At a Stearns County Board of Adjustment meeting, members approved a variance for a road‑setback garage addition for Reed J. Oster but denied three other variance requests that would have allowed construction inside bluff impact zones or closer than the required lake setbacks.

Board Chair (Madam Chair) opened the meeting and the board first considered Reed J. Oster’s application for an attached garage at 13773 County Road 7 in Fairhaven Township. Environmental Services staff reported the property is a half‑acre townsite lot with earlier attached additions; the proposed addition would sit about 81.5 feet from the county road centerline (100 feet required), a roughly 18.5% deviation, and would increase impervious coverage from about 15% to 21%. Reed J. Oster said the addition is “more space in my garage” and an investment. Board members noted neighboring properties have similar encroachments; George moved to grant the variance and the board approved it by voice vote.

Later the board considered three shoreland/bluff requests. For John and Cheryl Faber (Breezeway Shores on Horseshoe Lake), staff said the applicants purchased the lots in April 2024 after a prior home was lost to fire; the proposed 20×32 two‑story walkout dwelling would lie within the bluff impact zone and Horseshoe Lake is listed for mercury and nutrient impairments. Contractor Greg (Wendsman/Wentzmann Contractors) argued the design re‑uses the old footprint and minimizes disturbance, while staff and the county’s consultant cautioned that adding impervious area and disturbance on the slope would concentrate runoff and reduce vegetative cover. Members asked whether the site could be located to meet setbacks; staff reported three findings of fact answered in the negative. George moved to deny the variance; the motion passed.

The Lucking family (Wakefield Township, Cedar Island Lake) presented plans based on an August 2023 survey that identified three potential buildable areas. Applicants said the proposed structure would use a previously disturbed trailer pad and offered mitigation (silt fences, reinforced walls, guttering). Several board members pointed out a May 2025 change in how the county calculates the top of bluff, which affects whether the site is now considered within the bluff impact zone; staff said the calculation changed but setback distances did not. Board members also noted alternatives (a 2‑ft eave to increase setback) and that the applicants had not submitted a prior permit under the old rules. After debate, Rob moved to deny the variance; the board voted to deny.

On the largest request, Alexander Point LLC (Big Fish Lake) sought permission for a proposed 4,876‑square‑foot dwelling about 50.1 feet from Big Fish Lake (100 feet required), a 49.9% deviation. Staff noted the subdivision plat anticipated lots would meet ordinances and that a 20,000‑square‑foot area on the parcel could satisfy setbacks. Several neighbors, the Big Fish Lake Association and other residents testified in opposition. Mike Quinlivan, a nearby property owner, said the proposal would be “a drastic change in the character and use of the property” and urged denial. After public testimony and deliberation, George moved to deny the variance and the board voted to deny.

What the board decided
• Reed J. Oster (13773 County Road 7, Fairhaven Township): variance granted (road setback for attached garage). Moved by George; seconded; approved by voice vote.
• John & Cheryl Faber (Breezeway Shores, Horseshoe Lake): variance denied (building within bluff impact zone). Moved by George; seconded; denied.
• Lucking family (Wakefield Township, Cedar Island Lake): variance denied (lake setback / bluff impact). Moved by Rob; seconded; denied.
• Alexander Point LLC / O’Connor (Big Fish Lake): variance denied (large dwelling 50.1 ft from lake; 49.9% deviation). Moved by George; seconded by John; denied.

Context and why it mattered
Board members repeatedly cited two themes when denying shoreland and bluff requests: (1) protecting shorelines and bluffs from additional impervious surfaces and slope disturbance, and (2) whether applicants had reasonable, buildable alternatives that would meet county setbacks. Staff cited technical reports (on upland/shoreline cover, soil and runoff) and state/local shoreland policies when they recommended cautious review. Public commenters emphasized community expectations for the Shoreland Overlay District and the potential visual and water‑quality impacts of larger homes close to the water.

What happens next
Denied applicants may seek review or revise plans and reapply; staff advised appellants to coordinate additional mitigation measures, revised siting or permit timing with county environmental services. The board confirmed next meeting dates and adjourned after approving the minutes.

Quotes from the meeting
“Tearing the bluff apart is not reasonable,” said Rob, citing slope‑stability and bluff‑protection standards. Mike Quinlivan, a Big Fish Lake resident, urged denial: “This is a drastic change in the character and use of the property…they propose a mansion 50 feet from the shore.” Applicant Raymond Lucking said the family had pursued surveys and township discussions and preferred to reuse a disturbed trailer pad to limit disturbance.

Reporting note
This article draws on staff reports, applicants’ statements and public testimony recorded by Stearns County Environmental Services and the Board of Adjustment during the meeting.