Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10000990274902_Variances_09-04-1986Variances 2 Barcode 128 r>r:3409 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA h k ( Receipt No. Application Fee $ 612-739-1608RayHansonPhone:Owner: Middler IrstLast Name 55119169 No. McKnight Road. Ant. 310, St. Paul im Zip NoCityStateStreet & No. 56-238 RDCli'Lherall Lake ClassLake NameLake No. Range 40 Clitherall11Twp. NameSec.Twp. Legal Description:9 Block No.Lot No. Sub-Division Name:Linden GroveWest 35 feet 10-000-99-0274-902Parcel Number Explain your problem here: We built a 12' x 24' addition to our cabin in 1981. We believe we are 68 feet from the lake to the front of our cabin after the addition. Although there is some despute, we also believe we are t/ithin the building line" as evidenced by the location of other structures in the area. We request a variance from the 100 foot setback requirement. Although we do not know the exact location of our westerly lot line we are told that our cabin, including the existing structure which was purchased in 1971 and the addition constructed in 1982, are closer than 10 feet from our westerly boundary line. We, therefore, request a variance from the 10 foot side yard requirement. In order to properly evaluate the situation, please provide as much supplementary information as possible, such as: maps, plans, information about surrounding property, etc. APPLICIANT SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING. I understand that I have applied for a variance from the requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance of Otter Taii County, i understand i must contact my township in order to determine whether or not any additional variances and/or permits are required by the township for my proposed project. CU*19*8 O/VLOOnr-v^_UApplication dated. Signature of Applicant — DO NOT USE SPACE BELOW— Dofe of heoring 19.Hme M. Court House, Fergus Fo//s, MN. 56537 4th day of____Sppt.pmhpr 19 Rfi WITH THE FOLLOWINGDEVIATION APPROVED this______ (OR ATTACHED) REQUIREMENTS: improved utilizing the "string test", building to be no closer to lake than a line drawn between the neighbors on either side, and no closer to side lot Offline Qshah fes?isting structure. County of Oiler Tsil ^ y/ I hereby certify thst the ^vithin (nS’r'j- muni was ftlerl m the office ....-fSMO!): n cn I Signature: Chairman p Otter Tail Board of AdjustmmtMKL 0483 001 231.616 — Victor Lundeen Co . Printers. Fergus Falls. Minnesota feet/inches GRID PLOT PLAN SKETCHING FORMScale: Each grid equals 19Dated:Signature Please sketch your lot indicating setbacks from road right-of-way, lake and sideyard for each building currently on lot and any proposed structures. TT 7^ t 1 W T-/A/fa/hkxiCK^ O^lGlNi^U House CARIM. //innrc 3<f£:6<5e ^1 Ho(,0/NG ^PiNtCS ■^(jUdPlP ^cy/luero^S /7)e/^retf£> Kae/^fT ^ , //ic. 21598 7®MKL-0871-029 V1CT0A LUNOCEN CO.. RflINTENS. FERCUt FALLS. UiNN. 4y J o I I : J-J o I./{ \ \r> Vo f’fl'/£D ^OftO A 4C r L'^<B Appendix A There shall be at least 20 feet ofof the soil treatment system. Alternative Systems undisturbed soil between the sidewall of the soil treatment unit and the agricultural drain tile.A. General. The intent of this appendix is to provide standards for the In all cases the greatest practicable vertical separationc.ign, location, installation, use and maintenance of alternative sewage distance from the water table shall be provided.atment systems in areas of limiting soil characteristics, or where a In no case shall filter material of the soilBedrock proximity.3.ndard system cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment. treatment system be placed closer than three feet to creviced bedrock or tore such systems are employed, they shall comply with all local codes and When all horizons of the original soil profileconsolidated permeable bedrock.-inances, and be subject to timely inspections to assure adherence to have percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch, filter material of the;ci fications. soil treatment system shall be''placed no closer than seven feet to consolidatedClass I alternatives - modified standard systems.B. A maximum depth of 24 inches of sand may be used under theimpermeable bedrock.Extreme caution and careful planning shall be employed1. Where additional fill is required to achieve the requiredfilter material.•rever limiting characteristics including, but not limited to water table separation distance, a soil having a percolation rate between five and 45 minutesbedrock, exist within two feet of the original ground surface. per inch (loamy sand to silt loam) 12 months after placement shall be used.Fluctuating ground water.2. If it is not possible to allow the soil to settle for 12 months after placement,Where natural drainage will not provide three feet ofa. mechanical methods may be used to settle the fill to within ten percent of itsseparation between the bottom of the soil treatment area and the highest "in situ" density.known or calculated level of the water table, agricultural drain tile may be used to intercept or lower the seasonal high water table, except within 4. Slowly permeable soils. In no case shall excavation for the purpose of constructinga.shorelands of public waters.There shall be at least ten feet of undisturbed a soil treatment system be made in any soil layer having a percolationsoil between the sidewall of the soil treatment unit and the agricultural rate slower than 120 minutes per inch.drain tile. In no case shall excavation for the purpose of constructingb.Within shorelands of public waters, agricultural drainb. a soil treatment system be made in a soil layer having a percolation ratetile may be used to intercept the seasonal high water table provided the slower than 60 minutes per inch unless the moisture content is lower thanground water table has a slope of at least two feet per hundred feet the plastic limit of the soil.toward the public water and provided the drain tile are installed upslope -36--35- - 2 -Septeinber 4, 1986Board of Adjustment Lyle Olson, Fergus Falls, TIN, reqi:iests permission to construct a 6' 14*17" addition to hone on Lot 24, VJall Lake Point, Wall Lake, Dane Prairie Township, 3* frcm property line. After consideration TODtion was made by Craig Anderson to approve addition at existing building line, creating no new variance on this lot. The motion was seconded by Marcus Wiechmann and carried upon the following vote; )LSON PPROVED X All voting in favor Gregor^' M. Mikkelson, ;^ple Valley, MN, requested permission to ccai- struct dwelling on vacated roadbed, 60 feet frcm Stuart Lake, on lot 8, Block 2, Maple Acres, Girard Township. After consideration, motion was made by Craig Anderson to grant permission, precedende was ^t In allowing neighbor to build on old roadbed, seconded by Victor Petterson and carried upon the following vote: IIKKELSOJ PPROVED The motion was Anderson, Petterson, Everts and Wiechmann Walter and Itorty Yes: No: Kenneth M. T^/hitmer, Dent, MN, requested permission to construct a 26* X 30* garage on back lot 14* from road right-of-way, on lot behind lot 7, Kozelnik Beach, Ihird Add'n, Big McDonald Lake, Edna Township. After listening to the various interested parties, motion was iiBde by Roger Marty to grant a variance of 4* from the back of the lot. The motion was seconded by Craig Anderson and carried with the following vote: /HITLMER PPROVED Yes: Anderson, Everts, Marty, Walter and Petterson No; Wiechmann Terrance E. Fitzpatrick, Pelican Rapids, MN, requested permission to add an additional 14' to underground garage on Lot 1, Olson's M&plewood Lida Beach, South Lida Lake, Lida Township. After consideration, motion was made by Roger Marty to approve, hardship being terrain, and best alternative, garage to be constructed underground with no problem with snow removal or public safety. The motion was seconded by Craig Ancferson and carried with the following vote: TTZPATRICK PPROVED All voting in favor pay Hanson, Saint Pauiv MN,'»e?)resented by Attorney Peter Hoff, re­ quested permission to allcw a 12* x 24* addirion to cabin on the W 35* of Lot 9, Linden Grove, Clitherall Lake, Clitherall iTownship, to remain as presently located. After listening tc the various interested parties, motion was made by Craig Anderson to approve, applicant did conform with the requirements of building no closer to the lake than all other properties except one, and there was '' anple time in four years to issue a conplaint. Ihe motion was seconded by George Walter but failed with the following vote: ANSON PPROVED Yes: Anderson and Walter No:Abstain: Petterson and Everts Marty and Wiechmann Motion was then made by Ptoger Marty to allcw bmlding no closer to lake than neighbors on either side, utilizing the "string test" and no closer to the side lot line than the existing structure. The motion was seconded by Marcus Wiechmann and carried \pon the following vote: Yes; Nferty, Wiechman and Petterson No: Walter and Anderson Abstain: Everts September 10, 1986 Mil Olson, Commissioner Otter Tail County County Court House Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56557 Dear Mr, Olson: This letter with attached enclosures is intended to call your attention to the observance of the Shoreland Management Ordinance - Otter Tail County, Mim.esota - Fourth Revision - April 15, 1985 - VI ADMINISTRATION # 5» Variances from Standards c and d# I am thoroughly displeased the way it was administered in my case with a gross violation of my rights. I am therefore calling for a tlfrough investigation of all those persot^ and offices whose duty and responsibility it is to protect the rights of innocent parties and to uphold the laws established to protect the innocent. Thank you for your kind cooperation. Sincerely yours, n 1 1__' Viola A. BergerJ 7201 - 1?th Lane NorthSt, Petersburg, FL 53702 September 9» 1986 Joseph N. Alexander, Commissioner Dept. Of Natural Resources Bldg. 500 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul MN 551^6 Re: Letter in response to the Advisory Board Meeting Of Otter Tail County, Fergus Falls, Minnesota dated September 4, 1986 and as the enclosures indicate the subject matter in question. Dear Mr. Joseph N. Alexander: The Advisory Board of seven persons of Otter Tail County Fergus Falls, Minnesota asked the question why it took so long before anything was done after the building violations. The ensuing facts explains the reasons for this delay and the reason why I am writing you this letter which in my judgment might point to'Some local-state-federal violations and therefore the need for a State inquiry into this matter. The Advisory Board stated that the time has lapsed and nothing more could be done. Why have laws? Why have a Board Meeting? Why was it settled outside the law and in secrecy when the building codes state the contrary procedures? When I was inquiring about the extension with regard to compliance with the building codes Mr. Gene McDonald, second door neighbor to Mr. Hanson and a close friend of mine for many years said that Mr. Hanson had passed the final inspection because he was there. I made no further inquiries to investigate the matter. When the shoreline and land managers had measured Mr. Hanson's property they found that he had violated the shoreline because he had not turned in the final inspection which they had been waiting for. They were the same person who had given him the permit to build, Mr. McDonald again asked me what they had said. I told him that Mr. Hanson did not pass the inspection and Mr, McDonald again stated he did because he was there. I told him that was what they told me; but then he backed off and said maybe it might have been something else he heard. The conclusion to this is that Mr, Hanson's witnesses are uninformed and unreliable. 1, ; ' Mr. Diller, a neighbor twelve cottages away, stated at the meeting that I inflated the price of my cottage and that was the reason I couldn't sell my cottage with the price I was asking. He recommended that I should have it appraised. My cottage was appraised twice. One, Jo Van Hovel, appraised it at $59^0*30*00. Ms Jo Van Hovel went with another realtor and then Mr. Peterson took over and called me up long distance stating he had a buyer for my cottage. I then reduced the sale to S55»500.00. He came out and looked the place over and flatly stated why did you allow yourself to be so inconvenienced by your neighbor. Again, concluding, Mr. Hanson's witnesses are ill-informed and unreliable. Furthermore, it is not my duty to investigate to see if building codes are in compliance and it is not my responsibility to see that such codes are enforced. I pay taxes to have this done and there are high salried people whose duty and responsibility it is to see that this is done. Again, I am concluding that this has not been done and I am getting the short end of justice or injustice because of this lack of responsibility, legal manuevering and apparent covei^p by uninformed and unreliable witnesses. I don't make it a point to meddle in other people's affairs I have always maintained a friendly neighborly attitude to all, I discovered all these illegal procedures by my inquiry to see if I could get my taxes lowered to my property since it has depreciated considerably because of Mr. Hanson's building an extension beyond the limits of the building codes, I wrote to the tax commissioner, Mr. Steve Andrews, and stated that I was paying too much taxes and would like to have my taxes reduced because of the depreciation in my property, Mr. Steve Andrews answered me stating that he had turned it over to the shoreline and land managers and that is when all the illegalities began to unfold arid citations to meetings and request for a variance. That is when all legal and illegal manuevering:began to take place. Everything was kept quiet, to prevent me from knowing what was going on. I was notified of the last meeting, the Variance Hearing by a late letter. They knew that I was returning to Florida. I received the letter August 23, 1986 and the meeting was scheduled for September 4, 1986. 2.A When 1 returned to Minnesota to voice my opinion at the Hearing, the Advisory Board stated that the problem had been resolved in a private meeting in the morning apart from the public Hearing scheduled for 8 P.M. that evening and what I had:to say no longer made any difference. Why did they send me the Variance letter which caused me to undertake an expensive trip in addition to all the^inconvenience when all the matter was resolved in secrecy and contrary to'the Land and Shoreline Management Code. This is a gross -violation of my rights and mockery of the just legal system to protect me and many other innocent people who might find themselves in similar circumstances. In conclusion and presuming that Mr. Hanson was in compliance with his building project, I quietly resolved to sell my cottage over a period of two years even at a loss of S9»000.00 according to the first appraisal and after 3^ years of good neighborly relationships and paying up all the taxes to date; but since all ;the problems of Mr. Hanson came to the surface of not complying with the building codes I was innocently dragged into all his complications in addition to having to attend a Variance Hearing. In order for Mr. Hanson to justify his position of the,violations he turned to his neighbors for sympathy and as a result of this he turned them against me to the point that I am no longer comfortable in even being around any more. Under such circumstances most people would go into a physical-mental depression but I am firmly resolved to see that justice prevails and I am going as far as I humanly can. Thank you! Sincerely yours. Viola A. Berger 7201 - 17th Lane North St. Petersburg, PL 33702 Info. Copies; Attorney General:: Humbert H. Humphrey, III. County Commissioners Of Otter Tail County. Members Of The Advistory Board Of Otter Tail County. A' 3. August 26, 1986 OTTEH TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls Minnesota, 56557 Re: Notice of Hearing for Variance - Letter dated August 18, 1986 - Received August 25, 1986 - Hearing scheduled for September A, 1986 - To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Ray Hanson - 169 N, McKnight Road - Apt. 510 - St. Paul, MN 55119- Members of the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment; Mr. Hanson who is requesting a Hearing for a Variance after the fact (having built the extension and then asking for a Variance - a totally illegal procedure amounting to a double negative — No! No!). The request for a Variance is not a comprehensive description of the overall Variance, e.g., addition of 10 ft. deck in front of the 12 ft. addition as described in the letter of August 18, 1986 and thus is in: 1) violation of the code knowingly and v/illingly; 2) was adequately made aware of such laws by me as to the building codes because I, myself, wanted to build an addition to my Cottage even with a.permit to build and did not proceed because of the existing building codes. When we were talking about his intention to build an addition that is before he had built I mentioned that he might be in violation of the building codes and after he had built I complained and he remarked 'why don't you build an extension also'. 5) There was a slack observance of the inspection laws as to compliance wlien Mr. Hanson stated that he wasn't applying for inspection because he knew he would not pass. When the shoreline and land manager came out to, view the situation and informed me that the reason he didn't come for final approval was that he knew that it wouldn't pass the inspection. ^0 The building contractor should have known the building codes and should have not proceeded if there might have been some discrepancies as to violations. 5) As a result of all this, I have been unable to sell my Cottage in addition to suffering a substantial depreciation in the sale price. 6) Mr. Hanson has presented quite a problem with regard to: a) blocking my lake view to the west and obstructing the. flow of breeze (all potential buyers remarked about this as the main drawback - the sale has been going on for two years); 1. b) sewaf^e disposal - crov;ded himself so that the only way to get to the sewage tanks is through my property causing damage to the side of my Cottage, cracking the sidewalk, leaving deep grooves on my lawn from the weight of the truck; c) parking - has only one spot - thus the overflow of guests park on my lawn. Mr. Hanson informed me that on a previous meeting.the violation pertaining to the backyard had been resolved and in the next meeting the front part which is now in question will be thrown out also. THIS ■ WOULH BE A GHAVE INJUSTICE TO ME AND THEREFORE I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED! I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST I In supporting my position I am quoting from the SHORELAND MANAGEMENT Oid)iNANCE - OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA - Second Revision April, 1, 1978: "G. yariances From Standards 5» The granting of the Variance will not bo conbrary to the public interest or damaging to the ~^ghts ol other, persons or to property values in the neighborhood; 4.. tKe granting of the variance will not be contrary to management policies of the area or district.” I have reflected on all the comments, observations arid facts and have presented them with all honesty-sincerity-open! ihiridedness which lies within my human capacity. The only thing I seek is justice and restitution - nothing more - nothing less and that no one gets by through favoritism aind/Or bribery at the expense of innocent people which I now consider myself to be. I have been a loyal citizen, an honest taxpayer since; 1952 - years at Clitherall Lake, Otter Tail County. I love my country and will stand up for love-loyalty-honesty-justice-restitution and will fight tooth and nail to maintain these attitudes in our local-state-national government. In conclusion, I am stating very emphatically that Mr.' Hanson knew that he V(as in violation of the building codes and proceeded anyway to build and therefore didn't bother to get final approval , as stated by the Land and Shoreland Managers. Thank you for reviewing such a serious matter. Sincerely yours. viola A.Berger 7201 - 17th Lane North St. Petersburg, FL 55702 1)Ps. I will make every effort to attend the Hearing even at a great inconvenience and expense to me, I received the letter concerning the Hearing on August 25, 1 986 - adding to the inconvenience of now being in Florida and then going back up to Minnesota. 2.A' OTTLR TAIL COUNTY rerRus F.ills, Minnesota 56537 !NOTICE or HEARING FOR VARIANCE AITLICANT MUST BE riiLSENT AT SCHIDLLEU IlEAJllNU ■TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: •Ray Hanson 169 N. McKnight Road apt. 310 St. Paul, MN. 55119 lias made application to the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment for a Variance as pel’ requii’ements of the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance or the i Subdivision Controls Ordinance.The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble I 19 86 , at BiOOp-m., In Lhe CommissionersCepteniber 4this hearing or,for (Please use Lav/ Enforcement■Room of the Otter Tail County Courthouse, Fergus Falls, MN. entrance). This notice is to advise you that you may attend the above heai’ing and express your views on the variance requested. The propei’ty concerned in tlie application is legally described as Linden Grove Lot 9ViJest 3 5 feet r'56-238 11 Sec. 132 40 Clitherall[,ak e No.Range Twp. NameTwp. ■Lak.e Name Class p p)G1ithera11 'i'iie v.jri.ancc requested is: ■ , ■ . V.e built a 12'x24' addition to our cabin in 1981. We believe we are 68 feet from the lake to the front of our cabin after the addition. Although there is some despute , we also believe we are within the "building line" as evidenced jy. ttie location of other structures in the area, tlie 100 foot setback requirement. Mttiough we do not know the exact location of our westerly lot line we are told that our cabin, including the existing structure which was purchased in 1971 and :.he addition constructed in 1982 , are closer than 10 feet from our westerly :/oundary line, tequiremen t. We request a variance from We, therefore, request a variance from the 10 foot side yard C/ 5- ‘cv. ,<1-0 Board (pf Adju^tr.'.eut Seqnlttary August 18, 1986p a t o 1.1: ; » • if OTTER TAIL COUNTY TREASURER’S OFFICE FERGUS FALLS, MINNESOTA 56537 July 14, 1986 I Viola Berger , % Gene McDonald Battle Lake, MN 56515 Dear Ms. Berger: % • Thank you for your letter of inquiry regarding your cabin. We have forwarded this concern to the Land and Resource Management office. They will respond to your letter. Sincerely, Steve Andrews Otter Tail County Treasurer vis STEVE ANDREWS, Treas. Alphild Loken, Deputy Joyce Schmidt, Deputy I / !- j/dX/l^ # I ‘t/'V'X- __ (p^i^ll) ^ J^A 3.1/ !I \.i r ■I QD 3^# ;il t' FTM^ I I -l-fi' I rt .{ftJuSX IX ^ t-^-|-V.T> B T t'^iduJk Pii '! <.Jx^yuL, I ,! ■ 1'I :! :! 1 i - . I * 1 i I i '; ! »A 1 ii ^-vuR en ^ 'XAj ^<L^ c^ci<k.iXK,^r^ .'nJC (fr\ IJk. -?^aci:lctcm -2-^X iX^ ft 10 X I-X i-^ Ci'O f'_,/i^^A -<JKi = = ill an; 111 C/ cn111:: V ■f. Qda^ im i'. I V.-T^)s HAwrn^ c^Jm„ r ,.«<Kr ■ ■>'i« : •fc '.-'W. ',c\yiA HciUlCr^ ci ^ 5:^-fvi CUiKI yr^Xh^i ff.Uy\Si to h^ Xfu ^ ^ Z' i C Jd-YV ■>/ t ci-rs jJ'OcAJy.0."ld ^ u>-e<i^ ^ iJ! /f c;-n i: = ;: Jj' c;-n: : . Wolsey, SD 57384 September 2, 1986 To Whom It May Concern: We are the owners of the property directly west of Ray and Patty Hanson. We are in agreement with the Hansons in their request to waive cuirent building restrictions. We bought our property (Lot 8, Linden Grove) in 1978 prior to the improvements the Hansons had done to their existing structure. While remodeling the Hansons did not extend any closer to the property line than the original structure. As next door neighbors we have no disagreements with the way their structure sits on their lot. Respectfully Yours, William H. & Mary E. Houck OTTLR TAIL COUNTY tT’rpus F.i.l.ls, Minnesota 56 537 I NOTICE or HEARING FOR VARIANCE APPLICANT MUST HE PJii'JiENl' AT SCI TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Ray Hanson 169 N, McKnight Road apt. 310 St. Paul, MN. 55119 OTTERTAR. CO. , Fergus Falls t lVr*« has made application to the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment for a Variance as per requirements of the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance or the The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assembleSubdivision Controls Ordinance. 8:00 p.m. , In the CommissionersSeptember 4for this hearing on 1386 , at (Please use Law EnforcementRoom of the Otter Tail County Courthouse, Fergus Falls, MN. entrance). This notice is to advise you that you may attend the above hearing and express your views on the variance requested. The property concerned in the application is legally described as Linden Grove Lot 9West 35 feet 56-238 11Sec.132 40 ClitherallLake No.Range Twp. NameTwp. Lake Name Class pClitherall The variance requested is: We built a 12'x24' addition to our cabin in 1981. from the lake to the front of our cabin after the addition. Although there is some despute , we also believe we are within the "building line" as evidenced by the location of other structures in the area. We request a variance from the 100 foot setback requirement. Although we do not know the exact location of our westerly lot line we are told that our cabin, including the existing structure which was purchased in 1971 and the addition constructed in 1982, are closer than 10 feet from our westerly ooundary line, requirement. We believe we are 68 feet We, therefore, request a variance from the 10 foot side yard i Q ( 7.^ •-( EoaPd ipf .Adjustment Secmetary August 18, 1986Dated: 1 ! August 26, 1986 OTTER TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls Minnesota, 56537 Re; Notice of Hearing for Variance - Letter dated August 18, 1986 - Received August 25» 1986 - Hearing scheduled for September ^1-, 1986 - To Whom It May Concern; Mr, Ray Hanson - 169 N, McKnight Road - Apt. 310 - St. Paul, MN 55119- Members of the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment; Mr. Hanson who is requesting a Hearing for a Variance after the fact (having built the extension and then asking for a Variance - a totally illegal proceduie amounting to a double negative - No! Nol). The request for a Variance is not a comprehensive description of the overall Variance, e.g., addition of 10 ft. deck in front of the 12 ft. addition as described in the letter of August 18, 1986 and thus is in; 1) violation of the code knowingly and v/illingly; 2) was adequately made aware of such laws by me as to the building codes because I, myself, wanted to build an addition to my Cottage even with a permit to build and did not proceed because of the existing building codes. When we were talking about his intention to build an addition that is before he had built I mentioned that he might be in violation of the building codes and after he had built I complained and he remarked 'why don't you build an extension also'. 3) There was a slack observance of the inspection laws as to compliance when Mr, Hanson stated that he wasn't applying for inspection because he knew he would not pass. When the shoreline and land manager came out to view the situation and informed me that the reason he didn't come for final approval was that he knew that it wouldn't pass the inspection. The building contractor should have known the building codes and should have not proceeded if there might have been some discrepancies as to violations. 5) As a result of all this, I have been unable to sell my Cottage in addition to suffering a substantial depreciation in the sale price. 6) Mr. Hanson has presented quite a problem with regard to; a) blocking my lake view to the west and obstructing the, flow of breeze (all potential buyers remarked about this as the main drawback - the sale has been going on for two years); 1. b) sewage disposal - crowded himself so that the only way to get to the sewage tanks is through my property causing damage to the side of my Cottage, cracking the sidewalk, leaving deep grooves on my lawn from the weight of the truck; c) parking - has only one spot - thus the overflow of guests park on my lawn. Mr. Hanson informed me that on a previous meeting the violation pertaining to the backyard had been resolved and in the next meeting the front part which is now in question will be thrown out also. WOULD BE A GRAVE INJUSTICE TO ME AND THEREFORE I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED! THIS I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST! In supporting ray position I am quoting from the SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE - OTTER TAIL COUNTY, T-TINNESOTA ~ Second Revision April, 1, 1976: "G. Variances From Standards 3* The granting of the Variance will not be conbrary to the public interest or damagin^^ to the ~^ghts of other persons or to property values~Tn the neighborhood; 4. bHe granting of the variance will not be contrary to management policies of the area or district." I have reflected on all the comments, observations and facts and have presented them with all honesty-sincerity-open! mindedness which lies within my human capacity. The only thing I seek is justice and restitution - nothing more - nothing less and that no one gets by through favoritism and/or bribery at the expense of innocent people which I now consider myself to be. I have been a loyal citizen, an honest taxpayer since 1952 - 3^ years at Clitherall Lake, Otter Tail County. I love my country and will stand up for love-loyalty-honesty-justice-restitution and will fight tooth and nail to maintain these attitudes in our local-state-national government. In conclusion, I am stating very emphatically that Mr. Hanson knew that he was in violation of the building codes and proceeded anyway to build and therefore didn't bother to get final approval as stated by the Land and Shoreland Managers. Thank you for reviewing such a serious matter. Sincerely yours, ______ - - p - - ____viola Ai, Berger 7201 - 17th Lane North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Ps. I will make every effort to attend the Hearing even at a great inconvenience and expense to me. I received the letter concerning the Hearing on August 23, 1 986 - adding to the inconvenience of now being in Florida and then going back up to Minnesota. 2. CLoc^ '^Lj^ t ^ W/W- U)<M1. r% u)^od-.a^- JU^ u^ tk. <5-0^ uJ(^ 0^ V (\UG 211986 Ijj r ri 6': August 20, 1986 Ottertail County Board of Adjustment County Courthouse Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Dear Ccnmissicai Maribers: As an adjacent property owner I would like to respond to the Hearing Notice relating to the Kay Hanson request for variance. I feel the Hanson's request should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The subdividing of lots in our area was done in the 1940's, the lots sizes are substandard, therefore it would be difficult to meet present day setback requirements. 2. An onsite evaluation indicates that if the 100 foot front yard setback was met, the sewage system holding tank setback requirements would suffer. 3. The Hanson's front building wall is in line with the cottages to the West. If there was a problem, the coiplainant should have objected when ccnstructicn was cctimencing rather than 5 years later. Respectfully, 4. Jerry Einerson Lot 5, Linden Grove JE/kh OTTLR TML COUIITY iert'us r.T.lls, Minnesota 56537 MOT ICC or IICAKJMG fOR VARIAMCC AlTJ.lf-ANT MUST llC I’lil'.SCNi' AT bOllCUCLUJ llE/MilNG I WHOM IT MAY COMCCRN: y Hanson 9 N. McKnight Road apt. 310 . Paul, MN. 55119 s made application to the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment for a Variance as r requirements of tlie Otter Tail County Slioreland Management Ordinance or the Tlie Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemblebdivision Controls Ordinance. 8 ; 00 p• III. , in the CoimiiissionersCeptcinbef 4 19 86 . atr this hearing on (Please use Law Enforcementoin of the ptter Tail County Courthouse, Fergus Falls, MN. trance). is notice is to advise you that you may attend the above hearing and express your ews on the variance requested. e property concerned in the application is legally described as Linden Grove Lot 9 i it 35 fecit r •56-238 11 Sec. 132 40 ClitherallTwp. NameRange:e Mo.Twp. ^Class pn■■.e Maine Clitlieral 1 -■ vai’iance I’cipiested is: built a 12'x24' addition to our cabin in 1981. We believe we are 68 feet m the lake to the front of our cabin after the addition. Although there some despute , we also believe we are within the "building line" as evidenced the location of other structures in the area. 100 foot setback requirement. "] IWe request a variance from hough we do not know the exact location of our westerly lot line we are told t our cabin, including the existing structure wliich was purchased in 1971 and addition constructed in 1982, are closer than 10 feet from our westerly ndary line. We, therefore, request a variance from the 10 foot side yard uirement. i : Ccy. Cf.L. <_<- ^ ^ Board (pf .Adjustment Sec/i/iitnry . August 18, 1986: ed: ! OTTER TAIL COUNTY fercus Falls, Minnesota■56537 i I NOTICE OF HEARING FOR VARIANCE APPLICANT MUST BE PBESENT' AT SCHEDULED lIEAItlNG TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Ray Hanson 169 N. McKnight Road apt. 310 St. Paul, MN. 55119 ii has made aoplication to the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment for a Variance as per reauirements of the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance or the The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble 8 : 00 p-m., in the Commissioners Subdivision Controls Ordinance. ;September 4 19 86 , atfor this hearing on (Please use Lav; EnforcementRoom of the Otter Tail County Courthouse, Fergus Falls, MN. entrance). This notice is to advise you that you may attend, the above hearing and express your views on the variance requested. The property concerned in the application is legally described as Linden Grove Lot 9West 35 feet 56-238 11Sec.132 Clitherall40Twp. NameRangeLake No.Twp. Lake Name Class p p)Clitherall The variance requested is: • ■ We built a 12'x24' addition to our cabin in 1981. We believe we are 68 feet from the lake to the front of our cabin after the addition. Although there is some despute , we also believe we are within the "building line" as evidenced by the location of other structures in the area. We request a variance from the 100 foot setback requirement. Although we do not know the exact location of our westerly lot line we are told that our cabin, including the existing structure which was purchased in 1971 and the addition constructed in 1982, are closer than 10 feet from our westerly boundary line. We, therefore, request a variance from the 10 foot side yard requirement. August 18, 1986Dated: EdaVd (J)f Adjustment Segr/eTary OTTER TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls, Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL) I Sylvia G. Bergerud, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment for Otter Tail County, Minnesota do hereby certify that on the d QRfi 18th day of August , the attached Notice of Hearing was duly served upon the following: 310, St. Paul, MN. 55119Ray Hanson, 169 N. McKnight, Apt. Arlyn Hustad, Twp. Clerk of clitherall, Rt.l Battle Lake, MN. 56515 Viola Berger et al, % Phyllis Antonsen, 941 Dewey AVE, Gibbon MN 55335 Phyllis M. -^ntonsen, 941 dewey Ave, Gibbon, MN. 55 Ralph J. W.oods, rt. 1 Battle Lake, MN. 56515 Melvin W. & Evelyn Lehmberg, 4425 Urbandale Ct, Plymouth, MN. 55446 Paul Flogstad, 612 Sand Piper Trail, Sioux Falls, Loren H. & Lorraine Killion, c. Carlyle Clawson, 2450 Como Ave, Jerald & Arlys Einerson, 635 N. Carol J. Spencer et al, 208 E.gene S. & Vera M. McDonald, Woody Acres Tr. Park, Box 236, Fulton, TX 78358 William llouck.et al. Box 186, Wolsey, S. Dak. 57384 5 S. Dak. 57103106 W. Hillside, Fergus falls, MN. 56537 St. Paul, MN. 55108 9th St, Montevideo, Mn. 56265 4th Ave. Redfield, S. Dak. 57469 Dennis; Berend. County Engineer, Court House, Fergus Falls, MN. 56537 Orlin Emer son>;-Rt. 1 Box- 14 4;, . Dent , MN. 56528 Mr. Terry Lejcher, DNR, 1221h E. Fir Ave., Fergus Falls, Mn. 56537 Department of Natural Resoutrces, Regional Administrator, 2IIS Birchmont Beach Road NE, Bemidji, MN. 56601 Town Board Chairman or Clerk i :!Board of Adjustment: Craig Anderson, R.R., Ottertail, MN. 56571 John Everts, Route 2, Battle Lake, Mn. 56515 George Walter, Route 1, Perham, Mn. 56573 Victor Petterson Jr., Rt. 2, Fergus Falls, MN. 56537 Roger Marty, Pelican Rapids, MN. 56572 Marcus Wiechmann, 2425 Lakeview Dr., Fergus Falls, MN. 56537 by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope, postage pi.'epaid, and by depositing the same in the U. S. Mail at Fergus Falls, Minnesota, properly addressed to each of the above named at the addresses shown above. f: 31:i II 1 J I II August 18, 1986Dated itSecretai~y f'