HUBBARD COUNTY
Board of Adjustment Meeting
9:00 A.M. on Monday, March 15, 2010
Knight opened the meeting with the following members present: Tom Krueger, Jerry Novak,
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 January 19, 2010 Minutes:
Christianson moved to approve the January 19, 2010 minutes as presented.
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Krueger seconded
OLD BUSINESS:
No old business was presented.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variance Application # 1-V-10 by Michael W. and Barbara A. Johnson: Part of Gov’t Two
(2), Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Forty (140), Range Thirty-four (34), Henrietta
Township on Boulder Lake, Parcel ID # 13.02.01500. Applicants are requesting a variance from
Sections 502.2 and 601 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance for an afterthe-fact approval of an accessory storage shed located in the shore impact zone of Boulder Lake.
Boulder Lake is a recreational development lake.
Michael Johnson presented his variance application to the Board. Johnson said his variance is in
regard to a shed that is close to the lake. It falls under Sections 502.2 and 601 of the Hubbard
County Shoreland Management Ordinance. Johnson presented a letter documenting his
permanent disability from physician Chris A. Stuart, MD. See exhibit “A” on file with the
Environmental Services Office.
Johnson said that building a boathouse next to the lake will assist his disability and prevent him
from needing to haul his boating and fishing accessories back 250 feet from the lake.
Cole noted that there is plenty of room on the lot to accommodate a shed at the 100 foot setback
mark. What the Board wanted to see was documented proof of the disability which Johnson has
now provided. With that support of the disability, Cole was supportive of the variance.
Buitenwerf said that the documentation supplied by Johnson does show a back injury which was
verified by a medical doctor. The main issue for the Board to consider is that the Ordinance
allows under Section 601.3.b. a structure not to exceed ten feet in height and occupy an area no
greater than 48 square feet. The proposed structure is dimensions of 10’ x 12’. The variance is
necessary for the size of the structure, not the fact that the disability exists.
Cole desired to see the structure reduced to comply with the size requirements of the Ordinance.
1
Christianson suggested planting vegetation around the shed to create visual screening.
Johnson said that he just completed a large addition to his cabin and construction of the shed.
The lot will be landscaped.
Knight had an issue with allowing the structure within the shore impact zone. He felt the shed
should be moved further back on the lot because it is not on a solid foundation, and there are no
topographical limitations to the lot preventing its relocation.
Novak wanted to see the shed moved back to the 50-foot mark which would be just outside the
shore impact zone. He too would like to see the overall size of the structure reduced as the shed
is twice the size of what the Ordinance allows by permit.
Johnson said that he had no issue moving the structure back 15-feet to comply with the 50-foot
setback mark. He did have an issue with the reduction of the size.
Knight said that if the structure is moved back, he would consider allowing the larger size
structure.
Public comment:
 Gary Stolzenberg addressed the Board. Stolzenberg was supportive of moving the structure
back outside of the shore impact zone. He pointed out that Coalition of area Lake
Associations (COLA) provides assistance for tree planting through the Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD).
No correspondence was presented.
Cole moved to approve Variance Application # 1-V-10 by Michael and Barbara Johnson as
presented with the condition that the shed be relocated to the 50-foot ordinary high water mark
setback by June 15, 2010. Krueger seconded the motion.
Knight 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. If the shed is moved back beyond the 50 foot mark, it would not be a substantial variation.
2. Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
2
No. There should 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. With the addition of the shrubbery that the requester has agreed to, there will be no detriment
to the neighboring properties or to the views of anyone in the property.
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. The disability was stated and proven to us.
5. How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the variance?
Explain.
The need has arisen because of the 70% disability that the gentleman has suffered.
6. Why did the applicant fail to obtain a variance/or comply with the applicable requirements
before commencing work? Did the applicant act in good faith? Why or Why not?
I do not have a good answer for that. Possibly he was not aware of the situation. An 8’ x 8’
plastic shed was located there for ten years. It was ugly and they felt they were doing the right
thing by taking and moving it out and putting something up that complimented their house and
environment.
7. Did the applicant attempt to comply with the law by obtaining the proper permits? Why or
Why not?
No. The applicant will do that today or as soon as he has a chance.
8. Did the applicant obtain a permit from another entity that violated the law? Provide
explanation below.
No. None that I am aware of.
9. Did the applicant make a substantial investment in the property? Provide details below.
Yes. He made a substantial investment in the shed. He painted it in earth tone colors too which
is commendable.
10. Did the applicant complete the repairs/construction before the applicant was informed of the
impropriety? Please provide details below.
Yes. I believe that he did.
3
11. Is the nature of property residential/recreational and not commercial? Please provide details
below.
It is residential on Boulder Lake.
12. Are there other similar structures on the lake? Please provide details below.
I did not see any, but I didn’t really look that close.
13. Would the minimum benefits to the county appear to be far outweighed by the detriment the
applicant would suffer if forced to remove the structure? Why or why not?
I don’t believe that the County will see much of a benefit at all other than the fact that it would
bring everything into the Ordinance.
14. In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of justice?
Why or why not?
No it would not.
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 # 2-V-10 by Wayne A. and Holly B. Koop: Lot Four (4), Pritchetts
Retreat, Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Forty-two (142), Range Thirty-five (35),
Clover Township on Little Mantrap Lake, Parcel ID # 05.38.00400. Applicants are requesting a
variance from Section 704.7 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance to
request to amend variance # 47-V-09: 1. change 12’ drainfield setback to house to 10’ setback; 2.
increase height of proposed structure slightly to account for mathematical mistakes in original
application height calculation. Little Mantrap is a recreational development lake.
Wayne Koop presented his variance application to the Board. Koop said he has an approved
variance # 47-V-09 to build a log home on his property on Little Mantrap Lake. Today’s request
is to amend this variance to allow for the height of the structure and to redesign if necessary for
the new septic codes. The bunkhouse/garage will be connected to the log home along with the
decks for fire egress safety reasons. The height approved on the first variance was slightly lower
by approximately 2 ½ feet. Prior to getting a design, they did not know the overall height of the
structure. The total structure height will now be a maximum of 34 feet which is under the 35
foot Ordinance allowance. The rooflines will align with the existing garage/bunkhouse. The
new septic drainfield setback was proposed at a 12-foot measurement from the house. Not being
familiar with log home design, the logs must extend out over a covered deck two feet further
creating a distance two feet closer to the septic drainfield.
4
Krueger had no issue with the variance as amended. He questioned if the initial variance
addressed landscaping the area in which the old home sat.
Koop said that he will be restoring the area. There is a gradual slope which will need to be filled
in and reseeded. They will also be relocating trees.
Krueger suggested a condition on approval include a condition that the shore impact zone be
restored and revegetated per a vegetation plan developed by the Environmental Services Office.
Koop had no objection to the condition since that is his intent.
Novak questioned if the cabin to be removed is on a slab or foundation.
Koop said it is on a concrete block foundation. Footings and a well will be removed.
Knight and Cole agreed the proposed plan will be an asset to the county and an improvement to
the property.
No public comment was given.
Krueger moved to approve Variance Application # 2-V-10 by Wayne A. and Holly B. Koop as
presented with the condition that the shore impact zone be restored and revegetated per a
vegetation plan developed by the Environmental Services Office. Christianson seconded the
motion.
Knight 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. He will be moving back so it is an improvement. It was requested before and this is just a
change to that request.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. There will be no impact 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?
5
No. It will actually be an improvement.
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. It is a deteriorating house. It seems like it is necessary and I can see where it is necessary to
make a change like this. Removing the other house will make a difference there.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
The need made an appearance once the plans were finalized as to how this building would appear.
This is just a minor change to the initial variance.
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 # 3-V-10 by Daniel J. and Donna M. Rehkamp: Gov’t Lot Five (5),
Section Thirty (30), Township One Hundred Forty (140), Range Thirty-three (33), Nevis
Township on Fifth Crow Wing Lake, Parcel ID # 21.30.00600. Applicants are requesting a
variance from Section 1014, Item 6.C of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance
(SMO) requesting the number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking
of watercraft exceed the number of such spaces allowed by the SMO for a residential planned
unit development. The SMO will allow three (3) spaces for tier 1 use only. The application
requests eleven (11) spaces for use by units located in tiers 1-4. Fifth Crow Wing Lake is a
recreational development lake.
Daniel Rehkamp, and Tom Miller, Arro of Park Rapids, presented the variance application to the
Board.
Rehkamp addressed the Board. Rehkamp owns 43 acres of land on the southwest corner of Fifth
Crow Wing Lake. His request takes approximately 21 acres from the total 43 acres where the six
cabins currently exist and split the property basically in half. The waterfront cabin area was
approved by a previous conditional use application converting it from an operating resort into a
common interest community, planned unit development (PUD). Five additional back lots will be
added outside of tiers one and two. This variance request is for an additional eight dock spaces
to accommodate the eleven cabins in the association. Rehkamp felt this request will be a better
use of the property and the current impact to the lake will be reduced by decreasing the number
6
of boats entering and exiting the lake than what exists with the current resort operation. The
dock spaces will be limited to one per residential unit. It also limits the number of docks
extending out into the lake with a new docking facility which will extend off from the shoreline
twice verses the five separate dock units which currently exist. One dock is for safe landing and
mooring of boats. As a resort operation there is a constant roll-over of recreational boating use
which creates a heavy lake impact. Residents tend to create less of an impact to the landing and
shoreline verses the constant in and out traffic of resort use.
Knight questioned Rehkamp if he was aware of the Department of Natural Resources ruling
which allows only tier one units permanent dock slips. This request is for a dock which is
approximately 80-100 feet along the shoreline. He questioned how much space is planned
between slips.
Rehkamp said that there would be an average of approximately 16-20 foot maximum difference
between the slips. This separation is necessary for safe mooring.
Miller said that this request is consistent and small in comparison to other PUDs which have
been granted approval by the County.
Knight questioned if there is a public access on Fifth Crow Wing Lake.
Rehkamp said that there is not. He has allowed all Fifth Crow Wing residents to use his facility
for that purpose as well as providing access for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for
purposes of stocking the lake and completing their lake monitoring surveys.
Cole had an issue with this variance request in regards to what other developers may do if the
variance is approved. He referenced a neighboring resort property.
Miller pointed out that this is a variance request for this specific property. Any other variance
request would need similar approval and review by the Board of Adjustment.
In addition, Rehkamp pointed out that currently as a private residence, the DNR does not restrict
the number of docks or watercraft for residential units. There are a number of docks along the
lakeshore which have four, five, or more boats per residence. The declarations for Rice Bay
Association, limits the number of watercrafts per unit to one.
Cole said he understood and was not personally against PUDs or CICs. He felt they are a benefit
to area lakes as well as a well run resort is. He questioned the long-term impact these
conversions will have on the County.
Krueger said the property needs to be reviewed as a whole. It was his understanding that this
PUD was under density, with the option for possibly several more units.
Rehkamp said he could possibly add more units if he added a tier four to the overall
development.
7
Buitenwerf clarified that the property is right at residential density.
Miller added - for the area that he has included in the overall plan.
Rehkamp said he has removed a cabin and septic system to make sure that he complied and
stayed within the Ordinance density requirements. There are no variance requests for density.
Krueger said that he considered three aspects to this variance request. Along with the overall
density of the acreage, greater than half of this property’s lakefront is in wetlands. These
wetlands retain and preserve a large area of his frontage in a natural state. Finally, it was his
opinion that the requirements by the State are biased towards PUDs. If this property were for a
private individual, they would be able to have several docks.
Novak questioned if this property had remained as a resort - if the eleven docks would be
allowed.
Buitenwerf said that it depends on if it is a commercial resort operation. Distinction would be
drawn on whether or not the use was a grandfathered use predating the Ordinance or not. Those
resorts never would have been previously approved by a conditional use operating permit. If it
were that type of resort, then there is no regulation as to the number of docks. If it is a resort
operation that commenced under a conditional use permit, then it would have to abide by the
same criteria that the residential planned unit development being developed here must comply
with.
Christianson questioned if the dock would be a floating dock system?
Rehkamp said that he is considering a harbor type system rather than multiple floating docks.
He was concerned with the stability and safety of the floating dock systems.
Knight said that he was concerned with the type of the docking that is suggested. He said the
request would take up approximately 100 feet of solid front of the lakeshore. He requested an
opinion from Buitenwerf.
Buitenwerf said that there are a number of variables to consider. First the number of boats being
brought in and out of the lake will be reduced with the allowance of the additional docks. The
impact to the shoreline with that large of a size of docking system in place would depend upon
the vegetation and the type of shoreline in existence. He suggested the DNR representative
present could speak better to that question.
Cole referenced the adjacent resort owner who has eleven dock slips. He asked permission to
use two of the dock slips for boat rentals. Due to this request, Cole concluded that people in
other tiers do not want to use the lake as much as the people who live on the lake. He suggested
Rehkamp would not lose anything if he did not have all the requested docks.
Rehkamp said that Cole is again comparing two different types of properties. This is residential
and that is a commercially run resort.
8
Krueger’s opinion differed. He felt that each residential unit will want to have a boat space.
Public comment:
 Doug Kingsley, Minnesota DNR Area Fisheries Supervisor, addressed the Board.
Kingsley agreed with Rehkamp that the DNR crews have used his access site for stocking
the lake as well as access to the lake. In Rehkamp’s proposed development, DNR has no
objection to maintaining that ramp for use of people within the development. The
reasons for the limitation on the number of slips within a development like this-within the
Ordinance-is to minimize the impact on fish, wildlife, water quality, and the lake itself.
The DNR has worked with the County Board and the Environmental Services Office,
providing recommendations for limiting the number of spaces in other developments,
PUDs and other types of developments. In many cases, these recommendations were
incorporated as conditions of the permit. He had a serious concern with how this
variance may open up the flood-gate of others who would like to have access to the lake
from second or third tiers. He felt approval may set a bad precedent for future
developments in general. He strongly discouraged approval of this variance request.
Correspondence:
 Letter dated 3/3/10 by Daniel and Nancy Carlson was read into the record. See exhibit
“B” on file with the Environmental Services Office.
Rehkamp addressed the Carlsons’ letter. Rehkamp said currently as a resort, they are not
permitted for three docks, but rather eleven. Regarding the comment of safety, as a fireman for
nineteen years and a water rescue personnel, this variance will actually lessen the number of
boats that are put into the water. As an operating resort permitted for eleven slips, which rollover weekly, this request will place one single boat in for each residence, and limit that number
down from the number of people that roll-over every week utilizing the lake. He questioned
Board member Krueger about his judgment and opinion on if the amount of impact to the lake
would be higher or lower as an operating PUD.
Krueger said he personally has converted his resort property to a PUD. He has viewed a
substantial reduction in impact to the lake and lake usage upon the conversion. The owners at
Krueger’s PUD are probably up about every other weekend. That is two days out of fourteen
days. As a resort, it goes hard, day after day after day all day long. Each owner will want a
personal dock and it aids in the sale of the units.
Cole agreed that a PUD will see less impact on the lake, but he still felt that by allowing
everybody to have a dock on the lake, he believed that there would be environmental damage
created that wouldn’t be seen with fewer docks.
Krueger clarified that this proposal is for one dock with multiple slips.
Cole said if the residents show up every other week, then they will only use the ramp every other
week.
9
Kingsley said that resorts receive additional considerations from the DNR when granting
permits for aquatic vegetation removal. It is recognized that resorts serve a large number of
people. The same holds true as far as the number of mooring spaces. Resorts are granted more
leniency than private property owners. Addressing the impacts with a dock as large as 100 feet,
with that area of shoreline, there is aquatic vegetation being removed with a permit by
Rehkamp. Should that area not be removed, it will regenerate itself to wild rice which is typical
along that shoreline and will offer benefits to the lake, fish and wildlife.
Rehkamp said that he researched two similar PUDs-Run Away Bay and Belletaine Estates-which
have been granted dock usage. Run Away Bay consists of 25 units. Twelve of those units sit on
the south side of County 80. According to their declarations, Article VI, each of the 25 units is
permitted use of the dock space. Belletaine Estates Owners Association, of the seven units with
341 feet of frontage, each of those units has dock space. Both of theses PUDs are outside of the
current restrictions.
Krueger pointed out that Run Away Bay was one of the first PUD conversions in the County.
He personally believed that the Board made a mistake in their approval of Run Away Bay’s
allowances. He felt it should have no bearing on the current request.
Knight reminded those present that each variance item is reviewed and considered individually
on its own merits.
Rehkamp was concerned with the continued reference by Cole and others of a neighboring
resort, Shady Lawn. He reminded the Board that he is not Shady Lawn and was concerned with
the comparison.
Cole said that it is really hard to compare anything to Lake Belletaine which is four times larger
than Fifth Crow Wing Lake and is within a different watershed district. He personally lives on
Sixth Crow Wing Lake. He understood and appreciated the allowance that Rehkamp has given
to his neighbors to access the lake through his property.
Novak said that he was torn on this one. If left at three docks, the other ones would have to take
their boats in and out every day. He felt doing that would disturb the vegetation more than
having the docks.
Krueger was supportive of the request. PUDs drastically reduce the impact to the lake and also,
Rehkamp has greater than half of his lakefront that is already serving the need of preserving the
lakefront.
Christianson agreed with Krueger.
Krueger moved to approve Variance Application # 3-V-10 by Daniel J. and Donna M. Rehkamp
as presented. Christianson seconded the motion.
Knight read the findings of fact into the record.
10
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. I believe it is a substantial variation from the requirements of the zoning ordinance because
the zoning ordinance would allow three boat slips and his request is for eleven and that is more
than three times what the requirement of the ordinance states.
The finding by Cole carried 3 to 2 with Krueger and Christianson casting the opposing votes.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. It will have no impact on governmental 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. Converting to a residential PUD has a decrease to the impact. Allowing for eleven spaces is
making it possible for it to be a workable PUD. It will look exactly like the one next door. He has
eleven boat slips.
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. I see no other than to deny it. I see no other way to go around it but to reduce the number
from eleven.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
No. It was required by the State to have only one dock per unit in the first tier.
6.
In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of
justice? Why or why not?
No. I don’t believe denying it will serve the interests of justice because of the reason I (Krueger)
gave on the very first question. Each one of those owners is going to want to have an equal use
of that lake. That’s why they buy into a PUD. That’s the whole concept of a planned unit
development.
The finding by Krueger carried 3 to 2 with Novak and Cole casting the opposing votes.
11
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.
Miller questioned if there was a letter of support from the County Board of Commissioners.
Buitenwerf said that the County Board made a motion supporting the anticipated variance
application which is now before the Board of Adjustment.
Knight called for the question.
Rehkamp questioned what is the length and limit of the number of docks that are allowed on a
residential lot.
Knight said that there is no limit to number.
Doug Kingsley answered the length of the docks is limited by the amount necessary to reach
navigable waters.
Knight called for the question.
The motion carried 3 to 2 with Cole and Novak casting the opposing votes.
Variance Application # 4-V-10 by Rachel A. Creager and Ronald Schirmers: That part of
Section Seven (7), Township One Hundred Forty (140), Range Thirty-four (34), Henrietta
Township on Fishhook Lake, Parcel ID # 13.07.01400. Applicants are requesting a variance on
the following:
Item 1: Section 502.2 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance for less than the
100’ ordinary high water mark setback, the 10' property line setback, and less than the 50' road
right-of-way setback for a proposed new residential structure with attached garage to replace the
existing structure.
Item 2: Article V, Section 2.01, Item B of the Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS)
Ordinance to not have to upgrade the SSTS to the current requirements in order to obtain a
building permit for the proposed new structure. Fishhook Lake is a recreational development
lake.
Rachel Creager addressed the Board. The existing structure as viewed during the onsite lot
viewal by the Board is quite antiquated. The property was purchased in “as-is” condition. It
includes an apartment over the garage with an attached residential structure. The foundation
under the original house will not support a new log home. The footprint will follow the new
original footprint to some degree. They intend to lessen the impact of the garage to the highway
by six feet. Small additions onto the sides of the home are proposed all within the current
setback.
12
Novak questioned if the structure will be any closer to the lake than what currently exists.
Creager answered no.
Novak questioned the height of the garage.
Creager said that it will be a story and a half in height and will be used as one large recreational
room.
Krueger questioned if the overhangs will differ from what is current.
Schirmers said the gable ends currently have no overhang at all. The proposal will add a twofoot overhang over the entire house. The garage currently has a three-foot overhang which will
be reduced to the two-feet.
Cole viewed the proposal as an improvement.
No public comment was given.
Correspondence:
 Letter dated 3/1/10 by Denny and Kathy Ulmer was read into the record. See exhibit
“C” on file with the Environmental Services Office.
Novak moved to approve Variance Application # 4-V-10 by Rachel A. Creager and Ronald
Schirmers as presented. Cole seconded the motion.
Knight 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. Because actually this is becoming further back from the road and not any further to the lake
and will be an improvement to the particular area.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. It shouldn’t affect government services at all.
13
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 improve the whole neighborhood. It will actually improve the neighborhood with the
cutting back from the right-of-way.
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. There isn’t another economic method. I think that this is a good project.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
The need for the variance arose because he wanted to make the necessary permit. The structure is
old and they needed the variation. He has complied with the present regulations to do it.
6.
In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of
justice? Why or why not?
No. The request is to improve the area and to cut down on the size and make it more efficient.
This would not serve the interests of justice in that the variance request is actually improving the
property, bringing it closer to what the Ordinance expects.
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.
The meeting recessed for a five minute break at 10:35 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:40 a.m.
Variance Application # 5-V-10 by Dyre Family Limited Partnership: Gov’t Lot Four (4),
Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Forty-one (141), Range Thirty-four (34),
Lake Emma Township on Big Sand Lake, Parcel # 16.28.00400. Applicants are requesting a
variance from Sections 502.2, 704.5 and 1013 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance to make an addition to the non-lake side of a nonconforming cabin on a resort that
exceeds the allowed rental unit density. The cabin does not meet the lake or property line
setbacks. Big Sand Lake is a recreational development lake.
Karl and Dan Dyre presented their variance application to the Board.
Karl Dyre said that he and his family own and operate Evergreen Lodge. They had done so for
53 years. The resort was started in 1917 and has run continuously since then. The cabin in
14
question was built in 1961. It has been remodeled several times. The bathroom has never been
changed and it is obsolete. Having a handicapped bathroom is necessary even if the people using
it are not handicapped. There is another factor which he called the “fat factor”. Larger adults
need a larger bathroom. This improvement would be a real asset to the business.
Knight said that the Board viewed the structure and facility and he had no issue with the request.
Krueger agreed.
Novak questioned if the deck accessing the building accommodates the handicapped needs of the
structure.
Dyre said that they will need to create a ramp for proper access.
No public comment was given.
No correspondence was presented for this application.
Novak moved to approve Variance Application # 5-V-10 by Dyre Family Limited Partnership as
presented. Knight seconded the motion.
Knight 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. He is not changing anything. He is adding onto the back of the cabin. It will be an
improvement to have that bathroom.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. Governmental services should not be affected.
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 should be no change to the neighborhood. Most people will not even know that it is
added onto the back.
15
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. As was stated, I think that without changing and going to the side or to the front, the back is
the only way to add that bathroom.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
As time goes on in the resort business, you need to have something to accommodate the
handicapped person. This is the logical method to improve and provide a public service.
6.
In light of all of the above factors, would denying a variance serve the interests of
justice? Why or why not?
No. It would not serve the best interests of justice. It will be an improvement.
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 # 6-V-10 by Steve Cushman, and John and Teri Patterson: Lots One
(1), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4) and Five (5), Block “C”, and that part of Lake Drive, a vacated
road; and Lot Twenty-seven (27) and Lot Twenty-eight (28) of Block “B” all of Camp
Kenjocketee; and the unlotted portion of Government Lot Three (3), Section Eighteen (18),
Township One Hundred Forty-two (142), Range Thirty-five (35), Clover Township on Little
Mantrap Lake, Parcel ID #s 05.37.06300, 05.37.06400, 05.37.06700, 05.37.06800 and
05.18.02900. Applicants are requesting a variance on the following:
Item 1: Sections 501.2, 1001, 1003 and 1006 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management
Ordinance and Section 4. Subd. A, Item 1, sub item a.1.b and a.3.b of the Subdivision Ordinance
to adjust a shared property line and create two new nonconforming lots.
Item 2: Section 502.2 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance for less than a
100' ordinary high water mark setback for a proposed building site on one of the two proposed
lots. Little Mantrap is a recreational development lake.
Steve Cushman, John and Teri Patterson, and Tom Miller, Arro of Park Rapids, presented the
variance application to the Board.
Miller said that Cushman’s lot is considered a substandard lot in Residential Lot Suitable Area
(RLSA). He has enough area and enough width at the building setback line, but the RLSA is
only approximately 17,000 square feet. The Pattersons several years ago purchased Lot 27 and a
vacated portion of Lake Drive and part of Lot 1 of Block C in the plat of Camp Kenjocketee.
16
That was an existing lot with only 20,000 square feet of area and a little over 6,300 square of
RLSA. Although it is an existing lot in an old plat, it was a lot of record. Since then, the
Pattersons thought that they could build on it the way it was bought. They found out that it is not
suitable in that respect. Mr. Cushman has agreed to sell the Pattersons some property to increase
their lot size. In doing so, Mr. Cushman would have a standard lot size with reduced RLSA.
The Pattersons would end up with a standard lot size of over 41,000 square feet. It will still be
substandard in RLSA. The exchange of land would increase the RLSA to slightly over 10,000
square feet. The variance further requests a variance from the location of the building site on the
Patterson’s lot. Due to the configuration of the lot and the location of the OHW, which differs
now from when the original plat was created, they are requesting to build closer to the OHW
than the required 100 foot setback mark. The septic system also cannot meet the 150 foot
required setback.
Krueger questioned if-after this division-the Cushman lot would be conforming?
Miller said that neither of the lots will be conforming after the variance. Cushman will end up
with the standard lot size of over 40,000 square feet in size and he will have the 150 foot width at
the building setback line. The Pattersons will end up with a standard lot size of over 41,000
square feet, but it will still be shy in RLSA and width at the building setback line.
Krueger had no problem with the division of the land. He was concerned with the scope of the
building proposal.
Miller said that the home is approx. a 40’ x 60’ building which includes an attached garage.
Krueger questioned if the lake setback could be met.
Miller said “no” the OHW setbacks cannot be met because of the topography of the lot itself.
Krueger questioned if there are any wetlands on the property.
Miller said there were no wetlands that could be viewed during the survey. Near the John
Shofner Jr. residence, there is a large wet area created by a culvert which drains under the
driveway leading the drainage onto the adjacent lot. Water from a quick snow melt is
contributing to the matter.
Krueger questioned if the building could go back further.
John Patterson said he had a concern with moving back more than ten feet because of the
hillside. Any greater distance would require digging into the hillside.
Novak asked Miller for clarification on if wetlands exist on the property.
Miller said there is no wetland vegetation present on the lot.
Novak questioned the location of the driveway.
17
Miller said the parties have agreed to share the existing Cushman drive by easement.
Cole questioned the location of the septic system.
Miller said that the septic system is proposed on the north side of the property near the drive.
Knight pointed out the lot can continue to be used for recreational camping. He was bothered
with the fact that the lots are substandard in size. He felt the structure would be an eyesore at its
proposed location with concerns it would extend out in front of the two neighboring properties.
He acknowledged however, that moving it back to the 100 foot mark would place it right in a
drainage area.
Miller corrected Knight by pointing out that this request is further back from the OHW than the
two neighboring properties.
Cole questioned if the structure has a loft.
Patterson said the plans include a loft office space.
No public comment was given.
Correspondence:
 Letter dated 3/3/10 by Charles and Sissel Brandon was read into the record. See exhibit
“D” on file with the Environmental Services Office.
Buitenwerf said the existing lot owned by the Pattersons cannot have a residence on it without a
variance because it does not meet the Ordinance criteria, specifically the 100 foot minimum
width requirement. They may use it for recreational use.
Cole questioned if the house has two-bedrooms.
Patterson answered it will. They desire to live on the property during their retirement.
The Board discussed options to moving the home back and its effects, if any, on the septic
system.
Buitenwerf said that it appears that the setback can be met. He suggested taking action on the
request to split the lots first before acting on the building aspect of the house.
Miller questioned if moving the structure back affects the setback to the septic.
Buitenwerf said the septic system setback can be handled administratively.
Following is the motion for Item 1:
18
Cole moved to approve Item 1 of Variance Application # 6-V-10 by Steve Cushman and John
and Teri Patterson as presented. Christianson seconded the motion.
Knight 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 lots were substandard to begin with and they are working toward making conforming
lots.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. There should 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. As far as this portion of the variance is concerned, there will be no effect.
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. Not that I can see because of the way that these lots were platted back in 1924.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
No. They did not create it. They want to build a residence on their property and to do it, they need
to have a larger lot. Their neighbors are nice enough to help them with the problem.
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 feel that it will serve the interests of justice. I don’t see an impact to the interests of
justice in this matter.
19
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.
Following is the motion for Item 2:
Krueger moved to approve Item 2 of Variance Application # 6-V-10 by Steve Cushman and John
and Teri Patterson as presented with the condition that the proposed building be moved 15 feet
further north, from a 75 ft ordinary high water mark setback as shown and indicated on the
variance application sketch to a 90 ft ordinary high water mark setback. Christianson seconded
the motion.
Knight 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, it is going to be fairly close to the Ordinance as far setback goes.
2.
Will the request have an adverse effect on government services? Why or why not?
No. It won’t have any effect.
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 neighboring properties have close to the same setback. The neighboring properties also
have substandard lots.
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. There is not much room to build on to begin with.
5.
How did the need for a variance arise? Did the landowner create the need for the
variance? Explain.
20
No. These lots were subdivided back in the twenties. It was subdivided back in 1924 and we need
to bring it up to date. There is a need for the variance because we did approve the plan for the
division of the lot that the neighbor was willing to sell.
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 that it wouldn’t because for somebody to be sitting there on a small lot for an
indefinite amount of time and not be able to ever build on it. So this is a good workable solution
here.
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, Knight moved to adjourn the meeting. Christianson seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously. Knight adjourned the meeting at 11:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Janet Thompson
Recording Secretary
21