I have 7 o'clock we will call the town board meeting for March 14 2024 to order first item on the agenda is the approval Patrick we have any changes uh Mr chair uh no changes from staff however I would point out to the board that you were emailed additional supplemental information to uh item 7A for this evening uh from Evan I believe I forward did that to you this morning no changes to the agenda though board have any changes no okay I need a motion to approve the agenda move to approve second all in favor say I I I opposed that motion carries item three is approval payment of the bills Steve you sign off I did move to approve payment of the Bills second all in favor say I I all opposed all right item four is approval of minutes of February 21st 2024 the only correction I saw is we have Steve rusek as present which he was not he was not no anything else no I saw so I will move to approve the minutes as amended second second you can't mve well then you have to second here I wasn't here I'll second all right all favor say I I all right item five consent agenda I believe I think we should pull item 5A that's for our annual meeting I think if nothing else to make sure our audience is aware that that's coming up next Tuesday and then if the board wants to look at the agenda and if he they have any changes board have any other issues with the consent no I will move to approve the consent agenda as amended I'll second that motions made in second all favor I I'll opposed all right moving on 5A is uh the agenda uh Patrick do we know if we're going to have any officials there Yes actually we had a confirmation by the county attorney's office today that uh he will be in attendance but that's the only one that we do have confirmation nobody from Sheriff's Department not yet no commissioner not yet our local Representatives not yet did you reach out to them we sure did no we did that's why we got a word back from John he went out or they went out in the same notification so so March 12th uh which is next Tuesday is our annual uh town meeting this is when the residents have a chance to actually vote and have any input on our Levy for the following year uh that way this is very unique to the township because most cities just go ahead and pass budgets and you don't get it say so it this is one of the advantages of living in a Township uh gentlemen have anything else the only thing I'd add is if we have uh our winter decides to return and it's bad weather on that day there is a backup uh option and I think it's for Thursday of the same week is it not wct yes so and it would be here I was just going to point out it is going to be at this location not Otter Lake School like it has in the past all right if there's no further comments I need a motion to approve item 5A I will move to approve item 5A the annual meeting agenda I'll second then motions May and second all in favor say I I I I'll opposed all right moving on item six is old business this is the open board position uh our board supervisor Scott McKuen is moving out of the township so the board has to we can't say replace you we'll find someone to sit in for you you don't have to smile so much about it Scott so Mr chair we did have this on the agenda for the last meeting the board chose to wait till supervisor rusek returned from Hawaii um so we're looking for a directive or staff is looking for a directive as to how the board would like to approach this search the township attorney did let us know that we do need to posted or do not you don't need to but but we should we should yes now do we need to have interviews or no you don't need to have interview we should you should okay from that I would hand it over to you how you'd like us to proceed well I I believe that we probably should post to see what people are interested so we can look at potential U qualifications uh and make it as trans arent as possible for position till we we have it's temporary till the election time and for those that do not know his Scott's term isn't up for the end of the 2026 well 2025 the end of 2025 he and I are on the same schedule so you'd have to U this would be an temporary or appointed till there's a general election which is in November yes and we will y yeah well one of the questions I had was if maybe for the attorney can Scott sit in on those interviews actually they're public anyway so yeah they are public so we could well as a board member though no not as a board member okay well yeah not as a board member because the the statute does indicate that the selection committee consists of the remaining supervisors and the town clerk all right so what are you thinking Patrick just posted on the website or oh we've got a variety of places we'll post it beyond that um but yes probably be a half a dozen different so what time frame are we looking at well um supervisor mun notified me that it will probably be May for your departure correct correct and I'm thinking I was kind of targeting the May executive meeting as your last as the last one okay um which I think I think well I guess not never mind May executive meeting okay so what I would suggest is um tomorrow we post this actually what I'll do is I'll come up with some language for the posting Sate on IL legal for a review upon his approval we'll we'll post it for 30 days and just so we're clear whoever is selected will only serve to fill whoever is elected next November will simply serve out the remainder of SC term two years two years it's not a whole new four-year term it's just remainder of the existing term existing term you have to run again in two years exactly and plus one other point whoever run you know since your your position is open too I believe Steve yes um they whoever apply orever you know files the notice the Affidavit of candidacy has to indicate which position they are filing for well that would be the case this November because I'm up for a re-election too and then there would be a vacancy so there would be two spots in November yeah because there are two spots right you have to pick one okay so we well then that's something we'll deal with with staff but just so we're clear anyone who does plan on running you have to indicate which spot you're running for so I I I guess our intent was initially when we started this discussion was we were going to uh post it here as soon as possible but I mean if we've got an extra month with with Scott you want me to hold off for another 30 days before we post it or you want me to post it for 60 days and then have interviews or what's the board's pleasure um I would think by April if you have it out by April 1st that gives us the month 30 days for them to apply that gives us the month of May to interview and make the decision because really the person that's selected by the you and and the board chair and myself they have to be sworn in anyway at the first board meeting in June then correct the first board meeting at they have to sign in they have to sign their o 10 days after appointment okay maybe we maybe we should do it a little you really sooner it's going to be a little here here's my recommendation okay you can hold the interviews while Scott is still serving but you should not Point anyone until after Scott's position is affirmative is affably vacant so if he official can he officially resign his position after the executive board meeting in May yes and then maybe we affirm or give the oath to the selected candidate the first meeting in June yes um and that date is the 3 of June Okay so we have to have our selection confirmed uh and here for confirmation on the 3 then yep June so whatever dates well actually you know you don't really have to bring a formal Mo before the town board you simply have to the three of you simply appoint them and that's it the appointment should not be made until Scott has actually tendered his resignation but doesn't that include taking the oath of office which that's 10 days after they appointed when's the executive meeting well typically it's on the fourth Friday but that's just before Memorial Day historically we move it up and I don't know if that's that actually might help so that would be then May 17th yeah that might be the best way to do it because then we've got plenty of time we've got the 10-day period before the first meeting in June covered and we can do the oath of office on the 3rd of June we definitely have to have someone in place in case of have any assessment hearings oh yeah that requires unanimous votes all right that a plan okay so just we've talked a lot of things so tell me what what is our schedule here we I would suggest that we post for 30 days beginning the 15th of March um get as many applicants as we can and schedule um interviews first week of May um and and the and the board can decide who they would like at that point um Scott will resign his position officially on May 17th uh oath of office will be given to the chosen applicant the first meeting in June June 3D how's that sound you just have to stay on you're creating way too much problem and no one's gonna fight you you can stay on as long as you want as long as you're here so you're going to find put a notice out through various sources to add advertise for people that may be interested and and the the wording uh I'll run past Chad to make sure we're covered legally okay actually I'll send it to Ed Too Ed do it as well you need a for formal motion on this Chad I think it's just a staff director just a staff directive okay all right do you have that directive yes yes I do taking any notes there's no need motion because it's so statutorily determined procedure so all right if there's no other discussion moving on item seven is a public hearing this is uh for Gordon Nelson at 5241 West Bal eagal Boulevard I need a motion to wave the hearing move to wave the reading as properly published second all faci I I I opposed that motion carries and I need a motion to open up the public hearing I'll move to open in the public hearing second I'll say I I opposed who's going to handle this that would be myself good evening I am also here with Janine Clancy she can introduce herself I'm Janine Clancy I'm a program director at tkda and a senior plan she will be here to help me out answer any questions or any questions you guys may have um team in this effort tonight the variance we're calling the Nelson variance it is for as you mentioned 5241 West Bald Eagle Boulevard the primary portion of the property is just over a third of an acre there's also a northern portion that's only 06 Acres giving Lakefront access onto Bald Eagle Lake it's 80 ft wide and in the R1 District which is single family residential in use they are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance to expand a garage the proposed extension would be 5 ft and 62 in from the property line whereas your ordinance requires 10 ft the addition would be 286 ft it would extend 22 ft south from the existing garage 13 ft wide and it would not encroach into the side setback any further than the existing garage the applicant stated the following as seen on the screen in their application materials the expansion is for residential use only it would allow space for auto and miscellaneous storage items stored in the garage would allow for a cleaner lawn environment the high water table would prevent the ability to build a basement the layout of the lot prohibits the possibility to meet side setback requirements it would not alter the character of the neighborhood and may be an improvement to their property value they State there is some history with the property already in 1984 there was a variance granted to a previous owner that allowed a single car garage be built 8 feet from the property line so encroaching only 2 feet in 1992 a variance was granted to this current owner the applicant tonight allowing the garage be expanded to 3 feet and 2 and a half in from the property line the town board in 1992 approved the variance with the findings of too high of a water table for a basement the fact that it was an undersized lot and that similar situations existed in the neighborhood the twoo high of a water table is we'll address a little bit later the wording is a little bit different it's more understood as a storm elevation level and we will also discuss the undersized lot as it does meet current ordinance lot requirements on the screen you can see the diagram of their lot and their existing buildings the orange outline is that garage Edition they're proposing the setback lines are dashed there a little bit more zoomed in you can see that the addition is 5 and A2 ft from that property line and the existing garage is 3 and 1/2 ft from the property line as I mentioned the lot is not unders sized according to your current ordinance it does meet all of the lot area requirements as well as the width the building inspector had noted that the basement would not be able to be built on site due to the 100-year 1% storm elevation level being within 3 ft of the potential basement which confirms the finding of as stated prior too high of a water table but it's now understood differently the staff evaluated the request and it appears to be in harmony with the zoning ordinance and with the comprehensive plan the proposed use is reasonable the storm elev a is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant the lot appears to have space to build the addition further east from the property line though impervious surface coverage may it be increased to above the 25% maximum and mature trees would be removed this will be addressed in a later comment the request would not alter the character of the neighborhood and it does not appear to be motivated by economic considerations alone the Planning Commission reviewed this request at their January 25th meeting it was discussed um thoroughly with the discussion centered around practical difficulty drainage fire hazard Etc the commission recommends approval of this variance request with the conditions we will review shortly it was a 3 to one vote with one exstension the sub the supplemental material that you received this morning was a memo from the AR architect who was representing the client with the client at that Planning Commission meeting she wrote a formal memo addressing the questions posed at the commission including how will drainage from the new addition be kept on site what precautions will be taken to mitigate the fire hazard between adjacent structures and addressing the question of are there other locations on site where the garage could be could it be located further from the side Lot line than currently proposed the town board tonight has the following options to approve the variance with or without conditions to deny the variance with findings of course and you could also table the request for further review and study if necessary if the board finds criteria are met staff recommend the following conditions the applicant shall be permitted to build the proposed garage Edition as shown on the plans submitted to the township on December 5th 2023 and reviewed with this request the applicant shall remove existing concrete located between the proposed Edition and West property line and shall install gutters on the proposed addition to mitigate potential issues with drain off drainage and runoff the applicant shall acquire all other necessary permits and approvals for their proposed project they shall comply with any applicable local state and federal rules and regulations and they shall pay all fees and escros associated with the project depending on your finding tonight we do have resolutions for approval and denial prepared for you the applicant also does seem to be here if you'd like to ask any questions of the applicant now would be the time all right well before we open up for public comment uh Scott questions comments um I really don't have any questions Steve um just so I'm clear this as as as it sits today I mean it it meets all the requirements of the the variance that was granted so nothing that's up to this point has changed and and what you just said is that they've they could move it to a different over a little bit further what is that what you were saying without that was a topic of conversation at the Planning Commission they were considering Janine would you show the uh zoomed in version of the plans they were considering moving it Eastward so it would fit within the setbacks which would be up on the image the architect addressed this in the memo you received addressing that it may not be feasible due to mature trees it said Rel mature trees and also the internal building of the garage I believe there it was stated that there are like stairs or utilities um that would be a question for the applicant have a little more clarification that there utilities is there a utility variance along the between those two neighboring properties now it's existing utilities that are existing between the two yes is there use utility eement easement there would there not be well there's not a current utility easement between the two depends on when this was originally platted you know when they was originally platted if it was fairly new they would have put in EAS lines that's part of the reason for the setbacks but these buildings are too old for that okay pass else SC all right uh what is the distance between the new proposed garage and the existing house I don't have that measurement explicit on the the drawings I believe it is oh that'd be a great question for the applicant I apologize all right well I'm just curious because obviously if if there if it's you can't use Financial issues to move that thing so if it's an issue of just internally changing some uh mechanics or roof lines or whatever that that's not a reason to Grant the variance so I was curious whether you do that or you relocate building in the backyard I know taking trees down is not our favorite thing either we're losing so many now with Emerald dashboard that but again uh when we had this moratorium on be is what 10 years ago now Chad yes uh the terms of hardship were basically thrown out the it is now considered reasonable use of the property so when you have reasonable use that means you can if you can stay within the guidelines of the township then you can use the property as you see fit uh with when you've got a standard lot and now you're coming in for a variance to add on a garage you you're not reasonably using the property as as the township was required by this variance I I think I was on the Planning Commission back when this variance was probably allowed for that two stall garage and the reasoning because the the board was concerned about trying to get our Township residents a double car garage versus a single so we were making accommodations for residents to give them a little bit of fudge factor to those property lines to get a double car and that's I'm sure that's why this that variance was granted because it's it's so close to the property line otherwise we wouldn't have allowed that either it's it's a lot that fits the right size but with a single car we wanted to get people to get a two car so I'm sure that's where that variance came in but now all of a sudden we're talking about more garage and still adding a variance where you should be 10t off the line for the the next garage so the board at that time I think was trying to make amends but now we're being asked to make amends again just for another stall in this garage that's that's my little bit of a heartburn on this application especially when there is room to put it somewhere else or depending on if this whole building could be moved towards the existing house you still meet the 10 foot on the corner and then there's no need for a variance with that any other questions or comments that's good all right then I would look for a motion to open it up for the public comment I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment second all in favor say I I all opposed I know the applicants are here uh if you'd like to come on up get your name and address for the record Gord Nelson uh 5241 West Bal deal Boulevard I'm the owner it's my wife Cindy contractor Paul husnick I'm sure you all know um part of the problem with relocating uh as uh was mentioned earlier is um you give up some green space so you have some issues with the with the permability rule um and um I don't have access anywhere into the garage from many parts of the property besides that and and I'm not actually making the garage wider I'm actually going deeper so as far as the you won't see any information or you won't see a roof line from the road um it's pretty well hidden back there from the uh backyard neighbors and um actually the the setback is even less than my original one that I received so um there really isn't much room to to play with as far as maneuvering around for that garage how much room do you have between existing house in the proposed new garage uh well right now the exact actual garage with a 10 set 10ft setback requirement um um uh I'm in 3T uh 2 and 12 in and the revised would uh I'd be in 5T 6 and half Ines so um I'm saying right now the existing house if you were to put that garage where you want it what's that distance between those two I know if I can f a laser point right um well the house and the new garage yeah between the house and the new garage the new proposed garage they've got a line there but they don't they don't give us the distance you talking from a setback not no no no I'm talking about if you want to put that new garage up how far away will it be from the house I know it's attached to your existing garage how far will it be from the house yeah you know I I'm guessing it's 8 10 ft I don't see that on my drawings here so I I there's a where I'm going with is is if if it's possible to move that garage to the east to get that 10- foot setback and still clear the house is that I I know you run in the roof lines and there's some some issues but well I mean we did look at uh part of the discussion was with the original Planning Commission was if there's any way you could look at it to where you can move it further east and we did have that looked at and um that did give me uh I I would be 7 ft setback off that line so that I was able to to gain another foot and something off of that I do have a copy of those measurements and uh uh the new measurements on that if the board would like to have that so you're saying there's only three feet there' only be three feet between the two buildings then I I'm cdy Nelson 5241 West ball legal Boulevard it's not on the drying Paul help me here there's actually a utility door into the garage so if we go over too far we're going to be in front of the utility garage and also inside the garage we have a bump out of our laundry room that then is goes into the garage so if we move this way too far over then that that disrupts and we can't get into the garage with that utility door and where the garage is it can't come all that far over because we have a bump out with in the garage which was something that hasn't been on any dry we did discuss it last time but I think it I don't think we were maybe clear about exactly what was inside the garage that made that also a a reason call I don't know if you have any other comments but I didn't describe that very well me which measurement does I don't know was that helpful is that what you were kind of looking for six feet I I I've just obviously I've never I haven't been I drove by the front of it but I didn't go around back but if if if it's at all possible to do this garage without a variance makes this board well I I wouldn't I mean I I can't do it without a variance because I mean I wouldn't be here if I could I mean I know it's 10 foots I know that so it it will not work um right now um fact I'm surprised the very first variance was this small even with undersized lots of 60-footers we we're allowing that 10 foot to go to five foot because the undersized lot well but now when you have a full I don't know what's the width of this lot is it 80 80 80t so you you've got more than enough room on that property for a standard house and a two-car garage but I struggle with giving a variance for a third stall when we've already given a variance to get the two stall and that was kind of the board's uh priority to at least get people two stalls now we're asking for variance to do a third and and again I I have to harp on this reasonable use of the property we we don't Grant variances just because you want a bigger garage it's got to if you can do it and not have a variance then it's it's it's this board struggle to give you that variance I Chad if you can maybe just the recap of the of the moratorium is how that was explained well what the moror you're talking about Mr chairman was that there was a case out of minona that changed the definition of what you know okay prior to that case there was the basic standard was reasonableness and the Minnesota Supreme Court reinterpreted that saying reasonable this is not what the statute says it said I forget exactly what it said again but it uh it basically it end up with a much more stricter definition of what a variance what what a variance is regulations Chang quite a bit so the legislature the reason we adopted the moratorium was the legislature was looking at that case and looking at the old interpretations of the statute and decided that they had to amend the statute to reinstate the old interpretation so the interpretations that existed I think the case was kacher I think it was 19 or no no 20 oh boy I think in 2012 I could be wrong I'm I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about that but they reinstated the old definition the the prior the pre the pre- chromer definition was reinstated so reasonable came back into play but that's why we did the we did the moratorium because they had the Supreme Court had basically changed the definition of well it changed this not the definition it changed the standard you had to apply and made it much stricter well but I I think that was reflected in how we changed our ordinance well yeah the ordinance was you reopt it you adopted what you did was after the mor before the moratorium was lifted and after the state legislature changed the law you adopted the statuto the new statutory definition as I understand the moratorium was was appealed to the state and they and it went away they they no it didn't go no no no Supreme Court took the initial statute interpreted it and indicated that the courts had been interpreting the courts and municipalities have been interpreting it wrong and so what the legislature did was they took the old understanding they they B and and Stat and made that part of the statute so they basically changed the definition and the moratorium was in place because the we had to basically redo our ordinance to the meet the new definition that the Supreme Court had mandated and then again because this legislature changed it we went back to the old def old old way of operating so basically what happened was the old way of operating was thrown out and replaced by new way of new method of operation set by the Supreme Court the legislature decided that given the long history of variances and the and the old interpretation that they're simply going to change the statute so that the statute now say now conformed to the old definition the old way of oper I'm confused confused also okay it's okay let me try it one more time okay for for a number of years the term of you know the term was the term of uh of I think I thought it was hardship hardship yes was only granted under yeah the interpretation what what what hardship what hardship meant right was one way and then this cmer case came along and the Supreme Court looked at the definition the this what was the conventional definition of hardship and said no you're using the wrong you're interpreting the wrong way here's how hardship should be interpreted was a much more restrictive definition the legislature decided that given the history of the definition of hardship that had been in place prior to cacher that they're simply going to take that take the preacher definition and make that part of the statute that's what they did and that's where that reasonable use of the property we've been trying to at least slow down all these variances especially around the lake we we've caught a lot of lot of grief for the some fortunately the the lake area is because of the age of the properties and the homes and that it's a very unique situation with the property lines and and the buildings and so on but um you've already got looks like the neighbor storage area right on the line which doesn't help you either well yeah I mean that's a lot of the area around Lakes that's the way that's that went so um so answer your question as far as being able to move it east or west uh with reviewing the the plans um worst case scenario is I I can go 7 ft from the from the uh setback so I'm really in into the setback by 3 feet so you could move the garage so instead of that 5 foot five and a half it would be S feet correct and and I have those drawings here with a so you're moving at East somewhat East almost two two feet correct East yes well I again so 2 feet East you still can you have your utility door is that what you're without changing with correct I'll meet that that criteria so and it'll still be a doable project I'm only 3 feet into the setback at at that point it's this only reasonable use thing anything else got um so as you know this is not my strength so please bear with me if I ask sure basic questions but I was going to ask that question which Steve just did um it's not going to impact I see there's like a sidewalk that you have there um from the existing deck into the existing garage and would the idea that you just suggested be to move potentially move the garage up to that sidewalk well it'd be close to it yes close to it you wouldn't go over the okay and um I know know that there was comments from um uh where did it go there was comments about impermeability Imperia surface thank you um would that still be an issue if you did move it a couple no that would still meet the the formula for the proper formula that you have to have for the square footage and but if you were to move it and I just bear with me for a second if you were to move it more than the the couple of feet to get it to toally out of the setback then potentially there would be some impervious imp correct okay and so then I guess that would be a question of Are we more concerned about the setback or are we more concerned about the pervia perious the impervious stuff I I can't get that word out um so that would be I guess a question but I think those were all that I had thank you how wide is the garage the new proposed garage it's 22 feet out how wide 13 feet 13 13 if you scroll down a little bit oh some one thing the board will struggle with down the road and which we we try to help them those guys out but when we do this it's a little bit of a precedent sentence so we're allowing this one a year down the road somebody's goingon to look back and see this and say I want the same thing so we struggle with this to make sure that we're have rationale for this and a lot of times we try to massage this so it only applies to you or to this property so the next guy can't use that against us to want the same thing well that's another issue that we're going to struggle with on this one but uh on that last point should know that variances that are of variance Grant in the past past does not cannot be used is not relevant to variances granted in the future it's called the doctrine of due process and the Court Supreme Court has made that clear that what's happened in the past is cannot be considered as it's not a due process issue just to let you know that that is not a big problem unless the only time you have to worry about that is if you had two variances of the same nature on the same night you have to treat them consistently or if you had two Varian of the same type within say one or two meetings of each other you should be consistent but really you shouldn't worry about that about about precedence because the doctrine of Precedence doesn't really apply when it comes to variances tell that we're going to make a big statement to the town residents because they use it against us all the time that's that's the legal definition politically practically yes I know you your your point is well taken all right um any other questions of the applicant no not at this moment did did you have some clarification you said would talk about it later why he's here good question for the applicant um that was regarding the location movement which we've we've been discussing andif for us obviously this addition needs Frost footings correct because it's attached to the garage which is attached to the house correct um so that that water table issue is not affected by those correct a high Watermark that's correct okay all right um thanks sir is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this all right hearing none and with no other questions of the applicant I need a motion to close the public comment portion I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing second all in favor say I I I all right if there any other questions of staff or the attorney otherwise I would what's the board's pleasure well let me ask a question so there was an the applicant had made a a comment that he is willing to move it over not for what he requested but further to the east so that we have to look at that are we going to talk about it as he Rec if he requested or has he just made a commentary that it could be moved a little bit well we have two options you you can either approve what they're asking or you can deny what they're asking or you can make a recommendation to approve his his second choice of moving at two feet okay so the reasonable use of the property not granting this it's still reasonable use of the property there's still a reasonable use of the property and so in keeping with the re what we're trying we have been trying to do there is no reason to issue the variant because there is a reasonable use of the property because there is a reasonable yes because there is a reasonable use of the property whether he moves it or not is not really relevant if it's still going to have to have a variance it's only when i' so um no I'm not gonna all right so let's that what do you think I was uh I did drive by and look at it and that is really tight between the two buildings and I you pointed out already that the neighbors got one storage unit right on the line um and both of them seem to be pretty close to the to the lot so um any any way that it could be moved further to the east I would think would be better A lot of times uh setbacks originally I believe when when we develop properties and you set setbacks it's utilties eement and it's also uh safety now I know they talked about fireproofing a building because it's too close to the next one and but you also got to be able to bet get something down between them now years ago it used they want to get a fire truck in there a lot of these houses in the township and you can't do that they're just too close uh but but like I said when you have a full-size lot of a of a standard the township requires I it's a little tough to say just because you want a third stall but sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you all right what's pleasure of the board well I think in uh OPP opposition to what the Planning Commission recommended I propose that it be denied um do we have that finding of facts I don't what page that's on we unug I can pull up our resolution with the findings for denial in just a moment actually it's Pages 99 100 and 101 is the um resolution for denial I I think it's important that we have that as part of the minutes well actually Mr chair you should be adopting the resolution with the findings of okay that staff that ttk has prepared for you all right I just found it well Steve if that's your motion you should probably include that I'll include that uh uh on page where is it 91 you say 99 it all right just to refer to the findings effect which I would suggest you do is the motion should be based on the findings fact set forth in the resolution proposed resolution um actually would let me rephrase that you would you would the motion be to deny based on the findings of fact set forth in the proposed resolution that is correct it's my motion all right do I have a second I will second that all right motions being second all in favor say I I I opposed sorry folks I know sometimes we just have to draw the line on these things to to slow these these requests down because we get a ton of them and some of them are just they're a little egregious th this one it seems fair but a third stall is is almost a I don't want to say a a nice thing to have but I I rent it stalls for a long time somewhere else cuz I couldn't get a bigger garage so but thank you all right we're going to move on item eight we have uh two business we have none so nine add agenda items we don't also number 10 is open time if we got someone here for open time is your chance to come front of the camera my name is Bob leaper I live at 2302 fifth Court in Township um two issues or two uh items for discussion one would be the uh when I was here the last time there was talk about replacing um fifth Court Road uh the asphalt is quite broken up and um the plan I thought was to have it replaced this year and then it got pushed to 2025 because there had to be some plans some rearranging of property lines and so forth so I was trying to get an update where we are with that have we made any decisions I haven't seen anybody out there surveying or looking at the uh property I'll start with that have you been in touch with uh Dale Reed our Public Works director or not no because uh you you know Patrick off hand if that's the only only thing that I know is what Mr leaper has said here is that it was moved to 2025 so I don't think there's been any survey out there since we've made that decision but you might want to check with Dale what his plan yeah because I'm you know what we have so many road approvement going on and a lot of times your road would be included with some other roads and we raid all our roads from one to five and sometimes if the rating is marginal it gets moved back or funding it might get moved back so I well Dale would be the the gentleman to talk to is it Dale Reed yes Public Works director he's got a complete layout of of all our road improvements when they come up when they're going to be scheduled okay and the other issue that I have is and I spoke of this the last time I was here um again my address is 2302 fifth court so at the end of fifth Court it ends in a t I'm at the right and there's 2286 um I can't refer to it any other way than a junkyard and the uh owners of this property uh um have exceeded their 300 Square F foot limitations uh they had multiple boats and vehicles and trailers in the yard and in their driveway and over the last few months they did get rid of a couple of the boats but they replaced them with vehicles so we haven't made any improvements there and the piles of debris wood tires batteries has increased um there's there's a house a garage and then a shed and the piles of garbage have Spilled Out outside the shed between the garage and the shed is mounted uh they can't even close their garage door all the way when they try to it closes at an angle because it's hitting all kinds of debris inside their garage and it's spilling out into their driveway that with with Mike um I know we've talked about it with Mike because there are a few houses in that area that he's had conversations with folks it wasn't on this last executive meeting I I don't see it listed but I'm pretty sure he's had several conversations with the owners I because I think our building inspector is aware of it and he sent out some uh notices to the property owner is one of these properties where they were doing oil changes in their driveway yes sir okay so we are aware of that Y and going through the the process that we have to follow to address those and I I don't I I can't say more than that cuz I wasn't at the last exec meeting but I know we have discussed it with our building inspector I thought there had been improvements though so I'm surprised to hear that you're you that's not in your opinion there there was some improvements like I said the the the the boats that were here in there um half on the driveway and then this one was all the way in the yard they disappeared and like thank you uh and then they were replaced a couple weeks later with other vehicles and uh I I know that when I read the minutes from the last time I was here um someone said that you don't know about these problems until someone like myself says something so and I looked up the definitions and they are a nuisance and we are looking to sell our property in the next year maybe two and if you take a chance and drive down fifth Court you wouldn't offer $10,000 for my house because you have to drive by this and there's other people in the neighborhood that have a surplus of trailers and boats and so forth but it's set back and I don't want to make a big stink with everybody's just this one is just a disaster and and I appreciate your help it's on our radar and and the problem is it this is a process you know you you can give them notices and then you have to threaten legal action and then you got to threaten taking them to the court and it it I hate to say it but they have rights not to be not to be messy but yeah yeah yeah I wouldn't apologize they do have rights but they but there you have rights too you have to follow due process okay and Mike and Mike gets to the point where he feels I need to step in he's he calls me and the board gives me direction so we've done it in the past so don't you know yeah it's not being ignored I can tell you that much not to be discouraging but you some of these have taken over seven years to get through the system but but really I'm just tell you got a time you got an open position on your side of the table I'm just telling you these are not fast because it's Mike and he get involved and they have to go through the the process there is a lot of lenience given to people property rights are a big deal it's like evicting somebody can't just kick him to the street you got to give I get it I wish you could do it as an eviction to yeah and I I guess I just wanted to be on record is that I'm I'm I'm staying with you and and and hopefully you can keep up with that and and uh I appreciate your time leave yet um Pat it wasn't on Mike's list at the last executive meeting and I guess I made the bad assumption that it was better and and he didn't feel it was worth bringing up so I think it needs to be brought up again so we can find out what his thoughts are so when I when I bring this up at staff meeting tomorrow with Mike I'm sure it'll move to the executive committee session because I if it's not on the list my hope is that things have improved and he feels it's it's workable I think we addressed it at the December EXA yes and when it dropped off the the last month I thought okay progress the second thing is if you're thinking about selling in the next year is um the the whole reason that the roads were not done in on your street specifically but also for that area is um that famous phrase that it's complicated um the area the neighborhood a lot of ups and downs and tight turns and narrow lanes and rights away and so on and so tkda had to take a step back and take a much harder look at it in order to do it the right way that's why it's not being kicked down the road that's a bad term it's not being delayed simply because we didn't want to get to it it was to take a very thoughtful strategic approach there needed to be more time spent on it hopefully it'll still work with your time frame but that's kind of the backstory when you talk to Dale he's going to have a better idea as to how that's moving along I think but that's just to give you some perspective of why it moved from here to there yeah had a mess back there um thinking back when it used to be horse and buggy and road is done that that's also going to complicate their mess because that's going to have to be cleaned up too while we're doing the road so hopefully with timing when you go to sell your house the road's done which helps you sell because it's going to look nicer and that may help expedite cleaning that mess up too very good thanks again thanks Bob thanks Bob thank you all right wiper press yeah Logan gon 12599 Europe Avenue North Hugo but the mailing address is wiper Lake um just a couple of clarifications um for my own what is Mike's last name just so I can spell it right in the notes Johnson Johnson okay thank you uh Johnson and then secondly uh Cher you um mentioned ashor being a blight uh I'm would just like to if you could elaborate on that because I'm not sure if our papers covered it uh right now Emerald ashor is gotten our full attention we've taken how many trees Patrick I don't even know it's been a huge project over the last two or three sem and it's it's gotten a little bit out of hand so it's really spreading and it it it's said to stay but we are losing a lot of trees in the town yes and and we've uh We've uh taken the same approach with our property owners as we do with the township we are we're not holding out our property and saying you have to Thou shalt take down yours and we're addressing them we have an arborist and and staff that have been going out as other commun ities have Whitebear Lake itself has been doing this all our Loring communities have aggressively been looking at it because it is still attacking whatever living ash trees there are um and and so we're addressing it as fast as we can they have to be removed and then we're also now we're looking at Replacements yes which is just a followup so it's going to be another process good to know thank you than man all right seeing no one else I have one last item oh I'm sorry one last item I just want to remind everybody that tomorrow is primary day in Minnesota uh does not uh matter which party they it's everybody it's all at the same date uh and there's a change in the township as it relates to Precinct one that is at tamarak Nature Center versus otterlake school where it normally is because there was a scheduling issue uh there also will be two other precincts uh at cam ra Nature Center in the um I think it's in the gardening building out towards the front because Otter Lake School has three precincts that uh that vote there um yes there's no way I can get that in in time for the paper but will that right how pull uh I mean short of stopping the trucks right now um but uh will that uh affect the general election in the fall will the locations change or are they still I don't think so uh Carter was made aware of this when he was here doing his presentation earlier to make sure that that's covered in the Press uh for the general election also well uh as you may or may not know Carter does not always communicate everything Downstream so you know you're on record on that yeah I know I am you said it I did that I I have a hotter take not many watch the live stream all right all right thanks anything else Steve no got got anything no all right I need a motion to receive gentle materal supplements so moved second all in favor say I I I I need a motion to adjourn at time is it 7:56 756 so move second all favor