I allegiance 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. >> Welcome. And if you have not already done so, please silence your cell
phones. If you are online, please make sure you have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. And please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the agenda is roll call and Rocky Lammy is not here. Jean Ojay
>> here. >> Sumasi >> here. >> Andy Larson >> here >> and I am Rebecca Best. The next item is to approve the minutes and findings in fact for the meeting held on November 19th, 2025. Madam chair, >> I make a motion to approve the minutes
and findings of fact that >> we have a motion on the second floor and there is a second. Is there any discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved.
Tonight we have one item of old business and 12 items of new business. So we appreciate greatly 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. Then we'll have Chris read your request 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
will open the request up for public testimony. Tonight, we will have two public testimony opportunities. One is in person and one is online. If you are online and wish to speak to an application, please use your hand icon to indicate to us that you wish to
speak. Then once you are admitted, please unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record. If you are speaking in person, please come to the microphone at the podium in the center aisle. In either case, you will then be given five minutes to give your
testimony. Please do not repeat what someone else has said and please do not read your emails or letters that have already been sent. Everyone who wishes to give testimony will be given the opportunity to do so and 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. Rules of conduct. Please be respectful. And for that applicant, this means to sit quietly during the public testimony period. And for the audience, it means
to do the same for the applicant as they respond to your testimony. All questions and statements are to be directed to this board or members of the staff, 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 online from the meeting. The decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment request. We make a recommendation to the county board. For a variance or conditional use permit
request, we make the final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do that, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to the property and examine the site and look at what is planned. Prior to attending this
meeting, we read each every and every letter and email that is submitted and we then hear public testimony and we listen to the applicant. I would like to pause for a moment to let the public know that we do greatly appreciate your correspondence and input. We all have
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. >> Andy, >> I have. >> John, >> I have. >> Sue, >> I have. >> And I have as well. So, our first applicant of this evening under old business is Alan Pusha Jr. and Diane
Larson for a variance. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Kevin McCormack, uh, Land Design Solutions, 11821 Lake Trail, Cross Lake, representing the pouchers this evening. >> Thank you. And Chris, can you read the request into the record, please?
>> Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, this is an application that was uh heard by the board last month and um turns out that there was an error on the survey and so we're back here um today to correct that. So, just to go through the information again, the applicant is Alan
Poucher Jr. and Diane Larson. Parcel number is 60180542 with an address of 36855 Bonnie Lakes Road in Emily. This is in Fairfield Township. Uh they remember this was a situation where they had got a variance uh to add in addition to the north and
south of their um of their cabin. At your desk you'll see a survey here that's got the updated information on it for you to take a look at. If you would see um the difference on the survey would be the addition to the south um was originally at 384 ft uh square ft
and turns out the actual number was 576 ft at the addition. Um re with still having those numbers in place the the um setbacks that were approved still meet the same setback to the lake as as was approved at 33 ft and it also um makes
that 10-ft sideyard setback. Um because we had a public hearing last month, this is just more of a corrective action. So no public hearing is needed and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Does the applicant have anything that you'd like to add? >> Just my apologies for bringing this back. This was a drafting error on my
part. Uh everything you saw on the previous drawing said 18 ft by uh 32 feet. It was actually drawn at 12 ft. That's what caused the inaccuracy in the square footage. I have corrected that. Uh and as Chris noted that uh we're not
changing any of the uh uh previous approvals from the lakeshore setbacks. We're still going to honor the sideline setbacks and the deck has just been reconfigured to the same 270 square ft that you approved last month. So again, my apologies.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there any uh comments or questions from the board? If not, then we have a do we need to have a motion to >> We would make a motion and we could still use the same findings that you you approved last month. I think they would still >> So, we just need a motion to uh to uh
approve the variance with the correction. >> Correct. >> And and Madam Chair, again, the the variance is the same as it was last month that we did approve. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> Just a just a change in the square footage of the south edition. Well, I I would move approval of the variance of
33 ft where 75 is required uh to construct the uh 435 ft addition on the north and the 576 ft addition on the south subject to what I assume are the same three conditions we had last month.
>> Correct. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second by Andy. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. Happy holidays. >> Yes. Happy holidays. >> Okay. Next on our agenda is our first item under new business, Diane Allgood for a land use map amendment. >> Hi
They're coming. >> And if you'd state your names and addresses for the record, please. >> Diane Algod,6041 Noki Lake Road, Brainer 56401.
>> Dean Olsen, 16057 Noki Lake Road, Brainer, Minnesota. Cabin, >> that's a cabin address. >> Thank you. And if you would like to read the request into the record, please. Chris. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant tonight is Diane uh Algood
with a partial number of 78120566. Property address is 16018 Noki Lake Lane, Brainer. Uh this is located in Noki Lake Township, section 12. The request today is to amend the land use map from Rural Residential 5 to Rural
Residential 2.5. If you scroll into your packet and go down to page 31, you'll see what the zoning map is. Uh, and so, um, you got Noki Lake Road here. And then this is a reminder what the colors are. So, the area that is in the light blue, that is the Shorland district
around the lakes here. And then the uh, area that is in blue is the rural residential 2.5. And the area that's in yellow is the 2.5 acre zoning. And so they're asking tonight to be able to amend the map to change the 34 acre
parcel to 2.5 acre zoning. I do want to point out um everybody received this letter that we did get a comment from Noki Lake Township on December 16th um and they um did not support the changing the zoning of the map. I'd be happy to
answer any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions for Chris from the board? Would you like anything u that you'd like to add? Um I'm just kind of wondering why they did not >> sure I can let you know. So uh for the following reasons said uh there would be
a drastic population increase that is not in line with the surrounding area. The road is not conducive to increased traffic. Uh main need to add ditching and shouldering along property line adjacent to Noki Lake Lane. Um no info on the proposed plat. There's no information regarding driveway access to
K Road 8 and Noki Lake Lane. Um there's no information how this affect the aquifer in the area with the added load of proposed housing concerns about septic tanks and drain fields in the area doubling the load with smaller lots. They feel it would set a precedence for small lots in the area
which can lead to more issues down the road. Those are the reasons that the township had. >> So can I talk? >> Yes, you can. >> Okay. So I would like to reszone it for two and a half. I was told I don't know but that a lot of the acreage around us
the plots are 2 and 1/2 acres. >> Yeah, I think if you look at the map and you'll see where my cursor is, you see there's definitely some two and a half, you know, smaller lots around here in off to the west and then when you head more off to the east, you see there's, you know, larger tracks in that area,
but there there's definitely smaller lots in the area. >> So, the reason why I would like to I'm a widow now and I've got that acorage. I don't want to sell it all. I just want this is my cousin and he helps me a lot on the land there and I like to sell them two and a half acres so they can
put a pole burn on that. It's not to sell the whole cuz I want to keep it. My son and daughter are going to probably build on there someday and it's just to sell that one acreage, that one plot. Okay. >> So, it's not like a whole like more
population or anything are coming in. Understood. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? >> No, I'll wait till after public testimony. >> Okay. Anything else you like to add? >> I would just say if it approves, we
don't plan to put any water or sewer or septic in it. It' be just a pole barn or pole shed. Smaller shed, too. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And she has no plans to sell the rest of it or >> either. I can see why the people were
against thinking she's selling two and a half acre plots, but that's not the reason. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? >> Hearing n nothing, then we will go ahead and open the request up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the
courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one, we'll go online. Is there anyone online? I don't believe so. Oh, there isn't. >> So, we will bring it back to the board then for further discussion and any questions or clarification that might be
needed. >> Madam Chair, I'd just like to comment. I mean, going from shoreland to rural residential 2.5 is a natural transition. You know, um again, she has no plans to subdivide, but we can't look into the future. you
know, somebody may come in and buy it and want to put houses in there, but I mean, there's lots, small lots along the lake. So, I think going from RR5 to 2 and a half is just a natural
transition in the um planning. >> Thank you, Sue. Any other comments or questions from the board? Um, madam, madam chair, just looking at the no lake township thoughts, but there
are a number of 2.5 acre lots in the area right now. Sure, 34 acres could become 15 lots, right? Even though it's not the intention, down the line it could, but there's I I don't I'm trying to understand uh the drastic increase in
population and all these impacts when you look at the surrounding area already has that kind of impact. So, um I I don't have an issue with it. >> Thank you. Anything else to add?
Okay. The findings in your packet are found on page 37. Finding of actings of fact on page 37 and we entertain a motion. Madame Chair, I would like to make a recommendation to the county board to
approve the land use map amendment from rural residential 5 to rural residential 2.5 based on the findings of preliminary findings of facts that are submitted in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second by Andy. Any further discussion? No, Madam Chair, other than we should ensure we update that the township recommendation in our findings was a recommendation of denying >> in the staff report and the findings
updated to reflect that. >> We'll make that note. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, John. >> Okay. Any further discussion or comments? Hearing none, there's a motion on the floor. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Okay. in a I have to back up just one
moment before we take final action that I do need to verify just one item with you. Do you understand that tonight we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your land use map amendment? The county board does have final approval on this. Okay, great. Then we'll proceed. Uh all those
in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. >> Motion is approved. >> Madam Chair, this goes to board December 30th. >> December 30th. >> Yep. This is the county board meeting. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Have a good afternoon. >> The next item on the agenda is another land use map amendment for Michael Arvig. I'm Michael Arvig. Uh 4650 Hemlock Lane, Peekquat Lakes. >> I'm Kurt Johnson, 31018 Rasmusson Road, Unit 102, Peekquat
Lakes, Minnesota 56472. >> Thank you. Chris, can you read the request into the record? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant tonight is Michael Arvig with the authorized agent being Kurt Johnson, partial and under consideration uh today is 9926
0606 located in section 26 of the unorganized first assessment district. Uh the request uh today is a land use map amendment to amend the land use map from rural residential one and shorland district to commercial.
I'm going to go down to the zoning map. So for those of you familiar with the area, this is that island of land that's between County Road 3 running north and south, Wise Road to the north, and then Riverside comes along the other side. And the request is to reszone this area
here to commercial uh to commercial one. Um which is this is a map that zone zooms out just a little bit further. Uh there is some commercial to the north um up here once you get around Ebinger Road. Um but and the area just for the colors again the area that you see in
this the blue um ring is the Shorland district around Gilbert. And then uh the area that's in brown is rural residential one. And then this area that's in pink would be commercial. Over on the east side, this yellow would be 2.5 acres zoning. This hashed area here
is um would be tax forfeited land. Um I don't think I have a lot more to add. I do know that Matt from Highway had a comment that highway would like to make on this as well. >> Okay, go ahead. Hi, Matt. >> Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh highway
department has met with the landowner and Kurt uh at the highway department. We've expressed some of our concerns with traffic generation and how that might affect the roundabout that's planned for 2029 at Wise Road and uh County Road 3. Um they've been made
aware of that. they're willing to work with us and if that this does um get approved, we want to continue to work with with them through throughout the process since we do have some concerns and there's not a site plan for us to react to, but they are aware of um some of our access stuff and how that's going
to configure with the the flow of the roundabout. So, for now, those are our concerns. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Could I I just forgot to mention uh we did receive uh five comments regarding the application and all five of them weren't in favor of the request. They didn't like the they don't
they don't change in favor of the request. Yes. >> Five comments. Okay. Um, does the applicant have anything you'd like to add or? >> Um, well, I've owned the property there for about 27 years and uh, because of the nature of the property, it's
basically surrounded by three I think all three roads are county roads, but um, and it's a fairly hightraic area. Um, >> it doesn't make sense to us to, you know, for for that to be
residential, I guess. And looking at looking at the rest of the highway going north, I think up through Marfield, a lot of the highway frontage is zoned commercial already. Um, this is a fairly
significant intersection and like uh Matt mentioned, we just learned in October that there's plans for a roundabout there. Um, we're optimistic about that. I guess we don't know the plans and not sure when when that'll be
final, but uh um we'd like just because of the nature of it being surrounded by three county roads. High county road three being I believe Matt said the highest traffic county road in
the county as to us it it makes sense that that would be a commercial site. There's no specific plans at this point and and probably until the roundabouts kind of finalized, it's it's hard to know what how things could be laid out
on that piece, but uh I don't know if Kurt has anything. >> Well, I would echo I'm a my again Kurt Johnson. I'm a commercial real estate broker. I've been in the business for almost 30 years. I would suggest that uh every characteristic of this piece of property does suggest that it's
commercial in nature. Um it would be hardressed to argue uh the alternative. If you were to look at it and say I want to make this residential, everybody go, are you sure? You know, you've got a lot of high traffic volumes there. >> Now, with the aspect of the roundabout,
that's very appealing because of what uh occurs when you put a roundabout in. There's there's a lot of traffic and it's moving pretty quickly. So, our access points would be limited to Riverside uh specifically. I don't think it would be any anywhere else. Wise Road is too short and too close to the uh uh to the
light in my opinion. And then along County Road 3 on whatever side that is uh to be east side, I guess. Um with the roundabout, we believe that that slows naturally the T traffic down. that does uh create a lot
more opportunities for site access and and conducive to um proper and and and safer uh site access. That's going to be appealing to uh a commercial user. Uh and then the rest would go without saying about the value of the tax base
and the development of the property and jobs and those sort of things. So that would be an argument I would make for uh for a commercial piece of property to be reszoned to commercial. >> Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Um, >> no. >> No, I guess not. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Um, at this time
we'll open up this request to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? >> Anyone? Seeing no one, uh, I'll go to online and I don't believe there's anyone there. We can double check.
>> Yep, we have one hand up. Okay, you can go ahead and unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record, please. >> Hi, thank you. This is Taylor and Elizabeth Stevenson. We're actually on our honeymoon right now, but we just
moved in about a year ago to Gilbert Shores Drive. We also submitted a letter uh opposing this. I I certainly hear the applicant's uh you know reasoning, but to me I I don't see a need for commercial development of this of this property.
There's commercial develop there's gas station 2 miles north in Marfield. There's a gas station 2 milesi south in uh you know along Mil Avenue. This this seems like a really nice residential area. Doesn't seem like a great opportunity for commercial development.
So we're we're opposed. We know all of our neighbors are opposed. We'd like to keep the traffic down as much as possible. Um, we live off of a nice short culde-sac and the idea of there being an access point to some commercial business right off of our residential road doesn't exactly seem appealing to us.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to add? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else online? Doesn't look like it. >> Don't see any hands up. >> Okay. Okay, we'll bring it back to the
uh applicant if you have anything that you'd like to add or to address to the concerns. >> Um well, as far as a gas station or convenience store, that's just one one option. There's nothing really firm on the
table right now. we, you know, we're working with talking with potential people and and Kurt's kind of my consultant there, but um and I don't think there's anything immediate immediate um with the
roundabout issues and whatever. It's uh it's just it's hard to talk to potential partners or whatever with it zoned real residential. we'd like to get that zoned, you know, what we consider properly and then
>> what we had from, >> right, Mike? And I would suggest this too, you've probably all heard the phrase uh the highest and best use for the property. Um, as it's to its use, we'd we'd we we'd like to have the opportunity to discuss with the entire spectrum of commercial users uh without
restriction. I mean, I heard we heard some concerns about certain types of uses. I can certainly point to you where there's gas stations right next to each other, right across the street from each other. That's competition. Um, this is the highest and best use I believe as a commercial use. Um, and we can't make
any representations to anybody yet until we get it reszoned. But there is interest. There will be interest. And I think it will be a nice attractive uh convenience for the neighborhoods, not unlike any other neighborhood that has a a quick trip or a holiday gas or a
Casey's that's, you know, conveniently accessed from a nice neighborhood. So, I don't think we're outside of the norm in any capacity with the potential development of this property, especially with the roundabout. and the roundabouts that that's been as we understand it's
been budgeted so it's not 100% but I Matt I don't want to put words in your mouth but I I think the assurance is pretty strong that that's going to be a roundabout. >> Yep. I can comment on that. So that's built into our highway improvement plan and that is set to be construct in 2029.
So >> right and so we feel it's appealing it's an appealing improvement to the use of that property. >> Thank you. Anything else? >> No. If not, I will bring it back to the board for uh discussion, comment.
>> Um, Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> So, I have um I've said I have some concerns about reszoning at commercial um listening to the comments and some input we've gotten. Okay.
>> So, first this this did at one time, according to the staff report, have a house. So, it has had a residential use and it is zoned residentially. That's what the staff report says, right? Um, uh, there is commercial in the area, but when we had the opportunity out of the
comp plan to reszone this commercial, we didn't do that. Um, so I'm not sure that the only use is commercial or that the best use is commercial. I realize that it might be the economically best use,
but that's not the only judgment here. It's clearly surrounded by residential, right? I don't think there's any question about that. That's what the map shows. Um, I'm having a hard time understanding the
roundabout discussion driving us to this should be commercial. A roundabout is is a tool to move traffic, but it also is a tool to move residential traffic um as much as it is for other traffic. So, and I think I heard the access is likely
going to be off of Riverside. You're not going to probably support an access on three or Wise Road, which is the residential side of this activity. So, I'm not sure that the roundabout um is the determining factor here. So,
um, and then I look at the findings and item two says, "Is the reclassification warranted due to changed land use circumstances or a need for additional property in the proposed land use district?" And I say, "No, there is no changed land use
circumstance and I don't see a need for additional commercial property. There is commercially zoned property to the north. Um, so, uh, I I personally, um, have a hard time supporting a
recommendation to reszone this. >> Thank you. >> Other members of the board have comments or concerns or >> Well, Madam Chair, I have a concern with, you know, going to commercial also. You know, you're looking at this
property has roads on three sides. Okay. I have no idea how much property of this property that the county will take to construct this roundabout, that proposed roundabout. So, leaves me with concerns
that if we reszone this to commercial, are we opening ourselves up the county up for depending on how much property is taken, creating the need
to get a variance to be able to construct any type of commercial or any type of structure on here is, you know, I'm on injur I don't know how much property is required for roundabout but then when you start looking at all these the three roads and
you start looking at all the setbacks I mean I what is county road 3 100 foot road right away is that do you know >> uh it's 75 >> 75 so you take you know and then you got 35 ft from that I don't know
how much room would be left and I it's the same way with the residential if it's left resident residential, they could have the same issue. But if it go, you know, goes to commercial and let's just say they're proposing a gas station in there, is there going to be enough room for the
structure, the gas, you know, the the tanks, the septic and all that without having to come back for variance. That's my biggest concern with this. >> Thank you, Andy. Anything you'd like to add?
Yeah, just an a couple of points. First of all, the house that was there, there was quite a show went on with that. Turned out that the individual who built it didn't own the lot. Secondly, the road systems were different at that time. The cuto off to Riverside Drive
was different. And actually, as the road systems have changed, quite a bit of that land uh has now, you know, paved over in roads. So to me that's made that considerably less appealing in terms of uh any type of uh residential. I mean I
just see that as completely uh useless from a residential perspective. The concern about uh losing square footage with the roundabout, well that applies whether it's a commercial or residential. So,
frankly, I'm I'm comfortable with a with commercial. I think that would be a a good spot and I think it would be good use for the land because I I'm really con especially with the roundabout going in
that to me makes it less appealing from a residential property perspective. >> Madam Chair, I'm sorry. >> Excuse me. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, anything else anyone would like to say or have discussion on? Um, I would just like to add that, um,
it seems to me to be a logical place for some type of commercial development, even more so when I hear about the roundabout, which will help, I think, um, quiet or or um, help minimize the
traffic flow concerns that that some people have have addressed in their letters of concern because The roundabouts definitely do slow down traffic uh direct them and um help traffic move more efficiently and and safely. That's the reason why we've had
so many roundabouts that have been put in in our region. So that's that's all that I'd like to like to add at this point. Um any other further discussion? >> Excuse me. You had uh some questions. >> If I might, Madam Chair, I would like to
comment uh or further that discussion. Um, as we look at this property and as Mike has asked my for my commentary and and and and guidance, uh, yeah, the the potential for any type of residential development
is very challenging in the context of it is high volume traffic and two of the three sides that are that are bounded by that roadway. I believe that the advent of the roundabout and we were we're were willing to work with the and want to
work with the county highway department to make sure that thing gets positioned. I mean there's some room to move it around there. Uh you had a um um Commissioner Masky, you had asked about the square footages. I right now we've got about 2.2 acres and that's considering setbacks all the way around.
So, I think we'd have probably just just under two acres for development there. And that can be done uh pretty pretty nicely and and pretty wisely, you know, so you're not having congestion and and the impact of traffic conflict and that sort of thing. So, we believe that we
can put a nice piece of a nice product on that property that's going to enhance the neighborhoods and uh and again, I go back to the highest and best use. market will tell us what um the the use of that property will be and uh like I said I it
very very limited to utilize as it is today. Um so that's there hence therefore the the application for the zoning change modific modification. >> Okay. I think the findings of fact are
on page 48. Um is there any further discussion? If not, we can um entertain further discussion or a motion on this application to make a recommendation to the county board one way or the other.
>> Madame Chair, I like to make an amendment to uh recommend approval to the county board for the land use map amendment for the RV request. It's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Is there a second? Am I allowed to second? I will second that motion. >> Being a motion and a second on the floor. Uh all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> Madam Chair, do we do we have to ask a question before we vote?
As far as knowing that it's a recommendation to the county board, um I know I mentioned that just before we went uh forward with this, but just to be clear that you do understand that this is a recommendation to the county board. They make the final decision. >> Yes, we do understand it. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thanks. I just need to clarify that. Thanks, John. Um Okay. All those in favor of the motion on the floor, please signify by saying I I oppose. Same sign. I
>> hearing the vote. Um, do we do a roll call? >> Uh, I don't think, manager, I don't think we need to do a roll call. I I heard the John was the denter and everybody else was supporting. So, it's a 3 to1 vote. >> Okay. Just needed to make sure that I was following protocol. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, hearing that, the motion
passes and this will go to the county board on the 30th at 900 a.m. >> Correct. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Have a good Have a good afternoon. >> You too. Happy holidays. >> The next item on the agenda will be um
the applicants are Jeffrey and Julie D. Roger for a land use map amendment request. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Uh Jeff D Roger, 4448 County Road 121, Fort Ripley, Minnesota
56449. >> Thank you. >> Can you read the request into the record, please? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant tonight is Jeffrey and Julia D. Roger. Partial number in question is 90200500. Property address is 5750 20th Street,
Fort Ripley, Minnesota. This is located in section 20 of St. Matias Township. The request before you today is to amend the land use map from agricultural foresty to rural residential 10. Uh if we go down to page 52 of the uh of
the packet, you'll see the area highlighted in blue. This is what uh is asked to be um changed to match up with the blue here, which is a row residential 5. Um again, the area in green is the egg forested district, which is a 35 acre minimum lot size.
blue is the row residential five which is a five acre and then the blue here you see would be Shorland district. We'll zoom out just a little bit more so you can kind of get an idea where we're at. So the you've got Kairo 2 to the north, you have 122, you have South
Coring Road over here and you can kind of see how the zoning has been laid out that uh we have the residential on the existing roadways and then the interior of that is going to be the agricultural areas. And so then down here you've got uh 20th Street and 55th. And this is the
parcel in question here that would like to um change the zoning to R5. Um just as a point of reference, we did get two comments. They were in your packet today. Both pack both were um not in favor of the reszone. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Does the board have any questions of staff? >> Okay. Do you have anything that you'd like to add? Uh, not really. Um, I just purchased that 39 acres and my daughter moved on. I was going to split it just to make it
more affordable for her, but uh, but did you say there was two against it? >> Correct. >> Oh, >> yeah. Two were not in favor of it. >> And was that with the 10acre? I see this was done as a 10 acre split.
>> Yeah. Yep. They understood. They understood it was a 10acre. They want to they're basically saying that they want to keep larger tracks is what is what the this the summary of both letters were. They thought these were 10 acres would would just be too small for the area.
>> Okay. Anything else, sir? >> What is uh what is St. Matias Township on their split? Is it 10? >> St. Matias Township doesn't have any zoning or jurisdiction for the for the zoning. It's all it's the county's responsibility and we never got a never
got a response from the township either. So >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Anything else, sir? >> Uh, nope. >> Okay. Um, I will then open this request up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Any please
come forward to the podium and u microphone and state your name and address for the record, please. >> Yes. Hello. Uh, my name is Henry Coring. I live at uh 24475th Avenue, Fort Ripley, Minnesota 56449. Um
I'm about a half a mile or so away. I have we have farm and agricultural land. And actually also I own a 20 with with another house that I currently rent out. But I guess the concern is um in our
area, you know, we're trying to preserve um basically housing developments especially down to 10 or now I think was that were you saying five acres? It would go down to >> the request for this is R10. So be 10 acre minimum lot size.
>> 10 acres. So I guess yeah we thought as a general people I talked to we thought it would be like a minimum of 15 in our township area but as you say that there there is nothing states that >> the minimum the minimum in the egg forest is 35 acres. So basically the egg
forest you can't you just can't split a 40. So the minimum size is 35 acres in the egg in the green in that green zoning on the map. >> Okay. So that's So they're saying that it if it stays the same, they can't go smaller. They can't split it at all because it couldn't be less than a 40.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Um I guess I own two lots over to the west and that's a 20, but yet it's zoned the same. So was that just something that was done years ago?
So we so one thing to keep in mind is that this has been a county been around for a couple years and you know things have happened either before zoning or there was a time 15 years ago that um egg zoning district was 30 was 15 acres to be able to split a lot was a 15acre minimum. Uh that changed back in 2010.
>> Okay. >> So that's why you see some of those smaller lots down there. They're they're kind of a a leftover from those previously when the zoning was a little bit different. >> Okay. I guess. Yeah. I'm I'm just uh I was opposed to it going down to 10
acres, but I I feel um 15 or 20 would be acceptable, but I don't know how that would change. >> We don't have a zoning classification for 15 acres. It's it's either 10 is the is our largest road residential zoning classification. Then it goes from that
to the agricultural zoning. So, >> okay. All right. But I guess knowing that information, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to to reszoning it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the uh in the
courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll go to online. And I don't see anyone there. So, I will bring it back to the applicant if you have anything that you'd like to add before the board has discussion. Um,
I guess maybe just to clarify things a little bit, it was what we were going to do was sell uh the one neighbor 20 acres the representatives here on that. So, it would be a 20 acre split is what it would be, but
um yeah. So, >> okay. Thank you. Bringing it back to the board. Do you have any questions for the applicant? Did you open it up to public to the online? >> Yes, there is no one online. >> Okay. Um I just want would like to state madam chair again um you got rural
residential 5 directly south of this. So going to R10 because we don't have an RR20 anymore. It's a natural transition from rural residential 5 to RR10 to agricultural. So I could support this proposed
zoning. Thank you, Sue. Do either of you have anything you'd like to add? No. >> Okay. Um that we can um before the board takes final action and and makes a recommendation. I just need you to
understand that when we um have a vote here that we are making a recommendation to the county board, they have the final approval and they're meeting on December 30th at 900 a.m. Is that understood? >> Yep, I understand. Thank you. Okay. Um,
coming back to the board, I'd entertain a motion. >> Before we do that, Madam Chair, I would like to add to finding number two. It says, you know, is the reclash warned due to changed land use circumstances? I would like to add into that that yes, it
is um it's um the reason for the proposed land use map is to allow the property owner to subdivide um his property. Um and rural residential 10 is the
um next classification down from agricultural that this property could be reclassified to. >> Thank you. We can make that note of that addition. Thank you. have it. >> Anything else?
Otherwise, we can entertain a motion. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> I would like to make a motion to recommend to the county board to approve the land use map amendment from agricultural forestry to rural residential 10 with the u preliminary
findings of facts that is listed in the staff report. >> So motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second by Andy. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none, I will ask all those in favor of the motion please signify by
saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. >> The next item on the agenda will be um Chad and Jessica Foster. There uh is a request for variance and a conditional
use permit. Uh so we will hear the variance first. >> We'll do them both at the same time. Is that okay? >> I think. Yep. We will. Okay. Yep. >> We'll do the public hearing for both and then we'll make two separate motions for the variance and for this evening. >> Sounds good. >> Good evening or afternoon.
>> Hi there. >> Hi. >> Thanks for having me. Um Chad Foster, 23188 Anderson Boulevard, Mayfield, Minnesota 56465. >> Thank you. And if you can read the uh application, the request into the record, please. >> I will. Property owners Chad and Jessica
Foster. Par number in question is 68260571 off of Gurimo Court in Peekquat Lakes. This is located in section 26 of Ideal Township. Um it's on Bass Lake at Jenna Development Lake. Uh there's two
requests as we mentioned this evening. One is for a variance for a bluff impact zone setback of 10 ft where 30 ft is required to the proposed new dwelling and deck and and then also to allow dirt moving within the bluff impact zone where no dirt moving is allowed. And then there's also a conditional use
permit request for dirt moving in the rear lot zone of 195 cubic yards total with the purpose of constructing a 1,48 ft new dwelling with 240 ft deck. The proposed uh impervious coverage on the lot um would be at 16.4%.
If we go down to the survey, it's located on page uh 66. Let's see. I'll try to back us out a little bit. Uh I was not on the on sites unfortunately, but I did talk with uh Nichollet about it. And this is obviously a very challenging lot. Um
kind of comes up and it kind of goes back down again. And so, um, you can see, um, the proposal. They're going to have a U-T type driveway where you can see the, um, the dwelling here is the variance that's in needed along with the deck off to the side. Uh, then they've
got a garage over here, this in the pink that is, uh, going to meet setbacks. And then you see the location in green of where the proposed drain field is to be located. Um, it's a definitely, I think, a very challenging lot. This one has quite a little bit of a history to it. There's some information in the packet
about there was at one time um some activity that had happened with the bluff that had caused it to um deteriorate and do a little bit of slumping. Uh and then there was some activity where the so and water conservation district got involved and and put a plan together to get that reestablished, reveated so that the um
so the bluff would then be cons, you know, more structurally sound and not susceptible to erosion. So, um, I'll zip down a little bit more because I think there's another Oh, I thought we had a map of what the house would look like from the side.
That might be in the conditional use permit packet. I'm just going to Everybody close your eyes. We're going to zip down. There we go. I have it here. >> That's what I'm looking for. Right there. So, this would be a a rendering
of what the house would look like. It's basically going to have a walk out to the back. You can see here, this would be the amount of um dirt that had to be removed to accomplish the project. You can kind of see the the rendering up here. Gives you that 3D review of it. Um
they've put together, I think, a pretty competent erosion control plan and how they're going to be able to remove that soil in place and still maintain the integrity of that bluff. Um we do have a um letter that came from the township supporting um the the request for both
the cup and for the variance. Um but they wanted this appears that there is an old driveway access that they want to be um basically abandoned and you're aware of that I believe. Okay. >> I've spoke with the county on that or not the county. I'm sorry.
>> The township. Okay. And then we did get um a letter um it came in on the 17th um who from a neighbor who's opposed to it doesn't support the request. Uh that's all I have.
>> Thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to add? >> Yeah. Um I'd just like to clarify on the Bluff Restoration. Uh not clarify, but just add to it a little bit. So we purchased the property approximately three years ago and with the purchase of
that property uh I was taking on the fact that the bluff had been impacted negatively um and working with the county soil and water. Um, I wanted to repair that bluff and reveate it, get it
to the point where soil and water would would be uh would sign off on the fact that the bluff was restored. Um, and I did I did that. So, what I'm saying is I have no intentions of negatively impacting the bluff. Um, I just want to
be clear that uh this is strictly to make the challenging lot more usable and um friendly once you get up the the steep hill steep hill from the roadway. Um that that's
the sole reason on why uh we're asking for this variance. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> This time I will open up the um request to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing none, we'll go to
online. >> Don't see anybody. >> Don't see anyone there either. So, we'll come back uh to the board uh for discussion and comment. >> Madam Chair, uh to be frank, when I first got the the details and reviewed
it, I was skeptical of of what was being proposed. Uh that said on the on-site uh frankly my I view change. I I was frankly pretty impressed with what the applicant and their professionals
are uh are proposing. So I I think considering the nature of that piece property, it's I'm I'm I'm in favor of of what's what's being proposed. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. Um, I' I'd agree with Andy's
comments. Um, bluff impact zone setbacks are hard to get, right? I mean, we really try to preserve bluffs for all the right reasons, but when you went on site and saw the restoration and how the
proposal is to move the house forward as far as they can, but you still have to be able to get onto the property. So you had and there's a steep slope in the front as well. So you're it's really very limited. I think they're they've
done the best they could in the proposal to end up with a use of the property while respecting the bluff um that that exists there. So I I agree the restoration was was clear as you explained it. Um so I have no issue with
it with it either. Um, I would comment on the township's request for the condition with the old driveway. To my way of thinking, that's between the property owner in the township. >> I agree. >> And I wouldn't be proposing to add that as a >> We don't need to be the enforcer of that.
>> Nope. >> Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? >> Oh, Madam Chair, I um I got to admit, I mean, I was on the on sites, but I was not going to climb that hill. But after talking to Andy and John when
they come back, I agree with Andy. I was skeptical when I first looked at this when I first got the on-site pack and thinking, well, I mean, this is a big building envelope. Things can be moved back. But once you get out there and seeing the property and talking to John and Andy who climbed that hill, um, I
can definitely support this variance because I think it's the best use for this property. >> And I would concur. I was on the on-site and I also did not climb the hill but I respect my colleagues input and um
support this as well. >> Let let the record show that two of us should get extra credit for climbing the hill. >> I I >> we'll get back to you on that. >> From a staff perspective, I think it's just nice to see a you know because a lot of times we get a setback because
they want to build a 4,000t house. I mean, they're building a modest 1400 foot house here, which I think fits the lot. It fits in the way it's supposed to. We might be having a different conversation if it was three times this size. So, that that's nice. Nice job on your part. I think that's great to see. Thank you. >> So, >> yeah, the plan looks very nice.
>> Okay. Um, without any further discussion, we'll entertain. We're going to take both of these in one motion. Is >> I think two two Madam Chair, two motions, one for the variance, and one for >> taking them both at the same time. Pardon me, I misspoke. Okay. >> So, Madam Chair,
um I would offer a motion to approve the variance for the bluff impact zone setback of 10 ft where 30 ft is required and dirt moving within the bluff impact zone where >> Excellent. >> Is that the variance? I'm doing the variance, right? and dirt moving within
the bluffed impact zone where no dirt moving is allowed to construct a 148 square ft new dwelling with a 240 ft deck >> and with are you looking at the potential conditions as well included
>> conditions are on page 120 >> with the six conditions contained in the staff report. >> Thank you. >> And the findings are located on page 121 >> and the findings are on page 120. Okay. And there is a second by Sue. Any further discussion?
If not, all those in favor? >> Do you have to read that in first? >> Oh, yes, I do. Thank you. Before we take final action on the variance, I have to verify four items with you. You understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> You understand that the conditions are
required as part of the approval of six conditions? >> Yes. >> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before construction begins? Yes. >> And you understand what is being approved tonight in as far as the variance is final. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight such as
structure size, height location must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change
what has been approved by this board. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We madam chair. Yes. >> Before we vote, could I just uh point out that that would be the findings to reflect that the township recommended approval. >> Okay. >> Y >> thank you.
>> Okay. >> We then will proceed with the vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you for your time today. >> Uh Madam Chair, one more. >> We have one more. >> We have one more for the conditional use
permit. Madam Chair, I would move approval of the conditional use permit for dirt moving in the rear lot zone of 195 cubic yards to construct a 148 ft new dwelling with 240 ft deck with the
three conditions in the staff report and per the findings in the staff report reflecting township recommendation of approval. >> I'll second. >> There's a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any further discussion
hearing? None. Before the board takes final action on the conditional use permit, I need to verify three items. Do you understand what is being approved? >> Yes. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that what is being
approved tonight is final? 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. >> Yes. >> Okay. We then will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you for your time. Have a good afternoon. >> You as well. Thanks.
Next item on the agenda, it would be Leah and Dian Daniel Hagerson for variance. Me. >> Oh yeah. >> Hi. >> It's like old home week, huh? >> What's that?
>> It's like old home week here. >> I know. I'm just I'm so happy to see you. Hi, I'm Leia Hagerson. >> Um, and my, uh, address for this place is 26591 Ross Point Road, Niswah, 56468.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. If you can read the request into the record, please, Chris. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant tonight is Leah and Daniel Heggerton. Parcel number in question is 73020536 at 26591 Ross Point Road in Niswat. This is
located in section 10 of Lake Edward. This is uh got property on on two different lakes. Pelican Lake which is general development lake which has a 75 foot setback and then Stevens Lake which is a natural environment lake that has 150 foot setback. So the variance tonight is a lake setback of 64 ft to
Stevens where 150 ft is required to the proposed drain field and lake setback of 86 ft to Stevens where 150 is required to the proposed septic tank to install a type one 5-bedroom septic system. Uh we do have a design on file from Martin Joyce and uh we have information from
him saying that the location of the drain field um is the only um I'll see if I can find his design if it was I think it was in here. Yep, there it is. So here's the design from Martin Joyce and uh it says in his notes that uh the
only uh this was the only location to be able to afford the septic on this property to replace the one that is there. So, um, you can see it's on the back side of the property based on the survey,
and we'll zoom out a little bit. This is where the Dreamfield's going here. You've got Ross Point Road here, and this is Pelican over here. And this will be the location of where the new system will go. I would be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions? Is there anything that you'd like to add?
>> No. Okay. And at this time, we will open the request up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom that would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, we would go to online to double check. And I don't believe there's anyone there. So, we will bring it back to the board for um
further discussion and comment. Madam Chair, I mean this is the properties between Pelican and Stevens are unique that they there's just no way they can meet setbacks and upgrading the septic system is only going to benefit
both lakes. >> Thank you. Anyone else have a comment or questions or concerns? finding a fact are located on page 214 of your packet and uh conditions are on 213. Potential conditions
hearing hearing no other comments or concerns we can entertain a motion. Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for lake setback of 64 feet to Stevens Lake where 150 is required to propose drain field. lake
setback of 86 feet to Stevens Lake where 150 feet is required to propose septic tank to install a type one five- bedroomedroom septic system with the two conditions um that were in the staff
report and the findings of facts in the staff report. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> A second. >> Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh before we take final action on
the variance, I need to verify four items with you. Uh do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yeah. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. >> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before construction begins?
>> Okay. >> 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. 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. Thank you. Um, then we'll go ahead and proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Thank you. It's nice to see you. Nice surprise. Nice surprise. >> See you, too. >> Merry Christmas. >> I got to talk to Chris. That was a nice surprise that he's been growing. >> Thanks, Nicola, for everything.
>> Thanks. Thank you. >> Have a good afternoon. >> You too. Bye, Chris. >> See you. >> Our next item on the agenda, uh, requ uh, application would be Curtis and Amy Janet for a variance. Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Curtis Janicki. Uh, my address is My wife Amy's not here. Uh, my address is 20415 Payne Avenue in Brainer. >> Thank you, Chris. Can you read the request? >> I sure can. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh,
the owner, the applicant tonight is Curtis and Amy Janicki. personal number in question is 99030657 with a physical address of 20415 uh Payne Avenue in Brainer. That was I almost said my address cuz that's my number to my over by Mirfield. I was
like so didn't realize that until I read it. Now that's my address. This is located in the first assessment district on organized township. Uh and is located in section 3. Uh this is located on Gull Lake, a general development lake with a 75 ft lake setback. And the request tonight has a setback of 71 ft to G Lake
where 75 ft is required for a proposed deck. Um just want to point out that the current impervious on the lot is at 25.7%. That won't be changing because of the deck is considered to be impervious but that is the current status of uh the
property. Um if we go down to the um to the survey, you can see uh what they're trying to do. Um it's the actual um variance required is is minimal. It's uh really only 44 square feet of the deck is in
the setback. So they're very close to to to be able to meeting that setback. So um we didn't get any comments on this. Oh, wait. Maybe we did. We did get one comment from a neighbor who thought this um supported the request. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff?
>> Anything that you'd like to add? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Hearing nothing, we will open up this request for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll go to online to double check. And I don't believe
there's anyone there as well. So we will bring it back to the board for uh any discussion or comment or action. >> Madam chair, the one comment I'd like to
make is I would if this is approved that the um impervious service is um reduced to meet that 25% because we are over the allowed 25% that's allowed by ordinance. So I mean that would be a
condition that I would have that I would want on that. Um and in finding number um finding number one I would just like to add that um the lake setback of 71 ft to
the for the proposed 231 square foot. It's a minimal a deck is a minimal reduction from the required 75 >> foot uh setback for G Lake. Thank you. Anything else from anyone?
Not we can uh entertain a motion. M >> madam chair. >> Yes. I would move approval of the variance of the lake setback of 71 ft where 75 ft is required to propose deck
to construct a 231qt deck 44 square foot square 44 square ft to be within the building setback. um subject to the three conditions in the staff report, one of which or two of which actually address
achieving 25% impervious to Sue's comments and uh with the amended findings uh effect. >> Thank you. And is there a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Andy. Um before we take action on this, I have to make sure that you um understand four and verify four items. Do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. >> Do you understand that you must obtain
permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> Yes. >> And do you understand what 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. >> Great. Okay. Uh with that, then we'll proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much. >> The next uh applications on the agenda would be Lakes Premier Storage Dearwood LLC for variance and for a conditional
use permit. >> I don't see them. I don't see them. >> They're not online. Okay. >> Go to the next one. >> We'll go on to the next one and come back and see. Okay. Let's move on to I think we go to Zabella. >> So, let's go down to the uh the plat.
>> Okay. So, then we'll go to um Mary and Raymond. Zabella for preliminary plat. >> Uh it's Raymond and Mary Zabella 18224 Turtle Bay Trail, Crosby, Minnesota. >> Thank you. And Chris, if you can read
the request into the record, please. >> I absolutely will. I got to All right. I was ready for the other applicant, not this one. Uh the property uh prop or the applicant standard Mary and Raymond Zabilla parcel number is 77010540.
Physical address is 18224 Turtle Bay Trail, Crosby. This is located in section 1 of Mission Township. The request tonight is uh the review of the preliminary plat of Turtle Bay with two lots total.
Um, we'll zip down here to the survey. So, we are on uh this would be uh Adne Lake Road here to the west. And then you've got um Adney over here. And then what they're proposing is to basically um create lot one and lot two. Lot one
has an existing the existing dwelling on it now. And then they got lot two here which meets um which meets requirements. So, and this would be the access that we've got. We've got the rightway needed to to get access back to here. So, this meets all the requirements of the ordinance. Uh, due to the fact that this
is in mission, there's a a double step or a second step with mission. And I believe John, if I'm correct, this has been reviewed and and has it been um has the township had a chance to review this? Uh, >> yes. And we sent in a resolution of approval.
>> Thank you. Anything else? >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anything that the applicant would like to add? >> Yes. I just wanted to update you. We created a formal easement agreement with
attorney John Baker Baker out of Pekquat Lakes and pending the outcome of this meeting, we will update the legal description in that document and both my neighbor and I will sign it and submit it formally. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
Um after this we will open up to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? No one. I see no one. So we'll go online and I don't believe there's anyone there either. So we will bring it back to the
board for further discussion and comment and action. >> Yeah. Madam Chair, to me this is a very straightforward lot uh preliminary plat. So if there isn't any discussion, I'm prepared to make a motion. >> Please go ahead.
>> So I would make a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Turtle Bay with two lots uh to the county board with the five uh conditions stated in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there
a second? >> I'll second that. But I'd like to add to the motion including the findings of fact >> uh including the findings of fact in the staff report. Thank you, Sue. >> Okay, so there's a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, before we take final action on your preliminary plat request,
I need to verify two items with you. Uh, do you understand that tonight we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request? The county board does have final approval over this request. >> Yes. >> Yes. And do you understand that the required conditions placed on the
preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh the board meeting is on December 30th at 9:00 a.m. Um we will then proceed to vote. All those in favor
of this motion, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you for your time and have a good evening. >> Thanks. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. We are unable to get a hold of the applicant for the um Lakes
Premier Storage LLC variance and conditional use. So, at this point, we will push that off to the January meeting. >> So, should we move to table it? I think we record. >> Okay. So, we'll >> I would I would so move. >> There's a mo u agree with that with the concern because
we got concern a letter from a concern party. I'd like to see it tabled too. >> Okay. Okay. So, are you seconding the motion then for tableabling? >> And just make sure the motion's for the variance and for the conditional use. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear. >> It's for the variance and the conditional use. >> Yes, for the variance and the conditional use permit that there's a
motion on the floor by John to uh table list till the January meeting and a second by Sue. And any further discussion hearing none, all those in favor of that motion, please signify by saying I. >> I post same sign. >> Motion to table carries. Okay. Okay. The
next item on the agenda then is an appeal of a staff decision. Whitefish Chain LLC. Chris, >> I'll just take it. >> Yeah. >> If you want to There's no public hearing, >> right? There's no public hearing for this, but if you'd like to state what's
>> Yep. I'll I'll kind of work us through the process and then >> kind of frame it and >> I'll I'll put forth some information. You guys will be able to do the same and then give each other a chance for the board to discuss and that. So >> Stacey, we go bring this over to the table for >> So um board members, what you have
before you tonight is an appeal of a staff decision that was made by myself. Um I have the um staff decision as part of the packet with some supporting documentation. Um but first I just wanted to take a step back and just kind of walk through what we're going what it is that we're doing tonight. Um so um
Minnesota rules or not excuse not Minnesota rules um Minnesota statutes 394.27 subdivision 6 um provides a route for um a applicant who needs to appeal a staff decision that they didn't agree with. And so um we have it in our land
use ordinance under um our article 8.7 and um basically any decision that any staff make myself or any of the staff I supervise uh they have the ability to appeal that decision within 30 days. Um and then uh the ter this is the part I wanted to focus on is that the
termination of the appeal is found in 8.7b um where the the findings that you um are expected to as you're as you're deciding the decision um are based on um the information submitted by the
appellant a report from the department and then a provision of this ordinance and then to um look at and then you are to affirm road to the decision unless you determine that the decision that was made by staff was arbitrary and capriccious or that the decision did not comply with the standards in this
ordinance. Um and so we're having that um having this tonight this discussion and then um at the same time as with all decisions made by the planning commission board of adjustment um that uh decision to made tonight is also appealable but that will go to district court.
Um, so I just I'll kind of walk through um kind of where we're at with uh the process and um kind of how we got here tonight. Um so I sent a um a well we we've had some
conversations um with Mr. Cheney um over the last uh few months about a piece of property up on the Whitefish chain which would be which would be lot 12 block two of first edition to Delta Bay. The P for this is 72120505.
And the question is, is the um is this uh a buildable lot or not? And so when you look at the plat um that was in place, the uh the facts as you see on the report that I put before you, um I notified uh Mr. Cheney via email on
October 23rd of this year that lot 12 block to first edition to Delta Bay is not a billable lot. Uh the plaid of first edition Delta Bay was recorded June 10th of 1971. And the plaid has two blocks. The blocks in the lots in block one are not repairarian and the lots in
block two are repairarian. There are 12 lots in block one and 12 lots in block two and there are also two outlots. The plat was developed in a manner that the repairarian lots in block two are to provide repairing access to Whitefish Lake for the non-reparing owners that are back in block one. Um, a review of the current ownership of the lots in the
plat show that the owners of the lots in block one own the corresponding lot in block two. The only one that doesn't would be uh lot 12, block two is the only one that is not owned by the owner corresponding uh the lot in block one. Uh the recorded plat states that lots 1
through 12 block 2 and out lots A and B extend to the shore of the boat channel subject to flow rights and the other reservations or restrictions of record if any. On July 12th, 1971, the county board of commissioners approved the plat of first edition to Delta Bay. And then the minutes uh clearly state that none
of the lots in block 2 are to be used for building purposes but for access to the channel. This is considered the restriction mentioned above. Uh the majority of the lot is in the flood fringe of the flood plane. There are also wetlands on the property and a wetland replacement plan will be required to fill the wetlands to
construct a building pad for the structure. Um there was also a application submitted for replacement plan to be able to fill the wetlands and and to be able to get the approval for that. Um based on this decision to deny the request to be able for the lot to be buildable um that that decision for the
um wetland replacement plan was also um was also denied and then that was subsequently um appealed and that goes to the board of water and soil resources. That's not a county appeal that goes to the board of water and soil resources. If you look at the analysis section and um what I put in um article
8.7 A2 lists the criteria for determining if an appeal should be approved or denied. The first criteria asks the decision was arbitrary or capriccious. U the decision was not arbitrary or capriccious. The county board minutes from June 10th, 1971 are very clear and that the lots in block two are not to be used for building
purposes. The plat also mentions that there are restrictions of record. The county board minutes are those restrictions. Furthermore, all the other lots in the plaid are under common ownership when reviewing blocks one and two. This is consistent with the county board minutes as well. The property is also in the flood fringe and has wetlands to the extent that they would need to be filled to construct a
building pad for a structure. And then the second criteria asks the decision did not comply with the land use ordinance. The decision does comply with the land use ordinance. The plat of uh first addition to Delta Bay was compliant when it was approved and recorded and substantially compliant with today's standards. The the lots in
block one exceeds the lot area requirements. Uh the current lot width on the lot is 100 ft and today's standards would be 150 ft. the decision that the that uh lot 12 block 2 is not buildable was the correct decision. Um I just want to go through the packet just
to show you a few things. This is the email that I sent to Mr. Cheney back in October. This will be the plat itself. And if we turn it this way, um the lot in in question would be lot 12 here. This
would be lot 12. This is block one uh on the other side of the road. And then this would be considered block two down here. It turns out that the owner of this property now was able to get access to the lake. This is where the Pine River comes in. And so um at that point he wasn't didn't need access through lot
12 to get access down to uh down to the lake. I'm going to ro get dizzy here. I'm sorry. Um this is just uh the minutes of the uh platting regulations that were in place. Um, and where it says from, this is from June
11th, 1971. It says that it shall be the understanding of by all parties concerned with the plat that none of the lots in block 2 are to be used for building purposes, but strictly for access to the channel for property owners and those concerned. And then this these are the minutes from June 12th, 1971. I've highlighted in
black um where it says that um subject to restriction that none of the lots in block two are to be used for building purposes but for access to the channel as recommended by the planning and zoning commission. There's other information in here that's got some deeds in it that I won't go into. Um but
uh that's the information I have before you tonight as I present um why I think the decision um that I made was the right one. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions? Madam Chair, if I may. So, um, Chris, I just want to
be clear as we, uh, listen tonight. The item before us, uh, the the applicant's response is actually a letter to the board of water and soil resources that was in the packet. Um, which I assume is
the appeal of the wetland replacement or whatever, right? Decision. But I just want to be clear what's before us tonight is the denial of a building permit on the basis that this is not a buildable lot. Is that correct? And is there any that
>> is correct >> linkage between the two or they two separate issues and >> they're two separate issues. >> Two separate but the only one that's in front of us is the building permit denial that it's on the basis that it's not a buildable lot. Is that correct? >> That is correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm scrolling down to the information that the uh um was submitted by the appellant here. This is a lot of fun scrolling through all this stuff.
There we go. So, this was the information, but I do I when I as I've read through this, it does explain their um perspective and point of view as to why they think that staff aired in our decision. So, >> okay. Any other questions for staff?
>> No. >> Okay. Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> Yes. >> Yeah. You don't. Good afternoon. Um, thanks, Mr. Pence. My name is Jeff Scott. I'm I wrote that letter. I'm an attorney for um the appellant. I thought
I would um talk a little bit about it and then um hand it over to Mr. Cheney. Um but yes, the um the wetland um appeal is stayed pending a decision of of this. Um
when I got retained, there was this 30 days um appeal period running. It's kind of hectic and the um the uh website to to appeal was a little glitchy for me. So I supplemented the record with this letter um and provided that to Mr.
Pence. Um so yeah the the basis for the denial um is the restriction in meeting minutes from 1971. Um now just a little background that is you know that is not a recorded document
that is not on the title. Um that is again in meeting minutes from over 50 years ago. Um, so when the plat says it's subject to restrictions of record, that of record is the meeting minutes
outside of the title. Um, now the the purpose of that restriction is to provide repairarian rights to um the block two. Well, sorry, I keep getting block two and block one mixed
up. Um, so the restriction is to provide repair. Madam Madam Chair, could we put the map up? >> You want to Do you want to see the uh >> I want to see the >> the plat itself. >> Okay, I can definitely do that. >> Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. >> No. No. >> Thanks, Andy.
>> Everybody close your eyes. >> Okay, I went too far. Sorry about that, guys. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Madam Chair, maybe Oops. >> Not to interrupt further, but we're
talking about the 12. 1 through 12. Um, >> this is lot 12. >> I know we're talking about 12, but 1 through 12 were the lots that were not buildable in the county board restriction. Correct. >> Correct. Okay.
>> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I just want to ask Chris a question quick. >> Yes. >> I can't rotate on here >> the on the map. I can't rotate it to read it, but I'm trying to see if where that is all the signatures are. Was there any where the signatures are? Was
there anything that said that the lots one through >> No, it's not listed on the plan. >> I can zoom in up here. We can and I I'll read what it says. It says uh as I mentioned in the report, lots 1 through 12 block 2 and out lots A and B extend to the shore of the boat channel subject
to flow rights and any other reservation or restrictions of record if any. But I do think we probably should let him continue. >> Okay. >> Sorry about the interruption. >> Okay. Please go ahead.
>> Yeah. So if we Yeah. So in the the corner there, that's lot 12, uh block two. Yep. That's our lot. And so that does have repairarian access. >> And then the corresponding lot 12 in block one
>> that's owned by Robert Degrroot and he sold that to the applicant or the appellant. Um so that lot 12 um of Robert Degrroot he has repairing access through the Pine
River. Um and so the you know the restriction as stated in the the appeal it says the purpose of the lots in block two are to provide repairarian access to the corresponding lots in block one but
the owner of that corresponding lot sold sold lot 12 block two to the the appellant um and has alternative repairing access. No other lot has that situation.
Um and so if the sole purpose is to provide this benefit to that corresponding lot owner, but that lot owner is clearly okay with it by conveying the property and having the alternative
access. I think allowing the allowing this lot to be buildable um does not run foul of the spirit or the purpose of that original restriction from over a half century ago. Um
and he's not here today but I'm certain he doesn't object to this. Um you know the other the other issue is kind of the some of the practical things about this. You know, if if the sole purpose for the corresponding lot is to
provide lake access or repairing access to the other lot, well, then they probably should be one tax parcel and they probably shouldn't be sold separately, but they are allowed to be sold separately. Um, it's a little bit of a
catch 22. you know, my my client paid 200 235,000 >> Yeah. >> for that lot and now has a lot that is determined cannot be buildable. Um
so, you know, the the county, I don't want to say, for lack of a better term, inconsistent. you allow it to be separated and transferred and then say you can't do anything with it and now puts a tax assessed value of 238,000 on
this lot that my client owns. Um so I don't know what um he's supposed to do with that. Um so you know I don't think that this so-called restriction
the purpose of it is not being violated by this conveyance because again the benefited lot has expressly agreed to it by deeding this lot to the appellant and he has alternative repairing access.
Um um and again I don't think there's a worry about this being a trend. No other lot has this alternative repairing access. Um
the wetland decision is again not for today. You know, my understanding is that the appellant is likely going to be able to meet those requirements of a of a replacement plan. Um, but that that's not for today. If if you know, if we clear this hurdle, then
that's the the next issue. But, you know, I saw that in the report and I don't want that to cloud the decision um of of what we're here for today. Um, that's primarily what I have. Um, I'd
like the appellant to be able to talk a little bit about the history of how this happened and his dealings with Crowing County. I'm I'm trying to I'm purchasing the lot and then trying to build on it. >> Hello everybody. My name is Joe Cheney,
owner of White Fish Chain LLC. Um, yeah. So, um, when I first inquired about purchasing this lot, um, I sent it over to my my land engineer, my surveyor, and he said, "Well, yeah, you know, you might want to just check with the county
and see what they say." And, um, before you buy it, because I I usually check with him. And then, so I I c I talked to the county um, in fact, twice before I bought it. So, prior to purchasing um the second time I talked to him was January 2nd and I talked to somebody at
the land services department. They told me that it was a repairarian lot and that it was a lot of record and I would most likely need a mountain system to build on it. And they said it was okay that it wasn't 100 ft because it was a lot of record. And um the flood range
they told me is 1231.7. So it' have to be built a foot a foot above that and 30 gave me the setbacks 35 ft from the street which is on the east side and south side. And he said another way to come up
another way to come up with that is 60 ft 68 ft from the center of the street and then there's a 75 ft lake setback and a 10-ft side setback. So um with that information I decided to purchase the land. I purchased it on 20 228 of
2025 and I immediately ordered a soil test and I got it I I presented it to Nichollet when we were at the um the wetland meeting and um it was a pretty expensive survey but he gave me site suitability and told me all it confirmed
that I would need a mound system and um then I ordered a survey to show all the setbacks and kind of to put together a concept plan. So, um, put together a concept plan with a with a house and all building. And then I
I decided first to try to put the property up for sale. And after a few months of not getting very much um um action on the lot, um I decided to
um look into getting a building permit so I could break ground before winter on the property. So, um, so on 728 I ordered a septic design from Amy at Lakes Area Septic. I I don't know if you guys are familiar with her, but she's
really really really um sharp gal. Um anyway, so then I started talking to Gary Gardner at the land services department about the next steps for the building uh the building permit and um he he started giving me more information
about you know setbacks and then um all that. So I wanted to make sure I was compliant. So I was putting the set the septic and in the right spot versus where you know the setback of the house whatnot. Anyway, so uh all of a sudden on 84 I received a call from Taylor at
the county and he told me that I need to get a wetland delineation on this property. So I called Mitch Branks and ordered a wetland delineation. Turned out there was some wetlands in the
middle almost in the middle of the property. Um so led me to my next hurdle. He he told me, you know, if I can stay under 15% hard cover, I could obtain a building permit pretty easily. If I go up to 20 over 20%, I need a storm water and
management plan fee and I have to to get the storm water plan. And then if I go to 25% up to 20 in between 20 and 25% I as well as the storm water plan I also need to get the shoreline buffers and that I would need to make sure that
I'd build above 1232.7 which is the first information also that I got. So, um, so anyway, so after I got the wetland back, the wetland delineation back, I had to call
Amy and have her redesign the septic to move everything around. And uh, so then I I uh I was talking um, let's see. Uh, and I was told I was told from the county that
I could fill in 400 square ft of wetlands. otherwise I would have to do this wetland replacement application. So, you know, I kind of went through that with uh Mitch and he, you know, we decided to to apply for the wetland
application cuz um that being said, if I if I didn't do a five bedroomedroom septic, um there's a way I could get a structure and meet all the setbacks with a septic and alternative septic without filling any wetlands
um or doing the 400 ft. it just wouldn't be very big, a very a very decent sized structure. So, that was what my my plan was to get to something decent in there, you know, and that's kind of um that's kind of where so that's the way we went with that. Um so,
we fill out the application, went to the T meeting. Um we we applied uh we the wetland credits were available. Um I feel like the TAP meeting went pretty well. um they wanted me to come back um and kind of move some
stuff around and minimalize the plan a little bit and suggested even to ask for a couple variances. Um and so that was my plan. That's what I was going to do. Um then I was going to come back for the next meeting and then in the meantime, so I had the property
wasn't even for sale anymore, but I had this buyer that was just driving everybody berserk and he just wouldn't go away. I told him he wanted to go to the tech meeting. I said, "Unless you have a purchase agreement, I'm going to go to the T meeting with my plan because I'm going to build a house and I I don't even know. We haven't come to terms with
anything." So, he kept digging up more information, more information. And all of a sudden, I got a call from Nichollet and said, "Um, Todd just sent me this uh document that he found from these me these minutes from 1971 and said that
the property has restrictions on it." And I'm going, "Wow." you know, you got to be kidding me. You know, that might have been before or after the tent meeting. They that was after I think the first tent meeting. So, when when that and then she said she wanted to talk to
Nick and um or Chris and confirm, you know, before they move forward with anything. And I got a I got a um I got then I got the email with the official termination of the um of the
plan and because of the meeting minutes from 1971 that says that there was a restriction on it and then they said they they just they weren't able to do they weren't able to um allow my application to proceed with for my building permit. Um,
so I didn't realize that I was after that I was still on the agenda for the next T meeting. Otherwise, I would have showed up, but I So they had the next T meeting and officially denied the the wetland replacement after that. But I So that was my I guess that was my mistake
if I was supposed to be attending that still after that that thing. I I wasn't sure. But um but anyway, so um then we filed the appeal for the staff decision and filed the appeal for the wetland.
So I asked to stay the wetland plan until this was until that this decision was made. And I just um it was just it was just really it just took all the wind out of this out of the the whole
room. I feel like cuz I um the I just felt like everybody was so helpful at the land services department and you know I think everybody I I don't know I can't speak for other people but everybody I feel like was kind of just
like you know we didn't we didn't really we didn't know this and we're all moving forward to possibly building and my title my you know my title did a title search and they go back 40 years or something and Um they of course that
didn't happen but um and I spent besides the 235 I spent $35,000 on between surveys and concepts and soil tests and holding costs and cleaning the property up and um yeah so I just I just
really um I just really if you guys you know could possibly consider you know um reconsidering this um restriction or um whatever it is. I I'd really appreciate it cuz I don't know I don't
know what I'm going to do from here. I'm over a quarter million dollars into this and I'm kind of I'm kind of crap out of luck. So I guess I So yeah. So anyway, that's kind of what I got.
>> Thank you. Anything else? >> There's any questions? I'll bring it to the board to see if there are any questions, things that need to be clarified. Um, thoughts. >> No, Madame Chair, I don't know that I
have any questions. Um or I I I might, but um I think selling the lot is the argument that selling the lot change should change the restriction
that the county board put on when it did. Is that the argument >> in part? Yeah. >> Yeah. And on what basis would that be true? Well, if the sole purpose of the corresponding lot is to provide
repairing access to the other, they have to be under common ownership for that to be accomplished. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I um I mean, I understand that argument, but that's an interpretation of the county
board putting the restriction on. might be a common sense interpretation, but it's an interpretation of that's the basis for the restriction, right? I mean, um, so the the the problem I have
is the county board did that in 1971 and that has been maintained since 1971, if I understand it, the record, right? And we're not in a position to second guessess the purpose of the restriction,
why the county board put that restriction on. I guess the only one that could do that would be the current county board. And so, um, I think we have to take that that's the record that they put that on. And
we're not allowed, I don't think, in this process to interpret that decision or to change that decision. Um, I don't I don't think right. So I I go back to the And by the way, I heard
heard your whole situation and I'm very sympathetic to your situation, right? I understand it. >> Yeah, I appreciate it. I just >> But if I understand the ordinance, we're only asked one thing. was the
decision of the staff based on the record which includes a county board decision that was on the deed. Not specifically that decision, but the deed references restrictions and clearly in
1971 the county board put that restriction in place. Um, is the staff decision arbitrary and capriccious? Um, which would to me say that it's out
of line with the record. That's what I would define arbitrary and capriccious on my judgment. You probably have a better legal judgment for me. No, I >> um but I mean if a decision to me is supported by a record
of information facts, I find it hard to say that it's arbitrary or comprecious. Now, I could disagree with the decision or I could disagree with the record or I could choose to interpret the record differently, but that is not a
prerogative of this board in in uh taking up that appeal if I understand the ordinance correctly. We don't we don't have the we can't say as a board we would make a different decision than the staff. We get to do that when we
take up variances and other things, but that's not what's in front of us. And the ordinance in my way of thinking is very clear in what the county board gave to this
board to be able to decide which is was it arbitrary or capriccious. And again my interpretation is is it supported by the record? Could you could you make that decision supported by the record? Might not be the decision we want. might not be the decision this board would
decide, but could you? And does it comply? Did the decision actually to the negative or did the decision not comply with the standards of the ordinance? And there's nothing in the record that says the decision isn't in compliance with the standards of the ordinance. And in
fact, the your point uh record from 1971, none of those lots have been allowed to be buildable since then or have had any requests to be buildable. I think the record shows that.
Um so I think your your case that you make is a case where could could somebody make a different decision? Could you argue that somebody should make a different decision? But that's not what's in front of us. The decision was
made based on that record. And our only remedy, we don't have ability to give you a remedy if I read the ordinance right outside of saying that it was arbitrary, capriccious, not supported by the
record, not supported the by the history of what's occurred on those lots. And there's nothing in my listening that's been presented to us that makes that case. And again, I'm very
sympathetic to your description of what's gone on. But um that's my reading of the ordinance and what's been in in front of us unless you can um convince me that the record
in fact shows something different. and I haven't heard that yet. >> One thing I would say is part of the record is is the title and that is um Mr. Cheney mentioned a 40-year search. That's called the Marketable Title Act, which means that when you review title,
things that are not things that are over 40 years old can mostly be disregarded unless they're renewed. Now, this plat is from 1971 and it references unrecorded restrictions that are buried in minutes from over
half a century ago. Um, yet the county allows the lot to be sold separately. Um, so I think part of the record is is is the county's treatment of these lots
and how they work together and accepting a deed from recording and disregarding the restriction and then subsequently enforcing the restriction is puts the public at an impossible task >> to figure that out.
>> Yeah. And so it goes back to relying on what is of record and what are people allowed to rely on. And it seems to me there's two positions being taken here um that are inconsistent. >> Um m Madam Chair, just just responding
to that, I I am somewhat familiar with the marketable title act. I'm following a road issue relative to that in a another township, right? Uh, but I don't know that uh
I don't know that we're in a position to consider that in what the ordinance tells us we can consider >> because you're you're asking us based on something some other issue to make a
decision about the staff um decision to deny the permit. And uh that's not a remedy that the ordinance affords us. >> And I wasn't >> it might be a fair uh argument, but
>> not a remedy that this board is afforded. It's kind of like the person that um gets a disagrees with a variance and is asking for the county to do something else relative to that remedy. We don't have the right to do that. The
county board may have some prerogative in that area, but that isn't a right that the county that isn't a remedy that the county board has given to this board as I understand this process. >> Yeah. And I wasn't, you know, trying to make a legal determination. And I was
just saying that, you know, um the arbitrary and capriccious component of it is that the tax parcel should have been combined and they shouldn't the county should not accept a a split of them if they're going to enforce a restriction where one becomes
essentially useless. And so that's because they allowed that to because the county allows that to take place, allows them to be split, allows it to be recorded, assigns it a tax value of 238,000, then that it's arbitrary capriccious to
then say you can't build on it and enforce the restriction. And going forward, you know, I can see how you could get in front of this, but in this case, nothing was done in the front end to stop this. So >> yeah, >> I Yeah. And Madam Chair, not not to to
debate. I hear that argument. Again, that's a remedy not available to this board. You you might argue the ordinance ought to do something different, but the the way it stands today where we sit is what the ordinance allows as I
understand it, unless somebody tells me otherwise. And so your argument is a fair argument that perhaps that that's an issue for the county board. Do they want to change it so that we aren't in this situation? If if indeed they do,
that that's a different discussion, but that's not a remedy that's available to us in the ordinance under an appeal of a staff decision. >> Yeah. >> Do you guys think it would have I don't know was is there any issue that the
fact that the the other there's outlaw A outlaw B? Um, you know, usually out lots I don't I'm not a professional exactly in the category, but usually outlots mean that it can't be built on. And these were these these ones were not outlaws. And
then the fact that I was told I could build on it before I purchased it. And then now somebody that's interested in buying it from me is told differently from the county. So obviously you know where that went. You know what I mean? Um, so I don't know. I guess I just I
don't know. I just really I guess I don't know what you could do if you could do anything if we the neighbor next to us didn't seem to object object when I talked to lot 11 the guy there cuz he had a well apparently that was on my property and he was all for he seemed
to be all for me building on that and I don't I wasn't getting anybody else's any other friction from anybody else and you know Rob the guy that sold it to me he had a for sale sign out there and nobody ever seemed to, you know, notify
anybody of this restriction until all of a sudden this was this document was pulled up out of the blue in the eighth inning and it was just, you know, >> Yeah. I just I just want to um pause here and say that um I know that that um
I also sympathize with the position that you're in and um I respect what John has laid out because what what our task is here today is that we shall review the information that been submitted uh a report from the
department which we have in the provisions of this ordinance and affirm the original decision unless we determine detmin that the decision was arbitrary or capriccious or the decision did not comply with the standards in this ordinance. And I don't think that I
can um answer affirmative in either one of those. And um I think John has expressed and and was, you know, with his comments has has also said the same thing. And um I'm not sure
where the other you know where Sue and Andy you are with this, but I guess my question is in the back of my mind um I'm I'm leaning towards that we're going to be you know upholding the decision because of the very prescriptive nature of what we are given and how we handle
these types of situations. And my question would be to you Chris, can you just reiterate then what the the next step would be if they want to take it the next step further? What what what's what's that process? What does that process look like for the app?
>> Yeah. Yeah, Madam Chair, I can I can do that. And and you know, I I do first want to say to Joe, I know you and I talked on the phone and we had conversations and you know, um this isn't how I wanted this to end up at all. And it just more information came to our attention that we hadn't been
aware of when we had talked. And so I I do apologize for that. Um I wish that hadn't happened the way that it did. But, you know, the decision on this would be such that um it's always appealable to district court. There's a 30-day window for that. Um, I've never
really had it happen before, but I I think there's a possibility that this could be go going through the replat process if the folks in the plat are agreeable to do such thing. And then you could come in and and and
try to get lot 12 to be considered a, you know, a buildable lot. Um, you know, it would have to meet 30,000 square feet, 100 ft wide. Um, I think that might be an option. I know people have talked about that in similar situations of replplatting a plat to try to maybe
um help in situations that would be somewhat similar to this. So I think that would be on the table as well. Um and that would just mean coordination with the with the folks in the plat to to be willing to to to do something along those lines. So those I think
those are the two options that I'm at least that I'm aware of. >> Okay. I just wanted to kind of circle back to that because I think we're at the point where um we need to be making a decision and moving forward. So, >> would there be a variance option for it
at all or without completely replatting the plat or I don't know. I guess I'm not I don't really know what that entitles, but it sounds like >> that would be an interesting to talk about with the county attorney's office and see kind of where what they would lean towards and and that's why I
I've never had that happen before. I've never had that request, you know, I I don't I wouldn't say no. I just couldn't say yes either. So, I think it would be open for at least a discussion to be had and see if that would at least be on the books as an option that you could take. So, we could definitely look into that.
Well, Madam Chair, for the for the record, that would be a a discussion with staff, but ultimately a decision of this board whether or not they'd be willing to grant the variance given the record. >> Mhm. >> Right. At that point in time, so there
couldn't be any that's the right path, right? Because who knows the outcome of that. >> Um I I don't there's more. Go ahead. Madam Chair, I just like to state that I agree with John and you also um looking at the
complete record and I'm to me a complete record is the minutes from the planning commission, the minutes from the county board, both specifically state that lots in block two are to be for building for um are to be used for
um strictly access. to the channel for properties that none of the lots in block two are to be used for building purposes. So that's the planning commission. Then the county board upheld their decision and made
that same restriction in their county board minutes. So I could um I agree with John. I don't see how we could go against the um staff decision. >> And Madam Chair, just a PS to that and
as much as I I am sympathetic uh to the the property owners and I commend you guys for your candandor and your humility. I mean, I I'm impressed. But if we do this or would have done this,
I'm not sure I want staff second-guessing the actions of the of the county board and giving us recommendations that are in contravention of that. That's things start breaking down then. So anyway, my thoughts.
>> Okay. So m madam chair is there further discussion or >> I I think everyone has had a chance to adequately discuss and question and >> so um I believe the um motion would be
uh a motion to affirm the staff decision that lot 12 block 2 first addition to Delta Bay is not a buildable lot. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second. >> Second by Andy. Any further the further
discussion? No. >> Again, I just want to say as part of that motion is that's based on, as I've said before, the the record and what the ordinance requires us to do. Whether or not I would have a different opinion about your situation and what should be
done or what that another remedy um not the prerogative of this board. Correct. There's a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the
motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you for your time. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Is that him? >> Yes. >> I would like to let you folks let everybody know that the applicant is here for the um Mr. the lake for the uh uh variance and the condition use permit over on the commercial uh buildings over
on over by Rice Lake over off of Kairo 12. And so um I I know that you've made a a motion to table the application, but I do think it's within your purview if you so chose to lift that.
>> We would and consider the applications. basically resend John's motion. >> Madam Chair, before we do that, >> um I believe we have two other people in the audience and I'm not sure if they're here for the ordinance change. They are.
So in fairness to them, I'd be willing to consider that for the applicant, but I think these folks have been here the whole meeting. We should proceed to the next agenda item. >> I would concur >> and and then take it up at the end. take take the other. I'm I'm perfectly
okay to stay and and handle the other but after the public hearing. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> So, we're at that public hearing stage. >> All right. >> We're going to set the set the stage and go through. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We will >> jump down to the last item we have on
the agenda, which is an update to the county land use ordinance. Um I'm just going to go into the packet here and kind of give you guys a summary of of where we've been with this and what where we've been. So um an amendment to the land use ordinance was initiated at
the committee the whole meeting with the county board on October 21st of 2025 and the county board authorized a 30-day comment period starting October 21st, 2025 and ended November 21st. During the comment period, a total of nine comments we received are included in the packet tonight. We did receive a letter from
the DNR providing conditional approval of the ordinance and it's included in the packet. We also received comments from the MPCA regarding the septic system um or section article 37 and they identified five additional changes that are required for article 37 related to
septic system. The changes are listed below and they are in a red font and highlighted in yellow in the ordinance. Um and basically it was clarity. we had to we had to just do a little um some verbiage in uh 37.13 C and 37.18B
and then under 37.18C we need to clarify requirements for how um soil or septic professionals will complete soil observations we had the wrong term and 37.21 as far as deleting failing and replacing with non-compliant and then 37.25D 25D had a wrong statute
reference. So it was more housekeeping uh than anything. Unfortunately, we also find or fortunately depending how you look at it, if you remember article 15 related to commercial cannabis use um when they referred to a section in uh the model ordinance that we got from the
office of cannabis management was at 462.367 subdivision 14. Um and it's that's for the cities and townships if they have an ordinance. So it needs to be replaced with 394.36 subdivision one. So um the
next step in the process is the public hearing tonight. Um and then um you will make a recommendation hopefully to the county board and the proposed ordinance amendments. Uh we'll be going to the committee the whole on December 23rd to provide an update to the board and then back to the board again at their regular
meeting on December 30th for their consideration. As uh you'll remember uh we went through uh this when we had at the last meeting. Um nothing has changed as far as what was proposed except for those items that I highlighted um in my
earlier part of the report. I would uh um I think maybe it would make sense at this point to um open up the or the public hearing and get some feedback from the public. >> Sounds great. So, at this time, we will
open up the public hearing. So, anyone who would like to comment on uh these proposed changes can come up to the podium and microphone and state your name and address for the record, please. >> I'm Jerome Brown from 12929 North Young
Lake Road, Mission Township. We live on a natural environment lake and so our comments are tilted in that direction as you'll see. We would urge the committee to look at
11.20 20 A and B, deleting the shoreline vegetation standards that are there for natural environment lakes and then rewriting them into the general
development and recreational lake U ordinance. it. We have I understand that it was explained I think I took it from a newspaper article so I'm sure it's right.
Uh that there would be no differences to the uh natural environment ordinances and that they would remain just as strong under this new uh regulation.
And we totally disagree. The north the uh natural environment lake ordinance calls for protection of and I'll quote it trees, shrubs,
undergrowth and woody um vegetation. As that is taken out of there and sent over to the general development and recreational lake, they now call that
I might get this term wrong, vegetative buffer or vegetation. That's what they took out. Vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone is in the paragraph above is not allowed except for
and there's a big difference between vegetation and trees, shrubs, undergrowth and woody um plant life on a natural environment lake shore
for the purposes of of visual uh effect uh for the purposes of runoff protecting from erosion and other reasons. Uh
we we just urge the committee to look at leave the natural environment regulations as they are where they were intended to protect trees, shrubs, undergrowth, and such
and rewrite anything you'd pleased to put into the other to protect the other lakes. I guess the whole purpose of our input uh is to encourage that. Don't lessen in
any way and don't think that by by not changing that verbiage of from trees, shrubs and and woody stuff that that that is not vegetation. Vegetation could be planting some grass.
A vegetative buffer zone in the a new code could be planting grass. We're saying that if you come to our lake, our natural environment lake and destroy the trees, shrubs, woody vegetation, undergrowth, you should be required to
put back trees undergrowth and woody vegetation, not plant some grass. And I think with a correction to that, by leaving our be crossed out in there, we will accomplish that.
And we urge the committee to look at that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Merry Christmas. And I welcome any questions. I welcome any discussion as to why we feel that. Uh that's a big general statement to say that. And and
we have many many reasons. mostly from history of of going on in our lake that that we would discuss. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Chris. I don't know if there's any clarification or comments. >> You want to make sure nobody else wants
to speak and then we can close the public hearing. And >> is there anyone else who would like to speak? >> You know, if you want to do that individually or collectively? >> We'll do it collectively. >> Okay. Hello, my name is Brenda Sharpier and um 12929 North Young Lake Road in
Mission Township. Um I live on the natural environment lake. It's used extensively by wildlife and it still has about a dozen undeveloped lots around it, most of which are set to change hands in the next decade or so, either through
passing on down um through inheritance or by selling. Um, so I'd like to encourage the board to either keep the extra protections we have now in place and strengthen their enforcement with better oversight or strengthen the language that's being
proposed now to add a vegetated buffer on all lakes so that it will truly protect our vanishing shoreland wildlife habitats. Um, the dispatch quoted a county
representative as saying that current natural environment rules are hard to enforce and that people choosing to live on a small shallow lake like ours are probably not going to be the types to degrade habitat along the shore anyway.
But I'd like to tell you from personal experience that that is just not the case. Um, a couple of years ago we watched land owners on our little lake um make a lot of changes with a a bobcat bulldozer and
bulldozing the shoreline. At first they didn't have a permit to do anything. Um they didn't even know they needed a permit. We told them they needed a permit. They boalked at first but then got one. Um they said they had damage because of
a beaver run and so got a permit to fix that which could have been fixed with a yard of of dirt. Um that's not what happened. Essentially though we complained and others around the lake complained. um they they had a
permit um they overstepped the permit and then I think the county just felt like if it was all said and done their hands were kind of tied and they just couldn't do as much as we had hoped that that could be done. Um, so essentially we're left with a property on this tiny little lake that
is landscaped to look like you're on one of the bigger recreational lakes where the, you know, giant mansions are and the perfectly landscaped lawns right down to the shore. Um, so clearly something is not working and the system
whole as a whole just needs to be strengthened. So when we read that these rules were were proposed to be changed and that the whole area the whole section on natural environment lakes giving us a little bit more protection was going to be deleted. Um we were very
concerned um and we just wanted to speak up on behalf of our little lake and the hundreds of others like it in Crowing County um that I think are very threatened. Um I volunteer for the LON center. I take people out on on tours of
Cross Lake and we all look at all the shorelines and everyone says, "Wow, can loons live where there's rocks all along the shore?" And I always have to say, "Well, no." Um, unfortunately, those land owners, you know, maybe they just
didn't know that they should leave some natural vegetation for the loons. Um and um people are always quite surprised and I so I worry about our little tiny lake and people who just seem to think that um they should make these little lakes
look look like what we see on the bigger lakes. Um so I just wanted to call attention to those concerns here. Um, and I don't want to repeat things that I did write in some written statements um that um unfortunately I screwed up the
deadline and I I thought I had until today to get those written statements in. So I don't know if they're part of your packet. That's why I thought I would stand up here today and and um express my concerns. And basically um as my dad just said um we're concerned that by adding that one line which is line F
to the ordinance for all lakes and it says that after you get a permit for the 30% of your shoreline that you can intensively clear which means take every single stick off of it that we want to require a 70% the rest of the the land
the 70% of that shoreland for 25 ft up would need to be vegetatively buffered. or have a vegetative buffer on it. So what we're saying is that that is so open to interpretation that if you just say vegetated buffer for that extra 70%
that land owners, the people I know, they're nice people, but they're going to look at that and say grass is vegetated buffer. We can mow. We can we can maybe have um we'll maybe leave a shrub or two or maybe a tree or two, but
we'll take everything else off and we'll call that a vegetative buffer. So, what I'm just really saying is just be really careful with that language. Um >> uh Madame Chair, point of order. We're at 5 minutes. >> Oh, sorry. All right. So, I've made my
point, but just encouraging you to please change the language to be much more specific to protect our shoreline. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to comment on the ordinance changes? >> Anyone else in the courtroom? Anyone
online? >> Nobody. >> Okay. I will then bring it back to you, Chris. I don't know if you want to comment and then >> Yeah, I I'll respond. Um I I know Jerome, I've worked with him on a on some stuff and I'm glad to see you're here and doing well. And uh um so
there's two separate things that we're trying to accomplish here. So I'll I'll try to see if I can break them apart. So right now we have vegetative standards for general development and for recreational development lakes and then we have standards for a natural environment lake. So if you look at
under a number one it says intensive vegetative clearing within shore impact zone 1 is not allowed except it's provided under 11.20C which would be the shoreline recreation use area which means you can 30% of your shoreline you could remove the vegetation back 25 ft. That would be the location where you
would maybe people sometimes will build a beach be dock you that's the area where we want to have them kind of do their shoreline activities. This is in response to this is for um basically lots that are undeveloped you know new
lots they their people are coming in and building new on them. So what that means when it says that you cannot clear cut shore and peg zone 1 that means that on a GD lake that's 37 1/2 ft recreational development 50 ft natural environment lake is 75 ft. So there's protected
standards in those areas and this is language that comes out of the state rule that comes from the DNR and so that's what we're using in this in this area. Now when you go down to um standards for natural environment lake uh you go to um number two where it
talks about requirement of a of a shorland buffer of 25 ft landward. Um that is not something that we as a as a as a county could go to somebody on a natural environment lake. could just say they mow the grass to the
water and say you now need to put a 25 ft buffer on. The language in here says to maintain a natural state of a 25 ft buffer. It doesn't give us doesn't say to restore to you know that sort of a thing. And so what could happen with
this section technically is that somebody who was on a natural environment lake could go down to never member B and say with a with with a with a um not having touched their vegetation. It's a it's a a lot that hasn't been built on and say, "Oh, I
only have to have a 25 ft buffer on my lake because that's what you require for a natural environment lake." But on a GD lake, we require 37 1/2 ft. And on natural and a recreational, we require the 50 ft. That's that's the difference what I'm that's the difference that I'm trying to to maybe point out in this
situation. >> Well, u Madam Chair, could I just ask a question about that? Um, but if it exists, they have to maintain it. >> That's what And that would be >> two says right if it if it exists they have to maintain it
>> correct and that's and we would have that same item in number one which is that they are not allowed to intensively vegetate clear shore impact zone one and for our ordinance intensive vegetation clearing is that shore impact zone area or that shoring recreation area that 30%
of the shoring that is your that is a spot where you get to do the intensive adjacent clearing to so to be able to put you know use down by the water's edge. So, >> so Madam Chair, >> with the new proposed
wordage in the ordinance for this, the natural environment lake is actually I mean more restrictive with the new than what it is currently cuz currently they only have to maintain 25 ft.
>> Yeah. And on a GD lake you'd have to maintain 37 and a half or 50 feet on recreation. >> Right. But under the new verbiage that would that it's being proposed for the ordinance. Now, the intensive clearing and all that
is 75 ft. >> Yeah. So, this so this is intended like you said for lots that haven't been for for natural lots >> aren't currently developed. I understand that. So, when they mentioned to go down to F under um C, um this is a situation where somebody
comes into our office, they've got the lawn mowed down to the grass, and they say, "I'd love to build my shore wreck area and put my beach in." This provision would allow us now to say, "You can do that, but you need to restore vegetation on the 70% back to 25 ft." We can talk about the verbiage.
Maybe vegetated buffer isn't the right language to use. We do have a definition ordinance about a about a no maintenance buffer that is in our ordinance. We could definitely put that in there. Um, you know, and uh but um just from from
that standpoint, that's what that is trying to accomplish. So the one so the so this section is trying to maintain when we already have the vegetation on the shore. F what that is trying to do is to require to get more vegetation on
the shoreline in lie of them creating what they want as their shore wreck area which would be typically be a potential beach area or where they might want to put a small patio 120 foot patio those sorts of activities that's the difference um that's the difference
between the two >> so so Madam Chair Chris um so going back to how it came to us was we want to try to do something for recreational development
um in GD lakes, right? GD and RD lakes, right? To try to get a buffer, >> more vegetation, >> right? Right. That was how it came to us. Yep. >> And so we were going to consolidate them with no intention to degrade our standards for natural environment lakes.
Um that that's >> not something we want to do. The the problem with maybe consolidating that is um and we've had this conversation. If it goes forward and the county board says we're not willing to do 25%, we
want 10%. >> 10 ft >> 10 feet, I'm sorry, 10 10 feet, not 25 ft. Then it in effect would have the uh outcome of degrading the standard for natural environment lake because we
grouped it together. Now, we said you don't have to maintain 25 ft. You have to maintain 10 >> if it if it went if it went >> if it went that way. >> Yep. >> And that's I I just from listening to the first committee of the hole and so on, I I there's always a negotiation,
right? And so, um I'm not sure uh personally I don't want to do something that's going to degrade a natural environment lake. >> Correct. And I I don't I I honestly personally don't think there will be enough votes at the county board to do something that would degrade a natural
environment lake. >> I'd agree. >> So, um you know, not only just listening to the input. So, my only question is um uh how do we en ensure that that's the me if that's how we feel? How do we ensure that's the message to the county
board out of here? because to put it together just to make it easier to put it together and have the unintended consequence of degrading a natural environment lake is would be a mistake. So I think you know an option could be
um you know if the if the board the county board maybe thinks 25 ft might be too much say for a GD or an RD they might maybe they find 10 ft more more palatable maybe I still think we could have that 25 ft you know the recommendation coming across that 25 ft
would be the number though for natural environment lakes would be the the right buffer on that so I think you could do maybe maybe both and you know and maybe you know based on the feedback that we're hearing you know, maybe it's something that um when we get up into, you know, into this
section, um, you know, could include language, you know, for, um, I'm trying to think where we could put some language in 11.20 to reflect the conversation about, you know, um, trees,
shrubs, and low ground cover as well in there. So maybe that's something we could propose to add up here into this. And then um but this is my perspective on it. And um right now, you know, we have a lot of
shoreline in this county that's mowed down to the W's edge because it's that's a historic been there for decades and decades and decades. Um, and uh, I, you know, we would be one of the first counties in the state. I've had the DNR call me and have conversations because
they think this is great. Um, they really would be, they're very excited about the idea that a county like Crowing would would have an regulatory where we'd require buffers to be in place. Um, they're not really all that worried about the depth. They just think having a buffer, you know, they
mentioned even, you know, like 10 ft would be great. I think they're that but I do agree that I think you know we could you know make a recommendation that you know the national environment lakes would be at that 25 ft for sure um and then you know maybe the GD and the RD lakes might be more of a 10-ft buffer
might be more because at the end of the day we can have you know great ideas and we can um want to you know do all these ideas but we have to get three votes from the county board and that's the you know that's the thing and so I what I what I get concerned about is that you
know this budget. This res this restoration part that we have an F I think is a is a big improvement for the county and I I I would hate to lose that over um when we get where the board might not be might might this might seem like a little bit too much for some of
our county board members. So, I'm trying to figure out how do we how do we you know um find that maybe middle ground where we can all agree on something. >> Yeah. Um Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. Um so I I like the objective of the um RD
and GD likes right general development, recreational development. So I I like the proposal on all of that. Um I just am not wanting to put at risk degrading natural
environment lakes. And so I think to your point of trying to get three votes at the county board, if we keep it all packaged together and somebody wants less of a buffer, um you're probably going to get out of you're potentially going to get out of the county board
nothing, >> right? Because the votes that might support it might go away because they say we're degrading natural environment lakes and we're not going to vote for that. So I my proposal would be a
recommendation that would say we support the language to add the buffer for recreational development general development lakes and the 25% but should that number change we want to maintain
the 25 foot buffer for natural environment lakes that that would be my proposal as a recommendation to our board. So that then there's room to if there's a negotiation that's fine but it's clear that we're on record not
wanting to degrade natural environment lakes. >> Okay. >> Is that a reasonable >> I I can communicate that to the board. >> Madam chair. >> Yes. >> Chris I'm looking at what the new proposed verbiage is and I'm looking at number three. This is limited clearing
of trees and shrubs cutting. And then it goes on it. It says as well providing a view to the water from the principal dwelling site in shore impact zone one is allowed provided that now can we add
to that a 25 ft buffer is to be maintained. Can we somehow add that verb because then it lumps all three of them together. You you you you can you can sue, but I think Chris's point will be
we're not there there's not a confidence level that the county board is going to agree to 25 ft. Some people may want less. >> Yeah. >> And uh and some some quite frankly may want none. Right. >> We have none
>> from the committee of the whole um heard that discussion. So the problem is if we lump it all together and then they say, "Well, let's make that number 10 ft." Well, then what the 25 ft we have for a natural environment lake just went away.
And uh and so that's where I'm at. Not getting into words smithing the whole thing, but just the idea of we support the idea of a >> of a buffer for RD and GD lakes. Um, we would propose 25 ft, but if that number
would change, we'd want to be on record to the county board saying that we do not want to in that any change they make to degrade the standard for natural environment lakes. >> Sure. >> That that would be my recommendation if that makes sense to you. >> That makes sense.
>> Okay. Are there any other comments about any other parts of the ordinance that we brought up as far as just making sure we're clear about the resort section, clear about the the septic section? Um, you know, based on some of the comments that we heard tonight, um, is there
interest in when we look at F, instead of a vegetated buffer, we use the term in the ordinance of a no maintenance, you know, buffer. We could we could, you know, maybe that's what you wanted to use that terminology there instead of a vegetated buffer. And at least we have a definition in the ordinance of what that
would consist of. Um, which would be which would be more, you know, something that, you know, vegetated buffer might might be a too general of a of a term to use in this situation. >> But, >> Madam Chair, >> the one of the letters and one of the
people making comments did bring up I think a good point in terms of definitional issues related to vegetative could be grass. you know, if we've got it one shot at this, I' let's
my proposal or recommendation is let's let's be more specific in terms of natural plants, not mowing, etc., etc. I don't want somebody putting in sod and thinking that they've just remediated something. So, I I think we should be
real clear definitionally on on what we mean by vegetated. I concur with that because otherwise it means a lot of things to a lot of different people. >> I I agree. And and Madam Chair Chris, don't we have a definitions section?
>> We do. >> And so we could have a definition of vegetated buffer in that section and wouldn't require us to change this part of the ordinance >> and to actually spell it out so it's quite clear. >> Yeah. So, we we don't have a definition
for what a vegetative buffer would be. >> We could we could, but I'll I'll just tell you what we have and maybe that'll maybe that will work or maybe we need to amend that as well. Um, that's a good point. >> So, here it is. So we have a definition
of the ordinance that talks about a no maintenance buffer which is a strip of land and repairing parcel adjacent to a public water upon which vegetation has be maintained in its natural state and not be mowed, cut or removed shorter than 8 inches in height and is consistent with the standard set forth in the department's shoreline rapid
assessment model. So, so then to Andy's point, could we uh Madam Chair, if I could, could we substitute um vegetated buffer for a no more buffer and that fits that definition? >> No, I think we can make that recommendation to the board.
>> Y >> that works. Yep. >> So, uh, >> and again, so the the the no maintenance buffer would apply to trying to restore, you know, current,
you know, lawns to the lake scenario. You know, the no that wouldn't apply to the other, you know, the other part is you you need to keep what's on your shoreline except for that 30% of where you get your um your vegetated area and then that's where, you know, we're going to maintain trees, shrubs, grasses, that sort of a thing. Yeah.
>> So the this part is just when we're trying to get somebody to stop mowing their grass and to leave start to starting to grow some of buffer of native vegetation, you know, native grasses along the shoreline. >> Yeah, >> Madam Chair. So yes, and I don't mean to belabor this, but I'm just trying to put
on the hat of a sneaky property owner and maybe avoid issues. So if we use this definition approach in this set aside segmented area, are we allowing would they be allowed to
put in like rip wrap and then let weeds and stuff grow around the rip wrap or does we're talking natural right down to the water's edge? >> So when So we have an ordinance that describes when you can put in rip wrap and when you can't. >> Okay. We've added some more clarity to
that in the ordinance in the last year and a half where there wasn't clarity in the past as much as we should have. It's important to remember that we didn't regulate rip wrap until about four years ago. And so there was no regulations. You could put RIP wherever you wanted. >> And so now um RIP wrap can only go in places where there's proven and shown
erosion and we do a joint site visit with our staff and the DNR hydraologist to verify that. And that's you know that's the only time when you can use um you know use rip wrap. >> Okay. So, and and rip wrap is one of those things that it comes up on the shore a little bit, you know, I mean, and but it's primarily, you know, into
the into the water and and if this is a situation where the buffer would would be required because of of a permit activity, then uh then they would, you know, have to have that vegetative buffer behind the rip wrap if that's what was approved or maybe that was done
in years past maybe and and stuff. It wouldn't preclude you from still having to >> Okay. >> having to put that buffer in. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> So, are we ready for a motion to make a recommendation to the county board or is there more items to discuss?
>> I believe we are. >> Okay. So, I I would move that we would recommend the um land use ordinance updates to the county board with uh two notations. the the first that we would recommend that we change vegetated
buffer to a no maintenance buffer following the definition that's already in the ordinance and two that uh should the county board choose to change the uh I don't know exactly how to word this
but the footage of the suggested buffer that um this uh board would recommend that we not degrade the current standard for natural environment lakes.
If that makes sense. >> It does. >> It does. >> And >> there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> There's a second. Further discussion. >> Not. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thanks for all your work on that. Thank you for your input. Okay, so we're going to circle back to um Lakes Premier Storage Dearwood LLC. Is that correct?
>> Correct. >> And that is for variance and conditional use. >> We need to resend John's motion. >> I think I think uh Madam Chair, procedurally we should make a motion to uh to take that item off the table so we could act. >> Start off the circle around back with
that. So, we'll uh I will move that we take the uh lakes um premier storage uh variance and cup off the table. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second. Further discussion. Hearing
none. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries. Now we will call Lakes Premier Storage Dearwood LLC um for the variance and conditional use permit request.
>> Good evening. >> Uh evening uh Bronson Lake uh 22609 O'Brien Road, Brainer, Minnesota. >> Thank you. And Chris, can you read the request? >> I can. Welcome back. Thanks. running.
>> The uh the A clinic tonight is Lakes Premier Storage uh Dearwood LLC with a partial number of 59180601 with a physical address of 22305 K Road 12 Deerwood. This is located in Deerwood Township, section 18 is located on Rice Lake, which is natural environment lake
with 150 ft setback. There's two requests before you tonight. One is a variance for a property line setback of 70 ft for 100 ft is required for a commercial storage building to a residential property to construct a 22,120t commercial storage building with 26
units. And second, a conditional use permit for the commercial storage facility to allow one 22,120 uh ft commercial storage building with 26 units proposed in per lot is at 21%. So, um, this is a change from the last
plan that you saw, um, when when the applicant was here. Um, I'm going to go down to the survey and have you take a look at that. So, you remember last time the building was pushed back more to the east and then there was another building kind of in this area here. Um, things have been consolidated into the one
building. Now, um he's proposing to meet a 70ft set back here, still maintaining the set back to uh to Rice Lake and um uh with the I think it was the 20 26
units within the building. Um, one of the things I just want to point out that as far as a conditional use permit, um, there is a conditional use that was approved last month, which you guys basically said proceed if you're able to purchase the property next door and move, you know, somehow move that
boundary line so that you meet the 100 foot setback. Um, and so if you decide to approve this one tonight, um, there's there's not a condition in the potential conditions that we put in, but we would recommend you would put a condition and say this cup supersedes the previous
variance and that the previous um, uh, the previous CUP is null and void and this is now the controlling permit for the property. Um just a point of reference as well, Dearwood Township, we received um a letter from them and saying um they had no recommendation for
you. So we did hear that from them. We did get one um comment letter that we received and um it was received in our office on the 15th and it's it was from the neighbors who had um concerns over a disagreement with where the property
boundary line is. believe that would be on the west side. Did you get that email that we sent out? >> Uh, no, sir. So, there was there was a they just had a a a question over, you know, not an agreement with the property boundary.
So, and it I I I see that there are the names on there, but the property to the west is in a trust with Richard Harrison. Correct. Yep. So, I don't know if these are family members or trustees of the trust, but they didn't represent
themselves as a trust. And I looked to the east and there really wouldn't be any there because it turns into um as you go up on the north side by 12, that becomes rightway. The other side of the road is is Rice Lake. So, this had to be the boundary. So, I'm just um just wanted to point that out to the board.
At the same time, you know, there may be a potential uh dispute, but we haven't received a survey that would dispute the one that has been completed by the applicant. And so, I think that would be the um driving, you know, um survey we'd use tonight. And if for some reason a
survey popped up that there was a dispute and they couldn't agree, that's the reason why they have quiet title actions and you go to a judge and and get where that boundary is figured out. the setbacks and the approval I don't think is is you know um required I guess that everybody agree on
where that line is because we have a survey in in the packet completed by a registered surveyor that says this is where the boundary is. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'd recommend holding a public hearing for both the variance and the CUP at the same time. >> Okay. >> Is there anything that you'd like to
add? >> Uh no ma'am. >> Okay. Um any questions for staff? Chris, basically what it comes down to is it's a civil issue between him and the adjoining property owner which will not I mean we don't get involved in that.
Ours is to see you know our action is to let's take action on what this survey has in front of us. >> Um madam chair >> yes >> but a question relative to that. So let's say this is a hypothetical maybe let's say that the survey that's in
front of us is wrong. the surveyor made a mistake, it's wrong, and we take action, issue a variance, etc. based on that survey, and then it comes back that it's it's wrong. Would the applicant have to come back before us then? And uh
>> I would I would say that >> because we base it on the survey, right? the applicant would have to come back to you if they could not meet the 70 foot setback and they and they and um they would not have to come back if they could meet even if the let's say you could still meet 70 ft and 22,120 they
wouldn't have to come back to you but if all a sudden comes back and now the line moved 5T and >> and now it's 65 ft well then he has to come back and visit with you again. Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. But based on the what we show for building envelope, there is
room to maneuver if there is a discrepancy. >> Yeah. I'm not suggesting that here. I'm just saying hypothetically, we'd say it's a civil matter, but if we based something on a survey that's wrong and they couldn't meet the variance, they would have >> The only the only thing I would caution
is that that would then provide license to everybody who wants to get a variance. their neighbor just says, "I just don't think that line's right." So, if we have a survey done by a surveyor and we don't have any information from the neighbor showing that there's anything different by their surveyor, I think what we've got is
>> correct. >> Yeah. M madam chair, I'm not suggesting anything relative to this case. I was responding to Sue. It's a civil thing. I was just talking about could there be a scenario where if the survey that's presented to us is wrong. I'm just asking as I said hypothetically.
>> Yeah. Yeah. There could be a reason to actually the county have to take action >> potentially. Y >> potentially. Yep. >> Okay. >> But I would open to the public just to verify that >> nobody here. >> I public testimony. There is no one in the um courtroom to testify in person. I
do believe there is no one online. So bring it back to the board for um >> any further discussion and action on these items. I'm willing to support the variance. >> Okay. Go ahead. If you'd like to put that in the form of a motion, that would
be great. Um, I would move approval of the variance for a property line setback of 70 ft where 100 ft is required uh for a commercial storage building to residential property to construct one 22,120
ft commercial storage building with 26 units. Um, and I don't believe there are any >> conditions for the variance. >> We didn't recommend conditions for the variance. We had that with the cup. and uh with the uh survey that's pres been
pres presented and the findings of fact that are in the staff packet. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Well, second. >> The second. Uh any further discussion hearing? None. Before we vote, I need to um clarify a few things with you or
verify. Uh do you understand what is being approved tonight with this variance? >> Yes, ma'am chair. Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of their approval? >> Yes, Madam Chair. >> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> Yes, Madam Chair.
>> And do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, height, or location, must be approved by this board. This means that you 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, madam chair. >> Okay, great. With that, we will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Now, the conditional use permit. >> Madam Chair, I have the recommended conditions from staff up on the screen. very similar to the last conditional use permit that was approved for the property. The only change I would recommend would be condition number 10 that would say this conditional use
permit supersedes any previously approved condition use permits for this property. Any previous cup are null and void and this new cup is the governing permit >> with that addition. Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Madam Chair,
>> yes. I would move, if there's no discussion, um I would move approval of the conditional use permit for a commercial storage facility to allow one 22,120t commercial storage building with 26
units per the survey that's been presented with the 10 conditions adding number 10 and the findings of fact in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> A second. Any further discussion?
If not, uh before we take final action on your conditional use permit application, I need to verify three items. You understand what's being approved tonight? >> Yes, Madam Chair. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes, Madam Chair. >> And do you understand what is being approved tonight is final. Any future
changes to what is being approved tonight must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes, madam chair.
>> Okay, with that, we'll proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you. >> This will probably be the last time we see a >> I'm going to miss you guys. Excellent.
>> Thank you guys for letting me come in. And >> if we see you again, it won't be good. I don't think >> Thanks. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Okay. You're persistent. >> Matters not on the agenda. >> You go ahead. That's yours. Yeah. Absolutely who this person is, but
>> Oh, you left your pen. Uh matters not on the agenda. So for next month, we'll be doing on-site a little bit different. We can't we aren't going to do them on because the this be the supposed to be the third. Right. >> Right. >> That'd be but we're going to go back a week. We're going to go back a week and
do them on the Monday the 29th. >> So Monday the 29th is going to be on sites. >> December 29th. December 29th. >> December 29th. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Right here. >> December 29th we're going to do on site. >> Yeah. Because usually we would have done it >> I thought we were going to be doing it a
week later. Yeah. >> Well, the problem is that we we schedule >> starting run. Yeah. So, we we decided to go back instead of go forward. So, >> okay. >> Um >> I have a question. >> I asked Nichollet and she didn't want to come in on the New Year's. I don't know why. >> Well, that's disappointing.
>> I was like I was like, how dedicated are you to your job? >> So, we're going to have on sites on the 29th. >> 29th. >> Okay. >> There's only three on sites to do, so there's not too many to look at. We have What do we have for applicants, Stacy? >> How many applications do we have? >> I'll have to change another appointment.
>> I have an appointment, too. getting in all these year end appointments. >> We got two two plats, five variances, and a one land use map amendment, one luma. So, >> I'll need to email you and let you know if I can change an appointment. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Let's just say I plan on being there
depending on what happens. My mom is dying, so I'm sorry to hear that. >> I understand that. >> Don't know what funeral's going to be. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Sorry to hear that. >> Understand. >> Yeah. >> So, hope she goes and has some Hawaiian pizza. Maybe she's up in heaven. She'll have some Hawaiian pizza. Her favorite
pizza, right? >> She's been hanging on since Monday. >> Okay. >> So, >> strong constitution >> is >> Yeah, >> she's just too unrated to >> Well, maybe you set the 2026 schedule otherwise the same though after that is
the 2026 schedule the same as our routine, right? Rhythm right now >> on Thursdays. >> It'll be it will be. Yeah, we we have one we'll have one change around the 4th of July. >> Yeah. >> For that one typically. Um, one thing we added to the calendar was to put a final plat submittal deadline in so that we
make because right now we kind of get these final plats. They could kind of get dropped off and hey, we want to be on the agenda for next week. It's like we haven't had a chance for the surveyor to look at it, our recording staff to look at it and and just to verify that all the boxes are checked. So, we're going to have >> only three on sites. >> Only three on sites.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> We'll still be back by 11:45. >> So, we got one in. >> That was going to be my question. If I change my morning appointment, if they would happen to have something in the afternoon, it would work. >> Yeah. So, we got we're going to be >> a healthy return.
>> Are are these the are these the ones that we're going to? >> What time's your appointment? >> No, these are these are the >> Oh, that's right. >> Yep. So, we're going to we have we have one in you know, you know what messes the world up is Island Lake. So, um we're heading to Deerwood and then we got um Island Lake Road up in Ross Lake
Township and then we've got one on Sorenson Lake for a >> lot of road miles. It' be a lot of driving for three applications. >> Okay.