Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Division Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunn County approves lot split and two variances for Hayden property in floodplain near Caryville
Summary
The committee approved two variances to allow an existing house and outbuildings near Highway 85 to be placed on a new, smaller lot despite the parcel lying largely in the mapped floodplain; the applicant and surveyor were not present.
Dunn County staff and committee members approved two variances to allow a landowner to split an existing surveyed parcel and place an occupied house on a new, smaller lot even though most of the property is within the FEMA‑mapped floodplain.
Tom, a county staff member presenting the land division case, described the application by the Paul Allen Hayden Revocable Living Trust for a certified survey map reconfiguration on a property near Caryville along State Road 85. He said the parcel is largely inside the regional floodplain and that the existing driveway and improvements predate the county land division ordinance. The proposal would create a new 1.63‑acre Lot 2 containing the house and several outbuildings and designate the remaining land as a non‑buildable outlot.
Why it matters: Chapter 16 of the county’s land division ordinance requires new lots to have dry‑land access and to contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet of contiguous land at least two feet above the regional floodplain contour. The proposed split did not meet those standards, prompting the variance requests.
Tom told the committee the applicant declined or was unable to meet the ordinance standards without substantial fill within the highway right of way, which he said likely would be impractical or disallowed by state authorities. He said FEMA documentation in the file shows a small area around the house was previously removed from the mapped floodplain but that the remaining parcel lies within mapped floodplain and wetlands.
Committee discussion focused on access and future use of the outlot. Tom and committee members noted the outlot would remain non‑buildable and that any future conveyance to a non‑adjoining owner would require an access easement. Tom said such an easement could not bisect an existing lot under the ordinance and that the trust currently owns adjoining land to the west, which provides practical access today.
The applicant and the project surveyor were not present. Committee members asked whether the existing driveway provides lawful access and whether the outlot could later be used for camping or other seasonal uses; staff said land‑use permissions would be governed by separate ordinances and easement arrangements.
Votes and outcome: The committee moved and seconded two separate motions to grant the variances (one for lack of dry‑land access and one for the reduced contiguous buildable area). Both motions carried by voice vote; the meeting record does not show a roll‑call tally. Supervisor Morehouse was excused from the meeting.
Ending: Staff will record the approved survey with the noted outlot restrictions and the required note that future conveyances to non‑adjoining owners must include an access easement. The county retained the standard language that the outlot is non‑buildable and that future access would be subject to ordinance requirements and any required state permits.
