Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Bluff Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants after‑the‑fact variance for deck on accessory structure at Horseshoe Lake property
Summary
The board granted an after‑the‑fact variance allowing a deck on an accessory shed at 21161 Elkview Circle (Breezeway Shores), concluding the structure was likely constructed with the shed and that removing existing framing would be more detrimental to the bluff.
The Stearns County Board of Adjustment on March 13 granted an after‑the‑fact variance allowing a deck attached to an accessory structure at 21161 Elkview Circle in the Breezeway Shores subdivision (Horseshoe Lake), concluding the deck appeared to predate current controls and that removing its supporting posts would be more harmful to the bluff than leaving the framing in place.
Staff reported the parcel (Lot 14, Block 1 of Breezeway Shores) is approximately 13,885 square feet (0.32 acres) and that assessor records show decking and sheds on the property in 1968. Staff said the deck on the accessory structure sits roughly 2 feet from the side property line (an 80% deviation from the 10‑foot requirement) and is within the bluff impact zone; the bluff and bluff‑impact standards were adopted following Minnesota DNR guidance in 1989.
Applicant Rick Uczyk told the board the deck framing appears to have been installed at the same time as the shed; he said he began removing decking following a prior denial and then discovered the framing is concrete‑filled metal posts and continuous framing that would be difficult to remove without causing bluff disturbance. Uczyk said he planned to reduce the deck area near the lakeshore to 32 square feet or less, use three stringers, and otherwise bring the structure into compliance where feasible.
Board members evaluated the seven findings used to consider variances and recorded affirmative answers, citing the structure’s age, built‑in framing, and the risk of bluff disturbance if posts were removed. The board voted to grant the after‑the‑fact variance as effectively a grandfathering action, with the applicant to complete other compliance work discussed with staff. The chair announced the motion carried and advised Uczyk to coordinate remaining compliance measures with Environmental Services staff.
Staff noted alternatives the applicant could have used: cutting the deck back at the lakeside wall, removing the deck boards while maintaining a smaller compliant access platform, or installing new support posts at compliant locations. The board, however, concluded that the existing framing’s removal would be more detrimental to bluff stability than allowing the deck to remain with conditions and follow‑up compliance work.
