Crow Wing County planning board denies Leffler family's request to run wedding venue on Mission Lakes

The Crow Wing County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment on March 19 denied an interim use permit that would have allowed Shirley and Perry Leffler to operate an event center and wedding venue on three parcels on Upper and Lower Mission Lakes in Center Township. The decision followed hours of testimony from neighbors and a staff presentation of competing findings in the application packet.

Staff read the application and supporting materials into the record, describing an existing cluster of buildings the applicants proposed to use for receptions and up to 100 guests, with 53 parking spaces and a combination of existing septic and portable restrooms. Mission Township and 29 written public comments were recorded, all expressing concerns about noise, traffic, parking, septic capacity and impacts to the lake environment.

Neighbors and local association leaders urged denial. "I'm here today to ask for you to deny the proposal for the event center in wedding venue in Center Township," said Bob Snell, treasurer of the Mission Lakes Association, citing extended hours, light and noise pollution, and risks of fertilizer and septic runoff. Several nearby residents said the shared driveway and easement were narrow, intended for single‑household use, and posed safety risks for children and recreational users. "Weddings should be happy, loud, and boisterous. This is not the neighborhood for that," said Nick Pournier, a resident who lives across the narrows.

The applicants and their representatives emphasized prior use of the property, stated that engineers prepared stormwater and parking plans, and said they had followed application procedures. "We have followed the rules the whole time," Shirley Leffler told the board, noting preserved acreage and prior recreational use.

Staff walked commissioners through draft findings that could support either approval or denial; staff and commissioners debated whether conditions (limits on hours, guest numbers, additional buffering or stormwater measures) could sufficiently mitigate the board's concerns without effectively eliminating the business. Several commissioners said the site's proximity to neighboring homes and the way sound travels over water made adequate mitigation unlikely.

After deliberation a commissioner moved to deny the interim use permit, a second was made, and the motion carried. Staff confirmed the decision depended on the packet materials, oral testimony, written comments and the commission's March 5 site visit.

The board did not adopt mitigating conditions; the permit application was denied and there was no vote to remand or continue that item. The denial concludes the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment review; applicants retain the administrative options described in county procedures for future applications.