at 7 o'clock we'll call the whitee town meeting for August 5th to order it's first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda Patrick how we doing Mr chair I would submit to you additional uh data specific to items 5f 6B and 7B supplemental information I also would uh have you consider adding to our agenda discussion regarding 5508 West Bald Eagle Boulevard under added agenda items you want that under 9A yes sir 6508 West ball E 55 5508 and what's this concerning uh we've got some topics that Tom and I need to talk about uh the property addition going on there okay is that it yes sir all right I need a motion to amend the agenda motion to a amend the agenda as noted that a second I'll second that all in favor say I I I oppos I motion carries item number three I need a motion to approve payment of the bills so moved second all in favor say I I I all opposed that motion carries item number four is the approval the minutes of the July 15th 2019 meeting everybody have a chance to look through them any correction Steve yes yes they were noted and uh were they fixed yes sir all right minor minor correction on page nine of the uh minutes I'll move to approve have a second on the motion second that all in favor say I I I I all opposed all right item five is a consent agenda we're going to do something a little different usually we have Scott read through these but in order of cons serving time and it's a little bit redundant unless any of these items 5 a through 5j show interest that someone one of us should like to pull off I would just look for a motion to approve the consent agenda I will move to approve the consent agenda as submitted uh second second all in favor say I I I all opposed motion carries item number six is old business uh 68 joint Powers agreement the city of Birchwood uh Patrick you going to take this yep Mr chair um submitted to you is a draft uh that was given to us from the birwood city administrator it has been run through Chad yes and has met his approval we would ask for your uh consideration to approve this um this project so is the basic change this item four that's calling out who will be responsible for any ini that's flowing yes that was that was a big change all right that and requiring that they televise their system in the event of an inii issue because that was our big concern correct correct Patrick do you know uh let's see page 71 they show the map or 73 73 yeah they show the map and there's a red Circle it says potential White Bear Lake connection Point mhm how in the world would the city hook up to that one what does that mean aren't you a builder yeah but I'm that's a long ways away from the that I I could not answer that one you know and Dale touched on that with me when we were first talking about this I I don't know the answer to that question that's a good one I don't um let me run it by him tomorrow unless it's supposed to say bir Wood Connection and it was just a that would make more sense well CU that's where they kind of would connect so I know you might want to ask maybe they want to change that yep so it's not confusing and the let me run that by him tomorrow all right any other questions Patrick go oops all right hearing none I look for a motion to approve the joint Powers agreement well I would have other than it just jumped back so I can't man I'll make I'll move based on Town Town attorney and staff review and recommendations approve the joint Powers agreement city of Birchwood and town of Whitebear 2019 utility sanitary sewer management Improvement project including Birchwood Lane Li lift station connection to Southshore Boulevard I'll second that motion made and second in um now there was one other thing I I'll talk to Dale um all in favor say I I I all oppos all right that motion carries item 6B uh Patrick obayan 1382 Top Lane Tom are you going to hand that one I will yeah give you a presentation on that this was actually reviewed by the town board at your July 15th meeting applicants here tonight they were unable to attend the previous meeting they had a date in correct so the town board was under the 60-day clock and did take an action to deny the request as submitted but let me uh give you a quick reminder of what was proposed here it's a minor subdivision splitting a one parcel into two lots it requires a couple of variances uh for the one lot uh this is South Birch Lake Boulevard over here Top Lane right here property and question and an oddly shaped piece the O'Brien home is right here with driveway accessing Top Lane they were looking for Town approval to split the property into two Parcels again the existing home fronting on Top Lane here what they'd like to do is draw a new lot line right here and make this a a buildable single family lot so the specifics on this parcel one is uh would be a 90t wide lot by 207 ft F Fe deep 18,000 and some change square foot that uh pretty far exceeds the town's 12,000 minimum square foot lot requirement and 80 foot of Frontage on a RightWay the second lot will take two require two variances it's proposed to be 89 deep or 89 at the corner here by 110 deep it's 9796 Square ft approximately uh with that it's less than 12,000 Square ft so it's a 2210 Square ft variance request and then a 15.95 lot width variance Corner Lots required to be 105 ft in a single family residence so this went through the review process the variance board and the Planning Commission the variance board reviewed it in June did recommend approval of the variance but uh asked the applic applicant to consider shifting this lot line 10 ft creating more square footage for the lot getting it closer to that 12,000 square foot of course that would eat into this lot a little bit here uh when the Planning Commission they reviewed that they reviewed the uh uh recommendations of the Planning Commission or of the variance board I should say and they recommended approval of the variances in the lot split as is both of the groups when well actually the variance board when they reviewed it they recommended and the Planning Commission I should say both recommended that if this subdivision is approved that no future variances be permitted for any new home to be constructed on the lot here so design a home accordingly don't ask for variances uh again reviewed by the VAR or the town board July 15th uh board took the action to deny it that night but uh forwarded formal AC on that until tonight in order for uh staff and the town attorney to come up with findings uh for the denial uh those are in your supplemental packet uh that's an update as I mentioned the applicant is here tonight and I think he has a few comments or like the board to consider the application as is and might have some more comments so have you met with the applicants about reignment to get the lot bigger or not yes we discussed that at the variance board uh and after the meeting after the town board action yeah I discussed that option and he's looked into it and they have some comments okay any other questions to Tom no Steve no not all right if the applicants would like to come up to the podium uh just introduce yourself your address I a couple little handles pass all right um what's that sorry Hi everybody my name is Patrick O'Brien I'm the one that's um BR the quest in for the subdivision um what I've tried to do is just um try to keep a nice straight line um with the subdiv uh subdivision of the property um by shifting it over to increase the lot size would um actually move into the curb and gutter of the existing um house so that would put some more um burdened on on me on that part um and that yeah for that that is the driveway if we um if we moved it over um feat it would definitely um take up the driveway and of course the ker gber would have to be realigned on 138 1382 um for um as you see in the um handle I have there there's a four main topics that I kind of want to talk about U press setting if you look at um the second page you can see what I'm proposing is it's at uh one or 23 Acres the adjacent property right there is at17 acres and then if you flip it to the second sheet I just did a slight blowout of the neighborhoods nearby and all the ones that are highlighted are at or below the .23 Acres um in the in in the surrounding area um the back page is is pretty far away that's northern part of the township I just showed that up there you got lots down to14 Acres .11 acre um but big thing is is the properties um within a few blocks of my proposal are are ATS or below what the square or the um basic square footage of what I'm proposing to subdivide um is there anything that I missed um and then you can see the second top of need a variance I'm assuming that you guys are reading that is there um with the with the my proposal I would only need um two variances of the subdivision if I if we if we move over the property line into the existing now to have another invariance on the property with the house is right now a fair and equal opportunity um for being able to do this um positive results um for uh smaller I mean for that um property is of course more Revenue into the township the house definitely would be sized according to to the lots for the single family family resident um right now do you guys have any questions for me or St nope that um Scott no well well Patrick part of the reason we denied this request is I know you've cited smaller Lots but these are really old Lots when we do developments now we don't intentionally try to create these small Lots we're trying to eliminate these small Lots so when we looked at this proposal in fact even some of the members of the Maring board and the Planning Commission had issues with that when we do this and we create a smaller lot we've just said now that's our standard and the next guy down the road is going to use that against us so the reason we want to keep these things as large as we can is just for that reason I I understand the the value and you splitting it off I understand the the chance of using it variances used to be um hardship now it's more of reasonable use of the property and so it's getting harder for us to allow these variances especially when it comes to this many with one lot and that's kind of where the board was coming from so that's why we're looking at if you can get this thing up at all up to closer to that 10,000 square foot range that's coming in closer to what we've applied or okay before we keep dropping those standards and it's just going to come keep coming back and white and this so that's why we're looking for any way to you for you to somehow get that lot size up um that's why we're hoping you would work with Tom to if there was any kind of realignment we could do to make that thing bigger okay and according uh and the the actual number is on the two um smallest ends it's not a square property I I didn't go out and get it resurveyed for this because the the street side and Top Lane and the proposed line is long are with would be a longer distance than the two shortest points that we had down for uh 98 and 110 so we are we just did the math off the two smallest points on this proposal so the it's actually more square footage on there but but by I'm not I don't know for sure until they actually had a survey straight line across to give that number um being a corner lot there increasing it by couple feet really it puts a burden on both properties instead of just having uh it just on that corner lot and then build something that's suitable for that lot um put it putting um adding or increasing it on the other side would of course put a burden on the property that the house is on right now with um well me personally I can't speak for the other two board members it's not so much the variances for the setbacks it's to me it's the lot size and and that's where I'm having a hard time okaying this I'll I'll I'll make a comment on that also you know you you gave us this nice aerial map and that is the exact problem with these Lots they're old small lots and as things change that's the same thing we're going to struggle with because they're all substandard size lots and they're they make it difficult uh for people to do things with and it's the lot size we need to get it larger to get closer to what our rules are that I mean I'd strongly suggest if you don't think that that's surveyed correctly you're going to have to get the exact numbers because numbers matter when it comes to the size of a lot like like I said it's the numbers that I gave you are the two shortest distances that that that that is a a a fact but I can't go ahead and get another survey for something I don't have permission to that would be a well it's the lot size I agree with both of you you're going to have to introduce yourself again sure uh my name is Barbara um Tom I have a question for you can you uh give us an indication of when the uh the development to the south of Top Lane was was developed that's Fisher Lane I believe uh it was in the80s I believe it predated when I started here in the 90s so that's kind of where the board stands we're we're just struggling with that lot size if I I know you like to everybody likes to keep it nice clean straight lines but there's got to be some way of manipulating this thing I know I know your house is sitting on a bigger lot somehow you got to figure out how to take some of that square footage and add it to a smaller one whether you're going to do a jog in the line or how you want to do it but I I I think we're kind of at an impass now that's the only way we're probably going to allow this to go through so that's why I strongly advise if you want to work with Tom if there's or maybe a survey or if there's some something that they can maybe who who did the survey I don't I didn't remember bran Bradley can the the okay yeah it might be worth the call to him too to see uh if he can pull it up and see if he's got some yeah the the survey is of course back in oh four or something that was predating the new Top Lane um Top Lane used to be uh in Alleyway streets and it that the survey you see is the road actually shifted to the northeast of there well then this might have to be updated anyway before we can even okay a lot split anyway so um what's that this may have to be updated if it's from 04 if even if you want to try to split the line yeah there there's more um ground there now than there was before Top Lane was so I think it's to your advantage to revisit this with a surveyor like I said I I think if we can close in on that 10,000 Mark was it we're close to 10,000 yeah you get to that I think we'll be fine with it guess I'd like to look at the geometry too the plan you passed out showed uh. 23 Acres which that's getting close to 12,000 Square ft so I think we need to look at the calculation there and have a surveyor put it together as I had mentioned the board's Direction based on the last meeting was to deny and then uh but with a denial comes you can't apply again for six months and the board said that they would wave that review if we wanted to take another look at it and see if we could increase that square footage that was the board Direction at the last meeting obviously it's your direction tonight to decision is what direction you want to go tonight with this that work for you guys um any comments well I think a step forward is definitely waving the six Monon reapplication um yeah we're willing to do that we're willing to do that I are there any resources that the township um can provide since the um there have been no updates in terms of the where when Top Lane went from being an Alleyway to being a roadway are there any resources that the township can provide to validate those numbers so that can you respond to that has buil information but Mr Sher May's board it didn't change the RightWay though correct no it just shifted the location of so it's not impacting the property itself they're just saying the location or the width of the road or those improvements may be but those are outside of the property that they own so it wouldn't make any difference I was inquiring um whether there would be any resources that have existed since that roadway has gone in relatively recently that would um allow for Patrick to to not make further financial investments uh only to to run into a same thing so if he has to pay for a reapplication fee if he has to pay for uh you know more additional Services I'm wondering if there are if there are data points or data that could help um that already exists so that he would not have to Outsource his own finances to prove the geometry of this slot well I'm not aware of any Patrick no not that I know of no unfortunately I'll just the board decided that it needs to be larger and so the owners is back on the property owner suggestion you call the prior surveyor and they update you know they don't charge a full most of them do not charge for a full survey again if they they update their things so you may get a price break there anyway now prices may have changed but I'd start with your survey company and see what they can do for you but okay all right I got nothing else all right well I I guess that would be my next step would be to see if I can get more accurate footage like I said stay in touch with Tom if you need any assistance he'll be able to guide you too all right I have a question were you provided the findings of fact do you just see what those were why why it was denied um I just did you pick those up back we just saw one we picked them up in fact actually um it was quite a surprise to see that the White Bear Lake paper had covered this um and it was communicated uh the the denial was communicated in the paper prior to anyone communicating to Patrick so that's actually how he found out well these are open meetings and the Press covers all of our town board actions so yeah it was an interesting article uh as opposed to as opposed to town meeting minutes or um any postings it was an entire article which also only heightens the issue personally and the town board apologizes for the confusion we really are sorry that that was mess up and for the record did did you state your last name for the record did you get her last name okay because you've been speaking to and we need to know who you are sure um my last name is O'Brien okay thank you all right thanks folks all right all right Patrick You' got on here um the motion is for accepting the findings for denial yes and we those are the ones that are in our supplement correct i' be looking for a motion to do so I'll move uh to uh based on the town Board review and I got to get to the same right excuse me uh based on the variance board Planning Commission and staff review and recommendation oops that's the wrong one see that's what happens when you jump through these things hang on I've got it if you'd like me to do it all right scratch that computers are wonderful when they do for you um accept the revised finding a fact uh as pointed out in our packet uh of tonight's meeting move to do that I'll second that motion made second all in favor say I I I'll opposed all right that motion carries okay moving on item number 7A we have a public hearing for a sidey yard setback variance request 3940 Lakewood Avenue uh to start off I would need a motion to wave the reading noting it's been properly published I'll make that motion noting the proper publication of the hearing in the news paper and wave the reading do I have a second second all fa say I I I opposed and I need a motion to open the public hearing so moved second all favor say I I opposed all right Tom okay this is a property located in the south side of the Township in the Eastwood Manor neighborhood 3940 Lakewood Avenue existing single family home with an detached garage and the applicant is looking at a couple of variants es to pave a driveway along the side Lot line around the home to the access the garage which is right here so this is Lakewood Avenue here front of the home existing gravel driveway looking to pave that driveway 3 ft from the side Lot line that will require a 6.375 ft sidey yard setback variance and also an 88.7% green area variance uh again is to provide access to the existing garage the lot itself is 75 ft wide considered an undersized lot of record 80 ft is the standard it's 10,890 ft in area again considered undiz 12,000 Square ft is uh the minimum today uh the driveway is proposed to be 12' 4 in wide between the home and 3 ft from the side Lot line uh the town does permit 30% impervious coverage on a single family home lot in this neighborhood here uh Mr Nelson is proposing to cover 38.7% of a lot so that's the 88.7% green area variants being requested um town has reviewed a number of uh variance requests for garages driveways in the Eastwood Manor neighborhood this is an older neighborhood developed in the 50s and 60s mostly Ramblers many with single car garages so the town has reviewed several variances to increase or tear down an existing single car garage and allow a double car garage and pretty much the standard setback now is 5 ft even though it's a 10-ft requirement or a little less than that if it's a narrower lot in this case um we still appr process those as variances we've not adopted an zoning ordinance Amendment adopting 5ot side setback in this neighborhood but again several variances have been approved in this area now again this is a three-foot setback being proposed not a 5 foot uh variance board Planning Commission both reviewed these uh the requests as proposed and both of those bodies did recommend approval of the variances as requested right Steve got any questions to Tom uh no I thought the uh variance board and Planning Commission were pretty straightforward I just wanted to double check right now there is a gravel driveway yes and it goes right up to the lot line it does and so now it's going to actually be further away from the lot line with the whatever it is concrete or asphalt or what yeah our plan is for a 3ot green strip between the new paveed driveway in the lot line I know this area receives a lot of this kind of applications because of the age of the area uh the township policy always has been to accommodate these kinds of requests only because we like to see things inside a garage and not outside around the building so it's not quite out of the norm uh was it unanimous on the varans board and Planning Commission yeah I believe it was all right any other questions to Tom no I would be looking for a motion to open up to public comment so moved second all faor say I I I all right anyone wish to speak to this application now is your time going once going twice hearing none uh look for a motion to close the public portion so so moved second all in favor say I I I all right if there's no further questions I would be looking for a motion on this application based on the variance board Planning Commission and staff review and recommendations approve the 6.375 foot side yard setback and an 88.7% green area variance to pave a driveway 3 ft from the side Lot line uh for 3940 Lake Lakewood Avenue I'll second that motion's been made in second and all in favor say I I I all opposed all right that motion carries item 7even b is another public hearing is for a rightaway variance request at 5216 Park Avenue again I would be looking for a motion to wave the reading I'll make a motion to wave the reading noting proper publication of the hearing notice in the newspaper a second second motions made second and all in favor say I I I opposed all right that motion carries now we need a motion to open the public hearing so moved second all favor say I I I opposed all right Tom all right this one is on the north side of the lake in the white bear Beach neighborhood this is Stillwater street right here Park Avenue between Longville Park and Highway 96 right here 5216 is the property this corner lot right here you can see it's a very small lot uh in fact it's 5998 Square ft in area it's a corner l that's 4 just under 50 ft wide by 120 ft deep again the standards for a corner lot today are 105 ft on each side and 12,000 Square ft in area Town requires a a 35 ft setback from a public rideway there is an existing single car garage located on the parcel right here fronting on Stillwater street right here it's built right up to the RightWay or the lot line here there also an existing shed behind the garage right here both of those are proposed to be demolished in favor of the new 24x 24t garage which is proposed to be shifted back from the lot line 10 ft 10 ft from the home meeting rear setback requirements on two sides but it does require approval of a where's the number I guess uh doesn't oh a 24t rway setback variance 10 ft from the RightWay 24t rway setback variance and also a 3% green area variance uh structures are proposed to cover 30% of a lot here and they're proposing 27% coverage so it's a larger garage being proposed covering a little bit more square footage on the lot but it is Shifting the garage further back from the RightWay actually creating a set back from the property line um so this is uh also been reviewed by the variance board and the Planning Commission and both of those bodies have a recommended approval as proposed so I I'm sorry I I thought this was for a three season Port all right time out the uh please refer to your supplemental package inform provided in the packet that you got variant that was reviewed two weeks ago sorry about that so the no porch proposed for this one strictly a garage it still says to okay let me all right car I forgot that detail I thought it was just me okay so the apparently the subject still says a three season porch but you're saying that's wrong this is for a garage for garage a new garage if I may you approved that at the last meeting yeah but it's the same address no yeah no I don't think so it's not there okay so there were two 5216 there was a 5216 Grand and a 5216 Park which is really weird but okay so have a typle yeah and so but all the information provided in your packet was for the pre previous variant so we put together all the information for this one in your supplemental packet so so we had the wrong information for the last one that we approved no the last one you approved you had the right one that was you just that info again that was that was 52 something Grand this is Park Avenue that's yeah this is about the other one was Grand Avenue I thought it was a little odd that both similar addresses were building three season porches okay different's keeping up with the Joneses well yeah so this actually is for a garage yes okay yes the uh subject still says three season but the action below says two-car garage just okay so sorry didn't want to jump on that I think he tried to confuse us did a good job yeah I was going to say it worked okay so then that's what this is all about all right Tom this uh height is no bigger or No taller than the house correct yeah that's correct and it's the same footprint the garage itself is a little bit bigger okay in square footage all right Steve were you at the Planning Commission when they looked at this not that I remember was I I attend a lot of meetings I don't remember this one personally okay sorry all right you have any questions to Tom on this no um no Scott I think you attended in my place oh yeah maybe I did um it's not ringing a bell all right there no questions to Tom are we looking for a motion to open up for public comment so moved second all in favor say I I all right anyone here to speak to the m mystery garage hearing none going once going twice okay motion to close the public portion so move you have a second second all in favor say I I I opposed all right uh hearing no other discussion be looking for a variance I mean a motion to approve not a three-season porch no a garage and and Mr chair I apparently wasn't at that meeting what you look at the minutes I know I looked at my calendar say I was there sorry about that so based on the variance board Planning Commission and staff review and recommendation approve the 13.5t RightWay setback variance to allow construction of a twocc car garage at 5216 Park Avenue I'll second that yeah that's the second fa say I I all opposed all right that motion carries um no no we're not look at this again yeah I have this down is a different variance than you just approved so the actual request is okay that's it you're done I think so 24t right of way setback variance that's correct and a 3% green area variance right and that's what it says down in the consent well scratch that so since that's been huh that's the information from the previous to uh resend the last motion and do it again I'll move to resend the last motion I made so second I'll second that all favor say I I I all right so we're going to try again there you go are we sure about this no um based on what I have in my hand I am all right so we'll go back and we'll try this one more time based on the variance board Planning Commission and staff review and recommendation approve the 24t RightWay setback variance to allow construction of a two-car garage on the following described property lot 17 and blah blah blah as noted 5216 Park Avenue Mr chair I think you also have to proove a 3% Green Space variance as well green variance as well and a 3% Green Space setback variance no no no just Green Space variance variance period done that's not there anything else that's it all right want to second that motion I'll second that amended motion all right motion F second all in favor say I I I all oppos Tom that was confusing sorry all right moving on item 8 a uh well number five uh seep Beach Pond improvements you going to take this one yep Mr chair members of the board if you'll recall some of you back in 2016 uh we worked with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Reconstruction of the pond it uh we did performance on cleaning out the pond for the burms and the outlet structure all those things have been performing well for the last 3 years uh now as the uh well itself and the purification of the water as it goes through the seepage Pond collects uh the sediment and that has been filling up in our seepage pond which a restricts the amount of infiltration that occurs and reduces the capacity of the seepage Pond itself and with the high demands through the summer we run that well a lot and we need to make sure that we have the capacity and ability to use it as much as possible uh what we are asking for tonight is for us to work with the mpca again and public works and we will uh go through and have the existing seepage Pond cleaned out again there are multiple components with that activity and then you get into the acceptable removals and the location of depositing that material so there's quite a few uh requirements that we need to deal with as we put together that activity what we're asking tonight is for us to prepare those plans of specifications and perform the bidding process for amount not to exceed $2,150 we'll go through that process and then bring the bid results back to the town board for approval and all of this would come out of the water operating fund all right questions go over this again Jim when back in 2016 when they were we were putting back well number five back in you did work back they did work back out in the holding Pond correct and it's just filled up faster because of all the production we've been using is that kind of what we're up to it needs to be done again twofold is we are running the well a lot and the other component is with the treatment plant being improved it is is performing the way it should be which is creating more deposits so in the past when the filter system wasn't performing as correctly and we continue to improve upon these things it's taking more stuff out of the water as we go forward so it's a a a double component of usage and that the facility is functioning properly okay no other questions for me I guess I was going down that same road of I was wondering what the lifespan is so it's been three years is it going to be another three years we're going to have to do this again and it sounds as though you're saying it's like a finer filter that's catching more stuff this time around do we need a bigger capacity to handle it in the future or is that what this survey is going to conduct consider Mr chair members of the board uh it depending on the amount of usage yeah we're going to be in that three to 5e range um the ability to increase the site is I would say extremely minimal uh we have the power station to the South side and we have flow in the ditch 14 County ditch 14 it through the uh low lands surrounding the seage pond it has to go through that before it does get into filters through the wetlands and then ultimately into ditch 14 well the another after it comes out of the siment P so if you the uh picture in the diagram uh to the west and to the north is all lowlands the ditch 14 is a significant distance north of those L this does have an outflow going into the it goes into the Wetland correct correct and the amount of seepage that occurs is an an acceptable uh amount the the water has had all the sedimentation taken out of it um the ability to try to expand that I do not not see occurring how deep is this Pond the pond is 5T deep with a 1 foot uh additional comp uh surface area to allow it to exceed that amount the at the 5 foot elevation there is a pipe for a discharge but if you were to per open that we'd have to go through an approval by the the mpca in the first place uh that is at this point basically never to be opened unless under an emergency situation going to have to deal with B to even work in this Pond is it under their jurisdiction or is it ours we're under a maintenance I mean it's basically just dealing with an existing condition so we've we've already gone through all the permitting processes and everything back in 2016 so right now we are just in a maintenance activity of the pond itself so so when it was built in 2016 or it was there before then it was there before it was built in the 80s but it was modified under the npca direction back in 2016 to its current size and capacity or was that the size has remained the same since the original design in the80s there was just the bringing it up to current requirements depending on the ability for the seepage the outlet control structure the elevations so there was more specifications within the existing structure the existing Pond itself when it was um brought up to code a few years ago I'm assuming it was cleared out at that point as well correct and I'm just curious you mentioned disposition I'm curious where that went then and is it going to go to the same place or is that part of what you're going to have to determine uh that most it'll be a landfill or an acceptable area for the materials what exactly are the materials for the most part I mean it's the iron that is the the main component and you'll you'll see it's it's a reddish bottom in the seage pond itself but there there will be tests done the uh location that the material will be taken to will have to meet the requirements based on the tests that are done so there's there's a lot of uh so anything that comes out that is taken out of our water to make it more drinkable is potential sediment that's in this Pond correct okay so but primarily iron okay okay all right we've got pretty good access to this yes uh we approved everything in 2016 worked with the gates the the ramps the vehicles the Public Works mows this thing every so often so we have taken care of all of our uh made improvements through time all right any other questions to Jim all right looks like you've got uh two motions here Jim authoriz authorize preparation of plans and specs and authorize advertisement for business correct you want to take those one at a time so I'll go ahead and uh based on the town engineer review and recommendation authorized preparation of plans and specifications for removal of the sediment and disposal of the materials second on the motion second all in favor say I I I all opposed the motion carries and based on Town engineer review and recommendation authorized advertisement for bids for an amount not to exceed 2,150 to perform both tasks with funding from the water operating fund second on the motion second on favor say I I I all opposed all right that motion carries all right moving on uh item 8 B the water main replacement study this is for East Bal eal Boulevard in Hugo Road ring Dale's not here are you going to take that Patrick or are you Jim ni Mr chair m board I forgot to mention too that we did go through both of these at our executive meeting um when uh Public Works was present and uh Dale himself reviewed both of these items for tonight's Town board agenda so Public Works is also in agreement with this process and it is Public Works that has been out dealing with the water main failures in both of these areas uh we we have had several of them occur and due to the traffic in the area the proposed improvements of streets coming forward uh we want to look at options for improving these Mainline water mains so that we don't have issues going forward both based on improvements that are coming in the future and so that we're not out dealing with uh reactionary components IE water main brakes meaning you're dealing with stuff uh overnight on weekends holidays those type of things so these two areas have had enough concern and corrective measures that we want to look at options in the best way to make improvements to those and that's why we'll perform this review and come back to you with both uh different methods for improvements and the cost to do those improvements what are the size of those lines now are they uh some are eight parts of it are eight and up to 12 in what material ductal is it possible I don't know if we talked possible to line them yes um all the different methods you look at as to what is your ability to either dig pits for access ESS of traffic some of the stuff gets into the soils in the area the water table I mean there's several components if we're going to end up trying to do the pipe bursting the lining uh directional drilling another component is how many services do you have connected to the lines that means you have to do individual connections under certain methods so there's quite a few things look at and then also work with the county in there right away any idea of the depth of this Main Line uh everything is roughly eight8 feet down how old is it roughly uh old dirt old dirt old is dirt so we we uh we're experiencing higher uh issues than what we would expect so we're under we're sure there's other components that are leading to the breaks that are occurring I see dollar signs attached to that you know plus these roads are due for major repairs so something that's got to be done before that happens oh yeah you're right and another component with the costs are reactionary fixing brakes is not a lowcost activity all right any other questions Jim no heing none do I have a motion for this based on Public Work Director and town engineer review and recommendation authorized preparation of a study for water main replacement along East bald eagle Boulevard and Hugo Road an amount not to exceed $2,750 with funding from the water operating fund I'll second that motions made second and all in favor say I I I opposed that motion carries all right item 8C the opg3 online permitting Patrick you need to take that one yep Mr chair uh we the board's consideration this evening we need to um give some kind of a commitment via our fee schedule um to opg3 to get us in the queue for reconstruction of our website so that we can process these requests for permits Etc administratively or electronically um we are currently if we commit to this um uh probably about fourth or fifth on the list which uh doesn't get us started uh until probably October with the Finish date of around January 1st we do have the ab the ability once we've submitted these fee schedules as it's noted in your memo uh to edit them on the back end but we needed to get them submitted so that they can get going on this project and we don't go too far are out um so I am proposing that uh we accept this implement or first step of the implementation of uh going electronic with our permits Etc and opg3 gave us the presentation um it would have been in your June executive board um so this is followup to that well personally I wasn't all that impressed with their uh presentation have been you should have been there in person yep it didn't it wasn't impressive that didn't go over very well no but the need and the Fulfillment of that need I think is pretty clear um if we want to get in on the the front end of updating this part of the services that we provide uh we need to get in the queue sooner rather than later yeah I I think this is a step forward in our infrastructure management and the fact I you're I agree with what you said that it would have been a much more impressive probably presentation had they been there in person yeah but having said that um really we're not you're not really asking us to to um to look at your last statement said review the fee schedule we're not really reviewing the fee schedule tonight we are just looking to see move forward with the proposal to enter that is correct that information and get in Quee to for implementation hopefully yes I'm sorry if I mated that you are correct okay um no I think it's a step forward personally and we will as part of this uh whole this project um we will be re reviewing editing um both of our ordinance our our existing ordinances as well as our fee schedules um so that we can get this all on board hopefully coinciding with its everything together and our online goal really is to have a a more robust way for people to get permit permits done online and for us to know what people are requesting correct and tracking them yes so I it it kind of removes the the subjectivity of whether or not a person has the ability to easily apply for a building permit for example we it is there for everybody to take advantage of whenever they want not necessarily between the hours of 700 and 4:30 like I think that's a big Point yeah it's allows for self-service and is not dependent on staff availability y yes um and you mentioned something else that um I guess you'll be reviewing the accur not the accuracy but the the the fee structure to make sure that it's making sense for okay yep and we'll have that opportunity to do that edit on the back end once we get rolling on this and and the presentation was even though it was remote it walked kind of a person through the process of of when they would need to have an in U an inspection and everything else that site plans and things that they need to have ready versus talking to a person and getting the same answer yes and it's I mean as you alluded to it's a multi-layered approach to this that it's kind of the One-Stop shop at this point um and we feel that that's going to be much less cumbersome for our residents to handle Patrick has our bill inspector Mike Johnson reviewed these um sheets yes cuz I got a question for why there is no plan review it's actually on page 19 but there's no plan review for any kind of grading on the property I always thought that required some sort of site plan hold on I thought that I had that in the memo I don't know if that's something Mike want might want to look at or maybe doesn't app doesn't apply but I always thought you had to have a a site plan if you're going to start grading some of's property um we've got staff meeting tomorrow I will ask him that question Mr chair otherwise that's the only thing I saw in here okay they got greting excavation residential but it doesn't just say in commercial but there's no plan review no well normally that's kind of critical that's the last thing we want is someone you're right diverting water off their property into the neighbor that's a good question I I don't know the answer to that one I will find that out though all right any other questions of Patrick you no I'm I'm good hearing none I will entertain a motion I'll move to authorize submission of the fee scheduled to opg3 to begin the next step in implementation of the online permitting process second second motions made in second all in favor say I I I I opposed uh carries this is all pretty cool it's tying together with what we're going to do with GIS with uh going everything all of our forms and documents electronically um and then getting this narrowed down to being able to being done online as well it's just it's kind of wrapping our arms around the whole thing and it's coming together pretty nicely actually so well I think only because for the the obvious easier applications this this a good way to start the more complicated it gets we're just going to have to go through a little learning curve going have to grow with it y y you're right all right thank you Mr chair item 8D we need to reschedule the October executive meeting um Mr chair if I may for the board's consideration uh how would we feel about doing that on a Thursday on a Thursday yes so rather than being the Friday the 25th we would conduct our executive board on Thursday the 24th oh we have that's plan commission meeting 24 that's at night once again that's me i i s that one um well you'd be their all day I'm musle yeah the only reason I ask is because the proposed rescheduled date and I didn't know this either is a employee recognition date I I guess for Public Works that has been in the past it's been traditionally on that Friday um so I I I also Friday October 18th is Mea weekend people might have plans that weekend I don't you don't I don't I don't either is it is it really all about you because this Chang in the first place was about me I I will work with either one of the decisions I'm just checking to make sure everybody else is on the same page I'm okay on the 18th or the 24th it's oh as am I really okay Megan can you make that one oh yeah good question what about you Jim I didn't know the 24th was popping out but I'm sure someone will represent you that would uh tell you what why don't we why don't we check since the 18th and the 24th were work why don't we find the date that works best for all concern and arrive on one do we need to identify it at this meeting no okay um as as a further suggestion I mean there's always we could start earlier also so we start at 11:00 but I mean if an earlier time in the day would work no is it before your AR Rising time or well some of us work some of us have to work well we start at 11: you don't work it's a half day oh okay we start at 6:00 in the morning are you implying I don't work come on all right so we'll we'll double check this and get back to it right um and we'll have a date firmed up for you for your next meeting to approve all right that would be great because the further ahead I can plan the better yeah me too Megan you want to check you're a vital component to that okay as long as I write it down I'm sure I can okay all right all right to be continued thank you okay we have one added agenda item item 9A 5508 West Bal Eagle Boulevard Tom do you want to start talking about this this is the uh garage that's under construction on West Bald Eagle Boulevard the one related to uh bald eagle island recall earlier this year the applicant applied for a uh special permit to allow a guest cottage which we determined would be more of a refuge area which he proposed to put a second story on the garage uh in addition to a conditional use permit for that use it required uh I think it was a 11t height variance for that particular use that was denied by the board the guas cottage juice and any height variance but the board did uh review and approve two setback variances one from the rway one from the lake shore uh so the landowner uh revised his plans designed a new garage brought in a proposed garage that was 15 ft High measured from grade to the average of the highest Gable which was the direction staff gave um lot of discussion comments from residents we took a second look at that and uh we have several definitions of height that apply to uh uh garages accessory structures Lakes Shore accessory structures and uh that came into question and I'm wondering did I air in saying 15 ft was the height that was the maximum height height based on our definitions so discussion with the town attorney um prior to the meeting here and maybe Chad you could summarize some of the things we looked at and where you think we're at with this the issue is is this a accessory use or a principal use and this is a very unique property in that it's its own separate tax parcel while it does serve the island it is a separate tax parcel therefore it has to be considered as a lot by itself and therefore and there is no other use on this lot other than a garage so therefore the garage is the principal use it's not accessory use it's the principal use again rather unique because this is the only situation I can think of where the principal use is a garage normally that can't a garage can't be a a principal use it only be an accessory use but in this case it is a principal use and it's it's permitted in this situation so from that standpoint as a principal as a principal use therefore it's a principal structure and you'd apply the height VAR height rules for a principal structure which under 8- 6.4 C is 25 ft so they're well within the the structure is well within the 25t height height uh limit for a principal principal building principal structure again it's a very unique situation even though it's next to I guess I'm going to answer my own question even though it's a Lakeside building if it's a principal use it can have a higher variance than the restriction for a lak Shore accessory which is only 10 ft yes it can because it's not an accessory use it's it's it's a principal use so therefore the principal use in a Shore Land Management would apply for Lake Shore you know Lakeshore would would apply it's I say it's a extremely unique situation I think this this is the first time I've ever seen this occur in the township where you have a garage as a principal use on a lake on a uh Lakes Shore property so right now the garage is 15 ft High theoretically it could be 25 apparently so um was that part of the original e eement agreement oh it only gave the size it didn't give the height it only gave size yeah it didn't deal with height yeah I mean yeah I hate to keep saying it but this is a really unique parcel a unique situation I doubt you'll ever run across this again in the township well Tom I know they changed the the grade elevation how much did they move that up uh I mean that that obviously is not helping the I think it was a couple feet but I'm guessing I really should give you the specific number and I'm not quite sure if I reviewed a grading plan or not but but that's not helping the case for The Neighbors with the being taller because they they raised the ground up before they started building it they did and they filled a little bit of flood plane permitted by Rice Creek Watershed district and compensated for that um so to your point it could be it could look as though it's bigger than 15 ft High it could look like it's 17 or 18 and I think that's part of the issue they did raise it up because he was trying to ease his drainage issues off the off thead road because it was running into the garage yeah and uh it goes with the uniqueness of that particular piece of property and he does have the permission from the from the wased district so it's he is playing by the rules yeah Tom where did the where did the number 15 come from if it's 10 foot for a lak Shore property where did 15 come from uh that's uh both the height of an accessory structure non lak Shore or a guest cottage which we originally started out as a guest Cottage with this right so so the applicant's still within his uh requirements of what we allowed yes yes he's the the Lakeshore setback requirement and the RightWay setback requirement that was varied from he is within those uh numbers okay so if that's the case why are we discussing this probably because I brought up the question I was contacted and I started asking Tom questions and that led to more questions and here we are here we are I can understand why the neighbors are are are concerned because it is it's definitely taller than the the other garage y well that was helpful to understand uh the the because my thought was the most restrictive but that's why I'm not an attorney the most restrictive would take presidence but it sounds as though because this is a primary residence it could be even taller it's not even a primary residence it's a primary structure primary structure sorry right no that's okay I mean yeah that's the only reason this is they can do it at 15 ft is because it is a primary structure okay yeah I think the the the keys besides the height is the The increased sensitivity of the neighborhood for everything it's like being in a bubble anyway anything goes on there but there was concerns over uh the application the use of that garage at and and I assured that our building inspector has met and looked to made sure he's doing exactly what we had agreed to do uh there was gas and water run to the garage which is perfectly acceptable uh people Heat their garage so uh everything's done is gets people sensitive so I think that's good to know that the I this all right well so to your point Scott at least now it's on the record why the rationale behind what's going on there yeah all right any other questions or comments all right hearing none um item number 10 open time is there anyone here to speak for open time Barb you got anything dab dab I mean want to be bar tonight she wants to be Deb tonight sorry de just say he wants to be Scott all right hearing no one for open time and item number 11 I need a motion for a receipt of agenda materials and supplements can I have one thing it's a plug tomorrow night is night to unite oh yeah and for anybody here or on television if they get to see it it's it's a night to to go out and meet your neighbors there's lots of local uh groups Gathering and if you don't know where there's any your neighborhood they could call the township I'm sure and find out where the nearest uh Gathering is tomorrow night uh Rams County Sheriff will be out in force so will white bear so behave [Laughter] yourselves so will we at least and our Public Safety commission will be out so yes now go ahead all right uh item 11 a motion to receive agenda materials and supplements so moved have a second second all in favor say I I I all opposed item number 12 motion to adjourn so moved second we are adjourned at 8:15