St. Croix County board opposes rezoning near Lake Malibu, citing dam access and floodplain risks

The St. Croix County Board of Supervisors voted 11–5 to adopt a resolution opposing a rezoning application filed for parcel 161-1070-20-003 by Railroad Properties of Hudson LLC, saying the proposed change could impede county access to a dam that helps form Lake Malibu and would conflict with environmental and floodplain protections.

Bruce Lensen, the property owner, told the board the parcel had been mislabeled conservancy in the 1970s even though it was then an active railroad and has historically been used for industrial or commercial purposes; he urged the board not to adopt the resolution as written. Celeste Cobrill, a Hudson resident, presented county GIS maps and argued the parcel is extremely narrow — “only approximately a 100 feet wide,” she said — and that residential development would interfere with future repairs, staging and public safety access for the dam.

The board’s discussion emphasized two central concerns: the county’s practical need for access to maintain or repair the dam and the parcel’s environmental constraints. County staff noted the county holds a 50% liability for the dam and that any future development would still need to comply with state riverway (NR 118) and floodplain (NR 116) rules. Multiple supervisors also referenced the Wild Rivers Act overlay and expressed doubt that low-density housing would be a prudent use of a mapped floodplain adjacent to the Saint Croix River.

Board members debated procedural issues as well. Cobrill and others said the village’s notice had the wrong parcel identification number and that homeowners’ counsel argued other procedural errors had affected the village’s prior comprehensive plan decisions. County staff explained the village had been assisted by county planning staff on a recent comprehensive plan amendment; the village has since taken steps to correct zoning classifications for parts of the parcel.

Supervisors offered and approved technical amendments before the final vote, including replacing a named individual with Railroad Properties of Hudson LLC in the resolution and removing an explicit reference to “conservancy” where village records had been changed. Supporters of the measure said the board was acting as a neighboring landowner and seeking to protect public access and environmental resources; opponents argued the resolution risked overreaching into a municipality’s zoning authority and urged negotiation over access easements if development proceeds.

The resolution message will be sent to the Village of North Hudson to communicate county concerns; the board did not adopt any binding controls over the village’s zoning authority. The village’s board was also scheduled to consider related items the same night.