Several changes are expected to be made in Koochiching County’s development ordinance.

Koochiching County commissioners Tuesday expressed skepticism about the draft plan.

Changes expected include the addition of maximum densities in five zones and a zone called “rural village;” modification to the subdivision process and shoreland ordinance; and the elimination of a commercial zone, Jean Coleman, of the consultant firm CR Planning, explained to the Koochiching County Board.

A review of the draft ordinance drew 10 people including Planning Commission members, Environmental Services Department staff, a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources representative, surveyors and residents.

The ESD held four public meetings on the draft development ordinance in August, which were not well attended, Environmental Services Director Richard Lehtinen said. Public hearings on the draft ordinance are planned for spring.

Lehtinen said he is not convinced yet that the plan should be adopted as presented.

When asked if commissioners were OK to move forward with the plan, Commissioner Wade Pavleck said, “I’m not even close.” He added that from the comments he’s received from residents, the ordinance is not understood.

The draft combines the six to seven existing county ordinances, Lehtinen said. The new ordinance is also an attempt to implement the county’s comprehensive land use plan from 2004, Lehtinen said. Planning Commission member Bruce Sampson explained that the intent of the comprehensive land use plan is to preserve the character of the county, and the demographics of the county called for the ordinances to consolidate people into areas with existing infrastructure.

Maximum densities
Maximum densities were added to the draft plan to create flexibility in how land could be developed, Coleman said. The comprehensive land use plan includes minimum lot size and those creating the new ordinance felt maximum densities would fit in more with the direction of the land use plan.

Commissioners were most concerned about maximum densities in OS-1, or open space zones, and AF-1, or agriculture and forestry.

On land zoned OS-1, the maximum density was set at one dwelling per 40 acres with a minimum lot area of 5 acres.

About 80 percent of the county is zoned OS-1, Lehtinen said. The zone doesn’t allow permanent residences to be constructed, but seasonal facilities including hunting shacks are allowed on lots that are typically large, according to Lehtinen. The majority of land zoned OS-1 is state-owned or tax-forfeited land that is not in the market for development, Lehtinen said. The purpose of the zone is to prevent the destruction of the natural resources on the land.

The change in OS-1 isn’t a “dramatic change,” according to Lehtinen, but clarifies what the limits are on the properties.

Coleman echoed Lehtinen’s statement, saying that maximum density in OS-1 is “strongly supported by the comprehensive plan.”

Dale Olson, ESD solid waste technician, said he disagreed with the density set for OS-1. He said he thought the maximum density would be found in areas with “urban sprawl.” But in a county with three-fourths of its acres government-owned, it “could have houses on every acre and three-fourths would still be open,” Olson said.

Matt Gouin, of Murray Surveying Inc. and the county’s Survey Department, agreed with Olson, saying that if the land should be preserved, it could have a conservation easement placed on it.

In AF-1, the maximum density was set at one dwelling per 20 acres with a minimum lot area of 2.5 acres. The current minimum lot area is 10 acres, or 2.5 acres if the lot has access within a quarter-mile to a state or county maintained road.

AF-1 is meant to foster the continuous use of the land for agriculture purposes, which are typically completed on larger parcels of land, Lehtinen said. Historically, Koochiching County has had a pattern of two dwellings on 40 acres or one dwelling on 20 acres in agricultural zones, he said.

Lehtinen said the rationale behind the 20-acre maximum density was to preserve agriculture. But he pointed out that agriculture hasn’t been destroyed previously and the county could eliminate the zone’s maximum density if it doesn’t work.

Commissioner Kallie Briggs questioned why an item that would create more restrictions would be in the draft ordinance.

Dave Serrano, of Arro of the North, said it is “difficult and expensive to develop” with the rules as they are now and he would like to see more enforcement of the rules rather than restrictions in a new ordinance.

Lehtinen responded that the density is more consistent with the intention of the zone and to not open the door to deteriorating the agriculture base.

Commissioner Wade Pavleck questioned why a land owner should be told what to do with his or her own property.

“He owns it. He should be able to do what he wants to do with it,” Pavleck said, adding that it is a question he has received from residents regarding the ordinance.

Pavleck also noted that with land prices rising, people aren’t going to be able to afford to buy 20 or 40 acres to build on and they can instead afford 5 to 10 acres.

“The county itself is so underdeveloped and the population is dwindling. Aren’t we putting up road blocks?” Pavleck asked.

Sampson responded that the underlying principal of development ordinances is that not all land owners do the right thing with their land and activities on a property could affect the neighbors with traffic, noise and possibly lower property values. The county needs guidelines for responsible development, he said.

The maximum density for RR-1, residential and recreational zone, was set at one dwelling per one acre with a minimum lot area of one acre. RR-1 is only found along Rainy Lake, according to Lehtinen.

Serrano questioned what would happen if a property owner had three lots and the middle one was to be sold but wasn’t enough to meet the minimum acreage. The increase along the lake in minimum lot size from one half acre to 2 acres would restrict land owners in how they could develop their land.

He continued on, saying that because a large portion of the county’s land is government-owned and a large amount of wetlands exist in the county, the county has a small margin that is developable.

Commercial zone
The draft ordinance calls for the elimination of C-2, or limited commercial. It also created a list of 14 types of businesses that would not require conditions use permits.

Steve Blair, ESD zoning technician, opposed that portion of the draft, and said C-2 gave area residents a voice about their concerns with a public hearing.

“People have the right to know what is going on next door,” he said.

Coleman explained that the county is now only using one zone, which requires a CUP and hearing. Instead, she suggested the county have one zone that requires all businesses to apply for a conditional use permit or have a list of types of businesses that aren’t controversial.

Blair suggested that the county continue to use two commercial zones because it gives the Planning Commission more control over the kinds of businesses in the county. Pavleck added that the ordinance should also allow the public to comment on all businesses. Lehtinen agreed with Blair, saying he was leaning toward having a permit process for potential businesses.

Other concerns
• A new zone called rural village was created for unincorporated areas of the county where a community exists. The zone would allow for a variety of zones to be in one area, Lehtinen said. The idea of the rural village was to have a broad range of potential land uses within the one zone, he said.

Lehtinen added that the new zone was not necessary in the new ordinance.

Commissioner Mike Hanson said he was concerned about the creation of the boundaries for the rural village zone. In Birchdale, he wondered if the boundary would be near the city or a few miles out.

• The draft calls for all subdivisions to be reviewed by the county, while now several types of subdivisions do not need to go through the county’s approval process. The ESD has a desire to review the splits so there is conformity, Coleman said. Minor subdivisions would only need an administrative review to receive approval, she said.

• The draft ordinance combines three of the county’s current river plans. Pavleck questioned whether the draft ordinance’s shoreland rules would change with the possible changes being considered by the DNR. Coleman said she didn’t anticipate many changes as a result of the county’s shoreland rules being more restrictive than the state’s rules.