Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wabasha County commissioners table Cornerstone Ridge preliminary plat after hours of public opposition
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment raising concerns about drainage, road design and lot buildability, the Wabasha County Board of Commissioners voted to table a decision on the Cornerstone Ridge preliminary plat for up to 60 days to allow developers to submit revised maps and technical plans.
WABASHA COUNTY — The Wabasha County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday agreed to delay action on a proposed 10-lot subdivision called Cornerstone Ridge, asking the developer to supply clearer roadway and stormwater plans after residents raised repeated concerns about runoff, septic systems and whether the lots meet local “buildable acreage” requirements.
The board voted to table final action for up to 60 days, giving the developer time to submit roadway plans showing horizontal and vertical curves and a stormwater management plan for review by county staff and the county engineer. Commissioners said the supplemental materials should be provided in writing and on a map so the board can avoid a full reapplication when the project returns.
Neighbors and property owners living adjacent to the proposed subdivision — which sits in Mazeppa Township on about 109 acres in A3 (agricultural/urban fringe) zoning — repeatedly told commissioners they oppose the development. Speakers cited increased traffic, loss of wildlife habitat, threats to private wells and a long history of flooding in the area. Anna Grossback, speaking on behalf of relatives who own nearby land, said: “We respectfully and firmly ask that you do not move forward with Cornerstone Ridge.”
At the meeting planning staff said the preliminary plat application, filed Feb. 20, 2025 by Brent Beck of Cornerstone Real Estate, follows a planning commission recommendation in favor of approval (5–0) after a March 24 public hearing. County staff noted that the preliminary submittal identifies roughly 10 residential lots and outlots that would be deed restricted to remain undeveloped.
Kyle Skov, an engineer with WHKS representing the developer, told the board the project was designed to comply with A3 zoning — “which allows one residence per 10 acres” — and that stormwater calculations were prepared for the site. “In total, there will be slightly less runoff after the development than there is today,” Skov said, describing two outlots that would be owned by a homeowners association and used for stormwater management.
Residents disputed many technical and procedural points. Speakers asked whether roads and driveways fall within bluff setback areas, whether proposed road grades meet the county’s maximum 10% standard for emergency access, and whether the plat includes adequate culvert, grading and curve design data. Several public commenters said they had not seen the county engineer’s reviews; one written statement read into the record by staff (from John Erickson) listed concerns including missing stormwater control information, roads inside bluff setbacks, insufficient road width and right-of-way, and lots that may not meet the two-dry-acres buildable requirement.
Multiple speakers described past flooding — including events in 2010 — and said they feared more runoff would exacerbate flooding on neighboring properties. Scott Nelson, whose property backs to a pond that collects runoff from the hill, described repeated local flooding and said the proposed development would “add to the flooding problem immensely in a hard rain.”
Developer Brent Beck and engineer Kyle Skov said they had met with Mazeppa Township and the county engineer and that the entrances along County Highway 21 had been sited for adequate stopping sight distance. Skov said the developer had prepared stormwater calculations and identified primary and replacement septic locations for each lot. Beck said deed-restricted outlots and roadway easements account for acreage designations, and that the final plat would reflect any adjustments required by engineering review.
County staff and one commissioner told the public the board has three options: approve with conditions, deny, or extend the decision period by up to 60 days (the extension being added to the statutory review timeline). The board chose the extension, asking the developer to submit roadway plans and a stormwater report for review by the county engineer (Dietrich Flesch) and planning staff before a final decision. The board directed that the requested materials be supplied in writing and, if possible, on updated mapping so that commissioners could confirm the location and design of Roads A and B on the plat.
No formal vote on approval or denial was taken; the board’s action was to table consideration pending submission and review of the requested materials.
