On the agenda: Center City meeting — data center (Oct 1)

Meeting Agenda
October 1, 2026 | 7:00 pm
Chisago County Government Center | 313 N. Main Street | Board Room 160A | Center City, MN 55012
Due to the nature of the public hearings included on the agenda, the Planning Commission’s
Wednesday, September 30, 2026 tour has been CANCELED.
1.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

2.

Roll Call and Determination of a Quorum

3.

Approval of Agenda

4.

Approval of Minutes

a.
5.

Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record
a.

6.

September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting
Complete meeting packet including attachments for agenda items 4a, 6a, 7a, and 11a

Public Hearings – New Hearings
a. Chisago County Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Section 4.20 Cannabis Cultivation, Production,
Manufacture, and Sale – Chisago County is seeking public comment on an Amendment to Zoning
Ordinance Section 4.20 Cannabis Cultivation, Production, Manufacture, and Sale. The purpose of the
proposed Amendment is to place further time, place, and manner restrictions on the outdoor cultivation of
cannabis in the Agricultural (AG) Zoning District pursuant to Minnesota Statute §342.13, including
implementation of a minimum parcel size required for the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and
implementation of minimum setbacks from residentially zoned and residentially used property, existing
residences, and roadways.

7.

Public Hearings – Continued Hearings

a. Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment – Chisago County is seeking comment on the proposed
repeal of Ordinance No. 12-1 Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance and all Amendments thereto
and adoption of a new Floodplain Management Ordinance in its place. The purpose of the proposed
Ordinance Amendment is to address deficiencies within the 2012 Floodplain Management Ordinance by, but
not limited to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new section pertaining to permitted activities,
providing a modernization of the section pertaining to Variances, including and amending definitions based
on the Minnesota DNR Model Ordinance, and enhancing the penalties and enforcement provisions. Most
sections of the Floodplain Management Ordinance will be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The
predominant adjustments included within the draft Floodplain Management Ordinance utilize direct language
from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified Model Floodplain Ordinance.
8.

Old Business
None

9.

New Business

10. Communications and Reports

a.

County Board Liaison Reports – Commissioners Greene and Dahlberg

11. Miscellaneous

a.

Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix

12. Adjourn Meeting
•
•

The next special work session is scheduled for Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 6:00 pm.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 5, 2026 at 7:00 pm.

CHISAGO COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
September 3, 2026
The Chisago County Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 3, 2026
at the Chisago County Government Center.
Staff Present: Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator; Kurt Schneider, Director of Environmental Services; and
Sarah Scheunemann, Office Support Specialist – Land Services.
Chair Wille called the meeting to order and led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. A roll call of
Commission members was taken. Commission members present: Eric Leivian, Chip Yeager, Chris DuBose, Jim
McCarthy, Dave Whitney, John Sutcliffe and Jolene Wille. Absent: None. A quorum was established. Also
present: Ex Officio County Commissioners Rick Greene and Dan Dahlberg.
Approval of Agenda – DuBose requested discussion regarding cannabis under New Business. Motion by
DuBose to approve the agenda as amended; second by Sutcliffe. The motion passed 7-0.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Yeager to approve the August 6, 2026 regular meeting minutes as
presented; second by Leivian. The motion passed 7-0.
Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record – Motion by Sutcliffe to accept all materials and
submittals into the record, including four written testimonies for item no. 7a (Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club,
Inc.) provided by Kevin & Tammy Carlson and Kathleen Carlson, Rick Olseen, Deborah Olson, and Brad
Bjorklund; second by DuBose. The motion passed 7-0. Materials distributed to the Planning Commission in
advance of the meeting for their review included the full meeting packet with meeting minutes, staff reports
and attachments. Copies of all meeting materials were made available for the public.
Public Hearings – New Hearings – None
Public Hearings – Continued Hearings
Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc. – Gervais stated that property owner Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc.
was requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Commercial Recreation Area that would allow up to 15
annual events, in addition to the annual Hay Days event, including events focused on educational, youth and
community programs, social gatherings, and cultural and festival gatherings. The combined 140± acre
subject site was located within the Agricultural (AG) District at 38740 Oriole Avenue / CR 70 in Sunrise
Township, S22, T35, R20 (PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00).
Gervais provided a brief recap of the request explaining that, after opening the public hearing and receiving
public testimony on July 2, 2026 and discussing the request, the Planning Commission motioned to continue
the public hearing to September 3, 2026 and extend the review period by 60 days. Among other reasons, this
extended review period allowed Commissioners opportunity to submit comments and questions about the
application to staff to be forwarded to the applicants for consideration of a clarified and/or amended
application. The applicants received notice of the extended review period, compiled Planning Commissioner
feedback, and draft July 2, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes via correspondence dated July 10,
2026. In response, the applicants submitted a revised application dated July 30, 2026.
Upon review of the July 30th application, staff noted the following observed amendments from the previous
application(s):

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 1 of 14

•

The original application included three parcels, two within Sunrise Township and one within Amador
Township. With no activities proposed on the Amador Township parcel, the applicants removed this
parcel from the amended application. This revision resulted in a second review and recommendation
from Sunrise Township, but no second formal review or recommendation sought from Amador Township.
However, the Department provided a courtesy copy of the amended application to Amador Township
via email on July 31, 2026.

•

With each version of the application, the proposed maximum number of event attendees had been
reduced.

•

The written narrative provided more detailed descriptions for the three proposed event categories, as
well as proposed maximums for each event category per year.

•

The written narrative noted that no events would be held on the same weekend as the Almelund
Threshing Show.

•

The written narrative included a 60-day notice to the Department of Environmental Services of
scheduled events as well as attendance numbers provided 60-day post event.

At the July 2nd meeting, Commissioner McCarthy introduced the issue of “segmenting” as a means for the
property owner to more easily gain approval for multiple/separate applications rather than seek approval for
a single comprehensive application. In response, the County Attorney’s Office provided a legal opinion memo
to the Planning Commission. Gervais provided excerpts from the memo, including a general definition of
segmenting or piecemealing, the fact that the term “segmented Conditional Use Permit” didn’t exist in
Minnesota’s land use and zoning law and was therefore not regulated by Minnesota law, and a conclusion that
a “segmented CUP application” was not prohibited. The County Attorney’s Office advised that the Planning
Commission must review the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application no differently than it would a single CUP
Application.
Gervais provided details about the amended July 30, 2026 application, noting the following updates along
with updated Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4, & D5:
•
Educational, youth and community programs would have a maximum attendance of 600.
•
•

Social gatherings would have a maximum attendance of 1,500.
Cultural and festival gatherings would have a maximum attendance of 3,000.

•
•

Events would not take place during the weekend of the Almelund Threshing Show.
The property owner proposed to coordinate with Department of Environmental Services and Sheriff’s

•

Office staff 60 days prior to events to provide the most adequate approach to any concerns.
There would be no fireworks without permission.

Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical/Plat Review Committee
received the amended July 30, 2026 application for review on August 12, 2026, but no members of the
Committee provided additional comments. Gervais reminded the Commission that the Chisago County
Sheriff’s Office had provided two suggested conditions relating to security plans and the permit holder’s
responsibility for any extraordinary law enforcement costs. The Sunrise Town Board considered the amended
application on August 20, 2026 and again recommended denial and provided applicable portions of the
meeting minutes. The extended review period was scheduled to expire on October 1, 2026.
Gervais informed the Planning Commission that staff had prepared two draft resolutions for the Planning
Commission’s consideration, one offered draft findings of fact and draft conditions to support a
recommendation of approval and the other offered draft findings of fact to support a recommendation of
denial, and reviewed options available to the Commission.
Chair Wille invited the applicants to address the Planning Commission. Sno-Baron’s representatives Meshell
Gorsegner, Attorney Adam Ripple, and Ed Stofferahn approached the Commission. DuBose asked Stoffer what
his role is with the Sno-Baron’s was. Stoffer shared that he had been with the club for about a year and a half
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 2 of 14

and had some experience / knowledge with Planning Commissions and offered to help. Attorney Ripple
provided the Planning Commission with a five-page letter in response to concerns raised by Sunrise Township
Officials and recent public testimony. Attorney Ripple began the discussion by sharing that the July 30, 2026
amended application was significantly different from the application initially submitted. He explained that the
Sno- Baron’s listened to the concerns that had been expressed and had substantially narrowed and clarified
the request. Attorney Ripple reiterated that the revised application had established defined event categories
and annual limits, reduced attendance limits, limited hours of operation, advanced notice requirements, traffic
planning requirements, Sheriff-approved security plans, and responsibility for extraordinary law enforcement
costs. Attorney Ripple noted that they expressly prohibited activities that have generated concern, including
sno-cross, go-carts, ATVs, and similar racing, drag racing, outdoor amplified music and concerts, fireworks,
firearm activities, off-site parking, and events extending beyond the property. The purpose of the application
was for the Sno-Baron’s to accommodate reasonable community events such as a cross-country meet while
at the same time not confining them. Attorney Ripple summarized the letter he presented to the Commission.
•
The pending application was separate from the existing Hay Days CUP.
•

The proposed events were not comparable to Hay Days. The pending application did not seek
authorization for 15 additional Hay Days events. No more than six events may have attendances of up to
600 people; no more than six may have attendances of up to 1,500 people; and no more than three may
have attendances of up to 3,000 people.

•

Multiple events were not inherently incompatible with the agricultural district or the rural character of the
area.
o

Sunrise Township officials and others expressed concern that permitting 15 events would be
incompatible with the rural character of Sunrise Township.

o

The County had already determined through its Zoning Ordinance that Commercial Recreation was
an allowable Conditional Use in the Agricultural District and the relevant question was therefore
whether the particular use proposed by Sno-Baron’s, was subject to appropriate conditions, and
satisfied the County’s CUP Standard.
▪

Existing CUPs that were mentioned were the Sunrise Town Hall CUP and the Almelund Threshing
Show’s CUP, noting that many of the proposed activities were comparable to activities included
within the Sno-Barons’ proposed Educational, Youth and Community Event categories.

McCarthy raised a procedural concern regarding Attorney Ripple’s questioning of comments made by others.
Attorney Ripple stated that the Board meeting minutes had been incorporated into the record and were
matters the Board could consider, and that addressing them was therefore appropriate. Chair Wille clarified
that they had not reopened the public hearing and they were only hearing from the applicant at this time.
Attorney Ripple continued by adding:
•

Financial benefit to Sunrise Township was not a CUP Criterion.
o A CUP proceeding was a land-use proceeding and approval should not depend on the amount of tax

•

revenue, donations, expenditures, or other financial benefit an applicant provided to a township.
The proposed CUP contained objective and enforceable conditions.

•

The application should be evaluated based upon the applicable CUP criteria and evidence in the record.

Motion by DuBose to take a ten-minute recess to allow the Planning Commission opportunity to review the
letter provided by Attorney Ripple; second by McCarthy. McCarthy shared that he wished he had an
opportunity to speak with Assistant County Attorney Fuge about the topic of segmenting. McCarthy shared
that the principle of segmentation was embodied in the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). MEPA
required that an applicant identify all phases of a project. The permits were the phases of the projects.
McCarthy recollected that Sno-Baron’s was required to complete an environmental impact statement due to
the size of Hay Days and Chisago County signed that document as the LGU. McCarthy concluded that
segmentation occurs in the environmental impact statement and the permits are the phases of the project.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 3 of 14

Motion by DuBose to take a ten-minute recess to allow the Planning Commission opportunity to review the
letter provided by Attorney Ripple; second by Yeager. The motion passed 7-0.
Recess: The meeting recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m.
Chair Wille asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments after reading the letter
provided by Attorney Ripple. DuBose asked staff about the approval history of the Almelund Threshing Show
CUP. Gervais stated that it was originally approved in 1991 and amended in 2007. DuBose asked about the
capacity of Sunrise Town Hall. Audience member Adam Grobove, Sunrise Township Supervisor, stated that the
capacity was approximately 250 people, although the Township preferred to limit attendance to 100 people.
With no additional questions, Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment.
Lin Strong of 15695 368th Street voiced concerns with the impact to community events in the area and would
not appreciate competition with Sno-Baron’s events. Strong stated that Sno-Baron’s would be the only entity
to benefit from events held on the property, while Sunrise and Amador Townships would receive no benefit
and could experience additional impacts. Strong noted that Chisago County had numerous Conditional Use
Permits (CUPs) regulated by the Environmental Services Office and only one Code Enforcement Officer for the
entire County. She stated that the Code Enforcement Officer was responsible for CUP enforcement as well as
other property violations. Strong stated that a CUP ran with the property and that, if the property was sold, the
new owner would inherit the existing CUP. She also stated that a CUP was not easily revoked. Strong expressed
concerns that each event would result in additional traffic on Highway 95 and could place additional
demands on emergency services. She stated that, contrary to statements that neighboring residents
supported the proposed event center, she was not aware of neighbors other than Sno-Baron’s members who
supported living near an event center. She stated that residents were concerned about the potential noise
and disruption associated with the proposed events. Strong questioned who from the Sno-Baron’s would be
present on site for the entirety of each event, which events would not be permitted, who would enforce noise
and sound requirements, and who would be responsible for monitoring attendance, particularly because
some of the proposed events would not require tickets. Strong concluded by stating that the area was rural
and that residents valued peace and quiet and did not want to live next to an event center.
Stephanie Larson of 39212 Prak Trail shared that when the annual Hay Days event first began, it was chaotic;
however, in the years since, she thought it had gotten better. Larson noted that she and her husband had
observed increased activity at area hotels, restaurants, bars, and gas stations and that the property owner
was just asking to hold events that were really good for the community. Larson believed that the Sno-Baron’s
were a good community partner and she offered support for the request.
Bridgit Olson of XXXX Park Trail shared general concern with the County’s lack of enforcement of CUPs and
encouraged the County to address enforcement before approving the requested CUP.
Perry Lindberg of 13340 375th Street shared that he had learned to live with the annual Hay Days event. He
explained that he would wake up at 3:00 am on the Thursday prior to the event to the trucks lined up on the
road outside without being able to leave his property until 12:00 pm on Friday. Lindberg questioned how a new
CUP could be granted when the property owner was violating conditions of the Hay Days CUP, noting that
when the property owner requested the Hay Days CUP, it was supposed to be a two-day event and now it was
a three-day event. Lindberg noted that the property owner claimed Hay Days attendance of 15,000 people;
however, a Google search revealed a reported attendance of 100,000 people. Lindberg expressed concerns
that Sno-Baron’s was not being truthful.
Jeff Oestreich of 36835 Pottery Trail shared that he was speaking on behalf of his neighbors on Pottery Trail
and they were not in support of the requested CUP. Oestreich commented that he moved to his property in
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 4 of 14

1974 and noticed over the last several years that at 9:00 pm, when it is supposed to be quiet, it was noisy and
he could hear a roaring sound requiring him to close his windows.
Richard Scarrow of 38422 Oasis Road expressed concern with the increased traffic due to the additional
events. Additionally, Scarrow voiced concern that the property owner had a liquor license for the Hay Days
event, and that he would not know when these additional events would take place. Scarrow concluded by
stating that he didn’t believe the number of events would stop at 15.
Kelsey Zaavedra of 40422 Oriole Avenue shared, in response to Lin Strong’s testimony, that she could not have
her local farm shop open on the weekend of the Hay Days event and the weekend leading up to the event due
to the roads being too congested. Zaavedra posed a question to the County inquiring why they were
considering a CUP that appeared to go against the purpose and function of the existing zoning rules.
Zaavedra shared that the purpose and function of zoning was to guide development, protect natural
resources, and prevent incompatible uses from fundamentally changing communities. Zaavedra also
questioned at what point an application was deemed inappropriate for the land.
John Brekke of 37125 Silver Avenue stated that he had 40 years of experience in organizational development.
Brekke expressed concern that the Commission appeared to be focused on the potential implications of the
request and stated that focusing primarily on short-term implications could detract from long-term thinking.
Brekke referenced the book The Tipping Point, which discussed events or circumstances that could change the
way people thought about an issue or action. Brekke questioned whether the Commission was at a “tipping
point.”
Will Swanson of 41421 Ferry Road stated that he agreed with Kelsey Zaavedra’s testimony and added that it
seemed that the request was for a general use permit. Swanson stated that, although the property owner
added more detail to the application, the application overall was still very general. Swanson voiced that the
purpose of the request was primarily to generate money.
Jewell Peterson of 38157 Oriole Avenue stated that she was a farmer and had been neighbors with the subject
site for 50 years and had witnessed significant changes in the area over the years. Peterson stated that the
activities proposed by Sno-Baron’s would provide opportunities for children and grandchildren, including
activities for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and that the intent was not primarily to generate revenue. Peterson
emphasized the importance of the community working together and stated that there should not be opposing
sides. Peterson stated that the proposed activities would provide additional opportunities for children in the
area. Peterson stated that she had no concerns regarding traffic or access for emergency services.
Kevin Carlson of 37345 Oriole Avenue stated that he and his family had lived in the area for more than 60
years and that the impacts of the annual Hay Days event were significant for those who lived, worked, and
operated farms nearby. Carlson expressed concern about the size and scope of the request and the
additional number of events proposed, stating that he believed the impacts would increase accordingly.
Carlson stated that he did not financially benefit from the Hay Days event and preferred to live in the area
quietly. Carlson also noted that he had submitted written testimony for the Commission’s consideration.
Matt Wright of 39233 Pebble Avenue shared that he was present at the Amador Town Board meeting and
additional information was brought up by Sno-Baron’s, such as taxes being high and needing to figure out a
way to off-set taxes. Wright added that he believed that residents of Amador Township didn’t care about their
property taxes and were willing to pay them in order to live in the country. He concluded by sharing that there
was more involved than simply being a community. Wright stated that he supported community events and
was somewhat supportive of the application; however, he believed that 15 events would be too many.
Aaron Grote of 13890 St. Croix Trail stated that he had read the full application and could see how it had
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 5 of 14

evolved over time, adding that he appreciated the process. Grote stated that he believed the proposed
approval conditions were well scoped. Grote noted apprehension about the possibility of the events becoming
larger. Grote expressed concern that his family would not have access to emergency services. Grote stated
that more frequent and larger-scale events had impacts on neighboring properties.
Tim Smith of 14946 410th Street noted that he submitted written testimony and shared concerns about poor
cell service during the annual Hay Days events which impacted his ability to work from home. He added that,
during the week of Hay Days, he had to pack up his work equipment and work from a different location. While
he considered this a one-weekend inconvenience, Smith expressed concern that additional events could
cause the issue to become more than a minor inconvenience. Smith also voiced concerns regarding safety,
the potential for increased traffic-related accidents, and enforcement.
Meshell Gorsegner of 12511 251st Street, Zimmerman, MN stated that she was a Sno-Baron’s member and
wanted to articulate all the other events that were held in the area. Gorsegner noted that the Almelund
Threshing Show was allowed 30 days for events. Gorsegner stated that the Sno-Baron’s supported the
Threshing Show and would like to open the property to the event; however, they were currently unable to do so.
Gorsegner added that Sunrise Town Hall was able to host up to 24 events annually with limited conditions and
attendance was not monitored. She stated that the conditions included in the amended application had been
added by the Sno-Baron’s in response to community concerns and feedback. Gorsegner concluded by stating
that the property owner’s intent was to host small events.
Miles Haugo of 37235 Quinlan Avenue stated that he had attended Hay Days when it was located near Forest
Lake, MN, and had lived in Almelund since 1999. Haugo stated that he was pleased when the event moved to
its current location. He described the Sno-Baron’s as wonderful people and stated that, in the event of an
emergency or if something were blocking access, the Sno-Baron’s would do whatever was necessary to
provide assistance. Haugo noted that 15 events would be a lot; however, he did not have an issue with the
events as long as they were contained to the property.
Mary Carlson of 13884 St. Croix Trail stated that the first year of the annual Hay Days event had been a
nightmare, noting that she didn’t have cell service and was unable to get out of her driveway. Carlson shared
that her husband worked for the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office and that public safety was a priority for their
family. She stated that she did not believe the event was safe. Carlson acknowledged that conditions had
improved but noted that the noise remained loud at night. She stated that she and her family could manage
one weekend a year and planned to stay home; however, she believed 15 added events were too many.
Carlson shared that her family was the fifth generation on the farm, that they enjoyed their country living, and
encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the impact on neighboring properties.
With no additional members of the audience wishing to speak, motion by McCarthy to close the public
hearing; second by Yeager. The motion passed 7-0.
Leivian began the discussion by referencing Zoning Ordinance Section 5.06, Agricultural (AG) District,
subsection C., Conditional Uses. Leivian read item No. 7 (Commercial Recreation Area) and stated that his
understanding of “commercial recreation” was that it referred to a specific recreational use anchored by a
primary recreational use, such as a waterpark or golf course. Leivian then noted that, in 2025, the County
Board enacted Ordinance No. 2025/0820-2, which specifically addressed Rural Retail Tourism which allowed
event venues. He stated that the Ordinance separated event venues into three classes and established 17
criteria and requirements. Leivian stated that he did not understand why the proposed event venue was not
submitted as Rural Retail Tourism, as he did not see a primary recreational use on the subject property.
McCarthy stated that he agreed with Leivian’s perspective and had tried to understand why the application
was submitted as Commercial Recreation. McCarthy shared that he had a better understanding after he read
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 6 of 14

Attorney Ripple’s letter which noted that economic activity was inherently commercial recreation. However,
McCarthy noted that, based on the amended application materials, the proposal appeared more consistent
with an event center or Rural Retail Tourism rather than Commercial Recreation and stated that it should
instead be considered under that provision.
Chair Wille sought clarification from staff, noting that her understanding of the process was that the
application was submitted by the applicant under the land use category they chose. There was a brief
conversation between Gervais and Wille about the current application and the applicants’ decision to request
approval for Commercial Recreation Area. Director Schneider added to the conversation by sharing that the
section of the Zoning Ordinance referenced by Commissioner Leivian provided context for Commercial
Recreation Areas, as well as the Ordinance containing a broader definition of Commercial Recreation within its
definitions section. He stated that the broader definition provided additional context and may have factored
into the applicants’ decision to apply under the Commercial Recreation Area land use classification. The
Planning Commission continued discussion about the Commercial Recreation Area and Rural Retail Tourism
land use categories, noting the following:
•
The application proposed certain events which were similar to events listed in the Zoning Ordinance as
•

examples of Rural Retail Tourism.
There was a vast difference between the proposed number of attendees (600-3000), and Rural Retail

•

Tourism which would allow a maximum of 200 attendees.
There were concerns with allowing an event center under the land use category of Commercial Recreation
Area.

DuBose voiced several concerns, noting that he had attended the Amador Town Board meeting in June and
had spoken with Sunrise Township and Shafer Township Supervisors. One concern discussed was the potential
strain on the Almelund Fire Department and emergency services, as the fire department was volunteer-based
and had limited resources. DuBose stated that, if the Almelund Fire Department could not accommodate an
event, he would like to add a condition requiring that the Sno-Baron’s arrange for a third-party emergency
service provider. DuBose also noted that he would like to amend staff-recommended condition 5.b. to include
“emergency services”. Whitney shared that he had a condition drafted which reflected DuBose’s suggestion
for adding “emergency services” and would present during the discussion on conditions.
DuBose stated that he understood that Hay Days was an annual event and that residents who did not favor
the event could make plans accordingly. He noted that the Planning Commission did what they could to
mitigate impacts of the event. However, DuBose stated that he was concerned about 15 additional events,
particularly because some events could span multiple days, and acknowledged the community’s concerns
regarding noise. DuBose stated that, based on his conversations with community members, there was support
for the smaller events listed under Educational, Youth, and Community Programs with a maximum attendance
of 600. He proposed approving the six Educational, Youth, and Community events, along with one Social
Gathering event and one Cultural and Festival Gathering event, for a total of eight events. McCarthy raised
concern that the Commission did not have the ability to negotiate the number of events. A discussion followed
between McCarthy and DuBose regarding whether the Commission could modify the number of events.
DuBose stated that he believed the Commission could make such adjustments, noting that, on other CUP
applications, the Commission could recommend conditions such as screening requirements and setbacks to
mitigate impacts. DuBose again stated that he would be comfortable approving the six Educational, Youth,
and Community events, along with one Social Gathering event and one Cultural and Festival Gathering event,
for a total of eight events. He noted that this would be approximately half of the proposed events. DuBose also
suggested adding a condition limiting the total number of event days to 15 days per calendar year.
McCarthy stated that words mattered and expressed appreciation for the written testimony submitted by
former County Commissioner Rick Olseen. McCarthy stated that Olseen and former Commissioner Mike
Robinson had based their votes on the Hay Days CUP, in part, on the understanding that the event would occur
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 7 of 14

only one weekend per year. He noted that Commissioner Robinson had asked the Sno-Baron’s prior to the vote
whether the one-weekend event was all they intended to hold, and they had responded affirmatively.
McCarthy stated that he believed that when a promise was made and the County Board acted upon it, the
promise had value.
Whitney stated that he agreed with Commissioner DuBose’s comments and had prepared a document
addressing DuBose’s concerns, which he would distribute. Before doing so, however, Whitney wanted to
address additional concerns regarding the application and its potential impact on future CUP requests.
Whitney stated that he had served on the Chisago County Planning Commission for 29 years and had never
encountered a CUP request that was as broad and undefined in scope as the current application. He noted
that the application requested approval for dozens of different types of events under a single CUP, which he
stated to his knowledge had never been done in the past. Concerns raised by Whitney included the following:
•

Events proposed, such as vehicle expos, outdoor tradeshows, heavy equipment expos, and animal expos,
would typically require separate / individual IUP or CUP applications with conditions.

•

The applicants had two months to appropriately define the limits and conditions of each of the events
allowed under the current application.

•
•

The application did not explain the scope of the event or the activities involved.
The requested CUP presented enforcement issues.

•

There was a lack of event details and scope of events, which would set a precedent for future CUP
requests.

•

The term “such as”, used in staff-recommended condition 2.d. provided potential for an open-door policy
for the inclusion of events not specifically listed.

Whitney concluded by stating that this was a unique CUP request with potential for many unexpected and
negative consequences for local residents and the County Board if the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the application as presented and without providing additional conditions.
Yeager added to the conversation by referring to the legal opinion memo provided by the County Attorney’s
Office which “cautions the Planning Commission from making a recommendation on the current Sno-Baron’s
CUP Application that adopts as its rationale the reasons of the County Board in denying the 2015 application to
amend the Hay Days CUP. That is not to say that an independent review of the record on the current SnoBaron’s application would not support conclusions similar to those reached”. Yeager then made reference to
staff’s draft finding of fact no. 5 included in the draft resolution for denial.
Whitney passed out the document which he had prepared and discussed earlier and provided a verbal
summary of the document, noting that he provided suggested amendments to some of the staffrecommended conditions.
•

#2 Number and Duration of Events and Attendance
o A. No more than 11 annual events in addition to Hay Days
o

B. January through March - 2 events; April through June - 4 events; July through September - 2 events;
October through December - 3 events.

o
o

C. No more than two (2) of the 11 permitted events shall of multi-day...
D. All events shall be categorized and permitted as follows:
▪

▪

Social Gatherings:
•
Maximum of three (3) events per calendar year
•
The written 60 day notice under cultural and festival gatherings
Cultural & Festival Gatherings
•
•

Maximum of two (2) events per calendar year
Permitted events include…
o

Outdoor Trade Shows: might include: Equipment displays, product demonstrations /
equipment testing (allowing customers to see and operate equipment), competitions
(equipment operator contests or demonstrations) as well as tents, stages, booths, etc.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 8 of 14

o

Heavy Equipment Expos: Heavy equipment expos can be merely “displaying equipment”
but can include demonstrations such as excavating and moving soil, grading and
leveling, demolition, brush and tree clearing, equipment obstacle courses, “test drives”,
equipment operator competitions maintenance and repair demonstrations, etc. For landuse purposes merely displaying equipment especially if there is excavation, grading,
hauling, demolition, noise, dust, or repeated equipment traffic.

o

E. Prohibited events top of page 6 “… discharge of firearms and/or firearms training; off-site parking;
rodeos; manned and unmanned drones; gyro aircraft, ultralights, gliders, flying cars, and other
similar type vehicles and events which leave the boundaries of parcels 09.00269.00 and
09.00271.00.

•

# 5 Law Enforcement, security and other Emergency Services
o “The permit holder is responsible for any extraordinary law enforcement and emergency services
costs related to the events.

McCarthy shared that the Planning Commission should be reviewing the application as it was presented and
should not be negotiating the specifics of the application. Motion by McCarthy to adopt Resolution No.
PC2026-0901, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago County, Minnesota, recommending denial
of a Conditional Use Permit allowing Commercial Recreation Area activities on parcels identified as PIDs
09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00 in Sunrise Township, with Findings of Fact as presented. McCarthy provided an
explanation for his recommendation of denial, stating that Sno-Baron’s had made a promise during the Hay
Days CUP application process and words mattered to him. He also believed that the proposed uses were Rural
Retail Tourism and not Commercial Recreation. The motion was seconded by Leivian. Whitney shared that he
was going to vote against the motion and would like to try to address concerns through conditions. Sutcliffe,
DuBose, and Wille concurred with Whitney. McCarthy stated that he was not opposed to establishing
conditions; however, he noted that the application before the Commission was a request for 15 events.
McCarthy asked staff whether the Commission was permitted to modify the parameters of an application
through conditions. Schneider provided guidance stating that the Commission could create Commission
generated conditions and that the Planning Commission was merely providing a recommendation to the
County Board. Schneider acknowledged the complexity of crafting conditions and how the result could
essentially be an altered application. Schneider offered that staff would submit the Commission’s
recommendation to the County Attorney’s Office to be evaluated prior to the September 16, 2026 County
Board meeting. The motion failed 3-4, with Yeager, McCarthy, and Leivian voting in favor; and, Whitney,
Sutcliffe, DuBose, and Wille voted against.
The Planning Commission continued deliberation of the request as summarized below.
•
Number of events: The Commission discussed a reduction in the number of events, including six events for
Educational, Youth & Community Programs, one for Social Gathering, and one for Cultural and Festival
Gathering, with a maximum of 15 event days. Sutcliffe inquired if the Commission could list the types of
events which would be permitted. Schneider stated that the Commission could be as detailed as they
wished.
•

•
•

With concern for the capacity and availability of the Almelund Fire Department, the Commission
discussed adding a condition offering the Department the first option to participate and, if the Department
declines, Sno-Baron’s shall provide another qualified department to provide emergency services.
The Commission discussed adding “emergency services” to staff-recommended condition no. 5.b.
Notification to staff about upcoming events: DuBose inquired whether the applicant would be required to
notify staff of upcoming events so staff could review the event and determine whether it exceeded the
definition or scope of the approved CUP. Schneider stated that staff would review the proposed event
based on a reasonable interpretation of the CUP and, if the event appeared to exceed the approved
scope, the applicant would be notified. Schneider cautioned the Commission, however, about the level of
staff oversight that would be required. He noted that the County’s enforcement activities were primarily
complaint-based and that staff did not have the resources to actively monitor all Conditional Use Permits.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 9 of 14

Wille inquired if the Planning Commission had historically required this type of notification for other CUPs.
Yeager shared that the only requirement thus far had been to notify the County once a year through the
“Intent to Continue” process. Whitney shared that there had never been a CUP request before with the
number of projected attendees and the number of proposed events. DuBose added that a notification
would be good as this would allow the Sheriff’s Office to plan according and allow Environmental Services
to flag the event if necessary. The Planning Commission discussed the following for requirements for
notification:
o Educational, Youth, and Community Programs: at least 30 days in advance to the Department of
o

Environmental Services and Chisago County Sheriff’s Office.
Social Gatherings: at least 60 days in advance to the Department of Environmental Services, Chisago

•

County Sheriff’s Office, Sunrise Township, and Almelund Fire Department.
Removal of the phrase “such as” from staff-recommended condition no. 2, which listed permissible events,

•

to avoid differing interpretations of permissible events.
Concerns with violating the Zoning Ordinance:
o

The proposed events appeared as Rural Retail Tourism and Rural Retail Tourism was limited to a
maximum number of 200 attendees.

o

Whitney deferred to staff on how the Planning Commission should proceed due to concerns about
conflicting with different parts of the Zoning Ordinance. Schneider provided guidance informing the
Commission that their task was to provide a recommendation to the County Board. Schneider added
that the County had already extended the review period for this application and that the Planning
Commission needed to provide a recommendation to the County Board at its September 16, 2026
meeting. Gervais commented that the Zoning Ordinance limited Rural Retail Tourism venues to a
maximum of 200 attendees; however, this request was for Commercial Recreation Area, and the
Ordinance did not provide a maximum number of attendees for Commercial Recreation Area.

o

McCarthy questioned if the Commission voted on the modified CUP that it appeared to constitute
Rural Retail Tourism, as the proposed changes removed the elements that would have characterized
the request as Commercial Recreation Area. Gervais clarified that the request before them was for
Commercial Recreation Area and that was how it should be evaluated, adding that, in order for the
Commission to apply a maximum 200 attendance, the request would need to be identified as Rural
Retail Tourism. Thus, if the Commission believed that the request was Rural Retail Tourism, they would

o

need to make that finding.
Sutcliffe recollected that, during the Planning Commission’s 2025 discussion about Rural Retail
Tourism, the Commission’s intent was that requests including more than 200 attendees could be
submitted under the category of Commercial Recreation Area. Sutcliffe added that he believed
Commercial Recreation Area was appropriate for the current request. McCarthy added that having
more attendees does not change the use and referred to the definition of Commercial Recreation that
Leivian read previously. The Planning Commission briefly reviewed and discussed performance
standards for Rural Retail Tourism.

o

In regard to Rural Retail Tourism and the maximum attendance of 200 people, Wille provided the
example that a busy apple orchard could easily exceed 200. Leivian clarified that from an event center
perspective it would be Rural Retail Tourism and an apple orchard the primary recreation was the
apple orchard. Leivian added that the current application did not have a primary recreation activity.
McCarthy clarified that the maximum was 200 on site. DuBose sought clarification that there was no
maximum number of attendees for Commercial Recreation Area. Gervais replied that was correct,
adding that the Zoning Ordinance did not include any performance standards for Commercial
Recreation Area.

o

Sutcliffe asked staff whether the Commercial Recreation designation specified what uses were
permitted and prohibited. Gervais replied that the Ordinance did not specifically identify which uses
were permitted or prohibited. The Zoning Ordinance did, however, include a definition of “Commercial
Recreation.” Wille read the definition of “Commercial Recreation” into the record, and stated that,

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 10 of 14

based on the definition, she believed the application fit within the Commercial Recreation Area land
use category.
Motion DuBose to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0901, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing Commercial Recreation
Area activities on parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00 in Sunrise Township, with Findings of
Fact and conditions as amended; Seconded by Sutcliffe.
Amendments Included in Motion:
•
There shall be no more than six (6) Educational, Youth & Community Program events per year; no more
than one (1) Social Gathering event per year; and, no more than one (1) Cultural & Festival Gathering event
per year, with a maximum of 15 event days per year.
•
•

“Emergency Services” added to condition no. 5.b.
The Almelund Fire Department should be offered the option to participate first, and, if they decline, Sno-

•

Baron’s shall provide another qualified department to provide emergency services.
Written notice of Educational, Youth, and Community Programs shall be provided at least 30-days in

•

advance to the Department of Environmental Services and Chisago County Sheriff’s Office.
Written notice of Social Gatherings shall be provided at least 60 days in advance to the Department of

•

Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, Sunrise Township, and Almelund Fire Department.
Condition no. 2.a. shall be updated to reflect a maximum of eight (8) annual events in addition to the

•

annual Hay Days event.
Eliminate the quarterly schedule from condition no. 2.b.

McCarthy voiced concern with the proposed number of attendees being greater than 200.
Whitney suggested amending the motion to include his previously provided list of prohibited events. DuBose
and Sutcliffe accepted the suggested amendment. Whitney suggested amending the motion to include that
trade shows and heavy equipment expos would be “display only”. DuBose and Sutcliffe accepted the
suggested amendment.
The motion passed 4-3, with Wille, Sutcliffe, DuBose, and Whitney voting in favor; and, Yeager, Leivian, and
McCarthy voting against.
Recommended Conditions:
1.

This Conditional Use Permit grants approval for Commercial Recreation Area activities and events on
parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00 in accordance with the application materials dated
July 30, 2026 and kept on file with the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services and as
conditioned herein. No Commercial Recreation Area activities allowed by this Conditional Use Permit shall
be allowed on the parcel identified as PID 01.00274.00. For the purposes of this approval, the terms
“activities” and “events” shall have the same meaning and shall be interchangeable.

2.

Number and Duration of Events and Attendance:
a. There shall be no more than eight (8) annual events and a maximum of 15 event days, in addition to
the annual Hay Days event which is authorized through separate Conditional Use Permit approval.
Only those events listed in the July 30, 2026 application shall be allowed (refer to 2.d. below for list of
b.

permitted events).
No events shall be allowed during the annual Almelund Threshing Show or annual Almelund Apple

c.

Festival.
No more than two (2) of the permitted eight (8) events shall be multi-day events, and multi-day

d.

events shall not exceed two (2) days in duration.
All events shall be categorized and permitted as follows:
•

Educational, Youth, and Community Programs

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 11 of 14

o
o

Maximum attendance of 600 individuals
Maximum of six (6) events per calendar year

o

Permitted events include: MN DNR Field Days Safety Training (limited to ATVs/UTVs and
snowmobiles); school sponsored events; Boy Scout, Girl Scout, and 4-H activities; “family
friendly events” such as movie night, roller skating, or similar; and, community athletic events
such as 5K or 10K races.

o

Written notice of each event shall be provided at least 30 days in advance to the Department
of Environmental Services and Chisago County Sheriff’s Office. At a minimum, the notice shall
include the name of the event, dates and hours of the event, and anticipated event
attendance.

•

Social Gatherings
o Maximum attendance of 1,500 individuals
o
o

Maximum of one (1) event per calendar year
Permitted events include: vehicle expos such as car, bike, boat, or vintage sled shows (no
racing allowed); animal expos such as dog or horse shows; arts and crafts shows; flea
markets; and, winery or brewery expos.

o

Written notice of each event shall be provided at least 60 days in advance to the Department
of Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, Sunrise Township, and Almelund
Fire Department. At a minimum, the notice shall include the name of the event, dates and
hours of the event, and anticipated event attendance.

•

Cultural and Festival Gatherings
o Maximum attendance of 3,000 individuals
o
o

Maximum of one (1) event per calendar year
Permitted events include: small model aircraft expos; kite and hot air balloon expos; horse
skijoring events; outdoor trade shows; business job fairs; and, heavy equipment expos.
Outdoor trade shows and heavy equipment expos shall be “display only” and shall not include

o

equipment demonstrations.
Written notice of each event shall be provided at least 60 days in advance to the Department
of Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, Sunrise Township, and Almelund
Fire Department. At a minimum, the notice shall include the name of the event, dates and

o

hours of the event, and anticipated event attendance.
A detailed traffic plan shall be provided at least 60 days in advance to the Department of
Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, and Chisago County Public Works
Department. Accordingly, the permit holder shall comply with any recommendations provided

e.

by or conditions imposed by these departments / offices.
The following events shall be prohibited: sno-cross, go-cart, ATV, and similar racing; drag racing; dog
sledding; motorized skijoring; outdoor amplified music and concerts; fireworks; discharge of firearms
and/or firearms training; off-site parking; rodeos; manned and unmanned drones; gyro aircraft,
ultralights, gliders, flying cars, and other similar type vehicles; and, events which take place beyond or
leave the boundaries of PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00.

f.
g.

At least one (1) property owner representative must be on site for the full duration of any event.
Annual Reporting of All Events – The permit holder shall prepare an annual report and submit said
report to the Department of Environmental Services no later than December 31st. The report shall, at a
minimum, include the names, dates, and attendance at all events which occurred throughout that
calendar year. Further, the report shall specify the category of each event (refer to 2.d. above for list of
permitted categories).

3.

Hours of Operation and Pre-Event / Post-Event Activities:
a. No event shall commence earlier than 7:00 am and all events shall cease by 10:00 pm.
b.

4.

Event set-up and tear-down may occur no more than 24 hours prior to a scheduled event and no
more than 24 hours following an event.

Noise – The permit holder shall ensure that all noise generated by the events comply with MPCA rules.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 12 of 14

5.

Law Enforcement, Security, and Other Emergency Services:
a. Each event will require a security plan approved by the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office.
b.

The permit holder is responsible for any extraordinary law enforcement and emergency services costs
related to the events, as deemed necessary by the Chisago County Sheriff.

c.

If requested by the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, the permit holder shall provide a command post
for law enforcement and emergency services’ needs.

d.

The Almelund Fire Department shall be offered the option to participate first if emergency services are
needed. If the Department declines, the permit holder shall ensure that another qualified organization

6.

is secured to provide emergency services.
Parking – All event parking shall be accommodated on-site, and no parking shall be allowed on adjacent

7.

public roadways.
Access to Site – All event attendees shall access the site from Oriole Avenue / CR 70. The St. Croix Trail / MN
95 access(es) shall only be available to and used by law enforcement, emergency vehicles, and
government vehicles.

8.

9.

Sanitation Facilities – Portable restrooms with hand-washing stations shall be provided by the permit
holder for all events. Further, the permit holder shall comply with any and all Minnesota Department of
Health regulations pertaining to sanitation facilities.
Refuse – The permit holder shall be responsible for providing refuse containers at each event and securely
containing refuse generated during each event. All refuse shall be removed from the subject site by a
hauler licensed by Chisago County.

10. Food and Alcohol:
a. All food vendors shall obtain and display food service permits issued by the State of Minnesota and
b.

meet all applicable State requirements.
All liquor shall be served in compliance with all applicable Minnesota Department of Public Safety
regulations, Minnesota statutes pertaining to liquor licensing, and Chisago County liquor licensing
requirements / liquor license ordinance, all as may be amended from time to time. Law enforcement
must be on site during all times of alcohol sales and/or during any event focused on or featuring
alcohol.

11.

Lighting – Lighting shall be maintained in such a way that light cannot spill onto or otherwise impact
neighboring properties.

12. Hold Harmless Clause – The permit holder must hold harmless, defend, and indemnify Chisago County, its
officers and employees, for and against any and all liability and claims for property damage, economic
loss, personal injury, and death, including but not limited to the costs of defense of any claims and
attorney’s fees, alleged to have been incurred as a result of or in connection with the activities or events,
irrespective of whether such damage, loss, injury, or death is alleged to have occurred on or off the subject
site.
13. Any expansion or intensification of the approved use – including, but not limited to additional events (type,
number, or frequency), increased attendance, or other expansion or intensification as determined by the
Chisago County Department of Environmental Services – shall only be allowed upon further review by the
Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Commissioners by way of a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment.
14. Annual certification of the Conditional Use Permit is required. The permit holder shall notify the County
annually that the activity permitted by the Conditional Use Permit is ongoing and the activities being
conducted continue to adhere to the conditions of approval. Failure to maintain certification may be a
basis to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. The property shall be made open and available for regular
inspection at any time during reasonable hours by the Chisago County Department of Environmental
Services and/or any duly authorized law enforcement agency.
Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment – Chair Wille noted that staff had requested that the
Commission receive any public testimony and then continue the public hearing to October 1, 2026. Chair

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

09/03/2026

Page 13 of 14

Wille then sought testimony. No members of the audience were present to speak to the proposed Ordinance
Amendment.
Motion by Sutcliffe to continue the public hearing to October 1, 2026; second by Leivian. The motion passed
7-0.
Old Business – None
New Business
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Discussion – Section 4.20 Cannabis Cultivation, Production, Manufacture
and Sale – County Commissioner Dahlberg provided the Planning Commission with a brief summary of the
issue, stating that the State was not supporting the County’s interpretation of cannabis law and that the
County intended to amend the Zoning Ordinance to address those issues. Dahlberg explained that a grower
had been creating suite numbers and placing multiple cannabis sites on a single parcel. Dahlberg stated that
the proposed Ordinance Amendment would be brought before the Planning Commission for review and to
conduct a public hearing on October 1, 2026. Director Schneider explained that the Planning Commission had
been provided with the draft Ordinance. Schneider noted that during discussion at the County Board meeting,
an additional provision had been discussed that was not highlighted or included in the draft provided to the
Commission. The provision would require a 1,000-foot setback from the nearest residence or 250 feet from the
property boundary, whichever was greater. McCarthy offered that they should also review the definition of
agricultural production.
Communications and Reports
County Board Liaison Reports – County Commissioner Greene shared that the County Board had been
working on the 2027 Budget and provided general details. County Commissioner Dahlberg expressed
frustration with the State regarding the State’s enforcement of cannabis regulations.
Miscellaneous
Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix – Gervais provided a brief update about the matrix noting that
there were a number of ordinance amendments under consideration. Gervais recommended that, if there was
a work session in September, the Commission should consider prioritizing the amendments given that some
were subject to specific timelines. Sutcliffe noted that he preferred to conduct work sessions during the winter
months. DuBose and McCarthy shared they wouldn’t be able to attend the work session on September 17, 2026
and Wille shared that she would be late.
Motion by DuBose to cancel the September 17, 2026 special work session; second by Yeager. The motion
passed 7-0.
Adjourn Meeting – Motion by DuBose to adjourn the meeting; second by Sutcliffe. The motion passed 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

____________________________________________

ATTEST:

Jolene Wille
Chair

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

_____________________________________________
Beth Gervais
Land Services Coordinator

09/03/2026

Page 14 of 14

Item No. 6a

Staff Report
TO:

FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:

Planning Commission

Kurt Schneider, Environmental Services Director
Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator

Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Section 4.20 Cannabis Cultivation, Production,
Manufacture, and Sale
October 1, 2026

ACTION TO CONSIDER & BACKGROUND
At the direction of the County Board of Commissioners on September 2, 2026, the Planning

Commission is tasked with conducting a public hearing and considering the establishment of

additional restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the outdoor cultivation of cannabis. The
County’s Agricultural (AG) District currently allows the outdoor cultivation of cannabis without
specific restriction. While the State’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) does have an

extensive licensing process, MN Statute allows local governments to place “reasonable restrictions
on the time, place, and manner of the operation of a cannabis business.”
DRAFT ORDINANCE

Attached for the Planning Commission’s review and consideration is a draft Ordinance showing

track changes, with verbiage proposed to be added shown underlined and verbiage proposed to

be deleted shown stricken. Staff notes that the current draft Ordinance includes the following
additions:
•

A limit of one State issued cultivation license per tax parcel with a tax parcel being considered a
single premise. This provision will prohibit multiple cannabis cultivation license holders from

conducting cultivation activities on the same tax parcel.
•

A minimum tax parcel property size of 40 acres.

•

Minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks of 250’ from any residentially zoned or residentially
developed property or 1,000’ from an existing residence, whichever is greater. This provision

allows for reduced or waived setbacks with signed and notarized consent of all property owners
within the stated setback perimeter.
•

Minimum roadway setbacks of 135’ from the centerline of all roads or 75’ from road Right-of-

Way lines, whichever is greater.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION EFFORTS

The draft Ordinance has been made available for viewing in-person at the Department of

Environmental Services and on the Chisago County website pursuant to public hearing notification
efforts initiated on September 11, 2026. These efforts included direct notification to all Chisago

County cities and townships, as well as posted notice at the Chisago County Government Center.

Legal publication of Ordinance viewing availability and public hearing opportunity were published

in the Chisago County Press (Official County Newspaper) and the County News Review on
September 17, 2026.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
Upon completion of this report, written testimony was received from:

•

Jackson Martin, prospective purchaser of 39529 Trulson Road, Sunrise Township

OPTIONS
Open the requisite public hearing and receive testimony into the record concerning the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
1.

Upon closing of the public hearing, finalize a recommendation copy of the Ordinance and

provide a recommendation of approval for presentation to the County Board of Commissioners
for formal review, adoption, publication, and recording.

2.

Upon closing of the public hearing, if the Planning Commission does not believe that an

Ordinance Amendment is appropriate, provide said recommendation for presentation to the
County Board of Commissioners for formal review and consideration.

3.

If the Planning Commission wishes to solicit additional public testimony after October 1, 2026

and prior to providing a recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners, continue the

public hearing to a specific date.

4. If the Planning Commission believes that all interested parties have been given opportunity to
provide testimony but wishes to further deliberate / develop / incorporate public hearing and

jurisdictional partners’ comments within the draft Ordinance, close the public hearing and table
the matter to an upcoming special work session or regular Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the requisite public hearing and receive

public testimony into the record and deliberate on how the Commission wishes to proceed based
on the options provided above.
ATTACHMENTS
1.

2.

Draft Ordinance (Chisago County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.20)
Written testimony – J. Martin

2

Item No. 7a

Staff Report
TO:

Planning Commission

SUBJECT:

Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment

FROM:
DATE:

Kurt Schneider, Environmental Services Director
October 1, 2026

ACTION TO CONSIDER

The Planning Commission will conduct a continued public hearing [continued hearing from May]
on a proposed Amendment of the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance with the

goal of presenting a draft Ordinance to the Chisago County Board of Commissioners for adoption.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Chisago County is seeking comment on the proposed repeal of Ordinance No. 12-1 Chisago County
Floodplain Management Ordinance and all Amendments thereto and adoption of a new amended
Floodplain Management Ordinance in its place. The purpose of the proposed Ordinance

Amendment is to address deficiencies within the 2012 Floodplain Management Ordinance by, but

not limited to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new section pertaining to permitted
activities, providing a modernization of the section pertaining to Variances, including and

amending definitions based on the Minnesota DNR Model Ordinance, and enhancing the penalties

and enforcement provisions. Most sections of the Floodplain Management Ordinance are impacted
by the proposed Amendment. The predominant adjustments included within the draft Floodplain
Management Ordinance utilize direct language from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources’ Simplified and Standard Model Floodplain Ordinances.

Ref: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/floodplain/sample_ordinances.html
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION EFFORTS

The draft Ordinance has been made available for viewing in-person at the Department of

Environmental Services and on the Chisago County website pursuant to public hearing notification
efforts initiated on April 10, 2026. These efforts included direct notifications to all Chisago County

cities and townships and the National Park Service, as well as posted notice at the Chisago County
Government Center. Legal publications of Ordinance viewing availability and public hearing

opportunity were published in the Chisago County Press (Official County Newspaper) and the

County News Review on April 16, 2026 and April 23, 2026. Notices of the continued public hearing

were published in the Chisago County Press and the County News Review on May 21, 2026, June 18,
2026, July 23, 2026, August 20, 2026, and September 17, 2026.
REVIEW BY MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Per Ordinance No. 12-1 and in accordance with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

requirements, all Amendments to the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance must be
submitted to and approved by the DNR prior to adoption to verify that minimum state and federal

standards are met. The DNR was provided with a copy of the draft Ordinance and the County’s
intent to conduct a May 7, 2026 public hearing on April 3, 2026.

The DNR completed its review of the draft Ordinance and provided comment on April 10, 2026 for

the County’s consideration (see attached). Staff’s understanding of the DNR’s comments relates to

the fact that the County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance refers to the entirety of the 1% annual
floodplain as the “floodplain district” rather than making a distinction between the floodway and

flood fringe districts, and the potential for allowing newly proposed permitted activities within the

floodway. If the County’s intent is to allow non-structural development within the floodway, the DNR
is suggesting that the Ordinance incorporate floodway encroachment standards from the DNR’s

Model Ordinance. And, if it’s not the County’s intent is to not allow these activities in the floodway,
the DNR is suggesting a minor revision to Section 4.0 as a means of clearly prohibiting any
development within the floodway.

Staff have adjusted the draft Ordinance to include provisions consistent with the allowance for

permitted activities with floodway encroachment. These permitted activities are now permitted but
remain very restricted. The core Ordinance provisions continue to NOT allow new structures (Ref.

Section 4.23). The DNR is in final review of the adjusted “adoption copy” and is expected to forward
final approval.

DRAFT CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

Attached for review and consideration is the draft Chisago County Floodplain Management

Ordinance showing track changes and comments and a clean “Adoption Copy” removing all edit
and comment references.

Within the track changes Ordinance copy, verbiage proposed to be added is underlined and

verbiage proposed to be deleted is stricken. Summary comments are also identified in the right

margin. The overwhelming majority of language insertions and adjustments mirror the technical
and/or improved language taken directly from MN DNR Model Ordinances. Noted above, most of
the language insertions are required due to the change in allowance for limited permitted
activities.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY
No written testimony was received upon completion of this report.
OPTIONS
Open the continued public hearing and receive testimony into the record. Upon closing of the

hearing, options the Commission may consider include:
1.

Finalize a recommendation copy of Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance
and provide a recommendation of approval for presentation to the County Board of

Commissioners for formal review, adoption, publication, and recording.
2.

If the Planning Commission wishes to solicit additional public testimony after October 1, 2026
and prior to providing a recommendation, continue the public hearing to a specific date.

2

3.

If the Planning Commission believes that all interested parties have been given opportunity

to provide testimony but wishes to further deliberate / develop / incorporate public hearing

and jurisdictional partners’ comments within the draft Ordinance, close the public hearing

and table the matter to an upcoming special work session or regular Planning Commission
meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED

Staff recommend that the Planning Commission open the requisite public hearing and receive

public testimony into the record and deliberate on how the Commission wishes to proceed based
on the options provided above.

Staff do recommend adoption of the Ordinance in its current or further amended form at the

discretion of the Commission. If a recommendation of adoption is considered, staff further

recommend final MN DNR review and endorsement prior to placement on County Board agenda for
consideration. This secondary DNR review is expected to be cursory in nature and has been
requested with the writing of this report.
ATTACHMENTS
1.

Comments provided by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

3.

Draft Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance Adoption Copy

2.

Draft Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance w/ Track Changes & Comments

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Commissioner ________________ offered Ordinance No. 2026/______ and moved its enactment:
CHISAGO COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2026/______
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE
CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
THE CHISAGO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEREBY ORDAINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the current Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance was enacted
by the Board of Commissioners as Ordinance No. 12-1 on March 21, 2012 and recorded as
Document No. A-542984, and, from time to time, the Board of Commissioners may have
enacted amendments to said Ordinance.
Section 2. That the County has initiated a comprehensive update of the Chisago County
Floodplain Management Ordinance for the purposes of addressing deficiencies within the
2012 Ordinance by, but not limited to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new
section pertaining to permitted activities, providing a modernization of the section pertaining
to Variances, including and amending definitions based on the Minnesota DNR Model
Ordinance, and enhancing the penalties and enforcement provisions. Most sections of the
Floodplain Management Ordinance will be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The
predominant adjustments included within the proposed Floodplain Management Ordinance
utilize direct language from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified Model
Floodplain Ordinance.
Section 3. That notice was provided and on May 7, 2026, the Chisago County Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed Floodplain Management
Ordinance update, at which it heard from the Director of Environmental Services and invited
members of the public to comment. That said public hearing was continued and remained
open at the regular Planning Commission meetings of June 4th, July 2nd, August 6th,
September 3rd, and October 1, 2026. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and
recommended [INSERT RECOMMENDATION] of the proposed updated Floodplain Management
Ordinance as detailed in the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 1, 2026.
Section 4. That the Board of Commissioners received advance copy of the proposed
updated Floodplain Management Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission,
and formally reviewed said Ordinance at its [INSERT DATE] meeting.
Section 5. That the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance, as enacted by
Ordinance No. 12-1 and all amendments subsequently enacted thereafter, are hereby
repealed in their entirety.
Page 1 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

Section 6. That the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance, as incorporated
herein and attached hereto, is hereby reenacted.
Section 7. That the Board of Commissioners finds that publication of the full reenacted
Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance would be cost prohibitive, and that
publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the
intent and effect of the Ordinance. The Board of Commissioners hereby ordains that only the
title of the Ordinance and a summary be published as follows:
CHISAGO COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2026/______
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE
CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
It is the intent and effect of this Ordinance to repeal the Chisago County Floodplain
Management Ordinance, enacted by Ordinance No. 12-1 on March 21, 2012, and all
amendments thereto in their entirety and reenact an updated Chisago County Floodplain
Management Ordinance in their place.
The development of the flood hazard areas of the unincorporated areas of Chisago County
could result in the potential loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, and
lead to extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief. Therefore, the general
purpose of the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is to implement
regulations designed to minimize flood losses, prevent health and safety hazards, and
minimize expenditures related to flood protection and relief in compliance with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program.
The purpose of the reenacted Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is to
address deficiencies within the 2012 Floodplain Management Ordinance by, but not limited
to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new section pertaining to permitted
activities, providing a modernization of the section pertaining to Variances, including and
amending definitions based on the Minnesota DNR Model Ordinance, and enhancing the
penalties and enforcement provisions. Most sections of the Floodplain Management
Ordinance will be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The predominant adjustments
included within the draft Floodplain Management Ordinance utilize direct language from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified and Model Floodplain Ordinances.
The fully reenacted Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is available for
inspection by any person during regular business hours at the Chisago County AuditorTreasurer’s Office and the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services, both
Page 2 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

located at 313 N. Main Street, Center City, Minnesota, 55012. The full reenacted Chisago
County Floodplain Management Ordinance may also be viewed at [INSERT URL].
Section 8. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication.
Passed and approved this _________ day of _______________, 2026, by the Chisago County
Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner _____________________ seconded the Ordinance and upon a vote being taken
thereon, the following voted:
IN FAVOR THEREOF:
OPPOSED:
ABSENT:
Whereupon the proclamation was declared duly passed and enacted.
Enacted: __________________, 2026

____________________________________

ATTEST: __________________________________

Richard Greene

Chase Burnham

Chair, Board of Commissioners

County Administrator

This Ordinance was drafted and prepared by:
Chisago County Department of Environmental Services
313 N. Main Street, Suite 240
Center City, MN 55012

This Ordinance is approved as to form.
JANET REITER
CHISAGO COUNTY ATTORNEY
__________________________________________

Date: ___________________, 2026

Jeffrey B. Fuge, Assistant County Attorney

Page 3 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

128

129

130
131

Chisago County
Floodplain Management
Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2026/______

132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150

Adopted: [INSERT DATE]

151

Effective: [INSERT DATE]
Page 4 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

152

1.0

153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160

The legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103 and Chapter 394

161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169

The development of the flood hazard areas of the unincorporated areas of Chisago County

170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181

The Official Flood District Map, together with all materials attached thereto, is hereby adopted

182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192

3.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This Ordinance applies to all lands under the

STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION

has delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to
minimize flood losses. This Ordinance is being adopted to comply with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain Chisago County’s eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
2.0

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

could result in the potential loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, and
lead to extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief. Since development of
these areas is not essential to the orderly growth of the unincorporated areas of Chisago
County, and since these lands are suitable for open space uses that do not require structures,
fill, obstructions, or most other forms of development as defined in Section 7.0 of this
Ordinance, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners does ordain as follows.
3.0

ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD DISTRICT MAPJURISDICTION AND DISTRICTS

by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The attached material shall include
the Flood Insurance Study, Chisago County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas, the Flood
Insurance Rate Map Index (Map Number 27025CIND0A), and all Flood Insurance Rate Map
panels therein indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Index that apply to the
unincorporated areas of Chisago County, all of these documents being dated April 17, 2012
and prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Official Flood District Map
shall be on file in the Office of the Chicago County Auditor and the Director of Environmental
Services and Zoning. The Official Flood District Map shall be considered separate overlay
maps, and as such, not part of the Official Zoning Map contained in the Chisago County
Zoning Ordinance. The Flood Plain District jurisdiction of this Ordinance shall include those
100-year flood areas designated as Zone AE and Zone A on the aforementioned maps.
jurisdiction of Chisago County, Minesota within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs),
shown as Zones A and AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels referenced in Section 3.2.
3.11

The standards imposed in this overlay district are in addition to any other
requirements. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply.

3.12

These regulations apply to all areas within the SFHA. If areas below the Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) extend beyond the mapped SFHA based on actual field
conditions, the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shall be the governing factor in
locating the outer boundaries of the one-percent annual chance floodplain
Page 5 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234

and these regulations apply to the outer boundary of the one-percent annual
chance floodplain.
3.13

Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to Chisago County and to submit
technical evidence.

3.2 Incorporation of Maps by Reference. The following maps together with all attached
material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The
attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study 27025CV000A for Chisago County,
Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated April 17, 2012, and the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) panel numbers 27025C0025D, 27025C0030D 27025C0035D 27025C0040D
27025C0045D 27025C0065D 27025C0075D 27025C0100D 27025C0125D 27025C0135D
27025C0145D 27025C0150D 27025C0155D 27025C0160D 27025C0165D 27025C0170D
27025C0200D 27025C0225D 27025C0250D 27025C0255D 27025C0260D 27025C0275D
27025C0288D 27025C0289D 27025C0290D 27025C0295D 27025C0300D 27025C0325D
27025C0360D 27025C0375D 27025C0380D 27025C0385D 27025C0400D 27025C0402D
27025C0406D 27025C0425D, 27025CINDOA, all dated April 17, 2012, and prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These materials are on file in the offices of
the Chisago County Environmental Services Department and FEMA online Flood Map Service
Center and hereby constitute the Official Flood District Map of all unincorporated areas of the
County and are adopted by reference as an overlay district designation to all land use maps
of the County.
4.0

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES, STANDARDS, AND USES IN THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT

4.1 The following activities, standards, and uses have a low flood damage potential and do
not obstruct flood flows. These activities, standards, and uses shall be permitted within the
Floodplain District without a permit to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other
ordinance and provided they do not require structures, fill, obstructions, excavations, drilling
operations, storage of materials or equipment or any other form of development as defined
herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance (except for recreational vehicles as permitted in
Section 4.15).
4.11

Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, farm fencing,
forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting.

4.12

Industrial-commercial uses such as driveway and parking areas and airport
landing strips.

4.13

Private and public recreational uses such as driveway and parking areas,
tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching
ramps, swimming areas, parks and anchored parks equipment (benches,
Page 6 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277

tables, swing sets, grill stations, open air shelters), wildlife and nature preserves,
game farms, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting
and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails.
4.14

Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, driveway and parking areas, and play
areas.

4.15

Recreational vehicles. There shall be no new recreational vehicle parks or
campgrounds located within the Floodplain District. Recreational vehicles will
be allowed on existing lots or parcels of record if they meet the following
standards:
(a) They have current licenses for highway use;
(b) They are highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking
system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect utilities
commonly used in campgrounds and recreation vehicle parks;
(c) Except for at-grade patios, there shall be no new development on the lot
or parcel associated with the recreational vehicle including, but not limited
to, such activities as decks, storage buildings, garages, gazebos, fuel
storage tanks, and room additions.
(d) There shall be no development allowed on the lot or parcel that would
hinder the removal of the recreational vehicle to a flood free location
should flooding occur.
(e) They conform with Section 4.12 14 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.

4.16

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.2 of this Ordinance for permitted
activities and Section 10.0 of this Ordinance for nonconformities, all other
activities and uses and all uses that require structures, fill, obstructions,
excavations, drilling operations, storage of material or equipment or any other
form of development as defined herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance shall be
prohibited.

4.2 Permitted Activities. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator to verify
compliance with all applicable standards outlined in this Ordinance prior to the following
uses or activities:
4.21

Any modification, rehabilitation, maintenance, repair, or alteration to a
nonconforming structure as specified in Section 10.0 of this Ordinance or as
otherwise required by the County Building Official.
Page 7 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS1]: Section 4.2 is the most significant
policy clarification/change. Consistent with current
restrictive county ordinance, it continues to NOT allow new
structures in the floodplain. However, it does now expressly
allow pubic transportation, utilities, and shoreland alterations
and it gives defference to DNR issued public waters work
permits.

278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320

4.22

Any use that requires fill, excavation, storage of materials, or placement of
anything that may cause a potential obstruction, as well as any other form of
development as defined in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance. Said uses should be
de minimis in nature and may require mitigation through compensatory
storage improvements.

4.23

Buildings and Structures. No new structures, such as buildings or accessory
structures may be permitted in the regulatory floodplain. Modifications and
alterations of nonconforming structures are subject to the standards in Section
10.0.

4.24

Public Transportation Facilities. Development of public transportation facilities
such as railroad tracks, roads, trails, and bridges must be elevated to the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) where such facilities are essential
to the orderly functioning of the area, or where failure or interruption would
result in danger to public health or safety. Development of minor or auxiliary
public roads, trails, or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where
failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public
health or safety. All public transportation facilities should be designed to
minimize increases in flood elevations.

4.25

Public Utilities. All utilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply
systems to be located in the floodplain must be elevated and/or floodproofed
to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), be located and constructed
to minimize or eliminate flood damage and be designed to eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems
into flood waters. All public utilities should be designed to minimize increases in
flood elevations. New solid waste management facilities, as defined in
Minnesota Rules, part 7035.0300, are prohibited. Water supply systems are
subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules, part 4725.4350.

4.26

Land Alterations. In areas within 25 feet of the ordinary high water level, land
alterations shall be restricted to:
(a)

the minimum required to accommodate beach and access areas, not
to exceed a volume greater than 10 cubic yards and meet all applicable
standards of the County Shoreland Management Ordinance, Wetland
Conservation Act, and Department of Natural Resources public waters
permitting as applicable; and

(b)

the minimum required to accommodate for public utilities, roads, trails,
railroad tracks, bridges, and shoreline stabilization projects or to correct
Page 8 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355

an identified erosion problem or install a recognized best management
water quality improvement, as verified by a qualified resource agency
or the zoning administrator. The minimum volume required to
accommodate these activities may be approved to exceed 10 cubic
yards.
4.27

Relocation or alteration of a watercourse (including stabilization projects or the
construction of new or replacement dams, culverts, and bridges). A local
permit is not required if public waters work permit has been obtained from the
Department of Natural Resources, unless a significant area above the ordinary
high water level is also to be disturbed.

4.3 Standards for Permitted Uses in the Zone AE Floodway. In addition to the applicable
standards detailed in Section 4.2:
4.31

The applicant must demonstrate that the development will not result in any of
the following during the one-percent annual chance flood: cause a stage
increase of 0.00 feet or greater, obstruct flood flows, or increase velocities. This
shall be demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed
by a professional engineer, or using other standard engineering practices (e.g.
projects that restore the site to the previous cross-sectional area). This is
commonly documented through a “no-rise certification.”

4.32

Any development that would result in a stage increases greater than 0.00 feet
may only be allowed with a permit if the applicant has applied for a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in accordance with 44 CFR § 65.12,
and FEMA has issued the CLOMR. Map revisions must follow the procedures in
Sections 5.5 and 11.0.

4.33

Any development resulting in decreases to the water surface elevation of the
base flood identified in the Flood Insurance Study requires a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) following the procedures in Sections 5.5 and 11.0.

4.34

Fill and other land alteration activities must offer minimal obstruction to the
flow of flood waters.

Commented [KS2]: Per DNR Floodplain Planner
Comment - Inserted Section 4.3 to mirror Sections 5.2,
5.21, 5.22, 5.23 and 5.26 of the DNR Model Ordinance.
Required if it is the county’s intent to allow non-structural
encroachments into the floodway.

356
357
358
359
360
361
362

4.4 Encroachment Analysis.
4.41

Encroachments due to development may not allow stage increases more than
one-half (0.5) foot at any point, unless through a map revision following the
procedures in Sections 5.5 and 11.0. This evaluation must include the
cumulative effects of previous encroachments, and must be documented with
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed by a professional engineer, or
Page 9 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

363
364
365

using other standard engineering practices. A lesser water surface elevation
increase than one-half (0.5) foot is required if, due to the water surface level
increase, increased flood damages would potentially result.

366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383

4.42

4.0

Alterations or changes that result in stage decreases are allowed and encouraged.

ADMINISTRATION
4.1

Duties. The Zoning Administrator or other designated official must administer
and enforce this ordinance.
5.11 Permit Application Requirements. Permit applications must be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator. The permit application must include the following,
as applicable:

A. A site plan showing all existing or proposed buildings, structures, service
facilities, potential obstructions, and pertinent design features having
an influence on the permit
B. Location and detail of grading, fill, or storage of materials.

384
385

C. Copies of any required local, state or federal permits or approvals.

386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398

D. Other relevant information requested by the Zoning Administrator as

399
400
401
402
403

necessary to properly evaluate the permit application.
5.12 Recordkeeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain applicable
records in perpetuity documenting:
A. All certifications for dry floodproofing and alternative elevation
methods, where applicable
B. Analysis of no-rise in the Floodway District, as detailed in Section 4.0
and encroachment analysis ensuring no more than one-half foot of rise
in the General Floodplain District, as detailed in Section 4.4
C. Final elevations, as applicable, detailing the elevation (in relation to
mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basements, of all new and
substantially improved structures . Elevations shall be determined by an
engineer, architect, surveyor or other qualified individual, as approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
Page 10 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS3]: Per DNR Floodplain Planner
Comment - Inserted Section 4.4 to mirror Section 7.31 of
the DNR Model Ordinance. Required if it is the county’s
intent to allow non-structural encroachments into the
floodway.

404
405
406
407
408

D. Substantial damage and substantial improvement determinations, as

409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445

E. All variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must

detailed in Section 10, including the cost of improvements, repairs, and
market value

report such variances as requested by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
5.13 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming
Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner
until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning
Administrator stating that the finished fill and building floor elevations or other
flood protection measures are in compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance.
5.14 Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration
or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent
communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as
adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to FEMA.
5.15 Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base
Flood Elevations. Where physical changes affecting flooding conditions may
increase or decrease the water surface elevation of the base flood, the
[Community] must notify FEMA of the changes in order to obtain a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR), by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or
scientific data as soon as practicable, but no later than six months after the
date such supporting information becomes available. Within the General
Floodplain District, approval from the Commissioner of Natural Resources is
needed prior to permitting any development that results in a stage increase
between 0.5 and 1.0 feet; a map revision is only required if development results
in stage increases greater than 1.0 foot.
5.2

Development Approvals.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.0 of this Ordinance for permitted
activities, standards, and uses and Section 10.0 of this Ordinance for
nonconformities, no person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair any
substantial damage, cause any substantial improvement, improve, or movein, or demolish any building or structure within the Floodplain District. No
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, obstruction, drilling
operation or other form of development as defined herein in Section 7.0 of this
Page 11 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS4]: Per DNR Floodplain Planner
Comment - Inserted Section 5.1 and 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14,
and 5.15 to mirror Sections 11.1, 11.11, 11.12, 11.13, 11.14,
and 11.15 of the DNR Model Ordinance. Required if it is
the county’s intent to allow non-structural encroachments in
the floodway.

446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488

Ordinance shall be allowed. These activities are currently not allowed within
the Flood Plain District and would only be allowed if this Ordinance is amended
to allow such activities in the future with appropriate specified flood protection
performance standards and the issuance of development permits.
5.3

Interpretation of District Boundaries.
The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances
on the Official Flood District Map and the attachments thereto. Where
interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district
as shown on the Official Flood District Map and the attachments thereto, as for
example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary
and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the
Zoning Administrator, the Chisago County Board of Adjustment and Appeals
shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on
elevations on the regional (100-year) flood profile, the ground elevations that
existed on the site at the time the Chisago County adopted its initial Floodplain
Management Ordinance or on the date of the first National Flood Insurance
Program map showing the area within the 100-year floodplain, if earlier, and
other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the district
boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals and to submit technical evidence for
determining the 100-year flood elevation the floodway and flood fringe
boundaries pursuant to Section 8.08, Administrative Appeals, of the Chisago
County Zoning Ordinance, No. 08-3 and consistent with the definitions of
floodway and flood fringe in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance.

5.4

Variances.
The Board of Adjustment shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources a copy of the application for proposed variances sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the
hearing. A copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail
to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
No variance shall have the effect of allowing any use prohibited in the Flood
Plain District, permit a lower degree of protection than the regulatory flood
protection elevation or permit standards lower than those required by state
law. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1)
The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the 100-year flood
elevation will result in increased insurance premium rates for flood insurance
up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) such
construction below the 100-year flood elevation increases risk to life and
property. The community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its
annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood
Page 12 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS5]: Variance section has been modernized
for clarity with current Statute driven language and direct
text from DNR Model Ordinance.

489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531

Insurance Program. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied:
(a)

Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.

(b)

Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of
good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii)
a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.

(c)

Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance
is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.

5.41

An application for a Variance to the provisions of this Ordinance will be
processed and reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section
394.27, Subd. 7 as may be ammended and this Ordinance.

5.42

Variances must not be issued within any designated regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.

5.43

Variances from the provisions in this Ordinance may only be issued by a
community upon:
(a)

A showing of good and sufficient cause,

(b)

A determination that failure to grant the Variance would result in
exceptional practical difficulty hardship to the applicant, and

(c)

A determination that the granting of a Variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.

5.44

Variances from the provisions in this Ordinance may only be issued upon a
determination that the Variance is the minimum necessary, considering the
flood hazard, to afford relief.

5.45

Variances must be consistent with the general purpose of these standards and
the intent of applicable provisions in state and federal law.
Page 13 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573

5.46

Though Variances may be used to modify permissible methods of flood
protection, no Variance shall permit a lesser degree of flood protection than
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE).

5.47

The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a Variance and hereby
notifies through ordinance that:
(a)

The issuance of a Variance to construct a structure below the base
flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up
to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and

(b)

Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks
to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record
of all Variance actions.

5.5

Notifications for Watercourse Alterations:
Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning
Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied
for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section
103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must
also be submitted to FEMA.

5.6

Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood
Elevations:
Where physical changes affecting flooding conditions may increase or
decrease the water surface elevation of the base flood, the County must notify
FEMA of the changes in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), by
submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data as soon as
practicable, but no later than six months after the date such supporting
information becomes available. Within areas where the floodway has not been
delineated, a map revision is only required if development results in stage
increases greater than 0.5 feet.

5.7

Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources.
5.71 All notices of public hearings to consider variances under this ordinance
must be sent via electronic mail to the Department of Natural Resources
respective area hydrologist at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices
of hearings to consider subdivisions/plats must include copies of the
subdivision/plat.

Page 14 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592

5.72 A copy of all decisions granting variances and conditional uses under this
ordinance must be sent via electronic mail to the Department of Natural
Resources respective area hydrologist within ten (10) days of final action.
5.8

Amendments.
All amendments to this Ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption.

5.9

Detachments.
The Official Flood District Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted
by reference into Section 3.0 of this Ordinance will include floodplain areas that
lie inside of the incorporated boundaries of municipalities at the time of
adoption of this Ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are detached
from an incorporated municipality and placed under the jurisdiction of
Chisago County after the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the newly
detached floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance
immediately upon the date of the detachment.

6.0

WARNING OF DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY

593
594
595
596
597
598
599

This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the Floodplain District or land uses

600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614

Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance shall must be

permitted within the district will be free from flooding or damages. This Ordinance shall not
create liability on the part of Chisago County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood
damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully
made thereunder.
7.0

DEFINITIONS

interpreted according to so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common
usage and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable application.
Accessory Structure. A structure, as defined in this Ordinance, that is on the same parcel of
property as, and is incidental to, the principal structure or use; an accessory structure
specifically excludes structures used for human habitation.
Base Flood. The flood having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. “Base flood” is synonymous with the term “regional flood” used in Minnesota Rules,
part 6120.5000.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The elevation of the base flood, regional flood, or one-percent
annual chance flood. The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance study.

Page 15 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS6]: Definitions have been reviewed and
added for consistency with DNR Model Ordinance
definitions. A number of definitions are added for clarity.

615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657

Basement. Any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade
(below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground
level.
Building. See Structure.
Development. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but
not limited to, buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures, recreational vehicles,
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of
materials or equipment.
Farm Fence. An open type of fence of posts and horizontally run wire, further specified in
Minnesota Statutes, section 344.02 Subd. 1(a - d).
Flood Fringe. The portion of the one-percent annual chance floodplain located outside of the
floodway. The flood fringe shall comprise those Zone AE areas shown on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance that are located outside of the
delineated floodway. The flood fringe boundary and the regulatory flood protection elevation
for Zone A and Zone AE areas without a delineated floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance shall be determined on a case-by-case basis
by Chisago County in accordance with the criteria spelled out in Minnesota Regulations, Parts
6120.5000 – 6120.6200 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65. When determining the
flood fringe boundaries for lakes, wetlands, and other basins, Chisago County can determine
the area below the 100-year flood elevation and the area above the ordinary high water level
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subdivision 14 to be flood fringe.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). An official map of a community, on which the Federal
Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium
zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM).
Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The study referenced in Section 3.2, which is an examination,
evaluation and determination of flood hazards, and if appropriate, corresponding surface
elevations, or an examination, evaluation, and determination of mudslide (i.e. mudflow)
and/or flood-related erosion hazards.
Floodplain. The beds, channel and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse, or
other source which have been or hereafter may be covered inundated by the baseregional
flood.
Floodway. The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions
of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably requiredmust be reserved to carry or store
the base flood discharge without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more
Page 16 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700

than one-half foot.regional flood discharge. The floodway shall include those areas
delineated as floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this
Ordinance. Floodway boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for Zone A and
Zone AE areas without a delineated floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels
adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by
Chisago County in accordance with the criteria spelled out in Minnesota Regulations, Parts
6120.5000 – 6120.6200 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65. When determining the
floodway boundaries for lakes, wetlands, and other basins, Chisago County can determine
the area at or below the ordinary high water level as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103G.005, subdivision 14 to be floodway.
Lowest Floor. The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or
storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor;
provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable non-elevation design requirements of 44 CFR § 60.3.
Manufactured Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term
“recreational vehicle.”
New Construction. Structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the
effective date of an adopted floodplain management regulation, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures.
Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection,
excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure,
or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood
plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or
by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
Principal Structure. The main building or other structure on a lot that is utilized for the
property’s principal use.
Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less
when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self-propelled or
permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a
permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or
seasonal use. Those vehicles not meeting this definition shall be considered a structure for
the purposes of this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term recreational
vehicle shall be synonymous with the term “travel trailer/travel vehicle”.
Page 17 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742

Regional Flood. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred
generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on
an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 year recurrence interval. Regional flood is
synonymous with the term “base flood” used in the Flood Insurance Study.
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The
regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the
elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by
encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway.
Special flood hazard area (SFHA). An area having special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or
flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on an FHBM or FIRM as Zone A, AO, A1-30, AE, AR,
AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, A99, AH, VO, V1-30, VE, V, M, or E.
Start of Construction. Includes substantial improvement, and means the date the permit was
issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual
start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site,
such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or
any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a
foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing,
grading and Last Revised July 2025 filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, foundations, or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory
buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main
structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
Structure. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground,
including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins,
manufactured homes, recreational vehicles not considered travel ready, and other similar
items.
Substantial Damage. Means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost
of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent
of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial Improvement. Within any consecutive 365-day period, any Any reconstruction,
rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or
other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term
Page 18 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782

includes structures that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair
work performed. The term does not, however, include either:
(a)

Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state
or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been
identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum
necessary to assure safe living conditions: or.

(b)

Any alteration of an “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure.” For
the purpose of this Ordinance, “historic structure” shall be as defined in 44
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1.

Variance. “Variance” means the same as that defined in 44 CFR § 59.1 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 394.27, Subd. 7.
Violation. “Violation” means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully
compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations.
8.0

PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
8.1

Uses in Violation of the Ordinance. Every structure, fill, deposit, or other use
placed or maintained in the floodplain in violation of this Ordinance shall be
considered a public nuisance.

8.2

Civil Remedies. The creation of a public nuisance may be enjoined and the
maintenance of a public nuisance under this Ordinance may be abated by an
action brought by Chisago County or the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.

8.3

Enforcement. Violations of the provisions of this Ordinance constitute a
misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. The Zoning Administrator
may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but
not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders
for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program
for denial of flood insurance. The County must act in good faith to enforce
these official controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible
so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its
requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection
Page 19 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS7]: Modernized language consistent with
DNR Model Ordinance. Outlines clear direction and
options.

783
784
785
786
787

with grants of variances) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined

788
789
790
791
792

If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or

793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824

A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or

by law. Each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this
Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly.
9.0

SEVERABILITY

invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be
affected thereby.
10.0

NONCONFORMITIES

amendment of this Ordinance, but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance, may be continued subject to the following conditions.
10.1

No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that
increases its nonconformity. There shall be no expansion to the outside
dimension of a nonconforming structure in the floodplain.

10.2

Any structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use in
the floodplain which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of
that structure or use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation in accordance with any of the flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , FP-1
thru FP-4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code,
except as further restricted in 10.4 below.

10.3

If any nonconforming use or structure is substantially damaged, as defined in
Section 7.0 of this Ordinance, it shall not be reconstructed unless it is located in
the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and it is reconstructed in accordance
with the standards found in Section 10.5 of this Ordinance.

10.4

If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance,
from any rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the
inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure, then the existing
nonconforming structure must be located in the flood fringe portion of the
floodplain and meet the requirements of Section 10.5 of this Ordinance. A
nonconforming structure shall not be substantially improved if said structure is
located in the floodway.

10.5

The following standards and procedures apply to nonconforming structures
that have been substantially damaged or substantially improved in the flood
fringe portion of the floodplain:

Page 20 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867

(a)

All structures, including manufactured homes, must be elevated on fill
so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the regulatory flood
protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least
fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected
thereon.

(b)

Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly
protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable
method.

(c)

Floodplain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic
capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary
watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other
encroachment limit has not been specified on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance.

(d)

All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately
anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral
movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited
to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring
requirements for resisting wind forces.

(e)

On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems. Where public
utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the
systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment
systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood
waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination
during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in
accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site
sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance
with this Section.

(f)

A permit issued by the Zoning Administrator in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the
commencement of construction.

(g)

Application for a permit shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning
Administrator on forms furnished by Chisago County and shall include,
Page 21 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895

but may not be limited to, the following where applicable: plans in
duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and
elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of
materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream
channel.
(h)

Prior to granting a permit, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that
the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits.

(i)

Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a
registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land
surveyor that the finished fill, building elevations or flood proofing
measures were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.

(j)

Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a
record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
new structures and alterations to existing structures in the floodplain.
The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation
to which structures or alterations to structures are flood proofed.

11.0
11.1

AMENDMENTS
Ordinance Amendments. Any revisions to the floodplain maps by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or annexations of new map panels require an
amendment to update the map references in Section 3.2 of this ordinance.

12.0

REPEALER

896
897
898
899

This Ordinance repeals and replaces the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance

900
901
902
903

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval and

adopted on March 21, 2012 as Ordinance 12-1, and all amendments thereto.
1113.0 EFFECTIVE DATE
publication, as required by law and/or charter.

Page 22 of 22
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

Commented [KS8]: Per DNR Floodplain Planner
Comment - Inserted Section 11.1 to mirror Section 14.1 of
the DNR Model Ordinance. Required if it is the county’s
intent to allow non-structural encroachments into the
floodway.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Commissioner ________________ offered Ordinance No. 2026/______ and moved its enactment:
CHISAGO COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2026/______
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE
CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
THE CHISAGO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEREBY ORDAINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the current Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance was enacted
by the Board of Commissioners as Ordinance No. 12-1 on March 21, 2012 and recorded as
Document No. A-542984, and, from time to time, the Board of Commissioners may have
enacted amendments to said Ordinance.
Section 2. That the County has initiated a comprehensive update of the Chisago County
Floodplain Management Ordinance for the purposes of addressing deficiencies within the
2012 Ordinance by, but not limited to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new
section pertaining to permitted activities, providing a modernization of the section pertaining
to Variances, including and amending definitions based on the Minnesota DNR Model
Ordinance, and enhancing the penalties and enforcement provisions. Most sections of the
Floodplain Management Ordinance will be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The
predominant adjustments included within the proposed Floodplain Management Ordinance
utilize direct language from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified Model
Floodplain Ordinance.
Section 3. That notice was provided and on May 7, 2026, the Chisago County Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed Floodplain Management
Ordinance update, at which it heard from the Director of Environmental Services and invited
members of the public to comment. That said public hearing was continued and remained
open at the regular Planning Commission meetings of June 4th, July 2nd, August 6th,
September 3rd, and October 1, 2026. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and
recommended [INSERT RECOMMENDATION] of the proposed updated Floodplain Management
Ordinance as detailed in the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 1, 2026.
Section 4. That the Board of Commissioners received advance copy of the proposed
updated Floodplain Management Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission,
and formally reviewed said Ordinance at its [INSERT DATE] meeting.
Section 5. That the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance, as enacted by
Ordinance No. 12-1 and all amendments subsequently enacted thereafter, are hereby
repealed in their entirety.
Page 1 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86

Section 6. That the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance, as incorporated
herein and attached hereto, is hereby reenacted.
Section 7. That the Board of Commissioners finds that publication of the full reenacted
Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance would be cost prohibitive, and that
publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the
intent and effect of the Ordinance. The Board of Commissioners hereby ordains that only the
title of the Ordinance and a summary be published as follows:
CHISAGO COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2026/______
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE
CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
It is the intent and effect of this Ordinance to repeal the Chisago County Floodplain
Management Ordinance, enacted by Ordinance No. 12-1 on March 21, 2012, and all
amendments thereto in their entirety and reenact an updated Chisago County Floodplain
Management Ordinance in their place.
The development of the flood hazard areas of the unincorporated areas of Chisago County
could result in the potential loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, and
lead to extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief. Therefore, the general
purpose of the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is to implement
regulations designed to minimize flood losses, prevent health and safety hazards, and
minimize expenditures related to flood protection and relief in compliance with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program.
The purpose of the reenacted Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is to
address deficiencies within the 2012 Floodplain Management Ordinance by, but not limited
to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new section pertaining to permitted
activities, providing a modernization of the section pertaining to Variances, including and
amending definitions based on the Minnesota DNR Model Ordinance, and enhancing the
penalties and enforcement provisions. Most sections of the Floodplain Management
Ordinance will be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The predominant adjustments
included within the draft Floodplain Management Ordinance utilize direct language from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified and Model Floodplain Ordinances.
The fully reenacted Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is available for
inspection by any person during regular business hours at the Chisago County AuditorTreasurer’s Office and the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services, both
Page 2 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

located at 313 N. Main Street, Center City, Minnesota, 55012. The full reenacted Chisago
County Floodplain Management Ordinance may also be viewed at [INSERT URL].
Section 8. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication.
Passed and approved this _________ day of _______________, 2026, by the Chisago County
Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner _____________________ seconded the Ordinance and upon a vote being taken
thereon, the following voted:
IN FAVOR THEREOF:
OPPOSED:
ABSENT:
Whereupon the proclamation was declared duly passed and enacted.
Enacted: __________________, 2026

____________________________________

ATTEST: __________________________________

Richard Greene

Chase Burnham

Chair, Board of Commissioners

County Administrator

This Ordinance was drafted and prepared by:
Chisago County Department of Environmental Services
313 N. Main Street, Suite 240
Center City, MN 55012

This Ordinance is approved as to form.
JANET REITER
CHISAGO COUNTY ATTORNEY
__________________________________________

Date: ___________________, 2026

Jeffrey B. Fuge, Assistant County Attorney

Page 3 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

128

129

130
131

Chisago County
Floodplain Management
Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2026/______

132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150

Adopted: [INSERT DATE]

151

Effective: [INSERT DATE]
Page 4 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

152

1.0

153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160

The legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103 and Chapter 394

161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169

The development of the flood hazard areas of the unincorporated areas of Chisago County

170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193

3.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This Ordinance applies to all lands under the

STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION

has delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to
minimize flood losses. This Ordinance is being adopted to comply with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain Chisago County’s eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
2.0

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

could result in the potential loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, and
lead to extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief. Since development of
these areas is not essential to the orderly growth of the unincorporated areas of Chisago
County, and since these lands are suitable for open space uses that do not require structures,
fill, obstructions, or most other forms of development as defined in Section 7.0 of this
Ordinance, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners does ordain as follows.
3.0

JURISDICTION AND DISTRICTS

jurisdiction of Chisago County, Minesota within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs),
shown as Zones A and AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels referenced in Section 3.2.
3.11

The standards imposed in this overlay district are in addition to any other
requirements. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply.

3.12

These regulations apply to all areas within the SFHA. If areas below the Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) extend beyond the mapped SFHA based on actual field
conditions, the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shall be the governing factor in
locating the outer boundaries of the one-percent annual chance floodplain
and these regulations apply to the outer boundary of the one-percent annual
chance floodplain.

3.13

Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to Chisago County and to submit
technical evidence.

3.2 Incorporation of Maps by Reference. The following maps together with all attached
material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The
attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study 27025CV000A for Chisago County,
Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated April 17, 2012, and the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) panel numbers 27025C0025D, 27025C0030D 27025C0035D 27025C0040D
27025C0045D 27025C0065D 27025C0075D 27025C0100D 27025C0125D 27025C0135D
Page 5 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205

27025C0145D 27025C0150D 27025C0155D 27025C0160D 27025C0165D 27025C0170D

206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235

4.1 The following activities, standards, and uses have a low flood damage potential and do

27025C0200D 27025C0225D 27025C0250D 27025C0255D 27025C0260D 27025C0275D
27025C0288D 27025C0289D 27025C0290D 27025C0295D 27025C0300D 27025C0325D
27025C0360D 27025C0375D 27025C0380D 27025C0385D 27025C0400D 27025C0402D
27025C0406D 27025C0425D, 27025CINDOA, all dated April 17, 2012, and prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These materials are on file in the offices of
the Chisago County Environmental Services Department and FEMA online Flood Map Service
Center and hereby constitute the Official Flood District Map of all unincorporated areas of the
County and are adopted by reference as an overlay district designation to all land use maps
of the County.
4.0

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES, STANDARDS, AND USES IN THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT

not obstruct flood flows. These activities, standards, and uses shall be permitted within the
Floodplain District without a permit to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other
ordinance and provided they do not require structures, fill, obstructions, excavations, drilling
operations, storage of materials or equipment or any other form of development as defined
herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance (except for recreational vehicles as permitted in
Section 4.15).
4.11

Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, farm fencing,
forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting.

4.12

Industrial-commercial uses such as driveway and parking areas and airport
landing strips.

4.13

Private and public recreational uses such as driveway and parking areas,
tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching
ramps, swimming areas, parks and anchored parks equipment (benches,
tables, swing sets, grill stations, open air shelters), wildlife and nature preserves,
game farms, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting
and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails.

4.14

Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, driveway and parking areas, and play
areas.

4.15

Recreational vehicles. There shall be no new recreational vehicle parks or
campgrounds located within the Floodplain District. Recreational vehicles will
be allowed on existing lots or parcels of record if they meet the following
standards:
(a) They have current licenses for highway use;
Page 6 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277

(b) They are highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking
system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect utilities
commonly used in campgrounds and recreation vehicle parks;
(c) Except for at-grade patios, there shall be no new development on the lot
or parcel associated with the recreational vehicle including, but not limited
to, such activities as decks, storage buildings, garages, gazebos, fuel
storage tanks, and room additions.
(d) There shall be no development allowed on the lot or parcel that would
hinder the removal of the recreational vehicle to a flood free location
should flooding occur.
(e) They conform with Section 4.14 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.
4.16

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.2 of this Ordinance for permitted
activities and Section 10.0 of this Ordinance for nonconformities, all other
activities and uses and all uses that require structures, fill, obstructions,
excavations, drilling operations, storage of material or equipment or any other
form of development as defined herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance shall be
prohibited.

4.2 Permitted Activities. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator to verify
compliance with all applicable standards outlined in this Ordinance prior to the following
uses or activities:
4.21

Any modification, rehabilitation, maintenance, repair, or alteration to a
nonconforming structure as specified in Section 10.0 of this Ordinance or as
otherwise required by the County Building Official.

4.22

Any use that requires fill, excavation, storage of materials, or placement of
anything that may cause a potential obstruction, as well as any other form of
development as defined in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance. Said uses should be
de minimis in nature and may require mitigation through compensatory
storage improvements.

4.23

Buildings and Structures. No new structures, such as buildings or accessory
structures may be permitted in the regulatory floodplain. Modifications and
alterations of nonconforming structures are subject to the standards in Section
10.0.

Page 7 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320

4.24

Public Transportation Facilities. Development of public transportation facilities
such as railroad tracks, roads, trails, and bridges must be elevated to the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) where such facilities are essential
to the orderly functioning of the area, or where failure or interruption would
result in danger to public health or safety. Development of minor or auxiliary
public roads, trails, or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where
failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public
health or safety. All public transportation facilities should be designed to
minimize increases in flood elevations.

4.25

Public Utilities. All utilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply
systems to be located in the floodplain must be elevated and/or floodproofed
to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), be located and constructed
to minimize or eliminate flood damage and be designed to eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems
into flood waters. All public utilities should be designed to minimize increases in
flood elevations. New solid waste management facilities, as defined in
Minnesota Rules, part 7035.0300, are prohibited. Water supply systems are
subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules, part 4725.4350.

4.26

Land Alterations. In areas within 25 feet of the ordinary high-water level, land
alterations shall be restricted to:
(a)

the minimum required to accommodate beach and access areas, not
to exceed a volume greater than 10 cubic yards and meet all applicable
standards of the County Shoreland Management Ordinance, Wetland
Conservation Act, and Department of Natural Resources public waters
permitting as applicable; and

(b)

the minimum required to accommodate public utilities, roads, trails,
railroad tracks, bridges, and shoreline stabilization projects or to correct
an identified erosion problem or install a recognized best management
water quality improvement, as verified by a qualified resource agency
or the zoning administrator. The minimum volume required to
accommodate these activities may be approved to exceed 10 cubic
yards.

4.27

Relocation or alteration of a watercourse (including stabilization projects or the
construction of new or replacement dams, culverts, and bridges). A local
permit is not required if public waters work permit has been obtained from the
Department of Natural Resources, unless a significant area above the ordinary
high water level is also to be disturbed.
Page 8 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341

4.3 Standards for Permitted Uses in the Zone AE Floodway. In addition to the applicable
standards detailed in Section 4.2:
4.31

The applicant must demonstrate that the development will not result in any of
the following during the one-percent annual chance flood: cause a stage
increase of 0.00 feet or greater, obstruct flood flows, or increase velocities. This
shall be demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed
by a professional engineer, or using other standard engineering practices (e.g.
projects that restore the site to the previous cross-sectional area). This is
commonly documented through a “no-rise certification.”

4.32

Any development that would result in a stage increases greater than 0.00 feet
may only be allowed with a permit if the applicant has applied for a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in accordance with 44 CFR § 65.12,
and FEMA has issued the CLOMR. Map revisions must follow the procedures in
Sections 5.5 and 11.0.

4.33

Any development resulting in decreases to the water surface elevation of the
base flood identified in the Flood Insurance Study requires a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) following the procedures in Sections 5.5 and 11.0.

342
343

4.34

Fill and other land alteration activities must offer minimal obstruction to the
flow of flood waters.

344
345

4.4 Encroachment Analysis.

346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353

4.41

354

4.42

355
356
357
358
359

Encroachments due to development may not allow stage increases more than
one-half (0.5) foot at any point, unless through a map revision following the
procedures in Sections 5.5 and 11.0. This evaluation must include the
cumulative effects of previous encroachments and must be documented with
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed by a professional engineer, or
using other standard engineering practices. A lesser water surface elevation
increase than one-half (0.5) foot is required if, due to the water surface level
increase, increased flood damages would potentially result.

5.0

Alterations or changes that result in stage decreases are allowed and encouraged.

ADMINISTRATION
5.1

Duties. The Zoning Administrator or other designated official must administer
and enforce this ordinance.

Page 9 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370

5.11 Permit Application Requirements. Permit applications must be submitted

371
372

C. Copies of any required local, state or federal permits or approvals.

373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385

D. Other relevant information requested by the Zoning Administrator as

to the Zoning Administrator. The permit application must include the following,
as applicable:

A. A site plan showing all existing or proposed buildings, structures, service
facilities, potential obstructions, and pertinent design features having
an influence on the permit
B. Location and detail of grading, fill, or storage of materials.

necessary to properly evaluate the permit application.
5.12 Recordkeeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain applicable
records in perpetuity documenting:
A. All certifications for dry floodproofing and alternative elevation
methods, where applicable
B. Analysis of no-rise in the Floodway District, as detailed in Section 4.0
and encroachment analysis ensuring no more than one-half foot of rise
in the General Floodplain District, as detailed in Section 4.4

386
387
388
389
390
391

C. Final elevations, as applicable, detailing the elevation (in relation to

392
393
394
395

D. Substantial damage and substantial improvement determinations, as

396
397
398
399

E. All variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must

mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basements, of all new and
substantially improved structures . Elevations shall be determined by an
engineer, architect, surveyor or other qualified individual, as approved
by the Zoning Administrator.

detailed in Section 10, including the cost of improvements, repairs, and
market value

report such variances as requested by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

Page 10 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442

5.13 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming
Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner
until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning
Administrator stating that the finished fill and building floor elevations or other
flood protection measures are in compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance.
5.14 Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration
or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent
communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as
adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to FEMA.
5.15 Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base
Flood Elevations. Where physical changes affecting flooding conditions may
increase or decrease the water surface elevation of the base flood, the
[Community] must notify FEMA of the changes in order to obtain a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR), by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or
scientific data as soon as practicable, but no later than six months after the
date such supporting information becomes available. Within the General
Floodplain District, approval from the Commissioner of Natural Resources is
needed prior to permitting any development that results in a stage increase
between 0.5 and 1.0 feet; a map revision is only required if development results
in stage increases greater than 1.0 foot.
5.2

Development Approvals.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.0 of this Ordinance for permitted
activities, standards, and uses and Section 10.0 of this Ordinance for
nonconformities, no person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair any
substantial damage, cause any substantial improvement, or move-in, any
building or structure within the Floodplain District. No mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation, obstruction, drilling operation or other form of
development as defined herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance shall be
allowed.

5.3

Interpretation of District Boundaries.
The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances
on the Official Flood District Map and the attachments thereto. Where
interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district
as shown on the Official Flood District Map and the attachments thereto, as for
example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary
and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the
Zoning Administrator, the Chisago County Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Page 11 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484

shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on
elevations on the regional (100-year) flood profile, the ground elevations that
existed on the site at the time the Chisago County adopted its initial Floodplain
Management Ordinance or on the date of the first National Flood Insurance
Program map showing the area within the 100-year floodplain, if earlier, and
other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the district
boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals and to submit technical evidence for
determining the 100-year flood elevation the floodway and flood fringe
boundaries pursuant to Section 8.08, Administrative Appeals, of the Chisago
County Zoning Ordinance, No. 08-3 and consistent with the definitions of
floodway and flood fringe in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance.
5.4

Variances.

5.41

An application for a Variance to the provisions of this Ordinance will be
processed and reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section
394.27, Subd. 7 as may be amended and this Ordinance.

5.42

Variances must not be issued within any designated regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.

5.43

Variances from the provisions in this Ordinance may only be issued by a
community upon:
(a)

A showing of good and sufficient cause,

(b)

A determination that failure to grant the Variance would result in
exceptional practical difficulty hardship to the applicant, and

(c)

A determination that the granting of a Variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.

5.44

Variances from the provisions in this Ordinance may only be issued upon a
determination that the Variance is the minimum necessary, considering the
flood hazard, to afford relief.

5.45

Variances must be consistent with the general purpose of these standards and
the intent of applicable provisions in state and federal law.

Page 12 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525

5.46

Though Variances may be used to modify permissible methods of flood
protection, no Variance shall permit a lesser degree of flood protection than
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE).

5.47

The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a Variance and hereby
notifies through ordinance that:
(a)

The issuance of a Variance to construct a structure below the base
flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up
to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and

(b)

Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks
to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record
of all Variance actions.

5.5

Notifications for Watercourse Alterations:
Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning
Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied
for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section
103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must
also be submitted to FEMA.

5.6

Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood
Elevations:
Where physical changes affecting flooding conditions may increase or
decrease the water surface elevation of the base flood, the County must notify
FEMA of the changes in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), by
submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data as soon as
practicable, but no later than six months after the date such supporting
information becomes available. Within areas where the floodway has not been
delineated, a map revision is only required if development results in stage
increases greater than 0.5 feet.

5.7

Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources.
5.71 All notices of public hearings to consider variances under this ordinance
must be sent via electronic mail to the Department of Natural Resources
respective area hydrologist at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices
of hearings to consider subdivisions/plats must include copies of the
subdivision/plat.

Page 13 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544

5.72 A copy of all decisions granting variances and conditional uses under this
ordinance must be sent via electronic mail to the Department of Natural
Resources respective area hydrologist within ten (10) days of final action.
5.8

Amendments.
All amendments to this Ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption.

5.9

Detachments.
The Official Flood District Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted
by reference into Section 3.0 of this Ordinance will include floodplain areas that
lie inside of the incorporated boundaries of municipalities at the time of
adoption of this Ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are detached
from an incorporated municipality and placed under the jurisdiction of
Chisago County after the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the newly
detached floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance
immediately upon the date of the detachment.

6.0

WARNING OF DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY

545
546
547
548
549
550
551

This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the Floodplain District or land uses

552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566

Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance must be

permitted within the district will be free from flooding or damages. This Ordinance shall not
create liability on the part of Chisago County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood
damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully
made thereunder.
7.0

DEFINITIONS

interpreted according to common usage and so as to give this Ordinance its most
reasonable application.
Accessory Structure. A structure, as defined in this Ordinance, that is on the same parcel of
property as, and is incidental to, the principal structure or use; an accessory structure
specifically excludes structures used for human habitation.
Base Flood. The flood having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. “Base flood” is synonymous with the term “regional flood” used in Minnesota Rules,
part 6120.5000.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The elevation of the base flood, regional flood, or one-percent
annual chance flood. The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance study.

Page 14 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609

Basement. Any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade
(below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground
level.
Building. See Structure.
Development. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but
not limited to, buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures, recreational vehicles,
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of
materials or equipment.
Farm Fence. An open type of fence of posts and horizontally run wire, further specified in
Minnesota Statutes, section 344.02 Subd. 1(a - d).
Flood Fringe. The portion of the one-percent annual chance floodplain located outside of the
floodway. The flood fringe shall comprise those Zone AE areas shown on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance that are located outside of the
delineated floodway. The flood fringe boundary and the regulatory flood protection elevation
for Zone A and Zone AE areas without a delineated floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance shall be determined on a case-by-case basis
by Chisago County in accordance with the criteria spelled out in Minnesota Regulations, Parts
6120.5000 – 6120.6200 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65. When determining the
flood fringe boundaries for lakes, wetlands, and other basins, Chisago County can determine
the area below the 100-year flood elevation and the area above the ordinary high water level
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subdivision 14 to be flood fringe.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). An official map of a community, on which the Federal
Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium
zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM).
Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The study referenced in Section 3.2, which is an examination,
evaluation and determination of flood hazards, and if appropriate, corresponding surface
elevations, or an examination, evaluation, and determination of mudslide (i.e. mudflow)
and/or flood-related erosion hazards.
Floodplain. The beds, channel and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse, or
other source which have been or hereafter may be inundated by the base flood.
Floodway. The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and the adjoining
floodplain which must be reserved to carry or store the base flood discharge without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one-half foot. The floodway
shall include those areas delineated as floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels
Page 15 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652

adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance. Floodway boundaries and the regulatory flood
protection elevation for Zone A and Zone AE areas without a delineated floodway on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance shall be determined on a
case-by-case basis by Chisago County in accordance with the criteria spelled out in
Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.5000 – 6120.6200 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part
65. When determining the floodway boundaries for lakes, wetlands, and other basins, Chisago
County can determine the area at or below the ordinary high water level as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subdivision 14 to be floodway.
Lowest Floor. The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or
storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor;
provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable non-elevation design requirements of 44 CFR § 60.3.
Manufactured Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term
“recreational vehicle.”
New Construction. Structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the
effective date of an adopted floodplain management regulation, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures.
Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection,
excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure,
or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood
plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or
by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
Principal Structure. The main building or other structure on a lot that is utilized for the
property’s principal use.
Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less
when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self-propelled or
permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a
permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or
seasonal use. Those vehicles not meeting this definition shall be considered a structure for
the purposes of this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term recreational
vehicle shall be synonymous with the term “travel trailer/travel vehicle”.
Regional Flood. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred
generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on
Page 16 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694

an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 year recurrence interval. Regional flood is
synonymous with the term “base flood” used in the Flood Insurance Study.
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The
regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the
elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by
encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway.
Special flood hazard area (SFHA). An area having special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or
flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on an FHBM or FIRM as Zone A, AO, A1-30, AE, AR,
AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, A99, AH, VO, V1-30, VE, V, M, or E.
Start of Construction. Includes substantial improvement, and means the date the permit was
issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual
start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site,
such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or
any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a
foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing,
grading and Last Revised July 2025 filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, foundations, or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory
buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main
structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
Structure. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground,
including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins,
manufactured homes, recreational vehicles not considered travel ready, and other similar
items.
Substantial Damage. Means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost
of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent
of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial Improvement. Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement
of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures
that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The
term does not, however, include either:

Page 17 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731

(a)

Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state
or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been
identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum
necessary to assure safe living conditions: or

(b)

Any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure.” For
the purpose of this Ordinance, “historic structure” shall be as defined in 44
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1.

Variance. “Variance” means the same as that defined in 44 CFR § 59.1 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 394.27, Subd. 7.
Violation. “Violation” means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully
compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations.
8.0

PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
8.1

Uses in Violation of the Ordinance. Every structure, fill, deposit, or other use
placed or maintained in the floodplain in violation of this Ordinance shall be
considered a public nuisance.

8.2

Civil Remedies. The creation of a public nuisance may be enjoined and the
maintenance of a public nuisance under this Ordinance may be abated by an
action brought by Chisago County or the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.

8.3

Enforcement. Violations of the provisions of this Ordinance constitute a
misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. The Zoning Administrator
may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but
not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders
for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program
for denial of flood insurance. The County must act in good faith to enforce
these official controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible
so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.

9.0

SEVERABILITY

Page 18 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

732
733
734
735
736

If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or

737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773

A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or

invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be
affected thereby.
10.0

NONCONFORMITIES

amendment of this Ordinance, but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance, may be continued subject to the following conditions.
10.1

No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that
increases its nonconformity. There shall be no expansion to the outside
dimension of a nonconforming structure in the floodplain.

10.2

Any structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use in
the floodplain which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of
that structure or use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation in accordance with any of the flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , FP-1
thru FP-4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code,
except as further restricted in 10.4 below.

10.3

If any nonconforming use or structure is substantially damaged, as defined in
Section 7.0 of this Ordinance, it shall not be reconstructed unless it is located in
the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and it is reconstructed in accordance
with the standards found in Section 10.5 of this Ordinance.

10.4

If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance,
from any rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the
inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure, then the existing
nonconforming structure must be located in the flood fringe portion of the
floodplain and meet the requirements of Section 10.5 of this Ordinance. A
nonconforming structure shall not be substantially improved if said structure is
located in the floodway.

10.5

The following standards and procedures apply to nonconforming structures
that have been substantially damaged or substantially improved in the flood
fringe portion of the floodplain:
(a)

All structures, including manufactured homes, must be elevated on fill
so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the regulatory flood
protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least
Page 19 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816

fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected
thereon.
(b)

Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly
protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable
method.

(c)

Floodplain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic
capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary
watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other
encroachment limit has not been specified on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance.

(d)

All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately
anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral
movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited
to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring
requirements for resisting wind forces.

(e)

On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems. Where public
utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the
systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment
systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood
waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination
during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in
accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site
sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance
with this Section.

(f)

A permit issued by the Zoning Administrator in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the
commencement of construction.

(g)

Application for a permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on
forms furnished by Chisago County and shall include, but may not be
limited to, the following where applicable: plans drawn to scale,
showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot;
existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the
location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel.
Page 20 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837

(h)

Prior to granting a permit, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that
the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits.

(i)

Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a
registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land
surveyor that the finished fill, building elevations or flood proofing
measures were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.

(j)

Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a
record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
new structures and alterations to existing structures in the floodplain.
The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation
to which structures or alterations to structures are flood proofed.

11.0
11.1

AMENDMENTS
Ordinance Amendments. Any revisions to the floodplain maps by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or annexations of new map panels require an
amendment to update the map references in Section 3.2 of this ordinance.

12.0

REPEALER

838
839
840
841

This Ordinance repeals and replaces the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance

842
843
844
845

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval and

adopted on March 21, 2012 as Ordinance 12-1, and all amendments thereto.
13.0

EFFECTIVE DATE

publication, as required by law.

Page 21 of 21
October 1, 2026 Planning Commission Review

CHISAGO COUNTY ORDINANCES: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION TRACKING MATRIX
October 1, 2026
No.

ISSUE TOPIC / SUMMARY

DATE
IDENTIFIED

SECTION
LOCATION(s)

PAGE(s)

ISSUE NARRATIVE / DETAIL

ALTERNATIVES / SOLUTIONS

COMMISSION / BOARD
CONSENSUS & DIRECTION

CONSENSUS
DATE

ACTION PRIORITY
High / Annual Update / Other

STATUS

1

Rural Retail Tourism Wedding/Gathering Venues

12/18/24

5.06
4.17

119
104

Improve code treatement of Rural Retail Tourism busineses - wedding/gathering venues.
Review recent wedding venue proposal on 260th for issues discussion.

Expand and detail wedding/gathering venue perfomrance standards
within the code

County Board Directed

CB 12/18/24

High

Completed 08/20/25 - Ordinance
Amendment Enacted as Ord. No.
2025/0820-2

Proposed by Commissioner Whitney. Horse-Equine Businesses are better suited as
Permitted Agricultural Use rather than a Major Home Occupation. An equine facility
whether it’s amateur or professional and whether its focus is on training, breeding,
showing, sales or boarding of equine animals is an agricultural business which should
meet agricultural standards NOT Major Home Occupation standards.

Commisison Direction
Requested; Commission
Consensus and Direction on
04/03/25 to Have Staff Further PC 04/03/25
Develop Verbiage and
Definitions; County Board
direction on 05/07/25 to proceed

High

Completed 08/20/25 - Ordinance
Amendment Enacted as Ord. No.
2025/0820-1

2

Major Home Occupation Horse / Equine

01/03/25

5.06 B & C
4.04
3

118
66
9

3

Zoning Map Amendment - RR
Districts Consolidation &
Renaming of UR District

01/07/25

5.02

116

As a part of the recent comprehensive update of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance,
Amend the zoning map to reflect consolidated RR District and change
the Rural Residential Zoning Districts (RRI and RRII) were consolidated into one single
Rural Residential (RR) District; and "Urban Fringe" residential terminology is used in place the map legend to reflect Urban Residential as Urban Fringe Residential.
of "Urban Residential".

Board Directed Public Hearing

CB 01/07/25

High

Completed 02/19/25

Coordination and engagement with local units of government (LGUs)
with the intent of opening lines of communication, building
awareness, and providing opportunity for the LGUs to be more
involved.

Commission Consensus
Requested for County Board
Endorsement and Direction

PC 05/01/25

Other - Ongoing Effort

In Progress - Planning Commission
and Staff Discussing Strategy(ies)

Update of the 2010 Chisago County SSTS Ordinance in close consult
with MPCA staff and related rule and policy adjustments of the past 15
years.

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/19/25

Other

In Progress - Staff Review

Other

Completed 07/17/25 - Subcomittee
met on 07/17/25 and determined
Amendment was not warranted.
Instead, Department will coordinate
with CCSO for increased awareness of
licensed properties.

High

In progress - County Baord adopted a
1-year moratorium ordinance on
08/05/2026.

Other

In Progress - Consultants provided
introductory presentation to
Planning Commission on 02/05/26,
and Commission motioned to
support the LSCWP's review of
County Ordinances with further
Commission discussion at the
03/05/2026 meeting. LSCWP to be
scheduled for future work session.

Other - Over the Course of the
Next Year

In Progress - Staff presented memo
to Planning Commission on 02/05/26
providing framework and ideas for
future discussion, and Commission
reached consensus to continue
monitoring Section 4.19 as adopted
and directed staff to provide
quarterly monitoring metric updates.
Staff provided Q1 2026 metrics on
04/02/26.

Ref. Commissioner Whitney research/reccomendation papers dated
01/02/25, 02/16/25, and 02/24/25

4

Zoning Map Amendment
Work Plan

02/06/25

5.02

116

Proposed by Commissioner McCarthy on 02/06/25 during public hearing to consider
adoption of Official Zoning Map with Amendments (matrix item no. 3). Added to
02/20/25 work session agenda but held over due to McCarthy's absence. Added to
04/09/25 meeting agenda but held over at McCarthy's request. Added to 05/01/25
meeting agenda, with consensus reached by Planning Commission on same date.

5

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

03/19/25

Full Ordinance

All

Comprehensive "housekeeping" review and update of 2010 septic system ordinance

All

Based on concerns expressed during County Board's 05/21/25 Citizen's Forum and
subsequent disucssion at County Board's 06/18/25 meeting, County Board has expressed
interest in organizing a sub-committee of County Board members and staff to review
ordinance and determine if an Amendment is warranted.

NA

Board enacted a moratorium on
data centers to provide County
staff, the Planning Commission,
Proposed by Commissioner McCarthy on 10/02/25 to consider potential sizes and
and the County Board with a
impacts of data centers. Proposed by Commissioner DuBose on 07/02/2026 to consider Enact a moratorium on data centers for the study and development of
meaningful opportunity to study
recommending a moratorium on data centers to allow for study and development of
zoning regulations specific to data centers.
whether and how the County
zoning regulations.
should amend its official
controls to effectively regulate
data centers moving forward

6

7

8

9

Short-Term Rental Licensing
Ordinance 060320-1

Data Centers

Water-Related Regulations
within Zoning Ordinance

Temporary Storage and
Shipping Containers

06/18/25

10/2/2025
07/02/2026

11/06/25

11/12/25

Full Ordinance

NA

3
7.13-7.18

4.19

Update the Short-Term Rental Licensing Ordinance 060320-1 based on
recommendations provided by sub-committee

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 06/18/25

The Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership (LSCWP) extended an offer to review the
County's water-related regulations / ordinances to identify possible updates which
Preliminary discussion at
9-58
Consider suggested ordinance amendment(s) based on feedback from
provide clear, effective, and consistent standards with the intent of protecting the
11/06/25 Planning Commission PC 02/05/26
179-182
the Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership and its consultant.
County's lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The LSCWP has engaged a counsultant to carry out
meeting
the review.

County Board has directed the Planning Commission to monitor effectiveness and
109-112 review Section 4.19 over the course of the next year to consider adjusting appropriate
allowances and approval processes for varied uses of storage and shipping containers.

Potential development of updated regulations pertaining to the
temporary use of storage and shipping containers.

Board Direction to Proceed with
Monitor & Review of Section CB 11/12/25
4.19

10

Floodplain Management
Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 12-1)

Update of the 2012 Chisago County Floodplain Management
Ordinance to address deficiencies and based on the current MN DNR
Simplified Model Floodplain Ordinance.

03/18/26

Full Ordinance

06/03/26

4, 5.03, 6.03,
6.06, 12, 13.01,
13.02, 13.05,and
13.06

County Board identified a need to allow authorized agents to perform department
inspection responsibilities and to allow state licensed subsurface sewage treatment
system businesses, individuals, or agents to conduct point of sale or other compliance
inspections and administer certificates of compliance

Update of applicable sections within the 2010 Chisago County SSTS
Ordinance in close consult with MPCA staff.

The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) notified the County that, due
to recent amendments and updates at the State level, the County must amend its
ordinance by July 31, 2027 to incoporate the required revisions.

Update the 2017 Chisago County Buffer Ordinance to incorporate
required changes identified by BWSR and based on BWSR's model
ordinance

County Board authorized and directed Planning Commission to conduct public hearing
and consider the establishment of additional restrictions on the outdoor cultivation of
cannabis in the AG District.

Consider amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.20, including
limiting number of State-issued licenses per parcel, minimum parcel
size, and minimum setbacks.

11

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

12

Buffer Ordinance
Ord. No. 17/1018-1

07/28/26

Full Ordinance

13

Cannabis Cultivation,
Production, Manufacture,
and Sale

09/02/26

4.2

All

Staff has identified deficiencies within the Ordinance including the lack of specificity of
driveways necessary to service permitted uses and the lack of definition and guidance
concerning public infrastructure driveways/roadways/bridges/culverts, etc. The County
Board directed, on March 18, 2026, to proceed with an adminstrative review / update
and public hearing process.

All

Board Direction to Proceed

Board Direction to Proceed

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/18/26

CB 06/03/26

CB 09/02/26

High

In-Progress - Public Hearing
scheduled for 05/07/26; continued to
06/04/26; continued to 07/02/26;
continued to 08/06/2026; continued
to 09/03/26; continued to 10/01/26.

High

Completed 06/17/26 - County Board
conducted public hearing on
06/17/26. Ordinance Amendment
enacted as Ord. No. 2026/0617-1.

High - Amendment Must be
Complete by July 31, 2027

In-Progress - County staff is
scheduled to meet with BWSR on
08/31/26 to discuss the Ordinance
Amendment

High

In-Progress - Public Hearing
scheduled for 10/01/26