State is sending a message with lakeshore lawsuit

  • Article by: JIM SPENCER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: August 4, 2010 - 11:03 PM

In the rare challenge, DNR sues a township for giving permission to build house 14 feet from a lake.

As more homes creep closer to Minnesota's environmentally sensitive lakeshore, the state Department of Natural Resources is pushing back by suing a western Minnesota township that allowed a property owner to build a house 14 feet from Ida Lake. The rare move could signal a new statewide emphasis on controlling building on waterfront land.

"This is a shot across the bow on the part of DNR," said Brad Karkkainen, an environmental law expert at the University of Minnesota.

Karkkainen said the new suit against Cormorant Township will send a message to localities that are allowing more buildings -- often expansive vacation homes -- that exceed state standards for size and distance from the water's edge and create polluting stormwater runoff. "The importance of the suit," he said, "is in setting a policy precedent that DNR will use state resources to prosecute."

The DNR may have been emboldened to act by a June 24 state Supreme Court decision that narrowed the definition of when variances are allowed.

DNR legal actions against localities are rare -- perhaps only one a year -- said Kent Lokkesmoe, director of the agency's waters division. But they are usually meant to have an impact beyond an individual community. "We don't sue local governments very often," Lokkesmoe explained. "When you do sue, these [local governments] talk to each other."

The DNR suit, filed July 6, came less than two weeks after a Star Tribune series revealed that many municipalities in the state routinely grant variances on lakefront development. In some places, the newspaper found, variance approval rates rise to nearly 9 percent.

The Cormorant suit, filed by the state attorney general's office on behalf of the DNR, questions why the township in northwest Minnesota's Becker County agreed to let Richard Hanson build near the lake's edge a house roughly five times larger than a 576-square-foot family cabin. State law allows replacement buildings only the size of the older structures at their original sites. In Hanson's case, the law required that a home larger than 576 square feet be built 100 feet from the lake. But like many local governing bodies, Cormorant's Board of Supervisors exempted a lakefront property owner from the rules, even though planning officials advised against it.

Cormorant Supervisor Steve Sorenson said that most property owners who apply for variances get them. Sorenson, who has held office for 12 years, estimated that during his tenure the township approved 70 to 80 percent of variance requests from lakeshore property owners. Since 2007, the township's lawyer said, Cormorant has granted 12 of 17 or 71 percent of variance requests.

The Star Tribune found an 88 percent variance approval rate from 2005 to 2010 in Cass and Crow Wing counties in north central Minnesota.

DNR's Lokkesmoe said 80 percent approval rates "seem high," but added that variance requests must be judged individually.

What is a hardship?

The state's suit challenges Cormorant's application of the "undue hardship" rule that is supposed to govern who qualifies for a variance. Lake conservation advocates believe loose, inconsistent interpretation of the hardship rule has led to the widespread approval of variances that collectively endanger the states' lakes. On June 24, the Minnesota Supreme Court tightened the undue hardship rule in landmark fashion by saying variances can be issued only if property owners have absolutely no other "reasonable" way to legally use their land.

"Using that standard, a lot of those lakefront variances won't stand up," Karkkainen said.

In the Cormorant case, the state charged that "[t]he variance was unjustified because, among other things, the applicant did not demonstrate undue hardship and Cormorant Township failed to create any record demonstrating that Hanson met the required standards ..." Hanson had room to build his new home with a legal 100-foot setback. Instead, the township let him build entirely in what is supposed to be a restricted area.

"I have a client who thought he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do," said Hanson's lawyer, Charles Ramstad. "He was told he needed a variance, and he got one."

Once the town approved the variance at a May 11 meeting, Hanson had a contractor pour concrete footings for his new house. The footings are now 14 feet from Ida Lake, well inside the environmental impact zone that scientists say could seriously pollute and otherwise hurt Ida Lake's public waters. Ramstad refused to say how much Hanson spent on the concrete, but he called the expense "significant."

Kristi Hastings, a Fergus Falls lawyer hired by the township, declined to discuss the details of the township's actions. But the suit says the board knew that Hanson had room to build 100 feet from the lake and didn't make him do so.

The state wants the variance ruled illegal and Hanson's footings dug out. Hastings and Ramstad hope to meet with state lawyers to settle the case.

With or without a court hearing, the DNR suit in Cormorant leaves localities across the state with a new message, Karkkainen said:

"Variances are not a matter of convenience for property owners."

Jim Spencer • 612-673-4029

  • related content

  • Losing Our Lakes

    Tuesday April 26, 2011

    Home builders are routinely allowed to break the rules on shoreline development. Polluters are allowed to keep polluting. And clean-up efforts are falling short. While public officials are trying to...

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions

Click here to send us your hunting or fishing photos – and to see what others are showing off from around the region.

ADVERTISEMENT

New England 2/1/15 5:30 PM
Seattle
Detroit 69 FINAL
Philadelphia 89
Portland 94 FINAL
Cleveland 99
Sacramento 102 FINAL
Toronto 119
Boston 98 FINAL
Minnesota 110
Dallas 94 FINAL
Houston 99
Denver 93 FINAL
New Orleans 85
Brooklyn 102 FINAL
Atlanta 113
Oklahoma City 92 FINAL
New York 100
Charlotte 86 FINAL
San Antonio 95
LA Clippers 94 FINAL
Utah 89
Washington 98 FINAL
Phoenix 106
Toronto 1 FINAL(SO)
New Jersey 2
Pittsburgh 0 FINAL
Washington 4
Chicago 3 FINAL
Los Angeles 4
Temple 86 FINAL
UCF 62
Winthrop 75 FINAL
Coastal Carolina 68
Lafayette 59 FINAL
Colgate 54
Northeastern 60 FINAL
Drexel 65
Wake Forest 76 FINAL
Florida State 82
Rhode Island 64 FINAL
Fordham 63
Delaware 82 FINAL
James Madison 88
South Carolina 58 FINAL
LSU 64
New Hampshire 63 FINAL
Maine 58
Seton Hall 80 FINAL
Marquette 70
Binghamton 68 FINAL
UMBC 56
American Univ 54 FINAL
Navy 64
Elon 65 FINAL
UNC-Wilmington 82
Wright State 76 FINAL
Oakland 84
Minnesota 58 FINAL
Penn State 63
Duquesne 55 FINAL
Richmond 86
SMU 63 FINAL
South Florida 52
Hartford 66 FINAL
Stony Brook 72
Albany 47 FINAL
Vermont 44
Hofstra 79 FINAL
William & Mary 100
UNC-Asheville 74 FINAL
Longwood 64
Radford 84 FINAL
Char Southern 77
Holy Cross 0 Postponed
Loyola-Maryland 0
Duke 73 FINAL
Notre Dame 77
Texas Tech 36 FINAL
Oklahoma 81
Oregon State 55 FINAL
Arizona State 73
Morehead State 82 FINAL
Austin Peay 69
Drake 69 FINAL
Bradley 57
Lehigh 62 FINAL
Bucknell 68
Rice 48 FINAL
Houston 59
Missouri State 57 FINAL
Illinois State 67
Loyola-Chicago 47 FINAL
Wichita State 58
Nebraska Omaha 64 FINAL
South Dakota St 86
Northern Iowa 59 FINAL
Southern Ill 52
Louisville 81 FINAL
Boston College 72
St Johns 74 FINAL
Creighton 77
East Carolina 58 FINAL
Memphis 70
Georgia Tech 70 FINAL
Miami-Florida 50
Miss State 73 FINAL
Ole Miss 79
Clemson 68 FINAL
NC State 57
Indiana 67 FINAL
Purdue 83
Kansas 64 FINAL
TCU 61
Oregon 56 FINAL
Arizona 90
Air Force 66 FINAL
San Jose St 52
Stanford 84 FINAL
Washington 74
Rider 56 FINAL
Siena 49
Dayton 76 FINAL
Richmond 62
Eastern Kentucky 53 FINAL
Jacksonville St 73
Saint Josephs 0 Postponed
Saint Louis 0
UMBC 71 FINAL
Binghamton 55
Akron 60 FINAL
Ohio U 72
Ball State 72 FINAL
Miami-Ohio 55
Memphis 56 FINAL
Cincinnati 44
East Carolina 32 FINAL
(2) Connecticut 87
Murray State 59 FINAL
Eastern Illinois 75
Kent State 63 FINAL
Central Michigan 65
UT Martin 64 FINAL
Tennessee St 58
Eastern Michigan 56 FINAL
Western Mich 83
Bucknell 61 FINAL
Lehigh 76
Indiana 57 FINAL
Michigan State 72
Colgate 56 FINAL
Lafayette 58
Fordham 66 FINAL
Davidson 45
Duquesne 76 FINAL
St Bonaventure 64
George Mason 66 FINAL
VA Commonwealth 70
Detroit 59 FINAL
Youngstown St 58
Army 0 Postponed
Boston U 0
Loyola-Maryland 0 Postponed
Holy Cross 0
SMU 58 FINAL
Tulsa 74
Oklahoma St 54 FINAL
Kansas State 52
West Virginia 57 FINAL
Texas Tech 73
Denver 56 FINAL
South Dakota 82
Northwestern St 46 FINAL
Central Arkansas 63
Austin Peay 67 FINAL
SIU-Edwardsville 87
Kansas 61 FINAL
Iowa State 56
Bowling Green 50 FINAL
Northern Ill 67
Penn State 64 FINAL
Minnesota 75
San Jose St 80 FINAL
Air Force 83
Boise State 82 FINAL
Colorado State 83
Utah State 51 FINAL
Wyoming 86
San Diego State 50 FINAL
Fresno State 57
Nevada 52 FINAL
UNLV 75
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Should the lake where the albino muskie was caught remain a mystery?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT

 
Close