WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S (Informational) The Wright County Board of Adjustment met September 4, 20015 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 members Schermann, Dan Mol, Charlotte Quiggle and Paul Aarestad present. John Jones arrived at approximately 9:30 a.m. Barry Rhineberger, Assistant Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning office; Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. 1. ALLEN HOLMBERG Cont. from 8/7/15 LOCATION: 16043 County Rod 35 W NE ¼ of NE ¼, Section 5, Township 119, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Cokato Twp.) Tax #205-000-051100 Requests a variance of Section 502.2 & 604.6(4) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow the farmstead to be separated off with 11.15 acres. Present: Applicant not present A. Rhineberger summarized the first hearing when the Board reviewed the proposed division. Holmberg was informed if the Town Board approved the request, it would not be necessary for him to reappear today. A response from the Town Board was favorable. B. Mol moved to grant a variance of Section 502.2 & 604.6(4) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow the farmstead to be separated off with 11.15 acres, subject to Exhibit A, held on file and filing a Deed Restriction. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 2 2. MBE, INC. Cont. from 8/7/15 LOCATION: Part of W ½ of SW ¼, Section 20, Township 119, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota.(Rockford Twp.) Owner: Bank of Maple Plain Tax #215-100- 203200 Requests a v ariance of the mining reclamation standards under Section 727.7 to allow for a reclamation which is not back filled to a surface which will result in gently rolling topography in substantial conformity to the land area immediately surrounding and a variance of the 10 foot water depth standard. Present: Adam Ripple, Attorney with Rinke Noonan A. Schermann stated action needed is on Findings. Kryzer informed the Board there was action to close the public hearing on August 7. Yesterday, at 4:15 p.m. there was a submittal received from Ripple. It is the Board s procedure once the hearing is closed, that they do not accept further documents or testimony unless they re-post and re-op en the hearing in order to consider that information. The action before the Board at this time is to adopt the Findings. Board members can ask questions or make revisions on the Findings. B. Schermann asked the Board members if there were any questions. C. Quiggle responded that she has issues with a number of the Findings. One is that it says they wan t to b y-pass the reclamation process, but it is actually that they are requesting to alter it and end up with a different result then what is allowed in the Ordinance. # 3 States they acquired the mining operation with full knowledge of the regulations and as stated in the CUP. That is not a reason for denying the variance, as Kryzer knows in the case of Myron vs. Plymouth, knowledge of the land use ordinance or conditions when someone acquires a piece of property is not reason for denying a variance. The Findings also say there is nothing unique about the property, but this owner acquired it through foreclosure ; they did not purchase it. Happens to be in a location where the hydrology is suited to wetlands. She has a problem with the Findings as she finds they could be arguable. D. Ripple asked to address the Board. Schermann indicated he could not accept comment because the public hearing was closed. E. Aarestad moved to adopt the Findings & Order for Denial as prepared. Schermann seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED, Quiggle opposed F. A signed copy of the Findings was served on the applicant s representative, Attorney Adam Ripple.
Page 3 2. GORDON P. WIGDAHL Cont. from 8/7/15 LOCATION: 7106 6 TH Street SE Lots 11-13, inclusive, Charlotte Shores, according to plat of record, Section 5, Township 119, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. (Rockford Twp.) Tax #215-013-000110 Requests a variance of Section 502.2 & 605.5(3) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to build a 1,392 sq. ft. garage and mudroom addition onto a dwelling that is 53' from the ordinary high-water mark of lake to deck (65 ft. to living space). Proposed addition to also be 10.33 ft. from the side property line. Present: Gordon Wigdahl & his contractor, James Sale A. Rhineberger stated revised plans were received. The garage was reduced by 11 (26 x 28 ) for a two-car garage and is shifted to the west 12, meeting the setback from the side line. The house addition (mudroom/entry) was discussed at the previous meeting. This is a very large addition onto a structure that does meet the lake setback. B. Wigdahl informed the Board he met with Dan from the Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) at the site. They discussed the drainage issues and are now looking at doing something with the culvert to rectify the situation. Rhineberger added this is not paramount to the request; however as the Board is aware, there have been drainage problems in this neighborhood. He felt if the garage were detached, that might have more impact on it. C. Aarestad felt the request was practical, not as excessive and now meets setback. Quiggle felt the revisions addressed her concerns. Mol and Schermann agreed with the revisions. D. Quiggle moved to grant a variance of Section 502.2 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to build a garage and mudroom addition according to revised plans marked Exhibit A held on file, onto a dwelling that is 53' from the ordinary high-water mark of lake to deck (65 ft. to living space). Revised plans for addition will be very close to meeting the 15 side yard setback but may need a minor variance. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 4 3. AMY & JAMES ROHLIN New Item LOCATION: 375 25 TH Street SE Part of the E ½ of the SW ¼, Section 18, and also part of the NE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 19, all in Township 119, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Rockford Twp.) Owners: Applicant and Carlson Tax #215-100- 183400; 215-100-183100 & 215-100-192103 Requests a r eview and alteration of Board order granted in 2000 as regulated in Section 502.2 & 604.2, 604.6(4) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance. Proposal is to attach an additional 5 acres (approximately) from Tax Parcel # 215-100-183100 to 215-100-183400, creating an approx. 24 acre parcel. Present: Applicant not present A. Rhineberger informed the Board the applicant had a conflict and could not attend, asked for continuation to the October meeting. B. Schermann moved to continue the hearing at the applicant s request to October 2, 2015. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 5 4. JEFFREY E. FISH New Item LOCATION: 17844 45 TH St. NW Lot 11, except the SWly 20 feet, Sunset Terrace, according to plat of record, Section 7, Township 120, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Francis French Lake Twp.) Tax #209-000-000110 Requests a variance of Section 302.(146), 405, 502.2, 605.5(3) & 612 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow replacement of existing 24 x 30 one -story dwelling with a partial basement that is 54' from the Ordinary High-water Mark of Lake and 6.5 ft. from the side property line with a new move-in 24 x 30 (720 sq. ft.) dwelling with a full basement that would be 65 ft. from the O rdinary High-water Mark of lake, 8.8 from the property line. Proposed deck to be 56 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of lake with a 3' s ide deck for entry to be approximately 3' from the side property line. Property is currently served by a holding tank with the full basement being expansion on a holding tank. Present: Jeff Fish A. Rhineberger displayed the location map for lot on Lake Francis. The replacement structure would be moved in and include an addition al 100 sq. ft., open porch and a full basement. Reviewed the changes from the structure that exists. Although a site visit was not made, setbacks would be verified by the building inspector. In addition, a Planning Commission hearing would be required to move the structure in and at that time the structure would be reviewed for building code. The Board is to determine if the size can be allowed with proposed expansion by 240 sq. ft. in a basement area under the open roof area. The pictures of the existing structure were viewed showing the structure is a walk-out basement. The new structure will also have a walkout basement. This house is served by a holding tank. Lake s etbacks are to be improved with 56 to deck & 66 to the house. Currently the wall of the house is sitting at 54 from the lake and the deck was added on at some time, but could not find a permit for that. Applicant is not necessarily looking to replace th e deck since everything is being moved back. Access was pointed out along with a walkway along the side yard that gives enough room to swing a door open (3 setback). Noting stairways and lifts are permitted encroachments, but was listed because it is going through a variance. Town Board response was signed by Grangroth; the Town Clerk also responded on a neighbor notice rather than the Township Response Form. B. Fish noted on the entrance side where a 3 side setback is requested, there is a ravine on the adjoining property. No structure could ever be built close to that line. Although he could move the structure 5 over, that puts him closer to the neighbor on the other side. Rhineberger agreed the adjacent lot with the ravine is owned with another lot and would have to stay together under current Statute. C. Quiggle asked what are the limiting factors for a holding tank? She asked if the applicant investigated alternate sewer treatment systems. Fish he understands that the lot is too small to support it and the holding tank is the most cost efficient. Also, the location of the kitchen in the new house is on a different end. Quiggle explained it is rare they allow
Page 6 expansion on a holding tank. There has to be something extr aordinary and cost is not one of the criteria. She suggested this should be explored. D. Mol agreed the holding tank is a primary concern. This will have a full basement and although this owner may only use the property seasonally, the next owner may use it year around. Because t his is almost new construction, is there a chance to meet setbacks. He noted this structure seems to line up with some of the structures from the lake, but a couple are closer to the lake. He asked if there is wetland in the backyard. Rhineberger stated the picture was taken the day after the holding tank was installed. Fish noted that picture was in 2011 when the holding tank was installed. Mol agreed the holding tank is a major drawback. E. Aarestad stated he can understand why they are hugging one side of the lot. He also expressed concerned that this is a new structure on a holding tank and how future owners might want to use the property. Fish stated the property ownership would pass to his children. F. Rhineberger stated the further back the structure is moved, the expansion is less likely. With the holding tank there is more room. It is possible to meet the 75 setback with a different arrangement or rotating the structure. From what he is seeing, a Type IV sewer system would need variances. There is only 170 in depth and the area was outlined that was needed for the house and felt 40-45 is available for a house and meet setbacks. G. Quiggle noted one of the criteria the Board has to look at is whether this is unique to this property. She did not find that it is unique, as the applicant answered in his application, in that there are a number of small lots platted along here with fishing cabins built and now owners want to expand residences served by holding tanks. It becomes increasingly difficult to hold to the Ordinance and tell others they cannot expand. That is the reason the unique situation is applied by legislation. H. Fish stated the foundation is pushed in. Quiggle noted they can rebuild exactly what they have, the question relates to whether expansion can be allowed. I. Schermann concluded the consensus was not to allow expansion on a holding tank. Rhineberger asked if the applicant would want to explore other options. Does not appear the Board is receptive to expansion, but could replace exactly what exists. The same living space/footprint would not need a variance. The other option would be to explore a treatment system and a new application for that would not be required. Fish agreed to explore the sewer. Rhineberger indicated possibilities might be a sewer, moving the structure back and looking at whether they could use the existing tank and consideration of some variances for a treatment area. Fish agreed to lay the matter over asking for a continuation to November. J. Schermann moved to continue the hearing at the applicant s request to the November 6, 2015 meeting. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 7 5. BILL J. UTER- New Item LOCATION: 5599 20 TH Street SW Part of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 7, also Part of NE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 18, all in Township 119, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Marysville Twp.) Tax #211-000-182101 OWNER: Merryville Farm Requests a variance of Section 405, 502.2, 604.5(2) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance and 8.003 of the Wright County Feedlot Ordinance to allow expansion of a non-conforming use. Proposal is to construct 90 x 96 and 32 x 34 additions to an existing building that houses animals. The addition that measures 90 x 96 to be in line with existing building at 45 ft. from centerline of a township road ; the addition that measures 32 x 34 to be built on the backside of the existing building. Also proposed is the expansion of the feedlot to more than 500 animal units, 700 ft. from the nearest neighbor. Present: Bill Uter, Tracy Janikula, Feedlot Officer A. Rhineberger reviewed the property location. After further research, the portion of the request related to Section 8.003, expansion over 500 animal units is not needed. In this instance there are some provisions in the Ordinance allowing the expansion. The 90 x 160 barn was permitted in 1994 at 65 as shown on the permit, however, when measured, the structure is 45 from the center of road. There was and is no inspection of an Ag building, so the setback was not discovered. The proposal is to build an expansion to animal building that measures 90 x 96, along with a 32 x 34 on the north end. The addition to the side is an extension, the same height and will match the existing building. He explained they do not require building plans for an Ag building. Town Board approval was received. B. Uter explained the 32 x 34 area is an extension of the holding area/milking parlor. This extension of the building is a free-stall barn for housing animals. They need more room to house animals. Janikula pointed out on the photo the building that would be removed. C. Robert Hausladen neighbor present questioned the location. With additional animals he was concerned about the additional odor and runoff. Uter explained they are not doubling the number. Total of about 580 animal units is proposed. Janikula explained animal units is 1.4 animal, allowing a herd of up to and around 300 head. Kryzer asked how the manure is handled. Uter stated they use a holding storage method. It is a closed drag hose system and is pumped twice a year. He indicated the odor happens when the pit is stirred and gives off an odor for a couple days. Hausladen noted they have a fair size herd for the amount of land they use. The applicant has to rent a lot of land in the area for spreading and asked what would happen if these people don t want to accept the manure on their land. Uter explained they have to be in compliance; only so much nutrients allowed on the land they spread. They have written agreements and are trying to purchase some of the land they are renting. Hausladen noted calf pens that slope toward the road where waste can run into wetland this eventually drains to the river. Uter stated there is no runoff, calves are in hutches that are lined with hay that gets disposed of. Hausladen indicated his
Page 8 concern is that the increase the herd would result in more smell and eventually devalue his property. D. Mol asked why when the original building was built was it so close to the road when it appears by the photo there was room. He has always been supportive of agricultural uses and the farmer, but when someone builds closer than what it was supposed to be 65 from the road, that is a concern. If the building would have met the setback, they would not be here for the variance today. Is there any other way to build behind, this is the holding and feeding area? Uter at the time the building was built, they were trying to utilize existing buildings and it was the only place to put the facility because of the topography. It is low to the west and a steep to the north. The reason for putting a new barn structure here is efficiency, otherwise it would not be feasible. Explained the location of this expansion allows him to tie into the existing manure management system. E. Schermann his problem with this is they were supposed to have complied with a 65 setback and difficulty allowing expansion to a building when the Ordinance was not abided by. Rhineberger stated he and Janikula were not on Staff in 1994, but could relay at that time the Staff did not have the aerial photography to confirm distances. If that application would have come in today, they would have known there was a problem and sent him for a variance. As technology has gotten better, now they can tell the applicant it would not meet a setback. Schermann the applicant should have made sure it was met. F. Aarestad felt 20 is a big error and even after the explanation he does not know how that could have been overlooked. He has some serious reservations about adding on. G. Quiggle felt it is unfortunate it was not built where it was supposed to have been; and if it were, this would not be before them. She understands the topographical problems that would have located this. Uter stated he understood his family went to the Township for this building. Rhineberger stated the Town Board did not have the authority to allow it. Noting Schermann was on the Board of Adjustment at this time. Quiggle this is a town road and maintained by them. They have no objection or state any safety issues in the twenty years the building has been there; and with that, could go along with the expansion. H. Mol he was not stating he would not approve the addition, but questioned how it got there in the first place. Apparently the expansion would not have a negative impact on the community. He does not like the fact it was built too close, but could go along with the expansion. Schermann concurred with Mol, that there is no way to correct it. I. Jones questioned how the owner can come in for a permit and no one checks on the building. At this point does not matter if building was built too close was intentional. It is a concern adding on this much footage. Janikula as Rhineberger noted there was no Staff person to check it. Schermann asked why have an Ordinance when no one checks on it. Mol as in his Township in 1994, there were local Building Officials that were supposed to start the permit and check on it, but there were conflicts with some people going to the County. Rhineberger recalled the local building officials who were starting permits and supposed to check on these things. The County Staff would have to check things on the
Page 9 paperwork submitted and details were not complete or adequate. That could have happened here, Marysville Township had one of the last Officials. He explained even though there are not building code requirements or inspections for Ag buildings, there are zoning permits required and setbacks that apply. Schermann felt it is not pertinent why and how it got there, the structure is there and now the Board has to decide on the expansion. J. Mol moved to grant a variance of Section 405, 502.2, 604.5(2) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of a non-conforming use. Proposal is to construct 90 x 96 and 32 x 34 additions to an existing building that houses animals. The addition that measures 90 x 96 to be in line with existing building at 45 ft. from centerline of a township road; the addition that measures 32 x 34 to be built on the backside of the existing building. Township approves. Quiggle seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Rhineberger suggested a condition include that in lieu of plans, the building to be of like size and appearance with what exists. Mol amended his motion, Quiggle her second, that the addition must be in like size, appearance and color as the existing building. VOTE: CARRIED, Aarestad opposed
Page 10 7. ORALYN K. & PATRICIA A. FISCHER New Item LOCATION: 12501 State Highway 24 NW SE ¼ of Section 29 that lies in Wright County; also N ½ of NE ¼ and part of S ½ of NE ¼ and Government Lot 1, that lies kin Section 32; also, the N 8 rods of NW ¼ of SW ¼, Section 33, all in Township 122, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Clearwater Township) Tax Parcel #204-100-294400; 321100; -321400; & -333200 Property owners: Applicant, Adams & John Fisher Requests review of divisions on a cart-way and available entitlements as regulated in Section 502.2 & 604.2 & 604.6(4) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance. Present: Pat & Oralyn Fisher; represented by John Peterson, their attorney A. Rhineberger outlined the 246 acres above water that are owned by the applicant and other family members. The only access is a 66 wide cartway that was recently awarded through a Court action providing access off State Highway 24. The location of the cartway was pointed out on the air photo. Statute allows dedication to the public but the Township is not required to take it over for maintenance. The proposal is to extend the cartway and whether there can be divisions of the property. All parties have signed off on the application. How the proposed divisions tie into the cartway was reviewed. There are two options to be considered and one requires a longer extension and construction of the cartway. Rhineberger explained how the cartway would be considered public right of way and that anyone could drive on it. The division of entitlements is part of the consideration. There is an existing farmstead and potential for five additional entitlements. In 1981 a parcel was sold and is owned by someone else, it did require road frontage and a deed restriction but that was not done; and the two entitlements cannot be transferred because it is no longer under common ownership. Parcels A, B, C & D, would each have an entitlement. Parcel F would not have an entitlement but would have an owned strip so it would have access. Parcel E is the parcel with two entitlements and under separate ownership. Along with the entitlements, there is an access strip to the lakeshore. Also, there are some easements needed to get around some wetlands. B. Johnson stated he was contacted by the parties a few years ago because they were landlocked. There was some extensive litigation and it was resolved in the owner s favor. The proposals before the Board is the result of several meetings with Staff. Some of the history in the written application explains why E was sold. The land was s old years ago, and like many farms, the original owners deeded parcels to the children. The location along the river and being landlocked makes this unique and they could not use the property without getting a cartway. The Fishers can dedicate a cartway as a quasi-public road, or public right of way and Township does not have to assume maintenance. The applicant is perfectly fine with private maintenance. There are two proposals and their preference is Option 1. They discussed both options with the Town Board. The difference is the length of the cartway. The c artway shown on Option 1 is not extended as far west. Kryzer indicated there is about 300 length difference. Map was displayed to show this and the differences.
Page 11 C. Quiggle asked, does the Board have any interest in maintenance agreements for this cartway. She noted there would be future own ers that have to maintain this and to prevent someone from being lan dlocked because of lack of maintenance is the concern. Rhineberger indicated the Board can impose any conditions that are in direct relation to the variance. Divisions are subject to t he AG division standards in the Ordinance, 40 acres or ten acres or less. Access strips are only allowed to preserve agricultural land. D. Peterson they have talked about a maintenance agreement with the owners to share in the cost because they are not requesting the Township to take over maintenance. Anyone taking over the property would be aware of a maintenance agreement, insurance etc. Kryzer another con sideration is construction of the road and to what ever standards are spelled out before any divisions are made. Jones he is concerned that this cartway may not be safe unless they have s tipulations on width and adequacy to make sure emergency vehicles, etc. can be supported. Johnson even dedicated 66, most Town roads are not built the entire 66 in width, but typically 22-24. Rhineberger don t want to get the Township in a situation where they would have to assume responsibility. Kryzer Statute says the Township cannot be required to maintain it. Rhineberger conditions of construction design is what the Township would sign off on; otherwise, the question he has is what standard to use for the base and width so we know it is adequate. Suggested without putting the Town Board in a position for maintenance, could a representative sign off it is adequate. E. Schermann asked how the y address if one of the owners were to sell a parcel and the new owner wan ts to build. Rhineberger the Board could set the co nditions. More than one house raises some concern about access. Do they want 6-7 homes back on a goat path? Townships have specific standards on their roads. Schermann asked about lot E? Rhineberger it is a sister-in-law that owns that and she may want to sell that parcel someday. Peterson attempted to get an extension of the legal access and ability to sell property they have. They are not opposed to restrictions such as issuance of the second building permit. A requirement for a town road standard might be excessive. F. P. Fisher Parcel E can t be sold because she is landlocked. The rest is owned as undivided interest with Oralyn s brother. What is driving this is that the brothers need the ability to separate their interest so they can sell something. His brother needs to raise some cash. No one really wanted to sell anything because they wanted this land for hunting purposes. G. Mol any possibility in the future this could go into an A/R district. He questioned if this gets added to the Plan and a PUD is proposed, can they write into the agreement that the road would have to be dedicated to the public and become a town road. P. Fisher let future owner s pay for that. Mol that may have to be written into the agreement so the County or Town Board does not get blamed for not requiring Town road standards. H. Peterson AG subdivision might have been done prior to 1978. Rhineberge r - reviewed the Land Use designation is Resource Lands ; and although it is not designated for A/R, it does not mean an A/R could not be designated in the future. In that scenario, the cartway would have to become a public road and meet those standards. Schermann asked who would be
Page 12 responsible. Kryzer it would be the applicants of a development that would p ay the costs of a public road. Jones asked, could there be covenants. Peterson it would be a driveway/maintenance agreement. Any future development would be separate. Rhineberger unless there are conditions of this action, the maintenance agreement is not something the County would enforce it would be between the parties, I. Schermann asked if action is needed to approve the cartway. Rhineberger no that is statutory. He reviewed what they can do, establish the cartway and sell the pieces as owned, provided each 40 acres has 300 wide on the cartway. The variance is needed because of the strips and parcels that are not full 40 s and following quarter-quarter lines. They do not want to sell it the way the Ordinance would allow it. Using the maps he described how the land could be divided without Board approval but the owner s do not feel it is a good way to separate the land. Schermann confirmed the location of entitlements. Quiggle that is the designation of them for these boundaries. J. Peterson t he applicant made the petition based on the number of entitlements and going to the Township and addressing this scenario. Schermann confirmed the Option and action requested. Peterson Fisher is asking for Plan 1 and Plan 2 is what Rhineberger is showing on the screen. Rhineberger for the divisions to place the cartway has to be developed as proposed. A sked for clarification on the Plans, E has to have two entitlements. P. Fisher stated that was her note on the Plan. He summariz ed the options. Kryzer Staff was recommending Plan 2 because with parcel E if you have only 300 on the access strip you are limiting what can happen with the number of entitlement s. By extending the cartway all the way over to D the y can fully utilize the entitle ments. Rhineberger explained with Plan 1 in order to use both entitl ements, that owner would have to come back to the Board. They cannot do it on the quarter-quarter line. Mol if it is not extended they could not split it with D? Rhineberger noted pa rt of the request is to provide a 33 wide owned strip and that would give it access. P. Fisher which is the same as the strip to F. Peterson difference between Plan 1 and 2 is the cartway would have to be extended to use the second entitle ment on E. The length increases the cost of the cartway. Schermann why not do it righ t away. O. Fisher explained on parcel D there are two hills and some drainage that adds much costs in the development of the cartway further back. P. Fisher the drive goes that far back now. Peterson the Board could impose conditions and they would not build the second one without coming back to the Board and extending the 33. K. Aarestad he would like some standard established for the road because safety is an issue. Having a cow path is a real concern and don t want problems in the future. Rhineberger questioned the timing of when that has to be done. Aarestad before a house gets built on C, D or E. He is flexible on the tim ing, but felt they should have something to implement that. Peterson suggested when the Township approves the road. Aarestad agreed, he would be comfortable with that. L. Quiggle she would also be concerned about the base and physical structure of the road. She did not think 66 wide road is necessary. J. Peterson agreed, typically the hard surface is only 22-24, but the dedicated width is 66 in case the Township ever takes it over.
Page 13 M. Mol when the Town Board reviewed this they looked at Plan 2 because they talked about the hill and creek, to provide access and get this done right the first time. Aarestad, Jones, Quiggle and Schermann concurred they would agree to Plan 2. J. Peterson suggested they construct the road according to Plan 1 until such time as the house is requested on E and then the road has to be developed to that point. Rhineb erger suggested they require it at the time the second entitlement is used on E, because there could be the situation where they end up using only one entitlement. Otherwise, the condition would require it for the first house. N. Schermann summarized the consensus was to approve Plan 2, but construct the cartway to Plan 1, until such time building the second house back on Parcels D or E is requested. O. Mol moved to a pprove Plan 2, marked Exhibit B, as presented by the applicant for establishment of the cartway and proposed divisions of the property. Entitlements to be assigned as follows: one entitlement to each of Parcels A, B, C & D, with two entitlements be assigned to Parcel E ; Parcel F is to be restricted land on a dedicated owned access strip to the cartway, with no entitlement. The dedication of the cartway according to Plan 2 is required on or before any transfer of title. I mprovement of the cartway as shown on Plan 1, Exhibit A, must be built to the satisfaction of the Town Board and determined to be passable for road and safety standards, but not required to meet township width standards, prior to any dwelling being constructed on Parcels B, C or E, ( improvement of cartway is not a requirement for Parcel A because it has an existing house and can be replaced). Further, improvement of the cartway must be extended to meet Plan 2, Exhibit B, held on file, prior to entitlements being used on Parcel D or the second entitlement on Parcel E. Township to provide approval of the engineering and approval of the final road construction prior to issuance of a dwelling permit. Schermann seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Aarestad would the school bus go down there or would the mail boxes be at the end of the cartway. Peterson indicated that would be on Hwy. 24. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MINUTES On a motion by Jones, seconded by Mol, all voted to approve the minutes for the August 7, 2015 meeting as printed. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Rhineberger Planner BJR:tp
Cc: Board of Adjustment/Kryzer/Applicant/owner/Twp. Clerks Board of Adjustment Page 14