Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves conditional-use permit to tie accessory building to new septic; no guest-house waiver required
Summary
Polk County approved a conditional-use request allowing Dennis and Sherry Colette to connect a new septic system to an existing accessory building; conditions include recording a no-guest-house waiver, capping an existing well, and attempting to combine back parcels where legally feasible (Resolution 2025-36).
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Polk County commissioners approved a conditional-use permit to allow Dennis and Sherry Colette to upgrade and tie a new septic system from a front-lot cabin to an existing 30-by-44 accessory shed on a back lot, addressing an existing well isolation-distance issue.
Planning staff explained the front-lot septic was 29 feet from the existing well (isolation required 50 feet), creating the need for a new well and capping the old well. The proposal places the septic on the Colette back parcel where there is sufficient space for a new system and future reserve locations. Staff said the project will include directional bore under the road and pressure testing of the line, and the Maple Lake Improvement District had no objections provided setbacks were maintained.
Conditions included in the board resolution require the applicants to record a no-guest-house waiver (no living/sleeping quarters or kitchens in the accessory building), ensure future development does not exceed 25% impervious coverage, place monitoring/vegetation to protect against erosion, and, if legally acceptable to the recorder’s office, combine the back parcels (but not the front lot) because the work crosses parcel lines. Staff noted the county allows clustered/shared septic systems with proper legal easements but prefers septic systems be located on the owner’s property when possible.
Motion and vote: The board moved and seconded the resolution; the record shows the motion carried by voice vote (transcript records “All in favor… Aye. Opposed? Resolution 2025-36 approved”).
Ending: Staff said the measure is intended to resolve a present-day health/safety concern (separation distance) and that the county will work with the recorder’s office on parcel combination when legally feasible.

