Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County grants after-the-fact setback variance for Anberg property on 100th Street South
Summary
The Clay County Board of Commissioners approved an after-the-fact variance allowing a rebuilt outbuilding to remain about 23 feet into the 125-foot road centerline setback on 100th Street South, citing minimal impact and practical difficulty for the property owners.
The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted to grant an after-the-fact variance for a structure on property associated with applicants Jeffrey and Ray Anberg, allowing the building to remain about 23 feet into the 125-foot road centerline setback along 100th Street South.
Planning staff member Matt (last name not provided) told the board the new structure was built to replace an outbuilding that collapsed and now sits approximately 102 feet from the road centerline and about 69 feet from the right of way, representing roughly an 18% reduction of the required setback.
The variance matter was considered during a public hearing. Matt summarized the applicable review standard drawn from case law referenced in the meeting (identified in the transcript as the Minnesota Supreme Court "Stads Fold" case) and recommended the board weigh whether enforcement would impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants. Matt told the board that similar buildings exist nearby, the reduction is minimal, and a row of trees between the road and the structure would limit any impact on the right of way.
Board members read a set of findings of fact required under the Clay County Land Development Code and answered "yes" to each criterion the board publicly recited, including that the variance is in harmony with the general purpose of the Clay County Land Development Code and consistent with the Clay County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The board also found that strict enforcement would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district and that the requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.
A motion to approve the variance was made, seconded and carried on a voice vote. No roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript; the record shows the chair called for "ayes" and the motion was carried. The board noted the structure's prior condition (the old building was damaged and is being removed) and that no building permit had been obtained before reconstruction.
Staff told the board that had a building permit been sought before construction, the required setback would have been addressed in that process. Matt said the applicant indicated the rebuild was prompted by collapse or damage, and that in such cases the county sometimes waives permit fees for rebuilding when damage is caused by fire or snow load.
The board imposed no additional conditions on the variance in the discussion recorded in the transcript. The hearing closed after the vote and the board moved on to other business.
