HomeMy WebLinkAbout17000990684000_Variances_09-09-2004q.q.200^\
3^2228 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that
this instrument #__
was fiied/recorded in this office
for reco^ on the / ^ day of
--------_________2004 at
MetcaifK,CountyWei lerhy; V k Recording f^
weii certificate
;te^ ft
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
isnio
Application Fee
COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number_
Accepted By / Date
/ i ah/Y.
\-uu,ri>^oi^ 0 ■S~^/02
LAKE NAME PeliUin
RANGE tfl
DAYTIME PHONE '7Cl ■O-lf]'-PROPERTY OWNER
MAILING ADDRESS
LAKE CLASS DLAKE NUMBER JKA
SECTION €TOWNSHIP NAME D //y^TOWNSHIP f3'7
E-911
ADDRESS
PARCEL
NUMBER 3/T7X C&u
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
tdt ay L^bertZj
TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check)
structure Setback \/ Structure Size Sewage System Subdivision Cluster Misc.
SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BREIF AS
THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. ^ p C| F£.G:r
tVc. rec^L'.e50>J A.
5^ a. fC>4C^ Oet h^clC ^ /Ae, it-fneJefecL
kitalcLiV?^ on Our -£ctb&- . w - .
ec t .
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.
^ ii:ii :ie>o^
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER DATE
APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing)
00
o -J't kin yDate Of Hearing Time
Motion
Hassoun Trusts - Approved as modified. (9:05 p.m.)
After discussion and consideration, Steve Schierer made a motion, seconded by Cecil Femling and carried with Paul
Larson and Richard Sha voting no, to approve a variance of 5’ from the required east side lot line setback of 10’ for
the placement of the remodeled garage/guest cottage 5’ from the side lot line. The applicants must have the property
brought into compliance with the approved variance on or before August 1, 2005. The Board noted that the setback
variance as approved from the side lot line is consistent with other side lot line setback variances granted by the Board
of Adjustment, will provide the applicants with an ability to maintain their property without trespassing on the adjacent
property and will prgvide^e applicants with a reasonable use of their property. The Board noted that since this is an after the fact rpcfO^t it was handled ip.tl^ same mann^^aslfthe valance request had been submit prior to starting
the project.x^shoujfk^o be notecKnpnhe side lot Itfie varianceaargranted does not grant directly or indirectly any
other variances f^his develooFfleptlO::::^^
Chaifman/Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment
Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management
Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management)
X_No
L R Official/Date *
Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR
bk 0204-001
317.340 • Vicior Lindeen Co , Primers • Fergus Falls. Minnesoia
Department of
LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
OTTER TAIL COUNTY
Government Services Center • 540 West Fir
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Ph: 218-998-8095
Otter Tail County’s Website; www.co.ottertail.mn.us
September 15, 2004 ;
Hassoun Trusts
Linda 86 Ghazi Hassoun
3720 Fairway Rd
Fargo, ND 58102
RE: Variance, Lot.24 Liberty Beach, Pelican Lake (56-786)
Dear Linda 85 Ghazi Hassoun,
This is to inform you of the variance granted regarding the above-mentioned
property at the September 9, 2004 Board of Adjustment Meeting.
As you will see, the variance was “Approved as Modified” (see attached. copy of
Variance Application with motion). It was approved with a 5^ variance from the
required east side lot line, not the 9’ you requested. You must have this .
brought into compliance with the approved variance oh or before August 1.
2005. When this has been completed, please notify our office for a final
inspection of compliance.
Also, a new Site Permit will not be required as noted on your attached copy.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely
Mavis SamuelsOn
Permit Technician
Enel.
(■
;Notes -
Motion was made by Steve Schierer, seconded by Cecil Femling and
carried with Paul Larson and Richard Sha voting no to approve a variance
of 5’ from the required east side lot line setback of 10’ for the addition to the
garage with the following understandings 1.) the Board is only addressing
the side lot line variance request, 2.) the Board is not granting any
approvals or variances for prohibited uses, as the Board has no authority in
those matters and 3.) the side lot line variance of 5’as approved does not
grant directly or indirectly any other variances, which might be necessary
for this development and with the following condition that the applicant
must bring the property into compliance with the variance as approved on
or before August 1, 2005.
i
•i..
- i
i
:
>
i
. . 'L'-.
September 9, 2004
Page # 5
Scott and Beth Madson - Approved as requested. (8:55 p.m.)
Scott and Beth Madson, Lot 14 Block 1, Midway Park, Otter Tail Lake in OtterTail Township requested a .
variance of 10’ from the required road right-of-way setback of 20’ for the placement of a structure 10’ from
the road right-of-way. Randall Mann, Chair, polled the audience with no one speaking for or against the
variance as requested. Letters from Donald Moe and Jack and Patricia Thompson in support of the
variance as requested were read for the record. After discussion and consideration, Steve Schierer made
a motion, seconded by Michael Conlon and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 10' from the
required road right-of-way setback of 20’ for the placement of a structure 10’ from the road right-of-way.
The Board noted that the proposed development is an improvement.
Wiiiiam Bernhagen - Approved as requested with conditions. (8:57 p.m.)
William Bernhagen, part of Government Lots 1 and 2, Section 32 of Hobart Township by Sybil Lake,
requested a variance of 50 to 55’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the
placement of a structure 45 to 50’ from the ordinary high water level. Bill Day represented that applicant at
the public hearing. Randall Mann, Chair, polled the:audience with no one speaking for or against the
variance as requested. After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion, seconded by
Steve Schierer and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 45 to 50’ from the required ordinary high
water level setback of 100’ for the placement of a structure 50’ to 55’ from the ordinary high water level as
depicted on the applicant drawing with the following conditions, which must be met before any permits can
be issued; 1.) an existing 5’ by 5’ shed must be removed and 2.) an existing 10’ by 10’ shed must be o/aced at least 50’ from the ordinary high water level and at least 10’ from the lot line.
. /Hassoun Trusts - Approved as modified. (9:05 p.m.)
Hassoun Trusts, Lot 24 Liberty Beach, Pelican Lake in Dunn Township, requested a variance of 9’ from the
required side lot line setback of 10’ for the placement of a remodeled garage/guest cottage 1 ’ from the side
lot line. Randall Mann, Chair, polled the audience with Rhonda Loberg and Almaree Anderson addressing
the variance as requested. A letter from Rhonda Loberg and Almaree Anderson addressing the applicant’s
variance request was noted for the record. After discussion and consideration, Steve Schierer made a
motion, Seconded by Cecil Femling and carried with Paul Larson and Richard Sha votin^o,(jto approve a
variance of 5’ from the required east side lot line setback of 10’ for the placement of the^modeled
garage/guest^ttagej5’ fr^ the side lot line.jThe applicants must have the property brought into
compliance wlttTthe approved variance on or beifore August 1, 2005. The Board noted that the setback
variance as approved from the side lot line is consistW with other^side lot line setback variances granted
by the Board of Adjustment, will provide the applicants with an ability to maintain their property without
trespassing on the adjacent property and will provide the applicants with a reasonable use of their property.
The Board noted that since this is an after the fact request it was handled in the same manner as if the
variance request had been submit prior to starting the project. It should also be noted that the side lot line
variance as granted does not grant directly of indirectly any other variances for this development.
With no further business Randall Mann, Chairman, declared the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
3 ^in, SecretaryoJ
Wayne
I I.1
I"i'-'
T'I tI-Scale
t i4-1...- 1-"Tt.n......'1....[■■■•'...I.1
1±1-}-!L4 !■
€..!-4-ri
m
i.
iJ._..
-in...1
1T 1
!t
i'
’H4..I../•T—-r _L I.f!4-^rT""
;i..f.[■r:::[
-! -
..
I
4-.—i'
l4....-LI-
h.......T-I 4-1 ufp1.■-.,4-r I4-jt.('■f-r r
nt..i I.fi-i-4 I.4..1..1...:Imf....[■t 1 iI1 LI..l i ..L....4 i'1 I I 1.1i4-r I
Iaii.t+t __L_f r~r fii-+1 f
TS.Sq~,u:a-t.T'I/T
"1 i'i :x:r •'r,1.L Pi •I,.L - -ff..[...j (/-(..-4-1l-i—h
■ I ■it14 1f-I.1:dI""-It\•PI. JXi ,«4—4.i T)4.j “Pi-14!4 iff.T -t-i -t .Lt"'M'-41 ...1 T!_ I. u
__
-I t 1iII..j..•i..i-t-H---s -.1-fi .1r ..L..T1IpTpZutT■PbI- i /j
r4 t.I 1:J,i-..L_.t //77 I
_I J-1 t i
I ■L.!i r II de,T--5Lua.•4
-1..!7 >I l/i.
!|-rtr
r-riinu !\&1
Hi-i "Ir4U
r I■f I.r iI1...j I I-f-......Ij..I I1i ■ts 4Ir.\r+ti !"1 ..Li■;
1 4-....-...j.-1-I
!1 L i-U 4!i-t i 44^*?^rt-i ,.l
I f-Li 4.u4 n:^Ll^ I .4.--,-4
i •4-I
?i .1..1,K’f-—i-..t>ci t
[I-4r I ! i jpfiS Ml7-..
t r; t
4^P.i-scio-ieP
F Ils.'.MNCo...Printers—!.. Fergus..313,9S7_*...Victor. LundeenI.[■.I.BK 0403 B70■-■-i..t"J_ 1 r
I I I MHir.h Tj ii IL.
1
Follow-up Letter
Application for Variance after the Fact
Applicants; Linda and Ghazi Hassoun
9/1/04
Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment
Government Services Center
540 West Fir
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Dear Board Members:
On August 31, 2004, we received a letter fi-om Ms. Rhonda Loberg outlining
her expectation for a settlement concerning the set back question related to
the southeast comer of our remodeled garage. In the letter she states that it
is being communicated to you. We are enclosing here a copy of her letter to
us dated 8/27/04, because it is not clear in the letter to us just what she has
communicated to you. At the time of her writing, she was assuming the
hearing to be on September 2, 2004; we have since notified her that the
actual hearing date is September 9, 2004. Because of the potential serious
implications of her outline, if it is to be granted, we feel impelled to avail
you with further pertinent comments as to our view of this matter. The
center piece of her expectation seems to be remodeling the southeast comer
of the garage to meet the 10ft. set back. We strongly feel that this is quite
unreasonable and unjustified by the facts bearing on the issue for the
following reasons:
[For a comprehensive appreciation of what follows, we recommend the
study of the Attachment that we filed with our variance application, August
12,2004.]
1. The remodeling was done after we got a permit where the set back
issue was tied more to the neighbors consent than the actual set back
amount.
2. Ms. Loberg was informed of our plan to remodel, and she gave us the
go ahead. Additionally, the garage floor was poured in September,
2002; and no objection of any kind was raised until April, 2003. When
2 •
the first objection was raised, it had to do more with height than with
set back,
3. The remodeled garage is a great improvement over the preexisting
garage; in particular the southeast wall is further set back than that of
the previous garage; which explains why she had not objected to the
set back to begin with.
4. Cutting out the southeast comer of the remodeled garage and moving
walls would be very expensive, involving many thousands of dollars
and would cause real hardship to us, a retired couple since the spring
of 1998. It would also deny us a portion of the garage that cost us dear
money to put in. In that comer, there is a custom built in work bench
which would be threatened by elimination. In addition, cutting out the
comer is likely to weaken the overall building stmcture and impair its
architectural design.
5. We do not see how cutting out the southeast comer will make things
better for Ms. Loberg. In fact the remodeled garage, including the
southeast comer which is surrounded by two major trees, had in no
way harmed the physical surroundings nor affected adversely Ms.
Loberg’s activities. Cutting out the comer is likely to be less attractive
and to re-institute an open comer that is likely to become a storage
area again for all kinds of odd items that would not fit in the reduced
garage, as was the case before the remodeling.
Because of these considerations, we continue to feel that the best course of
action is to grant us our variance request. For such, we would be most
grateful.
Our guest house/ garage building is wholly within our property boundaries.
We are aware that a thin small piece of garden edging on the southeast side
overlaps the lot line and we expect to remove it. We had offered to do that
shortly after the survey stakes appeared on site; however, Ms. Loberg
dismissed it as not the issue. In a similar way, if it seems advisable, the
overhang on the southeast side will be accordingly cut back to insure no
overreaching into her lot. We further continue to be open for a land strip
exchange (less than 2% of the total lot area), as outlined in our previous
‘Attachment’, if this should prove feasible and more palatable to Ms.
Loberg. Alternatively, we would consider outright purchase of the strip of
interest to us, at a fair market value, should that be Ms. Loberg’s preference.
3
As one sees from Ms. Loberg’s letter, she brings up two additional matters,
namely: the cost of the land survey and some cost incurred in landscaping
that is being affected by the survey. Since we do not think these matters are
likely to be of concern to you, we shall not dwell on them, but briefly
comment on them.
Ms. Loberg never informed of or asked us to participate in a property survey
before it was completed. In fact, we were informed of it by other neighbors
after it was done. If we had been asked by Ms. Loberg, we would have been
happy to have participated in hiring surveyors to work on both of our
properties. Or if it had been required by the county before the construction
we would have had our property surveyed in 2002. Ms. Loberg has shown
us a copy of the mapping of the survey she had done, and we have some
questions about it. In the map, it shows the location of an old survey iron rod
located in one of the places that we used to help determine our lot line, yet
the new survey placed a new rod some distance from the old rod.
The landscape project mentioned in her letter is not related to our
garage/guest cottage project, for it is not even in the area near the garage. It
is between our main cottages. Ms. Loberg’s landscape project was done one
day about a week or two before the time of her survey. We have wondered
why she did not wait for the results of the survey before planting the trees if
she was plaiming to have her property surveyed. When she told us of her
purposed landscape project and asked us about the lot line between our main
cottages, we told her our estimate of the lot line but told her it is not official.
She made the decision as to the placement of the trees, which turned out to
be closer to her cottage than she originally planned.
Your careful consideration of all of these matters, as you deliberate your
ruling, will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Linda & Ghazi Hassoun
■9 ■
August 27, 2004
Dear Ghazi and Linda,
We promised to outline for you our concerns and hopes for a friendly resolution
of the setback issue.
As you know, we have tried to accept the proximity of the garage, but have not
been able to do so. We feel it is imposing as we enjoy the back yard or even as we
pass by from our front door to our garage and parking area.
We are hopeful that the OtterTail County Board of Adjustment will resolve the
matter in a way that does not provide an extreme hardship for you, but that does
provide us with a positive remedy to the encroachment. We have provided the
following information to the Board and will be attending the meeting on Sept. 2:
As good neighbors, we oppose any action that would require you to tear down the
garage/guest house.
.;
We do support an architecturally pleasing modification to the garage, which
moves the new corner back from the property line to meet the 10 ft. setback
requirement.
We would also appreciate your reimbursement of the $1800 cost for the site
survey and for the $500 landscaping cost that needs to be redone. Due to the
circumstances that required these expenses, we believe they should not be our
responsibility.
■ ' t,
We want to be assured that we or future owners of our property will not be
prevented from any reconstruction due to the proximity of your garage/guest
cottage, even with a modification to the comer.
We look forward to a solution that is amenable to all of us and to pleasant
neighborliness in the years to come
Rhonda and Almaree
lOa,(P<-*u j. 4L. UL.■i- .
1723 6*** St. South. Fargo. ND 58103 (701) 232-2164
received
AUG 3 0 2004
August 27, 2004
Board of Adjustment
Otter Tail County
Fergus Falls, MN
lands RESOURCE
Re: Request for a Variance for Lot 24, Liberty Beach
Dear Board Member:
As the owners of the adjoining property to Ghazi and Linda Hassoun, we are writing to
provide background information and express our concerns about this request for a
variance.
My sister and I have owned our cottage since 1999 and very much enjoy the beautiful
lake setting and peaceful, friendly neighborhood on Pelican Lake. We have openly
discussed with the Hassouns the negative impact their project has had on our enjoyment
of our cottage. We are hopeful that the OtterTail County Board of Adjustment will
resolve the matter in a way that does not provide an extreme hardship for the Hassouns,
but that does provide us with a positive remedy to the encroachment.
When we bought our property, the lot lines were approximated by our neighbors on each
side. There was not a dispute about the location of the lot lines. When the Hassouns
prepared to reconstruct their garage/guest cottage, we were in agreement that an
evergreen tree near the garage was on our property.
In the spring of 2003, the new construction extended the building to approximately five
feet from the evergreen tree. We were very concerned about this proximity and about the
two-story scale of the building and contacted the County. As a result, the county building
inspector revisited the site. He called to advise me that the height was within criteria and
that property line disputes are between neighbors and not the county’s concern. While
location of the line itself was not the issue, I was dismayed by this response and felt
helpless to pursue the matter further. At the time. I could not afford a site survey, nor
withstand the stress of attempting to stop a building project.
We have tried to accept the proximity of the garage, but have not been able to do so. We
feel it is imposing as we enjoy the back yard or even as we pass by from our front door to
our garage and parking area.
This spring, my sister and I prepared to plant trees in our side yard to enhance the
ambience and provide privacy to our front deck and living room. When I showed Ghazi
where I intended to plant the trees, he advised me that the trees would be on his property.
Consequently, we planted the trees closer to our cottage, in a location that is not ideal.
At this point, we determined that we must confirm the location of the property line as we
felt we were losing our valuable space. We had lost privacy with the orientation of the
windows on the Hassoun’s reconstructed home, we had an imposing structure in the back
yard, and now, we had lost landscaping space in our yard.
We hired Moore Engineering to complete a site survey. A copy of which has been
provided to the Hassouns and to the Department of Land and Resource Management. The
survey confirmed that the garage is even closer to the property than we previously knew,
being 1.1ft. from the lot line at the comer of the garage. It also confirmed that the lot line
provides the landscaping space that we originally intended to use.
Once we had the site survey, I again contacted the County and received a copy of the
Hassoun’s building permit application, which states there is a 10 ft. setback. I consulted
with Bill Kalar, Director, Land and Resource Management to inquire how this
circumstance could have occurred and what possible remedy was available. I chose not to
file a complaint, but to encourage the Hassouns to apply for a variance on their own
accord, which they have done.
We understand that it will be difficult to find a resolution to this issue, but feel it is
necessary. As neighbors, we are not asking that the entire structure be tom down.
We would support an architecturally pleasing modification to the garage, which
moves the new corner back from the property line to meet the 10 ft. setback
requirement.
We would also appreciate restitution for the $1800 cost for the site survey that was
required to protect our property and for the $500 landscaping cost that needs to be
redone. We believe these expenses should be the responsibility of the Hassouns.
Assistance from Otter Tail County with requiring this restitution would be much
appreciated.
Finally, we want to be assured that we or future owners of our property will not be
prevented from any reconstmction due to the proximity of the Hassoun’s garage/guest
cottage, even with a modification to the comer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rhonda Loberg
Almaree Anderson
Cc: Department of Land & Resource Management
1
Attachment
Application For Variance After The Fact
Applicants: Linda and Ghazi Hassoun
8/12/2004
Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment
Coimty of Otter Tail
Government Services Center
540 West Fir
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Dear Board Members:
We have been told by our neighbor, Ms. Rhonda Loberg, in a pre-arranged meeting on
July 31, 2004, at our Lake Pelican cottage, that we need to apply for a ‘variance after the
fact’ in relation to a remodeling project that we started in September 2002 and completed
in the spring of 2003 on our property. She was accompanied for the meeting by her sister,
Al-Marie. The meeting was to understand and to try to resolve her expressed,
dissatisfaction with our remodeling project involving a pre-existing garage-guest cottage
building on the property. In a span of several days thereafter we gathered more
information in regard to the variance application question and the merit of voluntarily
doing so. We are opting to do so. This attachment to the application that is being filed is
intended for the Board members as background and relatedrinformation to aid them in
their study of the issues involved as they search for a ruling or rulings.
The original garage-guest cottage was constructed in 1962. The garage portion of this
building, before the remodeling, was made up of three sections (Figure 1):
1. A one car garage built at the original time in 1962
2. A tandem garage section built approximately in 1981
3. A carport section built at a time unknown to us, which was enclosed as
another section of the garage; the enclosure, we estimate, was in 1987.
The garage and the guest cottage in the present remodeled building are together in one
structure under one roof with a walkway that goes through them as was the pre
remodeled building.
Because of water leaks along seams of the first two sections of the roof of the former
garage combined with a frequent peeling away of portions of the roof of the third section.
2
various objects in the garage often got wet, and sometimes damaged. Repairs tended not
to hold very long. In addition, the concrete floors of the three sections were at different
levels. This made effective utilization of space awkward and, at times, quite difficult. All
these factors made overhauling the garage indispensable. It became timely, after we had
remodeled our main cottage in 2001, to embark on the garage-guest cottage remodeling,
with the idea to fashion it in design and look to harmonize with the main cottage
remodeled look.
The remodeling involved the three pre-existing garage sections (Figure 1) to be integrated
into one double tandem garage under one roof with the guest cottage. It seemed valuable
and appropriate in the design of the overall roof to also include an attic over the structure.
We applied for a permit and received one on 6/27/2002.
At the time of applying for the permit, we were somewhat concerned about the proposed
comer, point H, figure 2. We did not know exactly where the lot line was. We had an
approximate idea based on a sketch prepared by us in connection with the remodeling of
the main cottage. The sketch made use of such common references as phone and utility
posts as well as headstones on the seawall. We were not told of any requirement by the
county at the time of permit applications that a professional survey of the lot was needed,
neither in the case of the main cottage nor the garage-guest cottage remodeling. We have
known of the 10ft. requirement from the lot line; but we did not think it would rigorously
apply to our remodeling situation, nor did we think we needed to know precisely where it
was, particularly when we were moving away from it in the remodeled garage, albeit a
few feet, and believing a grandfathering rule would apply to 22’ of the 36’ side we would
be placing^ that would face the Loberg property, figures 1, 2, and 3. The review of the
application went smoothly. The focus was on the height of the roof line requirement, that
it must not exceed 20ft., with which we had no difficulty. As we were readying to sign
the permit application, the 10ft set back requirement was mentioned and checked in the
application by the reviewer almost routinely; it was followed by the comment to the
effect that if you and your neighbor are in accord of the projected extension, the county
will not quarrel with you.
It followed therefore that we had to secure the approval of our neighbor Ms. Loberg
before proceeding any further. At an early convenient time thereafter, summer of 2002,
one of us, Ghazi (husband in this application), approached Ms. Loberg and informed her,
while on the front deck of her cottage, of our plan to remodel the garage. As Ghazi
proceeded to explain the project, she was readily agreeable. Yet to be on the safe side, he
asked her if she would walk over with him to the site, some thirty yards away, for him to
show her the contemplated plan, and where the new comer H, figure 2, would be. Ms.
Loberg declined and said in a neighborly way that she did not need to. We took this in
good faith, particularly due to our recognition that the remodeled garage-guest cottage
would be a great improvement on what was there. The comer FED in figure 1 was used
to store firewood, pipes for the dock, a long ladder, pieces of plastic garden edging,
among other things that we could not fit easily inside the garage. It was a breeding place
for chip monks, perhaps other creatures, and not a pretty place to look at. Ms. Loberg had
been by then a neighbor for three years and we have had with her good relations.
3
cooperation, and accommodation; particularly during our remodeling of the main cottage
in the fall of 2000.
In this regard, we mention that our lake property has been owned continuously since the
late 1920’s by various members of Linda’s (wife in this application) family. Our
ownership is the third generation ownership of the property in which Linda has resided
for sixty three years. Most recently, Linda and her sister (Julie Moyer) jointly owned the
property until November 1999 at which time Ghazi purchased Julie’s half of the
ownership. All along, our goals in the remodeling projects have been to improve the
buildings and to preserve the quality of the property for our use and the use of future
owners, hopefully descendents of our family.
A few weeks before the start of the project, our concern about the 10ft set back of comer
H resurfaced. We talked the matter over among ourselves and with our contractor. We
decided that we would invite our permit application reviewer to the site and get his
evaluation of our plan once more. Ghazi made an appointment for the reviewer and the
contractor to meet him at the remodeling site for that purpose. Ghazi drove from Fargo to
the site expressly for the purpose. At the last minute, the contractor apologized for not
being able to make the meeting, because of other pressing demands. Ghazi and the
reviewer met together by themselves. Again the reviewer’s comments stressed the 20ft
height requirement of the roof. The 10ft setback requirement was again casually touched
upon, while the neighbor’s approval was what was focused on most.
The new concrete floor for the garage was in place by the end of September 2002. The
framing of the structure was relegated by the contractor for scheduling reasons to spring
of 2003. Sometime during the spring as the framing was taking shape (latter half of
April), we drove, as had been our habit, to the building site to look at the progress. We
were quite taken aback when we learned from the contractor and his associate that the
Otter Tail County office of Land and Resource Management had received a complaint
concerning the height of the building, and that a gentleman from the office came to do the
measurement. Teasingly, they paused a short while before telling us as to the outcome.
After a moment of suspense, they smiled and said the measurement went OK! To our
knowledge there was no mention of proximity to lot line. We never received any official
notice of the complaint from the county. For a few weeks after hearing about the
complaint, we had no idea who had filed a complaint. It was a puzzle that we did not
figure out readily. Eventually, as we ran into Ms. Loberg across our properties, it became
clear that she had done so after her early encounters with the structure framing in
progress. In our early discussions of her concern, it was quite clear that her upper most
objection was the size and height of the building and not the proximity issue. In fact, the
garage floor was there in the open from the end of September 2002 to April 2003 without
Ms. Loberg voicing any objection that we knew of as to proximity. Her spring 2003 first
objection was that the building had an over imposing look in relation to her cottage. We
definitely did not anticipate such an objection and it came as a surprise. The remodeling
project was completed by the end of June, 2003. In succeeding encounters with Ms.
Loberg, we tried hard in a good neighborly way to allay her concerns about height and
4
size. For example: we pointed the different ground levels on which her cottage and our
garage-guest cottage were sitting on, which accentuated the differences; we pointed out
smallness and largeness each has beauty of its own ^d can be subjective, etc. Gradually,
as if to find other ways to fault the project, her attention began to turn to the position of
comer H, figure 2, as well as to the shading of our building on her grass in the adjoining
backyard space. Only after she had her lot surveyed professionally, June 21, 2004, which
showed point H to be set back 1.1ft from the lot line, that the 1 Oft set back began to loom
as a primary issue. The fact is plain to see by looking at figures 1, 2, and 3 together that
the remodeled garage side NMH is fixrther set back fi*om the lot line than the preexisting
garage side AF.
In view of the above, we ask the board as a first choice to approve the present set back,
and the building as it stands. At the same time, in view of the tightness of the 1.1ft. set
back at comer H, figure 2, we would like to find a relief for both Ms. Loberg and us; even
though the pre-modeled (old) garage was a mere six inches from the lot line. It was
imbeknown to us or Ms. Loberg, figure 1; for which she never objected to, nor for that
matter the new set back until an official survey was done (June 21, 2004).
Further, we have been in communication with Ms. Loberg all along. We want to maintain
our good neighborly relations with her. Beginning with our meeting on July 31, 2004, we
have been exploring with Ms. Loberg possible ways to defuse the set back issue
amicably. We believe with good will there can be a relief that will bless all parties
concerned. One proposal under consideration is the exchange of two narrow triangular
strips of land of equal area and symmetrical in shape around the lot line. Each strip has a
length of about 77 ft. and a width that does not exceed three ft. at its widest point. Figure
4. The strip that goes to Ms. Loberg will be on the south half of the lot line; we believe it
is a strip that is of much better utility for Ms. Loberg. The one that goes to us, on the
north half of the lot line, will give point H, figure 2, a set back of 4ft., which is not out of
character with sfructural set backs in the neighborhood. We would be happy to enter into
such an arrangement, and we would agree to assume all expenses incurred in the
processing and the documenting of the exchange.
Comer H is not in close proximity of other sfructures on Ms. Loberg’s lot, nor have we
seen that it interfered with any activities that Ms. Loberg, her family, and/or guests have
engaged in since the remodeling had been finished. For all intents and piuposes, the
extension rectangle, MEDH, figure 2, does no harm; instead, it has enhanced
incomparably the former comer FED, figure 1. An insistence on a 10ft set back without
regard to the particular circumstances and factors surrounding this case, we feel would be
quite irrational, and that it would lead to severe hardship for us.
In the above narrative, we would like to highlight that in the course of events that led to
the present unfortunate situation, which is the subject of this variance application, the
three parties involved, namely: the owner, the neighbor, and the county, have all made
mistakes. We like to believe that all the motives and actions had been done in good faith.
We tmst that, with flexibility to make reasonable concessions by all concerned, a solution
can be found for the good of the whole. The proposal sketched above has the potential to
5
accomplish this objective. There may be other ways. As you deliberate the matter, we
sincerely ask you to give it your serious consideration.V.
Linda and Ghazi Hassoun
)
^2^ /OcA- ^
s/ie.
y
- /XD <-
f/
t;
If
>/
!
4."
7^r /N:E/f
T f :/3^/
1/
/
/
/
!/
n /y
/6 '/
!/
i /
f
,-r fi-y ','■
fbrfr'hpVi■ /:
•1/
'i'/|
A /;/
f'
0~^
/, |. Q.-iiL ( pre
(x 3 '//
c/'k^-g.j I ^BJ-
•e. '
/7n
^ /nc^ht > { ro'i^
/,e.v f K.)
AfotL ; O^d (fYti - -¥f‘sf> y
^ /^. 4? 5" (^A.
Y't. 2—u
t
V/'Sv'cle.
>1. ■;
M/1)Cf
tY<
I
r
/"f/
1
/
\k
;
I
. i
i
i
;
:
>1/■
/2/
;f-ex6><X ->^ ^5 e^
r f v/y;^
‘^ «A rC 1.
-B- / ;< 3> 4
tLfc txiA^^
ef ke
1:^ r^^; D H M Hr
Ln/t>
%-r vv
t-y)toI
»■
» vv *
M <KwJ^Yot^ ^ChAod&l^^cA- >7
l>l ^(fi) ^t ^v^Ke.r hf
• :
So^ I ^ do £'~^'t
laU-
<
f
-;•I
/2'n "pe-;’tCti£— —^M -J"
,i^'.rf--'
v/
. ff
r y y/y//X, ■-X/-p-*.
X
// /'/f Iz/X.-
■ /•X • /;// //
/\\y / ■./ ■ /
--- ,..—p<-»| '
■'\t £- Z4i
Shf^ ir
I ./^(oy
V
f /
/;
j -
/::.i
J : 2.2^/
6ry
/
f
■y 1?y■ i.yXi;i /
;y
1 • >
\!i i:pi
iIA1
d1 ■\4S-><r-
/
■ t cH
Was Cw-Srcle ^h>J >
I l^c ^
'TIv^ 9W^eci h'B Hr C^ )
i ^/-^.
l^oti W<all N /N f\ic c^eJ'g^ d- w fur'^^x* ts?<^c.
AF ^ ^ aC-cC
Y' y^i?
“StLa)iie. S/i e-
-^fxhd >4^-p r ^ S a-6T krV\ S'trt
^ ohfY^ SvAe.SiA-<L
5
/2>^
//
K
I
K
k^ A S k e-.S"V'CijVa *^i y\-<. »>rj
|^t;*>>4 L'CW^ > ffluVvt K
"Tke l'V\r€'e^ "^ivtC.
^ ^£> ■? t <2-4. t hc^ck- <y^
r^s'^ 'fv'c^^x fc?i-'vvb H
)rtcL^^\KC ^fii:'^i ^ hy'ff}^
/4 remorfc^-e-^ <
^ k^i V </
#4 C 2..
ou^iTiv^rh. /V
dtf Y" KC >'
^C(^\e: lV'‘Ar2^t; \*'/
.r 2 0 .