Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends most land-use ordinance changes, excludes district-appointment rule
Summary
Crow Wing County planning staff presented updates to the land-use ordinance including permit and inoperable‑vehicle rules; the commission voted to recommend the ordinance changes to the County Board while separating out Article 6.3a for separate action.
The Crow Wing County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment recommended that the County Board approve a package of land‑use ordinance amendments presented by planning staff, but withheld endorsement of one contested provision related to appointment by district. Chris, planning staff in the Land Services Department, summarized the package and asked the commission to forward a recommendation to the County Board’s Committee of the Whole and then to the full board for final action.
Chris said the edits include multiple clarifications and higher‑level policy changes: "Article 6.3 a, is proposed changed that a planning commission board board of adjustment member would be appointed by a commissioner, but not required to be from that commissioner's district," and changes to event‑center permitting and inoperable motor‑vehicle limits. He also reported three written comments opposing the proposed 6.3a change (from Mission Township, a comment from Bob Smith as an individual, and an email from Carol Johnson of Gale Lake Township, which staff treated as a submitted comment)."
Commissioners debated the bundle and a commissioner proposed dividing Article 6.3a from the main motion so the body could approve the bulk of the ordinance while taking separate action on the appointments provision. The amended motion to recommend the ordinance changes excluding Article 6.3a passed by voice vote. The commission recorded a separate motion on Article 6.3a and, after discussion, voted 3–1 to recommend that the County Board not adopt Article 6.3a as drafted.
Staff told the commission there was no one present in the courtroom or online to testify during the public hearing and that staff would brief the County Board Committee of the Whole the next day and the County Board on the 27th of May. The commission’s recommended outcomes on both the ordinance package and Article 6.3a will be transmitted as the commission’s formal advice to the County Board.
