Planning Commission OKs after‑the‑fact variance for Lake Beltane island home with rebuild condition

The Planning Commission Board of Adjustment approved an after‑the‑fact variance for James and Denise Hawes on an island on Lake Beltane, allowing existing decks, platforms and a subsurface sewage treatment system that encroach inside current ordinary high‑water (OHW) setbacks, with a condition that any future reconstruction of the house meet the county setbacks.

The variance application (64‑V‑24) addressed multiple alleged violations: lakeside platforms and a deck within the 100‑foot OHW setback and an on‑site sewage system inside the 150‑foot OHW setback. The board voted to approve the application after more than an hour of applicant testimony, staff explanation and commissioner questions.

The matter traces to a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources change to the ordinary high‑water line that commissioners said was adopted around 2006 and that moved the OHW upward. Commissioners summarized the timeline: a revised OHW accepted by county staff in early 2007, a building permit pulled in February 2007, an SSTS (septic) permit in October 2007 that the county records show was not inspected, and the first documented county violation in January 2012. The applicant, James Hawes, told the board he began the project after an early site visit and a verbal indication from a county staff member that a 32‑foot house could fit on the peninsula. Hawes said he did not learn the scope of the compliance problem until 2011–2012 and asked the board for an unconditional after‑the‑fact variance.

Commissioners debated whether the decks and platforms were shown on the permit drawings. County staff told the board the 8½×11 permit copy in the file does not clearly show decks, while larger plan sets submitted later show a gray outline that staff said does not explicitly identify decks. Several commissioners noted the dwelling’s main footprint largely fit the older OHW line but that added patios and platforms were the principal encroachments.

Environmental Services staff noted the on‑site system holds a compliance certificate but is nevertheless closer to the OHW than current ordinance standards allow; one commissioner said the certificate made them comfortable with the system as it exists but stressed any future replacement of the septic would need to meet current setbacks at the time of permitting. Commissioners also discussed enforcement practice, and staff explained most shoreland compliance issues are complaint‑driven given the county’s limited inspection resources.

Board members who supported approval emphasized the property’s topography and existing vegetative buffer. Commissioner Veronica said she did not see evidence of runoff or other lake harm during the lot view and recommended approval with a limited condition. Commissioner Tim and others supported a condition that if the house is ever destroyed or removed it must be rebuilt in a location that meets current setback requirements; commissioners discussed that a future guest house or subdivision would require separate approvals and could be restricted by conditions.

Veronica made the motion to approve the after‑the‑fact variance; Larry seconded. The board recorded five ayes (Tim, Ken, Mike, Veronica, Larry) and the motion carried. The approval included the condition that any future rebuilding of the primary dwelling must meet the ordinary high‑water setbacks in effect at the time of rebuilding. The applicant was told the county will send a letter from Environmental Services outlining the approval and the next permitting steps.

“I am hopeful to get a after the fact variance today,” applicant James Hawes told the board during public comment. The board’s action formalizes the county’s findings of fact and the limited, rebuilding‑only condition.

The board’s action does not grant any right to subdivide the island or to add additional guest cabins; commissioners noted that subdivision would require road access or a separate variance and that future accessory structures would be evaluated under applicable rules and permits.

The applicant and staff were advised to follow up with Environmental Services for the written decision and instructions on any remaining permits.