WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: April 7, M I N U T E S (Informational)

Transcription

1 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S (Informational) The Wright County Board of Adjustment met April 7, 2017 in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Chairman, Bob Schermann, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. with all Board members present. Barry Rhineberger, Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning Office. Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. MINUTES- On a motion by Mol, seconded by Jones, all voted to approve the minutes for the March 3, 2017 meeting as printed. 1. JOHN M. BISHOP Cont. from 1/6/17 LOCATION: TH Street NW Lot 10, Coates P Bull Addition, according to plat of record, Section 33, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Sylvia Southside Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section , & (E)(1)(b), Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace existing 720 sq. ft. one-level cabin that is 27.6 ft. from the ordinary high-water mark of lake (OHW) with the following: construct a new 1,710 sq. ft. two-story dwelling 45 ft. from the OHW on two sides and 23.3 ft. from the right-of-way of a dead-end public road. Also a variance to install a new Type IV septic system that would be 5 ft. from the property line, 13.8 ft. from the attached garage and 16.7 ft. from the dwelling. Present: John Bishop & Bernie Miller, MSTS A. Rhineberger reviewed the changes to the plan submitted since January. Most of the Board members visited the site the day before. The changes are outlined in the Staff Report. B. Miller explained the applicant went back to the architect to look at how the house could be re-designed and new house plans have been submitted. Due to the configuration of the lot, it is very difficult to increase the setback from the lake. He explained the interior layout was changed, steps are now on the north side and the new design allows them to shift further from the lake. A one-car garage is proposed and the size of the total footprint was reduced by 154 sq. ft. This is an improvement of the lake setback at 55 from the one side and 50.5 on the other side. The site does not allow for a basement for the utilities and they feel they have compromised on the size as much as possible. Handed out a site plan that shows the existing structures in red. These include the cabin, detached garage and two small sheds. In trade for moving back they want to increase footprint some and attach a garage. Speaking to the practical difficulty, he noted there is no way to build without some variances. He thinks the variance is justified because of the improvements made, which include: Setback is now 27.6 to cabin and the proposal is a 135% improvement, on the other side they are going from 37.9 to 50.5 which is a 17.3% improvement; with an average setback improvement of 26%. The building footprint is larger, however, the lake setback is improved. The detached garage and sheds will be removed. The overall lot coverage increases by only 1.8%. This is a unique lot, with a total lot size of 22,000 sq. ft. and they are still struggling to meet setbacks. If they remove the peninsula portion of the lot, they have 16,000 sq. ft. of area left. This proposal is 9.8% building coverage on the useable part of the lot and the impervious lot coverage will be reduced by 6%.

2 Page 2 C. Bishop felt an exact rebuild of the house/garage would not be positive for anyone. D. Dave Keskey representing the property to the west which he has visited for fifty years. The property in question is very difficult to build on and questioned how much they can bend the minimum requirements. He views this as only meeting 40% of the required setbacks. He is concerned with the sewer proposed 5 closer to the property line because historically, the line was considered behind the shed. A new survey moved the line between them 5 from where they had thought the line was. The new sewer will be right up to that line. E. Philip Johnson part owner of the lot he pointed to on a map. A previous buyer he spoke with did not feel with the number of variances it was worth pursuing to try and rebuild. Asked if the boat ramp will be removed? Pointed to the where the lake setback puts a house. Questioned the minimum setback between the well and sewer. Based on the well location, he did not feel a sewer could meet the separation requirements. F. Aarestad a building cannot meet the 75 from the lake on this lot. He is looking at the footprint and wanted it to be a little smaller. The three things he is considering is whether the request is reasonable, consideration of the neighbors concerns and is there something to be gained or improved. It helped to view the site, it is obvious the sewer drains away. If they build on the existing footprint there would be no improvement. The proposed setback is a big improvement and gives them an opportunity to put in a storm-water management plan. He would like to see the water coming down from the road slowed down which would be a big improvement. The footprint is pushing the envelope, however, with the improvements he sees, he would be in favor. G. Quiggle was not present at the meeting in January. Although many of the concerns have been addressed, she still has some. The lot is small because the rest of the peninsula is not useable. Some lots are not suitable for year-around. Here they have a lot that cannot get a basement in and there is not room for many things. More suited to a seasonal cabin and with the bulk of the house she is concerned. The previous house had a 12:12 pitch, but the sidewalls have increased and living space increased. The design is nice looking, but the house does not match the property. H. Mol after looking at the site he is considering this like Aarestad. A rebuild in the same location may not be in improvement and still need to find a sewer location. Although the house is a little big, they are removing the sheds, bituminous and other paths and moving the house back will improve the property and filtration into the lake. I. Jones agrees with Arestad and Mol, but the retaining or catch system is a concern. Felt the lot is unique. This is moving further back from the lake than some others the Board has dealt with. He would be in favor of the new plan. J. Schermann was unable to make the inspection, however, has studied the plan and he could accept the proposal as amended.

3 Page 3 K. Quiggle asked if the trees along the shoreline would be removed; understands the clump in the center would be removed to build the cabin. Bishop all the ones along the shore would remain other than the dead trees. Quiggle - if the trees that are dead could be replaced, she would be more receptive. These mature trees and others filled in will mitigate the bulk of the house and if he would agree to do that she would feel better. Bishop he would agree to do that. The trees in the center will be gone regardless of where the cabin is rebuilt because of where the sewer will be. Miller the character of the lot is what attracted the applicant to the lot. The north side will remain the way it is and if there would be any recreation area it would be on the south bay as it has been used. The applicant is not opposed to a buffer. Rhineberger the SWCD suggested a buffer and asked the Board to specify the area they want to see for a beach area and how wide of a buffer and the type. The area where the bituminous will be removed would be the best site for a beach area, but questioned how big. There are some erosion issues there, but can be addressed during the construction. Miller would suggest a way to quantify that, other than using the DNR percentage for a beach and rest a native buffer. Rhineberger he has seen 25 x 25 suggested for a non-native area. L. Schermann called for a motion on the revised plan. Rhineberger suggested referring to Exhibit A for site plan and B for house plan. M. Mol moved to grant a variance of Section , & (E)(1)(b), Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace existing 720 sq. ft. one-level cabin that is 27.6 ft. from the ordinary high-water mark of lake (OHW) with the following: construct a new 1574 sq. ft. two-story dwelling according to revised plan, Exhibit B, held on file and the site plan marked Exhibit A. Also a variance to install a new Type IV septic system that would be 5 ft. from the property line, 13.8 ft. from the attached garage and 16.7 ft. from the dwelling. Conditions: All green space is maintained; existing buildings are removed and the driveway to the lake be returned to green space, a water management plan for runoff to the lake be submitted. Aarestad seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Rhineberger questioned details of a buffer/green space and whether a beach area would be allowed. SWCD did not provide specifics. Mol would prefer it is mowed or stay green to absorb any water going into the lake. Quiggle questioned if the site plan shows the two sheds being removed, Rhineberger it does not but it has been stated. Quiggle because this shoreline is not conducive to native grasses along this shore, she would prefer the trees are maintained. Rhineberger the lot is fairly flat and a rain garden is not as beneficial, but the buffer and trees are. Could state only the diseased trees or those that need to be removed for the construction of the house and sewer can be removed. Mol amended his motion to include: all the trees will remain except for those diseased or trees in the location of the dwelling or sewer. Aarestad amended his second. DISCUSSION: Miller asked if they can have a beach. Rhineberger shoreland regulations allow 25 x 25 as the maximum, however in this location it may be 10 deep. Bishop questioned, are they talking sand beach as it will be primarily grass. Rhineberger indicated this would allow a fire pit, etc. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

4 Page 4 2. JESSICA P. BJORUM Cont. from 3/3/17 LOCATION: xxxx Pleason Avenue NW Part of Outlot 4, Northridge, according to plat of record, Section 28, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (W. Lake Sylvia-Southside Twp.) Tax # Property owner: Pardue Requests a variance of Section , (F)(2) & (C) of Chapter 155, Title IV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to build a 2,580 sq. ft. twostory dwelling with partial basement 36 ft. from the centerline of the traveled road. Dwelling has a flat roof, which does not meet the 3/12 roof pitch requirement. Present: Brad VonBank, Kristin Pardue, Bill Costello, Sr. Project Manager, Elevation Homes, & Jessica Bjorum A. Rhineberger explained revisions have been received since the last meeting to move the house out of the 20 right of way area. They have moved and shifted the house, 1.5 taken off the garage and the footprint has been turned to get it out of the 20 setback of the rightof-way, but is right at it. The French drain system with a perforated pipe is proposed for the water coming off the hard surface; would outlet toward the road without any capture to hold water on site. The applicant s storm-water plan designed by their engineer has designed it for 8500 gal. for a half inch rain fall. The topography where they are going to outlet water, there is no improved ditch and reviewing the slopes there is nothing keeping it from going on a neighbor. This site does not have an appropriate road ditch system or city drain. Staff s concern about dumping water on neighbors is noted and will let the Board discuss it. B. Costello addressing the road right-of-way was simple, however, the storm-water management system is the challenge. Their civil engineer had addressed it for this site, the septic system is at the low area of the lot and did not want to put a rain garden below between the house and bluff, because if it overflows it could add to erosion. The other option would be a containment system, costing about $50,000 for something substantial enough to contain that much water. It would be located down by the road, requiring a pit 20 x 25 by 12 deep and require removal of all the trees in front. Looking for some leniency on the water management plan; but want to work with the County on a system that addresses the concern without creating a financial burden; is not a logistical challenge or detrimental to the site. C. Schermann asked for public comment, hearing no response returned discussion to the Board. D. Quiggle the plan she received had the cistern on it and understand it is no longer is being considered. Asked if they considered a pervious paver system in combination with a smaller cistern that could take some of the water and the pavers could take the rest. Costello stated that is one option they talked with Rhineberger about. Quiggle asked why a rain garden would not work? Costello explained they cannot put it near a sewer system and are not allowed to grade in the bluff. Rhineberger sewer is into the bluff impact area. Quiggle suggested they use a combination of things to address the water and rain gardens are only 8-10 deep. Rhineberger cannot grade in the bluff, however, sewer system can and is in the bluff impact zone by Costello noted they eliminated all the hard

5 Page 5 surface from the driveway to the pool area. Rhineberger a permeable system here would not have to be tiled, because the soils underneath are porous and they will get good infiltration and would agree to a combination as suggested. Quiggle agreed it will take what falls on the patio. t E. Mol glad to see it downsized, but does not want water dumped on neighbors. He wants to see a plan that would keep the water from going on anyone else. Jones that is also a concern to him. If they get a 3 rain, all though occasional, they want to see a plan show they can handle it. Rhineberger- they can adjust the figures by using two systems. Looking at the driveway, water will run road side and a permeable paver system around the pool will take care of it. He suggested they could ask for plans to address it at the time a building permit is applied for. F. Jones asked if the Board has to address the roof pitch. Rhineberger the Board did not have a concern with that at the last meeting. G. Aarestad felt they did a good job with the revisions and would be satisfied with the plan if they can reduce the amount of water going to the back. H. Quiggle had asked that 1.5 rain could be infiltrated on site. If the other members would be satisfied, they could reduce the amount of the rain event to 1 because that is when most of the pollutants run into the lake. Although she would be satisfied, she is concerned about the potential erosion that could happen with 1.5 rain event. Board concurred. I. Quiggle moved to approve according to plans as labeled Exhibit A held on file, the structure cannot be any closer to the road right of way than 20, and the dwelling is allowed to have a flat roof. Approve the site plan as labeled Exhibit B that must be amended to include the storm-water management plan to be designed to handle a 1 rainfall on site and may be done with a combination of permeable paver system, rain garden, cistern or what will work best on this site, to be submitted at the of the building permit. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

6 Page 6 3. RALPH SEARLES New Item LOCATION: 7037 Newcomb Avenue NW - Lots 18 & 19, Annandale Beach, according to plat of record, Section 26, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake John - Southside Twp.) Tax # & Requests a variance of Section ((F)(2), (E)(2) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to build an 18 x 18 onelevel addition to existing dwelling. Proposed addition to be 51 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of Lake John (existing dwelling is 55 ft.). Also proposed is a new 24 x 32 detached garage (replace existing 20 x 30 garage) 45 from centerline of road. Present: Ralph & Barbara Searles A. Rhineberger reviewed the two platted lots that cannot be separated because the size together is 21,947 sq. ft. The lot has a non-conforming system and they have a permit for the new sewer and will be installed on the vacant lot to the north of the cabin. The proposed addition will cross the common property line and comes straight off the north end in line with the lakeside of the front of the dwelling. The addition will be on a slab or crawl space and have a similar roof pitch. Replacing the garage and going a little larger at 32 x 24. The measurement from the travelled centerline was used in this case and is at a 45 setback. He explained the travelled road is not in the right place. Pictures were displayed to show the existing structures. The applicant has submitted pictures of the garage that needs repair. Written response from two neighbors who had no objection and Town Board approves. Wright County Soil & Water had a response, with questions on what they should review. B. B. Searles explained after purchasing the property they found out the garage was not constructed properly and is a dangerous structure and must be replaced. Because the lot is small they are being careful, put in a well last year and made sure there is room for the new sewer and are asking for a small addition. C. Mol was concerned with maintaining the 50 from the lake, there are some pavers in front and asked what they would do in front of the new addition. R. Searles they would continue the patio pavers in front of it and around the side. Mol that is his concern with adding more hard surface this close to the lake. B. Searles a deck in front was removed and put in the permeable pavers to take the water. They did not see any runoff last summer after they put the pavers with the sand in. D. Jones his biggest concern is the hard surface and extra pavers. E. Aarestad agreed this is a modest addition, but would like to see some improvement on the setback because the addition moves closer to the lake because of the angle of the lake. He would like to see the addition moved back some. F. Quiggle no problem with the garage or the addition, however, this is a Recreational lake that requires 100 setback. The Board likes to see improvements and buffers with a stormwater management plan. She sees they have turf right down to the lake. She would like to

7 Page 7 see a native buffer, leaving 25% for a recreation area. This would help mitigate the setback requested. G. Schermann would agree with Aarestad s suggestion that the addition not go closer than the 55. Asked if they could move the addition back to gain 5. They could continue for revised plans. R. Searles stated the problem with that is the interior of the house design. H. Rhineberger asked the Board members if they wanted to consider the 51 setback if a buffer to control runoff as Quiggle suggested could be accomplished. Aarestad stated he would be open to that, but would like to see it moved back some. I. R. Searles asked where the adjustment would have to be made on the addition to meet 55. Rhineberger stated almost immediately. He suggested they could make it a combination of sliding back a bit and or reduction to meet 55. R. Searles noted the house next door is much closer to the lake than they are. J. Schermann everyone is looking at a buffer and slide it back to 55. B. Searles asked for an explanation of the buffer. Mol his concern no one else has the buffer along the shore and having one lot with tall grasses would not fit. Quiggle the Statute suggests they start to establish or re-establish natural shorelines. Does not have to be tall grasses, there are many plants and flowers that can be used. Mol was not comfortable asking one owner to do this, especially if it is tall. R. Searles agreed they will take 5 off the front end. K. Schermann moved to grant a variance of Section ((F)(2), (E)(2) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to build an 18 x 18 one-level addition to existing dwelling. Proposed addition to be 55 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of Lake John no closer than the existing dwelling that is 55 ft. Also proposed is a new 24 x 32 detached garage (replace existing 20 x 30 garage) 45 from centerline of road. Condition: A buffer lakeside of native vegetation, primarily a lower variety of plants and allow them to retain 25% of the shoreline for recreation. Applicant to work with Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District on the design. Mol seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Board discussed the buffer and informed the applicant s they can choose the type. Schermann would concur with Mol that they do not want the applicant to put something that in obnoxious to neighbors. Rhineberger noted they don t want to prevent them from using some taller grasses if they want to. B. Searles they want to protect the shoreline that is high with rock and want an area to get the lift and boat in. Quiggle those plantings are hardy and can withstand that. Rhineberger they are not asking the rock be removed, the plantings would be in from that. VOTE: CARRIED UANIMOUSLY

8 Page 8 4. DANA L. SCHAUST New Item LOCATION: TH Avenue NE Part of SW ¼ of SW ¼ Section 27, Township 120, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Buffalo Twp.) Tax # Requests an after-the-fact variance of Section (F)(3) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to approve a 25 x 48 horse building that was constructed without a permit 19 ft. from the rear property line at the closest point. Present: Dana Schaust A. Rhineberger reviewed the request for a variance for a structure built without a permit and is not meeting the setback standards for a building that is used for hay storage and shelter for horses. A structure for animals must meet a 100 setback and the shed is 19 from the rear line to closest corner. A picture of the building was displayed to show one side is open with a third for hay storage. The Town Board tabled the decision and will meet again on the matter. B. Schermann noted the Board s practice is not to hear the matter until the Town Board reviews. Rhineberger suggested it might be beneficial to have some discussion. If the Board has any concerns it can be addressed in the meantime, with the understanding after the Township recommendation comes in there will be a final decision. C. Schaust indicated one option would be to turn the building into storage and remove the animals. Rhineberger noted even storage would need a variance to be closer than 50 or it would have to be moved or removed. Jones asked how much of the building would have to be removed to meet the setback. Rhineberger stated 31. Mol asked how it was discovered. Rhineberger stated the property is on the market and they got calls from buyers. Schaust stated her builder told her she did not need a permit and she regrets not following up on that. Schaust felt the building could be used for storage. Schermann noted it will still need to meet setbacks. D. Wayne Mattson adjoining neighbor stated he had assumed the applicant had gotten permission to place it where it is. He can live with where the building exists. E. Quiggle asked what discussion the Town Board had? Schaust indicated they were not sure about a 19 setback, when the rest of the building meets the 50 and if they were to keep horses in the building they would continue and have her come back. One of the Supervisors lives nearby and is familiar with the building. Quiggle stated they would normally give deference to the Town Board, however, in this case the building is there. A decision could have been made as nothing will change. F. Aarestad stated he would suggest she meet again with the Town Board, felt it is worth considering. Schermann added, if the Town Board approved, that might sway the Board. Schaust stated the Township had wanted to see a minimum setback of 50 and had suggested extending the lot out to meet that. Rhineberger the lot is already ten acres and

9 Page 9 that adjustment would also require a hearing. Jones asked if she has a sale pending. Schaust stated a delay would create a problem with the offer. She was told by her realtor that the buyer did not seem concerned about the variance pending. Jones asked if 30 days would affect the buyer? Schaust it would. Quiggle questioned why they should continue this, nothing will change. The Town Board has heard this and felt they could have taken action. Aarestad would agree since there seems to be a sense of urgency and the Town Board had an opportunity to address it. Jones he has a concern with an after-the-fact variance and the reason he asked if they could shorten the building, however, that would only leave 9 of building. Did not see what would be accomplished by laying this over. Mol there is enough property to build another structure if they want a building for animals. They could stipulate the building can only be used for storage as long as the neighbor has no objection. Jones, Aarestad and Quiggle would agree with Mol. Kryzer suggested if that is the way the Board goes with this, they should require that permanent vegetation be maintained around the building at all times to discourage any use for animals. G. Aarestad moved to grant a variance of Section (F)(3) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to approve a 25 x 48 building that was constructed without a permit 19 ft. from the rear property line at the closest point. Condition: The fencing (corral) be removed and vegetation be established and permanently maintained around the structure. Quiggle seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Schermann would like to see a penalty for building without a permit. Rhineberger stated the fee for the variance was doubled in this case. He explained the difference on a permit based on the use. An ag building does not require them to meet building code. A storage building requires a different type of permit, plans and must meet building code. He would suggest they wait and see how the buyers want to use it. Kryzer the fee has been doubled, but if they want to attach a condition on obtaining the building permit they can. Mol they should change the language to make sure the motion does not refer to a horse shelter, but states a storage building. Aarestad amended his motion, Quiggle amended the second, to strike horse and replace with storage. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

10 Page TODD S. WURM New Item LOCATION: 5570 County Road 35 W SE ¼ of NE ¼ Section 16, Township 120, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Maple Lake Twp.) Tax # & Requests a variance of Section (G) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to approve a 20-acre (approx.) entitlement division of the farmstead buildings. Division includes about 10 acres of prime tillable farmland. Present: Todd Wurm & Jake Wurm A. Rhineberger reviewed the quarter-quarter section with the farmhouse and buildings and also has a life estate parcel in the corner. The Board previously heard a request to move the life estate parcel to another location on the farm. The new request is to remove the farmhouse and expand the two-acre lot to where the blue line is drawn on the site plan. This would make the division a 20-acre entitlement division. A map to show the soil types was displayed, noting the green indicates prime farm soils. Rhineberger explained the Ordinance allows a division of a farmstead and farm buildings up to 10 acres; otherwise a division is limited to 2.5 acres of prime farmland. He stated because a 20-acre division takes a variance, he mentioned the amount of prime tilled area. The Town Board response was favorable. A neighbor, Smith, has no objection. Janikula, County Feedlot Administrator, has been working with the buyer who is the applicant s son, wants a cattle operation on the 20 acres. In this type of situation, some limits on animals are recommended. The application for the feedlot includes an agreement for manure storage and plans to remove it off site to property adjacent. The animal density should not be overpopulated in the event the 20 acres ever gets sold; and what has been discussed is limiting it to animal units. B. Kryzer asked if they are requesting 20 acres for the animal capacity, otherwise, why not a 12 acre division. Rhineberger stated the applicant wants to keep lines straight. C. Tracy Janikula Feedlot Administrator explained to the Board that she has visited the site and been working with the applicant on where the animals would go. The proposed size of division gives adequate setbacks from the buildings and avoids irregular lines. She has received a manure application agreement for the property on a 100 acre parcel to the west. The breakdown of 100 animal units allows for beef cows, calves, steers, a few horses and chickens. The exact number of each could vary at different times of the year. D. Rhineberger addressed Kryzer s question on why the 20 acres and explained he tells applicants to ask for what they want because they cannot go beyond what they notice. The number and placement of buildings would not fit on 10 acres and meet setbacks. Schermann stated the precedent is a concern if another farmer comes in to ask for a 20-acre division, does not have cattle, etc. Rhineberger noted each request has to be decided on the merits. Janikula stated a division up to 10 acres would only allow five animal units and this homestead has several large useable buildings and put them back into production. The acreage allow them to pasture the cows and calves.

11 Page 11 E. Todd Wurm asked if they can leave the 2 acre parcel in the corner. The reason he questions that, is for the division for a mortgage on the house. Rhineberger stated no, it would have to be tied into the 20 acres. F. Aarestad would be apprehensive about including prime tillable land, however, these are useable buildings and they have a long-range farming plan so would have no objection. G. Quiggle would agree and the fact the tillable is going to remain AG. H. Mol although this is straightening the line out and with the number of buildings, he is concerned that 100 animal units won t be enough and they may want to increase that in the future. The owner would have to work with the Feedlot Administrator if that should occur. I. Jones and Schermann indicated they would agree with the division. J. Aarestad moved to grant a variance of Section (G) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to approve a 20-acre (approx.) entitlement division of the farmstead buildings. Division includes about 10 acres of prime tillable farmland. Condition: The animal units allowed up to ; and, a survey be submitted to Planning & Zoning and a Deed Restriction be filed. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

12 Page AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, FLCA New Item LOCATION: xxxx 120 th St. NW part of E ½ of NW ¼, Section 1, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # / Requests a variance of Section (G) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to approve a 5-acre restricted division from a 75 acre parcel. Remaining 70 acres to keep the entitlement. Present: David Meyers, Rinke & Noonan A. Rhineberger reviewed the two parcels that were a result of a foreclosure; a five acre and 70 acre parcels and a property line that goes through a building. That division did not receive approval and an appeal in 2016 to the Board of Adjustment was dismissed and this is the next step to try and make the five acres a legal parcel. Action to approve would be like a reverse Deed Restriction and put the entitlement on the 70 acres, restricting the five acres. An entitlement division is limited to 10 acres and the five acres does not have the 300 width on the road that is required. Town Board approves on the condition that the five acres should be tied with the existing homestead. The problem is that it is not owned by the same party. A neighbor wrote what is allowed for one owner should be allowed for all. The written response from Grimlie, farmstead owner, is on file and was provided to the Board. B. Meyers the previous appeal was of the zoning administrator s decision not to approve the split. At that time a couple of the Board members suggested a variance might be considered. At that time they were also in the Court system and Grimlie was stating his mortgage payments were not applied properly. However, the Courts have thrown out all Grimlie s claims and the foreclosure has been determined good. He clarified the 70 acres would be sold regardless what happens here. They are offering to fix something that is unique and this is the best result. The Town Board supports the variance as it will be good for the Town and the parties. The Town Board suggest the five acres go to Grimlie and make his lot a total of 10 acres and to comply with the Ordinances. They offered the five acres to Grimlie, however, he wanted the 70 acres and to pay a fraction of what the Bank has into it. AgStar offered the five acres to Grimlie for free a couple times, however, he would not take it. The proposal to the Board is that if they allow the entitlement on the 70 acres which is proper; then AgStar will agree and work with Kryzer on the language to hold the five acres until such time as Grimilie or a future owner will take it, whether it is free or sold that is where it will go. If the Board says no, Ag Star will have to move on and a third party would own the five acres and the 70 acres. Grimlie as the primary farmer has the first option to repurchase the land and will have to buy it at whatever the market has on value or match an offer within 65 days. He addressed the criteria for a variance which must meet a practical difficulty standard as follows: 1) The request does not conflict with the land use plan, there are two entitlements allowed on the original parcel. The property is going to be sold as soon as they get it on the market and AgStar has no interest in developing it. When Grimlie was in bankruptcy court he tried to develop it and it did not work out. 2) They propose to use it in a reasonable manner meets this criteria because they are allowed two entitlements by Ordinance. 3) The plight of the owner is due to circumstances unique to this property and not created by the owner - Myers stated Grimlie mortgaged the land in

13 Page 13 the early 1980 s. He explained there are two divisions of Ag Star and the division that sells property became aware of it when they tried to record the deed to that division. He felt this is unique because of the mortgage foreclosure and it was unknown to Ag Star that the division was not proper and property line ran through a building. 4) Does not alter the character of the area - this would not; and would resemble what should be out here with a ten acre lot encompassing the existing buildings and a second entitlement on the balance. 5) Practical difficulty - Ag Star recognizes there is a problem and asked he come back to Board and see if it can be resolved. They will be marketing this and knows there is. 6) Granting a variance will not adversely affect the environment there are two entitlements available for the acreage. C. Larry Grimlie addressed the Board in regard to AgStar trying to detail the Findings. Everyone is governed by rules states economic reasons alone do not constitute a variance. The five acre lot sitting out alone would not be in harmony and sets a precedent. There are other options and could be alleviated by other methods; the 70 acres could have a 10 acre division in the corner and get the money they need to recoup. There was a horse operation he had that he could start up again if he had 20 acres. They had already started an eviction notice and would not have been able to do that if Wright County had already allowed a five-acre subdivision. The Bank knew in 2010 that the 75 acres was not a marketable parcel and did not comply, as was stated in a letter written by County Attorney Zins. Making this division would only benefit AgStar, there are other solutions he would be willing to look at. Suggesting a 20-acre parcel would be acceptable and would more than compensate for the payments he made. Offering one solution is not something they can negotiate. Approving this would be a big advantage for AgStar. Kryzer asked if Grimlie wanted to address the criteria as the Bank did, that gives variance authority? Grimlie stated paragraphs A-F require it be in harmony of the land use plan. He does not feel a five-acre parcel dangling out there is in compliance with the Plan. That it is unique to the property - there is nothing about the proper. Alter the character of the County would apply. Alleviated by nothing but a variance. Did not think it would impact the environmental quality. He felt the criteria they cannot meet is this cannot be alleviated without a variance. He did not think they should have a five-acre parcel they have no control over. In the future, they could ask he pay a tremendous amount for the five acres so he can sell his home place. If they get a building entitlement, that would add much value to their property. D. Schermann asked for further public comment, hearing none he asked why this is before the Board again. Kryzer instead of an appeal of the zoning administrator s decision, it is a division of the 70 acres with an entitlement. As articulated, they have to decide on the criteria. Both parties have given their positions and Grimlie has agreed some of the criteria are met. When a conclusion has been reached he would recommend a continuation for Findings. Schermann did not feel the Board should have been involved in this. E. Quiggle Grimlie stated that there would be five acres sitting out there and that he would have no control over that. She did not agree, noting Grimlie could have accepted the offer of five acres for free. If he chooses not to accept that, it puts them in a unique situation and problem. The wrap around parcel would not establish a precedent as it is unique with a lot line going through a building. Ideally, AG Star should market the 70 acres and the five

14 Page 14 acres should be included with the Grimlie farmstead at this time; later it may have a cost. By not accepting it, Grimlie severely restricts the use of the building now and the future. She referred to the Statsvold Supreme Court decision where the last thing said was is it in the interest of justice ; and in her mind this is. This is a big mess and this solution is in the interest of justice. F. Mol agreed with Quiggle. The Board sent them back to negotiate at the last meeting. The Bank offered to give Grimlie the five acres and he refused. There were no offers back and forth. How a mortgage with a line through your building happened without his knowledge is questionable. He would agree with the proposal. G. Jones agrees with the statements made by the Board members. They cannot leave this the way it is. Apparently the mortgage company did not verify where the line was when they mortgaged this. H. Aarestad still leaves loose ends and they should make sure documents are drafted legally so there are not problems with the five acres down the line between the parties. This is a practical solution. I. Schermann he would go along with the request; although he would like to see the parties resolve this, it appears that will not happen. AgStar would hold title on the five acres until it can be re-incorporated into the building site assigning the entitlement to the 70 acres. J. Schermann moved to close the public hearing to all written or oral submissions and continue the final action to approve the request to the May 5, 2017 meeting and direct the County Attorney to draft Findings consistent with the record. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

15 Page DAVID E. SMITH New Item LOCATION: th St. NW part of NE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 6, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # & Property owners: Applicant & Eugene & Francine Smith Requests a variance of Section (G) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow expansion of the existing 10-acre entitlement division by adding acres. Division includes more than 2.5 acres of tillable land. Present: Gene Smith & Dave Smith A. Rhineberger displayed the maps to show the existing ten-acre entitlement division approved administratively. The applicant is proposing to add acres. The entire 90- acre parcel was outlined. The Feedlot Officer has recommended that if approved, the animals be limited to less than 10 animal units. Town Board approval was received. B. D. Smith stated the reason for the proposal is to square off the lot line. C. Mol indicated he is familiar with the property. The 10 animal units should allow some horses, if anyone should want them. D. Jones as a former Silver Creek Supervisor he is familiar with the site and has no problem. E. Aarestad and Quiggle expressed their support. F. Quiggle moved to grant a variance of Section (G) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow expansion of the existing 10-acre entitlement division by adding acres. Division includes more than 2.5 acres of tillable land. Reason: This will square off the parcel. Conditions: The property is limited to less than 10 animal units; subject to a survey to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Office and an Administrative Order to be signed and recorded. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

16 Page NANCY A. BETZLER New Item LOCATION: TH St. NW - Parts of Gov t Lot 3 & 4, Section 16, Township 123, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Mississippi River - Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # , , , Requests an appeal of 1993 order to move the 2-acre residential entitlement that was allowed on the north side of 156 th Street to be moved to the south side of the road to a parcel previously restricted by the Board. If approved, a lot line adjustment to attach a portion of the restricted parcel (tax # ) to the applicant's homesite (tax # ) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances Present: Applicant not present G. Rhineberger explained the petition was withdrawn after the application was submitted and Staff further reviewed the property and history including past hearings. The property is zoned Wild & Scenic River District and not AG General Agriculture. As such, entitlements could not be moved around. The Planning Commission could address a new lot in the W & S District and the applicant has decided to withdraw and apply to the Planning Commission. H. Mol moved to dismiss the petition at the applicant s request without prejudice. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

17 Page LENIS KASEMAN New Item LOCATION: County Road 8 NW Part of the W ½ of the NW ¼; and also th St. NW - W ½ of SW ¼, north of road, all in Section 5, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Silver Creek Twp.) Property owners: Kaseman & Rotsolk Requests a lot line adjustment as regulated in & Section (B)(10), Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow that part of the Kaseman property (tax # ) lying north of County Road 8 to be combined with the Rotsolk property (tax # ). Present: Lenis Kaseman and his agent, Tiffany Kibel A. Rhineberger displayed the map to show the property location and explained the applicant wants to attach about 4.5 acres that lies north of the County Road to the neighbor s (Rotsolk) property. Town Board has not raised any issues with the adjustment. B. Kibel stated the applicant feels this portion of the property is more beneficial to the neighbor because of the way County Road 8 bisects the property. C. Schermann polled the Board and the consensus was favorable, noting it makes sense to incorporate it into the neighbor s property and the Town Board approved. D. Mol moved to approve a lot line adjustment to allow that part of the Kaseman property (tax # ) lying north of County Road 8 to be combined with the Rotsolk property (tax # ). Condition: The parcel being attached to Rotsolk must be combined with his existing tax parcel or Rotsolk must sign an Administrative Order; the adjustment does not increase entitlements on the Rotsolk property. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

18 Page MYRON G. & KELLY J. MARQUETTE New Item LOCATION: 503 Dempsey Avenue SW N ½ of SE ¼, Section 4, Township 119, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Marysville Twp.) Tax # ; , , Requests a lot line adjustment of Section (G) as regulated in , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to combine three existing parcels and move the building entitlement from previous location ( 1 per 40 lot) to a new location on the parcel. Present: Kelly & Myron Marquette A. Rhineberger presented the air photo and location map to show the property that has a Court ordered stipulation on the property. A 1999 entitlement division was pointed to that the applicant is proposing to incorporate back into the farm parcel along with some other small parcels, one small strip cannot be combined for tax purposes because it is part of the plat to the north. There had been a house on the entitlement parcel, however that has been removed and will be used somewhere else on the farm. As a result of the agreement, the acreage will have two access strips and the parcel does not meet the minimum width requirement on the road. Town Board responded favorably. Neighbors written responses were summarized. Sharpe, Stoll, Reinhart & Anna Marquette responses are on file. B. Kryzer asked if the highway department addressed the access strip? Rhineberger stated a notice was sent to them and no response was received. There is an existing approach that is shared with the adjacent owner. The strip on the south end has a wetland issue. C. K. Marquette trying to resolve this so the property can be sold. A delineation was done and there is an easement access down to the corner of the driveway. They have a buyer and they have discussed this with them. The movement of the house location is so both parties will have privacy. D. Anna Marquette if they are going to move the building site to the back what will be done with the mound sewer that is on that parcel. Rhineberger there are ways to abandon the sewer and would be handled at the time they apply for a building permit. It can remain as it sits with no water going into it. Anna Marquette, they cannot take her driveway away from her. Schermann stated that is a civil matter between the parties and the Board will not be addressing that. K Marquette stated there is easement for her driveway. E. Jennifer Enos buyer s agent explained the buyer plans to come off the existing driveway and there is a recorded easement and there is no plan to take it away from Anna. She was under the understanding that the sewer is hooked into the original home. Applicants stated that is a separate system. Enos stated her client has no plans to build for years and her plans are to build in the back of the property. They had a wetland delineation done and received a copy of that. Rhineberger - if access goes through the wetlands that would have to be submitted to Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District and there is a

19 Page 19 procedure they would have to go through. Kelly Marquette stated that has been submitted to them. F. EmmaJean Marquette stated she is Anna s daughter and Myron s sister explained the original 2 acre division (to be incorporated back into the farm) was created for Myron who wanted to help her Dad farm. The Court Order is the result of a family dispute on the sale of the property. Her mother is getting half the property and Myron is getting half. The criteria to grant a variance states it cannot be altered for an economic reasons. She feels this combination is to make it marketable. Schermann it appears the Court has ruled on it and given the applicant the right to sell. G. Carol Reinhart stated they own 40 acres across the road and wants to find out what is requested. They are concerned about the access to County Road 9 because it is a dangerous stretch. This is the bottom of the valley and the road goes up in both directions. They are not concerned where the house goes on the property. They are very concerned about adding another driveway on the south end. They would like to see them share the existing approach. Kryzer to access at that south side there is a sequencing procedure the owners would have to go through wetlands. There is no need for additional conditions as there are enough laws and procedures in place to address that. H. Jones asked for clarification of the access and strips. K. Marquette using the map explained the parcels to be combined and the location of the driveway on the north end. Anna Marquette does have easement to the county road to the corner. Schermann questioned the location the neighbor was questioning. Rhineberger stated the 66 wide strip does not go away. Jones that would be a big problem to try and go through. K. Marquette clarified they are not proposing that. Jones asked if frontage is a concern. Rhineberger it is difficult to undo a Court Order. Kryzer agreed, although there can be further action. The strip on the south is part of the property and not before the Board. If someone wanted to make the investment to go through the process and replace the wetlands somewhere else in order to build a driveway, they have a process to do that. Jones did not feel combining parcels is a problem, cannot landlock a parcel. I. Aarestad the only thing that concerns him is if they allow the entitlement to be used on the back parcel it would remove prime farmland and wants to protect that. K. Marquette the buyer plans to farm the parcel. Rhineberger stated the Ordinance does not prevent someone from building in cropland on a 40 acre parcel. It is the division that does not allow more than 2.5 acres of tillable land. Staff do not know where the house is planned. He did warn that this home would be served by a very long driveway, it is tillable and it may be appropriate to place a condition that the house cannot have a division, which is often something a mortgage company is looking for. Schermann felt the Board would have to address that in the future. Rhineberger felt it would be worthwhile to discuss at this time. Mol they may not need a division if they can afford it, or they may have to come back. Schermann would require another hearing. J. Anna Marquette since she had the driveway taken away and it is an easement, the other owners have to maintain it.