Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Deck Pergola Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies after-the-fact variance for Grandquist lakeside deck and pergola
Summary
The Morrison County Board of Adjustment denied an after-the-fact variance request from the Barbara Grandquist Trust to keep a deck expansion and pergola inside the 75-foot lake setback, citing permitting gaps and insufficient evidence of a practical difficulty.
On Sept. 16 the Morrison County Board of Adjustment denied an after-the-fact variance requested by the Barbara Grandquist Trust to retain a deck expansion and pergola located 52 feet from the lake at 26458 Quail Road. The county ordinance requires a 75-foot shoreline setback in the Shoreland District; the denial followed board findings that the applicants had not demonstrated the necessary practical difficulty and that the pergola is a structure requiring its own permit.
Amy, Land Services staff, presented the case as an after-the-fact variance. She told the board the original dwelling was built in 1988 and that county records show prior permitting activity in 2004'05; the deck and pergola were constructed later without the permits staff expects. Amy said the property's total impervious surface with the deck is about 22 percent (below the 25 percent threshold staff uses) but emphasized that the pergola itself is a structure that must meet the 75-foot setback. Staff also reported a first, second and final notice of ordinance violation had been issued and that applicants had applied in March, seeking to correct the record.
Applicants Lee and Barbara Grandquist said some of the work was contemplated under a 2004 permit package but not completed at that time; they said economic constraints and misunderstanding of permit renewal led to later construction without a contemporaneous permit. The board reviewed historic permit correspondence and drawings in the record; there was disagreement among members about whether the 2004 file should be interpreted as authorizing the work in whole or in part.
Board members split in their findings on the variance criteria. Several members noted that the site showed little evidence of shoreline erosion or runoff problems during a Sept. 12 site visit; neighbor testimony supported the applicants. Neighbor Ellen McBay told the board, "I would have never in my life imagined that a deck and a percola were 2 separate buildings," and said she has experienced no problems from the structure. Nevertheless, several board members said the record did not show a practical difficulty beyond the applicants''s choice of building location and that the applicants had an obligation to follow changing permit rules and to contact Land Services when they were unsure.
Motion and next steps: Board member George moved and Mark seconded a motion to deny the after-the-fact variance. The motion passed with five "ayes." The board's denial means the deck/pergola, as constructed, does not meet the setback rules; Amy told the applicants they must work with Land Services to determine next steps, which could include removal, redesign, a new properly documented application, or another administrative remedy consistent with county ordinance.
The denial record stresses that the pergola is treated as a separate structure for permitting purposes and that, regardless of the deck's impervious percentage, the pergola itself requires compliance with the 75-foot shoreland setback. The board's vote did not prescribe a specific remediation but directed the applicants to continue working with county staff to resolve the violation in accordance with county procedures.
