5.2. BASR 05-22-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 filed appeal of the zoning decision.) The reason why the length of the 100-foot setback was chosen, as opposed to 75-feet or 50-feet, was not articulated. Nor is why 100-feet is the amount of distance necessary to achieve the stated purposes.2 The proposed pool would not be visible from the river. Our yard is secluded due to the large island being directly across the channel from our property. The bluff is steep and the channel between our property and the island is fairly narrow. Passers-by can only see the very edge of our yard nearest the river and the top-half of our house. We are not visible from the river when we are in our backyard unless we are very near the edge of the bluff. Our property is scarcely visible from the homes located across the main channel in Otsego, even in winter, much less in leaf-on conditions, so a swimming pool would not be visible by those homeowners either. i. A variance for a swimming pool is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the 100-foot setback in the W&S district because the proposed swimming pool will not result in any additional erosion or sediment entering the river. We have requested a variance to install a swimming pool approximately 45-feet from the OHW. As a swimming pool, it should not create any more than short term potential for erosion. To mitigate this potential, our contractor will ensure that erosion is minimized and that sediment is prevented from reaching the river by placing silt fencing barriers prevented during actual construction activities. Only the foot print of the swimming pool and an additional 2-foot surrounding it needs to be excavated. The soil that is excavated will be removed from the site with the exception of that needed to backfill the two feet on the perimeter of the pool. Neither will our variance request result in any additional erosion, sediment entering the river, pose any threat of pollution, or degradation of the quality of the river once construction is complete. We propose to install a swimming pool that will be setback approximately 45 -feet from the OHW, more than 30-feet from the top of the bluff, and well-back from the 100-year flood plain. Also, we are proposing a swimming pool that would have saltwater. Saltwater is very natural. It is much less hazardous than water in chlorinated pools. Our variance proposes to surround the swimming pool with the minimum amount of concrete necessary for stabilization of the pool, just 2-feet. That is just 116-square feet of impervious surface from which run off could originate. Any other patio/decking around the swimming pool will be pervious pavers. The pool itself is not technically “impervious” in the traditional sense because it does not create run off, but rather absorbs the run off like a catch basin.3 Assuming normal rain amounts, that rain essentially becomes free water for use in the pool. Additionally, to minimize (or eliminate) 2 It is our understanding that the DNR has authority to “assist local governments in the enforcement of their ordinances.” Minn. Stat. § 103F.335. However, it lacks any enforcement authority. The DNR does not have authority to refuse to approve a variance that is considered and granted by a municipality. In re Hubbard, 778 N.W.2d 313, 323-25 (Minn. 2010). 3 Assuming; however, that the swimming pool is impervious, it amounts to 800 square feet of hardcover. The 2-feet of concrete patio surrounding the pool totals 120 square feet, for a total hardcover of nearly 1,000 square feet. 25% of our lot is 6,098.4 square feet. At the time of our original inquiry, we were told that our hardcover was at approximately 20%, or 4,878.7 square feet. As a result, the 1,000 square feet of hardcover will not put us over the 25% limit on impervious lot coverage.