Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Silver Creek planning board approves variance for two Endicott Ave NW parcels
Summary
The Silver Creek Township Planning and Zoning board on Sept. 3 approved a variance allowing an altered division of two Endicott Ave NW parcels that would exceed prime-soil acreage limits and fall short of required lake frontage; the vote was 7-0.
Silver Creek Township’s Planning and Zoning board on Sept. 3 approved a variance request to alter two Endicott Ave NW parcels in the Millstone Lake area, despite the resulting division exceeding county prime-soil limits and providing less lake frontage than required.
The request was presented by applicant/buyer Kelsea McCormack, with property owner Rodney W. Hebrink also present. The board considered the proposal under provisions of the Wright County Code of Ordinances (Sections 155.026 and 155.048(B)), which govern land-use divisions and shoreland/prime-soil standards. According to the board summary, the division as proposed would yield one lot containing 5.7 acres of prime soils, exceeding the county maximum of 2.5 acres, and would provide 285 feet of lake frontage where 300 feet is required.
Mike Helman moved to approve the variance and Brandon Geyen seconded. The board carried the motion 7-0.
At the meeting the applicants gave an explanation of the requested alteration; the minutes record that the buyer and seller were present and addressed the board but do not include a verbatim statement. The record does not list any formal conditions or amendments attached to the approval.
Earlier on the agenda the board handled routine business: it approved the meeting agenda (motion by Helman, second by Geyen) and approved the Aug. 6, 2024 minutes (motion by Tom Vanek, second by Helman); Justin Hall and Jesse Dickinson abstained from the minutes vote because they were not present at the Aug. 6 meeting, and that motion carried 5-0. The board adjourned after the variance action (motion to adjourn by Geyen, second by Vanek, carried 7-0).
Procedurally, the variance was considered under the cited county code sections; the minutes identify the affected parcels by tax identification numbers and the general property location but do not include additional conditions, mitigation measures, or a record of post-approval requirements. Any subsequent permits, surveys, or county recording steps required to implement the approved division would follow regular Wright County procedures.
