Morrison County board denies after‑the‑fact variance for Robinson cabin on lakeshore

The Morrison County Board of Adjustment on May 26 denied an after‑the‑fact variance request from Nicole and Todd Robinson to retain a 1½‑story dwelling at 2674 Lakeshore Drive and to place a 459‑square‑foot deck within the shore impact zone at Shamana Lake.

Amy, a land services staff member, told the board the application seeks two variances: to continue the existing 1½‑story dwelling at 40 feet from the lake and to allow a 459‑square‑foot deck 33 feet from the ordinary high‑water mark. Amy cited Morrison County Land Use Ordinance section 706.1 and 706.1(a), which establish a 75‑foot setback and define the first 50 feet of a general‑development lake as the shore impact zone. She presented aerial photos, site‑visit photos (May 22) and earlier proceedings from 2024 when the board approved a one‑story, 28x24 replacement and removed the deck request from that approval.

Nicole Robinson, the applicant, acknowledged she and her husband proceeded with some construction and said, “I’m gonna be honest. Yes. It was my fault,” explaining the use of salvaged chipboard and trusses to provide a safer work surface while rebuilding after flood damage. She said the upper area was intended for storage and that they had no plans for a stairwell or immediate living space upstairs.

Board members pressed for details about lot size, survey results and construction choices. Clint, a board member, and Amy explained a recent survey established the lot at 10,370 square feet and measured the structure at 40 feet from the lake, a change from the 45 feet referenced in the 2024 proceeding. Clint noted the proposed deck footprint and that a property owner could place limited landings without a variance; he calculated the requested deck was several times larger than what could be allowed by right for the lot.

Chair (name not stated) and other members said the present construction went beyond the 2024 variance’s intent. “What we granted…was not followed,” the chair said, pointing to installed floor joists, scissor trusses and a framed access that create usable, walkable space. Members said those features amount to a half‑story that the board did not authorize and that allowing the after‑the‑fact request would undercut the county’s ordinance and enforcement.

The board proceeded through the statutory findings of fact and after‑the‑fact criteria, asking whether the Robinsons acted in good faith, whether they made a substantial investment, and whether granting the variance would harm county interests or set an adverse precedent. Members acknowledged the Robinsons’ substantial investment in floodproofing and rebuilding, and some expressed sympathy for flood victims, but several concluded the encroachment into the shore impact zone and the usable loft area outweighed those considerations.

Clint moved to approve the variance and Marvin seconded, but on roll call each of the three board members present voted no (Clint, Marvin and the chair), and the motion failed. The chair said the variance request was denied and advised the applicants to consult Land Services on next steps. Nicole asked what she should do next; Amy told her to contact the department during business hours to discuss options.

The board then handled routine business—approving May 12 minutes—and adjourned at 7:57 p.m.

What happened next: the applicants were told to consult Land Services about alternatives; no further hearing date was set during the meeting.