|
County board approves state mandated ordinance changes
|
|
|
By Charlie Warner
Argus News Editor
While the Houston County Board did not approve the proposed interim use permit (IUP) they reviewed during the Dec. 29 board meeting (see accompanying story) they did approve a number of changes in zoning ordinances, as mandated by the state.
The board approved changes pertaining to use variances, the septic code and non-conforming residential structures.
Use variances
In a memo to the board, County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan explained in June, 2008 the Minnesota Supreme Court noted there are two distinct types of variances. One is a variance which permits a “use or development of land other than that prescribed by zoning regulations.” The second is an area variance, which controls “lot restrictions such as area, height, setback, density and parking requirements.”
The court held that a county may in certain circumstances grant a use variance to an applicant who can establish a “particular hardship.” In considering whether to grant a use variance, counties must apply the “particular hardship” test, using the following criteria:
• The property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the terms of the official control in question;
• the plight of the landowner is due to the unique circumstances of the property, not created by the landowner;
• The variance, if granted, does not alter the “essential character of the locality.”
• The county may consider economic factors but those factors are not enough to constitute a hardship if there is a reasonable use for the property that is allowable under the ordinance. Applicants must demonstrate all three elements before a county can grant a variance.
Septic code
The county board passed a series of changes and additions to the ordinance that deals with septic tanks and drain field systems.
Scalan explained that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency sent out a draft to all counties in the state with mandated changes. The changes are the result of a series of hearings with private contractors and technicians from the public sector.
The changes and additions are the bare minimum of what the state drafted. SSTS Ordinance 2009 will now be forwarded to the MPCA for review and approval.
Non-conforming uses
One change with non-conforming uses is if a non-conforming residential building is destroyed, the property owner can rebuild the structure, but it can’t be expanded. Before this was approved by the county, the structure could not be replaced.
A second change is when a non-conformity, including the occupation of land or premises may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion. If the non conformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any non conforming building or structure is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of 50 percent of its market value and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises must be a conforming use.
If a non conforming building or structure is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of 50 percent of its market value, the board may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property.
Public input
While most of the input during the Dec. 29 public hearing focused on the proposed IUP, several residents asked the county board why they were considering approving the various changes to the zoning ordinances.
When it was explained that the changes were mandated by the state, John Strehh of La Crescent Township said, “I don’t feel what you are considering is word for word what the state had mandated. That is the big issue. I understand there are mandates handed down by the state that you must follow, but how do we know if you are voting on a concept or what was specifically mandated?”
Commissioner Dave Corcoran replied that what the county board was considering was the “bare bones minimum” of what the state mandated. “The county is taking the least restrictive approach here.”
Someone from the crowd asked what would happen if the county didn’t approve the mandated changes, or better yet, told the state the county didn’t want to follow any of the mandated laws.
Scanlan said if the county didn’t enforce the septic laws, anyone could let their sewage run right into the streams and rivers. He questioned if those attending the meeting would want to have raw sewage running into their wells.
Corcoran then made a motion to approve the state mandated changes in the current county zoning ordinances. His motion was seconded by Commissioner Tom Bjerke. It passed unanimously.
You can contact Charlie Warner at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
