Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fargo commission upholds planning commission, denies conditional‑use appeal for 213 Forest Ave.
Summary
The Fargo City Commission voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of a conditional‑use permit to allow five unrelated people to live in a single‑dwelling home at 213 Forest Avenue. Commissioners cited zoning rules and precedent; neighbors both supported and opposed the permit on parking and compatibility grounds.
The Fargo City Commission on Monday voted to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission and uphold the denial of a conditional‑use permit (CUP) requested for 213 Forest Avenue North. The CUP would have allowed more than three unrelated people to live in the single‑family dwelling; the application sought permission for five occupants.
The planning commission had denied the CUP on Feb. 4 by a 7–0 vote; the property owner appealed. On appeal, the city commission considered testimony from the applicant's attorney, neighborhood supporters and neighbors who opposed the change. After deliberation the commission voted to deny the appeal; roll call was Peppcorn—aye; Strand—yes; Kolpack—aye; Charnberg—no; Mahoney—yes.
Attorney Drew Huschka, representing property owner Connecting Point LLC, said the unit had a five‑bedroom layout and that a certificate of occupancy had been issued in August 2024. He argued the request would add housing options for students and that more than 70% of neighborhood responses to the application were supportive. "This is a 5 bedroom house where there is supposed to be, where 5 people are seeking to live," Huschka told the commission.
Neighbors both for and against the permit addressed the commission. Colleen Larson, who lives next door, said the five occupants had been quiet and cooperative. "I never ever knew they had if they had a party ... It was so quiet," Larson said. Denise, another neighbor, said the occupants had worked out parking arrangements and had not caused disturbances.
Opponents described long‑standing neighborhood concerns and emphasized that the land development code has for decades limited unrelated occupants in SR2 single‑dwelling zones. David Slack said a petition and letters from residents within 300 feet opposed altering the code’s limit. Inspectors said enforcement is complaint‑driven and that the initial complaint on this property came in July 2024; staff also reported the city was denied access on a follow‑up visit and that the unit was not in compliance as of the planning commission action.
Commissioners cited the code and precedent in explaining their votes. Some members voiced sympathy for the occupants but concern about setting a precedent that could lead to similar requests in single‑family neighborhoods.
The city did not adopt any temporary or time‑limited permit for this occupancy; the commission’s vote upheld the Planning Commission decision to deny the CUP.
