Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies floodplain variance for 78‑year‑old Webster Lake island cottage
Summary
Kosciusko County plan commission denied a request for multiple floodplain variances for a small island cottage on Webster Lake after members raised National Flood Insurance Program compliance and county‑wide insurance‑rating risks.
The Kosciusko County Plan Commission on April 14 denied a multi‑count variance request for a cottage on an island in Webster Lake, citing risks to the county’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and uncertainty about whether the renovations exceeded the federal 50% substantial‑improvement threshold.
Steve Schneider, speaking for the petitioner, told the commission the home on the island was built in 1947 and had been rehabilitated after long neglect. Schneider said elevating the structure to meet the county’s flood‑protection grade was practically impossible because the island’s small size and crawl‑space foundation would require extensive work by barge or pontoon and enormous cost. "If you can't get a variance, nothing can be done with it. It will simply fall into disrepair," Schneider said, adding the owner would record a covenant putting future buyers on notice that the property does not meet the flood‑control ordinance.
Commissioners and staff pushed back on that reasoning, noting the county must follow NFIP and local flood‑control findings when considering variances. One commissioner warned that granting variances in cases that do not meet the ordinance’s required findings could jeopardize the county’s standing in the NFIP, potentially increasing flood‑insurance costs for all county residents. Staff emphasized the ordinance’s factors, including whether the variance would increase flood heights or public expense and whether the request represents the minimum necessary relief.
A contractor and a local builder said lifting structures is technically possible but would be costly; county staff and a commissioner said the technical possibility does not remove the need to meet the ordinance’s formal findings. Commissioners repeatedly referenced FEMA’s 50% substantial‑improvement test as a material uncertainty in the record.
After discussion, a motion to deny the variance based on the staff findings carried. The commission did not authorize any work that would depart from the county’s flood‑control ordinance; the petitioner retains the option to seek additional information or alternate remedies but must comply with applicable flood regulations.
The commission’s action preserves the county’s compliance posture with the NFIP; staff said the county will document findings consistent with ordinance requirements.
