Neighbors oppose cottage-raising and expansion request; DNR letter and site history prompt board to hold decision

Nate LeDuc, who identified himself at the hearing, described post‑flood repairs and a plan to raise his cottage three feet to sit above the 100‑year flood elevation, move furnace equipment inside and add living space. He said the proposed work is driven by safety, the need for accessibility (including space for a full shower for a family member with MS) and that the structure has flooding history.

“We have requested a variance... The reason we have to raise the cottage is in order to be more than 2 feet above the that hundred year flood mark,” LeDuc said, explaining the improvements and the plan to raise the structure on pilings and reinforce the substructure.

Multiple neighbors and nearby homeowners objected. Robert A. Bates and others argued the variance would fail the legal tests for shoreline relief, would allow a much larger residence where none exist, and could be used for intensified short‑term rentals. Jim Tagni cited an Airbnb listing and asked how occupancy might change if the square footage doubled; he said that could mean “potentially 15 to 20 people” using the property on peak weekends, a concern for immediate neighbors.

County staff read a DNR letter (09/28/2026) that again said the department did not believe the applicant had met the three statutory variance criteria and raised questions about fill placed in a former lagoon, whether the newly placed riprap should be treated as the ordinary high‑water mark, and whether the proposed footprint and garage bump‑out constituted minimal relief. Staff noted the DNR had issued a general permit for the culvert crossing in a different case and that the DNR’s review does not substitute for a full alternatives analysis for shoreland impact.

After public comment and follow-up questions about structure safety, well-water issues and the site’s GIS records, the board closed public comment and did not grant a final variance that evening. The DNR correspondence and site materials remain part of the record for the board to review before taking action at a future meeting.