001Hi. Do I need to be on the air? Okay, well. Yeah. I understand. Okay. Can we give them to call this meeting to order, which is a continued meeting of February 23rd, 2026. First order of business, if you're able, please stand and pledge. I pledge allegiance 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. Again, good morning and welcome. I am Carl Anderson, a member of the Planning Board. To my left is Paul Bergen, the Township Clerk. Grace Wist, WSP Planners. And then you, sir. Commissioner Amy Klein. >> Phil White, a commission member. Dick Herz commission member. And we have Jason Hill from the Township Law Center. And Kim with WMS. So, the first thing I'd
002like to do is just give you a brief introduction here and bring you up to speed on some stuff. Uh members of the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrators, Legal Counsel, the DNR, and members of the public. We are here today to conduct a property public hearing regarding the Weidner Township Zoning Ordinance, Land Use and Zoning Maps, and short-term rental ordinances. As Planning Commission members, we understand that our open spaces, clean air, and natural resources are not merely amenities. They are essential to the well-being of our Township, underpinning both our health and our local economy. We recognize the importance of implementing thoughtful zoning regulations to protect farmland, forests, and water quality, so that future generations will continue to benefit from the vibrant landscapes and strong communities. Our goal is to carefully consider the long-term effects of development
003and to recommend policies that balance growth with environmental stewardship while preserving the unique rural character that defines Weidner Township. This process allows Planning Commission to make recommendations to the Town Board, which is the final arbiter and decision-maker. With that being said, some aspects of this process has been inaccurately communicated. And we look forward to providing clarification. Thank you for the trust in this commission and for the following and for allowing us to sit with the township with this vital role. At this time, I want to turn it over to our planner, Kim Corpus, for some comments. Hi. Thank you, uh Mr. Chair. Uh could you talk louder or how I'm here. You're here. I can speak up. Uh I want to give a brief review of a couple points that we've obviously received quite a
004bit of feedback. Uh there's been a notice that went out from a property owner that was blanketed to many in the community. Um we've had information from emails that the planning commission has had that information forwarded to them, so they have that if you sent it to the Windemere Township email. That is in their packet for their information. And I wanted to just briefly run through a couple of things because there's some misconceptions about what this ordinance is and isn't. So, probably the first one we've received a lot of feedback is about non-conforming land uses, non-conforming lots, non-conforming buildings. So, there are there is such a thing as a legal non-conforming lot. So, if the property you have is currently built on, you may end up in a non-conforming situation. But, you do have buildable
005rights if you meet several criteria. And that is you can meet the setbacks, you can meet your septic requirements, and you meet the hard surface requirements. So, that's required by the DNR. That's in the 2025 Shoreland ordinance, that was in the 2015 ordinance, and that's directed by the state. So, there is um this misconception that if this ordinance passes, everyone will have non-buildable lots is not accurate. And so, if you meet those three standards, which is what you need to meet in any shoreline district, then you are still considered a buildable lot. There's also been a misconception about variances and that they're discretionary. Variances are not discretionary. They are ruled by state statute. The town board or commission, as well as any community in the state, must make findings of fact related to the state
006statutes. This isn't a discretionary thing. You need to meet those findings. And so, the the commentary that this is just a discretionary that can be withheld is not an accurate appraisal of the situation. I also wanted to just mention that we have used the shoreline ordinance for the most part that was adopted in 2025. There are some minor modifications, but for the most part, they it is the same ordinance. There were some minor changes that we'd enumerated in the memo that was in the packet. One, for example, that water accessory structures are just allowed in between your house and the water is a 100 square foot storage. That means that decks or patios or gazebos have to be behind the front plane of your house. So, that's a change from what you've seen. Regarding planning
007commission authority, there was a misconception that the planning commission has usurped the authority of the board and will be the final authority for conditional use permits and interim use permits, that's currently existing in your ordinance. So, that's from the 2015 ordinance. That's not a change that you're experiencing today. And then finally, um and we obviously there'll be many more comments, but the one thing I wanted to say was there was a concern about the cost associated with applications. Application fees, as well as what call an escrow fee. So, the town wants to get acquire escrow fees, so that they can pay consultant review, for mailing requirements, for publishing requirements, out of that escrow fee. Anything that's not used as uh for administering the application is returned to the applicant. The reason for that is rather
008than taking the funds out of the general fund to pay for development, for the benefit of particular properties, the applicant pays their own way. So, it's a fairly common process. That means the person that applies accrues those costs, they're paying those costs, rather the township in total. So, those are just a couple points that I know we've received questions about. Wanted to just respond maybe ahead of time, and then I think I'll turn it back over to the chair. Thank you, Kim. Uh at this time I will have uh Amy Bergin read the rules of decorum which we all will adhere by in this public hearing. So, thank you. The purpose of these rules is set forth and establish general decorum for all attendees of the Windemere Township Planning Commission hearing. This will allow for
009an orderly, fair, and efficient conduct of the hearing. The rules of decorum are: Please turn off all electronic before the hearing begins and public speaking speaking starts. Anyone wishing to comment is required to sign in and wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking. Each speaker must provide their name and address for the official record. Speakers are allotted 3 minutes each to present their comments. All statements or questions should be addressed directly to the commission. Attendees are not permitted to ask questions or direct comments to others in the audience. Comments must be factual and refrain from including personal attacks, disrespectful or threatening actions, or focusing on personalities. The chair reserves the right to revoke the privilege to comment if, after being called to order, a speaker continues improper behavior or remarks. To keep the
010hearing moving efficiently, speakers should avoid repeating points already made by others. Clapping or engaging in discussions during the hearing is not allowed. Last but not least, there are bathrooms downstairs if you do need to go to them. Thank you, Amy. With that being said, Bill White will run the clock for 3 minutes. He will advise at a 30-second notice before the end of the comment period is over. So, with that being said, we'll start the public hearing. And uh first on the list is Aaron Wilson. Please come to the front. I think you've answered my questions. Thank you, Aaron. Uh next would be Ron Newton. I'd like to speak during the short-term rental, if possible, because that's where my question was. Uh that would be now. Now? Yep. Well, I didn't I thought we were
011doing something else. No, it's all part of the Okay. It's all part of the process. >> Yep. Thank you, Rod. Who determines the number of short-term rentals on a particular lake? Is there somebody I know Mr. General used to do that way back when. That's one question. And I think I'm going to ask them all because of the 3 minutes that we can only have. Uh so, what's the criteria for lake? Is it by number of mailboxes, full-time residents? Uh planning and zoning I think is the one who does it. That's kind of what I'd like to know is who who determines the number of short-term rentals on individual lake. And uh I guess that's that's the question for that. Thank you. Thank you, Rod. Jason Dancy. Well, I've been I've been tracking this thing
012for a year and a half and I've still yet to see a justifiable reason for all these excessive restrictions. Um Pine County's zoning ordinance meets all state and DNR requirements. It is more in alignment with the comprehensive plan than what you are proposing. My recommendation is to adopt Pine County's zoning ordinance. Thank you, Jason. Mike Polstead. You want me to take your time. Okay. So, I've got comments on the lot size changes. Again, more restrictive than Pine County. Personally, it does affect me. My estate planning, my trust planning is all now totally off off the books. So, it affects me personally in that part. Um I would like a very concise reason behind this decision besides because 2 and 1/2 is good, 5 is better. It's been discussed previously. We all know this. Um we
013made a request as to the data and studies that support the concept. Science matters. Environmental impact statements. Looking at Pine County's 2 and 1/2 to our 5. Okay? Um I don't understand I've been given little fluid of reason science behind this. Please give us data. Again, I will say science matters matters everybody. Um I want to point out that 11.1 7.1 Johnson Lake surface use was added. Um I know we have a significant uh restriction on motors on our lake. That was established when we first bought 30 years ago. We uh actually um developed it, my husband, my son, and friends of ours to protect our lakes. We enjoy our shoreline. We all enjoy our shoreline. We all want to protect it. But, it it goes to extremes um when motorized use on open water
014was the original ordinance, that language has been removed, and now it is more vague. Okay? I know we follow those state statutes. I looked at all the statutes that you cited. I looked at everything, and it does permit certain types of motorized on environmental impact and on those lakes. Um like the use of ATVs, side-by-sides, as long as it isn't impacting environmentally. So, my concern is that because of the vague language on this particular ordinance that is put in this or not in the previous ones, could affect the person's ability to use that. We are a small lake. I've lived on it for 30 years. And there has not been that much use in the winter. You know, pop-ups, people would go down, have their time, get off the lake. There's never any permanent structures
015on that lake during the winter. So, I'm concerned that the use of this vague ordinance >> Okay. Um will affect that. Again, state planning, So, I've lived four generations in this area. I appreciate our wetlands. I appreciate them. We're all stewards of our lands. And while we're living in a different time, and we just need to get a strong evidence for these things. Now, I just signed up for another, but I can take my time, too. No. I cannot. >> It's not on this sign-in. You might choose not to talk, so. Yeah, but I also signed up. Okay, that's correct. Thank you. I'll take my time. Curtis, um I believe it's Tiano. Does that sound correct? Yes, it is. That is correct. It is Curtis Tiano. Um 36493 Pine Grove Lane. And I'm going to
016speak specific to the east side Sand Lake where my property is. Those lots were platted in 1927. And virtually all of them are non-conforming with little chance of being legally non-conforming due to the setback requirements. In the case of the lot that I own, when I apply the requirements, it has left a zero buildable land on my lot. Practical difficulty? No, I think that's practical impossibility. Assuming a variance application made based on the practical difficulty, what will ensure that equal and not disparate treatment of all applicants occurs by this Board of Appeal? You spoke about the local economy, lake stewardship. Along our road, there are four generations of families. They care about the lake. Nobody is looking to cause harm to the environment. But this isn't taken in a to the point that somebody earlier
017raised. What is the rationale for these draconian types of of rules? I appreciate the fact that as Planning Commission members, you're all volunteers. You're out of a sense of community, and you're trying to do the right thing, but I think you've overstepped. I truly do. So, thank you. Thank you. Chad Walsh Can everybody hear me? Chad Walsh, we live on uh we have a place on Sunset there. Sunset Drive, I think it is. I had a question for you folks and all the folks in here. Does anybody rent their property from you or the state? I don't think we do. We don't rent it from you guys. So, to continue to make ordinances over and over Can you hear me now? Yeah. So, the question was do we rent our property from the township or
018the state? Did anybody rent it from them? No. They continue to make ordinances over and over and more restrictive than what the county is. Does that work for anybody? I think we're all here for the same thing. You folks should be asking yourself that question. If all these folks showed up today and are not paying you rent, how are you overdoing this? Why are you overstepping? Give that some thought. Maybe we'll just all enter into a town class action lawsuit. Jacob Steen Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jacob Steen. With the Law Offices of Mark we represent several landowners at the West End of Sand Lake including DSLR, Sunny Commons LLC, Sunny Day LLC and others. On behalf of my clients we strongly object to this ordinance. This draft ordinance is unlawful in
019substance, arbitrary in application, and defective in process. And if adopted, this will result in further conflict, further litigation, and further harm to landowners within the township. The ordinance selectively downzones a small number of long-established water-oriented commercial residential parcels at the west end of this lake. Uh these are parcels that have consistently been zoned and guided as water-oriented commercial residential, and now they're being singled out with no parcel-specific findings and no rational basis or legitimate public purpose. The only justification appears to be animus towards my clients. The ordinance renders, uh as you've heard, the vast majority of properties, particularly lakefront properties, within the township as legally non-conforming to both lot sizes and setbacks. This is what the force property owners into undue un- un- necessary and unreasonably expensive processes for simple modifications or expansions. Zoning changes
020of this magnitude require a robust public process, and that has not happened here. We have consistently had, uh inconsistently noticed meetings, inconsistently timed meetings, and repeatedly canceled meetings, even up to and including at the time of the meeting itself, such as last week. The only thing that has been consistent about this public process is that it is intended to frustrate public participation, and that is unacceptable and shameful. So, we would strongly discourage you from adopting this ordinance as it exists today, and our request is simple: to proceed lawfully, transparently, and fairly. Thank you. Jeff and Lisa Jacklin. >> Hi. I've been to a couple of meetings. We've only been in the area for 10 years, three full-time. We chose this area just because we love the lakes. My husband served in the US Coast Guard,
021and we always wanted to go to a waterfront property, and we enjoy it immensely along with all of our neighbors. Um my question is we understand the setbacks. We've come to a couple meetings over the last year and a half. And my question is buildings that they will obviously be non-conforming with everything going through, if it does go through. But, if there's a tree that falls down, a fire, it's in disrepair, or something like that, it needs updating, and it's within those setbacks, will they Last year when I asked this question of somebody, they said, "Yes, you will be able to rebuild in that area, whether it's a garage, a shed, or whatever." But, I guess I'm just revisiting that question. Thank you. William and Lori. I'll first I'll go after him. Good morning. And
022good morning to everybody here. I'm really excited to see this many people out. Excuse me, can you state your last name and address? >> Oh, Lori Brennan, 39669 Rush Boulevard. >> Thank you. So, I think it's fantastic that we have this many people showing up. My question has to do with uh the lots and the non-conforming lots such as agriculture. We bought our property in 2018. It's a baker lot. Um there's five acres on each side. Well, actually there's five acres on the west that was already divided a long time ago. And then um it's five acres and five acres and and then you get to Military Road. How in the world would we ever get five acres turned into 20? Cuz that's what this that's what it says. That immediately makes our lot non-conforming.
023We hunt on our property. It's five acres. We're allowed to. How can we do 20? Our width is 330. How can we make that 660? Did you guys think about that at all when you implemented this? Approximately 90% of the people in this township, whether they're just seasonal or full-time, can't I even meet those requirements. So when you think about that um and you consider that perception is reality, cuz that's all we have to go on is the perception of this. This sounds like a power and a money grab, honestly. Am I right? Because it'll increase We'll all have to pay more fees. We'll all have to take up time to come and and do public hearings and present ourselves before the board because we'll be non-conforming lots. For for what purpose? Tell me why
024my five-acre lot where on each side of me is just seasonal people, why my lot suddenly has to be considered non-conforming because it's an agriculture land. That's the zone. And there's no way that I can make it 20 acres. Now, that's just in my case, my husband and my case. I can't speak for all the shoreline people, but I'm sure there's shoreline people here that can speak for that. 30 seconds. Thank you. So, while I appreciate every people standing up and becoming part of this commission, I failed to see any of these decisions made in the best interest of all residents. That's the perception here. It is up to you guys to prove us wrong. my time for Lori. Why here? We were able to do that before and you changed the rules again? No,
025no, no. No, it was the way it was stated. Each speaker was allowed 3 minutes. Each speaker was allowed 3 minutes. If you'd like to come and speak today, you're next. Why not? My expectation is more people talk. Noah, why? All right, Noah Klein, 19991 Evergreen Road. I've got uh two lots there and um the question I have is with the typical lot is 100 ft wide existing. It's now non-conformant. It's got 100 acres. There's a process that a house could be put back on that lot if it meets the three criteria, right? However, they're not there's not going to be a 100-ft setback side setback on a 100-ft lot, right? Yeah, the setback isn't 100 on the side. What is setback currently about? Uh I see. Can't hear. We can address that after a
026while. It's 25 ft on the side of this. So, 25 and 25, so that means 15 in the middle of the house. That is good. Here we go from But it can't be built because not to land ages. So, if you think about the number of lots throughout the township and think about what happens if someone tries to sell one of those lots and they find out about this ordinance and if there's a way theoretically that they could have a house there but it's an unknown process. It's not compliant. Think about the incredible drop in values. There's no way in my experience in real estate, there's no way these setbacks and these lots are going to stand. So, what you're proposing is a process. There's going to be a lot of legal action. It's going
027to be a lot of cost to the township, which is to us. And then at the end it'll be reversed. So, it seems to me you stand at a point here where you can take a different path. Pause. Reconsider this. You go to a judge and say we've made 93% of all the lots non-compliant. It's not going to stand. It's just a matter of time. But it's going to cost everyone both to sue and then also pay the lawyer's fees on your side. So, my request is pause the process. It's not going to work in the end anyway. And these are This ordinance is not going to stand. Pause the process. Fix them. Make them reasonable. Legal. Ones that can withstand the review of a judge. Thank you. Noah Cashman. Good morning. My name is
028Noah Cashman. I live on Sturgeon Lake. I've been here since I think 2017. Uh I'm an attorney and I'm coming to you speaking against uh implementation of this ordinance based on uh poor public policy, uh its unconstitutionality, and it's uh uh it's undue burden both on the the members of or the citizens in the township and the township itself. First of all, public policy when you zone in, the process is you take comprehensive plan, you look at it, and that includes public input in the form of surveys, and looking at the current uh development of the of the uh municipality. That was not done in this case, and I notice that and now there's some amendments to the comprehensive plan up on the uh the township website, but that's putting the horse after the cart.
029Uh secondly, uh I was up last night. I looked at virtually every lot on Sturgeon Lake from the public access down to the south side where it hits uh Short Woods at Shoreline Road. And there's only one lot that is going to be buildable. You know, our zoning administrator says, "Well, you can apply for a variance." Uh but when you take the new setbacks, the side yard setbacks, which are now going to be 25 yd, they used to be 10 yd on the street side, uh you that's supported Excuse me, feet. Uh If you look at the setback from Lake Nettie and Lake, it used to be 75 ft, now it's going to be 150. You're going to end up with lots that are unbuildable unless you go If you want to do some kind
030of expansion, you've got to do go to a variance. And so, what this is and our zoning administrator, I would say that you keep talking about the 2025 ordinance, but everybody was against that from the get-go. It's not a matter of looking back at the 2025 ordinance, it's looking either at the time county ordinance or the 2015 ordinance. So, you end up with all this property that is unbuildable. You can't do You can't do anything to You can't do anything to it without going to a variance. And excuse me, but variances and findings are are, by their very nature, subjective. And so, uh, you know, there's going to be a lot of lawsuits. There's going to be a lot of time wasted. And ultimately, these ordinances will fail. And they're, quite frankly, unconstitutional taking. Thank
031you. Dave Ellens, 34796 Laketown Road, Search Lake. Good morning, members of the board and residents of Windemere Township. My name is Dave Ellens. I'm a farmer from Madison, South Dakota. My wife, Carly, is a nurse, and we have four young daughters at home and our fifth child on the way. Recently, we bought land here in the township and built a cabin where one of the wetlands is now being proposed to be classified as a lake. As a farmer, everything we do, every long day in the field, and every late night is about building a future for our family and protecting the land we work so hard to care for. We decided to build in this area because we love the simplicity, the relaxing way of life. We don't want to change that way of life,
032we simply want to be a part of it. We want to raise our children to appreciate the quiet, the open spaces, the strong sense of community that makes this township special. I'm here today to urge you to vote against this proposal and ordinance. This ordinance is extreme government overreach, plain and simple. Good legislation should have a reason. It should have a clear purpose. It should answer the question why. What problem are we solving? What harm are we preventing? From everything I've seen, this proposal has none of that. It feels like regulation for the sake of regulation, control without cause. I previously served on the South Dakota Corn Growers Association. In that role, I spent time up here in I helped kill and defeat many harmful bills that would hurt farmers, landowners, and rural communities just
033like this one. If this ordinance were sitting in front of me in those chambers, it would be squarely in my crosshairs to defeat. Because that's what you do with bad policy. You stop it before it harms the people that you represent. What concerns me the most is the precedent this sets. Township officials telling landowners what they can and cannot do with the land they themselves do not own. I don't remember seeing one of your townships' name on my mortgage. Farmers and landowners like me take the risk. We make the payments. We pay the taxes. We invest in conservation, and we raise our families on this land. With those responsibilities comes a right to make lawful decisions about how our property is used. Township board members should be looking for solutions, not looking for problems. Strong
034communities are built by supporting responsible landowners, not by assuming the worst and creating restrictions to control them. All I've seen from this township regarding this issue is a search for problems instead of a search for solutions. If there's a specific issue, let's address that issue directly. If there's a concern, bring it forward transparently and work with landowners. But don't pass broad restrictive ordinances without clear justification. I'm asking you today to stand for property rights, to stand for common sense, and to stand for limited thoughtful governance. Vote no on this zoning ordinance. Thank you. YEAH. AARON LAMBERT DAVE Craig Doug Craig I'm sorry. Doug Probably that's better. Good body language. I'm used to talking to people face-to-face rather than with my back to them. So, I'm speaking to you as much as to them. Please state
035your name, please. Hang in there. So, my name is Doug Craig. My wife and I have a place over on Sand Lake. I'm speaking today to share information I've collected regarding the 2025 My goal was specific to better understand the merit behind the substantial increase in shoreline lake sizes and setbacks. I set out to find facts, spending many hours reviewing Windemere Township and Pine County websites, along with the communications between the township and the DNR. Here are my findings and thoughts. The idea to substantially increase shoreline lot sizes and setbacks did not come from the Windemere 2020 comprehensive plan. Though a very well-done plan, this recommendation is not in that document. Nor did this come from Pine County. Their 2024 zoning ordinance still allows for 100-ft wide lots. Nor was it mandated by the DNR
036based on the feedback to Windemere's 2025 zoning ordinance. Nor was it an idea from the town board, this is the important part, based on recent water quality studies tied to shoreline erosion and sedimentation caused by development, older Minnesota pollution control studies from 1992 and 2003 referenced in the 2020 comprehensive plan noted no degradation of water quality in Island or Sturgeon Lake. Yet, in an October 7th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, members were reminded that, and I quote, "2025 shoreline ordinance rewrites are still tied to the 2020 comprehensive plan." Again, this plan did not recommend increasing shoreline lot sizes and setbacks. In the end, I could not find any documentation, including the recent website alerts, that explained the rationale for these lot size and setback changes. Could I missed it? Yes. There are a number, many hours
037of recorded meetings and numerous pages of minutes out on the website. Still, something this important should have been front and center on the website. So, it appears these changes are driven by personal preference of a small group. No, I'm not a this necessarily a big fan of more development, but personal preference should not determine what happens. Data and decision-making that aligns with taxpayers' preferences should. Otherwise, it appears the town board is out to make one or two larger landowners such that they can't subdivide, and those of us with average lots are collateral damage. Three other thoughts. First, why didn't the board just adopt Plain County's 2020 shoreline ordinance after the Sand Lake Resort litigation was settled? They met with a Plain County zoning official in February 2023 to prepare ordinances, and it seemed possible to
038do that, albeit maybe with a customization or two. Second, why didn't they take the advice of their own Planning Commission that developed the 2020 comprehensive plan and focused better on enforcement of the existing ordinances. Lastly, if this comprehensive plan is meant to be a vision statement, why change it in the meeting to follow to fit the ordinance? Shouldn't it be that the ordinance that gets changed to fit the vision? Or did the vision change? Food for thought. Thank you. Respectfully, Doug Pray. Corey Lewinski. I'll pass. Kay Jepson. My husband's probably on >> Yeah, I'm wondering if Kay Jepson No problem. You wouldn't mind stating your name for the Yeah, I would appreciate that. Thank you. I'm Chuck Young. My wife's Kay Jepson, 3379 South Sand, Sturgeon Lake. Um, we built Kay's family's been here since
039the virus of 1918. We own a lake lot, well, we own a lake lot on the on the west side of the lake about half a mile roughly from the boat landing. We took our cabin that was built in 1969, raised it up, put a basement underneath that, and did an addition to the west on that cabin lot. I worked with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Pine County to get everything in order for where our lot is. We are on the old road that went around the lake. That's how close to the water we are. So, I got make sure everything was copacetic with Pine County and the DNR, and that's why we built where we did. I think that's important that we have people that are on all the lakes, Island Lake,
040Sand Lake, Sturgeon Lake, all of them, that they take care of their property, they make sure the premises areas cared for, and and uh visibly acceptable to other people when they're on the water. And I also think that anything that is that where people buy it and they want to do like river properties or something like that where they're have where they have stuff next to each other, that they need to need to make sure that that they kind of go by what you guys are doing here with some sort of side setbacks or side variances and setbacks from the lake so that they're not destroying the the lakes that we have got here that we've had here since, you know, the turn of the century, the last century like this. But anyway, I think
041it's important that uh everybody here understand that when I worked with the DNR in 1998 to build our house, they knew that we only had 120 ft of lake shore. And the only reason we have 120 ft of lake shore is we bought his dad bought the property from his brother-in-law, and so he wanted an extra 20 ft for this one tree, so he got that. And if you go where Jerome Bennett lives, that's where Dale Sandburg's property was, Dale had Dale had two lots there, so he had 200 ft. All that's like that all the way pretty much from the boat landing down to where Lee Anderson had his property, so that's probably three lots to the east of where we are. And then the lots became 50-ft lots. And so, you know, all
042this stuff has been around Huh? All this stuff has been around since for a long time, and I think that the the council here needs to take into consideration of what the people have done and what they're looking to do, and I don't think that if unless you guys hold them to this 50-ft, 100 you know, whatever setback you want to have, but more than anything we just need need to maintain our our waterways the way that they are, cuz we do all take good care of our lakes. Thank you. Jason Schreiner, I do believe. Schreiner? Thank you. Hello. Jason Schreiner, 86790 Harmony Lane. Uh I just got kind of a quick question. Is this how does this benefit the current property owners versus damaging our property values? Um for resale or anything like that.
043Also, the property backing like Wild Acres Holdings Lane acres, um our property is 100 by 200. We planned on building um like a garage or whatnot. Don't have a problem putting a septic system on it, but according to this new ordinance, the property is not buildable now and I it's worthless because what I understanding is um like a to be a little more clear, I can't build on that property size and what grade I can even do with it. Um cuz I can't grow it. Can't go into the streets. Can't make it 150 by 300. So, I'd like to get a little more clarification on what we are supposed to do with that property. Cuz it's now the $20,000 piece of property went down to what? A thousand? And whatnot. So, appreciate you guys' time.
044Thank you. Dan Benzie. Good morning. Dan Benzie, 94287 Island Lake Road. Uh speaking in opposition to the ordinance, I'll focus my comments on the Shoreland Overlay Map. Is that staticy? That's okay. Pretty good. Okay. Thank you. And at your last meeting, one of you asked why there were hundreds of properties, miles of shoreline, arbitrarily rezoned from residential to the new SP district. The consultants answered that it was not their recommendation, that it was based on town policy to preserve agriculture in our shoreland zone. In my opinion, that's not good land use policy either for the township, the property owners, or the lakes. The DNR defines SP or special protection district as unsuitable to build on or of historical or natural significance. These properties meet none of those. All of Pine County only has a couple
045of these zones. Couple small trout streams in the southern part of the county and a small area of the Willow River that's in our current comprehensive plan. This new map that just showed up at the 11th hour it showed up in the green over here. I did another one here for you. Is ends up being several thousand acres, miles of shoreline, and several hundred properties. None of whom have been notified that they're having significant zoning changes. And those changes are significant. Under this SP district, without 40 acres of land, they can do nothing on their property. Nothing at all without a variance. Except they can farm it down to within 50 ft of the shoreline. That does not seem like policy that we want in Windemere. Let me just give you a real quick example.
046I circled it here on this map, it'd be the far upper right hand. If you look at a 200 acre block there, just east of Island Lake, the dozen or so properties there have been residential for decades. It was last farmed by Dave Waldo. He farmed that far eastern side of it where there's a hole sitting down. And Dave used the land. He grazed his cattle down to the water. He cultivated it, spread manure every spring, used fertilizers. Where did they end up? All those excess nutrients ended up in Little Island Lake. You know they don't stay there. Under the road they go over to Island Lake. 30 seconds. Feed our algae growth. End up with excess weed growth in the weed in the base. Then they head over to Sand Lake, increasing the milfoil
047growth. Agriculture in our shoreland is poor policy. Just to summarize, I would recommend that we take the map back to the drawing board along with the comp plan and the ordinance. Get proper notices. Get broader community input like you're getting today. Listen to what they say. Incorporate that into the documents. Bring us back a draft that better meets the needs of the township, is more equitable to the property owners, and still protects our lakes. Thank you, Dan. Seth Nelson. Good morning. Seth Nelson with Eaton Peabody and I represent a number of landowners in in the town of Madison and also my clients 2L C. Um 3 minutes is obviously not enough time to get into the ordinance in any meaningful way. It's 150 pages. It makes sense to have to read the 2015 ordinance and
0482025 ordinance and the high 20 ordinance to be in our regulations. So this is obviously a good starting place for comment, but it shouldn't be the end. Like we requested in our letter, I'll just reiterate all those requests. There should be an extended public comment period where you can receive more comments from people. There should be an opportunity for us to receive the public to receive all of the information that's being used to inform these proposals. And I would renew my a for my clients and for any other of affected land owners that they have a proper hearing that to be able to contest any of the evidence that does get put forward as well as present any evidence of their own. Procedurally, um the commission is not even following the township's own process and
049their own directives. Last year in April and in May, the board passed two proposed ordinances which had actually directed the planning commission to conduct studies to determine what other ordinance changes that were needed to be made to the ordinances. My understanding was that no studies had been performed and yet it was brought up at a prior meeting, but we're not even following You're not even following what the board directed you to do. So, this proposal is completely out of place. Um obviously, it's not in alignment with the comprehensive plan either and now we're hearing that the plan is where we're going to fix the comprehensive plan later. But, we've already been dealing with things being done out of place just like the shoreline ordinance. That's why we're in this position today because the shoreline ordinance
050doesn't line up with the 2015 ordinance and so we're just going to do the same thing all over again. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more proposed moratoriums getting pushed forward. It's just a mess and it shouldn't be done. Substantively, there's too many changes that are being proposed that even most people read through this and they don't even pick up on a few of them that stand out to them, but there's so many changes that are significantly altering land owners' rights that this should just not be adopted. Um again, the proposals on dimensional requirements, there's been no support as to why we need to increase those. The residential requirements and the agricultural requirements that are being proposed are many times greater than what the recommendation was as sort of a vision in the comprehensive
051plan. Um this whole non-conformity issue is It's It's shocking that the county um or that the that the township is proposing that the majority of lots in the township be deemed non-conforming. And contrary to what we're hearing today from the commission and Mr. Winquist with respect, it is a discretionary process. I think people don't really trust how it's going to be administered. We're We're not We're not even allowed to to stand up here and allocate time to other people. We're being told by the commission that we can't face the way that we want to face. I think there's just no trust here that this is going to be a good system for people. There's been massive fees at the township level. The lawyer is saying that that's just a cover cost, but that's obviously because
052the planning commission has chosen to hire lawyers from the big cities as well as consultants. When the whole purpose of the zoning ordinance was supposed to be to keep zoning local, which obviously has failed to do. So, with respectfully, I'll just reiterate that this should not be adopted and that the zoning should go back to the planning Thank you. All right, that will end public comment portion. I will make a motion to close public comment. Is there a second? And second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. All right, Kim and Jason, um I know you folks were taking down some notes. I've got some notes here as well for our discussion here. I think um we should have some more clarification on some of these processes. Um a lot of stuff is still
053out there. Um how about non-complying lots again? And I'm not sure how you can convey that to those here. Uh maybe the statute might be involved there. Jason, is there anything you can reference on how that would work so folks could understand that? And we got to remember, folks, uh the 2015 ordinance, I got to say we we do regret that ordinance. Not one person sitting up here was involved in that process. In In Tony and Al from the Board of Supervisors were involved in that process. We'll We'll put that task in and fix that, okay? And um that's just the fact of the matter. And um So anyways, Jason, if you would mind uh taking a few of these things and we can see where it goes from there. Can you hear me? Yeah.
054So, let me just run through a few quick things. I don't know that, you know, I think um Kim did a good job of explaining nonconforming use. You know, there's a difference between a nonconforming lots, a nonconforming structure, and nonconforming use. And Speak up louder, please. So, there's a difference between nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses, nonconforming structures. And the language for the nonconforming uses comes from state statutes. So, there's no kind of deviation here from or I'm being more restrictive or anything like that in the context of nonconforming lots. And you know, the nonconforming the lot size I understand the frustrations of that that primary issue's going to be with subdivisions with whatever the lot size is. I don't know if the lot size is currently even under the 2025 ordinance would have been considered nonconforming.
055Um but you know, the lot size doesn't change the setback requirements, those kind of things. So, you can still if you can still build there. There was a question about if something gets destroyed, um you can build on the same footprint. You can, you know, if if just as one example, if the nonconformity is a setback, if you're just throwing the number out there, if the setback is 10 ft and you're a couple feet over that on this side of your house, that doesn't mean you can't expand on the other side of the house. You just can't increase the non-conformity. So, you do have that option as well. So, just kind of just understand if it's a lot if it's created a non-conforming lot, doesn't automatically mean your structure is non-conforming. It depends on the
056setbacks. But, it also doesn't automatically mean that you can't do anything. So, just to it's a complicated area, but just to kind of help with that a little Can you Can you just clarify why would you make everybody's lot non-conforming versus just having it apply to new lots like you did with the drawing ordinance last year? What's the benefit to the residents of telling everybody's lot becomes non-conforming? I don't make policy decisions. I I I'm not I'm not the one to decide the lot size or the I'm just explaining if the government comes down to become non-conforming, this is what the issue is. And I have a commissioner to speak about it. Okay, let me just going to go through couple quick questions. Um There was a question about having kind of lots five five
057acre lots. Mhm. Um I think there is a process in most counties. There is where you can combine those lots if you wanted to do that. Um They're owned by other people. I'm sorry. I thought you I thought you said something. No. Um The variance question The variance issue The variance language in the in the ordinance comes from state statute. The burden is on the applicant to prove a practical difficulty. There are no you know, I understand the potential seeing this subjective but there's criteria that got to be met. There are findings that the board would have to prepare um And most importantly I I will I will say too it is important because a variance is a deviation from the legislation basically. That's what the ordinance is. The ordinance is the law of the
058town. And a variance is a significant thing because you're deviating from what you've have established as the standard. So there's a reason why there's a higher bar to get a variance. That doesn't mean you can't get it at all. But there are situations where things are all of a sudden unbuildable. You know, you can likely prove that to the board. And I can't give you any specifics for a specific parcel and that it depends on the circumstances. But that doesn't mean they're impossible to get. There is a higher bar because you are deviating from legislation but just to make that point. Um point of point of order. Point of order is So we gave our public comment. We're waiting for the zoning commission to speak not there This is This is something else. So we
059want to hear the zoning commission speak to the questions that have been been presented by the citizens. We're hearing all this other stuff. They're not on the They're not on the zoning commission. Point of order. We want to hear what you guys have to say and how you justify it. Yeah. Well, I think I think we're here to try to explain some of the legal stuff. Well, I know but we we want to hear we want to hear our representatives >> address the citizens about why they came up with this and how to adjust it. Right. And I I'm going >> So, point of order. Yeah, well, I I'm going to speak a few more minutes, please. Okay, you have 30 minutes to speak clearly. Take all the time you need. I just I think
060We didn't. Can we all agree that They keep changing the effing rules. Come on. I want to try to respond to the non-conforming because that's a question that's Can't hear you. Can't hear you. So, So, the non-conformities in the shoreland or in the shoreland area, which is where I think a lot of people have concerns. As the attorney mentioned, if you are a lot of record, a legal lot of record, then you have buildable status so long as you can meet those setbacks, meet I I'm mentioning it because several people asked. You're missing the >> And so, I want to make sure that people understand that the one gentleman said he has no value to his property now because it doesn't meet the lot size. If you are a legal lot of record, you have
061buildable status if you can meet those three criteria. Yeah. So, that's the These are the requirements for the DNR in the shoreland. That is Yes, well, it's also fine county. You meet the setbacks, you can put in your septic, and that you can um meet the hard surface cover. You're changing the setbacks is the issue. Yeah, the setbacks are 150 off the OHW, which they are now for the natural environment. They're 25 on the side, and they're 100 off the rear. So, That's the 2025 ordinance. No, it's the 2075. Which is defective. Yeah. Well, I'm looking at the 2015 ordinance, and so the 150 is off of that. It's natural environment. 100 ft natural sovereign natural environment lake zone. You double the setbacks. We're talking about the residential development on Lake Chelan. Okay. Well, there's
062people with both. Let's talk about something that maybe should be clear for people that don't know. I'm Tom Anderson, and I've had property for 50 The 2025 ordinance, everybody, that ordinance we from legal office we against it. It's talked about a lot today, Vern, everybody that but we disagree with that ordinance. That's kind of the basis of the lawsuit that's pending. Okay? So, we they're referring to it like it's law. It is law for this moment, but it was not done correctly, everybody. So, just think about that for the future, and I would say one more thing. If it takes this long for an attorney and somebody from WSB to explain what something means, it's not very clear. I mean, you guys you guys are professionals, and we're all intelligent people. They tried for 20
063minutes to tell us what it means. It isn't clear. Come on. Please, straighten us out, guys. So much frustration for friends and family. We understand that there's, you know, some questions. I would encourage all of you to go back to the 2015 and try to explain that to us, first of all. That's number one. Okay? Yeah. We are asked to ask you today to take a break sometime. Excuse me. You have questions about the 2015 ordinance. We can Here's what we can do, folks. We can We're going to have our discussion here. And that's okay. We'll give everybody a chance to talk. Everybody's had weeks to comment. Now we're going to discuss it sitting up front here. Move forward. Okay? All right. So, Kim, can you please finish what you need to Thank you. Why
064can't we only have a school along with the time clock? that there was a question about the Johnson Lake piece and that is in the 2015 ordinance, but that is not going to be included in this zoning ordinance. So, the the person who questioned that So, one of the other questions I'd like uh Jason to address here is the the comprehensive plan and um the alignment of that with the zoning ordinance. Do you have any comment on that? And process on Yeah, I don't know what additional commentary I can make. Our plan is to update that comprehensive plan. Not a whole lot of changes, but just really to update the comprehensive plan to kind of match what is in this ordinance and what the board is looking at as kind of policy. How much is
065this going to cost us? So, um Dick, any other commissioners have anything else at this time to add? For discussion. For discussion, yep, discussion's open. I do. Good. >> Um, I'd like to go back to something Kim said. Microphone, Kim. Oh, sorry. Okay. Um, I'd like to go back to something Kim said. >> Now, Kim, can you hear me? You have to talk into the microphone. She gets the mic. Um, Kim was talking about non-conforming lots and meeting setbacks. What I would like to know, and I think these people would like to know, is if they're non-conforming and they can't meet the setbacks, explain then what happens or the process or procedure. Then then they need to Then they do need to apply for a variance if they can't meet the setbacks. If you Again,
066the setbacks, you know, they're front yard, the sides, the rear yard, and the exterior building and any country And I didn't hear that. on variances. On the current comp plan, Kim, speak into the microphone. Sorry. Sorry. On the current comp plan, right in the very beginning, under major recommendations, this was in the 2020 comp plan, it talks about zoning variances. And it says, grant fewer variances to the zoning regulations. That was a recommendation in 2020. So, now what I see happening is this new ordinance, we're going to have we're going to have a lot of variances coming through, which doesn't even line up with the comp plan. Exactly. All right. I'd like to Mr. Collins, you spoke last. If you can get the night, you got to wait a year. Um I was on the
067comprehensive plan when we made it. That was done with the residents, and people were ex the We even required their time at these meetings 14 months. And these the comprehensive plan was a guideline, not the law for the future. And as time went by, the board was supposed to adopt these five at a time, once a month. Never happened. So, what we're trying to do is use the comprehensive plan as a guideline for any changes that were done. So, to bring the comprehensive plan up as the rules or the law is false. But, we have tried for the last three years to spend these open meetings that we've had. Every time we have a meeting, by law, we have to have an open meeting. And I am really happy this is an open meeting. We've
068got a lot of people here with comments. But, we also have a lot of people that aren't here that agree with what we're trying to do here and that's protect our lakes. Okay, you said that, but I'm just telling you it's the law. And we are also guided and everybody seems to want to bring up Pine County and the DNR and the rules aren't there, but everything that we have presented that we goes with the DNR and Pine County has been approved. That's in this shoreline and the shoreline ordinance. And every time we draw something out, write it out, we send it off to them and they approve or disapprove. So, um that's where we're at. We are not the final arbitrator of the this comprehend of this shoreline ordinance or anything. The board is.
069We have worked on it to present it to the board and the board has the final say. You know, do you think the DNR doesn't have anything to say about the waterways? When we built in 1998, we came from here. Our Our family goes back here forever. We had one of her relatives do the construction of our house and another guy from down the river. The DNR was out there every two to four days seeing what was being done, where it was being done, and how it was being done. So, don't tell me that the DNR doesn't have anything to say about the waterways in in this township or this county or this state. They have more power than any than any board of police board in this state as far as waterways. Um I
070I I said that, but the DNR only has water ways. And then it goes into Pine County. All right, thank you. Thank you. But anyway, we are not the final arbitrator of this. We have worked on it. We're going to decide whether we can go forward with this or not, but the final arbitrator is the board. Thank you. So, So, let's address that. Excuse me, you keep talking about these differences in in setbacks. So, what you said is both accurate there, right? 150 ft on a natural environment and 75 on a sewered lot, which by the way is only Okay, that's the only thing that has sewer sections 5 and 6. Sewered lot is 75 ft. No, no, excuse me here. That's not correct. Sewered lot is municipal sewer. A private septic system is different.
071So, the private systems are 100 ft setback on the rec lakes. So, now you're going to make it 100 ft? It's across the board. It's 75 on a sewer lot, still. No, it's not. You guys said that you didn't have anything to do with that. Earlier, I know you were saying you didn't have anything to do with it. You guys were all involved. And it seems to me I can stand to be corrected. No problem. No. I make a motion for a 15-minute recess. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. We'll recess and we'll reconvene in uh at 10:30. I will call the meeting back to order. I want to take a moment to read something here that I have read before at multiple public meetings. You may find it interesting. This
072is from Pike County. We can't hear you back here. It appears that gross mismanagement of this watershed, both legal and illegal, has occurred over many years. Much unwise development has compounded the problem. County state aid, Highway 46, and other roads in the area also have some bearing on the situation. As use of this land has increased, it seems like things have been done with mainly consideration of conditions at the time. That was written back in November 6th of 1973. Here we are in 2026. Currently the DNR Shoreland Management was adopted in 1989. That's happened up in 37 years. The DNR allows municipalities to have stronger regulations to protect the resource. Weed Eater Township is one of the most unique townships in Pine County. I'm not sure many people realize that we have 21 main lakes
073in this county. Not many can say that. For that, we are unique and we are special. We should appreciate that. With that being said, there has been plenty of study done to get to this point. Some of the study shows from the DNR that uh 25% of our septic systems, private systems are failing in the Shoreland area. That's 25%. 39% of them have imminent health threats. They can contaminate groundwater. Tom Anderson knows that. We're all for responsible division of land, property rights. We need to look at this in a respectful manner to preserve what we are enjoying right now for the next generation. We're going to pass it on at some point. This township goes back to my great, great, great, great grandfather. Who his name is probably on some of your deeds. You're not
074the only one burning mine, too. Yeah. 1896 I've never been here. Thank you. So, this township is a special place for many. That's why we're here. Trying to find common ground on this and I think we can clarify a few things here. Common ground from who? Excuse me? Common ground from Public comment is over. Oh, well. If you choose at some point, you can call any one of us sitting up here and we will talk about your individual property at length, okay? You, sir, have a 100 by 200 ft lot. Your lot is buildable by state statute. No questions about that. You have to meet your setbacks. You have to meet the septic standards, okay? Your lot was created 50-some years ago by her dad back there. Okay? So, what? So, moving forward, um I
075don't have anything to say right now, but I'll open it up to anybody else sitting up here for any more comment and um what your what your thoughts are. So. Reed, would you like to say something? Sure. Um Let's go Can you hear me? No? No. Can't hear you. Brent, you're out. Can you hear me now? Yep. Yep. Okay, so let's go back to where we left off and and on this new ordinance that would be on page 63 this draft ordinance. And it's talking about the setbacks um on natural environment lakes and recreational development lakes. And the natural environment on both unsewered and sewered is 150. On recreational development, it's 150 on sewered and 150 for sewered. Now, first off, the DNR requires 100 ft on the unsewered and only 75 ft on the
076sewered. So, in my mind, we're quite restrictive, but more so, the point that I would make with this is I have heard it said from the different commission committee members and the town board that on sewered properties, if we get sewers put in, we're going to be less restrictive, which in my mind makes sense. So, this is just an example in in my mind where it's not less restrictive on sewered. We're 150 on sewered setback and still 150 on sewered. So, in my mind, you know, that should absolutely be changed. Um So, that point, um do you want to discuss that right >> Sure. Let's discuss that one. Um my thought is the same as yours. I think when we have a sewer, that's the goal. The hope of what we would like to build
077in Lake is to get a sewer system. I know that the board has discussed this. It has been a non- non-stop conversation of getting sewers. And I don't agree with the 150. I think we should look at the 75 because that follows along with I believe Ken Kelly as well as DNR. So, I do agree, we should consider changing that to 75 for sewer lots. And then also on the with following with if you stay with kind of the DNR regulations, um perhaps we should stay with the 100-ft on the sewer. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And that follows the DNR. I guess I'd be curious what other people are. Now, it's recreational development. >> Yes, we're talking recreational. Natural environment 150, and that's required by the DNR, is my understanding. Did we not address this
078Microphone, please. >> Can't hear you. Did we Did we not address this two or three weeks ago? I had and it was supposed to be put in. We did, but we're also listening to the public and discussing it now. Oh, okay. So, we discussed it then. PUT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? I mean, say that It was addressed by the planning commission, but it wasn't uh adopted and put out to the board or to the residents. Well, it has been out there, but this is what I'm hearing today. I'm hearing discussion today, and so being mindful of our position as public stewards, I think we should consider what's being discussed. Well, I I I agree, but isn't that what we already agreed to? Well, we all We can choose to make
079changes according to what we're hearing from the public. Okay. Well, I'll I'll say the same thing I did when we discussed this in our the I poured. Kim, can you can you tell us what the 2015 said, please? I know you had a you said you had a lot as far as setback as far as the Now, keeping in mind this is in the shoreland. Yes. People that don't have shoreland properties, you will fall under different guidelines, okay? I know a lot of this has been focused on shoreland. So, for the shoreland natural environment unsewered and sewered is 150 and the recreation unsewered 100, sewered 75, and that's from the OHW, so the water high water mark. What about the streams? The tributary is 100 unsewered and sewered is 50. All right, I'm going to
080make a motion that we would change I'm sorry, Dick. I jumped ahead of the order. Say it. No. Okay. I'll motion to change the wreck development back to the 2015 at 100. Um on unsewered on sewered structures uh tributary streams at 150 and I'm going to say 75 on sewered. So, that would be a minor change there. I will second that. Any more discussion? Hearing none, I'll take a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. MOTION CARRIES. NOW, FOLKS, TO KEEP IN MIND THE 2015 ordinance, which everybody's been operating under, um there's a 2 and 1/2 acre minor subdivision minimum since 2015. So there's not a whole lot of difference if you thought you had a non-conforming lot now you had them back then. There's 20,000 square feet on the right burn. 20,000 square
081feet? So Amy did you have anything else to bring up? Not 2.5 acres. So we're staying the same on not natural environment. Is that correct? Yes. Yep, that would be the same. So that would be the minimum 2015. Yep. All right. So All right. How about some discussion about side setbacks? Which one are you referring to? So my next conversation with side setbacks Tim, what are they currently proposed at? In the shoreland now, remember. 25 feet. 25 feet. What is a non-shoreland egg property at 20 acres proposed at? For egg is 35 feet. What page are you on? I'm sorry. I'm on page 39. It's the table at 3.6. On 43. 44 I think. Okay. Wait, that's not right. Well, that's for minor. So go to section 3.6. 3.6. Microphone, please. It's 39. Page 39.
082This has been out to the public for a couple months now and um It's been specifically talking about setbacks. I think a lot of this has been on on shoreline but there is all multiple other districts that are within the town here with sewer and non-sewer lots. And so I'd encourage folks to review that on page 31. Um so I think the one that I'd like to talk about a little bit more is the uh residential. And um looking at side yard setbacks here. Right now it appears to be 20 ft. Is that what I'm reading this, Kim? So currently the R2 residential in the unsewered is 15-ft side yard and sewered is 10. Okay. In the non-shoreland. So let's go to the shoreland district and look at page 25 is the bottom last sentence
083there. Okay. The table on 63 has setbacks. So I guess I'd like to bring it up for discussion as far as uh 25 ft um as a side yard setback. It's currently 10 ft in the shoreland. Yes, that's what I thought. It also distinguishes between accessory and non-accessory structures. Sorry, accessory and primary structures. Yes. There's also um just want a comment here. You still have to have setbacks from your neighbors. So, uh I don't know why. That Jeff, you take it. Yep. That's This is part of the problem we're trying to address. That's true. No, that is part of the problem. >> Yeah. We're trying to cut this off before we can't control it any longer. Eight months sewer. I want sewer. Okay? If we had a municipal sewer system, we wouldn't be having a
084lot of these conversations right now. And uh that would help us too. But we have that on Sand Lake. So, the the in the shoreland in the 2015 ordinance, unsewered has 15-ft setbacks, side yard setbacks, and for sewered, it's 10. Accessory structures on both unsewered and sewered is 10. Leave it the same? I'd make a motion to mirror what Kim just said there in the 2015 for sewer and unsewered in the shoreland only. I'll second that motion. Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Can we go over the egg egg and fall protection zone? Yes, it's shoreline. I know I know. Whatever I got. Well, let's not go by neighbors. Um I think that's excessive. >> At the last meeting that we voted on the 2.5 acres Charlene Ordnes, I was in
085agreement with the 3-acre instead of 5 acres. Um I still feel that 5 acres is excessive. I would be more comfortable with the 3 acres. What our comp plan says, so from the 2020 comp plan, not with any changes that are coming up, but the current comp plan, I believe that suggested 2 acres um in there. Which was an increase. They were saying, "Let's increase from 1 acre to 2 acres." Um I uh Yeah, minimum lot sizes in rural residential area, I'm assuming. So the comp plan there were there were a lot of people that participated with this comp plan. Um and I I don't see going past 2 acres in size. Uh So what you're saying is that you think that uh agriculture you think they should go to 2 acres? Oh, I didn't
086realize we were talking agriculture. I would say, but there's a lot of egg land in the housing sector. I'm talking in R2. Residential, I'm assuming. So we got to remember is for me to go with me home. We have um Now, I know it sets a standard um for other lots as well. But, if you're legal non-conforming, you still have the ability to build. Okay? That's just the way it works. Um I'm struggling with this one here because knowing that we have 300 acres on Sturgeon Lake that's undeveloped. Um And that's a area that is um It's considered sensitive area. There's like 260-some lots on Sturgeon Lake, okay? And um majority are already developed. The DNR has about 1,000 to 2,500 a mile a mile of shoreline. And um And then we have the Overland
087Farm, Nicholson Farm, and as locals call it the Nicholson Farm. And um I'm saying we ought to look at responsible development until sewer comes in, especially in these areas that have uh been farms for 100 years. And with no shoreline problems. None. Everybody else has got a lot on that lake. Some of us included sitting up here. We've got shoreline problems cuz man's come in and screwed it up. It's the way it is, man. There's maps sitting over there going back to 1939 and 1965 aerial pictures of Sturgeon Lake. That's what was available. You might find it interesting to take a look. My position is until we get sewer in, 5 acres is reasonable. Many other municipalities are doing the same thing. They're actually increasing to 10-acre minimum. And if we don't start to protect
088this now. unwise development It's been going on in the area for decades. Nothing's been done about it. That's my position. You talked to you This is a new Only new, new, new developments in the shoreline 5 acres. That's it. You folks are buildable, you're good to go. You won't have a problem at all. Except that for except that it states where we live that we're not conforming because we're now not 28 acres. You are correct but you're also a legally created lot by statute. Okay. You are buildable, you can expand if you meet your setbacks, your impervious surface and your septic regulation. Is that simple? The whole township does not conformable but many lots are non-conforming. That happens in the town of Frankfort. So we still need to get a variance? >> No, no, no
089variance but you are a non-conforming lot. Thank you. You're welcome. Bill, would you like to add anything, Dick, about this conversation? I I just have a quick question Um and if your lot is non-conforming comes time to sell that lot does it have to be uh advertised as such non-conforming lot? No. The material fact Well, personally, I have three non-conforming lots. And my house is on one. And this goes back to 2004. I have a non-conforming lot and I moved my uh short uh just a cabin, just and my restrictions were, this is an '04, I could only build on the footprint. Which was fine. I built on the footprint. It's there. And it They're all I mean, all of these smaller lots, the non-conformity is that things have changed. And if we all think
090that nothing will ever change, then there is changes that have happened over time. And they affected me, but I also, and I like to make this point because of my non-conforming lot, I was my neighbors put their septic system uh holding tank 10 ft off my property. You can't do that. But it did affect me personally. My other neighbor put their well on the property. I have to be 50 ft away from them. So, as we're looking at these properties and trying to plan for the future, we got our building setbacks into these, so we don't run into these problems. I just think it's forward-looking. Thank you, folks. Okay. Governor, I might ask a question here. So, I get the the focus on the size of the subdividing, right? As Mike related to the quality
091and the like of the geology, geo businesses like drain Mike, my point or my question in all of this though is it the quality of the lake isn't going to be as affected by the the size of the lots as it is by the rules and and under which the building is done to prevent erosion into the lake and so on. Now, I'll you a case in and point with with that. If you actually look at studies that have been done, this is controversial talk, but I'll bring it up just for comparative, wake boats far more destructive to the bottom of a lake and to toothfish and so on than properly done development, even if the places are kind of close. There are simple ways to control erosion, but the the trick in all this
092all of it, wake boats and anything else like that, requires enforcement of this ordinance. And that was even stated in the 2020 comprehensive planning section 2 natural left. They heavily recommended more enforcement. You guys made references to the septic systems. So, my point just is, as you evaluate and make decisions like this, how big should the average tree or whatever, please don't lose sight of the fact that size isn't the only element in whether the lakes will be affected or not. There's easy engineering ways that aren't that expensive to control that erosion and so forth into the lake. It's also the enforcement element of things that already exist. Okay. Dave Burne. Uh one second. Gil Doran. Okay. You mentioned wake boats. I understand that they want I'm just saying I'm just using that as an
093example. This is the next thing on our agenda. How's it comprehensive plan. We've already done research on it. We have worked on it with other states. We've worked on it with Caribou Lake, which has an ordinance for it, and we're aware of it. We'll leave it. Okay. I didn't bring it up for discussion. I'm just using it as an example of what the bottom of the lake is like. Mark? Would you consider looking at the ridgeline setbacks in the R2 zone? I'm sorry. You said that The ridge line setbacks in R2. The bluff? Yes. It's the same. So, that'd be 30 ft across the board. And that hasn't changed. Somebody had a question. I won't This is I'm okay with constructive conversation and questioning. If it gets out of hand, we'll move on. Go ahead.
094I did I did raise my hand, Vern. I'd like to ask a question. Um this kind of affects Uh the question I have is more about like the whole health system and these zones and setbacks and everything and such. So, personally, we have private property, residential that is, and commercial. How does that affect us commercially? Um that's a good question for our planner to be honest about it. And uh maybe if you want to consider this, just bring her up after the fact or catch her, you know, when the meeting's done. Would that be okay? I'm sorry, you're more than happy to talk about Like I said earlier, we'll talk to anybody individually about your property and this situation. That's no problem. Okay. Thanks for the help. So, I I'd like to go back to
095the acreage for new development. I just want to stay focused on one topic at a time. >> Sure. So, I want to make a motion that we look at three acres within the shoreland for new development. Is there a second on that motion? Motion dies because of the lack of a second. Is there any more discussion on the shoreland 5-acre at this point? Dick, could you please grab that microphone and um so folks can hear you? You have to turn it on. Okay. watched a lot of growth in different areas more than everybody else. To me, I voted for the 5 acres as a tool to slow the growth down so the infrastructure can catch up. We need sewer. And that's my primary reason for voting After the sewer goes in, if the next generation
096wants 100 foot lots, do it. But, somehow we've got to catch up with the sewer. Yes, sir. I think that's a really good point. And I would say that, properly done, so a while ago we talked about the 5 acres and 300 foot lot over there. That affects four people in the room, and we are one of them. And the fact is governance of a septic system, and the governance of building, like you said, is a big deal. The reason you were allowed 2 and 1/2 versus 5 is so those 2 and 1/2 acres lots could pay taxes so you could afford a sewer system later on. That's why it was done that way. If you want to change it to 5, I don't think it's too complete. We're going through things one right after
097the other. That's That's why you have more lots in an area that should You have to develop Have you ever been to Houston? Okay. They don't have a central sewer system. It's the worst place the worst place to live in the world for sewer. Okay? Because they went too fast, whatever. So, great point, but you need tax dollars to put that development. Okay? Nothing wrong with a 2 and 1/2 acre lot off the shore that's got a conforming sewer system that is in force. Okay? They got great systems. I want to run this lake. I At this point in time, we we love this place. We We're long time investors. We probably have more sewer line than anybody. I would pay my fair share for sewer on this lake. Get busy with that. This will
098get solved. Your good job is to keep it up there. Thank you, doctor. You hear it everybody. Can I make a comment on that sewer, too? Sure. Okay. So, a point was made to me that I talked with that You could have Could you talk a little bit louder? >> Yeah. When you have a 5-acres between properties, the cost of connecting those 5 acres with a sewer system is going to be more expensive. So, you got to have companies come in to bring in a sewer system, you got to look at the distance between the properties and the cost to connect them. It's It'll be more um affordable if you have 2 and 1/2 acres, 2 and 1/2 acres versus five. You have more properties to connect, making the cost less across the board. So,
099I think that's that's something to be considered if if you're And I'm all for sewers. I mean, we just had ours replaced. Thank you, Penn Township. But, um it's very important that you look at the total long-term picture of distances, cost. Sewer is great. Got to think of that. Thank you. Yeah, and I I appreciate that because I do think if we could get a sewer in here, there is a lot of things that can change. And I know that's the focus and the goal of the planning commission, and I believe the board as well, to try to do that. And I agree with you, things would change if we could get that sewer, and it's a lot of work, but that's the goal. All right. I have a question for you. Um sewer system
100last year at our annual meeting, we had voting contractor that was going to we've been talking to them about septic. Um we also had uh the legislature legislator for the state federal that was going to apply for an $8 billion um permit that they could get us $8 billion to work towards septic. We cannot afford to do so by ourselves as a township. If we can do 10%, that would be a accomplishment. But, we also it was voted down. And when we apply for these grants for septic we don't get them that day. It can be 2 or 3 years before they ever get to our grant because we're still put at the back of the list. And as they work their way through them, we can get this. So, as we apply for these
101grants maybe in 3 years, we might get that. We were just looking at basically at the time getting to Hogans Acres. Very dense population. And they already have some issues there with um compacted sewer systems. Lot of those are half-acre and 1/8 acre lots. And when we looked at it as a board, that's where we had to And it's sand ground. And this really and truly in that area it's getting into the aquifer. And you can ask people that are putting filter systems in Hogan's Acres because of ground water contamination. And ground water the aquifer in Windermere Township is Township-wide. It's not just a the aquifer is very large. All right, thanks. Um Vern Yes. >> So, when you're talking about the sewered and unsewered in our two in this proposal it's still asking for
1022 and 1/2 acres residential sewered. And I go back to this whole thing with you guys saying and different people saying that if it's sewered it's being you know, will be less restricted. I don't understand why somebody would need 2 and 1/2 acres to build a house when it's sewered. Okay. The one of the things we mean that we talked about was these 5-acre parcels that are in the shower our hope is as they become sewered they can be subdivided. And you can get more lots. But if you go from a 2-acre lot, how do you subdivide them into smaller lots? Well, if you have 5 acres you can do 1 and 1/2 acre lots. Or you can do you know, things like that. So, we're hoping that that would be something that we're trying
103to control in the plan. The other thing with your new platting subdivision ordinance that's part of this for that section within the ordinance, I mean, it's very restrictive on the on what you have to do to become compliant and get your plat approved. So, that is something else in the when you're talking about these new developments, it's not like somebody just walks in and says, you know, I want a new development and you you're granted. You still have to work through, you know, getting soil certain number of soil tests on and every lot, uh wetland delineations, um you have to be aware of any uh oh, anything that obviously are swamps on the property, um things that would prohibit building. So, that that also does help keep everything in line when you're platting it. Well,
104that would be a PUD. Well, just a plain old lot plat, you know. Well, I thought you mentioned that though. No, but just individual lots. If somebody's going to subdivide their property, they still have to meet all of those requirements, too. Yeah, if they're going to subdivide three or more lots, then it's a plat. And that is a major subdivision. That's a major subdivision plat. So, that is the difference So, that is the difference there. And these these are two districts, you know, we have a lot of R2 within the township here that would be on sewer. Okay, I mean, I think it's obvious between the two of you here because Yep. over there, um and so what I want to just for clarification here is if bounces back to him, could if you could
105briefly explain the underlying history of the zoning map and then the shoreland overlay and all the accompanying and what takes precedent. Can you give us a 2-minute explanation of that, Kim? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the the entire community has a zoning ordinance. So, every parcel is zoned. And then the shoreland overlay sits on top of the zoning. And I think most people do understand that in the shoreland, they should be primarily looking at the shoreland ordinance because those generally have more restrictions um based on the location issues because it's on the shoreland. But you need to complement both ordinances because they are different. So, yeah, just to be clear, you you've got to kind of work on both if you're in that particular district, is that right? If you're outside of the thousand-foot
106mark of a classified lake or 300 feet of a classified river, that's a different ballgame. Just the zoning district that is on there is the zoning. Multiple districts within the township. There's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 nine districts plus the shoreland overlay. And um so, you got to really understand where you're at based on the current map and how that would affect your particular property. Okay? So, that's you just can't throw it all into one basket and say, "Yep, everybody's the same." It's just a different ballgame. Um Anything else from this gentleman? No. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Uh Vern, um I have a question on the four new wetlands that are considered flood plain basins. They're on the list. You're next. I'll sit down and wait for you, bud. So,
107uh but I want to finish up here, but I think he's my guest, Kim. Go ahead. So, I don't know if this is the time to talk yard and structure setbacks also. Which is now 100 ft I believe. Which which district are we in again? Are we in that district? Um it's under additional structure setbacks page 63. 63? Yeah. So I am I had a question come through from a landowner who has an existing structure and I called Grace and I went through the scenario. He wants a garage on it. And we measured the lot off and I my first question is what's rear yard when you have a lake in a road? What is your rear yard? And I believe the understanding I received from Grace is that it is from the ordinary high
108water mark of the lake. Correct? Grace? Um You're right. That's correct. But that's the that's the 150 and the 100 ft you talked about. That's the 150 and the 100 and the side three. That's from the ordinary high. That's the rear. I can't hear you. I'm sorry. That's always been a question that has been going on for years. People would go to permit and they'd say what's your backyard what's your front? People would say oh the lake. Right? Some people would say oh it's the road. It's got to be the front. And it is the front. Yeah. What's the aspect did you say? The shoreline requires the of that 100 the 75 and 150 that you just talked about. That's from the lake side. That's not the rear. It's just from the very high, so
109it's still high. So, is this saying that 100 ft in from the road? Is that what this is saying? On on this graphic or chart. So, you're on section two? Correct. Uh paragraph two, yes, under 10.3. Yes. Yeah. It's uh section 10.11.2 in placement of structures on lots. On the property side. That's right. Yeah. So, the rear yard is the portion of the yard between the principal structure and the rear the rear building line and the rear lot line. So, it would be it would not be the lake side. It'd be the opposite then. So, if this gentleman has approximately 140 ft lot from the road to the lake. We're actually Yeah, his lot size. His house is by the lake. Would he need a variance to get a garage up by the boat or
110close to his house, which is near the lake? I think it's about 140 ft depth from the road to the lake. That would be my assumption and I would agree. Yeah. I mean it's it's 108 right now in the ordinance, so the commission may want to look at modifying that also. I agree. I think 108 is too much. It limits a lot of people. I've heard a lot of comment about it indirectly in different ways. Question. What is the setback from from the road in front of the structure? Because when you live on a a lake, the lake is if you look at it like everybody else's house is, your front yard faces the road and there's a setback on the front and the lake is the rear. People can build in their front yard
111and the road is their back, but there's no rear setback. You've got your front yard and that's the front setback. How come there's only got the side and you got the lake? So, if you determine a rear setback, it doesn't make any sense. That's where you get your clarification. Thank you, Dr. Bob here. So, the the 2015 ordinance says a rear yard setback from the principal structure is 20 and accessory structures Okay, I have one more. There's also You need to yield. There's also road right away there. So, it should be 33 ft from the center line of the road, but in our township, that don't mean nothing. We need to change that. So, what was the 2015 general on a on a rear yard? Is that 20 ft? 20 and 10 for the accessory.
112Now, this is this is specifically the shoreline. Correct. And the and the overlay district is right. Right. I think we reduce that down to 20 ft. Oh, sorry. Any more discussion? For discussion? Your motion is to put the rear yard structure set back to 20 ft. And I would say um All right. We'll move over to the discussion right now. So, what I want to clarify on this, Kim, is now these structures, accessory structures on the rear of the building. Is there language about that in 215 or or That would be the 10 ft. Cuz in reality, if you got to get your your uh set back the road 32 ft or 52 ft. This is your property, not being the road. No, but I'm just saying the road right-of-way. You know, you're going to
113be off of that as well. And uh so, the 10 ft was almost irrelevant in a way. To be any closer. Well, if you got to be from the center of your road going in 53 ft. You got 32 ft closer than that. If you need some location, there's a 20 ft utility easement. So, that's where you get the 53 ft. On a county road, it's 73 ft. And um so, there is you know, there's a greater distance there than both being within that right-of-way. So, what I'm trying to get as to simplify it, I'm going to say just keep it at 20 ft all structures. Go down from 100 to 20 ft, so that will be my motion on both accessory and principal structures. We had a second, we had discussion. All in favor?
114I. I. I. Motion carries. What? May I ask a point of order? Go ahead. I don't know about order, but I don't need it. Is the public hearing over and this is now the normal planning discussion? Well, so we closed the public comment a while back. But I felt if we're having a civil discussion like we are, we can continue on. I've got no problem. We'll sit here all day. So we're in public hearing still? Public comment is closed. Public comment is is closed. Excuse me. I will take questions and welcome them, so Go ahead. Okay, I I have a question and a suggestion. Uh You're kind of going through the basic points that everybody brought up to one by one, and in totality then this will be presented to the board. It's going to
115be a bit confusing what was done and what wasn't. Is there a logical step to say right at this moment you go back to the 2015 size regulations and do a regroup? This seems a little bit broad of what is now being done point by point, lot by lot, and the this personally we're not discussing the big development for Kestrel. So so I I I suggest going back to the 2015, end this meeting, and then start over with a new proposal to the board that we all read again. It's a little bit dysfunctional to me, but I I appreciate calming it down, keeping respect and order. I just I'm kind of confused with this. Thank you. So I'll answer that for you. Um No, we're not going back to 2015. We're in a moratorium. Okay?
116Which puts us up against the timeline to get this completed before that inner ordinance expires, being April. So, right now there's no development, there's no zoning permits for anybody in town. We're at task to get that taken care of, recommend it to the board so they can get that approved, and then once it's published in the paper, it becomes an ordinance, okay? So, that's where we're at right now. As far as these changes go, this is how it works. We also have We're going to make an addendum. It's going to reference the changes we talked about today and anything else that may come up, okay? So, the draft will be the draft on I think it's 212. That will stay as it is, and there's going to be an addendum with all the changes. Here
117they are, and it's going to reference them back to the ordinance. So, when we get to that point, we're going to recommend approving the draft with the amendments to the board. And at that point, if they decide to approve it as it is or make changes, then we will move forward there. But, the caveat of all this is the DNR has to weigh in on what we just talked about. So, they will have say so on this as well. They have a 30-day comment period. Whether they'll take that or not, it's unlikely. We have a good relationship with the DNR, and they are fully aware of what's going on with the new reduction. So, that is kind of the process, the logistics, and the timing. And so, yes, I'd like to move this forward at
118some point here and I get this going because the clock is ticking for the inner ordinance. So, one last comment on that and I'm going to voice my other answer. >> Thank you for the clarity. The when it's the proper time I'd like to make a comment on the 300 to 150 foot change. That's my main point. Thank you. So I'll start with you, Brady. Brady from the Township of Elk Run. We've been on our property for 130 years, my family, and I'm wondering which map we will find. Um the green one or the white one, please? The one that says special protection district where they are in agricultural or not. And so hold that for a second. The other map um is showing that it the one that is showing different different ones. So
119as it affects us and then our neighbors to the south and west, they all have Yep. What I'd like to do with your particular case is we'll refer this to zoning when we're done here today and then have that conversation. You know what I'm going to do? Uh a question for discussion under the new ordinance with stairways and landings uh you would require a licensed engineer to I guess provide a plan for the stairways and landings. Uh that's a big change from the previous ordinance in 2015 and uh I I think we should discuss it because what what it happens is you have somebody putting wood on a stairways and landings especially like on Lake Wallenpaupack and you have to pay for your great treated lumber equipment and so forth um and so forth. And
120now if you have a licensed engineer doing a report, that adds a very significant cost to somebody putting up stairways and landings and uh you're going to get a lot of people doing it illegally, so it's also an enforcement issue. So I would I you guys to discuss and perhaps amend that and just require a permit for stairways and landings that the township can look at it, but to have a licensed engineer do a report on any stairways and landings seems very excessive. Thank you. We'll take a few more questions here. This lady right here. I'm going to I in the past people have spoke and you guys just don't even answer our questions. I came today assuming you were going to do the same thing. I didn't know that we were actually going to
121discuss things today cuz in the past that hasn't happened. And there's a lot of people who did not know that this meeting was going to be that. So I am asking that we put this meeting on hold and have a meeting to continue this because a lot of people are leaving and there's a lot of questions. If I would have known that you would have addressed my question, I would have got up and asked questions, but I just went by the past. You never listen to anybody. So I'm asking if we could please do that because it's not fair that it was not posted that we were going to discuss these things and people have to leave and they have questions. We could be here all day. And we didn't know that this was happen
122at least I didn't know this was happening. I don't know about others. So I'm asking that we put this on hold and have another meeting that says this will continue and we'll have discussion about this. I'll clarify that. So this this notice was for this meeting goes back to February 23rd. Okay. This is a continuing meeting from then. Previous location wasn't adequate. So we continued it till today. Prior to that it was published in our paper of record, Star Gazette. It was also posted at our town hall building where the bulletin board is which is a statutory requirement. Town has gone above and beyond to try to put information on the website. Um this information has been out there for just shy of two months. And so this is the time for this we are
123a little bit out of character since the comment period's over, but I feel as long as we're civil like we are we can have a conversation. Um so if you have a question, I think we can try to address and answer them as the discussion goes along. I'm going to go to you and then to this gentleman over here and then Alice. So go ahead. So in the shoreland uh area >> Speak up if you don't mind. Yeah, in the shoreland area a non-conforming lot you made a point earlier that a lot a non-conforming lot was buildable if it met the um setback requirements. Setback, septic, and impervious surface. Right. So can you speak to the impervious surface changes that are part of the new ordinance? So the change actually here in shoreland that's the
124DNR they they regulate that and Kim Mike I think it's 25% is that correct? >> 25%. So that's no change from the current That's correct. Okay, thank you. Yep. So again this gentleman right here. In the under armor guy. I My name is Bill Schwartz. I'm a We bought a new home here in 2020. And what was the first thing that we did was We put a boat dock in. Black Creek We live on the navigable portion of the called the Viking ditch. All of the lots in Viking addition are 2 acres. And you're saying that that's a non-buildable property? No, that is an absolute no. Because they're legal non-conforming lots and lots of record. They were created lawfully and they're and they're grandfathered in by the county with the current PIA. number, there are
125lots of records you have no issue. Yes. Go ahead. After the 2015 zoning, you're saying there's no issue with building. That's correct. Yes, as long as you meet the standards of the septic, the impervious surface, and and the set and the set backs. Set backs. So, not possible to that the house is sitting there now 50 ft from the road and 10 ft from the sidewalk. It's not conforming, right? Correct. So, when you go to sell that house, you have to tell the seller buyer this house is not conforming. However, you go to the Windermere, you possibly get a variance of the new law. What was the variance before? Because you want to add a garage or a kitchen or a bedroom or a deck. Anything that requires a permit, that house is not conforming,
126right? It's a non-conforming use at that time. It requires a variance. So, Sure. 90% of all lots, 90% of lots in the shoreline district are not conforming. Well, here's the deal. These hypotheticals are are very difficult to try to understand when you provide not much information. It's a typical lot. Let's just say it's a Well, okay. So, what do you define a typical lot? It's 100 ft wide and 250 ft deep. Okay. Well, what district are we in? Are we in ag? Are we in R2 high density? >> R2. Typical is R2 the shoreline only. Okay. So, you are already non-conforming based on the previous ordinance, number one. 2015 was non-conforming already. That's a 2 and 1/2 acre. So, it's been non-conforming already. No. It's already I want to build a house. the kitchen. So,
127I wanted to build the garage, did I have to get a variance? Sir, so the answer is it depends where you want to put the garage because if you can meet the setback for the new development, it doesn't matter if your side yard is non-conforming. So, if you want to if you're if you have a side yard setback that's non-conforming, but you're building the kitchen on the other side and it meets the setback, then you get a building permit. But, do you go through a variance process? >> No. You do not go through a variance. No, not if it's if the addition meets the the standards that are in place. Okay. So, so all these non-conforming lots, that particular non-conforming lot, all those lots, if you can build using the setbacks, then you do not
128require a variance. If they build within the setbacks, you have your septic and you don't go over your hard surface, Okay. >> then you don't need a variance. So, do you know what percentage of houses currently in the Lake Shore residential overlay are themselves not compliant with the setback? No. If you wanted to if you wanted to go ahead and and study that, we're happy to you know, get back to us on that. I have a problem. No problem at all. This is something I would think you would consider though because you talked about the cost of sewer, the cost of setbacks. The amount of lost value to everyone here would far exceed the cost of sewer. I'm not so sure I would agree with your statement about the lost value and here's why. In
1292020, the valuation within your township was about $200 million, okay? There's 33 townships in in Pike County. $200 million in 2020. Can anybody guess what our valuation is now in 2026? Three. I'll just tell you. Right around 600 million. We're not losing value, sir. We are gaining value and that's not going to change. That's not true. Well, it certainly is true. I've been in real estate for 23 years and have sold my fair amount of properties in this area and so is this lady over here and so is that lady over there. So you're saying that you've studied the issue and the people here will not be losing value. Absolutely not. Well, if you've got something to sell, give me a call. We have to take a look at it today. It's going to hold
130all of us. We're going to move on. Anybody else got a question? Otherwise, we're going to move on with this. I'm going to take whoever's hand is up right now and then we're moving on. You, sir. Yes, Derek Bird with Cousins Construction. You mentioned some percentages earlier about uh sewers and how they were Not going to allow her to come to the microphone. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. So uh you mentioned some percentages earlier about sewers. Referencing that, could you share a little bit There's some folks that asked about that. Maybe you could share the source so they could look it up. >> So according to the MPCA, 25% of the shoreline uh septic systems are failing. That's Minnesota Pollution Control. Out of that Yeah. 25% 39% are an imminent health threat. Meaning requiring immediate attention.
131So when that leaks, Tom can Tom Adams is an expert in this. I mean, that can get into your ground water and cause contamination and it also gets into the lakes as well. Thus the reason for bigger lots until the sewer comes in for new development. Is there a year on that? Our name? When it was done? I can't answer that. I don't have it in front of me right now. It's in my brain. Okay. Cuz septics have changed a lot over the years. Well, they sure have. That's correct. And they also have our failing and here in your township here, if you don't pull a zoning permit, you're not getting inspected. period. So, if you've got a 60-year-old septic system and never pulled a permit, I will guarantee you it's leaking. And also, I
132will guarantee you the 102 lots on Sturgeon Island, there were straight pipes going into the lake. Covers coming off of holding tanks being pumped out onto the ground. There's record of all this stuff. If you folks want that to continue on, so be it. Not on my watch. I had to move my boat because that was happening on the lake property next to me. So, it's very expensive with the septic and and issues with them. And there's a lot of them failing in our township. All right, we got three more questions here. Go ahead. Um I know that I should have probably spoke, but I figured no one would listen. I want to address the camper issue because that's ridiculous. Okay. Why don't you come to the mic and tell us about the campers? That's
133I think if you turn it on, I think I turned it off, please. It's very tall. Thank you. Um the way I understand it is you can have one trailer, fish house, whatever, RV recreational vehicle recreational vehicle on your lot, no matter what size it is. You can have one in the new ordinance. And if if you're going to use use it, it has to be hooked up to sewer and also have a permit. What I want to say is that we bought our place in '95. Why did we move from the cities here? Because we wanted to enjoy and have family come up. There is no, unless you have a tent, you can't do that, the way I understand it. Also, why can campgrounds have um can have these if they want to empty
134if you're going to use it. I mean, we use ours for camping, but basically it's said that you can never use it besides that. And I think we got to think about this. People have family up. There's got to I'm fine with having some restrictions, but this is ridiculous. One. So, that's what I want to discuss. I'll address that. Uh, so we've had an RV ordinance in place since 2015. And, uh, Phil White can attest that it's not been enforced. And so, the enforcement tool is now in place. The statute or the ordinance is more clear. And with that, you do have to meet your septic standards because I'll tell you this much and and maybe I won't name names, but it's somebody in this room. I'll leave it at that. Has witnessed people opening
135up their gray water on their camper and dumping it into the creek uh, and going into Sturgeon Lake. That's a real scenario. I don't know if anybody would want that situation to happen to you or going into the lake and having your kids or dogs or people you love swimming. Uh, it's a real problem. We have camper issues in Windemere Township. To the best of our estimate, we have over 400 campers that are unregulated with sewers. And that's a problem. And with your situation, it's very clear in the ordinance. You can use them if you have an approved drop tank with a septic with a pump agreement to take care of the waste. Okay, otherwise you'd to to your to a system, a holding tank at the very least. So, we feel, and I think
136it's been the mantra here, is we have issues with septic, not only with structures, but with RVs. And so, we're trying to get a hold of that, and we feel now with WSB as a planner and zoning crew with over 3 years of experience to apply this across the board to everybody and start working on this up here now. And we all realize it's not going to be perfect, but we got to start somewhere, and we can make adjustments as we go along. Now, I said three more. Now, who are they? It was Tom and that fellow right back there. Oh, yeah. Tom. Okay. First is I personally would suggest a levy. I would pay for an employee to do inspections around this lake cuz everything you said is correct. Okay? I have seen people
137take their holding tanks, put a pump in it, dig holes, and pump it out in the ground. And more than anybody would believe, okay? So, that's number one. Number two, I would ask as one of the landowners that has land that has more than 300-ft lake shore, recon- reconsider a lot of stuff that you I would ask you to reconsider the 300-ft back to the 150 on the recreation lakes. It'll stop a lot of hassle for a lot of people. It will improve the tax base, and um keep the 5 acres if you have to. I'm just saying, please consider that. It's a respectable request, okay? Thank you, Tom. Corey. Two quick things. So, if we look at page 64, the number is across the board. It's not the RR district is 1% for sewer
138and 10% for non-sewer. I would suggest that it's 25% for all of the districts. Second point I want to make as I discussed earlier, if you're in the short land of more district, right? Your setbacks are different than if you're just in regular R2 district. But this ordinance says you have to follow whichever one is more restrictive you have to follow both. So the scenario that came up earlier of how many feet you have to be out of the center of the road wouldn't be the 20 feet that you just talked about putting into the ordinance. It would still be 73 feet in the R2 district. So I didn't really solve the problem. Well no no matter where you're at if you're on a county road you're 73 feet out. And that's that's the county
139road. Yep. Thank you. You've been persistent so I'm going to let her go here. Camper issue. I've got two lots. 100 foot, 100 foot. I've got a cabin, pump house, tool shed, telephone electric pole, guide wires that come down. I can have according to the new standards one camper. I've got a 100 foot lot next to it. Empty, nothing on it. One camper. To say I can have one here and only one here I think is unrealistic. You know in the cities you you want to build a deck, a garage or whatever else it's always a percentage of your property. It should be the same way with campers. I can build a cabin there but I can't have two campers? If it's an undeveloped lot I think you should be able to have more if
140it's undeveloped. Are your campers connected to septic system? We're trying to get there. We turned in our paperwork three years ago. You guys along with our $100 checks. We're still trying to get We haven't gotten any answers from you guys. We tried to get somebody to come out and do the survey to it in the additional holding tank. Trying to get somebody around here to do that is extremely difficult. Everybody's extremely busy. And I talked to Jason during the break. So, you know, my other question was to him, too. We're hearing a lot of barking from, you know, like Pike's sewer system and the rest of these people. They're already at capacity. They're having a hard time dumping. I want to do the sewer system just like everybody else. Meet the standard. But have you
141guys looked into how those companies are going to be able to dump that if they everybody starts putting in additional sewer systems? Well, where are they going to dump it? So, two things to clarify. Pike County manages our septic systems. Not Not in your township. So, you you have to apply through them and go through their process. We We complement each other in the process. And so, that's that's number one. This goes back to the point we've been making. We have a sewer problem. We have a septic problem not only in Ding Your Township but Sturgeon Lake. To say that, well, you shouldn't hook up to it because there's no place to go with it. That's That's a pretty silly statement. We're not saying I didn't say that. Well, that's what I heard. >> to
142follow that. We're trying to get there. Yeah. Well, I'm You know what you said. The main point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't seem realistic if you don't have one camper with a cabin and all that other stuff and you have an empty can, empty lot, but you don't have one. Sure. Well, the goal is to get people to to build I think that part of the goal is to have people invest in their properties. You want to talk about values and increasing your value. Put a $100,000 cabin on a vacant lot or put a $10,000 camper. What's worth more? Think about that in a little bit, okay? All right. Any more questions? Otherwise, we're moving on. I have a question. Yes, they are. I can only have one compost on my property?
143Depending on what district you're in. There's two outside of Shoreland, one inside of Shoreland. So I can't store my family, I got 80 acres and I can't store my family's compost at my property? Away from view of anyone else? Um right now it's two on a property outside of Shoreland. I think that's that's what it's that's what it's written as, okay? I was at a meeting where they the people like Vector Services and other sewer companies were asking for agricultural land. I did not say I would put my land on the board, but my concern is if we're allowing people to come and bring their compost and put it on agricultural land if there's a village. Well, I mean I don't agree with people dumping it on and either. I don't want to smell feces
144from people or anything else going on to the land or anything like that, but can we think about letting people do that on agricultural land? Our agricultural land does not allow that. However, there is agricultural land in the village of Thompson that is allowing sewage going on to them. It's only in great water if the sewage is going on. Well, so that's a whole different conversation beyond today and it's a good one. It's very important, but The town board sets that precedent and I believe that at this point the lot that they had designated over by the golf course in Lords Lake is no longer being used and so that that's not happening anymore. All right, with that question if you have one, and the state is allowing sewage pumped down agricultural land. We can't
145hear you. Are there restrictions on how they do it? It has to be treated before it's pumped out agricultural property and the sewer for um I'm just trying to continue with this flow, but there's restricted The people that have home sewer systems, that's way more contaminated with chemicals than agriculture. There If you look at Go to your house, look underneath your kitchen sink, and look at the chemicals that can be dumped from your residential sewer on your property if you're doing that. So, there are restrictions, there's state regulations on what they can and can't do. It's not just a matter of human waste, it's more complicated. Okay. I promise you, last question. Uh as far as the RVs and campers and stuff go, um like on my lot, for instance, we have a cabin there.
146>> Can you Can you clarify? Where is your lot located? Uh it's off of Laketown Road in Sturgeon Lake. It's just off the highway. Laketown Road. Okay. Yeah, we're we're three lots from uh what's it called? Oh, you can see it right over there. Okay. Campers. Yeah, Parker's Landing. Sure. Um and we have a little cabin there. Um and our family all comes up and gets together in the cabin. It's not big enough for all of us to sleep in. We have a toilet, we have a well in the cabin. We use our campers for sleeping in, and that's about it. Is there a reason that we need to have those hooked up to septic or sewer or anything like that if we're not using the bathrooms? I think Kim would be able to clarify
147that. Um you know, there's some language in the ordinance that talks about something like that. And And we also have a We have a big family, so there's three campers as it stands along with the cabin. We've done that for years and never had any issues with it. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, I got to address something here from Dave. So, you talked about the public water wetland Yeah, that you built on there. Curious what the You talked about the the setbacks you guys are referring to on the residential. What about the Is that a natural resource or natural environment? So, it's natural environment. So, those are still 150 then, correct? You know what? I would ask if you guys change that back to 75 or you know, because that that land went from having no
148setback to now having one of the strongest setbacks in in the county. Well, we have many natural environment lakes in the township. So, there was a let's just say a misunderstanding with the DNR in the process 2 years ago with the development in the area, and that got clarified. Even the DNR was a little bit taken back, but we looked at the fine print and it was called a public water wetland. Okay, that's what it was classified as. And so, the town board to help clarify and move forward for any future development, they felt that they wanted to put that into a natural environment lake as a reclassification. So, we looked at the DNR, sent the paperwork in, and some things didn't make sense what they were sending us back. So, we questioned them more
149as to what as far as how this process goes. And the head gentleman at the state said, "No, we don't reclassify that. It's not even classified. It's a wetland." All right, what's the process? If you guys want this from the township perspective, want this as a NE lake, just let us know and we'll do it. And a little later they sent us a letter back and said it's a natural environment lake, get it done. It was done. So now what we have to do is we have to adopt it into our shoreline ordinance. Uh which is what we're doing right now. But then will that have a 75 ft setback or 150? The DNR requires 150 on any lake. So So Dave, what is it that you need beyond the house that you have? Is
150it a shed? Yeah, it's just a small shed there. >> can we address the shed from the natural environment accessory shed? Is there any way we can address it beyond that? Because I know where his concrete pad is. So we have the 100 square foot shed. Well, uh I don't know actually what size it is. It's 16 by 10, so it'd be 160. Yeah, it's 16. So. I would prefer not to address that now. I think that debate, with all due respect, you fill out the application, go to zoning, they look at the criteria, and go through the checklist, and then we Once this is it is done, correct? Yeah. Yeah, I know. >> here to discuss. If people have very specific questions about their property, it would be easier to talk to you one-on-one.
151Either call or send an email and we can follow up individually rather than trying to get the answers today. But does the does the does the township have the ability to change the setback from a natural environment? No. So this wasn't a stone wall. Say that again, please. This is final alignment. So the town board, once we get done, we make a recommendation to the town board and that has not been set yet. Because we it hasn't gotten past this group of people. Yeah, there's plenty of time here, so um one one thing I wanted to address here is uh the impervious surface. As to why in RR it's 20 and 10. Because the lot sizes are bigger. So Bigger lots. >> They need to be adjusted. I see. Okay. Based on the changes. Got
152you. If if you're changing the lot sizes for the RR. Yeah. You Sure. Okay. So what I'd like to do Anything else? Can I go back to something that Noah mentioned? Sure. He mentioned about the licensed engineer on the steps and different things. There's that's also added under the section for roads, driveways, and parking areas. And I I certainly understand it for roads, but I don't understand why you need a licensed engineer for parking areas. So that would be one What page is it? Um 7. That that I would like to see changed and that ties into perhaps doors with Do you need licensed engineering for stairs? Well, I'll address in my opinion easy one is the stairs and I'm on a strong point of that in the bluff area because we've seen too many
153instances where the bluff has been destroyed. This causes erosion. And that potentially could go into your neighbor's property. So we've had too many homeowners decide to take it upon their self. And I know there's some people in here that have had issues with their bluffs. Neighbors causing issues. And I know one of them has spent close to $200,000 to try to fix his issue. So personally I have no way of of compromising on that issue. If we're going to be going into a bluff over the lake, you got to have somebody that has a background in this. We also have a property on Sturgeon Lake. That is falling into the lake right now because there was no engineer plan. So, now I have I have no way to even consider a change on that. So,
154you guys can have your conversation. There was also another one I'm not sure that's the one you were talking about with the $300,000 that he spent showing the control. I think they over valued. And if they would add an engineer to the short line down to the lake, they would have saved $300,000. I I'm not for the if it's just a stair, I mean, you can explain it that way. It's no big deal. It's it's a big deal. And there's there's there's something that they have to have a certain amount of or so far up off of the bluff. You can't lay them on the ground with and just to make a I don't think you have to have an engineer. The way I read this, you don't have to have an engineer come out
155and design you a square stairwell to the lake. It has to be approved. They can come out and say, "This is what we're going to do." It's actually you do have to have an engineer plan. For stairways going down to the lake in a bluff. What being a bluff then? Yes, but uh I think No, I mean, we agree on that. Well, I can understand if somebody's doing like a retaining wall or something massive. Certainly, but maybe we have a limit. Maybe there's a limitation where, you know, if it's a certain size, stairs going down or something, where you don't need an engineer. That's a normal that's 4 ft by 8 ft and landings are limited with 4 by 8 ft. And the pieces of property that Vern was referring to um I was there
156actually with one of them last fall and watched the whole thing happen. But that's different. That's people who are clearing vegetation from their slope. And also uh the other one of the other properties on Sturgeon Lake, the home was constructed in the bluff zone into the bluff. And then there was a cut made by uh I guess a C-rated device. A cut down the lake. It wasn't just stairways and landings. Stairways and landings uh took place on the bluff before you could do a structure putting it in the bluff. And after putting it uh depending on what you call it, but then it goes through inspection by the township. Um So I I guess I don't don't understand. You're going to have a lot of people building stairways without uh informing the township or getting
157a permit because it's it's anywhere from 2 to 3,000 dollars to get a license engineer to come out and and make a comment on it. So uh it's unnecessary cost and it increases the cost of the property. Well, we've always had a rule that they have to be inspected going in and they've already ignored it. So I think what we're trying to do is tighten up that rule a little bit. But that's enforcement. That's not That's not the license engineer. Yeah, but you don't even get the enforcement. >> to get there. You know, the enforcement does In any municipality, it's enforcement. And you would know that. There's a process that it through. And um I think now moving forward with consistent zoning um an unbiased company that can do this. They've been consistent from the
158beginning and that'll continue um moving forward. So So So then to the parking areas >> Yeah. um you know, maybe maybe it was meant commercial parking areas. It doesn't say that. Um but it's on page 70 10.4.13.4.2 Yeah, I think we should study this again a little more and see what uh you know, what the requirements are. I'm not sure what they have in there. If it's just a specific area or not. But uh That's uh I think that's reasonable that we take a look at that and to see what what their language is. So Thank you. Anything else you got? Okay. I would like to address Don's question regarding lot width. 300 ft 150 ft I think that has been a big question for a lot of people. I've heard it numerous times that
159300 ft is excessive. Um I think we should consider the 150 ft lot width. I understand the 5 acres, but I would like to have that discussion. It'll be a long meeting one. Um but I think the option of having the lesser at 150 ft is something to consider. I would agree. I would say the important thing is the proper septic system. Okay? You're That's a lot of enforcement is around that. A proper septic system with a mound that does not infiltrate the aquifer and lets Mother Nature do its job on the top of the mound is harmless to the ground, okay? And that is what's being demanded in Ludington. I just went in for $3,000 on a lot. Okay? So, there's no harm. Septic system is more important than the width. It's just that
160simple. And you guys just get enforcing that, you got a good system to do it. Enforce it with those guys and we'll clean that lake up. I would like to make a motion that we change the 300-ft um lot width in the shore land to 150 ft. And I'll second that. Any discussion? I think that's the 150-ft by the lot width means it's You can put a lot of 150-ft lots in the uh shore land and I think that helps the control of shore land. And the uh If I was going to make that recommendation on the 150-ft We can't hear you. >> on the floor uh and then I'm going to say this, uh all I'm going to hold on this, you may respectfully disagree with my signing, until we get the sewer in.
161We got to continue to have some distance here on these lots with density and um you folks have a very unique feature property and so does the nice rooms and so does Allen who is the board chair and he directly affects the owners. And um So yeah, I I don't I'm not going to change my position on this at this time but we're going to we're going to call the question with a second of the three. All in favor? I. Amy? I. I'm no. No. And Dick is no. Motion fails. Okay here. Um So here's what I'd like to do. Do you have anything else on that? >> I do. I do. I'd like to talk about the agricultural district. We're currently recommending 20 acres. I would like to see it considered to be 10
162acres. Instead of 20. Would you like to make that a motion? I'll make that a motion. That we look at 10 acres within the agricultural district as opposed to the 20 acres currently recommended. Do we have a second? I'll second. Um I guess I can start on that cuz um the we're in your township based on that map east half of the township is ag and probably and then the south half down the south corner down here that's the special protection district along the Willow River a lot of a lot of low land although there's you know the Olszewski farm is all sandy property there but um um This is a rural community. A lot of subdivision not natural subdivision and um A lot of people tell me they do that and uh a lot
163of people live here for that. And so, if you want to have an agricultural district, you know, we'll have chickens and cows and a horse. You know, 10 acres may not be enough depending on what you want to do and of course that more density if you want to maintain your rural characteristic of the township. And so, I'm I'm not really in favor of decreasing that down to 10 acres conversation. Anybody else? Well, I'd like to maybe study it a little bit more. Sure. 10 acres I can't clearly remember what does gas stations Well, uh I don't think they have any horses there. Yeah. It's just a regular residential Sure. Yeah, so that's in the residential district, not the agricultural district that you're talking about. And you're referring to Maytownship. Correct. If we were going
164to do this, we could certainly discuss in the future change these. If it can be adjusted at any time I think in the egg area I don't think 20 is It's for what we have in Maytown is really not Please speak into the mic. I'm having a I don't believe that I would agree with that. We'll call the question. All in favor? Aye. Aye. No? I can't. No? Dick? No. The motion fails. Okay, so what I'm going to propose here is a motion to table the recommendation until the 16th and call a special meeting on the 16th of March. And that will allow us more time to study. Have our planner put everything in the amended form on on the agenda. The reference what's changed. We'll get that out to the public on the website.
165A special meeting requires 5 days notice. Posted on our board. We will do that. So, my motion is to table this and call a special meeting on March 16th at 9:30 a.m. at this location. No. And if this table is further, have a special meeting with this as an agenda item. For the ordinance. For the ordinance and the maps and then we're going to get to the short-term rental ordinance. So, does anybody have a conflict on the 16th at 9:30? Nobody? Let me look. No problem. Take your time. So, the items on the agenda would be what exactly? Well, at this point for a special meeting you have to post that. But I would need to table that. Carry this over as an agenda item for specifically the zoning map, the zone or the the
166um shoreland overlay map and the the draft zoning ordinance. Those three items. And everything that you said in the presentation And two completely different items. Well, that that would be the agenda item for the 16th. One of those point. But you have the time to do that day? On the 16th? No. Okay. So, that's my motion to table this until that special meeting on the 16th. I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. So, now to switch gears a little bit here and get the short-term rental Excuse me. Short-term rental out. And uh let's go through those amendments, please. Should be in your packet here somewhere, the short-term rental ordinance with a few a couple of amendments here. Uh it's this right here. The short-term rental. This is This is the All
167right. Kim, are you ready? Or Grace, do you want to take this? You want to take this one? Or do you want to default to Kim? Default to Kim. Okay. So, um chair and members of the commission, we you know, started implementing the short-term rental. We've been doing the permitting process. There's been a couple of things that have come up, and so we're trying to make some modifications to reflect those comments or issues. One in particular is the addition of those um basins that were added to the DNR that were added by the DNR. We talked about that at the last meeting that we were going to allocate some units, some short-term rental units to basin 58007200. That's reflected in the ordinance, and we are not adding allocation to the other three natural environment plates.
168The other thing that has come up is regarding definition of bedroom. We've had some conversation with folks who have wanted to put a bed in a living room or a bed in an attic or a bed in a basement and call those bedrooms. And so, um the language you have in front of you is to kind of rework the bedroom definition so that we can address those more clearly. The intention is to not just put a bed in every room possible and call it a bedroom and increase the occupancy. And so, that um language that's in the ordinance is what was recommended to us from the um attorney. And then, the final change is based on the conversations we've been having about um in the shoreland about the the accessory structures or the ADUs. or
169the cottage, we call them a couple different things. And so, we allow that accessory structure that has that habitable space in the short-term rental. However, the ordinance was a little ambiguous about whether that use that structure can also be rented as part of the short-term rental. And so, the language we're proposing, based on prior conversations, is that that cannot be considered. So, you can have the house as your short-term rental, but any accessory structure is not included as part of the short-term rental on the property. The intention is to have one structure kind of be that accessory for the the short-term rental. And I think the other ones were just kind of clarification. We talked about the last meeting, which is just the numbers for the individual lots, or the individual lakes, and then just
170reaffirming that the advertisement has to be consistent with your permitted occupancy. There was language in these before, but we just kind of trimmed it down for clarification. I think we had a conversation about most of these previously, but we're available if you have any particular questions. So, Jim, you have a something called a draft here. We're going to submit an amendment. Amending the short-term rental ordinance 2025-007. Yep. So, the amendment, what you just spoke about is all on the amendment, correct? >> Correct. All right, commissioners, do you have any comments, thoughts, questions on this? Now, we had a couple of comments here that we I want to address. I'm going to go back to the beginning. We got to remember that this actually this ordinance was approved by the town back in 2024. Uh it
171was never administered since then. We couldn't get off the ground on it. Um it just didn't work. So, until WSB came into play, they've been instrumental on this process, getting the application prepared. Go back to Kim and and Jessica prior and now Grace has taken over and they're doing a great job at this and then people are applying and uh and trying to meet the standards for these short-term rentals. The question that was asked is how many STRs are on the lake? Um this this has been a 6-year conversation. I I don't recall how that got determined 6 years ago. Um and and of course the criteria I think is clear in the ordinance as far as what will will be able to STRs. So, hopefully that will answer those questions. If there's no other
172comments from the commission from planning, uh I'd like to make a recommendation to forward this to the town board for their approval at their next meeting. I'll make a motion. That is a motion. Second. There's a second. There's a second. Any more discussion on this matter? Hearing none, I'll call the question. All in favor? I. I. Motion carries. I. With that being said, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting. So moved. I'll make a motion. Phil and then Dick, all in favor? I. I. Meeting is adjourned.