001to be discussed and decided today. Is that my understanding, Mr. Anderson? >> That's good. Yeah. Can you hear me? Um, let me just see what's going on. I got to make sure Heat. Heat. So, it looks like um Grace sent information um yesterday afternoon at 4:27. Is that the information that you're referring to? Oh, we said don't. >> And then the resolution, Mr. Anderson, came from you at 556 yesterday. Did you not have a chance to read it? >> No, there's several of them. That's why. >> Which one are you? >> I'm not sure. >> I worked last night. So, I haven't had a chance to review any of this information. >> Is that we're going to take the time this morning and have time for everybody to read that? >> We will be going
002through it. Yes. And uh it is up to you to come prepared. So >> yes, >> I just want to make it for the record that that's why it's difficult to come prepared when the documents were sent at 5:00, Mr. White and I worked last night till 10:30. So I apologize for not having read these. >> All right, we'll call this meeting to order. purpose of business. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, welcome everyone. Uh this is a special meeting. So here uh are only uh the items only the items listed on the agenda will be considered at this time. Let everybody know we have uh uh
003Kim Lenquist here with us from WSB. We also have Jason Hill and Jason Kubachek are two attorneys with us here on Zoom. Um, with that I am going to turn it over to Vern Anderson, chair of the planning commission, to make opening statements and uh, explain what is being uh, presented to us today. >> All right, Alan, thank you. Uh since 2001, many discussions were had and funds were approved to update the 2015 zoning ordinance, but no action was taken until this planning commission began addressing it. Following several months of thorough review, numerous public meetings, and a properly noticed public hearing, the planning commission has decided to recommend the draft comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and maps of the town board. Our studies address various topics including zoning, lake septic systems, lot sizes, and water quality
004from a range of sources. All updates over the past months, including WSB memos, have been emailed to the town supervisors, shared at public meetings, and posted on the township website. The Minnesota DNR statewide shoreline management rules were last updated in 1989. In the past 37 years, a lot has changed with our lake shores. The management act directs local governments such as townships via state regulations to preserve quality water quality and shoreland values of the township's 21 lakes. As planning commission members, we support zoning regulations that protect farmland, forest, and water quality to future generation so future generations can enjoy our landscapes and community. Our aim was to balance development with environmental stewardship while preserving the town's rural character. Reducing density can promote improved water quality and a more natural shoreline. As stewards of the land,
005we have a responsibility to manage it wisely and ensure its preservation for future generations. In conclusion, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation and thanks to the members of the planning commission, Kim Wquist and Grace Lukenwis of WSB as well as Jason Hill of Town Law Center and Jason Kubach of Iverson Law. This undertaking has been substantial requiring significant collaboration to reach this stage. I am grateful for everyone's commitment commitment and diligent efforts. The planning commission hereby submits for consideration the draft comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and accompanying maps of the town board. These documents are designed to enhance the protection of Windmir Township's natural resources, agricultural land, and rural character. We respectfully request your timely approval. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Vern. Uh Jason Hill, Grace, are you able to hear everything?
006Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Very good. And is Jason on? >> I am. You are. My camera. >> Very good. All right. Thank you all. And uh at this point uh there have been some uh slight changes that were made uh for a couple reasons. just some small corrections that were made in the ordinance as well as some things that were in uh arriving at the agreement with um um our the attorneys and the uh uh Summit Commons lawsuit. So, Kim, can I turn it over to you at this time and we will go through uh this is the memorandum. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, there's really two different memos. One uh relates to the DNR and one has general draft ordinance recommendations. And actually, I want to be clear, the uh the ordinance
007in front of the the board right now is the recommended um 20 uh the recommended one from the planning commission. So, that's the base that we're working with. And then we've got these memos that list out some um potential changes should the board choose to adopt those additional modifications. So we um at this stage of the game, it's the planning commission recommendation is is the one that um the board's taking action on. So I wanted to start just briefly with the DNR recommendations. Um, I think many of you are aware that there was uh litigation and that there was uh modifications that were embodied in the planning commission recommended approved draft ordinance that um ultimately were not found favorable by the DNR. Uh so the DNR um as many of you know the the township
008is required to be um as restrictive as the DNR and the county pine county ordinance. So we can be more restrictive but we cannot be less restrictive. And so after forwarding the planning commission recommended ordinance, they gave us feedback about a variety of items that were not consistent with Pine County and the DNR. And so you will see in the memo that there are several items that were we're recommending modification to based on the DNR requirements so that the DNR can approve our ordinance. And I know that there's people who feel like maybe we don't have to have the DNR approve the ordinance, but in fact, we do have to have them approve the shoreline ordinance. So, I'm looking at the DNR comments response memo that I'm just going to quickly walk through them. I
009don't think they're overly ownorous. Um there was some request to um make sure that our PUB section is consistent with the verbiage in their PUD section which required us to uh put in campgrounds instead of recreational vehicle parks. So um that's one of the changes that's underlined. Additionally, in the uh summary table 3.6, 6. Even though that's not in the shoreland ordinance, they requested that we uh put a footnote in for the commercial um the 90% imperous surface, which um is not consistent with the shoreland, and requested that we in fact note that it is not in the shoreline that allows those standards. And so we put that in. And then the other changes you can see afterward are the tables of allowed uses. Um these were probably the area of the most conversation because
010of the settlement. Um we needed to remove expansion of campgrounds and manufactured homes um as condition of uses. So what the um requirement is is that they need to a campground or a manufactured home park needs to apply for a PUB which is a CUP process but it there the PUD has specific design standards and elements that have to be applied for any approval. And so they were concerned about um how and now it's been modified and um this would be found acceptable. So, those are the changes that we would propose in the ordinance and request the board when you ultimately approve the ordinance if you should um to make make note of those requested changes so that the we can meet the DNR and the Pine County standards. >> All right, questions. >> Where's
011the footnote? Who are you referring to? It's under commercial CI commercial number six. There's an underline under it. >> You're on the right chart, >> right? I see the six. So, where do I where do I look to see the language that that's referring to? >> Um, it's at the top of the next page. It says all commercial lots in the Shorland Overlay district shall have maximum 25% impervious surface coverage. So, it just rolled over. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? No. I'm good. All right, we will uh >> I'm just wondering if I should uh have a motion to approve that we agree with these or just a All right, I will make a motion that we uh approve these changes uh to the Kim. Would this be this would be to the
012ordinance? Is there was there a map was there a map change on this one as well? >> No, there is. >> Uh I would make a motion that we approve the DNR recommendations uh as stated in the memorandum of April 2nd. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor say I. I >> the only reason why I will agree with this recommendation to change to the ordinance is because I received a courtesy call from the DNR yesterday to catch me up on the process because I hadn't heard anything. We went over it in detail regarding the changes and this does not impact the overall ordinance for the majority of any of you. This is directly related to the um property that Lampard is concerned with. So with that said,
013I will vote um as well. >> All right. Thank you. Motion carries. Uh next member on here. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's the April 6th memo. And this is um listed as a draft zoning ordinance and draft comp plan revisions. And again, these are um potential changes we'd like you to consider that are based off of the planning commission recommended zoning ordinance um and comprehensive plan. So, the first one you'll see we're removing the new recreation vehicle parks are prohibited. that's inconsistent with u the conversation we just had um about it uh potentially being allowed in a PV and also um outside of the shoreland and so that's an error that we'd like corrected. Um we also uh I guess is there any question on that particular item straight forward. Okay. The second
014um item is that we did have a resident reach out regarding um an accessory structure for horses and in fact they have horses and then um there was a little bit more conversation that um other people in the community have horses and it isn't specifically listed in the rural residential uh district. In fact um there is some um if you look down under 5.2 two agricultural uses excluding livestock is actually what's in the draft ordinance and was in the prior 2015 ordinance. So we are recommending adding this horses are permitted on lots larger than 20 acres and at no greater density than one animal unit per two grazable areas acres excuse me. So, we're recommending to allow people to have the horses if they're of a certain size lot acre grazable acres, which is consistent
015with the state requirements for what animals are. I can't think of the right term but um and then along with that we are adding um you know where it says agricultural activities involving livestock were prohibited except for the the exception above. So that allows the horses. >> Prior to that what had the language said >> prior to yesterday? >> It's specifically um it would have been agricultural uses excluding livestock. So we're adding we're recommending to add the parion under underline. My guess is people had horses and just people doing you know there wasn't any active enforcement. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. Go ahead Kim. So the third section relates uh similarly to the um we talked about this at the last meeting about allowing a very large structure potentially for agricultural uses. So
016uh that um ended up being settled at the 12,000 square ft of agricultural building in the R2. And so again, um, this was just an oversight in our part where we have accessory structures at 12,000 square ft require conditional use and then we're saying except for that new section. So again, last time uh the planning commission I think there was a pretty big discussion about this agricultural uses get more accessory structure uh that was settled at 12,000 square ft. Um but yet we um it was oversight on staff's part that we didn't uh recognize that in the ordinance and so anything over 1200 would have needed a condition of use and we're just accepting that out. >> Okay. So this says 1,200 accessory structure with a floor area of 1,200 except as permitted under 33.
017>> All right. >> What does section 33 say? That's the section that we added about the 12,000 for the agricultural use. >> All right. >> No, I don't and I don't have time. Go ahead. >> And then uh the next one is um again um an oversight on our part. We had changed the front yard setback in a variety of locations. Found one that we had changed um and it's supposed to be 20 ft. So, uh just struck out the the 30 and put in 20 so it's consistent across the ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Number five. Um these two sections are related to the settlement agreement and were discussed um at the joint meeting. Uh these are not in the shoreland. Oh, I'm sorry. Wait. >> Within the They are within the shoreland
018and they are um recognizing existing manufactured homes and existing campgrounds. as pretty much specific to the settlement group. >> Correct. >> And then number six is um removing the strikethrough language. So the area in number six um it's generally section 14 which is an administrative section related to the planning commission composition and operation. And this section um initially was a new section. Our uh attorney had provided a lot of the administrative um sections really from a kind of best practices standpoint and not necessarily took in all of the uh nuances of the 2015 ordinance. And so the modifications that are before you um in this section 14 are more reflective of the 2015 um language and how it was set up. So there's the replacement for example the board of appeals is now is instead
019of the town board is the planning commission or it talks about the commission member being removed for a majority vote. So these are um generally administrative topics associated with >> what was added then though there's red here and underline. >> So the underline is the added um >> is the added language. Correct. Is the red meant to be there or is that just kind of a um >> it be the printer? >> It's just the printer I believe. Yeah. I think it's supposed to be have any special meaning. >> So when it says that the town board shall designate the number of commissions members by resolution and may decrease or expand the number of commission members by subsequent resolution as determined is appropriate. Is not new language even though it's in red. Correct. Any questions?
020>> All right. And then there's uh just a couple of little points on the comp plan. Um and these were I think you know we've spent some time trying to kind of bring forward the comprehensive plan. um we used that as the basis for a lot of the uh conversation and kind of the start for the draft ordinance update but over time uh some of the conversation had led us to not support some of the things. So for example in number one um the the land uses in rural egg we took out um the campgrounds and the solar or wind energy farms out of the egg section. So these are just um additional modifications to the um integrated plan that >> are you reading? >> I was at page three on the bottom of page
021three of the memo >> page numbers up in the upper left there. >> Okay. And you'reware at section 14.2.3. >> Yep. Where it says draft comp plan. >> So we skipped over all of the rest of this. >> Well the section 14 was all related to the planning commission administration. Okay. There there was still some changes but Okay. >> Yes. Everything underlined. >> Yep. Okay. So, um in the comprehensive plan then we removed those items from the um egg rural egg area. Um we moved commercial or private recreation out of the forest management. >> And why did you do that? Well, after conversations at the planning commission, these items are no longer recommended for approval in the those land uses in those zoning districts. >> And when was that determination made? >> Well, it it's
022reflected in the U planning commission recommended zoning ordinance. >> Correct. But um we're I'm just looking at these strikethroughs today. So to me that indicates from late draft ordinance two weeks ago that um I read through that this has been a change since then. Is that correct? >> Oh no I think it was probably more an error on my part. >> So that you didn't catch it two weeks ago but now you're catching it >> right. Yep. Yep. >> Yeah. I mean several of these are things you know it's only 130 pages in the templ you know we try to catch the main ones but obviously every time we look at it we find some stuff >> so would these still be allowed under um if somebody went for variance or >> just they're just
023saying no. So the comprehensive plan is really a document that just is directive. Um the ordinance implements what the comp plan is. We just um are saying this so that there's some consistency. >> The solar wind energy farms weren't in the egg u like oh we should have um excluded that. Um >> sure. >> I do want to make one point though. Um, you can't get a variance for use. So, >> yeah, I'm sorry. I said I used the wrong I used I realized I used the wrong word there. Yes, you're correct. >> Yes, we probably said that a few times, so I just wanted to be clear. >> Thank you. Uh, all right. >> So, uh, the next one is in the sensitive area. this um often aligns with some of the shore land
024and we've had quite a bit of conversation about uh nonconformities and so it's already in there that current zoning regulations along a setback and on-site sewage are met and we added impervious surface because that's kind of the three that we've been telling everybody about nonformity to meet those three in the shoreland. Um and then uh further down this was just there was kind of um some of this is basically reflecting the changes that have occurred related to the settlement. Uh so um you know originally there was some conditional use permit allowed for certain types of uses and this reflects the ultimate disposition of the um settlement is is to be right now. >> Yeah that was this is all about again about the uh discussion in settlement. >> Yeah. >> Yes. All right. Um similarly
025um like the the number two about um expansion of new expansion of or new resorts. So um residential. So we have water oriented commercial. We haven't used water oriented commercial. We've got everything water oriented commercial residential district. So we're just clarifying um it's that district. So that was an error on our part and we're noting that it's the QD um which is a current process. So some of these changes again we're trying to provide more clarity um with people being >> All right. Any other questions? Not. I make a motion to uh that we approve these changes uh to go in uh to be made onto the comprehensive plan and the zoning. >> I'll second. >> All right. Uh all in favor say I. over. >> Um, again, I agree with some of the changes
026here regarding allowing horses 20 acres or larger and the fact that we need to be consistent um with the language regarding the settlement. Uh, the rest of it is a no. So, I will vote no on this. >> All right. So, I have two other areas I'd like to bring up. Uh one is that in the sensitive area uh I would like to make a change and allow home occupation one. Home occupation one is simply allows somebody to make uh jams, jellies, um uh garden of things. Uh they do not sell it at their property. It's just allows them to make the product at their uh at their home. And uh well, I can I should read this definition. Home occupation one means a non-residential use carried out on residential property which only employs persons
027residing within the home and does not require additional employees, separate employees or customer parking, in-person sale of products, exterior storage does not utilize an accessory building and does not generate a noticeable increase in traffic. Home occupations such as but not limited to architects, artists, clergymen, clothing alterations, domestic craft making and similar uses shall be classified as home occupation one. I would like to uh well I'll take them separately. I'd like to make a motion that we add that as a permitted use in the sensitive area. Do I have a second? >> I'll second >> discussion. Was this a specific request from somebody? >> Uh yes, it was. And it is uh uh just something that uh you know, I don't know if it was overlooked by the planning commission or uh just wasn't considered. Home
028occupation too is where you have a business at your home and that's uh considerably >> Well, typically this home occupation is only allowed I think agricultural. Is that correct before? Not sensitive rural. >> Uh, no. You can have home occupations in more than just the the egg, but it's a lower it's a lower level of activity, right? >> I believe it's also in the R2. It is our >> but it's nonsensitive. >> Correct. It was >> not at this point, right? Not based on the planning commission recommended approval. >> All right. All in favor say I. Overland I >> I. >> All right. Secondly, uh the forest management district uh the minimum lot size at this point is 10 acres. Uh I think to be consistent with uh egg and uh in sens uh sensitive
029area I would like to make a motion that we increase the uh lot area from 10 acres to 20 acres. >> In what area? What are you reading off of? And what was the request? >> Forge forest management. There was no request. I just think it's uh it uh is more consistent with what we're doing on the rest of the country. So, you want to increase to you have to have at least 20 acres now in order to do forestry management. >> And if you're going to subdivide your lot in this forest management area >> and and why wasn't this brought up earlier to discuss this? What what made you what brought you to this today? Uh just as I was reading through it, I as I said, I saw it. I just thought of
030what we were doing in the rest of the >> Okay. All right. So, uh I have I made that as a motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. And I voting. >> No. >> All right. Um, with that, >> considering that we're taking special requests, um, I'm going to make one more plea regarding, um, the, um, property drawing of Frankie, your property, >> the Dobasinski and Wickstrom's property. >> Yes, thank you. um regarding changing that from sensitive back to agricultural. I know there was a short time when it was deemed sensitive, but for the majority of the time that that family has been living on that piece of property, it has been agricultural. It has not changed or impacted. And we have no study
031showing direct impact at all regarding that stream that they um most of their property um falls along with. Um they have no intent. No, I I think it's binding that that property stays within their family. And I would like to make a motion that we change that from sensitive area back to Before I do anything else, Vern, do you want to address a little bit on that? How that uh whole area through there came up with this being uh sensitive? >> Oh, I would like to hear. >> Okay. >> Well, 90% of the area is is in the was special protection. And now it was renamed to a sensitive area and um so our you know the plan the comprehensive plan is asking for greater protection of that area and uh so the commission reviewed
032all that information along with our planners and uh of course the permitted uses the main permitted use and sensitive area is agriculture along with single family homes and um so that's where planning commission felt it was appropriate to finish out the remainder of the And thus we see it on maps and now the whole period is protected in that particular district. And so that's the long and short of it from the planning commission's perspective. For those of you who can see it's this green area through here that is the considered the sensitive area. Uh, as I was considering this, uh, I was trying to figure out, uh, you know, it's in a sensitive area. It's along the river. It's, uh, kind of consistent with how it follows the river area there. Um, I was trying
033to determine or see how it would impact the people who own it. uh the permitted uses are I believe almost exactly the same. >> Well, obviously the obviously it's not because there's a concern from that property owner that was a significant amount of that from changing it out of agricultural to sensitive area. What are those nuances? What are the limitations? Is it because they can't grow pot? Is that the concern? >> So what's what's the concern here? I mean, if if the if the uses are the same, then why is it that there's a need to change? And I understand that consistency seems to be the word of the day. I operate from a point of impact. And what are have we shown an impact regarding how they've been using the property? Is there an
034impact the way that they have been indeed agricultural versus subsidy? If they're the virtually the same, what difference does it make to this committee if it makes an an significant difference to the people that own it? Sure. I'm going to default back to the board. It's the planning commission did their work and we're we're done. So you guys, can you uh uh the big thing is the acres of course. >> Yeah. >> One of the things Yes. One of the things in the sensitive area is there uh is a minimum lot size of 40 acres u versus the 20 acres in agriculture. >> And what impact will that have if it's 40 versus 20? Um >> what's the concern that you're going to have a whole bunch of people living out there dividing it into
03520 acres? >> Um that uh again this was deemed a sensitive area along the way along the river. >> Well, I understand that. I'm asking you what's the reason? What's the difference if it's between agriculture incentive? You're telling me that it's primarily the same usage and the big thing is subdividing into 20. So what if it's 20 versus 40? What's the impact? What's the what's the downside to that? Can somebody answer that question for me? I think maybe Heidi just this is the last thing I'll say but when you approved the 2015 organs why did you make that area special protection along the little river and have it 40 acres that leave my question back to you >> um Mr. Mr. Anderson that was over a decade ago and I can't remember the justification regarding
036that. That's why you know what we get a little bit hopefully some of us get a little bit smarter a little bit wiser and have their feet on the ground a little bit more than we did a decade ago. >> That's my goal. I'm asking the board today. That's all I'm dealing with is today. That's my question. And maybe I've learned a little bit more since 2015, Mr. Anderson. And that's why I'm asking question. will be >> we will uh um there was a lot of research that was or research a lot of consideration that was given to this the uses that are allowed under this uh are virtually identical. Kim, have you found that yet? >> Can you read the uses that are allowed under this special protection district? Yeah. So the that is
037a flood control, forestry, nurseries, single family dwelling, public wreck, historic sites. Um so what there >> and the first one was agricultural uses, correct? >> Yeah. >> Which is which is allows all sorts, >> right? There's just um I think uh board member mentioned you know there are some things that are um increased in the egg um additional potential uses um >> like what >> there's so the first two are egg and single family. There's house of worship, home occupation, forestry and nursery, seasonal green houses, a temporary or seasonal structure for sale of egg, public parks, cannabis cultivator, operation and storage of vehicles, equipment and machinery. uh recreation facilities and then in the accessory um I'm sorry in the conditional use there's agricultural commercial activities related to agriculture such as tractor or trailer repair veterinary
038office welding seed and egg chemical sales which do not employ more than six employees. There's also borrow pits and related facilities and then a a plethora of the cannabis uh home occupation too public utilities public and private nursery schools >> and none of that's allowed in sensitive >> correct those conditional uses I said burn >> so it sounds it sounds like so there's a potential for sensitive areas to get those to be able to operate like that if in a sensitive area get a conditional use permit >> no the ones I just read to you for the agriculture >> and in order to do that you'd have to have a conditional use permit or >> you'd have to be zoned egg. Yeah. And those are not in the sensitive area. I'm sorry. >> But I
039think what Heidi is saying is the wish to do that in a sensitive area. Can you get a conditional use to do it? >> No, you could. >> They're not listed. The only conditional uses in the sensitive area are accessory structures, cemeteries, and commercial outdoor recreation. So, it does sound like there's a significant difference between the two. >> Well, there is. It's a question of some of that whether you want that operating in this area or not. >> Since you're along the river, >> there possibility of it um being operated in that area. >> Correct. >> That's correct. And I believe that's what was looked at by the commission when they recommended this. >> But the Anderson wetlands falls into >> I'm sorry, we're done. >> Flows into the Willow River. So, you all know
040the Anderson wetlands flows into the Willow River. Our Willow River does not let >> Ma'am, you're out of order. So, >> of course, because I'm speaking the truth. >> Um, all right. Um, >> so I I made a motion. >> All right. Yes, I am. >> You have to take it from there. >> I do. I am. And that's what I'm considering. So, um, as we >> Tony >> anything uh I I'm sorry I I have to stick with what the uh planning commission has recommended here. Uh I think there's been good considerations given and uh second that motion. Tony motion dies for lack of second. Next >> not yet. >> I want to these DNR letters. I don't think you printed them off but it's just the consistency letter from the DNR. So that's
041for you three board members which just talks about that they gave us a go ahead um there's some final recommendations on there once the once a clean copy's done want to see it and a year ago. All right. Um so next we will uh move into the uh consideration of the uh approval of the comprehensive plan and uh Jason uh correct me if I am wrong here. We are considering the resolution correct for the um which resolution do we wish to do first? This is the uh >> we should there's a specifically a resolution approving the comprehensive planning limits. >> Okay. Yes. All right. So, uh you have that one that is this one right here. Okay, this is a and those are the amendments we just made. Is that correct, Jason? Is that what
042it's referring to? >> Yeah, I think you can make the motion to approve the resolution approving the comprehensive plan with the any amendments that are made. >> I see what you're seeing. >> That resolution is broadly just >> broadly across everything that has been done. >> All right. So, uh, this is basically just approving the new comprehensive plan, correct? >> Yes. With amendments statute by resolution. >> All right. So, I make a motion that we uh adopt the uh resolution approving amendments to the Windmir Township comprehensive plan. Do I have a second? I'll second it. >> All right. Discussion. This is uh just approving the new comprehensive plan with the amendments that were made today. Uh discussion. >> Yeah, the discussion would be again um that the changes that are being proposed to the comprehensive
043plan but particularly to the ordinance are um are significant is an understatement. Um the fact that um and and I and I appreciate due diligence on your part that you're catching things and I and I get it, but the fact that I've had such little time to make the considerations to ask questions in my opinion to this board is embarrassing and that that and that and and frankly because the impacts are going to be so significant is frankly inexcusable >> at this time. the comprehensive plan from what I read of it the last time I was able to that was updated um and the language non was nonwithstanding today's changes um were made to match the ordinance to to so they're similar to each other um I I I again I'm stuck but I I
044have to remind myself not to be every time I come >> thank you all in favor say I >> crony All right. Our next resolution uh Jason is uh >> the resolution approving the zoning ordinance replacement of the zoning ordinance. >> All right. So, we have here a resolution and I will make this as a motion to adopt the resolution approving the repeal and replacement of the Windmir Township zoning ordinance and the Windmir Township Shoreland Management Ordinance. Do I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> All right. Again, discussion. This has uh uh the bulk of what's out in this has been out for weeks. There have been ample time to look through it. There were modifications made, corrections made uh that we needed uh to get things in line both with the uh
045lawsuit that we had and uh corrections have been made. There were uh public hearings. There were changes that were made to uh that were more uh agreeable with some that had disagreed and um uh I think we have a good ordinance here. I I am I am very pleased with it. I realize that uh not always the case. Not everybody does, but there was a group of people that looked at this for a long time. Uh I would ask any of you um you really what do you really feel is in the best interest of the township the township as a whole >> and consider and not just the few of you are here. >> Yeah. So anyway, um any other comments? >> Yep. >> Go ahead. >> Um I have a um one email
046that I thought was succinct. A couple of them. Um in in my humble opinion, again, I want to apologize. Start this off an apology. Um it's tough. You guys have really hung in there and I want to say thank you. Um even though that this board has considered the changes for they say a long time but they haven't taken into consideration are your wellthoughtout points, discussions and concerns. Um some they have they've been a little tweaks here and there regarding some of the changes the planning commission made to certain individuals like Telicia considering her change. Um but many other concerns have not been listened to. Um one person that uh there's a few people that have been very very dedicated. There's many of you that have been very dedicated. Um and and again I just
047can't thank you for showing up because that's what it takes is to show up. Um this comes from um Mr. Benzy. Um, having attended the board meetings and planning commission meetings over the last two years, I do want to comment on misleading statements made at the most recent public meeting. When the commission approved the draft ordinance, the chairperson cited multiple organizational mission statements and policies implied that the commission used those in the decision-making and that these organizations supported the severe restrictions that they have put in the ordinance. Both of those statements are misleading and they're false. Number one, none of the meetings that Mr. Benzy attended um that I've attended or reviewed the meeting minutes too of the commission over the past year have shown any discussion in pub in the in public referring to
048these organizations policies, mission statements, or any other studies or evidence in support of these restrictions. Number two, none of the quoted mission statements at the recent meeting identified any specific recommendations. And in fact, the current Pine County zoning ordinance meets the goals and missions of all of the organizations met and mission statements as was cited in the Windermir 2020 comp plan and further confirmed by ongoing DNR Minnesota pollution control and the citizens water quality monitoring. Over recent decades, the lakes continued to show gradual improvement while the township has continued with responsible residential development within shoreline zone. These are studies that go back to 1975. There have been no studies presented that show modern design on septic systems that have any effect on lake water quality than public sewer systems. Dan has been on the Windmir
049Lakes Association. He was on the pine county soil and water conservation district. He was the chair of the policy committee kettle kettle river upper sue um St. Croy wershed plan and the past chair of the Moose Lake Windmir sanitary sewer district. Another um statement which I thought was very um uh direct and succinct is comes from um Doug Craig who lives on Sand Lake and he says he understands that we'll be voting on this ordinance. Um his purpose is first and foremost to encourage you not to adopt it. Um the plan that's being recommended by the planning commission. It's not what's best for Windermir Township if you divine best as that which protects the natural resources while optimizing land value and does all this cost effectively. What is best is to adopt the 2025 Pine
050County zoning ordinance. I appreciate a lot of time has been invested in this effort, but your time will not have been wasted. The draft ordinance could be helpful when future updates are made to Pine County ordinance. I appreciate that the move to much more highly restrictive lot standards and setbacks may be considered a wise proactive action. I'm all for being proactive when the facts from science studies shows it's the wise things to do. But there are few studies done MPCA 1992 2003 and University of Minnesota 2025 show sturgeon and island lake have not experienced degradation. Again, I mentioned this earlier. Lot size did not does not directly um degrade water quality. Erosion and chemical I'm sorry, lot size does not directly degrade water quality. Erosion and chemicals do better enforcement, vegetation management, fertilizer use and
051septic systems performed and lake quality will be healthy. Adopting the 2025 Pine County or zoning ordinance is also cost-effective since zoning costs paid currently paid by 100% of winter township will be split across the entirety of Pine County. He gave comparative um table below for what are peer counties with lakes and the DNR latest model ordinance uses for lake size and setbacks. Um and cons, you know, considering the lot sizes here, both sewered and unseeded, they're significantly different compared to Aken, Carlton, Crowing, DNR, Pine. If you look at Winders, um it's just really interesting and and again, I you know, I thought about this yesterday when I was doing some enforcement cases, and it's again, it comes down to facts and and Mr. Mr. Anderson, you sent out about a week and a half, two
052weeks ago a whole list of fantastic to read studies. And again, um, uh, Karen Yuso, who's, um, is she's been attended almost every single one of the planning commission meetings today. Um, I'm sorry. Am I taking away from himself, Mr. He's taking care of business. I have a job to do. So, >> this isn't my meeting. This is your meeting. So, you talk to your supervisor. But I but I'm saying this is really you're really part of it because you are the chair of that planning commission. Anyhow, um so uh and she attended just about every meeting in 2025 and and none of these studies or or or you know information that Mr. Anderson provided, none of them were discussed ever. Not once. Not once. Um and I you know I could go on and
053on and we try to find studies about water quality and and and again um you know just the facts and again this was brought up and thank you Dan again for providing this information. Um you know again you mentioned that water quality has only improved since the 1970s. In 1993 MPCA did a lake assessment program. Um and and again even the PCA and to this day actually um develop should follow DNR shoreline guidelines and and and we are in compliance with that but we're just significantly above and beyond that. Um 2019 environmental lab trends over the past 30 years on island lake alone show stable to improving water transparency and phosphorus levels. 2022 lake association hired um Stantech Engineering to assess water quality by the lake. uh 58% of phosphorus loads from sediment only six
054only six% from direct comp contributions which means direct impact from landowners 2025 Minnesota pollution control agency from DNR lakefinder sturgeon lake for years 1980 to 2025 there was evidence of improving water clarity at this lake of approximate a foot per decade so we're we're going in the right direction here and then for island lake the same um has maintained for the most relative median clarity of 1.5 ft deeper than in the watershed median. Um there is no clear evidence at all that no um that modern design on septic systems affect quality any more than public sewers. I I want to be I want to be clear on that. You can mention all day long about potential failing um systems. Again, those are at best guesstimates. It comes down to the fact, are we seeing an
055impact? That's what I have to consider when I do enforcement. And that's the beauty of all this. We're going to have, according to two members of this board, one hell of an ordinance. I can't wait to see how we're going to enforce that. Um, so again, I just these are just a few that I can mention. Um, and again, I wish I could do more. I'm just one. I'm trying. Um, but uh the where this ordinance sits is um I I I don't quite have the word. >> All right. Thank you. I received those same two uh emails and uh >> they asked you to read it out loud or is that your intent? >> Uh no, because this was not a public comment period. >> Well, we all get to publicly comment. you which
056you get. Yes, absolutely. I'm not complaining at all what you read. >> Um, >> what I will say is that I don't know why we feel that we should want to find the lowest standard there is and try to go for that. Is that where we want to try? >> That's not at all. >> I am speaking at this moment. Please respect my time to speak. And we are, as I was saying, should we be trying to achieve the lowest possible standard? I don't think so. Yes, I received those two emails as well. And just so you know, out of the 12,300 people, residents who live here and over 2,000 land owners, those were the only two emails that I received other than on the A part. Um, >> is it in multiple emails? >>
057No, excuse me. You do not have the floor. >> Um, >> with that all right, >> go ahead. >> I always wanted to just say something. We have a unique township here. We have a 6 mile by 6 mile with the 21 legs. The process that the planning committee has gone through to create the 2026 ordinances and updating the comp plan for our township was a very detailed and thoughtful process. In my opinion, our township is very our township is very enticing to developer developers who will want to profit from our lakes and land which may not always be in the best interest of the community. But I'm fighting for our community's future. Our new zoning ordinances protects our lakes, environment, property values, and rural lifestyle. With the new ordinances in place, the planning committee
058will now be able to focus on grants that will fund critical needs like a new sewer system within our township. We need to plan for responsible growth. and our community's well-being. Thank you. >> And and I apologize for interrupting you. I should have waited. Um I am not interested in the lowest common denominator as you referenced. The DNR standards are based on years of study and we have gone above and beyond that. So if we were to let's say adopt Pine County ordinance which is clearly aligned with the DNR shoreland requirements we would not be going to the lowest common denomination approving the appeal and replacement of the Windmir Township zoning ordinance and the Windmir Township Shoreland Management Ordinance, please say I. Overland I >> crony. No. >> All right. Thank you. And with that,
059uh, I have a resolution here approving the summary language for publication of the Windmir Township zoning ordinance. I would like to make a motion to approve this resolution. Approving the summary language to go in the paper. Do I have a second? All in favor say I. Over the not >> again. I I'm looking at this now. >> It's just the summary. My >> I don't care. The answer is no. >> All right. All right. Uh Jason, uh we have this uh page here that says uh Windimir zoning ordinance. Um is that all part that's part of the summary language. Is that correct? >> Yeah. All right. >> Very good. Um and then I believe we need to come to the stipulated agreement. Is that right? Have we covered all the areas at this point? >>
060Consideration of application and escro fees. What's that? Where's that information? >> Can you table that to your next meeting, please? >> Okay. >> What is it? That was my question. >> That's what it says. It's >> perfect. That's what it says. Can you give me a little explanation of that? Um like a little bit the application espal considerations within your ordinance. So the planner will be bringing up the suggestions recommendation. What it involves is so that the township uh when someone comes in with something they want to do within zoning that the township is not stuck with the cost. It is though that the cost goes back to the person who's actually causing the uh bringing the expense to the township. >> Is not that language in the ordinance that we just approved referring to
061the escrow? >> No. >> Yeah, it's the language is in the ordinance. It's been in there for months. But so what the commission needs to do is consider the amounts and make a recommendation back to you. So this will happen at our continued meeting later today. >> Yeah. All right. Thank you. Uh so we have been in uh discussions with Summit Commons and we have come to an agreement uh with them. Uh we have a settlement agreement uh in front of us, a stipulated settlement agreement in the order. And I would like to make uh a motion that the uh township approve this settlement agreement. Second. Did I state that correctly? >> You did. >> All right. Thank you. Discussion. >> Yeah. Um, Jason, how much has this changed since the last time I've even
062had a chance to look at it? Again, I appreciate all your work on this. Just know that. But when you sent it out at 4:23, I sent an email on Monday um, yesterday morning asking where things were at and I had to leave for my second job at 4:00. I didn't get home till 10:30. I thought about checking my email, but I I just was beat. So, I got up this morning at about 8:30. I mean, I I turned on my email at 8:30 and this this settlement agreement, which is fairly lengthy, is sitting in my inbox. What What's changed since the last time I talked to you directly regarding this? What am I I I don't like to vote anything on something I haven't read even though I'm inclined to agree with the overall
063aspect of it. >> Sure. So the the last if you didn't review what was sent out uh or opportunity to review what was sent out last night. The version you would have received uh was sent out uh last week. There was a a version uh last week that went out um we had some back and forth with summit. The biggest changes that would have occurred is that um you know certain uh members uh of the planning commission uh Mr. Overland uh from the town board uh so less than a quorum of both uh of those entities did have discussions with the DNR uh the township's uh planner uh the township's attorney um and at one point I believe Summit had some representatives on that call as well of the DNR and the big thing was
064uh when we originally looked at the settlement there were some proposals by uh Summit Commons had thrown out there uh that we uh looked and as a group in our closed meeting uh had discussed um and so there was the initial draft of that settlement agreement had those items in there um and it had to do with changes in the shoreline overlook district. the particular document before you was changed after that meeting with the DNR because the DR DNR raised significant concerns of that and as you know uh our ordinance uh can be more restrictive than the DNR model ordinance or more restrictive than Pine County Shoreline ordinance but we can't be less restrictive and so we brought the DNR on board so that we could uh you know talk to them about it and
065as a result of that um we agreed um in the new shoreland or excuse me new zoning ordinance with the shoreline overlay district that the board just uh adopted that we would uh match um fine counties in the DNR model ordinance we wouldn't be less restrictive and so the settlement agreement before you withdraws what was uh originally uh discussed um and conceptually agreed to where we were going to have less restrict ictive shoreline overlay restrictions. So we've removed that out of this settlement agreement. So that's why probably compared to the prior versions you saw, there is no use chart in this settlement agreement. That was removed because we didn't want to go against the DNR recommendation and the DNR guidance. That is the the major change in this um document. So basically we were looking
066at cups and this has got to be a PUD along with the other um Go ahead. >> Sure. So we were going to have our zoning ordinance changed to have C to specifically lay out CUP. >> Yeah. >> This document doesn't instead we said no the the zoning ordinance is going to be PVS and that's what that does. This zoning or this settlement document still recognizes that these properties that issue with Summit Commons are legal non-conforming uses and it does allow for um some expansion. Obviously, they have to go through a process. Um, CUP standards, which is very similar to the PUB standards in our ordinance cuz you you need a CUP to get a PUB, but we it specifically talks about a CUP. And so, the settlement agreement would set forth a specific process
067for the Summit Commons properties. Um, we submit this settlement agreement to the district court. The district court reviews it and then the district court signs off on it. So this is what's called what we call a court ordered or excuse me a court approved settlement agreement. >> Yep. I understand that lay out their position goes before the district court who then ultimately signs off on it. >> Yep. No, I know how that works. Thank you. >> Yeah. Did I get a second motion? I did. All right. Uh all in favor of approving the settlement agreement uh between the township and Summit Commons signify by saying I. Overland I >> all right with that uh Jason Jason Kim have we covered everything >> I think that was early on the agenda >> I believe so all
068right I will accept a motion to adjourn I'll second that all in favor say I overland I >> thank you for coming