We will call the organizational regular town board meeting for January 5th, 2026 to order. First item on the agenda is the approval. Patrick, any changes? >> No uh additions or subtractions from staff, Mr. Chair. However, just a point of clarification on item number 11. Our close session discussion uh will be regarding our um ongoing um situation with the White Bear Lake City Fire Contract. I'm sure we would have to specify that. Correct, Chad? >> Yes, >> we do. >> So, there's [clears throat] your specification. >> All right. Does the board have anything? >> I do not. >> I don't. >> All right. Hearing none, I need a motion to approve the agenda. Move to approve the agenda as noted. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Item three is approval of payment of the bills. You sign off. >> I did move to [clears throat] approve payment of the bills. >> I need a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Item four is approval of the prior meeting minutes of December 15th. Anybody have any corrections? >> I didn't. >> I did not. Move to approve the uh minutes from the December 15th, 2025 meeting. [clears throat] Second >> motion's made in a second. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Item five is a consent agenda. This is a yearly housekeeping that we do. Um it's quite extensive here. If the board's had a chance to look it over, is there anything you want to pull off? Pretty much the same as last year. I don't think we had any changes on this whole thing, did we? >> Um just the addition of Supervisor Artner in the specific places. Um, I have a question. I I thought sometime during the year, uh, Pat, you had indicated that the hearing officer was Bill wasn't going to do that any longer. Is did he Is he still on it? >> He's still on it. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> He mentioned to me several times that he's >> thinking of it. >> Thinking of it. >> Okay. So, it's not official. >> It's not official yet. >> All right. Just checking. >> All right. So, if there's no questions, I need a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> So, moved. >> Have a second. >> I'll second that. >> All right. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. [clears throat] All right. Moving on. Item six. This is old business. >> Mhm. >> Proposed feasibility study and two-part township North Oaks joint powers agreement discussion. Yes, Mr. chair [clears throat] staff and our engineering consultants um did meet today uh along with yourself to discuss uh North Oaks's responses to our several um questions in their feasibility study. From an engineering standpoint, um Larry Popppler, who is our consultant um for engineering, has indicated that from a feasibility standpoint, it seems to uh what they have submitted seems to meet what the standard is that this the township was looking for. We are going back and forth on a couple of points of clarification in advance of uh having a discussion directly with North Oaks uh regarding a two-party uh JPA going [clears throat] forward to uh maintain our partnership and relationship with our neighbor to the west. Um during our discussion today, uh we did [clears throat] settle upon and would recommend to the board that once we have um sent on our responses to North Oak's responses that uh staff being myself, probably Dale and Ed and Chad uh get together with the mayor, the administrator, >> [clears throat] >> the attorney and probably the engineer for North Oaks to have direct conversations regarding uh a new draft of a JPA with a lot of the information that we've been going back and forth with on a feasibility study. We are proposing and will propose to the city of North Oaks that we do that uh early this next week. >> Um Mr. Chair, I have a question. It has to do with the information that came to us recently uh to consider for their feasibility report clearly mentioned that they believe that the uh North Oaks homeowners association now needs to be a party to this but we've been clear from the beginning that our JPA is between the city of North Oaks and the township. Correct. Very clear about that. That's correct. Yes. >> So at this point there is no reason to include them in this discussion that you may have with the city. There is not. >> And you're objecting or telling them that. >> That's right. They can they can suggest that as much as they like. Uh but we started this discussion being a two-party and that is how we're maintaining it going forward. >> JPA can only be two governmental entities. >> Yep. >> Not private entities have nothing to do with And that that was brought up today at the meeting with the engineers because if if the city of North Oaks wants to deal with the HOA or private parties, that's up to them to set up some sort of agreement between them two, not between us two. So, we need to be stayed clear of that. >> Yep. >> And I and I know I'm sorry, Mr. Rus. Um, I [clears throat] know that there was a proposal that we have a joint work session between the two organizations, staff and attorneys. Um, I, you know, we haven't discussed it specifically with the board, but I would strongly recommend that that's not the direction that we go. Uh, we keep this as a small party or a small committee working on the specifics of a proposed JPA. >> Okay. My question is a little off to the side of the JPA. It relates to the information that there is this uh pending agreement between North Oaks Homeowners Association, LO Lakes, LO Lakes and Whitebear Township. Those two entities, we don't have a direct JPA with and that has to be >> not until the two-party is settled. >> Yeah. So that's still out there >> to be yet to be determined how that will all play out. >> Right. Though the JPA with Lo Lakes requires that North Oaks and Lo enter with JPA. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Okay. So the homeowners association even though they're the just the broker in this deal and that's that's for them to deal with internally. how they >> well the way North Oaks is set up the homeowners association probably has a role regarding the roads but that's due to the fact it's a private organization the way it's a it's a plan unit development has nothing to do with um the government per se so I I'll just drop that for a quick second and go back to the JPA between um township and the city of North Oaks as part of material that we were presented, it has a timetable in there. Is the plan here to or has the engineers representing the township or staff agreed that those timetables for the fulfilling what they say they're going to do reasonable? And if so, if not u that the JPA can to me has to address uh the commitment time commitment that this is going to take. I don't care if who gets assessed or how they pay for it. I just care that that we are we are already past the deadline of the existing JPA. We're outside of the JPA that that we have. So we're in this land that I think Chad you've told us, you know, we have to be cautious that we don't consent just by no action to the a JPA. >> Yep. >> So I just want to make sure we're comfortable with the timetables as presented when we go forward with your discussions. um that that's reasonable because if not um my position really and I'll say it right up front is that there should be no JPA or it should be null and void if they do not fulfill the timetable commitments to get their infrastructure in place. We are well beyond where we need to be. >> Yeah, we agree. >> So we agree. Okay, >> without getting too far into the weeds on it, I mean, no, >> um, this has been a now three-year process uh during which the initial 18 months we were told that this was already resolved and ratified as part of their uh as part of a resolution from the city of North Oaks and it wasn't. >> Yeah. And as Stephen or supervisor Rusk has pointed out here astutely, it's we basically are providing this service out of the goodness of our heart at this point. There's nothing that is binding either one of the parties at this point. Right, Chad? I mean, >> yes, that's right. We >> Well, plus according to their timetable, they're they're talking about two years to complete this this project to get to where we need to be. So at the end of that two years, I I don't want to be right here again. >> I don't either. >> No. Neither do I. >> There be any kind of financial >> Well, the board did discuss at it executive meeting what we would be doing uh the first quarter of this year. um as our discussion went along this morning with staff and and Ed is that we're going to ask that the JBA be ratified within 90 days of our initial meeting. Um and we'll see and there there's all sorts of detail within that I'm sure. But we are um at a point where the township is exposing itself to liability. Uh to which I I just don't I don't feel right and neither should the board about being in that position anymore. >> Chad, >> that's tell me I'm wrong. >> That sums it up. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Well, we've been more than patient and we've been more than obliging and and now it's just come to uh push come to shove. We we need this done. >> Yep. and and the last time we spoke with the the mayor of uh North Oak, she wanted to get it done, too. But seems like it's been that can just keeps kick kicked around over there and it it's getting very frustrating. >> It it is and and and I I don't want to be the governmental agency that gets blamed for cutting off water to the citizens of North Oaks because it's not our it's not our issue. It's an internal issue from between two and municipalities >> but you know we're in the business of providing that water but we have to have protect our citizens also >> and it's we've well beyond where we what is reasonable in my opinion. So >> you won't find us arguing against that. >> So right now the timeline is you're going to draft a response to what we discussed this morning. Correct. >> Correct. >> And when will that go? >> Tomorrow morning. >> Okay. And that goes to Jup and >> administration and the mayor. Okay. >> And legal. >> And this is just the GPA portion of the >> No, this is um this will be sending staff and our consultants responses to their questions and clarifications >> for the feasibility study >> for the feasibility study. We'll also be proposing some meeting dates to get going on a JPA with those points worked into it >> because until until that's solidified, our JPA is kind of tied into that. Yep. So we can't relate the JPA to the feasibility study until all these questions are answered. [clears throat and cough] >> And then the other question that's going to be answered is there's going to be a time frame for when their infrastructure gets put in place. >> That's at two years they at least that was their timeline >> but there's a financial we'll set a financial incentive for them to >> punitive actually. >> Yeah. So, as this these little fine final changes take place, can can you or them highlight in red like we do when we're when we're updating things so that I know where where the word verbiage is changing because quite honestly I'm I'm I'm not an expert at reading all this stuff and there's you know a line a word added here or there is hard to catch. >> Yep. >> So, >> totally agree with you. I I I read that feasibility study that was provided to us. Really, I couldn't see a whole lot of changes until I got down to the questions that we had asked and they provided answers for us. So, um, as the drafts before it gets to the final, I guess, is where the final draft, highlight the changes so we can see what how it's going to dovetail into the whole process. >> Um, let me assure the board that nobody is more motivated to tie this off than our staff. Okay. >> Looking to lance this boil, are you? >> All right. Any other comments on this? >> Delicate as always. [laughter] >> No. >> So, this is justformational. We don't need any action on this. >> Uh, no. Just uh updating. Um, [clears throat] I will copy what's going on with the board. >> All right. Moving on. Item 6B. This is the proposed local sack and sanitary sewer trunk line maintenance fee. This is for Lino Lakes, correct? >> Um, Mr. Chair, if direct your attention to the staff memo here. Uh, there's two draft JPA under consideration. First is with city of North Oak. Second is with uh City of Lo for proposed development within the city of Lo Lakes. is recommending adding a sanitary sewer trunk line maintenance fee to both JPA. Chad, I believe we talked to you about that. >> Yes. [clears throat] And we've tal I've talked to the city attorney about that and they understand. >> Yep. >> I think they're more focused on getting the North Oaks end straightened out. >> Correct. >> Which is more much more complicated than our end. >> Go figure. >> So, it's kind of a domino effect then. >> Yeah. See, the problem is this is that because certain certain some of the infrastructure crosses into North Oaks, they have to sign off on this too. And so the Lino Lakes and North Oaks have to negotiate their own JPA on that. Our in is pretty straightforward. We're simply selling water to them and charging them a fee for the san for the sanitary sewer. >> Okay. >> So, it's that end that's harder to deal with than ours. >> But how does the Met Council figure into this? because they will be billing them or we bill them and then Met bills us. >> Well, my understanding is what we what I've been talking to the attorney about is just the fact that the line was built on both combination of township funds and then certain certain funds that came from uh from North Oaks, not North Oak City and North Oaks company. >> So, they have to work that out. So, we're simply, you know, the the town is simply requesting LO Lakes compensate the town for, you know, cost of installing the line and maintaining the line and that's not been a big problem. >> Pat, have you heard anything from that? >> No. >> No. >> So, what action are you looking for? Are we going to need an actual um word document for this? We just can't just go off this memo, can we? >> No. Eventually, we will, but at this point in time, >> it'll be incorporated in ordinance 54. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, no action we need to do. >> I don't know. Do we need I mean, if it's adjusting an ordinance, don't we have to >> We will >> post it. Yeah, >> we have to post it. Yes. Yeah, cuz his memo of November 26 says he's asking the board to approve these changes conditional upon approval of the JPA at a future date. So that future date is when we will appro have to approve this. >> Yes. >> Okay. So this is more information, >> right? That cost sharing will be part of the JPA. >> Okay. But before we get to that point, every all the parties can they can really agree to this in advance. It's just closing it all up. After that, it's administrative, right? So, >> and I'm assuming we've had some discussions. >> Yes. In fact, I think we have a we have a formal version of the J well informal version of the JPA which we can discuss at the next exec meeting. >> Okay. >> All right. If there's no other questions, we'll move on to item C, the 2026 annual budget tax meeting location. >> Yeah, [clears throat] Mr. Chair. So, at our meeting on December 1st, um as we were adjourning, one of the um residents who was present um requested that the board consider moving next year's uh annual budget meeting uh to Otter Lake where it had been before and we took that under advisement, Chad. And the reason I'm bringing this is I'm hoping for guidance from you. Sure. Um, I I don't know why I didn't think about it on the spot. Um, but the reason that we've been holding it here is the convenience of all the broadcast equipment. Um, and not having to have eight technicians from the cable commission come out to see and conduct everything when we've got everything here already. Um, since we didn't I mean is there a way that we can have it back here or just keep it here rather than moving it to Otter Lake? >> Well, as I remember the resolution adopted uh the primary location was Otter Lake, but the secondary was secondary was here. >> And again, it's up to the school district to agree to it too. >> That's true, too. >> You know, and as we know, the school district is >> hesitant about allowing uh the township to use that use government business actually >> and we understand why. I mean >> totally get it. Um >> I say we I mean the town staff >> and like the town board is aware of it too. >> What do we need to do? I mean if the board is amanable to continuing to have it here rather than Otter Lake, what do we have to do officially to make that official with statute, I guess? Well, just adopt a motion saying that the explaining that the primary site is not available and therefore the the town board is elected to hold it at the at the secondary site approved by the electorate. >> I mean, >> and then so how do our residents get that message? >> Well, it'll be a regular motion, so it'll be in the minutes. >> Okay. But and I get all that, but I mean when we do um we'll have to we should send out a special notice. >> Okay, that's kind of what I was that's what I was getting at. I was trying I was avoiding, >> right? No, it's from the legal standpoint. There's nothing to do from a practical standpoint. Yes, we should. >> We're going to have to let everybody know. >> We really should. We should use all of our social sites, social media sites, our our website. U >> and the newspaper >> and Oh, they're here, too. Yeah. [laughter] Um, yeah, I I think we we have plenty of opportunities as we move along. Plus, we could use our our some of our uh inserts maybe on later in the year on our we use with our billings. >> Could we make an announcement at the annual meeting in March, too? >> There's no reason why we can't. >> You go. >> So, everyone understands, so the audience understands, it's not the town is not giving up on Otter Lake school. just that the school district has indicated they'd prefer we do not use the school district. So at this point in time we we're we're still working on the assumption that we'll be back here. >> Yeah. >> But still trying. >> So I think we would we should do something official in March at our annual meeting >> and be wise. >> Okay. And I think as as a township uh staff and things, we could look at some assistance out in the parking area. >> Uh because it is dark out on the main road, but if we get Ramsey County uh community service officers or whatever to be here for that particular night because it is a very important night, maybe we can get some traffic. >> I think we can get that help for sure. Yeah. Also too, I think I mentioned before what would help is obviously there's a lot of individuals coming here from staff. I think if we were just the carpool from Sure the offices, we would free up >> a lot of space. >> A lot of space. >> So that would I think it was the parking they were more concerned about than the actual seating. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think right. You're correct. >> We could unload five cars. >> Yep. And that's probably five to eight cars probably enough. >> Yeah. And then like you said, we'll just have to make sure public works keeps the parking lot pretty clean so we're not losing spaces for snow. >> So I think if everybody's good with that, we'll put together something with legal for our annual meeting in March with several logistical caveats in mind that will help take the stress off the parking out there. So okay, that's what I wanted. Thank you. All right, moving [clears throat] on. Uh we have four public hearings. Chad, I got a procedural question. Can we uh wave the readings for all four at one time? >> No, we should do each one separately. >> Okay. All right. Moving on then. So, item 7A, this is Lakewood Avenue, Stacker Boulevard. I need a motion to wave the reading. >> I'll make a motion to wave the reading that it was properly published. >> I'll second. >> Motion to make a second. All in favor say I. I. >> And I need a motion to open up the public hearing. >> I'll move to open the public hearing. I >> have a second. All in favor? I >> I >> All right, Andrew, you going to give us an overview on this? >> Yep. >> Let's hope. [clears throat] Here comes the pro. Beautiful. >> Thanks, Lisa. >> Okay, Tom board. Before you tonight, we have a comprehensive plan amendment for 2569 Sacramento Boulevard, also known as uh 3970 Lakewood Avenue. Uh it's a single vacant residential lot owned by the township since it was platted and has been primarily used by public works uh for temporary staging is a legally non-conforming corner lot that is zoned R1 suburban residential below the minimum lot area width for a corner lot. The township [clears throat] is proposing to change the future land use designation of the 2040 comprehensive plan from publicinstitution to residential low density. The varian will likely be required to meet the two 35 foot uh front yard sets. [clears throat] The process to amend a comprehensive plan requires the following consideration and recommendation by the plan commission which they gave unanimous approval on. Public hearing at the town board review by affected and adjacent agencies. The city of White Bear Lake was notified and has no comments or concerns. depending on your uh action tonight. I'll follow up with them and just confirm that. Um and then finally, it's ready to be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council. I've talked with our sector rep uh because of the small uh limited nature of the parcel. It's likely to be processed as an administrative review and does not require the whole uh uh metropolitan council to consider the application. Current uh zoning is R1 suburban residential. This is low density residential and allows for no more than one single family dwelling unit with an accessory apartment allowed in the internal unit itself as a conditional use. The surrounding parcels are R1 with a small pocket of three properties to the west that are zone B1 or limited business. Other township owned properties are zon parking open space. And this just kind of shows uh what the minimum lot uh zoning requirements are for the lot compared to what the existing parcel is. As I mentioned previously, it is considered legally non-conforming. And then the township does have u some dimensional requirements and u language that allows for reducing those without a variance just based on it being an undersized lot. This is the existing land use which shows the uh current parcel as public or institutional which is what we're proposing to change. future land use u amendment is to basically change that from public institution to residential low density. So something should be built there. It does not require reszoning because the property is already zoned R1. And then just evaluating the proposed amendment. Um the current guiding as public institutional is not consistent with the existing zoning. The township intends to sell the property to an interested party and the future land use designation has to be changed before a new single family residential dwelling unit built. And then this is largely consistent with everything else that's around the area. We reviewed this proposal uh against several chapters in the comprehensive plan versus the transportation chapter and it was determined that a single dwelling unit and accessory apartment are not anticipated change or negatively impact the levels of service on county road F. Um that was the same finding that we had for water and wastewater. the increase of one to no more than two dwelling units total uh can be accommodated by the city's water wastewater system as well as the met council system and then the connection would be to either the existing water main on Stacker Boulevard or Lakewood Avenue with the existing sanitary sewer connection along Lakewood Avenue and then parks trails improvements are not required as part of this project. They're not going to be platting anything. This is just basically accommodating an administrative adjustment so that a new house can be built. There are no conditions of approval that can be recommended except contingent upon approval from the metropolitan council. If approved by the town board, then the application is sent to the Metropolitan Council for review along with comments received from neighboring communities. The township has no set criteria for reviewing amendments to the comprehensive plan, but should weigh this request against the current 2040 plan and then just determine whether the proposed change would be consistent or in conflict zoning ordinance approved. The amendment was forwarded to staff in the city of White Lake for comments. The Metropolitan Council Council sector representative serving White Township has been made aware of this amendment um and provided initial feedback or just being administrative review should be a fairly straightforward process. No comments or concerns received from these affected adjacent communities. And then the only comment that I've received in writing is from Brian and Anna Eberhart at 3966 Lakewood Avenue. They're concerned uh about just the removal of a green space that's kind of used passively by older kids. There are two existing parks about a block uh from each side of that property. Um so what I told them is that we would take this under consideration, but that the comp plan season is kind of the more appropriate time to kind of address programming for older kids and that this really has not been used as a park per se. But as I mentioned, temporary staging public work during their construction projects. The town board has the following options for this request. Approve the request without conditions, deny the request with findings for denial, or table the request for further review and study. Staff in the planning commission gave the proposed amendment a positive recommendation and recommended the town board authorize the proposed comprehensive bike amendment to change the future land use designation property located at 2569 Stacker Boulevard from publicinstitutional to residential low density and proceed with sending the amendment to the metrop. >> I have no questions. Nor do I. >> I just got one probably of Chad. Is are we in any kind of liability if the neighbors are using this as a park? >> Nope. >> All right. >> It's town property town. You cannot establish prescriptive rights in any property owned by by municipality statutory. All right. Uh Patrick, this was on the market for a while. >> This was the Stacker Boulevard, right? Yep. It's been on the market for two years. We've had interest but never follow through. >> And then u Andrew the the variance that would be uh massaged for a better word. It's just the sideyard because of the corner lot. Correct. No green space, no no height, no anything else. Correct. >> There's nothing there right now. It's a vacant lot. So, it' be very similar to the variance you're seeing later on. >> All right. >> Would we ever want to sunset this if it if we never sell it? I mean, it would kind of make sense. You know, we've got small parcels like that for a park. I'm just curious. >> Mhm. >> It would just >> It's uh it's totally up to the board what your pleasure is. >> If this does sell, does it have to be uh EDA? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. >> This is township property. So, it it would be nice to have that back in the coffer for our, you know, our budget instead of letting it sit there. Sure. >> At what point uh do we review it and maybe drop the price a little bit? >> We already have once if you'll recall. >> When Yeah. But when was that? >> Uh I want to say it was 8 to 10 months ago. >> I I would recommend in the spring we talk to the realtor who's got it. Okay. >> Just feel them all and see if we can maybe drop it a little more. see if we can get some action on it. >> So, my [clears throat] ongoing conversation with our agent has been, as I as I stated, I mean, we're getting some interest in it. Um, cost isn't doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the size of the lot. >> Uh, and what can realistically be built there. >> Um, I of course we can we can reapproach, you know, after evaluating what the market is reflecting for that type of a lot. But um >> but was it also brought up that there could be some variance alterations to make >> We've had several that have asked about variances too. Yeah. [clears throat] >> Because if that's what's slowing up the project, then we could that incentive we could probably use. >> Sure. [snorts] >> All right. Any other questions of staff? All right. I need a motion to open up for public comment. >> I'll move to open the hearing for public comment. >> Second. All >> here say I. I. [clears throat] >> All right. Does anyone here wish to speak to this piece of property? Hearing none. Going once, going twice. All right. I need a motion to close the public portion. >> I'll make a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. >> I'll second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. If there is no other discussion or questions, I would be looking for a motion to amend the comp plan. >> I'll uh as a leazison to the planning commission. So, I heard their rationale on this and I'll make the motion to uh amend the 2040 comprehensive plan to amend the future land use at 3970 Lakewood Avenue/2569 Stacker Boulevard to R1 Low Density. >> I'll second it. >> All right, motion made in second. All in favor? >> I >> I All right, that motion carries. [clears throat] Item 7B. This is 4141 Hoffman Road. Also, this is a public hearing, so I need a motion to wave the reading. >> I'll move to wave the reading that is properly published. >> I'll second. All >> in favor say I. I. >> I. All opposed. Then I need a motion to open up the public hearing. >> I'll move to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Andrew, you going to take this one, too? >> Yep. >> Board before you, we have an amendment to conditional [clears throat] use permit previously granted for 4141 Hoffman Road. This is the location of an existing warehousing manufacturing, storage, and transportation of lumber products since it was constructed in 1984. There have been prior conditional use permits for new buildings and additions throughout the decades, the most recent CUP being 112122. The board should review this request as an amendment to the existing conditional use permit and confirm the applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. use and requirements of the existing conditional use permit are no different from those that are included with the speed requests. The applicants uh Tom Moler with Land of 10,000 fixes on behalf of Universal Forest Products is proposing a new 32 foot by 14t deck edition for employees and on-site contractor use constructed on an existing building within the I1 light industrial district shoreland management overlay. Decks within the shoreline management area are subject to additional regulations which apply because the existing structure meets them. Deck meets setbacks setback requirements from public waters and no additional impervious services are proposed. Property includes BNSF railroad and is adjacent to Goose Lake and meets the setback requirement within the short land. And this is just kind of a blown up image that the provided showing the proposed deck on building two. As I mentioned, decks do not have explicit setbacks, but the existing structure meets the required setbacks and the additional setbacks for the shoreline management area. As I mentioned, the proposed coverage is not changing. Um, it is just getting slightly closer to the sideyard setback. And since it's kind of like a triangular property, it's not like you would typically apply to or regularly and zoning ordinance 35 section 9-4 outlines the C procedure below are the standard followed [clears throat] by staff evaluation uh staff feels that the application meets this proposed use for being planned designed constructed and maintained to avoid unnecessary detraction from the appearance of adjacent properties or from the town as a whole as a condition of approval through their previous uh CBP and a variance granted. Um they have proper screening provided. They receive variance from the landscape policy. Staff feels that the on-site vegetation and fencing is has been adequately maintained in good condition for the purposes of screening. The area where the addition is proposed consists of existing concrete surfaces with no proposed increase impervious surfaces expected to increase flooding on the property or neighboring properties. Second, the proposed use shall meet all reasonable requirements to protect the [laughter] health, safety, and welfare of the town. Staff feels that the standard is met. The proposed addition does not expand or intensify the use and the existing screening is adequate and good purpose. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the existing vegetative screen, fencing, and trees is required to be preserved and maintained. Should ever fall into disrepair, you have the conditional use permit um condition of approval to fall back on if you would like to see that improve. Third is that fire prevention and fighting equipment acceptable to the board of fire underwriters and town board be readily available when any activity involving the handling or storage of flammable or explosive materials is carried on. Staff feels the standard is met. Flammable or explosive materials are currently already established as an element of this use. As a condition of approval, all local, state, and federal rules and regulations shall be complied with including adherence to the fire code. Uh four, the proposed use shall bear the cost of all additional WAC charges and stack charges pursuant to ordinance number 36 where the proposed use expands upon a pre-existing use. The standard will need to be met if approved. We're not anticipating that the building is going to intensify or the use is going to intensify, but we wanted to cover our bases in case the Met Council felt that this was, you know, considered to be an expansion or intensification of that building official has looked over this and he he doesn't anticipate a tax determination on this. So, we just have that as a blanket condition of approval. The proposed use shall not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, environmental or historic feature of the town. Um staff feels this is meant proposed use is not anticipated to impact natural or environmental features of the town. And as I mentioned earlier, no additional surface coverage is proposed. So there's no increased flooding risk or drainage impact on our offsets. Six, the proposed use shall not depreciate the value of adjacent properties. Staff feels that this has been met through the establishment of the existing use. The existing screening through dense vegetation, tree canopy and fencing reduces the impact on adjacent property values. Seventh, that the proposed use shall be cited oriented design, landscape and maintain a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties. Uh as I mentioned the existing screening is in good condition and will be required to be maintained and preserved as has been the condition in the previous. So staff this is met. Same goes for the vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion. There is no proposed changes to the existing access and staff feels that the existing access is sufficient for the proposed use. is that the proposed use shall preserve and incorporate the scene's natural and features. Um, as I mentioned again, this is an existing facility, existing use. This is very much kind of in line with what they've already done. They're just following the same processes they've used when adding or remodeling, just doing a different additions to their existing build. Then the last two criteria are that the proposed use shall have no negative impact of noise, glare or odor effects on JC properties. The existing conditional use permit has multiple ongoing conditions of approval that are expected to be maintained continuously throughout the duration of the use along with these include any cutting of wood outside of the building shall be done using saws where lumber is piled next to a property line on which a building has been built. the distance from the pile of the property line shall not be less than one half the height of the pile and in no case less than 5t. Driveways between and around lumber piles are required to be at least 20 ft wide and maintain free of any rubbish equipment or waste materials. Weeds shall be kept down throughout the entire year and sprayed as often as needed with satisfactory weed killer or cut and grubbed out. Dead weeds shall be removed and then debris such as sawdust Chips and shorts shall be removed regularly with proper housekeeping maintained at all times. Staff feels with these continuing conditions of approval. They'll continue to operate in a way that's been harmonious with the adjacent parcels. And then finally, the proposes shall preserve the objectives of this ordinance and be consistent with policy and plan recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Um with the previous approvals, staff feels that the applicant provide proper screening and then with the granting of the variance to the landscaping policy. Um this meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The project plans were forwarded to building official engineering firehed district Ramsey County Mindot and the BNSF railroad for comment and review. uh BNSF Railroad requested clarification on the location of the deck of the uh propo proposed deck edition and essentially the applicant had put it on the wrong building. So that was a great thing to hammer out before and we took it to the plane commission and town board. Um but other than that no other comments were received that the town board has the following options for this request. Approve the request with or without conditions. deny the request with findings for denial or table the request for further review or study. Staff in the planning commission gave a positive recommendation to the town board recommending approval uh an application for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit approved on November 21st, 2022 allowing a deck addition and incorporating previously approved conditions from prior conditional use permits. I don't think any questions. >> You got to have questions on all that. >> I do not. [laughter] >> I know what this is. >> Steve, >> uh, no, I have no questions. I sat through the planning commission. So, I heard the conversation uh with the proposed U Mike Johnson plus the uh person representing the business. the uh when Mike Johnson reviewed this, I know actually probably before your time here, Andrew, there were a number of issues that were unresolved on this site. >> Uh was Mike pretty comfortable that everything's been caught up? >> Yeah, I ran this by him. Um it seems like Chad, you provided a pretty good memo just kind of detailing what they had left complete in the last conditional use permit and so there were no no concerns raised. >> So everything is caught up, correct? Yes, I I asked Mike that same question, the planning commission, and uh >> he said he's he's comfortable with it. >> Okay. I just feel leerary about >> opening up another can of worms if they haven't resolved some of the ones that they were still outstanding. >> And some of these are ongoing. So, they're conditions that they're required to maintain throughout the duration of the use. So, if there are issues that come up, you know, those are still um mechanics that we can use to enforce it. >> I didn't see anywhere else on here. What's the height of the deck? the height. I can pull it up real quick. >> I mean, just off the ground. >> Yeah, it's a second story. It's on the second story of the building. Okay. So, I believe it's uh 10 ft. >> All right. All right. Any other questions of Andrew? >> If not, I need a motion to open up for public comment. >> I'll move the hearing for open for public comment. >> Second. All >> in favor say I. I. I. All >> opposed. Anyone here wish to speak to that? Hearing none. I need a motion to close the public portion. >> I'll move to close the public portion of the hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> All right. That motion passes. What uh what's the pleasure of the board? >> I'll move to amend the uh the conditional use permit for 4141 Hoffman Road allowing for the deck edition and the conditions as noted. >> I'll second. >> Motion's made in second. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All opposed. All right, [clears throat] moving on. We have uh 5253 West Bald Eagle Boulevard request for front yard setback. >> I need a motion to wave the reading. >> I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published. >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> And I need a motion to open up the public hearing. >> Move to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Now you can go. >> Thank you board. Uh before you you have a variance to 5253 West Bald Eagle Boulevard. This is an existing single family dwelling unit constructed in 1900. The proposed application is a new build single family dwelling unit. Uh this is a corner lot within the R1 suburban residential district and it is adjacent to Bald Eagle Lake. So it is within the shoreline management overlay. lots are considered to have two 35 ft front yard setbacks and two uh 10 foot sideyard setbacks. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce 35 ft front yard setback on West Avenue to no less than 21.5 ft. A 50 foot setback measured from the 100year 1% annual chance run elevations is required as the property is subject to um strong management overlay regulations as it is adjacent to Bald Clay. There is 66 ft between the buildable and unbuildable portion of the property. This area contains the rightway for Bald Eagle Boulevard and meets the 50 foot setback requirement from the ordinary high water line without the variance request. So the variance is just for the uh front yard set back along the west. This just kind of shows the existing uh conditions and the proposed conditions. The existing house has two non-conforming uh setbacks. It currently is under the 35 ft required setback on west and then the interior the uh south property line is less than the 10 foot required. Um the variance request would reduce the existing setback on west from that 23 feet 3 in to 21 5T or roughly 1 foot 9 in. So it would be the proposal would remove one of the nonformities and then the variance would be to just reduce that lower setback to um below what was there previously. Andrew, one [clears throat] of the three people watching us at home tonight can't hear you very well. Can you pull this up? >> Thanks. >> One of the three [laughter] uh criteria that have to be met for the templ consider approving the variance. The first is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by an official control. Staff feels this criteria is met. Single family dwelling unit is a reasonable The R1 zoning district and is permitted. Proposed structure brings one of the existing setbacks into compliance the R1 standards is requesting the variance to reduce the other by 1.9 in. Second of the land owner is due circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner. Staff feels that this criteria is met. Corn lots are subject to two 30 front yard 35 foot setbacks which creates difficulty in having a buildable area on the property which is not created by the land owner. Third, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A single family dwelling unit would be along the lines of what is in the neighborhood currently. Fourth, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. This criteria is met as the practical difficulties are not due to economic considerations. And the fifth is applying to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems which is not applicable to this request and the applicant was required to provide responses on how they feel their application meets the criteria listed. uh first without the issuance of various provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same ordinance or in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. As we've discussed, uh there are multiple corner lots and properties along Bald Eagle Boulevard and Bald Eagle Lake that contain single family homes that are considered legally non-conforming due to non-conforming with the setback ordinance. Second, that the >> special conditions >> and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Um, this would be a constraint that anyone who wanted to take down that house and build a new house um would be subject to. And as we've discussed previously, corner lots just having those few more restrictive setbacks, it just puts majority of those corner lots in the township within various territory. Third, the granting that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Um, the granting will not confer the applicant any special privileges denied to others and will bring the property into greater conformity by removing one of the non-conforming setbacks. So by granting this variance, it would essentially bring the property more into compliance than it was previously. Fourth, that the proposed action will not unreasonably increase the congestion on public streets. Um the the proposed action is to accommodate a single family house. So that is along the lines of what is currently in the neighborhood. Staff feels that that's not going to um unreasonably increase congestion on public streets. nor will the proposed action increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. The new construction utilizes the existing footprint of the current dwelling unit. So this does not propose to increase the danger or fire or endanger public safety. And then sixth that the proposed action will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or be contrary with the intent of this ordinance. Um the applicant feels that their proposal will enhance the neighborhood by creating um you know a new build construction unit. Staff forward this on to the building official, public works, the fire inspector, engineering, DNR, Ramsey County, and the Rice Creek wershed district. Um a RCWD permit for rule D will be required for the demo and rebuild. We've put the applicant in contact with the regulatory technician with the wershed district. Uh Ramsey County provide review comments with questions on whether there are utility connections in Bald Eagle Boulevard right ofway that require um excavation or if ditch and pipe are needed by and across Bald Eagle Boulevard. And they also requested that the contractor be responsible for sweeping the street during construction and be responsible for any costs associated which is included as a condition of approval. And then public works they uh Dale provide comments and said that there are options to connect either to West Avenue or West Bald Eagle as demonstrated in the water and sewer tie sheets and we would just need for a um drainage pipe under West Bald Eagle depending on what the grading plan looks like. And the town board has the following options for this request. Approve the request with or without conditions. Deny the request with findings for denial or table the request for further review and study. Staff in the planning commission gave a positive recommendation to the town board to approve the variance request to reduce the front yard uh setback along West Avenue to no less than 21.6 6 ft uh from the property line for 5253 West Bald Eagle Boulevard to accommodate a new build single family dwelling unit. And I would just suggest uh tweaking that to 21.5 just to reflect the fact that it is 21 1/2 ft, not you know more than a half foot. Um so I would just ask that that be cleaned up. >> [snorts] >> the the footprint that you showed on the for the house, is that proposed? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. So, you're you're entering the garage off the west? >> Yep. >> Okay. Well, the thing is usually when you some of these houses around the the township when you only have 21 ft, the garage is right there. Now, you have no room to put a car. But at least with that design, the driveway is a little bit longer because the garage is set back. Otherwise, I would have a little bit of heartburn on these because even where >> your area there's just there's so many driveways >> that there is no driveway in front of the garage. >> But other than that, this >> I don't have an issue with this. Steve, you were at the >> Well, I I was the qu one question I have is that you mentioned the connections either on the boulevard or on West. >> Was there a preference or >> No. Um, it's up to the applicant depending on where they want to make connection [clears throat] >> because, you know, West Bald Eagle Avenue has has recently been redone. It's already had some cuts through it and this is just another one. So, West has not been redone. So, ideally is that's in the >> future [snorts] plans for our road improvements. It might be cleaner if they just stayed on West for the connections. Just >> makes good sense. Um, does this house line up and just because you know it's you can't see the other ones. Does this house pretty much line up with the ones in the neighborhood >> to the uh adjacent property to the east? I would say yes. Um, I can look at it a little further if you would like to see if it does. But the >> I would cuz it seems uh recollection serves there's a little bit of variance and sometimes you know you've got people complaining about sight issues and such. But cuz that, if I remember right, this lot's got um significant contour to it. Correct. >> Um yeah, that does that is what is shown in the uh contour lines. >> Yeah, showing off your wedding. >> Congratulations. [laughter] >> You put a plug in for it, didn't you? [laughter] >> Every time, right? Thank you. At least one half of it is. [laughter] >> Let me I can pull up those other properties. >> Oh, you newlyweds. [laughter] >> Great. Okay. >> Other than that, do you have any other questions or concerns? >> Nope. The only one I was ask I was just wondering about the way it would lined up, but >> No, I don't either. And and I know the gentleman is here, so we when we close this portion, we can ask him to. >> All right. Well, while you're pulling that up, Andrew, uh, I need a motion to open up for public comment. >> I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor? Say I. >> I. >> I. >> Applicants here. I just need your name and address for the record. >> Mark Olsen. I'm the owner of Joshua Markham Builders. I'm the builder. 11375 Robinson Drive, Cone Rapids 55433. [clears throat] The as far as sewer hookup, there's it's really weird. This lot according to the old drawings from 1971. They have one coming off of West Road and I don't know I don't believe that one's actually being used right now. Then they got one coming off uh Bald Eagle. >> Are you talking water or sewer? >> Sewer and water. Oh, >> the water's coming off a bald eagle, but they haven't they show and I haven't seen it a line coming from West a too, which is strange, >> but >> yeah, the water comes in on the boulevard. >> Yeah. Yes. >> The sewer goes out the back. >> Not necessarily. >> Not this one here, huh? >> My my esavators will dig and find it, and he thinks it's about 4 feet from the curb stop, which comes off of uh bald eagle. So, we're hoping that that's there. Uh cuz we've got to do some work on that curb stop. >> And then this is just the ex showing the existing houses. >> Paul and Carl went out and try to turn it off and [laughter] I got to replace the rod in it. So, and then I'm not then I'm going to take the uh the old pipe, water line, copper, whatever, and replace it with PVC. So, and then same with the sewer. That'll be cut as close to the street as possible. I don't know if it's cast in place, cast iron or not. >> Public works guy would probably know that, but >> yeah, we'll have to we'll tie in then. As far as the house front and back, the house right next to it and not going towards West Avenue, but the right next to it. This this house will be maybe a little bit behind that one, but I went to every neighbor. Well, what, six neighbors? Five or six neighbors and they're all excited >> and we got the >> we get this 1910 home torn down and >> it's been vacant for a while and rented out for a while and uh I went through the county for the uh got the asbestous report, went through the county for the demo and I've got my demo permit. So, I'm just working with Rice Creek right now and I'll get that permit before we start building. Well, we thank you because we have a lot of houses that are in dire need. So, it's nice it's nice to see these eventually just get replaced. >> Well, I'll tell you what, the neighbor's house right next door, I can't remember his name, but they did a fantastic job on remodeling that house. If you walk up to it and you see that old cornice wood handcarved on the front of it with little screens in it for the set venting, it's in What's the address right next door? 525 >> 51 >> 5245 >> Is that the house? Is that the greenhouse? >> Yeah. 5251. >> Kind of looks like a cake. >> Yeah. >> Oh my god. Have you been inside that place? >> It's up in the driveway a couple times. It's an experience. >> It's amazing. >> But uh No, it's very nice. >> So, you plan on uh construction this spring? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. As soon as I pass and get all my permits, we're digging. >> All right. Any questions of the applicant? No. >> No. >> All right. You're on. Thanks, Mark. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else? All right. I need a motion to close the public portion. >> I move to close the public portion of the hearing. >> I'll second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> If there are no other questions or comments. We'll be looking for a motion for the variance request. >> I'll move to approve the variance request for the sideyard. Uh 21 and a half. Yep. Is that what you want? at 5253 West Bald Eagle Boulevard. >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. All right, that motion carries. Moving on. Our last public hearing is uh let's see 5860 Highway 61. Again, I need a motion to wave the reading. >> I'll move to wave the reading. Was properly published. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> All right. Then I need a motion to open up the public hearing. >> Move to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. All right. >> All right. Last one. Thank you, town board. Uh before you, we have an amendment to a conditional use permit for 5860 Highway 61 for Benson Airport Association Incorporated. This is the location of an existing private airport that is continuously operated in the township since 1945, predating ordinance number 35, the zoning ordinance, and could be considered a legally non-conforming use. Uh, other applications that this went through was a zoning certificate in August 7th of 2000 and an existing conditional use permit dated September 15th, 2008. The proposed amendment to the conditional use permit is to construct a new 60 ftx 60 ft hanger. The application shall incorporate the findings, requirements, and adhere to the legal agreements identified in the report from previous approvals. The property is zoned R1 suburban residential and is subject to four airspace zones in ordinance number 35 section 7-4. The property is in the shoreland management area uh effective June 4th 2010 and is defined as zone A with a 1% annual chance of flooding. The proposed hanger is being reviewed by the Rice Creek WHED district and requires a RCWD notice of intent based on the square footage disturbed and stockpiling of earth material. The property is largely unpaved apart from the hangers and meets the impervious surface maximum of 25% of the property area as proposed. And this is a handdrawn um site plan that the applicant provided just showing the setbacks, the coverage and just the existing structures as well as the um proposed hanger in relation to those. The existing zoning certificate/cond conditional use permit allows Benson Airport Association to construct new facilities and continually operate the airport subject to the terms of the following deeds which are referenced in the findings of the previous cup included as an attachment showing all applicable conditions. First is an open space deed dated February 21st, 1996 and filed July 10th, 1996. A water tower deed dated June 23rd, 1996 and filed July 10th, 1996. An airport deed dated June 23rd, 1996 and filed July 10th, 1996. The abovementioned deeds to the White Bear Township contain the following statements that the town board should consider as part of the review. Quote, "The grantee shall make no use whatsoever of the property which shall in any way interfere with or limit aviation activities at Benson's airport, and no use shall be made which interferes with or limits aviation activities at the airport. And in the event that the airport runway or taxiways are closed or interfered with by the town of White Bear, the property described shall automatically revert to the estate of John F. Benson. During the next 40 years commencing June 28th, 1996, the town of White Bear shall make no use of the airport or the property, which unreasonably interferes with or limits the aviation activities at Benson's airport. This agreement allows for maintenance, repair, renovation, expansion, replacement, or adding to the existing aviation hangers and related buildings and improvement in substantially their present location with up to an additional 100% square footage without any prior approval of the holder of the conservation easement. One of the findings from the 2008 CUP was that the zoning ordinance does not include restrictions on hours of operation, aircraft type, number of aircrafts, nor any other aviation or operational restrictions whatsoever. The proposed hanger meets the required setbacks, height, and coverage requirements as presented. The town board shall should review the application as an amendment to the existing conditional use permit and adopt by reference the applicable plans conditions of approval and airport operation plan from December 1st 20 uh 2008. The established use and requirements of the conditional current conditional use permit are no different from those included in this request. And these are the plans included in the uh resolution that we're recommending be adopted by reference. Chad, do you want me to read these out or do I need to? >> I don't think you need to. >> Thank you. >> Uh, zoning ordinance 35 point and then indicate that these will be part of the cup as adopted. >> Yep. >> Incorporated in >> correct. Uh the proposed use shall be planned, designed and constructed to avoid unnecessary loss of existing natural features, detraction from appearance of the town, adjacent properties, aesthetic earl and traffic pattern incompatibility, damage to vegetation or erosion of soil and increased flood potential. staff feels the standard is met as the applicant has a valid conditional use permit to construct seven new hangers and an agreement that allows for the expansion of an additional hanger. The on-site vegetation and tree canopy appear to be in good condition and adequately maintained for screening purposes. The hanger and slab minimally increases the amount of imperous surface coverage and requires an RCWD notice of intent to review the proposed erosion control measures. and staff has put them in contact with the watershed district as well. Second, the proposed use shall meet all reasonable requirements as set forth by the town board to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the town. Staff feels the standard is met as the proposed use is not expected to intensify and expand, requiring additional screening. As a condition of approval, the existing vegetative screening and trees shall be preserved and maintained as required for the purposes of providing screening to adjacent properties. Fire prevention and fighting equipment acceptable to the board of fire underwriters and town board shall be readily available. Staff feels that this standard is met as flammable or explosive materials are already currently established as an element of this use. As a condition of approval, all local, state, and federal rules and regulations shall be complied with, including adherence to fire code. The proposed use shall bear the cost of all additional whack charges and sack charges pursuant to ordinance number 36 where the proposed use expands upon a pre-existing use. Um again as I mentioned with the deck permit this is just a standard that we like to include should there be you know sack or whack charges. Uh but the building official has reviewed this and from our understanding there are no utilities particularly run to this property. If they do need um a sack determination that will be made through the building permit but as of this point that's not expected. Uh the proposed use shall not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, environmental or historic feature of the town. uh staff feels that this standard is met as the proposed use is not anticipated to impact natural or environmental features of the town. Minimal additional amounts of storage or impervious surface are proposed to be increased that may impact flooding and drainage on and off sites. Um staff feels that the proposed use shall not depreciate the value of adjacent properties. This the use of the property as an airport has been in existence since 1945. The addition of one hanger should not have a negative impact on the value of adjacent properties given the presence of the vegetative screening fencing and trees which will have to be maintained and preserved as a condition of approval. Seven that the proposed use be cited oriented designed landscaped and maintained to produce a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to the adjacent buildings and properties. This is a condition a standard that was met by the previous conditional use permit. Eighth is that the proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion to adjacent properties. They intend to use the existing gravel road to um taxi and runway. No other vehicle access is being proposed to change and staff feels that the um existing access is sufficient for the proposed use. The last criteria are that the proposed use shall preserve and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Um they've staff feels that they've taken deliberate efforts to try to mitigate any damage that would occur to the site and staff feels that um the proposed site addition will complement the scenic or natural features of the site. 10. The proposed use shall have no negative impact of noise, glare, or odor effects on multiple properties. Staff states this standard will need to be met if approved. Um, this is has an existing conditional use permit with multiple ongoing conditions of approval. Plans and findings are expected to be adopted by reference and maintained throughout the duration of the use. The proposed new hanger as presented is approximately 1,200 ft from the location of the residential properties and is partially separated by additional property owned by the town of White Bear. The findings from the 2008 CU approval state that no glare or odor issues on adjacent properties are expected as the proposed addition and use of the aircraft is very limited with the anticipated increase in noise expected to be minimum. The noise limitation requirements adopted by the town through ordinance number 16, the nuisance ordinance and the operation plan for the airport shall be enforced as a condition of approval. And then finally, the proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this ordinance and be consistent with the policy and plan recommendations of the 20 of the comprehensive plan. Staff feels that this standard is met because the 2040 comprehensive plan identifies Benson's airport as located in the White Bear Beach planning area and references the agreement between the town and the former property owner to only permit general aviation use for the course of 40 years. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the language in the 2040 comprehensive plan. staff forwarded the application to the building official, public works, fire inspector, engineering, DNR, Ramsey County, Rice Creek Watershed Organization, and the Minnesota DOT. And the only entity that uh gave us comments was the wershed district. The project is disturbing over 5,000 square ft and/or stockpiling over 50 cubic yards of earth material which requires a RCWD notice of intent to ensure that they are following the best management practices for erosion and settlement control sediment control. The town board has three options for this request. First, approve the request with or without conditions. Second, deny the request with findings for denial. or three, table the request for review or further study. Staff in the planning commission gave this a positive recommendation to the town board and recommends approving an amendment to the conditional use permit allowing construction of a new hanger and incorporating the previously approved conditions from the prior conditional use permit as follows. With that, I'll take any questions you guys have. >> No, you got to have questions on this one. No, cuz I was actually the one that I remember doing the last bunch. So, it's pretty much the same and I know where it's going. >> Steve, uh, no, I again I sat through the planning commission uh questions asked if they they were aware that it this is like any of the other rest of the buildings. It's in 2040. It's that the newer building going to be it has the probability of not being there if it's not renewed as an airport. Secondly, the other question that I have is in the conditional use permit, and this really is an item that has nothing to do with building new hanger, but it's condition 12 of an annual report. So, I know the gentleman's here to represent the airport. So, would you make sure that that is complied with because I don't think we've been receiving our annual reports of usage. >> And if I can go into that, all they're asking for is number of aircraft, number of hours flown, and number of gallons of fuel sold. And that I think would constitute the annual report. >> Correct. Um it's just one of the items that you know it's going to be in there that says you got to comply with the conditional use per which is item 12 on the conditional use permit. All >> right. Any other questions of Andrew? >> No. >> All right. Then I need a motion to open it up for public comment. >> I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Come on up. Any questions, comments? >> Anybody? I go a long way back with you, Jim. Come on. [laughter] >> Full disclosure, I know Mr. Baker. I >> also just want to add there were a handful of residents um the last time that the board took action on an application that wanted to be made aware of future applications. And so we looked at that um that [clears throat] list of names from the 2008 um proceedings and there were only three or four that were still at that address. So, we sent that out um along with the required 350 ft public notice. >> I remember them from then. >> All right. So, there's no other comments from the public. I need a motion to close the public portion. >> I'll move to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. All right. Motion carries. >> So, I need a motion on the amendment to the conditional use permit. >> I will make that motion to approve the conditional use permit. Amend the conditional use permit at 5860 Highway 61 uh for the U building of a new hanger >> including the recommendations >> uh of getting the annual reports you mean? >> No, the recommendations from planning commission. >> All recommendations from planning commission. Sure. >> Include. Okay, I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I All right. You on your way, gentlemen? >> Moving on. New business. uh personnel. We got a new hire for public works director. >> We do. So [clears throat] after a um candidate recruitment of about two months back in the late fall, the uh our small personnel committee that uh sat in on interviews and evaluated uh applications and resume. [clears throat] We did uh offer the position to Larry Popppler as the new u public works director and township engineer. Um and he has passed his background check. [snorts] He gave two weeks notice this past Friday and will be starting with us on January 20th. uh during which time our outgoing retiring public works director Dale Reid will be providing input uh and education on the ins and outs of this new position. I will state that um Mr. Popppler has been working as a consultant with TKDA with the township for almost 10 years uh primarily on road improvement projects and infrastructure work. He also has a background uh already in uh the public sector uh working for the city of Prior Lake uh for I believe the first eight or nine years of his career. Um and we're pretty we're very happy to have him on board. >> What's the last uh date for Dale? >> Well, I believe um so the Friday 19th >> January 31st, it [snorts] >> um Yes. >> End of the month, right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. So he'll be uh >> he changed it from the 16th correct. >> He changed it to the 31st. >> All right. So we'll have some time for Yep. >> Dale to kind of hold his hand to get him acclimated. >> Don't tell Larry. [laughter] D's going to hold his hand. >> So this is a new position. We're really excited to see how it works out. We uh we think that Larry is the ideal candidate for this position. Well, well, the board was not adamant, but we thought this was a smart move because our public works director, uh, we hate to lose the man, but we also are gaining an engineer. We spent a lot of money with TKDA for engineering costs, and now that we have one on staff, this is going to help supplement our our budget. >> Will we have a >> will we have a downturn in expense? >> Well, absolutely. that because a lot of that discussion began, >> right? A lot of >> excellent. So next year at the report it's like and we've saved this much >> this much. I bet you we could do a compar. >> I think that [clears throat] would be good. >> Yep. >> Well, that's part of the reason why we can justify the cost because of what we're going to save in in an in-house engineer. >> Y >> and it'll also probably expedite some of our projects because he is already there. We're not having to schedule certain meetings and pull them away from his other job. So, no, I guess this is this going to be a good fit. >> I do believe so as well. All right. Any other questions, comments? Do we have a uh what? Something scheduled for him for a retirement party. >> Uh for Dale. >> Yeah. >> He doesn't really want one. >> Don't tell him. [laughter] >> We're going to work something out. >> I've gotten that question a few times, too. >> Yeah. >> Well, if he doesn't want one, we could have a welcome lick party. >> Sure. [laughter] >> And Dale can sit in on it. >> There you go. then it won't be all about him. >> That's right. >> All right, moving on. Item 8 is the hydrant meter rental fees. >> Yeah, that's this is just a recommendation from staff to get the township current with the market. Um this fee has not been adjusted in quite some time. Um and this last year, as you can see in your staff memo, uh the cost of one of these is over $1,500. That's not considering tax and freight. Uh staff is recommending that it is a a $2,000 fee rather than $750 >> and justified because of the rental cost. >> Correct. >> Purchase cost, whatever. Which brings up the point u [clears throat] are they are we constantly looking at all of these fees that they went annually so they're updated to reflect the current cost? We the the ones that are the most prevalent and heavily used or utilized by the township. Yes. Now, this one wasn't so much. Um so it had slipped through the craps cracks [laughter] for several years. >> We're talking water, not sure. >> Um but it came up uh just because this last year we we ran into someone who was renting it and we had to buy a new one um to get it updated. So The reason I bring that up is because we just put in a new park use policy. >> Yep. >> Uh which had fees and things attached to it which just are going into effect. But that's something that should be annually at least annually reviewed amongst all the others that we have to make sure that we're not losing [clears throat] money. Yes. >> In this proposition. >> I think we've done a better job of that over the last four or five years. >> Yeah. Okay. So, do you you do we need to make a motion to approve this or you do? >> Mr. Chair, I'll move to update the rental feed deposit as recommended by public works. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. That motion carries. Item. All right. Item HC is the employee handbook. >> Yeah, this is just keeping up with the state of Minnesota's bureaucracy. Um, it's a little more management on some meal breaks. Very little impact on on our workplace. Um, but it is required by the state now. Uh, and those are your changes. >> Yeah. The the way I read that is is defining more of what a break >> period is recommended or a lunch period. >> Yep. >> Time wise. >> Yeah. >> So, there's nothing we need to do to >> Not really. It's just a change. Oh, actually, no. You would have >> You need a motion to a motion to approve it because it is going into >> I'll uh I'll make a motion to approve the employee handbook to update the meal breaks per Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry changes. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> All right, that concludes our regular agenda. We have no other ones. We have [snorts] open time because after open time, we'll have to ask everyone to depart because we have a closed session with our attorney. Yeah. >> So, open time, you come on up. >> Name and address for the record. >> Good evening. I'm Greg Hubinger, 5476 Bald Eagle Boulevard East. Uh under the category of bold business, I have a couple of comments related to the annual budget meeting from a couple of weeks ago. Uh first, I wanted to thank staff for the work they did in um amending the proposed budget so that it was only an 8% increase from that was the tenative levy. I think I that took a lot of work and we appreciate that. Um, one picky question on the budget is that there were two departments that have consistently done fund transfers from their departments to to other departments or other departments and it seems like it's the same amounts each year. Um, for a more transparent budget, it might be wise just or appropriate to just budget those amounts to the right departments. um a more serious concern. Uh the town staff when they were presenting the budget presented a lot of information and data and background and at one point when they were disc describing the budget pressures of personnel costs, they described as a quote unfortunate requirement the requirement for local governments to comply with the state's pay equity law. The state mandate is a good public policy because it requires local governments to pay their employees based on an objective evaluation of the value of those jobs to the organization. And it seems like that's a good policy. I hope that that comment doesn't reflect the perspective of the board. Finally, I'd like to reiterate what I've mentioned to a couple of you in passing. Um, I suggest that the board consider establishing a citizens budget advisory committee. There is, I think, a lot of interest by members or residents of the town um in the complexities of the budget and better understanding that and perhaps uh providing the perspective on budget proposals. Thank you. >> Right. Thanks, Rick. [clears throat] Anyone else? Logan Gillon, 12599 Europa Avenue North, Hugo. Um, first is uh uh question. I'm working on the uh Dale Reid retirement story right now and um the he is helping I mean with the capital improvement plan the uh public works remodel and I am not understanding where the 2.5 million comes from. I know it's capital fund, but like could you guys explain how that works, please? Cuz I am it's just kind of going over my head. >> I mean, this has been on our CIP for >> been on the CIP for the last eight or nine years. >> Um, and so we'll end up bonding for that project with the money that we've moved around or to keep up with our CIP, our tenure. >> Okay. So, it's a bond. It's not it's not the tax levy. It's not anything like that. Okay. Uh, and then announcement. Uh this is my last meeting that I'm covering for the White Bear Township. Uh >> I know. Um my colleague Jackie, uh >> is it because of us? [laughter] >> Well, my editor told me not to say no. >> No, it's uh uh I have to pull back. Um my uh other job with uh the court is picking up steam and I had to pull back on some of my assignments. Um and unfortunately uh White Township was the easiest to cut because it was weekly. So, um, we can get someone in here, uh, for consistency sake, that's going to be my colleague, Jackie. Um, in 2 weeks, uh, I've heard nothing but great about her. So, um, >> where's she coming from? >> Sorry, what? >> Where's she coming from? >> Uh, she has covered mainly she's kind of arts and culture background like I am. She did, um, the Lowdown magazine, but then she covered, uh, Centennial for quite a while. So, her she's been with the press a lot longer than I have. Um, but uh I know she's excited to come aboard. I do feel bad throwing her in for the public hearings. Um, but [laughter] we'll see how that goes. Um, and uh, I'm sending a handover document to her soon as possible. Make sure everyone's names, especially those that have Z are spelled correctly. >> What? What? What? What? What? What? >> I'm not picking on me. [laughter] >> Picking on me. >> Making sure that, you know, everybody's uh, you know, appropriately heard. Uh I do want to end with a a thank you very much um for this mug and also among other things um I did not expect to grow as I did in this assignment. Um I didn't know what to expect really uh arts and culture background. So, um I've learned and uh I want to say thank you to everybody um here before me because uh you've provided open access and you've been as I mean truthful in my opinion. Um and uh you've helped me grow. So, thank you to all of you. >> Well, we want to thank you because you've always been fair with the township. >> I mean, it you've never been slated. You just tell it the way it is and we appreciate that. >> All we've ever asked. >> Yep. >> Plus, you're you're you're ask you ask a lot of clarific clarification question which helps so that there's a mis no misunderstanding. >> Yeah. >> Appreciate that. >> Thank you. I appreciate >> you always did a nice job. So I thank you too. >> You're making Ed cry. [laughter] >> Oh yeah. >> Thanks. >> That's hard to do, let me tell you. >> Oh gosh. >> Thanks, Logan. >> I will I'll read more mystery novels. I swear I want to maybe if I have time I'll Okay, get out of here. >> All right. [laughter] >> Thank you all. Thanks, Logan. We appreciate it. >> Thank you, Logan. >> All right, on that note, we're going to adjourn for two minutes. We need the room cleared because we have to go in close session with our attorney and I need to make a stop. >> Uh, we need a motion now or to wait till the room empties. Uh, no. We can make the motion now. >> I'll move to close session to uh discuss our ongoing >> litigation onation. I >> I >> ongoing dis litigation involving the fire service contract. >> Yes, as noted. Yes. >> Hey, congratulations by those nice Actually, you have to summarize it, but basically just ongoing discussions regarding the fire contract litigation. >> I'll I'll make a motion to come out of the closed session for the discussion we had on the ongoing litigation with our fire contract with the city of Whitebear. >> I'll second. >> Motion made a second. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> All right. That concludes our agenda. >> I have to summarize. >> Oh, sorry. Oh, I'll Okay. B the town board was simply discussing the ongoing litigation with the city of White Bear Lake regarding the fire service contract. >> Perfect. Okay. Tada. All right. I need a motion to adjurnn at 90. Do you want to receive your material? >> Yeah, whatever. >> I'll move to receive [laughter] receive the material. >> Second. All >> in favor? I. >> All right. Now, I need a motion. >> So, move second. >> I don't think you can second. Whatever. So [laughter] whatever.