Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Commissioners - Minutes - 04/14/2005I !l MINUTES OF THE OTTER TAIL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Government Services Center, 500 Fir Ave. W. Commissioners' Room Special Meeting, Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:00 p.m. Present: County Staff: Chairman, Bob Block Commissioner, Malcolm Lee Commissioner, Sydney Nelson Board Secretary, Kathy Domholt Commissioner, Roger Froemming Commissioner, Dennis Mosher County Coordinator, Larry Krohn Shoreland Rules Revision Committee Members: Gene Albers Brad Mergens Gene Miller Rod Boyer Bruce Brenden Dan Passolt Milt Paulson Gary Cruff Michael Cummings Stu Peterson Robert Deutschman Gale Pfeiffer Bruce Qvammen G. Paul Ruehmann Bob Russell Allen Haugrud David Hauser Steve Schierer Jerry Horgen Dan Skinner Jeff Stabnow Justine Kingham Terry Lejcher Marsha Bowman James Morken Terry Colton Michael Pendy Donald Davenport Tom Ebacher Donald Fendrick Debra Ann Sazama Glen Shaw Bill Kalar Paul Tongen Introduction: County Board Chairman and Chairman of the Shoreland Rules Revision Committee, Bob Block, provided background on the process of obtaining public input regarding the Shoreland Management Ordinance. There were four public information meetings held throughout the County and consequently, the Shoreland Rules Revision Committee was organized from volunteers and several meetings were held through the past year. One issue that was expressed was concern of how other Commissioners were learning the issues and points of view of the Shoreland Rules Revision Committee. With that goal in mind, the County Board will listen to the Committee's viewpoints by way of following an outline, which addresses the main issues. Chair Block read the Special Meeting Notice for the record. Outline: Land & Resource Director, Bill Kalar, briefed the committee on handouts and reviewed a proposed timeline for amendment of the current Shoreland Management Ordinance. The existing moratorium on cluster developments ends the end of May, 2005. Should the Board decide that the SMO will be changed, the timeline is provided to accomplish amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 1 of the outline (Attachment A): OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 2 Should Otter Tail County Revise its Shoreland Management Ordinance? Stu Peterson, President of Star Lake Property Owners Association as well as Star Lake Association Subgroup and Owner of land on Star Lake: • allow for special protection districts of sensitive areas on GD (RD) lakes at the level of NE lakes • Star Lake Association adopted a resolution at a recent meeting in support of special protection districts (Attachment B) Michael Pendy, Owner of Four Seasons Resort on Rush Lake and Vice-President of Otter Tail Country Tourism Association: • resorts need to stay in existence -current rules provide no options • rules need to be re-written for commercial developments in order to maintain, update and expand current tourism operations Justine Kingham, Architect and lives on Pelican Lake: • continuing lot & block developments will change the rural environment appearance where you have a cluster of buildings with open space around • don't want density to change • if 1.8. and 1.C are enforced, you will solve 1.C. (refer Attachment A) Tom Ebacher: • SMO needs to be revised to allow more freedom to allow visitors that may stay overnight in a tent or a camper and allow storage of campers or RV's • exclude small buildings and dog houses from the permit requirements • expand Appeal Process to 30 days Bob Russell: Provided handout entitled Comments on "Sensitive Areas", dated April 14, 2005 (Attachment C): • Ordinance needs some change • no consensus on increasing lot sizes • set forth objective criteria/standards and empower professional staff; require staff recommendations to be set forth in writing and shared with landowner prior to hearing on any application • two major problems that affect lake quality include 1) public accesses; and 2) existing substandard lots (see Attachment C) Don Fendrick, Representing "Other" group on Committee: • crowding, density, urbanization -needs to be addressed • increase lot sizes across the board • reduce multipliers on tiers for cluster developments .. • identify sensitive areas to help prevent development on those areas Mike Cummings: OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 3 • a University of Minnesota study has found that there is absolutely no trend in water clarity based upon the density on the water • University of Minnesota concluded that the people living on the lakes just don't want anyone else living on the lake • the public needs to be considered Bob Deutschman, President of the Dead Lake Association: • the current SMO that went into effect many years ago, did not plan for the extra crowding and urbanization on these lakes • Ordinance needs to be changed to preserve water quality for future generations Glen Shaw, Star Lake Association Board: • Star Lake Association supported a resolution at their annual meeting that the Ordinance needs revision and study Terry Colton, Resort Owner and Realtor: • agrees that density provides no trend in relation to water quality (as stated by Mr. Cummings) • rules need to be tweaked; but cannot be done effectively in four months • tiling is a problem as. far as what is going into the lakes • resorts need to be identified separately, so they can continue to operate • meetings have not produced a solution or hardcore facts • this group needs to continue to meet and study the issues Dan Passolt, Homeland Developers: • rules are good as written now; but could use some tweaking for clusters • current rules give Planning Commissioner and County Board flexibility to make suggestions and changes appropriate for each particular development • separate rules for resorts vs. proposed clusters -each need their own tweaking Jim Morken, Homeland Developers: • in sensitive areas, you need to separate water surface regulations from land regulations • land is land and water is water and they are separate issues Gene Miller, Miller Engineering: • 1.A. of outline needs to be addressed, not 1.B. and 1.C. (refer to Attachment A) • existing properties are affecting water quality • septic system setbacks need to be increased from the OHWL (greater distance from the water than current) • protect the water; don't drive away the people OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 2 of the outline: 2. Otter Tail County should continue to allow some form of Cluster/Planned Unit Development (PUD). Justine Kingham: • PUD's and/or clusters encourage open space that preserves the appearance of rural environment • PUD concept requires detailed review, which allows for control and protection of the water from individual impacts • do not allow commercial uses outside of PUD -keep ii the way it is now with CUP application Bob Russell: • cluster developments are the best place for use in sensitive areas and should be changed from not allowed to CUP • need to address the informal Common Interest Communities • need to address if a cabin can be rented out during the winter -Ordinance needs to address what is commercial and what isn't Gary Ruehmann, Committee Member and Lake Property Owner: • agree with Justine Kingham -PUD's need to be well-designed and have good oversight • need staffing group that is capable to provide oversight for good plans • Environmental Quality Board is in process of establishing new regulations that would set specific guidelines for lakeshore development which would be more stringent and have different setting mechanisms for EIS • Moratorium should be continued while the revisions process is taking place Gene Miller: • PUD concept protects the lake because sewer and water systems are designed so they do protect the lake • current lot & block development doesn't provide the same type of quality • PUD needs to be benefited by the tier system, because PUD protects the lake better than lot & block development • PUD can have homeowners association which protects the lake • suggest that the County staff be strengthened Mike Cummings: • tourism is second largest industry in Minnesota and OTCo. has the second largest number of resorts in this industry • disagree that the cluster development is an improvement for the resort business • consider the economics of these regulations and what it can do to the County itself Jim Morken: OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 5 • Otter Tail County is currently very conservative compared to the State regulations on cluster rules Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 3 of the outline: 3. Sensitive Area Indicators (8 items identified as sensitive indicators) Bob Russell: • Refer to handout (Attachment C) • change "Sensitive Area" to "Preservation Area" • committee sub-group tried to identify reasonable consequences of an area being classified as a sensitive area (listed on handout) • Sensitive Area Designation Process • sensitive areas should be developed as PUD Terry Colton: • new development should meet either a 30/30 (30% of frontage 30 ft. back must be left undisturbed forever) or 50/50 • whatever is decided, everyone lives with Justine Kingham: • protect the environment and sensitive areas • if sensitive, no one should be developing • if one area is threatened, look at it and that is what the application process is for • as sensitive areas increase, it should be more difficult to develop • agree that sensitive areas should apply to everyone Dan Passolt: • sandy beach is a sensitive area and should be on the list Gene Miller: • A, B, C, F, & H are already addressed by PUD process -the only thing left is water, not land • people are polluting • rules are already in place -don't make more rules • save the taxpayers money and use ii on roads, etc. Stu Peterson: • Star Lake Association Board went on record to support the 8 criteria identified in No. 3 of the outline • consider 8 factors as equal and bring forward a formula to administer sensitive areas OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 6 Terry Lejcher, DNR: • the Committee has not fully explored sensitive area indicators, but with added research on the issue, Primary Sensitive Indicators could be used • developer would come to development with a Resource Map before area is developed and would identify PSI that should be avoided • Add a PSI to list -soils that are suitable for on-site sewage disposal • consider secondary sensitive indicators and those would be negotiable • Resource Map process may help to address some issues before development dollars are spent Jim Morken: • larger developments address sensitive area issues under current rules (EAW) • smaller developments may need to be required to address sensitive areas Mike Cummings: • boat density is not from people living on the lakes -it is from those enjoying boating on the weekend and enjoying family activity -the public owns the lakes in Minnesota Glen Shaw: • development is going to take place and people are going to use the lakes, but development has to be sensible • sensitive area criteria will provide good sense in developing and is good first step Bruce Qvammen: • if project has 4 or 5 sensitive indictors, it should be required to be a PUD • consider a 9th sensitive issue -decreased land property estate sales as opposed to one year ago is economically very sensitive • talking about people's lives, not just a piece of property Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 4 of the outline: 4. Presentation Requirements Milt Paulson: • streamline and improve the CUP process • professional staff should review a project prior to going to the Planning Commission so "red flags" could be raised prior to investing money in surveys, etc. Gene Miller: • recommend committee like Douglas County with professional staff and do not recommend the process used by Becker County Bob Russell: • Attorneys should be able to attend Planning Commission meetings (legal proceeding) without raising "red flags" OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 7 • Planning Commission needs to have appropriate education and understand the EAW process better -need to have professional staff backing up the Planning Commission Jim Morken: • agree 100% with empowering staff and having qualified personnel • County can afford additional staff because the lake property will bring in dollars Don Fendrick: • information coming from the GIS Staff is important to identify sensitive areas -there could be a better system • Land & Resource needs more staff and better training Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 5 of the outline: 5. Density Glen Shaw, Committee of Property Owners Rights: • the issue of a second dwelling or not being able to park an RV or Camper on a parcel is a problem Tom Ebacher: • overnight visitor in a tent or RV should be allowed • County should allow permits for larger groups -can restrict permits if there are problems and have control with the larger groups Justine Kingham • Point 5.3.a. density issue when increasing number of units by duplex or triplex • agree that people should be able to have a guest • need to make an allowance for lot coverage so more side space is left open • look at the University of Illinois, MN, WI, & Ohio websites -they have advice on land use -all of the information says this should be density neutral Gary Cruff: • do not allow visitors -tents or RV; on holidays extra campers are already happening, -don't expand Mike Pendy: • need to increase density for commercial operations • keep current resorts and tourism here • to develop tourism in the future, different density for commercial investments is required; cannot have same requirements as 4,000 sq. ft. house development Stu Peterson • public meetings showed frustration with not being able to have a visitor with a camper or tent -in favor of doing this by permitting OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 8 Gene Miller: • 5.3.d. -Road Frontage Requirements -· do not waste a lot of land by making road frontage requirements too wide Dan Passolt: • 5.3. not everyone wants to maintain a large lake lot Gary Reuhmann: • reason for large lots on NE lakes is that you don't maintain it, leave it natural to assist better quality of the lake, absorb storm water runoff, and provide wildlife habitat Don Fendrick • increased density and degradation of the lake and lake water requires more study Jim Morken: • 5 3 a. duplex, triplex, quad should be allowed if the square footage requirement is met • rules should be established to get a benefit if you put in a duplex because it will create more green space around the lake and rules shouldn't penalize the miniature form of clustering Terry Colton • lot size is increased per situation by extrapolating wetlands, bluffs, etc. • if lot size is increased, the result may be more land that gets mowed Glen Shaw: • Star Lake Association is in favor of increasing lot sizes for both single family dwellings and the multipliers Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 6 of the outline: 6. Surface Water Run Off Lori Jayne Grahn, Member of the Public: • provided handouts (Attachment D) • opposes a current situation whereby a neighbor is building too close to a wetland • requested a 300' setback requirement from a wetland in Otter Tail County Bruce Brenden, Committee Member & Water Plan Committee Member: • spoke in opposition of a 300' setback requirement as this would create quite a lot of land that wouldn't be able to be farmed Gale Pfeiffer: • familiar with retired person who wants to build and enjoy the wildlife -house is well- above the water level and approximately 50' setback from wetland Lori Jayne Grahn: OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 9 • clarified that the 300' wetland setback recommendation is for wetlands that are more than 80' deep and more than an acre in size Don Fondrick: • 6.A. recommend changing to 12-15% impervious surface requirement • need larger lots as people begin to move in full time in the County -they will need more accessory buildings Tom Ebacher: • need better definition of impervious surface in the SMO • need guidance for what kind of surfaces can be put in for driveways that are not considered impervious so they can allow runoff to flow into the soil instead of run off Gene Miller: • keep current multipliers for PUD • if make multipliers more stringent, developers will do lot & block development • keep current 25% impervious surface requirement • if change impervious surface to 15%, then should require existing lots to meet the new impervious surface requirement as well if they wish to change anything on the lot Terry Lejcher: • would support 15% impervious surface and larger lot size • Governor's initiative working in the Brainerd area may be going to 12% impervious surface and bigger lots Recess & Reconvene: At 6:03 p.m., Chairman Block declared the Special Meeting of the Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners recessed for supper break. The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Glen Shaw: • 6. B. Vegetative Buffer Strips -50' buffer strips preferred by the Star Lake Association -25' minimum Jim Morken: • buffer strips in a PUD should allow a trail/walking path within buffer strip area • allow lot lines in a legal description in a cluster and may enhance values to own the ground underneath you, subject to other restrictions Glen Shaw: • Vegetative Buffer Strip issue -recommend for new and present development Gene Miller • recommend buffer strip be the shore impact zone with a minimum of 50' OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page IO Justine Kingham • opposed paths through buffer zones because the handicap accessible requirements, (grade or slope 12% maximum and larger width) would n·ot lend to a natural environment • buffer zone should be natural environment, undeveloped, untouched Michael Pendy • resort conversions -lot lines for this purpose need to be taken into consideration that these old resorts are going to be different -may need joint ownership for the septic system, etc. Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 7 of the outline: 7. Surface Water Use Bob Russell: • give flexibility in system ·so you can have common docks for subdivided property and not limit to having common docks only on cluster developments • need to get away from the concept that every lot in a subdivision has to have a dock • look at the situation and limit the number of docks and allow people to double up or triple up Terry Lejcher: • recommend location of docks on lot line so docks are side by side and. reduce the impact on aquatic vegetation Jim Morken: • de-valuing land because of the water is a concern -these are separate issues • no-wake zones are appropriate in certain areas Tom Ebacher: • surface water use should be dealt with if the lake water is deteriorating, but should not be a political issue where some people don't like certain boat traffic Terry Colton: • 50/50 issue (50% of lot frontage/SO ft. back) for perpetuity, takes care of 50% of the lot for dock issues and would create that zone development free -doubling surface right away and protecting that strip of frontage Terry Colton: • law should not be all-inclusive on dock issue -should only apply if there is a vegetative area on the lake that would be affected if dock placed on that lot Don Fendrick: • consider lake classification when regulating docks OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page II • water is not just water and land is not just land -land and water meld together and it is far more complex that separating the two Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 8 of the outline: 8. Road Requirements Gene Miller: • suggest requirements to build roads to proper design speed across the County Gary Cruff: • the township should set up the rules for road requirements Jim Morken: • should consider the purpose of the road -Echo Bay Project proposes private roads for calm traffic, privacy, and safety Jeff Stabnow, Engineer: • need formal way for the townships to accept participation to get roads upgraded when development coming in Bob Russell: • need efficient mechanism so roads being used coincide with the roads being constructed • private roads in subdivisions should be allowed if done correctly in both clusters and traditional development Mr. Kalar introduced discussion on No. 9 of the outline: 9. Variances Gene Miller • be lenient on variances for a favor -like buffer strip Gary Cruff: • a variance should not be allowed on a new lot Dan Passolt: • PUD process should address all issues and not include variance process Bob Russell: • Planning Commission is too subjective and must change Terry Lejcher: • standards must be met -must have hardship to obtain a variance (economics do not constitute a hardship) • not legal to subdivide a lot that requires a variance for its intended use OTCo. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes April 14, 2005 Page 12 Additional Comments from Members of the Public & Committee Members: • lakes are our greatest asset • need better, more stringent rules • variance language should not be applied to cluster developments -all elements should be considered within the PUD • cannot divide the land and water; one affects the other • agree with preliminary mapping system • need professional staff working with developers • concerned by blanket increase in lot & block development with the hopes of indirectly affecting cluster development • clean set of rules for developers • concern with lack of regulation for developments outside the 1,000' • managing runoff during construction is important • request for Planning Commission to meet with owners on-site at a prescribed time • extend regulations to shallow water basins between 25-50 acres in size Chairman Block asked the group if Otter Tail County should revise its Shoreland Management Ordinance. By show of hands, the majority agreed that the County's Shoreland Management Ordinance should be revised. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Dated: _ __,_o"'-'-'J..1.-,/~"'=2""<a4 1._._o._s:::..,__ __ _ --'1 7 OTTER TAIL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS By: ~ ~,Q, Robert Block, County Board'Chair CB/kd .... Board of Commissioners Special Meeting April 14, 2005 COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND SHORELAND RULES REVISION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING DISCUSSION OUTLINE April 14, 2005 1. Should Otter Tail County Revise it's Shoreland Management Ordinance? A. Protection/ Improvement of Water Quality 8. Protection/ Improvement of Sensitive Areas (Indicators) C. Protection from Crowding / Density/ Urbanization Attachment A 2. Otter Tail County should continue to allow some form of Cluster/Planned Unit Development A. This type of development should be called Planned Unit Development (PUD) 8. PUDs Include 1. Residential a. Full Time b. Seasonal c. Timeshare 2. Commercial a. Ma & Pa Resorts b. Rental 3. Combination of Residential and Commercial a. Exclude Land for Commercial Use (I.e. Restaurants, Golf Courses, Retail Shops, & Convention Centers) from Residential Calculation 4. Conversions 3. Sensitive Area Indicators A. Wetland 8. Bluff/ Steep Slope C. Land Below the Ordinary High Water Level D. Aquatic Vegetation E. Lake Depth F. Depth to Ground Water G. Spawning Beds H. Historic Site 4. Presentation Requirements A. Pre-Application Meetings 1. Administrator 2. Committee 8. Resource Map 5. Density A. Residential Lots 1. Pre-October 15, 1971 ("Grandfathered") 2. October 15, 1971 -June 15, 2005 (Current Standards) 3. June 15, 2005 (Proposed Standards) · a. Single Family, Duplex, Triplex, and Quad Lot Area Requirements b. Water Frontage Requirements c. Lot Width Requirements d. Road Frontage Requirements e. Buildable Area Requirements 4. Second Dwelling on a Parcel a. Recreational Camping Units (RCUs) Including Tents b. Permits c. Enforcement B. Cluster Developments I PUDs 1. Multipliers 2. Water Frontage Requirements 3. Open Space a. Includes b. Use 6. Surface Water Run Off A. Impervious Surface 8. Vegetative Buffer Strips 1. Includes 2. Width Requirements 3. Enforcement C. Structure Setbacks 1. Lake 2. Lotlines 3. Wetlands 7. Surface Water Use A. Boat Traffic B. No Wake Zones 8. Road Requirements A. Construction Standards 1. Width 2. Cul-De-Sacs B. Road Authority Approval 9. Variances A. Number of Approvals B. Rationale 10. Should Otter Tail County Revise it's Shoreland Management Ordinance? ·., , . f_j Board of Commissioners Special Meeting April 14, 2005 Attachment B Star Lake Property Owners' Association, Inc. P.O. Box 155, Dent, MN 56528 Resolution of the Board of Directors April 9, 2005 Whereas, the Star Lake Property Owners' Association (SLPOA) commends the Otter Tail County Commissioners for their concern and efforts regarding the Shoreland Rules Revision process, and Whereas, the SLPOA board of directors supports many of the revisions under discussion directed at controlling and reducing the density of future development projects (see Shoreland Rules Revision Committee Discussion Outline-February 24, 2005), and Whereas, substantial portion of Star Lake's west and south arms along with certain portions of the main lake are every bit as "sensitive" as lakes classified as Natural Environment (NE), and · Whereas, the SLPOA board of directors believes that currently proposed Shoreland Rule revisions on the table do not adequately address the issue of protecting sensitive shoreland areas on General Development lakes, and Whereas, the SLPOA Membership unanimously passed a resolution at its Annual Meeting on June 26, 2004 supporting •~ •. strengthening the Otter Tail County Shore/and Management Ordinance to include "special protection districts" or "areas" and additional provisions to better control development density and preservation of water quality and habitat". Therefore, be it resolved that the SLPOA board of directors' letter to the OTC Commissioners dated May 10, 2004 and the Membership Resolution dated June 26, 2004, be resubmitted to the OTC Commissioners at their special meeting on April 14, 2005,and Be it further resolved that the board of directors of SLPOA urges the OTC Commissioners to include changes to the Shoreland Management Ordinance to provide for "special protection" of sensitive areas equivalent to that applied to NE lakes, using criteria similar to those identified by the Shoreland Rules Committee (Item 4, Discussion Outline-February 24, 2005). This resolution was unanimously adopted by the quorum present st the SLPOA board of directors meeting on April 9, 2005. Star Lake Property Owners' Association, Inc. P.O. Box 155. Dent, MN 56528 2004-2005 Board of Directors Stu Peterson, President 31494 395th St. Dent, MN 56528 Peder Pederson 1st Vice President 39927 Co Hwy 41 Dent, MN 56528 Glen Shaw . 2nd Vice President 38621 Beverly Hill~ Road Dent, MN 56528 Deb Prigelmeier Secretary 33907 Downy Dr. Dent, MN 56528 John Richards, Director 32250 380th St. Dent, MN 56528 Gary Sheldon, Director 30947 Boathouse Dr. Dent, MN 56528 Bob Weatherly, Director 932 Woodland Loop Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Dick York, Director 33885 Star Ridge Rd. Dent, MN 56528 Star Lake Property Owners' Association, Inc. P.O. Box 155 Dent, MN 56528 May 10, 2004 Otter Tai I County Board of Commissioners Sydney Nelson, Chair l\llalcom Lee Dennis Mosher Roger Froemming Robert Block Government Services Center 540 West Fir Street Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Dear Commissioners: Re: Special Protection Districts and Related Issues Two years ago the members of the Star Lake Property Owners' Association were surveyed and overwhelmingly identified the "protection and preservatio,r of water quality and habitat" as their highest priority for their board of directors. We subsequently formed a board committee to study and make recommendations regarding this membership priority. We have had several general information meetings with the DNR Waters, DNR Fisheries, Township representatives, and more recently with the OTC Land and Resource Management departments to better understand the existing regulations and the process by which the regulations are set and administered. Coincidentally, we have been observing and monitoring the implications of the proposed Blue Heron Bay Project on Dead Lake, our closest neighboring lake. We rully respect the rights of private prope11y owners and recognize the demands, financial pressures and incentives to further develop lake shore. At the same time we also recognize that the waters are a treasured public resource that require protection if water quality and habitat are to be preserved for the benefit of all in the long tenn. We have come to the conclusion that Otter Tail County needs stronger, more flexible, tools to manage the increasing development pressures on OTC's extensive shorelands and the contributing watersheds. Specifically, we believe that the County Commissioners (and other involved units of government) should consider the following: I) The Shore/and Management Ordinance of Otter Tail County should be amended to, at a minimum, provide for specific S/roreland Protection Districts or Areas on lakes and waterways within the County. This need is best exemplified by our own situation· on Star Lake. Star is classified as a "General Development" lake, yet it has extensive areas including much of our south and west arms (as well as areas on the "main lake") that are every bit as "sensitive" (shallow water, wetlands, aquatic vegetation, high bluffs, high water table, etc.) as the entire Dead Lake body of water. .. which carries a "Natural Environment" classification. Said differently, extensive parts of Star Lake are much less capable of handling development (clusters or individual lot/block) than other areas. Under existing regulations, it appears the County has very limited ability to differentially administer development applications that take into consideration such differences, be it a "GD" or "NE" lake classification. The implications for Star Lake and others are that a proposal similar to the Blue Heron Bay project would, under our "General Development" classification, theoretically allow for four times as many "allowable units" as the exact same project on a "Natural Environment" lake regardless of where on the lake it was proposed. 2) It is also appears that the existing Shoreland Management Ordinance did not contemplate or anticipate the extremely large "mini-city" cluster developments that are now being proposed and permitted. Specifically, it would seem that the water frontage and square footage calculations used to control tier density and calculate the number of "allowable units" should be revised for all lake classifications. We 2 ) --.--.- also believe more consideration sho~ld be -factored in for the ability of the prope1ty and surrounding infrastructure to handle the "outside" traffic of retail and ente1tainment features frequently proposed for this new generation of Planned Unit Developments, Consideration might also be given to increasing the square footage and front footage requirements applicable to future lot/block type subdivisions. 3) With respect to animal agricultural production within the shoreland (and contributing watershed) areas of the County, we believe the rules that govern the siting of new or expanded large feeci lots also need updating. The County's existing 300 foot limitation seems woefully inadequate to protect lakes and streams from ordinary run off contamination, let alone that which results from lagoon and holding tank failures. It also seems ironic that the existing shoreland regulations generally apply to land use activity up to 1000 feet, while the present livestock rules are limited to 300 feet from lake shore. Given the potential for serious consequences, we believe the rules applying to intense animal agriculture expansion should be reviewed. 4) While perhaps not requiring changes in the Ordinance, we encourage the County (working with the Minnesota PCA and DNR where appropriate) to vigorously monitor and follow up on septic system compliance, illegal removal of aquatic vegetation, filling of wetlands, and the concentration of docks and lifts that go beyond pennitted numbers, etc. These are all among the factors that contribute to the decline of water quality and wild life habitat. Our request is that the OT County Commissioners place the issue of Special Protection Districts and the related issues discussed above as a high priority for implementation as soon as is practical. It is our understanding that the concepts and criteria for defining such sensitive areas already exist, at least in discussion fonn. The County's extensive GIS data and mapping capabilities would seem to make the implementation of these · recommendations more practical than they may have been in the past. This letter was reviewed in detail by the board of directors at their May 8, 2004 board meeting and unanimously approved by the quorum in attendance. We believe the time is right and the need is critical for Otter Tail County to address these issues. We also stand ready to enlist the support of other Lake Associations and to provide whatever support and input we can 3 to the process. Please let us know how we may be helpful to you in this endeavor. Thank you. Stu Peterson President, 2003-04 Star Lake Property Owners' Association Board of Directors Stu Peterson, President 31494 395th Street Dent, MN 56528 Peder Pederson, 1 '1 Vice President 39927 Co Hwy 41 Dent, MN 56528 Glen Shaw, 2"" Vice President 38621 Beverly Hills Rd. Dent, 1'vlN 56528 Deb Prigelmeier, Secretary 33907 Downy Drive Dent, MN 56528 Gene Hagstrom, Treasurer 33893 Downy Drive Dent, MN 56528 Copy: Bill Kalar, OTC Land & Resource Mgmt. Terry Lejcher MN DNR Waters John Richards, Director 32250 3801h Street Dent, MN 56528 Gary Sheldon, Director 30947 Boathouse Drive Dent, MN 56528 Bob Weatherly, Director 932 Woodland Loop Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Dick York, Director 33885 Star Ridge Rd. Dent, MN 56528 4 Whereas: Star Lake Property Owners' Association, Inc. P.O. Box 155, Dent, Minnesota 56528 Me1nbership Resolution Approved June 26, 2004 ... Star Lake is among 1049 treasured public lakes within Otter Tail County . . . . The members of the Star Lake Property Owners' Association, Inc. (SLPOA) consider the protection and preservation of Star Lake's water quality, aquatic vegetation, wild life and fish habitat to be of the highest priority . . . . The members of the SLPOA respect the rights of private property owners and recognize the demands, financial pressures and incentives to further develop lake shore and adjacent property . . . . Star Lake is classified as a "General Development" lake by the Department of Natural Resources but has exten:;ive portions of its waters and shoreline that have all the attributes of neighboring lakes classified as "Natural Environment" . . . . The existing Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) has only limited authority to differentially administer development and land use within its regulations to protect Star Lake's most sensitive shoreland and watershed areas . . . . The StvlO needs additional authority to manage development that better considers both the rights of private prope1ty owners and the long term implications of high density development on water quality and habitat. Now, therefore, the membership of the Star Lake Property Owners' Association, Inc. suppo1ts strengthening the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance to include "Special Protection Districts" or "Areas" and additional provisions to better control development density and preservation of water quality and habitat. Board of Commissioners Special Meeting April 14, 2005 Attachment C Comments on "Sensitive Areas" April 14, 2005 Is there a way to avoid the tension between: 1. Wanting to reduce the subjectivity of the decision making process that encourages landowners to have to consider applying for the maximum and the Planning Commission to always seemingly say something less is best? and 2. The problem with identifying what are "Sensitive Areas" and/or the "right" amount of development? Answer: Set forth objective criteria/standards and empower professional staff; require staff recommendations to be set forth in writing and shared with la_ndowner prior to hearing on any application. Major contributing factors to lake quality that no one (feels) empowered to address: 1. Public accesses; and 2. Existing substandard lots (buffer zones should be required if any one seeks a building permit, variance or CUP; if someone is seeking a variance, they should also be encouraged to make other "environmentally friendly" changes such as decreasing impervious surface area) Why should owners of undeveloped property carry a disproportionate share of the burden of not being able to significantly ameliorate the impact of these issues? Reasonable Consequences of Area Being Classified a "Sensitive Area" Only allow clusters/2-4 units If_% of land is less than three feet ground to water, require common septic system Increase percentage of land that has to be subject to conservation easement Increase County's charges Require restrictive covenants and owners association with County empowered to enforce Set corridors Set buffer zones Limit docks/motor sizes Implement water surface regulation Procedural Approach to Identifying A "Sensitive Area" Once Objective Criteria Established (with provision for mitigation by landowner): 1. Pre-CUP application to identify any "Sensitive Areas" 2. Inventory by Land & Resource Staff with landowner and landowner's team invited to be present 3. Recommendations by staff 4. If staff makes a negative recommendation, landowner may file CUP; if staff recommends finding of one or more "Sensitive Areas", landowner may request review by County Board; if no request made, "Sensitive Area" established; if request made, abbreviated procedure be established for County Board action; CUP may be filed upon County Board taking action 5. Time lines would have to be established for each step in the process, and presumably landowner would have to pay some type of fee to initiate procedure Other Thoughts Could the staff be empowered to work out an agreement with landowner to identify one or more areas for preseivation in its (their) natural state to eliminate need for classification as a sensitive area, with possible effect being area excluded from any calculation? Does the phrase "Sensitive Area" itself invite a presumption of no development so that it would be better to use a different term? What about "Preservation Area?" ,. We need to address "informal" common interest communities. Gene Miller, Engineer Milt Paulson, Realtor/Developer Bruce Qvammen, Developer Bob Russell, Attorney • ----~- Board of Commissioners Special Meeting ApMI 14,2005 Attachment D k ~{c!CJ2m... ,,(.ee., Ch1ei--;:;,-z di.~fj c/.,;n,;¢/.5,S/c;Ae-r"; and j}oa.,-,d .me,'?'{-.}er.s; -_ ~ .lz.ereb? -r~uest-on... tt,-,., dr o F 0 .. f ·r ;,. L 1 +-::c;: ,. ,.i.acS "'-... __ ,,, --Sf- C.utJU5t-3/ , dYJC)~ 1 c-/:;uz.ldzn'J c.5·ei-_}a.<!.K v{..,,..1oc..\. o..~~"<"C\JO-\ ~~ ~\.-.c:.·.-,._e.,. eon.:i-a.e..-t -;f?,-,., t.Je.t-2aJ'l..d ..:se.tbo.<!..k. o,-d:,'r\.0-.~'-~ &YL Caigust 31~+ .::<'CJdf: -':Qc:.,,_'(""\,.c.,__ ~ o...c...\-(sc·-n.. -a.s-.soc~re. :Orr-e.C!..Tc..,... ~-.P /44.Y?.d ,::5-k,_r.J.Ja,;,-d,sh_,.pi P-,-o~ e..c..T /-c.51-c,;53 -CJ<c/8 ~ ~a.Cc'.1o~,...(e.e. c:P&Y~;/ ~.:LK7jl ~..wmi.55,cl'ter'; a..n.d };oa..rd m_eprjle.>"'s J -f!-o-J<-<!. l"e.c.±i' YLJ-lo t-.s and es--l-o.JJ c. ,~.sh_'-n3-'fau2e.s ic f-11-'ev~ t.tn-Fec._szb2e_ lei> tfr...,_t shou2d ;r_a-C-- cf)YL ~us+ 31 5~ ~c'()"f 1 'I. Jr.c,,d c.1..fho/1-e.. C-:>/!.l)e,r-scd:Jc;YL ,.,,_;E.·t:1-... k._e.n.-+: .lokKe_s,,,..._oe I f.l,ve.c..Tuy·o-F ,:..u,;iTeY"' d,uiS,oY'... t."Y'-D'rl..R..wh.ct, t\,~ ~-~=.;..\ offic..e..s. "1-1-e. .s-tc..'Te5 ..:..'/'\.6...:<' -\1v-e._ ~...-e'2... c....\.:,s<;;,s;::;c.~\o:.nS o~ I u..'Ke.S , +yp '<-Q..\css·,.i;:.rc..c...¼,o•..--... N~-...:c....\ ~\'("c.1'.""'-~-'~ - Un.'E:,e..1.:...: ~"<:: ~ -.:-.)c;.:~ ~ ~~ -¥.,..12.... c.\o S e..s \-\ 'f'... C.O=t>o...,,·, So..--.:"\-c o__1.;..l~-.~- i-\e. o..M'<-6. ..s~e.e~ \-.,__ ~\_c...c.e. ~ t\,..e..s~ O.."i"e.... o\.~ 0.."'-6.. you..- 1:)o~'\ 1..,\.JOS--~ -\c s~'\-yo-..,..'("$'2...\~. We...-\-\o,,<\.OS. ~'<c<.J\6.rc... ~ ..... '('Y',.,ic:\-... """-~e. 1 ... , ... ,-.\6.\,~e.. e;.....-...~ hc..¼\:\-c.,.._-\ P.;~u..N-C::, \~ ~¼\~\~ ~o'<E.. Se..n.Si-t',uQ.. o..~~ N e..e...11:, ..-,_~ ~ ~ Se.... \.\r.,c,,i:...\::... o...\ \ o '-'--' O..'<'--C.. L ~-r o..<...L --B,,..o.._ 1...W ".. \~L\~ e. Ci!..)(\ :::.-\-e...-n..c.1<..., ~~'<'C....I.. ~~ses o..'<'-..~ ~\-\c....==c,o"""-, 1...1..Jc,.-\e..-..-\~~-\ ~l.t..LC.."t1.U:-.t'10 -.'I... ) 'ou.. ~e.."f' -::Z..OY\.~) r.,, <.:::,~e..v \;i ..... , \ ~--f'.~ o.n<i hc~e.....Si:z:.e..s J C;..."("L~ ~<e... 300 ~e.d ~c..,....._ -\-\-.e... \:i-.,.:,.\.~,~ -\c.,~ \.,;.;e-¥-.c:..."""~ s\i.o...,"-\~...-,._,:a_ wou..\6.. Y"1..E:.'2...~ -\-c:. \~-.i..he.. ~\. ~\'::, O..Y'\.~ '(Y\C'<e. ~\.~ i"'o c...\\o.....:. dwia.\\\n~ ~~C;J.;..E.. \:i·~ ~t::.u..~\~,1'.~• 3CO .lre..Q..."'1" ~~ · ice '""'-'-~'y__ O-Y\..~ e...\\.ou...j~...-'<Y'C"f<L u=~ .... -'to...\:.~""""'~ Y\.e..c_e.S$c..-...~ ex, s ~c.. e..... ~...... i..w , ~ ~ \, ~ 1 ......,. "-"-, c,..-r.. ~ e... "<"'.\..)·, -c-c. """'~~ 1 o.. '<'-~ 'o <2... :'Mc,..,e._ \.--e.c..\--¥,.._y ~ c...\.\.. --rJi..e. S e..+foed!..k.._ o-r--d.i ~r,..C..i!..... C.0--'-~ Ii -ti. l \. To.~ \..=,~ \.....o \l'L VO Io. •~ ....:~~c: .. ,,.,~ ';?·..-o"t-e..c..c';'-o'<"'-O..-/\.~ o::c\o..~ ~,;,,~e... ~ -.y.,,_e.._ c.;....:,..-,-~~ n.c, s;::_ \\:_....,.~ ov d..-0-:...-,_,r....~ oSr c.... '-'-' <L~<:..."'-6, , <:>-¥\..6... b~o """"'--o.,,._ ~o..-..t c->r tbs .. 1..:.ltll~ \o..w i-o le~ '1-n.c..\ ...... ~ic.~ "\n. e.i<~~~"-~ eY"\.~-.-c."!.:=e"-~• -. dJn.. de;J'c~e>"' / ~~ £00 i-4tt3rrJX,rna.fe20-3 3'p<>"'-1 '"L h.c,..~ c,.._ 'It) "'-o·•'-"--c_c:,-(\.._"\J e.. '<Se::..-\,o~--, .. :t....;\-t',,.... D '-\ \. "'-c...\.c...'t' 1 o.dm ia...,stYa.Zc r for kd c.\/Y\.6. ·~sc~...-.:...e., r"lc...~'""'-e;<"\....-\-o~ !)-fk,,.,~ I d..:.ui..3/. Di/{ .s+a..+es il"L 6-tfe_,,.,-r:;,,•( "6,, .. ,.,,r..fy 'iii.e.. se..+h&<.e.k o r-dino.Yl.~e.. .f'.oy a.... lo..ke Gl~ Nc,...,"tu...'('cJ. £,,vi Y-Cy,.,,.,...__e,_"'-..to.....~ e...la.ss:.~;c;,__rioYL, whtc..l_ 'f"e.Se;nr../:;/es closes+ ic ~e--fla.n.ds} · /5 d.00 feef, 7/2e.s4!.. se+.ba.(!k. -fu+a.Jes av-e.. old.-a,,,.._,d_ 1...<.JeoYe.. Se.Tin. -tke.. /9'd;() 5 . lime~ and lssu.es ho....ue... e...h.o.n~~-d. , 71r.a.+ is ,, ... tty I h<U.Je.. 'r'o/,uesfed 300 Tee...""t 're--.-~ u..i e...+\a..~~ Se..\-\oc...c....k \.:.0:,. 'r'~\ 0...'<'~Q.---. .Tue... ..... e..... y-r..c..,y \:ie.... \JO....~C,...."<"\,~€...'S:, c .... e,~-.-~il"\..~~ ;~ c-\-\-..ia,..;,-S\~~~c.-"S., :r:... 'r.iel~eve... 3CO·~<L+ c...~~u....S\s "t--o _V'r\.e..€-t t\--.~ de..."""c...~5 c..-n.~ -s\-c-ec::.ses t-,\c....c.~ ~QC'<"-e.,u.,..,.-e...~\J-,'<'O'N!"r"l€.."('\.._'t ~~ 'r-o....~ :C.N~~E.ASEO cl\.) Q.:.'C' ~ ~c,..S.:,.... ~ yeo..'('5,' G.""'-o~~'<" ~ ,..c ~\e..,............_ ~o c .... ~~'<'e.SS °'--c\.~ \<!lo'K o....-\- ~\o'S ~~~, -s -~e.. 6""'~~,....,,~\o,;,... C.a"R.~-rc.\s. O"~'"'N:.l..."'c..e......1..,...!\...:,,::_\-,.._ ,se:.-\-s ~€.....S't"c::...n.~o.....-6_S ~--< C ... :<:e..~\"<'.~ \.cV:,:--1)1.e l'.'!our1.ry ..5hou(d look a.-\-u.~~c....~,~ -\\-e..... 'i' ..... i..\~s "-e.--<e...... ~ ~--re.u e..-<'-.\-t....1..'l\:~e.c...S\~\e.... lo'ts _ ~Ci..T 5~u.\~ NoTbe.. de.uclo~erl.; '--ft,js ,s #tE... ca..se. also 2..t.J;--t-'h... --Hi.,s \G..v'\.6.c,;..;.:1"\.11...:, ~U:.,\,~,"'-~ "Too c.\~t:... 15 -30 te.E....t -h-o'Y"f',_ l"l"\i UJe,+{c:.."'-6. -/--f-;,.s tvet..ef Sht;;u...ld N_pT ~E t::E'JEl.oPED Sfu-r·~e... '<Y\CJ..n.y Ye..c,~-r-S c--.<'1.6 c ... i:::,"-c:.."-''<""'s. I: 1~'C'e..S<a:<"\.."' --b:, yo'--'-o....\0·n"::. -...,.,\~ '<Y'--Y 'fi2.~u..es.ts ~c....--these.... c·-r6.,l"\.c..Y'\..C::..eS, To 'oe.... G'~(-)'t->'f"0-.:'1....0. w,~ srE.ED <,-'(\,~ EFFcCTtUE" J:fa(f,t£i":JIAT£LY l'/"\.. ._.,.;,..._,~i,.,.__ ~,\\. "S';c:te.~ +\.,'-"-Y C.e<.....\6 £N~CE... v:)'2.~"<'e. 1h -'t--co \.c,.."te_ \,f'.. ,rv,.y s:.·h .... 0\...+,o-n.. ~dU..qC,.L;.Y4!, '71/. ....+-~h,......_ Good ?t:2-n.d c:5/2.wards/,_:__r-? r'~~i-;.-es f2re1iee-cwn a-F weiia.n_c/.s an-d z.uzccl2~ ~- ·-:o<l)..'<'\.C.... ::::s-o__~_.\i:.so '<"--.. ru s c. c.i. c-..k Cl'"' e.<"...1;:c-<" c~ Le,_._,..,~ o-\-e,.,...-ru.-,h s\,,, ~ ~ '("C-J ~,;:_1;: Hubbard County man makes land gift to protect environment By JEAN RUZICKA Park Rapids Enterprise When Dan Rogers made a trip to Europe a few years ago, he began to view human "sprawl" in a new light. Rogers, 43, had grown up on nearly 500 acres of farm, wood- lands and wetlands in Hubbard County's nonherii region. He'd walked the fields as a child, watched the trees he'd planted mature. He spent countless hours in the woods, without a sign of another human being. "People ~ave live.ct· in Europe for 2,000, years.,"· he· said; ''but. hav~ maintained open spaces .. Cities. do not sprawl for miles and miles" -unlike the prevail- ing pattern emerging in nonhern Minnesota. Small businesses sprouting along cities' rims and beside . highways in rutal areas "clutter" the landscape, he said. "It detracts from the natural envi- ronment." Neither the county nor the state has developed a long,range vision regarding density of development, Rogers said, specifically lake use. "It's a crime to our posterity." "What gives us the right to develop?" he'd questioned. "People lose what they move to the country for." Landowners' vision Rogers had been intrigued when in 1996 the Bemidji Audubon Society invited a repre- sentative from the Minnesota Land Trust (ML'I) to speak on conservation easements. Conservation easements, he'd learn, are restrictions a landown- er voluntarily places on his/her land. They are legal agreements by which landowners voluntarily limit the development potential and use of their land. The land remains in existing ownership but the easement "runs with the title," insuring that the protections remain in ·place regardless of who may own the land in the future. The easement Friends·& Neighbors does not prevent sale of ptupeny but protects the land's environ- mental integrity. Each easement is unique, written with the propeny and needs of the landowners in mind. Some landowners completely · limit development with an ease- ment~ others make provisions for future buildings, trails or timber harvest. Rogers would chair the pre- mier Headwaters chapter of the lv!LT, and, this fall, granted a conservation easement for 127 acres of wetland and 238 acres of hardwoods and corufers on prop- eny his family has owned for more than half a cenrury. The 40 acres where the Rogers' home sits, which is mortgaged, will become part of the package when the loan bas been met. One with the land Minnesota's "unique sea- sons" have long held a fascina- tion for the Rogers family. Ivan Rogers, a minister, had flown up to Guthrie with a bush pilot in the early I 9~0s. A University of Minnesota agronomy professor had origi- nally settled the Rogers property in the mid-l 920s. The land had been logged and. according to Dan Rogers' 90-year-old neigh- bor, was home to flocks of praitie chickens. Smitten with the landscape, Dan Rogers' father purchased property. But bis ministry in Hubbard County would be short- lived, the church be was serving closing within a month. The fam- ily. which would eventually grow to seven children, moved to Nonh Dakota, on to Maryland and, eventually, Chicago. The Rogers returned in 1955 to, at that time, the 360-acre faim. Dan Rogers, born in Bemidji, grew up with an '.'appreciation for space, natural areas," his childhood spent exploring the territory. Snowshoeing, cross country skiing and trapping beaver were on the agenda, come winter. "Rejoicing at the rebirth," come spring, while tapping the maple syrup. And he admired the splen- dor of fall, from a deer stand. "An appreciation evolves," he said, recalling how he'd "so enjoyed" leaving the Twin Cities behind 'on weekends while attending i:oUege. Rogers and ·wife Cynthia, both teachers, would migrate south for a time, living in Texas until 1989. But Minnesota·_ and his native environs -would draw them back. 256 MLT projects The land-trust concept is just over a century old. The Trustees of Reservations was set up in 1891 by. Boston nature lovers as an analogue to the city's Museum of Fine Arts. Like pre- cious paintings, the founders decreed, precious lands should be preserved. · The Society for the Protection .of New Hampshire Forests came . along in 1901, at about the same time the Sempervirerls Club was established in California to secure redwood acreage.· By the mid-'60s, about IO0 ·1and trusts were at work in the United States. Minnesota joined the ranks in 1991. The MLT began as the Washington County Land Trust after several of the county's citi- zens became alarmed by the rapid loss of agricultural land and wildlife · habitat to the expanding Twin Cities. The local land trust took its mission statewide . in 1994, becoming the Minnesota Land Trust. Today, MLT has completed 256 projects, four of them in Hubbard County, protecting more than 23,000 acres through- out the state. A 'financial contribution' The Rogers property has been identified by the Department of Natural Resources as part of a corridor of animal movement, Rogers said. The conservation easement has been viewed by an appraiser as a financial contribution, reducing by half the property's estimated market value. The easerhent is considered a charita- ble contribution, Rogers said, and will affect his income tax. Propeny ta,: reduction, if any, has not yet been detennined. · Rogers·. is in the process bC drafting a forest management plan for the propeny, which he still logs. ''I don't want to tie someone's · hands," he said of future proper- ty-owners, ''but it should be man- aged." · · Rogers doesn't ·see his proper- ty as "a place to go," considering Hubbard County's abundance of state and county forest. His moti- vation is to prevent the property from being separated into · parcels. · 'The land ·trust teaches stew- ardship," he said. "We have but a short time on this planet. We owe to the past for what we have today. And, in reality, we owe more to the future." r~ '• Minnesota, he said, has ~ become • hedonistic . in its ~ so: approach to land use. The psy-, chologically-lifting "vista" that Is.I John Denver had referred to in 'll.' "Rocky Mountain High" must be protected through leadership, he I· · said. Although the control of popu- lation density, he admitted is "a very invasive" measure, it may become a necessity as pressure for land increases. He is advocating a lobbying effort to support a "new approach to land use. ''We need to make decisions based on perpetuity and posteri- ty;' he said, anot just on the next day." -• -••••--•·•••-•-•-.. •-~-'•• •Y•-•-• • •"•• ------··· Volume 7, No. I _ F;bruary 26, 2005 _ •. •• -••• -•-~· ••• ~ ~ ••·•--•••--~•-•--...... -=:,._• ..... ::.:i...,-~,._.__,,.._~,._.L~ ~7"""'-1~,...__.__.,.,_ ....... --=~~~-, . ..__.. >'--'-••• •--~L-•••·~ ~--••••·• .. --••••--•• •-"-•-•••-->"L'----.~ .• ~-. •--•-•• ••••-•-,_•J --.,-•• _,____., •• :IL."•~•-·•·•••= .. -•-••-'-'-' ..... -.&,~• -••• .L<.--.>.~-...er -~...,_______,__.__.._._._, __ •• ~~---•-• ----~···_.._,,--.:,...0...., • • '-"'-•--=--·'-"-~-~ ..:..,..J...L~.L.•'--J"----J~-"---...a; ... ~ ... _.,,-••••••-'-'--'• 0.0.•.:,;.:,.:,-..:._. Growing support l Billboards return positive public reaction to livestock industry --~ By Kate Christian saning for the billboard. "We Staff Writer wanted to show our support for Claremont, Minn.-"The livestock by paying for an addi-- billboard is educational," ex-tional month of the billboard." plains Vic Marquardt of Dodge The location near Clare- ,'"$i"'t~,r~; -Center, Minnesota. As Dodge mont was chosen· to have this County's State Representa-larger than life dairy cow as live lo the Minnesota Soy-a visible and positive support bean Growers Association, for the proposed Ripley Dairy. Marquardt goes on to explain, Standing as the baclcdr_op for "Minnesota soybean growers the .pros_dairy:._acl:veriisement is are size neutral. We just want to Claremo·nt'ii _Al·-Corri Ethanol be able to provide the feed right Plant. Randy Doyle, CEO of here, locally. Crop producers Al-Corn, stated, "I hope people don't want the cost of shipping would be more amiable to con- their grain to livestock. In the sidering dairies in their area. case of dairy, if the cows aren't Large dairies are a win-win in Minnesota, they're going to situation by creating more jcibs, Idaho and California." creating a stronger tax base to Dodge and Steele Coun-support local schools and main . -ty soybean farmers paid for street businesses. And they're - the billboard near C)aremonl. more environmentally con-r11anJ JJY KA:re Cim1sT1A.h Steele County Soybean Grow-trolled and regulated.'.' Based on test marl1eted hill_hoa_rds like this one near·Claremont, Minn., research is returnini ers Chair, Gary Joachim, ex-Billboards , positive public reaction fo tlie iivestockindmitry. Sponsored by local soybean farmers, other, ,to;necl their __ meml>.~rs'.,_, re;,.,_ continue<l.PD.P"q!,!)3 _,,.,,. ___ ,., .. ~, • .fil"_e __ ~!t.t~ring_J~eir_effor!,s as !Dore of these billboards will be seen throughout Minnesota. ..... • _. -..-, , ;Jc,:"t-',·<~ /•C .,,,,. _.._.,,_ •~•••• ....... •"-'-;. _-.., .•• -_..-..• -.,_-,_; ~• ,;• .. -.",>_' :,.-,_-•. "• •• •~ • • • • • , • • •• \• .~ ·1 I Billboards continued from front page _____________ _ Doyle described the role of dairy cows to ethanol plants. The co-product from ethanol -production, distillers dried grain solubles (DDGs), is a premier feed for dairy cat lie. While a small amount of Al-Corn's DDGs go to hogs and tur- keys, a majority goes to dairy; 25 per- cent goes out on rail to dairies in Idaho and California. "We'd like to see more local herds," stated Doyle. There are two billboards being test marketed-this one in Claremont, and another in Stearns ·county .. "The· stud- ies prove that it has a positive effect on public opinion," reported Sherry Lowe, Minnesota Soybean Growers Associa- tion. Many factors prompted_ the Soy-· bean Growers Association to develop a· billboard to educate the public about the interdependence of crop and livestock farmers. Animal agriculture has come under fire recently by activist groups trying to cast a shadow on livestock farmer's environmental credibility and down play their economic contribution to the citizens of the state of Minnesota. A re- port by the University of Minnesota and commissioned by the Minnesota Agri- Growth Council released in late 2004 showed. that animal agriculture has an impact on 90,000 jobs in the state. That represents more jobs than Minnesota's three largest employers -Northwest Air, lines, 3M and Medtronic -combined. Despite the size and significance of animal agriculture, erosion · of the industry is occurring that has many concerned. The livestock industry in Minnesota is not ·seeing the growth that other western states are experiencing, ·pa11icularly in the dairy industry. The last decade saw a loss of over 166,000 dairy cows in Minnesota. Furthermore, there has been a loss of $235 million in dairy revenues since 2000. Dairy cows consume 750,000 tons of soybean meal. With Minnesota livestock being the single largest user of soybean meal, supporters are reinforcing the positive image of livestock farmers in order LO protect crop farmers as well. "One can '.t do without the other," explained Jim Masching, a hog farmer · from Blooming Prairie, Minnesota. He has always maintained, "Livestock is important to soybeans and soybeans are important lo livestock." "I think the billboard hits the nail on the head," commented Dean Schuetle, Claremont Area Chamber of Commerce Chair. "People need to consider the ef- fects of their decisions on the overall economy." He feels that unnecessary zoning and housing pressures rank high as threats to dairy farmers. Large numbers of· Ii vestock are not the threat to human populations as some have claimed. Minnesota Soybean· Growers Association point out that the co-existence of a large human popula- tion with livestock can and does hap- pen. Lancaster County, Pa. has about 496 people per square mile, and Stearns County, Minnesota has about I 06 peo- ple per square mile. Both counties have high livestock numbers .showing that animals and people can live and thrive together. Schuette finalized his thoughts, "Anything we can do to promote agri- culture and other business is good for everyone. I hope the bi II board opens people's eyes." " I ! 1 ; i t f i i 1 l j 1 i i ' i I 'r l ' j I l .. ----=--=-~-;------:;;:--if , - T H E w p E 0 p L E s D E Preserving farmland providest·for the future in many ways Farm families are finding the purchase of agricultural conservation easements to be a useful tool for succession transfer and estate planning, reducing debt, and investing and positioning farm operations for the future -while leaving a legacy of resource protection. MORE and more dairy farm families in ur- bani:zing w·ell8 of the country are discover- ing that farmland preservation programs -known as purchase of agricultural conserve• tion easement (PACE) or sale of development rights -can be a mighty useful tool in achievi.ni a host of family and business goals. With 63 per- cent of U.S. milk produced in urban-influenced counties, more may want to take a look at how these programs can help emJure long-tann viabil- ity of the dairy industry. Ralph Grossi is a former California dairy pro- ducer and president of American Farmland Trust, the only notional organi:zation dedicated to pro- tecting farmland and the future vitality of farm- ing. He estimate! that at least two million acres of farmland have been protected across the Unit- ed States. "What I find most remarkable is that so ma"ny families have been able to put other is- sues aside to make th.is profound and binding de- cision about their farms and ranches," Grossi says. Mit's heartening to know so many American farmers are optimistic about their future, and • ma.king this ultimate commitment to their land." An agricultural comervatiod easement is a vol- Untary agreement between a landowner and a government entity or nonprofit organization (often a lend trust), to permanently re.strict de- velopment of the land. A landowner may either sell or donate e.n agricultural conservation ease- ment, keeping the land permanently available for agriculture. The landowner retains all rights nnd title t.o the lnnd, except" those specified i.n the e8.8ement registered with the deed. Agricultural conservation eB.15ements offer sev- eral benefit.a to landowners. Development rights sales are based on appraieed valuee -the dif- AN EXAMPLE OF FARMLAND PRESERVATION SUCCESS la Newmont Ferm In Bradrord, VL. where 480 ol a tolal 610 acna tha !amity owns are prntacted. fernnce between lend value with and without ease- ment restrictions on development. Depending on the property, owners can receive significant cash. Fann ownen have used cash from easement salas t.o make improvement.a to their fanns, retire debt, purchase additional land, settle an estate, buy out an exiting partner, and 10 forth. By reducing the market value of land, ease- ment.s make transfArs to the next generation eas- ier -by reducing or eliminating estets taxes or by me.king land more affordable for family mem- ben or other younger farmers. l1l9 author 111 partn•r In 1 ~w l1rm In N-Hamps/11,.. H.,- 11,m hH '"" two genel'lllfflal ll'lnfflll'I, pl1.111lgnlllcanl 11,C/Uly up. g11des .11nce har p11rent1 and 11unI had the lorulghl to lllll Iha d• v.iopmant right.! 111rougn Naw H11mP11nlr1·1 ffrat ag land Ptellr"V■· 1lon program In 1a81. 242 by Lorraine Stuart Merrill The Upper Connecticut River Valley of New Hampshire and Vennont., with its world-class soils, shows whet a local l!lnd trust committed t.o agri- culture, working with two st.ates, federal programs, and forward-thinking farm.en can accomplish. The Upper Valley Land Trust has coordinated 55 publicly funded Cann project.&., encompassing 8,445 acres, and holds donated easements on numer4 ou., parcels used by local farmen. Walter and Maxgaret Gladstone of Newmont Farm in Bradford, Vt., work 460 permanently protected acres in the two states. Some parcels wore previously protected, Gladstone explains, making purchase fea!lible at ag value. They sold easements on other parcels, using the proceeds to reduce debt over the last five years, as their dairy has grown to 700 cows. TIU'se sons, ages 16, 14, and 12 are very involved-in the farm. Selling development rights has helped them manage their financial position and position the faxm for the future. -We're just so excited to be farming on t.h.ie type of land,• Gladstone says. •Whether it's us, our sons, whoever ths nert generations may be, we want them to enjoy the same opportunity." Bill and Jen.ny Nelson and sons Grant, 30, and Andrew, 27, milk 185 caws in Ryegate Comer, Vt. Bill is the .seventh generation to own the farm. His brother, Fremont, and wife Manha own an abutting farm which they operate with their son, Ethan, 29. In 1996, the two couples sold ease- ments on both their farms. Using Section 1031 like-kind exchanges to defer capital gains tax, they pooled their proceeds to purchase and di- vide between them a 400-plUB acre farm three miles away. "I held out longest," Jenny confides. •r w~s afraid it would limit us.• She has no regrets. "It worked out really well. It gave us land to grow at our own pace and know we have sufficient land to handle the m&Dure properly. It has positioned both our farms for another generation.• Demand for land for building ha.a grown in the area. Nearly 10 ye~ later, Jenny says their busi- ness decision.a were sound. "Our equity is just as good," she notes. "And I feel good about what we've done -I think it's one of the greatest gifts we can ever give our community." Preserved working IBDds provide many current and future public benefits -open space, water quality, wildlife habitat, productive local fanllJ!, and the fiscal benefits of low demand for services. Protecting rural economies ... Agriculture and the region's exception.al soils provide for a vital part of the region's economy, says Jeanie McIntyre, ei:tcutive director of Upper Valley Land Tron in Hanover, N.H. "In New Eng- land, farms and tramportat:ion were all organized along our waterways, so our villages are right up against our fanns," she explains. ''New England baa figured out bow to keep those systems inte- grated, but we have t.o eruure the economic health and vitality of the region doeBn't have negative impacts on farmer& and their operation.5." The USDA Fann and Rench Lands Protection Program (FR.PP), a voluntary federal program led by the Natur::tl Resources Conservation Ser- vice, pays up to 50 percentofpurchasc.d agricul- tural conservation enaements to pennnnently protect productive land. St.ate, Tribal and/or locs.l governments or nonprofit.! must contribute the other 60 percent. Through 2003, FRPP protect- ed more than 300,000 acres in 42 states. The pro- gram will spend $78 million this year to perma- nently protect farm.land. Some urban-pressured states have been pro- tecting farmland for more than 20 year!. Penn- sylvania, working with 55 county governments, BILL AND JENNY NELSON and their sorta, Grant and An- d'rsw, sold the d'~lopment right! to lhslr Home Acfes Fami In Ryegal8, VL, In 1997.Alke-klrd exc:henge allowed them to obtain more good cropland three mlles awey without spending more money or buying more caw• IO pay for IL has permanently protected 2,536 farms - 292,362 acres. That does not coUll.t land protect- ed with private fund!!! or local programs like Lan- caster County's. Alex Wylie of the Vermont Land Trust esti- mates more than one out of five Vermont dairy farms has been protected. •rt has strengthened the ag economy in Vermont,'"Wylie .!lays, -i,y fa- cilitating transfers, the buying down of debt, funding new constra.ction and expansion, pur- . chase of additional land -ofien using like-kind (Section 1031) exchanges. · AFTs Grossi understands the C0mplexities for families ma.king these decisions. The beautiful rnncb that inspired his fnnnlond advocacy career was finally protected in 2004. •It took us a long time," he .!l&ys, to agree on the future ofhi.s fami- ly's 870-ecre ranch in Marin County, just 28 mile.s north of San Fra.ncisco'e Golden Gate Bridge. --rbe cotalj'&t fbr us int.be end was when wa start- ed thinkins about our own estate planning; Grossi says of himself and bis brothers and sister, instead of just their paran.bl' estate plan. With the emphasis on what they wanted for their own children,he ex.- pie.ins, "we fuund selling nn easement provided the tool that gave us the ability to pass on the land in- tact, and provide liquidity for the next generation to manage and take care of it:" Run ns a dairy by three generations of Grose is until 1988, the ranch i! now home to Angus cow- calf and dairy replacement heifer operations. Grossi expresses "pride and relief in knowing this magical place UJ protected forever, n and "ap- preciation for the many families that have gone through the same process before us." .,. HOARD'S DAIRYMAN \ The Fbrum METRO/STATE Friday, September 10, 2004 AJ 1 Alternative grazing method gives. ranchers boost ................ Fanner-rancher Gene Go~n kneels In front of a stand of healthy, tall pasture grasses near Turtle lake. The dark red and green grass blades are a sign of heavy nutr1ents that benefit ll1e calUe grazing on the land . Associated Press technique called intensive wu during a drought. he said, trates the land. . TURTLELAKE,N.D.-Inthe rotational grazing,·whlch sci-and Gaven's neighbor~ had Tbathe)psplantgrowthand ear1y 1980s, · Gene Goven entlsts say ls better for the dry wetlands and brown pas-lessens flooding on creeks and noticed his cattle spent all of land, cattle and wildlife. tures suffering from the lack rivers, thereby decreasing ero- their ti.me In one place, graz,: Rotational grazing puts more · of moisture. The Gove.a ranch, sion. When the water makes it ing on the tender regrowth of livestock. ln smaller areas for however,· retained lta green through the soil to the water-. their favorite plailt sPecles shorter periods of time than i;md soaked up water more effi-: ways, it ls filtered and cleaner. · and ignoring the rest. the traditional season-long cienUy when raln did come. Rancheni such as Goven and . The favored plants eventual-method. It emulate.s the graz-A study of Goven's land Gabe Brown, who has cattle 1Y dwindled and nonnative ing pattern of bison herds, showed root depth improved east of Btsmarck, nre helping. species thrived, resuJtlng in which was a proven winner on from 3 to 4 inches to between to spread the word. less plant diversity and· _theplains,Gavensald. _12 and 40 lnches. The native They're involved "in the. unhealthy soil.· "It's a system of high inten-plants thrived, going from one Grazing Manacement Mentor- After studying the land Wld sity for shprtperiods of"tlme," species of grass to 11. ing N~twork, p~ of the state the cattle, Gaven came up with said Jim Ric.hard.son, soil sci-Gary Sandness, an environ-Private Grazing Lands Coali- il new grazing system. He entist at North Dakota State mental scientist wtth the state tion. Mentors provide advice dJvided his two pastures Into . Untversit}t "You go like Cl'3Z}t health department, said• rota.-based on what they've seen 18 smaller plots and gave the then let (the pasture) sH and ttonal grazing also has bene.fi-work on theµ" own land. cattle only 10 to 15 days in each allow the plants to regenerate. cial hydrological effects. "We've really seen that take pasture. As a result, he was ~nchers can actually do very On undergrazed or over-otr 1n the last five to eight able to boost t,he grazing sea-well with this kind of systeJIL" · grazOO pasture, he said, water yea.rs," Prinµ said. "When son by nearly 100 days. Richardson traveled from runs off the surface unimped-ranchers talk to other ranch- Goven Is one of a few ranch-Fargo to Turtle Lake i.JJ 1990 to ed. But with wel,1-managed ers about what works, that era 1n. the state who employs a see the results firsthand.. It grazing, more water l.nfil-• really makes a dlfference.•· ! .i