Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Variance Little Birch topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows Little Birch dwelling to remain below flood-protection elevation; approves new garage with condition
Summary
The board approved leaving a 26-by-40 dwelling as constructed despite a lowest-floor elevation below the regulatory flood protection elevation and approved a new detached garage while requiring removal of an existing nonconforming garage by September under a compliance agreement.
The Stearns County Board of Adjustment approved multiple requests from Mitchell and Aaron Cannon involving a property on Little Birch Lake.
After staff reviewed the site history and a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) comment that recommended denial because the dwelling’s lowest floor is below the regulatory flood protection elevation, the board considered three interrelated items: (A) leave as constructed a 26-by-40 dwelling whose lowest floor was 2.07 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation; (B) a variance to construct a new 28-by-32-foot accessory structure 27.2 feet from the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) and within the shore impact zone; and (C) if the new accessory structure were denied, retain an existing larger garage that is closer than the required 100-foot OHWL setback.
Staff summarized alternatives: apply for a conditional use permit for engineered floodproofing methods, raise/fill the crawl space to meet the flood-protection elevation, or seek other mitigation methods. The DNR’s written comment focused on the lowest-floor elevation and recommended denial of the low-floor variance on flood-protection grounds.
Applicant Mitchell Cannon described a history of nonconforming structures, said he had entered a compliance agreement with the county to address several items on the property, and explained the practical difficulties and expense of raising utilities out of a crawl space. Board members discussed the possibility of alternative floodproofing work that would require engineering, the practical and financial burdens, and insurance implications; staff noted FEMA audit and flood-insurance program consequences of granting elevation variances.
On the dwelling (item A), after discussion and multiple roll-call clarifications the board answered the statutory questions in the affirmative. A motion to grant the variance to leave the low floor as constructed carried on the recorded roll call (Rob voted no; the others in attendance voted yes). The board then discussed mitigation and conditions. Members were reminded that if the owners later bring the dwelling into compliance, the variance would no longer apply.
On the accessory structure (item B), the board voted to grant a variance allowing construction of the proposed new 28-by-32-foot garage; the applicants indicated their intent to remove the existing nonconforming 24-by-28 structure. The board added a condition requiring removal and proper disposal of the existing nonconforming garage and related unpermitted structures, and staff recorded that a compliance agreement requires the removal of unpermitted items by a date in September that is already part of the county’s compliance agreement with the property owner. The board asked staff to record the condition and enforce the compliance timetable.
Ending: The board approved leaving the dwelling as constructed and approved the new garage with the condition that the existing, nonconforming garage and specified unpermitted structures be removed by the compliance-agreement deadline; staff will continue to work with the owners on mitigation and possible floodproofing alternatives if the owners later pursue them.
