Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDA hears ordinance rewrite proposals to ease lot size and septic separation limits
Summary
Staff updated the EDA on county ordinance rewrite work that would reduce minimum lot sizes in some areas (from 2.5 to 1.5 acres) and consider lowering septic soil separation requirements (from 3 feet to 2 or possibly 1 foot) to expand developable parcels; staff said townships will be engaged and pushback is expected.
Sherburne County staff updated the Economic Development Authority on progress in an ordinance rewrite this meeting, describing proposed changes intended to expand housing options in rural areas.
The steering committee discussed three main topics: reducing minimum lot sizes in certain areas from 2.5 acres to 1.5 acres, lowering the county’s three‑foot soil separation requirement for septic systems to two feet (with some discussion of one foot), and exploring multi‑family/townhome options in hamlets. Staff said those standards have been in place since the mid‑1990s and that changing them would be a significant shift intended to open up development for parcels that are otherwise physically suitable for a house but fail the 36‑inch separation test.
Staff described technical work with county surveyors and engineers to document where current soil and topography make 3‑foot separation infeasible, noting examples in parts of Big Lake and San Diego Township. The team plans to present the proposed changes to the planning commission and affected townships for feedback; staff cautioned that the proposals are likely to face pushback from residents who favor existing lot sizes.
A tentative schedule places further outreach and refinement in February and an effort to bring final proposals to the county board in late spring if township input and technical analyses support the changes.
What happens next: staff will continue technical analysis, solicit township comment and bring refined proposals to planning commission meetings as the rewrite proceeds toward a county‑board review timeline.
