Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After‑the‑fact shoreline work on Kerwin Lake split by Hubbard County commission: gazebo and beach removed, shed and riprap allowed
Summary
The commission split its decision on an after‑the‑fact shoreline application by James and Mary Payne: authorized some existing shore protection and a shed but denied an unauthorized gazebo, small platforms and an artificially expanded sand beach and ordered restoration and DNR referral where shoreline fill was suspected.
The Hubbard County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment considered an after‑the‑fact variance application from James and Mary Payne for multiple shoreline features at a recreational development lot on Kerwin Lake.
The request comprised several discrete items: an after‑the‑fact platform with gazebo, patio pavers/platforms, an accessory wooden shed, rock along stairs, riprap, geotextile fabric beneath riprap, and an expanded sand beach. The property also contained preexisting features the applicants said were in place when they bought the lot.
Why it matters: The application included unpermitted work within the 100‑foot ordinary high‑water (OHW) setback and the shore impact zone, and the commission treated the application as a mix of enforcement (restoration) and variance requests. Commissioners weighed whether features were preexisting or newly constructed, the extent of grading/erosion risk and the feasibility of revegetation. Staff highlighted potential public waters concerns where fill appeared to have extended the shoreline.
What the commission decided: - Approved (by majority) the retention of three items: the wooden shed (about 9.5 by 10 feet, recorded as preexisting), the existing riprap at the lake edge, and the rock stairway leading to the lake. Motion: approve shed, riprap and stair rocks; mover Ken; second Mike. Vote: Timothy (aye), Ken (aye), Mike (aye), Veronica (nay), Larry (aye). - Denied (unanimous) the after‑the‑fact gazebo and the platforms and the artificially expanded sand beach; commissioners ordered removal and restoration and required revegetation per staff guidelines. Motion: deny gazebo/platforms and sand beach and require restoration; mover Larry; second Veronica. Vote: unanimous.
What commissioners and staff emphasized: Veronica (commissioner) and staff both stated the sand beach was not allowed by ordinance and that 3–5 truckloads of sand had been brought in; the commission adopted staff language requiring removal of sand and reestablishment of a dense perennial ground layer until 70% vegetation cover is achieved. Commissioners also noted that riprap and sand placed adjacent to one another is conflicting and that the geotextile fabric under riprap (done without permit) would be considered in the application record; commissioners ultimately allowed the existing riprap to remain. The commission noted that because fill appeared to have extended the shoreline, the DNR would be informed and could separately investigate any public waters violation.
Practical next steps and conditions: Environmental Services will issue a written decision and an order that specifies where sand must be removed and how revegetation must be implemented (hydroseeding, native planting and mulch as recommended). The permitted existing riprap and shed entries will be documented with conditions; the applicant must comply with restoration timelines and will receive follow‑up inspection visits.
Ending: The commission split the application to separate preexisting shore protection features from newly constructed beach and platforms. Commissioners required restoration where unauthorized shoreline alteration occurred and kept a record of permitted preexisting features to avoid unnecessary removal when the feature improved erosion control, while also signaling a DNR referral where shoreline fill was present.
