Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Shoreland Retaining Wall Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Morrison County board approves after‑the‑fact variance for retaining wall on Aztec Road with conditions

6439788 · October 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Morrison County Board of Adjustment voted 4–1 on Oct. 14 to allow an after‑the‑fact variance retaining tiered rock walls visible from the lake at a Motley property, subject to a stormwater plan, a planting plan and moving a boathouse back to its original location by June 1, 2026.

The Morrison County Board of Adjustment voted 4–1 Oct. 14 to approve an after‑the‑fact variance allowing existing tiered retaining walls visible from the lake at a property on Aztec Road in Motley, subject to three conditions including a stormwater management plan, a planting plan and moving the boathouse back to its previous location by June 1, 2026.

The decision came after a staff report, testimony from the applicant’s representative and public comment. Amy, Land Services staff, told the board the application concerns an after‑the‑fact request to retain a tiered retaining wall visible from the lake and cited Morrison County shoreland ordinance section 7 10.41 (items H and J). “This is an after after the fact variance request to continue retaining wall visible from the lake, with no demonstrated erosion,” Amy said during her staff presentation.

The applicant’s representative, Tom Sonnenstall, described plans to revegetate the terraced area with native plants and pollinators and said a portion of the wall would be screened by planting and by a shed that was shortened. “The only portion of the rock wall that will be visible from the lake will be the very low the bottom portion,” Tom Sonnenstall said, and he described plans to seed in the fall and install plants in spring, including big bluestem and native pollinators. He also said the shed was reduced in size and will be turned to reduce shoreline visibility.

A neighbor, William Sonnenstall, testified during public comment that he opposed the variance and said he believed the wall was unnecessary. “There was no erosion on that bank,” William Sonnenstall said, adding that he believes part of the wall extends onto his property and that the boathouse placement should meet the 10‑foot setback from his lot line.

Board members debated whether the property’s sandy, coarse soils and the loss of older trees created a practical difficulty that would justify the variance. Several board members said the steep, sandy bank and prior tree loss increase erosion risk; one member said evidence of actual erosion on the site was not clear from the record. The board discussed prior site photos (2018 and 2024), a site visit and email comments from nearby residents in support of the variance.

Before voting, the board adopted three conditions recommended during discussion: the applicant must submit a stormwater management plan to Land Services for review and approval; submit a landscaping/planting plan that emphasizes native vegetation and pollinators for the terraces; and return the boathouse to its original location (with the applicant noting the boathouse is an outstanding ordinance violation and must be moved). The board set a completion deadline of June 1, 2026 for all conditions.

During the final motion to approve the variance with those conditions, board member John moved and board member Clint seconded. The motion carried with four votes in favor (Brent, Marv, Clint and John) and one opposed (George).

The board noted the matter arose from an enforcement complaint in June 2024 after imagery and a site visit showed retaining walls and a moved boathouse with no permit on file. Amy told the board that the applicant had permitted the deck replacement but the boathouse relocation and the retaining walls remained open violations until resolved under the variance and the boathouse relocation condition.

The board asked Land Services to work with the applicant to finalize the stormwater and planting plans and to verify the boathouse relocation. The board also discussed contractor responsibility; one speaker urged holding contractors liable when they fail to pull permits, a point the board member offering it said he plans to pursue with state representatives.

The board closed the public hearing portion before moving to written finding‑of‑fact questions and the vote. The decision allows the retaining walls to remain under the listed conditions; the county will monitor compliance and the unresolved boathouse violation must be corrected by the June 1, 2026 deadline.