Board denies impervious pavers but approves garage infill and smaller deck for Cedar Island Lake property
Loading...
Summary
The Board denied a request to add 375 sq ft of impervious patio pavers within the shore impact zone but granted variances allowing a modest garage infill and replacement of an illegal deck (smaller footprint) after staff cited prior permits and safety reasons.
The Stearns County Board of Adjustment split action on a multi‑part variance application from Jeffrey and Michelle Bertram for a Cedar Island Lake property: the board denied a request to install 375 square feet of impervious patio pavers in the shore impact zone, but granted variances to allow a small garage infill and to replace an existing illegal deck with a smaller, permitted structure.
Staff explained the property comprises three lots recorded before official shoreland controls and that previous owners had made additions and installed features without full permitting. The Bertrams sought three main approvals: a garage infill (minor increase close to County Road 71), a new deck to replace a larger illegal structure (smaller footprint and safer condition), and 375 square feet of impervious pavers in the shore impact zone where the ordinance limits impervious patio area to 250 square feet.
On the patio pavers, multiple board members concluded the proposal conflicted with lakeshore protection policies and answered key findings in the negative; staff advised that three required findings were negative, preventing approval under statute. The board moved and carried a motion to deny the impervious pavers. Staff and the applicants discussed alternatives: engineered pervious pavers (which would not increase impervious area subject to the ordinance) or removing existing pavers; the applicants said they would consider pervious options if the variance failed.
For the garage infill and deck replacement, staff documented prior permit history, recent County Road 71 work that may have altered setbacks, and a compliance agreement to remove an existing unauthorized gazebo. Board members cited safety (deteriorated deck boards) and minimal net change in lot coverage (the proposed impervious coverage would increase modestly overall) and found the requests consistent with comprehensive plan objectives and prior permitting context. The Board granted the variances for the garage infill and the reduced deck footprint, and directed applicants to comply with any engineering requirements for drainage, retaining wall repair and required permits.
