Last Thursday, the Sherburne County Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) tackled a pair of agenda items that have been drawing a good deal of feedback from area residents over the past several weeks.

While the commission is advisory in nature and doesn’t have final authority, the Sherburne County Board of Commissioners had recently asked for the planning commission’s input into both items.  In addition to the planning member’s personal input, the public was also allowed to speak at the meeting.

The first item on the agenda was to take a look at the county’s subdivision ordinance standards as they related to the parking of inoperable vehicles.

County Planner Marc Schneider noted that since 2019, there have been over 250 solid waste complaints reported to the county, with junk and excessive vehicles being the most common.

County staff presented several visual examples of non-complying properties and categorized the impacts they can have on the neighborhood, which include negative impacts on surrounding property values, as well as environmental concerns.

Schneider also reported that one single complaint can generate as many as 70 hours of staff time to deal with the issue.

The focus of the county’s current plans are in platted subdivisions, of which most are 2.5 acre parcels.  Currently, there are no performance standards for the vehicle storage and two unlicensed vehicles are allowed per parcel.  Several surrounding counties allow no unlicensed vehicle outside storage.

Schneider presented several language items for consideration that pertained to clarifications such as what is considered a motor vehicle (the proposed language was taken from the existing solid waste ordinance).

The language clarifications garnered no public input and the commission gave it approval to the proposed changes.

The second issue related to the maximum amount (percentage) of a parcel that could be reasonable for installation of an improved parking surface, as well as what materials would fit that definition.

This item drew considerable conversation about what surfaces would be considered impervious, as well as the percentage that would allow adequate parking for vehicles but also not cause nuisances for surrounding property owners.

After debate among members of the commission, Chair Bryan Lawrence opened the public hearing for comment.

Big Lake resident Steve Fuchs spoke on behalf of himself and the approximately 12 residents who were in attendance from the Knick Knack Knoll and Meadowlands developments. 

Fuchs urged the commission to support the ordinance, noting three specific concerns, with the first being that surrounding property values are being diminished by the problem.  He also noted problems with rats and mice infestations coming from the vehicles, some of which have not moved in five years.  Finally, he said that he and his neighbors are concerned about the environmental impacts caused by the vehicles as they leak fluids.  He further noted that what started as one concerning property three years ago has now become three properties, as county staff need additional tools to ensure compliance.

Orrock Twp. Supervisor Greg Felber spoke to the issue next, indicating his belief that the proposed ordinance was too broad and should be left to the townships to deal with.  He explained that he felt the environmental impacts should be separated from the aesthetic concerns and that he was concerned the issue would fall to law enforcement to deal with in the end.

Kevin Hiller was the next speaker and he commended the county for looking at the issue, but wondered if the ordinance would accomplish anything and was worth the effort since the driveway portion of the parcels were not being included in the percentages.  

With the public hearing closed, commission member T. Vander Eyk from Clear Lake noted that with a 1% coverage limit, the improved parking surface would amount to approximately four regular sized vehicles allowed to be parked in that area.

Lawrence asked the commission what their wishes were in moving forward and Bruce Aubol motioned to recommend the 1% coverage limit per parcel.  His motion passed, with members Roger Nelson and Lawrence voting against.

BOA

Next up, the board tackled the issue of the make-up of the county’s board of adjustment (BOA), a governing body with ultimate authority over items such as proposed variances and easements.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Nancy Riddle led the group through a line by line look at the proposed changes to the BOA.  Changes called for 

to ensure compliance.

Orrock Twp. Supervisor Greg Felber spoke of  his belief that the proposed ordinance was too broad and should be left to the townships to deal with.  He said he felt the environmental impacts should be separated from the aesthetic concerns and the issue should fall to law enforcement to deal with in the end.

Kevin Hiller was the next speaker and he commended the county for looking at the issue, but wondered if the ordinance would accomplish anything and was worth the effort since the driveway portion of the parcels were not being included in the percentages.  

With the public hearing closed, commission member T. Vander Eyk from Clear Lake noted that with a 1% coverage limit, the improved parking surface would amount to approximately four regular sized vehicles allowed to be parked in that area.

Bruce Aubol motioned to recommend the 1% coverage limit per parcel.  His motion passed, with members Roger Nelson and Lawrence voting “naye”.

BOA

Next up, the board tackled the issue of the make-up of the county’s board of adjustment (BOA), a governing body with ultimate authority over items such as proposed variances and easements.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Nancy Riddle led the group through the proposed changes to the BOA.  Changes called for more geographic representation among the five commissioner districts, as well as whether or not the ordinance should specify if Twp. Supervisors can be a part of the board.

At the forefront of the discussion were some semantic disagreements over whether or not the proposed language omitted service by Twp. Supervisors.  In general, most of the Twp. officials felt the language precluded their application, while County Commissioner Tim Dolan argued that they could still apply, but they wouldn’t be chosen to serve if there were other qualified applicants.  

Current language allows the Board of Commissioners to select the members to the BOA, causing member Lawrence to wonder why the county would want to eliminate a segment of the populace (supervisors) from applying.

Palmer Supervisor Steve Demeules noted that he took issue with elected officials being excluded from applying for the board.  He further explained that being on the BOA is not an easy task and it takes some time to “get up to speed” on the complex zoning regulations.  Furthermore, he stated that he has spent his own time and money to take recommended classes to increase his own personal knowledge of the BOA process and with the changes, he would be forced off the board.

Several members of the commission agreed that it takes some time to become familiar with all of the rules and regulations and therefore they disagreed with another proposal to put term limits on the BOA membership.

Dolan again reiterated his stance that the language doesn’t exclude anyone from applying, but the new guidelines state the county’s priority in getting more residents involved in the process.

He posed a question to the group, asking if the supervisors felt they should be given preference over any other applicants?

The general consensus from the group was that they did not want preferential treatment, but wanted a fair opportunity to serve and didn’t want to be excluded or deferred in the process.

Another sticking point in the proposal centered around whether or not city residents would be members of the BOA.  In general, the townships contended that because the BOA deals with zoning issues for townships, then only their residents should be part of the board.

During the public hearing on this issue, Hiller, the Livonia Twp. Supervisor, again spoke to the commission.

“Why would the commissioners limit the pool of applicants,” he asked.  “Why not pick the best qualified candidate?”

Clear Lake Supervisor Bud Stimmler also spoke against the language proposal, noting his opposition to the term limits as well as excluding elected officials from serving.

After considerable discussion, Lawrence tried to summarize the feelings of the townships and offered several key points: Townships were opposed to excluding elected officials from the board; no city representatives should serve on the BOA; and if possible, the Townships would like to have a say in who the Board of Commissioners appoint to represent their areas.

In the end, the commissioners unanimously approved a resolution rejecting the language issues that Lawrence had outlined.

The matter will now head back to the Board of Commissioners for action at their July meeting.