WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S (Informational) The Wright County Board of Adjustment met August 1, 2014 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, Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning Office. Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. 1. JAY A. ROBINSON Cont. from 7/11/14 LOCATION: 1780 Donnelly Drive NW Lot 6, Surfland Addition, according to plat of record, Section 26, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Maple Lake Maple Lake Twp.) Tax #210-137-000060 Requests a variance of Section 502.2 & 612 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow enclosure of 10.4 x 30.6 portion of deck into a three-season porch that exists 69 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake. Present: Kim Robinson A. Rhineberger explained the matter had been continued to allow the applicant time to meet with the Town Board. Town Board approval was given. The location on Maple Lake was reviewed and an explanation on how the deck was permitted with a building permit. The Ordinance allows the deck on a non-conforming structure administratively with a building permit as long as it is not enclosed. The applicant wants to enclose a portion into a threeseason porch. B. Aarestad asked if the existing footings are adequate. Rhineberger stated the building inspector will make a final inspection of the deck to check whether they will support the porch. The structural details would be handled through the building permit. C. Quiggle did not feel the enclosure should further impact the lake. She would want to stipulate that allowing the enclosure does not allow a future deck lakeside administratively. That would need a variance. D. Mol indicated he could support this as long as the footings are taken care of. E. Schermann understood the desire for a porch to get shelter from the mosquitoes and bugs. Schmidt agreed often these big decks are not useable and the Board has allowed similar request. He felt the proposal is reasonable. F. Quiggle moved to grant a variance of Section 502.2 & 612 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow enclosure of 10.4 x 30.6 portion of deck into a three-season porch that exists 69 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake. Prior to construction the existing footings to be inspected to make certain they will support the weight of the proposed porch. Any further encroachment on the lake would require new variances. Mol seconded the motion.
Page 2 DISCUSSION: Rhineberger questioned the Board s thoughts if they get a future request for conversion into four-season. Board consensus was that should be reheard. A fourseason room would intensify living space. Quiggle amended her motion to include: Condition: If the three-season porch is to be converted into four-season, which would be expansion of the home, a new variance would be required. Mol amended his second. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 3 2. RYAN R. NELSON Cont. from 7/11/14 LOCATION: xxx Aetna Avenue NE Part of S ½ of NE ¼, Section 6, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Monticello Twp.) Tax #213-100-061300 Owners: Gary & Ryan Nelson Requests a variance of Section 502.2 & 604.6 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow a new division with the remaining building entitlement leaving the remainder of the property with less than 300 wide on the public road. Present: Applicant not present A. Rhineberger reported that he had called the applicant after the last meeting and he was in Illinois and was the reason he did not attend the last meeting. He thought he would be in attendance today. B. Quiggle questioned if they should hear the request without the applicant. Kryzer advised that they should not. The options are to continue, dismiss the matter or recommend the development of Findings consistent with a denial and adopt those at the next meeting. He noted the applicant failed to appear at two meetings. The time frame under 15.99 was reviewed. C. Schermann closed the public hearing and directed the County Attorney to draft Findings consistent with denial to be acted on at the September 5, 2014 meeting. Schmidt seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 4 3. MARK H. BOON Cont. from 7/11/14 LOCATION: 3436 Iresfeld Avenue NW Lot 1, Block 2, Henshaw Shores, according to plat of record, Section 15, Township 120, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Henshaw Lake Albion Twp.) Tax # 201-039-002010 Requests a variance of Section 502.2 & 604.4 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance and 8.003 of the Wright County Feedlot Ordinance to allow a feedlot with ten or more animals 420 from the neighbor and add to animal shelter that is 72 from the property line. The existing feedlot exists 40 from the property line is dirt and will change to concrete with a proposed shed north of the concrete, away from the property line. This concrete will also be used for a manure storage area. Existing large barn is 82 from the property lines and is proposed to be used to raise fish in an aquaponics setting. Present: Mark Boon, John Uecker, Township Supervisor A. Rhin e berger noted the Board had discussed the matter and been on a site inspection. The hearing was held over for a Town Board s response and the recommendation was a denial with some recommendations and reasons that include road conditions, there is still some future development in progress and they recommend the buildings remain without expansion. Janikula had some discussion on manure, how it will be disposed of and an agreement was provided for lease with MJJ Farms for 80 acres where the manure can be spread. Janikula has not had a chance to review that agreement on the site by White Lake. B. Boon stated he has filled out the paperwork needed for the manure management plan. C. Quiggle asked Uecker to further explain the Town Board s position. Uecker stated that the site is very confined. When the weather does not cooperate, he was concerned with manure management. The farmers in the ar e a have large acreag es with room to handle this. T his property could change owners and what will happen in the future, who will clean it up. The wetlands here could get filled up. He had asked Janikula who would enforce violations. The larger farm operations can be held accountable, through Federal funds that can be pulled if they are not operating in compliance. The road at this point is not an issue because it is not a Town Board. Quiggle no t ed that road is to access the lake properties and not Boon s. Uecker stated there is a high er elevation that cannot be used because it is within 1000 of the lake; however, a neighbor only has to be 500. The 17 acres is a part of a plat. The Township had wanted the road to come in along the south line and the other outlot kept with this property, however, the Commission did not allow that. If it would have been developed differently there would have been adequate acreage for a hobby farm. Quiggle read the rezoning minutes and it was clear that this parcel was to remain AG and it was the developer who chose to build the road down the center rather than down the south end. That exists and it was not created by Boon. Everything in this area is zoned AG and is in the Land Use Plan a s AG. E veryone in the area understands that and the seven lots on the lake were allowed because they are riparian lots that are allowed in areas t hat are esp e c ially suited for residential development. That decision was made in 2006. Quiggle had listened to Janikula, Feedlot Officer and the applicant is working with the Department
Page 5 of AG. T he Board has not heard anything negative from the Clearwater River Watershed District, the applicant has changed up the mix of animals in response to the neighbors concerns, changed the breed of chickens, got rid of the sheep so for these reasons she would vote in favor. D. Mol sated after walking the property he has some strong reservations, one of which is manure management and water runoff going through a vegetable garden. He is in the fruit & vegetable business and there is a problem with e-coli running through that garden. There is room to move the buildings where he would not need a variance. The neighbor has animals, although they are horses. He has now show n that he has a waste management plan, but has some concerns with the plan to direct the water through vegetable gardens. E. Schmidt stated he has been involved in agriculture over 50 years and likes to support the industry, however, he does not like to force any use on property that might not be able to support it. The applicant may be trying to put too much on this site. He agrees with Uecker, that the additional land should have been part of this acreage to make a decent farm. He did not th ink you could filter this water shed, as Mol has stated. He cannot support this as proposed, forcing too much in a small area. F. Schermann was to the site and questioned Rhineberger on the restrictions for animal units on 17-18 acres. There are the deer, chick ens, Llama and how many animal units have been used. Rhineberger stated Janikula made the calculations and he is at 9, if you expand to 10 or over 10 that is when the permitting is required. The calculations and numbers d epend on the type of animal. There are distinct cutoffs for permits, a feedlot registration and more restrictions with each level. As it exists, he is within the limit without needing to regist er as a feedlot. S ch er m ann asked if the Board can place a limit of no more than 20-26 animal units rather than the maximum of 49.99. Rhineberger that would be considered a reasonable condition. G. Discussion followed on the number of animal units the applicant wanted. Boon stated he wants to buy one cow a month and he would vary them in age for a total of 30 animal units. It was noted different age, size and type of animal is calculated differently. Rhineberger stated there are two structures that would need a variance and the setback for a feedlot if he is over 10 animal units. The request is complex. Boon stated t he distance that is closer than 500 is the deer pen which is 420 from neighbor s house. He has no problem with a restriction to limit that pen to just deer. H e would not want cows at that location because it is too close to the wetland. Rhineberger noted the existing pasture would be used for the cattle. That area would also be within the 500. Boon stated the cows would not be there, that is reason for the barn. Rhineberger explained any building to house animals would need a variance here. When this gets over ten animal units, any part has to be 500 separation, even if it has been there for years it needs a variance because the animal numbers are increasing. Boon appreciated Mol bringing up the e-coli issue and he will be working with USDA on best management and he may not be able to put the garden there. Quiggle suggested an alternative could be native grasses that would have deep roots. Schermann stated regarding the liquid coming off the pad where manure would be stored, he questioned if that could be put in a confined tank, pumped and taken away. Uecker
Page 6 indicated that is possible, he has used those confinement options with a tank under th e building, however, takes additional equipment to suck the water out during wet periods. Schermann felt if the applicant would like to have an operation and he is ex ploring options how to handle the waste properly, he would be open to hearing it. He is torn on the request and felt it would have to be a better desig n and the applicant has not adequately addressed the concerns. H. Aarestad stated he struggle s with the request, felt it is too intense for the available space. The other concern raised is compliance. The fact the area residents are working on improving lake water quality concerns him also. He cannot go along with this plan. I. Schermann polled the Board as to what they are willing to consider and asked if they were open to a different plan. Mol stated he would be willing to consider a different plan. Boon asked for more time to work on a plan and with Janikula, Feedlot Officer. Schermann asked about limits on the number of animal units. He would not be comfortable with 49 animal units. He asked if a smaller number could be reached with a better plan. Boon indicated a willingness to work toward that. J. Schmidt would agree looking at another plan, but noted the applicant would need to consider the cost factor as a total confinement could get quite costly. K. Rhineberger asked if there is a suggested number. Boon has the option to decide if he wants to pursue a different plan. Janikula would have to give advice on the numbers. Quiggle noted Janikula has spoke to those numbers at the last meeting and the applicant has been working with USDA and the Feedlot Officer has not expressed a serious concern. They have not heard from CRWSD. Rhineberger noted Janikula s number was for 25 steers. Boon noted that is not head, but based on the size of the cattle for a total animal unit. Mol added, a small calf would not be counted as one animal unit. There is a potential for a 100 head if they were young stock. He noted the number of chickens that could be permitted. He could have a lot of livestock, ducks, geese and chickens. Rhineberger stated he would have to confirm the breakdown with Janikula. Mol noted the way the Federal measures is different from the State which goes by weight. Schermann felt the matter should be continued to get input from Janikula and applicant pursue the manure handling. L. Discussion on a date for continuance. Existing barn cannot be used without a variance? Rhineberger stated no. Uecker their suggestion was to modify the existing barn. The manure agreement is until 2020. Boon stated he has no problem with accountabil ity and notes he has to live here. He feels the watershed through the vegetable garden is a huge factor and he may have to move the gardens some where else. Ther e is no way he could have 49 animal units here. Rhineberger the variance from the 100 setback has not been addressed and asked the Board s reaction to that. Quiggle - stated she looks at farms in her neighborhood and the feedlots and barns are not 100 from the road. She has no problem with the setback from the road. Schermann suggested they wait until the applicant comes back with a plan. Rhineberger if the Board members have any reservations about the setback, through revisions he can address it. Uecker stated the concern the Town Board has is the proximity to this road.
Page 7 Schermann noted that is more like a cartway. Uecker explained it is platted and would eventually become Township. Kryzer stated it is a dedicated public road. Rhineberger the right of way has been dedicated to the public but the Township has not taken it over. The re is potential for impact to the future town road. Mol the concern that Uecker is speaking to is the water runs off and gets in the ditch. Unless they have a completely confined unit, there is a concern. The roof line could be designed so the water runs back. Boon questioned an extension of the roof over the concrete, with open sides and asked if that would be helpful. Mol that would help address the feedlot runoff. Uecker typically you have manure storage at the end. Boon noted the USDA could figure that out, but would not be able to review this within a month. Kryzer reviewed the t ime frame under 15.99 Statute. A waiver was an option and Boon indicated he would sign the waiver to extend the time out to give him time to consider a revised plan and obtain more facts. He noted t he structure would not be built until next year and wants to consider other options. M. Schermann moved to continue the hearing to November 7, 2014 to allow the app licant to consider revised plan on the condition the applicant signs the waiver for the time frame for a decision under Section 15.99. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 8 MINUTES On a motion by Schmidt, seconded by Mol all voted to approve the minutes for the July 11, 2014 meeting as printed. CLOSED SESSION Scott Anderson, Attorney representing Wright County stated under Section 1 3. d ( 05 ) Open Meeting Law, this body is authorized to go into a closed session to discussion strategy on the pending litigation on the Peterson vs. Wright County Board of Adjustment matter. Schermann moved to go into closed session, seconded by Quiggle, all voted to close the hearing. On a motion by Schermann, seconded by Mol the meeting was opened at 9:45 a.m. for adjournment. Vote: Carried Unanimously Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Rhineberger Planner BJR:tp Cc: Board of Adjustment County Board of Commissioners Kryzer Twp. Clerks Applicant/owners