Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MINUTES 3 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />April 16, 2015 <br /> <br />a. Blaine Jones Lot Consolidation <br />Mr. Burslie explained the Staff Report. The ordinance requires lots to be consolidated to <br />become conforming. Mr. Jones was present. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones stated he is concerned with the tax increase. The County is not requiring the <br />consolidation. He is not incompliance with his Variance approval until the <br />consolidation takes place. He further stated he is not in favor of paying an additional <br />$104 in taxes. They are 50 foot lots and one lot can’t be built on because of the <br />topography. When asked, he stated that the new dwelling was built on the same <br />footprint; one corner of the building is over the lot line (of Lots 1 and 2). <br /> <br />Planning Commission Member Hallan stated the lots are nonconforming lots. The <br />Planning Commission’s actions were typical; a Variance was requested and as a <br />condition, consolidating the 2 lots made the lot conforming. The 3 lots are being used <br />as a single property. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones stated Lot 1 is not buildable and he will lose the $76,000 benefit. Planning <br />Commission Member Hallan stated the dwelling sits on Lots 1 and 2 and should be <br />made one lot. <br /> <br />Chair Seils asked if any of the Planning Commission Members felt they made a wrong <br />decision at the time of the Variance. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission <br />that they were not in favor of changing the decision made during the Variance hearing. <br />It was the correct decision since the dwelling sits on both lots. <br /> <br />The tax increase is $24. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones asked why the consolidation is necessary if it doesn’t make any difference to <br />the County. Mr. Burslie explained the City has the zoning authority and the Shoreland <br />Rules require consolidation to make the lots conforming. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones stated he will consolidate Lots 1 and 2. This should be the last condition of <br />the Variance approval. <br /> <br />b. Extractive Use Ordinance – Discussion <br />Mr. Burslie explained the Staff Report. Anderson Brothers stated our ordinance was a <br />little vague and provided information for improvements. The language in red was added <br />to our ordinance requiring a better survey and additional maps. If the Planning <br />Commission agrees with the changes, we can provide an ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Member Wilson stated the haul road conditions were discussed at <br />the public hearing; we should add language regarding the haul road conditions.