Board approves split of two contiguous Cedar Island Lake lots despite DNR opposition; township agreement for alternate septic noted

The Stearns County Board of Adjustment voted to allow the separation of two contiguous lots on Cedar Island Lake that would result in two substandard parcels, a decision the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had recommended denying.

The applicants—represented by Gail Vinge for the Bernadine J. Weller Revocable Trust—asked the board to split two contiguous parcels (described in the staff packet as Parcel A and Parcel B) so each could be sold or developed separately. Staff said the proposed Parcel A would be 18,218 square feet with a width of 110 feet, and Parcel B would be 17,719 square feet with a width of 97 feet. The staff report noted the ordinance minimum for the lake’s Shoreland Overlay is 40,000 square feet, and that the combined acreage of the two parcels is about 35,937 square feet, below the 40,000‑square‑foot threshold.

Why it mattered: State and county shoreland rules generally require two potential septic sites within a dwelling lot and disallow splitting contiguous lots under single ownership where resulting lots fail to meet minimum standards. The DNR submitted written comments recommending denial, citing statutory and rule provisions requiring adequate sewage treatment and minimum lot sizes.

Staff told the board an alternative septic site had initially been proposed in the Cedar Island Lake Road right‑of‑way and that the township had not yet approved such an arrangement when the staff report was prepared; the applicants later obtained a license agreement with Wakefield Township to use township right‑of‑way space as an alternate septic site, but staff and the DNR noted such agreements do not satisfy state rule requirements that septic sites be within lot boundaries and consistent with setbacks. Wakefield Township representative Heidi Stahlberger told the board the township routinely considers license agreements to place parts of a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) in the township right‑of‑way as an available mechanism for this shoreline area; she acknowledged such agreements can be revocable.

DNR hydrologist Nicola Blake Bradley submitted written comment recommending denial, and the transcript read Bradley’s statement into the record: the DNR wrote that “sewage treatment will not be able to be met if the lots are split and is prohibited by statute,” and cited statutory and rule language directing boards to consider sewage treatment and water‑supply capabilities and to deny variances if adequate facilities cannot be provided.

Applicants and several neighbors addressed the board. Gail Vinge said the parcels had been in family ownership for decades and that family members want to keep the property in the family; she provided documentation, including surveys showing two Type‑1 septic sites for each lot (applicants’ materials). Neighbor John Focadol and other area residents spoke in support, noting many existing lots along Cedar Island Lake Road are similarly sized and that variances have been granted in the past. One local speaker suggested a common‑interest community (CIC) plat might be an alternative, though staff said CICs have minimum size requirements and may not be viable for this parcel.

Board deliberations returned repeatedly to the legal standard: the board must weigh statutory shoreland requirements against the local lot pattern and practical alternatives. Some members emphasized Lakeshore Living policy goals supporting neighborhood character and housing diversity; others emphasized state rule limits concerning septic sites and the purpose of sustaining water quality.

On the record, after answering the seven findings of fact in the affirmative, the board voted to approve the lot split variance. The board noted the applicants had obtained a license agreement with Wakefield Township for an alternate septic location in the right‑of‑way, but staff and the DNR statement remained in the record: the board’s action creates two lots that the staff acknowledged “cannot support two standard septic treatment sites entirely within the parcel boundaries” and therefore relies in practice on the township agreement as an ancillary mechanism.

The record shows multiple neighbors and the Wakefield Township clerk supported the applicants; the DNR recommended denial for statutory reasons. The board’s approval allows separate ownership of the two parcels but does not change state rules about septic siting; future septic replacements or repairs that rely on right‑of‑way access could be subject to revocation of township permission or further regulatory review.