Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meade County planning commission approves setback variance for Timberwood lot after plat correction
Summary
The Meade County Planning Commission approved a variance allowing a Timberwood homeowner to place a new shop 25 feet from the rear lot line after a surveyor error on the recorded plat was corrected with an affidavit of correction; the building permit remains contingent on the variance.
At a Meade County Planning Commission meeting, the panel approved a variance to allow a Timberwood homeowner to construct a shop 25 feet from the rear lot line after staff and the applicant said a 66-foot public easement shown on pages 3 and 4 of the recorded plat was removed by an affidavit of correction.
The decision matters because the variance clears the way for the homeowner to obtain a building permit; the recorded plat had set a 35-foot rear setback and shown an erroneous easement that would have pushed the house into noncompliance without correction.
The homeowner, John Neissner, told commissioners he had contacted the developer, identified as Kasky, who “gave me a letter of recommendation or acceptance” that 25 feet would meet the current Mead County ordinance. Neissner said he had shown a 28-foot setback on his plans to give himself a buffer but that he “would prefer 25.”
County staff and commissioners explained the discrepancy stemmed from a surveying error on pages 3 and 4 of the plat that had drawn a 66-foot public easement across the rear of lots on the south side; an affidavit of correction removed that easement. Tanya, county planning staff, asked whether the affidavit eliminated the need for a variance, noting the plat still states a 35-foot building setback. Commissioners and staff said the plat standard remained in place unless the commission approved a variance.
Commissioners moved to approve a variance to allow the structure to be 25 feet off the rear lot line. The motion passed 5–1. Commissioners recorded one dissenting vote but did not name individual roll-call votes in the spoken record. Staff clarified that the building permit is still dependent on the approved variance.
Commission discussion also noted that the surveyor’s error affected other lots in the development where the 66-foot easement had been incorrectly shown, and that the affidavit of correction applied to the plat pages in question. The applicant said alternative building sites on his property were impractical because of grade and poor soils, and that the permit application was waiting on the variance outcome.
Outcome and next steps: with the variance approved, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process subject to standard county review. The commission recorded the vote as passed 5–1 and closed the Board of Adjustments session following the item.
