Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22000130100005_Variances_12-01-2004\2lo\l2.oo^ 967794 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA I hereby certify thato^^^^o A this instrument it r was fiied/recorded in this office for recoid on the—iO—day of -----2004 Ri^corder e|Suty Wendy Metcalf,^Cqur^y by:Jj^ 1^..recording fgl^ .well certificate ;e THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE RECEIVED OCT 2 8 2004COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 (218) 998-8095 Otter Tail County’s Website: www.co.ottertail.mn.us LANDS RESOURCE Soo- 4rrApplication Fee Receipt Number 137^^ 0COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Accepted By / Date Sfe-^77 LAKE NAME ^gwcyTr* __TOWNSHIP 13*^ RANGE O'j'b TOWNSHIP NAME £.Ut 2.A-6&TH Ogu^TT l^vjS’ (k>Aib PROPERTY OWNER DAYTIME PHONE MAILING ADDRESS LAKE NUMBER LAKE CLASS SECTION PARCEL NUMBER E-911 ADDRESS,12^660 1^01 00 LEGAL DESCRIPTir " SUBLOT 5 OF GL 3 & PT GL 3 COM , NE COR LOT 12 NORTH SHORE PARK, S 263.47', S 79 DEG E 231.51' S 82 DEG E 58.08' TO BG, S 82 DEG E 61.92', N 85.8' TO RD, N 55 DEG W 28.16' TO PT NE OF BG, S 22 DEG W 101.08' TO BG & VACATED ROAD BETWEEN TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) structure Setback Structure Size Sewage System Subdivision Cluster Misc. SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BREIF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. • • • iPrc*^ - tt4a#-P«.c*' v/<B>ri4i»>cb P»r* A^i/ifre ^ t«iei*vaA't^ , 4>cKa,Pi^^ 66e.W4v^ -t-ke tfia/<f^*0A5 I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER DATE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) 7j^if)&kjnjL PgAye. /d -/^ l^a^cli I ~ 2 cU^/dJLC /3 5^5f ^63 - oa^ 3^7/D'O "d-tro / ~ oo^ 3^S 2V/ 37^3 3 73 - oo^ 7/2^ , dos C^o7 "OuS . Date Of Hearing /^, 7- py Time y. '^/^ Motion Duwayiie and Gladeen Schafer - Approved the variance as requested with a condition. (7:58 p.m.) After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, seconded by Rod Boyer and unanimously carried, to approve the variances necessary for. the mobile home roof replacement and for the screen deck projects with the condition that the 8’ 3” by 16’ 3“shed located on the west side of the lot must be reduced to a size, which is large enough to.hold the well mechanics, however, the size cannot exceed 5’ by 5’. The Board noted that the variance as approved does not grant any setback variances for the 14’ by 22’ shed, does not directly or indirectly grant any other setback variances other then the'variances necessary for the projects stated above and does not grant a variance from the impervious surface requirement. The Board also noted that the variance as granted does provide the applicants with reasonable use of their property. ___ chairman/Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management /X Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No '/omCopy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR J__ LR Official/Date bk 0204-001 317,340 • Victor Lundeen Co , Printers • Fergus Falls, Minnesota !<C>^; Scale Signature V i V I J ■l *T .............1j i ■■■•;■ r t -iT1I i ■I- I ! f 1IN \\ IK ,1 w ....; r1 T f- n r ...J :I T iI - V r-4- Tr■■f: r I ■;r 1i1 \ ;.. I r ■r-1 mcmm OCT 2 8 2004 LAND & RESOURCE ' BK —0403 313.987 • STtctor Uindeen Co.. Prmtor* • Fergus Fells. MN * 1-80O346-4870I MANFRED R.OHNSTAD 1914-1907 DUANE R. BREITLING* WILLIAM J. BRUDVIK* JAYD. CARLSON* JOHN R DOSLAND* THOMAS D. FIEBIGER* SEAN M. FREDRICKS* ROBERT G. HOY* JOHN A.JUELSON ROSS V. KELLER* MARSHALL W. McCULLOUGH, CPA STEVEN E. McCULLOUGH* MICHAEL D. NELSON* BRIAN D. NEUGEBAUER* ROBERT E. ROSENVOLD BRENDA R. ROSTEN* SARA K. SORENSON* DANIEL R.TWtCHELL S.LEEVINJE DAVID L. WANNER Ohnstad Twichell, P.C. I ATTORNEYS AT LAW Founded in 1939 Practice in all North Dakota and Minnesota courts Offices in West Fargo, Fargo, Hillsboro, Mayville, Page, Hope and Finley, North Dakota and Detroit Lakes, Minnesota www.ohnstadlaw.com PEGGY J. BUCHHOLZ. PLS Office Administrator‘Also licensed in Minnesota October 27, 2004 received OCT 2 8 2004Otter Tail County Land and Resource Management Office Government Services Center 540 West Fir Avenue Fergus Falls, MN 56537 land & RESOURCE ATTENTION; Patrick Eckert Re: Application for Variance for Repairs and Improvements to 21528 Jewett Lake Road, Elizabeth Township, Otter Tail County, Minnesota. To the Board of Adjustment: I submit this letter on behalf of DuWayne and Gladeen Schafer in support of the attached application for an after-the-fact variance for minor repairs and improvements to their lake property on Lake Jewett located 21528 Jewett Lake Road, Elizabeth Township, Otter Tail County, Mirmesota (the “Property”). Background. Mr. and Mrs. Schafer purchased the Property in 1997. Any non-conformities regarding setback existed at the time the Schafers purchased the Property since the structure dimensions on the Property were the same as they are today, with the exception of the dimension changes described in this letter. On September 14, 2004, Otter Tail County Land and Resource Management Officer Patrick Eckert issued a Violation to the Schafers for “failure to obtain a site permit prior to erecting or installing a new structure or altering any structure or part thereof,” and altering a “structure less than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level.” The Schafers wish to comply with the Land and Resource Management Ordinance. The existing deck was part of the Property when the Schafers purchased the Property, so the Schafers inherited any non-conforming use issues regarding setback. In 2003, the Schafers removed the steps from the south side of their deck (facing the shore) and installed new, smaller steps on the west side of the deck. Through these improvements, the Schafers actually increased the setback by approximately three feet. Further, because the new steps are significantly smaller than the steps existing at the time the Schafers purchased the Property, the footprint of the deck is actually smaller now than before the changes. In addition, the Schafers enclosed their deck with screens (in an effort to reduce any exposure to the West Nile Virus). 5^ ALERUS FINANCIAL BUILDING • 901 13TH AVENUE EAST • P.O. BOX 458 - WEST FARGO, ND 58078-0458 • (701) 282-3249 • FAX (701) 282-0825 □ ALERUS FINANCIAL BUILDING • 15 BROADWAY SUITE 500 • P.O. BOX 2765 • FARGO, ND 58108-2765 • (701) 280-5801 • FAX (701) 280-5803 Otter Tail County Land & Resource Management Office October 27, 2004 Page 3 mobile home to a reasonable use, obviously a significant hardship. Both the roof and deck existed when the Schafers purchased the Property, and any non-conformities were certainly not created by the Schafers. These minor repairs and improvements did not alter the essential character of the Property. By approving a variance, the Board of Adjustment would simply be allowing the Schafers to enjoy their Property in a safe and reasonable manner. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable nse for the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. B. If the Board denies the Schafers’ application, the Schafers would indeed suffer a considerable economic hardship in restoring the Property to the condition that it was in prior to the repairs and improvements (a penalty that would make little practical sense). But more importantly, tearing off the roof on the mobile home would leave the Schafers with no reasonable use of the Property. Restoring the leaky roof would result in deterioration to the interior of the mobile home. With regard to the deck, the new stairs actually decrease the footprint and increase the setback from the shoreline. By enclosing the deck, the Schafers were attempting to ensure the health and safety of their family by limiting exposure to West Nile Virus, a significant non-economic consideration. No variance may be granted that would allow any use or expansion of use that is prohibited in a Shoreland Management District. C. A variance would not change the Schafers’ legal and reasonable use of the Property. The Board of Adjustment may impose conditions in granting the variance to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. D. Applicable only at the Board’s discretion, but the Schafers would like to point out that this variance would not have any affect whatsoever on surrounding properties. The repairs and improvements actually decreased the footprint of the Schafers’ mobile home and deck, which, if anything, only benefits neighbors. With regard to the public interest, there is public access to the lake nearby, and the repairs and improvements only serve to create a more aesthetically pleasing effect. In considering variance requests, the Board of Adjustment must also consider: E. Whether the variance will secure for the applicant a right or rights that are enjoyed by other owners in the same area. 1. OHNSTAD TWICHELL, PC. Otter Tail County Land & Resource Management Office October 27, 2004 Page 4 The variance will only secure the Schafers’ right to enjoy their mobile home free from water damage and to enjoy their deck safe from disease-carrying insects. Other owners in the area seek the same enjoyment from their lake properties. Several surrounding properties contain structures that are in violation of the setback limits. Whether existing sewage treatment systems on the property need upgrading before additional development is approved. 2. The repairs and improvements have no effect on existing sewage treatment systems. Whether granting the variance will be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or to property values in the neighborhood. 3. The repairs and improvements do not detrimentally affect surrounding properties in any way. 4.No variance shall be granted simply because there are no objections or because those who do not object outnumber those who do. Besides the “complaint” in this matter (likely made by a disgruntled real estate agent), the Schafers would like to note that no neighbors have objected in any manner to the minor repairs and improvements. ^ The Schafers understand the need for orderly use and improvements on lake properties, and they respect this Board’s responsibilities in maintaining that order. The Schafers believe that an after-the-fact variance in this case will be consistent with the Board’s mission. The repairs and improvements did not alter or impair the character of the area, and, in fact, the changes are more aesthetically pleasing to the benefit of surrounding properties. Requiring the Schafers to tear down their deck or tear off their roof would not be a practical resolution to this matter, especially considering the fact that the Schafers inherited any non-conformities regarding setback when they purchased the Property. Additional Information. The following additional information is enclosed as part of this application: Completed Application for Variance form;1. A drawing, and six copies, of the scaled and dimensioned site plans;2. OHNSTAD TWICHELL, P.C. Otter Tail County Land & Resource Management Office October 27, 2004 Page 2 The primary structure on the Property is a mobile home, for which the Schafers have a valid registration with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The mobile home was located on the Property when the Schafers purchased the Property in 1997, so the Schafers inherited any non- conforming use issues regarding setback. In 2003, to remedy leaks in the roof of the mobile home (which were causing significant damage to the interior of the mobile home), and to prevent further deterioration to the roof, the Schafers converted the flat roof to a pitch roof. These repairs only slightly changed the dimensions of the roof The Schafers reasoned that the deck improvements were actually decreasing the footprint of the deck and increasing the lake setback. They further reasoned that the roof repairs were necessary for purposes of protecting the interior of the mobile home and did not consider the repairs to be alterations or improvements that required Land and Resource Management approval. The Schafers completed the roof and deck repairs and improvements under the impression that they did not need site permits. These minor repairs and improvements did not substantially change the character of the Property, as further explained below. In recent discussions with Mr. Eckert, he raised the possibility that the Property does not meet setback requirements from contiguous single-family properties as well. Again, the Schafers inherited any non-conforming use issues regarding setback from the previous owners of the Property and the Schafers lacked any awareness regarding potential violations. To the extent that the Property might be in violation with setback requirements under the ordinance, the Schafers request a variance. In February of2004, after both the deck improvements and roof repairs were completed, the Schafers submitted an application for a site permit to construct a garage on the Property. Land and Resource Management representatives inspected the Property both before and after the construction of the garage for purposes of approving the permit. The Land and Resource Management Office processed the Schafers’ application, issued a permit, and approved the garage, all without any mention of alleged setback violations and without any mention of the deck improvements or roof repairs. Variance Standard. Article V, Section 5, of the Shoreland Management Ordinance provides that the Board of Adjustment has the exclusive power to approve variances from the terms of the Ordinance, including restrictions placed on non-conformities. Article V, Section 5, further requires: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance in cases when there are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the Ordinance. “Hardship” as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the Ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. A. The roof repairs were necessary for purposes of protecting the interior of the mobile home. Without the updated roof, the Schafers could not put the OHNSTAD TWICHELL, P.C. Otter Tail County Land & Resource Management Office October 21, 2004 Page 5 A check from DuWayne and Gladeen Schafer in the amount of $500, payable to “Otter Tail County Treasurer,” representing the application fee for a variance; 3. A copy of the Violation issued by Patrick Eckert, Land and Resource Management Official; 4. Signed 60-Day Rule Waiver;5. Copy of abstract entry as evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Schafer’s ownership of the Property (attached to Application for Variance); and 6. Copy of2004 Site Permit for Garage (which notably contains no citations for setback violations or any mention of the deck improvements and roof repairs). The Site Permit application also contained an impervious surface calculation, which indicated that the impervious surface was less than 25%, even with the larger deck footprint. 7. Because this is an after-the-fact application, Mr. and Mrs. Schafer will wait for direction from the Land and Resource Management Office regarding staking requirements, if necessary. Please review the application, confirm that it is complete, and let me know when the application will be scheduled for hearing by the Board. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OHNSTAD TWICHELL, P.C. M. kJLX Sean M. Fredricks SMF:dms Enc. cc: DuWayne and Gladeen Schafer OHNSTAD TWICHELL, P.C.