The Timberjay logo
Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Board faces revolt over proposed ordinance change

Posted 4/16/26

WHITE TWP— A rumbling of opposition that began brewing in February became a full-fledged rebellion this week, one that caught St. Louis County commissioners by surprise on Tuesday. Hundreds of …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Board faces revolt over proposed ordinance change

Posted

WHITE TWP— A rumbling of opposition that began brewing in February became a full-fledged rebellion this week, one that caught St. Louis County commissioners by surprise on Tuesday. Hundreds of residents filled the Loon Lake Community Center— one of the largest turnouts ever for a public hearing in the county— to voice their opposition to proposed changes to the county’s land use ordinance. While some were motivated by changes to the language on data centers, it was changes to ordinance language affecting the number of inoperable vehicles allowed on rural properties that attracted the most ire from residents.
At a public hearing ahead of Tuesday’s county board meeting, opponents spoke out by the dozens and presented a stack of petitions as well that they said contained more than 2,600 signatures from residents of the county.
The St. Louis County Planning Commission had recommended the language changes, which county planning staff argued would have actually loosened the regulations on the storage of inoperable and unlicensed vehicles. But that’s not how many county residents saw it and they made their displeasure crystal clear.
The groundswell of opposition grew quickly. Colvin Township supervisor Jim Hofsommer, of Markham, had been the sole dissenter at a public hearing held by the planning commission back in February. But by this past Tuesday, Hofsommer had rounded up plenty of company and the county board heeded their concerns, voting 6-1 to send the ordinance changes back to the planning commission for further consideration.
Commissioner Keith Nelson, who serves as the county board’s representative on the planning commission and had supported the ordinance change, was the only member of the board to vote against returning the changes to the planning department.
A county press release stated that there was no immediate timeline for the planning commission to take up the proposed changes again.