Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables complex Raguse/Foss multi‑structure variance tied to noncompliant septic; legal review and alternatives requested
Summary
A complex multi‑building variance request by Ryan Raguse and Austin Foss — involving guest cottages, shoreline clearing and a noncompliant septic system — was tabled so staff can seek legal guidance on whether the property can be converted via a PUD or must return to a residential variance track.
The Hubbard County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment tabled a complex variance application from Ryan Raguse and Austin Foss involving multiple existing structures, proposed guest‑cottage uses, shoreline clearing and septic compliance on a recreational development lake property.
Why it matters: The applicants own multiple small lodgings/cabins on a single property and had proposed converting or continuing multiple structures as guest cottages. The property also has a noncompliant septic system and several structures hooked to water lines; applicants say some structures predated their ownership. The application raised questions about allowable density (ordinance normally limits guest cottages), whether the site could be treated as a resort/conditional use or as a planned unit development (PUD) conversion, and what septic remedies would be feasible and affordable.
What happened at the meeting: Commissioners examined whether to approve some variances, require demolition of multiple structures, or encourage a formal conditional use/PUD pathway. Board members discussed options including: limiting the property to one guest cottage (per ordinance) versus allowing two through a variance and requiring the removal of three other buildings; removing structures that contained illegal cesspools; or pursuing a PUD/conditional use permit and a density analysis by the County Board.
Why the commission tabled the matter: Commissioners asked staff to consult legal counsel on whether a PUD conversion is feasible for this property (thresholds include minimum unit counts) and whether, if the County Board approved a PUD, more existing structures could legally remain. The applicants were advised they could also pursue a conditional use permit to operate as a resort but that doing so would require compliance with density and sanitation requirements. Because the septic status remains noncompliant and multiple technical questions remain, the commission voted to table the application with an extension (120 days) to allow staff and applicants time to develop alternatives and for legal guidance to be returned.
Next steps requested by the commission: staff to consult legal counsel regarding conversion/PUD options and to report back by the next feasible meeting; applicants to consider whether to sign a time extension waiver and to pursue septic design alternatives (holding tanks, experimental systems, or consolidated drainfields) knowing that some options were cost‑prohibitive and/or seasonally constrained. The commission noted the septic violation already exists on the property and that septic work may not be feasible before winter.
Ending: The tabled status gives applicants time to gather engineering, septic and legal guidance; the commission emphasized that any final decision will need to reconcile density rules, septic compliance, and the county’s land‑use standards.
