Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Findings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherburne County board signals support for Findings of Fact revisions to align with state statute
Summary
Staff proposed revising the Board of Adjustment's Findings of Fact to a six-question Option C that mirrors Minnesota Statute 394.27; most members signaled support for Option C on June 11, citing clearer statutory alignment, while board members debated whether septic adequacy and shoreland concerns should remain explicit Findings or rely on permit review and staff comments.
At the end of its June 11 meeting the Sherburne County Board of Adjustment discussed proposed changes to the board's Findings of Fact language intended to align the board's checklist with Minnesota Statute 394.27.
Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Marc Schneider presented three options and recommended Option C as the most direct translation of state statute. Option C consists of six questions: (1) is the variance in harmony with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance; (2) is the proposed use reasonable though not allowed by official controls; (3) is the practical difficulty unique to the property; (4) were the circumstances causing the difficulty created by someone or something other than the landowner; (5) will issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality; and (6) does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations.
Schneider noted that the proposed wording would remove some board-level scrutiny of septic systems from the Findings checklist because septic adequacy is typically addressed through the county's permit process; however, several board members, including Boaz Erickson, urged retaining an explicit septic question because many variances before the board relate to septic siting. Erickson said the board frequently sees septic-related variances and prefers to make that determination as part of Findings rather than rely solely on staff review. Schneider and some members said the permit process provides checks and balances and that staff can incorporate ordinance and comprehensive-plan language in their reports to give the board clearer context for Findings.
Johnson asked the board for input; most members (MacMillan, Jones, Erickson, Johnson, Aubol and Stimmler) indicated support for Option C, while Demeules preferred Option B but said he could accept Option C. Schneider also told the board staff is considering other administrative changes, including potential road-setback reductions around developed lakes and moving to a five-member Board of Adjustment in the future. No formal ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; staff said it would return with proposed language for the board to consider.
