Planning Commission affirms staff denial of building permit for Delta Bay lot after historical restriction review

The Crow Wing County Planning Commission affirmed staff’s denial of a building permit Nov. 19 for Lot 12, Block 2 of First Edition to Delta Bay (PID 7212505), concluding the historical record supports the county’s position that lots in Block 2 were designated strictly for channel/access purposes and not for building.

Land Services staff described the recorded plat language and county board minutes from June 1971 that specify lots in Block 2 extend to the shore "subject to flowage rights and other reservations or restrictions of record," and cited contemporaneous county board minutes stating the lots were intended for access only. Staff also said much of the parcel lies in the flood fringe and contains wetlands, meaning a wetland replacement plan would be required to fill and create a buildable pad.

Appellant Joe Chaney and his attorney Jeff Scott argued the restriction relied on by staff appears only in unrecorded meeting minutes rather than in title documents and that the corresponding Block 1 lot (owned by the appellant or conveyed to him) provides riparian access through the Pine River. Chaney described steps he took before purchase — pre‑purchase conversations with county staff, a soils test, survey work and a wetland delineation — and said he spent roughly $235,000 on site work and permitting efforts before staff cited the historic minutes. "I’m over a quarter‑million dollars into this," Chaney told commissioners.

Commission discussion focused on the narrow legal standard for appeals of staff decisions under county ordinance article 8.7 (and Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 6): the board may overturn a staff decision only if it is arbitrary and capricious or not in compliance with ordinance standards. Several commissioners said the 1971 record and subsequent treatment of the plat support staff’s interpretation; they concluded the denial was not arbitrary or capricious and that the board lacked the authority in this appeal to substitute its own policy preference for the historical record. The motion to affirm staff’s decision passed by voice vote.

Staff told the appellant the wetland replacement appeal will proceed (that matter goes to the Board of Water and Soil Resources) and that the appellant may seek judicial review in district court within the statutory timeframe if he wishes to continue the challenge. Staff also noted options such as replatting the subdivision (with agreement of other lot owners) or pursuing other civil remedies such as quiet‑title actions.

The commission’s action affirms that, on the record presented, the county’s historic plat approvals and minutes provide a lawful basis for denying a building permit for the subject lot; the appellant has indicated he will explore further administrative or judicial remedies.