Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves variance to allow type‑3 septic systems for two proposed Bay Lake lots, 3–2
Summary
The commission approved a variance 3–2 allowing two proposed lots in Bay Lake Township to be created with type‑3 septic site suitabilities where type‑1 suitability is ordinarily required; staff said the MPCA requires lots be suitable for type‑1 but a type‑3 system can be installed with added fill.
Get email alerts on the Septic Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Crow Wing County Planning Commission approved a variance that allows two proposed lots in a Bay Lake Township administrative subdivision to rely on type‑3 septic site suitabilities rather than meeting the county ordinance’s type‑1 suitability standard.
Staff described the technical issue: ordinance requirements call for two suitable type‑1 septic sites for new parcels, which requires at least 12 inches of unsaturated topsoil. The site suitability report for proposed lots A and B found only about eight inches of unsaturated soil before reaching a seasonal high water table. Staff said the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) told them a new lot must be suitable for a type‑1 system, though a different septic design (type‑2, 3, 4 or 5) may be installed once lots are created. For this property, a type‑3 system would use additional imported sand to achieve the necessary separation.
Applicant Gregory Smith told the commission the parcels have been in his family for decades and that the proposed administrative subdivision would create four oversized lots; with the requested variance, lots A and B would use type‑3 systems that staff and the applicant said effectively treat wastewater but shift additional installation cost to the lot owner.
Commissioners debated the public‑safety and water‑resource implications of accepting type‑3 suitability in place of type‑1. Some members raised caution about weakening an ordinance requirement designed to protect groundwater; others said the specific soil and water‑table conditions meant a type‑3 system was technically appropriate. After discussion the commission approved the variance by roll call, 3–2.
The commission instructed staff to revise the findings of fact to clarify the recommended approval language. The approval allows the administrative subdivision to proceed with proposed lots A and B subject to standard permitting and installation requirements for type‑3 systems.

