WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: March 30, M I N U T E S (Informational)

Transcription

1 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S (Informational) The Wright County met on March 30, 2007 in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Chairman, Bob Schermann, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. with all Board members present. Assistant Planner, Barry Rhineberger, represented the Planning & Zoning Office. Tom Zins, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. 1. DARYL MACLEAN Cont. from 3/2/07 LOCATION: 9286 Meridian Avenue South S l/2 of NW l/4,; and also NW l/4 of SW l/4, all in Section 19, Township 118, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Franklin Twp.) Tax # & & Owner: Mosford Requests a variance of Section 502.2, & of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to reconfigure the existing three tax parcels (approx. 120 acres) into three separate residential sites (one house exists), each lot to have access by an owned strip. Proposed lot sizes are 9.16 acres, acres and 44.8 acres. Present: Daryl MacLean; Jo Nell Mosford, property owner; Cathy Johnson, neighbor; and Jim Trombley, Woodland Town Board Supervisor A. Rhineberger reviewed the 123-acre parcel on the border of Woodland/Franklin Township line. They are using three residential entitlement divisions. One division to have the existing house and two new residential parcels. A new 9.16 acre lot; an access strip would be used to access the 40 acres and another access strip for the remaining 75 acres and existing house. Favorable response from the Town Board and no written response received from neighbors. B. MacLean provided larger copies of the documents. He referred to his written memo (sent out to the Board) and also a memo labeled attachment B that reflects discussion at the Town Board meeting, A large site plan was reviewed that tries to address what came out of the Town Board meeting. The Town Board asked that the one lot be a complete ten acres, shown as Tract A. This lot has been reconfigured and gets the lot closer to where the existing drive is and would keep things closer to what is there today. Rhineberger stated one issue is the original plan for 9.16 acres included 1.2 acres of tillable and the new plan has 3.6 acres of tillable land requiring another variance for exceeding 2.5 acres allowed in tillable. That was not part of the original request or notified for. MacLean stated this change is not necessary, but another option suggested by the Town Board they are willing to consider. He explained the two requests before the Board. One is an appeal of the administrator s refusal to allow the access strip; and the second is for a variance from the road frontage requirement. Zins addressed that statement and a problem with the appeal MacLean refers to. He reminded the Board they are under

2 Page 2 constraints of MN Statute and are up against 120 days and for action on the variance request. The discussion with the administrator was a long time ago, was not in writing. Officially that is not an appeal because there is no written request to the administrator and the administrator did not respond in writing. There were early discussions and the applicant went the variance route. He clarified this is not a hearing on an appeal. MacLean stated the constraints of the are to provide a person seeking relief from someone trying to constrain them. His client is not looking to seek relief in that regard and would not in the future and his client is willing to sign any waiver of rights in respect to that. Zins indicated they would generally get that in writing, but the applicant has stated that on the record which is adequate. He indicated even if the administrator would have approved, the applicant would still have needed the variance and in essence they are entwined and this Board would have to decide the issues. As long as he has indicated on the record not to evoke any rights regarding the they could proceed, but the Board would be making a decision today on this. C. MacLean referred to page 2 of his written document in which he speaks to the code. He reviewed the entire 120 acres of land and request to divide the 3 entitlements allowed and they have a large portion that does not have public road access. Historically there was access along the entire western edge that is no longer there. The only access is at one small section. He referred back to the Ordinance 604.6(3)(c) Determining Entitlements on Large Parcels. The purpose of this provision allows relief for inequitable situations where there are large landholdings that may be unduly restricted due to the location of substantial acreage without road frontage. MacLean stated this is right on point of what they are trying to do. They are seeking relief from that, reducing the frontage required for one parcel and provide access to Tract B for the existing house; restore what was there historically on the west side to get back to Tract C. Rhineberger stated that specific part of the Ordinance relates to determining entitlements and not using entitlements. There is a big distinction between the two. Zins agreed. MacClean indicated in reality they would be saying the entitlements are there, but would be useless. He would challenge that these are two entirely different things. In statutory interpretation they cannot break out subsections but have to interpret the act as a whole. D. Johnson stated she is a neighbor. The northeast part of her property has the easement to get to this property. She is interested in what would be happening with this property. E. Trombley representing the Woodland Town Board addressed Meridian Avenue that he indicated is not wide enough for emergency vehicles. Talked to the fire chief from Montrose and they have to park fire vehicles on County Road 30 because there is not adequate area to park. This road has the proper width (right of way) but has been a problem for both Townships. The right of way is offset, not centered on the town line, and never been brought up to proper standards, there are no ditches or shoulder. The road would have to be brought up to specs for emergency vehicles. F. Johnson at the Franklin Township meeting they referenced a resolution made by Woodland Township some time ago and this has been an issue for a long time. Some other landowners that abut Meridian have a big concern with extending the road to get access to the back forty. If

3 Page 3 the improvement would be to road size, that would be an issue with the previous resolution. G. Kirscht questioned Trombley if they require a two or four rod road when they build or upgrade a town road? Trombley stated four rods. Kirscht stated the information they have is that the length of road to be rebuilt is He felt the cost of the access improvement would have to be on the owner or township. Although this may be unique to this parcel of land, he noted Wright County is experiencing a high growth rate and there might be other situations like this. He felt the Planning & Zoning and this Board find they would be addressing many of these issues as new surveys are done. The Town Boards might find themselves strapped to meet these problems. He felt the Ordinance is clear that a wide strip in lieu of width standards is intended to provide access to wooded sites or to otherwise preserve active agricultural land or practices. H. Bauman stated he knows with his experience with subdivision proposals at the Planning Commission that there has to be adequate public road frontage. This has to have adequate road frontage, whether it is up to the Township or owner. I. Schmidt asked what the width of the road right of way is now? Trombley stated there is 66 of right of way, but most of it is in Woodland Township and that is as far as they can go. Rhineberger clarified there was Court proceedings initiated by the neighbor to the north with the Town Board. Court action regarding that easement was resolved and it does not follow the town line. Trombley stated there is a mutual agreement between the two Townships to share the maintenance. Schmidt asked if there are plans to upgrade the road? Trombley responded no because they cannot go on the other side and there is not any point in improving their half if the rest cannot be. Schmidt had concerns for providing emergency services and he felt those issues would have to be resolved first. Rhineberger the road is about 10 off center toward the Woodland side. He indicated there is on the Franklin side and about 40 on the Woodland side. Lieb questioned if they are referring to the driving surface? Rhineberger stated it is the easement skewed to the Woodland side. MacLean clarified the description in T-24 makes it clear that is supposed to go down the line, then makes a turn. Schermann stated their experience with these matters are that things don t always lie the way they are supposed to and they have to live with the way things are today. Lieb stated this is the first time he has seen where the easement is off, he has seen driving surfaces off all the time. He felt other aspects of the proposal are reasonable and would support it. J. Schermann felt the access strip should be at least 66 to the back 75 acres, considering the rate of growth in the County, eventually there would be a need for a 66 wide road to get back there for future development. Also, the road would have to be brought up to provide adequate access (66 ) for emergency vehicles and serviced by Woodland and Franklin Townships or he could not go along with the proposal. Zins indicated he has a set of Findings with counter points if the Board is heading toward a denial. Schermann stated he would offer everyone further opportunity to speak before they see what action is to be taken.

4 Page 4 K. MacLean stated it is hard enough to deal with what is going on today, let alone in the future. He is dealing with a set of standards. He understands the 66 if they are considering l in 5 density, but they are looking at a 1 per 40 now. Rhineberger asked Schermann if he is talking about the road that is there or access? Schermann stated he is talking about the access strip from Tract A to Tract C to the 75 acres. MacLean stated they are prepared to give that if necessary. The current road, Meridian, that Woodland is speaking to, if they have to wait to get that resolved that would lock them out permanently. He explained the Court case Rhineberger referred to is not resolved, he has been in discussion with the attorney who litigated it for Franklin Township and they are hoping that it does not get resolved. He has agreed to keep his hands off and cannot touch that. He did not feel it is fair to his client to get locked out of doing something with her property when she is not even involved in that case, which has to do with her northern neighbor. He noted as far as emergency services, he did not feel that it is a problem unless there are two events happening simultaneously. The fire department could get here today. They are not asking for a hundred homes back here. L. Further discussion followed on safety issues the Town Board is concerned with. Trombley explained adding more homes adds to the chance of something happening. He explained the difficulty of getting water here in the event of fire, trucks and equipment carrying water that are bigger. In emergency planning they have to plan for the worse case in order to be prepared. M. Ken Pawelk, Township Supervisor for Woodland (present in the audience) stated he agrees with what Trombley has stated. Bob Bauman present from Franklin Township - the dispute on this road coming in has gone on for some years. There are two homes back here now and he has not seen in his 22 years on the Franklin Township Board approving something on a road that is not adequate. He felt it is important to be consistent in their requirements. N. Zins referred to written findings that were drafted quickly after Counsel s letter came in late last week and on short notice. Rhineberger did an excellent job drafting these. Two major points to make are as follows: First, the petition for variances was made under of the Ordinance that allow divisions in the AG zone for agricultural purposes. The division proposed do not save agricultural land or honor the Comprehensive Plan, page 11 that speaks to protecting agricultural land from encroachment. Second, they need the variance to develop these kinds of lots. The cannot grant a variance purely for economic purposes without other justifications. He noted here it would cost less to develop the lots if they do not have to build the road to standards. In other cases developers have to put in the roads and the same criteria should be used here. In referring to the criteria and particular aspect of the Comp Plan, they are supposed to make the best decisions for the most efficient use of public resources. This road would have to be paid for by the developer now or the public would have to pay for it later. It has been policy in this County that the developer put the roads in so the road is adequate to service emergency vehicles for the development proposed. These are reasons for not allowing it, in addition to all the agricultural reasons. Counsel for the applicant is saying if they require him to build up the road it would not be economically feasible. The reasons for the road frontage and road standards are there for specific long term reasons, whether it is fire trucks, school buses or traffic flow for the future and meets the discussion that this is not the

5 Page 5 time for it. O. Rhineberger added that a full quarter-mile road developed all the way back to the 40 acres is not what Staff is suggesting, but to provide enough road frontage to comply with existing standards and an easement is there if needed to extend a road in the future. They are looking for enough access for the two parcels that would provide public road access to the back in the future. Schermann indicated counsel for the owner has agreed to that. P. Schermann polled the Board on how they would vote on the petition. The response was denial from Bauman, Schmidt, Kirscht (with option to withdraw), and Lieb would agree to the proposed division if they would be willing to put in a road deemed adequate, if not, denial. Schermann indicated action for denial is permanent on the abstract, another option is to ask for dismissal. He indicated if the applicant wants more time to work out details with the Townships to bring the road coming in up to standards they could withdraw and come back. Q. MacLean asked with everyone present at this time they work on the best way to divide the three quarter-quarter sections and use the entitlements. No problem giving a 66 wide easement. He asked what else, recognizing the open case is off the table and if the Board is saying that if nothing can be done without improvements to Meridian, they are done. He wants to be clear on what the problem is. All Board members indicated if Meridian is brought up to both Town Board s standards that would satisfy their concern. Rhineberger asked for clarification on the standards they are requiring if they are just asking for that portion of Meridian that is there. Schermann indicated what he has ascertained is that the road that is there has to be brought up to standards for school busses and emergency vehicles or they would not consider this. Rhineberger asked MacLean on the Court case if there is something in that would prohibit upgrade of what is there. How hard would it be to improve the road within the 66 right of way that exists. MacLean stated there is a status quo on the maintenance issue and cannot widen that at all. R. Schermann summarized the Board s stand and recognized Trombley who wanted to speak on this. Trombley stated there are a couple of instances where the Township required the expense to be paid by the landowner and three years after built before they would take it over. Leib asked MacLean if two vehicles could pass on this road? MacLean stated the issue is all about width and there is not an option now or in future to widen that road. This issue has been there for several years. Schermann stated this Board cannot supersede those agreements and they are looking to tie into this road. MacLean agreed that is all they are asking for, they are only adding two parcels to an existing road. The Board is saying that is overburdening the existing road. Schermann felt the matter has to be resolved. After MacLean conferred with his clients on how they want to proceed he stated they wish to withdraw their request. S. Schermann moved to accept the applicant s request to withdraw the request without prejudice. Bauman seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

6 Page 6 2. WOOD CASTLE HOMES Cont. from 3/2/07 LOCATION: 8811 Ingram Avenue NW Lot 17 & part of Lot 18, Cedar Lake Beach First Addition, Section 22, Township 121, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Cedar Lake Corinna Twp.) Tax Owner: Larson Requests a variance of Section 404.2, 502.2, 605.5(2), & 612 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to replace existing 728 sq. ft. cabin with a new 1828 sq. ft. dwelling over walkout basement 54 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake. A performance sewer system to serve the dwelling (no alternate septic site available) to be 1 from side yard and 4 from edge of road right of way. Also propose to replace existing 280 sq. ft. garage with a 576 sq. ft. detached garage, 53 from centerline of road, less than 20 from the septic system Present: Paul Schermer and Dave Larsen A. Rhineberger stated the Board had indicated they wanted to see the request meet a 60 setback from the lake and the house downsized. The new plan has been submitted showing removal of the covered porch and twisting the house on the lot a bit, would accomplish this. The house is 20 from the sewer system and 60 from the lake and the turning of the house should be mandated. B. Lieb felt the revision meets what the Board asked for. Kirscht asked if the shallow well is to be replaced? Larson stated on our property, yes. C. Kirscht moved to approve the revised plan submitted (Exhibit A ) on the condition the house meets the 60 setback from the ordinary high-water mark of lake and 20 from the sewer system and 61 from the centerline of road for a new 24 x 24 detached garage. Well variance granted by the State from the neighbor s well; and a new deep well is to be installed on the applicant s lot. Schmidt seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

7 Page 7 3. SCOTT D. OLSON New Item LOCATION: Hoyer Avenue NW Lots 25 & 26, Rutledge s Sugar Lake Park, according to plat of record, Section 2, Township 121, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Sugar Lake Corinna Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section 404.2, 502.2, 612 & 740 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to replace existing cabin with a 20 x 40 dwelling with a 20 x 24 loft 63.5 from the ordinary highwater mark of lake on an undersized lot. A new performance sewer system is to be installed. Present: Scott Olson and Katherine Hallen A. Rhineberger reviewed the undersized lot (16,523 sq. ft.) on Sugar Lake that is a combination of two platted lots with two cabins. One cabin is being replaced with a new 800 sq. ft. dwelling that is less than the minimum width with a 480 sq. ft. loft on the backside of cabin (second floor built within the trusses), 68.4 from the lake, no closer than what exists. New sewer is to be a performance system, replaces a holding tank. The existing cabin meets the side and road setbacks. Minor updates are planned for the other cabin that are allowed without a building permit, but the replacement cabin includes expansion in the loft and is outside what is allowed for replacement by recent State law. B. Bauman questioned lot coverage. Rhineberger stated at 10% coverage by buildings the request falls well within that. He noted a neighbor, Elsner, would like the home kept at a lower profile. A neighbor, Willis, is opposed to the request. Town Board stated the applicant met with them in 2006 for a house addition and did not come back to them for this request. Township had approved the addition but don t have action on this specific proposal. C. Schermann indicated the Board could hear from neighbors present, but would delay the hearing until the Town Board has had a chance to address this plan. D. Kirscht questioned if they have verified the shallow well? Rhineberger stated the applicant was going to talk to the neighbor and he would want something in writing. Applicant is offering to replace the well for the neighbor and either a verbal agreement at the next meeting or written statement is needed. Olson stated he is scheduled for the Town Board meeting the following week. He wanted to attend this meeting since he had taken the day off and to find out what is needed. He explained the project was delayed because he was required to put in a new sewer system and due to the cost involved. E. Hallen stated she is a year-around resident and neighbor. This property is in her direct line of sight of the shoreline. She would not want construction to be bigger and further blocks her view. She does not object to new construction if it is wider and not two-story. She is concerned it would adversely affect her property value. Schermann explained this Board would not have anything to say about it if the owner stays within the guidelines of the law.

8 Page 8 F. Olson indicated he does not want to harm good relations with his neighbors. He is not planning a two-story structure, this would only be 4 higher than normal. Hallen stated Staff had told her it is in height. Schermann questioned if there is much difference between a vaulted ceiling and what is proposed? Rhineberger indicated with the 24 exposed block, 8 walls and with a 3:12 roof in the existing building it is now in height. G. Schermann indicated the Board would continue to allow for Town Board review before they would get into the details of the proposal. H. Bauman moved to continue the petition to April 13, Kirscht seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

9 Page 9 4. THOMAS SCHWARTZ New Item LOCATION: Hwy. 24 NW 2.83 acre lot in the N l/2 of NW l/4, west of Hwy. 24,, Section 22, Township 122, Range 27, Wright County, MN. (Clearwater Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section 604.5(2) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to build a 40 x 64 pole building 122 from centerline of State Hwy. 24. Present: Tom Schwartz A. Rhineberger reviewed the property along State Highway 24. The property is 22 acres and the applicant also owns a separate lot to the north that is not tied into this parcel. The variance requested is to build a 40 x 64 pole building 122 from the centerline of the highway. He understands the problem is the land slopes to the west. B. Schwartz stated the land drops off substantially and an excavator estimates it would require cu. yds. of material to push the shed back another 8. This is the flattest area. He pointed out the swampland that wraps around to the north. C. Schermann questioned if the drainfield on the west side of the house is in the swamp? Schwartz stated that area is 5-6 lower than what the house is, but not swamp. Rhineberger concurred and noted the house is about from where the swamp starts. D. Town Board and a neighbor approve. E. Schmidt asked if the State Highway Department responded? Rhineberger indicated they were notified, but did not reply. He noted there are plans to upgrade the highway. Schwartz stated he is replacing a shed that was purchased from the State for the road project. He stated that shed was much closer to the road. The highway right of way is a total of 150 wide. The new shed would align better with the house and allows access into the front of the building. F. Schermann questioned what the shed would be used for? Schwartz stated he has miscellaneous equipment, boat and some of his Dad s items. Schermann asked if the garage crosses the property line of the two lots? Schwartz indicated it does slightly. Rhineberger stated he had not been aware that was the case and is a problem. He thought it was all one property. Schwartz asked whether he could get the line moved? Rhineberger stated that would take Board approval and is not part of this hearing. Blue line on the air photo was viewed which shows the location of the line in question. Schwartz stated lot to the north is about an acre. Rhineberger questioned the location of a second home? Schwartz stated there was never a home on there. Rhineberger stated his suggestion would be to tie the two parcels together because a 10 setback is required from a side line. The shed would have to be moved 38 to the south to meet the setback. Schwartz stated he would pursue a lot line adjustment and indicated he could trade an area behind the one acre for area north of the shed to give the setback needed. Applicant was informed a new notice and notification fee would be necessary and the matter

10 Page 10 could be continued to allow for that. Rhineberger asked for a new site plan by April 13, The cutoff for the next available meeting. G. Kirscht moved to continue the petition to May 4, 2007 to allow the applicant to complete a revised application for a lot line adjustment, new notice and to pay a renotification fee. Schmidt seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

11 Page KEVIN & JEAN NELSON New Item LOCATION: RDS St. SE Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Crawford Lake Estates, according to plat of record, Section 20, Township 119, Range 25, Wright County, MN. (Crawford Lake Rockford Twp.) Tax # & Requests a lot line adjustment to add 1,056 sq. ft. from Lot 5 to Lot 4 to bring it up to 20,768 sq. ft. and a determination as to whether two platted lots in common ownership can be separated so that Lot 4 may be used as a separate residential building site as regulated in Section & of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance. Present: Kevin & Jean Nelson A. Rhineberger reviewed maps and a survey of the two platted lots on Crawford Lake, off State Highway 25 on 33 rd Street. Proposed lot line adjustment would take 1,056 sq. ft. of Lot 5 and add it to Lot 4 to make Lot 4 at least 20,000 sq. ft. The lot cannot be sold as a separate residential site unless it meets a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. he explained. Survey work prepared indicates you could build a 24 x 34 dwelling on this lot and meet standards, but that is all. No room to fit a garage or deck. One sewer site was designed, but there is no information to show if there is an alternate sewer site or not. This action would not make the lot where the land is coming out of undersized. Air photo was displayed to show the location of the existing house and a detached garage. Detached garage is on the lot to be adjusted and was not built to standards, but would have to be removed to get a house on there. B. Schmidt asked for clarification on where the lot line would move. Rhineberger displayed the survey and noted the checked area near the lake is the portion of the lot to be added. Schmidt questioned the lake frontage and Rhineberger noted the lots do not meet 150 width requirement now. Both would be close to 100 wide that is measured at the survey line, back from the lake. The road frontage would not change. C. K. Nelson presented photos to show the lines and existing structures. Rhineberger stated the history shows a previous owner attempted to split these lots according to the platted lot lines and that was dismissed. K. Nelson stated Bechtold was a previous owner who had passed away during the hearing process. They had the lot where the house exists first in 1993 and purchased the second lot in He noted the original surveys show that each of the lots had 20,000 sq. ft. It appears since the first survey they lost from the lake. Rhineberger stated the survey practices have changed which could explain the difference. Old plats did not have the ordinary highwater mark established. The information they had in 1994 indicates they did not have enough area to meet the 20,000 sq. ft. D. Discussion followed on where the building area is. Bauman questioned whether the land is buildable on the second site with the garage that is there. Rhineberger noted the new house would go where the garage is and there is one sewer site. Bauman asked if any of the land area is low or wet? Rhineberger felt there is at least 10 of elevation, cattails are along the shore. K.

12 Page 12 Nelson indicated this is 15 above the lake. Bauman suggested looking at the site, however, Schermann wondered if that would be beneficial with the information provided. E. Schmidt noted this Board reviews small lots week after week trying to squeeze things in and here they have one large lot that an owner wants to split. This would result in a new lot with limited building area. He did not think this was a good way to go. F. Lieb felt because the lots are of record and the adjustment would make them both conforming, he could support this. G. Kirscht stated he has mixed feelings on this. The adjustment would make them conforming and the Board has allowed building on lots considerably smaller than these so would agree to the request. He questioned the size house that would fit on the new building lot. H. Schermann agreed with Schmidt s concern about splitting the lots that now make up one good site and force something in here. In polling the Board, it appears the vote would be split. I. Lieb moved to grant a lot line adjustment to add 1,056 sq. ft. from Lot 5 to Lot 4 to make both lots 20,000 sq. ft., the minimum lot size, according to the survey submitted. Kirscht seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRED, Lieb, Kirscht & Bauman; voting nay: Schmidt and Schermann

13 Page JEFF CAMPBELL New Item LOCATION: th Street SW Part of SE l/4 of NW l/4; and part of E l/2 of SW l/4 and South 22 rods of the West 30 rods of W l/2 of SE l/4, Section 33, Township 119, Range 28, Wright County, MN. (Cokato Twp.) Tax # & Owner: Gillman Requests a variance of Section 604.6(4) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to use two new residential building entitlements along 60 th Street that will exceed 2.5 acres of tillable ground. Also review of division for the existing farmstead that might exceed ten acres. Present: Jeff Campbell and John Larson A. Rhineberger reviewed the 110 acres with two available residential entitlements. The owner also has a parcel in Stockholm Township that is not part of the request. The proposal is to separate off two new lots and also the existing farmstead along the south boundary off 60 th Street. The balance of the farm is to be sold to Fairbault Foods, landowner adjoins to the north. The new lots exceed the 2.5 acres of tillable allowed. The lot for the existing farmstead would be no larger than 10 acres. Town Board approves. B. Campbell noted the air photo shows the 111 acres is all tillable land. They offered Fairbault Foods frontage off 60 th Street, however, they did not want that to prevent trespassing from that end of the property. The two proposed lots would square this off and bring the lots to the existing lines. The 4-acre parcel would allow a future owner to have a horse or two. The east lot would be just a little over three acres. C. Kirscht questioned restrictions on animals for residential lots? Rhineberger indicated they need a minimum of 4 acres to have livestock and four acres would allow a maximum two horses. D. Campbell pointed out the natural tree line they are using for a dividing line. He explained it makes no sense to leave small corners in the farm that the large farm equipment cannot get in to farm. He pointed out two grass areas that are no longer farmed where water drains to. E. Larson stated he owns land to the east and want to find out what the plans were. From what he has heard, it should not impact his property. F. Schmidt questioned the hardship for exceeding the maximum of 2.5 acres allowed in a residential site? Schermann noted if this buyer does not take it, the land would sit idle and what would happen to the area to the west? Bauman noted the proposed line would have to be adjusted and Fairbault Foods would have to buy more. G. Rhineberger reviewed the new residential sites that are proposed at 4.3 and 3.75 acres, the eastern lot borders a creek. Bauman noted the proposal would keep the property lines straight.

14 Page 14 H. Kirscht asked if Fairbault Foods has access to this land? Schermann noted the land gains access from the north through the land they currently own. Rhineberger noted the one lot has approximately ¾ acre that is not tillable because of the location of the ditch/creek. I. Kirscht and Lieb indicated they can support the request. J. Schermann moved to approve the proposed lot divisions for two new residential lots to be 4.3 acres and 3.75 acres and the existing homestead on 10 acres, subject to survey. Reason: Divisions follow a tree line, keep property lines straight and the balance of the farmland does not have road frontage but is to be joined with property to the north, owned by Fairbault Foods. A portion of the 3.75-acre lot is not tillable, but includes.75 acre that is drainage area/creek. Kirscht seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED, Schmidt opposed MINUTES On a motion by Bauman, seconded by Schmidt, all voted to approve minutes for the March 9, 2007 meeting as printed. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Rhineberger Assistant Planner BJR:tp Cc: County Board of Commissioners Tom Zins Twp. Clerks