. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second.
>> And a second. And I don't know if we want to bring up those findings of fact. Yep, Madam Chair. Findings of fact are on page 40 of your packet. Madam Chair, before we vote, I'd like to ask staff a question. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. We want the storm. I understand
they've got a plan in place for that water coming off the driveway going into the lake. Is there any way we could get this condition then that gets installed prior to any dirt moving or anything for that garage
if we get a heavy rain? And I just think we need to I'd like to see that part implemented before I mad madam chair and sue I think you could put a condition in place that you know I'm not sure it maybe needs to be
sequential as much as saying we'd like to see that storm water plan completed in the the year that the permit is obtained for the you know for the garage. So they get a permit this spring we want to see that storm water plan put in um by the end of this year. I think that would be pretty fair. >> Okay. I would like My concern with that
Sue is >> they won't you be better off requiring the the silt fence. >> Yes, >> there's going to be both the silt fence will be up as part of one of that's one of the conditions that you require is there to be the erosion 7 control plan
and put the silt fence in place to you know to prevent that. So that that that's already part of the condition >> to build the storm water retention areas and so forth and then have them get sedimented up with the dirt moving and so forth I think would
be much more detrimental than than the silt fence just being in place finish the storm water after the garage and dirt moving's done so that that doesn't gets destroyed because it will never it it'll get put in and it'll get destroyed
and and it'll never get fixed. >> Very well could. Yeah, >> I I understand that. But the permit's good for two years. I don't want to see this strung out this down to protect that lake at the bottom of that driveway for two years. I don't >> Madam Chair.
>> Yes, >> I I tend to agree with Rock in terms of the it could get filled with dirt, right? And we we lose the the advantage. But for construction, they would have a permit for construction, right? And the
fencing would be uh required as part of that. Right. So it's not really like the 2-year duration thing. If they start construction, they have to have that to mitigate that from happening. Right. Is that correct? >> Clarify that. >> It was just a thought. No, I No, I I and
the thought is a is a good one, but I'm trying to I kind of think we have it covered with the permit requirement and that's what I >> I think we'll do two two rows of silk fence. One above the driveway and then one below it cuz a lot of the dirt work is going to be up above that tea if you
Well, >> yeah. Yep. >> Should we go to Let me go to that survey quick. >> So, yeah. Well, down further by the tea to the right by the house right there. So, if we do one row there because that's where a lot of the dirt work's going to be and then we can do another one on the other side of the driveway
closer to the lake. So, as a double barrier >> and and to answer your question, John, it's upon substantial completion of the project is when the storm water plan has to be done. So, it's not necessarily permit when the permit expires, but it's also upon substantial completion. So, if you they build their house within one
year, >> garage or build their garage within one year. Yes. then it would have to it has to be done by the time the garage is done. >> No madam chair, my question was uh not the storm water plan uh it's the silk fencing to control the erosion that has
to be part of the construction process, right? >> And that's part of the permit. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, it it's it's the case that that has to be in place when they're building to address Sue's concern. That's what I'm after and I'm >> It sounds like that's in place and part
of the plan. That's condition number two that you that that's on the table right now for consideration. That's condition number two. >> Okay. >> Thank Thank you. >> I have a question for the applicant. You were going to put a sil fence here and here. Is this that silt fencing going
along that whole tea by the shore? >> Because right in front of you, right in front of you, there's that pointer. >> Yeah, you have a a pointer down there. If we get a rain before this is implemented, whatever you're going to do there, any water coming down here, if
you don't have silt fencing along this whole thing is going to run into >> it is black top and not, you know, so you won't have any erosion if it was a gravel driveway. >> No, but that's fine to go that entire length. That's not an issue. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I'd like to see it go along that whole te just to stop any water coming off
that asphalt driveway right into the lake. It will prevent it. I thought they had to do the whole thing. >> So, Madame Chair, maybe to make it to address Sue's concern and since the applicants agreeable, can we just uh
amend condition two to be clear that uh we want that silk fencing to go across to prevent uh the issue, whatever language we want to add to that and they're agreeable to that and that would address the concern. Does that Does that
work? So, I would add that to my motion. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Thank you. >> So, there's a motion on the floor and did we get a second? >> I don't believe so. >> Andy seconded. >> Oh, Andy, I'm sorry. >> So, there's a motion on the floor and a
second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon. >> Thank you. >> Have a great holiday weekend. By the way, >> if you could just wait just one moment.
I got ahead of myself, too. I just want you to uh to need to verify four items. Do you know what uh is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services
department before construction begins? And do you understand what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure, size, height, or location, must be approved by this board. And this means that you would be required to submit a new
application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey, and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Thank you. >> Understand. >> Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon.
>> Happy holidays. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Boy, you'll be nice and warm. >> Okay, moving on to our uh first item of new business. We have Pelatin Beach Holdings LLC. Uh they're in front of us for three items of action. Land use map
amendment, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat. Hello. Hi. >> Cindy His Stonemark Land Survey, PO Box 874, Peekquat Lakes, Minnesota. >> Josh Miles, Pelican Beach Holdings, uh
26746, County Road 4, Niswah, Minnesota. >> Thank you. And Chris, will you go ahead and read the application tonight? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Um so the applicant tonight uh for this application for these three applications tonight is Pelican Beach
Holdings. Authorized agent is Cindy with Stonemark Land Serveying. We have um the property owner here Josh Miles. Parcel number in question is 73040571 located at 26746 County Road 4 in Nisah. This is located in Lake Edward Township
section 4. This is located on Pelican uh Pelican Township. We're going to zoom down uh look at a couple of uh just a couple maps to get everybody make sure we're all located in the right spot. So you got Ky Road 4 here. You got Ky Road 18 that runs east and west and the
property is the highlighted one in yellow here. Um and then if you scroll down, this is the land use map. This will give you an idea of what the zoning is out there. So the area that's in blue would be um considered the Shorland district, the residential Shorland district. The area that's in yellow will
be the real residential 2.5 acre zoning and then the area in red here is the property in question which is waterfront commercial. Uh so we have uh just a couple other things I want to hit on. One is that uh the impervious coverage for the lot is
at 11% as documented on the survey completed by Stonemark. Uh we have three requests tonight before the board. Uh, one is a land use map amendment from waterfront commercial to a residential zoning which would include Shorland district and rural residential 2.5. A conditional use permit for resort
conversion and then a plinary plat for 11 residential lots and two common lots. I want to be very clear that there are no variances required for this application. I'm going to go to uh page 52 just to look at the survey that was
provided. This is going to show you the location of all the existing structures on the property and uh information as far as impervious calculations and and all the all the information as required is located there. Uh we did have a dock
exhibit provided uh this would be on page 50 uh 52 um which would show um historic exhibit dock exhibit and along with um a map from uh Google Earth as part of that. Uh so there's a couple
things that I want to be clear. Uh this there's a definitely a process when going through these types of requests. And so the process starts in Crowing County with what's called a development review team meeting that was on March 9th of 2026. That's a really a staff level meeting where um staff and the
applicant and their um and their surveyor attend those meetings. We invite DNR to be present. We invite uh the township to be present. Township was not there at that meeting. um they're welcome to attend and we just take a half hour we talk about the application
and um give them um the next steps as far as application what that process would look like. So then um they submitted their application um see I think I have the wrong date written down what was the application date for that you remember
let me look on my on my uh yeah I misspoke. So March 9th was the development review team meeting and the application submitted was April 3rd. Uh so I had that incorrectly. Um so then uh we have a requirement by statute for a few things that we're required to do. Uh
one is that uh Minnesota statute 1599 has a requirement that applications need to have a decision made within 60 days. The county does have the opportunity to extend that by an additional 60 days if there is a um intended purpose for why a decision can't be made. So, um, a lot of
times I think people wonder why maybe, um, it seems like some of these are maybe they feel like there's rushed or they didn't have enough chance or an opportunity to maybe provide, um, some feedback that they feel and that's because that's how it's defined that we have to follow in Minnesota statute 34.26.
So, anytime there's a land use map amendment or a plat, we have to mail um, notification to all properties within a half mile of the property. for conditional use permits a quarter mile. And so those letters were mailed out by our office on May 8th of 2026. We're also required to publish this in the
Brainer Dispatch on May 9th is when that was published. And so by statute, we required to send notice out uh 10 days prior to uh prior to the meeting. So we we typically do ours um 13 days and we put it in the mail on that Friday would have been May 8th, a Friday. So, um,
just wanted to make sure everybody kind of understood the process for for how we, um, how we do things. The planning commission, um, always has the discretion to decide if they want to table applications or require more information and and push, um, applications off to the next meeting,
but we always have to make sure that we're compliant with Minnesota statute 1599 to make decisions timely. I wanted to point out to and it was mentioned earlier by the chair, but the planning commission board of adjustment does make uh recommendations to the county board for the land use map
amendment and for the preliminary plat uh tonight, but they do make the final decision on that conditional use permit. And so what we have before you tonight is what's considered to be a resort convert conversion. And this follows two uh to there's there's a rule Minnesota
rule 6120.3800 subdivision 5D has a provision for resort conversions to a residential use. And then we also have a section in the county ordinance 34.13 for resort conversions. And uh and so wanted to make sure everybody understood
that that's the the process that we use that we're following for this. I know for some folks they remember when this application came through back in uh I believe it was in 2021. Um and just wanted to be clear that this is this is the same property and a similar request,
but the county ordinance is different now than what it was back when that was um that original application was submitted and ultimately was withdrawn. So, um, back in May of 2024, the county board, um, changed the ordinance that we have today, this 34.13
to align with, uh, Minnesota, uh, stat rule 6120. 3800 sub, uh, subdivision 5D. So, the previous ordinance had some provisions in place that required any resort conversions to meet, um, certain the current lot size requirements and density numbers and setbacks and
variances. And so that's why that previous application had that um those requirements. That's not what's that's no longer in the ordinance. Uh the ordinance now was following the standards that are set in the Minnesota Shore rules which as I mentioned is rule 6120.
Um I did want to mention as well that um as you look at the at the application obviously there's permit history and so we have things to look at that have happened in the past and um one of the
comments that's been brought up recently is the conditional use print from 1991 with a condition 15 that stated the resort must comply to zoning regulations of that date. And uh and so um what this application is saying is that they are following the zoning regulations to date
by applying for resort conversion that allowed by Minnesota rule 6120 and within the land use ordinance itself article 34.13. I'm just going to highlight really just quick high overview of what's allowed of what the requirements are for 34.13. Um so what it says is that for
conversions to residential development proposed conversions shall be evaluated using the same procedures and standards in article 33. All inconsistencies between the existing features of development standards shall be identified and there shall be no minimum lot size or width requirements for lots recreated to contain existing dwelling
or dwelling units. So that means that you have to identify and that's been placed on the survey identify the inconsistencies and then you have to identify if there's any deficiencies with water supply, sewage treatment, impervious coverage, open space and shore work facilities. Um there's been discussion in that as far as conditions
in the C that have been recommended by staff. Um there's been you also have to analyze and look at the shore and bluff impact zone if there's any correction as part of that conversion. There's some conditions recommended from staff that would um address some of that. Um and
then the big one is D 34.13D. It says existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in article 33 of this ordinance may be allowed to continue but must not be f allowed to be increased in size, area, volume or height either at the time of conversion or in the future. efforts
must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities and improving vegetative screening, centralizing the shore wreck facilities. Uh making sure you have a compliant septic system and that and so um what that means is that the um the cabins that are on the parcel or on that
property today in the future can never be expanded. They can never be made bigger from a square footage standpoint. They can never have an increase in height. Um that's going to be that's spelled out um in the ordinance, spelled out in the conditional use permit as well. And so it does not mean that they are not allowed to to uh remove those
structures and replace rebuild a structure in that current footprint meeting the same height and same size. They would be allowed to do that as well. Uh so based on the ordinance and the administer rule 16120 um staff feels that the request meets the requirements
for resort conversion. I think the big question that's come up, we've actually had a lot of comments that have been submitted and I think it's been very appreciated with all the perspective from uh from the public that has some concerns and questions about the development is what is the number of permit moing sites to be allowed. Um we
do have a letter from the DNR May 14th that concurs the applicant that 11 um would be the number that would be allowed to the conditional use permit. If you look on that survey, you'll see that the plan that they have proposed is going to be to have a a centralized location for um or the where the
permanent morning sports per moing uh would be located. And this would be on a centralized dock and would not be allowed to have multiple docks to have um those permanent moing spots. Um like I said, we have received a lot of comments from the public. Just want everybody to know that the planning
commission has received those. Every when we get those in, those are sent out that same day to the applicant and to the planning commission. So, they have read through those and uh and they have all have all that information included in the packet and the information that's been provided by the applicant. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Chris. Does the board have some questions? >> Yeah, Madam Chair, if may ask one. Um Chris, if maybe for my benefit, maybe it'd be for the benefit of all. We have three separate requests. The land use map amendment, the conditional use
permit, and the preliminary plat. Um, what's the inter relationship of those three requests? I mean, if any one is denied, etc. Could you just maybe address that, please? >> Absolutely. Thanks, John, for bringing that up. So, the land use map amendment is to in essence change the zoning from
a waterfront commercial down to a residential zoning on it. And so that that is needed to be able to address the residential conditional use permit that's requesting. So if that were to be denied by the county board, there's a provision in the conditional use
recommendation conditions that we've made that says that the conditional use permit is null and void. So for them to have that residential development property would need to be zoned residential. The preliminary plat is such that each of those individual cabins would have their own real estate, have their own parcel and then they
would have a common shared open space and then they would have um a homeowners association covenants and decorations to manage the open space, the roads, the the septic system, all those sorts of things. So that's the interplay between the three >> and and madam chair if I may and and if the conditional use permit wasn't
approved probably the need for the preliminary plat would be different. Right. >> Correct. So I and at the same time the need for the land use map amendment. So the first consideration would be for you to to talk about the land use map amendment make that recommendation to the county board and then if you're in
favor if you think it's good it's a good idea to go to that residential zoning then you would consider the conditional use permit and then you consider that preliminary plat. So, but if you're thinking that um this should stay waterfront commercial, then you would probably look to findings to want to deny the, you know, the conditional use
permit and to deny the plenary plaid if you want if you think it needs to stay if you think the better use for the property is to be left waterfront commercial. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that additional uh clarification, Chris. Any other questions for staff? Let just
Madam Chair Chris are we going to the public testimony going to be on all three at once? >> Correct ma madam chair Sue that's a great point I meant to mention that. So yeah when people want to make their public testimony it would be great to address the land use map amendment requests the conditional use and the plenary plat. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Any other questions for staff hearing? None. I we'll take it back to the applicants to see if there's anything that you'd like to add. Madam Chair, we would like to add a few things. >> Thank you. >> My glasses on, though. All right. So, um
just a clarification on on the resort. Um our clients have operated the resort since it's been purchased. Um they have had a food and lodging license each year leading up to this summer. Uh Josh and and Cassie are living on the
property, intend to stay on the property and um have a vested interest in the future of the lake and the property itself. Uh the intention is not to um rent out to have VRBOS's um RV campers, camping
of any kind on the property. And um and I think that was mentioned as a request by a couple of letters and and Josh and um Cassie or they would are agreeable to that because they don't want it themselves.
uh the lake interest itself um you know running a resort is 15 weeks of operation from um opening and fishing to the Labor Day and that's resulting in you know a lot of different boats coming
in every week where if um this is transition to residential you are only having 11 boats come in and they're coming in typically all season. So, they're dropped into the lake um and staying there for the season and then
leaving before the ice freezes, right? Or the lake freezes. So, um a lot a less um opportunity for invasive species coming into um you know, we you try to
do a good job as a resort owner, but that it it's just more likely if had to happen if you had a lot of boats coming in and out. You know, you're talking about potentially a hundred boats coming in for the season.
So turning this into a residential development or a property will limit that significantly. The conversion um itself like Chris had said that the cabins have to stay the
size that they are and um there there's no um negotiation on that. It that is what it is. And so that that is also uh a positive on the property if it stays as a resort. You know, we there's the
opportunity to change the size and and um improve the property to as a full-scale resort. And then finally, um the neighbors directly to the north and
um directly to the south have um they're in favor of the application with some conditions that we've addressed previously. And um we just are hopeful that that um you
you know see that as a a positive as well. Josh, do you have anything else? >> No, I think that pretty well covers our position. >> Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, we will then open up this
request for public testimony. And as a reminder, we'll be um addressing all three of the applications during the public testimony portion. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this uh these applications? Please come forward to the microphone at the podium and state your name and
address for the record. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name's Cody Schmidt. I'm an attorney at GMLO Pearson Law here in Baxter. And just as a point of administrative stuff, Chris, your name plate is front of is in front of Nichollet.
>> Oh, we switched >> just so you know. >> So, as Miss Hy mentioned, a lot of that is I think everything was basically accurate. Uh, I represent the Panzing Plumber Brooks Family Cabin Group. Uh,
have a couple members here today. Uh they had drinks with Mr. Miles and his wife the other night. Uh they are generally in support of the plan. Uh I think there's some discuss we think that there's some discussion that could take
place amongst the neighbors that could potentially strengthen support for this plan this project that I think just with the short turnaround of notice they haven't been able to have yet. So there is a request to table this today for 30.
I know some people have requested 60 days. Um, we support that request to table this today to allow for more conversation to take place. Uh, the concerns were accurately represented by Miss Hiddi. Um, like I said, we we're generally in
support of the the plan. There's some things that we would like to see in the cup. um just to memorialize these concerns that the people that are doing the project have in the declarations. Declarations can change. We all know
that. So, putting no short-term rentals in a declaration, well, that doesn't really prevent it. If the people later on decide that they decide to sell and some new people come in, they could change those declarations. If this is what the intent is going to be, I think
we want to see that memorialized where it can't be changed later on without coming back through a public process like this. Um, those things are primarily the docking issue. Uh, no RVs, they're outlined in the letter. Did did
you guys we had submitted it late, but I think all the concerns are laid out in there that if you guys have any questions, I'm happy to answer those, but I don't think you guys need me to >> go through those for you. Um, so if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. Oh, uh, as to the
reasoning, my clients are in support of that. Changing it from commercial to residential, I think, benefits everybody in the area. The cup is, I think, the primary area where there's conversation from my group around additions, changes,
corrections. Uh there's some stuff in the declarations that we'd like to see cleaned up. I don't think block 2, lot one is addressed in the declarations. Uh it would just need to be added to the common property exhibit, I think. Uh so there's just some small things like that
that we'd like a chance to see the declarations more than 5 days before the final meeting um if possible. So if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them. Um if not then I don't have anything else for you today.
>> Thank you. Does the board have any questions? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who'd like to address this these applications? Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Uh my name is Brad
Halberstat. Uh I am four properties to the north, uh 26838 County Road 4. I'm the one who uh clogged your email up with uh documents that were submitted in uh in support of the arguments that we had made in the
memorandum as well as uh to make sure that we had a complete as possible record uh for a property that goes back and has been fought over over the last 35 years and then again back in 2021 um when this conditional use permit uh
was resurrected uh back from 1991. one. Um, I'll start. I have three main points to talk about. First is the notice point, which I appreciate the the statutory references on why things really seem to move quick. Uh, and
if if the record was complete, I'd be saying, okay, well, if we've got everything we need, why why wait? But there are some missing pieces of information. And and since you said you read all of the comments, I won't bore you with what I believe is missing from the record. Uh I do believe that the
application does contain a misstatement on condition 16 which it says was omitted when in fact if you go back in 1991 that condition was revised to recommend to future boards that any
actions that increase density in the area of people in the area be denied. So the application technically has a mistake in it. But that being said, the notice piece of it, we had 37 comments from neighbors last year, plus
the assoc lake association and the uh township. Uh as well as we've got inconsistent positions from the DNR. Now, maybe that's because additional rules changed or evidence somehow changed or more evidence was provided, but the record needs to be cleared up on
those points. Um, and I'll talk about that when we talk about mooring. Um, but I said there were three issues I wanted to talk about. One was the notice and I join in recommending or asking that in fact I just got a text from one of the residents on the lake who said they couldn't get in to make their comments.
Um, so I think it it's wise in light of the issues of supplementing the record and giving everyone an opportunity to respond uh that this be tabled for 30 days to give everybody a full chance to to go back. There's so much information. I'm sure you appreciate that after
having been bombarded with it on information that that we believe is relevant to to this issue. So, since we have limited time, issue number two is related to those conditions and and the conversion request in general on the
property. It was stated that well that condition 15 which I outlined in my memo is clear that well the zoning conditions today include resort conversion. You can't read that condition in that way and come to that conclusion. It wouldn't have
been in there if that's what it meant. Obviously the conditions that exist today would apply to anything that happens. you dig deeper and it's in my memo and if you've got it I hate to bother you with repeating it but Marian Pelto who voted for approval of that cup
stated specifically that these units weren't supposed to be sold individually and that if the property be ceases to be used as a resort it would revert to single family residential use. You can see from
that map there's no way this number of pre properties would and in fact that was many of the arguments that that you heard or were going to hear in 2021 when we talked about what was being requested when they asked for variances instead of saying whoops that didn't work. Let's
try just doing a resort conversion only and and not ask for permission to do anything that's way outside anything that's allowed under the current regulations. Now, I appreciate the fact that resorts have had a tough time and I acknowledge that, you know what, we've
got a we've got something in this land use ordinance that allows conversions, and so we should we should honor that. And I the only exception in this case is we've got a condition that said that everyone agreed to, including the owner at the time and the court up above. I'm
probably coming over my time and I'm I'm You're going to kick me out anyway. >> 30 seconds. >> All right. Um, I rely on what's in the motion. I trust that you've read that the mooring issues are substantial.
I'm asking that the record be supplemented to prove grandfathering that's required under the statute so that we don't have an arbitrary and capriccious decision without that record being established. They should have the full opportunity to provide that evidence from 1991 showing that they
were legal conforming uh mooring spaces that were established and put into the lake prior to 1991. That evidence is admittedly not in the record. >> Madam Chair, I'm out. >> We're at time, please. >> Okay. >> All right. I appreciate uh the attention to everything that I submitted.
>> Thank you for your comments, sir. >> Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone seeing no one in the courtroom, we'll go to online testimony. Is there anyone online who would like to address these applications?
>> No one online. >> Yep, we have one. It looks like >> I thought that we did. Okay. Daniel Panzing. >> Yeah. Hi. >> Please state your name and address for the record, please. >> Sure. Daniel Panzing, 4040 Ellington
Avenue in Western Springs, Illinois 60558. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Uh I also submitted something today. I presume you've seen that. Uh I'm certainly not an attorney, but I am strongly opposed to this uh conversion,
particularly because I think a number of things were misleading that were presented to the DNR and their decision around the dock there that I've been I've been at that on that lake for 55 years. I'm 55 years old. I've been up there. There have
never been 11 boats at that. Or if there were, it was maybe for for an afternoon. Uh it's it's patently false that there were 11 11 boats continuously there that there would that that that wouldn't change substantially the usage of this
property and the the the enjoyment of the lake that we all have. Um I won't repeat everything that I got into but I do uh want to strongly urge that that be uh looked at. And as part of that and I guess my primary thought here is that
this really needs to be continued. the there hasn't been enough time to adequately I found as you will see in your email evidence to the contrary of the of the one picture that I saw was submitted related to the docking that shows you and and show shows you that
there's other things uh like water mats and swim platforms that be are being counted as 30-foot boats. There needs to be more work done and more time for the neighbors and others to respond uh to this uh as it'll have a significant impact on our ability to enjoy the lake
as we have historically. So I would ask you to please and urge you to please defer your decision on this. I would say for 60 days that's what the deferral and that's what the time frame in the statutes for I assume. But uh at at a minimum for 30 days to
let uh to let this process for people who just became aware of this 5 days ago have time to to build their response and and come back to you. Thanks. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else online who would like to address this application?
Thomas Pansy. Thomas are you there? >> I am. Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you. >> Tom Pansing. I live in Omaha, Nebraska, and I'm a part owner of the uh property to the north of the Pelican Beach
property. I just want to clarify uh that the uh decision not to object to this um application by our family is
conditioned on a number of changes to the uh conditional use permit which I haven't heard explained or accepted or approved at this point but Um I want I just want to be certain that you
understand that there's been discussion and there are four or five or six points that I understand have been concurred um with some of the some of the people that are um
interested in this. But uh I would want to be certain that uh that that's addressed if you uh decide negatively as to the extension. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else online who wishes
to address these applications? I >> think that's it. Okay. We'll bring it back then um to the applicant to see if you'd like to address any of the comments made thus far. >> Not at this time. Okay. Then that brings
it back to the board for further discussion. We've heard we've heard a number of um suggestions that this be tabled for a minimum of 30 days for um a further opportunity for people to
address their concerns and um have also heard um information regarding the application. So uh further discussion >> madam chair. Oh go ahead. I mean, I understand concerns. I mean, but the
short-term rental concern, the the mooring concern as far as making sure that it is tied to the CUP is already addressed in condition number six underneath the conditional proposed conditional use permit. Um, I think the
RVs, campers, that can be addressed through additional conditions put on the conditional use permit. So, a lot of the concerns um I would have I'd like to have Chris, if you would please comment
on the gentleman's concerns about the 1991 conditional use permit that said if if this exist ceased to become a resort that it had to become a single family um you know, whatever a single family dwelling would be. But
>> yeah, right. >> Conditional uses can be changed and that's why we're here. Well, and this this is this is a new conditional use sprint. So, this is not a extension of the or a modification or amendment to the one from 1991. And so, you know, I
think we can all have you know um what you know what was the intent and and and what was the so that what it said was that the CUP for 91 condition 15 noted that the resort must comply to zoning regulations of that date. and um and so I think we can have discussions and and
frankly disagreements if we how we want to to look at that and and and to read that and I can totally respect uh um the attorney's um perspective on that. But at the same time I I think people have the opportunity to apply and to to have go through their go through due process. We've had situations in the past where
people have said we're going to give you a variance for a for a deck today but you can never come back and apply for a variance ever again. I don't think that's that I think is is something that you that you're not allowed to do. And so a decision such as that there are certain things that tie the hands of
future boards for able to make decisions down the road on certain applications. And so um again I I know that's not the answer that you know the um maybe that folks want to hear, but that's that's how I'm looking at it today. And what I'd like to do though, I think might make more sense would be to walk through some of the conditions that we put in
that we're having that are part of the packet and then we can talk about some of the conditions that were brought up as far as some of the comments and see if there's some ways that you think we could add or modify some of these because I think the cup is the document that really is a driving document. I mean, >> I agree.
>> The zoning map and the plaid is I mean, that's more they're important, but I think the cup is what's really driving the bus on this. >> I think it'd be helpful to bring up those. Before you do that, Chris, um I'd just like to point out in my opinion, the density is not changing in this.
There's 11 cabins down there. There's going to be 11 dwelling structures. So, density to me is not changing at all. So, I don't think, you know, it's going to stay the same. It's just that it might be I mean you got 11
individually owned cabins whereas a resort you got 11 cabins that can be number of people in them. I mean, I think as far as I agree with what Cindy said as far as boat traffic in and out, I think with 11 residential and the
individual boats, it'd be less than if it was a resort and somebody could come in and rent a cabin and they could bring two boats in with them and then you got a lot more boat traffic. So, that's I just wanted to comment that I don't think the density has changed at all.
Um, m Madam Chair, before we get to the nitty-gritty of the conditions, I just want to ask three things. One, one is to your earlier point, this is a new cup, >> correct? >> And in adopting it, we would be
replacing any existing CUP kind of >> the cup that is there is still this it wouldn't replace it, >> but but this would be the prevailing cup for the property, right? So we do that. We we and we create new
cups for things that uh that happen. We do that somewhat regularly. It comes before us. >> Correct. >> Um so so that's one thing I want to be clear too. Um to your other point, um I'm just not aware of anything that
allows a board or a decision of a board to commit a future board to that decision. You know, I'm involved in town government and we don't get to do that. You can't say we're adopting this and never again shall anyone change what we
adopt. It'd be like the county board adopting an ordinance and saying a future county board couldn't change the ordinance. I mean, so I I I don't see unless you tell me that there's anything in the record that prevents this board
from adopting the cup based on the record. I mean, I understand I appreciate the comments. Um, but I don't think they're binding on the on the decision in front of us unless somebody um has some case law or something that
would tell us that. Then the third thing I have a question on is um the the whole issue of people talking about covenants and wanting time to get more stuff included here and so on. But I think in condition 14 I read that we
state that the county is not responsible for the enforcement of governance etc. And I think our track record is we try not to incorporate that or we're careful about what we incorporate into our conditions
um because we want our conditions to be appropriate to what we're considering right um relative to the county ordinances etc. Is that is that the right understanding? >> Correct. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, Madame Chair.
>> Yes. >> Just a question for staff. I was aware of a situation where where I live where the similar thing transpired and the footprints had to remain the same of the of the
buildings. But what I saw happen was all of a sudden just a blossoming of those 8 by10 storage sheds like multiple. I mean it just was ridiculous. So I'm curious what's what is that something we have
anything to consider? What what could somebody put next to their house in a situation like this? I mean, we got full-time people now going to be moving in. They're going to have a lot more stuff.
Where's that going to go? So, that's my concern. >> You know, I think that's a valid point that you bring up, but at the same time, when they're buying into a situation like this, they're limited to what they have for that. So, I mean, from an ordinance standpoint, you could they
could potentially build a 10 x6 shed on that on each, you know, if there's room on those parcels, but that would be really limited to that would be it because there's really isn't room to build. You're not allowed to do any other expansions. So, you know, it it really, you know, I think we see these
there's other of these across the county and other areas and they really end up being very a seasonal use. They're not really designed to be used year round um in that. So that's the expectation that you know I think you'd see here. So but I can go through the conditions if you'd like and just give you an idea and then we can talk about some of the conditions
that have been brought up and maybe see if there's a way to amend or add or or modify that. So um we'll just work through the conditions are up on the screen for you to take a look at. Um this conditional use commit is for the conversion of Pelican Beach Resort to a residential use and a plat consisting of
13 total lots which would be 11 residential dwelling lots and two common lots. they give the lands department uh permission to enter the property. If they do any work out there for the construction, they would need a permit. Um this this condition permit would be null and void if the county board denies
the land use map amendment request from waterfront commercial to shoreland district. Um a plat must be approved with the county board. If the individual lot should be sold individually, um the development is approved for 11 permanent moing spaces and is to be consolidated to a common dock as shown on the certificate survey. Um, they also I
think that the one day dock is up for discussion. I think I think as we've had some discussion with the applicant, I think they'd be willing to remove that and just have the one dock only and not have that uh the day use dock. Um, one of the one condition number seven is that uncontrolled beaching of watercraft
um must we instead of saying should we should we chant must be prohibited as part of the open space preservation as cons uh condition of the plat of the land use ordinance. All concrete structures in the lake that have moved boats must be removed and coordinated with the DNR. Existing dwelling units shall be allowed to be continued but but
not must not be allowed to be increased in size, area, volume or height either at the time of conversion or anytime in the future. Um existing dwelling units shall be allowed to be reconstructed in the exact footprint of the dwelling unit with no expansion as previously mentioned allowed. The survey dated uh May 13, 2026 will be used to document
this information for future reference. um a storm water plan uh for the property must be uh implemented and validated that it's effective according to our ordinance. Um they'd have 12 months to implement that. We want a there to be a shenan buffer restoration
plan should be submitted to the department which would allow a 10-ft no main buffer behind the existing beach going 70% of the lot. So it mean 30% of the lot would be allowed to be left open for the shoreline recreational use area. Um there's an existing swing set that is in in shore impact zone one that needs
to be would need to be removed to to do that. And then number 14 is that they would be required to establish a owner association through covenants and decorations and to be recorded at the time of plat the time the plat is recorded. Um she'll state that each of the 11 dwelling lots has a 1 to 11th
ownership in the common lot and will dictate how the associ manage common infrastructure septic systems road maintenance dock maintenance and other commonly owned infrastructure. To be clear, the county is not responsible for enforcing the recorded covenants and declarations. Uh I would recommend from
a staff perspective, we did get some uh some information today and uh with some recommended um uh conditions. One would be that uh there would be uh no allowed short-term rental at the resort for any
of the cabins for less than 30 days. So if they want to rent monthtomonth, that's something that we wouldn't regulate. But anything less than 30 days they wouldn't be able to do. Um they also recommend that it would prohibit the use of RVs, campers, and tents on the property for use and prohibit the
parking of those as well. And uh we did I think cover the beaching of watercraft. I think um uncontrolled beaching of watercraft um would be prohibited. So, um I think we did have a convers as we received this, we did have a conversation with the with the
applicant. Um and they're amendable to these additional conditions as recommended. So, I I think it would be a a good addition to to fill out maybe some holes that some of that conditional use permit unless you always have the opportunity as requested to also table
that application to, you know, to the next month's meeting. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions. M madam chair could I just quickly and are you also saying that condition six would be now 11 permanent moing spaces
period and the issue of the one-day use stock would be correct deleted >> correct >> okay thank you >> further discussion >> madam chair I have a question for the applicant if I could please >> yes >> somebody one of the concerned parties
brought up uh lot one block two has not had anything like in the covenants addressing what what is the the plans for lot one block two that's the property across the road are you going to be addressing what that's going to be in the covenants or
>> yeah that's this right here >> the pole building >> with the pole the existing pole building or anything else over there are you asking >> so it's going to stay as is I mean it's not you're not I mean I'm just I'm I'm just
>> I'm not >> some of the concerns neighbors have. Okay. What is the potential use going to be? Because it's not addressed in the covenants and declarations for lot one block two. I'm just asking if that's something you might consider addressing in the covenants before as to what that
is should remain or what how it's going to be used. So, the use is going to stay the same or we will I don't know if we know what but but we can we'll make sure that there's something in the declaration
before you approve. >> Okay. I just I just is a concern. >> Madam Chair, let me ask this question. Would you would you like for them to come back to amend the CUP if they want to do any construction on the other side of the road? Is that what you're asking? Yes, I do believe that would be the the
right way of handling okay >> that if if down the future you want to expand um or whoever wants to put let's just say more cabin a cabin or or something over there to go with this that any future development of lot one block two
would have to come back to be approved by >> so that can be added to the conditions >> madam chair >> yes >> I I see I see this is where you're going to park your your boat trailers and and and so forth rather than down on the
commons area. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> So I think you just >> you kind of need some place to if you've got a postage stamp lot. You can't really put your boat in the lake and then >> I think what Sue >> trailer up alongside
>> Sue is what you're saying just construction of buildings if you want. Yeah. That's so I don't think it would prohibit the putting dock you know storing trailers. It would just be for any sort of construction and plan to build. We have to come back and amend the >> CP. You know, there's one pole building on there, but I I know they're using it
for parking and stuff, but that could change down the road. I just want something in there that protects, not protects, but you know, >> calls out what Yeah. >> Lot one, block two is. >> Yep. So, Madam Chair, I mean that condition would basically be saying if they create
a new use for lot one block two other than what's currently being used, they'd need to come back. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Is that what you're That's what you're saying. >> Better madam madam chair. >> Yes. >> We're under discussion. I want to come
back and maybe have a question for the applicant and and for us. Um on the on the request to table this for for 30 days. Um typically when we table something we're looking for more information. We
we we think there's something incomplete. Um by itself my own perspective is this isn't more complicated than many that we see, right? We get a lot of input. We process it um by itself. It's um got a
number of conditions. We've had some that have had a lot more conditions. So, you know, by itself, but um I'm not overly um driven by the idea that we need to to table just because of the volume of of input, etc. But one person addressed the
fact that there's been conversations and coming up with ideas of how to make this more palatable to to people and maybe ideas that you might accept as positive changes. So I guess my request
is you've had those conversations. Are are you thinking that is a good idea and that you would like to have more conversations that could impact this? So, you'd be willing to uh table it for 30 days and have that and then bring any changes back that we would consider. Is
is is that a reasonable request or what are your thoughts? >> You know, it would certainly be a reasonable request and would respect whatever the board decided would be the you know, in the best interest of all the parties involved. Our preference would certainly be to you know um
address the concerns of within reason that we've tried to do so already including you know some of the forementioned BRBOs camping you know eliminating the day dock. Um, so I mean from our perspective, we've tried to be
um good stewards of of the property and of of respecting, you know, some requests that weren't necessarily part of the the variant or the application that we're willing to do. So candidly, our preference would be
to to get a um result on it today due to the fact that we feel like we have addressed a lot of this um questions and concerns. But again, to be clear, we would certainly respect whatever the board deemed necessary or prudent for
moving forward. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think um with the what is there a total now, Chris? 17 or 18 conditions with what we've added. >> 17. >> Yeah, we have 14 >> 17 >> seven with the addition. Well, you know, I think the 17 conditions that we placed
on here has pretty much addressed all the concerns. >> It's the list is fairly comprehensive >> and I'm and I'm ready to proceed forward with this. >> Any other comments from the board? >> I want to know where the little kids are going to fish
if you take out that day dock. kind of wondered that myself. >> I What's the harm in that one little dock? >> Well, then when kids are swimming and stuff like that, parents are it's easier
for them to keep an eye on it. I our our preference regarding that, we we would be willing to make again that concession, but our preference would be to leave that small short dock there. So when kids are playing in the water or fishing, their parents are frankly able to keep a better eye on them. And with
the conditions that there's no mooring whatsoever of any watercrafts on that dock and no use of it beyond kind of what what Rock here has pointed out. Um, so as that came up, that's that was genuinely our my initial thought was,
you know, it's certainly it's certainly nice. Is it nec entirely necessary? No. Is it is it nice for the reasons we're describing? Yes. Is it really affect things? In my opinion, for what we're discussing, I don't think it does. But
again, in the interest of being amicable, we're open to that discussion. Madam chair, I'd like to state I think a day dock for kids that are swimming. It's a lot more safe to have a day dock for swimmers, for kids and stuff than
kids using a dock where you have 11 boats that could be coming in and out of there. They could, you know, I think just for safety for swimmers and everything, I think that day dock should stay. >> I would agree with that, >> Madam Chair. I I support that day do.
Um, I'm part of an association over on G Lake and unfortunately we don't have that. You get kids playing around the big docks and you know kids can't see them, can't find them. I I think that's just
imperative for just a public safety >> consideration. >> Thank you for bringing that up, Rock. Madam chair, I think the proper order for cons if we're ready to consider applications will be to start with the land use map amendment, then the
conditional use permit, and then the prelary plaid. If if that's if you're ready for that, I think that's the order that we should go in. >> Okay. Are we ready for that? >> Okay. So, land use map amendment. Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to
recommend the county board amend the um from the land you approve the land use map amendment from waterfront commercial to shoreland district >> and m just to include the residential including shorland R2.5 >> because we have that we have that part of the shorland. Yeah.
>> And just to be clear the findings uh from the staff report are located on page 95 of the packet. >> Yes. with the um findings of facts listed in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Rock. Further discussion. >> Okay. Um before we take action on the land use map application, I need to verify one item with you and that is do you understand that tonight we are making a recommendation to the county board for approval of your land use map
amendment request? The county board does have final approval over this request and the next meeting is the 9th. >> June 9th. >> June 9th at 9:00 in this room. >> We do. >> Thank you. Okay. We will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor please signify by saying I.
>> I. I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Next, we will talk about the conditional use permit. >> The findings for that are located on page 150 of the packet. >> Yep.
>> Any additions or modifications to those findings? But before we uh proceed with it, could you just so we're all on the same page, um identify the three additions, the wording of the three additions and then
number six, I think we covered changed so that we all know what those three additions are. Correct. >> From the conditions, correct? Right. So, so condition number six is for the permanent morning spaces. We are going to keep the day use dock is what
it sounds like is what I'm hearing. and then adding the conditions were that the um it would be prohibited to use to um utilize a short-term rental less than 30
days on any of the units um on the property. Anything less than 30 days is prohibited. And then it's also prohibited that the use of RVs, campers, tents, and other type sleeping facilities of the property is prohibited. Um it's prohibited to park
RVs, trailers, etc. on the property. Um and then um we all we covered the beaching of watercraft, >> future expansion, >> correct? And then the other one was to um the the last one that we had just talked about was um any future expansion
or future um uses development on block two lot one the cup must be amended um if it's something different than the current use. But I do want to I do want to make sure though that as as we have that condition that the lot across the road can be that you're allowing them to
store boat trailers and that on the across the road. Okay. >> Just want to be clear about that. Okay. So those would be the conditions that as we've discussed uh this evening. >> Thank you >> Chris and board on uh madam chair on
number six the you know it's allowed one day doc do we need distipulating there will be no moing sites allowed on that dock. >> Yeah and that's a good points and I think what we can do on that on the condition for number six to state that the day use dock is not allowed for any no permit moing on the day use dock.
Yes. Yep. We can do that. Thank you. >> Further discussion? Any other comments from the board? >> I'm hearing silence. >> Um, no, if there aren't any other
comments, I'd be ready to make a motion. >> Okay. >> Um, and the motion I would make, uh, Madam Chair, is to approve the conditional use permit. Um given the uh findings of fact in
support of the conditional use permit, the uh survey that's been submitted, um the staff report, and what I believe is 17 conditions, >> 18 with that >> 18 conditions. So, did we uh separate
out prohibiting tents, campers, and and parking as two separate ones? >> We did. So 18 conditions >> um >> and that would be my motion >> and based on the on-site that we did. >> Yes. And the staff report which the
on-site's part of and the survey etc. >> Second >> there's a motion on the floor in a second. Any further discussion? >> Any further hearing? None. Uh before we take final action on your conditional use permit application, I need to verify
three items with you. Do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes, we do. >> And do you understand the conditions that we just went over that are required as part of their approval? >> Yes, we do. >> And do you understand that what is being
approved tonight is final and any future changes to what is being approved tonight must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay their appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff
cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> We do. Okay. We will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Madam chair, the
findings effect for the plunary plat are located on your on the screen on page 205. Okay. Further discussion or action on this? Remember, we're making a recommendation on this. >> Madam Chair,
>> yes. I would like to make a motion to recommend the county board approve the preliminary plat of Pelican Beach reserve with 13 lots, 11 residential lots and two common lots based on the findings of facts submitted in the staff
report, the on-site that was conducted and the four conditions in the staff report. >> Can we bring up those conditions? >> Second. There's a motion on the floor in a second and we'll just quickly look at those conditions that everyone so those
are in front of everyone and the audience can see as well. Okay. Any further discussion? Um Madam Chair, one thing that you could add as part of that final plat would be that staff would be given the opportunity to review the covenant
declarations before final plat to make sure that there aren't any discrepancies as as was brought up tonight. So I think we could add that as a condition on the plat. I I could I could go along with that. >> Okay. >> You okay with that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. We will make that addition. >> Any further discussion?
>> Hearing none. Before we take final action on the preliminary plat request, I need to verify the two items. Do you understand that tonight we're making a recommendation to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request? The county board does have final approval over this request. >> We do. And do you understand that the
required conditions that we just talked about placed on the preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request? >> We do. Okay. Uh that being said, we will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you to everyone for your time and input. >> Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> A good afternoon. Next uh application on the uh applicant would be Sean Gregor uh for a variance
and preliminary plat request application. Okay, John Greger. Hopefully I'm pronouncing that correctly. Are they online? Doesn't look like it. Um, >> manager, maybe we can push him to the
>> Yeah, I will we'll move we will move on then to uh RNR Landscaping and Construction uh Inc. Greg Rano and that is for also for variance and preliminary plat uh applications. And are they present online?
>> Doesn't look like it. >> Uh Tyler is online. Tyler. >> Yep. >> Oh, >> Tyler Paggiva. Can you guys hear me? >> I can now. Yes. Thank you. Can state your name and address for the record, please? Tyler.
>> Yep. Tyler Pogriba, address 10878 Brent Drive, Brainard, Minnesota. Um, land surveyor with Woods here to just represent Greg on the prelim and on the prelim plat and variance. >> Okay. Thank you for RNR landscaping. Uh,
thank you very much. And can you read the request into the record, Nicole? Nicole, what I mean? >> Yep. Thanks, Madam Chair. Um, tonight we have property owner RNR Landscaping and Construction. Um, authorized agent Tyler Pgriba with Woods. Um, parcel number
591605504. This is in Deerwood Township and the currently in use is the Shorland District. There are two requests tonight, Madame Chair, and I would like to suggest running the public hearing for both items together and making separate motions on each. Uh the first request tonight is a variance for a road
access of 33 feet where 66 ft is required. And the second request is a preliminary plat of Ann Lake acres consisting of two lots. I'm going to go to page for 240 in your packets. Um this property is located on An Lake.
It's a natural environment lake and it's just off of Swanson Road here which connects to State Highway 6. Um, new parcels on natural environment lakes must have a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet, a minimum buildable area of 40,000 square feet, and a minimum lot
width of 200 ft. On page 242 is the survey with the preliminary plat here. Um, Swanson Road is a private road with a 33 foot access. Um let's see. Both
parcels are currently vacant parcels and are meeting the late the lot size for uh requirements for natural environment lakes. The pro proposed preliminary plat u meets all the requirements of the land use ordinance. And I just wanted to point out here that there was a
certificate of survey that was included in your packet on page 244. I'm just going to go to that quick. Um, this made it into our packets and I just want to clarify um that this was a preliminary concept that was provided by
the applicant and lot C here that was proposed um is not being proposed currently. It is only lots one and two. So, I just want to clarify this in your packet. C is a part of lot B. Back up here on this preliminary plat,
uh there were two comments received from the township. one was on March 10th recommending approval of the variance and the preliminary plat. Since that meeting, the applicant had a wetland delineation um performed and added to the survey which clarified buildable area for this
and then the applicant went back to the township and with the revised survey and the township recommended approval again on May 11th. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff are recommending no conditions for the variance and the five following
conditions for the preliminary plat. Uh the first is final plat must be submitted within 12 months of preliminary plat approval by county board. Two, all applicable requirements, all oh my goodness, all applicable required improvements article 9.8 shall
be effective effectively implemented. Um, number three, if this plat proposes to disturb 1 acre or more of soil, a storm water pollution prevention plan must be approved by the MPCA. Four is documentation of plat monuments must be completed. And five, title commitment
before final plat. I can answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Does the board have any questions of staff? >> Hearing none. Um, >> I guess I have go ahead. Well, I don't know if I asked staff or surveyor, how
how are they going to get to lot one? >> Oh, >> yep. Uh, lot one has access that that runs >> Yeah. just along the edge of the road there. >> Okay. Now I see it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll bring it back
to you, Tyler, if there's anything you'd like to add. >> No, Nichollet did a great job um reviewing it. Uh, I don't think the applicant has any concerns with the conditions that would, uh, be in effect. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, then, uh, at this
time, we will go ahead and open this up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll go back to online. Is there anyone online who
wishes to address these applications? I don't believe there's anyone online. So, we will bring it back to um the board, close public testimony, and bring it back for uh discussion and potential action.
Madam Chair, if there's no discussion, I'm ready to proceed forward. >> Please go ahead. >> Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve the variance for road access width of 33 feet where 66 feet is required. Um, based on the findings and
facts submitted in the staff report. >> Second. >> A motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Okay, we're voting getting ready to vote on the variance right now. Uh and Tyler, before we take final action on the variance, I need to verify four items
with you. Okay. >> Um >> yes. >> Do you understand what's being approved tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes, I do. And you understand that you must obtain permits now from land
services department before construction begins? >> Yes, I do. >> And you understand what is being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, height or location, must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application,
pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. Yes, I do. >> Okay. Uh, that being said, then we'll go ahead and proceed with the vote. All
those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Post same sign. Motion carries. Next, we have the preliminary plat. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. If there's no discussion, I would
move a recommendation to the county board of approval for the preliminary plat of an lake acres consisting of two lots with the findings of fact in the staff report and the survey that's been provided
uh with the five I believe it is right five conditions uh that have been presented this evening and are in the staff report. >> I'll second that. >> There's a motion on the floor in a second. Is there further discussion?
>> Doing none before we take uh final action. I need to verify again two items. Tyler, do you understand that tonight we're making a recommendation to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request? >> Yes, I do. And the county board does have final approval over this request
and they will be meeting on June 9th at 9:00 a.m. in the courtroom here. Uh do you understand that the required conditions placed on the preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. We then will proceed with the
vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Both same sign. Motion carries. Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you guys. Have a great day. >> Thank you. Okay. Any any word on uh Sean
Gregor? >> He's having some tech issues. He's going to try again. >> Okay, then we'll move on. >> Okay, good. >> We'll go ahead and move on to the next applicant, which would be Linda and Philip Tid for preliminary plat.
>> Good afternoon. Good afternoon everyone. Uh Kevin McCormack with Land Design Solutions 11821 Lake Trail Cross Lake Minnesota representing the TIDS this afternoon. >> Thank you. And Nichollet, would you please read in the request to the record
for the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, tonight we have property owner uh, Linda and Philip Tid, authorized agent Kevin McCormack, parcel number 77060515, and this is in Mission Township. The request tonight is a preliminary plat
Oakidge Terrace with five total lots. On page 271 of your packet is the locator map and um this is located on the south side of Fawn Lake Road which is just off of County Road 3 and um
the north side of Fawn Lake Road and it is is the city of Cross Lake up here. Um on two page 273 is the preliminary plat over
here. Now lot one will have access off of Fawn Lake Road. Lot two through five will have access off of the proposed Oak Terrace Way um which will be dedicated to the public. The proposed access into
lots 2 through 5 is 66 ft wide and does continue down the south end of lot proposed lot 5. Part of the preliminary plat process is to obtain a resolution of approval from Mission Township. The applicant received that approval from
the township on April 13th and that resolution is in your packet on page 274. No other comments have been received. If the board does approve this application, staff are recommending the seven following conditions. Final plat must be submitted within 12 months of
preliminary plat approval. Two, all applicable required improvements shall be effective effectively implemented. Three, if the plat proposes to disturb one acre more of soil, a storm water pollution prevention plan must be approved by the MPCA.
Four, documentation of the plat monuments completed. Five title commitment six site suitabilities must be submitted before final plat and that is because the applicant submitted a winter window. Uh number seven prior to final plat it is required to amend the
existing 66 ft um easement across P 77060533 to grant legal ingress egress use for TIDS. I can answer any other questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions?
>> Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> Uh just a couple things. Uh the applicants have engaged Severson and Porter on the declaration of easement. The easement exists. They're going to augment that so that it's clear who gets to use that easement. Um and that'll be
part of it. And that will be done and recorded uh prior to the final plat so it can be shown on the final plat. The 66 ft easement going to the south was a recommendation by the county surveyor because it some point may have more than two people addressing it. That also will
be done and recorded so the document number can actually be shown on the final plat. Um other than that unless there's any other questions this is uh we're we're pretty good with all the conditions. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant from the board?
>> Okay. Um >> I I guess >> go ahead. >> I'm trying to find the five lots. I I six here and then one >> lot five. >> Okay. >> So, >> but this is this is six lots, isn't it?
>> Yep. These were approved. These were approved with an administrative subdivision. So, when see three, four, five. >> Okay. Somebody >> up know how to count. >> We had to count twice, too. We did this. We had to do that.
>> The drawings do get busy. >> Okay. Um, hearing no further discussion, we will open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who'd like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, we'll go to check online.
Is there anyone online? And I don't believe there is. So, we'll bring it back to the board for any further discussion and uh action on this request for um preliminary plat. Madame chair, findings of factor on page
289 of your packet. Madame Chair, if there is no discussion, I would offer a motion. >> Go ahead, please. Um, so I would move a recommendation to the county board of approval of the preliminary plat of Oakidge Terrace with
five lots, uh, based on the findings of fact that were in the staff report that have just been reviewed and subject to the seven conditions that have been reviewed and are in the staff report and the survey that's been submitted.
>> There's a motion on the floor. There's a second by Rock. Any further discussion? Why why would they or as far as a process, why would they just do the seven lots rather than do
administrative subdivision on two? And >> is there was um at the time this uh started uh we were looking at doing uh uh some lots to get some uh capital going to get this. The township allowed
two by administrative subdivision. So those two were done first. >> Okay. >> Which now moves us into the formal 505 plan. >> Correct. So Miss Mission has some additional lot split requirements and so that's what they're we're working on that. So we work we work real close with Mission Township.
>> Okay. I'm like I want to just >> Any further discussion? Um before we take final action on the preliminary platify items with you. You understand tonight that we're making a recommendation to the county board for approval of your
preliminary plat request? >> Yes, we do. >> And the county board does have final approval over that request. And do you understand that the required conditions that um were discussed placed on the preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request? >> Yes, we do.
>> Okay. We then will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Both same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much everyone. Have a great holiday. >> Did we say Did we say June 9th for the county board? >> June 9th. >> June 9th.
>> 9 o'clock. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> thank you again very much. >> Thank you. Our next request would be Scott and Diane Moore for a variance. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon.
Go ahead and state your names and uh addresses for the record, please. Uh >> this is Scott Moore, uh 18459 Gladstone Boulevard in Maple Grove. >> Diane Moore, 18459 Gladstone Boulevard, Maple Grove.
>> Thank you. And Nichollet, will you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, tonight we have property owner and applicants Scott and Diane Moore. Parcel number 50110812. Physical address of the property is 16365
Brighton Point Road in Deerwood. This is in Bay Lake Township. The request tonight is a variance for a lake setback of 45 ft where 100 ft is required to a new dwelling with an attached garage and a lake setback of 43 ft where 100 ft is
required to a proposed deck. And this is to construct a 1,077 ft dwelling with a 629 ft attached garage and a 224 ft deck. on page 295 of your packet.
This property is located on Bay Lake, a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback on the north side of Brighton Point Road is just west of County Road 10 over here. And the property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses.
On page 298 is the survey. I'm going to scroll down here. Um there was an updated survey that was received showing the deck and I will show that here in just a minute on the projection screen. Um the existing house is 45 ft from OW
and the existing deck is 35 ft from OW. We'll switch over to that screen so you can see what I'm looking at. Chris has got the focus. All right. So, existing house is 45 ft from OW and the existing deck is 35 ft
from OW. How do you this thing? There you go. So, on the original survey, this deck was not included, which is actually closer closer to the lake. This um deck is a open deck and um
we determined that on the on-site. So it's not a covered deck. It will be open and then this is where the new house will be. Um the existing impervious is at 20% 20.7 and the proposed impervious is 21.2. Uh to highlight a few on-site comments
from the May 7th PCBOA on-site meeting. Um it was noted that it was determined uh the proposed deck is not covered. A vegetation buffer is needed to improve the shoreline protection. Similar structures exist on nearby parcels and
the parcel is only 50 ft wide, leaving limited space for development. A comment was received from the township recommending approval of the request and no comments were received from the public. If the board does approve the application tonight, staff would like to recommend the four following conditions.
A land use permit shall be approved by land services prior to construction. Implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan you utilizing best management practice practices. Uh three, a storm water management plan according to article 41 of the land use
ordinance be implemented um at the time or sorry be approved by county staff at the time of land use permits and must be implemented by the time of permit expiration or upon substantial completion of the project. which whichever is sooner. And number four, an
ASB built survey of the an asbuilt certificate of survey showing all variance requirements include elevations must be met and submitted to the county once construction is complete. I can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Hearing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant to see is there anything else you'd like to add? >> No, no, nothing. Okay, then we will open this up for public testimony. Or is there anyone in the courtroom who'd like to address this application? Anyone?
Seeing no one, we'll check online and I don't believe there's anyone there either. So, we'll bring it back to the board for uh further discussion and action. Any further discussion? >> I No, Madam Chair, would you put the findings up, please?
>> Yep. Madam chair, findings of factor on page 315 of your packet. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I only have one correction on the findings and that would be that I like the in the finances township recommendation. There was none. I would like that change to approval on 5
>> 12 2026. >> Thank you for catch. >> Any further discussion? >> I guess I have one question. >> Sure. I'm assuming that this garage is being removed in the shed to make room for the grain field.
>> You're referring to the existing garage that's there. Yeah, that that's going in that shed that sits next to it as well. They're going to be removed. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> Any other? >> This a pvious asphalt driveway or is it
a PA driveway or Thought it was the impervious asphalt is what Paul talked to us about. Yep. They're they're under impervious. It >> says impervious driveway. >> Okay. >> Previous drive
>> previous black top. So, the black top that you're redoing and that you're entering or that you're this green the green pvious or sorry, the green black top. Are you planning on having this be pvious black top? >> We would prefer that. Yes.
>> Wonderful. To clarify, >> I think that's what we needed to keep the pvious down, I think, as well. >> Well, that Well, reason I asked is, you know, you got pavers and then you got it just says pvious driveway. So, you got pvious asphalt or you got pvious pavers and And
we would doubt at the engineer no matter what whatever whatever mode they used. >> Okay. And >> those require maintenance, don't they? >> And do we have any um conditions where records are sent in
annually that the it was vacuumed? >> Yes. >> Maintained. >> We do in article 41. We could put a condition on that requires there to be annual maintenance records submitted for this. Um
I believe if it's over 400 square ft a maintenance plan >> I think you can put a I think we should put a condition on that requires there to be annual maintenance and submitted to the county for verification. >> Okay. Okay. Is this 900 square foot? >> Yep. >> Did everyone hear that?
>> No. >> No. >> Um, can you repeat that, Chris? >> I can. So, based on the fact that they're going to be using that pvious driveway, uh, we do we need to make sure that's being maintained properly. And so, um, the past practice has been that, um, typically if it's blacktop, it's
going to or or like a cement, it just gets it just gets vacuumed. Um, Anderson Brothers or other companies have big vacuums that just come and remove all the if you get too much sand or silt or leaves on it, it'll just fill the holes in and then then the water will just run off it and it's not pvious. So, it it does require it to be maintained. It's
it's it's got to be vacuumed um typically once a year to get the silt and sand off the driveway so it stays porous. Is >> is that something that has to be um professionally done? I guess >> it does. They've got a they have a big truck that'll that has the capability of
of having the enough um suction to be able to remove the the particles from that. So, >> gotcha. And then how is that submitted? >> Typically invoice typically we just see an invoice from Anderson or whoever typically we see it from Anderson Brothers, but it can be anybody who has that an invoice that shows they're just
pvious maintenance. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Can I ask a question? So, I I didn't quite hear all of that conversation. So um I heard the applicant say they prefer pvious but uh we're saying that the
survey that we have in front of us prevails right and that's the requirement because that goes into the calculations. So if for some reason it becomes not pvious what what happens >> then it's a violation of the ordinance
is what it ends up being. If the pvious if the pvious is over 25% then it's it's a violation of the ordinance. And so we have we have other similar properties a few there's not a lot in the county that actually use pvious to maintain their number. Um and so uh we just require that they would send us that um
information that just an invoice that shows that the work was completed to make sure that was done. So we can put a condition in here that would into the conditions that would state that. >> And that would be condition five that would say that. >> That would be correct. >> Okay. Thank you.
And if we would elect to sorry, can I ask questions during that? >> Oh, yes. >> Yeah. And if we would elect to go impervious on that, we would have to amend the the site map for the correct percentage. >> The house down to this big. >> Yeah. And that's
not going to happen. >> So impervious it is. Right. So, >> so Madam Chair and board, I think what I'll put on is the conditional state that the lot cannot exceed 25% impervious regardless. And then um the use of pvious materials is allowed
provided that a evidence of maintenance is submitted to the land department on a yearly basis >> because you could go asphalt or you could go there's different there's different pvious driveways asking >> and they get treated differently.
We we found the ones that are most problematic are the ones where people use the pavers because the pavers aren't it's the crack between it's the the gap between and then which about every 5 years you have to pull all that rock out in between and because that's what fills up with the sand and the silt. It's the
the pavers themselves aren't. So the ones that have had the most success have used either like a perfectous black top or a pvious um cement to for that driveway. Gotcha. Any further discussion or questions?
>> If if not, madame chair, I'd be prepared to offer a motion. Let's >> do. So I would move approval of the variance request for a lake setback of 45 ft where 100 ft is required to a new dwelling with attached garage and a lake setback of 43 ft where 100 ft is
required to propose deck to construct a 1,77 ft dwelling with 629 ft attached garage and 224 ft deck. Uh based on the findings of fact that have been submitted in the
staff report, the um survey that has been presented and the now five conditions attached, four in the staff report and the addition of condition five with the language addressing the pvious
requirement. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> A second. >> Second by Andy. Further discussion hearing? None. Uh before the board takes final action, I need to verify four items with you. You understand what is
being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> You understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. >> You understand that you must uh obtain permits now from the land services department before construction begins? >> Yes. And you understand that what is
being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what's 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 your new request and staff cannot modify or change what's been approved by this board. Is that understood? >> Yes. >> Okay. With that being said, >> chair, one one one point I guess a little concerned with the square footage
on the on the dwelling and wouldn't it be double that because it's an upper and lower? >> We only count footprint. >> Only count footprint. Okay. Correct. >> All right. Good enough. >> Okay. >> I didn't want to limit it to a thousand square foot and then not be able to do the >> the second floor. >> Just footprint.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. So, with that, we're at the uh we'll proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oh, the same sign. >> Your variance is approved. Thank you for
your time and patience. Thank you. >> Next on the agenda would be Charles and Carol Brown for a variance. Charles and Carol Brown. Good afternoon. >> Welcome. And if you please state your
name and address for the record, please. >> Charles Charles Bron. 23761 North Plat Lake Road, Hillman, Minnesota. >> Thank you. Did you want our home address or the lake address? >> Oh, okay. 23761
North Plat Lake Road, Hillman. >> Thank you. And Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tonight, uh, applicant and property owner is Charles and Carol Brown, parcel number 88320699.
address is 23761 North Plat Lake Road in Hillman, Minnesota. And this is in Roosevelt Township. The request tonight is a lake setback of 54 ft where 75 ft is required to a proposed addition to the dwelling.
Um and the second request is a dwelling dwelling addition placed within a bluff where structures must meet a 30ft bluff setback from the top or the toe. um to construct a 900 foot addition to the dwelling with a 448
square foot attached garage. On page 322 of your packet, it'll show you that this property is located on Plat Lake, which is a general development lake with a 75- ft setback on the west side of um and it's located
on the west side of County Road 8, just south of Pine Center. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. On page 325 of your packet is a certificate of survey. Let's go here.
Um the existing structure is an existing non-conforming structure that was um with a 55 ft setback from the OW. Uh, Bluff standards did not come into effect until 1989, and our earliest permit history on file indicates this home was
built before those standards were in place. To consider a hill, uh, a bluff by ordinance, it needs to be at least 25 ft high with a slope of 30% or greater. Um, if we look here on the survey, there
is, let me get this out just a bit. So, it's kind of hard to see, but if you can see this line and follow with my cursor, this is the line where the 30% slope um starts. If you go over here to the right, if you go to the left of this 30%
line, it is steep slope. So, steep slope on this side and you have bluff standards meeting the ordinance standards of the of the bluff with 30% more or greater and 25 ft high or um or greater than that. So this section right
here um of the house or the proposed addition will be within the bluff and the remaining section will be within that steep slope. The existing driveway is proposed to be redone and um turned into a pvious material and I do believe like a pvious black top is what we had
spoke of last. Um noting some on-site comments from the board that several neighboring properties have similar structures. The project would involve significant earth moving and a pvious driveway would represent a substantial improvement over existing conditions. No
comments were received from the the township and no comments were received from the public. >> Total impervious right now on this property is 31.9%. And with this proposal, it um and the driveway, it does drop the impervious
down to 24.1% on the property. So, it's under the max. >> Under the max. >> And for improvement, though. >> Yes. >> Um, if the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the seven following conditions. One, a land use permit shall
be approved by land services prior to construction. Two, implementation of an erosion and settlement control plan. Three, storm water management plan approved by uh staff at the time of the land use permit and implemented by the
time of permit expiration or upon substantial completion of the project. Four, an engineered plan showing grading cut fill information shall be required for where the structures and driveway will be located. Five, applicants must reduce the impervious coverage on the
lot to 25% uh by January 1st of 2027. Six applicants must submit an engineered plan for the use of pvious material on the driveway. The plan must include construction specifications, storm water storage capacity, and a long-term
maintenance plan. And then seven, an asbuilt certificate of survey showing all variance requirements, including elevations submitted to the county once construction is complete. I can answer any other questions you may have. >> Any questions for staff?
Lincoln hearing. None. Is there anything you'd like to add? >> Did you say that it was impervious black top for the driveway? >> No, she said pvious. >> Pervious. >> Okay. >> Mhm. You plan on putting pvious black
top down. Is that was that your plan? >> Correct. It will it Yes. >> Okay. >> Anything else? Okay. Uh, any questions before we go to public testimony? Open it up. Is there anyone in the
courtroom who would like to testify to this application? Seeing no one, we will double check online. Is there anyone online? I don't believe so. So, we will come back to uh the board for further
discussion and action on this application for variance. Madame Chair. >> Yes. >> As we kind of we discussed, you know, on the on-site, I mean, we're looking at substantial
dirt moving in a steep slope and part of it in a bluff. I mean, I know we have a condition of an engineered plan. Personally, I would like to see the plan and how that's going to what that's
going to entail to make sure that Everything is being addressed that needs to be I mean because we're talking I mean this is a steep slope and it's go it goes right to the neighbors property as we as we noted.
I don't know that's just my opinion. I'd like to see how they're going to you know what the plan is entails. >> I'm not an engineer so >> I'm >> I can read plans. Yeah. But I'm not an engineer.
>> I'm not an engineer. >> I know, but that that's kind of it's an engineered plan and I'm not qualified to make comments on an engineered plan. >> Evaluate it.
>> Correct. I can read it and I know what it's all about because I've done dealt with blueprints my whole life, but I'm not an engineer. So, I don't see how tableabling this to see the engineered plan is going to be of benefit to this
board. That's that's what I'm looking at. >> I would say if it's going to be a condition that that that plan is >> is engineered >> is engineered that we know that the experts are the ones who are designing
it and to trust their professional expertise. M madame chair. >> Yes. >> Um yeah, I'm I'm not an engineer either. Um
but I think Sue's request is so we require an engineered plan. We don't know what the engineer is going to say right in terms of this parcel and what's proposed etc.
So let's say we have that condition and the engineer says you got to change this right because we don't have the plan. Uh does that come back to us? >> Mhm. >> What we approve is this and any changes
has to come back here. what what I want to have more comfort on and I wasn't on the site review but what I'm hearing is I don't want to end up with this impacting the neighbor and them coming back and saying
what did you do? So, I mean, I'm normally adverse to bluff stuff anyhow, but um I I just like some more assurance. >> Is it possible through the conditions to
get more assurance or what are you are you suggesting that you would want to see a plan first as well? Well, um, Madam Chair, we don't have to read the plan, right? We're not we're not asked to read the
plan, but when we have the plan and the engineer says this is doable and it won't have any impacts that are negative, then that is an assurance to this board that what we're approving is um something we we are comfortable
approving. So, I don't think it's a requirement to read the engineered plan. I just think the idea that the engineer says this is doable and it won't have any negative impacts is the assurance I'm looking for before I'm willing to approve it.
Does that does that make sense to anybody? I think that can be handled on a staff level rather than on a board level. or what we need to do when it's going to be an engineered plan. We have to have the
applicant provide those plans ahead of time so that so we can see them if that's what you want to do. But if it's not part of the application because the the trust is in the engineer and I
don't think it's fair to hold up the that it's not going to impact the neighbor or the or the lake or the you know they they do the the swip and the storm water prevention and all that is that's all engineered.
It's installed by the excavator or whoever. you know, I don't think it's fair to hold up the applicant for a document that we really can't read because we're not qualified as engineers.
And secondly, um he already has to make sure it doesn't impact the neighbor as an engineer or he's the one on the hook. >> Yeah. >> With his design.
Madam Chair, can I just uh respond? I I hear your points and all I'm saying is we have an applicant that has a survey proposal in front of us that wants us to do something and we have conditions and we're saying no engineer
has looked at this yet. That's just a plan. And I'm saying that given that it has potential impacts, I don't think it's unreasonable to say to the applicant, we'd like to have that engineered plan done so that we have
comfort that this proposal isn't going to be a problem. That's that's all I want. And I don't think that requires us to be experts at engineering to get that we're getting that assurance. just as when we look at surveys, I'm not an
expert on surveys either, but we get information um to guide us. So, that that's just my pitch. Um but if the majority of the board thinks not, um I'm I I'm going to vote no
because I think that I won't be comfortable without that. I guess madam chair my my question is if there's a condition of this plan that a smart person prepares
do we have to get into a lot of detail of what that plan is going to prevent? How how broad can that can that be? Because to me, if it says a plan must be
submitted by a engineer that precludes negative impact on the neighbor's property. Um, I guess I'm okay with that. The the engineers putting their license on it. But the question I have is negative
impact. What how how broad is that? What's what does negative impact mean? >> Construction, the noise, that's an impact. I mean, that you got to be careful with that that it, >> you know, it doesn't suddenly spill
water onto the adjacent property or, you know, call out a an impact that would affect their foundation. But >> an impact would be the nail gun putting the shingles on the roof all summer
long. I mean, so >> Madame Chair, >> Madam Chair. Okay. Um, I I hear that. I'm talking about we are cutting into a bluff. I'm talking about that impact. >> Yeah. >> Not talking about a nail gun on a roof.
I'm talking about we're having uh cutting into a bluff attached to a steep slope. That's a pretty unique terrain that we're being asked to to address. That's why we have the bluff ordinance. So, uh that that's what I'm addressing
when I say the negative impact of bluff and steep slope not the other things just for clarification. And you madam chair and that was that's my concern is what's what impact with
all this dirt moving in a steep slope part of it in a bluff was you know I'd like to the prevention of it impacting the neighbors property with a heavy rain with that's my biggest concern being on that
onsite and you were out there too Becky um I mean it is I mean it does it slopes right down to the neighbor's property. >> Well, there's an impact now. >> There's an impact now, but >> but but if you have an engineered plan
and maybe it's such a thing that that we say that the engineered plan um has to address this that it is feasible to not have a negative impact. And if it's not, then it's back to the
drawing board. I don't know how you word that. I don't know how you do that without tableabling it and having it come back. Can we do that in the conditions? Is that my That's my question. Can we condition it that this plan is in place before
anything is moved by uh a licensed engineer that says yes, this is this is a um a um >> feasible plan that will not adversely
impact the neighboring property. Can we do that? Madam Chair, um you guys can do whatever you like. Uh that's the fun part about this job. Um I think I'm not just sure how to >> So if you look at condition number four,
if you keep up the conditions. >> Yes. >> So we look at condition number four, we put in a recording says an engineer plan showing grading and cut and fill information shall be required for where the structures and driveway will be located. If we'd like to add verbiage to
that to say, you know, um, you know, feasibility >> comes first. That comes first. I think it's like a kind of like a sequential thing or that that that needs to be satisfied first before proceeding with
anything is is what I am hearing from the other board members that everything's kind of contingent. That's step one. Everything else is kind of contingent on that stamp of approval that yes, this is okay, >> Madam Chair. So, are you suggesting that
that would be turned in and approved before the land use permit would be approved? >> That's just I think that's assumed in the condition that we have now believe so. >> Um, so but is there do you need added verbiage to say something about feasibility or I mean frankly I've never
>> chair to address I mean John's comment is a good one and he clarified it for me. We're digging into a bluff that's significant. So to me I would want to see that condition
among other things refer to a plan where there is assurance of the stability of the bluff which I think then addresses your concern and then secondarily and so you mentioned this
addresses the impact of the neighbors and and assurance that it won't have a negative impact on the neighbors and the stability of the bluff. If to me if those two things are conditional before we move, I'm okay with that.
>> And if we stated as such that within the conditions, I would see that that would go to the staff then not come back here. Am I missing something >> correct? I would be okay with that if
somehow we can word have wording in there or condition in there that okay the engineer plan like number four says has to be submitted and reviewed by staff. I think that's
that's a >> prior to any building permits being issued and show that and it also needs to show that it or a statement from the engineer whatever that the plan that's being
submitted is feasible and will not have a negative impact on the neighboring properties >> like the engineer certifies that. >> Yeah. I mean, it's an engineer plan and you're right, Rock. We're not engineers. We don't know how to read it
and staff's not engineers. But I think a statement from whoever does this plan saying the submitted plan will not have a negative impact on the neighboring property or the lake. I
think that needs that statement in there. I mean, I think I I'd like to see it in there. Madam Madam Chair, I think I think we're I'm separating from you guys and that's okay. Is I think number four already says that >> we got to have an engineered plan. I
think it says that already and and the difference where I sit is because of the significance of this in the bluff etc. I'm saying I'd like that person to have looked at this and already done it before I'm willing to approve it in case
they would come back with other things. Right. I don't presume to know what the engineer is going to say and I'm not trying to be an engineer. I just think because of the significance of what you described at the site. I'd like that in place and and then I might consider
that in my approval. I don't like approving things that might have to come back. I I just that's a practice, right? I don't generally like that. So that's just my separation. But if if everyone else is is okay, that's fine, too. But I don't know that
language changes that. I think number four says that we need an engineered plan. Presume presumption is going to create a plan that works. >> I So proposed language could be so if we start with number four, an engineer plan showing grading cut fill information
shall be required for where the structures and drive will be located. The engineered plan must be submitted to staff and reviewed prior to issuing the permit. The s engineer must certify that the project will not negatively impact the bluff, lake, or adjacent property. >> I'll add steep slope.
>> Kind of what we're asking for. >> I think that adds the specificity that has been discussed in my opinion. That's my opinion. Um, yeah, I'm and it does address my I think it addresses my concerns with that
that all that dirt moving in that steep low slope and bluff. We got to, you know, protect that, >> protect those neighbors and the lake. >> So, are we at the point where we can entertain a motion?
Uh, the findings are on >> the findings. >> Findings of fact are on page 339 of your packet. >> 339. >> Any discussion or additions to the findings? I'd make a motion to approve the lake
setback of 54 ft where 75 ft is required to the proposed additioning proposed addition to The dwelling a dwelling placed in a bluff and where structures must meet 30-foot setback from the top or toe of bluff to construct a 900 ft
addition to the dwelling with a 448 ft garage with the conditions as discussed and uh and the finding of facts. >> Number four amended as we discussed. >> Yep. Number four amended. >> Sounds good.
>> There's a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. >> A second. Any further discussion? Not. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Do we have to ask the applicant, Madam Chair? Do we have to ask the applicant? >> Sorry about that. I My mind's still in
the discussion. Um, do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> You want it engineered? >> Yes. >> Correct. So, you'll tell us what needs to be engineered. We will we will help connect you with an engineer for you to
contact and then they will help you design the engineered plan that would be needed for the house. >> Okay. >> We'll help you figure that out. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? The conditions that we've had the discussion on?
>> Correct. >> Okay. Do you understand that you must uh obtain permits from land services before construction begins? And that the first step is going to be the plan. >> Yes. >> Engineered plan. >> Do you understand what's being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to
what is being approved tonight such as structure size, height, or location must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or
change what has been approved with uh by this board. Okay. Uh, with that being said, um, I'll call the question. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> I. >> The motion carries by um 4 to one.
>> We can have a conversation tomorrow. >> We'll talk tomorrow. We'll talk. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Staff will help guide you. >> Thanks. Thanks for your time and your patience. I'm sorry. >> And your patience for waiting.
>> Yes. Thank you. No problem. Thanks. >> Where are we even madam chair? We do have Justin Hortzman online who is the authorized agent of the Gregor preliminary plat for the for the variance and preliminary plat. >> Correct. >> Okay, that sounds great.
>> Justin, can you please state your name and address for the record, please? I think you're muted. >> Oh, shoot. What did I just do? >> You have to unmute your microphone. >> Are you there?
>> There you go. If you'd state your name and address for the record, please. That's okay. >> Thanks for your patience. >> My name is >> Yep. My name is Justin Robert Horseman. I live at 46445 250th Street, Gaylord, Minnesota.
55334. >> And Nichollet, can you read the uh application into the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tonight, we have property owner Shawn Greger. Uh authorized agent Justin Hortzman. Parcel number 60060516.
Physical address is 38509 Picker Trail in Cross Lake. This is in Fairfield Township and the current land use is Shorland District. There are two requests tonight, Madam Chair. I would suggest running the public hearing for both items together, making motions
separately. Uh the first request is a variance for road access width of 33 feet where 66 ft is required. And the second request is a preliminary plat of Hooker Landing with two lots. On page 212 of your packet,
it'll show you that the parcel here is located on Picaro Lake and that is a natural environment lake with a setback of 150 ft. New parcels on natural environment lakes must have a minimum lot size of 80,000 square ft, a minimum
buildable area of 40,000 square ft, and a minimum lot width of 200 ft. On page 214 of your packet is the certificate of survey or the preliminary plat. Zoom out here quick. Um, Pickerell Trail is a private road
uh with a 33 foot wide access and starts out at Bonnie Lakes Road and comes all the way up north ending at this parcel. Um, as the private road extends to each each new property, the owner is proposing a 66 foot wide access. So,
from down here is the existing 33 ft. As soon as it um comes to the property, it's going to be a 66 foot wide access um into lot one and lot two. The proposed par parcels are almost double the minimum lot size, minimum buildable
area, and lot width that is required by ordinance for preliminary plats on natural environment lakes. Proposed lot one does have a dwelling with a compliant septic and lot two is currently a vacant lot. The proposed preliminary plat meets all of the requirements of the land use ordinance.
Uh, no comments were received from the township and um, one two two comments were received from the public in opposition of the request. Um, if the board does approve the application tonight, staff are recommending no conditions for the variance and the six
following conditions for the preliminary plat. Uh, one being a final plat must be submitted within 12 months of the preliminary plat approval. Two, all applicable requirement required improvements per article 9.8. 8 shall be effective effectively implemented.
Three, if the plat proposes to disturb 1 acre more of soil, a storm water pollution prevention plan must be approved by the MPCA. Four, documentation of the plat monuments completed. Um, five is title commitment and six, site suitabilities must be submitted before final plat
because a winter window was submitted with the application. I can answer any other questions you might have. >> Thank you, Nichollet. >> Go over the pictures that were submitted. Oh. Um, yes. Yes. So, there were um photos that were submitted to and they each have
>> Yep. >> copies of these. >> Did you guys have these I think at your the photos? >> We had one comment come in um just >> a couple comments come in, right? We had two. >> Yeah, we did. We had two comments that came in just kind of at the end of the day here and there were some um photos
that were provided by one of um one of them and they just wanted to go over some of the road issues that they have seen in the past with drainage. Um there seems to be some speeding safety issues around some of the corners, some blind spots as it seems and they just wanted
the board to be aware of of those potential issues on Pickerell Trail. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? >> Is there anything that you'd like to add
>> as the applicant? Yes. >> Yes. I would like to add that I my neighbor that had complaints about um basically people speeding up this road or whatnot. He basically told me the
other day that what he's worried about is is the accidents that are going to happen or whatnot and there's going to be too many people on this road. I did tell him that I own heavy equipment. I do construction. I do all that stuff. I said, "Well, if that's the case, why
don't we all get together and widen the road and make it safer?" Um, and let's let's do something like that and get ahead of the game. He came back to me and said he wants to keep it 20 feet wide. And I I said, "Well, I don't see
how your concern is really helping this if we're if there ain't a resolution to to keep everybody happy here." Um, for me, anything that I've offered has came back at me and I I I don't know how to move forward with this. I'm for every
solution, I'm getting nothing back from his side. He just wants it to be the same trail that it's always been, but without any type of change to it. It's still going to be an unsafe road whether I'm in it or he's in it. Um, and that's
that's the part where I'm just not understanding him completely as I read through his uh all all his articles that he sent to you guys. Um, and like I said, I I do construction. I do all that stuff,
excavating, all everything that you can think of. I am a licensed builder in Minnesota. Um, I I just, like I said, I obviously I want things to be as safe as he wants them to be. I'm on the fire department. I I do pretty much anything
I possibly can to avoid any type of of problems down the road. And and for me, I I don't want no beefs with no neighbors or nothing like that. I've tried to be very polite. I've tried to help any one of them out. Um but at the end of the day, it takes agreeance from
everybody being that there's so many people on that road. >> Okay. Thank you. >> At this time, we'll um open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who wishes to speak to this application?
>> Please come up to the microphone at the podium there. Sir >> right there in the standing up right there. Yes, that's correct. >> You think this is supposed to represent danger for our dangerous road or safety? Our road is not that safe. It's a
dangerous road. That's why I brought this as my prop. I didn't bring it for this or get my >> Okay. >> But anyway, a road is the the first four block. It used to be a mile long private road. I got I did all the plat work back
40 50 years ago for my siblings when my dad died. Anyway, um it used to be private and then we went through pot lash and another private and then all a sudden the county came in about 1,200 acres and now all of a sudden
our easement which you only patch on allowed five people on there became public and the DNR opened it up took all our signs down and caution signs. the first four blocks of this mileong road and like I say the last eight blocks
private very very dangerous what I did when I when I got that we went ahead and took I told him we go in the existing logging road that Patch had we'd use that and that road is anywhere from 10 ft to possibly 18 ft wide it's got three
very dangerous curves you'll see one picture where that was an accident and this guy hit me and I'm just going to call miss this identity person. Um and then he had three years ago bragged about his fastest speed around that
second dangerous curve is 56 mph. He put his ATV right in a big pine tree and flew right through the window and they helped him drag that back to his place. There's been problems with numerous near misses of hits. Nobody has walked our
road for nine years. Our road the last eight blocks is probably the width varies from oh I'm say maybe 12 13 well back towards the end only about 10 11 ft up to maybe 20 22 ft but that road gets
very narrow in the winter time when plowing we don't have the right stuff and the snow builds up on the sides can't go over and we get in the winter time where cars can't pass and we have to back up to find a spot wide enough to pass. Also, in the springtime, we get the
spring thon for four or five weeks. There's up to 12 in muddy ruts and down to single lane traffic to get through and you need all-wheel drive or four-wheel drive. I talked to the chief of police. He was going to get me a letter how dangerous that road is and it
should be improved. Adding more traffic and more people is not going to help them get through the current thing. my I think Justin would be a great neighbor. Um but it is setting the precedence for not only his five acres
but more. We have five cabins on that lake now. It could add as up as many as 12 more. So I think we got about 20 people with five cabins now. That could probably go up to
50 60 or 68 people using that road. We maintain it ourself. That's tough because most people don't want to chip in. So, I pretty much do most of the work and another owner does too and another chips in a little bit. But my
biggest concern is I told Justin, you have all this big equipment and you're willing to do this and widen our road on our eight blocks. We got a 32 ft easement and it's like I say it's only maybe 16 ft wide at the west. You can't
just go in and go on all the neighbors and cut down their trees and make that 32 ft wide. >> Neighbors ain't going to neighbors going to do that. I had the attorney write it up back then pretty vague. It says over across and uh along doesn't say you can
put black top or not or gravel. It doesn't say anything. So my attorney was telling me that he can't just come in there and think that he's going to go ahead and widen that out to 32 feet. As he said at one time he just widen out the 32 ft. Can't do that. But we might be stuck. And one neighbor said
absolutely not. No widing out any my road. So that's one problem. The next problem was the state coming in the first four blocks. Is that a public road? What is that? I mean right now to add insult to
injury they opened that up two years ago in their first four blocks like I say we only had five hunters come on that from page. Now the state owns it and the quest and now we get all these hunters and walkers and bikers coming down this
first block parking their cars walking and stuff and that that's only 10 to maybe 12t wide road. So, make a long story short, I I told Justin that or I'm thinking
that if we could give one 5 acre lot cuz he's a good guy and put a moratorium somehow on any and steep it at that one until there's more research done and have him come in. And the other second thing, have him come in with his equipment, go in the first four blocks
and make that >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Point of order. We're at time. take the three curves out and make the road wider, make it safer. And without those things, it's not going to work. >> Okay. Thank you for your time. Your time is up, but I appreciate your patience
waiting to speak. Thank you. >> No problem. Thank you for I was going to thank you everybody at your report putting up with all this stuff. >> Is there anyone else here in the courtroom that wishes to address this application? Anyone? And is there anyone online? >> No.
>> Okay. Um then we will bring it back. I don't know. Uh Justin, if you have anything that you would like to uh respond to the testimony. >> All All I'm trying to say, and I hope I hope the board can see this as well as I do, is if you're complaining that the
road is too narrow, and I'm giving you a solution that I can widen the road, but he says he does not want it widened. I I don't know how to greet that with with what he's asking for. Um, obviously I've
I've told them I've I got equipment. I said, "If all of us neighbors agree on a line here or there and we make the road wide and safe and this or that, that that to me is making a solution. Do you not agree?" I I I'm I'm just
basically I I'm trying to make a solution for where there's conflict. That's it. >> Thank you. Like I said, I I that >> Thank you so much. Okay. Um we will bring it back then uh to the board for
further discussion and action. >> Okay. >> If you want, >> Madam Chair, if I could just point out one thing. >> Yes. Um the minimum lot width for natural environment lakes is 200 f feet and proposed lot one is 356 ft wide.
Proposed lot 2 is 350 ft wide. So they could not be split again. They already um you Yeah, they could not be split again. >> Okay. >> The two lots are what the request is and that's where it would be. >> Correct. Y
>> Okay. And just a point of clarification, this 30 foot 33 foot ingress and ingress egress easement. >> Yes.
>> Is a public road. >> Our survey, our county surveyor has confirmed that it is an ingress egress all the way uh to Bonnie Lake Road for >> I'm not saying it's I don't think it's a public road. It's a neat. It's there's an there's a everybody along in that area has the ability to use to use that
easement. So, yeah, when you get down to the public land on the south side, it's a you know, there's some different down there once you get like you mentioned the first four blocks once you get up. >> But it's it's a public road privately maintained >> physically. Yeah. It's not really a
public road. It's an easement that that it's not a road that you and I get to use because we don't live out there. So, we're not benefiting. we we're not part of. So there's a public there's an easement that gets access down to Bonnie Lakes Road. There's an easement that gets there and that's how they and it's a 33 foot wide ement. So that's why they
need a variance because they don't have a 66t wide ement to get access to the public road. >> So it it's it's it is for the easement is for the folks out in >> Okay. So this two public road is >> to the public to the public gets you to
the public road. Correct. Correct. Any other discussion, >> Madam Chair? I mean, I look at this application and I look at the one we had previous tonight, which was the same situation. >> Situation. >> It's an existing 33 foot easement.
And like staff said, these lots can't be subdivided. It's It's for two more two more lots. >> It's actually one more lot. >> One more lot. two. >> Correct. It's actually for one more lot. >> One more lot. It's not two lots. It's one lot.
>> So, um I would hope that they could come to an agreement if if on somehow of maybe making this road a little wider, a little safer. But it's it's existing. It's an easement
to this property. I don't see how I mean I I can't vote against this. So >> any further discussion >> hearing none I can entertain a motion.
Madam chair findings of facts are on page 234 of your packet. >> 234 for the findings of fact that >> let's look at the variance first. Oh, variance uh 220. >> Madame Chair, >> yes. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the
variance for road access width of 33 feet where 60 ft 66 feet is required based on the findings and facts um submitted in the staff report. Um the certificate of survey submitted in the staff report on the on-site conducted on 57 2026.
>> Thank you. There's a motion on the and there's a second. Any further discussion? >> Okay. Before we vote on the um variance, I need to go over um and make sure that you understand what is being approved. Do you understand what's being approved
tonight? >> Yes. >> You understand the conditions that are part required as part of this approval? >> Yes. Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> Yes.
>> You understand what is being approved tonight is final and any future changes to what is being approved tonight such as structure size, height, or location must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required
information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes. Okay, we then we'll proceed to vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. Motion carries.
Next, we will um go with the preliminary plat. >> Madame chair. >> Yes. >> I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Hooker Landing consisting of two lots per findings of facts submitted in
the staff report. the certificate of survey submitted in the staff report and the on-site conducted on 57 2026 with the six conditions listed in the staff report motion. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> And a second. Any further discussion? Okay. Once again, before we take final action, I need to verify two items with you that you understand. You understand that we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your
preliminary plat request? >> Yes. >> And the county board has final approval over this request and the next meeting is June 9th at 9:00 in the courtroom here. Um, do you understand that the required conditions placed on the preliminary plat must be completed
before applying for the final plat request? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. We then will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> The last item on the agenda is land use ordinance update. >> All right. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Last item on the agenda. Thanks folks for waiting as long as you have. You know, 5:30 it's not so bad, right? It
could be worse. So, at least we start at three and not five. So, Yeah. No, that's intentional. No, >> take a little rest back there. >> It's kind of like being at church, right? I don't want to be too comfy. Um, so I just want to go over quick where
we're at with the land use ordinance and then um we're going to zip down to where everything is and we're going to kind of just go over a few things. Um, so the first thing I want to go over first is just a timeline, just a reminder of
where we're at. So, we started this process back on March 17th with the county board at the committee as a whole. They initiated a 30-day comment period. We received a comment during that period as part of the packet tonight. Uh, we went to had a discussion with the planning commission last month at a work session to give you an update
on what was discussed. We are having the public hearing tonight. This will go back to the county board on June 16th at the committee the whole to give them an update on the ordinance and the recommendation that you hopefully will make tonight with a final decision coming on June 23rd.
Uh just as a reminder some of the things that we made some changes. We made quite a few changes. Um I'm going to zoom out just a little bit. So uh there were just some housekeeping items which were in green that I'm not going to really get into too much detail
with but it's as a reminder we're deleting the sensitive shoreland district. That would have been a zoning classification that would have if the county board would have signed it would have put a sensitive shoreline area on a like say on a general development lake with natural environment standards for new development. It's never been used
and so um the the kind of the the way it works in planning is zoning is if you don't use something for 16 years it probably isn't something that you need to have in the ordinance and so we're proposing to remove that. Um, one of the things that we're adding is, um, if we ever had a data center application, it would have to be an intermuse permit in
a commercial industrial district. Um, we amended article 10.3 to clarify the solar wind energy system designations where things could be located and where they couldn't be. Um, one thing we're changing that's significant is article 11.5. We're going we're deleting the
shoring rapid assessment model. So if you remember uh at the ordinance change last month uh in 2025 in December we decided to have the 10 1025 standard for buffers 10 feet on GD lakes 10 ft on RD lakes and then 25 ft on natural barber
lakes versus doing that model which was subjective and we we had some folks that really didn't maybe always agree with how the assessment was done. So it's easier to do just a flat number I think is what we're proposing. Um and then so that's really the the significant change
and then but the real reason why we did this was for article 42 to add renewable energy systems to the ordinance. So prior to this we had basically um renewable energy related to wind and solar for more residential use not for larger scale you know commercial uh
industrial type uses. And so that really is what article 42 is. We also added a bunch of definitions in article 46 with 99.9% of those being related again to that renewable energy concept. Um we did receive some comments and it was been
it's in your packet. Um uh one of the the biggest of the the I think it seemed like everybody was supportive of what's been requested except for um having regulations for what's called a battery energy storage system. And um and so
that is is a uh basically when you're collecting energy um through say solar it's it stores the electricity in these batteries and the question comes up is is where should they be located and how close should they be to say a city and
and residential uses and that. So u I'm just going to kind of walk through I think you guys can see up on my screen what I'm what I'm looking at. Um and so we modified article 42.5 to clarify the setbacks for the components of a large solar energy
system. The battery en the battery energy storage system. We modified that as well to increase clarity and eliminate possible contradictions. Um we modified those setback to a dwelling has be decreased from a/4 mile to 500 ft. Um because we felt based on the comments
that we received that that might have been a little bit a little bit too much. um dwelling owners can always wave that amount. Um the setback required to property lines um has been reduced from that 1/4 mile down to 330 ft. Um and then 150 ft of the storage technology is
not prone to fire or if it's prone to fire. Um I think one of the issues that you're going to hear tonight brought up is the fact that the ordinance still maintains a setback around um municipalities in the county of two miles for these battery battery storage systems. There's a couple couple reasons
why why we kept that proponent in there. Um, one, I got my notes here. One is that under 462.357, there's official controls. 462 is the governing statute for cities. 394 is a
governing statute for counties. That basically gives us the authority to do planning and zoning. And so, um, a city has the ability to extend its zoning into an unincorporated township by two miles if it so chooses. And so that is one reason why we chose us to honor that two-mile setback because the the the
concern that we have with these battery energy storage systems is that they have a they if they start on fire, they can get pretty nasty. A lot of smoke, very very hazardous. So we it's the opinion of staff that we want to maintain that a setback to make sure we don't have any
issues with cities. And I think we all learned how nasty it is when we have a big fire. just with this last weekend up by Cross Lake, we had that big fire up there. And so what we want to avoid is just, you know, um is is uh is having a situation where we would have a fire
would cause some potential impacts to um you know, to a population center. Uh and so and that doesn't mean that's where it has to stay. I mean, if it turns out that down the road um maybe there's been some information that shows that it can be reduced, I think we could talk about
that. But I think, you know, my when when I was talking with the county board and and having some conversation, I think it's they prefer to be more conservative on some of these setbacks and because it's easier to reduce them to then to increase them later down the road, right? And so that's one of the
reasons that we have that. Um, and when you have these fires, it seems like the process is to let them burn out. So it's not like you put out the fires, they're typically lithium ion. They typically burn out versus getting put out because of that. And so there could be um it could go on for some time is a concern
with that. Um and then um another one too is just the idea of development and when you you know by having um these potential uses so close to a city it could prohibit potential future development that area where people might not want to have development around these these battery
energy storage systems and that. So that's another um reason that we um included that in there as well. And so, um, we do, there's another part in here that I want to bring up that's no that's not related to, um, the battery energy
storage or to the solar component, but it's to the floodplane ordinance. So, when we updated the floodplane ordinance, um, about a year and a half ago, we got a model ordinance from the DNR that they were used as our template. Well, they gave us some information that um, we needed to update. And so we're
going to in we're including that tonight as well so that we can get that um provision taken care of. Excuse me. So article 21.2 needs to be revised to state each firm panel number. So every for flood plane information
there's a they call it a firm. It's a um it's basically the the map that shows where the flood plane is located. There's different firm maps. We referenced them. They want us to state the exact firm map numbers. So we have to amend the ordinance to include that panel number. And then we also have to
include we had they have uh so the floodway is the river itself and then the flood fringe is that area where it overflows and so we had they had given us the wrong information. Um right now it says that the current ordinance would allow a 1.5 ft stage
increase in the floodway for an activity and the statute the rule says it's got to be to zero. So we need to change that from 1.5 ft to zero feet. Um, we also need to update the start of conrict start of construction definition. So, those are the three things that we need to make changes for in the flood plane
ordinance. So, um, I would be happy to answer any questions. I know there's some folks in the audience who'd love to come up and address, um, some of the issues that maybe we're talking about tonight. And, uh, so I think at this point, uh, we welcome the the public hearing and and we can take some comments from the public.
>> Sounds great. If anyone would like to come forward and and speak to these uh ordinance changes, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening, commissioners. Um Reed TC. I live at 10307 South Oaks Road in
Brainer. Um transitioning to 1215 Oakidge Road in Brainard. >> Gary TC. I'm at 12437 Oakidge Road, Brainer. >> I just would like to first uh thank the
the commission, the county board, and and the land services staff for considering uh this ordinance adjustment or ordinance amendment. Um you know, certainly Chris brought up a number of points about the previous ordinance being mainly for residential solar. Um, you know, when we look at commercial
solar, uh, as land owners near a substation, um, we've had, I can't probably count on one on two sets of hands here how many letters I get in the mail for potential solar solutions, but through the, uh, collaboration and teamwork with Brainer Public Utilities
and and Eden Energies, who's in the build or in the room here today, um, we think we are are looking at a project that could be something in the future here for us. Uh and so just here tonight to just express our support uh for the land services staff that have worked so hard to model the ordinance around a
number of other existing ordinances through other counties and um really uh try to put in good protections for land owners and the county in general. Um and certainly uh you have to start somewhere. uh you know when you when you create an ordinance or you're adopting new portions like this, you have to
start somewhere and then you have to build upon um what works for each county cuz certainly what works for Crowing County is not going to be applicable for Murray County. I know Chris, that was one that that we were talking about in some of our conversations. So, uh certainly we have to modify it and and
tweak those ordinances to to do what works for us. And I think uh Chris and his staff have done a a nice job on on putting something together here that's very reasonable for people to work with. So, uh, happy to answer any questions we might have, but also let my dad make some comments as well. >> Yes, I, uh, been farming on that land
now for over 50 years, and there comes a point when, um, it's just not feasible anymore. And, uh, as to turn it into a development or something like that, I've always been a person to be productive.
And so, as Reed said, we've been approached by numerous companies looking at solar, and I'm okay with that. It's pretty quiet. It's better than Bitcoin and some of these other uh facilities that are up. Um, at this point, like I
said, I want the land to stay in the family in our family, and I want it to be productive. And so therefore through our talking, we just decided at this point for my wife and I that we would take and uh entertain something like
this and I'm very happy to work with Eden. I feel that they're a very reputable company. Um and we're looking forward to going forward on this and with your approval. So thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Thank you both. Anyone else who'd like to come forward? >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Uh my name is Bob Long. I'm a county resident. Live at 41066 Peninsula Road in the great city of 50
Lakes. And so I also just full disclosure, I happen to be a consultant also to Eden. So, I'm pretty familiar with the project that we're talking about with Brainer Public Utility and the TC family. I I'm here as a resident though speaking in favor of the ordinance. Um, we think it's a good
ordinance. I know staff's put a lot of work in. We really appreciate it. Uh, I as a former League of Minnesota City's president, I understand, and get the issue about the zoning issue on the two miles. That's something I didn't realize, Chris. I think that makes some sense to for now leave that in and with the county board ability to to have some
discretion if it on a case-by case basis. Um I I happen to live up in 50 lakes as I mentioned and we've been working with a neighboring property owner somewhere the TC family that wants to do something with growing power on a near a substation up at the Ox Lake
substation on Meer Road on the County Road 66. if you know that area up there right by kind of road one and kind of road 66. So that's just an example where I think what we're going to see not just in Crowing County but throughout the state is more interested in some of these smaller scale five and 10 megawatt
size projects that because I think the utilities generally want to have the local solar where they can because it gives them some gives them frankly some predictability in their energy uh pricing and and their ability to have some some energy close to home and
avoiding some of the power outages as they bringing in power from North Dakota. It's nice to have local power locally so some of us can at least get our lights on. No, I'm just kidding. But I think it's a very good ordinance. We appreciate all the good work and certainly ask planning commission to support it and and uh appreciate the
good work. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh good evening uh madam chair, commissioners. Um thank you all for um yeah sticking through to the end here and uh pleased we can have an opportunity to to discuss the sol law today. Um my name is Tom Cosby. Um I am
a resident in upstate New York uh although previously from the UK moved uh moved to the US in the last few years uh in pursuit of of work. Um firstly uh thank you very much for uh taking you the time the staff to draft
and the board here to to review the solar law and the energy energy law uh that's being um proposed. It's very favorable for the project we're working on at the moment. I think when we first came to uh to Chris and and the department uh proposing a
utility scale solar project uh it was something that was new to the county. So, we appreciate uh all the solar work that's been put in there and also following our public comment, we really appreciate the revision of some of that battery energy storage language as well. Um, a bit about what what the project
might bring here. There's a number of benefits that solar in local communities like this does bring and I think one of the major ones that I think will resonate throughout the county is some of the solar production tax uh that we'll uh offer the the county. It's a Minnesota statute and the project will
generate somewhere between 20 to 25,000 a year worth of tax revenue uh to to county and townships. Uh that's one of the key uh benefits that that solar brings as well as as Bob mentioned um the kind of local uh local control over power and actually some pretty
significant rate savings to the offtaker here which we're we're looking to work with Britain Public Utilities. Um, I think as Chris mentioned, there's there's one provision, the two-mile uh city setback that we commented on, I think once or twice. Um, we appreciate
the explanation about um municipalities having the right to expand their permitting uh control into that 2-m radius. And uh we we understand that we we'd love uh for for that to be reconsidered, but at this stage we're
we're happy with the position that this battery energy storage law um can can proceed with uh the ability for the county board to uh to have some discretion over that. And I will reiterate our project here with the TC family uh just outside of Brainard does not have any energy storage. Um, but we
think it's important when we're working with local communities that we voice our our opinions on uh how best to form ordinances that will facilitate energy transition going forward. So whether that's our battery energy storage interests in the future or any other c
company that comes behind us or municipalities um we think it's important that that we can we can voice our opinions on uh laws that that work. Um but we appreciate your your consideration here. Thank all the the staff for for your time and and thank you commissioners and and madam chair
for for your time considering here any happy to host any questions. Um I appreciate it's been a long old evening. >> Thank you so much. >> Appreciate your comments. >> Madam Chair, if I may, it's finally nice to put a face to a we've been on the
phone for what six months at least talking. So it's nice to at least know what I kind of feeling after a while I started like I'm guessing who it is after a while. I know Joe, but I I appreciate that. Um, I think one thing that we could really think about is we if we do look at this provision up here,
it's under F where it says a two-mile from the city limits of any incorporated city within the county. We have it approved otherwise by the county board, but really the county board isn't going to be the decision maker for this. It's going to be you guys as the planning commission. So we could do is we could remove the county board provision and put planning commission board of
adjustment and then if they want that gives them at least the ability to come forward if they have a compelling reason why they think that 2 mile radius could be reduced. It would at least give you the opportunity because any they could always apply for variance. I mean, variances are always an opportunity to apply for, but I think this would at least give them the opportunity if they
had a compelling reason, they could submit as part of application say instead of a two-mile, we think it should be a one mile or what whatever number. It would it would at least give it would in the ordinance, it would have a a way for them to provide a reason to why they think the two-m setback might
be in might not be appropriate for that situation. So I think if we were to make a change that's I would change that to the planning commission board of adjustment because you will be the final decision makers on if you approve the permits for a solar or a wind project. >> Madam chair I could I like that change.
>> Makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I would like to see that change to planning commission board of adjustment. >> I think we could do that. I think that would address the issue that you brought up. So that way at least there's gives you the opportunity to provide a reason as to why you think that a setback should be reduced.
>> Brilliant. Thank you. We appreciate that. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks again. >> We can do that. >> So would that end up being a variance then? >> It wouldn't be. I don't think it would be. It would just be part of the intermuse permit where that gives you guys the flexibility.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It would be in the permit itself. Yeah. But it gives you the opportunity and the flexibility to say you think their reason is compelling enough to say yeah. why you think a reduced setback would be appropriate. Yeah, I think that meets kind of gives us that middle ground of of that. So,
>> makes sense. Anything else on the um ordinance changes? >> No, Madam Chair. The only I would recommend we make that change recommen I think recommend the the layout as it's been provided to you tonight with that one small change on the setback to provide you the flexibility to decide if
you want to give that and we could that's a simple change from county board to planning commission board of adjustment. Very simple change. >> Sounds good. Okay. That takes us to matters not on the agenda. >> Excuse me, Madam Chair. We do need a motion. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> Can to recommend approval of the ordinance with that change to the county
board. >> Very good. But Madam Chair, Chris, what does that change to? Which article? >> It's It would be right. It would be article 42.12 >> and it would be >> 42.12. >> Um,
>> letter F. >> Letter Yep. It'd be C and then letter F for the tum, right? Yep. >> C F. Okay. >> 4212 C. >> F C N. >> Big C, little F. Yep. >> Big C, little F.
Okay, Madam Chair, uh if there's no discussion, I'm ready. >> I've got one more question. >> Sure. >> So, is it addressed in the ordinances as far as let's just say technology changes drastically in 20
years and we're running off of water vapor to generate electricity rather than solar. And these facilities now are worth zero because the energy cost is so much less. >> Yep. >> And is it in the ordinance portion where
removing this? >> It is. That's a great question. Article 42.8 is abandonment and decommissioning. So if the renewable energy system shall be considered discontinued after one year without energy production, then it's got to be taken down, removed. And then they've they the ordinance has requirements. They've got to put
financial assurance in place for the county for if they don't decommission appropriate to the ordinance, then that gives the county the ability to go in and decommission on their behalf. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Perfect. >> Madam Chair,
>> okay. I would like to make a motion to the county board to approve the ordinance amendments as submitted with the change to article 42.12CF F stating on changing it from county board to planning commission/board of
adjustment. >> Yes, >> there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppos. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Thanks for all your work on that. >> Thank you. It's been a It's been an interesting I've learned a lot. So, every time I do these things, I learn a lot. So, I always I always enjoy considerable amount of work. So, thank you. >> All right. So, matters on the agenda.
You go ahead. You can >> We are at Go ahead. >> Yep. >> Have a good evening, folks. >> She's still afraid to talk over there. So, all right. So, next meeting is June 18th. We have 11 applications. We have one after the fact variance for a sideyard setback for a garage. We have
five variances um and one land use map amendment, two conditional use permits, and two plats. >> Wow. >> So, on sites are June 4th. We're going to make eight stops. The problem is we have to take two vehicles because because of due to the um the holiday on
Monday, we couldn't get it pubbed in time to get to 10 days. So, we're going to have to break us up into two groups. If there's three of us, then we're going to have to take two vehicles and and follow two two take two vehicles out because we can't be together. We'll have to do two separate visits on the on sites cuz we couldn't get it published in time to make it work. So,
>> so we have to do two different days or no, two different vehicles. >> Yeah, it's going to be two different vehicles where two are going to go out and take a visit and then one, you know, we're just going to have to break you up into groups of I'm guessing there'll be four on the on-site. I don't know. Andy, can you make it? >> I'll be there. >> And I think John can make it, too. So, we'll just have to take two vehicles and
then we'll just have to do I don't you know just kind of >> it'll take two two county vehicles. >> Yeah, >> there you go. >> Correct. >> So, >> that will happen. >> Both vehicles can't be at the same onsite together. >> Well, we can if you just going to be in separate vehicles. You can't So, you're going have to they're going to have to go look. They're going have to wait
until they go look and then and then we're have to stay in separate. >> It's going to be that way for next month too because of the holiday. >> Just July 4th. >> What's the holiday we got? >> June. >> Fourth of July. So, >> fourth of July going be June 29th. No, in June >> for that would Oh, is it because of
Memorial Day we can't meet the publication? Okay. >> Okay. >> And they and they they pub things weird now. I mean where with since they don't publish anymore, it's you get two days a week and that's it. So I mean >> really >> Oh yeah. Yeah. But it's like we had to know she had to know yesterday at 4th cuz you had cut off day was yesterday
and we had to get the pub in by 4:30 but even getting it in still we were still >> didn't didn't mean it. >> We find a different public publication. >> It's brainer dispatch. So that's we only have we don't have a choice. So >> two papers a week.
>> Um so a couple things I wanted to talk about real quick. One is that um I think we made a mistake at the meeting last month when we added those two items to the agenda for the the one condition about um removing the the engineering
side for the guy in the bluff and the other the one for extending the deadline to submit final plat for that plat up on um up in Jenkins Township up on the up in the Pine River. So, um, we've had some some discussions internally and and
we were trying to just be helpful to the applicants and trying to to help them across, get them moving on their projects, but I think it put you guys in a bad spot where you didn't maybe have enough time to really process maybe what they're asking for. So if that happens again where