BOA_Minutes

Document Sample
BOA_Minutes Powered By Docstoc
					HUBBARD COUNTY
Board of Adjustment Meeting
9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, January 18, 2010

Vice-Chairman Jerry Cole opened the meeting with the following members present: Tom Krueger, Earl
Benson, Jerry Cole, Charles “Chick” Knight, and Arnold Christianson. Also present was Environmental
Services Officer Eric Buitenwerf and Recording Secretary Janet Thompson.

Cole started the meeting by reading the purpose of the Board of Adjustment to the audience.

Approval of the November 15, 2010 Minutes:
Christianson moved to approve the November 15, 2010 minutes as presented. Knight seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS:
No old business was presented.

NEW BUSINESS:
Variance Application # 7-V-10 by R & R Partnership: Lot One (1), Block One (1), Little Sand Acres,
Section Thirty-five (35), Township One Hundred Forty-one (141), Range Thirty-four (34), Lake Emma
Township on Little Sand Lake. Parcel ID # 16.79.00100. Applicants are requesting a variance from
Section 707.2 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The request seeks to allow making an
unimproved lot into an improved lot and it to be sold separately from the adjacent property (parcel
16.41.00400). The lot has a prior variance granting an 85’ ordinary high water mark (OHW) setback for a
residential structure. This request concerns the septic drainfield 150’ setback requirement. The lot is
unable to provide two drainfield sites that meet all setback requirements. The proposed primary
drainfield site is at a 90’ OHW setback and 0’ side lot line setback and the proposed alternate drainfield
site is at an 80’ OHW setback and 0’ side lot line setback. Also requested is a variance from Section
801.2 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance and Subdivision 2.10 of the Individual Sewage System
Standards Ordinance to place the proposed primary drainfield site at less than the required 20’ setback
from a building. Little Sand Lake is a recreational development lake.

Kevin Lindow and Tom Miller, Lindow Surveying, representing R & R Partnership, presented the
variance to the Board. Miller reviewed the history of the property. In 1988, the property was platted as
Little Sand Acres. During the process of platting, the developer was granted a variance for the building
setback on Lot 1. The plat was subsequently approved with the variance on Lot 1. In 1989, Albergs, who
owned North Star Resort, bought the N ½ of Lot 1 and Chmielewskis, owners of Lot 2 to the south,
purchased the S ½ of Lot 1. In 1992, Albergs purchased the S ½ from the Chmielewskis and the lot
became one again. In 2007, State Bank gave a mortgage to the Albergs for just Lot 1. In 2008 the
mortgage was revised to include all of the resort property as well as Lot 1. The resort property consisted
of Lots 5-8 and part of Outlot 1 in the plat of Muskieland to the north of the subject lot. A year later State
Bank foreclosed on the property and assumed ownership. In 2010, a warranty deed was given to R & R
Partnership for Lot 1. A separate warranty deed was given to Little Sand Investors Ice Cracking Resort
for the resort property in Muskieland.

Miller said the property more than exceeds the Ordinance lot width requirements at both the building
setback line and at the shoreline for residential properties. It also exceeds the residential lot suitable area
(RLSA) Ordinance requirements for residential lots. The wetland located on the property creates the
reason why the variance is necessary for the building setback. The 150-foot building setback from the
ordinary high water mark (OHW) requirement for the septic on this lot cannot be met. During the lot
viewal of the property, it was determined that the septic drainfield could be relocated in from the property
lines to meet the 10-foot side lot line setback requirement. That will still leave over a 50 foot building
                                                                                                             1
envelope of width to accommodate a structure on the lot. The property has over 14,000 square feet of
RLSA to the 100-foot building setback. Considering the 85-foot setback line, it has close to 16,500
square feet of RLSA. Twelve thousand square feet of RLSA is located between the wetland and the
building setback line. This exceeds the 50% requirement of contiguous RLSA on a residential lot. The
variance is for a septic setback. He pointed out that the State minimum septic drainfield setback from the
OHW is 75 feet.

Lindow said the Ordinance requires that the RLSA requirement is 20,000 square feet of which 10,000
square feet can be separated by the wetland. At the 85-foot setback, this lot has 12,000 square feet RLSA
at the lake and even without the 85-foot setback from the previous variance, 10,000 square feet RLSA
exists which is what the Ordinance requires. Even without the variance allowance of an 85-foot setback
variance, the lot meets the minimum standards of the Ordinance.

Miller said when State Bank sold this property, they sold it in good faith. R & R Partnership purchased in
good faith. State Bank gave them a warranty deed and R & R Partnership are the owners of this property.

Cole questioned if R & R Partnership intends to sell the lot as a buildable piece of property.

Miller agreed. They may even construct a spec home for resale.

Knight raised concern with the septic system encroachment on the side lot line. He questioned if there
was an inspection done as to the well locations for the adjacent properties.

Miller said that there is not a well on the north side of the property within 50 feet of the proposed septic
area. He felt that there is adequate room to pull the absorption areas ten feet off the property line and meet
the side lot line setback requirements. He had no knowledge of well(s) on the south side of the property.

Knight questioned if moving the placement of the absorption area would compromise the lot’s ability to
install a well.

Miller said no. There is plenty of room to install a well meeting all setback requirements.

Benson too was concerned with the variance request for a zero side lot line setback. He wanted to know
why, if it was possible, that the proposal wasn’t drawn out originally that way on the plan.

Miller said the inspector who developed the plan tried to maximize the buildable envelope on the lot.

Krueger questioned if the lot has easement from this property to the south.

Miller said yes. There is a 33-foot easement that crosses Lots 2, 3 and 4.

Cole questioned the number of bedrooms proposed for the residence.

Miller said that the septic design is sized for a 3-bedroom home.

Cole said the Board has previously limited the size to a residential structure because of lot constraints. In
this case, he felt an adequate building envelope exists for the house if the structure is reduced in size.

Krueger questioned the resort property to the north which is planned for a conversion to a residential
planned unit development (PUD). He questioned the density on that resort.


                                                                                                            2
Miller said currently the property is a resort-a commercial PUD. As a commercial PUD, it is slightly
under density. They are allowed eight point seven units. As a resort, it is functioning in density.

Krueger asked Buitenwerf if those figures are correct.

Miller said his calculations show that as a commercial PUD the resort is allowed eight point seven units
in the first tier and nine units in the second tier per average square footage of the houses and the suitable
area for each tier.

Lindow pointed out currently there are eight units in the first tier and one in the second.

Krueger said the Ordinance requires that during a conversion to a residential PUD that if there is adjacent
property and there is a density issue, then those adjacent properties must be combined. It doesn’t sound
like there are density issues.

Miller said it is not over density as a resort.

Lindow said the two properties are owned by different owners.

Benson said the septic drainfield area is only fifteen feet from the cabin. The cabin has a well which is
probably inside the cabin. Moving the septic system 50 feet away would cut into the building site.

Miller said there is a separate well serving the resort cabins. It is not inside it. Moving the drainfield area
provides a 25 foot setback from the resort cabin to the drainfield absorption area.

No correspondence was presented for this application.

Public comment:
 Maggi Yerkes, resident on Little Sand Lake and President of the Little Sand Lake Association,
   addressed the Board. Yerkes said Lindow, Miller and Rick LeSage were at the Little Sand Lake
   Association Board meeting. Two items were addressed at that time: 1) that there was common
   ownership between this parcel of land and the resort and 2) that the septic drainfield area does not
   meet the setback requirements. The Association agrees with Buitenwerf’s comments. She
   encouraged the Board to consider Buitenwerf’s professional expertise.         Yerkes, reading from
   Buitenwerf’s staff report, said, “The Department recommends denial of this application because the
   proposed residential lot suitable area is 5921 square feet shy of the minimum 20,000 square feet
   required. Looking at that mathematically, it is approximately 29 ½ to 30% of the 20,000 square foot
   amount which is required-a significant figure. She also raised concern with the wetland areas on the
   property. She emphasized the importance of the wetlands. She recommended denial of the request.

Miller said that the wetlands are protected by the Wetland Conservation Act. There will be no impact to
the wetlands in this proposal.

   Mary Jo Groehler, Little Sand Lake Association Board member and COLA representative, addressed
    the Board. She questioned how the viewing could happen with the amount of snow cover present. It
    was difficult to see where anything was. Nothing was marked as far as the different setback points.
    She questioned if the Board recognized the low area lakeside in front of where the building area will
    be. Many questions arose and references were made towards the wood pile. That did not give a good
    understanding of what the lot was like. Addressing the wetland, Groehler encouraged the Board to
    view the property without the snow cover. She expressed concern with the fact that following the site


                                                                                                             3
    viewal, the Board members were standing beside their vehicle. She questioned if the members were
    continuing discussion on the application.

Cole said the van was stuck, thus the reason the Board members were standing outside of the vehicle.
The meeting did not proceed.

Groehler referenced a family member on the other side of the lake who purchased a three bedroom cabin.
His drainfield was at the 150 foot setback and was required to install holding tanks to protect the wetland
behind his area. She did not understand why these applicants should be allowed to place the septic
components right by a lot line. She recommended denial of the application for the protection of Little
Sand Lake.

   Dan Kittilson, President of Hubbard County COLA and resident on Little Sand Lake, addressed the
    Board. Kittilson spoke to the Board members regarding their job as board members. Kittilson said
    the policy of the Shoreland Management Ordinance deals with the uncontrolled use of shorelands in
    Hubbard County, Minnesota. It affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by
    contributing to the pollution of public waters, but by impairing the local tax base. The mission of the
    Shoreland Management Ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of the surface waters,
    conserve the economic and natural and environmental values of the shorelands and to provide for the
    wise use of waters and related resources. This responsibility has been recognized by Hubbard County
    and will be accomplished through the enforcement of this ordinance. So far, he has heard the Board
    and their concerns for the side lot lines. He has not heard a lot of concern for the lake. Addressing
    protection to sensitive lakes, Kittilson referenced a 2005 Governor’s Clean Water Initiative under the
    Shoreland Rules Update Project, issued a white paper report on the science of septic systems. This
    document addressed phosphorus and nitrate loading to the lakes. The paper states, “Given recent
    research on phosphorus mitigation of septic systems, existing setbacks of less than 100 feet may be
    insufficient.” Hubbard County’s setback is 150 feet. Bruce Paelch, Minnesota Pollution Control
    Agency (MPCA), presented at the Hubbard County COLA meeting last fall a seminar on sensitive
    lakes. Last spring the sechi disc reading on Little Sand Lake was 40-feet deep. On Big Sand Lake it
    was 45-feet deep. These lakes are worth protecting. Paelch stated that small changes in phosphorus
    levels to these lakes can cause significant changes to water clarity and quality. Kittilson urged the
    Board members to protect the lake by denying the variance request. He challenged the statement that
    the property is not under common ownership with the neighboring resort.

Miller said it is true the property was in common ownership when the Albergs owned the property. It no
longer is. In addition, Miller said the State requirement for setback from the OHW to septic system
drainfield areas is 75 feet. Hubbard County is at 150 feet.

Kittilson said, when he first received information from Janet Thompson, it came from Little Sand
Investors and R & R Partnership. There were delays in the variance coming before the Board and when it
did, a new name popped up-Prouty. He encouraged the Board to conduct a deeper investigation on the
matter.

   Doug Kingsley, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Area Fisheries Supervisor, addressed the
    Board. Kingsley said that although it is may be true that the State’s minimum standards for setbacks
    for septic systems are somewhat less than Hubbard County, the Hubbard County Board, in their
    wisdom, made that setback larger in order to avoid or minimize the potential for negative impacts to
    the lake. He urged the Board to follow that intent and the Ordinance on this application. Kingsley
    addressed the ownership of the two parcels. The two parcels were in single ownership. Reading from
    the Shoreland Management Ordinance, Kingsley quoted, “If in a group of two or more contiguous
    lots under the same ownership any individual lot does not meet the minimum lot width and lot area

                                                                                                         4
     requirements of Section 501 of this Ordinance, the lot shall not be considered as a separate parcel of
     land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with one or more contiguous
     lots either unimproved or improved so that they equal one or more parcels of land each meeting the
     lot area and lot width requirements of this Ordinance.” He urged the Board to consider that the lots
     were under the same ownership prior to this current owner and they should not have been considered
     separately. He recommended denial of the application.

    Chuck Diessner, COLA representative, addressed the Board. Diessner agreed with Kittilson’s
     comments. He suggested the records will show that Little Sand Investors sold to the Proutys. The
     question is what is behind the deed of record. He suggested there is an agreement with the Proutys to
     convey the property back or that they have a minimal interest and the driving force behind the
     adjacent lot for the PUD is the LeSages and the Little Sand Investors. He suggested the desire to
     change ownership occurred when the Little Sand Lake Association and the DNR commented on the
     Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The ownership is immaterial for the reasons Kingsley
     quoted. Once there is common ownership, the lot could not be sold or developed. The common
     ownership was established when the Albergs had title. They lost it on foreclosure and State Bank
     now cannot sell the lot separately. He complimented Buitenwerf in his analysis that the application
     should be denied. He suggested the Board practice of riding together in one van to view the property
     sites was a violation of the open meeting law.

The Board directed Buitenwerf to seek an opinion from legal counsel on the matter.

Cole agreed there were many questions that were brought up during the meeting. He too questioned the
ownership of the property and suggested that be reviewed by the County Attorney.

Krueger had no issue with the setback variance based upon the research conducted by the State in
allowing a 75-foot minimum setback distance. He did; however, have a problem with the common
ownership of the property as defined by Kingsley. The Board has knowledge that the resort property to
the north is proposed for conversion to a residential PUD. Considering this lot apart from the resort is the
issue he had problem with.

Benson moved to deny Variance Application # 7-V-10 by R & R Partnership. Knight seconded the
motion.

Cole read the findings of fact into the record.

An area variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result
in “practical difficulty”. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon the
consideration of the following criteria as defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court in In re the Matter of
the Decision of County of Otter Tail Board of Adjustment to Deny a Variance to Cyril Stadsvold and
Cynara Stadsvold.:

1.       Is the request a substantial variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance?        Why or
         why not?

Yes. Because of the zero setback from the lot lines, the setback from the lake for the drainfield, and that the
lot is approximately 6,000 square feet short of the required 20,000 square feet (residential lot suitable area
criteria).

2.       Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?


                                                                                                             5
It will have no effect on government services.

3.      Will the requested variance effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will
        it result in a substantial detriment to neighboring properties? Why or why not?

No. The area will remain residential lakeshore.

4.      Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance? (Economic considerations play
        a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?

No. They would need the variance to allow the setback for the septic drainfield.

5.      How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the variance?
        Explain.

Benson said, “No. The setback for the drainfields…” Krueger said, “I think he created it. I think he
created the need for the variance by circumventing the Ordinance as far as the sale of the property. It was
owned by one person at one time. Perhaps it was intentional manipulation, I don’t know.”


6.      In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of justice? Why
        or why not?

Yes. Because of the size of the lot, the wetland area, and the setbacks for the septic drainfield are too
close to the lake.

Facts supporting the answer to each question, above, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of
Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1104 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance.

The motion to deny carried unanimously.

Variance Application # 8-V-10 by Brent and Catherine Prouty: Lots Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7) and
Eight (8), and part of Outlot Number One (1) plat of Muskieland, Section Thirty-five (35), Township One
Hundred Forty-one (141), Range Thirty-four (34), Lake Emma Township on Little Sand Lake. Parcel ID
# 16.41.00400. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 1014 Item 6.C of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance to exceed the allowed number of continuous beaching, mooring, or docking sites
for watercraft on this property being proposed to be converted from a resort to a residential planned unit
development (PUD). The ordinance allows three (3) permanent slips and nine (9) permanent slips are
requested in this application. Little Sand Lake is a recreational development lake.

No applicant was present for this application.

Buitenwerf explained that the applicants have verbally indicated during the lot viewal their intent to
withdraw the application. No official written documentation is on file to that effect.

Public comment:
    Maggie Yerkes, Little Sand Lake Association President, addressed the Board. Yerkes said when
        the Little Sand Lake Association met with the applicant and their agents, at the conclusion of that
        meeting it was felt that given the pending lawsuit between the County and COLA, that they


                                                                                                          6
        would wait until the results of that lawsuit are known. If and when the variance application is
        heard, she recommended denial.

Cole questioned procedural actions on the application.

Buitenwerf said there was indication from the agents at the lot viewal for the R & R Partnership variance
that this variance would be withdrawn. However, they are not present and they have not submitted an
official withdrawal.

Public comment:
    Chuck Diessner, COLA representative, addressed the Board.              Diessner suggested that the
        application be tabled.

Benson suggested tabling the application until May of 2011 so that the property can be appropriately
viewed without the limiting winter factors.

Benson moved to table Variance Application # 8-V-10 by Brent and Catherine Prouty until the May 16,
2011 variance meeting in order to allow the Board the ability to view the property site without the
limiting factors of the winter conditions. Christianson seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.

Variance Application # 67-V-10 by Paul and Leslie Bellig: Lot Seven (7) and the North Half of the
East 189 feet of Lot One (1), Pleasant View, Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Forty-five
(145), Range Thirty-four (34), Rockwood Township on Plantagenet Lake, Parcel ID # 22.37.01200.
Applicants are requesting a variance from Sections 502.2 and 506.2 of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance to construct additions to a guest cabin that will exceed the maximum 700 square foot allowed
for guest cabins and not comply with the required ten foot side lot line setback. Plantagenet is a
recreational development lake.

Paul Bellig addressed the Board. Bellig said that this is an existing cabin which is deteriorating. The
existing cabin had a bathroom which was built across the property line and then was subsequently cut
back to within one foot of the property line. The request is to remove that part of the cabin and improve
and enlarge it slightly with an addition large enough to accommodate a bathtub onto a side of the cabin
that is further from the property line. Also requested is a wood shed lean-to addition. The lean-to is
proposed to the north side of the cabin, dimensionally the same size as the existing wood shed.

Benson had no issue with this request.

Cole said that the Board viewed the property. The applicant is willing to tear down the old wood shed.
The Board requested that the lean-to for the wood shed not be enclosed. The proposal will be an
improvement to the property. He pointed out that the Bellig home is at an approximate 600-foot setback
from the OHW of Lake Plantagenet.

The Board concurred with Cole.

Bellig, for the record, noted his plans include reconstructing the screened porch. The dimensions of the
porch remain unchanged other than altering the roof from a flat to a pitched roof matching the rest of the
cabin.




                                                                                                         7
Correspondence:
    Letter received 1/4/2011 by J. R. Vigdal was read into the record. See exhibit “A” on file with
       the Environmental Services Office.

No public comment was given.

Cole moved to approve Variance Application # 67-V-10 by Paul and Leslie Bellig as presented with the
condition that the wood shed lean-to never be enclosed. Christianson seconded the motion.

Cole read the findings of fact into the record.

An area variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result
in “practical difficulty”. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon the
consideration of the following criteria as defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court in In re the Matter of
the Decision of County of Otter Tail Board of Adjustment to Deny a Variance to Cyril Stadsvold and
Cynara Stadsvold.:

1.      Is the request a substantial variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance?          Why or
        why not?

No it is not. In fact, the gentleman is attempting to bring his property into closer accord with the Ordinance.

2.      Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?

No. There will be no effect on government services.

3.      Will the requested variance effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will
        it result in a substantial detriment to neighboring properties? Why or why not?

No. In fact the neighbor has submitted a letter saying he approves of the change and the change again will
have a positive effect on the neighborhood.

4.      Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance? (Economic considerations play
        a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?

No. I can see none. The gentleman needs to store his wood and he is willing to do away with the building
that is collapsing around his wood pile.

5.      How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the variance?
        Explain.

No. Basically it is the Minnesota climate that has created the need for the variance. The gentleman does
need dry wood to heat his home.

6.      In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of justice? Why
        or why not?

No. I believe it would not. I believe he is trying to bring the property back into accord with the
Ordinance.



                                                                                                              8
Facts supporting the answer to each question, above, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of
Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1104 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance.

The motion carried unanimously.

Variance Application # 68-V-10 by Mark and Linda Halbur, and the Estate of Dorothy Van
DeVelde Gebro: Outlot F plat of Highland Park and part of Government Lot Four (4), Section Nine (9),
Township One Hundred Forty (140), Range Thirty-three (33), Nevis Township on Deer Lake. Parcel ID
#s 21.40.04120 and 21.40.04100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 4. subd. A.1.a.3.b of
the Subdivision Ordinance and Sections 501.2, 1001, 1003 and 1006 of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance to subdivide a lot into two tracts-one of which will not meet the required minimum lot size.
Deer Lake is a recreational development lake.

Mark Thomason, Thomason Law Office and authorized agent for the Halburs, presented the application
to the Board. Thomason said the grandmother to the Halburs sold them half of the lot. Upon her death,
the estate went to probate and the personal representative of the estate contested the sale of that property.
Jim Wallace represented the estate in the personal representative case. After a period of time, a solution
to the lawsuit-which is still pending-was arrived at. Thomason’s clients acquired additional property to
the south of this lot through a quiet title action. The property was subsequently surveyed. The result is
the estate has a lot that meets the requirements of the Ordinance and the Halbur’s lot is 10,000 square feet
less than the required 80,000 square feet required. Both existing structures and the septic systems have
long existed on the property. This is court action that is pending. The request asks for the Board to allow
the subdivision of the lot pursuant to the survey that was recently completed.

The Board members jointly agreed with the request.

Cole said this is a resolution that was long overdue.

No public comment was given.

No correspondence was received for this application.

Knight moved to approve Variance Application # 68-V-10 by Mark and Linda Halbur, and the Estate of
Dorothy Van DeVelde Gebro as presented. Krueger seconded the motion.

Cole read the findings of fact into the record.

An area variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result
in “practical difficulty”. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon the
consideration of the following criteria as defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court in In re the Matter of
the Decision of County of Otter Tail Board of Adjustment to Deny a Variance to Cyril Stadsvold and
Cynara Stadsvold.:

1.      Is the request a substantial variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance?       Why or
        why not?

No. They are two backlots away from the lake and one complies and the other one is only 10,000 square
feet short of complying.

2.      Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?

                                                                                                           9
None.

3.       Will the requested variance effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will
         it result in a substantial detriment to neighboring properties? Why or why not?

No. There will be no problem with the neighbors. It has been there many years and nothing has changed.

4.       Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance? (Economic considerations play
         a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?

No. It has gone through the courts and they have amicably settled their agreement and I see no problem with
it.

5.       How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the variance?
         Explain.

It was in a family trust and it was settled in the court by arbitration.

6.       In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of justice? Why
         or why not?

No.

Facts supporting the answer to each question, above, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of
Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1104 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance.

The motion carried unanimously.

Variance Application # 69-V-10 by Gail Bliss Etal: Part of Government Lot Seven (7), Section Nine
(9), Township One Hundred Forty-one (141), Range Thirty-four (34), Lake Emma Township on Pickerel
Lake. Parcel ID # 16.09.02500. Applicants are requesting a variance from Sections 501.2, 1001, 1003,
and 1006 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance and Section 4, Subd. A.1.a.3.b of the Subdivision
Ordinance to subdivide a riparian lot into two proposed riparian lots-one of which does not comply with
the required minimum residential lot suitable area (RLSA). Pickerel Lake is a recreational development
lake.

No applicant was present for this application.

Cole said that there has been a request by the applicant to delay action on this variance application until
the spring of the year. He questioned if there was written documentation on file to such.

Buitenwerf said that there is a time extension form completed and on file by the applicant to allow the
County as much times as needed to review the application. Also received and on file is an email from
Linda Sharkey, one of the owners and applicants, dated 1/06/2011 to which she asks that the application
be scheduled for the April 18, 2011 meeting to allow the weather conditions to permit a better viewing of
the property. Per that request of the applicant, the Department recommends that the application be tabled
until the April Board of Adjustment meeting and that any public comment be taken today.

Cole said that the Board attempted to visit the property during the lot viewal, but could not access the site
because of the weather conditions. He apologized to the public if any were present on the site.

                                                                                                          10
No public comment was given.

No correspondence was presented for this application.

Knight moved to table Variance Application # 69-V-10 by Gail Bliss Etal per the applicant’s written
request until the April 18, 2011 meeting. Christianson seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.

Variance Application # 70-V-10 by Margaret Ann Heisel Kurth and Frank R. Kurth: Lots Nine (9),
and Ten (10) of Block Three (3), plat of Buena Vista Beach, Section Nineteen (19), Township One
Hundred Forty-one (141), Range Thirty-four (34), Lake Emma Township on Potato Lake. Parcel ID #
16.48.01800. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 502.2 of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance for a less than 100’ ordinary high water mark setback for a proposed new residential dwelling
unit to replace an existing nonconforming residential dwelling unit. Potato Lake is a recreational
development lake.

Joe Mastley, Heartland Contractors and authorized agent for the Kurths, addressed the Board. Mastley
explained that the Kurths have before the Board a request to change their previously approved variances
from 2006 and 2007. The footprint remains unchanged from the previous variances. The new design
includes a gable on the lake side of the roof. This new design will shift the living room to the west side
requiring the gable roofline to be shifted to the west.

Krueger said that if there was no previous variance approvals on the property, and due to the fact that the
proposal includes a complete tear down of the structure, he would have recommended moving the entire
structure back on the lot. But, since a previous variance was granted for the setback, he had no problem
with the current request.

Benson questioned if the proposal includes a deck on the front of the property.

Mastley said yes. The only change from the previously approved variance is the change to the gable
roofline. The footprint remains unchanged.

No written correspondence was submitted for this application.

No public comment was given.

Krueger moved to approve Variance Application # 70-V-10 by Margaret Ann Heisel Kurth and Frank R.
Kurth as presented. Christianson seconded the motion.

Cole read the findings of fact into the record.

An area variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result
in “practical difficulty”. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon the
consideration of the following criteria as defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court in In re the Matter of
the Decision of County of Otter Tail Board of Adjustment to Deny a Variance to Cyril Stadsvold and
Cynara Stadsvold.:

1.      Is the request a substantial variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance?      Why or
        why not?

No. I do not believe that it is. There was already a variance requested (approved). There seems to be no
effect on the Ordinance beyond that point.
                                                                                                        11
2.      Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?

No. There will be no change.

3.      Will the requested variance effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will
        it result in a substantial detriment to neighboring properties? Why or why not?

No. All they are doing is changing the roofline some, the floor plan a little bit. It is the same square
footage. I don’t even think it is visible from other properties in the area. The findings of fact process was
interrupted during this question and audience member Ken Grob, adjacent and closest neighbor to the west,
was allowed to say that there is a vacant lot between his property and the Kurths and he personally supports
approval of the variance application.

4.      Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance? (Economic considerations play
        a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?

No. We are bound by previous actions taken on this property. Cole did not believe that there was any other
method that can be done.

5.      How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the variance?
        Explain.

No. As time marches on, the need for the variance arose that they needed to have everything on one level so
that they could enjoy the retirement years of their life.

6.      In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of justice? Why
        or why not?

No it wouldn’t. I believe that it would be unjust to deny it since they already have a variance to build the
same square footage.

Facts supporting the answer to each question, above, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of
Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1104 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance.

The motion carried unanimously.

Miscellaneous: Chuck Diessner, Coalition of Lake Associations (COLA) representative, addressed the
Board. Diessner said he has come before the Board on numerous occasions representing the views of
COLA, as have other members of COLA. He said COLA is not opposed to what the Board does, even
though it appears that way because they speak on matters that they do not agree on or they chose to not
comment. He gave his appreciation to the difficult work of the Board. Giving statistical information to
the Board-from the timeline of August 2010 thru November 2010-Diessner said, 90% of the time, the
COLA’s opinion of what should happen is exactly the opinion of Buitenwerf given in his
recommendations.       He acknowledged COLA’s appreciation of Buitenwerf’s expertise and
recommendations. It is only 10% of the time that they disagree with what Buitenwerf suggests. Fifty-one
percent of the time COLA agrees with Buitenwerf and the Board. Nine percent of the time, the Board and
Buitenwerf agree and COLA disagrees. That is not a lot. Forty percent of the time, COLA agrees with
Buitenwerf and the Board does not agree. He presented this information as a helpful tool as the Board
enters the new year.

                                                                                                           12
-Adjournment.
With no further business, Krueger moved to adjourn the meeting. Christianson seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously. Cole adjourned the meeting at 10:27 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by,

Janet Thompson
Recording Secretary




                                                                                                   13

				
DOCUMENT INFO