HUBBARD COUNTY
Board of Adjustment Meeting
9:00 A.M. on Monday, April 19, 2010
Knight opened the meeting with the following members present: Lou Schwindt, Earl Benson,
Jerry Cole, Charles “Chick” Knight, and Arnold Christianson. Also present were Environmental
Services Officer Eric Buitenwerf and Recording Secretary Janet Thompson.
Knight opened the meeting by reading the purpose of the Board of Adjustment to the audience.
Approval of the March 15, 2010 Minutes:
The March 15, 2010, Board of Adjustment minutes were unanimously approved as presented.
OLD BUSINESS:
No old business was presented.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Election of Officers for 2010: Knight opened the floor for nominations for Chairman.
Christianson moved to nominate Schwindt as Chairman. With no additional nominations given,
Knight called for nominations to cease and a unanimous ballot to be cast. The motion carried
unanimously.
Knight opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Schwindt moved to nominate Cole
as Vice-Chairman. With no additional nominations given, Knight called for nominations to
cease and a unanimous ballot to be cast. The motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variance Application # 9-V-10 by Ryan L. Anderson and Lorie L. Stormo: All that part of
Government Lot Four (4), Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Forty-four (144), Range
Thirty-five (35), and also, the North 135 feet of the West 250 feet of Lot Four (4), Section Seven
(7), Township One Hundred Forty-four (144), Range Thirty-five (35), Lake Hattie Township on
Big LaSalle Lake, Parcel ID #s 18.07.00110 and 18.07.00400. Applicants are requesting a
variance on the following:
Item 1: Section 502.2 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed
new residence and lakeside deck at less than the 100' ordinary high water mark setback.
Item 2: Sections 502.2, 503, and 902.1 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance to place a Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) in the bluff impact zone.
Big LaSalle is a recreational development lake.
Ryan Anderson and Ron Malone presented the variance application to the Board.
Schwindt said the Board viewed the property and they have a good understanding on what the
applicant is requesting.
1
Cole said that it was his understanding that all the buildings (boathouse and cabin) will be
removed from the site and replaced with an 1860 square foot residence. He noticed the
“sponginess” of the ground on the building site location.
Malone, the building contractor for the project, stated that he dug into the hard rock base below
the soft grass surface. He has constructed on similar soil conditions. Oversized footings or
possibly pillars will be constructed. It was his opinion that the soil conditions will sustain the
new structure.
Knight questioned if the location of the subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) as proposed,
on the top of the bluff, meets the approval of the Environmental Services Office.
Buitenwerf said that it does. It is the only possible location for a drainfield system. The
alternative is a holding tank. Because the SSTS is located within the bluff impact zone, and
does not meet the 150 foot OHW setback (which cannot be approved administratively) are the
reasons it is part of the variance application. The design appears to show that the SSTS will
work.
Cole questioned if soil samples have been taken.
Buitenwerf answered yes. Soil samples are a standard component required in all septic system
designs.
Schwindt said there is a topography problem on this lot created by a large bluff directly behind
the cabin. The bluff continues on and there is no way to avoid it.
Malone noted that the septic designer viewed a flat section of land towards the south side of the
lot. That area turned out to be an old road bed from when the area was previously logged. The
soil samples were not favorable to support a septic system drainfield in that location and it also
was too close to the lot line. The place with favorable soil samples is the one presented with the
variance application.
Schwindt questioned Anderson on his timeline for completion of the project.
It was Anderson’s hope to start the project the beginning of May of this year (2010) and
conclude it this summer. This includes the construction of the new building and the removal of
the existing buildings.
Schwindt questioned if removal of the existing boathouse was proposed.
Anderson said yes. The boathouse will be removed upon completion of the project. It is no
longer in use and is not necessary.
Schwindt suggested the removal of the boathouse be conditional of any variance approval. In
addition, he would like to also see a sunset clause placed on the variance.
2
Malone said everything should be completed and removed by the end of August of 2010.
Knight moved to approve Variance Application # 9-V-10 by Ryan L. Anderson and Lorie L.
Stormo as presented with the condition that all old structures be removed from the property
within six months from the date of the issuance of the building permit. Cole seconded the
motion.
Schwindt 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. He is removing two old buildings and putting up a new building. This is the only
place he can put the building and septic system.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. It will have no effect at all.
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. It will remain residential lakeshore.
4.
Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance?
considerations play a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?
(Economic
No. He needs it because of the topography of the lot.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
No. The topography of the lot is why he needs the variance.
6.
In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of
justice? Why or why not?
No. I feel it would not.
3
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.
Variance Application # 10-V-10 by Gary A. and Linda Nicklason: That part of Government
Lot One (1) of Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Forty (140), Range Thirty-three
(33), Nevis Township on Lake Belletaine, Parcel ID # 21.18.01400. Applicants are requesting a
variance from Sections 502.2, 506, and 704, Item 1.I of the Hubbard County Shoreland
Management Ordinance to make a 50% addition to a guest cabin located in the shore impact
zone. The resulting structure would exceed the 700 square foot maximum size allowed for a
guest cabin. Belletaine is recreational development lake.
Gary and Linda Nicklason presented their variance application to the Board. Nicklason
requested to amend his variance application. The existing cabin is 480 square feet in size.
Currently, the application states that they are requesting a variance for a 12’ x 20’ addition which
would be over the 700 square foot limit for guest cabins. The requested amendment would
change the addition size to 10’ x 20’ making the total square footage of the cabin 680 square
feet, thereby complying with the Ordinance that relates to maximum size for guest cabins. It is
their hope to build the addition so that the view and impact from the lake perspective is affected
minimally.
Nicklason said his neighbor Kevin King to the south has no objection to the request. It is their
objective to make the cabin handicapped accessible.
Benson said that the property is nice and level. Getting the cabin out of the shore impact zone
and to the appropriate setback would require removal of only one medium sized oak tree. There
are no practical difficulties on the property that can be stated, including no bluffs or wetlands.
Cole addressed an accessory storage building sitting near the lake. It was his desire to also see
this structure moved back outside of the shore impact zone.
Public comment was given.

Gordon Kath addressed the Board. He was supportive of the variance request and
encouraged the Board to grant approval.
Linda Nicklason felt removing the structure would create more negative environmental impact to
the lot and lake than the remodeling project would.
Benson moved to deny Variance Application # 10-V-10 by Gary A. and Linda Nicklason.
Schwindt seconded the motion.
Schwindt read the findings of fact into the record.
4
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. It is in the shoreline impact zone and there was no practical difficulty in moving it back, and
getting it back 100 feet.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. 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. It will remain residential lakeshore.
4.
Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance?
considerations play a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?
(Economic
Yes. Move back to the 100 foot mark.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
Probably because it was built before the ordinances.
6.
In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of
justice? Why or why not?
Yes. It is in the shoreline impact zone and there is no reason that it can’t be moved back. There
are no wetlands and the topography of the lot is descent.
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.
Variance Application # 11-V-10 by Edward R. and Maureen Waltman: That part of
Government Lot Seven (7), Section Twenty-seven (27), Township One Hundred Forty-one
(141), Range Thirty-three (33), Mantrap Township on Spider Lake, Parcel ID # 20.27.01000.
Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 502.2 of the Hubbard County Shoreland
5
Management Ordinance for less than the required 30 foot bluff impact zone setback for a
proposed three-season porch addition to a nonconforming residence. Spider is a recreational
development lake.
Edward and Maureen Waltman addressed the Board.
Edward Waltman said that his cabin was built in 1969 before the Shoreland Management
Ordinance was in effect. The request is for a setback between 21 and 24 feet, depending upon
where the measurements are taken on the structure, from the bluff impact zone to tie it directly
into the cabin to the south side of the rooflines.
Benson said that he had no issue with the request. The addition is proposed further back from
the lake than the cabin is. A fireplace precludes moving any further back.
Cole said the request does not encroach on the lake or the shore impact zone. The bluff is a
limiting factor on the lot. The applicant is doing the best in order to comply with the Ordinance.
No public comment was given.
Correspondence:
 Letter dated 4/8/10 by Dennis and Leona Schuh was read into the record. See exhibit “A” on
file with the Environmental Services Office.
Cole said the applicant assured the Board that they will address water runoff from the porch. It
will be directed either into rain barrels or away from the lake.
Cole moved to approve variance Application # 11-V-10 by Edward R. and Maureen Waltman as
presented. Christianson seconded the motion.
Schwindt 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 it is substantial. He is attempting to make the addition and keep it within the
limits of the Ordinance. It looks like he might have a six foot discrepancy when it is all over.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. It appears there will be no effect on government services.
6
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. I believe that it will be a summer home with a summer porch on it and it will join with the
rest of the neighborhood nicely.
4.
Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance?
considerations play a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?
(Economic
No. Because of the way the lot was laid out and the way the home was built prior to the
Ordinance.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
No. The landowner did not create the need for the variance. The variance came up because of the
location of the bluff and the topography of the land.
6.
In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of
justice? Why or why not?
No. I do not believe that it would. I believe that they are doing their best to maintain the
property within the Ordinance.
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.
Variance Application # 12-V-10 by Southwest Developers Inc.: Lots Twenty-five (25),
Twenty-six (26), Twenty-seven (27), and Twenty-eight (28), Block Two (2), Beauty Bay,
Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Forty (140), Range Thirty-three (33), Nevis
Township on Belletaine Lake, Parcel ID # 21.39.01300. Applicants are requesting a variance
from Sections 502.2 and 704.7 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance for
less than the 100' ordinary high water mark setback for a proposed lakeside deck and less than
the 50' road right-of-way setback for a proposed roadside deck on a residence previously
approved by variance. Belletaine is a recreational development lake.
Scott LeSage representing Southwest Developers Inc. addressed the Board.
The application states that the home was built per Variance 53-V-08 which allowed a new home
to be built on the foundation of a previous home that had been torn down. The variance allowed
two courses of block to be added to the foundation to elevate the building a few feet. No decks
or platforms were requested as part of that variance.
7
The new house was built by permit in 2008 and the septic system was upgraded at that time. The
variance request is to allow the decks to be built to utilize the doorways on the home to provide
for the safety of the occupants.
LeSage explained with the back deck on the lakeside, they do not intend to impede on the lake at
all. It is intended to follow the existing cement that is there. The deck is necessary to provide
safety for his family with the two patio doors upstairs.
Knight felt the applicant has no other choice than to construct the decks as proposed. He
encouraged the pylons to be set into the ground in concrete rather than just placed on top of the
cement for stability.
Benson agreed that the request is necessary as a safety factor. It will also make the home look as
it is suppose to.
Cole questioned the type of building materials proposed for the deck.
LeSage said that cedar construction materials will be used which allow for drainage through. He
agreed to install gutters if necessary.
No correspondence was presented.
No public comment was given.
Knight moved to approve Variance Application 12-V-10 by Southwest Developers Inc. as
presented. Benson seconded the motion.
Schwindt 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. The house is already there and it (decks) were there in the beginning. They are just
remodeling the place.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
None.
8
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. It will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
4.
Is there another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance?
considerations play a role in the analysis under this factor) Why or why not?
(Economic
No. The lots, once they put in County Road 80 up there, a whole bunch of the folks down there
ran into difficulties of trying to maintain 50 feet from the road. They really parceled it off into tiny
little lots and unfortunately that is the way they are.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
No. He did not create the need. It was sold and he needed to improve and complete what was
already there. We had previously given our approval for the building.
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.
Miscellaneous: No miscellaneous business was presented.
-Adjournment.
With no further business, Benson moved to adjourn the meeting. Christianson seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously. Schwindt adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Janet Thompson
Recording Secretary
9