10-17-2002 Planning Commission Meeting

Home Browse Search

STAFF REPORT Application: Variance to construct within the shoreline setback Applicant: James Lundeen Background Information: In the year 2000, Mr. Lundeen applied for a variance with the Crow Wing County Board of Adjustment. At that time, Mr. Lundeen requested an 18-foot by 22-foot addition on the side of the dwelling at a setback of 33-feet from the lake. On July 26, 2002, Sibley Township submitted a letter to the Crow Wing County Planning and Zoning Office recommending that the variance be denied. The letter from the Township indicated that: 1. There is a non-conforming well on the premises and this should be brought up to code. 2. There is a non-conforming septic on this parcel and this should also be brought up to code. 3. If necessary, the bathroom could be put to the back of the building instead of along the side of the building. The variance was denied by the Board of Adjustment in August of 2000. The Board found that the request did not meet the intent of the ordinance. They also noted the objections of both Sibley Township and the Cullen Lake Association and indicated that the structure could be moved back to meet the setback requirements. The current requests is for an 8-foot by 28-foot addition to the rear of the structure. There is a letter in the file from Nancy Rudbeck to the applicant indicating that the sewage treatment system on the property is out of compliance and needs to be upgraded. This application was submitted to Sibley Township some time at the end of August or the beginning of September. In the transition between staff, this application was lost in the shuffle. Besides being not thoroughly completed, the application for variance must be accompanied by a certificate of sewer compliance indicating a compliant system or an application for an ISTS. The City has 10 days in which to reject an application for being incomplete. Since we did not do this, we must make a decision on the application within the next two and a half months. Applicable Statutes: The Ordinance specifically states that, in order to recommend approval of the variance, you must find that all of the following can be answered affirmatively: 1. Has the applicant demonstrated a hardship? (Hardship means the property cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a hardship.)