Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Silver Creek P&Z approves variance for two Millstone Lake parcels

Silver Creek Township Planning and Zoning Board · September 3, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Silver Creek Township Planning and Zoning Board approved a variance Sept. 3 allowing altered divisions of two parcels on Millstone Lake after the buyer and owner explained the change; the board voted 7-0. The variance was sought because one resulting parcel would exceed prime‑soil limits and fall short of required lake frontage.

The Silver Creek Township Planning and Zoning Board on Sept. 3 approved a variance to alter two existing divisions for properties on Millstone Lake after the buyer and property owner presented the request.

Planning and Zoning Chairman Chris Klein opened the meeting. Buyer Kelsea McCormack and property owner Rod Hebrink described the proposed reconfiguration of parcels at 9571 and 9611 Endicott Ave NW, part of Government Lot 2 in Section 17. They said the change would result in parcel PID 216-000-171201 containing 5.7 acres of prime soils — above the ordinance limit of 2.5 acres — and having 285 feet of lake frontage, short of the 300 feet required by county code. The request cited Wright County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, Sections 155.026 and 155.048(B), as the basis for seeking relief from those standards.

Member Mike Helman moved to approve the variance request; member Brandon Geyen seconded. The board voted 7-0 to carry the motion.

At the earlier procedural items, the board unanimously approved the meeting agenda (motion by Helman, second by Geyen) and approved the Aug. 6, 2024 minutes (motion by Vanek, second by Helman) with two abstentions from Justin Hall and Jesse Dickinson because they were not present at the Aug. 6 meeting. The meeting adjourned following the variance vote (motion by Geyen, second by Vanek), carried 7-0.

No additional conditions, appeals timeline, or next administrative steps were recorded in the meeting minutes provided. The board did not record any public objections or extended debate during the variance consideration.