[clears throat] Good afternoon. Welcome planning commission and board of adjustment meeting. It's 3:00 on July 16th, 2026. Please rise for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of
America and to the stands nation. Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> If you haven't already done so, if you'd please silence your cell phones and if
you are online joining us, please make sure that you have muted your microphone until you are ready to speak. Please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first on item on the agenda is roll call. Rockin >> here. >> John O >> here.
>> Sumasi >> here. Andy Larson here >> and I am Rebecca Bast. The next item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda? >> If not, I would ask for a motion to approve the agenda. >> Madame Chair,
>> yes. >> Like to make a motion to approve the agenda as is. >> There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? And there is a second. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Same sign.
The agenda is approved. The next item is to approve the minutes and findings of fact for the meeting held on June 18th, 2026. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes and findings of fact. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second.
>> There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I. I. >> Those same sign. >> The minutes are approved. Today we have two items of old business and 12 items
of new business. So we greatly appreciate your patience. Our procedure is when we call your application, you will be admitted to the meeting if you are online or if you are in person, please come to the table in the front, have a seat, and state your name and address for the record. We then will
have uh Nichollet from our staff read your request into the record. We 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. And today we have two public
testimony opportunities. One is in person and the other one is online. If you are online and wish to speak to an application, please use your hand icon on your computer 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 and we do time the testimony periods. Uh please do
not repeat what someone else has said. And please do not read your emails or letters that have already been sent. Everyone who wishes to give testimony will be have an have an opportunity to do so, but once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it. We
will then bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Our rules of conduct are please be respectful. For the applicant, this means to sit quietly during the public testimony period. And for the audience, it means to do the same for
the applicant as they respond to your testimony. All questions and statements are to be directed to this board or members of the staff and not to the applicant. Anyone that I feel is being disrespectful or not following these
rules will be asked to leave or will be disconnected from the median online. Our decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment recommend request. We make a recommendation to the county board for a variance,
conditional, or interim use permit request. We make the final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do that, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to the property and examine the site and look at what's
being planned. Prior to attending this meeting, we each read every letter and email that is submitted and we then hear public testimony and we listen to the applicant. I would like to pause just for a moment and thank the public for and let them know that we greatly
appreciate your correspondence and input and we have all read the submitted comments. In addition to that, we have a worksheet that we use to help summarize the findings of fact and preliminary findings have been included in the staff packet. Next, I will ask each board
member if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet. Sue, >> I have. >> Rock, >> I have. >> Andy, >> I have. >> John, >> I have. >> And I have as well. Uh, now we will go
to our first applicant of this afternoon and that would be Joan Brand for a variance request. >> Hello, this is Dan Carlson. I'm representing Joan Brand. >> And can you state your address for the record as well, please?
>> Address is 4448 Quant Lane, Hugo, Minnesota 55038. >> Thank you very much. And Nicola, can you read the request into the record, please? Yes, Madame Chair. The property owner is Joan Brand, authorized agent Dan
Carlson. Parcel number is 50110621. The address of the property is 16243 Brighton Point Road in Dearwood, Minnesota, and this is in Bay Lake Township. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new 1,65q
ft dwelling and to allow a holding tank for the septic system. To allow this project, the applicant is requesting a variance for a north property line setback of 9 ft where 10 ft is required, a south property line setback of 8 feet
where 10 feet is required, a lake setback of 46 feet to the dwelling where 100 feet is required. and to allow a type two septic system, a holding tank where a type one septic is required.
This property is located on Bay Lake, a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback. This is off of Brighton Point Road just east of County Road 10. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland uses.
This application was discussed at the June 18th public hearing at which time the board decided to table the application to obtain additional information regarding the septic system. I'll discuss more on that in just a moment. The existing home is 32 feet from Bay
Lake. The proposal at the June 18th meeting was a new dwelling with a lake set back right at 32 feet, the north property line set back of 7 feet and a south property line setback of 9 ft. The proposal has since changed pushing the
house back to 46 feet from Bay Lake instead of um the 32 and instead of 7 feet from the north property line. Let me zoom in here. instead of seven feet from the north property line, they are now proposing
nine and um eight feet on the south as well. On page 22 of your packet, there's an email from Tom Atenson, who is a licensed septic professional who designed and installed the holding tank. Um Tom, in Tom's email, he stated that a
type one septic system cannot be installed on this property due to a shallow well setback of 100 ft for the drain field. Just as a reminder from last month, this um area right here, the 33 feet in width, is a road rightway for a public
landing that was part of the plat. The parcel was platted in 1924 and it is narrower and shallower than um our ordinance would require for lots today. Noting some on-site comments from the board, the shoreline is rip wrapped. Um
additional vegetation plantings would be beneficial. The increased sideyard encroachment remains a concern and the site has significant storm water issue. A comment was received from the township on June 18th recommending disapproval. They advised that the house be shifted to align with the setback of the home to
the southeast which is approximately 15 ft. An updated comment from the township was received on July 15th recommending disapproval again as they stated on the 18th they advised that the house be shifted to align with the neighbors. I called and spoke with Don as the survey
was updated and um he's the township supervisor for Bay Lake. I spoke with him this morning and I sent him the updated survey and um he he was he felt better about the setback being at 14 ft being a line, but he did want me to
mention that a new deep well could be constructed with the new home to accommodate for a potential drain field for a type one system. No comments were received from other agencies or the public. And if the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the four
following conditions. A land use permit be approved by land services prior to construction. An erosion and sediment control plan be submitted at the time of permitting. A storm water plan submitted at the time of permitting meeting all of article 30 sorry 41 standards. And once
construction is complete, a final asbuilt survey be submitted. I can answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Nichollet, doesn't anyone have questions for Nichollet at this time? >> This time. >> And Dan, do you have anything that you would like to add?
>> You'll need >> I do not. >> You do not. Okay. Um then at this point, we will open up the um application to public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll
check online. I don't believe there's anyone there either. So, we would bring it back to the board for further discussion and action. >> Madame Chair, [clears throat] I guess one of my concerns is with a holding tank, and this maybe Chris, you can help
me with this one. What would prevent that's just maybe it'll never happen but if that septic tank gets is full and overflows from how can we or is there a way we can
prevent any like runoff from that septic tank going into that landing then that drainage ditch which goes right into Bay Lake. I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure if it'll would ever happen, but it could.
>> Um, Madam Chair, the a holding tank is is a fairly common occurrence on lots like this. I mean, this is a small lot that's 6,500 square f feet, so there's not a lot of room on this lot. Um, they do have, you know, alarms on them so that you're aware of when it gets to the point of where um you have it's it's not like the alarm is full and it's going to
overflow. I mean, it gives you there's a little bit of margin in there so you have some time to to contact, you know, a maintainer to come get it pumped out, but there's also a requirement if you have a holding tank, you have to have a contract with a maintainer and and so that you so we know that you can have that consistently pumped out and on a on
a need basis. So, um, with the with the controls that we have in place um, and the size of that lot and location of that, well, I'm I'm comfortable with the holding taken that in that location. So I'm just wondering would it be could we place a
condition that there'd be a burm along here? So if this ever you know along here somehow so if that ever because I'm just you know if they're on vacation and let's just say something happened and
the contin water continues to run in the house there nobody's there to monitor an alarm. I'm just looking at >> typically that's going to go backwards. So if it once that tank gets full, they're sealed pretty tight. I mean, there's not going to be, you know, it's pretty it's it's actually going to go
back up. It'll back up into the house and that that's where they'll they'll find a wet basement versus >> having it in the yard because I mean, it's just a concern that I had because I, you know, the last thing I want to do is approve something, then all of a sudden >> an overflow runs into the lake. >> It's it's not ideal, but um but I think
this is the best solution for this problem. That answered that question for me. Thank you. >> Any other discussion? >> Madam Chair, can we bring up the conditions, please? >> Yes. Potential conditions are on page 39
of your packet, Madam Chair. >> So, uh, Madame Chair and and the board. Um I noted in the DRT meeting uh discussion about uh impervious greater than 20% and perhaps requiring a no more
no mo buffer and um our on-site also noted a significant storm water issue. So, I would like to propose adding condition five to require a 10-ft no maintenance
shoreline buffer must be established on 70% of the shoreline. The no maintenance buffer must be established within one year of variance approval unless there's objection from a board member. >> Everyone okay with that? It seems very
reasonable and prudent. I >> agree. Okay. Any further discussion? >> Could we put the findings up, please? >> Findings of fact are on page, let's see here, >> 37. Madam
>> 37. I have a couple additions that I would like to add. Um, it's actually an addition to an existing finding on question four. >> Mhm. Um the very last finding, you know, the combination of narrow lot width, limited buildable area, and existing
development pattern. I'd like to have added and the location of an existing shallow well prohibits the ability to install install a type one septic system. Add that to condition four on finding three and condition six on
finding two. >> Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, if it's okay, I think we would update the township recommendation to um a number after uh at the bottom to say that we we'll just make a note that we made a phone call and talked to Don this morning and that they're okay with the setback but weren't in favor of the
>> holding tank. We'll make that update too. Okay, we can do that >> to include that would be important, I think, too. >> Yeah, Madame Chair. >> Yes, >> to Chris's point. However, uh we have a recommendation on July 14th
from the town board that's signed by the supervisors and a singular supervisor can't supersede the board's recommendation. So, I think we could note that Don said that, but the board rec
that makes sense. Absolutely. Yep. >> Thanks, John. >> Any further discussion? Not we can entertain action on this application request. >> Madame chair. >> Yes.
>> I would move approval of the variance requests for the north property line setback of 9 ft where 10 is required. The south property line setback of 8 ft where 10 is required. The lake setback of 46 feet where 100 ft is required. and
a type 2 septic system holding tank where a type one is required for the purpose of constructing a 1,65q ft dwelling with a holding tank subject to the five conditions as we amended this
evening and based on the survey and the staff report that's been submitted. >> I'll second that. We have a motion on the floor. >> Uh, and I should add end the revision to the findings effect. I forgot that. >> I was just going to say that.
>> Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Um, further discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor of this motion. Before we do vote, I would need to Dan just double check with you to make sure that Do you understand what is
being approved tonight? >> I do. Thank you. >> Okay. And do you understand the conditions that we have discussed that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes, I do. >> And do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services
department before construction begins? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size or height or location, must be approved by this board. This means that you would be
required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what's been approved by this board. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. We will then proceed with the
vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. Uh our next uh applicant would be Stephen Smith Sally Schmidz
with a variance request application. >> Good afternoon. >> Hi there. >> Good afternoon. >> And if you'd state your name and address for the record, please. I am Steven Schmidtz and >> Sally Schmidz
>> at 14269 Maym Lane in Dearwood. >> Thank you very much. Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? Yes, madame chair. Uh tonight, um we have property owner Steven Sally Schmidz, parcel number 502000
637. The address is 14269 Meghan Lane in Deerwood and this is in Bay Lake Township. The request is um the applicants propose a complete tearown and reconstruction of an existing
non-conforming dwelling on Bay Lake. Um new construction includes a 1,956 square foot I'm sorry, Hanks Lake. >> Hanks Lake. Um the construction includes a 1,956qt
dwelling and a 443 ft deck. To allow this, the applicant is requesting a variance for a 68 foot setback from Hanks Lake where 100 ft is required for the proposed dwelling and a lake setback of 67 ft uh to Hanks Lake
for the proposed deck. And I do want to point out that this is a correction to what is listed within your staff report. Within the staff report, it lists a 67 set foot setback for the house and dwelling. The dwelling is at 68. The
deck is proposed to be at 67. Um, this property, like I said, is located on Hanks Lake, a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback. Megan Lane is off of Megan Road, which is north of County Road 18
down here. And then you have uh State Highway 6 that is off here to the west or sorry, the east. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. This application was discussed at the June 18th public hearing, at which
time the board decided to table the application and allow the applicant to re-evaluate shifting the home further landward. On page 47 of your packet is the certificate of survey. Um the first proposal at the June 18th
public hearing, the applicants proposed a 57 foot setback from Hanks Lake. And since that meeting, the applicants have gone back to the drawing board and are now proposing a lake setback of 68 feet to the proposed new dwelling. And this
pink right here is the dwelling. This is the 68 ft here. The green is the proposed deck area, a cumulative 443 square ft with that lake setback of 67. Scroll down here.
The existing home is currently at 49 ft from Hanks Lake. Um noting some on-site comments from the board. The property has a large building envelope. Home could be built further from the lake. Neighboring homes are set
further back from the proposed location. The shoreline is stable with healthy vegetation and existing ice ridge. A comment was received from the township on June 18th recommending disapproval. They noted that the proposal involves a scrape and rebuild on a property with a
substantial building envelope and they would prefer to see a new home constructed within that building envelope. The township submitted another comment after seeing the revised survey on July 15th recommending approval of the application as well as suggesting a
condition that the existing detached garage is to never be removed. No comments were received from other agencies or the public. The applicants did submit a comment to the board on their behalf. In summary, the comment states that the applicants have returned
with a revised proposal after considering the board's earlier feedback. Since their existing cabin must be replaced due to severe water damage and mold, they are seeking a variance to build a new home further from the lake than the current structure. However, if they are un they
are unable to meet the full 100 foot setback due to the location of the existing detached garage. After re-evaluating the property, adjusting the design, and researching neighboring setbacks and similar approved variances, they now propose placing the new cabin at 68 ft
from the lake, about 20 ft further back than the existing home, and consistent with the character of the surrounding properties. They believe this revised plan best balances a reduced variance, site limitations, and preservation of mature mature trees. They respectfully
request approval of the variance request. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the four following conditions. A land use permit be approved by land services prior to construction. An erosion and sediment control plan
submitted at the time of permitting. a storm water plan submitted at the time of permitting meeting all of article 41 standards and once construction is complete a final asbuilt survey. I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you, Nichollet. Any questions for
staff? Do you have anything that you'd like to add at this time? >> Uh, no. Other than thanks for giving us the opportunity to come back and hopefully you see that we worked hard to accommodate what we're all trying to accomplish. >> Thank you. Thank you.
Uh uh then we will open up this request for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll turn to online. And I don't believe there's anyone there either. So, we will bring it back to the board for further
discussion and uh potential action on this request. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. Um I I would just have a comment and I would want to amend the findings in three areas if we could. >> Go ahead.
>> So the the first comment I'd have is um I appreciate that you were listening last month and revised the proposal. Um it's further back from the lake. It's a smaller footprint. And I want to compliment you on your uh July 9th
email. We get a lot of input. It was very well done, very focused on the the facts of the situation which are most helpful to us because in the end we have to base it on findings of facts. So I want to commend you for that and thank
you. If we could bring up the findings [cough] >> on page 62. [clears throat] >> Um the the first change is to uh finding number three. The second finding I would
like to uh amend that to read [snorts] the owner's revised plan relocates the dwelling further from the lake compared to the previous placement utilizing the building envelope with the limitation of the existing garage improving compliance
while maintaining reasonable use. [snorts] on finding number uh five. Trying to find this here. Hang on a second. I had the finding changed from the last
issue because it had the wrong square footage. >> Madame chair, I believe John is referring to the second bullet on finding number five um where it states 2,754 square ft which was the first
>> original proposal I think with the attached garage since has reduced. >> So we need to reflect the right square footage. >> We will do so. And I think also in finding three we need to reflect that the impervious actually increased
slightly. So uh my proposal is that that now read the project has a minimal increase to the impervious surface uh to reflect that. And then the final is that uh we have township recommendation of approval on 714.
And that's all madam chair. >> Thank you for those changes. Any other discussion? Not we can entertain action on this item. >> Madam chair. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to
approve the variance for Lake Setback who 67 feet where 100 feet is required to propose dwelling and deck to construct a 1,956qt dwelling and a 443 ft deck um based on the revised findings
uh loc in the staff report and the five conditions in the staff report with along with the certificate of survey submitted and the on-site conducted. Second. >> There's a motion in the a second. Is there further discussion
>> hearing? None. Before we take final action on your variance, I need to verify four items with you. You do understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> And do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Yes. And you understand that you must obtain
permits now from the land services department before construction begins? >> Yes. >> And you understand that what is being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, hydro location, must be approved by this board. And this means that you would be
required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with that request. and staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes. >> Okay. With that, then we will proceed to
vote. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We'll move into new business then. And um our first uh item of new business and
we actually have three that are um kind of go together. It would be Adne Exchange Holding Company LLC Tony Becker for a variance conditional use permit and preliminary plat. Good evening or afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Pat Rodier with
Stonemark Land Surveying in Peekquat Lakes. I believe Tony Becker is online. >> Tony, can you hear us? >> Yes, I can. Thank you. Great. We can hear you too then. Thank you very much. Can you state your name and address for the record as well, please?
>> Absolutely. Uh Tony Becker, address is 18835 Marie Lane, Crosby, Minnesota 56441. >> Thank you. Nichollet, can you read the uh request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. Um property owner is
Adney Exchange Holding Company LLC. Um parcel number Oh, sorry. We have authorized agent Pat Troier. Parcel number 60320512. Address is 18835 Mary Lane in Crosby. And this is in Fairfield Township.
At last month's public hearing before the board was a preliminary plat of Adne Lake Conservancy for two lots. The preliminary plat was a conventional development which needed to meet lot width, area, and buildable area.
lot width, total area, and buildable area. That plat met all of the ordinance requirements, and the board recommended approval of the preliminary plat at that time. The county board approved the preliminary plat on July 14th. Lot two
of that plat is now before you today with four requests. This evening, the applicant is proposing a conservation development. Conservation developments differ for differ from conventional developments in that they allow flexibility in lot size and
placement to concentrate development, protect natural re features and preserve shared open space rather than dis distributing lots uniformly across the property. Conservation developments cluster structures in suitable areas
while maintaining larger areas of undisturbed land. Because conservation developments require additional review, a condition a conditional use permit is required. The standards for a conservation development
um conditional use permit include demonstrating that the proposed layout meets the design criteria outlined in article 33. One of those criteria is the requirement for a 50 foot wide access corridor to
each lot. There is an existing 20 foot wide corridor on the property which the applicant is proposing to maintain in its current configuration. To do so, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 20 foot wide
corridor where a 50 foot wide corridor is required under article 33.9. A portion of that existing corridor lies within the shore impact zone and was previously approved for placement and fill by the board in 1976.
The applicant is proposing to keep this corridor unchanged. As a result, the applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a driveway within the shore impact zone where driveways are not permitted under article 11.21. Lastly, the applicant is requesting
approval of the preliminary plat for Adne Lake Conservancy first edition, which includes four lots and one out lot. This property is located on the north side of Adne Lake, a general development lake, um, west of State Highway 6 and
east of the city of Cross Lake City boundary. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. The certificate of survey is on page 73 of your packet.
And I want to point out that this is Marie Lane. The 20 foot wide corridor that currently exists is off of Mary Lane and um goes to lot one here,
lot two, lot three, and lot four. The corridor exists and continues down to the lake, [cough] excuse me. Um, this is the portion within the shore impact zone from 75 ft down to the beach
and over and it wraps around this wetland where it stops. This is the portion of the corridor that was approved in 1976 to be filled and placed. It is still in in its existing condition and this is the area
that they are wanting to remain intact. For conservation developments, the setback for structures to a lake or river is increased. Adne is a general development lake and for a conventional development, the setback is 75 ft. However, for a conservation development,
the lake setback is 120 ft. If you look on lot three, there is a building site. Um, this was designated to be part of Adne Lake. So there is a 120 foot setback to this building site.
Each of the proposed lots have septic site suitabilities. There will be one centralized recreation area at the lake with one dock that will have five total slips, all to be located within the existing beach area.
If this were a conventional development where lot area width and buildable area standards applied, this proposal could be for approximately 10 repairarian lots. Every every 10 lot or every lot
would have a dock. So 10 docks, which would potentially include access across the wetlands to access the lake. I would like to note that for a conservation development, this property could have up to 17 lots.
The applicant did have a fifth lot proposed on the peninsula, which would be right down here. And um after working with staff, the applicant chose to remove lot five and only go with the four proposed lots.
Conservation developments consolidate recreation areas at the lake. They consolidate docking, protect open space, and the lake and protect the lakes's natural features. I also want to clarify, if I haven't done so already,
that the 20 foot corridor is existing. It is not a new road proposed to be constructed as the corridor through the impact zone is also existing and not proposed as a new road. No comments were received from the township. No comments were received from
other agencies and 11 comments were received from the public in opposition. Their concerns were about allowing an access corridor and driveway within the shore impact zone and the detrimental effects a roadway may have on the lake.
They cited potential impacts to a known loon and bald eagle nesting area. Um, they noted conflict with the intent of the Shorland ordinance, lack of demonstrated practical difficulty, and the long the potential long-term changes
of the natural character of Adne Lake. There was a recommendation that an EAW be completed. The comments also note that the property is being marketed as a future vacation rental, raising questions about consistency with the ordinance findings and argues that the
conservation development proposal is unnecessary, giving the long longstanding natural condition of the land. The commenters respectfully requests that the board deny both variance requests to protect the lake and uphold county standards. I do want
to clarify that short-term rentals are not viewed as a commercial use um under the ordinance. And furthermore, the county does have a short-term rental ordinance to regulate such uses. If the board does approve these applications tonight, staff would like
to recommend no conditions for the variance request and the following nine conditions for the conditional use request. The first is stating that the conditional use permit is for the conservation design development of Adne Lake with um five total lots, four
residential lots, one common outlot. The applicant uh gives land services department the permission to enter said property to perform inspections. Three, the land use permit uh must be obtained from land services prior to construction.
Four, the conditional use permit is null and void if the planning commission or board of adjustment denies the variance request for the 20 foot wide access corridor. Five, a plat must be approved by the county board of commissioners. Six, the development is approved for four permanent mooring spaces and is to be
consolidated to a common dock as shown on the certificate of survey. Seven, uncontrolled beaching of watercraft is prohibited as part of open space preservation. Um, eight, the long-term management plan has been effectively implemented.
And nine, the owner's association shall be legally established through covenants and declarations and shall be recorded at the time of plat recording. For the preliminary plat, the following five conditions are recommended. One, the final plat submitted within 12 months. Two, all required subdivision
improvements article 9.8 are implemented. Three, if a soils soils disturbance greater than one acre, an MPCA approved SWIP is required prior to any construction. Four, a final documentation of all plat
monuments. And five, the title commitment must be provided prior to final plat. Madame Chair, I recommend conducting a single public hearing covering all four requests followed by separate motions on each. Three requests.
Three requests. >> Three requests. >> So we have two variances. >> I can take any questions. >> Okay. Any questions for Nichollet? >> Madam Chair, if I may ask one quick question. The the 20 foot access
corridor exists. If we what's the implication if we were to deny that variance? Madam Chair, John, the if we could just zoom out or just scroll on just a little bit. So the quarter that we're really talking about when we talk about that 25, could you scroll just a little bit so I can see the lake just a little bit
more. There we go. Is this right in here as it goes down to the lake? Scroll up a little bit more. There we go. This would be the location of where the docks would um boy this is starting to would be in here. So what would happen is that they would then have to apply to the county
through the wetland conservation act to to fill wetlands in because they would they would right now we're taking existing trail through that wetland complex and they'd have to you know try to apply to go through a wetland replacement plan to prove um that they would then be able to fill enough to get to the to get to that 50. They don't
want the 50. They just they really are just looking for the 20 ft. So, >> so if I understand correctly, we would be expanding it to um fill wetlands in order to have the 50-foot requirement. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Does the applicant have anything that you'd like to add? Either of you? >> I'll defer to >> Yeah. Thank Thanks, Pat. Thanks, Stacy. Thank you for the for the uh intro
there. Uh I wrote a little something here. I'll be short and quick because uh your respect period of time. I know you got a lot on your agenda today. So madam chair, members of the planning commission, uh thank you for uh your time today. Uh before anything else, uh you know, we love this lake. Uh we love
the whole lake community uh here in Crowing County. Got a cabin here on this lake years ago. Uh during that time, we built a real lasting relationship some of our neighbors on this lake. Um, even back then we had a dream, an opportunity if we ever had came back to this lake.
Uh, we'd love to preserve a piece of it for uh, you know, future generations. Uh, I want to acknowledge something, but I believe deeply uh, the people who care about lakes of Minnesota, this community that we're all a part of, our hearts are in the right place. Um, we as motans of
lake country are true lovers of lakes, the wildlife, and a genuine desire to preserve that natural beauty of the state. We share that together. It's exactly what we bought this land. Uh not to develop it to its fullest extent to preserve it. As states had mentioned in
her briefing, uh even before we owned the property, we were already working with closely with Crowing County Environmental Services, Prairie Restorations, Minnesota DNR, and other private agencies on how to maximize restoration and minimize impact on the land. Uh that work kind of shaped
the plan that you have in front of you today and the long-term management plan as well. uh when this property became available um you know we kind of kind of dreams became reality. We got three little girls uh and our dream is to raise them here along with our future grandchildren
someday. Uh that's kind of why you see the four lots here in front of you. Uh one proposed for ourselves and uh one for each of our daughters in the future. Uh alongside our personal use uh the property, we do intend to use it temporarily and gently as uh some
short-term rentals as many others do in Crowing County as a way to share lake uh you know share the lake country with other motans who don't own property themselves on the lake. Uh enjoy the amenities our small towns and local shops provide in this community. Uh since coming back to this lake, we've
had a chance to talk to many folks around it. Uh, a lot of them love the the conservation plans and and the the minimal act impact that we're we're planning on. Uh, lastly, I kind of want to give a little bit of context on scale because I think it matters. Uh, Stacy
had hit on some of it, but our total property spans roughly 2500 feet of lake shore uh, shoreline 38 acres total. Uh, most lakes around here uh, you know, the lots range anywhere from quarter acre to 2 acres, maybe 50 to 100 ft of
shoreline. Uh we've already split off 9 acres uh as Stacy had mentioned that includes about 350 ft of lake shore uh into its own separate parcel. Uh with the buildable area on that parcel over 300 ft back from the lake. You know that
parcel alone is larger than most uh most uh you know lots around on on most lakes and uh we did that specifically to allow that to coexist with other you know natural habitat around it. Uh we want to continue that uh act of good faith uh
towards the wildlife and our steward of the land. The remaining 29 acres that we have in front of us here today for modest built sites over 2,000 ft of lake shore uh on these you know between these four parcels for these four plots I
should say. Uh two of those sites sit more than 120 ft off the shore uh as sketched out here. The other two sit back in the woods more than 700 feet off the shoreline. Um, and uh, you know, we already had talked a little bit here about the the road was
approved 50 years ago. We're not really looking to use it in any way differently. Uh, we just want to provide access to that lot 4. Um, [clears throat] uh, you know, not like like Casey had mentioned, not not looking to drive vehicles out to the point or anything like that. Um, there's a little walking
trail out there. I'd like to mow it if I can. Uh, and uh, just get access down to the beach. Uh, so nothing nothing crazy there as far as what we're planning on doing with that. Um, and uh, yeah, I think that's that's kind of the summary of it. Uh, you know, we really didn't
buy 38 acres to maximize what we could do with it. Uh, we bought it because we wanted room to breathe and room for wildlife. Um, I'm a conservationist myself. Uh, and uh, we believe that we're proposing here is about as light as a footprint as this size of property could reasonably have. Uh we're happy
people and we hope to be some of the best neighbors on this lake and and in the community uh that it's ever had. So, thank you for letting me comment on this. >> Thank you for your additions. Um at this time then we will open up this request to public testimony. Is there anyone in
the courtroom who would like to address this application and request? Please come forward to the center podium uh and microphone and state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Richard Eritt and my address is 18238 Rocky Shores, Crosby,
Minnesota. It's on Lake Adne from the affected property. Is there any way you can throw up page 148 from the packet form? Yeah, I'm sure it's earlier. There's dupes in there. I could sort of walk over here and sort
of point out I object to the variance from along the shoreline from the beach. That's what I'm primarily speaking about. Uh since there's no longer going to be a building on the point, there's
no need for access to get to the point. And I understand the need to access the four lots 1 2 3 and four, but there's no reason to extend the the road down past lot four and then run along within mere
feet of the water to a point which has walking trails and a walking a proposed walking trail to get from the beach to the point. So, I don't understand why there's a it's not reasonable to have a road run along the lake for 150 ft from
the beach to the point. There's no buildings to drive to and there is no hardship that they need to have the ability to drive from the beach over to the point. They can walk just like everybody else on the
lake walks down to the shoreline. In 1976, the variance that was granted was granted subject to approval by the DNR and with rip wrap gravel on both sides along with a culvert. And if you look at this picture,
which is from the public records, I could bring this up and let you look at it, but this is a picture of when you're standing on the beach and you're looking towards the point. And I don't see rip wrap. I don't see gravel. I don't see a
culvert. It is, you guys were there, you saw the site. I don't believe that there is an existing driveway that extends from the beach to the point that I believe I don't know. So I've lived here since 2004. Never seen a driveway over
there. I've never seen a vehicle drive along the shoreline to the point. And I question whether that existed between 1976 and 2004. So I guess my question is maybe staff knows this. Did the DNR ever grant this? And did they ever do this
work? because I don't see any evidence of a driveway along that shoreline. So, this is not an existing driveway along the shoreline there. I believe there is an existing driveway that goes to the beach, but I question and challenge you that there's an existing driveway along
the lakefront there. And so, I object to that and I would ask that you basically deny that portion of the variance. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> May I May I comment? Everybody make their make [clears throat] the public comment.
>> I don't know if >> we might clarify this issue [cough and clears throat] >> specifically, but it's up to you. >> We'll go ahead and continue with public testimony and then um go back and address the issues. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to
address this application? Please come forward if so. >> [clears throat] >> give our names and your name and address for the record, please. You might need to pull that microphone down a little bit closer to you. My name is Teresa Phely and this is my son Christopher.
And um we've been we've been our family's been on the lake since probably 1960s um 59. And there never there has been a swimming beach for the public down in
that same I'm talking about that same area where the road was said to have been. So the road comes down straight, but then then kids would walk to the swimming beach because it was for the town came in and swam, but there has
never been a road there. Um there's a road up higher on the property now. But I'm just wondering if the animals that live on the lake have been has it been there's a loon there's a wooden DNR I think put in a wooden for a loon
nest that a loon is there now with an egg and the eagle and there's also >> beaver >> beaver beaver dam there >> dams where they're proposing to put in the variance of the road the crossroad goes right across the wetlands where the
lon nest is and where the beaver dam is. >> So the environmental protection plan has been done and DNR is okay with this. Right? >> DNR has been made aware of the application and they provided no comment. We did not receive any comment
>> area. >> We provided the information to the DNR from the review and then they didn't give us any comment back. >> So they haven't come out and assessed the area for the repercussions of what this will do. So, what what we're saying is that the DNRs, they have been made aware of the application and they didn't give us any information to say that
there were any concerns or that they had with it. So, I don't know what they did on their end, but they've been notified with the application. So, >> Okay. Okay. >> Um, I concur with the gentleman that was here before me that there has never been
a road there. It's gone just straight down to where the road is. You know, he says the road is to the point, but there's never been a road to the point. And so I I would like there not to be a road there now for the interest of the
animals. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? If so, please come forward. >> Hello. >> Hi, my name is Mary Joe Fritzfold. My address is 18340 Whispering Pines Lane
in Crosby. I would just like to um elaborate on what Miss Feelely just said. I'm a volunteer for the National Loon Center and I and my husband are in charge of our artificial nesting platform on the nest on the on our lake which is over on that area. Um we took
that over in 2021. We do work with the Minnesota Lon Rescue and we do have that mapped and coordinated with the National LON Center as we do report data regarding our resident loons every year. So I just wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. My name is Laurel Leort, 33795
Fairfield 114, uh, Crosby. I just wanted to say that no, there has not been a road along the lake shore. Um, we've been in a drought for many years.
Before the drought, the point was often an island. You could not go to the point without a boat. To the west, where [snorts] you come in
off Marie Lane, that turns into a huge swamp in a wet year. And my understanding is there's underground stream that feeds into the lake to the north
where the little road that's there now goes across. There's another pond. Um sometimes it's it's almost dry right now, but when there's water that's clear up to where that little road is and
sometimes across it. It's all wet land. to the east. It's the same way. That's all wet land that runs up through there. So, years back it it was all protected
wetland. It was not allowed to have roads uh landfill of any kind because of it being a wetland. So the
as they said the road came down, it belonged to the township. It came down to the lake. It was free for everybody. You could put your boats in there. You could do whatever. Uh kids swam there for years and years and years. And then
when the previous owners now came in, they blocked that off. I don't think they had um I don't know what they did courtwise. Uh how but I don't believe it was a permanent blockage. It was a bluff
blockage just so people wouldn't use it. Um I don't know who's going to maintain that piece of road if there's that much traffic. I believe I heard you say there's up room for up
to 17 lots. >> The request is for four lots. >> For four locks now. Now, but what about in the years to come? That was given as a comparison if if
this were um going to be used in a different way. We're talking about four lots >> on this request. >> Okay. I just wanted to I mean being we're in a drought it's a whole different look down there than it is when we have good rains. Uh when we have
good rains you have less than half solid ground. The rest is swamp. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to address this? And as a reminder, please do not repeat your emails or what someone has
stated previously. Are you still taking um >> in the courtroom? >> Questions from the court in the courtroom? Yes. I'll be online shortly. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My name is Excuse me. [clears throat] My name is Bob Nos 19233 Choke Cherry Lane.
I've done a lake since 1999. I've seen the lake rise and fall many times. Well, where right now we're below average, way below. When we're up to average or above, which is quite often,
that area is all covered with water. The gentleman mentioned that you would maybe if he want another variance, take 50 ft and cover it with wetland. I don't know if that would be approved or not, but right now in a normal
rotation say every 10 years that road is wet lands anyway. So I think we that part of the variance I don't believe should go through. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the courtroom
who'd like to address this application? My name is Jane Eritt, 18238 Rocky Shores on Lake Adne. I'd like to oppose the variance requested by Adne Exchange Holding Company. Uh, I would I believe that the preliminary findings of fact
regarding the variance prepared by the staff do not adequately address the situation. The staff seemed to conflate the existing driveway that would go to the four lots with the
drive the driveway. I put quotes around that because there is no driveway, but that go runs along the shore. I think that they did not adequately address those two separate things. Of course, there needs to be a driveway that goes
to the four houses or buildings that you you are allowing. But when they went through their discussion about the variance and it be whether it's for example in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance,
it would be in in in harmony to get to a building. But why is it in harmony with the ordinance to have a driveway that runs along the the shore so close to the water to get to a place
where there would be a walking trail? That to me doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the ordinance or a a reason why a variance would be granted for that portion. It seems that the
driveway from lot 4 to the lake is completely unnecessary and even more unreasonable to think that we can extend that along the lake shore in this fragile
impact zone in the shoreline impact zone. For what reason? for the guests to enjoy at the Airbnb or resort or whatever the the thing is going to be.
There's no reason why there's are are cars going to drive down to the lake and be parked there. Is it is it a parking lot? I'm a little confused on what the purpose or what the scope is of that. It's not just to get to the houses. It's
to go to the point where there's never been traffic going to the point. So, I don't believe it's consistent with I don't believe it's reasonable. I don't think it's consistent with the comprehensive plan uh for this county.
I don't think that um the there's a need for that portion due to the u you know circumstances of the property. I don't I don't believe that it
maintains the essential character of the locality. It the essential character of of our lakeshore and that locality and I what I would call our neighborhood. Having a driveway there is not characteristic. It is it is out of
character for our neighborhood. Also, it seems like it's almost an economic consideration to have this driveway at that particular sh in the setback in the shoreline impact zone. And I don't think an
economic consideration justifies a variance. It's a way to get people to come and rent the property. Uh granting the variance is not in character with our lake. It's a It's not
in character with protecting our shoreline and I request that the planning committee deny the variance request and the conditional use permit. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application?
>> Hello, my name is Gwen Thomas, 18293 Whispering Pines Lane um on Adne Lake. I just would like to add regarding the the lake and our um the clarity of our
water currently. Um Mary Joe mentioned the lon nesting that we do and and as we know loons tend to like fresh clear water. We're a springfed lake. Um in we currently do our own uh testing.
Mr. Fritzfold does that for us uh in cooperation with the the governments that uh keep track of that and we're currently at a clarity of over 20 ft in our lake. During the last DNR testing of
the water in I believe it was 2023 it was at 17 ft. I am on the I am one of the officers of the Adne Lake Association and one of the things we always talk about at our annual meetings
is to be sure that we're not adding fertilizer on our lawns with phosphorus that we're not um taking boats from one lake to another to bring in. We currently don't have zebra muscle. We don't have any of the invasive species
that so many other lakes have in this county. Many of our lakes currently are dealing with swimmers each itch at the beaches. They can't even use the beaches. Our lake doesn't have that. And this is what we're trying to maintain.
So to have any kind of impacted soil right around the lake is not appealing to us at all because of the potential for heavy rainfall runoff that brings additional unfiltered
water into the lake because that natural habitat has been disturbed. We also talk to our land owners around the lake to make sure that only the approved um portion of the lakeshore is cleared for
their personal use for their dock or so forth, but the rest remains nature. And that's what that's why we're at that lake. Plenty of other opportunities around Minnesota and Wisconsin. And we chose Adney for these reasons and we
just like to keep it that way. And we know the Beckers are great people. We know they've done some really good things in other areas. That's that's great having a residence and and land uh for their children growing up. We all want to do things
like that and we we're supportive that of that. We want good neighbors like that. What we don't want is more rental property on our lake. We have a couple already. We're having difficulties with them. They're not following the noise
ordinances. They're not following the number of vehicles on the property at any given time or the number of people or the types of vessels on our lake. to have a wavebo on Lake Adne 320 sometimes
310 acre lake as it is today is it's not what this lake is about. We are pontoon people. We are kayak people. We are we are standup paddle board people and we have to we go a a circle like twice
around the lake to even make it worth taking the boat out. That's the kind of lake we are and that's what we want to keep it. So, I appreciate your time today. Thank you for considering it. I would ask you to deny the variance. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
courtroom who'd like to address this application? >> Rick Erit again an addendum. I forgot to mention the dock. The application talks about a permanent dock with five slips and I'm a little unclear about what they mean by permanent. Is it going to be
like a marina dock where it stays in year round and it's there in the winter? All the other locks and docks and boat lifts on the lake are removed in the winter. And so I think a permanent dock would change the character of the lake quite a bit to have that sticking out
year round. And so I object to that part as well. Thanks. >> Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone in the courtroom? Hello. Uh name is Brad Peterson. I live at
18611 Greer Lake Road on Adne Lake and uh I got a unique perspective. My family owned that land until the mid70s. Uh I remember as a child growing up there that the as it's been mentioned that the point at times is an island. Uh before
that long ago there was a bridge connecting the land to the island because the beaver run there. Uh nature has been very important in that area and currently as it's been stated there is
not a road along the lake leading up to the point. It's always been more of a trail uh whether it was for walking or more recently uh dirt bikes. Uh it would change the whole character
of the lake. And my wife and I have a concern knowing uh that the [clears throat] owners have a history of having event centers, retreat centers. Uh that
one variance would lead to another variance which would lead to another variance which would lead to more traffic in the area. And there the current driveway into that area is an unsafe for if you have constant people coming
in and out that do not know that corner. It's a 90° turn. And I'd say at least once a month there are skid marks on that corner because people don't take it as a fact that when it says slow down to 10, you need to slow down to 10. And I've walked my dog around there where
they have went straight ahead down Marie Lane because they knew if they tried to take that corner they would tip. So our concern is more traffic being in the area and we do not see a point for the road along the lake. We
understand that if you have lots you need to access the lots but the variance as it stands we do not agree with. Thank you. you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this
application? Anyone please come forward? My name is Mike Baker and I'm at 18293 um with Spring Pines Lane. And I just want to add a little something to the to
the driveway going down. Not not just the one coming across. the purpose of the driveway going down. I haven't really seen or heard a reason for that like somebody else said, but the only reason I can possibly think of is that at some point in time they're going to
put another lake access down in there, put the boats in and that's going to be further damage and like we talked about just another um addendum or whatever. So, I think that there's more to this than what we're hearing about right here than that. So, I I'm against it. Thank
you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing no one else, uh we will go to
online for comment and public testimony. And what hand do we have raised? Madam Chair, >> Beth, >> if you can couple >> Beth Murray, if you can >> Hi, this is Beth. Yep. >> Go ahead, please.
>> Thank you. >> My name is Beth Beth Murray and I live at 32102 Adney Lake Road in Crosby, Minnesota. And my family has been on the lake since 1947. So, I want to talk about the history and
has there been a history evaluation done on this lake because Lake Edney has a tremendous uh historical value in the na African-American community. It was one of the very first lakes in Minnesota to
allow African-Americans to purchase property. It's in the Minnesota um history center. It has had several different articles done on it. It has books published on it. It is well known
throughout Minnesota as well as other states that people used to come here and visit and spend their family and have craad boils and fish fries. And there's a whole tradition on that side of the
lake that I don't believe has even been taken into consideration. And I'd really like to see some kind of evaluation done on that and how it's going to affect that because if you are taking out all of that road, all of those huge boulders
over there, I mean to get up onto the peninsula from a boat or from where it's even proposing, there's huge boulders, massive size boulders, and you have to take a three-foot jump to get up there. It's not there's no road. It's water and
land, period. And it's grass land. And I would really hate to see it mowed. So what I'm saying is if you're going to be disturbing the lake to that extent, then it is going to parcel over to the south side where you're going to affect
the crawads. So they're not going to be sufficient for the yearly annual crawad boils or you know you're going to have so many people on this lake fishing that you're the people who live here are not going to be able to enjoy their traditional fish fries. So, I really
want somebody to take a strong look at the history side of this lake and the historical significance of this lake. And I do not want to see it changed with a resort type of experience. I don't
care that you have a huge whatever that is you put over there and you're advertising for a building you haven't even been approved of yet. four that you're going to be renting
out. So, you haven't even heard from your community that you so want to be involved in. So, I really really strongly oppose this um variance in every aspect. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Is there anyone else online who would like to address this application? >> Uh yes, I'm here. >> Andy Dunar. Yes, that's me. >> You'd state your name. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, I can. If you can state your name
and address for the record, please, sir. >> Sure. My name is Andy Dunar. I live on 18297 West Adney Lane, Crosby. And um due to the uh natural impact we heard early
testimony around like loons uh the wildlife there I would like to propose if it hasn't been already a stop work order on further construction and development uh with you know big construction cars using those um roads
that we've been questionable of or concerned about. Um, I think just having the board consider the stop order for further development at this point until you know DNR responses are received or other ecological impact analysis done um
would help ensure the integrity of the existing lake and the wildlife. >> Is there anything else sir? >> Uh, nope. Just that that confirmation of the proposed stop uh development order. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else online
who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, um I will then close public testimony and bring it back to the applicants and staff to address some of the concerns and comments that were
made during public testimony. We can [clears throat] start with the applicants. >> Thank you. Um, and thank you for your comments and it's something that we agree with you in many aspects concerning the roadway along the lake shore. Uh, in Tony's opening remarks, it
was a little muddled in here. I don't know if you guys could catch it, but he did say he had no interest in anything west of the beach or east of the beach. In the drawing, it's hard to see because of the scale of the drawing. The 20ft corridor ends at the beach. The only
thing that's showing there is an existing path drive. We called it a driveway. Certainly walking or bike trail or something. We're just showing an existing condition. So that we did not, you know, say show something less
favorable. will show dwarts and all, but if you zoom in on it, it's hard to see because of the scale, but the line work for the 20ft corridor ends at the beach. And there is no um nothing planned out for a roadway
heading to the east of the beach. That will be taken over by nature. There's [snorts] both a walking trail which is allowable use. Tony, any comments on that? >> Uh, no, thank you for clarifying that.
Uh, you know, it we've done a lot of research on this property and, uh, U of M actually has they have a historical satellite satellite imagery which has helped us provide some context to our conservancy plan. Um, actually, if we go
to their website, they have a satellite image from 1939. uh one [clears throat] of the public members that made a comment of how that road, you know, came from Marie Lane and took a turn, you know, down to that
beach, which is uh current as of today. But then the road continued actually through the peninsula. You can see it on the satellite imagery and then there's a bridge on the other side of the peninsula connecting it to where Cherry Trail Plane now is. Uh so
I don't know what happened 50 years ago with the uh you know cup on this driveway or road uh whatever we want to name it. Uh but it's pretty clear from this satellite imagery that there was something there uh where people were
accessing from you know the west side of the lake to the east side of the lake. Uh, and I would only presume that, you know, what's left there, uh, of what Pat said, you know, walking trail from beach area to the peninsula is just that, you know, remnants of an old road, it
actually extends back to the west. So, if you go from the beach to the west to Marie Lane, that walking trail, aka old road, you know, has now overgrown, but there's still a ridge there, uh, which is now a walking trail. So,
uh, so Pat's accurate. All we do want to do is access the beach. Um, as you know, our our building lots other than four, you know, lot four is about 120 from the actual lake. Uh, all the other lots are 300 plus feet from the lake shore. So,
it's simply driving golf cart, you know, whatnot from those uh dwellings down to the beach uh to provide access. That's uh that's all we're looking to do. Um, yeah, if we could have a walking trail from the beach and use that existing roadway to
get out to the peninsula, um, whether it's to have a campfire out there or enjoy the property that we own, uh, we would greatly appreciate that. That's all the comment I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I'd like to ask staff now with with some of the comments and
concerns that were were specific [clears throat] that you might want to answer or respond to. I think some of the some of the concerns that were raised are are valid. I and I don't think we have any, you know, dispute over that. I think the the point being that the you know that the
variance um request is what as a road ends at Adne and I think you could place a condition on a that says no vehicles allowed you know beyond that you know beyond that point down towards the point if you thought that would be you know maybe alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors that you know it sounds
like when the water's up it'll take care of itself is what it kind of sounds like. Um uh I think um like we' mentioned before there's some concerns over over rentals. The county has a has a rental ordinance that governs short-term rentals. If you
have a couple of um um rentals that are giving you some problems now, um I'd recommend contacting our office at 2188241010. We'd be happy to talk about that. Um we have some hotline number you can call um in the evenings and weekends if there's noise issues so that things can be
reported to law enforcement. We can get reports. Uh we need that information and so we'd be happy to talk about that. if you would want to contact our office, we could be happy to chat with you more about that. Um, but I think we could address the main concern which is just the fact of having the, you know, no
motorized, you know, down towards that peninsula. However, you guys thought might that might be appropriate to to have that as as a condition of the conditional use permit. Could definitely add that in. Um and then I think the other one um
I think that would address generally I think most of the concerns if there's have any questions for us. >> Okay. I just wanted the opportunity because there was a lot there were >> there was a lot it was some really good comments and so thank you to the public for their participation uh today. >> Okay.
>> Madam Madam chair we're in for discussion. >> We're ready for discussion from the board. So, um I will say having been on the on site, I was confused about that road because we talked about it being a road that goes along the lake. So,
hearing the discussion tonight, I would sure like a condition and and if you look at the survey, it gives you every reason to think that the road continues along the lake. Um, so having heard what the applicant said, I would be very
interested in a condition that says that 20 foot corridor ends at the beach and that that be reflected clearly on the survey and we add that as a condition of our approval of the variance. That'd be my proposal so that there can be no
dispute about that in the future. And then the pathway is just the land that's dictated by the wetland and what happens with [snorts] water etc. But that there would be no development of that as a trail or it
just remains natural that so that'd be my suggestion to address that concern. I don't know how the other board members feel, but um now that that's been clarified by the applicant, I think that would clear that up if we were very specific about it. >> We heard it numerous times, I think
during our public testimony, and I think that does address some of the concerns that were articulated. So, >> so if we could just be clear, I would then add uh the uh propose adding a condition that says that the 20oot
access corridor would end at the beach and that the uh maybe it's two conditions and that the survey that would be proposed as part of the plat would be clear that that will not be used as a roadway to the peninsula
>> but a trail, a walking trail. it it and that it would remain natural or whatever we would like to call it. >> I mean, I I don't think it's right to deny someone access to the high ground that they have available to them by saying no way can
you get there. Just let it grow. You know, >> um if I may, Madam Chair, I I agree. I'm just saying that we would be clear. It's not a road >> that I can >> and if they wish to have a trail it
that's a different story but I just want to make sure that the condition would be of the variance would be that the 20oot access corridor ends at the beach and my second condition to that would be that uh the survey that would be associated
with the plat would um very clearly indicate that because it it doesn't today in the survey that's in front of us. So that'd be my suggestion for two conditions. >> Madam Chair, I agree with John,
>> but on that one that the 20ft access road stops at the beach. Maybe go a little farther with that condition and state no motorized vehicles allowed from the point to the peninsula. from the I'm sorry. So from the end of
that access corridor to >> from the beach to the peninsula. >> Sure. >> Add that to that potential finding saying the 20ft access road ends at the beach and then just add that that there's no motorized vehicles
allowed from that point over to peninsula. >> And I think we could add those two conditions as as conditions of the variance. I think so. And I think it'd be also be good for the property owner to address that in his declarations and covenants also that that
so people know if they buy in there that they can't take four-wheelers or golf carts or anything over to that peninsula. I think that should be maybe put into their covenants so they know that that's what it is. That's just a suggestion that I have. Um the other the
other thing I want to comment on is we have that existing 20 foot I think personally it would be more detrimental to deny that 20 foot variance, a 20 foot wide access road
because then he he could like Chris said he could apply for wetland conservation act and create a 50-ft road which would to me would be more detrimental to the existing wetlands than to just let him use that 20ft access road.
I agree. >> Um, >> Madam Chair, can I just make one other comment, please? The, uh, I also think that we ought to recognize that in this proposal for the CUP is a pretty extensive long-term management plan,
pretty detailed. Um, any amendments to that plan, as I read it, require the approval of this board. >> Correct. And I would also point out that under uh that since that plan is part of the conditions for the cup, if it wasn't
followed, right, then the article 7.11 would allow consideration of revoking the cup because they're not meeting the conditions. So to my point, there's safeguards to ensure that we're following that long-term management plan if I if I understand it correctly.
>> Correct. further discussion. >> Madam Chair, I just, you know, the concern with short-term rentals. I mean, Crowing County allows short-term rentals. Anybody can take their house and turn it into a short-term rental, VBO, Airbnb, whatever they want to call
it. And I don't see that as a as a potential for denying a the conditional use permit because it's something that is allowed by ordinance. So just to you know just kind of address
that. I mean I just don't see how that would prohibit this from going forward. So madam chair, I'd recommend the first application you'd consider tonight would be the variance application and then we
proceed to the conditional use permit and then proceed to the plan. >> Okay. So uh if there's no further discussion, uh we can go ahead and uh take action on the variance request first. >> Um could we bring up the findings of
fact, please? Madam Chair, findings of fact uh for the variance are on page 114 of your packet. >> Madame Chair, >> yes. If there are no changes to the findings of fact, I would uh offer a
motion to approve the variance for a 20 foot wide access corridor where 50 ft is required. Um for driveway within shore impact zone where no driveways are allowed subject to the two conditions we
added this evening or afternoon. >> There are no conditions in the variance. in the variance. >> Yep. So, so um Madam Chair, um John, I think the the conditions as we mentioned were I think it sound like there's three of them total. One was that the 20ft
corridor ends at the beach and does not travel um down to the down to the to the point. No motorized vehicles from the beach down to that point and then to update the survey to reflect that. Yeah, Sue was just whispering in my ear there are no conditions for a variance, but
>> those were for the C or for the >> you you can we didn't propose conditions for the variance, but you can put these conditions on the variance. Makes sense. >> I would propose those three conditions and then uh subject to the findings of fact that have been in the staff report, the survey requesting it be uh revised
and the staff report. >> Got it. >> There's a there's a motion and there's a second. Is there further discussion? >> Madam chair, I'd like to ask uh John and Rock um when you're based on your findings of fact also I would like to add and the on-site that was conduct
conducted by board because that's when we really seen that 20 foot. >> I I agree and I incorporate that in the staff that's part of the staff report. So I agree. >> Okay. Further discussion
hearing? None. Before the board takes final action on this variance request, I need to um verify four items with the applicant. Uh do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> I do.
>> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? I would like clarity on the walking trail condition for allowing or not allowing mowing of the trail to the peninsula for access foot access.
There's a lot of ticks and stuff like that a concern with allowing that to not be mowed. >> I don't know that we talked about and it was motorized vehicles. I don't believe we were talking about mowing.
>> Can you read? Let's let's read that condition again so you're clear. >> Sure. >> Said no motorized vehicles from the beach area to the peninsula area to the point area. >> No motorized vehicles.
That's all it states. We're talking landward, not in I mean they could take it from their dock a boat over to the peninsula. >> Is that what we're I mean >> Well, he was asking about mowing because because of ticks and that for the trail
to walk there and we did not we did not put anything in there regarding mowing. >> We did not. >> No. >> Is that helpful? That would be helpful if we would have be allowed there. There's an existing trail there right now which is that old roaded, right? That's all. >> There's no language that we're putting
in that's addressing uh that you cannot mow. >> I just want to make it clear if you know if others around the lake are seeing a motorized mower on the peninsula. They're not making a phone call to you guys. >> Okay. >> That's it's not considered a motorized vehicle. So >> Okay. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. So you do understand then the conditions after that discussion that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes. Thank you. >> And do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins?
>> Yes. >> 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. >> Understood. >> Okay. With uh that being understood, then we will proceed with the vote. All
those in favor of this uh variance application with the conditions and that were as discussed, please signify by saying I >> I >> oppose same sign. >> Motion carries.
>> The next item that we will uh >> Madame Chair, >> yes. >> Um I have findings of facts for the conditional use on page 164. >> 164 on the conditional use permit. That is the next item that we will be addressing which application 164.
[clears throat] Then there's nine potential conditions listed on page 167. Madam Chair, >> yes. >> There's no proposed changes. I would offer a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Yes. I'd offer a motion to approve the
conditional use permit for a conservation development subject to the nine conditions. I believe there's nine nine conditions. Um the findings of fact uh in the staff
report, the on-site and the survey. Um, but I do want to note the same condition. Maybe it's I want 10. I'd like the survey uh adjusted to reflect. I would like to add the survey condition as number 10
that we use for the variance if that's appropriate. >> Yes. Very good. >> So, uh, 10 conditions. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> But, Madam Chair, I'd like to also add
condition 11. that says the 20 foot um access road ends at the beach just like we did on the variance and that there's no motorized vehicles um from the beach to allowed from the beach to peninsula. I want that it was
on in the variance as a condition. I think it needs to be in the conditional use permit as a condition. >> Okay. >> So they're both it's covered. >> Sure. >> Okay with that. >> Okay. So there's a motion and a second. Further discussion
hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. And I do need to back up for just a second to make sure that you do understand what has just been approved tonight.
>> Understood. >> And do you understand the conditions that we talked about and the additions to the conditions? Yes. >> Okay. And that what's being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what's being approved must be um
approved by this board. This means that you'd be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Staff can't modify or change what's been approved by this board uh
with this conditional use permit. >> Understood. >> Understood. Thank you, sir. Okay. Lastly, we're going to be looking at making a recommendation regarding a preliminary plat. >> Madame Chair, findings of factor on page 215 of your packet.
>> 215. M madam chair, is it sufficient that we've covered the uh if I may ask um the survey requirement as part of the other two? Um so we don't need to cover it here. I believe that's correct.
>> Thank you. Madame Chair, I'd make a motion to approve the preliminary plat with the with the five conditions. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Uh, is
there further discussion? >> Yes. And Madam Chair, that's a recommendation to the county board. >> Yes, it's a recommend. This is a recommendation to the county board. We do not have final decision- making on this preliminary plat. There's a motion and a second. Further
discussion [clears throat] hearing. None. I need to talk to the applicant once again to do you understand that tonight we are making a recommendation on uh approval of this preliminary plat to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request.
>> I understand. >> And the county board has final approval over this request and their next meeting will be >> July 28th. July 28th, 9:00 a.m. in this same room in the courtroom. >> I understand. >> Okay. And do you understand that the
required conditions placed on the preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request? >> Understand. >> Okay. We will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor say I. I. I.O. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon. >> Thank you. Okay, our next uh application will be with Great North Communication LLC, Rick Adams. Uh once again, we're looking at a
variance, a conditional use permit, and a preliminary plat. >> Good afternoon. >> Good evening. >> Is it evening? >> Oh, it's afternoon yet. So, just seems late evening. >> If you could state your name and
address. >> That's uh Rick Adams. My address is uh 1635 East Panto Lake Road Northwest Bakis, Minnesota. Of course, that's I don't live on the property that we're obviously uh got the variance and the
condition used application on. [clears throat] That's a commercial piece of property that I own with uh my partner uh Joe Eggy. We we own uh we're 50/50 partners on Great Northern Communications LLC.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh Nichollet, can you read the requests into the record, please? >> Yes, madame chair. Uh property owner is Great North Communications LLC, Rick Adams. Parcel number 7324513.
Physical address of the property is 23324 County Road 3 in Mayfield and this is in Lake Edward Township. The applicant has three items before the board this evening. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a
commercial storage facility on this property. Approval of this use requires compliance with all provisions of article 17 of the land use ordinance which outlines the standards and criteria applicable to commercial storage facilities. Due to a proposed
future county crowing county highway department realignment affecting uh road road frontage, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed storage buildings to be placed further south on the site. Specifically,
the applicant is requesting a variance to article 17.1 to allow a 50-foot setback from an adjoining residential property. Uh so a 50- foot setback for the commercial structures where a 100 ft would be required. Since the storage structures are
proposed to be sold as individual units, the applicant is requesting approval of the uh preliminary plat of Gobbler's storage addition, which proposes 12 lots and two outlots. This property is located off of County
Road 3 just north of Mayfield. The property is zoned commercial and it is surrounded by um commercial, industrial and commercial, industrial, residential, and shoreline uses. The certificate of survey is on page 225
of your packet. The applicant shares joint access to County Road 3 with the neighboring property to the northeast. This is their joint access to County Road 3 and their proposed access into the storage area. A comment was received from the highway
department on July 1st that the proposed future frontage road is adequately shown on the preliminary plat. In an email received this afternoon from Rob Hall at the highway department, he confirmed that there is currently no timeline, funding, or program for the frontage
road that at this point it has been a discussion with the majority of the property owners. The applicant is trying to accommodate for the proposed future frontage road within his proposal by placing the proposed buildings out of this area.
This um line right here is the new proposed future frontage road. Um, currently this is the this is the uh road rightway line for county road 3. After discussion with highway uh the
landowner found that um if if and when a future frontage road does go in here um this would be the new road rightway alignment um for that area. So he is proposing to push his structures back
down. There is an existing cellular tower that was locate that is located on proposed lot 12 that was approved by the board in December of 2024. The existing shed on lot 14 which is um the propu the proposed future frontage
area um is proposed by the applicant to stay in its current location until the frontage road comes in or the applicant is ready to construct the last storage building. the applicant has a tenant within the structure and would like to respect the existing lease. There is a
recommended condition from staff to address this. Noting some on-site comments from the board from June 30th. Um the parcel is adjacent to other commercial properties. Residential parcels within 100 ft have similar structures as per as the
proposed project. The planned frontage road is unique to the property and not caused by the property owner. No comment was received from the township. As stated before, the comment a comment was received from the highway department stating the proposed future frontage
road is adequately shown on the plat. The highway department also recommended that the plat also identify Cass 3 county road 3 as having access control between the southwest west property corner and the south line of the existing 20oot ingress egress easement.
[cough and clears throat] A comment was received from Mindot with no concerns. No comments received from other agencies or the public. I can answer any questions you may have. [cough] The smoke I think in the area is getting
to us all. Um does anyone have any questions for staff? >> Do you have anything that you'd like to add? >> Uh yes. the um [clears throat] you know the county highway department has limited access
there. When we purchased the uh property a few years ago, [clears throat] the uh driveway was totally on our neighbor John's property to the kind of the north. And so when we built the uh
communication site, we added to that driveway um [clears throat] we actually uh added 12 ft to the driveway that's on [clears throat] our property. So um we do have we believe adequate
access into our property solely on our property. Uh, in addition to that 12 ft of driveway we put in, we also put in about a 8ft drainage ditch because a lot of our neighbors
um water from his driveway plus from the uh drainage easement that's on our kind of north property line drains through there. And when we bought the property, there was a little 4-inch pipe buried in
the ground we didn't think was adequate to uh to uh take care of the surface water to get it to the ditch line. So, we put in an 8-ft uh swale or ditch uh alongside the
driveway so that we that that driveway, our neighbor's driveway and our driveway will will uh drain properly. And uh I know our neighbor wants us to he gets a little upset because as you
can see if some when traffic comes off of that uh highway three because of the sharp angle sometimes there's a little bit of traffic on some of his driveway and they don't totally make the sharp turn so they stay on on
our property. So he he's brought that up a couple times. We try to be good neighbors and say, "Well, you know, we'll tell people to try to stay in our driveway on our property line." But on the other hand, we've allowed him to
drive across our lot because he owns property way to the south. And up till now, up to date, we've allowed him to drive across our property just to try to be a good neighbor.
And uh so I know he wants the highway department to put in that uh frontage road. We would like the frontage road put in because then we wouldn't have to share driveway, I would think. But since we do have to share driveway,
um you know, we we uh have to put up with little transgressions here and there on the traffic. It's you can't put a fence down that that uh that property line to make sure that when someone turns off Highway 3, if they're our
customer, they stay on our side of the property line. If they're John's customer, they stay on his side. I mean, it's a common driveway. That's how the county planned access off that highway. >> Thank you. Is there anything else that you would like to add? Well, just that
you folks have been out there, you see that the residential lots to the east aren't being used as residential lots. They're all being used as storage lots. And all those buildings are larger than the buildings we plan on putting on that
side of the property. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, at this time, we'll open up this request to public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application in the courtroom? anyone
please come forward and um good afternoon. >> Afternoon. >> I'm the John I'm the John Cullen spoken of by Mr. Adams. Uh 2332
County Road 3 Marfield. I have the Anderson side of the property which is toward Cross Lake with storage buildings. And as mentioned, four lots over this way. I have three buildings. They're on the other end. After I spoke
with you, Chris, I I printed off the 25 acre plaque. If anybody wants this to see it while we're talking, I thought they might have them see the bigger picture. Um, I've enjoyed it's a 25 acre plat that the Andersons
put together and set up the crossover which I've had they never did easements and I knew that when I bought the property. I knew I had the um good fortune of neighbors who said go ahead and use the thing. Life's changing. I'm looking at a crippling event in my business and I'm trying to figure out
how this is going to work itself out and help with the county. of which by the way Rob Hall's known me for five years and I've been on him very aggressively for this day to come knowing that I would lose this and and not be able to reach the other side. There's a lot of pressure with just the customers to come
into my business during the two different seasons off of County Road 3 and my understanding of the frontage road which was the first thing I looked for within here. I was looking to see the frontage road happening here or some kind of a date on it. Nothing. Rob didn't call me back. I spoke with one of
his other staff, but the the um reality of had of now what I was talking with him five years ago putting me in a very difficult position in moving equipment back and forth across the way is going to end. I don't bear hard feelings. He owns a lot. He has every right to do this. So, I don't have a problem or an
attitude with it. It's like I'm just trying to deal with it. So, I see that they did put the line for the they did put the line for the future proposed frontage road there, which was good. Uh, if you
can see that clear enough, my lot is not a square as the one you see here on with my neighbor. My lot's a pentagon shaped and the point to the pentagon comes off of the entrance up at County Road 3 to the um end of the property line that he
shows there. Okay. So, it creates an issue out in the front and I and I have communicated with Rob Hall with the I communicated with him the day they did that and I said, "You don't have near enough space on my neighbor's side for his traffic to take place on his
property." So, same summer that they put in the right-hand turn lanes, they put in the turnabout. If anybody knows of County Road 3 and where where County Road 3 and four meet,
we had heavy rains. That ditch filled up and it flooded us on this side. I I'm out there arguing with the highway department on some of what Mr. Adams said as far as the swale going which way and and taking care of the problem. We get a high enough rain and the water
comes our way and it's not going to stop until they cut that off. And I tried to get them to do it at the time. They chose not to. So with that angle coming in, it's pretty obvious if you blow that thing up anymore to be able to see that the majority of the traffic coming off
with where they put the pin right in the middle of the asphalt. The majority of the traffic is coming in. So I didn't see a frontage road. First thing I looked at is where is access going to be for this plaque because I'm not here with any I'm not here with any challenge or concern about number one or number
two to be specific. I'm dealing with the preliminary plat. I there was my part of my discussion here. So I looked for access and I looked and and correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look at that, I don't know how anybody can see that access is not shown coming clearly off
of my property. I'd like feedback if if somebody's seeing it differently. I don't have a red marker, but Chris, if you can mark what I'm talking about. >> You got a point next to Um,
on my driveway there. Yeah, right there. Right there. On my driveway there. It depicts like there's some type of a two-lane happening there. I'm not sure why the survey showed it like that because there isn't. You think? The pictures that I gave you help you to see that it's nothing more than my private
driveway going along the front of the buildings. So, I am without a doubt looking at a preliminary plant that has entrance to a nice storage project going on here that's all going to be entered through my property. And I'm in disagreement
with that. And I'm here asking for whatever feedback I'm going to get from you folks here versus continuing discussions with with staff after this as to why I'm supposed to be expecting that that's okay to take place. >> [cough]
>> the 12 feet that Rick had mentioned about. You'd have to come out and see it. I I I maybe I I could take pictures or something, but you need to take a direct look at the 12 ft and see that it's not doing anything for
clear access for his customers to be on his property. They come in and it's all done on my property. And I'm looking at this and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you folks are you folks seeing that the
traffic is supposed to come on this side of the property line to where he's got the little drive in there? Is that what you're seeing this as? Okay. Because I I fully disagree with that. You come out the lot and look at it's not going to happen that way. They're going to come off County Road 3, which is a righthand
turn lane, and they're going to come right into that big area of my lot, and then they're going to come into his. And I'm totally against that. I I told Rob the the frontage road is the answer because the frontage road will go from the edge of his property line up toward the Anderson word and it
and it will allow with the frontage rule there him to have entrance where that where those two where that word blocks. >> Madame chair. >> Yes. Excuse me, sir. >> I'm sorry. >> Are we at our five minute >> point of order? We're at the time. >> Sir, we are at our five minute time
limit. So, we need to um >> I have gotten out what I can say. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> And I was told here's the place I was supposed to come to say it. So, >> yes, I'm Yes, we do have a time limit, but I thank you for your time and your comments. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this
application? Please come forward. >> My name is Joe Eggy, 435 Laura Lane Southeast, St. Michael, Minnesota. I happen to be one of the principles for Great Northern Communications. I'm a former economic development director, ran the Mer County Economic
Development Authority. I'm a prior licensed real estate broker and a prior licensed real estate appraiser. I look to highest and best uses of property. We've done our best to work with the constant complaints from the
north to do a development that uh is the highest and best use for this property. We have storage units to the north. We have storage units to the south. We've got six private storage units to the east. And we have done our best to
recognize the difficulty with the approach, but it is what it is. Uh the county is going to be using it in the future when we honor their request for the property to put in the service drive. We uh have already improved the
property by removing a a worn out building that was once a residential unit. We've done our part to beautify the place. This is basically it could be looked at as a planned unit development for storage units that are
already there. There's already a need for them and and people want them and we'll do our best to make it beautiful and work with all of our neighbors. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this
application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll double check to see if there's anyone online. I don't believe so. Bring it back to the board for further discussion and action on um the variance conditional use permit and preliminary plat.
>> You're going to let the applicant >> you have anything that you would like to add, sir? Uh just to clarify, we [clears throat] we plan on selling these lots to individuals and they would be building their own buildings except for maybe the
first one we would spec expect spec. So it's not going to be a commercial storage operation like uh John has. It'll be private owners of these buildings. So the traffic will be minimal once once the buildings are
constructed. Also, there has been a, as John mentioned, somewhat of a drainage problem out there. And of course, uh, Witath is working on a a drainage plan where the drainage will change a bit and
won't, uh, won't, uh, have all the drainage going to the ditch like it is now. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll bring it back to the board for further discussion, questions, clarifications needed. You know, Madam
Chair, you know, we did our onsite on this. I mean, you got cloud stamping across the road. You've got storage units on one side. You got storage. This to me with the cell tower on this property is the best practical the best
use of this property is storage units. And you could do a residential plat, but I don't see anybody wanting to build a house next to a suicell tower. So I think this what the applicant is proposing is the best use on this property.
>> Further discussion. >> Um Madam Chair. Yes. >> I have a question for the on-site people. >> Okay. >> So we see this approach. We see the property pin located in the center of
the approach on the rightway. I mean, anybody accessing either of these two parcels are going to enter on one guy's property and leave on the other guy's property. That's that's just a fact of a fact of
it. It's uh the property pin is located in the center of the approach. So, um, just seems like it's beneficial to both both property owners to just say, "Well, they just
it is what it is." Uh, >> I don't see where the >> Yeah, I did speak with Highway with Rob Hall a little bit. We were and I think Highway would be would be willing to, you know, allow this approach to be widened here a little. They don't want they still want the shared approach, but
I think they would be willing to to, you know, kind of allow a little more of an expansion to the south to maybe help >> get the traffic >> traffic coming around that corner so that it gets back more onto onto the onto the property for the development that we're talking about today. So, there is there they I think they'd have
to talk to Highway about that and work that out, but it sounds like that would be something highway would be willing to to entertain. Any other discussion or comments? Is so is this surface I guess I that's why I
asked the onsite is this surface gravel currently as it's showing on this plat is that gravel there there partial there's some asphalt and then um yeah I think it's well I think it's all it's all is that all
>> madam chair if we go to 224 the page right above it rock can see what's existing now for gravel. >> It's all gravel rock. >> Mhm. So, currently >> that's not that's not accurate
>> because that shows the old trailer >> house on it. >> You're right. >> And we that's the way it was when we bought the property, but we added 12 ft of driveway on our property line. >> Gravel on your Yep. >> Right. Right. >> There's no batuminous.
Okay. >> Any other discussion, >> Madam Chair? Yes. >> We're going to take these one at a time. >> Yes. >> I assume so. I would uh move approval of the We should probably put the findings up first. >> I'm going to get ahead of us here. Madam
75 and since we've read them and no one has any changes um then I would move approval of the variance of a setback of 50 ft where 100 feet is required from residential to storage building
um based on the findings of act the staff report the site visit and with no conditions. >> There's a motion on the second floor. There's a second. Uh further discussion >> hearing none, sir. Before we um take
action on this, I need to verify four items with you. And do you understand what is being approved tonight with this variance? >> Yes. Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? And there are none under this variance under this particular variance.
>> Right. You said there is none. >> Right. Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before any construction would begin? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, height,
or location, must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new request. Uh staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board.
>> Yes. >> Okay. [clears throat] We would then we'll proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I approve. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Next would be the conditional use permit. Madam Chair,
>> yes. I if there's no corrections or additions to the findings, I would like to make a motion to approve the conditional use for permit for commercial storage buildings consisting of 11 buildings with the 11 conditions
um in the staff report, the findings of facts in the staff report on the on-site conducted and the certificate of survey in the staff report. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second. >> There is a second. Any further
discussion? >> Hearing none. Um before we take action on this conditional use permit application, I need to verify three items with you in this case. Do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Understand [clears throat] the conditions that are required as part
of this approval? >> Yes. And [clears throat] 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. >> Yes. >> The staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes. >> Then we will proceed to vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.
>> I. Same sign. Motion carries. Lastly is the preliminary plat and this is a recommendation that we make to the county board. >> Madam chair, findings a factor on page 395. [clears throat]
>> Chair, no corrections or additions to the findings. M >> madam chair. >> Yes. Um there I would propose a uh the um findings of 2, three and five. Uh I think there's a typo where it says 10
foot setback. It should be 100. >> Oh, got it. Yep. Thank you. >> Any other additions or changes to the to the findings? >> If not, Madam Chair, >> yes. I would like to make a motion to recommend the county board approve the
preliminary plat of gobbler storage edition consisting of 12 lots and two outlots with the um revised findings and facts in the staff report and the seven conditions in the staff report along with the certificate
of survey and on-site that is submitted in the staff report. >> Second. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh before we take final action on the preliminary plat request,
I need to verify two items. You do 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 the request. >> Yes. And [clears throat] you understand that the required conditions placed on the
preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat request. >> Yes. >> Okay. We will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much.
>> County board meeting July 28th. >> July 28th, 9:00 a.m. in this room. That's the county board meeting. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> Are we doing keep going forward or does anyone need a five minute? Go >> ahead. Go ahead. Our next applicant is
James Keepers for variance request. >> Afternoon everyone. >> That would help. >> I am Mike Kippers representing our and my wife Pat representing our family. My my father is James who owns the property. Uh my mom and dad bought the
property in 1998. Dad's 89 years old now. Doesn't come up to the property anymore. Pat and I have become the caretakers. And that's he's fully supportive of what we're asking you today. >> Okay. If you just state your names and address then for the record that would be >> I'm Mike Kippers. Uh 1363
Platro Dearwood. >> Pat Kippers 1363 Plat Road Dearwood. >> Thank you very much. Nicole, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Tonight we have property owner James Kippers um with the
authorized agent um son Mike Kippers. Parcel number 50290563. Physical address is 1363 Plot Road in Deerwood. This is in Bay Lake Township. The applicant is requesting approval to construct an 88
square f foot addition to an existing screen porch. To allow this project, the applicant is seeking a request or is requesting a variance for a lake setback of 42 feet where 100 ft is required to Portage Lake.
Um this property is located um on Portage Lake, a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback. The property is off Plot Road just north of State Highway 18. The property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and
residential uses. The certificate of survey is on page 404 of your packets. There is an existing screen porch 46 ft from the OW of Portage Lake. The applicants are proposing to construct a
4-foot addition over the existing garden. Currently, the screen porch is 8 feet in width, and the applicants would extend the screen porch 4 feet closer to the lake for better utilization of the room. Noting some on-site comments from
the board um on June 30th. Surrounding properties have similar structures. The east neighbor is located closer to the lake. Proposal is modest and located over an existing flower bed. A potential condition may include establishing a 5-ft nommo buffer adjacent to the
shoreline. No comments were received from the township, other agencies, or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the five following conditions. One, a land use permit shall be approved by land services prior to
construction. Two, implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. Three, a storm water management plan according to article 41. Four, a 10-ft Nommo um shoreline buffer must be established on 70% of the
shoreline. Um and it must be established within one year of variance approval. Five, a um an asbuilt certificate of survey showing all variance requirements including elevations be submitted to the county once construction is complete.
>> I can answer any questions. Did you get a taunt recommendation? >> Township recommended approval. >> Oh, yes. So, I'm sorry. I did say that they didn't and then they talip recommended approval. >> Launch recommended approval. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff?
>> Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> Uh, no. I pretty thorough job. My one just question is what is this 10 foot 70% mole that I'm not I I saw it but I'm not familiar with what that is, >> Madam Chair. So, um it is a vegetative
buffer along the lake and it helps um reduce phosphorus and nutrient loading into the lake. Um and so it's our ordinance requires um at least 8 inches in height and 10 ft thick from the water starting landward on 70% of the
shoreline. So you're still allowed your recreation area of your 30% width. So if you have a 100 foot wide lot, 30 ft is your wreck area and the other 70 is a no maintenance. >> Is the river does the rip wrap count towards it?
>> It's behind the rip wrap. >> It would have to be behind the rip. >> Okay, thank you. I just need clarification on that. Other than that, really nothing to add. It's pretty straightforward. We just want to extend the existing porch. The one that's there now needs some repairs. And while we're doing the repairs, we just wanted to do this extension. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Can I ask one more question? If the rip wrap isn't there, does it start at the water edge then? >> Correct. Yes. >> Yeah, it'll start at the OW. Right. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I'll open this up now to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application?
I don't believe I see anyone. Anyone? Double check if there's anyone online and I don't believe so. So, I'll bring it back to the board for further discussion and action. Uh, Madam Chair, um, the findings of fact we should put up, please.
>> And I would propose we amend them to reflect the township recommendation of approval. >> Make that addition. And if there are no other changes, then I would offer a motion to approve the variance for a lake setback of 42 ft
where 100 ft is required to the proposed addition to construct an 88 square foot addition to the screen porch with the subject to the five conditions stated in the staff report, the findings of fact as amended, the staff report and the
on-site visit as well as the survey that has been submitted. >> I'll second. >> There's a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any further discussion >> hearing? None. Before we take final action on the request, I need to verify
four items. Do you 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 any construction would begin? Yes.
>> And you understand that what is being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure, size, hydro 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 and staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes. >> Okay. We will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same sign. Motion carries.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks everybody for your time. >> Thanks for your patience. >> Our next applicant would be Bruce Carter and Denise Dinardi. >> And they are online? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you state your name and
address for the record, please? Bruce Carter, 22332 East Lake, Hubert Drive, Brainard. >> And Denise Dennard, 22332 East Lake Hubert Drive, Brainer. >> Thank you, Nichollet. Can you please read that request into the record,
please? Yes, madame chair. We have property owners Bruce Carter and Denise Dennardi. Parcel number 73300579. Physical address is 22332 East Lake Hubert Drive in Briner. This is in Lake Edward Township. The
applicant is requesting approval to construct a 510 square ft addition to the existing dwelling. To allow this project, the applicant is requesting a variance for a lake setback of 53 feet where a 100 feet is required to Little
Hubert Lake. Um, let's go down to This property is located on the north side of Little Hubert Lake, a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback. Um it's off of East Lake
Hubert Drive, which is um off of Nashway in Ojiua Road. And this is actually the city of Niswa um city of Nisa and first assessment kind of break right here that you see. The survey is on page 420 of your
packet. The existing dwelling is currently 18 feet from the OW of Little Hubert Lake. The applicants are proposing an addition on the north side of the home to include adding bedrooms, bringing the total number of bedrooms in the dwelling to three.
A three three-bedroom septic design was submitted and approved for Martin Joyce. The septic design met all setbacks and ordinance requirements. Um, some of the on-site comments from the board. The surrounding properties include similar structures. A strong
storm water management plan is needed, including gutter installation. A plan is also needed to address erosion at the shoreline. And um, no comments were received from the township, other agencies, or the public. If the board does approve this
application tonight, staff would like to recommend the four following conditions. One, a land use permit be approved prior to construction. Two, implementation of an erosion and settlement control plan. Uh, three, a storm water management plan
according to article 41. And four, an asbuilt certificate of survey once construction is complete be submitted to land services. I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? Is there anything that you would like to
add as the applicants? No, that pretty much spells it out. >> Okay, thank you very much. We will then open it up. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? >> Anyone? Seeing no one, I will double check. And I believe there is no one
online, but >> Okay. So, it's back to the board for further discussion and action. And the um bindings of fact are in 431. Madame Chair, >> yes, >> there are no proposed changes to the
findings And I would offer a motion to approve the variance for a lake setback of 53 ft where 100 ft is required to construct a 510 ft addition subject to the four conditions stated in the staff report
with the findings of fact that we just reviewed the survey that's in the staff report as well as the site visit. >> Second. There's a motion on the floor and a second. Is there further discussion? >> Madam Chair, >> yes.
>> I'd like to ask John on Rock um condition number two talks about the implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan. Would it be okay that in that condition we also add that it should also include an ice ridge stabilization plan? I mean it talks
about the storm storm water plan but it it doesn't mention specifically that stabilization and that ice ridge. I think that language should be be implemented into that. >> Um, just I'm not opposed to it, but
>> I've never I've not heard of an ice ridge stabilization plan. So, is it clear what that means? And if the answer is yes, then I'm okay. >> My understanding is the intent is to is to eliminate erosion that would be happening by the shoreline. So, >> okay.
I have no objection. >> Fine. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> An applicant plans on it. Anyway, >> hearing none, before we take final action, I do need to verify uh with you as applicants. Uh do you understand what
is being approved tonight? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> You understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services
department before construction begins? Yes. >> And 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 to the with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what's been approved by this board. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. We will then proceed with
the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next application would be Brandon
and Chelsea Hagglin. >> Hi. >> Good evening. Uh, Brandon Heglin, 12231 Lake View Lane, Marfield, Minnesota 56465. >> Thank you. Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please, for the variance?
>> Yes, madame chair. Property owners are Brandon and Chelsea Hagglin. Parcel number 8213058. Physical address is 12231 Lake View Lane in Mayfield. And this is in Pelican Township. The applicant is requesting
approval to construct a 768q ft detached garage. To allow this project, the applicant is requesting a variance for a property line setback of 3 feet where 10 ft is required and a variance for a road ride ofway setback where for of two feet
where 10 is required. This property is located on uh Pelican Lake, which is a general development lake with a 75- ft setback. The property is off of Lake View Lane, which is west of County Road 3.
This property is within the Shorland District and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. The certificate of survey is on page 440 of your packet. This parcel is is an existing non-conforming lot with a width of 51
ft. Current standards require newly created parcels on general development lakes to have a minimum lot width of 100 ft. The existing 66 foot wide road right ofway easement for Lake View Lane that extends in into the applicant's property
also ends at the applicant's property. It is a dead end. The landowner to the east did submit a letter stating they were in favor of the request. The applicant also submitted a storm water management plan which you can find on page 444 of your packets. The storm
water management plan consists of French drainage systems and rock gardens to accommodate for rainwater for the structure being 3 feet from the neighboring property line. Noting some on-site comments from the board. There is a strong storm water management plan effectively directing
runwater runoff from the neighboring property. The area contains comparable structures. The lot is narrow and very limited buildable area. The parcel is located at the dead end of a dead-end easement. A letter of support. Repeating
myself now. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the four following conditions. Number one, a land use permit shall be approved by land services prior to construction. Two, implement an erosion and sediment control plan. Three, a storm water
management plan according to article 44. And four, an asbuilt certificate of survey be submitted to land services once construction is complete. I can answer any questions. >> Questions for staff? There anything that you'd like to add?
>> I have nothing to add. I just want to thank you for your consideration tonight. >> Welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one, I'll just double check. I don't believe there's anyone online. So, that brings
it right back to us for further discussion and action on this variance request. >> Can we put findings up, please? >> 450. Okay. If there's no corrections or additions, Madame Chair, I would like to make a
motion to approve the variance for property line setback of 3 feet where 10 ft is required, road rightway setback of 2 feet where 10 feet is required to construct a 768 square foot detached garage with the four conditions um
listed in the staff report. Findings of facts listed in the staff report. the certificate of survey and on-site report in the st in in the staff report. >> Second >> a motion on the floor and a second. Uh any further discussion,
>> madam chair? >> Yes. >> I just wanted to ask staff if there's a setback requirement from a drain field. >> I didn't hear what you said. >> There is that is a great question, Rock. Is there a setback to a drain field? There is a setback to an occupied structure. This
is an unoccupied garage so there is no setback. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Before I take action, I need to verify four items with you. Do you understand what's being approved tonight? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> And do you understand that the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes, ma'am. You >> understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> Yes, ma'am. And you understand that what is being approved tonight is final. Uh
any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure, size, height, or location, must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay their appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other required information with the new
request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Hearing that, then we will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a good evening, guys.
>> Yep. >> Our next application is Marian Alanne. >> Could I say, Madam Chair, I appreciate that you pronounced your name correctly. >> You're more than welcome. [laughter] It's
>> usually Auggie Mariano J33108 Dangers Road, Crosby, Minnesota. >> Derek Urkin, 38300 75th Avenue, Sartell, Minnesota. >> Thank you. Can you read the request into the record, please?
>> Yes, Madam Chair. Um, property owner is Maryanne O. Authorized agent Derek Girkin. Parcel number 60350510. Physical address is 33183 Dangerous Road in Crosby and this is in Fairfield Township. The applicant is
requesting to upgrade an existing dwelling adding pressurized water and a septic system to what was a primitive dwelling. To allow this project, the applicant is requesting a variance for a lake setback of 72 feet to the proposed septic tank and a lake setback of 88 ft
to the proposed drain field. This property is located on East Ham Lake. Zoom in here. This property is located on East Ham Lake, which is a natural environment lake with a lake setback of 150 ft. The
property is off of Danger Road, which is just east of State Highway 6. The property is um within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. The existing house is is an existing non-conforming dwelling that is
considered primitive based off of our ordinance, meaning there is no pressurized water or septic system connected to the structure. The applicants are proposing to update the dwelling to add pressurized water and connect a type one septic system.
Due to the location of the existing structure and Danger Road, the septic system placement was limited. Jeff Bremer, a licensed septic professional, submitted a septic design for a type one septic system with a proposed tank at 72 feet and a drain
field at 88 ft from the OW of East Ham Lake. No comments were received from the township, other agencies, or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend two conditions. One, a land use permit be approved to land services
prior to construction. and two, implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to construction activities. I can answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? >> There anything that you'd like to add?
>> Oh, I've had that. I've lived there for 72 years. As old as I am, I was born there. That cabin was old and primitive. People used to stay in it and then we just used it for storage. and then when the grandkids wanted to fix it up, um hoping everything will go good for them.
>> Thank you. Okay, at this point, we'll open it up for public testimony. And it looks like there might not be anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application, but I'll just double check. Uh seeing no one, I'll double check online.
And uh seeing no one there, we'll bring it back to the board for further discussion and action. manager. I'd just like to state that when we went out and did the on-site, I mean, she own they own property across the road, but it's like this. So,
putting it Dreamfield across the road with the topography was there was just no feasible way of doing that. And it's a really small lot, but it the buildable part is small. The lot's big because it goes out into the lake, but the buildable
area, the upland area is small. So, they've done the best they can and um any it'd be great improvement to have a septic type one septic system on that property. >> Comments? Any other discussion or
questions from the board? We can entertain uh action on on this request. >> The findings please. >> Madam chair, findings of factor on 465. And if madam chair, if there are no additions or corrections to the
findings, I would like to make a motion to approve the variance for lake setback of 72 feet where 150 ft is required. Road rightway setback of 7 feet where 10 feet is required to install a new type
one septic system. um with the two conditions in the staff report, the findings and facts listed in the staff report and um the certificate of survey and on-site report. >> Second. >> There's a motion on the floor and a
second. Is there any further discussion hearing? None. Before we take final action on your variance application, I need to verify four items with you. Do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes. You understand the conditions that are
required as part of the approval? Yes. Understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before any construction would begin? >> Yes. >> And 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. Okay. Uh with that then we will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Both same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much for your time and patience. >> Thank you. I wondered how you knew how
to pronounce my name right [laughter] >> to finally meet you in person. >> This our next applicant this evening would be Dale and Kathy Walddorf. We'll go to the next one then. Uh Pat
and Rebecca Pari. Hi. Thanks for your patience. >> Oh, thank you. It's been quite interesting. >> State your name and address for the record, please. >> Patrick Pari and Rebecca Pari, 17364
Paradise Shores Drive, Brainer. >> Thank you. Nichollet, can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, Madam Chair. We have property owners Patrick and Rebecca Parenti, authorized agent Luke Patton, parcel number 76080526.
The physical address is 17364 Paradise Shores Road in Brainard, and this is in Maple Grove Township. The applicant is requesting to construct a 521q ft addition to the existing dwelling. And to allow this project, the
applicant is requesting a variance for a river setback of 38 ft where 100 ft is required to Sugar Bush Creek. >> No, wrong application. >> We have no fast forward one. Let's start over. [laughter]
Patrick and Rebecca Parenty, they're in Maple Grove Township on Paradise Shores Road. They want to construct a 521 square foot addition and be allowed to have holding tanks for their septic. They are seeking a variance for a lake setback of 74 feet where 75 is required
to the proposed addition and a type two septic system where a type one is required. I must have bear with me one second. All right. So let's go to page 489 of
your packet. So, this is on Upper South Long Lake. Um, and we are on Paradise Shores Road and this is in the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and uh residential uses.
So, going to the certificate of survey on page 495. This is the existing home here on the property that they are wanting to add the addition. The existing home is 50 feet from the OW and they are seeking a
variance at 74 right here for this proposed addition to the new home and um to have their existing holding tanks. We did receive an email from Martin Joyce, who is a licensed septic professional, who stated that a septic
drain field could not be installed on the property due to um the soil types, which would need a mound system and the contours of the property not aligning with what would outline for a mound. He said there's no physical way that a a mound could fit onto this property.
And so we have we have the holding tanks. Um let's see. Um noting some on-site comments from the board. There were a minor request with no cons no significant concerns. There
were no um comments from the township, other agencies or the public. And there are three five proposed conditions. Five proposed conditions. One being a land use permit. Um the second being an
erosion control plan. The third being a storm water management plan. And um meeting all items are article 41. Number four, a 10-ft no mo buffer uh be established on 70% of the shoreline. and
five an asbelt certificate of survey showing all variance requirements including elevations being met. I can answer any questions. Any questions for staff? You have anything that you'd like to add?
>> No, I don't either. >> Okay. Uh seeing no one in the courtroom who would like to address this application. We'll double check. I don't believe there's anyone online. So, that brings it right back to the board for further discussion and action. and the findings of fact are on page
501. Madame Chair, if there's no additions, corrections to the findings or further discussion, then I would offer a motion to approve a variance for a lake setback of 74 ft
where 75 is required to proposed addition. Um, and a type 2 septic system where a type one is required to construct a 521qt addition. Withholding tanks for a type
two septic subject to the five conditions stated in the staff report, the findings of fact, the on-site review, and the survey that's been submitted. >> I'll second that. >> There's a motion on the floor and a second. Uh, is there any further
discussion? Hearing none, before we take action, I need to verify four items with you. Uh, do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> We do. >> You understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes, we do.
>> And do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before construction begins? >> Yes, I do. And 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. >> Okay. We will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I wanted to point out Stacy was very easy to work with. We're from out of state and she was right on everything. So,
>> that's great to hear, >> Madam Chair. Uh, we noticed that we don't have the Waldorfs here, but they don't have to be here for you to take action. So, um I would recommend to consider application and take action and
>> unless you know if you decided to deny it, then maybe we'd want to wait till next month. But I don't think that's the intent. >> We can go ahead and move forward then. >> I think we can. Yeah. >> If you want to read that request into the record, uh Nichollet, that >> make sure it's okay with the board. Yeah. >> Everyone okay with that? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. for the deck. Property owner is Dale and Kathy Wulandorf. Parcel number 73310536. Physical address is 6894 Ojippa Road in Brainard and this is in Lake Edward
Township. The request is to construct a 384 ft deck. And to allow this project, the applicant is requesting a variance for a river setback of 38 feet where 100 ft is required to Sugar Bush Creek. This
property is located on the east side of Round Lake, a general development lake with a 75- ft setback and on Sugar Bush Creek, a general development river with a 100 foot setback. The property is off of Jibra
Road north of the intersection of County Road 127. The property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. The certificate of survey is on page 474 of your packet.
The existing house is an existing non-conforming dwelling that was constructed prior to ordinance standards for setbacks to Sugar Bush Creek. The pro proposed deck would be 122 feet from Round Lake, almost double the required setback. Existing imperous percentage
will remain at 20.9%. Noting some comments from the June 30th on-site visit. Shorelines were stable and the creek area is well vegetated. Comparable structures exist in the area and the request only minimal the request is only a minimal deviation from current
house setback. No comments were received from the township, other agencies or the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the five following conditions. One, a land use permit be approved by land services. Two, implement erosion
and sediment control plan. Three, storm water management plan according to article 41. Four, a 10-ft nomaintenance shoreline buffer must be established on 70% of the shoreline no maintenance buffer must be established within one year. And five, an asbuilt certificate
of survey uh must be submitted to land services once construction is complete. I can answer any questions. Any questions for staff? [cough] >> And there's nothing to be added by the applicant because they are not present. There is no one um in the courtroom for
public testimony nor anyone online. So that would bring us back to the board for further discussion and action on this request. And the findings of fact are on page 483 up there. >> Madam chair, if there's no more um if
there's no corrections or any more discussion, I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for a river setback of 38 feet where 100 feet is required to construct a 384 square foot deck with the five
conditions stated in the staff report, the findings of facts in the staff report, certificate of survey, and on-site report in the staff report. [snorts] >> I'll second a motion on the floor in a second. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Matters not on the agenda.
>> Wait. You got it, Stacy. >> I'm sorry. I was off against