As neighbors to Driftwood Resort, we request that all development of the resort follow the current State of Minnesota and local regulations for shoreland development. The following are our factual reasons.
1.) Deviation from the OHWL setback to 22' - 67' when the regulation requires a 125' is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the regulation to managing the effects of shoreland crowding, preventing pollution of surface water, and maintaining property values and natural characteristics of shorelands.
2.) There is no unique circumstances that would dictate not following the impervious service coverage regulation which is in place to control the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters.
3.) Allowing 76 mooring slips instead of the allowed 13 mooring slips would alter the hydrology, vegetation, aesthetics, landscape.and shoreline stability and integrity It would be proportionately out of place or scale and inconsistent with the other properties and neighbors in the surrounding area.
4.) Deviation to 45% open space instead of the regulated 50% open space along with the significant amount of 2 story buildings asked for in this variance hearing will negatively affect recreational, natural, and economic values in neighboring properties.
5.) The high population density (26-29 dwellings) asked for in this 7.3 acre lot will create negative repercussions to this quiet neighborhood where most lots are one dwelling per 1-3 acres. It will create a significant adverse traffic load to Driftwood Lane, a road not built for this kind of traffic load.
In Summary, we believe the Driftwood Resort development should occur within the current ordinances and regulations that are in place to protect the shoreline, the lake and respect the neighboring properties.
Updates
February 18, 2019
I spent the entire morning staring at the zoning maps again because the math on the impervious surface coverage just does not add up to anything safe for the shoreline. It feels like the noise from the proposed mooring expansion is deafening even when I am just trying to have a quiet cup of coffee in my own backyard. They are being so quiet on their end but we are definitely not going anywhere.
February 18, 2019
I really thought this might just be a quiet neighborhood gripe but seeing so many people chime in with their concerns makes me feel like we are actually hitting a nerve here. It is honestly pretty wild to see this much momentum building up when I remember how lonely it felt just typing this up on my laptop at the kitchen table while staring at the lake.
40 Comments
I do not see a compelling reason to modify existing limits on density, boat slips, hard cover, open space, etc. I was once denied a variance to replace a 48 sq. ft. shed that was non-conforming. This petition is non-conforming on steroids and should be denied.
We agree with the well stated reasons for opposition to this proposed “overdevelopment” of the Driftwood property. Approval of any of the variances requested would signal a wholesale assault on the water quality on the Whitefish Chain. Development of the property within the existing rules and regulations is to be encouraged...and required to protect this great natural resource.
As seen last summer (2018) Upper Whitefish is already struggling with excess phosphorus, nitrogen, increased algae, and boat-stopping vegetation. It would seem on a lake with all these problems that granting further variances to this or any other development on the lake is not the way to go.
I welcome development of the Driftwood property. A restaurant and small resort on the south end of Whitefish Lake would be good for the community. I share the concerns of the other petitioners regarding the density of development and wide ranging variance request.
I also have concerns, especially with the density of individually owned cabins and the increased traffic they will create on Driftwood Lane. I also share concerns relative to runoff and pollutants from whatever sewage system that will be employed.
While I'm in favor of redevelopment of this land, the number of variances being requested does not sound like they are thinking of their neighbors or the wildlife that will be disturbed.
We agree with all the comments that have been made about the over development and amount of variances being asked for.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
As neighbors to Driftwood Resort, we request that all development of the resort follow the current State of Minnesota and local regulations for shoreland development. The following are our factual reasons.
1.) Deviation from the OHWL setback to 22' - 67' when the regulation requires a 125' is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the regulation to managing the effects of shoreland crowding, preventing pollution of surface water, and maintaining property values and natural characteristics of shorelands.
2.) There is no unique circumstances that would dictate not following the impervious service coverage regulation which is in place to control the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters.
3.) Allowing 76 mooring slips instead of the allowed 13 mooring slips would alter the hydrology, vegetation, aesthetics, landscape.and shoreline stability and integrity It would be proportionately out of place or scale and inconsistent with the other properties and neighbors in the surrounding area.
4.) Deviation to 45% open space instead of the regulated 50% open space along with the significant amount of 2 story buildings asked for in this variance hearing will negatively affect recreational, natural, and economic values in neighboring properties.
5.) The high population density (26-29 dwellings) asked for in this 7.3 acre lot will create negative repercussions to this quiet neighborhood where most lots are one dwelling per 1-3 acres. It will create a significant adverse traffic load to Driftwood Lane, a road not built for this kind of traffic load.
In Summary, we believe the Driftwood Resort development should occur within the current ordinances and regulations that are in place to protect the shoreline, the lake and respect the neighboring properties.
Updates
February 18, 2019
I spent the entire morning staring at the zoning maps again because the math on the impervious surface coverage just does not add up to anything safe for the shoreline. It feels like the noise from the proposed mooring expansion is deafening even when I am just trying to have a quiet cup of coffee in my own backyard. They are being so quiet on their end but we are definitely not going anywhere.
February 18, 2019
I really thought this might just be a quiet neighborhood gripe but seeing so many people chime in with their concerns makes me feel like we are actually hitting a nerve here. It is honestly pretty wild to see this much momentum building up when I remember how lonely it felt just typing this up on my laptop at the kitchen table while staring at the lake.
40 Comments
The granting of multiple variances for a situation that is not a real hardship renders the state regulations useless for their intended purpose of protecting our lakes. A less aggressive version of this project would better respect the long-term natural asset that is the lake.
I do not see a compelling reason to modify existing limits on density, boat slips, hard cover, open space, etc. I was once denied a variance to replace a 48 sq. ft. shed that was non-conforming. This petition is non-conforming on steroids and should be denied.
We agree with the well stated reasons for opposition to this proposed “overdevelopment” of the Driftwood property. Approval of any of the variances requested would signal a wholesale assault on the water quality on the Whitefish Chain. Development of the property within the existing rules and regulations is to be encouraged...and required to protect this great natural resource.
As seen last summer (2018) Upper Whitefish is already struggling with excess phosphorus, nitrogen, increased algae, and boat-stopping vegetation. It would seem on a lake with all these problems that granting further variances to this or any other development on the lake is not the way to go.
I welcome development of the Driftwood property. A restaurant and small resort on the south end of Whitefish Lake would be good for the community. I share the concerns of the other petitioners regarding the density of development and wide ranging variance request.
I also have concerns, especially with the density of individually owned cabins and the increased traffic they will create on Driftwood Lane. I also share concerns relative to runoff and pollutants from whatever sewage system that will be employed.
While I'm in favor of redevelopment of this land, the number of variances being requested does not sound like they are thinking of their neighbors or the wildlife that will be disturbed.
We agree with all the comments that have been made about the over development and amount of variances being asked for.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 100 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
The granting of multiple variances for a situation that is not a real hardship renders the state regulations useless for their intended purpose of protecting our lakes. A less aggressive version of this project would better respect the long-term natural asset that is the lake.