Minutes of the Stearns County Board of Adjustment

Minutes of the Stearns County Board of Adjustment A meeting of the Stearns County Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday, May 26, 2016, in Room 121 B/C/D of the Stearns County Service Center, 3301 County Road 138, Waite Park, MN beginning at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Dave Gamradt, Bonnie Massmann, Dave Peschel, Jeff Meyer, Joe Lichy,

Jim Wunderlich and LeRoy Gondringer. Members Absent: None Environmental Services Staff Present: Chelle Benson, Monica Peters, Jamie Lucas and

Laurie Lokken. Chairperson Lichy called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance Chairperson Lichy gave an introduction of the Board of Adjustment Public Hearing process. Oath of Office The Oath of Office was given to new member, David Peschel. Code of Ethics David Peschel completed and returned the Code of Ethics form. The form was given to staff in the Administration Department. Approval of April 28, 2016 minutes Motion was made by Dave Gamradt, seconded by Joe Lichy, to approve the minutes from the April 28, 2016 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (Jeff Meyer and Dave Peschel abstained). Regular Agenda Items: 1. Request for a variance from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use &

Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by Rose Mary Meyer Trust, Plymouth, Minnesota. File #P-004891.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Rose Mary Meyer Trust, Plymouth, MN from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to construct a residential structure 27 32 feet from the centerline of an unmaintained platted Township road (Laurel Road). Said Ordinance requires a setback of at least 63 feet from the centerline of a Township road. Affected

Board of Adjustment Minutes May 26, 2016 Page 2 of 22

Property: Lot 6, Ross Addition and Part of Govt Lot 3, Section 9, T124N, R30W, Collegeville Township. Property Address: 16458 Laurel Road, St. Joseph, MN. Applicants, Rose Mary Meyer and Thomas Meyer, were present at the meeting. Monica Peters clarified that the actual setback requested is 32 feet. No correspondence was received regarding this request. Ms. Peters gave an overview of the staff report. It was noted that all Board members present, except Dave Peschel, visited the site prior to the meeting. Thomas Meyer stated they are requesting a variance in order to comply with the law. They want to abide by all the setbacks on the lakeside. They started with their house design 54 feet back from the lake because they thought that was the most important area. After having done that, it didn’t leave them any room to comply with the 63 foot road setback. The number one priority is the preservation of the lake. Their neighbors have built their houses close to their lot lines. They did want to maintain 20 foot sideyard setbacks for any access of emergency vehicles. They kept it pretty simple so that it would fit on the little tiny space that they have available. What’s left is to request a variance on the road side. Rose Mary Meyer stated the neighboring lots have been granted variances and they are closer than the 63 feet also. Chairperson Lichy asked staff if Laurel Road is a maintained Township road. Ms. Peters responded that it is an unmaintained, platted road. This means the platted road is dedicated to the public but not under the jurisdiction of the Township. The Township has asked the County to handle the variance requests in these cases. Jerry Bobeldyk, 16466 Laurel Road, stated he is in favor of what they are proposing. He thinks it will be a benefit to the lake and will be a benefit to the neighbors because of the increased distance between buildings. He can see only a positive to the tax base and to the lake to have this approved. Motion was made by Bonnie Massmann, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Findings of Fact 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. Residential structures are allowed in R-1 zoning districts. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

2. The variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official

control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No?


Yes. The intent of the Shoreland Overlay District is to protect and enhance the water quality of the lakes and this structure is moving further back from the lake.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? Yes. The Comprehensive Plan is to address land use and water quality. The

existing property is similar to the other properties in the neighborhood and the existing roadway has been in place prior to the construction of the cabins in the area.


4. The variance may be granted if there are Practical Difficulties in complying with the official control(s) (as determined below by items a through d):

a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner? Yes or No? Yes. Even though it is a deviation from the road setback, it is reasonable

considering many of the houses in the neighborhood are similarly situated. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner? Yes or No? Yes. The structure cannot meet the requirements of the shoreline setbacks

and the roadway setbacks. The best way to address that issue is to comply with the shoreline setbacks for water quality.


c. The variance, if granted, maintains the essential character of the locality? Yes or No? Yes. It will maintain the character. There are numerous homes up and

down the road that are that close or the same distance from the road. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes

or No? Yes. Economics was not the driving factor in the request. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by Jeff Meyer, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to approve the request to construct a residential structure 32 feet from the centerline of an unmaintained platted Township road (Laurel Road) with the conditions that: 1) silt fencing be installed prior to any ground disturbing activities and Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control be implemented and maintained until vegetation has been established; and 2) the parking area


easement be recorded before the issuance of a construction site permit. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request for a variance from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use &

Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by Carole M. Austing Revocable Trust, Melrose, Minnesota. File #P-005167.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Carole M. Austing Revocable Trust, Melrose, MN from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to construct an accessory structure located 31 feet from the centerline of the road as traveled of an unmaintained platted & dedicated cartway (Birch Ridge Road). Said Ordinance requires a setback of at least 63 feet from the centerline of a road as traveled. Affected Property: Lots 9 & 10 of Birchwood Lake Shore Lots 1st, Section 35, T127N, R33W, Melrose Township. Property Address: 44733 Birch Ridge Road, Melrose, MN. Applicant, Carole Austing, was present at the meeting. It was noted that all Board members present, except Dave Peschel and Jeff Meyer, visited the site prior to the meeting. Monica Peters gave an overview of the staff report. No correspondence was received regarding this request. Carole Austing asked for clarification of what the statement in the staff report means for “the road as traveled is closer than the platted cartway”. Ms. Peters responded that where they built the road is closer to the structure than as platted. She is actually further from the platted road centerline. The public notice had to be for whichever one was closer (in this case, the traveled). Ms. Austing stated it is just a shed for storage. She has met most of the requirements. The only one she can’t meet is the setback from the road. The structure should not be noticeable from the lake. There is a lot of shrubbery along the road itself. LeRoy Gondringer asked staff how far the road as traveled is from where it is supposed to be according to the plat. Ms. Peters stated that she did not have that number. Mr. Gondringer and Chairperson Lichy both stated they don’t see how that could be considered a road. Chairperson Lichy asked if it is a privately maintained road and if the Township does any maintenance on it. Ms. Austing responded that it is privately maintained and that the Township does no maintenance. They take up a collection and hire someone. Bonnie Massmann asked the applicant if she had considered a different shape of a shed in order to reduce the setback. Ms. Austing replied that the south property line actually runs at a different angle there and it’s farther away from the lake. If she turned the shed to have the south end of the building closer to the lake, she would be a little farther from the road on the south side of the building but that’s the only way to do it. That shed is actually quite a bit smaller than what she wanted. A car and a pontoon is about all that would fit.


No one was present to speak at the public hearing. Motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Dave Gamradt, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Findings of Fact. 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. Accessory structures are permitted in this zoning district. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No? Yes. The purpose and intent of the Shoreland Overlay District is to enhance

the quality of the surface waters by promoting wise utilization of public waters and related land resources. The shed would be far enough away from the lake to do this. The second part of this is for road setbacks and it’s not known if this could even be considered a road. There is no way the Township would even have a way of making it a road. For the safety and possible expansion of the right-of-way, it is not known if the Township would even be able to do it.


3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? Yes. The Comprehensive Plan talks about water quality in land use and

because of the setback from the lake, it takes care of some of the water quality issues. The Transportation Plan part of the Comprehensive Plan is that there really is no feasible way the Township would expand that road. For all conceivable future uses, that road is going to be as it is.



a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner? Yes or No? Yes. The deviation is only about 50% and there is a question about the

capacity for the road to be expanded. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner? Yes or No? Yes. The lake setback on Little Birch Lake, along with the roadway setback,

don’t allow structures to be constructed without a conflict from one or the other so the structure is placed outside the OHWL setback to protect the lake. It is not known where the road is supposed to be. Staff is going by the traveled portion, which is not even in the right location, so the actual setback is not known.



c. The variance, if granted, maintains the essential character of the locality? Yes or No? Yes. There are other cabins and houses that have accessory buildings along

that road. It’s not going to change the character of the locality. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes or No? Yes. Economics were not part of the decision. It is the best location to

protect water quality and the road is unknown. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by Bonnie Massmann, seconded by Jeff Meyer, to approve the request to construct an accessory structure located 31 feet from the centerline of the road as traveled of an unmaintained platted & dedicated cartway (Birch Ridge Road) with the condition that silt fencing be installed and Best Management Practices be utilized prior to any disturbance to the soil and maintained until vegetation is established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request for a variance from Section 6.2.1A of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning

Ordinance #439, submitted by Gregory & Nancy Bartes, Richmond, Minnesota. File #P-005479.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Gregory & Nancy Bartes, Richmond, MN from Section 6.2.1A of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to create a 1.84 acre parcel that will have a 2,400 square foot accessory structure on it in the Shoreland Overlay District of Becker Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Said Ordinance allows for a maximum accessory building area of 1,500 square feet on a lot of <1.99 acres and requires a lot size of at least 4.5 acres for a 2,400 square foot accessory building. Affected Property: 40.18 acres SE4SW4 & SW4SE4, Section 23, T123N, R31W, Munson Township. Property Address: 22004 208th Avenue, Richmond, MN. The applicants, Gregory and Nancy Bartes, were present at the meeting. It was noted that all Board members present, except Dave Peschel, visited the site prior to the meeting. Monica Peters gave an overview of the staff report. No correspondence was received regarding this request. Gregory Bartes stated they lost one lot due to the 1,000 foot shoreland overlay coming in from the east and that intersects with Lots 5 and 6. There is a current preliminary plat drawn. They will be going from 10 lots down to 9 lots. Lots 6 and 7 are now being combined into one 85,000 square foot lot.


Mr. Bartes indicated on the site survey the four structure locations that would be removed. There is a somewhat modern dairy barn that has to be removed. There is a little summer kitchen that will be removed. He indicated the location of the structure that would be reduced by a third through this variance request. This is a nice, well-built structure that is very well maintained. The proposed plat would be consistent with a couple of developments located to the east and southeast and would be a natural progression of the development and growth. It’s already a nice neighborhood. Since they bought the property, this has always been their vision. It’s a lot of work to maintain those accessory buildings and they thought now was a good time to go forward with the plan. It’s a financial burden (cost estimated at $41,000) to do the two building modifications and eliminate the other buildings. The structure they are proposing to reduce to 2,400 square feet is a nice, natural and functional building. An eventual buyer could continue to use it in a reasonable manner. Nancy Bartes stated if they had to make the lot size bigger, it would cut out of their retirement plan. It’s not the way they had planned and platted for. Mr. Bartes stated they intend to create two acre lots that would be consistent with the developments in the area. Having outbuildings on the lots is consistent in the area. Mr. Gondringer asked how many of the buildings the applicant built. Mr. Bartes responded just that one. It’s an old farmstead and that the 40’x90’ building on Lot 2 is the only structure that they put up. Ms. Peters added that staff did research the property and those other structures were present in the 1973 aerial photos. They would have been there prior to the enactment of the Shoreland Rules and are conforming for a 41 acre lot. William Conrad, 21987 Towns View Lane, stated he agrees with Mr. Bartes that the building is in good shape. It is well maintained. It fits the neighborhood. Most of them out there have their own sheds and outbuildings as well. He would like the Bartes to keep the building as is. Motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Dave Gamradt, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Findings of Fact. 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. A residential accessory structure is a permitted use in the Shoreland

Overlay and R-1 zoning districts. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No? No. The purpose of the controls is to control the size of structures in

relationship to the size of the lots. As the size of each individual lot decreases, the downsizing of the structures goes right along with that. These lots have not yet been created. The applicant is trying to create a smaller lot and allow a bigger building to go on to it. The applicant does have other options. They can make the lots bigger.


Yes. The shed is already there and it’s been there for 20 plus years. As of now, there is nothing on the other lots. It’s a shame to tear anything off that building. The applicant is cutting it down and it is a little bit over. This has passed before. If they make the other lots bigger, that’s less money for their retirement. The lots that are being proposed are pretty consistent with the neighborhood so it has the same look and feel. It is a beautiful structure and it seems like a waste to substantially reduce it.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: NO (4 members voted no and 3 members voted yes.)

3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? Yes. Nothing has changed yet. The land is still there and there is nothing built

on any of the other lots. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

4. The variance may be granted if there are Practical Difficulties in complying with the

official control(s) (as determined below by items a through d): a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner?

Yes or No? No. When creating new lots, the intent would be to try to make things that

are not noncompliant. This would be noncompliant. Yes. It’s a 60% deviation and it should be grandfathered in. Nothing has

changed. There is nothing on the other lots and maybe there won’t be any sheds on those lots.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: NO (5 members voted no and 2 members voted yes.)

b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property,

not created by the landowner? Yes or No? Yes. It’s unique to the property because the applicants planned the lots for

their retirement. They are down from 10 lots to 9 lots and by following the Ordinance to make the lots, it leaves Lot 2 the odd duck out.

No. This is being created by the landowner. There are ways around it. It has nothing unique to the property. There is nothing from a terrain or topography standpoint that makes it unique.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: NO (6 members voted no and 1 member voted yes.)

c. The variance, if granted, maintains the essential character of the locality? Yes

or No? Yes. All the lots seem to have sheds on them and the essential character

will be maintained. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes or No?


No. It seems that the reason for this variance is purely economics so that the applicants can create more lots and get a larger return for their property.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: NO (6 members voted no and 1 member voted yes.)

DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Dave Peschel, to deny the request to create a 1.84 acre parcel that will have a 2,400 square foot accessory structure on it in the Shoreland Overlay District of Becker Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Motion carried 5-2 (Jim Wunderlich and Jeff Meyer voted nay). 4. Request for a variance from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use &

Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by Anthony & Teresa Peterson, Watkins, Minnesota. File #P-004610.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Anthony & Teresa Peterson, Watkins, MN from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot (576 square foot) residential accessory structure located 60 feet from the centerline of County Road 150 (also known as Willow Creek Drive), which is an Unclassified County Road. Said Ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from the centerline of an Unclassified County Road. Affected Property: 2.52 acres of SW4NW4, Section 10, T121N, R29W, Maine Prairie Township. Property Address: 10198 Willow Creek Road, Kimball, MN. The applicants, Anthony and Teresa Peterson, were present at the meeting. It was noted that all Board members present, except Dave Peschel and Jeff Meyer, visited the site prior to the meeting. Jamie Lucas gave an overview of the staff report. Mr. Lucas stated that prior to the submittal of the application, he had email correspondence with County Highway staff and they were okay with the request. No official correspondence was received from Highway staff. There was no other correspondence received regarding this request. Teresa Peterson stated when they purchased the property, the mobile home was there. They purchased the property for a family member and the shed came along with him and that’s why it is on skids on the property. They invested in the septic, which took a large portion of the yard on the west side. There was a nice yard there but because of the septic system that was installed, that pretty much ate up everything that wasn’t wetland on the property. They would like to make the yard and property nice. They want to place the garage as noted in the request and make it permanent with siding to make it look nice. Chairperson Lichy asked the applicant if that was all the property they have. Ms. Peterson responded affirmatively. Anthony Peterson added there are wetlands all the way around it.


Chairperson Lichy asked if the house is already sitting in the right-of-way. Mr. Lucas replied the house isn’t meeting the setback either but it was done prior to the Ordinance. Mr. Peterson asked if it used to be 50 feet when it was a Township road. Mr. Lucas responded that he wasn’t familiar with those numbers when it was converted from a Township road to a County road or what year that happened. From the email with Highway staff, there is talk about some time in the future changing it back over to a Township road rather than a County road. Then it would be 63 feet. They would still need a variance but it would be less of a deviation as from a County road. No one was present to speak at the public hearing. Motion was made by Dave Gamradt, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Findings of Fact. 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. Residential accessory structures are allowed in R-1 zoning districts. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No? Yes. Even though it doesn’t meet the right-of-way setback, it’s really

encroaching closer than the house is currently. On this property, this is the only spot that the applicants could put this. It is a modest-sized garage. They are not looking for a huge shed. It is not known if it will stay as a County road (by the testimony received) or if it will go back to the Township so it is not known what the setback would be at that time.


3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? Yes. Objective 3 of the Comprehensive Plan is to recognize the relationship

between land use and water quality. This won’t affect the water quality. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)



Yes or No? Yes. The setback is a 40% deviation from the County standard; however,

it is an unclassified County road and it could be turned back to the Township.


b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner? Yes or No?


Yes. It is unique to the property because of the amount of wetlands on the property.


c. The variance, if granted, maintains the essential character of the locality? Yes or No? Yes. The structure will be about the same distance from the road as the

house and it will blend in. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes or No? Yes. Economics were not part of the discussion with the applicant and not

part of the variance process. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by Bonnie Massmann, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to approve the request to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot (576 square foot) residential accessory structure to be located 60 feet from the centerline of County Road 150 (also known as Willow Creek Drive), which is an Unclassified County Road. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Request for a variance from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use &

Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by David & Mary Huettl, Cold Spring, Minnesota. File #P-005337.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by David & Mary Huettl, Cold Spring, MN from Section 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to construct a 12 foot by 20 foot (240 square foot) residential accessory structure 85 feet from the centerline of County Road 49, classified as a Minor Collector. Said Ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from the centerline of a County Road that is classified as a Minor Collector. Affected Property: .80 acres of SE4SW4, Section 22, T123N, R30W, Wakefield Township. Property Address: 15981 County Road49, Cold Spring, MN. Applicants, David and Mary Huettl, was present at the meeting. It was noted that all Board members present visited the site prior to the meeting. Jamie Lucas gave an overview of the staff report. Mr. Lucas stated that prior to the submittal of the application, he emailed County Highway staff and they indicated that the structure should not be any closer than any of the other structures along that stretch of road. This correspondence is on file as part of record. There was no other correspondence received regarding this request.


David Huettl stated that there is no practical alternative for relocating that shed because other setbacks would put them in the middle of the property between the house and the river and really ruin the line of site and require a major relandscaping to put it there. None of the neighbors have a shed between their house and the river. The obvious choice is to get a variance for the setback from the County road. Mr. Lucas added that when he originally met with the applicants, they were looking at a 70 or 75 foot setback from the road. They did move it as far as they were comfortable with at 85 feet, moving it as far away from the road as possible. Chairperson Lichy stated that there are some other buildings that are a little closer to the roadway in that area. Bonnie Massmann stated that if they move back any further, they would be on top of their septic. Mr. Huettl stated that they wouldn’t meet the Township road setback of 63 feet if they move it toward the septic and if they move it closer to the house, they are impinging on their sidewalk and driveway. This is as far back and as close to the front of the house as they feel comfortable. No one was present to speak at the public hearing. Motion was made by Jeff Meyer, seconded by Dave Gamradt, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Findings of Fact. 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. Accessory structures are allowed in the R-1 and Shoreland Overlay

zoning districts. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No? Yes. Because it’s on the roadside of the house and not the lakeside of the house,

the water quality issues really don’t apply and the applicants are in line with the neighborhood.


3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? Yes. The Comprehensive Plan is to recognize the relationship between land

use development and water quality and to continue to support water quality improvements. This structure is going to be on the nonriparian side of the lot so it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As far as the Transportation Plan, the County Highway did not submit any objections as long as it stayed in line with the other buildings.




a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner? Yes or No? Yes. Even though it is a 15% deviation from the setback of the road right-

of-way, there is really no other place to put this building except closer to the lake and then the applicants would be dealing with the water quality. It’s better to be on the roadside.


b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner? Yes or No? Yes. The size and shape of this lot certainly could be considered unique in

itself causing lots of problems for anyone wanting to do anything with it. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


or No? Yes. There are other buildings that are closer to the County road than this

would be. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes or No? Yes. Economics were not a factor. No matter where it is placed, it’s not

going to cause a difference in cost to the applicants as far as the location of it.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.) DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Jeff Meyer, to approve the request to construct a 12 foot by 20 foot (240 square foot) residential accessory structure 85 feet from the centerline of County Road 49, classified as a Minor Collector, with the condition that the existing septic area is roped off during construction to keep traffic and construction material off the existing septic area. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Request for a variance from Sections 5.1.2A(1), 5.1.2C(1)&(3), 6.2.1F & 10.2.11A(1)

of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by Cynthia & Donald Weld, Jr., Minneapolis, Minnesota. File #P-005447.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Cynthia & Donald Weld, Jr., Minneapolis, MN from Sections 5.1.2A(1), 5.1.2C(1)&(3), 6.2.1F & 10.2.11A(1)(a) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to reconstruct and alter the roofline of a structure that is located 43 feet from the OHWL and partly in the Shore Impact Zone of Cedar Island Lake, classified as a Recreational Development Lake, and to construct a detached residential accessory structure 40 foot by 26 foot with a 2 foot by 14


foot bump out (1,068 square feet) 58 feet from the OHWL of Cedar Island Lake. Said Ordinance does not allow for the expansion, alteration or addition to a structure located in the Shore Impact Zone, defined as 50 feet or less from the OHWL of a lake classified Recreational Development, and requires a structural setback of at least 100 feet from the OHWL of a lake classified Recreational Development for a residential accessory structure in the Shoreland Overlay District. Affected property: 2.28 acres FR .28A of Lot 2 & an Island approx. due S of FR .28A, Section 31, T123N, R30W, Wakefield Township. Property address: 18563 Cedar Island Lake Road, Richmond, MN. Applicant, Donald Weld, Jr., and his building contractor, Carl Anderson, were present at the meeting. It was noted that all Board members present visited the site prior to the meeting but were unable to access the site (gate was shut). Jamie Lucas gave an overview of the staff report. No correspondence was received regarding this request. Donald Weld, Jr. requested that the Board do separate Findings of Fact for the roofline of a structure and for the detached residential accessory structure. Carl Anderson stated they are at the end of their comprehensive plan to finish buildings on this island. Their practical difficulty is that because they are on the island, they can’t get back far enough to build these buildings. The bunkhouse, which is grandfathered in, they are going to make smaller. The roofline of it had a 3/12 pitch on it and had been built in two sections. It has a hip roof and six gables. A portion is a garage that had been added on. They would like to put a 6/12 pitch gable on the front of it and then 5/12 pitch to either side to meet the code. They would like this building to match the cabin. It would look a lot better from the water and it would match the other buildings that they have. Mr. Anderson stated the last time they met with the Board of Adjustment, they withdrew their variance request for the garage because the garage looked too much like a house. Now they are just building a garage. It’s much smaller and it’s further back from the OHWL. Chairperson Lichy asked staff if the bunkhouse is a nonconforming structure right now, can they make it smaller (in the same footprint). Mr. Lucas responded that they could make it smaller. The variance request is to alter the pitch because that is technically an expansion (taller than what it is right now). Chairperson Lichy stated the only reason that it is a nonconforming structure is because it is 43 feet from the OHWL and asked if they would move it back to 50 feet, they wouldn’t need the variance. Mr. Lucas replied they would be out of the Shore Impact Zone but it would still need a variance because of the pitch. Bonnie Massmann asked how much of an increase the proposed pitch height would be from what it currently is. Mr. Anderson responded it’s about 2 ½ feet taller. Mr. Weld added that most of that is because the whole building had to be raised because of the high water. Mr. Lucas


stated that it will have to meet floodplain requirements now. Mr. Anderson stated that’s why it’s new construction. LeRoy Gondringer asked if they move it back to 50 feet, would they still have to meet the floodplain issues. Mr. Lucas responded yes, they will still need to meet the floodplain elevation standard. Mr. Anderson confirmed for Dave Gamradt that there will be new footings. Mr. Weld added it will be a completely new building (same exact footprint but smaller). Paul Jeddeloh, 18569 Cedar Island Lake Road, stated this is going to be a vast improvement over the bunkhouse that is there. It actually had a center structure that had been expanded twice (once on each end). He is in favor of them being able to accomplish this. Board members discussed the option to move the structure back to 50 feet. Mr. Anderson stated that they were told by Environmental Services staff that in order for it to be grandfathered in, it had to be in the same spot. They didn’t know anything about moving it back any further. Chairperson Lichy suggested that they could move the structure farther from the lake in the same footprint because of the size reduction. Mr. Lucas outlined this further on the site plan. Mr. Weld stated the reason for the 43 feet is that there is a better view from the house down to the beach as far as watching kids and safety. Their main concern is the pitch of the roof. Motion was made by Jeff Meyer, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Findings of Fact to reconstruct and alter the roofline of a structure that is located 43 feet from the OHWL and partly in the Shore Impact Zone of Cedar Island Lake, classified as a Recreational Development Lake.

1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. Guest cottages are allowed under the zoning districts. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No? Yes. The general purpose is to enhance the quality of surface water in regard

to runoff and if the applicant is reducing the size of the bunkhouse, that would improve that situation.


3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? No. The general purpose is to recognize the relationship between the use of

land and water quality and also to develop improved stormwater management. The applicant is making the building smaller but they have not


talked about stormwater management. By building it 43 feet that close to the shore, there was no discussion about stormwater management. They are not managing any of the stormwater so it’s going to come off the roof and go right into the lake.

Yes. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if a condition is added to the variance that the structure be moved back to 50 feet.



a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner? Yes or No? Yes. The bunkhouse is allowed to be repaired and replaced because it is an

existing nonconforming structure. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner? Yes or No? Yes. The size and shape of the property, as an island, are the conditions

that limit the setback from the lake to comply with shoreland requirements.

No. It is not unique to the property at the request for 43 feet. It could have been fixed. They could meet the 50 foot setback with the reduced size. They are not keeping it at the current size.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (6 members voted yes and 1 member voted no.)


or No? Yes. It won’t change the essential character because it is currently there.

It will probably improve the appearance. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes or No? Yes. Economic considerations were not part of the discussion. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by Bonnie Massmann, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to approve the request to reconstruct and alter the roofline of a structure that is located 43 feet from the OHWL and partly in the Shore Impact Zone of Cedar Island Lake, classified as a Recreational Development Lake, with the condition that the structure is to be constructed 50 feet or more from the OHWL outside of the Shore Impact Zone. Motion carried unanimously.


Findings of Fact to construct a detached residential accessory structure 40 foot by 26 foot with a 2 foot by 14 foot bump out (1,068 square feet) 58 feet from the OHWL of Cedar Island Lake, classified as a Recreational Development Lake. 1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is

located? Yes or No? Yes. Residential accessory structures are allowed in the R-1, Shoreland

Overlay and Floodplain Overlay zoning districts. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)


control(s) (any related Ordinances)? Yes or No? The applicant confirmed for Mr. Gondringer that there will not be a bathroom in the garage.

Yes. It will be harmony with the general purpose of the official controls. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes or No? No. The Comprehensive Plan is to minimize the impacts to water quality from

development through the use of low impact development techniques and improved management of buffers and natural resources in a shoreland area and improve stormwater management in existing development areas. The applicant is building a bigger structure with no stormwater management plan. The runoff is going to the lake.

Mr. Gondringer asked the applicant what stormwater controls, if any, they have. Mr. Weld responded one of the other buildings came down. There is a large parking lot and that’s going to be significantly reduced much greater than a difference of a garage size getting bigger. Mr. Anderson added they have to bring this up to the required bottom level for the flood district and they have planned swales to take the water to the center of the island and that’s in their comprehensive plan that they submitted with their last variance request.

Yes, with an opportunity to add conditions to the variance to cover those concerns.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (4 members voted yes and 3 members voted no.)



Yes or No? Yes. The applicants are proposing to have garage structure and that’s

reasonable for storage of boats and cars and such. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner? Yes or No? No. This is created by the landowner. It is their will to build this bigger

than the existing structure that was there. They could build the same size


structure there but it’s there will to build it bigger so it has nothing to do with the property. It is not unique to the property because of the size that the applicant is asking to build it. He could build it the size that it was and not need a variance. The uniqueness of the lot would not necessarily affect that.

Yes. It would be unique to the property due to circumstances of it being on an island. The applicant did make the other building smaller and wants a little bigger garage.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (4 members voted yes and 3 members voted no.)


or No? Yes. It’s on an island with really nothing around it but water and trees so

it’s in its own little neighborhood. Even if compared to the other houses, the majority of other houses in that area are substantially larger.


d. The need for the variance involves more than economic considerations? Yes or No? Yes. Economic considerations were not a part of the discussion. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

Board members discussed approval of the variance request with an additional condition for a Stormwater Management Plan. DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Bonnie Massmann, to approve the request to construct a detached residential accessory structure 40 foot by 26 foot with a 2 foot by 14 foot bump out (1,068 square feet) 58 feet from the OHWL of Cedar Island Lake with conditions that: 1) a Stormwater Management Plan is created and approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to recording the variance; and 2) all new structures must meet floodplain requirements. Motion carried 6-1 (Chairperson Lichy voted nay). Chairperson Lichy called for a break at 8:42 p.m. Chairperson Lichy reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m. 7. Request for a variance from Sections 6.2.1A & 9.9.9A(3) & 10.2.11A(1)(a) of the

Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by Mark & Roberta Anderson, St. Joseph, Minnesota. File #P-005265.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Mark & Roberta Anderson, St. Joseph, MN from Sections 6.2.1A, 9.9.9A(3) & 10.2.11A(1)(a) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to leave as constructed a 13.8 foot by 28 foot (386 square foot) lean-to addition on an existing 20 foot by 40 foot (800 square


foot) residential accessory structure partly located in the ROW of Kingfisher Court and 88 feet from the OHWL of Island Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Lake, and also exceeds the maximum accessory building area that is allowed on a lot that is .40 acres. Said Ordinance allows 900 square feet of building area on a lot that is .49 acres or less, requires a 30 foot setback from the ROW of Kingfisher Court and 100 feet from the OHWL of Island Lake, classified as a Recreational Development Lake. Affected Property: Lots 20 & 21 of Islewood Beach, Section 13, T124N, R30W, Collegeville Township. Property Address: 29766 Kingfisher Court, St. Joseph, MN. Motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Dave Gamradt, to continue the request to the June 23, 2016 Board of Adjustment meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Request for a variance from Sections 6.2.1H & 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land

Use & Zoning Ordinance #439, submitted by Paul Jeddeloh & Nancy Bowman, Richmond, Minnesota. File #P-004967.

Chairperson Lichy opened the Public Hearing and read the variance application submitted by Paul Jeddeloh & Nancy Bowman, Richmond, MN from Sections 6.2.1H & 9.9.9A(3) of the Stearns County Land Use & Zoning Ordinance #439 to leave as constructed a 16 foot by 22 foot detached residential accessory structure that is located 43 feet from the centerline of Cedar Island Lake Road, classified as a Township Road, and 6.5 feet from the principal residential building on the lot. Said Ordinance requires a structural setback of at least 63 feet from the centerline of road classified as a township road and requires a structural setback of at least 10 feet from the principal residential structure on the lot for the placement of residential accessory structures. Affected property: .74 Acres of Gov’t Lot 2, Section 31, T123N, R30W, Wakefield Township. Property address: 18569 Cedar Island Lake Road, Richmond, MN. The applicant, Paul Jeddeloh, was present at the meeting. Assistant Stearns County Attorney Marcus Miller stated the Board of Adjustment granted a motion at their April 28, 2016 meeting to rehear this variance request. Given the fact that there was a prior public hearing and public record, we can focus simply on the After the Fact Findings from the March 24, 2016 Board of Adjustment meeting. In reviewing the record, the issue for the Board of Adjustment was the setback between the principal residence and the structure. That setback, the encroachment, happened as a result of an issue in 2002. What makes this circumstance a little unique (as reflected in the staff report) is that the accessory structure does not meet the required setback from a principal residential building, which is 10 feet. The Construction Site Permit was issued in 2002 for the addition of the principal residential building without accounting for this setback requirement. Because we approved that permit, we did allow that addition to encroach and while we wouldn’t normally think of a uniqueness in this way, we looked at the circumstances of the property. It is his opinion that a Judge, on any kind of challenge, is likely to look at this in a very practical way and say that had you not granted that permit at that time and caught the setbacks, the applicant would have had the opportunity to design differently to meet this. One, it’s a unique factor in this case not necessarily how we typically think of unique and secondly, it’s not entirely caused by the applicant. As to the road, that’s part of the variance request also but it doesn’t look like there was any kind of issue the last time around because many structures encroach. The key thing is


that Wakefield Township has no issue and it is their right-of-way. In conclusion, it’s been a series of variances that Environmental Services staff has worked on over quite a period of time to finally bring this area into compliance. Jamie Lucas read email correspondence received from Sherry Jones, 18641 Cedar Island Lake Road, in support of this request for a variance. Assistant Attorney Miller stated one thing that we require now that we didn’t require in 2002 is a survey. Environmental Services staff has taken steps to ensure that this type of thing shouldn’t happen again and that on future permits throughout the County, you should be able to verify the setbacks at the time a permit is issued. Mr. Lucas read correspondence received from John and Rose Lang, 18627 Cedar Island Lake Road, in opposition of this variance request. All correspondence is on file as part of record. Paul Jeddeloh stated that garage was already in existence when he bought the property in June 1997. When he went to build the addition, the house was 900 square feet. They had looked at which end of the house to put it on and this was the spot that worked the best. The design was submitted to the County for approval. It was his understanding that the footings were inspected and the footings are basically in the same place as the outside walls of the building and it was approved at that time so the location was approved by County Environmental Services at the time of construction. If it had been noted at the time of construction that there was a setback issue with that detached garage, it could have been addressed very readily at that time. Instead, they went ahead and built the two-story structure with a garage underneath. This didn’t come up until a neighbor submitted various complaints about their property. This has been an ongoing issue with the neighbors and it’s not going to go away. In essence, what was done was a comprehensive review of the property and in order to resolve all the issues, they have had some other things that they had done (removed a shed and moved two others) and taken steps to try to bring everything into compliance. This is the last item. The garage location was already there. The addition was reviewed and a site plan was provided. No mention of that setback was made by either the building contractor or the County so they went ahead with the construction of that. Chelle Benson responded to Chairperson Lichy’s query that the plans submitted by the builder in 2002 were the plans provided in the staff report. Assistant Attorney Miller stated on one hand, different County Boards want to impose needless cost on residents. It is common, prior to 2002, to run into these sorts of problems that can be much more expensive to correct after the fact. There has been a change in thinking of the standards that we have to impose on applications. While a survey may be in the hundreds of dollars, it may look cheap when looking at moving buildings to make sure that we don’t have these sorts of mistakes. In 2002, this was how they did business. Chairperson Lichy asked if there was a setback back in 2002 of 10 feet or is that current. Ms. Benson stated the practice in 2002, was that we stake that property and you verify that location. It wasn’t reviewed when the footings were dug. There was discussion as to how we could accommodate the number of requests that were coming in during that peak time of building. We were adding staff, we were going through process and it was not uncommon that it would just be staked. We did not request surveys of the property and that’s the kind of sketches that


were common so they didn’t have everything measured out. Chairperson Lichy commented that’s understandable but it is probably the builder’s fault and not the property owner’s fault. The builder should have known the setbacks. Ms. Benson stated that there were probably errors made by both parties. No one was present to speak at the public hearing. Motion was made by LeRoy Gondringer, seconded by Dave Peschel, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. After the Fact Findings. 1. Is the proposed use allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is

located? (State the type of use and district or districts for the record.) Yes. It is in an R-1 district that you can have an accessory structure. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

2. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the official control?

(Specifically which purpose statement is met or not met for the record.) Yes. It is in harmony. It seems like there was a little mix up with the County

and the builder and such but the intent was to meet all the regulations at the time.


3. Is the variance request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? (State specifically which goals or objectives are met or not met for the record.)

Yes. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to allow for accessory structures within the Shoreland Overlay District.


4. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control? (State why it is reasonable to deviate from the official control.)

Yes. If looking specifically at the garage, the garage was in existence before the addition was put on to the house so that makes the garage use reasonable.

OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.) 5. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property not created

by the landowner? (State what is unique to the property for the record.) Yes. It is unique to the property because there may have been circumstances

at the time with the County, the builder and the permitting process that maybe were not done the same way they would have been done today so it wasn’t as clear.


6. Will the variance maintain the character of the locality? (State how the request is similar to what others have in the area, number, size, setback?)


Yes. It is within the character of the locality as other residences along that road have accessory structures.


7. Is the variance solely for economic reasons? Yes. It was not economic reasons alone. There are also safety issues

associated with having a building in that location. OVERALL BOARD CONSENSUS: YES (All 7 members voted yes.)

DECISION Based upon the evidence submitted regarding this variance application, motion was made by Jeff Meyer, seconded by Jim Wunderlich, to approve the request to leave as constructed a 16 foot by 22 foot detached residential accessory structure that is located 43 feet from the centerline of Cedar Island Lake Road, classified as a Township Road, and 6.5 feet from the principal residential building on the lot. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Stearns County Attorney Marcus Miller presented updates on variance appeals to Board members. The Judge dismissed the DNR’s appeal and that variance stand unless the DNR submits it to the Court of Appeals (deadline sometime in July). The County won the Serbus appeal and will be taking steps to enforce that decision. ADJOURN Motion was then made by Dave Gamradt, seconded by LeRoy Gondringer, to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

Documents

Minutes of the Stearns County Board of Adjustment