MEEKER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING August 16, 2018 Full Audio Available Upon Request

Transcription

1 MEEKER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING August 16, 2018 Full Audio Available Upon Request The Meeker County Board of Adjustment met at the Meeker County Courthouse on Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:00pm to consider the following variance applications and other business before the Board. Members present were Mike Brooks, Kim Hempel, Craig Kay and Zoning Administrator Kristin Cote. Brooks calls the meeting to order at 5:00pm. There is a quorum. The Board states their names for voice recognition. Brooks asks the Board if there are any corrections or additions to the June 26, 2018 meeting minutes. None are noted. Hempel makes a motion to approve the minutes. Brooks seconds the motion. Motion carried 2-0. (Kay abstains from voting on the June 26, 2018 meeting minutes as he was not present.) 5:02pm Brooks opens the public hearing for Alan Ranta & Michael Lien (owners & applicants), 1318 Red Oak Ave, Redwing, MN 55066; Constance Erickson (owner), Cobalt Ave, Rosemount, MN 55068; Gregory & Carolyn Olson (owners), N Pilgrim Ln, Maple Grove, MN 55369; Furst Revocable Trust Teresa Furst, Michael Furst & Jacquelyn Furst (trustees/owners), th Ave, South Haven, MN 55382; Ralph Schlueter (owner), 603 Creedside Dr, Buffalo, MN 55313; Donald Olson (owner), 6309 Halifax Dr, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429; Mary Brudwick (owner), th Ave, South Haven, MN 55382; Maria Freidlund (owner), th Ln, Aitkin, MN 56431; David Prazak & Jeanne Azzone (owners), 502 Hawthorne Woods Dr, Eagan, MN 55123; and Nancy Friesen Trust Nancy Friesen (trustee/owner), 8116 Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello, MN Property located at That Part of Government Lot One (1), more fully described in the application. Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Twenty (120), Range Twenty Nine (29), Lake Francis, Kingston Township An application for an Area Variance to create a non-conforming plat in which the lots do not meet the required 125 in width, 200 in depth and 30,000 square feet in area; a variance to construct a road which serves four or more lots in variance to the required 24 in road width, the required 32 in road base width and as a private road, all in the R-1 Suburban Residential District and within the Shoreland District. Cote: This property is a portion of a acre parcel located in Section 11 of Kingston Township adjacent to Lake Francis. Currently on this property there is a cattle barn constructed in The portion of this property within 250 feet of the lakeshore is zoned R-1 and the remainder is in the A-1 Agricultural Preservation District. In 1977 and again in 1980 variances were given to split off portions of this property. The existing property owners are now 1

2 proposing to establish a non-conforming plat. The board originally heard a variance November of 2017 for a two (2) lot nonconforming plat on the riparian portion of this property. Portions of that variance were granted and the requested variance was denied to allow for the construction of a non-conforming road. Since that time the owner has discovered title issue in regards to this property as a whole. They are now proposing to plat this whole metes and bounds area in addition to creating two (2) new lots. By platting this property is should clear up the title issues. This proposal requires variance for all the existing properties, one of the proposed buildable lots, variance for proposed Outlot A as well as the existing road to the south. This request does not include the northerly portion of the road. When a variance is denied an applicant cannot apply for the same request within twelve (12) months of the initial denial. Al Ranta, Mike Housman and Mike & Jackie Furst are present for this hearing. Ranta: Originally we were just trying to sell off the two lake lots. Then, because of the title issues, that s what brought us back to including all the lake lots on both sides. Of course, those were all purchased in the 1950 s. None of those lake lots meet the standards of 125, 200 and 30,000. Because a lot of those lots haven t been surveyed for years the lines were way off. So, after talking to the surveyor and the real estate attorney, the best way to do it is to include them all in there. That way everybody s lines get cleared up. Matter of fact, one of the people on there, Maria Freidlund, was trying to sell her cabin and it got turned down last fall because the lot lines were wrong. Well now that we ve cleared everything up she was able to sell it. That s what I m asking for, is to include these other cabins in the plat. Brooks: What about the second part of your motion the road. Cote: As by Subdivision Ordinance standards a road that serves that many lots needs to be constructed to public specs. That road is not proposed to change, but it currently does not meet public specs. Ranta: Oh, you mean the old road. Yes. Cote: That was part of your application. Ranta: We are going to push the old road back and then we will build a new road with a 24 surface. The existing road that people use right now is the cart trail. Cote: So it is your intention for the road to the south the road beyond the point where it s gated that you d construct that to public specs? Ranta: No Cote: That s what this application is about. The northerly portion of the road everything from the gated part up to the public road was denied in a variance last November. So, that has to meet specs. Ranta: The old cabin road will stay the same--where the last four cabins are. Otherwise we d have to go through a swamp. Lot B would be the old cabin road on the plat. Lot A is just a piece of land that has 2

3 been in the family forever between cabin 4 & 5. Both cabin owners on each side have shown interest in that, so I just thought, why not just put it as an Outlot and then we will sell it off to one of those cabins. Brooks: In your statement you said that a lot/cabin in the old section has sold and that there had been a problem with the sale because of the metes and bounds. Ranta: The lot lines. Brooks: Has that gone through, or hasn t it? Ranta: It just went through. Brooks: What did you do to get it through, so the bank or whomever would accept those measurements? Ranta: We had Chuck with Northstar survey everything. He forwarded the surveys to their attorney who was going to originally fix the lot lines. Brooks: Is this the old section or the new section? Ranta: This is one of the old cabins on the cart trail; the second one down. Hempel: This is all very complicated--multiple variances are requested, there are issues about the road and getting emergency vehicles on it. It talks about the reason for this application is due to a title issue. You are requesting this so it would clear up the title. Ranta: Not the title on the two lots we re proposing. It s for all the outer lots on the both sides of it-- the existing cabin lots. Hempel: It s my understanding that if the two lots were combined, you wouldn t need a variance, correct? Ranta: No, that still wouldn t clear up any of the lot lines. Cote: You have title issues between yourself and Lot 8. There is a gap or overlap in the legal descriptions. This is what you have previously stated. So, that would be a title issues on the new proposed lots. Ranta: Everything is cleared up already. All the title issues are cleared up. Well, not cleared up, I m saying Chuck went out there and surveyed the whole area. And I sent a copy to all the people who have cabins that are part of the plat. Everybody is in agreement that the lot lines are where they are supposed to be now. Right now Steve Besser is doing the title searches and we are going to update 3

4 everybody s title for them. So, everybody is going to have a clean title now. There aren t any issues with the lot lines anymore. It s all cleared up. Cote: Until that plat is actually approved by the County Board of Commissioners, it s not official. Ranta: Oh, no, I understand. Cote: I m not legal counsel and obviously your legal counsel would advise you, but you d have to go through a process of quiet title actions or something to technically clear it up. Just by doing a survey doesn t clear title. Ranta: Right, but everybody has to agree with it. Is that what you are talking about? Cote: No. Title won t be cleared until an action officially takes place, so currently there wouldn t be clear title. If everything were to go through and be approved, then I would believe title would be cleared. But you would also have an issue, because to apply for a preliminary plat, you have to submit a clear title. Ranta: Right. I just talked to Steve Besser yesterday and he s waiting because everything has to be dated. And I already had Becky at Dakota County Abstract he s already updated everybody s abstract. It s all about dating it now. To make sure that the dating is done. We said we d update everybody s abstract for them, so I have everybody s abstract. Kay: I m learning as I go, but what comes first here, the cart or the horse? Cote: When one has a nonconforming plat, the Subdivision Ordinance states that the plat must conform to all subdivision rules and regulations before the County can consider it. The only option, if you can t meet size requirement of width, depth, area or a roadway requirement, is to first request a variance. If the variance is granted, you can then have the plat drawn and submitted to the Zoning office for consideration at a public hearing by the Planning Commission, with the final decision from the County Board. The variance has to come first if the plat doesn t meet all requirements. There is still a platting process to go through which requires approvals and there is no guarantee on approvals. Ranta: The whole reason we are doing this is to sell off two lake lots. You guys were out there and looked at the area. There is no problem with the two lake lots, but the reason why the title issues come up or the lot line issues is because every time someone had a survey done for their lot, it was moved a little one way. Then someone on the other side would have one done and it was moved a little the other way. That s why there was an issue with all of them, so he said why not include all of them in your plat and clear everybody s up at the same time. That s the only reason why I included them in here. Everybody was in favor of that. So, the reason why these non-conforming lake lots are on there is just to clear up title. They were sold to these people in the 50 s and everyone has cabins on them. So that s 4

5 why they were included on my plat. We re clearing up their lot lines for them. Originally we weren t going to have them on there. Cote: That s correct. The first proposal didn t include any of the small lots that are south and south of the gated portion of the road. Ranta: Between talking to Chuck and Steve, they said this was the easiest way to clear everything up for everybody and everybody was obviously happy about that because I m picking up the expense for it. There s nothing we can do about the old lake lots that were sold in the 1950 s and have cabins on them already. They are what they are. Kay: Would he be in compliance on the two lots if it were one lot? Cote: Lot 6 does not need any variances. New Lot 7, which is one of the proposed new lots, requires a depth variance on its south side. It s a required 200 of depth on the south lot line and it is requested 71.2, so a required variance of Ranta: But we already have that variance. Cote: As part of the November variance, you did get a Actually your variance was a little bit different because on the new drawing you had to reconfigure your lot drawings. Ranta: That shouldn t have changed. Cote: Apparently at that time, that had a 75 request from the 2017 proposal. I think that was due to the fact that you had to change the road. For the road you had asked to have a non-conforming size. Ranta: Right, it was going to be a 20 surface and the Board said, no, it has to be 24. That s why we changed it. Cote: Technically, if Mr. Ranta were going to exclude all the existing properties and do a two lot plat, with what you are looking at this evening not considering previous variances that have been applied for, he would need a variance of on the south property line on Lot 7. Ranta: I didn t realize that was an issue. I thought this was taken care of in November as far as a variance on that side. Cote: There was a variance granted on Lot 7 in November, but the footage was different than what you submitted last November of 2017 to what you submitted in Ranta: The lot itself is 35,000 square feet. 5

6 Cote: It meets the other two requirements; it s just the one variance that is required. Hempel: As part of your application you are also requesting a variance to construct the road, which doesn t meet county specs? Ranta: I didn t think this had anything to do with the road; this was strictly for the lake. Cote: You need a variance on the road to the south, even though you are not changing anything. What s there does not meet requirements. Ranta: Oh, yes, the old cabin road. We can t change that because the swamp is right next to it. Cote: But still, for the Planning Commission to consider it as part of a plat, because it is not a conforming size, it requires a variance. You cannot plat anything that is not a conforming size without being granted a variance. That road is not proposed to change at all beyond the fact that it would then be platted and would be a non-conforming size platted road. Ranta: It would just be part of the plat, that s all. Hempel: This map shows an existing road and a proposed road. Brooks: That s what we have already done. Cote: The proposed road is not part of this. That was denied a variance last November, so that has got to be a conforming size. (The Board looks at the survey for the locations.) Mike Furst: As far as what Al explained to me. He offered us to buy the land from our existing that we have now and back. That would eliminate that existing road in there. It would go up to the new proposed road. That s basically what it s for. He s got our abstracts and getting them updated now so that it will now be up to the existing road. He s offered to sell us the land back there, so we won t be landlocked. I m on Lot 4. Ranta: Lot 4 and 5, where the new road would push back both of those lots. We ve come to an agreement where they are going to buy the land between the old road and the new road so they aren t landlocked. That s what Mike s talking about. Most of the variances are for the existing cabins just to clear up lot lines. To clear them up they need to be part of a plat. That s why they are in there. Brooks: The confusing part to me is that we have 11 lots and were granting a variance on every lot. Ranta: Most of it is existing cabins that have been there a long time. 6

7 Brooks: I understand that, but technically, this cart trail you are calling a roadway and I m having a problem with that. A cart trail is a certain percentage of width. Ranta: We can call it whatever you want. It s been there forever and can t be changed because of the swamp. So, what I m going to do is make it an Outlot and give it to the people that use it. There s nothing else we can do with it. Hempel: There s no other way you can get around this, is that what you are saying? Ranta: Right. Brooks: And there isn t, I agree with you. My whole contention is, we have rules and regulations and we re granting you a variance on every piece of property in there and we re setting precedence for the next person that walks down the line that wants something done. I realize that you have a problem, but I don t think we should be involved in granting title on a piece of property that has been titled for 40 years. Hempel: I m very confused myself. I m just thinking in my head is this just to save you money or make you money? Ranta: Do you mean adding the cabins to the variance? Brooks: There s nothing we can do about the old cabins. Time has accepted those. My contention is the future. What do I do if you decide to plat something else and you say, well, you already granted me a variance over here. Ranta: I m only asking for those variances to be part of the plat, because they can t be changed. It s just to clear up title. Hempel: But that s not our issue. That s your issue. Ranta: Well, we didn t need to include all of them in there. We could have just included the ones on either side or we didn t need to include any of them, I guess. Cote: No, I think you did because the ones directly adjacent affected your title on the land you proposed to plat. I had a brief conversation with Mr. Besser back in the beginning of this, and he indicated that this was your preference probably based on conversations with the surveyor as opposed to Quiet Title action or something of that nature. So, there are different avenues to pursue the clearing of title. Ranta: Right, he said this would be the best way to do it and after talking to everyone, they were all happy with it because to have everyone do their own survey would cost them each $5000 apiece. And 7

8 we re clearing up everybody s up at the same time. I don t think you guys are setting precedence here when you look at the situation. I don t believe that s the case. Brooks: Well, we ve already kind of set precedence because we demanded in November that you make your road such and such a width. Somehow the county person from Road was under the understanding that we had granted a lesser variance on the road and we said, no it had to conform to all county road conditions. Cote: There was some confusion on the north part of road, but that s not under consideration this evening. Brooks: That s what I m getting at. I m worried about setting precedence. So, if there is any other questions, I m glad to let the Board hear them, then we re going to take a vote. Housman: I m here because of the road issue. I was at the township board meeting a number of months back when this issue was brought to them. I m a little unclear. Is there a road way that is going to be township road when this project is done? I m hearing there is a new road; I m hearing there isn t a new road. Cote: Come look at the map, and we can explain. (Housman looks at the maps) Last fall Mr. Ranta applied for a variance for a road to be built to private specs. That was denied, so he has to construct it to public specs. In the meantime, there were title issues with the lots overlaps and gaps. So now the proposal is to include the whole strip and the variance is for the portion of the road from the gated part to the south because that is too small and you can t plat a road that is too small. Housman: The meeting with the township board was in June and there was a split vote, two to one, allowing that they would accept the road. So I m confused. Cote: It has to be constructed to public specs, whether or not the township will accept it or not is up to them. So, it can be constructed to public size, but it could still be a private road if the township wants that. By ordinance standards, if the road serves more than four lots, the road has to be constructed to public specs. That s due to some instances where roadways have been continued on and serve more lots than what it was initially for. Housman: So this road is going to be built. It s just a matter of whether or not the township will accept it as a township road. Ranta: They ve already accepted it. Cote: For them to accept it, they have to sign off on the plat so that wouldn t be possible at this time. Ranta: They voted to accept it. 8

9 Brooks: But they voted for county specs. Cote: I don t know if they did or not, but beyond that, Mr. Ranta has to follow the subdivision ordinance. Ranta: Like I said, everybody thought this was the way to go. It s going to clear up everybody s title. At the recommendation from Steve Besser and Chuck at Northstar and everybody that lives up there were in favor of it too. A couple people had to do Quiet Titles because they were trying to get their lot lines cleared up and spent $5000 and it was still a mess. Right now we spent the money and Chuck surveyed everything and everything is correct. Maria was just able to sell her cabin; she just closed on it because everything was correct. Cote: I don t know how that s possible without a process taking place. Ranta: Well, we did Quit Claim Deeds. Maria had an attorney up north. She lives in Aitkin. We ve done all the legal paperwork already. Steve did a back and forth with her attorney. Cote: For just her property or for all the properties? Ranta: Just so she can sell the property. Cote: Ok, that makes more sense. You are not going to have clean title until this is done. But if they did deeds back and forth, that makes sense. But that s beyond your consideration. You are not considering their deeds, you are considering if it s appropriate to make this plat of non-conforming size of width, depth and area. Ranta: But we were talking about the reasons of why they are non-conforming because they have been there since the 50 s. We ve already put a lot of time and money into it. We ve already done all the surveying, in fact, we updated all the abstracts and Steve is waiting to find out about doing all the title searches. I thought that we were doing everybody a favor by doing this. Brooks: I m not saying that you haven t done the stuff appropriately; I m saying I have a problem granting variances for sizes on a plat that s a non-conforming plat from the get-go. I m setting precedence. Ranta: These are existing cabins and there s nothing we can do about it. I think anyone can see that these cabins are what they are. Two of the cabins are going to end up getting more land, so they are going to be closer to conforming. Brooks: Kristin, if we take out the whole amount of lots; his two new lots, we ve already granted one variance on it. 9

10 Cote: The variance that was granted in 2017 was approve an area variance of 125 from the required 200 of depth on the south end of proposed lot one (1) to develop a riparian lot in the R-1 Suburban Residential District, approve a variance of from the required 200 of depth for proposed Outlot A and a variance of 18,129 square feet from the required 30,000 square feet of area for proposed Outlot A with the conditions that the platted road meet subdivision requirements regarding size, that parcel numbers and be combined with said Outlot A to ensure no property is landlocked and DENY variances to allow for the construction of a public road serving more than four lots that has less than the required 24 of drive surface and 32 of graded base within the Shoreland District. The rest of the small lots weren t included in the original/first proposal. Brooks: I can understand where the gentleman is coming from, but are we setting precedence for future platting. Cote: Precedence is set within similar properties in similar time. I m not legal counsel, but you have to keep in mind that anybody that is going to do a plat would possibly go to this if they weren t able to or it was there preference to not meet a requirement. At that time we d have to have legal counsel to deduce whether precedence was set. Hempel: In my opinion/understanding this is not the only avenue that he has to clear up his title issues. Cote: It sounds like on Maria Freidlund s property, Quiet Title already occurred. But my understanding of how to clear title there is always a possibility of Quiet Title. Many properties have title issues that are cleared up without platting. I know there are issues beyond platting; this was the option that Ranta choose to pursue. Hempel: So, he can still achieve what he wants to achieve in the end without us having to set precedence of a non-conforming plat. Ranta: We went through all this time and work already to do this. If somebody s going to come in here and wants to plat some lots, obviously they would be asking for it without cabins on them. That s a totally different story than with existing stuff. Brooks: This is a plat. Let s say that your next door neighbor has the same thing and he says, well, you granted it to him, why aren t you granting it to me. I m not talking about the old lots; I m talking about the new lots and setting precedence when Quiet Title can take care of everything. Ranta: I don t think you are setting precedence here if you look at the whole situation and the whole plat. I think you need to look at each situation and just say what makes sense. Hempel: In order to get a variance you have to have a hardship. Hardship to me is no other option. It s not economic considerations; it is not a lot of things. It is backed into a corner and you have absolutely no other option. From what I understand, you have another option. It may not be your first 10

11 or second choice, but it is a choice. It may cost more money, but we can t use that in our decision. Economics cannot be the sole decision for granting a variance. Ranta: It s not about the money. It s costing us more money doing this. Hempel makes a motion to close the public hearing. Kay seconds the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Brooks entertains a motion for approval. Motion fails for lack of a second. Motion failed. Hempel makes a motion to deny the application for an Area Variance to create a non-conforming plat in which the lots do not meet the required 125 in width, 200 in depth and 30,000 square feet in area; deny a variance to construct a road which serves four or more lots in variance to the required 24 in road width, the required 32 in road base width and as a private road all in the R-1 Suburban Residential District and within the Shoreland District. Brooks seconds the motion. Motion carried :42pm Brooks opens the public hearing for Thomas & Jane Tapper, 101 Bluff Ln, Dundas, MN Property located at th Ave, South Haven, MN Lots Three and Four (3 & 4), Wildwood Terrace, Lake Francis, Kingston Township. An application for an after-the-fact Area Variance to construct a deck in variance to the required 75 setback to the OHWL of a General Development Lake and a variance to exceed the maximum permitted 25% of impervious coverage on a lot in the R-1 Suburban Residential District and within the Shoreland District. Tom & Jane Tapper are present for this hearing. Cote: This property consists of two (2) riparian R-1 Suburban Residential lots in the plat of Wildwood Terrace on the southeast side of Lake Francis in Kingston Township. The plat of Wildwood Terrace was made in 1955 and the lots are small in width, depth and area. This property is 23,216 square feet (.532 of an acre). Currently on this site there is a house and porch built in 1957, a detached garage built in 1957, a shed built in 1978, a small shed with no record of the year constructed, a gazebo built in 2013, an SSTS system installed in 1998 which passed compliance in 2016 and a domestic water well. The County has no records of any permits for this site with the exception of the septic permit. The current property owners purchased this property in The Meeker County Planning and Zoning Office received a complaint in the summer of 2018 regarding deck construction without a permit. The County Enforcement Officer verified said construction and noticed the property owner to cease work and apply for the proper permits. According to the application there was a brick patio which is in poor condition as indicated by AmericSpec home inspection company located in this area at the time of purchase. The property owner s deck is 11

12 approximately 15 5 from the OHWL of Lake Francis at its closest point. The property owner is requesting after the fact variances to the Ordinary High Water Level Setback and the impervious surface coverage limitation. Tapper believes that he can get the impervious coverage into compliance. Brooks makes a motion to close the public hearing. Hempel seconds the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Cote asks the Board if they would like to give Tapper s a time frame to get the impervious coverage into compliance. Tapper states that it will take him time. Cote suggests the condition that the compliance must be complete by 07/31/19. She asks if the Board wants the compliance done before the deck permit is issued. Mr. Tapper states that he s like to finish the deck immediately as the rafters are bowing at bit. Cote states that the Boards options are: 1. Money be put into escrow and building permit issued immediately. 2. Bring the impervious into compliance, then get building permit. 3. Get permit and bring the impervious into compliance at a later date. Mr. Tapper would prefer to put money into escrow. Brooks makes a motion to APPROVE an after the fact variance of 61 from the required 75 setback to the Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Francis to construct a deck and DENY an after the fact variance to exceed the maximum permitted 25% of impervious coverage on a lot (5,804 square feet) in the R-1 Suburban Residential District and within the Shoreland District with the conditions that the applicant shall provide Meeker County with a copy of an escrow account in the amount of $1,000 listing the County as the release agent on said escrow account prior to being issued the building permit to allow for the completion of the construction of the deck on this property. Said escrow account is to be utilized as a financial guarantee that this property will be brought into compliance with said impervious surface requirements. Prior to the County signing said escrow release the property owner shall provide a survey completed by a licensed land surveyor showing that the property owner has brought their site into compliance with impervious surface requirements and indicating said impervious calculations. The applicant shall have made said site compliant with impervious surface requirements no later than July 1, The applicant shall also receive all required after the fact building permits before completing construction of this deck and shall utilize erosion control during construction until a permanent vegetative cover is established to prevent erosion of material into sensitive areas. Hempel seconds the motion. Motion carried

13 6:00pm Brooks opens the public hearing for Dean & Carol Nissen Living Trust (owners/applicants), 630 Shady Ridge Rd NW, Hutchinson, MN Property located at rd St, Litchfield, MN That Part of Government Lot Six (6), more fully described in the application. Section Fourteen (14), Township One Hundred Eighteen (118), Range Thirty One (31), Lake Minnie Belle, Greeleaf Township. An application for an Area Variance to construct a house addition in variance to the required 75 setback to the OHWL of a General Development lake and a variance to the required 20 setback to an SSTS drainfield all in the R-1 Suburban Residential District and within the Shoreland District. Carol Nissen is present for this hearing. Cote: This property is a.54 acre (23,522.4 square foot) R-1 zoned metes and bounds riparian parcel located on lake Minnie Belle in Greenleaf Township. This lot was established prior to the Shore land Ordinance of 1972 and the lot is small in width, depth and area. Currently on this property there is a house built in 1978 with attached decks constructed in 1990, 1998, 2000, 2002 and A garage built in 1999; a small utility shed which the County has no record of the year constructed, an SSTS system installed new in 2016 and a domestic water well. The property owner is requesting to be permitted to construct an addition to this dwelling in variance to the required 75 setback to the OHWL of a G.D. lake, raise the roof height of the existing cabin and in variance to the required 20 setback to an SSTS drain field. Brooks states that they are within the permitted 25% impervious coverage. Brooks makes a motion to close the public hearing. Hempel seconds the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Cote suggests the Board discuss house wrap with Ms. Nissen, so water from SSTS doesn t touch the foundation. Ms. Nissen states that they will only have a crawl space and not a full basement. Brooks makes a motion to approve an Area Variance of 24 from the required 75 setback to construct a house addition to the OHWL of a General Development lake, a variance of 8 from the required 75 setback to raise the roof of the existing dwelling to the OHWL of a General Development Lake and a variance of 10 from the required 20 setback to an addition to a dwelling to a SSTS drain field with the conditions that the applicant shall construct an uninhabitable crawl space under the proposed house addition adjacent to the SSTS drain field, the applicant shall receive all required building permits prior to commencing construction and shall utilize erosion control during construction until a permanent vegetative cover is established to prevent erosion of material into sensitive areas. Kay seconds the motion. Motion carried

14 6:20pm Kay makes a motion to adjourn. Brooks seconds the motion. Motion carried