Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28000130091001_Variances_10-10-2019122S579Date Stamp \ y CAROL SCHMALTZ OTTER TAIL COUNTY RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES FERGUS FALLS, MN RECORDED OH 10/25/201? 12:49 PM FEE: 46.00 PAGES 10 WELL CERTIFICATE REC'D: H deceived SEP 17 20,3 resource i:::in g t;; I-,- AmL&R Initial THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL Government Services Center, 540 W Fir Ave, Fergus Falls MN 56537 218-998-8095 www.ottertailcountymn.usOTTCR TAIl 1500-60 2-Application Fee Receipt Number Aouj i6.cntiAccepted by Date Property Owner Name Wayne & Denise Erickson Address 31799 275th Ave City Erhard State Minnesota Zip 56534 Daytime Phone 218-841-4246 Email wayne.erickson@snapon.com Parcel Information Lake Class neLake NameLake No Un-name56-698 Parcel Number(s)28000130091001 Parcel Number(s) SectionTownship Name 13Friberg Legal Description Physical Address 31799 275th Ave TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) aStructure Setback m SubdivisionStructure Size Sewage System MiscellaneousClusterWECS 1 3ntcicn pa-jL i- 2ioob ibooil SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJa VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. CITE THE RELEVANT SECTION(S) AND OTTER TAIL COUNTY ORDINANCE(S) FROM WHICH THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. OTTER TAIL COUNTY ORDINANCE: SMO 111.4.ASECTION OF ORDINANCE: VARIANCE REQUEST: *Shed A(Tan Shed) is approximately 135' from the lake(measured on the computer). Required setback is 200', requesting a 65' Variance. Height is 23', requesting a 3' Variance. *Shed B(red Shed) is 22' in height, requesting a 2' Variance. *Patio/Fire pit is 305.5 sq. ft. in the SIZ. requesting a 45.5 sq. ft. variance. I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE/SANITATION CODE/SETBACK ORDINANCE AND/OR WECS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE management REGARJMMg THIS MATTER. ■ Siett^RE OF PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT FOR OWNER DATE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING (Applicant will Receive Notification of the Date/Tlmc of Hearing) OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Board of Adjustment Hearing 10-'ll)'OOTime Motion Wayne Erickson - Variance Application Approved as Requested (6:37 p.m.) After consideration and discussion, Darren Newville made a motion, second by Steve Schierer and unanimously carried, to approve the variance as requested in the variance application dated September 17, 2019 and as depicted on the drawings submitted with the variance application. The approval is also based on the After the Fact Variance Addendum and Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding have been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which have been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. Lit Chairn(an/OtterTail County Board of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management 1Yes No Note: If Yes, contact Land & Resource Management A L&R Official/Date Copy of Application mailed/emailed to Applicant, County Assessor and MN DNR cl 01122019-001 2 Chris LeClair Director ■Tv- OTTER TAIL COUNTY LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION ottertailcountymn.us ft Kyle Westergard Asst. DirectorOTTCRTAII GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR AVENUE FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 218-998-8095 FAX: 218-998-8112Board of Adjustment After-the-Fact Variance Addendum Applicant: Wayne Erickson Address/Parcel No. 31799 275**^ Ave/28000130091001 If the Board of Adjustment finds that the criteria have been met for the five questions on the Findings of Fact and Decision form, then the following additional criteria must be considered and weighed by the Board of Adjustment in determining whether to approve or deny a request for an After-The-Fact variance. CRITERIA / BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBER DLSS TL DN KV PC 1. Was there any attempt to comply with the applicable official controls? Indicate why the applicant failed to obtain the required permit or comply with the applicable official control before commencing work. _____________. ________ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Did the applicant make a substantial investment in the property before learning of the failure to comply with the applicable official control? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. Did the applicant complete the work before being informed of the violation of the applicable official controls? __________Yes Yes Yes YesYes Yes 4. Are there similar structures in the area? Yes Yes YesYes Yes Yes 5. Based on all of the facts, does it appear to the Board of Adjustment that the applicant acted in good faith?Yes YesYes Yes Yes Yes 6. Would the benefit to the County appear to be outweighed by the detriment the applicant would suffer if forced to remove the violation? Yes Yes Yes YesYes Yes Facts supporting the answer to each question above, together vyith those other facts that exist in the record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of Adjustment. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment:the requested variance.APPROVES X DENIES This decision is based on: X Application X Information received at public hearing Staff report Pictures Viewing by____members of the Board of Adjustment DATED: October 10. 2019 Board of Adjustment Chair Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment - Additional Questions for After-The-Fact Variance If the Board of Adjustment finds that the criteria have been met for the^five questions on the Findings of Fact and Decision form, then the following additional criteria must be considered and weighed by the Board of Adjustment in determining whether to approve or deny a request for an After-The-Fact variance. 1. Was there any attempt to comply with the applicable official controls? (Indicate why the applicant failed to obtain the required permit or comply with the applicable official control before commencing work.) The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 2. Did the applicant make a substantial investment in the property before learning of the failure to comply with the applicable official control? (State why or why not) The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 3. Did the applicant complete the work before being informed of the violation of the appiicable official controls? (If not, how far along is the project?) The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 4. Are there similar structures in the area? The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 5. Based on ail pf the facts, does it appear to the Board of Adjustment that the applicant acted in good faith? The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 6. Would the benefit to the County appear to be outweighed by the detriment the applicant would suffer if forced to remove the violation? The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. Chris LeClair DirectorOTTER TAIL COUNTY LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION WWW.CO.OTTER-TAIL.MN.US Kyle Westergard Asst. DirectorOTTCRTAII GOVERNMENT SERViCES CENTER 540 WEST FiR AVENUE FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 218-998-8095 FAX: 218-998-8112 Board of Adjustment Findings of Fact and Decision Address/Parcel No. 31799 275**^ Ave/28000130091001Appiicant: Wavne Erickson Requested Variance: Shed A (Tan Shed) is approximately 135' from the Lake (as measured on the computer). Required setback is 200', requesting a 65' Variance. Height is 23'. requesting a 3' Variance. Shed B (Red Shed) is 22' in height, requesting a 2' Variance.___________________ _______________________________ Patio/Firepit is 305.5 so. ft. in the SIZ. Requesting a 45.5 sq. ft. variance. Otter Tail County Ordinance: X Shoreland Mgmt. Ordinance Section Citation: III. 4. A.____________ Sanitation. Subdivision. WECS Dock & Riparian Use Setback Ord. A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county land use controls will result in a "practical difficulty". A determination that a practical difficulty exists Is based upon consideration of the following criteria: The applicant identified the following practical difficulty: The Otter Tail County Mapping System did not indicate that this property was alone a classified body of water. The map read "water". Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment - Variance Question Findings 1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the officiai controi? (The board shall consider the purposes and intent of the official control). X Yes, the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... No, the variance is NOT in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... ...because: The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? (The board shall consider what reasonable use of the property is lost (practical difficulties) by the strict enforcement of the official control). X Yes, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... No, the property owner is NOT proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... ...because: The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 3. Is the need for a variance due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? (The board shall consider what circumstances are unique to the property, such as lot size, lot configuration, wetland, steep slope, shore impact zone, bluff, floodplain, floodway, etc. One or more should be stated on the record. What differentiates this parcel from others? Does this lot have a feature that does not affect all parcels similarly?) X Yes, the need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.... No, the need for the variance is NOT due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner... ...because: The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 4. Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? (The board shall consider and state for the record why the request does or does not maintain the character of the area. Is this request similar to what others have, what are near shore conditions of neighbors, similar sized or number of structures adjacent or in area, etc.) X Yes, the issuance of the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality.... No, the issuance of the variance wiil NOT maintain the essential character of the locality... ...because; The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. 5. Does the need for the variance involve thore than just economic considerations? (The board shall consider if economics played a role in the request. The fact that coming in to compliance with the ordinance requirements may cost considerably more does not constitute a practical difficulty). X Yes, the need for the variance involves more than Just economic considerations.... No, the issuance of the variance is only for economic considerations... ...because: The economic burden is outweighed by what the County would gain and the detrimental effect that it would have on Mr. Erickson. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment: APPROVES___X the requested variance.DENIES Complete and attach After-the-Fact Addendum if this is an After-The-Fact variance request. DATED: October 10. 2019 Board of Adjustment Chair The Board of Adjustment may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Mitigating impervious surface with storm water management, deep rooted vegetative buffers, rain gardens, etc.) It is the Board of Adjustment's job to apply appropriate legal standards to a specific fact situation. Variances are meant to be an infrequent remedy where an ordinance imposes a unique and substantial burden. t * r ►DOC# 1146732 1146732 Fee: $96.00 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER ! OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTANo Delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value (i/)^ed ( ) not required Certificated of Real Estate Value Certified, Filed, and/or Recorded: Well Certificate W July 28, 2014 12:15 PM /Rec'd Brian Armstrong, RecorderNo. -______2014K , County Auditor bv.V^ CCR\J^ . Deputy ParceTW-04^4>- Returned To: WEST CENTRAL ABSTRACT 202 WEST JUNIUS AVENUE FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 By: NDB Personal Representative’s Deed Personal Representative(s) to Joint Tenants STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $363.00 (2014Date; FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Cynthia Hoover, Grantor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald R. Brown aka Donald Ray Brown, Decedent, single at the time of death, hereby conveys to Wayne L. Erickson and Denise R. Erickson, as Joint Tenants, real property in Otter Tail County, Minnesota, described as follows: The North<660 feet of Government Lot 2 in Section 13, Township 134, Range 42, Otter Tail County, Minnesota. Together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: NONE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL STATE OF MINNESOTA DEED TAX S The seller certifies: (X) Well certificate attached hereto. 0 That there are no known wells on the above described property. 0 that there are no changes in the number or status of wells since the last known well certificate filed. m-C^^Ttfiia^over, Personal Representative - ♦# , STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ^U Uf Cynthia Hoover, Grantor, as Personal Representative of the Esta(e aka Donald Ray Brown, Decedent, single at the time of de^. / ,2014 by Donald R. Brown \^^ANGELA JO ABRAM t1iI Woary Public-Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31,2017 WVVVVVSAAAA^AA/VVVVVVVVVVVVW^VV Notary Public My Commission Expires: Tax Statements on the property described In this instrument should be sent to: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: West CentraLAbstracting Co., Inc. 202 W. Junius Fergus Falls, MN 56537 ft-;. Wayne L. Erickson and Denise R. Erickson Ji7m A, No Delinquent taxes and transfer entered: Certificate of Real Estate Value filed ( ) not required S Certificated of Real Estate Value s No. 1212064 CAROL SCHMALTZ OTTER TAIL COUNTY RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES FERGUS FALLS, MN RECORDED ON 09/20/2018 11:08 AM FEE: 46.00 PAGES 2 WELL CERTIFICATE REC'D: N CO'^ I COo 2018 , County Auditor Deputy Parcel# X by,ioo Warranty Deed Individual(s) to Individual COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL STATE OF MlSTATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON; $544.50 y^2018 Date: September FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Wayne L. Erickson and Denise R. Erickson, husband and wife, Grantors, hereby convey and warrant to Lucas A. Petersen, real property in Otter Tail County, Minnesota, described as follows: All that part of Government Lot 2 of Section 13, Township 134, Range 42, Otter Tail County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Government Lot 2; thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 20 seconds East (bearing based on Otter Tail County Coordinates, 2011 adjustment) along the east line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 220.45 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 72 degrees 46 minutes 07 seconds West a distance of 159.19 feet; thence South 87 degrees 09 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 153.18 feet; thence South 58 degrees 40 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 183.20 feet; thence South 65 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds West a distance of 196.58 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 204.07 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 640.90 feet to said east line of Government Lot 2; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 20 seconds West along said east line, a distance of 435.10 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to 275th Avenue. Together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: NONE ■; i- i The seller certifies: 0 Well certificate attached hereto. 0 That there are no known wells on the above described property. (X) that there are no changes in the number or status of wells since the last known well certificate filed. Otter Tail County, Minnesota 1212064 1 of 2 > V^VE^^. Erickson -11A Denise R. Erickson STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on September Wayne L. Erickson, husband of Denise R. Erickson, Grantor. ,2018 by ANGELA JO ABRAM ^ NOTARY POBUC - MINNESOTA f MYCOMMISSION-EXPIRES ^ JANUARY 31. 2022 Notary Pubrf ! !My Commission Expires:31/ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ir^The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on September Denise R. Erickson, wife of Wayne L. Erickson, Grantor. 2018 by i ► \sc^ ANGELA JO ABRAM notary PUBUC - MINNESOTA MY GOMMISSIONEXPIBES JANUARY 31. 2022 *^944 444^4^44444 9 44 4 4444 Notary Public ^ *444444444444^i My Commission Expires: Tax Statements on the property described In this instrument should be sent to:i THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: West Central Abstracting Co., Inc. 202 W. Junius Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Lucas A. Petersen :31793 275th Ave Erhard, MN 56534 I ; Otter Tail County, Minnesota 1212064 2 of 2 The Board of Adjustment considered the following application(s) for variance: Wayne Erickson - Variance Application Approved as Requested (6:37 p.m.) Wayne Erickson, North 660’ of GL 2, Unnamed Lake (56-698) in Friberg Township requested the following: Shed A (Tan Shed) is approximately 135’ from the Lake (as measured on the computer). Required setback is 200’, requesting a 65’ Variance. Height is 23’, requesting a 3’ Variance. Shed B (Red Shed) is 22’ in height, requesting a 2’ Variance. Patio/Firepit is 305.5 sq. ft. in the SIZ. Requesting a 45.5 sq. ft. variance. Wayne Erickson, Property Owner and Nathan Seeger, Attorney represented the Variance. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the application. After consideration and discussion, Darren Newville made a motion, second by Steve Schierer and unanimously carried, to approve the variance as requested in the variance application dated September 17, 2019 and as depicted on the drawings submitted with the variance application. The approval is also based on the After the Fact Variance Addendum and Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding have been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which have been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. Dwight L. West, Et A1 - Variance Application Approved as Requested (6:45 p.m.) Dwight L. West, Et Al, Part of GL 2 & 3 Com E1 /4 Cor. ..(31.23 Acres), Dead Lake (56-393) in Dead Lake Township requested the following: Proposing to split a 125’ x 100’ Lot from Parcel No. 14000160129000 to be permanently attached to a Riparian Lot, Parcel No. 14000160129002. Proposing to have the lot be declared buildable for Non-Residential Structures only. A survey will be done upon Variance Approval. Ernest M. West represented the Variance. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the application. After consideration and discussion. Rod Boyer made a motion, second by Thomas Lee and unanimously carried, to approve the variance as requested to split a 125’ x 100’ Lot from Parcel No. 14000160129000 to be permanently attached to a Riparian Lot, Parcel No. 14000160129002 and be declared buildable for Non-Residential Structures only based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding have been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which have been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. Anita & John Steering - Variance Application Approved as Requested (6:50 p.m.) Anita & John Steering, Part of GL 3 Com Sl/4 Cor...(6.00 Acres), Unnamed Lake (56-319) in Dead Lake Township requested the following: 1 am requesting a variance to be 75 feet from the OHWL. Recently the wetland has been reclassified as part of lake and can no longer meet the 200 feet setback. Reclassification happened within the last year. Total impervious in the shore impact zone will be 650 sq. ft. John Steering represented the Variance. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the application. After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, second by Darren Newville and unanimously carried, to approve the variance as requested to build 75’ from the ordinary high-water level and allow the impervious surface coverage to be 650 sq. ft. in the shore impact zone and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding have been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which have been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. It was noted that they are building as far away as they can and the DNR reclassified the wetland as part of the lake. Mark Schoening - V^ariance Application Approved as Requested (6:57 p.m.) Mark Schoening, Lot 6 of D&D Development, Silver Lake (56-302) in Everts Township requested the following: 30 Ft. variance from the 100’ OHWL setback requirement to construct a 12’xl2’ 3-Season Porch on to existing dwelling. Structure will be 70’ from the OHWL. Board of Adjustment October 10, 2019 Page 14 LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OTTER TAIL Government Services Center 540 West Fir Avenue Fergus Falls, MN 56537COUNTY - MINNESOTA Notice of Hearing for Variance Applicant and/or applicant's representative must be present at the scheduled hearing. To Whom it May Concern: Wayne Erickson 27301 315‘'’ St. Erhard MN 56534 Has/have 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, the Subdivision Controls Ordinance of Otter Tail County, Otter Tail County Sanitation Code and/or the Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance of Otter Tail County. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble for this hearing on Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's 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 Otter tail County Land & Resource Management office prior to the date bf the public hearing. ** Weather conditions may change the Hearing date and time. If bad weather occurs, please listen to the local Fergus Falls Radio Stations or contact the Land & Resource Management Office by 4:30 p.m. for possible rescheduling of the Hearing. The property concerned in the application is legally described and located at: Legal Description:Parcel No. - 28000130091001 The North 660'of Government Lot 2 Section 13, Township 134, Range 42 Township Name - Friberg Unnamed (56-698), Natural Environment (NE) 31799 275'^ Ave, Erhard MN 56534 Lake Name/Number/Class: Property Address: The variance requested is the following: Shed A (Tan Shed) is approximately 135' from the Lake (as measured on the computer). Required setback is 200', requesting a 65' Variance. Height is 23', requesting a 3' Variance. Shed B (Red Shed) is 22' in height, requesting a 2' Variance. Patio/Firepit is 305.5 sq. ft. in the SIZ. Requesting a 45.5 sq. ft. variance. Amy Busko Board of Adjustment Secretary September 26, 2019 (®) ottertailcountymn.usOTTER TAIL COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER218-998-8095 vV:; • s.' OTTER TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls, Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL I, Amy Busko, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment for Otter Tail County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that on the 26th day of September, 2019 the attached Notice of Hearing for Variance was duly served upon the individuals listed below and/or included in the attachment: ) Lake AssociationProperty Owner Township Clerk Kathi Budke, Clerk Friberg Township 31289 Co. Hwy3 Fergus Falls MN 56537 N/AWayne Erickson 27301 315‘f’ St. Erhard MN 56534 City Clerk (if located within 2 miles of a city) N/A n Lake Improvement District (If project is located on their lake, mail notices to the Lake Improvement District) Big McDonald; Devils (Near Perham): Little McDonald, Kerbs & Paul: LMKP Lakes Imp. Dist., PO Box 133, Perham, MN 56573 Pine Lakes Imp. Dist., PO Box 405, Perham, MN 56573 Pelican, Fish, Bass & Lt Pelican: Pelican Lake Group Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 336, Pelican Rapids, MN 56572 South Turtle Lake: Big McDonald Lake Improvement Dist., PO Box 81, Dent, MN 56528 Devils Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 431 Perham, MN 56573 UJ Little Pine & Big Pine: South Turtle Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 168, Underwood, MN 56586 Otter Tail County COLA, 4302 13'^ Ave S Ste. 4-333, Fargo, ND 58103 Chuck Grotto, OTC Hwy Engineer, 505 S Court St Suite #1, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Julie Aadland, DNR Eco & Water Resources, 1509 1®’ Ave N, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Board of Adjustment Members: Ken Vorderbrugen, 20901 County Hwy 65, Henning MN 56551 R. Stephen Schierer 32117 260*'’ Ave, Erhard MN 56534 Thomas (Tom) Lee, 15600 County Hwy 118, Elizabeth MN 56533-9559 Darren M Newville, 614 6"’ St NE, Perham, MN 56573 Douglas Larson, 2118 Woodland Ln., Fergus Falls MN 56537 Planning Commission Member: Rod Boyer - 51127 E Wymer Lake Rd, Frazee MN 56544 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, properly addressed to each of the individuals listed above and/or listed in the attachment.Number of Notices & Envelopes to Print /FileDated; September 26, 2019 5Extra BOA Members ^ PC Member Envelopes. TOTAL NOTICES TO PRINT I ^ Added to Agenda Print out Findings of Fact Sheet Newspapers Amy Busko, Secretary Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment / €oE?idhwMu/)Tiy Bgjsko ^7By: l:\BOA\Affidavits\Erickson (698) 10-10-19.docx Buffer Parcels Parcel No Name 1 Addr 1Name 2 Addr 2 Citv St ZiD 28000130089000 Jacob L Jensen & Erica Larson 31860 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 28000130089001 Randall & Cynthia Abbott 27750 County Highway 22 Erhard MN 56534 9469 28000130090000 Barbara Albertson 31500 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 28000130091001 Wayne L & Denise R Erickson 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 28000130091002 Lucas A Peterson 31793 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 I 1 28000130091900 Wayne L 8i Denise R Erickson 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 28000130092000 Austin Ott 27137 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 28000130096000 Kelly & Patricia Wells 15315 Danbury Ave Rosemount MN 55068 1596 28000130096002 Wayne L & Denise R Erickson 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 Tuesday, September 24, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Buffer Mail Name Address i Address 2 City, State, Zip Randall & Cynthia Abbott 27750 County Highway 22 Erhard MN 56534 9469 Barbara Albertson 31500 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 Wayne L & Denise R Erickson 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 Jacob L Jensen & Erica Larson 31860 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 Austin Ott 27137 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 Lucas A Peterson 31793 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 Kelly & Patricia Wells 15315 Danbury Ave Rosemount MN 55068 1596 Tuesday, September 24, 2019 Page 1 of 1 r» V-',v' -1 00130096000f *1*{4. • ! i^i'-' ?• •' W^'-. } Friberg Township Board September 16, 2019 To: Board of Adjustments of Ottertail County, and Its Secretary Re: Taxparcel No. 28000130091001 31799 275'" Avenue, Erhard, MN 56534 Friberg Township board is in agreement that the current position and height of the Erickson's tan shed and bam do not alter nor have a negative effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. Friberg Township is a mral community with family farms including dairy cattle, beef cattle and growing of crops. These area farms have similar stmctures higher in elevation than the Erickson's in order to house animals store feed and equipment. Due to the practical difficulty of the Erickson's parcel of land being heavily wooded and with steep hills, the buildings were placed in the area most suitable for their farming needs and with the least amount of negative impact on the environment. The township board believe Wayne and Denise Erickson acted in good faith when erecting the tan shed for storage and maintenance of agricultural equipment. As well as the bam to house animals, equipment and feed. iMJw kiuUu.BOARD MEMBERS: NATHAN SEEGER LAW OFFICE 125 N Union Avenue, Suite 201 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Attorney at Law licensed in Minnesota North Dakota Telephone: Toll Free: Fax: 218-739-4621 888-739-4621 218-739-4705 September 14, 2019 To: Board of Adjustment of Otter Tail County Brief Variance Denise and Wayne Erickson are requesting after the fact area variances from the Shoreland Ordinance’s requirements limiting non-dwelling building height to 20 feet as applied to their existing tan shed and red bam, and requiring a 200 foot setback from the OHWL as applied to their existing red bam. As argued in the Erickson’s appeal to the Board of Adjustments on LRM’s July 15, 2019 letter alleging these violations, the small lake exemption makes the Shoreland Ordinance not applicable to their land, or in the alternative, explains the confusion by LRM and the Erickson’s in good faith mistakenly concluding the Shoreland Ordinance was not applicable. The facts and arguments on that appeal are incorporated herein by reference. Additional points of law that are specifically applicable to the Erickson’s variance requests are: 1. Board of Adjustment’s Authority to Grant the Variances, Generally. "The board of adjustments shall have the authority to order the issuance of variances, ... and perform such other duties as required by the official controls. Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 5. "The board of adjustment shall have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the requirements of any official control, including restrictions placed on nonconformities." Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 7. "In exercising its powers under this subdivision, the board of adjustment shall take into consideration the town board's recommendation when the board of adjustments decision directly affects land within the town." Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 5. Variance means "any modification or variant of official controls where it is determined that, by reason of exceptional circumstances, the strict enforcement of the official controls would cause unnecessary hardship.” Minn. Stat. §394.22, subd. 10. 1 “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 7. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the varianee establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 7. Practical difficulties are based upon the particular circumstances of eaeh case, as the statute states “practical difficulties include but are not limited to.” Minn. Stat. §394.27, subd. 7. 2. Purpose of Shoreland Regulation. Minn. Rule 6120.2600 describes the purpose of shoreland regulation as: “The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare by contributing to pollution of public waters and by impairing the local tax base. In furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.083, and chapters 103A, 103B, 103E to 103G, 115, 116, 394, 396, and 462, the commissioner provides the following minimum standards and criteria for the subdivision, use, and development of the shorelands of public waters. The standards and criteria are intended to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the state.” The preservation of water quality is accomplished by the preservation of the topography and trees. This purpose is reflected in the Shoreland Ordinances provisions describing topography and forest management to prevent erosion. For instance: “Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible.” Shoreland Ordinance, Article IV, B 2. “Any alterations of topography must only be allowed if they do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties.” Shoreland Ordinance, Article IV, B 4. “Private roads, driveways and parting areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. They must be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters ....” Shoreland Ordinance, Article IV, B 3, 11. 2 “Roads, driveways and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be places within BIZ and SIZ, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternative exists, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts.” Shoreland Ordinance, Article IV, 3, B 11, a. “Any alterations of topography must only be allowed if they do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties.” Shoreland Ordinance, Article IV, 3, B 9. The “conversion of forested use to a non-forested use must be conducted consistent with the following standards: B. Forest land conversion to another use requires issuance of a conditional Use Permit and adherence to the following standards: ... 2. An erosion and sediment control plan is developed and approved by the local Soil and Water Conservation District before issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion.” Shoreland Ordinance, Article IV, 5, B. This purpose is also contained in the Minnesota Rules. For instance: “Intensive vegetation clearing means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, role or block.” Minn. Rule 6120.2500, subpart 1C. “Steep slope means land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the sites, soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys, or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of these regulations." “Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12%, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs." Minn. Rule 6120.2500, subpart 15B. The interpretation of an ordinance and the application of an ordinance to facts are questions of law, subject to de novo review. Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. vs. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980). A zoning ordinance should be construed: (1) according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms, (2) in favor of the property owner, and (3) in light of the ordinance’s underlying policy goals. Id. at 608-609. When an applicant complies with the requirement of an ordinance, approval of a permitted use follows as a matter of right. Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n. v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984). “A factual reality cannot be changed or overcome by mere legislative fiat, and a legislative declaration which is clearly contrary to the actual facts will not be recognized or sanctioned in a judicial proceeding.” LaCourse v. City of St. Paul, 294 Minn. 338, 200 N.W.2d 905, 909 (Minn. 1972). 3 In this case, the Erickson’s buildings meet the purpose of the shoreland regulation’s purpose not to disturb the topography or trees more than necessary to prevent erosion and to preserve water quality. They used the existing topography, road and clearing for their building site by fitting the buildings around the existing road, placing their buildings on the most level ground, not filling in the existing depression to place the tan shed, not cutting down trees on the steep slopes to accommodate their buildings, and not digging into the steep slopes to place the tan shed and red bam to comply with both the OHWL setback and the height of building requirement by using the advantage of the method of measurement of “height of building” as set forth in Minn. Rule Minn. Rule 6120.2000, subd. 7A. If they had cut down trees on the steep slopes and cut into the steep slopes to place their buildings, their building’s height would be less than the 20 foot limitation. The Erickson’s, however, chose to take a reasonable approaeh by building where they did. 3. Regulations at Issue. “Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or 10 feet above the lowest ground level, whiehever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hit roof” Minn. Rule 6120.2000, subd. 7A. Minnesota’s structure height for all structures in residential districts in cities, except churches and nonresidential agricultural structures, must not exceed 25 feet in height." Minn. Rule 6120.3300, subpart 3, G. The Shoreland Ordinance, however, limits the building height of non-dwelling buildings to 20 feet. It does not make an exemption for non-residential agricultural structures, as required by Minn. Rule 6120.3300, subpart 3, G. Aceordingly, the non-agricultural exemption of Minn. Rule 6120.3300, subpart 3, G must be read into the Shoreland Ordinanee, making the Erickson’s tan shed and red bam exempt from the Shoreland Ordinance’s 20 foot building height limitation. Minnesota’s natural environment structure setback is 150 feet. Minn. Rule 3300 subpart 3, A (1). Otter Tail County’s natural environment structure setback is 200 feet. Shoreland Ordinanee Artiele III, Seetion 3. 4. Practical Difficulties A request for relief from a setback requirement or height limitation is an area variance. In re Appeal of Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985). An area variance does not ehange the character of the zoned district. Id. With area varianees, “actual or constructive knowledge of a zoning ordinance before a purchase of land is not a ban to granting a variance.” Myron v. Plymouth, 562 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Minn. App. 1979) affirmed 581 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1998). The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would prohibit the granting of a variance for every subsequent owner; that such a blanket ban is not consistent with legislative court to give municipality broad discretion in land 4 development, and most significantly it is inconsistent with the general property law goal to preserve accountability. Id at 23. In an area variance case, the Supreme Court stated that for a showing of “practical difficulty,” the property owner only has to show what he would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. Rowell, 446 at 922. The standard is met if the landowner’s request is “reasonable.” Reasonableness is measured by the standards set out in the municipality’s ordinance and the nature of the matter under review. Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W. 2d 917, 921 (Miim. App. 1989), review denied December 15, 1989; NBZ Enterprises, Inc. V. City of Shakopee, 489 N.W.2d 531, 537 (Minn. App. 1992) (review denied Sept. 30, 1992). Practical difficulties may justify an area variance. Rowell, 446 N. W.2d at 922 (aesthetic and functional considerations, including coordination and alignment of proposed additions could make strict enforcement of setback unreasonable); Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922, “since the church already exists, an addition will not alter the character of the locality”; Merriam, 210 N.W.2d at 420 (holding unusual shape and size of lot were sufficient practical difficulties to justify setback variance from 25 feet to three feet, even though the granting of the variance worked some hardships on adjoining lot owners), overruled on other grounds, Northwestern College v. City of Horton Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868, n. 4 (1979); Curry v. Young, 285 Miim. 387, 396-97, 173 N.W.2d 410, 415 (1969) (holding variance required where setback requirement would force property owner to build much smaller structure). “In considering variance requests, the Board of Adjustments must also consider: Whether the variance will secure for the applicant a right or rights that are enjoyed by other owners in the same area; (1) Whether existing sewage treatments on the same property need upgrading before additional development is approved; (2) Whether granting the variance will be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or to property values in the neighborhood. (3) No variance shall be granted simply because there are no objections or because those who do not object outnumber those who do.” (4) 5. After the Fact Variance Application Factors. In addition to the practical difficulty, the Supreme Court has ruled that the board of adjustment must consider the equities in favor of the landowner when entertaining an application for an after-the-fact variance. Appeal of Kermey, 375 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Mirm. 1985); Appeal of Kenney, 358 N.W.2d 120, 123 (Mirm. App. 1985). The equities to be considered are: 5 Whether or not the landowner acted in good faith;(1) (2)Whether or not the landowner attempted to comply with the law by obtaining a building permit; Whether the building permit obtained violated the law;(3) Whether or not the landowner had made a substantial investment in the property;(4) Whether or not the construction was completed prior to the landowner being informed of its impropriety; (5) Whether or not the property is residential/recreational and not commercial;(6) Whether or not there are similar structures on the lake; and(7) Whether or not a benefit to the County would be outweighed by the detriment to the and owner if forced to remove the structure. (8) DeFelice v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of North Providence,96 R.I. 99, 189 A.2d 685 (1963) (construction of building within the setback area resulted from error and mistake of fact as to the proper location of the property tine; the landowner was not aware of the mistake at the time of the construction; the landowner acted in good faith; the variance would not be contrary to public interest and would be in harmony with the general character of the adjacent property and neighborhood); Human Development Services of Port Chester, Inc. V. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Port Chester, 67 N.Y.2d 702,490 N.E.2d 846 (1986) (no valid public purpose would be served by denial of the varianee and injury to the property owner (removal of the existing building and erection of a new one 8.6 feet farther away from the rear line) therefore cannot have been found to have been out weighted,” and that the denial of the rear setback variance request was arbitrary and capricious). Doctrines of equitable estoppel and vested rights require the granting of a variance.6. The doctrine of equitable estoppel and the vested rights doctrine are used by the courts “as alternative ways of resolving developer-government relations in the land use context.” Ridgewood Develop Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288, 294 (Minn. 1980). “The major difference between the doctrines concerns the court’s focus.” Id. They are separate defenses. Interstate Power Company, Inc. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioner, 617 N.W.2d 566, 581 (Minn. 2000). Points of law for equitable estoppel are: 6 “A local government exercising its zoning powers will be estopped when a property owner, (1) relying on good faith, (2) upon some act or omission of the government, (3) has made such a substantial change in position or ineurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights whieh he ostensibly had acquired.” Ridgewood Develop Co. v State, 294 N.W. 2d 288, 292 (Minn. 1980). “The equities of the cireumstances must be examined and the government estopped if justice so requires, weighing in that determination the publie interest frustrated by the estoppel.” Messabah Aviation Division of Halvorson of Duluth v. County of Itasea, 258 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn. 1977). Constructive notice of an ordinance is not suffieient as a matter of law to bar the defense of equitable estoppel. Brown v Minn. Dept. Publie Welfare, 368 N.W.2d 906, 912 (Minn. 1985). Points of law for vested rights are: “While a court applying a theory of equitable estoppel investigates the loss to the developer if he is not permitted to finish his project, in vested rights analysis the court asks whether the developer has progressed sufficiently with his construetion to aequire a vested right to eomplete it.” The purpose of the vested rights doetrine is to deal with the State’s eontrol over private development through the use of zoning provisions and building permits. Ridgewood Develop. Co., 294 at 294. “A right becomes vested when it has ‘risen upon a contract, or transaction in the nature of a contraet, authorized by statute and liabilities under that right to have been so far determined that nothing remains to be done by the party asserting it.’” Id. The present case is a bit unique. The alleged violations are “area” zoning, not a matter of “use” zoning. The majority of eases where the doetrine of equitable estoppel is denied, have been matters where the landowner put the property to a “use” not authorized under the building permit or the zoning ordinanee. 7. Denial of the variance request is an unconstitutional taking of property. “To permanently deny owner of... the benefieial use of his property exeept by requiring him to make substantial investment in repair or renovation, over his objection, would constitute “taking for which owner would have right to compensation.” State by Powderly v. Erickson, 1981, 301 N.W.2d 324. Eminent Domain 2.27 (3) 7 The allowance of a variance is compelled where there has been an unlawful taking of property in a constitutional sense, demonstrated by the landowner’s inability to put his land to any beneficial use unless the variance is granted. Holasek v. Village of Medina, 303 Minn 240, 266 N.W.2d 900, 903 (1975). Where a building generally meets the average setback of other buildings in its immediate vicinity, it is not considered an enforceable violation of the setback ordinance. State v. Callender, 293 Minn. 451, 197 N.W.2d 216, 218 (1972). Respectfully submitted. /s/ NflthfliA, L. seeaer Nathan L. Seeger Attorney for Wayne and Denise Erickson 125 N. Union Avenue, Suite 201 Fergus Falls, MN 56537 (218) 739-4621 secretary@seeger-law.net Atty. Reg. No. 208152 8 4 AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE ERICKSON AND DENISE ERICKSON IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE APPLICATION. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ) Being first duly sworn upon oath, your affiant, Wayne Erickson and Denise Erickson state and depose that; Our investigations and conversations prior to any construction on our land.A. We bought the 13.65 tract in Section 13 of Friberg Township in July 2014. With the intention of building our retirement home and begin farming. This included the building of a maintenance shed to store fertilizer, seed, agricultural equipment ie; skid steer, tiller, mower and haying equipment. The shed would further be used for maintenance and repair of the agricultural equipment. A bam was also erected to store hay and feed for the animals. It will be used to house the animals in inclement weather and in the spring when foaling and calving. The bam would also be utilized to store additional agricultural equipment. In May of 2016, prior to doing any work, Wayne went to the Land Resource Management Office to find out about permits for building. The LRM employee at the counter pulled up our property on the computer screen at the customer counter, showed it to Wayne, and said we did not need any building permits because it is just “water” and it is not classified as a lake. The computer screen showed Fogard Lake and its lake number to the east, Johnson Lake and its lake number to the south, and the word “water” appearing on our land without any lake name or lake number. Our development of the property occurred in the following manner.B. In the late spring or early summer of 2016, we hired Custom Earth, Inc. (owned by Jamie Sazama) to widen and contour the first couple hundred feet from 275^'^ Avenue west a few hundred feet. This did not come close to or within 1,000 feet of any water or lake. We could not afford any more work at the time. About a year later in June 2017, we hired Custom Earth, Inc. to widen and contour the rest of the road into our driveway, and to bring in 30 yards of base gravel for the constmction of the tan shed. About March 2017 before this work was done. We met Jamie Sazama at the site to discuss the Job. Jamie Sazama asked about permits. We told him of my meeting with Land Resource Management in 2016, that I did not need a permit because it was “water” and not classified as a lake. Jamie Sazama said he would verify it. About a week later, Jamie did all of the work. In June 2017, We hired North Trial Buildings EEC of Osage to construct the shell of the tan shed. 1 I In the Spring of 2018, we hired Lake Region Electric Cooperative to install electrical service. It trenched the electrical line along the north side of the driveway from 275‘'^ Avenue to the tan shed. In June 2018, we installed the conduit in the floor of the tan shed for in-floor heat, and poured the concrete floor inside the tan shed. In August 2018, Custom Earth, Inc. of Perham hauled in fill for the red barn's foundation. In October 2018, Foam Solutions, Inc. of Vergas sprayed foam insulation on the interior walls of the tan shed. In November 2018, North Trail Buildings, EEC of Osage constructed the red shed. In November 2018, we ordered a home from Show Case Homes, Inc. of Parkers Prairie the construction of a one piece 28x52 foot house. In January 2019, we hired Andy Pettow of Perham, d/b/a Pettow Construction, as the general contractor to install the house, build a garage, and everything associated with them. April 2019, we tinned the inside of the tan shed. April 25, 2019, Jamie Sazama, Andy Pettow, and Denise and I met on site to have a construction meeting for the house. Pettow Construction, Inc. had sublet to Custom Earth, Inc. the digging of the foundation and basement for the house. Andy Pettow asked whether a permit was needed. Jamie and I talked about our prior investigations that it was “water” and not a lake, and that a permit was not needed. April 26, 2019, Jamie Sazama died, so on April 27, 2019 I called Andy Pettow to find out who would be digging the foundation and basement in Jamie’s place. Andy said that Eric Ruther of Richville would be digging both the foundation/basement, and the septic tank installation. On May 1, 2019, Eric Ruther dug the foundation/basement. On May 6, 2019, the footings were poured by Pettow. On May 6, 2019, Eric Ruther began applying for a septic system permit on-line. On the on-line map, the water appeared as “water” and not as a lake. However, On May 7, 2019, Eric Ruther called the Land Resource Management office. On May 7, 2019, Andy Pettow called Wayne, indicating that Eric Ruther encountered a problem in applying for the septic system, and that the “water” may actually be an unnamed lake subject to the Otter Tail County Shoreland Ordinance. He telephoned LRM. On May 7, 2019, Wayne went to the Shoreland Management Office and met with LRM 2 Inspector Denise Gubrud. On May 7, 2019, Denise Gubrud wrote and signed a memo stating her findings, and attaching a copy of the GIS map showing the water as “water” and not as an unnamed lake or as having a lake identification number. (See, Exhibit 1) On May 21, 2019, we applied for a variance from the OHWL setback for the house. On June 13, 2019, a hearing was held on our variance request. A motion was made to deny our variance request, which resulted in a tie vote. We understood the comments after the vote was that our variance was denied. On Board of Adjustment minutes of the June 13, 2019 meeting indicate our variance request the motion to deny failed on a tie vote. On June 13, 2019, the Board of Adjustment Findings of Fact and Decision for our variance request on the house was denied. (Exhibit 2) Between June 14 -18, 2019, we worked with LRM to find a location to place the house beyond the 200 foot setback of the OHWL. On June 27, 2019, a building and grade and fill permit was issued by LRM for a house site 238 feet from the OHWL. We filled in the foundation and basement of the former house site. We had Eric dig the foundation on July 2, 2019 and pour the basement for the new house site on July 8,2019. On June 28, 2019, we filled in the foundation and footings of the house site for which we had filed an application for a variance. On July 10, 2019, our house variance application again came before the Board of Adjustments. I ■withdrew the house variance application so that I could get a building permit from LRM. On July 10, 2019, the Board of Adjustments issued its minutes. On July 15, 2019, LRM sent us a letter alleging our tan shed was not incompliance with the 200 foot OHWL setback and the 20 foot non-dwelling building height limitation of the Shoreland Ordinance; and that our red bam was not incompliance with the 20 foot non-dwelling building height limitation of the Shoreland Ordinance. On July 24, 2019, the house was installed on the new house site. The variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of theC. Ordinance. Our use of our property as our home, shed and bam is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreland Ordinance. The Shoreland Ordinance Aritcle I. 2 states its purpose as 3 i “use and orderly development,” and “preserve and enhance natural resources.” Our use of our land as a home with a shed and bam is a permitted use under the Shoreland Ordinance for residential and agricultural purposes. The Assessor also classifies this land as rural residential. We are making an orderly development of our land, while preserving the natural resources, by using the existing road, and existing building site clearing. We are using the existing natural woods, topography of the land, and planted trees to preserve the natural resources. We did not have to cut down any trees or excavate into any steep hills to build the tan shed or the red bam. From the lake, neither the house, the shed nor the bam are visible. From our neighbor’s property near the lake, you either can’t see or can barely see the bam or the house. Our use of our property is also in harmony with the neighborhood. There are two other rural residential places on #56-098 with similar types of buildings. The difference is that their land is more level. Our lot, however, has the steep hills, with a 50 foot change in elevation. Whether practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance.D. The practical difficulties of our land in complying with the OHWL setback ordinance is all of the features that surround the pre-existing clearing that we are using for our building site: •surrounded by steep slopes to the north and south; •50 foot elevation change; •surrounded by natural trees; •the proximity of the wetlands, island and body of water south of the building site to the trees, steep slopes and the pre-existing clearing. The practical difficulties is the conflict between the Shoreland Ordinance directing the preservation of trees, steep hills and public waters. In order to preserve the natural resources of trees and steep slopes, we had to use the existing clearing for our building site, and the existing road as our driveway. Otherwise, we would have had to cut down trees, and build into steep slopes. Using the pre-existing clearing put us closer to the wetlands and body of water to the south of the clearing The practical difficulty of our tan shed and red barn complying with the Shoreland Ordinances maximum height limitation is the conflict between the width of the buildings for our use and the structural inferiority of buildings with lower pitched roofs. See, |G. Given these practical difficulties, there was no feasible alternative in the placement of the buildings to the OHWL, or the construction of the buildings heights. Finally, the practical difficulty in complying with either the 200 foot OHWL setback or 20 foot maximum building height limitation is the nature of the wetlands and the body of water to the south of the pre-existing clearing. It was not identified as a lake or by a lake number on the maps when we consulted LRM. #56-0698 is a small lake not regulated by the Shoreland Ordinance. We incorporate by reference 4 the facts, maps, law, and arguments on our appeal to the Board of Adjustments from the 7-15- 2019 letter. Even though that body of water has now been labeled an unnamed lake #56-0698, it’s size is less than 25 acres of public water or protected water. The wetlands and island of land in and around #56-0698 are not public waters or part of the lake. The wetlands and island of land make #56-0698 look bigger than what it actually is. Therefore, our land and #56-0698 are exempt from shoreland regulation by Shoreland Ordinance Article II, Section 63 and Minn. Rule 6120.2500. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. E. In 2014 we bought tax parcel #28000130091001. It is 13.65 acres of land. The Otter Tail County Assessor has it classified as rural vacant residential land. No buildings were on the 13.65 acres when we bought it. In 2016 we began to develop it for our driveway (20lb- 2017), shed (2017), horse bam (2018) and home (2019). The Otter Tail County Shoreland Ordinance permits these uses. When we purchased the property in 2014: it was naturally wooded; it contained hills and steep slopes; it’s elevations ranged from 1350 to 1400 feet; the clearing for our building site was already in existence, and was the most level land for our site; the quarter mile long road from 275^*’Avenue to the building site clearing was already in existence; the road weaved through the woods and in between the slopes; and a row of six planted pine trees on the west end of the building site and close to the neighbor’s property line was already in existence. To the south of the clearing was a wetland and an open body of water. Our intention for building was to make our house and buildings fit into the existing environment as much as possible. We wanted to utilize the existing driveway, the existing building site clearing, the exiting row of planted evergreen trees. The building site clearing is flanked by steep slopes to the north and south of it. Other than the building site clearing and the road, our land is covered with trees We did not want to remove any more trees or conduct any more excavation, grading or filling than necessary for the construction of our yard, parking area, buildings and driveway. We did not want to build into any steep slopes. We wanted to keep the benefits of the natural trees and the row of six planted pine trees as buffers, shade, wind protection, beauty, etc. The shed and bam were placed at opposite edges of the clearing where the ground was more level so the need for fill was limited. The area between the shed and barn is about 6 feet lower, and made a good area for natural water drainage and a horse pasture. We wanted to keep the pasture away from the steep slopes to the north, and away from the wetland and open body of water to the south. If we were to place either or both of our sheds in this open area, it would require about 8,000 yards of fill. Given the topography, the existing road and existing clearing, there was no feasible alternative in the placement of the buildings to the OHWL, or the construction of the building’s heights. F. Whether the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 5 The circumstances unique to the property that cause the plight of the landowner are: The land features that surround the pre-existing clearing that we are using for oura. building site: ■surrounded by steep slopes to the north and south; •50 foot elevation change; ■surrounded by natural trees ■the proximity of the wetlands, island and body of water south of the building site to the trees, steep slopes and the pre-existing clearing. The other two residences and building sites on #56-0698 do not have the steep hills and elevation difficulties that our 13.65 acres have. Nor do they have the tree cover that our 13.65 acres have. b. As applied to our land, the conflict between the Shoreland Ordinance’s goals of preserving steep slopes, preserving trees, and preserving public waters. The 2015 Otter Tail GIS map shows the pre-existing clearing of our building site, and the row of six evergreens on the west side of our property. It also shows the pre-existing road from 275'*’ Avenue that runs a little over a quarter mile east to our building site. (Note: the 1991 FSA aerial map submitted vrith our appeal also shows the pre-exiting clearing and the pre-existing road). This clearing was not only fairly level, but the only level ground on the entire 13.65 acre tract. It was the only practical place to put the buildings. The elevation from the building site north into the woods rises about 20-30 feet. The elevation from the building site south to the water descends about 30 feet. The area north of the building site was covered by trees. The area south of the building site to the wetlands and water was covered by trees. Our plan was to make use of the existing road as our driveway, and make use of the clearing as the building site for our shed, bam and house. We did not want to cut any more trees beyond what was necessary. We did not want to cut any more dirt or steep slopes beyond what was necessary. The only way to have a reasonable use of our property and to enhance and preserve the environment was to place the driveway on the pre-existing road, and to place our buildings in the preexisting clearing. Given the depression of land in the middle of the clearing, the shed and bam had to be placed on the outskirts in order to reduce the amoimt of fill that would otherwise be needed. Given the pre-existing row of 6 pine trees at the west end of the clearing, the tan shed had to be placed between those pines and the natural trees to the south that sloped to the wetland and #56-0698. The best way to preserve the quality of the water was to first preserve the existing pine trees, natural trees, the steep slopes and other dirt. If we had removed them in order to comply with the OHWL setback, then it would increase the chance of runoff and erosion of soil into the wetlands and unnamed lake. Since our application for a variance from the OHWL for our house was not granted at the June 2019, we had to fill in the original footings/basement, and we worked with LRM to find a new location 238 feet from the OHWL, which was a steep slope covered by trees. In addition to 6- loosing trees, now we have to install a $40,000 concrete retaining wall in order to hold back the soil so it does not erode into the wetland and #56-0698. The shape of the shoreline of #56-0698 as shown by the 1991 FSAmap shows a bay that juts toward the clearing where we have placed our buildings. The main body of #56-0698 is further south and west. Most of this bay is wetlands or lands as shown by the National Wetlands Inventory maps attached to our appeal. c. The other two residential building sites on #56-0698 are not located on this bay, or have a similar problem of a bay. This problem is unique to our 13.65 acres. Re-locating the tan shed 200 feet from the OHWL will inhibit the extent to which the property can be used. It will cause the loss of the planted pine trees and their visual barrier for the neighbor. It will cause the loss of the depression in the middle of the yard that is used from drainage and horse pasture. It will be more difficult to access, to drive or back vehicles and trailers into and out of It will not be as convenient. d. Re-locating the tan shed to a location in the clearing that is more than 200 feet from the OHWL will cause the loss of the horse pasture. It will force the horse pasture to be located closer to the wetland and the lake. The steep hills to the north do not have grass, and placing the horses intensely on the steep hills will cause erosion and runoff, not otherwise experienced if the horse pasture remains in the center of the clearing between the tan shed and red bam. Whether the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of theG. locality. The varianee will not alter the essential character of the locality. We are only asking for area variances from the Shoreland Ordinances OHWL setback and height of building limitation. We are not asking for any use variances. We are using the property for residential and agricultural purposes. Those purposes are specifically permitted by the Shoreland Ordinance. The Assessor has our land classified as mral residential. There are two other properties on #56-0698 that have similar types of homes, sheds and bams, and at similar distances to the OHWL and building heights to ours. Our buildings are hidden from sight by the tree cover and steep slopes that we have maintained. H. Economic considerations. The Otter Tail County Assessor has valued the bare land of our property in recent years as follows: 2015 $36,600 2016 $36,600 2017 $36,400 2018 $36,400 2019 $87,500 The Assessor added building value to the assessed value of our property in 2018, after the tan 7 shed was built in 2017. The Assessor added additional value in 2019, after the red bam was built in 2018. We anticipate that the Assessor’s valuation will further increase with the construction of the house in 2019. For the tan shed, if we have to comply with the 200 foot OHWL setback and the 20 foot height of building requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance, it will cause the total loss of the tan shed, as it would have to be tom down. Its parts would not be reusable, other than as scrap. The tan shed is constmcted of wood frame, 4/12 pitch wood rafters, sheet metal siding, and is 50 feet wide, 72 feet long, 53 feet high. This size is needed in order to accommodate my pickup, trailers, tractor, etc.; a 12 foot door is needed to get those items into the shed. In order to have a 12 foot door, you need 14 foot sidewalls in order to accommodate the door and the header for the doorway. In order to accommodate snow load and structural integrity of a 50 foot wide wooden raftered shed, a 4/12 pitch is needed. The size of the garage door, the building height and the pitch of the rafters determines the height of the building as 53 feet. Any lower height makes the tan shed non functional and subject to collapse from snow load, poor design and structural weakness. The tan shed is wired with electricity. It has in-floor heat. It has a poured concrete floor. It is insulated, and heated. The interior walls are sheet rocked. We have $98,000 invested into the tan shed. In order to move the tan shed more than 200 feet from the OHWL and to lower its height to less than 20 feet, we would have to tear down the tan shed and build a new one in a different location. We would loose the entire value of the tan shed. Further, we would incur the cost of $214,424.87 remove it and replace it. See the quote of Andy Pettow Constmction, which is attached as Exhibit 3. In order to lower the height of the red bam to comply with the 20 foot building height limitation, we would lose the value of the red bam, unless we replaced the entire roof. The cost of replacing the roof is $24,000 as stated on the quote of North Trail Buildings. In addition, the replacement roof would be an inferior rafter design with an inferior 2/12 rafter pitch. It would not withstand the 20 year snow events that we experienced in the winters of 1996-97 and 2018-2019 that experienced many shed roof collapse of even the superior 4/12 pitch rafters that the red bam now had. Upon collapse, the red bam becomes worthless. The red bam is worth $54,000, having been constmcted in 2018 at the cost of $48,000. I. Whether the variance will secure for the applicant a right or rights that are enjoyed by other owners in the same area; Yes. There are two other properties on #56-0698 that have similar residences, sheds and barns at similar distances from the OFTWL and building heights. J. Whether existing sewage treatment systems on the property need upgrading before additional development is approved; 8 The existing sewage treatment system is a new system was permitted by LRM, installed on September 4, 2019, inspected and certified as being compliant with the sewer standards. K. Whether granting the variance will be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or to property values in the neighborhood. No. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or be damaging to the right of other or property values in the neighborhood. First, the public interest stated in the Shoreland Ordinance I. 2. is “to preserve and enhance natural resources.” Having the tan shed in its present location preserves trees, preserves steep slopes, preserves the depression and open area between the shed and bam as a natural drainage way, and avoids the alteration of the topography. On the other hand, to move the tan shed from its present location would be contrary to those public interests; would cause the loss of trees, the alteration of steep slopes, the filling of a depression; and would likely cause soil erosion. Second, the buildings are not visible from #56-0698. The buildings are barely visible from the neighbor’s CRP field to the west of us. The row of pine trees north of the tan shed block the vision of the red bam and the house from the neighbor’s CRP field. The buildings of our westerly neighbor are located about a half mile to the northwest; and our buildings are not visible from that point. Our buildings are not visible to the neighbors to the east, north or south, all of which is a quarter to a half mile or more away. There is no public interest or neighbor’s interest that is damaged by our tan shed and red bam being 2-3-4 feet above the 20 foot building height limit. The surrounding land and trees are taller than our buildings. The attached aerial photos of our property were taken by a drone on August 12, 2019: Photo 1 is taken from the center of the water, looking to the northeast. Neither our shed, bam, or house are visible from the middle of the water. (Exhibit 4). Photo 2 is taken closer and southerly of Photo #1. Neither the shed, bam nor house are visible from the water. (Exhibit 5). Photo 3 is taken west of our property (above the Kelly Wells property) showing the west end of the tan shed. From a higher elevation, the red shed is barely visible through the six pine trees. Standing on the ground at this location, the red shed is not visible at all because the six pine trees block its view. This view also shows the slope of the hill from the tan shed to the water. This is the same slope as that south of the house to the water (which is hard to see because that slope is covered by trees). The neighbor to the west (Kelly Wells) mows a walking trail around his CRP field, which mns parallel to the west line of our property. The pine trees provide a barrier of the walker's vision of our yard. Moving the shed to the 200 foot OHWL mark would destroy that tree barrier. (Exhibit 6). Compare Photo 3 with the aerial photo prepared by Land Resource Management that is attached to the variance application. It contains the elevations of the land around our building site. It shows that the house and the tan shed are at the same elevation. The red bam is lower. There is a 50 foot elevation change from the water’s edge (1350 feet 9 elevation) south of the buildings to the hills (1400 feet elevation) north of the buildings. The piles of dirt near the old location for the house and the red shed is the dirt from excavating the footings for the house. The piles of dirt were put there temporarily to get out of the way so that the truck could bring in the pre-constructed 28X52 foot one-piece house from Show Case Homes in Parkers Prairie. These piles were intended to be used as the back fill and sloping on the former house site, but were used to completely fill in the foundation of the former house site due to the denial of the prior variance request. Photo 4 is taken from about 200 feet in the air, showing the tan shed and the red bam. The house is not visible due to our maintenance of the trees. (Exhibit 7). Photo 5 is taken from the northwest above the Kelly Well's property looking to the southeast. The small red shed with the white roof is now gone. The house as now built about 238 feet from the OHWL is barely visible. (Exhibit 8). Photo 6 is taken from the south shore of the water (further south from Photo #2), looking north towards our place. Neither the tan shed, red bam nor the house are visible. (Exhibit 9). Photo 7 is taken from the northeast of the tan shed, looking to the southwest. The water is visible in the background because the photo is taken from about a 50 foot above ground. If the photo was taken from the ground, the water would not be visible due to the trees. (Exhibit 10). Photo 8 is taken of the tan shed taken from about 50 feet above the ground, showing Kelly Well’s walking path alongside the property line. (Exhibit 11) Photo 9 is taken from the north of the tan shed alongside the east side of the six pine trees, looking south. It also shows the slope of the land where the trees are located. (Exhibit 12). Photo 10 is taken from the north of the tan shed alongside the west side of the six pine trees, looking south. (Exhibit 13). Photo 11 is taken of our yard toward the tan shed, showing the levelness of the land where we placed the sheds and the house. To the south, the land’s elevation drops about 30 feet to the water. To the north, the land slopes uphill about 20 feet for the house and tan shed, and about 20-30 feet for the red shed. The elevation drops about 10 feet from the tan shed to the red bam. From the south end to the north end of the six pine trees the elevation drops about 10 feet. If the tan shed has to be moved 65 feet to the north to be out of the 200 foot OHWL, then more fill will have to be brought in to build up and level out the new site. This would also take out the six pine trees. (Exhibit 14). Photo 12 is taken of our yard from about 150 feet above the ground. It depicts the location of the red bam, tan shed and the current house. Between the house and the tan 10 shed is the former location of the house site which was filled back in due to the denied variance request for the former location of the house. (Exhibit 15). I worked with Land Resource Management to find a new location for the house, which is 238 feet from the OHWL. We had to remove several trees to place it there. If we had placed the house on the road (which had pre-existed for decades), then the road (which was straight) would have had to be moved over a longer distance to accommodate a curve around the house either: (a) to the north of the house, which would have required the removal of even more trees and the removal of a lot of dirt from the hillside, and to slope the cut out to prevent erosion; or (b) to the south of the house and haul in a lot of fill to build up the steep slope, and to build a retaining wall to hold back all of the fill to prevent erosion of soil. Placing the house at 238 feet from the OHWL caused LRM to issue a grade and fill permit to build a 10 foot high concrete retaining wall (at a bid estimate of $40,000) to hold back the soil to prevent erosion. At the old location of the house, no retaining wall was needed and no erosion would have occurred. More trees were removed to accommodate the new house site at 238 feet from the OHWL. Lhird, there is no identifiable public interest or private property interest to be protected by the 20 foot height of building limitation as applied to our residential/agricultural buildings in rural Friberg Township. We are surrounded by woods and farmland. Most farms in Friberg Township have buildings several feet taller than ours, such as 60-70 foot tall silos, 40-50 foot tall grain bins, 30+ foot tall hip roofed bams, and steel sheds for cattle or machinery upward to 60 feet wide and 16 foot sidewalls that are 30 feet tall. Fourth, property values have not decreased since the improvement of the road began in 2016 and the constmction of the building starting in 2017. Community support for the variance, or objections to the variance request.L. Yes. Over 150 concerned citizens in Otter Tail County. M. Whether appellant acted in good faith. Our good faith mistake in building our buildings without a variance or permit is shown by: The small lake exemption of the Shoreland Ordinance as set forth in the affidavits, exhibits, law and arguments presented in our appeal to the Board of Adjustments form the July 15, 2019 letter, all of which are incorporated by reference. a. Our attempts to comply with the Shoreland Ordinance by filing a varianee application for our house which was heard by the Board of Adjustments in June and July 2019. Our working with LRM to find a new location for our house, and the withdrawal of the house’s variance application. However, this resulted in the further notice of violation given to us by LRM on July b. 11 15, 2019 concerning the previously built tan shed and red bam; thus, the above appeal. Our investigations and conversations prior to any constmction on our land. In May of 2016, prior to doing any work, Wayne went to the Land Resource Management Office to find out about permits for building. The LRM employee at the counter pulled up our property on the computer screen at the customer counter, showed it to Wayne, and said we did not need any building permits because it is just “water” and it is not classified as a lake. The computer screen showed Fogard Lake and its lake number to the east, Johnson Lake and its lake number to the south, and the word “water” appearing on our land without any lake name or lake number. We relied to our detriment upon this computer map and the LRM employee’s statements interpreting this map. It was reasonable to rely upon that computer map and LRM’s statements because it was the LRM customer service desk that is supposed to answer the public’s questions about lakes, building permits and the Shoreland Ordinance. The detriment we suffered was constmcting buildings on our land with the understanding that the regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance did not apply, and we could put our buildings in the places we thought were the best suited for the land. The harm that we have suffered are the costs and expenses in moving the foundation and basement of the house ($3,000 and $15,415.75); $40,000 to put in a retaining wall for the new house location. If the variance for the tan shed and red bam are not given, we will suffer additional losses of $214,424.87 for the tan shed and $24,000 for the red bam. c. Attempt to comply with the law by obtaining a building permit.N. Our attempt to comply with the law included: Wayne going to LRM in the Spring of 2016 to check on building permits, and being told that no permit was needed because the water was “water” and was not classified as a lake. Wayne’s discussion with Jamie Sazama in the Spring of 2017 about the water being water and not a lake, thus not needing a building permit; and Jamie stating he would verify it. The subcontractor’s problem experienced in applying for a sewer permit on line, checking with LRM, and LRM Inspector Denise Gubmd’s findings and conclusions of the GIS website confusion, the mistake, and good faith attempt to comply. Our immediate contact with LRM to find out the problem, and to address it. Our application for a variance of the OHWL for the house on May 21, 2019. Our work with LRM to fmd a new site for the house. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Our withdrawal of the house variance application for the former location on the advice of LRM, so that LRM could issue a building permit on the new location. Our timely appeal of LRM violation notice of the shed and bam violations after we withdrew the house variance application. Our timely application for a variance on the tan shed’s location and height, and the red (g) (h) (i) barn’s height. Substantial investment in tbe property.O. $98,000 has been invested in the tan shed’s construction and improvement prior to the May 2019 notice that the Shoreland Ordinance applied to our property. $48,000 has been invested in the red barn’s construction and improvement prior to the May 2019 12 notice that the Shoreland Ordinance applied to our property. $3,000 has been invested in filling in the former site of the house that was the subject of our May 21, 2019 variance application, to dig the foundation and basement in a new location. $15,415 was spent to dig a new foundation and basement 238 feet from OHWL, and to re-pour the concrete for the footings and floor. $40,000 will be spent to build a concrete retaining wall to hold back the soil from erosion due to the new location of the house. No retaining wall was needed for the house in its former location. Completion before informed of the impropriety.P. The tan shed was completed prior to being informed of the application of the Shoreland Ordinance to our property on May 21, 2019, or prior to being informed of the tan shed’s impropriety on July 15, 2019. The red bam was completed prior to being informed of the application of the Shoreland Ordinance to our property on May 21, 2019, or prior to being informed of the red barn’s impropriety on July 15, 2019. Nature of the property is residential/recreational and not commercial.Q. The nature of our property is rural residential/agricultural. Our new home is built on it, and we are applying for homestead credit. Other similar structures on the lake.R. In addition to 28000130091001, there are three other tax parcels in Section 13 on the unnamed lake 56069800, all of which have similar buildings; 28000130091000 28000130092000 28000130096000 There is one parcel in Section 14 with frontage on the unnamed lake 56069800, but which has no buildings. S. Minimum benefits to the county far outweighed by the detriment landowner would suffer if forced to remove his structure. The detriment we as the landowners would suffer if we have to remove the tan shed is the cost to tear down the shed, remove the demo., and to build a new shed in a new location outside the 200 foot OHWL , and with lower profile rafters to lower the height of the building within the 20 foot height limitation, and finish the rest of the building the way then tan shed is now built. The total cost is $214,424.87. This design uses a different style rafter of inferior strength compared to the existing tan shed, but will not get the 2"‘* floor storage height. 13 The detriment we as landowners would suffer if we have to lower the red ham’s height 40 inches is $24,000. The rafters are made as a solid unit for a 4/12 pitch. Removing the upper 2 feet of them would destroy the rafters. The only way the bam can be lowered is to tear off the roof, remove the 4/12 pitch rafters, replace them with new 2/12 pitch rafters, and install a new steel roof However, a 2/12 pitch rafter would not withstand normal snow load, and would soon collapse. 4/12 pitch rafters are typically installed in this area due to snow load. Throughout Otter Tail County and Minnesota, many sheds lost due to snow load in the winter of 96 - 97, and also the winter of 2018 - 2019. Heavy snow load appears to happen as a 20 year event. 14 foot sidewalls with a header and 12 foot door are needed for my bam and shed because: We have big horses. We house, train and ride horses in the bam. We need 14 foot sidewalls when riding horses, and in case a horse jumps, rears, bucks so that neither the rider nor the horse become injured by hitting low hanging rafters. We have a horse trailer, with equipment on top of it that we store in the tan shed. 14 foot sidewalls are needed because the door is only 12 feet tall due to the header at the doorways. The height of the horse trailer is 9 1/2 to the top of its roof, and 11 ‘/2 feet to the top of the equipment on top of the trailer (air conditioner, top storage rack, vents). The tan shed measures 50’ x 72’. It was built on the flattest elevated area in the yard, between the natural trees to the south and the planted pine trees to the north. Its west end is about 30 feet from the property line with neighbor Kelly Wells. We did not remove any trees in building the tan shed. All the more we had to do was level the pad in order to accept the poured concrete. If we move the tan shed 65 feet north so that it is on the 200 foot ordinary high water level setback, 65 feet of pine trees would have to be removed for the tan shed’s re-location and surrounding area to service/maintain the shed and avoid tree damage to the shed from wind or storm. We will also have to haul in additional fill approximately 8,000 cubic yards of fill to level out the re­ location site to accommodate a new tan shed, and to mitigate the erosion caused by the runoff from the roof There is a 6 foot elevation change from the 200 foot OHWL and 250 feet. The elevation decreases more than that as you go further north or northwest. Removing the six pine trees north of the tan shed would expose our yard to the adjoining neighbor. The purpose of the six pine trees, which were planted prior to our purchase of the property, is to provide a visual block of our yard for the neighbor. T. Exhibits. Attached are true and correct copies of the following exhibits: Exhibit 1 May 7, 2019 memo from Denise Gubrud, Inspector Exhibit 2 Board of Adjustment Findings of Fact and Decision Exhibit 3 September 4, 2019 Andy Pettow Construction Estimate Exhibit 4 Photo 1 14 Exhibit 5 Photo 2 Exhibit 6 Photo 3 Exhibit 7 Photo 4 Exhibit 8 Photo 5 Exhibit 9 Photo 6 Exhibit 10 Photo 7 Exhibit 11 Photo 8 Exhibit 12 Photo 9 Exhibit 13 Photo 10 Exhibit 14 Photo 11 Exhibit 15 Photo 12 Further you afSant sayeth not. Datef^ -'1^^ 1^ ,ricj Date:ADenise Erickson STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /^^lay of September 2019 by Wa^e Erickson. - /\ KARLIE R. HOEKSTRA NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA Commission Expires Jan, 31, 2021 SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii (Stamp) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j 6'^ay of September 2019 by Denise Erickson. 15 ±SIGNATURE OF PERSON TABGNG ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Stamp) karlie r. hoekstra NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA ^My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2021 \ 16 5-7-2019 RE: Parcel #28000130091001 - 31799 275‘'^ Ave Eric Ruther, contractor called. He stated he has taken over a home building project for this parcel. The earthmoving contractor committed suicide last week so Eric got into this project without much knowledge. One of his first actions was to ask if permits were pulled for the work. The building contractor told him that the owner said no permits were needed as he was not near a lake. Eric researched the property, and called because he determined it might be a lake. The confusion may have started with our mapping system, but that is not known for sure because the initial contractor is deceased. The Otter Tail County GIS maps show the following: When first searched, shows the body of water in question as "WATER". BUT, surrounding bodies of waters are identified with Lake Numbers. This one is not. (Map #1 & #2) When the "Wetlands and Wildlife" layer is checked, then a lake number shows on the body of water as a lake (56-698 Map #3) The basement has been dug and the footings have been poured according to Eric. He stated that he does not think it meets the 200 foot setback. He is going to check. Eric is trying to fix a problem that was made by someone else. Whether the mistake was made by the previous contractor or the home owner, I do think that Eric is working on this in good faith. He understands that the owner may need to try to get a variance prior to any further work being done. Per conversation with Kyle Westergard, an After-the-Fact fee will not be charged because of the unusual circumstances with the initial contractor, and possible misunderstanding of the mapping data. Respectfully Submitted, Denise Gubrud Inspector ^ : 11M ni^ 1 otter Tail County Web Map http://WWW. CO. otter-tail.mn. us otter Tail County Web Map http://www.co.otter-tail.mn.us otter Tail County Web Map http://WWW. CO. otter-tail.mn. us Chris LeClair DirectorOTTER TAIL COUNTY LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION VWWV.CO.OTTER-TAIL.MN.US Kyle Westergard Asst. DirectorOTTfR Tflil«o«*TT-at«it»eri GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR AVENUE FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 218-998-8095 FAX: 218-998-8112 Board of Adjustment Findings of Fact and Decision Address/Parcel No. 31799 275'^ Ave/28000130091001Applicant: Wayne Erickson Requested Variance: A 50 foot variance is requested from 200 feet to 150 feet from the water. Due to the steep hills and wooded landscape this is the only suitable place for the home.______ Otter Tail County Ordinance: X Shoreland Mgmt. Sanitation. Subdivision. WECS Dock & Riparian Use Setback Ord. Ordinance Section Citation: III. 4. A._______________________________________________________ A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county land use controls will result in a "practical difficulty". A determination that a practical difficulty exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria: The applicant identified the follo\wing practical difficulty: The Otter Tail County Mapping System did not indicate that this property was along a classified body of water. The map read "water". Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment - Variance Question Findings 1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the officiai control? (The board shall consider the purposes and intent of the official control). Yes, the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... X No, the variance is NOT in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... ...because: There is enough space onsite to located the dwelling in a legal location as they could go up to the road, which is a driveway and not a road right-of-way and the structure was placed to close to the lake and they did not go through the proper process to get a permit. 2. is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? (The board shall consider what reasonable use of the property is lost (practical difficulties) by the strict enforcement of the official control). X Yes, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... No, the property owner is NOT proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... ...because: The structure is going to be a dwelling, there is currently a pole shed onsite and the property is very well maintained. 3. Is the need for a variance due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? (The board shall consider what circumstances are unique to the property, such as lot size, lot configuration, wetland, steep slope, shore impact zone, bluff, floodplain, floodway, etc. One or more should be stated on the record. What differentiates this parcel from others? Does this lot have a feature that does not affect all parcels similarly?) Yes, the need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.... X No, the need for the variance is NOT due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner... ...because: The uniqueness is now because they started the project without obtaining the proper permits and there is a structure constructed already. The need for a variance was created by the landowner.^EXHIBITi Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? (The board shall consider and state for the record why the request does or does not maintain the character of the area. Is this request similar to what others have, what are nearshore conditions of neighbors, similar sized or number of structures adjacent or in area, etc.) X Yes, the issuance of the variance wili maintain the essential character of the locality.... No, the issuance of the variance will NOT maintain the essential character of the locality... ...because: 4. It is not going to change the character of the property by placing a dwelling onsite. Does the need for the variance involve more than just economic considerations? (The board shall consider if economics played a role in the request. The fact that coming into compliance with the ordinance requirements may cost considerably more does not constitute a practical difficulty). Yes, the need for the variance involves more than just economic considerations.... X No, the issuance of the variance is only for economic considerations... ...because: 5. The property owner wouldn't have needed a variance if he would have contacted the Land & Resource Management Office to get the proper permits to have the structure placed in a legal location which there is room to meet setbacks on this piece of property. the requested variance.The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment: APPROVES DENIES X Complete and attach After-the-Fact Addendum if this is an After-The-Fact variance request. DATED: June 13. 2019 Board of Adjustment Chair The Board of Adjustment may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Mitigating impervious surface with storm water management, deep rooted vegetative buffers, rain gardens, etc.) It is the Board of Adjustment's job to apply appropriate legal standards to a specific fact situation. Variances are meant to be an infrequent remedy where an ordinance imposes a unique and substantial burden. 218.346.2679 ^-Peitlnanu Estimate Estimate #Date 9/4/2019 1985 Perham, Mn 56573 Project Name / Address Phone # (218)346-2679 Fax# 218-346-3698 Wayne 4 Denise Erickson 31799 275th Ave Erhord, MN 56534 pettowconstruction@arvig.net TotalDescription Proposal for 50' wide x 72' long with 12'-9" sidewalls Lester post framed building with floor heat and insulated with metal liner interior includes'. Building demo of existing 50' x 72' structure 1,500 gallon sewage holding tank included Digging and backfilling for water line (350ft) Bid includes $8,000.00 allowance for imported and compacted fill for building pod Finger jointed laminated columns with 50yr warranty through Lester Building Systems with column spacing at 10' o.c. 36" X 8" cast-in place footings at truss bearing columns, 24" x 8“ poured footings at gable end locations 50' roof trusses, 2 ply, 2x12 top and 2x10 bottom chords, engineered for 601b snow load with 51b sf bottom chord load for insulation and ceiling loads, 3/12 roof pitch, truss spacing 10' o.c. with .5/12 interior vault for 12' overhead door 2x6 roof purlins on hangers between trusses with spacing as shown on attached drawings, 28" and 20" 2' overhangs at eaves and gables with soffit and fascia One 5100 series commercial walk door with 22" x 36" window, with latch and deadbolt Six 4' X 4' vinyl slider windows with insulated glass Two 12' X 12' Haas 2000 series insulated R-18 overhead garage door with windows, 2" thick with metal interior backer, with operators and remotes- note: low head room kits required 28 gauge prefinished metal wall panel with 80,000psi tensile strength, 50yr warranty on fade and peeling through Lester Building Systems 2x6 bookshelf framing between columns, building wrap provided at exterior of structure Vented ridge cap, rain gutters with downspouts, snow guards required 2" rigid foam provided below slab for hydronic floor heat 90,000 BTU 957o efficient L.P. gas boiler with pex piping, manifold, thermostat, antifreeze, 2 zone heating system for in-floor heating 5" reinforced concrete slab with 2 trench 3' long drains, daylighted to exterior of building 3" rigid spray foam at walls (R-21), R-50 blown-in insulation attic (fiberglass) Wall froming for one 25' x 30' room with 8' ceiling height, 16" floor trusses for mezzanine storage area, 3/4" plywood floor glued and nailed Provide (2) tier rack storage area with post and beam support 10' out and 50' long along one side of structure Two 36" prefinished oak hollow core doors with latches at room areas One stairway to upper level storage area mezzanine included 29 gauge white liner steel on entire interior of building including two rooms Electrical included in proposal includes the following- One 100 amp panel, 250' of underground trenching (no PVC conduit for wire), five single pole switches, sixteen outlets, four fiFI outlets, boiler wiring, one outside wall pack, nineteen hanging LED light fixtures, two outside outlets Plumbing and fixtures for restroom located within shop area TOTAL FOR 50' X 72' LESTER BUILDINS 214,424.87 Thank you for the opportunity to work with you. Please feel free to call with any questions. Web Site pettowconstruction.com Signature Date Signature Date 3This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted by you within 15 days. Any excess materials are the property of Pettow Construction, Inc. Page 1 Estimate Estimate #Dote 218.346.2679 ^^Ve/iham, i_A4.n 9/4/2019 1985 Perham, Mn 56573 Project Name / Address Phone# (218)346-2679 Fax # 218-346-3698 pettowconstruction@arvig.net Wayne A Denise Erickson 31799 275th Ave Erhard, MN 56534 TotalDescription Proposal is based on letter from land and resource management dated July 15, 2019. In our opinion the only way to comply is to demo existing structure and reconstruct new building (see attached drawings) Options: Add $2,800.00 for 4' of 2" foam at entire perimeter of building Add $5.50/sf for exterior concrete apron, 4" thick with 2' o.c. rebar grid Not included: Building permit fees or application Builders risk insurance Power used during construction Landscaping and lawn seeding Filling in ruts from equipment used during construction Utilities- gas line to building Apron Storage and removal of personal belongings located in existing structure Thank you for the opportunity to work with you. Please feel free to call with any questions.$214,424.87 Web Site pettowconstruction.com Signature Date Signature Date This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted by you within 15 days. Any excess materials are the property of Pettow Construction, Inc. Page 2 ;• A : ^ 3 -T- 'Ea 12 <? sB wmn11111TTTII I I I I I I I I I I r II I I III r M I I I I ITT V I I I I I I FT I I I I I I I © sup 11D T aT (!)0 m 0 (g>ENDWALL 1 ELEVATION (g>SIDEWALL 1 ELEVATION 12 ©© I I I M I I M II I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I TT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I M©> Jfi]ll§U T 0 0 0 0 0 0 (§>ENDWALL 2 ELEVATION (§>SIDEWALL 2 ELEVATION A ABUILDING COLORS FINISH SCHEDULE Q OPENING SCHEDULE □ATTENTION ROOF METAL SIDEWALL - ENDWALL — GABLES ----- BASE --------- CORNER -----EAVE/FASCIA GADLEmAKE SOFFIT ----- WAINSCOT - ACCENT PANEL--------------- GABLE LOUVER---------------INSUL WL BATTEN----------- RIDGE CAP RIDGE VENT CUPOLA ROOF-----------------CUPOLABODY----------------- CUPOLA BASE----------------- GUTTER -----DOWNSPOUT PORCH ROOF PORCH COL CVR-------------PORCH CRWN/VBLK--------- PORCH SOFT/CLG------------ CLEAR OPNGTR--------------CURTAIN OPNG TR----------- BONE WHITE BONE WHITE BONE WHITE SLDG DR PANEL SLDG DR VERTS SLDG OR JAMB TR----------- SLDG DR TRACK-------------- OVHD DR PANEL--------------OVHD DR TRIM ------------- ANTIQUE BROWN WALK DR WALK DR TRIM ------------ ANTIQUE BROWNWINDOW WINDOW TRIM -------------- MAYFIELD WHITE SHUTTERS ---------------------- OR FIELD-------------------DR TRIMSIGDRJAMBTR-------------- SIG DR WINDOW-------------- DR TRACK-----------------GE DOOR------------------- LARGE DOOR TRIM ------- -- DUTCH DR FRAME------------ DUTCH DR INSERT-----------SHINGLES MANSARD MANSARD EAVE MANSARD SOF MODERRA —BOX STALL GRILLS ------ - ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION ELE DETAILS ID MODEL NOMINALFINI FINI SH VATIONS ARE NOT FOR PANEL LAYOUT A1 OVERHEAD DOOR OPENING - CUSTOM 1«14x144 BLDG HAS SNOW RETENTION TRIM - SEE DETAILS BEFORE TALLING ANY R SH SEE PANELGEN REPORTING FOR ACTUAL LAYOUT WLK DOOR 5100 22X3S LITE B1 36x80 LS I :00RAKE TRIM M20 RAKE AND CORNER JF330 Cl WINDOW VINYL SUPER THERMAL PANE 4Bx48 INS F FINISH_B_ RAKE TRIM «672 FASCIA WITH STIFFENER JF153 BONE WHITE C2 WINDOW VINYL SLIDER THEiSM:rm ALPANE 4Bx48SOFF SPLICE 1/142 FJS 3/BTHR SOFFIT MF724 01 WINDOW VINYL SLIDER THE ALPANE 48x48lESlESVAR <1230 2-TRIM _D_WALL MF34QVAR AJ WHITE BASETRIM moo BOTTOM CLOSURE.NER MF113 BONE WHITE WHITE SAND PEWTER GRAY _F. CORNER TRIM #820 RAKE AND COR MF511 MAYFIELD WHITE RIDGE TRIM RIDGEVENT OA016 RIDGE TRIM #152 SOLID RIDGECAP SNO'JF705 1 SNOW RETENTION TRIM W RETENTION TRIM OA181 OVHDOR DR TRIM H&90 SIDE JAMB C TRIM LK424TRIM #260 J TRIM OVHD LK424 BONE WHITE WHITE SAND WALK PR TRIM #890 SIDE JAMB C TRIM KC471PR TRIM TRIM #260 J TRIM _M,WALK KC471SIG LAR J1 EAVE EAVE #830 LESTER #670 FASCIA GUTTER JF1B6 TRIM OW_0. 4 1/2’ LEG JF153TRIM_P,WIND QWIK FIT TRIM 'KB4S1 WHITE SAND WHITE SAND WINDOW TRIM #255 J TRIM KB451 J.R1.R2 FINISH: UNI-RIB 28GA-AZSO SMP -AZ JF044 E1.E2, S1.S2 FINISH: UNI-RIB 2BGA SO SMP MF044ROOF--------------T EI.E2,SI-SI,S2 WAINSCOT: UNI-RIB 28GA-AZ50 SMP MF044S2JJ_E1.E2. HOUSE WRAPFIT------------ Customer Approval Bldg DirectionDEALER INFO.CUSTOMER INFO.BUILDING DESCRIPTION PROJ: R40A-15113-00-00 PROPOSAL DRAWINGS ONLYCSmsterBUILDINGS Andy Pettow Construction Po Box 268 Perham, MN 56573 Wayne & Denise Erickson 31799 275th Ave Erhard, MN 56534 50'-0" X 72’-r X 12'-9” Uni-Frame Embedded QP081519 Not Intended for Construction Purposes The Information enled In this drawing Is based on a vided, The final . ring review. pres preliminary design using ign Is subject to L the Input ester Eng (Initials)provincedes DATE: • MOTTO SCALE *(Mark North) <0> 7T^^ : OUT TO O^T OP BUtLOWG I COLUMNS 11Cr^3/4- 10-0 • 1g-0‘ <'■6 1/4'4M1 1/2*2-6 1/4- 1g-0* lff-0 3/4-I BLDC COL DIM I<:I <;<;‘: sI s8-Ia I !!!!»!! !!!!5iz!! ?o'-a 1/4*51'-11 1/4-PARTlfriON DIM I skg i 3 <8>s g <$>■eI• x! Tl 1:ni .X.X. g -i i sk k k ! !!!k ! !!!!!I 5 !!!!zi!!!iI < :10 -0 •J ly-s 1/4~C: 4‘.11 I/?*1ff-0 3/4' lg-0'1g-0*10'-0* 4--6 1M*1g-0 3>4-BLDG COL DIM (g>FLOOR PLAN Customer Approval Bldg DirectionCUSTOMER INFO.DEALER INFO.BUILDING DESCRIPTION PROJ: R40A-15113-00-00 PROPOSAL DRAWINGS ONLYAndy Pettow Construction Po Box 268 Perham, MN 56573 Wayne & Denise Erickson 31799 275th Ave Erhard, MN 56534 50'-0" X 72'-r X 12'-9'' Uni-Frame Embedded QP081519 Not Intended for Consinjction Purposes The Information presented In this drawing Is based on a preliminary design using the Inpul provided. The final design is subject to Lester Engineering review. ' NOT TO SCALE * (tniUats) DATE:(Mark North) AAATTENTION eioo HAS SNOW RETENTION TRIM - SEE DETAILS BEFORE AWr 1 ill:mSTALUNG ROOF FVnSH <8>7»1 <8>OH] 0 [H ®Til 0Q iy-11 7/g* PEAK Til12 I j2l A4 • ENDWALL E1 SCHEDULE □ Q15I©©181 »!NCHOH:8 J»1 i asgfgig'©’ STER N0 2 2 LESTERP HB100. HBI61“ISS1*1 2X6/2X2 Li 2X6SPFN REMIUM iigEJSlPARC RM B CLQPE J_ SPLASH PLANK ^ LINER SILL LINER TOP BLKO U. WALLOIRT M WAINSCOT TRANSITION 2XBSYPN0.2TRD0.14 MCA-C 2X« SYP NO,2 TRD ,2S BORATE 2X4 LESTER NO,2 N~^006. NEOOOIF066\ mi®±4 FFJM©sQiy-BT/a- GAVEH IKSA©©HU]i® ly-B* BFIQ PI FINISH SIS NF500®wBRO ©©□0 i4B-a/B* ISP UNFRIB 29GA-G90 SMP BB20 RAKEAND CORNER T FINISH0® ^12 NF003 i WITH STIFFENER MF34QMF113116-1/4'1ie-1/4* I B4 - SIDEWALL S1 SCHEDULE □ QkII s®I 10B©©3 EF2H 5^ “<s>e•BCM/4'BO-1/4* e I 2X6ffX2 LESTER PREU 2X6 LESTER PREMKJM2X6SPFN0.2________ AK: A 76, 2ft 74:1 A 76.26 2X6DEV QFL _____2X4 LESTER N0.2____________2X6 SYP N0.2 THD 014 MCA-C 2X4 SYP N0.2 TRD .25 BORATE +HO BRACE IDE FROM PEsPS i s s IS N0.2 isNED06. NEB06 FF4I3□3H.LNAN.I•44-1/4' AVE NAILER INEft TOP BL ioff IT HAILE is©i littH0- ..........MLER_________VALLOlRT ___________ l/AINSCOT TRANSITION :? FINISH ERND.2 ER N0.2 B•33-IM*■33-1/4*B 1 X6 lIstIriNQ2 wa 2BGA-A250SMP VENTED SOFFIT FF464 JF044 ® “ •21-3/4-21-3M*©Sfil Q® s ® I UNFRIfl 2BGA- HOUSEWRAP©□0 u E UNI-Ra2BGA-AZSBSV UNIfRIB26GA-A250 sn LlNURa T8GA43B0 SMP ff-O* FLOOR O’-O' FLOOR8 OT FINISH8 Sf AVE TRIM ‘ INEH TRIM llfiiliiflSIMifIIbiiI •tr-4' GRAPE rllifAl:fl| a r 4T-4' CRADE RIOCeii 0A016JFI66IERQI »670 FASCIA 4 I B2S0JTRIM «260 JTRIM »142 FJS 3/6THR SOFFIT /T*LEC mNF49BMF724AASSfcai glWBTM CLOSURE SNOW RETENT ION trim' NF030 0A1613I€lENTlONTRi^ ^ 5'-4' CLMBRG ®-6'.g* CLMHOLE q-5'-4* CLMBRG ®-6'4>* CLMHOLE behsj 0uZZIZIi ENDWALL E1 SECTION(M>(g>SIDEWALL SI SECTION 24'-4“ FROM S2 43'-0" FROM El .Customer Approval Bldg DirectionDEALER INFO.CUSTOMER INFO.BUILDING DESCRIPTION PROJ: R40A-15113-00-00 PROPOSAL DRAWINGS ONLYAndy Pettow Construction Po Box 268 Perham, MN 56573 Wayne & Denise Erickson 31799 275th Ave Erhard, MN 56534 50'-0" X 72'-1" X 12'-9" Uni-Frame Embedded QP081519 Not Intended for ConsiTuction Purposes The Information presented In this drawing Is based on a preliminary design using the input provided. The final design Is subject to Lester Engineering review. •NOT TO SCALE* (Initials) DATE: (Mark North) From: "Bill Hoitti" <bill@pettowconstruction.com> Date: September 4, 2019 at 2:42:53 PM CDT To: <wavne.erickson@snapon.com> Subject:FW: Estimate 1985 from Andy Pettow Construction Wayne, Please find attached is our proposal for your new Lester Building (50’x72’ shop area). After review of the letter from Land and Resource Management dated 7/15/2019 we feel the best option would be to demo the existing structure and start over. In regards to the dated for excavation and footing I have the following; Original Site:Digging 05/01/2019 Footings 05/06/2019 Digging 07/02/2019 Footing 07/08/2019New Site: Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our proposal. Thank You! Kind regards! Bill Hoitti imageOOl.png 12.1kB □ATT00001.htm 2.5kB 0 Est_1985_from_Andy_Pettow_Construction_17804.pdf 101.7kB □ATT00002.htm 216B □3DEV_Erickson_R40A-15113-OO-OO.dwg 148.9kB D ATT00003.htm 216B 0 72' elevation.pdf 353.IkB □ATT00004.htm 216B 0 72' floor plan.pdf 243,5kB □ATT00005.htm 216B 0 72' section.pdf 621.7kB □ATT00006.htm 168B EXHIBIT•f: Si ■ k ■... :^r*ili.K- ■ 'i, ',;«:i jf'. n P-■'■f 2aLiy i’^l^i?■f-^'!■'=-Si lma£? ' ' 5:W ■•-ti ,ii-ei. Jr* .i t ?>■*E5’ ''-i?i ■■BvP:r‘^PTrjII -«!iPi M 1r*^".iA Ivj ^r~w M : mP-“3 i. rS'wer^’J-A'A-..,-'■ .»->r’-w -^-f99-» ‘'?#l ■ *. 3•‘V s«. -« ,^v,v • yt •«- , ._'s££' .■•- ...-V.,:“^ - i "5 EXHIBIT ^ 5 EXHIBIT 6 ■imki ‘ I.3 '.'-i.' -v.-i: .EXHIBIT ,-•;I HV;?r ?■,*-'*'7^ra^Ssfr-'s^^sfcf .-•j. A ' 9Isi *- ‘ •. V *1 V v%iI<f t - «^?I ■ =* A \i ':"i -3T r-=- " ‘f ■ JK.'- . ~ afe,:<il i vfik:I >y<*5»flsaR|taS£SS3rr« 1# •»■jJ ” , .Ml K ••'■"■■ ■* 4- i i4 ki III EXHIBIT EXHIBIT JV ■ii a r“«i I.- I'.ai'!ii T ■1^-f m p' nL 5,liiKJailiSfSv --1 »?'S ‘f #>“1^ -1^' >«» /rm T L,r—r ‘.f, »:*'g “i !0m■*s»#is '-0: \<t [■-. ■' •i** P PRsf.'*!" F li 5 y-^- ''i' ■ *1]*•^5^ my ^F I'M EXHIBIT .. V t-V I 1 w K «|i r SOIIJ i*il ■1 t?«y f **■.1 . jtfer'pftr:*.V .-yBj 5 # B*. •#li * j -*i -^-r BS.ti^^siiHI fy fi We.-- ■- --»*■■’”* ■ it -<ii. ' ■ W „ jTHf ■-.'.< 'T' is 1^ ■:* • --^>' .-^wwsB»4h» .,' ±!- 5,«-'-i «-j -•*— •;^--» ■ »si. ^;.«l *- '^<2r3fc»? r’ '•?.- ••■'~ 4fe.ii »?7^' W.V iife».5«B‘ K « E „ •,i'. .i^iaiitt^ic^' -; •4^jj^w*f-Li-' «t" -- r>m 2LJtes.EXHIBIT-»rv ;.• ■-."mm-si•i -?v -r i>#«d•:;* •„r-*%•‘tSi,S'-t->.s,a^S» i. 1^^ 3L ■* ^*r' ■'"■■; 'r^nsjsf •■ fi -'IMJE^.. ■lilt- i., i •!*SF>!».•-.:■!•■ • •-•>., a*-~ : :-l:'i^'""aiiSBk-ff" » • ■*p ' • ■:ii'-'-S il 1f ■\ ■■€ ■ii'-9imk:..ms<m.j‘‘^j^g ...[■Mif'''Z^W ■ '* ■% *- •'.c 4^’■e :"i Petitioei to grant a variance waver for Wayne and Denise Erickson's outbuildings. Wayne and Denise built a shop June of 2017, and a barn November 2018, at 31799 275“^ Avenue, Erhard MN 56534. On 5/7/19, Wayne Erickson was informed by the county that the shop was less than the required 200 feet from the water. On June 2019, the Erickson's were informed by the county, the shop was 3 feet too tall and the barn was 2 feet too tall. Petition summary and background Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who own property in the area and who urge our leaders to act now to grant the Erickson's a variance waiver on the two buildings and patio that is in the shore impact zone. Printed Name AddressSignature Date 52-M7-5 'hlAy^ l.noihiPvvg fevhgjrM _______ MaJ 5Z5/3 ZlO^ /?/c B'hai/d, Mfj 370 Mi) f-/9~/9 - 1- 37$gf ZtO' /U> -^L). rfuJ 7A 6^ 9_10 Aw V , MjO 5o>5 3'^ Co, fix’ll J^3-fjihcruS,MJSb‘y?^J\dA'\AO\ O^coh Jign?en E*-*' cc^ Qgyw<;gn r r\|<sf&l Ut)fK-h li-\^] - \q i rhpk\ Had\SQ\r> \Aoe^^S\\6\ k s,Ly^n_ py^sho. ijd-fp (2lciJu li Printed Name Signature Address Date _Co.- tt> HiOi MA a 'V^o^\gV'^ Jti\ KiA<:\y^ (JlAxjl.Etr hpLi^cj. H{VkJ3A. ^ynj/^ tno^<p< Zs>(^5 /rAc^J A^3'^3a")8-zo-n,^v7-C. 3 Ajf. p.AkijrS^ f/y/f 11 JAXy 7.(JTn?, r>^ /-A<yy Z^-. fi.KhAyA' 5i£i^ m'7‘^y ety 7/t-y V3 Ar/z<j..!i 2Anz^ Dg>\/ id: >5^(dat)^l ^Uoh r — Co^ ?t\crJ<p‘^^/2&H\Ua s ^0 lAocfJ A)a0^^ ^1 .SzZdrf^L f-/f Z<777^^ Cl^ ^/3 Fa /f^'/c^ /g U Vt£j|^juiLJUo ^^(tP^b pd (JH,(L^^t>oOO(lflf\^ 3li^J^ .2 7i~^MA /^rUrJjAt/l/ru^ ^t~£lCe^ £o LA M Dt^obSi^ Y\r^ }^ 7 *3'^ ‘ v«=v O.'v-’ /^A> U nA> Qf^usccik />>-iA-kul-i Printed Name Signature Address Date Co.H i’Tifv] S^V,^'"5"7U-’t. / ^9/Cv-^ dV>. Hicrriy^r^'i i ci‘>'Ti^Xr^ic- /U/u /f o A ^ l~i OL O y Kflj YkXA.3 Ob'"^ dQt^'3 4i; M%']']7u.n 17 T S c C 0 H I fc J.ludi /IT) - S 6, s -i>' to"i P:,,^ Lf h^/A^, y/^ S"#7^y-£j:.-.<^ .4lfiu,:iy isj--,^ I -l‘ <-Vv nfd5i-2$t f\\^f Ar\ 5657; ^^-;4 Hoj'h 'dS A W %yj^ y>7/W ‘olJi'5^'^ ( S 7 fT- (7 Mi-I'iycyp^ {y,v: j uux y< £ri:, c. j2^j /? fLh]£RUMj ££9^Pyr^ tV\ (Xf^ T ?>0i^4W 'fY\ 7c/.k fe|3r lyy^yT ^ /s?^'1 /^/>7^ ISn^T (3S-'^^yU -fiw.u.fatG 7 5j;!/li( , /fl-Lfai.VI /^4, Ft'f^S hil- III I'l y^z/if 716 U)(is-\r '74 h AW \ \/ ^^3- A i Gcrl/' A \J<-~ ^</c| gj ^z/ Iaj ■ cy\,<yujo-iyi4y!y<L^^ yy<y n^i co'. (^*^y /^/k r^5^r7 /'/l.yS ^'^'’ -744:7c' A >clj fz.b Phy^i&l ^'^oUq \9 /X 47"V f'Yy)y ds ?- -r4i;.,->'p •I/ z SignaturePrinted Name Address Date ^ /$ n Ftr..3 J^///Y^ ^ r (( j t^-x (/[/ ' / / ^ yi'^7 3/S/~A Hjrrl ^ >1/ ^ mk'.-^SPS WH'T'T^iir /] U't f /%vc/-;^ f>rr Q,HocL \-\ji>er)^ ilA^ S-2./-/9 \\allU^-U(^Vf:^'N |4\g|;jJ|i^\\t)Jk^(i?l’3. 5prui’X^,i9', tf^i^.S fall,5 tiVlKi'5ii?SS ~7 ‘f^f7 iaty,r n<^le.Pr, 0§Cf4«!l I^aJ <yC,5T( ,9cy es—^i^Sl-. B-^- ^^ 54573a'\reh\lx^ji i^|7(^Ji,MlISlSi')t^evi Cok /72«^f-?e -/^ ?-2&fWo(4> F;-, ^2331 -?/' •/ < c 1yk‘."7"3-^^ f ^11^6 ^'•IvLyi/7/'~f~kffor^f\'V IT--17 SToi75' ^OQ-o^'1.t/-/' n Cr^ \k^^7_ i /ry< bcj H^(d29 ke2C^I(ii (a«{d- M/?. ^jy/ 9yy-yf izs^^s-f g^srf_______ V ■^veji \yj> t/'e/\3\Sl5S1/m-//iC'ri^.- h f~Jl^ i:}-r^-'i.,r:r,'—>»~“*>>,^/'V ^r? P./L*.?'S(p-/9 r-2<,'!‘i<^/g>? SLcAy ,, yt. AddressPrinted Name Signature Date 'S-SL-iSV'C 57 1 Hcnn-'iCj ‘5c.S'r:< 1o’hc.-’.M HaV'icrc-^' C4e/l^c h> V /' +■ / '"C- •it'yAt-; I - /I -/9 ■ -------------- C!■ _____P7^3. ...81) D'‘.>/»;y>^ _______ C^S6stc:^ __^H2'Z9 AJ^ /^///$J&^7 P-2^V^ 1 4<^ 3 ^ckvAv>vtvt^k-Vin fcL 2-^d>~P-CVV'3-__5~acofe^ 7^4^ 'i^C' >• /4)) ^*>Wy^(?V\ y/AU/q s/^//t l/PiJfu Lo 19^c^^.'^rv^i jd2Z^^.t':_JiS^ 4^/ /C2/A<^<rftJ________ 61 r' 'y ^/P^ 4 T ^.//^ /t6' .g^;44/ ..... 2t^-^2'~f Cv fju/y 3s i/'?\3c y A/I /36yy 3l i^YS~S3y/ |^/-iv£i4 <^6-^ /?r_ ,/‘^3^jy/i3>yO 3A-y '~A---------- 6xa'rlo.n\oij^T_^ A^Hey) ^ tcJr9>'l(o S -7^.79 i'A'^-rfMJ /hhV Signature AddressPrinted Name Date '2.$4X7 iy^^3 //^M/(//A JZafkuy^^ ^ f_ X^c3_/j-^ ^'y __ ’^CfffC ^'Z7/fM/r^ t r<^ /y<f/^- Mcdiyi^f / IjuJ^;^ T^iU JAtL^ltlih^ A f/. --J &7Zri?:Yt/fVt 7 ^5 ff^'i ^ /?///? •^‘^ SCS'Zy 9 2. f *^r/f t'XfC-fl }xyQ1^/\ £>fiyjj^^Mo) _i:^ 5 Ca.^ __ '2.09a 9T «.p SrM f. rvAl.V-' i ih, f^V ^6-^PW? ^^JpJ:i4iyz^M__^/f ^OTN- Aop injyy ^36 ^/ ?X!--/9 •S-78-i9 'rri^^Wm, 6 XJ. %-2%-]^ /^z\UXJ±^- M1 z (^ m/t^. sf 1^ 2 Pc^ I i cAn R6\p> , Ma)i/<- /-^ kt,6^ /^y.^«j ? -j?^ -ft 7 t-:^fi^'tr . i ^.1...y / Printed Name AddressSignature Date Wf< U5 ^ 0^ Up : h kkc. <; 2i3‘^/ 7/^^, ^ 73 ^ -<£/- /^ g J^4l4Z CouUy fLy 3B‘y .vre //-l/ S'^-l'i .J\v-Q S^^V? ygr7Y cri^o‘^/ i faJu^ ^ -^^-/p ,'2 S'--? 9 /? %M-t\ S-?2' t£>/U >11 DqVU-S____^ mcft. /^arJ^ ■' mi 3ei9"e (, c.-JJ- izYl.JUI Ueroy^kfiiaiJ ^^\hn<^uccl^\ ^P^'i^fs P/a^h~c^ ><g.f 1?mpPo-Yi'iY• omJil3X (jxmpbn.il Si: PrQint,.t^S(i3>y S'-^9-/^i /Pix Homi . ■ _, -------------------------— -fQy/f -cr^-m 9^,rrv./'yt/'U■^'S Cl^3 i t3 /^ii.C-Xy'y~ij-/J A*-e___PYyk^'s P t>aiv A g ->7 IH (^^< k^i':^ Tc^l '. r\ </Cg.-) 5*,V''<f\ yvXvv^ A/-^ (2^-^ fia^Vv^ . t'OAn Slps^g,■MlO Uopf^/Vl VlAiA L,__-V^_ Printed Name Signature Address Date ^f~T£. A^r<) 3 Jo Ce^ ^ ______________ _ 'f/ ^c-r }'70 iz /lA-^s^,^-^ SM“ ¥W/1 2^^ 2^i> <4v<r 1^ JjdcJ7c ^y( Wc^' 0^rr>j :S^J fy~ ^roj&e P>5^ce~ -Tlc^c) ^i\\,f fvjVcV Br(<xvv ^{pst/\hp Alfl/1^ _ :\ gr7.^53 5f. /vy^' 6c;>b^' "^nr 'g,^B>i£XiA r?o-~ ii5'*cz=a-'iiaXu m 9r? 7^ 01/J§^sy3____ ^^o%\ 3So'^^5‘-f ^xWAltg ifA^ 7^ _AdlA7_Z^Jlf-z^jjci, S3*^ ^gcWuiyf<Vl\l 42^5^ ‘^cVOMy/f j^U’ 26^3^ ^7^^/4v^e. AipM b\ — 1/^4 <1 MK^JtV\ /✓> $2'>o-;i AddressPrinted Name Signature Date 4:5:d=i-^Lc>fe&&!55^Z<^.r-jv-/9--. .-^LZJL. \Aia^iu fl^J fi% S-ljMxZ -^4 :>-'i±7L F>J^,fMAJ^7j-77 /S' 35"r G ^ 5 .lrl-_13_ ? - J -/? 31hI ‘^-9-J^ ^h/n l-M-i? Z-yo-// eS.-_ t4uc^^ HX 0 5o iU Cjci I ke^- fjoe.Iujso ^I ^1- 2^ fyj__ ^h'7J‘t ^ f: "hSt^ h'-'i^/>^iik Sfc?^u 7 to I-/UUaM‘‘c ------------------—zr-------/ 5^ _IWli4./_ -k! ijnC¥^.Av'6'^.f,<3£U k^ I .Q-l^ V^ tGy. vNA ^ ^ Ccj ^ fUlsi __ _k^olf (Zi^^ 1-^ /-^ !/»<=> i]duyA_S.&,S(Xii^-_ _&.b^ liCyi Cs> Hci^y /^Z-^^/c %(i>'cJ ^*1 s_ ^/CgQ75 <C.^Agi6 /?0 ^/U 7 dU C^in. p/ ^-/o- /^ I j/^ 3-IH9 It^SD Petition to grant a variance waver for Wayne and Denise Erickson's outbuildings. Wayne and Denise built a shop June of 2017, and a barn November 2018, at 31799 275'^'^ Avenue, Erhard MN 56534. On 5/7/19, Wayne Erickson was informed by the county that the shop was less than the required 200 feet from the water. On June 2019, the Erickson's were informed by the county, the shop was 3 feet too tall and the barn was 2 feet too tall. Petition summary and background We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who own property in the area and who urge our leaders to act now to grant the Erickson's a variance waiver on the two buildings and patio that is in the shore impact zone. Action petitioned for Signature AddressPrinted Name Date M___________________ \j i \v.ilL (V^ (m:(mS^~ (oVfJ (g.lgr's^a-or f V\ rl ^ P ^ p .<5..>^~^0~Ln cWfa. !L- <fj~ £v'Av#^tf! . fyj(4 s~65‘3‘y i%SiL^r- 36’^^q <^6o^ Ma) 33353 h^OJjj3 £jr)iClrJ 3o ^ Z'C^-se , l^oa>s-Y-x\-f p-> •<L./^! y r7^- tr Cr c, ^ 10 b AnJy u) /^/v c y\/^ Printed Name Signature Address 7 fk,Lc<Lcu^f^pjdi. i7v\l ~^63~7J7 -M tJjh r\ : pate:2,3 3;\v I W-2iV9 f, ^4fi/ S'/ <rO /■{ U:Lt■/Tj nn^.-rn. ________►'1^^9v3_25l/r> A^o X^/// LJ<zlfs /fo ^ hr £k-ko^Y Atzm ilt^ lOA^kj^ /%um^ /^/O ^Lllti f-/^ yf g^iAl LX>^-(^u/<,t^‘YK______________________^X». y / j4y\, ^ ---------------------------l—i^--------------------------------------------------- /• n^icU Meb|y>-o rfUi.yitripi/itiy^(3t)'~^ !~ ‘yimrru t fjf, QOiHs (/il/c JViM .'^(^0' '^l'IU~l9^ ^p5 I<^'/ i(i.-'F / /l^,. fjsi^Q.ho AiA/$t^'5 oihdsiUztiiySKlL itfR' OH^^-L i, "hhJ -/Fg/ H7 p£t>^ !< C/^c./^ 7i7L3 5AfM PiiicheleJf “?-/ ^ I'ii-v/i . • 1223564Date S'lamp ti-iKUi. iCHMAL i Z OTTER TAIL COUNTY RECORDER/REOISTRAR OF TITLES FcKSUS FALLS; MN REiiORDED ON O‘MT/20iv 11;32 am FEE: 46.00 received MAr 2 I 2C!9 AWOS RESOURCE L&R Initial THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER ERTIFICATE REC'Dj nAPPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER, 540 WEST FIR, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 (218) 998-8095 Otter Tail County’s Website: wvtfw.ottertailcountvmn.us Application Fee 201 A? - QQATCOMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN INK Receipt Number Accepted By / Date \ l)J^ ^/Z I I PROPERTY OWNER DAYTIME PHONE MAILING ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS <LOBVfV>£ oHRXCL)S5»O^C. (g) 1\3^LAKE CLASSLAKE NAMELAKE NUMBER IM13 TOWNSHIP NAMESECTIONTOWNSHIPRANGE E-911 ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER a^OCO /oo I LEGAL DESCRIPTION^ TJu UUO' of ut-z- TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) structure Setback V. Structure Size Subdivision Cluster WECS Misc.Sewage System SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. CITE THE RELEVANT SECTION(S) AND OTTER TAIL COUNTY ORDINANCE(S) FROM WHICH THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. ___________________OTTER TAIL COUNTY ORDINANCE: SECTION OF ORDINANCE: VARIANCE REQUEST: f] 50 s;:oo-r ^ \0v\2.'TO *ST£.S-r Urti/.iv5 ~>\^S ~^VrC S aoC 92S-T TO I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE / SANITATION CODE / SETBACK ORDANANCE AN/OR WECS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED; IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. 7 /92 signature of property owner ) agent for owner DATE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING F’ZTVi l it’- i. (Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing)0 s'^V'o I I 8 OFFICE USE ONLY '^■/3 /‘ifDate Of Board of Adjustment Hearing Motion Time Wayne «& Denise Erickson - Withdrawn (6:57 p.m.) June 13,2019 After significant discussion and consideration, Rick Wilson made a motion, seconded by Darren Newville to deny the variance request and to work with Land & Resource Management to ensure all regulations are as close to compliance as they can possibly get and no adequate hardship/practical difficulty has been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance request. This motion failed on a tie vote with Kenneth Vorderbruggen. Thomas Lee & Steve Schierer voting against the motion. No other action taken, therefore tabled to July 11, 2019. July 11,2019On June 19, 2019 Wayne & Denise Erickson submitted a letter requesting to withdraw their variance application dated May 21, 2019, The reauest to withdraw their variance annlication was accented bv general consent of the Board of Adjustment. Chairman/Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) X No L« Official/Date ‘ Copy of Application Mailed / E-Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR CL 01122019-001 368.804 • Victor Lundeen Co., Printers • Fergus Falls. MN ■ 1-800-346-4870 * Wayne & Denise Erickson - Withdrawn (6:57 p.m.) Wayne Erickson, The North 660’ of Government Lot 2, Unnamd Lake (698) in Friberg Township, request the following: A 50 foot variance is requested from 200 feet to 150 feet from the water. Due to the steep hills and wooded landscape this is the only suitable place for the home. The application was represented by Wayne Erickson. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. June 13.2019 After significant discussion and consideration, Rick Wilson made a motion, seconded by Darren Newville to deny the variance request and to work with Land & Resource Management to ensure all regulations are as close to compliance as they can possibly get and no adequate hardship/practical difficulty has been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance request. This motion failed on a tie vote with Kenneth Vorderbruggen, Thomas Lee & Steve Schierer voting against the motion. No other action taken, therefore tabled to July 11,2019. July 11.2019 On June 19, 2019 Wayne & Denise Erickson submitted a letter requesting to withdraw their variance application dated May 21, 2019. The request to withdraw their variance application was accepted by general consent of the Board of Adjustment. Firefly Dead Lake, Jade Neilson Properties, LLC - Tabled (6:58 p.m.) Firefly Dead Lake, Jade Neilson Properties, LLC, Part of GL 1 & Pt of GL 6, Dead Lake in Dunn Township, request the following; FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION: A Conditional Use Permit and the revised Preliminary Plat of Common Interest Community No. 84 Firefly Dead Lake, signed and dated June 19, 2019, proposing to convert White Haven Resort into a Common Interest Community Plat of 16 residential dwelling units will assumed to have been recommended for approval by the Otter Tail County Planning Commission with the following conditions which require approval from the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment. Modular Cabins No. 1-3 will be located 20 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabins No. 1-3 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. Variances of 123, 121 and 118 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer are needed for the approved locations of Modular Cabins No. 1-3. Modular Cabin No. 5 will be located 37 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabin No. 5 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. A variance of 106 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 5. Modular Cabin No. 6 will be located 31 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabin No. 6 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. A variance of 102 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 6. Modular Cabin No. 7 will be located 61 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabin No. 7 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. A variance of 99 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 7. Modular Cabin No. 8 will require a variance of 110 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 8. An email was received to request that the variance application be tabled to August 8, 2019. A motion by Darren Newville, seconded by Thomas Lee and unanimously carried to table the variance application until August 8, 2019. Ace Brandt - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:05 p.m.) Ace Brandt, Tract A Registered Land Survey #14, Pelican Lake in Scambler Township, request the following: We are proposing to constmct new retaining walls on our property and a portion of 2 of the retaining walls will be in the bluff On the NE side 29.5 ft of the retaining wall will be in the bluff and on the NW side 9 ft. of the retaining wall will be in the bluff. The required setback is 30’ from the top of the bluff We will be removing the existing boulder retaining walls on the property along with deck that over hangs the bluff and the existing firepit as well as the walkway from the firepit to the landscaping edge. The engineering company for this project is Northern Technologies Incorporated. The application was represented by Jesse Omdahl, representing Ace Brandt and Kari Mead, Landscape Architect. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. July 11,2019Page I 2 Dawn & Paul Hess - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:05 p.m.) Dawn & Paul Hess, Pt Lot 1 Being the Ely 70’ on Lake & 85’ on Rd, Parcels 588, 589 & 470-001 Not to be Split in Maine Township, request the following: Proposing to remove the existing 3 season porch (8’ x 14’) and replace it with a 8’ x 28’ addition to dwelling. The proposed addition will go no closer to the lake than the existing structure. (3 Season Porch) which is approx. 89’ from the lake. Required setback is 100’ requesting an approx. 11 ’ variance. The application was represented by Dawn & Paul Hess. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. A letter from David & Carol Willey and Jerome & Henrietta Klinnert all in support of the variance application request. After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, seconded by Thomas Larson and unanimously carried to approve a variance of 11’ from the ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the proposed development as described in the variance application dated May 20, 2019 and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding has been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which has been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances from proposed or future development. Break - The Board of Adjustment Members took a 10-minute break at 7:20 p.m. and reconvene at 7:30 p.m. Wayne Erickson - Motion Failed on a Tie Vote - Tabled (7:30 p.m.) Wayne Erickson, The North 660’ of Government Lot 2 in Friberg Township, request the following: A 50 foot variance is requested from 200 feet to 150 feet from the water. Due to the steep hills and wooded landscape this is the only suitable place for the home. The application was represented by Wayne Erickson. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After significant discussion and consideration, Rick Wilson made a motion, seconded by Darren Newville to deny the variance request and to work with Land & Resource Management to ensure all regulations are as close to compliance as they can possibly get and no adequate hardship/practical difficulty has been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance request. This motion failed on a tie vote with Kenneth Vorderbruggen, Thomas Lee & Steve Schierer voting against the motion. No other action taken, therefore tabled to July 11,2019. Evan & Michelle Newman - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:54 p.m.) Evan & Michelle Newman, Pt Wl/2 NEl/4 & Pt El/2 NE1/4...(107.25 Ac) in Buse Township, request the following: Proposing to remove the old house & old bam and replace with a 75’ x 40’ new dwelling with attached garage being approximately 107’ from John Lake. Required setback is 200’. Requesting a 93’ Variance. Also request a variance to construct a 40’ x 40’ storage structure being approximately 115’ from Unnamed Lake No 56-841. Required setback is 200’. Requesting an 85’ Variance. The application was represented by Evan Newman. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion Thomas Lee made a motion, seconded by Darren Newville and unanimously carried to approve a variance of 93’ from the ordinary high water level setback from John Lake for a new dwelling with attached garage being 107’ from the ordinary high water level and a variance of 85’ from the ordinary high water level from Unnamed Lake (56-841) for a Storage Stmcture being 115’ from the ordinary high water level for the proposed development as described in the variance application dated May 21, 2019 and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding have been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which has been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances from proposed or future development. Daniel & Charlene Diegiiau & Timothy & Anna Deuel - Variance Application Approved with Condition (8:08p.m.) Daniel & Charlene Diegnau & Timothy & Anna Deuel, Commencing at the SW Comer of said Section 10; thence North along the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 2567-69 feet... in Star Lake Township, request the following: Variance Request is to subdivide a 1.8-acre tract and create Parcel A with 41,110 Sq. ft. and Parcel B with 37,568 sq. ft. in area, the Subdivision Controls Ordinance requires 5 acre minimum tracts when subdividing land in the Shoreland Area. We are requesting to split our property which is approximately 1.8 acers into two parcels. West Bank Road serves our property. Said Road travels easterly from C.S.A.H. No. 41 and is a 33.00 foot wide roadway easement which serves approximately 6 parcels of land at this time. We would follow the standard plat procedure for this minor subdivision as it exceeds all the Otter Tail County Shoreland Ordinance requirements (see accompanying June 13,2019Page I 3 I Chris LeClair DirectorOTTER TAIL COUNTY LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION WWW.CO.OTTER-TAIL.MN.US Kyle Westergard Asst. DirectorOTTCRTimoof«rT>ai*BMOT« GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR AVENUE FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 218-998-8095 FAX: 218-998-8112 Board of Adjustment Findings of Fact and Decision Address/Parcel No. 31799 275'*' Ave/28000130091001Applicant: Wayne Erickson Requested Variance: A 50 foot variance is requested from 200 feet to 150 feet from the water. Due to the steep hills and wooded landscape this is the only suitable place for the home. Otter Tail County Ordinance: XShoreland Mgmt. Sanitation. Subdivision. WECS Dock & Riparian Use Setback Ord. Ordinance Section Citation: III. 4. A. A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county land use controls will result in a "practical difficulty". A determination that a practical difficulty exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria: The applicant identified the following practical difficulty: The Otter Tail County Mapping System did not indicate that this property was alone a classified body of water. The map read "water". Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment - Variance Question Findings 1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control? (The board shall consider the purposes and intent of the official control). Yes, the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... X No, the variance is NOT in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... ...because: There is enough space onsite to located the dwelling in a legal location as they could go up to the road, which is a driveway and not a road right-of-way and the structure was placed to close to the lake and they did not go through the proper process to get a permit. 2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? (The board shall consider what reasonable use of the property is lost (practical difficulties) by the strict enforcement of the official control). X Yes, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... No, the property owner is NOT proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... ...because: The structure is going to be a dwelling, there is currently a pole shed onsite and the property is very well maintained. 3. Is the need for a variance due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? (The board shall consider what circumstances are unique to the property, such as lot size, lot configuration, wetland, steep slope, shore impact zone, bluff, floodplain, floodway, etc. One or more should be stated on the record. What differentiates this parcel from others? Does this lot have a feature that does not affect all parcels similarly?) Yes, the need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.... X No, the need for the variance is NOT due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner... ...because: The uniqueness is now because they started the project without obtaining the proper permits and there is a structure constructed already. The need for a variance was created by the landowner. 4. Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? (The board shall cor\sider and state for the record why the request does or does not maintain the character of the area. Is this request similar to what others have, what are nearshore conditions of neighbors, similar sized or number of structures adjacent or in area, etc.) X Yes, the issuance of the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality.... No, the issuance of the variance will NOT maintain the essential character of the locality... ...because: It is not going to change the character of the property by placing a dwelling onsite. 5. Does the need for the variance involve more than just economic considerations? (The board shall consider if economics played a role in the request. The fact that coming into compliance with the ordinance requirements may cost considerably more does not constitute a practical difficulty). Yes, the need for the variance involves more than just economic considerations.... X No, the issuance of the variance is only for economic considerations... ...because: The property owner wouldn't have needed a variance if he would have contacted the Land & Resource Management Office to get the proper permits to have the structure placed in a legal location which there is room to meet setbacks on this piece of property. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment: APPROVES the requested variance.DENIES X Complete and attach After-the-Fact Addendum if this is an After-The-Fact variance request. DATED: June 13. 2019 Board of Adjustment Chair The Board of Adjustment may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. {Mitigating impervious surface with storm water management, deep rooted vegetative buffers, rain gardens, etc.) It is the Board of Adjustment's job to apply appropriate legal standards to a specific fact situation. Variances are meant to be an infrequent remedy where an ordinance imposes a unique and substantial burden. PIECEIVED / 9 2019 RESOURCEOtter Tail County Board of AdjustmentTo: Wayne & Denise EricksonFrom: June 19, 2019Date: Variance ApplicationRE: We are requesting to withdraw our Variance Application dated May 21, 2019 which was considered at the June 13, 2019 Board of Adjustment Meeting. Thank you Wayne & Denise Erickson LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OTTER TAIL Government Services Center 540 West Fir Avenue Fergus Falls, MN 56537COUNTY - MINNESOTA Notice of Hearing for Variance Applicant and/or applicant's representative must be present at the scheduled hearing. To Whom it May Concern: Wayne Erickson 27301 315‘^ St. Erhard MN 56534 Has/have 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, the Subdivision Controls Ordinance of Otter Tail County, Otter Tail County Sanitation Code and/or the Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance of Otter Tail County. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble for this hearing on Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioner's 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 Otter tail County Land & Resource Management office prior to the date of the public hearing. ** Weather conditions may change the Hearing date and time. If bad weather occurs, please listen to the local Fergus Falls Radio Stations or contact the Land & Resource Management Office by 4:30 p.m. for possible rescheduling of the Hearing. The property concerned in the application is legally described and located at: Parcel No.- 28000130091001 The North 660' of Government Lot 2 Section 13, Township 134, Range 42 Township Name - Friberg Unnamed (56-698), Natural Environment (NE) 31799 275“^ Ave, Erhard MN 56534 Legal Description: Lake Name/Number/Class: Property Address: The variance requested is the foilowing: A 50 foot variance is requested from 200 feet to 150 feet from the water. Due to the steep hills and wooded landscape this is the only suitable place for the home. Amy Busko Board of Adjustment Secretary May 30, 2019 ottertailcountymn.usOTTER TAIL COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER218-998-8095 5-7-2019 RE: Parcel #28000130091001 - 31799 275*'’ Ave Eric Ruther, contractor called. He stated he has taken over a home building project for this parcel. The earthmoving contractor committed suicide last week so Eric got into this project without much knowledge. One of his first actions was to ask if permits were pulled for the work. The building contractor told him that the owner said no permits were needed as he was not near a lake. Eric researched the property, and called because he determined it might be a lake. The confusion may have started with our mapping system, but that is not known for sure because the initial contractor is deceased. The Otter Tail County GIS maps show the following: When first searched, shows the body of water in question as "WATER". BUT, surrounding bodies of waters are identified with Lake Numbers. This one is not. (Map #1 & #2) When the "Wetlands and Wildlife" layer is checked, then a lake number shows on the body of water as a lake (56-698 Map #3) The basement has been dug and the footings have been poured according to Eric. He stated that he does not think it meets the 200 foot setback. He is going to check. Eric is trying to fix a problem that was made by someone else. Whether the mistake was made by the previous contractor or the home owner, I do think that Eric is working on this in good faith. He understands that the owner may need to try to get a variance prior to any further work being done. Per conversation with Kyle Westergard, an After-the-Fact fee will not be charged because of the unusual circumstances with the initial contractor, and possible misunderstanding of the mapping data. Respectfully Submitted, Denise Gubrud Inspector SCALE DRAWING FORM Tax Parcel Number(s) The scale drawing must be a signed drawing which includes and identifies a graphic scaie (feet), ali existing and/or proposed structures, septic tanks, drainfields, iotlines, road right-of-ways, easements, OHWLs, weils, wetiands and topographic features (i.e. biuffs). Must also complete the Impervious Surface Calculation (see back). Scale g O !o g 3 ; __W/ M CD oooi I h-i CJ ooUD c?>ooio I—^ ■ a? ^ oo Ct/'V i^1 (Q-A !i \•-1H ! ao ■;;p •: 4 i I c<} AI ;Ii■XoO !a I»</9 ;t \C/5 f ■ ' Tn V ; i f io/ 3 ;I i 2 ^8000i3og / 'l002 i 19 !i 1^\ DaleSignature of Property Owner BK —042016 360.800 • Victor Lundeen Co.. Printers • Fergus Falls, hAN • 1-800-346-4870 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION List & identify all existing & proposed onsite impervious surfaces on scale drawing. Lot Area (ft^): “5l=> h ^ Buildings Other impervious Surface Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Ft^Ft^Ft^Ft^ sDwelling Deck(s) Attached Garage Patio(s) Detached Garage Sidewalk(s) Storage Shed Landing(s) WOAS Driveway(s) RCU Parking Area(s) Miscellaneous Retaining Wall(s) Landscaping (Plastic Barrier) Miscellaneous hr^so oTOTAL BUILDINGS TOTAL OTHER Buildings Impervious Surface Percentage Maximum Allowable 20% Existing Proposed Total Lot Area Impervious Surface Ratio Ft^Ft^Ft^Ft^Total Buildings Iai"+'■100X Buildings + Other Impervious Surface Percentage Maximum Allowable 25% Total Buildings + Other Impervious Surface Existing Proposed Total Lot Area Impervious Surface Ratio Ft^Ft^Ft^Ft^ 100+■T-xIImpervious Surface Calculation Worksheet 04-11-2016 A Signature.Dater* wild idii wuuiiiy vvcu ivicip IILL§Ji// V¥WW.VU,ULICI -Lif ff.ff/f #.U» N / 28000130096000 ^1799 275'mAVE 28000130091001■t'i -xifliAxSUflpie^^^^^r ftiSslai&x Af«papp^ W-wsasJ iiaiSiK#m^mSiS$w*Kwpmmmm .^-' fc't #\ •V o 28000130091900 ^•27301 315TH ST /f28000130092000/ 27137 315TH ST , Not a leqal document. For Reference Use Only. Accuracy is not guaranteed.a035 mi Otter Tail County GIS 9TT*F.X*l<! OJ > 28000140098000 oo 1.1 28000130089001o,1rs28000130096000 o CO , o / O / CO t ooo 'V.oo 0091001 Io0> o 2800013 rooo00 /tenwiip o r\f'vf 28000130090000 V'tH teliP" '^28000130091900 ablH ST ooo /00 rsi / I i /f■v” 14 13 28000140101000 28000130095000 \LU §/ /■' \X ./oh-Om(or-28000130093000 oCN4_rorS O ■0 -P',-. -• V''' ^ 00 o‘P'i- :o28000130094000o'I COIP / Ji —----------------- %S miMWi^ otter Tail County qroERTOi WSiCO oo 28000240164001oN> 23 ^2800024016300024 28000240164002 o 0.075015 Not a legal document. For Reference Use Only. Accuracy is not guaranteed.0.|5 mi yL 28000130096000 ^1799 275TH AVE 28000130091001 / \ <5rvPi o s N13__J Pi/o\<61/"VLAKE// 'If! </[I tI \N 28000130091900 ■27301 315THST4//28000130092000 I ■27137 315TH ST I 0.035 00175 Not a legal document. For Reference Use Only. Accuracy is not guarante'ed.rTaii County Gis Department, otter Tail00.035 (TH qmRTfli otter Tail County Web Map http://www.co. otter-tail. mn. us WATER Petition to allow Wayne and Denise Erickson to complete the building of their home 150 feet from the water. Wayne and Denise began building their home at 31799 275*^ Avenue, Erhard MN 56534. On 5/7/19, Wayne Erickson was informed by the county that the new home buiid was 150 feet from the water rather than the required 200 feet. Because of the hilly wooded landscape the proposed buiid site is the only feasible one. Petition summary and background Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who own property adjacent to the water and who urge our leaders to act now to allow Wayne and Denise Erickson to complete the build of their home in the current location of 150 feet from the water at 31799 275“’ Avenue, Erhard MN 56534. Addr^s _______________________________ ^-7110 S0,e/mA.l^Si>52A Printed Name Signature DateComment 5/ (4 / ZB l/e-jjrA(5A f.j; /V\xl 5/^//^9ts. Petition to allow Wayne and Denise Erickson to complete the building of their home 150 feet from the water. Wayne and Denise began building their home at 31799 zys"’ Avenue, Erhard MN 56534. On 5/7/19, Wayne Erickson was informed by the county that the new home build was 150 feet from the water rather than the required 200 feet. Because of the hilly wooded landscape the proposed build site is the only feasible one. Petition summary and background We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Friberg Township who urge our leaders to act now to allow Wayne and Denise Erickson to complete the build of their home in the current location of 150 feet from the water at 31799 275“* Avenue, Erhard MN 56534. Action petitioned for Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date 7 '-r- Mali' IS<1 . c '77il^ ^//P//9 /2 ,jcc'’^STA' r ' ■’nii/i f ti rSt t U ' V/f//yi (JxAi\\:p5 c:>cr^ 4,.- 7 f •,'Z,7 ■>"i- Ktij/tT A 7(,U7 Ci>, ^'L a 's/c^Z.-Trt—^^/L 5-n-nAd■'i!V 7^ Printed Name Signature Address Comment DatetZ/ ^3 -5‘/ szms 1 X, >1, v,g.,> m>-^ 3 m< :TliP U_ K/U /^/7 f'Mr J Hr LU-^-\ Wxti\ \4Lu|ef /^rv|^^'..i VloelLS-h7-^ S-l*^! -jt' l'i ViU Im (9-/f 3/>?J PhhL h9u&/B^ S'^tr T77^ Co cV/ j?7/^; C6m^Xi 5-2t>-nzuJAi rd. tJu^Y ; / / /'yrK/'■K ^V 4 Otter Tall County 5/20/2019 Regarding allowing Wayne and Denise Erickson permission to complete the building of their home 150 feet from the water. Address: 31799 275^^ Avenue, Erhard, MN 56534. Friberg Township board has no issues with the Erickson's building 150 feet from the water. Thank you. Kathi Budke, Clerk Board Members -d/. OTTER TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls, Minnesota )STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ) I, Amy Busko, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment for Otter Tail County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that on the 30th day of May, 2019 the attached Notice of Hearing for Variance was duly served upon the individuals listed below and/or included in the attachment: Township Clerk Lake AssociationProperty Owner Kathi Budke, Clerk Friberg Township 31289 Co. Hwy3 Fergus Falls MN 56537 N/AWayne Erickson 27301 315‘^’ St. Erhard MN 56534 City Clerk (if located within 2 miles of a city) N/A (Q Lake Improvement District (If project is located on their lake, mail notices to the Lake Improvement District) Big McDonald Lake Improvement Dist., PO Box 81, Dent, MN 56528 Devils Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 431 Perham, MN 56573 Big McDonald: Devils (Near Perham): Little McDonald, Kerbs & Paul: LMKP Lakes Imp. Dist., PO Box 133, Perham, MN 56573 Little Pine & Big Pine: Pelican, Fish, Bass & Lt Pelican: Pelican Lake Group Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 336, Pelican Rapids, MN 56572 South Turtle Lake: HI Pine Lakes Imp. Dist., PO Box 405, Perham, MN 56573 South Turtle Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 168, Underwood, MN 56586 Otter Tail County COLA, 4302 13'^ Ave S Ste. 4-333, Fargo, ND 58103 Chuck Grotto, OTC Hwy Engineer, 505 S Court St Suite #1, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Julie Aadland, DNR Eco & Water Resources, 1509 1®' Ave N, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Board of Adjustment Members: Ken Vorderbrugen, 20901 County Hwy 65, Henning MN 56551 R. Stephen Schierer 32117 260'^' Ave, Erhard MN 56534 Thomas (Tom) Lee, 15600 County Hwy 118, Elizabeth MN 56533-9559 Darren M Newville, 614 6'^ St NE, Perham, MN 56573 Douglas Larson, 2118 Woodland Ln., Fergus Falls MN 56537 Planning Commission Member: Jack Rosenthal, PO Box 266, Ottertail MN 56571 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, properly addressed to each of the individuals listed above and/or listed in the attachment.Number of Notices & Envelopes TO Print /FileDated: May 30, 2019 Extra h BOA Members PC Member Envelopes _ TOTAL NOTICES TO PRINT /7 FTTAdded to Agenda ri^f>rint out Findings of Fact Sheet Newspapers p^Fl^C __________ Amy Busko, Secretary Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment b I FOF£By: Amy Busko l:\BOA\Affidavits\Erickson (698) 06-13-19.docx Buffer Parcels Parcel No Addrl Addr2 Citv St ZipName 1 Name 2 Erhard MN 56534 943228000130089000 Jacob L Jensen & Erica Larson 31860 275th Ave 28000130089001 - Randall & Cynthia Abbott » 'Erhard MN 56534 946927750 County Highway 22 ■ if ____^_____ Erhard MN 56534 9432Barbara Albertson 31500 275th Ave28000130090000 I 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433Wayne L & Denise R Erickson28000130091001 28000130091002 31793 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432Lucas A Peterson [ 28000130091900 , j; Wayne.L & Denise R Erickson ,LS.__. 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433 27137 315th St Erhard MN 56534 943328000130092000 Austin Ott 28000130096000 { 'Kelly & Patricia Wells ,15315 Danbury Ave Rosemount MN 55068 1596 1—___ 27301 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433Wayne L 8i Denise R Erickson28000130096002 Paee 1 of 1Wednesday. Mav 22. 2019 Buffer Mail City, State, ZipAddress i Address 2Name Erhard MN 56534 9469Randall & Cynthia Abbott 27750 County Highway 22 " Barbara Albertson Erhard MN 56534 9432- 31500 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9433Wayne L & Denise R Erickson 27301 315th St Jacob L Jensen & Erica Larson.Erhard MN 56534 943231860 275th Ave 27137 315th St Erhard MN 56534 9433Austin Ott Lucas A peterson Kelly & Patricia Wells , ^ 31793 275th Ave Erhard MN 56534 9432 ;V. 15315 Danbury Ave Rosemount MN 55068 1596 Page 1 of 1Wednesday, May 22, 2019