Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Deck Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Wagner request to replace illegal lakeside deck over septic tank
Summary
A request to replace an existing deck that sits over a certified holding tank and exceeds lot coverage limits on Koronis Lake was denied; applicants were told staff will work with them on options.
KORONIS LAKE / STEARNS COUNTY — The Stearns County Board of Adjustment denied Feb. 13 a variance request from David and Blair Wagner to replace a deteriorating lakeside deck that sits directly over a holding tank and contributes to impervious coverage above the allowed limit in an R‑1 lakeshore zoning district.
Staff background and findings
Environmental staff reported the holding tank beneath the deck was permitted in 1995 under a prior owner and certified as compliant in September (year in staff record). A later survey revealed lot coverage of 28.9% where the maximum is 25%; staff said removing the 423.5‑square‑foot deck would reduce coverage to a compliant 23.6%. The applicants submitted an engineered stormwater plan to mitigate runoff and said the deck is structurally sound and primarily needs new decking to be safe.
Board discussion and outcome
The board debated alternatives, including replacing only a narrow 4‑foot ingress/egress path or removing a three‑foot portion of the deck to meet setbacks and lot coverage limits. Some members emphasized the shoreland and bluff/shore protection policies in the county comprehensive plan. After answering the required findings, the board voted to deny the variance request; the motion to deny carried at the hearing.
Applicants' statement and next steps
David and Blair Wagner told the board they had inherited the nonconforming deck when they bought the property and sought a safe replacement rather than complete removal. The board chair and staff directed the applicants to meet with county staff to explore options, including a redesign that would meet setbacks and impervious coverage limits or removal options. Staff said it would provide compliance steps and suggested the applicants work on mitigation plans and permit alternatives.
Ending
The denial leaves the applicants responsible for working with county staff to reach a compliant approach; staff offered to provide technical assistance and a timeline for corrective work.
