All right, we will call the December 2nd meeting to order and we'll start with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. >> All right. First item of business are
disclosures of interest. Are there any hearing? None. Uh approval of the previous board meeting minutes. >> Motion to approve. >> It's been moved and second we approve the minutes from the previous meeting on November 17th. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos same. Motion carries. Review the agenda. Do you have any changes, Andrea? >> There are no changes. >> Right. >> Move to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Second. We approve the agenda as presented. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> The same motion carries. Consent agenda. And there are four items. >> I'll move approval of the consent agenda.
>> I'll second. and second we approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed the same. Motion carries. We're on to land use and we have four items under there.
One of them, the first one will require a public hearing. >> Uh the first agenda item is the board is to consider the public request for reszoning for land located at 199
County 10 Boulevard, Zamroto, Minnesota. Uh the request is to allow the split of a uh approximately 4.8 acre parcel of land to be split off from 111 acres. um and for that split parcel that is four
acres to be reszoned to R1 and to um allow the remaining land to stay A3 which is urban fringe. Um the applicant is the property owners Dana and Carol Frederickson. Uh they do live on the property and do intend to stay living on
the property. Um the township that the property is located in is Zamroa Township. The planning commission did hold a public hearing on this item at their November meeting, but because it is an ordinance change, the county board also has to hold a public hearing. Um,
just to give some background on the property, um, as I mentioned earlier, the entire site is about 111 acres. Um, but the what I call the farm site or the homestead is about 4.8 acres. The Fredericksons are proposing to maintain
ownership of the home site and sell the farmland. Um, but because they are in an A3 zoning district, they're not allowed to split land that is less than 35 acres in total area. Um, that is the minimum lot size requirement in an A3 district.
Um so what they are proposing is to seek the reszoning so that um they can have a lot that is um less than 35 acres. Um the property is mostly uh surrounded by um other A3
land. Um there are other homes that are zoned R1 in the general vicinity and of course the city limits of Zambroda is within about a third of a mile of the property. Um, there are no mining sites or solar
or wind energy sites. There's no flood plane or shoreland or bluff on the property that would deem it unsuitable for residential for a residential zoning classification. Um, the site is has um has road access
from county 10 boulevard. Um, the planning commission, as I mentioned, did consider this at their November meeting and they are forwarding a recommendation of approval to the county board. Um, with that, um, if there are any
questions, I can certainly answer them. >> Questions? So, it didn't take a variance to do a split less than 35 acres in an A3 prior to turning it
into a R1. >> Uh, okay. Ref rephrase the question to make sure I'm understanding correctly. >> Well, the first thing you're doing is you're doing a split less than 35 acres. [cough] >> Yeah. Uh so the split has not >> in an A3 zone >> the split has not been approved yet
because it cannot be approved until the resoning is approved. >> Okay. >> So the the certificate of survey that is in the packet is not a has not been filed yet and the deeds have not been
recorded. It doesn't exist. It's essent it's essentially just lines on a piece of paper now. Um, it can't the deeds can't be filed until the resoning is approved. >> Okay. Questions. Okay. Is there a motion to open to a
public hearing? >> To open the public hearing. Second. >> Been moved and second. We are going to a public hearing on this reszone in at 1909 029 county 10 boulevard zero.
Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> The same motion carries. We are in a public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak to this zoning request? Does anyone wish to speak to this zoning
request? Third and final time. Does anyone wish to speak to this zoning request? >> Close public hearing. >> Second. >> Been moved and second we close public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Oppos the same. [clears throat] Motion carries. Back to us. What's your wishes? >> I'll move to approve the map amendment as requested. >> I'll second it. >> Been moved and second we approve the
request as presented. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> The same. Motion carries. All right. Uh second is to consider a request and
it's not really a conditional use. It's going to be an interim use because it's got an end date to it. So it can't be conditional use. Needs to be an interim use for wheat trail fence uh festival. Go ahead. >> Thank you. The um wheat trail festival
is scheduled for July 23rd, 24th, and 25th of 2026. It will happen at 16764 342nd way, Good Hume, Minnesota. Um, the conditional use under consideration or
the interim use under consideration tonight follows the same standards and procedures of the county's conditional use permit process. It has to meet all of those requirements. Um, notification, public hearing. Um, the difference here
is that the interim use permit is only valid for a very specific event in a very specific period of time. So, in this case, the 3-day festival. Um, you may recall at the November board meeting, the board did review and
consider a license um under um the county's assembly control ordinance. The county has the authority to issue a license for events that are expecting uh over 500 people. That license was approved in November. This is the
followup approval that is needed to for the event to have overnight camping associated with the event. Um because there is overnight camping, a conditional interim use permit was required. The planning commission did consider this
request again at their November meeting. um they held a public hearing. There wasn't anyone that spoke um in opposition of the of the interim use permit at that meeting and they are recommending approval tonight. Um I will note that um in speaking with
chairperson Anderson, one condition that I am going to suggest the board consider is um while approving while considering the approval of the interim use permit to have a condition that ties the interim use permit to the
license that was approved at the November 4th meeting. Um, some suggested language that I came up with for your consideration would be that the interim use permit is valid um with the issuance of the license dated November 4th. Um,
something to that effect just to make sure that the conditions associated with that license are then um run co run concurrent essentially with the interim use permit. But um overall the project is been reviewed by staff. There are no concerns. the applicant has demonstrated
every ability to meet all of the county's requirements. Um there, just to refresh you all, there's going to be um a liquor license that also has to be issued. Um the applicant is going to have to seek um a permit from the
Minnesota Department of Health as well to have overnight camping. Um there's coordination that's going to be required with emergency management and our sheriff's office. Um the township, Bel Creek Township has been involved in this. They have reviewed the conditional
use and signed off on it. So um everything looks to be in order. So with that, the planning commission's recommendation is to approve. And part of the reason to tie the assembly ordinance approval to it is because there were
several conditions in there that would also apply to this part for conditions which are not listed in this report. So tying them together really cleans it up and it is an IUP
because it has an end date. [clears throat] I'll make a motion that we approve the interim use [sighs] with the condition of being valid with the issues issue of the license that was
offered in November. >> I'll second that. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose the same. Motion carries. Consider request for an interim use
permit for a homebased business. And this is again as interim because if the land transfers, it doesn't carry with the land. It's a business, not a condition. >> So it's interim. >> It's an interim also.
>> That is correct. And to give some uh background on this case, uh what is being requested is for the property owners Josh and Sarah Bcher to operate a homebased business on their property where they currently reside at 23830
County 42 Boulevard, Mazeppa, Minnesota. Um the property is located in Zamroa Township. The planning advisory commission did hold a public hearing and considered this at the their November 17th meeting. Um, the request is specifically to operate what
[clears throat] the county classifies as a tier three homebased business, which can allow up to 10 employees um, and can occupy um, 7,200 square ft of essentially indoor space. The applicants have indicated that they are not seeking
to to fully maximize what is allowed under the interim use permit. Um, I think they in their application and in their testimony, they're starting with two non-resident employees. Um, and they're converting less than the amount of square footage required or maximized
um in in an existing pole shed on the building. Um the business itself um involves fabrication, manufacturing and assembly of uh seed processing machinery uh which is equipment that is used by seed vendors and wholesalers to the egg
community. The business will be primarily managed by Sarah Betcher um and jointly owned and operated um by Josh Bcher. staff has visited the site and worked closely with the applicants to um ensure compliance with the
county's interim use permit requirements. Some things that I do want to note that were pointed out to the planning commission specifically relate to the amount of increased traffic um that will be generated from the use. So one thing
that is required for the county to consider is that um we look at you know how much additional activity is going to be coming in and out of the site related to the use. So in this case um there are approximately like I I mentioned up to
four employees up to 10 eventually um and then there are um there's some loading and unloading of equipment and there is a very small and limited amount of customer activity to the site. So this is not one of those businesses
where um customers are visiting the site. There's no retail associated with it. Um let's see here. The board also um considers noise, odor, vibration, any of any of
those um impacts on the surrounding, you know, on the neighborhood or the surrounding land use. Um it's the opinion of staff that there will not be any adverse impacts related to this use. Um there are some conditions of approval that I do want to go over with the
board. Um the first is a pretty standard condition that um has been in place historically and it's that the applicant shall be responsible for applying dust control to County 42 Boulevard if dust issues arise. Um and that would be at
the direction of the county's land use management director or public works director and probably based on complaints. um if those arise. Um number two, the maximum number of non-resident employees would be 10. Um
number three, the property cannot be split um to anything less than 5 acres in size. Uh number four, any subdivision of land separating the business buildings and the operations of the
principal um essentially the business from the home shall result in the revocation of the interim use permit. Um no more than 7,200 square ft of indoor gross area gross floor area can be used for the business. Um exterior operations
and storage of goods, equipment, and materials shall be screened from public view. The interim use permit shall expire upon transfer of property ownership to owners not associated with or affiliated with the applicant unless the following
criteria is met. If the home business will continue under the same circumstances presented at the time of approval, an administrative approval may be permitted. This is right out of the the county zoning ordinance. Um, number
eight, no more than two home businesses shall be permitted on a single parcel. Um, and number nine, the applicant shall also apply for a building permit for the change of use of the building. Uh, for background, the original building was permitted as an egg ex an an
agriculturalexempt building in 2014 with its stated purpose being for agricultural equipment storage. The new permit application shall include building plans for how the interior space shall be used. Um, with that, the planning commission's recommendation is to adopt the interim
use permit with the findings listed in the staff report and the conditions that I just reviewed. >> Questions? >> Move approval of planning commission recommendation with the conditions facts.
>> Second. Been moved and second we approve the IUP with the conditions listed and the um findings of fact as stated. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I.
>> I oppose. Motion carries. >> Next uh consider request submitted by Front Neck State Park for statutory boundary adjustment. And we had this before us before and denied
uh the bigger parcel area and this is a lesser amount of area. >> Correct. As uh Chairperson Anderson stated, this request was before you in August of this year and was denied based on essentially um
concern over the fact that the bigger 60 acre parcel contains the Villa Maria property which has a lot of tax value to the county. Um the request before you tonight has removed the Villa Maria from the statutory boundary. Um, and it's
just essentially property that is owned by Jeff and Anne Bolin, which is a 31 acre parcel. Um, the Bolins have reached out to land use staff and to the state park staff and has have expressed a
desire to work with the state park to allow the park to eventually connect the park trails through their property to allow um for a trail connection from what I would consider the main part of the park to the what I call the trail
head um at the intersection of County 2 and Highway 61. that trail head is the main point where people get um get on the the Sandp Point trail. Um as of right now, there's no way to get from the main part of the park to that trail head. So, this this is sort of that
critical connection that would allow for a trail connection one day to be constructed. Um, as the staff report mentions, the statutory boundary adjustment is language that the state of Minnesota uses and requires state parks
um to go through essentially before they can begin any sort of negotiations with a property owner. So, it's really that first step. It does not mean that the state park intends on acquiring land. Um it just allow gives them the authority
to essentially start working on an easement. Um in this case would be an easement. Um the other thing that um and it looks like Mr. Jake Gastra is here from the state park as well. But the other thing that I learned through this process that
one of the um purposes and how a statutory boundary can be used is related to controlled burns. for example, where the state park might be doing a burn. As you all know, it's very difficult to keep burns right at the property line. So, they work with
adjoining land owners. Um, control of invasive species is another reason that a statutory boundary adjustment might be added on. So, there's a there's a number of reasons. As I mentioned, in this case, it is really to facilitate the owner's desire
to grant the park access through their property in the future. Um, and then to facilitate the construction of a trail. Um, so with that, the request is to essentially give the um county's
blessing on the statutory boundary adjustment of front neck state park to the 31 acre parcel as shown on the attached maps. questions. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Just to make sure that I
[clears throat] understand the um statutory boundary, I believe it has to go then before the legislature. Is that correct? >> No. Turn it on. Sorry. >> No worries. >> Thank you.
>> So, the request that I'm submitting before the county is for the county's approval for the parks and trails to submit a request before the legislature. So, this is our internal process of getting basically working with you, the county, because I mean, you are our primary neighbor, um, to make sure that
we're all on the same page to address concerns like those that were raised during our last meeting. So, this is just the first step. It will then go before the legislature for approval. Thank you. And then at any time in the future, however, if
the state or the state park would like to incorporate it into the state park, then does this preclude it having to go back before the legislature? >> Yes, ma'am. So, this is the one step in state park formation and expansion that
goes before the legislature. What the statutory boundary is is the area in which a state park is allowed by a legislature to expand our lands and boundaries. So if this request goes before the legislature and is approved, we could pursue acquisition of property
within the statutory boundary. >> Thank you. Do you know at the moment if you have th those plans? As of right now, uh, in talking with the Bolins, their intention for their property is they're developing several of the buildings that are on their property.
Um, whether for residents or rental, uh, that I cannot say, as well as the development of several other, um, acreages on that property for residential use. Again, that will require reszoning and that's up to them. there is part of their property, especially if you look on the map, the
area near the trail that is um prairie as well as the Bluffside forest. There's a lot of really high quality natural resources on this parcel. Um currently, it is the intentions of the Bolins to sell or donate part of this part of their um property to the state for management of the natural and cultural
resources at some point in the future. Again, this is it's entirely dependent upon them as the owners what they're going to do with the property. But I believe when I last talked to Jeff, he was mentioning about something about with their estate or willing it to the park upon their passing. Uh and again,
not the entirety of the property, the undeveloped sections and areas which wouldn't be developed for future use. Uh things to protect the natural and cultural resources. There's a there's a graveyard on the property, for example, that belong to the sisters who own the convent and right offside forest and
pray, that sort of thing. >> Thank you. And then if if you did end up at some point with uh the ability to purchase it, a willing seller, it comes back to us for um comment but
not for approval. >> As far as my understanding, yes. >> Okay. Because I think we've had some land down by Zimroda, Pine Island that we had a few years ago that got transferred to DNR from Feeasants
Forever maybe. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions? >> What's the board's wishes? And are we actually approving or are we just is it a letter of recommendation or >> what we're specifically seeking is
either a letter of recommendation or marking in your in the minutes of this meeting is that the board has approved the request. I will then send that on to my division and they'll basically incorporate that into their documentation when they sent before um the state legislature just marking that the county has seen and the board has
approved our existing plans. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the uh change in the statutory boundary as requested. >> Second. It's been moved and seconded. We recommend approval of the statutory
boundary adjustment. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose the same. Motion carries. [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Megan.
Uh, a few things for for information and project status report. Any questions on any of that, any new or old business? Any committee reports? >> I I have one and maybe you want to comment as well. We've had some LEAC
meetings and met with the city what last week I guess the week before and um the city is um considering a couple of different possibilities. One would involve them building a garage, one
wouldn't involve them building a garage. And there were a couple of possibilities for the county. Um, at a minimum it would cost the county about $2 million to do um what's necessary to make this
happen. Meaning that would be their share and up to and I can't remember if we made that shell space it was like $8 million I think. Um, and uh, it's not clear if the city is going to want to
invest money into that kind of money into a building they won't own. It is complicated by the fact that um, they're looking at a new uh, water treatment facility, which doesn't go on the levy, but does go onto everybody's bill for
their water, which is, I think, around $140 million. So, it's a huge amount of money. So, you know, it's kind of in the city's uh court right now. And should they decide to do it, we as the board would
have to decide at what level do we want to make any changes in that building? Does that sound pretty close, Todd? >> And it uh it is, like you've said many times, Sue, it's got to be a win-win. I mean, if we're not going to be winning anything out of this, >> Right. Right. Right. >> It's very hard for me to put money into
it. >> That's right. I understand that. We're not going to gain anything from it, but >> we have a good relationship with them. It's been going 25 years. I appreciate the heck out of that. And you know, I mean, the the rent has to be corrected. >> And I think we're getting very close to that.
>> Yeah. >> I think we're all into I know Lawn, our our representative, the engineer, I know he's looked into some different rents and stuff for us. And uh >> Yeah. And I >> And I don't think we're that far off of our >> No, I don't think we are projected. think um
>> I was thinking about it because it's hard to spend money in in this uh climate, but the rent itself would end up covering our costs over a few years. Um >> about how we >> Well, yeah, I understand that. I'm not
saying that I'm sold on the idea, Todd. I I think it's complicated. I think it's kind of iffy if the city will want to do it at all. And uh it's hard to get excited about spending money on changes that we maybe don't actually need.
Anything else? Any other committee reports? Hearing none uh claims >> approval. >> Second. >> Moved and second we pay the bills. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All
those in favor say I. >> I. The same motion carries. There's nothing else. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Men second we adjourn. All those in
favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos the same. Option carries.