Get email alerts on the Bridge Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs whether replacing pre‑code bridges should trigger variances
Summary
Staff asked whether the county should require a variance when a bridge that existed before the drainage code is replaced; board members noted DNR permits were obtained in the past and agreed to seek input from absent staff before deciding.
During the surveyor's report the board discussed a specific case — the Indian Springs bridge — and whether replacing a bridge that pre-dates the county drainage code should require a variance.
Staff said the prior crossing existed before the drainage code and a new bridge was installed without going through a variance process because DNR permits had been obtained. "We didn't require them to get a variance because there was already a bridge existing," staff said. Members discussed whether the county should require a variance to create an official recorded exception when an older crossing is replaced, and noted risks if a bridge later begins to impede water flow.
Board members agreed to hold the question until Bruce (absent at the meeting) could provide input and to place the topic on a future agenda for further guidance.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
