Resident urges county to reconsider wetlands designation, says delays hinder housing

During public forum at the Pine County Board meeting, Bruno resident Doug Bleckinger asked the board to reconsider a county wetlands determination affecting a 12‑lot subdivision on the west side of Bruno and criticized delays and the appeals process.

Bleckinger said contractor Bruno began the subdivision about three years ago with 12 half‑acre lots, placed more than 500 loads of sand and built roads with city approval. He said the county recently determined part of the property is a wet meadow or wetland and that designation surprised residents because, he said, the land sits at a local high elevation and is not included on existing wetland maps.

Bleckinger raised several concerns: he questioned the timeliness of the county’s determination after three years of development; he said a technical meeting to assess the property included only two members, which he suggested undermined the validity of the assessment; and he said roadside ditches created by the contractor should be treated as construction‑created wetlands. He also criticized the appeals process, saying appeals were directed back to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) — the same entity that carried out the initial assessment — which he called a potential conflict of interest.

He connected the wetlands designation and other local delays, such as septic inspection wait times he said have reached nine months, to the broader shortage of affordable housing, telling the board that long waits and wetland determinations make it harder to build housing in Bruno. "Why is the town creating more wetlands instead of working with cities and contractors to put up affordable housing since we are in such short supply?" he asked.

Bleckinger said the housing shortage is acute in the area and that long‑term renters occupy motel units because they cannot find alternatives. He urged the county to consider independent assessments and to address procedural delays that he argued hurt housing supply.

The board acknowledged the comment during public forum; no board action was taken during the meeting on the wetland determination and staff follow‑up or appeals procedures were not resolved on the record.