Planning Commission / Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

I was like.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for attending the Hubbard County Planning Commission Board of Adjustment meeting for Monday, August 24th. Please bear with me while I read the meeting procedure. All persons in attendance at the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment, the PCBOA meetings are expected to comply with the following meeting procedure. Thank you in advance for helping make this a manageable meeting. Copies of agenda item materials are available for public viewing on the table located at the back of the meeting room. These materials are not to leave the table so that others in attendance may also view them. Please turn phones to vibrate or off during the meeting and conduct any sidebar conversations outside of the meeting room. Interruption or other interference with the orderly conduct of the PCBOA meeting will not be allowed. Defamatory or abusive remarks are always out of order. Disruptive persons will be removed from the meeting and the chair may terminate its speaker's privilege of address if after being called to order the speaker persists in improper conducts or remarks. Written material concerning agenda items must be submitted to the Environmental Services Department by 3.30 p.m. on the Wednesday immediately prior to the meeting date. Written materials will not be accepted after this deadline or at the meeting because the PCBOA will not have sufficient time to review them prior to the meeting. Such materials must state the agenda item for which it is being submitted and the name and address of the submitting party. The Planning Commission business is conducted first, followed by the Board of Adjustment business. The chair will call the meeting to order and explain the meeting procedure. The chair will read each item agenda into the record and ask the applicant to come forward to the presenter's table. State his, her, or their names and address for the record and explain his, her, or their request. The PCBOA will then discuss the agenda item with the applicant. The chair will then ask for public comment on the agenda item, and to facilitate an orderly, efficient meeting, there is a three-minute speaking time limit per speaker per agenda item unless the chair allows the speaker additional time. The chair may terminate the speaker's privilege of address if, after being called to order, the speaker persists in improper conduct or remarks. When the chair recognizes a speaker, he or she may approach the audience podium and microphone, state his or her full name and address for the record, and write such on the speaker log, and then share his or her comments. The audience podium microphone must be used by the recognized speaker because the meeting is recorded. A member of the public may not donate his or her speaking time to another speaker. A speaker should state his or her comments and address the issue, not the applicant's. All comments are to be directed towards the PCBOA. Please do not repeat comments already made by previous speakers. The chair reserves the right to ask a group with similar comments to appoint a spokesperson. If written comments have been submitted to the PCBOA, please do not read them aloud during the meetings as they are already a part of the record and copies thereof have been given to the PCBOA. After everyone wanting to speak on an agenda item has done so, the chair will close public comment period on the agenda item and no further public comment will be taken after this point. The chair will give the applicant an opportunity to address issues raised during public comment. The PCBOA will then continue its discussion on the agenda item and the chair will entertain a motion on it. The PCBOA will make a motion to pass, deny, or table the item. Once a motion is made and seconded, the PCBOA will develop findings of facts for conditional use permit and variance applications and then vote on the motion. Once the vote is taken on the agenda item, the PCBOA will move on to the next agenda item. Meetings commence at 6 p.m. and will continue until all agenda items have been heard or until 10 p.m. No new agenda items shall be considered after 9.45 p.m. The PCBOA may, at its discretion, continue an item that is on the floor at 10 p.m. Any remaining agenda items shall be continued to another date or time, preferably the immediately following Tuesday at 6 p.m., and no further public notice will be provided for such a meeting continuation. The PCBOA will then, through the chair, may modify these procedures prior to a meeting or an agenda item. All right. First thing on the agenda is the Planning Commission approval of the minutes, approval of the July 27, 2026 meeting minutes. Do we have any questions or comments on the Planning Commission minutes? If no comments, questions, or concerns, I'm open for a motion.

This is Timothy. I'll make a motion to approve the July 27th Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you, Tim. I have a motion by Tim for approval.

This is Larry. I'll second that.

And a second by Larry. Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. The Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 27, 2026 have been approved. Next item up, we have no old business, so we'll go right on into the Board of Adjustment. Approval of the minutes there. If we have no questions or comments on them, I'm open for a motion.

This is Larry. I move we adjust the Board of Adjustment Minutes as presented.

Okay. Thank you, Larry. I have a motion by Larry to approve the July 27, 2026 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes. Do I have a second?

This is Mike. I'll second.

Okay. And a second by Mike. Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Timothy, how do you vote?

Timothy votes aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

This is Veronica. I also vote. I, the board of adjustment minutes have been approved for July 27th, 2026 meeting moving straight through to the new business variance application 43 dash V dash 26 by Don Dyson dash Fox lot six block one and. One-fifteenth interest in Lot A, Island View, Section 3, Township 139, Range 33, Crow Wing Township, Crow Wing Lake Township on Island Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 06.51.00600. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 902.1.B of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for grading in a steep slope in excess of the permittable volume. Thank you so much for coming to the presenter's table. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, good evening. I'm James Dreesen. I am the agent for the owner who is here tonight, Dawn Dreesen Fox, 15103 Chokecherry Drive.

Dawn, you're here tonight as well? I am. Thank you, Dawn. Can you go ahead and please state your name and address as well?

Dawn Dreesen Fox, 15101 Chokecherry.

Thank you, Dawn. Appreciate that. Okay, and go ahead and continue with your request, please.

Yeah, we're proposing, as we stated, a 30 by 30 foot addition to her cabin with a smaller lower level or walkout basement level. We wanted to... go down rather than up to keep the footprint a little bit smaller. And the natural contours of the lot seem to support a walkout basement very nicely. Sans the requirement or the restriction on how much volume of soil we can move. We're also proposing a three season porch on one end and a small grill deck on the lake side.

Okay, thank you so much. In the application here, it also states that you're going to be removing the gazebo and the 10 by 10 shed, is that correct?

Yeah, we're still trying to sort the gazebo as to how we can handle that. But yes, it needs to move to support the construction.

And at this time, it appears that your request is to move approximately 200 cubic yards of soil.

Yeah, that's the best estimate from our contractor.

Okay. Do I have any questions or comments from the board?

I neglected to ask this. Larry, when we're out for lot views, is the soil going to leave the premises or are you putting it elsewhere on site?

Um, that would, if it needs to stay on site, we certainly can keep it on site. Um, I don't know that that had been completely determined, but, uh, yeah, there is, there is spots to put it, um, on the site. Cause if you recall, we have quite a bit of land to the, um, to the south. Okay.

Yeah. I guess the question would be are you going to use any fill of it anywhere else around the house, not at all?

No, it's pretty level where the existing cabin is.

Any other questions or comments?

This is Ken. Obviously the shape of your contour stormwater runoff is a concern. I would at least like to make sure that the house has properly installed gutters and all stormwater is directed down to the west to that low area of your property and not allowed to run towards the lake. There would be a condition for me to be willing to consider this.

And we've got, we're proposing gutters on the addition, and as you noted, we do have the gutters on the cabin, the existing cabin.

Just want to make sure that the addition would ensure that that water does, down to the left there.

Yeah, there's a natural swale there that obviously.

And a low area basin to catch it, yes, thank you.

Yep, that's the intent, is to manage the stormwater in that way.

At this time, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. During the lot views, I did notice that the lakeside is very well vegetated. I appreciate that, too. I did note that. So there's a lot of screening for this proposal. It's not getting any closer to the lake. It's not encroaching any closer. I do like Ken's proposal as far as the condition, even though you talked about the guttering, but I would like to put that condition on there too, that this guttering be installed to direct that stormwater away from the lake. I also would like to put on there, even though you have in your application that you're going to remove the shed and the gazebo, but the lake, the 10 by 10 shed and the gazebo must be removed from the property prior to your land use permit being obtained. If you're going to remove those items anyway, I don't foresee that to be a problem unless you do.

We don't have a plan to move on how we're going to move it or how we're going to get it out. So it might not happen before.

I mean, are you not going to do anything this? It has to be moved back. Sure, but I mean, the season's almost over for contracting. You're probably not going to do your permit until next spring anyhow. Is that correct, or do you have a plan yet?

Yeah, we're hoping to, well, pending tonight's decision, we were hoping to start in September.

I see, to do the groundwork then. Correct.

He wants to get it closed off so we can work all winter.

I see, yeah.

Ronnie, for my clarification, the gazebo there seems to be

an iffy about removing it are we are we going to require that as part of a condition or that at least must be moved back to 100 feet yeah well he just mentioned the drain lot views because they're going to have a screened porch that they were going to get rid of it or you know relocate it so i was going to utilize that as a condition but um i'm open either way that it can be moved back either to the 100-foot setback and permitted properly. Yes, either one for me.

I guess I would be okay with that, that it were moved back if there's room, as opposed to destroying it anyway. Sure, right. So I don't know how my colleagues feel about that.

Oh, absolutely. I didn't want to see it destroyed. I just wanted to see it removed from the property with the, as he mentioned, he's going to have a screened-in porch. That's the only reason.

This is Tim. I've got a question for Eric. With the leftover after they backfill, if they get this and backfill, wouldn't they have to remove all that soil off the property?

Unless there's some place that meets setback and isn't in a steep slope where they could place it, I'm going to guess if they've got anything left over, they'll probably want to have it taken off-site. Off-site?

So there's only certain spots it can be The plan was to take it off-site wasn't it?

Yes One other thing that I was questioning I don't know how the board members feel but with this size of a additions and the setback from the lake i was considering the condition that no further additions just to the residential structure um be allowed as a condition correct from a two bedroom to a four bedroom and being 66 feet from the ohw

This is Larry. You might help me out if I'm wrong here, but there was no garage on the property, correct?

Right, and this would only be the residential, but that still doesn't mean they couldn't have an accessory structure possibly.

Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify to make sure that we weren't stopping. Okay, very good.

Yep, I considered that. Yep, I considered that. That was a goal. Yeah, right. And that's why, yeah, exactly. Yep. Okay. Want a motion? Yes, please.

I'll try with the conditions. I'll make a motion that we accept variance request 43 v 26 with three conditions. There will be no future additions to the residential building will be allowed in the future. That guttering and storm water direction will ensure the water goes to the low area west of the structure, and that the shed that's to the west of the structure, not up the hill, and the gazebo be removed from the property. I think I picked up on all that.

So not just moved back 100 feet, removed?

Well, since you're getting a screened-in porch, I'm making the statement of completely removal. If the rest of the colleagues were okay with 100 feet, I'd agree with that but it seemed to be that the contention on as long as with the amount of construction the size expansion and and the screening porch that it was it's not necessary to be there so um i don't know what other people feel i'm okay with that if

I am too, but maybe a deadline because you can't, I mean, you might have to put a deadline on it.

Could I ask that we have some time to do it?

Oh, absolutely, yes, yes, yeah.

Oh, yeah, you can add that. I forgot that.

Yeah, I mean, even if we say by next, you know, because I know you're going to be doing the groundwork, but even if we say if it has to be removed in one year, that would be this time one year, you know, within one year. The shed can be removed right away, but the...

Yeah, the four conditions, the shed and gazebo need to be removed with one year from the acceptance of the application.

Correct. And then the findings of facts.

Okay, let me try. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes intended official controls? Construction is at the site of the structure, which still maintains the setback from the lake. The conditions for gutters, other structural removal are consistent with the official controls. Is a property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by an official control? Yes, increasing a very small cabin of 720 square feet to the approximate 2,000 square feet is a reasonable use. Number three is a need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current property owner. The topography is such that soil removal would require for any construction, and it is mostly in a steep slope area.

Yep, and we can also add that the driveway runs through the southeast corner, providing access to the adjacent lot for that one as well.

Yep, we can add that. Good point. Will the issues of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? Location is single-family residence with good separation and the applicant's family owns the property to the east, so there's really no change to the character. And number five is yes, does the stated practical difficulty involve more than just More than just economic consideration, the answer, the economics are not cited in the application as a practical difficulty.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Ken to approve the variance application as stated per the site plan with the conditions that he listed, the three conditions. And he produced the findings of facts one through four and adopted number five. Do I have a second?

Is Larry a second?

And a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. So you'll be receiving a decision letter from the Environmental Services Office on your next steps. Okay? Thank you. All right.

Thank you very much.

Next item on the agenda is Variance Application 44-V-26 by John Carter, part of Government Lot 2, Section 35, Township 142, Range 34, Clay Township on Big Mantrap Lake, a recreational development lake, Parcel 04.35.00820. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 902.1 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for grading in a steep slope in excess of permittable volume. Thank you, sir. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

John Carter, 28833 Junipine Park Rapids.

Okay, thank you, sir. And please go ahead and state your request for us.

So I'm looking to create a new access to my property off of Jewell, basically a new driveway. That's what I'm looking to do.

Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm just going to also read in here. It says the request is to allow approximately 280 cubic yards of soil to be removed in a steep slope so that the road approach onto County 104 can be moved. Is that correct?

I'm going to say yes. I have a little difficulty hearing.

I'm sorry. Is that a little better?

Yeah, that's right. Okay. Yeah.

So I'll read it one more time. The request is to allow approximately 280 cubic yards of soil to be moved in a steep slope so that the road approach on the county 104 can be moved. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. It says the approach is for the Juniper Drive, which is a private road that has five properties using it for access. These five properties have easement over the current location of Juniper, or Junipine Drive, which runs in front of the house the applicant constructed on the lot roughly three years ago, correct?

Correct.

Okay. And the easement predates the house. Okay. Do I have any questions or comments from the board? If we don't have any questions or comments right this time, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. OK, go right ahead. Appears our microphone is not coming down out of the ceiling. So you'll have to use the handheld one, please. So first sign in Hi, I'm Christine.

I'm in Maples. I live at two eight nine. Oh nine Juno Pine Drive.

Perfect Thank you, and you'll also have to sign in on the board, too. Thank you. Thanks. I

So I'm on the driveway on the end part, the furthest part, one of the five people that live there. I did give a written letter to the county, but that was under the understanding that the driveway was being adjusted and moved per the application. Even now though with maintaining the original driveway, I still do have the concern about the structural integrity, the risk to that with the additional approach. I'm there all year round. My husband, my family, and I, we are there all year round. We maintain the road in the winter with the snow plowing. We hire it out. I don't do it myself. But in the summertime, whenever we've got a rain, myself and our neighbors, our other four neighbors, also go and maintain the road with bringing in class five as needed, whatever. There are significant areas of rutting after the rain, and we are concerned about the structural integrity that it might introduce additional rutting for the new driveway. Okay.

Thank you very much. Any other public comment?

I'm concerned a little bit about the easements I know I sent in a public comment letter and I just want to make sure y'all are aware of that and take that into consideration too because any new I'm sure you all were out there looking at it the other day and it's a steep access if it is put in that way and the washing and everything onto 104 becomes a problem. And other neighbors are concerned about it. And on weekends when there's a lot of traffic through there, there's a blind corner when you come over the hill, you can't see it. And I'm concerned about that. And then there was the 911 address changes. What? Do we change our address if that happens? Those are the questions I have.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

I'm Betty , and my address is 29111 Juliet Drive. I do not live on Juniper Pine Drive, but I go by this area anywhere from probably four to six times a day. So I go around the Isle of Dreams corner, which is about 150 feet from where the driveway is proposed, which doesn't give you much time coming around that corner to see somebody coming out. It's an extremely steep elevation to put a driveway in. Coming from the south, coming like from town, when you come to the hilltop, it is probably 100 feet from there, which is another not so good idea, because you can't really see very well. There's a lot of trees around. The driveway's been there for many years, and I'm wondering What's the purpose in changing it? I guess. I mean, there's a driveway there now that serves a purpose. That's just my concern. I also sent in a letter.

Any other public comment? Okay, seeing none, I'm gonna close public comment.

Questions?

Sure, go ahead, Ken.

Mr. Carter, how wide were you proposing the cut be in that

steep hillside The whole full 33 feet of the easement No, I was planning on 16 feet to 18 feet Which is the current width of the existing easement it might end up being a little wider than that Okay, we had one contractor Look at it but he looked at terms of removing the dirt and rounding the how to put it rounding the top of the hill and It might end up being more like 18 feet.

Okay, and then to prevent coming down to the wall, things on the side, usually a 3-1 ratio, and it looks to me like you're cutting about 15 feet into that hill. So at least eight or 10, that would seem to me that you're gonna, beyond that 16 or 18 feet, you're gonna have to peel out, what, maybe 24 feet on each side? I think you're pretty close. Any kind of protection. That's pretty extensive. Yeah, yeah. And you built your house when the road's been there for many, many years. What's driving you to need to want to prevent the traffic from coming in on the current road? What's driving you to do this?

First of all, I'm not preventing anybody from using the current access. They have deeded access, so that's never been an issue with me. You're pretty close to, I think, what the contractor was telling me that

Tip-to-tip area between 24 and 30 feet.

He's not sure He's recommending class 3 rock up to 8 feet and then ground cover beyond that to prevent soil erosion He did tell me That it would be it would be when he's done doing the grading then that would determine how much of the class 3 would go in there You're right that when I built the house we have kind of a rough idea of the landscape and you want to get done to the house and One of the things we want to do is create a little Better look for the house then having that open space which is actually wider than the house to create a little better look to it when you're when I'm looking at the house kind of thing and And I think one of the people that was at the site inspection hit the nail on the head when they said, I'm gonna grass in where the current driveway access is, which is part of the plan, and then plant trees along our side of the driveway. west side of the easement between the easement and the house to make the appearance of the house better. That's been the goal from the beginning. I have a small logistic issue, which is getting my 23 foot boat trailer and my long box crew cab truck to make that turn easily. This would make that easier, but that's secondary to the landscaping plan.

Okay. I'm still being the owner of a boat trailer about the same size. I still don't see how that easement and the slice you're going to make is going to improve your ability to get your trailer onto the current drive. And it seemed to me there's plenty of room for it to be turned around with the current setup.

I can do it. It just takes about like a three-point turn for me to get it in there straight.

Okay. This is Tim. I agree with the public comment. I think somebody coming 60 miles an hour either way, it's going to be too close from it being blind that close, and I do think it's a safety issue, and... And I think you're going to have the same problem with driving in from that way as you would the way you are. So myself, I'm not in favor of the...

The new driveway is 72 feet further north?

It's down a hill and closer to a corner the other way.

72 feet. I was there.

But you still have this 90 degree turn because the angle that you have, you still have to go in and then turn to get down to your house.

That would be the turnout that the contractor would build. It's the same 90 degrees for me, though.

Yeah. When we were there, you mentioned that you would come straight across your grass. You go quite across your grass.

Mm-hmm.

You can already go right across your grass utilizing the junipine drive and not even have to cut any of this excess out.

All the ideas that were mentioned during the site inspection are their ideas, right? They're good ideas and they work.

Yep, right.

But for me, the part that we're trying to accomplish is also a long-range landscaping idea.

Mm-hmm.

and that would mean changing basically the front yard by planting trees and such with maintaining the current short driveway that I've got that would prevent that from happening. That was my purpose in applying for the variance is to make the driveway more or less hidden by planting trees on my property.

But if it's still gonna be left open, for people to drive, you're not gonna be able to change the landscaping anyway.

No, that is absolutely true. My approach to the property would be better from an appearance standpoint.

This is Larry. I walked up on that hill and looked down, and it's really a straight drop down to 104. And the amount of dirt that would have to be moved to make that a safe driveway with a flat spot on the bottom and stuff so you can actually stop before entering 104, to me, it's just not feasible from a safety standpoint. And also, it's just a really serious... cut to fix a fairly minor break. So I have trouble supporting this.

So the actual elevation from Jewell to the point of the easement is 10 feet over 117 feet. Which is the exact same distance from the low point of the easement to where the new approach would be for my driveway. So it's one foot for every 10 feet, roughly, of elevation to the easement.

Right, but 104 runs uphill to that current easement, so that's eating most of that naturally where you're trying to do it in a very short span.

It's going to be a miserable, slippery hill in the wintertime.

What in the wintertime snow will get packed down it will become very slippery that steep part where you're gonna have to go up Well, so the actual elevation For my driveway from jewel 104 to the easement is Exactly the same elevation that currently exists in the the current easement is 10 feet from the low point and to the new point of entry, it's the same 10 feet. So it's no, I'm not disputing what you're saying. What I'm saying is that it's the same. For me, it's the same, same 10 feet.

This is Veronica speaking. I'm in agreeance with my colleagues that the existing location of Junipine Drive works just as it is for the applicant, that this proposal is excessive, especially this 280 cubic yards of material, the safety issues, the blind spot. During lot views, we all were in agreeance that there's plenty of room on the property that the applicant can usable space that the applicant can drive to access the pole shed. So I'm not in favor of the application and I would agree with the staff and deny.

This is Tim. I'll make a motion to deny application 44-V-26 and adopt staff's findings.

I have a motion by Timothy to deny the application and to adopt the staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

This is Mike. I'll second.

Okay, and a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. Your application has been denied and you will receive a decision letter from the Environmental Services Office within the next couple of days.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda. Variance application 45-B-26 by William Mills Trust, part of Government Lot 7, Section 30, Township 142, Range 33, Thorpe Township on Big Mantrap Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcels 26.30.01800 and 26.30.01600. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 4, Subdivision A1, A2 of the Subdivision Ordinance for proposed boundary line adjustment that will not make a non-conforming lot more conforming. Thank you for coming to the presenter's table. And go ahead and state your name for the record, please.

William Mills. And the address. 249, anyway, Juniper Trail. Whatever my number is. 29421. Okay, thank you.

There you go.

And my neighbor, Mark Condiff. I'm at 29291 Juniper Trail, adjacent property.

Perfect, thank you. And go ahead and give us your rundown on your request, please.

It's simply to draw a straight line between our two properties. For some reason, history saddled us with a really strange configuration. So we picked the same point on the lake shore of the existing property line, so no lake shore changes hands and then the line was drawn so that we traded square foot for square foot of land so there's no change in Amount of land either one of us own and we have a straight line from the lake shore over to the property line which Goes down the side of juniper trail.

Okay All right. Thank you very much I'm gonna go ahead and just open for public comment. I And seeing that I'm going to close public comment. Do I have any questions from the board?

No, this is Ken, just for the kind of, for the record, it seems to me, this is such a logical thing to do. Both lots are still fully conforming in terms of billable area and lot size area and shoreline and so on. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Yes, that is correct. Both lots will remain conforming in that area, the lot area and lot width. I agree. They're just sharing that boundary line that's very oddly shaped and doesn't allow the side lot area to be utilized. So I agree. It seems to be pretty simple boundary line adjustment. And we've already received Township provided a written statement. which says the township will not require variance for the proposed boundary line adjustment as well, and the septic on both lots are compliant and will continue to meet the required property line setbacks. Anybody prepared for a motion?

I can do it.

Go for it.

I'll make a motion that we accept variance application 45V-26 and accept the staff's findings of fact.

Okay, I have a motion by Ken to approve the application 45E-26 as presented and adopt the staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

This is Larry. I'll second.

And a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I vote aye. The application has been approved. You'll be receiving a decision letter from the Environmental Services on the next steps. Okay? Thank you. Thank you so much. OK. Next item on the agenda, Variance Application 46-B-26 by Jessica Part of Government Lot 6, Section 4, Township 139, Range 33, Crow Wing Lake Township on 4th Crow Wing Lake, a natural environment lake. Parcel 06.04.01330. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 704.1.C of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to make a lot not created compliant with the official controls in effect at the time into an improved lot. And we have the authorized agent. from Racer Construction here. Go ahead, state your name and address for the record, please.

Jody Ilanemi, Racer Construction, 26299 Eagle Bay Avenue, Osage, Minnesota.

Perfect, thank you, Jody, and go ahead and just give us a quick rundown on the request, please.

The request that people would like to build a small house and put a garage on a on a lot that all the sizes they had there actually I thought fit very well. That's about where we're at.

All right, yep, so the lot was created in 2002, did not comply with the rear lot line width requirement at that time. Could be no less than 50% of the 200 foot minimum lot width because it had the rear lot line, I guess. Let's see. We have the septic design in there for the three-bedroom house, and we have an alternate site that you showed us as well. Got everything staked out. So I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Do I have any questions from the board members?

I just have a comment. I would ask that paperwork be sent in to memorialize an alternate site.

Okay.

I'd be in favor of it.

That'd be great, yeah.

I'd have paperwork sent in to environmental services.

I didn't have one on the design paperwork, Tim.

I didn't see it. Okay. It might be there. If it is, then you got it done. Maybe it is in there.

Let's see. Did I put it in there? Soils are there looks like soil Yep, I just didn't draw it in. It's right to the top right above that one just to mark the spot Yeah, do that and stop my environmental services office next week. Perfect.

Okay. All right any other questions or comments I Just I knew during public or during the lobby as you showed us where it was at So yeah, if you could just get that on there for us, that'd be great. I

Yeah, Tim asked when we were out there where it was.

Yep.

And the soils were verified. Yeah.

Let's see. We do have staff also commented that if the condition that can only be submitted per this site plan sketch.

My only comment to this is that this lot, you know, meets the 200 feet shoreline for a natural environment lake. It meets the 150 feet setback. It's just a very odd shape, triangle shape at the back that makes it nonconforming. Uh, and doesn't meet that 80,000 square feet, but otherwise it's given the heavy vegetation and so on. It seems like a very reasonable lot.

Veronica.

Yes, sir.

Can we had staked that to where the front of the garage and the front of the house were even, is that going to make a difference?

Is it very much different than the site plan this year?

It's sitting about the same place. It's just the front of the house and the front of the garage. We staked them to where they were even.

I think the main concern would be just the sizing. Was that correct, Eric? Or just on your staff report?

That's the main intent.

Yeah, it's just so we don't get a...

Okay, yeah, because we slid it back to give them so they wouldn't go down the hill and scream through their garage door on the ice.

The main thing is just that size construction part. Okay, all right, any other questions or comments? It's mainly just to prevent future and large, you know, massive stuff.

It's kind of nice to do one where they aren't trying to fill the whole lot with a house.

Exactly. Correct.

This is Larry, I too am supportive and would move that we accept variance application 46V26 and accept staff's findings of facts with the condition that these alternative septic site get noted on the plan.

Okay, I'm gonna throw that little condition in there just for...

The lot can only be developed per the submitted site plan sketch.

All right, so I have a motion by Larry to approve the variance application 46-V-26 per site plan with the condition that it can only be developed per the submitted site plan sketch and having that septic information thrown on there.

This is Timothy. I'll second.

OK, and a second by Timothy. Timothy, how do you vote?

Timothy, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. The application has been approved and decision letters will be sent out.

Okay. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Tony. Next item on the agenda, variance application 47-B-26 by Sunny Shores. Part of government lot one and government lot two, part of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, and part of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter, all in section 12, township 140, range 35, Todd Township on Fish Hook Lake, a recreational development lake, parcels 27.12.00120. 27.12.00500, 27.12.00600, 27.12.00610, and 27.12.00620. The applicant is requesting a variance from Article V, Section 201 of the Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Ordinance which requires that a subsurface sewage treatment system shall be upgraded to conform entirely with all requirements of the SSTSO when an SSTS is disconnected from a building, being replaced, and connected to a new building. Thank you for coming to the presenter's table. Could you please state your name and address for the record?

My name is Paul Danielson. I live at Sunny Shores at 20403 County 1, Lot 50. And with me today is Rick Smith as well.

Rick Smith, Northland Septic Maintenance. I'm the license inspector that worked on it as well as a licensed service provider.

Thank you. And go ahead with your proposal, please.

So the variance request that we have before you is related to the disconnect of a mobile home and a new mobile home being brought in. We have 52 mobile home units that are in Sunny Shores and have been in there since it was started in 1990 and periodically some of the mobile homes need to be replaced. It just so happened that last year one of our units, we had a death of that member, they sold it. the person that sold it to came in to get the permit for the mobile home and was notified about this clause that we hadn't previously dealt with of having to upgrade the septic system to current standards. Our septic system is in compliance right now and so our request right now is simply that we have the ability and flexibility to replace a mobile home as long as we don't increase the number of bedrooms in that unit.

And how many bedrooms is in the current unit?

Currently in lot 29, there are two bedrooms. But again, I want to emphasize that the variance application is not just for lot 29, but for the ability for any of them to be replaced as long as we're in compliance.

This is Mike.

When was the last time you replaced a unit there?

I believe the last unit was replaced in 2023.

And which one was it? What number?

Bear with me for a minute.

Sure.

Lot 22 was the last one that was replaced prior to this request.

During lot B, as you mentioned, four trailers were swapped out over the 10 years. And so that was number 28, number 50, and number 22. What's the last one?

Can you repeat those numbers to me?

Number 28, number 50, number 22, and there's one more.

Number 9.

Number 9. Those are the only ones in the last 10 years?

My memory's not that good that I can emphatically say that, but I believe that is approximately correct.

When those changed, did bedroom numbers occupancies change? Bedrooms increase?

I know in at least one of those cases, yes. I am the owner of lot 50. I do know that one did not change.

Have you seen the, this is Tim speaking, have you seen the plan of the one that's exchanging with 29, the new one? I have. So is it just the two bedrooms or is there a two bedroom and a hobby room?

So the request that came in from lot 29 to us was to put, so when we started this discussion, it was that We have typically looked at these things from a size perspective. How much room do we have on the property to be able to put it in? And in this case, there's a 60 foot trailer there, and we, based on room, had said we could go up to 70 feet. Typically a 70 foot unit is two bedrooms, two bath. His request was for a three bedroom, two bath, and a full 70 foot. end to end. We came back and said, no, we understand the issue we now are dealing with with the ordinance and with the potential for a septic system. And we said, no, we're only going to accept two bedrooms. The plan he currently has put in front of us is two bedrooms with a den space in there.

Public comment.

I'll open for public comment at this time. Seeing none, I'll close public comment.

So this is Tim speaking. I don't have a problem with that 29 either, but I'm not in favor of just a blanket open permission for you guys to handle it. Only because of just what you're talking about, that den. Cause I think going through us, we'd look at a plan of a place and say yes or no. And when it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck. So I'm in favor of the application, but not the blanket permission to put in an exchange when they want.

And your recommendation is they could replace the current one, but with two bedrooms, not three, okay. No, I wouldn't put, no.

One for one. Right.

So for only this one.

Right.

Right, and then how do you?

I would think that if you would have to come each time for a variance, right? to exchange it and then we'd look and we'd look at the plan that was supplied by whoever's going to sell it and they'd show that they have a garbage disposal or if they have two bedrooms and two hobby rooms and then we make our decision whether we let it go or not.

And if the septic is compliant and if they're maintaining, you mentioned that they have their new digital.

Yep.

metering and keeping up with your digital metering that would be easy to prove if they're compliant sure and when they would be easy to move forward if it's all dandy dandy yeah agreed this is Larry from what I'm hearing and it makes sense what's the contingency to make sure the den doesn't become a bedroom

Well, one of the recommendations that I discussed with Eric is that we could, for instance, have the applicant sign an affidavit that they will keep it that way. I am the applicant for Sunny Shores. I'm also the president of Sunny Shores. I'm not the owner of lot 29. But just to show our good faith in this, they came forward with a three bedroom. And we made the difficult decision to say no. We're instead willing to self-police ourselves because we have 52 owners that we represent. And as a board, I have a responsibility to all 52 of those. So while what you have said is they could turn it into whatever they like, We know when construction is going on out there. It's not like you can hide somebody who's got two-by-fours out there to be able to turn it into a room. I mean, I think we feel like we do a very good job of self-policing. We have a seven-member board that oversees that. I have three of my other board members with me today. And things come up. And as an example, and I was sharing this with Eric the other day, we just had a resident that passed away. that residence unit likely is going to go up for sale and that unit likely is not in terrific shape and may need to be upgraded so that puts a lot of burden on us as sunny shores to have to come forward with a variance when it's really lot x's issue to deal with so you know i think there's ways every unit has to come in to get a permit every permit is going to have a plan it's going to show the number of bedrooms that are out there so there is a way already set up to be able to do that everyone needs a new you know uh foundation footings for their trailer that is a permitting process. So we feel like the processes are already in place to do it. The key piece of this is to make sure that we as a Sunny Shores stay in septic tank compliance. We have a lot riding on that so we sure don't want to put ourselves in a position that somebody decides that they want to add change their den into a bedroom simply to fake you out they're faking us out as well and they're going to pay the price for that because they're one 50 second owner of the park as well so we have a lot of incentive to follow the rules i guess is my point right and i appreciate you realizing that and taking the initiative to say negative we have to watch out for everybody and so you know two is what we should have two is what it was there and for everybody's sake in our

septic sake, so I appreciate that. So yeah, I agree with our our board members here. And Tim going with your suggestion. Any other questions or comments?

No, I understand. I understand what he's saying there too.

But I think the way that we're discussing it seems the same way. I mean.

Yeah. There is a negative part that somebody would have to come for a variance, but.

But I think down the road, that's part of the sunny shores. I mean, no different than most likely one of them would have to pay for the permit. If when one person wants to replace their thing, they should, that's their business, but they could also have their, each applicant pay for the variance, you know. That's just part of it.

not the company the challenge of that though is you know in this case sunny shores did pay for this variance and sunny shores did pay for Northland to make sure that we had a compliance system in place.

I meant the number, whoever's unit it is, should have to be that responsibility.

I understand that piece, but the compliance piece goes along with it. The digital meter was installed for all benefit of all 52 residents.

And I'd like to see more of that documentation in the future of the use. Maybe just fine, but for sizing on that system, the gallons per day.

We would be more than open to share our data on a regular basis with the county if that is in a condition that you'd want to put on us. All we're trying to strive for is to make sure that we have some level of flexibility so that we're not coming in for a variance every single time that we have mobile home that needs to be swapped out and if the only issue is is our person cheating on the number of bedrooms we can sure work with them to make sure that we keep that okay well as part of our permitting process as well because all of our residents do need to get a permit before they can even come to the county to get their permit okay just for clarity you replaced four units

in the last 10 years. You've only come for one variance because you hadn't been caught.

So just to be clear, though, the person that came forward was never told that we needed to do anything with the system.

But it's not like you've had to have a bunch of variances, though. I'm just putting that for clarity. You've only had to pay for one variance.

Again, our issue is not price. It's responsibility of who's it on.

Well, I don't know how my comrades here feel, but I'm sticking to where I'm at. That's just the way I feel about it.

This is Larry. I think some of the concern is that, again, the digital metering and stuff is new. And if when the next variance comes up, we could again look at that point saying, yes, this information is all legit and we can track it. We could at that point say you no longer need a variance for each individual unit. But I think it can be amended at that point.

That is correct.

But I think to make sure that we get this information and it is where we all think it is, I think it would be good to take this one as a one and then look at it the next time.

Absolutely. Sounds great.

If there's concern about the accuracy of the water meter readings and the detail that can be provided, the daily data is automatically collected so we're not up to the human error mistakes that have been put in place in the past where people promised that they would give you a daily reading and I've been down that road more times than I can count. And so with this particular meter that's in there right now, it hooks up to my laptop. It'll give me, I believe, 410 days of accuracy and so there's no adjustments there, it just is what it is. And so that information is and will continue to be available. So it is the most accurate thing I've ever seen.

That's great. And so they'll always be backed up. So anytime, I think that for environmental services, they would probably just like to see that at the end of each season, you know, just submit that to the Environmental Services and just have it in your file. That would just be handy. I would just put that on your checklist to do at the end of the season. And that way it's always in the file and they can always review it. That would just be one less thing, you know, one more thing to mark off. Anyone prepared for a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the 29 to be exchanged and not allow the blanket approval and I'll adopt the staff signings.

And the condition on the compliant life on the existing SSTS and have that current compliance inspection report on file? Basically, there's the last couple sentences on the staff report. Only valid for the compliant life of the existing SSTS. The association must always have a current compliance inspection report on.

Yes. I'll add the conditions of the staff's report.

Do we want to strike the occupancy, though, because you did express the challenge of getting that? Yeah. Okay.

We can do that.

Okay.

All right. So I have a motion by Timothy to approve the application for Lot number 29 to be replaced. Unit for unit, not the blanket variance application and with the conditions stated. And adopting the staffs. Findings of facts.

This is Larry. I'll second that.

And a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

Timothy, I vote I can.

How do you vote?

Can I vote I Larry?

How do you vote?

Larry, I vote I.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. The application has been approved. You'll receive a decision letter in the mail from the Environmental Services Office for the next steps. Okay.

Thank you much.

Next item on the agenda, variance application 48-B-26 by Mark and Beth Olson. Lot 3, block B, first addition to Pine Haven Beach, section 18, township 140, range 34, Hubbard Township on Long Lake, a recreational development lake, parcel 14.38.40500. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 702 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for proposed replacement and enlargement of a non-conforming dwelling located in the shore impact zone. Could you please state your name and address for the record?

Mark Olson, and I live in Columbus, Nebraska.

And your address, sir? And Nebraska, your address?

31, we just moved. 3166 16th Avenue. And you can go ahead and say yours too, please. My name is Beth Olson. I live at 3166 16th Avenue in Columbus, Nebraska.

Thank you. Thanks. All right. And one more in the middle there. Go for it.

I'm Barry Munson. I'm the contractor agent. Okay. And I'm at 20413 Hunter Road, Park Rapids.

Okay. Thank you. And go ahead for your request, please.

As you see in the picture, you guys, with the highlighted part, that's the old part of the building that we looked at last week, and we're proposing that we take that down, put a new foundation under it, and reconstruct it right as it is. All right.

OK, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And just for the record and seeing that I'm going to close public comment. And. Do you have any questions or comments from the board?

You're you're not changing any of the living arrangements. In what you're doing.

No. The way it's laid out currently is the same as the new plan. That big room with that little bedroom on the side?

Yeah. It's the same. So why are you doing this then? What's driving doing this?

The foundation of the other one has, for years from the upper lot that we were looking at, water had came under. The foundation is corrupted. The floor, from all the humidity, is rotting. So it's up and down. The floor is rotting. One side is about six inches lower. The side that would be towards that little bedroom is about six inches lower. And we knew that when we were working on that back part. whenever it was, I don't know, 2021, 22?

So the actual foundation around the outside is decaying or crumbling?

And I think a lot of the joist work underneath of it, just from the humidity, it's exposed to humidity.

Just the joist work? You can't just replace the joists? Or do you have to?

Well, to eliminate, well, we like the in-floor heat, And so we did the in-floor hydronic heat in that back part so we can use our same boiler, do hydronic into the new part too.

So you're not going to have a basement at all then?

No, just a simple foundation supporting a slab with heat in it. And we put foam under that too. And then the house just goes up just as it is.

One of the things that... sort of drives the constraints on this is the closeness to the lake or at least that finger of the lake. That wood fence, is that the property line that's there? Who maintains then the neighbor's property between that fence and the pond?

The people across the street that own it, the people across the street that own that little area, that's how they just get down to their, like they have a little golf cart they drive down there, but they mow it.

They mow it?

Uh-huh.

Is there any way to get them to set that into a no-mow zone that they allow it to grow up such that that runoff, because all the runoff from your house runs right into the lake. And there's nothing buffering it at all? Is there any way to convince your neighbor to just not mow it? Let it grow up and then it slows down the runoff.

Some of that was when it was longer.

Well, that's right at the edge, but most of the distance from the fence to the shoreline, except for a very small amount, is mowed. It was mowed just like the rest of the...

I saw that there was that trail. Is that the trail they used coming down? There's a trail on the end. I saw that they had mowed that. But, you know, we get the runoff. which has been forever, and they showed you guys that video of all the water coming down in a big rain event. It's always come down the hill, and so they're trying to defuse it.

That was a problem we had four years ago when you did that addition.

Well, the neighbors, that used to be my parents' cabin right next to us, the one that was next to it. That was my parents' cabin for years. So we have a lot of pictures, photos, and they had it for, I don't know, 15 years. When they redid that cabin, they raised the dirt up a lot. And that's because their little shed there used to be level with our shed and down further. So when they came in, they brought a ton of dirt and raised it a bunch. And then we had a river. It washed our grass. It washed everything out. Trees washed out. It was terrible. And so we put that flower box up just because of that. So I don't know. When they raised that, then the water ran gush down ours and then in front and then down into that slough area. So that presented a big problem. It washed out the back of our cabin in the back door. It's been replaced now, but before it was replaced, It washed out all underneath there. And then since then, we've had all this settling. Like you said, our floor is like crooked. And it was just like bricks or something underneath there, really. And so it washed all that out underneath the deck. It went out and took all that out. We've replaced a bunch of trees and whatnot that they, you know, that washed. It ruined them. I mean, it ruined our yard. We had to bring in grass. That's not to the point. The point is...

since we're now doing an additional construction, when you're within the shore impact zone, I'm just trying to explore the fact is, could something be done to increase the buffer of that water that's coming from wherever, besides from your house or up the hill? Is there any way to convince your neighbor to not mow that and to use it as a buffer zone?

Maybe, I guess I could ask them. They weren't up here this summer because she fell and they weren't up there this summer. So it didn't get mowed very much at all this summer because they weren't here and we didn't mow it. I mean, I could certainly ask them or we could do something, whatever. I mean, you would suggest if it would be like some sort of landscaping.

I would encourage you.

I mean, I can sure ask Mike to say they were not able to come up all summer. So there was very little activity that went on over there this year.

Yeah, well, it was mowed pretty short when we were there the other day.

Their kids were up there for two weeks. And so, yes, I'm not saying it wasn't mowed. It certainly could have been. But I know they haven't been here. Okay. I mean, I don't know if there's a landscaping thing we could do. We definitely would be willing to do that.

The house is guttered. But what do you do with it? Because it's all going to go that way. So like you say, I bet the only thing that could happen was if we could leave that grow up a little bit so that vegetation would catch the water and diffuse it. Or maybe just on your guys' lawn.

On our property if we let it grow up?

The uphill side of the fence. You guys could let yours go. Sure. for the rest of the discussion.

No, that's a great idea. I mean, we would be willing to do it. I mean, I could ask them, but I certainly couldn't guarantee they'd do it. But we could do it.

Sure. Any other comments from the board members?

This is Mike. On your elevations and floor plans, you don't show any deck? going back on? I didn't and Eric had said that when we were out there and so we want, I was going to take the deck off to do the foundation and stuff and Mark was going to rebuild it and so I was questioning on that uphill side where the door is, if we could build a sidewalk down with a curb and try to keep that water from getting to the house and just curb it all the way down so we can get it out in the yard. So then we would just build that all the way out to the front of the deck and support the deck off of it. Keep the water from getting where it's currently going under. Get it out forward to the deck more. And with the grass that's on the lawn, most of the planter that Beth and the neighbor lady had done, that kind of diffuses some of that water anyway so the grass isn't getting all corrupted and washed out and stuff. So the grass is holding it. and so it is holding, but it would be nice to keep it from getting to the house, and so that's why I was suggesting that we could maybe do that, and I can redraw that with that on.

The deck's not getting any larger, is it?

What's that? The deck's not getting any larger.

No, no, it would stay the same.

It's on the existing footprint.

Well, and when we were in, because we talked about that with Demi when we were in, and she said that little notch out that was on that one side, she said, why'd you do that? And that was a previous thing that they were told they had to do. She said, that's not necessary. So we'd probably just square it over there because that was, you know, that little four or six inch notch in for that last eight feet. We'd just square that up. And we'd use the same railing.

Any other questions or comments?

You didn't public comment yet? Yes, sir. I have a couple more questions. When we approved the variance about four years ago for you to add a storage area to your shed, Um, did you replace all the fixtures in the, um, um, shower area?

Yeah.

New sink, new, new shower, new stool, et cetera.

There, there was like a lot of my mouse junk in there. And so, yeah, we did put in new ones. I mean, it's, they're in the same spot if that matters. I don't know, but yes, we did. Cause there was,

Because what I experienced seemed a little different than the drawing that we had in 2022. I also noticed there were bedding in there.

Uh-huh. Well, one of the beds in there is from the bedroom down in the cabin. We carried it up there. And so one's from there. One is there, and I mean... Honestly, it maybe is used one week out of every other year. I have a son that comes from Tokyo. He lives in Tokyo, and when he comes over, he sleeps up there. Well, they sleep up, he and his wife sleep up there because of the time change. So when they come, we use it, but otherwise... We put our kayaks in there and all that stuff.

You know that that's clearly in violation of the variance we gave you four years ago that was not to be used for any sleeping quarters at all.

You're right then. We probably have violated that maybe since we've had it two weeks. So, yeah, I mean, you're right. It's still wrong. We still shouldn't, and we don't need to. We really put all our kayaks... And all that stuff up there, we've started hauling that stuff up there. So that's usually what's in there. And then we pull it out in the summer.

What I saw, there was basically a chair, some fishing rods, and a bed. I didn't really see much use for much for storage.

We've hauled stuff up from our cabin. furniture and cabinets and stuff up there to store if we're able to redo all this. So there is stuff up there. There's a computer up there. There's a desk. There's a chair. There's two beds. One belongs in the cabin. And so there is that stuff up there now because we've moved stuff from the cabin out of the cabin up there. So we haven't put away our kayaks and stuff yet. So that all will go in there. But you're correct. That is up there. But it is from well the one beds down there otherwise is from our cabin but you're correct okay it's in violation of the variance from 2022 and we can remove the bed okay and the one bed like I said we'll go back down into the cabin yeah okay I'm done thanks man any other questions or comments I I will just put on here that the uh

The dwelling is outside of the shore impact zone from the main body of the Long Lake, except for that small bay that we've discussed. The septic on the property is compliant and located in the rear of the lot. There is a grinder tank by the house that falls under the plumbing code. I think other than that, I don't see any issues with the request. The only thing that's changing is that roof line and they're just trying to kind of even it up. So. Anyone prepared to make a motion?

This is Larry. I move that we accept variance application 48V26 and accept staff's findings of facts.

I have a motion by Larry to approve the application 48-V-26 as presented on per site plan and adopt the staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

This is Mike. I'll second.

And a second by Mike. Ken, how do you vote?

Did you say Tim or Ken?

Ken.

It's Ken. I vote aye.

Timothy, how do you vote?

Timothy, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. Your application has been approved. You'll be receiving a Decision letter from the environmental services office and again. Thank you.

Will that come to our house that heard to our cabin?

It's Eric. Is it going to be mailed to the E911 property address or going to be to their Looks like it our mail very what very much.

I think I've gotten one piece there.

There's another address on here that also says something Road Park Rapids That's what address was given to us Yeah, it's going to go on the one that's on the app variance application. Yeah.

Can I just ask, do you have a suggestion of what we should do on that to help with the runoff? Is there some sort of landscaping type thing that we could do on our property?

You see the fence and the thing? Just don't mow it. Just let it grow naturally.

Okay, in our own.

There's good enough soil there, and I looked at the vegetation. Just to let that five feet or six feet grow up naturally, don't mow it. And if you're getting much coming down from the hill, normal up as far as you can that'll be the best thing you can do for that part of the lake so like all the way up you're suggesting like which is fine all the way up as far as it makes sense i don't remember i didn't look up farther i looked right along but just leave it grow okay okay so it's okay if we do it on our side if the neighbors don't want to as long as we do I want to worry about your side of the fence. It's that five or six feet that's on that side would be a good buffer to say yes.

All right, and if they don't, should we just go ahead and do it then? Let it grow? If they don't want to do that, it's okay if we just let it grow? I mean, I'm fine with it.

Well, you can let yours grow, too, if you want. Okay. That's fine. I'll ask. Okay.

And throw mattress covers on those mattresses and throw those beds sideways.

Okay? Okay. Well, like I say, one of them has been moved down. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. And so next item is miscellaneous communications.

Let's see. Relative to the ordinance amendments, I brought those to the county board and they were open to the plat process change, but they changed their mind on the conditional use process change. So they directed me to bring that back to you and that'll be on next month's agenda to review the draft which is basically the same other than having the CUP process modifications. And that will need your approval and the draft I'll then bring back to the board and we'll see where things go. So that's one item. The other would be we've got an ordinance amendment application. asking the county to consider commercial business use being allowed on recreational development lakes. We've got a conditional use permit application amendment request, and then I think three variances so far, and the deadline is next Monday, so we could very well get more between now and then, but that's what we have thus far. That's what I've got.

Okay.

This is Veronica. Did you ever put the subdivisions, the minor subdivisions, or no, the other subdivisions that we talked about on that amendment for them, for you?

With the minors?

Yeah.

No, but if you want to.

I mean, I didn't know if you wanted to throw that in there while we're doing it.

If you want to suggest that, we can float the balloon and see.

I mean, I am open to it. I mean, like I said, Eric carries most of the weight on that. Anyhow, I mean, all we do is... Rub it. Exactly. So I think that's a great idea. If you're open to it, I'm open to it.

Yeah, it doesn't matter to me.

So I think so. Yeah, agreed.

That would be added next month on the discussion on the whole proposal?

If you want to add that, you can. Yeah.

I mean, it's done at the same time. That's the only reason I was suggesting throwing it on there.

The planning commission can always suggest ordinance amendments to the board. So if it comes from the commission, then I can say during conversation that came up and was an additional item that was proposed.

Okay. All right. Are we ready to adjourn? Okay.

This is Larry. I move we adjourn.

Okay. Motion by Larry to adjourn.

Ms. Ken, I'll second it.

Okay. Second by Ken. Larry, how do you vote?

Ms. Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Timothy, how do you vote?

Tim votes aye.

Mike, how do you vote? I vote aye. And myself, I vote aye. Meeting adjourned.