Laserfiche WebLink
4-1 <br /> DECEMBER 19, 1977 1 c) 7 <br /> 5.3 Bald Eagle Sportsman Association - Special Use Permit <br /> LaValle stated that the association is requesting to continue operating as gun club <br /> and recreational facility. The club is an open use of land, and had to conform to <br /> Hugo's ordinance within 3 years of January 9, 1975. Facilities were added in the <br /> summer of 1977 without any permits. Their application was denied by the Planning <br /> Commission until those facilities are removed. Mr. William Peters, Bald Eagle's <br /> attorney, stated that the Planning Copmission motion indicated that the skeet houses <br /> be removed because they constituted an intensification of the use. It was his deter- <br /> mination that the addition of the skeet houses detensified the use, because it <br /> takes twice as long to shoot a round of skeet than trap. There is also less lead <br /> fall and noise pollution. Mr. Peters used the blackboard to demonstrate how <br /> trap and skeet functions. LaValle felt that the intensification aspect should <br /> not even be considered. The Special Use Permit should be considered as a new <br /> application - total facility as they plan to run it. <br /> MOTION: Schletty made motion, seconded by Irsfeld, to send the request for <br /> a Special Use Permit by the Bald Eagle Sportsman Association back <br /> to the Planning Commission. <br /> VOTING FOR: Schletty <br /> VOTING AGAINST: LaValle, Spitzer, Irsfeld, and Vail. <br /> MOTION FAILED <br /> MOTION: Spitzer made motion, seconded by Vail, that the matter of the <br /> Bald Eagle Sportsman Association request for a Special Use <br /> Permit be remanded to the Planning Commission and that they <br /> consider this matter as a new Special Use Permit in all its <br /> particulars, and specifically that the alleged intensification <br /> has no bearing except as they consider future restrictions. <br /> Attorney Johnson stated that it is not a lawful non-conforming use if it was intensified. <br /> VOTING FOR: LaValle, Spitzer, Irsfeld, and Vail <br /> VOTING AGAINST: Schletty <br /> MOTION CARRIED <br /> 5.4 White Bear Rod & Gun Club - Filling of Rice Lake <br /> LaValle stated that engineer Kuusisto was requested to review the application of the <br /> gun club as submitted to DNR and make a recommendation. Mr. Kuusisto was unable to <br /> make a report due to lack of technical data. LaValle stated that the City of Hugo <br /> was not going to incur the cost of extensive soils work. It was his understanding that <br /> the club was gathering thisinformation for Rice Creek and the DNR. <br /> MOTION: Spitzer made motion, seconded by Irsfeld, that the City of Hugo <br /> advise the Department of Natural Resources that the applicant for <br /> this permit has not provided sufficient information to ascertain <br /> the effect of the proposed project on the city's plans or ordin- <br /> ances. For that reason, we are requesting that the DNR take no <br />