The Village Council sought clarification from Zoning Administrator Jon Pettit at the September 15 meeting regarding recent discussion of zoning issues at 29705 Highway 43 South. At the August meeting the council voted to approve a fine to property owner Dave Lind regarding the construction of a building without a permit. At the time, the council also approved seeking clarification from the state on right-of-way boundaries, as it was believed a structure on Lind’s property was within the city and State of Minnesota right-of-way setback.
At the last meeting, the council did acknowledge that state data indicates the structure is within the right-of-way, that Lind was in violation of the zoning ordinance, and that the structure must be moved back.
The council referenced a letter sent from Lind to all members of the council, City Attorney Joe O’Koren, and the media. In the letter, Lind maintains that he has in the past sought required permitting, including for the concrete pad on which the structure in question sits. He further asserts that the timeline of discussion of the structure was inaccurate, that others are not being held to the same setback standard, and that he did not think he needed a permit for a temporary structure.
“In reference to the freezer, Pettit told me he didn’t think it would be a problem. But he did think I should get a permit to be safe and then follow the setback requirements,” wrote Lind. He sought legal counsel regarding the issue. “I was given confidence that the freezer would qualify as a temporary structure.”
Clerk Mary Miner indicated a letter to Lind had been drafted prior to receiving his letter. Attorney O’Koren stated the letter can be modified to account for anything new.
“What I reported to you in the last council meeting and the pictures show it is a black and white issue,” said Pettit. “It’s a long-standing ordinance. There’s nothing new, nothing sneaking up on anybody. It’s pretty easy to see a violation that occurred. It’s a pretty straightforward ordinance; a strong ordinance.”
Councilor Bob Hart questioned the difference between a permanent and a temporary structure. Pettit clarified the county requires under 160 square feet to be considered temporary. “I consider the building to be beyond that. I didn’t get a permit to know it exactly,” noted Pettit.
There are two issues. One, a structure with no permit. Two, a structure that was put up is in violation of the right-of-way,” added Mayor Dennis Overland.
O’Koren further commented on the legal ways to address the issue noting a variance can be granted. However, Overland previously indicated the Village hasn’t granted variances.
“Those are in the case of hardship. Here that’s not really an issue,” added Overland. “At the same token, if the next person comes to build something, there’s no rules anymore. It could get us into a big ball of problems. If we start picking and choosing gets what it gets into discrimination.”
“It’s on him to prove that there’a a practical difficulty. As you said, it’s on a case by case basis. Maybe he should be given that opportunity,” suggested O’Koren, further noting that proving a difficulty is typically done before the remainder of the process.
“That’s the problem,” said Overland. “He said in his letter Jon told him he needed a permit. He got someone else’s opinion who may or may not know our ordinances.”
“He did not follow the guidelines. He did not come here or to any zoning meetings,” added Councilor Mike Ebner. “He made us play our hand.”
The council sought O’Koren’s opinion once again about how to proceed. “Well, there’s doing nothing all the way to court. If the city wants to discuss those, I suggest the council close the meeting to discuss it further under attorney/client privilege.
One citizen did speak regarding the issue during the time for public comment. “This zoning stuff has gotten way out of hand,” said Taylor Peterson. “You vilified Dave as someone who consistently broke zoning rules and that’s not Dave. He’s gotten permits. He’s gotten it done by the book. I don’t like seeing him getting ramrodded. If we’re doing it to him, who’s next?”
The council later closed the meeting to discuss the matter further. It was reopened for adjournment. No decision or summary of discussion was noted by the Clerk Miner.
In other news, the council has adopted a preliminary levy of $495,000, a 10% increase over the 2020 levy of $450,000. The levy was also $450,000 in 2019. Once approved, the city can work to reduce the budget and levy prior to setting the final levy in December, but it cannot raise the levy beyond the 10% increase.
Councilor Rick Ruberg indicated he’d spoken to the county assessor and treasurer’s offices to see what the projected impact of a just a 5% increase over the $450,000 would be. He estimated an $11-$54 annual impact on residential and $50 increase on ag land with a $100,000 homestead and $500,000 in land.
“We have the option to scale back,” suggested Hart.
“Do you think a person could live with it on the ag side of it?” Ebner asked of Ruberg, a farmer.
“It’s better safe that way than not enough,” he responded.
“These aren’t final… just so everyone understands when the tax statements go out,” added Ebner.
“We’re hoping that we can move it down come December,” said Overland. “That would be the worst case scenario.”
The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Tuesday, October 6, at 7 p.m., at the Village Hall.
Leave a Reply