Planning Commission / Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody and thanks for being here with call this meeting of the PCBOA to order please. I have a meeting procedure I'd like to read. All persons in attendance at planning commission board of adjustment meetings are expected to comply with the following meeting procedure. Thank you in advance for helping to make this a manageable meeting. Copies of the agenda item materials are available for public viewing at the table located in the back of the meeting room. These materials are not to leave the table so others in attendance may also view them. Please turn phones to vibrator 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 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 had 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 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 applicants to come forward to the presenter's table, state his or her name and address for the record, and explain his or her 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 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 the 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 applicants. All comments are directed toward 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 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 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 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 PM and 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 at its discretion continue an item that is on the floor at 10:00 a.m. or 10 p.m., sorry. 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 through the chair may modify these procedures prior to a meeting or an agenda item. Thank you. With that,

um tonight, because it is the first meeting of the year, we do have an election of officers. Um we will be electing chair, vice chair, and secretary. With that, I would entertain a motion for This is uh Tim Johnson. I nominate vice chair Andress for chair Make the motion. This is Ken. I'll second that. Very good. We have a motion and a second to nominate Veronica. We're good with that. [laughter] All right. Uh Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, I vote I. Mike, Mike, I vote I. Veronica,

Veronica, I vote I. And this is Larry. I also vote I. So Veronica is our new chair. Would you like me to continue? Go. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. I would uh open up the floor for a nomination for vice chair at this time. This is Larry. I nominate Tim. Okay. Thank you for the nomination. Any second? This is Ken. I'll second it. Okay. We have Tim as a nomination for vice chair made by Larry. Ken seconded the motion. Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? 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. Tim is the vice chair for 2026. And a nomination for secretary. This is Mike. I vote for Ken. Okay. Okay. We have a nomination for secretary for Ken made by Mike. Any second? This is Larry. I'll second that. Okay. And a second by Larry. Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? This is Ken, I guess I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? This Larry, I vote I.

And this is Veronica. I vote I. The officers have been elected. [clears throat] Moving on. Okay, the next item up on the agenda is going to be the approval the board of adjustment and approval of the December 22nd, 2025 meeting minutes. Anybody have any questions or comments over the minutes?

This is Tim. I'll move to uh accept the approval of minutes for the uh December 22nd meeting. Okay. Thank you, Tim. Do I have a second? This is Larry. I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion by Tim to approve the December 22nd, 2025 meeting minutes. A second by Larry. Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I.

This is Veronica. I vote I. Motion carries. Okay, moving on to There's no old business. Go right into new business. Variance application 65-B25 by Bethany Bible Camp Lots 17 through 21 Bethany Beach section 4, Township 145, Range 32, Faren Township on Grace Lake, a recre recreational development lake, parcel 07.40.00170. The applicant is requesting variances from part one section 701.8 A and 702 of the shoreland management ordinance for proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure located in the shore impact zone that is devoted to a non-conforming use. Part two, sections 701H and 704A of the shoreland management ordinance to rebuild and enlarge a dwelling devoted to a non-conforming use. and part three, section 701A and 702 of the shoreland management ordinance to enlarge a non-conforming structure located in the shore impact zone that is also devoted to a non-conforming use. Do we have the applicants available? Yes.

Okay, you may come to the presenters table, please. Thank you. So, if you could please state your name and address for the record. Karen Weller Aish. And do you want my address or the address of the You can do both if you would please. Okay. Uh my personal address is 25862 330th Street, Chevlin, Minnesota 56676. Our um address of our Bible camp is 51497 Tanager Drive, Bumiji, Minnesota 56601.

Okay. Thank you. And if you would just give us a brief description of your variance requests.

Sure. Our um request is is actually three parts. The first part is adding on a deck which will kind of square it off to our dining hall and then put a roof over it. Um the reason we want to do this is just to kind of ease some congestion in our dining hall and and this is especially when it's raining. let some of the kids sit outside rather than get all um congested inside. Uh the second part is to rebuild what's called our Sarah cabin. Um this was actually destroyed in the windstorm in July. And this would be just about 3 and 1/2 ft longer and a h foot and a half wider than the current than what was destroyed. and that is to meet um health department requirements for bunk spacing inside the cabin. Um our last part is what we call our cooks cabin and we would like to put a new cabin in the exact same location, exact same size due to the cooks needing to be close to the dining hall. Um, but if that is not approved, um, I just wanted to clarify with staff that according to an email, we could repair what was there. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Um, as we move forward as a the board, I think we should address each of these as part one, two, and part three with the separate findings of fact if everybody's in agreements with that.

I agree. Okay, perfect. Okay, we will start with part one first then. the ex enlarging the existing deck, the 8 point 8'2 in x 14t and the 14tx 40 foot 2 in roof. Okay. [clears throat] Do you have any questions or any comments from the board at this time?

This is Tim. I have a question. Um the designer for your septic used 100 people for the sizing of it with um the request of in enlarging that deck for eating place. Are are you going to increase the amount of people using that or is it always going to be less than 100? Nope. It should always be less than 100. Basically it's um it's a it's a finite number of the number of beds we have. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Okay. Any other comments from the board? If not, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment on part one. Okay. Seeing no public comment, I will close public comment. This is Veronica speaking. I was wanting to ask for some clarification. The setback. Do you know the exact ordinary high water mark setback for your dining hall? The dining hall?

I mean, I know what my site plan says. It says it's 48, but there's little discrepancies maybe that it might be outside the shore impact zone or inside the shore impact zone. 48 ft is is what I have. Okay. Eric, the staff report indicates that there's a a question of a five foot difference. Um, do you have any information regarding that? I know we couldn't have anything with GIS with snow snow on the property. So, that's the best I can [clears throat] advise the board is on GIS. It looks like it might be outside of the impact zone. Okay.

The only way to conclusively know would be waiting for ice to go out in the spring so that we can locate the OW and measure the setback. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Again, this is Veronica speaking. We do we did have a little concerns with that being in the shore impact zone and hopefully it's outside the shore impact zone um with any type of enlarging. Would you uh be open to a possible condition that you know prior to your land use permit being obtained that you would have to have a site inspection just to verify that? OW by the county. Correct. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Yep.

This is Mike. Is that stairwell going to be outside of the deck or are you going to The stairwell currently is away from the building. It would get moved right up next to the building. But it would be then closer to the lake than the deck. Can I add this is Greg Ren. Um he's our caretaker at the camp. Maybe he can better address that one. Yeah. Won't won't change a closeness to the lake. Okay. The stairs coming off right there.

Yeah. If we add if the stairways going to come if you're going to add that additional 8 ft, the stairways will be a little bit closer to the lake. Yeah. Yeah. Moving it toward the cabin. Right. But on the other side. Correct. Yeah. And it's but it's not going to increase in size. Still going to be less than four feet. Correct. See, is the steps going to come off on the leg side or come off frontwards? This time they would come out legwise because the roof is going to be pitched bigger. Okay.

I didn't realize there was an additional deck going to be put on there. This is Veronica speaking. Another quick question. This deck, the cover, the roof enclosure that you're putting on, it's strictly going to be a roof, a canopy, and you have no intentions of enclosing it. It's going to be open air. Open air. Yes. Okay. So, another condition that I would propose is that it would must remain open air and never be enclosed. And you're okay with that? Yes.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? [clears throat] M. Can as I recall, there is a reasonably good vegetation buffer from the crest of the of the flat part as it as it drops down towards the lake if as I recall. It's hard to tell in the winter time, but it

there's there's quite a line of trees between the cabins and the lake some feet of buffer there which lines up with the cook's cabin. Okay. Well, I'm I can make a a motion if you're okay. I'm I'm okay with it. Okay. Yeah, I'm

okay. Well, this is Veronica. Then I make a motion that we approve part one, the enlarging the existing deck and the roof over the top with the following conditions. Uh number one, before a land use permit is obtained, the applicants must have a site inspection to verify the structure set back and ensure its location is outside of the shore impact zone. And number two, the deck can never be enclosed and must remain open air. and the findings of facts. Number one, is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official controls? Yes. Having a 14tx 40 foot2 in roof over an existing deck with a proposed 8'2 in and 14inch deck extension is in harmony with the general purposes and intents of the official controls and a condition is placed that the property owners must have a site inspection performed by ESO to verify the dining hall structure and deck with the proposed additions are outside the shore impact zone. And number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control? Yes. Placing a slightly placing a roof over the deck with a slightly over the existing deck slightly increasing the deck of the dining hall to decrease mealtime congestion during the rainy season is a reasonable request. I'll adopt number threes from the staff report. Number four, will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? Yes, the proposed increase to the deck and roof over the entire structure will maintain the essential character as the property is over 7 acres in size. The locality charact the locality's character will not be harmed and I will adopt number five.

This is Tim. I have a question madame chair. Yes, sir. When they do that inspection, is there going to be any result if it's closer than the shore impact zone uh from our decision tonight? Um I I would think so. I I can put in there that Well, I guess it depends on the board if you want it if it's going to make a difference. Myself, I was okay with the 48 ft. That's what I went by. So, if it's closer than that, maybe we'd have to I don't know, reconsider. I think wait for more information.

I I'm okay with the 48 because it was questions whether it was 48 or 55. It would be nice for the record to know what it is for future things, but I would it would not alter my my decision. Then it will just still clarify its location then. So, okay. So, I'll second the motion. This is Tim. Okay. Okay. Have a motion by myself to approve the application with the two conditions and the findings of facts and a second by Tim. Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? This is Ken, I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Miss Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I.

And this is Veronica, I vote I. Part one has been approved. Moving on to part two. Part two is Sarah's cabin. If you would like to go ahead and give us a brief overview of this as well.

Sure. You can stop right there if you want. Um, so our Sarah cabin, like I said earlier, was destroyed in a windstorm. a tree actually came down right in the middle of it. Um, being a volunteer camp, we were able to get people, Was it that day, Grace? It was 3 days after.

Yeah, 3 days after to be able to clean it up, which is why I didn't realize that the county needed to come out and take a look at it before we removed it. But what we'd like to propose is replacing the cabin with just that slightly larger cabin um to meet current health regulations for spacing of bunks. Same location. Exact same location. Yep. So that's on the picture you're looking at on the left hand side is our Hannah cabin and on the right hand side is the girls bath house.

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Okay, seeing no public comment, I'll close public comment. Any questions from the board members or comments? This one seems pretty straightforward. This is Tim. I'll move to approve the Sarah cabin and accept the staff's findings. This is Larry. I'll second. A motion by Tim to approve part two of the application and accept the staff's findings of facts. And Larry second. Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? This is Ken, 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 vote I on part two. Part three, the Cooks Cabin. cooks cabin picture of you. Yeah,

this is Veronica speaking. Um, I appreciate you giving us the additional information when you first came on. um that yes, you do have the opportunity if you wanted to rebuild this puridge jello mold the exact same size and same height, you may do so at this 23 ft ordinary high watermark setback. Can I ask for clarification? So, is that fixing what's there or putting a whole new structure?

It could Veronica speaking. I believe Eric can if you'd like Eric to answer this, but it could be the exact same jello mold structure. Or you can take it down and put it back up, but it has to be the same jello mold. Exactly. Even if it has like a crazy one foot eve [clears throat] on one side and a short one on the other side. So, okay. It needs to be done in the year.

Yeah. needs to be done in here or they'll lose the the use use. Okay. Um right off the bat, since we haven't had any public comment, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, I'll close public comment. Well, first question right off the bat is, have you considered an alternate site that meets the setbacks? You have seven acres on the property here.

Sure. Um I would say no. We have not um [clears throat] thinking that the cooks needed to be in close proximity to the dining hall and kitchen. Uh since they're probably going back and forth quite a bit. I I did not think about a different location. There are no bathrooms in this cabin. It's strictly a bunk house. Correct. Yep. The bathroom that they use is actually in the dining hall. It is in the dining hall. Okay.

Yep. The only thing this is for is basically sleeping. [clears throat] Well, if you're asking me whether it stays or goes, I'd say it goes myself. So, this is

Yeah, this is Veronica speaking. Um, I personally feel the same way when it comes to non-conforming structures in need of replacement. We always do our best to apply today's shoreland management ordinance guidelines and meet setback requirements when and if possible. Um, in this case, there really aren't any constraints for you to meet the setback requirements. Um, so I would have to agree with with Tim and the staff report that it can be located elsewhere, but you still do have that option if you want to have something right there. You have that option still within the year to keep what you have at an exact jello mold. But I at this time I'm not in favor myself either. Um, and if you relocated it somewhere else that meets setbacks, you know, obviously with this application, it's you would probably have to come back if you wanted something bigger since you're non-conforming for something larger on your property. But

to move it to a different location but have it the same dimensions, is that another variance application? At this time, I would have to say yes because we don't have any locations that are right here on here. you haven't given us any um indication of what that alternate site would be. Okay.

Uh if if you needed time and seriously considering that tableabling it might be an option to give you time. It would only give you like 30 days just to or whatever the time frame we can have you sign off on. But so that you wouldn't have to come back for a separate variance if that was something you were seriously going to consider to have the same size and just a different unless Eric needs it renoticed for the location. Eric, would they be able to uh if they need all setbacks be able to do this by permit? No. No. Okay. Due to it being a non-conforming use.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it would require the notice being tweaked. Okay.

So, it would have to be renoticed. So, this is Larry Eric. You know the site as well as anybody. Are there other sites just as you think about it here that would be feasible? Well, of course, there's quite a lot of area on the property to relocate a, you know, small structure like this, but again, it goes back to the convenience for uh the kitchen staff to be able to have access to bathroom and shower and and uh get a break, if you will. Um, yeah. So to answer your question honestly, yeah there is other there are other places. Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from

This is Ken. I realize this is what 23 feet from the lake. It would be nice to clean it up, but because this was storm damage, could they could they rebuild to the exact same footprint? Um, I know I think in normal residential lots you can I don't know under this non-conforming use whether you're a kin or not, but would they be allowed to fix up right and keep everything right where it is um under the current rules even though it preferentially we'd like them to move it away from the lake but they could.

Yes, Veronica touched on that earlier. Okay, I missed that. That's okay. Yes, they can they can rebuild it in the exact jello mold right there on that same spot within the year they have their their year started the dates of your storm damage. I would assume June 21st.

Yes, sir. This is Tim. I'll make a motion to deny the cook's cabin.

Okay. This is Veronica. I make a second the motion. You going to adopt staff's findings? Yes, I'll adopt staff's findings. With the staff's findings of facts. Tim, how do you vote? Tim, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? This is Ken. 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. This application for part three has been denied. Okay. I think we've covered all of your applications. You'll be receiving a decision letter from the environmental services within the next few days, giving you guidance on what's what's next and the next steps to take and permits to pull. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda, variance application 66-B-25. 5 by Warren Scoutton. Part of government lot 2 and part of the southwest corner of the northeast corner section 3 township 140 range 33 NeAs Township parcel 21.03.00250. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 4, subdivision A1B1 of the subdivision ordinance to create a lot greater than 5 acres in size that will not comply with the required 300 ft minimum lot width. Do we have the applicant available? Okay, it doesn't appear that we have the applicant, but we can move forward with this application if everyone is okay board members to do so.

Yeah. Okay. Y.

All right. Well, for the record, the application seeks relief from the 300 foot minimum lot width requirement for lots that are 5 acres or greater in size. The current property was legally created by AD administrative subdivision in 2022 and is 250 ft by 800 ft. The application applicant owns the adjacent property to the east and would like to enlarge the tract by adjusting the boundary line. The dimensions of the land proposed to be added to the lot are 500 ft by 526.87 ft. The proposed new lot size would be 10.63 acres. The lot is unimproved. Before we get started, I'm going to go ahead and open up for public comment. And seeing no public comment, I will close public comment. We have any questions from the board? I know we couldn't see it.

This is Ken. Just for the record, the existing parcel was approved the 250 by 800 uh as a valid parcel and what's being add is is something that meets the three 300 ft requirements and there are two allowable um septic systems places on the lot. I see no reason why other just from a technicality that uh um this shouldn't be approved. This is Veronica. I agree with you, Ken. Um, the need for the variance is the technicality because the ordinance allows a lot to be equated that is less than 5 acres and this one is greater than 5 acres. So, I agree. Any other questions or comments?

This is Mike. Uh, the first parcel A was only 250, but now parcel D is down to 223 on the back foot. Does that make a difference? Because that's under 300 ft. So now there's two pieces here that are under 300 and I don't know why he would configure this after a couple of years here. Eric, do you have any comments to that question? Parcel D, the east boundary would be the rear lot line because that's furthest from county 2. So, I don't know which one he's looking at.

New map that he's creating. And where are you seeing that? It narrows down, Mike. Right here, P23. Oh, that's just parcel D. That's different. [clears throat] That's a side lot line for parcel D. And then the rear lot line on parcel C would be 302.5 ft wide. Great.

This is Tim. I'll make a motion to approve this application 66-V25 and I'll accept the staff's findings. Mrs. Ken, I will second the motion. Okay. Have a motion by Tim to approve the application as presented with the adopting the staff's findings of facts. Seconded by Ken. Timothy, how do you vote? Sus, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Mrs. Ken, I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I.

Veronica, I vote I. Application has been approved. Moving on to the next item on the agenda. Variance application 67-B25 by Michael Riley, part of government lot 1, section 8, township 139, range 34, Hubard Township on Long Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 14.08.022000. The applicant is requesting variances from section 702 and 904.6 of the shoreland management ordinance to make a non-conforming dwelling more non-conforming in its ordinary high watermark setback and to increase the lot's nonconforming impervious surface area percentage. Applicant is also requesting that the condition placed on variance 94-47 that prohibits the expansion of the dwelling to be removed. Okay, Mr. Riley, go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, my name is, excuse me, [clears throat] Mike Riley, 560 Woodland Ridge, uh, Debuke, Iowa, is my home address. Uh, this is in reference to the seasonal cabin at 14948 Country Circle, Park Rapids. Um the request is uh as part of a a larger remodel all within the footprint of the existing cabin and deck to uh put a simple screen porch on uh for a variety of reasons. One of which is to allow some shelter for my 85-year-old mother to uh utilize the deck with less of a direct sun impact as well as staying away from mosquitoes just for general comfort. Um, I can let uh Eric speak more to the project, but it would be uh just part of the existing deck and it would not be something that uh I'm assuming to head off the question that I want to turn into additional living space.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Eric, if you'd like to give any comment, please state your name and address for the record. Eric Mson, 18475 Elmwood Road, NeAs, Minnesota 56467. Um, Mike's pretty much nailed it. We're not encroaching any closer to the lake. Um, there's a couple discussion points. We've got a proposed fireplace in there to take the edge off in spring and fall. Um, the stairs, I'm not sure if you guys had the um application of the stairs on the south end um towards the neighbors. That was infringing on the property line to my knowledge. So, we actually removed those set of stairs. Correct. Um, other than that, I think uh that's it. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Do I have any questions or comments from the board before I open public comment? I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment at this time. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Okay, this is Veronica speaking still. I just wanted to give you some clarification. Anytime, Mr. Riley, anytime that we enclose any part of the house where you adding the screen porch, that will increase the living quarters, the living space in it. So that's where the non-conforming use increases because you're adding your living space, more living space to it. Okay,

Veronica, for just for the record, um there was a variance application to expand this structure uh in the past that was denied. It's the lots only 900 or 9,000 square ft, which is less than 25% of what is a normal standard lot. And the structure will will move the ordinary high water mark set back another 10 feet and it'll be just at about a little bit over 54. All of those are very the lot is very small. All those things uh uh add to the fact that uh um making something more nonconforming that's already very nonconforming is not something we typically like to do. Okay, thank you for your input, Ken. This is Veronica. I agree. Um, generally um as a board we're typically if we have something that's non-conforming, we try to limit the uh expansions, especially Lakeward. So, I'm not in favor of the lakeside expansion on the non-conforming structure, making it more non-conforming myself. And again I agree due to lot size it's 0.22 acres 60.71 feet by 15.4 feet or 154 feet sorry it is quite small um of a lot.

Yeah this is Tim I agree. Um I can't uh there was that condition placed on there for no expansion. So, a board had already made a decision about this and u I'll agree with you that I'm not in favor. Yeah, thank you Tim. I agree again due to that lot size and that variance 94-97 being a seasonal use only and no further expansion to the dwelling and therefore should remain in place. I do not uh seek to remove it as well. So, anybody ready to make a motion?

This is Ken. I I'll make a motion that we deny application 67V-25 and accept the staff's findings of fact. Thank you, Ken. A motion by Ken adopting the staff's findings. Do I have a second? This is Larry. I'll second. Okay. And a second by Larry. Tim, how do you vote? Mr. Tim, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Ken, 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. Application has been denied. You'll receive a decision letter in the mail from Environmental Services. Okay.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda, variance application 68-B-25 by John Chuba and Steven Rule. Part of government lot 1, section 20, township 139, range 33, Crowing Lake Township on Third Crowing Lake, a recreational development lake, parcel 06.20.00220. The applicants are requesting part one and after the fact variance from sections 502.2 two of the shoreland management ordinance for an accessory structure located within the 100 foot ordinary high watermark setback and 50-foot road ride ofway structure setbacks. And part two, a variance from section 702 of the shoreland management ordinance to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling located in the shore impact zone and make it more non-conforming in its ordinary high watermark and road rightway setbacks. Okay. Thank you, sir. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Yes, thank you. My name is John Chuba. My home address is 400 Park Avenue, Pine River, Minnesota 56474. The property that uh we're looking at here is 23742, State 87 NEAS 56467.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. And we have since we have parts one and parts two, we'll go ahead and treat them individually. And we'll go with part one first. Part one deals with the um 7 by7 storage shed. Sure. You want to keep it in its place?

Yes. When we purchased the property, there was a plastic Well, there were actually two plastic storage sheds on the property. one was approximately four or five feet from the shore and I think they use that to store dock and boat items. Then there's a tool shed that you can see in that that picture there. Um that's I think about 7 feet from the neighbor's property line and that's used to store garden tools and that sort of thing. And that's the one that we want to keep. We did remove the other okay uh structure that was there.

All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment on part one. Seeing no public comment, I'll close public comment. This is Veronica speaking. Due to the lot's small size and lack of any other garage and accessory structures offering storage space, I'm supportive of part one, retaining that 7 by7 storage shed. Yeah, this is can uh this particular piece of property uh you really can't find a place where you can make both meet both the ordinary high water setback and the right away. Uh this this place kind of where it optimizes the two and I think uh a small shed is more than reasonable uh on the property. So I would be supportive of uh leaving it right where it is. Super. Any other comments from the board?

This is Mike. How far is that shed from your house now? Um, it's about 15 feet, I think. I don't think I have that picture with me. It it's it's about 10 to 15 feet from the house itself.

Ready for a motion? I think so. Any other comments, Mike? You're good with that? Yep. Okay, go for it. This is Larry. Um, I agree that yeah, this shed is definitely not an issue and I think we should go ahead and uh Okay, that. So, I would move that we accept the shed and accept staff findings, facts. Okay. I have a motion by Larry to approve part one application um for the 7 by7 storage unit and um per site plan and adopting the staff's findings. Have a second. This is Mike. I'll second. Okay. Thank you, Mike. Second by Mike. Tim, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? 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 vote I. That part one has been approved. They're carried. Moving on to part two. [clears throat]

Okay, go ahead and give us part two, please.

Thank you. Uh so this this uh particular structure, we're not quite sure when it was built. Um talking with the neighbors and other property owners, we're guessing in the 1960s. Basically, it was built as a walkout basement. Um and then there were floor joists um installed on top of the basement, I guess, with plans to put the main cabin on top. Uh but a previous owner in the past, again, we don't know when, uh but they put a pitched roof on top of the floor joist and used the basement as their cabin and never expanded the uh or never built the main floor on top of the basement. In looking around at the neighborhood, um there are several cabins. There's one right across the river from us, two doors down the other direction on the on Round Bay Resort. There's several cabins that appear that they were probably built at the same time by the same builder. They they tend to have the same kind of basement, a walkout concrete uh basement with a one-story um main floor on top of it. We don't know why this one was never built. Uh we purchased the property about three years ago and in cleaning up the property we discovered underneath the property had I don't know if it was abandoned but it hadn't been used uh for about 20 years and in cleaning up the property we discovered there was actually an asphalt driveway that and possibly even a asphalt u boat ramp going into the lake and there was an asphalt patio. Everything was irregular looked kind of bad. So, as we cleaned it up, we thought, well, we should take up some of the um patio or some of the asphalt and then pour an even surface there at the entrance, which is what we did. We did not know that we required a permit to do that. However, in in at that time when we were doing it, we also knew that down the road that we were going to request to have the to go ahead and build the main

cabin on top of this basement. So when we had that slab poured, the concrete uh con construction company did put poor footing. So if we were to um expand, we we could that that slab would uh allow that. So our request basically is to expand the existing basement 12 feet in length uh the same width. Uh the original structure there is 14 by 36. So we want to make it um another 12t longer. keep the same width and then build the um main cabin on top of the basement. Uh the reason for the expansion, why that would need except first we thought, well, maybe we want to expand it all, but we need to put an interior staircase to access the uh main floor because we're not going to increase um bedrooms or bathrooms. Uh the basement as as used right now um is basically they have a kitchen, a bathroom and then two rooms that served well the kitchen was a combination room and then the two other rooms served as bedrooms and they might have used it for living room that had a foldout couch in there as well. What we want to do is is just build the main floor and then put the bedrooms upstairs. So, we'd like to do an exterior staircase, but we need room to be able to put the interior staircase so we can access the main floor. Uh, we do know that everything is non-conforming on this property. It is such an odd shaped property sandwiched between State Highway 87 and the shoreline there. Um, we also um in regards to the what we want to build is currently now there's a pitch roof on it. So half the water that hits the roof goes towards the lake, but we want to do a shed cell. And I think I submitted a a photo copy of of, you know, a couple buildings that just show we want to do a shed roof. So all the water that hits

the roof will actually go on the highway side of the uh of the property and not adding more water draining towards the lake. I will add that, you know, we are right there where the Crowing River crosses under State Highway 87. And so we're right up against the bridge there and uh you know there's an awful lot of concrete around us. Um but there's you know there's really no way to utilize the this home to its full potential without putting that main floor. I don't know why they never built the main floor on on top of the basement, but that's pretty much what we're requesting. Okay. Thank you, sir.

I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment for part two. Seeing no public comment, I will close public comment. What is the current setback of your structure right now? 136 is what I have. Is that correct? Um, yeah, I measured it. So, yeah, I I got 16 feet and but then because the shoreline goes like that that it's I measured 15 feet, but I would think 136 is probably right in there. Yes. And the current height of your current structure, what's the height? Uh the height of the basement is 7 foot. Um and then it has the pitched roof that adds to that to the roof. I've got

that. I think it's 12 feet. I think it's to is to the peak of the roof. Okay. So 12 feet height at a 13t setback and you're proposing a 20 foot height at that 13t setback

or or less. Yeah, because again we're going to do a shed roof. So it'll be the wall will be taller on the lake side and then shorter um on the highway side. So, um, basically we'll take we'll take the 7 foot of the basement wall, allow the room for the floor joists, basically about a foot or so, and then, uh, do a wall. I I in my direct in my drawing, I think I put a 12ft wall. We would probably go lower than that. Um, we may go 10 foot. Um, but I I'd rather, you know, give myself a little bit room. The only reason why I I say that is we did open up the ceiling to look at the floor joist and they look like they're good, you know, but we we don't know until we open it up. So, if if we have to replace those floor joists that I don't know if there be some, you know, I mean, if the floor joist, if our contractor says the floor joists aren't that he doesn't like them and he wants bigger ones, I want to give myself a little room there, you know, in case we need the height. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Um, personally myself, uh, again, we've got another non-conforming structure located even closer to the ordinary high watermark. Um, making it more non-conforming with the 20 foot height is not, um, in my opinion in harmony with the, um, shoreline management ordinance. I know this lot is very small and it has a lot of constraints. Um, that's just how I feel at this time. Uh any other comments or any other board members?

Could could I mention something? As a 20 foot height on the other side, you know, it is it is buried by 4 foot. So it Yeah, but the exposed height would be 20, but more than likely it would be 18. We wouldn't necessarily have to let Thank you, sir. This is Mike. I think in the past they denied a permit for this, didn't they? A variance. remember that I'm unsure, Mike, at this time. I didn't review the history of the lot more than what the [clears throat] staff has given me indication of. This is Tim. Um, yeah. 1975 there was a variant application.

Yes. That was denied. When was that? 12 by 36 edition. I'm sorry. When was that denied? in 19 1975. Yeah. Yeah. This is Tim. I agree with Veronica. It um I'm not in favor of expanding this on that small of a property next to this lake at that height and also dependent on a holding tank for septic. uh adding on is just and it's not you or anything but future we're looking at that could be full of beds and it's not big enough lot to expand for in my opinion.

Okay. Can I respond at all? Okay. Yeah. And and I appreciate that. Um when we talked to the septic company that was the recommended you know for for two bedrooms and it'll remain a twobedroom. Um, I don't know, you know, the the basement itself is is pretty tight and small. Uh, I don't know that, you know, we we would not be increasing the bedroom size at all, nor the bathroom. So, it' still be a two-bedroom, one bath. And with the holding tank, you know, we we used it quite a bit and we pumped it out once a season. Um, so I I appreciate your concern, but I I don't According to the septic company, that 1,000galon holding tank is sufficient for a two-bedroom, one one bath, and it doesn't impact the shoreline because it is a holding tank. We don't have a septic field. We don't

I've been licensed as septic for 30 years and also a master plumber. and one leak is going to be that's going to be bubbling out of your tank into the lake and and uh because if it isn't taken care of. So a holding tank with by expanding it I'm saying there's potential of more people than just you and your wife being able to use that and I'm not in favor of it. Would you suggest expanding the holding tank like going with a or is it just the fact that it's a holding tank? No at all. I mean, right.

Okay. Even with warning systems that let you know that the tank needs to be pumped. I I understand, you know, what you're saying.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Tim, and thank you, sir. I think at this time, um I don't foresee this moving forward. Uh I agree. Again, I'm in the same place where a 20 foot uh lakeside height at the 14t ordinary high watermark setback doesn't sit well for myself. um doesn't set doesn't go in harmony with our shoreline management ordinance for non-conforming, you know, properties and such a small lot. So, I am not in favor of approving part two. And so, if anyone's ready to make a motion, I am open to a motion to Could I ask one other question?

You're you're going back to the 20 foot height. If we put a pitch roof on, that would bring the height back down to, you know, we'd probably take off, you know, I don't know, you're probably looking at then probably a 14 or 15 foot height at the on the lake side if we just did a regular pitch roof. Mr. Cha, I appreciate your your changing openness to changing your application, but at this time, we have to go with the application that's presented in front of us. And so if there's something that you'd want to change in the future and come back, you know, with a different application with different proposal, then you would just have to do a different variance application and we would review it from there. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Moving forward. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to deny the application. um 68-B-25 and accept the staff's findings. Okay. Part two. Okay. We have for part two a motion to deny the application and adopt the staff's findings. Do I have a second? This is Ken. I'll second the motion. And we have a second by Ken. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Uh I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? Larry, I also vote I. Mike had do you vote? And Mike, I vote on it.

And this is Veronica. I vote I. The part two has been denied. Sir, you'll get a letter from environmental services about both your the decision letters tonight and the next steps. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thought this next one is so much tied to this. Move it to the bottom. I I know there's a lot of people here. Mhm. It would fit better if we put it at the end. You might want to think about that. I think I agree with that. Yeah, because the rest of them are pretty kind of straightforward. Yeah, I agree with that.

Um, this is Veronica speaking. Eric, would you have a problem if I moved this application towards the end since it kind of is relevant to our preliminary plat just so that we could get the other since it's kind of lengthy and get the other applications going? I I'd confer with the applicant and ask if they'd if they would be open to that be open to that. Okay. Um, so the variance application 69-B-25 by CDSA Friendship Ventures is the next item on the agenda. We have the applicants here. Okay, you can move it back. That's fine.

Is that okay? So, we could get everybody else going through. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. So, we're going to come back to that one and we're going to move on to 70-B25 by Donald Herson and Jetent Camp. I was going to say, is it etching camp?

All right. Government lot 7 and part of government lot 8, section 15, township 141, range 35, Argo Township on Eagle Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 02.15.00610, 02.15.00612, and 02.1500613. Applicants are requesting a variance from section 701 of the shoreland management ordinance for a proposed new structures and alterations to existing structures that are devoted to a non-conforming use. All right. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Um, I'm Don Hoverson, uh, secondary owner of Breeze Campground and manager Breeze Campground. Um, address I currently live at is the address of Breeze Campground, 25824 County, 89 Park Rapids, Minnesota.

Okay. Thank you, sir. And you, sir? J. Ectton Camp. And my home address is 3041 Wildflower Trail in Hamill, Minnesota.

Okay. Thank you. if you could go ahead and state your request, please. Okay. Um, we got uh eight items uh to mention. Uh, first item I'd like to mention is uh one of our site C4. Um, it's a 10x6 shed. Um, item was requested as I asked a site guest to remove their existing storage unit to prepare for a new septic. The new shed will be placed back in the old storage unit's previous location. It was difficult to perform the septic construction project with the unit remaining there. Um and then to summarize, uh item 2, three, four, five, and eight are sheds that vary from 8x 10 and 10 by 12. These sheds were requested for the need to store extra belongings inside. The aesthetics of the property are more pleasant when we um put stuff inside. And then item six was um a little more detailed. It's our site C2020 C22. Uh it's a 12x 12 screened in porch. Uh the gu one of our guests obtained a land use permit August 9th, 2022 for a deck. The deck was built and then she attempted to apply for a screened in porch to put on top of it and the request was denied. Um this wasn't a variance. This was just a land use. Uh Breeze was informed that variance would be required for any further land use permits in September of 2022. and that particular guest would love the opportunity to complete that screened in porch. Um, and then the last item was number seven C19 site. We had 11 by6

screen covered porch and then 11 by4 open covered porch. And the guest requested an opportunity to build similar improvements than the other five park models in that area. And that kind of sums up um each of them. Okay. And if I may add just part of it was with the 2022 approval. Um part of the reason we're here is the procedures of getting permits changed in 2022. And speaking with Eric, that's when we moved to a situation where we need to come in for a variance with these.

We've had the campground for 30 years. It used to be we could just do a lot of this with overthe-c counter permits. So now the rules have changed. So here we are making the request. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Eric, Eric, are we open for questions here? Oh, not just yet. Yeah,

but yes, you may go ahead, Ken. You may ask, Eric. Eric, the the 400 square foot um allocation for a campground like this, is that used to determine how many unit how many campsites you can have or does it basically say any individual campsite can exceed the 400 square ft? H how do I apply that that criteria? because a couple of the things that [snorts] are being asked for are exceeding the 400 ft footprint. So, how I don't I don't know how to apply that. What I'm saying?

Yeah. So, the ordinance applies the 400 square ft to the dwelling unit density calculation process. So, it assumes for an RV site it's no larger than 400 square ft. It could be smaller than that. So, when you're evaluating the two requests on the application that would look to expand the size of those two uh units beyond 400 square ft, I think that's an appropriate aspect of the ordinance to evaluate.

Okay. So, can I ask for clarification on that? Because because my understanding is the 400 square feet [clears throat] that refers to the RV site and state law requires RV lots just like the big Pines Park we have here in in town. The lot the RV lot size is a statemandated state statute that says uh the RV sites have to be 2,000 square feet. So in one case you're talking about an RV site and then you're talking about the RV lot just for so right. So we're talking about the size of the RV structure that can

structure the structure itself. Yes. Okay. So the the 400 ft refers to the structure. Anything that adds living quarters like a covered screen porch or a roof over the deck that express that expands the non-conforming part that expands that 400 square foot.

Okay. And and I think again in history, I know we had this issue a few years back and my recollection was that somebody had wanted to put an oversized deck in and the RV the deck and the RV were attached. So, and it became one structure and so at that time the county been talking with environmental services said you know that deck needs to be detached. You consider that two separate, you know, a deck is separate from an RV. If you put them together, then that's all one considered to be one structure.

Well, in this case, a roof is proposed over the uh screen porch, open air, uh over the deck itself. Yeah. Yep. So that's why it's viewed as an addition even if it's detached from the RV itself with the examples that we saw next door to the what's proposed and Donald saying that they intend to use the same contractor and do the same thing.

The the C22 one was a 12 by 12 um separate. It's kind of actually off the side of it a little bit. So that one definitely wasn't attached. Um I wasn't aware that um at the time when we were out there I I uh I didn't realize they couldn't they weren't supposed to be detached but um now I'm am aware that ones in the past are um um become detached or whatever. And there's other examples in the campground and Breeze and other campgrounds that um you know that I've seen that are are attached and they'll and they do get permitted. So I was kind of um it was just unclear cuz in the past it has they have been permitted when they're attached, but now I know that they're supposed to be unattached. Um, so if that would be um, you know, if if that would be a contingency that we make sure that they're detached, can uh, we would agree to that, you know, um, on the covered porches portion of it.

Yeah, this is Veronica speaking. In my eyes, when you say covered porch, that's an expansion of the RV unit. It's not a gazebo. Mhm. I mean, you're kind of trying to describe a gazebo. Y sort of thing. Be saying that it's not attached to the RV. And this is not anytime I see a roof over a deck, it's an expansion to the RV unit. That's how I'm viewing it. And environmental services will give guidance when you come in to um request an application to their, you know, how they're um placing the ordinance and how they're viewing it in their verbiage. But that's I believe that's how we're seeing it. Am I correct? Yes.

If it's attached, right? Okay. From the board, should we separate these into two different parts? One and two for the decks and the um sheds. The shed. Yeah.

Okay. So we have like six storage shed accessories and then we have the two other things. I think that would be the simplest for this one as well. So we'll do part one. We'll call that the sheds storage accessories structures and I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing no public comments I will close public comments for this accessory structures. Do I have any questions or comments on any of the accessory structures? Personally, I think that it would be much easier as we do with the shoreland management ordinance how we apply it to today's um campgrounds that they're all one size 8 by 10 done. We don't have all these different sizes here and there here and there when we go through and do a you know a campground for today and it's we generally just cap it. So it can't be larger than this. That's just a thought. Some of these most of these are 8 by10. Some of them are a little bit larger.

Mostly 10 by 12. Mostly 10 x 12s. Yeah. But 8 by 12. 10 x 16, but I think he indicated that there was one there and they had to put in a new drain field.

We put in a new drain field and their um their previous unit was um like [clears throat] they their customers that have been there since 1989. and they're a longest running customer and they had like shrubs and stuff um planted around it and it just we had we just had to use that area and it was kind of it was old and I wanted to get it replaced anyway so I thought it was a good opportunity to try to uh change it up and um yeah that's exactly what size that was but in the owner in agreement was okay if you if you gave him a 10 x6 shed

and I and I did I did say I will do my best cuz he's he's not going to, you know, not rent with me if I don't. That shed is beyond the 100 foot set back. That is beyond the 100 foot setback. Beyond meaning back behind. Yes. Okay. It's it's really close to the 150 foot because we had to mark We did have that determined in the fall for the septic. Okay. That's right. Septic's got to be 150. Okay. This is Veronica speaking. All six sheds are beyond the ordinary high watermark setback. Correct.

Okay. Just for the record. Uh and also for the record, uh the application requests these variances because it's a non-conforming use. So any accessory structure that they need to apply a variance for has to go through this application. I am open to retaining or to approving the storage sheds. I was just trying to look at simplifying things from here forward as we have been on the storage structures. Yeah, I know that we have kind of limited the size for um condition or um conversion of resorts to planned unit developments and and that's because they're basically at a footprint and they were a little more dense. Um there's a lot of open space I think here. So I think a little more flexibility in the size would be okay with me.

Okay. So sure. I'd like to see a standard also a 10, you know, 10 by 12 or or less, but but um under the fact that they do have space um and I think the staff report indicates that there's probably not a a um pvious surface issue with this large area. So, I'd be okay with the sizes they're recommending. Okay. I don't know about the rest. You're okay with the applicants request sizes? You say size-wise? Yeah. Size size and location.

This is Mike. You got six of them that you're asking for now. Are you going to ask for more next year? So, so [clears throat] I have talked with Eric a little bit about and what you had pointed out that if we could get some kind of consistency with like a maximum size for a shed and for a deck, you know, like let's say if you did do 10 by 12 shed and two 12x 12 sections for a deck, just as standard, so it's easy to know. Um, but to answer your question, um, a lot of our deck, we have a lot of deck and shed permits and a lot of them occurred in 2001 when the county notified us that, um, you know, the process to make sure we get this done. So, we have a lot of them, but uh, and to answer your question, they're 25 a lot of them are 25 years old and sometimes they need some alterations because they weren't maybe necessarily built to code. So, um I would I would guess that every year we'd have a few, but with the cost going up to we won't be able to do the multiple items on a variance that there's going to have to be a a mer they're going to have to merit the really need to have it

if they want to do it in the future, I would guess. So, um but yeah, I would I would like to be able to continue to do these. This is Veronica speaking. When you have a a tenant that vacates the lot, do they take everything with them?

Um, sometimes they do, but a lot of times um they leave them behind because um because of the difficulty of getting sheds and deck permits. And a lot of people have agreed just to, you know, transfer their site. Um and they just sell their camper. A lot of people just sell their camper on location and then we renew the new owner gets to use that site of such. But um a lot of we don't uh I've been I've been managing for 5 years and I think one person has removed a deck and that's it. Um any other questions or comments from the board?

We're still talking to sheds, right?

Correct. Okay. How does everybody else feel about the size? I understand location is, you know, behind setback, which is fine. I was just looking

I'm okay with 10 by 12. Okay. [clears throat] How would your applicants feel about 10 by 12 if we tried to start steering towards that uh that size? Can we consistency? Can we get consideration for the one that's uh I think it was it 8 by6 or 10 x 16 just this one time. C4 is 10 x 16 that the closest one that's over there that was by and then in the future just stick with the 10 x 12 or less I think that would be ideal turn that would be a

would you get by [snorts] that one Doug's been he's been there so long I I told him after 30 years I got to buy him a watch. Yeah. Ready for a motion? I believe so. Are you going to include the size? Yes. Perfect. Uh, this is Larry. I move that we accept the sheds portion of this variance. Um, noting that from here on out, we would like the sheds to be 8 by 10 or less and 10 x 12 or 8 by 12 or 10 x 12, I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, with the exception of the first one. Correct. All of these have to be 10 x 12 or less, which is what they are.

Which is what they are with the exception of C4. Okay. Yep. And then uh finding effects number one is to have a small shed is reasonable on lots like this for just storage and general purposes. And uh number two is a yes because also um this area has a lot of these sheds. They blend into the terrain quite well and they are all behind the setback. And then I would accept staff's findings facts for three, four, and five. On number four will need to be modified because it has the additions of the two RVs. Oh, okay. Yep. We'll take those. Scratch those to be considered separately.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I have a motion by Larry to approve the part one storage structures, the storage sheds um to be a size 10 by 12 or less with the exception of C4. So we have some continuity in the future here on consistency. and he provided findings of facts for number one and two and modified number four and adopted three and five. Do I have a second? Mike, I'll second that.

Okay. And a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim, I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Ken, 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 vote I. Storage units have been approved with the con with the alterations there. And moving on to the other part, part part two with C19 and C22 with the screen porch and roof. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment just to get that done. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Well, this is Veronica speaking. Going back to the 400 square foot size for RV lots. That's where we kind of come into some difficulties with this request. C19 has a unit that is 10x 36. That's 360 ft already. They're proposing the screen porch and covered deck, which would be an additional 330 square ft.

Does that one have a deck? I can't I know 22 does the de that one currently have a deck 20 22 currently has a deck but not 19 19 has [clears throat] has patio patio block from a long time ago um patio block patio block yeah in that area. Okay

C22 has a 10x40. It already maxes out its 400 square ft. Mhm. And it's requesting the 12 x 12 screen porch for an additional 144 square ft. No, looking for comments.

Yes, please. I I mean uh I realize a a deck and or a concrete or block uh patio area or reasonable, but in both cases adding a screened in porch, you're basically expanding the living area connected with these two what they call them park models which are already um close to and or exceeding the 400 square foot uh um criteria. I think you can read that I'm not in favor of approving either one of the screened in porches.

Thank you, Ken, for your input. Any other comments from any other board members? Uh would it make it easier if we considered just doing um a 10 by 10 like the portable um u um screened in porches that can be taken down at the end of the year even though we'd probably leave it up. They're like I wish I had an example of one. Um uh [snorts] but they do have a hard hard top but they're open on four sides and then but they could be like mosquito tents like

oh they got like a mosquito net in there a we have had people uh we have had that question cuz with discussions with Eric we've put some up without permits because we take them down before the 180 day or before the 180 days because they are so portable But, uh, it'd be nice to be able to put something that's just a little hard, uh, a hard top on it. Is that something that'd be easier to to ask for? It would be taken down at the end of the year. Well, then down there. It would be nice to be able to leave up the the skeleton

the skeleton of it, you know. So then we'd get a but it wouldn't that definitely wouldn't be part of the camper unit cuz it's you just pop put them together and set it on the deck. And that's something in the future if we get a conditional use permit for, you know, every camper getting a certain size deck, whatever, that would be one of the topics on what size that would u be adequate, you know, not too big. I mean, I think I wonder if they're 8 by 8 or maybe 10 by 10. Um, I I would think that'd be more reasonable than, you know, I do understand the whole if you build a screened in porch, then possibly somebody's going to want to use it as actual living space instead of,

right? How many campsites have these large I think you call them park models like these have? Is it just this little set of five or six here by the drawing or are there a lot of other ones that that quote are oversized or at full capacity on the in the campground? I I would I would venture there's probably 25 that are big like that that are to be more popular that are getting close to that 400 square ft. They're bigger than most the cabins that we see.

It's kind of crazy. This is Veronica speaking. At this time with this application in front of us, I think we just need to address what we have in front of us, the plans that we have. Um, and you know, I I can't say what I would or wouldn't approve if it's something slightly different and you know, exactly what it's going to be without having it all the information in front of me. Um, but so for now, I would just like to move forward with just what we have presented. Um, I personally am not in favor either of these proposed screen porches and covered porch additions as they would exceed that 400 square foot size to the RV sites and it's not in harmony with the intent of official controls. Um, they are reasonable. Their uses, you know, reasonable uses on residential structures. They just don't quite work for the RV units um with that size. I'm I'm supportive of that suggestion.

Any other comments? No. Okay.

Make the motion busy.

I can if they like. Sure. Well, then at this time, this is Veronica. I'm going to make the motion to deny the screen porch requests for C19 and C22 with the roof extensions and screen porch requests. I will have a findings of facts. Number one, is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intents of the official controls? No. The proposed screen porch and covered porch additions on C19 and C22 would exceed the 400 square feet size to the RV sites and would not be in harmony with the intent of the official controls. Number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control? Screen porches and covered decks are reasonable uses on residential structures that do not have to meet that 400 ft RV unit. However, the RV units have that 400 ft max size cap and allowing these additions um would well exceed that 400 ft threshold and it's not a reasonable use. I will adopt findings of fact number three number five and modify number four by slashing the six sheds. And

this is Larry. I'll second that motion. We have a motion by myself with the findings of facts provided. A second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? 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 vote I. The motion has or the application has been denied. Okay. You've you will receive a decision letter from environmental services giving you the next steps for those permits for those. your next step on this. Thank you.

Okay. Variance application 71-B25 by Michael Rugmire. Part of government law 1, section 19, township 141, range 32, Aley Township on Indian Lake, a natural environment lake. Parcel 01.19.00400. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 506.5 of the shoreland management ordinance to allow a non-conforming structure to be used as a guest cottage. Mr. is it Rugimer? Rugr. Correct. Rugimer. Rugr. Okay. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Uh Mike Rimer, 2114 Quartz Lane, Egan, Minnesota. That's home address.

Okay. Uh address up here is 20 27559 Hillview Road, NeAs 56467.

Okay. Thank you. And if you could give us a description of your request, please. basically like to take the existing cabin uh convert that to a guest cottage uh so we can build up on hill up by the uh garage unit. Okay. All right. For the record, the application requests a variance to allow the existing 14x 48 by 1375 non-conforming cabin measuring 82 feet from the ordinary high watermark which 150 is required for the natural environment lake. The application sketch shows as being 3 feet from the side lot line. 10 foot is required and it's entirely located in a bluff impact zone to be used as a guest cottage. In 1997, the applicant um was granted a variance to slightly enlarge the original structure and rebuild the rear non-lakeside half. And the variance also included multiple conditions. Do I have any questions from the board before I open for public comment?

This is Kent. Uh the existing cabin there, what utilities and stuff does it have in it? What type of stuff does it have in it? Yeah, water, sewer, electric. Uh kitchen with a kitchen. I water. You can talk. Yeah. Water. Water. Uh kitchen sink and water. There's no uh bathroom facilities. Okay. So your bath houses were the shower house upt. [clears throat] Okay. This is Veronica speaking. Where does your kitchen sink drain? Uh into the sewage system.

Oh, so you've got it to go up to the to the septic system. Perfect. Mhm. This is uh Tim speaking. Do you have a legal easement through your neighbor's property? Yes, there was a variance for that. Okay. Yeah. I'm not sure when it was. I think it was 98 uh 97. Uh that was for that addition that was put on. Uh I was [clears throat] asking about the easement for the driveway getting to that house that you're calling the primary now.

The pri the primary now. What about the I said, do you have easement across your neighbors property? Egress and yes, you have a legal easement. Yes, legal easement. I can see it. Or the road we come down off down the hill. Yeah. Down is on the neighbor's property as you're saying. No, the whole driveway driving to that is on the neighbor's property. Oh, okay. Yes. But you're they they granted you easement or permission? No, it was a it was a came in for variance and they recorded. Yep.

Would he need a variance for a legal easement? Depends. I'll have to look at it. I because uh besides the bluff, um I was concerned about eventually if uh if a neighbor had the right to close that off because of the hill and everything, how you would even get a fire truck or an ambulance to that that place. Part of the reason of building up on the hill, right?

Yeah. Eventually that one may come down just because there's no point in doing both. So this is Veronica speaking. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Ken already answered asked my question for the plumbing and so there's just no bathroom but just kitchen. [clears throat] The other question I have is the pictures that were sent um couldn't tell what applied to what, but uh they were for what's currently in the bath shower house and then that storage shed. Those look to be finished off for living.

Um Yeah. So they're both used. Okay. I mean the the [clears throat] showerhouse, you mean finished on the inside? Yeah. Well, the let's say the storage building is there system in that. It's a cabin kit and they're three-foot panels. So, they're logs. It looks like logs both sides. So, it's finished that way

storage building inside. Is it just sleeping quarters or are there other facilities in it? our sleeping quarters in there, which um when I first I think it was back in um 20 or 9612, we we got a permit to build a shed. What I and what I did was I got this from my boss. He gave it to me and I couldn't re, you know, just say no. Uh there was furniture and other things in it. So, I built I said I'd take it. Uh, a couple years later, I put it up and then stored all the the things that were there as far as beds and uh dressers and

are the question I'm asked are there utilities? Is there water, sewer, electric, etc. in No, no, just just electric. Only in that space. Only electric. Yeah. And how about the bath house? The bath house has everything in it. everything including sleeping quarters. No, we don't sleep in there as kitchen. That's just uh storage in there. Air mattresses and that type of thing. Well, it look like there were two bunk beds. Yeah, we've used those for shelves basically. Oh, when nobody's sleeping on them. No.

Okay. [clears throat and cough] Any other questions or comments?

Uh, this application has nothing to do with the new house or any permit for the new house or or new building at this point. Well, they're somewhat related. As long as this structure remains on the lot, we can't issue a permit for a new house to be built on it without the condition that this one goes away. What I'm trying to get at is is that storage building in violation to now um at this point since it has living quarters in it.

Yeah. If it's being used as a dwelling space.

It is. Okay. If the cabin he's asking for, we would say no. Um you can't convert that to living quarters or it has to be um um tore down. If you build a new building um without the new building that storage could still remain there. How am I saying that? Well, if we if we stop using it as sleeping quarters and just use it as a shed, that wouldn't come in effect with the the request to turn the existing primary to a uh guest cottage. And that's the only way I'd be able to build up on the hill. Guess I'm trying to get in. The current primary living residence on this lot is the cabin.

Correct. And the storage shed that could be considered a guest cabin at this point. Right. Legally, the lot's big enough for that, I believe. So, and it's outside the bluff. Yeah, it's back 150 foot back and it's uh Yeah,

but the request is to retain this. Yeah. No, I'm trying to trying to get to that. Mhm. So when this gets built [clears throat] and if we deny this becoming a um guest cabin, this other one could still be there, still stay there, implying we don't have to worry about anything about that storage building even though it's now currently being used for sleeping quarters. Am I making sense? If there's a violation, environmental services will address it. Yes. Okay. Correct. I mean [clears throat] for his question.

Yeah. Based on the primary structure that is being asked to be used as a guest cottage. With that being the primary structure, then this storage the structure that was permitted as a storage structure could be used as a guest cottage. But they would need to get an after the fact land use permit to convert its use from a storage structure to a guest cottage. No. Okay. Or they could make it a shed like he said and move his other primary up for a guest out away from the bluff.

Yeah. The alternative would be to remove the contents that are causing it to be used as a dwelling and have it be used as a storage structure like it was permitted or move the entire thing out of the bluff. Yes. But that's depends upon once they once they want to permit this. Yeah. To just

now the simple question is for us [clears throat] would we approve that cabin the current primary cabin would we approve it to be improved to be a guest cabin uh in the future? That is the question at hand. Based on where it's located uh uh in the bluff, 3 ft from the property line and about half the distance to the allowable ordinary water mark. Personally for myself, the answer is no. Yeah. Well, that's where it was headed. Yes, I agree.

Personally, this is Veronica speaking. The guest cottage being 82 feet in the ordinary high watermark and like you mentioned 3 ft from the side lot line and the entire structure is within the 30oot bluff crest setback. I am opposed to retaining it as a guest cottage. Yes, there's other locations on the property that it could be moved to to meet those setbacks and to be utilized. Have you considered moving it? Moving the existing cabin. Correct. Yeah. No, I'm looking to build new for season.

Right. That is not

correct. I just meant during the time when you're going to have all the construction equipment and moving everything and if you would be open to just moving that to where it meets setbacks. Um, I would probably just tear it down and and dispose of it. [clears throat] I can make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we deny uh application 71 V25 for converting uh current uh primary residence into a guest cabin in the future. and I uh uh uh accept the findings of fact uh from um the staff.

Okay. Thank you, Ken. Ken made a motion to deny the application and adopt the staff's findings. Do I have a second? This is Tim. I'll second the motion. Okay. And second by Tim. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? This is Ken, I vote I. Larry, Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote I. And this is Veronica. I vote I to deny the application. You'll be receiving a letter from environmental services about the next steps. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Next item on the agenda, variance 72-B25, Ray and Marlo Benning, lots 17 and 18, block one, Sunny Point edition, section 21, Township 139, range 33, Crowing Lake Township on Second Crowing Lake, a recreational development lake, parcel 06.37.01500. Applicants are requesting after the fact variances from section 502.2 2 and 503 of the shoreland management ordinance for two platforms and an accessory structure located within the 100 foot ordinary high watermark setback and 30 foot bluff crest structure setback and bluff impact zone. Thank you so much. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

I am Ray Benning. Uh the property's at 12431 Beach Drive, NeAs. Thank you. and you Benning. Okay. Same address. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. State it for the record, please. 12431 Beach Drive. Leave us. Perfect. Thank you. And if you could please just give us a description of your request.

Um, so we received a violation letter in October uh last year and uh there's a couple things. There was six items on there. one was the um rock that we had placed over some carpet that the previous owner had there. Um and uh we we added a wood 4x4 pallet shed um on the property closer to the shoreline. Um talked with Demi from environmental services and uh worked it out with her. Uh we agreed to remove all the rock and the carpet. We will get the koyer mat and purchase 70 minimum of 72 plants to return it to vegetation. Granted, we bought it in 2020. Um the vegetation had been dead for by the previous owners from at least 2015 we found pictures of but we agreed that we would take care of that and get that up to KO being on the bluff. It's a very steep area just we were worried about washing out and that's why we put the rock there to kind of hold it. it was washing. So the varants when they also came out they noticed that we replaced the stairs that were there since 1993 and it had a 6x6 platform at the top of the bluff. Um I was in the hospital at the time very ill um the pre year prior very ill so I wasn't functional. My wife had hired a contractor to replace that. It was failing. One of the steps had broken when somebody was walking down there. Um it was rot rotting basically. She hired a contractor. He built a steel frame um composite deck manufactured welded onsite and concrete in the legs for stability. He made it two feet bigger. It didn't go two feet

closer to lake. It went two feet on the side and towards the shoreline, which she didn't know at the time that we had to get a a variance for that. I had no idea. He just called and said, "Can I make it two feet longer?" Because he didn't want to, you know, he said, "Let's just save that steel." And I'm like, "Okay." I have no idea. They were in that length so we didn't have to cut it. Anyways, so that's where that why that got larger, but it was in the same spot, same staircase going down. May I ask a quick question? Yes. So for verification, this prior size was 6 by six, correct? So now it's 8 by 8 by 8. So it's really 2 feet and 2 feet. Yes. Two feet to the side and two feet towards the cabin. Okay. Pull out the lake side. Some clarification. Thank you.

You're correct. Which I also didn't know. I thought he just said two feet out this way. So and we were in the hospital at the time with him. So anyways, bad time. Yeah. So that was the one item. The other So we removed that 4x4 shed, took that little wood shed. We also have a 5x6 storage shed on the property that is set back 15 ft from the bluff. Um it's been there since 2008. Um prior to 2008, that's what the previous owners could find for pictures where it was there. Anyways, we haven't changed anything. It's the same size, same structure. Everything is there as it was then.

Okay. While you're on that note, in 2008, did they get a permit? Um, Demi could not find one. Okay. We don't know. Okay. The owner has dementia now, so don't have a clue. Um, the patio that is in discussion also for the after the fact that we found pictures from the previous owners. They were able to find from 19 Oh, no, wait. Where was that? 200 uh 2006 that was put put in place. We haven't done anything with that. It's there. It's all been there since we owned it. Like I said, we storage shed. No, this is the patio.

Oh, the Okay. Yeah. Yeah. The storage shed was 2008. The patio's been there since at least 2006. You can see the grass is already growing around the whole structure. So, obviously, it wasn't put in that year, but I don't know when it was actually put in. And again, I don't know that there was an a variance for that when they did that. And I don't know if he did it when he built the cabin or not, but it's been there. Um, and we've, like I said, we only owned it since 2020. So, those are the three items we're looking for the after the fact varants.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much. I'm going to just jump right in and open for public comment. And I'm going to close public comment. Seeing none. Okay. Gonna jump in real quick. What's your deadline for your retaining wall to bring it up to the uh That's okay. I was just curious. I'm sure it's in there.

Well, July. July. They agreed to do two parts. So, uh the first half has to be done by July. I can't remember if it's at the beginning of July or the end of July. The second half has to be done by September. But we will probably do it all right away because we're gonna order the plants from the county us or whatever it is CSW anyways from them and if you buy them in the winter you get a discount and sure I just rather just remove them do it all right away. The 5x6 plastic storage shed that you said was there since 2008 at least.

Is that the same storage shed? That's the same unit. Same. Exactly. It's thriving all this time. Yep. Okay. That's why I asked in good shape. Yeah. Yeah. We haven't done anything with it. Okay. During lot views, you mentioned um excessive amount of storm water runoff going down that block.

There was the gutter. Um if you have it on here on the What would that be? south side. It drains. Demi had noticed it drains. The spa comes down and then it goes into a PVC and then it goes under the patio to the bluff and then it goes and washes out there.

So, she suggested we change the spout of the rain gutter to go out the What side is it? That' be the east side towards the driveway to go out that way rather than going down the bluff. And we agreed that we can do that. Okay. Do I have any questions or comments from the board? Unfortunately, during the snow cover, we couldn't really see the patio because it wasn't cleared off.

She had pretty good pictures of it.

True. But visual, it's nice to have a visual when we're doing lots for factf finding. Well, in 1993 when the 6x6 platform was first made to What you're giving me information was that that's when that was first built to get down.

Yes.

Well, in 1993, it still exceeded the footprint. The footprint should have been 32 ft or maybe even less at that time. Now, at 8 by8, it's double the size. I personally don't have I I'm not um open to retaining it being double the square footage, double the size. Stairways, lifts, and landings are meant for just that to go down, make a turn. You know, a 32 square foot platform is all that's necessary, not a place to sit and view the lake cuz you've got that up on your patio. It's very level up there. Um, I'm not in favor of retain that, but that's just my opinion. Um, the patio paper being right up to the crest of the bluff. Again, that's something that we generally don't gravitate towards. We try to protect the crest of the bluff and the bluff itself and the lake and the water going down to the lake. Um, but again, that's just where I stand at this point. The plastic storage shed can be relocated.

This is Tim. I I agree. I I would move the papers out to uh 4T from the house or somewhere in there. And I'd move the shed and the platform. I'm neutral on the platform. If somebody has a different idea,

can I say something? I mean like I was ill like what it cost us 20,000 to have that thing built in place and it's very expensive and it would be just probably almost that amount to have it redone. Maybe not quite that much but that was my concern on that one. The storage shed Gimme did look at the lot and she looked at a couple ways we have the problem with the well on one side the septic on the mound on the driveway. She thought we'd move it by the garage, but we can't because it's too close to the lot line there because it's only 10 feet from the garage to the line, and it's a sixoot shed. And we'd also have to remove trees to move it there where she wanted it. And that's why she suggested put it on the

What what do you store in the shed? Uh cushions, mainly cushions for the patio furniture. Um some garden stuff and some charcoal, lake related stuff. Yes. Okay, that's it. How how how significant is the structure of the platform and what what would be the it's effort required to cut it back to 32 a lot of effort. It would have to be completely disassembled. It's like I said it's welded in concrete and anybody

Yeah, he he explained that it's it's in concrete. It's in concrete. The posts and uh the frames all welded, all welded steel. So, it would be it'd be kind of disruptive to the hillside if they had more redo it.

Okay. I mean, if the storage shed if that's, you know, we could move it. We can't get it all the way to the 100 because that's where we run the problem with the trees in the garage,

but we could move it. I don't know if it shows in a picture where like that swing set is. [clears throat] This is This is Kim. I'm not troubled by the shed. It's 15t from the bluff. It's lake related uh structure. Quite small. Um and visually from what I there's a wood pile next to it. I don't I'm not I'm not troubled by that shed. Okay.

Uh I think I'm with Tim. That PA patio's got to be torn up and reveated. Um, and I agree with him that probably leave about 4 ft just for drip edge or whatever you want to call along the U wall. And I'd like the platform to be reduced, but um I'm not so sure that uh uh there's a benefit to the county. Here's a picture for the

Yeah. I'm not so sure there's a benefit to the county given all the other structure stuff around there um uh to completely basically tear it down and start over. So, I'm thinking out loud now, but um as much as I'd like to see it go back, uh that looks pretty problematic. So, okay. my my comments. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the other staff or other board members?

This is Larry. What would be legal for the pavers to make like a sidewalk to the staircase going down size-wise? Four foot wide. Four foot wide. But they could run that length from the house then out with four feet wide. You could do a 4 foot wide sidewalk connecting the house sliding door to the walkway stairs that go down to the lake. Okay. Okay. I get what you're saying. So you would be open to reducing it to that. Okay. We haven't had any runoff issues out of there at all. Just the only one that's it's only been that drain spout was I mean otherwise it doesn't even run that way run towards the cabin. But

no problems. We're trying to get as many things fixed as we can here and stay within the ordinance. We realize that a lot of stuff

Are you proposing that since they're allowed a 4 foot wide walk path that you could leave a pavers if we did four feet from the building, you could also do a walkway straight to the stairs 4 feet. That's what you're probably makes sense. Yeah. Okay. And yeah, as far as the platform, um, yeah, it would do more harm than good to to pull that up to just reduce it by two feet on each side. um comes under the category of things happen. Anyone prepared for a motion? Who wants to make the motion? This is Veronica speaking. I gave my input on my where I fall. So you

All right. Rest of your

This is Larry. I'll I'll take a shot at it here. Um, I would be in favor of this variance with the I don't know if we want to do conditions to reduce the pavers to less than a 4ft width leading from along the house and then also a sidewalk out to the staircase if that makes sense. Um, the shed I agree with Ken basically can stay there. It's been there forever and um yeah, if it falls apart or whatever, let's make it go away. Um and then the staircase, yes, it's oversized, overbuilt, but at this point, taking it out is probably a real liability to you and and doesn't really gain us a whole lot as far as the quality of the lake and everything. Um so in findings of facts for number one um it is oversized. We acknowledge that but to have a landing pad it is a fairly steep staircase and long so to have a break in it is reasonable. Um is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner? Um, it is reasonable to have a staircase to the lake and access. Um, so I believe that could be a yes as well. Um, is the need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current or prior property owners? That one's tough.

Well, it was created. It is unique to the property because of how steep that is to so we needed uh not just one straight stairway. We got to have a landing to go around. And um also the uh circumstances were unique to the property. The owner was in the hospital when the contractor did it, but uh

can you bring the contractor in so we can rip on him? [laughter] I I actually I've talked to him and I told him there, right? I just mentioned to him that he should really when he's doing lake properties, he should let people know that they should get variances if they don't know. Right. So, yeah, I did talk to him. Okay. All right. Thank you, Tim. And then accept [clears throat] staff's finding the facts for number four and number five. Okay. We have a motion by Larry to approve the application. Are you putting a condition that if if and when the shed needs replaced, it needs to be removed because you said when it

falls apart, it goes away. Yes. Okay. with the condition that the 5x6 shed if and when it needs replaced to meet setbacks or just remove it. It can be set. Well, yeah, it can't be where it is, right? Okay. Yep. And he provided findings of facts for one, two, and three and adopted number four. Do I have a second? This is Ken. I'll second it. Okay. And a second by Ken. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Can 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 nay.

Okay. Your application has been approved. You'll be getting a decision letter from environmental services by the end of the week or so with the next steps. Okay, moving on. Variance application 73-B-25 by Ryan Mancel part of government lot 1 section 5 township 140 range 34 Henrietta Township on Ingram Lake and Natural Environment Lake parcel 13.05.0110 0. The applicant is requesting variances from sections 701 and 904.6 six of the shoreland management ordinance to rebuild and enlarge a structure devoted to a non-conforming use and make the impervious surface area percentage on the property more non-conforming. Okay, thank you. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Uh Ryan Manel. My address is 8825245th Avenue Northeast Stacy, Minnesota. Uh the lot is uh 17523 County 18 Park Rapids.

Okay. Thank you, sir. And just for the record, it's a non-conforming tavern use operates on the property. On October 9th, 2025, a fire occurred in the structure and the variance request is to be able to rebuild and enlarge the structure. Section 701, non-conforming uses in the shoreland management ordinance doesn't allow a structure devoted to a non-conforming use to be altered or enlarged. So, the proposed new structure will also increase the property's non-conforming impervious surface area percentage to 31.8. Most of the impervious surface area um consists of county 18 and 175th Avenue paved and graveled surfaces. Okay. You want to go ahead with some more of the request?

Yeah. I guess what I'm asking for is um I want to take the living quarters that were on the second level and move them to the uh north west side of the building. Um I'm trying to get rid of the stairs. Uh when the fire happened, we almost didn't make it out of there. Oh, scary. Yeah. and we did end up losing a dog and it was uh it just went up so fast and that was the only way out. There was no other staircase or anything on the outside of the building because we do uh do a business there and for um having a staircase on the outside of the building, you'd have customers trying to go up or people that don't know and yeah, it just

makes sense. is I talked to my insurance agent what not having a a staircase on the outside of a tavern not a good idea. So this is Tim speaking. Uh I think there was a public comment asking about u somebody may be concerning about your expansion. Could it get close to anybody's property line? Are you No, it doesn't. No, none of the new Okay. Thank you. The problem that neighbor is to the east and all of his expansion is to the west and south if I recall. Correct. And I do have a neighbor to the north too, but I've talked to them and the property line's plenty far back.

Okay, Eric, I have a question. You know, this is clearly a replacement for a building or a structure that was destroyed by fire. You noted that that there were some decks that had been constructed without permits. Do we have to correct that in any way? If if we approve this variance for him to go ahead and build what he's proposing, do we have to do anything in retrospect uh to clean that up at all?

No. the proposed new structure would occupy the space of the platform on the west side of the building and he's also got in his proposed plans a replacement of the deck that was added to the south side. So assuming permits are obtained for that new construction that would address those issues.

Okay. The um I I think this is pretty straightforward. the the main practical difficulty is highway 18 and 175th Street um provide most of the impervious surface which makes uh things difficult and the fact that uh a a natural environment lake Ingram Lake is across the road from 18 which puts you in in a different category having to deal with that I'm trying to say they're practicult ulties that come with uh the physical uh situation, roads, etc. So, um I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, we'll close public comments.

Oh, I'm sorry. Snuck right up there. Sorry about that. Apologize. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. My name is Andrew McFarland. live at 17467 Grale Road, Bark Rapids. I live uh to the the northwest, so I'm Kitty Corner, so we see the bully barn from our house, and we have no problem with it being there. Um I I'm asking you guys to um allow his variance. Um like I said, we have no problem with it. Ryan supports the community. He also supports the vets. uh through charitable gam g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g gambling. So All right. Okay.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other public comment? You're across four to the northwest of of him. I'm If you pull up the map, I'm right at 175th and Grale and County 18. That's all of our property there.

Okay. Okay. No further public comment. I'll close public comment. And this is Veronica. I'm in agreeance with Ken as far as the the restraints are due to the impervious surface on the county 18 and 175th. The proposed structure would still be located in the same spot as the historic structure that was damaged by the fire and it's over 400 ft from Ingram Lake. Um, and it's elevated in the right of way, so physically keeps the storm storm water runoff um, you know, from reaching that lake. So, I'm in favor of approving the application. I I have one more question. Um, Eric, if I recall the ordinance requirements when something like this happens, he has one year to correct it or to build. Do you think you can, if we approve this, do you think you can have this rebuild by next October?

I'm going to try. Um, so we so we should be if he struggles with getting it done in time, what would he do? we come back for you and ask for an extension or is that another thing that's got to come back to the variance board? It would require a variance. If the use would lapse and not resume within a year of when the fire happened, then a variance would need to be obtained to commence the use again or he would also have the option of applying for a conditional use permit. Okay.

Could we extend his time with this variance? if he had requested that such that we could then have given public notice accordingly. Yes. But we would need to table it so that we could renotice to that effect if that was something you were interested in doing since he's not requested it. We we can't wasn't noticed, right? Wasn't noticed. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. I was trying to look at maybe extending it because it could be problematic, but you're saying we can't because it wasn't noticed. Okay. Is it October 9th? Is that your deadline? Yeah. Do you already have a contractor in mind and maybe looking at Okay. So, you've got some good

We have everything lined up. Perfect. All right. Great deal. Okay. This is Mike. Uh, is it are you demoing a lot of it or are you trying to maintain some of it? Uh, the only thing we are going to keep is the foundation. Just the foundation. That is it. Any other project? Okay. Is anyone prepared for a motion?

I'll u I'll do it. This is Ken. I'll make a motion that we approve uh variance request 73 V25 um with a condition that and I'm looking for the the drawing that it is that this new structure is built according to the um drawings that are submitted. And I'm looking for a Well, all I can say is per the per the drawings, architectural drawings uh that labeled Bully Barn uh and dated 121525 that's included in the application package.

Okay. All right. We have a motion by accept the findings of facts. Perfect. to approve the application um as per the site plan dated 1215205 and adopt the staff's findings and facts. Do I have a second? This is Tim. I'll second. Okay. And a second by Timothy. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Can you vote? Can 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 vote I. Your application has been approved. You'll be receiving a letter from environmental services on obtaining your land use permit and so on. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Next item on the agenda, variance application 74-B25 by River's Edge Cattle Company LLC, part of the Northwest Quarter and part of the Southwest Quarter. Section 5, Township 140, range 34, Henry at a township, parcels 13.05.00110 0 and 13.05610. Applicant is requesting a variance from section 4, subdivision A1B5 of the subdivision ordinance to exceed the maximum of four lots per quarter quarter section of land that can front a side of a public road. Okay. And go ahead and please state your name and address for the record.

I'm TJ Simon. and I'm the authorized agent for River's Edge Cattle. Uh my address is 18513 209th Avenue, Park Rapids, 56470. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And go ahead and um give us a description of this first subdivision, please.

The first subdivision what we're doing is the we are taking a few parcels um and making 9 acre parcels um along 175th. Uh the reason for this the minimum lot requirement on this ones are 300. Uh these lots are 363 um on average to make 9 acres for all four of those parcels. The fifth parcel which drops below that quarter quarter line is a 54 acre parcel um that is also being sold. Okay. Do I have any questions from the board at this time? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Is it only the the that fifth parcel to the I guess it was the north next to track eye. Is that the only one that uh is conflicted in this?

That's that's correct. That's what makes it the fifth parcel on that. Yep. Nothing to the south, but just nothing to the south. Correct. Okay. You said that's 50ome feet. Uh that is I believe 145 ft between the quarter quarter line and the north line of tract I. So the probability that an access road to that lot well they have another in the future is not likely to be in that that that is correct 50ft section

cuz they would have another almost 600 560 ft of that track track eight to the north. Okay. Any other questions or comments?

A motion. Yes, please. Yes, please. I I'll make a motion that we accept uh um variance application 74 v25 and accept the staff's uh report for the findings of fact. I have a motion by Ken to approve the application 74-B25 accepting adopting the staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second? This is Larry. I'll second. Okay. Okay. And a second by Larry. Timothy. How do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, 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 vote I on that subdivision application has been approved. And we'll hang out here and head on to the next. Sounds good.

Okay. Okay. Okay, the next application variance application 75-B25 by River's Edge Cattle Company LLC part of the Northeast corner section 7 Township 140 range 34 Henrietta Township parcels 13.05.02002000 13.0650 and 13.0700150. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 4 subdivision A1B1 of the subdivision ordinance to create a track that will not comply with the 300 foot minimum lot width requirement. And again, sir TJ, if you would please state your name and address for the record.

Uh TJ Simon, um authorized agents for agent for River Edge Cattle Company. My address is 18513 209th Avenue, Park Rapids, 56470. Okay. And if you want to go ahead and proceed with this request.

For this request, we are had to do a variance for a the track P um prior to us being able to have this. You do need to have that 300 uh foot um road frontage. Um that road frontage was what we had on that road. It was there was not any anything we could change. So, on this 28.31 acre piece, um we we did choose to have a septic design on it. Um two suitable septic situations on that. Um that was done and then we're able to have that easement coming in to the north. Um but that 163 feet or whatever 160 ft on that bottom edge of 2004 is was there before. Okay. So that

so it is it is just the one parcel. Right. Right. We're creating the three parcels N O and P. One's 28 acres, one's 21 acres, and one's 11.88. Track P is only needed for the variance because of the residual ones as we call the flag

flag parcel. Okay. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment and I'll close public comment. Written comment that we received talked about flood possible floodprone area. Do you have any information on this possible floodprone area and are they talking about I mean to your knowledge is it like snow talked about springtime so I'm assuming snow melt.

I I assume snow melt. I do not have any knowledge of that. Um when we did our septic did our septic design you know we did have the septic design. Don was out there to do the septic designs. Um so we do have to I mean to my knowledge I don't know personally. Um that's but there's 28 acres truly for one dwelling is the where is where it's at at this point.

There's no way to expand that 160 ft by but getting 140 ft on either side of the property lines. The the I mean there's going to be another easement coming into the north side of this property. So that doesn't mean that they'll have to put their driveway in. It's owned by someone else. I I mean I would I would have to go try to buy a piece of land by from someone to help them processing that to get to 300 ft. The access to this property is not through won't be through this little They have another easement up on the on the coming in from the north. Yeah. Coming in from up here. They have an easement to get in there.

I I can't see that where they put their driveway. That's not my That's not my decision, but they have an easement coming in. The septic design was done up there on that north side. So there is public access to track P from the north. Correct. Through an ement. Through an easement. Yep. Okay. Has anybody come forward to buy this before? Uh not this piece. No. Okay. Okay. Do I have any other questions or comments from the board members? That tells me if that little part down here wasn't part of it, there wouldn't be an issue. Correct.

It's just that this little thing happens to be a artifact, the flag piece of the planning. We we wouldn't have to be here necessarily without the flag piece. Sure. Okay. Do you have public comment, sir? I do. Okay. I have closed public comments already. Is there a way to reopen that? I just want to speak to the water issue. Absolutely. You may come and do public comment and I'll open public comment. Please state your name and address for the record. Aaron Truler 1660 204 Street Park Rapids. Okay. And go ahead, sir.

Okay. Just about every spring, I think every spring that we have lived at this property, which has been almost 13 years now. Are you the neighboring property? I am the neighboring property to the west. So on the screen here when we had the the aerial view, you're the one on the west. Yeah, I'm right here. Okay. And I recently spoke to this neighbor as well. There's a fence line that borders my property and his that is owned by cattle company now and I would say every third spring there there are fence posts out there that are 4 feet high and that's sometimes there you that's almost covered completely with water in that area. So, all of the snow melt goes into that area where potentially a driveway could be in.

Okay. And I know this property owner to the east recently put in a new septic system, mound system that could potentially be influenced if they had to build up a road in there and put a culvert. And all that water is now diverted towards my property and his rendering parts of our properties unusable for a period of time. Okay. Okay. I appreciate your input. Thank you.

I interpret that as uh that that could never really be an e eress or um ingress area because of the water and spring. Is that what I'm hearing? There's a possibility, but that's would be to Well, building up the driveway may hold it back and pond it. Yeah. Okay. And so they'd probably have to put in a few culberts along there. Mhm.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment with there's no further public comment. Okay. Well, this is Veronica speaking. I I understand the um the public comment, but as the applicant also suggested or explained that there is an easement so that there can be um egress to the property on the north side. Whoever purchases the property may have a driveway utilizing the easement and not ever utilize this. That's beyond our control at this point. I'm sure if a driveway is put in place that it's going to be put in properly, you know, by the county and such with the driveway approaches and the proper coverts. So, I'm in favor of approving the application.

I agree. Well, this is Veronica. I'll make a motion to approve the application and adopt the staff's findings of facts. This is Tim. I'll second that motion. Okay. The motion by myself to approve the application. Second by Tim adopting the staff's findings and facts. So Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? Ken, I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? I also vote I. And this is Veronica myself. I vote I. The application has been approved. again. You'll receive a You missed Mike. Oh, I'm sorry, Mike. Missed you, Mike. Sorry, Mike. One more time.

Mike, I vote no. You vote no. You vote nay. All right. One nay. Four. Approve. Still, you'll receive a letter from environmental services. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry, Mike. Okay, we are going to go back to 69-V25. Right. Right. You want to take a five minute break?

Yes, absolutely. Would you like a five minute break? Eric, can we take a a five minute break? And then take a five minute break, please. Thank you.

All right. Thank you everyone for taking the little break. Give us a break in this. We're going to go ahead and resume. do that the rest of my life.

So, the next application on the agenda is going to be application 69-V25 by CDSA Friendship Ventures, Government Lot 5, Section 15, Township 143, Range 34, Lake George Township on Lake George, a recreational development lake. Parcel 17.15.03081. The applicant is requesting variances from sections 701. E and 701G of the Shorland management ordinance to be able to maintain and commence new uses of two non-conforming structures and a non-conforming deck that are located within the 100 foot ordinary high watermark setback. So, thank you. Gentlemen, can you please state your name and address for the record? Uh my name is Jeremy Donabower, 80oint Drive, Waconia, Minnesota, 55387. Uh we're uh I guess an authorized agent, but we're looking at purchasing the property.

Okay. Thank you. I'm Kenny Swanson, 5237 Lower 10 Mile Lake Road, Hackin Sack.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And if you would go ahead please with your request. Uh yeah, Kenny and I are the prospective buyers here and also in the audience is John Leblanc. He's the CEO for True Friends. Uh he might want to come up and say a few words. I'm not sure. But um we've been partnering with True Friends for about a year now. Um trying to uh work through all the entanglements of platting this property. Uh it's been quite extensive. I will say that Eric's been a big help in all this. um in June. Well, I guess I should back up. So, the camp discontinued their usage I I believe in 2024. Um and then since the camp is voluntary voluntarily discontinued their use for 12 consecutive months, they lost their legal nonconformity status. Um and so that is kind of what brings us here for these variances. Um, in June 24, uh, multiple failing septic sites were discovered out there. Uh, that's also about the time that I understand that the camp went up for sale. In the spring of 2025, uh, our company entered a purchase agreement with the camp. In the summer and fall of 2025, we worked together with the camp to bring all the septics back into compliance. Uh tonight we are seeking uh variance for three items followed by a preliminary plat. Um our first variance is located on lot two. This is also known as Jacob's cabin. Um there was a previously approved variance in 2010 to expand this structure. Uh our desire is for this structure to be classified as the primary dwelling for lot two.

Uh variance number two is located on lot four. Uh this cabin is known as Fort Lond. Uh we believe it was constructed prior to 1940 possibly somewhere in there. We do have a 1940s era air photo that shows it up um on the property. Uh there was a subsequent variance there in 1989. Uh we would like the structure to remain and be classified as a recreational structure. Uh we would be comfortable and happy to remove the beds and the stove to uh try to keep the structure in as much compliance as possible. We do not want it to be a a guest house or uh any of those purposes. On this lot, the dining hall would serve as the primary dwelling. Variance 3 is located on lot 6. It's also known as cabin 6. It was constructed in 1979. In 2005, there's a permit obtained for the deck reconstruction. We'd like the deck to be uh allowed to be uh remain as is. We have no plans for rebuilding the deck. Uh in our estimation, it's in good shape. Um a couple other things maybe just to mention. Uh the offwater properties are not going to have access lots. There's no moorings or anything like that that are being proposed. So they they do not have any legal access to the lake. Um, and just in general, the camp has been uh a great partner with us to get those septics updated this summer. So,

okay. Thank you very much. Just asking the board, is this something we can move forward al together or do we need to separate any of them? Um, I think we could I don't know if you separate them, but we might want to talk about lot by lot what the conformances are. I don't know. Sure. Yep. I I have some general questions just to start with. By the way, thanks for supplying the square footage.

You're welcome. Yep. Um on lot two you had three structures uh besides the Jacob cabin. What are they all identical in the inside? What what what's the inside look like on those three structures?

Yeah. So, the inside of uh this three structures that are behind Jacob's on lot two in addition to I'll just let you know both structures on lot five and the structure on lot six. They're all essentially identical. Um they are what I would call bunk cabins. Uh there's no kitchens. Um there are two restrooms. There's like a boys and a girls restroom and then [snorts] there's several bunks. Um I believe there's a fireplace. Yeah. In each one of them. Okay. So, let me let me turn Let me just focus on two for right now. Okay. Yep.

There's three of them there. All about the same size and they have is it one big room? Are the restrooms what what's in Yeah, the restrooms obviously are two separate restrooms. Okay. And then it's more of an open space bunk area with maybe a couple walled off. It's pretty open rooms, but it's very open and bunks, cooking facilities at all. No cooking. So, restrooms, showers. No, just bathrooms.

There's a shower in each one. There's a shower in each one. Okay. So, they're very livable except for cooking. Yep. No kitchen. Yep. Okay. And all three are similar that way. Yes. And you you mentioned the one on five is also that way. Not not the one in the in the impact or shore setback zone, but the one that's back farther. Both of them on five are identical to the ones on two. Oh, both of them on five. Correct. Same way. Okay. And you mentioned six too. The one on six.

Six is identical. Correct. They're all so basically with bathrooms, bathroom showers and bunks, some partitioning which could be bedrooms. I don't know it well enough to call it if it would be a bedroom or not. I'm trying to uh understand how how far they are along to be able to be a formal guest cabin on on the lots. That's why I'm asking the question.

Yep, it makes sense. Um, our u desire is to not have them be guest cabins. Our desire would be to have work within the ordinance of the 700 square feet allowable and the and we could even declare that which ones those are this evening. But then the additional area or cabins themselves would then be called recreational structures. Okay, Eric, the the you know, we have the variance and then we have the um uh plat application um or COP or whatever it's going to be. Um is the um conditions on those structures in terms of size or whatever they're going to use for is that best handled in the plat application where you put constraints or conditions on it and that right now we should just be focusing on the fact that they're asking for uh allowing structures to be in the uh shore zone. Where where would we address those?

Any conditions that you would want to apply to the requested variances, you'd want to apply to the variances. It would not be the place to attach conditions to the plat application that pertain to the variances that are requested.

Okay. Um, Eric, this is Veronica speaking. I think what Ken is questioning is during this variance application for like um this first one on Jacob's cabin on lot two because he has concerns that living quarters can be made in any of those three additional buildings. Would conditions be proper now on this variance request pertaining to lot two? The answer is no. or in the applicant application.

If you want conditions on how how this variance can be used on proposed lot two, yeah, you'd want to put conditions on it, but you'd also need to make sure your conditions have a nexus, right, for this to the variance that's requested. Okay. So, to address them now in the variance, if they have a nexus to the variance that's at hand.

Okay. So I I don't know that you could place restrictions on those other structures on proposed lot two as conditions for allowing the structure in the setback to be used as a dwelling. So, I couldn't if I said I'm g I'm in favor of approving Jacob's cabin staying there under the condition that two of those other buildings are tore down and the other one's turned into a whatever. I can't do that. I No, I would I would not advise that you make a condition that they be removed

because those are conforming structures. they meet setback. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But so there there as far as a variance is concerned it's just that there is no no basis for putting any conditions or requiring a variance on those. At this point in time, we're only dealing with the think they're are only asking for that dwelling that's within the setback to be able to be maintained since its use was discontinued and to use it as a dwelling. Okay.

So, how the other three structures on that lot are used would fall under the ordinance and whomever might purchase that lot would need to comply with the ordinance and how they use those structures. And if they don't, then we deal with it at that point. Okay. Okay. Appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Mhm. This is Larry. So, in regard to that, if the other two structures are essentially identical, why are we not wanting one of those as the primary residence and then this one would be able to disappear? Um, you're saying in respect to Jacob's Cabin, why that would not be the Because the other two are out of the ordinary high watermark, correct? Yeah, Jacob's Cabin is a yearround structure that's has a kitchen in it and that answers that. All right, got it. The other two are different. They don't have the kitchen and stuff, correct? Yeah. Okay, very good.

Okay. Do I have any other questions or comments? I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Okay, go ahead. You please say your name and address for the record. Yeah. My name is John Leblanc. I live in Minneapolis. Uh but as Jeremy said, I work with True Friends. Okay. Yep. Can you go ahead and give us your address, please? Sure. 1425 West 28th Street, Minneapolis.

Thank you, sir. Um just um some of you may know uh uh Camp Courage North began in the early 70s and it was a gift from Walter and Lydia Dubner. Uh Walter and Lydia invented the first handled grocery bag. That was kind of their claim to fame and um they eventually bought this property. um when they donated it to Camp Cou or to Courage Center in the early 70s, this camp has been used for people and children with disabilities since then and literally thousands of people have come through that camp. Um but of course due to COVID um we had to shut down that camp. We attempted to run it uh one summer since CO and we just had to shut it down until we could bring the rest of our organization back. Um, we're getting close, but our board had to assess that camp and went through a lengthy assessment process a couple years ago and we decided to sell the camp. Um, of course that was hard for the organization and neighbors. Uh, for a year we spent time and outreach to try to sell this camp uh to other camp organizations and uh we weren't successful. And during that time um uh or to at the end of that time that's when Kenny and Jeremy came forward with this vision for this camp. And after some really good conversations, we were thrilled that we had this opportunity to do this. So of course we're very um uh supportive of this. Um our plan would be is we would put the proceeds in an endowment fund that will support Camp Courage South outside of Maple Lake. So that's our plan for the money to continue to serve people with disabilities just in a different location.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I ask a question? Yes. Um John is Thank you. Um uh some of the public comment has been concerned about the number of moorings or docks that are going to be available. Um Ted, you're talking there again. What did uh this is Ted speaking. Yeah. What's uh what was the number of docks would you recall that were on the property prior? I think just the one at the waterfront right now. Okay. There could have been one in I was going to say in front of the chapel, but I don't think there's one there. Okay. No, I I think it's just the waterfront.

Thank you. Yep. Mr. the blog. Did you sign the sign in sheet as well? Sign here. Yes, please. Yeah, you bet.

Okay. Do I have any other public comment? Okay. Okay. Thank you. If you would please sign in and then state your name and address for the record. My name is Steve Peterson. My address is 36907 Newan Drive, Lake George. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

We're just separated by that property by just one other property. Um, my wife's grandparents were the Milans. That's why Milan Road, Milan Resort. Uh, and my father-in-law bought his cabin on Lake George in 1950, and that's where we reside right now. Um, when I look at Camp Courage, one of the things that really made us want to live there is the fact that that was going to be Camp Courage forever or that was going to be in perpetuity. And according to Walter and Lydia's uh wishes, well, what what's perpetuity? Their their wishes are not being uh they're not being held up at all if this if this is not part of Camp Courage. Uh that was their wish and it's not not being granted. I'm worried about uh you know, Lake George is not that big. It's 788 acres and you're adding 17 more 17 more cabins there. Uh I don't know if the cabins that are not on the lake are going to have access to the lake, but you're going to build you're going to have at least seven or eight other cabins on the on the lot there. And I'm I'm worried about fertiliz you know, people fertilize their lawns and the lake is weedy enough as it is. In fact, it's it's it's really gone weedy the last several years. So, I'm afraid of the the how it's going to be used. I'm afraid that there's not going to be uh regulations on uh the what size motor you're going to use, uh the the uh jet skis, all that kind of stuff. I don't know if this is

going to be an association, but the main thing is I don't know how it was sold in the first place because uh one of the attractions to Lake George is to have that forever as part of Camp Courage. And yeah, it's been it's run down because we rented that place for a family reunion. Uh they rented it to us, I think that was three years ago. And at that time it was run down. They have not kept it up at all. And they could blame it on CO, whatever they want, but you got mice in there, you got insects in there. The cabins are run down. So, and I I actually the Dubner cabin that they that was originally built, that should be probably be a historical site if anything. But, uh, that's my two cents worth. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Okay. Next, for public comment, please write your name on the sign-in sheet and then state your name and address for the record.

I'm Will Jesse and my address is 11. That's my old address. uh 36609 New Milan Drive. Uh we built a home on that lot in 1989. Uh my family has been coming to Lake George since 1949. So, Lake George is a special place to us and I feel the same way as uh the prior gentlemen that it's a Camp Courage has always been a special place. In fact, my wife's siblings used to go to Dubeners and visit with Mr. Dubiner and uh get give them things and just spend a lot of time in Dubiners. So that's been a special place to us as well. And I guess my concern is what's the overall plan? There's a lot more property there on New Milan Drive that's not these three lots. And what's the overall plan? What's going to be done with those? Are they going to be uh having lake access? Are there going to be moors and more docks that are put in to give them lake access? And you know, I just think there's a lot of information that that's probably out there, but I'm haven't been able to see it all yet. And I would just like to know what the overall plan is and and uh [snorts] you know, what's going to become of that property. There's going to be is there going to be access off New Milan Drive or is it all going to be off uh Courage North Drive? I mean, there's a lot of things that over and above these three lots and what's the overall plan for those? Are there going to be how many more cabins

and homes are going to be built in there? So, I guess that's that's my my feeling and issue on it. And you know, I just I think there's a lot more information that that the area needs to have because like I say, that's been uh me personally, I've been coming up here for over 50 years in my wife's family since 49. So, just like to have some more information. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Do I have any other public comments? I've got a couple comments, but I don't know if they should be at the preliminary flat part of it. Does that come up after this? It does come up after this. Yes. It doesn't matter when I do it. Probably you could do both. What's that? You can do both if you'd like. If they're addressing that road, [clears throat]

Cal Johansson, uh 38179, US71, Lake George. I'm here for two purposes. Um, I got a notice because I own property within a quarter mile of this property that's being sold. Um, I'm also here representing Lake George Township as a supervisor and we had some discussion at our last town board meeting. The Courage North Road that they talked about is Blacktop and that was Blacktop by the Courage Center I believe through a donation. You maybe know that. I I don't remember. It's been a long time. Um at any rate, it was done because there was a lot of children that went through the camp that were in wheelchairs and so they blacked up the road. [clears throat] That road goes through a low area on the south end that's kind of breaking up pretty bad and we have some concerns with that and probably will not always remain a black top road. So, that's something that needs to be noted at least in the plat so that people don't think they're going to have a black top road for the rest of their life if they buy in there. Um, it may revert back to gravel because there's not enough funds within the township to keep it black topped. We keep maintaining it and and fixing it as well as we can, but who knows what'll happen in the future. So, [clears throat] I just wanted to bring that up. Um, as far as the rest of it for me, there's a lot of sentiments there. We used to play volleyball when I was a kid with our parents when Dubers owned it and it Yeah, I don't think Walt and Lydia would be very happy that it's not going to be a courage center anymore, but change

happens and we don't have control over that. And if it's going to be doing something being developed, at least it's going to be on the tax role, which it hasn't been for years. So there's a big tax base there that I look at. So all right. Thanks. Thank you. Can I ask one quick question on that? This North Courage Drive, is that a township road or does that belong to this property as a private road? No, it's Township Road. It is Township Road. Okay, very good.

Both Both roads that access the property are Township Roads. Okay, very good. I feel okay. Do I have any other further public comment? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. I appreciate all the information given during the comment that we can take under consideration. Do we have any questions or comments from the board? The only thing is I I think as we proceed we should work our way through each of the six um lots to make sure we cover the variances.

Sure. We just have the three that we need to Well, um let me try. Oh, you bet.

Not one seems to be okay. The structure that's there is set back and there's not a second structure any issue on lot two. There's that chapel uh open air. We need to decide whether that needs to be dismantled or we're going to leave it there. Uh and we need to decide on Jacob's. Um, on lot three, there is a gazebo that doesn't show in this drawing down by the lake. Uh, that should be removed or there should be a variance on it. Um, lot four uh is that um, Lond Fort Lond.

Uh, lot five, the one that's in the zone has a variant, so that's not an issue. And then of course on lot six um there is the deck. Correct. So in addition to the three that are being asked, there's at least two others, the chapel and that gazebo that are non-conforming. Okay. Um just a touch note, Ken, on the the application references the A-frame shaped open air chapel located on lot two, but it is not included in this variance request. Yeah. Um, so I am under the impression that it's going to be removed

or discontinue its use, you know, because it wasn't asked to retain it. The variance, we should make some statement about what that you want it moved that you want it removed. Either removed or we allow it to be there. It's not very obnoxious or anything like that on lot two. And the same thing with that gazebo, which is more of a structure that probably should be removed or varianced. This is Tim. That's what a question was is uh like the on lot four that that shed down by. Why wasn't that uh needing a variance to remain?

It would the small shed way down on the lake. It would need a variance to be able to keep it maintained, but it could sit there and just be brought away. Okay. Yeah, they can't maintain. It can stay there. Which which one you talking about? Uh the the ones that are not in the variance request, everything that's not in the three pieces can maintain or they cannot be maintained and they can stay there. Uh, so they just rot away over time if they're not removed.

Well, if they're in violation of our setback, why are why isn't there a variance being asked for them to stay there? You would have to ask the applicants, Ken. Yeah. Well, it was probably a little bit of an oversight on my part, but I can tell you that the shed that's on four is like if we have a condition or something that says they can't be further maintained, we are totally comfortable with that. That's the ordinance, isn't it?

It's not a condition. It's an ordinance. or if the you know if we if we don't get a variance on it and it and it can stay there and it won't affect the plat. Um the gazebo was shown on it wasn't bolded out in the plat but the gazebo is shown on lot three. Um and then the chapel I I actually think that people on the lake might be sad the chapel goes away. So, we kind of want to be able to keep it and just if it if it deteriorates over time, and I guess it does, um, but I'm not going to uh get hung up on any of those three issues if there's a major preference one way or another. My point is they're non-conforming structures and that if we're dealing with all the non-conforming structures, we either they should be asked for a variance and we should be deciding or if there's a nexus to um one of the other things uh we could

that's why I just feel we ought to start with a clean slate and just deny all of what they're asking for and we can start fresh. These are brand new lots with a new use. That's the cleanest. Um, yeah. Okay. The only exception I might make to that is that small little corner of that one deck could stay there. But you're starting a brand new lot out with the variance then.

But that's okay. Yeah, I'm I'm kind of in your ballpark, but I'm try trying to sort through some of this stuff. So, Tim, this is Larry, help me understand. So, you're saying approve the plat, but then as they're sold and people want to do things with them, they will be dealt with at that time.

What what we're just looking at in in my opinion is these three requests. They're not requesting the rest. They're just being silent about this. So, what I'm saying is just deny it and start fresh with brand new lots. You know, you're you're changing it from a Bible camp to now all of a sudden people that get to build their million-dollar homes on it with a guest house and they're going to come back and say, "We want a variance for this or variance for that." And it's like, "Start out fresh. Just make it." And that's what I [clears throat] thought you were saying. I just That's where I'm thinking that I understood it. Okay.

But I understand if somebody wanted to like Ken said that's That's small that deck. Um, if somebody has something they want to do for the uh lot too on that one with conditions and no future expansion or whatever, that's but it looks like uh a lot of this stuff is just being ignored, not talked about. That's their the people that are requesting the variance left it that way. They left it that way on purpose. Can I comment?

Yes. Um, there was no intent to leave anything out of this. Eric and I have worked extensively on this for 6 months or more. Uh, if we're talking about the three sort of uh the chapel and the gazebo and that really broken down shed on lot four. if if we're talking about that was left out intentionally that that wasn't the intent. Um and well, they were there and everything else is there and and kind of spoken for and it's just like we're not going to talk about that. That's why I'm just reading what was given to us. Yeah, that's the way I feel. So

you know again I I don't know structurally if a condition can be place that they are removed because we we are okay to just remove them. Well, I do agree that they should have been if anything was non-conforming, they all should have been addressed. Um, not just a few of the items, the main items. I understand they are the larger bigger pieces of the puzzle here. Um, but anyhow, so with the three that we have in front of us, can we are we ready to move forward and decide which route we're going to go? if we're going to retain anything on as far as the deck on lot six or they can you know if it's you know for me the deck on lot six I'm in favor of retaining it until it needs to be rebuilt and then it must be all built to meet setback because it can go around the property around the structure

the um and number on lot four. I'm not in favor of retaining any of the building and the bluff at Fort Lond. Correct. I am not in favor. Yeah.

Okay. And on lot two, with the new information provided on those three other accessory structures, even though they meet setback, having plumbing and showers and bathrooms, I have a little bit different um outlook now on Jacob's cabin for retaining it there. I think with 2.47 47 acres. It can meet setback or just be denied. There's a lot of options on that property. You said you'd be in favor of keeping

I was in favor of keeping it, but now having more information on these buildings. I think it can just be moved. Yeah, I was well that's kind of where I was starting today when I was asking those questions. I was kind of in favor of leaving Jake's cabin there. It is 65 66 ft back. It's relatively new and it was at least partially approved with a variance to expand back here what maybe 10 years ago or whatever it may be. I don't remember. Um but only on the condition that that those other three structures we found some way to absolutely make sure that they are not livable structures. Okay. So um I don't know how we go from there. I guess that's saying that I was willing to leave Jacob's thing there. Get rid of the chapel. Get rid of the gazebo. get rid of um Fort Lond and be okay with the deck on uh six. That's where I was coming from. And then when we get to doing the the um plat application, we could address how we might handle these other structures uh when we when we approve the plat or recommend approval for the plat.

And how does anybody else feel? I think lot two is probably the best lot in the thing. Somebody going to buy that. They're going to tear everything down and build a big house. They're not going to monkey around with this old stuff. That's my opinion. You guys are realators. know. Mhm. I've seen it before, so it's hard to say. Yeah, you don't know. But yeah, I mean, that's the best looking lot in the whole bunch, but So, what are your feelings on retaining that Jacobs? I I would say it should be removed. I would.

And the one on four also. And what are your feelings on the deck? the deck. I It didn't look like it was in that great a shape, but it could stay. And with the condition, yeah, like you said, if it has to be redone, and again, we don't know what's going to happen on that lot. That's not a bad lot. I mean, somebody's going to buy that, maybe they'll tear that down, too.

Well, it's unfortunate that the use has discontinued, but it is what it is. So the property owners need to move forward and do the best they could do to sell the property. And they mentioned that it's been for sale for several years and no takers. So this is, you know, going to be the best way to, you know, divide up this acreage and start getting these lots suitable. We just have to do our best to keep it clean on the, you know, within the setbacks and such and move forward. You know, as public comment has even said, it's unfortunate, but we have to go with change and it lost its use. It no longer has its use. And there's [snorts] plenty of man-hour have been utilized to try to come up with some type of lot sizes to create and to retain some of the structures. And we need a lot of setbacks back if this all takes

y I don't know if that's going to bother you if the cabin on two disappears. I don't think that's going to change that property much. I don't think so either. Can I comment? Yeah. Okay. Uh

can can I ask a question? Um, did you consider when you platted uh um lot one and two, why didn't you um include that one structure uh in lot one draw, you know, draw your your property line to include that in one and then uh two would have uh Jacob's and the other two structures. So [clears throat] lot one uh also has the land north of outlot A which is the road. Uh so lot one is actually three almost four acres. So we we didn't feel like lot one needed to add any more acreage. Um, and then to answer your question on the Jacob's cabin on lot two, if we have to remove that cabin, it's going to be a we may not end up coming to an agreement with the camp because that that's a year- round structure that we I don't know if we can overcome that with the camp. So

me me personally I I would be I think accepting of keeping Jacobs if I had confidence that those other three structures would never become or maybe one at the most would never be inhabitable because then when you look across all of these things there's a primary and a secondary ary one even though it's oversized for a guest cabin um that might require some variance but the fact that those three are there what I can see is someone want to will tear one or two of those down build a big house and then they want to want to make Jacob's into a guest cabin I realize that's thinking possible downsides ides. Um, I don't know. I guess I'm just thinking out loud on that. Eric, guest cabins, 700 square ft, all of these, 1100 and some size structures, they would require variances to be able to be guest cabins, right? Or the ordinance allows a guest cottage to be colllocated within a structure with another use. So you could make a portion of that up to 700 square ft as a guest cottage and the balance of one of those structures put to some other accessory use and that could be done with a permit.

What what would you put what do you put in there? recreation, whatever, recreational stuff

or you just store stuff that would normally be in the 700T cabin. But you're saying that that those 1100 some square foot structures could one of them or on each property could become a guest cabin if in fact they walled off 400 square ft and made it storage but not part of the living thing. Okay. Jeremy, do you know what the square footage is of Jacob's cabin?

Uh, it was in the variance in 2010 and it is in there. So, 922. 922. 92. Thank you.

I've read that someplace or I calculated I don't remember. Well, what what how I translate that then is if if um I don't know if I can do this. If I if if we took lot one, it's okay. lot two if we approve Jacob's cabin because it's permanent uh winterized all that and that two of those three other structures are completely gutted of any living arrangement I can't do that you said or I could as a condition

you said unless it has a nexus What number what you could do Ken for sure is say that this Jacobs could never be further expanded. Uh yeah, that was that was my second step in this thing. If if we took one of those and allow one of these to remain as it is, two of these have to be completely gutted and then there would be a condition that neither of those two could be expanded.

But you can't make a condition that it can't be uh requested for variance to make it a guest cabin number on lot Jacobs. Well, the fact the fact that neither the fact that neither one can be expanded it's 922 now. Yeah. And it need to be 700 for gas cabin. Yeah. So if you

So if I built my million dollar house, I'd come back and say I'll just reduce that 900 down to 700. No, I'm in I'm too close because because you would think that if it was this board, we would deny that that it could be remained as a guest cabin if they build a big new primary place. That's that's the that's the safety valve you have that will never allow that to be a guest cabin. Okay? because you wouldn't Well,

I think the cleanest route's going to be remove it because we wouldn't want to tell, you know, you would want someone to build a reasonable size residence on the lot and we don't want to restrict that. Yes. You think that's what somebody would want to do, right? long term because of the size.

But we're going to have to move along. It's 9:27. [snorts] We still have the plat. Well, I'm logging in on the fact that I would be willing to let Jacob's cabin be there if two of those three other structures were completely gutted. Okay. Um, three, three, the gazebo goes, four, Fort Lund goes, uh, and, um, the deck on six would be okay. That's where I come out on this.

It's driven by what Eric is saying that one of those could be in fact a guest cabin. And I would put the condition on two that with Jacobs and one of those that neither one of them could be expanded in the future. Doesn't mean they can't tear it down and build a big house, but then you then you don't need a guest cab. Anyway, that's where I'm at. Anyone prepared to make a motion? depending on the outcome of the motion. I just want to put out a reminder that um if you have any um approved variances, then you need to place a condition that the approval of the requested variances are only valid if the accompanying plat application receives final plat approval and is recorded. on anything that you're approving, we should place that condition.

Okay. Oh, that would be a condition if we if I made a promotion for these things that I just said. Yep. We would add the condition, correct? That those variances are only valid if the plat is approved. Is the final plat is approved and recorded. Correct. The only thing I'm really in favor of retaining is the the deck. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. What, Jim?

I I'm thinking only the deck, too. And that's what I have down for findings and and the rest and the other things all have to be removed. Well, the request that were requested.

Just the variance would be denied on the other two. What about our other colleagues? I I would go along with that as well. Not that we're requiring they be taken down, but that they be dealt with once the lot is purchased and we get the plans of the new owner or by denying it are we saying they have to be torn down? No. No.

Okay. We're just re denying is just so they can retain them as they are. Right. Okay. The Jacob's cabin only has a holding tank right now, right? Yeah, Jacob's cabin only has a holding tank, but it does have the compliant mound on the lot that would probably get configured and used because it is a compliant nice mound system. Tim, if it's even simpler to um not even approve that little bit of the deck that just to keep it simple.

Yeah, that's probably the easiest. Yeah, because in my findings, the way I see it is um it's it's all new lots and everything is non-conforming. I'm not in favor of it. I agree. I mean, I want to see the lots created, but to be conforming and as as much as possible. Yeah.

What What's your sense of what you'd like to see? Um, deny it all. The variances. The three variances. Correct. Including the deck. It'd be the easiest. The what? It would be the cleanest and easiest route. Yeah.

This is Tim. I'll make a motion to deny application 69-V25. Is the variance in uh the findings is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of official controls? No. And the reason I say that is because these are brand new lots being created, a different use from a a Bible camp to individual lots that should follow the ordinance. Uh number two is a property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted uh by official. No, it's not reasonable because uh these requests are inside the setback. Number three is the var is the need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current prior and prior property owners. Yes. Um it was a Bible camp and and now it's changing to private lots.

Right. The non-conforming use has been discontinued. Sure. And number four, will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? No, the whole locality, it's a big property is uh it's going to be residential conforming lots when we deny this. So, and I'll adopt number five. Okay. Okay, I have a motion by Tim creating findings of facts 1 through four and adopting number five. Do I have a second? This is Larry. I'll second.

Okay. And a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? I I vote no. Larry, how do you vote? This is Larry, I vote I. Mike, how do you vote? I vote I.

And this is Veronica. I vote I. Four in favor, one opposed. Okay, now we're moving on to the preliminary plat, the planning commission part. We have no minutes to approve. And the new business is the preliminary plat application of the same property like George Courage Point CDSA Friendship Ventures Government Lot 5 Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and part of the government lot 4 section 15 township 143 range 34 Lake George Township on Lake George a recreational development lake parcel 17.15.03011 17.15.03021 17.15.030 03081. The applicant is requesting to plat 96.48 acres into 17 lots. Okay. Once again, please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Jeremy Donabore, 80oint Drive, Wonia, Minnesota, 55387. Okay. And Mr. Swanson Kenny Swanson 5237 Lower 10M Lake Road Hackinack.

Okay, this may just change any of your plat certainly changes things. Um, I think I would still like to look for a plat approval with the conditions of removing everything that's required in order to make it uh conforming to the ordinance. So, in other words, that would be removing Jacobs and everything else that was discussed. It will at least give us a chance to talk to the camp and see if there's any practicality of moving forward on this which you know that's between us.

Okay. Do you want to go ahead and explain your uh proposal here for the plat for the preliminary plat?

Sure. Yeah. The proposal for the plat is to create 17 lots. Um the offwater parcels uh are all nearly 5 acres. I I just want to point out from earlier comments that the offwater parcels do not have access. They will not have access. Uh, I can't say what the future holds with 20 30 years down the road and ordinances and whatnot, but the ordinance does not allow for access lots. So, um, we've got 2,117 ft of frontage. We are averaging 235 ft of frontage per lot over nine lake lots. Um, 150 foot minimums. Um if we remove all the non-conforming structures, [snorts] we meet and exceed all the plat requirement or the the requirements for lot sizes, septic sites, setbacks, etc. Uh couple other conditions that were pointed out, there's two septic tanks. One is on the 45 line. Uh that would have to be abandoned. And then there's a septic tank on the 23 line near the Big Mountain system that would have to be abandoned as well. Uh, additionally, there's a portion of lot one is an abstract property and the remainder of this parcel is in torren and the ordinance does not allow for us to plat both. We're going through the Torrance process right now and hope to have that done in order to move forward.

Do you have a date kind of in mind? We're shooting for the March 30th uh submitt. Okay. Okay. Thank you. [snorts]

Okay. I am going to go ahead and open for public comment. I know we had public comment on the variance application that addressed the roads and such, but if anybody would like to speak again, now would be your time. We ask questions. You can direct your questions to the board, but not the applicants. Correct, sir. But you can direct you can ask the questions to the board and then if we so need to get information on them we could ask them. Correct. Exactly. Yes sir.

So if you'd like to give public comment now would be your time. Okay. Thank you. Steve Peterson uh 36907 Newan Drive. I was wondering if it was going to be an association involved with this. Okay.

And if the association has certain covenants and what those covenants would be. Uh also one of the main attractions to the the property is some of those trees are 250 300 years old. Is there anything that certain things can't be touched? I and I don't and maybe it's just me, but I don't see where the Dubner house what lot is the Dubner house on. Okay. Can we get that? Is that the large house that we saw? I think it was on Is that on lot one? Lot one. We can definitely address that and locate it for you.

The road where you come in. Is that where it is? Because that's not been identified in the past. I I don't see it. That's and that's the dining hall there. Just south a little bit south. A little bit south. Yep. Right there. I believe that's what is considered the Dubner house. Okay. Okay. Okay. Doesn't look big enough to be house. So, anything else, Mr. Peterson? No, that was mainly it was the covenants and how the you know if there's going to be covenants and and the association. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Any other public comment?

I won't make you sign again, but I'll just make you verbalize it. What's that? I won't make you sign again. I'll just make you state your name and address for the record.

Cal Johansson, 38179, US71, Lake George. Um, I just think sitting here listening and I don't remember enough about how this process all works, but the platting is where you get rid of the buildings that are nonconforming to my way of thinking. And if you approve the plat, you can approve the plat with those buildings being removed out of the impact zone, I believe. I don't know. Is that iffy? But you're starting with you're starting new with property that's been something totally different. I agree with what Tim said. It's not like you're splitting up an old resort that's got livable cabins on it. These weren't designed for living quarters other than bunk houses um the way Courage operated it. So that's just my thoughts on it. I think now is the time to get it figured out and start from day one with a clean slate.

Thank you, sir. Any other public comment? Okay, I will close public comment. Um Jeremy or Kenny, whichever you'd like. Uh you did mention some association information during lot view. So if you would like to address that comment at this time that would be great.

Okay. Yeah, I'll address just a couple quick ones. We also have a um example of what we think the covenants will be out there. I think we submitted that with the plat. Um the association, there will be an association, but it'll only be for lots through seven and lot. and that association would take care of the road. Um there are no other associations or you know common area or buildings or anything like that. As far as the trees, we realize there are some really amazing old beautiful trees out there and our intent is to not cut anything down. I mean, we intend to just try to sell these properties as they sit. We're you know, we don't have any plans of bulldozers and scraping things away and and whatnot. So, this [clears throat] is Larry. One of the other concerns were how many docks were going to be put in as I see this um it's through lot eight has lake access um one through eight. So that would mean the other nine lots would not have lake access.

Yeah. Lot nine. I'm sorry. Yep. Through. Yeah. Lot nine is lot nine is a very challenging lot and it's basically going to be a a nice view of the wetland and Okay. A boardwalk request or something someday possibly. I don't I mean it would be entitled to have a dock if in fact you could build on it, right? But it's not likely that's going to happen, right?

Yeah. The building area on lot five on lot nine is it's actually there's quite a bit of buildable area there, but it is 24 acres and it's about 300 looks like 300 40 feet across the wetland

with a little bit of high ground right by the lake on the ice ridge and a little bit of high ground um halfway down that. Okay. So, the the balance of the lots though do not have lake access built in. Okay. Very good. And have those septic tanks already been abandoned? There's some mention here in the staff report. Yeah. So, there's two tanks that we haven't abandoned yet because we didn't know the outcome of of this intentionally because if we abandoned them, we they're compliant tanks right now. So there we did uh layer them with about 2 ft of straw and in hopes of potentially doing something in a in a decent timeline, but

you got about five wells on the property here that I see. Are they all deep well? As far as we know, they're all deep wells. That's what the septic guys called them. Okay. Um there's one on lot two. There's one on lot four. There's one on lot 12. There's one on lot seven. Those are the ones that I know of. And then one on one. Yeah, we looked for that. There's a um there is a uh hydrant there, but we could not find the well. We looked and looked and looked and we just could not find it. It could be. We're not sure.

That is a house there. Right by that one, right? Yeah. Ironically, they call that the health house, and it's uh that's a structure that is in pretty bad disrepair. There's a shed there that's in good shape yet, though. Eric, this is Larry. Is there any issue with having six lots on this other road within a quarter mile? That's a good question, but that provision only applies to administrative subdivisions.

Okay, very good. That answers my question.

Okay, Eric, I got a question. If we were to approve this preliminary plat, send it to the commissioners and it got approved. And then I show up and I buy lot two. Jacob's house is gone. Um, do I need a variance to let's say occupy two of those structures, one as a guest cabin and one as the home, would I have to on that? Or if I bought uh lot five, would I have to get a variance to use the second structure as a guest cabin? Let's say lot five. I bought lot five. The primary residence is the one down uh you know close to the lake there about 80 ft or whatever and then I got this other cabin back here. If I occupied that as a guest cabin, would I need a variance right away or what what what what happens or do I get served a a if you get a permit for it to be a guest cottage and you make the guest cottage space 700 square feet or less within it and the rest of the space some other accessory use, then you'd be okay. So if I'm the real estate person and I'm selling him five, I have to tell him that if he's going to occupy that second building, he will have to come and get a permit and and a variance from you to occupy it.

Just a permit. Permit. Just a permit. Yep. And I've talked with Jeremy about that. through that permit you would you would instruct him that he had to do alterations so that there was only 700 square feet of thing but that would be through it but that's what I would have to do then I don't have I don't have to specify that in the in the plat application or in the plat but but but somebody will have to tell me that when I buy it we don't we don't have to specify that in any way in in the in the plat application.

It's buyer beware, but Mr. Donabau has indicated they plan to inform people of what the various lots uh limitations would be.

Okay. So, at this point, based on the staff report, uh if we were to make a motion to um approve this plat application um uh with recommendation for approval to the commissioners, there's only two conditions that we put on that and that is that that one abstract portion has to be uh converted to torren and the Second is that those two septic systems, the one between two and three and the one between four and five will have to be disabled. Those are the only two conditions you see because the write up basically says otherwise it meets all the requirements for a plat per our county ordinances.

Yes. Okay. Well, a third condition would be that that in order for the plat to be approved, um that um all of those structures that they asked for variances would have to be removed, right? Would that go in as one of the conditions for the plat? [sighs] I would want to consult with our attorney before commenting on whether that would be a condition that you could place on it. I I have my doubts, but

So there's a possibility that when the commissioners reviewed review it, that could come up as have to figure out how how we condition the fact that those um nonconformances are taken care of.

This is Veronica speaking. Do since the variances may not have went in the direction that you were expecting or or desiring um do you want more time to revise this plat application to cover these some of these structures that didn't get approval on that variance? Well, I I got a pretty good sense for the planning commission for what they the desire is of the nonconforming structures within the setback. So, I don't know what a tableabling or a more time would need.

What would we what would we revise that would satisfy the sentiment of the planning commission? I [snorts]

So then Eric at this time as Ken was asking then if we were to make recommendation to approve the preliminary plat application as presented at what point in time are they going to address these non-conforming structures? No, the county board would have that ability. And so we don't have to I mean are they going to whether they will choose to I right I can't say but exactly I can look into you know you could either table it if you want to know whether you could make that condition a part of your re recommendation um or so push it out till February

and they can always kick it back to us find that information out And then you could act on it in February or you could choose to recommend it without knowing that with encouragement to the county board that they, you know, see whether they legally can address that as a condition and if so that you'd recommend that it be a condition. What do you want? That's where I mean you could ask your that's the board what is okay what he thinks the board would think. So if you got a timeline here that you want to try to meet or something.

Okay. And we have we would be able to table it and ex or extend it or something like that. I guess what I'm thinking I'll think out loud. If I was in your shoes, would I want time? I would want time to look at this again and think, okay, we did all this because we thought we were hoping that this was going to work. But now with these buildings have to be gone, can we can figure it in some other way that we could change this and maybe make it better or not? That's that's my personally what I would be thinking. Um, but I could also understand though you've got time and money already put into it. Um, it is January, so it's not like you're going to start building next month or doing other types of work next month. So like you see,

yeah, the constraints a little bit are and pretty unique to Hubard County is that we have to reapply to get a final plat to the planning commission instead of going directly to the board. So it if everything goes good, we get a final plat on the agenda for the April meeting. That means, you know, a county commissioner meeting in middle of May and then a closing that we have set up at the end of May right now. So that, you know, that's a little bit of the time constraint. the the only thing that I could see that would change us for the for the better, but I think we're going to be impacted a little bit by the outlot A, but I think we could actually get one more lot in there on the lot 23 area possibly. But we were working around buildings. That's why we made lot two nice and big. But um I I I just don't see Fort Lond is one thing, but to get rid of Jacobs is another. And now it's just going to be a negotiation between us and the camp. That's really all it boils down to. So you're you're today you would like to have the plot the planning commission board of adjustment to move forward if that's their choice. I would like to see in a uh a decision. Yes. Okay.

I hope that helped the board. what's coming to you. He wants to proceed with the application. He wants to take the chances and just push it to the to the uh commissioners and so that he can get on to the You want to make do you want to make the recommendations? Do you want to do that? Sure, I can do that. We don't have any changes to the thing. So with those conditions, do you have them written? Oh, these two. You said three. What was number three? Just the two. Okay. Okay. Are we all on board then with that? Let the let the commissioners move forward with it and

and go from there. Yes. I think it looks

All right, then. This is Veronica. I make a motion that we recommend approval to the county board for the preliminary plat application. uh on Lake George Courage Point CDSA Friendship Ventures with the condition one that the Torren registration process must be completed and parcel 17.15.03021 must be registered as Torrren's property before the final plat application can be submitted. And then the other one was the septic information said the two septic tanks mentioned above that we have on lot I believe on lots two and three need to be abandoned before the final plat application can be submitted. And then there's

four and five. Yep. and the existing septic tank on the proposed boundary lines between lots four and five by the two structures located within the 100 foot ordinary high watermark setback will need to be abandoned also before the final plat application can be submitted. Did I miss anything? Good. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Okay. And a second by Ken. So Timothy, how do you vote? This is Tim. I vote I. Ken, how do you vote? 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 vote I. Next step.

I can see this whole staff. Okay. Next item on the agenda moving forward. Miscellaneous. Any miscellaneous? No communications would be uh next month we have two v two variances. Okay. Two what? Two variances. Two variances on next month's agenda. That's it. All right. Anyone would like to make a motion to adjurnn? Miss Larry, I so move. Okay. [laughter] Tim, I'll second it.

All right. We have a motion by Larry to adjurnn. Second by Tim. Can How do you vote? Say I. I. [laughter] Tim. How do you vote? I vote I. This is Tim. I vote I. Larry, how do you vote? This is Larry. I vote I. And Mike. How do you vote? Mike, I vote I. And Veronica, I vote I. Meeting adjourned.