WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: December 6, 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 Board of Adjustment met December 6, 2013 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. Barry Rhineberger, Assistant Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning Office; Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. 1. WILLIAM T. FISHER Cont. from 11/1/13 LOCATION: th Street SE - Lots 1-7 & W l/2 of Lot 8, Charlotte Shores, according to plat of record, Section 5, Township 119, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Charlotte Rockford Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section 405., & 612 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow r eplace ment of existing 384 sq. ft. cabin that is 30 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of Lake ( OHW ) with a new two- story dwelling that will have a 2,156 sq. ft. on the main level, attached garage to have 1,318 sq. ft. on main- level & same area in tuck-under garage, 2,392 sq. ft. second-floor living area, 120 sq. ft. covered porch roadside and 157 sq. ft. deck lakeside. The structure is proposed at 41.5 ft. from the OHW of lake to the deck, 50 ft. from the dwelling to the OHM of lake and 48.5 ft. from the garage to the centerline of the township road. Proposed structure must meet mini mum flood elev ation and requires a C onditional U se P ermit for 2,220 yds. of fill. Also proposed is to move the existing 384 sq. ft. cabin to the west portion of the lot, to be 9.3 ft. from the lake and 48.5 ft. from the center of the township road. Structure is also classified as living space and exceeds the 10 ft. maximum height for a boathouse. Present: Bill Fisher A. Rhineberger reviewed the continuance for completion of the plans on revisions discussed at the last meeting. The house plans were displayed along with a new survey to show the building location. The project requires fill which will be reviewed with the Planning Commission. The drawings of the house show this basement will be a lower level, giving the appearance of a two-story home from the lakeside. The history of the Board action in 2007 when the Board took action to allow the combination of lots as a building site, contingent on meeting the setbacks was summarized. The revised house plan fits more closely with the setbacks than the first plan. He noted a small encroachment of 71 from the corner of the house and a 74 from the attached garage was caused by squaring off the house. An 11 x 12 deck is meeting the lake setback. The original house plan was encroaching on the road setback. Rhineberger indicated action by this Board would be followed by a determination on fill which will be heard by the Planning Commission and other agencies that will have to address the wetlands and flood plain elevation. B. Fisher pointed out the relocation of the existing cabin on the lot was included on the new survey. Rhineberger reviewed the location proposed at 15 from the Ordinary High-water Mark and 41 from the centerline of the road right of way. Fisher noted this is an

2 Page 2 improvement from the first proposal of 9 from the lake. Rhineberger noted the structure exceeds the height limit of 10 within the lake setback; would have the appearance of a guest cabin, although there is no plumbing. C. Quiggle questioned the wetland shown on the survey and whether the house is actually within the designated wetland. Rhineberger indicated it is. He explained the elevations and indicated how the wetland was determined. The outlet was pointed out and how the drainage opens up. Fisher stated the determination on the wetland has been in dispute. Quiggle was not particularly happy with allowing the house in an area that is wetland, but that is not before this Board and would be up to SWCD & Planning Commission who will address the fill. She is agreeable to the revisions made to better position the house. She would not be in favor of moving the existing cabin 15 from the lake because of the height and character of the structure is more of a guesthouse than boathouse which requires a 75 setback. She felt the structure should be moved off the lot. D. Mol felt after reviewing the plans, the setbacks are much improved and is in favor of the revised plans. The request to move the existing structure to one part of the lot to another was not entirely acceptable. He noted the applicant is constructing a new dwelling and although they want to keep the building that is historical; it may be better moved to another property. E. Bauman agreed with Mol s comments. He questioned where the Planning Commission is at with review for the fill. Rhineberger explained it has been on the Commission s agenda a couple times, but they are waiting on the outcome of the variances which will make a difference on the amount of fill and where it will go. The original fill request was 2,200-2,300 cu. yds. Once the variance is addressed, those plans can be finalized. F. Schmidt felt the applicant has made the changes they asked for. He is not opposed to moving the existing cabin on the lot to 15 from the lake. G. Schermann concurred with the setbacks and revisions for the new home. The existing structure should be moved off the lot. If there is some historical value, he suggested they move it to another property where it could stay. He summarized the Board consensus for Fisher and asked how he wanted to proceed. H. Fisher indicated he would look into moving the existing structure off, or it would be torn down. I. Quiggle moved to grant construction of a new dwelling according to the revised building plans identified as Exhibit A along with a revised site plan identified as Exhibit B ; with setback no closer than 71 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake at the closest point and must meet both side and road setbacks. The request to retain the existing structure is not approved and the structure must be moved off to a new location or torn down at the discretion of the applicant. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3 Page 3 2. KIMBERLY & KEVIN LAUMANN Cont. from 11/1/13 L OCATION: 443 Dague Avenue NE Part of the NE 1/4 of SE 1/4, Section 33, Township 120, Range 25, Wright County, MN. (Buffalo Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance & Wright County Feedlot Ordinance Section 8 to allow animals in a building that is 30 feet from the property line and a feedlot to be 15 feet from the property line. Present: Kevin Laumann A. Rhineberger explained the applicant purchased the 10 acre lot at auction, he was not aware of the problem with livestock in an existing building. The balance of the original 50 acres was restricted and a deed restriction filed the day of the closing. The new property line met setback requirements for a storage shed, not animals. Applicant purchased the lot with intentions of using the building for horses. The buyers knew the building had been used for horses in the past. The variance requested is from the 100 setback required for animals; the building is 30 from the line. Town Board action was favorable. B. Mol felt the applicant got caught in between, but noted this Board has been inclined to hold to the Ordinance. He noted a recent site inspection when a chicken house was 5 too close to the line and had to be moved. Feedlot ordinances are strict and have to be followed. He was not sure that he would want to allow this variance. C. Bauman questioned if the owners could not rearrange the property lines. Rhineberger stated that is a possibility, but is between the parties. The air photo was displayed to show the ag land. He noted it would take some ag land away from the remainder parcel and they could not include over 2.5 acres of tillable. The parties would have to reach an agreement and record a document. Bauman felt that is the most logical solution. D. Laumann indicated he spoke with Lampi, auctioneer, and because the buyer of the balance wants the tillable, he did not think negotiations would be easy. A trade with the adjacent owner would put low ground back into the large parcel. E. Rhineberger explained if the division would have been done in the right order, they would have advised the parties 100 was needed. The division presented on the survey met setback for a storage building, Staff cannot anticipate how someone would use the building. F. Schermann noted this puts the Board in an after-the-fact position that they should not have been put in. He understood why it will be difficult to adjust another 70 out. Questioned if the Board could set a limit on the number of animals as a solution. Rhineberger explained the Board can set any conditions that are relative or proportional to the request. Kryzer agreed the Board can limit animals. Schermann noted the Town Board had suggested they not allow cattle, pigs or chickens in the building. Laumann

4 Page 4 indicated they bought the property to have horses and 2-3 horses are the most they planned on having. G. Schmidt, also a Township Supervisor, was unable to attend the Town Board meeting; but, would support his fellow Town Board members in the recommendation. A denial punishes the buyer who bought the ten acres and building in good faith and he would have a hard time telling them they cannot have horses. He felt the buyers could some day put up a new building and meet the setbacks. Another buyer bought the farmland and would understand if they would not want to cut into the tillable area. Rhineberger clarified the buyer is allowed to have horses; it is the building they want to use for shelter that is too close to the line. H. Quiggle felt because the variance is 85% of the required distance that is excessive. She understands the auctioneer handled the sale and did not look into the use of the building or inform the buyer of the limitations; but, she noted it is also incumbent on the buyer to look into the limitations. That responsibility as a buyer applies whether it is a lakeshore lot or large parcel. No one is saying they cannot have horses, just not in a building that is only 30 from a property line. This structure can be moved or rebuilt at the appropriate setbacks they hold everyone else at. I. Rhineberger explained Staff cannot anticipate how future owners might want to use buildings. If contact is made with the office, every attempt is made to warn potential buyers; but the division as proposed met setback, it is the use that requires a 100 setback. Quiggle restated, it is the responsibility of buyers to do their own homework on what zoning limitations are. J. Kryzer noted when it involves a sale, what was said between parties is unknown. This would have to be settled by a civil dispute. The Board task is to look at whether the request is reasonable due to extenuating circumstances. As an after-the-fact variance, the division occurred and the standards set in the Stasvold case on practical difficulty apply. K. Schermann asked Mol if he would re-consider if the Board sets a limit of three horses. Mol indicated he could not support it because the building could be used for storage of equipment and hay needed to keep horses and a new building to house the horses built. L. Bauman concurred the building could have other uses, on the other hand, he does not see a problem with the shelter use where it is sitting. M. Schermann concurred that the Board action would likely be a split decision. N. Schmidt moved to grant a variance to allow animals in an existing building that is 30 from the property line and the feedlot that is 50 from the line so the horses can enter and exit in the same area. Condition: Maximum of 3 horses allowed. Bauman seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Quiggle questioned if the motion could include limiting other animals.

5 Page 5 Schmidt amended his motion to restrict any other kind of livestock in this building. Bauman amended his second. VOTE: CARRIED, Mol & Quiggle voted nay

6 Page 6 3. JEFFREY ANDERSON Cont. from 11/1/13 LOCATION: ND Street SE Part of Gov t Lot 3, Section 7, Township 118, Range 25, Wright County, MN. (Fountain Lake Franklin Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & Table 3 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to install new holding tanks to be approximately 100 ft. from lake. Present: Jeff & Nancy Anderson; Linda Splittstoezer, agent with Edina Realty A. Rhineberger reviewed the property location and request to install holding tanks for the existing cabin 86 from a Natural Environment lake. A setback of 150 is required which would put it off the property. The lake bed was pointed to which wraps around. The lot is considered an old lot-of-record. Town Board approval was received. B. Bauman indicated he is familiar with the property. The building is a small unit and as long as the Town Board is in agreement, he has no problem. C. Schmidt asked if the cabin is seasonal and if it could be a year-around home. J. Anderson stated this property is near their home and uses the building for storage. The building has old plumbing installed by a previous owner. Schmidt noted if they allow this someone could use it for year around living. Rhineberger noted there is a chance a potential buyer could tear down the structure and do an exact rebuild. The structure is one large room that is like a fish shack, but an owner could remodel, make repairs or eventually replace it. Schmidt indicated he could support the variance to upgrade the plumbing. D. Quiggle asked if it is possible a future owner could get a full sewer system in. Rhineberger displayed the land contours and explained the property is low, noting the ice ridge and area behind the building that is low. He did not think the position of the tanks would impact a future treatment area, if it could be found. The tanks proposed will be lowprofile because of the ground water and any treatment area would have to come back to the Board for a variance. Quiggle stated she was concerned what they allow here could be a limiting factor on what they could get in for a full system. E. Schermann polled the Board and consensus was favorable. F. Schmidt moved to allow a variance to install two septic tanks approximately 85 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake. Town Board approves. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

7 Page 7 4. KENNETH H. & CONNIE A. RATHJE New Item LOCATION: 5801 County Road 5 NW Part of NE l/4 of NW l/4, Section 6, Township 120, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Albion Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & 604.5(2) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 14.5 x 17 covered area over existing ground level deck. Proposed roof addition to be 112 ft. from the centerline of County Road 5. Present: Connie & Ken Rathje A. Rhineberger reviewed the property location on County Road 5. He explained anything 30 above grade or lower does not require a permit. The applicant had gotten a permit for a roof over a deck in the past and now wants to put a roof over a portion of the existing post and rail area in front. Pictures of the home were presented to show the structure on the house that is 112 from the centerline of the county road. Town Board and one neighbor sent in favorable comments. B. John Uecker Town Board Chair present asked if this project would require a sewer certification. Rhineberger indicated because this property is not in a shoreland district and they are not adding living space; he did not require a test of the existing sewer. Environmental Health makes a determination on which projects require it. C. Schmidt asked if the County Highway Department responded. Rhineberger stated he did not hear from them. Schmidt understood the need for a cover over the entrance. He would agree as long as the Township and Highway Department do not have any concern. D. Quiggle asked if the deck would not still need to meet a setback. Rhineberger stated they view this like a cement patio. He referred to a project on Cedar Lake where they dropeed the deck down to one step. E. Mol noted the deck is already there and as long as it remains a covered roof and they do not enclose that area, he would agree. F. Schmidt moved to grant a variance to allow a 14.5 x 17 covered roof over existing ground -level deck 112 from the centerline of CR 5. Town Board and a neighbor approve. Condition: New variance is required if enclosed. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

8 Page 8 5. NATASHA J. NIESEN New Item LOCATION: th Street SW Lot 1, Block 2, Rouf s First Addition, also rearrangement of Lot 1, Rouf s Addition, according to plat of record, Section 36, Township 118, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Victor Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & 605.5(2 ) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 8 x 10 entry addition 21 from edge of road right of way (cul-de-sac). Present: Natasha Niesen A. Rhineberger reviewed the location of the back lot on the south end of Lake Mary. The lot is at the end of a cul-de-sac and the existing building was reviewed. The cul-de-sac was never developed and the proposal is to build an 8 x 10 entry porch 21 from the edge of the cul-de-sac. When the house was built it was positioned right at 25 (minimum setback) from the cul-de-sac. The addition encroach es into this area 4. A certificate of survey was not requested because it is not lakeshore. Rhineberger used the tools available to estimate the setback. A large parcel lies to the east and it looks like the right of way is only used if someone wants to back up. Town Board approves. B. Quiggle indicated as long as the Town Board has no maintenance or safety concerns she felt this meets the intent of the Ordinance. Mol and Bauman concurred. C. Schmidt stated because this is a cul-de-sac and the entry proposed is small, he would agree. D. Schermann moved to grant a variance to allow an 8 x 10 entry addition 21 from the edge of the cul-de-sac which is not being used. Bauman seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

9 Page 9 6. NANCY J. GOWER New Item LOCATION: County Road 37 NW Part of Gov t Lot 3, Section 14, Township 120, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (French Lake Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & 604.5(2) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 26 x 30 detached garage 88 from centerline of County Road 37. Present: Nancy Gower & John Gower A. Rhineberger reviewed the location in French Lake Township and the proposal for construction of a detached garage. The 26 x 30 garage is proposed 88 from centerline of the county highway. Air photo of the site was displayed to show the turn around for the driveway and the garage would come straight off that. The Town Board commented that they would not object if it does not go any closer. A neighbor had no objection. No response from the County Highway Department. B. Considerable discussion followed on alternate building locations that might be practical on the lot. N. Gower pointed to the location of a new sewer system on the east side and noted the property is low to the southeast. She explained they would come off the existing driveway used for the attached garage. The building would not be visible because it will be surrounded by the existing trees and construction will match the house. C. Pictures taken at the site by Rhineberger were displayed to show the view from the back and highway. He noted another location would require fill. The difference in elevation is 6-8 and there is a good distance to get to an alternate location and avoid the mound sewer. He noted anything is possible, but it is up to the Board what they feel is reasonable. D. Mol indicated he would agree with the positioning proposed. He noted this should not cause any impact to sight lines or safety issues. The other location would require fill and other issues they would have to deal with. E. Bauman agreed the proposed location is the most practical. Schmidt concurred, considering the topography and no objection was heard from the County Highway Department. Quiggle and Schermann indicated they would agree with the comments. F. Mol moved to allow a 26 x 30 garage 88 from the centerline of County Road 37. Town Board approves. Schmidt seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

10 Page ROGER & DIANA CARLSON New Item LOCATION: ST St. NW Part of SE l/4 of SW l/4 of Section 7, Township 120, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (French Lake Twp.) Tax # & Owners: Applicant and Murphy Requests a variance of Section & of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow an after-the-fact division of 9.99 acres with existing house from original acre lot of record. Present: Applicant not present Item was held over until the end of the agenda

11 Page GLENN & JENNIFER VOGEL New Item LOCATION: 3270 Dempsey Avenue NW Part of N l/2 of SW l/4, Section 15, Township 120, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Maple Lake Twp.) Tax # & Requests a variance of Section & of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow a division of existing 47 acres to break off the applicant s home site (approximately 8-10 acres) and combine it with the undeveloped 10-acre residential lot that adjoins to the north and assign the entitlement back to the restricted farmland consisting of approximately acres. Present: Glenn & Jennifer Vogel A. Rhineberger reviewed the arrangement of lots created as a cluster by the Planning Commission in the wooded area. The Commission approved three ten-acre lots and one 47 a cre parcel with entitlements o n each. The proposal is to realign the property lines previously approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant s homesite is currently on the 47 acres. The adjustment would put the house with 18 acres (to include a ten-acre lot to the north of homesite ) and move the entitlement from the vacant lot to the remaining 37 acres. Rhineberger noted this adjustment would not increase the number of entitlements, but where it could be used. B. Kryzer asked if the Commission would not also have to review the placement of entitlements. Rhineberger indicated the Zoning Administrator sent this to the Board of Adjustment as he is looking at it as an 80-acre tract; because of the over-sized lot, 18 acres proposed needs a variance. He felt the matter could be dealt with here. Town Board approval was received. C. J. Vogel noted the adjustment will give them room for an alternate sewer system that could be placed on the adjoining ten acres. They also found out after construction that the existing sewer encroach es over the property line. The adjustment will not disturb any of the tillable ground. By joining this parcel with their home site it will solve these issues and also allow them to preserve the wooded acreage. The topography of the north ten-acre lot includes steep slopes and a driveway would be very expensive because it would have to go down a hill, cross a creek and be difficult. D. Bauman did not see any problem. This exceeds the ten acres, but does not change the number of entitlements. E. Schmidt this would undo a decision the Commission made not too many years ago. The cluster was to preserve the ag land and to build a house on the front portion would take out ag land. All owing this would go against the reason for the cluster. An alternate sewer i s one reason for it, but he felt on a nine-acre parcel an alternate site should be found.

12 Page 12 F. Vogel after construction, the new survey prepared by Otto Assoc. determined the lot line was off. They found out the sewer is 4 over the line. J. Vogel looking at the topo everything drops off to a pond. As far as putting in another sewer it would be difficult. They purchased the 47 acres but they did not set up the cluster; and they could have originally built their home in the tillable land if they wanted to. Rhineberger presented a map to show topography. G. Quiggle this request does not meet the intent of the C UP to preserve ag land. She felt a designer could find an alternate sewer site. T here was extensive discussion at previous meetings about access and no talk of lack of feasibility for putting in a driveway to serve the north lot. Kryzer this is not a PUD, but a CUP for a clus t er. Rhineberger did not find any topography for the previous hearing, or discussion on the access to the north lot. Quiggle there was plenty of discussion with no mention about a concern. H. Kryzer asked if another entitlement is built in the area shown in yellow ; would that be expansion of CUP\AG cluster. Rhineberger the Commission did not specify where the entitlement could be used on the 47 acres. He explained it is no different on any other building right on a n ag parcel, it is only when making a division for the house, they cannot ex c eed 10 acres or 2.5 acres of tillable land. This was not a rezoning so the division has to follow the AG zoning standards. He noted if this is approved, they could come in and make an administrative division for a future house and restrict the remainder. I. Quiggle hearing the explanations stated she was not in favor of the request. J. Mol has a lot of issues with it. He asked if the lot line could be adjusted to include the entire sewer. He asked if they could take the 20 acres leave entitlement there, but leave the rest restricted ag land. Rhineberger with clusters they have to look at the change. T his is different than a PUD, this might be a minor adjustment to includ e the mound entirely on the lot. A s long as they stay under 10 acres, that might be app roved administratively. I f it is more than the Zoning Administrator feels he can approve, it would have to go back to the Commission. The reason this is before the variance Board is because the residential lot would be over 10 acres. Mol stated he does not agree on moving the entitlement into the ag land, there was a lot of discussion when the cluster was approved. K. J. Vogel noted it was allowed in the ag land originally. Not asking for another entitlement. She pointed out the size lot they are proposing fits the lot sizes in the area. They are only asking to move the lot line. If they have to move the line they would lose value or making the lot smaller; that is a hardship. This would keep the wooded land together, preserving the till ground and not increasing the number of entitlements. Mol you put the building entitlement in the field that will break up the field. He agrees they could have built the house in the field, but they didn t. The Commission set this up with four building areas in the woods. The sewer is there but they can address the encroachment with easements or other ways and can be dealt with later. The most desirable place to build is the woods and that is where the applicant built. J. Vogel if the Board could see the topography, there is not much room between the ravine, hill to put a house. F irst they have to build a driveway cost ing $ 40,000-50,000 and the house would end up right on top of

13 them. Board of Adjustment Page 13

14 Page 14 L. Schermann based on the discussion i t appears this would not pass. He agreed with Mol that the design was set up to avoid a house in the tillable land. Rhineberger re-phrased Mol s comment was that while the original layout did not prevent a house in the tillable land, approving this adjustment guarantees the house would have to be built in the field. M. Kryzer asked Mol if he was applying the standards in the Land Use Plan which has a primary goal of preserv ing tillable ground. Mol stated that is correct. Kryzer stated financial reasons are not a hardship the Board can use. They look at the land and decide if there are p ractical difficulties that they feel are reasonable. J. Vogel asked if they could make a 2.5 acre division out of the woods. Rhineberger stated the 47 acres only has one entitlement (the existing house) and the only way to change that is through the Comm ission to rearrange the cluster or by this Board. They would be allowed to break off the existing house on acreage with a strip to the road and restrict the rest. An additional entitlement cannot come out of the 47 acres, unless approved by the Commission. This proposal is before the Board of Adjustment because of the request over ten acres. N. Schermann asked what require s a Planning Commission review. Rhineberger gave an example. If the change meets lot size standards they would have to go back to the Commission for a revision to the cluster. He explained the reason this request is before the Board is because of the size. If they wanted to keep 55 acres and create a division along the road and get a 2.5 acres lot on the road, they would have to go back to the Commission for a revision of the cluster. O. Schermann summarized the action will be to refer this to the County Att orney for Findings for a denial; or the applicant could ask for dismissal. Vogel asked if she would make a decision at this time; and, Schermann responded yes. Rhineberger stated action for denial would record the action on the abstract. If the applicant withdraws no document is filed and also, a decision can be appealed. Vogel asked that a decision be made. P. Kryzer suggested a motion for Findings. Q. Schermann moved to close the public hearing and direct the County Attorney to draft Findings consistent with the record for denial. However, the Board s discussion today does not constitute an approval or denial of the request, nor is it a final evaluation of the record. Staff is direct ed, based on the discussion, to prepare Findings to present to the Board at their January 10, 2014 meeting for deliberation. The Board will make a final evaluation of the record and make a final statement of reasons to approve or deny the request at that time. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Kryzer clarified that the Board would have this on their January agenda at which time they will make a final decision.

15 Page BRUCE W. SCHMIDT New Item LOCATION: TH Street SE Tax # : Part of N ½ of SE ¼ & SW ¼ of NW ;/4 and Gov t Lot 2, except tracts.; also, Part of NE l/4 of SW l/4 and SE ¼ of NW ¼ & Gov t Lot 1, except tracts desc.., all in Section 7, AND: Tax # : E ½ of SW ¼ & N ½ of NW ¼ of SE ¼, Section 6, all in Township 119, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Rockford Twp.) OWNERS: Applicant & Joy Klein Requests a lot line adjustment as regulated in Section & 604. of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow that portion of the Klein property, tax # lying south of 8 th Street (approximately 8 acres) to be joined with the Schmidt farm, tax parcel # Present: Bruce Schmidt A. Rhineberger reviewed the 200 acre farm owned by the applicant and the location of the eight acres split from the rest of the Klein property by the road. The land is primaril y low and the adjustment would give Schmidt ownership to everything on the other side of road. This area includes the Schmidt driveway and the adjustment would not change entitlements. Town Board approval was received. They note the road makes a natural division line. B. Rhineberger explained because they are dealing with two sections, the parcel added cannot be incorporated into one tax parcel. C. B. Schmidt stated this is low ground and a section line was used when he purchased the property. The area to be added is not buildable and proposed line follows a road. D. D. Schmidt is familiar with the property and understands the adjustment. The road cuts through the property and the applicant has always pastured the 8 acres, it is fenced and would make sense to include it in the farm. E. Quiggle felt the request is logical and Mol, Bauman and Schermann concurred. F. Don Schmidt moved to grant the lot line adjustment to add 8.53 acres to the Schmidt farm because it is non-tillable, used by the applicant for pasture and is split from the Klein property by the road. Town Board approves. Bauman seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: The survey was completed and provided by applicant. Don Schmidt amended his motion to include a condition: Survey to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Office for an Administrative Order to be completed and signed by the applicant combining the parcels for zoning purposes. Bauman amended his second. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

16 Page 16 CARLSON- Cont. from earlier on the agenda Present: No one appeared for the applicant A. Zoning Administrator, Riley, reported that the meeting with the attorney was in October and they expected someone would attend this meeting. He suggested a continuation to January. B. Schermann moved to continue the hearing to January 10, 2014 with the parties to be contacted. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MINUTES On a motion by Bauman, seconded by Mol, all voted to approve the November 1, 2013 minutes as printed. At 10:10 a.m., Chairman, Schermann closed the public hearing for a closed meeting to discuss pending Litigation Peterson vs. Wright County with counsel. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Rhineberger Assistant Planner BJR:tp Cc: County Board of Adjustment County Board of Commissioners Kryzer Lee Kelly Twp. Clerks Applicants/Owners