Posted: 3/8/05
Board gives Solum three options, five months
By David Heiller
Argus News Editor
Jared Solum of Spring Grove has three options to make amends for building a new house without the proper permits.
Houston County commissioners approved a letter March 1 giving Solum three choices:
1. Tear down the house and restore building site to its original condition.
2. Move the house to an adjoining 40-acre parcel of land that Solum owns.
3. Keep the dwelling where it is by maintaining at least 40 contiguous acres and removing all other dwellings on the parcel.
The board set a five month deadline for compliance.
Solum reiterated a point at the meeting that he has made at several other public meetings. He claimed that zoning administrator Bob Scanlan told him the soil classification met the countyís requirements where the house was built. ìIíd be willing to swear to that in a court of law and so would my partner,î Solum said.
ìThatís not a credible argument,î second district commissioner Kevin Kelleher responded. The planning commission is the body that the Solums needed to listen to, he said.
Scanlan said the stop work order that was issued at the site on December 1 was intended to give county officials time to do a soil review and allow for septic designs and soil borings.
ìAnd yet from Jaredís testimony, that was not clearly stated,î Karl Solum, Jaredís father said. Many factors can show it was not prime farmland, he said, adding that Jared has an attorney working on the case.
Kelleher said those concerns should have taken place during the process and not after the fact.
On February 16, the county planning commission denied after-the-fact conditional use permit to Jared Solum because another dwelling exists on the 40, and because it is on a Class III soil type.
The countyís zoning ordinance prohibits more than one house per 40 acres in an agricultural district. Class I-III soil types canít be built on because they are considered the best agricultural soil. The purpose of this part of the zoning ordinance is to protect agricultural integrity.
The Class III soil restriction would not apply to the third option because 40 acres is considered a farm tract, and the house would therefore be a farm dwelling. Farm dwellings can be built on Class III soil.
Is it a dwelling?
The Solums have contended in other meetings that the pole shed on the 40 is not a dwelling. It is owned by Jaredís brother, Joseph.
Joseph Solum repeated that claim in a letter to the county that environmental services director Rick Frank gave the board last week.
ìI am very unhappy about all the controversy surrounding my pole shed. I do not like that my pole shed is being called a dwelling,î the February 25 letter stated. ìWhat do I specifically have to remove that could not be found in any number of farm buildings around? Surely you could find a refrigerator or a range or a piece of carpet laid down or a chipboard partition or sheetrock on walls (cheapest wallcovering around). I want a formal written reply telling me very specifically what I would have to remove.î
Frank told the board that the pole barn does receive homestead tax credit. He gave the board a copy of an application for homestead classification for residence occupied by qualifying relative of owner. It was signed by both Joseph and Jared Solum on February 24, 2004.
Frank also handed out an appraisal sheet that was last updated by the county assessorís office on October 15, 2003. It states that the total size of the pole building is 42x63. It has a living area of 12x28 feet that contains a kitchen, bedroom, bath, and family room.
Not unprecedented
The removal of a house for failure to conform to zoning laws has happened in the county in the past.
Lane E. Fox was found guilty in Third District Court on March 12, 2004, of violating a conditional use permit, a misdemeanor. As a result he had to tear down a house that he had built at 7637 Gunsmith Road in section 12 of Yucatan Township. He was also fined $1,000 and given 90 days in jail. The jail time and all but $100 of the fine was stayed.
The case dated back to December 1995 when Laneís mother, Judith Fox, was granted a conditional use permit to build a house at the property. It was issued the following June 26.
After construction started, Frank inspected it and found several infractions. The house, which Lane was building, was 48 feet back from the center of the road and not 65 feet as required by law. It was also on Class III soil, and it had an addition that wasnít part of the original house plans. There were also slope and design problems with the driveway and a storage shed, Frank found. He issued a stop work order in October of 1999.
The zoning office tried to resolve the violations with Judith and Lane for several years, the criminal complaint states. On May 15, 2003, the Foxes applied for a hardship variance for the setback and soil type issues. The planning commission inspected the site on July 17, 2003, then met a week later and denied the hardship variance. They gave the Foxes 90 days to remove the house. This was not done, so a summons was issued on February 2 of 2004. Lane Fox first pled not guilty, but he changed his plea to guilty on March 12. Judith Fox was not charged. The house was removed later that spring.
Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475
E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com