Houston County board grants variance for Caledonia property, levies $1,000 after-the-fact penalty

The Houston County Board of Adjustment voted to grant a variance that will allow a proposed dwelling to be sited closer than the standard setback to an adjacent registered feedlot and imposed a $1,000 penalty for construction that began before permits and approvals were completed.

Applicant Bridal Hogue, who told the board she currently lives in Florida, said she bought the property last year as primarily a hunting parcel and planned to build a small dwelling near an existing well and septic system already on the site. "We bought this property last year, and we're looking it's mostly a hunting property, but we also looking to spend more time here," Hogue said. She told the board she had poured a slab before realizing a variance would be required because the proposed location was within the setback measured from an adjacent feedlot.

Amelia, a zoning/environmental services staff member who presented the item, summarized staff findings to the board: "Number 1, that the variance request is in harmony with the intent and purpose of official controls. Staff analysis states that this location meets the density control system put in place by the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan encourages development to take place in a manner that minimizes impact to prime agricultural land." Amelia also noted staff's analysis that the applicant owns roughly 141 acres at the location, that the proposed site already has a well and septic and that moving the structure could push development closer to a trout stream.

Neighbors were given the opportunity to comment; one neighbor mentioned concerns about proximity to existing residences and the feedlot. Amelia told the board the adjacent feedlot was registered and currently appeared to host roughly seven to nine cattle; staff also noted the feedlot was likely under the 50-animal-unit threshold referenced in state and county feedlot guidance.

Board members discussed two related procedural matters. First, the board confirmed that if a formal finding fails the overall variance request should fail; when multiple requests or findings exist, staff will prepare separate findings if needed to clarify the record. Second, the board addressed the fact that construction on the parcel had advanced to a poured slab before the variance application was resolved. Board discussion referenced the county's after-the-fact permitting practice (an elevated fee applied when work proceeds without required permits) and whether to impose an additional penalty.

After discussion, Member Ken Visker moved to grant the variance and impose a $1,000 penalty for the after-the-fact work; Member Wayne Runigan seconded the motion. On a roll call the board recorded the following votes: Ken Anderson, aye; Franklin Hahn, aye; Dean Hoppell, aye; Wayne Runigan, aye; Ken Visker, aye. The motion carried and the variance was approved with the $1,000 penalty.

The board and staff clarified that, with the variance granted, the applicant must still obtain a building permit and comply with any other county requirements before continuing construction. Amelia advised that the county had advertised a related public hearing (notice dated 08/13/2025) and that written comments had been accepted through 08/19/2025 for the hearing scheduled on 08/28/2025.

The application identifies the property as Section 25, Township 100N, Range 2W in Black Hammer Township, Houston County. Staff noted several unpermitted small cabins or sheds existed previously on the parcel; Hogue said she planned to use existing structures as storage and build a modest dwelling on the slab location. Staff also told the board that state-level feedlot rule revisions are pending review and that the county is delaying broad zoning ordinance changes until state rules are finalized.

Members emphasized the need for clear standards going forward because a variance for a dwelling can trigger separate variance requirements for a registered feedlot if the feedlot later changes operations. The board discussed numeric thresholds and distance concerns for future feedlot-related variances but did not adopt new standards at this meeting.

The board adjourned after confirming scheduling availability for September. The applicant acknowledged she had paid the building permit fee and the hearing fee and said she would proceed to obtain the remaining permissions now that the variance was approved.