The Grey Cloud Island Township Board met Wednesday, April 8 at 7 p.m. in the town hall. On the night’s meeting agenda were several items, including a discussion on 105th Street and two public hearings, one on zoning changes and another on a nuisance ordinance. The town board chose to table both ordinance matters for further review, with plans to take them up in May.
Starting the night out Wednesday was the Treasurer’s Report, given by supervisor Jake Jones. Board members reviewed the township’s financial position , which showed total assets of approximately $513,769 with UBS investments, assets divided into a checking account balance of about $266,738 and investments totaling $247,030.
Expenses for March were notably higher than the same period last year, largely due to increased snow removal and salt usage, even as legal and planning costs were lower. Revenues declined slightly, driven in part by reduced permit fee collections. Year-to-date, the township is operating at a deficit of roughly $7,500.
The board approved the Treasurer’s Report following review and authorized payment of approximately $7,953 in bills.
Also in news from April 8, board members discussed future involvement in the township’s 2050 comprehensive plan update, described as a time consuming and involved process. Plan Commission did not meet in April but will have a meeting May 5.
“How involved do you guys want to be in that?” supervisor Richard Polta asked Plan Commission members of the comprehensive plan, with Jones saying the Met Council had a new program to help small townships that the township planned to lean heavily upon, also seeking as much public involvement as possible.
Shared by town clerk Pam Dupre meanwhile was a reminder of the upcoming ditch cleanup on April 11, as well as a vendor boutique at the town hall with Laurie Kiszewski on May 2.
Taking up considerable time was a discussion of 105th Street and Grey Cloud Island Drive, with the intersection of 105th Street including a small segment of roadway for turnaround. Failure to turn north while on Grey Cloud Island Drive South led to a dead end road, and people’s driveways.
“A third of the cars that come from St. Paul Park drive down that road,” one commenter said. Redesigning 105th and opening it on the St. Paul Park side would potentially “create a monster” as more confused drivers could find themselves in other people’s driveway for failure to turn correctly.
“We’re also supposed to represent the residents and what they want,” Polta said. One option was to keep the road section in question as gravel, while eliminating or downgrading the road as a town road could reduce long-term maintenance expenses, including plowing and resurfacing. Practical road concerns included mail delivery, turnaround space for vehicles, and traffic patterns influenced by the road’s current layout. The road deemed “unnecessary” and costly to maintain by some, still awaited the engineer’s report.
“All of the residents down there want it to stay,” one board member noted, adding that multiple property owners had contacted officials to express support for keeping the road open. A resident who spoke argued that removing or altering the road could create unintended consequences, including increased traffic turning around in private driveways, while another cited “precedent” in the question of allowing private signs on a technically public road, as well as a nearby gravel pile used to maintain it, technically against ordinance.
“When you don’t have the signs down there you get unwelcome residents down there,” Polta said.
“Who doesn’t?” The resident concerned about precedent asked. With many potential issues, the matter of 105th Street was tabled for review.
Following the road discussion the town board recessed its regular meeting to hold a public hearing on two proposed ordinances: one for a zoning update related to Ordinance 49-6) and another for a nuisance ordinance amendment (58-2).
Much of the discussion focused on the nuisance ordinance, particularly a proposed change affecting hunting near residential areas.
The amendment would close a loophole that currently allows hunting within 500 feet of a residence if the individual is on a public waterway. Under the proposed change to section 10-4 of 58.2, that exception would be eliminated, indicating “public or private waterway” and thus making it illegal to discharge firearms in such proximity regardless of location.
Board members said the change was prompted by concerns from residents living near waterways, where hunting activity has led to safety concerns and, in some cases, property damage.
“We’ve had windows shot out over the years,” Polta said, arguing that the amendment is necessary to protect residents.
Public comment revealed mixed reactions. Some residents supported the added restriction, citing safety and quality-of-life concerns. Others argued that the change could unfairly limit lawful hunting, particularly for residents who rely on water access and may be within 500 feet of neighboring homes through no fault of their own. Resident Eduardo Valencia sought board commitment to enforcement if the ordinance was passed.
“All I’m saying is this is a very deliberate and detailed ordinance,” he said. “You’re our public officials. And again, on the record, whether you intend to uphold it or not.”
Town chairman Dupre said the purpose of the ordinance was to give a way to call the sheriff’s department on the matter.
“The DNR writes the ticket, the Sheriff writes the ticket. What do you want us to commit to?” he asked. Valencia sought commitment on the part of the town board to enforce those matters that came to the town board as opposed to the DNR or Sheriff.
Further discussion revealed one complaint recently of duck hunters on jet skis, with others on Pioneer Road in years past.
“My view is we’ve had one complaint recently,” Jones said. As such the ordinance was potentially too restrictive.
“One continual complaint,” Town clerk Pam Dupre said.
“I don’t want to jump to more restrictive without knowing what others do,” Jones said of municipal ordinance. Cottage Grove was mentioned among cities prohibiting shoreline hunting.
The matter was ultimately tabled for further research.
Also given a public hearing April 8 was a proposed change to accessory structures.
Polta shared that a resident named Tom Hill had applied in the past for a “barndominum,” leading in time to ordinance 49-6. Barndominiums were deemed to often look better than attached buildings, with proposed changes to subsection 4 of the ordinance delineating allowable square footage, with ordinance section and proposed changes as follows:
“Accessory structures when considered attached to the proposal building. Where a proposed structure had two or more attached accessory structures. The combined total square footage of all attached accessory structures shall be used in determining the allowable attached accessory structure size. The total ground level of attached accessory structure footprint shall not exceed the following square footages.”
Polta explained.
“Basically what this allows them to do is if you’re allowed a 2,000 square foot accessory building, you’re allowed to put that 2,000 square feet on your house instead,” he said. “But you’re not allowed to do another 2,000 square foot accessory building.”
If an attached garage exceeds the square footage meanwhile, it counts against the accessory building. Additional language clarified things further.
“b. The permitted sizes of accessory structures are as follows, where two or more accessory structures are allowed, the square footage of all structures shall be combined for allowable structure size determination. Where allowable accessory structures are considered attached to the principal structure, and the total combined square footage for all attached accessory structures exceeds the allowable square footage allowed for attached accessory structures. The square footage exceeding the allowable square footage for attached accessory structures shall be dedicated from allowable square footage allowed for accessory structures.”
Limits as stated in the change show parcels less than 2.5 acres limited to a 1,000 square foot accessory structure, those from 2.5 to five acres limited to a 2,000 square foot accessory structure, those from 5.01 to 20 acres limited to a 2,500 square foot accessory structure, and those 20.01 acres or more not limited.
The second proposed ordinance was also tabled for review.
Also from April 8, meanwhile, Ben Humley was sworn in as a Plan Commission member, motion to appoint made by Polta seconded by Jones.
The next Grey Cloud Town Board meeting is scheduled for May 13 at 7 p.m. The public is invited and welcome to attend.