The Grey Cloud Town Board met Wednesday, May 13 at 7 p.m. in the town hall. Among the items covered were township finances, road improvements on 105th Street, and several ordinance updates and repeals.
As for finance, the board reviewed the township’s financial position, shared by Supervisor Richard Polta in the absence of Treasurer Keshia Jones. The treasurer’s report for April 2026 showed a beginning checking balance of $266,738 and an ending balance of $259,987 after April expenses and revenues were accounted for. The township also holds $254,093 in investments through UBS, bringing total township assets to $514,081. It was noted that expenses were lower than the previous year because of reduced snow salt costs, while legal reimbursements and permitting fees also helped offset spending. Year-to-date spending totaled $58,944, with a deficit of $14,251 and total collected revenue of $44,693. The board unanimously approved the treasurer’s report and $6,435.74 in bills.
Following the treasurer’s report discussion shifted to the proposed repair and reconstruction project for 105th Street and Great Cloud Island Drive.
“The entire project we’re trying to do is 105th and Grey Cloud Island Drive,” Town Chair Phil Dupre said. “Between the two it comes in to a little over $1.1 million to do the project.” With 105th alone estimated at $430,000, the project will likely be phased over three to four years, with 105th Street this fall.
Those present discussed whether to retain or remove a small triangular “dog leg” section of roadway near the southern portion of the 105th Street project, with considerable discussion on whether an east-west leg connecting 105th Street was needed, or if the north-south leg would do to connect. Debate was also held on whether to reduce the thickness of the road base in an effort to save money. Polta proposed obtaining four separate bid options, comparing thicker and thinner road bases and including estimates both with and without the disputed roadway section.
Dupre appealed to cost.
“I’m representing this township on the costs of this road,” he said. The leg in question was a convenience issue, as engineering showed that the redesign could be done safely, with the project still in design phase.
Polta meanwhile disagreed on the road segment in question.
“Well here’s what I’d like to do about it,” he said of the matter. “We have a little disagreement on the triangular leg. I don’t want to do a vote with one person absent.”
Several residents also spoke during the discussion, expressing concerns about safety, traffic flow and preserving access to the roadway. One resident argued the section has been used by the public for decades and should not be eliminated permanently.
“If they discontinue it, (the road) will go back to the pit or whoever owns it,” he said of the disputed section, with clarification that the pit owned the road.
Another resident raised concerns about maneuvering trailers safely around the redesigned intersection, while another suggested leaving the roadway section in place without improving it until future road work is completed.
“I am not for this, on safety alone,” he said of removing the disputed road segment. “I wanted that on the record.”
No vote was taken Wednesday due to the absence of Supervisor Jake Jones.
Also May 13, the board pent significant time reviewing amendments to Ordinance 49.6 governing attached garages, accessory structures and pole buildings. The changes are intended to address increasingly large “barndominium”-style structures and clarify how attached and detached accessory building sizes are regulated.
Polta explained previous ordinances did not adequately regulate oversized attached garages, potentially allowing extremely large additions without restriction. Under the updated ordinance, residents may transfer allowable square footage from detached accessory buildings to attached structures, creating more flexibility while still maintaining size limitations.
“Previously if someone came and said ‘I want to build a 20,000 square foot addition on to my garage, we’d have to give it to them because we didn’t have any ordinances against it,” Polta said. The limit on outbuildings had led to the start of the ordinance update discussion. Polta had talked to Jones, who said to make it simple.”
“You can’t make it real simple,” Polta said. “You make it real simple and people have a tendency to take advantage of you.”
The board ultimately updated the zoning ordinance to allow for a 1,500 square foot accessory structures attached to a house and 3,000 square foot pole barns, or from nothing to a limit on attached buildings, provided that setbacks are met. Lots over 20.01 acres are unlimited, provided the buildings are agricultural. Smaller lots are restricted to limits by lot size, with residents able to transfer square footage from a pole barn to build a barndominium instead.
“Basically we’re allowing barndominiums,” Polta said of the ordinance update on accessory structures.
Town residents meanwhile questioned whether the township was becoming overly restrictive, particularly for rural property owners with larger lots. Chair Dupre shared his experience of coming to town in 1993, with 10 acres. The ordinance then didn’t distinguish allowed buildings by lot size.
“I was told, because they didn’t want small properties with big pole barns,” he said of wanting to build a bigger building. The township then had decided it wasn’t a good look. The updated ordinance allowed for larger accessory buildings than before, with some flexibility. The updates were ultimately approved, with lot size categories relevant to ordinance language including 2.5 acres, 2.5 to five acres, and 5.01 to 20 acres. A public hearing was held last month on the ordinance, with resolution 2026-07 utilized to make zoning changes official.
Also from Grey Cloud Town Board meanwhile, members voted to repealed outdated ordinances relating to voting procedures and trespassing regulations, with Clerk Pam Dupre saying that many provisions had been superseded by state law or incorporated into newer nuisance ordinances.
“I’ve been looking at our ordinances and a lot of them are outdated,” she said, with functions taken over by other governmental bodies or incorporated in other statutes, becoming redundant. The town board went by what the county said for voting ordinances, for instance.
“We go by what the county tells us we go by,” she said. “There’s nothing in the voting ordinance that we need.”
Included in ordinance repeals from May were Ordinance 23 related to voting and Ordinance 32 related to trespass. Both ordinances were then added to ordinance 63.3 on repealed ordinances, with Ordinance 47.1 on water and safety craft regulations revised to defer to state statute 86b, accessible online at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/86b.
“We can make stuff stricter than state law and what not, but if (state law) is higher you still have to follow it,” Polta said.
Additional board action included approval of election judges for the August primary and November general election, discussion of ongoing grading work on Pioneer Road, and a resolution requested by the Cottage Grove establishing no parking from sunset to sunrise at the causeway parking area on Grey Cloud Island Drive. Town board members passed Resolution 2026-08 to establish no parking from sunrise to sunset, as the parking area on Grey Cloud Island Drive was built by Cottage Grove but technically falls in the townships being a hangout for teenagers.
In other news from Grey Cloud, Chairman Dupre meanwhile said he had been in touch with the DNR on duck hunting, and that the DNR had agreed to send the local representative to the June town board meeting.
“Because there has been some confusion, and there have been some complaints,” he said on duck hunting and proximity to dwellings.
The next plan commission meeting at Grey Cloud is Monday, June 1 at 6:30 p.m., while the next town board meeting is Wednesday, June 10 at 6:30 p.m.
The public is welcome to attend.