Eliminate NEW development adjacent to WMAs

[brittman]

Not sure if this is legally possible, but it would be nice for MN to ban any new permanent structure (home, barn, shed) from being build adjacent to WMAs and WPAs. MN should also restrict land subdividement near WMAs.

Maybe set a set back requirement of 1/4 or 1/2 mile. This would prevent development on the fence line, but still let landowner build.

The worst case scenario is the situation where someone purchases 5 or 10 acres on the WMA fence line and builds. I am seeing this in rural counties too. Is the thought to make the adjacent WMA theirs too?

Mandate only subdiviements of 40 acres or greater on land adjacent to a WMA or WPA. Include state forest land too?

[sparcebag]

A 500 ft setback would serve the purpose for me,just to keep the area open to shooters.(the 500ft rule)no discharge of firearms within 500 ft of a building,livestock,etc.

This problem has come up where I live a few times in the last two years.[PoorWordUsage] one city guy here posts a pond that he owns 90% of shoreline but the co. rd.right of way abuts the pond.He posts it as livestock contained KEEP OUT! right on the road.