Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout27000180118900_Variances_09-14-2010Bill Kalar Bill Kalar Monday, January 31, 2011 9:59 AM ■Josh Boock' RE: case law wetlands variance From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Ron, You should contact Wayne Stein who is the County Auditor to arrange for a copy of the audio record of the Board of Adjustment meeting. Wayne can be reached at 218-998-8030. Bill Kalar From: Josh Boock [mailto:altsales@paulbunyan.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:32 PM To: Bill Kalar Subject: Re: case law wetlands variance Bill I had lunch with Mike Ruffenach, my attorney, yesterday. He somewhat agrees the county board of adjustment may have acted appropriately in the decision, to approve the sale of the wetlands credits, based on the facts provided. I am not sure however at this point that a variance has been granted so as to allow their use. I find specific language in the record (minutes) that leads me to believe this. Much of this problem revolves around false representations knowingly made in an attempt to influence the board of adjustment (a government entity) by Chad FelstuI that evening the attorney accompanying Ernest and Harvey Sandahl. Mister FelstuI knowingly made false representations in an attempt to obtain a variance and to purchase the wetland credits. Such fraudeluent representation made buy a member of the bar is a serious violation of the law. For support I reference the case Mr. FelstuI himself presented to Judge Senyk himself in the case at hand, clearly demonstrating he had a v/orking knowledge of the facts. (this was reflected in the appeals court decision I previously frowarded to you) 1 will in the next few days be forwarding correspondence on this matter to Mr. Hauser so that he may investigate the matter and take the all appropriate actions. It is to my understanding that the actual board of adjustment meetings are audio taped and archived I am not sure however where to gain access to these recordings. I believe it was possibly Wayne that mentioned this to me, and that they are as public record available to me., it would help if you could find out for me. Thank you for your time and considerations Ron and Barb Boock P.S. found out today I will have a baby grandaughter in June. I guess its time to order cigars. ----Original Message----- From: Bill Kalar To: Josh Boock Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:58 PM Subject: RE: case law wetlands variance Hi Ron, I had a chance to discuss the information you provided with David Hauser (Co. Attorney). From our discussion, it appears that the County's action regarding the Variance was appropriate. This is based upon our Ordinance language (does not define "applicant") and past practice. It should, however be noted that the County's approval (granting of a Variance) does not require a propertyowner(s) actually do a project. A Variance is more permissive in that if a propertyowner(s) decides to proceed with a project, then the project must be done in compliance with the approval. 1 Bill Kalar Bill Kalar Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:58 PM 'Josh Boock' RE: case law wetlands variance From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Ron, I had a chance to discuss the information you provided with David Hauser (Co. Attorney). From our discussion, it appears that the County's action regarding the Variance was appropriate. This is based upon our Ordinance language (does not define "applicant") and past practice. It should, however be noted that the County's approval (granting of a Variance) does not require a propertyowner(s) actually do a project. A Variance is more permissive in that if a propertyowner(s) decides to proceed with a project, then the project must be done in compliance with the approval. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Bill Kalar From: Josh Boock [mailto:altsales@paulbunyan.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:46 AM To: Bill Kalar Subject: case law wetlands variance Bill here is one of the items of case law that speaks for Barb's and mine request that the admendment of the zoning ordinance to allow the placing of the driveway through the wetland area and the purchase of the wetland credits approved by the OTC board of adjustment should not have been allowed. Hopefully Mr. Hauser will be able to help rectify this before we lose the wetland forever. Thank you for your time and considerations, Barb and Ron STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C5-96-1031 2600 University Inn, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. 1 r Bill Kalar Josh Boock <altsales@paulbunyan.net> Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:46 AM Bill Kalar case law wetlands variance From: Sent: To: Subject: ?o„ <5? Bill here is one of the items of case law that speaks for Barb’s and mine request that the admendment of the zoning ordinance to allow the placing of the driveway through the wetland area and the purchase of the wetland credits approved by the OTC board of adjustment should not have been allowed. Hopefully Mr. Hauser will be able to help rectify this before we lose the wetland forever. Thank you for your time and considerations, Barb and Ron STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C5-96-1031 2600 University Inn, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, and National Lodging Companies, Inc., defendant/intervenor. Respondent. Filed November 19,1996 Reversed Peterson, Judge Dissenting, Davies, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 9517043 1 - Robert R. Barth, Sarah Crippen Madison, Best & Flanagan, 4000 First Bank Place, 601 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Appellants) Michael T. Norton, Acting City Attorney, Stuart R. Browne, Assistant City Attorney, 300 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Respondent City of Minneapolis) Richard I. Diamond, Diamond, Liszt, & Grady, P.A., 9855 West 78th Street, Suite 210, Minneapolis, MN 55344 (for Respondent National Lodging Companies) SYLLABUS 1. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), the owners of jointly-owned real estate consent to an amendment of a zoning ordinance in a city of the first class only when all Owners of the jointly- owned real estate consent to the amendment. 2. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), when an amended petition to amend a zoning ordinance in a city of the first class differs from the original petition in more than a de minimis way, a written consent to the amended petition must be filed in the same manner as the written consent to the original petition. Reversed. Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Peterson, Judge. OPINION PETERSON, Judge This appeal is from an amended summary Judgment entered in favor of respondents in this action to amend the Minneapolis zoning ordinance. Two Minneapolis property owners argue that the district court erred in determining that (1) consent to a zoning amendment from one owner of a jointly-owned property constitutes consent to the amendment on behalf of all owners of the property and (2) consent from neighboring property owners to an amended rezoning petition is not required when the amended petition seeks a less-intensive use. We reverse. FACTS Respondent National Lodging Companies, Inc., filed a petition to amend the zoning ordinance of respondent City of Minneapolis to change the zoning classification of a vacant parcel of land in Minneapolis from Bl-2 to B3C-4. National intended to build on the land a luxury suite hotel with convention potential. National had signed a purchase agreement for the property, and the property's owner, McGraw-Edison Company, had authorized National to seek the zoning amendment on its behalf before execution of the final purchase agreement. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), a zoning ordinance in a city of the first class cannot be amended until a written consent to the amendment from the owners of two-thirds of the property descriptions located within 100 feet of the property to be affected by the proposed amendment is filed with the city clerk. National had been provided a Hennepin County Property Information System Property Owners List that was certified by the Hennepin County Department of Property Taxation to contain the names of the owners of the seven descriptions of real estate located within 100 feet of the vacant parcel. The list identified the owners of the 2 . seven properties as McGraw-Edison; Gus Kempf, Jr.; W.J. Kuross & E.C. Kuross; W.J. & E.C. Kuross; Days Inns of America, Inc.; and Bruce Printing, Inc. JdJ William and Edith Kuross owned one parcel as tenants in common and the other two as joint tenants. National filed written consents to its petition for rezoning from McGraw-Edison; Bruce Printing; Gus Kempf, Jr.; and William J. Kuross, but not from Edith Kuross. The city determined that National had filed written■ consent from the owners of six of the seven properties located within 100 feet of the vacant parcel and, therefore, had satisfied the consent requirement in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5. During the rezoning proceedings, in response to concerns expressed by the city and neighborhood organizations. National agreed to amend its petition to seek a B3-2 classification for the vacant parcel, rather than the B3C-4 classification sought initially. The B3-2 classification would allow National to build a suite hotel with limited meeting room space and the ability to provide only continental breakfast service. National asked the city to advise it if a new application was required to proceed with the rezoning, and the city permitted National simply to amend its original petition for rezoning. The city did not require National to file written consent to the amended petition from neighboring property owners. The city passed an ordinance rezoning the vacant parcel from Bl-2 to B3-2.r Appellants 2600 University Inn, LEG, and University Holdings, Inc., opposed National's rezoning petition throughout the proceedings. Appellants each own real property located 120 feet from the vacant parcel. Appellants, sued the city. The parties allowed National to intervene, then brought cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for respondents. The court noted that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, did not define "owners." The court found persuasive the city's longstanding interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, that the consent of any one owner of jointly-owned property constitutes consent of the owners. The court also held that National was not required to file written consent to the amended petition from the owners of two-thirds of the neighboring properties because the B3-2 classification sought in the amended petition allowed a less-intensive use than the B3C-4 classification sought in the original petition. ISSUES 1. Does Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), require National to file written consent to the zoning amendment from all owners of jointly-owned property? 2. Does Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), require National to file written consent to its amended rezoning petition? ANALYSIS On appeal from a summary judgment, we must examine the record to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in applying the law. Offerdahl v. University of Minn. Hasps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn. 1988). Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review. Schumacher v. Ihrke, 469 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn. App. 1991). In a zoning case, we must independently examine the zoning agency's decision without according any deference to the district court's review of that decision. St Croix Dev., Inc. v. City of Apple Valley, 446 N.W.2d 392, 397 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Dec. 1, 1989). Generally, because zoning is a legislative act, a rezoning ordinance must be upheld unless the new zoning classification is unsupported by any rational basis or amounts to a taking without compensation. State, by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn. 1978). But 3 - there is no such presumption of validity of an ordinance as against the objection that no power existed under charter or statute to enact it. 6 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, ^22.2>\, at 462 (3d ed. 1988). The consent provision in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), at issue here is jurisdictional. See Beck v. City of St. Paul, 304 Minn. 438, 444-47, 231 N.W.2d 919, 923-24 (1975) (jurisdictional requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, met if record shows requisite number of consents existed when zoning ordinance was amended); LaCourse v. City of St. Paul, 294 Minn. 338, 344, 200 N.W.2d 905, 909 (1972) (when there was no factual basis for city's determination that dispensed with need to obtain consent from owners of two-thirds of affected property, city lacked jurisdiction to rezone).. Accordingly, the deferential standard of review generally accorded to a city's zoning ordinances does not apply in this case. See Beck, 304 Minn, at 444-49, 231 N.W.2d at 922-25 (supreme court first determined whether jurisdictional requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 were met, then discussed deferential standard of review generally applied to ordinances and applied this standard to determine whether zoning amendment was valid). 1. The object of statutory interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1994). When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to its plain meaning. Green Giant Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 534 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1995). If a statute is ambiguous, however, we must determine the legislature's intent by examining the need for the law, the circumstances of its enactment, the purpose of the statute, the prior law, the consequences of an interpretation, and the legislative history and administrative interpretations of the law. Minn. Stat. § 645.16. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, provides that in cities of the first class. amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request. Neither Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (1994) nor Minn. Stat. § 462.352 (1994), which defines terms for the purposes of sections 462.351 to 462.364, define "owners." Appellants argue that when a described real estate parcel has multiple owners, Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, must be interpreted to require that all owners of the parcel consent to a proposed zoning amendment to constitute consent from that parcel of property. We agree. The consent requirement in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, is "designed to protect the people most directly affected by a rezoning," those who own property within the area to be rezoned and within 100 feet of the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. Beck, 304 Minn, at 445, 231 N.W.2d at 923. Unless Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, is interpreted to require consent to the amendment from all owners of a jointly-owned property, the consent requirement in the statute protects the interests of only some of the people most directly affected by a rezoning. It is well-settled that one co-owner of a property cannot act to bind the other co-owners or to impair or affect \heir See Krost V. Moyer, 166 Minn. 153, 157,207 N.W. 311, 312-13 (1926) (one COtenant cannot act to impair or affect rights of other cotenants); 3 Arden H. Rathkopf & Daren A. Rathkopf, Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning & Planning, § 29.02[2][b][iv][B] (4th ed. Mar. 1996) (well-established that joint tenant has duty to protect common title); Roger A. Cunningham et al.. The Law of Property § 5.4, at 208 (1984) (joint tenant who purports to lease entire joint tenancy to third party cannot bind other joint tenants to lease). If consent to a zoning amendment from one co-owner were sufficient to constitute consent from the property for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, the act of one cp-owner would bind the other co-owners 4 - and would affect, and possibly impair, their rights. Accordingly, Minn. Stat. § 462:357, subd. 5, must be< interpreted to require consent to a zoning amendment from all owners of a jointly-owned property to constitute consent from that property. Cf. Hamblett v. City of Nashua, 156 A.2d 134, 135-36 (N.H. 1959) (because one co-owner cannot bind another, assent of one co-owner to variance cannot constitute consent for property); 3 Rathkopf, swpra, § 29.02[2][a][b][iv][B] (in states where written protest to zoning amendment from neighboring property owner imposes additional procedural requirements on city, allowing protest from one co-owner of property to constitute protest from entire property is cpnsistent with joint tenant's duty to protect common title). ! Respondents argue that requiring all owners of a property to consent to a zoning amendment conflicts with an Attorney General's Opinion determining that "only one consent vote attaches to each description" for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5. Op. Att'y Gen. 59a-32, n.** (Dec. 18, 1973); see Northern States Power Co. V. Williams, 343 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Minn. 1984) (Attorney General's opinion "is entitled to great weight"). In the opinion, however, the Attorney General did not determine, or even discuss, who has authority to cast .the single consent vote that attaches to each description. See Op. Att'y Gen. 59a-32. Thus, our determination that all owners of a jointly-owned property must consent to a rezoning amendment to constitute consent from that property does not conflict with the Attorney General's opinion. The city argues that interpreting Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, to require all owners of a jointly-owned property to consent to a zoning amendment would require it to conduct expensive title searches to ensure consent has been obtained from all owners of a property. But here, Edith Kuross was named as a property owner on the certified list of property owners provided to National, and determining that Edith Kuross was an,, owner of three of the descriptions within 100 feet of the vacant parcel would not have imposed any additional administrative hardship on the city. In any event, administrative convenience does not outweigh a property owner's rights under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, and any remedy for overly burdensome statutory requirements lies with the legislature. Cf. Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52, 56 (Minn. 1989) (administrative convenience did not outweigh property owners' statutory right to individual notice of zoning amendment; if individual notice requirement became too burdensome for city, its remedy rested with legislature). Because National did not file written consent to its petition from Edith Kuross, it did not file written consent from the three properties she owned jointly with her husband. Consequently, National filed written consent to the amendment from only three of the seven neighboring properties and did not meet the consent requirement of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5. The city, therefore, had no jurisdiction to amend its zoning ordinance, and the ordinance rezoning the vacant parcel is void. 2. Appellants next argue that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, required National to file written consent to its amended rezoning petition from the owners of two-thirds of the neighboring properties. We agree that in this case, Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, required National to file written consent to the amended petition from neighboring property owners. Under the B3C-4 classification National originally sought. National could build a luxury suite hotel with convention facilities. Under the B3-2 classification sought in the amended petition. National could build a suite hotel with limited meeting room space and the ability to provide only continental breakfast service. It cannot be assumed that a neighboring property owner who consented to rezoning a parcel to one zoning classification also consented to rezoning the parcel to all lesser-included classifications. It is possible that a neighboring property owner who consented to a luxury hotel with convention potential did so because the property owner anticipated that the convention facility would create opportunities for using the nearby properties. Thus, although the B3-2 classification allows a less-intensive use of the property than the B3C-4 classification originally sought, the 5 . amendment to the petition ean be viewed as a change in the eharacter of the rezoning, not as a de minimis change. Consequently, although we do not decide whether consent from neighboring property owners is necessary for a de minimis change in a rezoning petition, we hold that when an amendment to a rezoning petition involves more than a de minimis change, Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, requires the petitioner to file written corlsent to : the amended petition from the owners of two-thirds of the descriptions of real estate within 100 feet of the affected property. DECISION Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, required National to file written consent to the zoning amendment from Jail owners of a jointly-owned property to constitute consent from that property. Because National did not file consent to the zoning ordinance amendment from all owners of the jointly-owned properties that it relied on for consent, it filed consent from only three of the seven neighboring descriptions of real estate'and did not meet the consent requirement of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5. The city, therefore, had no jurisdiction to amend its zoning ordinance, and the ordinance rezoning the vacant parcel is void. The amendment to National's rezoning petition did not make a de minimis change. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, required National to file written consent to the amended petition from the owners of two-thirds of the descriptions of real estate within 100 feet of the vacant parcel. Reversed. DAVIES, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. We are—based on a truly strange record—undoing a rezoning decision of the Minneapolis City Council after all procedural steps in that rezoning have been completed. This should be done reluctantly. In my view, the court is changing the law of agency. Across our state, thousands of land parcels are held with one or more passive owners and one active owner. The active owner makes all decisions relating to the management of the property as presumptive agent of the passive owner. Without evidence to the contrary,, that presumption should prevail here and the consent of the active owner, William J. Kuross, should be treated as sufficient. Literally read, Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5 (1994), requires the consent of owners within 100 feet to initiate the rezoning proceeding. That purpose was entirely served in this instance. In my view, the court has added a procedural complication inappropriate to an efficient rezoning process. I would read the statute and the Minneapolis ordinance as requiring the consent at the initiation of the process, and that that consent, once^ presumptively obtained, is not subject to withdrawal. The statute requires nothing more. The case can also be appropriately viewed from a procedural perspective. That is, who has the burden of , presenting evidence that negates a presumptively lawful consent once it has been given. In this case, appellants failed to put into the record an affidavit asserting that Edith C. Kuross objected to the rezdning—initially or later. And neither she nor her co-owner is a party to the action. I note finally that this has been a strangely litigated case that, in my view, should not be viewed as precedent for destabilizing other rezoning decisions. 6 I.,',. « Footnotes [1 ] One property owned by William Kuross and his wife, Edith, was later determined to be two descriptions of real estate for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 5, i7 i ■!i ! i ll' . T■( ;7 ? STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. 56-CV-08-1397 Assigned to Judge Waldemar B. Senyk Other Civil Ernest Sandahl, Rosella Strawn, Dorothy Strom and Harvey Sandahl, Plaintiffs, vs. Ronald Boock and Barbara E. Boock,Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM KALAR STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ) William Kalar, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states as follows: I am the Land & Resource Management Administrator for Otter Tail County.1. I am familiar with the Subdivision Controls Ordinance of Otter Tail County.2. In Otter Tail County there are primarily two ways to subdivide property, by plat3. and by metes and bounds. If subdivision is done by metes and bounds, there is no requirement to apply to4. Land & Resource for the subdivision. Subdivision by plat is required when a lot, located in the Shoreland Area or5. containing a wetland area, is less than; 5 acres in size and in all other locations is less than 2.5 acres m size. Subdivision by metes and bounds is typically done when the lots are over 5 acres '6. in size within a shoreland area. r It is my understanding that the plaintiffs in this action intend to subdivide by7. metes and bounds as the smallest parcel in the subdivision will be approximately 14.23 acres. If all lots within a subdivision are larger than 5 acres, Otter Tail County does not8. require that the subdivision be done by plat. If the subdivision is done by metes and bounds, the subdivision must comply with9. Section VII. of the Subdivision Controls Ordinance. If the subdivision is done by metes and bounds, there are no Otter Tail County10. regulations relating to the size or location of the type of road or driveway that must be followed. The only requirement is that the township^where the property is located, certify that the lot will have public road access. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. William Kalar ^^^ubscribed and sworn before ^pie ‘ ^ this day of June, 2010.' rX'''s!sr-i:S Notary Public ^ LINDA SELLNER ^ NOT ARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2015 ®®®®®®®^3S3SSS33S38SSSS3 2 % * 1082154 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA I hereby certify that ^082154 this instrument #------------------------ was filed/recorded in this office to, y 4fecordinafee ^ well certificate THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY 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 Application Fee COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number Accepted By / DateS&nhkt 6^e>ck Str0»n ^ / ^C> Mer^lock /yfAJ .S'S~'7HI Ci\jLd^oSelL StPROPERTY OWNER DAYTIME PHONE MAILING ADDRESS f- nrLAKE NUMBER S(>~foi /O.F. /V.f.LAKE NAME LAKE CLASS /r !3lSECTIONTOWNSHIP RANGE TOWNSHIP NAME PARCEL NUMBER E-911 ADDRESSliooo )^o n?^oo LEGAL DESCRIPTION -y ^ 7/ /4SE 7h TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) Misc. ^Structure Setback Structure Size Sewage System Subdivision Cluster SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. We. 6tn*l>/t it> acf€s 0+Of 7"^« H> pc*^c k <uc 4 ^0/,> to InJ Ow7 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 Uf^RSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOUR^^AN^EMENT REGARDI^ THIS MATTER. / K SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWN ‘^/7y/Xol^> ' ' DATEER / AGENT FOR OWNER I APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) SCAW • # /a/oDate Of Hearing Time Motion Barbara Boock Et. Al. - Variance application approved as requested. (6:45 p.m.) After considerable discussion and consideration, Randall Mann made a motion, second by Steve Schierer and carried with Michael Harris and Paul Larson voting no to approve the purchase of wetland credits (.04 of an acre) from the Otter Tail County Highway Department Wetland Bank as requested in the variance application dated September 14, 2010. It should be noted that the Board of Adjustment is taking no position on the location/placement of the road. The applicants will need to comply with any and all other requirements before proceeding with the project as this variance approval only authorizes the purchase of wetland credits from the Otter Tail County Highway Department Wetland Bank. C^airman/Ottef Tail County Board of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management ^ Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR L R Official/Date bk 0407-001 329,512 - Victor Lundeen Company, Fergus Falls, Minnesota - •v,.-' * :■ Minn^toU UrUfurm C^' v«nrli>| tilvik* i 1071)Form No. 27-M -QUIT CLAIM Otf 0 ' I'ndrvtdutl (it to ImltvuliiOl It)674746 No dflinijuunl tuxts an J transfer enUTetl; (.'ertificate | of Keal Estate Value ( /oV OIttre ol Couuiv Hecoide> County of Otter Tail koNDv c*v(y •xrrH.t a^tfu niM wm M(i^ >t]i> (Of V a/(l _r_ d» ffi *0 dott ^Ji2____ ) filed ( yT I not required I ICertificate of Ke^ Estate Value No.I-.19^2: /County Auditor I I by :I Ucpuly .Dvatri3.30 STATE DEED TAX DDE HERE(.)N: .$i. 19-88,. IDwtet May 9. (reserved for recording data)i. Alice SandahlFOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, an unremarried widow , Grantor (s).: (marital ftatur) hereby convey (s) and quitclaim (s) to Wosella Strawn.Dorothy Strom. Harvov Sandahl Boock and Ernest Sandahl as Tenants in Comnion Otter Tail Bnr^^ra E. . , Grantee (s), County, Minnesota,described as follows’.real property in I,ot Four (4), and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE^ of SWI|) of Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Thirty-two (132), Range Thirty fight (38). 4 [5 zo\oIThere is no actual consideration ;! i (if more s;iace is noedod. continue on beck) together with ail Irereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. ^ County or Otter Tall ^ ^ ,.Slate Of Minnesota 2, ~ ^ DEED STAMP TAX . . $i2 h'jO'Zl ... '70^7 ; Alice Sandahl Dale. STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. otter TailCOUNTY OF 9 day of May , 19A®_.The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Alice Sandahlby ,Grai^r(s). SiaNA*TtJRE OF PERSON TA^ Tax Statements for the real properlV^cscrlbed In be sent to <(nriludu name and address of Qranlee): NQTAHiAL STAMP OH .SKAl. tOH OTHER 1ITLK OR RANK) ACKNOWnE^SoM E N T thie Instrument sliould AmiR M. ESPEUND NOTARY fil£UC-MlNNESOTA OmilTAioOUNIY oMii)^jiKi.unHr0» U-Sl-9x Alice Sandahl Vining, MN 56588 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS): THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HENNING 512 Douglas Ave. Henning, MN 56551 October 7, 2010 Page # 2 Edward Caputa and Mary Door - Variance application approved as requested. (6:41 p.m.) Edward Caputa and Mary Door, Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 Block 1 Pearson's Fernwood, Dead Lake in Dead Lake Township, requested a variance of 15' from the required ordinary high water level setback of 200' for the placement of an addition 185' from the ordinary high water level. Nate Tobkin; Contractor appeared with the applicants at the public hearing. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Thomas Lee made a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to approve a . variance of 15' from the required ordinary high water level setback of 200' for the placement of an addition 185' from the ordinary high water level as depicted on the drawing submitted with the application. It was noted that the proposed addition will be no closer to the ordinary high water level than the existing structure. Boock Et. Al. - Variance application approved as requested. (6:45 p.m.) Barbara Boock Et. Al., Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 4, Section 18 of Folden Township by an unnamed lake, requested the following: We are unable to mitigate .04 acres of wetland impact on­ site or in the same minor watershed. We respectfully request a variance to purchase wetland credits from the Otter Tail County Highway Department Wetland Bank. The County Board approved a conditional use application on June 15, 2010 to build a driveway on the property. Chad Felstual, Attorney represented Harvey and Ernest Sandahl who were also in attendance. Also representing the application at the hearing were Ron and Barbara Boock. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After considerable discussion and consideration, Randall Mann made a motion, second by Steve Schierer and carried with Michael Harris and Paul Larson voting no to approve the purchase of wetland credits (.04 of an acre) from the Otter Tail County Highway Department Wetland Bank as requested in the variance application dated September 14, 2010. It should be noted that the Board of Adjustment is taking no position on the iocation/placement of the road. The applicants will need to comply with any and all other requirements before proceeding with the project as this variance approval only authorizes the purchase of wetland credits from the Otter Tail County Highway Department Wetland Bank. HA Dahl Family LLP - Denied. (7:12 p.m.) HA Dahl Family LLLP, Lots 44, 45 and part of 46, Summer Haven Beach, Pelican Lake in Scambler Township, requested the following; Proposed addition to existing dwelling located on Lot 45 and 10' of Lot 46. Lot 45 and 10' of Lot 46 will be combined with Lot 44 into one ownership with construction of addition. Maximum impervious surface ratio allowed is 25%. We are proposing a 27.3% impervious surface ratio and are seeking a variance of 2.3%. Required setback from ordinary high water level is 75'; the building line allows a 59' setback. We are requesting a 56' setback being 3' beyond the building line. Dave Uhlir, Architect represented the applicants at the public hearing. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Michael Harris made a motion, second by Paul Larson and carried with Thomas Lee voting no, to deny the variance application as requested as no adequate hardship/practical difficulty unique to the property had been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance as requested and the applicants have the ability to comply with the requirements (specifically setback and impervious surface coverage) of the ordinance and still obtain a reasonable use of their property. It was also noted that there are two existing dwelling on the property and currently impervious surface coverage significantly exceeds the allowable amount of 25%. Mark Matual - Request “A” approved and requests “B” and “C” denied. (7:31 p.m.) Mark Matual, Lot 2A Block 1 and Lot 2B Block 2, Larsen's Minasha-Da Subdivision, Dead Lake in Dead Lake Township, requested the following: A.) Requesting a variance of 60' from ordinary high water level setback of 200’ to enclose an existing12’ by 28’ porch 140’ from ordinary high water level. Enclosure of 12’ by 4’ will be added to existing variance granted in 1997 of 12’ by 24’. Giving a total porch enclosure or 12’ by 28’. B.) Requesting a variance of 60' from ordinary high water level setback of 200' to place a RV/camper/trailer house no closer than 140’ from ordinary high water level and no closer than 10’ from existing non-dwelling. C.) Requesting a variance of 180’ from ordinary high water level setback of 200' to place a non-dwelling of 8’ by 8’ by 8' no closer than 20’ from the ordinary high water level and 10’ from property line to be used as storage shed. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, second by Thomas Lee and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 60’ from ordinary high water level setback of 200’ to enclose an existing 12’ by 28’ porch 140’ from ordinary high water level as described in Part A of the variance application dated September 6, 2010 and to deny the variances as described in Parts B and C of the variance application dated September 6, 2010 as no adequate hardship/practical difficulty had been shown that would allow for the granting of those variance as requested and noting that the applicant has adequate room for the proposed development stated in Parts B and C to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. / ! THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE OCTOBER 15, 1971 REVISIONS MAY 1, 1973 APRIL 1, 1978 MAY 8, 1981 APRIL 15, 1985 FEBRUARY 5, 1992* APRIL 13, 1993 MAY 1, 1997 JANUARY 1,2001 JANU________^2004 WAYTOOOS’ * AS MANDATED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OTTER TAIL COUNTY GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 218-998-8095 www.co.otter-tail.mn.us Ot^r Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance_ Effective May 1,2008; Page 14 ' ; 4. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion, and authorized by a required Conditional Use Permit or a Grade/Fill Permit. 5. Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. 6. Facilities such as ramps, lifts or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems 1 to 5 are complied with, in addition to the requirements of Chapter 1341 of the Minnesota Rules. H. Decks - Except as provided in Item G, decks must meet the structure setback standards. Decks that do not meet setback requirements from public waters may be allowed without a variance to be added to structures existing on February 5, 1992, if all of the following criteria and standards are met: 1. A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing OHWL setback of the structure. 2. The deck encroachment toward the OHWL does not exceed 15% of the existing shoreline setback of the structure from the OHWL or is not closer than 30 ft. to the OHWL, whichever is more restrictive. 3. The deck is not roofed or screened. HiV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Water Supply: Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Private wells must be located, constructed, maintained and sealed in accordance with or in a more thorough manner than the Water Well Construction Code of the Minnesota Department of Health. Sanitation Standards: The sanitation standards for this Ordinance are set forth in the Sanitation Code of Otter Tail County, which is incorporated herein by reference, an official copy of which is on file for use and examination by the public in the office of the County Auditor. Any lot with a dwelling unit shall have an approved method of sewage disposal. Shoreland Alterations: 1. 2. Vegetative alterations and excavations or grading and filling necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems under validly issued permits for these facilities are exempt from the vegetative alteration standards in this subpart and separate permit requirements for grading and filling. However, the grading and filling conditions of this subpart must be met for issuance of permits for structures and sewage treatment systems. Alterations of vegetation and topography must prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland‘acreag^e as a result of a topographical alteration must be replaced in accordance with the provisions of the Wetlands Conservation Act and within the boundaries of the property or the minor watershed upon which the wetland acreage was located. A. Removal or alterations of vegetation, except for agricultural uses or forest management as provided for in subparts 4 and 5, is allowed according to the following standards: 1. Intensive vegetation clearing within the SIZ and BIZ land on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing outside of these areas is allowed if the activity is consistent with the forest management standards in Section IV.5. Original Road I Original_Road_Buffer Wetlands I I MN Sections Original Road I I Original Road Buffer Wetlands Wetlands Impacts (0.04 Acres) I I MN Sections Notice of Hearing for Variance Otter Tail County Government Services Center 510FirAveW Fergus Falls, MN 56537 (218) 998-8030/998-8041 Ernail - wstein@co.ottertail.mn.us www.co.otter-tail.mn.us Applicant and/or applicant’s representative must be present at the scheduled hearing. To Whom It May Concern: -.tBarbara Boock Et Al Ernest Sandahl, Barbara Boock, Ronald Boock, Rosella Strawn, Harvey Sandahl and Dorothy Strom 6226 Hemlock Lane V Gilbert, MN 55741 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, the Otter Tail County Set Back Ordinance and/or the Subdivision Controls Ordinance. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble for this hearing on Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.,; inThe Commissioners’ Room of the Otter Tail County Government Services Center, Fergus Falls, MN. (Please use the public entrance located on the northeasterly side of the Government Services Center. The second left off Fir Ave.) Individuals requiring special accommodations should contact the County Auditor’s office prior to the date of the public hearing. The property concerned in the application is legally described as Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 4, Property Address - 46923 Trappers Road Section 18, Township 132, Range 38 - Township Name - Folden Lake No. 56-101/135, Lake Name - Unnamed, Class - NE The variance requested is - the following: We are unable to mitigate .04 acres of wetland impact on-site or in the same minor watershed. We respectfully request a variance to purchase wetland credits from the Otter Tail County Highway Department wetland'Bank. The County Board approved a conditional-use application oh June 15, 2010 to build a driveway on the property. Stein Board of Adjustment Secretary Date: :September.17, 2010 VI OTTER TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls, Minnesota State of Minnesota) )SS County of Otter Tail) I, Wayne Stein, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment for Otter Tail County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that on the 17’*’, day of September 2010 the attached-Notice of Hearing for Variance was duly served upon the individuals listed below ahd/or included in the attachment: Barbara Boock Et Al Ernest Sandahl, Ronald Bbock, Rosella Strawn Harvey Sandahl do Dorothy Strom 6226 Hemlock Lane, Gilbert MN 55741 Jennifer Howard - Fblden Township Clerk - 17452 495**’ Ave., Vining, MN 56588 Otter Tail County Cola, C/0 John Matteson - 23674 W Silver Lake Rd, Battle Lake, MN 56515 Richard West, Otter Tail County Highway Engineer - 505 S. Court St., Suite #1, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 ' Department of Natural Resources - 1509 1®‘ Ave N., Fergus Falls, MN 56537 DNR Regional Administrator - 2115 Birchmont Beach Road NE, Bemidji, MN 56601 Board of Adjustment; Michael Harris - 35387 Northern Lights TrI, Richville, MN 56576-9672 Paul R. Larson - 21283 County Highway 65, Henning, MN 56551-9573 Thomas (Tom) Lee - 15600 County Highway 118, Elizabeth, MN 56533-9559 Randall Mann - 532 N Ann St., Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Richard S. Schierer^ 32117 260'^ Ave, Erhard, MN 56534 Ken Erickson -51350 County Highway 31, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Mail at Fergus Falls, MN, property addressed to each of the individuals listed above and/or listed in the attachment. Dated: September 17, 2010 -I .Wayne Stein, Secretary Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment ; By: Vi Manderud ■«' iisVIOLA BECKER 46691 TRAPPERS RD VINING MN 56588 9548 JANICE KERSTEN ET AL 4726 38THAVES MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406 3857 BARBARA E BOOCK ET AL 46923 TRAPPERS RD VINING MN 56588,9548 ] KATHRYN NORDQUIST OLESEN ET AL 53867 196TH ST : ' HENNING MN 56551 9534 DEAN & MARIE TROSDAHL 46808 TRAPPERS RD VINING MN 56588 9548 DWIGHT & ROXANNE SWISHER 19302 COUNTY HIGHWAY 59 VINING MN 56588 9547 DAVID H UHREN 18201 COUNTY HIGHWAY 59 VINING MN 56588 9546 RICHARD F & DEAN TROSDAHL 46692 TRAPPERS RD VINING MN 56588 9548 RICHARD F TROSDAHL 46688 TRAPPERS RD Vir^ING MN 56588 9548 ■ - KENNETH H & VIVIAN F UHREN 19030 COUNTY HIGHWAY 59 VINING MN 56588 9547 j > ■ 1 ! 1 Chad FelstuI Rick West [rwest@co.ottertail.mn.us] Monday, September 13, 2010 8:59 AM Chad FelstuI Kyle Westergard RE: Wetland Bank image002.jpg From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Chad: We would be willing to sell credits for this project. Please contact Kyle Westergard at the Otter Tail County Land and Resource office for details. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thanks. Rick. From: Chad FelstuI [mailto:C.Felstul@pemlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 7:59 AM To: Rick West Cc: Maranda Shillingstad Subject: Wetland Bank Rick, I heard you were the person to talk to regarding the wetland bank. I have some clients that may need to buy some credits. The property is located out by Vining. My clients are building a driveway that will affect approximately .04 acres of wetland. I have been in contact with land and resource and they told me to give you a call. I believe we will be before the board of adjustment in early October asking for a variance to buy credits. Let me know what you need from me. Thanks. sSPEMBERTON SORUE RLIFCR K ERSHN ER *****Attorney Client Privileged Document'k'k'k'k'k Chad R. FelstuI, Attorney Pemberton, Sorlie, Rufer & Kersliner, PLLP 110 N. Mill Street, PO Box 866 Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0866 218.736.5493 c.felstul@pemlaw.com Your agreement to accept e-mail communications constitutes your consent to the use of electronic communications and the risks thereof. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you receive this e-mail in error, destroy it immediately. [user name]1 [date printed] -t;- Y ‘ 16 •,-V' 1 We are now at four o'clock in the afternoon, p^-tties and counsel have returned, opportunity to make a record of and 2 You've requested an 3 your negotiations.Have' 4 you arrived at a settlement agreement? 5 MR. FELSTUL:I believe we have, Your 6 Honor. 7 THE COURT:Please proceed, Mr. Felstul.. -- I made reference to the earlier hearing, hut I will recognize that Mr. Chad Felstul is here with ai'! Plaintiffs, as coimsel-; and'Mr.i Michael Ruffenach is Now, please proceed.'; I didn't ■; ,8 9 10 here as counsel for Defendants.11!j.: MR. FELSTUL: Thank you, Your Honor. I believe'we've. come up with a global settlement here, and I'll run through a list, Number one, the property at issue located in^Otter Tail County will be partitioned in kind, assuming that it is approved by Otter Tail County Planning and Zoning or the applicable county offices needing to approve the- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 subdivision.19 The Plaintiffs will initiate contact with Otter20 Tail County Planning and Zoning and -- or any other appropriate governmental agency of Otter Tail County relating to the subdivision of this property. Defendants will be kept Involved -- or informed of any , and all meetings or notices that need to go out to them 21 22 The;23 24 25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 17 1 as ov/ners of the property. 2 The Defendants, Ronald and Barbara Boock, receive 14 acres of the subject', consists of the will 3 property. This 14 acres 4 property where, their home is presently according to my understanding, is ;in5located, which is, 6 the northeast 7 MR. BOOCK:West. 8 MR. FELSTUL:northwest corner of the 9 property -- northeast? MR. BOOCK: Northwest of the 80 acres. I10 guess he's their counsel telling this.11 I don't know whether I should speak.12 THE COURT: Mr. Boock, your attorney will Speak for you when Mr. Felstul has finished. Please 13 14 continue.15 MR. FELSTUL: So the 14 acres that they will get will be approximately located on the west side of the property running north to south.. That includes the house that is built on the property. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants will comply with all applicable zoning --or planning and zoning issues. - The Plaintiffs will pay all associated costs of surveying and any costs associated with Otter Tail County Planning and Zoning or any other applicable government agency. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GHERI ANDERSON, RPR 18 f*.4, The Plaintiffs will pay to build a gravel driveway for ingress and egress to the Defendants' 14 acres, gravel driveway will start on Trappers Road and run more 1 2 The 3 or less south to north.The work on the gravel driveway will be done according to industry custom and standard. 4 5 The Plaintiffs will select the.contractor to build the6 road and pay for all the costs associated with building7?■ :r the road.8 The ease will be continued to allow the parties' to fulfill this agreement. 9 Until the property has been appropriately subdivided where the Defendants receive 14 10 11 acres via quitclaim deed from the Plaintiffs and the12 Plaintiffs receive a cpaitclaim deed from the Defendants as to the remaining property, all parties will have access to the entire parcel. 13 14 And I don't think I.said15 that earlier. So the Plaintiffs will quitclaim their16 interest in the 14 acres that will be done - - that will17 be set out in survey.And the Defendants will quitclaim18 the remaining 57 -- approximately 57 acres. The Defendants have agreed to remove all personal property or other property that is not and will, not be located on the 14 acres that they.will own, at their 19 20 21 22 23 expense. The Complaint and counterclaim will be dismissed24 with prejudice upon completion of the settlement25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR ;■ 19 1 agreement; and any and all claims, of action, that exist now, whether known allegations, will be released by both sides or unknown. causes 2 et cetera. 3 4 And Mr. Ruffenach can correct me if i missed 5 anything. 6 THE COURT:Thank you.Mr. Ruffenach. I believe there hasn't been an agreement as to the exact parcel or the shape of it, but it was agreed that it would be a 2.0 percent 7 MR. RUFFENACH: 8 9 division, and it would have to comply with the county's zord -- zoning and ordinances. 10 11 THE COURT: So the number the number12 14 acres, Mr. Ruffenach, you understand represents a size equal to 20 percent of the total. MR. RUFFENACH: Approximate. 13 14 15 THE COURT: Approximate.16 MR. RUFFENACH: I mean17 What is controlling? 20THE COURT;18 percent or 14 acres?19 We can do 20 percent isMR. FELSTUL:20 fine.21 MR. RUFFENACH: Twenty percent.22 THE COURT; Twenty percent will control23 MR. RUFFENACH; Will control.24 Twenty percent size of theTHE COURT:25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 20 subdivided parcel and that to be in compliance with , county zoning requirements. 1 2 3 MR. RUPFENACH: Yes. 4 Anything else about theTHE COURT: Stated agreement that you would like to clarify, Mr.'5 Ruffenach?6 (WHEREUPON, there was a pause in the proceedings.} 7 8 1 believe. Your Honor, that complies with the terms and conditions, inquire of my clients? THE COURT: MR. RUPFENACH:9 May I10 11 Do you wish to do that on,the12 -r. record now?13 MR. RUPFENACH: Yes, I14 We didn't make time for this.THE COURT:15 but I'll be hard-pressed with other matters.16 Please stand andPlease stand, Mr. and Ms. Boock.17 raise your right hand to be sworn.18 (WHEREUPON, Ronald Boock and Barbara E.19 Boock were duly sworn and testified as20 follows:)21 THE COURT: You may be seated then. Mr.22 f Ruffenach,’ you wish to inquire of your clients?23 MR. RUFFENACH; Mr, and Mrs. Boock, you24 were in court when this agreement was entered into the25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 21 1 record. 2 MS. BOOCK: Yes. 3 MR. RUFFENACH:You heard all the terms and conditions of it?4 5 MS. BOOCK: Yes. And you are agreeable" to6MR. RUFFENACH: ■>, \ this agreement?r 7 MR. BOOCK: If he went with the 208 9 percent. MS. BOOCK; At 20 percent.10 And we submit bur plan to. theMR. BOOCK;11 zoning and ordinance commission with the property.12 MR. RUFFENACH: With those13 understandings, we.’ve been negotiating this for most of14 the afternoon.15 MS. BOOCK: Yes.16 And you're -- you know,: as in every case,’ you understand that you don't get a- hundred percent of what you want; and you believe that- this is' a fair resolution of it; a.nd you'd ask the Court MR. RUFFENACH:17 18 19 20 to. adopt it.21 MS. BOOCK: Yes.22 MR. RUFFENACH;" Okay. Mr. Eoock, same ■23 ■f guestions. Any different answers?24 MR. BOOCK: No.I understand that,, and25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 22 ■we get to go before the planning and rzoning and arrange1 for it to be divided in 20 percent.That's what I2 understand.3 THE COURT: All right. I want to4 clarify.The development of the 20 percent parcel that5 would be deeded to the Boocks would be subsequent to the6 completion of this agreement.In other words, this7 agreement isn't conditioned upon getting approval for a8 certain development of that 14 acres, once the 14 acres9 10 is subdivided. (WHEREUPON, there was a pause in the11 proceedings.)12 THE COURT: All right. So you’re not13 sure planning and zoning will agree to subdivide exactly14 20 percent.15 MR. BOOCK: Yes.16 That's already stated.THE COURT:17 Clearly, that has to be complied with the. subdivision.18 MR. RUFFENACH: With those under-19 standings, are you - -20 MR. BOOCK: Right.21 MR. RUFFENACH:-- agreeable to the terms22 and conditions of this agreement and it's acceptable to you, which the Court will -- you're asking the Court to 23 24 approve?25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 23 1 MR. BOOCK:As long as everything meets 2 the law, yes. 3 THE COURT; Mr. and Ms. Boock, I'll ask ; • " you then to understand that I will consider you bound by these terms when you leave here today. Any question about that, Ms. Boock? 4 5 6 MS. BOOCK: No.7 THE COURT:- . Mr. Boock?8 MR. BOOCK: No, sir.9 THE COURT: Very well. Thank you. Would10 the Plaintiffs named, Ernest Sandahl, Rosella Strawn,11 Dorothy Strom, and Harvey Sandahl, stand, raise your12 right hands, please.13I (WHEREUPON, Ernest Sandahl, ..Rosella14 Strawn, Dorothy Strom, and Harvey Sandahl15- were duly sworn and testified as16 follows:)17 THE COURT: Please be seated. You all18 7'four have been present here in the courtroom while.these19 terms were read; is that true?I'm going to -- I'm20 going to answer indicating -- I want to ask you to nod your heads or shake your heads -- raise your hand if Raise your hand. 21 22 there's anything that's a no answer.23 Do you -- did you clearly hear the agreement as24 it's been described by the attorneys?There's no hand25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 24 All are nodding their heads, yes, they have. Do you agree with these terms as they've been raised.1 2 described as a full and complete settlement of this3 lawsuit that you have initiated? All are nodding their4 heads.5 -.V. Do you have any questions that any one of you6 wishes to ask of Mr. Felstul or Mr. Ruffenach or the.7 Court regarding the terms of this agreement?. That was a8 Do you all -- if you have any question at this time, please raise your hand. 9 no answer. There's no hand10 being raised.11 If I can -- I think thereMR. FELSTUL:12 is one question.I think we're a little confused as to13 the location of the 14 acres. It's my understanding14 that the 14 acres will15 Please use 20 percent parcel.THE COURT:16 MR. FELSTUL: Twenty percent.I'm sorry.17 The 20 percent will, run somehow like that.18 It's going to be in thatMR. RUFFENACH:19 general --20 We have no idea where it willMR. BOOCK:21 run until we go to the commissioner and get it approved.22 MR. FELSTUL: That's what we're23 proposing.24 That's not exactly what I'mMS. BOOCK:25 CHERI'ANDERSON, RPR 25 j- agreeing to.1 MR. RUFFENACH: They agree to a 202 •:! percent division.3 .V' THE COURT: I understand. But I have"4 been involved in other matters where the drawing of the5 line is the critical aspect, and nothing is really6 decided until that's done.So if, Counsel, you still7 have a situation where the parties are substantially disagreeing as to the location of that 20 percent parcel 8 9 and its shape, I suggest you work immediately to clarify10 But subject to that, I am prepared to allow youthat.11 some additional time.12 But I'm going to direct that you make an effort to do that immediately -- to clarify the shape and location 13 14 of that parcel immediately so that if you are clearly at15 impasse, we're going to go forward with trial in June!16 So you have between -- you have the shortest time17 possible to get that clarified and keep me informed, and18 we will maintain the June trial date until and unless19 you have confirmed that the location and shape of the.'20 parcel has been agreed to. All right?21 That's fine, yeah.MR. FELSTUL:, 22 THE COURT:. Very well. With that23 understanding, are all the Plaintiffs in agreement with these terms? All indicating by nodding and no raising 24 25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 26 of hand.1 Then I'm going to consider the parties bound to2 this agreement, subject to the clarification of the3 location and shape of the 20 percent parcel; and that4 has to be resolved as soon as possible.5 You can do it initially by drawing upon a plat of the property, subject to survey; but I don't think you'll get a surveyor out there to do this immediately in the present land conditions. 6 7 8 9 So as soon as you've reached an agreement, please10 confirm that v/ith the court.Meanwhile, we'll be in11 trial in June if you are unable to resolve this final12 term. All right?13 MR, FELSTUL: Thank you. Judge.14 THE COURT: Anything further? Thank you15 very much.16 (WHEREUPON, the proceedings were duly17 ended.)18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERI ANDERSON, RPR 2 20^0 ^nd ^Notice of Hearing for Variance Otter Tail County Government Services Center £ '0 Fir Ave W Fergus Falls, WIN 56537 (2.8) 998-8030/998-8041 Email - wstein@co.ottertail.mn.us www.co.otter-tail.mn.us Applicant and/or applicant’s representative must be present at the scheduled hearing. To Whom It May Concern: Barbara Boock Et Al Ernest Sandahl, Barbara Boock, Ronald Boock, Rosella Strawn, Harvey Sandahl and Dorothy Strom 6226 Hemlock Lane Gilbert, MN 55741 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, the Otter Tail County Set Back Ordinance and/or the Subdivision Controls Ordinance. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble for this hearing on Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.j in the Commissioners’ Room of the Otter Tail County Government Services Center, Fergus Falls, MN. (Please use the public entrance located on the northeasterly side of the Government Services Center. The second left off Fir Ave.) Individuals requiring special accommodations should contact the County Auditor’s office prior to the date of the public hearing. The property concerned in the application is legally described as Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 4, Property Address - 46923 Trappers Road Section 18, Township 132, Range 38 - Township Name - Folden Lake No. 56-101/135, Lake Name - Unnamed, Class - NE The variance requested is - the following: We are unable to mitigate .04 acres of wetland impact on-site or in the same minor watershed. We respectfully request a variance to purchase wetland credits from the Otter Tail County Highway Department wetland Bank. The County Board approved a conditional use application on June 15, 2010 to build a driveway on the property. Stein Board of Adjustment Secretary Date: September 17, 2010 •4 ■ "'n: THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR COUNTY RECORDER AMENDED APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY 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 Application Fee $400.00 COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number 144934 Accepted By / Date EB 9/15/10 PROPERTY OWNERS Barbara Boock. Ronald Boock, Ernest Sandahl, Rosella Strawn, Dorothy Strom. Harvey Sandahl. et al DAYTIME PHONE 218-368-6119 Barbara Boock. land owner contact or 218-751-6116 Mike Ruffenach, attorney contact MAILING ADDRESS 46923 Trappers Road. Vining. Minnesota 56588 LAKE NUMBERS 56-135 & 56-101 Lake Names Unnamed /Unnamed Lake Class Natural Environment /Natural Environment SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 132 RANGE 38 TOWNSHIP NAME Folden E-911 ADDRESS 46923 Trappers Road. Vining. MN 56588PARCEL NUMBER 27-000-18-0118-900 ] LEGAL DESCRIPTION SE)4SW)4 and Govt. Lot #4 1[ TYPE OF AMENDED VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) Structure Setback Structure Size Cluster Misc. XXXXXSewage System [1 SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. This is an amended variance request for conditional use permit #6568. Permit #6568 was for maintenance to an existing driveway, it is also noted on the permit, that all requirements of the wetland conservation act must be followed. A field investigation and report dated 9/10/10, #HE Project No. RlO-7029-001 was prepared by Mark D. Aanenson, a certified wetland delineator in the State of Minnesota, certification number 1001. The delineator found no existing driveway that followed the route of the proposed maintenance. The delineator did note several areas of wetlands that would be impacted by this project as originally proposed. As a route of no wetland impact exists on this property, we would like to change the route of the proposed project, in order to avoid the wetlands. This route would not require the purchase of any wetland credits. This variance will necessitate and increase in the amount of fill hauled, scrapping of organic material, and establishment of gravel packs, culverts, and other modifications as necessary to complete this project to industry custom and standard. All work would be performed in compliance with the wetlands conservation act and all other township, county, state, and federal requirements. ][ Page 1 of 3 L 1 ; > ; THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR COUNTY RECORDER -i I[ I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. 1 ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BEREQUIRED. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTAa LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. r SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER / AGENT FO]DATEER / AGENT FOR OWNERS Barbara E. Boock Ronald L. Boock APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING (Applicant Will Receive Notice As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) aa Date Of Hearing Time Motion :r Chairman/Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 3 ■j THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR COUNTY RECORDER ][ Permit(s) required from Land and Resource Management Yes (contact land and resource management) No Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR L.R. Official/Date i Page 3 of 3 j! OTTER TAIL COUNTY .1 Conditional Use Permit # 45g>g> Owner’s Name l^r Wi&f Property Address WM ( ( ^ <Lr W «T 0^ Hvo/W ^ ~ Sec. /8 Twp. fffi Ranaelig^ Two. Name/-Location: Lake 17-o«?- l^-nil 9 -Jon (II-1<* Work Authorized: io -tmhmXywfW**^ cities 5 'iQ' j.\j p-lfo*' C-*" of* U)^ ,>5Q e4_____1+ Ljfl Lt>4e>r^ 5 ^^^>fe>•■ ,>ul of _( ' row^prNlgi.oAL ■fottoW«a. lo - i-io oz3-Ii2i?9<Lai^Expires;Valid: Land and Resource ManagerfienI Official / Date 1. Entire area shall be stabilized within 10 days of the completion of any earthmoving unless otherwise stated. 2. Owner is legally responsible for all surface water drainage that may occur. 3. if the terms of this permit are violated the entire permit may be revoked and the owner may be subject to legal prosecution. 4. This card shall be placed in a conspicuous place not more than 4 feet above grade on the premises on which work is to be done, and shall be maintained there until completion of such work. 5. NOTIFY DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,TELEPHONE (218) 998-8095, WHEN-AUTHORIZED WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED.BK-1004-046 319.693 ■ Victor Lurween Cc... Pnmen • Fergus Fans. MN • 1-S09-348-4970 THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED'FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY 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 Application Fee ■ COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number Stro>n ^ I Mcr^lock ^ /VJAJ S~S~ 7H / TALrJf\ CU^c/f^oSelL Si-DAYTIME PHONEPROPERTY OWNER f MAILING ADDRESS / LAKE NUMBER 5b-/cM A>.F. A/.£.LAKE NAME b LAKE CLASS TOWNSHIP NAME/r ITISECTIONTOWNSHIP RANGE PARCEL NUMBER E-911 ADDRESS2l OOO }f0 ))f<f 00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 55 '/h /h '7 ClUL TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) Misc. ^Structure Setback Structure Size Sewage System Subdivision Cluster SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. VOt •/£> ^<aYe • AcreX ^ .rt. 0\Hy~rJ Ik, prop&rU-j 0+ Ck, i/a r! A fi(e Art-is^ ©/• 1-^ 7*^« /o k aic ^ Xn<, ^ ^7 y I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. RSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & /lAN^EMENT REfiARDl^ THIS MATTER. I ALSO UN RESOURTC /XofOSIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWhER / AGENT FOR OWNER ' V Su.U\ APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING DATE (Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) i Department of LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OTTER TAIL COUNTY Government Services Center - 540 West Fir Fergus Falls, MN 56537 PH: 218-998-8095 Otter Tail County’s Website: www.co.otter-tail.mn.us September 14, 2010 To: Board of Adjustment From: East Otter Tail County Technical Evaluation Panel (EOT TEP) Barbara Boock Ernest Sandahl ET AL RE: Parcel # 27000180118900, Unnamed Lake (56-135), SE % SW and Lot 4, Folderi Township. Members of the East Otter Tail County Technical Evaluation Panel (EOT TEP) were onsite and determined no viable location exists onsite for wetland replacement. Therefore, purchasing wetland credits from the Otter Tail County Highway Department’s wetland bank is a viable option for this project. Thank you Eric Babolian Inspector \e Weste^rd Inspectoj i WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT m Y ACCESS ROAD PROJECTif’:, i>-.'T132N R38W SECTION 18 OTTER TAIL COUNTY. MINNESOTA H '^91 n 5 Prepared for; J. Strom 6226 Hemlock Lane Gilbert, Minnesota 55741 S iPfeiSiiSiSsmisy Chad R. FelstuI Pemberton Sorlie Rufer Kershner PLLP 110 North Mill Street Fergus Falls, MN 56538 September 2010 Folden Township Otter Tail County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this field investigation and report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a Certified Wetland Delineator in the State of Minnesota. Mark D. Aanenson Certification No. 1001 Date: Houston Engineering Inc. 1401 21st Avenue North Fargo, ND 58102 Ph. (701)237-5065 HE Project No. R10-7029-001 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Access Road - T132NR38WSection 18 Prepared for J. Strom 6226 Hemlock Lane Gilbert, Minnesota 55741 and Chad R. Felstul Pemberton Sorlie Rufer Kersltner PLLP 110 North Mill Street Fergus Falls, MN 56538 Prepared by Houston Engineering, Inc. HEI Project No. R09-6419-001 Project: Houston Engineering, Inc. is pleased to provide this report regarding the wetland field investigation conducted on August 4'’’, 2010 to inspect the project located in Folden Township in Otter Tail County Minnesota, (see Attachment A). The project involves completing a wetland delineation on a site located in southeast Otter Tail County. The project is the proposed construction of an access road across an agricultural field and woodlands to a rural residential structure. The delineation boundary (project area) is defined as a 10-foot wide construction corridor located on the centerline of the proposed roadway. The purpose of the wetland review was to establish the boundary and types of jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. Wetland areas were identified per the Midwest Regional Supplement to the 1987 USCOE Federal Manual for Delineating Wetlands. Offsite Information: The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) does not indicate any wetland areas within the delineation conidor, (see Attachment B). Soil series mapped within the project site include primarily Knute-Brandsvold and Snellman soils (See Attachment C). Methods: Vegetation, soils and hydrology indicators were sampled and recorded as outlined in the Midwest Regional Supplement to the US Anny Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). Data was reeorded at seven locations along the project corridor. Data forms are located in Attachment E. Field Mapping: The wetland boundaries and sampling locations were marked in the field using a Global Positioning System Unit. Survey flags were also used to Identify the sampling locations for purposes of agency review. Vegetation, soils and hydrology indicators were used to map the boundaries between sample locations. The wetland boundaries are shown in Attachment D. Delineation Summary: The areas that met the wetland criteria were mapped and are shown on the attached wetland maps (see Attachment D). The wetland types and plant communities are shown below in Table 1. Table 1. Wetland Types and Plant Communities Plant Community (Eggers and Reed) Wetland Number Wetland Type (Cowardin) Fresh Wet Meadow2PEMB 3 Fresh Wet MeadowPEMB PEMB Fresh Wet Meadow4 Questions: Any questions relating to the delineation report can be directed to Mr. Mark D. Aanenson (701)237-5065. r ‘ Attachment A Project Location Map • i. r- i 10 V / 14«3M Wf’ ;J, Sj5 f-i^r 0 ■ > >, \ -T‘.. N C-‘;-I.I-- K. kiS^:>t' r. ,23 ■':W-''?l!'4r.4 ^ A lOir t ■ a 4 i :S>r; mX «: ■ - ^.j tmmmMMmm L...—: Jurisdictions Pemberton Law U.-------- Road CL Location MapWetlands Review:/;\~utility Easmenet Ctal»:ShaaLChachadbr: Placet N»L IMDA 7029-001 a-10-2010 1DCK Y//^\ Wetlands 1 Sections fj Houston Engineering Inc. a 1 Attachment B National Wetland Inventory Map - I, ; r Attachment C Soils Map t i Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Otter Tail County, Minnesota 46* 14’ 34*'46“ 14' 34- 46“ 14' 13*46* 14'12" 0 200 400 600100 ySDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 7/20/2010 Page 1 of 5Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Hydric Rating by Map Unit-Otter Tail County, Minnesota MAP INFORMATIONMAP LEGEND Map Scale: 1:3,200 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) iisted beiow. Soil Survey Area: Otter Tail County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 7, Feb 5, 2010 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/7/2003 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Area of Interest (AOI) I I Area of Interest (AOI) Soils i I Soil Map Units Soil Ratings I I All Hydric I I Partially Hydric Not Hydric I I Unknown Hydric Not rated or not available Political Features 0 Cities Water Features m Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads 7/20/2010 Page 2 of 5 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Hydric Rating by Map Unit-Otter Tail County, Minnesota Hydric Rating by Map Unit Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Summary by Map Unit— Otter Tail County, Minnesota Percent of AOiAcres in AOIRatingMap unit symbol Map unit name 28.0%11.6Not HydricSnellman sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 267B 8.9%3.7Not HydricSnellman sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 267C 1.3%0.5Not HydricSnellman sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 267E 10.3%4.3All HydricSeelyevllle muck540 6.1%2.5All HydricCathro muck544 8.3%All Hydric 3.4Haslie muck746 13.2%5.5Not HydricSnellman-Lida complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1218C 24.0%Partially Hydric 10.0Knute-Brandsvold complex, thick solum 1276 100.0%41.6Totals for Area of Interest 7/20/2010 Page 3 of 5 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Hydric Rating by Map Unit-Otter Tail County, Minnesota Description This rating indicates the proportion of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is designated as "all hydric," "partially hydric," "not hydric," or "unknown hydric," depending on the rating of its respective components. "All hydric", means that all cornponents listed for a given map unit are rated as being hydric, while "not hydric" means that all components are rated as not hydric. "Partially hydric" means that at least one component of the map unit is rated as hydric, and at least one component is rated as not hydric. "Unknown hydric" indicates that at least one component is not rated so a definitive rating for the map unit cannot be'made. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, ,flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period;of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the.United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors; Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. ’7/20/2010 Page 4 of 5 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Hydric Rating by Map Unit-Otter Tail County, Minnesota Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy; A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Absence/Presence Tie-break Rule: Lower 7/20/2010 Page 5 of 5 USDA Natural Resources' ^ Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey I <- •! Attachment D f Wetland Delineation Map ; i I ; •i f %5 dm •'T'- I ----Road CL Wetlands Map2‘□ata:ShMtPniacINB^Utility Easmenet 7029^1 9.10-2010 1v^Y/XA Wetlands HoustonEngineering Inc.1 Sections v5 t Attachment E Data Forms !• 'r 5 .•V ■ .* % WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 0Sampling Date; Sampling Point: ^ US.'h City/County;Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): _ Landform (hillslope, terrace,,etc.): • Slope {%): 3 ~ S Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this tirrie of year? Yes ^ No State: /lA.O. /4 Section, Township, Range: _ _______ Local relief (concave, convex, none): • ey\ ■e _____________ Datum:_______________ __NWIorWWIclassification; ■ (If no, explain in Remarks.) ' Are "Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ^ No _ (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Long; ___: significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? ., or Hydrology _, or Hydrology Are Vegetation _____, Soil Are Vegetation, Soil SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes )/ No _ Yes No Yes y* No_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes .V No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? StatusTree Stratum (Plot size; ^ 1 (A)1. Total Number of Dominant Species Across Ail Strata:3___ _(B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: i (A/B) = Total Coyer Prevalence Index worksheet; Total % Cover of:_____ Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size; 1. ^o'ec^lA.Multiply by: OBL'species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: X 1 = x2 = x3 =4. x4 = fo x5 == Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. t's. (A)(B) 7 a;_____F4CU Prevalence Index = B/A =.g-o Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% __ Prevalence Index is S3.0' __ Morphological Adaptations’. (Provide supporting data in Rerharks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 4. 6. 8. 9.'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. / OP = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1. X NoYes = Total Cover Remarks; (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Redox FeaturesMatrix Type' Loc^Remarks%Cotdr (moist)%Color (moist)Texture /9-/O /OM^/i ___ fh~ fS /(0/tL Vh (^n /'fj'/A Vt Hd Aicicicp- ^ \ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrlx.'Type; C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils’:Hydric Soil Indicators: __ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) __ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) ___ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) __Sandy Redox (S5) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) ^ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7), ___ Redox Depressions (F8) __ Histosol (A1) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Stratified Layers (A5) __ 2 cm Muck (A10) __ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) __Thick Dark Surface (A12) __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) ’indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if.observed): Type:______^ Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes ^ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) __Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Drainage Patterns (B10) ■ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) __ Crayfish Burrows (C8) __Water-Stained Leaves (B9) __Aquatic Fauna (B13) __ True Aquatic Plants (B14) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) __ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (03) __ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) __Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) ^ Saturation (A3) __Water Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Drift Deposits (B3) __ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) __ Iron Deposits (B5) __ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) __ Gauge or Well Data (D9) __ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) __ Geomorphic Position (D2) K. FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Depth (inches); Depth (inches); Depth (inches): Yes No Yes No Ai "Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes XYes H No NoSaturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available; Remarks: Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers > . , WETLAND DETERWIINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 'Tc^ t' i Sampling Date; j Stale: Sampling Point: ^ Tfg2 City/County:Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s); _ Landform (hiltslope, terrace, etc.); Section, Township, Range: _______ Local relief (concave, convex, none);l^f(C C <H •C Slope (%); 3- S ?(! Lat: Soil Map Unit Name:__, Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No ______________ Datum;__ ___NWl orWWI classification: (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Long; f') O/n Q significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? ., or Hydrology or Hydrology ., SoilAre Vegetation Are Vegetation SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point iocations, transects, important features, etc. , Soil XHydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No V No._X No XYes Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet; Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? StatusTree Stratum (Plot size; X ) 1.a2-. (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:____ (B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A/B) 2— = Total Coverr /Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 2. p U Or-^T ct\/' p Prevalence Index worksheet; Total % Cover of:_____X'Facu Multiply by: ft OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: X 1 = x2 = jS.net C. x3 =4 x4 =5 /O = Total Cover x5 =r ■ tHerb Stratum (Plot size: FO X ^ O _S'(/if'i'c< (tiSi (B)(A)X'1. 2. 'f7'\-Q>ltF'P^ 5 3. ^ l~ UPLIon F4UJ r4c\J Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators; __ Dominance Test is >50% ___ Prevalence Index is S3.0' ___ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) iO FA-C(J5_eo4.f 6. 8. 9.'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. /= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1. ANoYes = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox Features______________MalrixDepth finches)Type' Loc^%RemarksColor (moist)TextureColor (moist)% 2,‘^y h/3 77- M ^Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RI\(l=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis":Hydric Soil Indicators: __ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ___ Sandy Redox (S5) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) __ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) __ Redox Depressions (F8) __ Histosol (A1) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Stratified Layers (A5) __ 2 cm Muck (A10) ___ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) __Thick Dark Surface (A12) ___ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) ^Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type:_______ Depth (inches):><Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks:f£■9 4 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Drainage Patterns (BIO) __ Dry-Season Water Table (G2) ___ Crayfish Burrows (C8) __Water-Stained Leaves (B9) :__Aquatic Fauna (B13) __True Aquatic Plants (B14) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) __ Surface Water (A1) __ High Water Table (A2) __ Saturation (A3) __ Water Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Drift Deposits (B3) __Algal Mat or Crust (B4) __ Iron Deposits (B5) __ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ___ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) __ Geomorphic Position (D2) __ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ■ Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ___ Gauge or Well Data (D9) __ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes_ Yes_ No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): No No yWetland Hydrology Present? YesYesNoSaturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: (/Vo I Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Sampling Date: Sampling Point; ~flj:;s-/0 (i3^L0 fY City/County.Projecl/Site; Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): 3~ S Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No /t/M/3>Y~/' 6)State: Section, Township, Range: ■ ______ Local relief (concave, convex, none):In I / / s. /py9 _____________ Datum:______________ __NWI orWWI classification; H ^ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No _ (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Long;Lat: d. .significantly disturbed? . naturally problematic? Soil ; or Hydrology or Hydrology Are Vegetation Are Vegetation _ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. ., Soil Yes X No Yes X Yes / Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No A NoYesNo Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC; Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? StatusTree Stratum (Plot size; ^___ (A)1. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:■2^(B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:/OqXc) (a/b) = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:_____ Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:fAC-^ V '4-'^-^ otO'.Multiply by:1. X 1 =OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals; x2 = x3 =4. X 4 = X 5 == Total Cover . Herb Stratum (Plot size; Philip •fXj. 2. ^ (rj/'e*A_C -C^onJo%e:r (A) (B) fAxxL C)gc- HO Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is >50% __ Prevalence Index is <3.0* __ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) LOO 6^ 3 3 fA-C,2.6. 2~ 8. 9.'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. /O () = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1. Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers 3C''^SOIL Sampling Point; Profile Description; (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesMatrixDepth (inches)Type Loc%Texture RemarksCoior (moist)%Coior (moist) 0-2> /oht Vf /o ~ 1^1 f (3 y/i lc (< <,1 h ^Location; PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.'Type; C=Concentration, D=Depietion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils’:Hydric Soil Indicators; __ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) __ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) __ Other (Explain in Remai1<s) __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) __ Sandy Redox (S5) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) __ Redox Depressions (F8) __ Histosol(A1) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Stratified Layers (A5) __ 2 cm Muck (A10) __ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) __Thick Dark Surface (A12) __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) ’indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type;_______ Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY ■- \/Vetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all (hat apply) X Surface Water (A1) __ High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) __Water Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (82) __ Drift Deposits (B3) __Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ___ Drainage Patterns (B10) __Water-Stained Leaves (B9) __Aquatic Fauna (B13) __ True Aquatic Plants (B14)^ __ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) __ Crayfish Burrows (C8)__ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) __ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) __ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) __ Geomorphic Position (D2) ^ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)__ Thin Muck Surface (C7) __ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) __ Gauge or Weil Data (D9) __Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) ___Iron Deposits (B5) Field Observations; Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? /1 Yes X No____ Depth (inches): No____ Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Yes O.Q Wetland Hydrology Present? YesYes X! No No :Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (sfream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available; Remarks: Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Ofhr 7c,: I Sampling Date: ______________________ AJ Sampling Point; Section, Township, Range; ~J~ / ^ j,J Co^r<=. ^.g City/County:Project/Site:___ Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): _ Landfortn (hillslope, terrace, etc.); Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name; Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes /l/l /4(?<State: Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____________ Datum:_____ ___NWI or WWl classification:__ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Long:Lat: No No., or Hydrology , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? , SoilAre Vegetation Are Vegetation, Soil SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. No yYesHydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes X No NoYesNo__XYes Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status7^-/7^Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. <.>5,___________________ 2. £hj0u(o>5- 3. y^\ -2^l£.(A)&•» C. C CiX'^ /5 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata;/O (B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:''■/■O ''7,(A/B) / 0^ = Total Cover74 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:_____ Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size; (9 (Liti y r4^axo Multiply by: 3iO cX ppf J ^ fA-CU 2. o/\ f'c Oigc, 4. 0opulu iz, I? f-i-7 -ifLi 5. ^ I A! / 4f=- f /c X 1 =OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals; x2 = tdCS x3 = fXk)S X 4 = /0 r> = Total Cover x5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:(A)(B) 1. Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% __ Prevalence Index is <3.O' __ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 4. 6. 8. 9.'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:1. 4/-zvc4pp! ~lc. J ^ I " /O Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No XYes (0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesMatrixDepth (inches)Type' Loc^RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Texture /0-I& V/^ c. /nr/Zy/A J2-7^.-dCC location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.’Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils”;Hydric Soil Indicators: __ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) __ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) ___ Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4) __ Sandy Redox (S5) ___ Stripped Matrix (S6) __ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) __ Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ___ Redox Depressions (F8) __ Histosol(AI) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) ___ Black Histic (A3) ___ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ___ Stratified Layers (A5) ___ 2 cm Muck (A10) A Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) __ Thick Dark Surface (A12) __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) ’indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed); Type:_______ Depth (inches);Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY )/Vetland Hydrology Indicators; Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Drainage Patterns (B10) __ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) __ Crayfish Burrows (C8) __Water-Stained Leayes (B9) __Aquatic Fauna (B13) __ True Aquatic Plants (B14) ___ Hydrogen Sulfide.Odor (C1) ___ Surface Wafer (A1) __ High Water Table (A2) ___ Saturation (A3) __Water Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Drift Deposits (B3) __ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ___ Iron Deposits (B5) __ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) __ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ___ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) __ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) __ Geomorphic Position (D2) __ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) __ Thin Muck Surface (C7) __ Gauge or Well Data (D9) Field Observations: No Depth (inches) Depth (inches) Depth (inches) Yes Yes Yes____ No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No No XWetland Hydrology Present? YesSaturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:/ A/0 Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region ■ _______ Sampling Dale; ______________________ /vIA/ Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range; /? City/County:Project/Sile; Applicant/Owner: Investigalor(s): _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope {%); Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes , or Hydrologysignificantly disturbed? , Soil, or Hydrologynaturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. state: A'OiI A/i" /1 Local relief (concave, convex, none): _____________ Datum:__ __NWl or WWI classification; (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Long; ^ o CT M No SoilAre Vegetation Are Vegetation Yes Yes NoHydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes ^ NoNo Yes X No Remarks; VEGETATION - Use Scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC; Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? StatusTree Stratum (Plot size: ___ (A)1. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata;3___ (B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:/Oo>7r^ (A/B) = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Saoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Multiply by:1. x1 =OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x2 = x3 =4. x4 = x5 =r = Total Coyer(Plot size: ^ S ~X ? ^ ) C i (!Herb Stratum (A) (B)c/1. * 2. p\cuA^'> 3. |]i^tr-ri«^'rS 4. p(^\ Vo ^ 5. JM' 6. /I o. / r>=^f 'f i ___ F'ArvJ me ____ '-U ___ fflca- tin.(0 Prevalence Index = B/A =l^i-l Cj_ , '-'j f/r> Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is >50% Preyalence Index is s3.0' - Morphological Adaptations’ (Proyide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) I C>-\ t.f C C. S /O/} I C ^7 5 X' (r-\5 r/icui12^ 8. 9.1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. inO = Total Cover ______f'-l C Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size; y '/ 5 ) I1. A ti''Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? rp XYes No 5__= Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox Features______________MatrixDepth (inches)Type' Loc^RemarksTextureColor (moist)A Color (moist) 0-& /dyn^f' A-/?/r'iy}<2.5C ^Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix,IType: C=Concentration, D=Depietion, RM^Reduced Matrix,■CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. indicators for Probiematic Hydric Soils’:Hydric Soil Indicators: __Coast Prairie Redox (A16) __ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) __Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) __ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) __ Redox Depressions (F8) __ Histosol(A1) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) ___ 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) __Thick Dark Surface (A12) ___ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) ! ’indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.r; Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type:_______ Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Y Surface Water (A1) High Wafer Table (A2) _y Saturation (A3) __ Wafer Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) __ Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) - Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Drainage Patterns (B10) __ Dry-Season Wafer Table (C2) __Crayfish Burrows (C8) __ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) __ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) __ Thin Muck Surface (C7) __ Gauge or Well Data (D9) __Water-Stained Leaves (B9) __Aquatic Fauna (B13) __True Aquatic Plants (B14) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) __ Geomorphic Position (D2) ___ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? /~:2Yes y No Yes Yes )Y No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Q No y NoWetland Hydrology Present? YesSaturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well,’aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region e Sampling Date:City/County:Project/Site:___ Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ^ No o state: AA aJ JZ-Sampiing Point: Section, Township, Range: - Local relief (concave, convex, none):^1 / j S- /cp e 3-5 _____________ Datum:__ __NWl orWWl classification: (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes V No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) _______^________ Long:.Lat; tO g> significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? , or Hydrology ., or Hydrology SoilAre Vegetation Are Vegetation SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. ., Soil 5Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes____ Yes Yes____ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No No__X.YesNo V Remarks: VEGETATiON - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status25v7£_)Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. (3u-<TriJ s (A)\~ ,1/C* Total Number of Dominant Species Across Ail Strata:5 (B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:>3 m)90 = Total CoverSapllng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ^O 9 ) 1. ?crrxi / >f _______________ 2. (Iherr^( /Lcy'l-\'ce^ 4. /V ry v\ !' Cy,cr\ ( g| Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:_____3(9 fA-Qjya HA Qt-'-x Multiply by: OBL species (9 FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: 200 oFA-CU x1 = & o'fi4-C F4ccJ x2 = 7 7a2-0 x3 =U\ gj 070 x4 = x5 =/Oa = Total Coyer79 (A) 0 9O (B) 3^ A 9> Herb Stratum (Plot size: fO fZfCuJ ; Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators: __ Dominance Test is >50% __ Prevalence Index is S3.0' __ Morphological Adaptations’ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation’ (Explain) 4. 6. 8. 9.’indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. > 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1. yYesNo = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers;here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description; (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator-or confirm the absence pf indicators.) Redox FeaturesMatrixDepth (inches)Type’ Loc^Color (moist)Color (moist)Texture Remarks ^Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. ’’Type; C=Concentration, D=DMletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils’:Hydric Soil Indicators; __ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) __ iron-Manganese Masses (F12) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) __ Sandy Redox (S5) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) °__ Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) __ Redox Depressions (F8) __ Histosol(A1) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Stratified Layers (A5) __ 2cmMuck(A10) __ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ___ Thick Dark Surface (A12) __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) f ’indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or prpblematic: Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type:_______ Depth (inches):XHydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks:<o ^ ^/i •/- UA £ Cl ^4/2 r:--\ f HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators; Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of (wo required) ___ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ■ Aquatic Fauna (B13) •__ True Aquatic Plants (B14) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) __ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) __ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Drainage Patterns (B10) __ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) __ Crayfish Burrows (C8) __ Surface Water (A1) __ High Water Table (A2) __ Saturation (A3) __Water Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Drift Deposits (B3) __Algal Mat or Crust (B4) __ Iron Deposits (B5) __ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) __ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ___ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) __ Thin Muck Surface (C7) __ Gauge or Weil Data (D9) Field Observations; No Depth (inches): _ Depth (inches): _ Depth (inches); _ Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes_ Yes_ Yes_ Noy No XWetland Hydrology Present? YesNoSaturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks; r t'.i 'r ^/ i C> 4 Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERIVUNATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region lA)~e{’S>,~ "/‘£.CDffvC rc<! ( state: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: City/County:Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope (%); 3 ^ $ Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes yC No A? a// cy/)=c- T / s Aty /'f c/' j'^y'AJo M «. d.X'-T Seotion, Township, Range; _______ Local relief (concave, convex, none):7‘ t Datum:Long: Kn i? /- C - 3/'ftvv/c,y,-3 fV /,NWI orWWI classifioation; ^ o r/nr',0 >- M /?! e> X'i (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? ,, or Hydrology ,, or Hydrology ., SoilAre Vegetation Are Vegetation SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. ., Soil NoHydrophytio Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes X No XYesNoNoYes Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Speoies That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? StatusTree Stratum (Plot size:•2, o3 1^11' r, ry\ Yen ^ f'4ru (A)1. f Total Number of Dominant Speoies Across All Strata:^___ (B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC;(A/B) = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:_____ Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. rxi HQ Multiply by:(I p'kf.O h4<raJ { )JxLk\(L '| tyea-. ill i-'ir'/'/i HO OBL speoies FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: X 1 = 3. 4. Cor^ios i-t x2 =/O/V, /O x3 = x4 = /OQ = Total Cover x5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size; y''I(f\f I u (A)(B) 3,0 ^1.32. /P 3. pb'i /a f Ct ^ 3o Prevalence Index = B/A =fOlCU ZA f-A-f t-v'Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators; __ Dominance Test is >50% __ Prevalence Index is <3.0* __ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) __ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) .5 UfiL-4. fbroi'yu 5.^ 6. 8. 9.'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.10. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. yj vh Z) i ^ri f'Ser/^r, pi/ ff'^’'';ocr S7<>'S Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?fyf-C'-rJ yYesNo= Total Coverr''^^^ Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description; (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox Features______________MatrixDepth (inches)Type’ Loc^%Texture Remarks%Color (moist)Color (moist) /.s/rAi7 loMi ^_s :r.> ^Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils’:Hydric Soil Indicators: __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ___ Sandy Redox (S5) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) __ Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) __ Redox Depressions (F8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) __ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Histosol(AI) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10)IF Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) __ Thick Dark Surface (A12) __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) __ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) ’indicators of hydrophytic yegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type:_______ Depth (inches);Hydric Soil Present? Yes /V No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) __ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Drainage Patterns (B10) __ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) __ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ___ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) __ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) __ Thin Muck Surface (C7) __ Gauge or Well Data (D9) __Water-Stained Leaves (B9) __ Aquatic Fauna (B13) __ True Aquatic Plants (B14) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Surface Water (A1) ___ High Water Table (A2) ___ Saturation (A3) __ Water Marks (B1) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Drift Deposits (B3) ___ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) __ Iron Deposits (B5) __ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) __ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) __ Geomorphic Position (D2) __ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Yes Yes Yes No Depth (inches); Depth (inches); Depth (inches): Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No No A'Wetland Hydrology Present? YesNoSaturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: y/ I C-< O (>O Midwest Region - Interim VersionUS Army Corps of Engineers « Attachment F Site Photography ? r ■9 4B. ’t’sS’iiiP' ^ 5«* ‘-. • f ;va ^:^'.(^:/^| r/*-'.s'.^'.<y^^f' r:'y'^j 'Vsi' ’’ "'y \ . 1 j.,-: f. :-F- -r.::/i Wetland #2 - Looking North ^mammC*C;i Wetland #3 - Looking Northeast Wetland #4 - Looking East Vegetation at Sample Location #1 164.08, 2010 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of2 2010 Minnesota Statutes ^oo,164.08 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13] 164.08 CARTWAYS. Subdivision 1. Permitted establishment; conditions. The town board by resolution may establish a cartway two rods wide and not more than one-half mile in length upon petition presented to the town board signed by at least five voters, landowners of the town, requesting the cartway on a section line to serve a tract or tracts of land consisting of at least 150 acres of which at least 100 acres are tillable. If the petition is granted the proceedings of the town board shall be in accordance with section 164.07. Subd. 2. Mandatory establishment; conditions, (a) Upon petition presented to the town board by the owner of a tract of land containing at least five acres, who has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others, or whose access thereto is less than two rods in width, the town board by resolution shall establish a caitway at least two rods wide connecting the petitioner's land with a public road. A town board shall establish a cartway upon a petition of an owner of a tract of land that, as of January 1,1998, was on record as a separate parcel, contained at least two but less than five acres, and has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others. The town board may select an alternative route other than that petitioned for if the alternative is deemed by the town board to be less disruptive and damaging to the affected landowners and in the public's best interest. (b) In an unorganized territory, the board of county commissioners of the county in which the tract is located shall act as the town board. The proceedings of the town board shall be in accordance with section 164.07. (c) The amount of damages shall be paid by the petitioner to the town before such cartway is opened. For the purposes of this subdivision damages shall mean the compensation, if any, awarded to the owner of the land upon which the cartway is established together with the cost of professional and other services, hearing costs, administrative costs, recording costs, and other costs and expenses which the town may incur in connection with the proceedings for the establishment of the cartway. The town board may by resolution require the petitioner to post a bond or other security acceptable to the board for the total estimated damages before the board takes action on the petition. (d) Town road and bridge funds shall not be expended on the cartway unless the town board, or the county board acting as the town board in the case of a cartway established in an unorganized territory, by resolution determines that an expenditure is in the public interest. If no resolution is adopted to that effect, the grading or other construction work and the maintenance of the cartway is the responsibility of the petitioner, subject to the provisions of section 164.10. (e) After the cartway has been constructed the town board, or the county board in the case of unorganized territory, may by resolution designate the cartway as a private driveway with the written consent of the affected landowner in which case from the effective date of the resolution no town road and bridge funds shall be expended for maintenance of the driveway; provided that the cartway shall not be vacated without following the vacation proceedings established under section 164.07. Subd. 3. Maintenance costs. When a cartway is not maintained by the town, one or more of the private property owners who own land adjacent to a cartway or one or more of the private property owners who has no access to the owner's land except by way of the cartway may maintain the cartway. The cost of maintenance shall be equitably divided among all of the private property owners who own land adjacent to the cartway and all of the https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id= 164.08 12/21/2010 Page 2 of 2164.08, 2010 Minnesota Statutes A. e private property owners who have no access to^their land except by way of the cartway. The following factors may be taken into consideration when determining an equitable share of maintenance expenses : the frequency of use, the type and weight of the vehicles or equipment, and the distance traveled on the cartway to the individual's property. The town board may determine the maintenance costs to be apportioned to each private property owner if the private property owners cannot agree on the division of the costs. The town board's decision may be appealed vrithin 30 days to the district court of the county in which the cartway is located. Private property owners who pay the cost of maintenance shall have a civil cause of action against any of the private property owners who refuse to pay their share of the maintenance cost. History: 1959 c 500 art 5 s 8; 1978 c 551 s 1; 1979 c 83 s 1; ,1980 c 435 s 2; 1981 c 77 s i; 1985 c 163 s 1; 1986 c 444; 1989 c 16 s 1; 1993 c 275 s 1;T998 c 254 art 2 s 12; 1998 c 296 s 1; 2000 c 334 s 2; 2004 c 228 art 2 s 6; 2004 c 262 art 2 s 7 i;. ■ ;; i r https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=l 64.08 12/21/2010