Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morrison County board approves after-the-fact variance to keep lakeside retaining wall with vegetation condition
Summary
The Morrison County Board of Adjustments approved an after-the-fact variance allowing Thomas and Carol Cross to keep an existing tiered retaining wall visible from the lake, subject to a requirement that the wall be screened with vegetation as determined by the shoreline specialist and the Soil and Water Conservation District.
The Morrison County Board of Adjustments on Aug. 19 approved an after-the-fact variance allowing Thomas and Carol Cross to keep an existing tiered retaining wall visible from the lake, provided the wall is screened with vegetation as determined by the county shoreline specialist and the Soil and Water Conservation District.
The request came after Land Services received a complaint on June 20, 2024, noting tiered retaining walls had been installed without a permit. Amy, a land services shoreland specialist, said the county’s ordinance (section 7 10.41, minor topographic alterations, items h and j) allows retaining walls only when a demonstrated erosion problem cannot be addressed by other measures; the shoreland section was updated in 2021, relaxing rules for walls not visible from the lake but maintaining stricter standards for features that are visible. The property’s dwelling is 528 square feet, built in 1954, and sits over 75 feet from the lake; the retaining wall itself is visible from the lake and documented in imagery from 2018 and 2024 and in site photographs taken during a viewing on Aug. 15.
Applicant Thomas Cross told the board the slope had existed for decades and that the retaining wall was installed to stabilize a very steep, sandy bank that was undermining the foundation; Cross said he had planted native grasses about 10 years earlier and that the wall helped those plantings take hold. Amy said DNR staff, Soil and Water Conservation District staff, and Land Services recommended that, if a variance were granted, the wall be screened with vegetation from the lakeside as determined by the shoreline specialist and the Soil and Water Conservation District.
Board members described visible erosion on site and said the structure and soils are highly erodible. In deliberations Board Member Marv said the wall addressed a steep, sandy slope and the applicant’s intent to stabilize soil and preserve the cabin. Board Member Brent and others noted similar shoreline treatments historically visible on the lake and supported a vegetation screening condition to reduce visual impact from the water.
The motion to approve the variance was made by Board Member Clint and seconded by Marv. Votes recorded in the hearing were John: yes; Marv: yes; Brent: yes; Clint: yes. The application was approved with the condition that the retaining walls be screened with vegetation from the lake as determined by the shoreline specialist and the Soil and Water Conservation District; Land Services staff will assist in implementation.
The board and staff emphasized that applicants are advised to consult Land Services and the shoreline specialist before undertaking shoreland work to determine whether permitting is required. The board noted the decision applies to the land and not the owner, and the case will be considered under the county’s normal variance criteria if future changes are proposed.
