Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01 JPC0 Minutes of the Joint Powers Committee January 15, 1986 MEMBERS_ PRESENT Ann Bodlovick, Harry Peterson, Cathy Buck, Ray Senkus, Dill Lundquist STAFF PRESENT Douglas ^Swenson, Rhonda Thode CALL _TO_ORDER Ann Bodlovick chaired the committee and called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. APPROVAL O_FMINUTES Bill Lundquist moved to approve the January 8, 1986 minutes of the Joint Powers Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Harry Peterson moved to approve the minutes of the November 20, 1985 meeting as submitted. Motions were seconded and carried unanimously. GENERAL DISCUSSION Cathy Buck gave a brief update on the Richard Anderson matter. She stated the township attorney has contacted Mr. Anderson and his attorney, along with the city attorney and Doug Swenson. He has asked Mr. Briggs to present a proposal to the town board. Drug Swenson stated Mr. Briggs is concerned with the 30 day time limit for an appeal and has asked that any time requirements be waived. Ann Bodlovick thanked the board and staff for their cooperation in working with the Joint Powers area over the years. Harry Peterson stated he appreciated the opportunity to work with the Joint Powers Committee and felt the committee could be proud of the development of the Industrial Park. Due to this, he felt development in the Industrial Park could now continue with the patterns that have been set. ADJOURNMENT Cathy Cathy Buck moved to adjourn at 5:40 p.m. Ray Senkus seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Joint Powers Board of Adjustment and Appeals January 8, 1986 Richard Anderson Public Hearing MEMBERS_ PRESENT Dean Miller, Bill Lundquist, Cathy buck, Ann Bodlovick, Louise Bergeron, Vincent Anderson, Robert Hamlin STAFF PRESENT Dennis O'Donnell, Douglas Swenson, Rhonda Thode OTHERS PRESENT Bob Briggs, Judy Anderson CALL _TO_ORDER Ann Bodlovick opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. Dennis O'Donnell read the notice of the public hearing which stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the variance request of Richard Anderson for a variance from the 75' pond setback requirement for construction of a three season parch. Bob Briggs, attorney representing the Anderson's, gave a brief synopsis of the situation. In February of 1985 the Anderson's requested a variance from the ordinary high water mark. The required setback is 751. The problem is that when the house was built several years ago, the house was 75' away from the water. There is no outlet to the pond, and the water has been rising over the past several years. The Department of Natural Resources came lip with an estimate for the ordinary high water mark of the pond at 891' and revised that down to 889.51. The neighbors, as well as the applicants, do riot agree to that high water mark. All the people that live around the pond have lost a substantial amount of property and trees. Barry Stack, engineer, has looked into the problem, and it is his opinion the ordinary high water mark should be set at a lower elevation. Regardless of that, it is unlikely that the ordinary high water mark would be set at a point that WOUld allow the existing structure to meet the setback requirement. He stated under the by-laws of the Joint Powers Committee, the applicants have the option to appeal the decision arrived at in October within 30 days to the Board of Adjustments, which has brought them to this point. If they are not satisfied with the decision of the Beard of Adjustment and Appeals they have 30 days to appeal that decision to the courts. Mr. Briggs stated he would obviously like the Board to grant the variance. If not, they can initiate court action, but would rather reach some sort of agreement. He stated the addition was built on the patio foundation that was originally on the house and is at the same elevation as the house itself, and riot at a lower elevation, therefore the house will flood at the same time prior to the addition because it is at the same level. He felt it was the elevation of the house that is important, not the distance from the water. In addition, the neighbors are not objecting, only concerned about the rising water. Mr. Briggs did not see a problem to the health, safety, and welfare of the Joint Powers Board of Adjustment & Appeals Richard Anderson Public Hearing January 8, 1986 Page 2 community. It does not expand the living capability for more people, it expands what was a living room and is not creating a hazard. In regards to Mr. O'Donnell's concern about increasing the value of the home and when and if it does flood there's going to be more damage and more of a claim that alight be brought into litigation, the applicants are willing to waiver any claim to damages by reason of putting on the addition and enter into an agreement with the appropriate authorities to say they will not go to court to avoid the possibility of litigation. In response to a question from Ann Bodlovick, Mrs. Anderson stated they purchased the horde in the early part of 1984. Mr. O'Donnell stated at the time the house was constructed in 1975 or 1978, the house met the setback. Vincent Anderson questioned where the hardship was in this case. Mr. Briggs stated that it was the practicality of the situation. He stated construction had been started without realizing the situation and then discovered the pond did not have an outlet. Robert Hamlin questioned how much of the construction was completed before it was red -tagged. Dennis O'Donnell stated for the most part construction was completed with the exception of some roofing and the Anderson's requested permission to continue roofing to protect the house due to bad weather. Louise Bergeron stated if the applicants would have applied for a permit before construction they would have been made aware of the fact they could not build. Robert Hamlin stated the addition is there and the issue is what to do with the problem and not whether it should be there or not. He felt the question now is if there is a safety problem in terms of pollution and ds the publics best interest being served by costly litigation. Dean Miller questioned the aspect of a clause releasing the appropriate authorities from litigation as mentioned by Mr. Briggs. Mr. Briggs stated they are willing to enter into an agreement waiving any claim of flood damages to the appropriate authority. He stated the Department of Natural Resources has granted the applicants the right to fill and protect their property. The Department of Natural Resources has stated the solution to the problem is to run a channel from the pond over to Long Lake. That channel has to go through property that is currently owned by -the applicants. If this can be worked out, they will cooperate with the appropriate authorities and provide the easement for that purpose. He stated the Anderson's are interested in solving the long range problem for themselves and their neighbors. In regards to the waiver, Cathy Buck stated if the Anderson's changed their mind in the future they could appeal to court and be released from it. Mr. Briggs stated in cases where people have had legal counsel present that is not the case. When people do not have an attorney, there is a better chance of the courts overturning the waiver. Doug Swenson stated some sort of agreement could be put together, but the matter at hand was the granting of a variance. Dean Miller questioned if the addition could be constructed at a higher elevation. Mr. Briggs stated due to the topography of the land that it was not possible. Joint Powers Board of Adjustment & Appeals Richard Anderson Hearing January 8, 1986 Page 3 Vincent Anderson stated in looking at the August meetings minutes there was discussion regarding reaching a solution prior to the granting or denying of a variance and questioned what has been done prior to the meeting regarding reaching a more equitable agreement. Mr. Briggs stated he has been willing to discuss the issue, but no meeting was ever set up. Cathy Buck felt there was an assumption being -made that if the variance were denied the township would require the addition to be torn down, and that is not necessarily the case. Mr. Briggs stated he is not assuming that, but if the variance is denied he has 30 days to take action and if a negotiation could not be worked out he would need adequate time to appeal. Robert Hamlin stated if the variance is denied there will be a hassle factor forcing litigation or walk away and ignore the situation. He felt there was an opportunity to limit liability, collect a fine, and have an easement across the property for a future solution to the problem as opposed to having a costly litigation with none of the other advantages and the Board should try to get the best out of a poor situation. In response to a question from Mr. Hamlin, Judy Anderson stated the addition was valued at $15,000.00 to $20,000.00. Cathy Buck initiated discussion regarding the precedent that would be set if the variance were granted. Robert Hamlin felt a stiff fine or better surveilance of the area would prevent a similar situation. Bill Lundquist felt if this request is approved, the precedent would be set and it would be very difficult to deny other requests. Bennis O'Donnell concurred. Bob Briggs felt there would not be another situation with similar enough circumstances to call it a precedent because there are so many unique circumstances in this case. Doug Swenson stated the precedent issue is of legitimate concern because you have --to treat similar situations the same and one of the questions before the Board is if this situation is different enough that approval of the variance would be ,justified. Dennis O'Donnell had concern of the issue on precedent setting and the idea that many people feel that if construction is done and completed without a permit they would not be required to remove it. He concurred with the Joint Powers Committee decision reached a -n Oct-ber and felt a hardship should be present before a variance is granted. He felt the hardship in this casewascreated by the owner by building without a permit. Ann Bodlovick closed the public hearing- at 6-.40-p.m.- Vincent .40- p.m. -Vincent Anderson moved to deny the variance request-:--- Louise Bergeron seconded. Doug Swenson presented a preliminary -draft of the Findings of Fact and ---- Order for denial for the Boards review. After a brief discussion the Board concurred that the only change to the Findings of Fact would be the deletion of Richard Anderson's name indicating he was present. Vincent Anderson moved to amend his motion to include approval of the Findings of Fact and Order for this request. Louise Bergeron seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Joint Powers Board -of Adjustment & Appeals Richard Anderson Hearing January 8, 1986 Page 4 Vincent Anderson moved that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals urges the Stillwater Town Board to -posthaste meet with the Anderson's and their counsel and discuss the intent on agreeing on some equitable solution to _ this unfortunate situation. Cathy Buck seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Briggs questioned if the Stillwater Town Board would like him at their township meeting. Cathy Buck stated the township would take the advisory motion under advisement at the township meeting and then set up a meeting from there. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 6:50 p.m.