Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Division Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves two variances to divide floodplain parcel near Caryville
Summary
The planning staff recommended and the committee approved two variances allowing an existing house and improvements in a mapped floodplain to be divided onto a 1.63-acre parcel while designating the remainder as a non-buildable outlot.
The committee approved two variances that allow an owner to divide a surveyed parcel in the Chippewa River floodplain near Caryville and place an existing house and outbuildings on a new 1.63-acre lot.
Tom, a zoning staff presenter, told the committee the applicant's trust owns a certified survey map parcel almost entirely inside the mapped FEMA floodplain. The proposal divides the parcel so Lot 2 would contain the existing residence, driveway and several outbuildings; the balance would become an outlot retained by the trust. "Approval of the variance of both variances will allow the applicant to divide off the existing home and related improvements and place them on a smaller, more manageable parcel," the staff report said.
Two specific county land-division standards were at issue: the county requirement that all lots have "dry-land access" at or above the regulatory flood elevation, and the county requirement that new lots contain at least 10,000 square feet of contiguous land above the contour line equal to two feet above the regional floodplain. The proposed Lot 2 does not meet those standards because the driveway and most of the property lie inside the mapped floodplain. Staff said bringing the approach up to ordinance standards would require large amounts of fill and likely would not be allowed by the state highway authority.
The applicant's project surveyor was not present at the meeting; staff said the driveway has existed in the floodplain since at least 1938 and that the home sits in a small area FEMA previously removed from the floodplain by elevation documentation. Staff recommended approval based on hardship (preexisting improvements and lack of practical ability to meet the lot standards) and because granting the variances would not impair the ordinance's intent.
A committee member asked whether the retained outlot would be developable and how access would be handled; staff said the outlot would be designated non-buildable and that any future independent sale to a non-adjoining owner would be required to include an access easement. The staff presentation explained that the county's land-division ordinance added rules to limit creation of landlocked outlots.
A motion to approve the variance for the proposed Lot 1 passed on a voice vote; a separate motion to approve the variance for Lot 2 also carried on a voice vote. The record does not show a roll-call tally; staff recorded the outcome as approved.
