Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to grant 17-inch variance to rebuild pole barn to prior height
Summary
A Dayton homeowner told the city council that insurance delays left them outside a 180-day rebuilding window and asked for a 17-inch height variance so they can reconstruct a pole barn with 16-foot sidewalls like the original structure.
A Dayton resident told the City Council on Tuesday that they need a 17-inch variance so they can rebuild a pole barn to the same 16-foot sidewall height it had before a fire.
The homeowner said the pole barn burned on Labor Day weekend and insurance delays prevented them from filing a permit within the city’s 180-day window for rebuilding nonconforming structures. They said staff told them the largest sidewall they could rebuild now without a variance is 14 feet and that the variance process would likely take “at least 2½ months” because it requires going through the council.
The resident said the extra height is requested to allow for a mezzanine or to store a camper inside and that they had no intent to operate a storage business from the building. “I’m just looking to rebuild what I had,” they told the council. They also said their insurer and the prolonged claims process were the reason they missed the 180‑day period. The resident requested council consideration of the variance because materials pricing and project timing have become more uncertain during the delay.
City staff explained the ordinance for accessory structures in agricultural districts treats some older buildings as “grandfathered nonconforming” and that the code gives a 180‑day limit to pull a permit to rebuild to a prior size. Since that window had passed, staff said the property owner would need to apply for a variance to restore the previous sidewall height. Staff also noted that, if the property owner intends to continue storing other people’s items on the property in the future, an interim-use or commercial zoning process would be the proper route.
Council members and staff said they would follow up; no formal vote or variance decision occurred at the meeting. The council indicated staff would look into the permitting timeline and options available to the homeowner and flagged that any variance request would require findings consistent with the zoning code.
The item arose during the public comment portion of the meeting; council members indicated staff would examine the details and report back at a future meeting.
