Animal Husbandry

The city has been questioning the section of the zoning code that deals with animal husbandry for some time.  Whether of or not the keeping of animals typically found on a farm was the question in some areas of Breezy Point.  If they were to be allowed that question further went on to how many is too much and what types of animals should be allowed.  The question was raised as there has been more interest in the topic based on a number of factors. 

The city dealt with chickens as somewhat of a side step.  The interest in having chickens for their fresh eggs has been wide spread in many areas.  As a lover of fresh eggs I understand the appeal.  A chicken ordinance was adopted which allows by permit up to 6 chickens on a lot of less than 1 acre or 10 if the property exceeds 1 acre.  There are conditions that need to be observed such as no roosters and neighbors giving approval, among others, but having the ability to have chickens for the eggs they produce are available to most.  

Many people think of sustainability as the driver of this activity.  Others think of pets while still more think of a hobby business in some form.  As a hobby business it may only provide for the fruits of your labor producing no income. Regardless of any income it could produce it is still a form of a business.  

The city has been going through some changes as growth and development is again increasing.  The city in 2010 revised its Comprehensive Plan, which among other things, provided for zoning changes to a number of areas.  One of these changes was the reduction in agriculturally zoned property.  The change involved both a name change and actual zoning changes to lands previously zoned agricultural.  The change in name made the Agricultural district into the Urban Reserve district.  Making these changes resulted in a number of properties that were no longer considered agricultural in use. 

 

During this process of change in zoning the ability to provide for agricultural use was maintained.  Prior to these changes the courts changed how conditional use permits were considered.  Conditional Use permits in the past were the norm for land uses that would see a change in the future.   The issuance of a permit required that conditions be established, as the use was deemed a permitted use with conditions.  One of the conditions that were typically included was a condition regarding a timeline or end date to the permit where an applicant would need to reapply.  The court ruled that Conditional Use Permits were permanent and they removed the ability to establish a timeline.  This ruling also required that the permit be recorded making it a right for future property owners to have without reapplying. 

This prompted the creation of an Interim Use Permit.  This permit is somewhat identical to a Conditional Use Permit but reinstated the timeline factor into the permit.  These permits are not recorded and need to be reviewed on a periodic basis as determined by the permit conditions.  Our code had not made, in most situations, a change to this type of permit.  This too prompted concern that the use of the property for animal husbandry could be carried on regardless of the zoning attached to the property.  

To address the questions the Planning Commission formed a committee to figure out what solutions would be best going forward.  They wanted to make the change to an Interim Use however felt with sufficient land a property owner should be able to have some limited animal husbandry.  This discussion went on for a number of months and recommendations were made.  The city council heard these recommendations and after considerable discussion and debate they amended the proposed ordinance that was recommended by the Planning Commission.  The change was to exclude animal husbandry in two larger lot zoning districts and to make animal husbandry in the Urban Reserve District an Interim Use.  This was passed on a 3-2 vote, making this the requirement. 

A subsequent motion was made and passed to revisit the question as there was some concern that the property owners with larger lots had lost some property rights with this action.  The motion requested a workshop meeting jointly between the City Council and the Planning Commission.  It is unclear what may come from this meeting but the issue isn’t completely put to rest. Time will tell.     

Finance Specialist

With an employee moving on to other pursuits we advertised to fill the position of Finance Specialist.  Replacing any employee takes time, generally about 3 months at a minimum.  The process of advertising, interviewing and transition from a previous employer to a new one each has its place and time lines.  We have recently gone the course and have a new employee as the Finance Specialist.

Kari Jacobson was hired to fill that position.  She comes to us with a wealth of experience.  She was the Clerk Treasurer for Kiester, MN for 11 years and worked for the city of Hermantown, MN as an accountant.  Recently she was the Clerk Treasurer of Hayward, MN while also owning and operating a liquor store.  She has an accounting degree and has spent the majority of her career dealing with numbers.  Her background includes payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable, general ledger, and utility billing. 

She has big shoes to fill but we feel she is more than capable of filling them and then some.  She has friends and relatives in the area.  She has always wanted to live in this area. She is excited to be in Breezy Point.   We are very pleased to welcome her to city hall. 

Shared Responsibility

Breezy Point and Ideal Township have worked together to deal with public service issues for a great many years.  The city at one time had contracted with them for fire service.  We have continued a relationship of sharing responsibilities for roads that abut both jurisdictions with an agreement.  The shared road service agreement has worked well.  This agreement is periodically renewed as it extends for a period of time. 

The past agreement expired at the start of this year.  We worked together to renew the agreement.  The agreement was working well as written but Ideal Township had ideas about making changes.  The past agreement provided for the city plowing and maintaining Buschmann Road and Ideal Township plowed and maintained Ossawinnamakee Road and Forest Knolls Road.

Under the new arrangement a somewhat different approach was defined.  Breezy Point will accomplish plowing and maintenance of the shared portion of Buschmann Road.  We will only plow the Ideal portion of Buschmann Road.  The city will also take on the plowing of Wild Turkey Trail.  Ideal Township will in turn do plowing and maintenance of Ossawinnamakee Road, Graf Road and Forest Knolls.  They will also plow Sunset Strip. 

                  

With this change there was some concern that property owners who abut these roadways should be made aware of the change.  A letter was sent out and asked if they had any concerns with the change.  Some responses were received indicating they didn’t have any issues with it.  The agreement provides for a fairly equitable arrangement.  It provides for some time savings for both parties.  The Breezy Point City Council approved the agreement at the October meeting.  Ideal Township subsequently also approved the agreement.   

Lot Trade

Once in a while the city finds itself with property that is more valuable to another property owner where a trade in lands makes sense.  This doesn’t happen often.  It has occurred now on two occasions in the last couple of years.  The first time it occurred there was some confusion about public improvements and ownership of property.  There may also have been an issue with an owner that couldn’t be found.  The result was a trade of lots that resulted in a benefit to both parties. 

Recently a situation occurred with a property owner who owned two lots that were separated by two lots owned by the city in between. The property owner has a home on one lot and the other is vacant. He wanted to build a garage on this other lot but as a non-contiguous property they could not be combined.  The city does not allow for the construction of accessory buildings such as garages without a home on the site.  Without this rule the city would probably look similar to a storage facility with garages all over the place.

The property owner requested to purchase the two lots the city held.  The property held by the city was reserved for parkland so it is not for sale.   The property owner came back with another suggestion which was a great idea.  He suggested he trade the lot the city holds next to his home in exchange for the vacant lot he owns.  He was willing to pay all the expenses associated with the trade. 

This was a win-win for both parties.  The property owner will get a lot that is contiguous to his home which when combined allows him to build a garage.  The city retains the same amount of space in lots that is currently held after the trade.  The change in lots provides for a better configuration of lots with a proposed garage being a buffer from the future parkland use.  The resulting lots the city holds better fits the parkland configuration of other lands held by the city. 

The city council approved the trade in lots and we’re now in the process of making that transaction.

Health Care Dwelling Units

Temporary Heath Care Dwelling Units are somewhat of a new concept.  A law was passed this past legislative session to provide for these.  They are a dwelling unit of up to 300 square feet typically built somewhat like a travel trailer.  The idea for these was to provide families with a means to take care of a family member who has health issues at their home when space doesn’t exist in the home to deal with another person.  They essentially become an additional bedroom external to the home.

The person using this structure must be physically or mentally impaired.  This must be verified and involves some non-public data to be given to the city. There are also timelines for this use that need to be observed.  The structure can be used for one year and an additional year if needed.  This also requires some vigilance on the city to monitor the use and timelines.

   

The legislature passed this bill which provides for these units as an allowed use stating these must be allowed within the city unless the city opts out, by ordinance.   This approach is somewhat contrary to local control of zoning but with an “opt-out” provision the city has the ability to say no.  To say no it must pass an ordinance.  

With the statute in place the Planning Commission looked at the possibility of this and had a number of concerns.  Their concerns were mostly from a land use perspective. The structure would need to meet applicable setback requirements.  There were concerns about water and sewer connections.  They were particularly concerned about the process of removal of these structures when the time period ends. They didn’t want these to turn into spare bedrooms, student housing or vacation rentals.  They also commented that we have provisions in the code currently to provide for guest housing.   Conflicts with these and other recreational trailers or vehicles could also become a problem.  They recommended an ordinance to opt-out of the requirement at this time.  The city could remove the opt-out provision and allow these at a later date but for the time being they did not feel it in the best interest of the city to allow these.

The city council approved the ordinance opting-out of the Health Care Dwelling Units provision under state law.