Hardin County hears variance request for Silsbee property built below county’s 1-foot freeboard

Hardin County Commissioners Court on May 13, 2025, held a public hearing on a request by Arthur Yarden for a variance from county elevation requirements for property at 3495 Highway 327 in Silsbee.

The request concerns a house already under construction whose finished floor the county—s staff said sits roughly 0.5 foot below the county—s one-foot freeboard requirement (a local standard above FEMA base flood elevation). Commissioner Cooper said the structure is above FEMA—s base flood elevation but below the county—s higher one-foot freeboard and recommended allowing the variance because the house is already built and awaiting an electrical permit. The county attorney recommended issuing a written warning and adding documentation to the file to protect the county should future flood claims arise; no formal motion to grant the variance was recorded in the transcript.

Why it matters: Hardin County adopted a one-foot freeboard above FEMA base flood elevations as a higher local standard intended, county staff said, to lower insurance rates across the county. Allowing a variance for a completed structure could affect insurance costs for the homeowner and raise concerns among other residents who previously sought the same relief, commissioners said.

Commissioner Cooper summarized the history of this particular petition, saying county staff had explained the regulations to other constituents who requested similar relief in the past and that, to his knowledge, the court had not previously granted such a variance for a building already constructed. Staff member Alex (first name only in the transcript) explained the structure meets FEMA minimums but falls short of the county—s freeboard by about a half foot. Court members noted the foundation was poured in February or March of last year and that an April flood had not overtopped the slab at that time. The applicant, who the agenda identified as Arthur Yarden, remains in the process of obtaining an electrical permit, according to the record.

Court members discussed practical concerns: one commissioner said heavy rain could cut off access to the property, and another questioned whether allowing this variance would create unfair precedent for other constituents. The county attorney advised that enforcement options existed but recommended documenting the court—s decision and issuing a warning to accompany any administrative paperwork so future claims could be addressed with that record.

Administrative details included confirmation that a public notice for the hearing ran two weeks earlier in the publication referenced in the transcript as "CILDB" and was posted on the county website, per a staff member named Misty. The meeting transcript shows no formal motion or roll-call vote to grant the elevation variance; the only recorded motion in the transcript was to adjourn the special meeting, which Commissioner Kirkendall moved and Commissioner Cooper seconded.

Next steps: The transcript records discussion and a staff/legal recommendation for documentation and a warning but does not record a final decision to grant or deny the variance. The court adjourned until 10 a.m.