By Robert Williams

Editor

Hawley residents Darlene and Jeffrey Hanson, applicants for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a wedding venue and event center at Whiskey Creek in Richwood Township, spoke to the Becker County Board of Commissioners Tuesday, Oct. 6, after appearing before the Planning and Zoning committee on Sept. 30.

The CUP was voted down 3-2 after a lengthy meeting full of neighborhood complaints and some untoward treatment of the applicants after a planning and zoning meeting.

At the Planning and Zoning meeting, Tammy Baden shared her concerns with proximity to her property, potential for reduced property values, and concerns with the road, width, and dust.

Steve Schutz shared concerns about opening the door to the whole neighborhood becoming a commercial area.

Betsy Nebgen doesn’t feel the necessary criteria have been met in order for this to be approved.

Liza McCaslin shared her concerns for road safety.

Scott McCaslin on behalf of Richwood Township stated that the township is neither for nor against this application, but if approved, they would want a road agreement in place.

Kaci Maves shared concerns for safety on the road with additional traffic.

Opposition continued Tuesday in front of the Board of Commissioners, as multiple speakers spoke out against the proposal.

“That road was built for horses, originally,” said Walter Erickson. “It has never been improved that much.”

Erickson described, in detail, that two trucks cannot currently meet and pass each other with no shoulder present. He also stated he has pulled 15-20 vehicles out of a ditch near the planned site.

“It’s just not the right place for it; the roads ain’t right and the population out there is nice and peaceful,” he said. 

“I don’t think it is an appropriate place for a commercial property; this is a rural, agricultural setting,” Liza McCaslin said. “The roads out there are narrow.”

Increased traffic on weekends, evenings and late nights, alcohol consumption and the people leaving the venue were other major concerns for McCaslin.

“That will go right by my house,” she said. “I’m just very fearful for the safety of myself, my children, my husband, our employees and neighbors,” McCaslin said in an emotional conclusion. “I hope you deny it.”

Tammy Baden, whose family lives across the road from the proposed venue location, also spoke against the project after noting she had communicated with the board already in multiple formats and did not want to rehash all the concerns again.

She highlighted her own review of the road in question as it was used on a recent Saturday evening from 4-6 p.m., noting there were 4-5 cars that passed. 

Her concerns were increasing traffic, noise violations, and negative impacts to her property value. 

“I think this is an incompatible use of a parcel that is zoned for agriculture,” said Baden. “I don’t think there is a way we can put a high capacity venue in there and not have future conflicts between the agricultural, the sportsmen, there are hunters in the area. It would create a lot of controversy in the area that will be left to us residents to solve. We’re not against growth; I just think it should be in a proper area.

Josie Anderson stressed the difficulty of winter driving in the area and potential damage to her property. She also was concerned about music and noise, lighting and light pollution.

“We chose to live there because there is not a lot of traffic and I think that will be detrimental to our way of living out there,” she said. 

Nicole Anderson spoke about the speed of drivers on the road and its implications of safety for pedestrians, children and pets.

She also brought up electricity and how in a blackout homes in that area are not always returned to full service in an expedient manner, which would affect the venue also.

Steve Schutz spoke in strong opposition, summing up the concerns his neighbors had already mentioned regarding property values, noise, increased traffic, safety, road maintenance and the overall effect this venue will have on the way of life on Whiskey Creek Drive.

“But there is one more thing that I’d like this board to consider: the people applying for this permit are not from Becker County and all of us that are opposing it are. Will this board act in accordance with the will of the residents of Becker County or will it side with an out-of-town business and fundamentally change the fabric of our neighborhood?” Schutz said.

Robin Anderson discussed the dangers on Whiskey Creek Drive and reiterated many of the other concerns of his neighbors.

Beth Pridday, a consultant with the Small Business Development Center representing the Hansons spoke in favor of her client’s request and explained some behavior she did not appreciate after planning and zoning.

“When I came to the hearing last week, I assumed this would be a conversation about the details that matter when you’re making a decision like this,” she said. “It kind of quickly turned into a mob mentality and a bit of bullying and I do want you to be aware of what happened.”

Pridday described the noticeable tension in the room of the Planning and Zoning meeting.

“But when we left we purposely let them go down the elevator and leave ahead of us because we could hear mumblings,” said Pridday. “Some of the mumblings I heard while we were standing in line for the elevator were, ‘We don’t want to be your neighbor.’ ‘Good luck finding the money to make that road driveable,’ and also some of the testimony was interesting to me…there was a lot of third party—I heard a guy say this and I heard a guy say that.”

Pridday continued discussing more conflict after Planning and Zoning.

“If we’re just going to stick to the facts, the Hansons have done their due diligence,” said Pridday. “They’ve answered all the questions and all the concerns. They went through the proper channels and the proper organizations and ultimately, when we went outside to leave, my client’s arm was grabbed and one of the group in the neighborhood here said, ‘This isn’t going to work out well for you’ in a threatening tone and also continued to follow them to their car until I finally told them to walk away. The Sheriff has been notified of this and I think you need to be aware of it, as well.”

Heather Hamlin discussed farm traffic and ATV and UTV traffic on the road discussing the difficulty of controlling dust or handling breakdowns. Her concerns were traffic and safety-related.

“I’m not opposed to anyone’s business; I think everyone has a right to own a business, but at the same time, I would like to reflect on how many event venues we do already have in the area. We have a lot of those venues where people can gather already.”

Commissioner Barry Nelson spoke against “spot zoning” commercial use in an ag area, citing the road as the most critical problem. Nelson believes venues like this should be located on paved roads accustomed to heavy traffic already with ease of access to the property.

He reiterated many of the concerns of the homeowners.

“The facility itself I don’t have a problem with, it’s the location of commercial things and I think that is where I’m leaning to not supporting at this location with the reasons being I think it will have a negative effect on property value, I think the noise and traffic will be detrimental to the neighbors, I think it impedes the ag community in the area and I think it has a nuisance with the light and noise. I am not in support of it.”

Board chair Erica Jepson called the road a “huge safety issue,” and stressed that a commercial property like this will negatively impact local farmers in the area.

Commissioner Richard Vareberg said he did not see the proposed venue being the worst thing and does not support controlling what people do with their property. 

“I don’t see the drop in property value side; I don’t see that happening,” he said.

When asked about the road issue he was not on the same page and most in the room.

“I think we all have to share the road,” he said. “When we need to improve the road we improve the road.”

Commissioner Phil Hansen made the motion to approve the CUP, seconded by Vareberg, but stated he would not want it open on Sundays and is concerned on the location of an entrance.

“There are some conditions I would have to have,” Vareberg said.

The application did not state exact days, but that it was a seasonal business that might be open year-round, anticipating mostly Thursday-Sundays.

Vareberg had other concerns like music would have to be inside, driveway location and no business on Sundays as “friendly amendments.”

Hansen then withdrew his motion and Vareberg dropped his second to make a new motion.

Nelson stepped in and made a motion to deny the CUP and Jepson seconded.

The roll call vote was 3-2 with Vareberg and Hansen voting against the denial.