Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

County planners delay Daisy Bay vote

Second Lake Vermilion resort seeks RV park expansion

Marcus White
Posted 2/20/19

LAKE VER-MILION – A second Lake Vermilion resort is seeking the county’s permission to include an RV park on their property. The St. Louis County Planning Commission heard arguments late last …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

County planners delay Daisy Bay vote

Second Lake Vermilion resort seeks RV park expansion

Posted

LAKE VER-MILION – A second Lake Vermilion resort is seeking the county’s permission to include an RV park on their property. The St. Louis County Planning Commission heard arguments late last week for and against a plan at the Daisy Bay Resort, but delayed a final vote on the plan because of a clerical error that cited the wrong address of the resort in public notices.

The proposed expansion would see up to 40 RV sites added to the resort. The plan also anticipates new ownership, as local businesswoman Christine Schlotec plans to purchase the property if the county approves the proposed expansion.

In addition to the new RV sites, Schlotec said she plans to have the resort open year-round to allow ice fishing off the lakeshore. She said she planned to seek more docks for the property as well.

Unlike the proposal at BayView Lodge, the changes at Daisy Bay would not increase the overall footprint of the resort, nor would they require an alteration of the Lake Vermilion Overlay since the required zoning is already in place. A county staff report presented by county planner Jared Ecklund said the expansion was within the stipulations of the Lake Vermilion Plan, although he said some water drainage issues on the property raise concerns.

With the steep terrain at the resort, Ecklund said the property developers would have to take care to ensure seasonal runoff would be mitigated if the natural landscape was altered. Ecklund said the county was asking for a storm water plan to be submitted for the site.

Furthermore, subsequent development of the area would not be allowed beyond the current plans because of the water runoff issue.

Neighbors to the resort raised concerns about the project.

“I appreciate the quality of the water in my well, I do not want to lose drinking water out of my faucet,” Pauly Housenga said. She noted that she can already hear spring runoff flowing through the property and she was concerned that it would only get worse with more intensive development at the site.

Aside from water, Housenga said she did not want any increase of light pollution.

“We appreciate the night sky,” she said. “During the winter it (resort lights) reflects off the lake and it shines into the house. I refuse to have to put up drapes. I want to see the night sky through my windows.”

Another resort neighbor, Todd Betterley, asked if the resort was actually expanding or whether it was transitioning to a new business model and structure, something he believes is not covered in the Lake Vermilion plan.

“That is my biggest concern - does it fit with the neighborhood?” he asked. “No one has a problem with the resort, but this is transitioning a small business into a big one.”

He said an increase in traffic to the site, something specifically noted in the county staff report, would go against the Lake Vermilion plan.

The steepness of the hills and the ability to navigate larger vehicles into the resort was also a concern for Betterley.

Housenga asked why the board was moving so quickly since many residents near the resort were away for the winter.

Ecklund said the county had to take action within 60 days after the planning commission had received the application. He also said that those not in the area could submit their feedback through mail or email.

Housenga said she doubted many would even get the notice in time because of mail having to be re-delivered at an alternate address.

Even with the complaints, property owners who spoke out against the proposed RV park did praise the resort for being a good neighbor and providing some services, such as a small grocery, to residents in the area.

Since the planning commission delayed their vote on the proposal, planning commissioners did not discuss the matter. They’ll have that opportunity when the proposal is reheard on Thursdsy, March 14 at the county’s public works building in Virginia.

The public will have a second opportunity to speak on that date as well. A time for the hearing had not been set as of the Timberjay’s Wednesday press time.

Comments

34 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Don B.

Does anyone know how these large, new RV parks intend to get all the water they will need and how they will deal with all the sewage they will generate?

Wednesday, February 20
Shelley

I believe that there may be resident and public concerns regarding the size of the proposed expansion. I know that I have some. I just heard and read recently about the proposal to increase Daisy Bay’s 5 RV sites to a total of 43, and potentially 36 more in the future.

I believe that only township residents between 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the Resort were sent notification letters by St Louis County (SLC). I stopped by the Greenwood Township office the other day. I received Ms. Schlotec’s January 1, 2019 Conditional Use Permit Application, including the site map plat information, as well as other letters sent to the township from SLC. SLC sent a letter to the Town of Greenwood on January 7, 2019:

The letter reads that a copy of Ms. Schlotec's proposal was being sent to the Township so that it had "ample time to review the application and submit any comments you may wish to the Planning Commission. " More specifically, in bold it reads, “Comments submitted by the township must be accompanied with an official Board resolution outlining the Town’s response to the conditional permit request by February 12, 2019 to bourbonaisj@stlouiscountymn.gov. It states that the SLC Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on February 14, 2019 in Virginia.

I don't see any discussions reviewing or discussing the conditional permit application in meeting notes or if any supervisor attended the February 14 public hearing.

If you have concerns before the second March 14 second hearing, when you send a letter to the SLC, send it Greenwood Board member as well, and also call them. The Township Board may not make the decision, but they are responsible to listen and act accordingly in behalf of township and the greater public concerns of those who live and visit Lake Vermilion in St. Louis County.

| Friday, February 22
Terri

Great info Shelley - thanks!

Friday, February 22
John Bassing

Shelley,

I agree Shelley, the Greenwood Town Board should consider citizens comments and weigh-in on variances sent to it for comment from the county. The Greenwood Board, on June 13 2017, voted to never comment on these variances ever again. The vote was 4-1, I voted no.. Other Townships send comments and we should also.

Saturday, February 23
Scott Atwater

Both proposed RV parks appear not to fit within the Lake Vermilion plan. Why are area residents being held to a higher standard than these commercial ventures?

Sunday, February 24
Terri

I agree totally. Go the the Greenwood Township website to read the Lake Vermilion Plan. This project does not support maintaining the “Northern Character” of Lake Vermilion.

Also, isn’t the purpose of the board to represent the tax paying citizens of the township? As a seasonal resident I can’t even vote in the election for board members. Thanks John for voting “no” on the “no comment resolution”!

Sunday, February 24
Shelley

John- what you write makes sense. The conditional use permit (cup) asks for 43 RV campsites with the possibility of 36 more, the largest number to date on Lake Vermillion. More sites then at the new state park, Hoodoo, McKinley or Fortune Bay. Think of the environmental and highway safety impacts. I emailed Greenwood Chair Mike Ralston and Vice-Chair Carmen Deluca on Friday, wondering if they had looked into the submitted cup and formed an opinion. Carmen didn't respond. Mike wrote back that when township supervisors had decided to turn all planning and zoning over to the county, they also decided never to comment on cup, variances, or county decisions. As far as I know, no supervisor attended the SLC meeting either.

It's weird. I thought township supervisors are supposed to listen and act accordingly in behalf of township resident questions, comments and concerns.

| Sunday, February 24
Shelley

I looked up the June 13, 2017 meeting on LakeVermilion.net. The townboard supervisors agreed to adopt a policy of not commenting on land use issues because St. Louis County is now handling concerns. Bassing objected to approving DeLuca’s motion to automatically refrain from commenting. Bassing said that an egregious situation could present itself and the township might want to make comments. The motion passed 4-1 with Bassing voting no. Deluca, Ralston, Skubic, and Tahija voted yes.

It is now February 24,2019. Some in the township think 37 RV campsites at Bayview +45 at Daisy Bay = 82 is too many to be approved by the SLC over one winter when some full-time and seasonal home owners aren't here. I hope that the board will read these posts, revisit and change the past resolution.

They have a hard job but they have time up until March 12, to read the Daisy Bay conditional proposal, listen to affected residents, do research, ask the County Planning Commission questions, form written board opinions (positive and negative), and send them to the County. They can also attend the March 14 meeting as a supervisor and/or a concerned citizen.

If anyone reading this wants more information, please call Jared Ecklund at 218 741 7565. If you want your concern addressed at the Marcy 14 meeting, you can send him an email by March 12 at ecklundj@stlouiscountymn.gov. and your concern can to be addressed at the March 14 meeting. Please become involved in this if you can. We all want best outcomes for all who are lucky enough to enjoy this township and lake.

Thank you.

| Sunday, February 24
Shelley

I misquoted the size of Hoodoo point and McKinley Camping Parks in Tower. Hoodoo has 81 RV and 18 tent campsites. McKinley has 50 RV and 18 tent sites.

| Sunday, February 24
Scott Atwater

Thanks Shelly, that is excellent information.

It is my sincere hope that the Timberjay investigate further and make this information public. Something seems amiss here, and the clock is running.

Monday, February 25
Tom Cooney

Thanks to everyone for your research and keeping us up to date. I spoke with Jared Ecklund 218-471-7565 (corrected phone number from above) this afternoon. Jared was very cooperative and will email the Daisy Bay Resort Expansion packet to anyone interested. I did a quick review of the proposal and there sure seems to be a lot of negatives in this request with very few positives to the current property owners. I recommend everyone request this packet and voice your opinion.

Monday, February 25
Pauly

Here is a link to the regulations for preparing and presenting a petition to request that a Environmental l Impact Study be done. http://www.cura.umn.edu/sites/cura.advantagelabs.com/files/publications/E2006-8.pdf. I really wish someone would get this started on behalf of all of us. I agree with comments made by Shelley and Scott. The density of the proposed RV Park and Resort is a top concern of mine. The other concerns include, water intake, waste water disposal, water run off,light, and noise pollution, dock additions on the shore as well as many others mentioned in the TimberJay Article and in the comments of others.

Monday, February 25
Lee Peterson

The Lake Vermilion Plan is not on the Greenwood web site. The Greenwood Township 2015 Comprehensive Plan is on the web site. It is an important document. To access it, go to:

greenwoodtownshipmn.com

click on: Town Board

click on: Administration

click on: 2015 Comprehensive Plan

"Greenwood Township 2015 Comprehensive Plan" will come up. This thing is worth the read. Particularly pages 27-30, titled: "COMMUNITY PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT ISSUE 6:PRESERVE NORTHERN CHARACTER OF LAKE VERMILION".

It is important to know that the Planning Commission and Staff are required by MN law to take local comprehensive plans into consideration when acting on land use permit applications.

It is also my opinion that we need to get John Bassing elected to the Town Board on March 14.

Lee Peterson

Tuesday, February 26
Mike Ralston

I have read with interest comments regarding the P and Z decisions made by the county. Many of the negative comments are coming from the same group of people that led to the removal of the Township Planning and Zoning and turning this department over to the County

In June of 2016 John Bassing made and passed a motion to turn P and Z over to the County with Supervisor Baland the only NO vote. In a recent campaign letter sent out, John Bassing touts his accomplishment of removing the P and Z from the Township hands. In the comments above however, John Bassing states proudly he was the only supervisor to vote no on a motion for the board to refrain from commenting on P and Z decisions made by the County. In a article dated July 7 2017 Board Chair John Bassing spoke strongly against a determination made by the county regarding a variance on Isle of Pines. Lee Peterson also touted removal of the P and Z from the Township but disagrees with County determinations when it doesn't fit his narrative. Since the Town Board does not have access to a Planning and Zoning staff (remember John Bassing made sure of that) and the fact the Town Board is not trained in planning and zoning matters the choice to not comment was made to let professionals decide. John Bassing must be looking for votes. You cant have it both ways.

Wednesday, February 27
John Bassing

Mike,

Your ignorance on this topic is staggering. Adjoining Townships do not have their own Planning and Zoning but yet have the ability to comment on variances presented to the County. I have and you can speak to staff at County PZ anytime about a variance application. The County sends the variance notice to the Townships to see if they care to weigh-in and some do depending on the situation. As an example Vermilion Lake township weighed in on the variance sought by Vermilion Houseboats and Vermilion Lake has never done its own PZ. Only two of us(Lee and myself) on this comment blog advocated to move PZ to the County. I am proud and I am sure Lee is proud of moving it to the County but that does not take away our right to comment. If you want PZ back I am more than ready for that fight.

Wednesday, February 27
Lee Peterson

What I wrote earlier is meant to help folks who want to comment on and to influence how the St. Louis County Planning Staff and the County Planning Commission resolve variance and Conditional Use Permit applications. That is why there is a public hearing on these actions. I steered folks to the 2015 Greenwood Comprehensive Plan because it is a tool, along with the survey results and written comments that guided its creation in 2015. Retaining the "Northern Character of Lake Vermilion" is highly emphasized in the 2015 GCP. Please read the survey results and the written comments which are available on the Greenwood web site. This is a valid guide for the County, as is the Lake Vermilion Plan and the County Comprehensive Plan.

I spent nine years as a Greenwood Planning Commission member, and then a year on the committee that put the 2015 GCP together. In 2017 and 2018 I attended the two workshops held in Ely and participated in the interactive web site-map between the meetings that provided input for the new St. Louis County Comprehensive Plan. In my opinion these two Plans worked out well. The "Goals and Policies" in both Plans are solid. And among many other issues, they both support maintaining the northern character of our arear.

Based on my experience, I stand by the decision in 2016 to send planning and zoning back to the County. Some of the reasons are:

1. The County Staff is professional and they are available five days a week. We were paying the County for P&Z, as well as paying to do it ourselves.

2. The County has developed an electronic permitting system where you can visit the office in Virginia, sit down with a Planner in front of a large screen and complete a permit application rather quickly while viewing the map and the application. There was no way that Greenwood could keep up with this technology--and we were already paying our share to the County to do it. Also helpful is that County Environmental Services (wastewater permit) is right down the hall. As is the County Soil & Water staff, if needed.

3. Not lost on me is the fact that since the County took back P&Z from the Township, the Township has not had to hire law firms to litigate P&Z decisions that were challenged in court. A lot of this has to do with the professionalism of the County Planning Staff.

I certainly agree with John Bassing that Greenwood should not unilaterally surrender its responsibility in P&Z issues. His point above explains quite well the common sense of it. John has done enough research to fully understand this. The surrender of responsibility is a convenient cop out. The take my marbles home approach isn't a good one for the Lake or our residents.

Please read the County Comprehensive Plan. In it you will see that townships are offered many levels of participation and input. For example, if a township feels it has a particular issue or need that it wants the County to address while administering planning, zoning and permitting, the township, with the help of County staff, can create a special "overlay" that pertains to the specific township. This is a great provision. It gives local control and flexibility. But it requires involvement, study, input (Greenwood Comprehensive Plan-Survey, for example), and not just the lobbing of potshots. For this, we need diligent, serious Town Board Supervisors like John Bassing.

A land use issue on Isle of Pines is brought up in a comment above. This is actually a good example of how the County, particularly the Planning Staff, works. Basically, an earth moving activity that violated the Planning Ordinance and the MN Shoreland Rules was begun. The County stepped in to stop the activity and to implement enforcement. The Staff, along with the County Soil & Water Conservation District staff guided enforcement and mitigation measures that have kept the northern character of the lake intact. It wasn't a simple solution It was well handled by the County P&Z staff.

The writer above states that "Since the Town Board does not have access to a Planning and Zoning staff..." That is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding. The fact is that the Town Board has unlimited access to the County Planning and Zoning staff. It's that simple.

The writer goes on to say "and the fact that the Town Board is not trained in planning and zoning matters..." Please note that everyone is entitled to read the P&Z Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plans. Elected officers should be expected to do this. And again, the County Staff is more than willing to answer questions from anyone.

Finally, the writer states "...the choice [by the Town Board] to not comment was made to let professionals decide." This statement also shows a lack of actual understanding of the P&Z process, at the township or the county level. The reality is that the County staff is made up of professionals. They take input, do the research, fact finding and make recommendations to the Planning Commission members concerning variances and Conditional Use Permits. The St. Louis County Planning Commission is made up of citizen members, just as the Greenwood Planning Commission was. The Commissioners ultimately do the job of reviewing input, making revisions and or adding conditions before passing or rejecting a permit application.

I believe that we are fortunate to have a County P&Z apparatus that is professional, easy to use and is open to everyone. It just requires participation. The County offers that opportunity. Have I tried to influence it? Certainly. That is everyone's right. I hope this helped to explain a few things.

Now I've got to hurry and suit up for a snowmobile ride with friends down to Isabella for lunch!

Lee

Thursday, February 28
Mike Raslton

Great comments Lee

However the Town Board's main responsibility is to set, not implement, policy

Since the town Board has previously signed off on the Lake Vermilion Plan and the Greenwood Comprehensive plan and also the environmental services ordinance 62 the board has by default commented on the planning and zoning issues presented to the County P and Z staff and Board

It is up to the County Staff to investigate and the County Board to implement..

Should the County Board make an indefensible decision the Board could, and should , weigh in with a formal response.

The decisions by the P and Z should be made strictly based on the rule that has been established by the very plans you reference in your comments

Should the rules be followed and the parameters of the commercial overlay be met by the conditional use permit application there is a compelling argument for the board to comment in the affirmative and support this endeavor.

The possibility of economic development , additional jobs and increased tax base for the township should be welcomed.

If all the rules of the plans you mentioned are followed why would anyone on the bo

Friday, March 1
Mike Raslton

Great comments Lee

However the Town Board's main responsibility is to set, not implement, policy

Since the town Board has previously signed off on the Lake Vermilion Plan and the Greenwood Comprehensive plan and also the environmental services ordinance 62 the board has by default commented on the planning and zoning issues presented to the County P and Z staff and Board

It is up to the County Staff to investigate and the County Board to implement..

Should the County Board make an indefensible decision the Board could, and should , weigh in with a formal response.

The decisions by the P and Z should be made strictly based on the rule that has been established by the very plans you reference in your comments

Should the rules be followed and the parameters of the commercial overlay be met by the conditional use permit application there is a compelling argument for the board to comment in the affirmative and support this endeavor.

The possibility of economic development , additional jobs and increased tax base for the township should be welcomed.

If all the rules of the plans you mentioned are followed why would anyone on the board or the board as whole comment in the negative, unless he/she are looking for votes.

So the choice by the board is not a cop out, is it just a expectation that the professionals will do their due diligence and implement the C U P based on rules already in place and supported by the board.

I hope you had a nice ride yesterday.

I'm Jealous, had to work. Thanks to the Penguins and other local clubs for keeping the trails in such great shape.

One other thing, I don't believe there is anywhere in my comments where I said the township should take back Planning and Zoning so you can put your boxing gloves on the shelf for a while John

Friday, March 1
Terri

I’m curious how “Adopt Lake Vermilion Plan

Mitigatating Measures” under Community Planning/ Development Issue 8 in Greenwood Township 2015 Comprehensive Plan would apply to this project. Anyone know?

Saturday, March 2
John bassing

Terri

I would check out appendix b of stlouiscountymn ordinance 27-015. It is about mitigation measures of the lake Vermilion Plan. I hope this helps.

Saturday, March 2
Deplorable

Mike,

Adding to the tax base with a trailer park is not a positive for the lake. Cop outs by the score with this current board. Refuse to ‘micro/manage the fire department, allowing them to do or not do whatever they want. Cowardly bullies.

Hopefully an adult, John Bassing gets elected today. Also hope the ‘mean girl’ treasurer is replaced.

Tuesday, March 12
steve rodgers

To Deplorable:

The only cowardly bullies I know are those that write comments using a pseudonym in stead of their real name.

Friday, March 15
Shelley

Thank you to the Timberjay for giving me the opportunity to learn, ask questions, raise concerns, and communicate with others regarding this subject.

When I first wrote to the Timberjay, I was using numbers from the informational packet provided by the SLC to Greenwood township. The CUP proposal was in it, along with a site map completed on 1/2/2019 by SLC Planning and Community Development to equal 88 units.

The original SLC site map shows a request to expand from its 9 cabin's and 5 RV sites, to an additional 38 RV sites on the Daisy Bay Resort and adjacent property in the tier-one phase, and then 19 more in the tier-two phase, and 17 more in tier-three phase to equal 88 units. The final SLC draft site map removes the 36 additional adjacent property sites, so that the total is now 52 units.

I have read over my others and others comments here. I appreciate and have learned from them. I would like to put them in time perspective, as I read them, to the best of my ability. I admit that I am an ignorant person learning about Greenwood Township and SLC business-related CUP proposals, its township history, and how they are now handled:

1. In June of 2016, Board Chair John Bassing made and passed a motion to turn P and Z over to the County with Supervisor, Baland the only no vote.

2. In June of 2017, Township board supervisors agreed to adopt a policy of not commenting on land use issues. Bassing objected to approving DeLuca’s motion to automatically refrain from commenting. Bassing said that an egregious situation could present itself and the township might want to make comments. The motion passed 4-1 with Bassing voting no. Deluca, Ralston, Skubic, and Tahija voted yes.

3. In July 2017, Board Chair Bassing spoke strongly against a determination made by the county regarding a variance on Isle of Pines.

4. On February 22, 2019, after stopping by Greenwood township and reading the information packet sent by the SLC to the township, I read the 1/7/19 stating that a copy of the cup applicant proposal was being sent to the Township so that it had "ample time to review the application and submit any comments you may wish to the Planning Commission."

More specifically, in bold it reads, "Comments submitted by the township must be accompanied with an official Board resolution outlining the Town's response to the conditional permit request by February 12, 2019."

I emailed Board Chair Mike Ralston and Vice-Chair Carmen Deluca on Friday, looking for more information wondering if they had looked into the submitted cup and formed an opinion. Carmen didn't respond. Mike wrote back stating "As the township has turned all planning and zoning over to the county the board does not comment on county decisions. That has been the response to all previous submissions for cup or variances."

I wrote back stating that I was really sorry to hear this from you him, but I didn't ask him for a county decision. I asked if he had looked into the cup, spoke to any township residents, read any of the letters submitted to the SLC and formed an opinion regarding its impacts, positive and negative. He never answered me back.

5. On this site on February 25, former Greenwood Planning Commission Member, Lee Peterson, shared educational information about people with concerns about the proposal could access the 2015 Greenwood Township Plan.

6. On this site on February 26, Township Board Chair Mike Ralston validated the number 1 and number 3 facts above. He also wrote, "the Town Board does not have access to a Planning and Zoning staff."

7. On this site on February 27, John Bassing wrote, "Adjoining Townships do not have their own Planning and Zoning but yet have the ability to comment on variances presented to the County. I have and you can speak to staff at County PZ anytime about a variance application. The County sends the variance notice to the Townships to see if they care to weigh-in and some do depending on the situation. As an example Vermilion Lake township weighed in on the variance sought by Vermilion Houseboats and Vermilion Lake has never done its own PZ."

8. On this site on February 27, Lee Peterson wrote, " What I wrote earlier is meant to help folks who want to comment on and to influence how the St. Louis County Planning Staff and the County Planning Commission resolve variance and Conditional Use Permit applications."

He also wrote, "Please read the County Comprehensive Plan. In it you will see that townships are offered many levels of participation and input. For example, if a township feels it has a particular issue or need that it wants the County to address while administering planning, zoning and permitting, the township, with the help of County staff, can create a special "overlay" that pertains to the specific township.

This is a great provision. It gives local control and flexibility. But it requires involvement, study, input (Greenwood Comprehensive Plan-Survey, for example)."... "A land use issue on Isle of Pines is brought up in a comment above. This is actually a good example of how the County, particularly the Planning Staff, works."

9. On this site on February 29, Lee Peterson also wrote, " The writer above (see number 6) states that "Since the Town Board does not have access to a Planning and Zoning staff..." That is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding. The fact is that the Town Board has unlimited access to the County Planning and Zoning staff. It's that simple."

"I believe that we are fortunate to have a County P&Z apparatus that is professional, easy to use and is open to everyone. It just requires participation."

10. On this site on February 28, Mike Ralston wrote, "the Town Board's main responsibility is to set, not implement, policy."... " So the choice by the board is not a cop out, is it just a expectation that the professionals will do their due diligence and implement the C U P based on rules already in place and supported by the board.

From the above comments, I have learned that the Greenwood township supervisors decided never comment on business cup, variances and county decisions. I have also learned that they also decided to never assess them as they come in to the township, and not to keep current in any development planning between the applicant and SLC before it comes to a hearing.

Moreover, I have learned that they don't provide a caring listening ear or any informational (oral or written) education beyond what the county first sends them for the clerk to give out. The Greenwood Board doesn't see themselves as due diligence professionals to listen or to provide up to date informational or educational service to residents, even if the resident may think that a business's cup operating site size is egregious and needs to be looked at by them.

It is my hope that Greenwood Township supervisors and Greenwood residents will stop its fighting and reestablish a respectful communication network for the betterment of the Township and the Lake.

| Saturday, March 16
Shelley

The second SLC County Planning Commission hearing occurred on March 14, 2019.

The County approved the Daisy Bay resort cup expansion for 38 RV sites, adding to its existing 5 RV sites and 9 cabins to equal 52 units. The property is situated on 11.56 acres. In comparative perspective, Breiting's township McKinley Park has 50 RV sites and 15 camp sites. It is situated on 33.75 acres.

There are many Greenwood township residents who think that unit 52 sites is an egregious number, because of its potential negative impact on environmental and public safely.

The Commission listened to the applicant, to concerned speakers, and reviewed written and verbal concerns from many township residents, and then made its decision. The Commission made clear that its decision would be 0 or 52 units, and nothing in between. The 52 units were approved.

Many neighborhood, environmental, and public safety concerns were raised to the Commission board members.

The applicant stated that the business's water needs will probably be provided by a well with a storage tank, that will be filled up during the night. Existing residents are concerned about water quality decreasing and their wells going dry.

The current septic site has failed inspection, and another cannot be put in because of multiple dry wells on the property, therefore there will be holding tanks and dumping stations at the site.

Much of property has a fairly steep slope between a 10-14 grade.. There are many engineering development concerns regarding site grading, manageable slopes, seasonal and storm water drainage runoff volumes, and erosion controls. The answers are yet to be determined. Therefore, at this time, its full impact on environmental lake quality is unknown.

There are also concerns regarding pad construction and providing electrical, water, and sewage hook up to the storage tanks. Site development will bring a significant increase in parking needs by lone vehicles pulling mobile homes, as well as second vehicles pulling their boat or snowmobiles on trailers.

The January 28, 2019 County Report states that it is going to attempt to maintain a buffer of trees between the development site and adjacent neighborhood properties, roads, and the water ways. But, they also state, much of the trees on the property will need to be removed as they clear it for the RV sites, water holding tank storage, septic holding tanks, dump stations, and overflow parking sites.

Therefore, the RV sites and other structures will probably be visible during the day and as well as the night by lighting. There are concerns about fire-pit smoke from the sites, which will probably take away night sky viewing in the adjacent neighborhood. There are also concerns regarding human and dog noise.

The increase in boat traffic has the adjacent neighborhood concerned about their safety while swimming from off their residential shoreline. I do hope that the MN DNR will address boat speed control and docking concerns seriously, so that residents can swim safely.

I went to the hearing with my concerns for public safety. This development will bring a significant increase in County Road 77 traffic with autos pulling mobile summer and winter ice castle homes, and boat and snowmobile trailers. Septic holding tank and dump station service trucks for 52 units will also bring more traffic on the road, and in and out of the property. It is my hope that the County Highway department will provide turning and/or bypass lanes into the property.

The existing County Rd 77 corridor is a No-pass Zone due to blind hills and curves. The speed limit is 55, but many drive 60 miles an hour around the curves and up and down the hills. The Pier 77 mini-golf course and cafe is approximately 0.1 mile to the west on the same side of the road as the resort.

Many people driving east from Clover Point Road up the blind hill towards Pier 77 will often gun their vehicle to get to the top and around the left curve; especially when pulling an RV home, boat, or snowmobile trailer.

Where visitors have more room to roam at McKinley Park on 33.75 acres, Daisy Bay Resort Park visitors may want to roam out of the 11.56 acre property. During the summer families, adults, and children may want to walk from the Resort on the County Road 77 highway shoulder to Pier 77 to play mini-golf, get ice cream and/or a snack, or bicycle to the Vermilion club, Gruben's Marina, or the Bayview restaurant/bar for lunch, dinner, or to have a drink or two.

The great majority of people in the area don't drink and drive, but there are a few who do. A couple of years ago, an intoxicated driver was recklessly speeding and went off the road at Clover Point Road, shearing off posts, shattering mail boxes, and sending them along with mail out beyond the road shoulder into the woods.

Whatever the reason, if a driver speeds or drives recklessly, I do fear for future pedestrians and bicyclists on the County Road 77 shoulder. I think that there may be a need for speed limiting and greater County Sheriff patrolling to protect and ensure public safety. A pedestrian/bicycle path would be ideal.

On March 12, 2019, the applicant posted on Face book, that "the plan is to turn into a year round resort and open a road in the winter to Big Bay for fishing and Ice Castles." This may bring automobiles pulling ice castle homes and snowmobile traffic on frozen lake roads and trails. There may be a need for greater MN DNR Officer patrolling in the area.

As Lee Peterson states in a previous comment , "it is important to know that the Planning Commission and Staff are required by MN law to take local Comprehensive plans into consideration when acting on land use permit applications."

The Comprehensive Land Use Plan encourages business opportunity for neighborhood commercial sites that are compatible in scale and operation with surrounding residential development. The Lakeshore Commercial Overlay District allows existing businesses to continue operation and expand as appropriate.

The County Planner stated that they also considered the 2015 Greenwood Township Comprehensive Plan that Lee Peterson cites on this posting site, when they considered the number of units based on density. The Plan includes pages 27-30, titled: Community Planning/Developing Issue 6: Preserve Northern Character of Lake Vermilion and the Survey results. They also considered the Lake Vermilion plan, that Lee Peterson, John, Scott and Terri mention in these posts. But many still remain unconvinced whether the County Staff considered all the above as much as it should have.

On February 28, Greenwood township Chair Mike Ralston posted his opinion on the cup on this site, " the possibility of economic development , additional jobs and increased tax base for the township should be welcomed." But he did not address anything else pertinent to others questions, concerns, or opinions regarding the cup on this site.

He did make other comments though. He writes that the Town Board signed off on the Lake Vermilion Plan, Greenwood Comprehensive plan, and the environmental services ordinance 62. "The (town) board has by default commented on the planning and zoning issues presented to the County P and Z staff and board." He also wrote something that confuses me. "Should the County Board make an indefensible decision the (Town) Board could, and should, weigh in with a formal response."

I need to respond directly to Mike by quoting my own letter that I wrote to the Timberjay published in Letters from Readers on March 1, 2019. " I hope that the (township) board will reconsider its 2017 vote and involve itself in informing and listening to citizen concerns, giving guidance, and if enough township residents agree, making official comments to the County."

I agree with Mike that economic development , additional jobs, and increased tax base for the township should be welcomed.

My own thoughts are that the Daisy Bay Resort should be able to continue to operate and expand as a small business in scale with surrounding residential development as it is safe to do so. But not take over it and wreck it.

A reasonable moderate expansion of the resort would provide greater opportunities for Daisy Bay Resort visitors to enjoy Lake Vermilion and its township businesses.

I don't agree with the Commission's approval of 52 units because it is not compatible in scale, operation, and safety, when considering township resident concerns regarding the existing neighborhood, present day County Road 77 , and the quality of the Northern Character of Lake Vermilion.

I am asking current Township board supervisors to consider asking interested knowledgeable township residents to listen and read resident concerns on this issue, and review it with the Comprehensive, Overlay, Lake Vermilion, and environmental services ordinance 62, and ask themselves if the County Commission Board has made an indefensible decision, and if the (Town) Board could, and should, weigh in with a formal response.

PS. I stand for comments and corrections of my collected data, information, and my thoughts, but not to be pushed over by name-calling please. No one is perfect. Every one is ok.

It is obvious that there are many in Greenwood township who care about others and the environment that we are fortunate to reside in.

In my opinion, the people who really care are former and present day township board supervisors, treasurers, clerks, committee members, fire department members and volunteers. I hope that the township will stop fighting and reestablish a respectful communication network and work together for the betterment of the Township and the Lake.

| Saturday, March 16
John Bassing

Shelley,

I, for one, am impressed with all the research and due diligence who have brought forward on this CUP. You have addressed problems of pollution, safety and changes to the character of the lake that this project will bring. It’s only reasonable that citizens get every opportunity to weigh in as possible and that’s why I think the board should address significant changes in property use. If the future of resorts is to be converted to RV parks, as has occurred at Bayview and now Daisy Bay, then others should be concerned. You have been a good advocate for your neighbors and hopefully the owner will take heed of your comments when she writes the Park Rules.

Tuesday, March 19
Shelley

Thanks John. I have learned a lot from you and others thoughts on this site. It has been confusing at most. I sent the 2 different developer maps to Mike and I think that he is looking into them. It just seems “fishy” to me when you look at them. It looks like there is an intended further development here.

Last winter , my husband and I travelled west and followed the Colorado River from lake havasu AZ to Grand Junction CO in a small rv. Beautiful but the river has rescinded significantly in the last 40 years.

There are small and large Rv parks everywhere and when there is too much big development it removes that natural feel of nature, trees, water, fauna, wildlife, and human safety. I hope it doesn’t happen here. If nature is protected and not exploited it will serve the best interests now and in the future. Some development along the waterway is well done and others are not. Small to moderate size development provides a balance of preservation, business development, revenue and maintains residential and environmental quality

| Tuesday, March 19
Shelley

I would like to respond to the March 14, PC meeting and Marcus White's "Timberjay Daisy Bay Expansion Approval ," article published today. I stand by my concerns for pedestrian and bicyclist safety on the shoulder of County Road 77.

County Rd 77 corridor is a No-pass Zone due to blind hills and curves. The speed limit is 55, but many drive 60 miles an hour around the curves and up and down the hills. The Pier 77 mini-golf course and cafe is approximately 0.1 mile to the west on the same side of the road as the resort. During the summer, families may want to walk from the Resort on the highway shoulder to Pier 77 to play mini-golf, get ice cream and/or a snack, or bicycle to one of the 3 restaurant/bars for lunch, dinner, or to have a drink or two.

There will be more autos pulling mobile summer and winter ice castle homes, and boat and snowmobile trailers on the highway. Since the current septic system cannot be replaced, septic holding tank/ dump station service trucks will also be frequenting the steeply sloped single road on the property.

Many people driving east from Clover Point Road up the blind hill towards Pier 77 will often gun their vehicle to get to the top of the hill and around the left curve; especially when pulling a trailer.. Most people don't drink and drive, but there are a few who do. A couple of years ago, an intoxicated driver was recklessly speeding and went off the road at Clover Point Road, shearing off posts, shattering mail boxes, and sending them along with mail out beyond the road shoulder into the woods. If a driver speeds or drives recklessly, I do fear for future pedestrians and bicyclists on the County Road 77 shoulder.

Roger Skraba did repeatedly interrupt me as I spoke in the meeting. He asked Chair Sonya Pineo to cut me off. Ms. Pineo allowed me to continue. I maintained my position Mr. Skraba maintained his position. He said that highway public safety was not an issue for permit approval. Ms. Pineo asked me to leave when I spoke out of turn and said, " I wish the Commission could make a decision between 0 or 52 units, and not just 0 to 52."

After I left, Marcus writes, "Pineo said it was not out of the ordinary to MnDOT come and do analysis. She questioned why this wasn't a condition in the staff report but erosion control was." County Planner Jared Ecklund said that MnDot typically "only looks at a project when additional entrances are being made, which is not the case with the Daisy Bay project." Thus, my traffic concerns for pedestrian and bicycle safety on County Road 77 was invalidated by Mr. Straba and Mr Ecklund and deemed as inappropriate concerns for me to speak about in the meeting. I will forward my concerns to MnDot.

| Thursday, March 21
John Bassing

Shelley,

It is your right to offer your opinion unfettered by a commissioner. Surabaya should know enough to sit back and hear all opinion without stepping and shading it. Sunny should have stopped him. The Planning Commission acts as a quasi-judicial Board and should not give opinion during the public’s time to speak. It just goes to fairness. I have attended several hearings and unfortunately witnessed similar actions. The point of the hearing is to hear the public’s concerns then discuss and come to a judgement while exhibiting fairness to all. Did you feel you were treated fairly?

Thursday, March 21
John Bassing

SKRABA, dam spellcheck.

Thursday, March 21
Shelley

I have felt confusion mostly. There are 5 criteria questions the planning commission follows in giving approval for a cup. The 5th is what, if any, other factors should be taken into consideration on this case? I felt that Mr Straba had not read the letter I sent Mr Ecklund on 3/12 before the meeting and Nor did I hear him present pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns in any detail in his presentation to commission. The category of public safety was last on the concern list. Given Mr Ecklunds statement about why MnDOT didn’t need to assess before approval, I am now concerned about pedestrian and bikes sharing the same steep road with with vehicles with trailers and septic service trucks coming in and out of the property onto the highway, I still don’t know where the proper place was that I was to bring my concerns to the county. I have learned it wasn’t there

| Thursday, March 21
Shelley

And yes John. Thanks for helping me verbalize it. I started talking about County Rd 77 shoulder pedestrian and bicycle safety near the resort and Pier 77 mini golf. it felt like Mr Straba stepped in and pushed me aside and changed my public safety concerns iinto a drunk driver issue. Marcus seems to have only addressed Mr. Straba’s interpretation in his article today. So yes, I feel that they both were unfair. I think that the board should have a approved with the stipulation of a MnDOT review , along with the MPCA and Mn Department of Health. Not for a drunk driving but a County Rd pedestrianpublic safety assessment

| Thursday, March 21
Shelley

And yes John. Thanks for helping me verbalize it. I started talking about County Rd 77 shoulder pedestrian and bicycle safety near the resort and Pier 77 mini golf. it felt like Mr Straba stepped in and pushed me aside and changed my public safety concerns iinto a drunk driver issue. Marcus seems to have only addressed Mr. Straba’s interpretation in his article today. So yes, I feel that they both were unfair. I think that the board should have a approved with the stipulation of a MnDOT review , along with the MPCA and Mn Department of Health. Not for a drunk driving but a County Rd pedestrianpublic safety assessment

| Thursday, March 21
Terri

Thank you Shelley for taking a risk and speaking out regarding this expansion. I have learned quite a bit after reading all the comments. I hope one result of all this discussion is that residents pay closer attention to their local government as the decisions they make are what directly affect our daily lives. And thank you Mr. Bassing for all your respectful and informative responses to Shelley. I really believe all this discussion will make a positive impact in Greenwood Township!

Thursday, March 21
John Bassing

There are new developments on this parcel. Are you aware, Shelley?

Saturday, March 23