A proposed parking ordinance for Sherburne County was a hotly-debated topic on social media recently. The proposed ordinance would regulate how many vehicles may be stored outdoors on township properties. 

The ordinance went before the Sherburne Commissioners’ Board several weeks ago, but with all the uproar online and the multiple individuals who attended the meeting to speak against the ordinance, the commissioners decided it was best to send the ordinance back to planning and zoning.

Planning and zoning held a public hearing regarding the ordinance, and there were, once again, many individuals in attendance who wished to speak about the ordinance, as well as several individuals who decided to submit written statements. 

The ordinance would only apply to township residents on platted lots. This means those within city limits are not affected by the ordinance, and neither are those who are storing vehicles on unplatted land. 

Junk vehicles are the most common complaint that planning and zoning receives regarding  land issues. Complaints come in on the basis of neighbors who dislike the blight, the potential impact on property value, and the environmental implications. The proposed ordinance was meant to give the county further ability to deal with the frequent complaints they receive.

Steve Demeules, representative of Palmer Twp., stated that, due to many township residences being near the lake, the township board was against the proposed ordinance, believing that it would promote the increased use of impervious surface on residential lots and fly in the face of work they’re done to keep impervious surfaces down and limit runoff.

Lots of county residents spoke against the ordinance during the hearing. Many felt that, regardless of the complaints of neighbors, if an individual is technically in compliance with the current ordinance, they should be allowed to store as many vehicles as they like on their own property. Part of that ordinance states that the vehicles need to be licensed and tabbed (with the exception of a maximum of two vehicles), which also requires the vehicles to be in working condition. Some argued that the county was making sufficient money from the tabbing of these vehicles that they should be willing to let the matter rest. Others stated that the ordinance would put a large number of county residents out of compliance with the ordinance, and that a solution that didn’t affect so many people might be a better solution.

At the end of the nearly two hour meeting, the commission decided to deny the ordinance and directed staff to search for another solution to the issue.