Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission Board of Adjustment approves preliminary plat recommendation and multiple variances; summary of votes
Summary
At the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment meeting, commissioners recommended approval of a seven‑lot preliminary plat and approved a series of shoreland and structure variances; the board also approved previous minutes.
The Planning Commission Board of Adjustment handled a cluster of land‑use items and variances at its meeting, recommending approval of a preliminary plat to the county commissioners and approving multiple variance applications. Commissioners voted on a set of discrete items ranging from a subdivision preliminary plat to accessory‑structure variances and rehabilitations of nonconforming cabins. Below are the outcomes and key conditions.
Votes at a glance
- County Line Estates preliminary plat (preliminary plat application by Hubbard County HRA EDA): Board recommended that the county commissioners approve the plat to subdivide 40 acres into seven lots in Farden Township. Motion by Ken; second by Larry. Vote: Tim, Ken, Mike, Veronica, Larry — all aye.
- Minutes (Board of Adjustment, 05/19/2025): Motion by Veronica to approve minutes; second Tim. Vote: unanimous aye.
- MJK Living Trust, amended variance (13‑V‑25): Approved with condition that a 12×12 three‑season porch remain three‑season and not be converted to year‑round use. Motion by Veronica; second Tim. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Walter Taylor (16‑V‑25): Variance to allow an addition and lakeside deck on a nonconforming dwelling on Big Stony Lake approved as presented. Motion by Ken; second Veronica. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Tom and Marnie Butte (17‑V‑25): Board approved the addition to the nonconforming structure and denied the proposed second lakeside deck. Motion to approve without the lakeside deck by Ken; second Tim. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Crow Wing Crest Lodge (18‑V‑25): Approved replacement of a guest cabin footprint at a resort on Eleventh Crow Wing Lake; application noted wheelchair accessibility and minor footprint changes. Motion by Veronica; second Larry. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Mike and Anne Cummins (19‑V‑25): Approved a 10×20 shed location with conditions requiring removal of an existing small 'fish cleaning shack' (6×12) before issuance of the land‑use permit and a firm removal date; board recorded the condition in findings. Motion by Ken; second Tim. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Austin and Katie Ritkers (20‑V‑25): Approved replacement/extension of a deteriorated deck and construction of a retaining wall on a steep slope for a property on Owl Lake; findings accepted. Motion by Ken; second Larry. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Lisa Tupa (21‑V‑25): Approved a small addition that encroaches on a 20‑foot road right‑of‑way for a Fishhook Lake property where the road is effectively undevelopable. Motion by (member); second Ken. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Joanne Hague Benjamin (22‑V‑25): Approved foundation repairs to a guest house using helical piers and other stabilizing work; commissioners accepted staff findings. Motion by Veronica; second Tim. Vote: unanimous aye.
- Robert McLaren (23‑V‑25): Approved rebuilding and modification of a nonconforming dwelling damaged by a fallen tree; commissioners noted septic upgrade requirements under county ordinance prior to final permits. Motion and second recorded; vote unanimous aye.
What the votes mean
Most approvals were granted with standard conditions the board and staff described on the record: site permits must be obtained, some approvals require removal of specified existing outbuildings before new permits issue, and septic systems that are noncompliant must be brought into compliance per county ordinance when replacements are required. A small number of requests were partially denied (the Tom and Marnie Butte lakeside deck was denied while the addition was approved).
Procedural notes
— Several approvals referenced the shoreland management ordinance and specific setback sections; applicants were advised to work with Environmental Services staff to complete required land‑use permits and to follow any mitigation or removal timelines in the board’s written decisions.
— Environmental Services staff and the county administrator were present to answer questions; the board repeatedly noted inspections are often complaint‑driven and that applicants bear the responsibility to secure required permits.
— Applicants will receive written notice from Environmental Services with the board’s findings of fact and instructions for obtaining final permits and for meeting any conditions attached to approvals.
Details of each vote, including motions, seconders and recorded roll‑call tallies, are captured below in the structured actions list for reference.
