Planning Commission / Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Hubard County Planning Commission Board of Adjustment Monday, March 23rd, 2026 meeting. Please bear with me while I read through 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. The chair may terminate a speaker's privilege of address if after being called to order, the speaker persists in improper conduct 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 material must state the agenda item for which it is being submitted and the name and address of the submitting party. 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 agenda item into the record and ask the applicant to come forward to the presenter's table, state his her, or their name, address for the record, and explain his or her 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. To facilitate an orderly efficient meeting, there is a threeminut

speaking time limit per speaker per agenda item unless the chair allows a 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 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. 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 meeting as they are already 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 the public comment period on the agenda item. 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 may make a motion to pass, deny or table the item. Once a motion is made and seconded, the PCBOA will de develop findings of facts for conditional use permit and variance applications and then vote on the motion. Once a vote is taken on the agenda item, the PCBOA will move on to the next agenda item. Meetings commence at 6 PM 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 at another date or time, preferably the immediately following Tuesday at 6 p.m. And no further public comment or public notice will be provided for such a meeting continuation. the PCBOA through the chair may modify these procedures prior to a meeting or an agenda item. Okay. Thank you very much. So, first item on the agenda, we do not have any planning commission last month or minutes. So, we'll move right into new business, which is the shoreland management ordinance amendment application by Crowing Highland Association. the proposed amendment to the shoreline management ordinance to allow a controlled access lot as a conditional use on a natural environment classified lakes. Do we have an applicant? Okay, please come to the presenters table here.

Yes, please. Perfect. And you can go ahead and please state your name and address for the record. Yep. Uh my name is Jeremiah Johnson. Uh address 15695 Crescent Ridge Trail, NeAs, Minnesota 56467. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. You can go ahead and proceed with your request at hand.

Okay. Um so, uh we're here I'm I'm here representing the Crowing Highland Association on the fourth crowing. Uh we have 13, uh property owners who are part of this association. Um, we have a uh a common lot that was um uh when the developer um recorded the covenants back in 2002 with the county, uh this common lot that's on the lake um was uh part of uh the property owners uh so it's 113th share uh of this property and the covenants that were recorded were stated that um this lot could be used for recreational use um by way of you know having a dock um having your boat there um just for recreational use. There are no dwellings on this on this uh common lot. Um, and so for 22 years, this lot was used um for that purpose where a dock went in um and those of us who um or those who had a boat would um put their boat or tie it off there, but you'd have to put in at the public access point. So, we don't have a boat ramp there. It's simply an area, a lot that we have a dock um to tie our boats off. Now, for 22 years, uh this lot was used for that purpose. And then a letter went out in April of 2024, one year after my folks and I purchased our lot um stating that we could no longer use the common lot for uh the access that we were currently using it for at that time and for the prior 22 years that the association was using it. Um, so now we are looking at how we can get uh in compliance with the county in order for us to use the lot that uh it was

intended for per the covenants that were recorded. It's our understanding that the investment company um did not get a conditional use permit at the time. um whether they were advised to get one or not, we don't really know because the conversations I've had with a couple people like uh in the environmental services um have said that there's no one that is around anymore that was here back then. So, we don't really know what transpired then. Um we do know that a conditional use permit was not obtained. Therefore, the usage of this lot for 22 years went unnoticed by by county or by Hubard County. and also uh just uh the owners of their properties assumed that we were in compliance. And in 2024, we were um advised that we are no longer in compliance and that uh we would need to apply for a conditional use permit for a natural environment lake and um see if we can kind of get back in line with u using the lot that we all have a common interest in. Uh, and that's why we're here today is to see if we can we can do that. I know it's a long shot because my understanding is it's uh it's for the whole county. This ordinance would have to be amended and it would affect the whole county. But if there's any offramp or another option for us to move forward with using this lot the way that we would like to intend to use it. Uh any recommendations would be appreciated as well. Okay.

All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Do I have any questions or comments from the board? This is Tim speaking. This this article here is that out of your did you get covenants? So that would be um that that would be from the covenants that were recorded with the county and I just took the the one article the article 10 I believe is I just took part of it that stated um were you given that when you bought your property?

Um we were not given it to um so we're the at least the second owner of our property. That copyright there is for the former treasurer of the C uh Crowing Highland Association, uh Todd Balsiger. Um I am now the treasurer of the association. So that is out of the covenants that the original owners of each property did get a copy of that.

Okay. Uh is there do you have anything that says that that's de that's you each one of you were deed that or is it deed to the property? How does that work? Is it by name, by person, or how do how do we know who the 13 people are that own that lot?

My understanding is uh that uh it's so the bylaws of Okay, so I'm I'm kind of new at this, but um so like the Treasury files uh the documents with the county. There's bylaws that have been uh filed with the county. So the county has record of the 13 properties that are tied that have an interest in this this common lot. Um to your question on you know how do we know like who these 13 owners are that have an interest all I can say is each parcel um like if we go on to the website and I've kind of looked at it you know in various ways but um everybody's property the 13 owners they are um tied to this lot in some way. Yeah, it is on the website like when you go to like the the GIS part of the Yeah, you you

think it's in the description of that lot or I'm sorry. It's in the description or something. The the information. Oh, it shows each one of the parcel IDs on that GIS. Okay. Yeah. So, I believe it that just showed me on his Okay. Yeah. Perfect. Sorry. And I don't He had a GIS and it shows the parcel ID. Yeah. And I could have had that ready for you, but I'm I didn't really know how to how to prepare for this other than I'm just trying to I'm kind of going on a whim here trying to trying to get us, you know, somewhere. Okay. Any other questions from any other board members? I guess I have some questions. Oh, yes, please.

Um, and this I guess would be for Eric. So, prior to 2015, there was the ordinance change that took these away. So, were the existing uh CL CA controlled access lots. Were they grandfathered in or were they totally eliminated? They're viewed as legal non-conforming uses assuming they were established legally. So this one not being established properly was not grandfathered in. Correct.

Okay. And then um are the in in essence are the 13 property owners paying property tax on this lot? I would imagine, but I that's not my area of expertise.

Okay. Okay. And um I guess that's really the the the question and and and the struggle that I have with this is it's against the ordinance, but yet you have people that are paying property tax on it and now we're saying that you can't use a lot that you're paying property tax on. So it's I haven't had this come up before, so it's is curious. Um, I guess that's all I've got. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Ted. Appreciate that. Um, at this time, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment.

Okay. And seeing no public comment, I'm going to close public comment. This is Veronica speaking. Um, just personally myself reviewing the application. I understand your concerns, um, Ted, but unfortunately I see it as the developer didn't obtain that cup in 2002 when it should have been obtained when we still had that option for the controlled access lots, then I think that would have definitely been a little helpful there. Um, and then of course in 2015 that language was omitted from our shoreline management ordinance for purposeful reasons at that time. So this is Tim. I got a question. Eric, there's is there any any uh variance avenue to take for that? No, you aren't you aren't allowed to seek a variance from the use table in the ordinance to create a use that isn't currently allowed. There's no legal mechanism for doing that.

Jeremiah, how much development? I mean, is there obviously must be a trail or something down to the lake or a driveway or There's a road that comes off of uh the Crescent uh Crescent Ridge. Crescent Ridge Trail. Yeah, there is a there's a gate at the top of the hill and then a road that goes down to the lot. It's it's a pretty small lot actually. It's you can only park a couple cars there. And typically if somebody's going to use it, they'll just drive a vehicle down and get in their boat. And

so this is Tim speaking. So that dock, there's not like a boardwalk across a wetland. It must go right down to that little point where that little harbor. Is that where the dock comes out? Yeah. And so the dock is put in um Yeah. So it comes there's a little point there and then um prior to us until we were told we couldn't do it, we would just um you know put a section out, drop the poles, put another section out, drop the poles um and just extend the dock out, you know, as far as we could get it. Um, typically I think we'd have like eight eight uh sections of 8 foot long or 10 foot long.

This is Mike. How many people actually use that out of the 13?

Yeah. So, I would say um there I I mean at any given time on a weekend, maybe one um but throughout the course of the summer, some of them are just seasonal and they'll just come up on, you know, on a weekend or a couple weekends during the summer, but at any given time, you might have one boat on the dock, maybe two. Um, and maybe there's a handful of the property owners that actually, you know, utilize, you know, the dock because they have a boat that, again, the boats have to be put in at the public access. We can't put in the boat there at the lot. So, we just put across the lake, tie the tie the boat off, and then it's easy access to get to the property cuz then you just go up the hill and all of our properties are on, you know, Crescent Ridge Trail. So it it's just it's it's convenient rather than having to drive all the way around um you know to Island Lake or or Crowing 3 to put in or even using the public access on Crowing.

There's a lot of swamp on a lot of these lots so they can't get down to a dock,

right? I mean a lot of the uh homeowners there do have uh docks. Um but it's I mean it's it it's a muddy bottom so it it you don't see a lot of docks. Um but yeah, there there are a few and then some just don't because it is it's kind of difficult to put a dock in and out. Um but again, we usually, you know, were so we've owned the property for 3 years. The first year we were we were there when before we got the letters. So that was when I was um my first time at putting the dock in and uh you know, we had a small army of guys that did it and had it done in a couple hours and then we take it out in the fall. Um, so that's kind of kind of what we're looking at doing is just trying to find a way that we can get back to using this lot the way that I guess the developer intended it to be used and the way that the the property owners have used it for so long. And then now to, you know, kind of be told like, hey, cease. You cannot put a dock out. You cannot use this lot like you're using it because it wasn't u, you know, we didn't get a conditional use permit, you know, years ago. And then now the conditional use permit. I'm assuming that being that it's a natural environment like again I it's like a shot in the dark to get it, you know, to get a condition because it's it's non-permitted. I mean I get that and I understand that but um we're hoping that we can find a way that we can we can do this, you know, some way. I mean

well that was this is Tim speaking again. I that's so I'm looking at this as 13. It's more than 13 owners because you got spouses and so it'd be yeah a lot of owners but what 13 properties

13 properties and um so is it legal for a developer to sell a lot to 13 people and have 13 people on the deed and 13 people can use that lot as a riparian lot even though they don't live there. Well, that's where you get into the the ordinance's definition of an access lot.

But I'm just saying I don't need a conditional use permit to sell a lot to somebody to 13 people and have all their names on it and they all have a right to use that lot because they have ownership. I understand the ordinance, but what I'm saying is how do you how do we stop that? So, do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes, Tim, I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, that this situation was due to the developer in 2002. he failed to he or she whoever it may be failed to obtain that conditional use permit when it was obtainable and because he dropped the ball and did that but back in 1975 when that was done I I'd like to take a roll call of how many were done but it was 2002 that this 2002 I'd like to see how many were done though

sure yeah exactly and that's we're probably going to run into that situation had they not followed the procedure though if they would have followed the procedure they'd still be there today it'd be legal non-conforming had they follow procedure or because they didn't follow procedure. So, what if we've got uh a hundred of these that didn't follow the procedure because the the uh previous environmental services director didn't it doesn't it just doesn't fall just on the environmental services director either. It's the

records. It's the buyer beware situation. When you buy a property from anybody, you've got to see what you're allowed to do and what you're allowed not to do. And they were told they could do that and then the developer didn't do it. They were told they could do it. They've been doing it for 20 since 2002, right? Until they got caught. You can take land for adverse possession for doing something that long. So I I it's unfortunate. I feel I empathize for them, right? It's just that Yeah. I I'm not entertaining that. Uh myself, I'm not in favor of uh access lots for on natural environment lakes, right? But if there's a way to get around it, that can that one right there.

Yeah. Which was there when it was I I think what you're trying to and this is just me too trying to put it in terms I can understand what makes this a controlled access lot and not a lot owned by the development. Because if it's a lot owned by the development, don't the owners have the right to put a dock out?

It's excuse me. I think the key with the access lot definition is when you have an access lot, your legal right to co-own that access lot goes with the sale of your other lot. That's either a riparian lot or a back lot. So, it's a different situation than like the hypothetical Tim was talking about of where you've got multiple people that okay own a lot together. Here, there's value that's added to the other properties because presumably they have this access lot for being able to reach the lake.

But because their names are all listed on that lot, does not does that not make them the owners of that lot? Yes, they are. But still not like not like a regular residential lot. No, I get that. But it's still very inclusive and they're the only people that can use it. They're paying taxes on it. Um and and I agree with Tim. I don't want to change the ordinance. I think that needs to stand for where it is. But in this particular case, because of the way it's worded that it is a part of each of the other 13 lots, I believe it's owned by the development,

but I'm not an attorney, so I don't know. This is Veronica speaking. Eric, do the applicants have any other avenue that they could go down besides requesting this amendment not to be able to use it as an access lot? This is Ted. Can they sell this lot? Yeah.

Okay. Because I was thinking I was thinking if that's the only thing they can if they're paying property taxes and they can't use it, well then do the 13 owners want to sell the lot? Just I'm just throwing that out there thinking out loud. And then Mr. Johnson here talks about 19 owners owning a lot. So, do you sell it to one of you and then you sell it to the other 18? So, can I speak or Sure.

Yeah. So, we did have a conversation about that a year ago. And I think the consensus was that at that time, like we we didn't want to sell the lot. I mean, outright to anybody. I mean, if anybody was were to purchase it, maybe it's an in-house purchase or something of that nature, but we just kind of put the kibos on that because we really want to try and do this the right way through you guys and figure it out. and and in my you know in our situation, my folks and I I found this property uh in uh December of 22 and we proceeded and and made our purchase on our our property, our lot um in April of 23. And the I I think like the big buying point of this property was the fact that we had we were on the assumption we had a common lot lake access like so we were pumped and my folks well my dad passed away in November but um they live in Nebraska so I'm kind of here representing them as well and so when we purchased the lot we were just tickled that we had an access lot lake or you know to get on the lake even though we're not on the lake because we're up on the But that was a big I I mean honestly I don't even know if we would have purchased the lot had we not had the lake access cuz my folks did want to kind of be near the water or on the water. Um, so when we got the news that we were not in compliance with um and that it was il illegal usage of the lot, that obviously was like a a thorn in the side and and I guess now we're just trying to make it right, trying to get to where we can use this lot again, you know, the way that I guess it's been used for so many years. And and then the other thing too is I mean, and I and I'll just throw this out. I mean, do we know if the developer was actually told that they needed a conditional use permit or and and I've had this conversation with somebody um uh in environmental services and they and they

said that uh nobody is you know from 2002 they're not they're not around anymore. So we would have no way of finding out if that conversation was ever had. So I think now we're kind of you know we had a catch 22 like were they advised were they not advised? if they were advised and they didn't get it, well, obviously they dropped the ball on it, but I guess that's it's a hypothetical. We don't I mean, do we know if they were actually told, hey, you need to get this? And then if they were told, was there no followup done on the you know, cuz I mean, it's kind of a big deal to have uh, you know, a lot tied to 13 owners. There's covenants in place. they're recorded with the county and then we go 22 years before, you know, a letter comes out saying that you're using this lot. Um, and you can't use it that way. So,

yeah. Mr. Johnson, when you purchased your property in 2023, did you go to the environmental services and check this area and see what it could be used for? So, you did not yourself either. Yeah, we did not look into it like that cuz we just assumed I mean, we were under the assumption and Yep. So, and I agree. I am I'm assuming then like you mentioned your parents prior to you purchasing the year before they didn't go into environmental services office either before they purchased theirs and see what their no use actually wasn't do the homework so yep nope I get that part I was already told that by Tom Krueger darn it yeah okay

so this is Tim speaking if you had um if you had clear record of use from a property like theirs for instance there's no way to adjust the ordinance to allow the the ones that did grandfather to to do a conditional use to straighten it out. Uh say that they've been using it and these were created back in pick a timeline and and say we want to deal with conditional use on these existing because I think he's a tip of an iceberg myself. So either we can say buy the lot, let one guy own it, and everybody use it. Wrong. But that's that's an option. Or you say, well, sorry, we can't do nothing. You're denied. Now you got a lot sitting there that they want to use for how they have used it in the past, not hurting anything. do is there avenue to do it if we were to I mean obviously I wouldn't be able to do it tonight but I could do something for something that has been there say they've been using it for since the time it was legal. Is it possible that or is that too complicated for an ordinance? Yeah. Yeah. I don't believe you could

because we you couldn't say controlled access lot is allowed, but it's only for ones that might existing ones out there. But it never came in and got conditional uses. It would Yeah,

you couldn't do that. It'd be you'd have to open it for new as well as existing. And then, you know, the other big question is whether those lots would meet the criteria and be sized properly for the way they're being used. You know, that there's no way to know that. You have to uh assess each one. Depends on how many lots are using it, how many watercraft they have on the dock system. Um, so there's no way to know how many would comp.

You might have some that just use a canoe to go out duck hunting in the fall that don't hurt absolutely nothing and it'd be crazy to tell them they can't use something they're paying taxes on. This is Veronica speaking. I understand your your concerns. Again, it's again, you can't grandfather in because they didn't follow the process in 2002 to begin with. I wouldn't be grandfathering it. I'd create a new ordinance that allowed a conditional use for for certain particulars by

for existing taking inventory. We did it short-term rentals, didn't we? Thought we were doing dealing with them or did we throw that out on grandfathering people that had already had them? any existing short-term rentals at the time that that was added to the ordinance were required to come in and get an annual license. Right.

This is Veronica speaking. At this time, I foresee that the applicant and the owners of this piece of property need to get together and get legal advice on what they could do and then contact environmental services from there. That's what I would suggest so that they can figure out how to get back to using this legally. And to Mr. Johnson's question comment, you know, no staff that are in the office were around in O2. So there's no way to know if a conversation occurred with the developer to let them know that an access lot would require a conditional use permit or not. So it's possible that such a conversation occurred. It's also possible that it didn't and the developer just recorded the covenants with the recorder and there'd be no way for our office to have known that they did that. Okay.

Any other questions or comments? Well, this is Veronica speaking again. I I still feel the same way. It's unfortunate that the developer didn't obtain this. I again I'm not looking at searching or changing any amendments. I'm not supportive of pushing this forward in a positive way to the commissioners to um for natural environment lakes. I would suggest to the applicant that you contact and get a hold of all of your owners and maybe seek some legal advice on what you can do with that property and then contact environmental services for sure to see where you can go from there since it's been utilized, you know, in a non-compliant way for the last however many years unfortunately. So, but at this time I would recommend that um to the county commission that we do not that I'm opposed of the shoreland management ordinance amendment request for the CAL's and the conditional use on those natural environment lake ones.

So, that's a motion. I could make it a motion if you'd like or unless anybody else go ahead. Okay. Then I'll make that motion that we uh we we do not recommend approval that it will be denial to the Hubard County Commissioners for this shoreline management amendment request on the uh CALS as a conditional use on natural environment lakes. This is Larry. I second that motion. Okay. Okay. We have a motion by myself, a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? This is Larry. I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I.

And this is Veronica. I vote I as well. So again, sorry that we're not moving it to the commissioners, but they still have the last the last say. So you'll get a letter from the environmental services office on the next steps and they'll proceed with that procedure. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep. Next item on the agenda is the board of adjustment and the approval of the February 23rd, 2026 meeting minutes. Do anybody Does anybody have any questions or comments on the meeting minutes or any edits?

No. Okay. Okay. Does anyone have a motion then to for the minutes? This is Tim. I'll I'll move to approve the board of adjustment minutes from the February 23rd meeting. Okay. Have a motion by Timothy. Anyone have a second? There's a Mike. I'll second. Okay. Have a motion by Timothy, second by Mike to approve the February 23rd, 2026 meeting minutes as presented. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Timothy. I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? This is Larry. I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I.

And this is Veronica. I vote I. The minutes have been approved. We don't have any old business. So, moving back on to the new business. Um, we do have one variance application 3-V26 by Mark Reinards that is not going to be presented tonight. They're going to go on the next meeting. So, we will skip that one. After the meeting agenda was published and public notices were sent out, the application was amended. So that is the reason for that. So then the next item would be variance application 4-v26 by Bethany Bible Camp lots 17 through 21 Bethany Beach section 4, Township 145, range 32, Faren Township on Grace Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 07.40. 40.00170. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 701A of the shoreland management ordinance to replace a non-conforming structure devoted to a non-conforming use that is located in the shore impact zone with a new structure of the same dimensions. Okay, thank you. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. My name is Karen Weller Eins. My home address is 25862 330th Street, Shovelin, Minnesota 56676. Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Weller. If you want to go ahead and present your request, that'd be great.

Sure. Um, we did appear before you in January at the meeting and we had requested a variance to replace our cooks cabin. Um, it's a cabin uh 10 ft wide by 16 feet long that was damaged in the windstorm of 20 in June of 2025. Um, at that point we wanted to make a couple of changes, have a shed roof on it and then put it on a concrete slab instead of uh concrete blocks. Um, that variance was or request was denied and so what we're asking for now is to replace it one for one. Um it would be the exact same dimensions, same location, same foundation which is blocks, um same size, same shape, everything. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, this is Veronica speaking. I did review um our January meeting minutes as well and just a quick question just reviewing both of those again. Have you considered moving it to a different location?

Yes, we have. And that is something I would ask if the board would consider tableabling it and we could amend our variance request to show um moving the cabin and possibly ext uh expanding it. Okay. before we I mean I understand your request but can you give us a little bit more input on that expansion part?

Sure. It would be um the occupied space would still remain the 10 by6 and what we would do is um our cooks they always um have an issue with storage for food for the camp. We would add on four feet onto one of the ends of the cabin and it would have a solid wall between the um the storage and the occupied space and it would have a separate door and so like I said the the occupied space would still stay the same as 10 x 16. We would just have that 4ft by 10t piece now for storage.

So it wouldn't be accessed from the inside. It would just be from the outside. from the outside only. Yes. Sure. So at this time then um you're you're requesting then to table the item to table this to change up to amend your application or do you want to proceed normally? I think we should I I would like to request to table it. Okay. Yep. And in this request are you also proposing as mentioned that different location when you amend it? Yes. Perfect. Yes. Where we would um propose to put it is between our dining hall. So, the the opposite side of the dining hall beyond the 100 foot mark um in between what's called the Hannah cabin. Y

Eric, do I need to open public comment to table? I would just in case there's somebody that's here that would like to speak. Perfect. Okay. At this time then I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment and for the record seeing that I'll close public comment. Thanks. Okay. Then I think we should go through unless you have any other questions from the board. But go ahead. Uh Tim speaking, we could we could do the variance to allow a structure, but it wouldn't only need a permit for its size. Right.

It this is Veronica speaking. The um this the cleanest way for this application would be to table it so the applicant can amend the application to show a different location along with the expanded request. Okay. And that would require us modifying the notice. Oh, sure. Okay. Properly document that it would be a larger structure in a different location. Yeah. Otherwise, it would have been possible your way had, you know, going that route if they weren't wanting to expand and such could have limited it because it would be to the exact size that they're proposing currently,

the best, cleanest way. All right. This is Veronica then speaking. I will make a motion to table the application 4-V26 at the applicant's requests so that amendments can be made for a to the application for location and size. This is Larry. I second that motion. Okay. The motion's been made by myself. Larry seconded. Timothy. How do you vote? This is Timothy. I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I.

And this is Veronic. I vote I. Your application has been tabled. So, you'll get a letter from environmental services. I You'll have a time frame unless you sign any other documents that extend it. So, and I assume you're still working on that time frame for that June 21st. Yes, absolutely. So, you'll get your stuff in right away. Okay. Thank you very much. Yep. The plan is to see you next month. Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Next item on the agenda. Application variance application 5-B26 by Mary Lou Good Trust. Part of government lot 1, section 14, township 140, range 35, Todd Township on Fish River, a tributary, parcel 27.14.60. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 702A of the shoreland management ordinance for a proposed structural alteration of a non-conforming dwelling located in the shore impact zone. And okay, go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. Uh my name is Jeff Good acting on behalf of the Maryl Good Trust. Uh my home address 13453 43rd Street, Clear Lake, Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Good. And go ahead and proceed with your request.

We want to replace some of the beams and the supports underneath the structure. We're not changing the outline of the structure or anything on the outside. We've got some deterioration of some beams inside, some joists that are cracked, so they have to do some replacement of some joists. Uh the beams they're going to put in steel beams and then the instead of the cement blocks that are holding the beams right now, they're going to put adjustable jacks underneath so they can adjust them if there is some change in old old old homesteader places. They are also going to do some work underneath as far as insulation encapsulation of the crawl space.

Thank you, Mr. Good. And for the record, I'm just going to state because the structure is non-conforming and it's at its ordinary high watermark setback and located in the shore impact zone, non-conforming structures and the ordinance doesn't allow any structural alterations. And that is exactly why we're here for this variance request. It appears the septic on the property is compliant. Yes. And it's not going to affect that in any way, shape, or form. Okay. Any questions from the board? No. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing no public comment, I'll close public comment.

This is Larry. Um, this one looks like a fairly easy one in my eyes anyway. We're not changing anything on the exterior at all. You're just maintaining the existing structure. Um, I don't know if anybody else wants to make comments, but I would make a motion to accept this uh variance application and adopt staff's finding effects. Okay. Thank you, Larry. We have a motion by Larry to um approve the motion as stated per site plan and adopt staff's findings of facts. There's a mic. I'll second and we have a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Timothy. I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I vote I. And this is Veronica. I vote I as well. Your application has been approved and you'll be receiving a letter from the environmental services office for the next steps.

Thank you. Thanks.

Okay. Variance application 6-V26 by the Hooker family LP. the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter, the west half of the southeast quarter and part of government lot 4, section 28, township 140, range 34, Henrietta Township on Long Lake, a recreational development lake, parcel 13.28.0130. The applicants are requesting variances from sections 501.2, 2, 10,0001, 10004, and 105 of the shoreland management ordinance and section 4, subdivision A1C of the subdivision ordinance to create a repairarian lot that will not meet the 150 foot minimum lot width at the ordinary high watermark and ordinary high watermark structure setback. So, could you please state your name and address for the record?

Okay. Good evening. Uh Diane Backer, 13562 Nappen Hill Road, Northeast 10, Minnesota 5683. Perfect. Thank you, Miss Becker. And go ahead and state your request, please. And I'm wondering, would it be possible for my brother who's a coowner? Oh, absolutely. He could join you. Yes, absolutely. And sir, if you could just do the same, state your name and address for the record. Okay. I'm Bruce Hooker. Okay. My address is 21647 Xenon Street Northwest, Elk River, Minnesota. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Okay. Yeah. Together, you can go ahead and Okay. Fill us in.

Okay. We as siblings have inherited this property from our parents that bought it in April of 1968. Um, and we are hoping that will we will as siblings we'd like to divide the property between us. And there is a um we're not interested in developing or building on it as we'd like to keep the property as is because of the size and beauty. But one portion in question is this lakeshore property lot. It's between two other lots uh sandwiched between two lots that were created before the shoreland ordinance in 1971. The deeds for these two lots were from the 1950s. Um, so this part of our property is 93.3 feet at the lake and then when it goes back further, um, it's 161 ft wide, but the depth of the lot would be 600 ft. Um, and we'd like to have this approved for our heirs. um when his children and my daughter inherit it um they won't have any headaches or we won't be here to answer their questions like my parents

or our parents. This is Veronica speaking. I understand your request. Uh the lot does have a lot of uh buildable space. We're just not meeting that minimum lot width at the ordinary high watermark set back. Correct.

And you're really not able to even meet that with the neighboring lots being separate owners. Do we have any questions or comments from the other members? No.

Okay. I'm going to jump in again and just open up for public comment. We have no public comment, so I will close public comment. Um, this is Veronica speaking. Um, I'm in favor of the application. I don't know about the other members, but the uh this proposed lot is twice the required minimum lot size, has three times the required buildable area, which definitely offsets the lack of the width of the ordinary high watermark. During the lot views, we discussed how the entrance would be made and it be at the on the Deer County Crossing Drive. Um, and it's not going to change the locality or the character. So, I'm in favor Just one quick question. So by developing or by agreeing to this non-conforming lot, anything they want to do on the lot then does require a variance from here on out

or no? Once the lot's established, it's as long as they can meet setbacks with the proposed home septic system, they could do those things with permit if the variance is granted. Okay, very good. Yeah. Yeah. And because they have so much room and space, there's no reason why they couldn't meet the setback. Okay. Anybody have a motion?

This is Larry. I move to accept this variance and um also adopt staff's finding effects. Okay. A motion made by Larry to approve the variance application as per site plan adopting the staff's findings of facts. And Mike, I'll second. And I have a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Timothy, I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I. And this is Veronica. I also vote I. The application has been approved. You'll receive a letter from environmental services on the next steps. Okay. Thank you allelcome for your help. Thank you.

It's right here. It's in the blue. anything from miscellaneous or communications? Uh, all I'd have would be where we're at with the uh April meeting agenda so far. Uh the application deadline's a week from today, so it could increase in size, but right now we've got four variance applications. And uh the final plat for uh camp courage uh can't think of the exact name that they're using, but that final plat should be coming through as well. And then possibly the Bethany Bible Camp might get that. No,

that's included in my four. Okay, great. That's all that I have. Want to make a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Larry, I'll second that motion. Thank Motion made by Tim to adjurnn, seconded by Larry. Tim, how do you vote? I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? I Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I vote I. And this is Veronica. Meeting adjourned. Well done.