Council approves variance to enclose existing deck at 1504 South Locust after Planning & Zoning denial
October 07, 2025 | Brandon , Minnehaha County, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The City Council voted to approve a variance allowing construction of a three‑season porch on an existing deck at 1504 South Locust, overturning a prior denial by the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) commission.
The variance request arose after the applicant, Jim Lynn, told the council the house and deck were built from a mirrored version of the site plan approved in 2004 and that the city’s historical approvals and inspections permitted the existing footprint. He asked the council to allow enclosure of the deck without increasing the current nonconforming setback.
P&Z had denied the variance on the grounds that the proposed enclosure would not meet the R‑1 rear‑yard setback (25 feet). Lynn told the council the existing deck extends about 1–3 feet into the rear setback at two corners and that the proposed porch would be built on the current deck with “no expansion of the existing footprint.” He said the home was constructed in February 2004 using a mirrored site plan and that the discrepancy was not the homeowners’ doing. "This request merely seeks to enclose an existing space, not to increase the degree of nonconformance," Lynn said.
The city attorney advised the council that variances must meet the governing standard of an "undue hardship," which is typically tied to lot topography or the lay of the parcel rather than simply a desire to use the property a particular way. The attorney cautioned that P&Z evaluates whether conditions of the plat or lot restrict reasonable use of the land.
Council members debated whether the historical error in the city’s approval process weighed in favor of granting relief. One council member said they had difficulty denying relief when the city had approved the built footprint historically. Another council member emphasized the legal standard, noting that a mistake by the city does not automatically establish the required undue hardship.
After discussion a motion to overturn the Planning and Zoning denial was made and seconded; the motion carried on recorded ayes. The council did not adopt any condition that would enlarge the existing footprint; the approved action permits enclosure of the existing structure as described in Lynn’s application.
The council’s action resolves this appeal of the P&Z denial; construction and permit requirements remain subject to applicable building codes and final building‑permit review.
The variance request arose after the applicant, Jim Lynn, told the council the house and deck were built from a mirrored version of the site plan approved in 2004 and that the city’s historical approvals and inspections permitted the existing footprint. He asked the council to allow enclosure of the deck without increasing the current nonconforming setback.
P&Z had denied the variance on the grounds that the proposed enclosure would not meet the R‑1 rear‑yard setback (25 feet). Lynn told the council the existing deck extends about 1–3 feet into the rear setback at two corners and that the proposed porch would be built on the current deck with “no expansion of the existing footprint.” He said the home was constructed in February 2004 using a mirrored site plan and that the discrepancy was not the homeowners’ doing. "This request merely seeks to enclose an existing space, not to increase the degree of nonconformance," Lynn said.
The city attorney advised the council that variances must meet the governing standard of an "undue hardship," which is typically tied to lot topography or the lay of the parcel rather than simply a desire to use the property a particular way. The attorney cautioned that P&Z evaluates whether conditions of the plat or lot restrict reasonable use of the land.
Council members debated whether the historical error in the city’s approval process weighed in favor of granting relief. One council member said they had difficulty denying relief when the city had approved the built footprint historically. Another council member emphasized the legal standard, noting that a mistake by the city does not automatically establish the required undue hardship.
After discussion a motion to overturn the Planning and Zoning denial was made and seconded; the motion carried on recorded ayes. The council did not adopt any condition that would enlarge the existing footprint; the approved action permits enclosure of the existing structure as described in Lynn’s application.
The council’s action resolves this appeal of the P&Z denial; construction and permit requirements remain subject to applicable building codes and final building‑permit review.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting