Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall Variance Andrews topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morrison County Board of Adjustment denies after‑the‑fact variance for Steve Andrews' lakeside retaining wall
Summary
The Board denied an after‑the‑fact variance request from Steve Andrews to retain a lakeside rock wall installed after garage construction, finding the alteration created the need for the wall. The board said approval would require county‑approved vegetative screening and a stormwater plan; the request was denied 4–1.
The Morrison County Board of Adjustment on Nov. 25 denied an after‑the‑fact variance request from Steve Andrews to retain a rock wall visible from the lake, saying the wall resulted from the owner’s actions after a prior garage variance and street‑side elevation changes.
Amy (Land Services) told the board the request cited ordinance sections “7 10.41 h and j,” showed aerial and on‑site photos, and that the parcel is nonconforming in lot size. The department received a written comment from David and Nancy Gurney opposing retaining walls without a demonstrated erosion need. In September 2023 the board had approved a separate variance to construct a garage on the property.
Andrews told the board the retaining wall was not his original plan. He said the excavator raised the garage elevation after concerns that water could enter the garage and that fill was brought in; the contractor later advised adding a retaining wall to stabilize the base. “It was never my intent to put a retaining wall in originally,” Andrews said, adding he would be “willing to put vegetation” or a screening treatment if the county required it.
Board members pressed whether Land Services had been contacted before the work and how much fill is reviewed under permits; staff said fill within a building permit is not precisely limited except where a change exceeds 15 feet and becomes a topographic alteration. Members questioned whether the wall addressed an immediate erosion need or whether it was created by the owner’s decision to raise elevation.
Several commissioners said a variance could only be acceptable if the visible lake‑facing wall were fully screened by county‑approved vegetation and if an approved stormwater management plan were submitted and implemented; the board discussed a target compliance date in the next growing season. The motion to deny the variance was made by Clint and seconded by Marv; roll call recorded four ayes and one nay (John). The motion carried and the variance was denied. The chair advised Andrews to work with Land Services on next steps.
The board did not take public comment on the application during the hearing.
