Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Hunter Lake preliminary plat despite neighbor concerns about easement and access
Summary
The board approved the Hunter Lake Acres preliminary plat (7 lots) after staff and county attorneys advised the recorded easement provides ingress and egress; a nearby resident urged removing shown driveways from the plat to avoid landlocking and potential civil litigation.
The Crow Wing County Board voted June 24 to approve the preliminary plat for Hunter Lake Acres, a seven-lot conventional subdivision in Section 22 of Woodford Township, after staff and county legal advisers told the board the recorded easement provided legal ingress and egress for Lot 1.
Planner Chris Pence presented the application (parcel 95220590) and said the submittal meets ordinance requirements for lot area, lot width and septic locations and that the planning commission had unanimously recommended approval on May 15. During public comment, resident Carrie Hoffman (19460 County Road 30) urged the board to remove proposed driveways from the preliminary plat, arguing the existing easement does not permit vehicle access and that showing driveways on the plat could mislead buyers and expose the county to civil claims. "So I'm just I guess I'm concerned because you are approving him landlocking his own property, which essentially is forcing our hands," Hoffman said.
County counsel reviewed the recorded easement and county ordinance context, noting a local rule requires a 66-foot-wide road easement. The counsel advised that questions about the easement’s specific use or location are civil matters between property owners and that the county’s plat finding was based on whether statutory/ordinance criteria for plat approval were met. The chair said the board would take attorneys’ advice and proceed; Commissioner Lee moved to approve the preliminary plat (findings of fact dated 05/15/2025; certificate of survey received 04/03/2025), the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
Why it matters: the decision permits the subdivider to proceed with the development steps associated with a preliminary plat; unresolved private easement disputes remain subject to civil litigation and are not resolved by the board’s action. The board also noted the 66-foot easement requirement in county ordinance that could affect future maintenance or potential county takeover of the roadway.
Next steps: the recorded finding of fact and the county-adopted plat paperwork will be incorporated into county planning records; any private disputes over easement scope or driveway placement would have to be litigated or otherwise resolved by the property owners.
