Planning Commission / Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Thank you. You and I will go up. Thank you.

Okay, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for attending the Hubbard County Planning Commission Board of Adjustment hearing.

Yeah. Is the microphone on?

Yes. Okay. Thanks in advance for attending. I'm going to go ahead and read over the meeting procedure, so please bear with me. All persons in attendance at the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment meetings are expected to comply with the following meeting procedure. Thank you in advance for making this a manageable meeting. Copies of agenda item materials are available for the public viewing on the table located at the back of the meeting room. These materials are not to leave the table so that others in attendance may also view them. Please turn phones to vibrate or off during the meeting and conduct any sidebar conversations outside of the meeting room. Interruption or other interference with the orderly conduct of the PCBOA meeting will not be allowed. Defamatory or abusive remarks are always out of order. Disruptive persons will be removed from the meeting. The chair may terminate speaker's privilege of address if, after being called to order, the speaker persists in improper conducts or remarks. Written material concerning agenda items must be submitted to the Environmental Services Department by 3.30 p.m. on the Wednesday immediately prior to the meeting date. Written materials will not be accepted after this deadline or at the meeting because the PCBOA will not have sufficient time to review them prior to the meeting. Such material must state the agenda item for which it is being submitted and the name and address of the submitting party. The Planning Commission business is conducted first, followed by the Board of Adjustment business. The chair will call the meeting to order and explain the meeting procedure. The chair will read each agenda item into the record and ask the applicant to come forward to the presenter's table, state his or her name and address for the record, and explain his, her, or their request. The PCBOA will then discuss the agenda item with the applicant. The chair will then ask for public comments on the agenda item. To facilitate an orderly, efficient meeting, there is a three-minute speaking time limit per speaker per agenda item unless the chair allows the speaker additional time. The chair may terminate the speaker's privilege of address if after being called to order, The speaker persists in improper conduct or remarks. When the chair recognizes a speaker, he or she may approach the audience podium and microphone, state his or her full name and address for the record, and write such on the speaker log, and then share his or her comments. The audience podium microphone must be used by the recognized speaker because the meeting is recorded. A member of the public may not donate his or her speaking time to another speaker. A speaker should state his or her comments and address the issue, not the applicant's. All comments are to be directed toward the PCBOA. Please do not repeat comments already made by previous speakers. The chair reserves the right to ask a group with similar comments to appoint a spokesperson. If written comments have been submitted to the PCBOA, please do not read them aloud during the meeting as they are already part of the agenda and the record and copies thereof have been given to the PCBOA. After everyone wanting to speak on an agenda item has done so, the chair will close the public comment period on the agenda item. No further public comment will be taken after this point. The chair will give the applicant an opportunity to address the issues raised during public comment. The PCBOA will then continue its discussion on an agenda item and the chair will entertain a motion on it. The PCBOA will make a motion to pass, deny, or table the item. Once a motion is made and seconded, the PCBOA will develop findings of facts for conditional use permit and variance applications and then vote on the motion. Once a vote is taken on the agenda item, the PCBOA will move on to the next agenda item. Meetings commence at 6 p.m. and will continue until all agenda items have been heard or until 10 p.m. No new agenda items shall be considered after 9.45 p.m. The PCBOA, at its discretion, may continue an item that is on the floor at 10 p.m. Any remaining agenda items shall be continued to another date or time, preferably the immediately following Tuesday at 6 p.m. And no further public notice will be provided for such a meeting continuation. The PCBOA, through the chair, may modify these procedures prior to a meeting or an agenda item. Thank you very much. We will start off. Okay, we will start off with the first item on the agenda, which is the Planning Commission. Approval of the minutes, the May 18, 2026 meeting minutes. Do I have any questions or comments on the minutes?

No.

Okay. This is Tim. I'll make a motion to approve the May 18th, 2026 planning commission minutes.

Okay. Thank you, Tim. Do I have a second?

This is Ken. I'll second it.

Okay. Thank you, Ken. So we have a motion by Tim to approve the May 18th, 2026 meeting planning commission minutes and a second by Ken. Timothy, how do you vote?

It's Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And I vote aye. This is Veronica. Meeting minutes have been approved. Right on to the old business, which is none. New business, minor subdivision application by Lauren Anderson, the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, section 27, township 140, range 34, Henrietta Township, parcel 13.27.01100. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 40 acres into seven tracks. If you want to come to the presenter's table, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you, Lauren.

If you would please just state your name and address for the record. Yep, name is Lauren Anderson, and our address is 19209 178th Street in Park Rapids. Okay, thanks.

And then go ahead and just give us a brief description of your minor subdivision application, please.

Well, as you can see, we own a 40-acre tract in Henrietta Township right near Bearsden Golf Course, and we are proposing to divide that 40 acres into seven tracts of land, at least a minimum of five acres in size, five to eight acres, I think.

Okay, perfect. Right off the bat I'm gonna go ahead and open for a public comment just we have a busy agenda tonight So we're gonna keep this rolling and if we have no public comment I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. I Okay. And just a courtesy reminder to my colleagues on the board, the minor subdivisions do not need county board approval as the PC has the authority to approve or deny the application. We do have township approval has already been met and it appears that they meet the ordinances requirements for the entire subdivision. So we have any questions or comments from the board?

I just would add for the record that the staff report indicates that this parcel meets all the requirements for SSTS and sizes and access.

Thank you, Ken. I appreciate that.

This is Larry. I move we accept this application for a subdivision.

Okay, so I have a motion to approve the minor subdivision by Larry. Do I have a second?

This is Timothy. I'll second the motion.

Okay, and a second by Timothy. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. Thank you, Lauren. Have a great night. Okay, that concludes the Planning Commission business, so we're gonna move on to the Board of Adjustment, and we have the approval of the May 18th, 2026 meeting minutes. Do I have any questions or comments on the meeting minutes?

This is Timothy, I'll make a motion to approve the Board of Adjustment minutes for May 18th, 2026.

Okay, thank you, Timothy.

This is Ken, I'll second that motion.

Okay. I have a motion by Tim to approve the May 18th, 2026 meeting minutes with the second by Ken. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I vote aye. The minutes have been approved. Moving on to old business. Variance application 7-V-26 by Stephen Kinney, lots 23 and 24, Pinewood addition to Pinehaven Beach. Section 8, Township 139, Range 34, Hubbard Township on Long Lake, a recreational development lake, parcel 14.38.71900. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 702A3 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed expansion of a non-conforming dwelling located in the shore impact zone. Okay, we have Mr. Kenney's authorized agent here. Go ahead, state your name for the record, please.

Matt Henry. Okay, and your address? 17120, 169th Avenue, Park Rapids, Minnesota.

Okay, thank you, sir. And if you could go ahead and give us a brief description of your application tonight.

We're planning to do an addition away from the lake on the backside of the cabin as we talked during our site visit, approximately 10 feet back from the cabin, or 10 feet away from the lake on the backside of the cabin, and the entire width of the cabin.

Okay.

Your question while you were there, which was the reason... I was supposed to be here last time, which I apologize for was what was the height of the basement floor from the high watermark. Um, based on my math with the transom, I was at two foot seven inches above the official high watermark. And so therefore the only change I would make to what we discussed was I would basically have a step up in that new addition basement so that we were three feet above the basement or three feet above the, uh, high watermark.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Just shooting for exactly a five inch lift or?

So I'd go with seven, you know, seven and a half, do just a standard step. It's going to be like three foot one and a half or something is what it'll end up being above the high water mark. Okay, wonderful.

Yep.

So we'll do just one standard step, but what I was at was two foot seven. So I needed at least four, whatever that is, five inches, basically.

Rick, do you have documentation to the fact that that's what the measurements are?

We've not received anything in writing, so all we have is Mr. Henry's verbal statement this evening.

I can send it in an email, I guess. He does not. Whatever you guys need.

Okay. Okay. Mr. Okay. The applicant said he does not or Eric has not received anything in writing. So at this time, without that information in writing and it changes the It changes things a little bit because it changes the height of the structure and other things. Is that going to be correct or no? No.

Does not change the height of the structure at all.

Do you need any further documentation this evening, Eric, if we were to move forward?

No. He's given you what the board asked at the April meeting.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing no public comment, I'll close public comment. Do I have any questions or comments from the board with the information received now with the 2.7? 2 foot 7. 2 foot 7 inch change or difference that we were requesting.

The fact that the existing basement doesn't meet the three feet doesn't come into play. It's only we're only dealing with the addition Correct, okay Make a motion

This is Mike, that rear door to it. Did you come up with a plan for that? Because that's kind of below grade.

What we discussed while we were there was basically we were going to slope the grade around that door. We'd have a couple of small retaining walls just to get into that door. But for the most part, I was going to try and bring up grades so that we could actually have a swale and have the water slope around the building. We discussed at the site visit that we would do... ICFs to grade height not necessarily floor height So the floor will actually be suspended inside of those ICFs so that we can retain the dirt on the exterior and the north north and west of that building

This is Veronica speaking. I just wanted to comment. Having an interior set of stairs to access the basement is reasonable. I'm not sure how the board feels with this additional information that we've received this evening.

Well, if there's a condition that follows up with formal documentation that you're going to build it at the three feet, I think we could go ahead with it.

Yep, so we can apply a possible condition that, you know, documenting the three-foot separation is met.

Otherwise... Is that okay, Eric, with you, if a condition that he will formally provide the information that it's going to be three feet subsequently, or do we put this on hold until he provides that? I wasn't prepared because I didn't think we were going to be handling this tonight because we hadn't received any documentation.

He's stating that the addition is going to comply with the three feet, so we would issue the permit accordingly. If you wanted, you could say that once the floor is poured that we would have to go out and shoot it to verify before they built further, but we don't. check those elevations on any other permit that's issued. So it's up to the board on whether you'd want that.

This is Veronica speaking. Since the applicant's authorized agent said that it's 2.2 feet 7 inches, it is under. And so he's already given us information that it is under and that he's going to build it so that it complies. I can move forward with this.

Yep, so can I. This is Tim speaking.

This is Larry. We went over things pretty well at the lot view, I believe. You had explanation for the runoff and everything would be controlled. I would move that we accept this variance.

Okay. Okay, I have a motion to approve the variance application. Do you want to take care of the findings of facts?

We'll take a shot at it, yeah. Okay, for number one, is the variance in harmony with general purposes and intent of the official controls? I've got yes, the runoff will not change significantly off the house, and it will also be controlled with gutters and stuff, as you stated. The change to the structure is reasonable. For number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control? I also put yes. The addition is away from the lake side and should not have impact on the lake or any of the neighbors and is a reasonable request to make the home more usable. Except staff's findings and facts for three, four, and five.

I think on number two, Larry, if you want to maybe possibly add having those interior set of stairs to access the basement is reasonable as well.

That is a very good addition, yes.

Okay. Okay, I have a motion by Larry to approve the application creating findings of facts for number one and number two and adopting the staff's findings of facts for three, four, and five. Do I have a second?

This is Mike. I'll second it.

Okay, and a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you approve? This is...

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Thank you. Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. The application has been approved. Please follow up with the environmental services for your land use permits and so forth. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next item on the agenda. Variants Application 8-B-26 by Jack Schroeder, Lot 1, Block 1, Twin Shores Addition, Section 35, Township 141, Range 34, Lake Emma Township between Loon Lake, a recreational development lake, and Lake Ida, a natural environment lake. Parcel 16.93.00100. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 701, 901, 902, and 903.3 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for grading, vegetation removal, and enlarging a parking area in the bluff impact zone. Thank you, Mr. Schroeder. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Jack Schroeder, 23180 240th Street, Nevis, Minnesota.

Thank you, Mr. Schroeder. And if you could go ahead and just Give us a rundown again on the request here at hand.

Well, I had submitted for 12 feet previously and I listened to you as best I could and hope that I've made a reasonable request.

I feel like microphone closer to it and speak into it.

I feel like I'm making a reasonable request. I'm a want to, uh, make the driveway six feet wider to the west and two feet wider to the east for a combined total of 22 feet. And that would allow for two vehicles to park side by side. It would allow for especially longer vehicles to safely enter and exit the property. It's

very difficult to because there's not room on the moon lake side for a shoulder it's a tight turn with very little view okay thank you mr shorter i appreciate it just for the record i would like to state that the applicant was first on the april 20 2026 meeting agenda the board tabled the application to the allow the applicant time to amend the application to provide all the requested dimension slope data The board wanted the project area more clearly marked, a cross-section of the proposed grading on the existing approach that accurately shows the amount of material to be removed, and the slope would run down toward the road instead of toward the lake. And Mr. Schroeder did apply all of those requested comments like he had mentioned. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing no public comment, I'm gonna close public comment. Do I have any questions from the board?

Yeah, this is Ken. On the different times that we've met with you, you've described different types of uses for RV turnaround, vehicle parking, storing of RVs or campers.

Not storing. I've never said storing.

Well, parking them there.

Right. It's going to be used, yes.

The point I'm trying to get at, you do not intend to do any overnight occupancy of any RV or camper or anything that you park there.

Not at this time at all, and if I did, I'd have to go get a permit, I would imagine, and go through the process. But no, I occasionally have parked my... Not at this time isn't the answer.

The answer is yes or no, because if you occupy it...

I'm not occupying it at this time.

Okay, at any time. So you would be okay with the condition... if we approve this, that there can be no overnight occupancy of any.

I've already stayed there before in a small camper. I don't see why I wouldn't be able to use my driveway. I have to clarify something. I have two lots. I have two boys that will be inheriting these lots. They will both need space. There's two separate lots. This is the only good parking area on the property. on lot number one.

And this is Veronica speaking just for clarifications on your questions, Ken, about the condition. To my knowledge, I don't know that a condition to that degree can be applied. Would a condition to that degree be able to be applied for the overnight camping? Eric.

I'm not sure but maybe I can address that question another way. The aerial photo is up for the property. The blue line indicates the rear lot line and if in order for a camper to be able to be placed there it would need a variance because it would not be able to meet the 20 foot setback from the road right away or the 30 foot setback from the bluff crest.

And this is Veronica speaking. At this time, the only part that the applicant is requesting is the driveway removal of the materials. He is not requesting to place the camper there. So if he wants to place the camper there in the future, he would have to apply for a variance. Does that help you, Ken?

Yeah. OK. Can I ask a question? You know, in the past, there have been campers parked there, and that's not my intention, but what would be wrong with using my property to park something like that?

Mr. Schroeder, in order to place a camper there, you don't meet the setbacks for the right-of-way or the bluff. At this time, your request is to only move the materials to expand your driveway for parking. You have not submitted a request to place a camper in that position.

Okay, I understand you now. I have poor hearing and I didn't hear you at first.

No worries, no problem, not a problem.

So we don't need the condition, it's just understood that if he does, he has to get a permit. A variance.

A variance.

Correct. A variance. Okay. But we don't have to put a condition on it. Correct.

A variance is required no matter what because he doesn't make the setbacks to the road right-of-way or the bluff impact for the crest of the bluff.

Have you done public comment?

Yes, sir.

Okay. This is Tim speaking. Myself, I'm okay with it. I don't see it negatively affecting the lake. Run off or run away from the lake, it is the only flat spot he does have on that for parking.

Thank you, Tim. Just a statement here. Our goal for the Board of Adjustment here is to maintain the least amount of disruption in the bluff impact zone as the environmental impact is the dominant factor in stabilization efforts utilized to minimize erosion and sloughing down the bluff. The applicant did alter and amend the application from his original application to prove that information, slope and such would go towards the road so as you've described there was not going to be much impact on the lake side it is a the current 14 foot driveway access is on a dead end township road so i mean even it's there's not a lot of you know traffic

This is Larry. I agree that the, uh, amended application is much more doable. Um, a lot less product being moved and to ask for a level turnaround or temporary parking spot is reasonable.

I believe you're ready for a motion. Yes, sir.

This is Timothy. I'll make a motion to approve variance application eight dash V dash 26. Number one, I'm going to answer the findings of facts that are unanswered. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official controls? Yes, the excavation will not negatively affect the lake. The runoff will flow away from the lake. Number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control? Yes, a flat wider access to this property is reasonable for the use of backing in trailers, boat trailers, whatever he needs to use it for a day. And because there is no other flat area in this because of the bluff, that's why. I'll adopt number three. And number four, will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character? Yes, the essential character of this area is made up of seasonal and year-round residences. And number five, I adopt the staffs.

Okay, thank you. I have a motion by Timothy to approve the application as presented on the site plan, the amended site plan. And he provided the findings of facts for numbers one, two, and four, adopting three and five. Do I have a second?

This is Mike, I'll second.

Okay, and I have a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I vote aye. The application has been approved. Mr. Schroeder, you'll be receiving a decision letter from the Environmental Services Office giving you the next steps, okay? All right, thank you. All right, next item on the agenda is new business. We have variance application 18-B-26 by Darylin Fails Trust, Lot 3, Bannisters, Stony Lake Addition, Section 1, Township 139, Range 34, Hubbard Township on Big Stony Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 14.48.00300, the applicant is requesting an after the fact variance from Section 702A.1 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance For an addition to a non-conforming dwelling that has increased the structures ordinary high watermark setback non-conformity Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

If you could please go ahead and state your name and address for the record Daryl in Cummings, it's the Daryl in Fails trust it's 14 973 Big Stony Drive Park Rapids, Minnesota.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. And if you could go ahead and please give us your request

I'm asking for an after the fact variance for the addition of the porch or the change of the porch. I had hired a contractor to replace the porch and to put all new siding and new roofing on the buildings. The supports under the porch were rotting and the roof was starting to leak. We decided to go ahead and talk with the builder and have the porch extended, the whole roof line. And it's two feet wider than the eight feet it originally was.

Okay. Okay, thank you, ma'am. And for the record, I'm going to go ahead and give some more information from the staff report that this is the after fact request for the 10 by 24 addition that was made to the west side of a nonconforming dwelling without first obtaining the variance approval and a land use permit. The structure is 88 feet from the ordinary high water mark. A smaller enclosed porch addition was replaced by the 10 by 24 foot addition, and because of the dwelling's orientation to the shoreline, the shoreline comes in towards the house as one moves from the east side of the dwelling to the west side of the dwelling, thus the addition being closer to the ordinary high water mark than the existing dwelling. Violated Section 702A.1, which doesn't allow that addition to a non-conforming structure located outside the shore impact zone. And the addition would make the structure more nonconforming in regards to the ordinary high watermark setback. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing no public comment, I'm closing public comment. I did not attend lot views with my colleagues. I went on my own. So when I viewed the lot, I was able to walk around and look at everything. Do you propose to put guttering on your property on this? No.

I mean, I've never had any guttering.

OK. Just since you're in the shore impact zone, that was one possible condition if we move forward that I would like to place on there because you don't have that way stormwater will go away from the lake instead of towards the lake. Would you be open to that? Yes. Mainly between the stormwater being directed between the, I don't know if you have a guest cottage there. Is one of those buildings a guest cottage? Yes. Okay, so between the guest cottage then and the garage, is there only one guest cottage or is there two? There's only one. Okay. There was another little building beside the garage. I wasn't sure what it was because it has a storm door on the one side. That's the guest cottage. The one closest to the lake? Yes. Okay, the second building behind that right next to the garage. Okay, and then you have another garage. Yes. Okay. I wasn't sure about the middle one because it had a side door entrance, so I thought maybe it was a guest cottage.

No.

Have you replaced the septic tank yet? Yes.

It was done on the 11th. Perfect. OK, thank you.

I saw you had a permit pulled, but I just didn't know if it had been. Yes, Racer did it. Do I have any questions or comments from the board?

This is Ken, just a comment. The expansion is a minor expansion, and logically just an extension of the current cabin. What causes the difficulty is that the shoreline is not parallel to the cabin, and so that one little corner becomes a little more nonconforming, and that's what's required, the variance. But it's a very minor impact.

Okay, thank you, Ken. This is Veronica. I agree with that. If anybody's prepared for a motion, I would just suggest, since the applicant has agreed, guttering be installed on the structure to direct the stormwater between the guest cottage and the garage.

I can make a motion. I'll make a motion that we accept application... 18V26, accept the application of the variance. Item one is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of controls. So yes, the official controls intent is to preserve setback from the lake. The non-parallel lake shore created a slightly more non-conformance to an existing expansion. The non-conformance change is negligible. Two, is the property owner proposing to use in a reasonable manner, not permitted visual controls? Yes. A small addition to an already small structure is reasonable. And three, is the need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the current property owner? Yes. The lakeshore angle creates the increased non-conformance. Expansion was in line with the existing structure and will accept the staff's comments for number four and five Okay, thank you.

Ken. Do you want to throw in that condition? That the guttering be installed on structures. Yes Okay Okay, so I have a motion by Ken to approve the variance application as per or the after-the-fact variance application as per site plan and And with the condition that the guttering be installed on the structure and storm water is directed or diverted between the guest cottage and the garage. And he applied, created findings of facts for 1, 2, and 3, and adopted 4 and 5. Do I have a second?

This is Timothy. I'll second the motion.

Okay, and second by Timothy. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I vote aye. The after the fact variant has been approved. Thank you. You'll be receiving a decision letter from the Environmental Services, but I also still need you to be sure to get those gutters on there, please. No, that's fine. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay, next item on the agenda. Variance application 19-V-26 by Dave and Amy Nelson. Lot 6, Block 2, Inter Wing Estates, Section 20, Township 140, Range 33, Nevis Township on 6 Crow Wing Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 21.53.01710. The applicants are requesting a variance from the required 100-foot minimum lot width in Section 704-1H21. of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to make an unimproved lot into an approved lot. Thank you for coming to the presenter's table. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Amy Nelson, 317 Career Path, Park Rapids. And you, sir?

Dave Nelson, 317 Career Path, apartment 18 in Park Rapids.

Perfect. And if you can go ahead and give us a description for your variance request.

Yeah, we are planning to build a year-round residence at this property location with an attached two-stall garage. We currently are 100 feet of shoreline, but that's at a slight angle, so when you measure at the ordinary high water mark, we are at approximately 95 to 96 feet in width going straight across the lot, and when you measure at The setback point, we're at approximately 97 feet. So we're a little bit short on the width. We do meet all other requirements for this lot in regards to setbacks and also the septic requirements for it.

Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Also, for the record, I just want to point out that this plot, this lot was planted and created in January of 1970. So and as the applicant said, the 2 to 2 and 1 half feet shy of the required 100 foot minimum lot width. So I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing no public comment, I will close public comment.

This is Larry. I would support this variance. The fact that the measurement was off just because of the angle from the shore edge versus the ordinary high water mark is nothing that the applicants could do anything about, so I think we're good to go here.

Thank you, Larry. This is Veronica. I agree. The only constraint was that little bit of two-foot shyness on that minimum lot width, and they meet all the other structure setbacks, so I agree. I'm supportive of this application as well. I'm just going to go ahead and move along if we don't have any other questions or comments. And I will make a motion to approve the application as stated per site plan for variance 19-V-26 and adopt the staff's findings of facts.

This is Tim. I'll second the motion.

Okay. Thank you, Timothy. I have a motion by myself to approve the application and adopt staff's findings. Second by Tim. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote aye. And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. You will be receiving a decision letter from Environmental Services with your next steps for the proper permits. Okay? Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Moving right along, we have Variance Application 20-V-26 by Joe and Robin Cachieras. Lots 10 through 13, Block B, Pinehaven Beach, Section 17, Township 139, Range 34, Hubbard Township on Long Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 14.38.0200. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 502.2 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed deck to be located within the 100-foot ordinary high watermark structure setback. Thank you very much. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

I'm Robin Kacharis.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead and pull your microphone a little closer to you and that way. My name's Robin Kacharis.

And I never can remember our address because I don't live here all the time. 13506 Beach Haven Road, Park Rapids, Minnesota, 56470. Thank you, Robin. Go ahead, sir.

Joe Cacheras, 2017, 31st place, Northwest in Rochester, Minnesota.

Thank you, sir. And go ahead and give us a description of your variance request, please.

We would like to build a 16 by 18 foot deck on our lake home. The northwest corner of this proposed deck is 90 feet, 95 feet from the lake. And we would like to build the deck on that corner of the house just because the building, the deck on any other section of the house would diminish our only view of the lake from inside the house. We only access 25 feet of our 150 foot of lake shore leaving the remaining 125 feet untouched. It's in that area that the proposed deck encroaches the 100 foot setback by five feet. And so we have about 80 feet of woods between this deck and the lake. The neighboring properties, again, they have 50 foot of lake. lake frontage and the decks on those cabins are anywhere between 80 feet, 37 feet, 57 feet, and 34 feet from the lake. So this proposed deck will not detract from the character of the neighborhood and will not be visible from the lake from that 95 foot distance because of trees and undergrowth and the elevation of our lot is very gradual and The runoff to the lake has never been an issue, so thank you.

OK, thank you just for clarification. I want to make sure that we're under the same on the same page here. It's for the second story entrance and exit, not the lower patio, correct? OK, just want to do that and I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing no public comment, I close public comment. And for the record, I just wanted to go ahead and give some more information from the staff report. The applicants as, as mentioned, would like to add a 16 by 18 deck to the Northwest corner of the house that was built by permit in 2002. This corner of the deck would be 95 feet from the ordinary high watermark. The house faces Northeast towards the main body of the lake. but the shoreline of the lot faces northwest. Thus is why that northwest corner of the house is the nearest point of the structure to the ordinary high water mark. There is an existing concrete patio on the lower level where the upper level deck is proposed. The photo in the application showed the house was built in the way that a deck in this area was part of the original plan. The 2002 house permit application doesn't include a whole lot of detail, but the platform that we saw at Lotviews was there and we all commented on it. Do I have any comments or questions from the board?

This is Kent. Just for clarification, the nonconformance at 95 feet is to the inlet little bay that's on the neighbor's property. It's not directly in front of their house to the lake, as I recall.

That is correct. Okay. Thank you. This is Veronica. I just have a couple questions. After the lot views, I noted that you have the concrete patio on the bottom. How come you didn't want to just build those same dimensions directly above for the second story since that meets setback?

Well, over the years we have used that patio and we've just noticed that we're always spilling over the edges of it. Once you put a regular picnic table on it and then have chairs on both sides of the table and the deck on the patio, it's just not big enough.

Have you considered building the deck, you know, at a little different angle or around the corner of the house? Or the larger portion of it that you're liking?

Well, there's a jog in the house of six feet. And so if we have trees that are in front of that section, and so that would end up being a fairly small section. towards the lake, it would be six foot less than what we have now. And again, if you can see from the picture, the peak of the center of the house, that bank of windows in the center, that's really what we see and what we look at through. And my concern is if we jog over to that portion, than where you have a deck and railings that we're looking at rather than what we have now, which is a view of the lake. By having it over in that inset part, which is the way I designed the home, it's just in front of the kitchen window, but not the main windows that you see when you enter the home. And again, it's just kind of like the great room of the house. So that's why we would like to keep it over in that corner.

Okay, thank you, sir. So have you considered building around the opposite corner around here where there are no windows and it would be no obstruction to enlarge your deck? I can see from the picture that you're looking at. Have you considered enlarging it around that side of the house, the northwest corner there? The reason I'm asking this, sir, is because number three is very difficult for me to answer, is the need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current or prior owners, because you have a lot of option to be able to build it by permit. And allowing you a variance to build it 16 by 18 and over the ordinary higher watermark is hard for me to approve, because you have options to meet setbacks.

Eric, is there any way with your computer skills that we could see what size deck, you know, if it was like 16 by 14 instead of 18 by 16, is there any way we can look at what would meet the 100-foot setback, whether it's significant or how much of a corner you could cut off and meet it? Still give them the room for a little movement around on the deck?

Not with enough precision.

It's not able to do it. Because I'm thinking that if you cut two feet off on each side, that isn't a big change. That probably would be pretty close to meeting 100, but it's hard to tell. Right.

This is Tim speaking. I agree with Veronica. I have, I cannot answer the findings of facts to support a decision for approval. So when there's options to be done by permit, right.

And especially because it can go around either side of there, there are just buildable options by permit. So I have a hard time with number one and number three.

My, my only add or, comment to that typically if we would give a variance like this we might look for a mitigation i think it's reasonable to understand that 125 of their 150 feet of shoreline is already heavily buffered so it's well protected i'm not sure that that tiny little corner i don't quite know how to answer three but that tiny little corner should have absolutely no impact on a neighbor or on the lake. So at least put that up for discussion.

Sure. Yeah. Thank you, Ken. I appreciate the offering the information. However, there's still permittable options. And I agree that they There's no erosion issues and such. But because there are permittable options and they can build a large deck wrapping around, there are many wrap around decks all across the lake. And the applicants during the lot view mentioned that they would use the same railing and rails and the wires. So the vision part for me, it's not going to be obstructed either because that's a very minimal, those with the rails and the wires, that's very minimal impact on their vision.

This is Mike. How deep is the lower deck? Is that 12 foot?

I think it was 12. It's about 12, yeah. It was like 12 feet, I think we measured. Henry, Tim, you and I? Yeah, yeah. It was 12 feet instead of 18. Well, you can see the signs. The other fact I'd like to put in is I understand that from the report that neighboring lots, there are four of them that have decks that 80 feet, 57, 37, and 34 feet.

Tim speaking. Also, I'd like to mention that not that I'll just put it this way. We have had after the fact that if they're close like this, we've had them cut back to the 100. Yeah, that's correct.

And the houses, Ken, that you maybe referenced that are closer, they are already obviously not built by permit. They're probably prior to the shoreland management ordinance.

Are you totally opposed to shortening this up to 14 feet? 14 foot so that would be to the corner of the house right but the one Map I got here says it's 96 feet from the watermark Right Well, I think the

the 14 foot, so if I went to the 14 foot wide, which is the width of that spot now, and then continue with my 18 feet out, is that correct? Is that what you're thinking, Mike?

You were 16 feet wide here if you went 14 feet out.

Well, so instead of 16 by 18, you're saying 16 by 14? Correct. How did you come up with 14 feet? I'm just curious.

Well, you've got 18 if you take off four.

Oh, well, the... I guess it's getting pretty close to, because that measurement is taken at an angle as opposed to straight on, I'm not sure how to calculate that, I guess. You know, if it was a straight line, not a straight line, If it was parallel to the lake shore, then I would understand the four foot thing. I could definitely make it 16 by 16. And that would bring that number up some, I'm sure. This is 97. I'm just, again, I'm asking for some reasonable.

This is Larry.

I tend to agree that because there are options, this can be designed to hit within that. I would be in favor of denying the application and then work with environmental services to come up with a plan that can be built by permit.

Larry doesn't approve of the application because it can be built by permit. Larry does not support the application.

I want to make one more argument for the fact that You could answer number three on the basis that where that 95 point is, there's just a little nipple of water that comes in, just a tiny little bay, and that's what makes it non-conforming. which is an unusual what I would consider a practical difficulty that has to do with the topography of it. And that's what's penalizing him. Other than that, the shoreline buffer he has and the rest of the conditions would seem reasonable. So I'm just voicing the fact that I think with the full intent of the ordinance allowing this would... That is true. ...be acceptable. I mean, you see that little, just that little tiny little bay? Yeah, I did not look at that. If it weren't for that, and if you go look at it, it's kind of manicured, like maybe it isn't even naturally that good. So... I'd be willing to take attempts at three.

So...

I think I'm going to make the motion.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm going to make a motion that we accept application 20V26. Findings and fact number one, is it in harmony? I say yes. The lot is large compared to neighbors and has 125 feet of Shufford borderline of shoreline buffer, which mitigates the minor non-conference. The small incursion has no effect on the lake, except the staff report for two. Number three, I say the practical difficulty is created by a small, unusual bay that comes off the main lake. Otherwise, the placement of the home and vegetation on the shoreline are all consistent with the shoreland management ordinance. except the findings of facts from the staff from four and five.

Okay, thank you, Ken. I have a motion by Ken to approve the application as per site plan. And he created findings of facts for numbers one and number three and adopted staff's findings two, four, and five. Do I have a second?

This is Larry, I'll second.

Okay, and I have a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. Based on new evidence Ken has revealed on that little corner, I will change my position to vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

Ken, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I agree with Tim. I also did not notice that right away. Good catch. Ken, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also agree. I vote aye. Your variance application has been approved. You'll be receiving a decision letter from the Environmental Services Office and follow up with them for your next steps for your land use permit.

Appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Variance application 21-V-26 by Jeffrey and Lori Fammert, part of the Government Lot 1, Section 22, Township 141, Range 32, Akeley Township on the 11th Crow Wing Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 01.22.00300. The applicants are requesting after-the-fact variances from Part 1, Section 502.2, of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for an accessory structure located within the 100-foot ordinary high watermark setback and Part 2, Section 502.2 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a platform located within the 100-foot ordinary high watermark setback. We have the applicant here, so if you could please, sir, just state your name and address for the record.

Home address or address up here?

A home address, please.

Jeff Bammert, 59324 State Highway 30, Mapleton, Minnesota.

Okay, thank you, sir. And go ahead and give us a rundown of your variance request here, please.

I have a 22 by 8 1⁄2 foot patio, paverstone patio, within the ordinary high water mark, and then a 7 by 7 poly shed. from Menards that I put up on an old foundation. And then in front of that shed, I'd like, if I could, four foot by six foot pavers again, just to enter the shed.

All right, thank you, sir. And for the record, I'm just going to have some statements here. Part one, as the applicant mentioned, is seven by seven poly shed that is 30 feet from the ordinary high watermark. And part two is an eight foot five inch by 22 foot paver platform that is 40 feet from the ordinary high watermark. The lot is only 100 feet wide and 138 feet deep at the midpoint and quite small, 13,930 square feet. And the Hazel Road runs along the side of the lot is a township road and the 20-foot road right-of-way structure setback applies as well. So we've got a couple different overlapping setbacks for them to meet. The septic on the lot is a holding tank and it is compliant. And as I mentioned, we have the overlapping setbacks. So any structure is going to require a variance for either or both of these setbacks. And before I ask for board comments, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, I close public comment. You don't have, this is Veronica speaking, do you have any other decks? During lot views, I didn't see any other decks on the cabin or anything, correct? Correct. And you're not utilizing the 15 by 20 rec area is another thing I noticed during lot views. And you do not have a garage. You only have the storage. So you don't have any garage facilities. This is Veronica speaking. This is one of those lots that is unique, having two different overlapping setbacks. It's a small lot. I don't see any reason we need The applicants need storage, so the 7x7 there. I didn't see any runoff erosions during the lot views. They're not utilizing that rec area, so they've got a lot of natural vegetation growing, and I appreciate that. I'm supportive of the application. It's a seasonal use, is that correct? Correct. Do I have any other questions or comments from the board?

This is Tim. It's a holding tank, so there's not any preserving of septic sites.

Correct.

I'm in favor. Perfect.

This is Veronica. Then if there's no other questions or comments, I'll move forward with the motion. I'm prepared, so. Okay, this is Veronica. I make a motion to approve the application and I will provide findings of facts. So number one is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intents of the official controls. Yes, allowing the platform and small accessory structures in harmony with the overlapping setbacks. Also, because of the 100-foot ordinary high watermark and road right-of-way setbacks overlapping, any structure is going to require the variance.

Also, if I may, this is Timothy speaking. We had a foundation that was clearly predating our ordinance underneath that shed.

That is true. That is correct.

And the lot is well buffered.

Very well buffered. Number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control? Yes. Having a platform and small accessory structure are reasonable as there is not a garage on the property or deck on the current residential structure. Number three, is the need for the variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current or prior property owners? Yes. The 100-foot ordinary high watermark and 20-foot road right-of-way setbacks are overlapping, so placing the structure is going to require the variance, so that makes it unique. And number four, will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of locality? Yes, the locality is seasonal and year-round residential, and the platform and accessory structure will maintain the essential character, and I will adopt number five.

This is Larry. I'll second it.

Okay, a motion by myself with creating findings of facts one through four, adopting number five, and a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

Ken, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

You'll be receiving a letter from the Environmental Services about the decision. Okay, thank you. Variants application 22-V-26 by Mitch Rosendahl, part of Government Lot 3, Section 13, Township 141, Range 34 on Lake Emma Township. A recreational development lake parcel 16.13.01710 the applicant is requesting part one and after the fact variance from section 801.2 of the shoreland management ordinance and Article 5, Section 1.02 of the Subsurface Sewage Treatment System for a septic tank located within a 10-foot setback from a dwelling in Part 2, a variance from Section 801.2 of the Shoreline Management Ordinance, Article 5, Section 1.02 for the septic for a proposed addition to a dwelling that will not meet the required 10-foot setback from a septic tank or the required 20-foot setback from the septic drain field. Thank you so much. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Joe Ellen Rosendahl at 21118 High Pine Lane, Park Rapids, Minnesota, 56470.

Okay, thanks so much. And you, sir?

Brad Lake, 12468 380th Street, Managa.

Okay, thank you, sir. And go ahead and state your request, please.

We have a seasonal cabin that we want to make into a permanent dwelling and add an attached garage. The HVAC would also be located in the garage and then be ran through the trusses of the cabin.

Okay. Can you go ahead and move your mic? You can just pull your mic closer to you, please. Okay. That's perfect. Thank you.

Up close.

Yeah. Yeah, there you go. Thank you. Do I have any questions or comments from the board?

I have a question. Is the addition you're planning is just a garage? There's no additional living area or bedrooms or anything like that?

No bedrooms. It is a bonus room, a story and a half. There'll be a bonus room up there that will be office and storage.

It includes one bedroom then, additional one you said, or no bedrooms?

No bedrooms.

Okay. Other living space, so you say an office and so on?

It would be an office and storage.

Yeah, okay. But primarily just a garage?

Primarily a garage.

This is Tim speaking. I just want to share with the board some information. With your septic, the neighbor and you, your septic did have a compliance inspection that was compliant.

With Al Winterberger.

Yep. But that does not include the sizing because that's not a part of a requirement of a compliant inspection.

Okay.

So the sizing, right now your neighbor has five bedrooms and you have two.

Right.

That's seven bedrooms. So according to the state, the estimated gallons per day is 1,050 gallons, if you were to use it. Right now, you have 270 square foot of drain field. To meet the sizing, it would have to be 870. So if you did a mound, the rock bed would have to be 10 by 87 feet long if it was a sand underneath of it, the right soil. So I'm looking at this and any expansion for that septic along that edge, even if it had to bump into the driveway area edge, every square foot you have, in my opinion, needs to be preserved for the septic.

When Al Winterberger did the septic inspection, he pulled the covers off the ants, and they were dry. Oh.

They're not working then because it's SB2, and they have water standing all the time. SB2 has standing water in them. That's the type of system you have.

I don't know.

Yeah.

But that's what he said, that they look good and that they were dry. Yeah.

Thank you for the extra information, Tim. Appreciate it. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. And I agree and I understand the septic information with the SP2. Some part of your drain field is not working properly if you have dry That's lines just because I mean let's say were some in there, but I just said they looked really good Sure sp2 should have water flowing through them anything.

I didn't Excuse me that really that wasn't an issue even right or not.

It's it's really the sizing Yep, and that's what it is. The sizing is a concern. I have a couple comments during the lot views and I didn't see anything marked as far as where the addition is going to be, where the drain field exactly is. I mean, we could see the caps, but we couldn't see where the drain field is. So I don't know where your addition is and aligning with the drain field that we currently have. So I would like those are generally we need to see those items. That's part of our lot views so that we can find facts and see exactly what's proposed with stakes and such out there and there were none and then where they're at relative to the septic and such. So I would definitely would have liked to see those. Do you have a because he's mentioned the sizing and how much septic is necessary for seven bedrooms that's currently with two for yours and five for the neighboring property. Do you have an alternate site plan for septic? As mentioned, it's very important. Shared septics are not too common. So eventually that drain filled is going to come to an end, it's going to fail or needs to be sized for one or the other generally. So I would definitely, I'm not able to move forward on this personally myself. I don't know how my colleagues are without having an alternate site for the septic and having all of the additions marked so that we could see them. And then again, even having the current drain field marked, property lines marked, and then the alternate. So I would be open to tabling the application for the applicants to do so. Otherwise, I would be denying.

This is Tim. I would be okay with the part one of the septic tank that's existing too close without the addition, where it's at right now. Because right now it's two feet too close. I'd be in favor of approving that, but I would be denying the rest.

Any other comments from the board or any other questions for the applicants?

This is Larry. My only comments would be because of the age of the system that's there, there's a real good chance that within the next five years or so that tank's either got to be abandoned or come out of there. I think the reason Tim is okay with accepting it is because you can still get at it. If you put this addition on next to that, getting at that tank is almost impossible and it creates big issues for you guys. So a little bit, we're trying to protect you at this point by not getting that addition in there without having some other answer to the septic. So yeah, I think I could agree that I would go with part one, but part two would be either table it until we can get some more information or deny because it's not real workable.

Thank you, Larry. And for clarification for the record, just part one is the after-the-fact request from the 10-foot setback required from a dwelling for the septic tank. In 2002, the addition was made to the dwelling by a prior owner, and the permit application closed the septic tank relative to the proposed addition on the site plan, but didn't label the distance. But anyhow, so yeah, the the owner at that time was supposed to ensure that 10 foot setback and it wasn't. So I'm in agreeance that we could move forward with part one as well.

Only if, and this is Tim speaking, only if there's no addition, if maybe they want to redo a plan to move the addition smaller off to the side, I would still be in favor of leaving it if we could get access to that tank. and if they wanted to try a plan with the septic design to solve the sizing issue and a different plan to meet that so we have access. Correct.

I agree.

So a different septic design and then maybe the addition

If you could get a septic design that satisfied yours, but we're also dealing with the other people by default. I know it's not your fault or anything, but by default we have to consider that because even by you... Using your system. They're still undersized. So it's like it's almost got to be done hand in hand. Doesn't it Eric?

Be wise of them to have a plan because like you said when the system no longer is compliant They don't want to paint themselves into a corner and not have a room for a drain field Well, that was kind of my question if they could come up with the septic plan and

for just this facility, could the addition be a possibility without touching the septic, just starting a new one?

Timothy speaking. My question is, would we require the neighbor to do his plan too?

This is Veronica speaking. Eric, do we have any authority to require the neighbors to submit a plan? Since they weren't the applicant? Since they're sharing the septic, they're partially involved.

Yeah, I don't know that we do. Ideally, the neighbors would have joined in on the application, but they didn't.

And the majority of this drain field is on their property. But they're the ones that need the dream field the most.

This is Veronica speaking. It's hard to tell by the picture in front of us here. Two lines appear to be on the other side, but I don't know if those are all equal in length. So it appears that the neighboring property has the majority of the drain field.

Yes.

Yeah, this is Veronica speaking. I would be in favor of part one as mentioned with the conditions that no additions be on there and that the applicants provide septic drain field information for an alternate and then mark all of your proposed additions and such before i can move forward for part two a design for a new drain field for their place correct so so if they get a design just a whole new septic system come back for the building addition that would

Because the neighbors do have their own septic tanks, so this tank could disappear. Neighbors could have that drain field.

If you're going to try to leave that tank there, I would want the addition over, not right in line with, you know, over so there's an access to that.

But if they're going to put a new drain fill, they might as well probably move the tank and everything to the other side of the building.

That's going to be a challenge.

I mean, that's for a septic designer to deal with.

It's going to be a challenge, yeah. I'm a designer, so I was looking at it. And it's about knowing all the information. It can be done, I think, but I don't know.

And so this, yeah, this is Veronica. As you mentioned, so not only the septic designed for a new system, but an alternate system as well. Okay. You just got to mention that, too, when you contact the septics. So you have an alternate site somewhere else for the future failings.

Yeah, I'm just saying, though, if they abandon this septic altogether, right, Went for a whole new septic system for just their dwelling. If that would be doable, your designer. Yeah. Well, I don't know if it can be done because there needs to be soil borings. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But if it got done and it would work, then the addition would be able to go forward because this tank would need to be there.

I'm not so sure I'd be with it given variance for a closer than 20 foot to the drain field. So there's a lot of working parts here.

Correct. And without being able to see exactly what was proposed, where it was taped off, marked off with the current system. Plus, or as we said, there's not, you know, we don't have a design for a new system or an alternate system. There's so many factors here that we don't have all the information.

I'm not going to give the advice because I don't know how it will end, and I don't want you to spend money and come to that dead end. Well, that's what I'm asking now. I'm trying to ask some questions.

Yep. So from the existing drain field, though, you're not going to allow anything less than 20 feet?

I wouldn't be in favor of it, no. We've done it, but we're just making something non-conforming more non-conforming, and we haven't been doing that historically.

No, and that's not in harmony with the intent and the purposes, general purposes.

So... So another question, Eric, the line that is on their property couldn't really ever be removed since they were sharing with the other people because you'd be decreasing their sizing. So you couldn't remove that to even get over there with a new system for him.

That's a valid point. So that has to remain regardless unless the, uh, the opposite, the adjacent party has a, a plan.

Correct. Yes.

That's it.

This is Brock speaking. I think tabling the, if we want to move forward and give them the opportunity to converse with their neighboring property, with the neighbors and come up with a solution. of new septics or to be able to expand and otherwise we're kind of... Or we act on it tonight. Correct.

Tim, can I ask? Sure. With all the discussion, are you implying that if we approve this addition, The holding tank couldn't be there where it is, so the only place it could be is on the other side of the garage. Is that possible to run a line? Would it have to be inside the house or the garage or under the garage that would run over to that side? Well, this is Tim speaking. I would probably guess not.

To what? I would guess not myself, but it's possible. It depends on the plumbing, the depth, the... Okay. Yeah. So you have a decision.

That's why we're here.

Okay, is anyone prepared? It was easier. I know. Is anyone prepared for a motion then? Are we looking at tabling, are we? I mean, are you open to tabling so that you can get some information and visit with the?

Do you know what you would look for?

Yeah, first off, yeah. No, it's gonna take a bit. It's not gonna happen anytime soon. To do anything even right.

Right, yeah, so contacting the neighbors too, as far as septic goes.

They could offset the garage, right? They could move the garage. Right. Okay. And then they would maybe have room for their own drain field here, disconnected to... Okay.

Possible. But there has to be a lot more information gathered and... It might be a dead end.

Deny it?

Deny it. This is Larry. We do have to move on the after the fact part where that tank is too close to the existing structure, though, correct?

But, yeah, if we do that, that stops that addition for good, you know, and so on. Correct. Okay.

I mean, we can approve part one.

Not entirely. Okay.

And then did I or part two? Oh, no, it doesn't work.

I could approve part one without the addition.

Right, which is, Larry speaking again, we have to do that to put them in compliance.

But then we would have to make sure that there's a condition the addition doesn't go on because we give a variance for him to leave it there. Okay, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, the condition would have to be that before the addition goes on, the tank does have to move.

Yeah, if it's the way it was lined up. We can approve part one, period. And then that's it. And then if and when they want to do the addition, they could come back with a plan that would be acceptable from a septic and from an addition standpoint, right?

This is Tim. Yes, but there would be a new application, right? Because we would have to deny the second part.

Yeah, if you tabled it, the August meeting would be the latest that we could consider.

Without an extension signed. Right. He suggested tabling the whole thing.

He said August was the first, would be their meeting time.

Okay.

This is Veronica speaking. I think if the applicants are really looking into the addition and such, I would suggest tabling if.

Mm-hmm.

Let's see what we can do.

Do I have a motion?

Would you want us to act on that first part or just table it?

I think if it's going to work, we're going to have to get rid of that tank. So approving or going part one doesn't do anything. Does that make sense?

Could the garage be detached?

I think the safe play would be if you're looking to table for part two, you may as well table the whole works because you don't know what they'll come back with and then it might not work with part one having been granted. Right. Great.

So one question before you go, and I know I asked this already, because it's tight, if we can get the septic something done, And now the neighbor is the only one using this drain field. 20 feet still are to the building.

Well, if it's a slab?

It'd be footings, frost footings, you know, but a slab on grade, yeah. Okay, there'd be no crawl space, no basement?

No, no. So that would be... i would say i think we've been up to we have gotten as close as probably five feet six feet so we probably would i would probably be in favor of some relief if that's okay this is veronica speaking we have given relief for certain items that have been on slab and no basement such in in the past when we've

looked into the past if you want to look at historically but not we've considered the request the existing cabin is a slab too right the existing cabin is a slab yes yeah okay you can't run you couldn't run a sewer line underneath somehow this is tim i'll i'll make a motion that we table 22-v-26 and

Would you like them to sign an extension in case it gets beyond the August?

They can or August would be the last meeting that we can act on it. So if they were going to need additional time, they can always fill out a time extension waiver later. Okay. In the office. Okay.

Okay. Do you want to go ahead and for the record state exactly what they're tabling it for, the items that they need?

OK, we are tabling this for the lack of the information to properly put in a correct sized septic for your property, this application. And also giving you time to make sure that the design will fit Once you get the designer done, um, to be the best we can to just keep the neighbor without being affected. Yep.

Yep. Yeah. Makes sense. Okay.

So I have a motion from Tim to table the application, to give the applicants for the time for a septic design for the new system and alternate septic site as well. and then be sure if when we come back out if you're altering anything else size of the amending it in any other way the addition you need to be sure to contact environmental services so that it can be um if we have to do the lot views again so that we can be properly uh sent out the what's the word i'm looking for sorry public notices can be sent thank you okay do i have a second

This is Larry, I'll second.

Okay, so I have a motion by Tim to table the application and a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Okay, and this is Veronica. The application has been tabled.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, variance application 23-B-26 by William and Connie Brock. Lots two and three, block one, Joseph C. Barta Estates, section 28, Township 141, range 34, Lake Emma Township on Big Sand Lake. recreational development lake parcel 16.57.00300 the applicants are requesting after the fact variances from part one section 901.1 and 901.2 of the shoreland management ordinance for intensive vegetative clearing in the shore impact zone and on a steep slope and not having a ground layer understory of native vegetation in the cleared area And part two, section 902.1 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for grading in a steep slope that exceeds the permittable volume. Thank you so much. Go ahead and please state your name and address for the record.

Connie Brock, 12196 Mississippi Drive in Champlain, Minnesota.

Thank you, ma'am. And you, sir?

I'm counsel for the Brocks.

Okay, go ahead and state your name.

I'm Wilcox. I'm at 120 Main Avenue, North Park Rapids.

Thank you, sir. Okay, go ahead and proceed with your request.

Thank you. We're asking for an after-the-fact variance for landscaping that has been done. I would note that two issues in the February 5th, 26th letter have been addressed by permits to paver patio areas. The history of this lot is that it's very steep. There's been a lot of erosion with sedimentation going down to the beach there. I don't even know if I would call it a beach, but it is subject to erosion. The Brock's have dealt with that for quite a bit of, well, for their entire ownership, and then the prior owners have too. At this point, they've attempted to grow various vegetation over the years unsuccessfully. Been a number of mature trees, and I believe we did include some pictures of that, that were taken out by storms, not by my client's actions. The Clients admittedly were naive in trusting a recommended contractor to do this work. Unfortunately, that contractor didn't request the variance, didn't apprise my clients of the need for one. I'm not saying that's an excuse, but that is what happened. My naivete in filing this application was the cost that my clients had incurred in doing this work. My understanding is in the neighborhood of $60,000 that has been put into this already. But it is a huge factor and it is tapping into their finances considerably. Upon learning of the problems from the county's letter, the Brock's have contacted me. I went to environmental services. I talked to Aaron Anderson there. He recommended we contact soil and water. My clients have been in contact with Soil and Water, Jake over at Soil and Water, a number of times. Aaron has recommended that we take out the path that leads down to the, close to the water. And he did not believe that that could stay under any circumstances. My clients are agreeing to take that out. We've, well, I have not, but my clients have talked to, I want to say Flying W,

Flying Gardens.

Flying Gardens. Flying W Gardens, is that the name of it? They've talked to that. That was a recommendation that had been provided to them as to how to replace the path with vegetation. Part of the problem is it's so steep there that there'll have to be a plan to hold the vegetation in place until it takes, you know, some sort of grip on the soil there. The... At this point, I understand there was some concern about the mulching that had been done. My clients are happy to remove the mulching that appears on the tiers there. The mulching could be replaced with much thicker plant vegetation of various types. Again, we were thinking that soil and water would provide some recommendations as to plants that would perhaps be appropriate there. So there has been some communication there. Other suggestion was made that there be gutters applied to the house. My clients are willing to contact a contractor and see what they can do as far as gutters. That would maybe decrease some of the runoff from the house that would end up going down that slope again. My clients would really like to keep the terracing there and the rocks that hold that terracing in place. With that being said, the tiering, that could be done differently than it is now, because right now it's done with mulch. There's been some plants there that were really put there for demonstrative purposes, and we could go ahead and have that much thicker on those terraces But I do believe the terracing is really key to keeping the runoff as you've seen me It's very steep there. I think without that we're going to have continuing problems with keeping anything growing on there and keeping the sedimentation runoff but I guess I would open it up to any questions. Uh, uh, Mr. Brock bill is in attendance and along with the box son, Corey too.

Um, okay. Thank you so much, sir. So it appears since we have part one and part two to go ahead and do them separately, that way we can provide findings of facts for each one. Are you guys all in agreeance with that? Okay. So we will first go with part one of the application.

I recall the residual after a couple of the, uh, um, permits were granted for a few things or three. One is the road or path down has to be re vegetated. And then there has to be a vegetation plan for the wood chip areas and for the grading.

All of those are included.

For the part one?

It's one plan or one activity. Okay. Who developed your revegetation plan, Exhibit B?

My client had a friend who helped with that. That was, excuse me, my client had, I believe it was a neighbor who helped with that, who seemed to have some expertise in it. That plan was then taken over to Soil and Water for them to review. I think they were a little bit confused as to what they were being asked. I mean, we're We're asking for not just the overall plan, but maybe some specific suggestions from them.

This was done by someone who professionally, can I say it that way, someone who's very knowledgeable about the type of vegetation.

Well, we researched and researched. our neighbor and myself, and we came up, you know, the deep-rooted vegetation, buffalo grass, we just looked at what would work in our situation, and so that's what we came up with. And then Flying Gardens is coming out June 30th or July 1st now to help us proceed with the actual vegetation and what goes down on the pathway.

I would note, too, that... So your next step with that is to go to SWCD and have them review it? Is that your next step?

Is that soil and water? Well, I gave... I tried for about a month.

No, let me try. What we got tonight, which we have a lot of time to really, really dig in it, but in there you have a very detailed revegetation plan laid out, okay? Is that what you're proposing to us that we accept, or you're proposing that on the condition that it will be reviewed by SWCD? What are you proposing?

So that was provided to Soil and Water. They didn't have any input on it. I don't know that they had a strong feeling one way or another. No, the question is, what's the next step? Well, I was hoping to get some contact. Soil and Water wanted some contact from Environmental Services to find out exactly what was being asked of them. But my thought is that... The general plan is correct. Soil and water would hopefully provide some specific vegetation recommendations if they disagree with what my client has there, for example.

It looks like a very good, for me, a very good and very detailed and very appropriate set of vegetation based on my experience. So that's why.

Okay.

The other thing for a report, it looks as though the owners have been dealing with issues, losing trees, erosion for many, many years. So there's no, maybe not a lot of debate over whether something had to be done or not. Okay. My comments.

Thank you, Ken. This is Veronica speaking. I have a question, Eric. With this proposed remediation plan that they have provided for the revegetating, would that take care of any of their violations without the after this variance for us? Would that clear any of this with this vegetation plan that we just received?

Yeah so excuse me from what I'm hearing this evening and I've heard before is that the applicant is willing to revegetate the mulched areas and if that's the case then that really removes the need for part one of the variance application so if they're willing to revegetate those areas, then I think part one could be handled by their stating for the record that they're withdrawing part one and then it's only the second part with the grading in the soil that was moved and the retaining walls that were installed that the board would need to vet.

Okay, this is Bronx. Do you understand that, what Eric has just mentioned? That because you've provided us with documentation for replanting in the mulched areas and the drive for that pathway such that you could withdraw part one and make sure that you adhere with environmental services that you re-vegetate as you've mentioned, as you've described, as you've provided. Are you open to withdrawing part one from us so we don't have to move forward with that tonight?

We would do that, yes.

Okay, then I need you to please verbally speak. It's okay, if I just need you to verbally state, then we would withdraw this part one of the application as you've provided this and that you will work with Environmental Services to adhere to this plan that you have provided.

Yes.

Is that good for you, Eric?

So they withdraw it.

Okay, they are withdrawing part one.

Because one isn't necessary anymore, and then this is what they're going to provide to... Environmental services is there a corrective action plan correct?

Okay, thank you very much So I did not need to go forward with public comment then on part one since you're withdrawing that application part So then we will move forward to part two the grading the boulders so on Okay I'm gonna go ahead and open for public comment and And we have no public comment, so I will close public comment for part two. Again, part two is in regards to the retaining walls, the blocks.

This is Tim speaking. I see it as a benefit to the Hill myself.

This is Veronica speaking. I do see that we have some stabilization. I agree. I agree. I would be in favor of retaining the terraces, especially since they were going to have a vegetation plan for all of the mulched area and that whole drive cart path, I'll call it.

This is Larry, I agree. After the fact always puts us in a weird spot to decide what we would do or not. If we were to get this plan prior to doing it, we probably would have accepted it, I'm assuming. So I think that makes it fairly easy to go along with. So yeah, I think I could accept this.

Ken, do you have any questions or comments?

No, I agree with Larry. When I look at it, I'd say if they had come originally with this plan, we'd probably say, hey, this is a good deal.

Okay. This is Veronica, I agree. Like I mentioned, I'm in favor of retaining the terrorist sections. I greatly appreciate the efforts by the applicants on the revegetation and adhering to that being necessary. Is anybody prepared for a motion?

This is Tim, I'll make a motion to approve part two of leaving the boulders for the terraced hillside. I'll go through the findings here. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official controls? Yes. The pathway or four-wheeler trail is being vegetated. The mulch area is being vegetated. and the step-down terrace boulders will help stabilize the hillside. Number two is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by official controls. Yes, terracing a steep slope that's all sand and doesn't want to grow anything is reasonable. And vegetating properly. Is the need for variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current or prior property owners? Yes, this hill is a steep hill. It's made up of sandy soil and needs to be vegetated, so the boulders were put in to make more level runoff areas to hold back any erosion. Number four, will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of locality? Yes, the shoreline is made up of recreational year-round seasonal homes, and I'll adopt finding number five.

Thank you, Tim. I have a motion by Tim to approve part two of the after-the-fact variance application. Providing findings of facts one through four adopting number five Do I have a second?

This is Larry I'll second and I have a second by Larry Before you go on I would like to ask the one question though as to why why didn't you come for a permit or plan? Beforehand for such a such a project

I can't answer that. We took the recommendation from this person. People on the lake had used him. Several people had used him. And we just assumed too much. And we assumed that he had pulled permits. And it was our fault too, you know, not to pursue that.

Did the person who did it, is it a local?

No, he's from Isanti, Minnesota. Isanti, Cambridge.

Oh, okay.

And we just took his work from what he had done with other people and we took their recommendation and we didn't even, we didn't. It was basically as much as our fault as his, but he did not. And I guess we just assumed too much.

Okay, moving forward with the motion. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. Thank you very much. You will receive a decision letter from Environmental Services about your application and go from there.

Thank you very much.

We've almost hit the halfway point. Does anybody need a break? Keep on moving.

Take a three-minute break.

Take a little break. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and we've got a heavy agenda tonight, so I'm going to take a five-minute break here.

I do not.

Veronica, we're going to go back on to our meeting here. Thank you for your time for the break. Next, variance application 24-B-26 by Richard Aho, part of Lot 1, Block B, Herds Acres, Section 23, Township 141, Range 34, Lake Emma Township on Lake Emma, a recreational development lake. Parcel 16.44.02800, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 702A of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for proposed structural alteration and expansion of a non-conforming dwelling located in the shore impact zone. Thank you very much for coming to the presenter's table. If you would please state your name and address for the record.

Richard Aho, 20356 Hunter Road, Park Rapids, Minnesota.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Aho. And you, ma'am?

Margaret Aho, 20356 Hunter Road, Park Rapids.

Okay, thank you, Mrs. Aho. And go ahead and please give us a description of your variance request.

The request is for fixing of the foundation underneath the old part of the cabin, which was built somewhere 1915, 1920, and that is under the house. So there is nothing that's going to be happening with the foundation On the outside of the house, it's simply under the house, so the floor in the living room will have to be tore up in order to get to it. And the kitchen, that end of the kitchen right there is dropping by an inch and a half, and that's why they have to bring that foundation back up.

Okay, thank you very much. For the record I'll just state also in here the request is to be able to add six, the helical piers and steel support systems to the foundation and install a new wood beam and replace the existing floor beam on the non-conforming structure located 14 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Like the applicant said, the house predates the shoreland management ordinance and in 1996 a variance was granted that allowed the 24 by 24 attached garage to be added to the home. on the property is compliant and will not be affected by the structural repairs. I'm going to go ahead and keep the meeting moving to open for public comment. And seeing no public comment, I'm going to close public comment. Stabilizing the notably poor foundation is a reasonable request in my eyes as well. I am supportive of the application. And if my colleagues have any questions or comments for the applicants?

This is Larry in the interest of moving on, if you're ready for a motion.

Yes, Larry.

As I see this, everything is interior. We're not changing the footprint or anything. It's a house that needs to be repaired or it will fall apart, so there's nothing that we're opposed to there. So, yes, I would make a motion that we accept application 24V26 and accept staff's finding of facts.

Okay, thank you, Larry. I have a motion to approve the application 24B26 as per site plan on the application and adopt staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

Mike, I'll second that.

Okay, I have a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

This is Larry. I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. Your application has been approved. You'll receive a letter from Environmental Services on the next steps for your permits.

Quick. Thank you. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda. Variance application 25-V-26 by Raymond and Linda Locke, part of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter and part of Government Lot 5, Section 9, Township 140, Range 35 Township near Portage Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 27- or .09.00800. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 4, Subdivision A1B5 of the subdivision ordinance to exceed four lots per quarter-quarter section of land fronting a side of an existing public road. Thank you for coming to the presenter's table. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Raymond Locke, 20778 Forest Park Drive, Park Rapids.

Thank you, Mr. Locke. And you, ma'am?

Candice Galsvig, 20446 Forest Park Drive.

Perfect. Thank you. And if you could please proceed with your request.

We're requesting the permission to put an approach into a newly formed five-acre lot deemed legal by Todd Township and legal by Hubbard County.

This is Veronica speaking. Eric, have we heard anything from the highway engineer about this application?

Yes. The engineer's comments were... to see if the existing approach in the southwest corner of the property could be used as a shared approach, and if that isn't an option, a condition that the remainder tract would have to have its access approach if and when ever desired off of the township road that runs along the east and north sides of the property.

So that would be down in the southeast corner there, correct?

That current approach is not on our property. Right. That serves the farm field only, no residences.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing no public comment, I'll close public comment. So we could reduce the approaches if they would just put an approach on that Forest Park Drive with the remainder. Am I understanding that correctly?

That would be one way to ensure that there's no more than four approaches in that quarter mile stretch on County 48, yes.

That seems to be kind of a simple solution, in my opinion. I don't know how the other members feel about that.

This is Larry. You are the landowner on the rest of that property? Yes. otherwise we're not talking to the right people here.

Okay. Everything else other than that blue rectangle. Okay.

So would you be okay with that as a condition that any other development on that property would come off?

Not part, well, any other development, but not this development. Correct. But that would be future development if there is going to be future development. But right now, I'm just concerned about that southwest corner of five acres.

Five acres.

We're concerned down the road, though, if the rest of it gets developed, that we don't have any more access coming on to 48.

Right, because that would all come off of Forest Park Drive, which is a township road. Correct. Okay.

So just for clarity for you, sir, if you were if the condition was placed that you have an approach coming off of the remainder tract, then that still will leave you one approach for that five acres because you would be that five acre one would get number four. Is that correct? Am I reading that right or no? That makes the number.

This one is number four. This would be number five.

But that one wouldn't be down here, that would be on the other side.

Right, if we put the condition on there. Correct. Right, yep.

Right.

Yeah, you should be able to, if you develop it later, you could do it for you and have access there. Correct. Highway 48 is major bypass around the city, fairly heavy, so we should try to stick with the four accesses.

Not that part of 48, because the major bypass cuts off that leading edge, 28, going south to Highway 34. This is a half a mile past that.

This is the bypass part right over here.

Yeah, well, 48 is still a major road.

Right, but some of it cuts it off.

That is the bypass, but this is the one that comes off of 71.

Correct.

A lot of access forage.