The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About29000190128001_Variances_10-04-2007Variances 2 Barcode 128 I0-^'20)T 1027646 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this instrument #__ was fiied/recorded in this office for record on the Q day olCT 2007 atjy^^pm 10 t 646 Weni . Metcaif, County Rc^ofder by: ‘recording fe^ weil certifipme THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 (218) 998-8095 Otter Tail County’s Website: www.co.ottertail.mn.us Application Fee COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number Accepted By / Date DAYTIME PHONE lOO^ H) y HcKckl -^i tJ ry'>N PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS LAKE NUMBE^ *^39 Ujeaf LAKE CLASS (r HLAKE NAME iTOWNSHIP 132 N RANGE 3*^ UU TOWNSHIP NAMESECTION__n PARCEL NUMBER '^‘1 nao 1^0 IQ9, no i E-911 ADDRESS w/e ■t/iot ‘i'iM/EJdf Id . rn p I- /.js-Cf+U h o-f fi.3 /y...iVe^T H of+U Lcsf 11^ ol ' . • w w r/y i? 1 of <rL3 A/c>^V\ cT 'The Korxii iVes TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) ySubdivisionClusterMisc.Structure Size Sewage SystemStructure Setback SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. I I T til _L rei^ue^l/(xrlo.AccL'to JeJo^/'c -iLn, 5ut /oi ioo-i\TCst pi^./'pos :> I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. f*'ft-nfifj Pf Arer'.c ^^D2cciin SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER / AGENT FOR OWNER 9'/0'O7 DATE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) /Ic-IL^ ¥ ,^^00-7 S'H firrvTimeDate Of Hearing Motion Paul HackI - Denied. (3:17 p.m.) After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion to declare the lot buildable with the condition that structures can only be placed on that portion of the lot located north of the road right-of-way. After additional consideration the motion to declare the lot buildable was withdrawn and Paul Larson offered a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested noting the following: 1.) the granting of a variance would alter the characteristics of the general neighborhood, 2.) wetland concerns, 3.) buildable area concerns on the portion of the parcel located north of the road right-of-way and 4.) concerns with variances that might be required for development in the future. Chairman/Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR bk 0407-001 329.512 - Vidor Lundeen Company, Fergus Falls. Minnesota October 4, 2007 Page # 4 Paul HackI - Denied. (3:17 p.m.) Paul HackI, part of Government Lot 3, Section 19 of Girard Township by West Battle Lake, requested a variance to have a substandard lot declared buildable for residential purposes. Barry Fabian represented the applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with Richard Edmonds expressing concerns with the requested variance. Letters from Richard C. Edmonds and Thomas J. Eckdale in opposition to the variance as requested were read for the record. A letter from the Department of Natural Resources in opposition to the variance as requested was read for the record. After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion to declare the lot buildable with the condition that structures can only be placed on that portion of the lot located north of the road right-of-way. After additional consideration the motion to declare the lot buildable was withdrawn and Paul Larson offered a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested noting the following: 1.) the granting of a variance would alter the characteristics of the general neighborhood, 2.) wetland concerns, 3.) buildable area concerns on the portion of the parcel located north of the road right-of-way and 4.) concerns with variances that might be required for development in the future. Ronald J. Schwanke - Approved the variance as requested. (3:45 p.m.) Ronald J. Schwanke, part of Government Lot 6, Section 32 of Dora Township by East Silent Lake, requested a variance to have the parcel declared a buildable lot for residential purposes. The audience was polled with the Eben Wall, potential buyer, speaking for the variance as requested. A letter from Chad and Mamie Slager in opposition to the variance as requested was read for the record. A phone call from John Vogt expressing concerns with the variance application was noted for the record. After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, second by Paul Larson and unanimously carried, to declared the easterly 100’ of Government Lot 6 lying south and east of County Road 41 as a buildable lot for residential purposes. The Board noted that this approval is consistent with past actions of the Board regarding similar properties that had been declared unbuildable. Fred Hage - Denied. (3:55 p.m.) Fred Hage, part of Government Lot 6, Section 3 of Dunn Township by Pelican Lake, requested the following; 1.) extend a covered deck across the home (lakeside) being approximately 29’ from the ordinary high water level, 2.) replace existing roof on dwelling with 6/12 pitch and 2’ overhangs, this includes covering of the proposed deck, therefore it will be 29’ from the ordinary high water level, 3.) excavate for walkout basement being approximately 29’ from the ordinary high water level (8’ wide by 8’ high/max) and 2 retaining walls 8’ high adjacent to sides of existing structure being 29’ from the ordinary high water level, and 4.) use excavated material from walkout and fill existing boat landing to match existing grade, being approximately 10’ from the ordinary high water level and will riprap. Required setback from the ordinary high water level is 75’ and from the shore impact zone is 37.5’. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Paul Larson made a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested as no adequate hardship unique to the property had been shown that would allow for the granting of the variances as requested. The Board noted that other alternative should be considered and the applicant’s proposal is significantly within the shore impact zone. Ann Reckert Tst - Approved the variance as requested. (4:05 p.m.) ArnT Reckert Tst, part of Government Lot 8, Section 6 of Nidaros Township by Clitherall Lake, requested the following: Due to extreme bias of side lot lines unique to this plat, current interpretation of “string line” as determined by neighbor’s closest corner cannot be reasonably met. Addition would be no closer to lake than existing structure, and will be further from lake than each neighbor. All other requests comply. Requesting a variance of 24’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the placement of the proposed development 76’ from the ordinary high water level as depicted on the drawing submit with the variance application. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Michael Harris made a motion, second by Carl Zick and unanimously carried, to approve the applicant’s proposed development as described in the variance application dated September 13, 2007 and as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application. It was noted that although the applicant’s proposed development will be ahead of the string line test the proposed development will be behind the existing sightline. Hardship is the shape of the applicant’s property. W(l fo: Pe-U(Mr' to.\Ji^So*^ Lj-tficl [p in u^e. 6avHe-L(4^ Ht-l ->Co.)e /irtclv r loo feet ^ • 5/C IP••y/i f~^ / /** /W / \;■•' \ffC. 3 .l5-!33-3gA >oi O' PT. OPREO"C"\o ■ <So fi50®00'V --------;T“I53.?3 PIT >3^ -Cop UD/73°30*IT) cr> FA/zc£a-0IIC 5®09 t pA/^cbiW\\I .■■■■: ^ i (Bt 6D F I E D .r/\•;✓9’^ 9'(BALANCEJ *0).11 *ro ’;4 II / CO• / oo yi vf/ \■ ?ro«*V \ ■ GO CO'T N »•. 0: ■VSv'- : . i ;;'N .' -V , N (O,. ^• ' • w u 5tniOIn #:<p *-* P'i• . »u95hf:o (z•)iT 1 iG ! (/> ;;y :"'iP, p p 4^ ■'••- - V\Z\.A&'72J5l_ U. J2-l§'.7IJ5'P/f PTOPBCG. ' ..—I , ^ ■■I* I16.1..• •,1 . '<T>oc t.PT. OF BfO<3;PT. OF BEG, "F'‘a‘'G“ "0''Q“ ."H“- 'ID'^aL33 o/v6'V.-3/>ii(5///;/H\73 c y Minnesota Department of Natural Resources WATERS 1509 1®' Avenue North Fergus Falls, MN 56537 (218) 739-7576 September 24, 2007 O (/)UJm 5, SfWATOR^ RECEIVED SEP ES20Q7Chair Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment Government Service Center 510 Fir Avenue West Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Ul ItK lAILUU.AUUllUR FERGUS FALLS, MN Dear Board of Adjustment: VARIANCE APPLICATION, PAUL HACKL, WEST BATTLE LAKE (56-239P), OTTER TAIL COUNTY Recently I reviewed this application for a variance to have a substandard lot declared buildable for residential purposes. My understanding is that the lot was created by exceptions to be a meets and bounds parcel after the adoption of the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance. Your ordinance was adopted on October 15, 1971. This is important in that it means this parcel is not considered grand fathered in because it was created after your ordinance was adopted. Mr. Len Hackl was notified of this in 1986 according to county records. Thus it is apparent that this request does not meet the requirements of your ordinance nor the requirements of the Minnesota Shoreland Management Rules 6120.3300. MN Statutes 397.27 requires that a hardship, described in Subd. 7 is necessary in order to grant the variance. This office does not believe this proposal meets the definition of hardship necessary to grant the variance. The best interest of the lake would be served by maintaining this 31.4 foot wide parcel as a non-buildable lot. The application has the alternative of applying for a building lot on the parcel north of the road behind the narrow access lot to the lake. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, I Terrence IMLejcher Area HydMogist TRL/ck ^ NW Region Waters Bill Kalar, OTC Land & Resource ec: DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Oppormnity Employer Who Values Diversity Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste Minnesota Department of Natural Resources WATERS 1509 r* Avenue North Fergus Falls, MN 56537 (218) 739-7576 September 24, 2007 iSiUJm o 45 RECEIVED Chair Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment Government Service Center 510 Fir Avenue West Fergus Falls, MN 56537 SEP 26 2007 01 ItK lAlLCU.AUUllUR FERGUS FALLS, MN Dear Board of Adjustment: VARIANCE APPLICATION, PAUL HACKL, WEST BATTLE LAKE (56-239P), OTTER TAIL COUNTY Recently I reviewed this application for a variance to have a substandard lot declared buildable for residential purposes. My understanding is that the lot was created by exceptions to be a meets and bounds parcel after the adoption of the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance. Your ordinance was adopted on October 15, 1971. This is important in that it means this parcel is not considered grand fathered in because it was created after your ordinance was adopted. Mr. Len Hackl was notified of this in 1986 according to county records. Thus it is apparent that this request does not meet the requirements of your ordinance nor the requirements of the Minnesota Shoreland Management Rules 6120.3300. MN Statutes 397.27 requires that a hardship, described in Subd. 7 is necessary in order to grant the variance. This office does not believe this proposal meets the definition of hardship necessary to grant the variance. The best interest of the lake would be served by maintaining this 31.4 foot wide parcel as a non-buildable lot. The application has the alternative of applying for a building lot on the parcel north of the road behind the narrow access lot to the lake. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, fiI Terrence IMLejcher Area Hydrologist TRL/ck ^ NW Region Waters Bill Kalar, OTC Land & Resource ec: DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste RICHARD C. EDMONDS 24284 Beauty Shore Dr. Battle Lake, MN 56515 (218)864-8496 d3dmonds@arvig. net September 20, 2007 Board of Adjustments Otter Tail County Government Services Center 510FirAveW Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Re; October 4, 2007 hearing on Paul HackI application for variance property located between 24242 and 24284 Beauty Shore Dr. West Battle Lake (Lake No. 56-239) Battle Lake, MN Gentlemen; I am Richard Edmonds and I live at the above listed address which is adjacent on the East to the subject property. I wish to go on record as opposed to the granting of a variance to the rules of the Shoreland Management Ordinance requested by Paul HackI. I am sure you are aware of the fact that the subject property is a substandard lot that was created after the ordinance went into effect. I will, therefore, not spend much time repeating things which are probably to be found in your file, but rather, will fill in information on the circumstances leading up to that creation, which is probably not in the file. In August, 1971, I came to Battle Lake to search for a cottage to buy for my family’s use until I was ready to retire and build a permanent home. One of the first things I encountered was warnings from my local friends that a new lakeshore control ordinance would be going into effect shortly and that I should be sure anything 1 bid on met the new requirements. I visited with Malcolm Lee and picked up a copy of the “MINIMUM SHORELAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS". A banker friend told me of a property for sale on Beauty Shore with 131 feet of frontage and a recently built cottage. After an inspection arranged by the banker, I made an offer through Mr. Richard Hanson (Realtor). Shortly thereafter, I received from Mr. Hanson a copy of a letter dated 9/4/71, from the seller, a Ms. A. Madelyn Persons which was in reply to my offer. In the letter (which is in my files) she stated that only 100 ft of frontage was available for sate. My immediate reaction was that this would leave the seller with only 31 ft. of frontage which I understood would be in violation of the new ordinance. I discussed the situation with Hanson and he talked with the seller’s Fergus attorney (Richard Hefty). By letter of 9/20/71, Hanson informed me that Hefty had agreed to write Ms. Persons informing her of the ordinance and that the remaining 31 foot strip “will be no good to her”. Both Mr. Hanson and I had previously spoken to her about the ordinance. Thereafter I received a letter dated 10/15/71, from Hanson enclosing a copy of a letter dated 10/10/71, from Persons to Hefty thanking him for his letter, expressing regret that Hanson and I had bothered him and stating “They apparently did not realize that I am aware of the laws...”. I have no way of knowing just how “aware” she was of the ordinance but that is not the point. The important point is that she was informed about the ordinance by three different people, one of whom was her own attorney, and if she was not fully aware of the import of the new ordinance it was only because she chose not to inquire. On 10/20/71, I wrote directly to Ms. Persons seeking to clarify just what property she intended to sell and her other terms and on 10/31/71, I called her and we made a tentative agreement as to a purchase and sale, which she confirmed by letter dated the same day. On 11/1/71, I summarized our telephone agreement by letter to her with a copy to Hefty. We still had a disagreement over a covenant I had proposed concerning the future use of the remaining 31 foot strip. (1 was unaware she owned several backlots north of the road) This resulted in two more letters from Ms. Persons to Mr. Hefty on 11/3 and 11/6/71, in both of which she offered to sell me the entire 131 feet if I would grant her a 25 foot access easement to the lake. I declined. She explained to me that she intended to provide access to the lake for her family who reside in the area (the Hackl's). We finally reached full agreement on 11/9 or 11/10/71 (my letter of 11/11/71). The transfer was accomplished by Deed dated 12/3/71, recorded 12/7/71. Thus was created the existing substandard lot (the remainder) and at the same time a CONTROLLED ACCESS to the backlot. There can be no question as to the latter since the seller flatly stated her intent to provide access to the lake over the 31 feet. As I understand the ordinance and especially the question of Controlled Access, this is a prohibited use in all shoreland classifications and as such, “No variance may be granted that would allow any use or expansion of use that is prohibited in a Shoreland Management District”. (VARIANCES FROM STANDARDS - Po 29, Para.5, Sub Para. C) Further, the substandard lot in question was created after the ordinance went into effect although the seller was aware or should have been aware of the existence of the ordinance. Referring again to VARIANCES FROM STANDARDS (Pg 29, Para.5, Sub Para. A) the definition of “Hardship” states that "the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances ...not created by the landowner”. I don’t know if the transfer of the property from the creator of the circumstances to members of her family somehow erases the creation. That is for you to say. Finally, although I am not sure it is germane to the question addressed by this hearing, I believe the backlots constitute a wetland. It is difficult to know what the applicant has is mind since he has not furnished the required drawing showing lot lines, setbacks and location of proposed buildings. Since the land south of the road is only 31 feet wide, I am assuming any construction would be on the backlots north of the road. I know that a test hole dug there in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s revealed the groundwater level was only 2 to 3 inches below the surface in that area and in 2001 the area was under at least 12 inches of water for most, if not all, of the year. All of the letters referred to above are in my files and are available for inspection by any member of the Board of Adjustment who wishes to do so. Sincerely, Richard C. Edmonds cc: Land & Resource Department J ■" ' '* -^r.' • ■ - ----------------------------• • L-.....i •\».*. •«■ •:r•4 r . . ...i. V .* • ..*: .rr.vpit* ’c"NC COR.. i.N.LINC Q.L. 3, SEC. 19-193-39 /9L.*NBO'OO'W—T “■'•■ \-'i24894 ’TW iI; es'so** W9I"30’ -99* so'CE’VED' AUG .1 92005 . i ‘I h'fokCS, ‘ ------ ■■ ,J*ne< ■ r‘orth Up^ri NV I-I.•!• IILAi'^D RcoOukCE-;»I \'t III I I IIRII■^B • I 123‘SO**r> ■e -i^o^9 -k ■im ir: rr:■/..VJ. 7 j.ore o> j,0C8thi i X’’** •' ' iXChL lOfcoog' V • :'E • -7 *.o9 :I A 6 : F re.;:c B D ;•■rv::!'; ::-1' ^.3 ,:,< ■ «:y-1: sll V,: s } t- ' S I \iI ✓(BAUNCe) /;a ’»ol/I I f q6 <b'- I ?' ./'■ '■*s r • . r. .•I/I*■ il>-•r':• 5|z ..S ••;!;:*V-• ii DATE. 4/23/A9 KAiC‘ r»too‘ • iNOlUTU iWM MOt ■ ^7^ ■E./.'I/*;*.** ^^29 Tie ‘/^•t ro .;&>•po ■ • ^ i. ; • ■. i^;V ;2. -.;^i ■ .■■4•4 ■:■•'.■■ I' ^ •iV'v;:to I<y ••'.V :51 «e^ I !'r • ;■n r r-"yv.' I •*Ul . yj'l•9.!- 7 ■o :.Vh 0 ■ 4 *:■ ;6 j^ret a RCtl '-E:.:VE. • ■■■■••TV''n 2E:7 «; j2-✓;VVit •■!I'r' :• f ' •.';►-CrfCCencS .' J(.'j •Tl^f ^.xe, lal I’J' '-.-let j'eet Eor toi:®ther „cre< cui :3 0 ■ ■■. ;.1;*. .• • fi*0 .ti. ' .'ET *' •16'O ;,s.§ ' T *. UO, ,■•_■■■ . . ruE- :v ■• i' 7 PT. 0^ •£«. "OVC > . 1;^9-vsj-s^ •i:'>;. ■;■ r PT OF BCO.3*t f»- v' ■ :4 /. .3,. I!joPinencl: , 7^7»77fe' nil •rg^.'V.eii , fe«t curi together Acre* noi ;% - ■ ■>:WESTe> b/vttle lake)- ..jhwieum ^ • t-V • I::■ >:■ ■ ■■■•;.V- rI.I s'CottctenoW . I*'-;.4.' . .*••J«o.77:e., > * '. r ' . .;•', V -r,- . ■■ f .k V .■;i^^e.eeii •'. fe4t Tiore y •i*.;lnnlnf conuiflt i ■ • V•. ?1 •..*1 f A1^.:tas.)>1 Ci7c?/’cj ■ ■;. 10-o "feet/inches GRID PLOT PLAN SKETCHING FORMScale: Each grid equals S'-3^1 19Dated:Signature Please sketch your lot indicating setbacks from road right-of-way, lake and sideyard for each building currently on lot and any proposed structures. r I 3^8. j_+i nI f 1- NIn i 1 • -No Sc/uf 31.*#' * Av^ Seertc O T/iUK 1 fMrl 'rI l/MC lor, 1 liNC (i llQxSoy1//.V 10-t- ■^—hM i LL Sepric TfiNK a /O x 30 ■ CAQtkl (see TW^eRt)0=3“% 31,*^-i 31.H 27 S^iofieuN^ 'ril ti Wtii 1 -f tJ# i ‘ I: i WAYr:7j«35 21598 7®MKL-0871-029 VICTOK LUNOCCN CO.. PMIHTCMS. FtMCUS fALLS. UINN. Scale: Each grid equals /O ' O/9 ,feet/inches GRID PLOT PLAN SKETCHING FORM fC IQ ,Dated: Signature Please sketch your lot indicating setbacks from road right-of-way, lake and sideyard for each building currently on lot and any proposed structures. 2^8. \ Septic ThNic, 3o‘ ro' 30 /sry il.H I v» /6,'x/o' _ BoSTffOOSS 0, QOE (N3t.H‘ SHoFE^Uhje I t I'n 7 rT«hj ,T.r 21S987@MKL-0871-029 VICTOR LUNDCCH CO.. RRINTCRa. fCRGUS FALLS. UINN. N LINE G.L. 3. SEC. 19-133-39 -----^ 7 -------------24894'N a w uu <■r'■219.76’• T 129 ' V 89®50' ? J 153.23'69 7^.r••J.'7i 72 V. V \ ' 'e9l®29!___=■ IStTT.:',V.9I®2>' d.91° 50 *o89® 50'*2o /■<D ‘o IwV • 4I I I I I •V - •♦ I> I •I••s0. - - D""0I 69I ..oo- - «• I*I .*•• I, •: II , II It f I'23030*<0 r’o 0>)2 2 PMc£^..pARCeiP Ii I c i mBIH6FE0*-v'3 o»'t wi .o c (BALANCE)lO “(T)“cc qcr»/0> <7>S cm»<>i N V*u0>CD c0>.♦/toICOfl «■ {-C/ «n»N-v>/KA /V■f 3:'o clji>SoN 'o>If)I to CM Ito<0 tvI ITitv (J ®.Iut»/I2;hno f ioz0 t ■ifOO K COU*(I 0D,f- 63'>o •■* y> ,0*)'o Afeo| UJ 9I g ’^»;5 * " Tn~'~T ~ 16’2z»10 / »»T. OF B EG.I 7; f €■■» PTOFdEG "F"a"G"P T OF BEG«>1 "M"UI n1 )"'l ? '5 r} o> I I2l ■^73046 i /I ^WEST rattle lake ISHORELINE d.f • ^