Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves reduced side-setback for Stanchfield pole building
Summary
The Isanti County Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a variance allowing a Stanchfield property owner to place a 36-by-72-foot pole building 13 feet from the south property line after the applicant agreed to shift the structure; the parcel lies partly in the shoreland district and is surrounded by wetlands.
The Isanti County Board of Adjustment on Aug. 13 approved a variance allowing Brandon Whichard to construct a 36-foot by 72-foot pole-type structure 13 feet from his south side property line, short of the 20-foot side setback required by county rules. The motion, made by Jim Fridstrom and seconded by Dave Henderson, carried unanimously.
Zoning Administrator Trina Bergloff told the board the parcel is split between the Shoreland District (within 1,000 feet of the lake) and the Agriculture/Residential District; the proposed building footprint lies in the Shoreland District. Bergloff also noted Type 1, Type 3 and Type 6 wetlands surround the parcel and that a new septic design has been submitted to the Zoning Office. A letter from Luke Leger, the neighbor to the south, was received in support of the request.
Chairperson Valerie Marty-Anderson flagged two procedural concerns raised by Stanchfield Township: that "the property lines in this area of the township are off by up to 70 feet, so a survey of this line would be very important," and that township planners have a long-range connection planned between 385th Avenue and 5th Street NE, making proximity to property lines a consideration for future road connections. In response to board questioning, Whichard said he could move the building to be 13 feet from the south line while meeting the other setbacks.
The board's written findings said pole-type structures are a permitted use in the Shoreland District, that surrounding wetlands and drainage create practical difficulties locating the building elsewhere, and that the structure would improve the property. The recorded outcome states the variance was approved with those findings and the adjusted 13-foot placement.
The board did not place additional conditions such as requiring a formal survey before construction; minutes record the board emphasized a survey would be advisable but the variance motion as passed included only the placement and standard findings. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
