mississippi headwaters board meeting agenda cass county … · 2013. 11. 12. · mississippi...

Mississippi Headwaters Board Meeting Agenda

Cass County Courthouse Walker, MN

November 15th, 2013 9 am

DRAFT

9:00 AM ♦ Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance

9:02 AM - Approve/Amend

♦ Welcome ♦ Agenda (11/15/13) ♦ Consent Agenda – Oct. ’13 Minutes/Expenses* (att. 1) ♦ Staff Report (att. 2)

9:05 AM - Planning and Zoning (Actions)

A. Crow Wing –

1. Cr-10a-13: Review/comment on CWC proposed Land Use Ordinance changes on

Articles 37 & 46 – Applicant – CWC Land Services (att. 3)

B. Hubbard – 1. H-10a-13: Review/certify a variance request to add a second story to an existing non-

conforming cabin - Big Wolf Lake – Applicant – Donald / Lisa Anderson (att. 4) 9:45 AM – Action / Discussion Items: ► Possible office relocation (in same building) Old Business - Meeting Adjourned - Thank you 10:00 AM – Misc: ☼ Legislature Update (if any) ☼ County Updates (if any) Events: December 20th, 2013 – 9 am - MHB meeting – Cass County Courthouse – Walker, MN * - Expense Report will be delivered in the folder the day of the meeting.

Attachments 1 & 2

DRAFT Minutes & Expenses* / Staff Report

* - Expense Report will be delivered in the folder the day of the meeting.

Mississippi Headwaters Board (MHB) October 18th, 2013

Cass County Courthouse, Walker, MN Meeting Minutes

DRAFT Members Present: Chairman Davin Tinquist (Itasca County), Vice Chairman Neal Gaalswyk (Cass County), Kevin Maurer (Morrison County), Brian Napstad (Aitkin County), Jack Frost (Beltrami County) and Dean Newland (Clearwater County), Paul Thiede (Crow Wing County – CWC) and Pam Kichler (Admin. Asst. - Staff). Members Excused: Cal Johannsen (Hubbard County) Others Present: Bill Patnaude (Beltrami County ESD), Mayana Rice (GBA JP planning board), Joe Braun (GBA9a13 Applicant), Cindy Kuisni (GBA9a13 Applicant), Bob / Billie Edwards (B9a13 Applicants), Craig Johnson (GBA9b13 Applicant) 9:01 am – Chairman Tinquist called to order the monthly meeting of the Mississippi Headwaters Board at 9:01 am on October 18th, 2013 in Walker, MN. The meeting began with the pledge of allegiance. 9:02 am - Agenda (October 18th, 2013). Chairman Tinquist asked for amendments and/or approval of the Agenda. No amendments were noted. Motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Napstad / Thiede to approve the Agenda as introduced - 6 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 9:03 am – Consent Agenda (September ’13 Minutes/Expenses). Motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Napstad / Maurer to approve the Consent Agenda and September ’13 expenses of $8,476.11. Roll-call vote was not necessary as the motion was unanimous - 6 – aye and 0 nays. Motion carried. 9:04 am – Staff Report (August/September) - Pam Kichler (Admin. Asst. - Staff) highlighted several items:

- #7 (P/B) - Staff advised that the Itasca County Auditor’s office sent a letter of approval on the ’14 Annual Appropriation request of $1,500.

- #3 (P/C) – The office received a notice regarding a 10/1/13 ribbon cutting/trail walk for Buffalo Hills Park in Brainerd. None of the Commissioner had attended this event.

- #4 (P/C) – Staff reminded the board that a MPCA ‘WRAPS’ meeting will be held Oct. 21st at the Bemidji City Hall (10 am to Noon).

- In closing, Staff asked whether there were any conflicts w/the Nov. 15th board meeting – none were noted. 9:05 am – Zoning Actions –

A. Beltrami –

1. B-9a-13: Review/certify a variance application to construct two additions to an existing cabin (12’ x 28’ two story @ 45’ from OHWM & 6’ x 28’ one story @ 67’ from the OHWM) – Big Wolf Lake - Applicant – Robert / Billie Edwards

►Discussion: Bill Patnaude (Beltrami ESD) and the applicant were in attendance to offer details and answer questions. Additional photos & ESD Staff report were also provided for board review. Discussion ensued w/some of the following specifics identified:

a) The 494 sq. ft. cabin was built prior to the shoreland management program in the 60’s on Big Wolf Lake (classified as: Residential Dev. lake).

b) After construction the square footage would be roughly 1120 sq. ft. c) The septic system was inspected and not in compliance, so the applicant will be required to

put in a holding tank and/or get an approved septic system on the property. d) Neither addition will encroach further to the shoreline.

MHB Meeting Minutes

e) The applicant has been and will be required to maintain a natural shoreline buffer. f) This Application was reviewed/approved by the Bemidji Planning Commission on 9/23/13.

Following discussion, motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Napstad / Frost to certify the variance as approved and with the conditions / findings of fact as offered through the Beltrami County Board of Adjustment – 7 ayes and 0 nays. Motion carried.

B. Beltrami (Greater Bemidji Area Joint Powers Board - GBA JPB)

1. GBA9a13: Review/certify a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to upgrade a portion of an existing 69k-volt transmission line - Lake Bemidji / Lake Irving – Applicant – Otter-Tail Power (OTP)

►Discussion: Mayana Rice (GBA Planning Com.) and the applicant were in attendance to offer details /mapping and to answer questions. Through discussion some of the following specifics were identified:

a) Because the project is less than 10 miles, the utility company was given the choice to go through the local review/permit process, with the caveat that an Environmental Assessment must be drafted as part of the CUP process. WSN conducted the assessment and 800+ people from the area (w/in a 350’ boundary) were given notification on the project.

b) This is an existing line upgrade, so the line will be replaced in the exact location. All state/federal approvals and required easement right-of-ways must be obtained.

c) There was an original scoping meeting w/several alternatives brought forward. d) The GBA Planning Com. is requiring final review of the engineering plans (sub-

stations/routes/silt fencing etc.) and OTP must provide notice of any plan deviations. e) Approx. 265’ ft. of the line will cross the river, requiring bird-diverts and erosion control

measures be taken where poles & sub-stations are located. f) A public hearing on the CUP was conducted Sept. 26th 2013.

Following discussion, motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Napstad / Gaalswyk to certify the CUP application as approved and with the conditions / findings of fact as offered through the GBA Planning Commission – 7 ayes and 0 nays. Motion carried. 2. GBA9b13: Review/certify an application for 5 variances to construct an addition to an existing single family home on Lake Bemidji – Applicant – Craig Johnson

►Discussion: Mayana Rice (GBA Planning Com.) and applicant were in attendance to offer details and to answer questions. Some of the following specifics were highlighted during discussion:

a) The existing home and deck with a proposed 530 sq. ft. addition will be built @ 87’ of the OHWM on Lake Bemidji.

b) The GBA Planning Com. discovered an existing shed w/in the ROW on the property & is requiring it to be moved w/in 6 month. Because this action impacts the impervious surface calculations and setbacks however, the Planning Com. is requiring that the applicant (w/in 7 yrs.) use a portion of the driveway to decrease the impervious surface.

c) No concerns were brought forward from area neighbors on the proposed project. d) This Application was reviewed/approved by the GBA Planning Commission on 10/9/13.

Following discussion, motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Frost / Maurer to certify the variance as approved and with the conditions / findings of fact as offered through the GBA Planning Commission – 7 ayes and 0 nays. Motion carried.

MHB Meeting Minutes

3. GBA9c13: Review/certify an application for 4 variances to reconstruct an existing 1-story dwelling on Lake Bemidji – Applicant – Lyman / Patricia Brink

►Discussion: Mayana Rice (GBA Planning Com.) and applicant were in attendance to offer details and to answer questions. Some of the following were noted in discussion:

a) The lot is sub-standard w/a non-conforming structure on Lake Bemidji. b) The applicant recently purchased two back-lots containing 2 non-conforming structures.

They will be removed and replaced w/a new assessor structure. c) The front-lot has a holding tank that will be replaced w/new mound system. d) The impervious requirement will be met & the addition will not encroach the lake further. e) This Application was reviewed/approved by the GBA Planning Commission on 10/9/13.

Following discussion, motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Napstad / Gaalswyk to certify the variance as approved and with the conditions / findings of fact as offered through the GBA Planning Com., to include approval of an SSTS prior to permit issuance – 7 ayes and 0 nays. Motion carried. 4. GBA9d13: Review/certify an application to build an addition to home with a 25 foot variance on

Lake Bemidji – Applicant – Paul / Susie Sproule

►Discussion: Mayana Rice (GBA Planning Com.) was in attendance to offer details, provide photos and to answer questions. Discussion ensued w/some of the following noted:

a) The house sits approx. 49.6’ from Lake Bemidji. The addition w/be 75’ from the OHWM. b) The SSTS (mound system) will be checked and/or improved for compliance. c) Per the GBA Planning Com., the application will meet the impervious requirement once a

majority of the drive is removed and reseeded due to encroachment issues w/the neighboring lot.

d) Further discussion ensued on how other counties treat road ROW and ‘back-lots’ when calculating impervious.

e) This Application was reviewed/approved by the GBA Planning Commission on 10/9/13.

Following discussion, motion was made and seconded by Commissioner Napstad / Frost to certify the variance as approved and with the conditions / findings of fact as offered through the GBA Planning Commission – 7 ayes and 0 nays. Motion carried.

10:16 am – Actions / Discussion Items – ► ED Sub-committee update – Commissioner Thiede (Crow Wing) was given the floor to offer a brief

recap of recent activity that has led to today’s after-meeting interviews. Because today’s meeting was completed earlier than expected, Chairman Tinquist adjourned the meeting and moved on to ‘Misc. County and State updates’. Following County and State updates, the board closed the meeting to conduct the scheduled Executive Director interviews at 11:30 am. Each candidate was interviewed in an un-recorded closed session.

Next MHB meeting: Friday, November 15th, 2013 – Walker, MN ___________________________ ____________________________ Chair Approval Submitted by (Admin Asst.)

Staff Report

October – November 2013

Personnel and Budget 1) 10.10.13 – Received Cass County Highway 1Q ’14 in-kind 2) 10.15.13 – Received Beltrami County Highway 1Q ’14 in-kind 3) 10.16.13 – Received Beltrami County (GBAJPB) ESD 1Q ’14 in-kind and action count

4) 10.21.13 – Received notice from Morrison County of approval on the ’14 Appropriations

5) 10.21.13 – Met w/Paul & CWC HR dept. to work out details of back ground/reference chk on top 2 candidates for ED which included scheduling a conference call for the Sub-com. 6) 10.22.13 – Received 1Q ’14 in-kind from Clearwater Highway dept. 7) 10.28.13 – Drafted Announcement and Press Release for ED – will send after successful back ground chk 8) 10.30.13 – Prepared/mailed 1Q ’14 DNR reimbursement request for $14,562.87 Programs and Correspondence 1) 10.17.13 – Received request for comment from CWC Land Srv. on proposed Land Use Ord. revisions 2) 10.21.13 – Received notice from Hubbard of a variance for the Nov. MHB mtg. 3) 10.28.13 – Received notice of upcoming MCIT annual meeting in Mpls. on Dec. 9th Up and Coming Events

1. Next Board Meeting Dec. 20th, 2013 – Walker, MN

Attachment 3

Planning / Zoning

A.1 Crow Wing – 1. Cr-10a-13: Review/comment on CWC proposed Land Use Ordinance changes on Articles 37 & 46 – Applicant – CWC Land Services (att. 3)

TO: Crow Wing County Commissioners

Crow Wing County Administrator

Crow Wing County Senior Management

Crow Wing County Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment

Townships, Crow Wing County

Municipalities, Crow Wing County

Cass County Environmental Services

Aitkin County Planning and Zoning

Morrison County Planning and Zoning

MN Department of Natural Resources

Mississippi Headwaters Board

Crow Wing Soil & Water Conservation District

Thirty Lakes Watershed District

Lake Associations

Environmental Services Staff

FR: Chris Pence, Land Services Supervisor

DT: October 17, 2013

RE: Proposed Revision to the Crow Wing County Land Use Ordinance

Attached for your consideration and comment are proposed revisions to the Crow Wing

County Land Use Ordinance. The Land Services Department is committed to the

operating policy of revising the Land Use Ordinance on a quarterly basis to improve the

clarity and effectiveness of the ordinance. The specific articles being revised in the

fourth quarter of 2013 is Article 37 (Septic Systems) and Article 46 (Definitions).

Counties are required to update current septic system ordinances by February 3, 2014

according to State Statutes 115.55 and also must be in compliance with Minnesota Rules

Chapters 7080-7083.

The Land Use Ordinance revisions will be presented at a public hearing before the

Planning Commission on December 19, 2013. Final action on the ordinance revisions

TELEPHONE (218)824-1125

FAX (218)824-1126

[email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

322 LAUREL STREET, SUITE 14

BRAINERD, MINNESOTA 56401-3565

Land Services Department Mark B. Liedl……………………….....Land Services Director

Environmental Services Christopher Pence…………………….. Land Services Supervisor

Douglas R. Morris……………..............Solid Waste Coordinator

Paul Herkenhoff, PLS ……………….. Survey Coordinator

Property Valuation and Classification Gary Griffin……………………………Land Services Supervisor

Public Land Management Kirk Titus………………………………Land Services Supervisor

will be considered by the County Board in January 2014. The information regarding

revisions to the ordinance is available at the Crow Wing County Website at

www.crowwing.us by clicking on the “CWC Listens” button on the home page.

Environmental Services will be accepting comments on the proposed revisions until

November 16, 2013. Please submit comments to [email protected]

or mail them to 322 Laurel Street, Suite 14, Brainerd, MN 56401. Environmental

Services can also be reached at (218) 824-1125.

http://www.crowwing.us/

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE 37—SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS-TECHNICAL STANDARDS

AND CRITERIA

37.1 PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

The purpose of the Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) Ordinance is to provide minimum

standards for and regulation of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) and Midsized Sewage

Treatment Systems (MSTS) including the proper location, design and construction; their necessary

modification and reconstruction; their operation, maintenance and repair to protect surface water and

groundwater from contamination by human sewage and waterborne household and commercial

wastes; to protect the public's health and safety, and eliminate or prevent the development of public

nuisances pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes sections 115.55, 145A.05,

375.51, 394.21-394.37, and 471.82, the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Land Use

Ordinance.

37.2 INTENT

It is intended by the County that this Ordinance will promote the following:

A. The protection of lakes, rivers and streams, wetlands, and groundwater in Crow Wing County

essential to the promotion of public health, safety, welfare, socioeconomic growth and

development of the County.

B. The regulation of proper SSTS construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance to

prevent the entry and migration of contaminants, thereby protecting the degradation of

surface water and groundwater quality.

C. The establishment of minimum standards for SSTS placement, design, construction,

reconstruction, repair and maintenance to prevent contamination and, if contamination is

discovered, the identification and control of its consequences and the abatement of its source

and migration.

D. The appropriate utilization of privy vaults and other non-water carried sewage collection and

storage facilities.

37.3 JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Ordinance shall include all lands of the County except for incorporated

areas that administer a Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) program by Ordinance

within their incorporated jurisdiction, which is at least as strict as this Ordinance.

37.4 EFFECTIVE DATE

The provisions set forth in this Ordinance shall become effective on (DATE).

37.5 SCOPE

This Ordinance regulates the siting, design, installation, alterations, operation, maintenance,

monitoring, and management of all SSTS within the County’s applicable jurisdiction including,

but not necessarily limited to individual SSTS and cluster or community SSTS, privy vaults, and

other non-water carried SSTS. All sewage generated in unsewered areas of the County shall be

treated and dispersed by an approved SSTS that is sited, designed, installed, operated, and

maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance or by a system that has been

permitted by the MPCA.

37.6 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

A. The Crow Wing County Land Services Department shall administer the SSTS program and

all provisions of this ordinance.

B. The County’s duties and responsibilities include, but are not be limited to, the following;

1. Review all applications for SSTS

2. Issue all permits required in this Article

3. Inspect all work regulated in this Article

4. Investigate all complaints regarding SSTS

5. Issue certificates of installation, certificates of compliance or notices of noncompliance

where applicable

6. Enact enforcement provisions of this Article as necessary

7. Refer unresolved violations of this Article to the County Attorney

8. Maintain current records for each permitted SSTS including all site evaluation

documents, design documents, inspection documents, and other applicable documents.

9. The County shall employ or retain under contract qualified and appropriately licensed

professionals to administer and operate the SSTS program.

10. Submit annual reports to MPCA as required.

37.7 STATE ADMINISTRATION

When a single SSTS or group of SSTS under single ownership within one-half mile of each other,

have a design flow greater than 10,000 gallons per day or has a measured daily flow for a

consecutive seven-day period which equals or exceeds 10,000 gallons per day, the owner shall

make application for and obtain a State Disposal System permit from the MPCA.

37.8 CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS ADMINISTRATION

Any jurisdiction within the County that regulates SSTS must comply with the standards and

requirements of this Ordinance. The standards and ordinance of the jurisdiction may be

administratively and technically more restrictive than this Ordinance.

37.9 LIABILITY

The County’s involvement in administration of this Ordinance does not create a special duty to

any person and, further liability or responsibility shall not be imposed upon the County or any of

its officials, employees, or other contract agents, for damage resulting from the defective

construction, operation, or abandonment of any onsite or cluster SSTS regulated under this

Ordinance or by reason of any standards, requirements, or inspections authorized by this

Ordinance hereunder.

37.10 All SSTS

Except as explicitly set forth in Section 37.12, all provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to any

SSTS regardless of the date it was originally permitted.

37.11 Existing Permits

Unexpired permits which were issued prior to the effective date of this Article shall remain valid

under the terms and conditions of the original permit until the original expiration date or until a

change in system design, whichever is earlier.

37.12 SSTS on Lots Created Before January 23, 1996

All lots created after January 23, 1996, must have a minimum of two soil treatment and dispersal

areas that can support Type 1 systems as defined by Minnesota Rule 7080.2200.

37.13 UPGRADE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT AND ABANDONMENT

A. SSTS Capacity Expansions

Expansion of an existing SSTS must include any system upgrades that are necessary to bring

the entire system into compliance with the prevailing provisions of this Ordinance at the time

of the expansion.

B. Bedroom Addition Any addition to a structure that includes bedroom(s) that require a land use permit from the

County shall require that the SSTS meet the required design flow according to Minnesota

Rule 7080.1860 or be upgraded to meet Class 1 sizing for both the septic tanks and soil

absorption area. Any required upgrades shall be completed within two years.

C. Failure to Protect Groundwater An SSTS that is determined not to be protective of groundwater in accordance with

Minnesota Rule7080.1500, Subp.4(B) shall be upgraded, repaired, replaced or abandoned by

the owner in accordance with the provisions of this Article within 10 months upon receipt of

a Notice of Noncompliance and must meet Class I sizing requirements according to

Minnesota Rule7080.1860.

D. Imminent Threat to Public Health or Safety

An SSTS posing an imminent threat to public health or safety shall be pumped within 24

hours and managed as a holding tank in accordance with Minnesota Rule 7080.1500, Subp.

4(A) and said SSTS shall be upgraded, repaired, replaced or abandoned by the owner in

accordance with the provisions of this Article within 10 months upon receipt of a Notice of

Noncompliance and must meet Class I sizing requirements according to Minnesota Rule

7080.1860

E. Abandonment

Any SSTS, or any component thereof, which is no longer intended to be used, must be

abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Rule7080.2500.

37.14 SSTS IN FLOODPLAINS

SSTS shall not be located in a floodway and wherever possible, location within any part of a

floodplain should be avoided. If no option exists to locate a SSTS outside of a floodplain,

location within the flood fringe is allowed if the requirements in Minnesota Rule7080.2270 and

all relevant local requirements are met.

37.15 CLASS V INJECTION WELLS

All owners of new or replacement SSTS that are considered to be Class V injection wells, as

defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 144, are required by the Federal

Government to submit SSTS inventory information to the Environmental Protection Agency as

described in 40 CFR Part 144. Further, owners are required to identify all Class V injection wells

in property transfer disclosures.

37.16 SSTS PRACTITIONER LICENSING

A. No person shall engage in site evaluation, inspection, design, installation, construction,

alteration, extension, repair, maintenance, or pumping of SSTS without an appropriate and

valid license issued by MPCA in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7083 except as

exempted in Rule 7083.0700.

B. An MPCA license is not required of an individual who is constructing a SSTS on land that is

owned by the individual and functions solely as a dwelling for that individual pursuant to

Minnesota Rule7083.0700. Installation of the system shall be based upon a design by a

licensed designer. The system shall be inspected before it is covered and a 24-hour

notification to the Department for inspection is required.

37.17 PROHIBITIONS

A. Occupancy or Use of a Building without a Compliant SSTS

It is unlawful for any person to maintain, occupy, or use any building intended for habitation

that is not provided with a wastewater treatment system that disposes of wastewater in a

manner that does not comply with the provisions of this Ordinance.

B. Sewage Discharge to Ground Surface or Surface Water

It is unlawful for any person to construct, maintain, or use any SSTS system regulated under

this Ordinance that results in raw or partially treated wastewater seeping to the ground surface

or flowing into any surface water. Any surface discharging system must be permitted under

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program by the MPCA.

C. Sewage Discharge to a Well or Boring

It is unlawful for any person to discharge raw or treated wastewater into any well or boring as

described in Minnesota Rule 4725.2050, or any other excavation in the ground that is not in

compliance with this ordinance.

D. Discharge of Hazardous or Deleterious Materials

It is unlawful for any person to discharge into any treatment system regulated under this

Ordinance any hazardous or deleterious material that adversely affects the treatment or

dispersal performance of the system or groundwater quality.

37.18 ALTERNATIVE LOCAL STANDARDS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE

A. Adoption of Rule by Reference

1. The County hereby adopts by reference the provisions of Minnesota Rules Chapters 7080 -

7083 in their entirety except as referenced under Section 37.18(B), except as otherwise

expressly modified by this Ordinance.

2. When “2006 version of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080” is utilized, the reference is to the

rules effective April 3, 2006, otherwise the County is referencing the current rules in effect.

B. Alternative Local Standards for New and Existing SSTS

1. The County hereby adopts the 2006 version of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 for all new

and existing residential Type I, Type II and Type III SSTS and SSTS that serve any Food,

Beverage and Lodging Establishment under 2,500 gallons per day provided the effluent

discharge does not exceed the standards in Minnesota Rule7080.2150, Subp. 3(K).

37.19 DIFFERENCES IN STANDARDS

A. List of Different Adopted Standards

1. In no land use district shall a land use permit, shoreline alteration permit, minor

subdivision, plat, conditional use permit or variance be issued without a current Certificate

of Compliance or Certificate of Installation that has not expired according to Section 37.27

(C) of this ordinance.

2. At least one cleanout at or above finished grade shall be installed between the structure

and the septic tank with additional clean outs at intervals not more than 100 feet.

3. Class I sizing is required on all new construction. New construction will be defined as

placement of a new structure or replacement structure that is served by pressurized water.

4. Minimum septic tank sizing shall be a 1,500 gallon compartmentalized tank, multiple

tanks in series or the use of an effluent filter for the last baffle. The filter must be of such

a design that when the filter is removed from the filter housing, the flow of water leaving

the tank is not allowed. Sewage must pass through a minimum of three baffles before

reaching either a pump tank or the soil dispersal system. The first tank or compartment

shall be no less than 1,000 gallons in size and applies to new and replacement SSTS. All

other tank sizing shall follow Minnesota Rule 7080.1930.

5. Pump tank sizing shall follow Minnesota Rule 7080.2100.

6. Soil pits shall be required during the construction inspection. The soil pit shall be

excavated at the time of the inspection. The soil pit shall be dug by a backhoe or other

acceptable method and be excavated to a depth that will allow the verification of

redoximorphic features and the three feet of vertical separation as required. Location of

soil pits shall be adjacent to the lowest trench or next to the down slope side of an elevated

treatment area. The pit shall not impact the hydraulic performance of the ISTS. A

certificate of installation will not be issued until the soils are verified by a soil pit.

7. All dwellings shall meet the required setbacks to the septic tank and soil absorption area.

Accessory structures, including but not limited to, decks, screen decks, porches, sheds,

garages and pole buildings shall not be required to meet said setbacks provided that the

tank(s) can be maintained properly and that the structure does not negatively impact the

function of the system.

37.20 Compliance Criteria for Existing SSTS

For an SSTS built before April 1, 1996, and outside of areas designated as “SWF” – Systems in

shoreland areas, wellhead protection areas, or systems serving food, beverage, or lodging

establishments – there must be at least two feet of vertical separation between the bottom of the

dispersal system and seasonal saturation or bedrock.

37.21 Holding Tanks

Holding tanks may be allowed for the following applications: as replacements for existing failing

SSTS and SSTS that pose an imminent threat to public health or safety, on lots with limitations

that will not allow for the installation of a Type 1 SSTS or for uses that are seasonal or

intermittent in nature and will not use more than 150 gallons of water per day.

37.22 Variance Requests

A property owner may request a variance from the standards as specified in this ordinance

pursuant to Article 9 of this Ordinance.

37.23 State Agency Variance Requests

Variances that pertain to the standards and requirements of the State of Minnesota must be

approved by the affected State Agency pursuant to the requirements of the State Agency. No

permits will be issued by the County until all required State Agency variances have been

approved.

37.24 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

A. Activities Not Requiring a Land Use Permit A land use permit is not required for minor repairs or replacements of system components that

do not alter the original function of the system; change the treatment capacity of the system;

change the location of the system; or otherwise change the original system design, layout, or

function. Examples are, but not limited to, pumps, baffles, and effluent screens or filters.

B. Activities Requiring a Land Use Permit

A land use permit shall be obtained by the property owner or an agent of the property owner

from the County prior to the installation, construction, replacement, modification, alteration, or

capacity expansion of a SSTS. It is unlawful for any person to construct, install, modify or

replace a SSTS without the appropriate permit from the Department including repair or

replacement of components that will alter the original function of the system, change the

treatment capacity of the system, change the location of the system, or otherwise change the

original system’s design, layout, or function. The issuing of any permit, variance, or

conditional use under the provisions of this ordinance shall not absolve the applicant of

responsibility to obtain any other required permit.

C. Permit Requirements

Land Use Permit applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department and signed

by the applicant or applicant’s agent, and must include the following information and

documentation:

1. Applicant name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address.

2. Property Identification Number, property address and legal description of property location.

3. Site Evaluation Report, as defined by Section 37.18 , and shall be made on form provided

by the Department

4. Design Report, as defined by 37.18, and shall be made on form provided by the

Department.

5. A maintenance plan, as defined by Minnesota Rule 7082.0500, Subp. 4D.

D. Application Review and Response

The Department shall review a permit application and supporting documents according to

Article 3 of this Ordinance.

E. Appeal

The applicant may appeal any decision of the Department in accordance with Section 9.7 of

this Ordinance.

F. Permit Expiration

A Land Use Permit for a new SSTS is valid for a period of no more than two years from its

date of issue. A Land Use Permit for the replacement of SSTS failing to protect groundwater

is valid for 10 months. A Land Use Permit for the replacement of SSTS that are imminent

threats to public health is valid for 10 months. Satisfactory completion of construction shall be

determined by as-built drawings and a signed certification that the construction and installation

of the system was completed in reasonable conformance with the approved design documents

by a qualified employee of the Department or a licensed inspection business, which is

authorized by the Department and independent of the owner and the SSTS installer.

G. Transferability

A Land Use Permit may be transferred to a new owner provided there are no proposed changes

to the SSTS design.

H. Suspension or Revocation

The Department may suspend or revoke a Land Use Permit issued under this section for any

false statements, misrepresentations of facts on which the Land Use Permit was issued, or

unauthorized changes to the system design that alter the original function of the system,

change the treatment capacity of the system, change the location of the system, or otherwise

change the original system design, layout, or function. A notice of suspension or revocation

and the reasons for the suspension or revocation shall be conveyed in writing to the permit

holder. If suspended or revoked, installation or modification of a treatment system may not

commence or continue until a valid Land Use Permit is obtained.

I. SSTS Assessment Requirements

For those SSTS without a management plan or operating permit according to the provisions of

this Article, the following provisions apply:

1. The owner of an ISTS or the owner's agent shall regularly, but in no case less frequently

than every three years, assess whether sewage tanks leak below the designed operating

depth and whether sewage tank tops, riser joints, and riser connections leak through visual

evidence of major defects and measure or remove the accumulations of scum, grease, and

other floating materials at the top of each septic tank and compartment, along with the

sludge, which consists of the solids denser than water.

2. All solids and liquids must be removed by pumping from all tanks or compartments in

which the top of the sludge layer is less than 12 inches from the bottom of the outlet baffle

or transfer hole or whenever the bottom of the scum layer is less than three inches above

the bottom of the outlet baffle or transfer hole. Total sludge and scum volume must not be

greater than 25 percent of the tank's liquid capacity. Removal of accumulated sludge,

scum, and liquids from septic tanks and pump tanks must be through the maintenance hole.

The removal of solids from any location other than the maintenance hole is not a compliant

method of solids removal from a sewage tank, and this method does not fulfill the solids

removal requirement of this part or a management plan. Liquid and solids removal from

clean-out pipes is allowed for holding tanks.

37.25 OPERATING PERMIT

A. An Operating Permit shall be required for the following SSTS:

1. SSTS with high strength waste effluent standards that exceed Minnesota Rule 7080.2150,

Subp. 3(K);

2. Holding Tanks;

3. SSTS serving three or more connections;

4. Type 3, Type 4 and Type 5 SSTS;

5. SSTS that exceed a daily flow of 2,500 gallons per day; or,

6. MSTS designed under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7081.

B. Operating Permits shall be a signed agreement between the Department and the property

owner and shall include monitoring, performance, mitigation, and reporting requirements. C. A valid Operating Permit shall be considered a certificate of compliance if that system is in

compliance with the requirements of the Operating Permit. D. Owners of holding tanks shall provide the Department with a copy of a valid monitoring and

disposal contract executed between the owner and a licensed maintenance business, which

guarantees the removal of the holding tank contents in a timely manner and prevents an illegal

discharge in accordance with Minnesota Rule 7082.0100, Subp. 3(G). This requirement is

waived if the owner is a farmer who is exempt from licensing under Minn. Stat., § 115.56,

subd. 3(b)(3).

E. Operating Permits shall be valid for the specific term stated on the permit as determined by the

Department.

F. An Operating Permit must be renewed prior to its expiration. If not renewed, the Department

may require the system to be removed from service or operated as a holding tank until the

permit is renewed. If not renewed within 90 calendar days of the expiration date, the

Department may require that the system be abandoned in accordance with Section 37.14(E).

G. Operating Permits do not transfer to new property owners. New owners shall apply for an

Operating Permit in accordance with Section 37.26. The Department shall not terminate the

current permit until 90 calendar days after the date of sale unless an imminent threat to public

health and safety exists. To consider the new owner’s application, the Department may

require a performance inspection of the treatment system certified by a licensed inspector or

qualified employee.

H. A report shall be prepared and certified by the licensed inspection business or licensed service

provider. The report shall be submitted to the Department on a form provided by the

Department on or before the compliance reporting date stipulated in the operating permit as

required. The report shall contain a description of all maintenance and servicing activities

performed since the last compliance monitoring report as described in the operating permit.

I. The Department may suspend or revoke any Operating Permit issued under this section for any

false statements or misrepresentations of facts on which the Operating Permit was issued.

J. If suspended or revoked, the Department may require that the treatment system be removed

from service, operated as a holding tank, or abandoned.

K. At the Department’s sole discretion, the operating permit may be reinstated or renewed upon

the owner taking appropriate corrective actions.

37.26 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION PROGRAM

A. Department Responsibility It is the responsibility of the Department, or its agent, to perform installation inspections of

new SSTS or upgrades of SSTS to assure that the requirements of this Ordinance are met.

1. All compliance inspections must be performed and signed by licensed inspection

businesses or qualified employees certified as inspectors.

2. The Department shall be given access to enter a property at any reasonable time to

inspect and/or monitor the SSTS system. As used in this paragraph, “property” does not

include a residence or private building.

3. No person shall hinder or otherwise interfere with the Department’s employees in the

performance of their duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Ordinance. Refusal to

allow reasonable access to the property by the Department shall be deemed a separate and

distinct offense.

4. A signed winter agreement may be accepted in lieu of a compliance inspection for

property transfers, permit applications and designs to the Department between November

1 and April 30, at the Department’s sole discretion, provided the required information is

submitted to the Department by June 1 of the subsequent year. Failure to fulfill all of the

obligations of the winter agreement shall be a violation of this Ordinance.

B. New Construction or Replacement

1. New installation inspections must be performed on new or replacement SSTS to

determine compliance with Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080 or 7081, respectively,

according to Section 37.27. SSTS found to be noncompliant with other applicable

requirements must be repaired or replaced according to the Department’s requirements.

2. It is the responsibility of the SSTS owner or the owner’s agent to notify the Department

24 hours prior to the installation inspection.

3. If the installer provides proper notice and the department does not provide an inspection

within one hour after an inspection time was set, the installer may complete the

construction per the following: The installer shall submit photographs of the entire

uncovered system and an as-built drawing with a certified statement that the installation

of the SSTS met the appropriate standards of this Article within five working days of the

installation.

4. A Certificate of Installation for new SSTS construction or replacement shall be issued by

the Department within 30 days of inspection if the Department has reasonable assurance

that the system was built in accordance with the applicable requirements as specified in

the construction permit.

5. The Certificate of Installation must include a certified statement by the certified inspector

or qualified employee who conducted the inspection that the SSTS is or is not in

compliance with the ordinance requirements. If the SSTS is determined not to be in

compliance with the applicable requirements, a notice of noncompliance must be issued

to the owner which includes a statement specifying those ordinance provisions with

which the SSTS does not comply.

6. No SSTS shall be placed into operation until a valid Certificate of Installation has been

issued.

7. Certificates of Installation for new construction or replacement shall remain valid for (5)

five years from the date of issue unless the Department finds evidence of noncompliance.

C. Existing Systems

1. Compliance inspections shall be required when any of the following conditions occur:

a. When applying for a land use permit, shoreline alteration permit, minor subdivision,

plat, land use map amendment, conditional use permit or variance and the Certificate

of Installation is more than five years old or the Certificate of Compliance is more

than three years old.

b. Within 90 days of conveyance of any real property within the unincorporated areas of

the county and the Certificate of Installation is more than five years old or the

Certificate of Compliance is more than three years old.

c. Any time there is a change in use of the property being served by an existing SSTS

which may impact the performance of the system.

d. At any time as required by this Ordinance or the Department deems appropriate such

as upon receipt of a complaint or other notice of a system malfunction.

2. Compliance inspections of existing SSTS shall be reported on the inspection report forms

provided by MPCA. The following conditions, must be assessed, or verified:

a. Watertightness assessment of all treatment tanks including a leakage report;

b. Vertical separation distance between the bottom of the soil treatment and dispersal

system and the periodically saturated soil or bedrock including a vertical soils

separation verification report unless soils have been verified according to Minnesota

Rule7082.0700, Subpart 4B.

c. Sewage backup, surface seepage or surface discharge including a hydraulic function

report.

3. The Certificate of Compliance must include a certified statement by a Qualified

Employee or licensed inspection business, indicating whether the SSTS is in compliance

with the requirements of this Article. If the SSTS is determined not to be in compliance

with the applicable requirements, a notice of noncompliance must include a statement

specifying those ordinance provisions with which the SSTS does not comply. A

construction permit application must be submitted to the Department if the required

corrective action is not a minor repair.

4. The Certificate of Compliance or notice of noncompliance must be submitted to the

Department no later than 15 calendar days after the date the inspection was performed.

5. Certificates of Compliance for existing SSTS shall remain valid for three years from the

date of issue unless the Department finds evidence of noncompliance.

D. Transfer of Property

1. Property on which a dwelling is located, or a tract of land on which a structure is located,

or a tract of land on which a structure is required to have an SSTS shall not be transferred

or sold unless the parties to the transaction have complied with one of the following:

a. A current Certificate of Compliance, as provided by Section 37.26 C

b. A winter agreement, as provided by Section 37.26 A.

c. In the event the seller does not provide a Certificate of Compliance or compliant

Operating Permit, the seller and buyer may establish a written agreement or contract to

repair, replace or upgrade the existing SSTS according to the terms of this Ordinance.

d. The buyer may accept total responsibility of the existing SSTS and be responsible for

the necessary upgrading. In the absence of a written agreement according to Section

37.26 (D)(1)(b), the buyer shall be responsible for the necessary upgrading of said

SSTS.

E. Commercial SSTS

1. Septic tank effluent testing for Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD),

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and oil / grease

combination is mandatory for all SSTS that serve commercial establishments as part of

any compliance inspection.

2. Effluent testing shall not be required for commercial SSTS that have a current Certificate

of Compliance as of the date this Ordinance is effective. Any future compliance

inspections shall follow Section 37.26(E), of this Ordinance.

3. An SSTS with effluent testing that does not meet the standards in the Minnesota Rule

7080.2150, Subpart 3(K) shall be upgraded within 3 years to meet said standards and be

placed on an Operating Permit as provided in this Ordinance.

F. Vertical Separation Reduction

Minnesota Rule 7080.1500, Subp. 4(D) is hereby adopted allowing a 15 percent reduction in

vertical separation distance for settling of sand or soil, normal variation of measurements

and interpretations of the limiting layer for existing SSTS. This provision does not apply to

Section 37.21.

37.27 ENFORCEMENT

Enforcement of this Article shall follow the standards in Article 3 of this Ordinance.

37.28 STATE NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION

In accordance with state law, the Department shall notify the MPCA of any inspection,

installation, design, construction, alteration or repair of an SSTS by a licensed/certified person or

any septage removal by a licensed pumper that is performed in violation of the provisions of this

Ordinance.

37.29 RECORD KEEPING

The County shall maintain a current record of all permitted systems. The record shall contain all

permit applications, issued permits, fees assessed, variance requests, Certificates of Compliance,

notices of noncompliance, enforcement proceedings, site evaluation reports, design reports, record

drawings, management plans, maintenance reports, Operating Permits, an annual list of all sewage

tanks installed in the County sorted by licensed installation businesses, and other records the

County deems relevant to a particular system.

37.30 ANNUAL REPORT

The Department shall provide an annual report of SSTS permitting activities to MPCA no later

than February 1 for the previous calendar year.

37.31 FEES

From time to time, the County Board shall establish fees for activities undertaken by the

Department pursuant to this Ordinance. Fees shall be due and payable at a time and in a manner to

be determined by the Department.

37.32 DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Resolution of disputes between SSTS Certified Individuals regarding conflicting compliance

inspections, determination of seasonally saturation of soils and other technical issues shall follow

Minnesota Rule7082.0700, Subp. 5.

ARTICLE 46--DEFINITIONS

46.1 PURPOSE

For the purposes of this Ordinance, certain terms and words are defined. The word PERSON includes a

firm, association, organization, partnership, trust, company or corporation, as well as an individual. The

present tense includes the future tense and the singular number shall include the plural and plural shall

include the singular. The words MUST and SHALL are mandatory and the word MAY is permissive; the

words USED or OCCUPIED include the words INTENDED, DESIGNED or ARRANGED TO BE

USED OR OCCUPIED. The words LOT, PLOT, or PARCEL are interchangeable. Specific definitions

used within the Ordinance, unless another meaning is clearly given, are listed below:

46.2 DEFINITIONS

COMMISSIONER, (DNR)

The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources or his/her authorized representative.

FAILING SYSTEM

Any subsurface sewage treatment system that discharges sewage to a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell or

leaching pit, and any system with less than the required vertical separation as described in Minnesota

Rule7080.0060, subpart 3 7080.1500 Subps. 4(D & E). In addition any system posing an imminent threat

to public health or safety as defined in MN Rules Chapter 7080.0020 Subp.19a shall be considered

failing.

IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY

A subsurface sewage treatment system that creates the potential to immediately and adversely affect or

threaten public health and safety as described in Minnesota Rule 7080.1500 Subp. 4(A). At a minimum,

this includes discharge of sewage or sewage effluent to the ground surface, agricultural or other drainage

systems, ditches, storm water drains or discharges directly to surface water, sewage backup into a

dwelling, electrical hazards, or sewage tanks with unsecured or weak maintenance covers.

REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURES

Features formed in saturated soils by the process of reduction, translocation and oxidation of iron and

manganese compounds or other soil, landscape or vegetative indicators. Redoximorphic features are

commonly known as mottling.

SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM (SSTS)

A sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or group thereof, and using sewage tanks

followed by soil treatment and disposal or using advanced treatment devices that discharge below final

grade. Subsurface sewage treatment system includes holding tanks and privies.

Attachment 4

Planning / Zoning

B.1 Hubbard – 1. H-10a-13: Review/certify a variance request to add a second story

to an existing non-conforming cabin - Big Wolf Lake – Applicant – Donald / Lisa Anderson (att. 4)

Staff: Eric Buitenwerf, Land Records Co-Director Env. Services Officer Bryan Haugen, Env. Specialist Scott Navratil, Env. Specialist Maria Shepherd, Admin. Assistant Kevin Trappe, GIS Technician

Hubbard County Land Records - Environmental Services 301 Court Avenue, Park Rapids, MN 56470

Phone: 218.732.3890 Fax: 218.732.7993 www.co.hubbard.mn.us/environmental.htm

Hubbard County is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing

The following variance applications will be heard at the Board of Adjustment public hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, October 21, 2013 in the Law Enforcement Center basement meeting room (B-109). Public comment on applications may be made orally during the hearing or in writing. Written comments on applications must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 to Hubbard County Land Records – Environmental Services, 301 Court Avenue, Park Rapids, MN 56470. Onsite property reviews will occur on Thursday, October 17, 2013 leaving the Courthouse at 8:30 a.m. Approval of the September 16, 2013 Minutes: Old Business: Tabled Variance Application # 53-V-09 by Michael A. and Lisa K. Reinhart: Part of Government Lot 1, Section 25, Township 142, Range 34, Clay Township on Mantrap Lake, Parcel #: 04.25.00600. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 4, Subd. A.1.a.3.c of the Hubbard County Subdivision Ordinance and Section 1003 of the Hubbard County Shoreland Management Ordinance to be allowed to subdivide a property into two tracts without being required to meet the Subdivision Ordinance requirement that any new parcel being created must either front a public road or have a 33' minimum width ingress and egress contiguous easement connecting any new parcel to a public road. The two proposed tracts have no legal easement access to a public road. Tabled Variance Application 40-V-13 by James and Paula Driessen: Part of Lot 7, Block 1, Island View, Section 3, Township 139, Range 33, Crow Wing Lake Township on Island Lake. Parcel #: 06.51.00611. Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 502.2 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed new residential structure that will not comply with the required 100 foot ordinary high water mark structure setback. New Business: Variance Application 41-V-13 by Kimberly Kurth and Denise Bramer: Lot 6, Block 1, Palmer Pines First Addition, Section 29, Township 139, Range 33, Crow Wing Lake Township on Palmer Lake. Parcel #: 06.44.00500. Applicants are requesting a variance from Sections 502.1 and 704.7 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed waterward addition to a nonconforming structure originally constructed by variance at less than the required 150 foot ordinary high water mark setback.





Variance Application 42-V-13 by Randy and Kathy Soldwisch: Government Lot 1, Section 8, Government Lot 1, and the NW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 9, Township 141, Range 33, Mantrap Township on West Crooked Lake. Parcel #s: 20.08.00111, 20.08.00112, 20.09.00330, and 20.09.00340. Part 1: Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 704.7 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to remove a variance condition placed on a structure restricting its use to that of a recreational facility. Part 2: Applicants are requesting a variance from Section 1103 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to exceed the rental dwelling unit density. Variance Application 43-V-13 by Jean Dalton: Lot 8, Block F, Pine Haven Beach, Section 17, Township 139, Range 34, Hubbard Township on Long Lake. Parcel #: 14.38.05900. Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 502.2 and 704 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed addition to a nonconforming residence located in the shore impact zone that does not comply with the 10 foot side lot line setback. Variance Application 44-V-13 by Donald and Lisa Anderson: Part of Government Lot 4, Section 1, and Lot 11, Crescent Beach Wolf Lake, Township 145, Range 32, Farden Township on Big Wolf Lake and Little Wolf Lake. Parcel #s: 07.39.00600 and 07.01.01100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Sections 502.1, 502.2, 704, and 904 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to make an addition to a nonconforming structure located in the shore impact zone that exceeds the 25% impervious surface threshold.





October 2013 Board of Adjustment meeting staff report Variance Application 44-V-13 by Donald and Lisa Anderson: Part of Government Lot 4, Section 1, and Lot 11, Crescent Beach Wolf Lake, Township 145, Range 32, Farden Township on Big Wolf Lake and Little Wolf Lake. Parcel #s: 07.39.00600 and 07.01.01100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Sections 502.1, 502.2, 704, and 904 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to make an addition to a nonconforming structure located in the shore impact zone that exceeds the 25% impervious surface threshold. The proposal is to square off one lakeside corner of the cabin and then construct a second story addition over the entire cabin and attached garage. The height would increase from 12’ to 24’. The application states the cabin and garage currently consists of 1028 sq. ft. The proposed addition to square off the lakeside corner would add 104 sq. ft. bringing the total to 1132 sq. ft. The proposed improvements on the lot would cause it to have a 33.1% impervious surface area – which exceeds the ordinance allowed 25% threshold. The lot area per the County’s GIS is 8,307 sq. ft. The 25% threshold is 2,076.75 sq. ft. The proposal is to have 2,747 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The cause of the increase is the proposed squaring off of one of the lakeside corners of the cabin. The SSTS servicing the cabin is compliant and properly sized for the proposed number of bedrooms. The SSTS is a holding tank system because there is a lack of room to accommodate a drainfield. The department does not recommend approval of the request unless mitigating conditions are employed to offset the stormwater discharge increase caused by the impervious surface area increase of the addition and the aesthetic impact of the structure when viewed from the lake caused by its height doubling. The application photos show that there appear to be some trees in front of the cabin that afford some screening. The lawn appears to be closely mown. A 15-20’ deep native grass/forb vegetative buffer along the width of the property at the shoreline (except for a 6’ access path to the dock) would help mitigate the additional stormwater runoff. I will need to see the property during the lot viewal to see if additional vegetation with greater height would be appropriate to help screen the greater structure height caused by the second story addition. If these or similar mitigation measures are made conditions of any approval, the department feels that they would adequately offset the minor increase in impervious surface area caused by squaring off one corner of the cabin and the additional structure height. If a variance is granted, the application will also need to be approved by the Mississippi Headwaters Board (MHB) because Big Wolf Lake is part of the Mississippi River Headwaters Corridor. Approval from the MHB must also be obtained in order for the proposed remodel to be allowed.





Below are proposed findings of fact for your consideration: 1. Is the variance in harmony with the intent of the comprehensive plan, zoning

ordinance and State Shoreland Management Rules? Yes ( X ) No ( )

Why or why not? With the exception of the minor squaring off of one corner of the cabin, the addition is going up instead of out which keeps the structure footprint contained and thus in keeping with the ordinance intent. Additionally, the increased stormwater runoff and aesthetic impact of the proposed addition is being offset by a vegetative buffer being required to be installed along the shoreline.

2. Without the variance, is the owner deprived of a reasonable use of the property? Yes ( X) No ( )

Why or why not? Asking for additional living space in a cabin that is 1028 sq. ft. including the garage is a reasonable request.

3. Is the stated practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property? Yes (X ) No ( )

Why or why not? The lot and structure were created prior to the ordinance’s enactment. The lot lacks depth to be able to meet the OHW setback requirements from Big Wolf and Mud Lakes.

4. Were the circumstances causing the practical difficulty created by someone or

something other than the landowner? Yes ( X ) No ( )

Why or why not? As mentioned in the answer to question 3, the difficulty was created by parties other than the landowner. The lot was created by a party other than the landowner and the cabin was constructed by a party other than the landowner.

5. Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? Yes ( X ) No ( )

Why or why not? The house and surrounding properties in the locality are single family year-round and seasonal residential uses. The proposed variance seeks to maintain this property’s single family year-round use and therefore will maintain the essential character of the locality.

6. Does the stated practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?

Yes ( X ) No ( )

Why or why not? The application does not cite economics as a difficulty. Instead, the difficulty is the lack of area and depth to the lot and the structure’s having been constructed before the ordinance was enacted.

October 21, 2013 Hubbard County Board of Adjustment meeting minutes

Variance Application 44-V-13by Donald and Lisa Anderson: Part of Government Lot 4, Section 1, and Lot 11, Crescent Beach Wolf Lake, Township 245, Range 32, Farden Township on Big Wolf Lake and Little Wolf Lake. Parcel #s: 07.39.00600 and 07.01.01100. Applicants are requesting a variance from Sections 502.1, 502.2, 704, and 904 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance to make an addition to a nonconforming structure located in the shore impact zone that exceeds the 25% impervious surface threshold. Lisa Anderson was in attendance and presented the application. She stated that when they purchased the property in August the cabin had about 20 years of neglect. The request is to square off the cabin because it needs all new electrical. The cabin is being stripped down so it is the most logical time to add on. Christenson asked if Lisa would explain what their plans are for the shoreline and the permit that was taken out. Lisa stated a shoreland alteration permit was taken out for rip rap / retaining wall. This year their plan is to build the wall where it is eroded from both properties washing away. They are going to fill that area in with some fill which will probably happen next spring so it has time to settle to build it up and plant some vegetation to help with the erosion. Christenson asked if the planting would be behind the retaining wall but in front of the ridge. Lisa stated that was correct. Schwindt stated that he saw the retaining wall as an improvement since it will improve the erosion problem. Grob stated that most of the runoff and impervious surface from this project will run away from Big Wolf Lake and towards Mud Lake. There is a wetland, a road and vegetation that will protect the lake. Lisa stated that their plan next year is to do a lot of land fixing so there will be vegetation and not moss. Buitenwerf stated that there was new information as far as the foundation since there was some concern if the current foundation was capable of supporting a second story. Lisa stated that a builder came out to see if the current structure was stable enough handle a second story and was told it wouldn’t be a problem. Another contractor came out and because they mostly deal with new construction and the new rules and said that they weren’t comfortable adding a second story and didn’t know if it was the best thing to do. They have now had four contractors come out and look at the building and the plans and three out of the four consultants stated that the foundation would be fine. There could be some shifting but stated that shifting is possible with any construction. Grob asked if the variance is approved, do they need to add a condition that they have to get approval from the Mississippi Headwaters Board.

Buitenwerf stated that it would not need to be placed as a condition because it is a requirement that they must get approval from them before a building permit can be issued and the applicant’s are aware of that fact. Christenson asked if there should be a condition regarding what vegetation should be planted. Buitenwerf stated that it could be specified since there is a nexus between that and an impervious surface variance. Grob thought that because someone from the office is already working with the applicants, and a retaining wall is being installed, he didn’t feel that any of the runoff from the current home is running towards the back and there isn’t much that could be said or done to specify what should be done. The buffering that is taking place is the large wetland. They could plant more grass where the septic tanks are but otherwise it would be difficult to specify what they should do. They will do the best they can. Schwindt agreed with that. He also stated that rain gutters could help too even though the water runs toward the back, away from Big Wolf Lake. Grob stated that it is only an addition 100 square feet of impervious surface so that the roof lines line up. No written correspondence was received and no public comment was made. Johnson moved to approve the application and adopt the findings of fact as presented in the October 2013 BOA Staff Report. Christianson seconded the motion. The adopted findings of fact are as follows: 1. Is the variance in harmony with the intent of the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and State Shoreland Management Rules?

With the exception of the minor squaring off of one corner of the cabin, the addition is going up instead of out which keeps the structure footprint contained and thus in keeping with the ordinance intent. Additionally, the increased stormwater runoff and aesthetic impact of the proposed addition is being offset by a vegetative buffer being required to be installed along the shoreline.

2. Without the variance, is the owner deprived of a reasonable use of the property?

Asking for additional living space in a cabin that is 1028 sq. ft. including the garage is a reasonable request.

3. Is the stated practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?

The lot and structure were created prior to the ordinance’s enactment. The lot lacks depth to be able to meet the ordinary high water mark setback requirements from Big Wolf and Mud Lakes.

4. Were the circumstances causing the practical difficulty created by someone or something other than the landowner?

As mentioned in the answer to question 3, the difficulty was created by parties other than the landowner. The lot was created by a party other than the landowner and the cabin was constructed by a party other than the landowner.

5. Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality?

The house and surrounding properties in the locality are single family year-round and seasonal residential uses. The proposed variance seeks to maintain this property’s single family year-round use and therefore will maintain the essential character of the locality.

6. Does the stated practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations?

The application does not cite economics as a difficulty. Instead, the difficulty is the lack of area and depth to the lot and the structure’s having been constructed before the ordinance was enacted.

The motion carried unanimously.

mississippi headwaters board meeting agenda cass county … · 2013. 11. 12. · mississippi...

Documents