Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Greg Langdon’s pole‑barn permit contingent on final survey; variance denied as submitted
Summary
Greg Langdon sought approval for a 42×42 pole barn on a narrow Beaver Bay lot that did not meet frontage and rear setbacks. After discussion about road alignment, neighbors’ written support and lot geometry, commissioners approved the permit contingent on the planning staff’s final field verification.
A Beaver Bay property owner won conditional approval on a permit for a 42‑by‑42 foot pole barn on Sept. — but only after the county required a final, staff‑verified site layout.
Greg Langdon told the Emmons County Board of Commissioners that he had letters from adjacent property owners supporting the project. “I have letters here that they have no issue with,” he said, presenting site photos and stake locations to show the proposed corners.
Planning staff and commissioners reviewed the setback math: the parcel is unusually narrow and the recorded street centerline does not align with the as‑built roadway in places. Staff said the proposed building would be about 34 feet from the road where the county zoning standard is 40 feet, and close to the rear setback. Commissioners and staff discussed possible solutions including reducing the footprint, moving the building north on the lot, or requesting a variance.
Commissioners initially expressed concern about setting a precedent in an area where many lots are tight and earlier parceling created development constraints. Several commissioners urged strict adherence to setbacks to avoid future disputes among adjacent owners. Langdon offered to re‑stake a slightly altered location that could meet the 40‑foot frontage setback by trimming the building depth by about 6 feet or by moving the structure toward the north end of the lot.
Rather than deny a permit outright, the board adopted a two‑part course: it denied the application as submitted, then approved a motion to permit construction contingent on successful, field‑verified placement that meets the frontage setback and receives final approval from planning staff (Josh). The county recorded that the approval was conditional on the building conforming to setbacks after Josh’s site verification.
Commissioners asked staff to document the final survey stakes and to confirm the building’s compliance before an unconditional building permit is issued. If the final layout cannot meet required setbacks, the owner will be instructed to reapply or pursue a formal variance.
