|
| Author |
Message |
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 14:16
Reply
Hello,
We have an opportunity to buy a cabin property in Minnesota, Brainerd lakes area. The lot is 103 feet of shoreline and 100 feet deep so not too big. The problem is that there is a wetland going through the middle of it. It pretty much bisects the property. The left side of the lot is not wetland but the right half is wetlands in the middle. It starts out as a depression without standing water and gradually moves toward standing water at the property boundary.
The cabin sits between the wetland and the shore. There is probably 20 feet from the shore to the front of the cabin. The cabin is 16 feet deep (22 feet wide), and the back of the cabin is about 15 feet from the wetland.
Technically we would not be able to do any enlargement of the existing cabin without a variance because of the setback issues related to both the wetland and the shore. We would need a variance to build anywhere on the lot.
The existing cabin is okay, it's in very good shape but it's small. We are thinking of tearing it down in 10-15 years to build a new one, hoping for a variance.
Does anyone have experience or advice about how likely local governments are to approve variances in situations like this?
How difficult is it to mitigate the wetland, I mean fill it in and buy credits to offset it somewhere else, and what are the chances this would be approved?
The wetland is about 40 feet wide and about 25 feet deep at its largest point. By depth I mean depth front to back of the property. The depression at the beginning is only 6"-24" until it starts getting damp which becomes 24"-36" until it gets to standing water which starts at 36" until about 48" at the far right of the property.
Thanks
|
|
Brettny
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 14:45
Reply
Only buy it If the current cabin is big enough. Anything else and walk away.
Being so close to wetlands I would make sure the town/county or state know about every deck, porch or patio on the property. Just to make sure you dont need to remove anything unpermitted.
|
|
Bruces
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 15:19
Reply
My lot is 106 x495 so an acre ,and although the first 100ft from the river is high and dry ,after that my lot is a little low ,with a little standing water in the spring .Because of this i was not allowed a building permit as the conservation authority won’t allow it,which was fine with me I bought it for storage not for anything else and I bought it cheap .Anyways , I build a lot of work barges as I build camps often on islands etc. So I built a barge for a customer and thought I should build myself one then stick a building on it .Anyway my little shack is built on a barge in the middle of my property ,no building permits required ,no taxes paid on it nothing extra and the city can’t do anything about it .I built a deck in front of it ,but it’s a “dock†so I am good there too .I am slowly filling up the lot and will take years to do it ,but this has been my solution so it might work for you .My advice is not to purchase the property unless it’s a absolute bargain ,I was offered 5 times what I paid for my lot before the lawyers were done transferring it into my name ,so if I needed to I could of got out of it in fantastic shape .If you are paying anything near what it’s worth without these issues ,do not buy it ,you never know how the rules might change in a few years especially with environment issues .
|
|
Houska
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 15:22
Reply
I would echo Brettny's advice. There are lots of local differences in this between jurisdictions, and the rules change over time. It's hard enough to make sure any rights you (think you) have remain property grandfathered in.
In this case, your actual rights are (probably) limited to the existing footprint, and any variance sought beyond that will be a bet at the casino, your chances reflecting however the balance between nature preservation and landowner rights -- both good principles, I'm not challenging either of them -- happens to evolve around you in coming years. That's a pretty risky bet to take.
The bet would be less risky if you were planning to build right away, and could at minimum get the lay of the land by speaking with local planning officials, and at best get their written commitment how they will approach your situation. But thinking years into the future, you just can't know.
|
|
jhp
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 16:16
Reply
Unless this is a dream property, or has sentimental value I'd pass.
MN DNR and many counties are rabidly (for good reason) protective of wetlands. I'd put the chances for a variance in the single digit %.
If you're not familiar with the area, check it through this soil explorer tool:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
I have found it to be very accurate to real-life. If you're basing your assessment of the standing water, it's been a relatively dry summer and you really want to know what it looks like in the spring. I'm guessing, there is standing water a lot closer to the structure.
|
|
NorthRick
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 16:17
Reply
I'd echo the advice to look for a different piece of land if you don't think the existing cabin will keep you happy for a long time.
|
|
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jul 2020 16:24
Reply
The existing cabin isn't suitable for our retirement needs.
The factor I didn't mention is that my family owns 200 feet of shoreline up the hill on the same ridge. They/we have two cabins there and a lot of amenities. This is three lots down from them, at the end of the ridge.
So part of the calculation is trying to add space for the family and being close to family. There is space on the other 200 feet for another cabin, but we'll need to negotiate with my sisters on that, two of them, and I'm not sure when they are ready for that conversation. This opportunity would be a hedged bet, probably worst case adding space. I agree with the expressions here that it is a challenge to build so we'll probably pass. Still hard to do. Properties don't come up often and we want to be with family.
|
|
jsahara24
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 07:08
Reply
It sounds like this location is the ideal location for you, less the wetlands! The only way I know to accomplish what you want, while protecting yourself from loss is to get the property under contract with the contingency that you get a variance to build. Then go in front of the board for the variance and see how it goes, if you get the variance buy the property, if you don't then walk away with your only loss the cost of the variance application.
I would assume you will not get it, but I don't know the temperature of the local government, etc. But based on location it may be worth pursuing.
Good luck..
|
|
|
Houska
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 10:48
Reply
Quoting: jsahara24 The only way I know to accomplish what you want, while protecting yourself from loss is to get the property under contract with the contingency that you get a variance to build. Then go in front of the board for the variance and see how it goes, if you get the variance buy the property, if you don't then walk away with your only loss the cost of the variance application.
This is what we did (except was a planning application rather than a variance) and it can work well.
However, OP seems to want to build something, details tbd, 10-15 years down the road. It may be different where they are, but in jurisdictions I know, exceptions like this need to be specific and if related to building, you need to be ready to build. YMMV and may depend on precisely variance to what you need (variance recorded as zoning exception may be very different than variance against local conservation authority requirements, for instance.)
Also, these applications take time, so a conditional sale means the property is off the market for the duration. And generally such an application can only technically be filed by the owner, so be prepared that you have to get the current owner to file as per your instructions, and/or appoint you as their agent. And they may be quite unkeen to have a potentially unsucessful application in the public record for subsequent potential purchasers to see if you then walk. Bottom line is it can be worth a try, but will probably only be feasible if the vendor has already had the property on the market for some time and seen it not moving, and you're prepared to pay close to full asking price.
In my jurisdiction (Ontario), there are planning consultants who shepherd applications like this through. I think using them to make it all happen is not in line with the DIY culture of the crowd here, and can be quite expensive. However, a (paid) desk consultation with one in your jurisdiction may be money well spent to navigate the specific rules and limitations in the OP's specific situation, and especially who would need to apply for what and how long any variance would be valid.
|
|
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 11:17
Reply
Thanks for the thoughtful shared perspective.
The person who would be selling this to us has been a family acquaintance for 20+ years. It is not on the market and won't be. She said she would sell to us first. That said, she is an environmentalist and owns land on other parts of our lake which I understand she intends to donate to the state. Our use of the property may not be consistent with her values. I'm okay with that or I wouldn't be considering buying this, but I'm not sure she would ask for a variance for me. Also we do not have the money to build a new cabin now, so I imagine a variance is not going to hold up for 10 years.
This has been very helpful seeing the several perspectives. I thought it might work to buy this and roll the dice, but it sounds like local governments are much more conservative than I thought. We've seen reports in Twin Cities media about people buying properties and getting variances and significantly changing properties, including wetland mitigation, so we thought if you simply go through the motions, it will happen. But it sounds like that isn't the perspective here.
If we could remove the wetlands I would definitely buy it. The existing cabin sits beautifully on the lake, setback about 20 feet from the shore. The lake is one of the clearest in the state which is saying something, this area of the lake is sugar sand bottom. There are many things going for this property, but unfortunately if we cannot build a retirement cabin of say 35x25, we shouldn't buy this lot. The existing cabin is 16x22. The two biggest issues with the variance would be the current setback of just 20 feet from the shore and on the back of the cabin, probably only another 20 feet to the edge of the wetland. So the building envelope is quite small and I'm not sure how much they would let us do for a variance. The 16 feet part of the dimensions is the hardest because that's front to back, so we need to make that 25. I don't want to move it closer to the water so we'd be awfully close to the wetland if expanded. There's plenty of room on both sides, so 35 or 40 feet wide is no problem.
|
|
Brettny
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 12:23
Reply
You cant remove wetlands. That's the point of protecting them..so they stay there. Call the local authority in this. They will give you the real awnsers but I wouldnt be expecting mich good news.
|
|
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 12:42 - Edited by: MNUpNorth
Reply
No, you can drain them and fill them with permission. We have mitigation programs for that. You can buy credits.
Edit: credits for offsetting removal of wetlands. I know from experience. My dad's landlord removed a wetland of about 5 acres. That was agricultural land. This happened in the past five years.
|
|
NorthRick
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 14:31
Reply
Quoting: MNUpNorth No, you can drain them and fill them with permission. We have mitigation programs for that. You can buy credits.
That's true. I'd look into the cost of doing that. You should be able to at least get an idea of what it might cost. If tolerable, fill the wetland and build a bigger cabin.
The other thought is to buy the property, leave the cabin generally as is and plan to buy something nearby later that you can live in. Non-waterfront land is a lot cheaper as I'm sure you know. You'd have a nice lake cabin, a retirement cabin, and still be near the family.
|
|
jhp
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 15:05
Reply
On agricultural land, with a big enough watershed to absorb the change? Sure.
Smack dab in the middle of cabin country, on a lake popular enough to consider wanting to buy into a tiny cabin, surrounded by a bunch of NIMBYs with 10x the funds you have?
Good luck with that LOL.
|
|
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 15:38
Reply
@jhp,
To be sure it was not an easy process and involved at least a couple lawyers, but it was done.
I don't have a link handy but I the report I'm thinking of involved a lakeshore property with a wetland going through the middle of it, and they built on it.
I understand the aversion to risk but usually where there's a will there is a way. I used to be involved in land use and voted on local variance requests in my city so I know about them. Mostly it comes down to hardships and if you can make a good argument, and potentially if you have relationships on the board approving it. If you don't you can sometimes hire consultants with those relationships to help move things through.
I tend to think of things can-do. I've worked through my share of red tape.
We are having a local excavator visit the property soon to offer his thoughts. He has relationships with the county board and obtains permits for a range of projects.
|
|
jhp
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 16:00
Reply
Hey,
I wish you all the best in whatever you decide to do. The fact that you're bringing in an excavator and all that tells me you're more invested in this than you sounded like you were in your first post.
All I'm saying is it's going to come down to your reason for the variance which is basically "because I want to" and you're going to be challenged left and right by everyone and everything.
The NIMBY factor alone, I've seen people run up against dozens of people who already got theirs and don't want anything to change so they get every permit and variance denied because they know the county commissioner better than you do.
If you've got the means to fight for it, go for it.
I hope I'm wrong and it works out the way you want it to.
|
|
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jul 2020 16:33
Reply
We're doing due diligence at this point and I need to hear perspectives like yours. I posted here so I get perspectives from people who won't tell me what I want to hear.
I'm not worried about NIMBYs in our bay; we know almost everyone. Even if they disagree I don't think they would publicly object.
I agree with your sentiment of "because I want to." But I think that's the nature of variances and balancing the spirit of being able to do what you want with your own property and following the spirit of the rules, if not to the letter.
I actually would be fine if we couldn't take out the wetland and could get a variance to make the cabin maybe 25x40 which wouldn't require a setback closer to the water and would have maybe a 10 foot buffer from the wetland. Will they approve that? I don't know, but I bet they would. Am I willing to take the risk? Not yet but I'm still gathering info.
Thanks
|
|
Bruces
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Aug 2020 14:15
Reply
Have you thought of a second story addition ?
|
|
MNUpNorth
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Aug 2020 14:49
Reply
Hi Bruces,
Yes; however that would require a variance as well. If I apply for a variance, may as well go deeper and wider. I've gone through a lot of scenarios in my head about a second addition in a 16x22 cabin and it's hard to do. The stairway alone would be awfully hard and take up space.
It's a cute cabin and it's in good shape. But I think it's probably too small.
It probably depends on what this excavator says about it. He does sewer systems, wells, landscaping and he's done them all around where we are. He should have a good idea about what's possible. He does the permits for people and he's been in the community for 40+ years. If he thinks we can get one to increase the size of the cabin, that might be enough even if we don't do anything with the wetland.
|
|
|
