Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission approves three variances for Todd and Kay Long property

2990207 · February 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Mitchell Planning Commission approved a variance permit for Todd and Kay Long that includes three variances; staff said neighbors were notified and several respondents supported the request.

The Mitchell Planning Commission on Tuesday approved a variance permit for Todd and Kay Long, allowing three variances for parcels described in the applicants' filing, staff said.

The applicants sought three variances related to lot configuration and setback measurements, which staff summarized as "44.57 feet versus a hundred feet" in the packet materials. Planning staff said notices were mailed to neighbors, signs were posted and two letters of support were included in the published packet (an additional supportive response was provided to staff but not included in the packet).

Planning staff told commissioners the land in question is effectively landlocked at the rear and will be sold in portions to adjacent owners if the variance and plat are approved. Staff identified prospective adjacent purchasers by surname during the meeting and said access to the subdivided pieces would be through the adjoining owners and would be reflected in the owner's certificate on the eventual plat. Staff also noted the property is outside city limits and will also be reviewed by the county at a later hearing.

Commissioners moved and seconded approval of the variances; the motion passed by roll call. Recorded votes in favor included Oscar Luke, Schmitz, Jurza, Sunny, Ablick, Jerza and Genslinger. The motion was announced as "motion carried."

The commission followed the variance approval by approving a related plat for the same properties later in the meeting; that plat approval will also be forwarded to the county for its review because the parcels lie outside city limits.

No members of the public spoke against the variance at the hearing, and the applicants were on hand for questions but did not add additional testimony beyond the packet materials.

The commission did not attach additional conditions beyond standard plat and recording requirements; county review remains a separate step.